|
|
UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs |
HORN OF AFRICA: Teetering on the Brink
NAIROBI, 9 October 2003 (IRIN) - As 2003 draws to a close, three long and difficult peace processes in the Horn of Africa are also due to reach their climax. Although the main consideration is to bring about peace in the countries concerned, the accords are inextricably linked due to the various and sometimes complex alliances which bind the region together.
Sudan, Somalia, Eritrea and Ethiopia – some of the poorest countries on the continent, ravaged for years by conflict and natural disaster – could be seeing a chink of light at the end of a very dark tunnel.
Sudan stands on the brink of an historic and final peace accord, which could put an end to 20 years of civil war. In Somalia, adversarial faction leaders are also due to conclude their complicated peace process which started in October 2002 although no official deadline has been set. The twice-postponed demarcation of the common border between Eritrea and Ethiopia is scheduled to get underway this month, theoretically ending a very bitter dispute.
Peace is sorely needed. The region is awash with hundreds of thousands of displaced people and refugees, fleeing wars and drought. The Horn has been particularly hard-hit by drought this year - in Ethiopia alone, some 13 million people are at risk. In Eritrea, two thirds of the population are affected. Somalis are scattered far and wide as they seek refuge from constant fighting in their country. The same goes for the Sudanese - driven across borders and state lines as they flee encroaching attacks.
Aid comes in the form of emergency assistance, constantly year after year. Peace would allow the planning of longer-term development projects and the evolution of economies, reducing dependency on emergency aid and gradually ushering in self-sustainance. It could not come at a better time for the people of the Horn, enabling many to start a life they have only dreamed of. And the international community, including the humanitarian staffers who have to work under these uncertain conditions, are anxiously awaiting developments.
But in some cases, optimism at the beginning of the year has given way to doubt and uncertainty.
SUDAN
When the government of Sudan and rebel Sudan People’s Liberation Movement/Army (SPLM/A) agreed to kickstart stalled peace talks in June 2002, hopes were high that an end was in sight to Africa’s longest running civil war. The historic Machakos framework peace deal on a cessation of hostilities, was signed in Kenya in October 2002. It was strengthened by an addendum in February this year which provided for a verification and monitoring team to oversee the cessation of hostilities. Later that month, a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed on thorny issues such as power and wealth sharing. All seemed to be heading in the right direction, buoyed by purposeful US engagement in the current process.
But later in the year, the carefully constructed peace deals started unravelling as the sides quibbled over a draft framework document and there was considerable diplomatic scrambling to get the talks back on course. It seems to have paid off. The stop-start process, mediated by the regional Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) grouping under the chairmanship of Kenya, was suddenly given a new lease of life in September when Sudanese Vice-President Ali Osman Taha and SPLA leader John Garang agreed to meet face-to-face in Kenya. On 25 September, those talks culminated in the signing of a breakthrough deal on security issues and there is eager anticipation that the momentum will be carried through to a full peace agreement. The devastating war between the Moslem north and mostly Christian and animist south, in which up to two million people have been killed, could finally be reaching its conclusion.
SOMALIA
Somalia’s bloody civil war broke out in 1991 after the demise of president Siad Barre and has been raging ever since. Poverty and greed have fuelled this war as faction leaders stepped in to take advantage of the power vacuum, and anarchic fiefdoms developed. The lack of any central government led to the proliferation of weapons and factions. In 2000, a conference in the Djibouti city of Arta led to the establishment of the Transitional National Government (TNG) and other institutions – an interim arrangement due to last three years. But the TNG never consolidated power much beyond certain areas of Mogadishu and the south. As the transitional period approached its end, an all-inclusive peace conference – mediated by IGAD – was organised in the Kenyan town of Eldoret in October 2002 to decide on the way forward.
Since then the interim has passed and the situation is still far from resolved. Many Somalis at the talks say the conference does not belong to them and that decisions are “imposed” on them, although the mediators say that now the meeting has entered the final phase on power-sharing, the delegates are in control of their destiny. But the TNG leaders in Mogadishu and some prominent faction chiefs are opposed to a charter which is supposed to act as the blueprint for future institutions. And an IGAD technical committee, made up of Somalia’s neighbours – Kenya, Djibouti and Ethiopia – which is meant to steer the talks, has had internal wrangling of its own. In fact, Djibouti has just pulled out of the talks altogether. While some speak of breakthrough agreements, others are walking out. It seems an impasse has been reached.
ERITREA-ETHIOPIA
The Ethiopia-Eritrea row differs from the other two in that it is not a civil war, although some analysts believe that the lingering effects of the crisis could lead to conflict within the countries themselves. In May 1998, a skirmish between the armed forces of Ethiopia and Eritrea in the border town of Badme flared up into a full-scale war that was to last two years with tens of thousands of casualties on both sides. In December 2000, a peace agreement was signed in Algiers which among other issues provided for an independent boundary commission to rule definitively on the common border between the countries – something that was never formalised when Eritrea gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993.
The 13 April 2002 ruling controversially put the symbolic town of Badme in Eritrea, and analysts say Ethiopia has been unable to swallow the bitter pill. Demarcation, which would mark the end of the peace process and the pullout of the 4,200-strong UN peacekeeping force (UNMEE), has been twice postponed as Ethiopia seeks to have the border decision changed in certain areas. In his strongest statement yet, Prime Minister Meles Zenawi has called on the Security Council to intervene, saying the peace process needs to be “salvaged” and a new body should be set up to rule afresh on the contested areas. He has warned of the possibility of renewed war. The Security Council replied by telling Ethiopia to implement the ruling. It appears that demarcation, due to begin this month, could again be postponed and the whole peace process looks very shaky.
SHIFTING ALLIANCES
The uncertainty clouding the Horn risks torpedoing peace prospects in the individual countries and in the region at large.
As political analyst Leenco Lata, a former leader of Ethiopia’s rebel Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), points out: “Inter-state and intra-state conflicts in the Horn of Africa display the tendency to connect seamlessly and to resonate with each other to an extent rarely seen elsewhere. This resonance must be kept in mind in any attempt to resolve conflict in the region.” [1]
Internal and regional alliances have been shifting at a fast pace in the Horn this year. Sudan and Ethiopia – both of which have ongoing conflicts with Eritrea – have joined forces with Yemen to form an alliance aimed at isolating their tiny neighbour. Historically, Eritrea and Somalia have been friends (to the extent that Eritrea refuses to recognise the self-declared republic of Somaliland’s bid for independence), and Asmara and Somalia’s TNG are further united in their opposition to the regime in Addis Ababa. Somalia itself is riven by pro- and anti-Ethiopia factions. But despite Sudan’s friendship with Ethiopia, the TNG says relations with Khartoum, a fellow Moslem government, are good.
And the fifth country of the region – the often-forgotten but crucial Red Sea state of Djibouti – shifts uncomfortably among its larger neighbours. Ties with Eritrea have improved and the focus for tension now lies with Ethiopia to some extent over differences regarding the Somali issue, although Djibouti is a vital conduit for landlocked Ethiopia. Its strategic importance has been further emphasised by the establishment of a US counter-terrorism operation on its territory.
Haile Menkerios, who heads the Africa I division of the UN’s Department of Political Affairs, says settlement of one conflict will not affect the other in a mechanical way, but could lessen tension in the other states.
“One settlement can lead to a general releasing of tension and contribute to a better atmosphere in the region,” he says.
He also points out that “given the energy and effort that have been made,” all the peace processes are reaching a critical stage.
John Prendergast of the Brussels-based think tank International Crisis Group agrees that each process has to succeed for regional stability to take hold.
“But the three conflicts are remarkably self-sustaining and independently driven,” he told IRIN. “Resolution in one would not necessarily mean resolution in the other – all have complex, long-running causes.”
SUDAN PIVOTAL FOR PEACE
Many observers agree the lynchpin for peace lies with the regional giant, Sudan. An end to Africa’s longest-running civil war could provoke a change in the international community’s attitude towards the region, particularly that of the US which is seen as a major player.
Observers say the US could, for instance, exert more pressure on Eritrea and Ethiopia whose human rights policies have come under criticism and whose governments have been accused of prolonging tension to divert attention from problems at home.
“The US doesn’t want to see countries such as Ethiopia and Eritrea weakened by a change in leadership,” one regional analyst told IRIN. “It sees the current governments as crucial to keeping out radical Islamists as part of the global war on terror, so it doesn’t concern itself too much with internal issues.”
“Resolution of the Sudan issue might reduce these considerations and lead to affirmative pressure on the internal situations,” the analyst added.
Prendergast of the ICG says elements in the Sudan war have been used as “pawns” by both Eritrea and Ethiopia to further their objectives against each other, but stresses that resolution of the Sudan crisis would not make war less likely between the two neighbours.
“Their causes for conflict are deep-seated and have their own logic,” he notes.
PEACEKEEPING
Although the Sudan peace process has been driven by IGAD, it is clear the UN will have a role to play once a peace deal is signed. The involvement would be based on consent by the parties, but they have already indicated a desire for this to take place.
Chris Coleman, senior political affairs officer with the UN’s Department of Peacekeeping Operations, says the exact nature of the operation would depend on the details of the comprehensive peace agreement signed by the Sudanese sides.
And there would be cooperation on monitoring compliance with the accord with existing entities – such as the international Joint Monitoring Commission which oversees the ceasefire in the Nuba Mountains area and the IGAD-led Verification Monitoring Team which assesses the situation in the south.
Experts say it is unlikely to be an UNMEE-type operation, and its responsibility would probably be limited to that of an observer mission.
Given the present difficulties in the Eritrea-Ethiopia process, they say the UN would probably be shy of getting “bogged down” in the same way in Sudan. Already, there are mutterings of another Cyprus or Kashmir along the Eritrea-Ethiopia border.
Observers say UNMEE (UN Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea) is effectively “caught in the middle” of the international community’s apparent wariness in treading the delicate path between the positions of Eritrea and Ethiopia over the border issue.
There have been calls for a change in UNMEE’s mandate to strengthen it to that of peace enforcement, but some UN officials believe this would be counter-productive and invite hostilities which are not there at present.
“Either side could engage the UN and then blame it for inflaming the situation,” one official told IRIN. “It’s an open invitation for the escalation of violence.”
Some observers, however, argue that the “deterrence” of peace enforcement could pre-empt war breaking out again over border demarcation.
It is unlikely the Security Council will approve a radical mandate change, although there have already been minor adjustments – such as adding demining activities to the mandate - and there could be further small amendments to take in the transfer of territorial control once the border has been demarcated.
Coleman points out that UNMEE has carried out its mandate “to the letter”.
“It has established and maintained the Temporary Security Zone [demilitarised area], the armed forces of both sides have been kept apart and there have been no renewed hostilities,” he told IRIN.
For Somalia, if and when a peace deal is agreed, it is likely the African Union will have the lead in any peacekeeping or observation mission.
Analysts note that the UN would be unwilling to become involved in peacekeeping activities, although there would probably be a role for peace building including humanitarian and development work.
Somalia’s ambassador to the UN Ahmed Abdi Hashi says peace in his country depends on whether there can be complete simultaneous disarmament throughout the nation. And he believes any mission should have a mandate to enforce peace.
NOW OR NEVER
Somalia and Sudan’s problems are internal political conflicts which go back years and whose peace talks are driven by the region (IGAD). Countless previous attempts at peace have failed, and observers say it is “now or never” for both countries.
And nerves are jangling over the latest twists in the Eritrea-Ethiopia peace process.
“Even though the Eritrea-Ethiopia process is different to the other two in that it is led by the UN and the international community, there should be more pressure by countries that are friendly to both – such as the US - to press ahead with demarcation,” one analyst said.
He suggests “depoliticising” the Badme issue in particular. “The main reason for continuing the tension and the ‘war threat’ has nothing to do with the border and everything to do with the internal situation in both countries.”
“If left as a political issue, border demarcation could have disastrous consequences,” he warned.
Ethiopia, which currently administers Badme, argues that the issue should be looked at from a "humanitarian" point of view. It says the current ruling, which it describes as "illegal and unjust", will cause hardship for the people living in the contested territories and throw the region into turmoil. Eritrea has said there can be no dialogue until after demarcation.
There are many who also believe the international community is not as fully engaged in the Somalia process as it should be. They point out that the Sudan process really took off once the US ratcheted up its involvement.
“Unfortunately the international community has remained reluctant to throw its full weight behind the peace talks, to take a tough line with those who are undermining it or generally to express a unified position on preferred outcomes,” said the ICG in a report earlier this year. [2]
“We suffer from the continued neglect of the international community,” Somalia’s Ahmed Abdi Hashi told IRIN. “What we need is a transparent power sharing agreement that can be enforced.”
Analysts warn that failure of these “last-ditch” hopes for peace in the Horn could lead to a precarious situation in the region, ushering in renewed conflict that would not be easily contained.
“If the peace processes fail, there will be a great deal of difficulty in reconstructing alternative approaches that have as good a chance of working as the present constellation,” the ICG’s John Prendergast told IRIN.
“IGAD’s stewardship of the Sudan process has been stellar. The Ethiopia-Eritrea agreement is almost fully implemented – if they went back to war there would not be a likely replacement for some time,” he said. “And Somalia would also not easily find a mechanism to address Somali problems in the near future if this effort collapsed.”
[1] - Peacemaking Conundrums in the Horn of Africa
www.ploughshares.ca
[2] - Negotiating a Blueprint for Peace in Somalia
www.intl-crisis-group.org
[ENDS]
Themes: (IRIN) Governance
[ENDS]
The material contained on this Web site comes to you via IRIN, a UN humanitarian information unit, but may not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations or its agencies. If you re-print, copy, archive or re-post any item on this site, please retain this credit and disclaimer. Quotations or extracts should include attribution to the original sources. All graphics and Images on this site may not be re-produced without the express permission of the original owner. All materials copyright © UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs 2003
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
