"Menilikism: Defeatism and Fatalism " by Tecola Hagos
http://www.tecolahagos.com/menilikism.htm
HG's Comment : The great leader who defeated a European power and
retained the freedom of Ethiopia, on the basis of which all nations on earth
recognized independent Ethiopia, and in whose achievement many blacks across
the world rejoiced is now called defeatist by Professor Tecola Hagos.
Professor Tecola Hagos continued and wrote, "Very often some
Ethiopian intellectuals and foreign historians depict Menilik as the architect
of the battle of Adowa. To begin with it was his own action of selling out
Ethiopian territory and people to the Italians in exchange for money and weapon
that gave the Italians a beachhead to launch their war of aggression and
expansion that led to the battle of Adowa."
HG's Comment: This is a prime example of how wilful distortion or ignorance
of history may be used as a foundation for perpetrating unbridled defamation of
Menelik II and of Ethiopia. Why seek authors to vilify Ethiopia or one of its
greatest leaders? Why rely on
propaganda materials by colonials or paid hands that use colonial propaganda as
a foundation for defaming Ethiopia and its leaders? Why not seek readily available and published treaties for
founding a basis for understanding Ethiopian history and its leaders? The answer has to do with alienation.
People who succumb to one or more of the 5 Historical Points of Alienations
described above may be severely disconnected from their own heritage and work
to further the alienations.
Hostages empathize and sympathy with their hostage takers. Harshly subjugated people revere their
subjugators. Likewise, alienated people work to further the alienations. Such
psychological problems exist. Yet,
it is possible to debrief the estranged people (victims) so that they can
regain sanity and see realities for what they are. Unfortunately, Ethiopia has not spent energies at debriefing
otherwise proud Ethiopians from succumbing to strange appreciation of
propaganda by colonials. The tax
paying Ethiopian peasant has helped educate a few of its children. The problems
of the peasant are many and different.
Equally many faults exist in the system that the peasant had created for
his governance. The peasant himself can enumerate many faults and problems. What he has educated his children for
is to make him better, and not to burden him with a litany of accusations, let
alone accusations by falsifying events or exaggerating falsehoods. There were
positions taken by Menelik II that are quite puzzling as described elsewhere in
this series of reports. However, Professor Tecola did defame Emperor Menelik II
and by implication Ethiopia when he writes about unfounded charges in his
effort at equating Menlikism with defeatism and fatalism.
The allegation of "selling Ethiopian territory and people for many
and guns" is so defamatory of Ethiopia and of Menelik II that it should be
examined soberly, and without succumbing to validate every claim made by
colonial or fascist propagandists. The historical context for purchase of guns
and munitions and the need for such purchases ought to be examined, at least
briefly, as is given below. First though a brief note on the vectors of forces
arrayed against Ethiopia is significant to understand the geopolitical context
within which Ethiopia survived.
There is crucial observation that ought to be emphasized again and again
and by different authors, and should be discussed by all concerned
Ethiopians. That point concerns
the problem that arose with the revolt of Ahmed Gragn, which was supported by
the Turkish Ottoman Empire. Since that revolt, Turkey had a bogus claim on
Ethiopia's maritime and coastal territories and properties. Quite simply, Ethiopia has not yet
recovered from the outcomes of that revolt. Ethiopia did not recover because
Britain along with other Europeans had caused Turkey to write a Firman
(official letter) that gave freedom of action to the leader of its former colony,
Egypt (see the 15th July 1840 Convention between Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia,
and Turkey). Subsequently, Britain
required and facilitated the writing of additional Firmans by Turkey (e.g.,
May, 1865; 18th June, 1873; 2nd August, 1879) that gave Ethiopian coastal and
maritime territories to Egyptian leaders, based on which Britain as a colonial
master over Egypt became the controlling power. This British effort was augmented by the Berlin agreement
(1885 Berlin Act) that effectively denied Ethiopia its coastal and maritime
territories. Interestingly, British subjects wrote Ethiopian history, some of
whom injected all kinds of propaganda in Ethiopian history that would cause
Ethiopians to fight against each other instead of working together to resurrect
Ethiopia. For a long time, from the days of the revolt of Ahmed Gragn till the
reign of Menelik, Ethiopia did not send Ethiopians as its emissaries to foreign
governments. Instead, they sent
foreigners or even foreign ambassadors to Ethiopia as emissaries of Ethiopia to
foreign governments. Not surprisingly, Ethiopia became fragmented and the era
of the princes (Zemene Mesafnt) offered opportunities for foreigners to
strengthen their bogus dominion over Ethiopian maritime and coastal
territories. That fragmentation
began to change when Emperor Tewodros started his forceful unifying effort. But
then, Britain that aspired dominance over Ethiopian maritime territories had to
send a military expedition to stop Emperor Tewodros who shared his plans to
regain lost Ethiopian maritime territories to British emissaries. Later,
Britain had to send its admiral to Adwa and sign a Treaty with Yohannes IV to
give him a false hope that the fort at Kassala, an Ethiopian territory, will be
returned to him from the Egyptians, and Massawa is guaranteed by Britain to
serve as a free port for Ethiopia to use.
Of course, the British were lying. Yet, Yohannes IV continued on the unification
effort that was started by Tewodros in the north and placed a death nail to the
foolish attempts by Egypt to occupy Ethiopia while Menelik II incorporated
fragmented Ethiopia of the south into a unified country. However, none of the
three Emperors succeeded to regain any of Ethiopia's maritime territories until
Haile Selassie's reign extended over part of the Ethiopian Red Sea territory-
and that after Britain delayed Ethiopia unity for an additional decade
(1941-1952). The Portuguese Chaplin Alvarez, had written that during his visit
of Ethiopia before the Ahmed Gragn revolt, Ethiopia suzerainty stretched to
Suakin. However, Ethiopian maritime territory south of Suakin up to Ras Kassare
was lost to Ethiopia when Britain and Italy used a man-made pile of rock (Ras
Kassare) as Ethiopia northern coastal limit. This paragraph is expanded and
treated more fully elsewhere in this series of reports. However, a brief
notation is given here to provide a context that will expose the unjustified
allegations made by Professor Tecola Hagos.
Indeed, Ethiopian had sent expeditions to clear squatters from its
coastal and maritime territories when the work of foreigners became flagrant.
For example, Emperor Zerse Dingl and
Fasiledes were among those, since the days of Gragn, that marched to
Mereb Melash and dislodged Turkish forces and punished Ethiopians who supported
the Turks. Yet, the Ethiopian
highland kingdom did not maintain garrisons at important ports to remove the
Turkish bogus claim over Ethiopian territory and to discipline local chieftains
of coastal regions. To be sure, the French did not need any Firman from Turkey
when they purchased Djibouti from local chieftains. Neither did an Italian
shipping firm and later Government need a Firman from Turkey to purchase Assab
from local chieftains- both these purchases of coastal Ethiopia were
consummated in the reign of Yohannes IV.
Only the British required the cover of a Firman from Turkey to their
vassal governors of Egypt to control coastal and maritime Ethiopia without
paying a red penny to any local chieftain. The Turkish interests over Ethiopian
territories were largely run by their surrogate, the Egyptians. That was why
the British sought Firmans from Turkey to give to the Pasha, and later Khedive,
of Egypt. This proved useful as Egypt became a colony of Britain since 1882.
The geography and attendant temperature difference between coastal and highland
Ethiopia, as well as the devastation by the Gragn revolt had debilitated the
Ethiopian highland kingdom from extending effective control over its coastal
territories at that time. These
historical facts are significant in understanding the allegations placed by
Professor Tecola Hagos.
An examination of publicly available documents of treaties made with
respect to Ethiopian territories indicates the following. "On the 2nd
December 1883, the Commander of H. M. S "Ranger" informed the
Governor-General of Eastern Soudan that he had received information that Her
Majesty's Government had decided to maintain Egyptian authority at Suakin,
Massowah, and the Red Sea Ports" (Brownlie, 1979, p. 616). Clearly, the British had already placed
Suakin and Massawa, part of the so-called
Eastern Sudan Territory, as theirs through their colony, Egypt, before
they sent Admiral Hewitt and signed the Adwa Treaty with Yohannes IV in 1884. Within six months of signing the Adwa Treaty, and in
contravention of that Treaty, the British invited Italy to take over Massawa,
and Italy occupied Massawa on the 3rd February, 1985. To suggest that Menelik
II gave a beachhead to Italy is not right. The historical facts do not support such inference as were
made by Professor Tecola Hagos on this score.
Though I have demonstrated above, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that there
was no beachhead in the Massawa area that the British did not control by that
time - and by that reason alone the allegation of exchange of guns and money
for a beachhead is invalidate - yet, the issue of selling Ethiopian territory
and people for guns as was claimed by Professor Tecola needs some
flushing. As Ethiopia was
reorganizing from the era of the princes, powerful individuals that aspired to
be emperors received guns in different ways. Dejazmatch Kassa Mercha (later
called Yohannes IV) received guns and munitions from the British that came to
dethrone Tewodros. Kassa Mercha received the guns and armaments as a payback
for allowing the march of the British expeditionary force across Tigrey without
any resistance from him. Later, Kassa Mercha used the armaments to defeat
Emperor Tekle Giyorgis (former Wagshum Gobeze, and a brother in-law to Kassa
Mercha) that succeeded Emperor Tewodros and imprisoned him after a battle near
Adwa, when the emperor came to subjugate Kassa. Owning "modern armament"
is crucial to becoming emperor and defending ones interests. Dejazmatch Kassa crowned himself
Emperor Yohannes IV and subjugated Negus Menelik, Negus Tekle Haymanot and
others. Negus Menelik received armaments and munitions from Italy on the
pretext that he will avenge the death of an Italian geographer that was killed
in Hararghe, and used the armaments to incorporate Hararghe within Ethiopia.The
Sultan of Harar, who was ruling over Hrarar after the Egyptian pulled out,
later joined Menelik in a march to oust the Dervish from Ethiopia. Those
armaments were also used to incorporate other southern Ethiopian territories
within Ethiopia. Of course, Menelik had written to tell the Italians that their
hurt was avenged. All the Italians had to do was scratch their heads and figure
out how that computes. When Menelik felt unduly threatened by Yohannes IV, as
is briefly described below and more fully exposed elsewhere in this series of
reports, Negus Menelik entered into the Wuchale agreement with Italy that
secured him half of the armaments and munitions that he sought. Later, in 1896,
Emperor Menelik II signed a treaty with Italy in which article 2 simply states
that the Wuchale treaty is annulled (null and void). The 1986 Treaty and
conventions derived from it also require that Italy would not give the
territory entered with Ethiopia to any other power, clearly indicating that the
territory that they would administer is Ethiopian. Subsequent conventions and
agreements (1900, 1902, etc) rely on the 1986 Treaty, and have stipulations
that in case of disagreements only the Amharic version will apply to Menelik. A
significant point to recognize here is that Menelik went to war, risking his
life and liberty, when his agreement was misinterpreted by the signatory. He
insisted on the validity of treaties agreed upon with him. To allege otherwise
is not supported by verifiable history. Yet, the colonization of northern
Ethiopia, Mereb Melash is germane to a discussion of the claims of a selling
out made by others, and is briefly dealt below, and in detail elsewhere in this
series of reports.
After, the Italians occupied Massawa at the invitation of the British,
though Ras Alula delivered a crashing blow to Italian soldiers at Dogali about
19 kilometers from Massawa, and perhaps because of it, Italian hastened to
fight against Ethiopia more vigorously and brought more soldiers for that
effort. Negus Menelik had incorporated Hararghe, and Ras Kassa was working to
incorporate Arussi, so that Menelik's soldiers were engaged over a wide area in
the south, when he received a note from Yohannes IV about the achievement of
Ras Alula at Dogali. Yohannes IV did not know that he was lied to by the
British, and was working in good faith for the purposes of the 1884 Adwa
Treaty, and inadvertently kindled the wrath of Muslim Mahadists, the Dervish,
when he extricated Egyptian soldiers and gave them free passage through
Ethiopia. The Dervish attacked Gondar. Yohannes IV instructed Negus Tekle
Haymanot of Gojjam to defend against the invasion. The Negus tried but was
unsuccessful, and even his daughter was taken prisoner by the Dervish to the
Sudan. Yohannes IV was unkind to the plight of Negus Tekle Haymanot (though he realized later that he was
mislead by his court about the valiant attempts of the Gojjam soldiers to
counter the Dervish). When his soldiers were assembled from the southern
expedition, Negus Menelik advised his readiness to implement the emperor's
wishes in the northern front. After rejecting Negus Menelik's offer to join
forces with those of Emperor Yohannes IV and fight against the Italian
occupation in the north, and after saying that his own group is sufficient to
the task, and after instructing Menelik to march against the Dervish instead,
Yohannes IV marched to Saati to confront the Italians and camped there for a
month. Meanwhile, a mere show of force by Menelik II and his entourage at Azezo
was sufficient to cause the Dervish to flee to their country, the Sudan. Yet, Yohannes IV departed from his camp
from near Saati, leaving the Italians unharmed, marched to attack Gojjam and
died in Metama fighting against the Dervish. In the wake of the death of
Emperor Yohannes IV, and led by Dejazmatch Debeb, a relative of Yohannes IV,
the Italians had marched to the highland region of Mereb Melash. Then they
crossed the Mereb river and occupied regions south of it. Ethiopians under the
able leadership of Menelik II dislodged Italian forces from Amba Alaghe,
Mekele, and completely routed the Italian forces in the battle of Adwa. Though
he did not march to the Red Sea, as is discussed under another heading in this
series of reports and briefly described below, Menelik II shall remain a great
leader simply because of his achievement up to Adwa.
For the record, it was after Emperor Yohannes IV ordered Negus Menelik
to retrace the route he took to Begemedir back to Shewa, which caused Menelik
to secure permission to return from Begemedir to Shewa via Gojjam, that both
Menelik and Negus Tekle Haymanot conspired against an emperor whom they regarded
to be ungrateful and unfathomable, that Menelik began to arm himself against a
potential onslaught by Yohannes IV (Tekle Tsadiq mekuria, 1983 Ethi). It proved
lucky for Ethiopia that Menelik was arming himself with more modern weaponry,
which later allowed him to defend Ethiopia against colonials. Likewise, his
effort at incorporating southern Ethiopian regions made them unavailable for
European colonizers to place them under their dominion, and also allowed
Ethiopian to defend their country from Italy at the battle of Adwa. At any
rate, Yohannes IV returned from Saati leaving the Italians unharmed and
destroyed Gojjam to punish Negus Tekle Haymanot for the conspiracy he made with
Menelik, though he could not touch Shewa this time around. A show of force by
Dejazmatch Mekonnen whose soldiers from Hararghe guarded the east side of the
Abay Gorge along the Shewa-Gojjam road was sufficient to dissuade Yohannes IV
from any attempts against Menelik.
Instead, Yohannes IV marched to Metema. The valiant Emperor, who
previously knew when to attack a fortified camp as at the battles of Gundit and
Gura, at which he defeated Egyptian soldiers, and at Saati where he camped 10
kilometers away from an Italian fort, made the mistake of fighting like a
simple soldier at Galabet and was unfortunately shot in 1889, and died the next
day, at a great cost to Ethiopian pride. To begin with, the entire Dervish
animosity toward Ethiopia would not have started were it not for the
ill-advised services Yohannes IV rendered to Egyptian soldiers as per the terms
of 1884 Adwa Treaty with the British, which the British did not respect. It
took years for Yohannes IV to come to the conclusion that the British were not
abiding by the terms of the Adwa 1884 Treaty. Yohaness IV's realization of the
British role was a bit late. Some also argue that his devotion to the Tewahedo
Christian faith might have had adverse repercussions with the Dervish and
Ethiopian Muslims of the north some of whom he converted to Christians. Clearly, there is no defensible
foundation to accuse Menelik II for giving away a beachhead head or for luck of
wit or bravery in the defense of Ethiopia and its people. Below, I describe the
equally unfounded claim that Menelik sold people or territory for money.
Menelik borrowed money to buy guns and munitions described in the 1st
October, 1889 Additional Convention to the Wuchale Treaty of 2nd, May1989 by
using the customs house in Harar as collateral. He paid all that he owed to the
Italians in the Wuchale Treaty before marching against them to Adwa. He charged, "ye tchera geber"
to collect funds from Ethiopians to pay that loan (Tekle Tsadiq Mekuria, 1983
Ethi). He deemed it wise to buy guns to protect himself from a potential attack
by Emperor Yohannes IV, the father of his son-in law. It should be underscored
that people ought not to judge the past by using modern functions of government
as models. Ethiopia has not regained its stature since the revolt by Ahmed
Gragn in the 16th Century. Since the beginning of "Zemene Mesafnt"
until Menelik II became emperor, Ethiopia did not have a well organized and
centralized government. Emperor Tewodros fought hard to gain a central
government system. Emperor
Yohannes IV advanced the cause a bit further. Menelik II succeeded in centralizing
authority. There were oddities in the reign of Yohannes IV that could be viewed
as arising from lack of a centralized government. For example, when Yohannes IV
left from Saati, he took Ras Alula who was the governor of Mereb Mellash with
him instead of leaving him behind to guard against Italian encroachment of the
highland regions. Negus Menelik
tried to act as a reconciling element between Ethiopia's Emperor and Italy
while Ethiopia was at odds with Italy - go figure - Yohannes IV later wrote Menelik
II to pursue the strange effort though he told Menelik that it won't have a
successful result (Tecle Tsadiq Mekuria, 1983). That said, let us stay on the subject of the unfounded
allegation that Menelik II as wrongly alleged by Professor Tecola Hagos sold
Ethiopian territory and people.
It is well-known that Menelik made Italy pay for feeding the Italian
soldiers that Ethiopians captured during the battle of Adwa. Any other mention
of money that is claimed to have been taken by Menelik has its foundation
likely in propaganda pieces by colonials, and in the infamous and defamatory
document of the EEBC (Eritrea-Ethiopian Boundary Commission). The EEBC authors
brought no evidence to support their wild allegation. The foundation for the
so-called international boundary between Eritrea and Ethiopia is said to be
based on the 1900, 1902, and 1908 treaties according to so called 2000 Algiers
Agreement between Meles and Issayas. Emperor Yohannes IV camped at Saati, 26
kilometers from Massawa, in the coastal Red Sea region, in 1888. The highland
region of Mereb Melash was not encroached by Italian forces then. The Italians
marched to the highland region and up to the Mereb River by 1889. From 1889 to
1900, a period of 11 years of military occupation by Italians forces is the
foundation for the existence of an "independent Eritrea". The five
men who were hired by Issayas and Meles or their supporters to provide an
unjust but legal-sounding boundary de novo, by using the Meles-Issayas so-called Algiers Agreement of 2000, went beyond their
declared purpose of producing a
boundary. They resuscitated defunct and nullified conventions of 1900 to 1908 in order to place an intrnational boundary between a phantom state called Eritrea that did not exist as an independent state but was a part of independent Ethiopia for thousands of years
before a colonial Italian administartion of the coastal region since 1898, eleven years before the conventions cited by the EEBC to found an international boundary within Ethiopia. The five men went beyond placing an ineternational boundary
and defamed Menelik II and Ethiopia in their EEBC document. We shall deal with this issue in more detail under another
topic. Put simply, the five men who wrote the EEBC lied about Ethiopian
history. Indeed, without furnishing any supporting evidence, the five paid
authors of the EEBC have written that Menelik had taken money. Here again they
lied for they have brought no supporting evidence to document their story. The five men that authored the EEBC
were paid hands and delivered to Issayas and Meles handsomely for what they
were paid to do. Though they opted to defame Ethiopia and Menelik II, that
extra effort on their part was outside of their self-declared mandate. Neither
the lie on history or on defaming Menelik was necessary for the EEBC to do.
They did it nonetheless.
Certainly, they cannot be regarded as the foundation for activities
performed by Menelik II, who died a century before these paid hands
manufactured the EEBC document, when the EEBC does not itself show verifiable
proof for its allegation. Therefore, I challenge Professor Tecola Hagos to produce
any piece of document other than the nasty EEBC instrument that cannot be used
as foundational source, or colonial propaganda that is not independently
verifiable, to support his allegation that Menelik II took money from Italians to sell territory and people.
If he cannot produce verifiable document ( a treaty, a convention or other
document signed by the parties that are said to have been involved in the
transaction) in support of his claim, which I bet he cannot, then he should
cease and desist from defaming one of Ethiopia's gallant leaders for an act he
has not committed, and by implication from accusing the gallant Ethiopians who
stood with their leader and delivered a blow to an invading European power, and
act that shall live in glory till kingdom come.
It may be stated that we should appreciate the hurt that proud Eritrawe
Ethiopians may feel each time Menelik's name and freeing Ethiopia from Italian
colonization is mentioned, because their region was not liberated by this great
leader. However, shoveling lies against the historical record won't alleviate
the hurt. It only exacerbates the
alienation. Neither is their any validity to deny the courage of all Ethiopians
who came to Adwa to fight against and routed the colonials. As Professor Mesfin Wolde Mariam
in his latest book, "yekehdet kulkulet", put it plainly, when
Ethiopians from the south marched a 1000 kilometers to fight in defence of
Ethiopia why were not those in the region fighting for their liberation? I will
let his statement convey the intended meaning for all freedom loving Ethiopians
are accorded equal dignity in fighting for their liberation. I will merely
explore the history surrounding the 1896 Adwa victory for its won sake.
During the Adwa victory, food ration sent to the region had run out, and
a part of the Ethiopian forces were sent to gather more food from the region.
Also, the drought period did not permit Ethiopian forces to march at will. We
are also informed that lots more would have been achieved had there been
sufficient water in the Mereb river and across it to permit the Ethiopian
forces under Menelik II to march into Mereb Melash as pointed out by Kibur
Tekele Tsadiq Mekuria in his book on "Menelik ena ye'ityopia
andenet". Yet, would Menelik have considered it wise to march to the Red
Sea immediately after the Adwa victory?
This remains a question for historians to puzzle over? It has to be
remembered that the British had stationed military garrisons at Khartoum by
this time. After the defeat of the Italians forces at Adwa, the British
parliament was so angered that a black force would defeat a white army and in
both the House of Commons and of Lords members were competing among each other
to shower words of indignity that the Anglo-Saxon verbiage would allow. For his
part, the son of Queen Victoria, who was in South Africa used insolent words
against Menelik and Ethiopia for defeating a white army. Meanwhile, Africans,
Caribbean's and blacks in the USA who had managed to hear of the victory,
despite strictest news blackouts in the western world, relished it with utmost
satisfaction. Had Menelik II marched to the Red Sea at that time, a combined
British and Italian force would likely have met Ethiopian forces. Many more
mercenaries from South Africa through Australia across Europe to the USA would
have crowded the region. Perhaps that thought did not escape the imagination
and foresight of Menelik II.
The victory at Adwa was so sweat to relish that Menelik II was not going
to squander it by taking ill-advised adventurism. Like Ras Alula, who demolished an Italian force at Dogali,
only 19 kilometers away from Massawa, did not march to Massawa, so too Menelik
II did not march to route the Italians from the Red Sea in the condition that
Ethiopia was at in 1896. In both cases the consequences would likely have
involved a possible retaliatory attack by Britain, which had claimed dominion
on Ethiopia's Massawa region by reason of a false ownership deeded to it through
Egypt by Turkey. Had the lords of Tigrey been cooperative, Menelik would likely
have unravelled that maze and liberated the coast later, but not in 1896. By
not marching to the Red Sea Menelik did not push hard against the white
backlash, and by treating the captured Italians with dignity Menelik quenched
the anger of white colonials and restored Ethiopia to the noble and just
country that Greeks before the Birth of Christ had written about, and the
Prophet Mohammed had referred to since.
The purpose of identifying the 5 Historical Points of Alienations is to
show how enemies of Ethiopia could use those points of estrangement to bring
dissention among Ethiopians but not to offer those points of alienations as
legitimate grounds for denying ones heritage. Colonialism is not unique to
Mereb Melash or any part of Ethiopia. Parts of Italy were colonized by
different European countries from the 6th century to 1870. That fact did not
deter the Italians from being united and from working for their common good.
While Italy was colonizing parts of Ethiopia portions of its own territory was
not liberated from Austria. It was
after the 1st World War that Italy regained parts of its territory from
Austria.
History should be written to document what the past was; the good, the
bad and the ugly. However, it does not require stories such as the unfounded
allegations and defamation of Menelik II and by implication of Ethiopia as was
done in the piece by Professor Tecola Hagos. History is not to be used to satiate the insatiable quest of
cry-babies such as the EPLF and TPLF that aspire to achieve the impossible task
of adjusting the present as a way of undoing the past. They are wrong in the
way they have constructed the past. They are wrong in the way they construct
the present. They are wrong in
their foolish attempt to adjust the present to undo the past. They are a
scourge to Ethiopian history and should be removed ASAP. The Eritrawe Ethiopian
should not miss the boat bound for freedom once more. They should join hands
with pan-Ethiopian political parties and contribute to the pan-Ethiopian
parties (provide money or other support) in order to resurrect Ethiopia.
Section 3: the ESM was not warned
about the role of the
HG