From: ghidewon@aol.com
Date: Thu Dec 17 2009 - 22:19:16 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
Article in pdf format
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: EritreaÕs 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 WashingtonÕs puppet and
lackey. The truth is also that the troubles of Somalia, that predates
EritreaÕs 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.
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----