• On Wednesday, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1827 (2008) terminating the mandate of the UN Mission to Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) as of yesterday, July 31. The resolution emphasized that this termination is without prejudice to the obligations of both Eritrea and Ethiopia under the Algiers Agreements signed in 2000 and ending the war launched by Eritrea when it invaded Ethiopia in May 1998. UNMEE’s mission to monitor the Temporary Security Zone (TSZ) had been rendered impossible in the last few years by Eritrea progressively acting to limit the movement of UNMEE peacekeeping forces. It deliberately restricted night patrols, and supply routes, banned the use of helicopters even for urgent medical reasons, and finally cut off fuel supplies, forcing UNMEE to relocate out of Eritrea. The resolution notes that Eritrea’s obstructions towards UNMEE “reached a level so as to undermine the basis of the Mission’s mandate”. Resolution 1827 does stress the Security Council's “unwavering commitment” to the peace process and to full and expeditious implementation of the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities of June 2000 and the Peace Agreement of December 2000. However, although it recalls the Security Council's previous condemnation of Eritrea's lack of cooperation, the resolution does not emphasize that it has been Eritrean actions in taking over the TSZ and forcing UNMEE out of the TSZ which constitute the fundamental violations of the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities.  Nor does  Resolution 1827 take note of the way Eritrean actions amounted to a deliberate humiliation of a UN peacekeeping mission, specifically forcing it to abandon its mandate. These were unprecedented actions and pose a real threat to future peacekeeping missions. Ethiopia would have expected the Security Council to make a much more active response to Eritrea’s admitted activities. Indeed, its failure to take the necessary steps to restore the integrity of the TSZ and UNMEE and of the Algiers Agreements is a severe disappointment and can be expected to have long-term repercussions. Resolution 1827 demands that Ethiopia and Eritrea comply fully with their obligations under the Algiers Agreements for which they have a shared responsibility. Ethiopia has done so. The Resolution notes that the Algiers Agreements lay down the necessity for the forces of both countries to respect the TSZ, and that they accept as final and binding the delimitation of the Boundary Commission and, when it is carried out, the physical demarcation of the boundary, a point underlined by President Issayas in a letter to the Security Council in October 2007 firmly stating that Eritrea’s “legal point of view is that the border should be demarcated  by placing pillars on the ground.” For its part, Ethiopia has repeatedly made it clear that it fully accepts all these points. Resolution 1827 concludes by asking the Secretary-General to keep the Council regularly informed of the situation and make recommendations as appropriate.                                         

We would recall that Ethiopia did formally notify Eritrea last year that it was in serious breach of its bilateral obligations under the Algiers Agreements, citing Eritrea’s takeover of the TSZ and the actions against UNMEE. Eritrea did not bother to make any reply. It has, of course, compounded this by continuous, and violent, efforts at destabilization against Ethiopia and most recently by its invasion of Djibouti. A UN fact-finding mission to investigate the situation along the Djibouti-Eritrea border arrived in Addis Ababa this week on the first leg of its investigation. It then goes to Djibouti, but it appears that Eritrea is not prepared to co-operate with the mission, any more than it has been prepared to co-operate with fact-finding missions from the Arab league and the African Union Peace and Security Council, both of which were refused entry into Eritrea.  

A statement from the office of the UN Secretary-General said the Security Council had taken its decision on UNMEE after both Eritrea and Ethiopia, if for different reasons, had rejected three options put forward by the Secretary-General for a possible follow-up UN presence in the region. The options were for a small military observer mission or a small military and political liaison mission both in Ethiopia, or the appointment of a Special Envoy of the Secretary-General, based in New York. As Foreign Minister Seyoum pointed out in a letter to the Secretary-General last week these first two options amounted to an effort to bring back UNMEE under the table without restoring its position in the TSZ, or indeed restoring the TSZ itself despite their central role to the integrity of the Algiers Agreements. Equally, the appointment of a Special Envoy could only be considered as an ineffective substitute for the measures the Security Council should have taken earlier to protect UNMEE from humiliation, defend the integrity of the TSZ and enforce full respect for the Algiers Agreements. Minister Seyoum also noted that Eritrea has always rejected the idea of a Special Envoy, refusing to talk to any who were appointed; it was unlikely to change its mind now. However, the Secretary-General in his statement on Wednesday said that he still hoped the two parties would create the necessary conditions for the normalization of their relations. He emphasized that the offer of his good offices for this remained available.  Ethiopia has made it clear it remains totally committed to peace but it is difficult to see how the latest Security Council resolution, with its failure to act against Eritrea’s persistent violations of the Algiers Agreements, can contribute to this. The Security Council has failed to take punitive measures that should have been taken against Eritrea in light of Eritrea’s actions. This is a pity, but what has been done by the Council is understandable given that not all members of the Council were prepared to act against Eritrean intransigence. Ethiopia remains grateful for those who took a principled stand even though the decisions of the Security Council were not commensurate with Eritrea’s actions. The Security Council did not accommodate Ethiopia fully. It did not condemn Eritrea for the violations of the Algiers Agreements but only for its actions against UNMEE.  The obstacle that Eritrea poses to peace and security in the region, and the fact that Eritrea is the obstacle to any resolution of the problem between Ethiopia and Eritrea on the basis of the Algiers Agreements, has been totally ignored by the Security Council.   

• Armed opposition groups in Somalia have continued their negative stance on the Djibouti Agreement this week. A spokesman for Al-Shabaab, Sheikh Mukhtar Robow, reiterated the terrorist group’s opposition to the Djibouti Agreement between the TFG and the opposition ARS. He said the agreement would have no effect because Al-Shabaab would be satisfied with nothing less than its own control of all Somalia: “the flames will continue burning” until this objective is achieved. Sheikh Hassan Dahir ‘Aweys’, speaking from Asmara on Monday, claimed that his fraction of the ARS saw reconciliation was crucial to the restoration of peace, but added “we and the Djibouti group have reached a point of no return”. In fact, with less than thirty members of the ARS now supporting his claim to have taken over the chair of the ARS, Sheikh ‘Aweys’ is virtually isolated in Asmara. Sheikh Sharif, the chairman of the ARS, underlined the point last week when he portrayed Sheikh ‘Aweys’ as being now controlled by Eritrea. The claims of Sheikh ‘Aweys’ to international media outlets that he is in charge of the ARS are looking increasingly threadbare. The UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Somalia, Mr. Ould-Abdallah, pointed out this week that Sheikh ‘Aweys’ has not taken over the ARS whatever he might be saying to the media. He was not even elected to chair the ARS rump in Asmara, but self-appointed. Mr. Ould-Abdallah said that Sheikh Sharif, in Djibouti, is the recognized and legitimate leader of the ARS. Last week, the central committee of the ARS, chaired by Sheikh Sharif, held its second regular session in Djibouti where most of the committee are now resident. The meeting of the ARS central committee ratified the Djibouti Agreement, and adopted decisions to expand the reconciliation process and reform the ARS program, dispatch delegations into Somalia to explain the current position of the ARS, and denounce the killings and kidnappings of aid staff. 

This is not the first time Sheikh ‘Aweys’ has overreached himself. He did so in 1991/1992 when trying to seize control of Bosasso, and again in Gedo region in 1996/1997 as military commander of Al-Itihaad Al-Islamia. After seizing control of the Islamic Courts Union in June 2006 through the creation of a self-appointed shura chaired by himself, Sheikh ‘Aweys’ rejected the possibilities of negotiating with the TFG and President Abdullahi in favor of making yet another attempt at military confrontation with Ethiopia, attempting to revitalize Somali irredentism, a favorite policy of Al-Itihaad which had carried out a number of attacks, bombings and killings in the Somali Regional State, as well as elsewhere in Ethiopia in the mid 1990s. Defeated in December 2006, Sheikh ‘Aweys’ fled to Asmara to throw in his lot with Eritrea. He now appears to have lost the support of all but a few of his own Ayanle sub-clan of the Ayr. His past record of failure suggests even this will now be reluctant to provide him with any realistic political support.      

In the meantime, on Tuesday this week, a cabinet meeting chaired by Prime Minister Nur Hassan 'Adde' decided to remove Mohamed Dhere from his position as Mayor of Mogadishu and Governor of the Benadir Region. Mohamed Dhere was appointed to these posts by the previous Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi in April last year. An Abgal, and a controversial choice, he had previously been Governor of Middle Shebelle, based in Jowhar and one of the strongest opponents of the ICU in the earlier part of 2006. Reasons for his dismissal have not been announced but Mohamed Dhere appears to have been reluctant to support the process of establishing an administration on the basis of popular participation for the Benadir region which includes Mogadishu. Earlier this year an elective administration was set up in Gedo Region, and last year similar administrations were elected in Bay and Bakool Regions. When set up, a Benadir administration would certainly affect the authority of the Mayor's office. The former mayor had also reportedly been less than enthusiastic over some of the Government's efforts at reconciliation in Mogadishu. Mohamed Dhere's former deputy, Mohamed Osman Ali 'Dhagah-tur' is now expected to take over as interim mayor. Mohamed Dhere has, however, asked for his letter of dismissal to be endorsed by President Abdullahi who returned to Mogadishu earlier in the week from a visit to Puntland.   

It appears that while the violent opposition to the TFG is in disarray, the TFG itself has failed to take advantage of the situation to make a real breakthrough for reconciliation. The following days and weeks will make it clear if the TFG leadership has the capacity, prudence and wisdom to address its latest major internal challenge.  

• This week, the Islamic Republic of Iran hosted the 15th Ministerial Conference of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM), convened in Tehran from 29-30 July to review the progress and implementation of the Plan of Action adopted at the 14th Summit in Havana in 2006. Ninety eight delegations attended together with seventeen observer countries and organizations, as well as eight guest delegations. The preceding Senior Officials Meeting prepared the agenda through its Political and Social and Economic Committees, as well as a special Sub-Committee tasked to deal with specific matters of disarmament, including the issue of Iran’s nuclear power. Under the theme of “Solidarity for Peace, Justice and Friendship”, the Conference deliberated on the recent global and regional developments included in its final report. Issues that claimed most attention included those pertaining to the emerging notions of Responsibility to Protect and Human Security. Others were: Nuclear Non-Proliferation, on which the meeting reaffirmed the right of sovereign states to use nuclear materials for peaceful purposes;  the reform of the United Nations; the prerogatives and limits of the powers of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in view of the attempt to indict President Al Bashir of Sudan, and the post-election situation in Zimbabwe, on both of which the meeting endorsed the AU statements from its recent summit at Sharm el Sheikh;  the need for a definition and a Comprehensive Convention to Combat International Terrorism; the Middle East peace process with particular focus on the problems of the Palestinians, as specified in a NAM Special Ministerial Declaration; the WTO; and issues related to Migration  and Development, Human Rights, the problems of Human Trafficking; and the Rights of Indigenous People.

The Ethiopian delegation was led by State Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Tekeda Alemu, and Ato Desalegn Alemu Director-General for International Affairs and Organizations chaired the meetings of the Africa Group. Ethiopia played a coordinating role in chairing the meetings of the Africa Group to craft a common position on Zimbabwe and other issues. The next Ministerial Conference and Summit of the Non-Aligned Movement, in 2009, will be hosted by Egypt which is taking over as the incoming chair from Cuba. Iran has already offered to host the following summit in 2012 in Teheran. There was full consensus among all member states that the Non-Aligned Movement is now more relevant than ever before. Its mission was described by many, including the head of the Ethiopian delegation, as a bulwark for the promotion of the values of multilateralism, of the principle of the sovereignty equality of nations and of the rule of law.  

• The 16th Nile Council of Ministers Meeting of the Countries of the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) was held in Kinshasa, Democratic Republic of Congo, 21 – 22 July. The Meeting was attended by Ministers from Burundi, D.R. Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. Kenya was represented by its Nile Technical Advisory Committee (Nile-TAC) member; unusually, Eritrea was an observer. Representatives from various other organizations involved in the Nile Basin also attended including the World Bank, representing NBI Development Partners, Nile-TAC, Nile Basin Discourse, Global Water Partnership Eastern Africa, and NBI staff. The Nile Technical Advisory Committee had earlier held its own meeting, 18 - 19 April, to adopt a whole series of technical matters agreed at previous Nile-TAC and Nile-COM meetings. These included the management and financial report, work plan and budget for 2008/2009 for the NBI, and a proposal on a regional network for climate change in the Nile basin. Maria Mutagamba, Minister for Water and Environment of Uganda, outgoing chair, presented the report of the previous year’s activities, noting that all except one issue in the proposed Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) have been resolved. Ato Asfaw Dingamo, Ethiopia’s Minister of Water Resources noted NBI achievements in capacity building, including human resources and institutions, but said the NBI has raised expectations among the people of the Nile basin which had yet to be met. He underlined the need to address poverty, environment degradation, and inequities in the utilization of the Nile River, and called on all stakeholders to work together for the realization of NBI objectives while cautioning NBI stakeholders not to make statements raising expectations beyond capacity. Following the election of the Democratic Republic of Congo as chair, substantive discussions were held, among them the Report of the Nile-TAC and endorsement of its various recommendations, as well as administrative matters of the NBI management, implementation of NBI Program and projects, and consideration of the legal status of the NBI in member countries; many countries have yet to accord legal status to the NBI. The Ministers adopted mechanisms for the implementation of the Institutional Strengthening Project and the proposal on a Regional Network for Climate Change in the Nile Basin. An Ethiopian request for the NBI to make a study of the Baro-Akobo basin was agreed. Only one issue in the Nile River Basin Cooperative Framework (with its 39 articles and 66 sub-articles) remains outstanding, Article 14b which involves the utilization of the Nile water on the basis of equity. A majority of the riparian countries have a similar view on this issue, but consultations will now be undertaken at Heads of State level to attempt to bridge the gap in reaching a consensus; a technical advisory committee has been set up, with instructions to reach a resolution within four months. The Ministers appointed Ms Henriette Ndombe as the Executive Director of the NBI Secretariat for a two year term, effective 1st September, 2008. The next Council of Ministers meeting will be held in Egypt. 
   

• Last month, July 16-18, a World Conference on Dialogue was held in Madrid, organized by the Muslim World League and opened by King Abdullah, the Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques. The conference was largely devoted to a dialogue on civilizations, an inter-faith dialogue, but as a conference built on the need for peaceful dialogue it had far wider application. In a message to the Conference, UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon noted that many conflicts apparently rooted in religion actually have their origins elsewhere: “..political rivalries, territorial ambitions or competition for natural resources are fertile grounds for the emergence of violence”. He said that the conference's own dialogue must lead to commitment and to action: “It must be a dialogue that delivers”. The UN, of course, called for tolerance and the spread of the culture of peace in the Declaration of UN General Assembly in 1994, and declared 1995 as the Year of Tolerance and 2001 as the Year of Dialogue Among Civilizations. 

The conference defined its four major themes as: the importance of dialogue in human society; the foundations of religious and civilizational dialogue; common human aspects in dialogue; and evaluation and promotion of dialogue. In its declaration of principles, it classified dialogue one of the essentials of life, identifying it as a vehicle for knowing each other, for cooperation and appreciation of interests and for the realization of  truth, “which contributes to the happiness of mankind”. The conference, which thoroughly reviewed the process of dialogue and its obstacles, noted that terrorism was one of the most serious problems confronting dialogue and coexistence. It called for an international agreement to combat terrorism, arguing that terrorism was a universal phenomenon that required unified international efforts to combat it in a serious, responsible and just way. This, the conference argued, also necessitated an international agreement to define terrorism, to address its root causes and to achieve justice and stability in the world. 

This raises one of the central facts about the concept of dialogue. An agreement to accept dialogue emphasizes and underlines the commitment to look for solutions. If there is no interest in a solution, there is no commitment or interest in dialogue. A peaceful solution is inconceivable without dialogue. If there is a refusal to hold a dialogue what else is there left on which to build the resolution of a problem? Eritrea’s refusal to even consider opening a dialogue over its border issue with Ethiopia and the problems that the border communities face over demarcation, illustrates the point very clearly. There is no indication that Eritrea has any interest in actually solving the problem. All the evidence of its actions over the last three or four years underlines its lack of intent or interest in normalizing relations with Ethiopia. A similar pattern has been apparent in the last couple of years over its treatment of UNMEE. It might be recalled that under the UN Charter force can only be used in self-defense or with the approval of the Security Council. It is only then that its use is endorsed by international law. This underlines the importance, indeed the centrality, of dialogue.  

Dialogue is the antithesis of violence. Properly defined it is a flow of meaning between parties. It is not one-sided. It is not easy to carry out. Meetings and forums are often referred to as dialogues when they are nothing of the sort, being no more than monologues in which speakers pontificate but seldom listen to each other. Conferences, seminars, consultations all too rarely provide dialogues in the real sense of the word. Even discussions or debates are often anything but a proper dialogue. There is a discipline of dialogue. Participants in a dialogue need to pay attention to its process and to the flow of meaning which can lead on to successful mediation. It is not, of course, something confined to levels of international mediation. It has equal relevance at individual levels as well as within political and internal organizational structures.  

Dialogue entails tolerance; respect for the difference of others; awareness of one's own prejudices; preparedness to suspend judgment, the ability to listen actively, to investigate and to accept another party’s needs or requirements; and most of all, the search for a win-win outcome. This is particularly relevant for Ethiopia and Eritrea which face an apparently intractable problem along their border.  The Security Council, as again this week, has repeatedly emphasized that we have a shared responsibility for the implementation of the Algiers Agreements. It has repeatedly called on us both to comply with our obligations under the Agreements that we both signed in 2000, and to move towards normalizing relations and laying the foundations for a comprehensive and lasting peace. Nobody can deny this is desirable and necessary. How can this be done without dialogue? It cannot, and it is all too obvious, given recent activities by Eritrea, that the alternative threatens to be violent.  

In fact, Eritrea has consistently demonstrated a lack of interest in participating in dialogue. This is the problem Ethiopia faces. It has called again and again for dialogue now, to discuss the difficulties posed by physical demarcation and talk about normalizing relation. Eritrea persists in saying that it will only participate in dialogue after demarcation when much of the reason for dialogue has disappeared. As the Security Council underlined yet again this week, Ethiopia and Eritrea have the primary responsibility for reaching a lasting settlement. No one else can achieve this even the Security Council in its latest resolution has decided that it can do no more than have the Secretary General keep it informed.  This highlights the necessity for the two parties to assume their responsibilities. Ethiopia and Eritrea drew up and signed the Algiers Agreements. They alone are the two countries which can produce an end to the impasse. If we fail, there must be a very real danger of a return to violence. Yet it is still very easy to move away from the prospect of conflict. We would repeat: dialogue is the antithesis of violence. It would allow us to demonstrate our common interests and offer the possibility of a win-win solution to the problem of the region.