|
A Week in the Horn (14.3.2008) |
|
|
The Note Verbale claims that the relocation of UNMEE should not have been taken without consultation with the Eritrean Government. The point was fully addressed by the Secretary-General in his report. It is clear that the Eritrean Government continuously refused to discuss the issues raised by UNMEE and the constraints it imposed upon the mission in order to restrict its sphere of operations and force it out. In a disgraceful travesty of truth, the Note Verbale even claims that Eritrea “has always treated the UN peacekeepers with respect and dignity”. It has never done so. Almost from the first deployment of UNMEE, Eritrea displayed animosity towards the peacekeeping force and its presence in the Temporary Security Zone.
This latest Note Verbale appears to underline a point that many observers have made: that Eritrea, for its own internal reasons, does not really want any settlement of the border issue. It prefers to use the failure to reach agreement as an excuse to keep over 400,000 national service conscripts mobilized and under military discipline. It uses the same excuse (that Eritrea is at war) to refuse to implement its 1997 constitution although this was actually passed by the National Assembly. It quotes the same reason for not allowing the creation of political parties, holding national elections, or permitting any independent media. The BBC correspondent in Asmara was expelled earlier this week for suggesting the Eritrean government silenced critics. Eritrea even claims this excuse as a reason for setting up special military courts which do not allow for legal representation or the right of appeal, and for holding thousands of political and other prisoners without charge or trial, indefinitely under conditions which have been described as a disgrace to Africa. In fact, Eritrea does not want to see a sustainable peace with Ethiopia, nor does it want to see a closure to the crisis between the two countries as Ethiopia.
It is regrettable that the Council failed to take the appropriate actions that it had promised to consider in its statement of 15 February when it condemned Eritrea’s humiliating treatment of UNMEE. The Security Council, and the UN, cannot afford to allow this dangerous precedent to go unaddressed. As Jean-Marie Guehenno told a Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations on Monday, the temporary relocation of UNMEE from Eritrea was “a serious challenge to the authority of the Security Council”. It was, he said, a painful reminder of the dangers of letting a peace process wither away without sufficient, concerted international effort to encourage both parties to stay engaged with the process. Ethiopia expects the Security Council to decide to act firmly and decisively when it considers the Secretary-General’s next report. It is a matter of principle, and those who claim to stand for principle will be expected to stand up and be counted.
On the other hand, Jendayi Frazer, the State Department’s Assistant Secretary for Africa, and Theresa Whelan, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for African Affairs, saw the situation in Ethiopia and Somalia as progressing, if still more slowly in Somalia than hoped. Jendayi Frazer referred to improved regional stability and governance, itemizing the moves towards dialogue in Somalia and US support for this. She spoke of “the emergence of a new, positive, yet fragile, momentum” in Somalia, of Ugandan plans to deploy another 1,600 troops for AMISOM, and the growing isolation of al-Shabaab. Theresa Whelan similarly referred to the strategic importance of the region to the US, its activity in combating terrorism and building local capacity. She said that ONLF activities, supported by Eritrea, posed genuine security concerns for Ethiopia, and added that the ability of al-Qaida, and its affiliates, to use Somalia was a real and severe threat to the US as well as to Somalia and the region. The view of Eritrea of both Assistant Secretary Frazer and Deputy Assistant Secretary Whelan was certainly more gloomy. They drew attention to the activities of Eritrea, and its assault on the integrity of the UN, with Ms. Whelan noting that if UNMEE was prevented from taking out its equipment then Eritrea would receive a “windfall” of military value. They pointed out that Eritrea was pursuing a strategy of fomenting instability in the region, undermining nearly all efforts towards dialogue and reconciliation, most notably, said Ms. Frazer, in Somalia and Sudan. Ms. Frazer was scathing about human rights in Eritrea, saying that the people of Eritrea, fifteen years after independence, deserved better.
The testimony of the government officials, including the Assistant Administrator for USAID Africa, Katherine Almquist, made it clear the US Government has a rather more coherent policy towards the Horn of Africa and indeed a rather more accurate and balanced view than that demonstrated by the views of Lynn Fredriksson, Advocacy Director for Africa, Amnesty International USA, or Professor David Shinn of George Washington University. Ms. Fredriksson’s testimony, of course, concentrated on human rights, arguing for humanitarian and human rights to be at the centre of US policy. It was, incidentally, clear from Ms. Frazer’s testimony that these issues remain of great concern to the State Department. As on previous occasions, Ms. Fredriksson failed to strike any balance in evaluation of the evidence she adduced; her flights into political comment, notably on the Ethiopian Eritrean border issue, remain seriously inaccurate. Like Professor Shinn, she is either unaware that Ethiopia accepted the Boundary Commission’s Decisions in full well over three years ago, or, as appears likely, has accepted Eritrean claims without bothering to investigate their accuracy. Ethiopia has not called for further negotiations on the border or for any re-examination of the EEBC’s ruling. It has suggested dialogue to proceed to demarcation in line with international practice, and for the normalization of relations. Eritrea has refused. Ethiopia has also demanded the restoration of the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities, including the integrity of the Temporary Security Zone, persistently violated by Eritrea over several years, and the restoration of UNMEE. Ms. Fredriksson manages to ignore all this merely, and inaccurately, referring to the UN Secretary-General “temporarily disbanding UNMEE”.
Ms. Fredriksson has a habit, now notorious, of accepting all accusations against Ethiopian troops as true, whether in Somalia or in the Somali Regional State. In fact, she does note at one point (with reference to attacks on civilians) that Amnesty International is not actually in a position to fully evaluate the incidents reported. Indeed, Ms. Fredriksson makes no effort whatever to attempt such evaluation, despite growing evidence, including the testimony from other witnesses at the hearing that the political situation in Mogadishu and Somalia is improving, though no one denies humanitarian problems still remain very serious. Ms. Fredriksson goes into substantial detail of claims against the Ethiopian or TFG forces, but almost her only reference to the activities of anti-government armed groups (she makes no mention of al-Shabaab or terrorist activities in Mogadishu) is that there is a clear reluctance by people to refer to their activities. She puts this down, quite rightly, to fear. However, she has, presumably deliberately, failed to make contact with the many people who are prepared to talk about al-Shabaab and the methods and activities of anti-government groups. The evidence is there. It is just ignored by Ms. Fredriksson. In fact, Ms. Fredriksson seldom if ever attempts to evaluate the source of the evidence she quotes or its reliability. If it is anti-Ethiopian it is acceptable.
Professor Shinn makes similar errors, arguing against all the evidence, which is freely available, that the situation is arguably worse than during the period of Islamic Courts’ control. He also argues against all evidence that al-Shabaab is gaining strength. More accurately he sees the appointment of Prime Minister Nur Hassan as a positive development. He also doubts whether the opposition ARS might be prepared to make peace, before the departure of Ethiopian troops, without mentioning that the ARS is based in Eritrea, or that Ethiopia has made it clear it wishes to withdraw its troops as soon as AMISOM is fully deployed or a UN peacekeeping force can be brought in. Neither AMISOM nor possible UN options rate a mention with Professor Shinn. He would, however, encourage the US government to work closely with Ethiopia to encourage the TFG to become a government of national unity. It is, of course, already doing so. Professor Shinn sees US policy as obsessed with terrorism, and claims that all governments in the region give lip-service to countering it, though he adds that with the exception of Ethiopia their support for this is not always convincing.
Throughout her testimony, Ms. Fredriksson persistently accepts any evidence that is critical of Ethiopia’s security forces while ignoring anything that might mitigate such claims. In referring to the riots of June and November 2005 in Addis Ababa (which have after all been the subject of an official enquiry) she itemizes the numbers of civilians killed and wounded and adds “Six police officers were also killed”. She might have mentioned the more than 330 police officers also wounded in what were far from peaceful political demonstrations. That does not excuse the deaths, but it does put them in a rather more valid context. Similarly, when referring to the Somali Regional State, she provides a list of claims of government activities, including mass arrests, rape, etc, and then merely adds a line that the ONLF has “reportedly assassinated some civilian officials.” As Ms. Fredriksson is fully aware that remark grossly understates the activities of the ONLF which has over the last year or so burnt numerous villages, assassinated dozens of government officials and civilian elders and other critics and opponents of the ONLF, planted land-mines to blow up civilian vehicles and commercial trucks, thrown bombs into public gatherings and in hotels and restaurants. These are not merely “reported”, they are well known facts, all of which Ms. Fredriksson ignores. She even refers to the attack of the ONLF on the Abole oil installation as “reportedly” killing 65 Ethiopian and 6 Chinese workers, as if there was some doubt about what was a cold-blooded massacre, with men and women killed in bed or lining up for breakfast when they were mown down.
Nobody would deny that the human rights record of Eritrea is appalling (probably the worst in Africa today). Others have described it rather more strongly than Ms. Fredriksson. She, however, suggests little more than the US Government should “press” the Government of Eritrea to release prisoners of conscience (of which there are known to be many thousands). Professor Shinn also soft-pedals his criticisms of Eritrea whose internal situation merely “leaves much to be desired”. His disingenuous comments on Eritrea get little further than referring to its “effectively ending the ability of UNMEE to operate in Eritrea” and a comment that it would have been an unwise decision to add Eritrea to the list of states supporting terrorism. One of Professor Shinn’s oddest remarks is to suggest that the US close relations with Ethiopia have contributed directly to a worsening of relations with Eritrea, suggesting that he has no understanding of Eritrean politics or the personality of President Issayas. The inaccuracies render useless most of the suggestions made in respect to Eritrea by Professor Shinn or Ms. Fredriksson.
Professor Shinn does note that Eritrea supports a number of anti-government Ethiopian groups. He equated these groups with the Eritrean opposition allegedly backed by the Ethiopian government, but these can hardly be compared. As Professor Shinn is well aware, Eritrea provides significant quantities of arms and money to the ONLF and the OLF, as well as training hundreds of fighters for both organizations, as indeed both Jendayi Frazer and Theresa Whelan noted. In 2003/4, for example, Eritrea organized as many as fourteen cross-border incursions of OLF into western Ethiopia. It is difficult to see how downplaying Eritrean activity to this extent can be squared with Professor Shinn’s immediately following comment that among the most serious threats to regional and US security in the region are the activities of the ONLF and the OLF and the possible resumption of conflict in eastern Sudan.. Eritrea was also the instigator of trouble in eastern Sudan before forcing the Eastern Front to the negotiating table last year. Any resumption of conflict in eastern Sudan will be caused by Eritrea.
In sharp contrast to Assistant Secretary Frazer and Deputy Assistant Secretary Whelan, Professor Shinn, like Ms. Fredriksson deliberately minimizes the role Eritrea is playing in the region and in Somalia. This is a very dangerous message to have been peddling for the hearing and for the region. At the same time, in his list of priorities, Professor Shinn puts Somalia at the top while ignoring the fact (highlighted by Frazer and Whelan, and indeed by regional authorities and even the AU) that the major contributor to regional violence is Eritrea. This repeated failure to link evidence and comment suggests that Professor Shinn gave little thought to his testimony. It certainly seriously limits the value of his remarks which are usually more incisive and accurate. Overall, despite the apparent efforts of Professor Shinn or Ms. Fredriksson, the hearings failed to provide any real support for Senator Feingold’s view of a deteriorating situation in the region or of a US policy dangerously adrift.
|