A week in the Horn (March 20,2009)
Prior to the main event, the PM attended a working luncheon given by Lord Malloch Brown. Also present at the working luncheon were other African leaders, namely—Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, President of Liberia, President Jakaya Kikwete, President Seretse Khama of Botswana, Prime Minister Raila Odinga of Kenya; and the Finance Ministers of Egypt, Cape Verde, South Africa, Rwanda; the Governors of the Central Banks of both Mozambique and Botswana; Chairperson Jean Ping, the Under-Secretary General and Executive Secretary of the ECA, the President of the ADB and the AU Commissioner for the Economy. After the working lunch, Prime Minister Gordon Brown held an in-depth discussion with all the above participants during a one hour meeting.
Prime Minister Meles on both occasions pointed out the main issues that the G-20 will need to address in order to protect Africa from the spill-over effects of the global economic downturn, adding that the continent has a stake in all of the issues to be discussed at the Summit. More importantly, Prime Minster Meles emphasized the need for reforming the international financial institutions and the mobilisation of additional development aid. With regard to the reform of the international financial institutions, he underlined the need to give Africa more voice, more voting powers and, most importantly, adequate policy space. He reiterated that the current regime of conditionality in development aid will not provide for a breakthrough in development anywhere in Africa and in this regard he called for the need for change, especially at the World Bank and the ADB.
Prime Minister Meles emphasised the need for reforming the current regime of conditionality, especially the changing of the World Bank’s CPIA from a policy input based rating system to a basically outcome based rating system. The performance or outcome based rating of borrowers from the Bank would be consistent with best practice elsewhere, particularly best practice in the private sector. Currently, he said, there is a broad international consensus about what the outcomes should be and in this regard he cited the achievement of the MDGs and a pro-poor growth as examples. A system of rating of borrowers, based on the progress of each borrower, would permit achievement of the common goals and would make it possible for each borrower to choose the path it wishes to follow in order to achieve the above goals, in full knowledge that how well it chooses its path and how it implements it will determine how much money it gets. This new approach will open new policy space for borrowers and radically enhance ownership of development strategies.
The Prime Minister also emphasised the need for the implementation of infrastructure projects on the continent as a means of raising additional resources. Such investments, he said, would stimulate African economies and to some extent the global economy. These measures, he continued, would reduce the infrastructure bottlenecks that have impeded Africa’s economic transformation. Such significant resources, he stressed, could be mobilised by instruments that put little pressure on the budgets of donor countries. He pointed out that one such method would be the issue of additional SDRs (Special Drawing Rights) by the IMF.
This mechanism, the Prime Minister said, could raise several billion dollars for African infrastructure projects with limited adverse impact on the budgets of donor countries and on global inflation. Prime Minister Meles also highlighted the importance of the sale of IMF gold deposits to raise funds for African infrastructure projects. He added that the sale of some of the IMF’s gold reserves would correct the gains in gold prices rather than depress them. He emphasised that billions of dollars again would be raised without significant pressure on the budget of donor countries.
The third aspect which he raised, in relation to additional resources, is the recapitalisation of international development banks, combined with a review of the debt sustainability framework. Recapitalising the banks, particularly the ADB, was singled out as an important source of additional financial resources. Such recapitalisation could enable the banks to lend resources that are far bigger than the up-front contribution of the donor countries. He also underlined that such leveraging of development bank resources could be further enhanced by modifying the overly restrictive and largely policy-input based debt sustainability framework. He said that a thorough review would make it possible for African countries to access financial windows from development banks like the IBRD.
In addition to the pre-G20 consultation meeting, the PM had bilateral discussions with Douglas Alexander, Secretary of State of DFID. The discussion focussed on bilateral development cooperation programmes and other matters of common interest.
*************
The delegation led by the two Foreign Ministers also met and held discussions on a wide range of topics. They covered bilateral, regional and global issues of common interest. Foreign Minister Seyoum briefed his Spanish counterpart on the situation prevailing in the Horn of Africa region, and Africa in general. Foreign Minister Moratinos expressed appreciation for Ethiopia’s constructive role in the effort to bring peace to the region. The two Ministers also agreed to work very closely on the initiative of the Alliance of Civilizations, which seeks to bridge gaps amongst different civilizations through sustained dialogue.
A fruitful discussion was also held with the Spanish business community where the Ethiopian delegation made presentations about the investment opportunities existing in Ethiopia. Present at the meeting were representatives of various companies including those who already have started to invest in Ethiopia. A presentation on the main investment sectors in Ethiopia, such as agriculture, textile and garment, leather and tannery, food and beverage production, construction and tourism, was made to the Spanish business community. During the question and answer session that followed, the business community expressed keen interest to explore opportunities in Ethiopia.
Another fruitful discussion was also held with representatives of the Ministries of Foreign Trade, Industry, Commerce and Tourism. The focus of the discussions, during this meeting, was on how to support private investment initiatives in order to enhance the current low level of investment inflow from Spain. The Spanish side also expressed its commitment and readiness to closely work together with the Ethiopian government in strengthening the economic ties particularly private investment, and underlined the need for both sides to explore and fully utilize the existing instruments and potentials of cooperation in the investment and trade areas. Meanwhile, the two Foreign Ministers signed an Agreement on the Promotion and Reciprocal Protection of Investment between Ethiopia and Spain. This is an important step to strengthen the investment ties of the two countries.
The establishment of diplomatic relationship between Ethiopia and Spain goes as far back as 1951, followed by the opening of the Spanish Embassy in Addis Ababa in 1962. The relationship between the two countries is characterized by understanding and mutual respect. With regard to bilateral development cooperation, Ethiopia already is a program country for Spain. It is to be recalled that during the visit of Minister Moratinos in 2008, a three-year (2008-2010) development cooperation Agreement, with an outlay of 30 million Euros, was signed between the two countries. A Joint Commission was also established to follow the implementation of the program.
*************
After a very colourful opening, the Conference immediately proceeded with numerous discussion forums and side events. The formal structure of the Conference is as follows: the political process starts first with Heads of State Summit; then the Local Authorities and Istanbul Water Consensus takes place to be followed by Parliamentarians’ Meeting and the Ministerial Conference, which involves Senior Officials’ Meeting. The rest of the events would proceed under the themes: Global Change and Risk Management; Advancing Human Development and the MDGs; Managing and Protecting Water Resources; Governance and Management; Finance; and, Education, Knowledge and Capacity Development. These events provide opportunity for an in-depth discussion of issues affecting the supply, quality and management of water as critical for life sustenance and the development of countries. In this regard, issues related with drinking water, sanitation, transport, environmental protection, climate change, energy, poverty, disasters and emergencies, women and water, food security, drought, agriculture, and other related issues will be discussed in greater detail. Other issues yet to be discussed also include: experience sharing and the learning processes of national efforts and systems on accountability; rights based approach; the use of new technologies for, and progress and challenges in, ensuring equitable and sustainable trans-boundary water resource management and utilization.
Another important aspect of these high-level discussions has to do with the various regional meetings and processes. On 18 March, for example, Africa Regional Day was successfully held. The Programme was opened with a welcoming address by Ato Asfaw Dingamo, Minister of Water Resources of Ethiopia and the current Chairperson of the Regional Steering Committee.
H.R.H Willem Alexander, the Prince of Orange and the Chairperson of the United Nations Secretary General’s Advisory Group on Water; Mr. Sfara Giorgio, Chairperson of the G8 Expert Group for Water and Sanitation; Prof. Dr. Oktay Tabasaran, the Secretary General of the Conference and the Director General of WMO were among those who addressed the meeting. The key note was delivered by Mr. Erastus Mwencha, Deputy Chairperson of the AU Commission; and Dr. Mandla Gantsho, Vice President of the African Development Bank presented the Africa Regional Paper, which involved different stakeholders during the preparation process. The next item in the program was a discussion on addressing Africa’s Water Challenges and Priorities. At this event, the promotion of 2nd African Water Week and Announcement of South Africa’s bid to host the 6th World Water Conference were announced.
*********
The Ethiopian delegation was comprised of presidents of all regional states adjacent to the Sudan as well as officials from concerned Federal Ministries.
Governor of the Blue Nile state in his welcoming statement expressed his thanks and appreciation for the Ethiopian delegation’s participation in the conference.
Ato Umad Ubong on his part expressed his gratitude for the warm welcome extended and traditional hospitality accorded to the Ethiopian delegation. He further noted the importance of joint Border Development commission in further strengthening the bilateral relations of the two sisterly countries.
After the framing of the agenda for deliberation, different committees were formed that dealt at length with political and Security, Agriculture and Health as well as Trade and related matters. After in depth discussion, both sides agreed to continue working together to address the issues related with the subject of their deliberations.
On Political and Security matters, both sides appreciated the excellent spirit of cooperation and agreed to further strengthen the mechanisms that are already in place. With regard to trade and related matters, both sides agreed to strengthen the cooperation on the necessary protection measures to avoid the impact of informal border trade on the formal trade relations between the two countries. What is more, both sides expressed their satisfaction on the encouraging improvements in preventing illegal trade through the establishment of additional check points on both sides of the border.
Acknowledging the vital role of the road sector in further enhancing the connection between the two countries, both parties agreed to harmonize their efforts towards the expansion and protection of infrastructural development projects.
Having reviewed the previous agreements between the two countries concerning agriculture and health matters, both sides agreed to establish a new joint Technical Committee responsible to look into the achievements of previous agreements. Finally both sides recommended giving special consideration for the synchronization of their campaigns against polio and HIV/AIDS and further noted that they remain committed to the implementation of the previous resolutions on similar sectors.
***************
It was the worst and heaviest battle between the moderate Ahlu-Sunna group and Al-Shabab since the two sides earlier fought in Galgadud province in central Somalia for the control of Gure’el and Dhusamareb towns. The Ahlu Sunna Waljama officers were surprised to find a huge airstrip and a number of underground shelters built by Al Shabab. Sheik Omar Sheik Mohamed Farah, Ahlu-Sunna’s chairman in central regions of Somalia, a Murusade man recently elected at the general assembly of Sunna Waljama that took place in London, vowed his followers would never allow Al-Shabab group to remain in a territory dominated by moderate Islamists. The Al-Shabab militant group, which is on the international list of terrorist groups, had its biggest military base around Elbur town before it had fallen in to the hands of Ahlu-Sunna moderates.
The deployment of a significant portion of its fighting force to the zone of the recent conflict is believed to have created a power vacuum in much of the territories previously in the hands of the Al Shabab militants.
Meanwhile, the government of President Sheikh Sharif urged all forces last Sunday to lay down their weapons as part of a process aimed at restoring peace and security at the war ravaged capital. The security of Mogadishu has reportedly deteriorated after hard line insurgent groups, including Al-Shabab, Hizbul Islam and other extremists seized control of most parts of the city soon after the withdrawal of Ethiopian forces, in early January 2009. The government accused the various forces for unethical conduct. Some of the militias have setup illegal check points to collect revenues for their own personal use against the suffering of the community. People are questioning the capacity of the government to enforce the law and whether this move will restore law and order in the city.
*************
Ambassador Brook Debebe, Ethiopian Special Envoy to IGAD, and the Chair of the expert's meeting (Kenya was the rapporteur), thanked both IGAD and the Secretariat for hosting the meeting. He stressed the importance of the meeting, which is tasked with reviewing the implementation of the resolutions passed by the Heads of State and Government at the 12th Summit that among other things called for the re-revitalization of IGAD and the strengthening of the organization’s mandate to work toward economic integration. The meeting was formally opened by Mr. Djama Mahamoud Dualeh, Secretary General of the Ministry of Agriculture, Livestock, Water and the Sea of the Republic of Djibouti.
The meeting considered IGAD’s annual report presented to it by the Secretariat on issues of Agriculture and Environment; Pastoralism for conservation and livelihood systems; the activities of Climate Prediction and Application Center; the economic cooperation and social development sector; and, Peace and security in terms of conflict early warning and response mechanisms. It also looked at the progress of the IGAD center for Capacity Building against Terrorism. The Secretariat's planning and coordination issues were also discussed. Issues relating to finance and administrative matters were also dealt with at length. As part of the effort to revitalize and reform the organization, new results-based management system and joint financing arrangements were presented by the Secretariat after which they were thoroughly discussed by the experts. All the presentations focused on the planned and implemented activities in the year 2008, the potential challenges and constraints as well as the possible measures on the way forward. On the political issues of the region, after receiving the report from the peace and security division, the experts appreciated the common position the IGAD countries took to move forward the Somali peace process which culminated in the establishment of the new Somali government led by President Sheikh Sharif Sheikh Ahmed. In the discussion the experts expressed concerns over the limited human capacity of the Secretariat, vis-ŕ-vis the large number of programs/projects planned for implementation in 2009.
On Administrative and Finance matters the Secretariat informed the experts’ meeting that the contributions by member states has improved tremendously, in which Ethiopia as always paid its membership fees fully. A significant progress also was reported, with some members reportedly having made substantial payments to clear their outstanding arrears. The year has brought more in terms of payments of arrears in the history of IGAD. One of the indicators of commitment by member states to their organization is their readiness to meet the obligations, especially in paying their assessed contributions on time. There are now very encouraging signs in IGAD, indeed. After thorough exchange of views on all agenda items presented, the experts put forward recommendations for the Council of Ministers for consideration. The experts took note of the reports of the Secretariat after an extended deliberation.
They also discussed the Horn of Africa Initiative, an initiative of the European Commission to assist the region in the context of the 10th European Development Fund (EDF). The Horn of Africa Initiative will be discussed in the upcoming Troika meeting of IGAD and the EU, now scheduled to take place on 31st March, 2009 in Brussels. IGAD would be represented by the Current Chair (Ethiopia), the outgoing Chair (Kenya) and the incoming (the Sudan) as well as the Secretariat. Ethiopian Foreign Minister Seyoum Mesfin has extended invitation to the participants accordingly.
The meeting of experts was adjourned to have another session to discuss other remaining issues that should be discussed before the up coming meeting of the Council of Ministers. These issues include the Minimum Integration Plan for the IGAD region; Peace and Security Strategy for the IGAD region as well as planned activities of IGAD.
It is to be recalled that just before the meeting of the experts, IGAD had conducted two workshops on the Peace and Security strategy as well as the minimum integration plan for three days on the 13th and 14th and 15th of March, 2009 respectively. The workshops have raised various issues that would help IGAD move forward with its integration plan as well as its Peace and Security Strategy. It is also to be recalled that IGAD is one of the regional economic communities that are going to form the building blocks for the AU's gradual economic integration. IGAD has thus to seriously consider how best it should move forward and re-revitalize itself in the shortest time possible if it is to be taken seriously and live up to the expectation of its member states. The Secretariat and member states also need to realize that business as usual is not going to take IGAD very far. Integration for IGAD member states is not a matter of choice, but an absolute necessity. Harmonizing policies in various sectors and ensuring compatibility will create a favorable condition to lay the ground work for integration. Lack of funding for various projects/programs, the lack of human capacity, cumbersome rules to access development funds are some of the challenges that IGAD has always faced and these same difficulties will sure continue to pose a problem. Of course IGAD must be equal to the task of addressing not only these challenges but also the growing challenges of poverty, economic crises and climate change as well as difficulties in peace and stability. It is altogether therefore, fitting that the countries of the region should work together to tackle these problems.
********************
· Eritrea’s 15 odd years of independent existence has been a record of bizarre political and diplomatic developments punctuated, of course, by uncalled for conflicts of differing scales. The bizarre nature of Eritrea’s behavior can be matched only by its leaders’ capacity to outdo each other in the strangeness of their performances. Decisions of whatever nature are made not on the basis of long term strategic considerations, but on the basis of spurious tactical ones. It was all too common especially during the 1998-2000 Ethio-Eritrea war to hear Eritrean leaders making one claim with a conviction bordering on the religious only to resort to a different one the next morning. It is also equally common to find two totally opposite explanations about a single developments depending, of course, on the identity of the officials that is making the claim. More specifically, any given moment, two officials of the regime in Asmara could all too easily give two diametrically opposite accounts of, say, whether quality of life of Eritreans is improving. Given the fact that Eritrea’s leaders do not have the slightest of interest to heed the time honored traditions of governing—regular cabinet meetings, budget allocation, for instance—that they all too often fall out of sync with each other is hardly surprising. The strangest thing however is no amount of such contradiction seems to bother them all that much. Remember President Isaias’s—now infamous—poker-faced vow to shorten the war back in 1999? A week later, he was complaining bitterly about traitors who betrayed him to the Ethiopians.
But president Isaias does not seem to be alone. A Young Turk in his cabinet, the acting chief of the propaganda ministry, Ali Abdu, appears to be a very good disciple of President Isaias’s. If memory serves one right, it was this same guy who—despite the UIC extremists and their backers from Asmara having been dealt a mortal blow, was reassuring himself that “Ethiopians are dying by the thousands. That remark in fact at the time suggested an uncanny parallel with an Iraqi of a similar portfolio, eliciting reference to comical Ali. To the extent that there was something predictable about such behavior among Eritrea’s leaders, it was that such outrageous claims abound when the leadership is in a serious crisis either within or outside Eritrea. This is their way of diverting attention away from a very serious issue they cannot simply assume away.
No wonder then that this same official recently outdid himself when he accused, in an interview with Gulf News, Ethiopia of being the one nation behind the Somali pirates’ increasingly destructive adventures off the Gulf of Aden. His evidence, of course, is the fact that it is happening only in the Gulf of Aden, not elsewhere, the conclusion being that Ethiopia must be behind it. It would require stupidity of the first order to even try to make even a passing remark to that kind of pure nonsense, much less to try to seriously take issue with that. But, Eritrea’s leaders behavior being what it is, it is important to note that this could be their last ditch effort to divert attention away from the impending crisis they are facing on two fronts: at home and abroad. Their domestic crisis has gone out the roof, with more and more of the population getting more restive by the day and the army—Isaias’s trump card—all but in total disarray. Internationally, the leadership in Asmara is in a situation where it has more enemies to defend against than friends to fall back on. It is the sad irony of history that when dictatorships are bogged down in quagmire, they all tend to court controversy wherever the find it. Even if they have to make fool of themselves by making the most outrageous of accusations, that is. Mr. Ali Abdu’s remarks should be understood only in that light. Only this time it stands little, if any, chance to carry the day.
*******
There have indeed been many occasions when the doctrine of sovereignty has been used as a shield to protect those who have engaged in gross violations of human rights. Many a ruler has made use of the principle to brutalize his own people and to make a mockery of the principle. That a remedy has to be found for this is unquestionable. The practice should never be allowed in the 21st century. Africa has gone a long way in this regard, as the contrast between the OAU Charter and the AU Constitutive Act makes it abundantly clear. (Those who might wish to use the current on-going debate on the ICC decision as evidence that Africa has not changed, are well advised not to insist on such a view because what in fact the ICC -Sudan saga amplifies is precisely the concern this commentary wishes to highlight.)
The point, however, is that in the absence of a viable alternative to the Westphalian order, the result of the abandonment of the principles of sovereign equality of states and nonintervention, is less security and stability, and the creation of conditions for an even greater abuse of human rights and for even greater violence against the innocent. A total breakdown of social order is not conducive for respect of human rights, to thrive.
Turning to Kissinger, what he forgot to add, perhaps unavoidably given his philosophical leanings, was that this readiness to abandon the underpinnings of the nation-state system is done selectively and not in any uniform manner, the classical approach being allowed to continue to be relevant to the powerful while the not so powerful are called upon to concede to the application of an approach which requires their abdication of sole responsibility over matters within their domestic jurisdiction. In the Horn of Africa, the consequences of the readiness to abandon the Westphalian principles, is reflected in the growing tendency to ignore the damage caused by the violations of principles of international law governing inter-state relations. This is perhaps the explanation for why Eritrea's bizarre behavior in the sub-region has not led to any strong reaction on the part of the international community. What is so strange and why should it be a matter of great concern if Eritrea were to make a mockery of civilized behavior among states, some seem to believe. Indeed, what is civilized behavior among states, if there are no principles that constrain states from interfering, as they wished and as their whims dictated, in the domestic affairs of other States?
This is also perhaps why it
continues to be difficult for some to realize fully the extent of the danger
that Ethiopia had faced more than two years ago from the threat posed by the
extremists of the UIC in Somalia.
The danger was in fact real, and the fanatic leaders of the group were issuing
statements every day questioning the sovereign rights of not only of Ethiopia but of other countries in the region. These same people whose wings have now been
clipped --- thanks to those who paid the ultimate price, both Somalis and
Ethiopians --- were making it clear in pronouncement made repeatedly that they
cared little for boundaries that separate states in our sub-region. They had
also started to act on this in practice in cahoots with the Eritrean regime.
(Incidentally, Ethiopia's view is not that boundaries should be walls that
prevent contact between people, but rather that they should be respected; if
they need to be changed, that be done legally and peacefully and not through
resort to force).
For Ethiopia, two years ago, the danger was palpable. For those who operate on the basis of the conviction that the principle of nonintervention is no longer relevant in relations among states, the activities of the UIC extremists and their expansionist philosophy may not have been all that critical. That also perhaps explains why some are prone even now to argue, talking about Somalia, that the situation in the country two years ago was much better than it is now. From the point of view of Ethiopia, and it might be added, from that of the region as a whole, it is rather the reverse which is valid. For Ethiopia and the region, what made the situation two years ago much more dangerous than the situation at present was the fact that two years ago what we saw was far greater propensity to violate principles of international law by those who appear now to be in a much weaker position and at least, so far, not ready to repeat those dangerous tendencies of two years ago. But Ethiopia cannot afford to lower its guards and thus it ought to continue to be vigilant, for it is not the philosophy of those groups that has changed, but rather their estimation of what they are capable of, now.
There is indeed one intriguing issue that needs to be highlighted here. This has to do with the paradox of the Westphalian order as it applies to the developing world such as the Horn of Africa, being assaulted not only by the advocates of humanitarian intervention, but also by those who feel religious obligations make it imperative for them to ignore state-centric responsibilities and principles and, who on this ground, defy principles of international law governing inter-state relations. Obviously, it should not be a source of great surprise if the latter's proclivity to disregard principles of international law that govern relations among states, was to be treated by the former as a small matter that ought to elicit little concern, because, at bottom, though there is no philosophical affinity between the two, the secular bashers of the principle of non-intervention can have no quarrel with the religious zealots who reject those same principles of international law out of what they feel is a religious calling.
This convergence of views between two entities that have other wise virtually nothing in common, and are in fact implacable and mortal enemies, has contributed to making the task of restoring peace and stability in Somalia and in the Horn of Africa, in general, exceedingly difficult.
This also raises a number of issues with respect to practical matters in connection with international cooperation for peace and stability, including in the fight against terrorism and extremism. If principles of international law, including those relating to non-intervention and the sovereign equality of states, are not adhered to in good faith as applying to all states, small or big, how would it be possible to conceive of effective international co-operation to promote peace, stability and security in all regions of the world?
Obviously, if terrorists that try to wreak havoc in the Horn of Africa are tolerated as non-international 'insurgents', representing no danger to the developed world, and are sometimes feted in Western Capitals, it must be that much difficult to put in place the bases for an effective international co-operation for durable peace and stability.
It is often stated, and not infrequently by some people in position of authority in partner countries, that the image of their states could be tarnished by close association with countries of the Horn such as Ethiopia who have a firm and uncompromising policy toward those who defy and violate principle of international law. The underlying concern is with the possible loss of opportunity for winning the friendship and trust of even those who are otherwise known to represent a threat to regional peace and stability and to the Security of countries such as Ethiopia. The logic is simple: as long as the so-called domestic 'insurgents' do not target us, they seem to say, there should be no reason to disqualify them as potential friends and as a sources of valuable intelligence in the fight against those who are more internationally inclined. This is obviously based on an interpretation of what constitutes the national interest of those concerned, but conceived in the narrower sense and in a short-sighted application of the Westephalian doctrine which is now supposed not to apply at all to the less powerful.
The Westphalian doctrine, it must be stated, has never been sufficient in laying the foundation for ensuring an all embarrassing, healthy, constructive and comprehensive interaction among nation states. There are public goods which are so critical for the international community and for the viability of nation states and their population that co-operation among states, on the basis of advancing common interests, is obviously a must and these cannot be conceived solely in terms of calculations based on national interest and might, in fact, often require making concessions regarding those interests. The objectives of the ICAO or WHO or ITU or other such organizations, say, in the area of climate change, can only be advanced through international co-operation and the national interest of each country requires it. The same applies to the need to fight against extremism, and fanaticism and against those who make it their vocation to defy principles of international law governing inter-state relation. It is a public good from the achievement of which, all benefit. All attempts to seek special favour from those who have made it their objective to undermine regional stability and to defy principles of international law are counterproductive. In the long term, they serve the interest of no state, big or small. All this does not require too much sophistication to make sense of, but when it comes to the developing world such as the Horn even the least complicated become murky and often situations can arise which permit the lionization of those who deserve condemnation. This is the challenge of the Horn of Africa.
*******