www.eastafricaforum.net http://www.addisfortune.com/Ethiopia%20Slides%20down%20Business%20Climate%20Ranking.htm
Fortune, Ethiopia September 14, 2008 Ethiopia Slides down Business Climate Ranking
OMER REDI
Drop attributed to improved performance of rivals
Ethiopia has dropped further down the rankings in an annual World Bank study of business climates around the world.
“Doing Business 2009” positions Ethiopia 116th out of 181 countries. This is a drop of seven places from last year’s study.
The study reports that over the last year, no reforms with a positive or negative effect have been enacted by the government, suggesting that the slide could be attributed to the improved performance of rivals.
The report, which has been running for seven years, rates the regulations affecting businesses and the level of property protection at 10 stages of a company’s existence. These are: Starting a business; dealing with construction permits; employing workers; registering property; getting credit; protecting investors; paying taxes; trading across borders; enforcing contracts; and closing a business.
Ethiopia ’s best performance was in taxes paid, dealing with construction permits, closing a business and enforcing contracts, respectively.
It ranked 37th in taxes paid, with contributors making 20 payments in just under 200 hours and with the total amount collected by the Inland Revenue Authority at a relatively modest 30pc of a firm’s profit.
An example of entrepreneurs who suffer at the hands of the taxman on the continent are those in Central African Republic , rated 178th; they have to make over 50 payments per year, which takes three weeks and ends up costing them over 200pc of their profit.
Ethiopia was a respectable 59th in dealing with construction permits and 74th for closing a business, which took, on average, three years, cost 15pc of the bankrupt estate’s value to resolve and recovered 32.2 cents for every dollar invested in the insolvent enterprise. By comparison, in Zimbabwe , ranked 154th, it took 3.3 years, cost 22pc of an estate and there was a meagre recovery rate of 0.1 cents for every dollar.
To enforce contracts took 39 procedures, a little under two years and consumed 15pc of the claim. These statistics put Ethiopia at 78th, while in Benin (175th) there were 42 procedures that took 2.25 years and cost 64pc of the claim.
Areas where Ethiopia lagged are in trading across borders (152nd), registering property (154th), getting credit (123rd) and starting a business (118).
The study also reveals that Ethiopia has one of the highest number of mandatory annual paid days leave (33). Sneaking in ahead of them are the Eritreans, who enjoy an extra day of enforced leisure.
Eight documents are needed to import or export from or to Ethiopia , a process that takes six weeks and costs just over 2000 dollars to export and just under 3000 dollars to import. In high ranking Djibouti (35th) five documents were needed for both export and import, a process that took 19 and 16 days, respectively and cost around 1000 dollars.
Ethiopia has one of the highest number of procedures (14) to register a property, which contributed to its low ranking. The process takes six weeks and costs seven percent of the property’s value. In top nation Saudi Arabia , the process is free, takes 48 hours and requires two documents.
A major obstacle for starting a business in Ethiopia is the minimum capital requirement at registration. This is set at over 1500 dollars, seven times the average annual salary. In reforming Egypt , the requirement is only 2pc of the average salary.
Getting credit is an issue for Ethiopian business, which the report partially ascribes to the fact that credit information is stored on less than one in a hundred borrowers. In many of the top performing economies, such as Australia and Norway , the coverage is 100pc.
Ethiopia ’s neighbours, Eritrea and Djibouti , fare even worse on this indicator and are in the bottom ten of all the tested nations.
Overall, in the ranking Eritrea remained 173rd; Kenya 82nd, a fall of four places, Djibouti 153rd (the same as last year) and Sudan 147th, down by five.
The top performer on the continent was South Africa (32nd) an improvement of five places, followed by Botswana , which leapt from the 52nd position to 38th.
The top ten, for the second year in succession, were Singapore, New Zealand, United States, Hong Kong (China), Denmark, United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Australia and Norway.
The worst performer was the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The report lists about 15 Ethiopian individuals drawn from government agencies, including the Ethiopian Investment Agency, the private sector, financial institutions and private attorneys as sources in compiling the report.
However, Abi Woldemeskel, director general of the Investment Agency, told Fortune that he is not aware of any official contact from the World Bank on this matter. He declined to comment on the ranking.
“I cannot comment on the report before evaluating and comparing it with our own,” he told Fortune.
____________
http://www.issafrica.org/dynamic/administration/file_manager/file_links/SITREP150908.PDF?link_id=3&slink_id=6572&link_type=12&slink_type=13&tmpl_id=3
Institute for Security Studies, Africa-based research institute SITUATION REPORT:
The Eritrea-Djibouti Border Dispute Complete report is attached as a PDF File 15 September 2008 Berouk Mesfin From the Introduction: The objective of this situation report is to provide timely and relevant information and analysis on the border dispute that recently broke out between Eritrea and
Djibouti. The facts at hand being fragmented, it is too early and difficult to provide a definite judgement on the diverse set of factors that caused the border dispute, its exact course, and long-term implications for bilateral relations and regional security. Yet, some significant observations can be made on some of the most
important issues involved.
This report comprises three sections. In the first section, relations between Eritrea
and Djibouti since 1991 are described, including prior border disputes. In the
second section, the colonial source of the border dispute is traced and details are
given of its course.
The third section examines the most significant and recent developments which lie at the centre of the lack of peace and security in the Horn of Africa, where the present borders were arbitrarily established at the end of the nineteenth century by treaties drawn up by the British, Italian and French colonial powers. Finally, the report provides a conclusion and a number of recommendations to find a durable basis for peaceful relations between the two states.
It is important to note at the outset that the terms Eritrea, Djibouti or Ethiopia
used in this report for the purpose of convenience refer primarily to the group of
decision-makers who, by virtue of their governmental position, have the power to
make decisions binding on the populations of their respective states and commit
their resources.
____________
http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_2393752,00.html
News24, South Africa
EU to protect ships off Somalia
15/09/2008
Brussels - European Union foreign ministers agreed on Monday to set up a special unit to co-ordinate warship patrols off the coast of Somalia to protect shipping from pirates.
In a statement, the ministers said the Brussels-based unit should be established within the next few days to co-ordinate "surveillance and protection activities" by the navies of EU nations.
Several EU nations have sent warships to the coast of the east African nation to deter pirates who have seized yachts, freighters and fishing boats.
Ships from France, Denmark, the Netherlands and Canada have also escorted vessels carrying food aid into Somalia for the United Nations since November.
The ministers also approved planning on a possible fully fledged EU naval mission to waters off Somalia.
However, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he hoped it would not be necessary to send such a mission.
_____________
Tuesday, September 16, 2008
Ethiopia Business Climate Ranking!
www.eastafricaforum.net
http://www.addisfortune.com/Ethiopia%20Slides%20down%20Business%20Climate%20
Ranking.htm Fortune, Ethiopia September 14, 2008
Ethiopia Slides down Business Climate Ranking
OMER REDI
Drop attributed to improved performance of rivals
Ethiopia has dropped further down the rankings in an annual World Bank study of business climates around the world.
“Doing Business 2009” positions Ethiopia 116th out of 181 countries. This is a drop of seven places from last year’s study.
The study reports that over the last year, no reforms with a positive or negative effect have been enacted by the government, suggesting that the slide could be attributed to the improved performance of rivals.
The report, which has been running for seven years, rates the regulations affecting businesses and the level of property protection at 10 stages of a company’s existence.
These are: Starting a business; dealing with construction permits; employing workers; registering property; getting credit; protecting investors; paying taxes; trading across borders; enforcing contracts; and closing a business.
Ethiopia ’s best performance was in taxes paid, dealing with construction permits, closing a business and enforcing contracts, respectively.
It ranked 37th in taxes paid, with contributors making 20 payments in just under 200 hours and with the total amount collected by the Inland Revenue Authority at a relatively modest 30pc of a firm’s profit.
An example of entrepreneurs who suffer at the hands of the taxman on the continent are those in Central African Republic , rated 178th; they have to make over 50 payments per year, which takes three weeks and ends up costing them over 200pc of their profit.
Ethiopia was a respectable 59th in dealing with construction permits and 74th for closing a business, which took, on average, three years, cost 15pc of the bankrupt estate’s value to resolve and recovered 32.2 cents for every dollar invested in the insolvent enterprise. By comparison, in Zimbabwe , ranked 154th, it took 3.3 years, cost 22pc of an estate and there was a meagre recovery rate of 0.1 cents for every dollar.
To enforce contracts took 39 procedures, a little under two years and consumed 15pc of the claim. These statistics put Ethiopia at 78th, while in Benin (175th) there were 42 procedures that took 2.25 years and cost 64pc of the claim.
Areas where Ethiopia lagged are in trading across borders (152nd), registering property (154th), getting credit (123rd) and starting a business (118).
The study also reveals that Ethiopia has one of the highest number of mandatory annual paid days leave (33). Sneaking in ahead of them are the Eritreans, who enjoy an extra day of enforced leisure.
Eight documents are needed to import or export from or to Ethiopia , a process that takes six weeks and costs just over 2000 dollars to export and just under 3000 dollars to import. In high ranking Djibouti (35th) five documents were needed for both export and import, a process that took 19 and 16 days, respectively and cost around 1000 dollars.
Ethiopia has one of the highest number of procedures (14) to register a property, which contributed to its low ranking. The process takes six weeks and costs seven percent of the property’s value. In top nation Saudi Arabia , the process is free, takes 48 hours and requires two documents.
A major obstacle for starting a business in Ethiopia is the minimum capital requirement at registration. This is set at over 1500 dollars, seven times the average annual salary. In reforming Egypt , the requirement is only 2pc of the average salary.
Getting credit is an issue for Ethiopian business, which the report partially ascribes to the fact that credit information is stored on less than one in a hundred borrowers. In many of the top performing economies, such as Australia and Norway , the coverage is 100pc.
Ethiopia ’s neighbours, Eritrea and Djibouti , fare even worse on this indicator and are in the bottom ten of all the tested nations.
Overall, in the ranking Eritrea remained 173rd; Kenya 82nd, a fall of four places, Djibouti 153rd (the same as last year) and Sudan 147th, down by five.
The top performer on the continent was South Africa (32nd) an improvement of five places, followed by Botswana , which leapt from the 52nd position to 38th.
The top ten, for the second year in succession, were Singapore, New Zealand, United States, Hong Kong (China), Denmark, United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Australia and Norway.
The worst performer was the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The report lists about 15 Ethiopian individuals drawn from government agencies, including the Ethiopian Investment Agency, the private sector, financial institutions and private attorneys as sources in compiling the report.
However, Abi Woldemeskel, director general of the Investment Agency, told Fortune that he is not aware of any official contact from the World Bank on this matter. He declined to comment on the ranking.
“I cannot comment on the report before evaluating and comparing it with our own,” he told Fortune.
____________
http://www.issafrica.org/dynamic/administration/file_manager/file_links/SITREP150908.PDF?link_id=3&slink_id=6572&link_type=12&slink_type=13&tmpl_id=3
Institute for Security Studies, Africa-based research institute SITUATION REPORT:
The Eritrea-Djibouti Border Dispute Complete report is attached as a PDF File 15 September 2008 Berouk Mesfin From the Introduction: The objective of this situation report is to provide timely and relevant information
and analysis on the border dispute that recently broke out between Eritrea and
Djibouti. The facts at hand being fragmented, it is too early and difficult to provide a definite judgement on the diverse set of factors that caused the border dispute,
its exact course, and long-term implications for bilateral relations and regional
security. Yet, some significant observations can be made on some of the most
important issues involved.
This report comprises three sections. In the first section, relations between Eritrea
and Djibouti since 1991 are described, including prior border disputes. In the second section, the colonial source of the border dispute is traced and details are
given of its course.
The third section examines the most significant and recent developments which lie at the centre of the lack of peace and security in the Horn of Africa, where the recent borders were arbitrarily established at the end of the nineteenth century by treaties drawn up by the British, Italian and French colonial powers. Finally, the report provides a conclusion and a number of recommendations to find a durable basis for peaceful relations between the two states.
It is important to note at the outset that the terms Eritrea, Djibouti or Ethiopia
used in this report for the purpose of convenience refer primarily to the group of
decision-makers who, by virtue of their governmental position, have the power to
make decisions binding on the populations of their respective states and commit
their resources.
__________
http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_2393752,00.html
News24, South Africa
EU to protect ships off Somalia
15/09/2008
Brussels - European Union foreign ministers agreed on Monday to set up a special unit to co-ordinate warship patrols off the coast of Somalia to protect shipping from pirates.
In a statement, the ministers said the Brussels-based unit should be established within the next few days to co-ordinate "surveillance and protection activities" by the navies of EU nations.
Several EU nations have sent warships to the coast of the east African nation to deter pirates who have seized yachts, freighters and fishing boats.
Ships from France, Denmark, the Netherlands and Canada have also escorted vessels carrying food aid into Somalia for the United Nations since November.
The ministers also approved planning on a possible fully fledged EU naval mission to waters off Somalia.
However, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he hoped it would not be necessary to send such a mission.
_____________
http://www.addisfortune.com/Ethiopia%20Slides%20down%20Business%20Climate%20
Ranking.htm Fortune, Ethiopia September 14, 2008
Ethiopia Slides down Business Climate Ranking
OMER REDI
Drop attributed to improved performance of rivals
Ethiopia has dropped further down the rankings in an annual World Bank study of business climates around the world.
“Doing Business 2009” positions Ethiopia 116th out of 181 countries. This is a drop of seven places from last year’s study.
The study reports that over the last year, no reforms with a positive or negative effect have been enacted by the government, suggesting that the slide could be attributed to the improved performance of rivals.
The report, which has been running for seven years, rates the regulations affecting businesses and the level of property protection at 10 stages of a company’s existence.
These are: Starting a business; dealing with construction permits; employing workers; registering property; getting credit; protecting investors; paying taxes; trading across borders; enforcing contracts; and closing a business.
Ethiopia ’s best performance was in taxes paid, dealing with construction permits, closing a business and enforcing contracts, respectively.
It ranked 37th in taxes paid, with contributors making 20 payments in just under 200 hours and with the total amount collected by the Inland Revenue Authority at a relatively modest 30pc of a firm’s profit.
An example of entrepreneurs who suffer at the hands of the taxman on the continent are those in Central African Republic , rated 178th; they have to make over 50 payments per year, which takes three weeks and ends up costing them over 200pc of their profit.
Ethiopia was a respectable 59th in dealing with construction permits and 74th for closing a business, which took, on average, three years, cost 15pc of the bankrupt estate’s value to resolve and recovered 32.2 cents for every dollar invested in the insolvent enterprise. By comparison, in Zimbabwe , ranked 154th, it took 3.3 years, cost 22pc of an estate and there was a meagre recovery rate of 0.1 cents for every dollar.
To enforce contracts took 39 procedures, a little under two years and consumed 15pc of the claim. These statistics put Ethiopia at 78th, while in Benin (175th) there were 42 procedures that took 2.25 years and cost 64pc of the claim.
Areas where Ethiopia lagged are in trading across borders (152nd), registering property (154th), getting credit (123rd) and starting a business (118).
The study also reveals that Ethiopia has one of the highest number of mandatory annual paid days leave (33). Sneaking in ahead of them are the Eritreans, who enjoy an extra day of enforced leisure.
Eight documents are needed to import or export from or to Ethiopia , a process that takes six weeks and costs just over 2000 dollars to export and just under 3000 dollars to import. In high ranking Djibouti (35th) five documents were needed for both export and import, a process that took 19 and 16 days, respectively and cost around 1000 dollars.
Ethiopia has one of the highest number of procedures (14) to register a property, which contributed to its low ranking. The process takes six weeks and costs seven percent of the property’s value. In top nation Saudi Arabia , the process is free, takes 48 hours and requires two documents.
A major obstacle for starting a business in Ethiopia is the minimum capital requirement at registration. This is set at over 1500 dollars, seven times the average annual salary. In reforming Egypt , the requirement is only 2pc of the average salary.
Getting credit is an issue for Ethiopian business, which the report partially ascribes to the fact that credit information is stored on less than one in a hundred borrowers. In many of the top performing economies, such as Australia and Norway , the coverage is 100pc.
Ethiopia ’s neighbours, Eritrea and Djibouti , fare even worse on this indicator and are in the bottom ten of all the tested nations.
Overall, in the ranking Eritrea remained 173rd; Kenya 82nd, a fall of four places, Djibouti 153rd (the same as last year) and Sudan 147th, down by five.
The top performer on the continent was South Africa (32nd) an improvement of five places, followed by Botswana , which leapt from the 52nd position to 38th.
The top ten, for the second year in succession, were Singapore, New Zealand, United States, Hong Kong (China), Denmark, United Kingdom, Ireland, Canada, Australia and Norway.
The worst performer was the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The report lists about 15 Ethiopian individuals drawn from government agencies, including the Ethiopian Investment Agency, the private sector, financial institutions and private attorneys as sources in compiling the report.
However, Abi Woldemeskel, director general of the Investment Agency, told Fortune that he is not aware of any official contact from the World Bank on this matter. He declined to comment on the ranking.
“I cannot comment on the report before evaluating and comparing it with our own,” he told Fortune.
____________
http://www.issafrica.org/dynamic/administration/file_manager/file_links/SITREP150908.PDF?link_id=3&slink_id=6572&link_type=12&slink_type=13&tmpl_id=3
Institute for Security Studies, Africa-based research institute SITUATION REPORT:
The Eritrea-Djibouti Border Dispute Complete report is attached as a PDF File 15 September 2008 Berouk Mesfin From the Introduction: The objective of this situation report is to provide timely and relevant information
and analysis on the border dispute that recently broke out between Eritrea and
Djibouti. The facts at hand being fragmented, it is too early and difficult to provide a definite judgement on the diverse set of factors that caused the border dispute,
its exact course, and long-term implications for bilateral relations and regional
security. Yet, some significant observations can be made on some of the most
important issues involved.
This report comprises three sections. In the first section, relations between Eritrea
and Djibouti since 1991 are described, including prior border disputes. In the second section, the colonial source of the border dispute is traced and details are
given of its course.
The third section examines the most significant and recent developments which lie at the centre of the lack of peace and security in the Horn of Africa, where the recent borders were arbitrarily established at the end of the nineteenth century by treaties drawn up by the British, Italian and French colonial powers. Finally, the report provides a conclusion and a number of recommendations to find a durable basis for peaceful relations between the two states.
It is important to note at the outset that the terms Eritrea, Djibouti or Ethiopia
used in this report for the purpose of convenience refer primarily to the group of
decision-makers who, by virtue of their governmental position, have the power to
make decisions binding on the populations of their respective states and commit
their resources.
__________
http://www.news24.com/News24/Africa/News/0,,2-11-1447_2393752,00.html
News24, South Africa
EU to protect ships off Somalia
15/09/2008
Brussels - European Union foreign ministers agreed on Monday to set up a special unit to co-ordinate warship patrols off the coast of Somalia to protect shipping from pirates.
In a statement, the ministers said the Brussels-based unit should be established within the next few days to co-ordinate "surveillance and protection activities" by the navies of EU nations.
Several EU nations have sent warships to the coast of the east African nation to deter pirates who have seized yachts, freighters and fishing boats.
Ships from France, Denmark, the Netherlands and Canada have also escorted vessels carrying food aid into Somalia for the United Nations since November.
The ministers also approved planning on a possible fully fledged EU naval mission to waters off Somalia.
However, EU foreign policy chief Javier Solana said he hoped it would not be necessary to send such a mission.
_____________
Globalization makes it possible to Imagine influencing Africa via North American Politics
Viewpoint
Voting for Africa via Canada & US
Solidarity Movement for New Ethiopia | September 11, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a golden moment of opportunity for Ethiopians and Africans! Both Canada and the United States will have national elections within the next two months. Canada will hold theirs on Tuesday, October 14 and the United States will do the same on Tuesday, November 4.
If Ethiopians mobilize and work together, we can press candidates running for elections both in Canada and in the United States to better represent our interests both here and in Ethiopia and Africa. This time leading up to the elections is critical. It is the time when candidates are most likely to listen to voters, especially if we come in solidarity with a shared agenda.
In the past, we Ethiopians have undeniably confused policymakers in our international capitals, such as in Ottawa and Washington D.C., with our opposing political factions’ proposals of opposing political agendas representing opposing ethnic groups. This must now all be put aside for the greater cause of freedom, justice, peace and opportunity in Ethiopia, something that cannot be achieved without solidarity among Ethiopians that is based on higher values—the kind of solidarity that can create a political environment conducive to good governance, to respecting human rights, to upholding the equal and fair application of the rule of law, to transparency and to a “no tolerance” policy towards corruption and “tribal politics.”
We Ethiopians should not let this opportunity slide by without exerting pressure on candidates to address issues affecting Ethiopians back home where changes in Canadian or US national policy could help relieve the suffering, oppression and difficulties of everyday life they are now facing.
There is no doubt that the direction of international foreign policy taken by both Canada and the United States in the next years could be catalysts for positive change or for the status quo—or even worsening the situation. It is a critical and urgent time for us to become involved.
The Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia is now organizing a campaign with two main goals: 1) a “get out and vote” campaign and 2) a campaign to bring the concerns of the Ethiopian people to the candidates and into the public debate. Let us ask our candidates to define their plans for Ethiopia and for Africa should they be elected!
We on the committee for Solidarity are attempting to reach the hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians in these two countries to form a strong voting block who can get behind the candidate(s) who best reflect(s) our interests. This is what it means to live in a free, democratic society!
The committee for the Solidarity Movement has identified individuals in Canada, in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba where most Ethiopians live, to mobilize them to organize regional and city-based efforts. We are making plans to call meetings in the following cities: Toronto, Ottawa, Windsor, Waterloo, Calgary, Vancouver, Winnipeg and Edmonton. The Canadian election is coming up within three weeks so we must move ahead quickly!
In the United States, the Solidarity committee has identified people willing to organize this effort within the following states or cities: Minnesota, Boston, Washington DC, Virginia, Atlanta, Dallas, Mississippi, California, New York and New Jersey. We have only fifty days left before the election and to make this effective, you, the reader has to offer what you can do to contribute, if you agree with the idea, by contacting the Solidarity committee or by starting to organize in your area.
The committee for the Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia will be organizing teleconferences, like what was done during the Worldwide March in May, to assist groups with strategies and resources.
Every eligible Ethiopian should be registered to vote!
For our voice to be heard, we must have some “voting clout!” To have voting clout, we must be registered to vote. It is so simple. Ethiopians within communities, faith organizations and civic organizations should make sure that their people are registered to vote, reminding groups that are prohibited from endorsing one particular candidate (like faith organizations) to be careful not to do so.
In America, the group, Ethiopians for Obama, has done a remarkable job already to get people registered to vote and committed to their candidate. The Solidarity committee is working together with this group and we can all learn from them. Groups that are limited by law from endorsing one candidate over another, can discuss issues and educate the public regarding the candidate’s platforms so that the voter is able to decide which candidate best reflects their values, aims and goals.
However, remember, that as Ethiopians collectively become involved in working together regardless of ethnic, regional, political and religious differences, we are all the more effective in pressing all of the candidates to more closely consider our concerns. Additionally, these “collective efforts” should also be directed towards others running for office in the regional and local elections as well.
Our first major goal is to get people registered and to the polling booths on Election Day. Task groups can be organized to go from door to door, to call on people by phone or to send mailings or emails in order to encourage Ethiopian Canadian and Ethiopian American citizens to register. As Election Day draws closer, it will help to remind them again and to find out if they might need assistance, such as transportation, to get to the polling booths. Our motivation is to bring hope, life and change to Ethiopia and to the African continent.
A team of experts is needed to communicate “Ethiopian positions” to the candidates.
The committee for the Solidarity Movement is also organizing a team of spokespeople who can make sure these candidates understand the facts about Ethiopia and how Canadian or US foreign policy can positively enhance freedom, justice, peace and opportunity in Ethiopia—the same benefits we enjoy here. Such a team of spokespeople can press the candidates to better define and refine—based on new information—their positions regarding Ethiopia and Africa should they be elected.
That team will be made up of policy experts, both Ethiopian and non-Ethiopian, who already know what is right and wrong with current Canadian and US policy towards Ethiopia, what changes in policy will better accomplish what is needed in Ethiopia and what could enhance our working relationships. The only way we can effectively influence these candidates is if we can present our case with solidarity.
We cannot ignore what is happening back home. It is our responsibility to get our information and our questions to the discussion table and to work together to do so. They need to become part of the public debate. In Canada, let’s hear from the three major political parties—the Conservatives, the Liberals and the National Democratic Party (NDP)!
In Canada, the two parties most likely to win and create the government is either the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party. In order to become a majority government, they will have to claim a number of seats in the Parliament, especially from the province of Ontario where most Ethiopian-Canadians live.
In other words, the Ethiopian-Canadian can play a significant role in this election if they can show these parties that they represent a strong voting bloc. Some say that between 60,000 to 80,000 Ethiopians live in Ontario. This is a lot of voters if they all exercised their right to vote and because of that, the candidates from the major parties will not ignore them if they speak out with one voice. It could lead to changing Canadian government policy towards Ethiopia. This is something Ethiopian Canadians should not take for granted.
In the US, let’s hear from both Obama and McCain camps!
In the United States, some Ethiopians have already formed the group already mentioned, “Ethiopians for Obama,” but we should also have a group, “Ethiopians for McCain” or at least present our concerns to both candidates to see what their plans are for Ethiopia, the Horn of Africa and for Africa in general.
The debate between the two candidates will only enhance the importance of the discussion. If you are for Obama, he might increase his commitment towards Ethiopia if he learns more from us or if McCain’s position is equally or even more significantly, shows more openness to listening to our concerns.
The reverse is true as well. If McCain believes it is an important issue, backed by citizens who care about this region of the world, he may become more responsive to our concerns regarding the issues affecting Ethiopia as well as Africa. If he ends up being elected, we are in a much better position to continue to influence policy in this arena if we engage him early on in this matter.
Many Ethiopians and Africans are unified over Obama, but few are capitalizing on it in a strategic way. Right now, he probably believes he has most of the African votes, but let us not sit back and assume he will take the actions we want without our taking responsibility to press him for commitment to those things most important to us. Also, there are Ethiopians and Africans who will recognize that McCain has taken a stand for human rights and African issues in the past and yet will want to know what he will do if he is elected.
In summary, the goal of the Solidarity Committee is to present the questions related to Canadian and US policies effecting Ethiopia, the Horn and Africa to the candidates to better understand and influence their positions. If one or the other of the candidates takes a stronger and better stand than the other, it will only put more pressure on the other to improve their position.
Ethiopian citizens in Canada and in the US should encourage African-Canadians and African-Americans to do the same!
Let’s invite other Africans and see if together, we can even create a larger voting bloc to press the Canadian parties and American parties to improve their policies towards Ethiopia. To do so effectively, we should come, not as one country, one ethnic group, one religious group or any other sub-group, but as one who has interests in advancing the freedom, justice, equality, transparency and opportunity of Africans. Many new citizens from Africa do not understand the potential political power they possess as a group if only they organized.
Imagine if Ethiopians could take the initiative in bringing together other Africans who could vote in order to press for the protection of the rights of Africans, not by favoring dictators over the people or by suppressing democratic movements within the continent when it conflicts with their interests, but instead, to form genuine dialogue and honest partnerships where the people of both Canada, the US and in Africa, all benefit. If this could be done, it could greatly impact Africans. If Africans were mobilized, it could be a powerful force to address the chronic corruption, exploitation, conflicts, human rights abuses, poverty and misery faced by the people of Africa.
Canadians and Americans are giving millions to Ethiopia and to other countries on the continent. Yet, Africans are not achieving even close to the same kind of freedom, stability, democracy, rule of law, development, property rights, protective economic laws directed against corruption as we have in North America.
We Ethiopian and African citizens in North America desire that what we treasure here, be brought back to Africa to be enjoyed by our families and by future generations—something that would dramatically stop the “drain brain” of those wanting to leave their countries for the freedom and opportunity of the west. Instead, as citizens here, some of our tax money is being used by dictators to kill and oppress our people, to block the media and to exploit the people and their natural resources. These are the questions we want to ask these candidates: how will they fundamentally alter foreign policy in Africa in a way that it would enhance the freedom and democracy on the continent—not merely band-aid solutions?
Once the election is over, a unified effort to address international policies in Africa should continue being driven and energized by those who have a stake—citizens of free countries who still have family, interests and compassion for these countries. This collective effort should not disintegrate once the election is over, but instead should be carried on through a foundation, based on these principles, that can build a more powerful voice that is not only under one African nation’s name. It cannot only have the name of Liberia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Zambia, Senegal, Uganda, Burundi, Tanzania, Mozambique, Angola, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Eritrea, Algeria, Togo, Nigeria or the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It must represent African interests more than the African Union, a union of dictators for life, an organization that should be replaced with those who uphold one people and the respect of human rights for all.
Change in Africa cannot be achieved without our involvement and commitment!
Change cannot come without us Ethiopians and the rest of us Africans. In the next weeks, we call on community leaders to set up a committee in your areas that can take immediate action. Anyone who reads this and agrees with it, you are a leader and there is a job for you to do. If you are outraged by what is going on in Ethiopia, we are calling on you. If you are heartbroken because of stories coming out of Ethiopia, we are calling on you.
The Solidarity Committee will help, but the local people must take the action. We will organize a teleconference on this very soon, but before that, we are attempting to contact individuals known to us who might initiate action. We welcome calls from interested persons as well so that you can be included if we do not know you or call you ourselves. Please reach out to us so we can reach back to you.
Do not let us be held back by differences or lack of previous communication with each other. Let us be focused on our goals and keep in mind those attitudes and values that will free us as a nation and as a continent: “Humanity before Ethnicity” and “No One can be Free Until We All are Free!” This can apply to all of Africa.
The African people have been exploited by our dictators as well as by their collusion with outsiders who end up both trampling on the rights of the people. From country to country and from region to region in Africa, we have much in common. It is time for us to come together. Think of what it would mean if Africans combined forces and together would say, “Africans deserve much better than what they have been getting. It is time for Africans to rediscover their God-given destiny and to call to halt these corrupt, exploitive and oppressive practices in Africa!”
This opportunity is for all Canadian and American citizens of African background or those non-Africans who are sympathetic to the African, to develop policies that hold African leaders accountable and which do not align with dictators at the expense of the people. This is the way to eradicate tribal thinking and to send a loud message to African leaders belonging to the gang of dictators for life in the African Union that “enough is enough!”
At the end of the day, it comes back to us individual Africans and Ethiopians. It is our God-given moral responsibility to organize and act for justice, freedom, equality, peace and prosperity so deeply yearned for on the continent of Africa. No one else will do it for us.
Remember, there is much to be done and many are needed to complete the tasks. A leader is someone who sees the job to be done and does it. Be that person. If the Solidarity Movement can empower you to do what needs to be done, please contact us. We believe that in solidarity we can thrive and exponentially multiply the results of our joint efforts.
Let us work together for a New Ethiopia and for a New Africa where humanity comes before ethnicity and where we all work to free our brother and sister Africans since “No one is free until we all are free!”
May God open up opportunities and guide us as we seek to organize this election campaign and to influence candidates to accomplish God’s purposes through this election in North America for His purposes in Ethiopia and in Africa.
May you, Almighty God, hear the cries of your people and free us from whatever hinders us from within ourselves or from what hinders us from outside of ourselves so that we might become your instruments of peace, justice and righteousness in the world both far and near.
---
For more information contact the committee for the Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia by E-mail at: ethiopiansmarchforfreedom@yahoo.ca
Voting for Africa via Canada & US
Solidarity Movement for New Ethiopia | September 11, 2008
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is a golden moment of opportunity for Ethiopians and Africans! Both Canada and the United States will have national elections within the next two months. Canada will hold theirs on Tuesday, October 14 and the United States will do the same on Tuesday, November 4.
If Ethiopians mobilize and work together, we can press candidates running for elections both in Canada and in the United States to better represent our interests both here and in Ethiopia and Africa. This time leading up to the elections is critical. It is the time when candidates are most likely to listen to voters, especially if we come in solidarity with a shared agenda.
In the past, we Ethiopians have undeniably confused policymakers in our international capitals, such as in Ottawa and Washington D.C., with our opposing political factions’ proposals of opposing political agendas representing opposing ethnic groups. This must now all be put aside for the greater cause of freedom, justice, peace and opportunity in Ethiopia, something that cannot be achieved without solidarity among Ethiopians that is based on higher values—the kind of solidarity that can create a political environment conducive to good governance, to respecting human rights, to upholding the equal and fair application of the rule of law, to transparency and to a “no tolerance” policy towards corruption and “tribal politics.”
We Ethiopians should not let this opportunity slide by without exerting pressure on candidates to address issues affecting Ethiopians back home where changes in Canadian or US national policy could help relieve the suffering, oppression and difficulties of everyday life they are now facing.
There is no doubt that the direction of international foreign policy taken by both Canada and the United States in the next years could be catalysts for positive change or for the status quo—or even worsening the situation. It is a critical and urgent time for us to become involved.
The Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia is now organizing a campaign with two main goals: 1) a “get out and vote” campaign and 2) a campaign to bring the concerns of the Ethiopian people to the candidates and into the public debate. Let us ask our candidates to define their plans for Ethiopia and for Africa should they be elected!
We on the committee for Solidarity are attempting to reach the hundreds of thousands of Ethiopians in these two countries to form a strong voting block who can get behind the candidate(s) who best reflect(s) our interests. This is what it means to live in a free, democratic society!
The committee for the Solidarity Movement has identified individuals in Canada, in the provinces of Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta and Manitoba where most Ethiopians live, to mobilize them to organize regional and city-based efforts. We are making plans to call meetings in the following cities: Toronto, Ottawa, Windsor, Waterloo, Calgary, Vancouver, Winnipeg and Edmonton. The Canadian election is coming up within three weeks so we must move ahead quickly!
In the United States, the Solidarity committee has identified people willing to organize this effort within the following states or cities: Minnesota, Boston, Washington DC, Virginia, Atlanta, Dallas, Mississippi, California, New York and New Jersey. We have only fifty days left before the election and to make this effective, you, the reader has to offer what you can do to contribute, if you agree with the idea, by contacting the Solidarity committee or by starting to organize in your area.
The committee for the Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia will be organizing teleconferences, like what was done during the Worldwide March in May, to assist groups with strategies and resources.
Every eligible Ethiopian should be registered to vote!
For our voice to be heard, we must have some “voting clout!” To have voting clout, we must be registered to vote. It is so simple. Ethiopians within communities, faith organizations and civic organizations should make sure that their people are registered to vote, reminding groups that are prohibited from endorsing one particular candidate (like faith organizations) to be careful not to do so.
In America, the group, Ethiopians for Obama, has done a remarkable job already to get people registered to vote and committed to their candidate. The Solidarity committee is working together with this group and we can all learn from them. Groups that are limited by law from endorsing one candidate over another, can discuss issues and educate the public regarding the candidate’s platforms so that the voter is able to decide which candidate best reflects their values, aims and goals.
However, remember, that as Ethiopians collectively become involved in working together regardless of ethnic, regional, political and religious differences, we are all the more effective in pressing all of the candidates to more closely consider our concerns. Additionally, these “collective efforts” should also be directed towards others running for office in the regional and local elections as well.
Our first major goal is to get people registered and to the polling booths on Election Day. Task groups can be organized to go from door to door, to call on people by phone or to send mailings or emails in order to encourage Ethiopian Canadian and Ethiopian American citizens to register. As Election Day draws closer, it will help to remind them again and to find out if they might need assistance, such as transportation, to get to the polling booths. Our motivation is to bring hope, life and change to Ethiopia and to the African continent.
A team of experts is needed to communicate “Ethiopian positions” to the candidates.
The committee for the Solidarity Movement is also organizing a team of spokespeople who can make sure these candidates understand the facts about Ethiopia and how Canadian or US foreign policy can positively enhance freedom, justice, peace and opportunity in Ethiopia—the same benefits we enjoy here. Such a team of spokespeople can press the candidates to better define and refine—based on new information—their positions regarding Ethiopia and Africa should they be elected.
That team will be made up of policy experts, both Ethiopian and non-Ethiopian, who already know what is right and wrong with current Canadian and US policy towards Ethiopia, what changes in policy will better accomplish what is needed in Ethiopia and what could enhance our working relationships. The only way we can effectively influence these candidates is if we can present our case with solidarity.
We cannot ignore what is happening back home. It is our responsibility to get our information and our questions to the discussion table and to work together to do so. They need to become part of the public debate. In Canada, let’s hear from the three major political parties—the Conservatives, the Liberals and the National Democratic Party (NDP)!
In Canada, the two parties most likely to win and create the government is either the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party. In order to become a majority government, they will have to claim a number of seats in the Parliament, especially from the province of Ontario where most Ethiopian-Canadians live.
In other words, the Ethiopian-Canadian can play a significant role in this election if they can show these parties that they represent a strong voting bloc. Some say that between 60,000 to 80,000 Ethiopians live in Ontario. This is a lot of voters if they all exercised their right to vote and because of that, the candidates from the major parties will not ignore them if they speak out with one voice. It could lead to changing Canadian government policy towards Ethiopia. This is something Ethiopian Canadians should not take for granted.
In the US, let’s hear from both Obama and McCain camps!
In the United States, some Ethiopians have already formed the group already mentioned, “Ethiopians for Obama,” but we should also have a group, “Ethiopians for McCain” or at least present our concerns to both candidates to see what their plans are for Ethiopia, the Horn of Africa and for Africa in general.
The debate between the two candidates will only enhance the importance of the discussion. If you are for Obama, he might increase his commitment towards Ethiopia if he learns more from us or if McCain’s position is equally or even more significantly, shows more openness to listening to our concerns.
The reverse is true as well. If McCain believes it is an important issue, backed by citizens who care about this region of the world, he may become more responsive to our concerns regarding the issues affecting Ethiopia as well as Africa. If he ends up being elected, we are in a much better position to continue to influence policy in this arena if we engage him early on in this matter.
Many Ethiopians and Africans are unified over Obama, but few are capitalizing on it in a strategic way. Right now, he probably believes he has most of the African votes, but let us not sit back and assume he will take the actions we want without our taking responsibility to press him for commitment to those things most important to us. Also, there are Ethiopians and Africans who will recognize that McCain has taken a stand for human rights and African issues in the past and yet will want to know what he will do if he is elected.
In summary, the goal of the Solidarity Committee is to present the questions related to Canadian and US policies effecting Ethiopia, the Horn and Africa to the candidates to better understand and influence their positions. If one or the other of the candidates takes a stronger and better stand than the other, it will only put more pressure on the other to improve their position.
Ethiopian citizens in Canada and in the US should encourage African-Canadians and African-Americans to do the same!
Let’s invite other Africans and see if together, we can even create a larger voting bloc to press the Canadian parties and American parties to improve their policies towards Ethiopia. To do so effectively, we should come, not as one country, one ethnic group, one religious group or any other sub-group, but as one who has interests in advancing the freedom, justice, equality, transparency and opportunity of Africans. Many new citizens from Africa do not understand the potential political power they possess as a group if only they organized.
Imagine if Ethiopians could take the initiative in bringing together other Africans who could vote in order to press for the protection of the rights of Africans, not by favoring dictators over the people or by suppressing democratic movements within the continent when it conflicts with their interests, but instead, to form genuine dialogue and honest partnerships where the people of both Canada, the US and in Africa, all benefit. If this could be done, it could greatly impact Africans. If Africans were mobilized, it could be a powerful force to address the chronic corruption, exploitation, conflicts, human rights abuses, poverty and misery faced by the people of Africa.
Canadians and Americans are giving millions to Ethiopia and to other countries on the continent. Yet, Africans are not achieving even close to the same kind of freedom, stability, democracy, rule of law, development, property rights, protective economic laws directed against corruption as we have in North America.
We Ethiopian and African citizens in North America desire that what we treasure here, be brought back to Africa to be enjoyed by our families and by future generations—something that would dramatically stop the “drain brain” of those wanting to leave their countries for the freedom and opportunity of the west. Instead, as citizens here, some of our tax money is being used by dictators to kill and oppress our people, to block the media and to exploit the people and their natural resources. These are the questions we want to ask these candidates: how will they fundamentally alter foreign policy in Africa in a way that it would enhance the freedom and democracy on the continent—not merely band-aid solutions?
Once the election is over, a unified effort to address international policies in Africa should continue being driven and energized by those who have a stake—citizens of free countries who still have family, interests and compassion for these countries. This collective effort should not disintegrate once the election is over, but instead should be carried on through a foundation, based on these principles, that can build a more powerful voice that is not only under one African nation’s name. It cannot only have the name of Liberia, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Zambia, Senegal, Uganda, Burundi, Tanzania, Mozambique, Angola, Zimbabwe, Ghana, Eritrea, Algeria, Togo, Nigeria or the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It must represent African interests more than the African Union, a union of dictators for life, an organization that should be replaced with those who uphold one people and the respect of human rights for all.
Change in Africa cannot be achieved without our involvement and commitment!
Change cannot come without us Ethiopians and the rest of us Africans. In the next weeks, we call on community leaders to set up a committee in your areas that can take immediate action. Anyone who reads this and agrees with it, you are a leader and there is a job for you to do. If you are outraged by what is going on in Ethiopia, we are calling on you. If you are heartbroken because of stories coming out of Ethiopia, we are calling on you.
The Solidarity Committee will help, but the local people must take the action. We will organize a teleconference on this very soon, but before that, we are attempting to contact individuals known to us who might initiate action. We welcome calls from interested persons as well so that you can be included if we do not know you or call you ourselves. Please reach out to us so we can reach back to you.
Do not let us be held back by differences or lack of previous communication with each other. Let us be focused on our goals and keep in mind those attitudes and values that will free us as a nation and as a continent: “Humanity before Ethnicity” and “No One can be Free Until We All are Free!” This can apply to all of Africa.
The African people have been exploited by our dictators as well as by their collusion with outsiders who end up both trampling on the rights of the people. From country to country and from region to region in Africa, we have much in common. It is time for us to come together. Think of what it would mean if Africans combined forces and together would say, “Africans deserve much better than what they have been getting. It is time for Africans to rediscover their God-given destiny and to call to halt these corrupt, exploitive and oppressive practices in Africa!”
This opportunity is for all Canadian and American citizens of African background or those non-Africans who are sympathetic to the African, to develop policies that hold African leaders accountable and which do not align with dictators at the expense of the people. This is the way to eradicate tribal thinking and to send a loud message to African leaders belonging to the gang of dictators for life in the African Union that “enough is enough!”
At the end of the day, it comes back to us individual Africans and Ethiopians. It is our God-given moral responsibility to organize and act for justice, freedom, equality, peace and prosperity so deeply yearned for on the continent of Africa. No one else will do it for us.
Remember, there is much to be done and many are needed to complete the tasks. A leader is someone who sees the job to be done and does it. Be that person. If the Solidarity Movement can empower you to do what needs to be done, please contact us. We believe that in solidarity we can thrive and exponentially multiply the results of our joint efforts.
Let us work together for a New Ethiopia and for a New Africa where humanity comes before ethnicity and where we all work to free our brother and sister Africans since “No one is free until we all are free!”
May God open up opportunities and guide us as we seek to organize this election campaign and to influence candidates to accomplish God’s purposes through this election in North America for His purposes in Ethiopia and in Africa.
May you, Almighty God, hear the cries of your people and free us from whatever hinders us from within ourselves or from what hinders us from outside of ourselves so that we might become your instruments of peace, justice and righteousness in the world both far and near.
---
For more information contact the committee for the Solidarity Movement for a New Ethiopia by E-mail at: ethiopiansmarchforfreedom@yahoo.ca
Restitution of Stolen Obelisks and Treasures from the Horn by the British, Italians and the French
Somalia's identity stolen by Colonial Europeans now busy terrorizing each other!
www.eastafricaforum.net http://africa.reuters.com/country/ET/news/usnWAL570560.html Nearly 9,500 Somalis dead in insurgency Tue 16 Sep 2008Abdi SheikhMOGADISHU (Reuters) -
Fighting in Somalia has killed 838 people since June, local rights activists said on Tuesday, bringing the total to have died in an insurgency that began early last year to 9,474.
The Mogadishu-based Elman Peace and Human Rights Organisation has been tracking the casualties since Islamist fighters launched an Iraq-style rebellion against the Western-backed interim government and its Ethiopian military allies early in 2007.
"We have recorded 838 civilian deaths between June and today, with 1,329 injured," Elman's vice chairman, Yasin Ali Gedi, told Reuters in an interview.
"Fifty-three people have been abducted in that time, all of them aid workers except for two foreign journalists."
More than 100 women are known to have been raped since June, he said, but the real number is thought to be much higher.
Tens of thousands more families had been added to the 1 million people already uprooted by the fighting.
Aid workers say the violence has cut their access to increasingly desperate communities, and that drought, hyper-inflation and high fuel and food costs are stoking the worst humanitarian crisis in Africa.
Last month, a report for the United Nations said the number of Somalis needing aid had leapt 77 percent since January to more than 3.2 million, or over a third of the population.
It said the Horn of Africa nation was suffering the worst insecurity it had seen since the early 1990s when Somalia collapsed into anarchy following the toppling of a dictator.
A tentative peace deal that was agreed between the government and part of the opposition in June at U.N.-led talks in Djibouti has had little impact on the ground.
A small African Union peacekeeping force of 2,200 Ugandan and Burundian troops has been unable to stem the chaos.
Two Ugandan soldiers were killed in separate roadside bombings in the capital on Sunday and Monday.
One hardline Islamist group, al Shabaab, has vowed to stop planes landing at the city's airport after midnight on Tuesday.
The group, which Washington says has close ties to al Qaeda, appears to have stepped up its attacks, and widened its range of targets, since being officially listed as a terrorist organisation by the United States earlier this year.
____________________________
http://www.modernghana.com/news/182461/1/
Ethiopia: Stolen treasures but its identity is being challenged today!
when-will-western-nations-return-ethiopias-stolen-.html
ModernGhana.com, Ghana WHEN WILL WESTERN NATIONS RETURN ETHIOPIA'S STOLEN TREASURES?Kwame Opoku, Dr. Sept 16, 2008
Obelisk from Axum was in Rome for decades before returning home. Probably very few countries have been so systematically and intensively deprived of their cultural objects with tremendous violence by Western European countries as Ethiopia has been. First, the British under Queen Victoria sent an army in 1868 to conquer the African country under Emperor Tewodros.
The Ethiopian ruler committed suicide in Magdala, the capital, with a gun given to him previously as a gift by Queen Victoria rather than let himself be captured and humiliated by the invading British Army. The barbarous behaviour of the invading army after conquer and loot has been described many times.
The list of objects stolen by the British, including processional crosses, imperial gold and silver crowns, historical and religious illustrated manuscripts and other objects from Ethiopia will fill pages. Ethiopia became Christian in the 4th Century, long before many in Europe had heard of Christianity.
The second military invasion and despoliation of Ethiopia was in 1936 by the Italians under the fascist leadership of Benito Mussolini who with his soldiers took, among other things, the obelisk at Axum, now returned. But there are still other objects such as works of art, archives, library of Haile Selassie, objects of religious and cultural significance, and the plane of the daughter of the Emperor held by the Italians from their occupation of the land of Emperor Haile Selassie.
Italy has returned the heavy obelisk and can be expected to return the various stolen crosses and manuscripts it still holds. If the recent impressive historic action of Italy paying compensation to Libya for colonization is any indication of its future policy, we can expect Italy to pay also compensation for the colonial occupation of Ethiopia. Furthermore, the return of the Venus of Cyrene to Tripoli should facilitate the return of stolen Ethiopian artifacts in Italy.
During all these historic gestures of compensation and reconciliation, including apologies for wrongful historical acts, we have not heard from the British that they have also understood the necessity for such gestures and restitution.
There is no indication that Great Britain, which started the looting of African cultural objects with military force, has any intention of following the path opened by Italy. The British Museum has thousands of very precious Ethiopian manuscripts and objects. The Universities of Edinburgh, Cambridge, Oxford, Manchester and others all have their share of these stolen precious manuscripts and objects.
The British Museum pretends to respect the religious objects such as the holy tabots. With all due respect to Neil MacGregor, respect for objects does not replace respect for the rights of ownership and the freedom of religion and religious practice.
How long are the British going to refuse to do the right thing? How can Christians steal the crosses, Bibles and other religious objects that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church needs for its religious practice and refuse to return them? Where then is the belief in democracy and the freedom of religion and religious practice which the British are always preaching to the rest of the world?
(See Afromet homepage for what has so far been returned. http://www.afromet.org)
The hope of many who are holding onto stolen cultural objects may be that time will obliterate the painful memories of such wrongful acts. Experience however has shown that no people ever forget such historical injustices and the Ethiopians have shown enough that they intend to recover their cultural treasures however long this may take.
The article below shows the determination of the Ethiopians to keep on fighting for their rights. How long are the Western Europeans going to pretend not to hear the painful but courageous cries of the Ethiopians?
Is the present generation of Europeans as rapacious, aggressive, insensitive and brutal as their forefathers?
Are they going to condone the crimes and wrongdoings of the past generations? Only time will tell but they should make no mistake: the issue of restitution of stolen or looted objects will not disappear from our world.
____________ http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-09-15-voa51.cfm VOA September 15, 2008 Two Ugandan Peacekeepers Killed in Somalia
Alisha Ryu
Another Ugandan peacekeeper has been killed by Islamist insurgents in the Somali capital Mogadishu, the second soldier to die there in as many days.
A militant Somali Islamist group called the Shabab has taken responsibility for the latest attacks on Ugandan peacekeeping troops, who make up the bulk of the African Union mission in Somalia.
As VOA Correspondent Alisha Ryu reports from our East Africa Bureau in Nairobi, the Shabab has also threatened to shut down the main airport in the capital.
The spokesman for the African Union mission in Somalia Barigye Ba-Hoku says the latest attack on Ugandan peacekeepers took place early Monday near the international airport, where the majority of Uganda's contingent of about 1,600 troops has been based since they arrived in Mogadishu in March, 2007.
"This morning, Monday, at about 7:45, a small group of our field engineers moved out and they were hit by an improvised explosive device, which claimed the life of one of our soldiers and injured two," he said.
The roadside bombing followed Sunday's deadly clash with Islamist insurgents on a road the Ugandans regularly patrol in south Mogadishu. Insurgents using small arms opened fire on a military convoy from the rooftops of civilian homes, triggering a firefight in a heavily-populated area.
One Ugandan soldier died and two others were wounded. Local media reports say as many as 25 people were also hit by stray bullets.
Shabab militants, whose leaders have boasted of having ties to the al-Qaida terror network, took responsibility for Sunday's attack and is thought to have carried out Monday's roadside bombing. The group has claimed responsibility for several other Iraq-style attacks on African Union troops.
Last month, Shabab spokesman Sheikh Muktar Rowbow warned that his fighters were planning to attack African Union peacekeepers from Uganda and another smaller group of peacekeepers from Burundi. Robow accused them of acting as mercenaries for Somalia's transitional federal government and for the government's chief backer, Ethiopia.
In June, Shabab fighters and other Islamist hardliners rejected a U.N.-sponsored peace deal signed between the Somali government and an Islamist-led opposition faction led by Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed. Like the Shabab, Ahmed's group wants a complete withdrawal of Ethiopian troops from the country, but unlike the Shabab, it supports African Union and United Nations intervention in Somalia.
Since the signing of the accord, cracks that appeared earlier in the alliance between Islamist insurgents loyal to Ahmed and the hardliners seem to have deepened.
On Saturday, the Shabab issued an ultimatum to the Somali government to close down the main airport in Mogadishu by Tuesday or face an unspecified threat. The group claimed the airport generates money for Ethiopia and is being used by American and Israeli spies.
A day later, a spokesman for insurgents loyal to Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed said the airport was too vital to the Somali people to be shut down and vowed to keep it open.
Somalia's insurgency began shortly after Ethiopian troops launched a military campaign in late 2006 to oust the Islamic Courts Union from power. The fighting has claimed the lives of thousands of people and has left several million others in dire need of humanitarian assistance.
www.eastafricaforum.net http://africa.reuters.com/country/ET/news/usnWAL570560.html Nearly 9,500 Somalis dead in insurgency Tue 16 Sep 2008Abdi SheikhMOGADISHU (Reuters) -
Fighting in Somalia has killed 838 people since June, local rights activists said on Tuesday, bringing the total to have died in an insurgency that began early last year to 9,474.
The Mogadishu-based Elman Peace and Human Rights Organisation has been tracking the casualties since Islamist fighters launched an Iraq-style rebellion against the Western-backed interim government and its Ethiopian military allies early in 2007.
"We have recorded 838 civilian deaths between June and today, with 1,329 injured," Elman's vice chairman, Yasin Ali Gedi, told Reuters in an interview.
"Fifty-three people have been abducted in that time, all of them aid workers except for two foreign journalists."
More than 100 women are known to have been raped since June, he said, but the real number is thought to be much higher.
Tens of thousands more families had been added to the 1 million people already uprooted by the fighting.
Aid workers say the violence has cut their access to increasingly desperate communities, and that drought, hyper-inflation and high fuel and food costs are stoking the worst humanitarian crisis in Africa.
Last month, a report for the United Nations said the number of Somalis needing aid had leapt 77 percent since January to more than 3.2 million, or over a third of the population.
It said the Horn of Africa nation was suffering the worst insecurity it had seen since the early 1990s when Somalia collapsed into anarchy following the toppling of a dictator.
A tentative peace deal that was agreed between the government and part of the opposition in June at U.N.-led talks in Djibouti has had little impact on the ground.
A small African Union peacekeeping force of 2,200 Ugandan and Burundian troops has been unable to stem the chaos.
Two Ugandan soldiers were killed in separate roadside bombings in the capital on Sunday and Monday.
One hardline Islamist group, al Shabaab, has vowed to stop planes landing at the city's airport after midnight on Tuesday.
The group, which Washington says has close ties to al Qaeda, appears to have stepped up its attacks, and widened its range of targets, since being officially listed as a terrorist organisation by the United States earlier this year.
____________________________
http://www.modernghana.com/news/182461/1/
Ethiopia: Stolen treasures but its identity is being challenged today!
when-will-western-nations-return-ethiopias-stolen-.html
ModernGhana.com, Ghana WHEN WILL WESTERN NATIONS RETURN ETHIOPIA'S STOLEN TREASURES?Kwame Opoku, Dr. Sept 16, 2008
Obelisk from Axum was in Rome for decades before returning home. Probably very few countries have been so systematically and intensively deprived of their cultural objects with tremendous violence by Western European countries as Ethiopia has been. First, the British under Queen Victoria sent an army in 1868 to conquer the African country under Emperor Tewodros.
The Ethiopian ruler committed suicide in Magdala, the capital, with a gun given to him previously as a gift by Queen Victoria rather than let himself be captured and humiliated by the invading British Army. The barbarous behaviour of the invading army after conquer and loot has been described many times.
The list of objects stolen by the British, including processional crosses, imperial gold and silver crowns, historical and religious illustrated manuscripts and other objects from Ethiopia will fill pages. Ethiopia became Christian in the 4th Century, long before many in Europe had heard of Christianity.
The second military invasion and despoliation of Ethiopia was in 1936 by the Italians under the fascist leadership of Benito Mussolini who with his soldiers took, among other things, the obelisk at Axum, now returned. But there are still other objects such as works of art, archives, library of Haile Selassie, objects of religious and cultural significance, and the plane of the daughter of the Emperor held by the Italians from their occupation of the land of Emperor Haile Selassie.
Italy has returned the heavy obelisk and can be expected to return the various stolen crosses and manuscripts it still holds. If the recent impressive historic action of Italy paying compensation to Libya for colonization is any indication of its future policy, we can expect Italy to pay also compensation for the colonial occupation of Ethiopia. Furthermore, the return of the Venus of Cyrene to Tripoli should facilitate the return of stolen Ethiopian artifacts in Italy.
During all these historic gestures of compensation and reconciliation, including apologies for wrongful historical acts, we have not heard from the British that they have also understood the necessity for such gestures and restitution.
There is no indication that Great Britain, which started the looting of African cultural objects with military force, has any intention of following the path opened by Italy. The British Museum has thousands of very precious Ethiopian manuscripts and objects. The Universities of Edinburgh, Cambridge, Oxford, Manchester and others all have their share of these stolen precious manuscripts and objects.
The British Museum pretends to respect the religious objects such as the holy tabots. With all due respect to Neil MacGregor, respect for objects does not replace respect for the rights of ownership and the freedom of religion and religious practice.
How long are the British going to refuse to do the right thing? How can Christians steal the crosses, Bibles and other religious objects that the Ethiopian Orthodox Church needs for its religious practice and refuse to return them? Where then is the belief in democracy and the freedom of religion and religious practice which the British are always preaching to the rest of the world?
(See Afromet homepage for what has so far been returned. http://www.afromet.org)
The hope of many who are holding onto stolen cultural objects may be that time will obliterate the painful memories of such wrongful acts. Experience however has shown that no people ever forget such historical injustices and the Ethiopians have shown enough that they intend to recover their cultural treasures however long this may take.
The article below shows the determination of the Ethiopians to keep on fighting for their rights. How long are the Western Europeans going to pretend not to hear the painful but courageous cries of the Ethiopians?
Is the present generation of Europeans as rapacious, aggressive, insensitive and brutal as their forefathers?
Are they going to condone the crimes and wrongdoings of the past generations? Only time will tell but they should make no mistake: the issue of restitution of stolen or looted objects will not disappear from our world.
____________ http://www.voanews.com/english/2008-09-15-voa51.cfm VOA September 15, 2008 Two Ugandan Peacekeepers Killed in Somalia
Alisha Ryu
Another Ugandan peacekeeper has been killed by Islamist insurgents in the Somali capital Mogadishu, the second soldier to die there in as many days.
A militant Somali Islamist group called the Shabab has taken responsibility for the latest attacks on Ugandan peacekeeping troops, who make up the bulk of the African Union mission in Somalia.
As VOA Correspondent Alisha Ryu reports from our East Africa Bureau in Nairobi, the Shabab has also threatened to shut down the main airport in the capital.
The spokesman for the African Union mission in Somalia Barigye Ba-Hoku says the latest attack on Ugandan peacekeepers took place early Monday near the international airport, where the majority of Uganda's contingent of about 1,600 troops has been based since they arrived in Mogadishu in March, 2007.
"This morning, Monday, at about 7:45, a small group of our field engineers moved out and they were hit by an improvised explosive device, which claimed the life of one of our soldiers and injured two," he said.
The roadside bombing followed Sunday's deadly clash with Islamist insurgents on a road the Ugandans regularly patrol in south Mogadishu. Insurgents using small arms opened fire on a military convoy from the rooftops of civilian homes, triggering a firefight in a heavily-populated area.
One Ugandan soldier died and two others were wounded. Local media reports say as many as 25 people were also hit by stray bullets.
Shabab militants, whose leaders have boasted of having ties to the al-Qaida terror network, took responsibility for Sunday's attack and is thought to have carried out Monday's roadside bombing. The group has claimed responsibility for several other Iraq-style attacks on African Union troops.
Last month, Shabab spokesman Sheikh Muktar Rowbow warned that his fighters were planning to attack African Union peacekeepers from Uganda and another smaller group of peacekeepers from Burundi. Robow accused them of acting as mercenaries for Somalia's transitional federal government and for the government's chief backer, Ethiopia.
In June, Shabab fighters and other Islamist hardliners rejected a U.N.-sponsored peace deal signed between the Somali government and an Islamist-led opposition faction led by Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed. Like the Shabab, Ahmed's group wants a complete withdrawal of Ethiopian troops from the country, but unlike the Shabab, it supports African Union and United Nations intervention in Somalia.
Since the signing of the accord, cracks that appeared earlier in the alliance between Islamist insurgents loyal to Ahmed and the hardliners seem to have deepened.
On Saturday, the Shabab issued an ultimatum to the Somali government to close down the main airport in Mogadishu by Tuesday or face an unspecified threat. The group claimed the airport generates money for Ethiopia and is being used by American and Israeli spies.
A day later, a spokesman for insurgents loyal to Sheik Sharif Sheik Ahmed said the airport was too vital to the Somali people to be shut down and vowed to keep it open.
Somalia's insurgency began shortly after Ethiopian troops launched a military campaign in late 2006 to oust the Islamic Courts Union from power. The fighting has claimed the lives of thousands of people and has left several million others in dire need of humanitarian assistance.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
A week in Ethiopia
A Week in the Horn (September 12,2008)
· A Presidential decree on the Benadir Administrion
· An attack on Ethiopia emerging in the US Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee
· Ethiopia’s New Year hopes for regional peace
· Professor Menkhaus – a disappointingly misleading report on Somalia
· The Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Millennium Year
· This week, the details of implementation for the proposed changes for Benadir region and Mogadishu became clearer as the process laid out in the Addis Ababa ‘road map’ appear to have begun. The President has taken the important step of issuing a decree, at the request of the Prime Minister, to remove the previous administration and for it to handover its duties to a temporary Upper Level Committee of ten members. The decree was supposed to take immediate effect on September 9th, the day it was issued, but it has yet to be implemented though expectations are that the hand over will take place tomorrow.
The Upper Level Committee is to run the day-to-day activities of Benadir for fifteen days while the next stage is implemented. This allows for each of the 16 districts of Mogadishu to choose a 23 member local council. In turn, each council will choose their own leadership and their own district commissioner. Each of these councils will function until the end of the transitional period next year. Once in place, each council will also elect three of its members to represent the district on a Benadir Council, making a total of 48. This will then elect the Mayor/Governor of Benadir from among its members.
While there has been some progress on the issue of the Benadir administration, there has been a series of unnecessary delays over the nomination and acceptance of the additional ministers. Parliament has not been co-operating with the executive. Last week it fully endorsed the government in an overwhelming vote of confidence. Now, by refusing to accept the government’s proposals on the reinstatement of the ten ministers (only two of whom actually had their resignations accepted) Parliament is in effect working for the dissolution of the executive.
There are some in Parliament who appear to be acting more on the basis of self-interest and paying little attention to the national interest. In addition, the critically important restructuring of the security apparatus, also agreed in Addis Ababa, has yet to begin. In the meantime, the situation in Kismayo continues to be in a state of flux. Those who claim to have set up an administration there have not succeeded in establishing complete order, and rifts between them and some local ICU leaders seems to be contributing to the continued uncertainty in the city.
· Ethiopia enjoys healthy relations with the United States of America. A long historical relationship has, in recent times, witnessed qualitative improvement as issues linking us have multiplied. Nonetheless, there have been frequent challenges to our friendly relations. The annual report from the US State Department on human rights around the world has never attempted any objective assessment of Ethiopia, making sweeping and unsubstantiated allegations against the Government.
However, the Government of Ethiopia has never considered the reports as any major impediment to the US/Ethiopia relationship despite their lack of objectivity and the excuse they create for others less knowledgeable about the realities of the situation in Ethiopia. In this regard the efforts by one branch of the US Government, Congress, have gone well beyond this. Following numerous hearings which have seldom been constructive the House of Representatives passed an ‘Ethiopian Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007’. Now a ‘Support for Democracy and Human Rights in Ethiopia Act of 2008’ has been introduced in the Senate.
This draft is of concern because it makes no effort to provide any context for criticism. Moreover, the timing is bewildering with Congress about to close in order to participate in the Presidential elections. It is a surprise to find that this issue is of such interest to members of Congress at this stage in the life of the present Congress. This is particularly so in light of what the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee himself says about the critical role Ethiopia plays in the sub-region.
This draft bill is regrettable not just because of factual errors, which are numerous, or the lack of accurate information portrayed, but because the message is that Ethiopia, despite its friendship with the US, can still be dictated simply because there will be no consequences for the US. It is disingenuous to couch such a bill in friendly terms with claims to support democracy in Ethiopia when no such bill would be introduced against other governments regarded as friends of the US. Ethiopia is being targeted with complete disregard for building the mutual trust between the two countries so vital for long-term Ethiopia/US relations.
· While the Ethiopian New Year 2001 provides renewed commitment to forge ahead with the impressive economic development registered over the past five years, and with the democratization process, there is no doubt that a great deal remains to be done to ensure durable peace in the region. One critical aspect of this remains the situation between Ethiopia and Eritrea. For Ethiopia, this situation could easily have been resolved previously on the basis of the two components of the Algiers Agreement.
The first, the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities signed on June 18, 2000, at Algiers, provided for the deployment of a peacekeeping mission with the detailed mandate to create a Temporary Security Zone and for punitive measures to be taken under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter should either party violate this agreement which were meant “..to contribute to the reduction of tension and to the establishment of a climate of calm and confidence, as well as to create conditions conducive to a comprehensive and lasting settlement of the conflict…”
The peace settlement as concluded under the Algiers Agreement of December 2008, included the delimitation and demarcation of the border based on pertinent colonial treaties and applicable international law, and allowed for the establishment of a neutral Claims Commission “...to decide through binding arbitration all claims for loss, damage or injury by one Government against the other, and by [their] nationals…”.
The expectation was for Algiers Agreements to be implemented in synergy and provide a conclusive settlement of the dispute. The various elements of the Agreements have been gradually implemented in different ways.
The Claims Commission, for example, has completed the liability stage and is now expected to detail its compensation awards. One of its most significant decisions was its finding that Eritrea violated Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter when it invaded areas peacefully administered by Ethiopia. On the other hand, the Boundary Commission adopted its delimitation decision in 2002; implementation, however, could not proceed because Eritrea did not want to proceed to demarcation in line with international practice.
This stalled the peace process for some time before Ethiopia produced its five-point Peace Plan whose fundamentals were: the proposal to resolve the dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea only through peaceful means; to resolve the root causes of the conflict through dialogue with the view to normalizing relations between the two countries; to accept, in principle, the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission decision; and to start dialogue immediately with the view to implementing the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission’s decision in a manner consistent with the promotion of sustainable peace and brotherly ties between the two peoples.
Eritrea not only rejected these proposals but responded by imposing restrictions on UNMEE, expelling certain nationals serving in UNMEE, and by deploying its own military in the TSZ. At the request of the Security Council, the then Secretary General tried to unlock the dispute by appointing a Special Envoy. Eritrea rejected the appointment and refused to receive the envoy. The Security Council passed resolution 1640(2005) threatening Eritrea with sanctions if it did not lift the restrictions it had imposed on UNMEE. With the Security Council expected to consider the possibility of sanctions on Eritrea following the Report of the Secretary General, the Witnesses to the Algiers Agreement then convened in New York at the invitation of the United States to adopt an initiative aimed at breaking the impasse. The Security Council supported this and called on the Boundary Commission to re-convene meetings with the two parties.
The Commission resumed its work on 10 March 2006 when Ethiopia clarified its stance that its acceptance of the delimitation decision was without any precondition, a point the Commission fully and publicly acknowledged. Eritrea, however, then made it clear that it would no longer cooperate with the Commission.
Indeed, this initiative failed to break the impasse in the peace process because Eritrea refused to lift restrictions on UNMEE or cooperate in the appointment of a neutral facilitator to assist in the demarcation process and enter into technical discussion with Ethiopia as the Witnesses had highlighted in their initiative. Eritrea’s persistent rejection of all avenues for peace effectively blocked the possibilities of a legally valid demarcation process. Faced by this intransigence, the Boundary Commission sought a way out by suggesting ‘virtual’ demarcation in lieu of physical demarcation.
Ethiopia made it clear that this course of action could only be considered ultra vires and that Ethiopia was not obligated to accept it. Indeed, the Security Council in fact subsequently adopted resolution 1798(2008) demanding physical demarcation of the boundary, making it clear that any transfer of territorial control could only arise after “…the final status of the contested areas… will be determined at the end of the delimitation and demarcation of the border and, if need be, through an appropriate mechanism of arbitration”, pursuant to the Algiers Agreements.
So the questions of sovereignty and occupation that Eritrea has raised remain irrelevant, even frivolous, in the absence of valid demarcation and a transfer of territory in accordance with this.
Rather than respond to any of the criticisms and demands from the Security Council, Eritrea actually intensified the severe restrictions it imposed on UNMEE. This led to the Security Council’s termination of UNMEE’s mandate. Unfortunately, Eritrea, after starting the war unlawfully, being found liable for this by the Claims Commission, meeting out humiliating treatment to UNMEE, violating the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement by deploying military forces inside the TSZ, continuously threatening to use force and carrying out multiple efforts at destabilization in the region, has gone unpunished.
Verbal condemnation by the Security Council, in the absence of any punitive measures under the Charter of the United Nations or the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities, has emboldened Eritrea to remain defiant to all the Council’s numerous resolutions demanding responses from Eritrea. In this context, it should be noted that in terminating UNMEE’s mandate, the Security Council, in resolution 1827(2008), reaffirmed the integrity of the TSZ. Under the Algiers Agreements, the TSZ and UNMEE’s mandate end only when valid demarcation has been conducted in accordance with the Agreements and international law.
Now, of course, all this is behind us and the problem is no longer an issue of the technicalities of boundary demarcation. Eritrea, with its persistent efforts to destabilize Ethiopia has made it clear that it is not prepared to reach any accommodation with the present government of Ethiopia. In fact this is not something new. It has been the main problem from the beginning. Despite this, in this New Year, Ethiopia will maintain its firm intention to get a peaceful resolution of the dispute with Eritrea. It remains fully committed to a lasting and durable peace between the two countries through negotiation and discussion. It can only hope Eritrea will reciprocate.
· Earlier this month, Professor Ken Menkhaus produced a report for the Washington-based NGO ENOUGH which until this year exclusively focused on analyses of genocide and crimes against humanity in Darfur, Congo and Uganda. It is now extending its interest to Somalia. This paper: Somalia, A Country in Peril, a Policy Nightmare, by Professor Menkhaus, is apparently intended to be the first of two strategy papers.
It provides an analysis of the current crisis in Somalia and looks at why international policies toward Somalia have produced some disastrous, if unintended, results, making a case for an urgent review of those policies. The second report will apparently explore options and make recommendations for a new, more effective, international approach to Somalia.
It is this that makes it particularly necessary to offer some comments and criticisms of the errors of fact and underlying assumptions that have disappointingly crept into Professor Menkhaus’s analysis. In particular, there are serious and fundamental errors relating to his ascription of Ethiopian motives towards Somalia, and in the analysis of Ethiopian/United States relations. Any proposed strategy, any suggested policy options do need to be anchored in reality and based on accurate information. And herein lies the problem.
Professor Menkhaus provides a damning list of failures by the international community and concludes that “we have become part of the problem rather than the solution”. Despite this critique, however, he still manages to underplay the most essential failure, the refusal to provide support and resources for the TFG after November 2004.
One major reason was the entirely erroneous assessment of western observers to the Mbagathi conference that Ethiopia was manipulating the voting. The international community similarly failed to provide the necessary backing after the TFG’s takeover of Mogadishu in December 2006. It has yet to throw real weight behind the Djibouti Agreement.
In this context, irrespective of whether Professor Menkhaus is correct to say the withdrawal of Ethiopian troops is essential for peace (it isn't, it is in fact a demand of Al-Shabaab and of Eritrea's allies), we would recall that Ethiopia has consistently, since early 2007, declared its desire to withdraw as soon as possible. Ethiopian troops have remained in Somalia because the AU and other regional and international organizations have asked the Government to keep them there, to avoid leaving a power vacuum.
Ironically, the very elements asking Ethiopia to stay are those that have failed to support the creation of AMISOM or push seriously for a UN peacekeeping force or a UN sponsored stabilization force. Incidentally, in this context it should be noted that it is not possible for any AU or a UN force to be seen as neutral by Al-Shabaab however carefully their mandate might be drawn up whatever Professor Menkhaus may believe. He appears quite unaware of just how comprehensive Al-Shabaab's intentions actually are. They do not include a future for the TFG or any of its allies, internal or external, and no moderates, let alone anyone else.
Professor Menkhaus emphasizes that the international community’s effort at state-building in Somalia, minimal though this may have been, is now in a state of profound crisis. In part this is, he says, because the TFG is not a government of national unity, only one party in a civil war.
It is also because Western donors are supporting the wrong things. In this context, he claims, support for TFG security forces merely provides assistance to hard-line elements which control these forces and who accepted the Djibouti Agreement as an opportunity to split their opponents. Western donors should therefore stop such assistance.
This, however is based on a serious misconception. Support for the TFG’s security forces, far from strengthening hardliners opposed to the Djibouti Agreement and the peace and reconciliation process, actually directly assists the government which is headed by the Prime Minister and which is committed to the peace process and to the Djibouti Agreement. Bringing an end to assistance to TFG police and security would in fact threaten the continued existence of the TFG and the possibilities of peace and reconciliation.
Professor Menkhaus appears to believe Al-Shabaab should be brought into the peace process. This appears particularly implausible given Al-Shabaab's own long campaign of assassination and terror, and its statements, and the response of most Somalis to the organization.
Whether or not the Asmara fraction of the ARS, of Sheikh Aweys, might become involved is also highly doubtful, if only because of Eritrean pressure. Eritrea, whose role Professor Menkhaus largely ignores, is of course not interested in Somalia or Somali opposition fractions; it is using Somalia and Somalis as a proxy in its continual efforts to destabilize Ethiopia.
There are also some maverick warlords who have lined up with Al-Shabaab or the Asmara ARS, including Sheikh Yusuf 'Inde Adde' whose name was a byword for violence and misgovernment in the Lower Shebelle region long before 2006, and Sheikh Hassan 'Turki' who now calls himself an 'elder' of Al-Shabaab. There can be no contradiction in linking the peace-building and reconciliation agenda to a robust strategy to strengthen moderates and contain hardliners from wherever they originate.
Professor Menkhaus is a Somali specialist, but it is still most surprising that he apparently appears to find Ethiopia’s policies so difficult to understand. He certainly gets them wrong. Ethiopia has shown absolutely no willingness to allow Mogadishu-based warlords to re-arm. Indeed, quite the reverse, as the briefest visit to Mogadishu would underline.
Nor does Ethiopia have any desire to render Mogadishu ungovernable in order to prevent hard-line Islamists asserting control as soon as Ethiopian troops leave. This is a typically bizarre foreign conspiracy theory of the sort usually peddled by ignorant US academics like Dr. Michael Weinstein of PINR who appears to know nothing of Somalia, and whose ramblings are a compendium of opposition fantasies and media exaggerations, seldom bearing any relation to reality. Professor Menkhaus is not usually to be numbered in such company.
He can, and does make numerous accurate observations but he categorizes Ethiopian policies as difficult and problematic. In fact, far from being a “wild card” in the Somali crisis, Ethiopia is the one element that can claim consistency. If there is any “wild card” in the Somali situation it is Eritrea. Ethiopia may not always get it right, but it can legitimately claim it tries.
Ethiopia's policies towards Somalia are quite transparent and its motives perfectly clear, as they have been for the last seventeen years. Ethiopia's actions have always been presaged on certain basic principles that a peaceful Somalia with a functional government is necessary for the well-being of both the sub-region and Ethiopia as well as the peoples of Somalia and Ethiopia, and able to deal the activities of extremists and terrorists.
Surprisingly, Professor Menkhaus seems to have forgotten Ethiopia’s long investment in the search for peace in Somalia, going back, indeed, to 1991 when the advent of a new government in Ethiopia, and the overthrow of Siad Barre, opened the way for a change in an often stormy earlier relationship. The Ethiopian government has taken every effort to try and encourage the creation of a stable government in Somalia ever since it came to power, though all too often these efforts have come to nothing because of the lack of international support.
These efforts include: the Bahr Dar meeting of Somali factions (1992); the Addis Ababa Agreement (1993), Ethiopia’s mandate to facilitate a Somali settlement from IGAD and the OAU (1993), the Sodere consultation meeting and agreement (1996), the Arta conference (2000), and the Eldoret/Mbagathi conference (2002-2004) and the creation of the TFG and the TFIs in 2004. Indeed it sees these latter institutions as currently the only viable solution for Somalia’s problems.
It is on this basis that Ethiopia responded to the TFG’s requests for assistance against internal and external enemies in 2006, and has subsequently been active in providing support and training for the effort to recreate an administrative structure in Somalia.
There is currently a team of experts from the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Finance and Information, and the Federal Police, and the Revenue and Customs Authorities in Mogadishu involved in extensive training programs, not for the first time.
Ethiopia has also carried out extensive training for police and security forces. Would it be necessary to remind Professor Menkhaus that the Ethiopian Government began its efforts for peace in Somalia towards the end of 1991 even before it had set up a regular army and before its own domestic security had been fully established throughout the country? Ethiopia’s policies towards Somalia are far from diabolical as the Professor implies.
Ethiopia has been quite consistent in its efforts to bring back peace, national reconciliation and security in Somalia. The problems of Somalia have always had a regional dimension of course, and Ethiopia’s concerns have never been purely altruistic.
It is, of course, mindful of its own national interests, but these in no way conflict with the interests of the people of Somalia, nor of those of the sub-region as we have emphasized on previous occasions.
Ethiopia wants to see the re-creation of a Somali state which is peaceful, stable and prepared to co-exist with its neighbors on the basis of principles of international law.
It has always been obvious that a revived Somali state, with peaceful and mutually managed borders, would be in Ethiopia’s own national interests. Ethiopia’s consistent position has been that anarchy in Somalia is not in the interests of the peoples of Somalia or of Ethiopia. However, it has never overestimated its capacity to influence or control the process or forgotten that any peace or reconciliation process in Somalia must be owned by Somalis.
Ethiopia has continuously worked for a win-win solution for the peoples of both countries. It will continue to support peace and stability in Somalia.
Professor Menkhaus is certainly right to suggest that an undated comprehensive and integrated international strategy for Somalia is needed, but even more necessary is to get the strategy right.
That can only happen if the analysis is correct. We would repeat: what is needed is to identify the problems and solutions accurately and provide the real basis for such a strategy. Unfortunately this report fails to do so. As Professor Menkhaus notes the human cost of continual failure is unacceptable. It is a pity that this report will do no more than continue to contribute to such failure.
· Wednesday this week marked the end of the first year of Ethiopia's new Millennium, a year in which we embarked on the renewal of both Ethiopia and of the regional organization, IGAD, of which Ethiopia is currently the chair. We have used this year of the Millennium to launch a Renaissance, to lay the foundations for this rebirth, to open the door to a new future, a future in which we will conquer poverty and disease, meet the challenge of creating a just and prosperous society based on tolerance and mutual benefit and on a national consensus, to unleash Ethiopia's full potential. This has been coupled to a foreign policy based on the concept of mutual benefits in which economic diplomacy plays a central role. Over the last seventeen years, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has demonstrated very clear differences of policy from those of the previous regime of the Derg. They are fundamental differences in aims, intentions and actions, looking to enhanced political dialogue, inclusivity and economic links within our region, and within Africa and the Arab world. We are looking to integration in a globalized world, and one in which the effects of climate change are fully addressed. In the last decade and a half, Ethiopia has focused on building democratic institutions from the grass roots, and developing responsible political space for the process of democratization, laying the foundations for real democracy and the basis of the necessary economic support.
When the EPRDF launched Ethiopia on a new path of governance seventeen years ago, this also involved the introduction of a new approach to Ethiopian diplomacy. Systematized, in 2003, as a Foreign Policy and National Security Strategy it was based on a realistic appreciation of national interests, and internal vulnerabilities, both economic and political. It identified the most critical internal threats to the survival of the Ethiopian state, economic backwardness and abject poverty, together with the need for democracy and good governance. The major enemy, poverty, could only be defeated by economic development and democratization. This has provided the fundamental basis for Ethiopia’s new foreign policy strategy, of which economic diplomacy is a central thread. It means a pragmatic approach to encourage the flow of investment, trade and tourism, as well as economic cooperation and the development of mutual trust and confidence in bilateral and multilateral relations. Genuine partners are those who contribute to Ethiopia’s economic progress and are prepared to involve themselves in a mutually beneficial partnership for economic cooperation. Peace, stability and security are necessities for economic development, and our relations are firmly anchored in the principles of good neighborliness, peaceful coexistence, the peaceful resolution of disputes and the reduction of threats to national security interests.
This last year, marking the fifth year of double digit economic growth, demonstrates how far we have come. Ethiopia is the fastest growing non-oil economy in Africa, and although this year we have had the problems of drought, coupled with the effects of global oil and food price rises and significant inflation, that still remains something of which we can be proud. The year has provided a firm jumping off point for the inauguration of the Ethiopian Renaissance. Indeed, our policy of economic diplomacy has been remarkably successful both bilaterally and more widely. Exports have grown by an average of over 25% per annum over the last five years, and this fiscal year are expected to rise from $1.5 billion to $1.87 billion. Ethiopia now exports to 120 countries, and there have been encouraging results from increasing the processing of raw materials for export, rather than merely exporting the raw materials themselves. Imports have been growing by 11%. Ethiopia in fact is a central element in what a Japanese symposium earlier this year called: Vibrant Africa – a continent of business opportunities. Examples of this abound. The new relationship launched last year with China has continued. The Africa-India Forum, and the Africa-Turkey Forum (which was co-chaired by Prime Minster Meles), have provided significant bilateral links as well as the substantial prospect of enhanced trade and investment. These have been detailed in the Delhi Declaration and the Africa-India Framework for Co-operation, and the Istanbul Declaration on Africa-Turkey partnership and Framework of Cooperation.
In January, India made its largest ever loan, of $640 million to Ethiopia, to help with the development of the sugar industry at Tendaho and Fincha. This year, one of Asia's largest conglomerates, India's Tata Holdings opened an Addis Ababa office, and last month a working delegation from the All-India Skin, Hide, Tanners and Merchants Association visited Ethiopia. Israel's International Cooperation Agency, MABHAV, signed an MoU with the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development to raise agricultural productivity in August; a US company managed by Israeli experts is setting up a 30,000 hectare project for bio-diesel in the SNNPR and a Swedish company is setting up a bio-fuel development in Amhara state. Recent plans for Turkish investments include a large scale textile development and a steel mill.
In the Middle East we have launched a significant efforts to encourage trade and investment at an official and a non-governmental level. There have been encouraging signs of Saudi business interest in investment here as well as more widely from the Middle East and the Gulf states. Sheikh Ahmed bin Sulayem, chairperson of Dubai World visited in July to sign an agreement to invest in oil pipelines and to revitalize the Ethio-Djibouti Railway. Others have shown interest and commitment to agricultural and service sectors, and a Yemeni businessman has earmarked $220 million for diverse investments. All of this is being achieved while still maintaining our traditional trading and diplomatic links with the US and the EU. Indeed one of the major success stories of the last year or two has been the impressively rapid growth of horticultural exports, an area in which Holland has played a major role. Bilateral development assistance has increased significantly from the UK and Germany. The EU continues to be a major source of multi-lateral development aid. Our ties with Russia have always meant a lot to Ethiopians. Much can be said about how long standing these ties have been and also how valuable, particularly during difficult times for the nation. We have continued to deepen these ties. Italy is another country with which we have covered a lot of ground to consolidate relation. The return of the Axum Obelisk is a manifestation of this for which Ethiopia is grateful.
The Fourth Tokyo International Conference for African Development (TICAD) in May this year, at which Prime Minister Meles had a very high profile role, emphasized Japan's commitment to African development, underlining two central ideas, ideas also espoused by NEPAD, the New Partnership for African Development, currently chaired by Prime Minister Meles: African ownership of the development process, and the international partnership to provide the impetus to drive the process forward. We have seen an impressive sign of this week with the opening of the new bridge over the Abay (Blue Nile) gorge, constructed with support from the Japanese government by a Japanese construction firm. Three hundred and three meters long it is the first cable-stayed bridge in East Africa. As Prime Minister Meles said at the inaugural ceremony the Hidasie (Renaissance) Bridge will not only increase the volume of traffic (expected to double in the next six years), it will provide an invaluable instrument for national development, coinciding as it does with the point at which the nation starts the realization of its renaissance. The Japanese ambassador noted that the successful collaboration over the construction of the bridge was not only a monument to Ethiopia-Japanese friendship but would also open up a new stage of industrial and development cooperation. Next week, a 36 member Japanese delegation, led by the Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs and including ministers, representatives of government organizations and private companies, will be visiting Ethiopia to get first hand information on trade and investment opportunities.
It's not just purely economic diplomacy where there have been considerable successes. We have strong co-operative relations with all our neighbors, relations which have been expanding and strengthening. We are currently chairing IGAD and IGAD members have agreed to revitalize the organization, currently one of the weakest economic grouping in the African Union. Ethiopia remains determined to fulfill its responsibility to IGAD's rejuvenation so it can play a real role in the peace and development of the sub-region. All have renewed their commitment to this, with the single exception of Eritrea. Eritrea, it has to be said, remains the regional villain of the peace in the Horn of Africa as it demonstrated this year by its invasion of Djibouti. Its troops are still across the border. Eritrea remains a failure, indeed a major setback, for Ethiopian diplomacy. While many in the international community do now accept that the results of demarcation must include sustainable peace and normalization of resources, we have failed to persuade Eritrea of this. Despite this setback, what has been already achieved with Sudan, Djibouti and Kenya is very encouraging.
At the same time Ethiopia is committed to the strengthening of African Unity, though this must be based on a realistic assessment of the possibilities as we made clear at the preliminary meeting on unity before the July Summit. Ethiopia, as a member of the AU Peace and Security Council for the second time, continues to play a principled role in the Council activities; it will continue to do so. We have always been very aware of our peace-keeping obligations as we earlier demonstrated in Rwanda and Burundi and are continuing to do in Liberia and now in Darfur. The excellent reputation enjoyed by Ethiopian troops in these operations has earned Ethiopia considerable plaudits and widespread appreciation and respect around Africa and the international community. Against this background criticisms leveled against Ethiopian troops in Somalia lack plausibility.
We are not confining our efforts to Africa. Relations with Yemen, where we have had frequent exchanges of visits including at the highest level, have been excellent, not just through the Sana'a Forum but bilaterally as well. Equally, we have, of course, had our problems. Our relationship with the Government of Qatar deteriorated to the point when we were reluctantly obliged to break off relations following the support provided to Eritrea and Eritrea’s continued policy of regional destabilization.
Ethiopia is of course full aware of the challenges it is facing in the process of democratization, of human rights and of good governance. Equally it has a government that is totally committed to these facets of development. We are on the right track and have made some impressive progress. Not everything has worked out as well as we might have hoped; we have had problems; we are capable of making mistakes. Some problems have lasted longer than we would have liked; Eritrea is a case in point. At the same time, this has been the first year of the New Millennium, the launching of the Renaissance. We have laid a sound foundation. Now, with a national consensus, which still needs to be strengthened further, and the will to success, we can overcome the remaining challenges of development to continue our move towards another stage in our effort to become a middle income country in a couple of decades or so. It will all take a concerted national effort, but it is well within our grasp.
· A Presidential decree on the Benadir Administrion
· An attack on Ethiopia emerging in the US Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee
· Ethiopia’s New Year hopes for regional peace
· Professor Menkhaus – a disappointingly misleading report on Somalia
· The Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ Millennium Year
· This week, the details of implementation for the proposed changes for Benadir region and Mogadishu became clearer as the process laid out in the Addis Ababa ‘road map’ appear to have begun. The President has taken the important step of issuing a decree, at the request of the Prime Minister, to remove the previous administration and for it to handover its duties to a temporary Upper Level Committee of ten members. The decree was supposed to take immediate effect on September 9th, the day it was issued, but it has yet to be implemented though expectations are that the hand over will take place tomorrow.
The Upper Level Committee is to run the day-to-day activities of Benadir for fifteen days while the next stage is implemented. This allows for each of the 16 districts of Mogadishu to choose a 23 member local council. In turn, each council will choose their own leadership and their own district commissioner. Each of these councils will function until the end of the transitional period next year. Once in place, each council will also elect three of its members to represent the district on a Benadir Council, making a total of 48. This will then elect the Mayor/Governor of Benadir from among its members.
While there has been some progress on the issue of the Benadir administration, there has been a series of unnecessary delays over the nomination and acceptance of the additional ministers. Parliament has not been co-operating with the executive. Last week it fully endorsed the government in an overwhelming vote of confidence. Now, by refusing to accept the government’s proposals on the reinstatement of the ten ministers (only two of whom actually had their resignations accepted) Parliament is in effect working for the dissolution of the executive.
There are some in Parliament who appear to be acting more on the basis of self-interest and paying little attention to the national interest. In addition, the critically important restructuring of the security apparatus, also agreed in Addis Ababa, has yet to begin. In the meantime, the situation in Kismayo continues to be in a state of flux. Those who claim to have set up an administration there have not succeeded in establishing complete order, and rifts between them and some local ICU leaders seems to be contributing to the continued uncertainty in the city.
· Ethiopia enjoys healthy relations with the United States of America. A long historical relationship has, in recent times, witnessed qualitative improvement as issues linking us have multiplied. Nonetheless, there have been frequent challenges to our friendly relations. The annual report from the US State Department on human rights around the world has never attempted any objective assessment of Ethiopia, making sweeping and unsubstantiated allegations against the Government.
However, the Government of Ethiopia has never considered the reports as any major impediment to the US/Ethiopia relationship despite their lack of objectivity and the excuse they create for others less knowledgeable about the realities of the situation in Ethiopia. In this regard the efforts by one branch of the US Government, Congress, have gone well beyond this. Following numerous hearings which have seldom been constructive the House of Representatives passed an ‘Ethiopian Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007’. Now a ‘Support for Democracy and Human Rights in Ethiopia Act of 2008’ has been introduced in the Senate.
This draft is of concern because it makes no effort to provide any context for criticism. Moreover, the timing is bewildering with Congress about to close in order to participate in the Presidential elections. It is a surprise to find that this issue is of such interest to members of Congress at this stage in the life of the present Congress. This is particularly so in light of what the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee himself says about the critical role Ethiopia plays in the sub-region.
This draft bill is regrettable not just because of factual errors, which are numerous, or the lack of accurate information portrayed, but because the message is that Ethiopia, despite its friendship with the US, can still be dictated simply because there will be no consequences for the US. It is disingenuous to couch such a bill in friendly terms with claims to support democracy in Ethiopia when no such bill would be introduced against other governments regarded as friends of the US. Ethiopia is being targeted with complete disregard for building the mutual trust between the two countries so vital for long-term Ethiopia/US relations.
· While the Ethiopian New Year 2001 provides renewed commitment to forge ahead with the impressive economic development registered over the past five years, and with the democratization process, there is no doubt that a great deal remains to be done to ensure durable peace in the region. One critical aspect of this remains the situation between Ethiopia and Eritrea. For Ethiopia, this situation could easily have been resolved previously on the basis of the two components of the Algiers Agreement.
The first, the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities signed on June 18, 2000, at Algiers, provided for the deployment of a peacekeeping mission with the detailed mandate to create a Temporary Security Zone and for punitive measures to be taken under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter should either party violate this agreement which were meant “..to contribute to the reduction of tension and to the establishment of a climate of calm and confidence, as well as to create conditions conducive to a comprehensive and lasting settlement of the conflict…”
The peace settlement as concluded under the Algiers Agreement of December 2008, included the delimitation and demarcation of the border based on pertinent colonial treaties and applicable international law, and allowed for the establishment of a neutral Claims Commission “...to decide through binding arbitration all claims for loss, damage or injury by one Government against the other, and by [their] nationals…”.
The expectation was for Algiers Agreements to be implemented in synergy and provide a conclusive settlement of the dispute. The various elements of the Agreements have been gradually implemented in different ways.
The Claims Commission, for example, has completed the liability stage and is now expected to detail its compensation awards. One of its most significant decisions was its finding that Eritrea violated Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter when it invaded areas peacefully administered by Ethiopia. On the other hand, the Boundary Commission adopted its delimitation decision in 2002; implementation, however, could not proceed because Eritrea did not want to proceed to demarcation in line with international practice.
This stalled the peace process for some time before Ethiopia produced its five-point Peace Plan whose fundamentals were: the proposal to resolve the dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea only through peaceful means; to resolve the root causes of the conflict through dialogue with the view to normalizing relations between the two countries; to accept, in principle, the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission decision; and to start dialogue immediately with the view to implementing the Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission’s decision in a manner consistent with the promotion of sustainable peace and brotherly ties between the two peoples.
Eritrea not only rejected these proposals but responded by imposing restrictions on UNMEE, expelling certain nationals serving in UNMEE, and by deploying its own military in the TSZ. At the request of the Security Council, the then Secretary General tried to unlock the dispute by appointing a Special Envoy. Eritrea rejected the appointment and refused to receive the envoy. The Security Council passed resolution 1640(2005) threatening Eritrea with sanctions if it did not lift the restrictions it had imposed on UNMEE. With the Security Council expected to consider the possibility of sanctions on Eritrea following the Report of the Secretary General, the Witnesses to the Algiers Agreement then convened in New York at the invitation of the United States to adopt an initiative aimed at breaking the impasse. The Security Council supported this and called on the Boundary Commission to re-convene meetings with the two parties.
The Commission resumed its work on 10 March 2006 when Ethiopia clarified its stance that its acceptance of the delimitation decision was without any precondition, a point the Commission fully and publicly acknowledged. Eritrea, however, then made it clear that it would no longer cooperate with the Commission.
Indeed, this initiative failed to break the impasse in the peace process because Eritrea refused to lift restrictions on UNMEE or cooperate in the appointment of a neutral facilitator to assist in the demarcation process and enter into technical discussion with Ethiopia as the Witnesses had highlighted in their initiative. Eritrea’s persistent rejection of all avenues for peace effectively blocked the possibilities of a legally valid demarcation process. Faced by this intransigence, the Boundary Commission sought a way out by suggesting ‘virtual’ demarcation in lieu of physical demarcation.
Ethiopia made it clear that this course of action could only be considered ultra vires and that Ethiopia was not obligated to accept it. Indeed, the Security Council in fact subsequently adopted resolution 1798(2008) demanding physical demarcation of the boundary, making it clear that any transfer of territorial control could only arise after “…the final status of the contested areas… will be determined at the end of the delimitation and demarcation of the border and, if need be, through an appropriate mechanism of arbitration”, pursuant to the Algiers Agreements.
So the questions of sovereignty and occupation that Eritrea has raised remain irrelevant, even frivolous, in the absence of valid demarcation and a transfer of territory in accordance with this.
Rather than respond to any of the criticisms and demands from the Security Council, Eritrea actually intensified the severe restrictions it imposed on UNMEE. This led to the Security Council’s termination of UNMEE’s mandate. Unfortunately, Eritrea, after starting the war unlawfully, being found liable for this by the Claims Commission, meeting out humiliating treatment to UNMEE, violating the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement by deploying military forces inside the TSZ, continuously threatening to use force and carrying out multiple efforts at destabilization in the region, has gone unpunished.
Verbal condemnation by the Security Council, in the absence of any punitive measures under the Charter of the United Nations or the Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities, has emboldened Eritrea to remain defiant to all the Council’s numerous resolutions demanding responses from Eritrea. In this context, it should be noted that in terminating UNMEE’s mandate, the Security Council, in resolution 1827(2008), reaffirmed the integrity of the TSZ. Under the Algiers Agreements, the TSZ and UNMEE’s mandate end only when valid demarcation has been conducted in accordance with the Agreements and international law.
Now, of course, all this is behind us and the problem is no longer an issue of the technicalities of boundary demarcation. Eritrea, with its persistent efforts to destabilize Ethiopia has made it clear that it is not prepared to reach any accommodation with the present government of Ethiopia. In fact this is not something new. It has been the main problem from the beginning. Despite this, in this New Year, Ethiopia will maintain its firm intention to get a peaceful resolution of the dispute with Eritrea. It remains fully committed to a lasting and durable peace between the two countries through negotiation and discussion. It can only hope Eritrea will reciprocate.
· Earlier this month, Professor Ken Menkhaus produced a report for the Washington-based NGO ENOUGH which until this year exclusively focused on analyses of genocide and crimes against humanity in Darfur, Congo and Uganda. It is now extending its interest to Somalia. This paper: Somalia, A Country in Peril, a Policy Nightmare, by Professor Menkhaus, is apparently intended to be the first of two strategy papers.
It provides an analysis of the current crisis in Somalia and looks at why international policies toward Somalia have produced some disastrous, if unintended, results, making a case for an urgent review of those policies. The second report will apparently explore options and make recommendations for a new, more effective, international approach to Somalia.
It is this that makes it particularly necessary to offer some comments and criticisms of the errors of fact and underlying assumptions that have disappointingly crept into Professor Menkhaus’s analysis. In particular, there are serious and fundamental errors relating to his ascription of Ethiopian motives towards Somalia, and in the analysis of Ethiopian/United States relations. Any proposed strategy, any suggested policy options do need to be anchored in reality and based on accurate information. And herein lies the problem.
Professor Menkhaus provides a damning list of failures by the international community and concludes that “we have become part of the problem rather than the solution”. Despite this critique, however, he still manages to underplay the most essential failure, the refusal to provide support and resources for the TFG after November 2004.
One major reason was the entirely erroneous assessment of western observers to the Mbagathi conference that Ethiopia was manipulating the voting. The international community similarly failed to provide the necessary backing after the TFG’s takeover of Mogadishu in December 2006. It has yet to throw real weight behind the Djibouti Agreement.
In this context, irrespective of whether Professor Menkhaus is correct to say the withdrawal of Ethiopian troops is essential for peace (it isn't, it is in fact a demand of Al-Shabaab and of Eritrea's allies), we would recall that Ethiopia has consistently, since early 2007, declared its desire to withdraw as soon as possible. Ethiopian troops have remained in Somalia because the AU and other regional and international organizations have asked the Government to keep them there, to avoid leaving a power vacuum.
Ironically, the very elements asking Ethiopia to stay are those that have failed to support the creation of AMISOM or push seriously for a UN peacekeeping force or a UN sponsored stabilization force. Incidentally, in this context it should be noted that it is not possible for any AU or a UN force to be seen as neutral by Al-Shabaab however carefully their mandate might be drawn up whatever Professor Menkhaus may believe. He appears quite unaware of just how comprehensive Al-Shabaab's intentions actually are. They do not include a future for the TFG or any of its allies, internal or external, and no moderates, let alone anyone else.
Professor Menkhaus emphasizes that the international community’s effort at state-building in Somalia, minimal though this may have been, is now in a state of profound crisis. In part this is, he says, because the TFG is not a government of national unity, only one party in a civil war.
It is also because Western donors are supporting the wrong things. In this context, he claims, support for TFG security forces merely provides assistance to hard-line elements which control these forces and who accepted the Djibouti Agreement as an opportunity to split their opponents. Western donors should therefore stop such assistance.
This, however is based on a serious misconception. Support for the TFG’s security forces, far from strengthening hardliners opposed to the Djibouti Agreement and the peace and reconciliation process, actually directly assists the government which is headed by the Prime Minister and which is committed to the peace process and to the Djibouti Agreement. Bringing an end to assistance to TFG police and security would in fact threaten the continued existence of the TFG and the possibilities of peace and reconciliation.
Professor Menkhaus appears to believe Al-Shabaab should be brought into the peace process. This appears particularly implausible given Al-Shabaab's own long campaign of assassination and terror, and its statements, and the response of most Somalis to the organization.
Whether or not the Asmara fraction of the ARS, of Sheikh Aweys, might become involved is also highly doubtful, if only because of Eritrean pressure. Eritrea, whose role Professor Menkhaus largely ignores, is of course not interested in Somalia or Somali opposition fractions; it is using Somalia and Somalis as a proxy in its continual efforts to destabilize Ethiopia.
There are also some maverick warlords who have lined up with Al-Shabaab or the Asmara ARS, including Sheikh Yusuf 'Inde Adde' whose name was a byword for violence and misgovernment in the Lower Shebelle region long before 2006, and Sheikh Hassan 'Turki' who now calls himself an 'elder' of Al-Shabaab. There can be no contradiction in linking the peace-building and reconciliation agenda to a robust strategy to strengthen moderates and contain hardliners from wherever they originate.
Professor Menkhaus is a Somali specialist, but it is still most surprising that he apparently appears to find Ethiopia’s policies so difficult to understand. He certainly gets them wrong. Ethiopia has shown absolutely no willingness to allow Mogadishu-based warlords to re-arm. Indeed, quite the reverse, as the briefest visit to Mogadishu would underline.
Nor does Ethiopia have any desire to render Mogadishu ungovernable in order to prevent hard-line Islamists asserting control as soon as Ethiopian troops leave. This is a typically bizarre foreign conspiracy theory of the sort usually peddled by ignorant US academics like Dr. Michael Weinstein of PINR who appears to know nothing of Somalia, and whose ramblings are a compendium of opposition fantasies and media exaggerations, seldom bearing any relation to reality. Professor Menkhaus is not usually to be numbered in such company.
He can, and does make numerous accurate observations but he categorizes Ethiopian policies as difficult and problematic. In fact, far from being a “wild card” in the Somali crisis, Ethiopia is the one element that can claim consistency. If there is any “wild card” in the Somali situation it is Eritrea. Ethiopia may not always get it right, but it can legitimately claim it tries.
Ethiopia's policies towards Somalia are quite transparent and its motives perfectly clear, as they have been for the last seventeen years. Ethiopia's actions have always been presaged on certain basic principles that a peaceful Somalia with a functional government is necessary for the well-being of both the sub-region and Ethiopia as well as the peoples of Somalia and Ethiopia, and able to deal the activities of extremists and terrorists.
Surprisingly, Professor Menkhaus seems to have forgotten Ethiopia’s long investment in the search for peace in Somalia, going back, indeed, to 1991 when the advent of a new government in Ethiopia, and the overthrow of Siad Barre, opened the way for a change in an often stormy earlier relationship. The Ethiopian government has taken every effort to try and encourage the creation of a stable government in Somalia ever since it came to power, though all too often these efforts have come to nothing because of the lack of international support.
These efforts include: the Bahr Dar meeting of Somali factions (1992); the Addis Ababa Agreement (1993), Ethiopia’s mandate to facilitate a Somali settlement from IGAD and the OAU (1993), the Sodere consultation meeting and agreement (1996), the Arta conference (2000), and the Eldoret/Mbagathi conference (2002-2004) and the creation of the TFG and the TFIs in 2004. Indeed it sees these latter institutions as currently the only viable solution for Somalia’s problems.
It is on this basis that Ethiopia responded to the TFG’s requests for assistance against internal and external enemies in 2006, and has subsequently been active in providing support and training for the effort to recreate an administrative structure in Somalia.
There is currently a team of experts from the Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Finance and Information, and the Federal Police, and the Revenue and Customs Authorities in Mogadishu involved in extensive training programs, not for the first time.
Ethiopia has also carried out extensive training for police and security forces. Would it be necessary to remind Professor Menkhaus that the Ethiopian Government began its efforts for peace in Somalia towards the end of 1991 even before it had set up a regular army and before its own domestic security had been fully established throughout the country? Ethiopia’s policies towards Somalia are far from diabolical as the Professor implies.
Ethiopia has been quite consistent in its efforts to bring back peace, national reconciliation and security in Somalia. The problems of Somalia have always had a regional dimension of course, and Ethiopia’s concerns have never been purely altruistic.
It is, of course, mindful of its own national interests, but these in no way conflict with the interests of the people of Somalia, nor of those of the sub-region as we have emphasized on previous occasions.
Ethiopia wants to see the re-creation of a Somali state which is peaceful, stable and prepared to co-exist with its neighbors on the basis of principles of international law.
It has always been obvious that a revived Somali state, with peaceful and mutually managed borders, would be in Ethiopia’s own national interests. Ethiopia’s consistent position has been that anarchy in Somalia is not in the interests of the peoples of Somalia or of Ethiopia. However, it has never overestimated its capacity to influence or control the process or forgotten that any peace or reconciliation process in Somalia must be owned by Somalis.
Ethiopia has continuously worked for a win-win solution for the peoples of both countries. It will continue to support peace and stability in Somalia.
Professor Menkhaus is certainly right to suggest that an undated comprehensive and integrated international strategy for Somalia is needed, but even more necessary is to get the strategy right.
That can only happen if the analysis is correct. We would repeat: what is needed is to identify the problems and solutions accurately and provide the real basis for such a strategy. Unfortunately this report fails to do so. As Professor Menkhaus notes the human cost of continual failure is unacceptable. It is a pity that this report will do no more than continue to contribute to such failure.
· Wednesday this week marked the end of the first year of Ethiopia's new Millennium, a year in which we embarked on the renewal of both Ethiopia and of the regional organization, IGAD, of which Ethiopia is currently the chair. We have used this year of the Millennium to launch a Renaissance, to lay the foundations for this rebirth, to open the door to a new future, a future in which we will conquer poverty and disease, meet the challenge of creating a just and prosperous society based on tolerance and mutual benefit and on a national consensus, to unleash Ethiopia's full potential. This has been coupled to a foreign policy based on the concept of mutual benefits in which economic diplomacy plays a central role. Over the last seventeen years, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs has demonstrated very clear differences of policy from those of the previous regime of the Derg. They are fundamental differences in aims, intentions and actions, looking to enhanced political dialogue, inclusivity and economic links within our region, and within Africa and the Arab world. We are looking to integration in a globalized world, and one in which the effects of climate change are fully addressed. In the last decade and a half, Ethiopia has focused on building democratic institutions from the grass roots, and developing responsible political space for the process of democratization, laying the foundations for real democracy and the basis of the necessary economic support.
When the EPRDF launched Ethiopia on a new path of governance seventeen years ago, this also involved the introduction of a new approach to Ethiopian diplomacy. Systematized, in 2003, as a Foreign Policy and National Security Strategy it was based on a realistic appreciation of national interests, and internal vulnerabilities, both economic and political. It identified the most critical internal threats to the survival of the Ethiopian state, economic backwardness and abject poverty, together with the need for democracy and good governance. The major enemy, poverty, could only be defeated by economic development and democratization. This has provided the fundamental basis for Ethiopia’s new foreign policy strategy, of which economic diplomacy is a central thread. It means a pragmatic approach to encourage the flow of investment, trade and tourism, as well as economic cooperation and the development of mutual trust and confidence in bilateral and multilateral relations. Genuine partners are those who contribute to Ethiopia’s economic progress and are prepared to involve themselves in a mutually beneficial partnership for economic cooperation. Peace, stability and security are necessities for economic development, and our relations are firmly anchored in the principles of good neighborliness, peaceful coexistence, the peaceful resolution of disputes and the reduction of threats to national security interests.
This last year, marking the fifth year of double digit economic growth, demonstrates how far we have come. Ethiopia is the fastest growing non-oil economy in Africa, and although this year we have had the problems of drought, coupled with the effects of global oil and food price rises and significant inflation, that still remains something of which we can be proud. The year has provided a firm jumping off point for the inauguration of the Ethiopian Renaissance. Indeed, our policy of economic diplomacy has been remarkably successful both bilaterally and more widely. Exports have grown by an average of over 25% per annum over the last five years, and this fiscal year are expected to rise from $1.5 billion to $1.87 billion. Ethiopia now exports to 120 countries, and there have been encouraging results from increasing the processing of raw materials for export, rather than merely exporting the raw materials themselves. Imports have been growing by 11%. Ethiopia in fact is a central element in what a Japanese symposium earlier this year called: Vibrant Africa – a continent of business opportunities. Examples of this abound. The new relationship launched last year with China has continued. The Africa-India Forum, and the Africa-Turkey Forum (which was co-chaired by Prime Minster Meles), have provided significant bilateral links as well as the substantial prospect of enhanced trade and investment. These have been detailed in the Delhi Declaration and the Africa-India Framework for Co-operation, and the Istanbul Declaration on Africa-Turkey partnership and Framework of Cooperation.
In January, India made its largest ever loan, of $640 million to Ethiopia, to help with the development of the sugar industry at Tendaho and Fincha. This year, one of Asia's largest conglomerates, India's Tata Holdings opened an Addis Ababa office, and last month a working delegation from the All-India Skin, Hide, Tanners and Merchants Association visited Ethiopia. Israel's International Cooperation Agency, MABHAV, signed an MoU with the Ministry of Agriculture and Rural Development to raise agricultural productivity in August; a US company managed by Israeli experts is setting up a 30,000 hectare project for bio-diesel in the SNNPR and a Swedish company is setting up a bio-fuel development in Amhara state. Recent plans for Turkish investments include a large scale textile development and a steel mill.
In the Middle East we have launched a significant efforts to encourage trade and investment at an official and a non-governmental level. There have been encouraging signs of Saudi business interest in investment here as well as more widely from the Middle East and the Gulf states. Sheikh Ahmed bin Sulayem, chairperson of Dubai World visited in July to sign an agreement to invest in oil pipelines and to revitalize the Ethio-Djibouti Railway. Others have shown interest and commitment to agricultural and service sectors, and a Yemeni businessman has earmarked $220 million for diverse investments. All of this is being achieved while still maintaining our traditional trading and diplomatic links with the US and the EU. Indeed one of the major success stories of the last year or two has been the impressively rapid growth of horticultural exports, an area in which Holland has played a major role. Bilateral development assistance has increased significantly from the UK and Germany. The EU continues to be a major source of multi-lateral development aid. Our ties with Russia have always meant a lot to Ethiopians. Much can be said about how long standing these ties have been and also how valuable, particularly during difficult times for the nation. We have continued to deepen these ties. Italy is another country with which we have covered a lot of ground to consolidate relation. The return of the Axum Obelisk is a manifestation of this for which Ethiopia is grateful.
The Fourth Tokyo International Conference for African Development (TICAD) in May this year, at which Prime Minister Meles had a very high profile role, emphasized Japan's commitment to African development, underlining two central ideas, ideas also espoused by NEPAD, the New Partnership for African Development, currently chaired by Prime Minister Meles: African ownership of the development process, and the international partnership to provide the impetus to drive the process forward. We have seen an impressive sign of this week with the opening of the new bridge over the Abay (Blue Nile) gorge, constructed with support from the Japanese government by a Japanese construction firm. Three hundred and three meters long it is the first cable-stayed bridge in East Africa. As Prime Minister Meles said at the inaugural ceremony the Hidasie (Renaissance) Bridge will not only increase the volume of traffic (expected to double in the next six years), it will provide an invaluable instrument for national development, coinciding as it does with the point at which the nation starts the realization of its renaissance. The Japanese ambassador noted that the successful collaboration over the construction of the bridge was not only a monument to Ethiopia-Japanese friendship but would also open up a new stage of industrial and development cooperation. Next week, a 36 member Japanese delegation, led by the Vice-Minister of Foreign Affairs and including ministers, representatives of government organizations and private companies, will be visiting Ethiopia to get first hand information on trade and investment opportunities.
It's not just purely economic diplomacy where there have been considerable successes. We have strong co-operative relations with all our neighbors, relations which have been expanding and strengthening. We are currently chairing IGAD and IGAD members have agreed to revitalize the organization, currently one of the weakest economic grouping in the African Union. Ethiopia remains determined to fulfill its responsibility to IGAD's rejuvenation so it can play a real role in the peace and development of the sub-region. All have renewed their commitment to this, with the single exception of Eritrea. Eritrea, it has to be said, remains the regional villain of the peace in the Horn of Africa as it demonstrated this year by its invasion of Djibouti. Its troops are still across the border. Eritrea remains a failure, indeed a major setback, for Ethiopian diplomacy. While many in the international community do now accept that the results of demarcation must include sustainable peace and normalization of resources, we have failed to persuade Eritrea of this. Despite this setback, what has been already achieved with Sudan, Djibouti and Kenya is very encouraging.
At the same time Ethiopia is committed to the strengthening of African Unity, though this must be based on a realistic assessment of the possibilities as we made clear at the preliminary meeting on unity before the July Summit. Ethiopia, as a member of the AU Peace and Security Council for the second time, continues to play a principled role in the Council activities; it will continue to do so. We have always been very aware of our peace-keeping obligations as we earlier demonstrated in Rwanda and Burundi and are continuing to do in Liberia and now in Darfur. The excellent reputation enjoyed by Ethiopian troops in these operations has earned Ethiopia considerable plaudits and widespread appreciation and respect around Africa and the international community. Against this background criticisms leveled against Ethiopian troops in Somalia lack plausibility.
We are not confining our efforts to Africa. Relations with Yemen, where we have had frequent exchanges of visits including at the highest level, have been excellent, not just through the Sana'a Forum but bilaterally as well. Equally, we have, of course, had our problems. Our relationship with the Government of Qatar deteriorated to the point when we were reluctantly obliged to break off relations following the support provided to Eritrea and Eritrea’s continued policy of regional destabilization.
Ethiopia is of course full aware of the challenges it is facing in the process of democratization, of human rights and of good governance. Equally it has a government that is totally committed to these facets of development. We are on the right track and have made some impressive progress. Not everything has worked out as well as we might have hoped; we have had problems; we are capable of making mistakes. Some problems have lasted longer than we would have liked; Eritrea is a case in point. At the same time, this has been the first year of the New Millennium, the launching of the Renaissance. We have laid a sound foundation. Now, with a national consensus, which still needs to be strengthened further, and the will to success, we can overcome the remaining challenges of development to continue our move towards another stage in our effort to become a middle income country in a couple of decades or so. It will all take a concerted national effort, but it is well within our grasp.
Saturday, September 13, 2008
Can few in the US Senate be made accountable and pay in the next election?
An attack on Ethiopia emerging in the US Senate’s Foreign Relations Committee
(MFA 09/12/08):-Ethiopia enjoys healthy relations with the United States of America. A long historical relationship has, in recent times, witnessed qualitative improvement as issues linking us have multiplied. Nonetheless, there have been frequent challenges to our friendly relations.
The annual report from the US State Department on human rights around the world has never attempted any objective assessment of Ethiopia, making sweeping and unsubstantiated allegations against the Government. However, the Government of Ethiopia has never considered the reports as any major impediment to the US/Ethiopia relationship despite their lack of objectivity and the excuse they create for others less knowledgeable about the realities of the situation in Ethiopia.
In this regard the efforts by one branch of the US Government, Congress, have gone well beyond this. Following numerous hearings which have seldom been constructive the House of Representatives passed an ‘Ethiopian Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007’. Now a ‘Support for Democracy and Human Rights in Ethiopia Act of 2008’ has been introduced in the Senate.
This draft is of concern because it makes no effort to provide any context for criticism. Moreover, the timing is bewildering with Congress about to close in order to participate in the Presidential elections. It is a surprise to find that this issue is of such interest to members of Congress at this stage in the life of the present Congress. This is particularly so in light of what the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee himself says about the critical role Ethiopia plays in the sub-region.
This draft bill is regrettable not just because of factual errors, which are numerous, or the lack of accurate information portrayed, but because the message is that Ethiopia, despite its friendship with the US, can still be dictated simply because there will be no consequences for the US.
It is disingenuous to couch such a bill in friendly terms with claims to support democracy in Ethiopia when no such bill would be introduced against other governments regarded as friends of the US. Ethiopia is being targeted with complete disregard for building the mutual trust between the two countries so vital for long-term Ethiopia/US relations.
(MFA 09/12/08):-Ethiopia enjoys healthy relations with the United States of America. A long historical relationship has, in recent times, witnessed qualitative improvement as issues linking us have multiplied. Nonetheless, there have been frequent challenges to our friendly relations.
The annual report from the US State Department on human rights around the world has never attempted any objective assessment of Ethiopia, making sweeping and unsubstantiated allegations against the Government. However, the Government of Ethiopia has never considered the reports as any major impediment to the US/Ethiopia relationship despite their lack of objectivity and the excuse they create for others less knowledgeable about the realities of the situation in Ethiopia.
In this regard the efforts by one branch of the US Government, Congress, have gone well beyond this. Following numerous hearings which have seldom been constructive the House of Representatives passed an ‘Ethiopian Democracy and Accountability Act of 2007’. Now a ‘Support for Democracy and Human Rights in Ethiopia Act of 2008’ has been introduced in the Senate.
This draft is of concern because it makes no effort to provide any context for criticism. Moreover, the timing is bewildering with Congress about to close in order to participate in the Presidential elections. It is a surprise to find that this issue is of such interest to members of Congress at this stage in the life of the present Congress. This is particularly so in light of what the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee himself says about the critical role Ethiopia plays in the sub-region.
This draft bill is regrettable not just because of factual errors, which are numerous, or the lack of accurate information portrayed, but because the message is that Ethiopia, despite its friendship with the US, can still be dictated simply because there will be no consequences for the US.
It is disingenuous to couch such a bill in friendly terms with claims to support democracy in Ethiopia when no such bill would be introduced against other governments regarded as friends of the US. Ethiopia is being targeted with complete disregard for building the mutual trust between the two countries so vital for long-term Ethiopia/US relations.
S 3457 Prescription of Democratic and Humanitarian Principles for Ethiopia by US Congress
S 3457 IS
110th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 3457
To reaffirm United States objectives in Ethiopia and encourage critical democratic and humanitarian principles and practices, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
September 9, 2008
Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To reaffirm United States objectives in Ethiopia and encourage critical democratic and humanitarian principles and practices, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Support for Democracy and Human Rights in Ethiopia Act of 2008'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Despite progress and an estimated annual growth rate of nearly 10 percent, Ethiopia remains one of the poorest and most famine-prone countries in the world, with more than half of the population of 78,000,000 living on less than $1 per day.
(2) Since the collapse of the Derg and overthrow of the Mengistu regime in 1991, the Ethiopian Peoples' Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF)-led government has overseen the introduction of a multiparty system and the drafting of a new constitution that guarantees economic, social, and cultural rights and states that `human and democratic rights of peoples and citizens shall be protected.'
(3) Ethiopia and Eritrea fought a bloody border war between 1998 and 2000, and, despite the Algiers Accord ending the conflict and the agreement to abide by the final and biding Ethiopia-Eritrea Border Commission (EEBC) arbitration, the Government of Ethiopia has refused to comply with the final physical demarcation of the border and the Government of Eritrea has virtually expelled the United Nations peacekeeping force, resulting in a high risk of renewed fighting and regional instability.
(4) Following high turnout and marked improvement in pre-election campaigning and voting in the third general elections of the Government of Ethiopia held on May 15, 2005, widespread charges of violations in the finally tallying and inadequate response to opposition complaints resulted in observer findings that the elections failed to satisfy international standards.
(5) Subsequent opposition progress led to a crackdown by EPRDF security forces in which 763 civilians were injured and 193 killed, and thousands more opposition party leaders and their followers were detained, 112 of whom were not released until the summer of 2007.
(6) In its 2007 `Countries at a Crossroads' report, Freedom House noted that `[i]ncreased threats to and violations of civil liberties were a consequence of the political tensions that sprang from the flawed 2005 elections.'
(7) In December 2006, military forces of the Government of Ethiopia came to the aid of Somalia's Transitional Federal Government against the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) and continue to serve as the primary security force for the United Nations-backed transitional government in Mogadishu.
(8) Credible nongovernmental organizations report widespread violations of human rights and international law by the Ethiopian military in Mogadishu and other areas of Somalia, as well as in the Ogaden region of Ethiopia.
(9) According to the Department of State's 2007 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, `human rights abuses [in Ethiopia] . . . include: limitation on citizens' right to change their government during the most recent elections; unlawful killings, and beating, abuse, and mistreatment of detainees and opposition supporters by security forces; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention . . . use of excessive force by security services in an internal conflict and counter-insurgency operations; restrictions on freedom of the press; etc.'
(10) The Department of State's 2007 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices also stated that `[Ogaden National Liberation Front] ONLF forces . . . were responsible for widespread human rights abuses, including killings and the diversion of food supplies resulting in the displacement of thousands of persons.'
(11) In June 2007, in response to this violence, including the deadly April 2007 attacks on a Chinese oil exploration site in the Ogaden and at a May 2007 political rally, the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, announced that the Government of Ethiopia was launching a `political and military operation to contain the activities of the ONLF,' which, according to credible reports, has resulted in the displacement of thousands of civilians to government-designated `protection zones,' while thousands more have fled across Ethiopia's borders.
(12) Although the Government of Ethiopia has legitimate security concerns in the Ogaden, and, according to the Department of State's 2007 Country Report on Terrorism, `Ethiopian forces [also] countered Somali-based extremists who attempted to conduct attacks inside Ethiopia,' a number of credible media accounts, human rights organizations, and humanitarian agencies have documented the ENDF's unjustifiably brutal tactics against its own citizens there, as has been previously been reported in other regions of the country including Oromiya, Amhara, and Gambella.
(13) In May 2008, the Government of Ethiopia circulated a draft law that claims to be a tool to enhance the transparency and accountability of civil society organizations, but if enacted, is instead likely to create a complex web of onerous bureaucratic hurdles, draconian criminal penalties, and intrusive powers of surveillance that would further decrease the political space available for civil society activities.
SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF POLICY.
It is the policy of the United States--
(1) to support the efforts by the people and Government of Ethiopia--
(A) to achieve a participatory multiparty democracy, an active and unhindered civil society, rule of law and accountability, judicial capacity and independence, freedom of the press, respect for human rights, and economic development; and
(B) to combat extremism and terrorism in their country and the region;
(2) to promote stability, democracy, accountability, social and economic development, human and political rights, humanitarian assistance, the rule of law and accountability, and counterterrorism efforts in Ethiopia and the wider Horn of Africa;
(3) to seek the unconditional release of all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in Ethiopia;
(4) to prohibit United States funding to any unit of the Ethiopian security forces if there is credible evidence that a unit of the security forces has committed gross violations of human rights, unless the Secretary of State has determined and reports to the appropriate congressional committees that the Ethiopian government is taking effective measures to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice; and
(5) to contribute to regional peace and stability by urging the Government of Ethiopia to comply with the EEBC arbitration decisions on border demarcation, urging the Government of Eritrea to permit a United Nations peacekeeping presence, and pressing both Governments to ensure that they are playing a productive role in helping to bring about stability along the border and throughout the Horn of Africa, including in Somalia.
SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that the United States Government should--
(1) build on successful diplomatic efforts that contributed to the October 2007 release of political prisoners in Addis;
(2) urge the Government of Ethiopia to protect the constitutional rights and freedoms of all Ethiopian citizens;
(3) encourage the Government of Ethiopia to enter into discussions with political groups interested in reconciliation in order to bring such groups into full participation in the political and economic affairs of Ethiopia;
(4) call on the Government of Ethiopia to allow human rights and humanitarian groups and the media to undertake their work in all regions of Ethiopia without intimidation or harassment while ensuring they are protected from any threats regardless of their political affiliations;
(5) encourage and assist the United Nations and other independent organizations and the media in investigating credible reports of grave violations of human rights or international humanitarian law, publishing any evidence of serious abuse, and sending strong and consistent messages to the Government of Ethiopia that the continuation of such violations or impunity for the perpetrators of crimes in the Ogaden region, Ethiopia more generally, or in Somalia carry consequences; and
(6) encourage the Governments of both Ethiopia and Eritrea to take steps to lessen tensions, physically demarcate the border in accord with the EEBC decision, and promote normalization of relations between the two countries.
SEC. 5. SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN ETHIOPIA.
(a) Authority- Subject to subsection (b) and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President should take additional steps to support the implementation of democracy and governance institutions and organizations in Ethiopia consistent with the provisions of the Ethiopian Constitution of 1994 and related national law, including--
(1) to support democracy development in Ethiopia, including developing the capacity of government and civil society organizations to undertake free, fair, and peaceful elections, strengthen good governance practices, and encourage transparency and accountability, in accordance with international norms and standards;
(2) to support the autonomy and fundamental freedoms of national and international civil society organizations to effectively pursue these objectives without excessive government regulation or intimidation;
(3) to promote and bolster the independence of the judiciary in Ethiopia, including developing capacity at the national, regional, and local levels;
(4) to support programs to defend and protect the human rights of all the people of Ethiopia, especially women and minorities;
(5) to expand programming of the Voice of America and other independent media in Ethiopia and ensure they are able to broadcast without interference;
(6) to support efforts of the international community to gain full access to the Ogaden and other conflict-affected regions throughout the country to provide humanitarian and development assistance; and
(7) to support a United Nations Special Envoy to launch a comprehensive dialogue process that seeks to bring about the normalization of economic and political relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea and works with the governments of both countries to address issues of stability both along their shared border as well as more broadly across the Horn of Africa, including in Somalia.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2009 to carry out this section.
(c) Conditions-
(1) IN GENERAL- Assistance provided pursuant subsection (b) shall be allocated and dispersed in a fully transparent manner.
(2) CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION- Funds made available to the Government of Ethiopia under subsection (b) and all other nonessential funds made available to the Government of Ethiopia under any other provision of law shall be subject to the regular notification requirements with respect to the appropriate congressional committees.
(3) DISCONTINUATION IN EVENT OF GOVERNMENT OBSTRUCTION- The President shall cease the provision of assistance provided under subsection (b) if the Government of Ethiopia acts to obstruct such assistance.
(d) Report- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State shall prepare and submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report that describes the activities undertaken pursuant to subsection (a), including a description of amounts committed, and the amounts provided, to Ethiopia during the reporting period.
SEC. 6. OFFSETS.
Of the amounts available to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2009, $20,000,000 shall be available to carry out the provisions of this Act.
SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) The term `appropriate congressional committees' means--
(A) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
(2) The term `non-essential United States assistance' means assistance authorized under any provision of law, other than humanitarian assistance, food aid programs, assistance to combat HIV/AIDS and other healthcare assistance, and peacekeeping assistance.
END
110th CONGRESS
2d Session
S. 3457
To reaffirm United States objectives in Ethiopia and encourage critical democratic and humanitarian principles and practices, and for other purposes.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES
September 9, 2008
Mr. FEINGOLD (for himself and Mr. LEAHY) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on Foreign Relations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A BILL
To reaffirm United States objectives in Ethiopia and encourage critical democratic and humanitarian principles and practices, and for other purposes.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Support for Democracy and Human Rights in Ethiopia Act of 2008'.
SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress makes the following findings:
(1) Despite progress and an estimated annual growth rate of nearly 10 percent, Ethiopia remains one of the poorest and most famine-prone countries in the world, with more than half of the population of 78,000,000 living on less than $1 per day.
(2) Since the collapse of the Derg and overthrow of the Mengistu regime in 1991, the Ethiopian Peoples' Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF)-led government has overseen the introduction of a multiparty system and the drafting of a new constitution that guarantees economic, social, and cultural rights and states that `human and democratic rights of peoples and citizens shall be protected.'
(3) Ethiopia and Eritrea fought a bloody border war between 1998 and 2000, and, despite the Algiers Accord ending the conflict and the agreement to abide by the final and biding Ethiopia-Eritrea Border Commission (EEBC) arbitration, the Government of Ethiopia has refused to comply with the final physical demarcation of the border and the Government of Eritrea has virtually expelled the United Nations peacekeeping force, resulting in a high risk of renewed fighting and regional instability.
(4) Following high turnout and marked improvement in pre-election campaigning and voting in the third general elections of the Government of Ethiopia held on May 15, 2005, widespread charges of violations in the finally tallying and inadequate response to opposition complaints resulted in observer findings that the elections failed to satisfy international standards.
(5) Subsequent opposition progress led to a crackdown by EPRDF security forces in which 763 civilians were injured and 193 killed, and thousands more opposition party leaders and their followers were detained, 112 of whom were not released until the summer of 2007.
(6) In its 2007 `Countries at a Crossroads' report, Freedom House noted that `[i]ncreased threats to and violations of civil liberties were a consequence of the political tensions that sprang from the flawed 2005 elections.'
(7) In December 2006, military forces of the Government of Ethiopia came to the aid of Somalia's Transitional Federal Government against the Islamic Courts Union (ICU) and continue to serve as the primary security force for the United Nations-backed transitional government in Mogadishu.
(8) Credible nongovernmental organizations report widespread violations of human rights and international law by the Ethiopian military in Mogadishu and other areas of Somalia, as well as in the Ogaden region of Ethiopia.
(9) According to the Department of State's 2007 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices, `human rights abuses [in Ethiopia] . . . include: limitation on citizens' right to change their government during the most recent elections; unlawful killings, and beating, abuse, and mistreatment of detainees and opposition supporters by security forces; poor prison conditions; arbitrary arrest and detention . . . use of excessive force by security services in an internal conflict and counter-insurgency operations; restrictions on freedom of the press; etc.'
(10) The Department of State's 2007 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices also stated that `[Ogaden National Liberation Front] ONLF forces . . . were responsible for widespread human rights abuses, including killings and the diversion of food supplies resulting in the displacement of thousands of persons.'
(11) In June 2007, in response to this violence, including the deadly April 2007 attacks on a Chinese oil exploration site in the Ogaden and at a May 2007 political rally, the Prime Minister of Ethiopia, Meles Zenawi, announced that the Government of Ethiopia was launching a `political and military operation to contain the activities of the ONLF,' which, according to credible reports, has resulted in the displacement of thousands of civilians to government-designated `protection zones,' while thousands more have fled across Ethiopia's borders.
(12) Although the Government of Ethiopia has legitimate security concerns in the Ogaden, and, according to the Department of State's 2007 Country Report on Terrorism, `Ethiopian forces [also] countered Somali-based extremists who attempted to conduct attacks inside Ethiopia,' a number of credible media accounts, human rights organizations, and humanitarian agencies have documented the ENDF's unjustifiably brutal tactics against its own citizens there, as has been previously been reported in other regions of the country including Oromiya, Amhara, and Gambella.
(13) In May 2008, the Government of Ethiopia circulated a draft law that claims to be a tool to enhance the transparency and accountability of civil society organizations, but if enacted, is instead likely to create a complex web of onerous bureaucratic hurdles, draconian criminal penalties, and intrusive powers of surveillance that would further decrease the political space available for civil society activities.
SEC. 3. STATEMENT OF POLICY.
It is the policy of the United States--
(1) to support the efforts by the people and Government of Ethiopia--
(A) to achieve a participatory multiparty democracy, an active and unhindered civil society, rule of law and accountability, judicial capacity and independence, freedom of the press, respect for human rights, and economic development; and
(B) to combat extremism and terrorism in their country and the region;
(2) to promote stability, democracy, accountability, social and economic development, human and political rights, humanitarian assistance, the rule of law and accountability, and counterterrorism efforts in Ethiopia and the wider Horn of Africa;
(3) to seek the unconditional release of all political prisoners and prisoners of conscience in Ethiopia;
(4) to prohibit United States funding to any unit of the Ethiopian security forces if there is credible evidence that a unit of the security forces has committed gross violations of human rights, unless the Secretary of State has determined and reports to the appropriate congressional committees that the Ethiopian government is taking effective measures to bring the responsible members of the security forces unit to justice; and
(5) to contribute to regional peace and stability by urging the Government of Ethiopia to comply with the EEBC arbitration decisions on border demarcation, urging the Government of Eritrea to permit a United Nations peacekeeping presence, and pressing both Governments to ensure that they are playing a productive role in helping to bring about stability along the border and throughout the Horn of Africa, including in Somalia.
SEC. 4. SENSE OF CONGRESS.
It is the sense of Congress that the United States Government should--
(1) build on successful diplomatic efforts that contributed to the October 2007 release of political prisoners in Addis;
(2) urge the Government of Ethiopia to protect the constitutional rights and freedoms of all Ethiopian citizens;
(3) encourage the Government of Ethiopia to enter into discussions with political groups interested in reconciliation in order to bring such groups into full participation in the political and economic affairs of Ethiopia;
(4) call on the Government of Ethiopia to allow human rights and humanitarian groups and the media to undertake their work in all regions of Ethiopia without intimidation or harassment while ensuring they are protected from any threats regardless of their political affiliations;
(5) encourage and assist the United Nations and other independent organizations and the media in investigating credible reports of grave violations of human rights or international humanitarian law, publishing any evidence of serious abuse, and sending strong and consistent messages to the Government of Ethiopia that the continuation of such violations or impunity for the perpetrators of crimes in the Ogaden region, Ethiopia more generally, or in Somalia carry consequences; and
(6) encourage the Governments of both Ethiopia and Eritrea to take steps to lessen tensions, physically demarcate the border in accord with the EEBC decision, and promote normalization of relations between the two countries.
SEC. 5. SUPPORT FOR DEMOCRACY AND HUMAN RIGHTS IN ETHIOPIA.
(a) Authority- Subject to subsection (b) and notwithstanding any other provision of law, the President should take additional steps to support the implementation of democracy and governance institutions and organizations in Ethiopia consistent with the provisions of the Ethiopian Constitution of 1994 and related national law, including--
(1) to support democracy development in Ethiopia, including developing the capacity of government and civil society organizations to undertake free, fair, and peaceful elections, strengthen good governance practices, and encourage transparency and accountability, in accordance with international norms and standards;
(2) to support the autonomy and fundamental freedoms of national and international civil society organizations to effectively pursue these objectives without excessive government regulation or intimidation;
(3) to promote and bolster the independence of the judiciary in Ethiopia, including developing capacity at the national, regional, and local levels;
(4) to support programs to defend and protect the human rights of all the people of Ethiopia, especially women and minorities;
(5) to expand programming of the Voice of America and other independent media in Ethiopia and ensure they are able to broadcast without interference;
(6) to support efforts of the international community to gain full access to the Ogaden and other conflict-affected regions throughout the country to provide humanitarian and development assistance; and
(7) to support a United Nations Special Envoy to launch a comprehensive dialogue process that seeks to bring about the normalization of economic and political relations between Ethiopia and Eritrea and works with the governments of both countries to address issues of stability both along their shared border as well as more broadly across the Horn of Africa, including in Somalia.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations- There is authorized to be appropriated $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2009 to carry out this section.
(c) Conditions-
(1) IN GENERAL- Assistance provided pursuant subsection (b) shall be allocated and dispersed in a fully transparent manner.
(2) CONGRESSIONAL NOTIFICATION- Funds made available to the Government of Ethiopia under subsection (b) and all other nonessential funds made available to the Government of Ethiopia under any other provision of law shall be subject to the regular notification requirements with respect to the appropriate congressional committees.
(3) DISCONTINUATION IN EVENT OF GOVERNMENT OBSTRUCTION- The President shall cease the provision of assistance provided under subsection (b) if the Government of Ethiopia acts to obstruct such assistance.
(d) Report- Not later than 180 days after the date of the enactment of this Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary of State shall prepare and submit to the appropriate congressional committees a report that describes the activities undertaken pursuant to subsection (a), including a description of amounts committed, and the amounts provided, to Ethiopia during the reporting period.
SEC. 6. OFFSETS.
Of the amounts available to the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for fiscal year 2009, $20,000,000 shall be available to carry out the provisions of this Act.
SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.
In this Act:
(1) The term `appropriate congressional committees' means--
(A) the Committee on Foreign Relations and the Committee on Appropriations of the Senate; and
(B) the Committee on Foreign Affairs and the Committee on Appropriations of the House of Representatives.
(2) The term `non-essential United States assistance' means assistance authorized under any provision of law, other than humanitarian assistance, food aid programs, assistance to combat HIV/AIDS and other healthcare assistance, and peacekeeping assistance.
END
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)