|
A Week in the Horn |
|
|
· The border crisis caused by the Eritrean incursion into Djibouti territory continues to escalate. Last week, the Government of Djibouti appealed to both the African Union and the League of Arab States. On Monday, with no apparent progress, Djibouti called on the United Nations Security Council “to deploy urgently all necessary measures towards preventing yet another conflict, under any guise, in a region long ravaged by mayhem, bloodshed and destruction.” In a letter to the Council, Foreign Minister, Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, noted Djibouti’s “utter bewilderment” at the progressive growth of Eritrean troops at the border with “no ostensible reason or justification” since February and the seizure of Djibouti’s side of the Ras Doumeira promontory by “well-armed Eritreans”. Ras Doumeira overlooks the busy Red Sea shipping lanes. The Minister pointed out that Djibouti had responded to the Eritrean incursion with maximum restraint, trying quiet diplomacy and seeking the intercession of a key Gulf State as well as sharing its concerns with the Peace and Security Councils of the AU and the Arab League. There had been no progress and Djibouti was therefore appealing to the Security Council. President Ismail Omar Guellah himself described the “violation of the border [as] flagrant. The two armies are facing each other. The situation is explosive”. The President said Djibouti had asked for international arbitration from the AU and the Arab League. The Arab League has already sent a fact-finding mission which is visiting the border today. A State Minister from one Arab state has also been in Djibouti this week. The Arab League, and the AU, have called on both Djibouti and Eritrea to exercise restraint, and the League’s Peace and Security Council stressed the need to respect “the principle of good neighbourliness, not to make any changes in the existing borders since independence, respect unity and territorial integrity”.
In his letter, Minister Mahmoud Ali Youssouf noted that this was not the first time Djibouti’s relations with Eritrea had deteriorated. In 1996 Eritrea had issued a map incorporating the same area into Eritrea and sending troops into Djibouti territory. Following forceful protests, both the map and the troops were withdrawn. Two years later when President Hassan Gouled was attempting to mediate between Ethiopia and Eritrea in 1998 at Ouagadougou, he was, according to the Minister, so “gravely snubbed and insulted” by President Issayas that Djibouti was forced to break off diplomatic relations. It was several years before they were restored.
Djibouti’s letter to the Security Council makes it clear that it suspects Eritrea’s behaviour is motivated by the fact that the threatened area has “a strategic as well as a panoramic overview of the critical Red Sea Shipping Lanes”. In fact, the area targeted by Eritrea overlooks the narrowest part of the Red Sea, the ten nautical miles which separate Yemen’s Perim Island from Djibouti. Indeed, the opposite side of the Bab el Mandeb strait is close enough to be closed by artillery fire. Djibouti itself is rapidly becoming a regional services transhipment hub, and the letter notes that Eritrea’s “sinister actions” should be a cause of alarm to the international community. In 1996, Eritrea and Yemen, of course, went to war over Eritrea’s efforts to seize the Hanish Islands by force. After international arbitration, the Islands were awarded to Yemen. There are nearly 3,000 French troops based in Djibouti as well as French air and naval units, and 1,800 US troops. France, of course, has a defence treaty with Djibouti guaranteeing Djibouti‘s borders against external aggression.
In all this, the most bewildering point, perhaps, is that many who should have been concerned by the threat to peace and security have been extremely quiet, not to say reticent, over Eritrean aggression. Even the international media has appeared disinterested. This is all the more surprising given Eritrea’s intransigence over the removal of UNMEE from the Temporary Security Zone along the Ethiopian Eritrean border, a move described by the UN’s Head of Peacekeeping Operations as having “grave implications” for the future of international peacekeeping. Whatever Eritrea’s intended aims, its actions appear to be sending the message that it has, above all, the capacity to be “extremely irrational”.
· The first round of talks between the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia and the Asmara-based opposition Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia (ARS) begins in Djibouti tomorrow, May 10, under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Somalia, Mr. Ould-Abdallah. However, it is already clear there may be some difficulties in formulating the agenda for the discussions. The ARS have made it clear that it expects the question of the withdrawal of Ethiopian troops to be high on the agenda. The TFG is expected to raise the issue of the ARS’s continued presence in Asmara which it regards as a destabilizing factor in light of Eritrea’s activities. There were concerns earlier that the recent death of Al-Shabaab’s military commander, Aden Hashi Ayro, as a result of an American bombing raid, might lead to a postponement of the talks. Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, former head of the Islamic Courts shura, said Ayro’s death cast doubt over the talks; however, Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed, the chairman of the ARS, insisted that the opposition would continue to participate. There may still be difficulties. The plan was for seven delegates from both parties to appear for these preliminary technical level talks. However, it now seems the ARS is planning to send at least eleven delegates. It appears the ARS has been facing some internal difficulties. There have been reports that the Government of Eritrea is trying to undermine the ongoing Somali peace process. There have even been claims that it wishes to replace Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed as chairman of the ARS by Sheikh Yusuf “Indhe Adde”, currently the defence chief of the ARS. Sheikh Yusuf, reportedly now in Asmara, has remained the main link between the ARS and Al-Shabaab despite Al-Shabaab’s open criticisms of ARS. Sheikh Yusuf is from the same sub-clan as Aden Hashi Ayro. Members of the ARS in Asmara who apparently oppose the peace process, and the talks in Djibouti, include Jama Ali Jama, former presidential contender in Puntland, and Zachariah Haji Aden, the ARS spokesperson.
Last weekend, Mr Ould-Abdallah held discussions in Addis Ababa with Prime Minister Meles and the State Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr Tekeda Alemu (Foreign Minister Seyoum was in Arusha, Tanzania, for the AU Ministerial meeting on the Audit Report on the Union Government). Mr. Ould-Abdallah outlined his plans for the Djibouti meeting, making clear that observers from the international community would only be allowed into the opening on Saturday. After that the meeting would go into closed session. Prime Minister Meles said Ethiopia would continue to offer unreserved support for the Somali peoples’ national reconciliation process as the means to bring an end to their suffering as a stateless nation for the last seventeen years.
· The most urgent and critical matter at issue between Ethiopia and Eritrea remains the viability of the Algiers Agreements of 2000. Eritrea’s flagrant violations of the Algiers Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities, by demolishing the Temporary Security Zone (TSZ) and evicting the United Nations Peacekeeping Force-UNMEE, have endangered the peace and security of the Horn of Africa. Its actions have shaken the foundation of the Algiers Agreements. The security arrangements under the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities were specifically meant to provide an environment that would allow for a comprehensive and lasting settlement of the dispute, including, but not limited to, the delimitation and demarcation of the boundary issue. The Security Council has condemned Eritrea for these belligerent activities but at the same time it now appears to sliding back towards treating Eritrea with kid gloves despite its continuous refusal to respond to numerous Security Council resolutions, and the dangers of Eritrean actions. Indeed, one result of the Council’s present inaction has been to encourage what amounts to an Eritrean trademark, of invading its neighbours, as now in Djibouti. At present, the Security Council is still considering the situation between the two countries with a view to taking action about the future of UNMEE and more generally about the dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea.
In its deliberations, the Security Council should not need to be reminded of the implications of its actions for regional peace and security. UNMEE has been deliberately and forcefully ousted from the Temporary Security Zone by Eritrea in blatant disregard of the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities and of Security Council resolutions. Eritrea’s humiliating treatment of UNMEE and its consequent demolition of the TSZ have seriously undermined the basis for the implementation of the Algiers Agreement with regard to the boundary.
Eritrea appears to have conveniently forgotten that the Agreements are an integral whole. If one element is taken out, then the entire edifice of the Agreements is in real danger of complete collapse. The Security Council has not recognized this inherent link, or the gravity of Eritrea’s actions. From what can be gleaned from talking points presented to the Security Council yesterday, it is clear that there is a total failure to appreciate the gravity of Eritrea’s actions over UNMEE. Nor does it seem the Security Council understands the central importance of the provisions of the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities and the implications for the demarcation of the boundary. If the Security Council brings an end to UNMEE’s existence (for which there may be good reason following Eritrea’s actions) then this will signify the removal of the very basis for discussion of demarcation activities. Ethiopia has repeatedly stated that without the restoration of the integrity of the TSZ, and the presence of UNMEE to monitor the zone, there cannot be any demarcation. Talk of demarcation would be illogical and totally inappropriate. Why? Because with the violation of the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities, the very foundation for the process of demarcation does not exist. However, this would not of course preclude discussion on matters pertaining to the prevention of conflict within the context of maintaining regional peace and security.
· In a highly inadequate response to previous criticism, an Amnesty International spokesperson has said AI’s latest report (Routinely Targeted – Attacks on Civilians in Somalia, May 6, 2008) should be read carefully. However carefully it is read, however, it can only lead to mounting concern. It is not just that the report repeats claims which are entirely spurious, and which Amnesty must know to be false. There are serious methodological flaws which suggest deliberate bias. There is evidence of highly selective manipulations of fact which raise considerable concern about AI’s agenda.
The report makes little or no effort to take account of the realities of the Somali situation or of the fact that Somalia is currently in the throes of an anti-terrorist struggle. Of course, there is a humanitarian crisis in Somalia. Indeed, the Food and Agricultural Organization suggested this week that 3.5 million people, nearly half of Somalia’s population, may need food aid by the end of the year. The drought is becoming steadily more severe in central areas of Bakool and Hiiraan, as well as the coastal areas of Lower Shebelle and parts of Somaliland and Puntland. A government spokesperson in Mogadishu said the government had appealed to aid agencies to redouble their efforts to avert “this unfolding catastrophe”. This is not, however, “largely the result of human rights abuses” as AI alleges. Such a claim ignores the fact that a majority of the IDPs in Somalia actually fled from drought, flooding, locust infestations and other natural disasters as well as from the fighting consequent upon the military expansion of the Islamic Courts in 2006.
No one disputes human rights abuses have occurred but the assumption that these are largely the responsibility of Ethiopian troops, as AI appears to suggest, is simply untrue. Amnesty International has finally accepted that there are “armed groups” who perpetrate human rights abuses in Somalia, though it has taken an unconscionably long time to admit this. Its previous failure to acknowledge “armed group” activity has, of course, had a seriously damaging effect. By allowing such groups to assume they were immune from criticism, it encouraged them to continue their violations. Even now, AI still appears to refrain from categorizing Al-Shabaab as a terrorist organization or from looking seriously at the mass of evidence available (including Al-Shabaab’s own public announcements) of its terrorist activities over several years. AI’s report does note that people are reluctant to make claims against “armed groups” for fear of retaliation. It then fails to note the corollary: that fear can persuade people to make false accusations.
Many of the complaints AI has recorded are clearly invented if only because many of the allegations levelled against Ethiopia and Ethiopian troops are culturally impossible, a point about which AI seems to have little or no knowledge. Almost all the complaints to which the report refers appear to be made by people now in exile. Many have a very clear political agenda. In many cases, accusations are being made weeks, months, even years, after the alleged events. They are often entirely vague, all too often based on hearsay and only very seldom including any claim of personal witness. When making allegations of this seriousness, it is simply not acceptable to use such phrases as “many others reported”. Virtually none of the supposed incidents mentioned on pages 11, 12 and 13, for example, actually provide even alleged accounts by eyewitnesses. Direct evidence of responsibility is lacking. Al-Shabaab and Ethiopian forces have been in an area; dead bodies are found; Ethiopian troops must be responsible; Amnesty International agrees. In fact, not too many people in Mogadishu would deny that Ethiopian troops are very well-disciplined.
The failure of AI to provide a breakdown of its sources or any evidence of their independent political affiliation makes clear the allegations are often no more than propaganda. A good example of the way this operates is apparent in AI’s version of the recent events at Al-Hidaya mosque. Much of its “evidence” obviously came from organizations that AI is fully aware are only masquerading as human rights bodies. There is no doubt that virtually all are linked to elements in Al-Shabaab. The result is that AI has given quite unwarranted credence to a version of events which fails to allow, inter alia, for frequent Al-Shabaab execution of moderate Islamic clerics, common usage by Al-Shabaab of throat slitting as a means of death, and Al-Shabaab’s pride in the desecration of dead bodies. All of this should have raised at least some questions in mind of AI researchers. Additionally, almost all of the 200 alleged civilians killed in the clashes that weekend were actually fighters killed in battle in the attack on an Al-Shabaab hide-out. AI appears to be unaware Al-Shabaab fighters do not wear uniforms.
Ethiopia has made it clear on numerous occasions it deplores any and all violations of human rights in Somalia, or anywhere else. It acknowledges that in any conflict situation, and particularly in a situation of urban terrorist action, civilian deaths may occur. It deeply regrets any loss of life in that context. Nevertheless, Ethiopian troops have never knowingly targeted civilians at any time. What has been happening in Mogadishu has been a struggle against a ruthless terrorist organization, Al-Shabaab, which over the last few years has been responsible for random attacks on non-military targets, causing widespread destruction of houses, hotels, shops, schools, restaurants, hospitals and clinics. It has been responsible for the murder of hundreds of civilians and moderate political and religious leaders as part of its campaign to spread fear and opposition to the TFG. It has demonstrated a deliberate and wanton disregard for civilian life in its operations. It has frequently gloried in its “achievements” among which it has publicly included the deaths of women and children, among them twelve women, khat sellers, killed in one mini-bus in a roadside bomb. None of this is in dispute yet AI has made virtually no reference to any of this over the last two or three years. Even if it does now accept that “armed groups” commit atrocities, AI still does not go into any details; it reserves this for claims about Ethiopian troops. In a similar failure, AI makes no mention of Eritrean support for terrorist activities in Somalia. Its concentration on Ethiopia allows it to minimize the activities of Eritrea, a far greater danger to peace in our region, as it is currently demonstrating in Djibouti, and also perhaps the country most responsible for human rights abuse in the Horn of Africa.
AI’s latest report precisely underlines that it does not have an open mind about Ethiopia or about human rights in Somalia. It makes no effort to establish the facts before indulging in unrestrained, and frequently, inaccurate criticisms. Ethiopia is very conscious of the need for human rights. This is why, several years ago Ethiopia set up a Human Rights Council and an Ombudsman’s Office, which issue regular reports. Has AI seen any of them? This is why, for example, a hundred legal advisers from the National Defence Force were participating in an ICRC workshop on international humanitarian law last month, or nearly two hundred prosecutors and police from Oromia state have been taking part in a Ministry of Justice human rights training program this month. In the last five years some four thousand judicial and police officials have taken part in similar training.
AI consistently ignores all such activities. It appears to assume all allegations against the Government of Ethiopia are automatically true, even though it knows perfectly well many are politically motivated. It makes no effort to investigate the reality of claims. The US Ambassador in Ethiopia recently noted: “there’s a lot of misinformation about Ethiopia …the problem comes in trying to decide what is fact and what’s fiction.” AI still seems unable to distinguish between fact and fiction, nor, apparently, does it appear to want to do so. |
|
|