A Week in the Horn
13/06/2008
• Peace Agreement between TFG and ARS on Somalia
• Fighting on the Djibouti-Eritrea border
• EPAs raise the temperature at the ACP-EU Council meetings this week
• IGAD Foreign Ministers meet; Summit starts tomorrow.
• Four and a half million need emergency food aid
• A Memorandum of Understanding with South Sudan
• Human Rights Watch’s latest report: a political agenda

• On Monday this week, Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government and the opposition Alliance for the Re-Liberation of Somalia, signed an agreement in Djibouti to end the crisis in Somalia. In the week and a half of discussions, the two sides did not sit down together, or hold face-to-face talks.

• They both attended a workshop under the facilitation of the UN Secretary-General’s Special Representative for Somalia, Mr. Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah. There were extensive discussions on humanitarian issues, on reconciliation and justice, the deployment of peacekeeping forces in Somalia, and the cessation of hostilities. Both parties had the opportunity to present the way they saw developments in Somalia, and the way forward.

• On Monday, they finally signed an agreement to a “cessation of armed confrontation”, and which requests the UN to authorize and deploy an international stabilization force within a hundred and twenty days, the period within which Ethiopia will withdraw its forces. The ARS agreed to cease all acts of armed violence and disassociate itself from any groups which do not adhere to the Agreement.

A Joint Security Committee is to be set up as well as a High Level Committee, chaired by the UN, to follow up on issues relating to political cooperation, both within 15 days. Both parties are now expected to travel to Saudi Arabia over the weekend for prayers and to further underline their commitment to the Agreement.
The peace agreement reached between the ARS and TFG is a positive development.

It will reinforce the reconciliation process at local and regional levels inside Somalia. It will also facilitate the strengthening of institutions of governance. It is, indeed, a major achievement as it creates a framework on which Somalis can work, TFG and ARS alike, for the furtherance of building peace and governance.

Ethiopia welcomes the outcome of this agreement and will do all that is necessary to assist in the implementation of the provisions of the Agreement. Under the Agreement, Ethiopia is expected to withdraw its forces within 120 days during which time the UN is requested to deploy its forces.

In fact, Ethiopia has already made it clear to the TFG that it will do this, and indeed will withdraw its forces earlier than the stipulated four months if conditions permit.

Indeed the view in Ethiopia is that it should not even have to bear this burden for as long as 120 days.

Sources close to the peace process have indicated that since any UN deployment will inevitably take time there may be indications that some Muslim countries may be prepared to supply part of the stabilization force indicated in the Agreement more immediately. Somali Prime Minister Nur ‘Adde’ is now in Turkey.

The real challenge now is whether the ARS can deliver on the ground. The ARS committed itself to desist from all acts of armed confrontation under the agreement. However, it is unclear how much authority the ARS has over Al-Shabaab or over such figures as Sheikh Hassan Turki, Sheikh Muktar Robow and others who are apparently bent on continuing terrorist activities.

This will have a direct impact on the cessation of hostilities to which the parties committed themselves. Any terrorist act by Al-Shabaab might be construed as a violation of the agreement. Equally, any measures taken by the TFG to deal with terrorist activities on the ground might also be seen as a violation.

The cessation of hostilities clearly demands genuine commitment from all sides. It needs to be handled in good faith to ensure a lasting peace in Somalia. The Agreement has already been widely welcomed by the international community, and by the Somali people, civil society groups and others who have carried the brunt of the conflicts on the ground.

There have been numerous calls on all parties to respect in full the spirit of the agreement. At the same time, the faction of the ARS led by Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys, and based in Asmara, has continued to reject the peace accord.

Sheikh Aweys claimed the aim of the meeting was to derail “the holy war” in Somalia. Sheikh Aweys continues to act as a mouthpiece for Eritrea’s President Issayas Aferwerki who appears bent on continuing his policy of destabilizing the Horn of Africa, as recent events along the Eritrea-Djibouti border indicate.

Meanwhile, President Abdallahi Yusuf is in Addis Ababa attending the IGAD Summit. The President is expected to brief the Summit on the details of the Peace Agreement with the ARS, the current situation in Somalia, and what the TFG will be doing in its endeavor to bring peace and stability in the country. While in Addis Ababa, President Abdullahi will be holding bilateral discussions with Prime Minister Meles and is expected to hold similar meetings with other IGAD Heads of State and IGAD partners.
• Fighting broke out at Ras Doumeira on the Eritrea-Djibouti border on Tuesday and continued on Wednesday. According to a statement by the Djibouti Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Eritrean armed forces, which have been occupying parts of Djibouti territory at Ras Doumeira for weeks, attacked Djibouti positions on Tuesday morning and again in the evening and overnight.

• The Ministry described this action as “pure provocation” and said that Eritrea was “fully responsible for this regrettable situation”. The Ministerial statement recalled that Djibouti had made a number of diplomatic efforts to solve the problem through the African Union, the Arab League and the UN as well as friendly countries and to change the position of the Eritrean Government.

• An AU Peace and Security Council mission has been in Djibouti this week to assess the situation. President Ismail Omar Guellah was in Qatar at the beginning of the week to talk to the Emir of Qatar. Eritrean aggression figured largely in the talks during President Ismail’s three day visit. Qatar is a close ally of Eritrea and President Issayas stopped off there on May 23 on his way back to Eritrea from a working visit to Iran. Eritrea had made no reference to the fighting, or to its invasion of Djibouti.

• A brief Eritrean Foreign Ministry statement on Wednesday claimed the Djibouti Government was involved in a “totally unwarranted anti-Eritrean hostile campaign.” It reiterated that the Eritrean Government would under no circumstances get involved in acts of hostilities designed to undermine good neighborliness.

Details of the fighting remain sketchy, though it appears that Eritrean troops in pursuit of a deserter opened fire on Djibouti positions. Another attack took place on Tuesday evening, and Djibouti forces responded. According to Djibouti military sources, Eritrean officers were demanding the return of 30 Eritrean deserters.

There appear to have been dozens of casualties on both sides. Both sides have been building up their forces in recent weeks, and Djibouti now has nearly three quarters of its 11,000 person army in the area. There have been reports that Eritrea has as many as 50,000 troops in southern Eritrea, close to the border area, and across the border in Ras Doumeira.
The United States has issued a statement condemning Eritrea’s “military aggression”, and calling on both sides to cease all military operations immediately and reduce tensions by withdrawing troops from the border area. It called on both sides to resolve border issues in accordance with international law and for Eritrea to accept offers of third party mediation.
The US has some 1,800 troops in Djibouti as part of the anti-terrorist Combined Joint Task Force-Horn of Africa. The French Foreign Ministry has also indicated it was highly concerned about the clashes. France, which has nearly 3,000 troops as well as naval and air units stationed in Djibouti, has a mutual defense pact with Djibouti. The last time this was activated was in the mid 1990s when Eritrea made a previous effort to seize Ras Doumeira and advance its border thirty kilometers south.
Meanwhile, in a statement issued today, the UN Security Council condemned Eritrea’s military actions against Djibouti. It calls on both parties to commit themselves to a ceasefire, and urges both parties, particularly Eritrea, to show maximum restraint and withdraw forces to the status-quo ante. The Security Council also calls on both countries, particularly, Eritrea to cooperate with diplomatic efforts to resolve the matter peacefully and in a manner consistent with international law. It also welcomes the efforts of the African Union, the Arab League and those states which have offered their assistance, and calls upon Eritrea in particular to engage fully in efforts to resolve the crisis.
• The 33rd African Caribbean Pacific (ACP) – European Union (EU) Joint Council Meeting, opened by Prime Minister Meles this week, was held June 11 to 13 here in Addis Ababa. It was preceded earlier in the week by the 87th ACP Council Meeting opened by Ato Sufian Ahmed, Minister of Finance and Economic Development. Ethiopia, a founding member of the ACP group, set up at the signing of the Georgetown agreement in 1975, is hosting the ACP-EU Ministerial Councils.
In his opening address to the Joint Council, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi said that the quality of the EU-Africa partnership had to be measured by its contribution to achieve the Millennium Development Goals, and he emphasized that Africa had been making significant progress in achieving these.
He noted that Europe was Africa’s most important trading partner and biggest source of grant assistance. Africa, he added was the source of illegal migration to Europe and therefore “we are joined at the hip and we can only sink or swim together.”
Referring to the Economic Partnership Agreements (EPAs), which are intended to govern the future trading relationship between Africa and Europe, the Prime Minister acknowledged that Africa’s trading relationship has to be compatible with the WTO rules. Nevertheless, he expressed his concern that “while the progress made so far with respect to the EPA negotiations may be compatible with the WTO rules, they are not adequately compatible with our development needs.”
He went on to urge the Joint Council to address these concerns in a spirit of understanding of each other’s interests and a spirit of accommodation.
Addressing the ACP Ministerial Council, Ato Sufian Ahmed, Minister of Finance and Economic Development, also spoke about the Economic Partnership Agreements. He thought that in the absence of financial and technical support and assurance to cover the adjustment costs that would inevitably follow trade liberalization, it was unlikely that ACP countries which have yet to sign EPAs would do so in the next few months.
So far only 35 ACP countries out of 78 have initialed the agreements, although the deadline was 31 December last year 2007. The European partners have made it clear that there will be no additional funding to deal with EPA related adjustment costs.
They have merely advised the ACP countries to use funds from already existing mechanisms. Minister Sufian argued that ACP’s needed a sufficient transition period and that implementation of the EPAs needs to be related to a given set of development indicators rather than related to an arbitrary time frame.
The EPAs currently require ACP countries to liberalize their trade by 80% within 15 years. Minister Sufian pointed out that EPAs, in their current form would require LDCs, such as Ethiopia, to commit even more than is required under WTO regulations. He noted that special and deferential treatments provided to LDCs and land-locked countries under WTO rules are not available under EPAs.
Negotiations over EPAs were launched in 2002 following the WTO’s criticism of EU unilateral preferential schemes for ACP countries. WTO said these were illegal as they discriminated against non-ACP developing countries in Latin America and Asia. WTO gave Europe and ACP countries until December 2007 to produce replacement arrangements compatible with WTO rules.
The negotiations however, have been controversial. The most serious concern has been the obstacle EPAs present to regional integration. EPAs have rearranged existing regional blocks into six negotiating regions and these have cut across Africa’s Regional Economic Councils. SADC for example, has 13 members split between different EPA negotiating block.
The ACP Ministerial Council also discussed the new European Development Fund. The 10th EDF will provide the EU cooperation program to the ACP countries from 2008 to 2013. Out of the total budget allocated under the 10th EDF for all the 78 ACP countries, 24 billion Euros, Ethiopia’s share will be 644 million Euros.
• The 27th IGAD Council of Ministers Session has taken place this week in Addis Ababa, today and yesterday. The Ministerial Session will be followed by the IGAD Heads of State and Government summit tomorrow, June 14.

• The Council of Foreign Ministers, under Ethiopia’s chairmanship, took note of the progress in implementing the CPA in Sudan and in the national reconciliation effort in Somalia as encouraging. In both cases, however, the parties were urged to work to overcome challenges that aggravated political differences. Failure to do so could lead to conflicts which hindered regional integration.
After discussing the current situation regarding the border confrontation between Eritrea and Djibouti, the council recommended it as an issue for deliberation by the Heads of State. The Council suggested a declaration to be passed on current food crises and called upon member states to put in a concerted effort to solve the continuing escalation of prices.
It was decided that Kenya, Sudan and the Secretariat should engage Eritrea during the forthcoming African Union Summit in Egypt in order to convince it to continue its full membership of IGAD. The Council recommended the Summit to reassess the role of the International Partners Forum in order to upgrade its commitment and assistance in line with the new mission of IGAD and to also expand IGAD's partnership with countries such as China, India, Japan, Turkey and Russia. The Council also deliberated on the EU-Horn of Africa initiative.
This was embraced by IGAD in 2005, but differences have emerged on the way forward. The Council is of the view that the EU Commission should recognize IGAD as a regional economic community. It also underlined the need for the initiative to come out with new budget lines and a new basket fund to avoid compromising already committed funds.
The Council also endorsed the candidature of Engineer Mahboub Mohamed for the post of Executive Secretary of IGAD and recommended its appointment by the Summit.
Most importantly, the Council of Foreign Ministers considered and adopted Ethiopia's proposal to further enhance IGAD's role as a Regional Economic Community (REC). The Council has instructed the Secretariat to undertake an inventory of all existing projects on regional integration, identify gaps and develop an appropriate scenario for regional integration.
The study will be presented at an Extraordinary Session of Council on regional integration to be held before the end of the year. The proposal was made by Foreign Minister Seyoum in his opening speech to the Council. Minister Seyoum noted that IGAD, both as a region and an organization, was at a cross-roads. It was making insufficient progress while new and ongoing conflicts were undermining the region's development efforts.
The current global food and energy crises had slowed regional economic growth to the point where some countries have had to switch funding away from development. These interrelated challenges demand urgent action to avoid both food insecurity and instability. If IGAD member states were to take advantage of globalization and to avoid the marginalization of the region, member states must accelerate the integration of the IGAD region as one of the building blocks of the African Union at the continental level.
Minister Seyoum pointed out that IGAD was currently one of the weakest links in the process of economic integration on the continent. He wondered whether member states had the necessary political will to make IGAD a vehicle for real regional integration. He called for member states to carry out real soul-searching, and said that they must as a matter of urgency address this challenge.
IGAD should set up an appropriate forum to discuss these issues. He suggested a ministerial 'brainstorming' session be convened to consider ways and means of ensuring action. He called for the IGAD secretariat to prepare a background paper urgently, highlighting the major impediments to IGAD's effectiveness.
The Minister welcomed the signing of the agreement between the Transitional Federal Government and Alliance for the Re-liberation of Somalia on Monday which he said gave the region grounds for hope for a real break-through for peace and national reconciliation in Somalia.
He said the recent set back in Abyei was a source of concern to the whole region, and called on the signatories of the CPA, the government of Sudan and the SPLM, to persevere in their commitment. He assured them that IGAD stood ready to assist them as they move forward to achieve the objectives laid down in the CPA.
Minister Seyoum emphasized that the prevalence of peace is the central prerequisite for economic development and for the well-being of peoples of the region. IGAD, he said, should not take lightly the deliberate attempt being made by Eritrea to derail Djibouti's very promising and successful economic development, or Eritrea’s efforts to obstruct IGAD's effort to put the crisis between Eritrea and Ethiopia behind them.
• The Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Agency (DPPA) has now issued a revised figure of 4.6 million people needing emergency food assistance. The Early Warning Working Group, chaired by the DPPA and made up of major donors, UN Agencies, USAID and other NGOs, launched a revised appeal on Thursday for this level of aid. The previous estimates were that 3.4 million people were in need of assistance.

• Latest figures are that total food requirements stand at 391,651 MT for the next six months (June to November), at a cost of 325 million dollars for both food and non-food requirements. The non-food sectors, including health and water will require 38 million dollars. The total food requirement for estimated beneficiaries now stands at 510,000 MT, and of this 118,000 MT are available or have been pledged. The figures and requirements will be updated as the impact of the coming belg and gu seasons are assessed.

• The most seriously affected regions are in Oromiya, where serious food security, health and livestock problems have been identified in nine woredas, the SNNPR region, where a number of particular hotspots have been identified following a DPPA mission, and the Somali Regional State. There is also need of emergency food assistance in Amhara, Tigray and Afar regional states following poor belg rains, though the effects of the late onset of belg rains has been minimized in many areas by the efforts of government and partners including FAO, CARE and Save the Children US.
Of particular concern has been the numbers of children suffering from severe malnutrition. After UNICEF suggested up to six million children under 5 years of age might need preventive health and nutrition intervention, there were exaggerated suggestions in the international media that all of these were suffering from acute malnutrition.
While there is still some uncertainty about numbers of severely malnourished children, the current estimates are around 75,000. Mr. John Holmes, United Nations Under-Secretary-General for Humanitarian Affairs and Emergency Relief Coordinator, has noted that “a rapid scaling up of resources especially food and nutritional supplies is needed to make increased life-saving aid a reality. In addition as elsewhere, the rising global costs of fuel and basic staples are posing hardship for Ethiopia’s people, especially the poorest.”
A number of governments have pledged extra assistance in response to the situation. In addition to £5 million pounds announced earlier, the UK pledged another £10 million; USAID pledged 70 million dollars for emergency food assistance, and the Government of Norway donated 20 million birr for drought affected regions. UN Agencies have also been active in assistance. Between January and May this year, the World Food Program distributed 65,000 MT of food aid to over 2 million people.
The Government-led Logistic Crisis Committee is being reactivated to serve as a forum to facilitate quick and timely delivery of humanitarian responses by all parties. The Government has also made it clear it is giving priority to trucks transporting emergency relief commodities from Djibouti and will facilitate secondary transport arrangements.
Dr. Tewodros Adhanom, Minister of Health is now heading the Government team to provide an accurate assessment of the situation in the drought affected regions. The ministries of Health, Water Resources, Information and the Federal Disaster Prevention and Preparedness Agency are represented, and they are beginning their work in the SNNP Region. A UN team is also leaving for Awassa in the SNNPR. Following suggestions by UNOCHA, and international NGOs, the Government is looking into holding weekly government media briefings to provide updated and reliable information on the humanitarian situation in various parts of the country.
• The adjacent regional states in Ethiopia, (Gambella, Beni Shangul Gumuz and Southern Nation, Nationalities and People Regional States), and Southern Sudan (Upper Nile, Jongeli and Eastern Equatorial States) held their first consultative meeting in Addis Ababa from 7-8 June 2008. The Ethiopian delegation was led by the Ethiopian State Minister of Foreign Affairs, Dr. Tekeda Alemu.

• The Southern Sudanese delegation was led by Dr. Barnabas Benjamin, Minister for Regional Cooperation of the Government of Southern Sudan. The meeting was opened by Ethiopia’s Foreign Minister, Ato Seyoum Mesfin, and representatives from other federal ministries relevant to border development and security issues were present. The meeting discussed a wealth of issues including the development of cross border trade cooperation, infrastructure, river transport, air transport, investment, customs, agriculture, finance and banking, education, security, migration, health and capacity building.

• There were also discussions on problems facing peoples living along the joint border of Ethiopia and Southern Sudan. Both countries have established mechanisms of border development cooperation to promote and foster cooperation in border areas. It was agreed to hold regular consultative meetings at different levels, to help connect the adjacent states by road, to cooperate in regulating social problems related to trans-border human movement, health and education. The meeting concluded with the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding.

• It should be no secret that Ethiopia regards Human Rights Watch (HRW) reports on Ethiopia with concern. HRW has demonstrated, over several years, clear evidence of deliberate bias and numerous errors of fact. Ethiopia has raised questions about HRW’s coverage a number of times.

• It has had no satisfactory response, nor indeed any response at all. HRW’s latest report - Collective Punishment: War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity in the Ogaden Area of Ethiopia’s Somali Regional State – demonstrates exactly why Ethiopia has consistently complained about HRW’s aims and intentions: the display of a political rather than a human rights focus, the seemingly deliberate lack of balance, the extensive lack of background knowledge and of present circumstances as well as numerous inaccuracies, and the failure to investigate the interests and affiliations of its entirely external sources.
The report limits its comments on the ONLF to five pages compared to sixty on alleged Ethiopian abuses. It mentions only one or two specific ONLF incidents out of the hundreds of possibilities available, many well-documented and many actually claimed by the ONLF. HRW chooses rather to quote the ONLF’s denial of responsibility for grenade attacks in May last year. It even suggests, directly following ONLF propaganda as does much HRW information, these may have been linked to regional government disputes.
Despite this imbalance HRW claims to produce a balanced report, to comment on human rights abuses by all sides. On the evidence of this report, and earlier reports, this is simply nonsense. There is no balance and no attempt at balance. This indeed is the central difficulty of this report. HRW accepts all ONLF claims unquestioningly, and assumes that all Ethiopian statements are false. HRW has long history here of misleading, inaccurate and one-sided comment, and this report continues this approach. It starts with the assertion that Ethiopia has failed to investigate claims of abuse or hold anyone responsible.
This is not true. Equally, the claim that : “Ethiopian authorities …stepped up their forced recruitment of local militia forces, many of whom are sent to fight against the ONLF without military training, resulting in large casualty rates,” is no more than ONLF propaganda, as HRW very well knows.
HRW could easily have found this out had it bothered to probe just a little into its sources in Kenya or the US. The claim that satellite imagery can prove that Ethiopian troops burnt villages is farcical, and illustrates a typical HRW technique. All satellite photographs can prove is that a village has been burnt. They cannot show who burnt the village, why it was done, or how it was done.
HRW extrapolates from the single point that a village has been burnt to build an un-provable superstructure of exaggeration Satellite imagery adds nothing to Human Rights Watch allegations and is, of course, valueless in assessing whether the ONLF, villagers or Ethiopian troops or anybody else might have burnt a village or whether the destruction happened by accident or design. In fact, in this specific case, the way satellite imagery is being used, in an attempt to add a veneer of respectability to unfounded HRW allegations, merely abuses science. It cannot, and does not provide any proof of anything. This is why the view that all this might have been motivated by geo-political considerations cannot be ruled out.
The report shows no knowledge or understanding of Somali Regional State politics, of the ONLF, or of the Ogadeen clan. There is no need for Ethiopia to recruit “local militia forces”. There are plenty of Ogadeen clan militias which are opposed to the ONLF. They do not need to be recruited or armed by the Regional Government.
They are quite prepared to defend themselves against the ONLF, whose efforts to intimidate and pressurize local populations in the zones in which they operate, are well documented. ONLF actions include the killing of clan elders and of villagers, the burning of villages, the destruction of property and animals as well as assassinations of local Ogadeen government officials and regional government supporters, and the bombing of markets and public meetings. It is hardly surprising that ONLF support is very limited.
It is difficult in fact to accept that HRW is prepared to evaluate evidence seriously. HRW, for example, knows perfectly well that to claim that “some foreign journalists who have attempted to conduct independent investigations have been arrested” is a travesty of the truth.

One group of three journalists, from the New York Times, were detained and expelled after traveling for two weeks with the ONLF after the killing at Obole. As was very clear from the articles written by Jeffery Gettleman subsequently, “independent” and “investigation” were scarcely applicable words. He clearly made no efforts to query ONLF claims, nor any attempt to probe their allegations. He is content to parrot the ONLF line, indeed his articles might have been written by the ONLF.
The report claims Ethiopia was responsible for a food blockade as part of an effort to cut off economic support to the ONLF. Several, and obvious, points might be made. Much of the cross-border trade and much of the food relief operations are carried out by non-Ogadeen traders and vehicles. These, as the report briefly notes, were a ‘regular target’ of the ONLF. In a remarkably restrained reference to the literally hundreds of landmines that have been planted and the hundreds of human and vehicular casualties, the report merely notes that “[the ONLF] has at times …used landmines in a manner that indiscriminately harmed civilians”. In fact, hundreds of vehicles have been destroyed (and drivers killed) by ONLF attacks and by land mines over the years.
The effect of ONLF actions on cross border traffic and on food distribution was far greater than any Ethiopian military activity, though certainly the necessity of controlling cross-border arms supplies (coming from Eritrea via Al-Shabaab and the ARS in Somalia), and of providing military convoys and checking the roads for land mines all made for considerable delays last year. None of this gets into HRW’s view of events in the region.

The report in fact consistently, and deliberately, plays down the activities of the ONLF and the support it has received from Eritrea in the last year which has been largely responsible for the sudden expansion of terrorist activity. It is hard to believe it is mere coincidence that the ONLF issued another of their invented military communiqués this week to coincide with HRW’s report, and with Eritrea’s current cross-border incursions into Djibouti territory.
HRW’s claim that NGOs were stopped from entering the region last September is not true. Not even MSF, despite its claims to the contrary, was refused entry. It withdrew from the region of its own volition citing security issues. When attempting to return, it was stopped at a military checkpoint and asked, politely, to clear its movements with the local administration as Fiq, to which it was trying to go, was considered dangerous for foreigners. To elevate this into the claim that NGOs were being refused entry into the region is inaccurate, and dishonest.
Many of these points have been made to HRW at various times. It has taken no notice of them. Inevitably, Ethiopia finds it difficult to cooperate with an organization which has so very clearly demonstrated its lack of integrity, its bias and above all its political rather than its human rights agenda. HRW’s report is not only seriously flawed and obviously biased; it also appears to have a political dimension.
The failure to record even the admitted abuses of the ONLF, let alone investigate the many allegations against its activities, suggests it is more interested in what amounts to a vendetta against the Government of Ethiopia.
In fact, in its recommendations it makes it clear that what it is after is for the US, and other donors, to change their policies towards Ethiopia. The point is underlined by HRW’s naïvely ignorant comment that western governments are fearful that a “robust stance on human rights” will strengthen Ethiopia’s ties to China. HRW accuses the US and the UK governments for “one-sided” comments on the Ogaden because they concentrated more on criticizing the ONLF than the Ethiopian government.
Ironically it has itself done precisely this, producing a continuous series of one-sided and inaccurate comments, criticizing the Ethiopian government but not the ONLF.
We would return to a question we have posed to HRW before. Why are you so determined to attack and criticize the Ethiopian government alone, even to the extent of accepting clearly perjured and invented claims from a terrorist organization while refusing to accept clear evidence of human rights abuse by that same organization?
You have done this over the Somali Regional State; you have done exactly the same with reference to the fighting in Mogadishu, refusing to accept impeccable evidence of Al-Shabaab terrorism, while accepting without demur any and all claims, however improbable or exaggerated, about the activities of Ethiopian troops or TFG security forces. The deliberateness with which HRW does this amounts to nothing less than a campaign. Indeed, it is hard to acquit HRW of malice. There seems to be little other credible explanation apart from the possibility that its researchers have allowed themselves to be bamboozled by those who wish to ensure they have sufficient grounds to be accepted as refugees.
As we have frequently said: Ethiopia is very aware of its shortcomings in terms of human rights. Nobody is trying to sweep human rights abuses under the carpet as HRW claims.
Ethiopia has, and will continue, to investigate allegations as and when they are made as the reports of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission makes clear. We would ask, not for the first time – has HRW bothered to access these? Police in the Somali Regional State always investigate claims of rape or other abuses when they are made. They will always do if brought to their attention.
However, allegations made by un-named members of an armed terrorist movement who are living in the US or outside the country, are difficult to investigate. We are trying hard to improve. This is why we have signed up to international human rights conventions.
This is why we set up a Human Rights Commission and an Ombudsman's Office. This is why these organizations have to report to Parliament every nine months. This is why we have been carrying out extensive human rights training of police and military officers. We have to say that unbalanced, politically motivated attacks in the guise of human rights reports, using unsubstantiated allegations obviously drawn from ONLF propaganda, do not help.
Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia
Ministry of Foreign Affairs