|
|
Sudan’s elections: a necessary and successful step
towards the referendum
Sudan’s national elections took
place between April 11th and April 15th., and,
as widely expected, President Omer Hassan Ahmed Al-Bashir was
re-elected President of Sudan, and General Salva Kiir Mayardit
re-elected as President of the Government of South Sudan. The
results were announced this week, and preliminary figures from the
National Electoral Commission were that President Bashir had
received 68.2% of the votes nationally, and General Salva Kiir had
won 93% of the vote in the south. The result announced on the 26th
of April has also declared the victory of National Congress Party (NCP)
by a clear majority, and of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM)
in South Sudan.
The election was the
first multi-party presidential, legislative and local election since
1986. In five days of voting the Sudanese people chose between
presidential candidates, for the country as a whole and for South
Sudan, representatives for the National Assembly and the Lower House
of Parliament, as well as for state governors and local assemblies.
It was a complicated process with eight ballot papers in the north
and twelve in the south. Although some major opposition parties
boycotted the election, IGAD and other observer missions reported
that the election was conducted in a manner that allowed the full
participation of the over 16 million registered voters. Turnout has
been estimated as an impressive sixty percent. In all the polling
stations visited by observers the conduct of the election was
described as fair and free in its handling, with a calm and peaceful
atmosphere. Voting started on time, and staff at polling stations
affirmed that the exercise was democratic and peaceful.
There were a number
of technical, logistical and administrative problems as might have
been expected with such a complicated process, and both EU and
Carter Center observers felt the process fell below theoretical
international standards. Most important, however, is the fact that
the election provides a breakthrough for Sudan and for the region,
as the whole electoral process is a central factor in implementation
of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) signed in 2005 in
Machakos, Kenya. The election is one of the major components of the
CPA which stipulates, among other things, that the referendum on
self-determination in the south should be held in January 2011. The
election is a necessary precursor of the referendum, a critical
threshold for progress towards the 2011 referendum, and as such a
milestone for the achievement for sustainable peace and stability,
not only in the Sudan but also for the entire region of the Horn.
In his letter of
congratulation to President Al-Bashir, Prime Minister Meles
emphasized the importance of the results at this time and said it
was his firm conviction that they would ensure continuity of peace
and development of the Sudan and the successful implementation of
the CPA. To General Salva Kiir, Prime Minister Meles also noted that
his election as President of the Government of South Sudan, at this
important period in the history of the region, was critical for the
success of the CPA. Prime Minister Meles wished both men “every
success in the discharge of your heavy responsibilities”.
Last week, before the
results were announced, both the parties to the CPA, the National
Congress Party and the Sudan Peoples Liberation Movement, agreed to
accept the results of the election, with both President Omer Al-Bashir
and General Salva Kiir remaining in office. This commitment by the
leadership of the parties effectively stressed their continued
commitment with respect to the right of the South Sudanese people to
hold the referendum next year whatever the outcome may be. The
international community and the parties to the referendum now hope
that the success of the election will facilitate progress towards
the full implementation of the CPA.
******************
top |
|
Somalia’s
fractious parliament; a new UN Security Council resolution on piracy
On Monday this week,
the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General for Somalia,
Mr. Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, issued a statement deploring the “energy
wasted on arguments which could be devoted to resolving more
pressing issues”; and calling on the leadership of the TFG and of
Parliament to “see beyond their differences and concentrate on
normal government tasks.” President Sheikh Sharif also called on
legislators and cabinet members to “set their priorities right in
the face of the daunting security and humanitarian challenges the
nation faces.” They were referring to disputes that have arisen
among members of parliament over the role of the Speaker of
Parliament, Sheikh Aden Mohamed “Madobe” and calls by some
parliamentarians for a new election for the post of Speaker. The
problem is not exactly easy to resolve on the one hand because the
timing of the conflict is unfortunate, and on the other because the
Speaker’s loss of substantial support within the Parliament has
created a situation whereby it is difficult to see how he can
continue in office. The problem has also arisen at a time when the
TFG is facing a major difficulty with Al-Shabaab on the offensive.
Ethiopia is watching the situation carefully.
There have been
reports this week of Al-Shabaab forces advancing on the pirate
controlled port of Harardhere, some 400 kms along the coast
northeast of Mogadishu. Al-Shabaab have close links with several of
the pirate consortia operating out of the ports along the coast,
providing protection and training in return for a share of the
ransom proceeds from pirate activities. But Al-Shabaab’s attempts to
control pirate operations have not always been successful and have
certainly been resented at times. The latest dispute is apparently
the result of a pirate seizure of a ship from across the Red Sea
bringing arms for Al-Shabaab and a subsequent refusal to hand the
arms over to Al-Shabaab.
Meanwhile, on
Tuesday, the UN Security Council unanimously adopted a Russian
resolution calling for tougher laws against pirates operating out of
Somalia. The resolution (SC 1918 (2010)) calls on all States,
including those in the region, to criminalize piracy under their
domestic laws and consider the prosecution and
imprisonment of convicted pirates
apprehended off the coast of Somalia. It welcomes the progress being
made to implement the International Maritime Organization’s
Djibouti Code of Conduct, and requests Secretary-General Ban ki-Moon
to present to the Security Council within 3 months a report on the
possible legal options for dealing with pirates, including regional
or international tribunals, and corresponding possibilities for
imprisonment, taking into account existing international practice
and the time and the resources necessary to achieve and sustain
substantive results. The Security Council resolution follows a
surprise decision by Kenya to stop the prosecution of Somali pirates
in Kenyan courts because of the strain it was apparently putting on
Kenya’s legal system and on its prisons.
*****************
top |
|
Eritrea: a
poorly written public relations drama
Eritrea’s President
Isaias Afeworki is apparently in a rare cooperative mood, or so he
pretends, trying to persuade his latest contrived media circus that
he (and Eritrea) are the victims of the international community’s
diplomatic shenanigans. He has been busy arranging interviews with,
and tours for, foreign correspondents gullible enough to buy his
Eritrea-is-the-underdog story line. The latest gambit has even
involved meeting a small coterie of European parliamentarians
prepared to listen to long-winded and ponderous lectures about the
plots of special interest groups against his "successful
self-reliant regime". The usual invectives against US imperialism
provided a constant undercurrent to his monologues.
The interest, of
course, lies more in what he is not saying, in what he is trying to
hide, rather than what he cares to admit. President Isaias is never
one to admit to any wrongdoing, not even if the rest of the world is
convinced of the fact. His conception of justice or truth, notions
about which he often has much to say, is frequently more
metaphysical than worldly. If Eritrea is found again and again on
the wrong side of the law, whether supporting insurgents in
neighboring countries, invading its neighbors, or imprisoning its
own citizens for being followers of this or that faith, it is never
its own fault. President Isaias always falls back on a long list of
enemies to blame for any and all problems that his government faces.
The Eritrean government’s most popular punch bags are, of course,
Ethiopia, and more recently the special interests of the West led
notably by the CIA.
So
when it came to explaining why the United Nations Security Council
had imposed sanctions on his government, he was clear: his
government had nothing to do with any of the destabilizing
activities that the regime was accused of perpetrating. There was no
indication of accepting even the smallest portion of blame, much
less any willingness to
mend his ways and
offer to become a constructive member of the international
community.
So what is it that
President Isaias seems to believe he can achieve by his latest
moves?
The apparent recent
overtures of a (very carefully) controlled opening up to outsiders
may seem to represent a sharp contrast to his seemingly defiant
stance on the imposition of sanctions by the United Nations Security
Council for his government’s destabilizing activities in the whole
region, and for his support to extremists in Somalia. The regime in
Asmara has consistently been denying exploratory missions by the UN
since the passing of resolution 1862 to look into the
Eritrea-Djibouti conflict; it has denied entry visas to UN
monitoring committee members as well as to high ranking US
officials; it has been adamant that it would not submit to any kind
of pressure from outside in whatever form it might come. Indeed,
President Isaias consistently made no secret that he is not in the
business of behaving normally in international affairs.
Now however, as the
recent view of carefully, and partially, selected sites arranged for
a journalist from Gulf News suggests, Eritrea wants to show ‘its
side of the story’, which essentially amounts to an even more
vehement denial of any and all allegations against the government.
The report demonstrates just how the journalist was literally taken
for a ride by his Eritrean handlers. He claims there are no
“Ethiopian, Yemeni, or Somali insurgents” training in the camps he
visited. Probably not, though there is no way of knowing how he was
able to tell an Ethiopian from an Eritrean, nor how many other camps
he didn’t see. He admitted not visiting Assab for example. That’s
actually, beside the point. The impression Eritrea’s leaders are
trying to convey to the rest of the world is that they are the
victims not the perpetrators of the problems of the Horn of Africa.
Given the amount of detailed evidence to the contrary, what actually
matters is the extent to which Eritrea is trying to fool the
international community. The message the leaders of Eritrea are
trying to convey is that they are willing to open up as long as the
world is willing to whitewash whatever wrongdoing is imputed to
them.
Some seem to think
this indicates that Eritrea is now willing to give diplomacy a
chance if only the world would listen to it. In fact, this sort of
volte-face by Eritrea isn’t unusual. Eritrea’s leaders have often
tried the same trick in international affairs. Time and time again,
they have tried to produce a similar ruse whenever, indeed, they
believe they are in serious trouble. Eritrea’s 20 years history is
replete with diplomatic twists where President Isaias’ bravado has
given way to humility in a matter of hours, usually without any
indication or care of consideration of consequences. Indeed, the
leadership has often displayed considerable capacity to organize
such circuses aimed at reversing its fortunes. The present display
of recent diplomatic and media activity is an exactly similar
approach, and it underlines exactly the contempt with which
President Isaias and his regime regard the international community.
As the reporter of Gulf News, somewhat gleefully remarks, he has won
access where UN Teams have failed. UN Teams might of course be able
to visit Eritrea under these circumstances if prepared to accept
similar limitations on access. As for the Gulf News, it’s a rather
naïve admission that the government the journalist was dealing with
was rather more interested in offering a dubious story than
genuinely trying to open up to the international community. If
indeed Eritrea’s leaders are ready to try to change their image,
they should first deal directly with the very crux of the matter,
respond to the UN resolutions, and open up to the demands of the
international community - not just to a journalist looking for a
public relations coup.
*****************
top |
|
The World, Africa, China and Ethiopia:
China-Africa Relations
On a visit to China
earlier this month, Dr. Tekeda Alemu, State Minister of Foreign
Affairs, spoke at the China Foreign Affairs University on the
subject of “The World, Africa, China, and Ethiopia: China-Africa
Relations.
Dr. Tekeda began by
suggesting that the international situation could be considered to
be in something of a flux because of the world’s economic balance,
something, indeed, in which the role of China and other newly
emerging countries was critical. In addition, there were other
issues in which effective co-operation between states might be
considered vital – climate change being one in which, for example,
it is critical to develop an effective partnership with Africa, a
continent which had now decided to speak with a single voice.
Africa, after making little progress in the 1980s and 1990s, had in
the last few years developed an encouraging trajectory. It might
still take time to reach maturity but the continent had already
become a focus of attention b y others. The relationship between
China and Africa was now being scrutinized elsewhere, and often, in
fact, in a way which excluded the African perspective.
Disappointingly, the attitude of some towards the continent still
remained colonial and condescending.
Dr. Tekeda dealt with
four inter-related themes: the world situation, the situation in
Africa, the role of China and the situation in Ethiopia. He
emphasized that all states are driven by consideration of national
interest, China, the US, Ethiopia or any other African state. The
most that one can aspire to get from others is a partnership
established on the basis of mutual interest and mutual advantage. It
was therefore right, he felt, to be skeptical when some appear to be
more concerned about human rights or governance in say, Ethiopia,
than Ethiopians themselves. One must suspect that the national
interests of the critics might lie behind such claims of concern.
Of course, all states
do have common interests - and the world has largely become a global
village. There are challenges facing all. Climate change is one,
poverty and ensuring food security are others. These affected the
developing world most seriously, but their resolution was in the
common interest of humanity. They needed a collective and
collaborative approach, dictated by the necessity to ensure the
viability of the international community. A similar response was
needed to keep extremism at bay, to fight terrorism and fanaticism.
The
world was in the process of real transformation, and moving towards
multi-polarity. This meant for Africa a need to broaden contacts,
through, for example, the Forums of Co-operation – of which perhaps
the most effective and dynamic was the Forum for China-Africa
Co-operation (FOCAC). Now was the time, in fact, for Africa to be
treated
as one of the poles
in this new multi-polar world, with its capacity to contribute to a
healthy and harmonious world development, as a real partner in the
search for global solutions. This was what Prime Minister Meles
suggested at the last African Union Summit. Dr. Tekeda said he was
hopeful that this would be embraced by China and others.
China, he noted, had
made available to Africa, and the developing world, possibilities
for consolidating sovereign choices and independently chosen paths
of development. The emergence of China as a real factor in
international economic co-operation had been a major asset for
Africa. This was very clear in the encouraging developments in
Ethiopia itself. Ethiopia had, of course, other partners and
continued to attach great importance to such partnerships. But
China’s role had been so beneficial, Dr. Tekeda stressed, that it
was in Ethiopia’s interest to deepen this relationship in every way
possible. Rapid economic growth was a national security issue for
Ethiopia, and not just for Ethiopia but the whole of Africa. That
was why China was so important to Africa. However, any relationship
must be reciprocal; the interest of China must be taken on board.
The future, he underlined, lay in the promotion of mutual interest
and this was a principle that must apply to all countries that seek
the friendship of the African continent.
*****************
top |
|
Ethiopia’s
elections – an obsession for Eritrea’s foreign policy
President Isaias’ almost
pathological desire to cause havoc in Ethiopia has reached near
hysterical proportions. Hardly a day passes without the President
and his henchmen producing some canard or other about Ethiopia in
the hope that his efforts will ultimately come to fruition. The
latest increase in the anti-Ethiopia campaign has become even more
virulent with elections around the corner. Eritrea’s leaders seem to
believe that elections in Ethiopia offer a real opportunity for a
campaign of terror and the chance to incite discontent that lends
itself to their manipulation. It’s a project that’s produced febrile
excitement in Asmara, and it has a considerable following among the
rejectionist elements of the Ethiopian Diaspora and the alphabet
soup of self-styled liberation movements bank-rolled by President
Isaias. Many still accept the illusion at the core of his appeal:
that he is the only viable source of support to help them in their
mission. Indeed, the list of these groups, all with mutually
destructive agendas, continues to grow. The latest addition to those
prepared to take their orders from Asmara is a newly minted
opposition group of Ginbot 7-affiliated former officers, convicted
of crimes in a court of law. The common denominator of these groups,
and of the regime in Asmara, is, of course, animosity to the
government of Ethiopia whatever President Isaias and these groups
would say.
It is not uncommon for
President Isaias to give marathon interviews in which he talks
almost exclusively about Ethiopia. At times, one might almost take
him as an Ethiopian opposition leader with minimal ties to Eritrea.
He often waxes lyrical about his love for Ethiopian unity despite
his obvious and visible resentment of that unity. Indeed, Eritrea’s
policies very clearly belie any such preposterous claim. They are
very clearly aimed at killing Ethiopia’s economic progress, trying
to drag it back to the Stone Ages, and dismember it beyond
recognition. President Isaias has his reasons for this
anti-Ethiopian campaign. Ethiopia’s economic success is a constant
reminder of the abysmal failure of his own policies. The latest
effort to raise money is apparently to recall all Eritrean passports
and require passport holders to apply for new ones; the new, and
expensive, passports will have to be renewed every two years rather
than five as previously. President Isaias appears to lay all
Eritrea’s policy flaws and their results at the feet of
Ethiopia. Putting a stop to Ethiopia’s progress will somehow
assuage his own sense of failure. Indeed he has frequently said as
much in thinly-veiled remarks. Secondly, the holding of peaceful and
democratic elections in Ethiopia is yet another example his critics,
not least among his own people, can cite against him. His recent
order for a total Eritrean media blackout on Sudanese elections is a
clear indication of his paranoia. In Ethiopia, he is trying to
generate a crisis to foil the success of the election. That, he
feels, would vindicate his own open disdain for such ‘useless’
exercises. It would also mean he would be able to rally rejectionist
elements from within Ethiopia and inflict greater damage to the
democratic process as well as to the economic development in the
country.
It is in fact an
insurmountable task as the failure of previous efforts makes very
clear. Equally, President Isaias has developed tremendous capacity
to be oblivious to losses. He is always prepared to pick up where
his previous efforts collapsed. His obsession with Ethiopia has
become so large that he seems prepared to ignore any amount of
failure. He will no doubt try to continue even though Ethiopia is
too busy fighting poverty to bother to respond to this sort of
manoeuvring from the government in Asmara. The people of Ethiopia
have rather better use for their time and
resources.
*****************
top |
|
Ensuring
the integrity of the upcoming elections: keeping the lessons of 2005
in mind
As we inch closer to
the May 23rd general elections, the election fever that is gripping
the whole nation is becoming all the more palpable, and the
enthusiasm contagious. Parties are feverishly canvassing throughout
the country using all the mechanisms at their disposal. In addition
to the televised debates and the use of time slots allocated in the
public media to all parties, leaflets and posters of candidates
representing the numerous parties are in full display in various
cities and localities all over the country. Parties have been
holding town hall meetings and discussions with their supporters and
other potential voters. The institutions already in place are
operating at full pressure, and complaints are being handled in a
manner that fosters mutual trust and confidence. Parties have been
enjoying, and continue to enjoy, unfettered access to public media
outlets in putting forward their platforms. The level of
participation of the public in all these has been largely
enthusiastic, a witness to the increasing seriousness with which
citizens are taking part in the political process. The government
has also been doing its level best to see to it that the electoral
process goes ahead without a hitch. It is exerting every effort
possible to ensure the integrity and credibility of the upcoming
elections, in the sincere belief that doing so will go a long way
towards further cementing the democratic process in Ethiopia. As we
mentioned last week, there is indeed a lot to be optimistic about.
But the extent to
which this widespread optimism will be met by an equal measure of
success in the conduct of the elections remains a question for many
people. More specifically, foremost in peoples’ minds is whether the
conduct of the elections will take place without the kind of
recriminations prevalent in 2005. It’s worth looking again at the
factors that muddied the waters five years ago. Indeed, its all the
more important if we are to avoid succumbing to similar pitfalls
this time round. One of the most troubling trends in the previous
election was the brazen contempt of the opposition to the rules of
the game. Their commitment to the ideals of democracy appeared to be
no more than skin deep at best; there was a declared intention to
wrest power away from the incumbents by any means, fair or foul.
Televised debates, intended to be used to put forward election
platforms, were used instead to foment discontent and street
violence. Some opposition elements were calling for out and out
violence with little or no regard for the constitution or any laws
governing electoral conduct. From the outset, many institutions
including the constitution were subject to open ridicule. These
elements showed no willingness either to tone down their rhetoric or
heed voices of moderation. Committed to their all-or-nothing
tactics, leaders of the opposition repeatedly called on their
supporters to engage in street violence as a means of getting their
way at any costs. It was clear that these groups had no use for the
ordinary notions of the rule of law or of playing by the rules of
the game. They were fixated by a chance of getting into the
corridors of power, come hell or high water. The result was that an
election that had promised to be a major turning point in Ethiopia’s
democratization process ended up being taken hostage by the
unbridled demands of opposition leaders who considered power their
birthright without any regard for the institutions that made the
process possible. The outcome inevitably left scars on the entire
electoral process.
It must be admitted
that the opposition’s unwholesome behavior in the 2005 elections was
not entirely without support. There was a concerted media campaign
both within and outside the country, to describe the electoral
process in the most unflattering light possible. There were numerous
instances where outsiders, who believed it was their business to
dictate terms regarding the pace and outcome of the democratization
process, openly drew parallels of color revolution in Georgia or
Kyrgyzstan, even insinuating that this approach could well be used
in Ethiopia. The democratic process was deemed beyond the pale well
before the results of the election; it was clear that, for some, the
outcome would only be acceptable if it put the opposition in power,
or at least in a position to share power. One particularly egregious
case was, of course, the role that the leader of the EU Electoral
Observer Mission, Anna Gomes, played. Her behavior, more than
anything else, helped embolden the opposition to make irrational and
false claims of victory. The EU-EOM leader clearly overstepped her
mandate when she took it upon herself to commission an exit poll in
Addis Ababa and a few other urban centers which apparently indicated
that the opposition would win a majority. Indeed, the opposition did
win, and not just by a majority but by a landslide, in those areas.
The poll, supposedly taken for the EU-EOM’s internal consumption as
it were, was however ‘leaked’ to the opposition who immediately
proceeded to insist that they should be declared the winners of the
election on this basis. The facts provided a totally different story
but there was no stopping opposition leaders from shrill accusations
of massive fraud.
The impact that this
uncalled for meddling by the EU-EOM leader in 2005 had on subsequent
developments cannot be overstated. Indeed, it’s not just a question
of old forgotten history; the problems are still with us. As the
leader of the current EU-EOM in this election recently reiterated in
an interview with the English weekly Capital, whether or not the EU
Observer Mission can be considered a success will depend upon the
extent to which it carries out its activities neutrally and
impartially. We have no reason to doubt that he is indeed sincere,
but this will also depend in no small measure on whether or not the
lessons of 2005 have been taken on board. Understandably, Mr. Berman
said he would rather focus on the present elections, and not dwell
on the past. Relations, after all, run deeper than transient
missions, and there is no need for him to share fully the
government’s assessment of the role played by the previous mission.
Equally, there is no doubt some mistakes were made, not least the
‘leak’ of an unwarranted poll which certainly, despite Mr. Berman’s
emphatic denial in his interview, came out of the EU Mission. It is
important that any actions meant for the EU-EOM’s internal purposes
should not be ‘leaked’ by anyone; the bottom line must be that any
such mistakes will be avoided this time around.
As far as the
learning of lessons is involved, there have been one or two worrying
signs of a relapse among some in the opposition. Professor Beyene
Petros, leader of the opposition United Ethiopian Democratic Forces
(UEDF), and current chair of the Ethiopian Federal Democratic Unity
Forum (MEDREK), a loose coalition of eight opposition parties,
recently suggested in a public forum that people could always remove
governments without having to wait for elections. He was drawing
parallels with the recent extra-constitutional removal of government
in Kyrgyzstan. It was a clear indication that, for some members of
the opposition, such options are never off the table, raising the
question of whether they have drawn the proper lessons from the past
election. Professor Beyene also recently rejected AU Election
Observer Missions as “totally untrustworthy” and castigated the EU
Election Observer Mission as inadequate for deploying “only 150
observers to over 43 thousand polling stations.” His remarks appear
to suggest he is already trying to lay the groundwork for subsequent
rejection of the outcome of the election, or at the very least
trying to bring pressure in advance on election observers to pay
heed to blanket allegations of fraud. This is being coupled with
oft-repeated claims of harassment of their members, carried to the
extent, recently, of claiming a deceased member of another party as
one of their own. It would be naïve to consider these as just
isolated cases.
At the end of the
day, the actual conduct of the elections is what really matters. All
stakeholders, without exception, must give everything for its
success. Parties should reiterate their commitment to abide by the
rules. All stakeholders must remain consistently true to the ideals
of democracy. Partners must be wary of being hoodwinked into
repeating unsubstantiated claims. Nor, most importantly, should the
peoples and Government of Ethiopia relax and let down their guard
until the process is over and complete. Moreover, the lessons of the
2005 elections are still relevant.
*****************
top | |
