logo
‘Many Rastas were chased away, but we're determined to remain': Ethiopia's religious community under threat

‘Many Rastas were chased away, but we're determined to remain': Ethiopia's religious community under threat

The Guardian23-03-2025

In 1999, Ras Paul, a west London DJ born to Jamaican parents, sold part of his voluminous vinyl collection to buy a plot of land and build a house in Shashamene, 125 miles south of Ethiopia's capital, Addis Ababa.
Seven years earlier, he had become a Rastafarian, around the time of the 100th anniversary of the birth of Ethiopian emperor Haile Selassie, whom the religion reveres as the Messiah. 'As an Ethiopian descendent, I wanted to come home,' he says. 'It's the place I felt I belong.'
Paul was not alone. At its peak, more than 2,500 Rastafarians from around the world moved to Shashamene. Recently, though, the Rastafarian community's relations with the locals have come under strain.
Shashamene is in Oromia, Ethiopia's biggest and most populous region. Since 2018, Oromia has been gripped by an ethnic insurgency that claims the Oromo people are marginalised in Ethiopia's federation. It has also seen protests over political representation and land, including a particularly violent outbreak in 2020.
Newly established Protestant churches have also taken aim at the beliefs of Rastafarians and their use of cannabis. Newcomers have struggled to secure the right to stay in Ethiopia. Others who have been here for decades are forced to live illegally because the immigration authorities will not renew their documents.
Several Rastafarians are fighting legal battles with locals who are trying to evict them from their land. Faced with these hurdles, the Rastafarian community is preparing to submit a petition to the government, claiming their rights are not recognised.
For many people here, the image of Haile Selassie and even Ethiopia's national colours of red, green and yellow – both ubiquitous in Rastafarian culture – are not symbols of anti-colonial black liberation but of imperial oppression. Local people risk arrest for displaying the old flag of Haile Selassie's empire.
'Before, I was proud to go out wearing red, gold and green,' says Paul. 'Now I hesitate to wear it, big time. Even the church can't fly it in Oromia.'
The presence of Rastafarians in Shashamene stretches back to fascist Italy's occupation of Ethiopia in 1935-1941. Haile Selassie, a devout Orthodox Christian, did not believe himself divine and tried to disabuse his worshippers of the idea.
But after he regained his throne, the emperor granted 500 acres of crown land in Shashamene to 'black people of the world' who had campaigned in support of Ethiopia. Pan-Africanists from the Caribbean and the US, including black Jews and Muslims, settled there in 1955 as part of the Ethiopian World Federation (EWF), a body established in New York to lobby for Haile Selassie.
The first Rastafarians did not arrive until the following decade, galvanised by the Ethiopian emperor's historic state visit to Jamaica in 1966. At the time, the Caribbean island was suffering from drought; when the Ethiopian emperor arrived, it finally started to rain. For many, this confirmed his divinity.
Haile Selassie was deposed by a Marxist-Leninist military junta in 1974 and murdered a year later. Symbols associated with the emperor were suppressed. The land granted to the EWF was confiscated, but Rastafarians were still allowed to settle in Shashamene as part of a sweeping collectivisation drive that gave land from the aristocracy to the peasantry.
'My parents came here at that time as farmers and land was given to them,' says Maurice Lee, 46, who was born in Shashamene. He switches effortlessly between Jamaican-accented English and Amharic, Ethiopia's main language. Today his family run a Caribbean restaurant on the plot.
Restrictions eased when communism ended in 1991. A year later, the centenary of Haile Selassie's birth saw a huge wave of 'repatriations' to Shashamene. However, with the land grant gone, new arrivals had to buy land as investors or rent properties. Many found it difficult to secure residence permits and drifted away.
Today, the community is fighting to reclaim the land granted by Haile Selassie. They face an uphill battle. When the emperor gifted the land, Shashamene was a roadside settlement of a few thousand people. Now it is a sprawling boom town of about 210,000, full of hastily built houses and half-finished roads. The original 500 acres are no longer vacant fields but are populated by shops, homes and government offices.
'We are not living here as we are supposed to be living,' says George Isles at the EWF headquarters in Shashamene, a building bedecked with red, green and yellow and located behind a petrol station on a busy road, where heavy-goods vehicles trundle amid swarms of tuk-tuks.
Isles, a carpenter, was born in Hammersmith and grew up in Montserrat. He arrived in 1992 to help build the EWF's office and never left. The teachings of Marcus Garvey, the spiritual lodestar of Rastafarianism, who founded the Back to Africa movement, informed his decision to stay.
'Africa is where we originate as black men,' says Isles. 'We came to the western world as slaves. So to get to know ourselves, we have to go home – and home is Africa.'
Alex Reina, a French Rastafarian who came to Shashamene in 2004, agrees: 'Ethiopia was the only black country to resist colonialisation,' he says. 'It makes sense for us, the descendants of black slaves, to attach ourselves to Ethiopia.'
Reina runs the Zion Train Lodge in Shashamene with his wife, Sandrine. He says it 'was very scary to be a Rasta man and wear red, green and gold' during the protests of 2020, but tensions have eased. That year, they had to go to court to gain recognition that they owned their land, which the previous tenant tried to reclaim.
'The land gifted by His Majesty is occupied by local people these days,' says Reina. 'Many Rastas were chased away. But we are determined to remain. It's impossible for a black man to really emancipate if he stays in Babylon.'

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

'Incredibly petty': Sen. Rand Paul says he was 'uninvited' to White House picnic over breaks with Trump
'Incredibly petty': Sen. Rand Paul says he was 'uninvited' to White House picnic over breaks with Trump

NBC News

time11 hours ago

  • NBC News

'Incredibly petty': Sen. Rand Paul says he was 'uninvited' to White House picnic over breaks with Trump

Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., said he was "uninvited" to an annual White House picnic typically attended by members of Congress and their families, framing the move to reporters on Wednesday as retribution for his opposition to key components of President Donald Trump's agenda. 'They're afraid of what I'm saying, so they think they're going to punish me, I can't go to the picnic, as if somehow that's going to make me more conciliatory,' Paul said. 'So it's silly, in a way, but it's also just really sad that this is what it's come to. But petty vindictiveness like this, it makes you — it makes you wonder about the quality of people you're dealing with.' Paul, who said he attended picnics hosted by Presidents Biden and Obama, told reporters he called the White House earlier today to secure tickets to the annual picnic but was told he was not invited to the event. He said he had family members flying to Washington D.C. to attend the event, including son, daughter-in-law and six-month old grandson, whom he noted owns a "Make America Great Again" hat. 'I just find this incredibly petty,' Paul told reporters."I have been, I think, nothing but polite to the President. I have been an intellectual opponent, a public policy opponent, and he's chosen now to uninvite me from the picnic and to say my grandson can't come to the picnic." The White House did not immediately respond to a series of questions, including whether Paul was ever invited to the event and if Trump was directly involved in the decision to "uninvite" him. As Trump pushes Republicans to pass a package of measures to fund much of his domestic agenda by Independence Day, Paul is among the Senate Republicans poised to make that milestone unreachable, joining fiscal hawks in the party to balk at legislation the Congressional Budget Office estimates said would add $2.4 trillion to the national deficit. In addition to his belief that the funding package would "explode the debt," the three-term senator has criticized spending cuts in the bill as "wimpy and anemic," called planned Medicaid changes in the legislation "bad strategy" and proposed cutting billions in funding from the bill for Trump's border wall. 'In private, there's quite a few people in there who actually do think we could save some money and are open minded to it, and believe the administration should justify the numbers,' Paul told reporters after a two-hour meeting on the bill Wednesday. 'Even if you're supportive, and I am supportive of border security, but I'm just not supportive of a blank check.' Paul said this week he plans to vote "No" on the legislation and speculated today it may be among the reasons for the rescinded invitation. 'I'm arguing from a true belief and worry that our country is mired in debt and getting worse, and they choose to react by uninviting my grandson to the picnic,' Paul said. 'I don't know, I just think it really makes me lose a lot of respect I once had for Donald Trump.' Trump has frequently lashed out at Paul in response to the sustained opposition, deriding the senator on Truth Social for his criticisms. "Rand Paul has very little understanding of the BBB, especially the tremendous GROWTH that is coming. He loves voting 'NO' on everything, he thinks it's good politics, but it's not," Trump wrote last week. Paul has emerged as a chief critic to Trump's fiscal policy, and has intensely criticized his decision to place tariffs on major U.S. trading partners, arguing they will push the country into a recession. The libertarian conservative was one of four Republican senators to back a Democratic resolution to block the implementation of Trump's Canadian tariffs, predicting at the time that the import penalties would "threaten us with a recession" and calling Trump's decision to place tariffs on major U.S. trading partners "a terrible, terrible idea." The effort has so far stalled in the House. Paul also joined Democrats in introducing a bipartisan resolution to undo the reciprocal tariffs Trump placed on dozens of countries, this time by terminating the national emergency he declared to implement the global penalties, arguing that Trump had exceeded his presidential authority. 'Tariffs are taxes, and the power to tax belongs to Congress—not the president. Our Founders were clear: tax policy should never rest in the hands of one person,' Paul said in a statement on the bipartisan effort. 'Abusing emergency powers to impose blanket tariffs not only drives up costs for American families but also tramples on the Constitution. It's time Congress reasserts its authority and restores the balance of power.' That effort failed to pass the Senate. Paul's differences with Trump even extend to the military parade taking place on Saturday, which the lawmaker likened to parades in countries led by dictators. "I wouldn't have done it," Paul said on Tuesday. "The images you saw in the Soviet Union and North Korea. We were proud not to be that." But still, in the face of his criticisms of Trump, Paul appeared to view the rescinded invitation as a shock, noting that even Democratic lawmakers remain invited to the White House picnic. "I think I'm the first senator in the history of United States to be uninvited to the White House picnic,' Rand told reporters. "Literally, every Democrat is invited, every Republican is invited, and to say that my family is no longer welcome, kind of sad actually.'

Tariffs on the table: how trade wars threaten the resilience of global food systems
Tariffs on the table: how trade wars threaten the resilience of global food systems

Economist

timea day ago

  • Economist

Tariffs on the table: how trade wars threaten the resilience of global food systems

People sometimes assume their breakfast is locally sourced. The eggs may come from a nearby farm, but the animal feed was probably imported. The fruit might be Chilean, the coffee Ethiopian and the wheat in the toast from Kansas or Ukraine. Like smartphones, the food we eat is a global product. Agriculture accounted for 8% of global merchandise trade in 2023, and it continues to play a central role in food access, affordability and stability. With trade wars and protectionist policies on the rise, the delicate balance of global food systems is increasingly at risk. Global trade is a key driver of a secure food system Global trade is fundamental to ensuring food reaches those who need it most. About 80% of the world's population live in countries that import more food than they export, relying on trade to supply basic staples, stabilise prices and provide year-round access. In times of crisis—whether due to conflict, climate events or economic shocks—this interconnected system plays a vital role in preventing shortages and curbing price spikes. For food-importing countries, the volatility of trade flows can mean the difference between stable prices and empty shelves. Global trade doesn't just move goods; it builds resilience, acts as a buffer against droughts and fills in seasonal gaps. When a bad harvest hits one part of the world, another can often pick up the slack—if the system is working. Consider the example of Ukraine. Before Russia's invasion in March 2022, Ukraine and Russia were together responsible for nearly 30% of global wheat and barley exports. The war halted shipments overnight, creating ripple effects in import-reliant countries like Egypt, Indonesia, Bangladesh, Pakistan and Lebanon. These countries, which are heavily dependent on wheat imports due to limited domestic supply, saw bread prices soar and protests follow. But a total food crisis was averted, because alternative suppliers such as Australia, Brazil, the EU, India and the United States were able to step in and fill the gap. That's what makes trade such a powerful stabiliser. It's not just about efficiency—it's about accessibility and resilience. Trade helps countries absorb shocks and maintain food supply when crises hit. Trade wars can create ripples far beyond their borders The United States is the world's largest agricultural exporter. In 2023, its agricultural exports accounted for nearly 7% of its total exports. It shipped $27bn-worth of soyabeans, $13bn of corn and $7bn of wheat around the world. China buys US soya to feed livestock, Mexico depends on US corn for tortillas and animal feed, and the EU and Japan rely on American grains for staples. However, export strength does not guarantee stability. During the 2018-20 US-China trade war, retaliatory tariffs on American soyabeans led to a sharp drop in exports. The resulting losses for the agriculture sector were estimated at $27bn and many farmers faced severe financial strain. Critically, the impact of trade disruptions between the United States and China didn't remain confined to these two markets. They rippled outward, impacting countries that are large exporters and those that rely on consistent imports. Many countries in Africa and Asia, such as South Africa and the Philippines, struggled to adapt due to limited diversification and weaker global integration, with their exports to both the United States and the rest of the world declining following the tariff increases. In Rwanda, soyabean prices rose by 25%—from $520 to $650 per tonne—after China imposed retaliatory tariffs on US soyabeans and turned to African suppliers, creating regional shortages. In 2025, similar patterns are emerging elsewhere: shrimp farmers in Mexico are facing rising feed costs, driven in part by the new US tariffs, forcing producers to seek alternatives as they grapple with falling shrimp prices and tight profit margins. Given the importance of US-China trade to global food systems, a good number of farm goods are likely to be affected. The most significant are shown in Table 1 below. Rethinking trade to strengthen food systems Whether it is geopolitical tensions or climate challenges, the risks facing our food system are only increasing. We need to make our food systems more resilient so they can adapt to external shocks without breaking. A good place to start is trade. Rethinking trade rules to safeguard food flows would help. Exempting critical farm goods from tariffs and export bans could steady supplies when tensions rise. Multilateral bodies such as the World Trade Organisation and the World Food Programme should defend these exemptions and mediate disputes, to stop food becoming collateral damage in trade wars. But shielding trade is not enough. Many countries—especially in the developing world—need to diversify their suppliers. Doing so would reduce their exposure to disruption and improve their bargaining position. Regional trade blocs can help. The EU, for instance, has shown that shorter supply chains and cross-border co-operation can support food security when global markets stumble. However, trade comes with costs. Shipping food across the world adds to greenhouse-gas emissions. Perishables require cold chains that consume energy. Transport accounts for almost a fifth of emissions from food systems. But that does not mean shutting borders. Smarter trade is the answer: shorten supply routes where possible, invest in greener logistics and grow more food closer to where it will be eaten, while keeping trade open where it matters most. Such changes depend on better infrastructure. Modern cold chains are essential to preserve food quality during delays or detours. Countries should invest in decentralised storage, efficient refrigeration and digital monitoring to keep food moving, fresh and safe, even when global trade falters. This isn't just about economics: it's about resilience History demonstrates that food insecurity breeds unrest. The 2007-08 global food-price crisis led to protests in many countries, while rising food costs fuelled protests during the Arab spring. As climate change, conflict and economic shocks increase, we are likely to see more of the same, unless we act now. Fundamentally, the world cannot afford to allow food to become collateral damage in trade wars. We need a food system that is resilient, inclusive and built to withstand 21st-century shocks. That means keeping trade going, but making it smarter, greener and fairer.

7 senators to watch as Republicans make changes to Trump's big bill
7 senators to watch as Republicans make changes to Trump's big bill

NBC News

time6 days ago

  • NBC News

7 senators to watch as Republicans make changes to Trump's big bill

WASHINGTON — As Senate Republican leaders push to a massive bill for President Donald Trump's agenda by July 4, they are juggling a host of competing demands. Some senators are genuine threats to vote against the legislation, while others are expected to support it in the end after using their demands to shape it. Several of them have complicated political considerations. The Republicans who are speaking out most loudly point to a variety of ways the House-passed bill may change in the Senate, as party leaders seek to ease enough of their concerns. With all Democrats expected to vote against the package, Republicans will need at least 50 votes to pass it, as Vice President JD Vance could break a tie. Here are seven key senators to watch. Rand Paul Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., is the only Republican senator who has voted against this legislation every step of the way. He has blasted the spike in military spending, the huge increase in deficits and, in particular, the $5 trillion debt limit hike. Paul does support a key part of the package — an extension of the Trump's 2017 tax cuts — but he wants to offset it with trillions of dollars in additional spending cuts, which the GOP has no hope of finding consensus on. Paul typically doesn't play games with his red lines. Barring an uncharacteristic about face, expect him to vote against the bill. Susan Collins Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, is the sole surviving GOP senator to represent a state that Democrats consistently win at the presidential level. And she faces re-election this year. Her trajectory has been revealing, from supporting the initial budget resolution to voting against the revised version. A key reason for her opposition? Concerns that the Medicaid cuts would harm low-income and elderly constituents. She also expressed reservations about going after waste and fraud in Medicare, as GOP leaders have begun to consider. In addition, Collins and others like Sen. John Curtis, R-Utah, would firmly oppose overruling the parliamentarian, the Senate's in-house referee who settles rule disputes, if she disqualifies some policies. Collins voted for the party's 2017 tax law, but she has been willing to vote against major GOP bills in the past. Party leaders will need to take her demands seriously in order to win her vote. Lisa Murkowski When Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, voted for the budget blueprint in April that kickstarted the process of writing the legislation, she quickly followed it up with a broad set of grievances that will need to be addressed, or she'll be 'unable to support' the final product. Among other things, she took issue with Medicaid cuts and an accounting trick her party is using to obscure the cost of the tax cuts. Two months later, her concerns persist. Asked Thursday by NBC News what she wants to change in the emerging bill, Murkowski replied dryly, 'Oh, I'll give you a list.' Murkowski has criticized the phaseout and repeal of clean energy tax credits that benefit her state, writing a letter in April with three of her colleagues — Sens. Jerry Moran, R-Kansas, Thom Tillis, R-N.C., and Curtis — highlighting the importance of America's energy independence, which they argued could be weakened as a result of this bill. Murkowski has shown an independent streak and a willingness to take political arrows when standing her ground. Mike Crapo Sen. Mike Crapo, R-Idaho, is the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and will help craft some of the biggest and most contentious pieces of the bill — including the tax cuts and Medicaid cuts. Despite his soft-spoken and non-confrontational style, Crapo won't be able to make everybody happy. And any changes he makes in the Senate would have to be palatable to the wafer-thin House Republican majority, which engaged in painstaking negotiations before passing its version of the bill by a one-vote margin. One example of the disconnect is the expanded $40,000 cap on state and local tax deductions, to placate a group of blue-state House Republicans. But there are no GOP senators representing blue states where that is a big issue. Crapo said "there's not a strong mood in the Senate Republican caucus right now" to expand SALT. The bill represents his biggest test since taking the powerful gavel. Thom Tillis Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said he wants to adjust the phaseouts of the clean energy tax credits with a more 'targeted' approach to protect U.S. businesses that are already invested in existing projects. He said there's 'general consensus that the House proposed language will be modified.' Senate Environment and Public Works Chair Shelley Moore Capito, agreed, telling NBC News some phaseouts will likely be pushed back. A member of the Finance Committee, Tillis has sounded generally positive about the direction of the bill, making him a likely 'yes' vote. But he's skeptical that the Senate will meet the Independence Day deadline: 'There's a lot of things that have to go perfectly right to get all that done and be out by July 4.' Tillis faces a tough political balancing act: He's up for re-election next year in a state that Democrats will be targeting; but first he needs to get through a Republican primary, which means staying on Trump's good side. Ron Johnson Sen. Ron Johnson, R-Wis., has railed against the bill and its estimated $2.4 trillion contribution to the deficit, insisting he can't vote for it as written. He has slammed the idea of a mega-bill, calling for breaking it up and limiting the debt ceiling hike. Trump asked him to be 'less negative' during a meeting at the White House on Wednesday, Johnson said. 'I think we had a good, lively discussion between the two of us,' Johnson told NBC News. 'He obviously would like me to be a little less negative, a little more positive, which I'm happy to do.' Johnson said he isn't trying to make Trump and GOP leaders' jobs harder. And the senator zig-zagged his way to 'yes' on the 2017 tax law after initially coming out against it, so party leaders have reason to be optimistic that he won't sink this legislation. Josh Hawley Sen. Josh Hawley, R-Mo., has been the Senate GOP's most vocal opponent of cutting Medicaid "benefits' — and he's been specific about which parts of the House bill he's worried about, citing the Medicaid provider tax and cost-sharing provisions. Notably, Hawley said he's fine with coverage losses resulting from Medicaid work requirements and expanded proof-of-eligibility provisions. Those make up the bulk of the House bill's savings. Hawley has also expressed reservations about including any provisions in the bill related to Medicare, which Republicans recently said they would discuss related to savings connected to so-called 'waste, fraud, and abuse.' Hawley called that 'a terrible idea,' telling reporters Thursday, 'If you don't ever want to win an election again, just go fiddle around with people's Medicare that they've worked hard for, paid into.'

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store