|
A Week in the Horn 04/04/2008 |
The Ministerial meeting (held 31st March to 2nd April) was opened by Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. The Prime Minister said the challenges identified under the conference theme were not new: “…none of these are really new [challenges]; what is new in my view, is the internal and external circumstances that have been fundamentally transformed.’ The Prime Minister emphasized the extraordinary development achieved in China and India, and said the present rising commodity prices, should be considered as both a challenge and an opportunity. He noted that their development had been a mixed blessing. It had boosted Africa’s development climate significantly, but it had also contributed to the steep rise in prices and associated risks for the continent. He said there had been a significant change of attitude by Africa’s development partners since last year’s Lisbon Summit of EU and African Heads of States with a greater willingness to tolerate alternative paths of development. The Prime Minister invited participants of the Conference to come-up with imaginative solutions and to avoid the well-beaten path of the past; and he saluted the ECA for its 50 years anniversary. The Executive Secretary of ECA, UN Under-Secretary-General, Abdoulie Janneh said that the current conference marked the first time a joint meeting had been organized between the African Union and ECA. Welcoming his organization’s Golden Jubilee, Mr. Janneh said that the ECA, since its inception in 1958, had lived up to its mandate to promote the economic and social development of Africa. It had generated numerous lasting ideas to underpin African development through its research, advocacy, technical cooperation and consensus building activities. Mr. Janneh recalled key messages that had emanated from the ECA, including the need for regional unity in tackling common challenges, the imperative of economic diversification, the case for African ownership of Africa’s development agenda and the importance of striking the right balance between development policy and strategy. Mr. Janneh said Africa’s development must be underpinned by growth with equity and social justice, by reduction in poverty, greater opportunities for women, and a brighter future for children. Africa, he said, must build capable states with their priorities driven by ownership and popular participation, and able to mobilize societal resources behind common goals and aspirations. In a video message to the conference, UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon underlined the ECA’s unique place in Africa as the first intergovernmental Pan-African agency. He said the ECA had generated ideas, helped to establish other development institutions and addressed challenges ranging from the MDGs to climate change, from the empowerment of women to job creation and from governance to HIV/AIDS. He called on both the AU and the ECA to continue working together to make the 21st century the century of Africa. Among the Conference speakers were: Mr. Benjamin Mkapa, Former President of the United Republic of Tanzania on Empowering the Poor; Professor Adebayo Adedeji on Growth, Employment and Poverty; Nobel Peace Laureate and Director-General of the Energy and Resources Institute of India, Dr. Rajendra K Pachauri introduced the debate on Climate Change; Dr. Peter Piot, Executive Director of the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS made a presentation on HIVAIDS; and Mrs. Josette Sheeran Executive Director of WFP introduced the debate on the impact of recent rise in oil and food prices on Africa’s economies. The Conference was chaired by Ato Sufian Ahmed, Minister for Finance and Economic Development of Ethiopia. During the Ministerial meeting, the Economic Report on Africa 2008, the annual flagship publication of the ECA and the AU was also launched. The report titled “Africa and the Monterrey Consensus: Tracking Performance and Progress” notes that African economies overall have continued to sustain the growth momentum of previous years, recording an overall growth rate of 5.8 percent. It said African growth performance in 2007 had been driven mainly by robust global demand and high commodity prices. Other factors which contributed to growth in Africa include continued consolidation of macroeconomic stability and improving macroeconomic management, rising oil production in a number of countries, increased private capital flows, debt relief and increasing non-fuel exports. The report identified Ethiopia as one of the top ten performers in Africa and noted that six top performers had oil or mineral rich economies while the remaining top-performing economies (Ethiopia, Liberia and Malawi) were heavily dominated by agriculture and Gambia by the service sector. The ministerial meeting concluded by adopting a statement and resolutions covering financing for development, climate change, research and development and endorsing an ECA initiative to establish the African Center for Climate Change Policy Studies in Addis Ababa. The ECA signed a Memorandum of Understanding with The Energy and Resource Institute of India (TERI) on Wednesday. Dr. Pachauri, Director of TERI, met with Prime Minister Meles during his visit and discussed world climate change and its consequences. Dr. Pachauri said the Prime Minister reaffirmed Ethiopia’s readiness to help prevent the effects of climate change and had outlined the measures Ethiopia was taking, emphasizing it would intensify its efforts to use alternative energy sources, including the development of Jatropha, a plant to replace fuel.
The Prime Minister said the impact of global changes was manifesting itself differently in different places. In the developing world the effects are most visible in the life of farmers. While those who are only subsistence farmers face real challenges, surplus-producing farmers benefit from the situation. The losers in Ethiopia, the Prime Minister said, were the urban poor and the pastoralists in the periphery. Even among pastoralists, however, some could still benefit from their cattle, but even then as the cost of cereals continues to rise, they are bound to feel the adverse effects of the change. As the challenge becomes more and more acute, he said, those who produce surpluses must be encouraged to produce even more to satisfy the growing demands for food and fuel. They must square the circle. Ms Sheeran shared the concerns of the Ethiopian Government over the occurrence of drought and the ensuing risk of food shortages in some areas, particularly parts of the Somali Region and Borena. She reassured the Premier of WFPs readiness to cooperate with the Government in tackling these challenges. The Prime Minister thanked Ms. Sheeran for the offer of support and assistance to mitigate the effects of the current drought. He said the regular short rains were late in coming this year in the affected areas, including some parts of the Somali Region which were naturally vulnerable. He stressed the need to act as fast as possible and underlined the firm commitment of the Government in this regard. It was agreed that the Ethiopian Government and WFP should discuss details to chart out a joint course of action and combine their efforts.
During its stay in the Sudan, the committee visited Khartoum and Juba. In Khartoum, it was briefed on the implementation of the CPA Protocol agreements, on the achievements to date, and on the hurdles remaining, and on the proposed ways forward. They were also briefed on the levels of international assistance and the problems encountered, by the representatives of the National Unity Government in Khartoum, by the World Bank, and by the Assessment and Evaluation Commission of the CPA. The committee was also briefed by the Government of Southern Sudan (GOSS) and representatives of the U.N. on the reconstruction efforts in Southern Sudan. The Committee made it clear it appreciated the achievements recorded so far, but it expressed its belief that there is a need to do more, particularly because of the current tensions in Abyei, the subject of a specific protocol of the CPA. South African Foreign Minister Dlamini Zuma urged both the Government of National Unity and the Government of South Sudan “to really attend to the matter of Abyei”. The committee also called for African countries and for the International Community to increase support for capacity building for the GOSS to enable it to make a real difference to the lives of the people and allow them to see the value of their stake in sustainable peace. The finding of the committee will be reported back to the forthcoming African Union Summit.
In the light of all these apparent successes, it is extremely disappointing that this latest Refugees International Bulletin on Somalia does itself need to be treated with extreme caution. Much of its information is quite simply inaccurate and seriously misleading. No one can dispute there are humanitarian problems in Somalia (though there is equally no doubt that some of the figures quoted by NGOs and UN organizations have been seriously exaggerated). Equally, however, there is little possibility of effective assistance unless the parameters of the Problems are accurately defined, the facts correctly reported and the major participants identified. This is the first time that Refugees International appears to have taken any interest in Somalia (despite the long genesis of the crisis – the Somali state after all collapsed in the late 1980s), and it shows. Its only previous interest in eastern Africa was in September 2003 when it visited Kenya and Uganda. Refugees International’s report manages to ignore almost all the most important and significant political developments and events of the last two years. Most obviously, it never even mentions the word ‘clan’ once, even though clans are absolutely central to all political activity in Somalia, and indeed to almost all other activity as well. It also fails to notice any of the developments that have been going on since the arrival of the TFG in Mogadishu in January 2007 and the fall of the Islamic Courts Union. Incidentally, to talk of the Ethiopian Defense Forces as “occupying” parts of central Somalia is nonsense, and makes quite clear from which sources Refugees International obtained its information. Support for the TFG is far more diverse than the report suggests – the authors admit to only being in and around Mogadishu, and it has far more legitimacy that they suggest. It has faced significant opposition among some sections of society but it has the support of most southern Somali clans. It controls, if loosely, almost all of the regions of Somalia, including the semi-autonomous region of Puntland, with the exception of parts of Benadir (which includes Mogadishu), Lower Shebelle and Lower Juba. It is simply not true that “Somalis view the TFG as an externally imposed and illegitimate body”. All this is ignored by Refugees International, which also, and equally damagingly, barely fails to mention al-Shabaab despite the fact that this is a terrorist organization which has been responsible for significant numbers of anti-government attacks and numerous assassinations of moderate Hawiye politicians (at least 200-300 since 2005) and multiple and indiscriminate mortaring of civilian houses and properties in Mogadishu over the last two years. This is all well-known, and indeed none of it is in dispute even if Refugees International seems unaware of it. Refugees International’s only reference to al-Shabaab is to suggest that its recent designation by the United States as a terrorist organization merely fuels anti-American sentiment. In fact, it is easy to find hundreds of people, indeed the majority of Mogadishu inhabitants, and of those who have been displaced from Mogadishu, who are terrified of al-Shabaab and regard it as largely responsible for their flight from the city. It is commonsense to talk to more than one side in any attempt to analyze a situation as complicated as Somalia, and investigate the views of all parties. It is a glaring weakness of Refugees International, as of Human Right Watch, that it has failed to make any attempt to do so, being content merely to talk to those opposed to the TFG, and accept everything told them without checking the source or the reliability of the information provided. Human Rights Watch (HRW) has only recently managed to realize that human rights violations may be committed by what it calls “insurgent forces” or even “the extremist al-Shabaab militia”. In its latest presentation, to the UN meeting on Somalia in Kenya last month, HRW noted: “Insurgent forces have repeatedly and indiscriminately attacked civilians with mortars, small arms and remote explosive devices; killed and mutilated captured combatants on several occasions; killed TFG officials and threatened civilians, including journalists and aid workers; and jeopardized civilians through their deployment in densely populated areas.” Despite this, HRW continues to accept without qualification or any attempt to investigate, all claims of abuse by Ethiopian troops ignoring any possibility that such claims might be made for political purposes, and the fact that Ethiopian troops have consistently demonstrated their discipline. It continues to use loaded terminology: Ethiopian troops carry out “summary executions” of individuals in their custody; the “insurgent forces” merely “kill” their prisoners. HRW admits that “currently, there is little regular, accurate, and credible human rights reporting that reaches the public or key policymakers, including at the highest UN levels.” It is a pity that it doesn’t take its own words to heart. No one would disagree with the value of having an expanded human rights presence in Somalia. It could provide accurate information on the activities of all parties and, indeed, provide much-needed technical expertise for the TFG and assist in capacity building. As HRW says it could build up the judicial process, train security forces and support all aspects of human rights. Given its very obvious bias, however, the TFG is unlikely to believe that HRW is likely to be helpful. Nor is HRW’s suggestion of an independent international commission of enquiry plausible, unless it is able to demonstrate the genuinely impartial approach that has been so lacking in all recent HRW reports. HRW, like Refugees International, has almost exclusively concentrated its allegations against the TFG or Ethiopian forces, without bothering to investigate the thousands of abuses committed by “insurgent forces”. It is this failure to even attempt to offer any balance which renders the reports of HRW, and now of Refugees International, difficult to accept or use. The obvious failure to understand Somali politics or to demonstrate any knowledge of Somali realities over the last two years, or longer, renders much of what they say irrelevant and useless. Refugees International in its policy recommendations manages to totally ignore the presence, efforts and achievements of AMISOM as well as the activities of al-Shabaab. It underlines its own agenda by calling for a US Congressional investigation into the US “military support” provided to Ethiopia, despite the total lack of evidence of any such support except in the minds of one or two anti-Ethiopian congressmen and their allies in the Ethiopian Diaspora. There has been none. Refugees International grossly over-estimates the problems of Mogadishu (very different from the rest of Somalia as even the briefest visit should have been able to demonstrate) and as largely underestimates the progress made towards national reconciliation through the successful National Reconciliation Congress in August last year. Indeed, Refugees International ignores the Congress completely. Refugees International keeps talking about the realities on the ground without the least understanding of Somalia’s political problems or of the progress made in discussions between the TFG and clan elders in Mogadishu. Referring to talks with the Asmara opposition, it suggests bold new measures to break the political deadlock, without appearing to realize that talks with elements of the Eritrean-based Alliance have actually been going on for months. At a time when there is general agreement that a real window of opportunity for Somalia has been opened and when there are indications of significant progress in reconciliation and in security, many of Refugees International’s comments appear gratuitously inapposite. They are indeed so inaccurate as to be described as actively dangerous. It can only be hoped that Refugees International’s claims of influence are seriously exaggerated. This report in its present form will do significantly more harm than good, to Somalis, to NGOs and to all other parties it is attempting to influence. In fact, the errors and lacunae of this report are such that it can only be a serious impediment to providing the necessary information to help produce any solutions to the crisis of Somalia. It is so flawed that it should be scrapped immediately. |
|
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Foreign Affairs
|
|
|