|
-
Adoption of
Ethiopia’s Universal Periodic Review by the UN Human Rights
Council
The UN Human Rights
Council in its 13th session has adopted the outcome of
Ethiopia’s human rights review under the Universal Periodic
Review procedure. Ethiopia’s national report was one of those
reviewed by the Working Group of the Universal Periodic Report
in its 6th session between 30th November and 11th December last
year. Following the presentation of the report, numerous
countries participated in an interactive dialogue, commending
Ethiopia’s efforts in promoting and strengthening human rights,
raising a number of questions and presenting a series of
proposals and recommendations. Ethiopia accepted many of the
recommendations and pledged to consider a few additional ones
made during the plenary session of the Council. In his opening
statement, Ambassador Fisseha Yimer informed the Council of the
reaction of the Ethiopia government to some of the outstanding
recommendations and provided answers to questions which had not
been sufficiently addressed during the earlier meeting of the
UPR. He thanked members of the Council, and observers, for their
positive engagement in the review of Ethiopia’s human rights
performance, and their acknowledgement of Ethiopia’s commitment
to the promotion and protection of human rights. He provided the
Government’s response to questions raised over the preparation
and environment of the upcoming regional and federal
parliamentary elections; on the issue of death penalty
procedures in Ethiopia; on the procedure and conditions of the
arrest and detention of Ms. Birtukan Mideksa; on the
compatibility of domestic legislation including the registration
of CSOs and charities; and on the media and on combating
terrorism. Further information was also given on protection of
children from corporal punishment; the institutional and legal
framework for the prevention, management and resolution of
conflicts; the minimum age for criminal responsibility; and the
role of members of the defense forces in the protection and
promotion of human rights.
Replying to previous
questions about the signature and ratification of treaties of
international human rights instruments, the Ethiopian delegation
said that the Council of Ministers, in a meeting on 7th March,
had adopted a decision recommending the ratification of the
Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. This
would now be considered by the House of Peoples Representatives.
Ethiopia had, therefore, accepted the recommendation urging it
to consider the ratification of this instrument. It is also
favorably considering ratification of protocols to the
Convention on the Rights of the Child and additional instruments
to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the
International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights,
the Convention on Discrimination against Women and the
Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and
Degrading Treatments. Ethiopia is also committed to sign the
International Convention for the Protection of Persons from
Forced Disappearances and will consider its ratification in due
course.
Those participating in
the discussions included some twenty states and observers. Most
appreciated the role of Ethiopia’s federal arrangements,
allowing greater protection for the rights of Ethiopia’s diverse
nations, nationalities and peoples, and supported the human
rights’ dividend of the country’s impressive economic growth.
They highlighted the efforts made to broaden the space for
freedom of expression by issuing licenses to a number of press
outlets, encouraged the government to continue its efforts to
expand the provision of social services, and saluted the
country’s rich history of religious tolerance and co-existence.
Speakers also praised the government’s collaboration with
bilateral and multilateral partners in protection and promotion
of human rights including the Office of the UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights, made it clear they appreciated the country’s
efforts to strengthen democratic and human rights institutions,
and welcomed efforts to protect the rights of mothers and
children and the significant reduction in child and maternal
mortality. They supported Ethiopia’s food security policy aimed
at extricating the country from a long history of impoverishment
and hunger, and applauded the Government’s comprehensive human
rights education policy through a federal and regional civic and
ethical education program operating from primary to tertiary
levels, and welcomed Ethiopia’s generous policy towards
refugees. At the conclusion of the debate, the UN Human Rights
Council adopted the outcome of the Universal Periodic Review on
Ethiopia, together with the views of Ethiopia on the
recommendations and conclusions including its pledges and
replies.
****************
top
|
-
Government
statement on the US State Department Human Rights report
On March 11th, as is now
customary, the US State Department issued its annual report on
the human rights situation of the countries of the world, with
the exception, of course, of the US, for last year, 2009. This
week a statement from the Government Communications Office has
raised a number of questions over the report and the methods
employed by the State Department in producing it. The statement
notes that the content of the report, and its reinforcement by a
series of similar reports targeting Ethiopia from different
directions, suggests the State Department had an objective in
trying to give Ethiopia a particularly bleak image with a string
of allegations of extra judicial killings, torture and arbitrary
arrests, political prisoners, claims that security forces
regularly use disproportionate force, that citizens are denied
right to a fair and speedy trial, and that there are serious
limitations to the rights to freedom of assembly and of free
expression.
The statement notes that
the State Department acknowledges that its sources for the
preparation of the report range from groups that have taken up
arms with the aim of dismantling the democratic and
developmental system of the country by force to organizations
that pay lip service to peaceful struggle but are also quite
prepared to conspire with armed opposition groups. Other sources
include several admitted and identified terrorist organizations,
including the OLF, the ONLF, Ginbot 7 and the Patriotic Front,
as well as various legal opposition parties, and a number of
critical non-governmental organizations. Despite the known
affiliations of these sources, the State Department
indiscriminately identifies all of them as “reliable”.
A very large portion of
the report, as usual, merely recycles material from the reports
of previous years, often without bothering to check if there has
been any change in circumstances or any need for an update. In
fact, over three quarters of this year’s report was simply
copied directly from the previous year. Updating in fact
accounts for a further twelve percent, and no more than fourteen
percent of the report is new. As the statement notes, this alone
must indicate there has in fact been a marked improvement in the
human rights situation in the country whatever interpretation
the State Department gives to the claims.
The statement says the
Government believes that rather than responding in detail to all
the allegations, as it has done before, it is more appropriate
on this occasion to look at the nature and motivation of the
criticisms. Since the date of the elections was announced a
number of organizations, claiming to be assisting the
development of human and democratic rights in Ethiopia, have
intensified their campaign of meddling in the election. The
statement identifies a number of elements to this campaign,
including a report from the International Crisis Group at the
end of last year claiming that multi-party democracy and
federal-system building had failed in Ethiopia, the repeated
reports from Human Rights Watch, highly theatrical and invented
claims by Genocide Watch, the BBC’s false allegation that aid
given 25 years ago was used for the purchase of arms, and other
unfounded accusations from groups like the Committee to Protect
Journalists, or Amnesty International.
The Government statement
notes that Ethiopia has built up positive and cooperative
relationships with a number of different international bodies
and communities. Its partners respect Ethiopia’s own choice of
democratic progress and often make constructive contributions
which the Government welcomes. However, efforts to impose
different views forcefully on another country, from wherever
they come, are simply not acceptable.
The statement also makes
it clear that it is easy to demonstrate the errors of the report
in detail if only because many of the allegations are simply
repeated from last year when the Government carefully
investigated them and refuted many of them point by point.
Undeterred by this, the State Department has lazily repeated
almost exactly the same allegations. This repeated use of
earlier annual reports to evaluate last year’s situation ignores
current realities and strongly suggests a decision was made to
assume there had been no progress in human rights in Ethiopia
last year. The State Department may sit in judgment on the
democratic credentials of other countries but it makes no effort
to hear views from all sides or to carry out the sort of
thorough investigation even the most elementary sense of justice
would dictate. Similarly, Ethiopia, criticized every year for
alleged human rights’ violations, never gets the opportunity to
respond to accusations.
The statement provides a
number of illustrations of the way the State Department has used
this approach in connection with the allegations, both new and
previous ones. As an example it provides some detailed evidence
of the misrepresentations of the State Department over last
year’s arrest and trial of members of the terrorist group Ginbot
7 accused of conspiring with the Eritrean Government and of
involvement in terrorist activities. The statement notes the
group was detained and legally tried, and that claims they were
denied family visits or ill-treated in detention are untrue, as
they themselves admitted. The statement points out it is ironic
that the US Administration should try to use the case in this
way, despite the evidence and the speed of the trial, when the
US itself held Guantanamo detainees for years without any court
proceedings.
Similarly, in light of
the terrorist activities committed by the ONLF, the Government’s
statement strongly criticizes the State Department’s suggestion
ONLF members should be presented as “freedom fighters” and its
description of those detained as “political prisoners”. The
statement suggests the best way to assist the State Department
in understanding the difference between terrorists and political
prisoners might be to compare OLF and ONLF prisoners with the
suspected terrorists hunted across the world by the US and then
held out of the reach of American courts in Guantanamo. Those
detainees, consistently held without a court order, were of
course never categorized as political prisoners only as
terrorists. In Ethiopia, the members of the OLF and the ONLF who
have detonated explosives in taxis, hotels and gas stations and
thrown grenades into public gatherings, killing and injuring
dozens of people are rightly classified as terrorists. The fact
that the US Administration is prepared to refer to people found
guilty in a proper court of law in Ethiopia as “political
prisoners”, while saying nothing of the prisoners it has been
holding in Guantanamo without any court order, demonstrates a
very clear case of double standards. We would believe the State
Department has no longer any moral standing to lecture other
countries on human rights.
The statement also draws
attention to some of the State Department’s other errors and
exaggeration, among them calling the death of three bandits in a
shoot-out when resisting arrest a violation of human rights or
putting a political spin on the alleged disappearance of someone
who had merely moved house. The statement makes it clear this
sort of misrepresentation by the State Department and by local
informers from opposition parties, falsely claiming arrests and
killings, appears to demonstrate a deliberate intent to tarnish
Ethiopia’s democratization process.
The statement says these
repeated propaganda claims are made with the intention of
showing that human rights violations in Ethiopia are structural.
They fail, if only because there is plenty of evidence that the
promotion and protection of human rights in Ethiopia is showing
steady improvement. Indeed, since the 2005 election, the process
of democratization and improvement of human rights has
registered notable progress. Unfortunately, one result of this
has been the fabrication of rumors invented by frustrated
members of opposition parties inside and outside the country.
The statement wonders why such obviously fictitious and
unverified propaganda from overt opposition sources should be
accepted so easily. Ethiopia today is moving towards a
fundamental economic and political transformation in which human
and democratic rights are fully respected. Any shortcomings, and
of course there are some, are relics of previous anti-democratic
regimes. The Government has been making steady progress in
laying a strong foundation for the respect and protection of
human and democratic rights. This means there is, in fact,
little evidence to support these propaganda claims of extensive
violations of human rights. Those waging this campaign therefore
ignore the reality and merely accept, unhesitatingly, any and
all unverified allegations made by such bodies as Human Rights
Watch, Genocide Watch, the BBC, or armed opposition or terrorist
groups, even when there is no actual evidence of any systematic
violation of human rights.
The statement wonders
what is the real relationship between such opposition groups and
their foreign backers. The link between those preparing the
State Department report and its sources, the relationship
between opposition groups and those leading the anti-Ethiopia
campaign from abroad, could hardly be clearer. Last year’s
statement noted that a number of these organizations survive on
direct and indirect funding from the US Government. They make a
habit of claiming violations of human rights in order to ensure
the flow of aid, however small, continues. The US government is
apparently prepared to keep these organizations going with a
thin financial lifeline in exchange for trivial information,
accurate or not. It is just this sort of promiscuous liaison
which provides for the State Department Report. This is why, as
the Government noted last year, it “categorically rejects the
accusations contained in the State Department's report as the
baseless work of rumor-mongers and political opportunists."
****************
top
|
-
HRW’s latest
attempt to influence voting in Ethiopia
A few weeks ago we
warned that Human Rights Watch was probably planning to issue
another of its determined attempts to affect the results of
Ethiopia’s electoral process. It did just that a week or two
before the National and Federal elections in May 2005; it
repeated its efforts before the local elections in April 2008.
Now it is doing so again, in advance of the May elections this
year, in what can only be seen as part of a quite deliberate
effort to influence the voting, the result of the election and
indeed the international community’s evaluation of Ethiopia’s
democratization process. HRW is also repeating itself in more
ways than one. The title of its report may be different,
becoming rather more hysterical this time round: “One hundred
ways of putting pressure: violations of freedom of expression
and association in Ethiopia”; but the contents remain largely
repetitive, suffering from the same methodological flaws and
questionable aims, to which we have previously drawn attention.
The fundamental problem
with this latest report, as indeed with all other HRW reports on
Ethiopia in recent years, has been HRW’s almost total
disinterest in what is actually happening in Ethiopia, and its
almost equal reliance on opposition elements either in Ethiopia
or more usually in the Diaspora and outside the country, a
number of whom are actually involved in armed struggle against
the Government or terrorist activity. HRW refuses to distinguish
between such partisan sources and those who might provide
accurate and informed criticism of government policies. It has
demonstrated little or no interest or intent to do so. At no
stage, for example, has it shown any indication that it has
tried to look at the regular reports that the Ethiopia Human
Rights Commission makes to Parliament, or those of the Office of
the Ombudsman.
HRW, in fact, has made
little effort to contact those in a position to know what
progress is being made in the development of human rights in
Ethiopia nor has it bothered to try and evaluate the
implementation of the legislation about which it is so critical.
Its main complaint against the Charities and Societies
Proclamation for example is that “its provisions will make most
international human rights advocacy work impossible”. That is
simply not true. The proclamation specifically allows for
international advocacy organizations to work in Ethiopia. It
does, however, require annual registration and regular
evaluation of methods and behavior. Given the outrageous
exaggerations and inaccuracies with which some NGOs have
indulged themselves in the past few years, this is hardly an
unreasonable requirement. It is in fact hard to escape the
conclusion that the complaints of HRW over the legislation
relate essentially to the fact that the proclamation lays out
the responsibilities required of NGOs and provides for
monitoring of activities.
Equally it is hard to
see why HRW should complain of a counter-terrorism law which
codifies possible government action in dealing with terrorism,
particularly as the law uses counter-terrorism legislation in
Europe and North America as its main exemplars. We should not
have to remind HRW that Ethiopia has suffered a significant
number of terrorist actions in the last decade and a half. In
this context, we would also remind HRW that most of these
terrorist actions have been carried out by such organizations as
the Oromo Liberation Front or the Ogaden National Liberation
Front, both it might be noted used extensively, and completely
uncriticially, by HRW as prime sources for its reports on
Ethiopia. Perhaps the position taken up by HRW over the
anti-terrorism law is not so surprising after all. HRW never
responds to any criticism of its own remarks or corrects errors.
It consistently ignores all criticisms of its methods and its
choice of sources. Indeed, HRW appears to think itself above
criticism and resents any efforts to regulate its activities or
ensure they conform to the legislation of the country.
In its latest annual
report on Ethiopia for 2009, HRW says it is not aware of any
meaningful efforts to hold any military or government officials
to account for abuses committed during several conflicts and
operations in recent years. It therefore assumes that there have
been no such enquiries. In fact, of course, as HRW has
repeatedly been told, there have been a number of investigations
into allegations of abuse in Gambella, in the Ogaden and in
Somalia. HRW’s complaint is actually that, according to its
version of what happened, not enough people have been found
guilty. Simply because their version of events has not been
accepted in toto, HRW claims investigations have been no more
than a whitewash. It is true that HRW has finally noticed that
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs sponsored an independent enquiry
into HRW’s allegations of human rights abuse in the Ogaden in
2007-2008. This, however, failed to substantiate most of HRW’s
allegations, finding villages that HRW claimed to have been
burnt to be undamaged, and people who had been allegedly
tortured, and even killed, to be alive and well. The enquiry
concluded that HRW had deliberately confined its sources to
refugees and to members of the ONLF outside Ethiopia, that it
had failed to explore reality on the ground, that its
allegations lacked independence and that its methodology could
only be described as highly dubious. HRW promptly accused the
enquiry of a lack of independence, but it has consistently
failed to respond to any of the substantive criticisms made in
the report.
It is true that in this
latest report, HRW does quote a few officials after it made a
formal visit to Ethiopia last year and met with Prime Minister
Meles and other senior officials. The only result, however, has
been a few fleeting, mostly derogatory, remarks in this latest
report. It might be added that the fifteen weeks which HRW
claims it spent carrying out research in Ethiopia were not very
apparent here in Ethiopia. HRW has repeatedly underlined that it
starts its approach from a very specific point of view: that
Ethiopia has a steadily worsening human rights record and is
sliding deeper into repression every year. The evidence for this
amounts to little more than its own repeatedly dubious claims
and is hard to equate with the series of successful multi-party
national and federal elections in 2005 (though the events of the
post-election period were certainly tragic and unfortunate,
largely because of the role of third parties), the highly
successful local elections in April 2008, and the progress made
in ensuring this current election, in May, should be free and
fair, including the Code of Conduct signed by 65 parties, and
now enshrined in law. A number of other changes, many made at
the request of opposition parties, have been drawn up to ensure
the elections will be free and fair. HRW dismisses all this
without consideration just as it does the fact that its views
are at odds with others including, for example, almost all of
the responses at the UN Universal Periodic Review’s evaluation
of Ethiopia’s human rights, even those of Amnesty International
which last week welcomed Ethiopia’s support of the
recommendations made during the UPR.
HRW consistently starts
all its reports on Ethiopia from an entirely negative point of
view and continues along the same track, making no effort to see
whether any of its earlier complaints have been addressed,
whether changes have been made or allegations investigated, or
to consider whether it might have got it wrong. As with the
recent US State Department report, almost every single
allegation adduced by HRW actually disappears into thin air upon
investigation: people who are alleged to have disappeared are
found living elsewhere; people allegedly killed are miraculously
brought back to life; those arrested haven’t been; opposition
rallies and demonstrations do take place. The list of errors is
endless. None of this is accidental. HRW is no longer a human
rights organization, it is involved in a deliberate political
campaign to denigrate and destroy Ethiopia’s efforts to carry
out its own democratization process.
Perhaps the most
unpleasant aspect of HRW’s latest report is the implicit
suggestion that aid should be stopped in support of its
allegations. HRW calls on donors “to review their policies” in
light of its claims which are highly controversial at best,
completely unreliable at worst. More, even if its claims did
have even partial validity, this kind of attempted blackmail
(there is no other word for it) is appalling. Indeed, for any
so-called advocacy organization to use the threat of a denial of
humanitarian assistance as a means to support its own unproven
and unjustified claims is utterly deplorable. The claim that
international aid is being used to oppress rather than help the
people of Ethiopia is outrageous, particularly when HRW knows
that the allegation is untrue.
The perennial problems
with HRW reports lie in HRW’s total insistence on its own
accuracy and competence, its refusal to acknowledge any possible
fault, despite repeated evidence to the contrary (reminding one
of the attitude of the Eritrean government to criticism),
apparently arising from an entirely unjustified certainty in its
own competence. From its absurd assumption, that elections in
Africa can only be considered free and fair if the opposition
wins, to its insistence on an almost exclusive use of opposition
sources, often from groups dedicated to armed struggle and even
terrorism, HRW reports suffer from serious, possibly
irredeemable flaws, the most dangerous of which is that HRW
apparently believes in its own propaganda. It is really time for
HRW to stop using human rights as a cover for advancing a
political agenda. The Week in the Horn might be asking too much
but it would appeal to HRW to be less political and act
more in line with its professed mission.
****************
top
|
-
EU-IGAD political
dialogue in Brussels
The Fourth Ministerial
Meeting between the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD)
and the European Union (EU) was held in Brussels on 23 March.
Previously called the "Ministerial Troika", it was renamed the
Political Dialogue Meeting (PDM) after the Lisbon Treaty. The
PDM was co-chaired by Dr. Tekeda Alemu, Minister of State for
Foreign Affairs of Ethiopia which currently holds the Chair of
the IGAD Council of Ministers, and Mr. Angel Lossada, State
Secretary for Foreign Affairs of Spain on behalf of the EU’s
High Representative for Foreign Affairs, Ms. Catherine Ashton.
The EU delegation included Mr. Stefano Manservisi, Director
General of Development; the IGAD delegation included the
Executive Secretary of IGAD, Mahboub M. Maalim, Ambassador
Kongit Sinegiorgis, Ethiopia’s Permanent Representative to the
AU, Ambassador Berhane Gebrekiristos, Ethiopia’s Ambassador to
the EU and Benelux countries, Mr. Najeib El Wahab, Sudan’s
Ambassador to Belgium, and Mr. James Kembi-Gitura, Ambassador of
Kenya to Belgium.
The two parties
discussed the situation in the Horn of Africa, including the
Sudan, Somalia and the Gulf of Aden. They demonstrated a clear
and common understanding on the issue of Somalia and the Gulf of
Aden and the challenge this creates for the region and beyond.
Eritrea’s continued role in attempted destabilization was
emphasized. There was agreement that the support the TFG is
getting is insufficient, and did not match the responsibility
expected of it. In fact, what the extremists are getting is both
more coordinated and provided with fewer preconditions. The two
parties underlined the significance of the agreement between the
TFG and Ahlu Sunna wal Jama’a (ASWJ) signed in Addis Ababa on
15th March. They emphasized the need to scale-up support for
this initiative to encourage the signatories to move on to
speedy and effective implementation. They encouraged the TFG to
continue to follow its policy of inclusivity, to accommodate all
those in Somalia committed to peace and national reconciliation
and prepared to work within the framework of the Djibouti
accord. The EU welcomed IGAD's political engagement in Somalia.
IGAD expressed its appreciation of EU support for Somali
security sector training as part of a comprehensive approach
that links political, security and development engagement.
On Sudan, both sides
stressed urgent need to address the challenges in the
implementation of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA). They
acknowledged the importance of IGAD´s role in full
implementation of the CPA and the importance of a coherent and
coordinated approach by the international community and regional
actors in support of the process. In this context, the EU
particularly welcomed the recent decision of the Heads of State
and Government of IGAD to remain actively engaged, in line with
overall AU approach towards the Sudan, in respect to Darfur and
to the implementation of the CPA. The IGAD delegation put on
record the fact that the International Criminal Court’s arrest
warrant against the Sudanese President is unhelpful for peace in
the Sudan as well as the region.
IGAD underlined its own
role as a catalyst in spearheading efforts to resolve the
problem in Somalia since 1993 and participate in the process
that led to the CPA in which IGAD had helped the parties
conceptualize the Declaration of Principles. IGAD is currently
playing a critical role in early warning and response to
conflict through the CEWARN mechanism which, as of now, is
focused on pastoralist communities. It was emphasized that this
needs to expand into other areas. IGAD’s central role in the
Horn should be appreciated, and as one of the AU’s RECs it is
playing a significant part in the African Peace and Security
Architecture. It is focusing on four areas of the Conflict
Prevention, Management and Resolution (CPMR): the creation of
mediation structures; enhancement of the Security Sector Reform
already begun through ICPAT; and cross cutting issues including
election monitoring and inter-parliamentary relationships.
The two parties
discussed IGAD's revitalization and reform process and the
progress of regional integration in the Horn of Africa. The EU
noted the importance of IGAD's strategic role in regional
integration, peace and stability. It pointed out that more could
be done to co-operate on regional investment in common
infrastructural developments under the Horn of Africa
Initiative. It expressed its appreciation of the activities of
IGAD and welcomed IGAD’s renewed efforts to enhance the capacity
of the IGAD Secretariat. IGAD detailed the work being undertaken
with regard to institutional strength, results-based management,
the creation of a Joint Financing Arrangement, and staff
rationalization. IGAD took the opportunity to welcome the EU's
expanded engagement with the Horn of Africa, following the EU
Foreign Affairs Council meeting last December. Given the
critical developments which will be taking place this year and
early next year in the Horn of Africa, the Political Dialogue
Meeting also emphasized the vital importance of continuing close
consultation and cooperation on all matters related to peace and
stability in the region. It was agreed that the next Political
Dialogue Meeting will be held at IGAD head quarters in Djibouti.
****************
top |
-
The 2nd Conference of
African Border Issues
The 2nd Conference of
African Ministers in charge of Border Issues was held here in
Addis Ababa on Thursday this week. The first meeting of
Ministers was convened on 7th June 2007, and adopted a
Declaration on the African Union Border Program. This was
subsequently endorsed by the 11th Ordinary Session of the
Executive Council of the African Union (AU) held in Accra later
that month. The African Union Border Program is guided by the
principles of respect for borders existing at the achievement of
national independence and for the negotiated settlement of
border disputes. It encompasses three key elements: border
delimitation and demarcation of boundaries, depending primarily
on the sovereign decision of states; cross border cooperation;
and capacity building. This week’s Ministerial Conference,
preceded by an experts’ meeting 22nd - 23rd March, reviewed the
progress made in implementation of the African Union Border
program and received the report of the experts’ meeting. It
noted the views of the experts on the draft AU Convention on
Cross-border Cooperation which is expected to be submitted to
the AU Summit in July in Kampala.
Ethiopia is fully
committed to the realization of African Union Border Program
which upholds the peaceful settlement of boundary disputes and
cross-border co-operation. It has been a strong proponent of the
promotion of cross-border co-operation with its neighbors long
before the adoption of the AU Declaration on Border Programs. In
this connection, it might be noted that Ethiopia and Sudan have
put in place an effective mechanism of cross-border
co-operation, the Joint Border Development Commission, which is
currently facilitating co-operation along their common border
and covering the areas of security, culture, trade, health and
agriculture. Similar mechanisms of cross border co-operation
also exist with Djibouti and Kenya with the setting up of
Committees of Joint Border Administrators or Commissioners. All
meet regularly. The Ethiopian delegation, headed by Ambassador
Fisseha Yimer, Special Advisor to the Minister of Foreign
Affairs, provided details of these examples of best practice to
the Conference.
At the end of its
meeting, the Conference of African Ministers in charge of Border
Issues issued a declaration calling, inter alia, for measures to
be taken to speed up implementation of the AU’s Border Program.
****************
top |
-
The Manila
Declaration on Inter-faith dialogue for the Non-Aligned
Movement
The Special Ministerial
Meeting of the Non-Aligned Movement (NAM) on Interfaith Dialogue
and Cooperation for Peace and Development (SNAMMM) was held in
Manila on March 17th -18th. It was preceded by preparatory
meeting of senior officials the previous day. Over eighty of
NAM’s member states attended, with another 13 countries together
with representatives of the Afro-Asian People's Solidarity
Organization, the League of Arab States, and the Organization of
the Islamic Conference, present as observers. Twenty four
countries, as well as the European Commission, and UNESCO, were
guests of the meeting. The Meeting was opened by Prof. Mahmoud
Hamdi Zakzouk, Minister of Endowments of Egypt, in his capacity
as Chair of the Non-Aligned Movement, who handed over the
Chairmanship of SNAMMM to Dr. Alberto Romulo, Secretary of
Foreign Affairs of the Philippines. Dr. Romulo described
interfaith dialogue as a fundamental new approach to
international relations, a paradigm shift that would lead to
greater collaborative action to foster more profound mutual
tolerance and understanding at the grassroots level. He
underlined the Philippines' hope that the meeting would carry
the process forward through the Manila Declaration and Program
of Action on Interfaith Dialogue and Cooperation for Peace and
Development. Other speakers included the Guest of Honor, Dr. Ali
Abdusselam Treki, President of the 64th Session of the UN
General Assembly, and Dr. William Vendley, Secretary General of
the World Conference of Religions for Peace, who urged
cooperation to provide for "shared security" among religious
communities and states, to honor and protect human dignity. A
video message from UN Secretary General, Ban ki-Moon, stressed
that peace, development and human rights depended upon mutual
understanding and respect.
Mrs. Gloria Arroyo,
President of the Republic of the Philippines, delivered a
keynote address, welcoming all participants, thanking NAM and
the UN for their confidence in the Philippines' contribution to,
and leadership of, interfaith dialogue since 2004, when the
Philippines tabled a unanimously adopted UN General Assembly
resolution on the subject. She emphasized the country's
experience as a living example of interfaith and intercultural
dialogue, founded on social justice and institutionalized
accommodation of its religious, ethnic and cultural diversity.
She expressed hope that the draft Manila Declaration and Program
of Action, would gather practical, action-oriented,
recommendations that would help redeem the true meaning and
commonalities of different faiths, founded on love, respect for
life, and mutual understanding, in order to achieve lasting
peace and prosperity for the world. For Ethiopia, Ambassador
Grum Abay, Director General for International Organizations at
the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, noted that the theme of the
meeting and its timing was appropriate for the critical issue of
maintaining world peace and understanding among peoples of
different faiths and cultures. He detailed the various steps
taken in this direction through the African Union and at the
regional level through IGAD. He underlined Ethiopia's experience
in benefiting from its rich ethnic, cultural and religious
diversity and the constitutional guarantees and freedoms
accorded to these in the Ethiopian Federal Constitution.
The meeting concluded
with the adoption of the Manila Declaration and Program of
Action. This provides for the active promotion of dialogue, in
particular inter-faith dialogue, to strengthen a culture of
peace and development. It commits NAM member states to promote
this through various activities including international and
regional conferences, emphasizes the need to strengthen dialogue
among civilizations, to increase inter-cultural dialogue and
promote respect for diversity. It calls for NAM countries to
develop links with religious and spiritual leaders; develop
mechanisms to recognize the role of women in interfaith
activity; strengthen youth networks; encourage inter-faith
studies and awareness of other cultures; encourage relevant
media initiatives; translate shared values of peace, compassion,
tolerance and solidarity into practical action; incorporate
dialogue among religions, and between religions and states, into
national plans; and to contribute to the implementation of the
Tehran Declaration and Program of Action on Human Rights and
Cultural Diversity.
****************
top
|
-
Ensuring the
integrity of the upcoming elections: the anti-government
campaign in full swing
Ethiopia embarked upon
the process of democratization nearly two decades ago in the
firm conviction that this was the only path to provide for the
survival of the Ethiopian state and achieve the betterment of
peoples’ lives. The process was undertaken not because this is
what the developed world preaches but as a result of the
Government’s commitment to upholding the fundamental principles
of democracy and its understanding that this is the only way to
extricate people from the trap of poverty and its attendant
violence. Aside from giving full credit to the universal values
of political freedom, equality and social liberty, the
Government has been equally vigorous in investing in the
promotion of social justice and good governance without which
these freedoms would mean little. Much has been achieved through
the Government’s pro-poor policies, but there have also been
many hurdles to overcome. As we have seen repeatedly, the
democratization process in Ethiopia has had to endure a whole
series of challenges, mostly from without. Some policies have
not always earned plaudits for the Government despite their
success. Criticism has often come in the form of concern for
human rights and democracy, particularly at the time of
elections, orchestrated by the media but often originating from
various self-styled pundits, so-called human rights watchdogs, a
very few US congressmen, one or two brazen European
parliamentarians, and others.
For these self-appointed
experts, whatever has been achieved is automatically
discredited. No amount of progress in governance can be genuine.
It is always no more than window dressing to offer a semblance
of commitment to democratic ideals to donors, but is in reality
geared to maintaining one-party domination. The destructive
nature of this sort of campaign has been particularly apparent
since the 2005 elections. No other recent development has drawn
more media interest, and it still gets widespread coverage. The
pattern is unmistakable. Every positive development in Ethiopia
is drowned out by media’s noise about ‘post-election clampdown’.
Media outlets and human rights’ groups have been consistent in
their support for this caricature of political developments in
Ethiopia. Today, with the fourth elections around the corner,
the campaign of vilification is back in full swing. HRW has come
up with yet another report recycling its usual litany of
allegations and the timing indicates it has made a conscious
decision to take the opportunity to try to muddy the electoral
waters. With HRW setting the tone, the Economist and other
publications have been following suit. Not to be outdone, US
Congressman Donald Payne not only seized the opportunity of a
recent hearing on democracy in Africa to emphasize his
membership of the anti-Ethiopian government bandwagon, he went
out of his way to openly support the Government of Eritrea,
despite being widely seen today as a rogue state, as part of his
campaign to vilify the Government of Ethiopia. Frankly speaking,
this particular Congressman has almost become a laughing stock
because of his emotional outbursts against the Ethiopian
Government.
Again and again, the
line is that what promised to be a watershed in Ethiopia’s
history, the 2005 elections, was reversed by a Government
clampdown. Details sometimes vary, but it is this so-called
‘squandered opportunity’ which provides the basis on which these
groups, in defiance of actual facts, argue. While it is
difficult to understand what exactly these disparate individuals
and groups are really after, one or two points about this frenzy
of concocting negative stories do spring to mind.
The first is that this
has little if anything to do with democracy and human rights. If
at all these critics are even remotely interested in democracy,
their concern is less about the strength of democratic
institutions in the country, or their lack, and more about the
extent to which certain groups should have carte blanche to do
what they want in Ethiopia. The opportunity that was squandered
was that of victory for the opposition. The kind of democracy
they are preaching has little to do with reality. Rather than
being an expression of genuine concern for democratic ideals, it
has been symptomatic of a dangerously arrogant tendency among
these to try to lord it over poor countries however significant
their progress might be. The obsession with the ‘squandered
opportunity’ is consistently repeated; the claim is that there
is no chance of an opposition victory because the EPRDF has put
in place since 2005 a structural framework to make any
opposition victory impossible no matter how strong the
opposition might be. Human Rights Watch version is:
“consolidating control of the local government structures was
the EPRDF’s first step to controlling the environment in which
the 2010 elections would take place”. It claims the EPRDF has
pursued a vigorous strategy of shutting down opposition parties,
purging dissent and used all possible means to recruit the
population at large into the EPRDF. The way HRW interprets
government actions, the lower levels of administration, kebeles
and sub-kebeles, have no other purpose than to make life
difficult for the opposition and ensure government/EPRDF
control. For HRW kebeles “constitute the Ethiopian government’s
structural weapons in suppressing dissent.”
The argument is
ridiculous in more ways than one. In the first place these
structures provide not a mechanism of control but a means for
the fullest possible participation of the population in the
political process. They also provide for co-ordination of
development activities while taking account of local concerns.
They may not exactly be congruent with the experiences of
western academics but this does not mean they are any less
democratic than similar structures elsewhere. They do serve to
provide a forum for meetings; they also provide an important,
even pivotal medium of communication, and a basis as functional
units of administration and development closely linked to the
realities of day to day existence.
Similarly, mass
associations of youth or women, in which millions participate,
are cited as further evidence that the EPRDF is consolidating
its monopoly on power. That these are voluntary associations is
something HRW and others refuse to accept. They claim these are
part of EPRDF’s “brave new world of human robots” who cannot
speak out for themselves during elections! The consistent attack
on the Charities and Societies Proclamation gives the game away
here. Democracy cannot be realized unless NGOs are given more
freedom to contribute to enhancing democracy. The more NGOs
there are, the more freely they are able to operate regardless
of their composition or their aims, the more democratic the
Government. NGOs, we are told, are the hallmark of democracy,
the guardians of freedom, par excellence. Mass associations,
however, are not. The belief embedded in this assumption is that
NGOs are inherently democratic no matter what they do, how they
do it or who organizes them. Mass associations, however, which
depend for finances upon their members, not on donors, that have
a large-scale local base, and which are deeply involved in
policies of poverty reduction, cannot be trusted. NGOs, a
designation that includes HRW, must be the central part of any
democratic process.
This campaign is clearly
now in full swing. The ‘recommendations’ of HRW are outspoken.
Forget any interest in democracy. Use humanitarian aid to
squeeze concessions for the opposition. Peddle the politics and
forget about human rights. “Encouraging democracy” is after all
no more than the quest by some interest groups for the space
from which they can launch whatever projects they may have, to
influence the direction and momentum of Ethiopia’s political
process. This is the space for which HRW and its partners appear
to be recruiting and organizing, to try to create an alternative
political reality that would lend itself to intervention. It is
this that explains the timing of the latest HRW report and the
attached media fanfare. And this exactly expresses some of the
challenges we face in ensuring the integrity of the upcoming
elections.
****************
top |
|
