|
The truth about suspended local CSOs
Recently, the Justice Bureau of the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Regional State (SNNPR) suspended 41 local Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) which had been engaged in certain activities in violation of both Federal and Regional laws and regulations. Their operations were also in breach of the declared objectives for which they had been licensed to operate in the Region. As a result, the SNNPR Justice Bureau has now revoked the licenses issued to these local CSOs. The Bureau said the activities which were illegal and contrary to official government policy included encouraging farmers in various parts of the region not to use fertilizers and modern agricultural inputs, and misinforming them about their use. The CSOs had also advised the public to resist widespread efforts to discontinue certain cultural and traditional practices which are generally regarded as harmful.
This story was picked up by various international and national media outlets as well as human rights organizations, some of which promptly tried to “spin” the story, twisting it to suit their own perspectives. Few of the versions produced bore much relation to the truth. There were allegations that the Federal Government had revoked the licenses of 42 humanitarian and human rights non-governmental organizations (NGOs), including international organizations, for reporting inaccurate information and human right abuses. Some promptly labelled the action as another sign of a claimed “slide towards authoritarianism”; others alleged it was “a worrying step in the direction of restricting” the activities of NGOs and INGOs, and of civic space in the country as a whole. They also sweepingly related the action of the SNNPR's Justice Bureau to enforcement of the new Charities and Societies Proclamation recently adopted by the House of Peoples Representatives of the Federal Government. All these media reports managed to get both the number and the detail of the organizations, persistently alleging that NGOs, including Medicine Sans Frontiers (MSF), were affected.
As already underlined, the fact is that the relevant regional government authority (the Justice Bureau of the SNNPR) suspended 41 local CSOs and then revoked their licenses following very clear infractions and violations of regional laws and regulations. It should be emphasized that no NGOs, local or foreign, and certainly not MSF, were suspended, nor did any have their licenses withdrawn. We were pleased to note that the Kenyan paper, the Daily Nation, did make corrections to that effect in its issue of July 28th. Others have failed to do so. We would repeat: the action taken against the local CSOs had nothing to do with the implementation of the Charities and Societies Proclamation. It was an administrative and legal measure taken in accordance with the regulations of the SNNPR state in the interest of legality and the rule of law against those who had violated these rules.
********
top |
Nile Basin Cooperative Framework Agreement delayed
The 17th regular meeting of the Nile Basin Initiative's Nile Council of Ministers (Nile-COM) was opened by Ms. Faiza Abu El Naga, Egypt's Minister for International Cooperation in Alexandria on 27th July. Egypt is the current chair of Nile-Com and Dr Mohamad Nasr El-Din Allam, Minister for Water and Irrigation of Arab Republic of Egypt, chaired the two day meeting attended by Nile-COM Members from Burundi, D.R. Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda. Kenya was represented by a Senior Government Official. Eritrea attended as an observer. Others present were members of the Technical Advisory Committee (Nile-TAC) and NBI staff as well as representatives of the United Kingdom, UNDP and the World Bank which represented other development partners. Opening remarks were made by Ms Henriette Ndombe, the Executive Director of NBI Secretariat, the outgoing Nile-COM Chairperson, Mr. Jose Endundo Bononge, the Minister for Environment, Nature Conservation and Tourism of the Democratic Republic of Congo, the newly elected Chair and other ministers. Mr. Asfaw Dingamo, Minister for Water Resources of Ethiopia, acknowledged the excellent work done under the outgoing chairman and emphasized the importance of strengthening the NBI as a workable arrangement and enhancing the basin's capacity to manage its own affairs. The NBI, he said, had come a long way towards forming a permanent river basin organization, and despite challenges to achieving unanimity on the Cooperative Framework Agreement, the meeting should be an opportunity to firm up the gains made under the NBI.
Outgoing Chair, Minister Bononge noted that Nile-COM's 16th meeting had mandated him to carry out consultations with member states on the Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA). He had presented his report at the extraordinary meeting in May when seven members (Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania, Uganda) had agreed to the draft of the CFA Of those present, Egypt expressed a separate position and Sudan, absent from the discussion, later supported Egypt. The main problem was over Article 14b on water security and it was agreed that this should be resolved after the agreed Nile River Basin Commission was formed. Article 14b was annexed to the document to allow consultations to try to obtain the agreement of all member countries.
This issue was a subject of informal consultations and open debate at the Council of Ministers. They all agreed to move forward on the CFA in a spirit of cooperation and in an inclusive manner. They noted the decision of the extraordinary meeting in Kinshasa on 22 May 2009, and the follow-up of the Negotiation Committee in Nairobi on July 3rd, the positions taken and communications concerning them. The meeting decided to provide a period of six months to allow for more time and mandated the Nile Technical Advisory Committee (Nile-TAC) and the Negotiation Committee to advise on the way forward. This means experts can take stock of the different positions and provide a detailed legal and institutional report to Ministers on the future of NBI programs. This will be submitted to another extraordinary NILE-COM meeting in six months. The delay will allow for further consideration, reflection and consultation. The decision does not signify any change of position at this stage, but it is to be hoped, despite the sharp differences at present, some commonality will be found for future NBI programs and projects. All the same, what this 17th regular meeting of the Nile Basin Initiative’s Nile Council of Ministers has made obvious is that the only option the Basin Countries have is cooperation based on a fair treatment of each other and their interests, and on the rejection of any temptation to insist on maintaining unilateral advantages and zero-sum game calculations. This of course will also be the approach that partners in this process should be guided by; which in fact, has not been the case in all instances.
The Ministers also considered at their Alexandria meeting other important matters as well. These are issues presented in the Nile-TAC Report: Progress of NBI Programs and Projects; Management and Financial Reports; and the 2009/2010 Work Plan for the NBI Secretariat as well as endorsing the NBI Work Plan and Budget, approving recommendations on the NBI's Long Term Capacity Development Strategy, the Nile Basin Sustainability Framework (NBSF) and the Interim Procedures for Data and Information Sharing and Exchange. The 18th regular meeting of the Council of Ministers will be held in Ethiopia next year.
*****
top |
UN Security Council consideration of Somalia
On Wednesday this week, the UN Security Council, under the chairmanship of Uganda, again considered Somalia. The meeting, which had in front of it the Secretary-General's latest Report on Somalia (dated July 20th,), followed the Presidential Statement on July 9th. in which the Council reiterated its support for the Djibouti peace process to provide for a lasting political solution in Somalia. The Council then, while reaffirming its support to the TFG as the legitimate authority in Somalia, also condemned the fighting by Al-Shabaab and other violent opposition groups. It welcomed the African Union's decisions on Somalia taken at the AU Summit in Sirte a week earlier at the beginning of July. The AU, like the regional body, IGAD, had among other decisions called for the Security Council to impose sanctions against those providing support to the armed groups engaged in undermining peace and reconciliation in Somalia and regional stability. Eritrea was particularly mentioned.
The Security Council session on Wednesday was briefed on current developments in Somalia by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Somalia, Mr. Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, and by the African Commissioner for Peace and Security, Mr. Ramtane Lamamra. Somalia's Foreign Minister, Mr. Abdullahi Mohamed Omar also made a statement to the Council. In his briefing, Mr. Ould-Abdallah noted the Somali Government's significant progress in training, equipping and paying its security forces, though he stressed more needed to be done in coordination and organization. He referred to the important agreement signed on June 21 between the TFG and Ahlu Sunna-wa Al Jamma which, he said, was already showing results on the ground, and the inclusion of some opposition elements in the Government. He called for immediate and concrete support for AMISOM, and for support for all IGAD and AU decisions on Somalia. IGAD members states, he said, because of their proximity, knowledge and interest should have a leading role on Somalia issues, and the time had come for UNPOS, other UN agencies and concerned diplomats to move to Mogadishu. The UN could only work effectively for peace and to address humanitarian matters if it was close to the action. Mr. Ould Abdella said international action against piracy should continue and emphasized the need for immediate support to the AMISOM which, he added, deserved the backing of all Council members. Commissioner Lamamra, the AU Commissioner of Peace and Security, who said the TFG had brought about marked improvements in governance, noted that the conflict in Somalia was not just “a simple civil war”, it was a cause of wider regional instability and insecurity on a larger scale. The violence that had emerged since May was intended to make the country a lasting trouble spot intended to endanger the region and the world, and in this context support for AMISOM, and for Somalia's President, should be seen as part and parcel of the resistance to a global menace. Somali Foreign Minister Abdullahi Mohamed Omar emphasized his Government's commitment to peace and reconciliation and the progress it had made. He underlined the need for Somalia to be viewed on a sub-regional basis and the related necessity for action against those acting as “spoilers”.
In subsequent discussion, Council members reaffirmed the priorities for Somalia: supporting the political process; improving the security situation by working with AMISOM and the TFG; ending off-shore piracy; and tackling the humanitarian crisis. The UK representative said that the situation in Somalia presented a clear threat to the region and beyond. The Security Council was correct to focus on Somalia. He said the UK looked forward to the up-coming report of the Sanctions Committee which would report on the individuals and entities actively arming those trying to topple the TFG. The Council, he said, should then act quickly and decisively against them. Libya was concerned about the presence of foreign elements among the armed opposition groups which sought to bring their own agenda into Somalia. Burkina Faso similarly condemned attacks against Government forces by armed groups supported by foreign elements. It called on member states to refrain from providing support to armed groups and called for action on the AU's request for the immediate imposition of a no-fly zone to enforce the arms embargo. Like Libya, Burkina Faso encouraged further UN support for AMISOM. Country after country made clear their support for the TFG and the Djibouti process and the need for AMISOM to reach its mandated strength. China, Japan, Austria, France, Vietnam, Turkey and Costa Rica all expressed their support to strengthen AMISOM and made clear their appreciation for the contributions of Uganda and Burundi.
China and Uganda both welcomed the setting up of the Joint Security Committee in Mogadishu. This body, set up under the Djibouti Agreement, held its first meeting the previous Saturday. It consists of key Government officials (the Ministers of Interior, Defence and National Security, the Chief of Staff, the Police Commissioner and the Head of Intelligence) together with officials from AMISOM, the UN Political Office and members from the donor community including the EU. Te Committee has the job of harmonizing efforts to support stability and security institutions such as the national army and police. These will include the disbursement of aid pledged at Brussels in April and the coordination of training. It will be a key forum for the TFG and the international community to work together in the security sector, and will meet on a regular basis.
There was strong support for focusing on strengthening security in Somalia and the Russian Federation noted that countries in the region should provide assistance to help bar foreign mercenaries from bringing weapons and ammunition into Somalia. This was a theme repeated by others. Mexico said the Council should take into account the AU's appeals for sanctions, adding that “another consideration was the need to impose sanctions on Eritrea for its part in fuelling the conflict.” The US representative, who condemned the military offensive to overthrow the TFG in “the strongest terms” informed the Council that Al-Shabaab insurgents were recruiting fighters from abroad and collaborating with Al Qaida, and were now recruiting children. This was also condemned by Austria and Mexico. The US, which strongly backed additional support for AMISOM, raised the issue of Eritrea noting that the US would not engage with Eritrea unless it ended its destabilizing activities in the Horn of Africa.
This point was repeated by the US Ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, who did not attend the Security Council meeting, when she was speaking to the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee about Somalia this week. She delivered a strong warning to Eritrea to stop its destabilization of Somalia. Ambassador Rice said there was “a very short window for Eritrea to signal, through its actions, that it wishes for a better relationship with the United States and indeed the wider international community.” She said the United States was “deeply concerned and very frustrated” with Eritrea's behaviour which involved the arming and funding of extremists. “It is unacceptable, and we will not tolerate it, not will other members of the Security Council”. Ambassador Rice added that if Eritrea failed to signal any such change of behaviour then “I can assure you we will be taking appropriate steps with partners in Africa and the Security Council.”
In their discussions, Council members, individually and collectively, made it clear they were now aware of the dangers that have emerged in Somalia, in the region and beyond. Indeed, it seems the Security Council, and indeed the international community in general, has finally accepted that the issue of Somalia is not just a civil war, or an issue of local piracy. It is about extremist forces, with support from Al Qaeda and global Jihadists, assisted by the direct destabilizing role of Eritrea and other states, posing a serious threat to international peace and security. This is a positive step and gives confidence that the UN Security Council is on the right track in its assessment of the situation and in the issuance of appropriate measures commensurate to the challenge the international community face in Somalia. However, it should be emphasized that not all members of the Security Council appear to be equally resolved to act in accordance with the urgency of the matter, not even after the AU summit had requested the council to take up the matter seriously. That is why the statement to the Council, of the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Somalia, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, was so appropriate and to the point. Effective action, he said, was needed now. “If not now, then when?” he asked the Council. Reminding members of the Council of their responsibilities and perhaps also letting out some level of frustration, he added; If the Council did not act, then who would. What is now being awaited is the report of the Sanctions Committee chaired by Mexico. The UK takes over the Presidency of the Council for August to be followed by the US in September.
Meanwhile, in Somalia itself, the security situation of the TFG improved on the ground this last week. Government forces successfully took control of Beled Weyne town driving out extremist forces. After substantial government forces moved back towards BeledWeyne a few days ago, the forces of Al Shabab and Hizbul Islam abandoned their positions and fled the town. TFG forces are now currently clearing Beled Weyne and surrounding areas from Al Shabab and Hizbul Islam militias. This week, Ahulu Sunna-wal Jamma forces also defeated several Al-Shabaab attacks in Central Somalia. According to Ahlu Sunna officials, Al- Shabaab lost several important commanders as well as a significant number of fighters. Following these defeats, the TFG and Ahlu Sunna expect Al-Shabaab to try and launch another round of attacks in the Benadir Region around Mogadishu; they are intending to pre-empt any such plans by expanding their own operations.
*****
top
|
Sustainable Solutions to Regional Challenges
For over ten years the Nile Basin Countries have been negotiating a framework cooperation agreement with a view to ensure sustainable and equitable use of the Nile Waters for the benefit of the people of the Basin. The countries of the Nile Basin are Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya, Rwanda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Burundi and Tanzania, with Eritrea as an observer. The Nile Basin Initiative, set up in 1999, brought together all the countries in the Nile Basin with the aim of cooperating in the development of the region, sharing in its socio-economic benefits and promoting regional peace and security. It has been instrumental in looking for win-win solutions to contribute to the development of the region. This initiative has now reached an historic point. The Nile Basin states are in process of finalizing a Cooperative Framework on the basis of internationally recognized principles of equity, fairness and transparency. It is a framework which will establish a permanent body to oversee allocation along the whole length of the river and resolve the issue of water security. This was agreed to by most of the riparian states at Kinshasha in May this year, though the agreement has yet to be signed by all. Discussions continue, but any zero-sum-game strategies in the negotiations can be characterized as impediments to the cooperative drive among the Nile Basin States to which all claim to be committed.
Indeed, in this respect, it would be a mistake for anyone to think that the welfare and security of any one member state in the Nile Basin could or should be protected solely by controlling and monopolizing water resources which are shared by all, and equitably. The water security of any one single member state cannot in any way be maintained or realized at the expense of any other nation within the Nile Basin. It was, in this context, to ensure the success of the Nile Basin Initiative, that the Cooperative Framework Agreement (CFA) has to come into operation, if possible, as a consensus with the agreement of all the parties involved. To make certain of this, any zero-sum-game notions or out-dated legacies of hegemony and monopoly dating from the colonial era, cannot be entertained in the negotiations for the Cooperative Framework Agreement. This would defeat the very aim and purpose of the Cooperative Agreement.
Negotiations, as might be expected, have been protracted. The Cooperative Framework Agreement has been designed to provide a fresh start with mutual empathy and equal opportunities in order to mark an end to the legacy of past hegemonic aspirations. Most of the riparian states have demonstrated very clearly they have the commitment and will to engage fully with a real and genuine cooperative spirit in expectation of producing equitable and legitimate use of shared water resources. It remains significant that almost all the riparian states have been willing to negotiate for common interests and principles, for the modalities and the legal and institutional framework necessary for mutually beneficial cooperation. It was in this sense, the supporters of the CFA agreed to postpone a decision for another six months, while those which have yet to sign the CFA have tried to down-play differences publicly, making apparent efforts to find ways around the impasse. At Alexandria this week the ministers of the Nile Basin Initiative did agree on some 24 joint projects worth 1.4 billion dollars for Nile Basin developments. These included improvement of irrigation techniques in Egypt's west Nile Delta, a joint Sudan-Ethiopia hydroelectric project and a water conservation scheme in the Nile Equatorial Lakes region and involving Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Burundi, DRC and Rwanda. It must be hoped that the next six months will allow for the necessary second thoughts and further progress towards a consensus.
Nevertheless, it remains obvious that one of the basic problems facing plans for proper utilization of the waters of the Nile Basin has been the lack of any clear and comprehensive agreement acceptable to, and binding on, all riparian states without exception. Any moves that reduces Nile Basin-wide cooperation over the Nile Water or perpetuates unequal utilization of the Nile River, thus negatively affecting the interests of the upper riparian states, means that no sustainable solution to the issues can be achieved. There is no dispute that the challenges of the Nile Basin do require sustainable solutions. This in turn requires all Nile riparian states, from one end of the river to the other, to demonstrate, in good faith, real commitment and will. This is all the more so in this time of global crisis and climate change. These underline the need for realistic and, above all, sustainable solutions. This is why Ethiopia will continue to work unfailingly to achieve success in the negotiations for the Cooperative Framework Agreement for the Nile Basin countries. The theme of the Nile-COM ministerial meeting in Alexandra this week was “Nurturing our Partnership for Prosperity”. It is a theme all should take to heart: it is needed.
*****
top |
|
