In its October 2, 2009 “A Week in the Horn” report, Ministry of Foreign Affairs (MoFA) raised issues on the fighting between Somali extremist oppositions, Eritrea’s regional military aggression and the little progress in Nile Basin negotiations.

Foreign Minister Seyoum at the UN General Assembly

Addressing the UN General Assembly on Friday last week, Foreign Minister Seyoum Mesfin noted that it has been eighteen years since Ethiopia had removed a military dictatorship of unprecedented cruelty. The subsequent years, he said, had not been easy, beginning as they did from a level where there was a complete lack of democracy, of development and a stagnant economy, but they did show substantial achievement in democratization and economic development amounting to no less than a fundamental change of development trajectory. Indeed, in terms of hard fact, not comment from externally-based political agendas, Ethiopia was now in the vanguard of respect for individual political and human rights in commitment and practice. It was now entering its sixth year of double-digit economic growth despite the pressure from the global economic crisis. And this had been achieved despite a sometimes less than helpful international economic and political environment. Minister Seyoum noted there had been a lack of tolerance towards diversity, to policy-space experimentation and independent thinking; there had been unjustified conditionalities, both economic and political; and, of course, unjustified aggression as well as the international economic crisis.

There were regional challenges, too, over the last eighteen years whose consequences for democratization, development, and fighting poverty, in Ethiopia and more widely, could not be overlooked. Conditions of peace and security in the Horn of Africa region obviously affected domestic agendas. Indeed, open societies were more vulnerable to the kind of situation prevailing in the Horn of Africa: “the mix of extremist forces and rogue states is not conducive for the growth of democracy in close proximity.” Ethiopia has obviously been affected by events in Somalia with which it has the longest border and Minister Seyoum emphasized it was time to abandon the fiction that this was just a war among Somalis. Somalia had been high-jacked by foreign fighters whose loudly declared ambition went far beyond Somalia. The crisis there was assisted and abetted by rogue states, and even by some ostensibly decent states, which continued to fuel extremism in Somalia and fund activities there. In fact, in Somalia today, Minister Seyoum said, there was greater coordination and cooperation among those who assisted extremism than among those who professed support for the Transitional Federal Government. The effect was to embolden those bent on destroying Somalia as the latest horrific suicide attack had demonstrated. IGAD had spoken with one voice, African Heads of State and government had unanimously endorsed the appeal to the UN Security Council to stand up and be counted in support of the fight against extremism in Somalia, but the Security Council still didn't appear to consider Somalia a priority. International community efforts remained minimal with few even symbolic steps against extremism. Similarly, it was critical that there should be an effective implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement in Sudan. The Horn of Africa, Minister Seyoum added, could not afford the consequence of any failure in the Sudan peace process. Ethiopia, he said, was very close to both parties in the Sudan and this was an asset it wanted to use wisely.

Another area of challenge, the Minister added, was climate change. The consequence of this on Ethiopia's agriculture and plans for food security, inevitably, has been huge. Where the country had faced drought every decade or so, it was now nearer every three or four years, and if not drought, there were floods. Ethiopia was very grateful to those partners who had assisted in mitigation of the adverse effects on agricultural activities, and Minister Seyoum particularly mentioned a meeting on Partnering for Food Security organized by US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, to be held that same day. He also noted Ethiopia's appreciation of the efforts of Secretary-General Ban ki-Moon on climate change and said Ethiopia looked forward to resolute moves being taken by the international community at Copenhagen “on the basis of the principle of common but differentiated responsibilities.” Ethiopia was gratified that Africa had decided to be innovative over its representation at Copenhagen, with a single negotiating team delegated to negotiate on the basis of a common African position. It was an honour for Ethiopia that its Prime Minister would lead the African negotiating team. Ethiopia, said Minister Seyoum, expected much from Copenhagen.
The minister concluded by reiterating Ethiopia’s commitment to the UN and to reforms of the institution including that of the Security Council.

Somalia: Extremist opposition organizations fight in Kismayo

Yesterday, heavy fighting reportedly broke out in Kismayo between the extremist opposition group, Hizbul Islam, and the terrorist organization, Al-Shabaab. The two have been in dispute over control of the port-city for the last few weeks. Last week, Al-Shabaab unilaterally named an administration of its own officials to run the city. This apparently ignored an agreement made last year when Kismayo was captured by various opposition groups. At the time it was agreed that Al-Shabaab should provide an administration for six months and then hand over to Hizbul Islam, whose militia forces, along with the Ras Kambooni and Annola militias had been involved in taking the city. The Ras Kambooni militia, headed by Sheikh Hassan Abdullahi 'Turki', a close ally of Sheikh Hassan Dahir ‘Aweys’, like the Annola militia, represents local political interests in Kismayo and the surrounding area. It appears that when it came to the point, Al-Shabaab refused to hand over to Hizbul Islam and insisted it should keep control. Over the weekend, both sides began to take up defensive positions. Efforts by local businessmen to mediate made no progress. A Hizbul Islam spokesperson was quoted as telling a press conference on Wednesday that Hizbul Islam would fight Al-Shabaab if it did not stop its provocation, and threatened that fighting in Kismayo would spread into all areas where the two organizations were represented. The same day, an Al-Shabaab spokesperson called on Al-Shabaab fighters to be prepared for a big war against Hizbul Islam. Fighting broke out yesterday. There are indications that disagreements between Hizbul Islam and Al-Shabaab are not confined to the Kismayo area. Al-Shabaab criticized a new administration announced by Hizbul Islam for part of Gedo region when Hizbul Islam appointed some new representatives there last week after previous Hizbul Islam officials joined Al-Shabaab.

It was Sheikh Hassan Dahir 'Aweys', after he had returned to Mogadishu from Eritrea in April, Who led what President Sheikh Sharif, addressing the UN General Assembly on Friday last week, called an attempted coup d'etat by Hizbul Islam and Al-Shabaab. Referring to rebels which he described as conducting “a violent insurrection” against the TFG, the President said his priorities were to improve the security situation, promote reconciliation and deliver humanitarian assistance to displaced persons. He noted that unless Somalia's security situation improved piracy would continue. Somalia, he stressed, needed assistance and support for measures to promote Somalia's police services, and improve its judicial and administrative structures. The numbers of African Union troops should be increased. He urged the UN Security Council to reconsider its arms embargo on Somalia to allow the government to build up its own security forces. He asked the donors who had attended the Brussels conference in April to make further funding available. He believed Somalia could make genuine, concrete progress, but it needed urgent action and international support.

 In the meantime, Somalia is being torn apart by two groups of extremists who have more or less the same philosophy and supported by outside forces. But who are nonetheless at each others throat because of minor difference over the division of the spoil.

   Eritrea: now it’s the turn of the UN to be in the wrong

No false modesty, indeed no modesty at all, affects the Government of Eritrea. Neither the Government nor President Issayas ever admits to doubt or uncertainty. President Issayas recently made it clear that if the US wanted better relations with Eritrea then it was the US which must change its regional, and indeed, its global policies:”the US will have to improve its relations with us...we don't ask their favour. They have to correct their wrongs.”Another target for repeated critical comment has been the UN, the target of a Ministry of Information statement over the weekend and of Foreign Minister, Osman Saleh, at the UN General Assembly at the beginning of the week. Mr. Osman made it clear Eritrea believed the UN should have been replaced long ago by a reformed organization “fit to address the challenges of the century we live in”. He claimed it was necessary to steer the world away from the control of a powerful few responsible for spreading a culture of “politics of fear” and “management by crisis” which operated as the norm and imperilled world peace and security. Mr. Osman did not emphasize Eritrea's usual claim that it had suffered unduly but said that none had been more exposed to harm than those in Africa. He suggested as a result that when it came to the resolution of crises and conflicts Africa was dependent upon the goodwill of others. This, of course, is hardly the case with Eritrea itself as its persistent refusals to resolve its problems with Ethiopia or with Djibouti have been solely dependent upon its own actions. In his speech, Mr. Osman made no more than a fleeting reference to the Horn of Africa in order, he said, to avoid confusing and distorting the bigger picture on the need for fundamental reform of the UN . He therefore made no reference to Eritrea's repeated refusals to respond to UN Security Council resolutions demanding an end to the Eritrean moves forcing the UN Mission to Eritrea and Ethiopia (UNMEE) to leave the Temporary Security Zone set up under the Algiers Peace Agreement of December 2000 and thereby abrogating unilaterally the Peace Agreement, or more recently for Eritrea to withdraw the troops which invaded Djibouti in June last year.

In his critique of the world order, Mr. Osman went on to claim that “violent extremism has not received the attention it deserves; rather it has been further fuelled and manipulated as a pretext and excuse for ulterior motives.” This appears to be an attempt to pre-empt criticism by one of Eritrea's most common techniques - blaming others for its own behaviour. In fact, Mr. Osman might have been speaking about Eritrea's own support for violent extremists in Somalia and its efforts to destabilize the Horn of Africa, though Eritrea continues to deny its involvement in Somalia despite all the evidence of the UN Monitoring Group reports, including flight manifests of arms flown from Eritrea in Somalia, the capture of Eritrean officers at the Kenyan border in January 2007, and the support given to Sheikh Hassan Dahir 'Aweys' flown down to Mogadishu from his base in Asmara in April this year. This support included two plane loads of arms a month later allowing Sheikh 'Aweys' to fix up an alliance between his Hizbul Islam coalition and Al-Shabaab terrorists to attempt a coup to seize Mogadishu from the Somali Government in May. It failed but the fighting has continued with Eritrea continuing to offer support to the opposition to the Government. It is the detailed evidence of all this which led IGAD and then the African Union Heads of State and Government earlier this year to take the unprecedented step of calling on the UN Security Council to issue sanctions against Eritrea and impose a sea blockade and a no-fly zone to stop the flow of arms and support from Eritrea to extremist groups in Somalia.

Eritrea's response to these criticisms has been continued and increasingly desperate denials and attempts to switch the aim of the accusations, another of its common responses. The Director of President Issayas' Office, Yemane Ghebremeskel, said this week that the focus on terrorism in Somalia was “exaggerated and overblown”. Ignoring the Somali Government's own efforts to widen the peace process, he called for a more inclusive process to include talks with the Al-Shabaab terrorists, complaining that no one had the right to ostracise any particular groups. Eritrea appears to apply this logic more widely than Somalia, providing support to armed opposition groups in Darfur, Djibouti and Ethiopia as well as Somalia. President Issayas likes to claim these are no more than allegations made up by the CIA, and even alleges the Eritrean invasion of Djibouti last year was only a CIA invention. In fact, Eritrean troops crossed into Djibouti territory in June 2008 and Eritrea has consistently refused to take any notice of UN Security Council resolutions demanding its withdrawal or of the universal condemnation from IGAD and the African Union. As so often, Eritrea persists in claiming it, and it alone, is in the right.

Now it's carrying it all a step further despite Eritrea's categorization by Reporters Without Borders as “a disgrace to Africa” and “the world's biggest prison”. Since Eritrea is the only country in step in the Horn of Africa, all others must be helping the UN to serve as the mere tool of forces manipulating the UN Charter behind the scenes and weakening, paralysing the organization to such an extent that “it is now an instrument of neo-colonialism and illegal practices on the part of the forces of domination and hegemony.” The major illegality in the eyes of the Eritrean Government would appear to be any criticism of Eritrean action including what the Eritrean Government calls “unjust and unbalanced resolutions of the United Nations and other international and regional organizations.” It's hardly a surprise that the Ministry of Information statement concludes that governments around the world should be “..duty-bound to bring about radical change in the objectives and modus operandi of the UN..”, and calls for “speedy and practical initiatives towards the creation of a new and better international order”, presumably anticipating significant benefits for Eritrea.

On the final day of the UN General Assembly debate on Tuesday, Djibouti's Permanent Representative to the UN, Ambassador Roble Olhaye, told the Assembly that the Security Council needed to use “all the means at its disposal” to end the border dispute between Eritrea and Djibouti. In June last year, following weeks of rising tension and military build-up, Eritrean forces crossed the border into Djibouti territory at Ras Doumeira. In subsequent fighting over 30 died and dozens were wounded. Eritrea refused to co-operate with a UN fact-finding mission or with the AU or the Arab League. “It has also ignored the Organization of Islamic Conference whose annual foreign ministers meeting in New York last week commended Djibouti for its efforts to settle the dispute peacefully and strongly urged Eritrea to comply without further delay with the UN Security Council.”

Eritrea refused to meet with any envoy of UN Secretary-General, Ban ki-Moon, who offered his good offices to help end the dispute. In January, the Security Council adopted a resolution demanding the withdrawal of forces to pre-June positions. Djibouti did so, Eritrea refused either to withdraw its forces from the disputed area or co-operate with diplomatic efforts to resolve the dispute. It has made no subsequent effort to co-operate with the UN and has claimed that the whole story is no more than a US invention. On Tuesday, Ambassador Roble called for the row to be resolved urgently as the Security Council had suggested “without further equivocation, confusion and deliberate procrastination.” Ambassador Roble noted that inaction set a dangerous precedent, of denial and refusal to cooperate, which others would surely follow in the future. “The Council”, he said, “must not appear to be appeasing Eritrea indefinitely”. “This”, he added, “is a dangerous and unpredictable regime that has not shown so far any respect to international norms and behavior.” Subsequently, exercising a right of reply, an Eritrean delegate, reflecting the usual Eritrean falsification of the truth, claimed Eritrea had no territorial ambitions and had not occupied any land belonging to Djibouti.

Human Rights Council asked to consider Eritrea’s destabilizing role in Somalia

The 12th ordinary meeting of the UN Human Rights Council, currently being underway in Geneva considered the report of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Somalia, Mr. Shamsul Bari. In his report, the independent expert lamented on the lack of international community’s support to Somalia and highlighted the egregious human rights violations committed particularly by Al Shebab and other extremist groups within the country. He also warned against the rising use of children in the conflict by these groups.

During the interactive dialogue that followed, Eritrea’s destabilizing role was given particular attention. The Spokesman of members and observers of African states in the Council made a statement that underlined Eritrea’s destabilization role in Somalia by arming and training the terrorist group. In his statement, the Djiboutian Ambassador and Permanent Representative, Mr Mohamed Siad Doualeh, noted that Eritrea’s negative role in Somalia remains a major obstacle to peace and stability in the country. Ethiopia supported the African Group’s statement and asked if the Independent Experts intends to consider the role of Eritrea in his future reports. In his reply, the independent expert indicated his interest to study the role of Eritrea in Somalia.

Though previous reports of the independent expert were not without flaws and errors, Ethiopia, in concert with likeminded states both within the African group and beyond, supported the renewal of the mandate of the Independent Expert on the situation of human rights in Somalia.

On Wednesday, Somaliland's three political parties, the ruling party UDUB and the two opposition parties, Kulmiye and UCID, signed a six point Memorandum of Understanding, hopefully bringing to an end months of disagreement and dispute over the upcoming presidential election. The Memorandum, put forward by Friends of Somaliland, namely the UK and Ethiopia, was signed by the three party leaders, President Dahir Riyale Kahin (UDUB), Ahmed Mohamed Mahamoud 'Silanyo' (Kulmiye) and Faisal Ali Warabe (UCID). Also present at the signing were members of the Guurti, the House of Elders, chaired by Suleiman Mahamud Aden 'Gaal', and of the Lower House Parliament, including the Speaker, Abdirahman Mohamed Abdillahi, as well as representatives of the local and international media and of Ethiopia and the UK.

The agreement, whose preamble stresses the need for fair, free and peaceful elections to preserve the peace, stability and credibility of Somaliland, commits the parties to six points, most importantly in effect depoliticizing the date of the election. The parties agree to the postponement of the election which is to be held under the auspices of new and credible Election Commission, assisted by a team of independent international experts whose terms of reference will be agreed with the Commission and the parties. The Commission will then produce a refined voter’s registration list and fix a new date for the election based on the time required for final preparations to be made. In the meantime the signatories agree the offices of President and Vice-President should be extended to no more than a month after the date fixed for the election. The final point of the Memorandum underlines the need for the Friends of Somaliland to continue their involvement in the process to help ensure its implementation.

This agreement, endorsed earlier by the Guurti as "the ultimate remedy for the Somaliland problem", has already been referred to as "Somaliland's six pillars of survival." It should bring to an end months of dispute over the election date and the voter registration list, disputes which led to scuffles in Parliament and violent demonstrations in Hargeisa in which four died on September 12. In statements after the signing ceremony in the Presidential Palace, the parties, which acknowledged the efforts made by the UK and Ethiopia, committed themselves to implement the agreement in good faith and to make sure that nothing similar should happen in the future. They expressed their readiness to settle differences by themselves as they have done in the past. They also committed themselves to put clan issues aside and act as in the national interests of Somaliland, to preserve, as the Memorandum emphasizes, “the stability, security and credibility of Somaliland”. The President, referring to recent detentions and the need to make the election speedy, fair and free, committed the Government to a process of conciliation. This was, in fact, the first time for nearly six months that the parties has sat down together, and talked to each other in a friendly atmosphere.

The local media, public and private, in their reports have already made it clear just how much a relief the agreement is. There is also very real appreciation for the swift action of Somaliland's friends, and general appreciation that what remains now is for the parties to carry out the practical actions to pave the way for a peaceful, free and fair election. This view is certainly shared by Ethiopia, and the UK, whose interest and involvement in the process has been in the preservation of peace and stability of Somaliland. It could not be an option for Ethiopia to remain with hands folded while Somaliland slid into chaos. Somaliland has provided an area of relative stability in our region for eighteen years. It deserves every encouragement and support and Ethiopia will continue to assist Somaliland whenever necessary. No doubt, the UK will do likewise. It has indeed been a worthwhile partnership.

No progress in Nile Basin negotiations

The First Joint Meeting of the Nile-Technical Advisory Committee (Nile-TAC) and the Negotiating Committee of the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) was held in Kampala this week, on September 28 and 29. It was convened following a decision of the NBI Council of Ministers at their 17th Ordinary Session held July 27 and 28 in Alexandria, Egypt. Participants were drawn from the nine Nile Basin countries: Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Egypt, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Sudan, Tanzania and Uganda, and opening remarks were made by Minister Dr. Mohamed Nasr El-Din Allam, Minister of Water and Irrigation of Egypt and Chairperson of the Nile Council of Ministers, Minister Maria Mutagamba, Minister of Water and Environment of Uganda and Ms. Henriette Ndombe, Executive Director of the Nile Basin Initiative. Deliberations covered details of the mandate of the joint meeting, the rules of procedure and dates for further meetings to be held to finalize submissions to the NBI Council of Ministers.

However, the meeting was unable to provide the basis for moving forward together in an inclusive manner on the main area of contention. The upper riparian countries of Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda take the view that the decisions of the Council of Ministers at their extraordinary meeting on 22 May 2009 in Kinshasa, and the cleaning-up of the text of the Cooperative Framework Agreement at the meeting of the Negotiating Committee on 3 July 2009 in Nairobi, Kenya, provide the foundation to move forward together. Egypt and Sudan, however, argued that the 17th Ordinary Session of the Council of Ministers in Alexandria in July had reversed the decisions taken in Kinshasa and Nairobi. As a result of these differences, this week's meeting could do no more than draw up draft Rules of Procedure, leaving one pending addition to be added, and agree to hold their next meeting in Dar es Selaam, Tanzania, in December.

The central point of the sharp divergences goes to the heart of longstanding differences on whether ‘existing agreements’ on the Nile River should be taken into account in the new Cooperative Framework Agreement. The upper riparian states ( Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Ethiopia, Kenya, Rwanda, Tanzania and Uganda) want to start with the new legal regime of the Cooperative Framework Agreement based on the principles of equitable utilization of water and of avoiding significant harm to any riparian states. Sudan and Egypt say that they also accept these principles. However, they also want the highly unequal ‘existing agreements’ or ‘rights’ to remain effective. Ethiopia and the upper riparian states firmly reject this contention, hoping that the two downstream countries of Egypt and Sudan will reconsider their position and join with the majority of the Nile riparian states in implementing the Cooperative Framework Agreement.

Under this circumstance, it is becoming obvious that it might not be all that likely that the two divergent positions would be reconciled very soon. Some might wonder if the Nile riparian countries have been aiming at something which is not doable now. Perhaps, what is being aimed at requires a lot more psychological preparation, a lost more wisdom and a higher level of readiness for a win-win arrangement which no doubt would be in the interest of the present and succeeding generations. Ethiopia has both the necessary patience and prudence and the resolve not to compromise on principles that should underpin any equitable arrangement on issues relating to transboundary rivers such as the Nile.