|
-
IGAD’s Council of Ministers meets in Djibouti
The
IGAD Council of Ministers, chaired by Foreign Minister Seyoum
Mesfin, held its 33rd Ordinary Session in Djibouti this week.
Present were the Ministers of Foreign Affairs of Djibouti, Mahamoud
Ali Youssouf, of Kenya, Moses Wetang’ula, and of Somalia,
Ali Ahmed Jama; the Ministers of State for Foreign Affairs of
Ethiopia, Dr. Tekeda Alemu, and of Uganda, Issac Isanga Musumba;
the Minister of State for Agriculture, Animal Industry and Fisheries
of Uganda, Bright Rwamirama, the Ambassador of Sudan to Djibouti,
Hassan Eisa Eltalib, and the Executive Secretary of IGAD, Mahboub
M. Maalim. Other partners and invited guests included Sharif
Hassan Sheikh Aden, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance
of the TFG of Somalia, Karl Wycoff, Deputy Assistant Secretary
of State for Central African and East African Affairs (USA),
Ahmadou Ould Abdallah, United Nations Secretary General Special
Representative to Somalia, Dr. Maxwell M. Makwezalamba, Commissioner
for Economic Affairs of the African Union Commission, Wafula
Wamunyinyi, Deputy Special Representative of the AU to Somalia,
Ambassador Raffaele de Lutio, Italian Ambassador to Ethiopia
and the Co- Chair of IPF, and Ambassador Salim Alkussaibi, Special
Envoy of the League of Arab States to Somalia. The Council meeting
followed a meeting of the Expert's Committee between 5th and
6th December which put forward recommendations for the Council.
Opening
the meeting, Minister Seyoum noted IGAD had fallen behind schedule
in its intended revitalization and transformation. It had to
make up for lost time. He emphasized the need for the Secretariat
to become an effective instrument for IGAD’s collective
effort. It was a complex and difficult region and needed an
organization that was above average and highly effective. Minister
Seyoum singled out Somalia as needing the “determined,
effective, consistent support of the international community”,
particularly in the area of security, expressing IGAD’s
disappointment that the UN Security Council had not yet responded
to the calls by IGAD and by the African Union for effective
measures to be taken against those endangering peace and security
in Somalia. He noted the danger of continued appeasement of
those who defied the regional and international consensus. The
Security Council’s failure to insist on implementation
of Security Council Resolution 1862, he said, demonstrated a
lack of concern about its credibility and was an invitation
to “spoilers” to continue with their irresponsible
behavior. Minister Seyoum referred to the need to support the
activities of the TFG in Mogadishu and the necessity for effective
implementation of the CPA in Sudan. Referring to the Copenhagen
World Summit on Climate Change, he stressed it was impossible
to address the problems of poverty, food insecurity and environmental
degradation without dealing with climate change. He was, however,
encouraged that Africa had arrived at a common position to defend
its interests at Copenhagen. Minister Seyoum reminded member
states that the success of IGAD depended upon their commitment
to the organization; he thanked the Government and people of
Djibouti for hosting the session.
The
meeting reviewed the progress made in implementing the resolutions
and directives of the previous session of the Council of Ministers
and of the 12th Summit of Heads of State and Government, and
adopted a number of decisions and recommendations. The Council
was given a frank and comprehensive evaluation of the situation
in Somalia which underlined the role of the TFG and the Djibouti
process as the sole basis and framework for peace in Somalia.
It called on the International Community to take the challenges
facing Somalia and the region seriously and not to encourage
the view that it didn’t care about violations of the principles
of international law in the sub-region. The Council emphasized
that the reason extremists continued to thrive in Somalia was
not because they were popular but because the TFG had received
insufficient support from the international community. The Council
stressed it was crucial that the TFG be supported and this should
begin with IGAD Council support for the TFG budget for 2010.
The Council decided to set up a Ministerial Committee which
will meet in January to assist the TFG in its relations with
partners to encourage concrete support.
The
Council also considered the Minimum Integration Plan (MIP) and
reaffirmed it as a critical factor for the integration efforts
of IGAD Member States. It decided to designate experts to finalize
the plan as well as put forward a realistic and acceptable Peace
and Security Strategy that could take into account the realities
of the sub-region. The AU Commission expressed its readiness
to assist IGAD in this. The Council held extensive discussions
on administrative and financial matters, and endorsed the budget
of the Secretariat at over US$ 4.7 million. It instructed the
Secretariat to improve its methods of work in coordination with
the IGAD Ambassadorial Committee. The Council concluded with
the issue of communiqués on overall IGAD activities and
on the situation in Somalia. Participants felt the session had
been held in a spirit of friendship and understanding, and with
genuine efforts to move IGAD forward as the vehicle for regional
integration and to address the challenges of poverty and of
climate change which has most seriously affected the region.
Partners pledged their readiness in the Council sessions to
assist the efforts of IGAD member states to bring peace and
stability to the sub-region.
*************
top |
-
Somalia: IGAD deliberations and the failure
of the International Community.
Much
of the IGAD Council of Ministers meeting this week was devoted
to consideration of Somalia. The Council was given extensive
briefings by Somalia’s Deputy Prime Minister and Finance
Minister, Somalia’s Foreign Minister and the IGAD Facilitator
for Peace and Reconciliation. Sharif Hassan, the Deputy Prime
Minister presented and explained the TFG budget for 2010. Entitled
“Keeping Our Heads Above Water", the budget is the
first of its kind for a decade and half, detailing government
plans to mobilize resources from within Somalia as well as from
partners. The TFG intends to solicit 20% of needed funds internally
and hopes the international community, including IGAD member
states, would contribute the remainder. The TFG intends to increase
the internal resources to 40% as the government’s activities
expand. He made it clear the TFG would be transparent and put
in place structures to ensure accountability. It had an agreement
with accountants Price Waterhouse Cooper for this purpose. The
Deputy Prime Minister emphasized that the TFG was not “trigger-happy”
and it was prepared to address differences through dialogue.
At the same time it would be pushing ahead with the elections
prescribed under the transitional arrangements. Foreign Minister,
Ali Ahmed Jama, underlined the security priority of the TFG
and its emphasis on laying the foundations for the functioning
of TFG institutions. He hoped Somalia’s partners would
be supportive of its efforts and requested IGAD assistance.
The IGAD Facilitator for Somalia Peace and Reconciliation detailed
current developments in Somalia and the status of the international
community’s follow up to the pledging conference held
in Brussels. Donors had promised then to provide more than US$
213 million for Somalia and for AMISOM. Disbursement of the
funds has been very slow with the TFG so far receiving no more
than a mere US$ 3 million in cash. The Facilitator detailed
the activities of his office, including coordination with partners,
and highlighted security problems.
In
its discussions the Council agreed on the need to make the TFG
the fulcrum of all activities in Somalia. It urged others to
follow suit. The need to focus on security as well as on the
constitutional process was emphasized. The Council recognized
the need for necessary levels of confidence between international
actors and the TFG, and the requirement for frank discussions.
Partners made clear their support for the TFG efforts, and IGAD
members agreed to contribute directly to these. The Council,
as already indicated, decided to establish a ministerial committee
with a mandate to alert friends of Somalia to TFG needs, and
to help mobilize resources for the proposed TFG budget.
In
its concluding communiqué on Somalia, the Council endorsed
the strategic plan presented by the Facilitator to re-establish
effective government institutions in Somalia (2009-2011) and
the proposal to strengthen his office, and called upon all organizations
to assist, appealing to partners and organizations to fund the
plan. It noted the inadequacy of the international response
to the challenges in Somalia as demonstrated by inactions and
delays in taking measures against those supporting, directly
or indirectly, Al-Shabaab and Hizbul Islam. It was alarmed that
extremist groups in Somalia were increasingly foreign driven
with the full support of international terrorist groups, and
of some states, in particular Eritrea. The Council paid tribute
to the AMISOM troops and their actions in Mogadishu, and commended
those assisting the training of TFG forces and police. It urged
the leadership of the TFG and members of the Parliament to demonstrate
an enhanced sense of commitment. It called upon partner countries
to make resources available to the TFG as a matter of urgency.
It also noted with concern the deteriorating humanitarian situation
and appreciated the efforts of humanitarian organizations despite
the serious obstacles posed by Al-Shabaab.
The
Council of Ministers also condemned, “most vehemently”,
the suicide attack carried out on December 3rd. This was a bombing
that bore all the hallmarks of an Al-Shabaab attack, though
faced by a wave of anger from Somalis of all political persuasion
at the deaths from last week’s bombing, and in particular
the killing of almost the first medical students to graduate
in twenty years, Al-Shabaab denied responsibility, as did the
other main extremist organization, Hizbul Islam. Indeed both,
unconvincingly, deplored the explosion which killed four TFG
ministers as well as journalists, civilians and students. In
fact, Al-Shabaab is the only Somali organization to have been
responsible for suicide bomb attacks of this kind, and indeed
has frequently boasted of it. It has published suicide videos
on the Internet, and has carried out nine suicide bombings since
April 2008. Nor have Al-Shabaab or Hizbul Islam hesitated to
set off roadside bombs aimed at civilians. Al-Shabaab’s
denials are hardly a surprise given the enormity of the tragedy
and depth of outrage among the population shown by unprecedented
anti-Shabaab demonstrations in Mogadishu and in other towns.
This week there was also a demonstration against Hizbul Islam
in Mogadishu following its attempt to replace the Somali flag
by the black flag it and Al-Shabaab favor. Few in Mogadishu
have any doubt about Al-Shabaab’s responsibility for an
attack which underlines a nihilism which cannot be considered
Islamic in any shape or form.
Last week’s outrage gave added urgency and point to a
letter by Somalia’s Prime Minister, Omar Abdirashid Ali
Sharmarke, to the Times newspaper of London. Prime Minister
Omar noted that President Obama’s new Afghan strategy
marked a “sea-change in international support to troubled
countries”, suggesting that all President Obama’s
conclusions about Afghanistan were equally true for Somalia.
“Piracy and the growth of Islamic extremism are not the
natural state of being”, the Prime Minister wrote, “they
are but symptoms of an underlying malaise – the absence
of government and hope”. He underlined that it would only
take a quarter of what was being spent upon fighting piracy
to fund the TFG’s plans and actually solve the problems
of Somalia rather than ineffectually chasing pirates round the
Indian Ocean. Prime Minister Omar said the TFG needed help to
restore effective government and train its security forces.
The international community should restore and enforce Somalia’s
economic exclusion zone to benefit from its own potential wealth
of fish, oil and gas; thirdly, he called for a large scale civil
program to train young Somalis and set up legitimate commercial
enterprises.
Prime
Minister Omar’s concerns sounded a far more realistic
note about Somalia than the all-too-often claims by US academics
and even FBI agents that “most of the well-established
Islamist training camps are not Salafi-jihadi training camps”
but are run by “nationalist Islamists who want a Somali
Islamist Government for ethnic Somalia”. Support for Al-Shabaab
may not be widespread in Somalia, indeed it is widely disliked
and feared, but the dangers of its terrorist activities, as
recent events have proved, are very real. To suggest that Al-Shabaab,
or Hizbul Islam, might be prepared to accept limited participation
in some kind of national unity government, flies in the face
of everything known about Al-Shabaab, Hizbul Islam or other
extremists, their programs, activities and ambitions. Al-Shabaab
controls through fear and has made it clear it is prepared to
use terrorism without constraint, in Mogadishu, Hargeisa and
Bosasso, and against Somalis and civilians, not as it tries
to claim just against foreign troops. It relies on suicide bombings,
political assassinations, intimidation, a harsh interpretation
of Sharia’a law and desecration of the majority Sufi culture
and traditions in Somalia. To dismiss the threat of Al-Shabaab
on the basis that there are an insufficient number of foreign
mujahedeen in Somalia or that Somalia is not the place for a
major confrontation with the West, as a recent ISN Report does,
ignores the history of extremist groups in Somalia, and the
statements and actions of Al-Shabaab itself, as last week’s
explosion underlines.
In
fact, according to the AU’s Special Representative in
Somalia, there are now up to 1,200 foreign fighters in Somalia,
and all the evidence is that Al-Shabaab is trying to extend
its international profile and reach. It has been recruiting
in the US and the UK. The FBI has recently charged 14 US nationals
with helping some 20 American Somalis to travel to Somalia to
join Al-Shabaab. The UK’s MI5 has warned of an increasing
number of young British Somalis travelling to Somalia for training,
possibly as many as a hundred, though some believe this is an
under-estimate. Indications are that last week’s suicide
attack was carried out by a Danish citizen of Somali origin.
Al-Shabaab has recently threatened a number of countries, in
addition to Somalia’s neighbours, including the US, South
Africa and Ghana, and in August an Al-Shabaab cell attempted
to attack an Australian military base in Sydney. President Obama’s
National Security Adviser said recently that the US had evidence
that Al Qaeda was moving at least in some part to Yemen and
Somalia. Al Qaeda, he said, always looks for ungoverned spaces
or areas where they think they can operate “under the
radar.” Indeed, with the weakening of Al Qaeda in Afghanistan
and Pakistan following increasing pressure from the US and its
allies, it appears Al Qaeda is moving some of its operatives
to Somalia, Yemen and similar areas. Al-Shabaab now appears
to be preparing Somalia for an increased Al Qaeda presence,
strengthening its presence in the Juba regions and aiming to
continue future operations in central Somalia and encircle Mogadishu.
The
threat posed by Al-Shabaab was dramatically underlined by last
week’s bomb. It is a threat that will become all the more
menacing if it continues to be ignored, if its backers are freely
allowed to provide support to terrorism, and if the international
community continues to disregard the ominous and alarming dangers
posed by Al-Shabaab, its Al Qaeda allies and its backers within
the region. It is not surprising that IGAD’s Council of
Ministers noted “with dismay” the inadequate response
of the international community in general and of the UN Security
Council in particular to the challenges facing Somalia, and
called upon the Security Council to take the situation in Somalia
“seriously”. IGAD categorized the danger facing
Somalia today, with extremism backed by Eritrea as “a
direct threat to the peace, security and stability of the sub-region,
the African continent and the world at large.” It is hard
to disagree.
*************
top |
-
IGAD reiterates
its call for sanctions against Eritrea
In
his opening address to the IGAD Council of Ministers, Minister
Seyoum reminded the meeting that there was no greater danger
than appeasement of those who defied regional and international
demands. He noted that the failure of the Security Council to
act over its own Resolution 1862 was an invitation to “spoilers”
to continue their irresponsible behavior. Security Council Resolution
1862 was passed on January 14. It urged Djibouti and Eritrea
to resolve their dispute peacefully; emphasizing it was the
primary responsibility of the two parties to set up the appropriate
diplomatic and legal methods. It welcomed the fact that Djibouti
had withdrawn its forces to the status quo ante as called for
in the Security Council Presidential statement on June 12 2008,
and condemned Eritrea’s failure to do the same. The Resolution
categorically demands that Eritrea withdraw its forces to the
positions of the status quo ante, that it acknowledge its border
dispute over Ras Doumeira and Doumeira Island and that it engage
actively in a dialogue to defuse the tension and in diplomatic
efforts to lead to a mutually acceptable solution. The Resolution
also demands that Eritrea abides by its international obligations
as a member of the UN and respect the principles of the UN Charter
and co-operate fully with the Secretary-General. The Security
Council put a time limit of five weeks on its demands for Eritrean
compliance, and requests a report from the Secretary-General
on progress and on the compliance of the parties within six
weeks. The Resolution says the Security Council will review
the situation in six weeks, on the basis of the Secretary-General’s
report, with a view to taking further decisions as appropriate.
Today, some 40 weeks later, Djibouti is still waiting.
The
IGAD Council of Ministers was briefed by Djibouti’s Foreign
Minister, Mahamoud Ali Youssouf, on the present state of Djibouti’s
relations with Eritrea. He outlined the history of Eritrea’s
aggression, noting that Djibouti had been the victim of Eritrean
invasion in June 2008 when the Island of Doumeira and Ras Doumeira
on the mainland had been occupied. They still were in Eritrean
hands though Eritrea continued to say there was “no problem”
and to refuse to open any negotiations or hold any dialogue.
It had also refused to provide visas for any fact-finding missions,
whether from the AU, the UN, the League of Arab States, the
Organization of Islamic Conference or the ACP. Minister Mahamoud
Ali Youssouf outlined the calls for Eritrean withdrawal made
by the AU Summits in January and July this year, by the League
of Arab States at Doha in March and by IGAD. Eritrea, he said,
had firmly refused any calls to engage from all international
bodies just as it has totally ignored Security Council Resolution
1862. Minister Mahamoud pointed out that matters had now escalated
as Eritrea was trying to export anarchy to the region. It was
equipping and training guerrilla groups and terrorists in Djibouti,
and was planning to try and cut Ethiopia’s links to Djibouti
and the sea. Eritrea, he said, was not only troubling the Horn
of Africa; it was now sending arms and ammunition to the Houthi
rebels in Yemen, and it was still arming the Eastern Front in
Sudan as well as supporting extremists and terrorists in Somalia.
Eritrea’s top priority could only be described as the
export of anarchy. This, he said, was why the Security Council
must act immediately on the draft resolution now before it.
The
IGAD Council of Ministers agreed with Foreign Minister Mahamoud
Ali Youssouf. In its final communiqué, the Council deplored
the fact that Eritrea has not responded positively to the calls
from IGAD, the AU and the international community to withdraw
its troops from Djibouti territory. It expressed its “deep
concern” at the unlawful behavior of Eritrea in its continued
acts of destabilization of Djibouti, and the region at large.
It also called on the United Nations Security Council urgently
to adopt the draft resolution tabled at the Security Council,
calling, among other actions, for the immediate imposition of
sanctions on Eritrea. Similarly, in its communiqué on
Somalia, the IGAD Council of Ministers singled out for condemnation
Eritrea’s support, together with that of international
terrorist groups, for extremist groups like Al-Shabaab.
Meanwhile,
a letter from Eritrea’s Foreign Minister, Mr. Osman Saleh
to the President of the Security Council complaining about the
draft resolution put forward by Uganda for sanctions against
Eritrea was made public this week. Alleging that the text was
“a collection of unfounded grievances of its authors”
which he said were Ethiopia, Somalia and Djibouti, Mr. Osman
claimed the call for sanctions made by the AU Peace and Security
Council has been done in a “hush-hush manner” in
the absence of any Heads of State and Government, and that the
initiators of the resolution had “tiptoed around the AU
Chairman in passing the decision to the Security Council”.
In fact, the Peace and Security Council passed the call for
sanctions at one of its regular meetings in May (when Heads
of State and Government do not attend), and the call for sanctions
was subsequently passed unanimously, without even the necessity
of a vote, at the AU Heads of State and Government Summit chaired
by Libya’s Head of State as AU Chairman at Sirte in July.
Mr. Osman goes on to reiterate Eritrea’s claim that it
is the only country that works for the reconstitution of Somalia,
and that any interference by Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti “should
not be welcomed.” Despite the detailed available evidence
of Eritrean logistical and military support for extremist anti-Somali
Government forces, Mr. Osman says Eritrea doesn’t favor
any particular party and has been engaged with key countries
and regional and international organizations to work for what
he calls an inclusive process in Somalia. These alleged interlocutors
do not, of course, include any of Somalia’s neighbors,
nor IGAD as the regional organization nor the AU. Mr. Osman,
who makes the usual allegations against Ethiopia, claims that
sanctions against Eritrea “might exacerbate the instability
of an already conflict-ridden region”. In an openly threatening
conclusion, Mr. Osman adds that if ‘the draft text is
taken seriously and leads to the intended punishment, it would
simply be counter productive to the peace and security of the
region.”
*************
top |
-
The
NBI’s 10th anniversary but no agreement on Nile Basin
Commission
The
Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) celebrated its 10th Anniversary
in Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, this week, with three days of celebration,
December 6th to 8th. The event also included a Shared Vision
Program Showcase, one of the two programs of the Initiative
established in Dar es Salaam in February 1999 by Burundi, Democratic
Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Egypt, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Uganda
and Tanzania. Eritrea is an observer. The other program is the
Subsidiary Action Program with its two sub-programs - the Eastern
Nile Subsidiary Action Program and the Nile Equatorial Lakes
Subsidiary Action Program. The whole occasion took place under
the theme “Celebrating 10 Years of Cooperation and Progress”,
and the first day was marked by a procession from Tanzania’s
Ministry of Water and Irrigation to the Mlimani City Complex,
and the opening of an exhibition as well as cultural performances.
The event was attended by over 500 participants and stakeholders
from the countries of the Nile River Basin, among them government
leaders, parliamentarians, media, academia, the business community,
civil society representatives, lawyers and international development
partners.
The
anniversary celebrations were followed on Thursday and Friday
by the 2nd Joint Meeting of Nile Technical Advisors and Negotiators,
opened by Tanzania’s Deputy Minister for Water and Irrigation.
The Meeting was held according to the decision of the 17th Regular
Meeting of the Nile Council of Ministers in Alexandria in July.
At the opening session, it was explained that the mandate of
the joint meeting of technical advisors and negotiators was
to recommend the basis for moving forward, to consider and advise
on the transitional arrangements changing the Nile Basin Initiative
(NBI) into the Nile River Basin Commission, according to the
Nile Cooperative Framework Agreement after this has been signed
and ratified by the Nile River Basin States, to advise on the
signing procedures and any other related matters. Most of these
items were discussed at the 1st Joint meeting in Kampala in
September.
The
2nd Joint Meeting was able to agree that studies should be undertaken
on the transitional arrangements setting up the Nile River Basin
Commission as a permanent river basin organization. The Joint
Meeting was not, however, able to agree on proposals by Egypt
and Sudan over the issue of previous colonial agreements and
the 1959 Agreement. Ethiopia and other upper riparian countries
maintained their position that they could not accept suggestions
of ‘historical and acquired rights’. They are convinced
that the Cooperative Framework Agreement is based on the international
legal principle of equitable and reasonable utilization of Trans-boundary
Rivers. Despite this, it was agreed the 3rd Joint Nile Technical
Advisors and Negotiators Meeting will now be held in February
next year at Sharm el-Sheik. This will prepare a report to be
submitted to the Extraordinary Session of the Nile Council of
Ministers responsible for the water resources of the Nile Basin
countries. The Ministers will then decide on the signing procedures
for the Cooperative Framework Agreement including the venue
and date of the signing. There is a good possibility that this
can be done by consensus.
*************
top
|
-
First field exercises for the Eastern
Africa Standby Brigade
Last
week, Djibouti hosted the first field training exercises for
the Eastern African Standby Force. The five days of training
began on November 29 and involved nearly 2,000 troops, police
and civilian support staff. They came from ten of the thirteen
Eastern African states in the East African Standby Brigade (EASBRIG),
now the Eastern African Standby Brigade Coordination Mechanism
(EASBRICOM) – those participating were Burundi, Comoros,
Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Seychelles, Somalia, Sudan
and Uganda, with Tanzania as an observer. Eritrea, Madagascar
and Mauritius declined to take part. The exercises were designed
to develop multi-dimensional command, control and staff duties,
and operational capabilities and to broaden the peace-keeping
capacity of the region. They included ambushes, dealing with
disabled vehicles, a helicopter crash and convoying of displaced
people through conflict zones. The troops involved came from
Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan and Uganda with others
providing military observers, police and civilians. EASBRICOM
is expected to reach initial operating capacity next year and
become a fully operational, 7,000 strong force, by 2015. The
Director of the EASBRICOM, Peter Marwa, said the main objective
of the exercises had been to demonstrate an ability to work
together, and to move a large force into a mission area. At
the concluding ceremony, President Ismail Omar Guelleh of Djibouti
congratulated the participants, and expressed his certainty
that the Eastern African Standby Force, with its commitment
and experience, would play a positive role in the region.
EASBRICOM
is the Eastern African element of the planned African Standby
Force, established under the AU Peace and Security Council,
as part of the need for a common African Defense and Security
Policy agreed at the inaugural Summit of the AU in July 2002.
The African Standby Force will be made up of five standby brigades
from south, east, north, west and central Africa. EASBRIG (now
EASBRICOM) became operationalized following the approval of
the 1st Extraordinary Summit of the Heads of State and Government
of the Eastern African Region in January 2007.
*************
top |
-
The
Copenhagen Summit on Climate Change: Africa’s interest
and expectations
The
long awaited Copenhagen Summit on climate change is already
underway and all eyes and ears are fixed on the developments
in the Danish capital. Given the issues at stake, it’s
hardly surprising the Summit should attract this heightened
interest. With the survival of the planet hanging in the balance,
it is altogether fitting that the Summit should command our
undivided attention. The next few days will test whether the
countries of the world can come together on an agenda which
will really provide for a step forward in the efforts to rally
humanity behind a practical solution to the challenge of climate
change. There will no doubt be a flurry of deals and counter-deals
and delegations will have their hands full with a wide array
of questions to consider. Easy answers or quick-fixes will be
hard to come by. Nor will all the negotiations over the next
week lead to an idyllic outcome equally agreeable to all parties.
Equally, however, the negotiations are expected to come up with
a blend of practical approaches and of principles to serve as
stepping stones to a full and binding agreement. Expectations
are not for any partial accord filled with empty promises but
rather for a comprehensive agreement to cover all the issues
to be canvassed in the negotiations, and one that can readily
be transformed into specific operational results.
The
Summit has most relevance for Africa. As Prime Minister Meles
Zenawi has repeatedly stated, climate change will hit Africa
first and hardest—despite the fact that “[Africa]
has done virtually nothing to bring it about.” In the
words of Foreign Minister Seyoum Mesfin, the Summit “is
an opportunity for Africa to secure benefits from stepped up
action on climate change, action that can contribute to both
poverty eradication and sustainable development.” Africa
is keenly aware of what is at stake at the Summit and the AU’s
decision to be represented by a unified negotiating team led
by Prime Minister Meles underlines the importance of the Summit
for Africa. Africa will participate in the negotiations with
a clear understanding of the kind of political leadership required
to achieve the best outcome possible.
At
the very least, there are two major areas that the Summit should
focus on in order for the negotiations to achieve a meaningful
result for Africa. The first has to do with adaptation, with
finding ways to ensure that developing countries get the necessary
funding and support to deal with the effects of global warming.
In compensation for the injustice that these countries have
suffered from the activities of developed countries, Prime Minister
Meles argues that the latter are “morally obliged to help
poor and vulnerable countries and regions to cover part of the
cost of the investments needed to adapt to climate change.”
Prime Minister Rasmussen of Denmark, which is hosting the Summit,
agrees that in addition to cutting carbon dioxide emissions,
the Summit is also expected to “provide funding for less
developed nations to assist them in curbing the harmful effects
of global warming.” Apart from the allocation of resources,
this calls for the introduction of appropriate governance structures
in which developing countries can have equal say. Existing Clean
Development Mechanism structures, for example, do not allow
Africa to participate meaningfully. Funds must be clearly earmarked
for enhanced adaptation projects. These will have to include,
among other things, the provision of funding for maintaining
existing forests; support for reforestation programs; appropriate
financial compensation for the costs of not using resources;
funding for African efforts to develop alternative energy sources
with a low carbon foot print such as hydroelectric power; support
for adaptation efforts involving drought resistant seeds and
for irrigation infrastructure. Equally important, is the need
for support for Africa’s capacity building efforts. Any
adaptation to climate change must include the opportunity to
experiment with alternative livelihoods to replace agriculture.
Ethiopia,
one might add, has made an excellent start in this regard, embarking
on a development path that was environment friendly and mindful
of the challenges that climate change poses. Its Agricultural
development-led Industrialization policy, and the focus on the
generation of power from renewable sources, including hydroelectric,
geothermal and wind resources, is a clear testament to the Government’s
commitment to a viable and sustainable route to development.
Ethiopia’s experience could, indeed, serve as a model
on which negotiations at Copenhagen might build in terms of
the need to support the adaptation efforts of poor and vulnerable
countries.
The
second major focus of the Summit will be the need to hammer
out an agreement on a mandatory emissions cap to help hold in
check the further worsening of the consequences of global warming.
At the very heart of the Copenhagen talks, therefore, is the
need for pledges from the countries that are the largest contributors
to global warming. According to Prime Minister Meles, first
and foremost this requires “reducing global warming to
the apparently inevitable increase of two degrees Celsius”.
He added that beyond that level lies “an environmental
catastrophe that could be unmanageable for poor and vulnerable
countries.” In addition to advanced countries like the
US and Japan, emerging economies like China and India have a
pivotal role in any agreement to cut greenhouse gas emissions.
Major players in this category have already indicated their
commitment to achieve a meaningful result and the negotiations
are expected to narrow differences over the specifics. US President
Barack Obama has been quoted as saying that countries have agreed
that “each of us would take significant mitigation actions
and stand behind these commitments.”
The
central point is that the political will that so many nations
have expressed must be harnessed into a practical outcome. The
role of leadership is key in making sure the negotiations lead
to meaningful results. Africa can play such a role in this Summit
and can secure benefits that will be in the best interests of
its development aspirations.
*************
top
|
|
