|
A Week in the Horn 12/12/2008 |
|
Despite Ethiopia’s reiteration of its decision to withdraw its forces at the end of December, there has still apparently been some uncertainty in the international media and others who hope it may change its mind. The Economist, last week, asked the question: Will they? The Economist, in fact, made it clear it believed the Ethiopian troops would leave as stated, pointing out that “the Ethiopians are fed up – with the vanity of Somalia’s President, Yusuf Abdullahi, and his constant bickering with his prime minister, Nur Hussein; fed up, too, with the listlessness of the African Union (AU) and the UN. Both have failed Somalia almost as entirely as its own leaders.” It also thought that Ethiopia’s original aims had largely been realized, and that it was far from what Ethiopian opposition MP, Ato Temesgen Zewde, called in Fortune newspaper last week “a reckless and misguided military adventure.” Equally, he welcomed the announcement of the Ethiopian troop withdrawal, blaming the lukewarm response to terrorism in Somalia which should have been of much greater concern to the international community. Yesterday, Prime Minister Meles, answering questions in the House of People’s Representatives in Addis Ababa, made it clear that Ethiopia would be leaving Somalia as stated at the end of the month. Asked whether Ethiopia would respond to any request from the international community to stay in Somalia, the Prime Minister Meles said there might be pressures to do so, but stressed the Government’s position was irreversible. Ethiopia did not see any use in staying in Somalia, whether for Ethiopia, Somalia or the region. Ethiopia had decisively dealt with the terrorists in Somalia. It had then stayed in Somalia to help Somali politicians exploit the window of opportunity for sustainable peace and avoid a vacuum before the deployment of peacekeeping forces. Ethiopian forces had also foiled any attempt at destabilization masterminded by Eritrea with al-Shabaab and armed extremist Ethiopian opposition forces. However, the TFG leadership had failed to sort out its differences which had hampered the implementation of the recent IGAD summit decisions, or set up even a semblance of government. Prime Minister Meles said Ethiopia would be prepared to help AMISOM if it had any logistical problems over its withdrawal. There will be an AU meeting of Troop Contributing Countries’ Defense Ministers next week. Neither this, nor the expected UN Security Council consideration of Somalia next week, will affect the timetable for the withdrawal of Ethiopian troops. Even after the Prime Minister had tried to put any confusion about the date of withdrawal firmly to rest, some have continued to issue misleading statements. This is less than helpful because there is a need for clarity on this issue in terms of the preparations that AMISOM has to make in order to withdraw, if that is the decision that the troop contributing countries come to. And this is the sense that Ethiopia has of AMISOM’s intentions. **********
The report specifically noted that financing for arms embargo violations by armed opposition groups in Somalia derived from a number of sources, but it singled out the Government of Eritrea. The report said the Monitoring Group had “…received information from a wide variety of credible sources that Eritrea continues to provide support to the ARS Asmara/faction, as well as to a growing number of other armed opposition groups and sub-groups.” The report makes clear that Eritrea has continued to host and finance the Sheikh Hassan Dahir ‘Aweys’ led extremist wing of the ARS, and deliver consignments of arms to its forces and their allies inside Somalia as well as provide travel documents. It has also begun to develop linkages with other armed groups inside Somalia. It provides military training to armed Somali opposition at three or four principle sites in Eritrea and trained several hundred fighters during 2008. Eritrea delivered arms and ammunition by small boats on a fairly regular basis, but the Monitoring Group said a far greater proportion of Eritrean assistance now takes the form of contributions in cash or kind. Asmara is funnelling between US$200,000 and US$500,000 to the ARS-Asmara military activities per month, according to circumstances. In early 2007, Yusuf Indhe ‘Adde’ reportedly received US$1 million in a single transaction. The Monitoring Group also noted that a Nairobi intelligence source estimated that Eritrea had channelled about US$ 1.6 million to armed opposition groups via Kenya alone in the first nine months of this year. The cash is either made available from an Eritrean embassy bank account or hand-carried by courier from Asmara. Increasingly, cash is handed over to sympathetic businessmen who use it to buy up goods for export to Somalia where they are then resold to finance terrorist activities. The Monitoring Group emphasized that it believed these violations of the arms embargo could not take place without the knowledge and authorization of senior officials within the Eritrean Government or the ruling People’s Front for Democracy and Justice. It also noted that it was investigating claims that Eritrea was acting as a conduit for funds from other states. The Diaspora was identified as a major source of support for the armed groups in Somali. The Monitoring Group is currently investigating a number of business and religious figures from the mainly Somali neighbourhood of Eastleigh in Nairobi who are linked to various armed opposition groups and actively recruit or raise funds for them, as well as reports that wounded Al-Shabaab fighters are often brought to Nairobi for medical treatment. Armed opposition groups also sustain themselves through mobilization abroad using the Internet which serves as a channel for dissemination of information, propaganda and fund-raising. The report also notes that a principle source of arms in Somalia comes from external support for the TFG, even though these are intended to contribute to the security and stabilization of Somalia. Technically, in the absence of any authorization for exemption from the Sanctions Committee, they are all in contravention of the arms embargo. However, the Monitoring Group made it clear it recognized that a distinction should be drawn between those activities intended to contribute to stabilization in Somalia and those which are ineligible for exemption under any circumstances, not surprisingly as they are responsible for the continuing chaos and destabilization in Somalia. The latter category includes all those who get support from Eritrea and a very few other countries. **********
The press statement also raised the issue of HRW’s methodology in this, and other HRW reports. The chief author of “So Much to Fear”, Chris Albin-Lackey, has claimed that “Ethiopian officials appear to be confused about how HRW gets its information”, and then added that some abuses attributed to Ethiopian troops appear to have been “a matter of policy.” This appears to betray almost personal animosity against Ethiopia. Mr. Albin-Lackey cannot support any such assertion, and HRW can have no evidence for this. Indeed, as we noted in our Press Release earlier this week, this is typical of HRW’s technique of making assertions, sometimes attributed to anonymous informants, then repeating them as facts for which there is no support. Constant repetition of inaccuracies and errors does not make them any more accurate. HRW has also failed to make any effort to look at numerous public documents, including official statements, on Ethiopia’s aims and intentions towards Somalia. Indeed HRW appears to be totally unaware of the many diplomatic efforts Ethiopia has made to assist the Somali peace processes since 1992. As we have noted on other occasions, HRW also appears ignorant of many elements of Ethiopian human rights activities, as is clear from HRW’s “recommendations” to the Government of Ethiopia almost all of which were part of ENDF policy long before Ethiopians troops entered Somalia at the TFG’s invitation: commanders and troops have been receiving training in international humanitarian law as a matter of course for several years; the ENDF investigates as a matter of course any and all credible allegations of abuses, and court-martials anybody credibly accused of violations of international humanitarian law; area bombardments of populated areas of Mogadishu are not carried out; nor since May have their been any joint operations with TFG forces (whose forces have never been under Ethiopian control); every effort to avoid civilian casualties is always made. HRW does in fact note that Somalis agreed that Ethiopian troops were widely regarded as “admirably disciplined” in early 2007. It then claims this discipline deteriorated in late 2007 apparently due to the arrival of less-well trained troops. In fact, the replacements which arrived in late 2007 were just as well trained as those they took over from. There was no change in Ethiopian discipline. There was, however, a change in the allegations made, perhaps because it became clear last year, following HRW’s earlier report “Shell shocked” that HRW was prepared to accept all allegations made against Ethiopian forces unreservedly. As a result of course these multiplied. Ethiopia is fully aware that its troops are not saints – no troops ever are – but it does investigate any credible evidence of misconduct, and all cases are immediately dealt with according to military law. Given the demonstrated partiality and lack of balance of HRW, and its lack of credibility over Somali matters, we do not however see any reason to supply details of any such cases for HRW to exaggerate or manipulate. As many critics have noted before, there are very real problems with HRW’s methodology. There is the dependence on anonymity as no sources are identified, not even the “independent analysts, senior diplomatic officials, western diplomats, Somali civil society activists, ARS central committee members”. All were apparently interviewed outside Somalia, with the exception of a few interviewed in Mogadishu over the telephone in September and October. Telephone interviews in this context must be treated with considerable circumspection. The majority of informants were seen in refugee camps in Kenya, or in Hargeisa or Djibouti. Significantly, HRW thanks all the “many individuals who came forward to offer the testimony and other information that made [the] report possible.” HRW gives no indication that it ever makes the slightest effort to investigate political affiliations of any of its informants, their links with political organizations or, in the Somali context, their clan. All of these are critical elements in assessing the accuracy of information, and one would have expected HRW to be aware of their relevance to the current situation in Somalia. This is particularly so in light of the recent independent report (“Flawed Methodology, Unsubstantiated Allegations”, November 2008) on the major inaccuracies in the HRW report of alleged claims of abuses in the Somali National Regional State of Ethiopia. The investigation produced substantial evidence of villages not burnt and of people not tortured and killed. Identified and named informants, all indeed videoed, provided extensive evidence of a significant amount of other errors. As is clear from the footnotes in “So Much to Fear”, HRW also depends significantly on the use of media reports, among them stories from international journalists operating out of Nairobi. Few of these have visited Mogadishu or anywhere else in Somalia, and their information is usually dependent upon highly partial and unsatisfactory sources. HRW claims monitoring inside Somalia is not possible due to security concerns and this is why the identities of its informants have been withheld. Whether or not this is the case, it is far from clear why this should be necessary for those outside Somalia, the vast majority of those interviewed. Given the exceptional level of inaccuracy on Somalia coming from secondary sources, it would seem axiomatic that HRW should try to check the accuracy of its informants and investigate their background. The problems of HRW’s methodology are not confined to its information collection. Time and again, it repeats claims or allegations only for these to become certainties a few pages later with no additional evidence adduced. When it does express some scepticism, as it does over the figures put forward by Somali civil society groups, it merely notes that humanitarian workers and UN agencies are doubtful of these. It makes no effort to investigate their reality, or indeed of the also controversial figures supplied by international NGOs. As always, one of HRW’s main aims in its report is to make recommendations to the US Government and in this case for the new administration. This report calls for a new way to look at the situation in Somalia to shift the focus away from the war on terror and back to civilian rights. No one can object to a focus on civilian rights, but HRW appears to forget that Somalia has been and is in the front line of a war against terrorism and terrorists. Al-Shabaab is an organization that by any standards devotes itself to terrorist activity in Somalia. One of its latest actions is to distribute a video providing a detailed picture of Al-Shabaab fighters cutting someone’s throat and then sawing off their head. To suggest that for the US to support the TFG or Ethiopian forces in Somalia has merely fuelled this sort of uncivilized behaviour, as HRW’s African Director does, is the height of perversity. It is not surprising that HRW’s reports have been extensively criticized. All too often they fail to provide the sort of objective, balanced and even-handed analysis and comment that HRW claims to aim at. An independent audit of its methodology, and perhaps of its aims, might well be overdue. **********
The Speaker of the House of Federation, Ato Degife Bula also spoke at the occasion, underlining the importance of the Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Day as a forum for the Ethiopian peoples to renew their commitment to unity and the on-going nation-building efforts. The President of the Oromia Regional State, organizer and host of the celebrations, Ato Abadula Gemeda, described the event as an opportune moment for the Oromo people to enhance relationships and share experiences with other nations and nationalities. On the occasion, awards were given to President Girma Wolde Giorgis and Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. The President received his award for outstanding contributions to ensure the equality of Ethiopia’s nations and nationalities and for his exemplary activities in the conservation of natural resources. Prime Minister Meles was given an award in recognition of his contribution to the struggle to do away with the oppression of nations and nationalities under the previous regimes. The ceremony was concluded with a demonstration of the unity and diversity of the peoples of Ethiopia, with dozens of songs of the nations and nationalities sung by a thousand youngsters from two Adama schools and colourful displays of the national flag. **********
The Prime Minister also replied to questions on the prospects of Ethio-America relations under the new administration of President-elect Barack Obama. He said he believed friendly ties would prevail. He did not expect significant changes. Bilateral ties hinge upon fundamental national interests and these will remain central in relations between the US and Ethiopia. Mutual respect and gain nurture friendly relations. There might be some individuals who have their own agenda and aims, but these do not define relations between two countries. America is a civilized and developed country with a very prominent role in the world. Its relations with other states reflect national interests rather than personal desires. Questioned about how sure he was about this, the Prime Minister said he could certainly be sure that Ethiopia’s commitment to friendly relations with the US would remain, but in international relations the possibility of surprises could never be ruled out. On the economy, the Prime Minister told MPs that prices were beginning to slow down as a result of the government measures including importation of food to offset inflationary expectations. Price falls in the global market were also having their own positive effect on the economy. Asked whether there was a decline in the volume of imported goods, the Premier said, on the contrary, reports of the first quarter of the year had shown a rise of about 30 percent in exports while imports had risen by 61 percent. The Prime Minister said there was a shortfall in hard currency and steps were being taken to address it. **********
**********
One of the most notable contributions of the UDHR is its service as a standard of achievement. Many international human rights instruments, the two Covenants being the most important, were inspired by the UDHR, and the treaties developed over the last 60 years at international and regional levels are largely aimed at elaborating the norms originally incorporated in the UDHR. On the 10th of December 1948, when the UDHR was adopted, most of Africa and Asia was under colonial domination and racial segregation. Even in countries that claimed to be democratic, racial discrimination and segregation were legally sanctioned. This deplorable situation forced the independent and the newly independent states of Africa in the 1960s to organize themselves under the umbrella of the OAU (1963). African States, together with others States that desired the freedom and equality of all, joined hands and worked for the development of new standards leading, inter alia, to the adoption of the International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination in 1965. African States continued to champion more global and regional standards. Particularly, after the successful liberation of the continent from colonialism, the quest for more regional standards and bodies aimed at rectifying the dismal record of human rights in the continent led to the adoption of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights in 1981. This paramount regional instrument underlined the aspirations of the continent with its provisions of the right to development and self-determination. The transformation of the OAU into the African Union in 2002, whose constitutive instrument enshrined far-reaching provisions on human rights, including the possibility of African intervention in cases of war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide, heralded a new chapter in Africa, a chapter that still requires further consolidation. It must be admitted that all the standards laid out in the Declaration and other instruments have not been implemented as required. Large-scale violations have occurred, notably the violations against the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide of 1948. The complete failure of the international community to prevent or avert the genocide in Rwanda raised deep concerns over the implementation of human rights and in countering the challenges facing humanity. In this regard, the adoption of the Rome Statute establishing the International Criminal Court in 1998 is a milestone. It has the potential to make a meaningful contribution to prevent and punish genocide and other international crimes, though there have been some justified and growing misgivings of its formal jurisdiction and the court’s attempts to exercise this at the moment. Even more recently, on Wednesday in fact, the UN General Assembly unanimously adopted the Optional Protocol to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. This gives any individual or group claiming to be the victim of a violation of any of the rights in the Covenant, the option to submit a complaint to the committee of the Covenant. The UDHR, it should be stated, has a special place in Ethiopia. It is identified by name in the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. Its provisions and words are incorporated almost verbatim in the Constitution (in effect the human rights legislation of the country), as are the details and contents of other international human rights treaties. There is also the requirement that human rights provisions in the Constitution have to be interpreted in conformity with the UDHR. In this spirit, Ethiopia has ratified many international treaties which concretize the provisions of the declaration, and issued a variety of legislation recognizing the rights of people. While implementation of all the human rights obligations of the country, especially those rights that require resources, has been a significant challenge, the country has shown significant progress in the implementation of human rights. Implementation Bodies: The establishment and functioning of bodies charged with the oversight of international and regional standards of human rights is perhaps one of the most contentious aspects of international human rights implementation. The first global body with this task was the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. This body, established in 1946, has numerous achievements to its credit. It created special mechanisms for the study of particular problems and consideration of patterns of abuse. It conducted public sessions to give opportunity for open criticism of Governments by other Governments or non-state actors. Sadly, it also suffered from the maladies of selectivity and politicization. To improve human rights monitoring, it had to be replaced, by the Human Rights Council in 2006. The Council is still in its formative stages and needs to undertake significant improvements to restore confidence in the global human rights monitoring system. The most novel aspect of the Human Rights Council is the Universal Periodic Review, which requires all members of the United Nations to submit themselves to a regular review of their human rights records based, among others, on the Charter and on the international human rights instruments to which the State under review may be a party. It is too early to draw a definite conclusion on the changes expected from the Human Rights Council, but already the Council’s occasional entanglements in politicization and selectivity are causing concern. Ethiopia served on the Human Rights Commission and actively participated in its standard-setting activities. It has continued active participation, keeping close consultation with African Members of the Human Rights Council. Under the Universal Periodic Review scheme designed by the Council, Ethiopia is scheduled to be reviewed in September 2009. It is looking forward to the process; it has, of course, established a National Human Rights Commission and an Institution of the Ombudsman which have been making tangible progress in the dissemination and protection of human rights in the country. Other bodies have been established under the major human rights treaties, international and regional, to oversee the implementation of obligations by State Parties. These have lately become crucial players in international human rights implementation through the function of interpretation of substantive provisions of human rights and of the monitoring their implementation. The requirement to submit initial and periodic reports by State Members to identify difficulties in the implementation of human rights and suggest solutions has been amicable and constructive. Ethiopia, which is a party to most of these treaties, has submitted initial and periodic reports regarding the implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination against Women. Recently, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in collaboration with the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission and with the technical assistance of the Eastern African Regional Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights has designed a project to submit overdue reports. An Ad Hoc National Committee was set up to draft these. It comprised relevant federal organs, a Steering Committee from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission and the Eastern African Regional Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, a committee of five experts and a drafting committee. The reports are drawn up with extensive participation from the National Regional States, Federal Institutions and non-governmental organizations As a result of this effort, Ethiopia has submitted a common core document to all treaty bodies; a combined report to the Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination; and a consolidated report to the African Commission on Human and Peoples Rights. The remaining few reports will be finalized very soon. Advocacy Groups have generally made positive contributions and spearheaded new initiatives for the setting of human rights standards. They have, however, now become sui generis entities, with their own substantial political aims and ambitions. Some have even descended to the creation of fictitious allegations of human rights violations and the magnification of minor incidents into gross violations. Others act as lobby firms for different interest groups. Some organizations, though they claim to uphold human rights and democratic principles, have authoritarian tendencies, insisting they, and they alone, have the truth. Governments standing firm on the principles of the UDHR are subject to endless media campaigns. The Government of Ethiopia has repeatedly expressed its readiness to work with any organization that has a genuine interest in human rights and is willing and able to work on the basis of accurate factual information. The role of the media in human rights is twofold. One is that the freedom of expression is itself a cardinal human right. The media is itself an important pillar of any democratic society. Over the last 60 years, the free expression of ideas has made dramatic improvements, and the introduction of global television and the internet have made significant changes in the way people receive and impart information. The exercise of free expression in Ethiopia has also made great strides. Over the last 17 years, numerous private newspapers have been established. The emergence of the private electronic media has been encouraging. These positive developments have not been without challenge. The level of journalistic ethics and of media professionalism has left a lot to be desired, but they are now showing improvement. The second element of the media’s role is advocacy for human rights. This aspect has also seen mixed developments. On the one hand, the media has been an important tool in promoting human rights and exposing violations of human rights. Equally, there are instances where the media has played a very negative role and has been responsible for instigating grave violations including genocide. It has also been used by destructive forces to channel acts of destabilization against peaceful societies. The development of global media outlets also poses challenges for developing countries. Their reach has empowered many societies with access to valuable information for development. At the same time, these media outlets are almost invariably owned and based in western countries. This means their outlook is one dimensional and can continue to perpetuate negative images of developing countries. Africa in particular has been disproportionately affected by the focus of the global media. It affects foreign investment and tourism, which in turn denies African countries the benefit from their immense potential in these and other areas and perpetuates negative stories about Africa. These repercussions are in fact direct violations of the economic, cultural and social rights of the peoples of developing countries. It must be emphasized that the right to development is itself a basic human right. The Way forward: The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is something for all humanity to cherish. Africa and the rest of the developing world must fully share in the ownership of this instrument, and boldly promote and enhance human rights in their own countries, in discourse with development partners. The UDHR should inspire us all to a better future free of intolerance and strife, reflecting the rights of all as enshrined in the UDHR. Ethiopia is gradually, but firmly, joining in the quest for a better future as laid out in these rights. |
|
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Foreign Affairs |