• On Sunday, the two committees of the TFG and the ARS set up under the Djibouti Agreement ended a second round of discussions in Djibouti. The High Level (political) Committee and the Joint Security Committee met for several days last week with representatives attending from the United Nations, the African Union, the EU, the League of Arab States and the Organisation of Islamic Conference, various interested states and Somali civil society. Progress was disappointing though the parties agreed to continue their political dialogue and make efforts to move forward on political co-operation, reconciliation, justice and human rights. They agreed to set up sub-committees to address other areas including institutional capacity building and the constitution. They agreed to set up a Board to provide a mechanism to facilitate and co-ordinate responses to the humanitarian situation and called on the international community for urgent responses to the current crisis. Over two and a half million people are estimated to be in urgent need of assistance due to drought, high food prices and conflict. On the security front the two parties agreed to conduct assessments in the field, and meet within fifteen days to jointly develop viable military modalities for carrying out the ceasefire agreed at the signing of the Djibouti Agreement on August 19. They agreed to hold another meeting of the High Level and Joint Security Committees within thirty days. Prime Minister Nur ‘Adde’ returned from Djibouti to Mogadishu to brief the President on the Djibouti meeting yesterday, flying into Mogadishu airport. He held a press conference to brief journalists today at which he reiterated that those groups which had not participated in the Djibouti Agreement could still join in the national reconciliation process. The Prime Minister said progress on some issues has been made during last week’s talks, but others remained outstanding. 

In fact, progress over the central issue of the ceasefire remains slow. There are still divisions within both parties. TFG leaders have continued to argue over the implementation of the Addis Ababa ‘road map’, and the guarantors of that agreement have been making their frustration clear. Equally, disagreements remain within the opposition ARS and it is far from clear how much control the ARS actually has over some of the groups involved in fighting. It certainly has no control over Al-Shabaab which, in apparent response to the latest Djibouti meeting, launched a series of attacks in Mogadishu at the beginning of this week. In full denial of any claimed Islamic credentials, Al-Shabaab has been continuing its attacks during the holy month of Ramadan. Nor has it confined its attacks to AMISOM or TFG security forces. As so often, Al-Shabaab attacks made little or no effort to pinpoint the alleged targets. On Tuesday night, for example, Al-Shabaab apparently intended to attack an AMISOM base. Its mortar fire reportedly killed at least 11 civilians and wounded 40. There were no AMISOM casualties. It is hardly surprising that hundreds of civilians have fled the areas around the fighting. Indeed, Al-Shabaab has been strongly criticised by Mogadishu residents for its attacks on AMISOM forces and for the civilian casualties it has caused. Notwithstanding reports on the BBC and other news agencies, no Ethiopian troops have been involved in any of the fighting in Mogadishu this week. In parenthesis, it mioght be added that the BBC report of heavy fighting today is simply untrue. Despite Al-Shabaab claims, it is clear that the presence or otherwise of Ethiopian forces is irrelevant to Al-Shabaab actions. It has made it quite clear it is biding for power in Somalia for itself, and for the highly unpopular creation of a hard-line Salafi state in pursuit of which it is quite prepared to use extensive terrorist tactics against civilians, adding to its long-term policy of assassinations of moderates and government officials. Al-Shabaab has made it quite clear it is not prepared to negotiate in any way, putting itself firmly outside any process of peace or reconciliation.     

Any successes of Al-Shabaab have actually been in propaganda not on the ground. During the week, it managed to persuade the international media that it had closed Mogadishu airport. It has not, in fact, done so, though its threats did deter local Somali carriers (with clan links to some Al-Shabaab leaders) from continuing to operate despite the fact that recent mortar attacks have failed to come near the runway and have mostly fallen well outside the airport perimeter, posing no threat to planes arriving or leaving. Prime Minister Nur ‘Adde’ today called on local airlines to restart their operations.  Similarly, the reports of Al-Shabaab taking over Kismayo and numerous other towns in southern Somalia are simply untrue. Some Al-Shabaab fighters were involved in the attack on Kismayo which ousted a local clan ‘warlord’, but since then there have been extensive discussions within the different groups holding the city over the distribution of authority. Al-Shabaab has claimed numerous successes where local leaders, with no links to Al-Shabaab or even the small Asmara-based ARS faction headed by Sheikh ‘Aweys’, have established their authority ordering out TFG appointed governors. In fact, three major regions, Bay, Bakool and Gedo, have elected administrative structures up to gubernatorial level. One of the main elements of the Addis Ababa ‘road map’ is the implementation of a similar administration of Benadir region, which includes Mogadishu. The recent attacks by Al-Shabaab in Mogadishu are clearly intended to try and impede progress towards this.  The Prime Minister met today with the temporary Benadir Administration, to urge it to move forward quickly to set up the consultative councils at district and regional level called for under the Addis Ababa ‘road map’. The committee which has a life of only fifteen days under the ‘road map’ has requested an extension in order to complete its work.

Meanwhile, the African Union’s Peace and Security Council meeting  in New York on Monday welcomed the Djibouti Agreement and the Addis Ababa ‘road map’, encouraging all parties to work together and reiterated its call for member states and the international community to enhance the capacity of the TFG and its defence and security forces. It condemned all acts of violence and terrorism and appealed once again to member states to provide support for AMISOM to allow it to reach its authorized strength, and stressed once again the need for the deployment of a UN peacekeeping operation to take over from AMISOM and support the long-term stabilization and post-conflict reconstruction of Somalia.

Two days later, on Wednesday, there was also a meeting of IGAD foreign ministers in New York to discuss the problem of the relationship between the leaders of the TFG. An understanding was reached to convene a summit in Nairobi as early as practical, to which the President of Somalia, the Prime Minister and the parliamentarians would be invited. It was felt that the situation warranted such a meeting as the fractured nature of the political process has now become the main threat to the establishment of an effective administration and the successful conclusion of the transitional period, which ends in ten months.. 

• It has become something of a trademark of Eritrea’s foreign policy to launch violent attacks on any third party that fails to sympathize with its belligerent stance in its relations with its neighbours. At various times the United Nations, the African Union and, increasingly in recent months, the United States have been vilified for failing to force Ethiopia to succumb to Eritrea’s views on the settlement of disputes between the two countries. The United Nations has been attacked for failing to impose mechanical demarcation of the boundary on Ethiopia. Despite its own violations of the Algiers Agreements, Eritrea wanted the United Nations to act as enforcer for its own position. Rebuffed by the UN, Eritrea has displayed characteristic outrage at being refused its demands, accusing the Security Council of abdicating its legal responsibilities and claiming Security Council resolutions had no legal substance. The African Union has long been vilified by Eritrea as an “ineffective” regional body. The reason is clear. The AU, like the OAU before it, has consistently refused to applaud Eritrea’s adventurism in the region and the rest of Africa. In 1998, the then OAU requested Eritrea to withdraw its invading forces from Ethiopian territories it had illegally occupied. It also played a critical part of facilitating the negotiations which led to the signing of the Algiers Agreements and was one of the Witnesses to the Agreement. The AU has been similarly critical of Eritrea’s latest adventure in invading Djibouti.

Now the increasing focus of Eritrea’s criticisms has shifted to the United States, with almost daily, and increasingly virulent, attacks. It is worth noticing that these scurrilous attacks against the US and other western countries, do not indicate any genuine oppostioin based on principle, as Eritrea would like to pretend. Eritrea’s record provides clear evidence to the contrary. Indeed it was only a year or two ago, that Eritrea was offering “blanket flyover rights, the use of Eritrea’s two major ports and the use of the new airport near the port of Massawa that is able to accommodate all types of aircraft”,  to the United States. Eritrean authorities were stressing that Eritrea’s strategic location in the Horn of Africa, with more than 600 miles of coastline along the Red Sea, located just across from Saudi Arabia and Yemen, provided a unique resource for US use. However, when the US failed to see that “the time has come for the US to capitalize on this unique opportunity”, Eritrea’s attitude changed sharply. The US became responsible for concocting “endless diversionary ploys and schemes.” It had misused its “leverage” in the Security Council to paralyze implementation of border demarcation. Earlier this year, President Issayas even wrote the President of the Security Council calling on the council to examine “the acts of destabilization that the US Administration is fomenting day and night in our region”. All this apparently because, in Eritrea’s view, the US refused to put the necessary pressure on Ethiopia to accept Eritrea’s position on border demarcation.      

The Week in the Horn cannot pretend to speak for the US, nor for the UN nor the AU, but it is clear the real focus of these attacks on third parties is certainly Ethiopia. This is the kind of mentality that effectively blocks progress towards peace in this region. Solutions cannot be imposed by one side or the other, or by third parties. Eritrea knows well that no government in Ethiopia would accept the sort of imposed solution of which it has been dreaming. That is why some of the unfriendly proposals on Ethiopia and Eritrea, coming from the US Congress, are so dangerous; they feed the delusions of Eritrea. This is why Eritrea still refuses to make any move towards dialogue and negotiation. Eritrea should realize that solutions for the boundary or any other dispute can only be found by the two parties working together in a peaceful and legal manner. Vituperation will not get either of us anywhere.   

• To improve the efficiency and effectiveness of cargo movement to and from Djibouti (which handles 80-90% of Ethiopia’s imports and exports), and minimize business costs, Ethiopia is introducing a new system of cargo transport. This is a multi-modal system to include different modes of transport covering all inland and maritime movement of imports and exports.  Central to this new system is the establishment of dry ports. The Ministry of Transport and Communications proposed these two years ago and the Council of Ministers subsequently endorsed the creation of the Ethiopian Dry Ports Enterprise (EDPE).  

Two dry ports are being set up. One is at Mojo in Oromia Regional State and will serve as a clearance centre for southern and central areas. It is nearing completion and should be operational early next month. The other is at Semera, in Afar Regional State, and is expected to act as a clearance centre for commodities from the northern part of the country. It is expected to become operational early next year. Each dry port will have the capacity to handle 13,824 loaded import containers; 11520 empty containers, and 9600 containers for export as well as 9000 Roll-on Roll-off cargoes. A number of similar dry ports are going to be constructed in other major economic centres.

Last weekend a workshop on multi-modal transport was organized by the Ministry of Transport and Communications in Adama. Participants included cargo forwarding, shipping and clearing agents and representatives of business associations as well as senior government officials. Central to the discussions were the importance of a multi-modal transport system in facilitating the fast growing foreign trade and investment activities of the country. In his opening remarks, the Minister of Transport and Communications, Mr. Juneidi Sado underscored the vital role that multi-modal transport system will now be playing in sustaining the rapid and ongoing economic growth and development. The Minister emphasized that this new method for moving goods would enable Ethiopia to compete more effectively in world markets and handle an ever increasing volume of export and import trade. Officials from the Ministry of Transport and Communications and the Dry Port Service Enterprise told the workshop that Ethiopia had been significantly affected by the natural inefficiency of the previous system. The dry ports are expected to alleviate many of the problems. The volume of Ethiopian import/export traffic through Djibouti rose from 3.9 million tonnes in 2006/7 to 4.6 million tones in 2007/8. 

• The 7^th Organizational Conference of the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) was held at Awassa from September 15 to 19. It followed congresses of the four parties that make up the EPRDF, the Tigrai Peoples Liberation Front, the Amhara National Democratic Movement, the Oromo Peoples Democratic Organization and the Southern Nations, Nationalities and Peoples Democratic Movement. Last week’s conference was attended by representatives from a number of foreign political parties who took the opportunity to exchange experiences. Among those present were delegates from the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) the National Congress Party (NCP) of Sudan, the Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), the General Congress Party of Yemen, the Indian National Congress (INC), the National Resistance Movement of Uganda, the Rwandan Patriotic Front and the Eritrean Democratic Alliance. The presence of these parties at the EPRDF conference is a clear indication that friendship does not require the sharing of a common ideology or philosophy.  

In a solidarity message the Chinese Communist Party delegate said that the results registered in development and peace, and in the socio-economic sectors since the downfall of the Derg’s regime, had been laudable. He praised the efforts to extricate people from poverty through the realization of rapid growth. The delegate from National Congress Party of Sudan noted the peoples of Sudan and Ethiopia had similar cultures and added that the friendly relations the EPRDF had forged among neighboring countries and its contribution to peace and stability in the Horn provided an exemplary example for other African countries. The Sudanese People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM) delegate emphasized the gains from giving priority to rural development and democracy in alleviating poverty. The Indian National Congress delegate on his part said the INC and EPRDF shared great similarities as both stood for the farmers and the poor as well as working to enable people, with various languages, religions and cultures, to live in harmony through democracy in a federal state. The Rwandan Patriotic Front delegate expressed her deep gratitude for the consistent support the government and people, and especially the EPRDF, had given to Rwandans at the time of their fight against genocide. The Eritrean Democratic Alliance delegate noted that the present gap in economic growth and development between Ethiopia and Eritrea demonstrated the appropriateness of the ERPDF’s strategy in the struggle against poverty and backwardness. Also participating in the conference were representatives from the EPRDF Support Forum, of Ethiopians living in the Diaspora, who underlined Diaspora support for EPRDF efforts to build a single economic and political community in Ethiopia.

• Last week, US Congressman, Representative Donald Payne (Democrat, New Jersey) addressed a gathering of Ethiopians in Washington, D.C. The apparent purpose was to urge the community to support the Democratic presidential candidate, Senator Barack Obama, in his bid to become the next President of the United States. We do not, of course, have any intent to be involved in the domestic politics of another state,  even of a close friend. However, when a US Congressman uses a domestic political campaign event to vilify Ethiopia, it does raise some questions why he goes to such lengths to try to  tarnish Ethiopia’s image and damage the good relations between Ethiopia and the United States.

In his address to the meeting, Representative Payne claimed he was particularly concerned by political and human rights conditions in Ethiopia. He cited a litany of unsubstantiated allegations of violations. Ethiopia, of course, does not claim to have a perfect record in its efforts to build a strong democratic society, but it is, nevertheless, a country that has regular free multi-party elections, a thriving free press, a constitution and mechanisms to address human rights issues including a Human Rights Commission and an Ombudsman's Office. Is there room for improvement? Certainly. That is why both government and people continue efforts to strengthen the judicial and political institutions necessary to achieve and sustain improved performances in all areas of democratization including the protection of human rights.

If Representative Payne is really genuine in his frequently stated concern for human rights and democracy, it is surprising that he has made so little of Eritrea, a country he visited early this year. Eritrea, after all, has no constitution, refuses to hold elections, only allows one political party, the ruling Peoples Front for Democracy and Justice, does not allow any independent media, has been designated as a country of particular concern for severe violations of religious freedom for the last four years,and has been roundly criticized by Reporters Without Borders and by all Eritrean Human Rights organizations, all of which are obliged to operate from exile. Mr. Payne is also no doubt aware of the eleven ministers and senior officials, and a number of journalists, rounded up by the Eritrean government on September 18, 2001. Held incommunicado, without charge or trial, for seven years, nothing has been heard of them. Thousands more are detained indefinitely, again without charge or trial, many for attempting to escape national conscription which for tens of thousands has lasted for more more than a decade. Representative Payne's reluctance to comment on Eritrea's appalling record on human rights while continuing to vilify Ethiopia, suggests he is driven less by any concern for human rights than by his own personal anti-Ethiopian agenda.

Representative Payne also told his audience that under an Obama administration, “we will not turn a blind eye to abuses just because some governments pretend to be allies in the war on terror.” This is obviously an allusion to Ethiopia which the United States certainly considers a friend. We have no knowledge whether Mr. Payne is accurate in his view of Senator Obama's possible policies. However, his effort to raise support for Senator Obama among members of the more extreme Ethiopian opposition elements in the Diaspora, by promising hostility to the present government of Ethiopia, is scarcely a friendly act. It is also perhaps unfair to the Presidential candidate himself who appears far too statesmanlike to associate himself with such disgraceful activity. We would recall that Representative Payne was the main architect of HR 2003, a much criticized bill which he claimed would support human rights and democracy in Ethiopia. The bill failed to materialize in part because it was seen as ill-conceived and hardly conducive to good US/Ethiopian relations, nor, we might add, to US/African relations either. In his speech last week, Representative Payne made clear his regret for the failure, claiming that the Government of Ethiopia had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to kill it. The Government did not: it had no need to.

• It is no secret that Ethiopia has once again been affected by drought and consequent food shortages, as have most of the countries in our region. In the last few months, Ethiopian Government institutions, donor governments and international institutions, government or non-government alike, have redoubled efforts to assist those in need. Efforts are continuing and a number of governments have donated extra assistance for those suffering from drought and rising food and energy prices. Reports indicate the situation is beginning to stabilize in some of the originally affected areas and the main maize harvest is due to start soon in the south, but with different agro-climatic zones and a variable time-frame for rains there are still areas of serious need. The Ethiopian government and people are eternally grateful to a multitude of institutions and selfless individuals for making it possible for Ethiopians in need to be cared for at this most difficult and trying time. These institutions and individuals know that the victims of natural vicissitudes are not to blame for the calamity they face. But the charitable convictions of such institutions and individuals are now being overshadowed by increasing attempts to politicize humanitarian aid. This is an emerging, indeed a disquieting, phenomenon and one worth scrutinizing.

Humanitarian assistance, for people affected by natural disasters and the sort of complex emergencies from which Ethiopia is currently suffering, has a long history. Originally, the organizations devoted to humanitarian assistance were limited in their numbers and capacities. They generally adhered to principles of independence, impartiality and neutrality, and scrupulously complied with these in human catastrophes of any magnitude. Any divergence was rapidly denounced by the organizations themselves. It was these principles that constituted the link between the organizations, the state authorities and those in need. Over the years, however, the numbers of organizations providing humanitarian assistance, and the amount of money they manage, have increased exponentially, largely due to the almost biblical proportions of new humanitarian challenges. Many of these new bodies were no longer prepared to provide food aid or medicine. Their members were also political activists, focused not just on the catastrophes that required aid and assistance but on other issues. They were no longer neutral, independent and impartial, operating out of moral conviction, but political actors in their own right, lobbyists for their cause and important constituents of a political elite. They can and do sway votes in national elections, and have political roles in their own countries while using their humanitarian organizations. Parallel to this, the attention and coverage of the international media has also been transformed, and these organizations and the media happily feed off each other. The media publicizes the work of the humanitarian agencies and the organizations benefit from the outpouring of public sympathy for their actions and assistance for the victims of disaster. This in turn propels politicians in the aid-sourcing countries to take their opportunity, and respond to the concerns of their constituencies. Recipient countries and direct beneficiaries all-too-often become no more than the objects of patronizing hand-outs and providers of graphic, often obscene, pictures for prime-time television and newspapers. This, in turn, encourages involvement of state actors and further politicizes humanitarian work. They feed upon each other rather than impact usefully on the supposed objects of their charity. Inevitably, growing numbers of non-governmental groups in any one geographical area have consequences for increased politicization, resource mobilization and expenditure.

Ethiopia has been one of the areas most affected by these developments in humanitarian aid. Before the fall of the military regime, most such organizations were kept out. Subsequently, Ethiopia has hosted a significant number of non-governmental organizations claiming to provide humanitarian assistance or undertake development projects. Many have complemented government developmental efforts and assisted in the provision of aid to people in need, making up one element of government strategy. In the long run, of course, it is economic development, investment and democratization which will ensure the well-being of those affected, for example, by drought. As part of its efforts to mitigate the effects of such problems, the Government put in place an early warning system for the prevention of natural disasters, working closely with international agencies. The agency involved has recently been restructured, enlarging its responsibilities to meet the challenges that such emergencies represent more effectively. The Government will continue to strengthen the institutional and legal structures responsible for identifying and providing lasting solutions to such humanitarian crises.

One critical aspect of these efforts is the empowerment of local communities to participate in finding lasting solutions in the design and implementation of development polices. In fact, the decentralization of decision making to local level will eventually make widespread inroads in tackling some of the existing structural problems. The current process of enacting legislation for charities and societies is part of the Government's effort to create an enabling environment for the operation of the still increasing number of non-government organizations and actors. This will ensure transparent and predictable processes for accreditation, and allow such bodies to carry out their mandates in full compliance with Ethiopian law. The draft legislation is a work in progress. It has involved extensive consultations with stakeholders and external partners, and the draft is now undergoing its third revision. The institution of a modern legal framework, drawing on the best practices from around the world, together with the efforts to restructure Government agencies providing for early warning, prevention and response to emergencies, is meant to guarantee that no fatalities will be caused by a lack of the necessary structures. The Government is determined to do its utmost to ensure all those in need receive care. It is a major priority. Certainly, in the long run, the socio-economic development of the country is the only way to provide a sustainable response. In the meantime, however, it is necessary to address these challenges, of provision of assistance at need and of providing an acceptable framework in which all non-governmental organizations can operate in accordance with acceptable norms of  humanitarian assistance and respect for the minimum standards of objectivity, independence and impartiality. Indeed, it might be argued that it is now time for the United Nations and other forums to deliberate on suitable solutions to restore integrity and confidence in the real ideals of humanitarian aid.