Human Rights And The Right Of Self-Determination

By Galfato Wonago

This eBook reflects on the major events that took place in Ethiopia between 1974 and 1991 and the impact of the 1995 constitution of Ethiopia on human rights in the country. The book focuses on the following basic question: considering the 1974 Ethiopian revolution was in response to the injustices committed by the Haile Selassie's regime, should the new system seek to protect each individual human being because s/he is worthy of protection by virtue of being human or it should seek to protect an individual because s/he belongs to a particular ethnic/racial group? In other words, what is the value of "the right of self-determination" where ethnic/racial othering, that is to say, ethnic cleansing is a constitutional right?
Chapters I, II, and III present a brief overview of the key events between 1974 and 1991;chapters IV and V present some important instruments and background information on the notion of self-determination; chapters VI-IX present two different interpretations of the right of self-determination and implications associated with the implementations of each interpretation; chapters X and XI deal with the notion of rights and state legitimacy; chapters XII-XV explore the idea of ethnic/racial homogeneity as a foundation of the legitimacy of the modern state; chapter XVI examines the colonial thesis in the Ethiopian context; chapter XVII distinguishes "people" and "nation"; chapter XVIII is an overview of the 1995 Ethiopian constitution; and in chapter XIX I pull all components of my argument together and state clearly why I contend that the principle of ethnonational self-determination, along with the 1995 constitution of Ethiopia, must be unequivocally rejected and propose an alternative way forward.

• Language: English
• Publisher: Galfato Wonago
• Release date: Aug 14, 2023
• ISBN: 9780986568138

Book preview

Human Rights And The Right Of Self-Determination

Galfato Wonago, PGC,BSc.

Researcher, Author

ISBN 978-0-9865681-3-8

Copyright 2019 by Galfato Wonago

No part of this book may be reproduced in any form without the permission of the publisher

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Introduction

I Ethiopian Revolution(1974-77)

The Red Terror

II Ethiopian Revolution (1977-91)

III The Derg against the TPLF-EPLF alliance

IV People’s right to self-determination(PRSD)

Historical background

V.I. Lenin

Woodrow Wilson

V Some important instruments in the story of self-determination

The United Nations Charter (1945)

The Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples(1960)

International Covenant on Economic, Social and CulturalRights(ICESCR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights(ICCPR))(1966)

The Declaration on the principles of International law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among states in accordance with the charter of the United Nations

The Helsinki Final Act(1975)

The African Charter of Human and peoples’ rights (1981)

Vienna Declaration and program of Action (adopted by the world conference on human rights in Vienna on june 25,1993)

VI Self-determination and the Paris Peace conference (1919)

VII Self-determination and ethnic cleansing

VIII Self-determination and decolonization

IX Self-determination and secession

X The notion of rights

XI Popular sovereignty and state legitimacy:an overview

XII Indigeneity and exclusive right to land

XIII Ethnic fractionalization index

XIV Biological determinism (IQ as a categorization tool)

XV Is Genetic homogeneity attainable?

XVI The Colonial thesis

XVII Distinguishing people and nation

XVIII 1995 Constitution of Ethiopia: an overview

XIX The way forward

Notes

Bibliography

INTRODUCTION

          " SINCE no man has a natural authority over his fellow,

and force creates no right, we must conclude

that  conventions form the basis of all

legitimate authority  among men."

------- Jean Jacques Rousseau^1

The failure of Haile Selassie’s regime to effectively deal with the grievances of marginalized ethnic groups, deep seated  social problems, and severe famine in multiple provinces (especially Welo and Tigray) provided the backdrop against which the 1974 Ethiopian revolution started. The mutiny of the 24th brigade (Fourth Division) in Negele (in the former Sidamo province), over bad food and lack of drinking water on January 12, 1974, sent waves of unrest within the army. This mutiny was followed by a wave of demonstrations, strikes and other mutinies and was the flash point of the revolution that toppled Haile Selassie. It should come as no surprise that the three central and interconnected issues of the revolution were: 1) Equality of Rights, 2) Land reform, and 3) The National question (the right of a people to self-determination).

After the initial confusion, due to the raw emotions and the fast pace of the revolution, two broad camps appeared: on one side of the debate were those who believed that the primary contradiction in the country  was the contradiction between classes (i.e. the proponents of class struggle), while those who contended that the primary contradiction was the contradiction between ethnic groups (i.e. ethnonationalists) were on the other. In other words, the proponents of class struggle defined everything in terms of class struggle while ethnonationalists framed every aspect of life in terms of ethnicity/common blood line. However, the most important difference between the two camps, although it wasn’t openly articulated, was their stance on state legitimacy. That is , the proponents of class struggle generally accept that it is possible to form a legitimate poly ethnocultural modern state. Examples of this group included a) the Derg, an opportunist group from armed forces that formed military dictatorship; b) the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Party (EPRP), Marxist-leninist organization that called for the formation of Provisional People’s Government (PPG) ; c) All-Ethiopia Socialist Movement (known by its Amharic acronym MEISON), Marxist-Leninist organization that chose to ally itself with the Derg to share power;and d) the Eritrean liberation movements that are based on a territorial identity resulting from colonial boundaries [the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) and the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF)].

Ethnonationalists, on the other hand, contend that state is legitimate if and only if state (political) and ethnic borders coincide. Example of organizations that advance this view/proponents of the principle of ethno-national self-determination (PENSD) include the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), the Sidama Liberation Movement(SLM), the Tigray People’s Liberation Front(TPLF), the Western Somali Liberation Front (WSLF), etc.

Notwithstanding substantive differences between the two camps, neither of them was able to adequately capture the complexity of Ethiopia’s poly ethno-cultural landscape . For example, in the Ethiopian context, where does class oppression stop and ethnicity based discrimination start?  How about other sources of discrimination (religion, gender, place of birth, etc.)?  What is remarkable is that, 44 years in, this false dichotomy ( class struggle vs national struggle ), regarding Ethiopian politics, persists. In a nutshell, my contention is that both sides were asking the wrong question. In my view, here is more basic question that needed to be answered : considering the uprising was in response to the injustices committed by the old regime, should the new system seek to protect each individual human being because s/he  is worthy of protection by virtue of being human or it should seek to protect an individual because s/he belongs to a group?  This is the question I will be using as a point of reference to evaluate ethnic federalism in Ethiopia and to explore the way forward because it raises another  related question: does any individual/group have the right to subjugate another individual/group under any circumstances?

Chapters I, II, and III present a brief overview of the key events between 1974 and 1991; chapters IV and V present some important instruments and background information on the notion of self-determination; chapters VI-IX present two different interpretations of the notion of self-determination and implications associated with the implementations of each interpretation ; chapters X and XI deal with the notion of rights and state legitimacy; chapters XII-XV explore the idea of ethnic/racial homogeneity as a foundation for the modern state ; chapter XVI examines the colonial thesis; chapter XVII  distinguishes people and nation; chapter XVIII is an overview of the 1994 Ethiopian constitution; and in chapter XIX  I pull my argument together and state clearly why I contend that the principle of ethno-national self-determination and hence Ethiopia’s ethnic federalism should be unequivocally rejected and propose an alternative way forward. 

I ETHIOPIAN REVOLUTION(1974-77)

The Haile Selassie regime was an absolute monarchy that discriminated against the majority of Ethiopian population based on their ethnic origin and /or their religious affiliation, punished dissent brutally, allowed no political parties or freedom of speech. While the vast section of the population took part in the demonstrations and strikes, demanding their rights and freedom,  it was the organized groups from the intermediate classes (the security forces, students, teachers, the civilian bureaucrats, and workers) that were most active during the 1974 Ethiopian Revolution.  Therefore, I will focus on the Derg, EPRP, the AESM (MEISON), the ethno-national organizations, and the Eritrean movements to assess the key events between 1974 and 1991.

On September 12, 1974, the Derg took over power and issued a proclamation that prohibited engaging in any strike action or holding unauthorized demonstrations or public meetings. A special military tribunal was established on the same day to enforce the above bans and the judgements of the tribunal were not subject to appeal. This was, in effect, a declaration of war on political dissenters/Derg’s potential political opposition. If there was any doubt in anybody’s mind that the Derg had no intention to share political power with anybody, never mind giving up the power, the Derg put that uncertainty to rest swiftly.

On November 23, 1974, barely ten weeks after the Derg took over power, the military junta summarily executed, without any due process, 60 officials, perceived to be potential political opponents of the Derg. 57 of those were political prisoners, all former high military and civil officials of the imperial regime. Two members of the Derg and the Derg’s first chairman, Lt. General Aman Andom were the rest. This massacre was an unequivocal sign of the reign of terror that followed throughout the country for the duration of the military dictatorship(17 years). In a nutshell, the Derg got off the block with one hand on the trigger and the other hand holding hollow slogans, declarations and state of emergencies to legalize its crimes against humanity, in the guise of keeping peace and protecting territorial integrity of the country.

From the get go, it seemed, the Derg followed a two-pronged strategy: 1) adopting Socialist/Marxists-Leninist agenda to upstage its Marxist-Leninist internal oppositions and to gain the support of the international Socialist community, particularly, the support of the U.S.S.R., and  2) Using violence as a method of choice to resolve conflict. The Derg started its murderous journey with a strong wind on its back as a representative of the military. The Ethiopian people’s hunger for a radical change and having  solid support of the entire military establishment behind it gave the Derg a golden opportunity to dismantle Haile Selassie’s regime with minimum public resistance. Thus, within a short period of time, the Derg became the ruler of the country and the leader of the revolution. Furthermore, while the civilian left-wing organizations/groups were still struggling to clearly define the way forward, the Derg was handed a low hanging fruit when it came to framing the defining issue. Protecting sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country was an easy choice for the military. That was a perfect hilltop for the Derg to set up its heavy artillery to square off with its oppositions and their allies. It also became clear, after November 23, 1974 (Bloody Saturday) that the Derg has got the guns and it does not hesitate to use them if its authority is challenged.

As to responding to some of the key questions of the revolution, there were two major policy statements in which the Derg set forth its policy towards various aspects of national life such as the economy, religion, and administration. The first, Ethiopia Tikdem (‘Ethiopia First) was announced on December 20, 1974. This led to 1) nationalization of the banks and insurance companies of Ethiopia on January 1, 1975, 2) nationalization of most of Ethiopian industries on February 1, 1975, and 3) proclamation of the land reform on March 4, 1975. The second major statement was the declaration of the National Democratic Revolution (NDR) in April 1976, where the Derg attempted to respond to the ‘National question’.

The land reform proclamation was a positive change in the Eastern, Western and southern part of the country (particularly for the Sidama, Wolayta, Gedeo and Oromo people) because it abolished the land tenure that was one of the tools used for ethnic discrimination and marginalization. However, these gains were later diminished by the conversion of peasant associations into oppressive government structures and by the widespread tenure insecurity among peasant households because of repeated redistribution of the land to accommodate the new claimants. However, the NDR, as a response to the ‘National question’ wasn’t satisfactory to the demands of the ethno-nationalist camp. In fact, no policy statement on the ‘National question’ from the Derg could have satisfied the ethno-nationalist camp. That is, nothing short of recognizing secession as a primary right of an ethnic group  could have satisfied the ethno-nationalist camp.

Opposed to the Derg/the provisional military administration council (PMAC), the two rival claimants to the leadership of the 1974 ethiopian revolution were the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Party (EPRP) and the All-Ethiopia Socialist Movement (AESM), also known as MEISON by its Amharic acronym). From the way these two organizations dehumanized each other’s members and supporters, it is hard to believe both were the by-products of the international Ethiopian student movement of the 1960s, much less they share the same political ideology (Marxism-Leninism). The following are three of the main areas the conflict between the EPRP and the AESM swirled around: 1) the transition from a semi-feudal society to a socialist society, 2) interpretation  and implementation of the notion of popular sovereignty, and 3) the question of  nationalities (ethnic groups ) in Poly ethnocultural state (PECS).

First, both the EPRP and AESM agreed on the idea that the transition from a semi-feudal society like Ethiopia to a socialist society requires National Democratic Revolution (NDR) led by a Leninist vanguard party. Because each wanted to assume the position of the vanguard party that leads the NDR, each rejected the legitimacy of the other to assume the leadership position. The competition between the EPRP and