thingsicantletgo

[thingsicantletgo]

The Swedish journalists' trial, installment VI and VII

...took place without me. Sorry, some visa issues for Sudan really threw me for a loop. Find some info on the two past sessions at VOA, Al Jazeera or Stockholm News. December 21st will see closing arguments and a verdict.

[thingsicantletgo]

[thingsicantletgo]

In which a guy named Zimeta tells us what's Ethiopia to the G20. He is usually quite critical of Meles Zenawi — I am reserving judgement because he sounds much like enraged diaspora, but some thoughts are interesting nonetheless. So TIA or the Ethiopia card? Don't leave without reading the comments.

[thingsicantletgo]

The Swedish journalists' trial, installment III-V

This week saw three court sessions — Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday — for the prosecution to make their case, present witness and what goes as evidence, and a final decision on the charges. Long and draining but at least somewhat eventful.

In the beginning of the third court meeting on Tuesday, the prosecution presented four witnesses to be heard, three of which Judge Shemsu Sirgaga admitted. This time, apparently as a reaction to (justified) complains on the defendants' part, the court provided an English translator. Equipped with a mike and not too much vocabulary, his contribution was still valuable to get some info through on what's going on in the court room.

Circumstances of the journalists' capture

Witness #1, police inspector Mohamed Ahmed, spent long hours in the witness stand, mainly reporting about the circumstances of the journalists' chase and capture in the remote border area of Ogaden. The police was tipped by some local informants that ONLF fighters and two Westerners were crossing the border that night (Puntland and Ethiopia are close allies) and spotted the car in the middle of the night on July 1 (I think, not 100% sure about the date) some 90 kilometres from the Somali border. According to Ahmed's deliberations, the Swedes were joined by altogether 13 armed ONLF rebels in the border region with Somalia for eleven hours until fighting broke out. Actually, the number of insurgents is still dubious. Different claims were made throughout the witness hearings with numbers reaching from nine to 22, as well differing claims regarding the fate of the remaining group members (they either got killed in the police's gunfire or killed themselves before the police could capture them) — some things really don't make sense. Just as much as you can keep wondering about the connection between the Swedes and the two Somali co-defendants, which the journalists claim to have not seen before. The tale of the capture is, uhm, obscure.

The group of 13 split up, he said, and the two foreigners set out to run away, which is when they were allegedly shot by ONLF guards (not the Ethiopian security forces who had pledged to not harm the foreigners) in an attempt to stop them from getting away with valuable insider information. And fortunately the police was around to treat them afterwards. The Swedes' driver was said to have burnt their car once confronted with the police. The two Somali defendants got caught as they ran out of bullets, as the story goes.

Two cameras, mobile phones, one passport (eh? one?), and notoriously unspecified documents is what the two foreigners carried. No weapons.

When it was the defence's turn to ask questions, several of those were objected to by the prosecution and decided to be non-pertinent — among those the question of how the police could, beyond doubt, identify car passengers as having been in the fleet from inception to end since it seems to have been pitch-dark night and partly dense forest (in the Ogaden? but oh well, that's what I understood). The judge requested the defence to stop asking difficult questions and to back off. Asked if he could recall what the Swedish defendants were wearing when they were captured, the witness only said that Johan Persson had just one shoe left and that he was therefore given clothes and socks by the security forces.

Intentions to "support" ONLF

Mohamed Ahmed told the court he asked the two Swedes why they had come to the country, and received as a reply "a very long story" that ended with their statement that they entered Ethiopia (1) for work, and (2) to support the ONLF (the court's translator delivered this part as "to organise and train the ONLF"). As the defendants left the room when the court went into break, a journalist asked them whether they ever said anything like that. The answer was "no". On a side note, I am still wondering how the police communicated with the Swedes on that July morning since the former only speak Somali and there was no mention of translators.

Witness #2, a "soldier or special police", said the two captured Somalis had stated they were the two journalists' guards and ordered to bring them to the ONLF leadership in Ethiopia. He further testified to not know from which side the two foreigners were shot. Regarding the chronology of that night, the witness got entangled in a long-lasting and highly irritating series of contradicting testimonies, jumping between statements about two-hour and eleven-hour trips and departure times between 6 am and 11 pm between the base camp and the outlaws' group.

And finally... the evidence

Witness #3 was the criminal investigator who had received the two journalists' laptop (so there was a laptop among their belongings?) and got the defendants' testimony regarding the ownership of the retrieved files. Apparently, the Swedes were present when the documents were printed, then left their signatures on those papers. Asked by the judge what kinds of documents those had been, he said he didn't know since he had not seen them. As well, he could not say who of the two the documents belonged to.

Next up was the video material presented as evidence. A back-and-forth preceded the screening between defence and judge about that still the defence had not been not handed the prosecution's evidence yet. It was concluded by the judge with the statement that this was decided now but the defence should feel free to appeal for the Supreme Court (since this is unconstitutional); they might get it later if the defence could raise valid points as to how it would help them.

The court technicians already had everyone thrilled by installing what seemed necessary for a video screening in the court room but, shame, they didn't get us speakers so nobody could hear the recorded sound. "You can see that the defendants were in contact with terrorists but we need to hear it too". Which was the reason why the judge told everybody to regather the next day at 10 am.

Generally, the video is made from more than two hours of (pretty crappy) original footage from the two Swedes. The clips seem almost touristy at times and show the two walking around the desert; pointing at things; sitting in chairs; being briefed on the roads into Ethiopia; interviewing villagers about human rights abuses; talking on the phone; after being captured, producing their belongings; talking to police; looking at dancing soldiers. And yes, sorry, Johan: hoisting guns. Out of which the Ethiopian prosecution in their edited version of the tapes (twenty minutes concluded with a damn-we're-so-happy-we-get-to-use-this-fancy-equipment-finally, dramatic "The End") made a playing with guns by putting the sound of a gun shot to it. The judge asked the prosecution how in the edited version there could be a sound that wasn't in the original, which was explained with what can be summarised as "artistic freedom" and "really, uhm, to make a point".

Amending the charges

Gladly, on Thursday then, the judge decided to drop charge number three, membership in a terrorist organisation, and do without the tampered video. "Though the prosecutors have provided witnesses and evidence to support their accusation, the court does not believe it is substantial enough to prove that the journalists were involved in carrying out a terror attack", which must be a great relief for the two journalists. The charges of supporting a terrorist organisation and entering the country illegally remain. Support to a terrorist organisation can still mean between 10 and 15 years of imprisonment (Part Two, Art. 5 of the Anti-Terror Proclamation).

See you all on December 6.

[thingsicantletgo]

So did this really seem like a good idea at the time?

Tell me something because I can't figure it out. Johan Persson and Martin Schibbye, were they

(A) that silly to think it might just work out swell to enter Ethiopia illegally side by side with one of the country's designated terrorist groups to go into that region that does not only not welcome journalists with open arms but nobody except the security forces?;

(B) simply daft and believed it's kinda cool and hard-assy to sneak into this place no-one else dares to go and investigate human rights, it's-courtesy-not-a-crime style? (sweet Jesus, people!); or

(C) just unprofessional in that they didn't look into what they'd be facing?

If Google translate doesn't get it completely wrong, this statement by Schibbye's wife makes me believe all three hold some truth, even though (C) gets an all-area pass.

Basically, I am totally with you on that any human rights violations anywhere need to be investigated properly and brought to an end. And the liberty of free media needs defence. I am concerned about the two journalists (this link: don't mind the presenter's gruesome accent) standing trial for supporting terrorism now. But... what on earth were they thinking? A quick look at the websites of the Reporters Without Borders or the Committee to Protect Journalists would have done the trick. Did they have that quick look? And believed they will get away with this?

[thingsicantletgo]

Now that's what I call a crackdown

In an early analysis of the draft, Human Rights Watch called the Ethiopian anti-terror legislation (Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009) "a potent instrument to crack down on political dissent". Since it passed parliament, it accordingly filled orders regularly to shut down dissent(ers), both journalists and political opposition. It is creepily vague, and it conflates political opposition with terrorism. Part Two of the law makes anyone "punishable with rigorous imprisonment from 15 years to life or with death" who causes death or injury, creates safety or health risks to the public or fractions of it, kidnaps or takes hostage, damages property, damages "natural resource, environment, historical or cultural heritages", causes "serious interference or disruption of any public service", or threatens to commit any of these acts, if with the intention

to advance a political, religious or ideological cause by coercing the government, intimidating the public or section of the public, or destabilizing or destroying the fundamental political, constitutional or, economic or social institutions of the country

Let's think about that for a moment: "disruption of any public service"? Like, the regulation of traffic, for example? Yes, that's what it means. Any ever-so-peaceful demonstration for the advancement of a political-ideological cause (like "Punish violence against women more severely, please") that disrupts the flow of traffic in a given city can be understood as an act of terrorism with punishment looming that includes even the death penalty. According to a statement from the UN Special Rapporteur on Counterterrorism and Human Rights, the definition of terrorism should refer to violence against civilians and not include property crimes (HRW, p. 3); furthermore, the imposition of death penalty should be limited to punishment for the "most serious crimes". But the use of broad and ambiguous terms doesn't stop here. In fact, the Proclamation makes liable to prosecution anyone who "plans, prepares, conspires, incites or attempts to commit any of the terrorist acts stipulated". Meaning, if I only so much as _try_ to disrupt the flow of traffic in a given city through an ever-so-peaceful demonstration for the advancement of a political-ideological cause, I can get imprisoned for up to 15 years if I disgruntled the wrong crowd. And the anti-terror law indeed puts everyone in line for a nice hot shot of "rigorous imprisonment from 10 to 15 years" who provides or prepares "forged or falsified document", "a skill, expertise or moral support or ... advice", "any property in any manner", "monetary, financial or other related services", "any explosive, dynamite, inflammable substances, firearms or other lethal weapons or poisonous substances", or "any training or instruction or directive", all this

knowingly or having reason to know that his deed has the effect of supporting the commission of a terrorist act or a terrorist organization.

Dare offering water or advice of kind to a peaceful political protestor on the wrong side of the political scheme and any person convicted under this law. Knowing (meaning if a model prudent person would know) that someone else uses your property for an act potentially perceived as terrorist puts you in the same position. As HRW says,

these provisions open the door to a wide range of ways in which individuals seeking to express political dissent could find themselves prosecuted for terrorism and imprisoned for five to 20 years. For example, someone who held a sign used in a non-violent political protest that blocked traffic could arguably be found guilty of possession of property used to commit a terrorist act.

As well as anybody who "encourages" terrorism, namely who "publishes or causes the publication of a statement that is likely to be understood by some or all of the members of the public ... as a direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement to them to the commission or preparation or instigation of an act of terrorism": another 10 to 20 years in prison. So this criminalises speech that can be perceived as "encouraging," "advancing", or being "in support" of terrorist acts. Dear members of the press, take good care you condemn any terrorist acts you meant to report, and do so in clear words. To convict a defendant in court, hearsay and "indirect evidences" are admissible as well as intelligence reports without disclosure of their source, making way for information obtained under torture. As a terrorist organisation, by the way, qualifies indeed any that is banned as such by the government. Either

a group, association or organization which is composed of not less than two members with the objective of committing acts of terrorism or plans, prepares, executes or cause the execution of acts of terrorism or assists or incites others in any way to commit acts of terrorism; or ... an organization so proscribed as terrorist in accordance with [the] Proclamation.

Among those officially designated as terrorist organisation are the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF), and the diaspora opposition movement Ginbot-7. There is much more to it to give you creeps (read on here, here, or here, or of course the original wording here). All in all, what makes the anti-terror law so predatory is its ambiguous and broad language including in defining terrorist acts and terrorist organisations; the wide permission of police powers to search, arrest, and restrict movement of individuals and destroy property without judicial oversight; the criminalisation of speech and random acts; and the approval of imposing the death penalty for offenses that are most def not among the "most serious crimes". This summer, four journalists — two Swedish and two Ethiopians, Reyot Alemu and Woubeshet Taye — were arrested and charged under the anti-terrorist law. A government critic was arrested along with four opposition party members in September. In Ethiopia at large, so says the African Commission for Human Rights and People's Right's in its 50th Ordinary Session,

The climate of fear brought by the renewed squelching has severely limited the rights of journalists to do their work and impacted on the free flow of information in a country that already has restrictive laws against media freedom.

[thingsicantletgo]

The Swedish journalists' trial, installment II

"No one will be fooled by these trumped up accusations which seek to disguise a vicious intimidation of independent reporting in Ethiopia. ... It would be a terrible miscarriage of justice to follow through with these trials and we urge the authorities to dismiss the baseless charges and set our colleagues free." (Jim Boumelha, IFJ President, see here)

Relatives of the defendants talking to Swedish journalists in front of the court room

There were no handcuffs for the Swedes (background info here or the posts below) as they were led into the court room for their second appearance. And hardly any ambassadors waiting. Addis Ababa was apparently not amused by the great international attention to the first meeting. Many embassies were still represented, but by first secretaries and political officers, while the ambassadors probably had to rush to attend a meeting convened by Ethiopia's Prime Minister, same day, same time. Still, the turnout was good, the court room still crowded, with even more Ethiopian journalists as the local media is picking up the issue.

This one was a rather long session with a lot of back and forth between prosecution and defence. Every statement was followed by cautious whispering in the audience to get the information from the scattered Ethiopians who helped out with translations through all the rows.

First, the charges were read. No, wrong. First, translators had to be found, both for English and Somali. Once those two (one of them a volunteer from the court room) had sworn an oath, the charges were read. By the judge, a long sermon of Amharic words. As far as I understood, the two Somali Ethiopians, Abdiweli Mohammed Ismael and Kelif Ali Dahir, are charged with clandestine and open terrorist activities; armed fighting on the side of a terrorist organisation (ONLF) on several accounts; and recruitment for a terrorist organisation (ONLF).

Somewhat dubious seems the rumour that the two Swedes and their co-defendants seemingly did only meet until days after the journalists' capture. I do wonder what on earth they are doing sharing the same court room then, the same case even — "hey, let's put some real terrorists in there with the white guys! totally looks more credible"? Still pondering about what other use they could be of, given the possibility that they are as much a ONLF fighter as the journalists.

In any case, I'ma gonna concentrate on the Swedish journalists here. Provided that I understood it correctly and got correct translation, their case seems different in that they could be ONLF members in the flesh. Not that this would make their fate less important. My ways and means to find out if this is actually true are even more restricted, and if they are ONLF, the application of the anti-terror laws in their case cannot be argued away.

Persson and Schibbye are charged with entering the country without proper documentation and defying international law; travelling illegal roads; terrorist activities (which lack further specification); plus espionage and reconnaissance and surveillance activities for ONLF, namely reconning oil fields and military bases. The journalists' contacts to the London cell of ONLF and meetings prior to their trip to the Horn (they took a route through Kenya to enter Somalia in May, I believe, and went on to Ethiopia through Puntland) were cited to substantiate the claims of their collaboration with the ONLF. It was said that the prosecutor added further — new — charges to the list. The defence asked to acquire further clarification and explanations since they were only received on short notice; the judge ruled that the new charges be ignored for this meeting and the trial proceed with the earlier known charges.

The prosecutor — or rather, one of the eight filling the prosecutors' bench — stated that the two Swedes are being accused of using journalism as a cover for terrorism. While it is of course fair to say, as the president of the EFJ did, that the two "journalists were only trying to do their job, reporting on a conflict which is not well understood outside the region... to provide independent and impartial information", Ethiopia does not so much accept the concept of free journalism as an added value generally but rather considers it a threat to security and order. The anti-terror legislation was used before to silence inquiries into issues unwelcome to the authorities. Martin Schibbye's statement, "I am a Swedish journalist, my job is to gather news" probably didn't help to lower suspicions.

The defence, objecting to the list of charges, asked for an explicit list of the terrorist activities that Persson and Schibbye are being accused of; the prosecution requested more time to prepare written details. As well, the prosecution is leaning on two articles for a single charge and needed to clarify. The defence lawyer Abebe Balcha furthermore asked for clarification regarding the time frame of the alleged terrorist activities: when exactly these are supposed to have taken place. The point here is that the ONLF was only officially and legally designated a terrorist organisation in June 2011 so charges can (should) only apply to the time after this, presuming that the journalists could have gotten such news as they had already embarked on their trip. Following this objection, the court went into a break to decide if the two journalists were to be tried under criminal law or the anti-terrorism law. Yet after the break, no decision was given — it had not been made and the meeting processed without it. However, the charges must be corrected and modified by the prosecutor's side to be more specific. If this is how it's gonna be, the trial will go on forever, methinks.

The defendants' statements followed. Martin Schibbye pleaded guilty to illegally entering the country, for which he formally apologised to the Ethiopian government, and not guilty on all other charges. Johan Persson, too, admitted to entering Ethiopia without proper documentation and pleaded not guilty on the charge of terrorism. The two Somalis pleaded not guilty on all accounts, explaining they were soldiers, not rebel fighters.

Reacting to this, it was explained by the prosecuting that the Swedes' charge is for the intention to enter the country to collaborate with a terrorist group. Schibbye denied to have had that intention. The defendants were asked what had been their intentions then, to which Persson replied "to do my job as a journalist, nothing more".

After the pleas, the defence asked the prosecution once more to provide witnesses and evidences that testify against the defendants. Bush league: indeed the defence was not presented with the evidence yet. The video to prove terrorist activism, so it was said, will be shown in the next session. In what seems to be a stark contradiction to earlier statements (which had everyone believe that evidence was readily at hand), the prosecution asked for two weeks to gather evidence and bring witnesses from the remote Somali region. Makes you wonder, too, in a quiet WTF moment if it's really okay to conceal that they created charges out of thin air and political passion the past couple of months.

The judge fixed the next session for November 1, 2011.

Next up: more info on the Ethiopian anti-terror laws a.k.a. the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation No. 652/2009.

[thingsicantletgo]

[© Israel Seoane Gonzalez]

The Swedish journalists' defence lawyer Abebe Balcha (by the way, as well a popular Ethiopian TV soap actor) after the hearing today in front of the Addis Ababa First High Court, answering some journalists' questions on the defendants' plea. Behind him Jens Odlander, the Swedish ambassador to Ethiopia. More info later.

[thingsicantletgo]

The Swedish journalists' trial, installment I

This is a follow-up on the two Swedish journalists who are charged with terrorism charges in Ethiopia; see an earlier post here.

In short: the trial was — not a surprising move — postponed to Thursday.

We had been waiting for about half an hour before the meeting was moved to a bigger court room — fifteen ambassadors (that's the official count — apart from course the Swedish ambassador, I recognised the German, French, Belgian, Finnish, Irish, Austrian, Slovak, Bulgarian, and the one from the US), EU delegation staff, one of the defendants' wife, and a large number of journalists, many of them Swedish. Apparently not all the European journalists had been granted access to the court though.

The court room was very crowded anyway, as well because the case of an Ethiopian woman who was brutally mutilated by her husband (find a good article here), and which is fortunately receiving a lot of public attention, was scheduled for the same court room and session.

After another twenty minutes, the two Swedes were brought in, along with several other defendants, guarded by city police and federal military, handcuffed together. Given the circumstances, I think, they looked relatively fit and well. After it had been decided to move out the defendants of other cases (usually, the defendants being tried in one session sit through all the proceedings) to allow for more room for viewers and media, the trial started around 9:40 am. Contradicting earlier announcements, cameras were not allowed in the court room.

The court proceedings were, as expected, held in Amharic with only the two defendants' statements in English. Yet we didn't even get as far as hearing their objections to the charges. The court adjourned the meeting on the grounds that the two Somali co-defendants did not bring defence lawyers. Addis Ababa accuses them of entering Ethiopia illegally with Persson and Schibbye, and they need be provided with public defenders for Thursday 8 am, the next meeting. I am guessing we will see quite some more stalling from the court’s side. The longer it takes, the less e.g. ambassadors will attend regularly, considerably decreasing the public attention, which can only be in the court’s interest.

In other related news then, the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF, some info here) issued an official statement yesterday around 6 pm, rejecting the claims that the journalists are testified against by ONLF members, were training, or even armed during their stay in Ogaden, and furthermore saying that

[the Ethiopian] regime has set up an elaborate program of manufacturing false and concocted ‘evidence’ after their ill-trained solders in Ogaden shot the unarmed Journalists in Ogaden.

(The two were injured, namely shot in the arm and chest respectively, by Ethiopian military personnel during the struggle that let to their arrest but, as far as I know, have been well provided with medical treatment, both by the army and later the Swedish doctors in Addis.)

Among the evidence used to substantiate the prosecutor’s claim that Persson and Schibbye trained terrorists in the Somali-speaking region is video footage of and from the two. It allegedly shows the two Swedes handling arms — making it potential evidence in what the EFJ calls a "trial of shame … in breach of international law” (and the ONLF a “Kangaroo court” trial). It may prove not only that the journalists entered the region illegally — to what they admit in the video — but that they had received weapon training from the rebels, even teamed up with them in armed struggles against the Ethiopian military. UNHCR reports that the

video posted on the pro-government Ogaden website Cakaara News in July … purports to show Persson handling an assault rifle [Ethiopian government spokesman Shimelis Kemal] added: “They have even taken weapons training.” … The footage appears to have been shot by the journalists themselves, although its authenticity has not been independently confirmed. The footage also shows the journalists doing routine work such as adjusting their camera equipment, reviewing maps, taking photos, and interviewing people in refugee camps. Separate footage, apparently shot by authorities, shows the journalists, in bandages, speaking under duress after their capture.

ONLF claims that

[the] Ethiopian government is greatly threatened specifically by these two journalists because it was afraid they will uncover the scorched earth policy and genocide it committed in Ogaden in order to clear the land for oil companies such as Lundin, which has now re-invented itself as African Oil, PETRONAS and others, in whose name hundreds of thousands of Ogaden Somalis were either displaced, killed or starved.

The fierce fighting between the Ethiopian government and the ONLF is a worrisome aspect as well in regards of the journalists’ trial. It is often claimed that the authorities wish to control the news coverage coming out of the region because of human rights violations committed by its military.

Reporters without Borders today posed the question of whether the outcome of the trial might have been decided already for Ethiopia wants to stage an example case. In the upcoming months — the further proceedings might take another four to six — Sweden has to seize every opportunity (maybe even asking the US for support) there is to push for the release of Persson and Schibbye. Both attention to the case and criticism of its official handling seems to be great back home. And Sweden already has one case of an arrested journalist turned wrong.

[thingsicantletgo]

Bad press?

Remember the two Swedish journalists who were arrested in Ethiopia for alleged meddling in terrorist activities? In case you don't, here's a link. The trial is opening in Addis Ababa tomorrow. In short, photographer Johan Persson and reporter Martin Schibbye were investigating the involvement in human rights abuses of Lundin Petroleum — a Swedish oil group involved in the exploration and production of oil and natural gas in, among others, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Somalia — in a remote and unstable Ethiopian region, and got

arrested in Ethiopia's Ogaden region on July 1 after entering the country from Somalia with the rebel Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF). Persson and Schibbye have been charged with engaging in terrorist activities, abetting an illegal terrorist group and entering the country illegally. (AFP)

As other journalists covering ongoings in the Ogaden or similarly politically sensitive places in Ethiopia, the two Swedes are charged under the country's anti-terror laws. The Ethiopian government blacklisted the ONLF as a terrorist group, and the anti-terror legislation outlaws "promotion" of the insurgents' activities. Bad enough, you might think.

And while we're on the subject, the Swedish Foreign Minister Carl Bildt is being boilt back home for not pressuring the Ethiopian government hard enough to release the journalists and/or soften the charges. Bildt was a board member of Lundin Petroleum for six years until put in charge of the ministry.

The oil group has been harshly criticised before for the human rights violations connected to their oil exploitation in Africa. Swedish Kerstin Lundell published a book about the issue and then there's the report of the European Coalition on Oil in Sudan). ...Morality? Whatever. Or, as put rather carefully by Kerstin Lundell

in a recent newspaper article ...: "the fact that Carl Bildt has reason to hide what is going on in Ogaden could explain why these journalists are still in prison."

And considering the charges, they might even end up staying in there rather long, to wit up to 40 years. Yeah, that's right. The megalomaniacal example of an Ethiopian journalist trial is not going to be a walk in a park. In can-I-has-censorship Ethiopia, even the UNESCO World Press Freedom Day event is being censored and cut off. Since the last BBC undercover investigation in the country, journalism equals an even rougher ride in Ethiopia. Plus, Ogaden is an especially delicate issue for the government. It would have needed more persistent support from the Swedish government to move anyone in the national authorities of their entrenched hard-liner position here. Now, about Persson and Schibbye, Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi stated that he considers them terrorists in the flesh:

"They are not journalists. Why would a journalist be involved with a terrorist organisation and enter a country with that terrorist organisation, escorted by armed terrorists, and participate in a fighting in which this terrorist organization was involved? If that is journalism, I don't know what terrorism is."

This is troubling, to say the least. Let's hope it means more than a tiny bit of bad publicity for Mr. Bildt (but I doubt it) and less than life-time imprisonment for the two journalists.

The case is tried at 8:30 am at the Lideta First Federal Court. Update tomorrow.

[thingsicantletgo]

Deep thought of the day

I read Clair MacDougall's piece on the pitfalls awaiting Western journalists tackling the gay debate in Africa. She says that the same debate

in the West is largely defined by ... liberal democratic cultural and political values ... The principles of Western liberalism are based upon the assumption that people ought to be free to do as they choose insofar as they do not harm others.

The article's opener is a recent headline from the Ghanaian Daily Graphic that reads, "8,000 Homos In Two Regions: Majority Infected With HIV/AIDS". Next in my news feed was this short note on the NYT, gladly informing the public that

British health officials said Thursday that they would lift a ban on gay men donating blood, as long as their last sexual contact with another man was more than a year earlier. ... Canada and the United States prohibit gay men from donating blood.

Now... these liberal democratic values are working out just swell.

[thingsicantletgo]

While Kim Jong-Il is looking at birthday gifts, I would like to take the chance to say, congratulations! You can go now. I bet there's a pot of missiles waiting for you under the double rainbow you came from.

[thingsicantletgo]

Let me put that away for you

We moved into a new house. This new house has what they call a service quarter in the back of the compound to accommodate service staff. Behind our compound flows a creek. These waters, much to my bother and irritation, are a rubbish chute for many people living close-by. The sight makes you miserable. And... you might think public toilets are the worst place on earth but, believe me, the smell of this "water" makes you want to move into yesterday's bar's rest room.

Anyways, here's the story. Recently, in the service quarter, my housemate was talking to one of our guards when she noticed a door at the back. Asked where it led, the guard showed her it was an exit to the creek. Our private, first-row VIP exit for littering the creek bank. Look, that's where the trash goes!

Way to ruin my fun, thanks. Really, now, I am one of those? Littering all over the place? Yes, yes, yes. Okay then, our bad: we didn't inquire into where the trash was going in the first place, we just assumed our helpers were handing it over to the litter service (a service that costs about one Euro monthly, by the way). Sure, we opted out of peering up with the anti-environmentalists. Sure, quickly, we told our staff that, guys, ah... littering the creek is not okay. Littering the environment is not okay. Not on our watch, for better or worse, and even if everybody else does it, as they said (and there's already all that trash there, it wouldn't matter), we do it differently.

This city — here it says, the sixth filthiest place in the world — faces insidiuous environmental problems. With no proper infrastructure, no adequate waste water disposal, by far not enough sanitation facilities, come severe health risks and extreme pollution. And a lack of awareness for the havoc you're wreaking so big it will run a solid 4x4 into the trash creek if you put it in the car's passenger seat. There are more and more worthy attempts to get to terms with both the wide-spread ignorance and the trash (look e.g. here) yet that's not enough.

Of course, this includes myself. I can't entirely erase my impact on the local environment. Not just because, partly, it seems impossible or it's likely I'll miss out on some things such as the creek thing. As well because of my potential for self-delusion and my own personal, yeah, laziness-induced ignorance. My fuel consumption is sky-rocketing; I am almost always driving in stop-and-go traffic, and Addis' altitude takes its toll, too. There is no way of getting your hands on clean drinking water without buying it in one-way bottles. And everything you buy comes in an almost decadent layer of plastic. BUT. I don't want my trash to be part of the landscape! I don't want to pollute that creek! I carry my tiny pieces of chewing gum wrappers home because trash bins in the city are as frequent as in the wild open. I feel so ridiculously helpless about it that, in fact, when one of our hired drivers throws his trash out of the window, I make him go back and pick it up, even if he'll curse at me in tongues. When I say I disapprove of littering, they'd always nod the head, laugh, and say "OK, OK, no problem, it's OK". Only when I say, "no, really, I don't think it's OK", they'd realise I am serious and be very irritated. I know how this sounds. But what can I do? Call it my venture for meaningfulness. Which, then again, has me think — I don't want to be an imperialist of the mind. Or do I? Am I? There's a huge argument going on in my head between the imperialist and the relativist, similar to this one:

Inside of my head I've solved the issue and then rebuked my solution a hundred times over. Usually drunk on whiskey or wine, or gorged on hummus and bread ... I think something like, We'll just liberate them. We'll just show them the right way of doing things by being their example. Or, Fucking revolution, man! ... I feel the little imperialist inside of me begging to save the day by taking control and then forcefully willing people to [see the world] the same way that I do.

I don't know how to approach it without coming out as a patronising smug. But, honestly, I so wish the littering could end. There's so much to win with clean water and a clean environment. Living conditions could improve by an enormous extent if only everyone cared for his/her commitment to minimise the pollution. I'm agonna start with no longer taking plastic bags in the supermarkets and trying to be more cautios and attentive. And I'll look out for more opportunities. Call me when you got one.

[thingsicantletgo]

Michel Suleiman was the chief of the Lebanese army at the time of the clashes between Hezbollah militants and militants loyal to the majority in 2008 and, a move long expected, was elected President in June 2008.

The video — directed by Gigi Roccati, produced by Merass Sadek, the music composed by Zeid Hamdan — was done within twelve days, using a two-seater Smart, a reflector, a tripod, a telephone, a digital Canon, and eighty extras.

And now look! How beautiful it is.

[thingsicantletgo]

Kidding. It's about the South Sudan referendum. Global Voices has a good wrap-up collection on what is going on. And again, that there is a post arguing against Clooney's satellites for peace is not reason enough to put this up.

[thingsicantletgo]

Omar al-Bashir is not the complete and utter bogeyman some make him look like, Tisdall argues. I am not posting this for the sheer reason that Tisdall is moving in on the Clooney bunch with this article, I swear.