Documenting the Ethiopian Student

Movement:
An Exercise in Oral History

ግማሽ ጋሬ እንጀራ እጐሰጉስና

አንድ አቦሬ ውሀ እደሽ አደርግና
ሣር እመደቤ ላይ እጐዘጉዝና
ድሪቶ ደርቤ እፈነደስና
ተመስገን እላለሁ ኑሮ ተገኘና፡፡

edited by

Bahru Zewde
Documenting the Ethiopian Student
Movement:
An Exercise in Oral History
Documenting the Ethiopian Student
Movement:
An Exercise in Oral History

edited by

Bahru Zewde

Forum for Social Studies

© 2010 by the editor and Forum for Social Studies (FSS)

Reprinted in 2010

All rights reserved

Printed in Addis Ababa

Typesetting & Layout: Konjit Belete

ISBN: 978-99944-50-33-6

Forum for Social Studies (FSS)

P.O.Box 25864 code 1000
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.fssethiopia.org.et

Cover: an excerpt from the poem “Dehaw Yenageral” (“The Poor Man Speaks
Out!”) recited by Tamiru Feyissa at the 1961 College Day

FSS gratefully acknowledges the financial support of the Department for

International Development (DFID, UK), the Embassy of Denmark, the Embassy of
Ireland, and Norwegian Church Aid - Ethiopia which has made this publication
possible.
 Contents

Page

Acronyms ii
Preface iii
Introduction 1
I “Innocuous Days” 19
II The Radicalization Process 33
III Student Organizations 45
IV Demonstrations and Embassy Occupations 83
V The National Question 97
VI The Gender Question 117
VII The High School Factor 129
VIII From Student Union to Leftist Political Organization 141

Annexes
Annex 1 Retreat Program 155
Annex 2 Participants’ Profile 159
Annex 3 Recommended Guidelines 161
 Acronyms

AAU Addis Ababa University

AESM All Ethiopia Socialist Movement
COSEC Coordinating Secretariat (of the International Students Council)
EC Ethiopian Calendar
ELF Eritrean Liberation Front
ENLF Ethiopian National Liberation Front
EPDM Ethiopian People’s Democratic Movement
EPLF Eritrean Popular Liberation Forces
EPRP Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Party
EPRYL Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Youth League (the youth wing of
EPRP)
ESANA Ethiopian Students Association in North America
ESLCE Ethiopian School Leaving Certificate Examination
ESM Ethiopian Student Movement
ESUE Ethiopian Students Union in Europe
ESUNA Ethiopian Students Union in North America
GC Gregorian Calendar
HSIU Haile Sellassie I University (later renamed Addis Ababa
University)
ILS Institute of Language Studies
IUS International Union of Students
MCSU Main Campus Student Union
NUEUS National Union of Ethiopian University Students
TPLF Tigray People’s Liberation Front
UCAA University College of Addis Ababa (1950-1961)
UCU University College Union
USUAA University Students Union of Addis Ababa
WSLF Western Somalia Liberation Front
WWFES World-Wide Federation of Ethiopian Students
WWUES World-Wide Union of Ethiopian Students

ii
 Preface
What is presented in the following pages is a unique experience in oral history. It
is a selective record of four days of reflections by protagonists of the Ethiopian
student movement in those heady days of the 1960s and 1970s. It comprises
mostly of presentations by the resource persons. Unfortunately, it has not been
possible to include all the reactions to these presentations. That would have
caused even more delay of a project that is already behind schedule, as the
original transcripts would have had to be translated. The full Amharic transcript,
which is more than twice as long as what is presented here, has been deposited at
the Institute of Ethiopian Studies Library. But what is presented here does, I
think, give a sufficiently comprehensive picture of the ups and downs, the
achievements and shortcomings, of that movement. It is with some sense of
gratification that I note that almost all the questions that were posed at the
inception of the project have been answered to varying degrees of
exhaustiveness.
Far be it from me to say that this constitutes the full story. That full story
will have to be written not only on the basis of these reminiscences but also a
careful examination of and correlation with the massive literature, both primary
and secondary, that the subject has generated. That will be my next undertaking.
What has been attempted here is as faithful and dispassionate a record of the
activities of the protagonists as is humanly possible. Aside from the Introduction,
which sets the context, and occasional interpolations and footnotes in the interest
of clarity and factual accuracy, I have refrained from commenting on the
reminiscences. But I made sure that participants had another chance to make any
changes that they deemed necessary to their original submissions. Many took
advantage of that, some even coming with new written versions. Some, however,
did not have the time to make any revisions.
In conclusion, I wish to express my gratitude to the participants of this
fascinating experience. To consent to reflect on a period whose reverberations
are still being felt was an act of courage in the first place. To devote four full
days out of their generally busy schedule was a clear indication of the value that
they attached to the undertaking. I am also indebted to Hailu Berhane for
translating the Amharic transcript into English and to Heran Serekeberhan for
copyediting the text. Needless to say, my deepest expression of gratitude goes to
the Organisation for Social Science Research in Eastern and Southern Africa
(OSSREA), without whose financial support this project would not have been
realized, and to the Forum for Social Studies (FSS), which provided the
logistical support for the retreat as well as the funds for the publication.

Bahru Zewde
December 2009

iii
 Introduction

1. Intellectuals and the State

The place of intellectuals (in the broad sense of the educated elite) in society has
varied in place and time. The higher the level of industrial development, the less
influence they seem to exercise. Thus, while intellectuals may be sought as
advisors and members of think tanks in the so-called First World, they are rarely
seen exercising direct state power. The situation is different in the so-called
Third World, notably Africa. The educated elite has historically seemed destined
– by social ascription or self-arrogation – to play a central role in the exercise of
state power. In Africa alone, the first generation of post-independence rulers –
Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Léopold Sedar Senghor of Senegal, Julius Nyerere
of Tanzania – provides us with ample evidence to appreciate this reality.
In Ethiopia, too, intellectuals have played a role and exercised an
influence disproportionate to their size. This can be divided broadly into two
phases, with the Italian Occupation (1936-1941) forming an important watershed
between them. The pre-war intellectuals were preoccupied with a whole gamut
of concerns ranging from educational development to fiscal reform. They had an
essentially reformist agenda. Driven by a concern to save the regime from the
double threat of internal disintegration and external invasion, they urged what
could be characterized as defensive modernization. They pinned their hopes on
an enlightened despot (first Iyyasu, then Tafari) to bring about that
modernization. Some of them rose to become ministers in Haile Sellassie's pre-
war government. The Fascist Italian invasion and the subsequent occupation not
only terminated their careers but also - through its merciless policy of liquidation
of the educated elite - created a gap in intellectual activity in the immediate post-
Liberation years.
The second period of intellectual intervention could thus begin only in the
late 1950s. It revolved mainly around Ethiopian students (mostly at the tertiary
level at the initial stage), both at home and abroad. This eventually evolved into
what came to be known as the Ethiopian Student Movement. The nucleus of this
movement was the University College of Addis Ababa (founded in 1950), later
Haile Sellassie I University. The movement could be said to have gone through
three successive stages: self-awareness, reformism, revolutionary commitment.
There is general agreement that the year 1965, when students came out onto the
streets with the slogan of “Land to the Tiller”, marked the beginning of the third
stage.
 Bahru Zewde

It is this third stage that is the focal point of this study. For it constitutes
the crucial period that forms both the backdrop and the essence of the changes
that have come to affect fundamentally the Ethiopian state and society - changes
that are yet far from over. To cite only the major components of this reality:
• the militant student agitation, in both its internal and external
dimensions, was the single most important factor behind the demise of
the imperial regime;
• the radicalization of the Darg, including its fateful adoption of
Marxist-Leninist ideology, was induced by the ascendancy of the left
before and during the revolution;
• the leftist organizations, notably EPRP and Me’ison, were direct
outgrowths of the student movement;
• the TPLF, which is the dominant force behind the current political
dispensation, had its genesis on the fringes of that movement;
• its junior partner, ANDM (formerly EPDM), started as a movement
that broke away from the EPRP;
• the Eritrean liberation movement developed in constant interaction - at
both the ideological and organizational levels - with the student
movement and the leftist organizations that grew out of it;
• some of the major ethno-nationalist organizations, notably the OLF, in
part got not only their ideological inspiration but also their leadership
from the movement.
It is clear from the above that, if there is one single factor that explains the
direction Ethiopian history has taken in the last four decades or so, it is the role
of the intelligentsia. Without sounding too reductionist, one can trace to it many
of the major developments of that period: the overthrow of one of the oldest
monarchies in the world, the ultimately disastrous experiment in socialist
construction, the equally problematical experiment in ethnic federalism, the
ideologically couched movements for secession, the dogmatism and self-
righteousness with which political positions have been advanced and pushed,
and the attendant culture of exclusivism and intolerance.
To try and unravel the history of the intelligentsia is therefore to go more
than half way to understanding how Ethiopian history took the trajectory that it
took in the second half of the past century, and where Ethiopia finds itself today.
Most assessments of the Darg and post-Darg eras do not seem to be informed by
such an understanding. It is hoped that this project will generate a corpus of data
that will form the basis for well-grounded historical and political assessments of
the Ethiopian reality. To members of that generation, too, recording as
dispassionately as is humanly possible what they remember of those heady days

2
 Introduction

of student activism and leftist politics is one final service that they owe both to
that generation, and to the idealism that was its hallmark.

2. Studies of the Ethiopian Student Movement

In spite of the importance of the subject as outlined above, it has not received the
requisite amount of scholarly attention. In some ways, the first half of the
twentieth century has received much more attention than the second. This is
partly understandable in as much as the earlier story is more or less fait accompli
while the drama associated with the latter is still unfolding. Recently, Messay
Kebede has placed these early intellectuals within the context of modernity
(Messay 1999). A useful background to the discussions of what we have termed
the second phase is available in Bahru Zewde's assessment of their lives, ideas
and impact (Bahru 2002).
With regard to that phase, Randi Balsvik (2005, reprint) has done a
pioneering study of the student movement. Based on a comprehensive reading of
student publications and extensive interviews of some key actors, her work
constitutes an invaluable guide to determine the major contours of the movement
in its formative stage. Descriptive rather than analytical, her narrative has the
added drawback of ending when the saga assumes a more critical phase.
Some key participants of the second phase have also done great service to
both history and their cause giving their own account of events. Tesfaye
Mekonnen (1985 EC) started this tradition of leftist reminiscing. Marred by a
woefully ill-considered and ultimately unhelpful historical background as well as
by a heavy dosage of self-justification, it nonetheless deserves credit for
breaking the ice of silence. More thoughtful are the accounts of Kiflu Taddesse
(from EPRP) and Andargachew Assegid (from Me’ison). The former's two-
volume (three volumes in the Amharic version) history of EPRP (1993 and
1998), despite the unavoidable controversy it has provoked, still remains the
only extensive story of an organization that played such a crucial role in
Ethiopian politics of the 1970s. Its major weakness is in its account of activities
abroad and in the field, terrains with both of which the author was not directly
familiar. Andargachew's book (2000) is most useful in its account of the
formation and early years of Me’ison. It tends to be more defensive in tone in the
years of the organization's association with the Darg. In short, both accounts are
official histories, written by persons who still remain loyal to their former
organizations and are thus unable to attain critical distance.
More recently, Messay Kebede (2008) has produced a highly critical
analysis of the movement, emphasising its negative dimensions and tracing the
radicalism of the late 1960s and early 1970s to the blind adoption of the western
educational system and the cultural dislocation that this entailed. The objective

3
 Bahru Zewde

circumstances that bred that radicalism, to wit the repressive and exploitative
nature of the imperial regime, are assigned secondary significance.
There are as yet unfortunately no such comprehensive or critical accounts
for other multi-ethnic or ethno-nationalist organisations, such as the TPLF or the
OLF.
Nor is the full history of the Eritrean liberation movement, particularly
that of the EPLF, yet on record. Perhaps this is understandable, in as much as
these movements have yet to run their full course. The moment for historical
reflection has thus not yet arrived.

3. Objectives of the Project

This project set out with the aim bringing together former student leaders and
active participants in the student movement to reflect collectively on their
experiences and engage in a thorough and dispassionate discussion and analysis
of the Ethiopian student movement and the left that was its progeny. The
intention was not so much to write the story as to record it. Once a fairly
comprehensive and reasonably honest record of events and issues has been
established, the task of reconstructing the history would be that much easier.
Some of the more specific questions around which the discussion revolved were:

• when and how did the student movement assume a radical or

revolutionary position?
• what was the nature of the interaction between the student movement at
home and abroad?
• when and how did the student movement evolve into political
organization(s)?
• what was the genesis and course of the “national question” in the
movement and what was the nature of the debate that it provoked?
• what was the nature of the relationship of the students and the left with
nationalist and ethno-nationalist organizations?
• when and how did the split that was to have such fateful consequences
emerge within the movement in general and the left in particular?

4. Oral History: Methodological Issues

While one can hardly contend that the heat and passion generated by the
Ethiopian Student Movement has completely died down, it seems nonetheless
evident that we are better positioned now more than ever before to write its
history. Indeed, it has become a matter of some urgency to try to do that.
Already, many of the protagonists have either perished in the course of the

4
 Introduction

struggles of the 1970s or passed away thereafter under less violent

circumstances. Their absence is bound to create a serious gap in the
historiography of the movement. To wait any longer would mean losing yet
again some vital informants.
There is another compelling reason to embark on this project now. The
documentary basis of that history can only be expected to shrink rather than
expand. In the absence as yet of a properly organized National Archives, the
researcher is dependent on whatever documents are available in such collections
as that of the Institute of Ethiopia Studies Library at Addis Ababa University as
well as in private collections of participants of that movement. While the latter
are clearly subject to the vagaries of the individual owners’ lives and fortunes,
not even the IES collection is immune from loss or damage with the passage of
time. One can only have praise for the dedication and jealousy with which
successive IES library staff and leaders have guarded its precious collection.
Unfortunately, there have been in recent times some disturbing cases of
disappearances of previously consulted documents.
Until the 1960s, historical writing in Africa was almost inextricably linked
with written sources. There was even a tacit assumption that, where there are no
written sources, there is no history. It is such assumptions that had moved a
famous Oxford don to conclude with smug confidence that, until the coming of
the literate European colonial rulers, Africa had no history worthy of the name
(Bahru 2000). Indeed, until the second half of the twentieth century, with only a
few exceptions, African history was the history of foreigners – mostly Europeans
– in Africa.
It was through what amounted to a methodological revolution that African
history began to be recast in the 1960s. This revolution came about largely
through the recognition of the great value of oral sources and ancillary
disciplines (such as archaeology and historical linguistics) to reconstruct African
history. As it happened, the new historiography developed almost
simultaneously on both sides of the Atlantic. The University of Wisconsin
(Madison) and the School of Oriental & African Studies (London) became the
two major centres for the new Africa-centred historiography. These centres
produced the first generation of modern African historians, who in turn were to
train successive generations of historians in the second half of the past century:
among them K.O. Dike and Jacob Ajayi in Nigeria, Adu Boahen in Ghana,
Bethwell Ogot in Kenya, Taddesse Tamrat and Merid Wolde Aregay in Ethiopia.
Two of the leaders of those schools, Jan Vansina and Roland Oliver, have
recently shared their exciting experiences in their memoirs (Oliver 1997;
Vansina 1994).
The pioneer and great practitioner of oral history in this context was the
Madison don, Jan Vansina. He distilled his wide experience in the tapping of

5
 Bahru Zewde

oral tradition for the reconstruction of the history of central Africa into two
major works: Oral Tradition: A Study in Historical Methodology (1965); and
Oral Tradition as History (1985). These studies have made clear that using oral
sources is not simply a matter of recording testimonies but involves a great deal
of sifting and verification. Above all, it is difficult to reconstruct the past on the
basis of solitary testimonies. Hence the need to gather as many testimonies as
possible before reaching any definite conclusions is emphasized.
A related methodological issue among historians using oral sources has to
do with the modality of recording testimonies, more specifically the relative
advantage/drawback of group vs. individual interviews. In other words, would it
better to interview persons who have witnessed/experienced an event/process
individually or together? The collective interview has the merit of on-the-spot
cross-checking of evidence, as one informant would refresh or contradict the
memory of the other, enabling the historian to emerge with a reasonable degree
of consensus. On the other hand, group interviews have the drawback of
intimidating the more timid or cautious informants and allowing the more
outspoken ones to dominate. In general, too, informants in a group interview are
known to be less voluble and more “proper” in their rendering of the events they
had witnessed. In that sense, the “consensus” might actually have been achieved
at the expense of a good deal of vital information that is deemed inappropriate or
incommodious.
Ultimately, it is a matter of “and” rather than “either/or”, for the two
modes of gathering oral testimony have to be combined. In the present exercise,
it is indeed unavoidable that individual interviews of participants and activists of
the Ethiopian Student Movement are to be conducted; some have already been
done and others are planned. Yet, the collective mode has been chosen as the
main one for gathering the essential oral data for a number of reasons. To start
with, it has the merit outlined above of on-the-spot cross-checking of
reminiscences. As the four-day recollection exercise unfolded, it became evident
that some have much more vivid recollection of events than others. In a number
of instances, participants actually were seen soliciting support in recollecting
events. The informal discussions during breaks and in the evenings – which were
often more enlightening though, sadly, unrecorded – also helped to kindle a lot
of memories. Secondly, the collective experience instilled in participants a
particularly keen sense of historical responsibility – of an act of “communion” if
you will – to record events as faithfully and as honestly as possible.
At the same time, however, there were instances of reticence, particularly
when it came to citing names or voicing recollections deemed indecorous or
compromising. One sometimes noticed participants changing thoughts mid-
sentence when they felt such reservations. It is conceivable that they would have
felt less inhibited had they been responding to individual interviews. But, in the

6
 Introduction

end, I feel that the advantages of the collective reminiscing far outweigh the
disadvantages. It is difficult to imagine one gathering the massive data that was
generated in those four days alone through months of individual interviewing.
Of course, this is not the first time that historians have resorted to
interviewing leaders and active participants of the ESM. The Norwegian
historian, Randi Balsvick, not only pioneered the study of the movement but also
the methodology of buttressing the massive written data with oral interviews. As
can be seen from the annex to her book, she was able to interview 110 student
activists. Given the fact that the book was being written during the imperial
regime, which was watching these activists very closely when it was not
persecuting and harassing them, one can appreciate the difficult circumstances
under which the interviewing was conducted. No wonder, then, that the author
was forced to give her informants numerical codes rather than listing them by
name.
Then, in the summer of 1992, just over a year after the fall of the Darg and
the assumption of power by the EPRDF, a unique gathering of former student
activists took place at Hotel Russell, a posh hotel in central London. The meeting
was organized by Dr. Yacob Haile Mariam, a former president of the National
Union of Ethiopian University Students or NUEUS (1963/64 Academic Year)
and sponsored by the German Friedrich Ebert Foundation. While the 2005
retreat, largely by reason of the acrimony generated by the May election, was
forced to exclude those actively engaged in partisan politics, be it in the
government or the opposition, the 1992 meeting brought together those who
were in the new government and out of it. Unfortunately, no documentation has
come out of that memorable meeting. Apparently, the organizers were more
interested in trying to garner positive lessons that could help in charting the
country’s political future than in documenting the ESM as such.

5. The Retreat
It is evident from the above discussion that the 2005 undertaking had its own
unique features. Unlike in the case of Balsvick, the modality of interviewing that
had been preferred was collective rather than individual. Unlike the 1992
gathering, the 2005 retreat was intended not just as an informal exchange of
experiences and views, but as a careful and conscientious documentation of the
past. On both counts, it was more challenging and required careful preparation.
Participants were identified and the program prepared, background material to
stimulate discussions was assembled and guidelines to help steer deliberations
were drafted. For financial reasons, the participants’ pool had to be restricted to
those residing in the country. However, participants who were resident abroad
but who happened to be in Ethiopia at the time could participate.

7
 Bahru Zewde

Thus, Alem Habtu, a former leader of ESUNA currently living in the

United States, was able to take part in the deliberations, managing to squeeze in
the last few days of his vacation here. Bekele Taddesse, Vice-Chairperson of the
Restoration Committee that tried in vain to reverse the ascendancy of USUAA,
also flew in from California for the event. Even within the domestic pool, careful
balance had to be struck between activists at home and abroad, as well as
between those who were active within the student union in Europe (ESUE) and
that of North America (ESUNA). While the initial selection was carefully made
along those lines, unwillingness or inability of some participants to come to the
retreat might have had a negative effect on the overall balance.
Regrettably, the only known member of the “Crocodiles” group, which
was instrumental in the radicalization of the student movement in the mid-1960s,
failed to show up after initially agreeing to do so. Another person who was
believed to be a member of the group and had held an executive position in the
student council as well was identified too late for inclusion. Remedial measures
have been and will be taken to rectify such imbalances. Thus, among the persons
interviewed after the retreat are Amanuel Gebre Iyesus, one of the seven students
who hijacked the first plane in 1969 (he is one of the two still alive), and Dr.
Elehu Feleke, leader of ESUE in the 1960s. Contact was established with Gebru
Gebrewold, the leader of the “Crocodiles” during a visit to Los Angeles in April
2006. Because he was not feeling very well at the time, it was agreed that he
send his answers in writing to the questions that I would address to him.
The preparation of the program of the retreat was another matter that
required careful planning. Initially, the retreat was envisaged as a six-day affair.
But it soon became evident that it would be difficult to expect participants to
devote so much time from their regular responsibilities. So, it had to be reduced
to four days, astride the weekend. Sustaining the interest of the participants even
for this length of time was expected to be quite a challenge. As it turned out, the
deliberations grew increasingly more interesting as the days progressed so that
few regretted the amount of time devoted; those who had to leave early for
unavoidable reasons did so with great reluctance. It is indeed a measure of the
important place that the experience of the student movement still occupies in the
minds of the participants that people who currently have manifold commitments
and responsibilities could devote so much time to the deliberations. (See Annex
3 for the profile of participants).
The program combined the chronological and the thematic (see Annex 1).
It started with the “innocuous” (to borrow a term from one of the resource
persons) beginnings of the early UCAA days and ended with the transmutation
of the student unions into the leftist political organizations that become so
prominent in the mid-1970s, notably the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Party
(EPRP) and the All Ethiopia Socialist Movement (AESM or Me’ison). In

8
 Introduction

between were the following issues: the radicalization process (in the mid-1960s),
organizational matters (at home and abroad), major demonstrations and embassy
occupations, the question of nationalities, gender and the woman question, and
the high school factor. As it turned out, the two areas about which not much was
known earlier proved to be among the most fascinating: these were the “early
beginnings” (late 1950s and early 1960s) and “the high school factor”.
The program had the merit of giving structure and direction to the
deliberation. But, to refresh the memories of participants on events that took
place some three to four decades back, it was necessary to provide some
background material. Such an exercise also poses methodological problems. Oral
informants are normally expected to recite from memory. In that sense, non-
literate informants, who record faithfully what they recollect, are generally
preferred to literate informants, whose information might be influenced by their
subsequent readings. Thus the background material that was provided had
inherent risks. But, in the end, it proved a calculated risk. While participants
alluded to some of the documents in the folder, they did not exhibit undue
reliance on them.
The compilation of the background material did not prove too difficult.
My own previous research had helped me to uncover a good deal of pertinent
data. The challenge rather was one of judicious selection. The fairly thick folder
was divided into six categories, conforming more or less to the program: early
beginnings, the radicalization process, organizational matters, major
demonstrations, the question of nationalities and gender and the woman
question. Missing were data on “the high school factor” and embryonic political
organizations. Even within the six categories cited above, the amount of
documentation provided indicated the relative abundance or scarcity of data.
Thus, more documents were provided on “major demonstrations” and “the
question of nationalities” than on any of the other four. The “Crocodiles” proved
as elusive as their name: the only written data that could be produced was a
hilarious announcement of their formation that appeared in the student
newspaper, News and Views, on 14 December 1964.
A final aspect of the “management” of the retreat was the formulation of
guidelines to help steer the deliberations (see Annex 2). The guidelines were
necessary to prevent as much as possible a resurgence of the acrimonious
divisions that bedevilled the student movement in the early 1970s and were to
have such lethal consequences as the Ethiopian Revolution unfolded. As it is,
memory is so often a “contested terrain”. If one were to add retrospective
analyses and rationalizations, the ground would become a veritable minefield.
To avoid such an eventuality, participants were enjoined as much as possible to
narrate rather than to analyze, to “understand” rather than “to celebrate or

9
 Bahru Zewde

castigate”. The occasion was to be one of looking back “critically and

dispassionately, yet cheerfully”.
It was not so easy to enforce such a strict regime among a group of people
who have been known to have strong views on many of the issues that were
being recounted. The first exchanges after my welcoming and introductory
speech revolved precisely on this issue of narration versus analysis. More than
one participant expressed strong reservations about being constricted to a mere
narrative of events. But, with reinforcements from the two historians present and
some of the participants, I stood my ground. The only concession that was made
was the unavoidable provision of “context” for the narrative. Although, in the
course of the proceedings, there were occasional digressions into analyses and
some jabs at the constrictive regime, participants more or less adhered to it. In
retrospect, one can say that the overall success of the program owed a good deal
to the formulation and enforcement of those guidelines.

6. The Outcome
All the participants returned from the retreat with a high sense of satisfaction,
both at partaking in such a collective act of recollection and in recording to the
best of their knowledge events that had such a great impact on their lives. There
was even a sense of regret that the reflections had come to an end, as they had to.
Back in Addis, I had to deal with two issues. The first was the complaints of
those who were not included in the exercise. I had to explain as best as I could
the financial and logistical constraints that forced me to limit the number of
participants. Even if I had the means, inviting all those who could have been
invited would have been tantamount to holding a General Assembly of former
student activists.
Much more serious was the formidable challenge of transcribing and
editing the eighteen ninety-minute cassettes that had ensued from the four-day
reflections. Considerable financial investment had been made in the contracting
of a state-of-the-art sound recording system. As a result, the recording proceeded
without a hitch. Time consuming as it was, transcribing the tapes proved
relatively straightforward in comparison to the Herculean task of editing the
transcripts. Enchanting as the recollections were when one heard them, they
proved far from perfect in script. Recollections often lacked coherence and
lucidity. Sentences were rarely completed and there were many of the customary
stop-gap phrases (“enten” in Amharic). Although the chosen medium was
Amharic, English was used to an astonishingly high degree, in some instances
amounting to about half of the delivery.
All these lapses and incongruities had to be rectified before the text could
be presented as a respectable record of a generation. The editing was done in two
stages: a first round of editing of the transcript and then verification by listening

10
 Introduction

to all the eighteen tapes. While the first exercise was found to be time-
consuming the second proved very useful not only for accuracy but also to figure
out words and phrases that had eluded the transcribers as well as to make a sense
of the punctuation.
To summarize the major findings of the retreat would scarcely do justice
to the wealth of data gathered and the diversity of views expressed. But, at the
risk of capriciousness, one can try to give some of the highlights. As indicated
above, the recollection began with what the major resource person of that era,
Ato Asfaw Damte, called “innocuous days” (yagar zaman in Amharic), the years
in the late 1950s when students were hardly in a combative mode. As expected,
the major focus of the presentation was the role of African scholarship students
in radicalizing the UCAA students. The Kenyan Omogi Caleb and the Nigerian
Denis Ejindu were two of the stars in this saga. The former in particular, who
became Secretary General of the UCAA Student Council and started a radical
newspaper known as Campus Star, was vividly portrayed in the reminiscences.
To the consternation of the Jesuit president of the College, Dr. Matt, the very
first issue of that paper carried a portrait of Karl Marx. The second issue even
more audaciously took the occasion of the election of Pope John XXIII to
remind the Catholic administrators of the College of the blessing that Pope Pius
XI had given to Mussolini’s invasion of Ethiopia in 1935. The target of these
radicalizing scholarship students was thus not so much the Ethiopian
Government as the UCAA Jesuit administration that was exercising such an
authoritarian sway over campus life.
The presence of the scholarship students not only contributed to a more
radical perception on the home front but also made Ethiopian students appreciate
their African identity. Thus the visit of Kwame Nkrumah in 1958 was a great
eye-opener. The first show of solidarity with the plight of Africans under the
yoke of colonial rule came in 1958/59, when students heard reports of the
beating to death of prisoners in a jail in Nyasaland (as Malawi was then known).
The students came out onto the College football field for a one-minute prayer for
the victims. Although the idea was mooted, they stopped short of marching out
onto the streets. This had to wait until the abortive coup d’etat in 1960, when the
students came out in a rather furtive show of support of the coup. Patrice
Lumumba’s assassination in 1961 was another rallying event, when UCAA
students commemorated it with five minutes of silence.
The Jesuits were not entirely oblivious to the “sinister” influence that the
African scholarship students were exerting on their Ethiopian colleagues. They
tried to negate that influence by sowing discord and suspicion between the two
groups. They even went further and reported on the activities of both the
scholarship students and their Ethiopian sympathizers with a view to having
them sanctioned for subversive activities. One casualty of such spying activity

11
 Bahru Zewde

was a Ghanaian student by the name of Henry Botchway, who was dismissed on
the grounds that he was frequenting the Soviet Permanent Exhibition Centre (as
the Soviet Library was known) and the Soviet Embassy.
A second major testimony underscored the crucial importance of the year
1962 for the process of radicalization of the student movement. The crisis that
culminated with the abolition of the boarding system revolved around the
College Day, which had become a major landmark in the academic calendar by
the early 1960s. It started apparently over a dispute over “protocol” between the
Student Council and the Palace, but concealed a more fundamental rift between
the Emperor and the students. Until 1961, the Emperor had attended College
Day, even giving prizes to the three poems selected for recital on that day. But,
in 1961, the winning poem by Tamru Feyissa, entitled “Dehaw Yenagaral”
(“The Poor Man Speaks”), reciting in graphic fashion the miserable life of an
average Ethiopian, was considered as a lese majesté. To avoid a repeat of such
an embarrassment, the Student Council leadership was asked to allow a preview
by the Palace of the three winning poems of 1962 before they were read in front
of the Emperor.
What then followed was a war of nerves between palace and campus,
narrated in very vivid fashion by Ato Eyesuswork Zafu, then Vice-President of
the Student Council. Inevitably, the students (or more strictly the Student
Council) refused to yield to what amounted to censorship by the palace. The
Emperor retaliated by refusing to grace College Day with his presence, as was
his wont. Even worse measures were to follow, including the suspension of the
poets who read their works on that day and the abolition of the boarding system.
Student appeals for the rescinding of the boarding ban led to a dramatic
exchange of words between the Emperor and his entourage on the one hand, and
the student leaders who had gone to the Palace with their petition on the other.
The final saga in this tense period of confrontation revolved around the
graduation of the Student Council Vice-President, who was distinguished not
only by his leadership role but also by his outstanding academic record. While
his graduation could not be stopped, the Palace did not relish the prospect of him
receiving his diploma from the Emperor, whom he was believed to have
slighted. But, to avert the uproar that was brewing when students realized that
their leader was not in the academic procession, he was persuaded to go through
the motion of walking up to the podium and bowing to the Emperor, without
actually being awarded the diploma!
A new piece of information that emerged at the conclusion of this
particular presentation was the role of University alumni in fostering political
awareness. This was in fact reinforced in the course of the presentation of the
first President of the National Union of Ethiopian University Students (NUEUS),
Mulugeta Bezabeh. In effect, arising from the desire of the activist elements to

12
 Introduction

continue their political engagement after graduation, a kind of study group or

reading club came to be set up in the vicinity of the University. The group,
which used to meet three to four times a week, included among others some of
the student leaders – such as Haile Fida – who were to exert such a big influence
on the student movement as well as subsequent leftist politics.
Thirdly, a number of participants active in the student movement abroad,
particularly those in North America, gave useful accounts of their ideological
formation. While, ultimately and almost invariably, they all became Marxists,
the path they traversed to reach that stage was far from linear. It started with the
startling realization of their country’s backwardness vis-à-vis the host country –
much in the same vein as the intellectuals discussed at length in my Pioneers. In
this respect, even the experience of “Kleenex”, the tissue that was disposed of in
such liberal quantities, could be startling.1 Then, it was reinforced by the
international solidarity with Vietnam and the fascination with Cuba. The visit of
the veteran student leader, Hagos Gebreyesus, to the hallowed Caribbean island
gave him added awe and aura, even if he was reportedly not particularly
communicative about his experiences. That notwithstanding, making Castro-like
long speeches was to be a distinctive feature of Ethiopian student meetings. On
the home front as well, Vietnam and Cuba were to inspire one of the most
popular chants of the late 1960s: ó• }cT^' ó• }cT^& ”Å J ˆ T>”'
”Å Š Ñ<y?^ (Guerilla, rise to arms! Guerilla, rise to arms! Following the
example set by Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara).
In the North American case, social awareness also grew in constant
interaction with the African-American Civil Rights Movement. This is
particularly interesting as the latter day student radicals were initially shocked to
discover that, in the eyes of the American whites, they were every bit as “nigger”
as the African-American residents. In Europe, the influence of veteran activists
in the student movement could be decisive, as was the case of Dr. Kebbede
Mengesha and Dr. Elehu Feleke with the group of students in Lund (Sweden),
who eventually assumed leadership of the Ethiopian Students Union in Europe
(ESUE). The proceedings of the retreat were greatly enlivened by portrayals of
Bay Area radicals led by Senay Lekké, who led a spartan life in preparation for
the inevitable march to liberate Ethiopia!
Related to this was the process of radicalization, which took a dramatic
turn in the mid-1960s. Both at home and abroad, the years 1964-1965 marked a

1
I could not help but draw parallel with my own experience when I visited the United States –
curiously enough for the first time – in 1990. Coming as I did from a country plagued by all
sorts of scarcity – including toilet paper (let alone disposable “Kleenex”), I was flabbergasted by
the amount of napkins that consumers loaded on to their trays in restaurants and cafés; I literally
followed the napkins wistfully with my eyes as most of them were dumped into trash bins after
customers had finished their meals or drinks.

13
 Bahru Zewde

turning point. As the movement abroad was liberating itself from the royal
patronage that had been its hallmark, as was evidenced by the 12th Congress of
the Ethiopian Students Association in North America (or ESANA, as ESUNA
was then known) in August 1964, the movement inside the country took a
revolutionary turn with the “Land to the Tiller” demonstration of February 1965.
As it emerged from one particular testimony, instrumental in the planning and
execution of that epoch-making demonstration was the “Crocodiles” group. No
sooner had the “Crocodiles” proclaimed their existence in a cryptically worded
message in the student paper, News and Views, than they successfully staged a
coup that toppled the incumbent student leadership. Also, it was one of their
members who brought the idea of demonstrating under the slogan of “Land to
the Tiller” in early 1965. The emergence of a counter-group with the ambitious
name of “Nacet” could scarcely check the influence of the Crocodiles.2
Unfortunately, my efforts to entice the only Crocodile survivor known to take
part in the retreat proved unsuccessful. Subsequent efforts to rectify this gap by
interviewing the leader of the group currently resident in the United States
turned out to be equally unfruitful.
The organizational climax of the radicalization process, i.e. the formation
of the University Students Union of Addis Ababa (USUAA), as well as the futile
efforts to reverse the process through the Restoration Committee, was narrated
with fascinating detail – the former by its first Secretary-General, Hailu Ayele,
and the latter by the Chairman and Vice-Chairman of the Committee alluded to
earlier. As the academic year 1965/66 began, the major contentious issue,
particularly at the main campus of the University at Seddest Kilo, was that of a
campus-wide union versus faculty-based associations. No sooner had the Main
Campus Student Union (MCSU) established its ascendancy than it was
challenged by the call, no doubt inspired by the Crocodiles, for the establishment
of a city-wide union, encompassing all the campuses of Addis Ababa. This was
what eventually evolved into the University Students Union of Addis Ababa
(USUAA). Ironically, this initiative had the support of the University
Administration, which preferred to deal with one city-wide union than with
various campus unions or associations. But the student opposition to USUAA –
both on ideological and organization grounds – was so strong that the matter had
to be put to a referendum. It is the strong contention of the opponents of
USUAA, i.e. those that eventually coalesced into the Restoration Committee,
that USUAA won the day by only half a vote.3

2
The name “Nacet” was inspired by a popular ad of the blade cutting a crocodile in half. The
counter group’s efforts to check the Crocodiles proved as futile just as the ad was implausible!
3
As a matter of fact it was by one-third of a vote: University Reporter, Vol. I, No. 1 (31.1.67).
The one-third vote anomaly arose from the fact that freshmen, whose numerical mass was as
alarming as their political wisdom was very much suspect, were trusted with only one-third of a

14
 Introduction

The birth of USUAA had an immediate and palpable effect on the

radicalization process. Nothing illustrated this more dramatically than the
organization and outcome of the 6th Congress of the normally moribund
NUEUS. The vehement opposition of the pro-American Alemaya College
student leadership notwithstanding, the stamp of USUAA was clearly evident in
the resolutions that were adopted at the conclusion of the Congress. Interestingly
enough, this turned out to be the first time that the word “imperialism” was used
to designate the external enemy of Ethiopia.
As many of the participants from the home front had passed through the
University system in those years (1966-70), the organizational struggle, as well
as the almost ritual annual demonstrations, got sufficient coverage, the veracity
of the recollections being established through the process of on-the-spot counter-
checking referred to above. While the epoch-making “Land to the Tiller”
demonstration passed off with little incident, the 1966 demonstration against the
“Shola Concentration Camp” produced what is remembered in student folklore
as the “Battle of Ras Makonnen Bridge”. Ethiopian students abroad echoed the
struggle at home with demonstrations of their own and occupations of Ethiopian
embassies. Perhaps the most hilarious recollection was that relating to the
overzealous New York militants who contemplated a march from New York to
Washington DC. They had to abandon their audacious venture when a more
experienced compatriot informed them that, to execute their plan, they had to get
permits from the five states that are found between the two cities and, since they
could not march on the inter-state highway, they faced the risk of being arrested
for trespassing if they use the state highways.
Given its central significance at the time and its continued relevance to the
contemporary Ethiopian political scene, the national question naturally attracted
considerable attention. The famous tracts of Walelign Mekonnen (1969) and
Tilahun Takele (1971), as well as the pertinent resolutions of the 19th Congress
of ESUNA and the 11th Congress of ESUE were an important component of the
literature distributed in advance. There were two important new elements that
emerged in the course of the deliberations. The first was an account of the
genesis of Walelign’s thesis in the course of his detention following the
nationwide student protests of spring 1968. The narrative was given by Abdul
Ahmed, one of the inmates at Alam Baqagn (at the Central Prison in Addis
Ababa), where Walelign and the other detainees came to experience first-hand
the grievances and frustrations of ethno-nationalist leaders who had become
tenured guests of that prison.

vote. When I presented a report of the retreat at the 16th International Conference of Ethiopian
Studies at Trondheim (Norway) in early July 2007, one of the opponents of USUAA at the time,
recalled that the President of MCSU, Eshetu Chole, consoled his supporters by saying: “it is
better to lose than to win by half a vote”!

15
 Bahru Zewde

The second refreshing aspect of the retreat was personal reflections on the
nature of the debate on the national question that took place at the two historic
congresses of the summer of 1971: the 11th ESUE Congress in Berlin and the
19th ESUNA Congress in Los Angeles. The debates at those congresses were
preceded by years of intensive study of the national question in chapter and sub-
chapter study groups. So much so that members of the Lund sub-chapter in
Sweden used to remark jokingly that they had become “redolent of nations and
nationalities”. As it turned out, it was only at the Berlin Congress that there was
a proper debate to speak of, albeit largely confined to the two protagonists of the
opposing camps, Andreas Eshete and Berhane Meskel Redda. The upshot of the
Berlin Congress was the adoption of the formula that has been the distinctive
mark of the Ethiopian Left over decades and that finally got enshrined in the
1994 Ethiopian Constitution: “the right of nations to self-determination up to and
including secession”. The LA Congress got bogged down on procedural issues.
It ultimately ended in the walkout of the ESUNA leadership and the split of the
organization into “the old ESUNA” and “the new ESUNA”.
Finally, the retreat shed a new light on the split in the student movement
that eventually translated itself into the bloody feuds of EPRP and Me’ison. As it
turned out, the tension and friction that have been evident in the early 1970s
came to a head at a meeting in Berlin in April 1973. That meeting brought
together the leaderships of the two trends that eventually surfaced as EPRP and
Me’ison. On the surface, the divergence arose over the nature and role of the re-
constituted World Wide Union of Ethiopian Students, which was restructured as
the World Wide Federation of Ethiopian Students. In actual fact, the formal
debate over clauses and phrases concealed a crucial struggle between the two
budding leftist political organizations to control the powerful student movement.
Nothing illustrated this fact more dramatically than the mutual recriminations (as
it subsequently transpired) that the two leaders of the organizations, Berhane
Meskel Redda and Haile Fida, were seen to be exchanging on the sidelines of the
meeting. Equally poignant was the testimony of a former high school activist,
who described his confusion and that of his colleagues when they suddenly
discovered that their most cherished friend was now deemed to be the enemy.
The rest, as we all know, is history.
At the end of the retreat, some participants felt whether it was not
incumbent on those gathered to address the issue of what the country has
endured as a result of the fateful intervention of students in national politics.
Some even went so far as to say that those who have survived that turbulent
chapter of Ethiopian history owe the nation an apology for what they have made
it suffer, a point of view that was as vehemently rejected by others. While such
an undertaking is beyond the scope of this specific project, it nonetheless
remains a fact that, ultimately, some of the lessons of the student movement for

16
 Introduction

contemporary Ethiopian reality need to be drawn. Or, in the words of one of the
participants, some form of “closure” was essential “to usher in a collective quest
for a new vision of Ethiopia’s future”. That, indeed remains, the challenge of the
future.

17
 Bahru Zewde

REFERENCES

Andargachew Assegid. 2000. Ba’Acher Yatqacha Rajem Guzo. Ma’ison

BaItyopya Hezboch Tegel West. Addis Ababa.
Bahru Zewde. 2000. “African Historiography: Past, Present and Future,” Afrika
Zamani, Nos. 7 & 8.
____. 2001. A History of Modern Ethiopia 1855-1991. Oxford, Athens & Addis
Ababa: James Currey, Ohio University Press and Addis Ababa University
Press.
____.2008. “The Intellectual and the State in Twentieth Century Ethiopia,” in
Society, State and History: Selected Essays. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa
University Press.
____.2002. Pioneers of Change in Ethiopia: The Reformist Intellectuals of the
Early Twentieth Century. Oxford: James Currey.
____.1968. “Some Thoughts on Student Movements: With Special Reference to
Ethiopia,” Journal of the Political Science Association, Vol. 3, No. 1
(April).
Balsvick, Randi Rønning. 2005. Haile Sellassie’s Students: The Intellectual and
Social Background to Revolution, 1952-1974. Addis Ababa: Addis Ababa
University Press.
Kiflu Tadesse. 1993. The Generation. The History of the Ethiopian People’s
Revolutionary Party. Part I. From the Early Beginnings to 1975. Silver
Spring: Independent Publishers.
____.1998. The Generation. The History of the Ethiopian People’s
Revolutionary Party. Part II. Ethiopia: Transformation and Conflict.
Lanham: University Press of America.
Messay Kebede. 2008. Radicalism and Cultural Dislocation in Ethiopia, 1960-
1974. Rochester: University of Rochester Press.
_____.1999. Survival and Modernization Ethiopia's Enigmatic Present: A
Philosophical Discourse. Lawrenceville: The Red Sea Press.
Oliver, Roland. 1997. In the Realms of Gold. Pioneering in African History.
Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Tesfaye Mekonnen. 1985 EC. Yedras LaBalatariku. Addis Ababa: Brana
Electro.
Vansina, Jan. 1994. Living with Africa. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.
Vansina, Jan. 1965. Oral Tradition: A Study in Historical Methodology. London:
Routledge & Kegan Paul.
____.1985. Oral Tradition as History. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press.

18
 Chapter I
“The Innocuous Days”

Asfaw Damte

In this ‘era of student innocence’, certain phenomena which were later to serve
as springboards for the future student movement were accidentally emerging.
The first such springboard manifested itself when Emperor Haile Sellassie
attended the meeting of the eight independent African countries in Accra
(Ghana) in 1950 EC.4 Fifty students, selected annually from all over Africa, were
awarded a scholarship to study in Ethiopia for four consecutive years, bringing
the total number to 200.
Accordingly, a certain number of the first batch joined University College
of Addis Ababa in 1951 EC. At the time, I had run for the post of Secretary-
General of the Student Council and won the election. Of the newcomers, I
became particularly close to two Kenyans, Robert Ouko5 and Omogi Caleb, and
a Nigerian, Dennis Ejindu.
The College Administration did everything in its power to discourage
close relationship between scholarship students and Ethiopian students. In an
effort to estrange the former from the latter, the Administration went so far as to
encourage scholarship students to form their own clubs with scholarship students
in other colleges.
Their malevolent propaganda included portraying Ethiopian students as
loathing other African students, of being inordinately proud of their long
historical heritage and of referring to other African students as “niggers”. A UN
scholarship student from Tanganyika by the name of Shebani Shimbo Majonga
was instrumental in perpetuating this campaign. He had studied Amharic and
had a modest understanding of it.
I was apprised of this matter, and particularly of the charge pertaining to
the reference of scholarship students as “niggers”, by a reproachful Omogi
Caleb. I did not attempt to refute this last accusation. In fact I pointed out to him
that such appellations were common even among Ethiopian family members,
where the more “light-skinned” individuals were “accused” of being “pale-

4
A reference to the Summit of African Independent States held in Accra in 1958. EC = Ethiopian
calendar. The Ethiopian calendar falls 7 or 8 years behind the Gregorian (September-December
and January-August, respectively).
5
He subsequently rose to the post of Foreign Minister of Kenya, until he was assassinated in
1990.
 Bahru Zewde

faced”. I assured him that this was a far cry from the venomous usage in other
countries.
The Jesuits6 harboured the fear that these scholarship students, who were
products of the continent’s various liberation movements, not only had no
qualms about speaking their minds or doing what they wished but also enjoyed
preferential treatment at the highest level. They would thus induce the innocent
Ethiopian students to follow in their wicked footsteps!
The Jesuits, who considered the scholarship students protégés of the
Emperor (after all, they were wined and dined at the homes of aristocrats and
high officials during short breaks and on holidays), did not restrict their efforts to
alienating them from Ethiopian students. They diligently spied on Ethiopian
students and reported them to the Security Department with a view to having
those they considered ringleaders dismissed, thereby winning the government’s
approval in the bargain. I recall that they succeeded in getting a Ghanaian
student, Henry Botchway, dismissed on the grounds that he was a frequent
visitor to the Soviet Permanent Exhibition Center7 and the Soviet Embassy (it is
probable that additional charges were leveled at him).
As it turned out, the interaction of such incidents inevitably produced the
very result the Jesuits were afraid of. The scheme they had devised “to make
scholarship students feel special” had the opposite effect. Thus Omogi Caleb
started issuing a two or three-page flyer called Campus Star, a copy of which
was posted every week on the bulletin board.
The very first issue, carrying an article on Karl Marx as well as his
picture, was placed on the bulletin board by Omogi. By sheer coincidence, the
Emperor came for a visit at dinner time followed by the President of the college,
Dr. Matt. No sooner had the latter glimpsed the picture of Marx than he ripped it
and rolled it into a ball. Then, with his hands behind his back, he followed the
Emperor. His face was flushed. I do not recall whether he took the crumpled
piece of paper with him or threw it away.
The next issue carried the picture of the Pope-elect (this was sometime in
October of that year) John XIII, a reputedly popular pontiff. The picture carried
the caption: “We hope that Pope John XIII will not stab Africa in the back in the
same way as Pius XI stabbed Ethiopia (an allusion to the pope’s giving his
blessing to the Fascist forces invading Ethiopia). Though this predictably was
received with mixed feelings by Catholic and non-Catholic students, it was mild

6
In the early years, the Jesuit order supplied both the President and a number of the staff of the
UCAA. The Jesuits also had a stronghold in the favored school named after the Emperor, Tafari
Makonnen.
7
This was the official name of the Soviet Library, which was frequented by a high number of high
school and university students.

20
 “The Innocuous Days”

when compared to the sheer fury it aroused among the members of the UCAA
administration. They even decided to ban the paper; however, it resumed soon.
Not content with this, the editor announced that all contributors to the
paper would be welcomed with open arms, including those using pseudonyms. A
good number of Ethiopians must have grabbed that chance. These successive
incidents not only foiled the plot designed to divide students, but also went a
long way in poisoning the relationship between the administration and the
scholarship students. The support they had at the highest level, however, must
have shielded them from any overt attack.
Soon after that, News and Views, a paper designed to host news and
opinions began coming out. It enjoyed enormous support from the
administration. Unless my memory fails me totally, its first editor was
Amdemichael Kabte, a classmate of mine. He had a penchant for journalism and
was a highly-skilled writer.
Another incident closely related to these students occurred in April 1959.
A Nigerian scholarship student, Dennis Ejindu, had consulted officials of Radio
Ethiopia and had reached an agreement with them to air a panel discussion on
April 15 (designated “Africa Day”) on the Radio’s English programme; I was
invited as the Ethiopian guest speaker. In the course of the discussion, a point
regarding the role of missionaries vis-à-vis colonialism was raised. I pointed out
a number of adverse effects whose source can be traced to missionary work. This
was quoted in the Ethiopian Herald. As a result, I was given a caustic dressing
down by the Dean of the Faculty of Arts, Mr. Pierre Trudeau.
Following Ghana’s independence on 6 March 1957 and the subsequent
visit of Kwame Nkrumah to Ethiopia, a certain number of students had become
avid readers of books on Africa. It can safely be said that the arrival of
scholarship students gave us an added incentive.
Thus on the morning that BBC broadcast the news that prisoners had been
beaten to death in Nayasaland, there appeared on the notice board of the dining
hall an announcement (by the Secretary-General, but unsigned) summoning all
students to assemble on the football field for a one-minute prayer. All the
students attended the meeting before entering the classroom. (Naturally, there
were one or two students who suggested that we cancel class and proceed to the
British Embassy.) Since the whole thing was done on the spur of the moment,
the College Administration was confounded; however, it did suspect that the
“African students” were behind it and accordingly refrained from taking any
action.
The second phenomenon that could be said to have triggered the
emergence of the student movement began in 1951 EC with the public reading of
the three best poems on College Day. This event would take place in the
presence of the Emperor and high dignitaries as well as a large audience from

21
 Bahru Zewde

outside the college community. Previously, the reading was confined to the
College dining hall. While it was true that a few guests usually attended the
event, it had little influence outside the campus. Moreover, even members of the
College community rarely got their hands on copies of the poems, much less
outsiders. This interaction had a deep impact on the contents of the poems, as
their authors came to realize that they were not merely sending a message to
their friends and fellow students, but to high government officials and the public
at large.
When the leaders of the abortive coup of 1960 sent emissaries to the
College seeking student support, they were banking on the students’ burning
desire for change, as evinced by the poems read on College Day. The public
demonstration they staged in support of the coup was a bell signaling
forthcoming events. (It is hard to believe that the event did not strike a chord,
particularly in the hearts of residents of the capital.) It may be said that this was
the turning point for college students in that they came to realize that they were
expected to play a role in the nation’s affairs.
A development related to the issue at hand was the attendance of two
members of the Student Council at an international student conference in 1951
EC. The first invitation (received in the middle of the academic year) came from
COSEC – Coordinating Secretariat of the International Students Association.8
The delegate who attended this meeting in Lima (Peru) was the President of the
Student Council, Hagos Gebreyesus. The other invitation was for us to send two
delegates to the second All-Africa conference and it arrived near the close of the
academic year. The Secretary-General, Asfaw Damte, and the Social Affairs
President, Mekbib Gebeyehu, were selected to attend the meeting in Tunis
(Tunisia).
One picture that clearly emerged from this meeting was the blatant tug-of-
war being waged in order to align the youth of the Third World along sectarian
lines. It was evident that officials of the Tunisian government had mingled with
Tunisian students for the purpose of controlling the conference. Accordingly, on
the second day of the conference, they managed to have a delegate from Algeria
(it was not independent yet) elected to chair the meeting. Taking his cue from his
Nigerian predecessor, who had chaired the meeting on the opening day, the
Algerian chairman gave preferential treatment to Arabic- and French-speaking
presenters instead of giving the floor to speakers in the order in which they had
asked to speak. The ensuing opposition and argument was such that the second
day of the conference closed without anything of substance resulting from it.

8
Most probably a reference to the International Student Council (ISC), the pro-Western
international student organization, as opposed to the pro-Eastern International Union of Students
(IUS).

22
 “The Innocuous Days”

Given the experience of the first two days, it was not easy to agree on the
choice of a chairperson for the third day. Eventually, a member of the election
committee (I do not recall which country he was from) nominated Ethiopia and
received the support of the majority; however, the Ethiopian delegation pointed
out that “… it was reluctant to accept the nomination because there had been
abstentions, albeit very few.” Another round of voting, however, resulted in a
unanimous decision and the Ethiopian delegation had no choice but to accept the
chairmanship.
The vast differences in opinion and the intransigence shown by the
delegates made it impossible to reach a consensus. The major differences were
along the following lines:

a) Anglophone versus Francophone;

b) Arab versus African;
c) Countries under colonial rule versus independent states.

Accordingly, the conference ended without resolving anything.

The leader of the Ethiopian delegation was asked for his opinion and his
critical comment was carried by a Tunisian newspaper. What was a source of
amazement to the Ethiopian delegation was how the comment that blamed the
Tunisian delegation for interfering in student affairs was allowed to be printed.
Another source of surprise was the presence as observers of not only the
student union delegates of both China and the Soviet Union but also those of
representatives of the contending world-wide student bodies (one from COSEC
in Leiden, Netherlands, and the other from IUS in Prague, Czechoslovakia). All
four unions extended invitations to the Ethiopian student delegation to visit their
respective countries!
The Ethiopian delegation declined the invitation from China and the
Soviet Union on the grounds of time constraints. On the other hand, to show its
neutrality, it accepted the invitations of both world-wide student unions and
proceeded first to Prague, seat of the secretariat of the International Union of
Students (IUS).
What became apparent from these experiences was that an Ethiopian
College Students Union was bound to confront forces determined to pull it in
several directions. I say “Ethiopian College Students Union” because, towards
the end of 1951 EC, there was a plan to establish a union including students of
the Engineering and Building Colleges.

23
 Bahru Zewde

Eyesuswork Zafu

In my sophomore year, I was Cultural Activities Officer. My junior year,

however, was spent in the USA. The reason for this is as follows: At the time
both the Eastern and Western blocks were doing their utmost to influence
students to join their respective camps; accordingly, a program named FOSLEP
(Foreign Student Leadership Project) was initiated. It was a project intended for
those students whom Americans thought enjoyed leadership roles in the student
movement to join a college in the US for a year of education and participation in
student activities before returning home to complete their senior year. In 1960,
three students were selected from Ethiopia: Ato Newaye Kristos Gebreab (the
present special Economic Advisor to the Prime Minister), Omogi Caleb and
myself.
Thus I was in the USA in 1960-61. In August 1961, I returned to Ethiopia,
and in the following academic year, I ran for office in the Student Council. (I
recall that I made a rather lengthy speech of which I still have a copy). I ran for
the position of Vice-President. Gebeyehu Ferissa won the presidency and I the
vice-presidency. Newaye Kristos Gebreab became Secretary-General. What Ato
Asfaw referred to earlier (expatriate students getting the chance to join the
union) took effect then. Thus Charles Angoma became the Sports President,
James Odaga the President of the Debating Club and Stanley Gulavi the Press
and Information Officer. The others are Amsale Mekasha (who is presently
retired after working with the African Development Bank), Gebeyehu Ferissa
and Addis Mammo (both deceased).
Such was the composition of the Student Council in 1961-62. That year
the eleventh “College Day” (formerly known as “Sports Day” and celebrated
annually) was due to be held on 9 July 1962. The previous year, on the 10th
College Day, Tamiru Feyissa had presented his memorable poem – “Dehaw
Yinageral” (“The Poor Man Speaks Out”). (This poem depicted the miserable
life that the poor led, in spite of which they were grateful for Divine
Providence). The speech that I made during my election campaign was
immediately reported to the American Embassy. I was summoned to the Dean’s
Office (still occupied by Trudeau) and given a dressing down. I was blamed for
taking a left-wing stand (nothing could be further from the truth!). I was also
informed that my stay in America did not appear to have done me much good. I
replied that, as far as I was concerned, America was an old story; even the U.S.
Embassy was too remote a place for me. I had already gone to the States and
returned. The future held no problem for me. As I was elected by a clear
majority of students, I said with full confidence that I was indifferent to
whatever they said to me.

24
 “The Innocuous Days”

In my opinion, what contributed most to the events that were to unfold

occurred while we were preparing to celebrate the 11th “College Day”. As usual,
on a designated evening in the College dining-hall, contestants would read their
poems to a panel of judges selected for their sound knowledge of and experience
in the subject. The three best poems would be read in public on “College Day”.
We were, of course, perfectly aware that agents of the Security would mingle
with us, listen to the poems, tape them and leave. However, as “College Day”
came nearer, we were informed that the authorities wanted a word with the
student leaders.
By this time, although students had not begun taking classes there, the
University had moved into the Grand Palace at Seddest Kilo. I recall that the first
person that talked to Neway Gebreab and I was the Business Vice-President, Ato
Wubishet Dilnessaw. He let us know that he was dissatisfied with our behavior,
that he was not likely to forget what had occurred the year before. He went on to
say that the poems selected for that year also left much to be desired;
consequently, we had to list in detail the activities we planned to engage in on
“College Day” (9 June).
We informed him that as the two of us were not at liberty to make a final
decision on the matter; we had to consult with the other members of the Student
Council. Accordingly, we went back and reported to our President. On the
morrow, we were summoned to President Kassa Woldemarim’s Office. This
time, all three of us attended the meeting. Present were Lij Kasa Woldemariam,
Minister of Pen Tsehafe Te’ezaz Teffera Werk and Lij Yilma Deressa. The latter
had this to say: “His Majesty’s protocol demands that you list in detail all the
activities you have planned for the day. We are only too aware of what
transpired last year. We will not give you another chance to invite the Emperor
and heap abuses on him.” Up until that time, the Emperor had never failed to
attend “College Day”. He had attended the event for ten successive years. It was
on the eleventh year that such a pre-condition was set.
We had a great respect and love for our President, Gebeyehu Ferissa,
whom we knew to be a brilliant and considerate person. The above-mentioned
comment of Lij Yilma Deressa was an allusion to him. Furthermore, Lij Yilma
could not bear the sight of Gebeyehu, whom he suspected to have had a hand in
the aborted ‘coup d’ état’9 or was at least sympathetic to it. Gebeyehu stated our
stand by pointing out that the event would take place inside the university
compound. As long as it was confined to the campus, students had the right to
exercise their academic freedom. The students had no intention of propagating
their opinions outside the campus. The government could not impose censorship

9
A reference to the abortive coup of December 1960 led by Brigadier General Mangestu Neway,
Commander of the Imperial Bodyguard, and his brother, Garmame Neway.

25
 Bahru Zewde

on what the students did within the university. Neither the government nor the
University was entitled to do so.
Up until then, Neway and I had let Gebeyehu Ferissa speak for all of us.
However, realizing that things were getting out of hand, I requested Gebeyehu to
let me say a word or two. When I got his consent, I began talking. (I have always
had – and still do – the reputation of calling a spade a spade.) “Your Excellency
Ato Yilma! To tell the truth, we have little knowledge about His Majesty’s
protocol requirements. However, that we know little of this matter has no
bearing on the presence or absence of His Majesty. My friends and I believe that
there is not an overwhelming necessity for us to oppose His Majesty’s protocol
requirements. Nevertheless, our Student Council is a democratic body (I was a
bit too trusting at the time, so I meant it). Since we were elected to the office we
hold, even if we agree to your proposal, we cannot decide here and now. The
only solution for us is to present it to our Student Council for a collective
decision. Another point is that, from the moment they were selected, those
poems are the property of the Student Council and not of the authors. They are
scheduled to be read on “College Day”. Therefore, let us return to the college
and table your proposal to the Student Council.”
The above took place on the evening of 8 June 1962. Celebration of
“College Day” was scheduled to start around noon the following day. It was a
real impasse. To tell the truth, all three of us were certain that the Student
Council would not accept the proposal, but this was my only strategy for exiting
from the tight situation. I remember Lij Yilma asking me, “What is your field of
study? Is it law?” “No,” I replied. “Then what is it that you study?”
“Administration,” I replied. His exclamation “Aha!” was interrupted by
President Kassa Woldemariam, who interjected: “Lij Yilma, these people have
not refused to abide by His Majesty’s protocol requirements. All they are saying
is that they can speak neither on behalf of the other five members of the Student
Council nor for the whole student body. They are asking to present the proposal
to the Student Council and obtain their response. I believe they are right.” Thus,
thanks to Lij Kassa Woldemariam’s intervention, the deadlock was resolved.
We then held a meeting of the Student Council. It was a brief affair. The
Council unanimously rejected the proposal on the grounds that academic
freedom and intellectual environment were non-negotiable. If His Majesty
decided to attend, well and good; but if he decided to stay away, that was his
prerogative. Since we had been told to inform Lij Kassa Woldemariam of our
decision, we did so that same evening. Then we went on with our preparations
for “College Day.”
The celebration was scheduled to begin at noon on the next day, a
Saturday. We were once more summoned around 10:30-11:00 am, this time to
the Jubilee Palace. Those same three people – Lij Kassa Woldemariam, H.E. Ato

26
 “The Innocuous Days”

Yilma Deressa and Tsehafe Te’ezaz Tefferawerk – were present. Standing close
to the last, I could clearly see the note written in well-defined script, from which
he read: “Since you have refused to comply with the requirements of His
Majesty’s protocol, which can only mean that you do not wish His Majesty to
attend the event, and as we cannot ask His Majesty to attend under these
circumstances, His Majesty will not be present at the celebration.”
As luck would have it, I was an active participant in debates and plays
since my days at General Wingate School and in the University College too.
Chagrined by his words, I said, “We find it hard to accept that His Majesty will
not attend our College Day for fear of being ridiculed by youngsters for whom
he has provided education. We will only believe that he has decided to stay away
if he fails to show up at the time we expect him. It is painfully obvious that our
College Day, which has been celebrated colourfully every year, will not be the
same if he decides to absent himself. Therefore, we emphatically refuse to
believe that he will not come for the stated reason.”
At this point, Lij Kassa Woldemariam told us, “Let me accompany you
back.” He then drove us to his home, located near Ras Hotel, invited us to lunch
and drove us back to the University College. He left after promising to be back.
We then went on celebrating our Day. The poems read on that occasion
were undoubtedly very powerful. This was due to the fact that, at this point in
time, we students had begun expressing ourselves eloquently regarding our
society, the College administration and the government. This, as Ato Asfaw
Damte pointed out a little earlier, was due to the influence of expatriate students
– particularly West African students (most of whom were classmates of mine).
They had lived under colonial rule and become extremely politicized. During
their stay in college, they spoke their mind without any fear of retaliation. We
envied their frankness and harboured an inferiority complex whenever they
reproached us for being too secretive. That is why we started voicing our true
feelings. The poems, therefore, were accurate portrayals of the existing social
conditions and a castigation of the political system.
His Majesty did not show up, but Lij Kassa Woldemariam did. His
presence and participation in the event lent it life and colour. What came as an
unpleasant shock was what occurred later: the suspension and/or dismissal of
students and the cancellation of the boarding system. The justification for these
measures was presumably that students were living in such comfort that they
were abusing their privilege by fomenting plots against the regime. When
informed of this decision, we decided that further struggle was imperative. I
recall that we rallied the students of our college as well as the student councils of
other colleges to petition first the President of the University, then the
Chancellor (His Majesty). We indicated that our opposition was not to the
cancellation of boarding school per se but to its being a premature measure.

27
 Bahru Zewde

We had a number of reasons for this opposition, the principal one being
the sheer physical advantage a boarding school offered in terms of comfort,
health and finance. Where else would students live while attending college?
How many families could afford paying for their children’s education? In
particular, what would happen to students like me, who had all along been
dependent on handouts of jackets and pants since high school (at Wingate)? The
measure taken was terrifying. We therefore framed our petition as a call for the
postponement of the cessation of boarding school until the appropriate time.
After an exhaustive discussion, we decided that Ato Tadesse Tamrat (now
Professor) should read our petition in the presence of His Majesty. Accordingly,
a group of student council members from all the Colleges requested an audience
with His Majesty. We were subsequently informed that His Majesty with an
entourage of his ministers would grant us an audience at Menelik Palace. As
usual, His Majesty was attired in his ceremonial robe and a pith helmet as
headgear. His entourage consisted of Tsahafe Te'ezaz Aklilu Habtewold, Ato
Yilma Deressa, several senior ministers and high ranking officers of the Armed
Forces. We the student leaders were in the front ranks. Tadesse Tamrat then
presented the written statement against the cessation of boarding system.
The officials, on the other hand, argued that the expenses incurred by the
government on our luxurious accommodation could provide education to
innumerable destitute children. It was an economic approach designed to make
us feel guilty. Next, two of the government’s high-ranking officials took turns to
speak. The first was Tsahafe Te'ezaz Aklilu. I think his speech was mainly a
reinforcement of His Majesty’s views: “In our school days, most students were
garbed in shabby clothes, carried sacks to hold left-over food and ‘kollo’
(roasted grain) that they obtained by begging from door to door, fighting with
dogs every inch of the way. You, by contrast, insist on continuing to lead a life
of ease and comfort, thus depriving a good number of children from getting
decent education. This is outrageous!”
The second speaker was Lij Yilma Deressa. He spoke in the same vein.
However, he made a most startling remark, “Even Metropolitan New York does
not boast of a boarding school, let alone our poor country.” These were his very
words. “Your demands are an affront to propriety!” Although our political
thinking was poles apart, I was fond of a student named Shibru Seifu (May God
rest his soul!). Shibru bowed low, indicating that he wished to speak. He began
by saying, “Your Majesty”, and then shifted his address to “You” before he had
even finished a sentence. This was found to be an affront to imperial protocol,
and he was immediately stopped.
I was standing a little distance behind Shibru. I too made a bow. “All
right,” said His majesty, “what have you to say?” “Your Majesty,” I said, “the
two most highly-placed officials next to you have spoken. Tsahafe Te'ezaz

28
 “The Innocuous Days”

Aklilu has informed us that, in his days, students were shabbily clad, carried
sacks containing dried ‘injera’ and ‘kollo’. What I would most emphatically
assure His Excellency is that, had we lived in that era, we too would have had to
face the same hardships. But conditions have radically changed both with
regards to our life style and our education. It is impossible to continue traveling
along the same road. His Excellency Lij Yilma Deressa, as Minister of Finance,
is in the best position to know the average income of an Ethiopian family. We,
for our part, find it very hard to imagine how many families can afford to pay for
their children’s education. As far as I am concerned, drawing a comparison
between Ethiopia and Metropolitan New York is akin to trying to make two
parallel lines meet. Would it not be more sensible to consider conditions in
countries that are nearer ours?” I would have stopped there except that the
Emperor exclaimed: “Don’t tell us that you are going to cite Ghana as an
example,”
By coincidence, in 1962, I had represented the students of Haile Selassie I
University at the Pan African Youth Movement Conference, formerly known as
Pan African Youth Conference (we had altered the name during the course of the
meeting), in Conakry, Guinea. On my way back home, I had stayed in Ghana for
a week as guest of the “Young Pioneers”, the Kwame Nkrumah youth wing. I
was given a guided tour by a roving ambassador named Pauline. Because I had
had the chance to observe many things during my visit, I replied to the
Sovereign, “Yes, Your Majesty, it is much easier to draw a comparison between
Ghana and Ethiopia than to compare Metropolitan New York with Ethiopia.”
My comment that to compare Metropolitan New York and Ethiopia was similar
to making parallel lines meet had caused the assembled students to burst into
laughter. His Majesty was so incensed at this that he reprimanded us for being
“boorish”. This rebuff was greeted by deep silence, and only then did I start
speaking again. Following this, His Majesty denied us any chance for further
exchanges and terminated the audience.
We returned to college and pondered our condition from every angle but
we could arrive at no satisfactory solution. Graduation Day was only a month
away, school would close soon after. I recall that the graduation ceremony was
scheduled to take place on Thursday, July 12, 1962. On the eve (I think I still
have a copy of the posted announcement by Dean Girma Amare), we assembled
in the student dining hall. That evening was an occasion to honor those students
who had achieved outstanding results. In other words, those students who had
scored superior academic results and had effected significant changes in student
life would be awarded the Prince Mekonnen Commemorative Medal (later
renamed the Dean’s Medal)10. I vividly recall that Robert Ouko (a very close

10
It was subsequently further renamed “Chancellor’s Medal”.

29
 Bahru Zewde

friend in my student years as well as in the years to come) stood first while I
came out second. That evening I was awarded the Prince Mekonnen
Commemorative Medal.
Next morning, we dressed as best we could and proceeded to Christmas
Hall, where the Graduation Ceremony was to take place. As soon as we reached
there, I was summoned to the Dean’s office. A number of things - all of them
pleasant – raced through my mind. I was saying to myself: “Last evening, I was
awarded the Prince Mekonnen Medal, what do they intend to give me now?”
Suddenly, a fellow graduate came by my side and inquired what I was doing
there. On hearing my reply, he led me outside, where there was a big
commotion. “How come we haven’t been allowed to proceed with the
graduation ceremony?” I enquired. They replied, “You have been sitting here
quietly and yet you are the cause of all the pandemonium.” “What have I done
now?” I asked. They informed me that His Majesty had refused to award me my
degree in person. “So what was the result,” I wanted to know. I was later told
that at a meeting, the Dean of Education (Dr. Aklilu Habte), the Dean of
Students (Dr. Girma Amare) and such lecturers as Professor Mesfin had brought
up my case. These people (I was informed later) were told that I had graduated
and had received my diploma a few days earlier. (It is indeed a fact that we take
delivery of the diploma a few days before graduation). The students then
threatened to boycott the graduation ceremony if I were not permitted a formal
graduation. The Administration was dead set against my name being cited in
public and my being officially awarded my diploma by the Emperor.
At long last, we joined the ceremony. When it was announced
“Eyesuswerk Zafu from Public Administration”, what would normally have been
greeted by moderate cheering turned into a tumultuous applause that
reverberated across the hall – a definite proof that the students were trying to
make a statement. Normally, I am not a timid person, but on that day I was
rattled. Somehow, I reached the stage, where President Kassa shifted the tassel
of my mortar board. (In those days, when students were small in number, it was
the University president who took care of that gesture). President Kassa
whispered to me that I would receive my diploma later. Thinking back over the
event, I would never have done what I did then.
Incidentally, this was the first time that Christmas Hall was hosting a
graduation ceremony since the palace building had been named Haile Sellassie I
University. The news that the Emperor had donated His Palace had caused such
a large turnout of the diplomatic community that there was barely any standing
room. Once the tassel of my mortar board had been shifted, I faced the Emperor
and under the cover of my gown extended my hand, made a bow and walked
back. There was applause. When those who were nearest to me at the ceremony
asked me to show them my diploma, I informed them that I did not have it.

30
 “The Innocuous Days”

Nevertheless, ninety-nine percent of the audience was positive that I had secured
my diploma.
To me it was all fun. I recall that Professor Mesfin Woldemariam (he was
my geography teacher at Wingate School), seeing that no graduation feast had
been prepared for me, and in an effort to console me, drove me to his home
where I lunched and spent the afternoon. Upon my return to the university
compound at 4 pm, I met the Dean of the Science Faculty, Dean McFarlane. I
saw him pacing back and forth near his car, wondering where Eyesuswerk was. I
received my diploma from him. The decision about boarding-school was
irreversible. Those student leaders who did not graduate that year were
suspended. These are my memories of my school days.

31
 Chapter II
The Radicalization Process

Hailu Ayele

I think Bahru’s introductory remarks provide a framework for the discussion. Let
me adopt this framework. I believe that the consequences of the discontinuance
of the boarding system should be seen in a broader perspective. I do not believe
that it has received the attention it deserves. Although it has not been considered
to be a defining moment, it has had a great many ramifications.
As regards the “Crocodile Society”11, I was not a member, but I knew a
few of its members, some of whom were very close friends of mine. It can safely
be said that the “Society” was a rallying call for the dissemination of left-wing
ideology and an invitation for potential adherents. There must have been non-
students in its ranks, which may explain the source of the left-wing writings.
Though few in number, they did have their role.
When the “Crocodile Society” issued the notice that appeared on News
and Views, I was not at Arat Kilo, although I had spent my freshman year there.
I joined the institution in September 1962, following the graduation of Ato
Eyesuswerk’s batch. I attended my sophomore year at what was formerly known
as “Imperial College of Engineering” (later renamed “College of Engineering”,
located at Mexico Square. Because boarding was not available, I was living in a
hostel in the Piazza area; it was previously a casino and later headquarters of the
Awash Valley Authority. The students were of diverse composition and
representative of the whole university: economics, business, engineering and
building technology. They represented a diverse groups both in terms of their
fields of study and their year in College. Word would reach us in the evenings
about what was going on at Arat Kilo and we used to discuss whatever occurred
in our area. This is the source of my knowledge of the “Crocodile Society”.
Although I have misplaced it, there was another notice that was posted
and it read: “The Crocodile Society, in its meeting held on Saturday at 8:30 (the
date and the place are specified), has unanimously awarded the Patrice
Lumumba Nationalist Award to Gebru Gebrewold (or maybe it was Girma?)”. It
could be said to have been even more effective in bringing the “Crocodile
Society” into the limelight. This was during the academic year 1963-64.

11
A semi-clandestine student group that emerged in 1964 and played a preponderant role in the
radicalization of the student movement and its adoption of Marxism-Leninism as its guiding
ideology.
 Bahru Zewde

That year also witnessed a coup that overthrew the Student Council.
Because the coup occurred in the aftermath of the “award”, the “Crocodile
Society” gained fame not only because Gebru had played a prominent role in the
coup but also because he was the recipient of an award. As a result, whenever
some left-wing or unconventional opinion appeared, many students would say
that the “Crocodile Society” was behind it. However, I can not positively say
that it was not always true. The society’s characteristic trait was hard to pin
down. It was everywhere; yet, it was intangible. It was effective because it
successfully transmitted its message without disclosing its identity and because it
had a captive audience.
On the other hand, following the coup that overthrew the Student Council,
a group known as “Nacet” (a razor blade advertised as the nemesis of the
crocodile) had come into being. What am I driving at is to enquire how many
people raised the same issues as the “Crocodile Society” and to what degree
these issues became topics for discussion. While I cannot reveal its inner
workings (because I was not a member), I was close enough to disclose the
things I knew.
I did not participate in the “Land to the Tiller” demonstration because I
was on my University Service. Unlike students from other faculties who went on
service in their fourth year, we Engineering students served in our sophomore
year. I received news of the demonstration while I was in Bahr Dar.
Nevertheless, I could see that it had made quite an impact. When we returned
from our University Service, we found that our faculty had moved to Arat Kilo
campus. Arts and Business faculties, on the other hand, had moved from Arat
Kilo to Siddist Kilo. As luck would have it, we were living with two of the
students suspended subsequent to the demonstration. So, even if radicalization
came about in the way Bahru had described it, the “Land to the Tiller”
demonstration effected a profound change in the students. Students were
dismissed because of it and they experienced hardships as a consequence;
however, the solidarity was high. I shared a residence with two of them. I believe
I should be discreet regarding this matter because it was confidential. But I did
feel its impact when I came back from Bahr Dar. Although there had been earlier
some visible signs of left-wing tendencies (in the form of discussion clubs), they
had substantially proliferated thereafter. This is a result of the “Land to the
Tiller” demonstration. However, since I did not directly participate in it, I cannot
venture to say more.

34
 The Radicalization Process

Dessalegn Rahmato

One of the persons who accompanied me on my trip to North America was

Melese Ayalew. Hailu Habtu and Berhanu Abebe (now deceased) were also with
us. We joined different colleges. What left a lasting impression on me was the
fact that for most of us (relatively speaking) it came as a very frightening
experience to realize how backward Ethiopia was. When we were in Ethiopia,
we would sometimes read foreign newspapers and occasionally listen to foreign
radio broadcasts and watch fatuous films. This revelation, I believe, may be one
source of our disillusionment.
I especially recall certain events that vividly brought home the terrible
condition our country was in. While in the States (for that matter even now), I
enjoyed traveling by car, preferring that mode of transport to air travel. My first
stay in America was marked by numerous bus trips. I took to visiting a great
number of states. I could not stop being impressed by the condition of the
highways. Another item that brought home to me our backwardness was
“Kleenex” – a disposable tissue that resembled a handkerchief. Although in
retrospect it seems a trifle, I could not conceive of such a thing then. Of course,
now that ecology has become a concern, a great many items have ceased to be
disposable.
The other thing I came to realize at the time was the great amount of
influence exerted on visitors from such African countries as Ethiopia when they
travel abroad. Although I never analysed the concept, I had heard of imperialism
and colonialism. I got a true picture of how much we were underprivileged not
only in such significant areas as arms technology and the economy, but even in
such rudimentary areas as thought process, sartorial propriety, creation of ideas
and their propagation. (There were times when I – and by extension my country
– felt small.) At times like this, such questions as “Where is our place on the
international scale?” “Where can we perceive our progress?” would resonate
loudly in my mind.
Thirdly, when I left my country at the end of 1963, the peoples of the
Third World were in the midst of social turmoil, upheavals and wars. In point of
fact, it was then that the term “Third World” was coined. It would be beneficial
if we considered this in two ways. On the one hand, a good number of countries
were the scenes of political, economic and social upheavals and their attendant
massacres. Later, these same phenomena were manifesting themselves in
America and later Europe. Countries such as China, Vietnam and Cuba had
major revolutions which for most of us served as models. One palpable
difference between living in the U.S. and living in Ethiopia at that time was that,
even though these revolutions had no support in the U.S., one could access a
great deal of literature dealing with them. To tell the truth, when I first arrived

35
 Bahru Zewde

there, I experienced considerable trouble deciding what to peruse and what to

discard. Being rudder-less, I would read whatever took my fancy at the time.
Incidentally, the books I have presently in my collection seem to suffer from a
similar ailment: identity crisis. Those revolutions I consider to be great,
especially that of China and Vietnam, have a special place in my mind in that
they erupted in the rural areas and made their way to the suburbs.
Such was the genesis of my abiding pre-occupation with rural Ethiopia. I
firmly believed (and I still do) that if progress was to be achieved, the rural
population had to be emancipated. “How?” “Is it possible?” “Is it improbable?”
are questions that were beside the point. What drove me to entertain these
thoughts were the two revolutions: the Chinese and the Vietnamese. True, the
Cuban Revolution also had a special appeal; Che Guevera is an eloquent person,
very much loved and respected by the youth. But what made me pay close
attention to rural Ethiopia was, as I said, the Chinese and the Vietnamese
revolutions. Our knowledge of the Cuban Revolution was patchy. Only Hagos
Gebreyesus had a personal knowledge of the country by dint of visiting it and
attending a conference. True, I had tried to do some reading on Cuba. We had
high regard for both Che Guevera and Castro. In fact, making lengthy speeches
(à la Castro) had become fashionable. What has endured in my memory about
the Cuban Revolution is more its form than its content. On the other hand, there
are a great number of things I still recall and ponder vis-à-vis the Vietnamese
and Chinese Revolutions.
Further, even though we never referred to them as revolutions, there were
some massive changes and attempted changes in Arab and Latin American
countries, and occasionally in Africa. What fascinated me most about these
places were the attempts to change and the movements for change. Some were
military movements. I was mesmerized by the fact that these movements were
motivated by the burning desire to wage war on the super-powers or to put an
end to subjugation by them. We paid homage to these attempts to stand up to
U.S. power. These struggles were sending the message: “We want freedom –
freedom from American, European and colonial subjugation.”
This feeling was with me when I read Nasser’s writings. He commanded
our respect when he started to oust colonialists from the Suez Canal and
announced that Egyptians could manage the Canal (whether in actual fact they
could or could not was another matter!) Naturally, our respect for such acts
diminished with time.
In retrospect, I believe that, had I been in Europe at the time, I would have
entertained similar thoughts. But my sojourn in the USA, and the experiences I
had there, had some distinctive features. Let me cite two or three of these. What
was instrumental in pushing me towards left-wing politics was the human rights
struggle of Black Americans. As you are all aware, this is referred to as the

36
 The Radicalization Process

“Civil Rights Movement”. When I first arrived in the USA, it had completed its
liberal phase and was turning into a formidable and challenging force. Up to that
time, the movement was characeterized by a series of gentle and legal protests
designed to appeal to the conscience of the Whites. Of course, there were radical
movements such as the “Black Muslims” and the “Pan African Movement”. But
what was predominant was the legal and liberal struggle. Within two years of my
arrival in the USA, the struggle had turned into a mighty tidal force.
I feel that this civil rights movement had a special impact on Africans
(certainly on me) in that a number of ways were being explored in order to link
this massive and confrontational Black Movement to Africa. Their feeling was:
“Africans are our brothers. We should emancipate ourselves the way Africans
have emancipated themselves.” In fact, this Black Power Movement, unlike the
call for a return to Africa, held Africans in high esteem. This feeling of
admiration they had for Africa was something I could not reconcile with the
Africa I knew. It was a source of pain for me to realize that Africans could not
assume responsibility for their backwardness and would not fight for their own
basic rights, much less rally around the cause espoused by Black Americans. The
speeches we would hear during Civil Rights rallies, their inflated opinions of us
as well as the preferential treatment they accorded us were not to my liking! We
had been assessed and found wanting.
The Black movement (the word “Black” had replaced the word “Negro”
in keeping with the change in tempo and scope of the movement) had also an
impact on all of us. I began to realize that racism has its basis on color and not
on your place of birth. I seem to recall, Alem, that on our way to visit you, Hailu
and I were chatting while walking on a road in a small town called Harrisburg in
Pennsylvania. An old white man was sitting by the road. Spotting us, he began
shouting abuses “Hey, niggers! What are you doing here?” I remember our
protest, “No, no. We are not niggers; we are from Ethiopia.” It took me about 3
or 6 months to come to terms with myself. I still harbour a feeling of shame. The
Black Movement thus brought a tremendous change in my political thinking.
Then came the war in Vietnam and the peace movement in the U.S. and
around the world. I was a witness to it because I was in the U.S at the time. If
what I was reading as well as what I was watching on television was anything to
go by, there has never been any event more instrumental in launching a universal
peace movement, an anti-war and anti-imperialist movement than the Vietnam
War. I stand corrected if there were such phenomena earlier in history. The anti-
war movement was not restricted to Vietnam but had expanded in scope to
include peace, anti-imperialism and anti-war movements. It was also
instrumental in reviving dormant movements. Thus, the Youth Movement (my
own term for the Student Movement) in the U.S. and later in African and Asian

37
 Bahru Zewde

countries was linked to this. It was a cause for turmoil in the U.S. and a serious
impediment to peace.
While we did not attend each and every rally, not a day would pass in
which a rally did not take place, protest tracts were not read, Vietnam was not
discussed, a demonstration was not staged or war protests were not shouted. In
my opinion, all this contributed a great deal to the enhancement of our activities.
I would rather not go into this intricate matter lest I impose on your time. As I
mentioned earlier, those who were there with me can supplement.
Later, other movements were triggered by the anti-Vietnam War protests,
namely the Women’s Liberation Movement and the Environmental Movement.
Maybe we can take it up later when the question of women and gender comes
up. I remember this issue being moderately discussed by us. What amazes me up
to now is that the environmental movement was such an important issue at the
time. Many of us, however, looked upon it either as a stumbling block that
would divert us from our struggle or as a movement not warranting so much
attention. As far as I can recall (and I stand corrected if I am wrong), neither in
Challenge nor in any of our discussions did we deem the environmental
movement a serious enough item for discussion. The irony of it is that, currently,
one of the obstacles to our country's development is environmental pollution.
I think our reluctance to come to terms with this issue is understandable.
While the change brought about in our attitude by these processes is a positive
thing, there is a negative side to it, too. The positive side of it was that it made us
aware of the need to fight for our rights, for the development of our country and
for freedom; this in turn enabled us to contribute to the student movement. The
negative side was that we were at sea in the sense that we could not identify
properly the problems confronting us, much less seek solutions for them. We
were too obsessed with fad expressions (they are known today as “buzz words”),
mostly “isms” - to wit, “imperialism,” “colonialism” - to correctly address our
problems by examining the relevance of these slogans to our country.
This, to my way of thinking, is one of the aspects. There is no need to
narrate the story. We will be discussing ESUNA either tomorrow or the day
after, time enough to discuss it then. However, this trend towards left-wing
politics or radicalism was, as Bahru put it, a gradual process and not an
overnight occurrence. Speaking for myself, I was not a reactionary one day and a
radical the next. It was a lengthy process. As far as I can recall, it would be
difficult to say that most of the members of the student movement in North
America were adherents of Marxism-Leninism. I remember arguing with those
who claimed that even Challenge was a forum for Marxism-Leninism ideology.
Students espoused different ideologies. Perhaps those who were elected to
office, or were editors of periodicals, or were contributors adhered to the
dominant political ideology. However, it was not easy to assert who was who.

38
 The Radicalization Process

As far as I know, the first reputedly Marxist-Leninist student leader was Hagos.
Our admiration for Hagos was due to the fact that he had visited Cuba and was
knowledgeable in the ideology, having had the opportunity to ‘dip in the source’,
as it were.
At first, there was neither a clear picture of either Marxism-Leninism or
socialism, nor how to go about adopting the philosophy. It was only when we
began sharing the experience of the U.S. student movement and other similar
movements, from reading extensively on the subject and engaging in discussions
that we turned the situation around. On the other hand, our poor performance in
this area was due to the difficulty of accessing fellow students. As you know,
America is a very large country; at the time, one student lived in Los Angeles,
another in Washington D.C., and another in New Haven. It was virtually
impossible to call these widely-scattered individuals to a meeting. The
transportation cost alone was not to be contemplated on a student’s income.
Whereas students in Addis Ababa lived on the same campus, shared the same
sleeping quarters and attended the same institution, we, on the other hand, were
scattered far and wide; and most of us were busy with our studies. Thus, due to
limitations of time and finance, meetings were very difficult to arrange. This is
what I recall. Let me stop now to give others a chance.

39
 Bahru Zewde

Hailu Ayele

One other point I had intended to bring up tomorrow is related to North America.
I recall the time when Robert Kennedy was literally carried out of a meeting in
Ras Makonnen Hall on the shoulders of students. There were some students,
whose name I can recall now, who were taken aback by the incident. They could
not reconcile the war being waged against imperialism and this act of veneration
of Robert Kennedy.
The incident involving Hubert Humphrey12 took place in 1968, February
1968 I believe, when I was in my senior year. Among the members of the local
movement, there were people who had contacts with ESUNA both on an
individual basis and as a group; we had access to the periodicals issued by
ESUNA. In one such issue, whose author I do not remember, an article entitled
“U.S. Imperialism in Ethiopia” had appeared. It featured a lengthy analysis taken
from American newspapers and Congressional debates on American influence in
Ethiopia, especially in connection with the Kagnew Station. The article had
come into our possession before Hubert Humphrey came to visit Ethiopia. I
vividly recall my discussing the article with a number of people for three days
and reaching the decision to distribute it before Hubert Humphrey’s arrival;
however, we could not distribute it in its entirety because it would nip the on-
going student movement in the bud. Some of the terms used there to describe
the Emperor were libelous.
Accordingly, instead of passing it out as it was, we took the trouble to edit
and distribute it. That is why, Bahru, the change of attitude you alluded to
appeared a year later. Incidentally, that paper was very well composed; it
triggered lengthy discussions and debates among the students. The paper clearly
portrayed the influence exercised by the U.S. on the Ethiopian government. That
was why there was a confrontation when Humphrey arrived. His effigy was
burnt along with a U.S. dollar bill – yes, the real one (its rate of exchange was
small then!).
I think it would be beneficial to document this matter in detail, once it has
been raised. A good number of people were involved in the printing of that
paper. As it was a clandestine operation, the typing was done in one place by a
given group, while it was run off somewhere else by another group. Probably
about a month later, several copies of this mimeographed material were
discovered in a house. When the paper was discovered, the person who used to
reside in that house was in prison on another case.
The discovery of the mimeographed material led to the imprisonment of
three people, including myself. I had finished my first semester exams at the

12
A reference to the visit to Ethiopia of American Vice-President Hubert H. Humphrey, which
provoked a student protest.

40
 The Radicalization Process

time. On a Saturday morning, I had an appointment to go to the cinema with a

friend. I was on my way to his home when I was arrested by two colonels and
taken to the 6th police station. They started by handing me a piece of blank paper
and instructing me to write “Imperialism” on it. (I could name the colonel, but I
would rather not). I shaped ‘I’ in a certain manner. Is that the way you write
‘I’?” he asked me. “I write it any way I want to,” I replied. The moment he had
uttered the word “Imperialism” I had gotten the message, for I knew what he was
getting at.
Then he took me to Kolfe to our imprisoned friend, who had been slightly
hurt. At the sight of him, I got frightened, for he was a close friend. Before I
could say anything, he let me know that he had made a clean breast of it. The
three of us confessed that we had written the paper. We were then asked to hand
over the original. As we had destroyed it, we gave them the one sent us from
North America, which they promptly delivered to Ato Nebiye Le’ul. After a
series of telephone calls, we were told that we had been invited to lunch at a
good restaurant. Thus, I ended up having lunch at Castelli Restaurant for the first
time in my life by dint of being a prisoner! As a student, I had no way of
knowing that such a restaurant even existed. On that Saturday, after lunch, we
were summoned by Ato Nebiye Le’ul and proceeded there. Two colonels, one
from Special Cabinet (the Counter Intelligence Unit) and another from Security
had been detailed to investigate the matter. They told us: “Our suspicion was that
you could not be the authors of this paper. As you could not possibly have access
to such information, foreign elements must have given it to you or had it
distributed. As it turns out, you local students have proved yourselves more
responsible than the others.” That is because we had watered down the original
version, especially the terms that referred to the Emperor. I was in my fifth
(senior) year. The two others were a fourth-year law student and a fourth year
civil engineering student.
The colonel finally said to me: “Complete your last year and I will have
you employed. Perhaps you will learn what it means to join the civil service and
serve your country.” And we were released, after we had dinner in a restaurant
(not Castelli this time!) and went home.

41
 Bahru Zewde

Tedla Seyum

My own understanding of the radicalization process is a question of how many

members of the student union were aware or unaware of the phenomenon. I
personally think that this should be thoroughly discussed, lest we fail to draw the
right lessons. Let me base my comments on my secondary school experience. I
attended secondary school at Haile Sellassie I Secondary School. One of the
senior students then was Tilahun Gizaw. Whenever there was a debate, two
individuals invariably stood out: Tilahun Gizaw and Haimanot Alemu. There
were not many political issues to be debated. The tenor of the debates was
“should there be co-education?” (The boarding school was exclusively for boy
students. Incidentally, Tilahun was against the motion and I could say the
majority of students supported his stand).
Perhaps two factors could have contributed to the radicalization process at
that school. The first was the fact that it was a boarding school enabled students
from diverse backgrounds to come together; the second was the appointment of
an Ethiopian director, Dr. Zewdneh Yimtatu. I can say that Dr. Zewdneh
Yimtatu had kindled a flame among us students without our being aware of it.
Maybe this is only a personal impression, but we recall this whenever we get
together. Having come back from America, maybe he had gone through the
experience you two had mentioned a little earlier.
If you remember, when U.D.I. was declared, the first students who took to
the streets were from this school.13 It is because Gashé Zewdineh took the
unprecedented step of ringing the bell at night. In a boarding school, that meant
fire or a similar danger. Terrified students rushed out, some fully-clothed, others
semi-clad. Gashé Zewdineh then imparted the sad news that he had heard that
evening. There was no question of eating breakfast. I have no recollection of the
time except that it was early morning when we made our way to the British
Embassy. Gashé Zewdineh overtook us either in a taxi or his own car and
stopped us, “Brothers! Brothers!” he pleaded with us, “let us pause and
deliberate so that we may speak as one.” Thinking that he had some other
problem, we went ahead. We came back home pleased with the stand we had
taken. Whether we did this with full knowledge of the issue, I am unable to say.
All I know is that I was in the forefront of the demonstration.
The reason I mention this incident is to illustrate that whether in the realm
of student movement or in any other sphere, a certain person (say, a far-sighted
person) has both the chance and ability to impose his perception of things on
others. So with good or bad intentions, a group of students passed off and is still

13
This presumably refers to the March 1968 student deomonstration in protest at the execution of
black African nationalists by the Ian Smith regime rather than the declaration of UDI per se,
which had come some years earlier.

42
 The Radicalization Process

passing off their opinion as a general consensus. Speaking for myself, I was a
latecomer and joined this school of thought only once I reached Europe. That is
when I raised my level of consciousness through reading. I firmly subscribe to
the belief that Ethiopian students abroad were allies of the domestic student
movement. This has always been so. One group has always influenced the other.
I have already said that I have very little knowledge regarding Ethiopian students
residing here. Based on information gathered from secondary school students
and later from a large number of students from Haile Sellassie I University who
espoused different ideologies, I got the impression that it was both impossible
and unthinkable to admit not being a radical. I was not there in person. Non-
conformists were always in dread of being stigmatized. I confess that I was a
true believer, if I may be pardoned. Unlike you academicians, I speak my mind.
It is only when these truths are brought to light that the next generation can
benefit from our experience.

43
 Chapter III
Student Organizations

Mulugeta Bezabih

… Next, efforts were made to turn the movement taking place at Alemaya
University into a nation–wide movement. That is why the first president of the
national union was elected from Alemaya University. The conference hall in the
College of Engineering was the venue for the founding meeting. Each college
was represented. I was made president; Taddesse Tamrat (from University
College) took the vice-presidency; Be’alu [Girma] (also from University
College) was given the Treasury, Engineering College became the Secretary-
General, etc. Thus, an attempt was made to extend the structure to every campus.
Each delegate would return to his college to engage in scheduling such
activities as training and workshop programs. Especially, after the National
Union of Ethiopian University Students was formed, other colleges shared the
task of attending the ever-increasing number of international conferences, as
Alemaya University and University College alone were unable to attend so many
meetings. Ideas would come from abroad and would be discussed and analyzed
here.
A good number of workshops took place in the colleges. Debates and
discussions continued. One point of interest related to this was the absence
within the Union of a movement based on radical ideology, hence heated debates
were rare. Besides, meetings were far and between (only three or four times a
year).
Although there was manifestation of a right-wing ideology, it had not
taken root. Still, since there were a good number of students from other African
countries at Alemaya, there was a great deal of discussion among students. The
African independence movement had a strong impact on the campus. This was,
as you may recall, reflected during the coup d’ etat – the feeling that our country
had remained backward.
I recall an incident which occurred in, I believe, 1962. There was a big
celebration when His Majesty donated his palace to the university. At the time,
the Business Vice-President was Ato Wubishet Dilnessaw. I was informed by
telephone that I was to give a speech. This was a historic event. Imagine a 19-
year old youngster making a speech in front of the Emperor! I asked him what I
was supposed to talk about. He let me know that I was expected to say how the
student movement went a long way in enhancing the country’s development. He
also informed me that I was to send him my speech beforehand. We held a
 Bahru Zewde

meeting at Alemaya. The meeting split into two: one group advocated submitting
a copy of our text, while the other suggested preparing two different texts.
At first, I was against this idea because it spelt danger for me, but at last I
gave in. Ah, the bravado of youth! The first text was sent to him. He phoned to
say that he was very pleased with it. The text that I kept related in great detail
African nations’ struggle for independence, their remarkable development, while
in contrast, Ethiopia had so little to show for its long period of independence.
That was the text I read in front of the Emperor. The first part of my speech was
constantly interrupted by tumultuous applause from (the) students. I could hear
Ato Wubishet calling “Hey, just a moment!” I paid him no heed. I could see the
Emperor was also restive. Anyway, the speech ended to the sound of continuous
applause. Ato Wubishet came to me and said: “You impudent liar! You really
played a dirty trick on me.” In retrospect, I am amazed at what had come over
me: to expose His Majesty to public ridicule. Aside from attempting to interrupt
my speech, the officials took no retaliatory measures. I believe that unless you
were deemed to be a veritable threat to the state, they cut you enough slack.
One can not be a student for life; one has to be gainfully employed, and so
on. The student leaders got jobs, transiting from youth to adulthood. We, then,
held a meeting to discuss what to do in the future. An agreement was reached
whereby the struggle should continue with those earning a living after graduation
assisting those still attending school. At the time, Berhane Meskel, Walelign and
others were joining the Union. The debates were intensifying. We suggested the
idea of forming a reading club. (What most students had access to were the
hackneyed books issued by Progress Publishers). We made use of one of those
small houses off Afencho Ber, near the University, to form our reading club.
The members were Haile Fida, Daniel Aderra, Tadesse Negash and myself. I
have no doubt that you know Daniel Aderra. Both he and Haile Fida were
physics graduates. Daniel was a very mature person and a left-wing militant and
the only Ethiopian to join the German group Baader-Meinhof. He led a
distinctive life.
Other distinguished figures were Kedir Mohammed, an economist from
The Hague, Neway Gebreab and Gebeyehu Ferissa. I still fail to understand why
Haile Fida and Gebeyehu, who had grown up together, always rubbed each other
the wrong way. There was Desta Kidane Wold and some others whose names I
do not remember now. Gebru Gebrewold was one of the student members.
(Incidentally, Gebru was also involved in the student movement in Alemaya.)
He was well-read for a freshman (no one knew where he got his reading
material). He would attend meetings even though he was not an elected official.
During meetings, he would disparage our efforts, remarking that we would get
nowhere. We would reply that we were doing our best with what we had. Later

46
 Student Organizations

he and Zer’u Kishen (another freshman from Alemaya) joined Addis Ababa
University.
One can say it was the first reading club. It convened three or four times a
week and had access to some 100-150 books from various sources, i.e. private
donations, the Soviet Library, etc. But it was soon disbanded. One of the
members I named earlier had an uncle who was a general. Our friend told us that
our activities were being monitored by the security forces and urged that we
disband quickly. The issue was hotly debated but it did not prevent the
dissolution of the club. Walelign and others appropriated the collection of books.
We could never check out the veracity of that rumour or the wisdom (or lack of
it) of continuing to run the club. That was one aspect of the struggle.
The second one was our attempt to infiltrate the mass media. It still
amazes me when I look back on our boundless ambition. I joined Radio Ethiopia
as an agricultural economist; my duties included preparing and broadcasting
programs on the economy. Daniel Adera joined ETV as a technician. He focused
his energy on getting good coverage in the news of the Vietnam War. We
secured a job at Ethiopian Herald for Yohannes Sebhatu, who had been expelled
from the University. (He did not last long. He joined EPLF and was later
executed by it). Getachew Araya too joined us at Radio Ethiopia. Thus the group
assembled there would get hold of the news conveyed by telex and would
selectively broadcast left wing items. The American ambassador lodged a
complaint to the Manager of Ethiopia Radio, Ato Negussie Habtewold. His
complaint was to the effect that the Embassy had been monitoring the broadcasts
and had found out that the news about Vietnam was biased in favor of Vietcong
victories. Ato Negussie, who was a true democrat, advised us to be a little more
cautious. I have every reason to remember Ato Negussie.

47
 Bahru Zewde

Hailu Ayele

We entered college after Haile Sellasie I University was established. You may
say that my story begins where Ato Eyesuswork finished his yesterday. We
started our freshman year in the 1961-62 academic year. We had a feeling
similar to that experienced by students before us, generated by the fact that we
were the first batch of secondary students from Gondar, Mekele, Dessie, Debre
Berhan (myself), Ambo and Harar. We were assigned to Arat Kilo Campus,
which at the time accommodated freshmen from such varied fields as
engineering (my field), science and public health. The number of students at
Arat Kilo was reportedly 450, 150 or 30% of which were freshmen.
Secondly, it was evident that we were younger than those students who
had joined college earlier. Most of them, I was informed, entered college after
they had taught for a year or two. A good number of them had gone to boarding
school before joining college. Others had joined school at an advanced age. In
our case, our average age was clearly young.
Thirdly, we were the first batch of students denied the privilege of
boarding both in high school and college. When protest over the cancellation of
boarding arose in the University our feeling was one of regret, nothing more.
Since, thanks to the stipend we got while in secondary school, we have become
used to renting a house, our life-style was not affected, unlike those who had
preceded us to the University.
Fourthly, a university student was expected to wear a suit and a necktie.
The ambition of those students who secured a job for a year or two was to attend
class smartly turned out. It could be on account of our age, our upbringing, our
background or maybe financial problems, we felt a trifle ashamed to dress up;
therefore, we joined the institution wearing jeans. Due to our great number, our
youth and style of attire, we were soon referred to as brazen [“ayn yawata”].
As Ato Eyesuswork mentioned yesterday, there was a row over the
suspension of Gebeyhu Ferissa (the president of the student union) and
Yohannes Admassu (the winner of the poetry contest) in the previous year and
their being re-instated was heatedly debated. Another item of dispute was the
enactment of the University’s new rules and regulations governing the
establishment of student unions and the publishing of student newspapers. This
had been opposed by senior students. The coincidental timing of these two issues
had generated heated debate. I do not recall his name, but a man standing at the
entrance to what was formerly called the Arts Building, later renamed the
Freshman Building, was inviting people to sign a petition to the Emperor. A
friend and I were passing by when he asked us what year we were in. He let the
matter drop when we informed him that we were in the first year. Incensed by
this contemptuous behavior, we made it our business to find the man after class

48
 Student Organizations

and sign the petition. By this time, another person had taken his place. We
bothered to find out about the contents of the petition only afterwards. This was
the situation during our freshman year.
After endless debate, a student union was established. What captivated
our interest and drew our attention was the election campaign. Previously,
election posters used to be posted in dormitories; now that boarding was no
more, they were posted in every hostel. We as youngsters were enthralled by the
speeches, most of which dealt with the backwardness of our country. I recall that
vividly. We attended meetings and when voting time came, we cast our votes
after consulting with one another. We agreed to cast the half vote allotted to
freshmen to Wondwossen Hailu, who became president. As I mentioned
yesterday, our residence was in the city center (Piazza), in the building that
subsequently became the headquarters of the Awash Valley Authority. Except
when we walked home in the evening after attending a debate or discussion
session, we had a shuttle service to and from school. Whenever there were
debates and speeches at Arat Kilo, we used to walk back to our hostel in groups.
That is how we made the transition from youth to adulthood.
When we entered our second year, all of us who had come from three
faculties to attend classes in the same campus had to go our separate ways. We
engineering students left for Mexico Square. Feelings there were, unlike at Arat
Kilo, relatively subdued. However, there was a positive side to this situation. For
one thing, we were small in number, 120-130 students. Feelings of superiority or
inferiority, depending on the grade level of the students, were kept to a low
minimum. For another, the formation of a nation-wide student union and the
various activities taking place at Arat Kilo had their impact. The president of the
student union was Dr. Alem’s brother, a Mechanical Engineering student called
Gebre Kiros Habtu. He was instrumental in the establishment of a student paper
known as ACME (acronym for Architecture, Civil, Mechanical and Electrical
Engineering). The paper, which came out fortnightly, held students captive and
attracted their active participation. I was elected member of the editorial board.
It had a very dedicated editor named Habte Asfaha. Due to my frequent working
visits to Arat Kilo and Sidist Kilo to report on events, I had no trouble
maintaining my old relationships.
That year the University invited two eminent personalities to speak. One
of them was the historian Arnold Toynbee, and the other was the Foreign
Minister [and later Prime Minister] of Israel, Golda Meir. As a reporter, I had the
chance to listen to their speeches. Arnold Toynbee’s prediction that China would
be a rising power made a lasting impression on me. Prior to that speech, I knew
very little about China, which was a remote country. It prompted us to read more
about that country.

49
 Bahru Zewde

Mrs. Golda Meir, who made her speech sitting down, was a most eloquent
speaker. The meeting was poorly attended. The audience was an assembled
group from the various faculties. My own presence was in the line of duty. She
emphatically informed the audience that, having been blessed with such fertile
land, we should do our best to educate our people and develop our country. This
event got ample coverage in both News & Views and in our own paper. It left a
significant impression on those involved in the student movement.
Another incident, which those of us in the know referred to as the “coup
d’état”, and which was apparently designed to gauge the students’ state of
alertness took place in Arat Kilo. Gebru Gebrewold, a member of “the Crocodile
Society”, rang the bell. Normally, the bell was a signal to summon students to
take their meals or to take their tea or coffee break. I happened to witness this
event because I had prior information that a coup would take place and had thus
gone from Mexico Square to Arat Kilo. Students assembled without taking the
trouble to ask who had called the meeting and why. The President of the Union,
Getachew Araya, and the other members of the Executive Council were charged
with poor performance. Their attempts to defend themselves proved futile. They
were declared guilty by the gathering and had to step down; a new election took
place.
This incident was a good illustration of the fact that an organized force
can rally a multitude of individuals around it and set it in motion; such events
became commonplace in the University thereafter. It became an established
routine to come up with an idea, spread it beforehand, ascertain that there would
be a large turnout of people to influence others and it was in the bag. The
academic year came to a close on this note. I was not around in the coming year.
The big issue that year was the University Service. Debates raged over it.
Newspapers were inundated with interviews. There was no disagreement over
the service in principle. Every one felt duty-bound to serve the peasant, who paid
for our education while he remained uneducated; however, discord arose over
the question of under whose auspices the program would be run. Feelings were
running high, too, regarding exemption from service of students related to
ministers and other high officials. As if to confirm this, these individuals left for
the United States while we went on University Service.
I belonged to the group advocating student participation in the University
Service. We went willingly, although we did not approve of our being assigned
to teach in a regular school. My assigned school was the Bahr Dar Polytechnic,
now Bahr Dar University, an institution built with the assistance of the Soviet
Union. It was, comparatively speaking, a comfortable place. Unlike other
University students who went in groups of three, there were ten of us (seven
from the Engineering College and three from Arat Kilo). There were four to five
students living in an apartment. Most of our students were older than us; but we

50
 Student Organizations

had a congenial rapport with the younger ones. I recall that we had nothing to do
in the evenings. That is where I drank beer for the first time and sprouted a
beard.
We were preceded by teachers who had done their studies in the U.S. and
assigned to teach there. Dr. Hailu Araya is the one I most vividly recall. At the
time, he had a master’s degree and was assigned to teach English Literature. He
was peculiar in the sense that he spoke only in English when he addressed his
students (to help them improve their proficiency in English). He either spoke in
Amharic or in English, and never mixed the two. Thanks to his vast collection of
books, we were able to set up a reading club. One or two students would be
assigned to read on a given topic; this would serve as a springboard for
discussion. What was amazing was the fact that 75% of the topics discussed
were non-political. They were either literary or historical topics. That was the
time when we read to our heart’s content.
We were in Bahr Dar when the “Land to the Tiller” demonstration was
staged in Addis. Although it was a topic of discussion amongst us, we knew
there was little we could do about it. We were engaged in literacy classes after
hours. I held the post of Secretary of the Committee. The Provincial
Administrator (he was then called Provincial Governor) was Ato Habtemariam,
formerly Administrator of Nazareth. He also held the post of the Town Mayor.
He was a progressive person and very supportive of our efforts. He had,
however, this to say to us: “Listen, guys, a lot of rumour is flying around you.
You had better give it a deaf ear.” We took heed of his advice. On the other
hand, out of the 130 enrolled in the literacy classes, 42 successfully completed
the course.
On our return, Addis Ababa had undergone a change as a result of the
“Land to the Tiller” demonstration. Some students had been suspended, others
had been radicalized. Hostels which we used to live in had discontinued their
service. We had to find other accommodation. We somehow managed to live in
groups. I recall that five of us - a friend of mine studying geology, my former
classmate Kebede Wubishet (now deceased), Yohannes Sebhatu (who had been
suspended), and Tekalign W. Ammanuel and myself - rented a three-room house
located behind what is now “Tourist Hotel,” We soon had our respective friends.
We used to read, discuss and debate in the evening. Sometimes a row would
erupt, as we accused one another of “lagging behind.” This lasted only one
semester. Apprehensive of drawing undue attention, we dispersed. Yohannes got
employed by the Tourism Organization; Kebede and I availed us of the
opportunity to rent a room in the university dormitory. However, our old
relationships endured.
It was in the 1965-66 Academic year that the issue of the Campus Union
and the 6th Congress of NUEUS arose. The major argument was over how best to

51
 Bahru Zewde

organize the students. The Main Campus Union had been formed with Eshetu
Chole as president. The students of Business College had their own union, while
the students of the Law Faculty likewise sought to form their own. When the
NUEUS Congress was convened, both of them claimed that they represented
their respective constituents. The Main Campus Union declined to recognize
either one. I recall this because I was a delegate of the Engineering and Science
Faculty Student Union. There was a heated debate over the definition of the
word “campus”. The students of Business College interpreted “campus” to mean
“floor”.14 Their president was Wondimneh Tilahun, a very eloquent speaker.
The law students, for their part, defined “campus” as “a building with a fence
around it”, maybe because their school had a fence of sorts.15 It was a hotly
debated and very frustrating issue. For my part, I thought the whole thing was a
huge farce.
It was at this time that our group began promoting the idea of a city-wide
union for two reasons: 1) it would reconcile the various faculties vying for
recognition as unions, and 2) it would be very easy to organize as it would get
the unqualified support of the Administration, which felt that it would much
prefer to work with a single union than to deal with a number of them. It was
said that Dean Paul16 had expressed such a feeling.
Certain people approached Dean Paul with this idea. (At the time, he was
Dean of the Faculty of law and Chairman of the Students Affairs Committee. He
had not yet assumed the post of Academic Vice-President). Both Dean Paul and
the Dean of Students, Mr. Pion, received the idea enthusiastically and
encouraged us to proceed with it. We agreed to do so but insisted that this union
differ from the old one in its structure, functions and objectives. Following the
discussion, it was not a proper constitution that was drafted but a provisional
one. The City Wide Union started functioning in 1966 by electing Baro Tumsa
as its president in the presence of Dean Paul. The unions of the other campuses
raised a hue and cry, protesting at the creation of another union above them. This
entailed ceaseless debates. The academic year closed on this note but not before
a promise was made to hold a referendum on this issue when school reopened.
The year 1966 saw the admission of a great number of students into the
University. Secondary school students, who had been aware of the public
demonstrations staged by university students on such issues as “Land to the
Tiller”, “Shola Concentration Camp” and Rhodesia could barely control their
eagerness to participate in these activities. Unlike in the past, this group was not

14
The College of Business Administration was then located on the 4th floor of the New Classroom
Building that was inaugurated at the beginning of the 1965-66 academic year.
15
As a matter of fact, the Law Faculty was separated only by a lawn, not a fence.
16
The former Dean of the Faculty of Law, subsequently Academic Vice-President of the
University.

52
 Student Organizations

of the type to “sit on the fence”. Students of Menelik II Secondary School in

particular had a long story of active participation in demonstrations, albeit in an
unorganized fashion. When they joined the University, they became ardent
supporters of USUAA, particularly freshmen. Those who proved the most
militant and assumed the leadership came from this group. USUAA came out the
victor in the referendum. There was dispute over the numbers. We claimed that
the votes were 500 to 400 in our favour. There were those who said that what
tipped the balance was the ½ vote (instead of the customary one-third vote)
assigned to freshmen. This claim gained prominence when agitation to dismantle
USUAA started. I am not certain how many votes we gained; however, what was
important was our victory.
The referendum took place in either November or December and was
followed by election. Due to the University’s strict rule that no student on
probation could hold an office, those students we deemed most dynamic were
barred, as a result of which the task fell on me. Because I could appreciate the
problem, I accepted; nevertheless, I got more than I had bargained for when I
became Secretary-General instead of just a member of the Congress!
I am skipping certain things now. Once USUAA was established, the main
event was the 6th NUEUS Congress, for which we worked assiduously in order
to make it a resounding success. The resolution passed at the close of the
Congress had taken two months to prepare. By then, the suspended students, one
of whom was Berhane Meskel, had been reinstated. We argued that even if he
could not be a member of the leadership, as he was still on probation, he could
still attend the Congress as a delegate. The resolution was drafted by two
students but its final form was discussed at length before we went into the
Congress.
It was a comprehensive resolution in that it covered both national and
international issues. As Dessalegn pointed out yesterday, the international issue
had come to gain prominence because of the anti-Vietnam War movement. On
“Vietnam Day”, celebrated annually, we would display pictures showing the
horrors of the war. A student named Getachew Habte,17 who had access to
Novosty Press Agency, supplied us with the pictures. Books on the Cuban
Revolution were widely being read too. It was because students had decided to
struggle in this manner that the resolutions of the 6th NUEUS Congress focused
on international issues and took an anti-imperialist stance.
Incidentally, an explanation is necessary regarding the word
“Imperialism”. Prior to the 6th Congress, we had made it a point not to use the
word lest we offend certain elements. When we ran for office in USUAA, we
had agreed not to use that term. We would instead focus on the backwardness of

17
Getachew Habte was shot in 1972 as he attempted to hijack a plane with Walelign Mekonnen,
Marta Mebratu and five other students.

53
 Bahru Zewde

our country and the need for change. The 6th Congress of NUEUS changed all
that – for the first time, we declared that USUAA was an anti-imperialist student
movement. Before that, we would use the word only amongst ourselves.
What was amazing about that Congress was the fact that the Alemaya
Sudents Union, which had produced such people as Mulugeta and had developed
an international perspective, had fallen under a new leadership that resorted to a
petty argument, to wit, “Since USUAA has turned up at the Congress as a bloc,
it is well nigh-impossible for a genuine NUEUS to emerge from this
conference.” USUAA had 23 delegates compared to their combined 14 (Gondar
and Alemaya). Their stand that voting should be by unions rather than delegates
entailed a lengthy debate. Some meetings would last until 2 a.m. A good number
of leaflets, supporting one side or the other, were disseminated. At last we came
to the conclusion that, even if they had as many votes as we, there were still
individuals among them who would cast their votes for us.
There was heated argument during the two days it took to agree on the
resolutions. I would like to mention three of the resolutions because of their
relevance to later events. One is related to Eritrea. A year earlier, the
international student organization IUS had passed a resolution tabled by Arab
students in support of Eritrean independence. We had rejected the resolution on
the grounds that those who were supporting it were student unions that were
protégés of the Syrian Ba’athist party. It was decided to condemn them. The
second resolution called on the IUS to renounce this resolution at its next
Congress. The third was concerned with the anti-imperialist stand and called on
fundamental change in the country on various fronts, including land tenure.
Leaflets for and against the NUEUS resolutions started being disseminated.
There were those who deplored the resolution on Eritrea. This created division
among the general student population, although there was no problem among the
activists.
The 6th Congress came to a close. What then followed were Ato Bekele
[Taddese] and his group with their “Restoration Committee”. The Congress had
its share in triggering that committee, as the radicalization of the Congress was
unpalatable to that group. This is the way they put it: “What these people have
been discussing for 6 days is in no way related to maters of immediate concern
to the students. What we need is a union dedicated to our cause.” They managed
to collect some 800 signatures and, since the constitution of the union provided
for calling a General Assembly if 10% of the student body so wished, we agreed
to their request. However, we received word from students of the Law School
that a bill banning public demonstrations was being enacted by Parliament. We
promptly decided to counteract this by preparing a demonstration within a week.
Although there was the danger of not getting a quorum and of dissension among
the students, we nonetheless decided to call a General Assembly.

54
 Student Organizations

I vividly remember that a great number of students were convinced that

this law was tailor-made for them. It was designed specifically to prevent
students rather than the general public from holding a public demonstration. A
number of suggestions were put forward as to what should be done: staging a
demonstration, writing a petition, sending a delegation to Parliament. Owing to
the absence of a quorum, it was decided that the USUAA Congress should
convene on the weekend (this was Friday) and meet with the students on the
football field of Arat Kilo on Monday at 1:00 p.m. When we met at the
designated time and place, we were ready for a demonstration. There were about
1,600 students. What occurred after that has been described accurately (except
for some names) in the Awad-Strauss report.18
All this resulted in the consolidation of USUAA and some reduction of the
dissension among students. Nonetheless, the Restoration Committee continued
its course of action in two ways. The first one was spearheaded by Ato Bekele
and company. The second one had no problem with USUAA but could not stand
the leadership and wanted to get rid of it. The latter were those who were against
the NUEUS resolution regarding Eritrea. This latter trend was not so apparent at
the time but was internally very divisive. It was aptly illustrated by those
students staying in bed in their pyjamas during the demonstration staged in
protest at the anti-demonstration law. However, we all wound up in the same
place after the police invaded the campus.
Following this, USUAA, as I mentioned before, grew from strength to
strength. There was no question of its fall. Contrary to our expectation that the
debate would continue in September, the “Restoration Committee” could not
summon as many supporters as it had before. It was no mean task, though.
Supporters of the “Restoration Committee”, unlike those of USUAA, attended
meetings infrequently and never got a chance to express their opinions. So, the
restoration movement faded away, while USUAA continued on its course.
The year 1968 saw students getting better organized. (I was no longer in
the student union leadership). As a supplement to what Ato Mulugeta mentioned
earlier, students often continued relations with those who had graduated and got
employed. This relationship came in different forms. Organized people like Ato
Mulugeta gave material assistance when leaflets were mimeographed and
disseminated, the Alumni of University Students contributed a great deal.
Although I do not know who the present owner is, I know that leaflets were
printed in the offices of the Awash Valley Authority. That line of duty was the
responsibility of Hailu Gebre Yohannes. There was indeed formidable outside
support.

18
The comprehensive report commissioned by the University and compiled by the two staff
members; it was included in the reading material distributed to the retreat participants in
advance.

55
 Bahru Zewde

I have never been able to understand why, but following a demonstration,

the first facility to shut down was always the cafeteria, which would cause
students to disband. Students would go out and in two hours collect enough
funds to provide students with meals for two days! Other students went around
the city handing out a ticket (as a kind of receipt) against cash donations. Two or
three students would sit at Varsity Bar19 distributing vouchers bearing the seal of
USUAA. Students would obtain their vouchers and dine at Zewditu Hotel (in
front of the Parliament building at Arat Kilo) or at other restaurants. It was the
enduring public support at the time that enabled students to hold out through
lengthy demonstrations. I have said my piece.

19
Located in front of the Technology Faculty at Amist Kilo, this place continued well into the
1970s as a centre of radical political activity. This tradition may have had its genesis in the fact
that student radicals like Walelign used to reside in the hostel above. It remains one of the
abiding ironies of the time that the hostel, owned by the Mekane Iyesus Evangelical Church,
came to house some of the most radical students.

56
 Student Organizations

Yeraswork Admassie

The radicalization process of the Ethiopian Student Union in Europe was very
similar to that of its counter-part in the USA. Of course, personally, I was too
young in age and inexperienced – my only source of information being books
and informants – to be adequately conversant with events that occurred prior to
1968. So I can only surmise that the similarity existed. I know that particularly
the Congress of the Ethiopian Student Union in Europe held in Zagreb20 had
underlined the fact that fundamental change was absolutely essential for Ethiopia
and that trend had gained ascendancy thereafter. I am also aware that branches of
the Union had been set up in various European countries, these branch unions
and their subsidiaries had set up study clubs designed to read about and conduct
theoretical study on Ethiopia.
I had nearly finished my freshman year at HSIU when I traveled to
Sweden. At the beginning of 1969, Dr. Kebede Mengesha, who had been
informed that there were a good number of Ethiopian students in Lund, came
there. Captivated by his sterling personality, we were eager to know what he had
to say. “Without resorting to any means that may scare off people or alienate
them, you can get together and exchange opinions about your country. It would
be good to choose one person from among you. We will send that person
periodicals.” That is the way it all started. By coincidence, the next ESUE
Congress took place in the very city we were in, i.e. Lund, in August 1969. The
person in charge of arranging the meeting was Dr. Elehu Feleke, who came from
Stockholm for the purpose. We participated actively in organizing and hosting
the meeting; from that day on the union moved from strength to strength. As I
was personally involved in this union and also because I believe that it can be
taken as a model, I would like to elaborate on it.
Thus those of us in Lund got together in record time and established a
subsidiary union with a strong discussion club. Soon, we started playing an
important role both in Sweden and on the European stage. This was made
possible (as I heard it mentioned yesterday) by the students’ burning desire for
change, a desire fueled by the war in Vietnam. As the same sentiment was being
expressed there as everywhere else since 1968, it could not have been otherwise.
It was the reverse that would have elicited utter surprise. In addition to this,
Lund being a small University town, willy-nilly, we always ran into each other;
therefore, we were in a position to form a solid and harmonious union. Each
member took turn on Sundays to make a presentation of the material he had read.
Presenter and chairman were decided by drawing a lot; accordingly, every
member had to come well-prepared. We had a well-designed program which

20
Held in the summer of 1968.

57
 Bahru Zewde

enabled us to cover a variety of topics. For example, we had political economy

during the first semester and philosophy at another time. A year before the
Berlin Congress, we had to read extensively on the Marxist stand regarding the
question of nationalities; so exhaustive was our research that we held discussions
on union level in Sweden, where we thrashed out both our similarities and
differences. The topic was discussed so repeatedly that we would jokingly
remark: “We are redolent of nations and nationalities.”
It goes without saying that individuals played a great role in the setting up
of such strong groups. In our area, Dr. Kebede Mengesha provided us with
strong but discreet leadership in being good readers, listeners and speakers. We
are really indebted to him. The other personality was Dr. Elehu, the president of
the ESUE Executive Committee based in Lund. He taught us the skill of
refraining from giving impulsive replies, making sure of not taking
confrontational stands and letting problems die out of their own accord.
As most of you are aware, the Editorial Board of the periodical was based
in Stockholm. It was located in a basement and (for reason no one knew) was
called ‘Zenith”. It was both our meeting place and the place where the periodical
was printed. The Amharic version was of refined quality; as the letters were
picked by hand. (The machine was of Portuguese origin). It was Dr. Kebede who
picked and set the letters to form words, lines, paragraphs and pages. Probably
95% the chore was done by him; so much so, that his fingers were cut and
bruised by the sharp metal. Whenever we went to Stockholm, we would help
him at the printing center. Such exemplary work was at the base of the strength
of the Swedish branch and the Lund subsidiary of ESUE.
Now let me move on to some major events. There were sieges of
embassies. Tedla and I took part in the embassy siege of 1969. It was
accomplished in an organized and disciplined fashion. It was well planned and
faultlessly executed. While we were in Lund, we used to send a substantial
percentage of our earnings derived from summer work to our friends in Algeria.
We would also prepare a dinner party, whose proceeds went the same way. The
years around 1970 were indeed a time when we participated enthusiastically in
the activities of the union.
Melaku can correct me, but it was during the 1970 Congress that
dissension reared its ugly head for the first time. The Benelux branch was at the
centre of it all. It became clear that divisions and factions were emerging.
Although most of us were not clear about it, we could still detect that there were
problems. It was at that Congress that Melaku and I met for the first time. The
Congress had divided up into different working groups in order to draft the
resolutions. Surprisingly enough, both of us were working in harmony. In
subsequent years, however, it became difficult to address each other civilly,
much less work in a cordial atmosphere. Endless arguments during meetings

58
 Student Organizations

became our sole mode of interaction. It was only some five years back, at a
conference of the Ethiopian Economic Association, that, to our mutual
amazement, we found ourselves in amicable conversation.
Now back to the dissension of 1970. We were mere militants, blissfully
unaware that there were elements among us who were members of a given party.
In our innocence, we hoped that the gap between existing differences would
somehow narrow (it could be that we knew nothing of what was going on behind
the scenes). At one point around 1971, the union in Lund had issued an article in
Tiglachen entitled “Problems of Unions, Part I”. I remember a rejoinder entitled
“Problems of Unions, Part II” issued by those in Algeria. (I have a copy of it).
How did the whole thing start? We, in Lund, had prepared that article prompted
by the following considerations: “How did the dissension in ESUNA occur?
Was it on the question of nations and nationalities? Does that warrant such a
division? Could the differences have been accommodated?” We had discussed
the issue thoroughly before publishing the article. We sincerely believed that
differences are in the nature of mass organizations and should not hamper
working together. Furthermore, we were of the opinion that this problem arose
from unscrupulous behavior such as putting labels on persons and questioning
their motives. We clearly indicated that the interest of the student movement
should override such obstacles.
In reply, the Algerian group accused us of acting in the manner of feudal
peace-makers intent on neutralizing the existing class struggle. On reading this,
even though I was one of the authors of the Lund article, I began wondering if
their charge was not justified. Weren’t we being rather gullible? If you recall, at
the time, among left-wing movements (in Ethiopia as well as in the rest of the
world), there were tendencies to overstress differences, to take extreme positions
and to divide up. It is to be recalled that in 1971-72, a good number of
organizations were splintering. Trotskytes in particular had different appellations
for splinter groups. This may explain the phenomenon in the Ethiopian student
movement as well.
A little later, the question of nationalities arose. There was no dissension
among members of the union in Europe. Although they went their separate ways
when the question of parties arose, the groups that subsequently evolved into
EPRP and AESM had a similar stand on the question of nationalities.
So our agenda at the ESUE Congress in Berlin in 1970 revolved around
overall change in Ethiopia. The 1971 Congress dealt with the question of
nationalities. At the close of that Congress, the Executive Council moved to
Lund, where it functioned for a year. At the end of the 1972 Congress, which
was held in Antony (Paris), it was decided to move the Executive Council back
to Lund, though I recall that those who arrived from Benelux (I think Melaku
and others) had declared themselves ready to take over. It was a novel

59
 Bahru Zewde

experience in that it was the first time that a group had volunteered to assume
responsibility without being either pressured or begged. I am not sure how (I
think there was some kind of voting) but Lund was selected. The Antony
Congress had strongly urged the newly-elected Executive Committee (of which I
was Secretary-General) that the World Wide Union of Ethiopian Students
(WWUES) secure its own secretariat in order to inject new life into it.
As those of you who were in ESUNA recall, there was a division of
labour, ESUNA being in charge of the WWUES periodical and ESUE with the
Executive Committee, as it was nearer to the IUS based in Czechoslovakia. The
seal was with the ESUE Executive Committee. So, when we assumed the ESUE
leadership, we were mandated to vitalize WWUES by setting up its own
secretariat. So, the ESUE President was assigned to follow up WWUES matters
and the Secretary-General ESUE affairs.
Accordingly, we called a meeting in Berlin in April 1973. We sent
invitations to all and set up the meeting place. As it turned out, that meeting
became a forum for our split. What has to be underscored here is that at the
Antony meeting, it had been resolved that the student movement can only be a
mass organization. In retrospect, that was presumably necessitated by the
differences that were evolving behind the scenes. Those who were blissfully
oblivious of the organizational struggles underneath assumed that everything
could be resolved peacefully. After the Lund piece and the Algerian rejoinder
that I cited earlier, divisions deepened. The April 1973 meeting, which had been
called to reinvigorate WWUES, ended up being a platform where organizational
divisions were played out.
The first order of business was resolving the issue of mandate. A number
of people had come to the meeting, supporters of this or that group. So we had to
lay down a rule that not everyone assembled there could speak. Only designated
representatives of the constituent unions could do so. There was consensus on
ESUE, ESUNA, and the World Wide Ethiopian Women Study Group. The
representatives from Algeria and Lebanon proved more contentious.
The President of ESUE had assumed the chair. A dispute arose over
voting procedures. ESUE proposed unanimity. During a break, we conferred
with Mamo [Muche] and Solomon [Tessema] and agreed on four votes out of
five as constituting a majority. In the afternoon, a delegate from Sudan named
Tariku [Debre Tsion] arrived at the meeting and we found ourselves in the
minority. The next evening, Solomon persuaded the Chairperson (the President
of ESUE) to resign in favour of a neutral person lest there be a conflict of
interest. So who replaced him as chairperson? Tesfaye Debessay! This is the way
things stood: Tesfaye Debessay is Chairman and we are in the minority.
Predictably, things were not going our way: we were out-voted each and every
time, except once when an article was hotly debated. Melaku, do you recall our

60
 Student Organizations

holding meetings as late as 3:00 or 5:00 am in the morning? We would sleep for
two hours and resume.
The article which caused such a row had to do with foreign relations and
read as follows: “Foreign relations will be conducted solely by the World Wide
Union21 of Ethiopian Students.” We argued that subsidiary unions, branch unions
and continental unions should have the freedom to conduct foreign relations.
What I understood then was that one body would take absolute control of the
Ethiopian student movement and monopolize its foreign relations, while the
other group would be made impotent. The argument continued unabated. It was
mainly the Algerian delegate and myself that were debating. The ESUE
president was quiet by nature. The ESUNA delegates and the representative of
the Women’s Study Group also spoke only occasionally.
Sometime around 2 or 3 am, a phenomenon I would like to mention
parenthetically occurred. I suddenly realized that two of the delegates from the
USA were fast asleep. I submitted that this be put on record. “Both delegates of
the great North American union have chosen to take a nap while a vital issue is
under discussion.” Upon being awoken, Mamo blamed Solomon and Solomon
accused Mamo. A commotion ensued following a request that this improper
conduct be recorded. I then addressed the two persons in charge of taking down
the minutes of the conference (one was a person named Meskerem from the US,
while the other was Amha Abiy from France), “Are you taking down what I
have requested?” They answered in the affirmative, whereupon the dispute over
whether the sleeping of the North American delegates be minuted or not was put
on record.
Speaking of minutes, while all this was going on, Haile (Fida) was sitting
aside and was consuming a ream of paper writing furiously. His notes kept piling
up. Mamo and the others would ask him what he was writing, but he would tell
them to be patient, that they will see it later. Occasionally (for example during
the heated debate mentioned earlier) there were strongly–worded denunciations
and recriminations such as: “You will be judged by the Ethiopian people. You
will be accountable to history.” At this point, a high official stormed out of the
meeting hall, cursing “Bullshit”. This outburst was faithfully recorded in the
minutes. Of course, lack of sleep – only two or three hours per night – had its
share in all this!
Another event occurred at the place where we took our meals. One
evening, Berhane Meskel and Haile were having an argument. Both men’s veins
stood out and people kept their distance, apprehensive that an explosion was in
the offing. While we were both in prison, I had the opportunity to ask Haile what
it was all about. He replied, “We were telling each other that he would be

21
“Federation”, as it has come to be designated at this stage.

61
 Bahru Zewde

answerable for it later.” We all know too well the fateful consequences of those
differences.
Because of this difference, ESUE declined to be a member of the
Federation to be formed. We informed them that if such repression was to be the
order of the day, we would refuse to be a member; however, we would do
everything in our power to make the union a good one. They asked us a second
time if we would change our minds, and we informed them that we stood by our
decision. In the end, the constitution was ratified and elections were held (we
had no part in it), in which a secretary for foreign relations and a chairman were
elected.
We had thought the conference was over, when the leadership of ESUNA
drew our attention to a leaflet they had been given by members of Eritreans for
Liberation. They wanted the leaflet to be read to the assembly. On getting the go
ahead from the chairman, Tesfaye, they began reading. It was a lengthy article
that narrated in detail how Issayas and his friends left “Jabha”. Everyone was
attentive as the tract was read from beginning to end. Then Haile raised his hand
and asked what the point of of reading such a piece was. This was greeted by
pandemonium from the audience who wanted to know what his motive for
posing such a question was. Berhane Meskel raised his hand and said that he
would answer that question. Order was then restored. Berhane Meskel had the
floor. (By the way, all this is recorded and formally signed by the participants.
We, the leaders of ESUE, had this mimeographed and distributed to all our
members. I believe that document is secure. Although I don’t own a copy, those
who are abroad must have one).
In reply to Haile’s question, Berhane Meskel explained that the article was
read in order to illustrate EPLF’s positive attitude towards the Ethiopian
Revolution and Ethiopian revolutionaries. This created a minor commotion.
Berhane Maskal elaborated: “This positive attitude is clearly demonstrated by
the fact that Ato Saleh Sabbe has in the past assisted Ethiopian militants by
offering us passports, financial support, etc.” I remember that Chairman Tesfaye
did not quite like this and gave Berhane Meskel a warning look, whereupon
Haile promptly declared that he was satisfied with the reply given.
I mention these things because they are good indicators. We then left the
scene and tackled the job of reproducing the minutes of the meeting and the
constitution to be distributed to our members. Next we met in Hanover (at the
ESUE Congress), where a paper prepared by Abdul Mejid Hussein was printed
and distributed. The title was “Leaders of ESUE Take After Their Father,
Goebbels”. It charged us with adding the word “sole” to the clause “The
Federation is the sole body empowered to conduct foreign relations.”
At the meeting, the question of who was responsible for the addition of the
word “sole” came under discussion. Solomon raised his hand and said: “The

62
 Student Organizations

word ‘sole’ was in the original version. It was Abebech who deleted it.” The
whole accusation crumpled like a house of cards. Those who came from
Moscow, Ephrem and his friends, took the responsibility of seeking a solution to
satisfy everyone. After certain items had been rectified, a meeting of the
leadership was called in Berlin. Thus, at the 1973 Hanover Congress, we had
stood on the dock accused of sabotaging the union; however, the meeting
exonerated us. A call for reconciliation was passed by a narrow margin.
Once more we met in Berlin, where this call for reconciliation got wide
support. All the leaders of the branch unions were in accord. But by then, the
Ethiopian Revolution had erupted. It was felt that it would be improper to end
the meting before we held a discussion on the revolution. I recall that it was
Kiflu Tadesse who made a speech, following which opinions were heard on the
composition of the “Provisional Popular Government.” We argued back and
forth. We took breaks, to no avail. The gap got wider and wider. At this time,
those behind-the-scene parties began to emerge, eventually involving most of us.
In 1974, we met once again in Berlin, where we held the last united
Congress. Elections were held, whereby what we refer to as ESUE and what was
later to join the AESM managed, by a minority vote, to control the Editorial
Board of the periodical and the Executive Council. The other side was dead set
against this. That was the last time the two groups ever met. When next we met
in Berlin in 1975, they held separate meetings. We will go over what came after
this at a later date.

63
 Bahru Zewde

Alem Habtu

It was formerly known as ESANA, not ESUNA; it was an association, not a

union. I participated in that union for the first time in August 1964. It was then
that those of us in this retreat met as union members for the first time. The
meeting was held at Harvard University, a venue Ephrem Isaac (now Professor
Ephrem Isaac) secured for us by dint of his being a student there. Hagos
Gebreyesus, Melese Ayalew and Berhanu Abebe in Brandeis (Wondwossen
Hailu, too, was there at the time) were instrumental in initiating the
reorganization of ESANA (especially the first three people). It may be that they
were corresponding with Dessalegn, who was in Ohio. On receiving an
invitation to attend a meeting, I headed for Pennsylvania, where we all met for
the first time.
It was a transitional meeting designed to emancipate the union from its
dependency on the Ethiopian Government’s sponsorship and financial subsidy
and set it on its own feet. Up to that time, such meetings were marked by the
Cultural Attaché of the Ethiopian Embassy offering a substantial amount of
duty-free whisky to delegates in order to remind them of His Imperial Majesty’s
unbound generosity in providing them with education. (A case in point was Ato
Teffera Wondimagegnehu, Cultural Attaché at the Ethiopian Embassy in
Washington). Our purpose was to break that tradition. After a lengthy debate, we
reached a consensus that we should have a free union. The above- mentioned
people from Brandeis must have given the matter a great deal of thought. It was
a very democratic meeting conducted following parliamentary procedure.
Near the close of the meeting, an election was held. Ballots for those in
favour of change and ballots for those in favour of maintaining the status quo
were prepared. We won by a majority of votes and succeeded in establishing a
free student union. Unless I err, Hagos was elected President, Berhanu Abebe
Secretary-General. I do not recall who was elected Vice-President. Melese
Ayalew and Dessalegn Rahmato became editor and assistant editor, respectively.
Neither Andreas nor myself were elected to office. It is possible that, as a
compromise, some old liners were admitted into the leadership. The treasurer
may have been a member of the outgoing student council. I do not recall the
details.
From then on, our stand was one of a free union. Our next meeting was
held in August at the same venue - Harvard, Cambridge. As mentioned earlier,
the “Land to the Tiller” demonstration had been staged in the interim. Our union
took a stance opposing the feudal system existing in Ethiopia. Ephrem Isaac
played a key role in making the literacy campaign a part of our union’s program.
He relentlessly pressed us to support this drive by raising funds. We whole-
heartedly gave our consent. Ephrem would remind us: “You may not consider

64
 Student Organizations

this [the literacy campaign] political, but you can’t deny the fact that, unless they
learn how to read and write, people won’t be able to read what you have
written.” We agreed and acted accordingly. Some of us learnt the skills of baking
injera as a result of our endeavor to raise funds for the literacy campaign.
We held our annual Congress of 1966 in the same venue. The meeting was
so democratic that a good number of students, although in favour of change,
were vehemently opposed to radical change in the regime of Haile Selassie and
strongly advocated reforms. Arguments were the order of the day. I recall that in
1966, while we were drafting a resolution, a point in support of nationalizing the
means of production was raised. We wanted it to be understood by everyone
present. Our intention was not to rush the resolution through. I remember
Andreas Eshete asking if this point was sufficiently understood. Berekt Habte
Sellassie, then working for his doctorate at UCLA, replied that he had perfectly
understood it. After a heated discussion, the item was included in our
resolutions. It would seem that it was at this time that the union began its left-
wing trend.
It has been mentioned earlier that we had extensive contact and
cooperation with African-Americans. That year, our guest speaker at our
meeting at Harvard was Kwame Toure (formerly known as Stokely Carmichael,
a member of the radical youth wing and later a member of the Black Panthers).
Later, we would meet with African-Americans who supported our cause as we
supported theirs. Our 1967 meeting was held in Bloomington, Indiana. The
meeting was made possible thanks to the assistance rendered us by Ethiopians
studying at the university. I believe it is there that the union passed resolutions
pertaining to education, health, land tenure and emerged as an anti-feudal and
anti-imperialist body.
I believe that, the previous year, I was Deputy Secretary-General. At the
meeting at Bloomington, I took over the presidency from Hagos and served for
one year. We had a smooth relationship with ESUE. We would send them our
periodicals and they would send us theirs. In keeping with our agreement, we
published the English version while they issued the Amharic one. Once in a
while, we would translate their Amharic writing into English. I remember us
translating an article they had written on social change and issuing it under the
title “The Boston Papers”.
That year, one of the leaders of the union in Europe (I think it was Haile
Fida) was corresponding with one of the leaders of Jabha, Salah Sabeh. I, too,
sent a letter to the same person in the name of ESUNA. I was naïve enough to
write the letter in Amharic. The content was to the effect that as long as all of us
were anti-feudal and anti-imperialist, there was no reason why we could not
support one another or cooperate with each other. His reply was written in
English and told us in no uncertain terms that “unless you acknowledge Ethiopia

65
 Bahru Zewde

as a colonizer and Eritrea as a colony, no relationship can be established between

us.” Some of the main meetings over the next years were as follows:
The next meeting took place in August 1968 in New Haven, Connecticut.
It was made possible by the presence of Andreas Eshete at Yale. The main item
on that agenda was “What is the Role of the Student Movement?” By
coincidence, Eshetu [Chole] was there on his way home. Tamrat and Henock
were in their final years as students. The message that we wanted conveyed and
one which we had agreed upon was that the role of the student movement was
very limited. It is a catalyst leading to change but incapable of effecting change
by itself. Our intention was to underline its limitations. All the research papers
and our resolutions were published in Challenge. The next meeting was in
Philadelphia. The agenda was “Regionalism in Ethiopia”. Every year, we would
discuss and set an agenda for the annual meeting.
Let me, however, mention something first. At our 1968 meeting in New
Haven, after we had passed the resolution emphasizing the limited role of the
student movement, somebody (I think it was Dessalegn) brought up the idea of
us engaging in political education program (PEP in English). We agreed whole-
heartedly. This was important because America is such a vast country, with a
large number of chapters, that it was a difficult task to maintain links; a political
education program would help maintain uniform standards. Moreover, since one
cannot be a life-long student, one has to prepare for the political realities after
finishing our studies. It would also be of benefit to such people as Tamrat,
Eshetu Chole and Henock Kifle when they return home. Since our knowledge of
our native land as well as our knowledge of politics was patchy, this would help
fill the gap. It was further agreed that we should have a more profound
knowledge than chanting mere slogans. The more conscious members of the
union were assigned to give political education wherever possible. To that end,
two modules were prepared, one on Ethiopia and the other on theory (Marxism,
Leninism, revolutionary struggle).
Let me backtrack to 1969. I remember two reasons why “Regionalism in
Ethiopia” was chosen as our agenda. One was because the item had been
discussed and resolutions passed by ESUE a year earlier (1968) in Zagreb. The
other reason was our realization that regionalism being such a sensitive subject,
it would be too much to expect our compatriots in Ethiopia (who lived in a
politically more repressive society) to bring up the issue for discussion. We,
therefore, agreed to take up the challenge by preparing papers for the meeting.
We held our Congress in Philadelphia, where we discussed this issue. At
last, after a lengthy debate, we reached a consensus. Yordanos Gebre Medhin
(from Boston) and Haile Menkerios were two of the Eritrean participants who
supported the idea. Because of lack of time to draft a set of resolutions, the

66
 Student Organizations

Congress mandated us, the Executive Committee, to prepare it in the spirit of the
consensus.
Let me add a footnote to our 1969 meeting in Philadelphia (I hope that I
am not wrong). When Senay Lekke arrived from the Bay Area, he was
transformed from a garrulous person to a militant. During the course of an
activists’ meeting, which was held parallel with the Congress, he informed us
that he had mastered the skill of concocting Molotov cocktails and suggested
that this be put to use. He was studying chemical engineering. We were
vehement in our opposition, which shocked him. Our protest was probably the
last thing he expected.
The 1970 Congress was held in Washington. The assassination of Tilahun
Gizaw in December 1969 had had a big impact on the student movement inside
the country. What are we going to do? Are we going to sit with folded arms
while the regime declares war on us? No, we should retaliate. Such was the
prevalent attitude. The leading exponents of this were those who had recently
come from Ethiopia: Abdul, my own brother Mesfin Habtu, and some others.
Those who arrived from Ethiopia after the 1969 incident dominated the
Washington Congress numerically. The burning question at the time was: What
next? Andreas Eshete was chairing the meeting. Those who had recently arrived
from Ethiopia, as well as those of us who had been in the States for some time,
took turns in voicing their opinions. I remember it being mentioned yesterday:
the contingent from the Bay Area, led by Senay Lekke, were clothed in fatigues
and had on boots. They lived in communes. They abstained from drinking
alcohol and they may even have quit smoking. They were leading spartan lives.
It would seem that the more militant members had even gone to Cuba to undergo
training in guerrilla warfare, presumably to enter Ethiopia via Bale, rather than
Bole!22
We would debate endlessly over this issue. We in the leadership would
hold the Congress meeting by day and debate with the people from the Bay Area
at night. We strongly pointed out to them that they were going about it the wrong
way. I don’t know how much time we spent arguing the issue, but we succeeded
in convincing them. Even Senay had to admit it. “Oh, you know, I knew all
along that it was not right. I just thought it would be best if they heard it from
you.”
The proponents of the “armed struggle now” argued that it was necessary
to retaliate in response to the regime’s declaration of war on the student
movement. The supporters of “a protracted armed struggle” admitted that, true,
students had been killed, that there was oppression and other hardships but while

22
A commonly drawn contrasting option, positing the remote southeastern province of Bale
(adjoining Somalia and already scene of guerrilla activity in the 1960s) and Bole International
Airport.

67
 Bahru Zewde

armed struggle was the logical course, it would have to be a “long struggle.” I
remember that Melese Ayalew had written an article entitled “The Long March”.
We reaffirmed our conviction that the role of the student movement was limited,
and even if there were to be armed struggle, it would be waged by the combined
forces of the proletariat and the peasants; students were merely their allies.
So, how did all this end? Although those in the leadership were not of one
mind, it was decided that the leadership should move to the Bay Area. Seeing
that it was a vast country, it was imperative that the leadership should be located
within easy access to everyone. We also managed to convince the Congress that
we had overstayed our tenure and should be replaced, thus resolving a problem
that had been bothering us for a long time.
In 1971, we took up the national question, which split the union. Andreas
had returned home. Most of us who were in the leadership – Dessalegn, Melese,
myself – never imagined that there would be such a split. Senay’s group, without
consulting us, walked out of the Congress. I took it upon myself to talk them into
coming back by pointing out that they could stay as a minority within the union.
As Tamrat is fully aware, up until the outbreak of the revolution, we left no
avenue unexplored to put the union back together, to no avail. Some of us were
apprehensive that this split, unless checked, would manifest itself in Ethiopia,
with dire consequences. I believe we were proven right.

68
 Student Organizations

Melaku Tegegn

I am grateful for being given some time. I am convinced that what has been
presented so far on the student movement is useful; therefore, I would like to
continue in that vein. I would like to take up two items: to report on the struggle
by the Alemaya College student movement (hitherto unrecorded) and to
supplement on what Yeraswork has spoken concerning the European Union and
the Federation. I hope that I will be allowed sufficient time.
At the time, 1968-69 and 1970, the number of secondary school students
who had sat for and passed Matriculation Examination and joined the University
and Alemaya College had hit an all-time high. Many of us had participated in the
student movement and had become radicalized. This is one aspect. Secondly,
while we were still in secondary school in Addis Ababa, the student movement
had become nation-wide, especially after 1968. Alemaya College was the only
exception. Our chief objective was to make Alemaya a part of the nation-wide
student movement, to radicalize it. The first great move along this path was
taken when Alemaya College joined the struggle in 1968 in the nation-wide
demonstration that was staged under the slogan, "Education for all!"
For the first time in its history, Alemaya College was to stage a
demonstration. As most of you aware, Alemaya is located in the countryside.
The town itself is little more than a village. So we debated as to which town to
use for a demonstration and finally settled on Harar (the provincial capital).
However, there were logistical and security problems. This was a different kettle
of fish, unlike Arat Kilo or Sidist Kilo, where students could assemble promptly
and take to the streets. The journey (from Alemaya to another town) would take
one or two hours, thus risking isolation and dispersal. Therefore, taking the
security risks into consideration, we did not decide either our destination or the
route to be taken until the last moment; we left this decision to the Executive
Council. It was feared that certain elements in the student body might inform the
police.
I remember that we started walking to Harar at 4:00 am and arrived there
at dawn. We then marched to the city center. The police, having been informed
of the demonstration, were lying in wait for us on the highway. However, as we
had crossed the countryside to reach the city, the police had to retrace their path
to meet us. They stopped us in front of the Governor's office, near the bank.
They refused to let us continue. I recall a vociferous Debella Dinsa23 (then a
captain) yelling: “If you don't go back, you will get your just desserts!” There
followed a confrontation: we stood our ground and let it be known that we would
not return without submitting our demands to the Governor; they claimed that
23
He subsequently became a member of the Derg that ruled Ethiopia after the overthrow of
Emperor Haile Sellassie in September 1974.

69
 Bahru Zewde

the Governor was absent. Finally the Executive Council (the President was
Befekadu Degefe) negotiated a truce (“your demands will be presented to the
government. Now go back in an orderly fashion”). We returned home in two
buses supplied by the government.
Back on campus, the Executive Council was put on the carpet for taking
divisive measures. At this point in time, the student movement had become a
boiling cauldron. Eight University students (including Walelign) had been
sentenced to from five to seven years imprisonment. (Only one escaped across
the Somali border). Mesfin Habtu and a few others were given a prison term of
six months. The students refused to attend classes unless those imprisoned were
set free. Once again, a logistical problem arose – how to secure transport funds
for students to return home. The union somehow managed to collect money from
teachers and other sources and to provide the required amount. Those who could
afford to pay their own way home were told to do so. Although some students
returned to classes later, everyone had withdrawn. Those of us who left in April
returned to our studies only six months later when Walelign and the others were
granted amnesty and set free.
What did we engage in during those six months? We read and studied.
Books were hard to come by; however, we read, studied and discussed anything
and everything we could lay our hands on. When we got back in 1969, we had
become radicalized and quite articulate regarding certain questions. Those
students who had returned to classes earlier were, in keeping with the labeling
system of USUAA, branded turncoats. The majority of the students were radical;
they (the turncoats) were a minority, albeit a significant one!
What made the year 1969 special? Certain instructors arrived. For
instance, Yohannes Admassu24 was assigned to teach Amharic to freshmen.
There were three other lectures with him. One was Mulugeta Assefa back from
the States, but I do not recall the name of the third person. We, members of the
Student Council, got very close with them and began clandestine work. By dint
of my being the Vice-President, and the fact that the President was taken to be a
reactionary (my own opinion is that he may have secured the post because he
was a senior then), I was the one who had direct contact with Yohannes and the
rest. Yohannes and his group in turn had contact with Bereket Habte Selassie25,
who was then legal advisor to the Governor. Bereket was our source of
information for what was going on in the government. Our activities were
prompted by his information. For instance, we would prepare pamphlets and
pass them on to Yohannes and his group, who commuted daily to and from their

24
The poet who was dismissed from college after reading the winning poem at the controversial
College Day described in detail in the first chapter.
25
Attorney-General and member of the Enquiry Commission set up in the wake of the February
1974 Revolution, before he joined the EPLF camp.

70
 Student Organizations

residence in Harar by car. They would hand the pamphlets to Bereket and he
would pass them on to secondary school students.
For the first time, we were able to coordinate Alemaya College and
secondary schools. This was the time that lecturers started getting involved. In
1969, when things took a turn for the worse, it was decided by the union that the
president and myself should confer with the USUAA leadership in Addis Ababa.
The individuals we met were Tilahun Gizaw, Abbay Abraha, Yohannes
Kassahun and, occasionally, Worku Gebeyehu. During our two-day meeting,
they informed us that the regime wanted students to stage demonstrations so that
it could kill those it had targeted; therefore, we should take care not to provoke it
or fall into its trap. They also gave us a modest analysis on the national question
and that this issue should be addressed. We then returned to Alemaya.
Some time after our return (I believe it was in early December 1969), we
received a copy of “Tagel” carrying Walelign's article on the questions of
nationalities. We read and discussed it. Then, I think it was on the day of the
Qulubi annual holiday26, we got the news that Tilahun Gizaw had been
assassinated. Our first measure was boycotting classes. Then the question of
taking to the streets was raised but abandoned. (A number of students had been
killed in connection with the funeral service arrangements of Tilahun Gizaw).
Then word reached us from Bereket informing us that a list had been circulated
by the security on which had appeared the names of five students to be
assassinated and advising us to proceed with great caution seeing the extremely
tense political atmosphere. The students were unwilling to provoke retaliations
and went on with their studies. I remember that only two other students and
myself left Alemaya. In the aftermath of Tilahun's assassination, the Alemaya
campus was surrounded by an armed force (not the police) for one week; no one
could enter or leave the campus during that period. This may have been another
factor that frightened the students.
When we turn our attention to the situation in Europe, there are some
events that I would like to reminisce. While we were on our way to buy a train
ticket from Dire Dawa to Addis, the three of us who had withdrawn from
Alemaya met Tekalign Wolde Ammanuel, who happened to be in town. We held
a lengthy discussion with him. He asked us what we were planning to do. We
told him that it was no longer possible to continue with the student movement;
something else had to be done. Although, we had a strong conviction that an
armed struggle had to be waged, we had no idea how to go about starting a
revolutionary movement or how to set up a communist party. We did not discuss
this either with Tilahun or anyone else. It was Tekalign who first gave us a
helpful hint. He was in agreement with us that the student movement could not

26
The annual celebration of the feast of St. Gabriel falls on Tahsas 19/December 28/29. Qulubi is
the town not far from Harar which becomes a centre of piligrimage on that day.

71
 Bahru Zewde

continue on the path it had traveled so far. Accordingly, it had to change into a
revolutionary movement. Armed struggle could start only once a communist
party had been set up, and a communist party had to go through a given process
before it emerged as a reality. The first task is to raise the public awareness in
Marxism. To achieve this, Marxist study circles had to be set up.
We then made our way to Addis, where our first task was to set up a study
circle. I remember that through lack of experience, we were indiscriminate in
recruiting members. For example, 25 persons attended the meeting I called. Do
you recall, Dessalegn, a friend of ours called Siraj Dibaba? Maybe was a relative
of yours. Our meeting took place at his home. We reached agreement that the
aim was to enhance our knowledge of Marxism, and to that end Marxist
literature should be collected and properly compiled for easy access. A week or
two later, someone who was not even remotely linked to us told me that he knew
that we had formed a political party. That incident taught me the need for
prudence. We had no choice but to dismantle the study group and put it on hold
because the disclosure of this matter spelt danger to us.
The study group gave us a good opportunity to develop strong ties with
Mesfin Habtu, with whom we exchanged literature. Mesfin further advised us
that all those who can leave for Europe and America should do so because the
organized forces were located in these two places. He was of the opinion that
rallying these forces would go a long way in expediting the question of armed
struggle and revolution. Those were the circumstances under which we came to
Europe
My first destination was Holland. We had always had a high opinion of
the union there. However, the reality was a let-down. With the exception of one
student residing in Amsterdam, the others were all living as post-graduate
students at the Institute of Social Studies in The Hague. A second problem was
their limited number; they were 6 or 7 when we came. The other problem was
that, apart from studying and discussing, the students engaged in no other
political activities outside the union. The union leaders were Terrefe W/Tsadik
and Abera Yemaneab,27 with whom we held several meetings at their homes;
however most of these discussions were informal.
In time, differences emerged between us. We were of the opinion that we
should be organized and that we should struggle. I remember Terefe's reaction:
“It is of primary importance that we should convene a congress of all Ethiopian
socialists in order to form a communist party. That is how a communist party is
formed. It is a protracted process. It is imperative that the student union should
be well-versed in Marxism.” While we agreed that being well-versed in Marxism

27
Both eventually became members of the Me’ison leadership.

72
 Student Organizations

was necessary, there was a need for organizing a determined group of people
outside the student union if we were to accomplish something of substance.
This was how the differences started. They started in the student union in
Netherlands and, as Yeraswork observed, later encompassed Europe and
eventually spread to the World Wide Federation. In retrospect, I think the
differences were more organizational than political; it was a reflection of the rift
between the groups that were later to organize Me’ison (All Ethiopia Socialist
Movement) and EPRP (Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Party). Despite Haile's
repeated trips to Algiers and lengthy discussions, no consensus could be reached
between the two groups. In essence, they tacitly agreed to disagree: “You go
your way and we will go ours. If at a point in time, we see eye to eye, then we
can come together.”
But the problem was that both targeted the student unions and the student
movement, be it for recruiting members or to push forward their political
positions. Most members of the student union were blissfully unaware of this.
Other questions that arose later widened the gap between them; but the initial
point of disagreement was organizational. The whole matter should be viewed in
this context.
With respect to the question of nationalities, I remember that the ESUNA
newsletter containing Tilahun Takele's article reached us in Holland in May or
June. Prior to this, all unions had done studies on the subject in preparation for
the 11th ESUE Congress, as that question was to be the main item in the agenda.
So had we. In point of fact, I was the one who prepared the Chapter's paper on
the question of nationalities. We knew nothing of the controversy that had arisen
elsewhere. On reading Tilahun Takele's article, we discovered that it was very
polemical. We also realized that the issue had reached a point of no return. We
were in support of Tilahun Takele's stance but only because Walelign's position
was similar to Tilahun's. We had neither political nor ideological ties before that.
Mesfin Habtu was instrumental in getting us in touch with the Algeria group,
with whom we started corresponding. We promptly established a good rapport
because since my days at Alemaya I had great respect for the group, particularly
for Berhane Meskel.
Because at the time I was a fresh political refugee with no regular
residence, I was using as my postal address the house where Tereffe and Aberra
were residing. Having been told to move to another city in order to join a
language school, I was not around when Gezahegn Endale came to visit me from
Algiers. He had been given my name and address and instructed to get in touch
with me. He came knocking on the door of the house which he thought was
mine. While Aberra knew him, Terrefe had no inkling of who he was. Anyway,
when Gezahegn realted his message, he was told that I was not in. Aberra then
phoned to tell me that Tekalign was looking for me. Perplexed by this

73
 Bahru Zewde

unexpected visit, I rushed to their place and met Gezahegn Endale. As we two
did not know each other, Gezahegn introduced himself and his mission. Our
discussion was also attended by two like-minded people.
Gezahegn did not beat around the bush. He said, “We intend to form a
revolutionary party. Are you for it?” We wholeheartedly agreed to the proposal.
Then, presumably intending to put me to the test, he said: “Although we believe
in the setting up of a revolutionary party, in keeping with Ethiopian tradition,
what is essential is to launch an armed struggle with a revolutionary character
amongst the peasantry. It is imperative that we start this, whether it succeeds or
fails, whether HaileSelassie will have our heads or not. For this, we need the
vanguard force. So are you ready for that?” I replied: “Yes, I am ready.” Then,
he changed tack and informed me that an organization by the name of the
Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Organization28 was in formation and showed
me its draft constitution and political program. We agreed. Then he asked me to
show this to the other two people with me, and if they too agreed, we would be
required to submit an application for membership. We all agreed and thus
became organically linked. This was how we became linked with the Algeria
group.
In the struggle that we waged in Europe, including our efforts to set up the
World Wide Federation, our guiding principle was the party's program. We had
been organized. This was the situation when the Congress of the World Wide
Union of Ethiopian Students (as the Federation was then known) was called.
That Union was not concrete in the sense that it had no executive body of its
own, nor its own structure. Up until 1972, the number of its member unions was
on the rise. While both ESUNA and ESUE were still members, NUEUS, which
had become inoperative, could not participate effectively. So the only choice left
was to organize the student unions abroad. A new element was the establishment
of the Ethiopian Women Study Group in both Europe and North America, which
had gone further and formed the World Wide Ethiopian Women Study Group.
Then other unions began emerging in the Middle East, in Israel, in Lebanon and
the Sudan, while Algeria claimed to have its own union. This was the situation
when the founding congress of the World Wide Federation was convened.
Á propos what Yeraswork mentioned earlier, do you recall my being
elected initially to chair the Congress? The meeting was attended by a good
number of non-delegates. This triggered a row over procedural matters; as a
result, the meeting broke up in one or two days. It was decided that the only way
to re-establish order was to restrict the discussion to delegates instead of
allowing everyone assembled to talk. Accordingly, we held a secret meeting
from which ESUE and Lebanon were excluded. Later, we held an all-night

28
In the official history of the EPRP written by Kiflu Taddese, the organization’s name is given as
the Ethiopian People’s Liberation Organization (EPLO). See Kiflu 1993: 78ff.

74
 Student Organizations

meeting in the home of a German Trotskyite named Sieble Blogstet. We had

enlisted her aid when EPRP was formed a year earlier. I recall that we burned
the midnight oil and went straight to the meeting the next morning. The outcome
was a decision to establish the world-wide union whether ESUE and Lebanon
were part of it or not. It would not be put off any more. A meeting of the elected
members was held. I still cannot understand how Tesfaye Debesay was elected
Chairman as he was not a delegate. What ensued has already been reported by
Yeraswork.
The next row occurred at the 13th Congress of ESUE. The theme of the
Congress was the role of student unions. This question needed clearing up.
What was surprising was that a meeting scheduled to last seven days broke up
when altercation arose over the report submitted by the Executive Committee of
ESUE. No discussion was held on the chief issue – the question of the
Federation. Up until the time of the meeting of the Federation, a large amount of
political tract had been disseminated both by ESUE and by us, and this had
caused a very tense atmosphere. From the outset, lines had been drawn. It was
total pandemonium. No side was willing to give in an inch. The discussion was a
mere formality. In the end, votes were cast to decide the winning side. As
ESUE’s supporters were larger in number, they carried the day. ESUE was
successful in having its resolutions passed.
One of the resolutions was a condemnation of Holland, the Soviet Union
and Switzerland whose unions had made their stand clear earlier. What irked us
was the fact that our insistent demand that the Congress be held in Berlin was
not accepted. Were the Congress held in Berlin, it would have been accessible to
students from Eastern Europe, who would have had only to cross from East to
West Berlin. The inter-city train fare in Germany being outrageously expensive,
there would not be many particpants. The reason why we wanted a good number
of students from the Soviet Union to attend the Congress was because they
supported the Federation. We were very chagrined that ESUE chose Hanover
over Berlin as venue. As planned, they got their majority vote and that was that.
The next dispute, as Yeraswork mentioned earlier, occurred when the
February Revolution erupted. Incidentally, the issue discussed at the 12th
Congress in Antony29 was the nature of the Ethiopian Revolution. It was
standard practice to perceive the Ethiopian revolution in its subjective and
objective traits. I don’t exactly recall his identity but a member of the ESUE
leadership remarked that there were no objective conditions for the Ethiopian
revolution, much less subjective ones. The implication of the argument was that
armed struggle was not necessary. When, therefore, the February revolution
erupted, we pointed out to them that they had always maintained that there was

29
In the summer of 1972.

75
 Bahru Zewde

neither objective nor subjective condition for the revolution and that the eruption
of the revolution proved that our stand was correct.
We were at such crossroads when the April [1974] meeting that
Yeraswork mentioned earlier was called. The issue of contention was with
regard to the questions/and/or slogans we should raise. Being new, our party had
no clear-cut slogans. When the revolution erupted, not all members of the
leadership were present in the country. I remember that Kiflu [Taddese] and
others were here [i.e. in Ethiopia]. Tesfaye [Debessay] and Zer’u Kishen had
also returned. The rest were all abroad. There was thus no clear stand. Although
it was Tariku [Debre Tsion] who brought up the question of the provisional
government, it was Kiflu’s support of this that you found a bitter pill to swallow.
ESUE was well aware that Kiflu was a member of the Central Committee of
EPRP, thanks to Desta, who had been a member before he changed his mind and
joined AESM (Me’ison). That is why Kiflu’s endorsement was seen as the stand
of the EPRP; however, that was not the case.
Therefore, when the 14th Congress of ESUE was held [in the summer of
1974], the slogan became the central issue of debate. I do not believe that EPRP
had seriously espoused the motto. The slogan of a “Provisional People’s
Government” had risen only after the Derg’s seizure of power on September 12.
I even recall the [Me’ison] newspaper “The Voice of the Masses” issuing an
article in support of it. There was a lot of confusion. At that same 14th Congress,
the other major object of dispute was the role of the various social classes in the
revolution. Our stand was that the proletariat had a leading role in the
revolutionary struggle.

76
 Student Organizations

Abdul Mohamed

I will keep it brief. In point of fact, I feel that there is no need to go into details
regarding some things. When Tilahun was assassinated in 1969, the activist
camp was disintegrating. We would assemble in groups in order to determine
what was to be done next. Despite the confusing situation, it was decided that
those able to do so should leave the country. People were beginning to leave,
some in an orderly fashion, others not so. I cannot deny the fact that family
pressure too played a role in this “exodus”.
When school re-opened following Tilahun’s assassination, seventy
students had been expelled. These were highly acclaimed students, renowned for
their contribution to the student movement. It was decided that students should
leave in small groups. Those who could afford to leave should do so and those
who did not have the means should be assisted. Contact with those who were
already in the States was established with a view to enlisting their aid in
accommodating these. Zer’u Keshen and Mehari Tesfaye were among these. We
were rather disorganized when we left here; however, we were genuinely proud
of being members of USUAA, engaged in shaping the fate of our country. In that
sense we had our own sub-culture. This was the situation then.
The first group leaving for America numbered 7 or 8 people. We found
out that the student movement there was better structured than we had given it
credit for. Their style of calling meetings, their political education program, etc.
was some thing we were not prepared for. We were a little perplexed because we
did not know whether this would shrivel up our enthusiasm or on the contrary
bolster it. The other matter (discussed earlier) that we could not take in our stride
were those nine days’ wonder from the Bay Area (California). Alem has
described them earlier. Thus, we met both the structured group – Alem, Andreas
and Dessalegn – and those from the Bay Area, for the first time at the 1970
Congress in Washington D.C. Those from the Bay Area met with us and harshly
asked: “What do you think you are doing here? Why did you come? We are all
set on going back home; you, on the other hand, could not think of anything
better than to come here. Are you fleeing from the struggle?” They tried to talk
us into either returning home or leaving for Cuba. In point of fact, they were
preparing for a trip to Cuba. So much so, that they had discarded their meager
belongings. They were poised to depart; however, as Alem pointed out earlier,
they held meetings with them in the evenings and managed to mollify them by
nominating Senay for President and a redoubtable person named Abdul for
Secretary-General. They left satisfied and we stayed behind to plan our next
step.
It my opinion there is something vitally important and worth recording. As
Melaku has pointed out in his presentation, at one point in time, steps were taken

77
 Bahru Zewde

to organize a political party. The entire hullabaloo in the student movement was
controlled by it, although most of the students were not aware of it. As for us,
we had organized ourselves into a cell of five people. Of these, Semereab (who
has now completely retired from politics) and I are the only survivors. The other
three – Zer’u Kishen, Mesfin Habtu and Zer’abruk Abebe – have passed away.
That is why I feel we should proceed very cautiously when we bring up this
matter. Our contact was directly with those in Algeria, from where we would
receive our guidelines. In retrospect, some of these guidelines were counter-
productive while others were based on serious reflection. They tended to
consider the question of nationalities to be of paramount importance and the rest
to be of little consequence. We were accordingly instructed to concentrate on the
national question.
The group in Algeria was resigned to the fact that it could not control the
European student union. The American situation was deemed more vulnerable
and an all-out effort was being made to control its student union. It was thought
that the only obstacle in the way was the leadership; therefore, ways and means
were being sought to manage them. Instructions were coming to us that the
students who had freshly arrived from Ethiopia could re-in force us in our
struggle. Alem did not mention it, a serious altercation erupted when an
anonymous directive sent to us became public. At issue was (1) the impropriety
of opening a letter addressed to someone else (2) the content of the letter itself.
As we could not resolve the problem, relations between us became strained.
I would like to mention here that prior to the split of ESUNA at the 1971
Congress, the ESUE Congress had taken place in Berlin. Our delegate to that
Congress was Mesfin Habtu. Both Andreas and Berhane Meskel were present.
The situation there contributed immensely to our decision concerning what
measures we should take next. Mesfin had stopped over in Algeria on his way to
Berlin. It would seem that he had held discussions there regarding the situation
in America and an agreement had been reached. In retrospect, I believe that
Mesfin was unhappy with both the agreement reached and the directives given.
After his return from Algeria via Berlin, Mesfin had changed beyond all
recognition. He distanced himself from everything.
Still, we had to attend the meeting in Los Angeles, where the split
eventually occurred. Our ardent wish was that Tilahun Takele’s article would be
the main agenda of that Congress. However, we failed to adhere to the procedure
required to bring up such issue for discussion. New York was the only place
where we succeeded in having the issue discussed at chapter level. Even there
we were hard put to elaborate on Tilahun Takele’s writing. However, because
we felt very strongly about the question of nationalities, we were able to rally, on
rhetorical level, a good number of people around us. Notwithstanding what Alem
said, our trip to Los Angeles was not motivated by the desire to create a split.

78
 Student Organizations

Rather, we planned either to take over the union leadership or to be part of it.
Because the Bay Area was noted for its militancy, we succeeded in assembling
those who were susceptible to our rhetoric. We also succeeded in brining
together those elements scattered around Washington. We were decidedly fond
of debating.
We made our presentation, albeit a weak one. Because there was discord
regarding procedure, our presentation was not properly discussed. Those who
held strong beliefs regarding procedure left the meeting. Even Eshetu Chole,
who was chairing the meeting, was having a difficult time. Zenebewerk was also
there; so were people from the Chicago Chapter who chose to remain neutral. In
response to Eshetu’s request to clarify our stand, we brandished Tilahun
Takele’s article. Other than that, we did not offer a potent argument reinforcing
our stand. Then the split ensued. Those of us who survived the debacle
regrouped in an effort to find a solution. We approached Mesfin, who acted as
our leader, to accept the post of president. He refused. After we pleaded with
him time and again, he consented to becoming president pro tempore. We then
talked those from the Bay Area into joining us. I too followed suit. Nothing
occurred for three or four months. Mesfin continued his solitary life; he
obviously emerged discontented from the meeting. This contributed to his death.
After his passing away, the situation changed. We regained our strength. New
directives began reaching us via Zer’u. It is a long story. I thought this worth
mentioning.
Another item worthy of focus is the case of Eritrean students who were
members of ESUNA up until 1970, when they began to leave. They started
forming their own association. Reinforced by new migrants from Eritrea, they
held a meeting in what was known as International House and formed an
organization called “Eritreans for Liberation”. Amdetsion Amdeberhan was
instrumental in rallying them. Soon after that, Eritrean members of ESUNA
began leaving en masse. Since the question of nationalities was our chief agenda,
we did not give up on them. We would meet them both individually and as a
group. Meanwhile, Osman Saleh Sabeh came for a visit to the USA and we
went to meet him. We informed him that we supported the right of self-
determination. However, since we both had the same political objective and
since socialism was the solution for both Eritrea and Ethiopia, there was no
reason why we could not work together. I recall his reply: “This is all very well,
but since we have always harboured suspicions towards those of you who are
from the central sector of the country, we shall take you at your word only when
you accept unequivocally the independence of Eritrea.” We, however, had not
gone so far as to condone secession. We have only accepted the principle of self-
determination and had not yet figured out the next step. Our political education
had not prepared us for secession. And that was that.

79
 Bahru Zewde

Tamrat Kebede

I do not know how brief this will be. Unlike Abdul, I am bereft of party
discipline! However, I will make my presentation as brief as possible. I feel there
is a gap in what has been presented so far. Alem mentioned the fact that in 1968,
the role of students was the main agenda. As far as I can recall, the consensus
reached was that, admittedly, the student body was a fleeting stratum. As such, it
could sometime in the future join other forces to lead the revolution, but was not
of itself and in itself a revolutionary force. Accordingly, it had no other role to
play.
I am uncertain whether it was in that same year or a year later that Hagos
returned from a trip to Europe, where he had gone as a delegate of ESUNA.
Meanwhile AESM (Me’ison) had been formed and a certain number of ESUNA
members were informed that they had been recruited into the party. However,
this recruitment having not been formalized yet, when I came to Ethiopia in
1969, I was a member of both ESUNA and Meison. In my former capacity, I
contacted students and gave funds destined for Getachew Kitaw and other
incarcerated students. My activities included teaming up with Wallelign and
Yerga to run off and disseminate political tracts. I soon landed in prison. There,
I met Abdul and other detainees (whom you undoubtedly know) whose prison
sentences ranged from five to seven years. Whether my relationship with them
(Henock Kifle excepted) was by dint of my membership in the student
movement or of being a member of a party was not clear.
Even after my release, there were no clear directives. I was assigned to the
Ministry of Land Tenure. By a happy coincidence, there was a left-wing group
actively committed to effecting reforms in land tenure. Most of them were with
me back in the USA I recall Ta’eme Beyene, Alemante G.Selassie, Alemseged
Tesfaye, Mesfin Kassu, Zegeye Asfaw (the last had gone for his post-graduate
studies when I joined the Ministry). Both as leftists and as party members, one
group in the ministry rejected reforms on the grounds that they would only help
to prolong a regime’s life. Another group argued that any reform would be an
additional step forward in the peasant’s struggle. Depending on the goodwill of
the Ministers (there were those who vehemently opposed any reduction of the
Emperor’s power regarding land, while there were others who loathed the idea of
Parliament regulating the relationship between landlord and tenant), we were
trying to balance these divergent approaches when the Revolution erupted.
Another supplementary point to what both Abdul and Alem had said is the
fact that I played a key role in establishing contact and working relationship
between the Abdul group and ESUNA. From what I could observe, you (Abdul
et al) were of the opinion that, since you had been imprisoned and had
undergone many hardships, you were conversant with the objective situation.

80
 Student Organizations

The ESUNA leaders, on the other hand, were “structured theoreticians” (as you
put it) who read such leftist periodicals as Monthly Review and studied socialist
ideology. They thought of the struggle as a long process and were averse to
immediate action. When you consider the stand EPRP later took, it is easy to see
that from the outset they gave priority to action. Meles Ayalew’s piece, “A Long
Journey” encapsulated the view of the ESUNA leadership about the protracted
nature of the struggle. I think this should be properly understood.
I am trying not to take too long. We in the USA who had joined Me’ison
through the good offices of Hagos left it quite early. One of the reasons for this
was the fact that the party’s leadership was in Europe while all the action was in
Ethiopia. We therefore requested that the Me’ison leadership move to Ethiopia,
but they refused to heed our request. We could see the dispute taking place in the
USA The party’s reply to our request that it clarify its position regarding its
support for the organization led by Berhane Meskel and co. was to the effect that
this was under consideration and would be shortly revealed to us. Meanwhile we
were to continue our activities inside Ethiopia. Our response was to inform them
that, if the leadership were reluctant to return, we would go on with the struggle
but under the banner of our own separate organization.

81
 Chapter IV
Demonstrations and Embassy Occupations

Dessalegn Rahmato

I can see that the topic - Demonstrations and Siege of Embassies - differs from
the others. My presentation will be brief. I am afraid that my recollection leaves
a lot to be desired. Alem is much better than me in that respect. When earlier he
spoke on ESUNA, I noticed that he remembered a lot of things. The following
presentation is made after consulting with him.
First of all, there was a general feeling of dissatisfaction among students
who regarded the annual ESUNA congresses - and their ensuing resolutions - as
being inadequate forms of struggle. The possibilities of taking more direct
measures were being considered. After all, students back home were engaging in
demonstrations and other forms of struggle, while we were content with reading
about and doing studies on Ethiopia to indicate our solidarity with them.
However, if I am not mistaken during the course of our Second Congress in
1965, a formidable youth - no sense in not naming him - called Atnafu Zewdie
exclaimed: "How absurd! All this amounts to nothing but endless talk" (We had
heard that students who had staged the "Land to the Tiller" demonstration had
been beaten and thrown in jail) "So," was our query, "What do you suggest that
we do?" His reply was, "Let's demonstrate our opposition by marching into the
Ethiopian Embassy and burning our passports!" We tried to dissuade him but to
no avail. I recall that as one proposal for direct action.
We first took such direct action in March 1969. It was in connection with
those students mentioned earlier by Tamrat who had been sentenced to prison
terms (ranging from five to seven years), when twenty-five student union
members took control of the Ethiopian Embassy in Washington. Unless I err, it
was the first time such a measure was taken by the Ethiopian student movement
or any other movement for that matter, to demonstrate one's opposition. The
coordinators were Alem and Andreas. The police who arrived on the scene urged
upon the students to call off the siege or face charges and imprisonment. Thus
the matter was peacefully resolved. There were students (including Hagos, I
believe) who were adamant and ready to confront the police.
We had learnt our lesson by the time Emperor Haile Sellassie arrived in
Washington in July 1968 at the invitation of the Nixon Administration. Intent on
getting as much publicity as possible, we were better prepared and in greater
number than in the past. While one group was chanting protests in front of the
White House when the Emperor arrived (I believe Andreas was in the forefront
of this demonstration), a second group broke into the Ethiopian Embassy, where
 Bahru Zewde

journalists whom we had earlier informed of the coming event were awaiting us.
The police charged in and arrested us. (We all know how physically imposing
American policemen are). When one of them grabbed Habte Kitisa and tossed
him, a woman named Tsehay took hold of the officer's neck, I pleaded with her
to let go off him, scared that he might mangle her. (Incidentally, I believe we
have photographs of all these incidents.) Twelve of us were put under arrest.
Andreas was in charge of securing a lawyer for our defense. We appeared in
court and were released pending a subsequent hearing.
One of the detainees was Shibru Tedla (now Professor), who had eagerly
joined the demonstration. He was released ahead of us (for unknown reasons)
and deported to Canada. I think I can state that the demonstration admirably
achieved its objectives of striking a political blow, exposing the emperor and
revealing the real situation in Ethiopia, as was evinced by the wide coverage
given it by the press. For example, it was a prominent piece of news in The
Washington Post. Subsequently, demonstrations organized by the student union
in front of the U.N. Office on such issues as the question of Eritrea occurred with
regular frequency.

84
 Demonstrations and Embassy Occupations

Yeraswork Admassie

I believe that both the time and location of embassy sieges by members of the
Ethiopian Student Union in Europe have been duly documented. Let me focus on
one such siege I took part in. Following Tilahun's assassination, we received
instructions to take control of the Ethiopian Embassy in Sweden as well as other
embassies found in Europe to publicize our protests. As luck would have it, we
were in Stockholm when word reached us about the assassination. We decided to
strike while the iron was hot. Unfortunately, the Embassy, having been occupied
repeatedly in the past, had more stringent security arrangements than most.
Accordingly, a police car which had been patrolling the area spotted us and we
had to abort the mission. We then held a meeting, where it was decided to form a
two-man committee composed of Dr. Kebede Mengesha and I believe Mezgebe
Teklehaimanot. They were to make arrangements for a meticulously planned and
well executed siege. Everyone was instructed to keep the matter confidential.
Obviously, our modus operandi was beginning to resemble a military operation.
Interestingly enough, the instruction that required our immediate presence
in Stockholm had come in the evening while we were having a good time. We
started the 800 kilometer journey (from Lund) right then. We drove the whole
night and arrived at our destination. There were thirty of us when we entered the
previously mentioned place (Zenith), which housed the mimeographing
machine. Now the plan was disclosed to us, that is to say what strategy we were
going to put into effect. We figured that the only way of breaking into the
embassy was for an Ethiopian whose identity could not be readily associated to
enter it on routine business and leave. A group of five people (who had
synchronized their watches for this purpose) would immediately follow in his
footsteps. A certain number of Swedes, sympathetic to our cause, were already
inside the embassy in order to facilitate our mission. I was with the first group,
and so was a man from the naval force reputed to be skilled in martial arts. (We
had been informed earlier that the Ambassador was armed and would shoot us
without any compunction.) Everything went according to plan - all the assigned
groups took their place as agreed. The Embassy was under our control.
Meanwhile, Dr. Elehu, who had a good command of Swedish, was outside
the embassy giving interviews and issuing prepared statements. Photographs
(including those of the Emperor) that used to adorn the walls of the embassy
were taken down to make place for our posters and pictures of workers and
peasants. This was done without causing any damage. An inventory of the food
and drinks found on the premises was taken, but nothing was consumed. Of
course, we perused the Embassy archives and examined the kind of reports sent
by the Embassy. (It is interesting to note that those of us who had arrived from
Lund had had nothing to eat while all this was going on). Statements were issued

85
 Bahru Zewde

to the Swedish media from the windows. The Swedish police, who had not been
formally asked to intervene by Embassy officials, had accordingly refrained
from storming the building. But, as we started negotiating with the Embassy
officials, they chose that moment to break in. When the Police commissioner
announced, "I arrest all of you", the Embassy Secretary, Ato Getaneh protested,
"Why do you arrest these guys? They haven't done any crime". The Police
commissioner in turn asked him who he was. The First Secretary disclosed his
identity. Whereupon Kebede Mengesha said, "Then, we are all political
prisoners!" At this point, the policemen, who had taken up positions on the steps,
arrested the students and marched out. At our appearance in court, each of us
was fined (depending on their income) three Birr per day for 40 days. We spent
that night in prison. Ironically, the First Secretary, who had earlier come to our
defense, later wrote in his report: "If the police had taken decisive steps
(measures), events would have turned our differently."

86
 Demonstrations and Embassy Occupations

Abdul Mohammed

Let me tell you an amusing anecdote concerning public demonstrations. It was in

1969 that demonstrations began to take their shape. Repeated demonstrations
and chantings in front of the U.N. Secretariat were becoming too commonplace
and a new breed of militants was clamouring for more potent measures;
accordingly, they came up with the idea of conducting a protest march from New
York to Washington DC. We exhausted all our arguments in an attempt to
dissuade them. Finally, Sisay Ibsa (who passed away a week ago, may he rest in
peace!), who never minced his words, spoke up; “Listen, firstly there are five
states between New York and Washington: Maryland, Delaware, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania and New York, which means that you need five different permits.
Secondly, you cannot march on the freeway. So you are left with the state
highways, which will entail your trespassing on private property and being sued
for it!” Thus, he resolved the whole problem for us.

87
 Bahru Zewde

Netsanet Mengistu

It is apparent that the ESUNA contingent has monopolized the discussion. My

own contribution is prompted by your request that those who were at Addis
Ababa University share their experiences. When we first joined A.A.U., we
came to realize not only that those in the leadership of the student union were
well-read, but also that they spoke such “high-brow” English we were hard put
to admit that we had gotten our education in that same language. We could not
make head or tail of what they meant. As Zenebework pointed out earlier, we
were suffering from an inferiority complex. We felt that as we could not
comprehend what they were saying, then we must be inferior to them. To make
matters worse, there was a “literary clique” which specialized in concealing
books they had read. This was intended to foster their delusions of grandeur. It
had a special impact on us girl students who entertained the belief - beginning in
secondary school - that politics was the exclusive preserve of the powers-that-be.
Although we were eager to learn, no one so much as acknowledged our
existence. The Habtu brothers were a different breed. For one thing, they were
educated in the all-male Tafari Makonnen School, hence privileged. Their
reputation had preceded them; however the language they used was totally
incomprehensible, especially the language used by Tilahun and his friends. This
is in no way meant to denigrate Tilahun, who was an upright and considerate
person. It is just to assert that we were unable to understand his speeches, even
with the help of a dictionary! I believe that this fact was one of the contributing
factors to his losing the first election. When he came back after a year spent
reading, however, he had changed beyond all recognition: he could pass his
message to the well informed as well as to the uninitiated with equal ease.
Things changed with Tilahun's election to the presidency. Books became more
accessible, and no one looked down on us. A spirit of rapprochement had
descended. Gone were the days when girls were castigated in the pages of
Struggle; or the times when the female sex was regarded with contempt. We
were beginning to understand each other.
One other item I would like to take up is the question of “action”. At the
time, action had become a major issue right here in our country. After Walelign's
death, we had to take his suitcase to Gebru [Mersha]’s house. Because Gebru
and Walelign were really close, it was all the more necessary to spare Gebru
additional torment and grief. We therefore took the suitcase to my place. On
opening it, I was confronted by a piece of paper on which was written, “All my
friends are a bunch of cowards. I cannot degenerate to their level. The only form
of expression I know is action. Action Now!” What is the significance of this? It
showed that he had run out of patience. Firstly, he was a young man. Secondly,
he had led a stressful life, which we did not attempt to alleviate. Could he have

88
 Demonstrations and Embassy Occupations

opened his heart to someone? Why did he leave this written testimony? These
were questions that have always tormented me. That suitcase was discarded and
all of us were scattered in different directions; however, these words remained
seared in my mind. May be those of us who remained here had a different
concept of action from those of you who were abroad. Did the objective
conditions existing at that time warrant taking actions? Why did this young man
choose to pen those words in red paint - not red ink? Could it be that Walelign's
cry for action was justifiable? I keep wondering.

89
 Bahru Zewde

Hailu Ayele

As related by Gebru Mersha, preceding the Shola Camp Demonstration, students

and teachers had gone to the place and taken pictures, which were later posted in
the dining hall. On the next day, a meeting calling for a protest march was held.
The leading proponents were the students of the Main Campus Union (Eshetu
and the rest). The group that was organizing the city-wide union worked closely
with Abdul Mejid and others in staging the demonstration. When the march
reached what was formerly known as the Prime Minister’s office (now an
appellate court), it found its way blocked by security forces, whereupon we sat
on the road. “Where are you headed?” they inquired. “We are headed for
Parliament, where the people's representatives are,” we replied. “In that case,
send your delegates,” they proposed. “No,” we rejoined, “we intend to stage a
demonstration.” After a brief consultation, they allowed the march to proceed to
Parliament escorted by security forces. We climbed the steps and made our way
across from the present Prime Minister's office. I vividly remember that we were
met by the President of the Senate, General Abiy Abebe. I also clearly recall
Temesgen Haile shouting: “Is poverty a crime?” The General then replied
angrily, “That's enough! Each and every one of us is poor.” We saw red. In
hindsight, I tend to believe that his remark was not meant to be offensive;
however, we were irritated by the fact that this speaker was ill-placed to get
away with this facetious statement. A short disturbance ensued and we were
pushed out into the street.
We had intended to head for Sidist Kilo, but we began marching towards
Piazza. We were once more stopped near Ras Mekonnen Bridge. (I wish Taye,
who got hold of a policeman and pushed him into the river, were here now!) The
police used tear gas and there were some casualties. On our way back, a lot of
students were limping. At lunch time the scene on campus was akin to a
gathering of heroes who had returned from the battlefield! With all due respect
to the psychologists among us, I am of the opinion that that demonstration was a
catharsis in that it opened our eyes: the confrontation with security forces
illustrated beyond a shadow of a doubt that they were not invincible. It even lent
credence to the belief that, handled with caution, they could even be allies. That
is why members of security forces summoned to quell subsequent
demonstrations were those recruited from rural areas. Presumably, the ones in
the city were considered to be too tame. The regime too had learned a lesson.
Looking back, I think that the demonstration would have come to a
peaceful closing if in particular the Minister of Education and the Minister of
Interior had not interfered. We had come to an understanding with the Police
Chief of Addis Ababa, General Yilma, who was later reprimanded for it. The
assembled group constituted, among others, Dean Paul, Mesfin Kassu (from the

90
 Demonstrations and Embassy Occupations

National Union), Aberra Degu, Temesgen and myself. We let it be known that
all we intended to do was present our grievance to Parliament. As usual, they
suggested that a few delegates carry the message there, and a little later
demanded that we submit the names of those students who were in charge. At
first we were apprehensive, but we soon discussed among us and, emboldened,
acceded to their wish. Mesfin Kassu declared that the National Union would take
all responsibility. We, in turn, declared that every one of us would assume
responsibility. Dean Paul had joined the negotiations when a Mercedes car with
a passenger in it (it was only later that we realized that it was the Minister of
Interior) arrived on the scene. He let us know in no uncertain terms that should
we attempt to go on with the demonstration, there would be dire consequences.
Everyone scaled the walls of the campus and jumped in. The police threw tear
gas, stormed the building and caused untold damage.
Regarding the Fashion Show incident, it may be said that, on the one
hand, students almost always would invite provocations, which the authorities
would readily supply. One year earlier, when we celebrated “College Day”, on
which occasion the poem “Berekete Mergem” was read, the Dean of Women's
Affairs, Linda (I do not recall her surname) had arranged a separate program for
girl students. Although dismayed, we had reached an agreement whereby a
certain number of girl students would attend our function while a given number
would be present at their own. That year a fashion show had taken place without
eliciting adverse reaction from us. However, when a similar event was repeated
the following year, students decided that Linda had set out to alienate the girl
students from the boy students. By provoking an incident, the students wanted to
show the impropriety of holding a fashion show. But they had certainly not
bargained for the excessively harsh measures meted out by the regime, following
which schools were closed for a long period of time.
One additional point, when we joined college and at USUAA, meetings
were invariably conducted in English, and this discouraged those with poor
command of the language from participating effectively. Accordingly, only a
few students were able to express their opinions. I distinctly remember that this
situation was turned around when we staged a demonstration in opposition to the
law that set restrictions on public demonstrations. I attended the last meeting
after being released from prison and that was when I had the opportunity to
observe a meeting conducted by a USUAA congressman and later a graduate of
Law School, Serabezu, in Amharic. This was the first time that student union
members in A.A. witnessed a meeting conducted in Amharic. No wonder a great
number of students were able to express their opinions. From then on, of course,
Amharic replaced English as the medium of all verbal & written communication.

91
 Bahru Zewde

Bekele Taddese

My presentation differs from those of others because if what I have heard so far
is anything to go by, everyone is progressive. Maybe after I have delivered mine,
it will appear that I am the only person who is not. I will not go over the
demonstrations staged during our stay in campus (1965-70) because they have
been exhaustively described. I have no additional information regarding them.
However, I would like to say a few words in connection with the Restoration
Committee. As it was mentioned earlier, Gebru was its founder and leading
figure. Maybe, if we were to pose certain questions about the Committee, we
might get an inkling as to its raison d’etre: Were all the University students of
that era, especially those residing in Addis Ababa, progressive? Or were all,
without exception, supporters of the slogan that each nation should secede? That
is the real question.
Following the founding of the committee, we would openly discuss these
questions. (I was chairing these meetings after Gebru’s departure). We did not
(in the manner of the Crocodile Society) hold clandestine meetings. We would
meet at Amist Kilo or Varsity Hall. So what did we discuss in the course of these
meetings? As Gebru pointed out earlier, there were amongst us AFS (American
Field Service)30 students. There were in our midst elements who spoke out in
favour of genuine democracy, against socialism and in opposition to those who
secretly backed the secessionist movement in Eritrea. Needless to say, there were
other elements too. There were those who believed that the communist way of
conducting affairs should be avoided, or there were in particular those who
strongly advocated the distribution of land to the oppressed (the tiller). So, was
there, at the time, a dissenting opinion? Yes, indeed; however, there were also
those who dreaded the prospect of going against current trends. This platform
gave them an opportunity to air their views.
I would like to impress on those who may wish to chronicle this history
the importance of accepting that there were differences. The student movement
was made up of assorted elements, and it was democratic. This should be
emphatically stated in that chronicle. Were we in the minority? We were not, on
the contrary. Had Anna Gomez been around, a proper investigation of that half
vote allotted to freshman students would have had a different result. I mean it.
Both Hailu and I recall (You too were present then, Netsanet, were you not?).
When USUAA, which enjoyed unquestioned power, called a meeting, This
meeting called by Hailu and the others was conducted in a manner that became
known later as “democratic centralism”, i.e. they would place their own men in

30
This was a reference to a US program that allowed selected high school students from Ethiopia
to spend their final year in high school with a family in the United States, after which they
would join college in Ethiopia.

92
 Demonstrations and Embassy Occupations

strategic spots in every meeting or assembly hall. Since USUAA was chairing
the meeting, we never stood a chance of being called upon to speak. We were
many; they were few, albeit well organized. As mentioned earlier, those
members who had recently arrived from the USA were endeavoring to
implement democratic principles as they were practiced in Britain and the USA.
Our behavior was above board. For their part, they would take turns at the floor
and finally terminate the meeting.
I must admit that I had a grudging admiration for the founders of USUAA.
A friend or mine, however, invariably referred to them as the “GN”31 clique:
Walelign, Tekalign, Gezahegn, etc. He is convinced that all those whose names
ended with “gn” were Communists! Their “modus operandi” bordered on the
incredible, I can vouch for that. We would spend the whole evening preparing
propaganda material and disseminating it all over the campus in the dead of
night. Then along would come Gezahegn and company to remove our leaflets
and replace them with theirs. On one particular occasion (on the eve of the
casting of ballots), we had adorned our material with a picture of a ‘nacet’ blade
neatly cutting a crocodile into two – and scattered it all over the campus grounds.
We were anticipating with great relish the students’ reaction to this. When we
arrived on campus the next morning, however, not a single trace of our nocturnal
labor was in evidence! To add insult to injury, we found some of their leaflets
clinging to shrubs and trees. They were undoubtedly well organized, and we
were not.
Be that as it may, most of us firmly believed that opinions should be
expressed openly. Then, of course, the inevitable occurred: a referendum was
held and we were defeated. Despite that, as far as I knew, most of us stood our
ground; however, the stage the student movement had reached, the existing
crying need for a change as well as the fact that USUAA proved itself to be a
firmly-based and well-organized body tipped the scale in its favor, as a result of
which a great number of students drifted to it.
In truth, personally speaking, I was vigorously opposed to USUAA, even
more so than Gebru. What convinced most of us not only to join the struggle but
to participate actively in it were the government’s repressive measures. In my
case, I had a change of heart during my University Service year. I was assigned
to Gbimbi (Wellega). (Berhane Meskel was in nearby Assossa, if I remember
correctly). One of our colleagues was Araya Selassie Bekele, a student of
Alemaya and son of Dejazmach Bekele. When Araya Selassie’s grandfather
died, his father telephoned and instructed me to bring him home without
divulging the sad event. Accordingly, I drove him back to his home town in his
own car. After dropping him at his home, I went to the University. While I was

31
Pronounced as ñ in the Spanish “señor”.

93
 Bahru Zewde

in Adem Abdella’s office, I overheard some student leaders inquiring which

students would return to their assigned areas. I informed them that I would go
back to Wellega. They handed me a carton box full of printed paper which they
instructed me to distribute to University Service students along my route. At first
I had no inkling of the contents of the paper. Once inside the bus, I opened one
of the boxes and fished out a paper. It was Walelign’s “Le Awaju Awaj”32. I
started reading it in Ambo. I was captivated. At every station I arrived (Bakko,
Guder, etc.) I would hand the paper to university students who had earlier been
informed by phone of my arrival.
When I arrived in Nekemt, Tekola Dejene, Merse (Ejjigu?) and others
informed me that a detachment of security forces was waiting for me in Ghimbi
in order to place me under arrest. I had three more stations to cover: Dembi
Dollo, Ghimbi and Asossa. I promptly decided on a pre-emptive action. I got off
the bus, ran into the nearby woods, concealed the papers and proceeded on my
journey. In Ghimbi, the police searched my luggage but found nothing. Later I
got in touch with some students and let them know where I had hidden the
papers. They retrieved and sent them to their proper destinations: Dembi Dollo
and Asossa. Next day the portion destined for Ghimbi could be seen plastered on
every wall, telephone pole and door. I was placed under arrest and brought in
front of the governor of Wellega; and guess who the governor was - Kassa
Woldemariam! They imprisoned me in Nekemt. Why did I bring this up? Well,
we, members of the Restoration Committee had stood by our rights to dissent
and maybe we might have even won the battle. In the end, though, we joined the
struggle and fought to the last. However, there is a question that keeps recurring
in my mind (may be Professor Bahru and others will investigate it in depth; it is
over my head). Had we presented that petition which bore 800 signatures, held a
referendum and emerged victorious, what direction would the Ethiopian student
movement have taken? I leave this to historians. Thank you.

32
The famous tract that denounced the Emperor as “senile” and was the main factor behind the
trial and sentencing of Walelign and others, including one of the retreat participants, Tamrat
Kebede, to terms ranging from 5 to 7 years in jail. They were, however, pardoned a few months
after they started serving their sentences.

94
 Demonstrations and Embassy Occupations

Bahru Zewde

I recite the following not as a historian, but as someone who was part of that era.
Dr. Hailu has rendered a good account; my own is intended as a supplement.
Firstly, what came to be known as the Shola Concentration Camp was a
shelter built by the government to detain those fleeing the famine in Wollo. The
demonstration was jointly organized by MCSU (Main Campus Student Union)
and NUEUS (National Union of Ethiopian University Students), which explains
Abdulmejid’s high profile. (He was the Vice President of NUEUS at the time). I
believe that it was students who secretly entered the camp and took photographs.
Unlike the 1973 famine, no teacher was involved in taking photographs. The
photographs taken by the students were blazoned on what used to be the main
entrance to the building that now houses the ILS. Deeply stirred by the sight, the
students took to the streets with gusto. I thought this was worth adding.
Secondly, we were in the beginning perplexed by Abdulmejid’s call “to sit
down”: How could we sit calmly while surrounded by a horde of policemen? We
later understood this to mean a “sit-down strike”. The police too were confused
and helpless. After a while, we were told to proceed, which we did. What came
to be known later as the “Battle of Ras Mekonnen Bridge” was a fantastic scene
worthy of being recorded. I do not recall seeing Taye throw the policeman into
the river, though. All I saw was Taye boxing the policeman’s ears.
Another scene I recall was the police mishandling the tear-gas they were
supposed to throw at the students. The canisters of tear gas exploded in their
faces causing them to weep. As you pointed out, Hailu, they came much better
prepared the following year. There was a substantial difference between 1966
and 1967. The ones that came in the latter year were, I believe, from Debre
Berhan. This truly formidable force turned Arat Kilo topsy-turvy. They left no
room unexplored, nor any student (even African scholarship students),
unpunished. They went into every room of the dormitory and beat everyone
black and blue. We escaped through the alley behind Saba Hall, scaled a fence
and arrived at Menelik II Hospital. Those policemen really instilled terror in us.
The other thing I remember is that when we first staged that demonstration
it was in opposition to the bill that restricted the rights to public demonstrations.
Then, you, the leaders, were imprisoned. Our demand then became: “Set them
free!” This is something that has always amazed me. The routine never varied:
Students would stage a demonstration with a list of demands. A handful of
student leaders would be detained, causing the original demands to be replaced
by: “Set our leaders free! We won’t go to class unless they are released.” As it
was described in the distributed reader, the confrontation triggered by the anti-
demonstration bill lasted a whole week, with neither the government nor the
students willing to give in an inch. The government as well as the University left

95
 Bahru Zewde

no avenue unexplored to solve this impasse. For instance, I remember that the
person who wrote the report, Awad, had made a speech designed to persuade us
to return to class. Awad was a sociology instructor, but while in Egypt, I believe
he was also a student leader. I recall his saying: “You are going about it the
wrong way. You had better resume classes.” I also remember Lij Kassa calling
us to a meeting on what was formerly a football field and on which at present a
building of classrooms and library stand: “I have come to deliver an Imperial
order,” was what he said. We sat listening to him until he exclaimed: “Aren’t
you standing up when His Majesty’s words are read?” I think we scrambled to
our feet then, the man so managed to intimidate us with those words.

96
 Chapter V
The National Question

Abdul Mohamed

What follows is my personal opinion; my own reminiscences. Personally, the

year 1969 (from March to December) was an era of major political significance;
accordingly, I have included my own impressions. I confess that, if pressed, I
may disavow my presently-held opinions. What I would like to focus on is
Walelign and events surrounding him. I do not wish to dwell on the national
question as such. As indicated by yesterday’s discussion, the period between
February and April of 1969 was a time when university and secondary school
students demonstrated an uncommonly strong solidarity in struggle. It was also a
period when secondary school students’ participation in the struggle reached an
all-time high level. My own participation is a reflection of that. As Professor
Bahru remarked just now, we had assimilated the credo “Land to the Tiller”, at
least at the level of a slogan. Following this, the most important document
penned was Walelign’s “Lawaju Awaj”. That was a definitive rejection of
authority and hence a most provocative piece of writing.
In the wake of “Le Awaju Awaj”, Walelign and others were incarcerated.
I will disclose the list of other detainees later. We, secondary school students,
were thunderstruck. There being no political movement around us, we could do
little, if anything, beyond asking one another what measures we should take. We
thought that the students’ detention deserved the glare of publicity; accordingly,
five or six of us decided to paint red His Majesty’s statue which stood in
Piazza.33 We did that and within a week’s time found ourselves in prison.
Everyone except me was sent to different detention centers. Because I had a
court case which required a certain freedom of movement, I was sent to
“Kerchele”34, where I made the acquaintance of some leading figures of the
Ethiopian student movement. I would now like to disclose the identities of my
cell-mates (my recollection is based on their bedding arrangement): Henock
Kifle, Tamrat Kebede, Tselote Hizkias, Walelign Mekonnen, Mehari Tesfaye,
Tsegaye Gebremedhin, Tesfu Kidane, Ayalew Aklog, Getachew Sharew, Zer’u
Kishen, Berhane Meskel Redda (he was released after three months), Fantahun
Tiruneh, Yirga Tessema, Mesfin Habtu, Yohannes Mebratu, Gezahegn

33
This was a bust of the Emperor erected by the Indian community. It had stood in front of what
was then the Cinema Empire until removed in the wake of the 1974 Revolution.
34
As the central prison in Addis Ababa was called, after the Italian “carcere” (“prison”).
 Bahru Zewde

Mekonnen (from the Commercial School). I was the only secondary school
student in this group.
Prison life was fascinating. I had the privilege of attending some of the
most informative discussions on both national and international issues.
Experiences were exchanged. Thanks to Henock and Tamrat, who had been to
America, we held discussions on the USA, and to a certain extent on Europe.
We were voracious readers. We would share books and hold discussions
on their contents. Let me cite a few of these books:

- Franz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth

- Edgar Snow’s The Chinese Revolution
- Pierre’s Imperialism & the Third World
- Sweezy & Leo Huberman’s What is Socialism?
- Regis Debré’s Revolution in the Revolution
- Pool Bard’s The Political Economy of Underdevelopment
- Brecht’s Vietnam Walloped
- E.H. Carr’s The Russian Revolution (3 volumes)
- Fidel Castro’s History will Absolve Me

One other book brought from the USA by either Tamrat or Henock and
which I found fascinating was Gorky’s Mother.
We had easy access to the periodical Monthly Review. Once we had
completed reading a given book, we would engage in hot debate. Those who
particularly relished debates were the following: Walelign (predictably), Tesfu
Kidane (a dynamic debater), Berhane Meskel (he had an encyclopedic mind),
Yohannes Berhane (dynamic with a very inquisitive mind, reticent but very
sympathetic), Henock and Tamrat, Yirga Tessema (a sedate personality), Tselote
(rather quiet). Tsegaye Gebre Medhin, a.k.a. “Debteraw”35, and Tselote hardly
took part in the debates; however, Tselote was a very friendly and considerate
person.
Let me now tell you about those persons whom I met in prison and whose
presence there had, I think, relevance to the national question. These were the
Oromo prisoners in our midst: Tadesse Birru and Mamo Mezemer36. We did not
meet these two men at Kerchele but rather when we were sent to Alem Beqagn

35
A term used to designate learned clerics, with connotation of “intriguer”. The term was also
sometimes used to describe the ESUE leadership by their opponents.
36
Both imprisoned in connection with the activities of the Mecha and Tulama Self-Help
Association; the latter was charged with involvement of the Cinema Empire bombing incident
that took place in 1966.

98
 The National Question

as a punitive measure and spent about a week there. We succeeded in reaching

an understanding with them. Two other personalities whom we had the
opportunity to meet outside Alem Beqagn were the leader of the Mecha and
Tulema Association, Colonel Alemu Kitesa, Kegnazmatch Mekonnen Wessenu
and his son. There was also an Eritrean prisoner by the name of Ali Yunus
charged with taking part in a Jabha (ELF) plane hijacking attempt.
Another detainee was an articulate and much-respected person charged
with being a bandit – that is right, Beze Ejjigu! In addition to this, I was
fascinated by two personalities that were incarcerated because of their
involvement in the abortive coup d’etat led by General Mengistu Neway. They
were Major Teffera Wolde Tensay and the sharp-tongued but well-versed
Colonel Asnake; the latter engaged in frequent discussions with Berhane Meskel.
I believe that these people were instrumental in making us aware, directly
or indirectly, of the situation in Ethiopia. I would like to think that Walelign was
likewise influenced. I believe that those prisoners from Mecha and Tulema and
those brought from Bale and Eritrea had a great impact on Walelign’s post-
prison behavior. This was because these were blatantly nationality-based revolts.
As for Bekele Anasimos, he was a renowned person who had played a key role
in the 1960 coup d’etat. By the way, he was one of the people who welcomed us
upon our arrival in prison.
The discussions we held in prison had little to do with the student
movement. On the rare occasions we discussed the topic, we focused on its weak
points. It was unanimously agreed that the movement had reached its apex. The
other item that held our interest was to find answers to the query “what are the
subjective and objective requirements for a revolution?” I also recall that we
were troubled by the Eritrean question. We discussed the causes behind the
abolition of the Federation and its consequences; whether the movement led by
Jabha was revolutionary or not; whether it was a run-of the mill rebellion;
whether it was merely a puppet movement being manipulated by Arabs.
What gave vitality to our discussions and made our stay in prison less
bleak was the hijacking of the plane. I recall that on the last Sunday preceding
the hijacking, Berhane Meskel had come to the prison for a visit. Walelign was
the one who Berhane Meskel talked to at length. I am sure he made no mention
of the impending hijacking to Walelign, though I believe that Walelign
suspected that some important event was imminent. I think the hijacking
occurred in the first days of August. It was major Teffera who imparted the news
to us. Radio sets being prohibited in prison, he brought us the news from outside.
To recall, the hijackers were as follows: Berhane Meskel Redda, Gezahegn
Endale, Benyam Adane, Eyassu Alemayehu, Ammanuel Gebreyesus, Abdissa
Ayana and Haileyesus Wolde Senbet. Following the hijacking, we were

99
 Bahru Zewde

dispirited and at a loss as to what to do; the eldest among us must have discussed
it, though.
Finally, we were set free. The situation surrounding our release was in
itself a dramatic event. I should like to set the record straight: the contingent of
university and secondary school students who appeared before His Majesty did
not proffer an apology. What they did was make an appeal to be allowed to
return to school and join the society at large. This is my recollection and I am
sure that only Tamrat is well placed to rectify any errors I may be guilty of. The
Archbishop was ready to intercede for a speedy release. He sent emissaries and
talks began. In the course of the negotiations, we let it be known that, though we
were open to discussion, we would not apologize formally. When repeated
discussions seemed to bear no fruit, Walelign, who could be highly emotional,
was beginning to get restless. At a meeting, he gave it straight to the others: “If
you intend to appear before that desiccated old man, I will jump and seize him
by the throat. If bullets start to fly, it will be your problem.” That effectively put
an end to the meeting.
The amnesty planned for Hamle 16 (His majesty’s birthday) came to
nothing and we remained in detention. We were finally released in Meskerem for
the New Year. There was euphoria among the radicals because all their demands
had been met. The fact that the detained students were released without any pre-
conditions made students bask in their newly-found popularity and novel
identity. In addition to that, no secondary student felt alienated on entering the
University. First year students felt at ease and in no way inferior to the other
students because they had fought side by side with them.
Political writings, with the exception of Struggle, kept being issued;
however, some of the writings were blatantly passing off the student movement
as a revolutionary one. When Dejazmach Takele Wolde Hawariat37 was killed in
November (1969), we students had made our stand clear, but what drove the
campus into turmoil was the election of Tilahun Gizaw. Previously, Tilahun had
to concede the election to Mekonnen Bishaw. Later, when Tilahun came back
after a year of absence from the university (during which time he had become
more mature and self-confident), he won the election hands down. It is
interesting to note that in their election speeches, both Tilahun and the other
candidates to Congress were using the word “Vanguard”. Presumably, until such
a time that the working class and the peasantry attained the required level of
consciousness, the student movement would be the vanguard of the revolution

37
An implacable opponent of Emperor Haile Sellassie throughout the three decades following his
restoration to the throne in 1941. For his life and career, see Bahru 2001, 210-211. He became a
model of defiance in the student moment and was immortalized in the pseudonym, Tilahun
Takele, that was used by the Algerian group to write one of the most influential pieces on the
national question.

100
 The National Question

and armed struggle the only effective method of struggle. The public
demonstration staged at the beginning of 1969 was regarded as a prelude to that.
I recall a Congressman (it was either Mohammed Mafuz or a student
called Aemero, presently residing in Boston) reading aloud and verbatim the
preface of a Franz Fanon book during his election campaign. That was his
election speech, which we endorsed with loud applause and cheering. The other
thing that I remember is President-elect Tilahun’s famous speech: “Che Guevera
said, ‘Where are you the people of Bolivia?’ and I say to the Ethiopian people
‘Where are you?’” The Assembly was in an uproar and of course he got elected.
There are two other things I am reminded of: one was USUAA’s decision
to send a letter of protest concerning a dispute between University Service
students and the local authorities. The second was what Tewelde had cited
yesterday: the General Assembly of USUAA had issued a directive to the
Alumni Association to hand over the administration of the cafeteria. This was
purportedly designed to stem “domestic imperialism”. The Alumni Association
attempted to explain that the income from the cafeteria was used to help students
who failed their ESLCE finance their re-examination fees. The explanation fell
on deaf ears: nationalization was the order of the day. The Alumni Association,
apprehensive that the University Administration might once again take this
opportunity to attack the students, distanced itself from the whole matter.
It was in this ambience that Walelign’s article on the question of
nationalities appeared. It was a remarkable achievement. It was at first intended
to be part of the orientation given to First-Year students. It appeared that
Walelign wanted to familiarize new students with one of the burning issues in
Ethiopia. This question of nationalities had been a topic of discussion groups for
quite some time, i.e. the Eritrean issue, the situation in Bale, the question of the
Amharic language, the minor role other nationalities (Amharas and Tigreans
excepted) played in the nation’s affairs, etc. I believe that prior to Walelign’s
article, Abdul Mejid had written a similar paper. Its content (very mild in tone)
was to the effect that a certain number of students were holding discussions
along tribal and religious lines. His article cautioned that care should be taken
that the discussions did not disrupt the unity of the country. It was an invitation
to have the issue discussed.
You will have observed that in the first two or three paragraphs of his
article, Walelign was informing the reader that this question of nationalities was
already a subject of clandestine discussions among students. He urged that it be
aired openly. I would like to emphasize that Walelign’s article was a summation
of the subject rather than an introduction. What brought the issue into the
limelight was the situation in Eritrea. We should not also lose sight of the fact
that the topic was moderately discussed at the 16th Congress of ESUNA in 1968.

101
 Bahru Zewde

As everyone knows and recalls and as I pointed out yesterday, the

demonstration staged in early 1969 was prompted by dissatisfaction with the
existing educational system and the question of cultural identity. This last,
however, had a lid put on it, hence Wallelign’s paper. It may also have
something to do with Walelign’s stay in prison. Following the hijacking of the
plane, Walelign was highly apprehensive. “Who knows?” he would say, “I could
well be the regime’s next target.” As I pointed out earlier, Walelign prefaced his
speech with great care.
I am not aware of any tumultuous applause that Walelign’s speech
generated. For all that, students were hard put to absorb the message of the
speech. While Freshmen were noticeably enthusiastic about it, the dyed- in- the-
wool leftists’ reaction was lukewarm. That very evening, Walelign’s writing was
a subject of warm debate in each and every room of the dormitory. It was most
thoroughly discussed. I remember that Mohammed Mafuz, whose home was the
venue of the discussion, Bedru Sultan (I do not know if you know him), Tesfu
Kidane (he chaired the meeting), Tselote and myself sat down and discussed it.
Mohammed Mafuz, who was highly captivated by the article, had memorized it
word for word. That piece of writing raised the already heated atmosphere on
campus to fever pitch.
The regime, of course, did not sit on its hands. It made it clear that
students had crossed over into the danger zone (we also had a feeling that this
was true). For the first time ever, the national press, in particular Addis Zemen,
quoted Walelign’s article verbatim and commented that the article was positive
proof that foreign elements had infiltrated the student movement with the aim of
implementing their own agenda. It declared that these were not students but
avowed enemies of both the Ethiopian people and of Ethiopian unity.
Following this, the atmosphere in the University turned very tense. Word
went around that thirty members of USUAA’s leadership were in imminent
danger of being imprisoned. A General Assembly convened to discuss whether
to stage a public demonstration in protest resolved against the idea almost
unanimously. The person who was instrumental for this resolution was Tilahun
Gizaw, who warned that a demonstration at this juncture would provide the
regime with an excuse to take measures against the students.

102
 The National Question

Andreas Eshete

I seem to recall that long before the national question became an issue in North
America, a meeting was held in the Italian city of Tyrol. It was organized by a
social psychologist from Yale University named Leonard Dub. He was one of
the pioneers of “conflict resolution” (which has now become a major industry).
The meeting brought together delegates from Kenya, Somalia and Ethiopia to
confer on this issue. Gash (Professor) Mesfin came from Addis Ababa and I
came from New Haven. Somalia was almost exclusively represented by
journalists, while the Kenyan delegation was mostly made up of Members of
Parliament (I cannot vouch for this last point, though). You may recall that at
that time efforts were being made to bring all Somalis under one flag. That was
the agenda of the meeting.
At the beginning of the conference, there was a general feeling that each
participant would reflect his national interest in the discussions; however, when
it was my turn, I spoke in favor of self-determination for the Somalis living in
Ogaden. (I still have the written statement with me). I further advocated that a
referendum be held to this end. Professor Mesfin gave me a look that conveyed
his doubts about my sanity. The Somali delegates, who were shocked, wanted to
know which part of Ethiopia I was from. At any rate, it was decided that
delegates selected from all three countries should write a report on the
conference. I represented Ethiopia. The book was finally published bearing
Leonard Dub’s name. To the best of my recollection, that was the first meeting
on the national question I had ever attended.
As to why this issue was raised in Philadelphia at that time,38 I think there
were a number of reasons. As it was mentioned by Abdul, not only were there
national and regional movements, but some of them were on the upsurge: the
Mecha Tuluma movement among the Oromo (especially Bale), Gojjam,
naturally Eritrea, and the First Weyane, which was seen as a prelude to all these
movements. Some of the movements, like Mecha & Tuluma, were very
influential not only in the provinces but also in Addis Ababa, and they were
being written about, including by Ethiopian authors. People suspected of being
involved in them were being imprisoned and a number of explosions had
occurred in cinema halls. In short, the movements were gaining both momentum
and prominence. I think this was what brought the national question to the fore.
The other factor was the resolutions on the national question passed by
Ethiopian students in Europe at their meeting in Zagreb. It was becoming
increasingly clear that the ELF had become a credible and potent force and that
the measures being taken by the Ethiopian government were exacerbating the

38
That is, at the 17th Congress of ESUNA in 1969.

103
 Bahru Zewde

already deteriorating situation and no solution was in sight. This, at least, was
my own view at the time.
Another issue was the Eritrean Liberation movements themselves. I recall
how perturbed we were by the realization that they considered themselves part of
the Pan-Arabic Movement. The Ethiopian Student Movement had always firmly
endorsed the separation of state and religion as well as religious equality. The
notion that Ethiopia was a Christian island surrounded by Arabs was deeply
entrenched and was accepted by everyone, especially those in power. In that
context, the Arab leaning of the movement in Eritrea was clearly a source of
concern to us, not only geopolitically but also from the national and religious
points of view.
Even though it was unknown to what degree they were organized, there
were Eritreans who opposed these movements and/or the direction they were
taking. There were a good number of these in the student movement. A large
number of Eritreans (some who came from outside the USA) attended the
Philadelphia Congress. I do not recall encountering there any Eritrean who either
supported or was a member of ELF Most of them are well-known, such as Haile
Menkerios, and they later secured key positions in the EPLF, but they did not
support the organization at the time.
Another source of anxiety at that time, though it may seem mild now, was
the widely-held belief that the country would disintegrate if the monarchical
system were to be done away with. Many believed that in His Majesty’s absence,
both Eritrea and Ogaden would secede. Those who opposed the students’
struggle for the removal of the monarchical system pointed to the fact that the
country, being composed of diverse nations and different religions, would break
apart if the national question became an issue and the country’s symbol of unity
(the crown) were abolished. I recall our discussing this while drafting the
resolutions prior to holding the meeting. While we were assured of securing the
support of Oromo and Eritrean students, we were in the dark as to who would be
averse to our stand.
The other problem was how to rally students under a socialist banner.
Time, which was essential to accomplish this monumental task, was in short
supply. Only a few years had elapsed between the Cambridge Congress and the
Philadelphia Congress. While there was no denying that an attempt was made to
rally students under a socialist banner, it cannot be claimed that it was wholly
successful. After all, the student movement was composed of varied elements:
those who were staunch supporters of the ideology and those who climbed on the
bandwagon. So if the national question was raised prematurely, it could
undermine the fragile unity existing at the time. This may not have been openly
aired during the course of the conference; however, when I re-read some of the
papers, I could see that they reflected this threat.

104
 The National Question

We differed from Walelign and his group, and later from Tewolde and his,
in our belief that the national question and socialism were issues that would
divide the students in their all-out effort to bring about change. Granted one
would lend a supporting hand to the other, but there was still a contradiction.
We believed that if we wished to rally popular support to pave the way for a
popular struggle, we should take care to reconcile these different approaches.
Having said that, to the best of my recollection, (Dessalegn and the others
can check the accuracy of this) we came across Walelign’s and other similar
writings only after the Philadelphia Congress. The reason I say this is because
there were no conflicting opinions regarding the national question at the
Philadelphia congress. While everyone came in support of a nation’s right to
self-determination, no questions were raised as to either the definition of self-
determination or what form it should assume in Ethiopia. Naturally, conflicting
opinions arose when Walelign’s and Tilahun Takele’s writings came out.
What came after that was what Zene[bework] referred to, i.e. Tumtu
Lencho’s response. Incidentally, it was I who wrote that piece. Nonetheless (I do
not know if Dessalegn remembers) I had to leave for Berlin before it was
printed. When I saw it in Addis Ababa, I found it altered in form, though not in
content. It had polemics that were not in the original writing. I would like it to be
known that I had nothing to do with those acerbic comments.
It was at the Berlin Congress that different views were aired, one can say
for the first time. The debate on the national question was basically between
Addis Ababa and North America. The topic was touched upon yesterday. Since
both Berhane Meskel’s and Haile Fida’s groups had agreed on a common front,
the debate was between Addis Ababa-Algeria and North America. If my
memory serves me right, not one single item of importance was brought up by
the leaders of ESUE at that meeting. What does this prove? Let us back-track a
bit. In my opinion, the gap was being deliberately widened. This was seen in Los
Angeles, too. Abdul maintains that it was Tilahun’s writing that was presented
there. In Berlin, it was Berhane Meskel and his group, and not the European
contingent, which endeavored to exacerbate the rift. The main debate was on
whether there were nations or not. We had the audacity to deny the existence of
nations, of which we have such an abundance at present. However, there were no
substantial differences as to what was to be done. But there was a distinct
pressure to assert the existence of nations.
As to the underlying reason for this, it has been adequately explained.
The main one is the struggle between the leadership of AESM (Me’ison) and that
of EPRP, or the forces that evolved into those organizations. Both were
convinced that the student movement was a source of power they must rally
behind them. Both were fiercely competing to secure that support. In my view,
the national question was only a pretext. Soon after Walelign’s, Tilahun’s and

105
 Bahru Zewde

Tumtu Lencho’s writings, another article came out. It treated the question of
secession soberly, advising that pre-conditions be set. One question that was
raised at the Philadelphia Congress was, supposing the existing Eritrean
Liberation Front were pro-Arab, and it refused to recognize the question of
national equality and the right to self-determination within Eritrea, the separation
of state and religion, would we support it all the same? We set the pre-condition
that an organization that sought the right to self-determination should, of
necessity, respect it in principle. Those papers that were written later (after those
whom Abdul and his group referred to as “the old guard” left the scene) were in
the same vein.
Generally speaking, the major point of difference between the Ethiopian
students in North America and those in Ethiopia with regards to the national
question was that the former considered it as a democratic question, and a
democratic question did not always go hand in hand with socialism. Since our
primary goal is socialism, democracy (no matter how desirable it is) should be
subordinated to it. I would not want to oversimplify the stand taken by those in
Ethiopia, but from what I understand they considered the student movement to
have reached its zenith and it should therefore make way for a popular armed
struggle, which would succeed only if it embraced the national question. They
gave priority not to democracy but to armed struggle, which, to their way of
thinking, would have greater chance of success if it raised the national question.
We thought that while this could be either right or wrong, it was opting for a
shorcut.
You may know Kifle Betse’at, who was one of the persons responsible for
establishing the Ethiopian Student Union in Europe; he still lives in Paris. In a
UNESCO publication that carried an analysis of the African student movement,
including Algeria, Tunisia and many other African countries, Kifle’s article,
entitled “The Ethiopian Student Movement: Class Struggle or Jockeying for
Power?”, starts with Menelik II. The title of that paper aptly summarized our
view (may be a biased one): was the national question intended to promote class
struggle or was it an instrument to seize power? The question was applicable not
only to the stand taken by students in Ethiopia at that time but also to the stance
taken later by organizations like TPLF.

106
 The National Question

Melaku Tegegn

Basically, the national question should be discussed in a given context. For

instance, in Addis Ababa, it was discussed in a political context. There were also
local and universal factors at play. It would be pointless to consider the question
without taking these factors into account. But first let me state that what made
me join the student movement was the question of social justice. I believe that
the student movement was instrumental in making me conscious of my
obligations as a human being vis-à-vis two issues: the gender issue and the
national issue. It is not merely the political stand I took on the national question
but also the fact that I succeeded in discarding chauvinistic concepts and
accepting the equality of nations and turning that into a deeply felt conviction.
Abdul has presented to us the discussions held in prison after the national
question was first brought up in 1969. I will deal only with the general aspects. I
will begin with the briefing that we received from USUAA representatives when
we came from Alemaya to Addis Ababa but will add my own opinions to it. The
first aspect was the ethnic movements existing at the time. The second was the
measures that the state had designed and brought into effect to cause a split
among the student body. The third was the question of where the student
movement was heading. The fourth was the sense of euphoria and triumph felt
within the student body as a result of a series of “winning streaks”, i.e. the
release of students from detention, the hijacking of a plane by Berhane Meskel
and others, the election of Tilahun Gizaw to the presidency. All these factors
were interlinked. This, I believe, was the political context.
We have to be clear when we refer to ethnic movements. Although those
movements did not measure up to the present ones, it is still important that we
study their nature because the crux of the argument lies therein. The main ethnic
movement going on at the time was the one in Eritrea led by ELF. A few years
after its establishment, ELF had splintered into different factions, i.e. outside the
ELF, there were five or six independent groups waging war. There were at the
same time groups which made attempts to merge, for example, Issayas and Saleh
Sabbe succeeded in forming ELF-PLF, which was later renamed EPLF. That
was the chief ethnic movement at the time.
Although the movement in Bale had been suppressed by the army, its
effects were still being felt. A breakaway faction had abandoned the movement
led by Wako in order to form what came to be known as the WSLF and was
operating out of Mogadishu. I am not sure of the exact date (it could be either
1971 or 1973), this group emerged naming itself the Ethiopian National
Liberation Front (ENLF). That is the way the crisis started in that organization;
however, WSLF was operating in certain areas of the Ogaden. All other ethnic
opposition is best described as a fermenting process, political in nature. In the

107
 Bahru Zewde

wake of the Mecha and Tuluma movement and the imprisonment of Tadesse
Birru and Mamo Mezemer, Oromo ethnic feelings were on the upsurge. These
were the political conditions that prompted the (national) question.
And these developments were inextricably linked to the question of where
the student movement was headed. A closer scrutiny of Walelign’s writing
reveals that he was not solely concerned with the national question but also with
how best to establish an egalitarian state. In other words, it focuses on two
objectives: struggle and revolution.
The other pressing issue was how best to combat the problem of inter-
ethnic clashes instigated by the regime. The row between Eritreans and non-
Eritreans at the Wingate School was a case in point. It is believed to have been
fomented by third-party infiltrators. That incident was repeated at the Teachers
Training Institute in Harar and was resolved solely thanks to our intervention.
All these were blatant examples of the regime’s attempt to divide and weaken
the student movement. That was the reason why a frank discussion was
necessary. As I mentioned earlier, this question should be seen together with the
direction that the student movement was taking. That was why the altercations
that plagued the national question from the very beginning have to be linked to
the genesis of organizations.
You will recall that yesterday I gave a brief description of my experience
at Alemaya. I had more extensive involvement in the Dutch branch of ESUE.
Upon arrival in Holland, we were instructed to do research on the national
question for the 11th ESUE Congress. The fact that I conducted the research in
person enabled me to learn a great deal about Ethiopia. Tereffe Woldetsadik
brought me six books on loan from Leiden University. I would simply have
failed in doing the research without those books, in particular the one written on
Eritrea by Kennedy Trevaskis, which was a revelation to me. What I knew about
Eritrea up until that time was next to nothing. It was such a remarkable
document that it helped transform my whole outlook.
Prior to the congress, Tilahun Takele’s piece had reached us (either in
May or June). The main message we gleaned from Tilahun’s article was that
there was a clear and imminent danger: chauvinism. The article argued
forcefully for doing away with it, or else (as you know, the writing was highly
polemical). The other important point was a nation’s undeniable right to self-
determination. The Eritrean movements, for example, should (within limits) be
given support. These were the chief points. We wholeheartedly approved this
line; accordingly, we ran off copies of the article which we packed with our
luggage and later passed out among those attending the congress.
I think that, to do justice to history, we need to look back on the stands
taken earlier regarding the national question. It was first brought up at the 6th
congress of NUEUS in 1966, where resolutions were passed. Later similar

108
 The National Question

resolutions were passed in Zagreb by ESUE. Following this, Walelign’s article

came out in Addis Ababa, which caused a shift in stand, later manifested in
Europe and the USA. I think this fact needs to be put on record.
Even though it is not necessary to engage in a substantive discussion of
the national question, it is imperative to bring up certain points related to the
whole context, i.e. the similarities and differences between Walelign’s and
Tilahun Takele’s articles. The two writers were in accord regarding two essential
points: acceptance of the right of nations to self-determination and support of
ethnic liberation movements; however, there was a substantial difference with
regard to what I consider an essential point. The quintessence of Walelign’s
article was a clear demonstration of the existence of nations and nationalities in
Ethiopia – a point-of-view never before contemplated by any of the protagonists
of the student movement. Granted that none of us would espouse the ruling
class’s conviction that there was only one ethnic group, to wit, Amhara;
nevertheless, we had a biased perspective when we defined ourselves as
Ethiopians. Walelign’s writing was quite a revelation. In essence, the chief
message of his article was that Ethiopia was the home of an assortment of
nations and that there was national oppression.
The second message was a call for the establishment of an egalitarian/
socialist (Walelign uses these terms alternately) state, where all rights are
respected, and to achieve that recognition of the rights of nations is a “sine qua
non”. This is his second message. His third message is that, instead of taking an
anti-secessionist stance, we should consider what these movements would
achieve if they were socialist-oriented. In other words, we should not, out of
hand, condemn all secessionist movements. We must evaluate them thoroughly.
Both unqualified support and outright opposition are irrational. This is yet
another message. When I re-read Walelign’s article during the course of my
research, I was struck by the fact that nowhere in his article is any reference
made to “the right to self-determination”. In contrast, Tilahun Takele’s article
not only emphatically endorses “the right to self-determination” but also extends
it up to and including secession.
In my opinion, Tilahun Takele’s writing had a greater impact than
Walelign’s on those students who joined the University after 1970. The
operative phrase was “up to and including secession”. These basic differences
should not be glossed over because they are at the root of all that was to come
later.
Since what occurred was the subject of discussions at both ESUE and
ESUNA Congresses, let us address the problems now. Those who initiated the
national question during these discussion sessions expressed their belief that the
problem arose not only from the fact that Marxism had degenerated down to
Leninist and Stalinist clichés, but also from the fact that Marxism and the

109
 Bahru Zewde

national question were reduced to the formula of “up to and including

secession”. It had been lowered to that level. The problem with that is that it
gave rise to the notion that other Marxists had nothing to say or write on this
topic. It was as if the sole authorities on this issue were Lenin and Stalin.
However, a good number of Marxists did write on this subject. Austro-
Hungarian Marxists as well as the Polish Marxist, Rosa Luxemburg, Roy of
India and countless others can be cited as examples. In point of fact, Roy had
confronted Lenin on this issue at a Comintern Conference and Lenin had to
retract. However, these facts have never been brought to light. The whole issue
has revolved around the writings of Lenin and Stalin.
The real danger, of course, was the fact that Marxism itself had become
dogmatic, not only when dealing with the question of nations but also at the
international level. What those in the Communist movement accepted as
Communism was at first Leninism and later Marxism-Leninism. The student
movement had espoused this reductionist ideology. That is why, for instance,
when we consider “the question of organization”, the proponent is once again
Lenin. The same applies to “democratic centralism” and the “vanguard party”.
These things should be seen in their entirety as they had a strong impact on the
shape of our ideology. They were the sources of our subsequent problems. As
we heard yesterday, such a sound and strictly-run group as the “Crocodile
Society” had total control over situations and caused a lot of damage. This trend
may have changed in form and shape but its content remains intact.
In conclusion, the national question has to be examined within its context.
We saw yesterday that the national question was nothing but an instrument in the
struggle between organizations. It was not a fundamental question.

110
 The National Question

Zenebework Taddese

A little earlier, Andreas had informed us that he was not in a position to speak on
the 1971 Los Angeles Conference because he had not attended it. I was present
on that occasion. On the other hand, I and many others did not attend the earlier
meeting in Philadelphia.
Between that meeting and 1971, a good number of chapters had been
established; for instance, the Chicago Chapter, of which I was a member, was set
up in 1970. As members, we would read old copies of Challenge and ESUE
publications as well as, when it was available, Tagel. At one point, there was
argument within chapters over whether the correct term was “region” or
“nationality”. As Abdul would probably recall, in 1971, prior to the Los Angeles
Congress, I happened to be in New York, where I watched one of the most
amazing debates. (Our chapter was a new one and, since the likes of Abdul had
not joined us, we conducted our debates in a civilized manner). The debate
between Mesfin and Alem Habtu (he has now left the meeting) was one of the
most astounding scenes I had every witnessed. Normally, both Mesfin and Alem
were known to speak calmly and sedately. On that occasion, however, they had
changed beyond all recognition. I still remember clearly Alem standing on a
chair and exclaiming: “Let me tell you something. If Tadesse Birru were to
secede tomorrow, I would not give the act automatic recognition. Even though
someone might legitimately take up arms for a cause, he must clearly underscore
the democratic nature of the question and clearly define his final objectives.”
Prior to the conference in Los Angeles, we had held, among the various
chapters, continuous discussions on whether the issue was one of “regions” or
“nationalities” and which kind of struggle was to be supported and which not.
Although we were short of funds, we still managed to hold sub-regional
meetings. Maybe Andreas recalls that lengthy and heated debates were held prior
to the Los Angeles Congress. There was a consensus that the national question
would be a topic for discussion at that Congress. Meanwhile, as we were
preparing for the Congress, as mentioned by Andreas, Walelign’s and Tilahun
Takele’s writings came out.
To add to what Andreas said, hearing about my trip to Berlin, Dessalegn
had given me copies of Challenge, which I had taken with me. Even though
there were not enough copies to go around, I distributed the publication to union
leaders of my acquaintance. I also had with me the altered version of the article
written by Tumtu Lencho in response to Tilahun’s article. I had also taken some
polemical piece to add fuel to the debate over the national question scheduled for
the Berlin Congress.

111
 Bahru Zewde

But no one was interested in reading the material. The debate was a “fait
accompli”. With all due respect to Yeraswork39, I would like to relate my
version. While, as Yeraswork said, the Congress had broken up into four or five
discussion groups, most of us (including some of the ESUE leadership) had
abandoned our designated discussion groups in favour of the one in which
Berhane Meskel and Andreas were taking part. They were the only two who
were actively participating in the debate. I recall that despite our elaborate
preparations, we had no chance to take part in the debate. An announcement
urging people to move to their designated breakout rooms was totally ignored,
which prompts me to believe that no debate on the issue went on elsewhere.
When the plenary session commenced, there was a clear indication that
everyone was determined to settle matters once and for all. Yesterday, I had
touched upon procedure. Mesfin, Solomon [Tesema?] and myself were out of
order when we joined a discussion group we were not assigned to, but nothing
came of it. As for the resolutions, we all know too well that they are prepared
elsewhere.
As I said before, we had high hopes to engage in a debate at Los angels;
however, instead of a debate, what we encountered was a lengthy altercation
over procedure. I remember Eshetu Chole [who chaired the session] bitterly
regretting his being involved in that situation. I am sure Abdul remembers the
multitude of strangers that had arrived from LA to cast their votes. There was a
heated argument over who would be eligible to vote: should everyone present be
allowed to vote or only members of ESUNA? Needless to say, this row left us
very little time for discussing the question of nationalities. The opposition said
that their stand was that of Tilahun Takele, we invoked Challenge. They charged
us with denying the existence of nations and their rights because, they said, we
were intent on perpetuating Amhara dominance over others. We refuted this
accusation by stating that we did accept the existence of nationalities and their
rights, but not to the extent of endorsing their secession.
At any rate, as we had no wish to sit on our hands while non-members and
known anti-ESUNA elements took over, so we walked out in protest. The next
day, we had our own convening to elect our officials and departed to our
respective chapters. A year later, a General Assembly was held. However, I
cannot speak on anything that occurred after 1972 because by then I was back in
Ethiopia. The arguments and debates continued, and other issues went on being
raised.

39
Who had taken exception to Andreas’ earlier assertion that the debate at the Berlin Congress was
between ESUNA and Algeria/Addis Ababa, with the ESUE leadership hardly venturing a view.

112
 The National Question

One final item regarding what we were discussing over coffee: an Eritrean
named Yordanos Gebremedhin made the observation that when people from the
central part of the country wrote a polemical piece, they invariably used an
Oromo pen-name!40

40
An allusion to Andreas’ use of the pen-name Tumtu Lencho for his piece on the national
question. Interestingly enough, this use of Oromo and Southern Ethiopian names was to be even
more prevalent during the EPRP-Me’ison debates in the “Revolutionary Forum” columns of
Addis Zaman in early 1976.

113
 Bahru Zewde

Tedla Seyum

Let me share my reminiscences with you. I am afraid I do not have any

recollection about who said what and where, any more than I can remember who
participated well or poorly; consequently, I shall refrain from passing judgment.
I think the nub of the matter was our failure to understand the nature of the
union. This is my own view. At the time, the union was not structured into
seasoned and beginners. Everyone came well prepared. We all remember
Yeraswork’s humorous barb, i.e. “We were redolent of ‘nations’.” We had
assiduously studied the national question for a year, practically every day. By the
way, I do not subscribe to the opinion that seniority necessarily means either
more wisdom or more eloquence. I speak from experience: I was chairman of
one committee and I had a share in the preparation of the draft resolution.
Berhane Meskel and Andreas most undeniably stood out as first-rate debaters.
Sometimes one has to take a measure of one’s environment. The group
that arrived (from the US) before the meeting cut an intimidating figure. Senay
Lekke, who was barefooted and had on fatigues, resembled a hermit. I fancy
myself a smoker, but Mesfin Habtu was puffing on an endless chain of
cigarettes, and so was Andreas. Those of us who lived in Europe were positively
convinced that we were in the presence of lunatics. It boggled the imagination to
picture a barefooted hermit in Europe! For our part, we took both sober and light
activities in our stride. Between meetings we would chat, joke and sing folk
songs. Our behaviour must have appeared odd to the new arrivals because they
would occasionally glare at us. (I admit that I still have a weakness for cultural
entertainment, such as “azmari bet”.) It would appear, though, that enjoying
oneself there was considered “reactionary” and “in bad taste”.
What scared us was: when Endrias Abebe arrived in Lund from LA on
vacation, he was wearing fatigues. We were hard put to recognize the man we
grew up and lived with. On one occasion, we were dismayed when he berated us
for our “relaxed” attitude towards meetings. We were, however, completely
floored when we witnessed the events in Berlin.
Secondly, we have to take into account the character of our veteran
leaders. For the most part, they were not inclined to venture into heated debates.
This, however, did not mean that they had no stand or that they did not express
their opinions in writing. At any rate, Berhane Meskel and Andreas were the
star debators, closely followed in rank by those who came from abroad,
particularly those from the USA. What I wish to reiterate is that, with the
possible exception of Negede, the ESUE veterans were not accustomed to
speaking in public, but their lack of experience did not mean they did not
participate.

114
 The National Question

That there may have been a tacit agreement (though not to the best of my
knowledge) did not warrant censure. In fact, I would say that there were those
who took Andreas’s side for fear that the topic might get out of hand. They
wanted more clarifications and/or elaborations of the issue. They may also have
wanted to avert a potential row. I also think that great care was being taken to
prevent the Algeria-Benelux situation from turning into a fiasco. (I will try to
elaborate on this if I get the chance at the close of this meeting.) ESUE did not
deem the question of nations to be decisive by itself. It was just an issue which
would be solved in time and should certainly not cause any rift. I can understand
that it may appear to an outsider that there was a tacit agreement. I, however,
find that highly improbable. This was my honest assessment of the situation.

115
 Chapter VI
The Gender Question

Netsanet Mengistu

Before dealing with the main topic, I would like to state that firstly, when
Professor Bahru informed us that there would be a meeting, it took me back so
many years along memory lane that I was really looking forward to it.
Unfortunately, owing to circumstances beyond my control, I could not attend the
sessions of the last two days, a fact I regret very much. Secondly, I feel strongly
that this matter should have been given the attention it deserves (may be
conditions were not favorable, I admit) and that it is long overdue. I would like
to thank profusely Professor Bahru and all those who made this gathering
possible. I like to think that I speak also for those who have passed away because
their presence is best felt on occasions such as this. Hence my deepest
appreciation (applause).
I would like to refer to those points taken up yesterday, particularly what
happened after some of you, who are my seniors, graduated and secured
employment. I am sure that you had a goal in mind when you started earning a
living. I should like to touch upon what changes were effected in the University
community, especially regarding girl students. There may or may not have been
significant changes; nevertheless, I would like to say a few words.
As University students, the word “gender” meant to us nothing more than
a grammatical term. In fact, it was then known not as such but as “the women
question”! You may recall that there were panel discussions on this subject,
especially in the early sixties. The question, however, is: Were girls encouraged
to take part in these discussions? The answer is no. I am still referring to the
early sixties in the Ethiopian calendar. I remember in particular our arranging a
welcoming social event for first-year students, before students “graduated” at
Christmas. That is where “Miss USUAA” was selected. Unfortunately, winning
this contest on the basis of beauty, charm and geniality was not without its
attendant risks. A girl who was my life-long friend since boarding school won
the “Miss USUAA” title. That girl ended her life when she fell from a building
while fleeing a would-be rapist. As a result of which USUAA was temporarily
banned, school was closed and we had to leave the campus. It was an occasion
for rumor-mongers to comment that “Miss USUAA had met her destiny and
USUAA had received what it richly deserved”.
Looking back, I am amazed at the numerous heated debates taking place,
to the extent that people would push each other off windows. However, I do not
remember witnessing any girl raising her hand to speak her mind or to express
 Bahru Zewde

her opinion. A first-year student could come and blabber while a senior girl just
sat by quietly. We had no say in the proceedings. True, we cheered, did chores
and ran errands, but we had no chance to speak. This much is clear.
Struggle contributed its fair share in belittling women. Everyone knows
the cartoonist Zewde Hailu. He invariably portrayed women as creatures
obsessed with cosmetics, miniskirts and parties. (Some of his cartoons showed
girls scaling a wall after coming late from a party.) His message was: that is the
sum-total of their achievements. The same period of time witnessed women
being harshly condemned in verse. For all that, we took part in public
demonstrations, such as the one staged about Rhodesia. We, women, may have
been reticent, but we did not lack commitment. Not only did we participate in
demonstrations, but we were at the forefront.
The other thing that I remember is that, despite all these obstacles,
whenever the opportunity arose, women were eager to offer succor to those
students in need of help and assistance. In 1969 (GC) students, especially those
from the rural areas, had withdrawn from the University and were without food
and shelter. It was at this time that Marta Mebratu, accompanied by two
students, got in touch with us to enlist our help. We would, accordingly, make
the rounds of the city in an effort to find accommodation for these students in
distress. No one assigned us this duty; we were doing it on a voluntary basis.
However, conditions changed when Tilahun became president. Personally,
I think no other person was as sincere a militant as Tilahun. By comparison,
most of his predecessors in office were hypocrites. As I mentioned earlier, they
considered themselves much, much better read than anyone else. We quaked and
trembled every time we walked past them because we knew that we were the
butt of their cruel jokes. In their lexicon, a heavily-built girl was Wondemagegn
(“I have found a brother”), an unattractive one Waldaw Aytelu (“you can't
discard your offspring”), one who walked unevenly “a tragic sight”, etc. It
seemed as if they had nothing better to do than create derogatory terms all day
long. In view of what they read and the ideology they professed, one would have
thought they ought to have strongly condemned such practice, not engaged in it.
This is what makes us realize all the more Tilahun's greatness. When first
they took office, Tilahun, Mohammed Mafuz and Yirga Tessema came straight
to our dormitory to speak to us. They wanted to find out from our guardian (by
the way, we had a guardian!) why we girls would not participate in student
activities, why we were confined to our quarters. They proposed that girl
delegates be allowed to discuss this matter with them. Our guardian, who was at
first uneasy, later gave her consent and three girls from amongst us volunteered.
As they had come adequately prepared, they briefed us well. They assured and
encouraged us so warmly that we felt confident that we could participate. This
was followed by a modest offer to girls to contribute to Struggle. Dignified

118
 The Gender Question

cartoons began appearing in place of the cruel and demeaning ones. As I

mentioned yesterday, when the cafeteria was “nationalized”, it was we, girl
volunteers, who started working there. Later girls came to be nominated even for
Congress.
When Tilahun died, a large number of University girl students were up in
arms in the hospital and later on campus. It was suggested that for safety's sake,
they leave the campus, which they declined to do. One of those killed was a girl
student (a secondary school student, admittedly). I have heard that 1970/71 was
a bad year (I was doing my University service then), not in terms of gender
discrimination but as regards the student movement. There was a
misunderstanding between senior students (Tselote and others) and the rest of
the student body. However, measures were taken to reconcile their differences.
I went on University Service with the man who was later to become my
husband, Yirga Tessema. Since my assigned area of service was where my
parents lived, a good number of people knew where I was, they also knew that
Yirga was with me. I believe that it was mentioned yesterday that a large exodus
was underway at the time. Our task was to send groups of students mounted on
donkeys across the border to Sudan. As luck would have it, the man whose duty
was to escort them got arrested and, in panic, gave us away. Even though they
knew that I had sheltered these students, in deference to my gender, they
subjected me to nothing harsher than interrogation. Yirga, whom they knew to
be a stranger to the area, was not so fortunate. They handcuffed his hands and
feet, dumped him on a truck used to transport charcoal and carted him off to
Central Interrogation Center (in Addis Ababa). Yirga had been warned before
that, should he try anything, he would be incarcerated again. When earlier he had
been wounded by a bullet and hospitalized,33 he had been sent to prison. This
was his third round. However, he was lucky in that he had become a familiar
figure to the authorities as a result of his frequent arrests and releases.
Accordingly, Colonel Daniel remarked “What did they expect of you anyway?
You are not border patrols after all!” and set them free.
The year 1971/72 saw a proliferation of study groups. In my opinion, the
fact that the question of women was getting the serious attention it deserved and
that efforts were being made to induce girls to join these study groups indicated
a positive step forward. At this point, I would like to remember Yohannes
Berhane. At the time, Yohannes was a professional student who had already
obtained one degree and was working on another, providing him with the chance
to remain in the University. A dedicated person, Yohannes was instrumental in

33
On 29 December 1969, when security forces (Imperial Bodyguard troops, to be precise) stormed
the main campus of the University to take away the body of the Tilahun Gizaw, who had been
slain a day earlier. This was only about four months after Yirga was released from prison, where
he had been serving sentence with Walelign and others.

119
 Bahru Zewde

bringing to the field of struggle such prominent figures as Mezgebnesh and

Selamawit Dawit. Our fourth year was marked by young women taking part in
debates.
A little earlier I was reminded of something, which had dwelt in me. It
was prompted by the discussion of the question of nationalities. I recall Eritrean
students being given particular attention with a view to their departing to Eritrea
and democratizing the struggle, which would smooth the way to a unity based on
democratic principles. In connection with that, I remember some Eritrean
boarding schoolmates. Because they had been well prepared, these students left
the University when they were only four months shy of graduation. This was a
telling blow to the system because it clearly indicated the low value that students
put on the degree they were about to get. Unfortunately, they chose, along with
Yohannes Sebhatu, to join a secret organization called “Menka'e”, which led to
the execution of its leaders. Two of them returned home after the victory and I
met them in Asmara some time ago. I suppose one should expect some negative
results from positive intentions.
Both Martha Mebratu and Adanech Kidanemariam were well politicized
before the 1972 plane hijack. They got along fine with boy students and were
good comrades. Not surprisingly, we considered them the epitome of courage. I
bring this up to indicate how the early 70’s were years in which the warped and
contemptuous attitude towards women was beginning to undergo a change, for
which those who were in the student leadership are to be commended. This
cannot be emphasized enough.

120
 The Gender Question

Asfaw Damte

It has always been a source of amazement for me when I look back on the
relationship that existed between University male and female students in the
sixties. I believe that if a boy student purportedly used such derogatory terms as
have been claimed when referring to girl students, the offender would be the
object of much disdain among his male companions. As I pointed out earlier, the
chief problem was the fact that in 99 cases out of 100, the schools did not
provide co-education. Boys attended different schools from girls, and the latter
attended single-sex schools like Empress Menen. Cathedral School had two
distinct branches for males and females. The result was that when the two sexes
met at the university for the first time, they looked upon each other as alien
beings. This was true of students who came from Tafari Makonnen, General
Wingate, Menelik II and Empress Menen Schools. It should be pointed out,
however, that, for all this, boy students did not look down on girl students
because the latter would often score higher grades in tests. The real problem was
that girls did not feel at ease, or did not have the nerve to run for public office, or
generally behaved bashfully.
An additional problem was the scarcity of girl students: only 12 out of the
200-strong student body. In our particular group, we numbered eight until a
contingent of foreign girl students arrived in the middle of the academic year.
One was the daughter of a British Embassy official, another was the daughter of
an American couple (both of whom were instructors), and two Indian students
(teenage children of the Indian Ambassador). These last befriended the Ethiopian
girl students; it was like opening a window to the outside world. The three others
who preceded us into the University were not outgoing. On the other hand, the
only girl in the third year, Wudenesh Amsalu, was self-assertive and spoke her
mind at meetings.
When I listen now to what was prevailing in the 60’s, it strikes me as a
regression. Our fellow girl students owed their fame to their active participation
in politics and their eloquent speeches, though that is totally another thing. The
fact remains that a great number of girl students persevered in their education
despite adverse conditions. Admittedly, there were academically weak girl
students as there were feeble boy students. That is what I recall.

121
 Bahru Zewde

Zenebework Taddese

You will recall that, in the program sent earlier, I was designated to be the
resource person. I will explain why I was not able to fulfill this assignment and
move on to another topic. It was in the 1970’s that I joined the student
movement. I feel saddened when I consider that, to date, the gender question,
instead of acquiring a national significance or being viewed as a question of
development, has remained just that. I want to emphasize that I declined the
offer because I harbour neither the illusion that I have the monopoly on this
question nor that I am the definite authority on the subject; also my familiarity
with the gender question in the student movement is rather limited.
It was in 1970 that I attended my first Congress. Prior to that, I had been
elected (though not on the basis of my gender) as a member of the Chicago
Chapter. When the chairman, Andreas, called upon me to deliver our chapter’s
report, I was perturbed when I realized that I was being stared at by 300 male
eyes. I was so nervous that I even forgot to give my name; it was Andreas who
communicated that to the audience!
The two other ladies who were called upon to deliver their reports, Tsehay
Yeshitela and Abebech, were, to the best of my knowledge, the only women who
were participating in ESUNA at the time. (If I err, I am ready to be corrected by
veteran members of ESUNA) When Tsehay and Abebech confronted me with
the question of how I could have been elected to represent a chapter, in view of
the fact that, traditionally, women had little chance of being elected to public
office, I had no answer for them. I believe that their question was prompted by
their desire to hear me expound on the gender question; that there was
discrimination against women, a problem which even the student movement had
not succeeded in solving. Frankly speaking, I was not sure that I understood
their question. I, therefore replied, “Chicago is free of such biases. I was elected
and here I am.” They were disheartened, and in any case they had no further
opportunity to express their opinions. (I would like to remind Bahru that, unlike
Tsehay, who has passed away, Abebech is still alive and harbours very bitter
memories. She ought to be invited to share her experiences, which I feel will
enrich the documentation on women’s participation in ESUNA. After all, not
only did Abebech participate very actively in ESUNA, but when the split
occurred, she also played a prominent role in the leadership of the Federation.
This is a salient point).
What I realized in the short time I participated in ESUNA was that it was
a male-dominated organization. As Melaku pointed out earlier, the gender
question had its genesis in Marxist ideology. Because we were aping Marxists in
this respect, our outlook was for the most part similar to theirs. Outside the
Congress hall, Abebech and the others castigated me on my failure to give them

122
 The Gender Question

an opportunity to present their case. At any rate, on my return to base, I began to

consider seriously the question of gender. As Melaku mentioned earlier, the
gender question was gaining momentum and I became progressively fascinated
by it; accordingly, I began studying it in depth. To all intents and purposes, the
presence of women was acknowledged only when a fund-raising event was to
take place. Then women would attend such an event for a two-fold purpose:
cooking and dancing. Other than that, I did not ever witness women being given
the chance to participate, demanding an entry into the dialogue, or being elected
to office. Of course, I was elected after the split; however, I consider that a
different matter. Abdul can later tell us what the situation was under the
Federation.
As far as I know, no such blatant antagonism as the one seen in the
University at home existed abroad. We were graciously accepted and were
encouraged to express our opinions. On the other hand, ESUNA never
considered giving leadership roles to women and was even averse to
acknowledging that the gender question was essential to our cherished class
struggle. Consequently, it never encouraged propaganda work to enhance
women’s participation. It is sometimes a good thing to be reminded of the
gender war at Addis Ababa University, for it brings the truth to light.
Before I finish, I would like to address the following questions to
Netsanet: What did Tilahun and the others say during their election campaign?
For example, in reference to the gender question? We can assess that only in the
context of that time. It is widely believed that in most leftist organizations the
gender question was a hot issue, even though left-wing organizations were
already raising feminist questions. So my question to the leaders of ESUE here is
not only if there were women in the leadership but also what the stand and
attitude of the male leaders vis-à-vis the gender question was. The research done
is definitely to be commended, but beyond it, were women expected to have a
place in the revolution? What link, if any, does this have with the issue we
fought for and was ultimately the cause of the split, i.e. the national question?
Was the question raised as a separate national development issue?
It is well and good that Tilahun and the others took the trouble to pay a
visit to the girls’ hostel for the purpose of agitation. It is hoped that this was not
done solely in order to secure more female voters. Given the non-existent
encouragement given to girls to speak in public, I do not take any issue with the
fact that those girls did not participate in the debate. This type of activity has
always been shunned by our society. When the University cafeteria was taken
over by the student union, no one found it odd that girl students were appointed
cashiers, waitresses, etc. That is a right we have never been deprived of. I would
appreciate being apprised on what innovations those leaders brought regarding
the gender question. On the other hand, it would be very beneficial if we were

123
 Bahru Zewde

informed on the contents of studies conducted by the gender discussion groups

before the Federation’s Women Study Group was set up. I am aware that there
were women leaders in ESUE; however, I have no knowledge of their spoken or
written opinions.

124
 The Gender Question

Original Wolde Giorgis

I joined the University at a later date than Woizero Netsanet. Whenever girl
students joined the University, their male senior counterparts would compete to
get their attention. But it was not motivated by a desire to encourage their
participation as members of the student body. As far as I know, as late as 1965
(EC), girls were given nicknames that corresponded with their attires and hair-
dos. This was, mind you, just one year before the Revolution broke out!
Realizing that, we, girls could rely only on ourselves, we joined forces in matters
that pertained to our exclusive needs. This, however, does not mean that we sat
on our hands. Activists like Martha served as role models for a good number of
students to participate in the movement.
Admittedly, from 1966-1969 EC, some progress was seen in the form of
women being encouraged to run for Congress or offices in professional
associations within a given faculty. For instance, Girmachew and others initiated
certain measures which later came to fruition; however, it is not certain if this
were due to individual initiatives or due to a group effort. (If I err in this respect,
I stand to be corrected). Personally, I was always eager and ready to attend
meetings. I do not, however, recall any topic related to the gender question ever
being on any agenda of a USUAA meeting. I do admire and applaud, though,
individual efforts exerted on their behalf.
This trend continued later. It was most assuredly true that even those male
members of EPRP reputed to be well-read never accepted female leadership; this
was openly expressed in meetings. (Netsanet had mentioned it earlier), women
contributed immensely in (EPRP) squads and other activities. I remember an
incident at the Darg Interrogation Center where an interrogator wondered aloud
what sort of discipline could have been instilled in women members that enabled
them to withstand such tortures as having their breasts set ablaze by torched
newspapers. Those heroic young women endured it without divulging any
information. Women, contrary to popular belief, are singularly tenacious. It is
not everyone who can remain undaunted by the variety of roles that they are
forced to perform. Women, however, have proved themselves equal to the task.
This is undeniable.
And yet, even now, the role women have played has not been given the
attention it deserves. Kiflu Tadesse, who has witnessed these things abroad and
at home, did not find it important enough to write about the numerous dead and
maimed women, or about the countless females beaten black and blue, or those
left hanging from ceilings, or about those crippled as a result of hideous torture.
Their ordeal has remained un-chronicled, unless we ourselves write it. I find it
very hard to give credence to claims that women were given the opportunity to
participate in the movement as far back as 1973 when a recently written work

125
 Bahru Zewde

makes no mention of women’s contribution to the struggle. Maybe male students

have gone a long way in reading profoundly, in refining both their ideology and
attitude; if so, I would be the first to applaud them. However, this change has in
no way been reflected with respect to the question of women.
And yet, in those years of struggle, woe to the woman comrade who
rejects the advances of a male comrade! She would be accused of bourgeois
tendencies. To consent readily when asked for a date – that was her
unmistakable role. Not in other respects. All this notwithstanding, many women
participated in the struggle and paid huge sacrifices. As women, they were
subjected to all sorts of abuse.

126
 The Gender Question

Yeraswork Admassie

I have the feeling that conditions regarding the student movement varied from
place to place, including Addis Ababa. The scarcity of girl students on campus in
particular played a decisive role. W/o Almaz Eshete, making a speech during the
50th anniversary of the Addis Ababa University, provided us with some
fascinating information. The first few girl intakes were not provided with
sleeping quarters in the University. They slept in Menen School and were driven
to classes by an instructor. W/o Almaz’s brother would bring her both lunch and
dinner to school. Girls at that time faced such practical hardships, not to mention
their being intimidated by dint of their number.
A lot can be said about the problems that afflicted girl students. However,
I think that a question directly linked to the point under discussion is: how did
the number of girls who joined the struggle increase? For instance, what
accounted for the great number of Ethiopian women in France was the fact that
they were there on scholarship obtained at the Lycée [in Addis Ababa]. In direct
contrast, there were, at one time, only one or two girl students in Sweden. Then,
when their number grew, we started raising the gender issue. As mentioned
earlier by Melaku, there were calls for giving space to the lyrics of “Arise,
woman!” as well as to start a column in the publications prepared by ESUE.
However, when the split occurred, the question of gender and all
organizations associated with it began being exploited to serve the interest of this
or that faction, to such an extent that such organizations became barely tolerable.
This exploitation was done under the guise of Marxism, civic society, mass
organizations, and class struggle. It also continued at the state level, following
the creation of a split among the student population. When the split came, there
was a rush to recruit women. All the propaganda extolling women’s cause was a
thinly disguised mechanism to access women’s votes. We began hearing how
Lenin enlisted the aid of his wife Krupskaya to proof-read his writings.
However, this could only mean that she was just a glorified maid. Alexandra
Kolonte (?) too did not fare well among Bolsheviks.
I think that we slavishly adopted the Marxist and Communist tactics of
smothering civic organizations. Decidedly, it is only now that a certain number
of civic organizations and women’s associations (outside the realm of political
conflicts) have appeared and their voices are being heard.

127
 Chapter VII
The High School Factor

Gedeon Wolde Amanuel

I personally believe that the student movement was greatly influenced by given
neighborhoods (Gulele, Arat Kilo, and Kazanchis), by proximity to learning
institutions (secondary schools and the University), correctional institutions and
their inmates and military camps. For most of you, it took a long time for the
change to come; however, those of us born in the fifties (EC) were able to
witness a revolution in sixty-six. The youth seemed to say: “All it took for things
to fall apart was to shake and rattle them”. This emboldened them to try even
more audacious moves. This gave the revolution vim and vigor. When the
Ethiopian student movement set out to fight feudalism and imperialism, it
succeeded in winning and consolidating the loyalty of students of such
secondary schools as Teferi Mekonnen, Etegue Menen, Menelik II, Kokebe
Tsebah, Prince Makonnen, Madhane Alem and Shimelis Habte. These schools in
Addis Ababa were at the forefront of the struggle. Woizero Sehin, Debre Berhan
and Haile Mariam Mammo were provincial schools who followed in their
footsteps.
I can say that secondary school girl students participated more actively
than what I am hearing about those in the University. The other link between the
University and secondary school students was the year-long University Service
Program. This program made it mandatory for University students to serve their
nation for a year before being allowed to graduate. I shall always remember my
seventh grade teacher at Teferi Mekonnen School, Ato Eshetu. He would tell us
about Che Guevera and Ho Chi Minh. Unless I am mistaken, he was in the same
year as Tilahun Gizaw at the University. I vividly recall his engaging us in a
debate entitled: “Did God create man or did man create God?” Most of us argued
that God created man. He refuted our argument and won; so we were compelled
to concede that man had created God.
We had a peculiar yardstick for this. Take the case of Jobir, someone who
dared to eat the flesh of an animal butchered by a Muslim. Jobir took up the
challenge and that automatically converted us into atheism overnight. Back in
1974, there was another teacher called Tadele, since deceased I believe,
belonging to Tilahun’s batch. He read to us the poem “Berekete Mergem” in
class one day. The police picked him up after he did a repeat performance in
another class.
What were the causes of student “disturbances” in secondary schools?
Tilahun Gizaw’s death was commemorated on 29 December. In the course of the
 Bahru Zewde

ceremony, trouble was inevitable. On one such occasion (in 1969 EC), about 20
secondary school students lost their lives, among which was a boy living in the
same district as us, Tedla Moges. He fell into a dug-out latrine and died. The fact
that I could see a great number of University and secondary school students
frequenting our district made me realize the truth of a neighborhood being an
important factor in the struggle. The other day that was commemorated was in
December 1972, the anniversary of the death of Walelign Mekonnen and Martha
Mebratu and others. The slogan - “Why did Tilahun die? Why? Why did
Walelign die? Why? Freedom is won through violence and struggle!”41 –chanted
on that day drove the point home. This question of proximity to the scene of
struggle and access to information was of paramount importance. Consider the
case of Ammanuel Gebreyesus, who hijacked an airplane with Berhane Meskel.
The fact that he was from our neighbourhood enabled us to obtain information
on the event. That incident was instrumental in publicizing his fame around
Abware and Kazanchis. Another was Mesfin Habtu’s brother, Daniel Habtu. He
had access to foreign newspapers and other sources, whose contents he imparted
to us. From the deliberations at this meeting, I can see clearly how things were
interrelated.
The famine that afflicted Wollo and Tigrai Provinces made a big impact
on the student population. When the victims of the catastrophe came to
Parliament to plead their case, there were tremendous activities going on
regarding collection of food and clothes. Another memorable event was man’s
landing on the moon, which inspired a number of poems. The one I vividly
remember was to the effect that “The Whites are so refined that they have landed
on the moon, leaving the earth for us Blacks. By the time they are back from
their trip, we will still be struggling with the alphabet.” So, such poems would be
read and applauded. Our families, of course, frowned upon our activities, which
in my opinion expedited the youth’s rush into the arena of the struggle.
During the outbreak of the Ethiopian Revolution, University and
secondary school students and taxi drivers elevated the students’ slogans of
“Land to the Tiller”, “Education for All”, “Bread for the Hungry” and “Down
with Corruption” to the level of popular demands. I never assimilated the slogans
then as I have managed to do so now. Most of the demands were so radical in
nature that I doubt that even those who advocated them vigorously really
understood their significance. I say this because most of those demands have not
been fulfilled to date. I believe that because we had witnessed Haile Selassie’s
feudal regime being overthrown and replaced by a military government, we took
it for granted that this last too could be removed with equal ease. Our behavior

41
The original Amharic version ran thus: ØLG<”' KU” KU” V}& ªKM˜' KU” KU” V}&
uÃM uƒÓM ’¨<' ’í’ƒ ¾T>Ñ–¨<::

130
 The High School Factor

has not been unlike the animal of the cat family (the cator?), which provokes
everything around it - bodies of water, mountains and the sun.
It should be mentioned here that USUAA’S Struggle, ESUNA’s Combat
and WWFES’s Forward played a tremendous role in forging a solidarity of
struggle between Ethiopian students inside the country and those abroad, as well
as defining the direction for the anti-feudal and anti-imperialist struggle. In my
opinion, these publications went a long way in raising the level of consciousness
among secondary school students and in broadening the scope of the struggle to
include anti-apartheid and anti-Zionist stances.
There is one thing that I could never forget. In 1974, a bookshop called
“Progressive Bookshop” came into being. Delegated by youth councils, we met
Ato Haile Fida, Negede Gobeze and Dr. Kebede Mengesha. (I was amazed that,
beginning in 1965 EC, students were copying issues of “Tatek” and “Tiglachen”
by hand and distributing them to readers.) Haile and the others, surprised and
delighted by these efforts, made us a donation of a vast number of books by
Marx, Lenin and Mao. We were pleased by these men’s return from abroad and
were determined to forge further links with them. Although we had a legal union
at the time, we had to form a clandestine one for fear that the former could be
banned; accordingly, we formed The Ethiopian Students Union and started an
underground paper named Dil Betegel (“Victory through Struggle”). One of the
most important lessons that secondary school students learnt from local and
overseas Ethiopian students was the necessity of getting organized. In its first
issue, “Victory through Struggle” carried a poem:

Forget biology, never mind Amharic;

If you crave freedom, fighting will do the trick.

Another source of amazement for me was a publication that came from

abroad, dedicated to the memory of Mesfin Habtu and entitled “Handbook of
Elementary Notes on Revolution and Organization”. It taught us a lot about
keeping appointments, revolutionary discipline, etc. We learnt a great deal about
clandestine operations and how to set a revolutionary code of ethics. At the
time, secret members of the Ethiopian Student Union numbered 5,000-10,000.
At one meeting held on the premises of a church, there were delegates from
every section of a secondary school.
Following the Derg’s seizure of power and the enactment of repressive
laws, it became virtually impossible to hold meetings where 40-50 people could
attend. Another lesson we learned from that handbook was how to conduct the
struggle under a variety of guises, i.e. as mass organization, teachers’
association, or workers’ union, in order to appear politically neutral. We soon
adopted this method; accordingly, such publications as the “Voice of the

131
 Bahru Zewde

Masses”, Democracia and “Red Banner” (which were issued well into 1969 EC)
were being distributed by members of our discussion groups. In 1967 EC, the
clandestine Ethiopian Students Union, wishing to join the bandwagon, decided
to publish its Dil Betegel (“Victory through Struggle)” (prepared with the help of
a duplicating machine pilfered from an elementary school).
It was amazing how the youth enthusiastically cooperated with all political
organizations. All of them taught you Marxism-Leninism and we had a keen
desire to imbibe it. In order to finance our publication, we would charge students
fifty cents per issue. That was all the funds we had. That was how the
clandestine organization operated.
I would like to reiterate my belief that neighborhoods played an essential
role in the student movement. To be a native of the Gulele neighborhood, for
instance, was decisive. (Though I cannot now help wondering what a student
living in Aware would be doing in a place like Gulele). Be that as it may, such
dynamic youths as Alemayehu Egzeru, Tito Hiruy and Binyam Bogale were
always to be found around YMCA. They would organize students in groups of
four or five people, rent houses (Oh, how cheap houses were then!) and start
Marxist-Leninist discussion groups. They would also supply us with copies of
Abyot,42 whereas Gebregziabher (who resided behind the Police Garage) would
give us copies of “Voice of the Masses”. Jarso Kirubel and Nadew Haile, who
were friends of my brother, on the other hand, made “Democracia” available to
us. We read all three publications. Since we did not leave on the 1967 (EC)
“Development through Cooperation Campaign,” we were, so to speak, in charge.
That was the way things went.
We would distribute those secret publications in schools. Secondary
school students had by then become well-versed in such struggle tactics as
boycotting classes, staging demonstrations, chanting popular slogans and songs
in public, holding political discussions, hijacking aircraft, preparing Molotov
cocktails and operating a mimeographing machine nicknamed “Adefris”, getting
organized in secret and preparing underground newspapers, thanks to lessons
learnt from local and overseas student unions.
When and how did the Ethiopian Student Movement turn into a political
organization? To get an insight into this, one may call attention to the article
entitled “Our Differences”, which set out to demonstrate that the genesis of
political organizations was the political split between ESUNA and ESUE. We
were in a quandary because both sides were equally persuasive. One side would
win us over with Abyot, but we would soon be fascinated by the “Voice of the
Masses”. One day, Binyam Bogale, who supplied us with Abyot, and
Gebregziabher Hagos engaged in a heated and lengthy discussion; neither side

42
One of the clandestine newspapers. The group that had coalesced around it eventually merged
with the Democracia group to form EPRP.

132
 The High School Factor

would concede defeat. When they were too exhausted to argue, they resorted to
throwing insults at each other. (By the way, having shared imprisonment in
“Boter”, they knew each other quite well.). Our political consciousness at the
time was such that we were unable to fathom their differences. We believed that
since the bottom line was Marxism-Leninism and our common foe was the Derg,
there was no reason why we could not all work for a common goal. There was
no lack of good will on our part.
I believe that even handwritten copies of these underground papers were
being disseminated in secondary schools and even within the Ethiopian Students
Union beginning in 1967 EC. The years 1965-1966 EC saw a quantum leap of
youth associations in every district of Addis Ababa, the most prominent of which
was the youth association of Gulele. 43 Using it as a model, a good number of
youth associations sprang up in Piazza, Kazanchis, Arat Kilo and Aware. (I have
no idea as to who laid their structures or how they proliferated at such a rate.)
While the chief goal of these associations was to teach the community how to
read and write, there were other activities they were engaged in, such as
sanitation, afforestation, bridge and inner road construction and local
development projects. The community was very fond of us. We participated in
calisthenics and football and excelled at table-tennis. There was a gymnasium
and a library as well as regular debating sessions. The youths of Gulele would
ask anyone they met if they had a mailbox. If a person gave an affirmative
answer, they were guaranteed to receive a copy of Peking Review, China
Constructs or China Pictorial. Even after we had joined the Ethiopian Student
Union, we were the recipients of these publications. (Can you imagine, though,
your father’s reaction when he came across a copy of one of the publications?)
Personally, I used to wonder how a publication I never subscribed to never failed
to turn up in my mailbox. Having said this, I must admit that they did wonders in
enhancing our consciousness.
However, these developments were preceded by the establishment of
gangs known as “Kenbebit group”, “China Group” and “Al-Fatah group” at Arat
Kilo and Filwoha areas. They spent their time molesting girls and beating up
everyone. In 1967 EC, they turned their “talents” into a different channel:
whenever students of Kokebe Tsebah School staged a demonstration, the school
director never found it necessary to summon the Police; he would call upon the
“Kenbebit group”, who, armed with knives, would drive the students back into
their school. In retaliation, we organized ourselves into an “anti-Saboteur” force
(we were 5,000-10,000 strong) and on one occasion about 5,000 of us met them

43
Interestingly enough, the militancy of the Gulele neighbourhood was such that the Derg set up a
special detention and interrogation center there known as “Keftegna 25” at the height of the Red
Terror.

133
 Bahru Zewde

on the battlefield, vanquished and turned them around. Eventually, they joined
our discussion groups, socially rehabilitated.
Arat Kilo YMCA was the venue of heated discussions. It played a notable
role not only in developing the conscience of the youth but also their bodies. Dr.
Senay Lekke would train us in martial arts (Karate). He would train 20 people
and those 20 people would in turn each train 20 other people. We became
ideologically and physically fit. We had the feeling that we were readying
ourselves for some big task. We were joining this study circle and that one. We
did not give much thought to the fact that we were being groomed by three
different organizations. Our studies continued uninterrupted. The youth would
ask when the time was that he would be deemed to be ready to engage the
military regime (Derg).
The other amazing thing was the rapidity with which situations were
changing in 1975. “Progressive Bookshop” and “Giannopolous Bookshop” were
doing their best to cope with the growing demand for books on Marxism-
Leninism. Seeing the level of our English proficiency, though, we found Mao-
Tse-Tung’s works most suitable. We mastered quotations from Mao in record
time. We shunned the more complicated writings on socialism. In short, we were
in love with Maoism. In late 1975, the clandestine leftist organizations came out
into the open. The Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Party (EPRP), known for
its two publications, i.e. Democracia and Abyot, and the All-Ethiopian Socialist
Movement (AESM), known for its publication “The Voice of the Masses.”44 We,
too, were entertaining the idea of following suit with our publication, Del
Betegel, forgetting that ours was a mass organization. The question was: how did
these publications turn into organizations? It seemed as if a trend was being set.
A little later, the Ethiopian Communist Party (ECP) emerged attended by its
newspaper, “Red Banner”45, and others followed – Waz, Malerid, Ech’at, etc.
The chief objective of these underground political parties was to organize
secretly secondary school students into youth wings and youth leagues. As I said
before, we had links with every group and got along with all. Then the Abyot
group began recruiting members of the Ethiopian Student Union by taking
advantage of the wobbling leadership and the disorganized state of its structure.
These people were past masters at concocting codes. They divided the city into
four zones and went about their duties with fascinating efficiency. Our group
found itself out of its depth. For one thing we had to slow down when schools
were out of session. Finally, we were taken over by the Abyot group.
In 1975, as a result of the political differences, secondary school students
beat one another severely. (Nothing similar, as far as I know, had occurred
before). Branding students according to their political line and administering

44
In actual fact, more commonly known by its Amharic name Yasafiw Hezb Dimts.
45
Again, more famous by its Amharic name Qay Bandira.

134
 The High School Factor

swift punishment resulted in many students being seriously injured. I vividly

remember weeping bitterly when Gebregziabher Hagos was assassinated by the
squads of EPRP. We came to realize then that we had to decide which
organization we would work for. It became only too clear what a clandestine
organization was capable of.
One thing that Gebregziabher’s assassination demonstrated was that any
party could and did make a political decision in the “Derg” style; accordingly,
the killing continued unabated. It would seem that no lesson was learnt from the
1960 coup because both Mengistu and Garmame Neway were praised as heroes.
I have never heard a differing opinion on that. I believe that this has always been
our weakness and a dubious legacy we are obliged to bequeath to our children.
Then, all of us, regardless of political lines, found ourselves in prison. In
the six years that we spent there, we learned Marxism in depth. We were also
taught academic subjects by some of the best instructors in the country. This was
evinced by our superior results in the ESLCE (we scored the best results for
three or four successive years). When we left Kerchele (the Central Prison), we
were educated past the college level. Take me, for instance, I had by then
mastered micro and macro economics. We were taught accounting and calculus.
We had the best education. I think that we were adequately compensated, which
really counted.

135
 Bahru Zewde

Original Wolde Giorgis

I think that the fact of Menen School being so close to the University had a
strong influence on our involvement in the student movement. No sooner would
the alarm sound in the University than we were in the streets. Barring a few
holdouts, the students of Menen were prompt to boycott classes or to stage a
demonstration. I still can’t figure it out whether it was because we had become
politically conscious or were overly fond of University students that we behaved
thus. When Abdul informed us that while in secondary school he would travel by
bus to a destination where he took delivery of political material, I was reminded
of students who got prompt wind of a call urging them to join a demonstration. I
am inclined to conclude that there must have been among us individuals who
were close to University sources. We would discuss politics and political figures,
such as Walelign and Tilahun, in terms of our level of consciousness. I do not at
all recall any time in my sophomore, junior or senior years of secondary school
when I did not boycott classes or take part in a demonstration.
I am not sure but I think it was in 1961 EC that all the students of
secondary schools in Addis Ababa were promoted to the next grade without
sitting for an examination, although we had missed a quarter semester’s worth of
lessons. The reasoning for this seemed to be that the ESLCE would separate the
men from the boys in any case. We would go to school, attend only a quarter or
half of a full day’s session. Since we would not get the opportunity to eat lunch
at school, we would take back our untouched lunch-box home. Lunch consisted
of bread. In fact, we consumed such a great quantity of bread at that time, that
we developed a loathing for it, so much so that we succeeded in tolerating bread
in our diet only after a long time. As I said, we were simply fascinated by the
student movement. (I think that there should be a demarcating line separating the
pre-revolutionary era from the revolutionary one.) As far as I am concerned,
there was not a secondary school student movement separate from the University
student movement. If there was one, I must have missed it.
The most unforgettable event then was Tilahun’s death. When he died I
was in my senior year in secondary school. I recall our filing into the University
with our uniforms on. We stood in front of the Arts building crying our eyes out,
but holding onto each other’s hands for support and encouragement. I can still
recall scenes of loud hailers blaring songs and slogans, droves of people packing
the campus. It was enthralling. When shooting started, everyone started running
every which way. The wounded and dying lay on the ground, I remember the
girl running alongside me was wearing a tight skirt which impeded her speed. I
also recall a male student running behind us, encouraging us every step of the
way. We gave him our names and home addresses so that he would get in touch
with our family in case we were killed. (As if one could be sure who would

136
 The High School Factor

survive whom!) My classmate and I lived to tell the tale, although, in a recent
telephone conversation, my classmate in the USA could not believe that we were
in such a state of hysteria. But for that Good Samaritan, whose name/or face I
do not recall at all, we would have been left to die in an alley. Difficult as it may
sound to believe, we sat for the ESLCE that year and joined the University.
That was a most exhilarating year. We knew and/or understood little of
such issues as Rhodesia, armed struggle, “Land to the Tiller”, etc, but our
enthusiasm knew no bounds. For instance, boarding girl students were strictly
prohibited to leave the school compound; to facilitate detection, they had a red
stripe on their uniform. To bypass this problem, we would lift up short boarding
school girls among a cluster of students and shove them out of the school
compound without the guards at the gate being any the wiser. This type of
technique went a long way in refining our struggle later on. This, incidentally,
was also true of other secondary school students who contributed immensely to
the student movement.
Decidedly, we did not deeply question our motives at the time, but we did
our best to co-ordinate our efforts with those of the University students. When
that generation passed the ESLCE and entered college, I do not believe that there
was a single semester during which we regularly attended classes. Secondary
school had adequately prepared us for the struggle, which we were to renew
once we joined college. No hardship (like imprisonment) could subdue us. This
was the situation in Addis Ababa then. When the revolution broke out (Gideon
once again has admirably described it), the youth fulfilled not only its duty as
student but also as a member of the Ethiopian youth.

137
 Bahru Zewde

Genenew Assefa

Being a secondary school student at the time, I, too, have a few things to recall.
As I lived around Sidist Kilo, I was strongly influenced by the University;
however, I began actively participating in the secondary school movement at the
end of 1964 and 1965-67 EC. I think that 1964 was a very decisive year in the
history of the secondary school movement. This was the time that university and
secondary school students (such as Ayed Mohammed, Hagere Mihretu, etc.)
shared a lengthy period of incarceration in such places as Chinaksen, and
especially in Boter (Shoa) in the company of such renowned figures as those
cited earlier. Previously, the agitation of secondary school students was confined
to the slogans of “Land to the Tiller”, “Education for All” and “Away with
Poverty” or to demand the setting up of a city-wide secondary school student
council. When released after three months, they had gained a sound knowledge
of Marxist theory and acquired skills in reading texts in their correct order of
importance, as well as learned about the preconditions required to establish study
groups.
When we met them at the opening of school in 1965, there was no more
claim to be a “revo” or an “activist”. They instructed us on how studies were
correctly conducted in study groups. Those of us who came from such schools as
Teferi Mekonnen, Wingate and Sandford (English) School were quick in the
studies because of our proficiency in English, even if we did not grasp
everything we were taught. A highly efficient study group, of which I was a
member, emerged at Arat kilo. Eventually this group, apart from me, became the
Central Committee of EPRYL (Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Youth
League). These people have for the most part passed away - Tito Hiruy, Sirak,
Gebeyehu, etc. Thus very efficient Marxist-Leninist study groups proliferated in
secondary schools.
Not content with “Land to the Tiller”, students began to consider a two-
stage revolution and the state of the world in the future. Our reading level moved
from strength to strength, from Regis Debrey to Sartre and on to Nietzsche. We
began perusing Deutscher and questioning Stalinism. Reading all sorts of books
was encouraged and free discussions on already read books were approved. No
one was confined to a given political line. The writings of AESM (Me’ison)
were read and discussed.
When the revolution broke out in 1974, the various study groups in
secondary schools staged demonstrations that rivaled those by university
students. I remember an instance when secondary school students played a
leadership role because a crisis around the establishment of USUAA had
occurred. Most of the demonstrations that were staged during the Endalkachew
era were by secondary school students. For instance, they joined forces with

138
 The High School Factor

elements in the mosque in order to form the “Ramadan Committee” responsible

for preparing the massive Muslim demonstration. I do not recall any university
activists who were members of this committee or who participated in the
dissemination of political pamphlets/leaflets. There were difficulties in 1974.
Next came the “Land to the Tiller” demonstration46 in which secondary school
students played a major role. Secondary school students had forged a sound link
with university students and had matured beyond recognition. I recall that they
were adamant about not throwing rocks at buses, which they deemed an
immature act worthy only of anarchists.
The year 1975 saw the proclamation of “Development through
Cooperation Campaign” and “Land to the Tiller”, which caused virtually all
students to become ardent supporters of the Derg. We left-wingers had agitated
against the Campaign, but the moment the Derg proclaimed the rural land
proclamation, all of us secondary school students turned pro-Derg. I remember
the activist elements being out on a limb. Later, secondary school students
played a significant role in establishing Peasants’ Associations; however, in less
than five months, the call for “evacuation” picked such momentum that
practically all Addis Ababa students turned pro-EPRP. I still find it difficult to
understand how such a thing could have come about. Soon only EPRP writings
were approved reading materials. People who harbored a different opinion were
labeled “banda.”47 On the other hand, during that short period of time, secondary
school students had done a creditable job in establishing peasants’ associations.
When students who were on the campaign returned to Addis Ababa,
almost all of them fell under the control of EPRYL. Possibly, the same may have
been true of those in Gondar and Dessie. Although 1974 was supposed to be a
year when readers were unfettered in their choice of reading material, the truth
of the matter was that anyone of my age caught reading any other publication but
Democracia was labeled a “traitor”. The study group to which I belonged
featured students who had managed to secure posts in the Central Committee,
except me. The reason for my dissent from the group lay in an article by
“Me’ison” entitled “Our Differences”. I strongly urged our members to read the
article as it contained a number of salient points. I also had some reservations
about the “Provisional Popular Government” slogan. As a result of my stand, I
was given the cold shoulder. Regular venues for meetings were changed and all
links severed.

46
A reference obviously not to the February 1965 demonstration around that slogan, but to the
massive demonstration in support of the Derg proclamation of March 1975 that nationalized
rural land.
47
“Traitor”, a term that was first used to describe collaborators with the Fascist Italian Occupation
force (1936-1941), with which Derg rule had come to be likened by its harshest opponents like
the EPRP.

139
 Bahru Zewde

I feel that the demonstrations staged in 1975 and after were not
spontaneous expressions by students but products of directives issued by parties.
At that time, the student movement was dead and its death was caused by factors
that were beyond its control and/or knowledge. Discussions were supplanted by
tedious readings of Democracia. Anyone who ventured critical opinions
regarding it was ostracized, which is a relatively light punishment. In 1975-76, I
witnessed alleged members of Mei’son being hurled from high-rise buildings.
The situation became unbearably tense and then, to our horror, Fikre Merid was
assassinated in front of the Mortgage Bank. (Everyone recalls that Fikre Merid
made a fascinating speech on the occasion of the inauguration of the USUAA
leadership.) He was charged with being a “banda”. Secondary school students
who knew him were horrified. Where was it all going to end? And when
Gebregziabher was killed, everything became crystal-clear. There was no more
room for equivocation. Then EPRP turned its attention to us. At one point, the
Derg had announced that every death caused by its opponents would be repaid a
thousand-fold. The situation had reached a point of no return.

140
 Chapter VIII
From Student Union to Leftist Political Organization

Efrem Dagne

What I am going to tell you revolves around my participation in the Ethiopian

student movement and how political organizations emerged from that
movement.
I would not say I was an active participant in the student movement during
my years at Haile Sellassie I University. But I do remember that I took part in
the 1967 demonstration. That was the first time the police used tear gas against
students. I left for the Soviet Union the following year with entreaties from my
parents not to turn Communist. I had little appetite for Communism myself as it
did not have any room for religion and the monarchy. Contrary to the general
socialist orientation of the Ethiopian student movement, what I wished for
Ethiopia was the institution of a constitutional monarchy. For sometime, I and
my two friends who had accompanied me to the Soviet Union distanced
ourselves from the student movement.
However, I felt pangs of conscience as I saw the other students striving so
hard in that harsh weather to solve the problems of their country. Although I was
anti-communist, I loved my country and was convinced that there was need for
change. I therefore decided to join the other students and bring my own
perspective in the quest for the betterment of my country. When I told this to one
of my friends, he also concurred. Thus, we began attending the Sunday morning
meetings. The discussions mainly revolved around the benefits of socialism for
Ethiopia and it was dominated by the senior students, with the others just
listening and with hardly any dissenting opinion.
I surprised everyone by countering this trend and arguing that, as
socialism does not tolerate religion and the monarchy and our country’s history
was inextricably linked with the latter, what Ethiopia needed was a constitutional
monarchy, not socialism. There followed a few minutes of shocked silence
among the audience. Then, Alemu Abebe proposed that two groups be assigned
to present the cases for socialism and constitutional monarchy, respectively, on
the following Sunday. I and my roommate readily agreed to present the case for
constitutional monarchy while two senior students took up the case for
socialism. On the designated day, my friend and I went to the meeting prepared;
on the other hand, those who have taken up the case for socialism failed to show
up. Alemu then proposed that the paper on constitutional monarchy be presented
that day, while the one on socialism was to be deferred for the following week. I
walked out in disgust, accusing them of wasting valuable time. I was hoping that
 Bahru Zewde

other anti-socialist students would follow me. But, what I could hear from
behind were the footsteps of only one person and they were my friend’s. We
went back home and they went on with their meeting.
At another time, Alemu came to me with the idea of forming a study
group. I agreed and we set up a group known as “Wisdom Trail” and I was
elected chairman. That was the very first study group in the history of the
Ethiopian student movement in the Soviet Union. The study group helped a lot
to raise socialist awareness. That notwithstanding, our understanding of Marxism
still remained rather shallow. This goes to show that, although the Ethiopian
student movement stood for socialism, the objective conditions in the country
were not yet conducive for socialism. One consequence of this ideological
inadequacy was the fact that branches of the same union came up with different
slogans. For instance, whereas the student union at home and ESUE rallied
behind the motto of “Land to the Tiller”, ESUNA stood for the “socialization of
land”. Nor were those in the leadership seen trying to reconcile these differences.
As for the rank and file, they did not wish to be seen as ignorant, so they
followed the leadership blindly. If any one dared to raise questions, he/she would
be shouted down. The irony of the whole thing is that such a culture of blind
following and intimidation was being fostered by a generation that claimed to be
striving to entrench democracy in the country.
As the student leadership came to realize that, in the objective conditions
of Ethiopia, it would be difficult to build socialism, the idea of “national
democratic revolution” in Ethiopia came to gain currency. By this time, Berhane
Meskel and his group, who had left the country after hijacking a plane, had
begun to realize that they could not work with the Haile Fida group. Thus, what
had appeared a monolithic student movement had come splintered. I think what
exacerbated the divisions was the divergent stand of the two groups vis-à-vis the
Eritrean fronts, i.e. the sympathetic attitude of the Berhane Meskel group and the
hostile attitude of the Haile Fida group.
This was also the time when Marxist-Leninist study groups had started to
emerge. I belonged to one of those initiated by the ESUE leadership. In 1972,
while I was in Aix-en-Provence, I met Negede Gobeze and Fikre Merid. After I
submitted the report on the activities of our group and emphasized the need to
grow out of student activism into political organization, I inquired as to what
they had done on their part. I think it was Negede who replied: “Not much has
been done on our part beyond active participation in the student movement”. I
concluded that either they were trivializing the struggle of the Ethiopian people
or they were hiding something from us. When I returned to the Soviet Union, I
reported to my group on the situation and proposed that we go ahead with the
formation of a political organization.

142
 From Student Union to Leftist Political Organization

I think it was in 1963 EC that Kiflu Tadesse, who was a member of our
group, had gone to Algeria without my knowledge and met the Berhane Meskel
group. On his return, he conveyed to us the desire of the Algerian group to work
together towards the formation of a political organization. Around early 1964
EC, Binyam Adane had also come to Moscow from Algeria and asked us to send
two representatives to the Congress due to take place in Berlin the following
April. I thought we had delegated Mekonnen Jote and Desta Tadesse; I now
understand from Malaku that it was actually Kiflu Tadesse and Mekonnen Jote.
At any rate, what I emphasized to our delegates was to ensure that the ESUE
leadership attend the Congress.
When our delegates returned from the Congress, I posed to them two
questions. The first was whether the ESUE leadership was present at the
meeting. The second was, since I was apprehensive that the Congress would be
confined to students, whether any of the social forces from inside the country
were represented. I was told that the ESUE leadership was not invited because
colleagues inside Ethiopia had expressed fears for their safety if the ESUE
leadership participated as the latter believed in coups d’etat. As for the domestic
social forces, I was told that 99% of them were represented. Honestly, I was far
from convinced by either response. All the same, I continued in my membership
for some time.
Then, my organization began to forge ever closer links with ELF. Before
long, the organization informed us through Kiflu Taddese of the need to discuss
the importance of armed struggle. Mekonnen Jote and I argued that, if we
initiated armed struggle without first educating and organizing the people, the
peasant would wipe us out. Kiflu and Co. countered that ELF would provide the
necessary military training and equipment. I objected strongly to this, saying that
both Eritrean fronts were bent on secession, as they insisted that Eritrea was an
Ethiopian colony. The Ethiopian Left had not yet taken a stand on the issue.
Relying on the fronts for training and equipping our organization would
prejudice our relationship with the fronts. In the end, we reached a consensus
that, under the circumstances, it was not yet time to initiate armed struggle.
The student movement no longer had an integrated leadership. The
WWFES, led by the Berhane Meskel group, had come up with a structure
undermining the former World Wide Confederation48 of Ethiopian Students. The
aim was to smother and drive Me’ison, which had been operating clandestinely
within the ranks of the student movement, out of the struggle. At that time, I did
not know that Me’ison had been in existence since 1968. However, although I

48
“Union” was the correct name of the existing organization.

143
 Bahru Zewde

was affiliated to the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Organization49 (the future

EPRP), my political orientation was more towards the ESUE leadership.
I strongly objected to the new constitution of WWFES. I particularly
found two of its articles pernicious to the student movement. These were the
provisions that brought the journals under the control of the Federation and
barred branch unions from having any foreign relations on their own. This was
tantamount to sidelining the group that happened to have a divergent political
line and sowing divisions within the student movement.
After attending the founding congress of WWFES, the ESUE leadership
undertook a tour to explain its concerns regarding the new constitution to branch
unions. Accordingly, I think it was Haile Fida and Andargachew Assegid who
came to Moscow. I happened to have been hospitalized at the time. They
explained the situation to Mekonnen Jote and Desta Taddese, who suggested that
the matter be communicated to me and hence brought them to the hospital. I
think it was Haile who said: “these people are going to kill the student union
with this kind of organizational setup, as has already happened in North
America”. I said: “It serves you right. You were exhilarated when students
applauded you on issues that they barely understood.” In the end, we agreed to
forget the past and to work together to withstand the current threat.
It was under these circumstances that some of those who belonged to our
clandestine group in the Soviet Union suddenly disappeared. I had Kiflu Taddese
brought to the hospital and asked him where they had gone; I reminded him of
our earlier decision not to initiate armed struggle without doing the necessary
ground work among the people. Kiflu replied that he did not know anything
about the matter. I told him that nothing could transpire in the region without his
knowledge and added that if they had been sent for political education, it was
alright. He immediately responded that that was indeed the case. I was furious at
this and retorted: “You cannot play tricks on me as if I were a kid. If we are not
going to abide by our decisions, then I am not going to obey orders like a foot
soldier. As the organization has no respect for democratic procedure, I am
leaving it as of today.” (As I feared, those students who had gone into the field
ended clashing with peasants in Wollo; some of them died, the rest were made
prisoners).
Later, I heard through Nigist Adane that they were prepared to talk over
the matter with me. The meeting, which took place at Nigist’s house, was
attended by her, Kiflu Taddese, Gabra Egziabher and myself. They asked me
why I was averse to the idea of the Federation. I replied that I had no quarrel
with the name; my reservations concerned two articles. They proposed that, as I
was a law student, I prepare an amended version of the constitution. I submitted

49
Again, this is at variance with the organization’s name given in Kiflu Taddese’s book, which is
the Ethiopian People’s Liberation Organization (EPLO)

144
 From Student Union to Leftist Political Organization

my revisions, including the one to the reference in the preamble to the intense
struggle going on both in the cities and the countryside, at the next meeting.
They rejected the amendments to the preamble and accepted the revised articles.
I relented, as I was chiefly concerned with the removal of the problematical
articles.
Finally, I proposed – and the other side agreed – that we cool down the
tension that we had fanned among our partisans and strive to bring the students
to support the revised constitution at the 10th Congress of the Ethiopian Students
in the Soviet Union. I do not know about the other side, but I was regarded as a
traitor for accepting the name “federation”. I explained patiently that the
problem was not with the name but with the two articles. Thus the amended
constitution was passed unanimously at the 10th Annual Congress of the
Ethiopian Students Union in the Soviet Union.
After the resolution was passed, I proposed to the chair that the ESUE
leadership disseminate the approved constitution among other branch unions so
that they could discuss it and take a stand before the 13th Congress of ESUE.
Accordingly, branch unions discussed the constitution and supported the stand
taken by the Ethiopian students in the Soviet Union. The Federation leadership
was unhappy with this and in a letter that Berhane Meskel wrote to Kiflu
Taddese, he accused him and the others of treachery. At the 13th Congress of
ESUE, Tesfaye Debessay tried to raise the question of the constitution once
again. But the majority disagreed, saying that a stand has already been taken on
the matter at the branch union level. Thus collapsed the strategy that had been
devised to stifle dissenting opinion.
I describe all this to underscore the point that the rift between EPRP and
Me’ison goes back to before 1974. The divergence pre-dated the differing stands
the two organizations took regarding working with or against the Derg. Nor
could it be reduced to a mere matter of semantic nuances: “yashenfal” vs.
“yachenfal”, or “wazader” vs. “labader”50. We returned to Ethiopia with our
differences. We failed to narrow down our differences partly because of the
close links that EPRO (EPRP) had developed with the Eritrean fronts.

50
The Amharic terms for “Will triumph!” and “proletariat”that came to indicate affiliation to
Me’ison and EPRP, respectively.

145
 Bahru Zewde

Melaku Tegegn

I hope that you will grant me sufficient time which would enable me to
effectively document these events. I am going to speak on my assigned area –
how the EPRP was established. Yesterday, we described how students had
gradually isolated themselves from the movement. The first step in establishing
the party was the setting up of an organizing committee, which was composed of
Berhane Meskel, Eyasu Alemayehu and Kiflu Tadesse. There was also a direct
link between this organizing committee and members of the founding body.
These were in Addis, Algeria (those in Algeria were also the organizing body),
Moscow, North America (around ESUNA), Switzerland and Holland. This was
in 1971.
You may recall that an article issued by Abdul and others (from the New
York Chapter), entitled “Critical Remarks on the Ethiopian Student Movement”,
had expounded on the merits of replacing the student movement with an
organization. There was also a critical analysis, written under the pseudonym of
Alebachew Damte, dealing with the December coup. It had appeared in Tatek,
the periodical prepared by ESUE. It can safely be stated that these writings were
instrumental in prompting this move. I think it is time now to ask why Algeria
became the focal point for the founding of EPRP. Two factors were at play here:
the background of Berhane Meskel and Ammanuel Gebre Yesus, etc., and the
fact that Sudan had reached a point in its history when it could no longer afford
to give shelter and protection to insurgents. Therefore, after being given
assurances, they proceeded to Algeria, which at the time was a militant
government.
It is interesting to note that Algeria was then a haven to practically every
liberation front: the Black Panther movement, the South Vietnamese National
Liberation Front, the Eritrean Liberation Front, the EPLF (the Sabbe group), etc.
The Algerian group found the atmosphere conducive to acquiring knowledge
and experience, especially on how to initiate armed struggle, how to produce
literature, how to set up a political organization. In short, it became a superbly
informed group.
One factor of paramount importance, which has not been mentioned so
far, was the issue of diligence. Everyone was toiling like a professional
revolutionary. The revolution had precedence over all other concerns. What one
did for a living was less relevant. Take my case: whether I was employed in a
restaurant or a factory, I would put in my eight hours, go back home and work
for five or six additional hours. When the World-Wide Federation elected me as
press secretary, I single-handedly saw to the preparation of the Federation’s
Bulletin and other printed materials, in addition to those issued in the USA. I

146
 From Student Union to Leftist Political Organization

think what made EPRP a high-calibre organization in its early years was this
dedication of its members.
Now on to the founding conference. As I mentioned the other day,
logistics were assigned to me; accordingly, I went to Berlin, where a Trotskyte
woman in charge of the Fourth International branch office assisted me in
securing the house of another Trotskyte professor teaching at Free University.
The Congress took place there from 2-9 April 1972. The participants, as per the
seating arrangement, were as follows: Mekonnen Jote (chairman), Kiflu Tadesse,
myself (Melaku), Eyasu Alemayehu, Berhane Meskel Redda, Kiflu Teffera,
Tesfaye Debessay, Mohammed Mahfuz, Abdissa Ayana.
These were the nine founding members. Before the start of the conference,
Tesfaye had been delegated to travel to Addis Ababa in order to find out what
stages of preparedness the party had attained there. (We had to hold off the
meeting until he returned.) I believe he came back on a Tuesday morning. Before
the meting opened, he, Berhane Meskel and Eyasu spoke for about 45 minutes.
For our part, we had no way of finding out if the message sent to the conference
from Addis Ababa was conveyed either accurately or in its entirely;
nevertheless, we were led to understand that the ESUE leadership as well as one
or two members of ESUNA were to be excluded from membership of the party.
As chairman of the Organizing Committee, it was Berhane Meskel who
addressed the meeting. He stipulated that it be placed on record that 4/5th of the
Marxists in Ethiopia were in attendance. He further made it clear that even
though the European group was not present (no one at the time knew of the
existence of Me’ison) at the conference, the time may come when unity with that
group may be achieved. To that end, it was desirable that the fact that 1/5 of
Marxists were absent should be documented.
Why nine members, one may wonder. It was only when Efrem was
speaking earlier that it struck me. When one recalls that the founding members
of the Chinese Communist Party numbered twelve, one realizes that nine is not a
number to be sneezed at. Well, what were the highlights of the conference? First,
a political program was drawn up! However, in view of the party’s intent to
carry out armed struggle, it stood to reason that a communist party would not sit
well with Eritrean insurgents, much less with neighboring countries. Therefore,
it was agreed that the proposed party should be known as the “Ethiopian
People’s Revolutionary Organization” and no mention of a communist party
should be made in the document. It was further stipulated that there should be no
written evidence that would link it to any communist movement.
So a political program was drawn up and a constitution drafted. Then the
crucial decision was made to start armed struggle. The responsibility for
effecting this was laid at the door of the Politburo. The politburo was also
instructed to find ways and means of starting talks with Me’ison. With regards to

147
 Bahru Zewde

ideology, within EPRP at first there were not what one would term hardliners.
For example, there were no Maoists among the nine members of the Central
Committee. Amazingly, within the Algerian group, Gezahegn Endale was a
Trotskyte. The others (Ammanuel G/Yesus, Eyasu, etc.) had a critical outlook
and did not espouse either the Moscow, or the Albanian or Peking line. It is
possible that this was to be a problem when they later merged with the “Abyot”
group.
The main dangers that were plaguing the communist movement were also
discussed at that meeting. You may recall that back in 1969, the Chinese
Communist Party at its 9th Congress had resolved for the first time that the
Soviet Union was a social imperialist force. The party even went so far as to
declare that, as social imperialism was a worse blight than imperialism, the
socialist camp should wage war on it and, to that end, even go as far as
befriending the imperialists. Our congress did not subscribe to this opinion. For
us the chief dangers were:

1. the revisionism led by the Soviet Union, and

2. the right opportunistic ideology espoused by the Chinese Communist
Party under the guise of socialist ideology.

These were the resolutions passed by the congress. The next task was how
best to start armed struggle, given the fact that the Congress had shown no
preference for a particular site. Since I was close to the Politburo, let me tell you
a few facts. Bale was the first choice because of the following factors: 1) it
already had insurgents operating there in the late 1960s; 2) Oromo nationalism
was a fertile ground for armed struggle; 3) neighboring Somalia could be used as
a spring-board for conducting cross-border attacks and as a haven for retreat; and
4) the Western Somalia Liberation Front having been supplanted by the
“Ethiopian National Liberation Front,” it was thought that we could link forces
with that organization. However, tentative talks with them held in Beirut broke
down. We strongly suspect that Tesfaye Tadesse had something to do with that
fiasco.
We had reached a point where we were left with no option but to conduct
armed struggle, using Eritrea as a rear base. Decidedly, Sudan, whose
Communist Party had been wrecked beyond salvage and where all the offices of
the Eritrean liberation fronts had been closed down, was out of the question. In
fact, an agreement signed between Ethiopia and Sudan had smoothed the way for
a cordial relationship between the two countries.51 So Eritrea was the only
alternative; accordingly, a place in Tigray, named Ad Irob, was selected. The

51
A reference to the Addis Ababa Agreement brokered by Emperor Haile Sellassie that brought
the civil war to an end, at least temporarily.

148
 From Student Union to Leftist Political Organization

reasons for this were (1) the fact that Tesfaye Debessay was very familiar with
the area, and (2) natives of Ad Irob, whose knowledge of the area would be
invaluable for logistics, had been recruited in Rome.
Members were selected from different areas for military training. I am
naming here only those known to me: (1) from North America - Mohammed
Mahfuz, Zer’abruk Abebe, Mehari G/Egziabher, Semere’ab Haile; (2) from
Western Europe - Tesfaye Mekonnen from Holland (I too had been selected but
was later withdrawn because I was needed for the work of the Federation); (3)
from Moscow - Wubshet Retta, Teferi, Abebe Beyene, Adugna Mengistu (there
were possibly others that I do not recall presently); from Algeria – Berhane
Meskel, Abdissa Ayana and Benyam Adane. The training took place in Beirut
under the auspices of the Palestine Democratic Liberation Front led by George
Habash. That organization made a donation of arms at the conclusion of the
training. I recall that it was again George Habash’s organization that gave us 400
rifles in 1967 EC.
Two elections were held: for the Central committee and the Politburo. The
election of members of the Politburo was effected by the Central Committee, not
by us. Those elected for membership of the Central Committee were Berhane
Meskel, Tesfaye Debessay, Zer’u Kishen (in absentia), Kiflu Tadesse, Eyasu
Alemayehu, Kiflu Teffera (from USA) and Desta Tadesse (from USSR, also in
absentia). These in turn held a meeting and elected Berhane Meskel, Tesfaye,
Zer’u, Kiflu Tadesse and Eyasu Alemayehu for membership of the Politburo.
This was prior to the eruption of the February Revolution, at which time it was
deemed necessary for the leadership to move inside the country, which entailed
the replacement of Eyasu Alemayehu (who was abroad) by Aberra Wakjira.
After the resignation of Aberra, due to ill health, Tselote took his place in the
Politburo.
Following the establishment of the Central committee and the Politburo,
various units were set up. They were, as far as I can recall, the following: (1)
Foreign Relations, (2) Propaganda, and I do not recall the third now. Officials
were assigned to the various units; I was placed in charge of the Political
Department. There were party committees for North America, Western Europe
(of which I was a member) and Eastern Europe. Tesfaye had at first been
appointed to lead the Western Europe Party Committee; after he left, I replaced
him.
Subsequent to the conference, tracts came out. (As you are aware, these
are distributed by student unions). The first of these was Elementary Notes on
Revolution and Organization; it was later that the word “Handbook” was added.
I was assigned to translate it into Amharic. (It is in the course of these
deliberations that I discovered it had found its way to Ethiopia!). The second
major writing, taken from Challenge, was entitled “National Democratic

149
 Bahru Zewde

Revolution”, as distinct from the “New Democratic Revolution”. These two

became ideological markers: the former, we were told, was pro-Soviet while the
latter was pro-Albania or pro-China, i.e. Maoist. Be that as it may, the fact that
the majority of the articles that appeared in Challenge were favoring the
Vietnamese experience over the Chinese one was indicative of where the party’s
sympathies lay.
A year later, the World Wide Federation came into being; we have already
heard yesterday the trajectory it took. Before I conclude, I would like to draw
attention to some points of importance. To my way of thinking, EPRP’s debacle
lay in its poor leadership. In fact, the party started being plagued by that problem
immediately after the founding Congress. What were these problems?
First, the issue of Desta Tadesse. Efrem says (sorry, make that “thinks”)
that the people delegated by Moscow were Desta and Mekonnen Jote. However,
during the course of the Congress, it was disclosed that the rightful delegates
were Kiflu and Mekonnen. The problem was not whether Desta attended the
Congress or not. The problem was that Desta, who up to that time was an EPRP
member, joined Me’ison for reasons best known to himself. This led to
speculations that he might have leaked some information to his new party. This
in turn could have created problems around the leadership of EPRP.
However, what was by far worse was what occurred in New York. Kiflu
Teferra, who along with Mohammed Mahfuz had represented North America at
the founding Congress, had been elected to membership of the Central
Committee and entrusted with the party document. One day, he rode on the
subway with same and forgot to take it with him when he left. On hearing this,
Berhane Meskel was livid and the rest of us were horrified lest the document fall
into the hands of the CIA, an organization notorious for its snooping activities.
(In actual fact, the chances of the document being discovered by the CIA were
very minimal.) At any rate, Berhane Meskel conferred with the Central
Committee, which recommended that the North America Committee suspend its
activities for a while.
A more serious problem appeared when the Politburo held a meeting in
Lausanne, Switzerland, where they deliberated on how best to take control of the
on-going revolution. (At the time, Tesfaye Debessay was residing in Freiburg, a
city about an hour from Lausanne.) During the course of the meeting, Berhane
Meskel made a harsh critique of Zer’u on the Kiflu Tefera affair. (I can not say
for certain, but I believe it was then the rift between the two began. It may be
that Zer’u came to bear a grudge). As it happened, four members of the
Politbureau had by then returned to Ethiopia; Berhane Meskel, along with Eyasu,
had remained abroad. That was when Zer’u began an anti-Berhane Meskel
campaign, accusing him of acting “like a latter-day Stalin”.

150
 From Student Union to Leftist Political Organization

In the wake of this dissension, eight of the eighteen insurgents deserted

from the battlefield. Their reason for this was that the Derg’s rural land
proclamation having satisfied the needs of the peasantry, there was no longer any
rationale for them to wage armed struggle. In fact, they asserted, the Derg had
turned into a progressive regime with which they were more than willing to
cooperate. The difference in opinion between those who favored giving up the
fight and those willing to remain reached such a critical stage that one group
began shunning the other.
Incidentally, the first batch of insurgents that had trained in Beirut had to
travel across territory occupied by the EPLF. EPLF was then a negligible force
while the government was in virtual control of most of the territory. The
insurgents had to cross the desert under cover of darkness and with great speed.
This exertion under extreme heat was more than they could bear; as a result
Mohammed Mahfuz and Benyam Adane perished. This was one development.
Now back to Zer’u. The eight insurgents’ desertion was due to the
different stand they had taken on the Ethiopian revolution. But, upon their arrival
in Addis, when questioned by Zer’u as to the reason for their action, they
declared that they could no longer tolerate Berhane Meskel’s dictatorship. The
Politburo then decided that, given his behaviour in the field, they would not put
it past him to destroy the party. Retaliation came in the form of the party’s
extraordinary meeting in July 1974, when Berhane Meskel retained his seat in
the Central Committee but lost the one in the Politburo. Given his high
ambitions and ego, this must have come as a shattering blow to him. I believe
that he was biding his time to get back at the party. This was a dire problem.
Another problem, albeit not so pressing, was the one plaguing ESUNA.
As time went on, and especially after Abdul and the others left the union, it
degenerated into a Maoist sect. As things worsened, “Beijing Review” became
the sole approved reading material. On the battlefield, fighting would break out
among guerrillas belonging either to one or other school of thought. This proved
to be a thorn on the side of the Foreign Relations Committee. In fact, in 1976,
altercation arose over the “Provisional Popular Government”. One side
advocated the strategy of the Chinese, i.e. waging rural guerrila warfare,
encircling a city and taking it. It rejected urban guerrilla warfare. (At that time
the party had not commenced urban guerrilla warfare). This created a rift
between the party and the Foreign Relations Committee. Save for Tesfaye
Debessay, who could accommodate different opinions, the EPRP leadership
proved true to the traditional USUAA modus operandi, to wit, violence. This
provided Eyasu with an excuse to write them a vitriolic letter, which proved
decisive when the rift occurred.

151
 Bahru Zewde

Tamrat Kebede

I would like, from personal knowledge, to elucidate some of the points discussed
here. When we arrived from the United States as members of Me’ison, the only
resident member we found here was Dr. Worku [Ferede]. The person who liaised
between our discussion club and the leadership was Daniel [Taddese]. There
were four of us. Our pre-revolution techniques of recruiting members were
similar to those of EPRP (I do not know if conditions changed during the post-
revolution era). Disciplinary weaknesses within our leadership were traits we
shared with the leadership of EPRP. Be that as it may, the order we received
was to establish links with the student movement, but the student movement was
fraught with danger brought on by the printing and distribution of underground
material. Although conditions dictated that we watch our steps and work
covertly, we were made to contact a group which was operating out in the open.
The inevitable happened: we were arrested. The first victim, Dr. Worku, was
fortunate in that he was a classmate of the officer in charge of the case, Colonel
Daniel; accordingly, he was not put under too much physical duress. He was
released without having to divulge any of his organization’s secrets. For our part,
we were more apprehensive how those of our members in Europe would fare.
At any rate, we began moving at a sedate pace. Let me quote here what
Haile Fida advised me in a letter: “Haste makes waste; therefore proceed
cautiously.” By then I had a good idea at what rate our struggle would move – at
a slow pace. As you have heard in detail, the split that arose in the US had
repercussions for those of us who were inside the country and we had to quit the
organization. Meanwhile, during my stay in prison, I made a rapprochement with
the future leaders of EPRP.
Both the EPRP and Me’ison took the opportunity offered by the Land to
the Tiller Proclamation to place their own men in key positions inside the
Ministry of Land Reform. Their task was to organize peasants’ associations. The
following incident amply illustrates how fierce the competition was between the
two organizations. Two candidates put in an appearance at the office for a job
interview: Tesfaye Debessay and Kebede Mengesha. Zer’u phoned in to tell me
not to miss the opportunity to hire Tesfaye. Ten minutes later, Negede Gobeze
gave me a call in order to impress upon me the absolute necessity of employing
Kebede.
Obviously, I could not take it upon myself to decide whom to hire. In
conformity with the regulations of the CPA, the decision lay with a committee
set up for this purpose. On the other hand, both organizations had their own men
on the committee – Mesfin Kassu (for Me’ison) and Yoseph Adane and
Alemante (for EPRP). The proposed salary for the post was 700 Birr per month.
Kebede Mengesha, who was at the time an employee of the Awash Rift Valley

152
 From Student Union to Leftist Political Organization

Authority and earning a monthly salary of 1,500 Birr was hoping to be paid at
least 800 Birr for this job. Tesfaye Debessay, on the other hand, expressed his
opinion that 700 Birr was more than an adequate salary in revolutionary times,
and he was promptly employed.

153
 Annex 1
Documenting the Ethiopian Left:
Workshop on Oral History of the Ethiopian Student Movement

September 2-5, 2005

Adama, Bekele Molla Hotel

Program

THURSDAY, 1 September

4:00 at the latest - Minibus leaves for Adama. Assembly point –

Ghion Hotel, Unity House parking lot, at 3:00 pm.

FRIDAY, 2 September

9:00-9:30 am Introductory Remarks by Project Coordinator

9:30-10:30 am Early Beginnings (UCAA)
CHAIR: Bahru Zewde
Resource Persons: Asfaw Damte, Eyesuswork Zafu
Student Council
Newspapers - from UC Calls to News & Views
10:30-11:00 Coffee Break
11:00 am-12:30 pm Early Beginnings (contd.)
College Day
Debates and Oratorical Contests
12:30-2:00 pm LUNCH BREAK
2:00-3:30 pm The radicalization process
CHAIR: Shiferaw Bekele
Resource Person: TBA
The impact of African Scholarship students
The 1960 coup d'etat
The "Crocodiles"
"Land to the tiller"
3:30-4:00 pm Coffee Break
4:00-5:30 pm The radicalization process (contd.)
Resource Person: Dessalegn Rahmato
Reverberations in Europe and North America
International Dimension: Vietnam and Global student protests
 Bahru Zewde

7:00pm DINNER (Sangham Indian Restaurant)

SATURDAY, 3 September

9:00-10:30 am Organizational Matters

CHAIR: Tekalign Wolde Mariam
Resource Persons: Hailu Ayele and Mulugeta Bezabih
From University College Union (UCU) to Main Campus Student
Union (MCSU)
NUEUS
USUAA and Struggle
10:30-11:00 am Coffee Break
11:00am -12:30 pm Organizational Matters (contd.)
Resource Persons: Alem Habtu and Yerasworke Admassie
ESANA/ESUNA
ESUE
WWUES vs WWFES
12:30-2:00 pm LUNCH BREAK
2:00-3:30 pm Major Demonstrations
CHAIR: Zegeye Asfaw
Resource Persons: Gebru Mersha
The "Shola Concentration Camp" (1966)
The Anti-Demo Bill Demo (1967)
The "Fashion Show" Incident (1968)
3:30-4:00 pm Coffee Break
4:00-5:30 Major Demonstrations (contd.)
Resource Persons: Dessalegn Rahmato and Yeraswork Admassie
Demonstrations and Embassy occupations abroad
1969 as a turning point in the ESM
7:00pm DINNER (Rift Valley Hotel)

SUNDAY, 4 September

9:00-10:30 The Question of Nationalities

CHAIR: Bahru Zewde
Resource Person: Abdul Mohammed
Walelign's Xmas Hall Presentation and its repercussions
10:30-11:00 Coffee Break
11:00am-12:30 pm The Question of Nationalities (contd.)
Resource Persons: Andreas Eshete and Melaku Tegegn
The 11th Congress of ESUE ( July 1971)

156
 Annex

The 19th Congress of ESUNA (August 1971)

The birth of nationalist movements
12:30-2:00 pm LUNCH BREAK (Yilma Restaurant; for those not so
carnivorously inclined, lunch will be served at Bekele Molla Hotel)
2:00-4:00 pm Gender and the Woman Question
Resource Person: TBA
4:00 pm on - FREE
7:00 pm Barbeque Dinner (Bekele Molla Hotel)

MONDAY, 5 September

CHAIR: Tekalign Wolde Mariam

9:00-10:30 am The High School Factor
Resource Persons: Gedeon W. Amanuel and Original W. Giorgis
10:30-11:00 Coffee Break
11:00am-12:30 pm Embryonic political organizations
Resource Persons: Efrem Dagne and Shiferaw Bekele
12:30-2:00 pm LUNCH BREAK
2:00-3:30 pm Concluding Session
Resource Person: Bahru Zewde
4:00 pm Departure for Addis

157
 Bahru Zewde

Retreat Participants

158
 Annex

Annex 2
Participants’ Profile
No Name Position at time of Retreat Role in the Ethiopian
. Student Movement
1. Abdul Board Chairperson, Activist in high school (St.
Mohammed InterAfrica Group; UNICEF Joseph) and ESUNA
2. Alem Habtu Associate Professor, Dept. President of ESUNA and
of Sociology, Queens Editor of Challenge
College, NY
3. Andreas Eshete President, AAU ESUNA leader and author
of a major article on the
Question of Nationalities
4. Asfaw Damte Retired Civil Servant; Editor of UC Calls, the first
Literary Critic college student paper;
Secretary-General, UCU;
President, Ethiopian
Students Association in UK
5. Bekele Tadesse President & CEO, Wireless Vice-Chairperson,
Africa Restoration Committee
(against USUAA)
6. Dessalegn Executive Director, Forum Editor, Challenge, and
Rahmato for Social Studies author of numerous articles
in that journal.
7. Efrem Dagne Private Businessman Leader of the student union
in the Soviet Union
8. Eyesuswork Director-General, United Vice-President, UCU, 1961-
Zafu Insurance Co.; President, 62
AA Chamber of Commerce
9. Gebru Mersha Assistant Professor, Editor, News and Views, and
Department of Political USUAA activist
Science, AAU
10. Gedeon Wolde Marketing Expert, Saba High school activist
Ammanuel Engineering
11. Genenew Assefa High school activist
12. Hailu Ayele Associate Professor, First Secretary-General,
Technology Faculty; USUAA
formerly Academic Vice-
President, AAU

159
 Bahru Zewde

13. Melaku Tegegn Formerly Director of Leader of the student union

PANOS Ethiopia in the Netherlands
14. Mulugeta Board Chairperson, First President of NUEUS
Bezabih Sunshine Pharmaceutical
15. Netsanet Executive Director, USUAA activist
Mengistu PROGYNIST
16. Original Wolde Attorney High school activist
Giorgis
17. Shiferaw Bekele Associate Professor, Dept. University student in the
of History, AAU early 1970s
18. Tamrat Kebede International Humanitarian ESUNA activist
Action
19. Tekalign Wolde Assistant Professor, Dept. of High school student in the
Mariam History, AAU early 1970s
20. Tedla Seyoum Director, Bekele Molla Executive Member, ESUE,
Investments 1971-72
21. Tewolde Wolde Formerly Member of the Congress member, USUAA
Mariam Politbureau, EPRDF (1970-71)
22. Yeraswork Assistant Professor, Dept. of Executive Committee
Admassie Sociology & Anthropology, Member, ESUE, 1972-73
AAU
23. Zenebework President, CODESRIA Executive Committee
Tadesse Member, ESUNA (1971-72)
24. Bahru Zewde Emeritus Professor of University student 1965-70;
History & Project active member of student
Coordinator union in UK, 1972-76
25. Mekonnen MA History, Rapporteur
Tegegn

160
 Annex

Annex 3
Documenting the Ethiopian Left:
Workshop on Oral History of the Ethiopian Student Movement

September 2-5 , 2005

Adama Bekele Molla Hotel

Recommended Guidelines

General Guidelines
In undertaking this workshop/retreat, the hope is that we will do one last service
to the cause that we had embraced and struggled for in our student days. Alas!
So many of our colleagues have perished in the past turbulent decades; others
have left us under less turbulent circumstances. And the record is bound to be
that much deficient. Yet, all the more reason for those who have been fortunate
enough to survive to record as faithfully as they can what they aspired and
struggled for.
Memory has always been a contested terrain. And the acrimonious
divisions of the 1960s and 1970s have left behind their scars. Nor have all the
issues that were raised then run their full course yet. Nevertheless, these
apprehensions should not deter us from using a rare opportunity to record our
collective experience.
To help us steer through what can sometimes be contentious ground, I am
suggesting that we adhere to the following guidelines:

1. As can be seen from the attached program, the terminal dates for our
reflections are c. 1950- February 1974. This will help us skirt the more
lethal divisions of the post-Revolutionary period.
2. The aim of the retreat is to give faithful testimony of the events in which
we had participated in one form or another. The overriding objective is
to understand, not to celebrate or castigate. To achieve that objective, we
have to be able to take ourselves back to that period, not judge it from
the vantage point of the present. The contemporary documents
distributed in advance will hopefully help us in this.
3. This should therefore be an occasion not so much to vindicate with the
old kind of single-mindedness one's point of view as to be able to see the
other side; indeed, to go even further and be able to laugh at oneself!
4. In such reminiscences, names of individuals are bound to crop up quite
frequently. While this is often unavoidable and sometimes adds juice to

161
 Bahru Zewde

the story, the thrust of the deliberations should be as much as possible

around ideas and issues rather than personalities. Where participants
require that the anonymity of the individuals that they mention in the
course of their reminiscences be kept, that wish will certainly be
respected.
5. In brief, this should be an event to look back at ourselves and our
activities critically and dispassionately, yet cheerfully.
6. The language of the workshop will be Amharic.

Specific Guidelines to Resource Persons

As indicated in the first circular, there will be no formal presentations papers in
this workshop. Instead, some of the participants have been scheduled to serve as
resource persons to initiate the deliberations. To help us attain common
standards and ensure the maximum participation of all, the following specific
guidelines are suggested:

1. Presentations should be for a maximum of 15 minutes (a total of 30

minutes where there are 2 resource persons). There will be ample time
for elaborations in the course of the discussions.
2. Resource persons are expected to have recourse to the pertinent
documents provided as well as their own resources (written or oral). To
help them in this regard, the documents are categorized in concordance
with the program.53
3. Presentations should be as much as possible factual rather than
interpretive.
4. It would help if resource persons could conclude by identifying major
points for general reflection and discussion.

Bahru Zewde
Co-ordinator

53
Unfortunately, we have not been able to unearth any documents pertaining specifically to the
last two items (“The High School Factor” and “Embryonic Political Organizations”). Resource
persons assigned to these two particular sessions will have to draw on the documents in the
other categories as well as their own resources. Particpants of the retreat generally tended to use
the Gregorian calendar, but there were instances of using the Ethiopian one.

162