The US secretary of State, Hillary Clinton feels that there needs to be more liberty regarding speech online and internet companies like Google, should not support "politically-motivated censorship."
The Security Council meeting on Somalia last week
The United Nations Security Council was briefed on the situation in Somalia on Thursday January 14th, after UN Secretary-General, Ban ki-Moon, presented his latest report on Somalia to the Council. The Council also heard the Secretary-General’s Special Representative, Mr. Ould-Abdallah, and the meeting was also addressed by representatives of the African Union and the Arab League as well as Somalia’s Permanent Representative to the United Nations. As we detailed in the last Week in the Horn, the Secretary-General recommended a continuation of his current strategy to protect the Government and AMISOM, and invited the Council to renew the authorization of the UN Political Office for Somalia and AMISOM. The main emphasis of Mr. Ould-Abdullah’s message to the Council was that the Somali Government had made significant progress in recent months and deserved greater commitment and assistance from the UN and international partners. He called on the international community to translate its political and verbal support into the necessary material assistance. His recommendations included coordinated international policy objectives, a clear signal to extremists, increased international support for AMISOM, and an integrated UN approach. He emphasized that a failure to act now in a decisive manner would dramatically increase the ultimate costs of resolving the problems of Somalia.
The African Union Commissioner for Peace and Security, Mr. Ramtane Lamamra, told the Council that 2009 had been a difficult year for Somalia. The enemies of peace and reconciliation had stepped up their aggression to try to undo the Djibouti Peace Process. Commissioner Lamamra said the link between Al-Shabaab and international jihadism had been confirmed as had Al-Shabaab’s relations with Al Qaeda. There had been an influx of foreign fighters into Somalia leading to an upsurge in terrorist activities. Equally, the past year had also seen positive momentum in terms of the rebirth of the state and the expansion of the Government. He pointed out that although AMISOM had lost twice as many soldiers in 2009 as over the whole of its previous existence, it had also been reinforced in size, capacity and experience. Its mandate had been extended on January 8th by the AU Peace and Security Council for another twelve months. He called on the Security Council to extend its authorization of AMISOM, and repeated the request of the Peace and Security Council that AMISOM should be integrated into a UN peacekeeping operation for Somalia. Commissioner Lamamra also underlined the need to impose a no-fly zone as well as control of Somalia’s sea ports to deny extremists the use of Somalia's air and maritime space, and help resolve the problem of piracy which was fueling extremism.
The Permanent Observer of the League of Arab States to the UN, Mr. Yahya Mahmassani, described the crisis in Somalia as the main challenge to peace and security in the Horn of Africa. He said inaction by the international community had contributed to a further worsening of the situation. The solution must be based on the Djibouti process, and AMISOM should be given full support. He said the Arab League called on states and regional groups to participate and help complete AMISOM deployment, including the provision of financial and logistical support. He also urged closer cooperation among humanitarian agencies to meet the challenge of humanitarian assistance. He noted that while the international community should be mindful of the need to end piracy, it was also necessary for the Security Council to take the necessary measures to tackle the root causes, among which he included the absence of strong state institutions.
The Permanent Representative of Somalia to the UN, Mr. Elmi Ahmed Duale, also stressed the importance of security to the Council. Without it, he said, meaningful progress in economy and development would be difficult to achieve. He emphasized the need to rebuild Somali national security forces, and to strengthen AMISOM and make it an integral part of a larger UN peacekeeping effort. He pointed out that the Government had received only a small portion of the pledges made in Brussels last April, and appealed urgently for states to release their pledged contributions. He said the Government’s strategy for 2010 would focus on reconciliation, security, the international conference on recovery and reconstruction, and effective cooperation with neighboring states. He said the Government considered the three-phase incremental approach by the UN might prove inadequate, given the dire humanitarian situation. What Somalia needed now was not a ‘light United Nations footprint’ but a heavy one.
These briefings preceded a closed session of the Council, but member states did express similar views in support of the TFG and of AMISOM as well as their concern about the situation in Somalia which it was agreed needed closer, more coordinated and concrete support to produce further improvement. It was decided to hold a follow-up session on Somalia before the end of the month when the Council is expected to produce another resolution on Somalia. The Council is, in fact, scheduled to consider the future status of AMISOM on January 28th. The UN authorization for AMISOM expires on January 31st as does the current UN support package for the Mission.
Human Rights Watch and a “deteriorating human rights trajectory”
On Wednesday, Human Rights Watch published its World Report 2010, covering human rights around the world in 2009. In his introductory essay, Director Kenneth Roth argues that the effectiveness of the human rights movement to exert pressure on governments has grown enormously in recent years and, as a result, there was a growing reaction from abusive governments which had been particularly intense last year, with numerous attacks on human rights monitors. Mr. Roth said the way to stop this was for governments to make human rights a central part of their diplomacy, “to make respecting human rights the bedrock of their diplomacy”. In an assumption of righteousness, ignoring the ongoing international discussion and even dissension over the issue, the introduction attacks African states for refusing to support the ICC’s controversial arrest warrant against President Omar al-Bashir of Sudan. It claims many African democracies even chose the comfort of regional solidarity rather than staking out a credible position of principle in support of international justice.
In this context, we have to say that the credibility of Human Rights Watch is itself an issue, certainly in its report on Ethiopia. Its country summary repeatedly suggests Ethiopia is “on a deteriorating human rights trajectory”, sliding “towards deeper repression”, that the space for independent civil society “already extremely narrow, shrank dramatically in 2009”, and a “worsening human rights record” is sliding “deeper into repression”. It talks about “measures to control the elections in 2010” though, not surprisingly, none of these are specified – there are, in fact, none to specify.
One can of course argue about how much human rights may or may not have improved, but it is surprising that Human Rights Watch chose totally to ignore the single most significant development in the electoral process in Ethiopia last year. This was the signing of a Code of Conduct for Political Parties, negotiated by 65 political parties, and its subsequent adoption into law. This by any standards is an impressive document, binding political parties, candidates, members and supporters of political parties to ensure that elections are guided by ethical rules of conduct, and are transparent, free, fair, peaceful, democratic, legitimate and acceptable to the voters. The Code lays down the regulations for the National Electoral Board, the mass media, and the judiciary, and their ability to function independently and impartially, free of all party pressures. It lays out the details for fair utilization by all parties of government resources for the election; and underlines the responsibility of the parties for a successful election. A procedure for grievances is provided and a Joint Council of Political Parties is being set up to implement the Code.
The Code was signed last November so there can be no excuse for Human Rights Watch to have ignored it. Similarly, one might note that Engineer Hailu Shawel, one of those most involved in the problems of 2005, was a central figure in the drafting of the Code. These are surely promising developments by any standards. Aren’t they at least worth a mention, however brief? It is frankly dishonest (and certainly unfair) to talk about a deteriorating trajectory and efforts to control the elections while making no reference to the Code which is a major development to the contrary. Similarly, although the report does indicate that Human Rights Watch has for the first time been prepared to read one of the reports of Ethiopia’s Human Rights Commission (a new Commissioner, Ambassador Tiruneh Zena, was approved by acclamation by all parties in Parliament last week), the reference is no more than disparaging. It all suggests that Human Rights Watch has no interest in, and no time for, any promising developments, that its criticisms in fact are not made in good faith. At this point we can’t go into further detail about this issue or Human Rights Watch’s repeated failures to evaluate recent legislation with any care, though it did, grudgingly, allow that the 2008 media law was an improvement. The Asset Registration and Anti-Corruption bill might have been worth a mention? Its largely inaccurate assertions about the provisions of the recent civil society and anti-terrorist laws need more space and time to respond.
Two other points do however need to be raised. Human Rights Watch refers, rather ungenerously, to the inquiry that the Ethiopian government did “purport to launch” into allegations of serious abuses by the military against the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) in the Somali Regional State. These were, in fact, allegations made in one of Human Rights Watch’s own reports. Human Rights Watch says the inquiry was sponsored by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, lacked independence and concluded no serious abuses took place. That is not strictly true. The inquiry, which was independent, actually found that many of the allegations were unsubstantiated, and lacking in substance or proof. Numerous villages that Human Rights Watch claimed to have been burnt down were found to be undamaged, and a significant number of people, described as killed or tortured, were found alive and unharmed. It also found that Human Rights Watch had ignored many abuses committed by the ONLF. The inquiry concluded that Human Rights Watch’s methodology, which involved no effort to investigate on the ground, and its evaluation of allegations made by dissidents in exile, were seriously flawed. Human Rights Watch has still to respond to the questions raised about its own procedures and practices.
The second point is that Human Rights Watch in the country summary on Ethiopia, as on a number of other countries, complains that major donors are unwilling to confront countries over what Human Rights Watch claims is a worsening human rights record. In the case of Ethiopia, it is particularly critical of the UK. Human Rights Watch argues that donors remain silent for fear that Ethiopia would discontinue or scale back their bilateral aid and development programs. This is an unusually bizarre suggestion, particularly since there is another very obvious reason why major donors say little – it may be that they do not entirely agree with Human Rights Watch. Given some of the errors and mistakes Human Rights Watch has perpetrated over the years that would hardly be a surprise.
Source:waltainfo.com/
No comments:
Post a Comment