| A Week in the Horn (6.3.2009) |
|
In line with the decision of the African Union, the Council therefore requested the Chairperson of the Commission to take all necessary steps in the shortest possible time to dispatch a high-level delegation to New York to engage directly with the Security Council. The Council welcomed the steps being taken by the African Commission to convene, as soon as possible, a proposed meeting of the African States which are party to the Rome statue, as envisaged in the decision of the Assembly of the Union. This would allow for an exchange of views on the work of the ICC in relation to Africa, particularly in the light of the processes initiated against African personalities, and for the submission of recommendations on the subject, taking into account all relevant factors. The Council reiterated the AU's unflinching commitment to combating impunity, in line with the relevant provisions of the Constitutive Act. It welcomed the steps being taken by the Commission towards the launching of the High-Level Panel to examine human rights violations in depth. ***** The Government of Ethiopia also issued its own press statement on the decision of the ICC which it described as “unfortunate” and “not in the interests of peace”. The statement recalled that the indictment issued by the ICC prosecutor against the President of Sudan was viewed with a great deal of concern and anger by Africa and by the countries of our sub-region. It was not seen as balanced, even-handed or fair. The AU and IGAD had asked for the deferral of the whole exercise, pointing out that the issuance of an arrest warrant by the Pre-trial Chamber of the ICC would not be wise, prudent and in conformity with what would be in the interest of the people of the Sudan, our sub-region and Africa as a whole. Nor, in the view of Africa, would such a course of action be in the interest of the international community. A deferral, as requested by the AU Peace and Security Council, would have been a wise course of action and a balanced move motivated by concern for the peace of Sudan, for the effective implementation of the CPA, for the creation of a conducive situation for a movement towards peace and mutual accommodation in Darfur. It appeared the ICC did not feel the opinion of Africa mattered all that much. The Government’s statement noted that the international community chose not to give any serious consideration to the concerns of the AU or the countries of the region. Ethiopia cannot believe this step is in the interest of peace and stability in the Sudan, in Darfur or in the sub-region. Nor will it advance the cause of justice, human rights and humanitarian concerns in Sudan. In short, the decision of the ICC is neither wise, prudent nor constructive. Indeed, it is in fact dangerous. It doesn’t enhance the creditability of the Court. It will not be seen by the people of Sudan as a friendly act. The statement said the Government of Ethiopia was saddened by the development and requested the Security Council to respond favorably to the request already made by the AU. It was a request which reflected the sentiments of Africa as a whole and of all those who care for the peace, security and stability of Sudan and the sub-region and of Africa. In fact, it was a serious development which warranted an urgent meeting of the Security Council to consider the matter. *****
The sad development that transpired today involves the Director of the EASBRICOM and has to do with an interview that he allegedly gave to the Standard of Nairobi and was carried by the newspaper today. The relevant part of the interview reads: " Eastern Africa Standby Brigade Coordination Mechanism Director…. said regional security forces were willing to execute the arrest warrant against Sudan's President Hassan Omar al Bashir if the international Criminal Court can convince the region 'it has a case against him'." Obviously, what was attributed to the Director was not only outrageous but it was also in direct conflict with the position of the African Union and IGAD and all African institutions. In short, what the Director was supposed to have said has nothing to do with an African perspective on this vital matter with enormous implications for the Peace and Security of the East African Region and Africa as a whole. The damage caused by the interview carried by the Standard was not lost on the committee of the Eastern Africa Chiefs of Defense Staff (EACDS) who immediately issued a Press Release disowning the piece carried by the Standard. They said that "The Committee would like to state categorically that this is neither the position of the Eastern Africa Standby Brigade, nor that of the African Union.” "The EACDS further affirms," the Press Release underlined "that they are guided by and are in solidarity with the position of the African Union on all matters related to peace and security in the region." Evidently, either the Director has in fact said what was attributed to him, or the Standard has misrepresented what he told the paper. It would be naively generous to argue that the whole thing might be the result of an innocent mistake of editing. The lesson of all this is quite obvious: it is never going to be easy to maintain the integrity of an African position on any matter without the necessary vigilance. It should also be equally plain that this sort of grave violation of trust could be fatal for regional and continental co-operation in Africa. African institutions need to be African, not just in name only. The Director of the EASBRICOM has been suspended. ************
While these are positive developments in the country together with the calm situation prevailing in Mogadishu, there are concerns over recent developments on the political track. President Sharif has called on Islamic clerics from outside to help mediate with elements which still oppose the government. A six man delegation headed by Abdurrahman Noemi is in Mogadishu to meet Al-Shabaab, Hisbul Islam and any other group. The chairman of the Union of the World Islamic clerics, Sheik Yusuf Al -Qardawi meanwhile has called for the Qatar government to help mediate between Somali people. The international delegation of Islamic clerics headed by Abdurrahman Noemi meet with President Sharif in Villa Somalia on 25th February, raising a number of issues including possible enforcement of Shari’a law and calling on AMISOM forces to leave Somalia under a fixed timetable. The President replied that Somalis are all Muslims and that the Transitional Charter is already based on Shari’a law. Regarding AMISOM, he said it was not his government that had brought AMISOM to Somalia. It was up to the Somali community to decide on their future. ************
In fact, the Eritrean regime has chosen to continue with its role as a spoiler in the region in general and Somalia in particular, while the international community closed its eyes to Eritrea’s activities. The recent International Contact Group (ICG) meeting held in Brussels on 26 and 27 February was the first international gathering to look into ways and means of supporting the government of President Sheikh Sharif. Even though the meeting was fully aware of the Eritrean regime's clear intention to try to dismantle the new government as soon as possible, it failed to take any meaningful action over Eritrea. The Eritrean statement declaring the demise of the new Somali government through the use of force was read in part to the ICG meeting, but the ICG refused to enter into any detailed discussion as to what the implications of Eritrea's actions might be for Somalia or for the region at large. It is really difficult to explain why the ICG has allowed Eritrea to get away with a public declaration of this kind with no attempt to condemn it. This is particularly surprising when Eritrea is calling on all concerned to work for the collapse of the new Somali Government which the ICG at its Brussels meeting has been calling on all its members to support. The two days of ICG discussions welcomed the recent progress in Somalia, including the election of President Sheikh Sharif, the appointment of a Prime Minister and a cabinet, the enlargement of the parliament and the relocation of the government to Mogadishu. The ICG made clear its support for the new government and its willingness to work with it. It also emphasized the need to consolidate and support it in terms of security. It had much to say about the need to strengthen AMISOM, condemning attacks on AMISOM forces. ICG members also agreed to respond to the priorities outlined in six-monthly updates from the chairman, Mr. Ould-Abdallah, in co-ordination with the transitional government. This will be the hardest element. The ICG has never been short of vocal commitments, but it has always been less enthusiastic to put its money where its mouth is. Indeed, although the ICG meeting lasted two days, discussing just how to assist the new government in terms of security, recovery and humanitarian affairs, the commitment to support the new government did not come out particularly clearly. Some of those present were concentrating on the idea of reconciliation, that is reconciliation between the recently constituted government and those who are bent on destabilizing Somalia and serving the interests of Eritrea. These forces were previously using the excuse of Ethiopia's presence in Somalia to justify the killings of innocent civilians. Now these same forces are using the presence of AMISOM to justify similar actions of destabilization. Indeed, some of those present in Brussels were calling on the government of Sheikh Sharif to distance itself from AMISOM. No one in the gathering of the ICG in Brussels was brave enough to say why AMISOM was present, indeed necessary in Mogadishu and that it was there to maintain the major economic installations such as Mogadishu seaport and the airport, as well as the institutions of governance for the new government and provide security protection to the new leadership. AMISOM will play a significant role in restructuring and institutionalizing the security sector for the new Government. The ICG in particular, rather than taking Eritrea's public declarations seriously, seems to look at Eritrea as no more than an irritant. This view provides Eritrea with a carte blanche to continue with its destabilization of the region. If the International Community and the ICG want to be taken seriously regarding their role on Somalia, they should be prepared to clearly spell out the realities in Somalia and their readiness to support President Sharif's government in a concrete and tangible way. How can a support to the TFG be fruitful if some are actively working for the demise of the same institution that the ICG claim to be assisting? This should certainly involve condemnation of Eritrean activity, and not just in Somalia. The United Nations Security Council has still failed to react to Eritrea’s failure to respond to the Security Council demands over Djibouti. The Council gave Eritrea an ultimatum to withdraw from Djiboutian territory within six weeks. This ultimatum fell in two weeks ago. Eritrea has totally ignored it. The Secretary-General was supposed to produce a report on possible action for Security Council consideration. He has yet to do so. There are reports that efforts are being made to mediate the dispute, though it is far from clear why this should prevent Security Council action. At present it appears Eritrea and Djibouti are not on the Security Council’s agenda. It is hardly surprising that the Government of Djibouti is less than happy with the present situation. ************
Among visitors to the Fair was the Head of the Federal Agency for Mineral Resources of the Russian Federation with the rank of Minister, Mr. Anatoly Ledovskikh, who spoke of the excellent long standing and historic relations between Ethiopia and the Russian Federation. He said Ethiopia was a country of great potential given the economic development it has registered so far. He emphasized that it was becoming a real focus for the businessmen of the Russian Federation and he promised to enhance business relations between the two countries. Mr. Ledovskikh was heading the Russian delegation to the Fourth Ethio-Russian Inter-Government Commission on Economic, Scientific, Trade and Technical Co-operation implementation review meeting held this week in Addis Ababa. On Tuesday, a memorandum of understanding was signed by Mr. Ledovskikh and Minister Girma to increase current levels of trade and investment. Minister Girma noted that trade has been increasing between the two countries and expressed his appreciation for the Generalized Tariff Preference scheme now being implemented by the Russian Federation for developing countries. Mr. Ledovskikh was accompanied by a delegation of businessmen during his visit. ************
Discussions at the IGAD Forum covered a series of important and appropriate topics ranging from trade and regional integration to identifying effective infrastructure projects to facilitate inter-regional trade and developing suitable financing mechanisms and looking at investment opportunities in IGAD Countries and some success stories. In the post-Forum press release emphasis was placed on the need for IGAD to develop its infrastructure, harmonize policies and focus on selected areas such as agriculture, industry, and tourism. Among topics considered by the Congress were Africa’s readiness for the world economy of the 21st century, the problems of achieving growth under circumstances of a global downturn, and privatization programs and investment in the mining and energy sector. The meeting strongly reaffirmed the importance of the private sector as the major vehicle for economic growth and regional integration, and underlined the need for creating an enabling business environment. Participants noted that though the current economic crises will certainly have some negative impacts on Africa in areas of trade, investment, official development assistance and remittances, at the same time Africa, with an estimated overall growth of well over 3%, remains a highly suitable place for trade and investment. The Congress underlined the necessity of reforming the global financial system to make it more representative and more effective in mitigating the still looming financial crisis. A strong call was made to African governments and business community to put the development of ICT high on their national agendas to make Africa an active participant in a paper-free world, and secure global economic interaction. And the Congress called on the private sector to play a key role in speeding up implementation of the various plans for continental and regional integration. ************
************
Newspapers often get criticized for misrepresentation, usually fairly, but when they get things wrong it is not in fact always their fault. Last week, the Reporter ran a story quoting the All Ethiopian Unity Party (AEUP). According to the AEUP, their chairman, Ato Hailu Shawal, had recently met with a US Embassy official, the Political and Economic Counselor, at the latter’s request. The report said Ato Hailu claimed the political atmosphere in Ethiopia was deteriorating and would continue to do so until various opposition demands were met, including the enforcement of all laws and regulations in all areas, free mobilization of all political parties without interference, free expression of opinion, reorganization of the National Electoral Commission and respect for the freedom of the press and the media. According to the AEUP, the US official accepted in its entirety the political assessment of the AEUP and he emphasized the need for the government to work in harmony with opposition parties, including AEUP. He also expressed the readiness of the new administration in Washington to reassess its policies on Ethiopia. The US Embassy in Addis Ababa did not agree with this account of the meeting. It rapidly issued a press statement putting the story straight: “The United States Embassy does not endorse the press statement recently issued by the AEUP party and reprinted February 25 by local newspapers. The statement mischaracterizes the views of Embassy officials. Although the specific details of the Obama administration’s Africa policy are not yet public, Ethiopia will remain a core partner for the United States. US Embassy officials meet regularly with a broad spectrum of Ethiopian stakeholders, including government officials, opposition leaders and civil society. The US Embassy generally does not discuss publicly the content of private meetings.” Of course, the US Embassy official to whom these remarks were attributed cannot be considered infallible, and it does not help to focus on individuals. Of course, all this misses the point that relations between states are not based on a whim or the wishes of individuals or particular interest groups, but on the national interests of states. These are formulated by and are the sum of carefully considered sets of priorities set by various institutions in governments. This is particularly so in the case of highly institutionalized and developed states, such as the United States of America. Looking at U.S. foreign policy towards Ethiopia over the last half-century, one will notice that it is characterized more by continuity rather than discontinuity. And it should be noted that the relations between the two countries in the last 18 years have been consistently good regardless of changes in administration in Washington. This is not without reason. It is because both countries rightly recognize that maintaining a cooperative and friendly relationship between them was in their national interests. For Ethiopia, maintaining a friendly and cooperative relationship with the United States is in its national interest. It sees the U.S. as a valuable partner in its struggle against poverty. This applies not only with respect to its relations with the United States, but also to all Ethiopia’s development partners in the international community. Of course, United States is a global power with global interests. No matter how powerful however, it also needs partners, big or small, in order to pursue its national interests and to minimize threats. Ethiopia is a large country and the second most populous state in sub-Saharan Africa and a country with a huge potential to become an economically significant player in the continent. It is also a country which is currently playing a very important role in its sub-region and in Africa in terms of contributing to peace and stability. It is one of the top troop-contributing countries in Africa and is playing an increasingly important role in peace making efforts in the sub-region and in Africa as a whole. Of course, this is not to say there are no issues where the two countries disagree. Indeed, there are and there will be, as is normal in relations between any two sovereign nations. The important thing here is that they have a relationship that is strong enough that allows them to hold frank and open discussions on issues of divergence as well as cooperate fully on issues of convergence. ************
The report makes absolutely erroneous claims that international organizations such as the ICRC were often denied access to visit prisoners especially those under federal custody. The report, even if inadvertently, admits that the access it claims was denied the ICRC was granted to the local NGO prison fellowship in Ethiopia. It can only be enigmatic why a government that allows an NGO to visit prisoners would deny the same access to the ICRC. But then again, the State Department’s sources do not appear to be particularly enthusiastic about truth any more than the authors of the report are. With regard to the role of the police and the security apparatus, the report makes the usual allegations of illegal use of force, torture and intimidation. While appreciating the government’s efforts to train its police and security apparatus, it nonetheless proceeds to list the litany of accusations. The report alleges that there are “dozens of unofficial local detention centers” used, as it were, by “formal and informal law enforcement entities”. This is indeed a very serious indictment that should not be tossed around casually without solid evidence to prove it. But the authors of the report did not bother to come up with anything. It would suffice if “opposition party members consistently report that authorities detain persons for long periods without charge or access to a judge” It is as if an allegation repeated ad nauseam, even if false, should be elevated to a tautology in its own right. Incidentally, it is this consistent report by opposition party members that is time and again presented as the solid evidence supporting the State Department’s sweeping allegations. In the part of the report that deals with “Denial of Fair Public Trial”, the authors acknowledge, as they also do elsewhere, that the law provides for the independence of the judiciary. They then make a false dichotomy—of civil courts operating with independence and criminal courts that are “weak, over burdened, and subject to significant political intervention”—in order to suit their purpose of putting the blame on the government. Such a dichotomy is false simply because very often it is the same judges who alternate among each other in presiding over civil and criminal matters. Even if that were not the case, it would take a huge amount of cynicism to assume that a government that unduly interferes with one chamber would find it in itself to leave another chamber to its own means. That is not true and the authors must know better. If anything, courts left and right have very often thrown government cases out the window much to the latter’s disappointment.
The report also contains claims
that, apart from being highly exaggerated, are absolutely made up. In
the same chapter dealing with fair trial, the authors claim that “judicial
practice allows courts unilaterally to convict defendants on charges not
raised by the prosecution at any point preceding the court’s decision
on guilt”. This is plain nonsense. Ethiopia follows a judicial system
that confines the role of the judges to that of deliberating on matters
raised by both sides of the litigation. Judges cannot, by law or by practice,
indulge in the kind of activism the report alleges they are entitled to.
Ironically, a case of such nature as the report suggests may have happened
in Teddy Afro’s recent appeal, who despite being found guilty of
murder in a hit-and-run case, was included in the report’s list
of political prisoners. According to the prosecutor in charge of Teddy
Afro’s trial, the prison sentence meted out by the federal high
court was reduced from six to two years when in fact the convict’s
lawyers never appealed on that basis, having limited their appeal to one
of guilt. To the extent that this could say anything about the courts,
it must be that courts may sometimes use their independence to the point
of being over-zealous, even if that happens much to the government’s
chagrin. |
A