|
|
An EASBRIG meeting in
Addis Ababa prepares for the Kampala summit
A high-level Legal
and Political Experts Meeting of the Eastern Africa Region Brigade (EASBRIG)
was held last week in Addis Ababa. The meeting was convened
according to the directives of the 2nd Extraordinary Meeting of the
Assembly of Heads of States and Governments to discuss EASBRIG on
17th March in Moroni, in the Comoros. The Summit directed that a
committee should be set up to review progress towards producing a
policy framework for EASBRIG. One high-level legal or political
expert should be drawn from each member state under the chairmanship
of Djibouti. The committee was to be assisted by AU Experts. It was
agreed that an Extraordinary Council of Ministers meeting review the
report by the end of June and report its finding to the AU Kampala
Summit in July. In line with the EASBRIG’s rules of procedure,
Djibouti chaired the meeting with Ethiopia as Vice-Chair. In the
absence of the Union of Comoros, Brigadier General Silver Moses
Kayemba, the former Rapporteur from Uganda, was unanimously chosen
to serve as rapporteur.
The Director of
EASBRICOM, Major-General (rtd) Cyrille Ndayirukiye, in his opening
statement, welcomed all participants to the Expert Working Group
meeting. He reminded participants that the report of the meeting had
to be presented to the Heads of States and Governments during the AU
Summit in July for consideration and adoption. He underlined that
the main purpose of the meeting was to maintain the cohesion of the
region, and to create a structure that can accommodate all types of
peace and security operational requirements before, during and after
missions. Ethiopia’s Minister of State for National Defence, Ato
Kasahun Dender, welcomed all participants to the meeting and
summarized the achievements of EASBRIG, highlighted the successful
conduct of the Command Post Exercise (CPX) in 2008, and the Field
Training Exercise (FTX) in 2009 in Djibouti. The military PLANELM
has been fully staffed, the civilian and police components have been
developed to full capacity and approval has been made to develop an
EASBRIG Maritime Concept. The State Minister recognized the fact
that the draft of the proposed revised Harmonized Policy Framework
Document has been under discussion for almost three years without
any consensus. He reminded participants that they had been tasked
with an important role over the following three days. As key
advisers to EASBRIG, they needed to critically review the matter and
forward well-thought out recommendations to the Summit. He urged the
meeting to treat their mandate with the seriousness it deserved and
produce a balanced and unbiased report for the decision makers. He
expressed the hope that the experts would come up with
recommendations that would further enhance the cohesion of the
region and help it move forward together in unison.
The meeting came
to the conclusion that the revised Harmonised Policy Framework could
not serve as the working document since it had not been developed by
the member states of the Eastern Africa Region. Instead, the meeting
considered the Policy Framework on the Establishment of EASBRIG
(2004) and the EASBRIG Memorandum of Understanding (2005). It
decided that these two documents should be updated to incorporate
the developments that had occurred since they had been originally
adopted. There were extensive discussions on the changes needed for
EASBRIG according to the AU’s Peace and Security Council’s protocol
and EASBRIG’s MoU with the AU, as well as necessary changes arising
from various decisions made by the Council of Ministers of Defence
and Security. The experts made a number of amendments to be
considered by the upcoming Council of Ministers meeting to be held
on the side lines of the AU Summit. The meeting was concluded in a
spirit of cooperation and constructiveness for the mutual benefit of
the organization and of all member states.
********
top |
|
The Norwegian Foreign
Minister in Ethiopia
Norwegian Foreign Minister, Mr. Jonas Gahr Store, paid an official
visit to Ethiopia on Thursday and Friday last week, responding to
the visit of Foreign Minister Seyoum to Norway in April. Mr. Store’s
visit was also the continuation of ongoing periodic political
consultations between the two Foreign Ministers, and Minster Seyoum
welcomed his Norwegian counterpart warmly. The two ministers
conducted extensive discussions on wide-ranging bilateral and
regional issues of common interest. Minister Seyoum expressed
satisfaction over the current state of relations between the two
countries and thanked the Norwegian Government for its continued
economic cooperation with Ethiopia. He noted the Norwegian business
community was well placed to engage in investment ventures which
could have a positive and sustainable impact on development, as it
had technological advantages in a number of particular areas of
interest, including energy, agriculture and mining. Following the
roundtable business discussion held by Minister Seyoum in Oslo, a
number of Norwegian companies have shown interest in investment
ventures in Ethiopia. Preparation is currently underway to organize
a business seminar in Addis Ababa in November; a number of prominent
Norwegian companies are expected actively to participate.
Minister Seyoum also briefed his visitor on last month’s national
election. He underlined that the election had been conducted in a
peaceful and orderly manner with unprecedented voter turnout.
Whatever some detractors might claim, the voters had given a very
clear verdict on the numerous parties which had participated.
Minister Seyoum emphasized that elections were one of the most
important elements in creating democratic governance and a
democratic society; the election demonstrated that the process of
democratic transformation in Ethiopia was taking the right
trajectory. The Norwegian Minister expressed his satisfaction that
the elections had been concluded in an orderly and peaceful climate.
Norway, he noted, had participated indirectly in election
observation through the Norwegian nationals on the EU Election
Observers Mission. The Minister congratulated Minister Seyoum and
the winning party for their victory.
Mr. Store emphasized that the overall trajectory of
Ethiopian-Norwegian economic and political relations were heading in
the right direction. His government was committed to further
strengthen existing bilateral relations. He noted that the visit
made to Norway by Minister Seyoum last April had begun to produce
results in motivating Norwegian entrepreneurs who were already
beginning to show strong interest in investment in Ethiopia. The
Minister added that the economic activities he had observed during
his short visit to Addis Ababa were a clear manifestation of the
economic growth Ethiopia has recently achieved.
The two Ministers conducted extensive discussions on current
political and security developments in Sudan and Somalia. They
exchanged views on current events in both countries and reviewed the
challenges and prospects for peaceful negotiations of political
dispute, and the role that might be played by the international
community. They agreed that Ethiopia and Norway must play their fair
share in the effort to bring about the peaceful resolution of
conflicts in Somalia and the Sudan. During his visit, the Norwegian
Minster also met and held similar discussions with Prime Minister
Meles.
*****************
top |
|
Is the TFG making
headway in Somalia?
Following the election of Sharif Hassan Sheikh Ahmed to replace the
previous Speaker, Sheikh Aden Madobe, Somalia’s Transitional Federal
Parliament has now chosen the two deputy Speakers: the first deputy
is Abdi Weli Sheikh Mudey, from the Reer Hassan and a representative
of minority clans; the second deputy Speaker is Ahmed Dhimbel Roble
Asow, from the Gadabursi, a Dir clan. Now that the Parliamentary
Presidium is fully in place the next stage is to strengthen the
confidence of the Cabinet and then focus full government attention
and activities on the frail security situation. The successful
completion of the election of the parliamentary leadership should
now close the bitter row that has been going on within the
leadership of the TFG for the last couple of months. It had been a
real source of concern for all those engaged in trying to make peace
and national reconciliation a reality in Somalia. The successful
election of the deputy Speakers and the Speaker certainly suggest
the parliament may now be able to get to grips with the run up to
the transition that is expected to happen next year in accordance
with the Djibouti Agreement. Parliament has to draw up and pass a
number of laws and legal instruments for the transition.
The elections for the Speaker and his deputies can be considered an
important step for the proper functioning of government and will
give supporters of the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia
greater confidence. Nevertheless much remains to be done, not least
in keeping the cabinet together, as the resignation this week of the
State Minister of Defence, Sheikh Yusuf Indha ‘Adde, has
underlined. Prime Minister Omar Ali Sharmarke still has a lot of
work to do to ensure real improvements in the security situation in
Mogadishu.
On Thursday last week, TFG security forces, in collaboration with
AMISOM troops, carried out a surprise assault on some strategic
positions in the Abdiaziz and Karan districts of North Mogadishu.
The government’s aim was to clear Al-Shabaab out of positions seized
by Al-Shabaab’s foreign fighters in the middle of last year. The
fighting began in the early hours of the morning, and after Al-Shabaab
had damaged a tank and another armored vehicle in early clashes, it
invited various media to see its success. It proved premature. Newly
trained TFG forces were then deployed much to the surprise of Al-Shabaab,
forcing the Al-Shabaab fighters out of their positions. Among those
involved was a nine hundred-strong battalion of new troops, recently
trained in Uganda. Other TFG forces which had been trained in
Ethiopia, and which had been based around the old port, were also
involved in the operation and these provided the TFG forces and
AMISOM with the necessary edge to win a significant victory. A
number of important foreign and local insurgents were killed during
the fight, including some nine top Al-Shabaab commanders, among
which four were foreigners. They included senior figures tasked with
teaching Somali recruits the use of explosive devices and the making
of homemade bombs. Their deaths will be a serious blow to Al-Shabaab
terrorist operations. Among the local members of Al-Shabaab killed
in the fighting was Zakaria Abu Abdalla, Al-Shabaab’s operational
commander for North Mogadishu operations. Meanwhile, in the central
region, the forces of Ahlu Sunna wal Jama’a (ASWJ) completely routed
an attempt by Al-Shabaab to attack the environs of Dhusmareb,
driving Al-Shabaab forces away towards Eel-bur. It was another
impressive victory for ASWJ’s fighters.
*****************
top |
|
Eritrea: genuine
overtures for peace or more of the same?
The short history of Eritrea has been a record of a long list of
political blunders, costly military adventures and disastrous
diplomatic gambles. In a span of 15 years, it has managed to make
enemies out of literally all its neighbours. But its leaders’
capacity for outdoing themselves in every one of these areas has
never seemed to run out. It is to be recalled that following
Eritrea’s invasion of sovereign Djibouti territory, and its
destabilizing activities in Somalia and the entire the Horn of
Africa, the United Nations Security Council passed resolutions 1862
demanding that it withdraw its forces from Djiboutian territory and
desist from its support to extremist elements in Somalia. This was
later followed by UNSC Resolution 1907 imposing targeted sanctions
on Eritrean officials and institutions implicated in the acts of
abetting terror.
Rather than mending its ways and abandoning its destructive moves
that landed it in trouble, Eritrea nevertheless continued to
prevaricate and to openly deny that it was indeed responsible for
all the wrongdoing it was accused of. Of course, evidence has never
been in short supply as Eritrea’s leaders never tired of flaunting
their ill-advised activities in public. But addressing the root
cause of problems has never been Eritrea’s leaders’ strong point.
Ever since the imposition of the sanctions, the regime in Asmara has
been waging a feverish campaign to deflect attention from it and to
appear to be the underdog. All the media and diplomatic blitz was
all along meant to point the finger at the wrong direction, not to
assume responsibility. But the pattern of Eritrea’s behaviour has
been such that it is always difficult to foresee its next move. One
such incident has occurred this past week.
For a long time now, Eritrea’s leaders have been denying that there
even was any crisis between Djibouti and Eritrea, much less assume
responsibility for instigating it. As recently as two weeks ago,
Eritrean officials were writing letters after letters to the UN
emphatically denying that there was indeed and conflict between the
two countries. In a letter submitted to the UN entitled “Eritrea’s
Position on Relations with Djibouti”, Eritrean officials stated that
“there was no good faith ‘border dispute’ between Eritrea and
Djibouti” and that “the putative ‘border dispute’ was contrived by
the US Administration officials in order to find new pretexts to
blame and corner Eritrea.” As the Eritrean president has repeatedly
stated, he only ‘learned’ of the dispute from the Emir of Qatar. But
all of a sudden, there was an announcement last week that a peace
agreement negotiated by the Emir of Qatar was signed between the two
countries. According to the official statement following the signing
of the agreement, the Eritrean government has now agreed to withdraw
its forces from Ras Doumera and Qatari forces will replace the
Eritrean forces. In addition to the withdrawal of its forces, the
government of Eritrea has also agreed to pay compensation for the
government of Djibouti, practically assuming responsibility for its
act of aggression. This is a far cry from the emphatic denial just a
week earlier, but not entirely surprising in the light of Eritrea’s
pattern of behaviour.
This is in itself a welcome development, of course. But without too
much second-guessing the merits of the agreement, one cannot
nonetheless wonder as to the obvious lack of transparency
surrounding the entire process. More importantly, most entities
involved with the whole issue were kept in the dark with respect to
the way in which the agreement was concluded. The AU has expressed
its support to the initiative upon being communicated by the Emir of
Qatar but it still appears to have no grasp on its details. The UN
is no different, and none of the relevant UN organs have been kept
in the loop. In light of Eritrea’s flip-flopping tendencies, it is
altogether difficult to be all that enthusiastic about the signing
of the agreement. After all, the leaders of Eritrea were claiming
only two weeks ago that the border dispute was the fabrication of
the US government. Otherwise, this is a welcome development although
it remains to be seen if this will also be repeated in all other
conflicts in which Eritrea is involved. As the statement by Mr. Jean
Ping, Chairman of the AU Commission pointed out, it remains to be
seen if this positive gesture will also be repeated in connection
with Somalia and the rest of the sub-region.
*****************
top |
|
The challenges of AU
election observer
missions
The May 2010 national and regional elections in Ethiopia were indeed
interesting in many ways and also contained a lot of lessons. The
Prime Minister admitted immediately following the announcement of
the provisional results, that the ruling party never expected such a
sweeping landslide victory for the ruling party. Landslide victories
in an election are of course not unknown in the development of the
democratic process in Ethiopia: One recalls the sweeping electoral
success that the opposition had in Addis Ababa in 2005. Had the
opposition not declined to take over the city administration in
2005, Addis would have been ruled by the opposition since 2005
without as much as even two seats in the name of the ruling party.
It is not only the ruling party that was surprised by the results
of the May 2010 election. The opposition was equally surprised: They
never thought that the electorate would reject the opposition with
such vehemence. There is nonetheless a need for a caveat here. As
the Prime Minister said in an interview following the election, a
landslide now does not necessarily preclude another disaster for the
ruling party at the next election. As the Prime Minister said, it is
only dedicated work and commitment to promoting the interests of the
electorate that would guarantee success in elections to both the
ruling party and the opposition. There are also lessons to be drawn
from this latest historic election in Ethiopia; not only for
Ethiopians but for the AU and its member states. This is in relation
to the activities of the AU election observer mission.
Let there be no confusion on one important matter --- the
credibility of the AU observer mission. The former President of
Botswana, the chief of the AU observer mission is an honourable man,
and has always been. The close to eighty observers of the AU mission
came from diverse background and were drawn from governmental as
well as civil society organizations. There is absolutely no ground
for casting aspersions on the credibility of the AU verdict on the
May 2010 elections in Ethiopia. The AU observer mission's conclusion
on the election was that it indeed reflected the will of the
Ethiopian people.
It is not necessary to dwell on the fact that some have tried to
attack the credibility of the AU pronouncement on the latest
Ethiopian elections. But one general suggestion can be offered: the
negative reaction to the AU statement on the Ethiopian elections is
a product of either arrogance of the characteristic variety or
partisanship. But what is most interesting about this latest
Ethiopian election as it relates to the AU observer mission was the
amount of pressure that the mission had apparently come under, from
various sources, to get it to abandon ownership of its own
assessment. A close scrutiny of developments surrounding the May
elections reveal that there were indeed efforts made by various
groups and personalities to sway the opinion of the AU observer
mission's verdict away from the factual and one based on the
examination of the process, towards the judgmental, based on
considerations that have nothing to do with the facts on the ground.
The lesson to be drawn from the May 2010 election as far as the AU
observer mission is concerned is that the Mission has indeed proven
its mettle and has made Africa proud. Additional lessons for AU
observer missions in general: vigilance and commitment to
principles.
*****************
top |
|
Is it about democracy, really? Taking stock of the views of
Fortune’s anonymous author
The spectacular success with which the recently held election was
conducted has been widely debated throughout the country. The
enthusiastic support the results of the election received from
various sections of the peoples of Ethiopia has also been all too
palpable. The pre and post election developments have shown to the
whole world that the peoples of Ethiopia have no use for violence as
a means of expressing their support for or opposition to contending
political parties. The fact that the majority of opposition parties
have already conceded defeat and vowed to continue to work on the
basis of the inter-party cooperative framework already in place, was
another welcome development that helped instil confidence in the
overall process. To the extent that there are few voices of
rejection bent on violence or street action, they have little, if
any, going for them as the peoples of Ethiopia are unequivocal about
their commitment to the ideals of peace and democracy. There is
indeed consensus even among supporters of the opposition that the
results were in fact the true reflections of the will of the people.
Ironically, the largely peaceful and calm conduct of the election
has also generated a lot of negative interest among too many a
commentator both from within and abroad. Though very few, the chorus
of criticism of detractors is getting louder with each passing day.
One such commentary by an anonymous writer did appear on the English
weekly Fortune, entitled, “EPRDF aims for Chinese model
legitimacy not Democracy”,(06.08.2010). The article
showcases almost a laundry list of all the accusations often flung
against the credentials of the government by many foreign
commentators. It is clear that the article was written by people who
are disinclined to give the incumbent the benefit of the doubt even
for a moment for reasons that have nothing to do with whether or not
the election results reflected the true will of the peoples of
Ethiopia. The assumptions embedded in the article are unmistakably
ideological and betray an entrenched bias not only to the government
but also to the peoples of Ethiopia. The article is full of
assumptions all too liberally assembled to fit the writer’s
preconceived notions of all that has gone wrong in Ethiopian
politics. Even the very fact that the name of the author is withheld
speaks a lot about the writer’s intentions. It would be all too
naïve to ask if such could have been the case if the article was to
appear in a western newspaper.
The basic assumption of the article is that an election in which the
results fall short of unseating the incumbent—much less one in which
it wins a landslide—could ever be considered even remotely
legitimate no matter how free and fair its conduct might have been.
It contends that the ruling party had completely discredited its
“already soft democratic credentials with the farcical elections of
2010”, that is to say, the results of the election which saw the
ruling coalition sweep the great majority of parliamentary seats.
The author of the article thinks that the result is unjustifiable
and further asserts that EPRDF won a victory of force, “fully
convincing Ethiopians that the cost of opposition is pain and
exclusion, even death.” But these assertions are mere innuendos
woefully bereft of even the scantiest of evidence. In fact, all the
observer missions in this election have made it abundantly clear
that there was hardly any substantive merit to such a claim. As if
to make up for the yawning gap between such a hollow claim and the
realities on the ground, the anonymous author takes refuge in
threadbare argument that the people of Ethiopia must have thought
better of voting “against a ruling party that will refuse to
relinquish power, anyway”, a position that is also shared among a
great many commentators who have difficulty coming to terms with any
prospect of the EPRDF’s remaining in power no matter how stellar the
credibility of its electoral gains. Human Rights Watch’s claim that
the election results were proof positive of “the retrospective
falsification” of the process springs to mind.
The anonymous author, like many like-minded commentators, is not
even remotely interested in the extent to which the electoral
process was free and fair. It is the result that matters, and even
so, it is the identity of the party/parties winning the election
that matters most. True to form, this article is full of references
as to how donors should leverage their aid “to beat EPRDF into
line’; as to how the results are ‘farcical’ or ‘unjustifiable’; but
there is little by way of attempting to show how unfair the process
was. Even the magnanimous gesture of Prime Minister Meles to bring
on board all opposition parties loyal to the constitution is nowhere
mentioned in the article. The explanation is simple, of course: the
only democratic and credible outcome is one in which the incumbent
loses, shares powers with the opposition or is weakened to such an
extent that it will be kept on its toes for the remainder of the
term. Reading the Fortune piece, for example, one could not
help wondering if the author believes the EPRDF should have
parcelled out parliamentary seats to opposition bigwigs so there
would be some semblance of competition.
Much as the author would wish to have us believe he/she is
interested in democracy—free and fair elections, respect for popular
will etc., that is—the article is rather about some ill-disguised
ideological assumptions that have nothing to do with protecting the
interests of the Ethiopian people. The main thrust of the article is
on what Ethiopia should do to accommodate the interests of forces
which have made it their business to arm-twist it into submitting to
their terms. It is about the kinds of concessions it needs to make
in order to win the benediction—hence legitimacy—of forces other
than the peoples of Ethiopia. As the tell-tale title of the
article suggests, Ethiopia under the EPRDF’s leadership is being
accused of defying the orthodoxy preached by some in the west. True,
its socio-economic policies and strategies may sometimes become
harder to pigeonhole into ideological compartments acceptable to
these forces. But this has everything to do with the realization
that, in order to succeed, politics and economics need to reflect
local realities. It is not uncommon for these groups to use one
political discourse or another in order to sell a given economic
narrative amenable to enhancing their own interests. As the
anonymous author of this particular article repeatedly claims, the
EPRDF has never parted with “Marxist” ambitions nor will it adopt a
‘truly market-based’ economy such as he/she would have liked to see
in the country. The results of the recent election are therefore
proof that the EPRDF is indeed drifting further away from the path
of free market economy—which, incidentally, is equated with its
breaking with its commitment to democratic ideals.
One of the self-serving assumptions in the article concerns EPRDF’s
preferred sources of legitimacy- nationalism and prosperity—as a
substitute for democracy, as if nationalism and prosperity are
mutually exclusive with democracy. It is quite a strange dichotomy
indeed. Even more interesting is the claim that EPRDF’s economic
prosperity—which the author also tells us is way too exaggerated
without caring to show how—is in fact meant to buy legitimacy from
the peoples of Ethiopia. Whipping up nationalism, the author tells
us, is a whole lot easier in Ethiopia because of “the rampant
xenophobia” that permeates Ethiopian society. To even try to counter
such a bizarre—libellous no less—characterization is tantamount to
dignifying it by response. But the paternalistic tone is
unmistakable. The article is replete with many such condescending
remarks.
The author clearly resents what he believes to be a kid-glove
treatment the EPRDF has always and will continue to receive from the
west. He/she even wonders—angrily we might add—why Western
governments “are willing to be reviled publicly by the Revolutionary
Democrats and still shore them up.” The author does not stop there.
As if to dare donors into action, He goes on to reassure them that,
despite their [Ethiopians] unrealistic view of themselves as being
“the center of the Earth”, and “major players in the war on terror”,
they are in fact marginal players. In a sheer display of visceral
contempt, the author tells us that “the West’s distinct interest is
in not having another big famine in the world’s TV screens.” He then
goes on to express his frustration that “strong action could not be
expected against Ethiopia’s phoney elections” because “the West is
not heavily concerned with human rights and democracy in Africa.”
Ironically, the author appears to resent what he calls “Ethiopia’s
marginal importance” as the reason why the ‘EPRDFites’ are getting
away with whatever wrongdoing he imputes to them. In this case
EPRDF’s fault lies in its fiercely defending its economic policy
autonomy and unwillingness to submit to the dictates of others.
Ethiopia, we are told, is drifting further away from democracy
because the west is not willing to beat EPRDF into line, by failing
to leverage the aid it provides to the country. The author exhorts
Western donors to get serious with the EPRDF because failure to do
so, he argues, will spoil it into disregarding, as it were, their
interests. That there are too many Chinese businesses in the country
and throughout Africa apparently is fuelling the anonymous author’s
fear. Through all this, what is conspicuously missing in the article
is any mention of how all this would contribute to making the
democratic process in Ethiopia any more vibrant than it has thus far
been. Nor is any clue given to Ethiopia as to what measures it needs
to take to ensure that the democratic process stays on track. This
raises the question whether indeed the whole issue of democracy is
just a smokescreen to advance another agenda far removed from the
interests of the peoples of Ethiopia. What Ethiopia needs, the
author intimates, is “a strong and unmitigated statement of
commitment to the free market and openness to change.” He explains
what he means by free market lest we should be mistaken: it is a
system in which “the banking and telecommunication sectors, weak
compared even to the rest of Africa” are fully liberalized. Where
elections come in here is anybody’s guess.
In case we miss it, the author also reminds us, in unmistakably
paternalistic fashion, that trying to import Chinese economic system
is unwise, not least because “Chinese “deep anti-African racism
could make European colonialism look like a school picnic.” What is
striking here is how little or no regard is made to the national
interest of Ethiopia and how flexible becomes the notion of what
constitutes legitimately democratic or not. When Ethiopia does
business with China it is rendered suspect; when it hands over
strategic economic sectors to foreigners at the expense of its
national interest, it qualifies it to become a reliable partner.
Ethiopia’s choice does not have any place at all.
The author’s trenchant bias against the government of Ethiopia is
only understandable. It is not altogether difficult to understand
that he has bones to pick with the political order in Ethiopia
either. First and foremost, Ethiopia’s democracy is that of its
people and that is the only yardstick by which its success is to be
measured. As for the use of aid to influence politics, we can only
say that this is a tried method that has utterly failed several
times over. Much as Ethiopia treasures its friendship with its
partners East or West, North or South; it does not however allow
others to choose friends for it. The Ethiopian people have said as
much, and prudence would demand that others heed that.
********
top
|
|
|
|
|
|
