Mulugeta Alemu
31 December 2007
Perhaps alarmed by the Tsorena incident on 26 December 2007, Slovenia, the current chair of the EU presidency, issued a press release on 28 December 2007. This brief statement says so many things at once. First, the EU is committed for ‘sustainable’ peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Second, the two countries should refrain from using force or threat of force to solve their disputes. Third, both parties should fulfil their obligations under the Algiers Agreement, and the decisions and statements of the Security Council. Ethiopia has an awful lot of reasons to be pleased with this pronouncement.
The government of Ethiopia has been assiduously stating that the search for sustainable peace between the two countries should be a priority. For a while, some short-sightedly attempted to put unwarranted pressure on Ethiopia to unconditionally accept the decision of the boundary commission. Though Ethiopia has reiterated its position in accepting the demarcation decision, the government in Asmara is unfazed. In what appears to be a deliberate choice of word by the EU, ‘sustainable peace’ is re-introduced in its diplomatic lexicon. This is probably an indicative of its realistic shift towards a nuanced and pragmatic stance on the matter.
The Ethiopian government has also been reiterating time and again that it will not be the one to use force in sorting out its difference with the Eritrean government. Thus, the presidential declaration is in line with Ethiopia’s stated policy. Eritrea’s deliberate portrayal of the Tsorena incident as an Ethiopian aggression failed to illicit any reaction to speak of. Ironically the unintended consequence of the incident was that it has given an indication of the state of affairs in Asmara. The Eritrean regime found itself between the rock and the hard place. If it categorises the incident as a major attack, it may well be that a proper reaction is expected from it, which it is not in any position to undertake. Crying foul on an Ethiopian attack also has a risk of portraying a weak Eritrea. What did the Eritrean government do? It settled for an almost comical narrative on ‘small-scale attack.’ One wonders why the Eritrean government was put in pressure to be engaged in an unusual job of selecting its words. Wouldn’t it be better and much suited to the tradition of Asmara to say that it has failed a major attack from the South? Isn’t it ironic that Eritrea also cited UNMEE as a referee, after it has derided the later for such a long time?
The most out of the ordinary aspect of the declaration is the fact that it leaves out any reference to either the boundary commission or to its decision. The statement simply calls the two countries to respect their obligations under the Algiers agreement, and the decisions of the Security Council. Just before the extinction of the boundary Commission, Ethiopia was telling the tribunal’s imminent jurists that given Eritrea’s blatant breaches of the Algiers agreement, the issue has reached such a proportion that it was effectively outside of their jurisdiction. It is remarkably positive development that the EU, as a major guarantor of the peace agreement has carefully listened to Ethiopia’s rational stance.
Monday, December 31, 2007
Saturday, December 29, 2007
The Fear of Elections’ Illiberal Ends
As the Kenyan Election Commission throws itself all over the place to issue the results of the 2007 General Elections and as ominous political tensions unfold, the familiar story of the predicament of Africa’s democratic transition is being retold. Some Western pundits and African commentators dubbed it a great African experimentation which needs to be emulated by others. I beg to differ.
Odinga’s victory should not be over interpreted. A defeat of incumbency is often wrongly used as gauge of testing the depth of democracy. Accordingly any election outcome which ratifies the continuation of an incumbency is considered suspect. Opposition political parties are invariably promoted as champions of democracy and constitutionalism, without seriously considering whether indeed their political programs and activities promote constitutionalism and rule of law. Printing of private newspapers or existence of NGOs was taken as scaling indexes of democratic performance.
Some of the reasons explaining the West’s obsession with others’ struggle with such wrong-headed electioneering has nothing to do with democracy itself. The Muslim world has shown to the West how democracy may be used for an illiberal agenda. No one in the West now seriously considers pushing Saudi Arabia, Algeria or Egypt towards a Western style election. Why not? Whereas pro-democracy foreign policy may not promote the Western interest in the Muslim world, it perfectly works well in this part of our world. Nothing scares some as the coming of big and powerful political machines in Africa. Chaotic electoral systems are best suited to penetrate and bring outside influence to bear. Consider the Western anxiety over the election outcome within ANC in South Africa. Many of them would have been happy to see a more chaotic, fragmented political scene in South Africa where the power base is decentred and fragmented.
Is there any lesson one can take from Kenya’s election? Not anything significant. It simply forces us to hang on to our tentative conclusion that Western style electioneering is not the best guarantor of stability, transparency and even respect for human rights. The so called private media uses freedom of expression as a means of propagating norms and values that undermine democracy itself. As evidenced during the 2005 federal and parliamentary elections in Ethiopia, opposition political parties may use democratic platforms for political programs that question fundamental constitutional playing fields. ‘Civil Society organisations’ are often appendages of foreign interests often run by people who are ready to do anything for a decent pay.
The chief challenge for liberal democracy has come from big and economically growing countries such as China and Russia. The increasing influence of these countries at the global stage is giving a space, al bit limited, for smaller and even poorer countries to be relived from extreme pressure to adopt western-style political processes which end up resulting in unintended consequences such as political tensions, violations of human rights, lack of focus on economic development and etc.
Odinga’s victory should not be over interpreted. A defeat of incumbency is often wrongly used as gauge of testing the depth of democracy. Accordingly any election outcome which ratifies the continuation of an incumbency is considered suspect. Opposition political parties are invariably promoted as champions of democracy and constitutionalism, without seriously considering whether indeed their political programs and activities promote constitutionalism and rule of law. Printing of private newspapers or existence of NGOs was taken as scaling indexes of democratic performance.
Some of the reasons explaining the West’s obsession with others’ struggle with such wrong-headed electioneering has nothing to do with democracy itself. The Muslim world has shown to the West how democracy may be used for an illiberal agenda. No one in the West now seriously considers pushing Saudi Arabia, Algeria or Egypt towards a Western style election. Why not? Whereas pro-democracy foreign policy may not promote the Western interest in the Muslim world, it perfectly works well in this part of our world. Nothing scares some as the coming of big and powerful political machines in Africa. Chaotic electoral systems are best suited to penetrate and bring outside influence to bear. Consider the Western anxiety over the election outcome within ANC in South Africa. Many of them would have been happy to see a more chaotic, fragmented political scene in South Africa where the power base is decentred and fragmented.
Is there any lesson one can take from Kenya’s election? Not anything significant. It simply forces us to hang on to our tentative conclusion that Western style electioneering is not the best guarantor of stability, transparency and even respect for human rights. The so called private media uses freedom of expression as a means of propagating norms and values that undermine democracy itself. As evidenced during the 2005 federal and parliamentary elections in Ethiopia, opposition political parties may use democratic platforms for political programs that question fundamental constitutional playing fields. ‘Civil Society organisations’ are often appendages of foreign interests often run by people who are ready to do anything for a decent pay.
The chief challenge for liberal democracy has come from big and economically growing countries such as China and Russia. The increasing influence of these countries at the global stage is giving a space, al bit limited, for smaller and even poorer countries to be relived from extreme pressure to adopt western-style political processes which end up resulting in unintended consequences such as political tensions, violations of human rights, lack of focus on economic development and etc.
Thursday, December 27, 2007
Behold the Eritreans, not the Wartreans!
Mulugeta Alemu
27 December 2007
Did Eritrea’s public pronouncement that Ethiopia just lunched an attack against it around Tsorena area on 26 December 2007 came as a surprise to you? It should not. I already named the country north of Ethiopia-Wartrea. This government of Wartrea had for several months been crying foul that Ethiopia is to launch an attack. Its Diaspora support network, Hizbi Mekete is revived within Wartrea and abroad trying to rally the ever diminishing number of the regime’s supporters. So in effect an old message is repackaged and is being sent out to Wartreans that Ethiopia is conspiring with the US and others to wipe out the Wartrean government and its institutions. US’s threat to enlist Wartrea as a terrorist state is a part of such evil stratagem, say Wartrea officials. Wartrea opposition websites are awash with theories about how the Eritrean regime is manipulating war-talk
So decoding the Tsorena incident should not be a difficult task at all. It is in the system which can only function best in a war zone. The organizers of the Hizbi Mekete badly need war mongering messages. The response of the diaspora Wartreans to the government call for support had been simply flat. Thus the Wartreans government’s propaganda mill started producing heaps of lies to agitate them.
But Eritreans should know better. In the past, they have shown to the world that they can fight injustices and win their freedom. Now their freedom is being taken away by very few individuals whom power had corrupted absolutely. Their brothers and sisters are in continuous military camp malnourished and despondent. They continue to flee their countries in thousands to Ethiopia and Sudan. There are currently 17, 000 Eritrean refugees in Ethiopia alone. Eritrea’s freedom is not threatened by the Ethiopian government. Their enemy is from within. Where are the Eritrean statesmen who envision peace for their people? Where the Eritrean intellectuals who speak hope to their compatriots? Where are Eritrean mothers and fathers who speak wisdom and reconciliation for their sons and daughters? Where are those courageous fighters who have given so much for their freedom? The stillness of their voice is only making the wartreans noisy.
27 December 2007
Did Eritrea’s public pronouncement that Ethiopia just lunched an attack against it around Tsorena area on 26 December 2007 came as a surprise to you? It should not. I already named the country north of Ethiopia-Wartrea. This government of Wartrea had for several months been crying foul that Ethiopia is to launch an attack. Its Diaspora support network, Hizbi Mekete is revived within Wartrea and abroad trying to rally the ever diminishing number of the regime’s supporters. So in effect an old message is repackaged and is being sent out to Wartreans that Ethiopia is conspiring with the US and others to wipe out the Wartrean government and its institutions. US’s threat to enlist Wartrea as a terrorist state is a part of such evil stratagem, say Wartrea officials. Wartrea opposition websites are awash with theories about how the Eritrean regime is manipulating war-talk
So decoding the Tsorena incident should not be a difficult task at all. It is in the system which can only function best in a war zone. The organizers of the Hizbi Mekete badly need war mongering messages. The response of the diaspora Wartreans to the government call for support had been simply flat. Thus the Wartreans government’s propaganda mill started producing heaps of lies to agitate them.
But Eritreans should know better. In the past, they have shown to the world that they can fight injustices and win their freedom. Now their freedom is being taken away by very few individuals whom power had corrupted absolutely. Their brothers and sisters are in continuous military camp malnourished and despondent. They continue to flee their countries in thousands to Ethiopia and Sudan. There are currently 17, 000 Eritrean refugees in Ethiopia alone. Eritrea’s freedom is not threatened by the Ethiopian government. Their enemy is from within. Where are the Eritrean statesmen who envision peace for their people? Where the Eritrean intellectuals who speak hope to their compatriots? Where are Eritrean mothers and fathers who speak wisdom and reconciliation for their sons and daughters? Where are those courageous fighters who have given so much for their freedom? The stillness of their voice is only making the wartreans noisy.
Monday, December 24, 2007
UN Somali Envoy’s Omnious Message
Mulugeta Alemu
The 100 or so Burundian soldiers join 1600 Ugandan troops already stationed in Mogadishu. Burundi had pledged 1700 troops. It is expected that additional troops will be contributed by countries such as Nigeria. As the first batch of Burundi troops arrive in the Somalia capital, the international community is yet to muster the required resources to bolster the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM). Given the indolence of the international community in supporting AMISOM and the complex problems within Somalia, AMISOM’s future is still fuzzy and alas, the message coming from the United Nations is indeed ill-omened.
In his recent report to the Security Council and press statement afterwards, Ban ki Moon’s Special Envoy to Somalia, Mauritanian national Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, outlined his vision for Somalia. He proclaimed his plan to introduce a ‘two-tracked approach’ and declared the end of ‘business as usual’ response. His declaration made a lip service to AMISOM, but is accompanied by a rather curious proposal which raised eyebrows at the UN headquarters. He suggested that Saudi Arabia should play a leading role in Somalia. Why should Saudi Arabia be invited to Somalia? He bizarrely responded that the Saudis host Islam’s two holist sites, and have a moral ‘authority’ and ‘prestige’. He also elaborated on the need for Islamic countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Jordan to contribute troops to Somalia. He made a lame political balance by halfheartedly raising the possibility that one or two NATO countries may consider sending troops. As expected, few understood his proposals and rationale behind them.
Ban Ki Moon had ignored the UN Security Council to develop a UN contingency plan on Somalia, and even made a controversial statement in November suggesting that Somalia is too risky for a UN mission. Shouldn’t Mr. Ould-Abdallah’s new enthusiasm be encouraged?
Countless problems loom large in his proposals. Firstly they are excessively vague and half-backed. His recommendations, probably treading incalculable sensitive geopolitical issues, were crafted in such generalities that members of the Security Council were forced to ask for more details. While talking about the need to establish an all-inclusive ‘government of national unity’, he avoided any mention of the peace and reconciliation conference held in Somalia through the auspices of the TFG, and its outcome. Among his chief proposals, however, there is one which stands out having a particularly significant potential impact on AMISOM. And this proposal is related to his call for Saudi Arabia’s role, and a strange naming of Islamic countries as potential contributors of troops to Somalia. The envoy’s message is clear and it is this Somalia’s crisis is primary an arabic and islamic issue and thus it should be handled as such.
Are the Saudis interested to send troops to Somalia? There is no indication that they are. So far Saudi’s role has been limited to hosting Somalis for peace talks, and probably sending a lot of money to the Islamists. One such talk occurred in October 2007. They are also active in Organization of Islamic Conference contact group on Somalia. But the odds are high that they are probably testing the waters for a more pronounced influence in Somalia. Mr Ould-Abdallah’s happy-go-lucky statements made that very clear indeed.
For several years, the Islamists enjoyed a strong support from Gulf States and business interests. A carefully crafted campaign projecting Ethiopia’s intervention in Somalia as American attack on Islam through a Christian satellite in Africa was evident. So far these messages were veiled. It is remarkable how the message is being sent through quite innocent sounding diplomatic briefs
The 100 or so Burundian soldiers join 1600 Ugandan troops already stationed in Mogadishu. Burundi had pledged 1700 troops. It is expected that additional troops will be contributed by countries such as Nigeria. As the first batch of Burundi troops arrive in the Somalia capital, the international community is yet to muster the required resources to bolster the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM). Given the indolence of the international community in supporting AMISOM and the complex problems within Somalia, AMISOM’s future is still fuzzy and alas, the message coming from the United Nations is indeed ill-omened.
In his recent report to the Security Council and press statement afterwards, Ban ki Moon’s Special Envoy to Somalia, Mauritanian national Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah, outlined his vision for Somalia. He proclaimed his plan to introduce a ‘two-tracked approach’ and declared the end of ‘business as usual’ response. His declaration made a lip service to AMISOM, but is accompanied by a rather curious proposal which raised eyebrows at the UN headquarters. He suggested that Saudi Arabia should play a leading role in Somalia. Why should Saudi Arabia be invited to Somalia? He bizarrely responded that the Saudis host Islam’s two holist sites, and have a moral ‘authority’ and ‘prestige’. He also elaborated on the need for Islamic countries such as Pakistan, Indonesia, Bangladesh and Jordan to contribute troops to Somalia. He made a lame political balance by halfheartedly raising the possibility that one or two NATO countries may consider sending troops. As expected, few understood his proposals and rationale behind them.
Ban Ki Moon had ignored the UN Security Council to develop a UN contingency plan on Somalia, and even made a controversial statement in November suggesting that Somalia is too risky for a UN mission. Shouldn’t Mr. Ould-Abdallah’s new enthusiasm be encouraged?
Countless problems loom large in his proposals. Firstly they are excessively vague and half-backed. His recommendations, probably treading incalculable sensitive geopolitical issues, were crafted in such generalities that members of the Security Council were forced to ask for more details. While talking about the need to establish an all-inclusive ‘government of national unity’, he avoided any mention of the peace and reconciliation conference held in Somalia through the auspices of the TFG, and its outcome. Among his chief proposals, however, there is one which stands out having a particularly significant potential impact on AMISOM. And this proposal is related to his call for Saudi Arabia’s role, and a strange naming of Islamic countries as potential contributors of troops to Somalia. The envoy’s message is clear and it is this Somalia’s crisis is primary an arabic and islamic issue and thus it should be handled as such.
Are the Saudis interested to send troops to Somalia? There is no indication that they are. So far Saudi’s role has been limited to hosting Somalis for peace talks, and probably sending a lot of money to the Islamists. One such talk occurred in October 2007. They are also active in Organization of Islamic Conference contact group on Somalia. But the odds are high that they are probably testing the waters for a more pronounced influence in Somalia. Mr Ould-Abdallah’s happy-go-lucky statements made that very clear indeed.
For several years, the Islamists enjoyed a strong support from Gulf States and business interests. A carefully crafted campaign projecting Ethiopia’s intervention in Somalia as American attack on Islam through a Christian satellite in Africa was evident. So far these messages were veiled. It is remarkable how the message is being sent through quite innocent sounding diplomatic briefs
Thursday, December 20, 2007
Letter from Somalia
Ethiopia’s Next Steps on Somalia
Mulugeta Alemu
Prime Minster Meles Zenawi’s timely interview with the BBC on 20 December 2007 reaffirms what his administration tirelessly has been saying for quite a long time now; that peace-keepers should quickly be deployed in Somalia and that the international community ought to robustly support the transitional government and its institutions. So far both are unfulfilled promises, and the international community risks failing Somalia for the second time. It was the lack of coordinated international support which in the first place severely weekend the TFG and its institutions after its establishment in Nairobi in 2004.
Following TFG’s capture of Mogadishu on 28 December 2006, the African Union had adopted a resolution calling Ethiopia’s role as a positive development which created an opportunity for a durable political solution. One year on, many hold the view that not all is lost in regaining the momentum in Somalia. Sadly enough, the international community particularly the United Nations has played a far less constructive role. First was that spectacularly embarrassing statement by the Secretary General in November that Somalia was too unstable and risky for a UN peace keeping mission to be considered there. Then series of ‘activist’ statements and pronouncements followed by host of officials from UN humanitarian agencies who started talking too much and doing too little in Somalia.
But what does the international community want Ethiopia to do? For too long, Ethiopia did conspicuously little to challenge those who are so opinionated about Somalia but who have insignificant presence in the country. This status quo should change. Ethiopia needs an aggressive campaign strategy so that the choices for its disengagement in Somalia are clear to everyone. In this respect, Meles’s rebuke is salutary.
Voice of America on 16 December 2007 indicated that officials within the Bush administration are debating whether the US should continue to support the Somali government or consider other alternatives. It is healthy that all interested parties are debating and weighting their policy options in this troubled country. The US is yet to show a robust and genuine support to the TFG. But is there option other than supporting the transitional government and its institutions? Support to the TFG need not be confused with support to certain individuals within it. Expanding the political base of the transitional government through a continuous political process should be pursued. Not doing would only encourage and further strengthen the unruly Islamist Jihadists and terrorists who don’t have any vision for the Somalia and the region. This also needs to be made quite clear even to those who are doing ‘Somali talking’.
Mulugeta Alemu
Prime Minster Meles Zenawi’s timely interview with the BBC on 20 December 2007 reaffirms what his administration tirelessly has been saying for quite a long time now; that peace-keepers should quickly be deployed in Somalia and that the international community ought to robustly support the transitional government and its institutions. So far both are unfulfilled promises, and the international community risks failing Somalia for the second time. It was the lack of coordinated international support which in the first place severely weekend the TFG and its institutions after its establishment in Nairobi in 2004.
Following TFG’s capture of Mogadishu on 28 December 2006, the African Union had adopted a resolution calling Ethiopia’s role as a positive development which created an opportunity for a durable political solution. One year on, many hold the view that not all is lost in regaining the momentum in Somalia. Sadly enough, the international community particularly the United Nations has played a far less constructive role. First was that spectacularly embarrassing statement by the Secretary General in November that Somalia was too unstable and risky for a UN peace keeping mission to be considered there. Then series of ‘activist’ statements and pronouncements followed by host of officials from UN humanitarian agencies who started talking too much and doing too little in Somalia.
But what does the international community want Ethiopia to do? For too long, Ethiopia did conspicuously little to challenge those who are so opinionated about Somalia but who have insignificant presence in the country. This status quo should change. Ethiopia needs an aggressive campaign strategy so that the choices for its disengagement in Somalia are clear to everyone. In this respect, Meles’s rebuke is salutary.
Voice of America on 16 December 2007 indicated that officials within the Bush administration are debating whether the US should continue to support the Somali government or consider other alternatives. It is healthy that all interested parties are debating and weighting their policy options in this troubled country. The US is yet to show a robust and genuine support to the TFG. But is there option other than supporting the transitional government and its institutions? Support to the TFG need not be confused with support to certain individuals within it. Expanding the political base of the transitional government through a continuous political process should be pursued. Not doing would only encourage and further strengthen the unruly Islamist Jihadists and terrorists who don’t have any vision for the Somalia and the region. This also needs to be made quite clear even to those who are doing ‘Somali talking’.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Tensions persist over Ethiopia-Eritrea border
ADDIS ABABA, Ethiopia - Isayas Gabriel was there as tens of thousands of fellow soldiers were cut down during Ethiopia's last war with Eritrea, a 2 1/2 year bloodbath over a seemingly insignificant border town called Badme.
Seven years after the war's official end, he is watching as the countries appear to be gearing up for Round 2.
An international commission charged with marking out the border essentially threw up its hands recently and ended its work with no formal demarcation, evidence of how stubbornly both sides have resisted mediation. The Brussels-based International Crisis Group said last month that the threat of war is "very real," and "just weeks away." An estimated 225,000 troops face off across a tense buffer zone.
The implications stretch far beyond Eritrea, a Red Sea nation of 5 million, and Ethiopia, Africa's second most populous country with some 77 million people.
"You cannot separate the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict from what is happening in Somalia, Sudan and even the Middle East," said Medhane Tadesse, a political analyst in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa. "This is not just a small, low-key conflict. It's a large-scale military confrontation."
The West has long been concerned that the Horn of Africa could become a breeding ground for al-Qaida. Osama bin Laden's terror group already has claimed responsibility for several attacks in the region, including the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 225 people. Further instability created by war could create further opportunity for extremists.
The United States looks to Ethiopia to help fight the war on terror in East Africa. Meanwhile, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush is preparing a case to designate Eritrea a "state sponsor of terrorism" for its alleged support of Islamic extremists in Somalia.
Experts say Ethiopia and Eritrea are using largely lawless Somalia as a proxy battleground.
Ethiopia sent military support to Somalia last year to drive a radical Islamic group from power, and now is fighting alongside Somali government troops beset by remnants of the Islamic force waging an Iraq-style insurgency.
The leaders of the Somali Islamic group are based in the Eritrean capital, Asmara. U.N. arms experts accuse Eritrea of secretly supplying huge quantities of arms — including surface-to-air missiles and suicide belts — to Somali insurgents.
Bulcha Demeksa, an opposition parliamentarian, said Ethiopia cannot fight in Somalia and Eritrea simultaneously.
"It is not just soldiers, it is everything," he said. "Logistics, citizens' support, young men's commitment. We cannot do that."
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who traveled to Addis Ababa this month for crisis talks with some of Africa's most unstable states, urged Prime Minister Meles Zenawi to maintain calm.
"There must not be a resumption of hostilities initiated by either side," Rice said.
Still, there has been an "alarming" military buildup along the border over the past few months, with an estimated 100,000 Ethiopian troops facing off with some 125,000 Eritrean troops, according to the International Crisis Group.
Once part of Ethiopia, Eritrea fought a 30-year guerrilla war that ultimately led to a referendum and independence in 1993. But the countries still disagreed over currency and trade issues, and both laid claim to several border regions, including Badme.
Eritrean soldiers entered the dusty border town in 1998, sparking the war. Eritrea's agricultural economy — with some 70 percent of the population involved in farming and herding — was devastated, and both armies suffered massive casualties.
"Both believe that sovereignty over Badme is symbolically vital, even if of little intrinsic economic value," the International Crisis Group said. "Whoever finally owns that village will be able to claim victory and justify the war's enormous sacrifices."
After the war ended, the international Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission gave the town to Eritrea, but Ethiopia has not conceded the town.
Late last month, the panel ended its work after both countries failed to allow it to physically mark out the border, formally granting Badme to Eritrea. The panel said it considers its work done, and that Badme belongs to Eritrea.
Minelik Alemu of the Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the decision is "is ill-advised, to put it mildly."
Eritrea, meanwhile, considers the ruling a victory.
Isayas, who fought in the 1998-200 war, is sober, but also boastful.
"Since I have witnessed war firsthand, I know exactly its extent of destruction," he said. "If war breaks out, it will be the end of the regime in Eritrea."
The Eritreans, however, beg to differ.
"If Ethiopia starts a war they will be crushed and that will be the end of their history," Eritrean Information Minister Ali Abdu said.
Kolelech Alemu, a 52-year-old school nurse in Addis Ababa, is dreading the prospect of a new war.
"Both sides must do whatever is required to avoid war from breaking out," she said. "I have lost some family members in the past war and I know exactly how painful it was. I don't want more of that to happen."
Seven years after the war's official end, he is watching as the countries appear to be gearing up for Round 2.
An international commission charged with marking out the border essentially threw up its hands recently and ended its work with no formal demarcation, evidence of how stubbornly both sides have resisted mediation. The Brussels-based International Crisis Group said last month that the threat of war is "very real," and "just weeks away." An estimated 225,000 troops face off across a tense buffer zone.
The implications stretch far beyond Eritrea, a Red Sea nation of 5 million, and Ethiopia, Africa's second most populous country with some 77 million people.
"You cannot separate the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict from what is happening in Somalia, Sudan and even the Middle East," said Medhane Tadesse, a political analyst in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa. "This is not just a small, low-key conflict. It's a large-scale military confrontation."
The West has long been concerned that the Horn of Africa could become a breeding ground for al-Qaida. Osama bin Laden's terror group already has claimed responsibility for several attacks in the region, including the 1998 bombings of the U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania that killed 225 people. Further instability created by war could create further opportunity for extremists.
The United States looks to Ethiopia to help fight the war on terror in East Africa. Meanwhile, the administration of U.S. President George W. Bush is preparing a case to designate Eritrea a "state sponsor of terrorism" for its alleged support of Islamic extremists in Somalia.
Experts say Ethiopia and Eritrea are using largely lawless Somalia as a proxy battleground.
Ethiopia sent military support to Somalia last year to drive a radical Islamic group from power, and now is fighting alongside Somali government troops beset by remnants of the Islamic force waging an Iraq-style insurgency.
The leaders of the Somali Islamic group are based in the Eritrean capital, Asmara. U.N. arms experts accuse Eritrea of secretly supplying huge quantities of arms — including surface-to-air missiles and suicide belts — to Somali insurgents.
Bulcha Demeksa, an opposition parliamentarian, said Ethiopia cannot fight in Somalia and Eritrea simultaneously.
"It is not just soldiers, it is everything," he said. "Logistics, citizens' support, young men's commitment. We cannot do that."
U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who traveled to Addis Ababa this month for crisis talks with some of Africa's most unstable states, urged Prime Minister Meles Zenawi to maintain calm.
"There must not be a resumption of hostilities initiated by either side," Rice said.
Still, there has been an "alarming" military buildup along the border over the past few months, with an estimated 100,000 Ethiopian troops facing off with some 125,000 Eritrean troops, according to the International Crisis Group.
Once part of Ethiopia, Eritrea fought a 30-year guerrilla war that ultimately led to a referendum and independence in 1993. But the countries still disagreed over currency and trade issues, and both laid claim to several border regions, including Badme.
Eritrean soldiers entered the dusty border town in 1998, sparking the war. Eritrea's agricultural economy — with some 70 percent of the population involved in farming and herding — was devastated, and both armies suffered massive casualties.
"Both believe that sovereignty over Badme is symbolically vital, even if of little intrinsic economic value," the International Crisis Group said. "Whoever finally owns that village will be able to claim victory and justify the war's enormous sacrifices."
After the war ended, the international Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission gave the town to Eritrea, but Ethiopia has not conceded the town.
Late last month, the panel ended its work after both countries failed to allow it to physically mark out the border, formally granting Badme to Eritrea. The panel said it considers its work done, and that Badme belongs to Eritrea.
Minelik Alemu of the Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs said the decision is "is ill-advised, to put it mildly."
Eritrea, meanwhile, considers the ruling a victory.
Isayas, who fought in the 1998-200 war, is sober, but also boastful.
"Since I have witnessed war firsthand, I know exactly its extent of destruction," he said. "If war breaks out, it will be the end of the regime in Eritrea."
The Eritreans, however, beg to differ.
"If Ethiopia starts a war they will be crushed and that will be the end of their history," Eritrean Information Minister Ali Abdu said.
Kolelech Alemu, a 52-year-old school nurse in Addis Ababa, is dreading the prospect of a new war.
"Both sides must do whatever is required to avoid war from breaking out," she said. "I have lost some family members in the past war and I know exactly how painful it was. I don't want more of that to happen."
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
Sudan-Ethiopia cooperation will further be strengthen - PM
December 11, 2007 (ADDIS ABABA) — Being back from EU-Africa summit in Lisbon Prime Minister Meles Zenawi said, the current Ethio-Sudan cooperation in the road development sector will further be strengthened in other infrastructure development sectors too.
Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al-Basher inaugurated Al-Gadariff- Al-Galabat -Doka highway, few days ago which is believed to be a major land link to transport Ethiopian agricultural products to Sudan and fuel from Sudan in return.
Also, the Sudan’s First Vice President, Salva Kiir Mayadrit is expected tomorrow in Addis Ababa where he would hold talks on the bilateral ties between the tow countries and ways to strengthen the economic exchanges.
During the inauguration, Sudanese President, Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, has applauded the bilateral and all rounded cooperation of the two brotherly nations saying as "exemplary to other African countries."
The economic cooperation of the two countries is growing fast particularly in agriculture and energy sectors, Ethiopian Television reported in connection with a recent visit to Sudan of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi.
The two neighboring countries are installing necessary infrastructure facilities such as trans-boundary road links to further enhance their multifarious cooperation.
Prime Minister Meles, during his stay in Sudan, also has held discussions with his Sudanese counterpart on issues related to South Sudan and Darfur crises.
The two leaders on the occasion have made fresh pledges to commit themselves in assuring lasting peace and managing conflicts.
The construction of the 156 km-long section was executed by an Egyptian constructor. The project has cost 30 million USD, 90% of which was from a grant provided by the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development (AFESD) and 10 pct by the Sudanese Government
Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al-Basher inaugurated Al-Gadariff- Al-Galabat -Doka highway, few days ago which is believed to be a major land link to transport Ethiopian agricultural products to Sudan and fuel from Sudan in return.
Also, the Sudan’s First Vice President, Salva Kiir Mayadrit is expected tomorrow in Addis Ababa where he would hold talks on the bilateral ties between the tow countries and ways to strengthen the economic exchanges.
During the inauguration, Sudanese President, Omar Hassan Ahmad al-Bashir, has applauded the bilateral and all rounded cooperation of the two brotherly nations saying as "exemplary to other African countries."
The economic cooperation of the two countries is growing fast particularly in agriculture and energy sectors, Ethiopian Television reported in connection with a recent visit to Sudan of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi.
The two neighboring countries are installing necessary infrastructure facilities such as trans-boundary road links to further enhance their multifarious cooperation.
Prime Minister Meles, during his stay in Sudan, also has held discussions with his Sudanese counterpart on issues related to South Sudan and Darfur crises.
The two leaders on the occasion have made fresh pledges to commit themselves in assuring lasting peace and managing conflicts.
The construction of the 156 km-long section was executed by an Egyptian constructor. The project has cost 30 million USD, 90% of which was from a grant provided by the Arab Fund for Economic and Social Development (AFESD) and 10 pct by the Sudanese Government
Improving Bilateral Ties Between Kuwait and Ethiopia
Addis Ababa, December 12, 2007 (Addis Ababa) - Foreign Minister, Seyoum Mesfin announced on Wednesday that Ethiopia and Kuwait agreed to enhance bilateral cooperation after fruitful discussions held between senior government officials of the two countries.
Seyoum made the announcement after holding talks with Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Kuwait, Sheikh Dr. Mohammed Sabah AL-Salem Al-Sabah on Ethio-Kuwait bilateral relations and on peace and security issues.
Seyoum said the two sisterly countries decided to bolster diplomatic and bilateral cooperation, especially in trade, investment, and political sectors.
The two countries also agreed to meet and hold discussions on international issues as well as on the prevailing situations in the Horn of Africa and the Middle East.
As per the agreement reached between the two countries, an Ethio-Kuwait Joint Committee, composed of government officials and members of the business community, is to begin activities soon.
According to the minister, the two countries finalized preparations to sign labor accord that would enable Ethiopians work in that country.
Seyoum made the announcement after holding talks with Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister of Kuwait, Sheikh Dr. Mohammed Sabah AL-Salem Al-Sabah on Ethio-Kuwait bilateral relations and on peace and security issues.
Seyoum said the two sisterly countries decided to bolster diplomatic and bilateral cooperation, especially in trade, investment, and political sectors.
The two countries also agreed to meet and hold discussions on international issues as well as on the prevailing situations in the Horn of Africa and the Middle East.
As per the agreement reached between the two countries, an Ethio-Kuwait Joint Committee, composed of government officials and members of the business community, is to begin activities soon.
According to the minister, the two countries finalized preparations to sign labor accord that would enable Ethiopians work in that country.
Bali climate talks find focus in fund for poor nations
With UN climate talks here so far largely deadlocked, an agreement this week to breathe new life into a fund to help poor countries cope with a warming climate is set to be the big breakthrough of the conference.
The issue of adapting to climate change, despite the conference's primary goal of preventing further climate change, has gained new prominence at the Bali talks. Protecting the neediest countries from the effects of a warming world has now become a central theme of the gathering.
"Climate change affects us all, but it does not affect us all equally," Ban Ki Moon, secretary general of the United Nations, said Wednesday to a room of newly arrived ministers and heads of state at the opening of high-level sessions. "Those who are least able to cope are being hit hardest. Those who have done the least to cause the problem bear the gravest consequences."
The meeting in Bali is part of negotiations on how to invigorate a faltering 1992 treaty, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and to replace the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 addendum that requires three dozen industrialized countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2012.
The adaptation fund, which is managed by the Global Environment Facility, an independent financial organization, was established in Kyoto in 1997, but had been criticized for being too difficult to access and for raising only paltry sums of money.
Under an agreement reached by delegates Tuesday, developing countries and other institutions will have direct access to the fund, which is expected to streamline the funding of crucial projects in the developing world. The fund will be overseen by a 16-member board of representatives from both rich and poor countries.
The adaptation fund is to be maintained using a 2 percent tax on transactions within the Clean Development Mechanism, under which rich nations receive carbon credits for investing in sustainable projects in developing countries. The aim of the fund is to help protect those most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, like drought, flooding and severe storms.
"For the poor, this is clearly a recognition that participants here in Bali are serious about their concerns," said Monique Barbut, chief executive officer of the Global Environment Fund. "They can see that there has been a shift at the conference. It is not all about who is emitting, but it is also about the ones who are suffering from those emissions."
Indeed, in the past few years, negotiations over a global climate treaty have developed a dual focus - mitigating climate change and also adapting to it.
Some analysts, however, are skeptical about just how significant the establishment of the adaptation fund will be for the world's defense against environmental disasters associated with rising temperatures.
A recent United Nations Human Development Report detailed how the poor, especially along the equator, are the most vulnerable to climate hazards and lashed out at rich countries for not following through on their original financial commitments to help.
The report said that an additional 600 million people would be hungry, 200 million more displaced by floods and 400 million more exposed to diseases like malaria and dengue, if the world's temperature rises just two degrees Celsius.
Kevin Watkins, lead author of the report, said a lot of uncertainty remained about the level of actual resources that will be mobilized under the new agreement.
"This is not a final solution," he said on the sidelines of the Bali conference. "But we can see how the issue is starting to force its way up the climate change agenda."
Carbon trading is expected to become a $70 billion a year industry by the time the adaptation fund goes into effect in 2008. Still, garnering only 2 percent of that amount means it will fall well short of projected needs in the developing world. The Human Development Report called for $86 billion annually in new and additional financing for pro-poor adaptation.
Although not included in this week's agreement, the idea of extending the two percent tax to other financial mechanisms was discussed and could be included in later drafts. But until then, analysts hope that spending the money correctly will make up for not having enough. "It is not simply a question of additional money, it is using the money you already have in a smart way," said Hans Verlome, director of the Global Climate Change Program for WWF. "You will get more bang for your buck by investing in climate smart projects."
The issue of adapting to climate change, despite the conference's primary goal of preventing further climate change, has gained new prominence at the Bali talks. Protecting the neediest countries from the effects of a warming world has now become a central theme of the gathering.
"Climate change affects us all, but it does not affect us all equally," Ban Ki Moon, secretary general of the United Nations, said Wednesday to a room of newly arrived ministers and heads of state at the opening of high-level sessions. "Those who are least able to cope are being hit hardest. Those who have done the least to cause the problem bear the gravest consequences."
The meeting in Bali is part of negotiations on how to invigorate a faltering 1992 treaty, the Framework Convention on Climate Change, and to replace the Kyoto Protocol, a 1997 addendum that requires three dozen industrialized countries to cut greenhouse gas emissions below 1990 levels by 2012.
The adaptation fund, which is managed by the Global Environment Facility, an independent financial organization, was established in Kyoto in 1997, but had been criticized for being too difficult to access and for raising only paltry sums of money.
Under an agreement reached by delegates Tuesday, developing countries and other institutions will have direct access to the fund, which is expected to streamline the funding of crucial projects in the developing world. The fund will be overseen by a 16-member board of representatives from both rich and poor countries.
The adaptation fund is to be maintained using a 2 percent tax on transactions within the Clean Development Mechanism, under which rich nations receive carbon credits for investing in sustainable projects in developing countries. The aim of the fund is to help protect those most vulnerable to the adverse effects of climate change, like drought, flooding and severe storms.
"For the poor, this is clearly a recognition that participants here in Bali are serious about their concerns," said Monique Barbut, chief executive officer of the Global Environment Fund. "They can see that there has been a shift at the conference. It is not all about who is emitting, but it is also about the ones who are suffering from those emissions."
Indeed, in the past few years, negotiations over a global climate treaty have developed a dual focus - mitigating climate change and also adapting to it.
Some analysts, however, are skeptical about just how significant the establishment of the adaptation fund will be for the world's defense against environmental disasters associated with rising temperatures.
A recent United Nations Human Development Report detailed how the poor, especially along the equator, are the most vulnerable to climate hazards and lashed out at rich countries for not following through on their original financial commitments to help.
The report said that an additional 600 million people would be hungry, 200 million more displaced by floods and 400 million more exposed to diseases like malaria and dengue, if the world's temperature rises just two degrees Celsius.
Kevin Watkins, lead author of the report, said a lot of uncertainty remained about the level of actual resources that will be mobilized under the new agreement.
"This is not a final solution," he said on the sidelines of the Bali conference. "But we can see how the issue is starting to force its way up the climate change agenda."
Carbon trading is expected to become a $70 billion a year industry by the time the adaptation fund goes into effect in 2008. Still, garnering only 2 percent of that amount means it will fall well short of projected needs in the developing world. The Human Development Report called for $86 billion annually in new and additional financing for pro-poor adaptation.
Although not included in this week's agreement, the idea of extending the two percent tax to other financial mechanisms was discussed and could be included in later drafts. But until then, analysts hope that spending the money correctly will make up for not having enough. "It is not simply a question of additional money, it is using the money you already have in a smart way," said Hans Verlome, director of the Global Climate Change Program for WWF. "You will get more bang for your buck by investing in climate smart projects."
Former southern rebels to rejoin Sudan government
Former southern rebels to rejoin Sudan govern- Sudan's former southern rebels said on Tuesday they would order ministers to rejoin a national coalition government, ending one of the biggest political crises to hit the country since the end of a two-decade civil war.The Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) said it would end its boycott of the Government of National Unity on Wednesday after leader Salva Kiir met President Omar Hassan al-Bashir and resolved a string of grievances.The SPLM pulled its ministers out of the coalition government in October, accusing Khartoum of stalling on a 2005 peace deal that ended Africa's longest civil war.The move sparked a bitter row between the sides and stirred fears of a return to conflict.But SPLM Secretary General Pagan Amum told reporters that Kiir and Bashir had now resolved almost all the points of contention, including a timetable for the withdrawal of troops to either side of Sudan's north-south border.The SPLM and Khartoum were still at loggerheads over the demarcation of the central oil-rich Abyei region, he said. But both Bashir and Kiir had agreed to discuss the issue again in a week and were confident it could be resolved, he added."We have achieved a lot... We have resolved all the outstanding issues that caused the crisis, with the exception of Abyei," said Amum.Kiir is Sudan's first vice president as well as head of the SPLM.Abyei's status was left unresolved in the agreement signed between Khartoum and the SPLM in 2005. Khartoum eventually rejected the findings of an independent commission on the demarcation.Amum said the SPLM had agreed to provide all necessary funds for border demarcation and a national census."We have also agreed to institute a full transparent system in the management of the oil sector," he said. All political parties would also start on a programme of "national reconciliation" to heal wounds left by the rift.The sharing of oil revenues has been one of the most contentious issues since the peace deal. The census is supposed to pave the way for national elections in 2009 and a referendum on the possible secession of the south in 2011.Around 2 million people died during more than 20 years of north-south fighting, fuelled by the discovery of oil against a background of ethnic and religious differences.Oil is linked to conflict elsewhere in Sudan too.Rebels from western Darfur said on Tuesday they had seized a Chinese-run oil field and vowed more assaults on other installations. Sudanese media denied the report, saying a small rebel attack had been repelled.The Justice and Equality movement said it carried out the attack to force Chinese oil firms to leave. The insurgent group accuses Beijing of arming Khartoum and financing the government through oil revenues.
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
'Dozens killed' in Algeria blasts
'Dozens killed' in Algeria blasts The Algerian capital, Algiers, has been rocked by two deadly bomb attacks, on the country's Constitutional Council and the offices of the United Nations.
Medical officials have said more than 60 people were killed, but Algeria's Interior Minister, Noureddine Yazid Zerhouni, has only confirmed 22 deaths.
The bombs were the latest in a series of attacks in Algeria this year.
No group has admitted responsibility, but Mr Zerhouni has blamed a militant Islamist group linked to al-Qaeda.
A recently-arrested militant had revealed that the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) had planned several months ago to attack one of Tuesday's targets, Mr Zerhouni said.
BBC Security Correspondent Frank Gardner says the manner of the bombings and choice of targets suggest the involvement of the group, which is now known as al-Qaeda in the Land of the Islamic Maghreb.
I would like to condemn it in the strongest terms - it cannot be justified in any circumstances UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
Earlier, Algerian Prime Minister Abdelaziz Belkhadem called off a cabinet meeting to visit hospitals where the injured were being treated.
"These are crimes that targeted innocent people. Students and school children were among the victims. Nothing can justify the crime," he said.
The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, also condemned the bombings, saying they were "just unacceptable".
"I would like to condemn it in the strongest terms. It cannot be justified in any circumstances," he told reporters.
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, whose staff were caught in the blast, told the BBC that he had "no doubt that the UN was targeted".
The US government called the attacks an act of "senseless violence" on the innocent by the "enemies of humanity".
Students killed
In the attack near the Constitutional Council, a bus packed with students was passing by when the vehicle containing the bomb exploded at around 0930 (0830 GMT).
Security officials said the bus took the full force of the blast and was ripped apart, killing and injuring many of those on board.
At the UN offices in Hydra, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) building bore the brunt of the blast. A residential building and the UNHCR headquarters across the road were also damaged, witnesses said.
Sophie Haspeslagh, who works for the UNDP, told the BBC that she was in a corridor when the blast occurred.
"Everything shattered. Everything fell. I hid under a piece of furniture so I wouldn't be hit by the debris," she said.
"I was holding my jacket on my face because I couldn't breathe."
Ms Haspeslagh said a large part of the UNDP building was destroyed and it was feared people were trapped inside.
A spokesman for the UNDP, Jean Fabre, said at least 12 UN staff members were missing, while the UNHCR said one of its drivers had been killed and another was missing.
However, Algerian Interior Minister Noureddine Yazid Zerhouni said no UN personnel had been among the 12 dead bodies so far recovered in Hydra.
'Suicide bomber'
Earlier, Mr Zerhouni said the explosions had been caused by two car bombs, and that the one at the UN was triggered by a suicide bomber.
Ms Haspeslagh said one of her colleagues had seen a white van drive into the main UN offices then explode.
There have been a series of bomb attacks across Algeria during the past year in which scores of people have died.
In September more than 50 people were killed in suicide attacks - one of them involved a truck packed with explosives being driven into a coast-guard base.
Al-Qaeda link?
Members of the public have recently held rallies in protest at the upsurge in violence.
VIOLENCE IN 2007
6 September: 22 die in bombing in Batna claimed by al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb
8 September: 32 die in bombing in Dellys claimed by al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb
July: Suicide bomber targets barracks near Bouira, killing nine
May: Dozens killed in run-up to elections, in fighting between military and militants
April: 33 killed in Algiers in attacks claimed by al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb
March: Three Algerians and a Russian killed in attack on gas pipeline workers
February: Seven bombs kill six east of Algiers
Many of the recent blasts have been claimed by members of al-Qaeda's North Africa wing, calling themselves al-Qaeda in the Land of the Islamic Maghreb (AQLIM), including a triple suicide bombing in Algiers in April which killed 33 people.
The militant group was previously known as the GSPC, but changed its name when it reportedly joined forces with al-Qaeda last year.
BBC regional analyst Roger Hardy says it is unclear how far the group really is linked to Osama Bin Laden's organisation, and how far it is merely inspired by it.
What is worrying Western experts and North African governments is the possibility that radical Islamists in the region no longer have a merely local agenda but are linked to a wider web of international networks.
Algeria suffered a brutal and bloody civil war in the 1990s, but in recent years violence had declined.
Did you witness the explosions or are you in the area? Use the form below to send us your accounts, some of which may be published.
You can send pictures and video to: yourpics@bbc.co.uk or to send via mobile please dial +44 (0)7725 100 100 .
If you have a large file you can upload here.
Do not endanger yourself or others, take any unnecessary risks or infringe any laws.
Name
Your E-mail address
Town & Country
Phone number (optional):
Comments
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/7137997.stmPublished: 2007/12/11 17:58:56 GMT© BBC MMVII
Medical officials have said more than 60 people were killed, but Algeria's Interior Minister, Noureddine Yazid Zerhouni, has only confirmed 22 deaths.
The bombs were the latest in a series of attacks in Algeria this year.
No group has admitted responsibility, but Mr Zerhouni has blamed a militant Islamist group linked to al-Qaeda.
A recently-arrested militant had revealed that the Salafist Group for Preaching and Combat (GSPC) had planned several months ago to attack one of Tuesday's targets, Mr Zerhouni said.
BBC Security Correspondent Frank Gardner says the manner of the bombings and choice of targets suggest the involvement of the group, which is now known as al-Qaeda in the Land of the Islamic Maghreb.
I would like to condemn it in the strongest terms - it cannot be justified in any circumstances UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon
Earlier, Algerian Prime Minister Abdelaziz Belkhadem called off a cabinet meeting to visit hospitals where the injured were being treated.
"These are crimes that targeted innocent people. Students and school children were among the victims. Nothing can justify the crime," he said.
The UN Secretary General, Ban Ki-moon, also condemned the bombings, saying they were "just unacceptable".
"I would like to condemn it in the strongest terms. It cannot be justified in any circumstances," he told reporters.
The UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Antonio Guterres, whose staff were caught in the blast, told the BBC that he had "no doubt that the UN was targeted".
The US government called the attacks an act of "senseless violence" on the innocent by the "enemies of humanity".
Students killed
In the attack near the Constitutional Council, a bus packed with students was passing by when the vehicle containing the bomb exploded at around 0930 (0830 GMT).
Security officials said the bus took the full force of the blast and was ripped apart, killing and injuring many of those on board.
At the UN offices in Hydra, the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) building bore the brunt of the blast. A residential building and the UNHCR headquarters across the road were also damaged, witnesses said.
Sophie Haspeslagh, who works for the UNDP, told the BBC that she was in a corridor when the blast occurred.
"Everything shattered. Everything fell. I hid under a piece of furniture so I wouldn't be hit by the debris," she said.
"I was holding my jacket on my face because I couldn't breathe."
Ms Haspeslagh said a large part of the UNDP building was destroyed and it was feared people were trapped inside.
A spokesman for the UNDP, Jean Fabre, said at least 12 UN staff members were missing, while the UNHCR said one of its drivers had been killed and another was missing.
However, Algerian Interior Minister Noureddine Yazid Zerhouni said no UN personnel had been among the 12 dead bodies so far recovered in Hydra.
'Suicide bomber'
Earlier, Mr Zerhouni said the explosions had been caused by two car bombs, and that the one at the UN was triggered by a suicide bomber.
Ms Haspeslagh said one of her colleagues had seen a white van drive into the main UN offices then explode.
There have been a series of bomb attacks across Algeria during the past year in which scores of people have died.
In September more than 50 people were killed in suicide attacks - one of them involved a truck packed with explosives being driven into a coast-guard base.
Al-Qaeda link?
Members of the public have recently held rallies in protest at the upsurge in violence.
VIOLENCE IN 2007
6 September: 22 die in bombing in Batna claimed by al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb
8 September: 32 die in bombing in Dellys claimed by al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb
July: Suicide bomber targets barracks near Bouira, killing nine
May: Dozens killed in run-up to elections, in fighting between military and militants
April: 33 killed in Algiers in attacks claimed by al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb
March: Three Algerians and a Russian killed in attack on gas pipeline workers
February: Seven bombs kill six east of Algiers
Many of the recent blasts have been claimed by members of al-Qaeda's North Africa wing, calling themselves al-Qaeda in the Land of the Islamic Maghreb (AQLIM), including a triple suicide bombing in Algiers in April which killed 33 people.
The militant group was previously known as the GSPC, but changed its name when it reportedly joined forces with al-Qaeda last year.
BBC regional analyst Roger Hardy says it is unclear how far the group really is linked to Osama Bin Laden's organisation, and how far it is merely inspired by it.
What is worrying Western experts and North African governments is the possibility that radical Islamists in the region no longer have a merely local agenda but are linked to a wider web of international networks.
Algeria suffered a brutal and bloody civil war in the 1990s, but in recent years violence had declined.
Did you witness the explosions or are you in the area? Use the form below to send us your accounts, some of which may be published.
You can send pictures and video to: yourpics@bbc.co.uk or to send via mobile please dial +44 (0)7725 100 100 .
If you have a large file you can upload here.
Do not endanger yourself or others, take any unnecessary risks or infringe any laws.
Name
Your E-mail address
Town & Country
Phone number (optional):
Comments
Story from BBC NEWS:http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/pr/fr/-/2/hi/africa/7137997.stmPublished: 2007/12/11 17:58:56 GMT© BBC MMVII
Rice visit highlights major African issues Sudan’s Al-bashir meets Meles
By Andualem Sisay
The Capital
10 December 2007
United States Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice, on Wednesday December 5, 2007 met with various African leaders in Addis Ababa and discussed on some of the current major issues of the continent.In her one-day visit, Secretary Rice held talks with the leaders bilaterally and multilaterally on issues such as resolving the conflict in the Great Lakes region, re-building Somalia, deploying peacekeepers to Darfur, HIV/AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis. In the morning, Dr. Rice had a multilateral discussion on the problems of the Great Lakes region with President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni of the Republic of Uganda, President Paul Kagame of the Republic of Rwanda, President Pierre Nkurunziza of the Republic of Burundi, and Minister of State for Interior Denis Kalume, representing President Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic of Congo. After the meeting took place in a spirit of frank and open exchange that helped to build trust among the member states, they all agreed on three major points, according to the statement the US Embassy in Addis Ababa dispatched to the media. Strengthening state institutions in the Democratic Republic of Congo, particularly in the security sector, as a prerequisite for long-term solutions to insecurity in Eastern Congo is one of the areas they have agreed on. As part of this accord, they will also commit themselves to supporting the rapid strengthening of these institutions. The Great Lakes member states have also agreed not to harbor any negative forces by denying them safe haven or support. They have also agreed on the implementation of the existing agreements among member states, including that the November 9, 2007 Nairobi Communiqué signed by the Congolese and Rwandan Governments, must urgently be implemented. The participants recommitted to do so, including by strengthening the Joint Verification Commission between Congo and Rwanda with third-party assistance.“Some of the problems have been dealt with. There are, however, some residual problems which need to be addressed, and we had a very thorough discussion,” said Uganda’s President Museveni at a press conference organized after their agreement.“Part of the danger for Africa is handling issues in a superficial way, and I am glad that Secretary Rice agreed to stay in the conclave. When you are electing the Pope, you don’t elect him in public, you first have a conclave. So we had a conclave of only the leaders, and we had a very thorough discussion,” he added. In a statement distributed to the media by the US Embassy in Addis Ababa, Secretary Rice on her part said: “We welcome this opportunity to support our Great Lakes partners as they work together to forge a peaceful, democratic and prosperous future for their people. I am here to underscore the commitment of the United States to your success. The United States remains committed to providing humanitarian assistance to address the current emergency in eastern Congo.”“We look forward to the full and rapid implementation of provisions of the November 9 Nairobi communique as a major step toward eliminating the threat of violence and enabling development as we press for peace, safety, respect for human rights and justice for all of the people of the Great Lakes region,” she added.
Rebuilding Somalia Later in the afternoon, Secretary Rice met with representatives of Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government (TFG,) including newly appointed Prime Minister Nur Adde Hassan Hussein and encouraged the TFG to renew and revitalize efforts towards a lasting political solution based on the Transitional Federal Charter. “I hope Prime Minister Hussein will draw on his humanitarian background to help facilitate delivery of much-needed humanitarian aid. A ceasefire agreement with key stakeholders, such as clan and business leaders, would be an important step in helping to facilitate delivery of humanitarian assistance, and would reduce the level of violence and create the conditions for longer-term security sector reform,” said Rice. “I also encouraged Prime Minister Hussein to develop a timeline for the remainder of the transitional process by early January, including the drafting of a new constitution and electoral law, as the first step in this process,” she added.Regarding the Somalia case, she also exchanged views with representatives from the African Union and United Nations to discuss the regional strategy to help restore lasting peace and stability in Somalia, including efforts to support the full and timely deployment of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) and progress towards national elections in 2009.
Discussion on Darfur crisesRice also discussed on the issue of Darfur with different actors in the conflict. Although there was no official announcement about Rice meeting with Sudan’s president, Mr. Albashier was seen meeting with Prime Minister Meles Zenawi in Addis Ababa on Ethiopian television that evening. According to the statement dispatched to the press following the meeting, the international community’s commitment to working with the Sudanese to see the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) implemented quickly was underscored. “The CPA – an historic accord that ended 21 years of a brutal civil war – provides the best framework for a peaceful, democratic Sudan. The parties to this agreement are obligated to make every effort to guarantee its success.” This meeting also demonstrates broad commitment from states in the region and partners around the world to support the North and the South as they work to solve disputes like the Abyei boundary, conduct a census, and move to deploy their troops in accordance with the CPA. Free, fair and transparent elections in 2009, as stipulated by the CPA, are the best hope of building and sustaining a unified Sudan, the statement continues.“We also urge all players in Sudan to end the violence in Darfur and to support everyone in the country who wants peace, security, and prosperity for themselves and their children,” she said. During her stay, Rice also discussed with Prime Minister Meles and representatives of the Ethiopian government on issues of bilateral importance to both nations, with a focus on Ethiopia’s relations with Somalia, Sudan and Eritrea. During the discussion she held with Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, United States Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has also expressed her government’s interest of the rapid deployment of Ethiopian troops pledged to the United Nations Mission in Darfur (UNAMID). She also urged Meles to work with Khartoum to allow UNAMID deployments, including non-African troops, to move forward unhindered. Rice also urged the Prime Minister to avoid any acts that might heighten friction between Eritrea and Ethiopia and to take concrete steps to lessen tensions on the border. “There must not be a resumption of hostilities initiated by either side,” she said. The discussion between the two sides also included the importance of strengthening democratic institutions in Ethiopia and the issue of food security, with a specific focus on ensuring unrestricted commercial food delivery throughout the country, including the Ogaden.Regarding Somalia they also discussed the need for the TFG to urgently resume the transitional political process outlined by the Transitional Federal Charter leading towards national elections in 2009. “We emphasized the need for a comprehensive ceasefire agreement to be forged between Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government (TFG) and non-extremist opposition groups, which would help prevent further violence and facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance in Mogadishu,” she said in the statement. Other areas of discussion included regional security and fighting terrorism; democracy and human rights; economic development and food security; and public health concerns such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. She also indicated that the Bush Administration is against HR 2003, which is expected to be presented for the Senate of the US with the intention of protecting human rights in Ethiopia by its advocates and the recently released opposition party leaders of Coalition for Unity and Democracy (CUD). “The administration does not support this particular house resolution,” she said.
Monday, December 3, 2007
Sudan oil revenues reach $536 mln last October
December 2, 2007 (KHARTOUM) – Oil revenues in the country last October reached 536 million, its highest rate since the beginning of petroleum production in the Sudan, the official SUNA reported.
Sudan’s oil revenues of last October registered the highest rate since the beginning of petroleum production, where it registered 536 million dollars, 419.4 million dollars of which from exports return and 116.6 million dollars as the proceeds of the domestically used petroleum.
The increase of the revenues is attributed to the rise of the Dar Field production alongside receiving of three shipments of last August exports revenues.
Undersecretary of the Ministry of Finance and National Economy, al- Sheikh al-Mak pointed out that the share of the Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS) of the oil revenues was 208.3 million dollars of which 172.4 million dollars of exports and 35.9 million dollars of the locally used oil, adding that GoSS received 178.3 million dollars represents the total of direct remittances from the centre.
He made these statements following a regular meeting of the Joint Committee for Oil Accounts, which includes the National Government and Government of Southern Sudan.
The committee reviewed production position, prices, domestic use and exports and sharing of the return in accordance with the provisions of wealth-sharing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA).
The committee also reviewed the Oil Revenues Stabilization Account (ORSA) which registered 153.8 million dollars in last October and the share of oil producing states which amounted to 9.56 million dollars; 3.45 million dollars for the Unity State, 4.04 million dollars for Upper Nile State and South Kordofan State 2.07 million dollars.
According to the national wealth sharing protocol, signed on 7 January 2004 by the government of the National Congress Party and the SPLM, at least 2.0 pct of the oil revenue is allocated to the oil-producing states in proportion to their output.
After the payment to Oil Revenue Stabilization Account and to the oil producing states/regions, fifty percent (50%) of net oil revenue derived from oil producing wells are allocated to the Government of Southern Sudan and the remaining fifty percent (50%) to the National Government and states in northern Sudan.
Sudan’s oil revenues of last October registered the highest rate since the beginning of petroleum production, where it registered 536 million dollars, 419.4 million dollars of which from exports return and 116.6 million dollars as the proceeds of the domestically used petroleum.
The increase of the revenues is attributed to the rise of the Dar Field production alongside receiving of three shipments of last August exports revenues.
Undersecretary of the Ministry of Finance and National Economy, al- Sheikh al-Mak pointed out that the share of the Government of Southern Sudan (GoSS) of the oil revenues was 208.3 million dollars of which 172.4 million dollars of exports and 35.9 million dollars of the locally used oil, adding that GoSS received 178.3 million dollars represents the total of direct remittances from the centre.
He made these statements following a regular meeting of the Joint Committee for Oil Accounts, which includes the National Government and Government of Southern Sudan.
The committee reviewed production position, prices, domestic use and exports and sharing of the return in accordance with the provisions of wealth-sharing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA).
The committee also reviewed the Oil Revenues Stabilization Account (ORSA) which registered 153.8 million dollars in last October and the share of oil producing states which amounted to 9.56 million dollars; 3.45 million dollars for the Unity State, 4.04 million dollars for Upper Nile State and South Kordofan State 2.07 million dollars.
According to the national wealth sharing protocol, signed on 7 January 2004 by the government of the National Congress Party and the SPLM, at least 2.0 pct of the oil revenue is allocated to the oil-producing states in proportion to their output.
After the payment to Oil Revenue Stabilization Account and to the oil producing states/regions, fifty percent (50%) of net oil revenue derived from oil producing wells are allocated to the Government of Southern Sudan and the remaining fifty percent (50%) to the National Government and states in northern Sudan.
Friday, November 30, 2007
Eritrea-Ethiopia deadline expires
A deadline for long-time foes Ethiopia and Eritrea to agree their shared border is to expire at midnight.
The date was set a year ago by the Ethiopia-Eritrea Border Commission which was created following a bloody border war between the two countries.
The commission says if it fails to hear anything it will consider the line it has drawn as the official border.
Both sides say they accept its ruling, but neither has moved their troops to their own side of the new boundary.
Some 80,000 people died during the 1998-2000 war.
The United Nations has a peacekeeping force of 1,700 charged with monitoring a security buffer zone.
The BBC's Elizabeth Blunt in Ethiopia's capital, Addis Ababa, says the commission can hardly be said to have succeeded.
TENSE BORDER
Dec 2000: Peace agreement
Apr 2002: Border ruling
Mar 2003: Ethiopian complaint over Badme rejected
Sep 2003: Ethiopia asks for new ruling
Feb 2005: UN concern at military build-up
Oct 2005: Eritrea restricts peacekeepers' activities
Nov 2005: UN sanctions threat if no compliance with 2000 deal
Its imminent disappearance leaves the two armies glaring at each other across a still unresolved border.
What was meant to be a demilitarised border is now thick with troops and bristling with weapons and representatives of the commission have not been able to get in to set up border markers, our correspondent says.
The two sides will not talk to each other and there is no obvious way to move the issue towards a more satisfactory conclusion, she says.
In the past few weeks there has been talk of UN involvement and perhaps the appointment of a facilitator to work with the two sides.
But so far no such initiative has been announced.
Ogaden denial
The Ethiopian and Eritrean leaders, Meles Zenawi and Isaias Afewerki respectively, were allies until after Eritrea gained its independence from Ethiopia in 1993.
Their rebel movements had fought together to overthrow long-time Ethiopian ruler Mengistu Haile Mariam.
The 1998-2000 war was ostensibly fought over the dusty town of Badme, which was subsequently awarded to Eritrea by the border commission.
But to this day the settlement remains under Ethiopian administration.
Meanwhile, Mr Meles has denied accusations made by separatist rebels in the south-east of Ethiopia that his troops have committed massive human rights abuses against civilians.
The rebel Ogaden National Liberation Front accused government forces of executing local residents during counter-insurgency operations in the region.
Mr Meles said such violations would not take place because his government respected human rights.
He said that given his own experience as a former rebel leader he knew that harassing civilians was the gravest mistake a government fighting an insurgency could make.
The date was set a year ago by the Ethiopia-Eritrea Border Commission which was created following a bloody border war between the two countries.
The commission says if it fails to hear anything it will consider the line it has drawn as the official border.
Both sides say they accept its ruling, but neither has moved their troops to their own side of the new boundary.
Some 80,000 people died during the 1998-2000 war.
The United Nations has a peacekeeping force of 1,700 charged with monitoring a security buffer zone.
The BBC's Elizabeth Blunt in Ethiopia's capital, Addis Ababa, says the commission can hardly be said to have succeeded.
TENSE BORDER
Dec 2000: Peace agreement
Apr 2002: Border ruling
Mar 2003: Ethiopian complaint over Badme rejected
Sep 2003: Ethiopia asks for new ruling
Feb 2005: UN concern at military build-up
Oct 2005: Eritrea restricts peacekeepers' activities
Nov 2005: UN sanctions threat if no compliance with 2000 deal
Its imminent disappearance leaves the two armies glaring at each other across a still unresolved border.
What was meant to be a demilitarised border is now thick with troops and bristling with weapons and representatives of the commission have not been able to get in to set up border markers, our correspondent says.
The two sides will not talk to each other and there is no obvious way to move the issue towards a more satisfactory conclusion, she says.
In the past few weeks there has been talk of UN involvement and perhaps the appointment of a facilitator to work with the two sides.
But so far no such initiative has been announced.
Ogaden denial
The Ethiopian and Eritrean leaders, Meles Zenawi and Isaias Afewerki respectively, were allies until after Eritrea gained its independence from Ethiopia in 1993.
Their rebel movements had fought together to overthrow long-time Ethiopian ruler Mengistu Haile Mariam.
The 1998-2000 war was ostensibly fought over the dusty town of Badme, which was subsequently awarded to Eritrea by the border commission.
But to this day the settlement remains under Ethiopian administration.
Meanwhile, Mr Meles has denied accusations made by separatist rebels in the south-east of Ethiopia that his troops have committed massive human rights abuses against civilians.
The rebel Ogaden National Liberation Front accused government forces of executing local residents during counter-insurgency operations in the region.
Mr Meles said such violations would not take place because his government respected human rights.
He said that given his own experience as a former rebel leader he knew that harassing civilians was the gravest mistake a government fighting an insurgency could make.
Rice to visit Ethiopia in rare Africa trip
By Sue Pleming
Thu Nov 29, 3:53 PM ET
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will visit Ethiopia next week for meetings on the conflicts in the volatile African Great Lakes region and Sudan and Somalia, said the State Department on Thursday.
Rice, a rare visitor to the African continent, will make her third trip to sub-Saharan Africa since becoming secretary of state in 2005. She has previously been to Liberia, Senegal and Sudan but canceled a trip to Africa last July.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Rice would be in Addis Ababa, the Ethiopian capital, on December 5 to attend a meeting of leaders from the African Great Lakes region -- Rwanda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda.
"(They) will discuss issues of regional peace and security," he said.
After her brief Africa trip, Rice will travel to Brussels on December 6 for a meeting of NATO foreign ministers to discuss Afghanistan, Kosovo and other issues, McCormack said, before she returns to Washington on December 7.
McCormack had no details on whether Rice planned to offer any new proposals on how to curb violence in lawless eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, a conflict that has brought in the vast central African country's neighbors.
The conflict in the eastern province reflects the political and ethnic tensions behind Congo's 1998-2003 war in which six neighboring countries, including Rwanda, invaded Congo to plunder its vast mineral wealth.
Congo's President Joseph Kabila met President George W. Bush in Washington last month and appealed for U.S. help in trying to stabilize his country. Kabila has been battling to forcibly disarm soldiers in North Kivu province in the east, loyal to renegade Tutsi Gen. Laurent Nkunda.
The United States plans to help train a Congolese army rapid reaction force to tackle the rebels, and the State Department has been negotiating terms of a training contract.
During her two-day visit, Rice will also discuss Somalia and Sudan with African Union members, the United Nations and east African ministers, said McCormack.
In addition, the top U.S. diplomat will meet officials from Ethiopia, which cooperates closely with the United States on counter-terrorism issues.
Tensions have been rising in recent months between Ethiopia and its neighbor Eritrea over its disputed border, with Eritrea accusing the United States of siding with Addis Ababa.
Thu Nov 29, 3:53 PM ET
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice will visit Ethiopia next week for meetings on the conflicts in the volatile African Great Lakes region and Sudan and Somalia, said the State Department on Thursday.
Rice, a rare visitor to the African continent, will make her third trip to sub-Saharan Africa since becoming secretary of state in 2005. She has previously been to Liberia, Senegal and Sudan but canceled a trip to Africa last July.
State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said Rice would be in Addis Ababa, the Ethiopian capital, on December 5 to attend a meeting of leaders from the African Great Lakes region -- Rwanda, Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo and Uganda.
"(They) will discuss issues of regional peace and security," he said.
After her brief Africa trip, Rice will travel to Brussels on December 6 for a meeting of NATO foreign ministers to discuss Afghanistan, Kosovo and other issues, McCormack said, before she returns to Washington on December 7.
McCormack had no details on whether Rice planned to offer any new proposals on how to curb violence in lawless eastern Democratic Republic of Congo, a conflict that has brought in the vast central African country's neighbors.
The conflict in the eastern province reflects the political and ethnic tensions behind Congo's 1998-2003 war in which six neighboring countries, including Rwanda, invaded Congo to plunder its vast mineral wealth.
Congo's President Joseph Kabila met President George W. Bush in Washington last month and appealed for U.S. help in trying to stabilize his country. Kabila has been battling to forcibly disarm soldiers in North Kivu province in the east, loyal to renegade Tutsi Gen. Laurent Nkunda.
The United States plans to help train a Congolese army rapid reaction force to tackle the rebels, and the State Department has been negotiating terms of a training contract.
During her two-day visit, Rice will also discuss Somalia and Sudan with African Union members, the United Nations and east African ministers, said McCormack.
In addition, the top U.S. diplomat will meet officials from Ethiopia, which cooperates closely with the United States on counter-terrorism issues.
Tensions have been rising in recent months between Ethiopia and its neighbor Eritrea over its disputed border, with Eritrea accusing the United States of siding with Addis Ababa.
Wednesday, November 28, 2007
Can the War on Terror Be Won?
Philip H. Gordon
From Foreign Affairs , November/December 2007
Less than 12 hours after the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush proclaimed the start of a global war on terror. Ever since, there has been a vigorous debate about how to win it. Bush and his supporters stress the need to go on the offensive against terrorists, deploy U.S. military force, promote democracy in the Middle East, and give the commander in chief expansive wartime powers. His critics either challenge the very notion of a "war on terror" or focus on the need to fight it differently. Most leading Democrats accept the need to use force in some cases but argue that success will come through reestablishing the United States' moral authority and ideological appeal, conducting more and smarter diplomacy, and intensifying cooperation with key allies. They argue that Bush's approach to the war on terror has created more terrorists than it has eliminated -- and that it will continue to do so unless the United States radically changes course.
Almost entirely missing from this debate is a concept of what "victory" in the war on terror would actually look like. The traditional notion of winning a war is fairly clear: defeating an enemy on the battlefield and forcing it to accept political terms. But what does victory -- or defeat -- mean in a war on terror? Will this kind of war ever end? How long will it take? Would we see victory coming? Would we recognize it when it came?
It is essential to start thinking seriously about these questions, because it is impossible to win a war without knowing what its goal is. Considering possible outcomes of the war on terror makes clear that it can indeed be won, but only with the recognition that this is a new and different kind of war. Victory will come not when foreign leaders accept certain terms but when political changes erode and ultimately undermine support for the ideology and strategy of those determined to destroy the United States. It will come not when Washington and its allies kill or capture all terrorists or potential terrorists but when the ideology the terrorists espouse is discredited, when their tactics are seen to have failed, and when they come to find more promising paths to the dignity, respect, and opportunities they crave. It will mean not the complete elimination of any possible terrorist threat -- pursuing that goal will almost certainly lead to more terrorism, not less -- but rather the reduction of the risk of terrorism to such a level that it does not significantly affect average citizens' daily lives, preoccupy their thoughts, or provoke overreaction. At that point, even the terrorists will realize their violence is futile. Keeping this vision of victory in mind will not only avert considerable pain, expense, and trouble; it will also guide leaders toward the policies that will bring such a victory about.
THE LAST WAR
One of the few predictions that can be made about the war on terror with some confidence is that it will end -- all wars eventually do. Such an observation might appear flip, but there is a serious point behind it: the factors that drive international politics are so numerous and so fluid that no political system or conflict can last forever. Thus, some wars end quickly (the Anglo-Zanzibar War of 1896 famously lasted for 45 minutes), and others endure (the Hundred Years War lasted for 116 years). Some wars end relatively well (World War II laid the foundation for lasting peace and prosperity), and others lead to further catastrophe (World War I). But they all end, one way or another, and it behooves those living through them to imagine how their conclusions might be hastened and improved.
Where the war on terror is concerned, some of the most instructive lessons can be drawn from the experience of the Cold War, thus named because, like the war on terror, it was not really a war at all. Although the current challenge is not identical to the Cold War, their similarities -- as long-term, multidimensional struggles against insidious and violent ideologies -- suggest that there is much to learn from this recent, and successful, experience. Just as the Cold War ended only when one side essentially gave up on a bankrupt ideology, the battle against Islamist terrorism will be won when the ideology that underpins it loses its appeal. The Cold War ended not with U.S. forces occupying the Kremlin but when the occupant of the Kremlin abandoned the fight; the people he governed had stopped believing in the ideology they were supposed to be fighting for.
The Cold War is also an excellent example of a war that ended at a time and in a way that most people living through it failed to foresee -- and had even stopped trying to foresee. Whereas for the first decade or so the prospect of victory, defeat, or even nuclear war focused minds on how the Cold War might end, by the mid-1960s almost everyone, leaders and the public alike, had started to lose sight of an end as a possibility. Instead, they grudgingly began to focus on what became known as peaceful coexistence. The policy of détente, initiated in the 1960s and pursued throughout the 1970s, is sometimes retrospectively portrayed as a different strategy for bringing the Cold War to an end. But détente was in reality more a sign of resignation to the Cold War's expected endurance than an alternative way of concluding it. The primary objective was to make the Cold War less dangerous, not to bring it to an end. Ultimately, détente served to soften the image of the West in Soviet eyes, to civilize Soviet leaders through diplomatic interaction, and to lead Moscow into a dialogue about human rights that would end up undermining its legitimacy, all of which did contribute to the end of the Cold War. But this was not the main goal of the strategy.
Détente's critics were also caught by surprise by the end of the Cold War. President Ronald Reagan, it is true, denounced accommodation in the 1970s and 1980s and began to talk about defeating communism once and for all. But even Reagan's vision for burying communism was only a "plan and hope for the long term," as he told the British parliament in 1982. Reagan himself admitted that when he declared, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" in Berlin in June 1987, he "never dreamed that in less than three years the wall would come down." Reagan and his supporters, moreover, saw the Soviet Union of the late 1970s and early 1980s not as a failing empire in its final stages but as a threatening superpower whose expansion had to be checked.
By the end of the 1980s, when signs of the Soviet Union's internal rot and external softening were finally starting to become apparent, it was those who later claimed to have foreseen the end of the Cold War who most steadfastly refused to accept that it was happening before their eyes. Even as the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev began to undertake the reforms that would lead to the end of the confrontation with the United States, Americans and others had become so used to the Cold War that they had trouble recognizing what was happening. As the historian John Lewis Gaddis wrote in a 1987 Atlantic Monthly essay, the Cold War had become such a "way of life" for more than two generations "that it simply does not occur to us to think about how it might end or, more to the point, how we would like it to end." Hard-liners such as the Reagan administration defense official Richard Perle were warning that Gorbachev had "imperial ambitions and an abiding attachment to military power," while "realists" such as Brent Scowcroft, President George H. W. Bush's national security adviser, were "suspicious of [Gorbachev's] motives and skeptical about his prospects." As late as April 1989, the Central Intelligence Agency, whose job it was to identify important geopolitical trends, was still predicting that "for the foreseeable future, the USSR will remain the West's principal adversary," a view that was shared by the American public at large. When asked by pollsters in November 1989 -- just after the Berlin Wall fell -- whether they thought the Cold War had ended, only 18 percent of respondents said that it had, while 73 percent said it had not. It was only when the vast majority of Americans had finally given up on ever seeing the end of the Cold War that it actually came to an end.
Is it possible to do any better anticipating how, when, and why the war on terror might end? The war on terror will probably also last for a considerable amount of time. But assuming that it will not go on forever, what will the end of that war look like when it comes? And what does a realistic assessment of what victory in the war on terror might look like say about the way it should be fought?
ALTERNATIVE FUTURES
Just as it was once possible to imagine the Soviet Union winning the Cold War, one possibility to be considered today is the victory of al Qaeda. Those in the United States may not have an agreed theory of victory or a path to get there, but Osama bin Laden and his cohorts certainly do. Bin Laden's goal, as he, his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and others have often articulated, is to drive the United States out of Muslim lands, topple the region's current rulers, and establish Islamic authority under a new caliphate. The path to this goal, they have made clear, is to "provoke and bait" the United States into "bleeding wars" on Muslim lands. Since Americans, the argument goes, do not have the stomach for a long and bloody fight, they will eventually give up and leave the Middle East to its fate. Once the autocratic regimes responsible for the humiliation of the Muslim world have been removed, it will be possible to return it to the idealized state of Arabia at the time of the Prophet Muhammad. A caliphate will be established from Morocco to Central Asia, sharia rule will prevail, Israel will be destroyed, oil prices will skyrocket, and the United States will recoil in humiliation and possibly even collapse -- just as the Soviet Union did after the mujahideen defeated it in Afghanistan.
Bin Laden's version of the end of the war on terror is unlikely to be realized. It is based on an exaggeration of his role in bringing down the Soviet Union, a failure to appreciate the long-term strength and adaptability of U.S. society, and an underestimation of Muslim resistance to his extremist views. But if these scenarios are misguided, they are also worth understanding and keeping in mind. If bin Laden's adversaries fail to appreciate his vision of how the war on terror will end, they could end up playing into his hands -- by, for example, being drawn into the very battles that bin Laden believes will ruin the United States and inspire Muslim support. This is the error that has led to the United States' unenviable position today in Iraq.
In the long run, the United States and its allies are far more likely to win this war than al Qaeda, not only because liberty is ultimately more appealing than a narrow and extremist interpretation of Islam but also because they learn from mistakes, while al Qaeda's increasingly desperate efforts will alienate even its potential supporters. But victory in the war on terror will not mean the end of terrorism, the end of tyranny, or the end of evil, utopian goals that have all been articulated at one time or another. Terrorism, after all (to say nothing of tyranny and evil), has been around for a long time and will never go away entirely. From the Zealots in the first century AD to the Red Brigades, the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Irish Republican Army, the Tamil Tigers, and others in more recent times, terrorism has been a tactic used by the weak in an effort to produce political change. Like violent crime, deadly disease, and other scourges, it can be reduced and contained. But it cannot be totally eliminated.
This is a critical point, because the goal of ending terrorism entirely is not only unrealistic but also counterproductive -- just as is the pursuit of other utopian goals. Murder could be vastly reduced or eliminated from the streets of Washington, D.C., if several hundred thousand police officers were deployed and preventive detentions authorized. Traffic deaths could be almost eliminated in the United States by reducing the national speed limit to ten miles per hour. Illegal immigration from Mexico could be stopped by a vast electric fence along the entire border and a mandatory death penalty for undocumented workers. But no sensible person would propose any of these measures, because the consequences of the solutions would be less acceptable than the risks themselves.
Similarly, the risk of terrorism in the United States could be reduced if officials reallocated hundreds of billions of dollars per year in domestic spending to homeland security measures, significantly curtailed civil liberties to ensure that no potential terrorists were on the streets, and invaded and occupied countries that might one day support or sponsor terrorism. Pursuing that goal in this way, however, would have costs that would vastly outweigh the benefits of reaching the goal, even if reaching it were possible. In their book An End to Evil, David Frum and Richard Perle insist that there is "no middle ground" and that "Americans are not fighting this evil to minimize it or to manage it." The choice, they say, comes down to "victory or holocaust." Thinking in these terms is likely to lead the United States into a series of wars, abuses, and overreactions more likely to perpetuate the war on terror than to bring it to a successful end.
The United States and its allies will win the war only if they fight it in the right way -- with the same sort of patience, strength, and resolve that helped win the Cold War and with policies designed to provide alternative hopes and dreams to potential enemies. The war on terror will end with the collapse of the violent ideology that caused it -- when bin Laden's cause comes to be seen by its potential adherents as a failure, when they turn against it and adopt other goals and other means. Communism, too, once seemed vibrant and attractive to millions around the world, but over time it came to be seen as a failure. Just as Lenin's and Stalin's successors in the Kremlin in the mid-1980s finally came to the realization that they would never accomplish their goals if they did not radically change course, it is not too fanciful to imagine the successors of bin Laden and Zawahiri reflecting on their movement's failures and coming to the same conclusion. The ideology will not have been destroyed by U.S. military power, but its adherents will have decided that the path they chose could never lead them where they wanted to go. Like communism today, extremist Islamism in the future will have a few adherents here and there. But as an organized ideology capable of taking over states or inspiring large numbers of people, it will have been effectively dismantled, discredited, and discarded. And like Lenin's, bin Laden's violent ideology will end up on the ash heap of history.
WHAT VICTORY WOULD LOOK LIKE
The world beyond the war on terror will have several other characteristics. Smaller, uncoordinated organizations capable of carrying out limited attacks might still exist, but the global al Qaeda organization that was able to inflict such destruction on September 11, 2001, will not. Its most important leaders will have been killed or captured, its sanctuaries destroyed, its financial sources blocked, its communications interrupted, and, most important, its supporters persuaded to find other ways to pursue their goals. Terrorism will not be over, but its central sponsor and most dangerous executor will be.
After the war on terror, U.S. society will be better able to deny the remaining terrorists the ability to reach their primary goal: terror. The risk of attack will still exist, but if an attack takes place, it will not lead to a foreign policy revolution, an erosion of respect for human rights or international law, or the restriction of civil liberties. Like in other societies that have faced terrorism (the model being the United Kingdom in its long struggle against the Irish Republican Army), life will go on and people will go about their daily business without inordinate fear. The terrorists will see that the result of any attack they carry out is not the overreaction they sought to provoke but rather the stoic denial of their ability to elicit a counterproductive response. Put in the hands of the U.S. legal system and locked away for years after due legal process, they will be seen as the heartless criminals they are rather than as the valiant soldiers they seek to be. Over time, the risk of terrorist attacks will diminish even further because they will no longer be serving their intended purpose.
After the war on terror, the nation's priorities will come back into balance. Preventing terrorism will remain an important goal, but it will no longer be the main driver of U.S. foreign policy. It will take its place as just one of several concerns, alongside health care, the environment, education, the economy. Budgets, speeches, elections, and policies will no longer revolve around the war on terror to the exclusion of other critical issues on which the nation's welfare depends.
That world is a long way off. The political and economic stagnation in the Middle East, the war in Iraq, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and other conflicts from Kashmir to Chechnya continue to produce the frustration and humiliation that cause terrorism, and with the right conditions, it only takes a small number of extremists to pose a serious threat. But although the end of the war on terror will not come tomorrow, the paths that could lead to it can already be seen. The destruction of the al Qaeda organization, for example, is already under way, and with determination and the right policies, it can be completed. Bin Laden and Zawahiri are now living like fugitives in caves rather than like presidents or military commanders in compounds in Afghanistan. Other al Qaeda leaders have been killed or captured, and the organization's ability to communicate globally and to finance major operations has been significantly reduced. Al Qaeda is trying to reconstitute itself along the Afghan-Pakistani border, but with so much of the world -- now including the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan -- sharing an interest in suppressing the group, it will have great difficulty becoming once again the global terrorist enterprise that was able to take the United States by surprise on 9/11.
There are also signs of a Muslim backlash against al Qaeda's use of wanton violence as a political tool -- exactly the sort of development that will be critical in the long-term effort to discredit jihadism. After al Qaeda's suicide attacks at two hotels in Jordan in November 2005 -- which killed some 60 civilians, including 38 at a wedding party -- Jordanians poured out into the streets to protest in record numbers. Subsequent public opinion polls showed that the proportion of Jordanian respondents who believed that violence against civilian targets to defend Islam is never justified jumped from 11 percent to 43 percent, while those expressing a lot of confidence in bin Laden to "do the right thing" plunged from 25 percent to less than one percent. Similar Muslim reactions have followed al Qaeda attacks in Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. In Iraq's Anbar Province, there are also signs that locals are getting fed up with Islamist terrorists and turning against them. Sunni tribes from that region who once battled U.S. troops have now joined forces with the United States to challenge al Qaeda militants. Tribes that once welcomed al Qaeda support in the insurgency against U.S. forces are now battling al Qaeda with thousands of fighters and significant local support.
This is why Marc Sageman, a forensic psychiatrist and former CIA case officer who has studied Islamist terrorist movements, argues that support for jihadists will eventually erode just as it did for previous terrorist groups, such as the anarchists of nineteenth-century Europe. In the long term, Sageman argues, "the militants will keep pushing the envelope and committing more atrocities to the point that the dream will no longer be attractive to young people." The terrorism analyst Peter Bergen believes that violence that kills other Muslims will ultimately prove to be al Qaeda's Achilles' heel. Killing Muslims, he argues, is "doubly problematic for Al Qaeda, as the Koran forbids killing both civilians and fellow Muslims." After the 9/11 attacks, wide segments of the Arab public and the Arab media expressed sympathy with the victims, and prominent clerics (including Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Islamist firebrand with a wide following on satellite television) issued fatwas condemning the attacks as contrary to Islam and calling for the apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. That type of response is what will have to happen if Islamist terrorism is to be discredited and discarded -- and it is what will happen when the terrorists overreach and fail.
Fundamentalist Islamism also has poor long-term prospects as a broader political ideology. Indeed, far from representing a political system likely to attract increasing numbers of adherents, fundamentalist Islamism has failed everywhere it has been tried. In Afghanistan under the Taliban, in Iran under the mullahs, in Sudan under the National Islamic Front, different strains of Islamist rule have produced economic failure and public discontent. Indeed, the Taliban and the Iranian clerics are probably responsible for creating two of the most pro-U.S. populations in the greater Middle East. Opinion polls show that there is even less support for the kind of fundamentalist Islamic government proposed by bin Laden. "Many people would like bin Laden ... to hurt America," says the political scientist and pollster Shibley Telhami, "but they do not want bin Laden to rule their children." Asked in Telhami's survey what, if any, aspect of al Qaeda they sympathized with, 33 percent of Muslim respondents said none, 33 percent said its confronting the United States, 14 percent said its support for Muslim causes such as the Palestinian movement, 11 percent said its methods of operation, and just 7 percent said its efforts to create an Islamic state. Fundamentalist Islamism has not yet run its course and cannot be expected to in less than a generation. Communism, after all, was a serious competitor to the capitalist West for more than a century and survived in the Soviet Union for more than 70 years, even after its failings became clear to those who once embraced it. In the long run, fundamentalist Islamism is likely to suffer a similarly slow but certain fate.
Finally, there are good reasons to believe that the forces of globalization and communication that have been unleashed by changing technology will eventually produce positive change in the Middle East. This will especially be true if there is successful promotion of economic development in the region, which would produce the middle classes that in other parts of the world have been the drivers of democratization. Even in the absence of rapid economic change, the increasingly open media environment created by the Internet and other communications technologies will prove to be powerful agents of change. Although only around ten percent of households in the Arab world have access to the Internet, that percentage is growing rapidly, having already risen fivefold since 2000. Even in Saudi Arabia, one of the most closed and conservative societies in the world, there are over 2,000 bloggers.
Cable news stations such as the independent Qatar-based
al Jazeera and the Dubai-based al Arabiya reach tens of millions of households throughout the Arab world, often with information or perspectives the repressive governments in the region would rather not be heard. According to the Arab media expert Marc Lynch, "The conventional wisdom that the Arab media simply parrot the official line of the day no longer holds true. Al Jazeera has infuriated virtually every Arab government at one point or another, and its programming allows for criticism, and even mockery. Commentators regularly dismiss the existing Arab regimes as useless, self-interested, weak, compromised, corrupt, and worse." Lynch points out that one al Jazeera talk show addressed the issue "Have the existing Arab regimes become worse than colonialism?" The host, one of the guests, and 76 percent of callers said yes -- "marking a degree of frustration and inwardly directed anger that presents an opening for progressive change."
That sort of progressive change is unlikely to take place in the near future, and it is true that the region's autocrats seem ever more determined to prevent it. But even if the priority for Middle Eastern leaders remains what it has been -- to keep a grip on power -- at some point it will become clear that the only way to hold on to power is to change. The next generation of leaders in Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria might conclude that in the absence of change, their regimes will fall to fundamentalists or their countries will be surpassed by regional rivals. There do not appear to be any Gorbachevs on the horizon at present, but that was also true for the Soviet Union as late as 1984. Gorbachev's two immediate predecessors, Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko, did not seem to be harbingers of radical change when they passed through the Kremlin, but that is exactly what they were. A new, dynamic, and determined leader of a major Arab country who opens up political space and embraces economic reform can -- by providing prosperity, respect, and opportunity for his or her citizens -- strike a greater blow in the fight against terrorism than anything the United States could ever do.
THE RIGHT WAR
This sort of victory in the war on terror may not come for quite a long time. On the calendar of the Cold War, which began in 1947, the sixth anniversary of 9/11 puts us in 1953 -- decades before its denouement and with plenty of setbacks, tragedies, mistakes, and risks still ahead.
The point of imagining the end of the war on terror is not to suggest that it is imminent but to keep the right goals in mind -- so that leaders can adopt the policies most likely to achieve those goals. If they fall prey to the illusion that this is World War III -- and that it can be won like a traditional war -- they risk perpetuating the conflict. Even if Americans were somehow prepared, as in World War II, to mobilize 16 million troops, reinstate the draft, spend 40 percent of GDP on defense, and invade and occupy several major countries, such an effort would likely end up creating more terrorists and fueling the hatred that sustains them. It would unify the United States' enemies, squander its resources, and undermine the values that are a central tool in the struggle. Certainly, the U.S. experience in Iraq suggests the perils of trying to win the war on terror through the application of brute military force.
If, on the other hand, Americans accept that victory in the war on terror will come only when the ideology they are fighting loses support and when potential adherents see viable alternatives to it, then the United States would have to adopt a very different course. It would not overreact to threats but instead would demonstrate confidence in its values and its society -- and the determination to preserve both. It would act decisively to reestablish its moral authority and the appeal of its society, which have been so badly damaged in recent years. It would strengthen its defenses against the terrorist threat while also realizing that a policy designed to prevent any conceivable attack will do more damage than a policy of defiantly refusing to allow terrorists to change its way of life. It would expand its efforts to promote education and political and economic change in the Middle East, which in the long run will help that region overcome the despair and humiliation that fuel the terrorist threat. It would launch a major program to wean itself from imported oil, freeing it from the dependence that constrains its foreign policy and obliging oil-dependent Arab autocracies to diversify their economies, more evenly distribute their wealth, and create jobs for their citizens. It would seek to end the large U.S. combat presence in Iraq, which has become more of a recruiting device for al Qaeda than a useful tool in the war on terror. It would stop pretending that the conflict between Israel and its neighbors has nothing to do with the problem of terrorism and launch a diplomatic offensive designed to bring an end to a conflict that is a key source of the resentment that motivates many terrorists. It would take seriously the views of its potential allies, recognize their legitimate interests, and seek to win their support and cooperation in confronting the common threat.
If the United States did all that, Americans would have good reason to be confident that in the long run they will prevail. Ultimately, extremist Islamism is not an ideology likely to win enduring support. Terrorism is not a strategy with which Muslims will forever want to be associated, and eventually it will create a backlash within Muslim societies. With time and experience -- and if the United States and its allies make the right choices -- Muslims themselves will turn against the extremists in their midst. Somewhere in the Muslim world, at some point possibly sooner than many realize, new Lech Walesas, Václav Havels, and Andrei Sakharovs will emerge to reclaim their people's future from those who have hijacked it. They will seek to put their civilization on a path toward restoring the glory of its greatest era -- when the Muslim world was a multicultural zone of tolerance and intellectual, artistic, and scientific achievement. The agents of change might come from above, like Gorbachev, who used his position at the top of the Soviet hierarchy to transform the Soviet Union and end the Cold War. Or they might rise up from below, like the protesters in 1989 in Budapest, Gdansk, and Leipzig, who stood up against tyranny and reclaimed their future. If the United States is strong, smart, and patient, they will come. And they, not the West, will transform their world -- and ours.
Home | Subscribe | Current Issue
From Foreign Affairs , November/December 2007
Less than 12 hours after the 9/11 attacks, George W. Bush proclaimed the start of a global war on terror. Ever since, there has been a vigorous debate about how to win it. Bush and his supporters stress the need to go on the offensive against terrorists, deploy U.S. military force, promote democracy in the Middle East, and give the commander in chief expansive wartime powers. His critics either challenge the very notion of a "war on terror" or focus on the need to fight it differently. Most leading Democrats accept the need to use force in some cases but argue that success will come through reestablishing the United States' moral authority and ideological appeal, conducting more and smarter diplomacy, and intensifying cooperation with key allies. They argue that Bush's approach to the war on terror has created more terrorists than it has eliminated -- and that it will continue to do so unless the United States radically changes course.
Almost entirely missing from this debate is a concept of what "victory" in the war on terror would actually look like. The traditional notion of winning a war is fairly clear: defeating an enemy on the battlefield and forcing it to accept political terms. But what does victory -- or defeat -- mean in a war on terror? Will this kind of war ever end? How long will it take? Would we see victory coming? Would we recognize it when it came?
It is essential to start thinking seriously about these questions, because it is impossible to win a war without knowing what its goal is. Considering possible outcomes of the war on terror makes clear that it can indeed be won, but only with the recognition that this is a new and different kind of war. Victory will come not when foreign leaders accept certain terms but when political changes erode and ultimately undermine support for the ideology and strategy of those determined to destroy the United States. It will come not when Washington and its allies kill or capture all terrorists or potential terrorists but when the ideology the terrorists espouse is discredited, when their tactics are seen to have failed, and when they come to find more promising paths to the dignity, respect, and opportunities they crave. It will mean not the complete elimination of any possible terrorist threat -- pursuing that goal will almost certainly lead to more terrorism, not less -- but rather the reduction of the risk of terrorism to such a level that it does not significantly affect average citizens' daily lives, preoccupy their thoughts, or provoke overreaction. At that point, even the terrorists will realize their violence is futile. Keeping this vision of victory in mind will not only avert considerable pain, expense, and trouble; it will also guide leaders toward the policies that will bring such a victory about.
THE LAST WAR
One of the few predictions that can be made about the war on terror with some confidence is that it will end -- all wars eventually do. Such an observation might appear flip, but there is a serious point behind it: the factors that drive international politics are so numerous and so fluid that no political system or conflict can last forever. Thus, some wars end quickly (the Anglo-Zanzibar War of 1896 famously lasted for 45 minutes), and others endure (the Hundred Years War lasted for 116 years). Some wars end relatively well (World War II laid the foundation for lasting peace and prosperity), and others lead to further catastrophe (World War I). But they all end, one way or another, and it behooves those living through them to imagine how their conclusions might be hastened and improved.
Where the war on terror is concerned, some of the most instructive lessons can be drawn from the experience of the Cold War, thus named because, like the war on terror, it was not really a war at all. Although the current challenge is not identical to the Cold War, their similarities -- as long-term, multidimensional struggles against insidious and violent ideologies -- suggest that there is much to learn from this recent, and successful, experience. Just as the Cold War ended only when one side essentially gave up on a bankrupt ideology, the battle against Islamist terrorism will be won when the ideology that underpins it loses its appeal. The Cold War ended not with U.S. forces occupying the Kremlin but when the occupant of the Kremlin abandoned the fight; the people he governed had stopped believing in the ideology they were supposed to be fighting for.
The Cold War is also an excellent example of a war that ended at a time and in a way that most people living through it failed to foresee -- and had even stopped trying to foresee. Whereas for the first decade or so the prospect of victory, defeat, or even nuclear war focused minds on how the Cold War might end, by the mid-1960s almost everyone, leaders and the public alike, had started to lose sight of an end as a possibility. Instead, they grudgingly began to focus on what became known as peaceful coexistence. The policy of détente, initiated in the 1960s and pursued throughout the 1970s, is sometimes retrospectively portrayed as a different strategy for bringing the Cold War to an end. But détente was in reality more a sign of resignation to the Cold War's expected endurance than an alternative way of concluding it. The primary objective was to make the Cold War less dangerous, not to bring it to an end. Ultimately, détente served to soften the image of the West in Soviet eyes, to civilize Soviet leaders through diplomatic interaction, and to lead Moscow into a dialogue about human rights that would end up undermining its legitimacy, all of which did contribute to the end of the Cold War. But this was not the main goal of the strategy.
Détente's critics were also caught by surprise by the end of the Cold War. President Ronald Reagan, it is true, denounced accommodation in the 1970s and 1980s and began to talk about defeating communism once and for all. But even Reagan's vision for burying communism was only a "plan and hope for the long term," as he told the British parliament in 1982. Reagan himself admitted that when he declared, "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" in Berlin in June 1987, he "never dreamed that in less than three years the wall would come down." Reagan and his supporters, moreover, saw the Soviet Union of the late 1970s and early 1980s not as a failing empire in its final stages but as a threatening superpower whose expansion had to be checked.
By the end of the 1980s, when signs of the Soviet Union's internal rot and external softening were finally starting to become apparent, it was those who later claimed to have foreseen the end of the Cold War who most steadfastly refused to accept that it was happening before their eyes. Even as the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev began to undertake the reforms that would lead to the end of the confrontation with the United States, Americans and others had become so used to the Cold War that they had trouble recognizing what was happening. As the historian John Lewis Gaddis wrote in a 1987 Atlantic Monthly essay, the Cold War had become such a "way of life" for more than two generations "that it simply does not occur to us to think about how it might end or, more to the point, how we would like it to end." Hard-liners such as the Reagan administration defense official Richard Perle were warning that Gorbachev had "imperial ambitions and an abiding attachment to military power," while "realists" such as Brent Scowcroft, President George H. W. Bush's national security adviser, were "suspicious of [Gorbachev's] motives and skeptical about his prospects." As late as April 1989, the Central Intelligence Agency, whose job it was to identify important geopolitical trends, was still predicting that "for the foreseeable future, the USSR will remain the West's principal adversary," a view that was shared by the American public at large. When asked by pollsters in November 1989 -- just after the Berlin Wall fell -- whether they thought the Cold War had ended, only 18 percent of respondents said that it had, while 73 percent said it had not. It was only when the vast majority of Americans had finally given up on ever seeing the end of the Cold War that it actually came to an end.
Is it possible to do any better anticipating how, when, and why the war on terror might end? The war on terror will probably also last for a considerable amount of time. But assuming that it will not go on forever, what will the end of that war look like when it comes? And what does a realistic assessment of what victory in the war on terror might look like say about the way it should be fought?
ALTERNATIVE FUTURES
Just as it was once possible to imagine the Soviet Union winning the Cold War, one possibility to be considered today is the victory of al Qaeda. Those in the United States may not have an agreed theory of victory or a path to get there, but Osama bin Laden and his cohorts certainly do. Bin Laden's goal, as he, his deputy, Ayman al-Zawahiri, and others have often articulated, is to drive the United States out of Muslim lands, topple the region's current rulers, and establish Islamic authority under a new caliphate. The path to this goal, they have made clear, is to "provoke and bait" the United States into "bleeding wars" on Muslim lands. Since Americans, the argument goes, do not have the stomach for a long and bloody fight, they will eventually give up and leave the Middle East to its fate. Once the autocratic regimes responsible for the humiliation of the Muslim world have been removed, it will be possible to return it to the idealized state of Arabia at the time of the Prophet Muhammad. A caliphate will be established from Morocco to Central Asia, sharia rule will prevail, Israel will be destroyed, oil prices will skyrocket, and the United States will recoil in humiliation and possibly even collapse -- just as the Soviet Union did after the mujahideen defeated it in Afghanistan.
Bin Laden's version of the end of the war on terror is unlikely to be realized. It is based on an exaggeration of his role in bringing down the Soviet Union, a failure to appreciate the long-term strength and adaptability of U.S. society, and an underestimation of Muslim resistance to his extremist views. But if these scenarios are misguided, they are also worth understanding and keeping in mind. If bin Laden's adversaries fail to appreciate his vision of how the war on terror will end, they could end up playing into his hands -- by, for example, being drawn into the very battles that bin Laden believes will ruin the United States and inspire Muslim support. This is the error that has led to the United States' unenviable position today in Iraq.
In the long run, the United States and its allies are far more likely to win this war than al Qaeda, not only because liberty is ultimately more appealing than a narrow and extremist interpretation of Islam but also because they learn from mistakes, while al Qaeda's increasingly desperate efforts will alienate even its potential supporters. But victory in the war on terror will not mean the end of terrorism, the end of tyranny, or the end of evil, utopian goals that have all been articulated at one time or another. Terrorism, after all (to say nothing of tyranny and evil), has been around for a long time and will never go away entirely. From the Zealots in the first century AD to the Red Brigades, the Palestine Liberation Organization, the Irish Republican Army, the Tamil Tigers, and others in more recent times, terrorism has been a tactic used by the weak in an effort to produce political change. Like violent crime, deadly disease, and other scourges, it can be reduced and contained. But it cannot be totally eliminated.
This is a critical point, because the goal of ending terrorism entirely is not only unrealistic but also counterproductive -- just as is the pursuit of other utopian goals. Murder could be vastly reduced or eliminated from the streets of Washington, D.C., if several hundred thousand police officers were deployed and preventive detentions authorized. Traffic deaths could be almost eliminated in the United States by reducing the national speed limit to ten miles per hour. Illegal immigration from Mexico could be stopped by a vast electric fence along the entire border and a mandatory death penalty for undocumented workers. But no sensible person would propose any of these measures, because the consequences of the solutions would be less acceptable than the risks themselves.
Similarly, the risk of terrorism in the United States could be reduced if officials reallocated hundreds of billions of dollars per year in domestic spending to homeland security measures, significantly curtailed civil liberties to ensure that no potential terrorists were on the streets, and invaded and occupied countries that might one day support or sponsor terrorism. Pursuing that goal in this way, however, would have costs that would vastly outweigh the benefits of reaching the goal, even if reaching it were possible. In their book An End to Evil, David Frum and Richard Perle insist that there is "no middle ground" and that "Americans are not fighting this evil to minimize it or to manage it." The choice, they say, comes down to "victory or holocaust." Thinking in these terms is likely to lead the United States into a series of wars, abuses, and overreactions more likely to perpetuate the war on terror than to bring it to a successful end.
The United States and its allies will win the war only if they fight it in the right way -- with the same sort of patience, strength, and resolve that helped win the Cold War and with policies designed to provide alternative hopes and dreams to potential enemies. The war on terror will end with the collapse of the violent ideology that caused it -- when bin Laden's cause comes to be seen by its potential adherents as a failure, when they turn against it and adopt other goals and other means. Communism, too, once seemed vibrant and attractive to millions around the world, but over time it came to be seen as a failure. Just as Lenin's and Stalin's successors in the Kremlin in the mid-1980s finally came to the realization that they would never accomplish their goals if they did not radically change course, it is not too fanciful to imagine the successors of bin Laden and Zawahiri reflecting on their movement's failures and coming to the same conclusion. The ideology will not have been destroyed by U.S. military power, but its adherents will have decided that the path they chose could never lead them where they wanted to go. Like communism today, extremist Islamism in the future will have a few adherents here and there. But as an organized ideology capable of taking over states or inspiring large numbers of people, it will have been effectively dismantled, discredited, and discarded. And like Lenin's, bin Laden's violent ideology will end up on the ash heap of history.
WHAT VICTORY WOULD LOOK LIKE
The world beyond the war on terror will have several other characteristics. Smaller, uncoordinated organizations capable of carrying out limited attacks might still exist, but the global al Qaeda organization that was able to inflict such destruction on September 11, 2001, will not. Its most important leaders will have been killed or captured, its sanctuaries destroyed, its financial sources blocked, its communications interrupted, and, most important, its supporters persuaded to find other ways to pursue their goals. Terrorism will not be over, but its central sponsor and most dangerous executor will be.
After the war on terror, U.S. society will be better able to deny the remaining terrorists the ability to reach their primary goal: terror. The risk of attack will still exist, but if an attack takes place, it will not lead to a foreign policy revolution, an erosion of respect for human rights or international law, or the restriction of civil liberties. Like in other societies that have faced terrorism (the model being the United Kingdom in its long struggle against the Irish Republican Army), life will go on and people will go about their daily business without inordinate fear. The terrorists will see that the result of any attack they carry out is not the overreaction they sought to provoke but rather the stoic denial of their ability to elicit a counterproductive response. Put in the hands of the U.S. legal system and locked away for years after due legal process, they will be seen as the heartless criminals they are rather than as the valiant soldiers they seek to be. Over time, the risk of terrorist attacks will diminish even further because they will no longer be serving their intended purpose.
After the war on terror, the nation's priorities will come back into balance. Preventing terrorism will remain an important goal, but it will no longer be the main driver of U.S. foreign policy. It will take its place as just one of several concerns, alongside health care, the environment, education, the economy. Budgets, speeches, elections, and policies will no longer revolve around the war on terror to the exclusion of other critical issues on which the nation's welfare depends.
That world is a long way off. The political and economic stagnation in the Middle East, the war in Iraq, the Arab-Israeli conflict, and other conflicts from Kashmir to Chechnya continue to produce the frustration and humiliation that cause terrorism, and with the right conditions, it only takes a small number of extremists to pose a serious threat. But although the end of the war on terror will not come tomorrow, the paths that could lead to it can already be seen. The destruction of the al Qaeda organization, for example, is already under way, and with determination and the right policies, it can be completed. Bin Laden and Zawahiri are now living like fugitives in caves rather than like presidents or military commanders in compounds in Afghanistan. Other al Qaeda leaders have been killed or captured, and the organization's ability to communicate globally and to finance major operations has been significantly reduced. Al Qaeda is trying to reconstitute itself along the Afghan-Pakistani border, but with so much of the world -- now including the governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan -- sharing an interest in suppressing the group, it will have great difficulty becoming once again the global terrorist enterprise that was able to take the United States by surprise on 9/11.
There are also signs of a Muslim backlash against al Qaeda's use of wanton violence as a political tool -- exactly the sort of development that will be critical in the long-term effort to discredit jihadism. After al Qaeda's suicide attacks at two hotels in Jordan in November 2005 -- which killed some 60 civilians, including 38 at a wedding party -- Jordanians poured out into the streets to protest in record numbers. Subsequent public opinion polls showed that the proportion of Jordanian respondents who believed that violence against civilian targets to defend Islam is never justified jumped from 11 percent to 43 percent, while those expressing a lot of confidence in bin Laden to "do the right thing" plunged from 25 percent to less than one percent. Similar Muslim reactions have followed al Qaeda attacks in Egypt, Indonesia, Pakistan, and Saudi Arabia. In Iraq's Anbar Province, there are also signs that locals are getting fed up with Islamist terrorists and turning against them. Sunni tribes from that region who once battled U.S. troops have now joined forces with the United States to challenge al Qaeda militants. Tribes that once welcomed al Qaeda support in the insurgency against U.S. forces are now battling al Qaeda with thousands of fighters and significant local support.
This is why Marc Sageman, a forensic psychiatrist and former CIA case officer who has studied Islamist terrorist movements, argues that support for jihadists will eventually erode just as it did for previous terrorist groups, such as the anarchists of nineteenth-century Europe. In the long term, Sageman argues, "the militants will keep pushing the envelope and committing more atrocities to the point that the dream will no longer be attractive to young people." The terrorism analyst Peter Bergen believes that violence that kills other Muslims will ultimately prove to be al Qaeda's Achilles' heel. Killing Muslims, he argues, is "doubly problematic for Al Qaeda, as the Koran forbids killing both civilians and fellow Muslims." After the 9/11 attacks, wide segments of the Arab public and the Arab media expressed sympathy with the victims, and prominent clerics (including Yusuf al-Qaradawi, an Islamist firebrand with a wide following on satellite television) issued fatwas condemning the attacks as contrary to Islam and calling for the apprehension and punishment of the perpetrators. That type of response is what will have to happen if Islamist terrorism is to be discredited and discarded -- and it is what will happen when the terrorists overreach and fail.
Fundamentalist Islamism also has poor long-term prospects as a broader political ideology. Indeed, far from representing a political system likely to attract increasing numbers of adherents, fundamentalist Islamism has failed everywhere it has been tried. In Afghanistan under the Taliban, in Iran under the mullahs, in Sudan under the National Islamic Front, different strains of Islamist rule have produced economic failure and public discontent. Indeed, the Taliban and the Iranian clerics are probably responsible for creating two of the most pro-U.S. populations in the greater Middle East. Opinion polls show that there is even less support for the kind of fundamentalist Islamic government proposed by bin Laden. "Many people would like bin Laden ... to hurt America," says the political scientist and pollster Shibley Telhami, "but they do not want bin Laden to rule their children." Asked in Telhami's survey what, if any, aspect of al Qaeda they sympathized with, 33 percent of Muslim respondents said none, 33 percent said its confronting the United States, 14 percent said its support for Muslim causes such as the Palestinian movement, 11 percent said its methods of operation, and just 7 percent said its efforts to create an Islamic state. Fundamentalist Islamism has not yet run its course and cannot be expected to in less than a generation. Communism, after all, was a serious competitor to the capitalist West for more than a century and survived in the Soviet Union for more than 70 years, even after its failings became clear to those who once embraced it. In the long run, fundamentalist Islamism is likely to suffer a similarly slow but certain fate.
Finally, there are good reasons to believe that the forces of globalization and communication that have been unleashed by changing technology will eventually produce positive change in the Middle East. This will especially be true if there is successful promotion of economic development in the region, which would produce the middle classes that in other parts of the world have been the drivers of democratization. Even in the absence of rapid economic change, the increasingly open media environment created by the Internet and other communications technologies will prove to be powerful agents of change. Although only around ten percent of households in the Arab world have access to the Internet, that percentage is growing rapidly, having already risen fivefold since 2000. Even in Saudi Arabia, one of the most closed and conservative societies in the world, there are over 2,000 bloggers.
Cable news stations such as the independent Qatar-based
al Jazeera and the Dubai-based al Arabiya reach tens of millions of households throughout the Arab world, often with information or perspectives the repressive governments in the region would rather not be heard. According to the Arab media expert Marc Lynch, "The conventional wisdom that the Arab media simply parrot the official line of the day no longer holds true. Al Jazeera has infuriated virtually every Arab government at one point or another, and its programming allows for criticism, and even mockery. Commentators regularly dismiss the existing Arab regimes as useless, self-interested, weak, compromised, corrupt, and worse." Lynch points out that one al Jazeera talk show addressed the issue "Have the existing Arab regimes become worse than colonialism?" The host, one of the guests, and 76 percent of callers said yes -- "marking a degree of frustration and inwardly directed anger that presents an opening for progressive change."
That sort of progressive change is unlikely to take place in the near future, and it is true that the region's autocrats seem ever more determined to prevent it. But even if the priority for Middle Eastern leaders remains what it has been -- to keep a grip on power -- at some point it will become clear that the only way to hold on to power is to change. The next generation of leaders in Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Syria might conclude that in the absence of change, their regimes will fall to fundamentalists or their countries will be surpassed by regional rivals. There do not appear to be any Gorbachevs on the horizon at present, but that was also true for the Soviet Union as late as 1984. Gorbachev's two immediate predecessors, Yuri Andropov and Konstantin Chernenko, did not seem to be harbingers of radical change when they passed through the Kremlin, but that is exactly what they were. A new, dynamic, and determined leader of a major Arab country who opens up political space and embraces economic reform can -- by providing prosperity, respect, and opportunity for his or her citizens -- strike a greater blow in the fight against terrorism than anything the United States could ever do.
THE RIGHT WAR
This sort of victory in the war on terror may not come for quite a long time. On the calendar of the Cold War, which began in 1947, the sixth anniversary of 9/11 puts us in 1953 -- decades before its denouement and with plenty of setbacks, tragedies, mistakes, and risks still ahead.
The point of imagining the end of the war on terror is not to suggest that it is imminent but to keep the right goals in mind -- so that leaders can adopt the policies most likely to achieve those goals. If they fall prey to the illusion that this is World War III -- and that it can be won like a traditional war -- they risk perpetuating the conflict. Even if Americans were somehow prepared, as in World War II, to mobilize 16 million troops, reinstate the draft, spend 40 percent of GDP on defense, and invade and occupy several major countries, such an effort would likely end up creating more terrorists and fueling the hatred that sustains them. It would unify the United States' enemies, squander its resources, and undermine the values that are a central tool in the struggle. Certainly, the U.S. experience in Iraq suggests the perils of trying to win the war on terror through the application of brute military force.
If, on the other hand, Americans accept that victory in the war on terror will come only when the ideology they are fighting loses support and when potential adherents see viable alternatives to it, then the United States would have to adopt a very different course. It would not overreact to threats but instead would demonstrate confidence in its values and its society -- and the determination to preserve both. It would act decisively to reestablish its moral authority and the appeal of its society, which have been so badly damaged in recent years. It would strengthen its defenses against the terrorist threat while also realizing that a policy designed to prevent any conceivable attack will do more damage than a policy of defiantly refusing to allow terrorists to change its way of life. It would expand its efforts to promote education and political and economic change in the Middle East, which in the long run will help that region overcome the despair and humiliation that fuel the terrorist threat. It would launch a major program to wean itself from imported oil, freeing it from the dependence that constrains its foreign policy and obliging oil-dependent Arab autocracies to diversify their economies, more evenly distribute their wealth, and create jobs for their citizens. It would seek to end the large U.S. combat presence in Iraq, which has become more of a recruiting device for al Qaeda than a useful tool in the war on terror. It would stop pretending that the conflict between Israel and its neighbors has nothing to do with the problem of terrorism and launch a diplomatic offensive designed to bring an end to a conflict that is a key source of the resentment that motivates many terrorists. It would take seriously the views of its potential allies, recognize their legitimate interests, and seek to win their support and cooperation in confronting the common threat.
If the United States did all that, Americans would have good reason to be confident that in the long run they will prevail. Ultimately, extremist Islamism is not an ideology likely to win enduring support. Terrorism is not a strategy with which Muslims will forever want to be associated, and eventually it will create a backlash within Muslim societies. With time and experience -- and if the United States and its allies make the right choices -- Muslims themselves will turn against the extremists in their midst. Somewhere in the Muslim world, at some point possibly sooner than many realize, new Lech Walesas, Václav Havels, and Andrei Sakharovs will emerge to reclaim their people's future from those who have hijacked it. They will seek to put their civilization on a path toward restoring the glory of its greatest era -- when the Muslim world was a multicultural zone of tolerance and intellectual, artistic, and scientific achievement. The agents of change might come from above, like Gorbachev, who used his position at the top of the Soviet hierarchy to transform the Soviet Union and end the Cold War. Or they might rise up from below, like the protesters in 1989 in Budapest, Gdansk, and Leipzig, who stood up against tyranny and reclaimed their future. If the United States is strong, smart, and patient, they will come. And they, not the West, will transform their world -- and ours.
Home | Subscribe | Current Issue
Ethiopia and Mexico Leading the Global Campaign to Fight Climate Change
NAIROBI (AFP) — More than one billion trees were planted around the world in 2007, with Ethiopia and Mexico leading in the drive to combat climate change through new lush forest projects, a UN report said Wednesday.
The Nairobi-based UN Environment Programme (UNEP) said the mass tree planting, inspired by Nobel Peace laureate Wangari Maathai, will help mitigate effects of pollution and environmental deterioration.
"An initiative to catalyze the pledging and the planting of one billion trees has achieved and indeed surpassed its mark. It is a further sign of the breathtaking momentum witnessed this year on the challenge for this generation -- climate change," UNEP chief Achim Steiner said in a statement.
"Millions if not billions of people around this world want an end to pollution and environmental deterioration and have rolled up their sleeves and got their hands dirty to prove the point," he added.
UNEP said the total number of trees planted is still being collated, but developing countries top the list with more than 700 million and 217 million planted in Ethiopia and Mexico respectively.
Ethiopia's high demand for fuel wood and land for cropping and grazing has slashed its forest cover from about 35 percent of its landmass in the early 20th century to just 4.2 percent by 2000, environmentalist say.
Others planters include: Turkey 150 million, Kenya 100 million, Cuba 96.5 million, Rwanda 50 million, South Korea 43 million, Tunisia 21 million, Morocco 20 million, Myanmar 20 million and Brazil 16 million.
Maathai's Green Belt Movement planted 4.7 million trees, double the number it had initially pledged, according to UNEP. The army has participated in re-afforestation drives in Kenya and Mexico.
Indonesia, which will next month host the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is expected to plant almost 80 million trees in one day alone in the run up to the Bali climate meeting.
UNEP said China, Guatemala and Spain are expected soon to announce new plantings of millions of trees.
Experts says that trees help absorb carbon contained in the heat-trapping gases blamed for climate change, which are largely generated by human activity and are one of the most perilous environmental challenges in the modern world.
The UNEP report sends a powerful message ahead of the December 3-14 meeting in Bali of the UNFCCC, a panel charting the path for negotiating pollution cuts to be implemented after 2012 when the Kyoto Protocol pledges run out.
"We called you to action almost exactly a year ago and you responded beyond our dreams," said Maathai, who won the 2004 Nobel Peace prize for her campaign to plant tens of millions of trees to counter tree-loss and desertification in Africa.
"Now we must keep the pressure on and continue the good work for the planet," Maathai said in the statement.
The Nairobi-based World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), which co-organised the campaign, said the success indicated that environment can be rescued by afforestation.
"This milestone shows clearly that the global community has the spirit and the substance to unite in achieving ambitious targets to create a better environment for all," said ICRAF Director General Dennis Garrity.
The UNEP, citing its credible tracking system, said 1.56 billion trees have been planted around the world, but had so far received pledges of 2.24 billion trees.
The mass planting, carried by governments, communities, corporations and individuals, will continue despite surpassing the one billion mark, the agency said.
UNEP spokesman Nick Nuttall was asked why the most enthusiasm for the worldwide initiative seemed to have occurred in developing countries.
"There is no clear answer, however it may be that communities in Africa, Asia and Latin America recognise more clearly the impact of climate change already on the way," he told AFP.
"Perhaps also they more intimately understand the wider benefit of the forests from stabilising water supplies and soils up to their importance as natural pharmatives as well as the importance of trees in combatting global warming."
The Nairobi-based UN Environment Programme (UNEP) said the mass tree planting, inspired by Nobel Peace laureate Wangari Maathai, will help mitigate effects of pollution and environmental deterioration.
"An initiative to catalyze the pledging and the planting of one billion trees has achieved and indeed surpassed its mark. It is a further sign of the breathtaking momentum witnessed this year on the challenge for this generation -- climate change," UNEP chief Achim Steiner said in a statement.
"Millions if not billions of people around this world want an end to pollution and environmental deterioration and have rolled up their sleeves and got their hands dirty to prove the point," he added.
UNEP said the total number of trees planted is still being collated, but developing countries top the list with more than 700 million and 217 million planted in Ethiopia and Mexico respectively.
Ethiopia's high demand for fuel wood and land for cropping and grazing has slashed its forest cover from about 35 percent of its landmass in the early 20th century to just 4.2 percent by 2000, environmentalist say.
Others planters include: Turkey 150 million, Kenya 100 million, Cuba 96.5 million, Rwanda 50 million, South Korea 43 million, Tunisia 21 million, Morocco 20 million, Myanmar 20 million and Brazil 16 million.
Maathai's Green Belt Movement planted 4.7 million trees, double the number it had initially pledged, according to UNEP. The army has participated in re-afforestation drives in Kenya and Mexico.
Indonesia, which will next month host the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), is expected to plant almost 80 million trees in one day alone in the run up to the Bali climate meeting.
UNEP said China, Guatemala and Spain are expected soon to announce new plantings of millions of trees.
Experts says that trees help absorb carbon contained in the heat-trapping gases blamed for climate change, which are largely generated by human activity and are one of the most perilous environmental challenges in the modern world.
The UNEP report sends a powerful message ahead of the December 3-14 meeting in Bali of the UNFCCC, a panel charting the path for negotiating pollution cuts to be implemented after 2012 when the Kyoto Protocol pledges run out.
"We called you to action almost exactly a year ago and you responded beyond our dreams," said Maathai, who won the 2004 Nobel Peace prize for her campaign to plant tens of millions of trees to counter tree-loss and desertification in Africa.
"Now we must keep the pressure on and continue the good work for the planet," Maathai said in the statement.
The Nairobi-based World Agroforestry Centre (ICRAF), which co-organised the campaign, said the success indicated that environment can be rescued by afforestation.
"This milestone shows clearly that the global community has the spirit and the substance to unite in achieving ambitious targets to create a better environment for all," said ICRAF Director General Dennis Garrity.
The UNEP, citing its credible tracking system, said 1.56 billion trees have been planted around the world, but had so far received pledges of 2.24 billion trees.
The mass planting, carried by governments, communities, corporations and individuals, will continue despite surpassing the one billion mark, the agency said.
UNEP spokesman Nick Nuttall was asked why the most enthusiasm for the worldwide initiative seemed to have occurred in developing countries.
"There is no clear answer, however it may be that communities in Africa, Asia and Latin America recognise more clearly the impact of climate change already on the way," he told AFP.
"Perhaps also they more intimately understand the wider benefit of the forests from stabilising water supplies and soils up to their importance as natural pharmatives as well as the importance of trees in combatting global warming."
Ethiopian Prime Minister and Starbucks Chairman Discuss Ways to Support Ethiopian Coffee Industry
thiopia and Seattle Wash.; November 28, 2007 – Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi and Starbucks Corporation (Nasdaq: SBUX) chairman Howard Schultz today reaffirmed their commitment to making Ethiopia a leading force in the global specialty coffee marketplace. Schultz and Prime Minister Meles said their discussions reflected a deepening relationship between Ethiopia, the birthplace of coffee, and Starbucks, one of the world’s largest specialty coffee companies.
The Prime Minister and Schultz discussed ways to expand the branding and marketing of Ethiopia’s world-renowned fine coffees in order to achieve better prices for farmers and improved opportunities for the millions of Ethiopians who depend on coffee for their livelihood.
Schultz announced that the company will open a Starbucks Farmer Support Center in the Ethiopian capital in 2008. The facility, the first in Africa, will enable Starbucks to work collaboratively with Ethiopian farmers to raise both the quality and production of the country’s high quality specialty coffees.
“We will be working closely with Starbucks to bring badly needed investment and technology to our coffee industry, as well as brand recognition and promotion for our high-grade Arabica beans,” said Meles Zenawi, Prime Minister of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. “These measures will afford Ethiopia new leverage in the global coffee market. I am extremely encouraged that Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz shares our belief in a bright future for Ethiopia’s coffee economy.”
Earlier this year, Starbucks signed a distribution, marketing and licensing agreement with Ethiopia and has agreed to assist in expanding consumer awareness of Ethiopia’s famed coffee brands -- Sidamo, Harar/Harrar and Yirgacheffe.
In addition to meeting with Prime Minister Meles, Schultz and other top Starbucks executives will have a roundtable discussion with government officials, coffee farmers, exporters and other coffee stakeholders to share ideas on how to strengthen the partnership and improve the Ethiopian coffee industry. On Friday, Schultz will address leaders of the Ethiopian business community and young entrepreneurs.
The Starbucks Farmer Support Center in Addis Ababa will provide resources and ongoing support to coffee communities with the goal of improving coffee quality and growing practices and increasing the number of farmers participating in the Coffee and Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) Practices, Starbucks’ sustainable coffee buying guidelines.
“This is an extraordinary opportunity for Starbucks to continue to partner with the Ethiopian coffee community to support their efforts to produce some of the world’s finest coffees. We have always recognized that coffee farmers play a critical role in Starbucks success and we are proud to help expand the audience and demand for Ethiopian specialty coffees. Prime Minister Meles has a deep understanding of the global coffee business and is genuinely committed to forging public-private partnerships to ensure a bright future for Ethiopian farmers.” Schultz said.
Between 2002 and 2006, Starbucks increased its Ethiopian coffee purchases by nearly 400 percent. Today, Ethiopian coffee can be found in nearly all of Starbucks’ U.S. stores. In 2008 Starbucks plans to intensify its promotion of Ethiopian coffees.
As part of Starbucks’ expanded economic investment in the region, Schultz also announced that the company is negotiating with an Ethiopian apparel factory to manufacture its Starbucks black aprons, worn by approximately 27,000 Coffee Masters worldwide. Starbucks also invested in school and bridge infrastructure projects in Ethiopia as well as partnered with CARE and WaterAid on projects to improve the economic and educational prospects in the coffee-growing regions of Ethiopia.
Schultz is joined in Ethiopia by Cliff Burrows, president Starbucks EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa), Dub Hay, Starbucks senior vice president of Coffee & Global Procurement, and Sandra Taylor, Starbucks senior vice president of Corporate Social Responsibility.
The Prime Minister and Schultz discussed ways to expand the branding and marketing of Ethiopia’s world-renowned fine coffees in order to achieve better prices for farmers and improved opportunities for the millions of Ethiopians who depend on coffee for their livelihood.
Schultz announced that the company will open a Starbucks Farmer Support Center in the Ethiopian capital in 2008. The facility, the first in Africa, will enable Starbucks to work collaboratively with Ethiopian farmers to raise both the quality and production of the country’s high quality specialty coffees.
“We will be working closely with Starbucks to bring badly needed investment and technology to our coffee industry, as well as brand recognition and promotion for our high-grade Arabica beans,” said Meles Zenawi, Prime Minister of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia. “These measures will afford Ethiopia new leverage in the global coffee market. I am extremely encouraged that Starbucks Chairman Howard Schultz shares our belief in a bright future for Ethiopia’s coffee economy.”
Earlier this year, Starbucks signed a distribution, marketing and licensing agreement with Ethiopia and has agreed to assist in expanding consumer awareness of Ethiopia’s famed coffee brands -- Sidamo, Harar/Harrar and Yirgacheffe.
In addition to meeting with Prime Minister Meles, Schultz and other top Starbucks executives will have a roundtable discussion with government officials, coffee farmers, exporters and other coffee stakeholders to share ideas on how to strengthen the partnership and improve the Ethiopian coffee industry. On Friday, Schultz will address leaders of the Ethiopian business community and young entrepreneurs.
The Starbucks Farmer Support Center in Addis Ababa will provide resources and ongoing support to coffee communities with the goal of improving coffee quality and growing practices and increasing the number of farmers participating in the Coffee and Farmer Equity (C.A.F.E.) Practices, Starbucks’ sustainable coffee buying guidelines.
“This is an extraordinary opportunity for Starbucks to continue to partner with the Ethiopian coffee community to support their efforts to produce some of the world’s finest coffees. We have always recognized that coffee farmers play a critical role in Starbucks success and we are proud to help expand the audience and demand for Ethiopian specialty coffees. Prime Minister Meles has a deep understanding of the global coffee business and is genuinely committed to forging public-private partnerships to ensure a bright future for Ethiopian farmers.” Schultz said.
Between 2002 and 2006, Starbucks increased its Ethiopian coffee purchases by nearly 400 percent. Today, Ethiopian coffee can be found in nearly all of Starbucks’ U.S. stores. In 2008 Starbucks plans to intensify its promotion of Ethiopian coffees.
As part of Starbucks’ expanded economic investment in the region, Schultz also announced that the company is negotiating with an Ethiopian apparel factory to manufacture its Starbucks black aprons, worn by approximately 27,000 Coffee Masters worldwide. Starbucks also invested in school and bridge infrastructure projects in Ethiopia as well as partnered with CARE and WaterAid on projects to improve the economic and educational prospects in the coffee-growing regions of Ethiopia.
Schultz is joined in Ethiopia by Cliff Burrows, president Starbucks EMEA (Europe, Middle East and Africa), Dub Hay, Starbucks senior vice president of Coffee & Global Procurement, and Sandra Taylor, Starbucks senior vice president of Corporate Social Responsibility.
Desperate Somalia
Washington Post
November 27, 2007
DARFUR has engendered less international attention but no less misery in recent months: Violence is still rampant, and aggression by the Sudanese army continues. But there is at least the hope of relief in the planned deployment early next year of 19,000 more peacekeepers under a U.N. mandate. That can't be said for nearby Somalia, a failed state where another nasty war is escalating, another major humanitarian crisis is building -- and the United Nations, together with most of the rest of the world, has written off any rescue.
Some international aid officials are arguing that the suffering in Somalia is now greater than in Darfur, and they may have a point. Hundreds of thousands of people have fled the capital, Mogadishu, to live in camps along roads, where they have little food. A failed harvest has brought the rest of the country close to famine. In the capital there are regular bombings and ambushes by insurgents and occasional flare-ups of all-out combat; more than 80 people were killed in one week this month. Hundreds have drowned in recent months trying to flee the country by boat.
A year ago there was hope that Somalia could be stabilized for the first time since 1991, after Ethiopian troops routed the forces of the Islamic Courts movement, which had installed a fundamentalist administration in Mogadishu and harbored terrorists linked to al-Qaeda. But the Western-backed coalition government that the Ethiopian forces carried into Mogadishu proved incapable of broadening its base to include powerful clans whose support was needed to pacify the capital. A plan to transfer security from the Ethiopians, who are widely disliked in Somalia, to an African peacekeeping force fell through. The remnants of the Islamic Courts force regrouped to wage war against the Ethiopians, with the help of allied clansmen. Ethiopian forces have been guilty of indiscriminate shelling of neighborhoods where insurgents are based.
Not only Somalis stand to suffer in this crisis. The war could escalate into a conflict between Ethiopia and its bitter enemy Eritrea. If the Islamists win, Somalia could become a base for al-Qaeda and a staging point for attacks in East Africa and Europe. Yet the will and resources for an international intervention seem nonexistent. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, struggling to manage nine peacekeeping operations in Africa, recently said there was little chance of one in Somalia. The United States, which was driven out of Mogadishu in 1993, has unsuccessfully sought to act through surrogates -- first local warlords, now the beleaguered and undisciplined Ethiopians.
If there is a chance for improvement, it may lie with the 68-year-old humanitarian who last week was named prime minister, Nur Hassan Hussein. Since Somalia descended into chaos 16 years ago, Mr. Hussein has worked for the Somali Red Crescent, helping to provide health services and build hospitals. Encouragingly, he said in his first speech that "consultations will be my first priority." If Somalia is to be saved from another catastrophe, the solution will have to begin with a home-grown political bargain
November 27, 2007
DARFUR has engendered less international attention but no less misery in recent months: Violence is still rampant, and aggression by the Sudanese army continues. But there is at least the hope of relief in the planned deployment early next year of 19,000 more peacekeepers under a U.N. mandate. That can't be said for nearby Somalia, a failed state where another nasty war is escalating, another major humanitarian crisis is building -- and the United Nations, together with most of the rest of the world, has written off any rescue.
Some international aid officials are arguing that the suffering in Somalia is now greater than in Darfur, and they may have a point. Hundreds of thousands of people have fled the capital, Mogadishu, to live in camps along roads, where they have little food. A failed harvest has brought the rest of the country close to famine. In the capital there are regular bombings and ambushes by insurgents and occasional flare-ups of all-out combat; more than 80 people were killed in one week this month. Hundreds have drowned in recent months trying to flee the country by boat.
A year ago there was hope that Somalia could be stabilized for the first time since 1991, after Ethiopian troops routed the forces of the Islamic Courts movement, which had installed a fundamentalist administration in Mogadishu and harbored terrorists linked to al-Qaeda. But the Western-backed coalition government that the Ethiopian forces carried into Mogadishu proved incapable of broadening its base to include powerful clans whose support was needed to pacify the capital. A plan to transfer security from the Ethiopians, who are widely disliked in Somalia, to an African peacekeeping force fell through. The remnants of the Islamic Courts force regrouped to wage war against the Ethiopians, with the help of allied clansmen. Ethiopian forces have been guilty of indiscriminate shelling of neighborhoods where insurgents are based.
Not only Somalis stand to suffer in this crisis. The war could escalate into a conflict between Ethiopia and its bitter enemy Eritrea. If the Islamists win, Somalia could become a base for al-Qaeda and a staging point for attacks in East Africa and Europe. Yet the will and resources for an international intervention seem nonexistent. U.N. Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, struggling to manage nine peacekeeping operations in Africa, recently said there was little chance of one in Somalia. The United States, which was driven out of Mogadishu in 1993, has unsuccessfully sought to act through surrogates -- first local warlords, now the beleaguered and undisciplined Ethiopians.
If there is a chance for improvement, it may lie with the 68-year-old humanitarian who last week was named prime minister, Nur Hassan Hussein. Since Somalia descended into chaos 16 years ago, Mr. Hussein has worked for the Somali Red Crescent, helping to provide health services and build hospitals. Encouragingly, he said in his first speech that "consultations will be my first priority." If Somalia is to be saved from another catastrophe, the solution will have to begin with a home-grown political bargain
Humanitarian situation in eastern Ethiopia has improved, says U.N. humanitarian chief
KEBRIDEHAR, Ethiopia: (AP) The U.N. humanitarian chief urged officials to allow freedom of movement and more aid agencies in the eastern Ethiopian region of Ogaden, where a low-level insurgency has escalated.
John Holmes, the U.N.'s humanitarian chief, visited the remote region Tuesday. In recent months, Ethiopia has expelled the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Dutch branch of Medecins Sans Frontieres from Ogaden. But in recent weeks the government has allowed 19 non-governmental organizations to return to work in the Ogaden, where the rebel Ogaden National Liberation Front attacked a Chinese-run oil exploration field in April, killing 74 people.
In May, the Ethiopian military began counterinsurgency operations, hurting commercial trade and making it difficult to deliver food aid. The rebels, along with several aid and human rights groups, say the military has burned villages and blocked aid and trade into the region. The government denies those accusations.
Holmes said the situation was difficult to assess, but urged local officials to remove transportation barriers and increase the number of non-governmental organizations in the region to 40.
"My impression is it's better than it was," he said. "If there was freedom to move and to trade and to buy and to sell there really wouldn't be a problem."
But, he added, "you can only learn a limited amount from a short visit, obviously. But there is clearly a risk of a serious humanitarian situation here .... We need to make a difference in the next three months."
In the town of Kebridehar, there are signs humanitarian aid was getting through and having a positive effect.
Women thronged a bustling food distribution point, joyfully lugging sacks of wheat and cans of oil to their homes.
"There was some malnutrition before the food distribution, but now we're OK," said Nasra Nadif, 42, a mother of eight. She attributed the lack of food to poor rains in recent months.
Abdi Gani Yusuf, the head of security for the zone, said the government had caught 250 Ogaden National Liberation Front fighters in the past six months. He did not say where the fighters were held.
"These days the security situation is very calm," he said. "There are no security problems these days."
In the zone's only major hospital — a decrepit place with sagging and broken beds — a few patients lounged listlessly in the midday heat. The pharmacy shelves were empty, though Dr. Dereje Seyoum said the hospital's supplies had not been affected by recent transportation prohibitions.
The ONLF is fighting to overthrow the government for what it says are human rights abuses and to establish greater autonomy in a region being heavily explored for oil and gas. The government accuses the rebels of being terrorists funded by its archenemy Eritrea.
John Holmes, the U.N.'s humanitarian chief, visited the remote region Tuesday. In recent months, Ethiopia has expelled the International Committee of the Red Cross and the Dutch branch of Medecins Sans Frontieres from Ogaden. But in recent weeks the government has allowed 19 non-governmental organizations to return to work in the Ogaden, where the rebel Ogaden National Liberation Front attacked a Chinese-run oil exploration field in April, killing 74 people.
In May, the Ethiopian military began counterinsurgency operations, hurting commercial trade and making it difficult to deliver food aid. The rebels, along with several aid and human rights groups, say the military has burned villages and blocked aid and trade into the region. The government denies those accusations.
Holmes said the situation was difficult to assess, but urged local officials to remove transportation barriers and increase the number of non-governmental organizations in the region to 40.
"My impression is it's better than it was," he said. "If there was freedom to move and to trade and to buy and to sell there really wouldn't be a problem."
But, he added, "you can only learn a limited amount from a short visit, obviously. But there is clearly a risk of a serious humanitarian situation here .... We need to make a difference in the next three months."
In the town of Kebridehar, there are signs humanitarian aid was getting through and having a positive effect.
Women thronged a bustling food distribution point, joyfully lugging sacks of wheat and cans of oil to their homes.
"There was some malnutrition before the food distribution, but now we're OK," said Nasra Nadif, 42, a mother of eight. She attributed the lack of food to poor rains in recent months.
Abdi Gani Yusuf, the head of security for the zone, said the government had caught 250 Ogaden National Liberation Front fighters in the past six months. He did not say where the fighters were held.
"These days the security situation is very calm," he said. "There are no security problems these days."
In the zone's only major hospital — a decrepit place with sagging and broken beds — a few patients lounged listlessly in the midday heat. The pharmacy shelves were empty, though Dr. Dereje Seyoum said the hospital's supplies had not been affected by recent transportation prohibitions.
The ONLF is fighting to overthrow the government for what it says are human rights abuses and to establish greater autonomy in a region being heavily explored for oil and gas. The government accuses the rebels of being terrorists funded by its archenemy Eritrea.
Somalia offensive after attacks
Ethiopian-backed Somali government forces have launched an offensive against insurgents after simultaneous attacks in the capital, Mogadishu.
At least six Ethiopian bases in the city were targeted on Tuesday night by Islamists. Three civilians have died.
Correspondents say rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades and machine guns were used in the attacks.
The attacks came after Ethiopia's prime minister said his forces are unable to withdraw from the conflict in Somalia.
Meles Zenawi said he had expected to withdraw his soldiers earlier in the year, once the Islamists had been driven out of Mogadishu.
But he said not enough peacekeepers had arrived and divisions within the Somali government had left it unable to replace the Ethiopians.
Their presence is unpopular in Mogadishu. Earlier this month, insurgents dragged the bodies of Ethiopian troops through the city.
The BBC's Mohammed Olad Hassan in Mogadishu says Ethiopian lorries and tanks can be seen patrolling the streets.
Those civilians that have not fled the city are remaining indoors, he says.
The attacks took place simultaneously at about 1930 local time on Tuesday night.
At least six Ethiopian army bases came under fire:
In the north of the city at two former factories and at Ex-Control intersection
In the south of the city at the football stadium and an army camp
In the central Bakara market district where there are bases along the main road.
About three civilian bodies have been found on Wednesday morning around one of former factories.
Some 600,000 people have left Mogadishu this year
The dead civilians are said to have been on a bus that was caught in retaliatory fire from Ethiopian troops.
Mogadishu city council spokesman Mohamed Muhyadin has told the BBC there was another attack at midnight.
Militias in Somali army uniforms attacked a building housing government soldiers near Mogadishu International Airport.
One soldier was killed in the attack, he said. The number of Ethiopian casualities are not known.
Correspondents say troops have been sent to the area near the airport to hunt down the insurgents.
'Encouraged'
The UN refugee agency says 60% of Mogadishu residents have left their homes, including 200,000 this month, following the latest clashes between insurgents and the Ethiopian-backed government.
Our correspondent says the insurgents say they have been encouraged by the admission by Mr Meles that his forces were becoming bogged down in Somalia.
On an Islamist website, the insurgents said they were winning the struggle, and called for further attacks on the Ethiopian forces.
Only 1,600 Ugandan peacekeepers have arrived, from a planned 8,000-strong African Union force.
Somalia has not had a functioning national government since President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown in 1991.
At least six Ethiopian bases in the city were targeted on Tuesday night by Islamists. Three civilians have died.
Correspondents say rocket-propelled grenades, hand grenades and machine guns were used in the attacks.
The attacks came after Ethiopia's prime minister said his forces are unable to withdraw from the conflict in Somalia.
Meles Zenawi said he had expected to withdraw his soldiers earlier in the year, once the Islamists had been driven out of Mogadishu.
But he said not enough peacekeepers had arrived and divisions within the Somali government had left it unable to replace the Ethiopians.
Their presence is unpopular in Mogadishu. Earlier this month, insurgents dragged the bodies of Ethiopian troops through the city.
The BBC's Mohammed Olad Hassan in Mogadishu says Ethiopian lorries and tanks can be seen patrolling the streets.
Those civilians that have not fled the city are remaining indoors, he says.
The attacks took place simultaneously at about 1930 local time on Tuesday night.
At least six Ethiopian army bases came under fire:
In the north of the city at two former factories and at Ex-Control intersection
In the south of the city at the football stadium and an army camp
In the central Bakara market district where there are bases along the main road.
About three civilian bodies have been found on Wednesday morning around one of former factories.
Some 600,000 people have left Mogadishu this year
The dead civilians are said to have been on a bus that was caught in retaliatory fire from Ethiopian troops.
Mogadishu city council spokesman Mohamed Muhyadin has told the BBC there was another attack at midnight.
Militias in Somali army uniforms attacked a building housing government soldiers near Mogadishu International Airport.
One soldier was killed in the attack, he said. The number of Ethiopian casualities are not known.
Correspondents say troops have been sent to the area near the airport to hunt down the insurgents.
'Encouraged'
The UN refugee agency says 60% of Mogadishu residents have left their homes, including 200,000 this month, following the latest clashes between insurgents and the Ethiopian-backed government.
Our correspondent says the insurgents say they have been encouraged by the admission by Mr Meles that his forces were becoming bogged down in Somalia.
On an Islamist website, the insurgents said they were winning the struggle, and called for further attacks on the Ethiopian forces.
Only 1,600 Ugandan peacekeepers have arrived, from a planned 8,000-strong African Union force.
Somalia has not had a functioning national government since President Mohamed Siad Barre was overthrown in 1991.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)