www.eastafricaforum.net http://www.cfr.org/publication/16884/eritreas_border_troubles.html?breadcrumb=%2Fpublication%2Fpublication_list%3Ftype%3Ddaily_analysis Council on Foreign Relations, US August 4, 2008
Eritrea's Border Troubles
August 4, 2008 Stephanie Hanson
"One stupid war is enough," Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi told Newsweek in April 2008, explaining why he doesn't want to war with Eritrea again. Yet a few hundred UN troops are all that stands between the Ethiopian and Eritrean forces massed on either side of the disputed border zone.
Those peacekeepers will be withdrawn (Bloomberg) on July 31, when the UN ends its Ethiopia-Eritrea mission. Neither side says it wants war, but experts continue to worry the standoff could spark open conflict, potentially igniting skirmishes across Africa's volatile horn.
Eritrea gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993, following thirty years of war, but the border dividing the countries stil isn't clearly defined. An eruption of violence in 1998 led to two years of bloodshed but did little to resolve the border issue.
An international border commission issued a legal demarcation of the border in 2002, awarding the contested town of Badme to Eritrea, but Ethiopia has refused to remove troops from the town, citing the deployment of Eritrean troops in what it calls a demilitarized zone.
A military buildup on both sides was separated by a UN peacekeeping mission of several thousand troops until late 2007, when Eritrea cut the peacekeepers' diesel fuel supplies. In early 2008, the bulk of the UN peacekeepers left Eritrea, leaving only about three hundred troops.
In the absence of the UN mission, experts say a significant barrier to conflict between the two countries will be lost. A June 2008 International Crisis Group report finds fault with both sides, saying they have used the impasse as "an excuse to enhance their domestic power at the expense of democracy and economic growth, thus reducing the attractiveness to them of diplomatic compromise." The two governments have rejected such criticism in the past.
Renewed violence with Ethiopia, in turn, could stir up Eritrea's relations with its other neighbors. Ties with Djibouti and Somalia are also tense. In May, Eritrea sent troops to its border with Djibouti to stake out a disputed area near the Red Sea.
In June, a skirmish between the two sides resulted in several deaths for Djibouti. Eritrea's government insists it has no hostile intent. Yet one regional expert tells the New York Times that Eritrea is a " ferociously proud new nation," and as such places intense value on "every inch of land."
The circumstances of the Eritrea-Somalia dispute are different. Eritrea, which has Muslim and Christian populations of nearly equal size, has harbored Somalia's hard-line Islamist opposition since December 2006, when Ethiopia invaded Somalia and pushed the Islamists out.
Horn of Africa analysts, including Terrence Lyons of George Mason University, say Eritrea's involvement comes as an attempt to weaken Ethiopia. In August 2007, the U.S. State Department even said it was considering the country (AP) for addition to its State Sponsors of Terrorism list. In response, Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki accused the United States of fueling conflict in Somalia (VOA).
Other analysts say these ongoing conflicts allow the Eritrean government more domestic leeway on political and economic concerns. Amid the disputes, Eritrea's local development picture is bleak. The country ranks 157 out of 177 countries on the UN Human Development Index.
Policies to keep the army ranks full have precipitated public discontent, as well as population flight. At least 320,000 of Eritrea's 4.7 million people are in the military, says the World Bank. All males between eighteen and forty must serve at least twelve months, and human rights groups in Asmara say this term is often extended indefinitely (Reuters).
The government says its military also does development work. Many young Eritreans are fleeing the country to avoid conscription; a May 2008 Refugees International factfinding trip to the region found that 75 percent of residents at a refugee camp of eighteen thousand Eritreans in Ethiopia were fleeing army service or political persecution.
_______________
http://www.addisfortune.com/Nile%20Basin%20Initiative-%20Countries%20Diverge%20over%20Water%20Security.htm
Fortune, Ethiopia
August 3, 2008
Nile Basin Initiative: Countries Diverge over Water Security
The point of departure between the countries was related to the issues to do with water security. These issues began with the two agreements signed during the colonial era that gave Egypt and Sudan extensive rights over the river's use. Upstream countries, including the East African countries of Kenya , Uganda and Tanzania , have expressed concern over the long-standing arrangements, arguing that the treaties have served to give Egypt unfair control over the use of the river's waters.
Having failed to agree, once again, on an article about water security issues during their two-day meeting in Kinshasa, the capital of Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the Nile Council of Ministers of water affairs in the Nile Basin Initiative (NBI) countries, have decided that the issues be resolved by heads of their respective countries.
The Council passed the resolution to transfer making the binding decision over the serious issues of the Nile to Heads of States of NBI countries, whom the Council expects to use their political power to come up with a lasting decision within the coming three months, which is expected to be a move forward for the five-year old NBI. The Heads of States have two alternative decisions to make, according to an expert.
The first is, even if the heads do not reach a consensus themselves, they can pave the way for further dialogue to take place through the established Nile Basin Commission. The second option is to convince the governments of Sudan and Egypt to come to terms with the idea of an equitable use of the Nile water that the rest of the member countries have agreed on.
The NBI legal framework has 35 articles and 66 sub-articles and the Council reached an agreement on all of the articles, except one. Sub-article 14-B of the legal framework is the core of divergence between Sudan and Egypt in one group, and Ethiopia and six other riparian countries in another.
The point of departure is on water security issues which have to do with the two agreements signed during the colonial era – the 1929 Nile Water Agreement and the 1959 Agreement for the Full Utilization of the Nile – that gave Egypt and Sudan extensive rights over the river’s use.
The upstream countries, including the East African Countries of Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania, have expressed concern over the long-standing arrangements, arguing that treaties have served to give Egypt unfair control over the use of the river’s waters. None of the colonial treaties involved all the riparian countries and therefore, did deal equitably with the interests of the upstream countries, they say.
“The demand for the use of the water resources is based on the level of development; not on standards set in the past,” Asfaw Dingamo, minister of Water Resources, who also heads the Ethiopian delegation to the Council told Fortune. “We look for a comprehensive agreement. We were not part of the earlier proclamations.”
The members of the NBI are Burundi , Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), Egypt , Ethiopia , Kenya , Rwanda , Sudan , Tanzania and Uganda while Eritrea participates as an observer.
Contained within those voluminous waters stretching some 6,000Kms through some of Africa ’s most arid lands, is still largely untapped potential for the development of large swathes of the continent.
According to the World Bank, the Nile River Basin is home to an estimated 160 million people, while almost 300 million live in the ten countries that that share the waters. In the next 25 years, the population within the basin is expected to double adding to the increased demand for water generated by development in industry and agriculture.
Ethiopia in particular is a country that has not yet benefited from the river; though a study by the Ministry of Water Resources (MoWR) indicates there is enormous potential.
The Nile – Abay as it is called in Ethiopia – has an irrigation capacity to develop 2.5 million hectares of land, of which 1.7 million could be developed in its vicinity. The remaining 800,000 hct could be irrigated through channeling the water in to the Awash River . It is also believed to have the capacity of generating from 45,000 to 75,000 giga-watts (GW) of electric power energy.
The Ethiopian delegation has been given instructions from the government and it has accordingly made successful negotiations so far, Asfaw said.
The Nile Basin Initiative is a partnership initiated and led by the riparian states through the Council of Ministers of Water Affairs of the Nile Basin states (Nile Council of Ministers or Nile-COM). It seeks to develop the river in a cooperative manner, share substantial socioeconomic benefits, and promote regional peace and security.
_____________________
http://www.afrol.com/articles/30117
afrol News, Norway
August 4, 2008
Ethiopia attracts $8 billion investments
During the past six months, the government of Ethiopia has attracted over US $8 billion worth of investment by issuing licence to foreign investors in agriculture, construction, hotel and tourism sectors.
An annual report by the Ethiopia's Investment Agency said investors will also venture in real estate development, manufacturing, education, health, power generation and many others.
However, foreign investors are banned from venturing into sectors such as telecommunications, banking and insurance businesses.
The investors are expected to implement more than 1,500 projects across the country, creating jobs for more than 836,000 people.
According to the agency, the current year's total capital investment is US $3 billion more than that of the previous year.
The licenced investors, who are believed to have been magnetised by Ethiopia's investment alternatives and lucrative incentives, hailed from Europe, Asia, the United States, Middle East and Africa
No comments:
Post a Comment