A Week In The Horn

Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia

Ministry of Foreign Affairs

Somalia and the AU General Assembly

Eritrea’s militarization

The African lead negotiators on climate change met in Addis Ababa

The 201st Meeting of the AUPSC on the CPA

Only Negotiations are Somaliland’s best option

Somalia and the AU General Assembly 

On Sunday, a special session of the Assembly of the African Union opens in Tripoli, Libya. The subject will be the consideration and resolution of conflicts in Africa, and the two-day session will be another milestone in terms of Africa's decisions on the issue of the crisis and conflict in Somalia. Discussion at the Assembly will be based on the report it is going to receive from the Commission. This can be expected to enhance what was previously decided on Somalia by the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union held in Sirte, Libya, in May this year, and to endorse the decisions of the African Union Peace and Security Council as well as those of IGAD on Somalia. Those meetings, including consideration of the problems of Somalia and the sub-region by the UN Security Council, have produced some positive developments on the ground as noted in recent editions of A Week in the Horn. This underlines the point that the international community has to continue to give meaningful support to the TFG to enable it to withstand the continued aggression launched against its forces and the forces of AMISOM. It also means the international community must continue the pressure against extremists in Somalia and against the identified “spoilers” of the peace process.

Despite the beginning of the Holy Month of Ramadan, there have been efforts from the extremists and their supporters to intensify attacks against the TFG and the AMISOM. President Sheikh Sherif's call for a ceasefire during Ramadan to allow people greater freedom to pray was immediately rejected by Sheikh Hassan Dahir 'Aweys', the head of Hizbul Islam, and Al-Shabaab said it would redouble its war efforts during Ramadan. These declarations, and the attacks launched inside Somalia from the beginning of Ramadan, have been welcomed with a political and media campaign by the Government of Eritrea, claiming that the source of problems in Somalia, and the current humanitarian crisis there, are the TFG and AMISOM. Eritrea continues to deny its own role in contributing to the suffering of the Somali people through its military support to the extremist organizations. Somewhat absurdly, Eritrea argues that Al-Shabaab and Hizbul Islam control all the areas of southern Somalia where there is a humanitarian crisis, but then claims this crisis is all the fault of the TFG and AMISOM which have no control in these areas. 

The TFG certainly remains weak, but it is not only a legitimate government recognized by the UN and the whole of the international community, it is also a government that has the best chance of solving the problems of Somalia, with minimal political opposition except from the minority extremist organizations supported by Eritrea and its backers. All indications are that with international support the TFG can and will be made stronger. By contrast, Eritrea's approach is to try to undermine the TFG in order to bring the Al-Shabaab/Hizbul Islam/Al Qaeda alliance to power in Somalia, to empower minority extremist elements. The Al-Shabaab/Hizbul Islam/Al Qaeda alliance is Eritrea's alternative to the TFG. Recent declarations indicate the international community is becoming finally aware of the unacceptability of this option. This is why the decisions adopted by IGAD and the AU Peace and Security Council received unanimous support by the AU Assembly of Heads of States and Government at Sirte recently. 

In light of these decisions, as well as the continued consideration of the issue of Somalia by the UN Security Council, it is clear Sunday's special session of the Assembly of the Union should continue to support the TFG and the AMISOM forces of the African Union. The two-day session should also encourage the UN Security Council to come up quickly with the necessary measures to punish the “spoilers” who are bent on undermining peace and security in Somalia, in the Sub-region and even beyond. It must resist any attempt to water down the successive decisions reached by IGAD, the AU Peace and Security Council, and by the AU Assembly of Heads of State and Government. It must firmly resist any efforts to try and prevent the UN Security Council from finally taking appropriate actions at its next session to consider Somalia.

********
Eritrea’s militarization 
In a statement over the weekend, Eritrea again underlined its support for Somalia's extremist opposition, strongly criticizing what it called “the so-called peacekeeping force in Mogadishu” (or AMISOM) for responding to attacks carried out by Al-Shabaab and Hizbul Islam rebels backed by Eritrea. An Eritrean ministry of information statement also attacked “the so-called illegal 'Transitional Government' imposed on the Somali people” saying it should be considered primarily responsible for these “crimes”. The TFG is, of course, recognized by all regional organizations including IGAD and the African Union, as well as by the international community. 
It is hardly surprising that the respected Military Balance 2009, a publication of the prestigious International Institute of Strategic Studies in London, has identified Eritrea as one of the most highly militarized states in the world today. Indeed, it ranked Eritrea in second place. However, the Military Balance has been less than generous. Eritrea should certainly be in first place and unchallengeably. The Military Balance suggests Eritrea has an army of 200,000, and given its population of just over 5 million, this means just fewer than 40,000 soldiers per one million population. In fact, Eritrea's armed forces are significantly larger than 200,000, and the figure should include at least another 150,000, and possibly more, national conscripts. Eritrea officially conscripts all 18 to 50 year-olds, theoretically for a two year programme. However, no more than a minimal number of these have ever been demobilized. The majority of the many thousands of those called up or recalled to the army in May 1998 when Eritrea invaded Ethiopia, and virtually none of those subsequently conscripted, have been allowed to leave. Including the number of the present conscript force (who deserve to be called regulars after such long service) would easily push Eritrea to the top of any table of militarized states; indeed it would appear Eritrea's figures would be nearly double of any other contenders for the title.
Eritrea’s over-militarization and its brazen support for extremists in the region should indeed be a cause of concern not only for the sub-region but also for the international community at large. Secretary of State Hilary Clinton’s recent warning to Eritrea while on a visit to Kenya was indicative of the extent to which Eritrea’s behaviour has grown unacceptable. A senior official of the previous administration, Jendayi Frazer, has become the latest to join the strong condemnation against the destructive activities of the government in Asmara. Professor Jendayi Frazer seriously advised the current administration to put Eritrea on the list of state sponsors of terrorism. In fact, the extent of the challenge that the behaviour of the Eritrean government poses to the peace and stability of the region could never be clearer. If anything, such measures as the one Professor Frazer called on the State Department to make are long overdue. Rather than heeding such calls and warnings, however, Eritrea’s destabilizing activities have nonetheless continued unabated.  Eritrea appears to be persuaded by some of its supporters that its brinksmanship can make the international community—the US administration in particular—think twice about making good on its warning. Whatever their intentions, those who find it in their heart to whitewash Eritrea’s soiled record should not be allowed to delay well-deserved action against the leadership in Asmara—much less to set the tone of the US administration.

*****
 African lead negotiators on climate change met in Addis Ababa
The keynote address by Prime Minister Meles Zenawi to the 12th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union held in February 2009, in Addis Ababa, will always be remembered as a watershed to Africa’s approach on climate change. In his speech to the Summit, Prime Minister Meles pointed out that Africa is expected to be one of the primary victims of the consequences of global warming despite its having contributed virtually nothing to climate change. He stressed that it is only fair that those who have created the problem should pay to enable Africa to manage the consequences of the problem they created. He therefore called upon the Assembly to pass a formal resolution that would enable Africa to be represented by one delegation empowered to negotiate on behalf of all member states on the international negotiations on climate change and whose primary mandate would be to achieve enhanced resource flows. 
The Assembly fully accepted his proposal and made a historic decision honoring Prime Minister Meles’s request for unified delegation empowered to negotiate on behalf of all Member States, with the mandate to ensure that resource flow to Africa is not reduced. In the same decision the Assembly also mandated the African Union Commission to work out the modalities of such representation.
The 13th Ordinary Session of African Union Assembly of Heads of State and Government held in Sirte, Libya in July, 2009 established the Conference of African Heads of State and Government on Climate Change (CAHOSCC). CAHOSCC comprises the Chairperson of the African Union, Ethiopia, Algeria, the Republic of Congo, Kenya, Mauritius, Mozambique, Nigeria, Uganda, the Chairperson of the African Ministerial Conference on Environment (South Africa), the Chairperson of the African Union Commission and technical negotiators on climate change from Member states.
As a follow-up to the aforementioned decisions, the African lead negotiators on climate change and representatives of the Conference of African Heads of State and Government on Climate Change met in Addis Ababa on 24 August 2009. In his address to the meeting, the Chairperson the AU Commission expressed his expectation that this meeting will produce the first-ever AU-Summit-sanctioned key political messages on climate change from Africa, which will be widely distributed in the continent and throughout the World.
The two meetings focused on the main pillars of the climate change negotiations; shared vision, adaptation, mitigation, finance and technology. It was stressed that Africa's climatic vulnerability is compounded by a very low capacity to adapt to the adverse effects of climate change. It was, therefore, highlighted that there is a need to massively scale up the funding in particular for adaptation which is the area of paramount concern to the continent. It was emphasized that finance for climate change has to be new, predictable, and adequate; and one that must be provided in addition to the development assistance Africa is currently receiving.  It was also indicated that Africa is equally interested on the decision concerning the structure, governance, and allocation of the funds.

Ato Desalegn Mesfin, Ethiopia’s lead negotiator, chaired the meeting of lead negotiators, while Dr Neway Gebreab, Economic advisor of the Prime Minister with the rank of Minister, represented Ethiopia at the High level meeting.

Dr Neway said that there is a need to calculate a specific amount of compensation which Africa should be paid for what it has endured because of climate change mainly caused by the developed world. He also expressed Ethiopia’s preparedness and willingness to steer Africa’s united position as the head of Conference of African Heads of State and Government on Climate Change (CAHOSCC). The meeting appreciated Ethiopia’s work on Africa’s position on climate change and welcomed its offer to steer the work of CAHOSCC.

The outcome of this meeting will help inform the deliberations of the CAHOSCC meeting being planned on the sidelines of the Special Summit in Tripoli, Libya on the 31st August 2009. The Conference of African Heads of State and Government on Climate Change (CAHOSCC) will spearhead Africa's negotiations on climate change.
The decision of the AU Summit regarding the climate change negotiation structure is premised on the fact that there had been major limitations on Africa’s negotiating structure thereby preventing the continent from being able to achieve optimal results. One key gap has been the lack of coordination of the African negotiation process. More importantly, there has not been visible continent-wide political leadership on climate change negotiations. It is believed, therefore, that the technical competence of the negotiators needs to be backed with the political weight at the highest level in the continent to have the desired impacts at global level.

***** 
The 201st Meeting of the AUPSC on the CPA                                    
The 201st meeting of the AU peace and Security Council was held on 25 August 2009, days before the AU Summit scheduled to meet in Libya this Sunday, to deliberate on the Report of the Chairperson of the Commission on Implementation Process of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA).   During the opening session the Council heard statements from the representatives of National Congress Party and the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement, the two signatories to the agreement.  Partners supporting the CPA and the peace process also made their respective statements. After detailed discussions the Council issued a communiqué in which it; Welcomed the acceptance by both parties of the recent decision of Permanent Court of Arbitration (CPA) on Abyei and agreed both parties to fully implement the Abyei Protocol; expressed its concern on the delay on some outstanding issues, and on the deteriorating security situation of the south and called on partners to provide assistance to the victims of the clash; expressed grave concern over the threats posed by the Lord’s Resistance Army to the Security situation in Southern Sudan and; expressed appreciation to the international community particularly the United Nations for assistance rendered towards the implementation of the CPA and the United States of America for convening the Washington D.C. conference in June 2009 and for its effort using the Tripartite mechanism based on the adoption of "NCP-SPLM points of Agreement" documents.  

The Council further appreciated the progress in the implementation of the CPA.  It has also noted the recent encouraging engagements between the two parties.   However, underlining that only 16 months or so remains to the finalization of the interim period, it encouraged the two parties to speed up the implementation of the CPA as scheduled.

The AU Peace and Security Council (PSC) also noted with concern the security situation in South Sudan and the havoc created by the Lord’s Resistance Army.  It appealed to the international community to assist the victims and to put the necessary pressure on the LRA to be fully engaged in the Juba Process.

The PSC also expressed its appreciation to the United Nation and its specialized agencies for the support rendered so far and the United States of America for convening the Washington Conference of Witnesses and Supporters of the CPA on June 2009 and for facilitating the adoption of the "NCP-SPLM Points of Agreement" signed by the two parties.

In the PSC meeting significant differences on major issues were observed among the two parties.  It was also noted that there is need for encouraging both parties to further build trust and confidence between themselves. Unfortunately, there were some among the participants which appeared to choose highlighting the divergences that the parties have rather than emphasizing on the points of convergence. 

Indeed, it is only fitting that the AUPSC should encourage the two parties to endeavor toward the realization of the CPA. This is what the peoples of the Horn region in general and those of the Sudan in particular deserve and expect.

***** 

Only Negotiations are Somaliland’s best option

It’s been almost 20 years now since Somalia had a functioning administration that can exercise effective control over a large part of the country for a significant length of time. Successive efforts at bringing together the various parts of the country as part of a working central government have all too often proved chimerical. Although there are similar efforts currently underway under the auspices of the UN, the progress has largely been a far cry from the kind of effective administration that can be credited with ensuring sustainable peace and stability in the war ravaged country. While the responsibility to resolve the ongoing conflict in Somalia essentially rests on the Somalis themselves, Somalia’s predicament has been rendered even worse thanks in large measure to the unwholesome interference of some irresponsible parties which have relentlessly rooted for the further escalation of the scourge of war in the country. What the regime in Asmara has been doing the last few years is a case in point.

While the international community is accustomed to hearing of the continued carnage and a series of abortive attempts at reconstituting a semblance of functioning governance in Mogadishu, there have, however, been developments in some regions of Somalia that—though largely ignored by the international media—can serve as robust indications of the capacity of the people of Somalia to bring forth a functioning administration on their own.  The impressive record that Somaliland has displayed over the last two decades in maintaining peace and stability as well as significant level of democratic governance stands out as exceptionally encouraging. Today, Somaliland has a functioning self administration that not only exercises effective state powers of maintaining peace and stability within its territory; it has also managed—against all odds one should add—to put together institutions that have contributed to the achievement of a credible political process that deserves praise. In fact, what the people of Somaliland have achieved over the last decade becomes all the more impressive in light of the volatile security situation that has invariably been characteristic of the entire region.  Quite simply, Somaliland has to all intents and purposes become an example of hope in a region beset by a whirlwind of violence. All along, it has required the concerted efforts and the political will of the administration, opposition parties, civil society organizations and the people to forge the kind of working political dynamic that obtains in Somaliland. 

Ethiopia attaches great importance to the excellent relations it has with the Somaliland administration and it has always been supportive of the latter’s commendable political progress. Ethiopia’s goodwill towards the people and administration of Somaliland cannot and should not be viewed separate from its enduring faith in the importance of ensuring sustainable peace and stability in the entire sub-region. Somaliland’s success—no matter how impressive it may have been—should not be taken for granted, however.  In a region where sources of misunderstanding and elements of discord have never been in short supply, even the slightest of missteps could potentially play havoc with the hard-won peace and stability that have characterized Somaliland. The recent squabbles between the ruling party and the opposition over issues related with elections are thus things that need to be addressed immediately before they fester to become sources of much division in an otherwise peaceful political process in Somaliland.  It is the fervent belief of the Government of the FDRE that the differences that have cropped up between the two sides can and should be addressed in a manner that ensures the credibility of Somaliland’s robust political process.

Despite the success that has been registered so far, the various stakeholders in Somaliland should take it upon themselves to do everything in their powers to further invigorate their institutions with a spirit of mutual trust and sense of responsibility. Of course, not even all of the mature democracies can boast having put in place a system that is foolproof to the tests of mutual distrust. While what its people have achieved is a source of pride and hope, there is an enduring legacy that should be borne by all stakeholders to see to it that the credibility and sustainability of their institutions are insulated from the kinds of intrinsic and extrinsic factors that have all too often ripped apart similar efforts at normalcy in other parts of Somalia.

It is also Ethiopia’s belief that, while the responsibility to seek ways out of the current impasse essentially rests on the parties and people of Somaliland, there are facilitating roles that can be played by Somaliland’s friends such as Ethiopia. It was therefore with this in mind that a high-level delegation led by State Minister for Foreign Affairs Tekeda Alemu spent nearly a week in Hargeysa as part of what will constitute a series of negotiations Ethiopia and other friends of Somaliland would help broker between the Government and the opposition parties. The delegation was satisfied with the level of goodwill displayed both by the government and the opposition parties. The agreements that have been reached after a series of discussions with the two sides have been encouraging. The parties have expressed willingness to address their differences in a civilized manner.  Somaliland’s friends have also expressed their commitment to help the two sides sort their differences out. It is Ethiopia’s hope that all the parties will continue their declared commitment to seek peaceful ways out of this impasse and to honor the terms of the understanding they have reached so far.

As stated earlier, sources of misunderstanding and elements of discord are far too many in the region. That Somaliland has managed to avoid a serious pitfall thus far is nothing short of a miracle, indeed. More importantly, the people of Somaliland has way too precious asset at stake—their hard-won peace and stability—to tinker—as it were—with less-than-civil courses. Only those who sincerely go for negotiated deals can carry the day after all.

Home | Contact us | Links | Archives | Search