The African Union is urging the United Nations to boost its support for Somalia’s fragile government in view of the rise of terrorist activity in the Horn of Africa and the Arabian peninsula. AU Commission Chairman Jean Ping calls the overall security situation in the Horn of Africa nation “unstable, volatile and challenging’.

In a report to the AU Peace and Security Council Friday, Ping notes several tragic security breakdowns in the past few months. The most recent was a suicide attack December 3 on a medical school graduation in Mogadishu that killed 25, including three government ministers. Another suicide attack in September on the headquarters of the AU peacekeeping mission, AMISOM, killed 20 people, mostly peacekeepers, including the deputy force commander.

Acting on Ping’s recommendation, the Council extended AMISOM’s mandate for another 12 months. The U.N. Security Council approved $210 million to fund the 5,200 AMISOM peacekeepers for the past seven months. But as the Council meets next week to review AMISOM funding levels, AU Peace and Security Commissioner Ramtane Lamamra is calling for Somalia to be seen not just as a breeding ground for terrorists, but as part of a region dotted with troubled states such as Eritrea and Yemen.

“We look forward to more bold decisions within the UN Security Council so that engagement of the international community would be commensurate with the challenges. These are not limited to local challenges, they go beyond, to include piracy, international terrorism, and these are of a global nature,” said Lamamra.

U.N. Special Representative to Somalia Ahmedou Ould-Abdallah says several recent events have highlighted the Horn of Africa ’s growing significance as a hub in the global terror network.

“It is today becoming…a global crisis, and the latest developments in Mogadishu with killing of students by a Somali coming from Denmark, or an attempt against a journalist in Denmark, and before that in Kenya is showing that Somalia is a global crisis,” said Ould-Abdallah. “Note the importance British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has attached to Somalia, linking it clearly to developments coming from Afghanistan or Yemen,” he added.

The latest AU report notes security in Somalia is complicated by a fight between two rival insurgent groups for control of a lucrative port city. Both groups, al-Shabab and Hizbul Islam are said to have links with al-Qaida.

Earlier this week, it was reported that the Nigerian man accused of trying to detonate a bomb on a Detroit-bound airliner Christmas Day had met a radical U.S. Muslim cleric in Yemen after being recruited by al-Qaida in London.

Yemen, the ancestral home of Osama bin Laden, is 250 kilometers from the northern coast of Somalia across the Gulf of Aden, the busy waterway that has been the scene of hijackings by Somali pirates. Source: (Voice of America)

AU

By Melake Hadgembes

(Political and Economic Analysis)

What could be the effects of the sanction and who is to be blamed for that? If the government of Eritrea did not fail the African Union and resigned from the IGAD nations, Eritrea would not face the Christmas Eve sanction.

Throughout history, the victims of sanctions in many African countries have been the citizens despite their innocence and very limited non democratic participation and influence in the political sphere of their nation. Sanctions are usually the outcome of a conflict of interests at national and international levels.

Decisions are taken by government officials with uninformed consensus and very limited participation from the public sphere. Hence strong nations at international levels publish resolutions if they think that the decisions taken by government officials are dangerous for their interests in the region without weighing its consequences on the livelihoods of the innocent citizens and especially the poor.

Today’s sanction is the result of the long term effect of the Eritrean government failure to the African Union and IGAD nations. Eritrean government decided to avoid African Union and resign from the IGAD nations since their strategy and policy were in conflict. One may ask if that was the right decision. There could be many important questions to raise here.

How can you avoid yourself from some thing that’s part of you although your strategy and ideology is in conflict? If for instance, you are a member of a chaotic family, and you are a responsible person, you can not avoid your family just for that reason. You have to be part of the family and try to understand what is going wrong. Then, slowly you could start to impose a sound strategy in a way that family members could communicate and understand their failure and come back to the right track.

Similarly, as long as Eritrea is a part of the African continent it can not avoid itself from the AU and IGAD nations. If it does so; it would only have a trickle-down effect which already happened with the present sanction. The voice of Eritrea is not represented and heard for whatever agreement or decision taken at regional and international levels despite its economical, political, social and environmental impact upon Eritrea.

This does not mean that the AU or IGAD has good policies and strategies. Neither does it mean that it is the mandate of the Eritrean government to bring changes on the AU or IGAD strategies.

However, if the discourse of a smaller entity as part of a bigger unit is at odds, it can only affect and create changes merely from within the paradigm of the bigger unit.

Politically, economically, and even scientifically, it is difficult and may not be possible for a country like Eritrea to criticise and bring immediate changes in the strategy and policies of the bigger and relatively stronger units AU or IGAD.

The government of Eritrea should have worked at its best with a long term goal to bring changes in the strategy and policy of the organizations from within their paradigm and struggle to foster cooperation, economic growth and sustainable development at regional and international stages. Besides, it is always effective that a government informs and brings its own people into the processes of discussion and decision making.

Eritrea could potentially be a victim of the sanction; economically, politically and otherwise. Although it is questionable and controversial, one of the significant down effect of the sanction is the future condition of the potential mining activities in Eritrea. Nevsun has been operating in the country for the last ten years as a partner in the development of the Bisha mine and has been actively involved in developing a responsible mining industry in Eritrea.

Nevsun said that it believes “these sanctions should not have any direct impact on the Company or its Bisha project in Eritrea as the Company is focused solely on the development of the Bisha project. It is however uncertain whether these sanctions could indirectly impact the Bisha debt facilities announced in July 2009. The Company is already in discussions with stakeholders to evaluate that possibility and has contemplated alternative finance sources if the sanctions do eventually negatively impact the debt facilities.” Although the company is trying its best to keep the finance in place, the stakeholders may not feel secured enough to keep their stake.  For instance, the share price of the company declined from 3.20 to 2.75, a drop by 14% in just three days after the resolution was passed.

Therefore, the sanction today has happened mainly, among others, because of the relations of the Eritrean government with AU and IGAD. If it was not for the AU or IGAD’s strong involvement and endorsement of the sanctions, the UN and the US would not have done any thing on ground regarding the sanctions. Originally, the government of Eritrea should not have resigned itself from the AU and IGAD as it would only erase its voice and representation at regional and international levels.

By Louis Charbonneau

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – Eritrea has warned the U.N. Security Council that a draft sanctions resolution would impose “ludicrous punitive measures” on Asmara for aiding Somali rebels and might further destabilize the Horn of Africa.

“Eritrea urges all members of the U.N. Security Council to use their influence to ensure the rejection of this draft resolution in its entirety,” Eritrea’s U.N. ambassador, Araya Desta, said in a letter to the 15-nation Security Council.

“This measure risks engulfing the region into another cycle of conflict as it may encourage Ethiopia to contemplate reckless military adventures,” he said in the letter, dated Dec. 15 and obtained by Reuters on Friday.

The United States and other council members accuse Asmara of supplying Islamist al Shabaab rebels with funds and arms as they fight to topple a fragile U.N.-backed transitional government in Somalia, a virtually lawless Horn of Africa nation.

Eritrea’s regional rival Ethiopia invaded Somalia in 2006 with tacit U.S. backing to rout an Islamic courts movement from Mogadishu. It withdrew its troops earlier this year and denies accusations by Somalia’s rebels that they have returned. Addis Ababa backs Somalia’s transitional government.

Uganda is credited with drafting the sanctions resolution, which would impose an arms embargo and asset freezes and travel bans on designated Eritrean individuals and firms. But Desta said in his letter that Washington was its true author.

“In reality, the main architect of this resolution and the single country which has been campaigning frantically in the corridors of the U.N. premises in New York … for its adoption is the United States,” he said.

ERITREA WANTS NEW AU MEETING

Desta also reiterated Asmara’s denials that his country is supporting al Shabaab in any way.

In May, the African Union called on the Security Council to sanction Eritrea.

In a telephone interview with Reuters, Desta insisted that “many African nations do not support the idea of sanctions.” He said Eritrea was urging the AU to hold another summit meeting next year to discuss the sanctions issue.

“When we speak with African leaders, many of them say they had no idea that sanctions are being considered against Eritrea,” he said. “They don’t like the idea.”

The AU officially supports sanctions against Asmara, but the organization’s current chair, Libya, has said it would vote against the Ugandan draft resolution. The Libyans have a temporary seat on the U.N. Security Council until the end of December.

Council diplomats told Reuters on condition of anonymity that they expected the council to vote on the resolution before the end of the year and predicted it would get 14 votes in favor. Libya is likely to cast the sole vote against it.

Security Council members from the West had originally expected negotiations on the resolution to run into next year. But diplomats said an agreement had emerged after Russia and China took an “unusually cooperative” stance on the resolution.

A U.N. arms monitoring body, which was set up to record violations of a 1992 arms embargo on Somalia, has said Asmara was sending munitions to Somali rebels, as well as providing them with logistical support.

Somalia has been mired in chaos for nearly two decades and there is little sign the latest attempt to establish a central government is proving any more successful than the 14 previous efforts since a dictator was ousted in 1991.

(Editing by Eric Beech)

Fiji Islands

Last Thursday, a U.N. Security Council draft called for sanctions including an arms embargo against Eritrea. The alleged sanction in the name of “aiding Islamist insurgents in Somalia” targets at travel bans and asset freezes for government officials and military leaders.

However, there are also claims that the call for sanctions against Eritrea touches on trade barriers for protecting its domestic market. U.N. diplomats said that the resolution was drafted by temporary Security Council member Uganda and has been circulated to other members of the 15-nation panel.

IGAD is supporting the sanction strongly. IGAD member States include – Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda. The accusation against Eritrea claims supplying al Shabaab rebels with money and weapons to Islamist insurgents in Somalia.

The draft includes the ban of all sales of weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts  to Asmara. Besides, it is targeting technical assistance, training, financial and other assistance, related to the military activities.”

Eritrea denies supporting al Shabaab and has said that the threat of U.N. sanctions is of “no concern at all’’. However, the Security Council, African Union (AU) and United States insist that Eritrea is destabilizing Somalia. They accuse Asmara of sending plane- and boatloads of munitions to Somali rebels, as well as providing them with logistical support.

Yet it is not clear when the council would vote on the resolution. Nevertheless, diplomats call for the need to revise the case to avoid a veto from China and Russia, which are not pro-sanctions.

Reuters reports that ‘’the resolution would authorize U.N. member states to inspect “all cargo to and from Somalia and Eritrea” via land and sea if there were grounds to suspect that the cargo included banned items.’’

However, the draft is not clear and lacks substance. First of all, the council has yet not provided any evidence on ground regarding the case to the public. Besides, the accusations should not include the issue of trade barriers. The US by itself protects its farmers through subsidies and the same goes to the European Union killing many subsistence farmers in the third world who do not have the capability to compete.

It is very tempting to draw the line between “smart sanctions” and “smart bombs”.  The new “smart bomb”, which helps to shape new geo-political and economic realities, is called “smart sanction” and can hit a specific target like a precision guided munition. They call it modern warfare and it’s like star wars.

Some analyst caution that the widespread belief targeted sanctions could not hurt the ordinary population could be misleading.

Perhaps sanctions are not smart at all as the example of a small island nation in the South Pacific Ocean comprising of an archipelago of about 322 islands and a population of 849,000 shows.

The state is called Fiji and is ranked number 40 in the list of the world’s smallest countries next to Qatar and Cyprus.

Sugar exports and a strong tourism sector were the backbones of the national economy providing major income from foreign exchange and a strong growth in GDP. In 1999, Australia and New Zealand used to have close ties with Fiji because of business interests in tourism, natural resources and fisheries.

In 2006 a military commander of the armed forces staged a military takeover accusing the prime minister of promoting corruption in the government. It has to be mentioned that there had been two military coups earlier in 1987 and 2000. Nevertheless, as a consequence of the coup in 2006 Australia, New Zealand, Europe, the United States followed by the international community implemented the so called “smart sanctions” against the tiny island state.

Academics at the department of economics at the University of the South Pacific warned the international community to be mindful regarding sanctions as they could be counterproductive and hurt Fiji as a whole. They were referring to developments such as the announcement by the Government of New Zealand to exclude Fiji from a guest worker scheme for seasonal workers and stop issuing scholarships to Fiji students.

The danger of “smart sanctions” becomes also evident in the example of how the European Union dealt with the blurry and distorted definitions of targeted sanctions. For example in 2007 the European Union froze funds used to subsidize sugar farmers in Fiji categorizing them as non-humanitarian aid.

It was the experience made in Fiji that generic travel bans on all citizens serving on government or quasi government boards only seemed to undermine governance and social stability. In a recent statement the Australia Fiji Business Council called the international community to lift travel bans because it limits the ability of both the public and private sector from recruiting and training the best available talents.

The fact is that the public and private business sector heavily depends on the freedom of movement of public servants, government officials and local authorities especially in small countries such as Fiji or Eritrea. “Smart sanctions” do not translate into practice in general, not for citizens in Fiji or in any other country of this world.

As a result of the “smart sanction” Fiji’s sugar exporting industry has been harmed and brought to a still stand, tourism arrivals were down by 6% in 2007. The tourism industry is damaged and facing uncertain recovery time. The fact is that “smart sanctions” target the GDP of a country which is basically the same as targeting the population of a nation.

In 2007 the GDP of Fiji dropped by 7% hurting directly the people of Fiji. In the list of countries ranked by their GDP Fiji dropped by 16 places from number 137 in 2005 to 153 in 2008. The problems between the current Fiji government and the international community have not improved and constructive dialogue has been replaced by tension and mistrust. The latest development is that Fiji is turning its back on the West looking for new allies such as China, which has strategic interests in the Pacific region.

Fact is there is no such thing as “smart sanctions” and isolating Eritrea might make things worse for Eritreans. The good news is there is hope that the permanent UN Security Council member states China and Russia might block any resolution to put sanction against Eritrea in place.

The question is does it make a difference or not? Just recently a student holding an Eritrean passport in Europe told me, “I have been one of the best performer at my University and was competing for a scholarship at my faculty due to a lack of funds. They refused to support me because today it can make a big difference, whether you are Eritrean or Kenyan. There was a time not too long ago you could get scholarships from Universities in places such as Canada, USA, England, Netherlands and Sweden without any problem. This has changed! We are singled out!”

* Steps include arms embargo, asset freezes, travel bans

* Russia, China will have problems with draft – diplomats

By Louis Charbonneau

UNITED NATIONS, Nov 19 (Reuters) – A draft U.N. Security Council resolution calls for an arms embargo against Eritrea and travel bans and asset freezes for members of its government and military for aiding Islamist insurgents in Somalia.

The resolution, obtained by Reuters on Thursday, was drafted by temporary Security Council member Uganda and has been circulated to other members of the 15-nation panel, U.N. diplomats said.

The United States and other council members accuse Eritrea of supplying al Shabaab rebels with money and weapons as they fight to topple the fragile U.N.-backed transitional government of Somali President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, the official leader of the virtually lawless Horn of Africa nation.

The fighting in Somalia has killed nearly 19,000 civilians since the start of 2007 and driven 1.5 million from their homes.

Among the measures called for in the draft is a ban on all sales to Asmara of “weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts.”

The draft also calls for a ban on providing Eritrea with “technical assistance, training, financial and other assistance, related to the military activities.”

The Security Council, African Union (AU) and United States have all warned Asmara against destabilizing Somalia. Eritrea denies supporting al Shabaab and has said that the threat of U.N. sanctions is of “no concern at all.”

A U.N. arms monitoring body — which was set up to record violations of a 1992 arms embargo on Somalia — has said Asmara was sending plane- and boatloads of munitions to Somali rebels, as well as providing them with logistical support.

It was not clear when the council would vote on the resolution. Diplomats said it would need to be revised if it was to avoid a veto from China and Russia, which dislike sanctions in general.

The resolution would authorize U.N. member states to inspect “all cargo to and from Somalia and Eritrea” via land and sea if there were grounds to suspect that the cargo included banned items.

It would also impose a travel ban and freeze the assets of the “Eritrean political and military leadership” and other Eritrean individuals and firms suspected of supporting the hard-line Islamist rebels.

Somalia has been mired in chaos for nearly two decades and there is little sign the latest attempt to establish central government is proving any more successful than the 14 previous efforts since a dictator was ousted in 1991. (Editing by David Storey)

An Eritrean delegation lead by the Eritrean Minister of Foreign Affairs arrived in Libya for the 12th extra ordinary session of the AU. read more: