|
-
IGAD
Extra-ordinary Summit on Sudan
The
14th Extra-Ordinary Summit of the IGAD Assembly of Heads of
State and Government on the Sudan Peace Process was held in
Nairobi on Tuesday this week. The Summit was preceded on March
8th by the 35th extraordinary session of the IGAD Council of
Ministers called to review progress of the implementation of
Sudan’s Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA), attended by
Ethiopia, Kenya, Djibouti, Uganda, Somalia and Sudan as well
as by observers and representatives of partners. The Council
meeting noted although the two parties to the Comprehensive
Peace Agreement have made significant progress in implementing
provisions of the agreement, the need to address other
critical issues has become more urgent than ever. These
included the establishment of the South Sudan and the Abyei
Referendum Commissions, the North/ South Border Demarcation,
the upcoming General Elections this year, the Referendum to be
held January 2011 as well as post-referendum arrangements.
The Summit, chaired by
Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, was attended by President Kibaki of
Kenya, President Museveni of Uganda, President Ismail Guelleh of
Djibouti, General Salva Kiir, First Vice-president of Sudan and
President of South Sudan, Ali Osman Mohamed Taha, Vice-President
of Sudan, and Omar Ali Sharmarke, Prime Minister of Somalia.
Also present was President Obama’s Special Envoy to Sudan,
General Scott Gration. The meeting was briefed by IGAD’s
Executive secretary, Engineer Mahboub Maalim, the AU’s
Commissioner for Peace and Security, Mr. Ramtane Lamamra, and
Mr. Ahmed Ben Helli, Deputy Secretary-General of the League of
Arab States. It also heard the report of the IGAD Ministerial
Mission to Khartoum and Juba presented by Kenya’s Foreign
Minister, Moses Wetangu’la, chairperson of the IGAD
sub-committee on implementation of the CPA.
The Summit, noting the
central place of IGAD in implementation of the CPA, acknowledged
the progress made by the Sudanese National Congress Party (NCP)
and Southern Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement (SPLM), and
called upon the two parties to develop a working formula for
collaborating in effective implementation of the CPA. It took
note of the signing of the framework agreement between the
Government of Sudan and the Justice and Equality Movement on
February 23rd in Doha, as well as the signing of the electoral
Code of Conduct and the Declaration on Common Commitments by
Sudanese political parties under the auspices of the AU High
Level Implementation Panel. It urged the parties to remain
committed to resolving outstanding issues and removing all
obstacles to a free and fair election. The Summit welcomed the
commitment to commence negotiations on post-referendum
arrangements and confirmed IGAD’s availability to support the
process. It directed the IGAD Council of Ministers to provide
technical support for border demarcation and establishing
referendum commissions by May, and to immediately undertake
shuttle diplomacy to encourage mutual trust and confidence
building between the two parties. The IGAD Secretariat was also
told open a liaison office in Juba to follow up on CPA
implementation and activate the invitation to observe the April
elections in Sudan. The observer team was requested to take up
position by the end of this month. The Summit also appreciated
the support of the IGAD Partners Forum and international
organizations; and directed the Secretariat to arrange with the
parties and the Partners Forum for an international donors
conference on both the pre- and post-referendum period.
In his concluding
remarks, Prime Minister Meles noted that the Summit had
reaffirmed its total commitment to assist the two parties
achieve effective implementation of the CPA and protect the
peace, security and stability of the Sudan. In the last resort,
however, these were objectives that could only be achieved by
the two parties. IGAD’s role was to help in the implementation
of the CPA. This was why the Summit had directed the Ministerial
Council to work closely with the two parties to encourage trust
and confidence and to mobilize technical support. Prime Minister
Meles expressed his conviction that IGAD was now in a position
to help implement the CPA more effectively.
****************
top
|
-
Death threats
against the UN Monitoring Group
The UN Monitoring Group
report has yet to be made public. It is due to be the subject of
consultations in the Sanctions Committee next Tuesday, before
the Monitoring Group’s mandate expires on March 20th. There
have, however, already been some leaks, with the New York Times
claiming to have seen a copy of the report and suggesting that
the report focuses rather more on the problems of the Somali
Government and on the difficulties of food aid distribution than
on the intended main subject of the Monitoring Group’s interest
– violations of the arms embargo. In this connection, the New
York Times notes that several of the authors of the report have
received death threats and the United Nations recently relocated
the Monitoring Group from Nairobi to New York for reasons of
safety. These concerns appear to be apparent in the report. It
remains possible that this will affect the ability of the report
to be as outspoken as it should be. There must be concern that
this may in turn influence the Security Council’s further
debates on sanctions against Eritrea. Nevertheless, as might be
expected, it seems that Eritrea does still figure largely with
the flight of Sheikh Hassan Dahir ‘Aweys’ from Asmara to
Mogadishu in April last year, and detailed notes on the
political, financial and training support for armed opposition
groups in Somalia. The report also raises issues about diversion
of food aid and the World Food Programme, collaboration with
pirates and allegations of diplomatic visas being auctioned.
Equally, it does cover in detail the activities of Al-Shabaab in
Somalia as well as its links in Kenya and elsewhere and dealing
with the issue of recruitment in Europe and America. In looking
at arms embargo violations, the report, despite the details it
supplies of Eritrean activity, apparently comes to the
conclusion that Eritrea’s role has diminished relatively as the
Eritrean Government is now placing greater emphasis on political
and financial support. Nevertheless it can be expected that the
report will have details of such transactions as the despatch of
18 surface-to-air missiles to central Somalia from Eritrea early
last year, as well as Al-Shabaab’s recruitment of foreign
fighters. The report will no doubt also cover the issue of
technical violations of the embargo involving support for the
TFG, some authorised, some not. The indications are that the
report will be rather more critical of the TFG despite its
progress in courting internal support and improving its security
sector. The New York Times claims the report also accuses the
Puntland authorities of extensive links to the pirates despite
the fact that, according to the Government, Puntland has jailed
over 150 pirates.
Meanwhile, several
countries and bodies have begun to take action over Al-Shabaab
and over the UN sanctions on Eritrea. On Monday last week, the
Council of the European Union adopted the decision to impose
restrictive measures against Eritrea in line with Security
Council Resolution 1907. These measures consist of an arms
embargo, as well as travel restrictions and a freeze of assets
against persons and entities yet to be designated by the UN
Sanctions Committee. Some of the details will presumably be
available after the publication of the Monitoring Group report.
The people and bodies concerned will be those who act in
violation of the arms embargo, provide support to armed
opposition groups aiming to destabilize the region, obstruct
implementation of the Security Council’s Resolution 1862
concerning the dispute between Djibouti and Eritrea, who
harbour, finance, facilitate, support, organize, train or incite
individuals or groups to perpetrate acts of violence or
terrorism against other states or their citizens in the region,
and finally, those who obstruct the investigations or work of
the Monitoring Group.
In the wake of the UN
sanctions, the official Eritrean media (there is no private
media in Eritrea) continues to attack the US. President Isaias
and other Eritrean officials have repeatedly claimed the US was
responsible for all the problems facing Eritrea, including the
continuing exodus of Eritreans across the borders to Ethiopia
and to Sudan. This week, the US was accused of attempting “to
create chaos and division on top of incapacitating the Eritrean
economy and political strength.” On Wednesday last week, in the
face of these continuing claims, the US State Department issued
a new travel warning recommending US citizens to defer all
travel to Eritrea. The warning noted that the Eritrean
Government had restricted travel outside Asmara, requiring all
visitors, and residents, including foreign nationals and
diplomats, to apply ten days in advance for permission to travel
outside the city limits. It said that an increasing number of US
citizens and Eritrean Americans had been arrested without clear
justification and as a result of the restrictions the US Embassy
could not provide emergency consular assistance outside Asmara.
The US ambassador to Eritrea hasn’t yet been able to present his
credentials to President Isaias despite arriving in the country
two years ago. The warning also noted that detainees might be
held for extended periods without information. The Eritrean
Government does not inform embassies when foreigners are
arrested or detained. Conditions of incarceration are harsh and
detainees may be held in very small quarters without access to
restrooms, bedding, food or clean water.
Several governments have
already begun to take action against Al-Shabaab, one of the main
recipients of Eritrean aid. Last week, the UK Government
announced that it was planning to take action against Al-Shabaab,
and the Home Secretary issued an order banning the organization.
This followed the concern expressed by the head of Britain’s
security organization, MI5, last year that Al-Shabaab was
recruiting in the UK. The ban will make membership of Al-Shabaab
a criminal offence and stop any British citizens from raising
money for the extremist organization. Australia has announced it
will be implementing the UN sanctions; and Canada has also now
said it too will ban Al-Shabaab. Switzerland, of course,
announced it will impose an arms embargo on Eritrea a few weeks
ago.
****************
top
|
-
US Report on Human
Rights: a cut and paste job, repeating last year’s errors
The US State
Department’s Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights and Labor issued
its 2009 Human Rights Report on March 11th. As has become usual,
the report on Ethiopia, presumably as with other countries,
contains the same repeated allegations, misrepresentations and
tendency to use conjecture and anecdote and rely on opposition
sources as well as accept groundless un-sourced allegations as
plausible or even factual. As in previous reports (from which
the authors have, as usual, cut and pasted large elements) the
authors apparently believe that repetition, of elements often
unaltered from year to year, are sufficient to render these
allegations true. The Ethiopian Government will issue a rebuttal
shortly after a thorough examination of those allegations which
are new, but some general remarks are in order. In addition to
differences over the facts, there is also a fundamental
difference in the way to build democracy in Ethiopia. The
authors of this report appear to be driven by the conviction
that personalities in Ethiopia who have foreign connections must
be treated differently from others. These links are not forged
arbitrarily; they are related to power and the cultivation of
networks of power and authority. The same logic explains the
violent reaction to the Charities and Societies Proclamation
which limits political participation for those NGOs which obtain
more than 10% of their budgets from foreign sources. This
response has had little to do with democracy or human rights and
every thing to do with power and encouraging maximization of the
influence and position of benefactors.
This amounts to a far
more fundamental flaw than the failure to investigate
allegations carefully. It suggests a major structural problem
and a serious difference of outlook. Those that believe
democracy in Ethiopia can only be brought about through external
efforts, and the cultivation of domestic ‘trojan horses’, as the
authors of this report clearly do, are naturally prone to
believe all allegations about government misdeeds automatically,
however wild the allegations. Those making the claims and those
reporting them mutually reinforce each others approach. False
perceptions of internal persecution make internal parties worthy
of international attention and support, creating justification
for targeting the Government for human rights abuse, lack of
democratization and the like. But this cannot be the way to
cultivate democracy. Democracy must be an organic growth,
nurtured by those who live within it, fostered by the
institutions and values of the society.
To return to the report
itself: it must inevitably be of particular concern that it
should be publicized in the run up to the national elections in
May when again and again it repeats unfounded opposition
allegations without qualification, or often without any effort
to investigate the truth of the claims. One such case is that of
Ms. Birtukan Mideksa, chairwoman of the Unity for Democracy and
Justice, whose alleged health condition is dramatized by the
report. As Prime Minister Meles, and indeed the courts, have
made very clear, she is not a political prisoner, nor a prisoner
of conscience. She was charged and convicted in a court despite
being advised by diplomats, elders and even some members of her
party to correct misleading statements she made that had exposed
her to re-arrest and the reinstatement of her previous
conviction. Similarly, the comment on the popular vocalist,
Tewodros Kassahun, suggests the now free singer was imprisoned
because his songs were critical of the government. In neither
case does the report even hint at the true reasons why they were
imprisoned. This is not because the authors do not know the
facts; rather they deliberately chose to ignore them. The singer
had a criminal case to answer to; Ms. Birtukan decided
deliberately to defy the law, and her decision had nothing to do
with political persecution.
The authors actually
claim to make “every effort” to verify all the information in
the document. If so, they cannot have tried very hard. The
report frequently repeats erroneous claims from previous years
even when the Government has provided detailed evidence to the
contrary. To take the section on academic freedom: last year,
the report claimed that “professors could not espouse political
sentiments”. This ignored the fact that for example two of the
leading and long time members of the opposition are Dr. Merara
Gudina and Professor Beyene Petros, both still employed at Addis
Ababa University. This year’s report, equally nonsensically,
claims the authorities order teachers not to deviate from
official lesson plans, that college students are pressured to
pledge allegiance to the EPRDF, that non-EPRDF members were
reportedly denied teacher’s benefits, and that speech and
expression are frequently restricted. Again, one might repeat
that leading members of the opposition are university
professors, and others are teachers.
This report demonstrates
serious intellectual deficiencies and flaws, and most seriously,
a fundamental and structural difference over how and where
democracy can be encouraged in a country like Ethiopia. While
the Government of Ethiopia believes democracy must be created
internally, the authors of this report make it clear they
believe they can impose their version of democracy from outside,
cultivating links to specific networks created to provide them
with power and authority. To this end they appear to believe all
allegations against the government, accepting the frequently
expressed view of some international advocacy organizations that
all opposition claims must be true and acceptable and that all
government statements are to be automatically distrusted. This
failure to distinguish between fact and fiction, between myth
and reality renders these State Department reports less than
valuable and no help in the process of democratization.
****************
top |
-
US Senator Feingold
tries to interfere in the elections
Last week. Senator
Feingold made a statement on democracy in Africa, following up a
US Senate Intelligence Committee hearing in February on threats
to the US in Africa. Senator Feingold who, as he frequently
repeats, has long supported democratic institutions in Africa,
said he was concerned about what he called the fragile state of
democracy on the continent. He noted that national elections,
which he correctly categorized as only one component of the
democratic process, were being held in eight countries,
including Ethiopia, this year; three other countries, recently
affected by coups, have also promised to hold elections this
year; five more are due to hold elections next year. Senator
Feingold felt the US needed “to keep a close eye” on the
countries holding elections; in particular he singled out
Ethiopia, Sudan, Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda as countries of
concern. As so often recently, Senator Feingold was particularly
negative about Ethiopia. Exactly quoting from his own remarks
two years ago he claimed that democratic space in Ethiopia has
been diminishing since 2005. He offered the Charities and
Societies Proclamation and the Anti-Terrorist Proclamation as
examples of “repressive measures”. He also claimed several
opposition leaders were in jail, adding that elections cannot be
free or fair if opposition leaders are in jail or unable to
campaign freely. He concluded his comments about Ethiopia by
saying that “an election in name only is an affront to
[Ethiopia’s] democratic aspirations.”
Senator Feingold made
similar comments on the other states about which he claimed to
be concerned. Significantly, he emphasized that the way for the
US to become involved in helping consolidation of the democratic
process in these countries was for it to be aligned with what he
called democratic actors that speak out against the erosion of
political and civil rights. Given his comments, it is clear that
for Senator Feingold only opposition forces can be considered
“democratic actors” and it is these which provide the basis for
his less than subtle claim to have the right to interfere in the
democratic processes of other countries. Senator Feingold
appears to hold the view that a successful democratic election
in Africa can only be achieved by an opposition victory and a
government loss. It is a view apparently shared by some
international advocacy organizations. It offers a very odd
notion of democracy.
The Foreign Ministry,
through its embassy in Washington, has written to Senator
Feingold to express its concern over what it called his
“alarming demonstration of gullibility” and the numerous factual
errors in his statement. It made it clear the Senator’s view of
democracy, that he had the right to interfere at will in the
electoral procedures of other countries, was totally
unacceptable to Ethiopians and to the Government of Ethiopia.
The statement noted that all observers at the time saw the 2005
elections as Ethiopia’s first successful multi-party election
rather than what the Senator called “a severe step back for
Ethiopia’s democratic progress”, noting that opposition parties
did remarkably well, even though they did not win. It also
pointed out that the subsequent riots were not mere “peaceful
demonstrations”, as Senator Feingold claimed, but had been
exceptionally violent and, as subsequent court proceedings made
clear, were part of a deliberate attempt to overthrow the
Constitution.
The statement said it
was clear that the Senator’s claims were largely based on
allegations made by opposition politicians, including some in
the Diaspora who openly rejected any political processes in
favour of armed struggle. Some have even gone to the length of
allying with the Government of Eritrea in its persistent efforts
to destabilize Ethiopia. It was apparent that Senator Feingold
was unaware of the efforts, by the Government, the EPRDF and by
almost all opposition parties in Ethiopia to make the elections
free and fair. These included: restructuring of the National
Electoral Board; consultations between Government and opposition
to draw up the legislation for the Electoral Code of Conduct;
the multi-party consultative bodies set up to monitor the
election process; the consultations between parties and NEB over
the election timetable, the allocation of airtime and the
organization of public political debates; and the NEB’s code of
conduct for local and international observers. Senator Feingold
had been seriously misinformed in a number of other areas. There
are no key opposition leaders imprisoned for their political
activity. The chairwoman of one party, Ms. Birkutan Mideksa, is
in jail, but this was the result of a court case brought by the
police after she broke the conditions under which she had been
granted a pardon in 2007, and subsequently refused to explain
her actions, leaving the police no option but to charge her.
Senator Feingold appears
unaware that far from the democratic space being diminished by
the Charities and Societies Proclamation, as some
externally-based advocacy organizations and international NGOs
have claimed, it only provides for closer oversight of
activities, particularly of financial functions where a good
many irregularities have occurred in the past. This was why a
charities regulatory board was being set up. International NGOs
will still be able to operate as before, but they will have to
register and be more open about their programmes and operations.
The statement noted that it was hard to see why this should be a
problem, adding that this legislation, like the recent
anti-terrorist legislation, had actually been modelled on US and
European laws.
The Foreign Ministry’s
letter concluded by pointing out that Senator Feingold’s remarks
were ill-judged, ill-timed and inaccurate. Coming shortly after
the start of formal election campaigning in Ethiopia, they
amounted to a deliberate attempt to influence the electorate, to
interfere in the outcome of a democratic multi-party election in
another country. This was not something that any US politicians
would accept from foreigners of whatever position. Any efforts
by the Senator, or any other outsiders, to interfere in
Ethiopia’s electoral process are simply unacceptable. Ethiopia
welcomes advice from friends. A deliberate attempt at
interference, on behalf of opposition groups, some in exile and
several devoted to armed struggle, is something else. It is to
be hoped the Senator will be rather more careful in his comments
in future, and to base them on fact and not on fiction.
****************
top |
-
The
Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic in Ethiopia
The Deputy Prime Minister
and Foreign Minister of the Czech Republic, Mr. Jan Kohout made an
official visit to Ethiopia this week from Monday to Wednesday. He
was leading a high level delegation composed of government
officials and members of the business community. He was received
at the airport by his Ethiopian counterpart, Foreign Minister
Seyoum with whom he later had extensive discussions, focusing on
wide-ranging bilateral and regional issues of mutual interests.
During his visit the Czech Minister also met with Ato Sufian
Ahmed, Minister of Finance and Economic Development to discuss
potential areas of economic cooperation in the context of making
Ethiopia a program country for Czech aid and investment, and paid
a courtesy call on President Girma Wolde Giorgis.
During their talks,
Minister Seyoum recalled the historic friendship between Ethiopia
and the former Czechoslovakia, and mentioned that it was among the
few countries which condemned the aggression committed on Ethiopia
by Fascist Italy in the 1930s. He noted that bilateral cooperation
between the two countries had always been based on understanding
and mutual respect. He mentioned the various economic and
development projects which were undertaken with the assistance of
the former Czechoslovakian state were reminders of the depth of
friendship which provided an excellent basis for the further
enhancement of cooperation. Minister Seyoum expressed appreciation
to the Government of the Czech Republic for its commitment and
sympathy towards Africa during its EU Presidency in the first half
of 2009 as demonstrated during the EU-IGAD ministerial Troika in
April that year. He also noted that the current projects being
undertaken through Czech financial assistance in selected areas,
including the teachers’ capacity building program, were
commendable and in line with the priorities of the Ethiopian
Government. He therefore hoped they could be scaled up. Ato Seyoum
extensively briefed his counterpart on the current political and
security developments in the region with particular emphasis on
Somalia. The two ministers welcomed the agreement recently reached
between the Transitional Government of Somalia and the moderate
Ahlu Sunna wal Jama’a group as a positive step in expanding the
political process in Somalia to make it more inclusive as provided
for in the Djibouti Agreement.
Minister Kohout noted that
the Czech Republic and Ethiopia had a long history of relationship
and solidarity. The two countries shared a similar historical
background, both being victims of foreign aggression at different
times, and both experiencing difficult political transitions as a
result of the Cold War. The Minister expressed his satisfaction at
the regular political consultation being carried out at Foreign
Ministerial level. He underlined the need to augment such
consultations at different official levels. In this regard, the
Minister reiterated his Government’s invitation to various
Ethiopian high officials, including the Prime Minister, to visit
the Czech Republic. The Minister made it clear that his Government
considered Ethiopia as an important economic partner in the region
with a huge potential for future investment and trade which was
why it was considered for Program Country status in partnership
with the Czech Republic. Ato Seyoum expressed his appreciation of
this move. It might be recalled that the former Czechoslovakian
state opened its legation in Addis Ababa in 1955 and upgraded it
to embassy level in 1959. Ethiopia had opened its embassy in
Prague in 1984.
Minister Kohout was
accompanied to Ethiopia by the Vice-President of the Confederation
of Industry of the Czech Republic and representatives of 11
individual companies. They attended a business seminar jointly
organized by the Ethiopian Chamber of Commerce and the Embassy of
the Czech Republic. The seminar, opened by Ato Eyesuswork Zafu,
President of the Ethiopian Chamber of Commerce, included
one-on-one business meetings, presentations of trade and
investment opportunities and the signing of a cooperation
agreement between the Ethiopian Chamber of Commerce and the
Confederation of Industry of the Czech Republic. In his opening
address, Ato Eyesuswork highlighted the enabling investment
environment existing in Ethiopia today, noting that the current
levels of trade and economic relations were not in keeping with
the longstanding ties between the two countries. The volume of
trade, he said, only US$ 20 million last year. Mr. Stanislav
Kazeczky, Vice President of the Confederation of Industry of the
Czech Republic, said his organization represented 1300 companies
and 800,000 employees. It considered Ethiopia an important country
to do business with, and he listed a number of areas including
building and construction, power generation, machinery and leather
and textiles in which he believed Czech companies could
participate. Minister Kohout spoke at the seminar and presided
over the signing of a Cooperation Agreement between the Ethiopian
Chamber of Commerce and the Confederation of Industry of the Czech
Republic.
****************
top |
-
African Regional
Preparatory meeting for the 4th UN Conference on LDCs
The African Regional
Preparatory meeting for the 4th UN Conference on Least Developed
Countries (LDCs) was held in Addis Ababa, 8th to 9th March. It
was jointly organized by the United Nations Economic Commission
for Africa, the Office of the High Representative for Least
Developed Countries, Landlocked Developing Countries and Small
Island Developing States and the United Nations Development
Program’s Regional Bureau for Africa. The main objective was to
review implementation of the Brussels Program of Action for the
Least Developed Countries over the last decade, and identify
measures required at the national, regional and global levels to
facilitate LDCs’ development and their integration into the
global economy. Haiti also participated following the resolution
of the UN General Assembly. The meeting was expected to
formulate priorities for African LDCs and Haiti for the next
development program.
The Brussels Program of
Action was made up of seven commitments outlining the key issues
to be tackled by LDCs with the support of the international
community. These are fostering a people-centered policy
framework; promoting good governance at national and
international levels; building human and institutional
capacities; building productive capacities to make globalization
work for LDCs; enhancing the role of trade in development;
reducing vulnerability and protecting the environment; and
mobilizing financial resources. Progress made included economic
growth reaching the target of 7 per cent for a number of years,
though without any commensurate reduction in poverty levels.
Increased institutional capacity has been observed in some
areas, with primary school enrolment increased and gender
parity, but progress in water and sanitation and health has been
slow. Trade by African LDCs has largely remained concentrated in
primary commodities and exports. The lack of diversification has
left vulnerability to exogenous shocks. Poor market access
remains a serious impediment to exports and to economic
diversification. In the latter part of the decade, the global
financial and economic crisis had a negative impact, with the
fall in commodity prices and resultant decrease in export
revenues nullifying some of the positive trends. The negative
effects of climate change currently felt can be expected to
hamper agricultural production and cripple health systems. Flows
of official development assistance (ODA) have not reached the
volumes pledged, and the sectoral distribution of assistance has
channelled funds towards unproductive sectors. This has been
exacerbated by the large proportion of aid flows allocated to
humanitarian assistance in post-conflict situations.
Ato Mekonnen Manyazewal,
State Minister of Finance and Economic Development, gave details
of Ethiopia’s efforts at implementing the Brussels Plan of
Action. The Ethiopian economy, he said, has shifted to a higher
growth path since 2004 with an average growth of 11.5 per cent
per annum during the last six years. This was largely attributed
to good performances in agriculture complemented by a strong
performance in the construction and manufacturing sectors. The
Government’s commitment towards poverty reduction via
broad-based pro-poor growth was a major reason for such
impressive results. He said the Agricultural Development Led
Industrialization (ADLI) strategy and the wide ranging set of
agricultural and food security reforms had created the basis for
better income for small farmers, household food security, and
improved nutrition. Economic management reforms had increased
the capacity of sustainable financing of pro-poor investments.
The expansion of infrastructure, in roads, power supply and
telecommunication, had resulted in better access to social
services. Massive investment in all levels of education and
training was creating a generation of Ethiopians equipped for
both higher productivity and the provision of effective public
services. Regulatory reforms were laying the basis for opening
up private sector expansion of business activities as well as
increased employment. Institutional capacity building, the
decentralization and empowerment process, and reform programs
were laying the basis for effective service delivery and rapid
economic growth. Well-integrated, home-grown, forward-looking
systems designed to achieve real development results will
continue in the next generation of the development plan (PASDEP
II).
Overall, the meeting
observed that African LDCs have made considerable efforts in
implementing their commitments with wide-ranging economic
reforms undertaken in public sector reform, privatization and
trade and financial liberalization. Notable progress has been
made in improving institutions of governance including accession
to continental and global initiatives such as the NEPAD’s
African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM). Equally, constitutionalism
and the rule of law remains a major challenge as does corruption
and public service delivery. Violent conflicts still persist in
African LDCs and greater national efforts to strengthen
institutions of governance are needed. The positive economic
growth in the period under review has enabled LDCs to show some
slow progress towards human development, notably towards gender
equality and universal primary education. Hunger remains
pervasive in many African LDCs and food security has become even
more acute in the context of the current global financial and
economic crisis. The importance of increased domestic resource
mobilization through reforming revenue collection, improving the
tax base and addressing corruption was recognized. External
financial resources flow to LDCs remain below the targets set by
the third UN Conference on LDCs, but south-south trade and
investment flows have become important sources of financing
development in LDCs.
The meeting also noted
new challenges threatening to derail progress including the
converging crises of food, fuel, climate change and the ongoing
global financial and economic crisis. High food prices and
worsening balance of payments made it difficult for LDCs to
finance their food import bill. The result was an increase in
food insecurity in African LDCs. Climate change represented an
additional challenge for African LDCs. There was agreement that
it was necessary to mobilize increased domestic resources to
finance self-sustaining development, to attract increased
foreign direct investment flows, leverage the impact of
remittances on development, ensure debt sustainability, mobilize
additional resources through innovative funding, and unleash the
benefits of trade to provide for the development of the Least
Developed Countries.
****************
top
|
-
A National Conference
on Human Trafficking and People Smuggling
A two-day conference
focusing on the issue of Human Trafficking and Human Smuggling
in Ethiopia was held at the UN Economic Commission for Africa in
Addis Ababa. Organized by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and
the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs, the conference was
opened by Foreign Minister Seyoum. He welcomed delegates from
various federal ministries, regional offices, from the House of
People's Representatives, civic societies and various
associations, religious institutions, non-governmental
organizations and international organizations, noting that this
issue had become a global challenge. Ethiopia was one of the
victims and its poverty and backwardness was a major reason why
citizens might look to foreign countries for better
opportunities. However Ethiopia, he stressed, was making every
possible effort to ensure sustainable economic development. The
development strategies put in place by the government should
reduce poverty and backwardness, the main causes of illegal
migration. He said combating the crime should not be left to
federal officials, every stakeholder linked to the topic in one
way or another, whether at national, regional or international
levels, was required to work to prevent this crime and people
from falling prey to organized criminals as well as help
rehabilitate victims. Mr. Sinigallia, Ambassador and Head of the
EU Delegation noted that the legal movement of people from place
to place benefited both the countries of origin and destination.
He expressed the EU’s readiness to work together to curb illegal
migration and encourage the legal movement of people. Mrs.
Zenebu Tadesse, State Minister of Labor and Social Affairs,
provided a case study on Ethiopian illegal migration addressing
reasons for migration, the problems encountered by the victims
of human trafficking, the actors involved and their
collaborators. Participants appreciated the Government’s
initiative in raising this issue for discussion. They called
upon the government and citizens and all concerned bodies to
give due attention to the increasing amount of human smuggling
and human trafficking, and to work to raise awareness among the
general public, and to bring criminals and their collaborators
to justice. A poem on the subject was delivered by the famous
artist, Fikadu Teklemariam, and various testimonies from victims
of human trafficking and human smuggling were given to the
conference.
****************
top |
-
Ensuring the integrity of the upcoming elections: media roles
and responsibilities
It has been a while since
Ethiopia embarked on a process of democratization that has achieved
remarkable results over the years. Considerable progress has so far
been made in putting in place the institutional mechanisms that help
anchor the process on a firm basis. Ethiopia’s democratization
process, young though it is, has come a long way in ensuring the
participation of the peoples of Ethiopia at all levels of
self-governance.
Despite the significant
progress made, the process has also faced a number of challenges
both from within and without. On one hand, the lack of democratic
culture and civilized discourse has certainly contributed to the
often rancorous and chaotic relations between stakeholders which
have further complicated the process. On the other, the reaction of
the rest of the world towards the democratization process in
Ethiopia has not always been constructive either. Detractors have
never been in short supply. It is not uncommon to hear outrageous
allegations by non-nationals in different capacities in the name of
supporting democracy. Far from being helpful, such meddling has in
fact contributed to the polarization of politics in the country by
instilling a false hope among many in the opposition that change can
be imposed from outside.
Among other institutions
pivotal to ensuring the sustainability of the democratic process,
the contribution of a free press and that of holding periodic, free
and fair elections is all too palpable. It should not thus be
surprising that freedom of the press and whether or not elections
are free and fair have often been the centerpieces of most of the
commentaries and criticisms in relation to the democratization
process in Ethiopia. Both are instrumental in enabling citizens to
express or make their choices of ideas or of leaders. Both are also
instrumental in shaping the behaviour of political leaders by
subjecting them to a periodic review of their actions. That much is
true.
While the overall outcome of
the elections and the manner in which they are conducted ultimately
depends on the extent to which citizens take the process seriously,
the press’s role can also be decidedly unhelpful if its behaviour
falls short of the standard of fairness required of any responsible
media. Ethiopia’s experience in this regard has been a sobering one,
indeed. Our recent history is replete with incidents of press being
used in stoking crises of all sorts by disseminating unfounded
allegations. Whipped up time and again, an allegation often takes on
a life of its own, irrespective of its being inaccurate and can be
readily used by detractors of the process, from within and without,
as a positive proof for de-legitimizing it.
Ethiopia has carried out a
series of successful multi-democratic elections at all levels,
though not without dispute (what elections ever are). But the role
that the private press has played throughout the last three
elections has been far from reassuring. More often than not, the
private press has operated on a strictly partisan basis with the
government invariably being at the receiving end of lopsided
criticisms. It has for the most part behaved in a manner far from
responsible. Much energy and space has been expended to discredit
and de-legitimize the democratic process rather than to help
strengthen it. Allegations by the private media about electoral
irregularities have all too often found their way into the
assessments by external commentators about the state of democracy in
the country. The disturbances in the previous elections were in some
measure the result of the press’s proclivities to stoke up violence.
Now that preparations for
the next elections are well underway, the media has been covering
election-related issues. It is worthwhile to ask how much of what we
saw during the previous elections has improved and to what extent is
the media involved in the process this time around. As far as the
public media goes, the allocation of air time and space in the
public media has been agreed upon by the council of parties and this
is being implemented accordingly. There have also been indications
that private broadcast media is gearing up to play a part in this.
These surely are encouraging signs. With the private press how much
of its coverage is fair and balanced? The answer is mixed. There
have been improvements. Some private papers appear to be taking care
to cut back on the sort of allegations they used to toss around all
too liberally. Nevertheless some papers still try to try to
discredit the entire process as illegitimate. Instances of
irregularity are spun out of all proportion. Allegations of
harassment by opposition parties are given incessant coverage while
government efforts to address these allegations count for little. A
single incident of violence is given ten times more coverage than
any positive developments however important and relevant. In some
papers the proclivity to highlight the negative over the positive,
or street violence over peaceful demonstrations, so commonplace in
the past, remain alive. The similarity of content and tone with some
of the vocal Diaspora-based opposition is unmistakable.
Unfortunately, foreign media
have also developed a penchant for this type of sensational
reporting. Attempts at external interference in the elections have
not been confined to US Senators, or international advocacy
organizations. It really does begin to look as if the international
media is determined to try and impact the results of the election
with both the timing and content of its stories. The BBC has even
dragged up something dating back 25 years, quoting claims by two
former colleagues who broke with members of the current government
while they were all involved in a guerrilla struggle in the mid
1980s, and who have been trying to bring down the present leadership
of Ethiopia ever since. Recently, they found a gullible enough BBC
reporter to publicize their story just in time to try to influence
the election, despite the fact that all those involved in
cross-border food aid in 1984/85, without exception, have insisted
there is no truth in the extraordinary claim that 95% of aid funds
were being diverted to buy arms for the struggle against the
Mengistu military dictatorship. Prime Minister Meles described the
accusation as a complete lie, pointing out there would have been no
military logic in selling food to buy guns. “We captured large
amounts of guns and tanks. We did not need to buy arms…It would have
been completely suicidal to starve our own people. We would have had
no movement if we had no people”.
Even without the plethora of
evidence to the contrary, it is impossible to believe in any such
diversion of aid, given the fact that the cross-border food aid
program actually did save the lives of the hundreds of thousands in
need in the guerrilla-held areas in those years. Given the paucity
of the evidence produced by the BBC, and its origins, it is
difficult to see this story, despite the denials of the journalists
involved, as anything other than a deliberate attempt to affect the
results of the forthcoming election. Certainly, we can be sure that
those who supplied the alleged information, well-known and long-term
critics of the EPRDF, did so in an attempt to affect the electoral
support given to it. It is worth underlining that the suggestion
that professional aid workers, even so long ago, allowed so much aid
money to be misdirected into funding a rebel war is not only
mischievous and unsubstantiated.
Similarly, the timing of a
recent story on VOA about the alleged jamming of the Amharic
Services of Voice of America and of Germany’s Deutsche Welle,
appears equally deliberate. To be fair the story does quote a denial
from the spokesperson of the Government Communications Office, and
it does also make clear that the VOA transmissions in Afan Oromo and
Tigrinya which are broadcast on the same frequencies before and
after the Amharic transmissions are heard normally. Nevertheless,
the timing of the story, and the fact that VOA chose to raise the
issue publicly rather than with the Government Communications Office
directly, does suggest the intention was to have a political effect.
A recent statement by
British Minister for Africa, Baroness Kinnock, given to the local
media here in Addis Ababa shortly after she paid a visit here
earlier in the year, also falls into the category of a deliberate
effort to influence the election. Her comments make it clear that
Baroness Kinnock apparently understood little of what she heard and
saw on her visit concerning the Code of Conduct, the case against
Ms. Birtukan Mideksa, or the independence of the National Electoral
Board and other issues. Certainly, most of what she had to say
appears to have been provided by rejectionist politicians in the
Diaspora who have been recently flaunting their links to the
Government of Eritrea. In her youth, Baroness Kinnock was an ardent
support of the EPLF, and she still seems prepared to see the
Government of Ethiopia through the prism of her past, as some sort
of enemy!
It might be an exaggeration
to see all this, and Senator Feingold’s remarks, as part of a
concerted campaign against Ethiopia’s current electoral process, but
the effect of these stories, and of the way in which they have been
reported in the media does suggest deliberation and intent,
amounting to an attempt to interfere.
The media provides an
invaluable channel of information between candidates and the public.
A free media is one of the basic conditions for a pluralistic and
democratic society. Freedom of expression, including the right of
the media to collect, report, and disseminate information, news, and
opinions, is a fundamental human right. It also involves
responsibilities to report accurately, and avoid abuse of what is in
effect a privileged position in society. The media has a heavy
responsibility. It does not always live up to it. That is why all
stakeholders, candidates as well as voters, must realize the
magnitude of the challenge and the need to protect the integrity of
the process.
****************
top |
|
