መንግሥት: የምንዛሬ ተመን በገበያ እንዲወሰን ማድረጉ ከኢኮኖሚ ማሻሻያው ጋር የሚተገበር እንጂ በፍጥነት የሚገባበት አይደለም!

8 Jan

Posted by The Ethiopia Observatory (TEO)

 

ሚኒስትር ዲኤታው ዶክተር እዮብ በዚህ መንገድም የሃገር በቀል የኢኮኖሚ ማሻሻያው በሚተገበርባቸው ሶስት አመታት ውስጥ ኢትዮጵያ በገበያ የሚመራ የውጭ ምንዛሬ ተመን ይኖራታል ብለዋል።

ቅድሚያ ግን አቅርቦትና ፍላጎትን በማቀራረብ የሚኬድበት እንጂ እንደ ከዚህ በፊቱ ብርን በአንዴ በማዳከም አይደለም ሲሉ ገልጸዋል።

ወደ ውጭ የሚላክ በቂ ምርትና ተወዳዳሪ ጥራት በሌለበት የተተገበሩ የተመን ለውጦች በመሆናቸው በሁለቱም ጊዜያት ገቢ ዕቃዎችን በእጅጉ በማስወደድ የዋጋ ንረትን ከመፍጠር የተሻለ ነገር ማስመዝገብ አልተቻለም።

እንደውም በ2010 ዓ.ም. የተደረገው የምንዛሬ ተመን ከዋጋ ግሽበት ባለፈ በባንኮችና በጥቁር ገበያው መካከል ያለውን የዋጋ ልዩነት ጭራሽ ባልተለመደ ሁኔታ አስፍቶታል።

የኢንቨስትመንት አማካሪው አቶ ያሬድ ደግሞ በቂ የሚላክ ምርት በሌለበት ሁኔታ የኢትዮጵያን ብር ጠነከረ አልጠነከረ ብሎ እርምጃ መውሰድ ተገቢነቱ ሊጤን ይገባል ብለዋል።

 

Continue reading

በሰላም ነው ምርጫው ሲቃረብ ታከለ ኡማ ሁሉን ነገር በሥራቸው ማጠቃለል መፈለጋቻው? ከራስ በላይ ነፋስ ማለታቸው ይሆን?

8 Jan

Posted by The Ethiopia Observatory (TEO)

 

አያሌ ገንዘብ ላይ ኃላፌነት ያላችውን መ/ቤቶች

ም/ከንቲባው በቁጥጥራቸው ሥር ማድረጋቸው ድፍረት ነው!

 

በዘመናዊ አስተዳደር ጥበብም አፍራሽ ነው!

 

የራሱ የሆነ ከሕወሃት  ዘረፋም  ያገጠጠ  ዓላማ’ ሊኖረው ይችል ይሆን?

 

ይህ ሕዝብ አፍዝ አደንግዝ ተደርጎበታልን? የመጣው ሁሉ ሲዘርፈው ዝም ብሎ መጋጥ?

 

 

 

 

ይሀ ውሳኔ 

ከተ/ከንቲባው ባሻገር ሊሆን ሊገመት ይችላል!

 

ያልጠረጠረ ተመነጠረ አሉ፣ እትዬ ዘቢደሩ!

 

 

ዐቢይ አሕመድ ታከለ ዑማን ለአዲስ አበባ ከንቲባነት ያሰየሙት ለመሬት ወረራ ነው መባሉ እውነት ኖሯልን?

6 Jan

The Ethiopia Observatory (TEO)

 

ተንታኝ  ኤርሚያስ ለገሠ መረጃ አለኝ በማለት እንደነገረን፣ ዶር ብርሃኑ ነጋ 

በእውነት የከተማዋ መሬት አስዘራፊ ነበርን?

ማነው ቁንጮ ተጠቃሚው? ምን በምን ይገመታል—እንዴትስ  ይለካል?

የዐቢይና የብርሃኑስ ትርፍ ፖለቲካ ወይንስ ገንዘብ?

 

 

 

 

ዐቢይ አሕመድ የጽንፈኛ ኦሮሞችን የአዲስ አበባ አጀንዳ ለማስፈጸም

ነው የመጣው ማለት ነውን?

ከሆነስ ‘ገዥዎቹ’ ለምን ከዐቢይ ይልቅ ጃዋርን መረጡ? ፖለቲካ?

 

ዐቢይም ጃዋር ለኢትዮጵያውያን ነፍስ መጥፋት በወንጀል ተጠያቂ ሆኖ ሳለ፥ ዜግነቱንም ለመረከብ አምስት ዓመት መጠበቅ ካላበት ለምንድነው ከሕጉ ውጭ የኢትዮጵያን ፓስፖርት እንደገና እንዲያገኝ የተፈቀደለት?

ተልዕኮው ተጠናቀቀ?

 

የሥልጣን ብልግና እንዴት የኦሮሞ ፓለቲካ አጀንዳ ማስፈጸሚያ ይሆናል?

ብዙ ነፍስ ሠቃይ ችግሮች እንዳላጣን፣ ለምን አሁን ይህ?

 

በሽቀላው መሃል፣

 

ኢትዮጵያ! እስከ ዛሬ የተማመንሽባቸው እግዚአብሔርና ብርቱ ልጆችሽ

ብቻ  ክንድ ይሁኑሽ!

 

 

 

ጎንደር እሽሩሩ!

5 Jan

Posted by The Ethiopia Observatory (TEO)

 

 

A must listen for:

Students, educators and, most of all, to politicians!

 

 

Ethiopian Lawmakers Urge Repeal of Hate Speech Bill

3 Jan

Posted by The Ethiopia Observatory (TEO) 

ADDIS ABEBA (Ethiopia Monitor, Jan 2, 2020) Local rights groups and civic organizations said the draft Hate Speech and Misinformation law, if ratified, could easily be abused just like anti-terror law.

They urged for the lawmakers to repeal the bill in a discussion held on Wednesday despite MPs push for the bill to be stringiest than it is last month.

The draft law was a subject of a public hearing called by the lower house of the parliament Legal, Justice and Democratic Affairs Standing Committee on Wednesday.

Continue reading

I Was Google’s Head of International Relations. Here’s Why I Left

2 Jan

Posted by The Ethiopia Observatory (TEO)

The company’s motto used to be “Don’t be evil.” Things have changed.

When I walked out the door on my last day as Google’s Head of International RelationsI couldn’t help but think of my first day at the company. I had exchanged a wood-paneled office, a suit and tie, and the job of wrestling California’s bureaucracy as Governor Schwarzenegger’s deputy chief of staff for a laptop, jeans, and a promise that I’d be making the world better and more equal, under the simple but powerful guidance “Don’t be evil.”

I joined Google in 2008, when those words still mattered. I saw them used to guide product designs that put the company’s success above a user’s privacy, such as during the development of Google’s ill-fated social network, Buzz. I used those words myself in 2010 as Head of Public Policy for Asia Pacific, when I executed the company’s landmark decision to stop censoring Search results in China, putting human rights ahead of the bottom line.

Google had first entered the Chinese market in 2006. At the time, founders Larry Page and Sergey Brin said that Google would only stay if the company’s presence was doing more good than harm — that users were getting more information than before, even if there was censorship of some topics. But over the years, the list of items that the Chinese government demanded we censor grew significantly, and after the Chinese government attempted to hack into the Gmail accounts of human rights advocates in 2009, Larry and Sergey decided it was time to re-assess the 2006 decision. After a series of intense discussions with other executives, they decided that the only way to continue providing Search in China while adhering to the “Don’t be evil” mantra was to cease cooperation with the government’s censorship requirements.

We knew this would cause a very public confrontation with the government, although we were never sure how bad it would get. In China, the government not only demands full access to a company’s user data and infrastructure, it also expects the full cooperation of companies to ensure that Chinese users see only content that is in line with government standards. For example, on a Maps product, the government requires that all geographic labels and information be approved by the government in advance, and that any user-generated content be strictly controlled by the company to avoid publication of anything the government deems “problematic,” which can be difficult to define.

Our 2010 decision to stop cooperating with Chinese government censorship on Search results was the first time a non-Chinese corporation stood up to the Chinese government. In doing so, Google put everything on the line — its future in the world’s fastest-growing internet market, billions of dollars in profit, even the safety of our Chinese employees. At one point, I began planning for a possible mass evacuation of all our Google employees based in China, as well as their families. Although difficult, I was intensely proud of the principled approach the company took in making this decision.

However, the decision infuriated not only the Chinese government, but also frustrated some Google product executives eyeing the huge market and its accompanying profits. In fact, within a year of the 2010 decision, executives for the Maps and Android products began pushing to launch their products in China. I argued strenuously against these plans, knowing that a complete turn-around in our approach would make us complicit in human rights violations, and cause outrage among civil society and the many western governments which had applauded our 2010 decision. I also explained that none of these plans would move forward because the Chinese government was furious with us, and would refuse to meet with us to even discuss these projects. In fact, over the next two years, the Chinese government only agreed to meet with us once, when relatively low-level staff at the Ministry of Land and Resources politely listened as we asked about launching a Maps product. When we affirmed that our Maps product would also not comply with censorship requirements, they stopped responding to additional requests.

 

Ross LaJeunesse, Democratic Candidate for U.S. Senate in Maine.

After close to three years in Asia, the company asked me to be Head of International Relations in late 2012, a role responsible for Google’s relationships with diplomats, civil society and international organizations like the UN, and for global issues like trade, internet governance and free expression. As I was growing in seniority and responsibility, the company was growing rapidly in size and revenue — from an already large and successful company to a tech behemoth that intersects with the daily lives of billions of people across the globe. The number of employees was also growing quickly, with new staff and executives being hired to develop products and pursue new lines of business, such as Cloud computing, in every corner of the globe.

In my new role, my team and I continued to engage with product executives who were increasingly frustrated by the phenomenal growth in the Chinese market and pushed hard for our re-entry into China. I was alarmed when I learned in 2017 that the company had begun moving forward with the development of a new version of a censored Search product for China, codenamed “Dragonfly.” But Dragonfly was only one of several developments that concerned those of us who still believed in the mantra of “Don’t be evil.” I was also concerned that Cloud executives were actively pursuing deals with the Saudi government, given its horrible record of human rights abuses. Cloud executives made no secret of the fact that they wanted to hire their own policy team, which would effectively block any review of their contracts by my team. Finally, in December 2017, Google announced the establishment of the Google Center for Artificial Intelligence in Beijing — something that completely surprised me, and made it clear to me that I no longer had the ability to influence the numerous product developments and deals being pursued by the company.

My solution was to advocate for the adoption of a company-wide, formal Human Rights Program that would publicly commit Google to adhere to human rights principles found in the UN Declaration of Human Rights, provide a mechanism for product and engineering teams to seek internal review of product design elements, and formalize the use of Human Rights Impact Assessments for all major product launches and market entries.

But each time I recommended a Human Rights Program, senior executives came up with an excuse to say no. At first, they said human rights issues were better handled within the product teams, rather than starting a separate program. But the product teams weren’t trained to address human rights as part of their work. When I went back to senior executives to again argue for a program, they then claimed to be worried about increasing the company’s legal liability. We provided the opinion of outside experts who re-confirmed that these fears were unfounded. At this point, a colleague was suddenly re-assigned to lead the policy team discussions for Dragonfly. As someone who had consistently advocated for a human rights-based approach, I was being sidelined from the on-going conversations on whether to launch Dragonfly. I then realized that the company had never intended to incorporate human rights principles into its business and product decisions. Just when Google needed to double down on a commitment to human rights, it decided to instead chase bigger profits and an even higher stock price.

It was no different in the workplace culture. Senior colleagues bullied and screamed at young women, causing them to cry at their desks. At an all-hands meeting, my boss said, “Now you Asians come to the microphone too. I know you don’t like to ask questions.” At a different all-hands meeting, the entire policy team was separated into various rooms and told to participate in a “diversity exercise” that placed me in a group labeled “homos” while participants shouted out stereotypes such as “effeminate” and “promiscuous.” Colleagues of color were forced to join groups called “Asians” and “Brown people” in other rooms nearby.

In each of these cases, I brought these issues to HR and senior executives and was assured the problems would be handled. Yet in each case, there was no follow up to address the concerns — until the day I was accidentally copied on an email from a senior HR director. In the email, the HR director told a colleague that I seemed to raise concerns like these a lot, and instructed her to “do some digging” on me instead.

Then, despite being rated and widely known as one of the best people managers at the company, despite 11 years of glowing performance reviews and near-perfect scores on Google’s 360-performance evaluations, and despite being a member of the elite Foundation Program reserved for Google’s “most critical talent” who are “key to Google’s current and future success,” I was told there was no longer a job for me as a result of a “reorganization,” despite 90 positions on the policy team being vacant at the time.

When I hired counsel, Google assured me that there had been a misunderstanding, and I was offered a small role in exchange for my acquiescence and silence. But for me, the choice was as clear as the situation. I left. Standing up for women, for the LGBTQ community, for colleagues of color, and for human rights — had cost me my career. To me, no additional evidence was needed that “Don’t be evil” was no longer a true reflection of the company’s values; it was now nothing more than just another corporate marketing tool.

I’ve been asked many times since returning home, “What changed?”

Read the remainder of the article from Medium.

TPLF vows to fight Abiy Ahmed’s Prosperity Party (PP)

2 Jan

Posted by The Ethiopia Observatory (TEO)

Ezega.com — At a public conference organized by the Tigrayan Peoples Liberation Front (TPLF) in Mekele city of northern Ethiopia, TPLF leaders vowed to fight the newly formed Prosperity Party (PP), which replaced the Ethiopian Peoples Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) recently.

Continue reading

Ethiopia’s forthcoming elections feared violent & divisive, FP Magazine

2 Jan

Posted by The Ethiopia Observatory (TEO)

Ezega.com— Ethiopia’s national elections scheduled for May 2020 could be violent and divisive, as candidates outbid one another in ethnic appeals for votes, says Foreign Policy Magazine on its website, foreignpolicy.com.

The website in its analysis entitled “10 Conflicts to Watch in 2020” said, since assuming office in April 2018, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has taken bold steps to open up the country’s politics. He has ended a decades-long standoff with neighboring Eritrea, freed political prisoners, welcomed rebels back from exile, and appointed reformers to key institutions. He has won accolades at home and abroad—including the 2019 Nobel Peace Prize.

Continue reading

%d bloggers like this: