Dear Wossen;

What you posted does not, in my judgement, address what my concern was.   

1.  Consider my question:

"But I ask Wossen, isn’t it more reasonable to those of us who are not prone to rumours to base our judgements and opinions on precedence rather than rumours?" 

I want you to be true to yourself and tell me what the best approach is: base one self on rumours or on what has happened so far? The Gonder fiasco? The imprisonment of an editor and a newsman without due process or questionable process?  I leave this to your good judgement. 

2. You wrote the following:

"Strange, because he brought that up to prove to me how my remarks to that effect - that he should not have made much fuss over something he does not have sufficient information about - were totally unfair. He tells me my criticism was uncalled for because he made his remarks without having any information, which clearly was an affirmation of my critique. Am I missing something?!" 

You surely missed a very important premise.  Here is what I said;

"I would like Wossen to know that I did not have the information on the arrest of the main culprit when the note that I wrote was posted. Hence, the criticism that follows from Wossen’s pen is rendered invalid.  

No information is needed to suggest that if past deeds are indicators then investigation may take some time. Wossen should know that precedence matters.  My note was based on past practices.  Despite Wossen’s assertions and conclusions, my intention was not and is not to blame the government.  But surely I was and am worried that the investigation will yield results. I have not seen the result of the Gonder-Dashen investigation/charge."

In fact, reflecting and scrutinizing my past articles on this subject, I do not see a basis for Wossen’s criticism on the points that I wrote.

Here is what I said:

3. "My assessment so far is that those whom I know appreciate it.  They appreciate my independence.  And it is likely that they learn more, and do the right things because of the critical assessments and feedback that they get from people that are governed by reason and sense of independence." 

Did I say, anywhere in the article I know big wigs by first name or whatever that phrase is meant to convey?

"Because, unlike people like Kelemu - who happen to get to know EPRDF big-wigs on a first name basis - my acquaintance with EPRDF owes everything to the papers on which these ideals were enunciated at length."

Wossen was wrong to put words into my mouth.  I can only hope that this was an honest mistake. Or shall I assume as he liberally does in his writings that he did this deliberately?   

In passing I would like him to know that I am not an EPRDF unconditional supporter or member.  I criticize the party on matters that I think are clearly not beneficial to the country and I support it when I think it does the right thing - just so that neither Wossen nor his colleagues take me for granted. That is where my sense of independence emanates   

4. Wossen, there is nothing clever about the following quote:

"What Kelemu did in his response was a clever trick with words that could send message contrary to what I intended. He quotes: 

"It should not thus come as a surprise if this very influence - and the sometimes highhanded tactics with which it is used - also brings him a long list of enemies (powerful quarters in the nation, public or private alike - as indicated elsewhere by the author) who would stop at nothing - as it were - to even their scores if and when opportunity presents itself."  

No surgery was required. You stated the above (and you meant, it can’t possibly be otherwise, those that are italicized and in bracket and others). You agreed with the above statement and there is nothing hideous about it.  Nothing is intended but what has been described. A description that seems you shared. 

5. Finally, I would like Wossen to know that ‘I know-it-all’ is not my motto.  Sorry if my advice seemed paternalistic.  I think, most of the time, two heads are better than one. And if you write articles, I would like to give you my feedback on the subject.  It is yours to take….Or discard. 

I would like to read your articulate and eloquent writings on more important matters.  I and you agree that the violent take on Amare was the uncivilized thing to do.  Let’s hope that the justice system comes up with an answer. And also note one important thing.  The reporter is one of the most important papers working in the country (of course with all its shortcomings).  At least acknowledge that that is what most of us in the neutral camp in the Diaspora believe to be the case.  In this respect we would hate to see anti-media culprits go un-punished. 

I am also sure that you share the assessment that violent acts on press members, imprisoning reporters (case in Gonder) do not help promote free press. That was what I addressed in my first article. I would like to hear your take on this important subject of press freedom.  

Amare as a person was never my subject.  It is the freedom associated with an editor /reporter that is of importance to me in this dialogue.  I would like you and all to avoid personalities in this dialogue. The Amharic articles on Ben’s website were devoid of facts and too polemical to warrant my time and energy. I say this without infringing on their right to print or write anything – as long as there is a media to accommodate them. 

Thank you.

The opinion stated in the articles submitted to EthiopiaFirst (EF) are those of the writers and not EF or the publisher of EF.