The Daily Monitor (Addis Ababa)NEWS24 February 2008 Posted to the web 26 February 2008 Addis Ababa
There is a very good prospect for bilateral relations between Russia and Ethiopia as they mark the l10th anniversary of the establishment of diplomatic relation between the two countries, Russian Ambassador to Ethiopia Mikhail Afanasiev said.
The month of February is the remarkable month for the cooperation between Russia and Ethiopia as it highlights the starting point since the establishment of diplomatic relations between the two Countries as far back as 110 years now.
GA_googleFillSlot("AllAfrica_Other_Inset");
The date itself arouses respect and the history of bilateral ties produces evidence for that.
Ethiopia and Russia established their diplomatic relations in February 1898, when the then head of the Russian Extraordinary diplomatic mission P.Vlasov presented his credentials to the Emperor of Ethiopia, Menelik II, the ambassador said.
Asked about the recent relation between the two countries in social, economic and political issues, he Russia and Ethiopia were now enjoying a very good relations which he said was based on a solid historical foundation.
"I can boldly assert that the relations between Russia and Ethiopia are very good. The relations are based on a solid historical foundation," the ambassador said in an interview with he held in connection to the 110th anniversary of the diplomatic relations with Ethiopia.
The guiding principles of the modern Ethio-Russian cooperation are enshrined in the Declaration on principles of friendly relations and partnership between the Russian Federation and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, which was signed in 2001 during the official visit of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi to Moscow, the Russian ambassador added.
"This document is future oriented and will by further enriched in the course of its realization," the ambassador observed.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Bush Praises African Progress, Pledges Continued Assistance
By VOA News 26 February 2008
President Bush talks about his recent trip to Africa as he addresses the Leon H. Sullivan Foundation, in Washington, D.C., 26 Feb 2008President Bush says the United States is on a "mission of mercy" in Africa, and has called on the U.S. Congress to approve funding for development programs in the continent.
In a speech Tuesday in Washington, the president highlighted his announcement last week in Rwanda that the United States will spend $100 million to help train and equip African peacekeepers heading to Darfur.
He called on Congress to double funding for programs for education, treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS in Africa. His remarks came in a speech about his recent African tour.
Mr. Bush said he saw striking changes in Africa since his last visit there in 2003, especially in HIV/AIDS treatment and education. He praised the leaders of the countries he visited: Benin, Tanzania, Rwanda, Ghana and Liberia - for their dedication to reform and prosperity. He also credited his own millennium development challenge with encouraging African states to fight corruption.
The president called on U.S. presidential candidates in both parties to make African development a priority.
President Bush talks about his recent trip to Africa as he addresses the Leon H. Sullivan Foundation, in Washington, D.C., 26 Feb 2008President Bush says the United States is on a "mission of mercy" in Africa, and has called on the U.S. Congress to approve funding for development programs in the continent.
In a speech Tuesday in Washington, the president highlighted his announcement last week in Rwanda that the United States will spend $100 million to help train and equip African peacekeepers heading to Darfur.
He called on Congress to double funding for programs for education, treatment and prevention of HIV/AIDS in Africa. His remarks came in a speech about his recent African tour.
Mr. Bush said he saw striking changes in Africa since his last visit there in 2003, especially in HIV/AIDS treatment and education. He praised the leaders of the countries he visited: Benin, Tanzania, Rwanda, Ghana and Liberia - for their dedication to reform and prosperity. He also credited his own millennium development challenge with encouraging African states to fight corruption.
The president called on U.S. presidential candidates in both parties to make African development a priority.
Kenya poll crisis talks suspended
Talks to end post-election violence in Kenya have been suspended, former UN head and mediator Kofi Annan has said.
Mr Annan said that negotiations had become acrimonious and that the situation had become "very dangerous".
He also said he would speak to President Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga to find a way to move forward "much faster".
At least 1,500 people have been killed in ethnic and political violence since the disputed election, police say.
Mr Kibaki claimed victory in the 27 December election, but Mr Odinga said the poll was rigged.
The government and opposition are stalled on securing a power-sharing deal.
The opposition has threatened to stage protests across Kenya from Thursday if no deal is reached.
On Tuesday, the government said it was surprised that the talks had been suspended.
But a senior aide to Mr Annan suggested that government intransigence was to blame, the BBC's Adam Mynott reports from Nairobi.
PM post
"The talks have not broken down," Mr Annan said.
"But I am taking steps to make sure we accelerate the process and give peace to the people as soon as possible.
We will draw our own conclusions about who is responsible for lack of progress and take necessary steps Condoleezza Rice US Secretary of State
"The leaders have to assume their responsibilities and become directly engaged in these talks."
Earlier, Mr Annan had appealed to the leaders to help move the negotiations forward.
Both sides had agreed last week to create the post of prime minister, which would be taken by Mr Odinga, leading to hopes of a final deal soon.
However, they still needed to finalise which powers he would have.
The government now says the president should appoint the prime minister, which would not be an executive post.
As well as how to divide powers between a prime minister and a president, the rivals are also split on sharing cabinet positions and the possibility of a new election if the coalition collapses.
US warning
During a trip to China, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticised Kenyan parties for their lack of progress, saying she was disappointed by the "failure of leadership".
"The future of our relationship with both sides and their legitimacy hinges on their cooperation to achieve this political solution," she said.
"We will draw our own conclusions about who is responsible for lack of progress and take necessary steps."
Ms Rice visited Kenya last week in an effort to help broker a deal.
In Nairobi, government officials blamed the situation on false reports of deals reached during negotiations.
"We feel we are just being pushed and pushed and this is not fair," said government representative Mutula Kilonzo.
He said that he was confident there would be an agreement, but took issue with the statement issued by Ms Rice.
"This is a Kenyan issue and a Kenyan solution will be the one needed," Mr Kilonzo said.
Justice Minister Martha Karua said the dispute was over whether to entrench a power-sharing agreement in the constitution or just make statutory amendments.
But Musalia Mudavadi of Mr Odinga's Orange Democratic Movement said that from the beginning both parties had agreed that constitutional and legal amendments might be needed.
He said the opposition felt "extremely frustrated" after initially thinking it had made progress.
"We feel it can be done if there is a political will, but we see that lacking," Mr Mudavadi said.
Tanzanian President and African Union head Jakaya Kikwete was expected to arrive in Nairobi on Tuesday to try to salvage the talks.
Story from BBC NEWS:
Mr Annan said that negotiations had become acrimonious and that the situation had become "very dangerous".
He also said he would speak to President Mwai Kibaki and opposition leader Raila Odinga to find a way to move forward "much faster".
At least 1,500 people have been killed in ethnic and political violence since the disputed election, police say.
Mr Kibaki claimed victory in the 27 December election, but Mr Odinga said the poll was rigged.
The government and opposition are stalled on securing a power-sharing deal.
The opposition has threatened to stage protests across Kenya from Thursday if no deal is reached.
On Tuesday, the government said it was surprised that the talks had been suspended.
But a senior aide to Mr Annan suggested that government intransigence was to blame, the BBC's Adam Mynott reports from Nairobi.
PM post
"The talks have not broken down," Mr Annan said.
"But I am taking steps to make sure we accelerate the process and give peace to the people as soon as possible.
We will draw our own conclusions about who is responsible for lack of progress and take necessary steps Condoleezza Rice US Secretary of State
"The leaders have to assume their responsibilities and become directly engaged in these talks."
Earlier, Mr Annan had appealed to the leaders to help move the negotiations forward.
Both sides had agreed last week to create the post of prime minister, which would be taken by Mr Odinga, leading to hopes of a final deal soon.
However, they still needed to finalise which powers he would have.
The government now says the president should appoint the prime minister, which would not be an executive post.
As well as how to divide powers between a prime minister and a president, the rivals are also split on sharing cabinet positions and the possibility of a new election if the coalition collapses.
US warning
During a trip to China, US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice criticised Kenyan parties for their lack of progress, saying she was disappointed by the "failure of leadership".
"The future of our relationship with both sides and their legitimacy hinges on their cooperation to achieve this political solution," she said.
"We will draw our own conclusions about who is responsible for lack of progress and take necessary steps."
Ms Rice visited Kenya last week in an effort to help broker a deal.
In Nairobi, government officials blamed the situation on false reports of deals reached during negotiations.
"We feel we are just being pushed and pushed and this is not fair," said government representative Mutula Kilonzo.
He said that he was confident there would be an agreement, but took issue with the statement issued by Ms Rice.
"This is a Kenyan issue and a Kenyan solution will be the one needed," Mr Kilonzo said.
Justice Minister Martha Karua said the dispute was over whether to entrench a power-sharing agreement in the constitution or just make statutory amendments.
But Musalia Mudavadi of Mr Odinga's Orange Democratic Movement said that from the beginning both parties had agreed that constitutional and legal amendments might be needed.
He said the opposition felt "extremely frustrated" after initially thinking it had made progress.
"We feel it can be done if there is a political will, but we see that lacking," Mr Mudavadi said.
Tanzanian President and African Union head Jakaya Kikwete was expected to arrive in Nairobi on Tuesday to try to salvage the talks.
Story from BBC NEWS:
An African Story George W. Bush Missed
Mulugta Alemu
26 February 2008
In his one week long, second time itinerary in Africa, US president Gorge W. Bush toured Tanzania, Ghana, Benin, Rwanda and Liberia. His first presidential visit happened during his first tenure in 2003.
George W. Bush’s visit provides a good glimpse as much into the future of US’s strategic relationship with Africa as it does into US’s past imprints during Bush’s eventful eight years in the White House. It is not surprising that an American president whose tenure is so much tainted with myriads of not quite-glorious foreign policy decisions such as the war in Iraq, sought to use his African trip to remind both friends and foes, about the achievement’s of his ‘compassionate conservatism’ which has provided, among others, the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a more than 15 billion USD commitment towards eradication and treatment of diseases such as HIV/AIDs and malaria in the continent.
His carefully crafted schedule ensured that no opening is left which will invite a partisan attack in Washington. He has broadly called for solutions in Dartford and Kenya and applauded positive developments in countries which he has visited. Speculations erupted on his decisions leaving out some countries from his visits. For example, the Ethiopian diaspora opposition attempted to make a big deal out of the fact that Ethiopia was not included in Bush’s itinerary. Well big and important African countries such as Nigeria, South Africa were also not included in his visit. It can also not be said that the president only visited Africa’s model democracies. If that was the case, he would not have found himself in Kigali either.
George W. Bush’s visit has carefully ignored many of the countries that are strategically important for the US. The world’s hegemon needs the support of South Africa and Nigeria to aggressively promote its agenda in the continent. Ethiopia, Sub-Saharan Africa’s second most populous country, is the US’s vital partner in the Horn of Africa. More than 1500 US troops are based in Djibouti. More than 15 percent of US oil import comes from oil-producing African countries. Almost all of these countries are not included in the trip. As such it can generally be said that whether a country is included in the official visit can not be used as a bar for measuring the strategic weight of the country concerned.
But what we know is that a possible trip to Ethiopia would have garnered a fitting story to what Bush wanted to highlight. Ethiopia presents a case for how a responsible government can take best advantage of Western commitment to a national effort of eradication of poverty and diseases. Ethiopian economy is Africa’s fastest growing economy among non-oil producing countries. Ethiopia has a government which has already managed to decrease child mortality by over 40 percent in the last one decade. Educational enrolment for children has already leaped into 90 percent, compared to a meagre 40 percent in the early 90s. No other African country has invested so heavily in infrastructure from roads to IT. Ethiopia and Uganda present the two compelling anti-HIV/AIDs national campaigns that have reduced rate of infection, and provides better opportunity for treatment. Ethiopian villages have now schools, clinics, mills and roads. These investments have improved the lives of women and children in Ethiopia’s rural villages. In general, Ethiopian government is disciplined, pro-poor and clean.
On the political front, Ethiopia remains to be the only country struggling to entrench democracy in the Horn of Africa. As much as the post May 2005 elections violence rolled back some of its previous political gains, Ethiopia still has hundreds of opposition MPs in its federal parliament. Several state legislatures accommodate opposition representation. Almost all of the detained opposition party members are released. Despite hiccups, the private press is thriving and growing. The decision of the government to hold a free and fair district election in April 2008 is testament to its faith that democracy is the only viable modicum of governance for the future.
Of course there are some who don’t share such a positive assessment of developments in Ethiopia. Some have legitimate concerns and expectations whereas others such as very few members of the US House of Representatives have a clearly partisan, US-focused position on Ethiopia that is far removed from issues that are of concern to the Ethiopian people. If Bush had visited Ethiopia, he would have been subjected to an undeniable political ordeal in Washington from these very few congressmen. For long, many commentators have rightly pointed out how initiative masquerading as pro-democracy commitments abroad from some legislators are potentially alienating government who are genuinely committed for partnership with the US and its interest in promoting human rights in Africa. Ethiopia provides a stark example of an egregious shortcoming of such naïve policies.
.
26 February 2008
In his one week long, second time itinerary in Africa, US president Gorge W. Bush toured Tanzania, Ghana, Benin, Rwanda and Liberia. His first presidential visit happened during his first tenure in 2003.
George W. Bush’s visit provides a good glimpse as much into the future of US’s strategic relationship with Africa as it does into US’s past imprints during Bush’s eventful eight years in the White House. It is not surprising that an American president whose tenure is so much tainted with myriads of not quite-glorious foreign policy decisions such as the war in Iraq, sought to use his African trip to remind both friends and foes, about the achievement’s of his ‘compassionate conservatism’ which has provided, among others, the Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief, a more than 15 billion USD commitment towards eradication and treatment of diseases such as HIV/AIDs and malaria in the continent.
His carefully crafted schedule ensured that no opening is left which will invite a partisan attack in Washington. He has broadly called for solutions in Dartford and Kenya and applauded positive developments in countries which he has visited. Speculations erupted on his decisions leaving out some countries from his visits. For example, the Ethiopian diaspora opposition attempted to make a big deal out of the fact that Ethiopia was not included in Bush’s itinerary. Well big and important African countries such as Nigeria, South Africa were also not included in his visit. It can also not be said that the president only visited Africa’s model democracies. If that was the case, he would not have found himself in Kigali either.
George W. Bush’s visit has carefully ignored many of the countries that are strategically important for the US. The world’s hegemon needs the support of South Africa and Nigeria to aggressively promote its agenda in the continent. Ethiopia, Sub-Saharan Africa’s second most populous country, is the US’s vital partner in the Horn of Africa. More than 1500 US troops are based in Djibouti. More than 15 percent of US oil import comes from oil-producing African countries. Almost all of these countries are not included in the trip. As such it can generally be said that whether a country is included in the official visit can not be used as a bar for measuring the strategic weight of the country concerned.
But what we know is that a possible trip to Ethiopia would have garnered a fitting story to what Bush wanted to highlight. Ethiopia presents a case for how a responsible government can take best advantage of Western commitment to a national effort of eradication of poverty and diseases. Ethiopian economy is Africa’s fastest growing economy among non-oil producing countries. Ethiopia has a government which has already managed to decrease child mortality by over 40 percent in the last one decade. Educational enrolment for children has already leaped into 90 percent, compared to a meagre 40 percent in the early 90s. No other African country has invested so heavily in infrastructure from roads to IT. Ethiopia and Uganda present the two compelling anti-HIV/AIDs national campaigns that have reduced rate of infection, and provides better opportunity for treatment. Ethiopian villages have now schools, clinics, mills and roads. These investments have improved the lives of women and children in Ethiopia’s rural villages. In general, Ethiopian government is disciplined, pro-poor and clean.
On the political front, Ethiopia remains to be the only country struggling to entrench democracy in the Horn of Africa. As much as the post May 2005 elections violence rolled back some of its previous political gains, Ethiopia still has hundreds of opposition MPs in its federal parliament. Several state legislatures accommodate opposition representation. Almost all of the detained opposition party members are released. Despite hiccups, the private press is thriving and growing. The decision of the government to hold a free and fair district election in April 2008 is testament to its faith that democracy is the only viable modicum of governance for the future.
Of course there are some who don’t share such a positive assessment of developments in Ethiopia. Some have legitimate concerns and expectations whereas others such as very few members of the US House of Representatives have a clearly partisan, US-focused position on Ethiopia that is far removed from issues that are of concern to the Ethiopian people. If Bush had visited Ethiopia, he would have been subjected to an undeniable political ordeal in Washington from these very few congressmen. For long, many commentators have rightly pointed out how initiative masquerading as pro-democracy commitments abroad from some legislators are potentially alienating government who are genuinely committed for partnership with the US and its interest in promoting human rights in Africa. Ethiopia provides a stark example of an egregious shortcoming of such naïve policies.
.
Bond Between Ethiopians, African Americans Examined
By: NATALIE CONE
Posted: 2/26/08On Monday night, a bus full of New York Abyssinian Baptist Church members drove to Washington, D.C. to join the Ethiopian community to honor the church and its pastor, the Rev. Dr. Calvin Butts III. The event, which was hosted at the Ethiopian embassy, was also intended to celebrate Black History Month and to strengthen the historical and spiritual connections between the Ethiopian and African-American communities. "During slavery, African Americans always looked at Ethiopia as a place that represented freedom, black culture, history and religion," said Princeton University professor Ephraim Isaac, who spoke at the event. "It inspired the fight against discrimination and religion. When slaves were told they were inferior, they were animals or subhuman, they would think of Ethiopia." Isaacs, who is also the founder of the African-American studies department at Harvard, quoted Langston Hughes' poem, "The Call of Ethiopia." The poem addressed the freedom of not only Ethiopia, but also the entire African continent. Sociology professor Alem Habtu of CUNY Queens College described how, as an international student from Ethiopia, he learned from African Americans during the civil rights movement. Habtu, along with some peers, took over the Ethiopian embassy in protest of issues concerning their country after hearing Stokely Carmichael and members of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) speak.The guests included members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), and the ambassador of Ethiopia, Samuel Assefa. Robert Wallace, CEO of Birthgroup Technologies, said he plans to build orphanages for children whose parents died of AIDS/HIV. Gary Flowers, executive director and CEO of the Black Leadership Forum, addressed the need to get back to the root of black culture. "I am, because we are; and because we are, I am," Flowers said. "There is no individual advancement without group advancement."The director of communications for Ambassador Al Rutherford said the program is the first of many that will recognize the connection between the two cultures.The evening ended with the honoring of Butts, as he was presented with a piece of artwork by a famous Ethiopian painter.His long-term goal is to use the church's developmental corporation to build housing and educational facilities in Ethiopia. "We can not be chauvinistic about our connection to Ethiopia and cannot deny what needs to happen," said Butts.
Posted: 2/26/08On Monday night, a bus full of New York Abyssinian Baptist Church members drove to Washington, D.C. to join the Ethiopian community to honor the church and its pastor, the Rev. Dr. Calvin Butts III. The event, which was hosted at the Ethiopian embassy, was also intended to celebrate Black History Month and to strengthen the historical and spiritual connections between the Ethiopian and African-American communities. "During slavery, African Americans always looked at Ethiopia as a place that represented freedom, black culture, history and religion," said Princeton University professor Ephraim Isaac, who spoke at the event. "It inspired the fight against discrimination and religion. When slaves were told they were inferior, they were animals or subhuman, they would think of Ethiopia." Isaacs, who is also the founder of the African-American studies department at Harvard, quoted Langston Hughes' poem, "The Call of Ethiopia." The poem addressed the freedom of not only Ethiopia, but also the entire African continent. Sociology professor Alem Habtu of CUNY Queens College described how, as an international student from Ethiopia, he learned from African Americans during the civil rights movement. Habtu, along with some peers, took over the Ethiopian embassy in protest of issues concerning their country after hearing Stokely Carmichael and members of the Student Nonviolent Coordinating Committee (SNCC) speak.The guests included members of the Congressional Black Caucus (CBC), and the ambassador of Ethiopia, Samuel Assefa. Robert Wallace, CEO of Birthgroup Technologies, said he plans to build orphanages for children whose parents died of AIDS/HIV. Gary Flowers, executive director and CEO of the Black Leadership Forum, addressed the need to get back to the root of black culture. "I am, because we are; and because we are, I am," Flowers said. "There is no individual advancement without group advancement."The director of communications for Ambassador Al Rutherford said the program is the first of many that will recognize the connection between the two cultures.The evening ended with the honoring of Butts, as he was presented with a piece of artwork by a famous Ethiopian painter.His long-term goal is to use the church's developmental corporation to build housing and educational facilities in Ethiopia. "We can not be chauvinistic about our connection to Ethiopia and cannot deny what needs to happen," said Butts.
Monday, February 25, 2008
US Downplays Talk of Sudan Breakthrough
By David Gollust State Department25 February 2008
The State Department Monday downplayed talk of an early normalization of U.S. relations with Sudan despite an assertion by the country's foreign minister that full ties would be restored within six months. President Bush's new envoy for Sudan, Richard Williamson is paying his first visit to Sudan. VOA's David Gollust reports from the State Department.
The State Department appears to be ruling out quick action on restoring full ties with Sudan, despite a comment by the country's foreign minister Monday that this would occur within four to six months.
Sudanese Foreign Minister Deng Alor (R) welcomes new US special envoy for Sudan Richard Williamson (L) upon his arrival for a meeting in Khartoum, 25 Feb 2008Sudanese Foreign Minister Deng Alor was quoted Monday, after meeting with U.S. envoy Williamson, as saying there was a timetable for normalizing ties that would include returning a U.S. ambassador in Khartoum, the lifting of at least some American sanctions, and removing the country from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism.
However, State Department Deputy Spokesman Tom Casey told reporters the notion of a normalization deal is incorrect. He said for the upgrade in relations to occur, the Khartoum government would have to meet long-standing Darfur-related conditions, including allowing the full deployment of a new hybrid U.N. and African Union peacekeeping force there.
"We expect for there to really be progress in our bilateral relations with Sudan that Sudan would remove the existing obstacles, and cooperate fully with the deployment of the UNAMID force, the combined AU and the U.N. hybrid force, and that they'd also take the kinds of concrete steps to halt violence by the Janjaweed and others in Darfur," he said. "That's been set out, that's been a part of our policy for a long time."
Ambassador Williamson, a former envoy to the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva, met the Sudanese foreign minister Monday as he began his first trip to the region since taking over for former U.S. Sudan envoy Andrew Natsios, who resigned at the end of last year.
Williamson described his meeting with the Sudanese minister as businesslike and pragmatic and said his mission is to advance peace in Darfur as well as cementing Sudan's north-south peace accord.
He said progress cannot just be in lofty rhetoric but deliverable specifics on the ground.
U.S. officials say that despite expressions of good intentions, Sudan has been stalling on deployment of Darfur peacekeepers and on cracking down against the Janjaweed, Arab militiamen blamed for much of the Darfur violence.
Only about one-third of what is to be a 27,000-member international force has thus far been allowed into the troubled western Sudanese region.
Casey said Williamson would discuss Darfur with various Sudanese officials, U.N. representatives, and non-governmental groups in Khartoum, and visit Darfur and southern Sudan later this week.
The State Department Monday downplayed talk of an early normalization of U.S. relations with Sudan despite an assertion by the country's foreign minister that full ties would be restored within six months. President Bush's new envoy for Sudan, Richard Williamson is paying his first visit to Sudan. VOA's David Gollust reports from the State Department.
The State Department appears to be ruling out quick action on restoring full ties with Sudan, despite a comment by the country's foreign minister Monday that this would occur within four to six months.
Sudanese Foreign Minister Deng Alor (R) welcomes new US special envoy for Sudan Richard Williamson (L) upon his arrival for a meeting in Khartoum, 25 Feb 2008Sudanese Foreign Minister Deng Alor was quoted Monday, after meeting with U.S. envoy Williamson, as saying there was a timetable for normalizing ties that would include returning a U.S. ambassador in Khartoum, the lifting of at least some American sanctions, and removing the country from the U.S. list of state sponsors of terrorism.
However, State Department Deputy Spokesman Tom Casey told reporters the notion of a normalization deal is incorrect. He said for the upgrade in relations to occur, the Khartoum government would have to meet long-standing Darfur-related conditions, including allowing the full deployment of a new hybrid U.N. and African Union peacekeeping force there.
"We expect for there to really be progress in our bilateral relations with Sudan that Sudan would remove the existing obstacles, and cooperate fully with the deployment of the UNAMID force, the combined AU and the U.N. hybrid force, and that they'd also take the kinds of concrete steps to halt violence by the Janjaweed and others in Darfur," he said. "That's been set out, that's been a part of our policy for a long time."
Ambassador Williamson, a former envoy to the U.N. Human Rights Commission in Geneva, met the Sudanese foreign minister Monday as he began his first trip to the region since taking over for former U.S. Sudan envoy Andrew Natsios, who resigned at the end of last year.
Williamson described his meeting with the Sudanese minister as businesslike and pragmatic and said his mission is to advance peace in Darfur as well as cementing Sudan's north-south peace accord.
He said progress cannot just be in lofty rhetoric but deliverable specifics on the ground.
U.S. officials say that despite expressions of good intentions, Sudan has been stalling on deployment of Darfur peacekeepers and on cracking down against the Janjaweed, Arab militiamen blamed for much of the Darfur violence.
Only about one-third of what is to be a 27,000-member international force has thus far been allowed into the troubled western Sudanese region.
Casey said Williamson would discuss Darfur with various Sudanese officials, U.N. representatives, and non-governmental groups in Khartoum, and visit Darfur and southern Sudan later this week.
Egypt starts controversial gas exports to Israel
CAIRO (AFP) — Egypt has started exporting gas to Israel in accordance with a 2005 deal, an Israeli source told AFP on Monday, with the move set to irk the country's powerful Islamist opposition.
"Egyptian gas has been flowing to Israel since last week but it has not yet been integrated into the Israeli network for procedural reasons," the source said, adding that the pipeline would be fully integrated "in a few days."
The new underwater pipeline runs 100 kilometres (63 miles) from the Egyptian Mediterranean city of El-Arish to the Israeli port of Ashkelon, supplying gas pumped from a gasfield in the north of the Sinai peninsula.
The Egyptian side has remained virtually silent on its progress since a memorandum of understanding was signed in 2005.
The MOA provided for the export by an Egyptian-Israeli consortium, East Mediterranean Gas (EMG), of 1.7 billion cubic metres (60 billion cubic feet) of gas a year over 15 years for a total of 2.5 billion dollars.
Egypt in 1979 became the first Arab country to sign a peace deal with the Jewish state, but since then the nation has refused "normalisation" of relations until Israel hands back occupied Arab lands.
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood opposition, which controls a fifth of seats in parliament, is opposed to exporting gas to Israel because of what it calls the country's punishing blockade of 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
Brotherhood MPs have said that the Egyptian government is committing a "crime" against the Palestinian people by supplying Israel with gas.
Shareholders in the Cairo-based EMG include Egyptian businessman Hussein Salem and Yossi Maiman, who heads the Israeli multinational Merhav.
Another gas supply contract was signed in 2006 between Israel's Dorad Energy and EMG, worth two billion dollars over 15 to 20 years. Dorad is due to complete Israel's first private power generator in Ashkelon by the end of 2009.
Egypt's national gas production in 2007 was 62 billion cubic metres (2,135 billion cubic feet), according to the oil ministry, of which 28.8 percent was exported.
"Egyptian gas has been flowing to Israel since last week but it has not yet been integrated into the Israeli network for procedural reasons," the source said, adding that the pipeline would be fully integrated "in a few days."
The new underwater pipeline runs 100 kilometres (63 miles) from the Egyptian Mediterranean city of El-Arish to the Israeli port of Ashkelon, supplying gas pumped from a gasfield in the north of the Sinai peninsula.
The Egyptian side has remained virtually silent on its progress since a memorandum of understanding was signed in 2005.
The MOA provided for the export by an Egyptian-Israeli consortium, East Mediterranean Gas (EMG), of 1.7 billion cubic metres (60 billion cubic feet) of gas a year over 15 years for a total of 2.5 billion dollars.
Egypt in 1979 became the first Arab country to sign a peace deal with the Jewish state, but since then the nation has refused "normalisation" of relations until Israel hands back occupied Arab lands.
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood opposition, which controls a fifth of seats in parliament, is opposed to exporting gas to Israel because of what it calls the country's punishing blockade of 1.5 million Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.
Brotherhood MPs have said that the Egyptian government is committing a "crime" against the Palestinian people by supplying Israel with gas.
Shareholders in the Cairo-based EMG include Egyptian businessman Hussein Salem and Yossi Maiman, who heads the Israeli multinational Merhav.
Another gas supply contract was signed in 2006 between Israel's Dorad Energy and EMG, worth two billion dollars over 15 to 20 years. Dorad is due to complete Israel's first private power generator in Ashkelon by the end of 2009.
Egypt's national gas production in 2007 was 62 billion cubic metres (2,135 billion cubic feet), according to the oil ministry, of which 28.8 percent was exported.
Ethiopia's Saafi to Double Camel Exports to Egypt, ENA Says
By Jason McLure
Feb. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Ethiopia's Saafi Trading and Agro- Industry Plc will double camel exports to Egypt to 20,000 this year, the Ethiopian News Agency said.
The value of the contract will be $6 million, the Addis Ababa-based news agency said, citing Mohammed Mohammed, Saafi's general manager.
Ethiopian livestock exporters face competition from ``contraband traders'' from neighboring countries, who smuggle camels and cattle out of Ethiopia, driving up the price of meat in local markets and harming registered exporters, the ENA said.
Ethiopia has the largest livestock population in Africa, according to the International Livestock Research Institute. The country exported $52.3 million in livestock in 2006-2007, up 15 percent from a year earlier, according to data from the Ethiopian Customs Agency.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jason McLure in Addis Ababa via the Johannesburg bureau at abolleurs@bloomberg.net .
Feb. 25 (Bloomberg) -- Ethiopia's Saafi Trading and Agro- Industry Plc will double camel exports to Egypt to 20,000 this year, the Ethiopian News Agency said.
The value of the contract will be $6 million, the Addis Ababa-based news agency said, citing Mohammed Mohammed, Saafi's general manager.
Ethiopian livestock exporters face competition from ``contraband traders'' from neighboring countries, who smuggle camels and cattle out of Ethiopia, driving up the price of meat in local markets and harming registered exporters, the ENA said.
Ethiopia has the largest livestock population in Africa, according to the International Livestock Research Institute. The country exported $52.3 million in livestock in 2006-2007, up 15 percent from a year earlier, according to data from the Ethiopian Customs Agency.
To contact the reporter on this story: Jason McLure in Addis Ababa via the Johannesburg bureau at abolleurs@bloomberg.net .
Somali town overrun by Islamists
Somali Islamists seized control of a southern town on Sunday, killing nine government troops.
The rebels, armed with rocket launchers and machine guns, voluntarily retreated after three hours, said a police officer in Dinsoor, Mohamed Ahmadey.
He said the town had been under "no-one's control" since the incident, in which eight soldiers were wounded.
For more than a year, government forces backed by Ethiopian troops have struggled to assert control in Somalia.
The capital, Mogadishu, has often been the focus of the fighting between the government forces and the Islamists they ousted from power.
But the incident on Sunday shows the Islamists are increasing their attacks outside Mogadishu, says the BBC's Mohamed Olad Hassan in Somalia.
A spokesman for the Islamists' Shahab youth wing, Sheikh Muktar Ali Robow, told local radio that he was leading the rebel unit that seized the town.
"Our troops moved into the town to dismiss bandits under the cloak of Somalia's honourable army. We defeated those, burned three of their military vehicles and seized two others,” he said.
“We spoke to the town's residents in public and told them that we were not in a position to harm any one and ordered them to maintain their ordinary activities, and later withdrew from the town,” he said.
Residents of the town confirmed the incident, but there has been no comment yet from any senior government official.
The rebels, armed with rocket launchers and machine guns, voluntarily retreated after three hours, said a police officer in Dinsoor, Mohamed Ahmadey.
He said the town had been under "no-one's control" since the incident, in which eight soldiers were wounded.
For more than a year, government forces backed by Ethiopian troops have struggled to assert control in Somalia.
The capital, Mogadishu, has often been the focus of the fighting between the government forces and the Islamists they ousted from power.
But the incident on Sunday shows the Islamists are increasing their attacks outside Mogadishu, says the BBC's Mohamed Olad Hassan in Somalia.
A spokesman for the Islamists' Shahab youth wing, Sheikh Muktar Ali Robow, told local radio that he was leading the rebel unit that seized the town.
"Our troops moved into the town to dismiss bandits under the cloak of Somalia's honourable army. We defeated those, burned three of their military vehicles and seized two others,” he said.
“We spoke to the town's residents in public and told them that we were not in a position to harm any one and ordered them to maintain their ordinary activities, and later withdrew from the town,” he said.
Residents of the town confirmed the incident, but there has been no comment yet from any senior government official.
Sunday, February 24, 2008
Somalia: Ethiopia Troops Arrive in Central Region, Fighting Rocks in Afgoi
Shabelle Media Network (Mogadishu)NEWS22 February 2008 Posted to the web 22 February 2008
Hundreds of Ethiopian troops with more than 25 vehicles have reached in Dhuso-mareb district of Galgadud region central Somalia on Friday witnesses said.
The soldiers left there have pulled out from Hiran region and made passage in Guri-el ward towards Dhuso mareb.
GA_googleFillSlot("AllAfrica_Other_Inset");
Dhuso-mareb Residents have acknowledged that the soldiers have packed up amillitary camp called "21 military campground" although its unidentified the motive behind the troop's arrival in that neighborhood.
No comments were available from Galgadud region authorities on the Ethiopian troop's arrival in Dhuso-mareb district.
Else where deadly fighting occurs in IDP"S haven area in Afgoi district following a land ownership dispute between the internally displaced people.
One civilian died in that fighting which exceptionally occurred in IDP's camp called Howlwadag where the two fought sides used in the clash light rifles.
That brief clash with in the IDP's caused that the refugees to displace for a second time from their new thought safe havens after they have originally fled from the bloodshed battles in the capital.
The situation of the battled area is reportedly tranquil and the the Government troops in Lower Shabelle region arrived at the scene.
Hundreds of Ethiopian troops with more than 25 vehicles have reached in Dhuso-mareb district of Galgadud region central Somalia on Friday witnesses said.
The soldiers left there have pulled out from Hiran region and made passage in Guri-el ward towards Dhuso mareb.
GA_googleFillSlot("AllAfrica_Other_Inset");
Dhuso-mareb Residents have acknowledged that the soldiers have packed up amillitary camp called "21 military campground" although its unidentified the motive behind the troop's arrival in that neighborhood.
No comments were available from Galgadud region authorities on the Ethiopian troop's arrival in Dhuso-mareb district.
Else where deadly fighting occurs in IDP"S haven area in Afgoi district following a land ownership dispute between the internally displaced people.
One civilian died in that fighting which exceptionally occurred in IDP's camp called Howlwadag where the two fought sides used in the clash light rifles.
That brief clash with in the IDP's caused that the refugees to displace for a second time from their new thought safe havens after they have originally fled from the bloodshed battles in the capital.
The situation of the battled area is reportedly tranquil and the the Government troops in Lower Shabelle region arrived at the scene.
Revealed: Secrets of talks with Rice
Story by BERNARD NAMUNANE Publication Date: 2/24/2008
The secret details of the high-level meetings US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice held with President Kibaki and ODM leader Raila Odinga in her few hours of diplomacy in Nairobi can be revealed today.
US Secretary of State, Condoleezza RiceDr Rice was once described as a “young lady who exhibited something very special” in 1986 when she served as an intern with the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. The fast pace of the talks in the past week can now be attributed to her one-day shuttle diplomacy last Monday.
The top US diplomat who was dispatched by President Bush to Kenya with the stern message that there must be an end to violence and that the PNU and ODM must share power to end the political crisis is reported by those who attended the closed-door sessions to have as easily navigated the issues on Monday as she did her difficult piano pieces as a girl and the tortuous field of Soviet military affairs as a junior female analyst.
In preparation for meeting her, it is understood that both parties burnt the midnight oil to prepare convincing arguments that their side was blameless in the violence, lawlessness and uncertainty that have convulsed much of the country since the results of the presidential election were announced on December 30.
Election results
What they did not know was that the diplomat had carried with her the details of the election results, the reports of domestic and international observers and the allegations that both parties had tabled.
On the basis of the information gathered since the disputed elections, Dr Rice is said to have delivered to President Kibaki and his team on the one side and to ODM leader Raila Odinga and his group on the other a three-fold message laying out the concerns of the United States and the international community.
First was the fear that instability in Kenya was likely to affect the entire region, including countries in eastern, central, and southern Africa as well as those in the Horn. Their concern ran the gamut of political stability, economic development, relations with other nations of the world and the search for democracy.
The second item in her message centred on the violence that had been well-documented by the media. Dr Rice is said to have urged the two sides to take steps to ensure that violence doesn’t engulf the entire country because, once it does, it would be difficult to stop.
She was categorical that the international community was not ready to allow the violence in Kenya to spiral out of control and risk a Rwanda-like situation in which hundreds of thousands were killed in 100 days. She is said to have made it clear that the two sides “must fix the violence,” which is why chief mediator Kofi Annan has been insistent that he will not leave Kenya until a political solution has been reached.
The third issue was based purely on Washington’s concern over international terrorism. It is understood Dr Rice told the two sides that the US believed that should political instability take hold in Kenya, then terrorism would have found a new home.
She is said to have argued that whenever security becomes endangered, civilians tended to buy a lot of guns, something that would make it difficult to tell a terrorist from a person fighting for a political cause or a tribal war.
Dr Rice reminded the government and ODM of America’s war on terror and the suspected Al Qaeda activities in the neighbouring Somalia which is struggling to establish a central government after 17 years of civil war.
Sources who attended the top-level diplomatic meetings revealed that Dr Rice insisted that Kenya must quickly stop the slide into the abyss and return to the democratic path as a stable, secure country.
She summed this up in her address after the closed-door meetings: “The international community is engaged; they are engaged because of their friendship for Kenya and they are here because of their solidarity with the Kenyan people, and we’re all working together to ensure that we get the right results and that Kenya becomes a stable, prosperous country and the haven it has been in this region for all the countries.”
To achieve the stability, she urged the two sides to forget about the question of who was the winner or the loser and work together under a grand coalition.
“We came in to join Kofi Annan, who is here on behalf of the African Union and the international community, to help the leadership and Kenyans to end the political crisis. There needs to be a coalition and sharing of responsibility in the governing of this country.” she said.
When she arrived on Monday morning, she first went to the Serena Hotel where Mr Annan and his team that includes former Tanzanian President Benjamin Mkapa and former South African First Lady Graca Machel are based.
They briefed her on the issues, the mediation status and the hurdles that needed to be overcome before a political settlement could be reached.
From the hotel, she was driven to Harambee House to meet President Kibaki. Apparently, he and his team on national reconciliation led by Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka had held several sessions in preparation for the meeting.
It is understood that they had agreed on the legal positions and the rich history of how election disputes have been resolved that they were to present to Dr Rice.
The meeting took two hours, and it is understood that President Kibaki was the first to speak, summarising the issues that he believed showed clearly that he was the winner and that ODM was using violence to support their claim to power.
It was then that he invited Mbooni MP Mutula Kilonzo to take Dr Rice through their presentation which contained arguments pushing for ODM to assume the Opposition and that should power-sharing be the option, he explained the impossibility of immediately creating the position of executive prime minister.
Sources said Mr Kilonzo went into election disputes around the world, some drawn from US experience, to show a clear pattern of how they were solved. He was also said to have argued that ODM rigged the elections and had planned to use violence if necessary and that President Kibaki had shown readiness to share power by naming Mr Musyoka from ODM Kenya his VP.
It is understood that Dr Rice said that given the state of affairs in the country, it was the President’s duty to provide leadership by agreeing to share power with his rivals and prepare the ground for fresh elections.
The Kibaki team complained of what they called overbearing foreign involvement in the dispute in favour of ODM and stated they would not accept dictatorship.
This could explain why she said later: “What we hear is the insistence by the Kenyan people that the political crisis and the violence must come to an end. We are not dictating a solution to Kenyans.”
She then added: “We should, as one international community, observe certain standards that have been set. We object to the use of the word ‘dictate’. It is the Kenyan people who are insisting on an end to the crisis, and the international community is coming in to assist, to help.”
After the two-hour meeting with President Kibaki, she went to the residence of the US ambassador Michael Ranneberger in Muthaiga to meet the ODM team.
On its side, ODM had prepared a forensic audit of the votes to show how the final figures were altered at the Kenyatta International Conference Centre (KICC) to favour President Kibaki.
But when they arrived prepared to argue their case, Dr Rice reportedly made the task easier for them. She is understood to have said: “We have everything on the elections; let us not waste time on it.”
The meeting took one hour.
She was referring to election results announced by the ECK, reports of local and international observers and vote audits by each side.
The ODM leader Raila Odinga was the main speaker while the rest of the team chipped in to provide more details on the disputed election results.
Sources close to the meeting said the ODM team argued that a re-run of the presidential election was necessary to restore tespect for democracy in the country and clear the air over who the clear victor was.
But it is said Dr Rice replied that the environment was not yet conducive for an election and urged them to consider the sharing of power as the solution to the crisis.
She said it was no longer important to know who was the winner and the loser because of the damage that it had cost the country in terms of instability and the scale of violence.
Dr Rice made it clear that a grand coalition was necessary, that no obstacles should block the sharing of power and that the country should not rush into another election.
This position trumped the second ODM argument hat they were ready to enter into a coalition with PNU on condition that an election be held after two years.
In fact, it is said that Dr Rice insisted that the grand coalition should last long enough—five years—to enable those involved in the conflict to carry out the necessary constitutional, legal and judicial reforms that would seal the loopholes that led to the disputed poll results. Priority would be given to comprehensive review of the Constitution.
This, it is understood, was to ensure that the country took advantage of the disputed elections to enact reforms that would return it to the democratic path.
She alluded to this at her press conference: “Sometimes when there is a crisis, use it to put the country to a firmer footing. That is the message I passed on to all parties (PNU and ODM),” she said
The secret details of the high-level meetings US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice held with President Kibaki and ODM leader Raila Odinga in her few hours of diplomacy in Nairobi can be revealed today.
US Secretary of State, Condoleezza RiceDr Rice was once described as a “young lady who exhibited something very special” in 1986 when she served as an intern with the US Joint Chiefs of Staff. The fast pace of the talks in the past week can now be attributed to her one-day shuttle diplomacy last Monday.
The top US diplomat who was dispatched by President Bush to Kenya with the stern message that there must be an end to violence and that the PNU and ODM must share power to end the political crisis is reported by those who attended the closed-door sessions to have as easily navigated the issues on Monday as she did her difficult piano pieces as a girl and the tortuous field of Soviet military affairs as a junior female analyst.
In preparation for meeting her, it is understood that both parties burnt the midnight oil to prepare convincing arguments that their side was blameless in the violence, lawlessness and uncertainty that have convulsed much of the country since the results of the presidential election were announced on December 30.
Election results
What they did not know was that the diplomat had carried with her the details of the election results, the reports of domestic and international observers and the allegations that both parties had tabled.
On the basis of the information gathered since the disputed elections, Dr Rice is said to have delivered to President Kibaki and his team on the one side and to ODM leader Raila Odinga and his group on the other a three-fold message laying out the concerns of the United States and the international community.
First was the fear that instability in Kenya was likely to affect the entire region, including countries in eastern, central, and southern Africa as well as those in the Horn. Their concern ran the gamut of political stability, economic development, relations with other nations of the world and the search for democracy.
The second item in her message centred on the violence that had been well-documented by the media. Dr Rice is said to have urged the two sides to take steps to ensure that violence doesn’t engulf the entire country because, once it does, it would be difficult to stop.
She was categorical that the international community was not ready to allow the violence in Kenya to spiral out of control and risk a Rwanda-like situation in which hundreds of thousands were killed in 100 days. She is said to have made it clear that the two sides “must fix the violence,” which is why chief mediator Kofi Annan has been insistent that he will not leave Kenya until a political solution has been reached.
The third issue was based purely on Washington’s concern over international terrorism. It is understood Dr Rice told the two sides that the US believed that should political instability take hold in Kenya, then terrorism would have found a new home.
She is said to have argued that whenever security becomes endangered, civilians tended to buy a lot of guns, something that would make it difficult to tell a terrorist from a person fighting for a political cause or a tribal war.
Dr Rice reminded the government and ODM of America’s war on terror and the suspected Al Qaeda activities in the neighbouring Somalia which is struggling to establish a central government after 17 years of civil war.
Sources who attended the top-level diplomatic meetings revealed that Dr Rice insisted that Kenya must quickly stop the slide into the abyss and return to the democratic path as a stable, secure country.
She summed this up in her address after the closed-door meetings: “The international community is engaged; they are engaged because of their friendship for Kenya and they are here because of their solidarity with the Kenyan people, and we’re all working together to ensure that we get the right results and that Kenya becomes a stable, prosperous country and the haven it has been in this region for all the countries.”
To achieve the stability, she urged the two sides to forget about the question of who was the winner or the loser and work together under a grand coalition.
“We came in to join Kofi Annan, who is here on behalf of the African Union and the international community, to help the leadership and Kenyans to end the political crisis. There needs to be a coalition and sharing of responsibility in the governing of this country.” she said.
When she arrived on Monday morning, she first went to the Serena Hotel where Mr Annan and his team that includes former Tanzanian President Benjamin Mkapa and former South African First Lady Graca Machel are based.
They briefed her on the issues, the mediation status and the hurdles that needed to be overcome before a political settlement could be reached.
From the hotel, she was driven to Harambee House to meet President Kibaki. Apparently, he and his team on national reconciliation led by Vice-President Kalonzo Musyoka had held several sessions in preparation for the meeting.
It is understood that they had agreed on the legal positions and the rich history of how election disputes have been resolved that they were to present to Dr Rice.
The meeting took two hours, and it is understood that President Kibaki was the first to speak, summarising the issues that he believed showed clearly that he was the winner and that ODM was using violence to support their claim to power.
It was then that he invited Mbooni MP Mutula Kilonzo to take Dr Rice through their presentation which contained arguments pushing for ODM to assume the Opposition and that should power-sharing be the option, he explained the impossibility of immediately creating the position of executive prime minister.
Sources said Mr Kilonzo went into election disputes around the world, some drawn from US experience, to show a clear pattern of how they were solved. He was also said to have argued that ODM rigged the elections and had planned to use violence if necessary and that President Kibaki had shown readiness to share power by naming Mr Musyoka from ODM Kenya his VP.
It is understood that Dr Rice said that given the state of affairs in the country, it was the President’s duty to provide leadership by agreeing to share power with his rivals and prepare the ground for fresh elections.
The Kibaki team complained of what they called overbearing foreign involvement in the dispute in favour of ODM and stated they would not accept dictatorship.
This could explain why she said later: “What we hear is the insistence by the Kenyan people that the political crisis and the violence must come to an end. We are not dictating a solution to Kenyans.”
She then added: “We should, as one international community, observe certain standards that have been set. We object to the use of the word ‘dictate’. It is the Kenyan people who are insisting on an end to the crisis, and the international community is coming in to assist, to help.”
After the two-hour meeting with President Kibaki, she went to the residence of the US ambassador Michael Ranneberger in Muthaiga to meet the ODM team.
On its side, ODM had prepared a forensic audit of the votes to show how the final figures were altered at the Kenyatta International Conference Centre (KICC) to favour President Kibaki.
But when they arrived prepared to argue their case, Dr Rice reportedly made the task easier for them. She is understood to have said: “We have everything on the elections; let us not waste time on it.”
The meeting took one hour.
She was referring to election results announced by the ECK, reports of local and international observers and vote audits by each side.
The ODM leader Raila Odinga was the main speaker while the rest of the team chipped in to provide more details on the disputed election results.
Sources close to the meeting said the ODM team argued that a re-run of the presidential election was necessary to restore tespect for democracy in the country and clear the air over who the clear victor was.
But it is said Dr Rice replied that the environment was not yet conducive for an election and urged them to consider the sharing of power as the solution to the crisis.
She said it was no longer important to know who was the winner and the loser because of the damage that it had cost the country in terms of instability and the scale of violence.
Dr Rice made it clear that a grand coalition was necessary, that no obstacles should block the sharing of power and that the country should not rush into another election.
This position trumped the second ODM argument hat they were ready to enter into a coalition with PNU on condition that an election be held after two years.
In fact, it is said that Dr Rice insisted that the grand coalition should last long enough—five years—to enable those involved in the conflict to carry out the necessary constitutional, legal and judicial reforms that would seal the loopholes that led to the disputed poll results. Priority would be given to comprehensive review of the Constitution.
This, it is understood, was to ensure that the country took advantage of the disputed elections to enact reforms that would return it to the democratic path.
She alluded to this at her press conference: “Sometimes when there is a crisis, use it to put the country to a firmer footing. That is the message I passed on to all parties (PNU and ODM),” she said
Syrian Oil minister: Egypt will begin exporting natural gas to Syria next month
The Associated Press
Saturday, February 23, 2008
DAMASCUS, Syria: Egypt will begin exporting natural gas to Syria next month after the third phase of the giant pipeline project was completed, Syrian Oil Minister Sufian Allaw said Saturday.
Allaw made his comments during a meeting of energy ministers from Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Turkey in Damascus dedicated to discuss the progress in the Arab Gas Pipeline Project.
The project was signed in 2001 to supply Egypt's natural gas to Jordan, Syria and Lebanon for 30 years. The first phase that links Egypt with the Jordanian Red Sea port of Aqaba was finished in 2003 while the second stage linking Aqaba with the town of Rihab north of the Jordanian capital of Amman was completed two years later.
The project's cost more than US$1.2 billion (€809 million) and it will eventually run from the Egyptian Mediterranean city of El-Arish city through Jordan and Syria to the Turkish border with a total length of 1,200 kilometers, (750 miles).
Allaw said it has been agreed that by March 21, 900 million cubic meters (31.5 billion cubic feet) of Egyptian gas will be pumped daily to Syria's Deir Ali power station in Syria in the first year. He added that it would eventually increase to 2 billion cubic meters (70 billion cubic feet).
Lebanon's acting Power and Hydraulic Resources Minister Mohammed al-Safadi said that a pipeline between Syria and Lebanon would be ready by the mid-2008.
Syria's oil production has declined from 600,000 barrels per day in 2000 to some 360,000 in 2006, and Damascus is trying to compensate by relying more heavily on natural gas.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
DAMASCUS, Syria: Egypt will begin exporting natural gas to Syria next month after the third phase of the giant pipeline project was completed, Syrian Oil Minister Sufian Allaw said Saturday.
Allaw made his comments during a meeting of energy ministers from Syria, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon and Turkey in Damascus dedicated to discuss the progress in the Arab Gas Pipeline Project.
The project was signed in 2001 to supply Egypt's natural gas to Jordan, Syria and Lebanon for 30 years. The first phase that links Egypt with the Jordanian Red Sea port of Aqaba was finished in 2003 while the second stage linking Aqaba with the town of Rihab north of the Jordanian capital of Amman was completed two years later.
The project's cost more than US$1.2 billion (€809 million) and it will eventually run from the Egyptian Mediterranean city of El-Arish city through Jordan and Syria to the Turkish border with a total length of 1,200 kilometers, (750 miles).
Allaw said it has been agreed that by March 21, 900 million cubic meters (31.5 billion cubic feet) of Egyptian gas will be pumped daily to Syria's Deir Ali power station in Syria in the first year. He added that it would eventually increase to 2 billion cubic meters (70 billion cubic feet).
Lebanon's acting Power and Hydraulic Resources Minister Mohammed al-Safadi said that a pipeline between Syria and Lebanon would be ready by the mid-2008.
Syria's oil production has declined from 600,000 barrels per day in 2000 to some 360,000 in 2006, and Damascus is trying to compensate by relying more heavily on natural gas.
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood Vows to Contest Local Elections
By Challiss McDonough Cairo21 February 2008
McDonough report - Download (MP3) McDonough report - Listen (MP3)
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood says it will participate in upcoming local elections despite a recent wave of arrests of its members. The banned but somewhat tolerated Islamist group says the crackdown is forcing it to change its strategy, and some candidates may keep their affiliation with the Brotherhood a secret in order to be allowed to run. VOA Correspondent Challiss McDonough has more from Cairo.
Mohammed Mahdi Akef, supreme leader of the Muslim Brotherhood (r) and his deputy Mohammed Habib (file photo)The leader of the influential Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, said the arrests will not keep the group from running in upcoming municipal elections.
He spoke to reporters in the Brotherhood's Cairo headquarters a day after police arrested more than 100 Brotherhood members in Cairo and five other provinces. He said the authorities appear to be arresting anyone who might make a good candidate.
He said the government "thinks this this will stop us from exercising our right to defend this good nation." But, he added, the Brotherhood has decided to participate in the elections.
Leaders of the group say more than 500 Muslim Brothers are currently in police custody, including those detained Wednesday. Akef said he expects that thousands of Brotherhood members will be arrested before local elections take place on April 8.
He says the approach of the security forces is causing the group to adjust in order to achieve its goals. He said in addition to its well-known candidates, the Brotherhood may also put forward candidates whose affiliation with the group has not been publicized. Muslim Brotherhood members run for office as independents.
The group's deputy leader, Mohammed Habib, called the crackdown "a ferocious campaign," saying security forces have raided the homes of Brotherhood members and closed down their businesses. He said the group will not be deterred.
He said running in local elections is the constitutional right of all citizens, including members of the Brotherhood.
He said the Egyptian people are angry about problems that plague Egypt, including rampant corruption, persistent poverty and deteriorating public services such as education and health care. He said the Brotherhood is trying to "save the ship of the nation from sinking," and he encouraged all Egyptians, regardless of their political leanings, to take part in the election. He said a large turnout could counter attempts to rig the vote.
The Muslim Brotherhood is officially banned in Egypt, but is tolerated to some extent. The group renounced violence in the 1970s.
The Brotherhood stunned the ruling party during legislative elections in 2005, winning 88 seats in the lower house of parliament and becoming the country's largest opposition bloc.
Local city council elections were originally scheduled for 2006, but the government postponed them for two years.
A set of controversial constitutional amendments adopted last year will make it harder for the Muslim Brotherhood to participate in future elections.
The city council elections have become more important because the constitutional changes now require any presidential candidate to have the backing of at least 140 municipal counselors.
McDonough report - Download (MP3) McDonough report - Listen (MP3)
Egypt's Muslim Brotherhood says it will participate in upcoming local elections despite a recent wave of arrests of its members. The banned but somewhat tolerated Islamist group says the crackdown is forcing it to change its strategy, and some candidates may keep their affiliation with the Brotherhood a secret in order to be allowed to run. VOA Correspondent Challiss McDonough has more from Cairo.
Mohammed Mahdi Akef, supreme leader of the Muslim Brotherhood (r) and his deputy Mohammed Habib (file photo)The leader of the influential Muslim Brotherhood, Mohammed Mahdi Akef, said the arrests will not keep the group from running in upcoming municipal elections.
He spoke to reporters in the Brotherhood's Cairo headquarters a day after police arrested more than 100 Brotherhood members in Cairo and five other provinces. He said the authorities appear to be arresting anyone who might make a good candidate.
He said the government "thinks this this will stop us from exercising our right to defend this good nation." But, he added, the Brotherhood has decided to participate in the elections.
Leaders of the group say more than 500 Muslim Brothers are currently in police custody, including those detained Wednesday. Akef said he expects that thousands of Brotherhood members will be arrested before local elections take place on April 8.
He says the approach of the security forces is causing the group to adjust in order to achieve its goals. He said in addition to its well-known candidates, the Brotherhood may also put forward candidates whose affiliation with the group has not been publicized. Muslim Brotherhood members run for office as independents.
The group's deputy leader, Mohammed Habib, called the crackdown "a ferocious campaign," saying security forces have raided the homes of Brotherhood members and closed down their businesses. He said the group will not be deterred.
He said running in local elections is the constitutional right of all citizens, including members of the Brotherhood.
He said the Egyptian people are angry about problems that plague Egypt, including rampant corruption, persistent poverty and deteriorating public services such as education and health care. He said the Brotherhood is trying to "save the ship of the nation from sinking," and he encouraged all Egyptians, regardless of their political leanings, to take part in the election. He said a large turnout could counter attempts to rig the vote.
The Muslim Brotherhood is officially banned in Egypt, but is tolerated to some extent. The group renounced violence in the 1970s.
The Brotherhood stunned the ruling party during legislative elections in 2005, winning 88 seats in the lower house of parliament and becoming the country's largest opposition bloc.
Local city council elections were originally scheduled for 2006, but the government postponed them for two years.
A set of controversial constitutional amendments adopted last year will make it harder for the Muslim Brotherhood to participate in future elections.
The city council elections have become more important because the constitutional changes now require any presidential candidate to have the backing of at least 140 municipal counselors.
Saturday, February 23, 2008
China, in New Role, Presses Sudan on Darfur
By LYDIA POLGREEN
KHARTOUM, Sudan — Amid the international outrage over the bloodshed in Darfur, frustration has increasingly turned toward China, Sudan’s biggest trading partner and international protector, culminating in Steven Spielberg’s decision last week to withdraw as artistic adviser to the Beijing Olympics.
And it may be working.
China has begun shifting its position on Darfur, stepping outside its diplomatic comfort zone to quietly push Sudan to accept the world’s largest peacekeeping force, diplomats and analysts say.
It has also acted publicly, sending engineers to help peacekeepers in Darfur and appointing a special envoy to the region who has toured refugee camps and pressed the Sudanese government to change its policies.
Few analysts expect China to walk away from its business ties to Sudan, but its willingness to take up the issue is a rare venture into something China swears it never does — meddle in the internal affairs of its trading partners.
“China in my view has been very cooperative,” said Andrew S. Natsios, the former special envoy of President Bush to Sudan. “The level of coordination and cooperation has been improving each month.”
For all of China’s billion-dollar oil contracts, multimillion-dollar arms shipments and Security Council veto protection of Sudan, the global power with the biggest influence over the country has scarcely a dime invested here, has no ambassador on Sudanese soil and has slapped progressively tougher sanctions on its government: the United States.
While conventional wisdom holds that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have sapped America’s prestige and power, especially in Muslim countries, the United States remains the gatekeeper to international respectability in the eyes of the Sudanese government, and its power to influence top officials here — through threats or inducements — remains unmatched, diplomats, Sudanese government officials and analysts say.
“Coming to some sort of agreement with the United States is the Holy Grail of Sudanese politics,” said a senior Western diplomat in Khartoum, who was not authorized to speak publicly. “No one has been able to deliver it.”
This holds true though Sudan is awash in investments from Asia and the gulf that would, in theory, allow the oil-rich but development-poor country to prosper more broadly than it has despite American opprobrium.
American approval and acceptance would transform Sudan in a way the billions of dollars from China, India, Malaysia, Iran and the gulf have been unable to: by opening the spigots of Western development aid and with it a deal to reduce its nearly $30 billion in external debt, along with technical assistance to manage the tide of money rushing in.
“We are receiving billions of dollars in foreign investment that we are not even prepared to absorb,” said Ali al-Sadig, a senior diplomat and Sudanese government spokesman who worked on the China desk of Sudan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs for many years. “We don’t have the capacity. We need Western expertise. Sudan wants, above all, a normal relationship with the United States and the West.” But the Bush administration seems divided on what to do about Darfur. On one hand, there is heavy pressure from advocacy groups, Congress and others to take a tough line with Sudan, stepping up sanctions and hammering the government over new attacks.
At the same time, because Sudan is a crucial ally of the United States in fighting terrorism, some in the administration argue that it cannot be allowed to become more isolated and further beyond the West’s orbit than it already is, diplomats and analysts say.
Sudan’s relationship with the West has been troubled ever since Omar al-Bashir seized power in 1989 and embraced militant Islam, playing host to a variety of jihadists, including Osama bin Laden. The relationship hit its lowest in 1998 when the Clinton administration bombed a Khartoum pharmaceutical factory it claimed was producing chemical weapons, though the allegation has never been proved.
After Sept. 11, Sudan reached out to the United States, realizing that it could find itself in the cross hairs of America’s military might just as Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and Iraq later did. The two countries have since cooperated on counterterrorism issues, even though Sudan remains on an American list of nations that sponsor terrorism.
Mr. Bush sent John C. Danforth, the former Missouri senator, to help negotiate a deal to end the civil war in southern Sudan that had lasted two decades and claimed two million lives.
Sudan had many reasons for wanting to end the war — its military was exhausted, and a stalemate was helping neither side — but the chance to improve relations with the United States was a big inducement for Sudan’s government.
Then “Darfur happened,” the diplomat said.
At first, the conflict in Darfur seemed a fly in the ointment, a distraction from the main work of securing peace between the north and south. But five years later, the Darfur crisis is undermining the peace agreement and threatens to tear Sudan apart.
More than 200,000 have died in Darfur, according to international estimates, and 2.5 million have been pushed into camps here and in Chad, sowing chaos in one of the world’s poorest regions. Sudan’s government says the toll has been greatly exaggerated.
The conflict has also inspired one of the largest protest movements in the United States since the battle to end apartheid in South Africa. China, with its vast commercial interests and sensitivity to criticism around the Olympics, presents a unique leverage point for this movement.
Like Mr. Spielberg, Mia Farrow, an actress and Darfur activist, has said China can do more, specifically by pushing for the full deployment of 27,000 peacekeeping troops in Darfur, supplying some of the helicopters needed for the mission and demanding an end to aerial bombardment of civilian areas.
But some diplomats and analysts argue that offering concessions, not demands — a chance to come off the state sponsor of terrorism list or easing sanctions — may offer the best opportunity to get Sudan’s government to strike a deal in Darfur.
There are grave risks to that strategy, not least of which is that Sudan’s government has a history of making agreements and not fully putting them in place.
“What this government responds to is pressure,” Jerry Fowler, executive director of the Save Darfur Coalition, said of Sudan’s leaders.
As a senior Western diplomat in Khartoum put it, the West’s stance on Sudan must be “mistrust but verify,” a twist on Reagan’s posture on the Soviet Union.
Furthermore, the Sudanese government is far from unanimous in its craving for international respectability. The small cadre who have ruled this country since the National Islamic Front seized power in a coup in 1989 have tried a variety of guises — radical Islamism, Arab nationalism and garden variety despotism — in their quest to hang on to power.
The relative moderates who were crucial to negotiating a deal with the south have been largely sidelined, and analysts and diplomats say that hard-liners in the military and elsewhere are increasingly less interested in Western ties.
As for China, analysts warn, there are limits to how far it will go. Olympics or no, China’s leadership simply has too much at stake in Sudan.
“Their political fortunes are tied to their ability to deliver a constant stream of economic goods at home,” said Christopher Alden, a senior lecturer at the London School of Economics who has studied China-Africa relations. “They can’t say, ‘O.K., we have sunk billions over the long term in Sudan and we are just going to walk away from it because of Darfur.’ It is just not going to happen.”
China, along with Iran, Russia and others, is still selling weapons to Sudan. While China says it is abiding by a United Nations embargo on sending weapons directly to Darfur, an analysis of shell casings and vehicles found in Darfur by a panel of United Nations experts found that Chinese weapons were making their way to Darfur.
Fractures among the rebel groups in Darfur and threats from Sudan’s neighbors, like Chad, may have more impact on the quest for peace than anything Washington or Beijing does.
Still, John Prendergast, a former Clinton administration official, advocate and writer on Sudan for two decades, said that China and the United States needed to be engaged.
“Unless China and the U.S. are both exerting much more pressure on Sudan, the crisis will continue to spiral out of control,” he said in an e-mail message. “China has unique economic leverage, while the U.S. retains leverage based on its ability to confer or withdraw legitimacy.”
KHARTOUM, Sudan — Amid the international outrage over the bloodshed in Darfur, frustration has increasingly turned toward China, Sudan’s biggest trading partner and international protector, culminating in Steven Spielberg’s decision last week to withdraw as artistic adviser to the Beijing Olympics.
And it may be working.
China has begun shifting its position on Darfur, stepping outside its diplomatic comfort zone to quietly push Sudan to accept the world’s largest peacekeeping force, diplomats and analysts say.
It has also acted publicly, sending engineers to help peacekeepers in Darfur and appointing a special envoy to the region who has toured refugee camps and pressed the Sudanese government to change its policies.
Few analysts expect China to walk away from its business ties to Sudan, but its willingness to take up the issue is a rare venture into something China swears it never does — meddle in the internal affairs of its trading partners.
“China in my view has been very cooperative,” said Andrew S. Natsios, the former special envoy of President Bush to Sudan. “The level of coordination and cooperation has been improving each month.”
For all of China’s billion-dollar oil contracts, multimillion-dollar arms shipments and Security Council veto protection of Sudan, the global power with the biggest influence over the country has scarcely a dime invested here, has no ambassador on Sudanese soil and has slapped progressively tougher sanctions on its government: the United States.
While conventional wisdom holds that the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have sapped America’s prestige and power, especially in Muslim countries, the United States remains the gatekeeper to international respectability in the eyes of the Sudanese government, and its power to influence top officials here — through threats or inducements — remains unmatched, diplomats, Sudanese government officials and analysts say.
“Coming to some sort of agreement with the United States is the Holy Grail of Sudanese politics,” said a senior Western diplomat in Khartoum, who was not authorized to speak publicly. “No one has been able to deliver it.”
This holds true though Sudan is awash in investments from Asia and the gulf that would, in theory, allow the oil-rich but development-poor country to prosper more broadly than it has despite American opprobrium.
American approval and acceptance would transform Sudan in a way the billions of dollars from China, India, Malaysia, Iran and the gulf have been unable to: by opening the spigots of Western development aid and with it a deal to reduce its nearly $30 billion in external debt, along with technical assistance to manage the tide of money rushing in.
“We are receiving billions of dollars in foreign investment that we are not even prepared to absorb,” said Ali al-Sadig, a senior diplomat and Sudanese government spokesman who worked on the China desk of Sudan’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs for many years. “We don’t have the capacity. We need Western expertise. Sudan wants, above all, a normal relationship with the United States and the West.” But the Bush administration seems divided on what to do about Darfur. On one hand, there is heavy pressure from advocacy groups, Congress and others to take a tough line with Sudan, stepping up sanctions and hammering the government over new attacks.
At the same time, because Sudan is a crucial ally of the United States in fighting terrorism, some in the administration argue that it cannot be allowed to become more isolated and further beyond the West’s orbit than it already is, diplomats and analysts say.
Sudan’s relationship with the West has been troubled ever since Omar al-Bashir seized power in 1989 and embraced militant Islam, playing host to a variety of jihadists, including Osama bin Laden. The relationship hit its lowest in 1998 when the Clinton administration bombed a Khartoum pharmaceutical factory it claimed was producing chemical weapons, though the allegation has never been proved.
After Sept. 11, Sudan reached out to the United States, realizing that it could find itself in the cross hairs of America’s military might just as Taliban-controlled Afghanistan and Iraq later did. The two countries have since cooperated on counterterrorism issues, even though Sudan remains on an American list of nations that sponsor terrorism.
Mr. Bush sent John C. Danforth, the former Missouri senator, to help negotiate a deal to end the civil war in southern Sudan that had lasted two decades and claimed two million lives.
Sudan had many reasons for wanting to end the war — its military was exhausted, and a stalemate was helping neither side — but the chance to improve relations with the United States was a big inducement for Sudan’s government.
Then “Darfur happened,” the diplomat said.
At first, the conflict in Darfur seemed a fly in the ointment, a distraction from the main work of securing peace between the north and south. But five years later, the Darfur crisis is undermining the peace agreement and threatens to tear Sudan apart.
More than 200,000 have died in Darfur, according to international estimates, and 2.5 million have been pushed into camps here and in Chad, sowing chaos in one of the world’s poorest regions. Sudan’s government says the toll has been greatly exaggerated.
The conflict has also inspired one of the largest protest movements in the United States since the battle to end apartheid in South Africa. China, with its vast commercial interests and sensitivity to criticism around the Olympics, presents a unique leverage point for this movement.
Like Mr. Spielberg, Mia Farrow, an actress and Darfur activist, has said China can do more, specifically by pushing for the full deployment of 27,000 peacekeeping troops in Darfur, supplying some of the helicopters needed for the mission and demanding an end to aerial bombardment of civilian areas.
But some diplomats and analysts argue that offering concessions, not demands — a chance to come off the state sponsor of terrorism list or easing sanctions — may offer the best opportunity to get Sudan’s government to strike a deal in Darfur.
There are grave risks to that strategy, not least of which is that Sudan’s government has a history of making agreements and not fully putting them in place.
“What this government responds to is pressure,” Jerry Fowler, executive director of the Save Darfur Coalition, said of Sudan’s leaders.
As a senior Western diplomat in Khartoum put it, the West’s stance on Sudan must be “mistrust but verify,” a twist on Reagan’s posture on the Soviet Union.
Furthermore, the Sudanese government is far from unanimous in its craving for international respectability. The small cadre who have ruled this country since the National Islamic Front seized power in a coup in 1989 have tried a variety of guises — radical Islamism, Arab nationalism and garden variety despotism — in their quest to hang on to power.
The relative moderates who were crucial to negotiating a deal with the south have been largely sidelined, and analysts and diplomats say that hard-liners in the military and elsewhere are increasingly less interested in Western ties.
As for China, analysts warn, there are limits to how far it will go. Olympics or no, China’s leadership simply has too much at stake in Sudan.
“Their political fortunes are tied to their ability to deliver a constant stream of economic goods at home,” said Christopher Alden, a senior lecturer at the London School of Economics who has studied China-Africa relations. “They can’t say, ‘O.K., we have sunk billions over the long term in Sudan and we are just going to walk away from it because of Darfur.’ It is just not going to happen.”
China, along with Iran, Russia and others, is still selling weapons to Sudan. While China says it is abiding by a United Nations embargo on sending weapons directly to Darfur, an analysis of shell casings and vehicles found in Darfur by a panel of United Nations experts found that Chinese weapons were making their way to Darfur.
Fractures among the rebel groups in Darfur and threats from Sudan’s neighbors, like Chad, may have more impact on the quest for peace than anything Washington or Beijing does.
Still, John Prendergast, a former Clinton administration official, advocate and writer on Sudan for two decades, said that China and the United States needed to be engaged.
“Unless China and the U.S. are both exerting much more pressure on Sudan, the crisis will continue to spiral out of control,” he said in an e-mail message. “China has unique economic leverage, while the U.S. retains leverage based on its ability to confer or withdraw legitimacy.”
New breakthrough in Uganda talks
The Ugandan government has signed a new agreement with the Lord's Resistance Army rebels, a day after the LRA walked out of peace talks in South Sudan.
The agreement allows the rebels to be considered for government, diplomatic and military posts.
But they will not be assigned these posts automatically, as the LRA wanted.
Talks broke down on Thursday after the government refused the rebels' demands for cash and positions in government as a condition for disarming.
LRA DEMANDS What they wanted
Five ministerial posts
Five ambassadorial posts
Twenty other top jobs
LRA fighters to retain rank
Cash payout What they got
Consideration for senior posts
Assessment for army posts
No cash
In the current phase of the peace talks, the LRA negotiators got much less than they asked for, the BBC's Sarah Grainger reports from Kampala.
They had demanded five cabinet minister positions, five ambassadorial posts and 20 other top government jobs.
They wanted LRA fighters integrated into the army at their current rank, and they wanted resettlement packages for themselves, including a "golden handshake" in cash and kind on completion of a peace deal.
The government negotiators have now agreed to consider people from the conflict-affected areas for appointment to top political and diplomatic positions.
Former LRA combatants will be assessed for rank and experience before being integrated into the army.
The agreement makes no mention of resettlement packages for the LRA peace team.
Surprise
Our correspondent says the deal came as a surprise so soon after the talks broke down.
She says, though, that the LRA's wish list had always seemed unobtainable, and their apparent willingness to accept compromises will be good for their public image.
On Tuesday, the two sides finalised an agreement over justice and accountability for war crimes, which had been a major obstacle.
A special division of the Uganda High Court will be set up to try those accused of serious crimes.
The rebels hope this means their leaders will not be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court, which has issued arrest warrants for three of them.
Disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration, as well as the details of a full ceasefire, still need to be discussed.
The government has given the LRA until 28 February to end the war.
Around 20 years of fighting with the LRA has killed tens of thousands of people and uprooted some two million.
The agreement allows the rebels to be considered for government, diplomatic and military posts.
But they will not be assigned these posts automatically, as the LRA wanted.
Talks broke down on Thursday after the government refused the rebels' demands for cash and positions in government as a condition for disarming.
LRA DEMANDS What they wanted
Five ministerial posts
Five ambassadorial posts
Twenty other top jobs
LRA fighters to retain rank
Cash payout What they got
Consideration for senior posts
Assessment for army posts
No cash
In the current phase of the peace talks, the LRA negotiators got much less than they asked for, the BBC's Sarah Grainger reports from Kampala.
They had demanded five cabinet minister positions, five ambassadorial posts and 20 other top government jobs.
They wanted LRA fighters integrated into the army at their current rank, and they wanted resettlement packages for themselves, including a "golden handshake" in cash and kind on completion of a peace deal.
The government negotiators have now agreed to consider people from the conflict-affected areas for appointment to top political and diplomatic positions.
Former LRA combatants will be assessed for rank and experience before being integrated into the army.
The agreement makes no mention of resettlement packages for the LRA peace team.
Surprise
Our correspondent says the deal came as a surprise so soon after the talks broke down.
She says, though, that the LRA's wish list had always seemed unobtainable, and their apparent willingness to accept compromises will be good for their public image.
On Tuesday, the two sides finalised an agreement over justice and accountability for war crimes, which had been a major obstacle.
A special division of the Uganda High Court will be set up to try those accused of serious crimes.
The rebels hope this means their leaders will not be prosecuted by the International Criminal Court, which has issued arrest warrants for three of them.
Disarmament, demobilisation and reintegration, as well as the details of a full ceasefire, still need to be discussed.
The government has given the LRA until 28 February to end the war.
Around 20 years of fighting with the LRA has killed tens of thousands of people and uprooted some two million.
INTERVIEW-Eritrea says doesn't want new war with Ethiopia
(Corrects in fourth paragraph to "Eritrean territory" instead of "Ethiopian territory")
By Louis Charbonneau
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 22 (Reuters) - Eritrea does not want another war with Ethiopia and seeks good relations with its neighbor, provided Addis Ababa withdraws from Eritrean territory, Eritrea's U.N. ambassador said on Friday.
Ethiopia and Eritrea have both moved tens of thousands of troops to the border because of a dispute over their 620-mile (1,000-km) border. U.N. officials have expressed fears that the present withdrawal of U.N. peacekeepers from the border region could open the door to a new conflict.
"I would like to assure you that we in Eritrea are sick and tired of wars," Ambassador Araya Desta told Reuters in an interview. "We don't want another war. We are not warmongers.
"There is no reason why we should not have good relations with Ethiopia, provided they withdraw from Eritrean territory," he said.
Ethiopia also has said it does not want a new war.
U.N. peacekeepers started work in 2000 after a two-year border war between the Horn of Africa neighbors that killed an estimated 70,000 people.
The peacekeepers have been stationed in a 15.5-mile (25-km) buffer zone inside Eritrea. But Asmara turned against the mission because of U.N. inability to enforce rulings by an independent boundary commission awarding chunks of Ethiopian-held territory, including the town of Badme, to Eritrea.
On Thursday, the U.N. Security Council condemned what it called "systematic violations" of its resolutions by Eritrea, including a food and fuel blockade, which led to a decision by the U.N. mission on the Ethiopian-Eritrean border to withdraw.
The council statement came as the 1,700-member force, known as UNMEE, sought to regroup in the Eritrean capital Asmara after being forced by the blockade to leave the disputed border it monitored for more than seven years.
"We are very sorry about that (council statement)," Desta said. "We are very mad about this ... We are cooperating (with UNMEE) in all areas."
ERITREA: U.N. TROOPS HAVE FOOD
Although Asmara has said the U.N. presence on the border was tantamount to occupation, U.N. officials have said the Eritreans were making it difficult for UNMEE to leave the border zone. However, a U.N. spokesman said on Friday there had been no problems reported on Thursday.
Desta denied there was a food or fuel blockade.
"We didn't cut off the food supplies," he said. "Food has reached those people in the countryside. They (currently) have enough for one good month."
Western diplomats have said they suspected Eritrean soldiers wanted to get their hands on UNMEE's equipment, which would explain why they were making it difficult for them to withdraw. Desta denied that allegation.
"We are not expecting anything from UNMEE," he said.
On Wednesday, Eritrea accused the United Nations of making false accusations against it.
"The press offices of the United Nations and other private media have been leveling unfounded accusations against Eritrea about UNMEE's situation in the country," the Eritrean mission to the United Nations said in a statement.
Desta said he had personally complained to the United Nations about what Asmara sees as incorrect information it has been providing to the media. (Editing by Bill Trott) news ## for search indexer, do not remove -->
By Louis Charbonneau
UNITED NATIONS, Feb 22 (Reuters) - Eritrea does not want another war with Ethiopia and seeks good relations with its neighbor, provided Addis Ababa withdraws from Eritrean territory, Eritrea's U.N. ambassador said on Friday.
Ethiopia and Eritrea have both moved tens of thousands of troops to the border because of a dispute over their 620-mile (1,000-km) border. U.N. officials have expressed fears that the present withdrawal of U.N. peacekeepers from the border region could open the door to a new conflict.
"I would like to assure you that we in Eritrea are sick and tired of wars," Ambassador Araya Desta told Reuters in an interview. "We don't want another war. We are not warmongers.
"There is no reason why we should not have good relations with Ethiopia, provided they withdraw from Eritrean territory," he said.
Ethiopia also has said it does not want a new war.
U.N. peacekeepers started work in 2000 after a two-year border war between the Horn of Africa neighbors that killed an estimated 70,000 people.
The peacekeepers have been stationed in a 15.5-mile (25-km) buffer zone inside Eritrea. But Asmara turned against the mission because of U.N. inability to enforce rulings by an independent boundary commission awarding chunks of Ethiopian-held territory, including the town of Badme, to Eritrea.
On Thursday, the U.N. Security Council condemned what it called "systematic violations" of its resolutions by Eritrea, including a food and fuel blockade, which led to a decision by the U.N. mission on the Ethiopian-Eritrean border to withdraw.
The council statement came as the 1,700-member force, known as UNMEE, sought to regroup in the Eritrean capital Asmara after being forced by the blockade to leave the disputed border it monitored for more than seven years.
"We are very sorry about that (council statement)," Desta said. "We are very mad about this ... We are cooperating (with UNMEE) in all areas."
ERITREA: U.N. TROOPS HAVE FOOD
Although Asmara has said the U.N. presence on the border was tantamount to occupation, U.N. officials have said the Eritreans were making it difficult for UNMEE to leave the border zone. However, a U.N. spokesman said on Friday there had been no problems reported on Thursday.
Desta denied there was a food or fuel blockade.
"We didn't cut off the food supplies," he said. "Food has reached those people in the countryside. They (currently) have enough for one good month."
Western diplomats have said they suspected Eritrean soldiers wanted to get their hands on UNMEE's equipment, which would explain why they were making it difficult for them to withdraw. Desta denied that allegation.
"We are not expecting anything from UNMEE," he said.
On Wednesday, Eritrea accused the United Nations of making false accusations against it.
"The press offices of the United Nations and other private media have been leveling unfounded accusations against Eritrea about UNMEE's situation in the country," the Eritrean mission to the United Nations said in a statement.
Desta said he had personally complained to the United Nations about what Asmara sees as incorrect information it has been providing to the media. (Editing by Bill Trott) news ## for search indexer, do not remove -->
UN dispute with Eritrea deepens
By Harvey Morris
Published: February 23 2008 02:00 Last updated: February 23 2008 02:00
The United Nations Security Council is caught in a dispute with Eritrea after issuing its second condemnation of the Asmara government in a week over its treatment of UN peacekeepers.
A statement on Thursday night condemned Eritrea's "systematic violations" of Security Council resolutions when interfering with the withdrawal of a UN force from the Ethiopian border area. Eritrea had refused to allow the 1,700-strong force to move to the Ethiopian side of the frontier.
At the root of the crisis is Eritrea's insistence that the UN enforce elements of an independent arbitration commission's ruling on its border dispute with Ethiopia that led to war from 1998 to 2000.
Harvey Morris, at the UN, New York
Published: February 23 2008 02:00 Last updated: February 23 2008 02:00
The United Nations Security Council is caught in a dispute with Eritrea after issuing its second condemnation of the Asmara government in a week over its treatment of UN peacekeepers.
A statement on Thursday night condemned Eritrea's "systematic violations" of Security Council resolutions when interfering with the withdrawal of a UN force from the Ethiopian border area. Eritrea had refused to allow the 1,700-strong force to move to the Ethiopian side of the frontier.
At the root of the crisis is Eritrea's insistence that the UN enforce elements of an independent arbitration commission's ruling on its border dispute with Ethiopia that led to war from 1998 to 2000.
Harvey Morris, at the UN, New York
Friday, February 22, 2008
US policy on African faulted on priorities
NAIROBI -- In his tour of Africa, President Bush steered clear of countries where stability, human rights and progress toward democracy have degenerated during his tenure, among them Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, Chad, Uganda and Kenya.
In those countries, Bush's focus on counterterrorism has overtaken his other stated foreign policy goals of promoting democracy and human rights, according to analysts.
"While democratization has clearly been one of the three major stated objectives of the Bush administration -- the others being security and development -- democratization probably ranks third," said Joel Barkan, a senior associate with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "You can see it in several ways, but it's mainly the subordination of democratization to the so-called war on terror."
Money for once-robust programs aimed at strengthening democratic institutions such as courts and parliaments has dried up, Barkan said. And critics say that several less-than-democratic African leaders have skillfully played the anti-terrorism card to earn a relationship with the United States that has helped keep them in power.
While Bush has received praise across the continent for his fight against malaria and AIDS, many Africans who hoped that the United States would support their struggle for more just and open societies have been disappointed. They include opposition groups, human rights activists, intellectuals, professionals and, significantly in Kenya and Somalia, moderate Muslims who've felt unjustly targeted in the U.S.-driven hunt for terrorism suspects.
"There was a time when Muslims here would trust the U.S.," said Ibrahim Ahmed, a lawyer who ran for Kenya's parliament last year. "As a Muslim, I can say that U.S. foreign policy has really destroyed the trust that existed."
Ethiopia, with U.S. backing, invaded Somalia in December 2006 to oust the Islamic movement, which the United States accused of having ties to al-Qaeda. Ethiopia then installed a U.S.-backed transitional government headed by Abdullahi Yusuf, who analysts say has used the fight against terrorism as an excuse to attack his political and business enemies.
More than a year later, no high-level terrorism suspects have been killed or captured. Yusuf and the Ethiopian government are accused of committing war crimes against Somali civilians. And analysts say a more radicalized contingent of Islamic fighters has joined an insurgency battling for control of the capital, Mogadishu.
By some measures, Somalia is now the worst humanitarian crisis on the continent, with more than 1 million people displaced by fighting that has left thousands dead in the past year.
"I actually think it's paradoxical: America is advocating democracy and at the same time using ruthless and brutal warlords in Somalia that have no democratic credentials at all," said Sheikhdon Salad, a doctor in Mogadishu.
The Bush administration's policy in Somalia has had ramifications across the region, especially in Ethiopia.
The 2005 elections there were initially praised as among the country's most open and democratic. But when the opposition leveled accusations of vote-rigging, protesters took to the streets. Ethiopian security forces fired into the crowd, leaving at least 193 people dead. Many opposition leaders were jailed.
U.S. criticism soon flagged, analysts say, because the United States was relying on Ethiopia as its key military ally in the region and later needed Ethiopian military and intelligence cooperation in Somalia.
"Dictators are using and abusing the U.S. anti-terrorism campaign for their own ends," said Marara Gudina, a member of Parliament who chairs an opposition party in Ethiopia. "I think democracy is secondary on the list of U.S. policy priorities."
In Sudan, analysts have suggested that U.S. reliance on Sudanese counterterrorism intelligence has prevented a tougher stance on the crisis in the country's western Darfur region, where a government crackdown on rebels has left as many as 450,000 people dead and 2.5 million displaced.
Charles Onyango-Obbo, a columnist in Kenya who writes about the region, said some African leaders with good relations with the United States often feel so powerful that they see no need to engage with opposition groups.
He cited Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, who cast himself as a staunch U.S. ally in the fight against terrorism at a time when he was facing growing criticism for his increasingly dictatorial rule. Museveni, who has been in power for more than 20 years, changed the constitution ahead of the 2006 election to allow himself a third term, and jailed a leading opposition candidate.
As U.S. ambassador, James Kolker was critical of Museveni's government, but his successor was less vocal as the United States pressed Museveni to send peacekeepers to Somalia. Uganda sent 1,500 troops as part of an African Union force that has had trouble pulling in other participants.
"Museveni has very cleverly played the U.S. like a violin," said Barkan, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Barkan noted that the Bush administration's response to Kenya's post-election crisis has been a welcome exception to the pattern.
The Bush administration initially congratulated President Mwai Kibaki, who is accused of rigging the vote, but diplomats have since become increasingly critical of his government's refusal to compromise with opposition leader Raila Odinga. On Monday, Bush dispatched Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who said the United States would not conduct "business as usual" with Kenya unless a settlement is reached.
Critics say that sort of pressure has been lacking at crucial moments in other African countries over the past several years.
Rep. Donald M. Payne (D-N.J.), who chairs the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Africa, said that by ignoring electoral problems and human rights violations, the United States often winds up dealing with the consequences of political chaos.
"Turning a blind eye to government abuses and wanton disregard for human dignity often leads to political instability and massive humanitarian disasters," Payne said. "And we always end up paying for it."
----Special correspondents Kassahun Addis in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Mohamed Ibrahim in Mogadishu contributed to this report.
In those countries, Bush's focus on counterterrorism has overtaken his other stated foreign policy goals of promoting democracy and human rights, according to analysts.
"While democratization has clearly been one of the three major stated objectives of the Bush administration -- the others being security and development -- democratization probably ranks third," said Joel Barkan, a senior associate with the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. "You can see it in several ways, but it's mainly the subordination of democratization to the so-called war on terror."
Money for once-robust programs aimed at strengthening democratic institutions such as courts and parliaments has dried up, Barkan said. And critics say that several less-than-democratic African leaders have skillfully played the anti-terrorism card to earn a relationship with the United States that has helped keep them in power.
While Bush has received praise across the continent for his fight against malaria and AIDS, many Africans who hoped that the United States would support their struggle for more just and open societies have been disappointed. They include opposition groups, human rights activists, intellectuals, professionals and, significantly in Kenya and Somalia, moderate Muslims who've felt unjustly targeted in the U.S.-driven hunt for terrorism suspects.
"There was a time when Muslims here would trust the U.S.," said Ibrahim Ahmed, a lawyer who ran for Kenya's parliament last year. "As a Muslim, I can say that U.S. foreign policy has really destroyed the trust that existed."
Ethiopia, with U.S. backing, invaded Somalia in December 2006 to oust the Islamic movement, which the United States accused of having ties to al-Qaeda. Ethiopia then installed a U.S.-backed transitional government headed by Abdullahi Yusuf, who analysts say has used the fight against terrorism as an excuse to attack his political and business enemies.
More than a year later, no high-level terrorism suspects have been killed or captured. Yusuf and the Ethiopian government are accused of committing war crimes against Somali civilians. And analysts say a more radicalized contingent of Islamic fighters has joined an insurgency battling for control of the capital, Mogadishu.
By some measures, Somalia is now the worst humanitarian crisis on the continent, with more than 1 million people displaced by fighting that has left thousands dead in the past year.
"I actually think it's paradoxical: America is advocating democracy and at the same time using ruthless and brutal warlords in Somalia that have no democratic credentials at all," said Sheikhdon Salad, a doctor in Mogadishu.
The Bush administration's policy in Somalia has had ramifications across the region, especially in Ethiopia.
The 2005 elections there were initially praised as among the country's most open and democratic. But when the opposition leveled accusations of vote-rigging, protesters took to the streets. Ethiopian security forces fired into the crowd, leaving at least 193 people dead. Many opposition leaders were jailed.
U.S. criticism soon flagged, analysts say, because the United States was relying on Ethiopia as its key military ally in the region and later needed Ethiopian military and intelligence cooperation in Somalia.
"Dictators are using and abusing the U.S. anti-terrorism campaign for their own ends," said Marara Gudina, a member of Parliament who chairs an opposition party in Ethiopia. "I think democracy is secondary on the list of U.S. policy priorities."
In Sudan, analysts have suggested that U.S. reliance on Sudanese counterterrorism intelligence has prevented a tougher stance on the crisis in the country's western Darfur region, where a government crackdown on rebels has left as many as 450,000 people dead and 2.5 million displaced.
Charles Onyango-Obbo, a columnist in Kenya who writes about the region, said some African leaders with good relations with the United States often feel so powerful that they see no need to engage with opposition groups.
He cited Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, who cast himself as a staunch U.S. ally in the fight against terrorism at a time when he was facing growing criticism for his increasingly dictatorial rule. Museveni, who has been in power for more than 20 years, changed the constitution ahead of the 2006 election to allow himself a third term, and jailed a leading opposition candidate.
As U.S. ambassador, James Kolker was critical of Museveni's government, but his successor was less vocal as the United States pressed Museveni to send peacekeepers to Somalia. Uganda sent 1,500 troops as part of an African Union force that has had trouble pulling in other participants.
"Museveni has very cleverly played the U.S. like a violin," said Barkan, of the Center for Strategic and International Studies.
Barkan noted that the Bush administration's response to Kenya's post-election crisis has been a welcome exception to the pattern.
The Bush administration initially congratulated President Mwai Kibaki, who is accused of rigging the vote, but diplomats have since become increasingly critical of his government's refusal to compromise with opposition leader Raila Odinga. On Monday, Bush dispatched Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, who said the United States would not conduct "business as usual" with Kenya unless a settlement is reached.
Critics say that sort of pressure has been lacking at crucial moments in other African countries over the past several years.
Rep. Donald M. Payne (D-N.J.), who chairs the House Foreign Affairs subcommittee on Africa, said that by ignoring electoral problems and human rights violations, the United States often winds up dealing with the consequences of political chaos.
"Turning a blind eye to government abuses and wanton disregard for human dignity often leads to political instability and massive humanitarian disasters," Payne said. "And we always end up paying for it."
----Special correspondents Kassahun Addis in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, and Mohamed Ibrahim in Mogadishu contributed to this report.
Ethiopia, Austria Sign 28.5 Million Euro Cooperation Accord (February 22, 2008)
The governments of Austria and Ethiopia here on Thursday have signed a 28.5 million Euro bilateral cooperation accord for the Indicative Country Program 2008-2012.
The fund will be used to rural development and food security in North Gondar Zone of the Amhara State, basic health services in the Somali region, and the protection of activities, among others.
Ethiopian State Minister of Finance and Economic Development Mekonen Manyazewal and Austrian State Secretary Dr. Hans Winkler signed the accord.
A senior official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tesfaye Yilema told journalists this is the third time for the two countries to sign such agreements.
The trade and Investment cooperation between the countries has been steadily growing since 2004. Some 22 Austrian investment projects with an aggregate capital of over 860 million birr have been launched here of which six projects have already gone operational, Tesfaye added.
The fund will be used to rural development and food security in North Gondar Zone of the Amhara State, basic health services in the Somali region, and the protection of activities, among others.
Ethiopian State Minister of Finance and Economic Development Mekonen Manyazewal and Austrian State Secretary Dr. Hans Winkler signed the accord.
A senior official of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Tesfaye Yilema told journalists this is the third time for the two countries to sign such agreements.
The trade and Investment cooperation between the countries has been steadily growing since 2004. Some 22 Austrian investment projects with an aggregate capital of over 860 million birr have been launched here of which six projects have already gone operational, Tesfaye added.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
Who now keeps the peace between Eritrea and Ethiopia?
Mulugeta Alemu
21 February 2008
Eritrea’s blatant restrictions on the United Nations Mission in Eritrea and Ethiopia (UNMEE) not only imperilled the mandate and operation of the force, but has also put the security of the peacekeepers, in the words of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, in grave danger. The fuel embargo imposed by the Eritrean government has crippled UNMEE’s operation. Its troops have now run out of ration and other supplies.
The crisis should not come as surprise. Eritrea’s latest aggressive posturing is just the most recent one in a series of its unlawful measures which it had been taking as far back as 2005. These measures which effectively excluded UNMEE from undertaking certain reconnaissance flight and patrol were so pervasive that they had already mortally diminished the significance of UNMEE’s mandate. UNMEE had simply failed to implement its mandated under the 2000 peace accord between the two countries. The response of the UN to the crisis was painfully timid.
There are few precedents to UN’s humiliation in Eritrea. Many of its peacekeeping missions marred in scandal and being unable to solve protracted conflicts in other parts of the globe, the world body unsuccessfully tried to market its forces station in the Horn of Africa as one of its most successful missions. But it is in Eritrea that the most challenging resistance to UN peace keeping mission is unravelled. When the UN is struggling to be a relevant institution in averting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, the stakes are high in failing in traditional peacekeeping missions.
Despite the enormous commitment the world community has displayed in sustaining an expensive peacekeeping mission in this part of the world, few attribute the lull in fighting between Eritrea and Ethiopia to UNMEE. This is particularly important given the fact that the force has, for a considerable period of time now, is not doing what it is expected to do─keeping peace. The troops were not freely patrolling the long border and most of their previous check-points are already been disband.
The crisis between the UN and Eritrea has now reached its natural peak. Eritrea has just exhumed its last remaining bargaining chip against the UN. But its approach has been patently unwise, bullish and counter-productive. An angered Security Council, in its emergency meeting held to deliberate upon Eritrea’s mistreatment of its peace troops, openly condemned Eritrea’s action and threatened to take ‘appropriate action’ against Eritrea. But many including (most importantly) the Eritrean government know too well that this is not the first time the Council threatened action which it later failed to implement. It is unlikely that the Security Council will take any specific measure or sanction against Eritrea. Even if it was to take such steps, it is far less likely that such course of action will encourage or force the Eritrean government to change its course.
The international community in general and the UN in particular now should address the Ethiopia-Eritrea dispute in a manner which ensures lasting peace between the two countries. Now both the boundary commission and UNMEE, which have never seriously influenced developments on the ground, are in serious jeopardy leaving the two parties where they have always been. Ethiopia and Eritrea are the only genuine peacekeepers and dialogue is the only reasonable course of action. By showing an outrageously fierce rigidity to the implementation of the border ruling and by violating the operation of UNMEE, Eritrea has unwillingly pushed itself into a route which finally brings it to face dialogue as solution. Isn’t that what Eritrea has rejected from the beginning? Statecraft and good diplomacy requires that Eritrea is not reminded of that fact.
21 February 2008
Eritrea’s blatant restrictions on the United Nations Mission in Eritrea and Ethiopia (UNMEE) not only imperilled the mandate and operation of the force, but has also put the security of the peacekeepers, in the words of UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon, in grave danger. The fuel embargo imposed by the Eritrean government has crippled UNMEE’s operation. Its troops have now run out of ration and other supplies.
The crisis should not come as surprise. Eritrea’s latest aggressive posturing is just the most recent one in a series of its unlawful measures which it had been taking as far back as 2005. These measures which effectively excluded UNMEE from undertaking certain reconnaissance flight and patrol were so pervasive that they had already mortally diminished the significance of UNMEE’s mandate. UNMEE had simply failed to implement its mandated under the 2000 peace accord between the two countries. The response of the UN to the crisis was painfully timid.
There are few precedents to UN’s humiliation in Eritrea. Many of its peacekeeping missions marred in scandal and being unable to solve protracted conflicts in other parts of the globe, the world body unsuccessfully tried to market its forces station in the Horn of Africa as one of its most successful missions. But it is in Eritrea that the most challenging resistance to UN peace keeping mission is unravelled. When the UN is struggling to be a relevant institution in averting genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, the stakes are high in failing in traditional peacekeeping missions.
Despite the enormous commitment the world community has displayed in sustaining an expensive peacekeeping mission in this part of the world, few attribute the lull in fighting between Eritrea and Ethiopia to UNMEE. This is particularly important given the fact that the force has, for a considerable period of time now, is not doing what it is expected to do─keeping peace. The troops were not freely patrolling the long border and most of their previous check-points are already been disband.
The crisis between the UN and Eritrea has now reached its natural peak. Eritrea has just exhumed its last remaining bargaining chip against the UN. But its approach has been patently unwise, bullish and counter-productive. An angered Security Council, in its emergency meeting held to deliberate upon Eritrea’s mistreatment of its peace troops, openly condemned Eritrea’s action and threatened to take ‘appropriate action’ against Eritrea. But many including (most importantly) the Eritrean government know too well that this is not the first time the Council threatened action which it later failed to implement. It is unlikely that the Security Council will take any specific measure or sanction against Eritrea. Even if it was to take such steps, it is far less likely that such course of action will encourage or force the Eritrean government to change its course.
The international community in general and the UN in particular now should address the Ethiopia-Eritrea dispute in a manner which ensures lasting peace between the two countries. Now both the boundary commission and UNMEE, which have never seriously influenced developments on the ground, are in serious jeopardy leaving the two parties where they have always been. Ethiopia and Eritrea are the only genuine peacekeepers and dialogue is the only reasonable course of action. By showing an outrageously fierce rigidity to the implementation of the border ruling and by violating the operation of UNMEE, Eritrea has unwillingly pushed itself into a route which finally brings it to face dialogue as solution. Isn’t that what Eritrea has rejected from the beginning? Statecraft and good diplomacy requires that Eritrea is not reminded of that fact.
UN Troops in Eritrea move to the Capital
By Derek Kilner
Nairobi
20 February 2008
The United Nations has instructed its peacekeepers monitoring the Ethiopia-Eritrea border to regroup in the Eritrean capital Asmara. As Derek Kilner reports from Nairobi, the troops had planned to relocate to Ethiopia. But, a U.N. spokesman says that only six vehicles made it across the border to Ethiopia last week.
A Canadian UN peacekeeper (L) monitors the redeployment of Ethiopian tanks leaving from the Eritrean town of Senafe (file photo)
The U.N. mission, known by the acronym UNMEE, has been monitoring the border between Ethiopia and Eritrea since a 2000 peace agreement ended a conflict between the two sides. The U.N. decided to move its troops earlier this month after Eritrea refused to allow fuel supplies to reach the operation. The mission has also warned it is running low on food.
The Eritrean government is upset with the U.N.'s failure to enforce a border commission's ruling in 2002 that said the town of Badme, at the heart of the border controversy, belongs to Eritrea. Ethiopia has refused to abide by the commission's ruling.
Tensions have grown in recent months with both Ethiopia and Eritrea now maintaining over 100,000 troops along the border. Analyst Richard Cornwell, of South Africa's Institute for Security Studies, says the removal of U.N. troops would eliminate one of the only remaining impediments to renewed conflict.
"UNMEE is now having to think about withdrawal altogether which will take an observation force away from that disputed border so that anything can happen," said Cornwell. "And then claims can be made by both sides that they were in fact the innocent victim. It could be that the Eritreans now intend to provoke things by taking what the international tribunal awarded to them but that the international community has failed to back up."
By most accounts, the border commission's ruling puts the law on Eritrea's side in the territorial dispute. But the Eritrean government's provocative actions, along with its repressive internal policies, have squandered what international goodwill it once had.
Cornwell says the position of Eritrea's President Isaias Afewerki is fueled by domestic political concerns.
"It's a nation in arms," he said. "It has to keep a war psychosis among its people in order to justify the sort of austerity and hardships that they experience in terms of food shortages, economic problems and so on and so forth. He hasn't demobilized the forces that were mobilized at the time of the war against Ethiopia last time.
Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, meanwhile, faces pressure to maintain a tough line on Eritrea from the opposition, as well as hardliners in his government, many of whom are still angry over the decision to grant Eritrea independence in 1993, following a three-decade insurgency.
The two-year border conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea killed some 70,000 people.
In January, the U.N. extended UNMEE's mandate for six months. For the moment, the fate of the troops assembling in Asamara remains unclear.
Nairobi
20 February 2008
The United Nations has instructed its peacekeepers monitoring the Ethiopia-Eritrea border to regroup in the Eritrean capital Asmara. As Derek Kilner reports from Nairobi, the troops had planned to relocate to Ethiopia. But, a U.N. spokesman says that only six vehicles made it across the border to Ethiopia last week.
A Canadian UN peacekeeper (L) monitors the redeployment of Ethiopian tanks leaving from the Eritrean town of Senafe (file photo)
The U.N. mission, known by the acronym UNMEE, has been monitoring the border between Ethiopia and Eritrea since a 2000 peace agreement ended a conflict between the two sides. The U.N. decided to move its troops earlier this month after Eritrea refused to allow fuel supplies to reach the operation. The mission has also warned it is running low on food.
The Eritrean government is upset with the U.N.'s failure to enforce a border commission's ruling in 2002 that said the town of Badme, at the heart of the border controversy, belongs to Eritrea. Ethiopia has refused to abide by the commission's ruling.
Tensions have grown in recent months with both Ethiopia and Eritrea now maintaining over 100,000 troops along the border. Analyst Richard Cornwell, of South Africa's Institute for Security Studies, says the removal of U.N. troops would eliminate one of the only remaining impediments to renewed conflict.
"UNMEE is now having to think about withdrawal altogether which will take an observation force away from that disputed border so that anything can happen," said Cornwell. "And then claims can be made by both sides that they were in fact the innocent victim. It could be that the Eritreans now intend to provoke things by taking what the international tribunal awarded to them but that the international community has failed to back up."
By most accounts, the border commission's ruling puts the law on Eritrea's side in the territorial dispute. But the Eritrean government's provocative actions, along with its repressive internal policies, have squandered what international goodwill it once had.
Cornwell says the position of Eritrea's President Isaias Afewerki is fueled by domestic political concerns.
"It's a nation in arms," he said. "It has to keep a war psychosis among its people in order to justify the sort of austerity and hardships that they experience in terms of food shortages, economic problems and so on and so forth. He hasn't demobilized the forces that were mobilized at the time of the war against Ethiopia last time.
Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi, meanwhile, faces pressure to maintain a tough line on Eritrea from the opposition, as well as hardliners in his government, many of whom are still angry over the decision to grant Eritrea independence in 1993, following a three-decade insurgency.
The two-year border conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea killed some 70,000 people.
In January, the U.N. extended UNMEE's mandate for six months. For the moment, the fate of the troops assembling in Asamara remains unclear.
In Africa, Bush denies intent to build bases
Reuters
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
ACCRA, Ghana: President George W. Bush reassured Africa on Wednesday that the United States was not planning to build new military bases there and played down the risk of rivalry with China for influence on the continent.
Speaking in Ghana on the fourth leg of a five-nation African tour, Bush said the U.S. military command for Africa, Africom, created last year, was intended to help African leaders solve the continent's crises, not augment the U.S. military presence there.
"We do not contemplate adding new bases. In other words, the purpose of this is not to add military bases," Bush said at a joint news conference with the president of Ghana, John Kufuor.
"That doesn't mean that we won't try to develop some kind of office in Africa," Bush said. "We haven't made our minds up. It's a new concept."
The Bush administration created Africom with the aim of bolstering security on the continent, already a major supplier of crude oil to the American market.
U.S. officials talked initially of plans to move the Africom headquarters to Africa, but African opposition led Washington to change course and say that Africom would not bring any more U.S. troops or bases to the continent.
A base for 1,800 U.S. troops already exists in the east African country of Djibouti.
Bush said the United States and China, whose growing influence in Africa is seen by some Western diplomats as undermining efforts to encourage good governance, could both pursue opportunities there without stoking rivalry.
China has ramped up its investment across Africa in recent years in return for access to oil, metals and other raw materials to fuel its rapidly expanding economy.
"I don't view Africa as zero sum for China and the United States. I think we can pursue agendas without creating a great sense of competition," Bush said. "Do I view China as a fierce competitor on the continent of Africa? No I don't."
Bush met Kufuor in a former slave fort by the Atlantic Ocean, which millions of Africans crossed in chains on their way to the Americas. Thousands lined the streets to greet him, including children waving the flag of Ghana.
The imposing former trading fort was built by European colonists and is now more generally known as "The Castle," the seat of government in the former British "Gold Coast" colony.
Ghana's thriving economy, built on gold and cocoa exports and the promise of oil production within three years, and its stable democracy, which stands out in volatile West Africa, have made it a darling of Washington and other donors.
During his tour, Bush has backed efforts to solve crises in Kenya and Darfur. But his itinerary, taking in Benin, Tanzania and Rwanda, has sought to highlight success stories on a continent often portrayed as a morass of crises and conflict.
Bush's support for multibillion-dollar anti-malaria and anti-AIDS projects in Africa has earned him a warm reception there despite widespread condemnation of his foreign policy toward Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.
In Ghana, Bush unveiled a $350 million, five-year plan to fight neglected tropical diseases that cause misery for millions of people on the world's poorest continent.
Ghana is a leading recipient of U.S. aid in Africa, and gets $547 million in U.S. assistance under a five-year program managed by the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation.
On Thursday, Bush visits Liberia, the first republic in Africa, formed by freed slaves from America in 1847.
Wednesday, February 20, 2008
ACCRA, Ghana: President George W. Bush reassured Africa on Wednesday that the United States was not planning to build new military bases there and played down the risk of rivalry with China for influence on the continent.
Speaking in Ghana on the fourth leg of a five-nation African tour, Bush said the U.S. military command for Africa, Africom, created last year, was intended to help African leaders solve the continent's crises, not augment the U.S. military presence there.
"We do not contemplate adding new bases. In other words, the purpose of this is not to add military bases," Bush said at a joint news conference with the president of Ghana, John Kufuor.
"That doesn't mean that we won't try to develop some kind of office in Africa," Bush said. "We haven't made our minds up. It's a new concept."
The Bush administration created Africom with the aim of bolstering security on the continent, already a major supplier of crude oil to the American market.
U.S. officials talked initially of plans to move the Africom headquarters to Africa, but African opposition led Washington to change course and say that Africom would not bring any more U.S. troops or bases to the continent.
A base for 1,800 U.S. troops already exists in the east African country of Djibouti.
Bush said the United States and China, whose growing influence in Africa is seen by some Western diplomats as undermining efforts to encourage good governance, could both pursue opportunities there without stoking rivalry.
China has ramped up its investment across Africa in recent years in return for access to oil, metals and other raw materials to fuel its rapidly expanding economy.
"I don't view Africa as zero sum for China and the United States. I think we can pursue agendas without creating a great sense of competition," Bush said. "Do I view China as a fierce competitor on the continent of Africa? No I don't."
Bush met Kufuor in a former slave fort by the Atlantic Ocean, which millions of Africans crossed in chains on their way to the Americas. Thousands lined the streets to greet him, including children waving the flag of Ghana.
The imposing former trading fort was built by European colonists and is now more generally known as "The Castle," the seat of government in the former British "Gold Coast" colony.
Ghana's thriving economy, built on gold and cocoa exports and the promise of oil production within three years, and its stable democracy, which stands out in volatile West Africa, have made it a darling of Washington and other donors.
During his tour, Bush has backed efforts to solve crises in Kenya and Darfur. But his itinerary, taking in Benin, Tanzania and Rwanda, has sought to highlight success stories on a continent often portrayed as a morass of crises and conflict.
Bush's support for multibillion-dollar anti-malaria and anti-AIDS projects in Africa has earned him a warm reception there despite widespread condemnation of his foreign policy toward Iraq, Iran and Afghanistan.
In Ghana, Bush unveiled a $350 million, five-year plan to fight neglected tropical diseases that cause misery for millions of people on the world's poorest continent.
Ghana is a leading recipient of U.S. aid in Africa, and gets $547 million in U.S. assistance under a five-year program managed by the U.S. Millennium Challenge Corporation.
On Thursday, Bush visits Liberia, the first republic in Africa, formed by freed slaves from America in 1847.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
What about all the other Kosovos?
By Philip Bowring
Monday, February 18, 2008
HONG KONG: The Balkans may be a long way from Asia but the word "Balkanization" is still etched in the minds of many leaders, particularly those who lived through the years of instability that followed decolonization.
Though the issue of Kosovo is not attracting too much public comment in Asia, it is a worry for those who ponder the implications for countries struggling with separatist minorities of their own.
They note that while the original break-up of Yugoslavia resulted from internal forces, the independence of Kosovo was made possible because the United States and the European Union supported this dismemberment of Serbia. Whether this is the result of idealism or is regarded as punishment for Serbia's actions during the Milosevic era does not matter from the point of view of those not directly involved.
Indonesia and Sri Lanka have said that they will not recognize Kosovo's independence. China and Vietnam insist that any solution must not compromise the territorial integrity of Serbia. Most other Asian official reaction is similarly likely to be negative.
There are two issues here from an Asian perspective. The first is how far the principle of self-determination should be taken. Kosovo is a landlocked state of 2 million people, 10 percent of whom are Serbs strongly opposed to its independence.
The second is to ask when and where the process of dismemberment of former empires will end. After all, the very word "Balkanization" derives from the break-up of the Balkan territory of two empires, Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian, into 10 states.
It may be that the nature of the European Union can allow many mini-states to exist within a broader political entity, and that Kosovo is as viable as Luxembourg. Just possibly, the EU can be successor to the former Ottoman and Hapsburg empires, embracing all states of the Balkans, big and small.
Possibly. But none of that is much consolation to other regions of the world which do not possess equivalents to the EU. Since 1945, if not earlier, they have mostly lived with two concepts: First, the nation state as accepted by their peers at the United Nations; second, borders defined by their histories as parts of Western empires.
Thus far there have been remarkably few post-colonial formal splits. The major one was the creation of Bangladesh out of an untenable Pakistan divided by a thousand miles and an equally large cultural gap. Singapore's separation from Malaysia was peaceful. Eritrea's from Ethiopia was not.
But African and Asian nations still worry deeply about national integrity. The end of formal Western empires (most recently the Russian one) is still far too close for successor nations to be confident that their borders will survive. So they are particularly sensitive when they find the West instinctively supporting separatist movements, even if only verbally.
Whether the issue is Darfur, West Papua, Nagaland or the Shan states, the old colonial powers are often seen on the side of difficult minorities opposed to the central governments the powers themselves created.
Nor does it appear, at least from a distance, that an independent Kosovo offers even a sensible solution to the problem of linguistic nations divided from their national state. Logic would surely be the partition of Kosovo between Albania and Serbia, rather than the creation of another mini-state with another disgruntled minority.
Many in the rest of the world do not even credit the West with good intentions, noting that some influential voices in Western capitals would be happy to see Iraq divided into three states, Shiite, Sunni and Kurd.
Even if they appreciate that the European Union and the United States are trying to solve problems rather than introduce new divide-and-rule stratagems, they worry.
Take Sri Lanka. Kosovo logic suggests that the Tamils in the north deserve a separate state, an eventuality that would have huge implications for an India which can only exist if its major constituent parts - be they Tamil, Sikh or Bengali - accept an overriding identity and the benefits of diversity and size.
None of this is to argue that minority rights do not matter - that China can suppress Tibet and (Turkic) Xinjiang, that Russia can brutalize Chechnya, thatThailand can submit its Malay/Muslim minority to alien laws and language, and so on.
But for most of Africa and Asia the issue is sustaining states capable of delivering administration and a stable basis for development. As Kenya shows, even in states without overt separatist problems and with some success in economic development, the over-riding problem remains integrating diverse peoples into states.
Kosovo's independence may be the last act in the Balkanization of former empires. But it also looks like a victory for tribalism and creates a principle which can only exacerbate problems in other countries. In place of acceptance of minority autonomy within a single state structure there will be fights to the bitter end between centralism and separatism.
Monday, February 18, 2008
HONG KONG: The Balkans may be a long way from Asia but the word "Balkanization" is still etched in the minds of many leaders, particularly those who lived through the years of instability that followed decolonization.
Though the issue of Kosovo is not attracting too much public comment in Asia, it is a worry for those who ponder the implications for countries struggling with separatist minorities of their own.
They note that while the original break-up of Yugoslavia resulted from internal forces, the independence of Kosovo was made possible because the United States and the European Union supported this dismemberment of Serbia. Whether this is the result of idealism or is regarded as punishment for Serbia's actions during the Milosevic era does not matter from the point of view of those not directly involved.
Indonesia and Sri Lanka have said that they will not recognize Kosovo's independence. China and Vietnam insist that any solution must not compromise the territorial integrity of Serbia. Most other Asian official reaction is similarly likely to be negative.
There are two issues here from an Asian perspective. The first is how far the principle of self-determination should be taken. Kosovo is a landlocked state of 2 million people, 10 percent of whom are Serbs strongly opposed to its independence.
The second is to ask when and where the process of dismemberment of former empires will end. After all, the very word "Balkanization" derives from the break-up of the Balkan territory of two empires, Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian, into 10 states.
It may be that the nature of the European Union can allow many mini-states to exist within a broader political entity, and that Kosovo is as viable as Luxembourg. Just possibly, the EU can be successor to the former Ottoman and Hapsburg empires, embracing all states of the Balkans, big and small.
Possibly. But none of that is much consolation to other regions of the world which do not possess equivalents to the EU. Since 1945, if not earlier, they have mostly lived with two concepts: First, the nation state as accepted by their peers at the United Nations; second, borders defined by their histories as parts of Western empires.
Thus far there have been remarkably few post-colonial formal splits. The major one was the creation of Bangladesh out of an untenable Pakistan divided by a thousand miles and an equally large cultural gap. Singapore's separation from Malaysia was peaceful. Eritrea's from Ethiopia was not.
But African and Asian nations still worry deeply about national integrity. The end of formal Western empires (most recently the Russian one) is still far too close for successor nations to be confident that their borders will survive. So they are particularly sensitive when they find the West instinctively supporting separatist movements, even if only verbally.
Whether the issue is Darfur, West Papua, Nagaland or the Shan states, the old colonial powers are often seen on the side of difficult minorities opposed to the central governments the powers themselves created.
Nor does it appear, at least from a distance, that an independent Kosovo offers even a sensible solution to the problem of linguistic nations divided from their national state. Logic would surely be the partition of Kosovo between Albania and Serbia, rather than the creation of another mini-state with another disgruntled minority.
Many in the rest of the world do not even credit the West with good intentions, noting that some influential voices in Western capitals would be happy to see Iraq divided into three states, Shiite, Sunni and Kurd.
Even if they appreciate that the European Union and the United States are trying to solve problems rather than introduce new divide-and-rule stratagems, they worry.
Take Sri Lanka. Kosovo logic suggests that the Tamils in the north deserve a separate state, an eventuality that would have huge implications for an India which can only exist if its major constituent parts - be they Tamil, Sikh or Bengali - accept an overriding identity and the benefits of diversity and size.
None of this is to argue that minority rights do not matter - that China can suppress Tibet and (Turkic) Xinjiang, that Russia can brutalize Chechnya, thatThailand can submit its Malay/Muslim minority to alien laws and language, and so on.
But for most of Africa and Asia the issue is sustaining states capable of delivering administration and a stable basis for development. As Kenya shows, even in states without overt separatist problems and with some success in economic development, the over-riding problem remains integrating diverse peoples into states.
Kosovo's independence may be the last act in the Balkanization of former empires. But it also looks like a victory for tribalism and creates a principle which can only exacerbate problems in other countries. In place of acceptance of minority autonomy within a single state structure there will be fights to the bitter end between centralism and separatism.
Kosovo Is Recognized but Rebuked by Others
19 February 2007
By NICHOLAS KULISH and C. J. CHIVERS
BERLIN — Kosovo won the recognition of the United States and its biggest Western European allies on Monday, while earning rebukes and rejections from Serbia, Russia and a disparate mix of states the world over who face their own separatist movements at home.
One day after the tiny Balkan province declared its independence, the world had its chance to choose sides. While some countries had made their decisions months in advance, that did not diminish the drama of whether a newly birthed nation would be welcomed into the fold or rejected.
Major European powers, including France, Germany and Britain, along with the United States, officially recognized Kosovo, even as officials took pains to point out that it should not serve as an invitation or precedent for other groups hoping to declare independence. That is because one of the biggest unknowns remains whether Kosovo’s declaration could rekindle conflicts elsewhere, including in ethnically divided Bosnia.
As a result, the reverberations were felt from Russian-backed enclaves in Georgia to the Taiwan Strait. Spain, a member of the European Union and one of the countries with soldiers in the NATO force in Kosovo, refused its recognition. Yet Turkey, despite its history of conflict with Kurdish separatists, chose to support Kosovo’s independence.
In a letter to Kosovo’s president, Fatmir Sejdiu, President Bush wrote: “On behalf of the American people, I hereby recognize Kosovo as an independent and sovereign state. I congratulate you and Kosovo’s citizens for having taken this important step in your democratic and national development.”
In an apparently conciliatory gesture, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in her own statement, “The United States takes this opportunity to reaffirm our friendship with Serbia, an ally during two world wars.”
But Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica of Serbia, which has regarded Kosovo as its heartland since medieval times, vowed that Serbia would never recognize the “false state.” Mr. Kostunica recalled Serbia’s ambassador to Washington, news agencies reported. The State Department had no comment on those reports on Monday evening.
At the United Nations, Boris Tadic, Serbia’s president, told the Security Council that the declaration of independence “annuls international law, tramples upon justice and enthrones injustice.” He asked that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon direct the United Nations mission chief in Kosovo to declare the action “null and void” and to dissolve the Kosovo Assembly, which adopted the declaration on Sunday.
Addressing the Council before Mr. Tadic spoke, Mr. Ban said the United Nations administration, approved by the Council in 1999, would continue to run Kosovo until a formal transition could be arranged.
European foreign ministers meeting in Brussels appeared to reach a minimal common position, acknowledging that Kosovo had declared independence and allowing those nations that wanted to recognize it formally to do so.
Bernard Kouchner, France’s foreign minister, said the declaration was “a victory for common sense,” and pointed to what he hoped would be future reconciliation between Serbia and Kosovo. “I don’t know at what date, in which year, but Kosovo and Serbia will be together in the European Union,” he said.
However, the foreign minister of Spain, Miguel Ángel Moratinos, told reporters that the declaration did not respect international law and that Spain would not recognize Kosovo. “The government of Spain will not recognize the unilateral act proclaimed yesterday by the Assembly of Kosovo,” Reuters quoted him as saying.
Among European Union members, Cyprus, Romania and Slovakia have also been reluctant to recognize Kosovo.
Diplomatic recognition is more than just a popularity contest for Kosovo, a desperately poor, predominantly Muslim landlocked territory of two million people. It needs the help and support of international institutions if it expects to improve its dire economic condition. A United Nations protectorate since 1999, it is policed by 16,000 NATO troops and has an unemployment rate of around 60 percent and an average monthly wage of $250.
“We will be working with the government to try to help it politically as well as economically,” said R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, in a conference call with reporters on Monday, pointing out that the United States gave $77 million in aid to Kosovo in 2007 and would raise that amount to roughly $335 million in 2008.
Mr. Burns, who said he had consulted by phone with European counterparts after the meeting of European Union foreign ministers, said there would be a donor conference in Europe in the coming months to encourage additional aid, and hoped there could be debt relief for Kosovo as well as strong regional trade opportunities.
Russia, which opposes Kosovo’s independence, demanded an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Sunday to proclaim the declaration “null and void,” but the meeting produced no resolution. The Security Council agreed to a request by Russia and Serbia to hold the open meeting on Monday that Mr. Tadic addressed.
Mr. Burns said he did not foresee trouble with Russia. “I do not expect any kind of crisis with Russia over this,” he said. “I expect Russia to be supportive of stability in this region.”
But in Moscow, the upper and lower houses of Parliament released a joint statement signaling an intention to recognize at least two Russian-backed separatist areas in the former Soviet Union — Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both in Georgia.
Abkhazia and South Ossetia have announced their intention to seek recognition as independent states. Russia has already granted citizenship to most residents of both enclaves and had hinted that it might recognize their independence if Western countries recognized Kosovo.
“The right of nations to self-determination cannot justify recognition of Kosovo’s independence along with the simultaneous refusal to discuss similar acts by other self-proclaimed states, which have obtained de facto independence exclusively by themselves,” the Russian Parliament’s statement read.
Georgia disputes the claim that the regions have obtained independence by themselves. The areas broke from Georgia after brief wars in the 1990s, and have survived with Russian support.
Eduard Kokoity, the Ossetian president, said Monday that the two breakaway regions would submit a request for recognition to the Russian Parliament by the end of the month, the Interfax news agency reported.
But experts and officials said they did not expect simmering conflicts to break out into significant violence as a result of Kosovo’s declaration. “These are emotional reactions that I think are transitory and can be contained,” said Peter Semneby, the European Union’s special representative for the South Caucasus, in a telephone interview from Georgia. “It’s very much in the interest of major actors to try to contain them.”
On the other side of the world, China, Indonesia and Sri Lanka also criticized Kosovo’s declaration of independence, while Taiwan and Australia welcomed it, as Kosovo’s move appeared to be a litmus test of attitudes in Asia toward secession.
The Beijing government, which has threatened military action if Taiwan declares formal independence, voiced “grave concern” over Kosovo’s action.
“China is deeply worried about its severe and negative impact on peace and stability of the Balkan region and the goal of establishing a multiethnic society in Kosovo,” said Liu Jianchao, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman.
Nicholas Kulish reported from Berlin, and C. J. Chivers from Moscow. Reporting was contributed by Stephen Castle from Brussels, Graham Bowley from New York, Warren Hoge from the United Nations and Keith Bradsher from Hong Kong.
By NICHOLAS KULISH and C. J. CHIVERS
BERLIN — Kosovo won the recognition of the United States and its biggest Western European allies on Monday, while earning rebukes and rejections from Serbia, Russia and a disparate mix of states the world over who face their own separatist movements at home.
One day after the tiny Balkan province declared its independence, the world had its chance to choose sides. While some countries had made their decisions months in advance, that did not diminish the drama of whether a newly birthed nation would be welcomed into the fold or rejected.
Major European powers, including France, Germany and Britain, along with the United States, officially recognized Kosovo, even as officials took pains to point out that it should not serve as an invitation or precedent for other groups hoping to declare independence. That is because one of the biggest unknowns remains whether Kosovo’s declaration could rekindle conflicts elsewhere, including in ethnically divided Bosnia.
As a result, the reverberations were felt from Russian-backed enclaves in Georgia to the Taiwan Strait. Spain, a member of the European Union and one of the countries with soldiers in the NATO force in Kosovo, refused its recognition. Yet Turkey, despite its history of conflict with Kurdish separatists, chose to support Kosovo’s independence.
In a letter to Kosovo’s president, Fatmir Sejdiu, President Bush wrote: “On behalf of the American people, I hereby recognize Kosovo as an independent and sovereign state. I congratulate you and Kosovo’s citizens for having taken this important step in your democratic and national development.”
In an apparently conciliatory gesture, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice said in her own statement, “The United States takes this opportunity to reaffirm our friendship with Serbia, an ally during two world wars.”
But Prime Minister Vojislav Kostunica of Serbia, which has regarded Kosovo as its heartland since medieval times, vowed that Serbia would never recognize the “false state.” Mr. Kostunica recalled Serbia’s ambassador to Washington, news agencies reported. The State Department had no comment on those reports on Monday evening.
At the United Nations, Boris Tadic, Serbia’s president, told the Security Council that the declaration of independence “annuls international law, tramples upon justice and enthrones injustice.” He asked that Secretary General Ban Ki-moon direct the United Nations mission chief in Kosovo to declare the action “null and void” and to dissolve the Kosovo Assembly, which adopted the declaration on Sunday.
Addressing the Council before Mr. Tadic spoke, Mr. Ban said the United Nations administration, approved by the Council in 1999, would continue to run Kosovo until a formal transition could be arranged.
European foreign ministers meeting in Brussels appeared to reach a minimal common position, acknowledging that Kosovo had declared independence and allowing those nations that wanted to recognize it formally to do so.
Bernard Kouchner, France’s foreign minister, said the declaration was “a victory for common sense,” and pointed to what he hoped would be future reconciliation between Serbia and Kosovo. “I don’t know at what date, in which year, but Kosovo and Serbia will be together in the European Union,” he said.
However, the foreign minister of Spain, Miguel Ángel Moratinos, told reporters that the declaration did not respect international law and that Spain would not recognize Kosovo. “The government of Spain will not recognize the unilateral act proclaimed yesterday by the Assembly of Kosovo,” Reuters quoted him as saying.
Among European Union members, Cyprus, Romania and Slovakia have also been reluctant to recognize Kosovo.
Diplomatic recognition is more than just a popularity contest for Kosovo, a desperately poor, predominantly Muslim landlocked territory of two million people. It needs the help and support of international institutions if it expects to improve its dire economic condition. A United Nations protectorate since 1999, it is policed by 16,000 NATO troops and has an unemployment rate of around 60 percent and an average monthly wage of $250.
“We will be working with the government to try to help it politically as well as economically,” said R. Nicholas Burns, the under secretary of state for political affairs, in a conference call with reporters on Monday, pointing out that the United States gave $77 million in aid to Kosovo in 2007 and would raise that amount to roughly $335 million in 2008.
Mr. Burns, who said he had consulted by phone with European counterparts after the meeting of European Union foreign ministers, said there would be a donor conference in Europe in the coming months to encourage additional aid, and hoped there could be debt relief for Kosovo as well as strong regional trade opportunities.
Russia, which opposes Kosovo’s independence, demanded an emergency meeting of the United Nations Security Council on Sunday to proclaim the declaration “null and void,” but the meeting produced no resolution. The Security Council agreed to a request by Russia and Serbia to hold the open meeting on Monday that Mr. Tadic addressed.
Mr. Burns said he did not foresee trouble with Russia. “I do not expect any kind of crisis with Russia over this,” he said. “I expect Russia to be supportive of stability in this region.”
But in Moscow, the upper and lower houses of Parliament released a joint statement signaling an intention to recognize at least two Russian-backed separatist areas in the former Soviet Union — Abkhazia and South Ossetia, both in Georgia.
Abkhazia and South Ossetia have announced their intention to seek recognition as independent states. Russia has already granted citizenship to most residents of both enclaves and had hinted that it might recognize their independence if Western countries recognized Kosovo.
“The right of nations to self-determination cannot justify recognition of Kosovo’s independence along with the simultaneous refusal to discuss similar acts by other self-proclaimed states, which have obtained de facto independence exclusively by themselves,” the Russian Parliament’s statement read.
Georgia disputes the claim that the regions have obtained independence by themselves. The areas broke from Georgia after brief wars in the 1990s, and have survived with Russian support.
Eduard Kokoity, the Ossetian president, said Monday that the two breakaway regions would submit a request for recognition to the Russian Parliament by the end of the month, the Interfax news agency reported.
But experts and officials said they did not expect simmering conflicts to break out into significant violence as a result of Kosovo’s declaration. “These are emotional reactions that I think are transitory and can be contained,” said Peter Semneby, the European Union’s special representative for the South Caucasus, in a telephone interview from Georgia. “It’s very much in the interest of major actors to try to contain them.”
On the other side of the world, China, Indonesia and Sri Lanka also criticized Kosovo’s declaration of independence, while Taiwan and Australia welcomed it, as Kosovo’s move appeared to be a litmus test of attitudes in Asia toward secession.
The Beijing government, which has threatened military action if Taiwan declares formal independence, voiced “grave concern” over Kosovo’s action.
“China is deeply worried about its severe and negative impact on peace and stability of the Balkan region and the goal of establishing a multiethnic society in Kosovo,” said Liu Jianchao, a Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman.
Nicholas Kulish reported from Berlin, and C. J. Chivers from Moscow. Reporting was contributed by Stephen Castle from Brussels, Graham Bowley from New York, Warren Hoge from the United Nations and Keith Bradsher from Hong Kong.
Monday, February 18, 2008
By Prof. Horace Campbell
Global Research, February 18, 2008
Pambazuka News - 2008-02-14
Horace Campbell look at Bush's visit as an attempt to further militarize the continent and consolidate US holding.
One year after the announcement that he United States government was going to accelerate the militarization of Africa, President George Bush is embarking on a journey to Africa to coerce African societies to align themselves with the neo-conservative agenda of the present US administration. President George Bush will visit five African countries between February 15 -21. The countries are Benin, Ghana, Liberia, Rwanda and Tanzania. George Bush is a lame-duck President who cannot visit real global players so this visit to Africa is an effort to shore up the credentials of the neo- liberal forces in Africa while promoting the conservative ideas of abstinence as the basis of the fight against the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
Exactly one year ago, in February 2007, President Bush of the United States of America announced that the Defense Department would create a new Africa Command to coordinate U.S. government interests on the continent. Under this plan all governmental agencies of the US would fall under the military, i.e, USAID, State Department, US Department of Energy, Treasury, and Department of Education etc. Already within the US academic community, the interests of the Pentagon has been placed before all other interests.
In pursuance of the plans for the militarization of Africa, the US Department of Defense announced the appointment of General William "Kip" Ward (an African American) as Head of this new Military command. On September 28, 2007, Ward as confirmed as the head of this new imperial military structure and on October 1 2007, the new command was launched in Stuttgart, Germany. The major question that is being posed by African peace activists and by concerned citizens is, why now? Why is a lame duck President seeking to gain more support in Africa?
One answer may lay in the diminished power of the United States in the aftermath of the Fiasco in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will maintain in this reflection that it is urgent that peace activists who want reconstruction and transformation in Africa oppose the plans for the remilitarization of Africa under the guise of fighting terrorism in Africa.
Why Now?
At the end of World War II the United States had emerged as a leading political, economic and military force in world politics. It was in this period when the US established unified military command structures such as the European Command, the Pacific Command, the Southern Command, the Northern Command, and Central Command. Each command covers an area of responsibility (AOR). When this command structure was being refined, Africa was an after thought in so far as the United States had relegated the exploitation of Africa to the former European colonial exploiters. Hence, Africa fell under the European Command with its headquarters in Germany. Africa had not been included in the geographic combatant commands in so far as it was expected that France, Britain, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Portugal and other colonial powers would retain military forces to guarantee western 'interests' in Africa. The collapse of the Portuguese colonial forces in Mozambique, Angola, Guinea and Sao Tome and the collapse of the white racist military forces in Rhodesia gradually led to a rethinking by the US military. During this period the US had labeled all African freedom fighters as terrorists. When the US was allied with Osama Bin Laden and Jonas Savimbi, Nelson Mandela had been branded a terrorist.
Central Command
After the Iranian revolution in 1978-1979, the US established the Central Command. CENTCOM based in Florida, USA was responsible for the US military activities in East Africa and the Horn of Africa (Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Seychelles, Somalia and the Sudan). The Pacific Command based in Hawaii was responsible for the Comoros, Diego Garcia, Madagascar and Mauritius. Added to these commands in six continents are the logistical command structures such as the Joint Forces Command (JFCOM), Space Command (SPACECOM), the Strategic Command (STRATCOM), the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the Transport Command (TRANSCOM).
At the end of the era of formal apartheid, the US military had established the Africa Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) with the goal of supporting humanitarianism and ending genocide. It was this same US government that had lobbied the United Nations to withdraw troops from Rwanda in the midst of the fastest genocide in Africa. Two years later, the US supported the militarist forces in Burundi even while publicly renouncing the genocidal violence and the war in Burundi.
Throughout this period, the US military had been cautious about involvement in Africa in the aftermath of the experience in Mogadishu/Somalia in 1993. This caution changed after the events of September 2001. In the next year the USA updated its ACRI "plans" to organize the African Contingency Operations Training Assistance (ACOTA). Under ACOTA, African troops were supposed to be provided with offensive military weaponry, including rifles, machine guns, and mortars. The Africa Regional Peacekeeping Program (ARP) was also established in order to equip, train, and support troops from selected African countries that are involved in "peacekeeping" operations. Additionally, the US government launched a Pan Sahel anti-terrorism initiative (later called Trans Sahara Counter Terror Initiative). Behind these grand mutations lay one clear fact. The USA wanted to control the oil resources from Africa. Presently Africa supplies more petroleum to the USA than the Middle East and US corporations wanted the US military to guarantee the dominance of US oil conglomerates.
Exposing US militarism and the failures in the Middle East
After launching two major wars from the United States Central Command, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq pointed to the reality that high technology weapons cannot guarantee military superiority in battles. It was in the face of the quagmire that the US faced in Iraq when the United States government announced the formation of a new command structure called, Africom.
What did we learn from the visit of George Bush to the Middle East in January 2008? Even the friends and allies of the USA (such as the leadership of Saudi Arabia and Egypt) warned that the US could not get anywhere as long as the issue of the Israeli occupation of Palestine does not end. And, lo and behold, the people of Gaza took matters in their hands a few days after the visit of Bush to Egypt to bring home to the world the reality that there can be no peace in Palestine when there is illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands along with the expansion of Jewish settlements in Palestine. By breaking out of the blockade of Israel and breaking through the walls that divided Gaza from Egypt. The citizens of Gaza were literally breaking the silence in the international community over the crimes against the peoples of Palestine. In the process these citizens placed the Egyptian leadership on the defensive and clarified the true alliance between Israel, Egypt and the United States. In the face of the protracted struggles of the Palestinian peoples, the future of US domination in the Middle East remains unclear, hence the political leadership in the USA is seeking new bases of support in Africa to base US troops and to strengthen the US oil corporations. In other parts of North Africa there are leaders who proclaim support for the rights of the self determination of the peoples of Palestine yet, covertly and overtly work with the government of the USA.
The governments of Morocco and Algeria, in particular, stand out as military allies of the USA while posturing that they oppose Israeli occupation. The government of Algeria is an accomplice in fabricating terrorism in the Sahel in order to justify its military alliance with the USA. Similarly, the government of Libya projects itself as a progressive government but is seeking to ingratiate itself with the neo-conservative forces in Washington. Both Algeria and Libya are important producers of petroleum and natural gas.
African Oil - The real objective
The invasion of Iraq, the instability on the border between Turkey and Iraq (with the threat of a Turkish invasion of Iraq), the stalemate over the future of Lebanon and the continued struggles for self determination in Palestine has sharpened the contradictions between imperialism and the peoples of the Middle East. In the face of this situation there are scholars who have argued and presented evidence that the government of the United States has been "fabricating terrorism" in Africa. This fabrication of terrorism carries with it racial stereotypes to support US military action in Africa. The hypocrisy of the US government in this region is manifest in the fact that while there is a major campaign against genocide and against genocidal violence in Darfur, the government of the USA cooperates with the government of the Sudan on the grounds of "intelligence sharing to fight terrorism." It is in the Sudan where the neo- conservatives are stoking the fires of war in order to get access to the oil resources of the Sudan.
Under the guise of fighting terrorism the government of the US has been involved in many illegal activities such as kidnapping citizens in the so called extraordinary rendition.
Challenging the European Union and China in Africa
The changed realities in the Middle East and in Africa have been accompanied by a new activist posture of China in Africa. Outmaneuvered in Asia by China and challenged by the rising democratic forces in Latin America, the spaces for the accumulation of capital by US capitalists are dwindling.
In the past, when there was a crisis such as the period after the Vietnam War, the USA could transfer the crisis to other countries via the IMF. But the European Union has challenged this calculus and created the Euro as an alternative to the US dollar. It will not be possible for the IMF to transfer the crisis to Asia, Europe, India, the Middle East or Latin America. This means that there is only one area of the world where the US imperialists will have free rein. This is in Africa. It is also in Africa where there is a movement against the economic terrorism of neo-liberalism and the unjust conditionalities of the IMF and World Bank.
African responses
Thus far the majority of African states have refused to host the Africa Command. Despite the aggressive military and diplomatic efforts by the US government, not even the closest "partners' of the imperialists have supported this call for the Africa Command. There is only one state (Liberia) that has openly called for the basing of the US Africa command on African soil. Though the United States has 5,458 "distinct and discreet military installations around the world there are pressures from the military-industrial and oil complex for the USA to have more effective resources in Africa to defend US capitalism.
For the past twenty years the US government had been building political assets in Kenya to pave the way for 'security cooperation." Kenya would have been one of the stops on this visit but the political struggles in Kenya made it impossible for George Bush to visit Kenya. It is this country that has participated in the so called extra-ordinary rendition. More than 90 persons were captured with apparent U.S. involvement after they fled fighting in Somalia. The prisoners were rendered on a plane chartered by the Kenyan government into secret detention in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Uganda would have been another stop on the visit, but the continued war in the North and the clear dictatorial character of the Museveni government made this stop undesirable.
One other undesirable ally is Ethiopia. The government of Meles Zenawi has joined in the efforts to fabricate terrorism in Somalia and has invaded Somalia. Yet, despite this alliance, Bush and the planners in Washington did not deem it safe for Bush to visit Ethiopia. Bush could not go to South Africa at this time because Jacob Zuma is the President of the ANC. He could not go to Nigeria because the Nigerians are opposed to the so called war on terror. So Bush had to find a country where he could go to. The US settled on Tanzania and Rwanda.
In West Africa, the US President is going to Benin, Liberia and Ghana. It will be the task of the political activists and democratic forces in these societies to demonstrate against the US and the plans for Africom in West Africa.
Peace loving citizens must oppose the militarization of Africa.
In 1980 when the US Central Command was being debated the citizens of the Middle East and North Africa did not sufficiently engage the full meaning of this new military structure. After the militarization of the Middle East, five major wars and millions dead, it is urgent that peace activists oppose the plans to bring Africa closer into this arc of warfare.
The quest for peace in Africa has been sharpened by the crude materialism of the present period and the intensified exploitation of Africans in the era of plunder and looting. Contemporary looting is hidden behind the discourses of liberalization, privatization, the freedom of markets and the Global war on terror. Racist images of war and "anarchy" and "failed states" are mobilized by the international media to justify the launch of the US military command structure for Africa. Those who support real cooperation, solidarity and anti racism must oppose the US Africa command.
We should remember the statement of the columnist of the New York Times, Thomas Friedman who had written,
'The hidden hand of the market will never work without the hidden fist - McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.' [1]
[1] Thomas Friedman, 'A Manifesto for the Fast World', New York Times Magazine, March, 1989.
Horace Campbell is Professor of Political Science at Syracuse University.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Horace Campbell, Pambazuka News , 2008
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=8119
Global Research, February 18, 2008
Pambazuka News - 2008-02-14
Horace Campbell look at Bush's visit as an attempt to further militarize the continent and consolidate US holding.
One year after the announcement that he United States government was going to accelerate the militarization of Africa, President George Bush is embarking on a journey to Africa to coerce African societies to align themselves with the neo-conservative agenda of the present US administration. President George Bush will visit five African countries between February 15 -21. The countries are Benin, Ghana, Liberia, Rwanda and Tanzania. George Bush is a lame-duck President who cannot visit real global players so this visit to Africa is an effort to shore up the credentials of the neo- liberal forces in Africa while promoting the conservative ideas of abstinence as the basis of the fight against the HIV/AIDS pandemic.
Exactly one year ago, in February 2007, President Bush of the United States of America announced that the Defense Department would create a new Africa Command to coordinate U.S. government interests on the continent. Under this plan all governmental agencies of the US would fall under the military, i.e, USAID, State Department, US Department of Energy, Treasury, and Department of Education etc. Already within the US academic community, the interests of the Pentagon has been placed before all other interests.
In pursuance of the plans for the militarization of Africa, the US Department of Defense announced the appointment of General William "Kip" Ward (an African American) as Head of this new Military command. On September 28, 2007, Ward as confirmed as the head of this new imperial military structure and on October 1 2007, the new command was launched in Stuttgart, Germany. The major question that is being posed by African peace activists and by concerned citizens is, why now? Why is a lame duck President seeking to gain more support in Africa?
One answer may lay in the diminished power of the United States in the aftermath of the Fiasco in Iraq and Afghanistan. I will maintain in this reflection that it is urgent that peace activists who want reconstruction and transformation in Africa oppose the plans for the remilitarization of Africa under the guise of fighting terrorism in Africa.
Why Now?
At the end of World War II the United States had emerged as a leading political, economic and military force in world politics. It was in this period when the US established unified military command structures such as the European Command, the Pacific Command, the Southern Command, the Northern Command, and Central Command. Each command covers an area of responsibility (AOR). When this command structure was being refined, Africa was an after thought in so far as the United States had relegated the exploitation of Africa to the former European colonial exploiters. Hence, Africa fell under the European Command with its headquarters in Germany. Africa had not been included in the geographic combatant commands in so far as it was expected that France, Britain, Belgium, Germany, Spain, Portugal and other colonial powers would retain military forces to guarantee western 'interests' in Africa. The collapse of the Portuguese colonial forces in Mozambique, Angola, Guinea and Sao Tome and the collapse of the white racist military forces in Rhodesia gradually led to a rethinking by the US military. During this period the US had labeled all African freedom fighters as terrorists. When the US was allied with Osama Bin Laden and Jonas Savimbi, Nelson Mandela had been branded a terrorist.
Central Command
After the Iranian revolution in 1978-1979, the US established the Central Command. CENTCOM based in Florida, USA was responsible for the US military activities in East Africa and the Horn of Africa (Djibouti, Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Seychelles, Somalia and the Sudan). The Pacific Command based in Hawaii was responsible for the Comoros, Diego Garcia, Madagascar and Mauritius. Added to these commands in six continents are the logistical command structures such as the Joint Forces Command (JFCOM), Space Command (SPACECOM), the Strategic Command (STRATCOM), the Special Operations Command (SOCOM) and the Transport Command (TRANSCOM).
At the end of the era of formal apartheid, the US military had established the Africa Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI) with the goal of supporting humanitarianism and ending genocide. It was this same US government that had lobbied the United Nations to withdraw troops from Rwanda in the midst of the fastest genocide in Africa. Two years later, the US supported the militarist forces in Burundi even while publicly renouncing the genocidal violence and the war in Burundi.
Throughout this period, the US military had been cautious about involvement in Africa in the aftermath of the experience in Mogadishu/Somalia in 1993. This caution changed after the events of September 2001. In the next year the USA updated its ACRI "plans" to organize the African Contingency Operations Training Assistance (ACOTA). Under ACOTA, African troops were supposed to be provided with offensive military weaponry, including rifles, machine guns, and mortars. The Africa Regional Peacekeeping Program (ARP) was also established in order to equip, train, and support troops from selected African countries that are involved in "peacekeeping" operations. Additionally, the US government launched a Pan Sahel anti-terrorism initiative (later called Trans Sahara Counter Terror Initiative). Behind these grand mutations lay one clear fact. The USA wanted to control the oil resources from Africa. Presently Africa supplies more petroleum to the USA than the Middle East and US corporations wanted the US military to guarantee the dominance of US oil conglomerates.
Exposing US militarism and the failures in the Middle East
After launching two major wars from the United States Central Command, the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq pointed to the reality that high technology weapons cannot guarantee military superiority in battles. It was in the face of the quagmire that the US faced in Iraq when the United States government announced the formation of a new command structure called, Africom.
What did we learn from the visit of George Bush to the Middle East in January 2008? Even the friends and allies of the USA (such as the leadership of Saudi Arabia and Egypt) warned that the US could not get anywhere as long as the issue of the Israeli occupation of Palestine does not end. And, lo and behold, the people of Gaza took matters in their hands a few days after the visit of Bush to Egypt to bring home to the world the reality that there can be no peace in Palestine when there is illegal Israeli occupation of Palestinian lands along with the expansion of Jewish settlements in Palestine. By breaking out of the blockade of Israel and breaking through the walls that divided Gaza from Egypt. The citizens of Gaza were literally breaking the silence in the international community over the crimes against the peoples of Palestine. In the process these citizens placed the Egyptian leadership on the defensive and clarified the true alliance between Israel, Egypt and the United States. In the face of the protracted struggles of the Palestinian peoples, the future of US domination in the Middle East remains unclear, hence the political leadership in the USA is seeking new bases of support in Africa to base US troops and to strengthen the US oil corporations. In other parts of North Africa there are leaders who proclaim support for the rights of the self determination of the peoples of Palestine yet, covertly and overtly work with the government of the USA.
The governments of Morocco and Algeria, in particular, stand out as military allies of the USA while posturing that they oppose Israeli occupation. The government of Algeria is an accomplice in fabricating terrorism in the Sahel in order to justify its military alliance with the USA. Similarly, the government of Libya projects itself as a progressive government but is seeking to ingratiate itself with the neo-conservative forces in Washington. Both Algeria and Libya are important producers of petroleum and natural gas.
African Oil - The real objective
The invasion of Iraq, the instability on the border between Turkey and Iraq (with the threat of a Turkish invasion of Iraq), the stalemate over the future of Lebanon and the continued struggles for self determination in Palestine has sharpened the contradictions between imperialism and the peoples of the Middle East. In the face of this situation there are scholars who have argued and presented evidence that the government of the United States has been "fabricating terrorism" in Africa. This fabrication of terrorism carries with it racial stereotypes to support US military action in Africa. The hypocrisy of the US government in this region is manifest in the fact that while there is a major campaign against genocide and against genocidal violence in Darfur, the government of the USA cooperates with the government of the Sudan on the grounds of "intelligence sharing to fight terrorism." It is in the Sudan where the neo- conservatives are stoking the fires of war in order to get access to the oil resources of the Sudan.
Under the guise of fighting terrorism the government of the US has been involved in many illegal activities such as kidnapping citizens in the so called extraordinary rendition.
Challenging the European Union and China in Africa
The changed realities in the Middle East and in Africa have been accompanied by a new activist posture of China in Africa. Outmaneuvered in Asia by China and challenged by the rising democratic forces in Latin America, the spaces for the accumulation of capital by US capitalists are dwindling.
In the past, when there was a crisis such as the period after the Vietnam War, the USA could transfer the crisis to other countries via the IMF. But the European Union has challenged this calculus and created the Euro as an alternative to the US dollar. It will not be possible for the IMF to transfer the crisis to Asia, Europe, India, the Middle East or Latin America. This means that there is only one area of the world where the US imperialists will have free rein. This is in Africa. It is also in Africa where there is a movement against the economic terrorism of neo-liberalism and the unjust conditionalities of the IMF and World Bank.
African responses
Thus far the majority of African states have refused to host the Africa Command. Despite the aggressive military and diplomatic efforts by the US government, not even the closest "partners' of the imperialists have supported this call for the Africa Command. There is only one state (Liberia) that has openly called for the basing of the US Africa command on African soil. Though the United States has 5,458 "distinct and discreet military installations around the world there are pressures from the military-industrial and oil complex for the USA to have more effective resources in Africa to defend US capitalism.
For the past twenty years the US government had been building political assets in Kenya to pave the way for 'security cooperation." Kenya would have been one of the stops on this visit but the political struggles in Kenya made it impossible for George Bush to visit Kenya. It is this country that has participated in the so called extra-ordinary rendition. More than 90 persons were captured with apparent U.S. involvement after they fled fighting in Somalia. The prisoners were rendered on a plane chartered by the Kenyan government into secret detention in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Uganda would have been another stop on the visit, but the continued war in the North and the clear dictatorial character of the Museveni government made this stop undesirable.
One other undesirable ally is Ethiopia. The government of Meles Zenawi has joined in the efforts to fabricate terrorism in Somalia and has invaded Somalia. Yet, despite this alliance, Bush and the planners in Washington did not deem it safe for Bush to visit Ethiopia. Bush could not go to South Africa at this time because Jacob Zuma is the President of the ANC. He could not go to Nigeria because the Nigerians are opposed to the so called war on terror. So Bush had to find a country where he could go to. The US settled on Tanzania and Rwanda.
In West Africa, the US President is going to Benin, Liberia and Ghana. It will be the task of the political activists and democratic forces in these societies to demonstrate against the US and the plans for Africom in West Africa.
Peace loving citizens must oppose the militarization of Africa.
In 1980 when the US Central Command was being debated the citizens of the Middle East and North Africa did not sufficiently engage the full meaning of this new military structure. After the militarization of the Middle East, five major wars and millions dead, it is urgent that peace activists oppose the plans to bring Africa closer into this arc of warfare.
The quest for peace in Africa has been sharpened by the crude materialism of the present period and the intensified exploitation of Africans in the era of plunder and looting. Contemporary looting is hidden behind the discourses of liberalization, privatization, the freedom of markets and the Global war on terror. Racist images of war and "anarchy" and "failed states" are mobilized by the international media to justify the launch of the US military command structure for Africa. Those who support real cooperation, solidarity and anti racism must oppose the US Africa command.
We should remember the statement of the columnist of the New York Times, Thomas Friedman who had written,
'The hidden hand of the market will never work without the hidden fist - McDonald's cannot flourish without McDonnell Douglas, the designer of the F-15. And the hidden fist that keeps the world safe for Silicon Valley's technologies is called the United States Army, Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps.' [1]
[1] Thomas Friedman, 'A Manifesto for the Fast World', New York Times Magazine, March, 1989.
Horace Campbell is Professor of Political Science at Syracuse University.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Centre for Research on Globalization.
To become a Member of Global Research
The CRG grants permission to cross-post original Global Research articles on community internet sites as long as the text & title are not modified. The source and the author's copyright must be displayed. For publication of Global Research articles in print or other forms including commercial internet sites, contact: crgeditor@yahoo.com
www.globalresearch.ca contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of "fair use" in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than "fair use" you must request permission from the copyright owner.
For media inquiries: crgeditor@yahoo.com
© Copyright Horace Campbell, Pambazuka News , 2008
The url address of this article is: www.globalresearch.ca/PrintArticle.php?articleId=8119
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)