|
|
The
Mekelle Memorandum
This week, the parties to the CPA, the National Congress Party (NCP)
and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) met in Mekelle,
Northern Ethiopia, to discuss Post-Referendum Issues and
arrangements for the way forward toward substantive negotiations.
The opening of the discussions was chaired by former President Thabo
Mbeki, Chairman of the African Union High Level Implementation Panel
(AUHIP), and conducted bilaterally between the two parties to the
CPA. These talks between the parties were conducted from 21st
to
the 22nd of June 2010, in a very positive and
constructive manner, resulting in the signing of the “Mekelle
Memorandum of Understanding between NCP and SPLM on Post-Referendum
Issues and Arrangements”.
This Memorandum of Understanding is a framework on the basis of
which the substantive talks expected to commence in early July 2010
are to be conducted. The main points of the Memorandum of
Understanding included agreement between the parties on issues such
as, the structure of the negotiations; clusters and sequencing of
issues; issues pertaining to press statements and public briefings;
involvement of other political parties and Sudanese Civil Society;
negotiation framework and launching dates; and substantive
negotiation.
The successful completion of the discussions between the NCP and
SPLM on the post-referendum issues and arrangements is a very
important step in creating the necessary conditions to move the
peace process forward. The parties should be commended for their
handling of the issues with a sense of the necessary focus and
responsibility. Even more importantly, they have amply demonstrated
that they own the process. Ethiopia welcomes this development and
encourages both parties to the CPA to continue to build on this
significant step with a view to achieving sustainable peace for the
people of Sudan.
While this process labelled 'Talks about Talks' is entirely a
bilateral process between the two parties without the need for the
mediation of third parties, it has nonetheless been facilitated by
the AU High-level Implementation Panel chaired by President Thabo
Mbeki, with venue provided by Ethiopia, and with the support of
Norway. The Ethiopian Foreign Minister Seyoum Mesfin expressed his
satisfaction over what the two parties have been able to achieve at
their encounter under this innovative formula during a working
breakfast hosted for the two delegations together on the 25th of
June.
******************
top |
|
The 6th EXTRA-ORDINARY Meeting of Council of Ministers of
EASBRIG concludes
The 6th Extra-Ordinary Council of Ministers Meeting of
the Eastern Africa Brigade was held in Nairobi, Kenya, last week.
Preceding the meeting of the Council, the Chiefs of Defence Staff
and the experts meetings were held from the 14th to 17th
June 2010 and presented their respective reports of their meetings
to the Council.
The Chairperson of the Council of Ministers of the Eastern African
Region, Mr. Ougoureh Kifleh of the Republic of Djibouti welcomed all
the delegates of Member Countries to the 6th
Extraordinary Council of Ministers of Defence and Security. He urged
the participants not to rest until they make the mission and vision
of EASF a reality and the institution becomes viable in all areas.
It requires consultations, time, patience, energy, financial
sacrifice to make EASBRIG a viable international institution, he
underlined. He praised countries of the region for having overcome
some major obstacles in the process to reach the final phase of
EASBRIG’s consolidation.
He underlined that the meeting would focus on the finalization and
consolidation of the initial structure of EASBRIG to make it
multidimensional through the integration of civilian, police and
maritime components into the Planning Element; and on re-energizing
the functioning of the Organization. He concluded by paying tribute
to friends and partners of EASBRIG for the financial, intellectual
and technical support they provided throughout the development of
the regional institution.
Opening the meeting officially, Mr. Musalia Mudavadi, Deputy Prime
Minister and Minister for local Government of the Republic of Kenya
welcomed participants to Kenya and to the meeting of the Council of
Ministers of Defence and Security of the Eastern African Region. He
noted that the meeting would discuss very important issues
concerning peace and security in the region. One of the key issues
was the conflict that continues to inflict pain on the conscience of
the African continent. Apart from the immense human suffering and
destruction wrought by these conflicts on the people, he emphasised
that they also divert scarce resources needed to address many
socio-economic challenges that member states face. He urged the
participants to realize that, at this time, Africa could not afford
any more conflicts; rather, he emphasised, it ought to work on
resolving the bigger conflicts already brought about by poverty.
He recalled that in trying to mitigate the effects of conflicts on
the continent, Africa had in the past mostly relied on the
international community to intervene. Unfortunately, recent trends
indicate reluctance to engage in what is seen as a peculiarly
“African Phenomenon” with regard to conflict resolution; and
conflicts in Africa are left to boil underneath and come to notice
only too late, and after they had imploded. He noted that peace and
security were complementary pillars to economic development. They
play a critical role in creating an enabling environment upon which
all economic activities take place. He stressed that the goal of a
peaceful and secure Africa at peace with itself and the world was
definitely not beyond the region’s reach. Africa has the necessary
human resources to handle its problems. He further underlined the
need for the region to work collectively and suggested the starting
point would be a programme of action to secure a peace dividend for
the continent. A good start was the signing of the protocol
establishing the African Union Peace and Security Council at the
inaugural Summit of the African Union held in Durban, South Africa
in July 2002. The Heads of State and Government of the Eastern
Africa Region followed up with a commitment through the adoption of
the Policy Framework establishing the Eastern Africa Standby Brigade
at the 1st Summit held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in April
2004.
He recognised the efforts made by the Eastern Africa Regional
Coordinating Mechanism that has brought together the Member States
of Eastern Africa. He, however, cautioned that what had been
achieved so far was just the easiest part. The commitment to the
Eastern Africa Standby Force in terms of concrete contributions of
troops and financial resources is the main test for the whole
initiatives. He urged member states to prepare their pledged troops
appropriately and to honour their respective financial obligations
in-order to invest in a peace dividend. He thanked the International
development partners for their continued support and for standing by
the region on all major activities.
The meeting also received an extensive briefing on developments in
Somalia from the fact finding mission EASBRIG dispatched to
Mogadishou in April 2010. AU's representative also informed the
meeting on the recent developments in Somalia and the challenges
faced by AMISOM on the ground and asked EASBRIG to make what ever
contribution to ensure the success of the mission. The Defence
Minister of Somalia who attended the meeting also informed the
Ministers that any effort to succeed in Somalia should base itself
on strengthening the role of the TFG institutions in peace building
and peace making. Unless the TFG is made the core of this effort, it
would be challenging and even impossible to make headway on the
ground.
After extensive deliberations on the matter, the Ministers agreed on
a proposal on the possible deployment of EASBRIG forces to Somalia
under AMISOM, for consideration of the IGAD Summit which planned to
be convened on the sidelines of the AU meeting in Kampala in July
2010. The Ministers also emphasized the need to support the TFG
security sectors in terms of building their capacities.
The meeting also considered the establishment of the Maritime cell,
the number, rank and duties of the officers to hold positions in the
Maritime Cell to be placed within the PLANELM. The Ministers
welcomed the offer by Djibouti to host the Maritime Centre.
On administrative matters, the Ministers also looked at the
unbalanced representation of Member States on staffing of EASBRICOM.
The meeting was informed on the progress made in the development of
a framework defining the principles, scope and procedures to
regulate the support of the Friends of EASBRIG (FoE) and decided
that EASBRICOM finish developing a working document that would be
used by the Experts Working Group from Member States at the next
Policy Organs meeting. This working document will define the
relationship between EASF and Friends of EASBRIG.
The meeting also received a presentation on the Annual Assessed
Contribution of 2010 including a breakdown of arrears for previous
years and called on member states to pay their arrears and Annual
Assessed Contributions for the year 2010.
The meeting also considered a presentation of three samples of the
proposed synchronized EASF flag. The meeting selected a sample which
aligned with the AU flag and symbolizes the region's effort in peace
efforts.
Having heard the report of the High Level Legal and Political
Experts meeting that was held in Addis Ababa from 2nd – 4th
June 2010, participants of the meeting suggested amendments to the
Memorandum of Understanding for the establishment of EASBRIG signed
in 2005. This will be considered by the forthcoming Summit of member
states.
*****************
top
|
|
Somalia
continues to face challenges
Somalia's challenges
have yet to be addressed. The number of foreign extremist elements
joining Al-Shabab and Hizbul Islam continues to grow. The support
the TFG is getting in real terms is not increasing as needed. The
support provided to the extremists is more coordinated and higher
compared to what the TFG is actually receiving. The TFG is not
assisting itself either. The differences among the leadership have
yet to be resolved. There is a lack of identifying priorities for
the leadership. There is a need to put the implementation of the
Agreement between the TFG and Ahlu Sunna on a fast track. This needs
to be expedited. Naming a new cabinet is also in the pipeline with
the view to reducing its size so as to make it efficient and
manageable and to enable it to concentrate on urgent issues of
security as well as creating a situation conducive for a smooth
transition.
The question here is
whether this is the right time to involve in this exercise. Although
some of these are concerns that should be addressed expeditiously,
it does not mean that there is no progress at all on the ground. The
TFG after signing the agreement with Ahlu Sunna has expanded its
constituency. Ahlu Sunna in coordination with the TFG is taking
measures in the security sector including in Mogadishu and these
efforts are showing progress. This does not, of course, mean that
Somalia is out of the woods or even closer to be there yet. But mere
scepticism does not make sense either.
The talk of some so
called experts portraying the TFG as the worst option is not only
unhelpful but also dangerous. This needs to stop.
In the meantime, there
are reports coming from Mogadishu indicating divisions within Hizbul
Islam. Negotiations have been underway for weeks between
representatives of the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and a
group of moderate members of Hizbul Islam, according to Somali
Interior Ministry spokesman Abdelrasak Qaylow. "The talks are at a
good point" and the government "hopes to achieve similar results to
those obtained with other movements", he said.
On the other hand,
following the decision of the IGAD Council of Ministers last week a
team of military officers from IGAD is currently visiting Mogadishu
to assess the security situation on the ground. The team is expected
to have discussions with the TFG leadership, as well as
representatives of AMISOM. IGAD is expected to hold an extraordinary
Summit in early July to look at developments in Somalia and how best
to assist the TFG. The Ministers of IGAD in their recent
extraordinary session have made it clear that the current status quo
is unacceptable and it should change. The international community
should also redouble its effort so as to enable the TFG move
forward.
*************
Meanwhile, Somaliland
is preparing itself for the long awaited election on 26 June 2010.
The parties concluded their campaigns on 23rd
June in a peaceful manner.
This shows the commitment of the people of Somaliland to a peaceful
election and their rejection of unrest. It is hoped that this would
continue until elections are concluded successfully. The three
parties need to continue to work together in this regard to ensure
that the peace and stability of Somaliland would continue for the
years to come. There is a test of leadership here. The electoral
commission is handling the process in a manner that won the trust of
the people of Somaliland as well as that of the international
community that is fully supporting the process. The electoral
commission should continue to discharge its responsibility in the
same way in the coming days. It needs the full support of the people
in this process. The electoral commission is the one that announces
the results, not political parties. The parties should desist from
claims and counter claims during or after the elections and should
allow the electoral process to take its natural course. They should
recognize that silly mistakes on their part can undermine the
legitimacy of the process and affect the effort of the people to
live in peace. The successful and peaceful conclusion of the
election would certainly enable Somaliland to be an example and will
provide added impetus to peace and stability in this troubled
region.
*****************
top |
|
Caution
needed against hasty assessment of 'Eritrea's renewed good faith'
The recent agreement signed between Eritrea and Djibouti to resolve
their border dispute has received positive notice from the
international community coming, as it does, from a regime that has
been vehemently denying the very existence of any dispute. Various
sections of the international community have been expressing
optimism following the agreement, the assumption being that this is
a positive indication that the regime in Asmara is mending its ways.
Some naïve commentators even go as far as to take this particular
development as having gone in some ways in meeting the conditions of
Resolution 1907. While Eritrean regime’s willingness to sign the
agreement is a welcome development, there are, however, reasons to
be sceptical of the international community’s enthusiasm towards the
agreement.
To begin with, the process by which the agreement was reached not
only was not transparent but it also was done without the
involvement or knowledge of the relevant international and regional
organizations such as the UN Security Council, the AU or IGAD. These
organizations, it is to be recalled, have been calling on the
government of Eritrea to resolve its dispute with Djibouti and to
desist from its destabilizing activities throughout the region. In
fact, it was the calls of these organizations that the Eritrean
government has defied for a long time. The UN and the AU were
communicated of the signing of the agreement not by the parties
themselves but by the Prime Minister of the government of Qatar. It
is only natural that organizations be part of the implementation of
resolutions passed under their auspices. This is particularly
relevant to the Security Council which has been given the mandate
under the UN Charter for international peace and security. Qatar,
however well-intentioned, cannot assume that responsibility.
Equally important, the government of Eritrea has yet not officially
acknowledged the signing of the agreement. A word has yet to be
heard from Eritrea’s officials about the agreement and its specific
contents. As we have noted last week, this is a rather strange
spectacle which cannot be put aside as politically insignificant or
trivial. All the more so because as late as two or three weeks prior
to the announcement of the Qatari initiative, the Eritrean
authorities were telling the international community including
through official communication to the Security Council, that the
accusation that they were occupying Djibouti territory was mere
fabrication. It defies reason how a government that has not formally
acknowledged the existence of a problem will genuinely be interested
in resolving it.
But more importantly, it would be unwise, as President Omar Guelleh
of Djibouti recently remarked in the UN Security Council, to make “a
hasty assessment of Eritrea’s renewed good faith”. Indeed there are
those who naively believe Eritrea has taken significant steps
towards fulfilling the demands in the UNSC resolution 1907. However
they seem to be oblivious to other aspects of the resolution than
the call for the resolving of the border dispute with Djibouti.
Eritrea may have of late been resorting to the use of to semantic
sleights of hand and diplomatic obfuscations to wear a peaceful
façade; in fact a lot of effort has been made to refurbish its image
without actually getting its acts right. But there is no evidence to
even remotely suggest that it has altogether stopped its destructive
activities in Somalia and other countries of the region, much less
any willingness to play a constructive role in the search for peace.
If anything, Eritrea still continues arming and deploying insurgents
into its neighbours. It is not yet clear if the agreement it signed
will also include stopping its support to rebels opposed to the
government of Djibouti. It continues to deny that the TFG is the
only legitimate government in Somalia. Its idea of inclusive
political process in Somalia is oddly antagonistic to what the rest
of the world means by that: a process inclusive of all peaceful
political actors. Eritrea still remains the only state adamant in
its open support to extremists as partners for peace in
Somalia.
It is understandable that the international community should take
any positive signal from the regime in Asmara—however
insignificant—with a modicum of optimism in the interest of
encouraging constructive engagement, but it has to be a guarded one.
Eritrea’s behaviour is far from reassuring. What the opacity
surrounding the agreement could perhaps underline is the same
pattern of hide-and-seek that the government of Eritrea has now
perfected into an art form. The leaders of Eritrea would do anything
to capitalize on the positive publicity that comes with the
announcement of the signing of such agreement to improve their image
tarnished by the series of destabilizing activities they have been
engaged in for a long time without actually addressing the very
anomalies they have helped create. It is only fitting that the
relevant bodies do everything to ensure its full compliance with the
UNSC resolutions in a transparent manner. This is specifically
required of the Secretary General of the United Nations who has been
given the mandate to submit a report soon on the implementation of
Council Resolution 1907. Any exaggerated account of Eritrea's
alleged partial fulfilment of the demands of the Council under
Resolution 1907 would not serve the interest of peace in the region.
*****************
top |
|
More
on Congressman Payne’s anti-Ethiopian hearing on June 17
As we noted last week, Congressman Payne held a hearing of his
Africa and Global health sub-committee of the US House Foreign
Affairs Committee on June 17th. The subject was “The Horn
of Africa: Current Conditions and US Policy”. Virtually pre-empting
his own title, Congressman Payne’s opening statement launched into
one of his all too frequently egregious criticisms of Ethiopia and
its government. He was even prepared to make the nonsensical
allegation that Chinese military units had been involved in clashes
in Ethiopia. Exactly where the Congressman got this extraordinary
notion from wasn’t clear as no one has made any such claim before.
Like some of his other comments, the Congressman’s remarks and the
errors he made set the tone for several misleading diatribes against
Ethiopia, notably that of Mr. Ted Dagne of the Congressional
Research Service, the first witness at the hearing. His is a strange
and bizarre analysis of politics in the Horn which is neither here
nor there. What values and objectives they are intended to serve is
very difficult to fathom. But that the peace, security and stability
as well as the democratization are not Dagne’s objectives must be
plain.
Mr. Dagne managed to couple his usual critical and negative
comments on Ethiopia with a comprehensive number of errors in his
efforts to “set the scene”. Neither civil society nor “independent
press activities” have been crushed in Ethiopia as papers like
Fortune, Capital and the Reporter can testify. Opposition leaders
have not been forced into exile, though some, like Berhanu Nega,
have chosen to go into exile and attempt to launch movements like
Ginbot 7, committed to an alliance with Eritrea and to armed
struggle. Mr. Dagne makes no mention of the real reasons for the
EPRDF’s electoral success, including the considerable economic and
other developments of the past few years, though to be fair he does
refer, if briefly, to the failure of the opposition groups which
“fragmented and fought each other more than preparing a united front
with a vision…or building a constituency base throughout the
country”, which the EPRDF did most successfully of course. This lack
of accurate information on the election and the electoral process
was equally apparent in the testimony of the witness from Human
Rights Watch, which has consistently made little effort to
investigate the reality of the democratic process in Ethiopia, and
as we have noted before, has tried on several occasions to influence
the elections through a series of pre-election reports.
Equally, Mr. Dagne’s account of the history of the ONLF is quite
simply wrong. He makes no mention of the split in the ONLF in 1994
when the majority refused to follow the ONLF chairman in calling for
a referendum on self-determination in the region or follow him into
an armed struggle when this was rejected. The majority of the party
stayed within the political framework of the Somali Regional State.
They still participate in regional politics within the Somali
Peoples Democratic Party, the current ruling party in the region. It
might be added that no more than elements from a couple of sub-clans
follow the ONLF, and most of the Ogaden clans (which make up no more
than a third of the inhabitants of the region) actively oppose the
ONLF. Nor does Mr. Dagne make any effort to give an account of the
substantial recent economic developments in the region, in
educations, health, infrastructure and telecommunications for
example. But facts are hardly significant for Dagne; they are not to
all those driven by visceral hostility towards the subject of their
analysis.
Mr. Dagne claimed that “hundreds of thousands of civilians” had fled
the Ogaden region of Ethiopia into refugee camps in
Kenya.
In fact, although there have been some Somali-speaking refugees from
Ethiopia appearing in Kenya refugee camps, the numbers have been
small and the majority of the Somali refugees in these camps come
from Somalia itself. He said one of the leading figures in Al-Shabaab,
Sheikh Muktar Robow, came from Somaliland when he in fact comes from
the Bay region of Somalia. He suggested Ethiopia’s intervention in
Somalia
in December 2006 had contributed to the emergence of Al-Shabaab
despite the fact that the organization was set up at least two years
earlier.
In referring to terrorism in the region, Mr. Dagne failed to mention
Eritrea’s support for Al-Shabaab and other terrorist organizations
in Somalia, or indeed those operating in Ethiopia. Even more
extraordinarily in his references to Eritrea he did not speak of the
UN Security Council Resolution 1907 of December last year. This
imposed sanctions on Eritrea because of its support for Somali
terrorist organizations and for Eritrea’s invasion of Djibouti
territory and its seizure of Ras Doumeira in June 2008. Mr. Dagne’s
highly specious account of this episode describes it as a border
dispute and a clash which had “erupted after several months of
tension, following troop deployment to the border by both
Eritrea
and Djibouti”. He then added “In June 2010, the governments of
Djibouti and Eritrea agreed to resolve their dispute through
negotiations under the auspices of the government of
Qatar.
In early June 2010, Eritrean forces withdrew from the border area,
and Qatar deployed its forces as observers.” This inaccurate and
highly partial account fails to make clear that Eritrean forces
invaded Djibouti, that they seized Djibouti territory, and refused
to withdraw for two years even denying in the face of photographic
evidence and captured prisoners that Eritrean forces had crossed the
border into Djibouti or indeed that Eritrea had any problem with
Djibouti. It was only following the imposition of UN sanctions that
Eritrea accepted Qatar’s mediation and withdrew the forces that it
had continually denied were in Djibouti. Of course, Eritrea is yet
to inform its own people about all this.
Mr. Dagne’s account of US-Eritrean relations is equally specious. He
fails to note the long string of outspoken attacks on the US made by
President Issayas over a number of years. President Issayas has even
accused the CIA of being responsible for bribing the hundreds of
Eritreans who flee across the border into Sudan and Ethiopia every
month, many escaping from conscription. In the subsequent
discussion, Mr. Dagne defended conscription in Eritrea on the basis
that it is common in other countries. He failed to mention that in
Eritrea conscription is open ended, with those who were called back
to military service in 1998 were still mobilized over a decade
later, and that virtually no one has been demobilized. Equally, he
neglected to mention that conscripts are normally used as an unpaid
or cheap labor force, often for companies run by senior military
officers, as thousands of those who have fled from Eritrea have
testified.
Mr. Dagne claims the Ethiopian government accepted the
Ethiopia-Eritrea Commission Boundary ruling in June 2007, though, as
he must know perfectly well, Ethiopia in fact clearly accepted the
ruling more than two years earlier in November 2004. His other
comments on the issue are so biased and skewed they deserve no
response. The guy does not even know that an international
tribunal—the Claims Commission—handed down a ruling saying Eritrea
violated the UN Charter when it invaded Ethiopian in May 1998. The
Commission said that Eritrea committed an aggression, not Ethiopia.
Another statement that deserves comment is Professor Menkhaus of
Davidson College who provided a lengthy critique of the Transitional
Federal Government (TFG) in Somalia, classifying it as a failure,
and suggesting that it was time for a US policy shift over
Somalia.
He added, however, that this could “only happen if a reasonable
policy alternative could be articulated”. This he fails to do. In
fact, Professor Menkhaus, even in his own terms, was overly
pessimistic about the TFG dismissing its performance and
exaggerating its problems. It is not true that “most” of the
thousands of security forces that external states have trained and
armed for the TFG have deserted or defected, though some have. Nor
is it the case that Ethiopia’s direct involvement in Somalia (an
involvement which ended over a year ago) had the effect of
“legitimizing” Al-Shabaab or tarnishing the TFG. Indeed, as
Professor Menkhaus also says elsewhere Al-Shabaab is “deeply
unpopular with most Somalis, who loathe its extremism, its links to
al Qa’ida, and the role foreign jihadists play in the movement.” In
fact, one result of Ethiopia’s involvement was the Djibouti
Agreement which was responsible for revitalizing the TFG and putting
President Sheik Sherif in power. Professor Menkhaus largely ignores
the Djibouti Agreement and the significant agreement between the TFG
and Ahlu Sunna Wal Jama’a signed in Addis Ababa earlier this year.
In fact, despite his criticisms of the TFG, he also admits it would
be counter-productive to abandon it, though it should be treated
more as a transitional authority; and he also argues that the US
must continue to support AMISOM.
Professor Menkhaus notes that the crisis in Somalia is very much
part of a regional conflict, but in line with others at the hearing
fails to raise the issue of Eritrean involvement and its active
support for Al-Shabaab and other anti-TFG forces. Apparently
following the line Congressman Payne tried to take in ignoring
Eritrea’s regional involvement, Professor Menkhaus even appears to
suggest that factors underlying
Somalia’s
problems include the failure to resolve the Ethiopia-Eritrea border
issue and the activities of the ONLF. There can be little doubt that
peace in the region will eventually require recognition by all
states that no one can, nor should, threaten the security of their
neighbors. Eritrea, of course, has been the prime example of this
over the past decade and a half, something which Congressman Payne
appears determined to deny in spite of all the indisputable evidence
against it.
*****************
top |
|
