The G20 Summit in LondonThis week, Prime Minister Meles participated in the G20 Summit to try to resolve the problems of the world economy held in London. Attended by leaders of all the world's leading economic powers, Africa was also represented for the first time at such a gathering with a delegation led by Prime Minister Meles. The delegation included Dr. Jean Ping, the Chairperson of the AU Commission, and Mr. Donald Kaberuka, President of the African Development Bank. Prime Minister Meles had been in London two weeks earlier for the preparation of the Summit at which time he had the opportunity to underline the point that the G20 could not afford to ignore Africa and the developing world. In January, the AU Summit in Addis Ababa had made it clear that it was necessary to place African economic development at the centre of international efforts to build strategies towards the recovery of the global economy, and for the first time agreed that the continent of Africa should be represented by a single delegation at international meetings, such as the G20 Summit. 

The Summit communiqué promises much, and in many respects it has been a success. Africa appears to have been given most of what it pushed for. The Summit approved, among others, Prime Minister Meles’s call for the International Monetary Fund (IMF) to sell part of its gold reserves and the use of IMF's Special Drawing Rights (SDR) to finance a $50 billion rescue package for low income countries, and some $30 billion of this represents new money for development. African countries should also benefit from the agreed $250 billion increase in the IMF’s SDR, the IMF’s reserve currency of which 7% should go to Africa. The Summit rejected protectionism and agreed not to raise new trade barriers. It reaffirmed earlier commitments by the rich nations to increase bilateral aid to low income countries and support the Millennium Development Goals.

 Prime Minister Meles said the immediate issue now was timing  and that it was important that the additional resources should begin flowing as soon as possible and certainly by the third quarter of the year. Significantly, the Prime Minister noted, the new resources being made available would not be tied up with the conditions so often limiting African access to funding in the past. In another significant development, the International Finance Corporation, the private sector arm of the World Bank, announced it was providing a billion dollars towards a new $5 billion fund to unblock trade finance for the developing world. Trade credits for Africa have been drying up in recent months and contributing to a recent economic slowdown. After the Summit, Prime Minister Meles made it clear he believed “a surprising level of progress “ had been made. He felt Africa’s voice had been heard. He and others from Africa had been able to be involved in the preparations for the Summit. Africa had been represented. Importantly, the Summit also agreed to the suggestion from the African delegation that Africa should automatically be represented in all similar meetings in the future.

The 120th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly (IPU)The 120th Session of the Inter-parliamentary Union (IPU) Assembly will be hosted by Ethiopia from 5 to 10 April 2009. The inaugural ceremony will take place on 5 April 2009, at the Addis Ababa Millennium Hall in the presence of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, Honorable Teshome Toga, Speaker of the House of Peoples’ Representatives of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and Honourable Degefe Bula, Speaker of the House of Federation.

Over 1,500 delegates, including legislators and speakers of Parliaments from 154 countries are expected to attend this big International event. The main theme to be debated upon at this Session of the Assembly will be: "Parliaments: Building Peace, Democracy and Development in Times of Crisis". Other current, global issues such as climate change, sustainable development, disarmament and freedom of expression will also be discussed at different standing committee levels. Furthermore, the Meeting of Women Parliamentarians will be conducted in the morning session of the inaugural day.

The opportunity of hosting this big international event in our capital is an honor to Ethiopia and its people. No doubt, given the theme of the session of the General Assembly, this IPU gathering is indeed historic. The theme of the conference focuses on three inter-related topics which are extremely critical for Africa—more particularly at this time of serious world economic downturn—make the IPU sessions exceedingly relevant for the period we are in. It is precisely for this reason that Ethiopia attaches importance to this event.Eritrea Obstinately Defiant

On Monday, UN Secretary-General, Ban ki-Moon, wrote to the President of the UN Security Council over the situation along the Eritrea-Djibouti border and in reference to Security Council Resolution 1862 (2009) of 14 January 2009. In Resolution 1862, the Security Council had demanded that within six weeks Eritrea must withdraw its forces in Djibouti to the position of status quo ante, and ensure no military activity was taking place in the area of contention; acknowledge it had a dispute with Djibouti, engage actively in dialogue to defuse tension and in diplomatic efforts to produce a settlement, and abide by its international obligations as a member of the UN, and in respect of paragraphs 3, 4,and 5 of article 2, and of article 33 of the UN Charter, as well as co-operate with the Secretary-General. The Security Council Resolution also called upon the Secretary-General report on the compliance of the two parties and on his contacts with the two states involved and regional organizations.

 The Secretary-General's letter this week, apparently in place of a full report, makes it clear that he has made no progress. He detailed his discussions with various parties, adding that Eritrea's suspension of its membership of IGAD did not help the process. He had met with President Ismail Omar Guellah at the African Union Summit at the beginning of February. He noted that President Ismail had pointed out that Eritrea refused both mediation and direct negotiations, and the Secretary-General said he had expressed the commitment of the UN to the implementation of the Resolution. The Secretary-General said he failed to talk to any Eritrean officials in the margins of the Summit, though a senior UN official had held discussions with officials in Asmara in January. Despite this, all attempts to send a fact-finding mission to Eritrea have been refused, and his efforts to dispatch a high-level official to Eritrea have also produced nothing. Surprisingly, the Secretary-General said that he had no information whether Eritrea complied with the relevant paragraphs of the Resolution, though he remained in contact with the parties and regional bodies and would continue to pursue these contacts. There have been indications that some members of the Security Council are less than satisfied with this situation, and have requested the Secretary-General to produce and release a full report as soon as possible. It is already clear however that the Security Council does need to take serious consideration of positive and specific action in the face of Eritrea's very clear refusal even to begin to respond to Security Council Resolution 1862. In his letter to the President, the Secretary-General noted that the Eritrean Foreign Ministry had immediately rejected Resolution 1862 calling it “ill-considered, unbalanced and unnecessary”, and repeating that Eritrea had not occupied any Djibouti territory, and it could not accept a resolution demanding withdrawal from its own territory. This, in effect, reminds one what Eritrea precisely did in its invasion of Ethiopia in 1998.

The Eritrean Foreign Ministry statement drew a parallel with the Eritrea Ethiopia border issue, claiming that the Security Council “continues to tolerate Ethiopia's occupation of the town of Badme and other sovereign Eritrean territories.” despite the ruling of the Boundary Commission. The real parallel, of course, is with Eritrea's open aggression in 1998 when rather than open discussions on an apparent problem, it invaded Ethiopia and subsequently has consistently refused to accept normal diplomatic dialogue as a means to resolve problems. Nor, of course, does Eritrea's intransigence and obstinacy over the Ethiopia Eritrea border have any relevance to its refusal to respond to Resolution 1862 and Security Council demands over its invasion of Djibouti territory. This is a totally different territorial issue.

The International Mine Action Day Organized by the Ethiopian Mine Action Office (EMAO) in cooperation with UNDP was commemorated on 2 April 2009, at the Ghion Hotel in Addis Ababa, in the presence of relevant government officials, members of the diplomatic community and International Organizations, as well as representatives of mine victims.

The opening statement for the Commemoration event was delivered by Mr. Desalegn Alemu, Director General of International Organizations, on behalf of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It was pointed out that Ethiopia is among the leading countries that joined the Anti-personnel Mine Ban Convention, or the Ottawa Convention, which it signed in 1997 and has become state party since June 2005, following the ratification of the treaty by the House of Peoples’ Representatives of Ethiopia on 17 December 2004.  It was also underscored that Ethiopia is one of the few countries in the world with a huge number of victims of anti-personnel mines, and that it firmly believes that all states must join hands to put an end to the horrible suffering caused by anti-personnel mines.

The Need to protect tolerance Against Extremism

The three Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, originating in the Middle East, all reached Ethiopia at a very early stage. Focusing more particularly on Christianity and Islam, their respective followers lived together largely in tolerance and harmony for millennia despite the fact that the Horn of Africa region has always been an area of complex political, economic and social tensions throughout its history. These tensions, of course, were seriously exacerbated by the activities of the colonial powers in the region, practicing their preferred means of maintaining control by playing one group of people against the other in breaking up any organized resistance. It might be noted that even though Ethiopia was never colonized, there was no single year in which the colonial powers stopped scheming against Ethiopia's independence. Ethiopia managed to survive through a combination of bloody war and diplomacy.

It is certainly worth emphasizing that, despite great odds, followers of the religions of Christianity and Islam have always continued to live together in harmony in Ethiopia, a unique legacy that Ethiopians have always cherished, and from which the world has perhaps much to learn. Ethiopia had been ruled by monarchs of various dynasties throughout its history, some good and some most certainly not. Some were renowned for their generosity and wisdom. Muslims all over the world cherish fond memories of Ethiopia’s Christian Emperor Negashi who gave refuge and protection to the earliest followers of Islam when they faced persecution in their homeland. He won the respect of the Prophet Mohammed not only because of his generosity, but because he allowed the refugees to practice their religion unhindered. No doubt, it should be indicated that there is another interpretation of this historic episode which is aimed at poisoning the healthy, constructive ties that Ethiopia has always had with the Muslim world.

Of course, Ethiopia's existence as a country of religious diversity has at times been put to the test, but it has always been able to find its centre of gravity as a people and as a country to maintain harmony and tolerance. What is even more striking is that this tolerance and harmony occurred in the absence of any semblance of democracy or its attendant institutions. Conversion from one religion to the other was never a life-risking venture in Ethiopia.  People have always been able to  change their religion as they wished through marriage or conviction, as many can demonstrate with a Christian first name and a Muslim surname, or vice versa. Ethiopian society has continued to maintain this history of religious tolerance and mutual accommodation, and Ethiopians are proud of this legacy, though there still is need for doing more to ensure that there indeed is, in practice, full equality among the followers of all religions.

 This is all the more critical in light of the fact that in recent times,  there have been some attempts by a few extremist minorities, Christian and Muslim, to polarize Ethiopian society along religious lines. These tendencies may reflect extremist trends elsewhere in the world.  Unfortunately, the three great religions have always had extreme elements, though one can take comfort in the knowledge that the mainstream has always proved itself to be resilient and will continue to prevail. In fact, most of these recent attempts, though couched in religious parlance, have actually been the work of bankrupt political elements making it their business to sow seeds of discord and hate. These are groups who deny all sensibility and reason, blinded as they are by a bizarre belief in their entitlement to power. As a recent surge of destructive acts indicates, they appear to have resolved to attack the very essence of a harmonious society, i.e. tolerance. Ironically, they are trying to capitalize on the gains in good governance and protections of freedom guaranteed by the constitution in order to try to add to their support. These groups will never be able to achieve their ends but it underlines the point that tolerance is too valuable to be taken for granted. Society must always continue to make a conscious effort to marginalize extremists  and protect mainstream populations from the forces of intolerance and polarization.

In the past few days, community meetings to discuss threats against tolerance have been taking place in Addis Ababa.  People could be heard openly speaking about the need to protect Ethiopia's noble heritage of tolerance and accommodation, so often defended under difficult circumstances in the past.  Now, with improving democratization and expanding good governance, Ethiopia is better equipped than ever before to tackle extremists of any shape or form who might wish to impose their will through terror and intimidation.

After a long hiatus since his last book, Mr. Rene’ Lefort is back with an article entitled “Ethiopia’s Famine: deny and delay”, in which he accused the Government of Ethiopia, among other charges, of deliberately hiding the actual figures of people who need humanitarian aid. Some of the points raised in the article are very misleading and even false. It is therefore necessary to address some of these in order to set the record straight.

Mr. Lefort’s article is full of exaggerations and in some cases downright inventions. His language betrays a much deeper resentment with the government and shows his readiness to blow every negative story way out of proportion. He uses the word famine all too liberally, and the word is often used interchangeably with drought. He is equally liberal about statistics which nobody knows where they come from. His penchant for doom-saying starts right at page one. He claims, for example, in the first paragraph that, despite previously downplaying the gravity of the specter of famine, the Ethiopian government admitted that 13 Million people were in need of emergency humanitarian food aid. Interestingly, he claims to have found the figure in “the humanitarian Requirements report released on 30 January 2009 by the government in Addis Ababa and their “Humanitarian Partners””. Interestingly, the same report, which was officially released after a joint study conducted by the Ethiopian Government and its partners, clearly puts the number at 4.8 million, not thirteen. To call a three hundred per cent discrepancy in reporting an exaggeration could perhaps be a gross understatement. 

But the same proclivity to exaggerating figures by manifold is one of the common threads that run through the article. Trying to go after each such exaggerations and deliberate ‘misquotes’ is going to be tiresome. But there are a couple of points that need to be raised here.

His article is not only full of exaggerations, but also in many ways, erroneous and unfair towards the development endeavors of the Ethiopian government.  Generally, his article is meant to show that  claims by the Ethiopian government that it is registering a significant economic growth is not what it is held out to be by some in the international community. It appears that his focus on the issue of famine is just to make this point more clearly. He is so enthusiastic about his attack on the government’s track record on the economy he even goes to the extent of putting his own words and figures into the mouths of senior officials.

He clearly disdains the ‘blind’ confidence  the Ethiopian Government places in its safety net programs and also the fact that there are international donor organizations who are “…convinced that they have a key weapon”, in the Productive Safety Net Programme. He is clearly angry at those who ‘inadvertently’ encourage the government by refusing to criticize it for every problem in the country and elsewhere He even ridicules the claim by these organizations that this is indeed “the biggest social protection instrument in Africa”, all the while not bothering to offer evidence that the programme has failed to prove its mettle. That there were still areas which were affected by drought—mainly in the pastoralist regions—is cited as proof positive that this has indeed failed. Reading the article, one could not help imagining Mr. Lefort gnashing his teeth at those who make laudatory remarks about what he calls “the so-called double digit growth” of Ethiopia. In what could amount to a strange display of shadenfraude, he even belittles Ethiopia’s claim to be on the course of its renaissance, the celebration of its Millennium; and more importantly, he expresses resentment at Ethiopia’s unbridled ambitions “to become a middle income country in about 20 years” and “never [to] stretch our hands to beg for what we need, ever again”.

That people who are out to get the government would always cherry-pick small nuggets of failure amidst a pool of otherwise commendable success stories is a thing to which Ethiopia is accustomed. But even by the most traditional standards of many in the western media, Mr. Lefort’s gleeful reporting about the “collapse” of the “arrangement like a house of cards” is beyond comprehension. Whether he disdains it or cherishes it, Ethiopia’s safety net programme is largely a success story. Ethiopia today, more than ever, is poised to embark on the path of fast economic growth. That the likes of Mr. Lefort so passionately antagonize the agricultural development led policy of the government does not add or detract from this truth.

 He also claims, with the firm conviction characteristic of the entire article, that the failure was a result of weaknesses in the early warning system. He argues that that the government did not see the drought in 2007 summer coming was its most fatal mistake. To argue whether any one nation on earth would have the capacity to forecast every small dent in climate would be to trivialize the issue. But what Mr. Lefort seems to suggest is that the Government deserves a spanking for not delivering miracles. In fact, the government has performed well in this score. Although Mr. Lefort may not like this fact, the strategic food reserves the government managed to put together went a long way to avoid starvation and death on a level which he would perhaps have liked. And more importantly, the government understands full well that its efforts—despite the success so far—are a far cry from the level of growth that will ensure that the aspirations of the people of Ethiopia are fully met.It is also necessary to point out that Mr. Lefort’s article had a more toxic title than most of what his allegations—all grossly exaggerated at best—seem to indicate. In the first paragraph of the article it is clearly stated—with the figure inflated three hundred per cent—that Ethiopia declared that “13 Million people are in need of aid”; the “deny” aspect of the title is a stark contradiction at best or an intentional defamation at worst. The record of the Ethiopian government shows that it takes the lives of its citizens seriously and does not believe even for a second that hiding any problem—no matter how insignificant—will ever take the problem away. Ethiopia has a lot more to show than to hide. Much to Mr.

Lefort’s disappointment, the government has a mechanism that enables it to work with donors to identify areas of intervention and devise ways of addressing problems when and if they arise. This is a transparent process and it is open for the entire world to see. The physical evidence to this transparent cooperation was of, of course, the January 30 Report, which Mr. Lefort took the pain to grossly misunderstand.

The BBC gets it wrong on Gilgel Gibe III

Last week, the Week in the Horn briefly touched upon a documentary that the BBC recently aired, promising to address it at length in this week’s issue. What follows is a brief account of some of the issues that need to be highlighted. The BBC documentary by Peter Greste focused on the Gilgel Gibe III Hydro-Electric Dam, under construction on the Omo River, in south west Ethiopia. In the face of it, the documentary is an attempt to sound an alarm on a serious catastrophe in the making in the form of a project that will threaten the environment as well as the livelihood—hence the lives—of the local population. The documentary and the conclusions the journalist draws are alarmist at best and sinister canards to scuttle Ethiopia’s development efforts at worst. Some response would therefore be in order.

Clearly, judging by the sound bites he inserted here and there throughout the documentary and the repeated references he makes to mostly unnamed authorities in the area, Mr. Greste must have gone to great lengths to make his documentary look like a well researched piece of excellent journalism. But his reluctance to give the Ethiopians’ part of the story even the benefit of the doubt is all too obvious. The so-called Expert opinions are selectively chosen in such a way that Ethiopia’s side of the story is rendered suspicious at best. Despite raising a number of rather curious issues, the kernel of the BBC’s documentary is this: it is a deliberate effort to offer the anti-thesis to the valid assumptions on which the Ethiopian Government’s decision to launch the project is based. There is every reason to believe that Mr. Greste has long since made up his mind about the grim conclusions he somewhat casually offers at the end of his documentary.

To begin with, Mr. Greste clearly did not have any interest to pay even the slightest of attention to the valid development concerns of the country in undertaking such a massive project.  That a rapidly developing Ethiopia genuinely needs projects such as the Gilgel Gibe III to expedite its economic development is not given even the scantiest of reference in the documentary; apart from Prime Minister Meles’ remarks to that effect, that is. Anyone who is genuinely concerned about environment or any other lofty ideal—such as the journalist wants to appear to be  motivated by—would first take the pain, as it were, to at least recognize that countries like Ethiopia may be all too naturally be tempted by the wealth of potential inherent in such resources to consider exploiting them. After all, the kind of wealth such a project could bring upon completion is only palpable, something that would seduce even the wealthy, let alone developing countries such as Ethiopia, into doing everything in their powers to get such projects going. 

One would have thought every such assessment  would begin with an attempt—even if lukewarm—to try to understand—not just listen as Mr. Greste did—whether there are  considerations that underlie a decision to undertake such a massive project in the first place. It would only be natural to ask whether cash-strapped Ethiopia was seduced by the export potentials of the project, given the urgent needs of its peoples, for example. The issue was very simple. As Prime Minister Meles aptly put it, “[Ethiopia] cannot afford not to have Gilgel Gibe III.”  But none of this was raised in the documentary. Somehow Mr. Greste—who would have fallen over himself to cover gleefully  a famine story about Ethiopia—has simply omitted any reference to Ethiopia’s needs. The documentary was off to a crusading start from the very beginning and such overly practical considerations on Mr. Greste’s part would have stood in the way of the foregone conclusion he had already made up his mind about.

But then again, there are other considerations that seemed to matter to Mr. Greste; and the manner in which he presented his [and others’] views on them would tell a whole lot story about the lack of sincerity on their part than, say, the above omission does. The first consideration, of course, is quite expected, and no self-respecting government would have a problem addressing that, as it relates to the environmental impact assessment of any such project. Mr. Greste was only right to raise the question to the Ethiopian authorities.  But the problem lay elsewhere. He was not even remotely interested in taking the remarks of the Ethiopians seriously, not for a second. That a feasibility study was done, that EIA report was prepared, that the very nature of the project—a hydro-electric dam, not an irrigation project—excludes the possibility of the kind of environmental damage detractors of the project seem to be worried about—all these were discounted off hand, inconvenient as they are to Mr. Greste’s conclusion about an Armageddon scenario. 

 Even the informed opinions of the head of the Environmental Protection Agency—himself a world-class ecologist—are ignored altogether. Instead, we are persuaded to heed to another ecologist—Richard Leakey’s rather vague—if not cynical—remarks about a “…fatally flawed environmental Impact assessment”, based mostly on hearsays at best.

What gives Richard Leakey’s words the status of finality is neither a work of science nor an expertise of distinct quality. If the documentary’s references are anything to go by, the difference between the credibility of Mr. Greste’s experts and the unacceptability of Ethiopia’s Environmental Impact Assessment Report is nothing but Mr. Greste’s all too obvious willingness to not trust the Ethiopians at all. That must be why he goes on to refer to mostly shadowy sources of equally shadowy stature to try to discredit the validity of the EIA. Although he keeps us in the dark as to who these people are and what specific credentials they have—much less where they really come in in this particular case—he makes rather blanket allegations to insinuate that the EIA should not be considered in any way scientific at all. Reference is even made to experts—though unnamed—that may even have advised the Ethiopian Government in order to lend scientific credibility to Mr. Leakey’s, and Mr. Greste’s claim that the EIA Report by the Ethiopian Government is unacceptable. Interestingly, Mr. Leakey’s experts, or the African Resources Working Group (ARWG) as they like to call themselves do not even have the courage to disclose their names. In a recent paper they published, they claim the reason for their anonymity to be: “…because of the political sensitivities involved in conducting professional work within the region, members of ARWG have chosen to withhold their identities”. Clearly, Tweedledum is counting on Tweedledee’s testimony to make their case.

Scientific or unscientific, the Ethiopians could have only made it up so they can go ahead with the project, is what they are telling the world. Their conclusion is based also, in their own words, on a “science that is still very much in dispute.” This is a ridiculous claim indeed. But there is a lot more to this outrageous claim than what appears in the surface.  There is this rather paternalistic view—almost racist—that those who gave the green light for the project—those in the government—have all but certainly duplicitously doctored the EIA report in order to carry on with the project despite the danger to their own people. That by itself speaks a lot about these people’s disposition.

The truth of the matter is simple. This is a government that takes its obligations to its peoples all too seriously. This is a government that would do anything to see to it that the socio-economic problems that have for centuries beset its peoples should be addressed, and addressed in rapid and sustainable manner. In undertaking projects such as Gilgel Gibe III, generating income is not the only consideration; more importantly, due regard is also had to the potential environmental impact as well. This, the Ethiopian Government does, not because it has to adhere to some ecological or scientific fad, but more than anything else, it takes the protection of the environment very seriously. In this particular case, what is under construction is not a diversion or an irrigation project. As Prime Minister Meles clearly put it, apart from the potential the project may have in terms of generating highly needed power and foreign currency, “… it [also] enables us to store water and regulate the flooding downstream in the Omo River.” That flooding has always caused widespread destruction of life and property could not, hopefully, be lost on the Reporter from the BBC.

The second consideration that incensed Mr. Greste as much as the EIA issue did could very well tell us something about what lay beneath the holier-than-thou concern for environment. This has to do with the fact that the government of Ethiopia ‘short-circuited’ the internationally accepted procedures that apply in similarly huge projects. That Ethiopia did not float an international tender that could have taken a long drawn out process is cited as proof positive that there was indeed a duplicity on the part of the Ethiopian leaders to circumvent a procedure that would have resulted in the project being thrown out the window. It is also an attempt to insinuate that a corrupt deal may have been involved. Anything that will put the entire project in a negative light would do, apparently. Otherwise, it is almost impossible to get at the real meaning of such a bizarre report really.

But one thing is clear: its heavy focus on unfair procedures and rules pretty much smacks of the kind of hypocrisy some groups are all too often inclined to fall back on to chastise those whose only interest is to promote the interests of their people without necessarily following the dictates of others. Ethiopians, after all, are not that prone to sabotaging their own interests. So, the decision to go ahead with the project after negotiating a deal with a company that has successfully accomplished similar agreements—Gibe I & II, among others, spring to mind—could not in any way point to lack of honesty on their part. There is nothing in international law or practice that prohibits Ethiopia from undertaking any project of any size as long as it carries it out in line with the general international practice including in the sub-region. As far as respecting principles of international law governing activities of the international community goes, Ethiopia has always been second to none.

But again, accusing a government of doing something unacceptable for deciding to go ahead with a project—because it needs to  and because it is entitled to do so, is to demand submission to constituencies other than that are legitimately its own. The plethora of lobbying by activists and self-styled environmentalists that followed the airing of Mr. Greste’s documentary could suggest—plausibly so—that this is indeed more than just the quaint idealism that ostensibly underlies the outcry. And in that event, it needs to be called by its name: This is nothing but bullying against those who have the effrontery to challenge conventional wisdom; all in the interest of their peoples, and of course, to the discomfort of the powers that be.