Google

Thursday, February 22, 2007

The Economist's sword on Meles

The Economist which calls itself a newspaper(even though it looks like a magazine) defends market and social liberalism. Whether one has qualms with its philosophy or not, there is no debate that the paper's unique opinionated features have no match.
The Economist had cautiously supported dictator Meles Zenawi for trying to improve the lot of Ethiopian living in extreme poverty. The rampage on November 1 changed all that. Since then it has published seriously critical articles about the Meles government and its human rights abuses. The Economist was the first reputable international "newspaper" to publish the Yalemzewd Bekele and Alemayehu Fantu story. Its stories about Ethiopia dig deep into forgotten places and talk about forgotten people. Today's issue has another fantastic article on Ethiopia. This is the last paragraph:
  • In September, hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians from their vast and far-flung diaspora are expected to visit their homeland to celebrate the coming of the third Christian millennium, according to their ancient church's calendar. Some hope Mr Zenawi, in a gesture of conciliation, will free some of his opponents from jail before then. But do not bet on it. Mr Zenawi has got used to wielding an iron fist.
I can't agree more. Hats off to the greatest "newspaper" in the world.

4 comments:

Anonymous said...

The current (Feb. 22) issue of The Economist has an uncharacteristically favorable article on Eritrea, saying it can "help or hinder progress in the Horn." The same issue has an equally uncharacteristic slap at the rival Ethiopian regime, asking "Should the West go on helping a repressive Ethiopia?" It starts out with an outline of aid projects in Ethiopia, as if "the West's" only interest in Africa was fighting poverty. Only at the very end does it mention the strategic struggle in Somalia which is driving the West's alliance with Addis Ababa. This is pretty indicting, but one can smell empty hand-wringing—or, at best, a warning that Meles Zenawi may not prove to be a stable proxy in the long run... An excerpt from The Economist:

Should the West go on helping a repressive Ethiopia?

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8742038

Eritrea a small country that can help or hinder progress towards peace in the Horn

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8744711

Anonymous said...

The current (Feb. 22) issue of The Economist has an uncharacteristically favorable article on Eritrea, saying it can "help or hinder progress in the Horn." The same issue has an equally uncharacteristic slap at the rival Ethiopian regime, asking "Should the West go on helping a repressive Ethiopia?" It starts out with an outline of aid projects in Ethiopia, as if "the West's" only interest in Africa was fighting poverty. Only at the very end does it mention the strategic struggle in Somalia which is driving the West's alliance with Addis Ababa. This is pretty indicting, but one can smell empty hand-wringing—or, at best, a warning that Meles Zenawi may not prove to be a stable proxy in the long run... An excerpt from The Economist:

Should the West go on helping a repressive Ethiopia?

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8742038

Eritrea a small country that can help or hinder progress towards peace in the Horn

http://www.economist.com/world/africa/displaystory.cfm?story_id=8744711

Anonymous said...

I agree Mr. Zagol. The Economist Megazine, the number one publication in the world, used to support the Tplf regime in a very systematic way. But since the November massacre it changed its tune and started blasting the regime repeatdly. In this edition it simply put the Tplf regime as widly unpopular and unreliable allay in the volatile Horn of Africa. Interestingly in the same edition it unusually portrayed Eritrea as an important small country that can make a difference in the region and that must be rekoned with. What is cooking behind in the western World?

Anonymous said...

Nothing anon, nothing's cooking. The economist is the primary moralizer(with all the righteous certainty )who characterized Bush administration's decision to invade Iraq, as an act of good against evil. Now, they say, as they always do, when in moral quandary, "this paper" made a mistake. You see most contributers to the economist remain anonymous to the readers, so it's hard to say who is influencing whom. But they make mistakes and their mistake often assumed by the paper's editorial board.

Their "opinionated" attitutd, which zagol noticed, coupled with their "authoritative" approach to world affairs, were sited by critics as the bane of this venerable magazine.

At times, the economist, resting on its laurel, neglects details, until jolted back to rality by devastating news, like the horrifying masacre in Addis Ababa.