|
-
The 13th Summit of COMESA Heads of State and Government
The 13th Summit of Common Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA)
Heads of State and Government took place in Victoria Falls, Zimbabwe,
from 7 to 8 June 2009. The theme of the Summit was "Consolidating
Regional Economic Integration through Value Addition, Trade and Food
Security". One of the main events of the Summit was the launching of the
COMESA Customs Union.
The launching of the Customs Union is considered to be another
significant step in realizing deeper regional integration. It was
reported by the secretariat that the Regional Economic Community has
experienced a dramatic increase in the volume of intra-COMESA trade from
US$ 3.2 billion in 2000 to US$ 15.2 billion in 2008. This trade,
however, mainly comprises of primary agricultural products, signifying
the importance of designing policies and programmes geared towards value
addition. A number of industry associations, established by COMESA,
would spearhead the process of value addition. Obviously, value addition
would in turn boost intra-COMESA trade.
Consistent with the theme of the Summit, it was highlighted
modernization of agriculture and the improvement of agricultural
productivity were also highlighted as important factors for the social
and economic transformation of COMESA member states. In this regard, it
is noteworthy that while the COMESA region has vast agricultural land
and abundant water resources, the region spends on average, US$ 19
billion on food imports annually. It was, therefore, noted that this
situation must be reversed by, among other things, expanding
infrastructure to facilitate trade and supporting farmers to access and
utilize appropriate technologies. In this connection, the objectives set
for the next three years for COMESA member states, in collaboration with
their development partners, include: doubling agricultural productivity
of staple crops, Sourcing food supplies from within the region, and
meeting all food deficits through intra-COMESA trade
The Summit noted with regret the unconstitutional change of Government
that has occurred in Madagascar and unconditionally rejected and
condemned in the strongest terms and called for return to constitutional
rule. It further welcomed and agreed as pronounced by the AU to support
SADC as they take a lead in their efforts to restore constitutional
order in Madagascar by examining all options including the possibility
of military intervention and pronounced its full support and backing to
SADC in all options to resolve the matter.
Prior to the Summit the COMESA Ministers of Foreign Affairs met on the
5th and 6th of June 2009 to consider the peace and security situation in
the region. The secretariat reported that this forum of the Ministers of
Foreign Affairs which was created some nine years ago has created a
condition for dialogue to address conflicts and that the reduction in
the number of conflicts, though not exclusively a result of the COMESA's
programme, is testimony to the importance of the much needed dialogue.
The signing of the comprehensive peace agreement that has brought
FNL-PALIPEHUTU of Burundi into government and the cooperation
arrangement involving DRC, Sudan, Uganda and Rwanda to address the issue
of negative forces in Eastern DRC were among the recent positive
developments mentioned in this regard.
With respect to the conflict between Eritrea and Djibouti, the COMESA
Ministers of Foreign Affairs had recommended to the Authority that it
"call upon Eritrea and Djibouti to exercise restraint and engage
actively in dialogue so as to defuse the tension, and find a peaceful
and mutually acceptable settlement". However, Eritrea, as usual, denied
that there is tension or dispute between the two countries, that it is a
fabrication by the United States and France in collaboration with
Ethiopia. Eritrea further claimed that it is in its own territory, and
that it would not withdraw from its own sovereign land, therefore, there
is no need for dialogue. Of course, the recommendation was milder than
what is contained in the main part of the report which includes the
provisions of the resolution of the United Nations Security Council in
which it demanded Eritrea to withdraw its forces to the status quo
ante, acknowledge its border dispute with Djibouti, engage actively
in dialogue to defuse the tension as well as in diplomatic efforts
leading to a mutually acceptable settlement and abide by its obligation
as a member of the United Nations.
Regarding the situation in Somalia the COMESA Ministers of Foreign
Affairs had recommended to the Authority that it expresses appreciation
to Ethiopia's commitment to the search for a lasting solution to the
conflict in Somalia. True to form, Eritrea requested that its
reservation be recorded on that paragraph. COMESA's collective position
on the matter is, of course, retained. The Ethiopian delegation
requested that the recommendations on Somalia include a provision for
COMESA to welcome the recent Communiqué issued by the Peace and Security
Council of the African Union on Somalia which contains, among other
things, the request for the UN Security Council to impose sanctions
against all those foreign actors, both with in and outside the region,
especially Eritrea, that are providing support to the armed groups
engaged in destabilization activities in Somalia, attacks against the
TFG, the civilian population and AMISOM. Eritrea, of course, objected to
this formulation and insisted that it be not included in the report.
However, COMESA has taken note of Ethiopia's request to welcome the
decision of the AU Peace and Security Council together with Eritrea's
objection.
********
top |
-
High time to be serious on Eritrea
Following the AU’s Peace and Security Council call on the UNSC to
impose sanctions on Eritrea on its support to terrorist groups in
Somalia, there appears to be a long overdue focus on the aberrations
of the regime in Asmara. Eritrea’s behavior has been consistent to a
fault; there was hardly any time its leaders shied away from courting
controversy as diplomatic trump card either. For some reason, the
international community has had—wittingly or unwittingly—a soft spot
towards this pariah state. Even the international media would at times
go to great lengths to find much more favorable appellations to
describe Eritrea’s leaders’ bizarre regional roles as well as their
repression of dissent at home. If Eritrea makes it no secret that it
throws what weight it has behind extremists in Somalia and elsewhere
in the region, the media would rather strangely label it as a ‘proxy
war’ with Ethiopia. If Eritrea says it arms Ethiopia’s insurgents with
C-4 explosives and other arsenals, the media would report that
Eritrea’s reaction is driven by its disappointment with the UNSC for
its failure to implement the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission. If
there is any one nation that fits all the criteria of a pariah state,
it must be Eritrea. It would be foolhardy for any leader—no matter how
deranged—to declare publicly that he would not take someone to court,
that he knows “how to deal with” journalists accused of dissent. In
the political aberration that is Eritrea, even that can be a hallmark
of leadership. Its people have long been suffering. But the world had
it nice and easy with Eritrea if recent indications are any guide. The
world is about to end its honeymoon with Eritrea; or so, it seems.
First came a bold decision by IGAD, followed by the AU Peace and
Security Council. In other similar forums, too, Eritrea is being
called by its name: spoiler. The US administration has also sounded a
similar alarm. It remains to be seen if the UNSC will finally deliver
on this particular appeal by the AU.
In a recent issue, the Economist magazine has upped the ante by
calling President Isaias by his appropriate name: a text book dictator
who is no good at home or abroad. President Isaias kills, maims and
imprisons at will. What perhaps the Economist got somewhat wrong in
the recent article is this: the article reports that President Isaias
“denies” his support to Somali Extremists. He does not, and actually,
he believes only his government—not even the UN and the TFG—has the
“moral & legal” basis to extend support to the ‘Somali People’. Nobody
should be mistaken as to who president Isaias thinks ‘the Somali
People’ are.
Eritrea also exports violence across borders. Somalia is only one
example. As the President made it abundantly clear to the Swedish
journalists, he does not care what the rest of the world thinks about
his leadership style. But then again why would he? He has never had
problems as a result of his behavior. As one Eritrean writer
laconically put it, President Isaias has long “survived the
persistence of [his] mistakes through sheer arrogance”. Eritrea had
every disincentive not to worry about what the reaction of the
international community could be. There has hardly been one. After all
it takes a little bit of seriousness to be taken seriously by Eritrea.
That is what the international community should do without fail. May
be this time, the Eritrean leader himself is helping in that by
outdoing his own arrogance.
*****
top |
-
Ethiopia joins Climate
Neutral
Network (CN Net)
The World Environment day
was observed on June 5, 2009 under the theme: "Your Planet Needs You!
Unite to Combat Climate Change". The
UN General Assembly established the
World Environment Day in 1972 to mark the opening of the
Stockholm Conference on the Human
Environment. Since then, the day is
annually commemorated on the 5th of June, as a principal
vehicle through which the United Nations stimulates worldwide
awareness about the environment and enhances political attention and
action. While this year's main event of the World Environment Day was
celebrated in Mexico, similar commemorations were organized worldwide-
from remote villages to sprawling capitals that has made it a truly
global day. In Ethiopia, the World Environment day was celebrated
for the 16th time under the theme: "Establishing an environmental
protection system to ensure sustainable development".
On this very day,
Ethiopia has taken one step in this area where by it has pledged,
along with two other countries, Pakistan and Portugal, to promote
low-carbon, green growth by joining the Climate Neutral Network (CN
Net). The three are the latest nations to join the CN Net initiatives
and this brings the total number of countries that are going
low-carbon or even climate neutral to ten. Ethiopia is the first
African country to join the Climate Neutral Network.
Climate Neutral Network
was launched on 21 February 2008. Its main objective is to assist
those interested in achieving big cuts in greenhouse gas emissions. It
does so by making public inspiring plans and strategies that
pioneering partners have drawn up in order to achieve climate
neutrality. It also acts as a forum through which those who aspire to
climate neutrality may network and learn more to plan their own
emission reductions. Moreover, it works as a broker that brings both
developed and developing countries together to green the development
path and support the Millennium Development Goals. At present, the CN
Net has over 100 participants, including several countries, cities,
major international companies, UN agencies and leading NGOs.
As a member of the
Climate Neutral Network, Ethiopia will benefit from the assistance
provided for the preservation of registered environmental sites,
similar to what the UNESCO provides for registered World Heritages. It
would also serve as a supporting credential for the country to get the
necessary funding for the promotion and development of renewable
energy projects. Furthermore, the CN Net would make positive
contributions to the production of low-carbon agricultural and
industrial products that are known to be competitive at the
international market. On the other hand, the fact that Ethiopia has
qualified to become a CN Net member would create conducive atmosphere
for the protection, preservation and development of bio-diversity
resources, as well as to get the support required for scientific
researches in the field.
According to UNEP,
Ethiopia is rated as a pioneer country in the Billion Tree Campaign by
planting close to 1 Billion trees under the country’s nationwide tree
planting campaign.
*****
top
|
-
Gilgel
Gibe III : another building block of Ethiopia’s Renaissance
Ethiopia’s war on poverty has come a long way in generating a
significant amount of enthusiasm among large swathes of the population
instilling a sense of optimism that, after all, poverty can be beaten
one day, and one day soon. From the very outset, the government did
make it abundantly clear that its prime enemy is poverty and thus will
leave no stone unturned to see to it that Ethiopia turns a corner in
alleviating the age-old misery and hopelessness that had gripped its
peoples for centuries on end. Needless to say, the monumental
challenges that we have always faced as a nation are best addressed
only in the context of a vigorous anti-poverty drive that involves,
among other things, the democratic transformation of the political
system to allow for the broadest possible empowerment of the peoples
of Ethiopia as well as identifying and drawing a broad panoply of
pro-poor socio-economic policies in the formulation and implementation
of which Ethiopians at all levels can play a meaningful role. True,
there is a lot more daunting challenge ahead than one would have
liked, what with the long odds that need to be overcome to effect a
far-reaching structural transformation of the kind that ensures
sustainable development. Arguably, however, the progress has so far
been one of hope and the economic growth that has been registered in
the last few years seems to clearly indicate that success is indeed
achievable, and Ethiopia’s renaissance within reach.
Despite the attention Ethiopia’s commendable achievement has drawn and
the praise it rightly won over the years both from within and outside,
there has nonetheless been a disturbing pattern of negativity that
clouded this progress. From the benign —yet self-fulfilling — fatalism
of those who doubt if Ethiopia could ever beat the long odds; to those
who—for diverse reasons—have made it their business to sabotage any
semblance of progress in Ethiopia by all means fair and foul, the
challenges have made the journey thus far travelled decidedly
turbulent. For all the hurdles Ethiopia has had to judiciously cross,
with too steep a price no less—there are signs that there will be more
of these campaigns that may well make the road ahead even bumpier, so
to speak. All too often, these challenges have been the result of a
confluence of disparate factors and groups whose behaviors have at
times taken on a really damaging campaign streak. A recent such uproar
surrounding the Gilgel Gibe III Hydro-Power project over the Omo River
amply demonstrates this rather bad confluence of factors that can play
havoc with the speed with which Ethiopia’s all out war against poverty
can be won and the alacrity with which Ethiopia’s
detractors—irrespective of their national origin or make-up—can
ratchet up a campaign of reaction. Bizarre as these campaigns
certainly have been, the strange mix of parties involved and their
disparate interests and motivations has always been far more
perplexing. The doomsayers that have found common cause in trying to
scuttle the success of Gilgel Gibe III are the text book example of
this strange union.
First, there was this noisy campaign waged by self-styled
environmentalists and NGOs of dubious reputation to drum up an
international outcry against the project. This campaign dwelt very
much on manipulating to its advantage the propensity of some media
outlets to sensationalize everything to the point of creating a
make-believe world of doom and gloom. To give their campaign a
semblance of credibility, leaders of this campaign had set up an
intellectual wing of sorts, namely—the so-called African Water
Resources group—whose members strangely enough went to great lengths
to claim to have maintained anonymity to avoid a backlash—as it
were—from the Ethiopian government as a result of their work on the
subject. Far from being a work of serious scholarship, their anonymous
paper was in fact an obvious attempt to convince potential financiers
to have second thoughts about their collaboration with the project.
All kinds of pseudo-arguments were being advanced to make their case.
Though bereft of substance at its core, the campaign was noisy just
the same. The noise is designed to try to bring all the hysteria to
come to bear on the decision of potential financiers such as the
European Investment Bank and the African Development Bank. For
instance, there was a sense of excitement following a media report
last week that the EIB had already withdrawn its support for the
project. Of course, the story was emphatically denied by the Bank; but
the fact that there was much in the way of celebration on hearing even
a false story clearly shows the extent to which these groups are
willing to use everything at their disposal to turn the clock back on
the project.
The campaign is not limited to creating all types of environmental
fiction. There has also clearly been an attempt to drive a wedge
between the two sisterly countries by insinuating that the project
would amount to a disaster lurking behind Kenya. Most of the negative
campaigns that were being pushed—some of which are still being
pushed—even served as a fodder for some misguided politicians to try
to advance their parochial interests all in the name of concern for
environment and the life and livelihood of local populations. That
these ‘nameless’ activists had ready access to major media outlets all
along made their no-holds-barred campaign against the project even
more vitriolic.
Second, despite the lackluster coverage it got, there was a baffling
sense of partnership some among the domestic political opposition and
others in the extreme Diaspora felt with those who have made it their
crusade to see Gilgel Gibe III scrapped. These are very few—yet
noisy—Ethiopians who have the readiness to find fault in everything
the government does. Also in this category are some few opposition
elements whose borrowed notions of what constitutes the best interest
of the country at times does the exact opposite. Whatever their
motives, their cynical positions are anything but useful to the
country. This is baffling because, no one in their right mind would
find common cause with people who are against the success of a project
that means a lot to their country’s success in its war against
poverty. Of course, citizens have every right to take issues with
their government if and when they feel it is not doing the right
thing. But, to join arms with people who—for reasons known only to
them—are doing everything to stand in the way of Ethiopia’s progress
is beyond sanity. After all, this project will continue to serve
generations down the road while governments of all colors may come and
go. What sectarian interest—forget national—can then be served by
sabotaging the success of a project that will change the lives of
millions for the better?
Having said that, though, none of the shenanigans discussed in the
foregoing has ever done so much as derail the pace at which the
project is progressing. Not only have the two countries effectively
withstood all the negativity and the attempt to drive a wedge between
them, they have made it abundantly clear to the whole world that there
is nothing that will stand in the way of their exemplary neighbourly
relations. If anything, Gilgel Gibe III will serve as an important
milestone that will take the relations of the two countries and their
peoples to new heights by intertwining their economies. The recent
joint consultative meeting between the officials of the two countries
and the field visit by the Kenyan delegation of the project was
testimonial to the fact that, despite the campaign against its
success, Gilgel Gibe III will and must continue as planned. The
unequivocally positive remarks made by the two sides during their
consultation as well as the equally supportive statements given by
Kenyan officials subsequent to the meeting has gone a long way in
further drawing out the noise against the project. If there are
parties other than the two countries who might feel they stand to lose
as a result of the project, this should be a matter for them to
straighten out. Ethiopia and Kenya have interests too.
On an equally positive note, Ethiopians both at home and in the
Diaspora are making their voices heard in support of the project and
other similar ventures. The establishment of Friends of Gilgel Gibe
III in recent weeks clearly shows the amount of positive energy and
genuine support the issue has generated among Ethiopians. It is
altogether fitting and appropriate that Ethiopians—no matter what
their political affiliations—should rally behind such a project.
Sparring endlessly over issues of national interest or squabbling over
the future of the country is a luxury only fools can afford. Gilgel
Gibe III is not only economically rewarding for the peoples of the two
countries, but also it is a monumental infrastructural achievement in
its own right. To engage in an attempt to scuttle its success—no
matter how much nice-sounding diction accompanies the campaign—could
only be conspiring against Ethiopia’s national interest.
And needless to say, at the end of the day, nothing can turn the clock
against our renaissance as a nation. Gilgel Gibe III can only form
just one building block in that renaissance.
*****
top |
|
