|
-
Foreign Minister Seyoum’s briefing to parliament
Foreign Minister Seyoum Mesfin appeared
before the House of People’s Representatives to reply
to questions posed by members of the House. Members of parliament
raised questions which mainly focused on two areas, namely—results
achieved with regard to engaging the Diaspora and enhancing
their involvement in the country’s economic endeavors;
and on efforts with regard to economic and political diplomacy
undertaken by the Ministry and the results achieved.
With regard to engaging the Diaspora,
Minister Seyoum emphasized the role that the Ministry had been
playing through its embassies abroad to create favorable atmosphere
that would enable to tap into the Diaspora’s immense financial
potential and technical know-how. He also pointed out that the
ministry recruited diplomats from different regions of the country
who, after receiving training, were assigned to all major embassies
where there exist a large number of Ethiopians. These diplomats
were engaged mainly in approaching the Diaspora in order to
get them to participate in the different development endeavors
of the country. He also pointed out that the effort to reach
out to the Diaspora in the USA, Europe, the Middle East and
Africa was given a significant boost as a result of ETV’s
satellite transmission which Minister Seyoum said had enabled
Ethiopians in the Diaspora to be fully informed about the ongoing
political and economic developments in the country.
Minister Seyoum also gave a detailed explanation of the results
that had been achieved in the last three years. Ato Seyoum underscored
one of the important results achieved was the creation of better
communication and understanding that had contributed to the
effort to bring about national consensus. Among the many results
achieved in this regard, Ato Seyoum specifically highlighted
that one hundred and thirty four [134] associations were engaged
in development activities and the number of ETV subscribers
had increased exponentially. He also pointed out that 19,000
expatriates (of Ethiopian origin) had been provided with yellow
cards which enabled them to invest in their country in sectors
including those that are exclusively reserved for domestic investors
and enjoy all privileges. According to Ato Seyoum, 1834 expatriates
(of Ethiopian origin) had invested in Ethiopia, with a total
capital of close to 17 Billion Birr, creating job opportunity
for over 80,000 Ethiopians. He also mentioned that 13 medical
teams specializing in different areas had come to Ethiopia and
delivered much needed services while also contributing to technology
transfer in the medical profession. While stating that the yearly
average remittance had reached about 700 million USD per annum,
Ato Seyoum also indicated that different associations had donated
8.5 million USD for numerous ongoing social activities in the
country.
The second issue Minister Seyoum discussed at length with members
of parliament was related to the activities of economic and
political diplomacy undertaken by the Ministry. In his response
to the House’s queries, Foreign Minister Seyoum underlined
that the sole purpose of the Ministry’s diplomats was
to protect the national interest of the country through, among
other things, soliciting all kinds of support and by creating
favorable atmosphere for people from abroad to take part in
the country’s endeavors to alleviate poverty and to promote
prosperity.
While admitting that these tasks could not be successfully achieved
by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs alone, the Minister concluded
his briefing by underscoring the effort the Ministry had been
making to ensure the participation of the public and private
sectors as well as the Diaspora in all its endeavors.
*************
top |
-
UN Sanctions on Eritrea: Belated, but appropriate
The United Nations Security Council has finally imposed sanctions
on Eritrea, to include an arms embargo, travel restrictions
and a freeze on the assets of Eritrea’s political and
military leaders. The move came, as the British Permanent Representative
to the UN noted, after requests by the “two regional organizations,
the African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development
(IGAD)”.The African Union Summit last June in Sirte, Libya,
of course, unanimously endorsed the call of the AU Peace and
Security Committee for sanctions on Eritrea following Eritrea’s
continued support to extremist groups in Somalia, and its failure
to comply with Security Council resolution 1862, of January,
to stop illegal actions against Djibouti. Indeed, this resolution,
passed on Wednesday, must be seen as a very belated response
by the international community to the long-term efforts at destabilization
by Eritrea throughout the Horn of Africa, dating back indeed
to 1994. Eritrea, in fact, has been allowed to get way with
a very great deal for a very long time. This resolution is a
response to those activities. It has nothing to do with any
bilateral relationships but with the persistent difficult behavior
of Eritrea and its aggressive attitude towards all its neighbors.
It is also a resolution specifically aimed to try and persuade
Eritrea to mend its ways, to behave in a peaceful and civilized
manner in the future. Indeed the resolution notes that the Council
will keep Eritrea’s actions under review and will be prepared
to strengthen, modify or even lift sanctions according to Eritrea’s
compliance, or otherwise. The Ugandan Permanent Representative
to the UN emphasized that it was to be hoped that Eritrea would
take sufficient action to enable the Council to review the measures
positively; and the British Permanent Representative also noted
that future Council actions would depend on Eritrea’s
response.
Security Council resolution 1907 was passed on Wednesday with
13 Council members voting for it, one country, China which is
opposed to the principle of sanctions, abstaining, and only
Libya voting against. Of course, AU’s call for sanctions
on Eritrea during the African Union Summit last June in Sirte,
Libya, was adopted unanimously under the chairmanship of Libya
. It was indeed something of a paradox for Libya to be opposed
to UNSC’s resolution on grounds that “more time
and concerted cooperation” was needed, and that it would
have preferred the Council to wait until after the African Union
Summit in January. The resolution reaffirmed the Djibouti Agreement
and Peace Process as the basis for resolution of conflict in
Somalia, and the Council’s support for the TFG. It also
expressed the Council’s appreciation for the role played
by AMISOM and the continued commitment of the Governments of
Burundi and Uganda. It expressed grave concern over the findings
of the Monitoring Group over Eritrea’s provision of political,
financial and logistical support to armed groups undermining
peace and security in Somalia. The Council noted the call of
the AU Summit in June 2009 for sanctions for those, especially
Eritrea, supporting armed groups involved in destabilization
in Somalia; and the concern of the AU at the total lack of progress
over Eritrea’s implementation of Resolution 1862 regarding
the border dispute between Eritrea and Djibouti. The Security
Council said it was gravely concerned that Eritrea had rejected
the Djibouti Agreement, and about findings that Eritrea had
provided support for armed groups undermining peace and reconciliation
in Somalia, and that it had failed to withdraw its forces following
clashes with Djibouti in June 2008. The Council therefore determined
that Eritrea’s actions in undermining peace and reconciliation
in Somalia and its dispute with Djibouti constituted a threat
to international peace and security.
The resolution demands that Eritrea immediately comply with
Resolution 1862 (2009) with reference to its dispute with Djibouti,
withdraw its forces from Djibouti territory, acknowledge its
dispute with Djibouti, take part in talks to defuse tensions
and abide by its international obligations. It demands that
all states, particularly Eritrea, cease arming, training and
equipping armed groups, including Al-Shabaab, which aim to destabilize
the region, or incite violence and civil strife in Djibouti.
Here, the Council is referring to claims that Eritrea is now
arming Djibouti opposition groups. It demanded that Eritrea
cease all efforts to destabilize or overthrow, directly or indirectly,
the TFG in Somalia. To this end, the Council imposed an embargo
on arms to and from Eritrea, and called on all states to inspect
cargos between Somalia and Eritrea. Travel restrictions and
an asset freeze will apply to individuals, including but not
necessarily limited to, the Eritrean political and military
leadership. This may include governmental and parastatal actors
and entities owned by Eritrean nationals living in or outside
Eritrea. Names will be designated by the Committee on Somali
Sanctions which has had its mandate expanded to cover this task,
as has the UN Monitoring Group which will assist the Sanctions
Committee.
The decision was welcomed by Djibouti’s Representative
to the UN, Roble Olhaye, who described the resolution as highlighting
the growing co-operation between the UN Security Council and
the African Union in maintaining peace and security in Africa.
He said the resolution at last provided justice for Djibouti
which had suffered “unprovoked, naked and blatant aggression
from Eritrea almost two years ago”. Hopes were now high
in the Horn of Africa that this resolution would be the beginning
of the end “to prolonged, destructive, senseless and wasteful
wars and hostilities.” Somalia’s representative,
Elmi Ahmed Duale, said Eritrea had played a major negative role
in prolonging the conflict in Somalia, giving refuge and a safe
haven to known terrorists, rebels, spoilers and violators of
human rights. It had been providing, financing and facilitating
the flow of arms and other resources to extremists and terrorist
elements as well as economic, political, moral and propaganda
support to armed insurgents. Nevertheless, the TFG was, he said,
ready to enter into serious dialogue with Eritrea to solve any
outstanding issues.
Subsequently, the Eritrean Ministry of Foreign Affairs issued
a statement describing the UN Security Council resolution as
“shameful and unjustifiable". It claimed “this
brazen act” was neither based on fact nor on provisions
of international law, and was a travesty of justice. It accused
the US of being behind the resolution, referring to the misguided
policies of the US Administration in the Horn of Africa and
the “loathsome personal agenda of the US Ambassador to
the UN”. The statement claimed, despite the evidence of
the UN Monitoring Group, that the accusations against Eritrea
of involvement in Somalia have never been substantiated or verified.
Ignoring the long-term residence of, for example, Sheikh Hassan
Dahir ‘Aweys’ in Asmara, it claimed Eritrea had
neither the political will nor the financial clout to bankroll
armed groups in Somalia. As usual it also raises the entirely
unrelated issue of the Eritrea-Ethiopia border, and refers to
the “US fabricated border dispute with Djibouti”.
But these were side issues. The main criticism of the Eritrean
Foreign Ministry is that “it is shameful that the United
States has been allowed to use the platform and authority of
the United Nations to perpetrate injustices against the people
and Government of Eritrea.” The point was underlined in
an interview President Issayas gave to the Washington Post the
other week when he told the paper: “Leave us alone. We
don’t want to be pushed around”. This the newspaper
defined as summing up President Issayas’ “defiant
attitude towards the United States, and indeed most things he
deems foreign – a free press, certain religions, electoral
democracy, political parties, [and] global warming”, and
now presumably, the United Nations. As usual, everybody is out
of step except, President Issayas and the Government of Eritrea.
The sanctions are, of course, not comprehensive, but targeted
and corrective, passed with the hope that Eritrea will respond
positively. Indeed, the resolution is not of course intended
to affect the civilian population of Eritrea. All those in discussions
over the issue have made this clear. IGAD were the first to
respond to this concern noting that any sanctions on Eritrea
must be carefully structured to be effective and to have the
minimum negative effect for the people of Eritrea. The African
Union similarly considered the implications at the time of its
unanimous request to the Security Council. The result is that
the effect of the sanctions will be confined to those responsible
for its current policies, and have no serious or devastating
effect on the people of Eritrea.
Sanctions also underline the message that international relations
are governed by international law and that this must be applied
to its fullest extent in whatever country. Eritrea cannot use
its own excuses, real or imaginary, to justify brutal aggression
against its neighbors, including the conflicts it imposed on
Ethiopia, Yemen and Djibouti, the blatant acts of destabilization
it has been undertaking throughout the region, or the efforts
it has been making to support extremists in Somalia or overthrow
the Somali Government. It is not just a question of international
law. Eritrea has been working with terrorists and extremists
in their egregious efforts at regional destabilization, in its
efforts to impose its wishes on the region, in pursuit of its
own hegemonic aspirations. This is why Africa, and now finally
the rest of the world, is saying that this has to stop. This
is an unambiguous message to the regime in Asmara from the Security
Council, from Africa and from the international community that
Eritrea must now mend its ways. It has been allowed to get away
with far too much for far too long. Now it is time for the regime
to change, to consider rejoining the civilized world once again,
and demonstrate some regard for the interests and welfare of
the people of Eritrea. Needless to say, this will certainly
require that the Security Council take its own Resolution seriously
enough to see to it that it is effectively implemented.
*************
top |
-
Somalia:
Verbal declarations of support are not enough
Over several months, in a whole series of resolutions from IGAD,
the AU Peace and Security Council and the AU Heads of State
and Government Summit, and most recently with last week’s
International Contact Group (ICG) declaration in Jeddah, Saudi
Arabia, the international community has time and again announced
its readiness to support Somalia’s Transitional Federal
Government (TFG) in its efforts to restore peace and stability
in Somalia. Indeed, there is an impressive consensus of support
within the international community for the TFG and for Somalia.
However this has still not translated into the necessary material
support when considering the enormity of the challenges faced
by the TFG and its allies. By contrast, the opponents of the
TFG, the combined extremist forces of Al-Shabaab and Hizbul
Islam with Al Qaeda operatives, have been continuing to receive
unlimited and unchecked support. This has allowed them to take
advantage of the lack of sufficient, concrete assistance from
the international community to the TFG and its allies. The situation
has created a balance that clearly favors extremists and needs
to be addressed urgently by the international community.
The increasing security threats and the associated problems
of statelessness emanating from Somalia are not confined to
Somalia or indeed to the region. There has been a succession
of terrorist attacks in Somaliland and Puntland as well as in
Mogadishu, Belet Weyne and other towns in Somalia, many under
the guidance of foreign nationals of Somali origin coming from
Europe and America. Significant numbers of foreign fighters
have been appearing in Somalia in recent months. Al-Shabaab
itself has also been making threats against a whole series of
countries in the region, in Africa and even more widely.
The solidarity and support shown to the TFG and to Somalia in
general has so far been largely focused on the political and
diplomatic arena. This may have created unprecedented verbal
support and a favorable international environment for the Government
of Somalia. There have been successive resolutions at the regional
and continental level in support of the TFG. Now the UN Security
Council has imposed sanctions on Eritrea for its continued support
to extremists who have been openly working to undermine the
TFG and the international efforts to restore peace and security
in Somalia.
This may all sound impressive, but it fails to provide what
the TFG actually needs: more resources, more practical support
and above all more security assistance. Unless the international
community is prepared to exert more realistic and coordinated
efforts to assist the TFG and help resolve its security problems,
it will remain difficult for the Government to exert its control.
There is certainly a need for the TFG itself to demonstrate
more progress and engage more actively with its actual and potential
allies in overcoming the challenges posed by Al-Shabaab and
Hizbul Islam group. Equally, the TFG needs to re-emphasize its
links with supporters of peace in Somalia including Ahlu Sunna
wal-Jamma, the administration of Puntland, the different clan
militias, the business community and civil society. There is
currently a real opportunity to do this following the December
3rd suicide bombing in Mogadishu which has shocked all Somalis,
and demonstrated the true nature of Al-Shabaab’s barbarism,
its lack of interest in innocent Somali lives, and, indeed,
its un-Islamic behavior. It underlined the fact that Al-Shabaab
has become dominated by foreign extremists whose agenda is no
longer related to Somalia.
Increased practical support to the TFG from the international
community would now provide a great opportunity to change the
situation for the better. At the Brussels donor’s conference
on Somalia in April more than $200 million USD was promised.
What has been delivered is too small to have had any real impact.
On Monday, President Sheikh Sharif opened the 10th session of
the Somali Parliament in Mogadishu. He told MPs that the Government
had “only received $3 million from the huge sum of money
promised by the world”. He called on donors to “fulfill
their pledges to the Somali people who are currently facing
brutal radicals bent on destabilizing not only Somalia but the
entire region”. Dressed in a military uniform, the President
told MPs that establishing security was the principal priority
for the Government, and it was making considerable progress
in this direction, recruiting and training Somali National Forces
and appointing a new leadership. He said the Government had
recruited enough troops to take on the extremists, but called
on Somaliland and Puntland to join forces with the TFG in the
fight against Al Qaeda which was, he said, a menace to all Somalis.
Certainly, without greater immediate and practical support from
the international community miracles cannot be expected of the
TFG and its allies. If the international community is serious
in its repeated protestations of support, it must be time for
it to put its money where its mouth is, and provide the resources
the TFG needs on the ground to defeat Al-Shabaab and its extremist
allies.
We say all this not because we are convinced that the TFG itself
has no weaknesses. It has. But it is critical that we all recognize
that the context within which the TFG operates in Somalia should
be taken into account. Context really matters. What the TFG
is facing today is not a normal challenge. What we have in Somalia
is rather an emergency situation and that is exactly how the
need to provide support to the TFG should be taken.
*************
top |
-
The
Copenhagen Accord and the way forward
The high-level segment of the Copenhagen
Summit on Climate change, attended by more than 120 Heads of
State and Government was held from 16 to 18 December 2009. This
particular segment was preceded by negotiations at the experts
and ministerial levels. The summit was a culmination of negotiations
which began in Bali in 2007. Subsequent formal and informal
sessions were held in Poznan, Bonn, Accra, Bangkok and Barcelona.
Despite the various rounds of negotiations and the last minute
efforts by ministers, the key issues, in particular, mitigation
and finance remained unresolved and, therefore, the negotiations
had to continue at the Heads of State and Government level.
Issues related to mitigation commitments by developed countries
and mitigation actions by developing countries as well as long-term
finance, scale and governance of finance for climate change
were the critical issues on which delegations could not reach
consensus.
Prime Minister Meles in his statement to the high-level segment
had indicated, quite appropriately, that "we are here to
negotiate, to give and take and seal a fair deal however messy
such a deal might be". Indeed the negotiations were not
the usual multilateral kind where experts and senior officials
reach consensus ahead of the meeting by Heads of State and Government.
Practically all the crucial issues were still outstanding (in
brackets in UN parlance) and therefore the Heads of State and
Government had to sit down and negotiate.
Africa has played a key role in helping the process move forward.
The Statement made by Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, on behalf
of Africa, at the beginning of the high-level segment gave a
sense of direction that the negotiations had to follow with
respect to one of the sticking points-- finance. As indicated
in last week's issue, the Prime Minister had proposed, among
others, for the start up funding to be put in a trust fund which
would be administered by a board of trustees composed of equal
number of donor and recipient countries; and that a long term
finance of 100 billion dollars per annum by 2020 with an interim
funding of 50 billion dollars per annum by 2015. He had also
proposed that with respect to the long-term funding the United
Nations’ Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC)
mandate a commission of political leaders and experts to review
all such funding mechanisms and come up with reliable system
of funding to achieve the targets. These proposals have been
taken into account and are incorporated into the Copenhagen
Accord. Considering the resistance to the long-term funding
beyond 2012 by some members of the conference of the parties,
the inclusion of this aspect of funding for climate change took
considerable effort in terms of consultations.
The Copenhagen Accord was negotiated by about 25 Heads of State
and Governments, including the participation of Algeria, Ethiopia,
Gabon and South Africa from our continent. Lesotho and the Sudan
also participated in the negotiations representing the Least
Developing Countries and the Group of 77 and China, respectively.
The Accord provides, inter alia, for the reduction of global
emission so as to hold the increase in global temperature below
2 degrees Celsius. It also provides for new and additional resources
approaching USD 30 billion for the period 2010--2012 with balanced
allocation for mitigation and adaptation; and mobilization of
USD 100 billion a year by 2020 to address the needs of developing
countries.
When the Accord was presented to the plenary of the Conference
of the Parties, most members accepted it, with the exception
of some South American countries and Sudan’s representative.
It is believed that the Accord would provide guidance and starting
point for actions on climate change. The accord will also help
finalize negotiations according to the mandate given under the
Bali Plan of Action.
Following the action taken by the Conference of the Parties
on the Copenhagen Accord, which took note of it, the Secretary
General of the United Nations appreciated the positive outcome
and considered the Accord a good beginning. He also proposed
that the high-level panel to be established by the Conference
of the Parties to study long-term funding be led by Prime Minister
Meles Zenawi.
Africa stands to gain from operationalization of the Accord.
In his statement to the high-level segment Prime Minister Meles
indicated that Africa would lose more than most if there was
no agreement on climate change. Absent an agreement, Africa
would continue to suffer from the consequences of climate change.
He also reiterated this position in his most recent interview
with the local media. Which is precisely why, not only Africa
but also other vulnerable countries such as the small island
states supported the Copenhagen Accord. The latter also strongly
appealed to those who stood against the adoption of the Accord
to show solidarity and stand with them in support of it. The
small island states, through Grenada, and the President of Maldives
made a passionate plea for the adoption of the Accord without
which they believed their survival as nations was at stake.
Obviously, the small island states and other vulnerable countries
stand to gain from the Accord, and if there was none, they would
equally be the ones to lose most. Hence, the international community
should now give priority to the early and speedy implementation
of the provisions of the Accord if developing countries, in
particular, those in Africa and the small island states are
to withstand the impacts of climate change.
*************
top |
 |
A
WEEK IN THE HORN WISHES ITS ESTEEMED READERS A HAPPY HOLIDAY
SEASON |
|
|
|
