28/03/2008
· Prime Minister Nur Hassan ‘Adde’ of Somalia paid a visit to Addis Ababa this week, March 26-28. During his visit, the Prime Minister held extensive discussions with Foreign Minister Seyoum. He also attended the signing ceremony at the AU Headquarters for the Peace Facility Fund given by the Italian Government to the AU. Out of the 40 million Euros of the fund, a significant, if unspecified, amount will be going to support the capacity of the TFG. During his discussions with Minister Seyoum, Prime Minister Nur ‘Adde’ underlined the commitment of his government to continue with the reconciliation efforts to achieve la sting peace and security in Somalia. The need to reorganize the security institutions of the TFG to meet current challenges in an effective and proper way was underlined. Minister Seyoum recalled the recent visit he had made to Baidoa to meet the leadership of the TFG, and emphasized the priorities of reconciliation in Benadir, Galgadud and Lower Juba, the need for security sector reform, and the institutional capacity building that still needs to be carried out. More than 35 senior TFG officials who recently completed their training in Bishoftu, Ethiopia, have now returned to Mogadishu strengthening the TFG’s capacity in revenue collection and budget management. One of their first jobs has been the presentation of the budget for 2008 to the cabinet. The need to give priority to the establishment of the Benadir Council was also underlined, as the Council will have the mandat e to endorse the executive body of the Benadir administration now being set up. On reconciliation, it was agreed that consideration must be given to those forces that are ready for peace, and a particular emphasis placed upon progress internally.
A EU delegation from Nairobi visited Mogadishu this week. The delegation met and held discussions with TFG officials, representatives of civil society, and elders, including representatives of the Hawiye Leadership Council. Sources close to the delegation indicate that the meeting with the HLC produced some mixed messages. There were suggestions that the HLC was ready to participate in the growing process of reconciliation, but because it also expected the TFG to collapse, it also wanted to work for an alternative scenario outside the framework of the TFG. Some of the comments made including references to over two million people having left Mogadishu in the last year were clear exaggerations. It is not clear who these contradictory view s represented, whether they might be caused by differences of opinion within the council or whether they were caused by pressure from Al-Shabaab supporters. Despite its name the Hawiye Leadership Council does not represent the Hawiye clan as a whole. Its support is largely drawn from only two Haber Gidir sub-clans, the Salabaan and the Dudoble. Even the Ayr, the largest and most important of the five main Haber Gidir sub-clans, and the most vocal opponent of the TFG, has its own organization. It still remains unclear just how far there is a genuine commitment to peace and reconciliation among some elements of the internal opposition to the TFG, or indeed among all elements of the TFG itself. With the external opposition also seriously split, there is still some considerable way to go before the reconciliation process launched by Prime Minister Nur ‘Adde’ can be seen to be making real progress.
Meanwhile, Prime Minister Nur Hassan ‘Adde’ is now down in Nairobi where he is attending the meeting on Somalia’s Finance and Economic Issues, called by the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Somalia, Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah. The theme of the meeting is that “to successfully complete the transition to the next stage of stability in Somalia, there is a need to have a broad view and a new approach on the key economic and financial issue facing Somalia”. High-level international speakers, Somali and international business people, members of the TFG as well as representatives of the World Bank, the International Finance Corporation and other bodies are attending the two-day meeting. Topics include the advancement of peace in Somalia, economic prospects and its macroeconomic situation and investment possibilities. Although the organizers of the meeting might have had plans for discreet political encounters around the conference, it is not clear if this will succeed. There appears to be a need for greater consensus within the TFG on how to proceed in this area.
Today the Peace and Security Council of the African Union, holding its 116th meeting in Addis Ababa, issued a statement after being briefed on the situation in Somalia. The Council reiterated its support for the Transitional Federal Institutions (TFIs) and the need to seize the opportunity that exists to restore lasting peace and reconciliation in Somalia. The Council expressed its appreciation for the work of AMISOM, and looked forward to the early deployment of the pledged contingents from Nigeria and Ghana. It appealed again to AU member states for the required logistical and financial support for AMISOM, and reiterated its appeal to the UN Security Council to authorize a UN peacekeeping operation to take over from AMISOM as soon as possible. The Council also reiterated its s trong condemnation of the threats and the acts of violence carried out by those seeking to undermine the political process, hinder the operations of AMISOM and undermine regional peace and stability. The Council urged the UN Security Council, in line with the resolution passed on February 20 this year, to take measures against those who sought to prevent or block a peaceful political process, which threatened AMISOM or the TFIs, or indeed take any action undermining stability in Somalia or the region.
· In the next few days, the United Nations Security Council is expected to take some decisions over the Ethiopia-Eritrea situation. The Security Council failed to meet this week as expected. The first of the issues that must be dealt with relates primarily to the humiliating and dangerous manner in which UNMEE was evicted from Eritrea. The Council has so far hesitated to adopt punitive measures against Eritrea. One reason was apparently the fear of some Security Council members that the safety of remaining UNMEE personnel could be jeopardized by violent reactions from the Eritrean government. Another excuse was the co nsideration that as Eritrea was already on the brink of economic and political disaster and increasingly isolated, additional punitive measures would not be effective. One thing all members did agree was that Eritrea’s recent activities against UNMEE, and the threat posed to all UN peacekeeping operations, was unacceptable and must not constitute a precedent. Members are yet to agree on the strength of the measures they will take. However, Ethiopia certainly expects the Security Council to see through Eritrea’s antics. These include the latest Eritrean letter to the Secretary-General, a rather obviously transparent attempt to confuse the situation and to suggest that Eritrea is responsive to the Security Council. It has all the hallmarks of a rather blatant exercise in cynical public relations, bearing no relationship to Eritrean actions over several years. The letter, of March 25, from the President of Eritrea to the Secretary-General actually underlines the disdain with which Eri trea views matters of safety and security for UN peacekeeping personnel. The letter even claims that fuel supplies are a minor matter. They are not. The lives of the UN personnel depended on this supply, and still the letter has the audacity to call this fundamental matter no more than tangential.
Foreign Minister Seyoum today made it clear that Ethiopia recognized the difficulties that the Secretary-General has been facing in his efforts to resolve the difference between Ethiopia and Eritrea. In a letter today, he referred to President Issayas’ letter as a blatant public relations exercise, intended to influence the anticipated Security Council resolution on UNMEE. The Foreign Minister emphasized the seriousness of the issue and hoped the Security Council would not allow itself to be hoodwinked by such a facile effort to direct attention away from Eritrea’s recent behavior. Minister Seyoum also strongly reiterated that the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities, and the humiliation of UNMEE, including the threats to UNMEE personnel, could not be considered tangential matters.
Ethiopia as a party to the Algiers Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities and as a member of the United Nations is convinced that the Security Council will reject Eritrea’s lame excuses and hold Eritrea to account for its recent actions. Nor can it believe that Eritrea’s attempt to nullify the Algiers Agreements through a series of illegalities will be sanctioned by the Council. Equally, any decisions on UNMEE’s future will be invalid if they do not make it entirely clear that the Algiers Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities remains completely valid. In his letter, President Issayas repeated the allegation that Ethiopia occupies Eritrean territory. This is a typical role reversal by an aggressor; quick to cry foul when it is criticized despite its own responsibility for t he current situation. The Ethiopia Eritrea Neutral Claims Commission found Eritrea liable for violating Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter by its invasion of Ethiopia in May 1998. Eritrea’s comments are no more than an excuse to reject dialogue and peaceful co-existence. It is impossible at the current time to identify areas which might currently be under the control of either side or which may change in the future. Eritrea’s apparent softening of language, suggesting it fully accepts the Algiers Agreements, is no more than a transparent ploy to divert attention, meant to minimize the condemnation of the Security Council and plead for leniency. The Council is also expected to comment on the need for a peaceful resolution of the dispute and on the primary responsibility of the parties for the implementation of the Algiers Agreement. Here again Eritrea will have the chance to abandon its belligerent behavior and settle its differences with Ethiopia in a peaceful manner, wheth er directly or through the third party facilitation already offered by the Secretary-General.
· On 28 March 2008, Ambassador Sahle-work Zewde, Director-General for African Affairs and Permanent Representative of Ethiopia to the AU and the UNECA signed, on behalf of the Government, the Convention of the African Energy Commission. This Convention was adopted at the 37th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the OAU held in Lusaka, Zambia on 11 July 2001. It entered into force on 13 December 2006 after fifteen (15) ratification instruments were deposited. Currently, some nineteen (19) Member States of the African Union have ratified the Convention. The Convention has established an African Energy Commission, which is based in Algiers. The Commission is entrusted, inter alia, with the task of:
Mapping out energy development policies for the AU, as well as strategies and plans based on sub-regional, regional, and continental development priorities
Advising and encouraging the development of human resources in the energy sector in particular through training; and
Providing technical assistance to States, Regional Economic Communities and other stakeholders in the energy sector.
In the coming years, the Commission is expected to a play a pivotal role in encouraging the use of energy to promote and support rapid economic and social development in Africa and assist in the eradication of poverty, the fight against desertification and in improving the standard and quality of life of citizenry. For its part, Ethiopia has started the constitutional process for ratifying this and the other conventions of the African Union it has signed. Once it becomes a State party to this Convention, Ethiopia will play its part to ensure the success of the Energy Commission by working closely with all stakeholders.
· This week, Al Ahram ran a piece on Ethiopia in Somalia in its weekly Opinion in Focus ("Taking Chances" by Galal Nassar). It could hardly have been more inaccurate. The article claims Islamic Forces were making significant progress in Somalia at the expense of Ethiopian troops while Eritrea and the Ogaden National Liberation Front were merely waiting for the right moment to launch fresh assaults on Ethiopia. Mr. Nassar clearly knows very little about current events in Somalia, Eritrea or the Horn of Africa, and he has even less understanding of Ethiopia’s regional aims, interests and policies and its capacity to def end itself.
Mr. Nassar opens with an account of Somalia, which owes nothing to reality and everything to fiction. From his opening “US bombers have been pounding away at Somali positions as battles escalated…” he seems to have been watching some Hollywood movies about a different conflict, in a different continent. Incidentally, to refer to Al-Shabaab, a self-admitted terrorist organization which welcomes the death of women and children and has always focused on assassination, as “Somalia’s Islamic resistance” is an insult to all genuine Somali nationalists, and indeed to Islam itself.
It would take too long to list all Mr. Nassar’s errors about Ethiopia, but let’s start with Somalia. Ethiopian troops are not going to stay in Somalia as Ethiopia has consistently underlined. Ethiopia went into Somalia in part to help the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia against a violent and far from popular clan-based movement, the Islamic Courts Union, which tried to use Islam to disguise its political ambitions. The ICU was taken over in mid 2006 by the extremist al-Shabaab terrorist element to try and overthrow the legitimate Government of Somalia. Now, much of al-Shabaab’s capacity has been destroyed. Significant progress has been made in establishing security in and outside Mogadishu (though incidents certainly continue).
Ethiopian troops will leave Somalia as soon as there is a sufficient international force on the ground (whether from the African Union or the UN) to guarantee the TFG’s survival and sufficient security forces for the TFG have been recruited and trained. Training for several thousand recruits has already started. At the moment with reconciliation gathering pace in Mogadishu and the security situation clearly improving (though not fully satisfactory) the position of the TFG is certainly not deteriorating. What Ethiopia wants is a stable and peaceful Somalia, which hopefully will be achieved with next year’s elections. Ethiopia fully recognizes that this is something that in the final analysis must be achieved by Somalis themselves.
Secondly: the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF). Far from deploying more troops in the Somali Regional State, in the Ogaden area, the security situation launched after the ONLF’s massacre of 74 Chinese and Ethiopian (largely Ogaden Somalis) workers in April last year, has been largely successful. By November, a majority of the ONLF fighters had been put out of action. The security situation in the region is now returning to near normality, though there remains a serious humanitarian problem following the poor dry rains, and current shortages of water. With the ONLF largely defeated, however, international relief can now reach those affected.
Finally, Eritrea: Ethiopia has made it very clear it will not start any conflict with Eritrea. Indeed, it has spent the last few years trying hard to persuade President Issayas to talk about the normalization of relations. He has consistently refused to do so. Ever since Ethiopia fully accepted the Boundary Commissions’ Decisions on the border, Eritrea has persistently made difficulty after difficulty, and steadily and systematically violated the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities, which Ethiopia and Eritrea signed in June 2000. Despite this agreement, which lays out the obligations of both sides in the peace agreement, Eritrea has continuously violated the Temporary Security Zon e and forced the UN Mission to leave. All this is in defiance of both the Algiers Agreements of 2000 and of numerous Security Council resolutions.
Ethiopia wants demarcation of the border according to international norms and as part of the complete normalization of relations. Eritrea simply refuses to go along with this. Eritrea has also persistently armed and financed opposition to the TFG in Somalia for no other reason than Ethiopia supports the TFG. Eritrea has never had any national security or strategic interests in Somalia, but that has not stopped it supporting and training the terrorist group, al-Shabaab, now recognized as a terrorist organization by the US. Similarly, Eritrea has armed and trained several hundred ONLF fighters, and supported a number of other Ethiopian opposition groups with arms, training and finance. It is all part of its publicly admitted and even widely publicized efforts to destabilize Ethiopia. & nbsp;
None of this has been more than marginal nuisance value to Ethiopia, and claims that the ONLF and Eritrea are waiting for the right moment to assault Ethiopia are laughable. The ONLF has been largely defeated and Eritrea faces near collapse, politically economically, even morally. Eritrea has probably the most appalling, unpleasant, and least democratic, regime in Africa. Its prisons have been described as a disgrace to the continent, in which thousands are held without charge or trial and for an indefinite period of time. Its own people are fleeing at the rate of hundreds a month, many of them from the military. It is also true that on p ast record, it would be rash to expect sensible policies from the Government of Eritrea. Certainly, given Eritrea’s current leadership nothing can be ruled out even a new invasion of Ethiopia. Ethiopia, however, remains fully confident it can continue to deal with any threat from Eritrea. Nevertheless, it would much prefer to normalize relations with Eritrea, and for Eritrea to end its continued unnecessary and pointless efforts to try and destabilize Ethiopia. Ethiopia, like Eritrea, has a war against poverty to win; Eritrea’s behavior does remain a distraction, if little more.
· The Los Angeles Times (“Ethiopia: War gets little attention”, by Edmund Saunders, 23.3.2008) has also been making another series of unsubstantiated allegations and assumptions, for which there is no evidence, against the Ethiopian troops in the Ogaden area of the Somali Regional State. This is not the first time the LA Times has done this, failing to check its sources or attempting to verify the claims with the appropriate authorities in the Somali Regional State. As usual the claims against Ethiopian forces in the Ogaden or in Somalia have a number of characteristics in common. People who have left these areas make them. They often come from those who have arrived seeking asylum in western European countries or the US and Canada, and the more detailed and gruesome the allegations the more likely are asylum applicants to be accepted. Such claims are frequently supported by NGOs whose interest is to maximize the problems in order to raise funds for their activities. In both cases, those who elaborate on such allegations have one particular thing in common – they know little or nothing about the areas concerned, and they have seldom if ever traveled in the region. The LA Times simply repeats almost all the most violent claims made against Ethiopian troops at length with no effort to verify the truth of the allegations or to investigate the reliability of those making such claims. This is unprincipled and lazy journalism.
The LA Times does mention that Ethiopian officials have accused Ogaden rebels of using terrorist tactics, but this is limited to a throwaway line and goes into no detail. It does not mention the destruction of public properties and the killing of innocent civilians, both a hallmark of ONLF activities. It does not refer to the ONLF’s numerous assassinations, or attempted assassinations, of government officials, of policemen, and of civilians who oppose the ONLF or who support the local administration, including some of its own former members who have left the ONLF and who now work in the Somali Regional State administration. It does not mention the regular planting of landmines on roads used by civilian vehicles, including buses, destroying dozens of commercial vehicles and effectively imposing a commercial blockage and sending food prices soaring. It does not mention that the ONLF has been accused, and with good reason, of burning villages or of houses belonging to opponents and critics of the ONLF, of raping women, and forcibly recruiting youngsters into their forces. It does, however, quote a Human Rights Watch (HRW) report, using a similar external and anonymous source, to claim that the government used mass indiscriminate measures to collectively punish the entire population. This is simply and obviously untrue if only because the Regional Government is fully aware (as the HRW researcher is clearly not) that the overwhelming majority of the regional population does not support the ONLF.
The LA Times makes no effort to investigate or understand the reality of what has been happening in the Somali Regional State. It makes no mention of the fact that the ONLF has been armed by, and many of its fighters trained in, Eritrea, or that its current operations are part of a deliberate, organized, and admitted effort by Eritrea to try to destabilize Ethiopia. Captured ONLF fighters have confirmed their training in Eritrea in 2006/7 included the operation of landmines, the use of suicide vests and explosives and remote controlled detonators. Eritrea’s involvement, its active, and well-authenticated, support for the ONLF, and some detail of the ONLF’s own operations, would seem to have some relevance to any attempt to produce a realistic and accurate account of what is going on in the region. This article merely repeats every critical comment, which it can find. Every allegation made against the government and administration of the Somali Regional State or of Ethiopia is immediately accepted. This is unacceptable behavior for any paper which has pretensions towards being a paper of record and which prides itself on its accuracy.