|
A Week in the Horn 30.1.2009 |
|
|
An additional theme for the Summit is the world financial crisis on which Prime Minister Meles is making the keynote speech. Other speakers who will be intervening on this include the Presidents of the World Bank and the African Development Bank, and the UK’s Lord Malloch Brown. Other subjects that will be addressed by the Summit include Sudan, Zimbabwe, Somalia and the coups last year in Mauritania and Guinea, whose seats have been left vacant for this meeting. Ahead of the Summit, leaders from the Great Lakes Region, Burundi, Congo, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda, have been holding talks to discuss the conflict in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo. The third subject that will undoubtedly attract much attention at the Summit is Union Government. It should be recalled that the last Summit in Sharm el-Sheikh instructed the Commission to prepare the modalities and details for the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee of Twelve Heads of State which met in Arusha last May. Their proposals were fairly clear in the emphasis they put on pursuing the goal of Union Government in a realistic way, and in full compliance with the principle of sovereignty and of popular participation in the process. It is not clear whether the report of the Commission on the Establishment of Union Government is entirely in line with the decisions of the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit. Not completely unrelated to this is the question of the next Chairperson for the African Union, a subject which will attract considerable interest. Technically, it is the turn of North Africa for this position. While all these issues will be treated by the Summit itself, for the last two days concentration has been on the meeting of the Executive Council, of foreign ministers, meeting today and yesterday. Among the major items the Council has been considering has been the Report of the Chairperson of the Commission. Among other things this covers consideration of conflict situations, including Djibouti and Eritrea, Ethiopia and Eritrea, and Darfur and the ICC. On Djibouti and Eritrea reference was made to the IGAD meeting earlier in the week and the Council was asked to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1862. On Somalia, recent positive developments were noted as were some negative ones, and the Council was asked to support the Djibouti process. On Sudan, the ICC initiative attracted much attention. The consensus was that the AU should reiterate its position and insist on deferral of the ICC moves against the President of Sudan. It was felt the ICC action threatened widespread complications for Sudan and for the region, but the importance of addressing impunity was underlined and Sudan was encouraged to take necessary steps in this regard. On Ethiopia and Eritrea it was emphasized that the critical point was Eritrea’s violation of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, the bedrock of the Algiers Agreements, and its demolition of the Temporary Security Zone. Other items discussed by the Council included the Draft Strategic Plan for 2009 to 2012. Following a proposal by the Permanent Representatives Committee (PRC), of Ambassadors, the ministers agreed this should be deferred until July. The plan will be revised through discussion between the PRC and the Commission. The budget programme for 2009 was considered and agreed. An AU sub-committee noted in a report last week that eight countries had not paid their statutory contributions to the organization for at least two years, and that only nineteen countries were up to date in their payments. The Council also considered the progress report on the Abuse of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction. It is to be expected that a very strong resolution calling for discussions between the AU, the UN and the EU will be adopted, highlighting African concerns over the unilateral actions taken by individual countries and mainly targeting Africans. The Council considered the draft action plan for 2008-2010 for the Great Green Wall for the Sahara and the Sahel Initiative, and the report of the Pan-African Parliament. The Council discussed the progress report of the Commission on Integration of NEPAD into the Structures and Processes of the African Union. It also approved a very strong declaration on the situation in Gaza. As we go to press, the Council is continuing its deliberations. **********
In its subsequent communiqué, the meeting expressed appreciation to the people and government of Ethiopia for the sacrifices made to promote peace and security in Somalia, and urged all who had been advancing the presence of Ethiopian troops for their excuse for continuing to fight to cease forthwith. It also expressed its appreciation to Uganda and Burundi for the sacrifices they were making to advance peace and security in Somalia. It welcomed the decision of the AU Peace and Security Council to extend the mandate of AMISOM, and the intention of UN Security Council to establish a UN Peace Keeping Operation in Somalia as a follow-on force to AMISOM. It called on the Council to implement this intent without delay. It noted the decisions on the deployment of additional battalions for AMISOM reached at the meeting of the AU and of the Troop Contributing Countries earlier this month, and the pledeges made to airlift troops to Somalia by Algeria and the USA. It welcomed the extension of the transitional period by two years and the expansion of the parliament, and encouraged the parties to establish a government of national unity in Somalia as soon as possible. The meeting reiterated IGAD’s decision to continue to take a proactive role in Somalia. It called on the international community and the region to continue the fight against piracy in and around the territorial waters of Somalia. It decided to call for a special appeal to the international community, international NGOs and any others for the provision of humanitarian assistance for the people of Somalia. On Sudan, the meeting received a report on the situation in Darfur, and noted with serious concern the recent flare up of conflict there. It called on all opposition groups to return to the negotiating table. It called on the United Nations to complete the deployment of UNAMID and on the ICC not to pursue charges against President Omar el Bashir as this would endanger the cause of peace in Sudan. The meeting, briefed on the border dispute between Djibouti and Eritrea by the Foreign Minister of Djibouti, welcomed UN Security Council Resolution 1862 calling on Eritrea to withdraw its troops from Djibouti territory, and called on Eritrea to respect the decisions of the UN Security Council. The next regular meeting of the IGAD Council of Ministers will be held in March in Djibouti. *********
The new President will face major problems. One critical issue is whether he will receive the full support of the Somali people inside and outside the country. He also will need the support of regional countries, and the international community as a whole, to address his most pressing difficulties. These include the problems of choosing a new government, balancing clan interests and developing and expanding the peace and reconciliation process, and trying to ensure humanitarian assistance continues, not to mention piracy and most important, the problem of security. There have been growing concerns that the new government might even be faced with problems in returning to Somalia. Earlier this week, the extremist Al-Shabaab, which has announced it is going to go on fighting to impose its own version of a state on Somalia, claim to have taken over Baidoa, the seat of the Transitional Federal Parliament. They arrived shortly after the last Ethiopian troops left Baidoa on Sunday on their way to the border. For reasons still unclear, the TFG forces there did not offer any resistance as an Al-Shabaab force from the Merifle/Rahenweyne, headed by Sheikh Muktar Robow, entered the town. In fact, elsewhere Al-Shabaab has been facing growing resistance and is very much weaker than international media reports suggest. Far from controlling most of Somalia, Al-Shabaab actually controls no more than a few towns. Earlier this month, several different Al-Shabaab groups came together in central Somalia to try and attack Gurae’el, held by Ahlu Sunna wal Jama’aa, a moderate Islamic organization opposed to the more violent extremism of Al-Shabaab. They were badly defeated with heavy losses. Among those killed were several senior commanders and nine people holding foreign passports. On Thursday this week Al Shabaab was driven out of Dusa Mareb, on this occasion with the loss of at least fifty fighters. It appears Al-Shabaab, like the earlier extremist organization in the 1990s, Al-Itihaad Al-Islamiyya, is dividing into a series of separate, clan-based, units who are finding it difficult to co-operate effectively. Al-Shabaab forces in Kismayo, for example, are divided into at least three different units. The Ras Kamboni group, based in Kismayo, is largely made up of members of the Ogadeni clan; the members of a another group in Kismayo, Anole, are drawn from the Harti; the group calling itself Khalid bin Walid, also in Kismayo, is associated with the Marehan. They seldom manage to co-operate. Other Al-Shabaab groups, Al-Itisam, Al-Mujahedeen, and Jabhat al-Islamiyya, are also all affiliated to different clans and sub-clans. None, it might be added, number more than a few dozen fighters. It is no coincidence that the overall leader of Al-Shabaab has to come from none of these clans but is from the north of the country, and therefore outside the main clan rivalries of southern Somalia. **********
The discussions on the draft Country Self-Assessment Report were divided up into separate sessions on Democracy and Political Governance; Economic Governance and Management; Corporate Governance; and Socio-economic Development, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs participating in the first with equal numbers of opposition groups and government representatives and other stakeholders. Discussions were lively and there were extensive comments on the assessments made by the consultants who had reviewed the state of governance. Debate covered the accomplishments and challenges in all areas of governance. Participants commented on the results of the desk research, interviews, household surveys, expert opinion surveys, woreda consultation forums, and focus group discussions. There were questions on the selection of study groups, the methodology followed, the pattern of the APRM continental questionnaire and on evaluation of the achievements and challenges. There were substantive discussions on the state of democracy in Ethiopia, in particular a review of the 2005 elections. This included the conduct of Government organs, the private and public media, of opposition parties and international observers. In the general discussion on political governance, particular attention was given to the issue of access to media, the rule of law, access to justice, the independence of the judiciary, separation of powers, and the rights of women and children. Debates on respect for human and democratic rights, decentralization, and causes and management of intra-state conflicts were heated. On these and other issues of governance, some opposition parties demanded more should be said, arguing the report should have been more forceful. There was particular disagreement over the role of the media in 2005 which some opposition speakers said had failed to be constructive. They also characterized the media as far from diverse or adequate, objecting to reference to a vibrant media environment. Government representatives underlined factual errors in the report, among them allegations made by the opposition, and argued the report generally understated some facts, misrepresented and in some cases used wrong sources. Some opposition speakers made clear they expected the government to reflect on their criticism and comments on political governance. The discussions in these four areas were then brought together for consolidated deliberations held with similarly equal participation of government and opposition representatives, of civil society and of the private sector. At this point the Government gave some of its allotted seats to organizations representing persons with disabilities. In these later sessions, highlights of the earlier discussions were underlined. In addition to the issues raised in the Democracy and Political Governance group noted above, the discussions from the Economic Governance and Management group focused on the reality of the economic growth in the country, the causes and solutions for the high level of inflation and the need to ensure equitable distribution of benefit from the economic growth in the country. One issue from the Corporate Governance debates focused on the levels of corruption in the country and the institutional and legal efforts being exerted to fight it, as well as the responsibilities and conduct of the private sector and its particular needs in terms of an enabling environment. From Socio-economic Development, the focus included achievements and challenges in promoting education, health care and employment and gender equality. The results of all these lively discussions and debates, a testimony to the process of entrenchment of democracy in Ethiopia, will now be considered by the National Governing Council. ********** On Monday, MFA officials addressed a training Workshop on Foreign Policy and Parliamentary Diplomacy, attended by more than 130 members of Parliament’s various Standing Committees. Since its inception, the House of Peoples' Representatives has been engaged in diplomatic activities. It has established 18 parliamentary friendship associations, and Ethiopia now belongs to the Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU), the African Parliamentary Union (APU), the Pan African Parliament (PAP), the African Caribbean and Pacific and European Union (ACP-EU) joint parliamentary assembly, the Afro-Arab inter parliamentary union, and the IGAD inter-parliamentary union. It is an executive member of the IPU and will be hosting the 103rd conference of the IPU here in Addis Ababa in April. Ethiopia is also the host country for the newly established IGAD parliamentary union. The House of Peoples' Representatives also sent a number of parliamentary delegations to various countries. MFA officials, including Ato Wahide Belay, MFA Spokesperson, Ato Tesfaye Yilma, Director General for Europe and America, and Ambassador Dinberu Alemu, Director General Legislative and Justice Organs Liaison Office, briefed the MPs, stressing that Parliament, the supreme organ of the government and an expression of the sovereignty of the people, was constitutionally mandated to legislate and oversee implementation of government policies, including its diplomatic activities and the ratification of international agreements. Parliamentary diplomacy goes beyond this, involving diplomatic relations of national parliaments at bilateral and multilateral levels, and all forms of parliamentary cooperation. Parliamentary diplomacy needn’t be conducted exclusively between members of parliament; it also involves MPs visiting countries and meeting officials, members of business communities and the diaspora as well as the media. Parliamentary friendship groups operate on the basis of mutual political and economic interests. MFA officials pointed out that the effectiveness of parliamentary diplomacy depended largely on the working mechanisms employed. Parliamentarians needed clarity on strategic national issues, national security threats, and on government policies. They should be aware of the current state of relations between Ethiopia and other states, information that is always available at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Delegations should be aware of their own national agenda as well as properly briefed on the host country. As MFA officials pointed out, Parliamentary Diplomacy and the Public Diplomacy of the Ministry are complimentary. Issues raised during discussion included the Ministry’s efforts in economic diplomacy, the role of the Diaspora, the current situation as regards Eritrea and Ethiopia’s efforts to resolve the problem through dialogue, the withdrawal from Somalia and regional conflicts, the revitalization of IGAD and the effects of the global economic slowdown on Ethiopia’s economy. The parliamentarians expressed their commitment to ensure parliamentary diplomacy promoted the national interest and complimented the government’s wider diplomatic efforts. **********
**********
In these circumstances, it was not surprising that Eritrea’s response to the UN demand for withdrawal was immediate and downright rejection, reiterating that its forces had never invaded its southern neighbor. It once again preferred to repeat a litany of allegations against the UN for what it claims has been the UN’s failure to address the Ethiopia Eritrea boundary dispute. It has been a while since Eritrea first resorted to such obfuscations on almost every issue it might have to deal with. Rather than directly responding to what it has been accused of, Eritrea has repeatedly engaged in bellicose diatribe against Ethiopia. Ethiopia, it appears, is President Issayas’ enduring mantra. Djibouti is only there doing Ethiopia’s bidding. It does not seem to matter much that everything it claims actually flies in the face of all the facts on the ground. What is more interesting perhaps is the rhetoric of Eritrea’s leadership regarding what it alleges is the violation of international law that the UN has allowed itself to be part of, by not arm-twisting Ethiopia into accepting whatever outrageous demands Eritrea might make. The rhetoric is that the UN has simply failed to discharge its primary responsibility as the guardian of international law. Judging by the tone of these comments they might easily have come from Djibouti, rather than the very aggressor which is continuing to occupy a neighboring country’s sovereign territory. This apparent new found enthusiasm for the tenets of international law and the notions of sovereignty is surprising coming, as it does, from a leadership that had the dubious honor of making enemies out of all its neighbors less than five years after independence, and which has violated numerous tenets of international law since 1993. Of course, the government in Asmara has every reason to show its contempt for the UN as the latter has failed to take full stock of Eritrea’s repeated transgressions of international law. Eritrea’s aggression against Ethiopia in 1998 is just one incident demonstrating Eritrea’s deep seated contempt for international law. It is an open secret that Eritrea made a habit of humiliating the UNMEE peacekeepers until the UN finally buckled under pressure, accepting that UNMEE could no longer pretend to be carrying out its mandate in accordance with the Algiers Agreements, signed by Eritrea and Ethiopia in 2000. Similarly, Eritrea on a number of occasions has been identified by the UN Monitoring Group as breaching the arms embargo on Somalia. It is obvious from the way in which President Issayas Afewerki’s government does business, that diplomacy and respect for international law are the last things that it considers even remotely important: neither are priorities to lose sleep over. Indeed, if there is one word that has been conspicuously missing from Eritrea’s political lexicon since independence, it must be ‘respect” for international law. Interest in dialogue doesn’t appear to be of much relevance either. Eritrea appears to have no time for “the smiles and scowls” of diplomacy. As his recent interview makes it abundantly clear, President Issayas’ proclivity for flexing his muscles whenever he thinks fit, is still there. His thinly veiled threat to Djibouti was unmistakable: you have declared war on us; you will pay the debt. The leaders in Asmara appear to be incorrigible war mongers. Simple resolutions, by the UN or anyone else, don’t appear to bother Eritrea’s leadership all that much. After all, they have already weathered many such minuscule storms virtually unscathed. Eritrea’s behavior can certainly be characterized as outrageous, but its leadership has hardly faced any meaningful challenge from the international community that its belligerent and bellicose adventures would otherwise merit. It would be very fitting if the latest resolution by the UN Security Council really would get the right message across this time around. Now that the five week deadline is about to expire, it remains to be seen what practical measures the UN Security Council really will proceed to take, in order to make good on its responsibility to maintain the full measure of respect for international law. Whatever it does, we look forward to something that might encourage Eritrea towards reason and responsible behavior in its international relations.
********** |