Ambassade d'Ethiopie en France

Accueil

embeth — 2011-11-29T23:00:00Z

Ambassade d'Ethiopie

Paris-France

L'ambassade d'Éthiopie en France vous souhaite la bienvenue sur son site bilatéral : un menu plus accessible, des contenus diversifiés.

Ce portail a l'ambition de vous fournir des informations sur l'Ethiopie, sur l'Ambassade ainsi que ses activités et ses services .

Les informations sur les services consulaires vous seront utiles pour vos voyages d'ordre professionnel ou personnel en Ethiopie.

Veuillez nous donner vos commentaires et conseils sur le site afin de nous aider à améliorer nos services.

Ambassade d'Ethiopie en France

Empreintes Digitales

embeth — 2009-06-23T14:15:05Z

- Empreintes Digitales

Mission accomplit : Les Forces de la Défense Nationale commencent à se retirer de la Somalie

embeth — 2009-02-23T15:03:53Z

MISSION ACCOMPLISHED : ETHIOPIAN NATIONAL DEFENCE FORCES START TO PULL OUT OF SOMALIA

It is to be recalled that the Ethiopian National Defense Forces (ENDF) moved into Somalia two years ago to foil the clear and present danger created by extremist forces in Somalia that had repeatedly declared Jihad against Ethiopia. The major mission of the ENDF which was to remove the threat posed to our country was completed immediately and in no time. It would have been possible for the Ethiopian government to remove its troops immediately at that time. The reason this was not done was because it was felt that Ethiopia should help the brotherly people of Somalia bring to an end the country's statelessness and to help in restoring peace and stability in Somalia in cooperation with the Transitional Federal Government (TFG). This has been accomplished by the ENDF with great sense of responsibility.

In addition, Ethiopia had been conducting all the necessary diplomatic effort to encourage the African Union and the international community to play their proper role to assist in the realization of peace and stability in Somalia. Ethiopia's own effort in the diplomatic area as well as its activities within IGAD and the AU as a member of those organizations has facilitated support in terms of political position adopted by the international community as well as practical support from the AU, in particular, from Uganda and Burundi who have rendered tangible assistance.

Ethiopia, in collaboration with the TFG, the people of Somalia and AMISOM has undertaken numerous activities in the interest of the peace and stability of Somalia. Though it took sometime, nonetheless, it also became possible eventually to bring those moderate members of the ICU who had freed themselves from extremism together with the TFG in Djibouti for a peace deal among Somali peace forces which was in deed achieved after the two parties agreed through talks on various issues.

It was agreed in the same talks that the ENDF will be withdrawing from Somalia at the end of 2008. Accordingly, the ENDF after having drawn up the necessary plan, has began its activities at the end of 2008 to implement it. With the view to avoiding the creation of vacuum after its withdrawal and to ensure that the security situation in Somalia would not deteriorate, the ENDF has redoubled its efforts that had began earlier and is at present handling matters that fall within the final phase of this activities. In order to carry out this task effectively and with full common understanding, AMISOM force commander, Commander of the TFG forces and the commander of the Ethiopian Contingent in Somalia have met in Addis Ababa and have carried out the evaluation of the final arrangement in addition to drawing up a plan for subsequent activities. Moreover, since it is now confirmed that Uganda and Burundi have decided to contribute additional troops to AMISOM, the ENDF has reached the final phase of its withdrawal having accomplished its mission with success. Accordingly, the security forces of the TFG and AMISOM have taken over those areas that were earlier covered by the ENDF. It should also be pointed out that the citizens of Mogadishu and other members of the Somali Community have been given the necessary support to defend their peace and security in an organized fashion and enhanced manner, an effort which has been going on for the last two years.

It is after having ascertained that all this activities have been carried out and having seen in practice the readiness of AMISOM to stay in Somalia after the withdrawal of the Ethiopian Contingent that the Ethiopian government began to get the ENDF to withdraw from Somalia in conformity with the commitment it has made. The withdrawal of Ethiopian troops is not going to be conducted with undue haste. This would mean that it will take a few days to be completed and it would be done so as quickly as possible.

The government of Ethiopia realizes that durable peace is still the call of the people of Somalia which is yet to be answered. It is in light of this that Ethiopia appeals to the international community to give more attention to this call by the people of Somalia and discharge its responsibilities by helping the Somalis free themselves from the prevailing chaos. Ethiopia expresses its appreciation to members of IGAD and the AU, in particular to the governments of Uganda and Burundi who have demonstrated their resolve to carry out their Pan-Africanist Mission in Somalia. Our defense forces have carried out a successful Mission to eliminate the clear and present danger that our country had faced two years ago. In addition, the ENDF has over the last two years conducted major efforts to weaken the extremists and to contribute to the creation of peace and stability in Somalia. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs pays tribute on behalf of the entire people of Ethiopia and the Ethiopian government for the sacrifices it made to achieve this mission and reiterates that Ethiopia will continue as before to contribute in deeds to the establishment of durable peace and stability in Somalia.

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

Ministry of Foreign Affairs,

Addis Ababa,

04 January,2009

Semaine du 02/01/2009

embeth — 2009-02-23T15:00:04Z

The sixth summit of Sana'a Forum in Khartoum

Eritrea and the Sana'a Forum for Cooperation

When is ICG to do justice to the cause of peace ?

AU Peace and Security Council on Guinea

·The sixth summit of the Sana'a Forum for cooperation was held in the Sudanese capital, Khartoum on 30 December 2008. In attendance at the summit were President Omar Hassan Ahmed Al- Bashir of the Republic of the Sudan, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, the outgoing Chair of the Forum, President Ali Abdullah Saleh of the Republic of Yemen, Prime Minister Nur Hassen Hussein 'Adde' of the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia, and President Ismail Omar Geulleh of the Republic of Djibouti, who took part at the summit as an observer. Following the opening ceremony, the program of work and the agenda was adopted and a progress report by the specialized committees was presented on the activities of the Forum since the 10th Executive Committee Meeting. The progress report dealt with a host of issues, including principal regional issues of mutual interest, such as the situation in Somalia and the piracy off shore, the problem in the Sudan, the Ethio-Eritrea border dispute, Eritrea-Djibouti dispute, the problem of terrorism and the current conflict between Hamas and Israel.

The Executive Committee of the Forum exchanged views on the aforementioned regional issues of mutual concern and adopted a joint communiqué at the conclusion of the summit. An opening speech was made by President Omar Hassan Ahmed Al- Bashir of the Republic of the Sudan, the host country, and incoming Chair of the Forum. In the course of deliberations, the outgoing Chairperson, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia made a statement in which he welcomed the President of Djibouti saying his presence "… is a source of satisfaction for us all and I have no doubt it will enrich our deliberation and will help make the Forum an even more effective instrument for regional peace and security and for a far more strengthened economic cooperation among member states." He went on to say that since the last summit in February 2007 Forum member states have coordinated their positions on vital security and political matters of the region. On Somalia, they managed to send the same message to the various Somali parties with the view to helping them move forward in the peace process under difficult circumstances. The fact that Djibouti, Sudan and Ethiopia are members of IGAD has afforded the Forum members the opportunity to synchronize their positions as was amply demonstrated at the last IGAD Summit as well as at the Extra-ordinary session of IGAD council of Ministers on 21 December 2008 in Addis Ababa. Prime Minister Meles Zenawi noted that member states have the obligation to be more, not less politically engaged to help the Somalis achieve peace and national reconciliation that has eluded them for too long. On Ethiopia's decision to withdraw its troops from Somalia. Prime Minister Meless said “We came to the conclusion that no good would be served by the continuing presence of our troops in Somalia. But this should in no way be interpreted as meaning that we have decided to wash our hands of Somalia. That neither, Ethiopia, nor other members of the Forum, nor the forum in general, can afford to do that should be obvious. But whatever we do has to be based on an approach that would encourage the Somalis to take the lead and to own the process of national reconciliation in their country. This is a matter that can not be emphasized too strongly." He emphasized the need to immediately beef up AMISOM troops and provide financial support to the TFG. In response, the Yemeni leader has pledged USD 1.5 million as the Sudan and Yemen together also pledged to offer military uniforms and provide other logistical support while Ethiopia and Djibouti are expected to provide training for TFG security personnel. The signing of the Djibouti peace Agreements between the TFG and ARS was welcomed and calls were made for their speedy implementation. Member states appreciated Ethiopia's invaluable contribution in the search for peace and reconciliation in Somalia.

With respect to economic, trade and social matters the report of the Summit admitted that the Forum has not registered sufficient progress. It was nonetheless emphasized there in no lack of commitment in the members states, as can be gleaned from the more than a dozen agreements, protocols and MOUs that the members of the Forum have signed. It was indeed, it was noted members of the Forum have made significant progress in developing cooperation in the hydropower sector and in other areas. Among other matters on which decisions were taken include the crises between Israel and Hamas, as well as matter relating to the designation of the Secretary General of the Forum. In general it is widely believed that both the Executive Committee meeting and the Summit were a success.

* * * *

··The sixth Summit of the Sana'a Forum for Co-operation took place on Tuesday, 30 December, 2008, in Khartoum. Apart from Prime Minister Meles who was the Chairman of the 5th Summit which was convened in Addis Ababa in February 2007, four other Heads of State and Government of the region took part at the Summit : Omar Hassan Ahmed al Bashir, President of the Republic of Sudan and Chairman of the sixth Summit of Sana'a Forum for Co-operation, Ali Abdullah Saleh, president of the Republic of Yemen, Isamil Omar Guelleh, President of the Republic of Djibouti and Hassan Hussien 'Nur Adde', Prime Minister of the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia.

Prime Minister Meles spoke in his capacity as chair of the Forum Since February 2007 at the opening of the Summit. To be precise, it was a report on the activities of the Forum since February 2007 that the Ethiopian Prime Minister Submitted to his colleagues. It was a frank report that he presented. There was no concealing of weaknesses. He underlined the fact that even though the Sana'a Forum for cooperation has a "long agenda items in the economic, trade and social areas," that it has "not moved as rapidly as it "ought to in these areas." This does not, he emphasized, demonstrate that member states have no commitment to the Forum. That member states do have commitment to the process "can be gleaned" he told his colleagues" from the more than a dozen agreements, protocols and MOUs that….have [been] signed." "Indeed," he went on, "we have made significant progress in developing co-operation in the hydropower sector and towards interconnecting our electric power systems. Highlighting the critical importance of hydropower in bringing the countries of the region together, he said that this " is an area that can be expanded even further to be a firm basis for integrating our region."

The Ethiopian Prime Minister used the occasion also to say a few words on what the Forum stands for, and what it is not, "Sectarian", it is not, he said. It is not " designed to exclude some" and "embrace others selectively," he told the regional leaders and other participants of the summit. He explained that the "Forum has no parochial objectives and that it is " open to all", to all those who share those prepositions which have brought members of the Forum together — a secure and stable Horn of Africa-Southern Red Sea Region ; conviction that the countries of the region have a common destiny which makes it imperative that they strengthen their co-operation in all areas of economic activities for whose achievement the fostering of mutual trust and confidence is indispensable ; and devotion to principles of international law governing inter-state relations and to treating each other with decency and constructive attitude."

With Djibouti having now joined the Forum, though as an observer, the Sana'a Forum for cooperation has now come to embrace all the countries of the Horn of Africa and Southern Red Sea, that is apart from Eritrea which is conspicuously but, not surprisingly, absent from the Khartoum Summit.

Eritrea is absent from the Forum, not because it is excluded. As Prime Minister Meles emphasized at the opening Session of the Summit, the Sana'a Forum does not exclude anyone and it is open to all countries of the region. The Forum, as he said, is not sectarian, and is not selective. The Sana'a Forum embraces all those who subscribe to the tenets that member states adhere to. Obviously, what Eritrea has been committed to in practice is the destabilization of the whole region, though no doubt its primary focus is Ethiopia. That is why the Ethiopian Prime Minister told the Summit that as far as the problem between Ethiopia and Eritrea is concerned, that "there is little new to report." "Eritrea" he underlined "has continued to be more, not less, bellicose." No doubt, he emphasized, Eritrea's "proclivity for being a menace to peace in our region including in Ethiopia, has not been matched by its capacity to act on its belligerent desire". But still, he went on, "the damage being wrought by Eritrea cannot be underestimated" This is true, the Ethiopian Prime Minister said" whether in Ethiopia, Somalia, or in Djibouti, the latest victim of Eritrean aggression. On this latest Eritrean adventure, Prime Minister Meles told to leaders of the Sana'a Forum, "The Eritrean move against Djibouti --- which has been only mildly condemned by the Security Council --- is a naked aggression and destabilization attempt which has absolutely no justification." Mindful of Eritrea's repeated deceptive statements on its behaviour toward Djibouti, Prime Minister Meles said, "The Eritrean aggression against Djibouti should not be mixed with, or linked to, any other issue, including the crisis between Ethiopia and Eritrea." "Despite the mendacious insinuation by Eritrea to the contrary, Eritrea has absolutely no justification for its hostile act against Djibouti.

It is also this same attitude and behavior of Eritrea which explains its conspicuous absence from Khartoum for the Summit of the Sana'a Forum for co-operation. It is not, in other words, the nature of the Forum that one should look into to try to understand the reason behind Eritrea's non-membership of the Sana'a Forum, but rather into what the Eritrean leadership has made Eritrea to stand for in our sub-region --- a symbol of lack of decency in inter-state relations, of divisiveness rather than harmony, of proclivity for tearing each other down rather than building one another up, and of all disrespect for all those principles that are the foundation for civilized intercourse among nations and for mutual trust and understanding. These same reasons also explain why Eritrea has suspended itself from IGAD.

* * * *

·The International Crisis Group (ICG) recently released its No 147 Africa report entitled, “Somalia : To move beyond the Failed State”. Largely building on its own previous reports on Somalia, the report purportedly seeks to point to possible ways forward in the quest for lasting resolution of the Somali conflict. As a long time observer of events in the Horn of Africa sub-region, the ICG have generated reports on a regular basis on a range of topics that have far-reaching implications on peace and security both at regional and international levels.

Despite its widely professed expertise and first hand knowledge on the Horn, however, the ICG's record has often been a modest one at best—not so much for lack of expertise per se as the propensity to succumb to entrenched predispositions towards one party or another. With pre-conceived ideas and hardly substantiated claims finding their ways all-too-easily into the corpus of ostensibly well researched studies, a great many ICG reports have many times fallen widely off the mark. As the Week in the Horn have remarked a number of times, ICG reports have often been a source of much consternation among many. In the past few years, the Ethiopian Government has had to take more than its fair share of the pain to point out the often egregious analytical errors and inaccuracies every ICG reports are replete with.

It was therefore with much interest that we received the most recent report as it comes at the time of growing uncertainties regarding the fate of the TFG and the peace process following Ethiopia's irreversible decision to pull its forces out of Somalia. Its previous records on the issue having been far from being objective and reassuring, we have every reason to keenly follow all reports coming their way. True, there have been some indications of improvement—or the semblance of it—over the last year or so ; as the arguments and conclusions in the most recent report amply indicate, however, the ICG has yet a long way to go before it seriously addresses what appears to be a predisposition to allowing itself to be used by certain actors on a number of issues.

Most of these inaccuracies largely owe, more than anything, to the failure on the part of the ICG to consult equally all the parties to a given conflict and its apparent weakness for repeating itself again and again on issues that involve a fast changing dynamics. Equally important, the composition of its research team—more particularly its Africa division—has been contributing significantly to the problem. As the Week in the Horn indicated a couple of times, the ICG has certain elements among its ranks the presence of which should by now have been clear to constitute a typical case of conflict of interest—preside as they do over issues with which they are all too personally involved.

Needless to say, the report provides a very good description of the TFG's ‘flaws'—namely, failure of the TFG forces to hammer out a working relationship amongst themselves and the role external actors played—though not the extent to which they did—in precipitating the crisis all in the name of aiding the peace process. The report also repeats the same allegations the likes of the Human Rights Watch used to level against the Ethiopian defense forces almost on a daily basis. It has become fashionable to spice up such reports with some grim images of all sorts so much so it would be pointless to even try to address such issues. But at least in this report, there are more curious issues to take stock of.

The report may have overstated its case in some areas and understate in yet others ; but generally speaking, most of what constitutes the body of the report could largely be considered fairly acceptable. But some of the recommendations the ICG has made are extremely strange and hardly supported by the premises on the basis of which they are purportedly made. We have found some of these recommendations widely off the mark. That, of course, is the part we have found a bit startling hence this response. In fact, one recommendation is so irrelevant that it makes one wonder if the report was doing other parties' bidding. As will be briefly explained below, there are reasons to suspect that this is indeed part of a pattern rather than just an honest misreading of situations on the ground.

One of the recommendations has to do with whether to include the Al Shabaab as a genuine partner for future negotiations in the peace process possibly in the aftermath of an Ethiopian pull out in the event that it really happens. This is the same agenda the Government of Eritrea has been pushing all along. The ICG seems to believe that calling terrorists by their names—terrorists—is to blame for the escalation of the insurgency in Somalia. The decision of the US government to include Al Shabaab in the list of terrorist organizations is what emboldened the extremists into vowing to establish a Taliban like Islamic Caliphate in the entire region. It is ironic that the ICG seriously believes Al-Shabaab, which they know would seek to impose a harsher version of Sharia as is already happening in Al-Shabaab-controlled areas, would play a constructive role in the peace process which it has vowed to vehemently oppose. The ICG's hope is pinned on the self-serving claim that Al Shabaab is already “mutating ideologically” from a self-radicalizing national group into a moderate one. The report naively suggests that “If Al-Shabaab consolidates its control and imposes the puritanical brand of Islam it espouses (salafi/Wahhabism), it would quickly alienate many Somalis.” The question is not whether or not the kind of extremism the Al Shabab espouses will alienate many Somalis which it already has ; the question is whether a group with a declared objective of extremism the entire region—with some of its leaders vowing to take their Jihad all the way to Alaska—could indeed be counted on as a reliable partner for a round table negotiation. No euphemism whatsoever would mellow out the crass realities of terrorism and ruthless killing perpetrated by the same group throughout Somalia. Why Eritrea would adamantly champion the cause of the extremists could be understandable, since after all they will stop at nothing to settle their score with Ethiopia ; the unqualified support the ICG appears to tender to such an idea, however, is far from comprehensible.

The report also mentions a few countries as having played a role in aiding the insurgency to get stronger by the day ; but it also offers an explanation that amounts to an attempt to extenuate the level of guilt of some over that of others. While acknowledging the obvious role Eritrea had in this, for example, it nonetheless goes out of its way to suggest that its role was limited to serving as a conduit through which other Middle East countries extended support to the Islamists. While the ICG's ‘suspicion' that some Arab parties may be using Eritrean channels to supply the insurgents, principally Al-Shabaab can be just about the truth, to assume that Eritrea is only serving as a conduit is to miss the point. But more importantly, the ICG calls upon the international community to bring the likes of Eritrea on board in the peace process in what amounts to rewarding them for their recalcitrant behavior. According to the ICG, support for the peace process needs to be sought from countries that have “moral authority or influence over the militias”, such as Eritrea. Whatever the meaning of the moral authority the ICG alludes to, the most appropriate thing to do would be to call upon this party to stop its meddling in Somalia's affairs in a manner that has militated against peace and stability in that country. Little wonder then the Government of Asmara fancies itself as peacemaker par excellence in crises that are all its own making. It is an open secret that Eritrea has done more to scuttle the peace process among Somalis than any other actors in the region—state and non-state alike. This it has done not only through its brazen support to the insurgency in defiance of the UN arms embargo ; but also by arm-twisting the likes of the ARS into boycotting the Djibouti process. That Sheik Sheriff's faction was the result of such bullying could not be lost on the ICG either. Ironically though, the report not only spares Eritrea from the kind of strong condemnation its bellicose behavior so richly deserves, but it also seeks to provide it with a diplomatic leverage as a potential peacemaker with a ‘moral authority' over the insurgents. To the extent that Eritrea can play a role in the peace efforts in Somalia, it is by leaving the Somalis alone. According to the ICG, however, “Eritrea holds the key to a long-term resolution of the Somalia conflict, as well as to movement on the Ogaden issue”. That is President Isaias almost verbatim. Could Eritrea ask for a better defense than what the ICG report seems to offer any way ? This of course leads us to another interesting recommendation put forth by the ICG.

The ICG report urges the international community “to enhance the efforts to implement the Ethiopian-Eritrea border settlement, in part to reduce the "proxy war" impact of this dispute on Somalia”. On the face of it, this seems to suggest that there is a proxy war of sorts between Eritrea and Ethiopia that has played itself out in Somalia. But the most important message of this recommendation is even more interesting. Preposterous as it may sound, the ICG people seem to be convinced that the Ethio-Eritrean Border issue is to blame for Eritrea's staunch support to Islamic insurgency in Somalia and in the Ogaden. The ICG claims that “due to its acrimonious behavior, the resolution of the border dispute between the two countries has been abandoned by the international community in favor of Ethiopia.” The Border issue obviously is President Isaias' stock in trade in diplomacy and it is the cause of just about everything that goes wrong in Eritrea. To suggest even remotely that the border issue has to do with why Eritrea has to work day and night to sabotage peace thousands of miles away would normally sound plain stupid. Even if that were to be the case, there was no time when Ethiopia dragged its feet on the resolution of the border dispute. It is the government in Asmara that has refused to be part of any dialogue that such a process presupposes. But the ICG—it seems—has more important reasons to assume other wise.

So we say, the ICG would do justice to the cause of peace if it took the pain to put the blame where it belongs. If it insists on serving as an alternative platform for Eritrea's failed diplomatic shenanigans, that also is its choice.

* * * *

·It was not without reason that the Week in the Horn took up a few weeks ago the issue of unconstitutional change of government and how the phenomenon is being handled by the African Union. It was at the Summit of the Organization of African Unity in Algiers in 1999 that Africa began to tighten the screw against those who are inclined to resort to illegal changes of government. At that July 1999 summit in Algiers what African leaders said was that "… Member states whose Governments came to power through unconstitutional means after the Harare Summit (July 1997) should restore constitutional legality before the next Summit. This same Decision of the summit under the designation AHG/Dec. 142 (XXXV) also requested "the OAU Secretary -General to be actively seized of developments in those countries and to assist in programmes intended to return such countries to constitutional and democratic governments."

But though Algiers indeed marked a clear change of attitude against coup makers in Africa, one cannot consider that Summit Decision of the OAU as a serious move against those who carry out unconstitutional change of government. It did not have any workable enforcement mechanism. As such it was a mere hortatory enunciation of position with little practical effect.

It was the Declaration that the OAU adopted in July 2000 in Lome, Togo, which constitutes a real and effective instrument against unconstitutional change of government.

The Lome OAU position on illegal change of government bearing the official title of Declaration on the Framework For An OAU Response To Unconstitutional Changes of Government (AHG/Dec L.5 (XXXVI) not only does it take a far tougher line against what it called "the resurgence of Coup d'etat," but it also provides for implementable guidelines facilitating sanctions against those engaging in unconstitutional change of governments. In its preamblular part, the Declaration says, inter alia, that "… these developments are a threat to peace and security of the continent and they constitute a very disturbing trend and serious set back to the on-going process of democratization in the continent. " After setting out what the Declaration characterizes as principles and values to be adhered to by OAU Member States with the view to strengthening democratic governance, the Declaration sets forth a definition of situations that would qualify as unconstitutional change of government---military Coup d'etat against a democratically elected Government ; intervention by mercenaries to replace a democratically elected Government ; replacement of democratically elected Government by armed dissident groups and rebel movements ; and the refusal by an incumbent government to relinquish power to the winning party after free, fair and regular elections.

The Declaration further says that "Whenever an unconstitutional change as provided for in the definition… above takes place… our current Chairman of the OAU and our Secretary-General, on behalf of our Organization, should immediately and publicly condemn such a change and urge for the speedy return to constitutional order". Following condemnation, a period of up to six months is given to the "perpetrators" of the unconstitutional change to restore constitutional order --- during which various efforts are expected to be made by officials of the OAU, neighboring countries and others to persuade the culprits to reverse their illegal decision --- failing which " a range of limited and targeted sanctions "would be instituted against the regime that "stubbornly refuses to restore constitutional order…" The sanctions include, "visa denials", " restrictions of government -to-government contacts", "trade restrictions."

The above explains why the AU took a strong position against the Coup makers in Mauritania, and why now it is also adopting a rather tough line in opposition to the Coup d'etat in Guinea. The AU Peace and Security Council at the end of its 165th meeting held on 29 December 2008, adopted a communiqué which, among other things said that it has decided "to suspend the participation of Guinea in the activities of the AU until the return to constitutional order in the country, in accordance with the relevant provisions of the AU Constitutive Act and the Lome Declaration of July 2000…" It further said that the "Council reaffirms its determination to take, in due course, all other measures prescribed in the Lome Declaration to accelerate the return to constitutional order. It should be recalled also that the Peace and Security Council had in fact earlier, at its 164th meeting held on 24 December already "strongly condemned" what it called a Coup attempt in Guinea following the death of President Lansana Conte.

No doubt, the position being taken by the AU, and in this instance, by the Peace and Security Council, is correct, as far as principles go and as far as the commitment of member states to those principles is concerned. Obviously, it would be impossible to ensure that the rule of law is fostered in Africa if the continent is once again allowed to descend into situations reminiscent of the 60s and 70s when unconstitutional changes of governments were the order of the day. It is against this background that some of the statements coming from a few member states of the AU in support of the new situation in Guinea become unavoidably a source of some concern, including with respect to the credibility of the Organization and of positions taken at the highest level by consensus.

It would perhaps be useful to recall what the Week in the Horn had said on this same issue on 17 October, 2008 :

"Democratization in many African countries is being undertaken under conditions of extreme poverty and in the absence of any democratic political culture. Poverty and democracy do not make a good mix. This does not mean to suggest that democracy should wait until poverty is overcome, but it does highlight the seriousness of the challenges both pose. This is the basis of the AU position on democratic government and unconstitutional changes of government. The difficulty of reconciling strict adherence to AU principles, and sustaining democracy, with stability is, however, demonstrated by the difficulty some African states have had in sticking to AU principles on this matter. While it is always necessary to be pragmatic and non-dogmatic on these issues (all the more so given the problems referred to earlier), Ethiopia believes it is critical that African states do remain committed to the decisions taken at Lome, based on the Constitutive Act of the AU, to reject unconstitutional changes of government. This is in the interest of both deepening democracy in Africa and of protecting the credibility of the African Union."

Semaine du 09/01/2009

embeth — 2009-02-23T14:58:23Z

A Year in the Horn

Ethiopian troops leave Somalia

No progress in normalizing Ethiopia- Eritrea relationship

The Ethiopian economy- not doing bad

A year of diplomatic and economic milestones

The new Charities and Societies Proclamation is passed by Parliament

President Isaias's latest Interview

· Ethiopian troops are now leaving Somalia two years after responding to Ethiopia's own security concerns about extremist forces in Somalia which had repeatedly threatened war and even tried to re-activate irredentism, and appeals from the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia. Ethiopia's concerns were reinforced by the efforts of Sheikh Hassan Dahir 'Aweys', and of Sheikh Yusuf 'Indhe Adde', another notorious warlord prominent in the Islamic Courts, to establish links with Eritrea. Eritrean assistance included the provision of training in guerilla and terrorist activities, as well as the despatch of a training mission of regular troops to Somalia. This emphasized just how far Eritrea was prepared to go to try to destabilize Ethiopia, even allying with identified terrorists (Al-Shabaab) to try to achieve its aims. In December 2006, in a matter of days, Ethiopian forces, in co-operation with TFG security forces, defeated the extremist elements providing the TFG with the potential capacity to set itself up in Mogadishu and opening up a real window of opportunity for peace and stability in Somalia. It was a major and successful step forward in Ethiopia's long-time effort to assist in the establishment of a functional government in Somalia. This was a process going back to 1992 when the Ethiopian Government made the first attempt to bring Somali factions to the negotiating table. With a mandate from the OAU and IGAD after 1993, Ethiopia subsequently hosted a whole series of conferences, most significantly at Sodere in 1996, and played a serious role in the organization of the conference at Eldoret/Mbagathi in Kenya which created the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) in 2004.

Ethiopia's intervention in 2006 was a short and successful military operation which restored the position of the TFG. It opened the possibility for an international force to take over security in Mogadishu and for the international community, and the United Nations, to assume its responsibilities for peace and security in the region. Despite the intention to remain no more than a few weeks, Ethiopia decided to stay as long as it has, to help the people of Somalia. Efforts to speed up the process of enabling the TFG to stand on its own feet, by training its own security forces and establishing ministerial structures, were handicapped by the failure of the international community to provide the necessary resources for the TFG and by the delays in the deployment of AMISOM. In fact, Ethiopian forces stayed in Somalia to help the TFG until it became clear that they could no longer serve any useful purpose. It was Ethiopia's hope that the Somali political leaders would effectively own the process of national reconciliation and that the international community would be more committed to help the Somalis to achieve peace than has been the case.

**********

· There has been no improvement in Ethiopia's relations with Eritrea this year. Indeed, in a New Year's interview given to Eritrea's official media President Isaias once again made it quite clear Eritrea's continued refusal to engage Ethiopia in normalizing their relations and in finding ways and means of relaxing the tension between the two counties. Eritrea has continued to reject all suggestions to open a dialogue aimed at achieving these objectives. It is to be recalled that, earlier Eritrea had refused to respond to a whole series of UN Security Council resolutions, most recently 1827 (30 July 2008) when the Security Council, “recalling [its] previous condemnation of Eritrea's lack of cooperation”, demanded the “full and expeditious implementation” of the Algiers Agreements “as the basis for peaceful and cooperative relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea”, and reaffirmed the integrity of the TSZ. It was, of course, in the face of Eritrean intransigence that the Security Council was forced to terminate UNMEE's mandate despite the threat this posed to the whole UN approach to peace-keeping in July last year and despite its earlier threat of sanctions against Eritrea for its restrictions on UNMEE in resolution 1640 (2005). It should be recalled that Eritrea was found liable for starting the war with Ethiopia by the Claims Commission when it completed the liability stage of its work with the conclusion that Eritrea had violated Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter when it invaded areas peacefully administered by Ethiopia.

President Isaias's latest statements underline the fact that the Eritrean leadership continues to make persistent efforts to destabilize Ethiopia in any way possible. This is not anything new. It has been a central element in Eritrean policy since 1998. Ethiopia maintains its firm intention to reach a peaceful resolution of the dispute with Eritrea. It remains fully committed to a lasting and durable peace between the two countries through negotiation and discussion. However, there is no sign at all, as yet, that Eritrea is prepared to reciprocate. Indeed, President Isaias's latest references to the Government of Ethiopia heading for its “ultimate demise” and classified as “totally defeated” suggest Eritrea is planning to continue its efforts at destabilizing Ethiopia.

**********

· The first nine months of the last year were part of Ethiopia's own 2000 Millennium Year (2007-2008). This marked the renewal of Ethiopia, the launching of a Renaissance to lay the foundations of a bright future to overcome poverty and backwardness and meet the challenges of creating a just, democratic and prosperous society, outlining a national consensus based on tolerance and mutual understanding to encourage the country's full potential. Ethiopia's foreign policy focuses on economic diplomacy and aims at encouraging the flow of investment, trade and tourism, as well as economic cooperation and the development of trust and confidence in bilateral and multilateral relations. Ethiopia looks for genuine partners who are prepared to be involved in a mutually beneficial partnership, particularly in the economic area. In this context, peace, stability and security are necessities for economic development, and relations must be firmly anchored in the principles of good neighborliness, peaceful coexistence, the peaceful resolution of disputes.

The last year marks a fifth year of double-digit economic growth, and, despite the global economic downturn which has affected Ethiopia like all countries in the world. The Economist Intelligence Unit still predicts Ethiopia's economy will grow by more than 7% in 2009. It identifies Ethiopia as likely to produce one of the fastest economic growth in the world for 2009. The IMF has described Ethiopia as the fastest non-oil economy in Africa, and there are predictions that the GDP will reach $31 Billion (PPP $71 Billion) in 2009. As one of the poorest countries in the world, with an economy mainly dominated by agricultural products, and no significant high value natural resources like oil, Ethiopia bears witness to the possibility of real growth and development in least-developed countries through the implementation of appropriate policy measures and people's efforts. The country's economic performance is the result of the robust policies adopted by the Government and the country's macroeconomic and political stability.

This success can be a matter of pride in the face of the problems of drought, coupled with the effects of global oil and food price rises and significant inflation. With all the three main sectors of the economy, agriculture, industry and service, demonstrating rises of more than 10 percent, there is not only growth in the overall economy but also a significant shift from agriculture into other sectors. Ethiopia has significant untapped natural resources, a pleasant climate and fertile soil, as well as abundant human resources. There are ample investment opportunities, favourable investment policies and an environment suitable for attracting foreign direct investment. This has grown steadily since 2003 largely because of specific efforts to encourage foreign investors. In the last sixteen years, a total of 5,314 investment projects have been authorized, 1628 of them during 2008.

Indeed, overall, the last year, in fact, has provided a firm jumping off point for the Ethiopian Renaissance, and the results of economic diplomacy, bilaterally and more widely, have been very successful. Exports have grown on an average of over 25% per annum over the last five years and are expected to continue to rise this year. During the last budget year, 2007/08, export earnings stood at US$1.5 billion, up from US$1.2 billion the previous year. This export performance is expected to be sustained despite the adverse impact of the current global economic crisis on commodity prices. The export performance of the first three months of 2007/08 showed a 30% increase on the previous year. Imports continue to grow. To sustain this economic growth and development, the Government is exerting substantial efforts to promote investment and trade potential and opportunities. Three international congresses are planned for 2009 alone to promote business opportunities in Ethiopia and the IGAD region. Major international and regional organizations, project finance organizations and banks are expected to take part in these events which can be expected to create major opportunities to explore areas for business partnerships and deepen business-to-business relationships. Overall, all key development indicators have continued to show progress and the economy remains on track towards attaining the Millennium Development Goals by 2015.

**********

· The year has seen a number of milestones in Ethiopia's multilateral and bilateral diplomacy. The year marked the ending of the United Nations Mission for Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) in accordance with the decision of the UN Security Council, effective as of 1 August 2008. UNMEE has closed down its mission and has pulled out all military and civil personnel, liquidating all its remaining assets in Ethiopia. A United Nations Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) has become a hybrid peacekeeping force co-sponsored by the UN Security Council and the African Union, with contingents predominantly drawn from African countries. In keeping with its long tradition and its commitment to the maintenance of regional security as well as global peace, Ethiopia has made a significant contribution sending a sizeable contingent with equipment for the mission. It has also agreed to host the Liaison Office for UNAMID in Addis Ababa and this has already begun to function. The excellent reputation enjoyed by Ethiopian troops in these operations has earned Ethiopia considerable plaudits and widespread appreciation and respect around Africa and the international community. The UN Food and Agricultural Organization (FAO) officially inaugurated its Sub-Regional Office for Eastern Africa in Addis Ababa at the beginning of the year in the presence of Deputy Prime Minister Addisu Legesse and FAO Director-General Jacque Diouf. The International Food and Agriculture Development (IFAD) opened its country office in Addis Ababa, the first of its kind for the African continent. The UN-OCHA Liaison Office and the UN African Union Peacekeeping Support Team opened offices in Addis Ababa in the course of the year. The UN-ECA celebrated the 50th anniversary of its establishment, its golden jubilee, on 24 October 2008. As host and long standing member of the UNECA, Ethiopia facilitated the success of the celebrations.

Among notable high-level working visits to Ethiopia this year have been the Executive Director of the World Food Program, Mrs Josset Sheeran, and her Deputy ; the UN Under Secretary-General and Coordinator of Humanitarian Affairs, Sir John Holmes ; and the President and senior officials of the World Bank. All were received by senior government officials, including Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. The UN Secretary-General Ban ki-Moon, and Deputy Secretary-General, Dr. Asha Rose Migiro, also paid official working visits in the country during the year. Among the many international conferences hosted in Addis Ababa during the year 2008, notable ones included the first UN-AU extraordinary meeting of Finance Ministers to debate major international and regional economic and financial matters of common concern, and the IOM-AU-EU high-level conference hosted at the AU to examine cross-cutting policy dimensions related to issues of global human migration involving African and European countries in particular.

Ethiopia also had a visible and high-level presence at a number of international gatherings, with Prime Minister Meles attending the 63rd Session of the UN General Assembly and associated meetings ; and Foreign Minister Seyoum participating in the General Assembly plenary session. The State Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr. Tekeda attended the 15th ministerial meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement in Iran. Prime Minister Meles attended the India Africa Forum in New Delhi in April (India made its largest ever loan, of US$640 million, to Ethiopia for sugar development in January) and the Fourth Tokyo International Conference for African Development (TICAD) in May where Japan's commitment to African development emphasized two central ideas also espoused by NEPAD, the New Partnership for African Development, currently chaired by Prime Minister Meles : African ownership of the development process, and international partnership to provide the impetus to drive the process forward. The new bridge over the Abay (Blue Nile) gorge was constructed with support from the Japanese government by a Japanese construction firm and at 303 metres it is the first cable-stayed bridge in East Africa. In August, the Prime Minister co-chaired the Africa-Turkey Forum. Recent plans for Turkish investment in Ethiopia include a large scale textile development and a steel mill. These forums all provided for increased bilateral links as well as the substantial prospect of enhanced trade and investment as detailed in the Delhi Declaration and the Africa-India Framework for Co-operation, the Yokohama Declaration and Action Plan, and the Istanbul Declaration on Africa-Turkey partnership and Framework of Cooperation.

Ethiopia is a member of the AU Peace and Security Council once again, continuing to play a principled role. It remains committed to the strengthening of African Unity, though it is clear this must be based on a realistic assessment of the possibilities as it emphasized at the preliminary meeting on unity before the AU July Summit. Ethiopia is also currently chair of IGAD whose members have agreed on the need for its revitalization. Ethiopia remains determined to fulfil its responsibility to IGAD rejuvenation to enable it to play a real role in the peace and development of the sub-region. Only Eritrea of the IGAD member states has failed to commit to this. Eritrea, it has to be said, remains the regional “spoiler” in the Horn of Africa as it demonstrated by its refusal to normalize relations with Ethiopia and its mid-year invasion of Djibouti. Its troops are still across the Djibouti border. It has to be said Eritrea remains a failure, indeed a major setback, for Ethiopian diplomacy. It has failed to persuade Eritrea to accept that the results of demarcation must include sustainable peace and normalization of relations. Regrettably our relationship with Qatar deteriorated to the point of breaking off relations following the support provided to Eritrea and Eritrea's continued policy of regional destabilization.

**********

· Ethiopia has deposited seven AU treaties and conventions on 6 January 2009, ratified by the House of Peoples Representatives, at a ceremony held at the AU Headquarters in Addis Ababa. The deposited instruments include Inter-African Convention Establishing an African Technical Co-operation Programme ; Convention for the Establishment of the African Center for Fertilizer Development ; Convention of the African Energy Commission ; Protocol to the OAU Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism ; African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance ; Additional Protocol to the OAU General Convention on Privileges and Immunities and Agreement for the Establishment of the African Rehabilitation Institute (ARI).

The decision of Ethiopia to ratify and deposit these Agreements demonstrates its resolve to continue to play a pivotal role in Africa's collective progress to achieve peace, democracy, development and integration in the continent. Among these Agreements, the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance, which Ethiopia has become the second country to ratify, is aimed at paving the way for meaningful transformation of the continent by institutionalizing democratic governance in all member states of the Union. Respect for human rights, promotion of free and fair elections on a regular basis, condemnation of unconstitutional changes of government, strengthening good governance, the promotion and protection of the independence of the judiciary, and other basic tenets of democracy and good governance are the core elements of the Charter. It also codifies and institutionalizes the African Union's rejection of unconstitutional changes of government, a principle firmly enshrined in the Constitutive Act of the African Union. The Protocol to the OAU Convention on the Prevention and Combating of Terrorism is also expected to further enhance the cooperation between Member States in the fight against terrorism.

Ethiopia still faces major challenges in the process of democratization, of human rights and of good governance. The Government, however, is totally committed to these elements of development. It is on the right track and has made some impressive progress. Not everything has worked out as planned or hoped. There are problems ; we have made mistakes. At the same time during this year, the New Millennium and the launching of Ethiopia's Renaissance have been given a sound foundation to enable us to overcome the remaining challenges of moving to another stage in the effort to become a middle income country. We believe we are well able to make the necessary concerted effort.

**********

·· President Isaias Afewerki of Eritrea gave a lengthy interview to the government media on the occasion of the European New Year. True to form, his interview was short on substance and long on sloganeering. A number of questions were raised and numerous topics covered during the interview. As was often the case in his previous interviews, the president talked at length on issues the breadth and complexities of which is far beyond the comprehension of ordinary Eritreans. At his wit's end to show off his deep understanding of history, economics and international politics, he went on a lengthy drivel that sometimes reached comical levels. The president offered unsolicited advice on Middle East Peace, the War on Terror, the world financial crisis and what not, all the while flaunting his ‘in-depth' knowledge on the issues. All told, the president sounded like a philosopher king presiding over world affairs than the leader of a tiny impoverished nation teetering on the brink of disaster.

In what has become his trademark style for quite sometime now, he ducked most of the questions related to domestic issues. Even when he made the attempt to address such issues, he made sure to belittle the significance and dismiss the accuracy of questions raised by the Eritrean population regarding bread & butter issues. Veiled references to unspecified riches and false hopes of improved life style were the most common themes of his responses. There were also moments where he chided Eritreans whom he said were fabricating stories of maladministration and corruption as well as those who continue making demands for a better access to the barest necessities of life. All told, the Eritrea that President Isaias wanted the world to see was a far cry from the poverty-stricken, over-militarized and crisis ridden police state that it has actually become.

But there were more interesting aspects to President Isaias' responses during his latest interview than his largely irrelevant rambling about the successes of his forty year old project, namely—building an independent, prosperous and powerful Eritrea. While his delusional success stories could be dismissed as an uphill struggle to paint his regime in a positive light to a jaded constituency, his apparent obsession with making his influence felt far & wide in the region and beyond should not be taken lightly. To the extent that Eritrea still faced any challenges, the PFDJ leader claimed, it was the repeated acts of belligerency the successive American administrations—and more particularly the Bush Administration—perpetrated against his regime. America has always been out to get us, not just since independence, but way before the 50s, when they tried to stifle our aspirations for freedom, Isaias recounted. He even claims that the CIA has been hatching plot after a plot against Eritrea. According to him, the challenge posed by Eritrea's other enemies—Ethiopia, Djibouti, Yemen—pales in comparison to what the US represents. His regime has bones to pick with the US in just about every issue that may come his way. And his country has been locked in a perpetual enmity with America from which he is sure to survive unscathed “because we have been nobody's servants.” That President Isaias makes paranoia sound like a normal state of mind, is no where more apparent than in his latest interview.

Not surprisingly, his self-delusion is not limited to how he views the progress Eritrea has made economically over the years. It also extends to what he believes his role is going to be in shaping the state of affairs in the entire sub-region. The president insists that despite his good efforts, external interference by ‘others' has complicated the peace process in Sudan. Despite the preponderance of evidence to the contrary, he reserves the moral high ground of peace making in Darfur. While accusing the Djibouti government of declaring war on Eritrea, he warns rather hawkishly that “they (Djibouti) would have to pay that debt”, a veiled reference to a threat to use force to settle the score. With regard to Somalia, he thinks his regime has “the obligation and trust” to play a role towards restoring normalcy to the Country and promote peace in the region. As pointed out numerous times in the Week in the Horn, Eritrea can play a constructive role if and when it refrains from the subversive acts that it has actively been engaged in the entire sub-region. As his remarks on Djibouti clearly indicate, the regime in Asmara would not stop at nothing to flex its muscle at those it may perceive as vulnerable. How such a belligerent posturing could pass for a constructive engagement such as the Eritrean leader refers to is beyond comprehension. If anything, Eritrea has been good at externalizing its domestic crisis onto others through all kinds of subversive acts.

Perhaps the most interesting issue he canvassed during his interview was Eritrea's relationship with Ethiopia. What makes his remarks on this particular issue more interesting is his attempt to give a historical context to what he claims is his vision for a united Ethiopia and his roadmap towards achieving that goal. According to the president, his front—EPLF—had consistently championed the cause of Ethiopian Unity from early on. He even goes as far as claiming that this in fact was the source of much difference between his Front and the TPLF/EPRDF. Apparently, he is gambling so shamelessly on the hope that he might be able to pull off support among the Ethiopian public. He has also concluded that the FDRE constitution has deepened the divisions among the various ethnic groups of Ethiopia and hence a need for some solution to avert a cataclysmic disintegration of Ethiopia. His promise to work towards creating conducive environment for coexistence is meant to achieve a coalition of like minded non-state actors under his leadership. This of course is his roadmap towards maintaining Ethiopian Unity, i.e. bringing all forces of reaction under his tutelage to effect a regime change. Obviously, Isaias would do anything to realize his one true quest : launch campaigns that could stand in the way of Ethiopia's progress, coddle any party that has an axe to grind with Ethiopia, use any arsenal that could potentially set the nation ablaze, and what not. Apparently, president Isaias—whose only enemy is the US—knows how best to fight against the US : by doing everything in his powers to destabilize Ethiopia.

What is the silver lining in President Isaias' new found love affair with Ethiopia's unity ?!

Eritrea is in crisis, its youth either in the army-itself already in shambles—or seizing every opportunity to leave the country often at high risks to their lives. Its economy is in doldrums, with its oversized army and its top brass preying on what little there is by way of resources. Through it all, the leadership in Asmara is neither unwilling nor capable to face up to the challenges of addressing these issues as this would require to shift resources away from campaigns of wreaking havoc on neighbors and destabilizing the whole region. The preferred way of diffusing the crisis is Isaias' time-honored tactic : export the crisis abroad. Too emasculated to launch all out attack, they resort to subversion and terror. Unfortunately, the price they have paid for this has been far too little to make them think twice before they venture into these adventures. As the recent interview seems to corroborate, the people in Asmara may yet feel they can get away with a few more of these acts, ironically all in the name of constructive engagement.

**********

· On 6 January 2008 the House of Peoples Representatives approved the Proclamation on Charities and Societies in Ethiopia. The adoption of this law followed extensive public deliberations during the drafting process, a participatory process that has been the subject of a concerted campaign of disinformation in certain quarters. The proclamation itself was greeted by several media outlets with claims that the Ethiopian parliament had adopted a law restricting or even prohibiting the work of civil society organizations. Nothing could be further from the reality of the law and its objectives.

Charities and civil societies are not new in Ethiopia. Laws governing their establishment and operation go back over five decades. Not surprisingly these legal instruments have long been overtaken by the changes that occurred over this period. In particular, after the demise of the former military regime and the institution of full freedom of association in the country the number of non-governmental organizations (NGOs) has dramatically increased and their areas of activity multiplied. One result has been that the laws and legal practices were no longer relevant to administer the multifaceted operations of charities and societies and their relations with members, government institutions, beneficiaries or even fund providers. The legal structures lacked clarity, predictability, and effectiveness. Decisions were being left to the discretion of administrative officials, largely guided by practice, making them unpredictable. Indeed, the functions carried out by the NGOs, the use of funds, and other matters, were being left largely unsupervised. There was little or no accountability.

This was unsustainable and the time for the government to address the situation was long overdue. Starting from the basis that freedom of association is guaranteed under the Constitution of Ethiopia and under international human rights instruments ratified by Ethiopia, the drafting process of the new law involved investigating successful experiences from different countries and adapting these in light of experience. The defining considerations were the Constitution and the reality on the ground. After an initial draft was prepared, the Government solicited views from stakeholders, principally from NGOs working in the country. It conducted a high profile series of consultative meetings with NGOs and other concerned parties. Two of these meetings were with the Prime Minister, and these widespread consultations helped the government refine the drafts to produce a comprehensive, participatory and inclusive piece of legislation on charities and societies. A final consultative meeting was held at Parliament involving different NGOs and other stakeholders, giving them one last opportunity to present their views. All this made it clear that the intention of the legislation was to nurture the continued development of active and organized civil society organizations in Ethiopia. The law will help NGOs continue their vital role in advancing the socio-economic interests of the country.

As stated in the preamble of the legislation, the law is aimed at ensuring the “right to association”, and at “aiding and facilitating the role of Charities and Societies in the overall development of Ethiopian peoples.” To accomplish these objectives, the legislation for the formation and operation of charities and societies in Ethiopia establishes the Charities and Societies Agency as an autonomous institution with the objectives of helping charities and societies achieve their purposes and of ensuring their legality, transparency, and accountability. Another notable feature of the law relates to the identification and enumeration of criteria for the registration, refusal, suspension and cancellation or organizations, leaving no room for abuse by administrative officials. It provides the right of appeal against decisions of the Charities Agency to a Board, the members of which specifically include representatives of the charities and societies. The legislation in fact also provides for an efficient system of claims and for the appeal process against administrative decisions or court adjudications.

Despite sensational media claims there is no limitation on the activities carried out by Ethiopian charities. Foreign charities, however, are not allowed to engage in political activities as of right. This is normal practice in most countries, as political activities, by their very nature, are reserved for citizens, and this is a very usual limitation. It is always the policy of sovereign states to limit the influence of foreigners and any efforts they might make to try and finance political activities. Aside from politics, foreign charities are free to operate and assist in the much-needed developmental activities and humanitarian needs of the country.

The legislation provides for the efficient use of funds for the purposes of any charity, for their administrative expenses and for their more efficient establishment and operation. The legislation requires reports (identifying finances and activities), details of coordination, and of their rules and regulations. There is provision for the supervision of all charities and societies and details of the accountability required of such organizations and their officials. Charities and societies are allowed to engage in profit-making activities to ensure their self-sufficiency and continuity as development actors. In this regard, it should be noted that the limitation that an Ethiopian charity that desires to participate in political activity can only receive 10% of its funds from foreign sources is intended to limit the undesirable influence of foreign entities in domestic politics. This is a customary limitation imposed by other governments all around the world. It is indeed standard practice to refuse foreign entities permission to meddle in the internal politics of a country. There are no grounds for foreign entities to engage in political activities or to try and unduly influence political developments. There is, however, scope in the legislation for the government to give special dispensations for foreign actors to contribute in this area if necessary.

The penalties for violating the provisions of the proclamation are mainly monetary. Failing to keep proper accounts, or to record monies received, for instance, is punishable by fines. Failure to submit an annual statement of account in accordance with acceptable standards to the Charities and Societies Agency ; failure to produce proper statements of receipt, payment and assets for the Agency ; failure to keep statements of account and related documents for at least five years ; and failure to report on bank accounts, annually or upon request, are all punishable with fines. None of this is either surprising or in any way abnormal. In fact, overall there's no doubt this legislation will help ensure clarity and predictability in the operation of charities and societies in Ethiopia, and improve arrangements for the licensing, registration and operation of these crucial entities in Ethiopia. Most of all it would ensure that the public would obtain maximum benefit.

Semaine du 16/01/2009

embeth — 2009-02-23T14:56:49Z

The Security Council gives Eritrea five weeks to withdraw from Djibouti territory

A farewell ceremony for the Ethiopian National Defense Forces in Mogadishu

A flawed Strategy Paper for the US President-elect.

Ethiopia's first national conference on Climate Change

The Ethio-Turkish Joint Economic Commission meets in Addis Ababa

Government encouragement for Diaspora investment.

The Proclamation on Charities and Societies : fact and fiction.

On Wednesday, the UN Security Council demanded Eritrea withdraw its forces from Djibouti within five weeks. In an unusually vigorous (and unanimous) resolution, the Security Council recalled the Council's Presidential statement of June 2008 which had condemned Eritrea's military action against Djibouti and called on both sides to withdraw to the status quo ante. Djibouti complied. Eritrea did not, nor did it make any effort to co-operate with the fact-finding missions sent to the region by the UN, the Arab League, and African Union, though the AU Chairperson, Dr. Ping, did manage to visit Asmara in October last year shortly after the Security Council, which heard evidence from both Djibouti and Eritrea, rebuked Eritrea for refusing to co-operate in the UN investigation of the June clashes. This Resolution (1862(2009)), passed on Wednesday, urges Djibouti and Eritrea to resolve their dispute peacefully as a matter of priority and in a manner consistent with international law. It expresses the Security Council's deep concern over the continuing tense border dispute. It also gives Eritrea an ultimatum, making a series of demands : that Eritrea withdraws its forces and ensures no military activity is being carried out in the areas where fighting occurred in June ; that Eritrea acknowledges that it is involved in a border dispute ; that it engages in dialogue to defuse the tension and in diplomatic efforts to produce a mutually acceptable settlement ; that it abides by its UN obligations, respecting the principles laid down in article 2 and 33 of the UN Charter, and co-operates fully with the Secretary-General who has offered his good offices. The Resolution demands that Eritrea complies with these demands immediately and in any case no later than within five weeks. It requests the Secretary-General to report on compliance within six weeks. The Security Council says it will meet in six weeks to review the situation with a view to taking further action as appropriate. Already there are clear indications that Eritrea is going to reject the Security Council's ultimatum. An official statement from the Foreign Ministry in Asmara yesterday said the U.N. Security Council had “adopted an ill-considered, unbalanced and unnecessary resolution against Eritrea” under strong pressure from “self-interested powers”.

Even before the Resolution passed on Wednesday, Ambassador Araya Desta, the Permanent Representative of Eritrea to the United Nations, had expressed his “deep concern and disappointment” over what he called an “ongoing attempt by certain members of the Council to adopt a resolution [in reference to Djibouti and Eritrea] on the basis of unfounded accusations against Eritrea.” Following the line taken by President Issayas in his New Year address to the nation a week or two earlier, Ambassador Araya launched into an attack on UN activities going back over 50 years and against Ethiopia, neither of which would appear to have any relevance to Eritrea's invasion of Djibouti and the Security Council Resolution. Ambassador Araya claimed that Eritrea was falling victim for the fourth time to the intrigues of “major powers”. He insisted Eritrea had not occupied any Djibouti territory because all the territory it occupied was its own, therefore it could not accept any resolution that demanded withdrawal from its own territory. For those who have been following the Ethiopia Eritrea border issue all this has a wearisomely familiar ring. This was exactly the excuse Eritrea made for invading Ethiopia in May 1998 and for refusing to withdraw in face of international condemnation. Similarly, Eritrea's consistent refusal in the last few months to engage in dialogue with Djibouti to defuse tension, to engage in diplomatic efforts to produce a mutually acceptable settlement, to respect its formal UN obligations, to use the good offices of the Secretary-General, to even admit that there is a problem at all, and its deliberate refusal to accept fact-finding missions, are all positions that Eritrea took over the Ethiopia Eritrea border in 1998 and subsequently. In that case its willful stubbornness led to the enforced withdrawal of a UN peacekeeping force, deliberate violation of the Temporary Security Zone and a consistent refusal to accept normalization of relations, amounting to the negation of the central elements of the Algiers peace agreement between Eritrea and Ethiopia signed in 2000. As always, armored in its own certainty whatever the rest of the world might think, and Eritrea, knowing of course that it is always right, has not been prepared to listen to alternatives. Sure of its “visionary leadership” and policies, and of a political importance no one else would grant it, Eritrea appears to believe it is being targeted because it is considered a threat to Western forces. This, it claims, is why there is “a covert and overt smear campaign against Eritrea's leaders by Western forces and their ‘puppets'”.

**********

A farewell party for the Ethiopian National Defense Forces (ENDF) was held at the offices of the TFG Prime Minister in Mogadishu on Wednesday, 14th January. The ceremony was attended by all stakeholders in Somalia, including AMISOM, officials of the TFG and the opposition ARS, elders and community representatives as well as the local and international press. Prime Minister Nur Hassan Hussein underlined his satisfaction at this witness to the implementation of the Djibouti agreement. He congratulated the ENDF for the excellent work and discipline they had displayed during their mission, and for the successful accomplishment of their responsibility. He said the sacrifices paid would be a milestone in the relationship between the Ethiopian and Somali peoples. Stressing it was now up to Somalis to take the opportunities created for peace and stability, he also called on the international community to redouble its efforts to assist Somalia. For the ENDF, Col. Gebre Yohannes noted that Ethiopian forces had gone to Somalia to address the threat to its own national interests posed by terrorists as well as to help the TFG. It was not to impose anyone on Somalia but to assist Somalia stand on its own feet. He called on the Somali people to fully cooperate with AMISOM forces, and, on behalf of the Ethiopian Defense Forces wished the people of Somalia farewell. Colonel Hussein Siyad Qorgab of ARS thanked the ENDF for upholding the Djibouti peace process. Like the AMISOM deputy force commander, Colonel Hussein took the opportunity to call on all fighters to lay their arms and work for the realization of peace in Somalia. The AMISOM deputy commander also congratulated the Ethiopian forces for their excellent job and for the opportunity they had created in Somalia in terms of peace-making and the deployment of AMISOM.

As the Ethiopian forces leave Mogadishu, the Djibouti Agreement allows for joint security forces from the TFG and those of the ARS to take over various areas. On Tuesday as the ENDF withdrew from the strategic areas of the Pasta Factory and Hayle Barise, the ARS and related militias were due to take over. TFG forces in collaboration with AMISOM were to cover the areas of the Stadium and the remaining places in the town. At the same time as part of the process under the Transitional Charter and the Djibouti Agreement, following the resignation of President Abdullahi Yusuf, the effort to elect a new leadership has begun. There is now general agreement that maintaining the legitimacy of the TFG would be necessary. Some of the candidates, and some of the members of the existing TF Parliament, wanted the present parliament alone to have the responsibility of selecting a new leadership before the expansion of the parliament as agreed under the Djibouti Agreement. They have raised questions over the reality of the ARS presence on the ground, claiming the ARS is insufficiently cohesive or its leaders lack sufficient support to implement the doubling of the numbers of parliament to 550 members allowed for in the Djibouti Agreement. Some presidential hopefuls believe they can be strong candidates provided the election is confined to the MPs now in Baidoa – that is no more than about 130 or so. Others, who support enlargement, argue that the ARS should be accommodated through this current opportunity in accordance with the Djibouti peace agreement. The enlargement plan allows for the amendment of the Charter, and the expansion of parliament with the ARS's MPs. This will be followed by the election of a new Speaker and deputy-speaker, and finally the election of a new President for Somalia. This has been endorsed by a sub committee of the high level political committee established under the Djibouti agreement at an UNPOS organized meeting in Nairobi last week. It was noted that if Parliament can amend the Charter as envisaged, it can also consider amending the article that enforces the election of the President within thirty days. This would allow for a possible failure by the ARS to keep the deadline, though there is now a lot of pressure on the ARS to complete its MP list as soon as possible. The question of whether the ARS will stick to the 4.5 formula of the Baidoa parliament has also been raised. There have already been suggestions that the current Speaker may be asked, as a compromise proposal, to finish his term of office in accordance with the TFG Charter.

Both UNPOS and AMISOM are concerned that the process for electing the President should not exclusively be that of the current Parliament. AMISOM is particularly sensitive to anything that might precipitate conflict in Mogadishu, in which AMISOM could be an easy target. AMISOM force commanders would like to see the political process bring everybody on board to avoid any conflict. Indeed the need for handling political matters carefully, to ensure that all clans are on board, and that no one clan is marginalized, remains critical.

**********

The new administration in the US is not going to be short of advice on Somalia, or on Ethiopia and Eritrea. It has indeed been deluged with it from all sorts of people ranging serious minded scholars, to cranks and to former officials looking for preferment once again. One such body, which has never been short of advice to give to President Bush, has already started to proffer it to the next administration, is Enough, a project of the NGO the Centre for American Progress whose aims are an end of genocide and crimes against humanity. It focuses on crises in Africa, originally in Sudan, and then on Chad, eastern Congo, northern Uganda, Somalia and Zimbabwe. We cannot comment here on all of the issues covered by the authors (John Prendergast and John Norris), but their misleading assumptions and biased conclusions over Somalia, and the role the authors claim for the Ethiopia-Eritrea dispute certainly need correction if the paper is to be of any use to the next president. Any suggestion that “the standoff between [Eritrea and Ethiopia] has helped fuel conflict … further destabilizing Somalia” is seriously mistaken. It is Eritrea's proven track record of being a regional ‘spoiler' attempting to destabilize our whole region. It is an established fact that since its independence in 1993, Eritrea has managed to launch wars against virtually all of its neighbors including Yemen, Ethiopia and Djibouti, and also threatened to use force to bring about regime change in Sudan. In addition to waging open wars of aggression, Eritrea harbors, finances, trains and arms almost every insurgent and terrorist outfit from the region and from beyond with the aim of destabilizing its neighbors and the region as a whole. For example it is no secret it even trains and arms Al-Shabaab, an al Qaeda-affiliated terrorist group. The Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict has nothing to do with any of this. Eritrea has simply used its dispute with Ethiopia as the excuse for its aggressive acts in the region including Somalia. It even, as noted above, has used this as a claimed excuse for its invasion of Djibouti. Surprisingly, the authors of this paper seem to have swallowed the Eritrean argument. John Prendergast, in particular, ought to know better. There is no plausible excuse for Eritrea's destabilizing role in the region, and there no need to look for one. It is the nature of the Eritrean regime.

Arising out of their mistaken assumptions, the authors conclude that in order to address the conflict in Somalia, “a parallel diplomatic effort should be launched” to deal with the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict. It prescribes a “conclusive border demarcation followed by internationally backed bilateral talks on issues of mutual concern”. The authors appear unaware that it is on record that Ethiopia firmly accepted the delimitation decision of the now-defunct Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission, and has consistently called for dialogue with Eritrea in order to proceed to a successful demarcation leading to sustainable peace. Eritrea has continually refused to accept. Ethiopia believes a successful demarcation leading to sustainable peace can only happen when the two conflicting parties build mutual trust in the context of normalized relations between them. For that to happen at this point, dialogue between the parties to normalize their relations is needed. It is impossible to carry out successful border demarcation between two parties who are not on speaking terms. Enough's prescription is putting the cart before the horse.

This is not the first time that Enough has taken this line, a line enthusiastically endorsed by Eritrea's Ministry of Information. On December 10, 2008 Enough issued a “Policy Statement on the Bush Administration's “Transition Land Mines” in Somalia”. This claimed that Bush Administration's alleged plans to place Eritrea on the U.S. State Department's list of State Sponsors of Terrorism would “spoil U.S. peacemaking efforts” and “could deepen the crisis in the Horn of Africa”. The next day, the Eritrean regime issued its own press release claiming some US State Department Officials were making “a last-ditch attempt to tie the hands of the incoming administration in the strategic Horn of Africa region”. The Eritrean regime's statement, not surprisingly, also argued that placing Eritrea on the State Sponsor of Terrorism list would be “counter-productive and detrimental to the cause of peace and stability in the Horn of Africa as well as U.S interests”. A case of coincidence or something more ?

Enough's strategy paper clearly has serious shortcomings and lacks objectivity. At the same time it should be noted that the basic idea of helping resolve the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict peacefully is welcome. Ethiopia remains committed to just this. It maintains its call for dialogue to normalize relations with Eritrea so that the two countries can achieve sustainable peace. Indeed, Prime Minister Meles repeated only yesterday that Ethiopia was always ready to discuss peace proposals with Eritrea but would not rush into such discussions unless the Eritrean government expressed its wish to discuss peace. It has not done so.

**********

Ethiopia's first ever national conference on climate change was held yesterday at the UNECA conference center. Organized by the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development in collaboration with Oxfam America, and opened by Prime Minister Meles, ministers, academicians, members of the diplomatic community, representatives of civil society and the private sector attended. In his opening remarks the Prime Minister pointed out that although Ethiopia's contribution to global warning was negligible, it was necessary to respond in an intelligent manner to the enormous challenges of climate change : “we can only succeed to adapt to climate change if we fight poverty effectively and generate the resources needed for the purpose. Climate change is an additional reason why sustained and fast economic growth is a matter of life and death for our country”. The Prime Minister detailed important aspects of Ethiopia's development strategy that were following an essentially carbon-neutral path : “The extensive re-afforestation and environmental rehabilitation programs we are carrying out means, among other things, our capacity to sequester significant amounts of carbon is being enhanced.” The Prime Minister mentioned Ethiopia's effort to substitute bio-fuels for fossil fuels. He applauded the establishment of the National Climate Change Forum bringing all stakeholders together to chart Ethiopia's course to mitigate and adapt to climate change. He welcomed the objective of building institutional capacity to continue to monitor developments, to collect necessary data and to continuously refine predictions. The Prime Minister promised the government's support for such efforts.

In his remarks, Dr. Abera Deresa, State Minister of Rural Development and Agriculture and the Chairman of the National Climate Change Forum, appealed to all interested parties to join the Forum and contribute financial and intellectual resources. Dr Abera outlined the adverse effects of climate change, including temperature changes, drought, a rise in sea levels, floods and the greater frequency of extreme weather. In particular, he emphasized the challenges to the farming community. He spoke of the various initiatives taken by several institutions in relation to climate change in Ethiopia, but pointed out these were not always well-coordinated with the national climate change adaptation and mitigation policy. In his keynote speech, Dr. Tewolde Berhan Gebre Egziabher, Director-General of the Environment Protection Authority, stressed the profound challenge of climate change to Ethiopia's environment, suggesting ways to help future generations survive the intensification of these changes. A number of presentations were made on climate change and Ethiopian agriculture and climate change in relation to water resources, as well as on biodiversity, and the energy sector and gender. Discussions were lively, and the conference concluded its deliberations by highlighting the way forward to mitigate and adapt to climate change in Ethiopia and identifying what the respective contributions of the Ethiopian Government, of donors, of the international community and of the general public should be.

**********

The 5th Ethio-Turkey Joint Economic Commission (JEC) was held in Addis Ababa, January 9-10. The Ethiopian Delegation was headed by Mr. Girma Birru, Minister of Trade and Industry ; and the Turkish Delegation by Mr. Binali Yildrim, Minister of Transport. Turkey is a strategic partner and among the top 20 trading partners of Ethiopia. The strong relationship between the two states has been underlined by the visits of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi to Turkey in 2004 and to the Turkey Africa Forum last year. High level Ethiopian official and business delegations attended the 2nd and 3rd Turkey Africa Foreign Trade Bridge and recently, the Ethio-Turkey Parliamentary Friendship Team members, led by the Speaker of the House of Representatives, paid an official visit to Turkey. The strength of the relationship has also been demonstrated by the growth in trade. Prior to the establishment of the Joint Commission average total trade turnover was around US$23.5 million. In 2003 the value of trade reached US$71 million, and by 2007 it had more than doubled, exceeding US$180 million. Ethiopia's main exports to Turkey are sesame seed and leather ; its main imports are industrial products mainly construction materials. The balance is still firmly in favor of Turkey, and, as the Joint Commission underlined, there is plenty of room for expansion. In his opening remarks, Minister Girma noted the need to identify specific areas of cooperation aimed to reduce the trade imbalance, thanking the Government of Turkey for the measures it had taken to extend the Generalized System of Market Preference to all LDCs. In order to fully utilize this market preference, the Minister requested the expansion of Turkish private investment in the manufacturing of textile and leather goods and underscored the importance of technical cooperation in these areas as well as agriculture, agro-processing, mining and mineral exploration. Mr. Yildrim for his part emphasized that Turkey has launched its present strategy for enhancing its economic and commercial relations with African countries in 2003. In accordance with this strategy, Turkey aims to contribute to the eradication of poverty in Africa, helping to place African countries, both individually and collectively, on the path of sustainable development. This should halt the marginalization of Africa in the globalization process and enhance its full and beneficial integration into the global economy. In this context, he said, Ethiopia is of utmost importance because of its strategic location in East Africa and its unique political stability among African countries.

During the two-day meeting there were detailed discussions and exchanges of views on possible further expansion of existing commercial, economic and financial relations, as well as on cooperation in the fields of industry, transportation, agriculture, construction and consultancy services, standardization, water resources, and technical cooperation. The two parties agreed on the areas of intervention over the next two years. The establishment of a joint business council was discussed and an agreement was signed between the Ethiopian Chamber of Commerce and Sectoral Association and the Foreign Economic Relations Board of Turkey (DEIK) to establish the Ethio-Turkish Business Council. This is expected to play a positive role in enhancing economic and commercial relations. During his visit to Addis Ababa, Mr. Binali Yildrim was received by Prime Minister Meles and held separate meetings to discuss areas of cooperation with Mr. Alemayehu Tegenu, Minister of Mines and Energy, Mr. Diriba Kumma, Minister of Transport and Communication and Mr. Girma Birru, Minister of Trade and Industry.

**********

Government delegations have been touring the Middle East, the Gulf and Southern Africa to promote the establishment and operation of foreign currency accounts for non-resident Ethiopians and non-resident nationals of Ethiopian origin in recent weeks. They have also been explaining the provisions for international remittance which were issued in 2006, and introducing the new Diaspora Corporate Bond issued by the National Bank of Ethiopia in collaboration with the Ethiopian Electric Power Corporation (EEPCO).One of the delegations was headed by Ato Nega Tsegaye, State Minister for Foreign Affairs, and visited Saudi Arabia, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates and Lebanon. The second, led by the Director-General of the Ethiopian Expatriates Affairs of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, W/ro Mebrat Beyene, visited South Africa and Botswana. Included in both delegations were officials of the EEPCO and the National Bank of Ethiopia (NBE). The delegations were able to underline the rapid economic growth registered by Ethiopia over the past few years. During their meetings with members of the Ethiopian Diaspora, they urged participants to maximize their support to help keep up the impetus towards growth and to ensure its sustainability. The Government is doing its best to implement the policies and strategies put in place to ensure sustainable economic development. This, however, does require the active engagement of citizens both at home and abroad. Members of the delegations also called upon Ethiopians from all walks of life to make contributions in the fight against poverty, noting that development is crucial for the survival of the nation.

A central theme of the discussions was the need for support for the energy sector. The delegations emphasized that this is one of the driving forces behind Ethiopia's robust economic activity. Demand is rising at a faster rate as a result of the boom in construction and the developments in agriculture and the service sector, and the energy sector is an area in which citizens can mobilize resources to propel the current economic growth. There was, however, a need for foreign currency to generate more power in a sustainable manner that could lead to the future export of power. This is the purpose of the issuance by the EEPCO/NBE of corporate bonds for sale to the Diaspora to generate foreign currency for power sector development. The scheme envisages encouraging Ethiopians in the Diaspora to open foreign currency accounts and to remit money as per the existing directives as part of efforts to generate hard currency. Members of the delegations took the opportunity to elaborate on the relevant directives with members of the Diaspora and the benefits that can accrue to those who buy the bonds. Participants of the discussions were urged to open accounts in hard currency and send remittances through formal channels. Many Ethiopians, and foreign nationals of Ethiopian origin, have already displayed keen interest in buying the bonds and opening foreign currency accounts. In discussions, a number of valuable suggestions on how to boost the sales of corporate bonds alongside existing commitments to support Ethiopia's development efforts were also made.

**********

There has been much speculation and misrepresentation about the recently promulgated legislation governing registration and operation of charities and societies in Ethiopia. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International, which seem to have made it their business to deliberately misunderstand the democratization process in the country, are once again leading the charge, characterizing the legislation as another attempt by the Ethiopian Government to repress civil society and further narrow political space. Opposition sources are equally prepared to join in the litany of allegations with equally little reason.

In fact, despite the noise none of this could be further from the truth. It seems clear that most of these allegations are made deliberately to misinform and misinterpret. They are invariably based on faulty assumptions and the facts twisted to fit these. In addition to fabricating supposed events, these claims also include equally faulty predictions about what are claimed will be negative consequences, of which there can be no evidence. Indeed, it has reached a point where HRW and AI seem to have taken it upon themselves to engage in an endless game of name calling with the Ethiopian Government. As so often, they have included all kinds of irrelevancies to try to build up their argument. While the legislation has its own obvious and legitimate rationale, HRW and AI claim it is part of a pattern by the government to stifle dissent. There is no pattern and looking back over several years to bring in entirely irrelevant and separate instances, as of the imprisonment of a legally convicted opposition politician, hardly proves the point. Frankly, these somewhat desperate attempts appear to have the aim of imposing their objectives on Ethiopia's legislative processes. Prior to the proclamation, there was a series of frank discussions, held in good faith, between Government officials, national stakeholders, and international partners. This does not appear to have been fully appreciated. Some seem to have dismissed this participatory legislative process because it failed to advance their own narrow agenda ; others would clearly not be satisfied unless their own version of the proclamation was passed. Obviously this cannot be acceptable to a Government accountable to its own people.

In previous weeks, A Week in the Horn, has included some detailed explanations of the main tenets of the new legislation. Sufficient explanations and detailed briefings have been given by relevant officials of the Government who have also held a series of discussions with partners. It has not prevented critics of the legislation from continuing to air their allegations, however unjustified to try to distort the legitimate, clear and straightforward motivations of the Government in providing a workable and transparent system for the work of non-governmental organizations in Ethiopia. The law should, in fact, be welcome to human rights organizations in Ethiopia or to international human rights organizations which have a genuine interest to advance human rights and democracy in Ethiopia, and which do not mind regular evaluations of their activities.

Civil Societies with the current magnitude of involvement were unknown in Ethiopia before 1991. One of the major achievements of progress in human rights under this government has been the right to association in the Constitution, and the appearance of numerous civil societies, local and international. According to recent statistics, there are more than 4000 civil society organizations in Ethiopia and this growth has been attended by significant contributions ranging from basic advocacy services to poverty-reduction programs. As the legislation covering their activities dates back some five decades, stakeholders, specifically civil societies themselves, have repeatedly requested more up-to-date regulations to cover formation and operation. The outcome is issuance of the Proclamation on Charities and Societies which incorporates consideration of the experience of various countries and reality on the ground, consultation with stakeholders, and public debates on various drafts. The objectives of the legislation have been clear. The ‘system' under which civil society organizations have been operating has not enabled Ethiopia to enjoy fully the benefits of their contribution in the country's multi-faceted development efforts. The new proclamation is specifically aimed at enhancing participation in developmental efforts of the country. Only by deliberate distortion of the intentions of the Government can a proclamation of comprehensive legislation that clearly defines and regulates charities and societies be seen as anything except a positive step in the country's democratization process. The new law's preamble makes the point clearly enough : ‘it [has been] found necessary to enact a law in order to ensure the realization of citizens' right to association enshrined in the Constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia,…and to aid and facilitate the role of Charities and Societies in the overall development of Ethiopian peoples ;' These objectives cannot reasonably be characterized as ‘repressive or narrowing of the political space' by any stretch of the imagination.

The legislation distinguishes between Ethiopian and foreign charities. The issue that seems to have concerned most critics has been the requirement that to be considered an Ethiopian charity, an organization should raise 90% of funds from local sources. This does not imply the prohibition of foreign charities from charitable works or Ethiopian charities from advocacy work. It should, at the outset, be clear that all forms of charity can carry out any of the developmental, relief, and other activities provided for in the Proclamation. The only areas of activity prohibited to foreign charities are political. As should be obvious, political activities which are responsible for a state's true sovereignty and independence, must be jealously guarded from foreign interference and from the influence which can all too easily be imposed through financial assistance to political activities. Almost all countries impose similar limitations. As for Ethiopian charities, the truth of the matter is that local advocacy groups can continue to undertake their advocacy work unimpeded. This is not a favor from the Government. It is a right guaranteed under the Constitution. The only limitation is that they have to raise 90 % of their funds from local sources. This, in addition to preventing undue political influence by foreigners, will ensure ownership of advocacy work by Ethiopians themselves. Equally, it should be recognized that the Proclamation does not exclude the possibility of international organizations or foreign governmental organizations operating in Ethiopia, but this must be under an agreement with the Government of Ethiopia and allow for regular evaluations.

Another important development in the Proclamation is the establishment of an independent Charities and Societies Agency to ensure the implementation of the words and spirit of the legislation. Its structure is adapted from the experience of other countries and from the organization of the executive organs of the government, and other realities. Its objectives include : enabling and encouraging the purposes of charities and societies, creating a situation in which charities and societies are accountable and transparent, and making sure they operate legally. It is mandated to operate under the decisions of the Proclamation and other relevant laws. In addition to administrative remedies, any charity, Ethiopian or foreign, can appeal Agency decisions to a Board of Charities and Societies, on which the charities and societies themselves are represented. It is worth noting that one critical aspect of the new law that has come under almost relentless attack is the provision of ensuring the accountability of societies and charities. It has been alleged that the law introduces over-severe penalties for transgressions. In fact, the Proclamation embraces fundamental principles of penalty as prevention and education ; almost all violations, such as a failure to keep accounts satisfactorily, are subject only to fines. For grave violations such as falsification of accounts and the failure to obey the Agency's lawful orders, suspension until the charity has complied with the legal requirements, can be ordered. It is only with exceptionally grave violations including deliberate fraud and misrepresentation, or involvement in unlawful purpose or purpose prejudicial to public peace, welfare and security, that a cancellation of a CSO's registration may be imposed. These are perfectly normal consequences for such violations and are not in any way exceptional whatever HRW or AI may say. Another aspect of the law that has given rise to debate has been the requirement of transparency. Some have claimed this as a way of controlling or suppressing activities of particular charities and societies. It is true that CSOs are now required to be transparent and make annual activity reports to the Civil Societies Agency. These requirements include preparation of a statement of accounts according to acceptable standards, notification of bank accounts and the keeping of accounting records. These requirements are simply, and obviously, to ensure the efficiency of CSOs and ensure the funds are fully deployed for their intended purposes.

In addition to raising numerous misleading or inaccurate, even invented, criticisms of the Proclamation, critics have also carefully ignored almost all the factors that were designed to have a positive impact on the efficient performance of charities and societies. The Proclamation allows CSOs to create a sustainable source of income by engaging in profitable activities related to the achievement of their purpose. It also provides for incentives to CSOs that minimize administrative costs and make maximum use of their resources for their intended purposes. CSOs, for example, that use 80% of their funds for intended purposes, are entitled to incentives. These main tenets of the legislation amply demonstrate that the Proclamation is a significant development that will contribute to entrenching democracy in Ethiopia further. There is nothing in its provisions that merits the kind of virulent attacks that have been witnessed except, perhaps, the increased supervision of certain charities and societies and the requirements of greater transparency. The law, in fact, deserves full support from all local and international charities and societies that have genuine concern for the advancement of human rights, democracy and increased socio-economic development of countries like Ethiopia.

Semaine du 23/01/2009

embeth — 2009-02-23T14:47:45Z

Congratulations to President Barack Obama

Security Council support for UN Peacekeepers in Somalia

Somalia's presidential election next week ; speculation on Somalia's future

30,000 Eritrean refugees in northern Ethiopia

An AU/UN meeting on UNAMID

Human Rights Watch : World Report 2009

Professor Hassan Makki and extremism in the Horn of Africa

Following the historic inauguration of President Barack Obama as the 44th president of the United States of America and the first African American to be elected to that office, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi sent a message of congratulation expressing the best wishes of the peoples and government of Ethiopia, and of himself, to President Obama for his well-being and success. The ceremony, attended by millions of Americans gathered in Washington, was watched by millions more people from all over the world, including most of Ethiopia. It was a truly historic ceremony, and President Obama's speeches in his successful campaign, as well as his inaugural address have earned him, and his country, goodwill the world over. In his message, Prime Minister Meles noted “We have all followed closely the long campaign for the presidency, not only because of your close links to Africa, but also because of your inspirational messages that have galvanized so many in the United States”. The Prime Minister added, “Your achievement in this historic election represents a milestone in the history of your great country…a nation with which Ethiopia has always had strong ties of friendship.” The Prime Minister said he was confident the election of President Obama would provide a new opportunity for the people of the United States to forge ahead towards further prosperity and peace. He said he was looking forward to a productive working relationship with the new administration. Indeed, Ethiopia and the United States have enjoyed close and friendly relations based on mutual respect and partnership for over a century. Ethiopia is confident that this will be further strengthened during the Obama Administration. For its part, it remains fully committed to strengthening the close ties between the two countries.

**********

Last Friday, the United Nations Security Council unanimously adopted Resolution 1863 (2009), expressing its intention to establish a UN peacekeeping operation in Somalia, and renewing its authorization of the AU Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) for a further six months. The Resolution calls on Secretary-General, Ban ki-Moon, to develop, by April 15th, a mandate for the proposed UN mission to replace the current AU force. The deployment of the proposed mission would, however, be subject to a further decision of the UN Security Council, to be taken on June 1st. The Resolution noted that the mandate for the proposed force should take into account the need to facilitate humanitarian assistance and access, maintain liaison with all parties to the Djibouti Agreement, provide security to protect and assist the institutions of a future Unity Government, monitor the implementation of the cessation of hostilities under the Djibouti Agreement, ensure the security of UN personnel and assist in the effective re-establishment of Somali security forces. It also requests the Secretary-General to establish a trust fund for AMISOM's financial support and to hold a donor's meeting for this purpose as soon as possible. Renewing authorization of AMISOM for another six months, the Security Council requested the African Union to reinforce AMISOM to its original projected strength of 8,000.

The Resolution reaffirmed that the Djibouti Peace Agreement represented the basis for resolution of conflict in Somalia and welcomed its guiding principles for the establishment of a Unity Government and an inclusive Parliament. It called on member states to contribute personnel, equipment and other resources to AMISOM as well as assist in building up the capacity of the Somali Government at federal, state and local levels. The Resolution requires the Secretary-General to advise urgently on the implementation of his plans to help the TFG and the ARS develop a coherent joint Transitional Security Force and Police, some 15,000 in all. The Resolution stresses the need for the Secretary-General's Special Representative to co-ordinate all UN activities in Somalia in support of the efforts to establish peace and security, and immediate contingency planning for the deployment of UN offices and agencies into Somalia. Without mentioning names, the Security Council also demands that all states in the region refrain from any action that might exacerbate instability in Somalia or the Horn of Africa, and reiterates its intention to take measures against those that try to block a peaceful political process, or “who undermine stability in Somalia or the region.”

One of the sponsors of Resolution 1863 was the United States which was earlier pushing for deployment of a peace-keeping force in Somalia as soon as possible. Following the US Presidential elections, the new US Ambassador-designate to the United Nations, Ms. Susan Rice said she supported elements of the resolution, including those aimed at strengthening AMISOM's resources. She did, however, note that the new US Administration would have to take a “very careful and close look” at whether to support a UN force in six months time. Ms. Rice added that she thought a multi-faceted approach was needed in Somalia to deal with emergency relief, political reconciliation and with “terrorist challenges” effectively.

*****

In Addis Ababa last weekend, the AU Peace and Security Commissioner, Mr. Ramtane Lamamra, chaired a meeting of representatives of the African Union Commission and Ministers of Defense of AMISOM troop-contributing countries to discuss recent political and security developments in Somalia and the status of the build-up of AMISOM forces. The meeting was attended by the international partners on Somalia as well as by representatives of the TFG, the opposition ARS, and the IGAD Facilitator on Somali peace and reconciliation as well as representatives of the five permanent members of the Security Council, the European Union, the three African members of the Security Council, Italy, Norway, the Organization of Islamic States, and the Arab League. The meeting was briefed on the progress made in putting in place the mechanisms for the expansion of the parliament as stipulated in the Djibouti Agreement. The meeting encouraged Somali political groups to show unity of purpose and ensure that political developments moved the peace and reconciliation process forward. The security situation following the Ethiopian withdrawal was reviewed and the meeting was told there had been a significant reduction of threat in Mogadishu. Participants, however, stressed the need to urgently address provision of the required logistical support for a joint TFG and ARS security force, and the need for further consolidation of AMISOM was underlined. The meeting was told additional battalions for AMISOM will be deployed in the near future. The partners expressed their satisfaction at the political and security progress and at the commendable work undertaken by AMISOM despite the still trying environment in Mogadishu, reaffirming their commitment to its support. The meeting was encouraged by Resolution 1863, and the references to the provision of necessary support to AMISOM as preparation for the UN to take over.

*****

The Peace and Security Council itself also held a meeting on Somalia this week, at ambassadorial level. Its 167th meeting in Addis Ababa, on Wednesday, was briefed by the AU Commission, by representatives of the TFG, and by Ethiopia, (in its capacity as chair of IGAD,) as well as by representatives of IGAD Secretariat and the United Nations. Ambassador Sahlework Zewde, Ethiopia's Ambassador to the African Union, underlined the need for seriousness from Somali parties as the owners of the peace process, and emphasized the importance of proper handling of the political situation to retain the legality of the TFG. She also informed the council that IGAD would convene a Council of Ministers meeting on Somalia on the 27th January, in the margins of the forthcoming AU Summit. The briefings to the Council emphasized the need for a successful expansion of the Transitional Federal Parliament and presidential election, noting the fact that al-Shabaab was losing ground, and its activities were currently limited to minor terrorist incidents. In a statement, the council encouraged Somali parties to continue to demonstrate the political will required for the success of the reconciliation process, and called on member states and the international community as a whole to continue to extend their support to the process. The council also welcomed the adoption of UN Security Council Resolution 1863 (2009).

*****

Meanwhile, preparations are pushing ahead for the Somali Presidential election, and after the resignation of President Abdullahi Yusuf from the TFG last month, the effort to elect a new leadership in Somalia appears to be on track. The election is now expected to take place in Djibouti on Monday after the enlarged Parliament is sworn in. Candidates for the top job have been announcing their readiness to compete. So far 12 candidates have appeared among them the current Prime Minister Nur Hassan Hussein, former Prime Minister Professor Ali Mohammed Gedi, Ambassador Hassan Abshir Farah (a former prime minister of the TNG), and Ambassador Azhari (one time ambassador to the US). A number of others are also expected to announce their candidature. Yesterday, interim President, Sheikh Aden Madobe, and Prime Minister Nur Hassan Hussein ‘Adde' arrived in Djibouti from attendance at the Arab League Summit in Kuwait. They are working together to ensure a smooth transition and the enlargement of the Transitional Federal Parliament in accordance with the provisions of the Transitional Federal Charter. Starting yesterday, MPs who were in Baidoa are being air-lifted to Djibouti. There were concerns whether enough MPs would be available in Djibouti to make amendments to the Transitional Federal Charter, to validate the enlargement of the parliament. The opposition ARS, for its part, has divided the 200 MPs allotted to it under the Djibouti Agreement along the same 4.5 clan formula used for the original appointment of the members of the Transitional Federal Parliament.

*****

As might be expected, the withdrawal of Ethiopian forces from Somalia has inevitably led to international and media speculation about Somalia's future, much of it gloomy and frequently erroneous deductions. Indeed, an Economist article a couple of weeks ago suggested that the Ethiopian departure might mean that Somalia would fall “back into the abyss”, though it did add a question mark. For the Economist, Ethiopia's move meant that it would no longer be taking responsibility for Somalia, but, surprisingly, it did not go on to identify exactly why this would be the case. It noted that there was still little sign that the AU was persuading African states to honor their pledges and get more troops on the ground (though there are in fact 3,500 not 2,900), and that American and European governments were only prepared to take action against pirates, but little more. It did not underline that this added up to a very significant failure by the international community. It noted that in the last two years Ethiopia had demonstrated its ability to respond firmly to any threat of a full-scale invasion and the resurrection of the Somali irredentism which convulsed the whole region in the 1960s and 1970s. Its intervention in December 2006 very quickly got rid of what was a very clear and immediate threat. However, the failure of Somali politicians to take advantage of the possibilities subsequently available to create a functional government and the lack of international support for the Transitional Federal Institutions seriously weakened the impact of Ethiopia's subsequent efforts on behalf of peace and stability in Somalia over the last two years. In fact, as is likely to become apparent in the near future, Ethiopia did a substantial job in keeping down the amount of violence.

Professor David Shinn of George Washington University, a former US Ambassador to Ethiopia, equally failed to underline the significance of the failure of the international community, preferring to see Ethiopia as having been a major part of the problem for the last two years. Professor Shinn remains pessimistic that moderate Somalis, “who just want a return to some sort of stability”, would prove able or willing to come together. He doubts whether the moderates will be strong enough to succeed, apparently believing Al-Shabaab is in the best position to take advantage of Ethiopia's withdrawal because it is “well-armed and well organized”. This view is shared by Time Magazine which regards Ethiopia's withdrawal as a gamble, comparing it to the US's planned drawdown of forces in Iraq.

Indeed, it is sometimes difficult to see where commentators on Somalia are coming from. Gamal Nkrumah in a recent article, “Ethiopian exodus” in Al Ahram Weekly On-line (January 15-21), is another case in point. Mr. Nkrumah seems to believe that Ethiopia bowed to popular Somali pressure to withdraw or beat a hasty retreat. Not exactly the same thing, of course, and in any case totally at odds with Ethiopia's reasons for withdrawal. Mr. Nkrumah claims it is common knowledge that Ethiopian forces were in Somalia to fight a proxy war on behalf of the United States. No, it isn't. It is in fact common knowledge it is not true ; in most cases, indeed, it's more a question of the pot calling the kettle….. In fact, Mr. Nkrumah appears to have little knowledge of what is actually happening in Somalia, talking about the Council of Islamic Courts, which no longer exists under this name, and Al-Shabaab as expected to fill the political vacuum in the wake of the Ethiopian withdrawal. They aren't. It has been moderate Islamic forces, supporters of the Djibouti Agreement, oddly not mentioned by Mr. Nkrumah, which have been taking over the previous Ethiopian bases. Mr. Nkrumah does note, as Ethiopia has consistently pointed out, that the international community has dragged its feet over Somali national reconciliation, adding that “even the US-led International Contact Group has been unable to resolve the Somali political impasse” though unwilling to try might be a better choice of phrase than “unable to resolve”.

Mr. Nkrumah's belief that Ethiopia's withdrawal will “accentuate the political clout of the militant Islamists and curb the influence of moderates” may be shared by other commentators, but there is little evidence that it is accurate. It seriously exaggerates the strength of the extremists at present, a fact or rather a reality not unrelated to what Ethiopia has contributed over the last two years. A rather more accurate point is Mr. Nkrumah's assertion that it would be in the best interests of Somalia “if the professionals return to their homeland and technocrats are permitted to once again conduct the business of running the country in peace. The interests of Somalia will be best served when trust is rebuilt in the Somali political system.” This is certainly true, and as Ethiopia has underlined for the last two years, it needs the full co-operation of the international community and the complete concurrence of Somalis.

Most recently, it has been the turn of Stephanie McCrummen in the Washington Post : “With Ethiopian Pullout, Islamists Rise Again in Somalia” (22.1.2009). Ms. McCrummen starts by seeing Al-Shabaab as the biggest threat to the TFG and to what she calls “moderate Islamists seeking to become part of it”. She spends much of her article looking, gloomily, at the various divisions among the “moderates”, at what she calls the effect of the Ethiopian intervention in scattering the leadership of the Islamic Courts, and some of the fluid political alliances that have appeared in recent months. The conclusion, however, takes a different line. Shabaab, Ms. McCrummen emphasizes, is also showing signs of internal divisions, of fragmentation. So, in the end, the most viable political alternative appears to be a UN, and US-backed agreement which involves moderate Islamist leaders. In other words, the Djibouti Agreement which Ms. McCrummen doesn't actually mention in her article.

**********

Last weekend a delegation from embassies and NGOs based in Addis Ababa visited two refugee camps for Eritreans at Mayayni and Shimalba in Tigrai Regional State. The delegates, from the EU, the US and Canada, and from UN organizations, including UNHCR, UNICEF, WFP, WHO, and the IOM, as well as other NGOs, spent three days at the camps and at an asylum screening centre between January 14-16. Shimalba camp was set up in May 2004, and Mayayni last year, to provide shelter for the thousands of Eritreans who have been fleeing from mandatory and continuous military service, religious and other forms of persecution and human rights violations. The refugee camps currently hold over 30,000 refugees, 16,000 in Shimalba alone, and the numbers are increasing at an average monthly rate of 900 men, women and children. Similar numbers have been crossing into Sudan. The deputy director of the Administration for Refugees and Returnee Affairs (ARRA) said the aim of the visit had been to let donors see the situation on the ground to encourage the provision of more help and support for the refugees. With the numbers continuing to increase steadily, more assistance from the international community is becoming necessary. The delegation noted that the ARRA, together with international organizations, had been very active in providing protection and security for the refugees, but promised to do more to help. The refugees appealed to the delegation to encourage the international community to provide additional financial and material assistance as well as to improve resettlement quotas for Eritrean refugees in western countries. They also asked the international community to condemn forced repatriation of refugees by some governments to Asmara without consent.

**********

Ms. Susana Malcorra, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Department of Field Support was in Addis Ababa this week to visit AU Headquarters and discuss issues relating to the deployment and operations of the United Nations – African Union Hybrid Mission in Darfur (UNAMID), as well as the strengthening of the African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM). On Monday, Ms. Malcorra attended the third meeting of the African Union Commission, the United Nations and the Government of Sudan's Tripartite Coordinating Mechanism for UNAMID, set up last year. She confirmed to the meeting that UNAMID had successfully achieved 60% deployment of its proposed troop level by the end of last month. Additional troops are expected in March and more later in the year. Ms. Malcorra ascribed this achievement to the positive spirit of engagement of all the parties involved. She also underlined that deployment of the required number of troops was only a prelude to the main task of bringing peace and security to Darfur. The African Union Peace and Security Commissioner, Mr. Ramtane Lamamra, said that the Tripartite Mechanism's work reflected the high priority given to such a complex and difficult peacekeeping mission as UNAMID. A memorandum of understanding was signed between the Government of Sudan and UNAMID to enable UNAMID to make more effective use of Sudanese airfields and speed up the remainder of the deployment process.

During her visit, the UN Under-Secretary-General also met with officials of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. In a meeting with Mr. Desalegn Alemu, Acting Director-General of International Organizations, in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Ms. Malcorra thanked the Government of Ethiopia, a major troop contributor to UNAMID, for fulfilling its commitment so promptly, making it possible for UNAMID to successfully achieve its current levels of troop deployment. She noted that Ethiopia had always been at the forefront in peace negotiation initiatives in regional conflicts and in contribution of troops for peacekeeping operations, and welcomed Ethiopia's role in the efforts being made within the UN and AU frameworks to bring lasting peace to conflicts in Africa in general and in Eastern Africa in particular. Ms. Malcorra also thanked the Government for its assistance in the establishment and operation of the UNAMID Office in Addis Ababa.

**********

It is a commonplace for countries criticized by Human Rights Watch to complain about HRW's reports, as indeed HRW is always quick to emphasize. And indeed, HRW appears to assume, for that very reason, that none of the complaints are justified. In fact, however, it doesn't mean that the criticisms may not be merited. All too often, and far more than HRW is prepared to admit, they are. This is, in part, because of HRW's acknowledged failures to investigate on the ground, or because, on occasions, it has certainly failed to evaluate the origin and political affiliation of the sources that it used. It might be noted that using multiple sources is no guarantee of accuracy if all actually come from the same politically engaged organization. This is of particular concern in conflict situations, in civil war or armed struggle against a government.

Another major difficulty with HRW's reports is that, in some cases, it has clearly decided in advance of its investigations that a government has a poor human rights record and that nothing it does, or has done, can improve this. As a result, HRW is prepared to believe any, and all, allegations against that government, even when there is no reliable or even actual evidence of specific abuse. Equally, in these circumstances, it is prepared to ignore any, and all, efforts such a government might make to improve its human rights record. It disregards any facts that might appear to mitigate or contradict its own views and allegations. It apparently assumes that any government statements that have the temerity to try and contradict its own views must automatically be invalid. Even when a government produces undisputable and independent evidence that dispute HRW's allegations, HRW will immediately dismiss these as ‘partial', refusing to accept that its own actions and reports are frequently deserving of a similar claim. The point is not so much the inaccuracy of HRW's allegations, or even perhaps its aims and intentions, though its double standards must often remain a matter of concern. It is the failure to identify accurate sources and accurate facts, or in many cases even to try to do so, and the automatic assumption that “opposition sources” are more reliable than “government sources”. It is in fact a fundamental, and very obvious, methodological flaw, underlined in this case by HRW's failure to visit either Ethiopia, or Somalia, in recent years. HRW, time and again, makes false assumptions on the basis of misconception, ignorance and inaccuracy as the independent investigation of alleged abuses in the Somali Region, commissioned by the Ethiopian Government, makes clear.

It seems clear that HRW often makes up its mind in advance, or even in defiance, of the evidence. Again and again, HRW fails to indicate that it is reporting unsubstantiated, unproven or at the least controversial or disputed allegations. To assert “credible reports” in these circumstances is hardly sufficient when there are significantly more credible reports asserting precisely the opposite. It might be noted that contrary to HRW's claims, the Ethiopian Government does not reject international cooperation in this area with a view to improving human rights in Ethiopia or anywhere else in the world. HRW has consistently failed to demonstrate that it is prepared to carry out open-minded and unprejudiced investigations in Ethiopia. Despite this, the Government has made it quite clear that it would still be prepared to co-operate with HRW but this must depend upon HRW proving it will listen to the evidence available even when it contradicts its own preconceptions. HRW's comments on the 2005 multi-party elections in Ethiopia, for example, make it quite clear that HRW at no point considered this as the democratic development that it was for all other observers. Even in advance of the actual vote, HRW was issuing a report claiming the election could not be considered fair, a verdict that no other observers agreed with. Before the local elections last year, HRW did exactly the same thing. In both cases, the timing of the reports, shortly before the polls, seemed to demonstrate intent to affect voting. If not deliberate, it was, at the very least, quite extraordinarily careless and incompetent.

Similarly, in its comments on the recently passed Charities and Societies Proclamation, HRW continues to allege this is part of a deteriorating environment for civil society. It is very hard to see how HRW can have reached this conclusion independent of opposition allegations which often use similar phraseology. In the first instance as HRW could easily have verified there is very little new in the law which is actually based upon articles 402 to 482 of the present civil code dating back to the imperial era. The proclamation does little more than update and systemize the regulations to allow for regular evaluation of foreign NGOs. It is hard to escape the conclusion that HRW's main complaint is that it, and other organizations involved in advocacy, will be subject to registration and regular evaluation of the kind that is normal in their own and many other countries. They will not be prevented from operating, only encouraged to be transparent. A similar degree of apparently deliberate misunderstanding appears in HRW's comments on the new media bill (which HRW grudgingly qualifies as promising to reform “some of the more repressive aspects of the previous legal framework”). It is, after all, normal for any government to keep the right to impound publications on the grounds of national security ; criminal penalties for libel or defamation are certainly not unusual.

Again and again, HRW's comments appear to start from a specific anti-Ethiopian Government position, highly critical of a human rights record which it claims is marked by steadily increasing intolerance of political dissent or independent criticism, an appellation by which HRW appears to dignify itself. It consistently, and apparently deliberately, refuses to look at any of the very substantial evidence to the contrary, not least the multi-party democratic elections of 2005 and 2008. It persistently puts the worst interpretation on every action and on any legislation even when this view is clearly erroneous and inappropriate. For HRW to say Ethiopia “is conducting an all-out assault on any kind of independent criticism” is obvious rubbish, as it must know if it bothered to follow the output of the Ethiopian media. Equally, whatever one may think about political impact of the arrest of the opposition politician that it has so vociferously complained about, there are genuine legal reasons for this action which HRW has clearly not bothered to investigate. The pardon, following conviction, was granted to W/zo Birtukan Midekssa after she had expressed remorse for her actions, and promised to respect the law and the constitution. Her denial of this removed the legal premise on which the pardon was granted. To ignore this would have serious implications for the integrity of the legal system, the very basis of human rights in Ethiopia. It was something that no judiciary could have accepted.

Similarly, even the most superficial analysis of the Charities and Societies law makes it clear that independent human rights work has not been “outlawed”, only regulated. There is nothing in the law to demonstrate intent to ban civil society organizations from engaging in works of advocacy, including human rights. Nor are groups based outside country, like HRW, barred from human-rights related work. There is, however, a requirement that they should be regulated and registered (not, as claimed, licensed). The fact is that NGOs will no longer be able to operate merely to please themselves. Despite HRW's assertions, regulation is not outlawry.

One could go on at length, but this is not meant to be a catalogue of criticism. It is rather a plea for Human Rights Watch to try and live up to its own aims and intentions, to look at the evidence available, improve its methodology and act in the balanced and unbiased way in which an international human rights body of its reputation should operate.

**********

Ethiopia is fully aware that the stability of its neighbors and the nature of its relations with them have tremendous impact on the success of internal policies, on the result of its war on poverty and on ensuring sustainable economic development which remains the core of its foreign policy. Globalization has made this all the more valid today than ever before. Peaceful coexistence and good neighborly relations are an imperative if a country's endeavors are to be successful. Ethiopia's foreign policy has been informed by these fundamental principles for the last seventeen years. They are not shared by everybody. Professor Hassan Makki is currently head of the Center of Research and African Studies at the International University of Africa in Khartoum. His center's publication, Dirasat Ifriqiyya, is a pulpit for sermons of doom and gloom about the Horn of Africa in general and Ethiopia in particular. Dr. Hassan also writes op-ed pieces for the Arabic daily, Al Raay Alam, a private newspaper that makes a habit of demonizing Ethiopia while praising Eritrea unstintingly. Much of what Dr. Hassan writes is not the stuff of serious scholarship. Most of his articles are full of factual inaccuracies, gross contradictions, and the sort of sloppy analysis that smacks of muddled thinking. Dr. Hassan prides himself on being a prominent Islamic scholar and often prefers to be addressed accordingly. His sympathy with NIF extremists is all too clear ; his attitude towards southern Sudanese borders on downright racism. Of greatest concern, perhaps, have been his diatribes against Ethiopia, blaming it for everything that he might think has gone wrong either in the Sudan or the whole sub-region.

His mendacious accusations are far too numerous to raise here, but two common threads run through Dr. Hassan's obsessive mudslinging. First, Dr. Hassan is very clear about his vision for a united Islamic movement in the entire sub-region and the negative role, he claims, Ethiopia has always played in derailing this process. Whether writing about conflict between and/or among the Sudan, Eritrea and Ethiopia or in Somalia, Dr. Hassan sees a conspiracy against Islam concocted and spearheaded by “Christian Ethiopia”. In its December 28, 2008 issue, Al Raay Alam newspaper carried an article by Dr. Hassan claiming peace in Somalia is unachievable because Ethiopia “which represents a Christian entity surrounded by an Islamic environment from outside and Islamic trend from within” sees a peaceful and unified Somalia as a threat. Dr. Hassan has for a long time advocated an Islamic movement for the entire region and claims the only challenge to this comes from “Christian Ethiopia”. He acknowledges Ethiopia actually has more Muslims than the Sudan, but believes they are oppressed, and, indeed, that despite their numbers Ethiopian Muslims are not Muslim enough. Indeed, in an Article published in Dirasat Ifriqiyya, entitled “Eritrean Ethiopian Conflict (1997-1998) : An analytical point of view”, he asserts “Ethiopian Muslims are abundant in quantity but not in quality.” He wants them to get back their usurped position so they can represent a “cornerstone of stability and peaceful coexistence in the region.” Dr. Hassan appears entirely unaware that much of Ethiopia embraced Islam long before the rest of the world even heard about it and that Muslims and Christians lived in harmony for centuries. Ethiopian Muslims need no liberator from outside, much less a racist professor masquerading as a consummate cleric.

The second point that Dr. Hassan repeatedly makes relates to his belief in collusion between Ethiopia and the West against Sudan and Islam dating back to the early 1990s. He seems to be convinced that the US has always sought to scuttle the rise of Islam in the Horn of Africa by creating an axis made up of Ethiopia, Eritrea and Uganda against Sudan. In his article on the Ethio-Eritrean Conflict, he delights in the eruption of hostilities between the two ‘American Satellites' : “Alas, the era of dreams & longing for integration has elapsed forever [because] the experience of peaceful coexistence [between Eritrea and Ethiopia] has collapsed for good.” For Dr. Hassan, “Christian Ethiopia” may act on its own, but it also being used, along with others, by the US to challenge the expansion of Islam in the region. Similarly, he claims the West is supporting Ethiopia with an agenda based on the annulment of the activities of the Somali National movements and because “western states wanted the Somali issue to remain a western partnership with Kenya and Ethiopia.” While asserting “Christian Ethiopia” has reason to work against the expansion of Somali Nationalist movements, Islamic or otherwise, he also seems to suggest that it is doing the West's bidding in Somalia. Logic is not Dr. Hassan's strongest point.

Indeed, it raises the question as to what exactly Dr. Hassan is driving at, whose bidding is he doing and whose agenda is he promoting ? Ethiopia believes its national interest is better served in the context of neighborly relations based on peaceful coexistence, mutual respect and benefit as well as regional cooperation to ensure stability. Significant results have been achieved in this regard with all our neighbors except Eritrea. Ethiopia has consistently made efforts to resolve conflicts between and within neighbors in an amicable manner. Our support for the CPA in Sudan has always been consistent and solid whatever Dr. Hassan would try to have us believe. Our efforts to aid the peace making process in Somalia is something we have paid dearly for. Today, Ethiopia enjoys excellent relations with Sudan, with Djibouti, and with Kenya and is doing its level best to promote peace efforts in Somalia. The areas of cooperation range from economic relations, the expansion of infrastructure and transport facilities all the way to working together on regional security, peace and stability. There have been setbacks. Despite the best of intentions and some magnanimous gestures, Ethiopia's efforts to build peaceful neighborly relations with Eritrea have made no progress. Peaceful relations with Eritrea have been elusive in the face of continued bellicose posturing by the leadership in Asmara and its obsession with the use of violence towards its neighbors. The attempt on the life of President Hosni Mubarak certainly created a misunderstanding between Ethiopia and Sudan. Ethiopia did everything in its power to resolve it in a responsible and civilized manner. The fact that we overcome the crisis long ago and today have a very good relationship with the Sudan government bears witness to the success of Ethiopia's foreign policy towards its neighbors.

We certainly believe in the sincerity of President Omar al Basher's recent remarks on his government's foreign policy ; that Sudan conducts a policy “based on trying to befriend all countries and strengthening relations particularly with African Neighbors including brothers in Chad.” We are also mindful of the potential harm some elements can do to our relations if they are not held in check. The agenda against Ethiopia revealed by Dr. Hassan's writings and behavior suggests there are those who would do anything to achieve their objectives. It is with this in mind that we call upon concerned authorities not to allow the likes of Professor Hassan Makki's repeated anti-Ethiopia campaigns and that of others, whose bidding he appears to be doing, to affect policy making at any level. It was, after all, people like these who created the problems between Sudan and Ethiopia in 1995.

Semaine du 30/01/2009

embeth — 2009-02-23T14:45:51Z

The African Union Executive Council meeting and the 12th AU Summit

IGAD Ministers discuss Somalia, Sudan and the Djibouti-Eritrea crisis

Somalia's new President to be elected later today

The first stage of the APRM process : Ethiopia's Self Assessment

MFA Workshop on Parliamentary Diplomacy

A new South African Chancery building in Addis Ababa

Eritrea and the need for reason

The main theme of the African Union Summit this weekend (February 1-3) is infrastructure development, with special emphasis on transport, energy and investment. At a pre-summit meeting of African Ministers of Transport and Energy, earlier in the week, the African Union Commission Chairperson, Dr Jean Ping put forward proposals for the reinforcement of co-operation and integration to find solutions for the problems of infrastructure and energy. There was, he said, a need to mobilize public resources, solicit private sector support and reinforce human capacity and national, regional and continental institutions. Dr. Ping said this could result in the creation of huge developments in transportation infrastructure and the hydro-electrification of much of Africa by 2020. At a press conference, the AU Commission Chairperson said the AU wanted to put together a program of concrete action. He specifically mentioned the Cairo to Cape Town highway, noting that the road between Khartoum and Cairo was under construction ; and a feasibility study undertaken for the Dakar to Djibouti route. The Summit, it is hoped, will aim to gather commitments from leaders for concrete plans as well as to improve cross-border co-operation and identify “flagship” projects.

An additional theme for the Summit is the world financial crisis on which Prime Minister Meles is making the keynote speech. Other speakers who will be intervening on this include the Presidents of the World Bank and the African Development Bank, and the UK's Lord Malloch Brown. Other subjects that will be addressed by the Summit include Sudan, Zimbabwe, Somalia and the coups last year in Mauritania and Guinea, whose seats have been left vacant for this meeting. Ahead of the Summit, leaders from the Great Lakes Region, Burundi, Congo, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda, have been holding talks to discuss the conflict in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo.

The third subject that will undoubtedly attract much attention at the Summit is Union Government. It should be recalled that the last Summit in Sharm el-Sheikh instructed the Commission to prepare the modalities and details for the implementation of the recommendations of the Committee of Twelve Heads of State which met in Arusha last May. Their proposals were fairly clear in the emphasis they put on pursuing the goal of Union Government in a realistic way, and in full compliance with the principle of sovereignty and of popular participation in the process. It is not clear whether the report of the Commission on the Establishment of Union Government is entirely in line with the decisions of the Sharm el-Sheikh Summit. Not completely unrelated to this is the question of the next Chairperson for the African Union, a subject which will attract considerable interest. Technically, it is the turn of North Africa for this position.

While all these issues will be treated by the Summit itself, for the last two days concentration has been on the meeting of the Executive Council, of foreign ministers, meeting today and yesterday. Among the major items the Council has been considering has been the Report of the Chairperson of the Commission. Among other things this covers consideration of conflict situations, including Djibouti and Eritrea, Ethiopia and Eritrea, and Darfur and the ICC. On Djibouti and Eritrea reference was made to the IGAD meeting earlier in the week and the Council was asked to endorse UN Security Council Resolution 1862. On Somalia, recent positive developments were noted as were some negative ones, and the Council was asked to support the Djibouti process. On Sudan, the ICC initiative attracted much attention. The consensus was that the AU should reiterate its position and insist on deferral of the ICC moves against the President of Sudan. It was felt the ICC action threatened widespread complications for Sudan and for the region, but the importance of addressing impunity was underlined and Sudan was encouraged to take necessary steps in this regard. On Ethiopia and Eritrea it was emphasized that the critical point was Eritrea's violation of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement, the bedrock of the Algiers Agreements, and its demolition of the Temporary Security Zone.

Other items discussed by the Council included the Draft Strategic Plan for 2009 to 2012. Following a proposal by the Permanent Representatives Committee (PRC), of Ambassadors, the ministers agreed this should be deferred until July. The plan will be revised through discussion between the PRC and the Commission. The budget programme for 2009 was considered and agreed. An AU sub-committee noted in a report last week that eight countries had not paid their statutory contributions to the organization for at least two years, and that only nineteen countries were up to date in their payments. The Council also considered the progress report on the Abuse of the Principle of Universal Jurisdiction. It is to be expected that a very strong resolution calling for discussions between the AU, the UN and the EU will be adopted, highlighting African concerns over the unilateral actions taken by individual countries and mainly targeting Africans. The Council considered the draft action plan for 2008-2010 for the Great Green Wall for the Sahara and the Sahel Initiative, and the report of the Pan-African Parliament. The Council discussed the progress report of the Commission on Integration of NEPAD into the Structures and Processes of the African Union. It also approved a very strong declaration on the situation in Gaza. As we go to press, the Council is continuing its deliberations.

**********

In the wake of the completion of the withdrawal of Ethiopian forces from Somalia, and prior to this week's AU ministerial meeting, IGAD's Council of Ministers held its 32nd extra-ordinary meeting. It was chaired by Foreign Minister Seyoum, current chairperson of IGAD Council of Ministers. The Foreign ministers of Djibouti and Uganda attended as well as representatives of Kenya, Somalia and Sudan, together with the executive secretary of IGAD, the IGAD facilitator to the Somali peace process, and the co-chair of the IGAD Partners' Forum, Ambassador Raffaele de Lutio, Italy's Ambassador to Ethiopia. The meeting was briefed on developments in Somalia by the permanent secretary of Somalia's foreign ministry, and on Darfur and on the situation on the Djibouti-Eritrea border. In his welcoming speech, Minister Seyoum noted that the frequency with which the Council had been meeting was testimony to members' commitment to IGAD and to making the organization an effective instrument for its mandate. He emphasized that its efforts for peace and security, particularly in Somalia, confirmed that IGAD was changing and changing for the better. He noted, however, that it was important to avoid complacency, and that IGAD should engage more in Sudan over the implementation of the CPA and Darfur. He also hoped that those with responsibility to pursue the issue of Ethiopia Eritrea would continue to push the matter forward. At the end of the day, he stressed, the salvation of the Region depended upon the progress made in the economic area, and critical for this was co-operation and the movement towards integration. In the discussion on Somalia, the Council reiterated the need for IGAD, the AU and the UN to synchronize their efforts to make the Djibouti meeting effective, and underlined the need for IGAD involvement at every level. The IGAD facilitator gave an extensive briefing on his activities since his appointment last year.

In its subsequent communiqué, the meeting expressed appreciation to the people and government of Ethiopia for the sacrifices made to promote peace and security in Somalia, and urged all who had been advancing the presence of Ethiopian troops for their excuse for continuing to fight to cease forthwith. It also expressed its appreciation to Uganda and Burundi for the sacrifices they were making to advance peace and security in Somalia. It welcomed the decision of the AU Peace and Security Council to extend the mandate of AMISOM, and the intention of UN Security Council to establish a UN Peace Keeping Operation in Somalia as a follow-on force to AMISOM. It called on the Council to implement this intent without delay. It noted the decisions on the deployment of additional battalions for AMISOM reached at the meeting of the AU and of the Troop Contributing Countries earlier this month, and the pledeges made to airlift troops to Somalia by Algeria and the USA. It welcomed the extension of the transitional period by two years and the expansion of the parliament, and encouraged the parties to establish a government of national unity in Somalia as soon as possible. The meeting reiterated IGAD's decision to continue to take a proactive role in Somalia. It called on the international community and the region to continue the fight against piracy in and around the territorial waters of Somalia. It decided to call for a special appeal to the international community, international NGOs and any others for the provision of humanitarian assistance for the people of Somalia. On Sudan, the meeting received a report on the situation in Darfur, and noted with serious concern the recent flare up of conflict there. It called on all opposition groups to return to the negotiating table. It called on the United Nations to complete the deployment of UNAMID and on the ICC not to pursue charges against President Omar el Bashir as this would endanger the cause of peace in Sudan. The meeting, briefed on the border dispute between Djibouti and Eritrea by the Foreign Minister of Djibouti, welcomed UN Security Council Resolution 1862 calling on Eritrea to withdraw its troops from Djibouti territory, and called on Eritrea to respect the decisions of the UN Security Council. The next regular meeting of the IGAD Council of Ministers will be held in March in Djibouti.

*********

Preparations for the election of a new leadership for Somalia have been going on all this week in Djibouti, and the actual process of election is now under way as we go to press. Early in the week, the Transitional Federal Parliament after considering the need to expand its numbers to accommodate the opposition ARS in accordance with the Djibouti Agreement, agreed to enlarge itself to 550 members. The ARS submitted the names of its 200 members, and 150 of them were sworn in on Wednesday. Members for the additional 75 seats for civil society organizations and others were also sworn in earlier today. The Transitional Federal Parliament has decided to extend its own term of office until August 2011, to allow for the full implementation of the transitional period as provided for in the Transitional Charter agreed at Mbagathi in 2004.

The new President will face major problems. One critical issue is whether he will receive the full support of the Somali people inside and outside the country. He also will need the support of regional countries, and the international community as a whole, to address his most pressing difficulties. These include the problems of choosing a new government, balancing clan interests and developing and expanding the peace and reconciliation process, and trying to ensure humanitarian assistance continues, not to mention piracy and most important, the problem of security. There have been growing concerns that the new government might even be faced with problems in returning to Somalia. Earlier this week, the extremist Al-Shabaab, which has announced it is going to go on fighting to impose its own version of a state on Somalia, claim to have taken over Baidoa, the seat of the Transitional Federal Parliament. They arrived shortly after the last Ethiopian troops left Baidoa on Sunday on their way to the border. For reasons still unclear, the TFG forces there did not offer any resistance as an Al-Shabaab force from the Merifle/Rahenweyne, headed by Sheikh Muktar Robow, entered the town.

In fact, elsewhere Al-Shabaab has been facing growing resistance and is very much weaker than international media reports suggest. Far from controlling most of Somalia, Al-Shabaab actually controls no more than a few towns. Earlier this month, several different Al-Shabaab groups came together in central Somalia to try and attack Gurae'el, held by Ahlu Sunna wal Jama'aa, a moderate Islamic organization opposed to the more violent extremism of Al-Shabaab. They were badly defeated with heavy losses. Among those killed were several senior commanders and nine people holding foreign passports. On Thursday this week Al Shabaab was driven out of Dusa Mareb, on this occasion with the loss of at least fifty fighters. It appears Al-Shabaab, like the earlier extremist organization in the 1990s, Al-Itihaad Al-Islamiyya, is dividing into a series of separate, clan-based, units who are finding it difficult to co-operate effectively. Al-Shabaab forces in Kismayo, for example, are divided into at least three different units. The Ras Kamboni group, based in Kismayo, is largely made up of members of the Ogadeni clan ; the members of a another group in Kismayo, Anole, are drawn from the Harti ; the group calling itself Khalid bin Walid, also in Kismayo, is associated with the Marehan. They seldom manage to co-operate. Other Al-Shabaab groups, Al-Itisam, Al-Mujahedeen, and Jabhat al-Islamiyya, are also all affiliated to different clans and sub-clans. None, it might be added, number more than a few dozen fighters. It is no coincidence that the overall leader of Al-Shabaab has to come from none of these clans but is from the north of the country, and therefore outside the main clan rivalries of southern Somalia.

**********

Discussions have been going on last week and earlier this week on the draft Ethiopia Self Assessment Report under the African Peer Review Mechanism for Ethiopia, under which Ethiopia will eventually be assessed by the Africa Peer Review Forum. The Report was submitted to the Governing Council of the National APRM by independent consultants, the African Institute of Management, Development and Governance. This marks the first of the five stage peer review system, launched by the African Union as part of the New Economic Partnership for African Development (NEPAD). The APRM is a voluntary self-monitoring mechanism under which African Governments assess each other's performances in light of the Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance involving evaluation of the laws, policies and standards and the practices in participating countries. As required by the APRM process, all stakeholders in Ethiopia have been participating in the discussions, held at several different venues around Addis Ababa. The results will now be submitted to the National Governing Council. The National Governing Council is made up of 23 members, three from the Government with others drawn from civil society, the private sector, opposition parties and civil society groups and academia. The National Regional States have also established their own Governing Councils.

The discussions on the draft Country Self-Assessment Report were divided up into separate sessions on Democracy and Political Governance ; Economic Governance and Management ; Corporate Governance ; and Socio-economic Development, with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs participating in the first with equal numbers of opposition groups and government representatives and other stakeholders. Discussions were lively and there were extensive comments on the assessments made by the consultants who had reviewed the state of governance. Debate covered the accomplishments and challenges in all areas of governance. Participants commented on the results of the desk research, interviews, household surveys, expert opinion surveys, woreda consultation forums, and focus group discussions. There were questions on the selection of study groups, the methodology followed, the pattern of the APRM continental questionnaire and on evaluation of the achievements and challenges.

There were substantive discussions on the state of democracy in Ethiopia, in particular a review of the 2005 elections. This included the conduct of Government organs, the private and public media, of opposition parties and international observers. In the general discussion on political governance, particular attention was given to the issue of access to media, the rule of law, access to justice, the independence of the judiciary, separation of powers, and the rights of women and children. Debates on respect for human and democratic rights, decentralization, and causes and management of intra-state conflicts were heated. On these and other issues of governance, some opposition parties demanded more should be said, arguing the report should have been more forceful. There was particular disagreement over the role of the media in 2005 which some opposition speakers said had failed to be constructive. They also characterized the media as far from diverse or adequate, objecting to reference to a vibrant media environment. Government representatives underlined factual errors in the report, among them allegations made by the opposition, and argued the report generally understated some facts, misrepresented and in some cases used wrong sources. Some opposition speakers made clear they expected the government to reflect on their criticism and comments on political governance.

The discussions in these four areas were then brought together for consolidated deliberations held with similarly equal participation of government and opposition representatives, of civil society and of the private sector. At this point the Government gave some of its allotted seats to organizations representing persons with disabilities. In these later sessions, highlights of the earlier discussions were underlined. In addition to the issues raised in the Democracy and Political Governance group noted above, the discussions from the Economic Governance and Management group focused on the reality of the economic growth in the country, the causes and solutions for the high level of inflation and the need to ensure equitable distribution of benefit from the economic growth in the country. One issue from the Corporate Governance debates focused on the levels of corruption in the country and the institutional and legal efforts being exerted to fight it, as well as the responsibilities and conduct of the private sector and its particular needs in terms of an enabling environment. From Socio-economic Development, the focus included achievements and challenges in promoting education, health care and employment and gender equality. The results of all these lively discussions and debates, a testimony to the process of entrenchment of democracy in Ethiopia, will now be considered by the National Governing Council.

**********

On Monday, MFA officials addressed a training Workshop on Foreign Policy and Parliamentary Diplomacy, attended by more than 130 members of Parliament's various Standing Committees. Since its inception, the House of Peoples' Representatives has been engaged in diplomatic activities. It has established 18 parliamentary friendship associations, and Ethiopia now belongs to the Inter Parliamentary Union (IPU), the African Parliamentary Union (APU), the Pan African Parliament (PAP), the African Caribbean and Pacific and European Union (ACP-EU) joint parliamentary assembly, the Afro-Arab inter parliamentary union, and the IGAD inter-parliamentary union. It is an executive member of the IPU and will be hosting the 103rd conference of the IPU here in Addis Ababa in April. Ethiopia is also the host country for the newly established IGAD parliamentary union. The House of Peoples' Representatives also sent a number of parliamentary delegations to various countries.

MFA officials, including Ato Wahide Belay, MFA Spokesperson, Ato Tesfaye Yilma, Director General for Europe and America, and Ambassador Dinberu Alemu, Director General Legislative and Justice Organs Liaison Office, briefed the MPs, stressing that Parliament, the supreme organ of the government and an expression of the sovereignty of the people, was constitutionally mandated to legislate and oversee implementation of government policies, including its diplomatic activities and the ratification of international agreements. Parliamentary diplomacy goes beyond this, involving diplomatic relations of national parliaments at bilateral and multilateral levels, and all forms of parliamentary cooperation. Parliamentary diplomacy needn't be conducted exclusively between members of parliament ; it also involves MPs visiting countries and meeting officials, members of business communities and the diaspora as well as the media. Parliamentary friendship groups operate on the basis of mutual political and economic interests.

MFA officials pointed out that the effectiveness of parliamentary diplomacy depended largely on the working mechanisms employed. Parliamentarians needed clarity on strategic national issues, national security threats, and on government policies. They should be aware of the current state of relations between Ethiopia and other states, information that is always available at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Delegations should be aware of their own national agenda as well as properly briefed on the host country. As MFA officials pointed out, Parliamentary Diplomacy and the Public Diplomacy of the Ministry are complimentary. Issues raised during discussion included the Ministry's efforts in economic diplomacy, the role of the Diaspora, the current situation as regards Eritrea and Ethiopia's efforts to resolve the problem through dialogue, the withdrawal from Somalia and regional conflicts, the revitalization of IGAD and the effects of the global economic slowdown on Ethiopia's economy. The parliamentarians expressed their commitment to ensure parliamentary diplomacy promoted the national interest and complimented the government's wider diplomatic efforts.

**********

On Wednesday, the South African Embassy in Addis Ababa inaugurated a major construction project at its embassy, its new Chancery building. The new building is a most impressive construction, drawing on South African and Ethiopian architectural traditions and motifs and built by engineers from both countries. The opening ceremony was attended by South Africa's Foreign Minister, Dr. Dlamini Zuma, by Ethiopia's State Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr. Tekeda, representing Foreign Minister Seyoum, and the Chairperson of the AU Commission, Dr. Jean Ping. The building, as Foreign Minister Zuma stressed, demonstrates South Africa's commitment to its bilateral relations with Ethiopia. It also symbolizes South Africa's commitment to the AU. Dr. Tekeda made the same point in his remarks. The State Minister congratulated all those involved in the construction project for a job well done. He reiterated how much Ethiopia welcomed its bilateral relations with South Africa and underlined Ethiopia's deep appreciation of South Africa's commitment to the dignity of the African Union, and to pan-Africanism. One of the major achievements of the OAU was its support for South Africa's struggle against apartheid. Now, of course, South Africa plays a vital role in the African Union, and indeed, the AU will continue to depend upon South Africa significantly for years to come. This new Chancery building, as Foreign Minister Zuma said, sends a firm message that South Africa is here to stay. It is expected that South Africa will very soon construct a residence for its ambassador.

**********

The Security Council of the United Nations recently passed a resolution demanding that Eritrea within five weeks should withdraw its forces from the Djibouti territories they forcibly occupied nearly a year ago. The decision was long overdue particularly in light of the fact that the fact-finding missions of the AU and the UN itself had seen for themselves the circumstances on the ground : namely, that Eritrean forces were indeed occupying Djibouti's sovereign territory. This, of course, is a pattern that has played itself out several times over the last fifteen or so years, with Eritrea picking on literally all of its neighbors. Nor is it for the first time that Eritrea has clashed with Djibouti. Quite simply, Eritrea's latest brush with international law and its rejection of any time-honored notions of peaceful coexistence with neighbors, is part of a pattern of behavior that has become entrenched into repeated pattern.

In these circumstances, it was not surprising that Eritrea's response to the UN demand for withdrawal was immediate and downright rejection, reiterating that its forces had never invaded its southern neighbor. It once again preferred to repeat a litany of allegations against the UN for what it claims has been the UN's failure to address the Ethiopia Eritrea boundary dispute. It has been a while since Eritrea first resorted to such obfuscations on almost every issue it might have to deal with. Rather than directly responding to what it has been accused of, Eritrea has repeatedly engaged in bellicose diatribe against Ethiopia. Ethiopia, it appears, is President Issayas' enduring mantra. Djibouti is only there doing Ethiopia's bidding. It does not seem to matter much that everything it claims actually flies in the face of all the facts on the ground.

What is more interesting perhaps is the rhetoric of Eritrea's leadership regarding what it alleges is the violation of international law that the UN has allowed itself to be part of, by not arm-twisting Ethiopia into accepting whatever outrageous demands Eritrea might make. The rhetoric is that the UN has simply failed to discharge its primary responsibility as the guardian of international law. Judging by the tone of these comments they might easily have come from Djibouti, rather than the very aggressor which is continuing to occupy a neighboring country's sovereign territory. This apparent new found enthusiasm for the tenets of international law and the notions of sovereignty is surprising coming, as it does, from a leadership that had the dubious honor of making enemies out of all its neighbors less than five years after independence, and which has violated numerous tenets of international law since 1993.

Of course, the government in Asmara has every reason to show its contempt for the UN as the latter has failed to take full stock of Eritrea's repeated transgressions of international law. Eritrea's aggression against Ethiopia in 1998 is just one incident demonstrating Eritrea's deep seated contempt for international law. It is an open secret that Eritrea made a habit of humiliating the UNMEE peacekeepers until the UN finally buckled under pressure, accepting that UNMEE could no longer pretend to be carrying out its mandate in accordance with the Algiers Agreements, signed by Eritrea and Ethiopia in 2000. Similarly, Eritrea on a number of occasions has been identified by the UN Monitoring Group as breaching the arms embargo on Somalia.

It is obvious from the way in which President Issayas Afewerki's government does business, that diplomacy and respect for international law are the last things that it considers even remotely important : neither are priorities to lose sleep over. Indeed, if there is one word that has been conspicuously missing from Eritrea's political lexicon since independence, it must be ‘respect” for international law. Interest in dialogue doesn't appear to be of much relevance either. Eritrea appears to have no time for “the smiles and scowls” of diplomacy. As his recent interview makes it abundantly clear, President Issayas' proclivity for flexing his muscles whenever he thinks fit, is still there. His thinly veiled threat to Djibouti was unmistakable : you have declared war on us ; you will pay the debt. The leaders in Asmara appear to be incorrigible war mongers. Simple resolutions, by the UN or anyone else, don't appear to bother Eritrea's leadership all that much. After all, they have already weathered many such minuscule storms virtually unscathed.

Eritrea's behavior can certainly be characterized as outrageous, but its leadership has hardly faced any meaningful challenge from the international community that its belligerent and bellicose adventures would otherwise merit. It would be very fitting if the latest resolution by the UN Security Council really would get the right message across this time around. Now that the five week deadline is about to expire, it remains to be seen what practical measures the UN Security Council really will proceed to take, in order to make good on its responsibility to maintain the full measure of respect for international law. Whatever it does, we look forward to something that might encourage Eritrea towards reason and responsible behavior in its international relations.

Semaine du 13/02/2009

embeth — 2009-02-23T14:45:00Z

The AU Summit, a post-mortem

Ethiopia/Eritrea : is anything new ?

Somalia's new prime minister designate

Foreign Minister Seyoum in Rome and Ankara

The Ethio-Saudi Joint Commission meets in Riyadh

A consultative workshop on the Nile Basin Initiative

The Foreign Ministry's response to the EU Parliament

Politicization of human rights

The 12th AU Summit, held in Addis Ababa from 1st to 3rd February, was certainly a success. Nothing out of the ordinary took place despite media assertions and speculations, though the appearance of traditional rulers was something of a surprise. Most important, though, the debate on Union Government moved forward, and for the first time Africa agreed to let a single delegation negotiate on its behalf.

It was clear from the discussions of the Special Summit to consider the report of the AU Commission on the "Implementation of the Sharm El-Sheik Assembly Decision on the Union Government", that progress has been made. After a constructive debate, the Assembly decided to transform the AU Commission to an African Union Authority which would have a President, Vice President and Secretaries in place of Commissioners. The Commission was to make specific recommendations on the setting up of the AU Authority to the Executive Council. It suggested the principles involved should be recognition of, and respect for, the sovereignty of member states, and that existing institutions should be the basis for the new Authority. It also suggested that this did not need any amendment to the AU Constitutive Act, but this led to considerable debate. The ministers unanimously disagreed, insisting the transformation of the AU Commission did require amendment of the Constitutive Act. In its evening session on February 3rd the Assembly accepted the Council's view and then decided an extraordinary session of the Executive Council should be held within three months to provide further recommendations on the process for the next Assembly session in Madagascar in mid-year. Before this, appropriate consultations will take place at the level of Permanent Representatives. This should be particularly useful as the reports presented by the Commission to the Special Summit and to the Executive Council were criticized for failing to reflect the mandate given to the Commission or the relevant instruments of the Union. It is clear that the Commission should prepared itself more effectively for its next presentation to the extra-ordinary meeting of the Executive Council in the next three months. It might be added, incidentally, that nobody “stormed out” of the Assembly session or even walked out. The debate ended in the early hours of the morning with the Assembly endorsing the proposals submitted by the ministers.

These discussions and the outcome of this Assembly make it clear that the debate on the Union Government is now going in the right direction. Originally, the “grand debate” at Accra in 2006 was expected to bring finality to the issue. This wasn't achieved, and since then three Committees of Heads of State and Government have submitted reports on how to deal with the issue. At the centre of the debate has been the concept of Union Government itself and member states have had difficulty in reaching consensus on this at the continental level. The agreement to transform the Commission into the AU Authority has opened the door for more fruitful deliberation. The majority of member states have adopted a realistic approach over moving the issue forward ; most delegations made it clear they felt the best way to accelerate continental integration was by strengthening the Regional Economic Communities to serve as the building blocks.

On the international and global financial crisis, the Assembly came up with the Addis Ababa Declaration which highlighted the need for Africa to be effectively represented at any global discussions. Following the suggestions of Prime Minister Meles, the Assembly also agreed on a formal resolution to outline Africa's necessary demands, and for the Commission to be mandated to pursue these at the up-coming G-20 summit. Most importantly, the Assembly agreed that Africa should be represented by a single delegation both at the G20 and at the UN Conference on Climate Change to be held in Copenhagen in December, thus allowing one delegation to present a united front on behalf of the continent, and empowering it to negotiate on behalf of all member States. It will have a mandate to ensure that resource flows to Africa are not reduced and significantly contribute to Africa's quest to benefit from globalization and withstand its negative consequences. Africa's position at the G20 summit in London next month has to be in conformity with the Decisions by the Assembly and with the conclusions of the Meeting of Ministers of Economy and Finance, held in Tunis last November.

If implemented as suggested, this decision to have one single delegation to coordinate, harmonize and represent the continent, does provide a concrete example of the way in which Africa can develop. It is a real and visible manifestation of the way African states can work together, and for the integration of the continent. It can certainly provide a clear demonstration of progress in that process ; and it is not a dream. It can be an example of the way regional organizations can and do operate. It makes the whole idea of African unity and integration realistic – if properly pursued step by step and with the necessary commitment. The African Union is a building which needs to be built brick by brick to ensure its strength and stability. It does not need any slap-dash, unsafe and un-necessary rush for completion. Among other things, as Prime Minister Meles indicated at the summit, there is a great need for conceptual clarity with respect to the road map on the process of African unity.

The 12th Assembly also took a firm decision on the matter of coups d'état, with the seats of Mauritania and Guinea being left vacant. There was a worrisome development, while the Summit was on, that the situation in Madagascar continued to deteriorate. Madagascar was represented at the Summit by its Prime Minister. Although not articulated, there was considerable concern over the position in Antananarivo where the next Summit is scheduled to take place ; indeed the Assembly adopted a resolution to that effect and agreed dates. The consensus of the Assembly and of almost all delegations was that unconstitutional changes of government should not be accepted. This was something that had been left behind in the 1960s and the 1970s. Today we are in the 21st century. The outgoing AU Chairperson, President Jakaya Kikwete, a former colonel in the Tanzanian armed forces, was particularly emphatic on this point.

Attendance at the Summit was not as substantial as expected. There were only 22 Heads of State as opposed to the 35 Presidents attending in January last year. Given the importance of the issues being discussed this was hardly satisfactory. However, all arrangements went well, there were no security incidents, not even a single case of pick-pocketing. All deployed in that capacity should be congratulated.

**********

The new Chairperson of the African Union, Muammar Gadhafi, who visited Eritrea in the wake of the AU Summit in Addis Ababa, has announced an initiative to settle the dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Speaking to the government news media in Eritrea last weekend before leaving for Tripoli, the AU Chairperson was quoted as saying he had talked to both Prime Minister Meles and President Issayas on the subject. The Chairperson's initiative should be placed in the context of the AU Summit, where the Assembly of Heads of State and Governments called on the two countries to renew efforts to normalize relations and lay the foundation for a comprehensive and lasting peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea. The focus was on the primary responsibility of the two parties as the United Nations Security Council and the Secretary General have repeatedly emphasized. It should be underlined that a number of important personalities, including more than one presiding chairperson of the AU, have frequently endeavored to settle numerous conflicts in our region. These efforts must be applauded as attempts at direct contributions to regional peace, indeed to the maintenance of international peace and security. However, it takes two willing parties, both determined to put their differences behind them through honest negotiations in good faith, to make progress.

There are a few, clear and unambiguous assertions that can be made about Ethiopia's policy towards the outstanding issue between it and Eritrea. Ethiopia is committed to peace with Eritrea and to putting the crisis between the two countries behind them. This Ethiopian position has been presented and explained ad nauseam, with sufficient clarity and without resorting to obfuscating terminological gymnastics. Peace is in the interest of the two peoples and countries and everything necessary should be done to secure it, and to do so in a sustainable manner. Ethiopia can certainly live with the status quo as long as necessary, but it is not the ideal form of coexistence, nor is it the best option that one might hope for.

The question is how can one make progress ; what is the proper, legally correct and universally acceptable approach, to create a momentum for progress towards peace between the two countries ? Here, Ethiopia's position has been equally unambiguous. Ethiopian officials, at all levels, and using more or less the same language, have repeatedly made the same point. The only sane, and legal approach, is through talks, negotiation and dialogue. The alternative cannot be taken as a realistic option for either country. The obstacles to peace - no matter how those obstacles are defined - can only be removed by negotiation and dialogue with the aim of normalizing relations. The Security Council has repeatedly told both parties one thing whose validity Ethiopia has never questioned : this is that Ethiopia and Eritrea have the primary responsibility for creating the conditions for peace between them. Others can only assist. This has continued to be a difficult proposition for Eritrea to accept. This is why the ball remains firmly in Eritrea's court. Reacting violently and recklessly to this proposition, which Eritrea felt was being propagated in lieu of pressure on Ethiopia, Asmara proceeded to do everything possible to destroy the very foundations for a resolution to the boundary dispute. And Eritrea's actions over the past year or so have made the situation all the more complicated today than was the case two years ago. Equally, none of this changes in any fundamental manner the strategic objective of Ethiopia in respect of what needs to be done to achieve real peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea : this must be done through negotiation and dialogue, and by way of talking, that Eritrea and Ethiopia can move towards peace and towards securing the conditions for normalization of relations between the two countries. The question therefore remains : has Eritrea decided to behave like any other state and act in a sensible manner ? Only time can tell whether this news of the AU Chairperson's initiative will have any substance in terms of a return to normalcy by Eritrea, something that Ethiopia would, of course, welcome.

***********

Today, President Sheikh Sharif has announced his choice of a Prime Minister. It is Omar Abdirashid Ali Sharmarke, the son of the late President Ali Sharmarke, assassinated in 1969. Omar Abdirashid, in his 40s, formerly worked for the UN and was Ambassador-designate to Washington for the TFG, is from the Osman Mahmoud, the largest Majerteen sub-clan. The President's choice now has to be confirmed by Parliament though this is expected to be a formality. The President, currently in Djibouti, had been meeting a number of possible candidates for the job and there had been considerable speculation over the position of prime minister and over the other ministerial positions which have to be filled. Much of the speculation about a prime minister had centered on whether the President would choose a Majerteen or a Marehan for the post. Both are from the Darod clan family from which the prime minister must come. In addition to appointing a prime minister and making further progress in the establishment of the national unity government, President Sheikh Sharif's major concern, as it will be for the new prime minister, has been security. Part of this will involve bringing secular members of the TFG together with the former Islamic Courts Union commanders and clerics, some of whom have significant militia forces under their command. The President told a large gathering in Mogadishu on Monday that he regarded himself as president for both the TFG and the ARS ; and former ARS and TFG commanders came forward to commit themselves to work together. They need to. Last week a newly formed coalition, Hisbul Islamiyya, brought together four factions opposed to the Djibouti peace process ; the Asmara-based wing of the Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia ; the Ras Kamboni Brigade, an Islamic group affiliated to Sheikh Hassan ‘Turki' in Kismayo ; the Islamic front of Jabhatul Islamiya, formed in 2007 to oppose the presence of Ethiopian troops in Somalia ; and Anole, a Harti clan group also based in Kismayo. The chairman, Sheikh Dr. Omar Iman who returned last Saturday from a two year exile in Asmara, is close to Sheikh Hassan Dahir ‘Aweys' who has remained in Asmara. The new group, like Sheikh ‘Aweys' himself, have made it clear they intend to continue to fight against the President and against the anticipated unity government. It seems clear that the impetus for the founding of Hisbul Islamiyya came from Sheikh ‘Aweys' and from the Government of Eritrea which is still continuing to support Al-Shabaab terrorists in Somalia.

Security, of course, is an absolute necessity to bring in stability through negotiations with the right people on the ground, building institutional capacity, fulfilling the remaining objectives set out in the Transitional Charter over the next two years as well as promoting peaceful and constructive engagements with neighbors and the international community at large. There are some reasons for optimism. The co-operation of the TFG, the ARS, and Ahlu Sunna Wa-Jamma as well as a majority of the people of Somalia at large on one hand and the positive response of the neighbors and international community towards the new government on the other, does provide for a positive beginning. One immediate task is to secure a safe place for Parliament and Government. Any failure to move quickly to establish this, whether in Baidoa or in Mogadishu will have a poor effect. The new regime needs to keep up its momentum. Making tangible difference on the ground will be critical. For this to occur, the government needs to generate revenue internally to reduce undue external dependence. Progress on the ground will boost confidence in the new government, start to meet people's expectations and continue the drive towards achieving the objectives of the peace process.

***********

An Ethiopian delegation led by Foreign Minister Seyoum paid official visits to Italy (February 4-6) and Turkey (February 7-10) at the invitation of Italian Foreign Minister, Mr. Franco Frattini and Turkish Foreign Minister, Mr. Ali Babacan. In Italy, Minister Seyoum took part in the Security Council reform consultation meeting organized by the Italian government in Rome as we detailed last week. On the sidelines of the meeting, he also met and held fruitful discussions with the Foreign Ministers of Albania and the United Arab Emirates. During talks with the Foreign Minster of United Arab Emirates, Sheikh Abdullah Bin Zayed Al Nahyan, they agreed to work together on regional issues, with particular reference to Somalia. Sheikh Abdullah announced his government's decision to open an embassy in Addis Ababa by next year. During discussions with Mr. Lulzim Basha of Albania a common understanding was reached to revitalize the level of diplomatic contacts between the two countries. Minister Seyoum also had extensive bilateral discussions with Mr. Frattini, and with the Italian State Minister for Economic Development, Mr.Adolf Urso. Talks focused on a range of bilateral and regional matters. The Italian officials recognized the need for Ethiopia and Italy to coordinate efforts towards peace building in the Horn of Africa as well as scale up their economic cooperation.

In his three day visit to Turkey, Minister Seyoum met with Turkish high ranking officials, including Mr., Abdullah Gul, President of the Republic of Turkey, the Turkish Foreign Minister, Mr. Ali Babacan, and other ministers and officials. In talks both sides expressed their satisfaction at the level of economic and diplomatic cooperation that Ethiopia and Turkey currently enjoy. At the same time, there was a common understanding that the level of cooperation on investment and trade areas between the two countries should be expanded further. In this respect the Turkish side recognized the need to encourage Turkish entrepreneurs to invest more in Ethiopia. On diplomatic and security matters, taking note of Turkey's current position as a non-permanent member of the United Nations Security Council, it was agreed to conduct periodic consultations on regional and continental peace and security issues. It is apparent that both sides share a common position regarding the current political and security situation prevailing in Somalia, in the Sudan and in the DRC. During his visits, Minister Seyoum also held discussions with a number of Italian and Turkish entrepreneurs who showed an encouraging response to the possibility of engaging in business activity in Ethiopia.

**********

A second meeting of the Ethio-Saudi Joint Ministerial Commission has been held in Riyadh, in Saudi Arabia. The meeting early this week had been long in coming. The first meeting of the Joint Commission was in Addis Ababa nearly four years ago, and the second had been expected to take place within two years. The Ethiopian Delegation was headed by Mr. Sufian Ahmed, Minister of Finance and Economic Development, and the Saudi Delegation by Dr. Fahad A. Balghunaim, Minister of Agriculture. In his opening remarks Minister Fahad Balghunaim noted that the general agreement signed by the two countries, as well as the formation of the Joint Commission, provided the basis and guidelines for further cooperation in all fields for the mutual benefit of both countries. He added that the benefits from the Joint Meeting would be maximized through continuous follow-up, dialogue, consultation and contacts between the concerned ministries and institutions of the two sides. He stated that there were various opportunities for cooperation between the two countries but they needed to be put into action programs. He further indicated that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia was seriously exploring enhancement of its investment in Ethiopia. The private sector in Saudi Arabia is considered the cornerstone for investment abroad and for furthering economic and trade cooperation with other countries. Minister Fahad Balghunaim emphasized the importance of giving due consideration to the private sector and creating a conducive environment for its activities.

Minister Sufian Ahmed for his part noted the strong historical and cultural links between Ethiopia and Saudi Arabia would greatly enhance their joint efforts to consolidate the basis of bilateral cooperation in all areas of mutual interest. He stressed the need to finalize the negotiations of various draft agreements exchanged between the two parties. He underlined the importance of cooperation and coordination between their respective financial and banking institutions to help promote trade and investment, and noted the existence of ample opportunities in both countries for cooperation. Minister Sufian called upon both sides to exert maximum effort to create an enabling environment for the expansion of trade and investment, and stressed the need to establish a mechanism to monitor and follow-up the implementation of the agreements and understandings reached.

During the three day meeting there were detailed discussions and exchanges of views on the possible further expansion of existing trade relations, investment and development assistance, as well as on cooperation in the fields of civil aviation, health, higher education, youth affairs, tourism and antiquities, and labor. During his visit, Minister Sufian held separate meetings with Dr. Ibrahim Abdul Aziz Al-Assaf, Minister of Finance, Mr. Abdullah Ahmed Zainal, Minister of Commerce and Industry and Mr. Yousef Al-Bassam, Vice Chairman and Managing Director of the Saudi Fund for Development. Saudi officials expressed their desire to further strengthen the strategic partnership between the two countries. They commended the results of the recent experiment by Sheikh Mohammed Al-Amoudi for planting rice in Ethiopia which they described as being of top quality. The Minister of Commerce and Industry, who visited Ethiopia last June, expressed his appreciation for Ethiopia's commitment to allocate areas of agricultural land to Saudi investors. The Managing Director of the Saudi Fund for Development, currently co-financing two road construction projects in Ethiopia, promised to consider financing several other projects including a water supply project, a hydro-electric power plant and another road construction project recently submitted to the Fund. He encouraged the Ethiopian side to submit more projects for financing. During his visit, Minister Sufian also met with Saudi businessmen and investors to explain available business opportunities in Ethiopia.

Saudi Arabia is a strategic partner and among the top three trading partners of Ethiopia ; and its nationals are among the leading investors in the country. Both history and geography bind the two countries together. Relations between the two countries started before the time of the Prophet Mohammed. They were strengthened at the time of the Hijira. Ethiopia is known to many in Saudi Arabia as “Bilad al-Hijratein”, the Country of the Two Hijiras, referring to the flight from persecution of early converts to Islam who were given refuge in Ethiopia. The geographical proximity of the two countries, and the fact that their resources are complementary, also helps to strengthen the strategic partnership.

**********

A two-day national workshop was held this week in Addis Ababa on the Nile Basin Initiative- NBI. The meeting, jointly organized by the Ministries of Foreign Affairs and Water Resources, bringing together relevant government institutions, civil society, academia and other private groups, was convened to assess the progress made, and the challenges facing, the NBI. The workshop was opened by Ato Asfaw Dingamo, Minister of Water Resources, and participants made a detailed study of the NBI's achievements and the issues that must be resolved within the NBI to ensure its continued growth. The workshop deliberated on ways of further sustaining and building on the successes of the NBI, and detailed policy recommendations and strategic options were devised for consideration by the relevant bodies. These included ideas and proposals for environmental protection, for the identification and implementation of multi-purpose investment projects and on ways of strengthening NBI institutions. Such consultations are part and parcel of ensuring wider public participation in the NBI initiative, helping policy makers to make objective assessments of the work done in the context of implementing the vision of a basin-wide structure aimed at securing equity, environmental protection and mutual benefits for all the riparian states and their peoples.

It would be recalled that the NBI was established in 1999 by Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda, with Eritrea as an observer. It has a governance structure comprising the Nile Council of Ministers in charge of Water Affairs (Nile-COM) and a Nile Technical Advisory Committee (Nile–TAC). The Secretariat is based in Entebbe. Other elements of the initiative are the NBI- Shared Vision Program (SVP) for confidence and capacity building, and Subsidiary Action Programs (SAP) to undertake investment projects and cooperation at the sub-basin level. These are made up of the Eastern Nile Countries-Ethiopia, Egypt and the Sudan ; the Eastern Nile Subsidiary Action Program (ENSAP) managed by the Eastern Nile Technical Regional Office (ENTRO), located in Addis Ababa ; and the Nile Equatorial Lakes Subsidiary Action Program (NELSAP) managed by the NELSAP Coordination Unit (NELSAP-CU) located in Kigali, Rwanda.

**********

The Ministry of Foreign Affairs wishes to put on record the position of the Government of Ethiopia concerning some matters raised in the resolution on the Horn of Africa adopted by the European Parliament on 15 January. The Ministry had hoped that a visit by the Development Committee of the European Parliament on a fact finding mission to Ethiopia would have helped the Committee ascertain facts for itself and so formulate a report whose recommendations would aim to enhance the development, peace and security of the region. It is extremely disappointing that the visit led to a resolution fraught with contradictions and inconsistencies concerning Ethiopia. These start with the preamble. This portrays the challenges of peace and security in the Horn of Africa in one sweeping paragraph, merging together disputes between Ethiopia and Eritrea and between Eritrea and Djibouti, conflict in Somalia and the situation in the Sudan. The European Parliament shows no sign of understanding Eritrea has been, and continues to be, the principal force working to destabilize the entire region. It has launched wars of aggression against Yemen, Ethiopia, and most recently Djibouti and it is actively supporting terrorist groups in the region, particularly in Somalia.

These activities need to be seen separately from any dispute Eritrea has with Ethiopia, a dispute going back to 1998, when as the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission found, Eritrea violated Article 2, paragraph 4, of the Charter of the United Nations “by resorting to armed force to attack and occupy Badme, then under peaceful administration by Ethiopia, …in an attack which began on May 12, 1998, and is liable to compensate Ethiopia, for the damages caused by that violation of international law.” The two countries did not, of course, just quietly end ‘their war' as the European Parliamentary resolution suggests. Ethiopia successfully reversed the aggression for which the Claims Commission found Eritrea liable. This led to the signing of the Algiers Agreements which included a number of obligations far broader than those mentioned in the resolution. Among them was an undertaking to permanently terminate hostilities between Eritrea and Ethiopia ; to renounce the use of force in resolving any disputes that might arise between them ; agreement that all disputes should be resolved peacefully ; and the establishment of a Temporary Security Zone (TSZ) to provide the necessary environment for delimitation and demarcation of the boundary and for the comprehensive settlement of the disputes between the two countries.

Omitting all these cardinal aspects of the Algiers Agreements, and the findings of the Claims Commission, indicates the selective approach adopted by those who drafted the resolution. It should be added Eritrea did not simply “obstruct” UNMEE as indicated in the text of the resolution. It deliberately took a whole series of illegal actions which led to the eviction of the UN Peacekeeping Mission from Eritrea in an unprecedented and humiliating manner. All this is well documented in the Reports of the United Nations Secretary General to the Security Council and in the resolutions of the Security Council itself. The failure of the EU resolution to note these misrepresentations and factual errors has led to serious inconsistencies in its recommendations. It is, for example, absolutely unacceptable that the resolution asks Ethiopia to endorse the Boundary Commission's “virtual” demarcation, by map coordinates, as final and binding. These coordinates cannot constitute a valid demarcation because they are not the result of a valid process recognized by international law. Similarly, the maps issued by the Commission cannot be considered as an acceptable, final and binding demarcation on the ground. Ethiopia and Eritrea have the responsibility to resolve their disputes peacefully. The resolution calls for dialogue and physical demarcation while, bizarrely, at the same time advocating acceptance of invalid demarcation by map coordinates.

It is equally regrettable that the resolution makes unwarranted allegations regarding a number of developments in Ethiopia. The Government is doing everything in its power to continue to provide humanitarian assistance in the Somali National Regional State of Ethiopia, and in close collaboration with international and national humanitarian agencies. Any contrary implication intended in the resolution is simply unwarranted, and unhelpful. It is disappointing that the resolution takes the position that the recently adopted Proclamation for the Registration and Regulation of Charities and Societies has reduced the political space in the country and could restrict the activities of international and Ethiopian associations working for equality, justice, human rights and conflict resolution. It calls for changes to the law and its application. As the drafters of the resolution should well know, the new legislation is intended to enable civil society groups to make meaningful contribution to the democratization process in the country and the fight against poverty. It promotes the rights of citizens to organize independently in ways of their choosing. The restrictions relate only to political activities. As in any democratic setting, political activities in Ethiopia are restricted to the citizens. To this end, foreign money received by Ethiopian civil societies for political activities should not be more than 10%. This can hardly be called an undue restriction by any manner of means. The fact is that the new law does not impose any restriction whatever on domestic or foreign NGOs engaged in economic and social development areas. It does not restrict the rights and freedoms of citizens, but only foreign funding for those groups wishing to engage in political activities. Despite the allegations of some international advocacy groups, there is no narrowing of political space.

This and other laws mentioned in the resolution, including the press law, and law on party registration, have been passed by the House of People's Representatives after thorough and extensive discussions with the relevant stakeholders and with opposition political groups in parliament. In practice, these laws have shown tangible contributions to the increasingly vibrant political discourse in Ethiopia. The composition of the National Electoral Board was arrived at through scrupulous implementation of the constitutional provisions about its independence and the selection of members. It also involved the active and full participation of opposition groups in parliament. The suggestion in the resolution that any of this has negatively affected the political process is simply unjustified. Any impartial judgment of these laws will see that together they help to lay additional foundation for the further entrenchment of democracy in Ethiopia. In this context, we would note that the resolution openly questions the entirely lawful, and understandable, arrest of Ms Birtukan Midekssa. She was tried and sentenced by a court of law for a number of offences. She was then released, on a conditional pardon, after she had asked for pardon admitting her guilt and promising not to engage in illegal activities in the future. Despite this, after her release she publicly denied that she had asked for pardon, implying that the pardon had been given under false premises. She was given the opportunity to re-affirm her pardon but she refused to do so leaving the Government no alternative but to revoke her pardon and reinstate her sentence. Her first conviction, her pardon, and its eventual revocation due to her public denial, were done in full public view and in full compliance with the Ethiopian law. We would expect a resolution of the European Parliament to support the rule of law rather than take a false political position on a very clear legal case. One might also add that it is deeply regrettable that despite mentioning recent terrorist attacks in Somaliland, and Puntland, the resolution fails to include any paragraph condemning these appalling attacks.

***********

Human rights have frequently been the subject of campaigns by activists of various causes who claim to campaign for human dignity, ethical standards, and international and global human rights. On occasions, however, self-appointed guardians of human rights appear to use this undeniably important issue as a cover for hidden political objectives. Human Rights Watch (HRW), for example, has a proven track record of campaigning against Ethiopia and almost without exception on the basis of unfounded allegations of human rights abuse. Its latest target is the Charities and Societies Proclamation recently adopted by the House of People's Representatives after a long, consultative and transparent process. What seems to have provoked HRW on this occasion was a European Union Presidential Declaration on 30 January which while expressing concern about some aspects of the Proclamation, also hoped the law would be implemented in “an open-minded and constructive spirit”. The Presidential Declaration welcomed the thorough exchange of views between itself and the Government of Ethiopia while the proclamation was at a draft stage, and acknowledged the fact that some of its concerns had been taken onboard. It did, however, maintain reservations about some of the provisions, and said it would follow the implementation and impact of the new law closely. The Declaration also recalled, with appreciation, Ethiopia's adoption of the Africa Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance, the second state to do so, as an excellent example for development of democratic processes in Africa.

The EU Presidential Declaration was, as usual, the outcome of a consultation process among all EU member states. Ethiopia respects the views of its EU partners even if it does not necessarily agree with them. It believes that this is what partnership is all about, but it is this spirit of partnership between Ethiopia and the EU that HRW is apparently so angry about. Indeed, on Tuesday it went so far as to circulate an angry and intemperate protest letter to EU member states denouncing the Declaration for timidity, for being unprincipled and for failing in what HRW claims are the EU's responsibilities and obligations, indeed for being balanced. HRW, characteristically making false allegations of “a deeply chilling environment” for civil society, of intimidation, and of a “brazen attack on independent civil society”, demands the EU should punish Ethiopia with severe economic sanctions just because of the way HRW claims to know what the “intentions” of the law actually are.

Bizarrely, in its letter, HRW even expresses dismay that some elements in earlier drafts of the proclamation were actually amended after consultation with Ethiopia's partners and with civil society organizations. This sort of negative attitude makes HRW's political motives clear. HRW is objecting to a legitimate law passed by Ethiopia's sovereign, and democratically elected, institutions. Indeed, by calling for “severe economic sanctions”, HRW is actually attempting to try and divert the attention of the government from its focus on poverty reduction. Exactly how depriving Ethiopia of access to EU development assistance, something certainly critical for poverty eradication, can help protection of human rights is a secret known only to HRW. HRW is trying to drum up support for what can only be described as a wicked scheme, calling the primary purpose and result of the CSO Proclamation the intimidation and prevention of civil society engagement. It is unashamedly urging the EU to force the Ethiopian Government to repeal Ethiopian parliamentary legislation, legislation which has been the subject of discussion and consultation of those who might be affected for months, even years. HRW has not participated in these discussions. Now it is trying to insist that should Ethiopia refuse to oblige HRW, then the EU should impose sanctions and carry out actions that would have serious effects on human rights in Ethiopia, not least poverty reduction. HRW knows very well that poverty has been identified as the main national security threat for Ethiopia and is its major priority. For reasons best known to itself, HRW is apparently opposed to this. It is trying to water down the intensity of our national struggle against poverty by attempting to neutralize some of Ethiopia's international partnerships. Whatever the political motives behind HRW's actions, the Ethiopian Government remains determined to forge ahead with its successful drive against poverty. It will not allow it to be sabotaged by HRW. Other African countries might wish to draw lessons from HRW's behavior and its deliberate attempts to interfere in Ethiopia's relations with its partners. None of this lies within HRW's professed mandate and indeed appears to work in contradiction to its supposed aims.

Semaine du 20/02/2009

embeth — 2009-02-23T14:43:06Z

• Eritrea-Djibouti : hour of decision • A turning point for IGAD • Cabinet considerations in Somalia and more bad advice from a US adviser • Irish State Minister winds up a five day visit to Ethiopia today • CARE-USA headquarters agreement signed • Eritrea and the African Union • Humanitarian requirements for 2009 • Dire Dawa signs a twinning agreement with Villeurbanne in France. • What's behind the politicization of human rights ?

The five weeks deadline set by the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1862 (2009) adopted on 14 January demanding Eritrea withdraw its forces and all their equipment in Djibouti to the position of status quo ante has almost passed. The Council also demanded Eritrea acknowledge its border dispute with Djibouti, and engage actively in dialogue and in diplomatic efforts to defuse the tension and seek settlement of the border issue. It further demanded Eritrea abide by and respect its international obligations as a Member of the United Nations according to the principles mentioned in article 2, paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, and article 33 of the United Nations Charter. Such pronouncements referring to the activities and conduct of a Member State are indeed rare. They would normally be used as measures of last resort for the Security Council. They are a grave indictment of the very legitimacy of the Government concerned. The obligations to be fulfilled and actions required of Eritrea by the Security Council are matters that would normally be carried out as the simple routine conduct of any Member State.

Eritrea was also given a timeline to bring its actions in line with the Charter of the United Nations. For this purpose Eritrea was asked to cooperate fully with the UN Secretary-General. The Security Council asked the Secretary-General to report on this and on the compliance by both parties, Djibouti and Eritrea, with their obligations within six weeks. The Security Council committed itself to take any further decision at that time depending on the developments. The coming week is therefore decision time for the Council, because, as expected, Eritrea has made no effort whatever to implement Security Council Resolution 1862 (2009). Eritrea has never abided by the demands of the Security Council before or acknowledged other calls for reason from the international community. It is hardly a surprise that Eritrean intransigence has been repeated again. However, the patience and the full compliance with the Security Council, with which Djibouti has handled this matter puts the Security Council in difficulty. It cannot simply ignore the situation, and the injury sustained by Djibouti, just because Eritrea is intransigent. Regional organizations have also made a number of efforts to resolve the matter. Again, they have been rebuffed by Eritrea. All this puts added pressure on the Security Council to act. If it fails to take firm and unequivocal action to stop Eritrea from repeating such dangerous and irresponsible action with impunity its own credibility is at stake. Indeed, the credibility of the entire United Nations Organization would be at the risk of endless testing to see how far any regime like the one in Asmara is prepared to go. We cannot, however, have any illusions about how far the Security Council will be prepared to go to discharge its obligations.

***********

The 33rd Ordinary Session of IGAD Council of Ministers will be meeting 21st and 22nd March in Djibouti. This Session is already coming in for a lot of attention because of expectations that the Council of Ministers will agree on the roadmap for regional economic integration. It will be the first time that IGAD member states have agreed to eliminate tariff and non-tariff barriers to foster trade among themselves. IGAD has taken a long time to concentrate on transforming itself into a regional economic community (REC). Originally set up in 1986 as the Inter-Governmental Authority for Drought and Desertification (IGADD) it had a mandate to focus on fighting desertification and mitigating the effects of drought. When it became the Inter-Governmental Authority for Development (IGAD), its mandate emphasized three areas : food security and the environment ; conflict prevention, management and resolution ; and economic cooperation and integration. This was part of the preparation for setting up the REC, but for a long time IGAD's Secretariat and its member states focused on the more pressing issues of peace and security. IGAD has played a creditable role in assisting peace in Somalia and the Sudan. Not too many may recall that the CPA in the Sudan was based on the Declaration of Principles which was the brainchild of IGAD. On the other hand, though it has implemented a number of programs and projects concerning food security and the environment, sustainable development, livestock, health and other issues it did little towards economic integration and cooperation. This was one reason why, when member states agreed on revitalization of IGAD two years ago, they emphasized the need to focus on the regional integration agenda. This followed the AU's decision to consider the RECs as building blocks for the economic integration of Africa.

In June last year at the 12th Summit of IGAD Heads of State and Government it became apparent the economic integration of the region was not making sufficient progress. The Summit therefore agreed to direct the Secretariat to produce an inventory of what has been achieved so far in terms of harmonization and regional integration, and offer recommendations on the way forward. It also directed the Secretariat to develop and implement regional integration policies and programs to make IGAD relevant as a building block of the AU, and decided to call for an Extra-Ordinary Council of Ministers meeting and, if need be, a Summit of Heads of State and Government to discuss the way forward. A Minimum Integration Plan for the IGAD region has been submitted to senior officials of member states who have given recommendations ; the final study is expected to be submitted by mid- March.

When the IGAD Council of Ministers meets in mid-March in Djibouti, the major agenda item will be regional integration and its implementation. This requires member states to discuss and negotiate on areas of integration in the short, medium and long term. The Secretariat will have to prepare negotiation briefs, and member states need to establish national negotiation teams. A roadmap outlining the process, the activities, and the time frame will be agreed at senior officials' level and submitted to the Council in March. The meeting will demonstrate just how fast member states wish to push regional integration. Approval of the roadmap will set the timeframe for the establishment of the IGAD Free Trade Area which will provide for the transformation of IGAD from a politically focused organization to an economic organization, turning it into one of the real building blocks for African integration joining the ranks of other Regional Economic Communities. In addition to trade integration, Council of Ministers will also discuss various sectoral programs including infrastructure, energy, health and migration, and hear progress reports on preparation of future plans including peace and security which remains a corner stone for national and regional economic development. The prevalence of peace and security is, of course, also a pre-requisite for regional integration and cooperation. The Council of Ministers will also be briefed and hold discussions on political developments in Somalia, the Sudan and the Djibouti-Eritrea conflict.

***********

Mr. Omar Abdirashid Ali Shermarke, the new Prime Minister of the National Unity Government of Somalia, was, as expected, endorsed by the enlarged parliament of the Transitional Federal Government by a landslide on February 15, with a clear majority of 411 MPs voting for him. Mr. Shermarke has been working on his cabinet which has been proving a difficult task. Membership of the new Cabinet will be expected to strike a balance between accommodating various interest groups and being effective. It was anticipated that the Cabinet would be small, however with the efforts of the Prime Minister to satisfy pressure groups it now appears the number of Cabinet members is likely to reach 36. Some members of the international community have expressed concern over this prospect, suggesting such a cabinet might be too large and unmanageable, that it would take up too many resources, and probably fail to deliver expected results. Whatever the size, it is likely to get speedy endorsement from Parliament. There is general agreement on the need for the new government to form an effective cabinet and relocate itself from Djibouti to Mogadishu as soon as possible to create the necessary presence to help challenge extremist elements on the ground.

Developments on the ground appear to be continuing to favor the new Government. After several successive defeats of Al Shabaab by the more traditional Ahlu Sunna Wal-Jama'a sect, Al-Shabaab has lost another of its strongholds, Elbur, in Central Somalia. The Hawiye Elders Council in Mogadishu has announced its support for the new government and appealed publicly to everyone to lay down arms to open up the way for a negotiated settlement of the crisis in Somalia. On Monday the joint security committee of TFG and ARS announced it will deploy its security forces in all Mogadishu police stations. Together the two organizations will provide 2,700 men, 1,350 each. The chairman of the committee, Abdalla Boos, also announced that all checkpoints in the city must be removed within 48 hours.

However, this week Islamic clerics who have been meeting in Mogadishu for three days, have been discussing the new government and on the need for the implementation of Sharia'a law. Among those present was Haji Aboker Omar Adani, the prominent businessman and a main financial backer of the Islamic Courts Union in 2006. At the end of the meeting, the Council now calling itself the Ula'ma of Somalia issued a communiqué announcing that the Somali parliament must officially announce within 90 days from the first of March that the country would be ruled under Sharia'a law, and any articles of the Transitional Federal Charter which are against Sharia'a law, must be changed or removed. Foreign troops must leave within 120 days from March 1st, and no extra troops be sent to Somalia. No attacks should be made on foreign troops within this period. The new government will continue to face a difficult situation in Mogadishu. As the Clerical Council indicates it will be an uphill struggle for the government to establish its authority. It underlines the need for full international support for President Sheikh Sharif and his government.

*****

Professor Ken Menkhaus is a long-time and respected observer of Somalia for the US State Department and other agencies. He's written extensively on Somali politics, often reporting in much greater detail and more accurately than many commentators on major developments. This is why his latest paper on Somalia entitled "Somalia after the Ethiopian Occupation : First-steps to end the conflict and combat extremism" for the Enough Project is so disappointing, as was the first piece he wrote for Enough. In addition to displaying Enough's prejudice about developments in the region, Professor Menkhaus has made a number of surprisingly subjective and pessimistic assessments as he elaborates his views on the way forward for Somalia and how the new US administration should respond. He has concentrated on what he considers to be the interests of Ethiopia and of Eritrea, as well as possible policy options for the US in Somalia in particular and in the Horn of Africa in general.

Professor Menkhaus accurately notes that Eritrea has been the principal backer of the insurgency in Somalia and that it is a state that is playing “the role of spoiler in Somalia”. He then suggests this is because Eritrea is diplomatically isolated. He argues that designating Eritrea as a state sponsor of terror (which, he says, the Africa Bureau in the US State Department tried to do during the last days of the Bush administration) would have made it almost impossible to engage Eritrea in a constructive dialogue “to convince it to cease its proxy war in Somalia”. Menkhaus suggests that the US "as part of an integrated regional policy, [should] explore quiet overtures to Eritrea to de-escalate tension and provide that government [with] some incentives not to play the role of spoiler in Somalia." Given the undisputed challenges Eritrea poses to the stability of Somalia and the region as a whole, it is difficult to see why Professor Menkhaus is so concerned with appeasement of Eritrea rather than looking for an effective mechanism to deal with the challenges Eritrea poses. Eritrea is, after all, a place where all institutions of good governance have been put on one side and forgotten and where one man dictatorial rule prevails. Menkhaus remains silent on all this.

By contrast, Professor Menkhaus does accept that "... Ethiopia has legitimate, vital security interests in Somalia”. He also notes Ethiopia's “…constructive response to the Djibouti Agreement and its support of the creation of a moderate coalition of opposition and TFG leaders”. This, Menkhaus suggests, means that under the right conditions there is “ample political space” to find solutions acceptable to both Somalia and the Ethiopian Government. He recommends the United States should protect and expand this political space to build a common political vision of coexistence and shared security and economic interests. Having pointed all this out, he then suddenly suggests the US administration should not remain silent about what he calls “problematic Ethiopian behavior” in the region claiming that the Obama administration could quickly lose its leverage and credibility in the Horn of Africa. It is difficult to see how addressing admittedly legitimate security concerns can be an agenda to make the new US administration lose its leverage and credibility. One has to ask why appeasing the state responsible for spoiling tactics, while campaigning against a regional partner, can serve the interests of the US.

Professor Menkhaus did actually write a similar piece for the Enough Project last September (“Somalia : A Country in Peril, a Policy Nightmare”) in which he demonstrated how little he understood Ethiopia's actions and intentions, and in which his association with the Enough Project appears to have prevailed over his previously more balanced approach. He claimed how Ethiopia opted to pursue its security interests was the key to the success or failure of almost all other policy agendas in Somalia. He wondered whether Ethiopia would allow the TFG to collapse entirely rather than risk it becoming a vehicle for a potentially hostile coalition. He suggested that Ethiopia had been allowing Mogadishu-based warlords to rearm in order to render Mogadishu ungovernable and prevent hard-line Islamists from reasserting control over the capital after Ethiopia's withdrawal. In fact, of course, none of this related to the actuality of what occurred. Ethiopia made a well organized and orderly withdrawal, and before doing so notified the TFG, restructured TFG's forces, and ensured the establishment of the Benadir Administration after the removal of the administration led by the warlord, Mohamed Dhere. The Ethiopian National Defense Forces coordinated activities with the Joint Security Committee established under the Djibouti Agreement and handed over security to the parties on the ground. In that paper Professor Menkhaus claimed it was extremely difficult to understand and predict Ethiopia's motives, interests, strategies and intentions. It isn't really, but his failure to do so is precisely why he makes mistakes time and again and draws the wrong conclusions following Ethiopia's critical decision to withdraw its forces from Somalia.

Even more problematically, Menkhaus then tries to expand the argument into what he calls a “broader regional dynamic” in which he includes Ethiopian-Eritrean tensions and Ethiopia's domestic politics including the response to the activities of the Ogaden National Liberation Front in the Somali National Regional State. Menkhaus says U.S. policy in the Horn of Africa over several years “has brushed past these important regional dynamics while making efforts to kill or capture specific individuals responsible for terrorist attacks in the region the paramount objective.” This, he claims, reduced the U.S -Ethiopian partnership to an “ill-advised quid-pro-quo” : Ethiopia helping the U.S achieve counter-terrorist objectives and, in exchange, the United States saying little about alleged shrinking political space or human rights abuses. This, as Professor Menkhaus knows perfectly well, is nonsense. As he himself noted, Ethiopia had legitimate security interests in Somalia, and it went into Somalia because of the specific threats posed to these interests. It was, of course, also invited by the legitimate Somali Government to help rescue it from aggression of the then ICU, supported as it was by Eritrea. It was no secret that Eritrea was training, arming and sending terrorist groups through Somalia with a view to opening another front against Ethiopia.

Menkhaus equally misunderstands that Al-Shabaab is now in difficulties not because of Ethiopian withdrawal, but because its wings were clipped by Ethiopian military operations over the last two years. Long before the Ethiopian withdrawal, there were ample indications that Al-Shabaab had been seriously weakened. It was defeated in several engagements with joint TFG-ENDF forces and more recently by Ahlu Sunna Wal-Jama'a fighters. Al-Shabaab is clearly not the most formidable force on the ground in Somalia today, if indeed it ever was. Nor, one should add, are the rifts in Al-Shabaab over clan, leadership, tactics and ideology, the result of developments in the last two weeks or so. Professor Menkhaus' failures of information as well as the display of fundamental contradictions and sweeping unsubstantiated comments make his recommendations less than helpful for policy makers in the US, or elsewhere, to frame a mechanism for the international community to allow it to address the challenges facing the region with any success.

***********

An Irish delegation led by Mr. Peter Power, Minister of State at the Department of Foreign Affairs with responsibility for Overseas Development, visited Ethiopia this week. During his five day visit (15-20 February) the State Minister met and held comprehensive discussions with Ato Sufian Ahmed, Minister of Finance and Economic Development, as well as with members of parliament from Government and opposition. In his talks with Ato Sufian, Mr. Power noted that ongoing Irish aid-supported development projects in Ethiopia are bringing visible changes and improvements to people's lives. He said it gave him great satisfaction to be able to visit projects, among them some in Tigrai Regional State, and observe the results in person. Ato Sufian underlined the historical and friendly relations of the two countries and emphasized that Irish development assistance was making visible and real differences in the life of the poorest people at the grass root level. Ethiopia, he said, had a unique partnership with Ireland and he described the quality of assistance that Ireland provided to Ethiopia as exemplary.

The Irish State Minister also met and held extensive discussions with Dr. Tekeda Alemu, Minister of State for Foreign Affairs. Their talks covered a number of issues ranging from bilateral relations to domestic and regional issues, including current political and democratic transitions in Ethiopia, and the latest political and security developments in Somalia and the Sudan. Both officials were encouraged by the positive developments prevailing in Somalia following the election of a new president. Equally they agreed that there was a danger that the situation there could be reversed if the international community failed to respond urgently. With regard to the situation in the Sudan, it was emphasized that the problem is extremely delicate and needed cautious and careful handling by the international community.

With representatives of the political parties in the parliament, the Irish State Minister also discussed at length the new Charities and Societies law and parliamentary procedures. The Government's Parliamentary Whip stressed that parliamentary procedure governs the way the ruling party handled the interests of opposition parties in the parliament and the conduct of all members of the parliament. He also underlined that the CSO law was fully compatible with the country's constitution and its proclamation would further serve as an engine of cooperation between local and foreign NGOs, like the Irish ones, whose priority was development.

***********

This week an agreement was signed between the Government of Ethiopia and CARE USA for the establishment of the Global Water Initiative Regional Office. State Minister for Foreign Affairs, Dr. Tekeda Alemu, and CARE's Program Director for the East Africa Region, Mr. Geff Gowa, signed the agreement providing for the practical modalities for setting the office up in Addis Ababa. Speaking on the occasion, State Minister, Dr. Tekeda, underlined the commitment of the Government to make available all assistance to NGOs like CARE-USA which are seeking to boost development in Ethiopia. Mr. Geff Gowa of CARE-USA, an international organization based in Atlanta, Georgia, made it clear he appreciated government support for CARE. This would, he said, be instrumental in helping CARE carry out its operations with increased efficiency. The activities of the CARE Regional Office include the effective oversight of, and support for, CARE's Global Water Initiative Operations in East Africa. The program has the aim of supporting integrated water management in specific countries, developing a water constituency there and helping move beyond this to scale up the initiative.

************

The problem in Ethiopia-Eritrea relations is frequently described by observers as if it is limited to one single issue. It is not. The problem is rooted in the fact that Eritrea does not have a strategy focusing on sustainable peace and the normalization of relations between the two countries. One can bring up a number of issues in this regard. One example is the claim that Eritrea does not have representation in Ethiopia and it is prevented from participation in African Union activities at the AU Headquarters in Addis Ababa. This is completely false. Allegations of this kind are a direct result of the narrow perspective that the regime in Eritrea takes in order to try and advance its agenda of destabilization. Eritrea has been told several times, and indeed at the highest level during a Summit Meeting, that it has the right to establish representation in Addis Ababa for the conduct of its affairs with the African Union. Ethiopia accords all delegations traveling to Addis Ababa, or residing there, the right to represent their countries to the organs of the Union. This is a matter governed by the Constitutive Act of the African Union and the Headquarters Agreement. The host Government and the African Union have also devised follow-up mechanisms to ensure the smooth implementation of the obligations contained in these and other instruments. The Permanent Representatives Committee of Ambassadors has a standing structure to review matters of African Union offices throughout the continent. All delegations, irrespective of their political or diplomatic relations with Ethiopia, are always received with full hospitality. The structures of the African Union provide firm guarantees to all member states wherever any African Union meeting is taking place. Actually, the Eritrean regime has never showed much regard for the continental organization or the fundamental obligations laid down by the Constitutive Act of the Union. Among these are the peaceful resolution of conflicts among member states, prohibition of the use or threat of force among member states, non-interference in the internal affairs of another state, and peaceful co-existence of member states and their right to live in peace and security.

***********

The Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development, in coordination with relevant United Nations agencies, donors and NGOs, has issued a document on Ethiopia's humanitarian emergency requirements for 2009. The document, “Humanitarian requirement for 2009 : Joint Government and Humanitarian Partners Document”, was launched on January 30, at a meeting held with key development partners. According to the findings of Government-led multi-agency seasonal assessment, a total of 4.9 million beneficiaries have been identified as requiring emergency assistance for this year. The costs of the identified emergency assistance covering food needs for the year and non-food needs for the first six month of the year, amounts to a total of US$ 454 million. In addition, an estimated 1.2 million beneficiaries will be reached with another 30,000 MT of supplementary food at a cost of US$ 26 million. Another US$ 39 million is requested to respond to the non-food needs of identified beneficiaries in the health and nutrition, water, sanitation, agriculture and livestock sectors.

Following the government's new strategy to shift from a food-focused response mechanism to an all-hazard early warning and response system, a multi-disciplinary team was deployed in the affected areas to identify emergency food and non-food requirements including health and nutrition, water and sanitation and agriculture and livestock. According to the findings of the multi-stakeholder seasonal assessment team, there are favorable food security prospects in the western meher crop-producing areas. However, as a result of disappointing seasonal rains and poor crop production coupled with high staple food prices, the food security situation in the eastern half of the country has been deteriorating. Consequently these areas will require external assistance until the belg harvest in June/ July this year.

Despite these facts, recent reports in some international news outlets suggested erroneously that "15% of Ethiopian population now need emergency food aid". As noted above, the latest humanitarian requirement for emergency assistance was for only 4.9 million beneficiaries. The UN OCHA Country Office has reacted to these misleading reports but no official statement has yet been issued to put the record straight.

************

A seven-member French delegation from the city of Villeurbanne, led by M. Jean-Paul Bret, the city's Mayor, paid a week-long visit to Ethiopia arriving last week on February 11. The delegation was here at the invitation of the Mayor of Dire Dawa, Ato Adem Farah, to look into establishing a twinning agreement between the city of Dire Dawa and the city of Villeurbanne. The delegation visited Dire Dawa and looked at various municipal activities in the city, including health centers, elementary and technical schools and tourist sites. It also made a visit to the neighboring regional state of Harar. Last Saturday, the Mayors of Villeurbanne and Dire Dawa signed their twinning agreement. This will allow for joint activities for the social and economic needs of the two cities. M. Jean-Paul Bret, the mayor of Villeurbanne, is also the first Vice-President of Grand Lyon, the second largest city in France. During his visit to Ethiopia, he took the opportunity to meet with Ato Kuma Demekssa, Mayor of Addis Ababa, to discuss possible ways of further strengthening existing relations between Addis Ababa and Lyon. They agreed on the need to make twinning agreements “result-oriented”. It's not uncommon to see twinning agreements set-up just for the sake of establishing friendships and failing to accomplish any joint tangible projects. Both Mayors underlined the need to review previous contacts between Addis Ababa and Lyon, and agreed to work towards establishing a “result-oriented” twin city arrangement between their cities. Ato Kuma Demekssa extended a formal invitation to the Mayor of the city of Lyon to visit Addis Ababa in May.

************

Human rights are a cause whose value has increasingly been recognized by almost all humanity. They have rightly been made part of international law through the various conventions adopted by the United Nations system. They now constitute an integral part of the founding legal instruments of many regional organizations such as the African Union, and provide a fundamental basis for constitutions like those of Ethiopia. There has indeed been an emerging global trend in which states, individually and collectively, are committing themselves to the cardinal values and principles of human rights.

Human rights also serve as a rallying cry for activists as part of their campaigns for the good of humanity. Unfortunately, however, the behavior of some self-styled human rights campaigners flies full in the face of their declared objectives. Human rights campaigners come in all shapes and sizes and some of these self-appointed guardians unabashedly use the issue as a cover for hidden political objectives. It is a distinctly alarming trend. It's not unusual for some of these groups to be particularly adventurous, militant and confrontational in their approach. They demonstrate a capacity to produce volume after volume on human rights situations without bothering to visit the places about which they report. Consistency is never their forte ; assumptions substitute for facts, innuendo for proof. Quite simply, they cast aspersions with little or no evidence and all the while exerting no efforts whatsoever to try to involve the parties they address. They churn out report after report in the name of concern for human rights. They stop at nothing to peddle their reports by mobilizing well resourced networks around the globe. This might not matter but given the international media's weakness for sensation, these reports can take on far greater significance than they deserve as they play havoc with efforts of some countries to extricate themselves from old outdated criticisms and images.

The campaigns these groups wage are particularly vitriolic about Africa in general and about a few specific states in particular. Despite ostentatious claims of global interest and involvement, their interest in human rights in other parts of the world is lukewarm at best. Curiously, an already trenchant diatribe against countries such as Ethiopia has gathered strength just as the political, social and economic prospects there are looking decidedly progressive. The point that needs to be raised here, of course, is why are these groups so reluctant to engage with those in developing countries to help them institutionalize the protection and promotion of human rights rather than continue to bicker and intimidate from a distance ? It is impossible to know exactly what the motive is, or why they persist in a cavalier and condescending approach towards developing countries, including those, like Ethiopia, which can by any standards be described as emerging democracies. It is a little over a decade and a half since Ethiopia embarked on the path of democratization. In this short space of time, the country has managed to put itself on the path to sustainable development and the institutionalization of democracy despite a background of centuries of undemocratic culture and of bad governance. It is difficult to believe that any neutral observer could miss this tremendous achievement. It is a feat on which Ethiopia deserves to be congratulated. This is not to say Ethiopia has overcome all the challenges of the transition. Certainly not. Equally, the statistics produced by third parties, including the World Bank and the IMF, make it clear Ethiopia does appear to be on the right trajectory for sustainable development, good governance and democratization.

This certainly raises the question why do groups, such as Human Rights Watch (HRW), for example, continue to concentrate their campaigns against Ethiopia, and usually on the basis of unfounded, second-hand allegations of human rights abuse. Why do they always choose to attack what is clear and promising economic, social and political progress ? Inevitably one asks how could HRW, and its sponsors, benefit if Ethiopia is derailed from its current course. Only HRW, of course, can answer these questions accurately, and it won't. In fact while taking care to guard against the sort of far-out conspiracy theories occasionally forwarded by observers and analysts alike, it is important to try and figure out what the motives might be. One apparently simplistic explanation would be to ascribe this behavior to the lack of interest in serious discussion ; another might be a propensity towards excitement, adventure or militancy. Some human rights activists may be motivated by the same rather romantic, and so unrealistic, campaign for utopian ideals. In all such cases one thing is very clear : some human rights activists simply fail to realize that they are dealing with important issues concerning social, political and economic rights meaning a great deal to the peoples of the countries they are reporting on, and they do this in a manner that effectively and even comprehensively hinders progress.

There are also observers who see this question from a rather different angle. Those observers go so far as to associate some human rights organizations with attacks on governments for the sake of strategic political objectives and encourage people to resort to conspiratorial theories. They even raise the question whether human rights might not be a code word employed as cover to intimidate governments while trying to impose their interests in larger global scheme of things. In fact, it is difficult to ascribe any single explanation to understand the behavior of some human rights organizations. It is equally difficult to exonerate some human rights organizations from falling into the suspect category. For example, despite a number of other worse case scenarios around the world, Ethiopia continues to receive more than its faire share of HRW's smear campaign. HRW, of course, consistently refuses to acknowledge errors when its unfounded allegations are factually disproved with concrete evidence on the ground as was the case in the Somali Regional State of Ethiopia last year. Given this behavior, it's more than possible that HRW's approach may be part of the global scheme of things. Is it possible that the potential discovery of oil in the Ogaden area of the Somali Regional State has become a subject of interest for HRW ? Why else would a minor local conflict in the Gambella Regional State of Ethiopia, long since resolved, still continue to be a subject of intense interest for HRW ? It should be emphasized that this discussion is certainly not meant in any way to insinuate that human rights groups all behave in this way. Indeed, not ; only some organizations cloaked in a guise of human rights operate in this way.

One particularly curious aspect of some human rights advocacy groups is the way they publicize their voluminous reports. These are often authored from a distance even in western capitals. In the case of Ethiopia, they often travel to Nairobi to hold press conferences, in order to try and maximize the propaganda impact, by being closer to Ethiopian territory. They deliberately avoid any meaningful dialogue with the Ethiopian government or other relevant stake holders in the country. This is, to put it mildly, very curious if the real agenda is, indeed, human rights. Protection and promotion of human rights is something that requires nurturing on the ground. It obviously benefits from sincere engagement with partners. It is not something that should or can be achieved through the barrages of propaganda, the attempted arm twisting or the intimidation displayed by some human rights advocacy groups. A good example of this was HRW's latest statement, criticizing the EU for not being harsh enough in its comments on Ethiopia's CSO legislation, and demanding the EU call on Ethiopia to rescind the bill. Certainly, as far as Ethiopia goes, efforts like this cannot be allowed to get in the way of the fight against poverty and the effort for the promotion and strengthening of democratic values and good governance. In any poverty-stricken nation such as Ethiopia, these may be choices that cannot be avoided. The Government of Ethiopia believes the promotion of human rights and democracy are not matters of choice, but of survival. Ethiopia supports democracy not because this is what the likes of HRW preach at us ; it upholds these fundamental principles because that is the only way it can extricate itself and its people from the trap of poverty and the senseless violence that so often accompanies it. No amount of venomously ill-founded reports to the contrary can add to or detract from this reality.