-
On June 9th,
Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and the opposition
Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia (ARS), headed by Sheikh
Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, signed the Djibouti Agreement to resolve the
crisis in Somalia peacefully. Subsequently, the ARS, split between its
two wings headed respectively by Sheikh Sharif, and by Sheikh Hassan
Dahir Aweys based in Asmara, made an effort to resolve its own
differences and create a joint approach to the peace process at a
meeting hosted by Yemen in Sana’a. Sheikh Aweys, who is on UN and US
lists of Al-Qaeda associates, had earlier rejected the Djibouti
Agreement. The Sana’a meeting at the beginning of the month,
essentially ended in deadlock, failing to address the fundamental
difference between the two sides, whether to move the process forward
through peaceful means or through armed confrontation.
Following
this failure, separate meetings of the two wings of the ARS (both
claiming to represent its Central Committee) were held in Asmara and in
Djibouti. In Asmara, Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, meeting with around 30
members out of 191 of the total ARS central committee, announced on
Tuesday that he had taken over as chairman of the ARS, replacing Sheikh
Sharif. Sharif Salah replaced Sharif Hassan as head of the central
committee, both being from the Rahenweyne clan. The meeting rejected the
Djibouti Agreement, expelling its main opponents from its ARS, and
reiterating its own commitment to armed struggle. When asked in an
interview with the BBC Somali service whether he had a quorum for these
moves, Sheikh Aweys said it was an emergency and the question was
irrelevant. It seems Sheikh Aweys, together with Eritrea, is still
determined to play the role of a “spoiler” for the Somali peace and
reconciliation process.
In
Djibouti, however, where the ARS led by Sheikh Sharif now has its
headquarters, between 106 and 130 members of the ARS central committee,
meeting under the chairmanship of Sheikh Sharif, took a different line
fully endorsing the Djibouti Agreement. In an interview Sheikh Sharif
admitted that Ethiopia had intervened in Somalia at the request of the
TFG and that the reasons for this intervention still existed. It was
impossible to solve the problem militarily; so, he added, there was a
need for dialogue to ensure the withdrawal of Ethiopian forces. Sheikh
Sharif said that Sheikh Aweys was now nothing more than a soldier of
President Issayas of Eritrea who wanted the ARS to continue in this way.
Eritrea has been the chief military and financial sponsor of the ARS and
was against the decision of the ARS to sign the Djibouti Agreement.
Sheikh Sharif said the ARS members in Asmara were not free to express
their views for fear of reprisal from the Eritrean Government which, he
said, did not want to see a peaceful Somalia or the withdrawal of
Ethiopian troops from Somalia. Eritrea, he said, sees an Ethiopian
withdrawal as counter to its interests so it is against any resolution
of Somalia’s problems. Sheikh Sharif also pointed out that the small
group in Asmara had no right to try and remove him from the chairmanship
of the ARS, as they had no quorum, nor indeed any acceptable reason.
*****
Meanwhile
at the end of last week the UN Secretary-General, Ban Ki-moon, presented
his latest report on Somalia to the UN Security Council. Mr. Ban Ki-Moon
emphasized that last month's Djibouti Agreement was an important step
forward, but said he continued to be seriously concerned by Somalia's
security situation which he described as volatile, referring to a
continuing and alarming rate of civilian casualties. The UN
Secretary-General noted that although Al-Shabaab had stated that it
would not engage with the TFG, the government's reconciliation strategy
had, by and large, met with positive reactions from other Somali
stakeholders, and the TFG and the ARS had initialled a political
agreement on June 9. He said the key challenge now lay in its
implementation and he called on both parties to adhere to the terms of
the agreement in particular with regard to the cessation of hostilities
and the facilitation of humanitarian access. The Secretary-General said
the significant risks being faced by the aid community had led to severe
consequences for humanitarian activity. The number of people in need of
aid had risen to 2.6 million, 35% of the population. He called on the
international community to assist in urgent efforts to reverse this
situation. The Secretary-General spoke of the human rights situation in
Somalia as characterized by indiscriminate violence and frequent attacks
on civilians. He referred to media personnel being singled out for
attack and assassination and expressed his grave concern over the recent
spate of piracy while commending the efforts of Denmark, France and the
Netherlands to provide naval escorts for humanitarian deliveries.
The
Secretary-General said that a team was being established to plan for the
relocation of UNPOS to Somalia from Nairobi; to provide support for the
implementation of the Djibouti Agreement, in particular for the
establishment of the Joint Security Committee; to plan support for an
international stabilization force, and carry forward contingency
planning for the possible deployment of a UN peacekeeping force when
appropriate. Significant security enhancements would be necessary before
any increase of UN staff in Somalia would be possible. It would, the
Secretary-General said, be extremely difficult to generate a credible
stabilization force to relieve the Ethiopian forces in Mogadishu
without a demonstrated commitment to peace by the Somali parties. The
Secretary-General said he had proposed to co-host a donor conference
with the Chairperson of the African Union and establish an AU-UN
donor/troop contributing mechanism to follow-up on pledges. The UN
Secretariat was working closely with the AU to take these steps
forward.
Mr. Ban Ki-moon
also noted that the UN Country Team had begun implementation of its UN
Transitional Plan as a means of increasing support for recovery and
development. In order to meet plan targets approximately $218 million
would be required. As of mid-June $159 million had been mobilized for
recovery and development activities across Somalia, to cover five
strategic elements: institution building, local government and
decentralized service delivery, rule of law and security, education and
health, and livelihoods. Surprisingly, most of the UN funding has gone
on less than urgent activities including seminars and conferences while
the TFG has found it difficult to provide salaries for its own security
forces. It would be appropriate for Mr. Ould-Abdallah to consider
allocating a significant portion of the funding for institution building
including the security area to ensure that those who are deployed to
provide security for the TFG and the Somali people are catered for.
Mr. Ould-Abdullah,
himself, also made a presentation to the Security Council, noting that
the working visit of the Security Council to Djibouti had been one of
the most effective contributions to the negotiation efforts, and
pointing out that effective implementation of the Djibouti Agreement
would be a major incentive to bring more Somalis on board. He asked the
Security Council to make a strong public expression of their support for
the Agreement. Mr Ould-Abdallah said the international community must
unite and show solidarity to Somalia. It would, he said, be a terrible
mistake to allow certain individuals to continue to gamble with the
future of Somalia, and the entire Horn of Africa. Surprisingly, Mr.
Ould-Abdallah raised the question of revising the status of some Somali
politicians who have been opposed to the return of normalcy in Somalia,
and whose track record suggests no interest in moderation. This is not a
suggestion calculated to appeal to any stakeholders nor is it useful to
the peace process. Mr. Ould-Abdallah said AMISOM has been doing an
excellent job under extremely difficult conditions. The Council could,
he suggested, consider re-designating it as a UN force. Another option
would be an international stabilization force, or alternatively the
establishment of a UN peacekeeping force. Given the current favourable
political context following the Djibouti Agreement, Mr Ould-Abdallah
said “it was time for the Security Council to take bold, decisive and
fast action”. Somalia’s Foreign Minister, Ali Ahmed Jama, also pleaded
with the Security Council to deploy a UN Force, a force funded by the
UN, or a force under UN mandate, to replace Ethiopian troops. There are
indications that the Security Council supports the idea of an
international stabilization force but a lot of planning remains to be
done. The Security Council will be looking at the issue again in
mid-August. Mr. Ali Ahmed said he expected the Djibouti Agreement to be
formally signed within the next three weeks. It should in fact have been
signed in June and the Joint Security and the High Level Committees set
up before the end of last month. It should also be underlined that these
committees will comprise Somalis only; there have been attempts to
politicize the composition of these committees involving outsiders. The
Secretary-General and Mr. Ould-Abdallah need to take care to ensure that
this does not occur. Ethiopia will, of course, be following the progress
of organization of the committees closely.
-
There had
been considerable expectation that the UN Secretary-General would
produce a report for the Security Council on the Ethiopia Eritrea
situation at the beginning of this week, and brief the Security
Council on the current position as the formal mandate of UNME expires
at the end of the month. In the event he did not do so. However, the
Secretary-General did put forward three possible options to Ethiopia
and Eritrea. Ethiopia and Eritrea have, for very different reasons,
both rejected all three, Eritrea because it is not interested in
peace. For Ethiopia the first two suggestions appear to be an attempt
to try to bring UNMEE under the table, to re-establish it in Ethiopia
alone. The third option, providing for the appointment of a Special
Envoy, is no more than an attempt to shift responsibility from the
Security Council to the Secretary-General. It would, in fact, be no
more than a substitute for what the Security Council should have done
to protect UNMEE, restore the Temporary Security Zone and hold Eritrea
accountable for its transgressions and take the necessary steps
accordingly.
The latest
development from New York is that Security Council experts have been
discussing a draft resolution which will be discussed for possible
approval and adoption by the members of the Council at ambassadorial
level next week. Those who have been able to see the draft confirm that
it is no more than a regurgitation of earlier rejected drafts, and can
be considered far from constructive. Some of the ideas contained in the
draft are, indeed, entirely unhelpful, showing that the Security Council
is still continuing to try and appease Eritrea. Ethiopia is following
these developments with concern. It remains deeply perplexed that the
Security Council has continued to refrain from any condemnation of
Eritrea’s violations of the Algiers Agreements, the demolition of the
TSZ or the expulsion and humiliation of UNMEE.
-
The
decision of the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court (ICC),
announced on Monday last week, to request the pre-trial court to
indict and issue an arrest warrant for President Omar Al Bashir of
Sudan for genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, has been
highly controversial, with most observers and stakeholders expressing
serious concerns over the move. International concerns over the
implications of the Prosecutor’s request for indictment led to
meetings of both the Arab League and the African Union’s Peace and
Security Council to consider the issue. The AU’s Peace and Security
Council held its 142nd Session, at ministerial level, on
Monday in Addis Ababa at the request of the Sudan. Chaired by Nigeria,
the current chair of the council, the meeting was briefed by a
representative of the Sudan who stressed that the Sudan did not
condone impunity and would prosecute crimes of all sorts. He said the
Sudan had been cooperating with the ICC and had established Special
Courts in order to investigate and try the alleged cases of violations
of international humanitarian law in Darfur. The current
situation in Darfur, however, he said, had made it difficult for the
Courts to complete their work. There was a lack of access to suspects
as well as witnesses. The most serious repercussions of the action by
the ICC, he noted, were that it undermined and endangered the efforts
of the African Union, the United Nations and the Government of
National Unity in the Sudan towards the peaceful resolution of the
conflict in Darfur, the implementation of the Comprehensive Peace
Agreement (CPA) and the Eastern Sudan Peace Accord.
In the
closed debate, there was unanimity among those who spoke that Africa
should not condone impunity anywhere in the continent. This commitment
is reflected in the Constitutive Act of the African Union. Speakers
emphasized that in the 21st century, impunity should not be
allowed to happen. Members of the Council requested the Sudan to take
immediate action to bring to justice those who committed crimes in
Darfur. Council members described the ICC move as improper, ill-timed
and ill-motivated. It represented a dangerous precedent; it lacked
fairness and balance, rendering the government of the Sudan
illegitimate; it would derail the peace processes, because an
illegitimate government could not be a party to peace. ICC actions
follow a selective pattern and are applied to weaker states, mostly in
Africa. Concern was also expressed that the current moves by the ICC
Prosecutor might further delay the full deployment of UNAMID. The Sudan
was requested to do its utmost to protect these peacekeepers.
Among those
who spoke was Foreign Minister Seyoum who described the meeting as a
momentous one for the Council because of the sensitivity of the issue
and its wider implications. He underlined that Africa should not and
could not tolerate, let alone, condone, impunity when there were clear
violations of justice. We should all be held accountable for our
actions, he said, and this applied to Sudan as to everyone else.
Equally, everyone must be judged fairly, and treated in a manner free of
any double standards. No state should be the victim of the
politicization of human rights or humanitarian causes. Accusations of
genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity should not be made
lightly, all the more so when the leadership of a country at the highest
level was the subject of accusation. Minister Seyoum said that Ethiopia
believed it was not possible to see the situation in Sudan in terms of a
dichotomy between justice and stability; it was not possible to have one
without the other. Ethiopia therefore questioned the move by the ICC
Prosecutor against the President of Sudan and the entire political order
in Sudan not because it believed stability should come before justice
but because the whole approach appeared to lack fairness and objectivity
or any detachment from the attempts to politicize the issues. The ICC
Prosecutor had failed to produce sufficient evidence to justify moving
against the President of Sudan. The request for indictment, in fact,
appeared to be an attempt to humiliate and undermine the legitimacy of a
Government and of a political order which was currently facing a
“complex emergency”. Attempting to de-legitimize a government is not the
business of an ICC Prosecutor, Minister Seyoum said. The ICC Prosecutor
has, of course, the obligations of his mandate, but he also has the
obligation to be guided by the letter and spirit of UN Security Council
Resolution 1593 which emphasizes “the need to promote healing and
reconciliation” in the Sudan and encourages “the creation of
institutions, involving all sectors of Sudanese society, such as truth
and reconciliation commissions, in order to complement judicial
processes.” Minister Seyoum said Sudan might have made mistakes over its
past dealings with the ICC but this should not be used in a vengeful
manner.
In a
communiqué issued on Monday, the Peace and Security Council, requested
the UN Security Council, according to Article 16 of the Rome Statute, to
defer the ICC process; invited the Commission of the AU to establish a
High-Level Panel to examine the situation in Darfur in depth and to
submit recommendations to the Council; encouraged Sudanese parties to
ensure that issues of impunity, accountability and reconciliation and
healing were appropriately addressed in the context of the Darfur-Darfur
Dialogue and Consultation; urged the Government of the Sudan to take
immediate and concrete steps to investigate human rights violations in
Darfur and bring to justice their perpetrators; urged the international
community to support UNAMID; and expressed support to the Joint AU/UN
Chief Mediator, urging all parties to fully cooperate in order to
facilitate an early resumption of the political dialogue.
Following
an emergency meeting last weekend, the Arab League’s Foreign Ministers
declared the charges against President Omar Al Bashir were unacceptable
and undermined the sovereignty of Sudan. It called the actions of the
ICC Prosecutor unbalanced and non-objective. It also warned against the
dangerous ramifications for the current peace processes in Sudan. The
Secretary-General of the Arab League, Amr Mussa, travelled to Khartoum
at the beginning of the week for talks with Sudanese officials. An Arab
League official said on Tuesday that Sudan had agreed to put anyone it
suspects of crimes in Darfur on trial and allow UN, AU and Arab League
to follow the proceedings. It would be up to Sudan to decide who to try.
The official also said Sudan had agreed to consider setting up special
courts on Darfur or appointing a special prosecutor itself to more
effectively address possible crimes in Darfur. The Arab League is also
expected to ask the Security Council to defer the ICC process.
-
One of
the defining characteristics of Ethiopian politics for much of the
last half century has been intolerance, together with its extension:
extremism. These defined both the Imperial regime and the military
dictatorship which succeeded it, particularly the latter. The military
dictatorship was a period of intolerance and extremism which left
terrible scars. Surprisingly, despite this there are still individuals
and groups today who claim to be custodians of democracy while
shamelessly declaring all others should be ostracized because of their
political views or even their ethnic origins. Ethiopians need no one
to tell them what it means to be deprived of their right to express
themselves and have a say in deciding their own future. Certainly,
they have to feel free to speak their minds irrespective of the
attitudes of others. That is what constitutes real democracy. It is a
sign that the press has now come of age that it can boldly condemn
extremist positions on any issues of concern for the good of the
society.
Sadly, some
who claimed to be staunch democrats only a year or two ago are now
sabre-rattling and threatening to use all available means to try to
seize power, even going so far as entering into coalitions with
movements dedicated to armed struggle based in Eritrea, a country which
makes no secret of its support for terrorist organizations operating in
Ethiopia and Somalia. The excuse is that there is a lack of political
space, even though as recent interviews in the Amharic edition of the
Reporter demonstrate, some politicians, failing to learn from their
previous mistakes, stretch their comments well into areas of libel,
incitement and even dishonesty. Some opposition fractions have made the
same claim, of a lack of political space, despite the fact that there
nearly 70 parties registered for state and local elections and eight
others operating nationally. They ignore the fact that democratization
is a process and behind the process are elections, the competition of
parties and the selection of leaders. This in turn requires the
institutions of democratic governance, parliament, the judiciary, the
civil service, a properly functioning economy, including a vibrant
non-state sector, a free press and cultural tolerance. All in all, this
adds up to the very opposite of extremism. It is, as Prime Minister
Meles, recently emphasized, a process which has also to be buttressed by
strong institutions and the strength to defend these institutions.
Equally, as with all processes, it can be affected by the occasional
hiccup. One occurred in 2005 when a number of opposition parties refused
to accept the results of the 2005 elections, despite all evidence to the
contrary, failing to accept that elections always produce losers as well
as winners. There was certainly a very substantial protest vote against
the EPRDF, but despite their claims there was no way the opposition
could have won the elections given policies so unacceptable to a
majority of the peoples of almost all of the federal states.
There
are still a few who do not appear to accept that democratization needs
the engagement, in good faith, of all political parties and
organizations, including themselves, even though there can be no doubt
that this is the right way to deepen further public participation. This
is why since 1991 the space for tolerance and understanding, the space
for political parties has gradually been expanding (see A Week in the
Horn 18.7.2008,
www.mfa.gov.et). Previous regimes in Ethiopia
operated on the basis of centralization and enforced homogenization.
Since 1991, the emphasis has been on democracy, as the method of
accommodating diversity by peaceful means. This is indeed why the media
is also now underlining the need to look for the middle ground, to allow
space for all ideas to allow the public to make its own decisions.
Attempting to impose a dogma, defining others as unacceptable, denying
the liberty to think freely or form one’s own opinion cannot open the
way for the sort of dialogue for democratic progress, the instrument to
settle differences. Any attempt to hold on to such undemocratic
practices is a disservice to the democracy currently taking root in
Ethiopia. It offers no way out of the circles of confrontation that have
brought us so much suffering and destruction in the past. If reason and
tolerance are no longer the overriding principles, and insult and
intolerance and extremism become the order of the day, the ability to
make peace with ourselves will remain remote.
There
is no doubt that some elements in the Diaspora still appear hell-bent in
carving out their version of the people’s future without bothering to
take an interest in the realities of politics or developments at the
grass roots which have been laying the basis for democracy. They remain
quick to reject parties which refuse to take orders from the Diaspora or
condemn as renegades and opportunists those who refuse to accept their
own self-serving motives. It is a level of extremism and intolerance and
it goes hand in hand with ignorance. One case of violent intolerance
appeared last week in the Irish Independent. This was “racist,
offensive, and deliberately intended to cause outrage and to provoke” (A
Week in the Horn 18.7.2008,
www.mfa.gov.et).
It was indeed representative of a certain strain of extremism, a strain
which one had hoped had already died out in the world. It also
illustrated another factor that can seriously impinge on tolerance and
political space – lack of information, and sheer ignorance. The article
claimed that Africa, and in particular Ethiopia, is “environmentally
devastated and economically dependent”. Neither is true, though
Ethiopia, and Africa as a whole, has certainly benefited from aid and is
certainly grateful for all assistance in its war on poverty. It is
hardly surprising that the Irish Independent can be so ignorant when a
similar level of ignorance is also apparent in the efforts of some
opposition elements in the Diaspora which have devoted much time and
effort to pushing the US Congress to pass HR 2003. They seem unaware
that the EPRDF really did win the 2005 election, that there has been
extensive training of the judiciary which is largely free of political
and economic manipulation, and substantial training of the police since
2005, that the Electoral Board has been reorganised, that there has been
very considerable development of the Nile and Awash rivers and that
HIV/AIDS and malaria are major government pre-occupations. In fact,
many, if not all, of the points raised by opposition groups in backing
HR2003 are either wrong or long out of date, as are most of the specific
issues mentioned in the bill itself.
Fighting intolerance and
ignorance, and being fully aware of the dangers these signal, is an
indispensable adjunct to the goals we have set out to achieve in the
Ethiopian Renaissance launched in this Millennium Year. The very idea of
a national renaissance emphasizes the importance of consensus, as
opposed to extremism. Tolerance and moderation also require acceptance
of responsibility and accountability, qualities that underlie the recent
Mass Media and Freedom of Information Proclamation, and the proposed
Charities and Societies Bill. Political space, like freedom of the
press, can be wide but it cannot be unlimited. It must always be defined
by the constraints of law and order which remain the antithesis of
extremism, and in turn, define the parameters of development, democracy
and good governance. These are the qualities needed to defend the
country and Ethiopia’s national interest of which we are all custodians.
It is imperative for the future of Ethiopia to take control of the
middle ground, to avoid extremism in all its manifestations. This is why
the rights and sovereignty of all peoples and nationalities of Ethiopia
are protected by law. This is why democracy, and the war on poverty, are
the centrepieces of policy, steadily strengthening the critically
important culture of tolerance and mutual understanding, the basis of
creating a developed and democratic Ethiopia.