18 August 2007
The United States congratulates the participants in the Somalia National Reconciliation Congress on the completion of Phase One of the Congress and the progress achieved thus far. The resolution of long-standing conflicts between all clans, civil society, women’s groups, religious authorities, and business leaders is the first step toward establishing lasting peace and stability in Somalia.
As the second phase of the Congress begins, I urge you to turn your attention toward the key political tasks now in front of you that are outlined in the "Roadmap to Governance, National Reconciliation, and Dialogue" and in the Transitional Federal Charter. They include achieving equitable representation by all key stakeholders in the Transitional Federal Institutions and addressing next steps in the transitional process.
For this Congress to be successful, it is critical that you engage in a genuine political dialogue that will ultimately lead to the formation of permanent, representative governing institutions. The United States renews its call on all Somali stakeholders to participate constructively in the Congress and to establish a roadmap for the remainder of the transitional process leading to national elections in 2009.
2007/700
Sunday, August 19, 2007
Saturday, August 18, 2007
A Week in the Horn of Africa
18 August 2007
ASMARA, Eritrea - Eritrea's information minister on Saturday mocked comments by a senior US adminstration official, who said Washington might add the country to its list of states supporting terrorism.
US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer said Friday the United States was considering adding Eritrea to its list of rogue states, which includes countries such as Iran, Syria, North Korea and Cuba.
But Eritrean Information Minister Ali Abdu dismissed the remarks.
"We would like to thank Mrs Jendayi Frazer for exposing herself and her ill wishes towards the Eritrean people," he told AFP in Asmara.
Frazer said the United States agreed with a recent report by UN experts linking Eritrea -- one of the poorest countries in the world -- to weapons and cash for militants in Somalia.
An Islamist militia, which briefly controlled large parts of Somalia, was defeated earlier this year by Ethiopian troops backing Somali goverment forces.
Insurgents have nevertheless continued to carry out daily guerrilla-style attacks since.
Eritrea also rubbished claims by Addis Ababa that it had been seeking to destabilise its neighbour by plotting attacks against government targets with Ethiopia-based rebels.
A statement issued Friday by Eritrea's foreign ministry dismissed the claims as "ridiculous accusations" and "preposterous allegations".
The statement in turn accused Ethipia and Washington of backing an Islamist insurgency on its soil.
"Ethiopia's open support to an assortment of subversive groups, including the so-called Eritrean Jihadist groups, is a matter of record," it said.
"It is unfortunate that the US administration, which has all along encouraged and supported Ethiopia in its unlawful acts against a sovereign UN member state, has joined the chorus to unleash what is evidently a concerted and synchronized smear campaign against Eritrea."
Eritrea was an "epicentre of peaceful dialogue", said the statement, citing efforts to broker peace deals in Sudan.
For its part, Ethiopia advised the US administration to follow through and include Eritrea on its blacklist.
"Their consideration is long overdue, the Eritrean government has been undertaking terror activities for a long time," said Bereket Simon, senior adviser to President Meles Zenawi.
"They should take measures in order to stop such acts," he told AFP, in reference to Asmara's alleged support of Islamist rebels in Somalia and Ethiopia.
International concern is also growing at an unresolved border dispute with Ethiopia following their 1998 to 2000 frontier war.
Asmara claimed Addis Ababa was alleging Eritrean support to rebels to avoid the implementing a UN-appointed border commission ruling, which grants a key town to Eritrea but has been so far ignored by Ethiopia.
"Ethiopia's real intention is to scuttle the demarcation process by any means," the Eritrean foreign ministry statement added.
ASMARA, Eritrea - Eritrea's information minister on Saturday mocked comments by a senior US adminstration official, who said Washington might add the country to its list of states supporting terrorism.
US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Jendayi Frazer said Friday the United States was considering adding Eritrea to its list of rogue states, which includes countries such as Iran, Syria, North Korea and Cuba.
But Eritrean Information Minister Ali Abdu dismissed the remarks.
"We would like to thank Mrs Jendayi Frazer for exposing herself and her ill wishes towards the Eritrean people," he told AFP in Asmara.
Frazer said the United States agreed with a recent report by UN experts linking Eritrea -- one of the poorest countries in the world -- to weapons and cash for militants in Somalia.
An Islamist militia, which briefly controlled large parts of Somalia, was defeated earlier this year by Ethiopian troops backing Somali goverment forces.
Insurgents have nevertheless continued to carry out daily guerrilla-style attacks since.
Eritrea also rubbished claims by Addis Ababa that it had been seeking to destabilise its neighbour by plotting attacks against government targets with Ethiopia-based rebels.
A statement issued Friday by Eritrea's foreign ministry dismissed the claims as "ridiculous accusations" and "preposterous allegations".
The statement in turn accused Ethipia and Washington of backing an Islamist insurgency on its soil.
"Ethiopia's open support to an assortment of subversive groups, including the so-called Eritrean Jihadist groups, is a matter of record," it said.
"It is unfortunate that the US administration, which has all along encouraged and supported Ethiopia in its unlawful acts against a sovereign UN member state, has joined the chorus to unleash what is evidently a concerted and synchronized smear campaign against Eritrea."
Eritrea was an "epicentre of peaceful dialogue", said the statement, citing efforts to broker peace deals in Sudan.
For its part, Ethiopia advised the US administration to follow through and include Eritrea on its blacklist.
"Their consideration is long overdue, the Eritrean government has been undertaking terror activities for a long time," said Bereket Simon, senior adviser to President Meles Zenawi.
"They should take measures in order to stop such acts," he told AFP, in reference to Asmara's alleged support of Islamist rebels in Somalia and Ethiopia.
International concern is also growing at an unresolved border dispute with Ethiopia following their 1998 to 2000 frontier war.
Asmara claimed Addis Ababa was alleging Eritrean support to rebels to avoid the implementing a UN-appointed border commission ruling, which grants a key town to Eritrea but has been so far ignored by Ethiopia.
"Ethiopia's real intention is to scuttle the demarcation process by any means," the Eritrean foreign ministry statement added.
As Eritrea gives the US an awkward Choice, a new dynamic is set to unravel Mulugeta Alemu
Mulugeta Alemu
18 August 2007
The US has officially threatened to designate Eritrea as a terrorism sponsoring state. Those who are not accustomed to the world of diplomacy are often mesmerized by the length of time it takes to name countries what they truly are. US threat of calling Eritrea a terror sponsoring state is indeed long overdue. This is a remarkable victory for many of those who have exposed Eritrea’s disregard to peaceful co-existence in the region and its direct involvement in acts that claimed and continue to claim the lives of innumerable number of innocent civilians.
It is interesting that the US announcement follows the press release by Ethiopian officials that they have unravelled a massive plot by local rebel groups supported and sponsored by Eritrea to undertake terrorist activities in the country. But US’s announcement has not made any indication that these possible measures are related to what Eritrea is doing in Ethiopia. The Nazareth plot is not the first time where Eritrea’s involvement was clearly identified. The country’s rougeness knows no bound. Previously it has kidnapped foreign tourists and Ethiopian guides. It has supplied ammunitions and training for groups such as ONLF and OLF promoting their terror infested undertakings. The US and UK are yet to announce these groups as terrorist organisations.
So far Ethiopia’s call for the international community about Eritrea’s actions has largely fallen into deaf ears. There are some sinister assumptions which belie such inertia. Some governments and their so called think thanks consciously promoted the view that after all Eritrea is the victim of Ethiopia’s unwillingness to accept the ruling of Eritrea Ethiopia boundary Commission. This is in fact one massive white lie. Ethiopia has continued to make its announcements that it accepts the decision without any condition. Equally important is also the fact that even the UN Secretary General, in his latest report, has elaborated how Eritrea irreparably damaged and violated the TSZ which was established as a buffer zone between the two countries following the 1998-2000 war which Eritrea has spectacularly lost.
Eritrea’s adventure in Somalia has so far been an embarrassing state of affairs for the international community which wanted to support the TFG. The new government there is being challenged by the daily barrage of attacks by those who are generously sponsored by Eritrea. No one warned Eritrea. The impoverished small state of Eritrea has even declared its plan of calling a conference in September with the aim of establishing a parallel government in Somalia. Eritrea is doing the unknown. For some this is a result of Eritrea’s lack of skill in how to use diplomacy as a tool of promoting its interests. For others it is a height of maximum nervousness. However, there is a darker element to Eritrea’s design. This is a country that has done in the Sudan and even in Darfur what it has now done in Somalia. The reaction of the international community to Eritrea’s involvement in the Sudan never ending crisis was baffling. It continued to invite Eritrea in the high tables regarding the Sudan. We all remember how officials of the EU in Brussels, often immeasurably crude in their diplomacy, declared the president of Eritrea as an important peace maker in the region. Presient Issayas has always been the Horn’s pacemaker for all its woes. He was a good student of how the world is emerging and wanted to copy his moves in the Sudan to Somalia.
US’s threat of measure may never materialize. But it speaks mightily to the view that Eritrea’s unruly character is being checked. It has also brought to an end Eritrea’s game of playing the victim. So many things follow in US designation of terrorism. It makes it illegal for the US and other companies to sell arms. It forces the US Government to axe or terminate economic assistance even through the IMF and World Bank.
So much depends on how Eritrea conducts itself both in the short term and long term. Especially we need to see if it continues to supply arms to Somali terrorist and insurgents, which often happen while the American intelligence community is looking. The US will also focus whether the September meeting in Asmara will take place. But we know very well that Eritrea will publish one of those pitiful and infamous editorials in the website of its Ministry of Information castigating the US. This is very consistent with Eritrea’s patter of behaviour. The Eritrean government always believes that Eritrea’s future is in the hands of its mighty leader who had defined its independence against all odds. Eritrea establishment always believed that it had defeated the USSR in the Eritrean soil during the fight for independence. Another super-power is yet to beat.
In the grand scheme of things, Eritrea will probably play the ball carefully and may even use this to its advantage. The economically pressed regime continues to use its anti-American sentiment to rally support from its Middle East allies. In the global battle against terrorism and fundamental Islam, Eritrea is hesitantly slipping away while its population looks on unaware of what is happening. That should be a concern to all even while small victories are being won.
18 August 2007
The US has officially threatened to designate Eritrea as a terrorism sponsoring state. Those who are not accustomed to the world of diplomacy are often mesmerized by the length of time it takes to name countries what they truly are. US threat of calling Eritrea a terror sponsoring state is indeed long overdue. This is a remarkable victory for many of those who have exposed Eritrea’s disregard to peaceful co-existence in the region and its direct involvement in acts that claimed and continue to claim the lives of innumerable number of innocent civilians.
It is interesting that the US announcement follows the press release by Ethiopian officials that they have unravelled a massive plot by local rebel groups supported and sponsored by Eritrea to undertake terrorist activities in the country. But US’s announcement has not made any indication that these possible measures are related to what Eritrea is doing in Ethiopia. The Nazareth plot is not the first time where Eritrea’s involvement was clearly identified. The country’s rougeness knows no bound. Previously it has kidnapped foreign tourists and Ethiopian guides. It has supplied ammunitions and training for groups such as ONLF and OLF promoting their terror infested undertakings. The US and UK are yet to announce these groups as terrorist organisations.
So far Ethiopia’s call for the international community about Eritrea’s actions has largely fallen into deaf ears. There are some sinister assumptions which belie such inertia. Some governments and their so called think thanks consciously promoted the view that after all Eritrea is the victim of Ethiopia’s unwillingness to accept the ruling of Eritrea Ethiopia boundary Commission. This is in fact one massive white lie. Ethiopia has continued to make its announcements that it accepts the decision without any condition. Equally important is also the fact that even the UN Secretary General, in his latest report, has elaborated how Eritrea irreparably damaged and violated the TSZ which was established as a buffer zone between the two countries following the 1998-2000 war which Eritrea has spectacularly lost.
Eritrea’s adventure in Somalia has so far been an embarrassing state of affairs for the international community which wanted to support the TFG. The new government there is being challenged by the daily barrage of attacks by those who are generously sponsored by Eritrea. No one warned Eritrea. The impoverished small state of Eritrea has even declared its plan of calling a conference in September with the aim of establishing a parallel government in Somalia. Eritrea is doing the unknown. For some this is a result of Eritrea’s lack of skill in how to use diplomacy as a tool of promoting its interests. For others it is a height of maximum nervousness. However, there is a darker element to Eritrea’s design. This is a country that has done in the Sudan and even in Darfur what it has now done in Somalia. The reaction of the international community to Eritrea’s involvement in the Sudan never ending crisis was baffling. It continued to invite Eritrea in the high tables regarding the Sudan. We all remember how officials of the EU in Brussels, often immeasurably crude in their diplomacy, declared the president of Eritrea as an important peace maker in the region. Presient Issayas has always been the Horn’s pacemaker for all its woes. He was a good student of how the world is emerging and wanted to copy his moves in the Sudan to Somalia.
US’s threat of measure may never materialize. But it speaks mightily to the view that Eritrea’s unruly character is being checked. It has also brought to an end Eritrea’s game of playing the victim. So many things follow in US designation of terrorism. It makes it illegal for the US and other companies to sell arms. It forces the US Government to axe or terminate economic assistance even through the IMF and World Bank.
So much depends on how Eritrea conducts itself both in the short term and long term. Especially we need to see if it continues to supply arms to Somali terrorist and insurgents, which often happen while the American intelligence community is looking. The US will also focus whether the September meeting in Asmara will take place. But we know very well that Eritrea will publish one of those pitiful and infamous editorials in the website of its Ministry of Information castigating the US. This is very consistent with Eritrea’s patter of behaviour. The Eritrean government always believes that Eritrea’s future is in the hands of its mighty leader who had defined its independence against all odds. Eritrea establishment always believed that it had defeated the USSR in the Eritrean soil during the fight for independence. Another super-power is yet to beat.
In the grand scheme of things, Eritrea will probably play the ball carefully and may even use this to its advantage. The economically pressed regime continues to use its anti-American sentiment to rally support from its Middle East allies. In the global battle against terrorism and fundamental Islam, Eritrea is hesitantly slipping away while its population looks on unaware of what is happening. That should be a concern to all even while small victories are being won.
Thursday, August 16, 2007
Ethio-Yemen bilateral ties said furthered
Addis Ababa, August 16, 2007 (Addis Ababa) - The economic and trade ties between Ethiopia and Yemen has contributed a lot in further stepping up the ever-increasing diplomatic and political relations between the two countries, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs said .
Asia, Australia and the Middle East Directorate with the Ministry, Ambassador Mehadi Ahmed Gedid told Ethiopian News Agency that the countries are enjoying an age old political, social, cultural and economic ties that goes back to Axumite period.
The trade volume among the two countries has reached over 37 USD.
Ambassador Mehadi said Ethiopia has earned 26 million USD from its products exported to Yemen last year.
Various agreements in trade, investment, agriculture, mineral, tourism, transport and security, among others, were signed and being implemented by the two countries.
The two nations have further strengthened their relations by establishing the Ethio-Yemen Joint Commission in April 1999, Ambassador Mehadi recalled.
Head of Foreign Trade Relations Department with the Ministry of Trade and Industry, Geremwe Ayalew also said the trade and investment relations between Ethiopia and Yemen have been growing from time to time.
Ethiopia exports meat, spices, natural gum and other agricultural products to Yemen and it imports various manufactured food and sanitation materials from Yemen.
The volume of products Ethiopia exported to Yemen over the past seven years has shown a 31 percent increase.
Some 134 licensed Yemeni investors are now operating in Ethiopia in various sectors, the head said.
The 4th Ethio-Yemen Joint Ministerial Meeting is expected to convene on August 20, 2007 in Addis Ababa
Asia, Australia and the Middle East Directorate with the Ministry, Ambassador Mehadi Ahmed Gedid told Ethiopian News Agency that the countries are enjoying an age old political, social, cultural and economic ties that goes back to Axumite period.
The trade volume among the two countries has reached over 37 USD.
Ambassador Mehadi said Ethiopia has earned 26 million USD from its products exported to Yemen last year.
Various agreements in trade, investment, agriculture, mineral, tourism, transport and security, among others, were signed and being implemented by the two countries.
The two nations have further strengthened their relations by establishing the Ethio-Yemen Joint Commission in April 1999, Ambassador Mehadi recalled.
Head of Foreign Trade Relations Department with the Ministry of Trade and Industry, Geremwe Ayalew also said the trade and investment relations between Ethiopia and Yemen have been growing from time to time.
Ethiopia exports meat, spices, natural gum and other agricultural products to Yemen and it imports various manufactured food and sanitation materials from Yemen.
The volume of products Ethiopia exported to Yemen over the past seven years has shown a 31 percent increase.
Some 134 licensed Yemeni investors are now operating in Ethiopia in various sectors, the head said.
The 4th Ethio-Yemen Joint Ministerial Meeting is expected to convene on August 20, 2007 in Addis Ababa
Wednesday, August 15, 2007
Ethiopia to market natural low caffeine coffee
15 Reuters 2007
ADDIS ABABA – Ethiopia plans to start commercial production of a coffee variety with naturally low caffeine that was found growing in the wild, the agricultural minister said on Wednesday.
Decaffeinated coffee accounts for 10 percent of total coffee sales in the world, a multibillion-dollar industry. Natural decaf brews could dominate over the current chemically caffeine-reduced options in today's health-conscious market.
“Coffee research centres are in the process of planting seedlings of natural coffee with low caffeine varieties, to enable Ethiopia to supply the world market within the shortest possible time,” said Abera Deressa, State Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development.
In July 2004, a Brazilian scientist, Paulo Mazzafera declared he had discovered a variety of naturally decaffeinated coffee from 6,000 specimens collected in Ethiopia in the 1980s.
The find sparked a dispute with Ethiopian authorities who accused him of taking the bushes without permission.
The Horn of Africa country prides itself as the origin of coffee, said to have originated in the Kafa region, a misty forested highland region in the south west. The nation is also the continent's biggest producer and consumer of the bean.
The decaf coffee could prove a hit with coffee lovers who enjoy the rich aroma and taste but not the caffeine, and generate much-needed income for poor Ethiopian farmers, economists say.
Abera, who spoke at a coffee research conference, also urged researchers to seek coffee varieties with higher yields.
“Although Ethiopia is home to arabica coffee with high generic diversity, the national average yield has not exceeded five to six quintals per hectare, which is lower than in other coffee producing countries,” he said.
He attributed the low yield to poor management and lack of initiative owing to low and fluctuating world coffee prices.
ADDIS ABABA – Ethiopia plans to start commercial production of a coffee variety with naturally low caffeine that was found growing in the wild, the agricultural minister said on Wednesday.
Decaffeinated coffee accounts for 10 percent of total coffee sales in the world, a multibillion-dollar industry. Natural decaf brews could dominate over the current chemically caffeine-reduced options in today's health-conscious market.
“Coffee research centres are in the process of planting seedlings of natural coffee with low caffeine varieties, to enable Ethiopia to supply the world market within the shortest possible time,” said Abera Deressa, State Minister of Agriculture and Rural Development.
In July 2004, a Brazilian scientist, Paulo Mazzafera declared he had discovered a variety of naturally decaffeinated coffee from 6,000 specimens collected in Ethiopia in the 1980s.
The find sparked a dispute with Ethiopian authorities who accused him of taking the bushes without permission.
The Horn of Africa country prides itself as the origin of coffee, said to have originated in the Kafa region, a misty forested highland region in the south west. The nation is also the continent's biggest producer and consumer of the bean.
The decaf coffee could prove a hit with coffee lovers who enjoy the rich aroma and taste but not the caffeine, and generate much-needed income for poor Ethiopian farmers, economists say.
Abera, who spoke at a coffee research conference, also urged researchers to seek coffee varieties with higher yields.
“Although Ethiopia is home to arabica coffee with high generic diversity, the national average yield has not exceeded five to six quintals per hectare, which is lower than in other coffee producing countries,” he said.
He attributed the low yield to poor management and lack of initiative owing to low and fluctuating world coffee prices.
Uganda: Country to Send More Troops to Somalia
New Vision (Kampala) NEWS15 August 2007 Posted to the web 16 August 2007 By Joyce NamutebiKampala
UGANDA is to send an additional 250 soldiers to Mogadishu to train Somali soldiers, the Chief of Defence Forces, Gen. Aronda Nyakairima, said yesterday.
"We are in high preparations to send a team of about 250 to undertake the training of Somalis," Aronda told the parliamentary committee on defence and internal affairs.
Responding to questions raised by MPs, he said helping Somalia create the capacity of its armed forces was part of the African Union mandate.
In addition, the peacekeeping force is charged with protecting the Transitional Federal Government and helping distribute relief supplies to the population.
The additional troops leave within a month, defence minister Crispus Kiyonga added later. He said the training might be for one year.
The UPDF mandate in Somalia was extended on July 19 for another six months, the committee, chaired by Nakaseke district MP, Rosemary Namayanja (NRM), heard.
The army boss said the Ugandan contingent had limited itself to protecting the Transitional Federal Government, the president, the prime minister and critical institutions such as the airport and the seaport.
Asked if the AU had secured money for the six additional months, the Joint Chief of Staff, Robert Rusoke, said: "The donors have committed themselves for another six months as they prepare for the UN to take over the mission."
On the allowances of the present Ugandan contingent of 1,500 soldiers, Kiyonga said the money had been slow in coming.
"The soldiers have been paid for two months. We expect that by early next month, they will be paid the balance of three months," he added.
Five Ugandans have been killed in the violence in the lawless Somali capital.
Six months after the arrival of the peacekeepers, consisting of only Ugandans, Mogadishu still remains one of the most dangerous places on earth.
Yesterday, a remote-controlled landmine blew up a government vehicle, killing at least five police officers and wounding three others, according to Reuters.
The blast near a hospital in north Mogadishu - a stronghold of Islamists waging war against the Ethiopian-backed interim government - destroyed an armoured vehicle as it transported officers on duty.
The government usually blames such attacks on Islamist insurgents, who it says are increasingly using Iraq-style remote-controlled bombs to kill government officials and destroy vehicles and buildings.
Hundreds have been killed by mortar and rocket attacks and fire fights in Mogadishu since Somalia's government ousted Islamist fighters in December, sparking an insurgency that has forced hundreds of thousands to flee.
The latest attack on the police officers came a day after heavy fighting between Ethiopian troops and insurgents in Mogadishu killed at least 31 Somalis and wounded 60, according to a local human rights group.
In a separate attack yesterday, an unknown assailant lobbed a grenade at soldiers in a town 30km west of Mogadishu, killing two people and wounding 16.
"Two grenades were thrown at local council soldiers patrolling the livestock market. One soldier and a civilian died. They wounded 16 civilians," shopkeeper Said Nur told Reuters.
A national reconciliation conference started almost a month ago, assembling hundreds of clan leaders, but the Islamic Courts, the main armed opposition group, have refused to attend, demanding the withdrawal of Ethiopian troops first.
UGANDA is to send an additional 250 soldiers to Mogadishu to train Somali soldiers, the Chief of Defence Forces, Gen. Aronda Nyakairima, said yesterday.
"We are in high preparations to send a team of about 250 to undertake the training of Somalis," Aronda told the parliamentary committee on defence and internal affairs.
Responding to questions raised by MPs, he said helping Somalia create the capacity of its armed forces was part of the African Union mandate.
In addition, the peacekeeping force is charged with protecting the Transitional Federal Government and helping distribute relief supplies to the population.
The additional troops leave within a month, defence minister Crispus Kiyonga added later. He said the training might be for one year.
The UPDF mandate in Somalia was extended on July 19 for another six months, the committee, chaired by Nakaseke district MP, Rosemary Namayanja (NRM), heard.
The army boss said the Ugandan contingent had limited itself to protecting the Transitional Federal Government, the president, the prime minister and critical institutions such as the airport and the seaport.
Asked if the AU had secured money for the six additional months, the Joint Chief of Staff, Robert Rusoke, said: "The donors have committed themselves for another six months as they prepare for the UN to take over the mission."
On the allowances of the present Ugandan contingent of 1,500 soldiers, Kiyonga said the money had been slow in coming.
"The soldiers have been paid for two months. We expect that by early next month, they will be paid the balance of three months," he added.
Five Ugandans have been killed in the violence in the lawless Somali capital.
Six months after the arrival of the peacekeepers, consisting of only Ugandans, Mogadishu still remains one of the most dangerous places on earth.
Yesterday, a remote-controlled landmine blew up a government vehicle, killing at least five police officers and wounding three others, according to Reuters.
The blast near a hospital in north Mogadishu - a stronghold of Islamists waging war against the Ethiopian-backed interim government - destroyed an armoured vehicle as it transported officers on duty.
The government usually blames such attacks on Islamist insurgents, who it says are increasingly using Iraq-style remote-controlled bombs to kill government officials and destroy vehicles and buildings.
Hundreds have been killed by mortar and rocket attacks and fire fights in Mogadishu since Somalia's government ousted Islamist fighters in December, sparking an insurgency that has forced hundreds of thousands to flee.
The latest attack on the police officers came a day after heavy fighting between Ethiopian troops and insurgents in Mogadishu killed at least 31 Somalis and wounded 60, according to a local human rights group.
In a separate attack yesterday, an unknown assailant lobbed a grenade at soldiers in a town 30km west of Mogadishu, killing two people and wounding 16.
"Two grenades were thrown at local council soldiers patrolling the livestock market. One soldier and a civilian died. They wounded 16 civilians," shopkeeper Said Nur told Reuters.
A national reconciliation conference started almost a month ago, assembling hundreds of clan leaders, but the Islamic Courts, the main armed opposition group, have refused to attend, demanding the withdrawal of Ethiopian troops first.
Iranian Unit to Be Labeled 'Terrorist'
By Robin WrightWashington Post Staff WriterWednesday, August 15, 2007; A01
The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances.
The Bush administration has chosen to move against the Revolutionary Guard Corps because of what U.S. officials have described as its growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its support for extremists throughout the Middle East, the sources said. The decision follows congressional pressure on the administration to toughen its stance against Tehran, as well as U.S. frustration with the ineffectiveness of U.N. resolutions against Iran's nuclear program, officials said.
The designation of the Revolutionary Guard will be made under Executive Order 13224, which President Bush signed two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to obstruct terrorist funding. It authorizes the United States to identify individuals, businesses, charities and extremist groups engaged in terrorist activities. The Revolutionary Guard would be the first national military branch included on the list, U.S. officials said -- a highly unusual move because it is part of a government, rather than a typical non-state terrorist organization.
The order allows the United States to block the assets of terrorists and to disrupt operations by foreign businesses that "provide support, services or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists."
The move reflects escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran over issues including Iraq and Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran has been on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1984, but in May the two countries began their first formal one-on-one dialogue in 28 years with a meeting of diplomats in Baghdad.
The main goal of the new designation is to clamp down on the Revolutionary Guard's vast business network, as well as on foreign companies conducting business linked to the military unit and its personnel. The administration plans to list many of the Revolutionary Guard's financial operations.
"Anyone doing business with these people will have to reevaluate their actions immediately," said a U.S. official familiar with the plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the decision has not been announced. "It increases the risks of people who have until now ignored the growing list of sanctions against the Iranians. It makes clear to everyone who the IRGC and their related businesses really are. It removes the excuses for doing business with these people."
For weeks, the Bush administration has been debating whether to target the Revolutionary Guard Corps in full, or only its Quds Force wing, which U.S. officials have linked to the growing flow of explosives, roadside bombs, rockets and other arms to Shiite militias in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Quds Force also lends support to Shiite allies such as Lebanon's Hezbollah and to Sunni movements such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Although administration discussions continue, the initial decision is to target the entire Guard Corps, U.S. officials said. The administration has not yet decided when to announce the new measure, but officials said they would prefer to do so before the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly next month, when the United States intends to increase international pressure against Iran.
Formed in 1979 and originally tasked with protecting the world's only modern theocracy, the Revolutionary Guard took the lead in battling Iraq during the bloody Iran-Iraq war waged from 1980 to 1988. The Guard, also known as the Pasdaran, has since become a powerful political and economic force in Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rose through the ranks of the Revolutionary Guard and came to power with support from its network of veterans. Its leaders are linked to many mainstream businesses in Iran.
"They are heavily involved in everything from pharmaceuticals to telecommunications and pipelines -- even the new Imam Khomeini Airport and a great deal of smuggling," said Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations. "Many of the front companies engaged in procuring nuclear technology are owned and run by the Revolutionary Guards. They're developing along the lines of the Chinese military, which is involved in many business enterprises. It's a huge business conglomeration."
The Revolutionary Guard Corps -- with its own navy, air force, ground forces and special forces units -- is a rival to Iran's conventional troops. Its naval forces abducted 15 British sailors and marines this spring, sparking an international crisis, and its special forces armed Lebanon's Hezbollah with missiles used against Israel in the 2006 war. The corps also plays a key role in Iran's military industries, including the attempted acquisition of nuclear weapons and surface-to-surface missiles, according to Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The United States took punitive action against Iran after the November 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, including the breaking of diplomatic ties and the freezing of Iranian assets in the United States. More recently, dozens of international banks and financial institutions reduced or eliminated their business with Iran after a quiet campaign by the Treasury Department and State Department aimed at limiting Tehran's access to the international financial system. Over the past year, two U.N. resolutions have targeted the assets and movements of 28 people -- including some Revolutionary Guard members -- linked to Iran's nuclear program.
The key obstacle to stronger international pressure against Tehran has been China, Iran's largest trading partner. After the Iranian government refused to comply with two U.N. Security Council resolutions dealing with its nuclear program, Beijing balked at a U.S. proposal for a resolution that would have sanctioned the Revolutionary Guard, U.S. officials said.
China's actions reverse a cycle during which Russia was the most reluctant among the veto-wielding members of the Security Council. "China used to hide behind Russia, but Russia is now hiding behind China," said a U.S. official familiar with negotiations.
The administration's move comes amid growing support in Congress for the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which was introduced in the Senate by Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) and in the House by Tom Lantos (D-Calif.). The bill already has the support of 323 House members.
The administration's move could hurt diplomatic efforts, some analysts said. "It would greatly complicate our efforts to solve the nuclear issue," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for American Progress. "It would tie an end to Iran's nuclear program to an end to its support of allies in Hezbollah and Hamas. The only way you could get a nuclear deal is as part of a grand bargain, which at this point is completely out of reach."
Such sanctions can work only alongside diplomatic efforts, Cirincione added.
"Sanctions can serve as a prod, but they have very rarely forced a country to capitulate or collapse," he said. "All of us want to back Iran into a corner, but we want to give them a way out, too. [The designation] will convince many in Iran's elite that there's no point in talking with us and that the only thing that will satisfy us is regime change."
Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.
The United States has decided to designate Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps, the country's 125,000-strong elite military branch, as a "specially designated global terrorist," according to U.S. officials, a move that allows Washington to target the group's business operations and finances.
The Bush administration has chosen to move against the Revolutionary Guard Corps because of what U.S. officials have described as its growing involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan as well as its support for extremists throughout the Middle East, the sources said. The decision follows congressional pressure on the administration to toughen its stance against Tehran, as well as U.S. frustration with the ineffectiveness of U.N. resolutions against Iran's nuclear program, officials said.
The designation of the Revolutionary Guard will be made under Executive Order 13224, which President Bush signed two weeks after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks to obstruct terrorist funding. It authorizes the United States to identify individuals, businesses, charities and extremist groups engaged in terrorist activities. The Revolutionary Guard would be the first national military branch included on the list, U.S. officials said -- a highly unusual move because it is part of a government, rather than a typical non-state terrorist organization.
The order allows the United States to block the assets of terrorists and to disrupt operations by foreign businesses that "provide support, services or assistance to, or otherwise associate with, terrorists."
The move reflects escalating tensions between Washington and Tehran over issues including Iraq and Iran's nuclear ambitions. Iran has been on the State Department's list of state sponsors of terrorism since 1984, but in May the two countries began their first formal one-on-one dialogue in 28 years with a meeting of diplomats in Baghdad.
The main goal of the new designation is to clamp down on the Revolutionary Guard's vast business network, as well as on foreign companies conducting business linked to the military unit and its personnel. The administration plans to list many of the Revolutionary Guard's financial operations.
"Anyone doing business with these people will have to reevaluate their actions immediately," said a U.S. official familiar with the plan who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the decision has not been announced. "It increases the risks of people who have until now ignored the growing list of sanctions against the Iranians. It makes clear to everyone who the IRGC and their related businesses really are. It removes the excuses for doing business with these people."
For weeks, the Bush administration has been debating whether to target the Revolutionary Guard Corps in full, or only its Quds Force wing, which U.S. officials have linked to the growing flow of explosives, roadside bombs, rockets and other arms to Shiite militias in Iraq and the Taliban in Afghanistan. The Quds Force also lends support to Shiite allies such as Lebanon's Hezbollah and to Sunni movements such as Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad.
Although administration discussions continue, the initial decision is to target the entire Guard Corps, U.S. officials said. The administration has not yet decided when to announce the new measure, but officials said they would prefer to do so before the meeting of the U.N. General Assembly next month, when the United States intends to increase international pressure against Iran.
Formed in 1979 and originally tasked with protecting the world's only modern theocracy, the Revolutionary Guard took the lead in battling Iraq during the bloody Iran-Iraq war waged from 1980 to 1988. The Guard, also known as the Pasdaran, has since become a powerful political and economic force in Iran. Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad rose through the ranks of the Revolutionary Guard and came to power with support from its network of veterans. Its leaders are linked to many mainstream businesses in Iran.
"They are heavily involved in everything from pharmaceuticals to telecommunications and pipelines -- even the new Imam Khomeini Airport and a great deal of smuggling," said Ray Takeyh of the Council on Foreign Relations. "Many of the front companies engaged in procuring nuclear technology are owned and run by the Revolutionary Guards. They're developing along the lines of the Chinese military, which is involved in many business enterprises. It's a huge business conglomeration."
The Revolutionary Guard Corps -- with its own navy, air force, ground forces and special forces units -- is a rival to Iran's conventional troops. Its naval forces abducted 15 British sailors and marines this spring, sparking an international crisis, and its special forces armed Lebanon's Hezbollah with missiles used against Israel in the 2006 war. The corps also plays a key role in Iran's military industries, including the attempted acquisition of nuclear weapons and surface-to-surface missiles, according to Anthony H. Cordesman of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
The United States took punitive action against Iran after the November 1979 takeover of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran, including the breaking of diplomatic ties and the freezing of Iranian assets in the United States. More recently, dozens of international banks and financial institutions reduced or eliminated their business with Iran after a quiet campaign by the Treasury Department and State Department aimed at limiting Tehran's access to the international financial system. Over the past year, two U.N. resolutions have targeted the assets and movements of 28 people -- including some Revolutionary Guard members -- linked to Iran's nuclear program.
The key obstacle to stronger international pressure against Tehran has been China, Iran's largest trading partner. After the Iranian government refused to comply with two U.N. Security Council resolutions dealing with its nuclear program, Beijing balked at a U.S. proposal for a resolution that would have sanctioned the Revolutionary Guard, U.S. officials said.
China's actions reverse a cycle during which Russia was the most reluctant among the veto-wielding members of the Security Council. "China used to hide behind Russia, but Russia is now hiding behind China," said a U.S. official familiar with negotiations.
The administration's move comes amid growing support in Congress for the Iran Counter-Proliferation Act, which was introduced in the Senate by Gordon Smith (R-Ore.) and in the House by Tom Lantos (D-Calif.). The bill already has the support of 323 House members.
The administration's move could hurt diplomatic efforts, some analysts said. "It would greatly complicate our efforts to solve the nuclear issue," said Joseph Cirincione, a nuclear proliferation expert at the Center for American Progress. "It would tie an end to Iran's nuclear program to an end to its support of allies in Hezbollah and Hamas. The only way you could get a nuclear deal is as part of a grand bargain, which at this point is completely out of reach."
Such sanctions can work only alongside diplomatic efforts, Cirincione added.
"Sanctions can serve as a prod, but they have very rarely forced a country to capitulate or collapse," he said. "All of us want to back Iran into a corner, but we want to give them a way out, too. [The designation] will convince many in Iran's elite that there's no point in talking with us and that the only thing that will satisfy us is regime change."
Staff researcher Madonna Lebling contributed to this report.
Addis to host 3rd World Information Technology Forum
Addis Ababa, August 15, 2007 (Addis Ababa) - Preliminary activities are well in progress to make the 3rd World Information Technology Forum to be held here a success, Ethiopian Information and Communication Technology Development Agency said.
The agency told Ethiopian News Agency on Wednesday that the government is undertaking preliminary activities to organize the forum from 28 August to 30, 2007 here in Addis.
The agency said the forum would create a chance to promote the image of the country to the rest of the world.
Ethiopia is expected to draw lessons that would further strengthen its development endeavor from the agendas to be discussed in the course of the forum.
The agency told Ethiopian News Agency on Wednesday that the government is undertaking preliminary activities to organize the forum from 28 August to 30, 2007 here in Addis.
The agency said the forum would create a chance to promote the image of the country to the rest of the world.
Ethiopia is expected to draw lessons that would further strengthen its development endeavor from the agendas to be discussed in the course of the forum.
U.S. Policy in the Horn of Africa
James Swan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs4th International Conference on Ethiopian Development StudiesWestern Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan August 4, 2007
As Delivered
Good afternoon, and thank you, professor for inviting me to join you in Kalamazoo. I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss U.S. policy and engagement in the Horn of Africa. You have assembled an impressive and distinguished group of panelists for this important conference. THE CURRENT SITUATION As all of you know, the Horn of Africa is a rough neighborhood. At least one conflict – and frequently more – has raged in the region continuously since 1960. Inter-state conventional wars. Guerrilla-style liberation struggles. Coups. Revolutions. The Horn has seen them all. It is also a region that has suffered historically from poor governance -- from the brutal excesses of Ethiopia’s Derg, to authoritarian one-party systems in much of the region until the 1990s, to the lawlessness of the failed state of Somalia after the fall of Siad Barre. Winner-take-all politics and violent regime change have been the norm. And this historically unstable political and security climate has been a profound impediment to economic development.The Horn ranks near the bottom in the world – and indeed below the rest of Africa - on Human Development indicators. The region is ecologically and economically fragile. Its peoples face the challenges of overwhelming dependence on rain-fed agriculture, as regular droughts trigger cyclical famines. Yet, despite these longstanding challenges, in most of the region we see signs of progress. Djibouti has held peaceful elections; its port has become an economic hub; and the government has become a partner in counterterrorism efforts. Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government offers the best hope for peace and stability in the last 20 years. Ethiopia has made progress on democratic governance with the release of political party detainees and parliamentary discussions on electoral and media reform. Kenya, which has been spared the conflicts that have impeded the development of its neighbors, has become an economic powerhouse, has made tremendous strides to consolidate democracy, and plays a lead role in complex regional peace initiatives. Moreover, all of these countries and governments are increasingly close partners of the United States in the Horn of Africa. The glaring exception to this favorable story is of course Eritrea, which openly abuses its population and serves as a destabilizing force in the region. I’ll come to that later. While progress is fitful, and additional diplomatic and aid resources will be necessary to sustain success, the overall trajectory of the Horn is positive. In keeping with Secretary Rice’s concept of Transformational Diplomacy, United States government policy in the region focuses on partnership, while promoting regional stability and security, strengthening democratic processes and institutions, fostering economic growth, expanding the scope and quality of basic services, and responding to the humanitarian needs of vulnerable populations. The Horn is a region where Muslims and Christians coexist and intermingle, and where the cultures of ancient Ethiopia, of traditional Africa, and of the Arab-influenced coastal regions have combined in different ways to create unique national and regional identities. It is a region in which all of our Embassies and their officers are working to demonstrate our respect for different faith traditions and to promote our commitment to religious tolerance, political rights, and gender equality. While our Embassies are the U.S. Government’s principal platforms for promoting effective cooperation, governance reform and sustainable development, we also have a great asset in the Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa in Djibouti. This U.S. military initiative provides a vehicle for outreach to vulnerable communities in the region and for contributing to the professionalization and effectiveness of armed forces in the Horn. So let me now discuss current developments and some of the key U.S. interests and policies in each of the countries of the Horn. DJIBOUTI I’ll begin with Djibouti – which rarely gets top billing in a discussion of the Horn, but will today -- and then move clockwise through the region. Djibouti, which celebrated the 30th anniversary of its independence in June, in many ways epitomizes both the progress and the challenges we see on the Horn. With the end of the conflict with the Front for the Restoration of Unity and Democracy (FRUD) in the 1990s, and the return of the Front’s leader to Djibouti in 2000, Djibouti has moved beyond violent conflict. General elections in 1999 and 2003 were orderly and peaceful, despite a boycott by the major opposition coalition. Some opposition members are represented in local and regional councils. More needs to be done to open up political space and ensure that all citizens have a voice in government decisions. But the transition from armed combat to political competition is a positive step. On the economic front, Djibouti remains a poor country with per capita income below $1000. Yet it has a vision for development of its key assets – its port and strategic location along major sea-transport routes. Port tonnage – which tripled after the 1998 Eritrea-Ethiopia border war which cut access to Assab – has increase 30 percent per year between 2002 and 2004 under new management of Djibouti port. And Djibouti aspires to become an international hub for transit cargo serving not only the horn of Africa hinterland, but a much wider worldwide clientele. The United States, which has long had good relations with Djibouti, has seen this partnership further deepen in recent years. Since 2002, Djibouti has hosted the only permanent U.S. military base in sub-Saharan Africa, (CJFF-HOA)... We also value Djibouti’s diplomatic role in the region, as a bridge among other countries in the Horn and between African and Arab states. So in Djibouti, we see a country that has ended a protracted violent conflict, begun important steps toward greater political openness, developed a vision for its economic future, and engaged in a close partnership with the United States. SOMALIA Now let me turn to Somalia – a country that, for all its problems, has perhaps the best opportunity in nearly two decades to overcome its status as a failed state. Somalia is a priority for the United States in Africa. U.S. policy is designed to promote stability in Somalia – including by preventing Somalia from again becoming a safehaven for terrorists, as it was under the Council of Islamic Courts – to support humanitarian and development needs, and to foster inclusive democratic institutions. The key to Somalia’s success will be national reconciliation to ensure inclusive representation in the Transitional Federal Institutions and in the organizations that will prepare the way for election of a permanent government in 2009, as called for by the Transitional Federal Charter. The National Reconciliation Congress, which opened in Mogadishu on July 15 and is still ongoing, provides an opportunity for all Somalis to achieve suitable representation in the TFIs and formulate a roadmap for the remainder of the transitional period, in the run-up to national elections in 2009. In support of the National Reconciliation Congress, the United States has provided financial assistance of $1.25 million, in coordination with other international donors. Our Ambassador in Nairobi and our Special Envoy for Somalia are in frequent contact with congress organizer Ali Mahdi Mohamed, with Transitional Federal Government leaders, with clan elders, with civil society leaders, and a wide array of other stakeholders to encourage support for this process. We believe it is important for the Somali people to focus on the future, moving forward in the transitional political process as envisioned by the Charter, rather than focusing only on the current composition of the Transitional Federal Government and Institutions. While imperfect, the Transitional Federal Institutions provide a framework for achieving the objectives outlined in the Charter and the formation of representative governance institutions following the transitional process. We are steering clear from Somali politics and focusing on a clear message of inclusion and accommodation to all actors in Somalia. To help stabilize Somalia and create conditions for national reconciliation, the United States strongly supports the African Union’s peace support mission in Somalia. The mission currently has a lead contingent of approximately 1,600 Ugandan troops deployed as part of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM). At the beginning of the year, the United States identified $19.6 million to assist AMISOM forces. Approximately $10 million was used to provide equipment and airlift to assist the deployment of Uganda’s AMISOM contingent. Congress subsequently appropriated a further $40 million in funding to support AMISOM. AMISOM is important not only to help create conditions for national reconciliation, but also to permit the reduction in presence of Ethiopian forces and their eventual departure. We, the Somalis, and the Ethiopians themselves recognize that an Ethiopian military presence is not a long-term solution to insecurity in Somalia. For there to be lasting security, there must be political dialogue and accommodation among Somalis, improvements in Somali government capacity, and training and deployment of a competent and respected Somali security force. The United States is the largest bilateral donor of humanitarian assistance to Somalia, and has provided more than $102 million in humanitarian and development assistance this year. We also coordinate closely with other international partners diplomatically and on our international assistance programs. We were founding members of the International Contact Group on Somalia in June 2006, and also are active in the International Advisory Committee for the National Reconciliation Congress (NRC). In short, there is an international consensus that we must seize this moment of opportunity in Somalia. The United States is a leader on both the diplomatic front and in our humanitarian and economic response. KENYA Next let me say just a few words about Kenya, which is not always discussed as part of the Horn of Africa, but lies on its southern edge and is an important regional player. Nairobi hosts the largest U.S. diplomatic mission in Sub-Saharan Africa, and we cooperate with the Kenyans on a wide array of both bilateral and regional programs. Our bilateral assistance program is more than $500 million in 2007. Total resource flows from the U.S. to Kenya each year from all public and private sources amount to about $1.5 billion. Kenya’s peaceful, credible democratic elections in 2002 represented an important step on Kenya’s path to becoming a fully functional democracy. The next elections, scheduled for December 2007 offer an opportunity to consolidate those gains. The U.S. is providing election-related training to civil society organizations, political parties, and youth and women candidates, as well as supporting the work of the Electoral Commission of Kenya to ensure that these elections are free, fair, and transparent. Kenya is beginning to enjoy the fruits of its enviable regional reputation for stability, openness, and tolerance. Economic growth has increased to more than 6 percent in recent years, as Kenya capitalizes on its role as a major regional hub. While important challenges remain – specifically in combating corruption, moving away from tribalism, and promoting gender equity – there is a palpable sense of energy and optimism among the Kenyan people. Kenya is clearly a country on the move in a positive direction. We have worked closely with the Kenyans diplomatically on the North-South peace agreement in Sudan and on Somalia issues, through the International Contact Group as well as bilaterally. In its capacity as President of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), Kenya continues to occupy a leadership role in promoting peace and stability in the Horn of Africa. We look forward to continued close partnership. ETHIOPIA Now, Ethiopia, which has been the subject of your conference. With more than 70 million people, bordering all of the other Horn countries, Ethiopia is the giant of the region. Ethiopia is an important strategic partner for the United States in the Horn of Africa. We collaborate on a wide range of development objectives and in efforts to promote regional stability. We share a commitment to address threats by transnational extremist groups. We are also eager to see progress in democratic institutions. As you know, the run-up to the May 2005 national elections was the most open, free, and competitive political campaign period in all of Ethiopian history. Never before had opposition candidates had so much access to coveted constituencies and the ability to convene rallies and openly campaign against ruling party opponents. Opposition candidates’ access to the press, including state-owned and operated media, was unprecedented. Never before had the electorate seen live, televised debates between government Ministers and their opposition challengers. Unfortunately, this spirit was lost in the contentious aftermath of the vote, in bloody confrontations in the streets, in detention of political leaders, and in strident and uncompromising positions that for too long dominated the political leadership. As we consider the democratic challenges facing Ethiopia today, we recognize that sentiment has been so bitter precisely because of the heightened expectations prompted by two decades of political reform. With the release of 38 detainees, and anticipated release of the remaining Coalition for Unity and Democracy leadership, and anticipated release of the remaining CUD leadership, following lengthy mediation by respected elders, Ethiopia’s political leaders have committed themselves to a new collaborative relationship for the good of the country. In Addis Ababa, U.S. foreign assistance programs are bringing together leaders from across the political spectrum to address critical questions of national governance and the future of the country, build the capacity of parliament, and bolster judicial independence. We are again seeing a cautious, yet engaged host of political parties that are committed to institutionalizing the advances of March and April 2005. That ruling and opposition parties today gather around the negotiating table to debate the relative merits of reforms of democratic institutions is extremely positive. We must all encourage this process. As stakeholders in Ethiopia's stability, democracy, and prosperity – we urge all parties to remain engaged, so that we can regain the advances of early 2005 and build upon them for the people of Ethiopia. Meanwhile, we continue a robust program of U.S. humanitarian and development assistance for Ethiopia. We have contributed more than $160 million in humanitarian assistance this year to help the Ethiopian people break the cycle of famine and mitigate the impact of drought and natural disasters. With over $300 million in assistance to the health care system in Ethiopia this year alone, we help ensure that clinics reach into previously underserved regions including Afar and the Ogaden. With respect to the Ogaden, we are concerned that insecurity and impediments to commercial sales of commodities put the population of this fragile region at further risk. We are currently working with the government to ensure that humanitarian assistance and the more important commercial shipments can flow to the Ogaden. We note that rains have been relatively good this year, which should ease the economic hardship faced by the pastoralist population. In conflict-prone areas, U.S. programs bring together representatives from diverse communities during periods of calm, in order to build bridges of understanding and prevent potential conflicts from erupting. We are working with local administrations to build their capacity to govern for the people and to promote transparency. We are working with the Ethiopian military to transform that organization into a professional and apolitical defense force for the nation. The challenges are many, but the objectives merit the tremendous scope of the resources, time, and commitment that we have focused on them. We are confident that through partnership with local stakeholders, together we will contribute to making Ethiopia more secure, more democratic, and more prosperous for the next generation. A STEP BACKWARD: ERITREA Now, let me turn to Eritrea. While the rest of the Horn of Africa is making political, economic, and social advances and seizing opportunities -- albeit with periodic important setbacks -- the opposite is true for Eritrea. Eritrea has experienced economic decline and a lack of freedoms, for the press and political expression. There is widespread and arbitrary conscription. The government has worked to destabilize its neighbors, including Ethiopia and Somalia. Given the American penchant for supporting the underdog, it is disheartening to see what has become of Eritrea in the 14 years since it gained independence and produced a praiseworthy constitution. President Isaias Afwerki has become increasingly tyrannical and megalomaniacal. He has actively sought to destabilize the Horn, fueling regional insurgencies and supporting groups affiliated with terrorists. Eritrean Government policies have also choked the Eritrean economy and consolidated political power among a small cadre of cronies, who are distinguished only by their unwavering loyalty to the President.
The government has actively blocked humanitarian assistance from international donors. It initiated the border war with Ethiopia that cost tens of thousands of lives. The Eritrean Government has fabricated a national mythology by demonizing neighboring Ethiopia, for the central purpose of garnering complete compliance with his autocratic domestic policies. By channeling Eritreans' patriotism into hostility toward Ethiopia, the government ensures that [it] can rule as it likes, without public opposition. Democracy and economic opportunity remain purely theoretical concepts for the people of Eritrea. As you know, the reality is atrocious. Youth are sent to camps for indoctrination. Citizens in the prime of their lives are forced into national service; anyone who refuses is beaten. If you flee, your family is imprisoned. Those who fail to espouse officially sanctioned opinions languish in metal shipping containers. As in the former Soviet Union, the Eritrean government controls both the message and the medium. There are no opposition political parties, no non-governmental organizations, no private media. Any senior government official who dares to speak out puts himself at risk. The brave individuals known as the G-15, who challenged Eritrea's path back in the spring of 2001, are missing. Elsewhere in the region, Eritrea has chosen to support extremist elements, including the al-Qaida affiliated al Shabaab militia in Somalia, in an effort to undermine the political process. While the rest of the region and the international community have united behind a common strategy for achieving lasting peace and stability in Somalia, Eritrea has opted to support terrorists and spoilers while encouraging continued violence. There is no justification for such actions. The ruling cabal is – to our great regret -- leading Eritrea along the path toward increased domestic repression and hardship, and regional and international isolation. BOUNDARY DISPUTE Since the border dispute with Ethiopia serves as the pretext for Eritrea’s domestic authoritarianism, let me say a final few words about how the U.S. sees this issue. This impasse has been a long-festering flashpoint between Eritrea and Ethiopia, and it is of course symptomatic of deeper divisions between the two countries. The Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) issued its delimitation decision in 2002. Yet, the two parties have still not cooperated on demarcation of the boundary. Both appear comfortable with the status quo. Ethiopia avoids painful domestic political decisions, while Eritrea uses the unresolved issue to goad Ethiopia and deflect attention from a deteriorating domestic situation. The United States government fully supports the “final and binding” decisions of the EEBC and has consistently called on both parties to cooperate with the EEBC and meet their commitments in the Algiers Agreements. We work closely with the other Witnesses to the Algiers Agreements -- including Algeria, the African Union, the European Union, and the United Nations -- and other interested governments. The level of urgency has increased, as the situation has recently deteriorated. Both parties remain wedded to their positions and may have hardened them. Eritrea has moved about 4,000 troops along with supporting artillery and armor into the Temporary Security Zone (TSZ), a buffer zone between the parties, and restricted the activities of UNMEE, a UN peacekeeping force. Eritrea maintains a further 120,000 troops in the vicinity, while Ethiopia has deployed about 100,000 troops along the border. We believe it is essential for the parties to discuss directly how to implement a workable boundary regime, consistent with the decisions of the EEBC, and to address the fundamental issues that divide them. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has offered to engage the parties, and we support his initiative. The Ethiopian Government has agreed to participate in this initiative, and we urge the Eritrean government to do so as well. We will continue our efforts and support those of others to resolve this issue and remove one flash point in an already unstable region and bring the parties closer to a normalized relationship. So, in conclusion, this is a tough neighborhood, economically fragile, with a history of violent conflict and of uncompromising politics. Huge challenges remain. Yet, overall, there is reason to be hopeful about the Horn. Progress may not be uniform, but with the exception of Eritrea, we are working in partnership with local governments toward a more peaceful and prosperous Horn of Africa. Thank you again for inviting me to join you today, and I look forward to answering any questions that you may have.
Released on August 9, 2007
As Delivered
Good afternoon, and thank you, professor for inviting me to join you in Kalamazoo. I am pleased to have this opportunity to discuss U.S. policy and engagement in the Horn of Africa. You have assembled an impressive and distinguished group of panelists for this important conference. THE CURRENT SITUATION As all of you know, the Horn of Africa is a rough neighborhood. At least one conflict – and frequently more – has raged in the region continuously since 1960. Inter-state conventional wars. Guerrilla-style liberation struggles. Coups. Revolutions. The Horn has seen them all. It is also a region that has suffered historically from poor governance -- from the brutal excesses of Ethiopia’s Derg, to authoritarian one-party systems in much of the region until the 1990s, to the lawlessness of the failed state of Somalia after the fall of Siad Barre. Winner-take-all politics and violent regime change have been the norm. And this historically unstable political and security climate has been a profound impediment to economic development.The Horn ranks near the bottom in the world – and indeed below the rest of Africa - on Human Development indicators. The region is ecologically and economically fragile. Its peoples face the challenges of overwhelming dependence on rain-fed agriculture, as regular droughts trigger cyclical famines. Yet, despite these longstanding challenges, in most of the region we see signs of progress. Djibouti has held peaceful elections; its port has become an economic hub; and the government has become a partner in counterterrorism efforts. Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government offers the best hope for peace and stability in the last 20 years. Ethiopia has made progress on democratic governance with the release of political party detainees and parliamentary discussions on electoral and media reform. Kenya, which has been spared the conflicts that have impeded the development of its neighbors, has become an economic powerhouse, has made tremendous strides to consolidate democracy, and plays a lead role in complex regional peace initiatives. Moreover, all of these countries and governments are increasingly close partners of the United States in the Horn of Africa. The glaring exception to this favorable story is of course Eritrea, which openly abuses its population and serves as a destabilizing force in the region. I’ll come to that later. While progress is fitful, and additional diplomatic and aid resources will be necessary to sustain success, the overall trajectory of the Horn is positive. In keeping with Secretary Rice’s concept of Transformational Diplomacy, United States government policy in the region focuses on partnership, while promoting regional stability and security, strengthening democratic processes and institutions, fostering economic growth, expanding the scope and quality of basic services, and responding to the humanitarian needs of vulnerable populations. The Horn is a region where Muslims and Christians coexist and intermingle, and where the cultures of ancient Ethiopia, of traditional Africa, and of the Arab-influenced coastal regions have combined in different ways to create unique national and regional identities. It is a region in which all of our Embassies and their officers are working to demonstrate our respect for different faith traditions and to promote our commitment to religious tolerance, political rights, and gender equality. While our Embassies are the U.S. Government’s principal platforms for promoting effective cooperation, governance reform and sustainable development, we also have a great asset in the Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa in Djibouti. This U.S. military initiative provides a vehicle for outreach to vulnerable communities in the region and for contributing to the professionalization and effectiveness of armed forces in the Horn. So let me now discuss current developments and some of the key U.S. interests and policies in each of the countries of the Horn. DJIBOUTI I’ll begin with Djibouti – which rarely gets top billing in a discussion of the Horn, but will today -- and then move clockwise through the region. Djibouti, which celebrated the 30th anniversary of its independence in June, in many ways epitomizes both the progress and the challenges we see on the Horn. With the end of the conflict with the Front for the Restoration of Unity and Democracy (FRUD) in the 1990s, and the return of the Front’s leader to Djibouti in 2000, Djibouti has moved beyond violent conflict. General elections in 1999 and 2003 were orderly and peaceful, despite a boycott by the major opposition coalition. Some opposition members are represented in local and regional councils. More needs to be done to open up political space and ensure that all citizens have a voice in government decisions. But the transition from armed combat to political competition is a positive step. On the economic front, Djibouti remains a poor country with per capita income below $1000. Yet it has a vision for development of its key assets – its port and strategic location along major sea-transport routes. Port tonnage – which tripled after the 1998 Eritrea-Ethiopia border war which cut access to Assab – has increase 30 percent per year between 2002 and 2004 under new management of Djibouti port. And Djibouti aspires to become an international hub for transit cargo serving not only the horn of Africa hinterland, but a much wider worldwide clientele. The United States, which has long had good relations with Djibouti, has seen this partnership further deepen in recent years. Since 2002, Djibouti has hosted the only permanent U.S. military base in sub-Saharan Africa, (CJFF-HOA)... We also value Djibouti’s diplomatic role in the region, as a bridge among other countries in the Horn and between African and Arab states. So in Djibouti, we see a country that has ended a protracted violent conflict, begun important steps toward greater political openness, developed a vision for its economic future, and engaged in a close partnership with the United States. SOMALIA Now let me turn to Somalia – a country that, for all its problems, has perhaps the best opportunity in nearly two decades to overcome its status as a failed state. Somalia is a priority for the United States in Africa. U.S. policy is designed to promote stability in Somalia – including by preventing Somalia from again becoming a safehaven for terrorists, as it was under the Council of Islamic Courts – to support humanitarian and development needs, and to foster inclusive democratic institutions. The key to Somalia’s success will be national reconciliation to ensure inclusive representation in the Transitional Federal Institutions and in the organizations that will prepare the way for election of a permanent government in 2009, as called for by the Transitional Federal Charter. The National Reconciliation Congress, which opened in Mogadishu on July 15 and is still ongoing, provides an opportunity for all Somalis to achieve suitable representation in the TFIs and formulate a roadmap for the remainder of the transitional period, in the run-up to national elections in 2009. In support of the National Reconciliation Congress, the United States has provided financial assistance of $1.25 million, in coordination with other international donors. Our Ambassador in Nairobi and our Special Envoy for Somalia are in frequent contact with congress organizer Ali Mahdi Mohamed, with Transitional Federal Government leaders, with clan elders, with civil society leaders, and a wide array of other stakeholders to encourage support for this process. We believe it is important for the Somali people to focus on the future, moving forward in the transitional political process as envisioned by the Charter, rather than focusing only on the current composition of the Transitional Federal Government and Institutions. While imperfect, the Transitional Federal Institutions provide a framework for achieving the objectives outlined in the Charter and the formation of representative governance institutions following the transitional process. We are steering clear from Somali politics and focusing on a clear message of inclusion and accommodation to all actors in Somalia. To help stabilize Somalia and create conditions for national reconciliation, the United States strongly supports the African Union’s peace support mission in Somalia. The mission currently has a lead contingent of approximately 1,600 Ugandan troops deployed as part of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM). At the beginning of the year, the United States identified $19.6 million to assist AMISOM forces. Approximately $10 million was used to provide equipment and airlift to assist the deployment of Uganda’s AMISOM contingent. Congress subsequently appropriated a further $40 million in funding to support AMISOM. AMISOM is important not only to help create conditions for national reconciliation, but also to permit the reduction in presence of Ethiopian forces and their eventual departure. We, the Somalis, and the Ethiopians themselves recognize that an Ethiopian military presence is not a long-term solution to insecurity in Somalia. For there to be lasting security, there must be political dialogue and accommodation among Somalis, improvements in Somali government capacity, and training and deployment of a competent and respected Somali security force. The United States is the largest bilateral donor of humanitarian assistance to Somalia, and has provided more than $102 million in humanitarian and development assistance this year. We also coordinate closely with other international partners diplomatically and on our international assistance programs. We were founding members of the International Contact Group on Somalia in June 2006, and also are active in the International Advisory Committee for the National Reconciliation Congress (NRC). In short, there is an international consensus that we must seize this moment of opportunity in Somalia. The United States is a leader on both the diplomatic front and in our humanitarian and economic response. KENYA Next let me say just a few words about Kenya, which is not always discussed as part of the Horn of Africa, but lies on its southern edge and is an important regional player. Nairobi hosts the largest U.S. diplomatic mission in Sub-Saharan Africa, and we cooperate with the Kenyans on a wide array of both bilateral and regional programs. Our bilateral assistance program is more than $500 million in 2007. Total resource flows from the U.S. to Kenya each year from all public and private sources amount to about $1.5 billion. Kenya’s peaceful, credible democratic elections in 2002 represented an important step on Kenya’s path to becoming a fully functional democracy. The next elections, scheduled for December 2007 offer an opportunity to consolidate those gains. The U.S. is providing election-related training to civil society organizations, political parties, and youth and women candidates, as well as supporting the work of the Electoral Commission of Kenya to ensure that these elections are free, fair, and transparent. Kenya is beginning to enjoy the fruits of its enviable regional reputation for stability, openness, and tolerance. Economic growth has increased to more than 6 percent in recent years, as Kenya capitalizes on its role as a major regional hub. While important challenges remain – specifically in combating corruption, moving away from tribalism, and promoting gender equity – there is a palpable sense of energy and optimism among the Kenyan people. Kenya is clearly a country on the move in a positive direction. We have worked closely with the Kenyans diplomatically on the North-South peace agreement in Sudan and on Somalia issues, through the International Contact Group as well as bilaterally. In its capacity as President of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), Kenya continues to occupy a leadership role in promoting peace and stability in the Horn of Africa. We look forward to continued close partnership. ETHIOPIA Now, Ethiopia, which has been the subject of your conference. With more than 70 million people, bordering all of the other Horn countries, Ethiopia is the giant of the region. Ethiopia is an important strategic partner for the United States in the Horn of Africa. We collaborate on a wide range of development objectives and in efforts to promote regional stability. We share a commitment to address threats by transnational extremist groups. We are also eager to see progress in democratic institutions. As you know, the run-up to the May 2005 national elections was the most open, free, and competitive political campaign period in all of Ethiopian history. Never before had opposition candidates had so much access to coveted constituencies and the ability to convene rallies and openly campaign against ruling party opponents. Opposition candidates’ access to the press, including state-owned and operated media, was unprecedented. Never before had the electorate seen live, televised debates between government Ministers and their opposition challengers. Unfortunately, this spirit was lost in the contentious aftermath of the vote, in bloody confrontations in the streets, in detention of political leaders, and in strident and uncompromising positions that for too long dominated the political leadership. As we consider the democratic challenges facing Ethiopia today, we recognize that sentiment has been so bitter precisely because of the heightened expectations prompted by two decades of political reform. With the release of 38 detainees, and anticipated release of the remaining Coalition for Unity and Democracy leadership, and anticipated release of the remaining CUD leadership, following lengthy mediation by respected elders, Ethiopia’s political leaders have committed themselves to a new collaborative relationship for the good of the country. In Addis Ababa, U.S. foreign assistance programs are bringing together leaders from across the political spectrum to address critical questions of national governance and the future of the country, build the capacity of parliament, and bolster judicial independence. We are again seeing a cautious, yet engaged host of political parties that are committed to institutionalizing the advances of March and April 2005. That ruling and opposition parties today gather around the negotiating table to debate the relative merits of reforms of democratic institutions is extremely positive. We must all encourage this process. As stakeholders in Ethiopia's stability, democracy, and prosperity – we urge all parties to remain engaged, so that we can regain the advances of early 2005 and build upon them for the people of Ethiopia. Meanwhile, we continue a robust program of U.S. humanitarian and development assistance for Ethiopia. We have contributed more than $160 million in humanitarian assistance this year to help the Ethiopian people break the cycle of famine and mitigate the impact of drought and natural disasters. With over $300 million in assistance to the health care system in Ethiopia this year alone, we help ensure that clinics reach into previously underserved regions including Afar and the Ogaden. With respect to the Ogaden, we are concerned that insecurity and impediments to commercial sales of commodities put the population of this fragile region at further risk. We are currently working with the government to ensure that humanitarian assistance and the more important commercial shipments can flow to the Ogaden. We note that rains have been relatively good this year, which should ease the economic hardship faced by the pastoralist population. In conflict-prone areas, U.S. programs bring together representatives from diverse communities during periods of calm, in order to build bridges of understanding and prevent potential conflicts from erupting. We are working with local administrations to build their capacity to govern for the people and to promote transparency. We are working with the Ethiopian military to transform that organization into a professional and apolitical defense force for the nation. The challenges are many, but the objectives merit the tremendous scope of the resources, time, and commitment that we have focused on them. We are confident that through partnership with local stakeholders, together we will contribute to making Ethiopia more secure, more democratic, and more prosperous for the next generation. A STEP BACKWARD: ERITREA Now, let me turn to Eritrea. While the rest of the Horn of Africa is making political, economic, and social advances and seizing opportunities -- albeit with periodic important setbacks -- the opposite is true for Eritrea. Eritrea has experienced economic decline and a lack of freedoms, for the press and political expression. There is widespread and arbitrary conscription. The government has worked to destabilize its neighbors, including Ethiopia and Somalia. Given the American penchant for supporting the underdog, it is disheartening to see what has become of Eritrea in the 14 years since it gained independence and produced a praiseworthy constitution. President Isaias Afwerki has become increasingly tyrannical and megalomaniacal. He has actively sought to destabilize the Horn, fueling regional insurgencies and supporting groups affiliated with terrorists. Eritrean Government policies have also choked the Eritrean economy and consolidated political power among a small cadre of cronies, who are distinguished only by their unwavering loyalty to the President.
The government has actively blocked humanitarian assistance from international donors. It initiated the border war with Ethiopia that cost tens of thousands of lives. The Eritrean Government has fabricated a national mythology by demonizing neighboring Ethiopia, for the central purpose of garnering complete compliance with his autocratic domestic policies. By channeling Eritreans' patriotism into hostility toward Ethiopia, the government ensures that [it] can rule as it likes, without public opposition. Democracy and economic opportunity remain purely theoretical concepts for the people of Eritrea. As you know, the reality is atrocious. Youth are sent to camps for indoctrination. Citizens in the prime of their lives are forced into national service; anyone who refuses is beaten. If you flee, your family is imprisoned. Those who fail to espouse officially sanctioned opinions languish in metal shipping containers. As in the former Soviet Union, the Eritrean government controls both the message and the medium. There are no opposition political parties, no non-governmental organizations, no private media. Any senior government official who dares to speak out puts himself at risk. The brave individuals known as the G-15, who challenged Eritrea's path back in the spring of 2001, are missing. Elsewhere in the region, Eritrea has chosen to support extremist elements, including the al-Qaida affiliated al Shabaab militia in Somalia, in an effort to undermine the political process. While the rest of the region and the international community have united behind a common strategy for achieving lasting peace and stability in Somalia, Eritrea has opted to support terrorists and spoilers while encouraging continued violence. There is no justification for such actions. The ruling cabal is – to our great regret -- leading Eritrea along the path toward increased domestic repression and hardship, and regional and international isolation. BOUNDARY DISPUTE Since the border dispute with Ethiopia serves as the pretext for Eritrea’s domestic authoritarianism, let me say a final few words about how the U.S. sees this issue. This impasse has been a long-festering flashpoint between Eritrea and Ethiopia, and it is of course symptomatic of deeper divisions between the two countries. The Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) issued its delimitation decision in 2002. Yet, the two parties have still not cooperated on demarcation of the boundary. Both appear comfortable with the status quo. Ethiopia avoids painful domestic political decisions, while Eritrea uses the unresolved issue to goad Ethiopia and deflect attention from a deteriorating domestic situation. The United States government fully supports the “final and binding” decisions of the EEBC and has consistently called on both parties to cooperate with the EEBC and meet their commitments in the Algiers Agreements. We work closely with the other Witnesses to the Algiers Agreements -- including Algeria, the African Union, the European Union, and the United Nations -- and other interested governments. The level of urgency has increased, as the situation has recently deteriorated. Both parties remain wedded to their positions and may have hardened them. Eritrea has moved about 4,000 troops along with supporting artillery and armor into the Temporary Security Zone (TSZ), a buffer zone between the parties, and restricted the activities of UNMEE, a UN peacekeeping force. Eritrea maintains a further 120,000 troops in the vicinity, while Ethiopia has deployed about 100,000 troops along the border. We believe it is essential for the parties to discuss directly how to implement a workable boundary regime, consistent with the decisions of the EEBC, and to address the fundamental issues that divide them. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has offered to engage the parties, and we support his initiative. The Ethiopian Government has agreed to participate in this initiative, and we urge the Eritrean government to do so as well. We will continue our efforts and support those of others to resolve this issue and remove one flash point in an already unstable region and bring the parties closer to a normalized relationship. So, in conclusion, this is a tough neighborhood, economically fragile, with a history of violent conflict and of uncompromising politics. Huge challenges remain. Yet, overall, there is reason to be hopeful about the Horn. Progress may not be uniform, but with the exception of Eritrea, we are working in partnership with local governments toward a more peaceful and prosperous Horn of Africa. Thank you again for inviting me to join you today, and I look forward to answering any questions that you may have.
Released on August 9, 2007
Tuesday, August 14, 2007
Human Rights Watch’s Morally Repugnant Report
14 August 2007
Minstry of Foreign Affairs
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs regrets that it finds the latest report by Human Rights Watch on Somalia factually and morally unacceptable. It suffers from numerous errors, displays seriously partial attitudes, demonstrates dangerously flawed motives, conspicuously fails to understand recent events in Somalia and shows no understanding of the current progress towards a settlement.
Most extraordinarily, nowhere does this report address the issue of terrorism. It only refers to “the insurgency”, even though it notes that al-Shabaab is the key element in this so-called insurgency, and Al-Shabaab has been widely identified as a terrorist organization. Its leadership includes Sheikh Aweys. The report notes that Sheikh Aweys is on a US terrorist list, and identifies him as a leader of Al-Itihaad, but then fails to classify him as a terrorist. The report even goes so far as to refer to “allegations” of al-Itihaad activity despite the fact that al-Itihaad has admitted to such terrorist activities as the attempted assassination of an Ethiopian minister, and the bombings of a number of civilian targets including hotels in Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa. Do terrorist operations only become such when they take place outside Africa? This kind of mentality infuses this report and makes it appear more of a geo-political document than a human rights report.
The report gives no indication that the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) is the legitimate, and recognized, government of Somalia. Time and again it appears to equate the TFG and the Islamic Courts Union (ICU). Its account of the Khartoum meetings in 2006 is simply wrong. At the first meeting, the two sides did not recognize each other as equal. The ICU recognized the legitimacy of the TFG and agreed to put its forces under TFG control. The TFG merely accepted the ICU as a recognized force. The result of this meeting was the hard line takeover of the ICU by the shura headed by Sheikh Aweys. There was no subsequent possibility of any serious negotiation as Sheikh Aweys himself made clear.
HRW suggests that the so-called insurgency supported Somali nationalist ideals. Whether deliberately or not, this effectively legitimizes the irredentist claims on Ethiopia and Kenya which took Somalia into two wars with Ethiopia in the 1960s and 1970s, and launched the concept of Greater Somalia. The report makes no mention of IGAD’s unanimous decision in March 2005 to support the creation of an IGASOM force, the precursor of AMISOM. HRW says nothing about how this was aborted even though the initiative had been endorsed by all IGAD countries, including Eritrea. The omission is not a simple matter because this failure more or less shaped subsequent events with respect to the ascendancy of the ICU and al-Shabaab. There is no mention that it was an offensive by the ICU, backed by a significant foreign component, including Eritrean troops, against the legitimate government of Somalia in Baidoa, which led to the TFG’s request for Ethiopian assistance. Eritrea gets no more than a passing mention despite the detailed evidence of UN Monitoring Group reports. The nonsensical suggestion that Ethiopia is trying to fight a proxy war with Eritrea in Somalia, the reverse of the reality, underlines the failure of HRW to understand the regional dimensions of the Somali situation, and its total refusal to even try to talk to any Ethiopian officials.
The HRW report is carefully constructed to misrepresent Ethiopia’s role and its activities. The “intentions” of Ethiopian military commanders are questioned though these can hardly be discerned in the absence of any contact with Ethiopian military officers or even civilian officials. No effort was made to reach anyone at any time. Ethiopian troops actually have an excellent reputation for discipline, as accounts of peace-keeping operations in Liberia and elsewhere have made clear. Ethiopia does not need to boast about this.
The report very carefully refuses to acknowledge that the actions of the so-called insurgency are war crimes. Its actions are merely classified as posing “grave risks to civilians”, or mere violations. Alleged Ethiopian actions are identified as war crimes, and, even more, HRW claims to know the intentions of Ethiopian commanders and troops. And this without making any effort whatever, at any time, to talk to any Ethiopian sources whether in Mogadishu or Addis Ababa. In fact, HRW does not normally comment on “intentions”, and it certainly hasn’t done so in reports on other areas of the world. Why now? And why Ethiopia? It is morally repugnant that HRW should put Ethiopian troops and terrorists on the same level, and that it should deliberately moderate its account of terrorists in Mogadishu while recklessly talking about alleged “intentions” of Ethiopian troops.
In its recommendations, HRW calls on Ethiopian troops to “cease” all attacks that target civilians; the so-called insurgency is merely asked to “avoid” these “to the extent possible”. Why the distinction? It makes no sense if HRW is being balanced as it claims to be. It is not of course. Why does HRW ask the European Union, the United Nations, the African Union, the Arab League and the United States to call on the Ethiopian government and the TFG to avoid any attacks on civilians. What has happened to the so-called insurgency which even the report admits earlier, if somewhat grudgingly, was guilty of such attacks.
It is clear from these and other comments that most, if not all, of HRW’s sources, most un-named, appear to be opponents of the TFG and critics of the presence of Ethiopian troops in Mogadishu. This was not an independent investigation. As HRW itself acknowledges, many of its sources come from al-Shabaab and its supporters, and, as it admits, they also leave many details about events, intent and actions, “murky”.
All this raises the question of why HRW has written such a report, which is not so much the independent investigation it claims as a carefully framed attack on Ethiopia. What are the motives? It is clear that this is not a question of human rights, otherwise some effort would have been made to raise the issue of terrorism, rather than ignore it. In the absence of other explanations, we have to speculate. One possibility is that HRW, a New York-based organization, needs to enhance its credibility in some regions, by attacking Ethiopia, if unjustifiably. It cannot succeed. There has been a strong tendency in the last few months in the US to downplay the dangers of terrorism, to de-emphasize the threat, with the pendulum swinging away from the post 9/11 situation. To use Ethiopia in this respect provides an easy option for HRW. It also perhaps makes sense in terms of geo-political considerations. Not is it the first such attack aimed recently at Ethiopia by HRW. HRW recently issued a report on the Somali Regional State of Ethiopia. Exactly the same techniques, of misrepresentation, of suppression, of the use of highly partial evidence, were apparent.
The Foreign Ministry would also make the point that the timing of this report is particularly disappointing as it comes when all the evidence points to genuine progress being made in Somalia. The National Reconciliation Congress is now in its fourth week, and has been making significant progress through its agenda of reconciliation. The levels of security have improved in Mogadishu as well as elsewhere in Somalia. The TFG has managed to oversee democratic elections for district and regional councils and for official posts including that of governor, in Bay and Bakool regions. If the international community would now provide the resources for the TFG, and for the support for AMISOM, there is every reason to believe that this window of opportunity will be successful, and therefore produce sustainable conditions for improved human rights in Somalia. No doubt, no one, least of all Somalis, should now expect HRW to contribute to this noble effort.
14.08.2007
Minstry of Foreign Affairs
The Ministry of Foreign Affairs regrets that it finds the latest report by Human Rights Watch on Somalia factually and morally unacceptable. It suffers from numerous errors, displays seriously partial attitudes, demonstrates dangerously flawed motives, conspicuously fails to understand recent events in Somalia and shows no understanding of the current progress towards a settlement.
Most extraordinarily, nowhere does this report address the issue of terrorism. It only refers to “the insurgency”, even though it notes that al-Shabaab is the key element in this so-called insurgency, and Al-Shabaab has been widely identified as a terrorist organization. Its leadership includes Sheikh Aweys. The report notes that Sheikh Aweys is on a US terrorist list, and identifies him as a leader of Al-Itihaad, but then fails to classify him as a terrorist. The report even goes so far as to refer to “allegations” of al-Itihaad activity despite the fact that al-Itihaad has admitted to such terrorist activities as the attempted assassination of an Ethiopian minister, and the bombings of a number of civilian targets including hotels in Addis Ababa and Dire Dawa. Do terrorist operations only become such when they take place outside Africa? This kind of mentality infuses this report and makes it appear more of a geo-political document than a human rights report.
The report gives no indication that the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) is the legitimate, and recognized, government of Somalia. Time and again it appears to equate the TFG and the Islamic Courts Union (ICU). Its account of the Khartoum meetings in 2006 is simply wrong. At the first meeting, the two sides did not recognize each other as equal. The ICU recognized the legitimacy of the TFG and agreed to put its forces under TFG control. The TFG merely accepted the ICU as a recognized force. The result of this meeting was the hard line takeover of the ICU by the shura headed by Sheikh Aweys. There was no subsequent possibility of any serious negotiation as Sheikh Aweys himself made clear.
HRW suggests that the so-called insurgency supported Somali nationalist ideals. Whether deliberately or not, this effectively legitimizes the irredentist claims on Ethiopia and Kenya which took Somalia into two wars with Ethiopia in the 1960s and 1970s, and launched the concept of Greater Somalia. The report makes no mention of IGAD’s unanimous decision in March 2005 to support the creation of an IGASOM force, the precursor of AMISOM. HRW says nothing about how this was aborted even though the initiative had been endorsed by all IGAD countries, including Eritrea. The omission is not a simple matter because this failure more or less shaped subsequent events with respect to the ascendancy of the ICU and al-Shabaab. There is no mention that it was an offensive by the ICU, backed by a significant foreign component, including Eritrean troops, against the legitimate government of Somalia in Baidoa, which led to the TFG’s request for Ethiopian assistance. Eritrea gets no more than a passing mention despite the detailed evidence of UN Monitoring Group reports. The nonsensical suggestion that Ethiopia is trying to fight a proxy war with Eritrea in Somalia, the reverse of the reality, underlines the failure of HRW to understand the regional dimensions of the Somali situation, and its total refusal to even try to talk to any Ethiopian officials.
The HRW report is carefully constructed to misrepresent Ethiopia’s role and its activities. The “intentions” of Ethiopian military commanders are questioned though these can hardly be discerned in the absence of any contact with Ethiopian military officers or even civilian officials. No effort was made to reach anyone at any time. Ethiopian troops actually have an excellent reputation for discipline, as accounts of peace-keeping operations in Liberia and elsewhere have made clear. Ethiopia does not need to boast about this.
The report very carefully refuses to acknowledge that the actions of the so-called insurgency are war crimes. Its actions are merely classified as posing “grave risks to civilians”, or mere violations. Alleged Ethiopian actions are identified as war crimes, and, even more, HRW claims to know the intentions of Ethiopian commanders and troops. And this without making any effort whatever, at any time, to talk to any Ethiopian sources whether in Mogadishu or Addis Ababa. In fact, HRW does not normally comment on “intentions”, and it certainly hasn’t done so in reports on other areas of the world. Why now? And why Ethiopia? It is morally repugnant that HRW should put Ethiopian troops and terrorists on the same level, and that it should deliberately moderate its account of terrorists in Mogadishu while recklessly talking about alleged “intentions” of Ethiopian troops.
In its recommendations, HRW calls on Ethiopian troops to “cease” all attacks that target civilians; the so-called insurgency is merely asked to “avoid” these “to the extent possible”. Why the distinction? It makes no sense if HRW is being balanced as it claims to be. It is not of course. Why does HRW ask the European Union, the United Nations, the African Union, the Arab League and the United States to call on the Ethiopian government and the TFG to avoid any attacks on civilians. What has happened to the so-called insurgency which even the report admits earlier, if somewhat grudgingly, was guilty of such attacks.
It is clear from these and other comments that most, if not all, of HRW’s sources, most un-named, appear to be opponents of the TFG and critics of the presence of Ethiopian troops in Mogadishu. This was not an independent investigation. As HRW itself acknowledges, many of its sources come from al-Shabaab and its supporters, and, as it admits, they also leave many details about events, intent and actions, “murky”.
All this raises the question of why HRW has written such a report, which is not so much the independent investigation it claims as a carefully framed attack on Ethiopia. What are the motives? It is clear that this is not a question of human rights, otherwise some effort would have been made to raise the issue of terrorism, rather than ignore it. In the absence of other explanations, we have to speculate. One possibility is that HRW, a New York-based organization, needs to enhance its credibility in some regions, by attacking Ethiopia, if unjustifiably. It cannot succeed. There has been a strong tendency in the last few months in the US to downplay the dangers of terrorism, to de-emphasize the threat, with the pendulum swinging away from the post 9/11 situation. To use Ethiopia in this respect provides an easy option for HRW. It also perhaps makes sense in terms of geo-political considerations. Not is it the first such attack aimed recently at Ethiopia by HRW. HRW recently issued a report on the Somali Regional State of Ethiopia. Exactly the same techniques, of misrepresentation, of suppression, of the use of highly partial evidence, were apparent.
The Foreign Ministry would also make the point that the timing of this report is particularly disappointing as it comes when all the evidence points to genuine progress being made in Somalia. The National Reconciliation Congress is now in its fourth week, and has been making significant progress through its agenda of reconciliation. The levels of security have improved in Mogadishu as well as elsewhere in Somalia. The TFG has managed to oversee democratic elections for district and regional councils and for official posts including that of governor, in Bay and Bakool regions. If the international community would now provide the resources for the TFG, and for the support for AMISOM, there is every reason to believe that this window of opportunity will be successful, and therefore produce sustainable conditions for improved human rights in Somalia. No doubt, no one, least of all Somalis, should now expect HRW to contribute to this noble effort.
14.08.2007
Windsor Considering Ethiopia's Formal Request for Prince Remains (August 14, 2007)
The Ethiopian embassy in London says Windsor is now considering Ethiopia's formal request for the repatriation of Prince Alemayehu's remains. The former royal died in Britain over a century ago.
President Girma Woldegiorgis sent a formal request to Queen Elizabeth II on the matter. The royal household at Windsor Castle, where Prince Alemayehu was buried, is said to be considering the request.
President Girma hopes the prince's bones can be reburied for the millennium celebrations in September, the report said.
Ethiopia has been undertaking a lively campaign to get back historic treasures looted in the last two centuries.
The young Alemayehu was taken to Britain to be educated at a prestigious boarding school and officers' training at Sandhurst, but died at the age of 18.
Prince Alemayehu was buried at Windsor Castle, with Queen Victoria describing his short life and early death as "too sad."
His father, the Emperor Tewodros II, killed himself after his defeat by the British at the Battle of Maqdala in 1868.
The young prince was not the only thing the British took from Maqdala. The British force reportedly needed 15 elephants and nearly 200 mules to carry away the treasures that Emperor Tewodros had accumulated.
Many of them are still in Britain and the Queen has some of them--notably six of the very finest illuminated manuscripts, which are part of the royal collection in Windsor Castle.
President Girma Woldegiorgis sent a formal request to Queen Elizabeth II on the matter. The royal household at Windsor Castle, where Prince Alemayehu was buried, is said to be considering the request.
President Girma hopes the prince's bones can be reburied for the millennium celebrations in September, the report said.
Ethiopia has been undertaking a lively campaign to get back historic treasures looted in the last two centuries.
The young Alemayehu was taken to Britain to be educated at a prestigious boarding school and officers' training at Sandhurst, but died at the age of 18.
Prince Alemayehu was buried at Windsor Castle, with Queen Victoria describing his short life and early death as "too sad."
His father, the Emperor Tewodros II, killed himself after his defeat by the British at the Battle of Maqdala in 1868.
The young prince was not the only thing the British took from Maqdala. The British force reportedly needed 15 elephants and nearly 200 mules to carry away the treasures that Emperor Tewodros had accumulated.
Many of them are still in Britain and the Queen has some of them--notably six of the very finest illuminated manuscripts, which are part of the royal collection in Windsor Castle.
US Ambassador Says Pardon Granted to CUD Leaders Opportunity for Reconciliation, March Forward (August 13, 2007)
The US Ambassador to Ethiopia said the pardon granted to CUD leaders is historic and an opportunity not only for the government and the opposition parties but also for the people of Ethiopia to move forward on reconciliation.
Ambassador Donald Yamamoto said that the step taken by the government is something that not only the people of Ethiopia take pride in but also exemplary to other nations.
“The pardon goes to the next stage which is to highlight the political reforms and engagements, opportunities that can, will and are taking place here in the country,” Yamamoto added.
He expressed gratitude for the government for its determination to take such bold steps and the elders who played crucial role in the clemency process.
“The US supported the process,'' Yamamoto said, adding that ''…the people of Ethiopia and its leadership are very proud people. I can assure you we can say things and do things but ultimately it is the decision of the people and leadership and they are the ones that took the bold steps not us.”
He underscored that the May 2005 election is a watershed and historic achievement not only for Africa but also for all other developing countries.
Over 80 percent of registered voters cast ballots and the seats of the opposition parties jumped from 12 to 196, he pointed out.
The resolution of the dispute that followed the election peacefully indicates the bright prospect the country has in its democratization drive, the ambassador further stressed.
Ambassador Donald Yamamoto said that the step taken by the government is something that not only the people of Ethiopia take pride in but also exemplary to other nations.
“The pardon goes to the next stage which is to highlight the political reforms and engagements, opportunities that can, will and are taking place here in the country,” Yamamoto added.
He expressed gratitude for the government for its determination to take such bold steps and the elders who played crucial role in the clemency process.
“The US supported the process,'' Yamamoto said, adding that ''…the people of Ethiopia and its leadership are very proud people. I can assure you we can say things and do things but ultimately it is the decision of the people and leadership and they are the ones that took the bold steps not us.”
He underscored that the May 2005 election is a watershed and historic achievement not only for Africa but also for all other developing countries.
Over 80 percent of registered voters cast ballots and the seats of the opposition parties jumped from 12 to 196, he pointed out.
The resolution of the dispute that followed the election peacefully indicates the bright prospect the country has in its democratization drive, the ambassador further stressed.
Analysis: Africa's Darfur bombshell
By Martin Plaut BBC Africa analyst
The chairman of the African Union Commission, Alpha Oumar Konare, dropped something of a bombshell after holding talks with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.
Speaking to the media, he insisted that the 26,000-strong hybrid United Nations-African Union force would be drawn entirely from Africa, and that it would be under African command.
The initial response to the statement was one of surprise.
The Americans, among others, had argued that Africa does not have enough trained soldiers to make up a credible and effective force. And last week the UN issued a list of Asian countries it said had offered to send troops for the Darfur force, whose composition must be determined by the end of this month.
Challenge?
On the face of it, this contradicts UN Security Council resolution 1769, adopted on 31 July.
This authorised a UN peacekeeping force of 19,555 military personnel, together with about 6,000 police.
It stated clearly that the hybrid force would come under UN command and control.
"There will be unity of command and control which, in accordance with basic principles of peacekeeping, means a single chain of command... command and control structures and backstopping will be provided by the United Nations," it reads.
So is Mr Konare's statement a challenge to the authority of the UN?
Those close to the African Union argue it is not.
On the question of command for the mission, they point out that the hybrid force commander, Martin Agwai, was appointed by the African Union.
And they suggest that although Africa could easily provide 20,000 troops, it does not have the ability to pay the $2 billion a year price tag, or airlift them into position in Darfur.
So the idea that this will be a totally African force should be seen as an aspiration.
Rather, Mr Konare's statement should be seen as an attempt to re-assert Africa's authority on the continent and to re-assure the Sudanese leadership that they will not be over-run by foreign troops.
The Sudanese are fearful that some of their number might be arrested by UN forces, under a sealed warrant issued by the International Criminal Court, for crimes allegedly committed in Darfur. African troops, led by an African commander, might be prevailed on not to carry out this exercise. But in some ways the whole rumpus is a little puzzling. The UN already has 10,108 total uniformed personnel, including 8,824 troops, 591 military observers, and 693 police patrolling South Sudan, as part of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement reached between the authorities in Khartoum and rebels of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement in January 2005.
And so far these UN troops have caused no difficulties for the Sudanese government.
The chairman of the African Union Commission, Alpha Oumar Konare, dropped something of a bombshell after holding talks with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir.
Speaking to the media, he insisted that the 26,000-strong hybrid United Nations-African Union force would be drawn entirely from Africa, and that it would be under African command.
The initial response to the statement was one of surprise.
The Americans, among others, had argued that Africa does not have enough trained soldiers to make up a credible and effective force. And last week the UN issued a list of Asian countries it said had offered to send troops for the Darfur force, whose composition must be determined by the end of this month.
Challenge?
On the face of it, this contradicts UN Security Council resolution 1769, adopted on 31 July.
This authorised a UN peacekeeping force of 19,555 military personnel, together with about 6,000 police.
It stated clearly that the hybrid force would come under UN command and control.
"There will be unity of command and control which, in accordance with basic principles of peacekeeping, means a single chain of command... command and control structures and backstopping will be provided by the United Nations," it reads.
So is Mr Konare's statement a challenge to the authority of the UN?
Those close to the African Union argue it is not.
On the question of command for the mission, they point out that the hybrid force commander, Martin Agwai, was appointed by the African Union.
And they suggest that although Africa could easily provide 20,000 troops, it does not have the ability to pay the $2 billion a year price tag, or airlift them into position in Darfur.
So the idea that this will be a totally African force should be seen as an aspiration.
Rather, Mr Konare's statement should be seen as an attempt to re-assert Africa's authority on the continent and to re-assure the Sudanese leadership that they will not be over-run by foreign troops.
The Sudanese are fearful that some of their number might be arrested by UN forces, under a sealed warrant issued by the International Criminal Court, for crimes allegedly committed in Darfur. African troops, led by an African commander, might be prevailed on not to carry out this exercise. But in some ways the whole rumpus is a little puzzling. The UN already has 10,108 total uniformed personnel, including 8,824 troops, 591 military observers, and 693 police patrolling South Sudan, as part of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement reached between the authorities in Khartoum and rebels of the Sudan People's Liberation Movement in January 2005.
And so far these UN troops have caused no difficulties for the Sudanese government.
UN condemns murder of journalists in Somalia
Ethiopian News Agency
14 August 2007
On Monday, a United Nations humanitarian envoy to Somalia condemned the killing of two prominent journalists and the harassment of media in the war-ravaged East African nation, Xinhua reported from Nairobi .
In a statement issued from Nairobi, UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Somalia Eric Laroche urged the authorities to conduct a prompt and impartial investigation into the murder of HornAfrik radio owner Ali Iman Sharmake and station presenter Mahad Ahmed Elmi, who died in separate attacks in Mogadishu on Saturday.
"The violent events of the last days show how vulnerable freedom of expression remains in Somalia," Laroche said and called for an end to impunity.
The weekend killings of the two prominent journalists are the most recent in a spate of attacks against the media in Somalia, bringing to six the number of journalists killed in the country this year. Sharmake died when his car exploded after apparently running over a landmine. He had just been to the funeral of Elmi who was shot dead hours earlier.
Laroche called on all authorities and groups "to respect the right of all to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information through any media...The transitional government is responsible for ending impunity for attacks on journalists by conducting prompt and impartial investigations and preventing any form of harassment of the media," he said.
Laroche goes on to say, "furthermore, the draft legislation on media must ensure that freedom of information and media, as enshrined in article 20 of the Transitional Federal Charter, is fully protected." Sharmarke was a Somali-Canadian who returned to Mogadishu nine years ago to establish and manage the media group. The group works regularly with the United Nations on AIDS and mine awareness, child soldier recruitment, and other programs.
Both victims were respected figures among Somali journalists who strive to keep freedom of information and principles of impartial and accurate reporting alive in the midst of the violent environment of Somalia. A third journalist, Abdihakim Omar Jimale, from Radio Mogadishu, as also victim of an assassination attempt on Friday evening and is still under medical supervision for his injuries.
No group has claimed responsibility for these crimes so far. On Sunday, Somali authorities said they were holding two suspects in connection with the deaths of the two journalists. Mogadishu Mayor Mohamed Dheere said the two suspects were arrested on Saturday night, adding that one of them has confessed to being involved in both attacks.
A number of local and foreign journalists have been killed in recent years in the war-ravaged nation in the Horn of Africa, which has been without effective central government for many years. Somalia has experienced continued instability despite dozens of
peace initiatives since the overthrow of former president Siad Barre,
14 August 2007
On Monday, a United Nations humanitarian envoy to Somalia condemned the killing of two prominent journalists and the harassment of media in the war-ravaged East African nation, Xinhua reported from Nairobi .
In a statement issued from Nairobi, UN Humanitarian Coordinator for Somalia Eric Laroche urged the authorities to conduct a prompt and impartial investigation into the murder of HornAfrik radio owner Ali Iman Sharmake and station presenter Mahad Ahmed Elmi, who died in separate attacks in Mogadishu on Saturday.
"The violent events of the last days show how vulnerable freedom of expression remains in Somalia," Laroche said and called for an end to impunity.
The weekend killings of the two prominent journalists are the most recent in a spate of attacks against the media in Somalia, bringing to six the number of journalists killed in the country this year. Sharmake died when his car exploded after apparently running over a landmine. He had just been to the funeral of Elmi who was shot dead hours earlier.
Laroche called on all authorities and groups "to respect the right of all to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information through any media...The transitional government is responsible for ending impunity for attacks on journalists by conducting prompt and impartial investigations and preventing any form of harassment of the media," he said.
Laroche goes on to say, "furthermore, the draft legislation on media must ensure that freedom of information and media, as enshrined in article 20 of the Transitional Federal Charter, is fully protected." Sharmarke was a Somali-Canadian who returned to Mogadishu nine years ago to establish and manage the media group. The group works regularly with the United Nations on AIDS and mine awareness, child soldier recruitment, and other programs.
Both victims were respected figures among Somali journalists who strive to keep freedom of information and principles of impartial and accurate reporting alive in the midst of the violent environment of Somalia. A third journalist, Abdihakim Omar Jimale, from Radio Mogadishu, as also victim of an assassination attempt on Friday evening and is still under medical supervision for his injuries.
No group has claimed responsibility for these crimes so far. On Sunday, Somali authorities said they were holding two suspects in connection with the deaths of the two journalists. Mogadishu Mayor Mohamed Dheere said the two suspects were arrested on Saturday night, adding that one of them has confessed to being involved in both attacks.
A number of local and foreign journalists have been killed in recent years in the war-ravaged nation in the Horn of Africa, which has been without effective central government for many years. Somalia has experienced continued instability despite dozens of
peace initiatives since the overthrow of former president Siad Barre,
AU chief statements on his rejection of non African troops in Darfur
Sudan Tribune
August 13, 2007 (KHARTOUM) — Below is the text of a transcript of statement to the press by the AU Commission Chairperson, Prof Alpha Omar Konare, following his meeting with President Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan in Khartoum on Sunday, August 12, 2007:This transcript is distributed by the African Union Mission in Sudan:¨
Prof Konare: Once more, I would like to thank the President for having found time to share with us. Of course, we seized the opportunity to present our condolences following the death of our brother, Khalifa, who played a key role in the peace process. We also seized the opportunity to thank the President for his trust, which has enabled us to appoint the leaders who will take charge of the Hybrid Operation, under the leadership of our brother, Minister Adada, whose total African commitment we are sure about. He has followed the entire process; he was at every meeting on Darfur. We thanked the President for his support; we are certain that his support will never fail us.
We also assessed the current situation. After a long process of negotiations, we finally got the United Nations resolution which will allow for the deployment of the Hybrid Operation. It is important to note that this resolution was passed by a unanimous vote of the Security Council. It is now up to us to see to it that the resolution is implemented correctly, and that African troops are quickly deployed, so that the Heavy Support Package is completed. And I am in a position to announce today, less than two weeks since the resolution was passed, that we have received enough pledges from African countries; thus, we would not need to resort to non-African troops. It is now just a matter of marshalling resources to ensure that the Hybrid Operation receives adequate and sustained funding.
We know that security is an important component but the deployment also needs to help the political dialogue, because that is key. And I can say that the Arusha talks were positive, and of course on the basis of the Abuja agreement, which is now a fact. I am convinced that our brothers, both the Movements and the Government, will help us get to the end of the process. I would like to emphasise this because I think that the contributions of our brothers of the Movements are essential. It does not make sense today that they do not come to the table. We hope that those who did not come will join us, with the full guarantees we are ready to give as the African Union, as well as the United Nations.
We would also like to underscore the responsibility of partner-host nations; it is good that they give us financial support but it is even better at the political level that they help us to get our brothers of the Movements to bring their contributions to the table.
Those are the issues we discussed, and all this will help us to prepare for the meeting in New York in September. That meeting will be the second round of the one held last November in Addis, where we were able to agree on the Hybrid Operation. May I emphasise that it will not be a continuation of the Paris Conference. The meeting we are talking about and at which we will participate, will take place under the leadership of the African Union and the United Nations. That is a matter of principle! We will not subcontract our leadership and we will not allow our leadership to be subordinated. All our partners agree on that. It is now a matter of putting our teams into place and maintaining our leadership.
We received assurances of support from the President, and we are pleased to note the improvement of relations between Sudan and its neighbours, especially Chad. That is a very important factor in all the initiatives we are undertaking.
That is it. If you have two or three questions… two questions.
Question: First, I would like to seek some clarifications regarding funding; what is the situation with funding? Next, with regard to the deployment, will African forces be deployed first, followed by hybrid forces?
Prof Konare: I am not sure what you mean by ‘hybrid forces’, we are talking about a Hybrid Operation, and the agreement on the Hybrid Operation is clear: the troops will be African, unless Africa is unable to provide them, then we will appeal to others, after consultations with the Government of Sudan. That is quite clear. Right now as I speak, we have received enough pledges for me to state that we will not need to appeal for non-African troops. We will appeal to all the African countries that have made pledges to honour them as soon as possible, but funding remains a problem.
However, the advantage of the resolution which was passed is that henceforth, it is the international community – the United Nations – that is responsible for funding. So, the ball is now in their court. We hope that there will not be delays; any eventual delays could be exploited and used against us.
Question: Will there be joint operations with Sudanese troops?
Prof Konare: That is not mentioned as such. But it is obvious that our officials will work closely with Sudanese authorities, including Sudanese forces, because we are in Sudan, which has a government, ands authorities, and we will work within that framework. That should be clear.
Thank you.
August 13, 2007 (KHARTOUM) — Below is the text of a transcript of statement to the press by the AU Commission Chairperson, Prof Alpha Omar Konare, following his meeting with President Omar Al-Bashir of Sudan in Khartoum on Sunday, August 12, 2007:This transcript is distributed by the African Union Mission in Sudan:¨
Prof Konare: Once more, I would like to thank the President for having found time to share with us. Of course, we seized the opportunity to present our condolences following the death of our brother, Khalifa, who played a key role in the peace process. We also seized the opportunity to thank the President for his trust, which has enabled us to appoint the leaders who will take charge of the Hybrid Operation, under the leadership of our brother, Minister Adada, whose total African commitment we are sure about. He has followed the entire process; he was at every meeting on Darfur. We thanked the President for his support; we are certain that his support will never fail us.
We also assessed the current situation. After a long process of negotiations, we finally got the United Nations resolution which will allow for the deployment of the Hybrid Operation. It is important to note that this resolution was passed by a unanimous vote of the Security Council. It is now up to us to see to it that the resolution is implemented correctly, and that African troops are quickly deployed, so that the Heavy Support Package is completed. And I am in a position to announce today, less than two weeks since the resolution was passed, that we have received enough pledges from African countries; thus, we would not need to resort to non-African troops. It is now just a matter of marshalling resources to ensure that the Hybrid Operation receives adequate and sustained funding.
We know that security is an important component but the deployment also needs to help the political dialogue, because that is key. And I can say that the Arusha talks were positive, and of course on the basis of the Abuja agreement, which is now a fact. I am convinced that our brothers, both the Movements and the Government, will help us get to the end of the process. I would like to emphasise this because I think that the contributions of our brothers of the Movements are essential. It does not make sense today that they do not come to the table. We hope that those who did not come will join us, with the full guarantees we are ready to give as the African Union, as well as the United Nations.
We would also like to underscore the responsibility of partner-host nations; it is good that they give us financial support but it is even better at the political level that they help us to get our brothers of the Movements to bring their contributions to the table.
Those are the issues we discussed, and all this will help us to prepare for the meeting in New York in September. That meeting will be the second round of the one held last November in Addis, where we were able to agree on the Hybrid Operation. May I emphasise that it will not be a continuation of the Paris Conference. The meeting we are talking about and at which we will participate, will take place under the leadership of the African Union and the United Nations. That is a matter of principle! We will not subcontract our leadership and we will not allow our leadership to be subordinated. All our partners agree on that. It is now a matter of putting our teams into place and maintaining our leadership.
We received assurances of support from the President, and we are pleased to note the improvement of relations between Sudan and its neighbours, especially Chad. That is a very important factor in all the initiatives we are undertaking.
That is it. If you have two or three questions… two questions.
Question: First, I would like to seek some clarifications regarding funding; what is the situation with funding? Next, with regard to the deployment, will African forces be deployed first, followed by hybrid forces?
Prof Konare: I am not sure what you mean by ‘hybrid forces’, we are talking about a Hybrid Operation, and the agreement on the Hybrid Operation is clear: the troops will be African, unless Africa is unable to provide them, then we will appeal to others, after consultations with the Government of Sudan. That is quite clear. Right now as I speak, we have received enough pledges for me to state that we will not need to appeal for non-African troops. We will appeal to all the African countries that have made pledges to honour them as soon as possible, but funding remains a problem.
However, the advantage of the resolution which was passed is that henceforth, it is the international community – the United Nations – that is responsible for funding. So, the ball is now in their court. We hope that there will not be delays; any eventual delays could be exploited and used against us.
Question: Will there be joint operations with Sudanese troops?
Prof Konare: That is not mentioned as such. But it is obvious that our officials will work closely with Sudanese authorities, including Sudanese forces, because we are in Sudan, which has a government, ands authorities, and we will work within that framework. That should be clear.
Thank you.
Outrage over AU chief statement on Darfur force
August 13, 2007 (WASHINGTON) — A Darfur rebel leader expressed “deep disappointment” over statements made by African Union (AU) chairman in which he said that the UN-AU hybrid force will be under AU command.
AU chairman Alpha Oumar Konare told reporters following a meeting with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in Khartoum that the AU “will not allow the force [hybrid force] to be under any other command”.
Konare also rejected the term hybrid force and insisted that it is a hybrid operation. He also said that there are enough pledges from African countries for the hybrid force. However he did not elaborate.
UN resolution 1769 authorizing on Darfur stated that "there will be unity of command and control," meaning a single chain of command and that "command and control structures and backstopping will be provided by the United Nations".
Abdelwahid al-Nur leader of Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) told Sudan Tribune that Konare’s statements “only mean that we are back to square one”.
“This is a UN-AU force and as such it should incorporate troops from all over the world. We need an effective peace force to protect civilians. We do not simply want the deployment of extra troops in Darfur that do nothing but receive salaries” he added.
Eric Reeves, an academic and an expert on Sudan affairs, told Sudan Tribune that “Khartoum has managed to secure Konare as an ally within the AU, which ensures that deployment of an AU/UN force will be that much more difficult”.
“Konare’s statement will make it impossible to attract non-African troops or civilian police; this is an enormously consequential development, and deeply threatens the viability of the force” he added.
Yesterday the spokesperson of the rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), Ahmed Hussein Adam said that International community must consult rebel groups on the selection of countries taking part in the hybrid operation.
Ahmed warned that his group demands that troops should only be provided by neutral countries.
Rebel groups fear that the AU wants to create a force tailored in composition and mandate to please the Sudanese government thus reducing the effectiveness of the force.
“We asked for something very simple; the deployment of a peacekeeping force to protect our people then we will go to peace talks anytime anywhere. Khartoum is doing everything it can to prevent or slow that process” Al-Nur said.
“At the end of the day they accuse us of blocking peace efforts in Darfur. How could that be?” he added.
The Darfur conflict began in 2003 when an ethnic minority rose up against the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum, which then was accused of enlisting the Janjaweed militia group to help crush the rebellion.
AU chairman Alpha Oumar Konare told reporters following a meeting with Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in Khartoum that the AU “will not allow the force [hybrid force] to be under any other command”.
Konare also rejected the term hybrid force and insisted that it is a hybrid operation. He also said that there are enough pledges from African countries for the hybrid force. However he did not elaborate.
UN resolution 1769 authorizing on Darfur stated that "there will be unity of command and control," meaning a single chain of command and that "command and control structures and backstopping will be provided by the United Nations".
Abdelwahid al-Nur leader of Sudan Liberation Movement (SLM) told Sudan Tribune that Konare’s statements “only mean that we are back to square one”.
“This is a UN-AU force and as such it should incorporate troops from all over the world. We need an effective peace force to protect civilians. We do not simply want the deployment of extra troops in Darfur that do nothing but receive salaries” he added.
Eric Reeves, an academic and an expert on Sudan affairs, told Sudan Tribune that “Khartoum has managed to secure Konare as an ally within the AU, which ensures that deployment of an AU/UN force will be that much more difficult”.
“Konare’s statement will make it impossible to attract non-African troops or civilian police; this is an enormously consequential development, and deeply threatens the viability of the force” he added.
Yesterday the spokesperson of the rebel Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), Ahmed Hussein Adam said that International community must consult rebel groups on the selection of countries taking part in the hybrid operation.
Ahmed warned that his group demands that troops should only be provided by neutral countries.
Rebel groups fear that the AU wants to create a force tailored in composition and mandate to please the Sudanese government thus reducing the effectiveness of the force.
“We asked for something very simple; the deployment of a peacekeeping force to protect our people then we will go to peace talks anytime anywhere. Khartoum is doing everything it can to prevent or slow that process” Al-Nur said.
“At the end of the day they accuse us of blocking peace efforts in Darfur. How could that be?” he added.
The Darfur conflict began in 2003 when an ethnic minority rose up against the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum, which then was accused of enlisting the Janjaweed militia group to help crush the rebellion.
Under the weather
Aug 9th 2007 The Economist print edition
The conservative movement that for a generation has been the source of the Republican Party's strength is in the dumps
THIRTY years ago Eric Hobsbawm, the dean of Marxist historians, chose as his subject, for the Marx memorial lecture, “The forward march of labour halted?” Things turned out even worse, for his side, than he had expected, thanks in part to the rise of a very American brand of conservatism. But are we now witnessing Mr Hobsbawm's revenge: the forward march of American conservatism halted?
The right has dominated American politics since at least 1980. The Republicans' electoral successes have been striking: five out of seven presidential elections since 1980 and a dramatic seizure of the House in 1994 after 40 years of Democratic rule. Even more striking has been the right's success in making the political weather.
The Republican Party is only the most visible part of the American right. The right's hidden strength lies in its conservative base. America is almost unique in possessing a vibrant conservative movement. Every state boasts organisations fighting in favour of guns and against taxes and abortion. The Christian right can call upon megachurches and Evangelical colleges. Conservatives have also created a formidable counter-establishment of think-tanks and pressure groups.
And many Americans who are not members of the movement happily embrace the label “conservative”. They think of themselves as God-fearing patriots who dislike big government and are tough on crime and national security. In 2004 roughly a third of the voters identified themselves as conservatives; just over 20% identified themselves as “liberal” (as American left-wingers are somewhat strangely called). Conservatives have driven the policy debate on everything from crime to welfare to foreign policy.
Yet today this mighty movement is in deep trouble. Veteran activists are sunk in gloom (“I've never seen conservatives so downright fed up,” says Richard Viguerie, a conservative stalwart). And the other side is cock-a-hoop. Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, describes the shift from conservatism as “breathtaking”.
The Democrats are well positioned to retake the White House in 2008. True, the Republican front-runner, Rudy Giuliani, a “big tent” Republican who combines liberal views on abortion and gay marriage with stellar credentials as “America's mayor”, is a strong candidate. The Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, suffers from high negatives and a scandal-prone husband. But the Clinton operation looks far more professional than Mr Giuliani's—and he has plenty of scandals of his own.
Overall, the Democrats are much more confident: 40% of Republicans believe that the Democrats will win, but just 12% of Democrats believe that the Republicans will win. They are more motivated: in the second quarter the two leading Democrats raised $60m, against just $32m for the two leading Republicans. And 61% of Democratic primary voters are happy with their choice of candidates, compared with only 36% of Republicans. Generic polls show voters expressing a preference for a Democratic president by a 24-point margin, a gap unheard of since the Watergate era.
The Democrats are also likely to keep Congress. The tide that enabled the party to pick up 31 House seats and six Senate seats in 2006, along with six governorships and 321 state-legislature seats, is still swelling. The Republicans will be defending more vulnerable Senate seats than the Democrats in 2008, and they are losing the race for cash. The public favours Democratic control of Congress by a margin of 10-15 points. Off the record, Republicans use words like “catastrophe” and “Armageddon” to refer to 2008.
The issues that people care about are also tipping the Democrats' way. A Pew Research poll in March discovered growing worry about income inequality combined with growing support for the social safety net. The proportion of Americans who believe that “the government should help the needy even if it means greater debt” has risen from 41% in 1994, at the height of the Republican revolution, to 54% today. The poll also revealed a decline in support for the things that drove the Republican resurgence in the mid-1990s, such as traditional moral values.
In 2002 the electorate was equally divided between Democrats and Democratic-leaners (43%) and Republicans and Republican-leaners (43%). Today only 35% align themselves with Republicans, and 50% with Democrats. The Republicans are doing particularly badly among independents (the fastest-growing group in the electorate) and younger voters. The proportion of 18-25-year-olds who identify with the Republican Party has declined from 55% in 1991 to 35% in 2006, according to Pew. Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster, notes that the share of Republican voters aged 55 and over has increased from 28% in 1997 to 41% today, whereas the share aged 18-34 has fallen from 25% to 17%. No wonder Ken Mehlman, a former Republican Party chairman who oversaw George Bush's 2004 victory, is now advising hedge funds on how to deal with a Democratic-leaning America.
The Republicans have alienated America's fastest-growing electoral block—Hispanics—with their visceral opposition to immigration reform. Nearly 70% of Hispanics voted Democratic in House races in 2006, up from 55% in 2004. That trend is sure to have been solidified by the Republicans' recent scuppering of the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, in a revolt sodden with xenophobia. Lyndon Johnson once noted that the Democrats' support for civil rights had cost them the South for a generation; the Republican Party's opposition to immigration reform may well have cost it the Hispanic vote for a generation.
Republicans have also whipped up a storm of opposition among middle-of-the-road voters on social issues. The religious right's opposition to abortion has always been an electoral liability: only 30% of voters favour overturning Roe v Wade. But in the past few years social conservatives tested people's patience still further over a federal marriage amendment and Terri Schiavo. Fully 72% of Republican voters opposed the Republicans' attempt to use the might of the federal government to keep the severely brain-damaged woman alive. The voters got their revenge in the 2006 mid-term elections—“bloody Tuesday” in the words of Troy Newman, the president of Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group. Rick Santorum, once the religious right's most prominent champion in the Senate, barely scraped 41% of the vote in Pennsylvania. Ken Blackwell, social conservatism's most prominent black champion, went down to a humiliating defeat in the race for the Ohio governorship. Social conservatives lost ballot initiatives on everything from abortion to gay marriage.
Why the conservative crack-up?
The obvious cause of the right's implosion is the implosion of the Bush presidency. Mr Bush has the worst approval ratings since Jimmy Carter—29% according to Newsweek and 31% according to NBC News. Only 19% of Americans think that America is headed in the right direction under Mr Bush. An astonishing 45% of Americans, including 13% of Republicans, support impeaching Mr Bush, according to the American Research Group.
The most obvious cause of the implosion of the Bush presidency is the disaster in Iraq. The Republican Party's biggest advantage over the Democrats has long been on foreign and defence policy. You voted Democratic if you cared about schools and hospitals. But you voted Republican if you cared more about keeping America safe in a dangerous world. September 11th 2001 turbo-charged that advantage. The Republicans used the “war on terror” to roll over the Democrats in elections in 2002 and again in 2004.
But the war in Iraq has buried this vital advantage under a mound of discredited hype (“mission accomplished”) and mind-boggling incompetence. A CBS News/New York Times poll found that only 25% of people approved of Mr Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq. An ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 63% of respondents did not trust the Bush administration to report honestly about possible threats from other countries. The damage is not limited to the Bush administration: a Rasmussen poll on July 25th-26th found that Mrs Clinton outscores Mr Giuliani as the candidate voters trust most on national security.
Mr Bush has also presided over the biggest expansion in government spending since his fellow Texan, Lyndon Johnson, provoking fury on the right. His prescription-drug benefit was the largest expansion of government entitlements in 40 years. He has increased federal education spending by about 60% and added some 7,000 pages of new federal regulations. Pat Toomey, the head of the Club for Growth, says the conservative base feels “disgust with what appears to be a complete abandonment of limited government.”
Many conservative activists would like to pin the blame on Mr Bush alone—either because he pursued foolish policies (the paleo-conservative version) or because he pursued sensible policies in a cack-handed manner (the neoconservative version). William Buckley, the conservative movement's pope, says that, if Mr Bush were the leader of a parliamentary system, “it would be expected that he would retire or resign.” Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan-administration economist, accuses him of “betraying” the conservative movement. Other conservatives would like to pin the blame on the Republican Party. “We have to recognise that this was a defeat for Republicans, not for conservatives,” Newt Gingrich, a former Speaker of the House, argued after the 2006 mid-term elections.
In fact, the Republican Party in Congress is just as responsible as Mr Bush for most of the recent troubles. The Republican majority routinely appropriated more spending than the president asked for. It also larded spending bills with as much extra pork as possible. The number of congressional “earmarks” for projects in members' districts increased from 1,300 in 1994, when the Republicans took over Congress, to 14,000 in 2005.
The Republican majority also cheered Mr Bush all the way to Baghdad. Add to this the corruption of congressmen like Tom DeLay, a conservative hero, and the semi-corrupt institutional relationship that the Republicans formed with lobbyists, and you see that Mr Bush was only part of a much bigger problem.
Nor can conservatives claim that Mr Bush is a country-club Republican like his father. He has devoted his energies to giving “the movement” what it wants: the invasion of Iraq for the neoconservatives (who had championed it long before September 11th); tax cuts for business and the small-government conservatives; restricting federal funding for stem-cell research for the social conservatives; and conservative judges to please every faction.
This desire to pander to the conservative movement is partly to blame for the administration's practical incompetence. Mr Bush outdid previous Republican presidents in recruiting his personnel from the conservative counter-establishment. But this often meant choosing people for their ideological purity rather than their competence or intelligence. Some 150 Bush administration officials were graduates of Pat Robertson's Regent University, including Monica Goodling, who put on such a lamentable performance before a House inquiry into the firing of nine US attorneys. A more pragmatic president would surely have sacked many of the neoconservative ideologues who have made a hash of American foreign policy
The Republicans' problems are creating a civil war on the right about how to dig themselves out of their hole. This is producing some spectacular intellectual fireworks—fireworks that prove there is still a lot of intellectual life in the right. But such internal strife tends to put off the voters. And this civil war has the added problem that, from the point of view of broadening the Republican coalition, the wrong side has won too many important battles, not least on immigration.
One fight is over the size and scope of government. Small-government conservatives accuse Mr Bush of betraying conservatism's core principle: that government is the problem rather than the solution. Big-government conservatives retort that there is only a limited constituency for small government. The general public strongly opposes cutting entitlements. “Anti-government conservatism turns out to be a strange kind of idealism,” argues Michael Gerson, Mr Bush's former speechwriter, “an idealism that strangles mercy.”
A second fight is over social conservatism. Libertarians argue that the Republican Party is too much in the pocket of ageing social conservatives such as James Dobson of Focus on the Family, activists who do not represent the views of common-or-garden Evangelicals let alone middle-of-the-road Americans. Social conservatives retort that they are the people who deliver the votes: if the Republican Party relies only on business conservatives and libertarians, it will be reduced to a rump.
A third fight concerns Mr Bush's foreign policy, particularly his stubborn defence of the Iraq war. Some conservatives predicted that the “war on terror” might take the place of the “war on communism”, both as a glue holding conservatism together and a guarantee of long-term Republican advantage over the Democrats. That happened for a while. But the sustained unrest in Iraq has opened deep divisions on the right—not least between Mr Bush (who rides off into the sunset in January 2009) and politicians who would like to hang around for a bit longer. Senate Republicans are on the verge of a full-scale revolt against the White House.
Dead right?
It is always tempting to read too much into this or that crisis. David Frum predicted doom for his fellow travellers in “Dead Right” just as Mr Gingrich was about to seize control of Congress. Emmett Tyrell described a conservative crack-up only to see the movement come back together.
The Democrats' good fortune is much more the result of a Republican collapse than a Democratic revival. The March Pew poll shows that the proportion of people who express a positive view of the Democratic Party has actually declined by six points since January 2001. It's just that the proportion of people who express a positive view of the Republican Party has declined by 15 points. The Democratic-controlled Congress is even more unpopular than the Bush White House, with the lowest approval rating in 35 years.
Americans remain sceptical about the Democrats' favourite tool for improving the world—government action. A Democracy Corps poll found that Americans believe by a majority of 57% to 29% that government makes it harder for people to get ahead in life. The same poll found that 83% of people believe that, if the government had more money, it would probably waste it, the highest level of anti-government sentiment in a decade. America is not entering into a new era of liberal activism.
The Democrats have ceded a lot of ground to the conservatives. The party has sidelined liberal groups who oppose the death penalty or want to restrict gun-ownership. The big three Democratic presidential candidates compete with each other to prove how religious they are: Mrs Clinton repeatedly claims that she is a “praying person” who once considered becoming a Methodist minister. The Party put forward anti-abortion candidates in both Colorado and Pennsylvania.
And the conservative movement is at its most deadly as an insurgency. The movement was born during the 1964 Goldwater campaign as a revolt against the liberal establishment. It enjoyed its glory days when it was battling Hillarycare and trying to impeach Bill Clinton. A Clinton presidential nomination would undoubtedly reunite and re-energise the movement. Deeply rooted in gun clubs, anti-tax groups, right-to-life groups and Evangelical churches, American conservatives will never be reduced to the feeble status of their British cousins.
But even when you enter all the qualifications the right's situation is dire. It is a sign of weakness that the conservatives are retreating to their old posture as insurgents, and need a bogeywoman like Mrs Clinton to hold them together.
The Republicans have failed the most important test of any political movement—wielding power successfully. They have botched a war. They have splurged on spending. And they have alienated a huge section of the population. It is now the Democrats' game to win or lose.
The conservative movement that for a generation has been the source of the Republican Party's strength is in the dumps
THIRTY years ago Eric Hobsbawm, the dean of Marxist historians, chose as his subject, for the Marx memorial lecture, “The forward march of labour halted?” Things turned out even worse, for his side, than he had expected, thanks in part to the rise of a very American brand of conservatism. But are we now witnessing Mr Hobsbawm's revenge: the forward march of American conservatism halted?
The right has dominated American politics since at least 1980. The Republicans' electoral successes have been striking: five out of seven presidential elections since 1980 and a dramatic seizure of the House in 1994 after 40 years of Democratic rule. Even more striking has been the right's success in making the political weather.
The Republican Party is only the most visible part of the American right. The right's hidden strength lies in its conservative base. America is almost unique in possessing a vibrant conservative movement. Every state boasts organisations fighting in favour of guns and against taxes and abortion. The Christian right can call upon megachurches and Evangelical colleges. Conservatives have also created a formidable counter-establishment of think-tanks and pressure groups.
And many Americans who are not members of the movement happily embrace the label “conservative”. They think of themselves as God-fearing patriots who dislike big government and are tough on crime and national security. In 2004 roughly a third of the voters identified themselves as conservatives; just over 20% identified themselves as “liberal” (as American left-wingers are somewhat strangely called). Conservatives have driven the policy debate on everything from crime to welfare to foreign policy.
Yet today this mighty movement is in deep trouble. Veteran activists are sunk in gloom (“I've never seen conservatives so downright fed up,” says Richard Viguerie, a conservative stalwart). And the other side is cock-a-hoop. Stanley Greenberg, a Democratic pollster, describes the shift from conservatism as “breathtaking”.
The Democrats are well positioned to retake the White House in 2008. True, the Republican front-runner, Rudy Giuliani, a “big tent” Republican who combines liberal views on abortion and gay marriage with stellar credentials as “America's mayor”, is a strong candidate. The Democratic front-runner, Hillary Clinton, suffers from high negatives and a scandal-prone husband. But the Clinton operation looks far more professional than Mr Giuliani's—and he has plenty of scandals of his own.
Overall, the Democrats are much more confident: 40% of Republicans believe that the Democrats will win, but just 12% of Democrats believe that the Republicans will win. They are more motivated: in the second quarter the two leading Democrats raised $60m, against just $32m for the two leading Republicans. And 61% of Democratic primary voters are happy with their choice of candidates, compared with only 36% of Republicans. Generic polls show voters expressing a preference for a Democratic president by a 24-point margin, a gap unheard of since the Watergate era.
The Democrats are also likely to keep Congress. The tide that enabled the party to pick up 31 House seats and six Senate seats in 2006, along with six governorships and 321 state-legislature seats, is still swelling. The Republicans will be defending more vulnerable Senate seats than the Democrats in 2008, and they are losing the race for cash. The public favours Democratic control of Congress by a margin of 10-15 points. Off the record, Republicans use words like “catastrophe” and “Armageddon” to refer to 2008.
The issues that people care about are also tipping the Democrats' way. A Pew Research poll in March discovered growing worry about income inequality combined with growing support for the social safety net. The proportion of Americans who believe that “the government should help the needy even if it means greater debt” has risen from 41% in 1994, at the height of the Republican revolution, to 54% today. The poll also revealed a decline in support for the things that drove the Republican resurgence in the mid-1990s, such as traditional moral values.
In 2002 the electorate was equally divided between Democrats and Democratic-leaners (43%) and Republicans and Republican-leaners (43%). Today only 35% align themselves with Republicans, and 50% with Democrats. The Republicans are doing particularly badly among independents (the fastest-growing group in the electorate) and younger voters. The proportion of 18-25-year-olds who identify with the Republican Party has declined from 55% in 1991 to 35% in 2006, according to Pew. Tony Fabrizio, a Republican pollster, notes that the share of Republican voters aged 55 and over has increased from 28% in 1997 to 41% today, whereas the share aged 18-34 has fallen from 25% to 17%. No wonder Ken Mehlman, a former Republican Party chairman who oversaw George Bush's 2004 victory, is now advising hedge funds on how to deal with a Democratic-leaning America.
The Republicans have alienated America's fastest-growing electoral block—Hispanics—with their visceral opposition to immigration reform. Nearly 70% of Hispanics voted Democratic in House races in 2006, up from 55% in 2004. That trend is sure to have been solidified by the Republicans' recent scuppering of the McCain-Kennedy immigration bill, in a revolt sodden with xenophobia. Lyndon Johnson once noted that the Democrats' support for civil rights had cost them the South for a generation; the Republican Party's opposition to immigration reform may well have cost it the Hispanic vote for a generation.
Republicans have also whipped up a storm of opposition among middle-of-the-road voters on social issues. The religious right's opposition to abortion has always been an electoral liability: only 30% of voters favour overturning Roe v Wade. But in the past few years social conservatives tested people's patience still further over a federal marriage amendment and Terri Schiavo. Fully 72% of Republican voters opposed the Republicans' attempt to use the might of the federal government to keep the severely brain-damaged woman alive. The voters got their revenge in the 2006 mid-term elections—“bloody Tuesday” in the words of Troy Newman, the president of Operation Rescue, an anti-abortion group. Rick Santorum, once the religious right's most prominent champion in the Senate, barely scraped 41% of the vote in Pennsylvania. Ken Blackwell, social conservatism's most prominent black champion, went down to a humiliating defeat in the race for the Ohio governorship. Social conservatives lost ballot initiatives on everything from abortion to gay marriage.
Why the conservative crack-up?
The obvious cause of the right's implosion is the implosion of the Bush presidency. Mr Bush has the worst approval ratings since Jimmy Carter—29% according to Newsweek and 31% according to NBC News. Only 19% of Americans think that America is headed in the right direction under Mr Bush. An astonishing 45% of Americans, including 13% of Republicans, support impeaching Mr Bush, according to the American Research Group.
The most obvious cause of the implosion of the Bush presidency is the disaster in Iraq. The Republican Party's biggest advantage over the Democrats has long been on foreign and defence policy. You voted Democratic if you cared about schools and hospitals. But you voted Republican if you cared more about keeping America safe in a dangerous world. September 11th 2001 turbo-charged that advantage. The Republicans used the “war on terror” to roll over the Democrats in elections in 2002 and again in 2004.
But the war in Iraq has buried this vital advantage under a mound of discredited hype (“mission accomplished”) and mind-boggling incompetence. A CBS News/New York Times poll found that only 25% of people approved of Mr Bush's handling of the situation in Iraq. An ABC News/Washington Post poll found that 63% of respondents did not trust the Bush administration to report honestly about possible threats from other countries. The damage is not limited to the Bush administration: a Rasmussen poll on July 25th-26th found that Mrs Clinton outscores Mr Giuliani as the candidate voters trust most on national security.
Mr Bush has also presided over the biggest expansion in government spending since his fellow Texan, Lyndon Johnson, provoking fury on the right. His prescription-drug benefit was the largest expansion of government entitlements in 40 years. He has increased federal education spending by about 60% and added some 7,000 pages of new federal regulations. Pat Toomey, the head of the Club for Growth, says the conservative base feels “disgust with what appears to be a complete abandonment of limited government.”
Many conservative activists would like to pin the blame on Mr Bush alone—either because he pursued foolish policies (the paleo-conservative version) or because he pursued sensible policies in a cack-handed manner (the neoconservative version). William Buckley, the conservative movement's pope, says that, if Mr Bush were the leader of a parliamentary system, “it would be expected that he would retire or resign.” Bruce Bartlett, a former Reagan-administration economist, accuses him of “betraying” the conservative movement. Other conservatives would like to pin the blame on the Republican Party. “We have to recognise that this was a defeat for Republicans, not for conservatives,” Newt Gingrich, a former Speaker of the House, argued after the 2006 mid-term elections.
In fact, the Republican Party in Congress is just as responsible as Mr Bush for most of the recent troubles. The Republican majority routinely appropriated more spending than the president asked for. It also larded spending bills with as much extra pork as possible. The number of congressional “earmarks” for projects in members' districts increased from 1,300 in 1994, when the Republicans took over Congress, to 14,000 in 2005.
The Republican majority also cheered Mr Bush all the way to Baghdad. Add to this the corruption of congressmen like Tom DeLay, a conservative hero, and the semi-corrupt institutional relationship that the Republicans formed with lobbyists, and you see that Mr Bush was only part of a much bigger problem.
Nor can conservatives claim that Mr Bush is a country-club Republican like his father. He has devoted his energies to giving “the movement” what it wants: the invasion of Iraq for the neoconservatives (who had championed it long before September 11th); tax cuts for business and the small-government conservatives; restricting federal funding for stem-cell research for the social conservatives; and conservative judges to please every faction.
This desire to pander to the conservative movement is partly to blame for the administration's practical incompetence. Mr Bush outdid previous Republican presidents in recruiting his personnel from the conservative counter-establishment. But this often meant choosing people for their ideological purity rather than their competence or intelligence. Some 150 Bush administration officials were graduates of Pat Robertson's Regent University, including Monica Goodling, who put on such a lamentable performance before a House inquiry into the firing of nine US attorneys. A more pragmatic president would surely have sacked many of the neoconservative ideologues who have made a hash of American foreign policy
The Republicans' problems are creating a civil war on the right about how to dig themselves out of their hole. This is producing some spectacular intellectual fireworks—fireworks that prove there is still a lot of intellectual life in the right. But such internal strife tends to put off the voters. And this civil war has the added problem that, from the point of view of broadening the Republican coalition, the wrong side has won too many important battles, not least on immigration.
One fight is over the size and scope of government. Small-government conservatives accuse Mr Bush of betraying conservatism's core principle: that government is the problem rather than the solution. Big-government conservatives retort that there is only a limited constituency for small government. The general public strongly opposes cutting entitlements. “Anti-government conservatism turns out to be a strange kind of idealism,” argues Michael Gerson, Mr Bush's former speechwriter, “an idealism that strangles mercy.”
A second fight is over social conservatism. Libertarians argue that the Republican Party is too much in the pocket of ageing social conservatives such as James Dobson of Focus on the Family, activists who do not represent the views of common-or-garden Evangelicals let alone middle-of-the-road Americans. Social conservatives retort that they are the people who deliver the votes: if the Republican Party relies only on business conservatives and libertarians, it will be reduced to a rump.
A third fight concerns Mr Bush's foreign policy, particularly his stubborn defence of the Iraq war. Some conservatives predicted that the “war on terror” might take the place of the “war on communism”, both as a glue holding conservatism together and a guarantee of long-term Republican advantage over the Democrats. That happened for a while. But the sustained unrest in Iraq has opened deep divisions on the right—not least between Mr Bush (who rides off into the sunset in January 2009) and politicians who would like to hang around for a bit longer. Senate Republicans are on the verge of a full-scale revolt against the White House.
Dead right?
It is always tempting to read too much into this or that crisis. David Frum predicted doom for his fellow travellers in “Dead Right” just as Mr Gingrich was about to seize control of Congress. Emmett Tyrell described a conservative crack-up only to see the movement come back together.
The Democrats' good fortune is much more the result of a Republican collapse than a Democratic revival. The March Pew poll shows that the proportion of people who express a positive view of the Democratic Party has actually declined by six points since January 2001. It's just that the proportion of people who express a positive view of the Republican Party has declined by 15 points. The Democratic-controlled Congress is even more unpopular than the Bush White House, with the lowest approval rating in 35 years.
Americans remain sceptical about the Democrats' favourite tool for improving the world—government action. A Democracy Corps poll found that Americans believe by a majority of 57% to 29% that government makes it harder for people to get ahead in life. The same poll found that 83% of people believe that, if the government had more money, it would probably waste it, the highest level of anti-government sentiment in a decade. America is not entering into a new era of liberal activism.
The Democrats have ceded a lot of ground to the conservatives. The party has sidelined liberal groups who oppose the death penalty or want to restrict gun-ownership. The big three Democratic presidential candidates compete with each other to prove how religious they are: Mrs Clinton repeatedly claims that she is a “praying person” who once considered becoming a Methodist minister. The Party put forward anti-abortion candidates in both Colorado and Pennsylvania.
And the conservative movement is at its most deadly as an insurgency. The movement was born during the 1964 Goldwater campaign as a revolt against the liberal establishment. It enjoyed its glory days when it was battling Hillarycare and trying to impeach Bill Clinton. A Clinton presidential nomination would undoubtedly reunite and re-energise the movement. Deeply rooted in gun clubs, anti-tax groups, right-to-life groups and Evangelical churches, American conservatives will never be reduced to the feeble status of their British cousins.
But even when you enter all the qualifications the right's situation is dire. It is a sign of weakness that the conservatives are retreating to their old posture as insurgents, and need a bogeywoman like Mrs Clinton to hold them together.
The Republicans have failed the most important test of any political movement—wielding power successfully. They have botched a war. They have splurged on spending. And they have alienated a huge section of the population. It is now the Democrats' game to win or lose.
ANALYSIS-Africans warm to Sudan mission, but forget Somalia
By Andrew Cawthorne
NAIROBI, Aug 13 (Reuters) - African nations have been falling over themselves to pledge support for an expanded peacekeeping mission in Sudan's Darfur region under United Nations and African Union auspices.
At least six countries have quickly promised troops. And such is the enthusiasm that AU chief diplomat Alpha Oumar Konare says the continent can provide all the manpower needed for a 26,000-strong force approved last month by the United Nations.
But in arguably Africa's second biggest troublespot -- Somalia -- the rush to supply Darfur has a somewhat bitter ring.
"Of course we want to help our brothers in Darfur," Somalia's ambassador to Kenya, Mohamed Ali Nur, told Reuters on Monday. "But Somalia is the same thing. The African Union needs to look at us, and help us too."
Somalia's government has been waiting all year for the arrival of 8,000 AU peacekeepers promised to help stem a war that has killed hundreds, displaced tens of thousands and threatens regional stability in the Horn of Africa.
So far, only 1,600 Ugandans have turned up. And the reluctance of others to go in could hardly contrast more with the surge in commitments to the Darfur conflict since the Security Council on July 31 authorised a joint U.N.-AU mission.
"It is going to be much more difficult for Somalia now," said Patrick Smith, editor of Africa Confidential newsletter.
"The interest in the Darfur crisis and the willingness is definitely going to dissipate the interest in sending troops to Mogadishu where, by all accounts, it is even more dangerous."
At the start of the year, various African countries tentatively pledged to support a Somalia mission.
But funding problems and unrelenting violence in Mogadishu, where Islamist-led insurgents are battling the government and its Ethiopian military allies, quickly changed their minds.
In theory, Burundi is supposed to send two battalions soon. But their arrival has been prematurely touted for months, with no movement on the ground.
"Of course we are disappointed more peacekeepers have not come to Somalia," Nur said. "We do not know why. We again appeal to the international community and African nations to make good their commitments."
MONEY AND GEOPOLITICS
One major reason may not be that complicated -- money.
African nations know that with the U.N. machine behind them, their troops in Darfur should be properly paid and equipped in the future. A 7,000-strong AU-only mission there since 2004 has been suffering from lack of resources, including pay.
The AU's early problems in Darfur chime with current problems in Somalia.
Ugandan peacekeepers were complaining about not being paid within weeks of arriving, and while that has now been resolved, regional officials say the international community has not come up with enough money for the Somalia mission.
Geopolitics are also playing their part.
With major Western leaders like George W. Bush, Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy pressing for urgent and firm action on Darfur, the world has -- albeit belatedly -- taken a relatively united position on the need to protect Darfuris.
But there is a back-story to the Somalia conflict that makes countries reluctant to get involved.
A senior Western diplomat, who tracks Somalia from Nairobi, said Ethiopia's U.S.-approved intervention in Somalia at the end of 2006, to kick out Islamists from Mogadishu and replace them with the interim government, created diplomatic tensions.
"Many people think the way that Somalia has been handled -- as part of the U.S. so-called war on terror -- has made things worse. So they don't want to touch it now," he said. "The Darfur crisis has been much easier to define in terms of response."
And if further deterrent were needed for African nations in Somalia, they need look no further than history.
A militarily powerful U.S.-U.N. peacekeeping mission in the early 1990s ended in ignominious withdrawal with scenes of Western soldiers' corpses being dragged through the streets.
Somali Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi urged the U.N. Security Council this year to send peacekeepers to his country, but members told him they wanted to see political progress towards peace first.
Gedi questioned the fairness of saying, "Make peace and I will come and keep it".
NAIROBI, Aug 13 (Reuters) - African nations have been falling over themselves to pledge support for an expanded peacekeeping mission in Sudan's Darfur region under United Nations and African Union auspices.
At least six countries have quickly promised troops. And such is the enthusiasm that AU chief diplomat Alpha Oumar Konare says the continent can provide all the manpower needed for a 26,000-strong force approved last month by the United Nations.
But in arguably Africa's second biggest troublespot -- Somalia -- the rush to supply Darfur has a somewhat bitter ring.
"Of course we want to help our brothers in Darfur," Somalia's ambassador to Kenya, Mohamed Ali Nur, told Reuters on Monday. "But Somalia is the same thing. The African Union needs to look at us, and help us too."
Somalia's government has been waiting all year for the arrival of 8,000 AU peacekeepers promised to help stem a war that has killed hundreds, displaced tens of thousands and threatens regional stability in the Horn of Africa.
So far, only 1,600 Ugandans have turned up. And the reluctance of others to go in could hardly contrast more with the surge in commitments to the Darfur conflict since the Security Council on July 31 authorised a joint U.N.-AU mission.
"It is going to be much more difficult for Somalia now," said Patrick Smith, editor of Africa Confidential newsletter.
"The interest in the Darfur crisis and the willingness is definitely going to dissipate the interest in sending troops to Mogadishu where, by all accounts, it is even more dangerous."
At the start of the year, various African countries tentatively pledged to support a Somalia mission.
But funding problems and unrelenting violence in Mogadishu, where Islamist-led insurgents are battling the government and its Ethiopian military allies, quickly changed their minds.
In theory, Burundi is supposed to send two battalions soon. But their arrival has been prematurely touted for months, with no movement on the ground.
"Of course we are disappointed more peacekeepers have not come to Somalia," Nur said. "We do not know why. We again appeal to the international community and African nations to make good their commitments."
MONEY AND GEOPOLITICS
One major reason may not be that complicated -- money.
African nations know that with the U.N. machine behind them, their troops in Darfur should be properly paid and equipped in the future. A 7,000-strong AU-only mission there since 2004 has been suffering from lack of resources, including pay.
The AU's early problems in Darfur chime with current problems in Somalia.
Ugandan peacekeepers were complaining about not being paid within weeks of arriving, and while that has now been resolved, regional officials say the international community has not come up with enough money for the Somalia mission.
Geopolitics are also playing their part.
With major Western leaders like George W. Bush, Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy pressing for urgent and firm action on Darfur, the world has -- albeit belatedly -- taken a relatively united position on the need to protect Darfuris.
But there is a back-story to the Somalia conflict that makes countries reluctant to get involved.
A senior Western diplomat, who tracks Somalia from Nairobi, said Ethiopia's U.S.-approved intervention in Somalia at the end of 2006, to kick out Islamists from Mogadishu and replace them with the interim government, created diplomatic tensions.
"Many people think the way that Somalia has been handled -- as part of the U.S. so-called war on terror -- has made things worse. So they don't want to touch it now," he said. "The Darfur crisis has been much easier to define in terms of response."
And if further deterrent were needed for African nations in Somalia, they need look no further than history.
A militarily powerful U.S.-U.N. peacekeeping mission in the early 1990s ended in ignominious withdrawal with scenes of Western soldiers' corpses being dragged through the streets.
Somali Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi urged the U.N. Security Council this year to send peacekeepers to his country, but members told him they wanted to see political progress towards peace first.
Gedi questioned the fairness of saying, "Make peace and I will come and keep it".
Somalia: UN holds back troops
14 August 2007
News 24
New York - The United Nations Security Council will hold back on sending forces to keep the peace in war-scarred Somalia, say diplomats, but is looking to boost support for African peacekeepers there.
Britain was due this week to submit a draft resolution approving a six-month extension of the current African Union peacekeeping force, Amisom, said UN diplomats after talks with Somalia.
Pascal Gayama, Congo's ambassador to the UN, who was chairperson of the Security Council in August, said: "The objective is to adopt a resolution enabling the UN to be much more present in Somalia.
"In Somalia, we have to move from unilateralism ... to multilateral support in a much more coherent and heavy way. It will not be proper to give the impression that the international community is not interested in Somalia."
The east African country was in a precarious state after its fragile government with the help of the Ethiopian military seven months ago fought off a powerful Islamist movement that had seized the capital, Mogadishu.
UN may take over in Somalia
That conflict capped 16 years of civil unrest since the ousting of the former dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in a coup in 1991.
Amison had been deployed in the country since March, but was under-resourced, with only some 1 700 Ugandan soldiers struggling amid bloody clashes between Islamist insurgents and Ethiopian forces.
The AU wanted the UN to take over in Somalia when its mandate runs out at the end of 2007. One western diplomat said there was reluctance at this within the international body, which lost 151 of its blue helmet forces during an earlier peacekeeping mission in the 1990s.
Liu Zhenmin, China's deputy permanent UN representative, said: "For the moment, we are not prepared to take over ... in view of the difficulties Amisom is facing.
"Maybe the Security Council will ask the secretary-general to give us a plan for support to Amisom ... something between deployment and simply standing by."
France's new ambassador to the UN, Jean-Maurice Ripert, said that France believed "the question of UN involvement in Somalia must remain open".
According to the UN, there were reports of civilians getting caught in the cross-fire and at least 400 000 people were internally displaced there.
Gayama said: "Somalia is one of the most difficult among all the conflict situations prevailing in the world and we are really pushing the Security Council" on the issue.
News 24
New York - The United Nations Security Council will hold back on sending forces to keep the peace in war-scarred Somalia, say diplomats, but is looking to boost support for African peacekeepers there.
Britain was due this week to submit a draft resolution approving a six-month extension of the current African Union peacekeeping force, Amisom, said UN diplomats after talks with Somalia.
Pascal Gayama, Congo's ambassador to the UN, who was chairperson of the Security Council in August, said: "The objective is to adopt a resolution enabling the UN to be much more present in Somalia.
"In Somalia, we have to move from unilateralism ... to multilateral support in a much more coherent and heavy way. It will not be proper to give the impression that the international community is not interested in Somalia."
The east African country was in a precarious state after its fragile government with the help of the Ethiopian military seven months ago fought off a powerful Islamist movement that had seized the capital, Mogadishu.
UN may take over in Somalia
That conflict capped 16 years of civil unrest since the ousting of the former dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in a coup in 1991.
Amison had been deployed in the country since March, but was under-resourced, with only some 1 700 Ugandan soldiers struggling amid bloody clashes between Islamist insurgents and Ethiopian forces.
The AU wanted the UN to take over in Somalia when its mandate runs out at the end of 2007. One western diplomat said there was reluctance at this within the international body, which lost 151 of its blue helmet forces during an earlier peacekeeping mission in the 1990s.
Liu Zhenmin, China's deputy permanent UN representative, said: "For the moment, we are not prepared to take over ... in view of the difficulties Amisom is facing.
"Maybe the Security Council will ask the secretary-general to give us a plan for support to Amisom ... something between deployment and simply standing by."
France's new ambassador to the UN, Jean-Maurice Ripert, said that France believed "the question of UN involvement in Somalia must remain open".
According to the UN, there were reports of civilians getting caught in the cross-fire and at least 400 000 people were internally displaced there.
Gayama said: "Somalia is one of the most difficult among all the conflict situations prevailing in the world and we are really pushing the Security Council" on the issue.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)