|
|
Kenya responds to persistent Al-Shabaab provocation
On Sunday, Kenya sent at least two battalions of troops across
the border into Somalia in an offensive against Al-Shabaab in
response to a number of recent terrorist activities in Kenya, and
according to Foreign Minister Moses Wetangula, at the request and at
the invitation of the Somali government. The operation was announced
by Internal Affairs Minister, Professor George Saitoti who said
Kenya had decided to take “robust measures to protect and preserve
the integrity of the country and the national economy and security.”
At a press briefing in Nairobi on Saturday, accompanied by Defence
Minister, Yusuf Haji, Professor Saitoti gave a chronology of the
provocative actions by Al-Shabaab, including killings and abductions
of tourists and Kenyans. Two Spanish employees of Medicins Sans
Frontieres were seized from a Dadaab refugee camp on October 13, and
a Kenyan driver working for another agency Care a month earlier.
There have been two recent abductions of foreign tourists, both
women from north-east Kenya, one of a wheelchair-bound French woman
who is now reported to have died while a prisoner. Another tourist
was killed. In addition, there have been a series of clashes between
Al-Shabaab militias and Kenyan security along the border area which
have caused casualties, and Al-Shabaab is regarded as being
responsible for a total of seven major incidents including the
attacks on the attacks on the Dadajabula Police Post in 2009, a raid
on the General Service Unit’s camp at Liboi last year, and the
laying of mines and explosive devices against Kenya police and
military in Mandera last July. There have also been numerous
kidnappings and hijackings within Kenya's borders, including two
Catholic nuns in El Waq in 2009 and two soldiers last July as well
as the recent attacks on foreign tourists and others. Kenya, of
course, also hosts nearly 600,000 UN-registered refugees from
Somalia, over 525,000 of them in the Dadaab camps.
Professor Saitoti said Kenya was ready to take any necessary action
to preserve its territorial integrity. Kenya had invoked Article 51
of the UN Charter which says “Nothing in the present Charter shall
impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence
if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations,
until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain
international peace and security.” The Defence Minister said “If you
are attacked by an enemy, you have the right to pursue the
enemy…Al-Shabaab will be pursued.” He added that the military was
capable of dealing with any situation on the border.
The Kenyan forces appear to have crossed the border in several
places including Gedo region across the border from the border town
of Mandera. Kenyan troops have also been reported in the town of El
Waq, but the main thrust was via Liboi and Dhobley moving in the
direction of Afmadow, 130 kilometers from the border. The advance of
ground troops and armour was accompanied by air strikes and
helicopter activity. The Kenyan forces moved rapidly, and after
driving Al-Shabaab out of Qoqani, 80 kilometers from the border,
together with TFG forces and Kenyan-trained pro-TFG government
militia, have moved towards Afmadow, a major Al-Shabaab base in
Lower Juba region but heavy rain has slowed the advance. The rainy
season has just started in that area. There have been reports that
Al-Shabaab had been reinforcing its fighters there, forcibly
recruiting youngsters for its forces and digging trenches around the
town. There are also reports that Al-Shabaab has been reinforcing
its fighters in Kismayo, drawing them from other areas in Hiiraan,
Galgadud, Middle and Lower Shebelle. A military spokesman said
Al-Shabaab had lost 73 fighters; Kenya losses were no more than five
people killed when a helicopter crashed. The villages and districts
recovered from Al-Shabaab are being handed over to the forces of the
TFG, its Ras Kamboni militia allies and local administration
officials.
Kenya is co-ordinating its operations with the TFG. The Defence
Minister and Foreign Minister Moses Wetangula were in Mogadishu on
Tuesday to talk to President Sheikh Sharif and Prime Minister
Abdiweli Mohamed about the joint military offensive. Discussions
focused on closer security co-operation. In a subsequent statement,
the two sides pledged to cooperate in “undertaking security and
military operations in Lower Juba border regions of Somalia” and
“pre-emptive action and pursuit of any armed elements that continue
to threaten and attack both countries.” Following the visit to
Mogadishu, Mr. Wetangula and Defence Minister Yusuf Haji visited
Addis Ababa where they held talks with Dr. Jean Ping, the
Chairperson of the AU Commission and Prime Minister Meles. Mr
Wetangula said subsequently that both the AU and Ethiopia had made
clear their support for Kenya’s action.
Kenya hasn’t detailed its intended aims for its action but clearing
Al-Shabaab extremists away from the border and securing the safety
of the border is clearly one element. In the past Kenya has
encouraged the establishment of a buffer zone along the border with
local militias supporting the TFG, but this failed to prevent
Al-Shabaab activity across the border. Now it clearly intends at
least to ensure that Al-Shabaab is kept much further away from the
border. Another aim will be to provide a guarantee of humanitarian
access all along the border area and perhaps more deeply into the
famine areas of southern Somalia, This will certainly be welcomed by
the international aid agencies which have been frustrated by the
refusal of Al-Shabaab to all their operations in these seriously
drought and famine-affected areas, though the current fighting will
continue to make assistance difficult. A third possibility is the
port of Kismayo which provides A-Shabaab with much of the revenue
which pays for its fighters, and TFG officials have said that the
TFG now plans to launch “an all-out-war’ to take Kismayo. A Kenyan
military spokesman said on Thursday that Kenyan troops would push
forward to Kismayo and would stay in Somalia until there were no
Islamic insurgents left. He also said that Kenyan forces had taken
control of Ras Kamboni close to the Kenyan border in the south.
Al-Shabaab has responded to Kenya’s intervention by threatening
retaliation in Kenya: “The bloody battles that will ensue as a
result of this incursion will most likely disrupt the social
equilibrium and imperil the lives of hundreds of thousands of
civilians; and with war consequently comes a significant loss of
lives, instability and destruction to the local economy and a
critical lack of security.” Sheikh Ali Mohamed Rage, Al-Shabaab
spokesman, claimed that Al-Shabaab had not been responsible for
recent kidnappings and any claims to the contrary were unfounded.
Kenya, of course, has also been the target of previous Al-Qaeda/Al-Shabaab
attacks, in 1998 when the US Embassy in Nairobi was bombed, causing
thousands of casualties mostly Kenyan, and again in 2002 when a
hotel at Mombasa was bombed. Some of those involved in these
atrocities took refuge in Somalia.
President Kibaki said yesterday that “the security of [Kenya] is
paramount. We will defend out territorial integrity through all
measures necessary to ensure peace and stability.” The government
has also announced that it would be carrying out checks in the
Nairobi suburb of Eastleigh to deal with those who were in Kenya
illegally. Security has been tightened at bus terminals, airports,
hotels and shopping centers and travellers on air and road transport
will be screened especially on routes to and fro the border with
Somalia. A number of Al-Shabaab “sleepers” are said to have been
arrested in the Dadaab refugee camps.
Meanwhile, in
Mogadishu this week, AMISOM and TFG forces have carried out new
offensives targeting the last areas in which Al-Shabaab was based,
taking over the Daynile district of the city at the beginning of the
week, and on Thursday moving into the areas around the industrial
road in Daynile, and into the northern part of Mogadishu. They have
taken Daynile police station and other parts of Daynile, the last
strong base of Al-Shabaab that was left in the city following Al-Shabaab’s
withdrawal from most of Mogadishu two months ago. Inevitably,
however, there is still a danger of suicide bombings and there were
two in Mogadishu during the week.
******************
top |
|
COMESA’s 15th
Summit in Malawi
The Fifteenth Summit of the COMESA Authority of Heads of State and
Government
was held
in Lilongwe, Malawi on Friday and Saturday last week under
“Harnessing
Science and Technology for Development”.
Malawi President,
Professor Bingu
wa Mutharika, is the new Chairperson of COMESA, the Common Market
for Eastern and Southern Africa for 2012.
The meeting was attended by King Mswati of Swaziland, President
Mugabe of Zimbabwe, President Omar al Bashir of Sudan, President
Pierre Nkurunziza of Burundi, the Vice-Presidents of Kenya, Zambia,
Seychelles, the Union of Comoros and the Prime Minister of Djibouti.
Among attending ministers were Congo’s Minister of International and
Regional Cooperation, Egypt’s Minister of Communication, Eritrea’s
Minister of Trade and Industry, Ethiopia’s Minister of Finance and
Economic Development, Mauritius Minister of Foreign Affairs,
Rwanda’s Minister of Trade and Industry, South Sudan’s Minister of
Commerce, Industry and Investment and Uganda’s Minister of State for
Foreign Affairs as well as the Chairperson of the African Union
Commission, Dr Jean Ping, and the Executive Secretaries of the East
African Community and the Southern African Development Community.
The sixth COMESA First Ladies Roundtable was also held during the
Summit.
President Mutharika, in his welcoming statement said that his
Government decided to continue with the theme of the Fourteenth
Summit: “Harnessing Science and Technology for Development” as there
was still much to be done in implementing this theme. He called on
the Summit to take time to reflect on the past and chart the way
forward by taking bold decisions that will shape up policy for
economic development in the region through regional integration
based on regional realities. He urged member states to actively
participate in the negotiation of the COMESA-EAC-SADC Tripartite
Free Trade Area which aims to create a larger market covering all 27
countries in the East and Southern Africa region.
The Summit reviewed and adopted the report of the Secretary General
on the State of Regional Integration in COMESA, the proposal for
innovative means of financing COMESA regional integration programs,
and the reports of the Thirtieth Meeting of COMESA’s Council of
Ministers, of the Eleventh Meeting of the Ministers of Foreign
Affairs, of the Eastern and Southern Africa Economic Partnership
(ESA-EPA) Council of Ministers on progress regarding the status of
EPA negotiations with the European Commission, and the
Report on the
Status of the COMESA-EAC-SADC Tripartite Arrangement. The Summit
also endorsed the conclusions and recommendations of the Seventh
COMESA Business Forum and launched the COMESA Annual Report for
2010. At the end of the Summit, a communiqué was issued covering all
of the points discussed.
The Summit noted with satisfaction that intra-COMESA trade had
increased to US $17.4 billion by the end of 2010. This signified a
recovery from the drop to US $12.7 billion in 2009 due to the
financial crisis and economic recession. When the Free Trade Area
was launched in October 2000 the value of intra-COMESA trade was
only US $3.1 billion. The Summit welcomed Egypt’s adoption of the
35% value addition threshold under the COMESA Rules of Origin,
bringing it into line with other member states. Good progress had
been made on the formation of the COMESA Customs Union and the
Authority has established a Ministerial Task Force to work with
member states to address any outstanding issues to make sure a
functional Customs Union is properly implemented by the end of the
transition period. Considering the conference theme, the Summit
adopted a COMESA strategy and implementation plan on science and
technology and directed the secretariat to work with member states
in the establishment of science, technology and innovation parks and
priority industry clusters, and to develop mechanisms for exchange
and sharing of experiences amongst member states. It also directed
the secretariat to develop programmes for harnessing local
technologies for processing and branding local products.
The Summit reviewed the progress of agricultural development in
COMESA member countries and expressed its concern on the devastating
drought affecting the Horn of Africa. It called for the
international community to provide emergency and long term support
for projects and programmes to mitigate the effects of drought. It
urged the fulfilment of pledges made at the AU pledging conference
held in Addis Ababa in August. It noted with satisfaction the
progress made in the implementation of the Comprehensive Africa
Agriculture Development Program and urged COMESA member states that
have not yet signed National Compacts to do so.
The Summit endorsed the recommendations of the Ministers of Foreign
Affairs on peace and security. Although Somalia is not a member of
COMESA, the Summit noted the lawlessness of Somalia and the
resultant activities of pirates. It said the situation in Somalia
had become a major source of insecurity for the Horn of Africa and
indeed globally through piracy and threats of terrorism. It called
for the region to think “outside the box” for solutions to its
conflicts. Member states were urged to support the African Union
and the Intergovernmental Authority on development (IGAD) as they
lead the process of finding a lasting solution to the Somalia issue.
The Summit congratulated South Sudan on its independence and
welcomed the Agreement between the Republic of South Sudan and the
Republic of Sudan for the withdrawal of forces of both parties in
Abyei and other border areas. It congratulated countries in the
Great Lakes region for their significant progress towards
reconstruction and transformation. It expressed concern over the
lack of progress towards the resolution of the border dispute
between Djibouti and Eritrea and called upon both parties to engage
in the mediation process in good faith and to refrain from the use
or threat of use of force. It reiterated its concern at the
continued impasse in the peace process between Eritrea and Ethiopia
and called for renewed African Union efforts to help the two
countries overcome the difficulties facing the peace process.
During the Summit, Malawi’s First Lady, Madam Callista Mutharika,
presented the report and recommendations of the COMESA First Ladies’
Roundtable. She called on COMESA member states to come up with
innovative strategies to improve maternal health in the region
through the use of science and technology. Madam Mutharika said this
was the only way the region could reduce maternal mortality and meet
the Millennium Development Goal for drastically reducing maternal
mortality by 2015.
*****************
top |
|
Climate Change and Development in Africa Conference held in Addis
Ababa
The first conference on Climate Change and Development in Africa
(CCDA-1) was held this week in Addis Ababa at the United Nations
Conference Centre. Organized by the ECA’s African Climate Policy
Center, an initiative of the AU, the African Development Bank and
UNECA, the three day meeting brought together some 700 participants
from African member states, regional economic communities, river
basin organizations, NGOs and civil society, the private sector,
academia, and development partners. The conference was opened by Ato
Hailemariam Desalegn, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign
Affairs of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia who called on
African governments to put climate change adaptation as a central
element in their national development plans. He emphasized that
adaptation was the critical response to the impact of climate change
and the need to stabilize atmospheric concentrations of greenhouse
gases. He underlined the importance of the conference to provide
guidelines and directions for the position of African leaders at COP
17, the climate change talks to be held in Durban in December.
Mr. Abdoulie Janneh, UN Under-Secretary-General and Executive
Secretary of the UN Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), also
addressed the opening session, pointing out that adaptation was not
just one of the options for Africa it was an obligation, but added
that adaptation without rapid cuts in emissions to keep global
warming to its lowest possible level would be futile. The keynote
address was given by Dr. R.K. Pachauri, the Director General of TERI
and Chair of the Inter–Governmental Panel on Climate Change. This
was followed by a high level dialogue among several panellists who
included the EU Climate Change Commissioner, Ministers from the
Republic of Congo and Guyana and the Director General of Ethiopia’s
Environmental Protection Authority. This underscored Africa’s
development challenges in the context of climate change, noting how
African countries are leading the climate change agenda, what this
means for the continent’s future and Africa’s climate change
negotiating position.
The title and theme for the conference was “Development First:
Addressing Climate Change in Africa”, and four sub-themes were
considered under this: Climate Science, Data, Information and
Service Delivery; Climate Resilience Development and Adaptation;
Low-Carbon Development in Africa; Economics and Finance. Its overall
objectives were to establish a forum for dialogue, enhance awareness
raising, mobilize effective commitment and actions through bringing
together policymakers, academicians and practicing stakeholder with
the aim of effectively bringing climate change concerns into a
central place in development policies, strategies, programmes and
practices in Africa. The conference also aimed to strengthen
Africa’s position and participation in international climate change
negotiations to ensure proper reflection of the continent’s
priorities in a post-2012 international climate change regime.
The conference produced a number of recommendations. On the issue of
Climate Science, Data, Information and Service Delivery, the
conference emphasized the crucial roles of climate information in
national development planning, of managing climate opportunities and
risks and of mitigation and adaptation. There was a firm
recommendation for member states to mainstream climate change in
their development policies, planning and practice. Member states
were encouraged to build up the capacity to collect, analyze and use
climate data and information for decision makers at all levels.
Regional centers should scale-up African-focused climate research to
reduce prediction uncertainties in user-relevant climate variables,
and use advanced technologies to improve collection and storage of
data, as well as retrieval, analysis, information generation and
dissemination.
On the sub-theme of Climate Resilience Development and Adaptation,
the focus was on the socio-economic challenges and risks posed by
climate-induced hazards and disasters, monitoring measures and
informed policy responses for good climate risk management.
Recommendations included a call for African states to strengthen
their policies and interventions for effective climate change
adaptation and increase investment on water control and management.
Regional Economic Communities and other regional centers should
establish work programmes for agriculture under the Cancun
adaptation framework to link means of implementation with early
warning systems, weather communication, irrigation, seed
multiplication and technology-sharing. African negotiators on
climate change should consider land-use efficiency and hydropower
development as clean development options. Financing for investment
could be sought through the Clean Development Mechanism of the Kyoto
Protocol. Member states should build capacity for research into
climate change adaptation in agriculture, water management, energy
and transport.
The conference underlined the need to explore low-carbon development
within the context of the green economy. It addressed energy-access
challenges, the importance of financing for Reducing Emissions from
Deforestation and Forest Degradation (REDD+) and of identifying
opportunities in Land Use, Land-Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF)
across Africa. It recognized that a future low-carbon pathway will
require involvement of public and private sectors as well as
sectoral collaboration. African member states should be involved
with private and civil society to develop strategies to advance
low-carbon development. They should also strengthen regional
cooperation in service provision in energy (Ethiopia was
congratulated for selling electricity to Djibouti), focus on
advantageous areas in agriculture, and implement policies to promote
access to affordable and clean energy services to reduce poverty and
promote development.
The final focus was on the impact of climate change on development.
The need for effective action was underlined including innovative
financing mechanisms to adapt and mitigate the effects of climate
change within the context of sustainable economic growth and poverty
reduction. Action on climate and meeting development imperatives
must be balanced. Member states should strengthen the capacity to
assess risks posed by climate change and its economic implications.
African negotiators on climate must negotiate a clear and agreed
baseline for new finance to enhance transparency and build trust
between developed and developing countries. They should clearly
measure the cost of adaptation and mitigation and produce a range of
estimates for the cost of adaptation and mitigation in Africa. These
must include the development of projects and programmes for
investment in line with development plans and priorities. Research
institutes and the ECA/ACPC should leverage new funding through
innovative engagement in the climate dialogue process, the green
climate fund and the efforts of member states to build capacity of
energy entrepreneurs in innovative financing mechanisms for
climate-related investment.
*****************
top |
|
Is one man’s
agricultural investment another’s land grabbing?
The question of land has always been a matter of paramount
importance in countries like Ethiopia where the livelihood of the
vast majority of the people is based on agriculture. It is hardly
surprising that land and the issues associated with it including
agriculture and rural development are central to government policy
formulation and implementation. Equally, the lack of knowledge of
relevant government policies often generate misplaced criticism of
what is referred to as “land-grabbing” when large-scale agricultural
development is involved, in Ethiopia and other African countries
including Mozambique, Tanzania, Madagascar and Ghana. It needs the
right perspective for interested parties to get an accurate
understanding of the reality of the situation, which varies, of
course, from place to place.
In the first place, we need to understand the definition of “land
grabbing”. It is something that can be defined in a number of ways
depending on the time and context. During colonial times in Africa,
it meant the forcible eviction and dislocation of indigenous
populations and the allocation of their land to new settlers from
the colonizing country. The history of colonial Africa is full of
cases where native Africans were ruthlessly dispossessed of their
ancestral land and relocated to far-away places, often at gunpoint.
In the post-colonial era, “land grabbing” continued through shady
deals and other deceitful methods, usually involving the bribery of
local chiefs or other government officials. In almost all cases, the
“land grabbers” were very specific in their choices. They targeted
the best quality land for development of large plantations, for
mining activities or for real estate expansion. The only
beneficiaries of these dubious transactions were the “land grabbers”
themselves and a few corrupt government officials. The inhabitants
of the lands themselves were neither consulted nor compensated.
Even the most superficial look at the current situation of
agricultural development in Ethiopia shows an entirely different
picture. To begin with, as Ethiopia believes the main source of
economic growth in the country is agriculture, the main driver of
agricultural activity remains small-holder farming. Equally, since
there are large expanses of vacant land available in sparsely
populated areas of the country there is the opportunity to include
large scale farming as a significant part of the government policy
of agricultural development. The policy of the government is
therefore to promote extensive farming in small-holder areas where
there is abundant manpower and intensive industrial farming where
there is vacant land suitable for large-scale agricultural
development. This allows for the provision of modern farming
techniques, the boosting of food production, ensuring market access
for exportable agricultural produce, supplying raw material for the
local agro-processing industry and the provision of extensive
employment opportunities.
As no displacement of farmers from small-holder areas is taking
place, any criticism of alleged “land grabbing” in Ethiopia must be
directed at the large-scale agricultural developments currently
taking place for the most part in the Gambella, Benishangul Gumuz
and SNNP Regional States. Here again, one has to look at the actual
process of land acquisition, a process that takes maximum care not
to infringe the rights of the local people. The government has set
up a “land bank” which identifies and registers vacant and unused
lands throughout the country. At the moment the land bank has about
3 million hectares of land registered that can be made available for
large-scale agricultural development.
Any proposals brought by an investor are carefully examined. Each
proposal is carefully scrutinized and evaluated to make sure the
investor has the financial and technical capability to launch and
run the project effectively, efficiently and, most importantly, in
an environmentally sound manner. In most cases, no more than an
initial 10,000 hectares of land is issued and any increase depends
upon successful evaluation of the investor's performance on the land
already made available. The relevant government departments,
including the Federal Ministry of Agriculture and the federal and
regional investment and agriculture authorities, follow the
development closely to make sure all legal processes and regulations
are fully observed by the developers.
The Ministry of Agriculture emphasizes that “agricultural investment
land in Ethiopia is transferred to domestic or foreign investors
after all legal processes are observed”. In a statement last week,
the Ministry noted that this only happened after “making sure that
these and other procedures including environmental impact
assessments are conducted.” The Ministry administers lands of over
5,000 hectares; smaller areas are dealt with by the regional state
authorities. A Ministry official stressed that it made no sense to
talk about “land grabbing” when “investors are actively utilizing
the and to increase the agricultural productivity in line with the
country’s agricultural development program.” He added that “in
Gambella 225.012 hectares is leased by foreign investors with a
registered capital of over 46.3 billion birr,” and another 180
domestic investors were also engaged in the same area. Rice, cotton
and oilseeds were already in production. The Ministry conducts
monitoring and evaluation of all agricultural investment activities
every three months. Experience so far shows no sign of the vices
that can appear as a result of “land grabbing”. Indeed, on the
contrary what is visible demonstrates all the characteristics of
valuable and useful foreign direct investment in the field of
agriculture.
To sum up: in Ethiopia land that has been leased to investors is
vacant and unused land and there has been no arbitrary dislocation
of local populations. Shady land deals between local government
officials and investors are impossible as investors have to deal
directly with the Federal Ministry of Agriculture. It might be added
that in Ethiopia most of the land for this investment is being used
for food production. Only 2% is taken up by bio-fuel production. The
result is that foreign direct investment has increased, significant
employment opportunities have been created and modern farming
techniques have been introduced on a substantial scale in these new
developments.
*****************
top |
|
Terrorism, security,
civil liberties and human rights organizations
It is
axiomatic that there is always an uneasy equilibrium between
security and civil rights whether in the US and the UK, and other
countries like Ethiopia which have been the subject of terrorist
activities. In the aftermath of terrorist attacks such as 9/11 in
the US security was of course uppermost, with people more concerned
about their safety, but after a few years without attacks the
balance tends to shift towards civil rights, though vigilance
remains the price of safety. Preventing terrorism, of course,
requires different techniques from the arrest of those responsible
for actual attacks, and it is not unusual for counterterrorist
activities to lead to claims that the security forces have engaged
in aggressive proactive operations.
In the
west, civil liberty groups often express concern over security
methods, and in New York, for example, there have been recent media
reports of police activities including possibly “unlawful covert
surveillance operations of the Muslim community.” Congressmen have
asked the US Justice Department to investigate. In fact, in the
wake of the atrocities of 9/11, New York, not surprisingly, moved
towards strenuous efforts at terrorist prevention rather than
limiting itself to the arrests of perpetrators. Police guidelines
were changed to allow widespread monitoring of public activity and
investigation of possible indications of terrorist or criminal
activity. A Counter-Terrorism Bureau was set up in 2002 to provide
for training, coordination and response of police units; it works
closely with the Intelligence Division. Together their focus shifted
from waiting for an attack to happen to trying to prevent and
disrupt possible attacks. Police forces in the UK and elsewhere in
Europe have done the same. This has meant that people have been
arrested before terrorist atrocities have taken place, and have
therefore faced lesser charges, such as fraud or conspiracy to
acquire explosives, rather than terrorism or homicide. The process
involves keeping a balance of security and civil liberty, and it
requires accurate intelligence to separate innocent from threatening
activity.
The
actions of the New York Police Department apparently include open
observation throughout the city in order to understand local
dynamics, down to the local level, to provide the context for
reporting and intelligence. This is coupled with literally thousands
of calls made by the public to report suspicious activity.
Undercover officers observe and talk to residents, looking for signs
of criminal or terrorist activity. They are currently accused of
primarily targeting Muslim neighbourhoods, hardly surprising in the
context of recent terrorist activity. Despite criticisms by civil
rights/human rights organizations, this is not something new. Police
officers in both the US and Europe have been carrying out similar
activity for years when looking for signs of criminal activity by
the mafia or other criminal organizations. Whatever civil rights
organizations may claim, these activities do not presume guilt.
Currently, there may be considerable focus on jihadists in the West,
for obvious reasons, but certainly in the UK, for example, security
does not neglect to continue to collect intelligence on the IRA and
Irish terrorist activity.
In fact,
counterterrorist and intelligence methods are still fairly new. They
continue to develop. They obviously need to be scrutinised and a
proper balance found between guarding lives and protecting people’s
rights, but emotive claims and allegations by external bodies with
little or no understanding of local dynamics, and with no local
presence, are hardly helpful. Blanket denunciations of
counter-terrorist activities in Ethiopia, for example, are of no
help either in limiting terrorist activities or in providing the
right balance between safety for the population and civil liberties.
Ethiopia, of course, has suffered a significant number of terrorist
attacks over the last decade or more. Fortunately, none have been
major atrocities on the scale on 9/11, the attacks on the US
embassies in Nairobi and Dar es Selaam, or even Al-Shabaab’s latest
suicide bomb in Mogadishu. There have, nevertheless, been a
significant number of real, terrifying and often fatal attacks.
It is
particularly unhelpful when allegations are made on the basis of
information provided by groups that have been formally identified as
terrorist organizations and which are externally based. The media or
human rights groups use of terrorist-supplied information provides
the terrorist organization with free publicity and dissemination of
its own publicity. Criticisms of the counter-terrorist activities of
the New York Police Department or of the Metropolitan Police
Department in London are made by media organizations or civil rights
bodies that operate in New York or in London. Accusations against
security forces or criticisms of the activities of security
departments in Addis Ababa or Ethiopia usually come from
international human rights’ organizations also based in London and
New York. The claims are seldom, if ever, based on accurate
information or on evidence from the ground. Nor, usually, is there
any sign of an attempt to try to investigate the accuracy of the
claims, to express concern about the source, or cast doubt about
their reality. They are claims made by opposition sources and, as
such, they are apparently considered automatically, even certainly,
true. Equally, any denials by government officials are immediately,
and as automatically, assumed to be untrue.
Given this approach, it is hardly surprising that the methodology of
these human rights’ bodies have been coming under growing criticism.
It is particularly disappointing that these bodies themselves
persist in assuming that they must be in the right and that
any criticism of their activities should be dismissed as an attack
on human rights. They smugly, and consistently, refuse to accept
that they themselves might conceivably be at fault. And, sometimes,
they most certainly are, though as many of the criticisms of Human
Rights Watch, for example, relate specifically to its methodology
and to its self-serving assumptions of certainty and superiority as
they do to specific inaccuracies and errors. The criticisms have
nothing to do with the general issue of human rights and everything
with the way Human Rights Watch carries out its activities and with
the false assumptions that it so persistently repeats.
As we noted a week or two ago, the UK Secretary of State for
International Development recently told Human Rights Watch quite
firmly that the British Government could not agree with either the
assertions or the conclusions of Human Rights Watch over its claims
of politicisation of aid in Ethiopia. He added that “we do not
believe [your] report is methodologically sound” and that “it is
important not to overstate criticisms in an unbalanced manner”.
Given the wealth of contrary evidence that Human Rights Watch must
have deliberately disregarded in order to reach its alleged
conclusions, one must agree with this very compelling assessment of
its activities. Indeed, the rebuke appears considerably milder than
Human Rights Watch might have expected, or deserved.
*****************
top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
