|
-
Al-Shabaab attempts to
internationalize itself; the need to act now on Somalia
At the beginning of the week, there
was heavy fighting at Dusa Mareb, in Galgadud region of central
Somalia. The extremist opposition group, Al-Shabaab, made an
attempt to retake the town from which it had been expelled by
Ahlu Sunna wal-Jama’a just over a year ago. In recent months,
Ahlu Sunna has increasingly become a major challenge to
extremism in Somalia opposing both Al-Shabaab and Hizbul Islam
and co-operating with the Government in a number of areas. Last
week, it opened a congress in Abudwak, not far from Dusa Mareb,
to choose a formal leadership and organize a proper structure as
part of a process to pave the way for consolidating its place in
central Somalia and lay down a foundation for it to reach full
understanding and cooperation with the Government for action
against Al-Shabaab and Hizbul Islam.
Al-Shabaab’s attack on Dusa Mareb was
apparently intended to try to disrupt Ahlu Suna’s congress as
well as retake the town. It briefly succeeded in over-running
the town but within a few hours Ahlu Sunna reinforcements chased
Al-Shabaab out, causing it over 70 casualties and capturing
numerous weapons. It has been suggested, by some US
commentators, that Al-Shabaab has been trying to ‘encircle’
Mogadishu by infiltrating into central regions again. If so, the
defeat at Dusa Mareb, in addition to denting Al-Shabaab’s
morale, suggests it will need to rethink its strategy. Al-Shabaab’s
attack was meant to be coordinated with Hizbul Islam forces from
neighboring Hiiraan region but these never arrived.
Al-Shabaab, following claims that
hundreds of its fighters have completed military training in
Mogadishu, has now announced it is planning to intensify its
fight against the Government and in particular against AMISOM
and its 5,200 troops in Mogadishu. AMISOM’s mandate from the AU
is due to expire on January 17, and in today’s meeting the AU
Peace and Security Council recommends its renewal. UN Security
Council authorization for the mission, provided in Resolution
1872 (May 2009) also expires at the end of the month. The UN
Security Council is scheduled to discuss a report from the
Secretary-General on Somalia at the end of the month. This is
expected to provide an assessment of progress towards
implementing a three stage approach to Somalia, including the
possibility of a UN Peacekeeping Force. This, of course, is
something that has been under consideration now for over a year.
Al-Shabaab and Hizbul Islam have
previously threatened to launch terrorist attacks on Ethiopia,
Kenya, Uganda, Djibouti and even further afield. Evidence for
the growing internationalization of Al-Shabaab can be seen in
recent terrorist attacks including its attempt to attack an
Australian military base a few months ago, and the suicide
bombing in Mogadishu last month carried out by a Danish resident
of Somali origin; last week, another Somali with apparent links
to Al-Shabaab attempted the murder of a Danish Cartoonist; and a
Swedish artist received threats from Somalia. A Hizbul Islam
spokesman in Hiiraan, Sheikh Shuriye Afrah, who claimed
Ethiopian forces had been responsible for attacks on Hizbul
Islam near Belet Weyne, said Hizbul Islam was now preparing to
launch attacks into Ethiopia. Al-Shabaab has specifically
offered to send reinforcements to Al Qaeda fighters in Yemen;
two boatloads of arms arrived in Kismayo last week from Yemen.
Now the World Food Program (WFP) has
been forced to suspend much of its work in southern Somalia in
the face of threats against its staff and unacceptable demands
by Al-Shabaab. Last November, Al-Shabaab told WFP that it must
remove women from all jobs within the organization. It also
demanded a regular six-monthly payment, of US$20,000, to cover
“security”. A little later it told WFP that it, and all those
who worked for it, must cease operations on January 1st.
In December, a WFP security officer was shot and killed in Belet
Weyne, and faced by this ultimatum, WFP complied for the safety
of its staff. WFP offices in six towns have now been closed and
food supplies, staff and equipment have been moved to safer
areas under Government or Ahlu Sunna control. According to WFP
this has severely disrupted its ability to reach many of the
most vulnerable areas of the south. An Al-Shabaab spokesman in
Kismayo, Sheikh Ibrahim Garweyn, said he was delighted that WFP
and “other spy agencies” had suspended their food distribution
and other activities in Somalia. Despite the present drought and
widespread food shortages affecting much of Somalia, Sheikh
Ibrahim dismissed the current problems, claiming “we have great
land and can grow our own crops”. Another Al-Shabaab spokesman
in Mogadishu subsequently claimed Al-Shabaab had not asked WFP
to leave nor had it demanded payments for “security”.
All this underlines the fact,
whatever some western ‘experts’ on Somalia might still think,
that neither Al-Shabaab nor Hizbul Islam have any intention of
engaging in dialogue or of moderating their activities. Their
policies have in fact been quite consistent in their
determination to overthrow the Government of Somalia by whatever
means possible and set up their own extremist regime in Somalia,
an approach shared by their main foreign supporter in Asmara.
The international community should now be in absolutely no doubt
about the dangers of the terrorist threats emanating from
Somalia. It is not too late for it to respond to these though
time is certainly running out. In the last few days the office
of Mr. Gordon Brown, the UK Prime Minister has been quoted as
saying that both he and President Obama now believe that a
larger peacekeeping force is required in Somalia and that they
will support this when the issue next comes up at the UN
Security Council.
It would be premature to welcome this
in light of the long and still continuing process of
consideration of a UN peacekeeping force for Somalia. There is
no doubt that in addition to speeding up consideration of a UN
Peacekeeping force, the international community also needs to
act urgently to strengthen the Somali Government and its allies,
including Ahlu Sunna, to fulfill its promised pledges of
assistance, and to provide training, logistics and finance, and
diplomatic support to the Government. AMISOM must be
strengthened and raised to its planned capacity of 8000 troops.
The administration in the autonomous region of Puntland, coming
under increasing efforts at destabilization by extremists and
pirates, deserves concrete support from the international
community. Equally, the international community needs to engage,
support and assist Somaliland to hold a successful democratic
and peaceful election, and provide for a smooth transition to
ensure continued peace and stability there. The current
situation in fact provides a critical, as well as an opportune
occasion for the international community to engage fully with
Somalia and create a real possibility to establish the TFG on
firm ground.
*************
top |
-
The AU Peace and Security Council welcomes sanctions on
Eritrea
The Peace and Security Council of the
African Union held its 214th meeting in Addis Ababa
today. Among those present were the Special Representative of
the UN Secretary-General, Ahmedou Ould-Abdullah, the
representative from the IGAD Facilitators Office and the
Ambassador of the Arab League. The meeting was given an
extensive briefing on the report of the AU Commission
Chairperson on Somalia by Commissioner Lamamra, the AU
Commissioner for Peace and Security. He highlighted the
political situation, the need for support and capacity building
for the TFG, the recent Security Council sanctions against
Eritrea, and the overall security and humanitarian situation as
well as the deployment of AMISOM, force generation and support
from AU partners. Noting that the TFG had shown its commitment
to dialogue and reconciliation, he stressed it was imperative
for the international community to demonstrate to the leadership
of Al-Shabaab and Hizbul Islam that there would be a day of
reckoning for the deaths, misery and suffering they had brought
upon the innocent civilians of Somalia. He pointed out that
their terrorist actions of suicide bombings, targeted
assassinations, forced displacements of civilians and shelling
of residential areas constituted crimes against humanity.
Ethiopia is the current chairperson
of IGAD, and Ethiopia’s Permanent Representative to the AU,
Ambassador Kongit Sinegiorgis, also made a statement to the
Council, stressing that the Djibouti Peace Process was the sole
basis for continuous reconciliation efforts in Somalia and
IGAD’s belief that the TFG was the fulcrum for all peace and
reconciliation activities in Somalia. She paid tribute to the
sacrifices of the AMISOM troop contributing countries, and
welcomed the Security Council resolution 1907 imposing sanctions
on Eritrea as giving a right signal to those who are opposed to
peace and stability in Somalia. She did, however, note with
regret that support by the international community for Somalia
was “very, very minimal.”
In its communiqué the Peace and
Security Council reaffirms the AU support for the TFG and
reiterates its strong condemnation of continued acts of terror
against the TFG, the people of Somalia and AMISOM. It welcomes
UN Security Council resolution 1907 against Eritrea and calls on
the Sanctions Committee to urgently designate the relevant
Eritrean military and political leaders to enable an effective
sanction regime to be implemented. It also calls on the Security
Council to act speedily on the Council’s earlier call for a
no-fly zone and a blockade of ports to prevent the entry of
foreign elements and of logistical supplies for the opponents of
the TFG. It welcomed IGAD’s adoption last December of a
Comprehensive Strategy for Somalia to support the Djibouti
process and rebuild government structures and institutions. It
underlined the need for support for AMISOM, calling on AU
members, and the international community, to demonstrate
increased levels of commitment to the overall peace process. It
also reiterated its call to the United Nations Security Council
to take the necessary steps for the UN to play a role
commensurate with the gravity of the situation in Somalia. These
included putting in place the necessary legal, budgetary and
organizational arrangements and transforming AMISOM into a UN
peacekeeping operation. In the meantime, it also decided to
renew the mandate of AMISOM for a further 12 months as of
January 17th.
*************
top |
-
International aid and assistance for Yemen, why not
Somalia?
The recent attempt to blow up a US
North West Airlines flight to Detroit on Christmas Day by
al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, that is al-Qaeda in Yemen,
has made Yemen the focus of international anti-terrorist
activity. Britain and the US which temporarily closed their
embassies in Sana’a have now announced substantial increases in
assistance to Yemen. British aid to Yemen is due to more than
double from this year; and the US has indicated it will be
doubling its security assistance, currently standing at US $70
million. The US already provides substantial training and
military equipment to Yemen, and the Yemeni Government has
indeed had two recent successes on December 24 and December 17
against al-Qaeda units. The US and the UK have now agreed to
fund the creation of a counter-terrorism police unit in Yemen as
part of their efforts to fight terrorism there. Prime Minister
Gordon Brown has called a conference in London for the end of
the month to discuss how to combat radicalism in Yemen. Prime
Minister Brown said he wants EU foreign ministers to discuss
Yemen at their next meeting at the end of January. All this must
certainly be welcomed.
Prime Minister Brown also said he
would like the EU foreign ministers to discuss Somalia as well.
Although there is an international obligation to co-operate
against terrorism and terrorist activities, Somalia still seems
to be something of an afterthought despite the self-evident
growth of terrorist activity there in recent months. The recent
actions of Al-Shabaab in Mogadishu and elsewhere in Somalia have
led to the deaths of hundreds of people in a whole series of
terrorist atrocities over the last two years, most recently on
December 3rd, when a dozen or so of the first doctors
to graduate in Somalia for some twenty years were killed by a
suicide bomber. There have been expressions of regret but little
other positive identifiable reaction from the international
community. Similarly, despite clear indications that Somali
piracy and the activities in the maritime world are no more than
a symptom of events on land, the international community has
largely confined its efforts to escorting its own ships through
danger areas.
Inevitably, there has been concern in
the developing world that a real double standard is in
operation. When terrorist actions take place in other parts of
the world, we certainly respond. We are very aware that there is
an international obligation to assist in anti-terrorist
operations. The contrast with the response to terrorist actions
in say Ethiopia has been marked with a tendency not to take such
actions seriously however many people are killed. Terrorist
activities in the developing world are often seen as almost
expected, not to be taken too seriously, and even ignored. There
is no doubt this has weakened the overall international response
to terrorism, and made it far harder to deal with it. Ethiopia,
for example, saw the dangers posed by the terrorist actions of
Al-Itihaad Al Islamiya inside Ethiopia in 1996-1997, and the
potential links with other terrorist organizations outside the
Horn of Africa. It sounded a warning right after 9/11 that al
Qaeda might move its operations to Yemen and Somalia from Iraq,
Afghanistan and Pakistan, following the sustained international
financial and military crackdown against al Qaeda. It has
frequently publicized the activities of Al-Shabaab, a known al
Qaeda affiliate, for the last two years, but there has been
little interest, and little response.
It may be that the trend is now
changing, following suicide attacks outside the Horn of Africa.
There have been expressions of greater concern over the evidence
that people from around the world have been appearing in Al-Shabaab
camps in Somalia to be given training in terrorist operations,
suicide bombings, assassinations, and other techniques. It is
encouraging that the UN Security Council has at last recognized
the threat posed by supporters of Al-Shabaab in Somalia, and
finally imposed sanctions against Eritrea, but this can only be
the first stage of dealing with the threat this training poses
whether to the Horn of Africa, to Europe or to America. There
does appear to be a double standard involved when one considers
the lack of serious attention given to the actions of Al-Shabaab
and other extremist groups in Somalia. If we are determined to
deal with terrorism, and there can be no doubt that it is indeed
an international scourge and a very real danger, then there is
an obvious requirement for joint international action whenever
and wherever it appears. Terrorism is terrorism wherever it
occurs. A terrorist atrocity, a suicide bombing, an
assassination, a roadside bomb or the targeting of innocent
civilians is exactly the same whether it takes place in London,
Washington, Baghdad, Addis Ababa, Mogadishu or Belet Weyne.
There can be no distinction between any such activities. There
is no such thing as domestic as opposed to international
terrorism. All must be classified as terrorism.
Certainly, the international
community has failed to provide any real co-ordination and
co-operation to deal with terrorism. We are paying for this
failure today. If we are to deal with terrorism effectively, we
need to provide a systematic and integrated international
response, which will pre-empt any terrorist activity effectively
or react to it as necessary, anywhere in the world. The
developed world must accept that it has a responsibility to help
deal with terrorist activity in the developing world and stop
confining its interest to its own backyard. For many years, the
world stood and watched events in Somalia; efforts to deal with
the growth of terrorism in Somalia were minimal. The result was
that Somalia grew into the dangerous incubator of terrorism that
it has now become. There is today continuous and growing
terrorist activity in Somalia and in the region – with Al-Shabaab
offering support to al Qaeda in Yemen and threatening other
countries in the Horn of Africa and in Africa and even more
widely. Real progress against terrorism today will only take
place if we all accept that terrorism is a real and immediate
international problem. Terrorism is terrorism wherever and
whenever it occurs. Terrorism in Somalia needs an immediate
international response just as much. Resolution 1907 is a good
beginning.
*************
top |
-
Eritrea’s regime remains prey
to dangerous delusions of grandeur.
Following the imposition of mandatory
sanctions on Eritrea’s government by the UN Security Council,
Eritrea’s leader has once again been making bizarre and
outrageous allegations against third parties, deliberately
distorting the reality behind Eritrea’s current predicament. In
a by now characteristic diatribe against any and all who
disagree with him, he called the sanctions imposed on Eritrea’s
leaders, “shameful, misguided and illegal.” The one thing,
incidentally, they cannot be under the UN Charter is illegal.
Although the President of a country found liable for violation
of the United Nations Charter in starting the war against
Ethiopia in May 1998, he still has the temerity to call the
sanctions imposed on Eritrea “a manifestation of failed
adventurous policies”.
In
addition to devoting a considerable element of his New Year’s
interview speech to attacking Ethiopia, in his usual
self-contradictory manner, the President also claimed that the
sanctions were not the ‘handwork’ of Ethiopia which he labeled a
‘servant entity’. He reserved responsibility for masterminding
the imposition of sanctions to the US Administration, and more
particularly to US intelligence agencies. He even went as far
back as 1998 to blame these agencies as the instigators of the
Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict. He also detailed what he claimed were
numerous acts of conspiracy woven by Eritrea’s enemies over the
last eleven to twelve years intended, he said, to impede
Eritrea’s economic, development and investment programs and its
efforts to achieve food security. “Mercenary agents”, he added,
were deployed to block the flow of foreign currency into Eritrea
and to prevent it forming alliances with others.
According to the President of Eritrea, Uganda in drafting the
sanctions resolution was acting at the bidding of others merely
to give ‘the false impression that Africa’ was behind the
Security Council resolution. The fact, of course, is that the
resolution was specifically called for, unanimously, by the
African Union Summit at its last meeting in Sirte, Libya. The
resolution for sanctions against Eritrea’s Government will
indeed go down in history as an exemplary collaboration between
a regional organization and the United Nations as envisaged
under the Charter of the United Nations. Under Chapter 8 of the
Charter, regional organizations like the African Union are
expected to play a crucial role in the maintenance of
international peace and security. This resolution makes the
point very clearly. Consistent with its record in taking firm
decisions on matters of peace and security affecting the African
continent, the AU decided on the unprecedented step of calling
on the Security Council to take action against one of its
members. The resolution is a fitting tribute to the courage of
the AU and its determination to take a firm stand when an
irresponsible member refused to listen to the voices of reason
and continued with its acts of destabilization in the Horn of
Africa.
True to
form, Eritrea’s President did not stop at detailing his wild
conspiracy theories. Apparently dreaming of escaping
responsibility over accusations of his support to extremists in
Somalia, he deliberately misrepresented the Security Council
resolution and its intentions. The sanctions have been imposed
on the Eritrean regime as a measure of last resort after it
persistently rejected all efforts to make it see reason. It not
only refused to accept any suggestions to alter its policies and
all the efforts of regional organizations and others, in
deliberate and arrogant defiance, it even hosted terrorists
listed by the Security Council Counter-Terrorism Committee.
Eritrea even boasted that it supported these elements and went
so far as to call for attacks against the Security
Council-mandated African Peacekeeping Mission in Somalia, AMISOM.
The
Eritrean Government hasn’t merely been accused of not
recognizing the Transitional Federal Government in Somalia as
Eritrea’s leader suggested, deliberately trying to confuse his
own population. It is being held responsible for calling for,
and encouraging, the actual destruction of a Government
recognized and supported by the United Nations, the African
Union, IGAD, the Arab League, the OIC and the rest of the
international community. Despite the views of almost everybody
else, and in a breathtaking display of arrogance, Eritrea’s
President still persists in proclaiming that he, and he alone,
holds the virtue of wisdom in this matter. This, it might be
remembered, is leader of a country that has no common border
with Somalia. Yet he still thinks he alone can see the merit of
arming and organizing murderous extremist groups with direct
connections to international terrorist organizations. The
support of Eritrea’s regime to these extremist groups is not ‘a
fabricated ploy’ as Eritrea’s President might wish the world to
believe. It has been established in detail and with
incontrovertible evidence by the United Nations Monitoring Group
on Sanctions, and, indeed, out of the mouths of Eritrean
officials themselves.
The
futile attempts of Eritrea’s President to find scapegoats for
his quandary, a predicament of its own making, are even more
blatant in regard to Eritrea’s dispute with Djibouti. Here
again, Eritrea’s President alleges that the dispute was
concocted by others. He apparently thinks that after invading
and illegally occupying areas peacefully administered by a
neighboring country the matter can be resolved merely by ‘mutual
understanding and even arbitration.’ The belated Security
Council sanctions on this matter are neither exaggerated nor a
case of blackmail as the Eritrean President alleges in a blatant
effort to distract attention from his own obviously aggressive
conduct. Such claims only demonstrate that Eritrea’s regime is
incapable of reforming its conduct. In short, it still thinks
that it can continue with its policy of ‘shoot first and talk
later’ at least as long as the victim does not complain. If the
victim of its aggression raises objections, tries to contain or
resolve the dispute peacefully or even raises the matter with
the AU or IGAD as Djibouti did, then the Eritrean regime treats
such action as a hostile act and reacts hysterically. In this
case, it refused to heed appeals by the African Union, IGAD or
the Arab League. It persistently refused to accept fact-finding
missions from these bodies or from the UN, and ignored a
resolution of the Security Council demanding Eritrea withdraw
from areas it had occupied, recognize the existence of its
border dispute with Djibouti and settle the issue peacefully. To
respond to mediation efforts by calling the Government of
Djibouti a “tool for destabilizing regional peace in order to
secure handouts from Washington” was hardly helpful. The
Eritrean leadership and its President really should know by now
that they can’t persistently act outside international law
without any cost. Now is the time that they are being held
responsible for their own actions.
Eritrea’s President knows full well that his lengthy, largely
irrelevant and paranoid diatribe will have no impact on the
international community, which is demanding compliance with the
resolution not the lame excuses, insults and diversionary
tactics he has offered. His purpose, of course, is to try to
rally support from Eritrean nationals, particularly those in the
Diaspora on whom he has been counting to keep his machinery of
oppression oiled and afloat in recent years, however
inadvertently or unwillingly. The Security Council resolution
now makes such funding of Eritrea’s war machine, either by
Eritrean nationals or by other parties, illegal. Anybody
violating the sanctions now becomes criminally liable. Eritrea’s
President can no longer continue with his efforts to manipulate
fear of external threats to get support. Indeed, the continued
influx of young people to Ethiopia and the Sudan show just how
desperately the Eritrean people are trying to free themselves
from the brutal tyranny which holds their country in thrall.
The
sanctions imposed by the Security Council under Chapter 7 of the
United Nations Charter are binding on all members of the United
Nations. Eritrea’s President may call the United Nations “an
outdated entity whose structure and organizational set up do not
correspond with the 21st century”, and claim it is
responsible for most of the world’s problems, but at the end of
the day, the Eritrean leadership has no choice but to comply
with the demands of the Security Council. It must show
demonstrable compliance with the Security Council resolution and
convince the Sanctions Committee of the Security Council of its
return to compliance with the Charter of the United Nations
without any prevarication. The sooner it does so, the greater
the benefit to Eritrea and to the Horn of Africa.
*************
top
|
-
Ensuring the
integrity of the upcoming elections: challenges within and
without
In five months, Ethiopians will go to
the polls to cast their votes in the 4th national and regional
elections to elect representatives to both the Federal and
Regional Parliaments. Registration of candidates began on
December 25th and carries on until February 2nd
when financial subsidies will be allocated to the parties on the
basis of numbers of registered candidates. Although election
fever is so far muted, major developments have already shown the
desire of all Ethiopians not to have any repeat of the aftermath
of the 2005 elections. In an unprecedented move, the EPRDF and
four other opposition parties reached a ground-breaking
agreement, rightly called historic, especially when one looks
back at the track record of Ethiopian political parties and
their behavior not so long ago, for an election Code of Conduct
to be the guide to determine all aspects of the up-coming
elections and to make these elections and their outcome,
peaceful, fair and acceptable in the eyes of the electorate.
That Code, subsequently supported by 60 other political parties,
has now been promulgated into law by the House of People’s
Representatives. Only the Ethiopian Federalist Democratic Unity
Forum has yet to sign up to the Code, though it is, of course,
bound by its provisions now that the Code has become law.
Last week, the parties also agreed
another controversial issue, the allocation of airtime for the
contesting parties during the campaign. It took three days of
intense negotiations to agree a formula for media usage. This is
based on the size of current representation in Parliament and
the number of candidates each party is putting forward, with a
final 25% of time to be shared equally between all parties.
There are still some details to be ironed out over the
transmission of policy debates. Live transmissions dramatically
changed the face of electoral politics at the last national and
federal elections. They were, however, also characterized in
part by unverified allegations and counter-allegations as well
as highly personal attacks on the character of some
participants. This time it can be expected that the Code of
Conduct will deal with any concerns over the discipline and
structure of the debates.
All this raises expectations that
Ethiopian political parties have at last departed from their old
habits of excessively rancorous relationships, and now
understand and accept how political discourse should be handled.
There is no doubt the country has come a long way from the
earlier attitude of hard-line political parties effectively bent
on destroying themselves. We can realistically see the
appearance of a flourishing democratic system dawning in
Ethiopia, but that doesn’t mean we can, or should, relax our
vigilance. We need to remain prepared to respond quickly and
decisively to any challenges to our efforts at democratization
and to the building of a stable democratic system in this
country. Some of these challenges have emanated from home-grown
terrorist elements which have tried to change the course of
events inside Ethiopia, refusing to be a part of the process of
democratization. The most recent episodes of this kind were the
attempts at a violent challenge posed by Ginbot 7, and other
advocates of "color revolutions."
The latest gambits by such groups,
attempting to pose direct challenges to democratization and
create a threat to a stable democracy, have been encouraged,
supported, and even managed, by the Government of Eritrea which
has been doing all it can to try to derail the democratization
process in Ethiopia. The Eritrean leadership, of course, has
resolutely set its face against any form of elections or
democratic development, with the President saying firmly that
elections have nothing to do with democracy, that the people of
Eritrea do not want elections or political parties and that he
personally did not believe either of these were likely to appear
in Eritrea for many years, possibly not even in his lifetime.
Eritrean government involvement in efforts to destabilize
Ethiopia’s electoral process is no surprise to those who follow
events in and around Ethiopia, and the Horn region in any
detail. One only has to look back at what has transpired over
the last decade and a half and at the wars of aggression
unleashed by Eritrea against the countries of the Horn and
indeed across the Red Sea, in Yemen.
Several of these previous attempts of
the Eritrean regime to destabilize its neighbors ended with
Eritrea being given some hard lessons, but it seemed to have
learned little. It has continued with its old behavior, forcing,
IGAD, then the African Union and finally the United Nations
Security Council to tell Eritrea’s leaders, unambiguously, that
they cannot be allowed to continue to wreak havoc in the
countries of the Horn, and more especially in Somalia and
Djibouti. This reaction by the international community towards
the intransigence of Eritrea’s President has taken far too long
to evolve, but it has now culminated in the imposition of
sanctions against Eritrea’s leadership by the Security Council.
It followed repeated calls by the international community
requesting President Issayas to desist from activities that were
a clear and present danger to the stability of the whole region.
The destabilization strategies of the
Eritrean regime against Ethiopia, and other states, were summed
up in paragraph 15 of the Security Council resolution:
“…providing support from Eritrea to armed opposition groups
which aim to destabilize the region; harboring, financing,
facilitating, supporting, organizing, training, or inciting
individuals or groups to perpetrate acts of violence or
terrorist acts against other States and their citizens in the
region”. These include former elements of the Coalition for
Unity and Democracy, the most intransigent group of which,
Ginbot 7, has committed itself to change the constitutional
order in Ethiopia by violent means. There is credible evidence
that there have been frequent contacts between the Eritrean
regime and Ginbot 7 in recent months, and it now appears it is
being used as a platform by the Eritrean regime to try to
continue with destabilizing activities in the run-up to the
elections. The Eritrean Government has also made it clear that
it is trying to bring together a number of the Ethiopian
opposition groups which support armed struggle and terrorist
activities.
While
this Eritrean Government strategy is hardly new, it is
inevitably of some concern as federal and regional elections
approach. It makes it all the more important that the elections
are held in a manner that does not give surrogate extremist
groups any room or any opportunity to obstruct the holding of a
peaceful, transparent and credible election. The Code of Conduct
and the agreement over media access are an excellent start.
*************
top
|
| |
|
