|
|
The
International Contact Group on Somalia meets in Egypt
The
17th meeting of the International Contact Group on Somalia was held on
Wednesday and Thursday this week in Cairo. Chaired by the UN Special
Representative for Somalia, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, the meeting was
addressed by the Secretary-General of the League of Arab States, Amr
Moussa, and Somalia’s Foreign Minister, Ali Ahmed Jama. In a
communiqué issued at the end of the meeting yesterday, the ICG
welcomed the agreement signed in Addis Ababa between the Transitional
Federal Government (TFG) and Ahlu Sunna wal Jama’a on 15 March an
important step, calling for it to be fully implemented as soon as
possible and recognizing it as a possible blue print for cooperation
with other groups in the future. It also welcomed the Memorandum of
Understanding between the TFG and Puntland on addressing piracy signed
on April 12th. The ICG stressed that all Transitional
Federal Institutions (TFIs) should be protected and supported, calling
on all elements to demonstrate their unity and to cooperate. It wanted
the TFG to build on the promising start made with the publication of
its budget to provide a transparent account of finances and improve
donor confidence. The ICG said the TFG should now focus on
transitional tasks, prioritizing the most important to enable the
international community to provide support in key areas. It
particularly emphasized the need to draw up a draft constitution with
a credible process including widespread consultations as soon as
possible, as part of a strategy to move out of the transition phase,
due to end in August next year.
The ICG called for the Joint Security and the High Level Committees to
hold their meetings in Mogadishu. It welcomed the support for police
and security reorganization and training provided by Japan and the
European Union as well as by Uganda and the United States. It
encouraged member states to make sure that all those who have
undergone approved training were properly equipped and received
stipends for an appropriate period of time. The ICG expressed its full
support for AMISOM urging members to provide coordinated support. It
thanked Uganda and Burundi for their continuing contributions and
called on other African Union members to consider contributing troops.
The international community, it said, remained ready to support the
enlargement of the current AMISOM contingent. Although it offered
little in the way of practical help for this, it did agree there
should be a wider process of information sharing and harmonization of
strategies to maximize international support for the TFG. It said
expected the remaining contributions that had been pledged at Brussels
to be disbursed. It fully supported the decision to hold a
Reconstruction and Development conference next month in Istanbul,
identifying it as an important part of international support for the
TFG, welcoming the inclusion of private business and the Diaspora. It
is to be hoped that any support promised at Istanbul will be more
quickly implemented than the promises made at Brussels. The communiqué
underlined the ICG’s belief that reconstruction and development were
crucial for political and security stability in Somalia, and it
commended the Organization of Islamic Conference for opening an office
in Mogadishu.
The ICG strongly condemned the violent actions of extremists, and attacks
on human rights workers, judges, journalists and NGOs. It called for
all parties to respect human rights and the freedom of the press, and
condemned the fact that many Somalis continued to have widespread
impunity from criminal prosecution. It also deplored continuing acts
of piracy, calling for further international cooperation to combat
piracy and welcoming the presence of the international maritime force.
The ICG made it clear it understood the TFG was operating in extremely
difficult circumstances, and that it therefore deserved greater
support and understanding both from the Somali people and from the
international community. It remains to be seen whether this call will
have any greater impact on encouraging support from the international
community than in the past. Somalia’s problems are extensive but not
insurmountable. They urgently need a practical demonstration of real
political will from the international community. The next ICG meeting
will be held in Spain in September.
Meanwhile, this week, Human Rights Watch (HRW) issued an open letter
to the ICG, calling on participants “to begin to fix their broken
policies on Somalia”, suggesting the place to start was setting up an
international commission of inquiry into human rights abuses in
Somalia. HRW also released a report, ‘Harsh War, Harsh Peace: Abuses
by al-Shabaab, the Transitional Federal Government, and AMISOM in
Somalia,’ in which it claims to detail widespread abuse and human
rights violations by all parties to the conflict. Indeed, for the
first time, HRW did comment seriously on what it called the “killings,
cruel punishments, the repression and the repressive social control”
exercised by al-Shabaab. Despite this categorization, however, HRW
also managed to suggest that al-Shabaab “brought greater stability to
parts of Somalia”, though the main author of the report qualified this
in an interview for the BBC by saying that “the price that people had
to pay for that relative degree of stability was really quite
incredible.” Indeed, so high has that price been that very, very few,
in or out of Somalia, would possibly describe al-Shabaab’s area of
control in this way. By any normal standards, it is utterly bizarre to
describe the extremes of abuse routinely committed by al-Shabaab
against the civilian populations of the areas they control, with women
as particular sufferers, as provision of stability. In fact, to say as
Georgette Gagnon, HRW’s Africa Director did, that al-Shabaab’s
“unrelenting repression and brutality” has bought “stability to some
areas long plagued by violence” (even if at a high price) suggests HRW
needs to urgently reconsider its attitudes towards violence, stability
and abuse in Somalia and indeed more generally. It is impossible to
see how “indiscriminate warfare, terrifying patterns of repression and
brutal acts of targeted violence on a daily basis” can translate to
any form of stability.
As
on other occasions, HRW appears blinkered by the methodological
problems arising from its continuing failure to look at actuality on
the ground. It still appears unable to comprehend the realities of
conflict in Mogadishu. It has now begun to criticize “opposition
forces” (by which it means al-Shabaab and Hizbul Islam, categorized by
most observers as extremist) for regularly firing mortar rounds
indiscriminately into populated areas from residential areas in the
hope of attracting retaliatory fire. This was something HRW always
used to downplay to the point of denial when accusing Ethiopian forces
of violations in Mogadishu. Now, it does appear to accept that Al-Shabaab
does this regularly, but it still manages to spend much of its time
complaining that AMISOM fails to take “precautions to discriminate
between civilians and military targets.”
HRW
apparently believes the international community’s view of the TFG
amounts to what it calls a policy of uncritical support. Similarly, it
displays no understanding of Ethiopia’s political or security
interests in Somalia, nor of the policies of Eritrea and its
involvement in Somalia. Still continuing to carry out many, indeed
most, interviews in Nairobi or even further away from Somalia, it
didn’t bother to ask Ethiopian officials about Ethiopia’s aims or
intentions, preferring the easier option of quoting unnamed diplomats
in Nairobi. The failure to understand political practicalities inside
Somalia relate directly to the failure to investigate on the ground.
This underlies its temerity in making political suggestions of
terrifying naivety. It even goes so far as to start its report with a
series of “recommendations” though these ignore the political
realities of Somalia today, dismissed in a patronizing phrase: “there
is no easy solution to the complex and deeply entrenched crisis that
is tearing Somalia apart”. It has to be said that HRW would benefit
from a close perusal of the latest report of the UN’s independent
expert on human rights in Somalia (“Technical Assistance and Capacity
Building”).
*****************
top
|
|
The
Nile Council of Ministers agrees to meet in Uganda next month
The Nile Council of
Ministers (NileCom) held an Extraordinary Meeting in Sharm El Sheik in
Egypt on Tuesday last week to discuss final details of the Nile
Cooperation Framework Agreement (CFA). The meeting was held on the
basis of the decisions taken at the 17th NileCom meeting last July, in
Alexandria. It was preceded by the 3rd Joint Meeting of the Nile
Technical Advisory Committee (NileTAC) and the Negotiation Committee.
Last week’s meeting was focused on finalizing the procedures for the
signing of the CFA and the mechanisms for the transitional
arrangements dealing with the replacing of the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI)
by the Nile Basin Commission. The Cooperation Framework Agreement
seeks to develop the Nile in a cooperative manner and share the
resources of the river equally and fairly without causing any harm to
other riparian states. The meeting deliberated at length on ways and
means to move forward in an inclusive manner. The seven upper riparian
countries, Burundi, DR Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and
Uganda, emphasized that negotiations over the Cooperation Framework
Agreement had continued for ten years in order to ensure any
difficulties could be handled carefully and responsibly. This indeed
was why the Extraordinary Meeting of NileCom in Kinshasa agreed to
sign the CFA, while leaving the disputed Article 14(b) to be resolved
by the Nile Basin Commission within six months of its establishment.
Egypt and the Sudan expressed the view that signing the CFA, while
leaving the unresolved article annexed, was not the right basis for
moving forward in an inclusive manner. As an alternative, they
proposed the establishment of the Nile Basin Commission by
presidential declaration to be followed by further negotiations on the
CFA. This proposal was communicated at the highest level to the
leaders of the other seven states. Egypt and Sudan expressed their
conviction that this would continue to carry forward the achievement
of the NBI in an inclusive manner.
The seven upper riparian countries,
expressing their appreciation of Egypt and Sudan’s proposal as an
interim measure, then suggested the Nile Basin Commission might be
established provisionally on the basis of the CFA. Egypt and the
Sudan, however, felt the Nile Basin Commission should be established
by a separate instrument, negotiated by all the riparian states, not
on the basis of the CFA. Suggestions by Sudan, aimed at finding a
common position, were unable to resolve these differences. Despite
this, the meeting discussed the draft report prepared by the BRL
Consultant on the transitional arrangements for moving from the NBI to
the Nile Basin Commission. It was agreed that the Consultant would
finalize his draft report on the basis of comments made during the
discussions and from written comments to be submitted later by the
various countries. The
seven upper riparian countries agreed to proceed on the basis of the
Kinshasa understanding and fixed the date for concluding the remaining
matters in respect of the CFA, May 14th at Entebbe, Uganda.
It is hoped that all NileCom members will continue to move together
towards achieving their common objectives. There was general agreement
among NileCom ministers that it was important to continue to handle
the dispute in a responsible and mature way, and to pursue the
possibility of a win-win solution, on the basis of the principles of
fairness and of equity of usage of the waters of the Nile River, which
link the community of the Nile Basin so closely. The issue of
signatures will not by itself affect the activities still being
undertaken by the NBI. It can be expected that all the riparian
countries will continue to act collectively to protect and enhance the
gains made under the NBI.
*****************
top
|
|
Minister Seyoum at National Earth Day celebrations
National Earth Day was celebrated in Addis Ababa yesterday with a
number of events intended to raise public awareness on climate change.
A number of film festivals are taking place, screening environmentally
and socially responsible films, and lectures are being given by
scholars from various universities around the country. Schools and
communities have been organizing ‘clean your environment’ days with
talks about such issues as family planning, the impact of climate
change, and the need to phase out plastic bags and keep water sources
clean. Climate Change Forum – Ethiopia (CCF-E) which has been
organizing many of the events held a press conference at the beginning
of the week to emphasize that Earth Day, being celebrated for the
second time in Ethiopia, did in fact underline the point that the
environment was not separate from health, population, economic
development, gender or cultural preservation. All were inter-connected
elements of the environment. A central reason for celebrating Earth
Day was to help make the public realize the rapid degradation of the
environment and the depletion of natural resources due to human
intervention. This year, Earth Day also marked the conclusion of the
“Green Generation Campaign” which had been designed to encourage
people in general to participate in building solutions to urgent
national and global issues.
Minister Seyoum, making a keynote speech at a panel discussion on
“Financing Climate Change Adaptation and Negotiations”, emphasized the
same points. Forty years ago, on the first Earth Day, millions of
Americans took to the streets to demand a healthy environment. This
could be seen as marking the beginning of the environment movement.
Yet, as Minister Seyoum noted, the human impact on environmental
degradation continues to grow, and as the Inter-Governmental Panel on
Climate Change has emphasized, the negative impact is expected to
largely affect the tropics and sub-tropical areas of sub-Saharan
Africa. There is danger that yields from rain-fed agriculture in some
African countries may fall by 50 percent only ten years from now with
the effect of weather-related disasters; health threats might increase
with rising temperatures; clean water supplies be reduced by drought.
At the same time, Minister Seyoum emphasized, action plans based on the
right policies and participation strategies have begun to pay
sustainable dividends. He acknowledged the efforts of the Federal and
of Regional Governments, of the private sector and civil societies,
and above all of the population of rural areas for their concerted
efforts to conserve and rehabilitate Ethiopia’s flora and fauna. The
Minister underlined the importance of encouraging, for example,
Reduced Emission from Deforestation and Desertification (REDD), the
rehabilitation of degraded lands, and re-greening to reduce erosion
and increase agricultural yields.
Minister Seyoum, who reminded his audience that Ethiopia had been
chosen to represent Africa at the climate change negotiations at
Copenhagen, said it was relevant to emphasize that “developed
countries are required to assist developing countries in meeting the
costs of adaptation to the adverse effects of climate change” as the
UN Framework for Climate Change had laid down (Article 4.4). Resources
for adaptation, he added, should be in addition to official
assistance. He emphasized the importance of accessing funds from Clean
Development Mechanisms, allowing science and appropriate technologies
to be brought into developing countries without displacing traditional
knowledge. Adaptation was a priority but mitigation was also
important, and the greater the latter, the less we needed to adapt. It
made particular sense to expand easily accessible, renewable and
affordable energy, and clean electricity supplies. Minister Seyoum
noted that this was an area in which the international community would
be able to assist, financially and with state of the art technologies,
increasing the capacity to generate clean electricity as well as
provide energy-efficient technologies for use.
Earth Day, the Minister concluded, was important as a going concern
which could contribute towards creating the enabling environment
needed to provide a habitable world for present and for future
generations.
*****************
top
|
|
An
opposition fiasco in Washington
Following almost continuous attacks from various interest groups in
recent weeks, apparently aimed to destabilize Ethiopia and try to
scuttle the forthcoming elections, a collection of the more extreme
and violent elements of the Diaspora held a gathering in Washington
D.C. The conference, misleadingly entitled "Conference of Good
Governance, Peace, Security and Sustainable Development in the Horn of
Africa", was almost exclusively focused on Ethiopia. Any other country
was mentioned tangentially and only in context of criticizing
Ethiopia. Indeed, the only agenda of the organizers was the
destabilization of Ethiopia as their concluding declaration
demonstrated. Organizers ranged from Negede Gobeze, one of the major
architects of the murderous Red Terror to current convicted criminals
and leaders of Ginbot 7, now sponsored by Eritrea, including its
leader, Dr. Berhanu Nega. Other well known critics of the Ethiopian
Government including Mrs. Anna Gomes were also invited. The attendant
publicity made the objective of the conference very clear.
There seemed little doubt that the Eritrean Government was a central
behind-the-scenes actor. It is hard otherwise to explain why, in a
conference supposedly called to discuss peace and security in the Horn
of Africa, so little attention was paid to the aggressive policies of
Eritrea, currently under UN Security Council sanctions for its
destabilizing role in the region. The only mention of Eritrea in the
declaration issued at the end of the conference was with reference to
encouraging the "continuation of relationships" between scholars from
Ethiopia and Eritrea. This does not refer to the need for any
sustainable links between the two countries, but rather to the
continuation of the alliance between the Government of Eritrea and the
terrorist groups that are being financed, trained, and equipped by the
Eritrean regime. Ginbot 7, headed by Dr Berhanu Nega, is one of those
terrorist organizations now centred in Eritrea.
The
conference is now dead and buried. By all accounts, it failed to meet
the expectations of its organizers. Attendance was low and below
expectations, and few of the invited presenters bothered to show-up -
the organizers had invited officials of the State Department,
Congressmen, and other individuals from respected organizations, in
apparent attempt to give the conference some legitimacy. Surprisingly,
some Congressmen normally only too happy to be critical of Ethiopia
failed to appear. It seems, to the disappointment of the organizers,
that officials of the US government, members of Congress, and others
were able to see through the limited political intent of the
conference, and declined to participate in what was a strongly ill-
intentioned gathering.
The
only semblance of success for the organizers was that they succeeded
in hoodwinking some unsuspecting individuals and organizations to
participate. But here again, there was not much to celebrate on the
part of the organizers as those who participated in the conference,
including the distinguished academician and former diplomat,
Ambassador David Shinn, publicly disagreed with Dr. Berhanu Nega on
many of the issues raised. Ambassador Shinn spoke about the whole
region outlining his own vision for the Horn of Africa which included
elections, a free press, an independent judiciary and constitutional
changes of government, none of which were suggestions that the
Eritrean government would like to have heard. Ambassador Shinn made a
point of distancing himself from the declaration, and emphasized in
his blog that he wanted it “to be on the record that I did not have
any role in drafting the declaration nor do I agree with significant
aspects of it”. It remains surprising, however, that he allowed his
name to be used. It would have shown better judgment to have avoided
any participation in such an ill-intentioned gathering.
*****************
top
|
|
Ethiopia’s elections – an obsession for Eritrea’s foreign policy
Eritrea’s record of productive foreign policy manoeuvres is minimal.
As we have noted time and again, many of the conflicts that
unfortunately bedevil the Horn of Africa have their roots in a policy
which puts a high premium on belligerent posturing, and violent
action, as means of promoting Eritrea’s interests. Faced with any kind
of challenge, from within or without, the Eritrean government’s
default reaction has been to export violence to its neighbours and
more widely. It was only a short time after independence that Eritrea
began to be seen as a pariah state following its leader’s efforts to
impose his will on the entire region by force. Despite a long series
of destabilizing activity from the Eritrean government, until very
recently no one was actually prepared to call President Isaias out on
his behaviour. His display of unqualified contempt for the rules
governing normal interstate relations was extraordinary, with the
President routinely unleashing tirades against almost every country
and international organization he disagreed with. Despite recent UN
Security Council targeted sanctions against key players in the regime,
there is still no sign that the government in Asmara is planning to
moderate its belligerence. In fact, rather than doing anything of the
kind, the Eritrean regime is trying to deflect attention away from
itself through the same methods that it has always pursued. President
Isaias is clearly far from willing to mend his ways. If anything, he
appears to be even more interested in carrying out destructive
activities. The continuation of Eritrea’s destabilization campaigns in
the region is quite evident from the on-going support given to
extremist groups in Somalia and from the now resumed and more
coordinated anti-Ethiopia campaign currently in progress.
President Isaias’ almost pathological desire to cause havoc in
Ethiopia has reached near hysterical proportions. Hardly a day passes
without the President and his henchmen producing some canard or other
about Ethiopia in the hope that his efforts will ultimately come to
fruition. The latest increase in the anti-Ethiopia campaign has become
even more virulent with elections around the corner. Eritrea’s leaders
seem to believe that elections in Ethiopia offer a real opportunity
for a campaign of terror and the chance to incite discontent that
lends itself to their manipulation. It’s a project that’s produced
febrile excitement in Asmara, and it has a considerable following
among the rejectionist elements of the Ethiopian Diaspora and the
alphabet soup of self-styled liberation movements bank-rolled by
President Isaias. Many still accept the illusion at the core of his
appeal: that he is the only viable source of support to help them in
their mission. Indeed, the list of these groups, all with mutually
destructive agendas, continues to grow. The latest addition to those
prepared to take their orders from Asmara is a newly minted opposition
group of Ginbot 7-affiliated former officers, convicted of crimes in a
court of law. The common denominator of these groups, and of the
regime in Asmara, is, of course, animosity to the government of
Ethiopia whatever President Isaias and these groups would say.
It
is not uncommon for President Isaias to give marathon interviews in
which he talks almost exclusively about Ethiopia. At times, one might
almost take him as an Ethiopian opposition leader with minimal ties to
Eritrea. He often waxes lyrical about his love for Ethiopian unity
despite his obvious and visible resentment of that unity. Indeed,
Eritrea’s policies very clearly belie any such preposterous claim.
They are very clearly aimed at killing Ethiopia’s economic progress,
trying to drag it back to the Stone Ages, and dismember it beyond
recognition. President Isaias has his reasons for this anti-Ethiopian
campaign. Ethiopia’s economic success is a constant reminder of the
abysmal failure of his own policies. The latest effort to raise money
is apparently to recall all Eritrean passports and require passport
holders to apply for new ones; the new, and expensive, passports will
have to be renewed every two years rather than five as previously.
President Isaias appears to lay all Eritrea’s policy flaws and their
results at the feet of Ethiopia. Putting a stop to Ethiopia’s
progress will somehow assuage his own sense of failure. Indeed he has
frequently said as much in thinly-veiled remarks. Secondly, the
holding of peaceful and democratic elections in Ethiopia is yet
another example his critics, not least among his own people, can cite
against him. His recent order for a total Eritrean media blackout on
Sudanese elections is a clear indication of his paranoia. In Ethiopia,
he is trying to generate a crisis to foil the success of the election.
That, he feels, would vindicate his own open disdain for such
‘useless’ exercises. It would also mean he would be able to rally
rejectionist elements from within Ethiopia and inflict greater damage
to the democratic process as well as to the economic development in
the country.
It
is in fact an insurmountable task as the failure of previous efforts
makes very clear. Equally, President Isaias has developed tremendous
capacity to be oblivious to losses. He is always prepared to pick up
where his previous efforts collapsed. His obsession with Ethiopia has
become so large that he seems prepared to ignore any amount of
failure. He will no doubt try to continue even though Ethiopia is too
busy fighting poverty to bother to respond to this sort of manoeuvring
from the government in Asmara. The people of Ethiopia have rather
better use for their time and resources.
*****************
top
|
|
Ensuring the integrity of the upcoming election: progress impressive,
but vigilance needed
It’s
been quite some time now since we began the countdown to election
2010. Developments so far have largely fostered a sense of positive
expectation for the election, and the ramifications for the future of
democratic governance and economic development. Registration of voters
was conducted without a hitch and the numbers registered surpassed
that of 2005. Enthusiasm has been just as palpable. The signing of the
code of conduct, and its subsequent promulgation into law by
parliament, has created a wider opportunity for parties to address any
irregularities and helped instil the sense of trust and confidence
conspicuously missing in previous elections. The inter-party councils
set up at federal, regional and local levels have carried out a number
of investigations and decided numerous complaints and allegations from
all parties. The incidence of recrimination, and
counter-recrimination, has not been excessive, and this is largely due
to the complaint handling mechanisms now in place. The preparations
made by the National Electoral Board, covering logistics and human
resources, and the Board’s continued engagement with all stakeholders
on a regular basis, has even drawn praise, and, at worst, no more than
perfunctory criticism even from those normally unsparing in their
comments.
The
media debates among the contending parties have also been instrumental
in raising the level of peoples’ expectations of the conduct and
outcome of the election. Despite a few anomalies here and there, the
overall conduct of the electoral process has really been about as good
as it can get in fledgling democratic experiences like that of
Ethiopia. Indeed, there is widespread optimism in the air that,
whatever the outcome, the petty squabbles of the previous election and
the unchecked momentum that caused the bloody riots in its aftermath,
are not after all natural corollaries of any electoral exercise in
this country, as some have claimed. Irrespective of who wins, there is
every reason to believe and expect that this election will indeed be
the watershed that all stakeholders genuinely interested in the
further enhancement of the democratic process in Ethiopia, believe it
will be. That is good, but there are other reasons feeding this sense
of optimism.
Most
important, there is an ever greater awareness on the part of the
peoples of Ethiopia of the indispensability of the democratic process
to safeguard their hard-won rights and the budding economic
opportunities that are now in full display. The continued economic
success registered in recent years, and the visible impact it has had
on the lives of millions of hitherto destitute peasants living on the
brink, has raised hopes for the peoples of Ethiopia that, given the
right policies and the fullest possible measure of participation in
the political process, poverty can indeed be relegated to the
backwaters of history. The enthusiasm shown at all levels of the
political process is only matched by the resolution of the people to
overcome poverty and backwardness. Nor is this commitment to democracy
merely skin-deep. It is being progressively woven into the
socio-political fabric for the peoples of Ethiopia who own the
process.
Equally important, there is a growing willingness among increasing
numbers of key stakeholders, including political parties, civic
associations, and partners, to give the process the benefit of the
doubt. The readiness of many political parties to sign the code of
conduct was one reassuring sign. There are still some rough elements
to be rounded out, but there is no doubt that the dominant
undercurrent is essentially positive. The deployment of observer
missions by the AU and EU has also contributed to the sense of
optimism, and the head of the EU Observer Mission has expressed their
readiness to do everything to maintain impartiality and neutrality
and, most importantly, avoid any repetition of the unacceptable
behaviour which led to the disturbances in 2005. There’s no reason to
doubt this will indeed be the case and there is no denying it will be
important. In this connection, the recent decision by 10 Ethiopian
civic associations, boasting hundreds of thousands of members among
them, to form a network to participate in election monitoring
activities is another indication that stakeholders are taking the
process seriously. This will make an excellent contribution to
electoral integrity if only because of the sheer number of observers
the associations are capable of deploying and the wider coverage they
propose to offer. The associations represent highly diverse interest
groups, including for example, the Confederation of Ethiopian Trade
Unions, and the Employers’ Federation, underlining the importance of
their participation in providing for the credibility of the process.
Of
course, the democratic process continues to face a number of
challenges, from within and without. There are those to whom the
success of the democratization process in Ethiopia is a constant
reminder of their own failures. The government of Eritrea is top in
this category, apparently determined to fight any sign of progress in
Ethiopia, tooth and nail. This has been the single most consistent
pattern along the northern borders. Numerous “opposition groups”,
armed, unarmed, secessionist, rejectionist or assimilationist, have
been nurtured in the training camps of Eritrea and sent across the
border on terrorist missions. The media in Eritrea have concentrated
on how to scuttle the elections by any means, fair or foul. They have
not had any success but it remains necessary to stay vigilant.
In
this category are also to be found the more virulent elements of the
largely Diaspora-based opposition whose declared objectives are the
other side of the PFDJ’s anti-Ethiopia manifesto. Largely discredited
in Ethiopia by their gospel of destruction and the all-or-nothing
tactics that they preach, they can still apparently appeal to some
elements of rejection and reaction, as in the recent conference in
Crystal City, Virginia, where a conference ostensibly to discuss peace
and security in the Horn of Africa concentrated on looking for
strategies to remove the Ethiopian government by all means. As their
declaration made clear, these people are prepared to use anyone, even
some in the ranks of legal opposition, to carry out their aims. And
the government of Eritrea is a strong supporter of an\y and all such
efforts. There is a similarity of tone between the leadership in
Asmara, the doom-sayers in Virginia and even members of legislatures
in some countries, that is far from reassuring. It is hardly a
coincidence.
There are also a few others whose behaviour helps to reinforce the
dangerous tendencies represented by these activities. Some are merely
taken for a ride by the extremists. Others are in the business of
giving political advice ostensibly in the interest of democracy and
good governance but often inadvertently ending up by dignifying
totally illegitimate activity. Some even appear to lose their capacity
to distinguish between what is acceptable and unacceptable. To be
frank, what Ambassador David Shinn did recently, despite his
disclaimer, was to give his blessing to people prepared to destroy the
government of Ethiopia at whatever cost to the people and the country.
We must reiterate: ensuring the integrity of the elections depends
more on what we do, not on what desperate elements of reaction may try
to do. The importance of vigilance by the genuine stakeholders of this
process, the government and the peoples of Ethiopia, cannot therefore
be overstressed.
*****************
top
|
|
