From: ghidewon@aol.com
Date: Thu Dec 17 2009 - 21:17:42 EST
The Path “to Peace and Reconciliation in Somalia” Lies not on Imposing
Sanctions on Eritrea, but on impartially Engaging all Somalis
December 17, 2009
Ghidewon Abay Asmerom
The UN Security Council, goaded by U.S. is considering imposing sanctions
on Eritrea. Why? The real reason: Eritrea dared to call Washington’s wrong
policy on Somalia by its right name, “misguided”. The cover: Eritrea’s
traditional enemies are alleging that Eritrea is “providing political,
financial and logistical support to armed groups engaged in undermining peace and
reconciliation in Somalia.” This allegation is a pure fabrication
manufactured in the U.S. and pushed by Ethiopia. In other words, the talk of
sanctions has nothing to do with Somalia. Instead it is calculated to punish
Eritrea for daring to talk truth to U.S. officials who manage African affairs.
These officials, who have been given a free hand to run U.S. policy towards
Africa without any public accountability for years, are allergic to the
truth. Anyone who challenges their wrong policies is marked as an enemy and
they have to prove they can use the full U.S. weight and might to score
personal vendettas.
The African Union: a convenient cover
We are also being told that those who “are generally reluctant to back
sanctions, came around after it became clear the overwhelming majority of
African Union members support taking the action against Somalia's neighbor.”
This is suspect; who asked African countries to find out where they stood on
the issue? The fact that Libya, the current chair of the African Union
(AU), opposed the sanctions clearly shows that the so called African Union
decision did not follow the proper procedures. Be that as it may, there is a
question that begs asking: is the Security Council accountable to the African
Union or to its own Charter? In addition, if the opinion of the African
Union really mattered, didn’t the same African Union also “called on the
United Nations Security Council to suspend the International Criminal Court's
(ICC) indictment of Sudanese President Omar Hassan al-Bashir”? How come the
Security Council chose to ignore that call, but when it came to Eritrea it
is the other way around? The answer is clear.
Are we not also talking of the same African Union that signed the Algiers
Agreement as a guarantor, yet, taking its lead from its “Washington and
Addis handlers”, failed to utter even a single word against Ethiopia at the
critical juncture? A time when the minority regime of Ethiopia arrogantly
refused to get rid of the Algiers Agreement (a treaty that gave the EEBC a
final and binding authority to delimit and demarcate the border), and bypassing
the AU, one of the “brokers” of the peace agreement, and chose to request
the Security Council to come up with an “alternative mechanism”. Why?
Just as we are witnessing it today, the AU is only meant to be used, in fact I
would even dare say created, to be a front organization to carry what the “
Masters of the Universe” want. In other words, a body that acts when it is
directed to act, and feigns deaf, blind and mute when told to “stay out”.
Everybody knows that IGAD and the AU had just read the scripts that were
prepared for them to condemn Eritrea. This was exactly what the two bodies
did the summer of 1998, during the first months of the Eritrea-Ethiopia war.
In fact, the joke among Africans that know the inner workings of the AU is
that, this Addis-headquartered AU is another branch of the Ethiopian
Ministry of Foreign Affairs. This means the talk of “the AU asked us to act”
now is a pure excuse. It is a card of convenience; a smoke screen. What is
sad is also that the same Burkina Faso and Djibouti that were used in the
summer of 1998 to condemn Eritrea are now being used in this latest game to
encircle Eritrea. Is it any wonder then if the key phrase in the draft UN
resolution is word for word identical to what the U.S. presented to the
Security Council on July 9, 2009? However, the world is being told the circulating
Security Council resolution is Uganda-drafted. Poor Uganda is being framed
as a drafter of this shameful act, when in fact it was only a courier. A
typical divide and rule scheme of those that want to enforce their will on
Africa.
Sanctions will not bring about Somali reconciliation
The sanction against Eritrea is not intended to solve the Somali problem
or to bring peace to the troubled country. If that was the reason it had
another way of getting to it. However this whole charade is being engineered
thinking that it will strengthen Ethiopia’s hand in its conflict with
Eritrea. Imposing sanctions on Eritrea over unfounded accusations, instead on
Ethiopia, which in clear violation of International Law and Security Council
Resolutions is occupying sovereign Eritrean territories and is serving as
the architect of Somalia chaos, is a reckless move; that will backfire.
As the recently leaked June 26, 2006 memo of Mr. Azouz Ennifar’s to Mr.
Jean-Marie Guehenno (at the time Acting Head of UNMEE and UN’s
Under-Secretary-General for Peacekeeping Operations in that order) clearly shows,
Ethiopia invaded and occupied Somalia three years ago with Washington’s
encouragement, air-cover, as well as intelligence and Special Forces’ support. This
joint U.S.-Ethiopia invasion was what "undermined peace and reconciliation
in Somalia” and gave birth to the Somali resistance against foreign
occupation that Washington has designated as “extremists”. If the Security Council
was interested in “peace and reconciliation in Somalia” it should have
condemned and sanctioned Ethiopia at the time. Other countries that had
invaded and occupied neighbors friendly to the U.S. were condemned and sanctioned
by the Security Council in no time. But thanks to Washington, Ethiopia’s
occupation of Somalia instead of being condemned and sanctioned it was
blessed by the UN. No mention was made of the violations of the IGAD resolution
that prohibited intervention in Somalis or the AU Charter of non
interference. Ethiopia’s invasion failed and with it the Transitional Federal
Government of Somali, a government that was presented as “the only hope for Somalia
”. For the record, that was the 14th foreign-imposed government to be
imposed on the Somalis in as many years since Somalia descended into the abyss
of statelessness through Ethiopian interference. Eritrea is now on the
brink of being sanctioned for not recognizing yet another Transitional Federal
Government cobbled in Djibouti, foreign imposed Somali Government Number
15. Leaving numbers aside, since when did failure to recognize a government
hand-picked by “the Masters of the Universe”, became an offense against
International law subject to punishment by UN sanctions? For example Spain, an
EU member state, has yet to recognize the Kosovar government that was
midwived by the same “Masters of the Universe”; however Spain and other EU
members in the same status as Spain are not being threatened with sanctions by
the EU?
The world is now being told Eritrea is to be blamed for Somalia, according
to Mr. Johnny Carson, Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, not because
Eritrea is “in support of Islamist or extremist”, but it is “doing this
largely as a way to undermine and to pressure the Ethiopian government.” This
means the sanctions against Eritrea are not designed to reconstitute
Somalia and bring peace to the Horn of Africa but to save the minority regime in
Ethiopia so that it can continue to serve as Washington’s puppet and
lackey. The truth is also that the troubles of Somalia, that predates Eritrea’s
independence, is the making of Ethiopia and “the Masters of the Universe.”
Yes, that is the truth.
De⋅ja vu 1950
Eritreans have long become cynical about the mechanism of the UN Security
Council, for this is not the first time that it betrayed them at the behest
of Washington. How the Security Council betrayed Eritrea in the past can
fill volumes, but here is a snapshot of history from 60 years ago that shows
exactly how UN members behave under U.S. coercion.
“The United States decided to mobilize her influence against Italy in South
America. In July 1950, Acheson directed American officials there to
monitor Italian activities and try to persuade the governments to ‘avoid early
commitment to a position incompatible with that of U.S.’. He added that the
State Department will consistently oppose unacceptable proposals such as
independence and a United Nations trusteeship or any combination of the two.
Within a month of Acheson’s directive, Brazil and Mexico had become
lobbyists for the Anglo-American proposals.”
That is exactly what is going on today. All but one member of the Security
Council including two Permanent members have been cowed to toe the U.S.
line against Eritrea. The ‘raison d'etre’ of the Security Council was to
secure peace in the world, but in its current structure and under a unipolar
world where the U.S.A is the sole superpower that calls all the shots, the
Council has been reduced to being an instrument of administering injustice on
the innocent.
The Genuine Solution for Peace
What would bring peace, reconciliation and reconstitution to Somalia is
not imposing sanctions on Eritrea and taking sides with Ethiopia; in other
words, the path “to reconciliation in Somalia” lies not on imposing
sanctions on Eritrea, but by impartially engaging all Somalis, respecting their
independence and sovereignty, and recognizing the fact that Somalis and
Somalis alone, free of any outside interference, can solve Somalia’s problems.
The sooner this is recognized and implemented the better.
Equally the United Nations and the United States would do better to point
their fingers and sanctioning Ethiopia not only for creating and fueling the
Somali crisis, but also for its breach of International law in refusing to
unconditionally implement the final and binding EEBC demarcation decision
and hence endangering peace and security in the Horn of Africa.