|
-
UN Sanctions and President Isaias’
rambling eight page letter to the President of the Security
Council
On December 23rd last
year the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1907
(2009) imposing carefully targeted sanctions against Eritrea.
The resolution was a belated response to Eritrea’s continued
support to extremist groups in Somalia, and its failure to
comply with Security Council Resolution 1862 nearly a year
earlier concerning Eritrea’s invasion of Djibouti territory. The
resolution demanded that Eritrea immediately 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 demanded that Eritrea cease all
efforts to destabilize or overthrow, directly or indirectly, the
TFG in Somalia. It imposed an embargo on arms to and from
Eritrea, and announced travel restrictions and an asset freeze
to apply to individuals, including but not necessarily limited
to, the Eritrean political and military leadership. It might
also 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. Member
states were requested to report back to the Security Council
within 120 days on the steps taken to implement the Resolution.
The Security Council also emphasized that it would keep Eritrean
actions under review and it was prepared to modify, strengthen
or even lift the sanctions according to Eritrea’s compliance or
otherwise with the provisions of the Resolution. It was made
clear by the permanent Representative of the US to the UN,
Ambassador Susan Rice, that the decision had been taken with a
view to encouraging Eritrea to change its policies and to take
up a more responsible and constructive role in the region.
The Eritrean
Government’s response to the Resolution and to suggestions that
it might consider changing policies has been one of immediate
and total rejection. The UN Security Council Resolution was
immediately described as “shameful and unjustifiable", as a
“brazen act” based neither on fact nor on the provisions of
international law, and a “travesty of justice”. This rapidly
expanded to claim that the actions of the UN Security Council
were “illegal”. Eritrea has been making the same claim about the
actions of IGAD and of the African Union Summit. In the case of
IGAD Eritrea suspended its membership two years ago; in the case
of the AU, it has, of its own volition, deliberately refrained
from sending a delegation to AU Summits in Addis Ababa for a
number of years. In all three cases, the illegality appears to
lie in daring either to call for or to implement sanctions
against Eritrea.
Eritrean Government
supporters on the Internet have followed the same line claiming
that the Resolution was illegal, as well as unfair and unjust.
Whether it is unfair or unjust may be a matter of opinion,
though any independent observer of the Horn of Africa might
easily conclude that Eritrea’s aggressive policies over the last
few years provide good reasons for the Security Council’s
action. The issue of legality, however, is something else again.
As the Security Council specified in Resolution 1907, it was
acting under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, having 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. Security Council resolutions
are legally binding if they are made under Chapter VII which
allows for “Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace,
Breaches of the Peace and Acts of Aggression”. There can be no
question of the legality of the Council’s action either under
the Charter of the United Nations or under international law. No
amount of sophistry about who influenced the council’s actions,
whether Eritrea has recognized the Government of Somalia, or
alleged coercion of council members, alters the fact that the
Security Council was clearly convinced by the detailed evidence
of Eritrean aggression and efforts at destabilization, and
unimpressed by Eritrea’s repeated claims that the evidence did
not exist.
The major element of
Eritrea’s response has been to blame others, in particular, the
United States, though the relevance of this to the Security
Council debate and Resolution 1907 appears minimal. An Eritrean
Foreign Ministry statement said “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.” This was the main point of President
Isaias in his own apparently personal and rambling eight page
letter to the President of the Security Council written on
January 19th. This claims the United States bears full
responsibility for fomenting the conflict between Eritrea and
Ethiopia, for imperiling peace and stability in Somalia, Sudan
and elsewhere in the region for over 20 years. It has been
consistently hostile to Eritrea and continuously used its
influence with the World Bank to deny development assistance to
Eritrea. President Isaias has often claimed Eritrea does not
want or expect development assistance and has deplored its
effect in creating dependency in other African States. As usual
setting up fallacious claims in order to deny them, President
Isaias says the US has been harassing Eritrea because it refused
to recognize the Government of Somalia. He then asks whether
this should allow the Security Council to impose “punitive
measures against a defenseless country”. Eritrea is in fact the
most militarized country in Africa, and per capita, the most
militarized in the world. ‘Defenseless’ is hardly the word to
apply to a state that has also been the most aggressive in the
Horn of Africa, in deed in Africa as a whole, since its formal
independence nearly 17 years ago. It is in fact a letter that
seems to indicate something of the confusion in Asmara’s state
of mind, and the gravity of the leadership problem that Eritrea
now faces. It is also a letter that makes it impossible to avoid
sympathizing with the Eritrean people.
President Isaias goes on
to claim the sequence of events over Eritrea’s invasion of
Djibouti territory, which he attempts to deny, demonstrates that
this was no more than a fabrication of the United States for
‘ulterior purposes’. We do not need to support the United
States, but few accusations have been as exaggerated and
conspiratorial, even as mendacious, as those produced by
President Isaias both in his letter to the President of the
Security Council, or as given to various media outlets in
recent weeks. The Washington Post summed up President Isaias’
attitude after a recent interview as defiant and opposed to such
foreign ideas and imports as a free press, certain religions,
electoral democracy and political parties. Overall, for
President Isaias, it appears that Eritrea is the subject of a
long and detailed campaign orchestrated by the US resulting in a
“lopsided resolution that is not based on fact or international
law, [and] that will only aggravate regional instability and
insecurity….”. This would appear to be a clear threat to all
those who are out of step with President Isaias himself and the
Government of Eritrea.
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.
It is perhaps worth repeating that the sanctions against Eritrea
are not comprehensive; they are carefully targeted, aimed at
specific individuals and entities not at the civilian population
of Eritrea. Above all they underline the point that
international relations are governed by international law and
that this must be applied to the fullest extent in whatever
country. The Security Council has clearly expressed the hope
that Eritrea will respond positively. The reactions of the
Government of Eritrea and of its President suggest that this is
a vain hope. According to the Government of Somalia, Eritrea is
still supporting extremist elements in Somalia. Certainly, it
has made no effort to withdraw from Djibouti or to acknowledge
the problems there; indeed it has rather begun to organize an
armed opposition movement to the Government of President Ismail
Omar Guellah.
top |
-
TFG and Ahlu Sunna talks: making
progress
This week Somalia’s
Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and Ahlu Sunna wal Jama’a
(ASWJ) have been engaged in preliminary talks on how best to
integrate their forces and work together in politics, religion
and administration. Full co-operation in all these areas has
become long overdue in face of the challenge posed by Al-Shabaab
and its foreign fighters as well as continuing support from
Eritrea and other external forces. Last week, Al-Shabaab
officials openly declared their allegiance to al Qaeda under
Osama Bin Laden. The Ras Kamboni militia, a part of the Hizbul
Islam extremist coalition headed by Sheikh Hassan Dahir ‘Aweys’,
announced it was joining Al –Shabaab. There are now reports that
another militia in Hizbul Islam, the Anole militia which
operates in Juba region near Kismayo, is also about to join Al-Shabaab.
Al-Shabaab itself has been reported to be moving fighters into
Mogadishu in anticipation of an expected offensive by the TFG in
the near future. The Government announced this week that it was
committed to the protection of the people and would respect
international law. A spokesman said it would do “everything
humanly possible to protect the population”; government forces
were under orders to respect and protect civilians. No such
assurances have been given by Al-Shabaab.
This underlines the need
for the TFG and Ahlu Sunna to stand together against their
common enemy, the extremism and terrorism represented by Al-Shabaab,
its foreign fighters and the external allies now involved in
Somalia. The Somali Government noted this week that Eritrea,
despite the UN Security Council sanctions announced on December
23rd, has continued to send funds and weaponry to Al-Shabaab and
other extremist elements. The talks have been going well but
unity between the TFG and Ahlu Sunna can be successful if, and
only if, Ahlu Sunna is united within itself. Its recently
established organs, its executive and the relevant advisory
bodies, must work together and make decisions in conjunction
with its spiritual leader as well as with Ahlu Sunna leaders in
the Diaspora. Resolving any internal differences must be a
matter of central importance for Ahlu Sunna.
The Government itself
also needs to fully recognize that real co-operation with a
strong and unified Ahlu Sunna wal Jama’a is in its own interest
and in the interest of the people of Somalia. The efforts to
reach full and meaningful accommodation between the TFG and Ahlu
Sunna should be given complete priority at this critical moment.
The Government and Ahlu Sunna are not adversaries. Both parties
do recognize and agree that there is a real need for
co-operation between them. It is, however, important to realize
that all talk of support and co-operation needs to be within the
framework of implementation of the June 2009 Nairobi
declaration, and unless buttressed by specific agreements is
unlikely to provide meaningful action against Al-Shabaab. This
underlines the point that the two need to come together before
Al-Shabaab can take any further advantage from their minor
differences. Ahlu Sunna has suffered setbacks in Hiiraan region
in the last two or three weeks.
The peace process in
Somalia would also benefit significantly from a further
strengthening of existing co-operation between Ahlu Sunna and
the administration in Puntland, and indeed between the TFG and
the Puntland authorities. Similarly, the Governments of
Somaliland and Puntland also need at least to act together over
security in the face of the threats by Al-Shabaab and other
extremist organizations. Any renewed confrontation between them
merely creates opportunities for extremism. There is every
reason for the TFG, Puntland, Somaliland and Ahlu Sunna to
strengthen their current relationships and act together against
internal and external extremists in Somalia and beyond. None has
been spared the threat of extremism. Indeed, only this week, Al-Shabaab
and Hizbul Islam renewed their threats more widely, against
Kenya and Djibouti. No one should need to be reminded that
standing aside while others are attacked is not an option; it
merely postpones the day when extremists extend their assault to
include everybody.
top |
-
The need to
respect African Union staff and their responsibilities
Last week’s 14th Summit
of the African Union, held between January 31st and February
2nd, was by any standards a success with the adoption of
numerous important decisions on information and communication
technologies, conflict situations, unconstitutional changes of
government and the strengthening of the AU’s capacity, the
Copenhagen Accord, and the AU budget for 2010. Despite attempts
to extend the outgoing Chairperson's tenure, the Summit
unequivocally affirmed African Union rules in electing President
Bingu wa Mutharika of Malawi as Chairman. He was the choice of
the southern region whose turn it was to assume the rotating one
year Chairmanship of the Union.
Another attempt to bend
the rules occurred on the night of January 30th when the
Executive Council of the African Union met to adopt its
decisions for forwarding to the Summit the next day. The meeting
of the Council was due to start at 7:00 PM but did not
officially begin until the early hours of the next morning, at
01:30 am. In the absence of the chairman, a couple of
delegations pressed staff members of the Commission to draft a
decision which had not been agreed by the Council. When it
became clear staff members refused to go against the rules, they
were subjected to abuse and threats. It was only when the
overwhelming majority of member states present finally objected
to the pressure being put on staff, in complete contradiction of
the rules, that matters were finally brought to order, and
though business could not be conducted, it was possible to
adjourn the meeting with civility. It was, however, only after
the opening of the Summit itself that the Ministers were able to
finish the work of the Executive Council.
Staff members of the
African Union are of course charged with translating into
reality the ideals of the African Union, as enshrined in the
Constitutive Act. As international civil servants, they are
expected to have competence, integrity, impartiality and
independence. By the same token member states undertake to
respect the exclusive international character of members of the
Commission and staff and agree not to seek to influence them in
discharge of their responsibilities. It is obvious that items
that require the drafting of resolutions and decisions are left
to member states as a whole. They are not in the hands of one or
two individual delegations. Members of the Commission and its
staff are expected to implement the decisions of the policy
organs in complete neutrality. Their discretion is limited,
bound by the framework of Staff Rules and Regulations and by
instructions issued by the policy organs. The staff members are
not expected to take sides in any controversy and, accordingly,
should not be given tasks that require them to do so.
The incident on the
night of January 30th was extremely alarming and might have
created a highly threatening and dangerous precedent. The
African Union has very clear rules and regulations for its
operations, and established practices relating to the conduct of
business. One of these is the fundamental principle of sovereign
equality of all member states. Article 4 of the Statutes of the
Commission stipulates that in the performance of their duties,
the members of the Commission and other staff shall not seek or
receive instructions from any government. The same article
emphasizes that each member state undertakes to respect the
exclusive character of the responsibilities of the members of
the Commission and its staff and that it shall not influence
them in the discharge of their responsibilities. Furthermore,
Article 6 of the Staff Rules and Regulations affirms that the
organization shall ensure the protection of staff members
against any threats, abuse, violence, assault, insults or
defamation to which they may be subjected by reason of, or in
connection with, the performance of their duties.
To avoid any repetition
of this incident it is imperative that member states should
respect the impartiality of the elected officials and staff of
the African Union Commission, and fully understand they are
international civil servants who cannot be given instructions by
any authority outside the Union. It is, of course, incumbent
upon AU staff members to make sure they have the trust of member
states. They must continue to resist any instructions that may
be issued to them from any government or authority other than
the collective decisions of the membership of the AU or arising
from the rules and procedures of the Union. This is a serious
responsibility and not one to be taken lightly. The AU
Commission itself must ensure full compliance with the Statutes
and with all staff rules and regulations, particularly those
relating to impartiality and protection of staff members in the
performance of their duties.
top |
-
Ensuring the Integrity of the
Upcoming Elections: Defending the Sanctity of the Rules of the
Game
Preparations for the
upcoming elections are well underway, with formal election
campaigns now started. Already it is clear that the number of
voters will surpass the numbers registered for the previous
election. According to the National Electoral Board an
impressive 26.5 million people are now registered. The Board is
expecting the total registrations to reach 32 million. The Board
itself has been allocating funds for political parties, and the
parties themselves have been negotiating the media rules and
this week made the media allocations for campaigning. 25 percent
of the total airtime and newspaper space was apportioned equally
among all political parties; 55 percent has been allotted
according to the number of seats parties have in the federal
parliament and regional councils, and 20 per cent is being
distributed in line with the number of candidates the parties
have fielded. In all, some 495 hours of radio airtime, 76 hours
of television and 849 newspaper columns have been set aside for
political parties to publicize their policy options and programs
in the mass media, starting from next Monday, February 15th.
The National Electoral
Board has also announced that it is finalizing a Code of Conduct
for international observers. It will be recalled that there was
such a code in operation during the 2005 election, but
regrettably it was blatantly violated by some of the
international observers. It is believed that the new Code of
Conduct for international observers will take into account this
experience and it has come up with internationally accepted
standards of conduct to be observed by all international
election observers. The main objective is to ensure the
neutrality, impartiality and independence of the observers.
It is now clear that the
public is looking forward to the elections with growing
enthusiasm. The number of voters already registered is the
clearest indication yet that the upcoming elections will be
another milestone in the democratization process in this
country. As a periodic exercise of the will of the people,
elections are an indispensable pillar of any democratic system.
For Ethiopia, despite its long history, truly democratic
elections are still a recent development, following the fall of
the military regime less than twenty years ago. In fact, the
upcoming elections are the fourth national democratic elections
for the country. Previous elections have provided indications of
the gradual maturing of the components of the process of
democratization in the country. It reached a high point in 2005
when the entire election process was observed scrupulously until
voting was complete. Unfortunately, with some direct incitement
by foreign actors, some opposition elements then instigated
violence, rejecting the clearly expressed will of the people.
This cast an ominous shadow over an otherwise historic event in
the political history of the county. That is now in the past.
The Government of Ethiopia has turned over the difficult pages
of that unfortunate episode with determination. It has addressed
the problems and shortcomings that appeared in 2005 with full
respect for the rule of law, taking deliberate and resolute
steps to ensure that these will not be repeated.
The incidents in the
2005 election in one way certainly exposed some weaknesses in
the elements of the system and among its participants. The
country has taken stock of the root causes and consequences of
the unfortunate violence that ensued and looked closely at areas
for possible improvement and transformation. The Government has
pursued a determined effort aimed at reforming the pillars of
the democratic system where necessary. It has undertaken
extensive dialogue with different political parties and engaged
international consultants and used best international practices
to enhance the political process. This has involved building up
the institutions of democracy such as parliamentary procedures,
passing new laws on freedom of expression and information, and
revising the composition of the National Electoral Board and
appointing its members with the full involvement and
participation of opposition parties. Most recently, the Code of
Conduct for Political Parties agreed by some 65 parties has been
passed into law. After putting all these mechanisms and
institutional structures in place, the critical task ahead is
now to ensure their implementation fully and scrupulously. The
Government has a particular responsibility to make sure that all
participants of the democratic process faithfully follow the
rules of the game of politics.
In fact, the
responsibility to ensure the sanctity of the rules of the game
also rests on all stakeholders. The electorate, the political
parties, independent candidates, election officials,
parliamentarians, law enforcement officials, and the judiciary,
different government entities including the NEB, the media and
civil society organizations: all have a direct stake in the
peaceful, free and fair conduct of the upcoming elections. All,
in fact, are duty bound to ensure that the rules of the
democratic process are fully respected. The various mechanisms
for pre- and post-election activities are all now being put in
place. The Code of Conduct for Political Parties is particularly
significant as it holds together the different aspects of the
entire process. It defines the conduct of the main actors in the
electoral process, the political parties and their members, and
their need and agreement to abide by the rule of law. It is
about the peaceful conduct of all aspects of the electoral
process. It is about respect for the constitutionally-mandated
organs of Government. It is about unflinching commitment to the
rules, for both the process itself and the outcome, whatever it
may be. Some of these mechanisms will start to become
operational when required. Others, like the Joint Council for
Political Parties, have already started to function.
The Code of Conduct is
about advancing the country’s political agenda in a meaningful
and peaceful manner. It is about preventing and rectifying
mistakes should they occur. Parties are expected to respect the
Code themselves, and ensure its full respect by their members
and others. The Code of Conduct makes it possible for the
political parties themselves to jointly address any
transgressions of the rules of the game through the Joint
Council. This will encourage the practice of working together
for the common objective rather than working at cross purposes
as so often in the past. The new law, in fact, creates an
enabling environment for the effective implementation of
important provisions of the Constitution on human and democratic
rights.
It has to be said that
some political parties are very late in deciding to catch-up
with the overwhelming majority of political parties, and indeed,
the entire society, and give an unequivocal commitment to the
political process or demonstrate their determination to respect
the rules agreed by everybody else. These few appear to be
trying to both use and similarly undermine the system at the
same time. This is where the Code of Conduct is exactly needed
to avoid such situations, where some feel that they might try
normal, legal and peaceful avenues to win public confidence, but
if that does not appear to advance their own particular
objectives, then they will try to copy discredited color
opposition movements that attempt to incite street violence and
force their way to power in defiance of the democratically
expressed will of the people. This reprehensible conduct is
unconstitutional and, as demonstrated in 2005, has been
completely rejected by the electorate. All political parties are
now expected to come on board. The system established by the new
law provides an extensive mechanism to raise, investigate and
resolve complaints. All the actors in this historic national
process, of the 2010 elections, have an obligation to
themselves, and to the people of Ethiopia, to respect and to
ensure the respect of all, for the sanctity of the rules of the
democratic electoral process. Both the ruling party and all
opposition parties have the right to enjoy the democratic
process, but they also have the responsibility to ensure that
this process is both deepened and expanded, and is applicable to
all. And this must begin with full respect for the process, for
the rules of the game.
top |
|
