|
A Week in the Horn 21/11/2008 |
|
The IGAD Minister also recommended that an extraordinary meeting of the IGAD Assembly of Heads of State and Government should be held early next month to review all options, and that this should consider the withdrawal of political recognition and support from all who proved an obstacle to resolving the Somali problem. Foreign Minister Seyoum bluntly told TFG leaders they must put aside their differences or face the withdrawal of Ethiopian forces and possibly of AMISOM troops as well. Ethiopian troops, he said unequivocally, are not prepared to continue paying heavy sacrifices indefinitely. The TFG leadership must decide to commit to the Nairobi Declaration or be left to fight among themselves. It was, however announced during the meeting that a Kenyan battalion (of 800) would be joining AMISOM. The Council of Ministers also stressed the parties should comply with the ceasefire details agreed at Djibouti on October 26 th, and urged the parties to expedite the formation of a government of national unity and an all-inclusive parliament. The next meeting of the High Level and Joint Security Committees of the TFG and the opposition ARS, set up under the Djibouti Agreement, is expected to open tomorrow in Djibouti. On Wednesday, the UN Security Council passed a resolution (1844 (2008)) to strengthen the arms embargo on Somalia, and specifying sanctions of an asset freeze and travel restrictions against individuals and entities engaged in activities that threaten the peace and political processes in Somalia or the Djibouti Agreement of 18 August, or threaten the TFIs or AMISOM by force. The resolution, which reaffirmed condemnation of all acts of violence and expressing its grave concern over the recent increase in piracy, decided the application of sanctions should be immediate. The Security Council also mandated the Committee monitoring the Arms Embargo with the task of listing the individuals and entities to be subject to sanctions, and to report to the Security Council at least every 120 days. **********
The meeting considered issues of implementation of the Joint Africa-EU Strategy and its first Action Plan, and recent developments in Africa and the EU since the 10th Ministerial Troika meeting. The first Action Plan consists of eight partnerships including: Partnership on peace and security; democratic governance and human rights; trade and regional integration; the Millennium Development Goals; energy; climate change; migration, mobility and employment; and science, information society and space. Ministers welcomed the progress report on the implementation of the Africa-EU Joint Strategy and its first Action Plan (2008-2010), signed in Lisbon last December. They stressed the full implementation of the ambitious and far-reaching Strategic Partnership was a long-term project and progress could only be achieved step by step. They commended the Joint Experts Groups, drawn from Africa and EU member states, for the work done so far. Ministers stressed the need for adequate financial resources to effectively implement the Joint Strategy/First Action Plan, and reiterated their request for efforts to be made by both sides to allocate the necessary funds to expedite implementation. They attached particular importance to the work to be done by the Joint Expert Groups in identifying financing requirements, sources of finance and the procedures for accessing financial instruments. The Ministers welcomed progress made in the various partnerships including the agreement of the New African Peace Facility, and the first joint meeting of the EU Political and Security Committee and the AU’s Peace and Security Council in September this year. Progress is expected on the ratification of the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance. Discussions on the possibility of participation of African election observers at the 2009 elections for the European Parliament are ongoing. Ministers also noted the continuing negotiations on full and comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreements. The European Council adopted the EU Agenda of Action outlining milestones to be achieved by 2010 in order to achieve the MDGs. Ministers noted the steps taken by the Accra High Level Forum on Aid Effectiveness held in September towards coordination and harmonization between EU and Africa, also essential for achieving MDGs. Ministers took note of the progress towards elaborating a joint declaration for Africa and the EU to submit to the Poznan Conference on Climate Change next month. With respect to the recent developments in Africa the Troika considered updates on the situations in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Sudan and Chad, Zimbabwe and Mauritania. With reference to Somalia, the Ministers welcomed the signing, in Djibouti on 26 October 2008, of the Agreement on the Modalities for the Implementation of the Cessation of Armed Confrontation between the TFG and the ARS. They commended the two sides for this further step in the implementation of the Djibouti Agreement of 19 August, and urged them to form a unity government as soon as possible. The Ministers also welcomed IGAD’s Nairobi Declaration on 29 October 2008. The EU congratulated the AU on the work of AMISOM and confirmed it would continue financial and technical support. Ministers again called on AU Member States to contribute additional troops to AMISOM and appealed to the international community to provide the necessary financial and logistical support to AMISOM. The Ministers said they awaited with interest details of the UN Secretary-General’s plan for the establishment of a multinational stabilization force which could reinforce AMISOM. Ministers also reiterated their support to the efforts of the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General, Mr. Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, to advance the political process in Somalia. The Ministers noted with concern the increasing occurrence of acts of piracy in Somali waters and the Gulf of Aden and called on the international community to promote pragmatic solutions to the problem; the African Troika congratulated the EU for the establishment of EU NAVCO to coordinate the fight against piracy along the Somali coast and for launching operation ATALANTA due to become operational next month. **********
Ethiopia and France have a long- standing relationship based on common understanding and mutual respect and diplomatic relations were established in 1897. Economic relations have increased momentum in recent years. Following the Partnership Framework Agreement of 2006, France has allocated 79 million euros to Ethiopia's economic development program covering priority areas including education, capacity building, and governance. French investment in Ethiopia currently amounts to 4.9 billion birr, and there are 95 French investment projects, of which 31 are operational. French investment is heavily involved in the tourism and hotel sectors, and ACCOR Hotels are building two state of the art building in the center of Addis Ababa. Two other recently announced projects are a wind-powered electricity generation scheme capable of generating 120MW at a cost of over 200 million euros and a 300 million euros cement investment. **********
**********
Finland has also been engaged in assisting in water development since the mid 1990s. One substantial program has been the provision of rural water supplies and sanitation in 14 woredas in the Amhara Regional State. The objective is to provide clean potable water and improved sanitation services for about 1.2 million people by the end of the five year project in 2011.The project is funded by a Community Development Fund (CDF) in which access to finance for the local communities is a key component. The planning phase for a similar program in Benishangul-Gumuz Regional State was started in May 2008 intended to cover five woredas. Finland is also preparing to become involved in the water resource management of the Blue Nile, part of the regional dimensional aspect of the Nile Basin Initiative and has shown interest in providing financial and technical support to the Tana Beles Integrated Water Resources Development Project. This is being channeled through both the World Bank and via bilateral aid. Mr. Väyrynen noted that this was a project which facilitated sustainable growth within the Tana-Beles corridor and was of particular ecological, economic and social benefit. He further mentioned that the Government of Finland would like to expand the cooperation beyond the ongoing support on the water resources and education sectors into renewable resources development so as to assist the country achieve sustainable growth and development. In his discussions, with Ato Sufian, Mr. Väyrynen underscored the important role that ICT could play in development and noted that Finnish companies like Nokia were interested in investing in the ICT sector, particularly in the expansion of mobile phones. Ato Sufian, who described the performance of the Finnish assisted development projects, as very satisfactory, and welcomed any further cooperation in sustainable development, briefed the delegation on Ethiopia’s recent economic performance. Mr. Väyrynen told the Minister of Water Resources, Ato Asfaw Dingamo, that Finland was now considering the request for cooperation in urban water supply projects. The business delegation accompanying Mr. Väyrynen met with the Ethiopian Chamber of Commerce and Sectoral Association to discuss current volumes of trade; both parties underlined the need to further strengthen the trade and investment ties. The delegation discussed investment opportunities with the Minister of Mines and Energy, Ato Alemayehu Tegenu, and met with representatives of the World Bank, the African Development Bank, the Economic Commission for Africa and the Infrastructure Commission of the African Union. **********
**********
Given the enormity of the atrocity of September 11, 2001 (9/11) and the fact that it launched the US’s ‘war on terror’, it is not surprising that 9/11 is often seen as a watershed in the appearance of terror on the international scene. It was, of course, nothing of the kind, any more than the idea that terrorism should only be associated with Al-Qaeda or organizations linked to it. In this region of Africa alone, Ethiopia, for example, was a victim of repeated terrorist attacks long before, as was Somalia. There were the bombings and assassinations by Al-Itihaad in Somalia in the early 1990s, and in Ethiopia in the mid 1990s, including the attempt on the life of the then Minister of Transport, Abdul Majeed Hussein in 1996. In 1995 there was the attempt to kill President Hosni Mubarek by the Egyptian terrorist group Gama’at al-Islamiyya in Addis Ababa. There were the terrorist activities of the Oromo Liberation Front in the 1990s and of the Ogaden National Liberation Front from 1995 onwards. No use of the “one man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter” can conceal the fact that the extreme and violent activities of these organizations against civilians and non-civilians alike, must be classified as terrorist. Similarly, there can be no doubt that the activities of the Lords Resistance Army in Uganda or the Interahamwe in Rwanda and Congo must be recognized as terrorist. Yet there remains an extraordinary reluctance in the international community to see terrorism in Africa as terrorism, unless that it is aimed at European or American interests and people. Indeed, this double standard (which does not, of course, only affect terrorism) has remained a basic point in the international response to terrorism. It is one reason why international cooperation against terrorism has been far less successful than it might otherwise have been. Take an example near to home: it was noticeable that the international community failed to condemn the ONLF atrocity at Abole in April last year. Over 70 Ethiopian and Chinese workers were slaughtered in their beds or as they lined up for breakfast, including women and a three year old child. Not only was there little condemnation, the BBC in London promptly allowed the leaders of the ONLF, who were and still are based in London, a platform to defend their action. Double standards indeed, especially given the outcry in the UK over the Horn of Africa origins of some of those involved in recent terrorist activities in the UK. This is why it is so disappointing that these double standards also appear to infect the output of US scholars on the Horn of Africa. Ambassador David Shinn and Professor Ken Menkhaus, for example, both notable scholars of Somalia and the Horn of Africa, have consistently been minimizing the threat of terrorism in the region. They argue that as there are only one or two members of Al-Qaeda that have been operating in Somalia there is therefore no real threat of terrorism. This shows an almost willful disregard of Al-Itihaad’s operations or, more recently, of the terrorist operations of Al-Shabaab. One might also notice here the recent bombings in Hargeisa and Puntland which emphasize the continuing dangers of terrorism and the threat it poses to Somalia, and Somaliland and indeed the whole of the sub-region of the Horn of Africa. In fact, it is clear that the Horn of Africa remains in the front-line in the fight against terrorism. Al-Shabaab is, after all, the most active terrorist organization in Africa, and the fact that it has so far largely confined its operations to Somalia does not in any sense minimize its terrorist credentials. Any attempt to do so clearly underlines the double standards that have seriously affected the international community’s efforts to deal with terrorism. Three years ago in a paper entitled “Domestic or International Terrorism? A Dysfunctional Dialogue” Ambassador Shinn talked of the difference between international and domestic terrorism. While he felt terrorism in African countries was under-reported, and should be of more concern to the US, and underlined that “the US has a different understanding of the definition of terrorism”, he also saw terrorism in African states (“domestic terrorism”) as of significantly less importance than international terrorism. Professor Menkhaus, in his latest paper “Somalia – A Country in Peril; a Policy nightmare” (September 2008) carries this a stage further, showing little indication of awareness of the terrorist element in Somalia today. He hardly notices terrorism, or terrorists, virtually appearing to reject any identification of Al-Shabaab as a terrorist organization because it is confined to Somalia. It might be unfair to ask Ambassador Shinn or Professor Menkhaus to move beyond the interests of their own country, the United States, and to take a position that reflects the interests of the international community in general, and more particularly those of the peoples of the Horn of Africa. Nevertheless, those in a position to know in the US are much more reluctant to dismiss terrorism in the Horn of Africa as of little account. The current Director of the CIA, Michael Hayden, very unusually this week expressed public concern over Al-Shabaab links with Al-Qaeda: “…a merger between [them] could give Somali extremists much needed funding while al-Qaeda could then claim to be re-establishing its operations base in East Africa. That’s a base that was severely disrupted about two years ago when Ethiopia moved into Somalia.” In fact, the latest manifestations of terrorism in the Horn of Africa do clearly affect the interests of the world community. Look at what is taking place in the Gulf of Aden and the Red Sea. There is little doubt the growing menace of piracy in the maritime regions of Somalia is, in part, a function of the statelessness of Somalia, a condition in whose creation terrorists had had a major role. However, to underline the double standard once again, piracy has been going on for years in the region. It is only now, when a threat is posed to international shipping lines and oil flows to Europe, that it has apparently become of international concern. It is clear enough that the failure to cooperate effectively in the fight against terrorism, as called for by the UN General Assembly two years ago, and most particularly when it comes to terrorism in places like the Horn of Africa, has contributed to the recent successes of criminals and terrorists. It has not only been academics and governments that have failed to appreciate the enormity of the threat that terrorism represents outside the developed world. The international media has been equally unhelpful in creating the requisite level of co-operation. The same can be said about some of the organizations that profess to promote human rights. The situation in Somalia over the last few years, serves as a good example of how these bodies have allowed themselves to be misled by entities claiming to be indigenous human rights organizations while in fact serving as propaganda organs of extremists organizations, set up for the express purpose of sowing confusion among those who might otherwise have been fighting together against terrorism. It is necessary to underline again: terrorism, whatever the aims of terrorists, remains terrorism. In April 2006 a UN document “Uniting against terrorism: recommendations for a global counter-terrorism strategy” makes the point that terrorism, irrespective of its causes or grievances cannot be justified: “no cause, no matter how just, can excuse terrorism. This includes the legitimate struggle of people for self-determination. Even this fundamental right defined in the Charter of the United Nations does not excuse deliberately killing or maiming civilians and non-combatants.” The UN strategy document also calls on the media to guard against providing a platform for terrorists to spread a message of hate, xenophobia or mass murder. This is a stricture that NGOs and international human rights organizations might bear in mind. The UN’s strategy called for efforts to dissuade disaffected groups from choosing terrorism as a tactic, denying terrorists the means to carry out attacks, deterring other states from supporting terrorism, developing the anti-terrorist capacities of states, and defending human rights in the struggle against terrorism. It was adopted by the General Assembly unanimously in a resolution (60/288) in September 2006, uniting all 192 member states behind a strategy which, as the Secretary-General underlined, conveyed the message: “terrorism is never justifiable, whether on political, philosophical, ideological, racial, ethnic, religious or any other grounds.” This imposed the principal responsibility for implementation of the strategy on Member States who, in the Assembly’s resolution reaffirmed that “…acts, methods and practices of terrorism in all its forms and manifestations are activities …threatening [the] territorial integrity, security of States and destabilizing legitimately constituted Governments…”, and that “…the international community should take the necessary steps to enhance cooperation to prevent and combat terrorism”. To quote the Secretary-General again “only persistent, concerted and coordinated efforts by us all will provide the basis …to fully implement the UN Counter-Terrorism Strategy.” UN General Assembly resolutions impose obligations on member states. Despite this the response to the resolutions on terrorism has been less than satisfactory. This is where the international community has failed, and comprehensively so. There is a strategy that all UN member states subscribed to in 2006. The failure to enact this fully underlines, once again, why we raise the issue of double standards. Whatever the intent, these draw false distinctions between terrorist attacks on US or European targets wherever they might be found, on the one hand, and attacks on non-US or European targets on the other. The former is clearly considered by the western international media and human rights organizations, and indeed by some in the international community, as more important than the latter. In fact, despite the number of terrorist atrocities world-wide, and despite the resolutions of the General Assembly, some in the international community still appear to fail to understand the realities of terrorism. We would repeat: they are quite simple. Terrorism (to paraphrase the OAU/AU’s Convention on Prevention and Combating of Terrorism) is any violation of a state’s criminal laws which may endanger the life, physical integrity or freedom of, or cause serious injury, or death to, any person, any number of group of persons or damage public or private property, resources, or heritage of the state, in order to intimidate, frighten or coerce any government body or the general public, disrupt any public service or create general insurrection in a State”. This should certainly be comprehensive enough. If the fight against terrorism is to succeed, the international community must drop the double standards that many scholars and politicians continue to use. It must realize that no distinctions can be drawn between domestic and international terrorism, or any other alleged variant. Terrorism is terrorism. Only when the international community fully accepts this, and fully commits itself to live up to its UN obligations, will international counter-terrorist policies and programs be able to succeed in removing the scourge of terrorism. |
|
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia Ministry of Foreign Affairs |