Category: NEWS

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

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.

Ethiopia’s state of emergency: Angela Merkel urges protests to be allowed

Ethiopia's state of emergency: Angela Merkel urges protests to be allowed

GLOBAL MEDIA

Ethiopia declared on Sunday a six-month state of emergency over anticipated threats “posed by forces working in collaboration with foreign enemies to undermine the safety of the people and security and stability of the country”, according to the Ethiopian News Agency.

“Egypt does not interfere in any country’s domestic affairs”, Egypt’s ambassador toEthiopia Abu Bakr Hefny told the East African country’s state minister for foreign affairs Taye Atske-Selassie, according to a statement issued on Sunday by the Egyptian ministry of foreign affairs.

Hailemariam said the state of emergency was effective from Oct.8.

Jiangsu Sunshine Group, a Chinese textiles company, demonstrated that confidence by signing a “final agreement” to invest $500 million over four years at a factory in an industrial park in Adama city in Oromia region, Fitsum said.

Getachew said the “extraordinary situation” demanded the state of emergency but insisted it did not amount to a “blanket ban on civilian life”.

The protests of Oromo citizens started in November 2015, when the government planned to expand the boundaries of the Ethiopian capital of Addis Ababa.

Rights advocate, Felix Horne, said as more people were killed in protests this year, the government should urgently change course to prevent more bloodshed.

Getachew Reda said the foreign elements are arming and financing opposition groups, but not necessarily with the formal backing of their governments.

The state of emergency allows the government to detain suspects without court authorization and also prohibits the distribution of material that is likely to incite more “chaos”, Reuters reported. The most recent protests started on October 2 after dozens of people died in clashes with government security forces during a holy festival celebrated by the country’s Oromo people.

Multiples sources told Sudan Tribune that protesters have so far attacked 11 factories, destroyed public and government properties since attacks in the region began. “They want total control on everything”, said Beyene Petros, chairman of the Medrek opposition coalition.

Protesters say violence by the security forces led to the stampede, but the PM denied security forces had opened fire.

The Oromo and the Amhara make up about 60% of the population.

Frustrations about mistreatment by central government have long festered in Oromiya and Amhara, where new industries and foreign flower farms have sprung up.

Since the protests by these two major ethnic groups broke out a year ago, the government has done little or nothing to attend to the yearnings of the Oromo and Amhara people. That’s where many in a massive crowd that had gathered to celebrate the annual Irreecha thanksgiving festival chanted slogans and crossed their fists over their heads, an increasingly familiar gesture that protests oppression and calls for more rights for the people of Oromia.

Revolutionary Islam and Regime Change in Ethiopia

By THOMAS MOUNTAIN

With ethnic uprisings spreading across an Ethiopia now ruled by martial law there is only one nationally based organization in place to lead the eventual regime change in the country and that is the revolutionary Islamic movement.

Presently all the liberation resistance movements in Ethiopia are ethnically based with their senior leadership in exile, mainly in neighboring Eritrea. The only organization with a national presence is the revolutionary Islamic religious community, whose recently freed leaders have sworn to liberate Ethiopia from the western backed Tigrayan ethnic minority regime presently ruling the country.

The revolutionary Islamic community in Ethiopia has a nationwide network of mosques and religious schools, with very respected locally based leaders and can provide the only legal point of assembly in the country.

Just as in the Iranian revolution in the late 1970’s where the only place revolutionaries could gather without being attacked by the police is the mosques, especially for large gatherings for Friday Prayers, the Islamic community in Ethiopia can provide the only place for the opposition to meet especially now that any and all gatherings are banned under Martial Law and the State of Emergency.

The regimes Agazi death squads have shoot to kill orders and the only place of safety for meetings is in the mosques, though how long the regime will tolerate this is not certain.

Having attacked the Islamic community four years ago, gunning down many and locking up the recently released leadership, the Ethiopia regime may be planning on cracking down on Muslims in a new wave of terror.

The maxim is oppression breeds resistance and even the Washington Post’s Editorial Board knows this, having pointed out how martial law and an iron fist will only lead to further protests and the eventual explosion that will drive the regime into exile and leave Ethiopia without any leadership.

The ensuing power vacuum could see the revolutionary Islamic community taking leadership and bringing unity to Ethiopia, for even if the country is divided along ethnic lines all Muslims no matter what tribe worship together in their mosques.

Most Ethiopians are muslims and their religious practices for centuries past forbid them from discriminating by ethnicity when it comes to their worship. The very idea is foreign to the country.

And Ethiopia’s Muslims practice a very tolerant Sunni variant and have lived side by side with their Christian brothers and sisters for over a millennia, sitting together to break bread and even intermarrying. Thank god the wahabi virus has not yet taken root in the country.

Even the CIA via its execrable media front Freedom House a few months ago insinuated that regime change maybe necessary in Ethiopia and with the recent massacres and growing protests matters may come to a head more quickly than expected. It maybe sooner rather than later that revolutionary Islam finds itself leading regime change in Ethiopia.

Join the debate on Facebook

Thomas C. Mountain attended Punahou School for six years some half a dozen years before “Barry O’Bombers” time there. He has been living and writing from Eritrea since 2006. He can be reached at thomascmountain at g_ mail_ dot _com

More articles by:THOMAS MOUNTAIN

AFTER BURUNDI, WHICH OTHER AFRICAN STATES COULD ABANDON THE ICC?

Burundian President Pierre Nkurunziza took another step towards becoming a global outlier on Tuesday.

The controversial leader signed a decree to quit the International Criminal Court (ICC), following a parliamentary vote to that effect earlier in October. The decree retracted Burundi’s participation in the Rome Statute, on which the court’s authority is founded. The Burundian presidency announced on Tuesday that it would come into immediate effect, although the Rome Statute states that any decision to withdraw becomes active a year after giving notice to the United Nations secretary general.

The move makes Burundi the first country ever to pull out of the court, which is based in The Hague and was established in 1998 to deal with high-level crimes, including genocide and crimes against humanity.

ICC chief prosecutor Fatou Bensouda opened a preliminary investigation into the situation in Burundi in April. Bensouda said she was investigating events since April 2015, when Nkurunziza announced his intention to run for a third term as president. The decision sparked widespread violence, a failed coup, and a brutal crackdown on opposition. The chief prosecutor said when opening the investigation that more than 430 people had been reportedly killed. More than 300,000 Burundians have also fled the country since the violence began, according to the U.N. Refugee Agency.

Protesters in Burundi run towards police lines.Protesters run towards police lines in Bujumbura, Burundi, May 4, 2015. Burundi plunged into conflict after President Pierre Nkurunziza announced his decision to run for a third term in April 2015.PHIL MOORE/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

The decision irked Nkurunziza, and the Burundian government has been further infuriated by a U.N. report in September that claimed to have verified 564 executions in Burundi since April 2015, mostly carried out by security forces on people perceived to be opposition supporters. The Burundian government rejected the report and has since banned three U.N. investigators from the country.

But while Burundi may be the first country to leave the ICC, it may not be the last. Other African leaders have also railed against a perceived bias in the court. All four of the suspects convicted for crimes against humanity and/or war crimes by the ICC are African—most recently Ahmad al-Faqi al-Mahdi , a Malian jihadi sentenced to nine years imprisonment in September for destroying historic shrines during the northern Mali uprising in 2012. Another, Congolese politician Jean-Pierre Bemba—sentenced to 18 years in prison in June for war crimes and crimes against humanity in Central African Republic—is appealing his sentence. All three of the court’s ongoing trials involve Africans, and nine of the 10 situations currently being investigated by the court prior to a possible trial involve African states.

So after Burundi, who could be next to abandon the ICC?

Sudan

The highest profile suspect on the ICC’s agenda is Omar al-Bashir, the Sudanese president. The court first issued an arrest warrant against Bashir in March 2009, the first time it had indicted a sitting head of state. Along with several other suspects, the ICC charged Bashir with being indirectly responsible for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide in Darfur. The conflict in Darfur, which began with a rebellion of ethnic Africans against the Arab-led government in 2003, is estimated to have killed hundreds of thousands, with Amnesty International alleging recently that government forces had used chemical weapons against civilians, something the Sudanese mission to the U.N. denied.

Omar al-BashirSudanese President Omar al-Bashir greets supporters upon his return from Ethiopia, Khartoum, July 30. Al-Bashir is wanted by the International Criminal Court for his role in the Darfur conflict.ASHRAF SHAZLY/AFP/GETTY IMAGES

Bashir has dismissed the charges against him and described the ICC as a “politicized tribunal” in April. Other African countries have appeared to disregard the ICC’s arrest warrant and welcome Bashir as a visitor. Most notably, Bashir went to South Africa in June 2015 for an AU conference and was allowed to leave freely, despite a South African court ruling that he should be detained.

Kenya

Besides Bashir, the court’s other high-profile suspects have included the current president and deputy president of Kenya, Uhuru Kenyatta and William Ruto. The court issued summonses for six prominent Kenyans in 2010, including Kenyatta and Ruto—then the deputy prime minister and minister of higher education respectively—on grounds of crimes against humanity allegedly committed during violence that followed Kenya’s elections in December 2007. More than 1,200 Kenyans were killed during two months of inter-ethnic violence following the vote, which was criticized as not free and fair by the international community.

Kenya's Deputy President William Ruto speaks at the Hague.Kenya’s Deputy President William Ruto addresses the media in the Hague, the Netherlands, on October 15, 2013. The ICC threw out the case against Ruto in April.PHIL NIJHUIS/FILES/REUTERS

The ICC prosecutors withdrew the charges against Kenyatta in December 2014, saying that the Kenyan government had refused to hand over vital evidence. The court also threw out the case against Ruto in April, but the decisions have not ended Kenyan animosity to the court. Kenya made a proposal at an AU summit in January for the continental body to “develop a roadmap for the withdrawal of African nations,” which received widespread support among other states party to the Rome Statute.

Uganda

Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, one of the continent’s elder statesman, has been a vocal advocate for abandoning the Netherlands court. Following the withdrawal of the case against Kenyatta, the 72-year-old president—who has held power in Uganda since 1980—said that the ICC was a “tool to target” Africa by Western leaders. Museveni pledged to bring a proposal to leave the institution. “Then they can be left alone with their court,” he said in December 2014. The mass withdrawal of African countries would leave the ICC diminished—34 of the countries party to the Rome Statute are African, the largest continental bloc out of a total of 124 states.

Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni.Uganda’s President Yoweri Museveni is pictured at his inauguration ceremony in Kampala, May 12. Museveni has long been a critic of the ICC.EDWARD ECHWALU/REUTERS

While he has not been successful in his mission so far, Museveni prompted outrage among Western diplomats by branding the court “useless” in May, during his inauguration for a fifth consecutive term as president. The statement prompted officials from the European Union, United States and Canada to walk out of the ceremony.

Why is Ethiopia in a state of emergency?

EPRDF’s list of banned activities for Ethiopians

Image result for amhara protest

(CNN)Ethiopia has imposed severe regulations under a new six-month “state of emergency” as it faces unprecedented levels of unrest across the country, a first in the government’s 25-year rule.

The government says the state of emergency was put in place to prevent further loss of life and property, but many activists worry the new rules serve as a way to limit criticism and allow the government to use a heavy-handed approach to opposition.
The measures, announced October 16, cut across rights of communication and assembly, and have been criticized by human rights activists. Amnesty International said they “are so broad they threaten basic human rights that must not be curtailed.”
In the last month, 1,000 people have been arrested, said a mayor of a town close to Addis Ababa, according to state-affiliated media outlet FBC.
 Image result for oromo protest
Unrest began in Ethiopia as two of the country’s largest ethnic groups, the Oromo and Amhara, demonstrated against sustained marginalization.
The tension hit a peak earlier this month, when at least 52 people were killed in a stampede at a religious festival in the Oromo-dominated area of Bishoftu. The government disputed opposition reports that police fired live rounds into the crowd, saying all deaths stemmed from a stampede caused by “troublemakers.”
These are some things that are now illegal in Ethiopia:

Posting on social media

The new rules ban the use of social media, mobile devices or any means of communication to send messages the government deems will “create chaos, suspicion or discord among people.”
While the Internet and social media have often been blocked across the country throughout the unrest, people within Oromia have used social media during the protests to share videos and coordinate activities, and discuss new information.

Crossing wrists above one’s head

In what has become a symbol of solidarity with the Oromo people, crossing wrists above one’s head as if in handcuffs is now banned in the country.
The symbol became internationally recognizable after Olympic silver medalist Feyisa Lilesa made the gesture while crossing the finish line at the Rio Olympics.

Diplomatic travel

Diplomats are prohibited from traveling more than 40 kilometers outside the capital Addis Ababa without authorization.
Addis Ababa is home to many international organizations, including the African Union, United Nations offices and embassies.

Curfew

After a series of attacks on foreign-owned firms, including a textile firm and a cement factory, the government has enforced a 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. curfew around “economic pillars, infrastructural projects and investments.”
Ethiopia has touted itself as a site of foreign investment and boasted of double-digit economic growth, growth that advocates say has not spread equally across the population.

Watching ‘terrorist media’

Foreign-based television stations, Ethiopia Satellite Television and Oromia Media Network, were forbidden after being defined by the government as “terrorist organizations.”
Ethiopia ranks low on the World Press Freedom Index (at 142 out of 180 nations) for “using terrorism charges to silence the media.”
“Government continually uses the ‘terrorism’ narrative to stifle independent voices, as many of the dozens of journalists, opposition politicians, and activists convicted under the anti-terrorism law can attest to,” said Felix Horne Ethiopia, senior researcher at Human Rights Watch. “Too often those that are associated with the ‘opposition’ are labeled as ‘terrorists.'”