|
|
International
coordination on Somalia continues to expand
On
Tuesday and Wednesday this week, the African Union Commission
organized a two day meeting of military and security experts and
planners to discuss Somalia and how best to implement decisions of
the recent IGAD Summit as endorsed by the AU Summit in Kampala.
Ethiopia participated in the meeting in its capacity as current
chair of IGAD, and Ambassador Kongit Sinegiorgis,
Permanent Representative of Ethiopia to the AU,
reminded the meeting of the decision to deploy 2000 peacekeepers
under AMISOM immediately, emphasizing the growing threat to the TFG
and AMISOM meant this should materialize without delay. The
Ambassador informed the gathering that despite a deteriorating
situation on the ground, the consultation held in Addis Ababa three
weeks earlier between the TFG and Ahlu Suna wal Jama’a to evaluate
the full implementation of their Agreement had proved very
constructive. Both were determined to move forward in the struggle
against terrorist groups in Somalia. It was, Ambassador Kongit said,
commendable that the TFG was continuing to exert efforts to reach
out to groups which are prepared to renounce violence and join the
peace process. The Ambassador, however, stressed that the extremist
groups had been preparing for more destruction in the country, and
Al-Shabaab was making greater efforts to put pressure on the
Government and AMISOM. It meant that there was an imperative
necessity to take measures to strengthen the TFG and AMISOM
concretely and quickly.
The
meeting recognized the need to expand AMISOM’s presence into other
areas of Somalia in collaboration with TFG, clan and Ahlu Suna wal
Jama’a forces, to provide immediate peace dividends to benefit the
population of areas outside Mogadishu. The need to focus on building
up TFG security capacity also opened up opportunities to patriotic
Somalis to contribute to the peace and restoration of the Somali
state. Equally, the need to fully equip AMISOM forces on the ground
was critical. IGAD was working in concrete terms to assist the TFG
in the restructuring and reorganizing of the security forces and
create a coordination mechanism among all stake holders. The need to
dispatch the AU and UN assessment mission quickly was underlined.
Similarly, there was agreement on the importance of underlining the
fact that the TFG is unanimously regarded as the legitimate
government of Somalia, and of enhancing the reconciliation process
based on the Djibouti Process, as well as providing the necessary
support and dividends to those groups that are ready to renounce
violence and work for peace. The next meeting of the consultative
group is expected in the second week of September to work out
implementation details for the IGAD and AU decisions.
At the
same time, following the appalling suicide attack at Muna Hotel on
Tuesday last week, Somalia’s President Sheikh Sharif has called on
the international community to do more to save Somalia. The
President said that it was quite impractical to expect that Somalia
alone could contain the effects of the Al Qaeda-Al-Shabaab alliance,
as it was only just beginning to emerge from 20 years of destruction
and political chaos. The Government was committed to re-establish
law and order, but winning against Al-Shabaab required a
comprehensive strategy and considerable patience. He reminded the
international community that the Somali Government gets less support
and has far less resources than other countries facing such
challenges. Yet it had a similar if not more potent enemy. President
Sharif had made a similar point during the AU Summit when he told
the Assembly that “the TFG is appealing to the world to help Somalia
restore peace and stability... we need powerful foreign troops who
can defeat the Islamists fighting the Somali government”.
It is
encouraging that the demarche to those who can contribute in terms
of logistics and financially as well as in troop contributions to
AMISOM and to the capacity building of the TFG, is taking effect.
This week’s meeting is further confirmation of greater coordination
between IGAD, the AU Commission and the United Nations, as well as
other stakeholders. Participants emphasized the need to read from
the same script regarding the challenges facing Somalia, the region
and beyond. While the international community continues to reiterate
its support for the Transitional Federal Charter, the Djibouti Peace
Process, and the TFG as the legitimate government of Somalia, it was
also encouraging to see the calls for deployment of the full
complement of AMISOM, and for UN agencies to relocate to Mogadishu,
to provide full support to the TFG.
Another
welcome development was the visit by the UN Under-Secretary-General
for Political Affairs, Lynn Pascoe, to Mogadishu. Mr. Pascoe, who
was accompanied by the UN Special Representative for Somalia,
Ambassador Mahiga, met President Sheikh Sharif and Cabinet
Ministers. Mr. Pascoe encouraged the leaders of the Transitional
Federal Government to reach out to other groups and to focus on
governing the country. It was crucial, he said, to show the
long-suffering people of Somalia that the Government could deliver
basic services. “The international community is very interested in
supporting the TFG, but the Government itself needs to do more and
learn to work as a cohesive team”. Mr. Pascoe and Mr. Mahiga also
met the Force Commander and members of AMISOM and visited the AMISOM
hospital which treats Somali civilians. The Under-Secretary-General
praised the work of the African Union forces deployed in Somalia,
and commended the UN for providing them with logistic support. At
the same time he called for more troops as well as for continued
financial and logistical support. There are now some indications
that there might be a possibility of ‘re-hating’ AMISOM forces as UN
troops sooner rather than later. It is hoped that the few on the UN
Security Council who have been hesitating about this may change
their minds shortly.
******************
top |
|
CEWARN’s
mid-term review of its Five-Year Strategic plan
The Conflict
Early Warning and Response Mechanism (CEWARN) of the
Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) conducted a
mid-term review of its five year strategic plan in Addis Ababa on
Thursday and Friday last week, August 26th – 27th.
Participants included representatives of development partners, NGOs
and civil society as well as delegates from member states. IGAD
decided to establish CEWARN in 2000, with a mandate to collect
information concerning outbreaks and escalation of potentially
violent conflict in the IGAD region, to analyze these, and to
develop case scenarios and formulate options for responses from
member states.
CEWARN became
operational in 2002, and it has enabled member states to intervene
early and prevent the outbreak or escalation of a number of violent
conflicts in the sub-region. It has had a special focus on
prevention and mitigation of cross-border pastoralist and related
conflicts, and has built up an impressive and advanced data-based
early warning system. It has also been successful in bringing
together state and non-state actors to collaborate in peace and
security matters, including aspects both of early warning and
response. CEWARN now, in fact, provides a well-established model
capable of emulation by other organizations and institutions in
these areas.
The mid-term
review meeting was officially opened by Ambassador Fisseha Yimer,
Special Advisor to Ethiopia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs who
underlined the need for CEWARN to work even harder to continue to
establish its relevance as a key factor in fulfilling IGAD's aims of
promoting and maintaining peace, security and stability. He
reiterated the commitment of the Ethiopian Government to support the
activities of CEWARN and other peace and security initiatives under
IGAD. Ethiopia, he underlined, has the firm belief that it is
impossible to achieve the vision of an integrated sub-region with
economic growth and prosperity without effective peace and security.
The aim
of CEWARN’s mid-term review meeting was to make the mechanisms more
effective and efficient. The meeting examined the extent to which
CEWARN’s strategy had been implemented, the challenges CEWARN had
encountered in the course of implementation, and the steps it was
planning to take to ensure full implementation of the agreed
strategy by 2011. The deliberations were held on the basis of an
assessment study conducted by a consultant. Participants critically
examined the study and provided detailed feedback to add to the
document. It was agreed that a smaller group should meet to finalize
the document before it was submitted to the policy organ of IGAD for
further consideration and guidance.
*****************
top |
|
IGAD’s
Inter-Parliamentary Union Executive Council meets in Nairobi
On Tuesday last
week, the Executive Council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union of IGAD
(IPU-IGAD) held its 4th session in Nairobi. In the chair
was IPU-IGAD’s Chairman, Ahmed Ibrahim Al Tahir, Speaker of Sudan’s
National Assembly. Also present were IPU-IGAD Vice-chairman,
Ambassador Teshome Toga, the Speaker of Ethiopia’s House of People’s
Representatives; Kennith Martende, Speaker of the Kenyan Parliament;
and Edward Ssekandi, Speaker of the Ugandan Parliament; the
Deputy-Speakers of the Djibouti Assembly (Houssein Omar Kawalieh)
and of the Kenyan Parliament (Farah Maalim) and the
Secretary-General of IPU-IGAD, Mr. Bourhan Daoud Ahmed. The
Secretary-General presented a report on the activities of the Union.
Draft terms of reference for appointments to the Secretariat and
rules of procedure for standing committees were reviewed and
adopted. The meeting also adopted a proposal to form an IPU-IGAD
network of women parliamentarians. It reiterated the need to
strengthen the Union and recommended that each member country
provide an item in their annual budgets for contributions to the
IPU-IGAD, and that the IGAD protocol should be amended to allow for
financial provision to the Union. It called for member states to
supply human resources for the Union secretariat, and to nominate
members to the Union’s Standing Committees as soon as possible.
The
meeting also discussed the objectives of the IPU-IGAD including
regional integration as a means to promoting prosperity and dealing
with the problems arising from climate change and environmental
degradation. The Executive Council congratulated the people and
government of Kenya on the successful referendum last month and the
adoption of a new constitution. It expressed the intention to
participate in the upcoming referendum in the Sudan, and to send an
IPU-IGAD delegation to assist. It condemned the violence in
Mogadishu on August 24th and the death of more than ten
members of the TFG parliament. It agreed to actively assist in
interventions in Somalia to help find a permanent solution there and
assist in the restoration of peace. In conclusion, the meeting
approved the draft agenda of the 4th Session of the
Speaker’s Conference, and decided that the 5th Executive
Council of the IPU-IGAD should be held in Djibouti in December.
*****************
top |
|
Eritrea’s
obsession with the so-called ‘occupied sovereign territories’
Eritrea’s
leaders seldom appear to have much use for the ordinary rules of
international law governing state to state relations. The set of
rules they appear to follow are ones that no other nation would find
it comfortable to live by. Indeed, their penchant for producing a
self-serving and selective interpretation is actually impressive. At
no time in their relations with the rest of the world have Eritrea’s
leaders ever admitted to being in the wrong, whatever the amount of
evidence. Any invasion of neighboring states by Eritrean forces is
invariably an act of self-defense. Support for extremists in Somalia
is a display of moral high ground in support of Eritrea’s ‘historic’
support for the peoples of Somalia. The killing of civilians by
terrorists is an act of defiance against external intervention.
Eritrea must be the only nation which agrees to the resolution of a
border dispute with its neighbor and denies the existence of that
same dispute at one and the same time. And all the time Eritrea’s
leaders repeatedly claim that Eritrea is a paragon of justice and a
victim of the highhandedness of super-powers and the international
community. The sanctions imposed by an almost unanimous vote of the
Security Council merely prove that the US is out to get Eritrea
because of its “principles”.
One thing
that is consistent about Eritrea is the unwillingness of its leaders
to admit to being in the wrong. It is always other entities or
issues that have nothing to do with the problem at hand that are
wrong. They make tenacious attempts to wiggle out of sanctions
without any attempt to rectify their mistakes. They have played the
victim in order to evade justice for so long that it has become
second nature. Whenever they appear to display even a modicum of
diplomatic flexibility, it is because they think they have caught a
fleeting glimpse of possible victory. But it isn’t long before they
return to their previous intransigence. It was no surprise that Lynn
Pasco, UN Under-Secretary-General for Political Affairs, on his
visit to Asmara this week was reportedly subject to a diatribe from
President Isaias once again: the Security Council’s sanctions were
“illegal, unjust and erroneous.” The view of Eritrea’s leaders of
what is illegal and unjust is quite divergent from the rest of the
international community. President Isaias’s views provided no
support for the view that Eritrea’s acceptance of Qatar mediation in
its dispute with Djibouti suggested any fundamental change of
attitude by Eritrea.
Another
issue we suspect was raised by President Isaias showed how detached
he is from ordinary interpretations of international law. The UN
Under-Secretary-General must have been lectured for hours on the
injustice of the Security Council, and its failure to “take action
against Ethiopia’s occupation of sovereign Eritrean territories [in
the last] eight years.” The Eritrean leader has been repeating this
nonsense for so long that he apparently believes there indeed are
“sovereign Eritrean territories” under Ethiopian occupation. It is
true that the decision of the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission
included territories currently administered by both countries should
be given to the other side. Any Eritrean claim to sovereign title
(or indeed any similar Ethiopian claim) remains fictitious in the
absence of any actual demarcation in accordance with the Algiers
agreement. The reason for this, of course, has been Eritrea’s
prevarications. And this is why Ethiopia has persistently called on
the Government of Eritrea to engage in dialogue in order to finally,
and physically, demarcate the border between the two countries.
Eritrea has adamantly refused to allow any such dialogue to
demarcate in accordance with international practices. Rather, it has
elevated the idea of ‘virtual demarcation’ to the status of a truth,
despite the fact it has no legal standing except in the imaginations
of Eritrea’s leaders. It is now an issue that only the two countries
can, and should address, between themselves; and the means to this
is to engage in dialogue not obsessive repetition of this alleged
claim of so-called “occupied sovereign territories”.
In fact,
as Eritrea’s leaders have made clear for several years, they are
most unlikely to withdraw this almost obsessive mantra. The claim of
“occupied Eritrean sovereign territories” has led to the suspension
of all kinds of political freedoms in Eritrea. It is this that is
supposed to justify the wholesale militarization of the Eritrean
society, the continuation of forced conscription. Thousands of
Eritreans have left and continue to leave the country every year.
Thousands more are jailed or fined for criticizing or opposing
conscription. Eritrean leaders even have the temerity to claim that
it is this “occupation” that explains Eritrea’s continuing support
for extremists not just within Ethiopia but also for terrorist
organizations in Somalia. It is this perverse reasoning which
‘explains’ why Eritrea has been, and is, involved in one kind of
conflict or another with all its neighbors.
It would,
of course, be rather easier, and more honest, to refrain from all
these efforts at destabilization, and try to mend fences with its
neighbors. However, it would be naïve to expect a regime so enamored
of its fictions to bring such activities to an end. As with so many
other claims by the regime in Asmara this is a smokescreen, but it
is a smokescreen which justifies its grip on Eritrea, and, indeed,
its very survival.
It
hardly needs to be emphasized that the international community needs
to be aware of the driving force behind the views of Asmara’s
leadership. Mr. Pascoe himself should be able to draw his own
conclusions from his visit. It is not the first time that he has met
with President Isaias and visited Eritrea. He is unlikely to have
been surprised by President Isaias’ continued insistence that the
UN, and everybody else, has got Somalia wrong, and that only Eritrea
understood the situation there. In fact, if President Isaias’ views
have been correctly reported, he may finally have begun to realize
that Eritrea’s support for extremist elements needs to be moderated.
However, his views of what constitutes ‘moderation’ are certainly
not those of most others. His partners have always been the most
radical elements in Al-Shabaab and Hizbul Islam. In the past any
such suggestion that Al-Shabaab might not include extremist elements
has been accompanied by continued Eritrean support for the
organization, and for its associated extremist group, Hizbul Islam,
which has always continued to enjoy substantial Eritrean military
and logistical backing. The TFG has consistently made it clear that
it is prepared to talk to any and all groups that reject extremism
and violence. There is no indication that Eritrea is yet prepared to
call a halt to its active support for opposition to the recognized
government of Somalia or the extremist elements responsible for so
much of the violence and destruction there.
*****************
top |
|
“Support
for Democracy and Human Rights in Ethiopia”
Last week, US
Senators Feingold and Leahy introduced a draft bill into the US
Senate. It was entitled ‘Support for Democracy and Human Rights in
Ethiopia, Act of 2010.’ Any bill that is introduced into the US
Senate is, of course, a matter of US internal affairs. And we
wouldn’t criticize Senators for anything they might wish to place
before the Senate of the US, even if it does deal with the internal
affairs of other countries. Indeed, we would entirely welcome
support for democracy in
Ethiopia.
As we have frequently emphasized, democracy, together with good
governance and respect for human rights, is a necessity for the
survival of Ethiopia and for the achievement of the eradication of
poverty, the main aim of government development strategy. This,
indeed, is why we spend a great deal of time and energy ensuring the
strengthening of democratic governance.
At the same time,
this bill is something of a puzzle. Under the heading ‘findings’, it
does contains sizeable factual errors and fails to notice numerous
relevant details. Senators Feingold and Leahy really ought to know
by now that Ethiopia, far from refusing to comply with the
arbitration of the Ethiopian Eritrean Border Commission, fully
accepted the Delimitations Decisions of the Commission nearly six
years ago, in November 2004. Since then,
Ethiopia
has made repeated efforts to encourage demarcation of the border
according to international practices, to enter into dialogue with
the government of Eritrea and to normalize relations. These efforts
have been repeatedly rebuffed by Eritrea. Eritrea has coupled this
with the takeover of the Temporary Security Zone between the two
countries and the arbitrary expulsion of the UN Mission, the
guarantor of the integrity of the TSZ, and another of whose jobs was
supposed to be oversight of the demarcation process. Eritrea has in
fact to all intents and purposes nullified the Cessation of
Hostilities Agreement of June 2000, the central plank of the peace
agreement which ended the war started by Eritrea in May 1998. It is
not Ethiopia which has made demarcation impossible.
The ‘finding’ on
the Somali Regional State is similarly inaccurate, making no mention
of, inter alia, such important developments as the peace deal
signed between the government and the United Western Somali
Liberation Front (UWSLF) in March, or the agreement currently being
negotiated between the government and the major faction of the
Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) which will be signed next
month. It makes no mention of recent major advances in the provision
of health, education, infrastructure, IT and energy supplies in the
Somali Regional State, nor of the significant administrative and
financial devolution down to woreda, even kebele, level.
The source of any
claim of “credible” reports of gross violations of human rights in
the Somali Regional State is the Asmara-based ONLF fraction,
refracted through Human Rights Watch, whose methodology and checking
procedures have been shown to be seriously flawed. In its last
report on the Ogaden region, over two years ago, HRW admitted
relying solely upon external, often telephonic, contacts with
refugees and ONLF sources, all outside Ethiopia. It made little or
no effort to establish the accuracy of claims on the ground. Other
reports, indeed, clearly demonstrated multiple errors in HRW’s
claims.
The other
difficulty with this bill is its failure to notice that a number of
the demands it makes have actually been going on for years. We have,
in ‘A Week in the Horn’ for example, listed details of the extensive
and regular education provided for all levels of the Ethiopian
Defense Forces in human rights and accountability. Any credible
allegations of abuse are automatically investigated; appropriate
punishment is given if proven. We would, however, admit that details
of such procedures are not normally released to the US Senate. It is
hardly the appropriate body to be kept informed of such internal
disciplinary matters. There is a major program for strengthening the
independence and capacity of the judiciary, supported by a number of
international donors, which has been going on for several years.
There are no political leaders who have been jailed for political
reasons; any in custody have been arrested on civil or criminal
charges. Humanitarian and development ‘entities’, including those of
the UN, are welcome anywhere in Ethiopia and have complete access
unless security preclude this, as for example close to the Eritrean
border, or in areas of the Somali Regional State where the ONLF was
carrying out terrorist attacks in 2007-2008.
It is, in
fact, disconcerting that two such prominent Senators should spend so
much time and energy on the internal affairs of a country with which
the US has a close and, we believe, a valuable relationship. We
would, in this context, have expected a real and particular effort
to get the facts straight. Equally, however, at the end of the day,
perhaps the biggest surprise is that Senators Feingold and Leahy
should concentrate on Ethiopia when there are so many more serious
concerns for the international community in our own region: the
dangers posed by the situation in Somalia, by the possibility of
expanding extremism and terrorism, the operations of Al-Shabaab and
piracy, the risks to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Sudan, and
the destabilization activities of Eritrea throughout our region
which have after all been recognized as a major problem by the
international community. It is ironic that the two Senators even
appear unaware of Security Council Resolution 1907. This is indeed
emblematic of the flaws in their draft bill. All these are very real
threats to international peace and security. It is hardly surprising
that we find it difficult to understand why Senators Feingold and
Leahy should focus on allegations, most unchecked and largely
inaccurate, concerning Ethiopia.
top |
|
Core
Principles of Ethiopia’s Foreign Policy: Ethiopia-United States
relations
Ethiopia and the US
have had a long and valuable relationship going back to 1903 when
the first US ambassador arrived in Addis Ababa to present his
credentials to the Emperor Minelik, though at a people-to-people
level relations were much older. There have of course been
occasional hiccups and sometimes more. Certainly relations during
the Derg’s military dictatorship between 1974 and 1991 were poor but
this was an aberration. Ambassadorial relations were restored in
1992 and, indeed since the EPRDF took power, relations have been
normal, and usually warm, for the last nineteen years.
In fact, since the early 1990s, Ethiopia and the US have largely
maintained more or less effective co-operation in matters of
security though the relationship hasn’t been as close as some
critics have tried to suggest. Ethiopia has never been a US
“poodle”. It has always acted in accordance with its own national
interests, interests which have not been inconsistent with US
regional interests. They have sometimes differed. However, that the
position of the US on the one hand and of Ethiopia and IGAD
countries on Somalia, and on security in the Horn of Africa, for
example, coincides was made very clear once again at the meeting on
the sidelines of the Kampala Summit. Equally, Ethiopia’s commitment
to the eradication of poverty with emphasis on sustainable
development, good governance, democracy, and respect for human
rights for both Ethiopia and the Horn of Africa are commitments that
we certainly share with the United States.
At another extreme there have been claims suggesting there are
continuous and serious problems between the two countries. This too
is an exaggeration. The truth, as might be expected, lies somewhere
between. Equally, there should be no complacency over the amount of
activity that needs to be carried out to keep the relationship on an
even keel. In other words, as with any mutually beneficial
relationship, both parties will always need to work at the
relationship. This is normal. There have been irritants on both
sides and some will no doubt continue. One is the reporting of the
Amharic Service of the Voice of America which has caused real
concern to Ethiopia over several years. A number of detailed
complaints have had little apparent effect. Similarly, ill-founded
comments from legislators, sometimes linked to opposition groups,
can cause concern. There have been times when some Congressmen have
been outspoken critics of politics in Ethiopia despite displaying a
significant lack of knowledge of events. As we mentioned above, the
latest draft bill from Senators Feingold and Leahy is a surprising
example of slapdash work, failing to note a number of recent
developments, and we would suggest ignoring far more serious actual
and potential dangers to international peace and security in the
Horn of Africa. This is hardly something that assists the building
of mutual confidence in a successful US-Ethiopia relationship. It is
disappointing to find two such experienced and capable Senators
responsible for such a performance.
Of course loose language, on either side, always poses the danger
that it might undermine confidence or weaken the trust of both
parties in sustainable links. There have been statements by US
authorities which might, or indeed have, created misunderstandings.
As Prime Minister Meles noted last month “There are issues on which
officials in the US feel strongly and differently and there are
issues on which we feel strongly and differently from those of the
United States”. Referring to what he called “the rather difficult
stretch we have had in the past six or seven months [being] by and
large behind us”, he added “We will agree to disagree on those
issues we do not agree on, and we agree to work together on issues
of common interest.” There is, in fact, always a need for both sides
to treat their relationship with care. Certainly, it is something to
which Ethiopia is unfailingly committed because it significantly
values the association.
Naturally, no relationship is static, nor should it be. It can be
expected that in the next few years, economic links and development
issues are going to become even more important than they are today
in connections between the two countries. One of the central
elements of Ethiopia’s foreign policy today is working towards the
successful achievement of the country’s objectives in the economic
sphere. The US has been extremely generous in the provision of its
valuable humanitarian and social sector assistance. Ethiopia is, and
will remain, deeply grateful for all its aid and assistance. But
while assistance to Ethiopia in these critical areas has been
admirable, the US has stayed aloof from assistance in structural
projects in development in the last decades. Its role in
infrastructure, for example, has been limited. These are areas which
are going to be among the most important in shaping the country’s
future over the next decades. We believe it is indisputable that
laying the foundation of strong ties between our two countries over
the next decades will also be in the interest of the US.
Ethiopia is changing and changing fast. Its role in the
Inter-Governmental Authority for Development (IGAD), as in the
region of the Horn of Africa, in Eastern Africa and in Africa in
general is continuing to grow. This is not self-congratulatory, but
realistic. It is something that is becoming apparent in the
pro-active role that Ethiopia has been playing in the AU on a number
of issues including climate change. All this is commensurate with
Ethiopia’s steady progress in the economic area and in development.
Following seven years of double digit growth, Ethiopia has realistic
hopes to become a middle income country in the next decade or so. It
will achieve many, if not all, of the Millennium Development Goals
by 2015.
The relationship between the US and Ethiopia is based on mutual
benefit and, we believe it should also be based on mutual respect.
Given its value, we would also emphasize that a realistic and
accurate evaluation of progress in Ethiopia is in the interests of
both countries. Despite the apparent views of Senator Feingold,
Ethiopia, we should emphasize once again, is a stable and democratic
country. It is involved in a series of major political and economic
changes in developing its nine-state federal democracy. Certainly,
this may still be a work in progress, and many developments have yet
to fulfill their potential but that potential is clearly there. We
believe that this needs to be taken into consideration in any
evaluation of the relationship between the US and Ethiopia. Indeed,
how Ethiopia is developing and how this should be evaluated is
surely relevant to US national interests in this region of Africa
and more widely. It is this that must underpin any relationship that
is based on the twin pillars of mutual respect and mutual benefit.
top
| |
