|
-
Prime Minister Meles
meets US Trade Representative, Ambassador Kirk
Last
week, Ambassador Ron Kirk, principal advisor to the US
Trade Representative Office, made a
three day visit to Ethiopia. Ambassador Kirk, a member of President
Obama's cabinet, was leading a US Congressional and
private sector delegation to explore
US/Ethiopian trade and investment relations and to discuss the
implementation of the US Africa Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA). Other
issues included possible economic reforms
and the ongoing process of Ethiopia's accession to the
World Trade Organization (WTO).
Ambassador Kirk held talks with Prime Minister Meles and other senior
government officials. Prime Minister Meles emphasized the need for the
US to assist in capacity building in Africa
to help countries benefit fully from AGOA. He stressed the importance
for personnel from industries engaged in exports to get relevant
training to help increase the volume of exports. Ambassador Kirk noted
that Ethiopia was beginning to exploit the opportunities offered by AGOA,
but he said that it needed to increase both the volume and quality of
exports to the US to benefit more from the privileges provided by the
Act, which was signed into law in 2000. In a subsequent press conference
on Saturday, before he left, Ambassador Kirk said he came to Ethiopia
because it was a key US trading partner in Africa and exemplified US
engagement with African trade development as a whole. Ethiopia and the
US, he said, had a robust trade relationship. Ethiopia was doing well
under AGOA. Exports to the US had more than doubled from 2007 to 2008,
and Ethiopia was diversifying. Equally, challenges remained. It was
important that both countries continued to work together to enable
Ethiopian exporters to take the fullest advantage of AGOA. Ambassador
Kirk also emphasized that the US was fully prepared to support and
encourage Ethiopia's interest in acceding to the
World Trade Organization.
********
top |
-
Another
journalistic failure in Kenya
Earlier
this month, NTV, a private Kenyan TV station in Nairobi, broadcast a
short series of programmes on the OLF. Following the announcement that
these would be broadcast, the Government of Ethiopia made it clear it
strongly objected to such publicity being given to the OLF, an
organization long identified with terrorist activities in
Ethiopia and in northern Kenya. The
Ethiopian ambassador to Kenya wrote to the Daily nation pointing out
that the activities of the OLF were certainly anti-democratic and
against peace and development. Ambassador Disasa Dirribsa of Ethiopia
also pointed out that the OLF was a very small minority whose agenda
had been totally rejected by the overwhelming majority of Oromos who
could and did exercise their democratic
rights in elections in the Oromia
Regional State and in the Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia. No wonder then, not even a single part of the footage was
taken within Ethiopia, which is a testament to the extent to which OLF
has lost ground among the very people it claims to fight for. The
programmes amounted to “a conspiracy to speak for these terrorist
elements in the sub-region” and it certainly raised questions about
NTV's aims and intent. One effect of giving free publicity to the OLF
was immediately apparent when an OLF website promptly claimed that OLF
forces had killed 16 Ethiopian troops in two battles in July. As so
often with these claims, there was no evidence of any such incident
having taken place.
NTV
defended its decision to air the programme on the basis that it had no
doubts about the authenticity of the story, though it did not comment
on its relevance. It might have noted that the producer claimed it had
taken three years to make contact with the OLF which certainly
suggests how shadowy, indeed how irrelevant, the OLF has become. Nor
did NTV apparently consider the accuracy of the commentary or the
numerous mistakes of the presenter.
None of
this, of course, is actually the main problem with these programmes.
The issue is not so much authenticity, relevance or even accuracy,
important though these may be, particularly the last. The real point
is the very obvious lack of journalistic integrity and competence
displayed in these, and a number of similar programmes, in recent
years. Some of these may have been made for a political point, but the
bottom line is that they are all-too-often made exclusively with the
assistance of and entirely from the viewpoint of the terrorist
organizations concerned. It has to be said that any competent,
experienced and genuinely impartial journalist would automatically try
to put any story he/she was trying to report into some context, to
provide balance and try to evaluate the claims which he/she was
reporting, and not merely report any or all propaganda claims without
comment or even question.
Al
Jazeera's reports on the ONLF last year provide a good example of the
type. They made no effort to try and talk to non-members of the ONLF
away from ONLF pressure, nor did any of the programmes seriously
attempt to question ONLF claims or put them in the context of the
politics of the Somali Regional State
of Ethiopia. No one watching the programmes would have realized that
ONLF fighters had been responsible for numerous terrorist operations,
regularly planting land mines on roads to destroy public transport,
assassinating local police and administrators, trying to prevent
development and killing local elders and clan leaders who refused to
support them. Similarly, when Jeffery Gettleman of the New York Times
reported on the Somali region two
years ago, he based his reports exclusively on what he was told by the
ONLF with whom he travelled for a couple of weeks. From his subsequent
reports it is clear he made no effort to talk to anybody else, nor did
he bother subsequently to check any of the allegations made, including
the reporting on burnt villages or massacres. Nor did he make any
effort to provide context or balance in his reports.
Similarly, in these recent programmes, NTV made no serious effort to
question OLF claims, allowing OLF commanders to deny all knowledge of
known killings and massacres whether in Ethiopia or in northern Kenya.
It made no real push to discuss the structure, organization, or aims,
of the organization, some of whose leaders have been based in
Asmara for many years, while others
have made it abundantly clear they would like to break away from the
Eritrean connection. The OLF leadership is in fact seriously divided
on a number of levels. NTV made no serious attempt to raise the
reality of support for the OLF among the population of the Oromia
Regional State, nor did it try to look at the regional government, and
its development policies on education, economics and culture. Any even
marginally serious effort to investigate the OLF and its claims should
surely look at the situation of Oromos within Ethiopia's federal
democratic state in which several Oromo political parties operate
nationally and at local level. NTV made no pretence at trying to
discover if the OLF had any support in the areas of southern Ethiopia
where NTV said it was fighting and where the OLF claimed to be
operating.
The
questions over the approach adopted by NTV do not really concern what
some might see as an attempt by NTV to provide publicity and support
to the OLF, an organization which has certainly carried out terrorist
activities in Ethiopia, and in Kenya since 1993, but which is now of
little importance. The issue is not that NTV has chosen to do this at
any particular time, though we would note that the timing allowed the
Eritrean ambassador to Kenya to have his comments added. Eritrea,
although it can have no direct national or strategic interest in Kenya
or southern Ethiopia, has chosen consistently to try to destabilize
Ethiopia for the last decade by organizing and supporting the OLF, and
by extension causing problems along the Ethiopia-Kenya border. It has
done the same in Somalia, supporting
extremists and terrorists in opposition to the Government of Somalia,
apparently because Ethiopia supported the internationally recognized
Somali Government. Eritrea, of course,
unlike Ethiopia or Kenya, has no real national or strategic interest
in Somalia. That hasn't prevented it from meddling, supporting
opposition and terrorist organizations along the Ethiopia-Kenya border
and in Somalia, apparently driven by the arrogant belief that Eritrea,
the youngest country in Africa, should
be the controlling force of the entire Horn
of Africa.
In
fact, the most important aspect of the NTV programmes is not its
content but the journalistic failures the programmes exemplify. These,
as already noted, are far too common and have been shared by many in
the wider international media operating out of
Nairobi and elsewhere, and indeed many
of the alleged analysts writing on the Horn of Africa, on Somalia or
on other African crisis points. There is seldom any effort to provide
context and balance, to question or investigate claims. Indeed, all
too often no scepticism is shown over even the most exaggerated or
outrageous claims. The resulting reports are often highly partial,
unbalanced, and as a result, very often almost totally inaccurate. To
make matters worse, these techniques have been picked up and repeated,
even built on, without any effort to improve, by human rights and
humanitarian organizations as well as analysts. All seem to have lost
any ability to question or evaluate, to investigate or probe. One
result is certainly that the policies of the international community
towards the crisis points of Africa have become dependent upon highly
imperfect information and analysis. The effect is, most unfortunately,
often all too clear.
*****
top |
-
Somalia: moves in the right direction?
This week the advance of Ahlu Sunna Wal Jama'ah in Galgudud region
demonstrated a significant gain against Al Shabaab extremists. Its
success follows recent talks between the TFG and Ahlu Sunna leadership
to improve their political and military cooperation against the
extremists agreed to a couple of months ago. This is something that
needs to be encouraged. And the change in internal military dynamics
is being coupled with some successful government efforts to mobilize
forces in Bay, Bokool, Hiran and Gedo
regions. Indeed, there are indications that Al-Shabaab and Hizbul
Islam forces are beginning to lose their momentum in Mogadishu and
more widely, a momentum launched when Eritrea
sent Sheikh Hassan Dahir 'Aweys', the
head of Hizbul Islam, to Mogadishu with several plane loads of
weaponry in April, providing the means for Al-Shabaab and Hizbul Islam
to launch an offensive in May. There now seems to be a relative lull
in the fighting in Mogadishu, where an extra battalion of AMISOM
arrived a few days ago. Al-Shabaab has returned again to focusing on
random mortar shelling, assassination attempts, and the road-side
bombs which most often injure and kill innocent civilians.
While
in
Somalia, Al Shabaab has been increasing its use of brutal tactics
including public beheadings, and amputations without trial, elsewhere
it has been turning to Somalis in the
Diaspora setting up external recruiting networks to try to persuade
expatriates to return to fight for its cause, or carry out
suicide attacks in their countries of
residence. Last week, Australian authorities uncovered an alleged plot
by immigrants, including three Somalis with Australian citizenship, to
carry out a suicide attack on an army
base. Eritrea promptly claimed the story was an invention of the CIA!
In the US, investigations are being carried out after more than 20
young Americans of Somali origin apparently went to
Somalia to fight for Al-Shabaab, some
in 2007 and more last year. The then UK Minister for Africa, Lord
Malloch-Brown, said last month that Somalia posed a greater threat
than Afghanistan to
Britain. There is at last
international awareness that Somalia's ungoverned space might be used
to plan attacks on western targets, and that Al-Shabaab links to
Al-Qaeda do really pose a danger. The expansion of piracy in the last
year or so has underlined the problem. Al-Shabaab, and its ally Hizbul
Islam, have refused to engage in the peace process that has
successfully brought moderate ICU elements into the TFG. Last week,
American Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, met Somalia’s President
Sheikh Sharif and pledged more US military
aid for his government’s battle against Al-Shabaab.
In the
last two months there have been indications that the international
community has begun to wake up to the need to provide real support in
favour of the TFG in Somalia, and its allies. The IGAD resolution
adopted on Somalia on 20 May 2009 was followed by the endorsement of
the AU Peace and Security Council, and
the same resolution was also endorsed by the AU Heads of State and
Government Assembly in Sirte, Libya. The AU backed the appeal to the
UN Security Council to take
appropriate measures against inside and outside spoilers of the peace
process in Somalia, specifically identifying the role of the
government of Eritrea. This support for the TFG, and pressure against
Al Shabaab extremists and its allies, emphasized and underlined the
TFG's place on the moral and political high ground in Somalia. It
provides a very clear answer to those in the international community
who still appear to believe that appeasing extremists and their main
backer, Eritrea, in the name of “engagement” should be the way
forward. It is very obvious that any approach based on appeasement
can, and does, embolden the negative elements in Somalia and their
outside supporters. Conversely, even the mere threat of the
possibility of sanctions appears to have encouraged some change in the
modus operandi of the extremists. There can be little doubt
that keeping up the pressure by the provision of sanctions will reduce
the level of support for extremism and of fighting in Somalia. It will
also provide the necessary demonstration of external support to a
government, the TFG, which the international community fully
recognizes as providing the only way forward for peace and development
in Somalia.
*****
top
|
-
The plight of
Ethiopians in Eritrea as the World Commemorates the Geneva Conventions
At the time the
world is preparing to commemorate the 60th anniversary of
the adoption of the Geneva Conventions, the Government of Eritrea has
announced that it would not allow Ethiopian civilians in Eritrea to
return to their country. It specifically has announced to the
International Committee of the Red Cross-ICRC-that it would no longer
collaborate with the humanitarian organization with specific mandate
under the Geneva Conventions to make arrangement for the
transportation and safe passage of Ethiopian nationals and escorting
them across the border. ICRC has recently issued a public statement
announcing this deplorable development.
It is also
striking to note that the regime in Asmara is taking such measures as
Ethiopia finally consolidates measures to remedy outstanding issues
with regard to Eritrean nationals asked to leave Ethiopia due to
national security reasons during the conflict with Eritrea. While
Ethiopia’s farsighted and constructive measures are aimed at laying
the ground to the strengthening of people to people relations as a
long term goal, the regime in Asmara is desperately trying to prevent
at all costs any opportunity that could contribute to normalization of
relations between the two countries. The regime has been scorning the
idea of normalization and better people to people relations as it
would have meant losing its ground for its continuous internal
repression and acts of destabilization in the region.
It should,
however, be clear that the Geneva Conventions ideals are more
resilient than the acts of the desperate regime in Asmara. According
to the ICRC,
the Eritrean regime is saying that its decision was motivated by the
unilateral cancellation of two repatriation operations by Ethiopia.
Irrespective of the veracity of this allegation, any decision Ethiopia
makes on such matter can never be motivated by Eritrea’s actions but
purely by logistical considerations. The obligations of Contracting
Parties to the Geneva Conventions are binding on all Parties
irrespective of the actions of other parties. They are universally
applicable. In fact, they are part and parcel of customary
international law. This was a fact contested during the conflict by
the Eritrean regime. It did dismiss the idea of rules in time of war,
which it eventually was forced to ratify.
ICRC has rightly
declared that “In accordance with its mandate, the ICRC will continue
to monitor the implementation of the provisions of the Fourth Geneva
Convention applicable to the repatriation of Ethiopians from Eritrea.
The decision of the Eritrean authorities to terminate the ICRC's
involvement in the repatriations does not affect the right of
Ethiopian nationals to leave Eritrea if they wish to do so.
Furthermore, it does not relieve the Eritrean authorities of their
obligation under Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Fourth Geneva
Convention to ensure that any future repatriation – irrespective of
ICRC involvement – is carried out in satisfactory conditions as
regards safety, hygiene, sanitation and food.” As we celebrate the 60th
Anniversary of the Geneva Convention adopted on August 12, 1945, the
international community should shoulder the responsibility to
undertake measures to respect and ensure respect to the protection of
civilians during and even long after the conflict has terminated. The
responsibility for the protection of Ethiopian nationals in Eritrea
thus equally rests on all members of the international community, not
just on the Eritrean regime.
*****
top |
-
Eritrea's
unbreakable tie with extremism in Somalia
The reaction of
the Government of Eritrea to the statement of US Secretary of State
Hilary Clinton's warning to that country of consequences if it does
not stop destabilizing Somalia came out in the media on 8 August
2009 in the form of an interview with Aljazeera. Not surprisingly,
it came as a counter warning to the new US Administration of its
failure to learn from the previous administrations, and for allowing
itself to be drawn into a quagmire once again. The Minister of
Information of Eritrea, who gave the interview, underlined that the
people and Government of Eritrea would not cease their political
support to the Somali people under any circumstances, and even
asserted that, on the contrary, they will enhance such support.
Given that the Eritrean president publicly and repeatedly declared
that the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) of Somalia is an
illegal entity that should be overthrown, what is meant by "the
people of Somalia" is quite clear. It simply means Al-Shabab and
Hizbul Islam, since the TFG and its institutions do not fall within
Eritrea's category of the "People of Somalia".
It should also be
noted that AMISOM, which is being condemned by Eritrea, had been
deployed by the African Union, and the TFG whose downfall is
actively sought by Eritrea was set up with the close support of the
United Nations. These two most relevant international organizations,
among others, recognized the legitimacy of the TFG until such time
when the people of Somalia will be able to elect their own political
leaders as stipulated in the Djibouti Agreement and the Transitional
Charter.
Now that Eritrea
is on the docks at the UNSC for its support to extremism and
terrorism in Somalia, the Government of Eritrea continues to deny
its support to Al-Shabab in the face of overwhelming evidence. But
in the meantime it vows to enhance its "Support to the Somali
people"... the codeword for its support to Al-Shabab. Because the
Eritrean Government is so much used to being treated with kids glove
by the international community, it is publicly reaffirming its
commitment to enhance its support to Al-Shabab, in the process
creating the impression that Asmara is immune to external pressure.
This tactic of brinkmanship seemed to have served them well for
quite a while. They received nothing more than verbal condemnation
when they humiliated and chased out UNMEE. When they invaded
Djiboutian territory, despite giving them a five week ultimatum to
withdraw and engage in dialogue to peacefully resolve the problem,
the UNSC, has yet to take measures. The deadline came and went
months ago and nothing has happened so far. Therefore, it is
obvious that such treatment has led the Eritrean Government to
believe that it will not be any different this time round too. That
thinking seems to have encouraged them to come out and declare
publicly that they will enhance their support to Al-Shabab and
Hizbul Islam. Hopefully international legality will catch up with
the Eritrean Government this time round, since the consequence of
inaction is not going to be confined only to the region as
international Jihadists are flocking to Somalia from all corners of
the world.
*****
top |
-
Human Rights in Eritrea: the Suwera Report for 2008
Eritrean human rights issues have once again been attracting the
sort of attention in recent weeks and months that is long overdue.
Its record, classified a year or two ago as “a disgrace to Africa”,
has continued to deteriorate steadily to the point where it now bids
fair to be the worst in Africa. Since the beginning of the year at
least four substantial reports have appeared. Two of these have been
from international human rights organizations and a third from the
Oslo Centre for Peace and Human Rights. It is the fourth that we are
concerned with here, a report not produced by any international body
but by an Eritrean organization, the Suwera Centre for Human Rights.
Of course, as with all human rights organizations, Eritrean or
otherwise, the Eritrean Government refuses permission for it to work
in Eritrea, but as an Eritrean organization it can claim substantial
authenticity. Equally, it is a tribute to the work of all those who
deal with Eritrean human rights that there is no significant
difference in the conclusions reached on the state of human rights
in Eritrea under the regime of President Isaias Afeworki. All in
fact would agree with the comment in the introduction to one of
these reports made by a former UN Special Humanitarian Envoy for the
Horn of Africa, Kjell Magne Bondevik. He categorizes Eritrea as “one
of the most repressive and isolated regimes of the world.” The
Suwera report is one of those which provide the facts and details on
which such comments are based.
The
Suwera Report for 2008, published last month, is candid about the
“more strenuous difficulties in collecting material and data” it
faced this time than it did in its previous reports in 2005 and
2007. Unable to work openly in Eritrea, it has still managed to
collect a mass of highly credible information, using a variety of
sources including the Government's own information and statistics as
well as escapees and refugees. The first section of the report
covers Civil and Political Rights and itemizes the Government's
continued violations of its citizens' rights and its actions while
pursuing “its repressive policies [and] giving a deaf ear to the
criticisms made against it.” The Report points out that the
Constitution, ratified in 1997, has been shelved since approved. No
general elections have ever been held. The non-elected Parliament
hasn't met since February 2002. The unelected president has
monopolized all power: “He is head of state, the head of the
executive, the speaker of the parliament,, and the head of the
ruling party, the PFDJ. And the military and security organs are
under his direct control.” It goes on to note that workers are
banned from forming trade unions, that tens of thousands have fled
the country for fear of arbitrary arrest and torture, that freedom
of movement and religion are banned, there is no independent press
or media, and that Eritrea is the only state in Africa without any
private media.
Given
the Government's alleged record, the numerous reports from human
rights bodies over a decade or more and the numerous individual
testimonies, it is no surprise that Eritrea has refused to sign the
Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading
Treatment or Punishment. The most substantial section of the Suwera
Report is on “Arbitrary Arrests and Torture”. It notes that the
security apparatus of the regime arbitrarily detained thousands of
Eritrean citizens in 2007 and 2008. These included Moslem and
Christian religious leaders, thousands who tried to dodge military
service and many citizens of the Kunama. The report provides
specific details of 187 named victims, as well as commenting on the
state of Eritrea's prisons, and detailing the tortures practiced on
detainees as “normal practice”. The report also looks critically at
the situation of Eritrean refugees both in the region and more
widely, and castigates Egypt and Libya for "returning people to
Eritrea". It raises the question of two refugees in Germany deported
to Eritrea in May last year, noting they were believed to have been
arrested on arrival and their whereabouts is now unknown. Britain
and Sweden were also mentioned as returning political asylum seekers
to Eritrea and turning a blind eye to human rights violations
against returnees and to UNHCR requests for asylum seekers not to be
sent back to Eritrea.
The
Report details the lack of an independent judiciary and draws
attention to the ad hoc and special military tribunals operating in
2007 and 2008 which passed sentence without the accused even
appearing before them. The Report concludes that the military judges
of the Special Courts “pass sentences according to their personal
considerations”. It notes that in addition to banning the private
press completely in September 2001, the Government arrested numerous
other journalists working in the state media in 2007-2008. The
number of detainees is now believed to be at least eighteen. Any
foreign correspondents are closely monitored; the Internet is
restricted, and those found listening to any broadcast or satellite
channels expressing opposition to the Government are punished. All
Government media output is personally censored by the Minister of
Information. It is hardly surprising that Reporters without Borders
has classified Eritrea as the worst country in the world for
treatment of the media. The Government recognizes four religious
groups in Eritrea: Islam, and the Orthodox, Catholic and Lutheran
Churches, but as the Report makes clear all have been subject to
interference and persecution, even if not to the extent of the
unrecognized religious bodies, hundreds of whose followers remained
detained at the end of 2008. It is hardly surprising that the latest
Freedom House “World Report” lists Eritrea as one of the least free
countries in the world, placing it fifteenth, noting that Eritrea
continued its constraints on all political rights and civil
liberties in 2008 and concluding that it “continued its
long-standing suppression of democratic and human rights” in 2008”
while it also “maintained its aggressive foreign policy in the
region.”
The
Suwera Report also goes into considerable detail of the Government's
violations of its own laws, notably the National Service
Proclamation. These violations include recruitment of those below 18
or over 50 years of age, excessive punishments for the families of
those accused of trying to evade service, and a shoot-to-kill policy
for those trying to cross the border into Ethiopia or Sudan. Eritrea
is a signatory to the Convention on the Elimination of
Discrimination against Women, but the Suwera Report, drawing on the
Government's own figures and reports, details significant violence
and discrimination against women, noting that the rate of girls'
educational enrolment, and their attendance, has been steadily
decreasing, that the role of women in work and their health has been
falling but violence against women has been steadily increasing. It
concludes Eritrean women suffer significant discrimination and are
exposed to much violence because of legislative shortcomings and
lack of Government interest in implementation as well as the
“negative impact of the prevailing political, social and economic
orientations by the state.”
It is
very clear many of the Eritrean Government's policies break its own
laws as well as the international obligations to which it
theoretically subscribes. As the Suwera Report and other recent
studies have identified, today in Eritrea anybody is liable to
arrest and detention, usually without charge or trial. Certain
groups are particularly vulnerable: national service conscripts,
journalists, critics (real or imaginary) of government or party,
returned refugees, human rights activists, followers of religious
organizations, and members of the Kunama people. Indeed. anyone, in
or out of Eritrea, who might be considered to be independent or
critical of the government, or who might be construed as a possible
threat, however remote, to the head of the government or his image,
is almost automatically targeted.
In
conclusion, the Report also looks at the wider effect of government
policies, identifying the way Eritrean Government actions in
2007-08, over UNMEE, Somalia and Djibouti, led to its increased
isolation in the international community. It notes that regional and
international human rights organizations, including the UNHCR
Committee for Human Rights, the Committee for the Rights of the
Child, the African Commission for Human and Peoples Rights have
repeatedly criticized the Eritrean Government's record. The
Government refuses to accept any such comments. Criticism cannot be
tolerated, however accurate or even well-intentioned. As President
Isaias has so often made clear, he is always right; his are the only
possible and correct policies for Eritrea, and as he has said, he
anticipates no changes during his lifetime.
*****
top |
-
Rethink US policy perhaps, but forget the analysts.
We
have often had cause to complain of the one-sided and inaccurate
nature of much of US analysis on Ethiopia, on Somalia and on the
Horn of Africa. Last week, two notable practitioners of the art of
dissimulation were getting it wrong again on the region. Bronwyn
Bruton, a Fellow of the Council for Foreign Relations in Washington,
posted a piece on US policy in the Horn of Africa. Timed presumably
to coincide with the visit of the US Secretary of State to Kenya and
her meeting with the President of Somalia's TFG, Ms. Bruton entitled
her piece “US policy shift needed in the Horn of Africa” (August 7,
2009). Ms. Bruton has written on the region before for the CFR: “The
US should avoid 'grand schemes' in Somalia” (April 2009); and
“Self-induced stalemate in Somalia: an assessment of US policy
options” (November 2008). It may not be appropriate, or acceptable
for us to comment on Ms. Bruton's suggestions for US policy. That is
surely a matter for the US State Department or the National Security
Council. It is, however, of considerable concern that so much of her
analysis is based on factual errors and misleading or inaccurate
understanding of recent events in Ethiopia, and the Horn of Africa.
This is very apparent in Ms. Bruton's account of Somalia largely
based on a failure to understand recent events there. This is a
trait she shares with other US commentators on the Somalia and Horn
of Africa scene, notably Dr. Michael Weinstein of Purdue University,
who has been pontificating inaccurately on Somali politics for the
Power and Interest News Report (PINA) for the last two years. In
fact, both Dr. Weinstein and Ms. Burton are all too typical of those
who comment on Somalia from the US, consistently using inaccurate
international media reporting and partisan sources alike, without
qualification or serious attempt at evaluation, apparently unaware,
or unconcerned that much, even most, of this material is generated
by Somali opposition sources or Al-Shabaab support groups in Nairobi
or the US, and is less than accurate. The same is true of much of
the alleged analysis on Ethiopia, most of which relies on
information generated by external opposition sources in the US and
Europe.
Dr.
Weinstein's latest piece, for example, “The armed opposition vs.
AMISOM” (August 8th, 2009), manages to 'analyze' the situation in
Somalia without mentioning clan divisions within Al-Shabaab or the
differences between Al-Shabaab and the other opposition elements,
the four group coalition of Hizbul Islam. The latest dispute, as
Hizbul Islam's current head Sheikh Hassan Dahir 'Aweys' admitted,
nearly erupted into violent conflict over control of the two French
security officials kidnapped in Mogadishu last month. Both
organizations wanted to ensure they benefited most from any ransom.
Nor did Dr. Weinstein manage to mention Ahlu Sunna wal Jama'ah. This
Sufi organization is the main opponent of Al-Shabaab extremism, and
of Hizbul Islam, and has won a whole series of victories in central
Somalia in recent months over Al-Shabaab. In this context, it surely
deserves some consideration. Dr. Weinstein, however, is determined
to see nothing but progress for Al-Shabaab. With one or two Ugandan
opposition figures questioning the level of Ugandan commitment to
AMISOM, Dr. Weinstein immediately suggests “cracks have begun to
appear in AMISOM's lead contributor.” Dr. Weinstein fails to note
these comments are by no means new, or that President Museveni
recently promised significantly more support to AMISOM, nor does he
mention the rather different views of Uganda's military commanders.
In fact, even if it is possible that these comments indicate divided
opinions “within Uganda's political class about continued
participation in AMISOM”, it certainly doesn't amount to “a
millstone around [President Museveni's] neck.”
Ms.
Bruton suffers from a similar series of basic factual errors and
inaccuracies, many involving Ethiopia, the behaviour of which she
classifies as posing “mounting difficulties for the US and its
long-term goals in the region.” She claims the emergency measures
taken in face of the opposition efforts to launch violent protests
over the 2005 elections were subsequently “institutionalized” to
turn Ethiopia into an authoritarian state. She alleges recent
legislation criminalized social advocacy by foreigners and Ethiopian
CSOs with foreign support, and imposed harsh criminal penalties on
over-broadly defined terrorist acts. Ms Bruton, swallowing
opposition and NGO propaganda about Ethiopia's judicial processes
without comment, has obviously failed to read the various
legislative acts carefully. Nor does she appear to have made contact
with NGOs and CSOs in Ethiopia. Certainly, more careful definitions
and greater organization have been imposed, but few NGOs and CSOs
would have disagreed with the need. Equally, any serious analysis of
recent bills, including the Press Law, the Civil Society and
Charities bill and most recently the Terrorism Bill, will easily
demonstrate the difference between Ms. Bruton's allegation of
shrinking democratic space, and the reality on the ground. Ms.
Bruton merely repeats propaganda claims made by opposition groups
based in the US. One of these is Ginbot 7, recently involved in
trying to organize a series of assassinations in Addis Ababa. Its
chairman, Ato Berhanu Nega, was chosen to be mayor of Addis Ababa
after the opposition victory in Addis Ababa in May 2005, but then
refused to take up the job, preferring involvement in an attempt to
overthrow the government and the constitution by violent means a few
months later.
In
talking of Ethiopia, Ms. Bruton quoting directly from opposition
websites in the US talks of high levels of public dissatisfaction, a
government fanning ethnic tensions, and a violent explosion being “
not out of the question”. None of this is visible from Addis Ababa,
and the references to a “powerful separatist movement in the Ogaden”,
having a jihadist impact, are simply bizarre. Certainly, after the
death of 74 Ethiopian and Chinese workers, including women and
children, in the ONLF's murderous terrorist attack on an oil
exploration site in April 2007, the government carried out a series
of counter-guerilla operations over the next months. Today ONLF has
little or no existence beyond the headlines of Al Jazeera and the
mediocre papers of the likes of Ms. Bruton. Clearly, Ms. Bruton is
totally unaware that the Somali Regional State of Ethiopia has
indeed shown significant developments in the last few years
including the completion of Jijiga University, and of the Godey
Agricultural Institute, five other colleges, hundreds of schools and
health centers, the building of the Bodh-‘ano dam, an international
airport, all weather roads linking the main centers, increased
electrification of most urban areas and a substantial expansion in
telecommunication services.
In
parenthesis, it might be noted that Ms. Bruton also demonstrates
surprisingly little knowledge of recent developments in Ethiopia as
a whole either, whether in politics, in the training provided for
Parliament and the judiciary and for the forthcoming election, of
progress in the economy, in health and education and numerous other
areas. Certainly problems remain, notably in humanitarian areas
following two or three years of poor rains in the south and south
east. As already noted, Ethiopia is not marginalizing non-government
activity though it is being a little more careful about ensuring it
is carried out in line with Government policies. Ethiopia carried
out a highly successful multi-party election in 2005 eventually
resulting in a massive expansion in the opposition numbers in
parliament. Local elections last year went well. There is no reason
to suppose next year's national and federal elections will not be
equally successful. The Ethiopian Government would certainly agree
with the concepts, expressed by President Obama last month, that
development depends upon good governance, and that a government
should act responsibly. Indeed, it is on the basis of this that
Ethiopia has been able to achieve double figure growth rates over
the last five years. Problems, of course, remain but the total
failure of analysts like Ms. Bruton and Dr. Weinstein to make any
effort to look at the concrete achievements of the last decade does
render their efforts to understand the Horn of Africa less than
useful.
It
might be noted that Ethiopian troops have not re-entered Somalia, as
MS. Bruton knows well, though they have made no secret of carrying
out some limited reconnaissance missions just over the border
recently. Incidentally, it really shouldn't be still necessary to
correct anyone over Ethiopia's alleged 'invasion' of Somalia in
December 2006. Ethiopia intervened to help the Government of Somalia
at the latter's request. Equally inaccurate is any talk of
'persuasive' anti-American sentiment in Somalia stemming largely
from US complicity with Ethiopia's involvement and alleged human
rights abuse. Again it is very clear Ms. Bruton has limited her
exploration to Somalia opposition sources in the US and in Nairobi.
Her comments, like those of Dr. Weinstein, bear very little relation
to the reality on the ground in Somalia. Neither appears to have
appreciated the evidence of divisions in Al-Shabaab and Hizbul
Islam, the growing unpopularity caused by their use of terror, or
their deteriorating relationships at local level. Ms. Bruton even
argues that Al-Shabaab has issued strong and convincing signals of
its rejection of clan loyalty. No, it has not. What is has done is
speak out against clan, but as in other issues, it has repeatedly
done the opposite in practice. Its units, which are highly paid in
Somali terms, something that is Al-Shabab’s greatest asset, are now
largely clan-based. Ms. Bruton, like Dr. Weinstein, appears to
continue to believe everything Al-Shabaab and Hizbul Islam say and
nothing put out by the TFG. In fact, few of the former's statements
are true; some, but certainly not all, of the latter's, are.
Ms.
Bruton also appears to base any attempts to analyze US-Ethiopia
relations on a number of errors. As noted these include the issue of
democratic space, but the main thrust of her argument concerns
Eritrea where an even greater lack of knowledge appears. Ms. Bruton
even claims that some of the accusations leveled against Eritrea by
the UN and the AU have been disproven. No, they have not. Eritrea
has denied the claims but it certainly hasn't been able to refute
them. Most indeed, are clearly and unequivocally accurate. The US
view is that Eritrea is supporting Somali extremists. It is notable
that this is a view shared by all countries in the region, as well
as IGAD and the AU. Ms. Bruton clearly feels she knows better,
suggesting that US influence in Somalia should depend upon efforts
to resolve Eritrea's border dispute with Ethiopia, and that it
should support Eritrea's (fallacious) claims that Ethiopia has
refused to accept the 2002 Boundary Commission's Decisions. As
Ethiopia made quite clear nearly five years ago, it fully
accepted the Decisions. Since then, however, Eritrea has
systematically dismantled the main elements of the Algiers Peace
Agreement; a point Ms. Bruton manages, conveniently, to forget. The
border issue, whatever Eritrea likes to claim, has nothing to do
with Eritrea's support for Somali extremist and terrorist opposition
to the TFG. It relates to the war that Eritrea started, as the
Claims Commission specified, by invading Ethiopia in May 1998. It
might be noted that Eritrea's aggression had previously been
displayed in earlier attacks on Djibouti, Yemen and Sudan, and which
was again apparent in its latest attack on Djibouti last year.
There
may, of course, be room for a new strategic approach to deal with
the problems of terrorism, something that Ms. Bruton emphasizes.
There is, perhaps, good reason to avoid the phrase 'war on terror'.
There is certainly a need to provide Somalia with a comprehensive
approach to deal with all its problems. We might note that this is,
after all, what Ethiopia, and IGAD, has been consistently advocating
for a number of years. US Secretary of State Clinton has now laid
the basis of just such a constructive approach with the renewed
pledge of US support for the TFG, and, together with IGAD, the Arab
league, the Organization of Islamic Conference and the African
Union, a firm endorsement of the Somali-led Djibouti peace process
and strong support for AMISOM. Secretary Clinton emphasized it was
long past time for Eritrea to stop its support for Al-Shabaab and
start being a productive neighbor in the Horn of Africa. It has to
be said that this makes a lot more sense than the one-sided views of
Ms. Bruton or of Dr. Weinstein.
*****
top |
| |
|
