-
Somalia’s Prime Minister,
Nur Hassan Hussein ‘Adde’ was in Addis Ababa last weekend, holding
talks with Foreign Minister Seyoum. During two meetings, they
discussed progress in the peace process, and what needed to done to
strengthen security in Somalia. The Prime Minister briefed Minister
Seyoum on the progress made towards the establishment of regional
administrations in Kismayo and Lower Juba region, and in Mogadishu and
Benadir region. Following the successful establishment of an elected
administration in Gedo region earlier this year, and in Bay and Bakool
last year, the TFG is in the process of establishing similar
administrative structures in Lower Juba and Benadir. The Prime
Minister was accompanied by Somalia’s Minister of Defense and the
Commissioner of Police who were in Ethiopia to attend the completion
of training for over 2,000 Somali army and police at the Blatten
training camp near Awassa. Before leaving Addis Ababa, Prime Minister
Nur ‘Adde’ told journalists that all Somalis should seize the
opportunity created at Djibouti: “the agreement signed in Djibouti is
the key and opens the door to peace so anyone can join, any
organization opposing the government of today”. He also reiterated
that UN forces were needed: “the UN and the international community
must provide financial support and deploy peacekeepers without delay
so that Ethiopian forces would withdraw in accordance with the
agreement.”
According to the agreement
signed in Djibouti on 9 June between the TFG and the Alliance for the
Re-Liberation of Somalia (ARS) a ceasefire should have come into effect
on Wednesday, July 9. Despite claims to the contrary, it did, and it
appears the cease fire is largely holding despite the upsurge of
violence in the immediately preceding weeks. This included a series of
assassinations and attacks by Al-Shabaab, targeting UN and other aid
agency personnel, among them even drivers of aid vehicles. The UN’s OCHA
in its latest situation report noted that humanitarian access was being
limited by “the deliberate targeting” of aid workers including the
kidnapping of four workers from the Merka–based INGO, Water for Life.
Among those killed was the head of UNDP operations in Somalia, Osman Ali
Ahmed, shot as he left a mosque after evening prayers last Sunday.
Unusually, Al-Shabaab denied responsibility though UNDP recently donated
30 vehicles to TFG ministries as part of a capacity building program.
Other elements of the Djibouti
agreement have yet to make much progress. Under the agreement, two
committees were to be set up within two weeks. A Joint Security
Committee was to be established to follow up the implementation of
security arrangements. A High Level Committee, chaired by the UN, was to
follow up on political cooperation between the two sides and concerns
over justice and reconciliation. No names have yet been put forward by
either side. The delay, it appears, is related to the ongoing efforts to
reconcile the ARS group that signed the Djibouti peace agreement with
the splinter group led by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys and based in Asmara.
Both sides sent delegates to Sana’a to iron out their differences. Yemen
is providing the venue of the meeting but it is the UN Political Office
for Somalia (UNPOS) which is organizing the effort.
Sources close to the
negotiations say that the failure to reach any agreement at the outset
in Sana’a prompted the establishment of a committee of elders which
included the businessman and former major ICU financier, Sheikh Abu
Bakar Omar Adani, Sheikh Abdulkadir Sheikh Omar, and Sheikh Ibrahim
Suley, spokesperson for the ICU wing of the ARS and three others.
According to sources, the majority of the committee supports the peace
process. They are pushing the splinter group from Asmara to completely
stop any military activity and accept the opportunity for peace. The
Asmara group criticized those who signed the peace agreement for illegal
actions, and said these actions had to be nullified. In addition, they
demanded that all ARS members should go to Asmara to sort out their
differences. The rejection of these demands triggered the establishment
of the elders committee.
The Sana’a talks are an effort
to reconcile two groups one of which has opted for a peaceful resolution
of the Somali crisis, the other a splinter group based in Eritrea that
wants to impose itself on the people of Somalia through terror. As might
be expected there are concerns that concessions might be offered to
accommodate the more violent party. This in turn could open a door
encouraging actors like Eritrea to continue to play a role negating
efforts to achieve peace and stability in Somalia.
-
The 11th Session
of the African Union Assembly, held at Sharm el Sheik 30 June to 1
July, can be considered to have been largely successful. Both the
Assembly of Heads of State and Government and the Peace and Security
Council gave their support to the Somali peace process and to the
agreement signed in Djibouti on June 9 by the TFG and the opposition
ARS. Both bodies strongly condemned attacks, threats and acts of
violence against AMISOM. Both the Peace and Security Council and the
Assembly condemned Eritrean aggression against Djibouti, calling on
both parties to use all peaceful means to resolve their differences.
Eritrea, although invited, failed to turn up to the relevant Peace and
Security Council meeting. In a letter to the Council a few days
earlier, the Eritrean Foreign Ministry said it had serious
reservations about the Council’s modalities of operation and its
standards. These apparently related to the Council’s failure to deal
with what Eritrea claimed were Ethiopian violations of the
Constitutive Act of the African Union. Until these were addressed
Eritrea felt unable to respond to the Council.
On Union Government, the
Assembly accepted the proposals of the Committee of Twelve Heads of
State and Government on Union Government as a sound basis for moving the
integration process forward. It was the consensus of the Summit that the
next session of the Assembly in Addis Ababa should bring finality to
this interminable debate. Prime Minister Meles, a member of the
Committee of Twelve, underlined the need to stop going round and round
in a circle on the issue. There were two options, he said. One was to
accept the views of the majority as provided in the Constitutive Act of
the African Union. This, he said, would prevent the abomination of
another grand debate. Alternatively, as member states were sovereign,
they could chart their own course, even if they were in a minority.
Variable geometry would imply that everyone could move forward at the
pace they were able to do so. So, he added, those that want could go
ahead and show the way to do it faster. This would break the log-jam of
seven years. Seven summits and one special summit had not provided a
solution. The grand debate in Accra did not solve the issue. One more
extra-ordinary summit would not solve it either. “Save us from another
summit of abomination,” he said. “We need to solve this issue here and
now, without disturbing our common endeavor.”
On the venue of Summits, the
Assembly agreed to continue to hold the January Summits at AU
Headquarters in Addis Ababa. The July Summits will also continue to be
held either at the headquarters or in any member state which invites the
Assembly. Libya’s suggestion to move the July Summits permanently to
Sirte was rejected. On Zimbabwe, Prime Minister Meles said that everyone
was saddened by how things had turned out. The election monitors of SADC
and the AU said that the elections did not reflect the unfettered views
of the people of Zimbabwe. Disenchantment, Prime Minister Meles said,
was a fact that needed to be addressed. The status quo was untenable and
unsustainable. It required real solutions with both sides listening to
each other. It was only then, the Prime Minister emphasized that
Zimbabwe could again move forward.
-
Ethiopia and Sudan have an
excellent and strategic relationship based on common appreciation of
mutual interests and awareness of regional developments and
possibilities. In the last few years, there have been steadily growing
economic links. Several cross-border road links have been upgraded and
opened. Negotiations over possible supplies of Ethiopian hydroelectric
power to Sudan have reached an advanced stage and the potentiality for
substantial growth in this sector has become very apparent. Last
December, the World Bank approved a $41 million credit to help finance
a transmission line to connect Ethiopia to Sudan’s power grid.
Ethiopia's use of Port Sudan has been growing steadily, and Ethiopia
currently gets a substantial portion of its petroleum products from
Sudan. Sudan has accepted Ethiopian troops for the UNAMID force in
Darfur. The relationship between the Government in Khartoum and
Ethiopia is in fact healthy, strong and steadily expanding. This does
not mean, as in all border areas, that incidents may not occur. It
does mean that when they do arise, as happened on Monday, they can be
handled promptly and at the highest level, with both sides making
every effort to ensure they should be contained and dealt with
quickly. That is why a Sudanese presidential envoy arrived in Addis
Ababa today.
-
On Saturday, tens of
thousands of Ethiopians from different walks of life thronged the
Addis Ababa stadium. Waving the tri-color of red, green and gold,
symbolizing Ethiopian independence and defiant invincibility in the
face of aggression, they were celebrating Millennium Flag Day,
Ethiopia’s first Flag Day. Present on the occasion were President
Girma Woldegiorgis, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, Foreign Minister
Seyoum Mesfin, the Regional State Presidents and other senior federal
and regional government officials. Prime Minister Meles Zenawi,
addressing the huge gathering, said the participation of Ethiopians on
this solemn occasion was a testimony to their commitment to the
on-going efforts to relieve poverty as well as a demonstration of
loyalty to the Constitution and the National Emblem. The celebration,
he said, was also an opportunity for the youth of Ethiopia to renew
the pledges they had made for the realization of Ethiopia’s
Renaissance, a point underlined by the subsequent march past which
included hundreds of young scouts and guides. Prime Minister Meles
hoisted the national flag and entrusted the tri-color to Presidents of
the Regional States, the Chief of Staff of the National Defense Forces
and the commander of the Federal Police in a symbolic gesture
emphasizing the responsibility of all these bodies for the unity and
sovereignty of the state of Ethiopia. President Girma Woldegiorgis
underlined the heavy sacrifices Ethiopians have so often paid to
protect their sovereignty, closing ranks in defense of the national
flag. The national flag, he said, was a symbol of the cohesion
existing among the various regional states.
In his speech, Foreign
Minister Seyoum Mesfin, the Deputy Chairman of the Ethiopian Millennium
Festival National Council, said the flag was the embodiment of the
popular unity that Ethiopia’s Nations, Nationalities and Peoples had
forged on the basis of mutual respect, equality, common interest and
joint progress. “Our flag is a symbol of freedom and sovereignty”, said
Minister Seyoum, adding that it was also a symbol of the struggle to
realize prosperity, good governance, durable peace and the building of a
democratic order. This celebration, he noted, was not just an occasion
at which the peoples of Ethiopia, and more particularly the new
generation, were singing the national anthem as a sign of devotion and
honor to their flag. It was also an event at which they pledged to stand
together, to realize the Renaissance of Ethiopia, launched through the
celebration of the New Millennium throughout this year. Minister Seyoum
said this occasion afforded an historic opportunity to mark with
grandeur the celebration of Flag Day, for the first time, at federal and
regional levels on the same date and at the same moment. At the centre
of the celebrations of the Ethiopian Millennium, the Minister said, was
the building of a national consensus based on development, democracy and
good governance. “Our flag”, he said, “should symbolize a prosperous and
developed nation, a nation which affords a decent life for its people
and in which democracy and good governance have been entrenched. This
sign of allegiance to freedom and sovereignty must also serve as a
signpost for the roadmap leading to a bright future”. He said that the
display of the flag should evoke a feeling of pride, and even more it
should become the symbol of an enhanced image and honor once Ethiopia
prevailed over poverty and succeeded in its development efforts.
Minister Seyoum emphasized that despite the very many gains already
made, the Nations, Nationalities and Peoples of Ethiopia could not
succeed in ensuring their viability, or their honor and that of the
flag, unless they overcame poverty and backwardness. “The young
generation”, he said, “has the obligation to carry on the
responsibilities handed down from the previous generation. It has to
realize that defending the sovereignty and honor of the country and its
flag is only possible when it plays its proper role in the fight against
poverty and for democracy and good governance.” Foreign Minister Seyoum
concluded, “The flag is the symbol of the Ethiopian Renaissance. It is
the reaffirmation of our commitment to the realization of that
Renaissance, and a demonstration of the sovereignty of the Ethiopian
Nations, Nationalities and Peoples”.
In the letter, President
Issayas categorizes Djibouti’s complaint against Eritrea for its
invasion and seizure of Djiboutian territory around Ras Doumeira as a
“bogus and dramatized accusation”. This is a typical Eritrean procedure,
or rather it is typical of President Issayas’ diplomatic bullying
methods. It is something he has employed, or attempted to employ, on
several other occasions, as over the Hanish Islands against Yemen in
1996, and Ethiopia over Badme in 1998.This process frequently involves
repeated blanket denials of an action which, as in this case, can be
confirmed by journalistic reports, photographs, film of Eritrean
military activity across the border and concrete evidence of clashes,
including Eritrean prisoners. The maneuver is often accompanied by calls
for international arbitration with the implication that any failure to
accept this will be accompanied by further aggression. It is usually
coupled with wild, unproven allegations of which there is no evidence
whatever, and of continuous denials of any Eritrean involvement.
President Issayas appears to believe that if he denies things often
enough, people might come round to accepting his statements. Eritrea’s
continual support for Al-Shabaab terrorists in Mogadishu is a case in
point. Eritrea has continued to deny any involvement with Al-Shabaab, or
indeed with Somali opposition, despite detailed reports of arms flights
from Eritrea to Somalia, itemization of the arms supplied to Al-Shabaab
and other opponents of the Somali government, and evidence from those
trained in terrorist tactics in Eritrea. Despite this detailed, and
incontrovertible, evidence, President Issayas continues to deny Eritrean
support for anti-government groups and terrorists or even any
involvement in Somalia, in Ethiopia or now in Djibouti.
President Issayas’ letter also
accuses the United States of responsibility for Djibouti’s accusations
against Eritrea. He claims the whole situation was designed by the
United States to cover up an invasion by Ethiopian forces, of Mount Musa
Ali, taking over Eritrean and Djiboutian territory to the south west of
Ras Doumeira. It is perhaps pedantic to point out that confluence is
more usually used for rivers than mountains. It should also be noted
that this allegation is completely untrue and there has been no
Ethiopian military takeover of any territory, whether of Eritrea or
Djibouti, at or around Mount Musa Ali.
It must also be pointed out
that none of this has any bearing or relationship on the dispute between
Ethiopia and Eritrea. As Eritrea and President Issayas knows perfectly
well, no progress can be made on border demarcation until Eritrea
returns into full compliance with the bilateral agreements, the Algiers
Agreements of June and December 2000. In practice, Eritrea has
deliberately torn up the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities (June
2000), seizing the Temporary Security Zone and driving out the US
Mission intended to monitor the zone. To claim this is the result of
Ethiopian procrastination over border demarcation is, as Eritrea knows
perfectly well, both stupid and an obvious lie. Ethiopia has made it
repeatedly and abundantly clear that it fully accepts demarcation
according to international norms, under the Algiers Agreements. By
contrast Eritrea, despite any claims to the contrary, has consistently
refused to allow any discussion to take place, and refused to make any
progress towards actual implementation.
One might add that President
Issayas’ claim that Eritrea has persisted in a “legal approach” to
secure respect for its territorial integrity is difficult to accept,
given its invasion of Djibouti this year, its attack on Yemen in 1996,
its invasion of Ethiopia in 1998, and its attacks on Sudan after 1994.
At the end of last month Eritrea announced it would no longer submit any
complaints to the Africa Commission’s Peace and Security Council because
it had repeatedly remained silent over what it called Ethiopia’s
violations of the Constitutive Act, and had serious reservations over
the Council’s modalities of operation. Eritrea, of course, withdrew from
IGAD at the beginning of last year when the organization fully backed
Ethiopia’s involvement in Somalia at the request of the Somali
Government.
This latest letter of
President Issayas to the Security Council, apart from its failure to
respond to any questions of substance in good faith, appears to show
confusion and a distinct lack of clarity indicating a manifest
disorganization in the Presidency. It also fails to answer any of the
questions raised over Eritrea’s activities in Djibouti and its failure
to withdraw from Djibouti territories.