Month: October 2016

How Web Cams Helped Bring Down the Internet, Briefly

Time

Image result for internet down

In a world where we increasingly live and work in giant webs of internet connectivity—our computers and phones, not to mention cameras, thermostats, garage door openers, kitchen appliances and baby monitors are all now connected to the web, often by default—we find ourselves facing an uncomfortable new reality: How secure is the so-called Internet-of-Things?

That question is front and center in the wake of a massive cyber attack Oct. 21 that left millions of internet users unable to access roughly 1,200 websites, including Twitter, Reddit and Netflix for the better part of a day.

While the attack did cause some economic damage, cybersecurity experts say the bigger issue is the way in which the hackers were able to pull off such a feat. They did it not only by co-opting zombie computers—the typical way that hackers push servers off-line—but by leveraging “tens of millions” of addresses on insecure, internet-connected devices that had been infected with malicious software code, according to Kyle York, the chief strategy officer at Dynamic Network Services Inc., the company that came under attack.

“The obvious point that we learned from last week’s attack is that the Internet of Things has made the threat of a denial-of-service attack more potent than ever before,” Timothy Edgar, a director of law and policy at Brown University’s cybersecurity program, told TIME.

Here’s how it worked.

On Friday morning, hackers launched a massive distributed denial-of-service, or DDOS, attack on a domain-name system called Dynamic Network Services Inc., or Dyn., which serves a crucial role in the Internet infrastructure. A domain name system translates what you type into a URL—”Twitter.com,” say—into the appropriate, numerical IP address and directs you to where you want to go.

In a typical DDOS attack, hackers take over virus-infected computers, known collectively as a “botnet,” and command them to send large numbers of requests, or “garbage packets,” to a server with the intention of overwhelming it—making it impossible for legitimate users to access it as needed.

What made the attack on Friday exceptional, and exceptionally scary for cyber researchers, is that the hackers used not only virus-infected computers, but hundreds of tens or hundreds of internet-connected devices—namely, certain types of security cameras and DVR players—that we don’t really think of as “computers” in the first place. XiongMai Technologies, a Chinese company that manufactures some of the webcams used in the attack, announced Monday that it would recall some of its products.

But such recalls aren’t going to do much at a time when literally millions of new, internet-connected devices are being connected every day, Edgar said. “There are millions and millions of cameras out there on the shelves and in people’s homes and there’s no security on them,” he said. “Going back and making sure that each of these cameras have better security isn’t really possible—it’s a depressing thought.”

According to a 2015 report by the information technology research company Gartner, there are now roughly 6.4 billion internet-connected things worldwide, from smart watches to smart refrigerators to smart web cams. By 2020, Gartner expects that number to bounce to 20.8 billion. That means that even if a relatively small portion of those devices are infected with malware and commandeered in a DDOS attack like the one Friday, hackers could an extraordinary amount of damage either the U.S. economy or, potentially, to national security.

“This particular attack disrupted key services that are a part of people’s daily lives, but no lives were lost,” Chris Petersen, a co-founder of the security analytics firm LogRhythm, told TIME. But, he added, it’s not hard to imagine a scenario in which hackers utilized this same army of devices to disrupt other key services, like hospitals or physical infrastructure projects. “This attack just proves that an attack of this nature could be easily realized,” he said.

Just two weeks before Election Day, cybersecurity experts have, for example, raised the specter that hackers, possible operating on behalf of a nation state, like Russia or China, could plan a similar attack to compromise state and county election websites, which voters rely on to access information about their registration or where their polling places are. Since no voting machines in the U.S. are connected to the internet, it would be extremely difficult for hackers to undermine the actual act of voting, but they could fairly easily succeed in creating the impression that the election had been compromised in some way.

“The possibility of hacking the vote-counting process is quite difficult,” said Edgar. “But the goal is causing chaos on Election Day? That’s pretty simple.”

A large part of the problem is that internet-connected device makers currently do almost nothing to protect their products from cybersecurity threats, Mike Raggo, the chief research officer at the security firm ZeroFOX, which focuses on social media platforms, told TIME. “Manufacturers want you to be able to plug it in and it’s ready to go,” he said. “So most of these devices have a default password, default configuration, default login.” That makes it easy to plug-and-play, but it also makes these devices very vulnerable to attack.

According to Network World, the hackers on Friday used only about 10 to 20% of all the 500,000 or so devices known to be infected with a particular malicious code, known as Mirai, which means that the DDOS attack could easily have been five to ten times larger than what it actually was. “There’s a lot of dry gunpowder left in terms of compromised IoT devices,” Petersen warned.

Consumers can protect themselves to some degree by keeping the software on their devices up to date, changing the default password if its possible, or—for the more sophisticated consumer—hardening up other parts of a home network, said Scott Radcliffe, a former military officer and vice president at FleishmanHillard, where he works on cybersecurity issues. “But it’s a problem of getting the message out. It’s just not intuitive that we have to worry about security on all of these new things.”

On Monday, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told Politico that his department is working with law enforcement officials and the private sector to produce a strategic plan “in the coming weeks” to guard against similar attacks in the future.

There are currently no state or federal regulations in the U.S. that require even basic cybersecurity protocols on internet-connected devices and appliances. It’s a scenario that creates a vacuum of responsibility, Edgar said.

“You can say, let’s hold manufacturers liable for damaged caused by insecure IoT devices, but how would you do that?” he said, explaining that DDOS attacks can involve hundreds of thousands or millions of devices made by dozens of different manufacturers. “If you’re looking at it from the point of the view of a law firm, how do you define the damage, find plaintiffs and defendants?”

Edgar and others suggest that perhaps the time has come for the government to step in. “There’s a big fear in the high tech community that government regulation is going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg by telling tech companies how to make their devices,” he said, but added that regulations can establish security benchmarks without being prescriptive.

“Look, I’m an entrepreneur,” said Petersen. “I am certainly not someone who wants to see more regulation from a business standpoint. But when I put on my cybersecurity hat and I look at the realities of what is going to protect our nation from devastating cyber serucity attacks, I don’t see much of an alternative except to regulate.”

How Web Cams Helped Bring Down the Internet, Briefly

Time

Image result for internet down

In a world where we increasingly live and work in giant webs of internet connectivity—our computers and phones, not to mention cameras, thermostats, garage door openers, kitchen appliances and baby monitors are all now connected to the web, often by default—we find ourselves facing an uncomfortable new reality: How secure is the so-called Internet-of-Things?

That question is front and center in the wake of a massive cyber attack Oct. 21 that left millions of internet users unable to access roughly 1,200 websites, including Twitter, Reddit and Netflix for the better part of a day.

While the attack did cause some economic damage, cybersecurity experts say the bigger issue is the way in which the hackers were able to pull off such a feat. They did it not only by co-opting zombie computers—the typical way that hackers push servers off-line—but by leveraging “tens of millions” of addresses on insecure, internet-connected devices that had been infected with malicious software code, according to Kyle York, the chief strategy officer at Dynamic Network Services Inc., the company that came under attack.

“The obvious point that we learned from last week’s attack is that the Internet of Things has made the threat of a denial-of-service attack more potent than ever before,” Timothy Edgar, a director of law and policy at Brown University’s cybersecurity program, told TIME.

Here’s how it worked.

On Friday morning, hackers launched a massive distributed denial-of-service, or DDOS, attack on a domain-name system called Dynamic Network Services Inc., or Dyn., which serves a crucial role in the Internet infrastructure. A domain name system translates what you type into a URL—”Twitter.com,” say—into the appropriate, numerical IP address and directs you to where you want to go.

In a typical DDOS attack, hackers take over virus-infected computers, known collectively as a “botnet,” and command them to send large numbers of requests, or “garbage packets,” to a server with the intention of overwhelming it—making it impossible for legitimate users to access it as needed.

What made the attack on Friday exceptional, and exceptionally scary for cyber researchers, is that the hackers used not only virus-infected computers, but hundreds of tens or hundreds of internet-connected devices—namely, certain types of security cameras and DVR players—that we don’t really think of as “computers” in the first place. XiongMai Technologies, a Chinese company that manufactures some of the webcams used in the attack, announced Monday that it would recall some of its products.

But such recalls aren’t going to do much at a time when literally millions of new, internet-connected devices are being connected every day, Edgar said. “There are millions and millions of cameras out there on the shelves and in people’s homes and there’s no security on them,” he said. “Going back and making sure that each of these cameras have better security isn’t really possible—it’s a depressing thought.”

According to a 2015 report by the information technology research company Gartner, there are now roughly 6.4 billion internet-connected things worldwide, from smart watches to smart refrigerators to smart web cams. By 2020, Gartner expects that number to bounce to 20.8 billion. That means that even if a relatively small portion of those devices are infected with malware and commandeered in a DDOS attack like the one Friday, hackers could an extraordinary amount of damage either the U.S. economy or, potentially, to national security.

“This particular attack disrupted key services that are a part of people’s daily lives, but no lives were lost,” Chris Petersen, a co-founder of the security analytics firm LogRhythm, told TIME. But, he added, it’s not hard to imagine a scenario in which hackers utilized this same army of devices to disrupt other key services, like hospitals or physical infrastructure projects. “This attack just proves that an attack of this nature could be easily realized,” he said.

Just two weeks before Election Day, cybersecurity experts have, for example, raised the specter that hackers, possible operating on behalf of a nation state, like Russia or China, could plan a similar attack to compromise state and county election websites, which voters rely on to access information about their registration or where their polling places are. Since no voting machines in the U.S. are connected to the internet, it would be extremely difficult for hackers to undermine the actual act of voting, but they could fairly easily succeed in creating the impression that the election had been compromised in some way.

“The possibility of hacking the vote-counting process is quite difficult,” said Edgar. “But the goal is causing chaos on Election Day? That’s pretty simple.”

A large part of the problem is that internet-connected device makers currently do almost nothing to protect their products from cybersecurity threats, Mike Raggo, the chief research officer at the security firm ZeroFOX, which focuses on social media platforms, told TIME. “Manufacturers want you to be able to plug it in and it’s ready to go,” he said. “So most of these devices have a default password, default configuration, default login.” That makes it easy to plug-and-play, but it also makes these devices very vulnerable to attack.

According to Network World, the hackers on Friday used only about 10 to 20% of all the 500,000 or so devices known to be infected with a particular malicious code, known as Mirai, which means that the DDOS attack could easily have been five to ten times larger than what it actually was. “There’s a lot of dry gunpowder left in terms of compromised IoT devices,” Petersen warned.

Consumers can protect themselves to some degree by keeping the software on their devices up to date, changing the default password if its possible, or—for the more sophisticated consumer—hardening up other parts of a home network, said Scott Radcliffe, a former military officer and vice president at FleishmanHillard, where he works on cybersecurity issues. “But it’s a problem of getting the message out. It’s just not intuitive that we have to worry about security on all of these new things.”

On Monday, Homeland Security Secretary Jeh Johnson told Politico that his department is working with law enforcement officials and the private sector to produce a strategic plan “in the coming weeks” to guard against similar attacks in the future.

There are currently no state or federal regulations in the U.S. that require even basic cybersecurity protocols on internet-connected devices and appliances. It’s a scenario that creates a vacuum of responsibility, Edgar said.

“You can say, let’s hold manufacturers liable for damaged caused by insecure IoT devices, but how would you do that?” he said, explaining that DDOS attacks can involve hundreds of thousands or millions of devices made by dozens of different manufacturers. “If you’re looking at it from the point of the view of a law firm, how do you define the damage, find plaintiffs and defendants?”

Edgar and others suggest that perhaps the time has come for the government to step in. “There’s a big fear in the high tech community that government regulation is going to kill the goose that laid the golden egg by telling tech companies how to make their devices,” he said, but added that regulations can establish security benchmarks without being prescriptive.

“Look, I’m an entrepreneur,” said Petersen. “I am certainly not someone who wants to see more regulation from a business standpoint. But when I put on my cybersecurity hat and I look at the realities of what is going to protect our nation from devastating cyber serucity attacks, I don’t see much of an alternative except to regulate.”

IS International Criminal Court Too Focused on Africa?

By 

The new South Africa has been a bastion of respect for human rights, and its decision to withdraw from the International Criminal Court is a sign that something is terribly wrong with the tribunal. And it’s no secret: Since 2005, when it first issued arrest warrants, the court has indicted 39 people, every one of them African.

There are various explanations for this, some of them defensible. But the bottom line is that it was an inexcusable mistake for the court not to pursue other cases. It wouldn’t have been tokenism, because there are, unfortunately, plenty of non-African war criminals. Yet even if it were, the tokenism would have been justified to show that the court is more than the imperialist agent of regime change that many Africans consider it.

International Criminal Court

South Africa’s unexpected — and devastating — decision last weekto withdraw from the court is not based on any immediate fear that South African leaders would be prosecuted. In that sense, the decision differs sharply from that of Burundi, which was the first nation to initiate withdrawal, just a few days before the South African announcement.

Burundi’s motivation was the prospect of an ICC investigation of the political violence that has plagued the country in the last year, since President Pierre Nkurunziza declared his intention of running for a third term. Of 110 Burundian lawmakers, 94 had voted for the withdrawal, suggesting, if nothing else, consolidation of the political class against the possibility of an investigation that would probably have focused on the president himself.

It’s not terribly surprising that a president in that position would seek to avoid the ICCs jurisdiction by withdrawing. It’s much more surprising that a stable democracy like South Africa, which has a range of international obligations written into its state-of-the-art constitution, would send such a strong message of rejection.

The South African minister of justice, Michael Masutha, offered the explanation that South Africa considered the obligation to turn over foreign diplomats charged by the court to be a violation of its domestic laws that guarantee diplomatic immunity. In June 2015, the South African government failed to turn over Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who was visiting for an African Union summit, even after a South African court ordered it to do so.

But the minister’s formalistic explanation rings hollow. South Africa’s constitution incorporates international legal obligations into domestic law, and would certainly be interpreted by South Africa’s progressive courts to trump any domestic requirements of diplomatic immunity.

What makes more sense is that the South African government is consolidating its position of regional and continental leadership by taking a stance that is sure to please other African heads of state. It’s precisely those heads of state who are most vulnerable to ICC prosecution. By weakening the court — and providing thick cover for any other African countries that wish to follow suit — South Africa is giving those leaders a tremendous diplomatic gift.

In other words, the statement that South Africa wants to respect the diplomatic immunity of other heads of state is a way of saying that South Africa wants to do business with African leaders.

The ICC worries African heads of state because it has adopted a prosecutorial policy of going after leaders whom it accuses of being responsible for political violence in violation of international law. Targeting a head of state or government is an attractive and admirable idea for an international body committed to enforcing human rights. In the case of authoritarian or autocratic governments, the leader often does bear moral responsibility for violence. And it would be deeply dissatisfying for an international criminal court to prosecute primarily lower officials who may have committed crimes but did not plan or direct them.

If the court is going to go after government leaders, however, it must confront the concern that, as South Africa’s Masutha put it, it is producing a “scenario of forced regime change by one country on another.” When the prosecution comes from a European geographical base and a court staffed mostly by non-Africans, the regime change has the further feature of seeming “imperialist,” the word used by the chief party whip of South Africa’s ruling African National Congress.

The simple solution for the ICC would have been to prosecute some — any — non-Africans. It’s not like the problem hasn’t been noticed. The ICC itself has held an online symposium of invited experts on what it rather delicately called “the Africa question.”

It must been noted in the ICC’s defense that six African cases brought to it from outside, four by the countries where the violations had occurred and two by reference from the United Nations Security Council. The first four were nondiscretionary, meaning the court had to investigate under its own rules. And in the other two, Sudan and Libya, there were strong grounds to commence investigation.

But that excuse explains why the court has pursued the cases it has — not why it hasn’t pursued others. Admittedly complex rules govern the court’s reach, and it can’t proceed where there are adequate domestic legal processes under way.

Nonetheless, the court’s prosecutors needed to reach more broadly. Initial investigations of cases involving Afghanistan, Colombia, Georgia, Honduras and South Korea could have proceeded more rapidly. The idea that Iraq would be free of crimes against humanity or that the Iraqi legal system could adequately treat them seems highly implausible on its face.

The lesson here is that tokenism isn’t always a bad thing. When it comes to demonstrating the legitimacy of a new and powerful international legal entity, a basic requirement is not only to be balanced but also to appear so.

South Africa’s decision is unfortunate, but the ICC opened the door, and it deserves the primary blame. The court in The Hague stands for the admirable aspiration to hold the worst criminals in the world responsible for their wrongs. But trying to achieve that ideal without pragmatic realism about what seems fair in international politics is a hopeless task.

  1. South Africa’s constitutional court was supposed to hold hearings on this issue in November, but the government will now drop its appeal.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Noah Feldman at nfeldman7@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Stacey Shick at sshick@bloomberg.net

IS International Criminal Court Too Focused on Africa?

By 

The new South Africa has been a bastion of respect for human rights, and its decision to withdraw from the International Criminal Court is a sign that something is terribly wrong with the tribunal. And it’s no secret: Since 2005, when it first issued arrest warrants, the court has indicted 39 people, every one of them African.

There are various explanations for this, some of them defensible. But the bottom line is that it was an inexcusable mistake for the court not to pursue other cases. It wouldn’t have been tokenism, because there are, unfortunately, plenty of non-African war criminals. Yet even if it were, the tokenism would have been justified to show that the court is more than the imperialist agent of regime change that many Africans consider it.

International Criminal Court

South Africa’s unexpected — and devastating — decision last weekto withdraw from the court is not based on any immediate fear that South African leaders would be prosecuted. In that sense, the decision differs sharply from that of Burundi, which was the first nation to initiate withdrawal, just a few days before the South African announcement.

Burundi’s motivation was the prospect of an ICC investigation of the political violence that has plagued the country in the last year, since President Pierre Nkurunziza declared his intention of running for a third term. Of 110 Burundian lawmakers, 94 had voted for the withdrawal, suggesting, if nothing else, consolidation of the political class against the possibility of an investigation that would probably have focused on the president himself.

It’s not terribly surprising that a president in that position would seek to avoid the ICCs jurisdiction by withdrawing. It’s much more surprising that a stable democracy like South Africa, which has a range of international obligations written into its state-of-the-art constitution, would send such a strong message of rejection.

The South African minister of justice, Michael Masutha, offered the explanation that South Africa considered the obligation to turn over foreign diplomats charged by the court to be a violation of its domestic laws that guarantee diplomatic immunity. In June 2015, the South African government failed to turn over Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, who was visiting for an African Union summit, even after a South African court ordered it to do so.

But the minister’s formalistic explanation rings hollow. South Africa’s constitution incorporates international legal obligations into domestic law, and would certainly be interpreted by South Africa’s progressive courts to trump any domestic requirements of diplomatic immunity.

What makes more sense is that the South African government is consolidating its position of regional and continental leadership by taking a stance that is sure to please other African heads of state. It’s precisely those heads of state who are most vulnerable to ICC prosecution. By weakening the court — and providing thick cover for any other African countries that wish to follow suit — South Africa is giving those leaders a tremendous diplomatic gift.

In other words, the statement that South Africa wants to respect the diplomatic immunity of other heads of state is a way of saying that South Africa wants to do business with African leaders.

The ICC worries African heads of state because it has adopted a prosecutorial policy of going after leaders whom it accuses of being responsible for political violence in violation of international law. Targeting a head of state or government is an attractive and admirable idea for an international body committed to enforcing human rights. In the case of authoritarian or autocratic governments, the leader often does bear moral responsibility for violence. And it would be deeply dissatisfying for an international criminal court to prosecute primarily lower officials who may have committed crimes but did not plan or direct them.

If the court is going to go after government leaders, however, it must confront the concern that, as South Africa’s Masutha put it, it is producing a “scenario of forced regime change by one country on another.” When the prosecution comes from a European geographical base and a court staffed mostly by non-Africans, the regime change has the further feature of seeming “imperialist,” the word used by the chief party whip of South Africa’s ruling African National Congress.

The simple solution for the ICC would have been to prosecute some — any — non-Africans. It’s not like the problem hasn’t been noticed. The ICC itself has held an online symposium of invited experts on what it rather delicately called “the Africa question.”

It must been noted in the ICC’s defense that six African cases brought to it from outside, four by the countries where the violations had occurred and two by reference from the United Nations Security Council. The first four were nondiscretionary, meaning the court had to investigate under its own rules. And in the other two, Sudan and Libya, there were strong grounds to commence investigation.

But that excuse explains why the court has pursued the cases it has — not why it hasn’t pursued others. Admittedly complex rules govern the court’s reach, and it can’t proceed where there are adequate domestic legal processes under way.

Nonetheless, the court’s prosecutors needed to reach more broadly. Initial investigations of cases involving Afghanistan, Colombia, Georgia, Honduras and South Korea could have proceeded more rapidly. The idea that Iraq would be free of crimes against humanity or that the Iraqi legal system could adequately treat them seems highly implausible on its face.

The lesson here is that tokenism isn’t always a bad thing. When it comes to demonstrating the legitimacy of a new and powerful international legal entity, a basic requirement is not only to be balanced but also to appear so.

South Africa’s decision is unfortunate, but the ICC opened the door, and it deserves the primary blame. The court in The Hague stands for the admirable aspiration to hold the worst criminals in the world responsible for their wrongs. But trying to achieve that ideal without pragmatic realism about what seems fair in international politics is a hopeless task.

  1. South Africa’s constitutional court was supposed to hold hearings on this issue in November, but the government will now drop its appeal.

This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board or Bloomberg LP and its owners.

To contact the author of this story:
Noah Feldman at nfeldman7@bloomberg.net

To contact the editor responsible for this story:
Stacey Shick at sshick@bloomberg.net

TPLF in the Atlanta Kidist Mariam Church

By A Concerned Patriotic Ethiopian

Kidist Mariam Orthodox Church of Atlanta is one of the oldest and largest Ethiopian churches in the US. In a letter posted on Ethiomedia on October 14, 2016, I read that a leadership crisis that was methodically installed by Woyanne/TPLF in the Church a while ago, has now reached a breaking point. This letter was written by concerned members of the Church who expressed to have witnessed first-hand the usual malicious “divide and rule” tactic of Woyanne at work. They reported that violating the established rules of the Church, some members of the administrative board in their recent meeting decided to unlawfully remove the legitimately appointed bishop, His Holiness Abune Yaekob, from his leadership position to pave the way to work in cooperation with the illegal Holy Synod in Ethiopia, most likely under the new leadership of the outspoken conspirator Aba Haile Michael. As a follower and interested person in the affairs of this Church, prior to reading the letter posted on Ethiomedia, I have also observed some alarming signals from other members of the Church with whom I have personal relationships. From what I have been able to gather from various sources, the expressed concern about the problem in Atlanta’s Kidist Mariam Church was/is real and legitimate. In this crisis, what matters most for me is not the internal struggle in the church per se, but the involvement of Woyanne and the inclination of some members to let this happen. This tendency becomes more obvious given the unfailing dedication of Abune Yaekob to the words of God and standing firm in defense of the defenseless, irrespective of Woyanne politics, and the hidden agendas of some members of the Church to bow to the will of Woyanne.

As a responsible and devoted man of God, His Holiness Abune Yaekob has served the Ethiopian Orthodox Church for more than four decades both in Ethiopia and abroad. He has been in exile for a long time, mostly in leadership positions, with utmost dedication to the original guiding principles of the Church unadulterated by divisive politics mired with sinful acts against the teachings of Christ and, for that matter, any other known religion. Abune Yaekob is highly conscious and in opposition of what is going on in Ethiopia under the tyrannical rule of Woyanne. On several occasions, I have personally seen His Holiness condemning publicly the fascistic acts of the regime against its own people who have done nothing but only peacefully expressing/demanding their God-given rights. Accordingly, he does not shy away from expressing his views, among others, against ethnic and institutional fracturing, corruptions and killings of innocent citizens carried out and actively promoted by the Ethiopian government. His teachings and messages in the Kidist Mariam Church I occasionally attend and in gatherings of Ethiopians elsewhere are thoughtful and highly inspirational and healing. He is a well-received father by anyone who has good intentions for his/her personal life, institutions, community and country. The speeches and blessings he delivered in the Ethiopian Community Day and Food Festival held in Atlanta on September 3 and October 8, 2016 can be mentioned as testimony for his beliefs and devotion to serve God and mankind (these speeches are available on the Internet).

At this very critical and difficult time of our Ethiopian history, we need leaders like Abune Yaekob in our churches and community everywhere. It is a sheer act of ignorance, arrogance, narrow-mindedness, self-interest, as well as “un-Ethiopian” on the part of some board/church members of Kidist Mariam to remove him from his position of leadership, in preparation to submit the Church to Woyanne and subject it to its subsequent destruction, along with the supporting community. I hope the concerned members of the Church (both the board and ordinary members) will come to this realization and reverse the decision made with regarding to the change of leadership direction for the good of all. At this very moment, Woyanne and the Ethiopian people are in clash more than ever and the entire free world is aware of this, largely being sympathetic to the cause of the people. As the people are determined to remove this evil regime from power, its leaders are getting more and more desperate with time and some of them are even reported to be on the run more than ever. It is, therefore, high time to focus on the bigger picture of our Ethiopian problem and contribute to the process of regime change by being on the side of the people and history. Tilting towards Woyanne at this defining moment is an inexcusable mistake, not only by the Ethiopian people, but also by the Almighty Himself, in my humble opinion.

Unity and fairness are the way to go.
Long live Ethiopia, the birthplace of mankind on planet earth.

 

Ethiopia Travel Warning

Image result for Ethiopia Travel Warning

The U.S. Department of State warns U.S. citizens to defer all non-essential travel to Ethiopia due to ongoing unrest that has led to hundreds of deaths, thousands of arrests, as well as injuries and extensive property damage, especially in Amhara and Oromia States. The U.S. Embassy’s ability to provide consular services in many parts of the country is limited by the current security situation.

The Government of Ethiopia declared a State of Emergency effective October 8, 2016. An October 15 decree states that individuals may be arrested without a court order for activities they may otherwise consider routine, such as communication, consumption of media, attending gatherings, engaging with certain foreign governments or organizations, and violating curfews. The decree prohibits U.S. and other foreign diplomats from traveling farther than 40 kilometers outside of Addis Ababa without prior approval from the Government of Ethiopia, which severely affects the U.S. Embassy’s ability to assist U.S. citizens. The full text of the decree implementing the State of Emergency is available on the U.S. Embassy’s website.

Internet, cellular data, and phone services have been periodically restricted or shut down throughout the country, impeding the U.S. Embassy’s ability to communicate with U.S. citizens in Ethiopia. You should have alternate communication plans in place, and let your family and friends know this may be an issue while you are in Ethiopia. See the information below on how to register with the U.S. Embassy to receive security messages.

Avoid demonstrations and large gatherings, continuously assess your surroundings, and evaluate your personal level of safety. Remember that the government may use force and live fire in response to demonstrations, and that even gatherings intended to be peaceful can be met with a violent response or turn violent without warning. U.S. citizens in Ethiopia should monitor their security situation and have contingency plans in place in case you need to depart suddenly.

U.S. government personnel are restricted from personal travel to many regions in Ethiopia, including Oromia, Amhara, Somali and Gambella states, southern Ethiopia near the Ethiopian/Kenyan border, and the area near the Ethiopia/Eritrea border. Work-related travel is being approved on a case-by-case basis. U.S. government personnel may travel to and within Addis Ababa without restrictions. For additional information related to the regional al-Shabaab threat, banditry, and other security concerns, see the Safety and Security section of the Country Specific Information for Ethiopia.

Due to the unpredictability of communication in the country, the Department of State strongly advises U.S. citizens to register your mobile number with the U.S. Embassy to receive security information via text or SMS, in addition to enrolling in the Smart Traveler Enrollment Program (STEP).

For further information:

Why African states have started leaving the ICC

FILE – In this Monday, Jan. 6, 2014 file photo, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir speaks after meeting with South Sudan’s President Salva Kiir, in the capital Juba, South Sudan. (AP Photo/Ali Ngethi, File)FILE – In this Monday, Jan. 6, 2014 file photo, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir speaks after meeting with South Sudan’s President Salva Kiir, in the capital Juba, South Sudan. South Africa has decided to withdraw… (AP Photo/Ali Ngethi, File) 

By 

JOHANNESBURG (AP) — Until this week, no country had withdrawn from the International Criminal Court. Now two African states, South Africa and Burundi, have made official decisions to leave. Concerns are high that more African countries now will act on years of threats to pull out amid accusations that the court unfairly focuses on the continent. Here’s a look at what it all means.

SOMEONE TO TAKE ON GENOCIDE

Many in the international community cheered when the treaty to create the ICC, the Rome Statute, was adopted in 1998 as a way to pursue some of the world’s worst atrocities: genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Not all countries signed on, and before this week’s decisions by Burundi and South Africa, the treaty had 124 states parties. Notable countries that have not become states parties include the United States, China, Russia and India. Some countries are wary of The Hague, Netherlands-based court’s powers, seeing it as potential interference.

THE TRAVELS OF AL-BASHIR

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has become a symbol of the limitations facing the ICC, which does not have a police force and relies on the cooperation of member states. Al-Bashir has been wanted by the tribunal for alleged genocide and other crimes in Sudan’s Darfur region after the U.N. Security Council first referred the case to the ICC in 2005. Since then, however, al-Bashir has visited a number of ICC member states, including Malawi, Kenya, Chad and Congo. His visit to South Africa in June 2015 caused uproar, and he quickly left as a court there ordered his arrest. The ICC has no power to compel countries to arrest people and can only tell them they have a legal obligation to do it.

___

AFRICAN FRUSTRATIONS, AND THREATS

Only Africans have been charged in the six ICC cases that are ongoing or about to begin, though preliminary ICC investigations have been opened elsewhere in the world, in places like Colombia and Afghanistan. One case that caused considerable anger among African leaders was the ICC’s pursuit of Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta for his alleged role in the deadly violence that erupted after his country’s 2007 presidential election. The case later collapsed amid prosecution claims of interference with witnesses and non-cooperation by Kenyan authorities. The African Union has called for immunity from prosecution for heads of state, and Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni at his inauguration in May — with al-Bashir in attendance — declared the ICC to be “useless.”

___

HEADING OUT

Burundi kicked off the ICC departures this month when lawmakers overwhelmingly voted to leave the tribunal, just months after the court announced it would investigate recent political violence there. President Pierre Nkurunziza signed the bill on Tuesday. Now South Africa is deciding to leave as well, saying that handing a leader over to the ICC would amount to interference in another country’s affairs. It’s a dramatic turnaround for a country that was an early supporter of the court’s creation in the years after South Africa emerged from white minority rule and near-global isolation. With one of Africa’s most developed countries now pulling out, observers are waiting to see whether more states follow.

Why African states have started leaving the ICC

FILE – In this Monday, Jan. 6, 2014 file photo, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir speaks after meeting with South Sudan’s President Salva Kiir, in the capital Juba, South Sudan. (AP Photo/Ali Ngethi, File)FILE – In this Monday, Jan. 6, 2014 file photo, Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir speaks after meeting with South Sudan’s President Salva Kiir, in the capital Juba, South Sudan. South Africa has decided to withdraw… (AP Photo/Ali Ngethi, File) 

By 

JOHANNESBURG (AP) — Until this week, no country had withdrawn from the International Criminal Court. Now two African states, South Africa and Burundi, have made official decisions to leave. Concerns are high that more African countries now will act on years of threats to pull out amid accusations that the court unfairly focuses on the continent. Here’s a look at what it all means.

SOMEONE TO TAKE ON GENOCIDE

Many in the international community cheered when the treaty to create the ICC, the Rome Statute, was adopted in 1998 as a way to pursue some of the world’s worst atrocities: genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. Not all countries signed on, and before this week’s decisions by Burundi and South Africa, the treaty had 124 states parties. Notable countries that have not become states parties include the United States, China, Russia and India. Some countries are wary of The Hague, Netherlands-based court’s powers, seeing it as potential interference.

THE TRAVELS OF AL-BASHIR

Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir has become a symbol of the limitations facing the ICC, which does not have a police force and relies on the cooperation of member states. Al-Bashir has been wanted by the tribunal for alleged genocide and other crimes in Sudan’s Darfur region after the U.N. Security Council first referred the case to the ICC in 2005. Since then, however, al-Bashir has visited a number of ICC member states, including Malawi, Kenya, Chad and Congo. His visit to South Africa in June 2015 caused uproar, and he quickly left as a court there ordered his arrest. The ICC has no power to compel countries to arrest people and can only tell them they have a legal obligation to do it.

___

AFRICAN FRUSTRATIONS, AND THREATS

Only Africans have been charged in the six ICC cases that are ongoing or about to begin, though preliminary ICC investigations have been opened elsewhere in the world, in places like Colombia and Afghanistan. One case that caused considerable anger among African leaders was the ICC’s pursuit of Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta for his alleged role in the deadly violence that erupted after his country’s 2007 presidential election. The case later collapsed amid prosecution claims of interference with witnesses and non-cooperation by Kenyan authorities. The African Union has called for immunity from prosecution for heads of state, and Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni at his inauguration in May — with al-Bashir in attendance — declared the ICC to be “useless.”

___

HEADING OUT

Burundi kicked off the ICC departures this month when lawmakers overwhelmingly voted to leave the tribunal, just months after the court announced it would investigate recent political violence there. President Pierre Nkurunziza signed the bill on Tuesday. Now South Africa is deciding to leave as well, saying that handing a leader over to the ICC would amount to interference in another country’s affairs. It’s a dramatic turnaround for a country that was an early supporter of the court’s creation in the years after South Africa emerged from white minority rule and near-global isolation. With one of Africa’s most developed countries now pulling out, observers are waiting to see whether more states follow.