|
A Week in the Horn |
|
The Security Council on Monday also requested Eritrea to facilitate a UN Technical Assessment Mission’s visit to the region this week to look into the issue of relocation for UNMEE. The Technical Mission arrived in Ethiopia on Wednesday. It had been unable to travel to Eritrea. After originally issuing visas, the Eritrean Government then refused permission for the team to visit Eritrea. The UN Technical Assessment Mission, together with the Special Envoy of the Secretary-General to Ethiopia and Eritrea, Ambassador Azouz Ennifar, held talks in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia yesterday. In the discussions, Ambassador Sahlework Zewde, Head of the African Department of the Foreign Ministry of Ethiopia, underlined that this situation had arisen because of the failure of the Security Council to take measures against Eritrea for its earlier violations of the Temporary Security Zone. Such measures were specified under Article 14 of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement. It was regrettable that the Security Council had failed to take resolute action earlier.
Ethiopia is prepared to co-operate with the temporary relocation of UNMEE but it believes that it might be appropriate for the Security Council to formally confirm the assertion of the Secretary-General that relocation would not affect the integrity of the Algiers Agreements. It also believes that the Security Council should not allow one party to humiliate a UN Mission, creating a very dangerous precedent. Ethiopia has made it clear that it is important to underline the fact that Eritrea’s assertions, that virtual demarcation is final demarcation and that UNMEE and the TSZ are no longer relevant, are unacceptable. The Security Council Resolution 1798 (2008), adopted 30 January 2008, agrees with Ethiopia that a physical demarcation is required. The mandate of UNMEE can only end when demarcation on the ground has been achieved. In the discussions, the UN Technical Assessment Mission made it clear that withdrawal of UNMEE was not an option for the Security Council.
Prime Minister Meles has assured the UN Secretary-General that Ethiopia would cooperate with the UN in addressing this latest challenge to UNMEE, including temporary short-term relocation to Ethiopia. UNMEE forces in Ethiopia, however, would not be operational but only have an administrative status. UNMEE’s area of operations remains the TSZ. Equally, the Secretary-General has made it clear that temporary relocation does not affect the legal obligations of either party. Relocation is a direct result of Eritrea’s action and can only be done without prejudice to the continued validity of the TSZ. The logistical arrangements of relocation, and privileges and immunities of the personnel and the Mission would be governed by the “Agreement between Ethiopia and the United Nations on the Status of the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea” of 23 March 2001. Once temporary relocation has been completed, the Security Council will have to consider further options.
The Summit dealt with four main substantive issues. The first item of its agenda was the election of the Chairperson of the African Union, and Tanzania's President, H.E. Mr. Jakaya Kikwete, was elected unanimously as Chairperson of the Union. His election was widely expected and welcomed. The East Africa region, which had twice been passed over, was united behind Mr. Kikwete, whose experience in AU matters will undoubtedly be a tremendous asset in strengthening the African Union and in defending Africa’s interests in the international arena.
This year's Summit was organized under the theme "Africa's Industrial Development". Prominent visitors to the Summit included the President of the World Bank and the Director-General of the United Nations Industrial Development Organization, both of whom made insightful contributions on the need for Africa to industrialize and diversify its production base. The need to address the constraints that production costs are imposing on Africa's industrial development process, and in particular the energy and transportation costs, was emphasized. There was agreement that Africa's quest to expand its electricity and transportation infrastructure, a sine qua non for industrial development, should be wholeheartedly supported even in the face of environmental concerns.
There were also elections for the Chairperson and Deputy Chairperson of the Commission as well as the Commissioners. The outgoing Chairperson of the Commission, H.E. Prof. Alpha Oumar Konaré was not seeking re-election, and the most qualified candidate, the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Gabon, H.E. Mr. Jean Ping, took the election for Chairperson of the Commission. The outgoing Chairperson, H.E. Prof. Alpha Oumar Konaré, was commended for the great distinction of his service, and his dedication, raising the AU’s profile on the international scene and working vigorously to strengthen the Commission's role and to advance the continent's process of integration. There is no doubt that the incoming Chairperson of the Commission, Mr. Jean Ping, one of Africa's most illustrious diplomats with vast experience in multilateral diplomacy notably as the President of the 59th session United Nations General Assembly in 2004-2005, will be able to build on the achievements of his predecessor.
The choice of Deputy Chairperson of the Commission was a more contested election, with several rounds of balloting before the East African candidate, Mr. Erastus Mwencha, from Kenya, and current Secretary-General of COMESA, was elected. His experience and know-how as the Head of a Regional Economic Community will undoubtedly be an asset in the daunting task of accelerating continental integration.
The election of the Commissioners was held despite the fact that the recently conducted Audit of the Union identifies the method of electing of Commissioners as one of the root causes in problems relating to the functioning of the Commission. In this connection, the Audit put forward proposals for the election process to provide for the creation of an effective and well-coordinated Commission. The Audit's findings are going to be discussed at an Extraordinary session of the Executive Council, scheduled to take place in April in Arusha, Tanzania. It was, nonetheless, stressed that bringing together the existing as well as newly elected members of the Commission should provide new dynamism for the Commission and ensure continuity in the organization’s functioning .
The Summit decided to elevate the Ministerial Committee of Ten Countries, established by the Accra Declaration of July 2007 to consider the issue of the Union Government, to the level of Heads of State and Government. It will also include the outgoing and current Chairpersons of the Union. This Committee of Twelve has now been tasked to make concrete recommendations at the next Assembly meeting scheduled to take place in Sharm El Sheik, in Egypt, in July 2008. There is agreement that debate on the Union Government, which has been on the agenda since the establishment of the African Union, needs to be conclusively addressed once and for all. This will allow the Union to charter a way forward on the basis of the current prevailing majority view that the Union should be built step by step on the basis of the Regional Economic Communities.
The annual budget of the Union as a whole was adopted without only minimal discussion. This was a change from precious years and an indication of the growing, and encouraging, commitment by member States to provide the Union with the means to function efficiently and provide for the aspirations of the peoples of Africa.
It is clear from its reports that Human Rights Watch makes a basic assumption that any, and all, allegations made by the Ogaden National Liberation Front about the Somali Regional State, and by Al-Shabaab, or by their vociferous supporters in the Diaspora or in the international media, are accepted without demur. Equally, all evidence produced by Ethiopian official sources is automatically dismissed as inaccurate, exaggerated or invented. Despite detailed, well-sourced evidence of the atrocities committed by the ONLF, Human Rights Watch ignores virtually all but one incident , only adding in a couple of lines that the ONLF was “allegedly” responsible for a couple of bombings.
It makes no mention of widespread ONLF terrorist operations over several months which include regular assassinations of government officials, and of clan elders who opposed the ONLF, attacks on commercial lorries, landmines on road and the destruction of civilian vehicles, of the burning of houses and villages and the other attempts to disrupt normal life and the development of the region. In its comments on alleged government activities, it drops all suggestion of “allegations” and repeats accusation after accusation as fact without any indication of the source or reliability of the information.
Similarly, in Somalia, the detailed evidence of the widespread terrorist attacks by al-Shabaab is ignored in the section on Ethiopia. HRW merely lists claimed abuses by Ethiopian troops in Mogadishu, again with no attempt to evaluate the source of these claims or investigate their accuracy. The accuracy of indiscriminate shelling is not borne out by the evidence, and HRW makes no mention of the undisputed random shelling carried out by al-Shabaab, deliberately designed to target heavily populated areas and force displacement of population.
Nor does Human Rights Watch make any attempt to establish the reality of the situation of human rights in Ethiopia more generally, ignoring any changes or improvements that have been made, and being content to accept any unsubstantiated rumors from opposition sources without further investigation. It makes no mention of international assistance in improving judicial operations. It ignores the increasing devolution of authority and power to district and even local kebele administrations and the consequent expanding participation at grass roots. It makes no reference to the thousands of cases dealt with by the Office of the Ombudsman, and of the activities of the Human Rights Commission.
Indeed it appears that HRW does not know of the existence of these organizations. This is presumably because it has made no attempt to evaluate the reality of human rights in Ethiopia. Certainly there are no more than a handful of private FM stations on air but the government does not own all electronic media. HRW simply parrots opposition allegations of, for example, blocking access to Internet sites and jamming of external broadcasts with no reference to government denials or to the source of the original claims. Again, it makes clear it accepts all opposition allegations implicitly and rejects all government statements, irrespective of the accuracy of either.
HRW makes no mention of the acquittal and release of journalists last year or of the pardoning of others. This is typical of its technique; it contrasts significantly with other organizations like the Committee for the Protection of Journalists, also strongly critical of Ethiopia. The CPJ is honest enough to admit improvements when they occur, and notes for example the appearance of the first independent commercial radio station and of a new private weekly paper in October as well as the drafting of a new media bill. Ethiopia has always admitted that human rights is a work in progress and that there remains much to be done. It is, however, working on it.
It is plain hypocrisy on the part of Human Rights Watch to apply double standards and condone terrorist acts while turning blind eye to gross violations elsewhere. It is also in these circumstances, impossible to accept that Human Rights Watch can have any credibility. Its protestations of reporting on abuses from all sides ring very hollow, and indeed are demonstrably untrue. It is neither impartial nor accurate, and given its consistent bias against the government of Ethiopia, it seems clear that it has rejected any commitment to balanced reporting.
|