On March 5, 2010, President Omar Hassen Al-Beshir of Sudan conducted a quick visit with his Eritrean counterpart President Isaias Afwerki in Asmara, Eritrea. At face value, it could appear easy for those who want to demonize and try to dismiss the significance of the visit. They can try minimizing it as insignificant because of President Omar Hassen Al-Beshir’s standing with the International Criminal Court (ICC) as well as the sanction measure in place against the people of Sudan. They could portray it as, two lightweights getting together to prop-up each other in a world stage. However, the visit, their meeting and the outright rejection by Sudan of the UNjust sanction resolution 1907 is sending a shockwaves for Ethiopia, IGAD and the USA. Here is why:
It Highlighted the Irrelevance of IGAD
The Inter Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) is a regional organization of East African states namely Eritrea, Sudan, Ethiopia, Uganda, Djibouti, Kenya and Somalia created to foster cooperation in the region. However, during the Bush era, IGAD was-taken over by Dr. Jendayie Frazer and turned into a tool for the US hegemonic agendas, and is currently serving US interest. Moreover, in Christmas of 2006, after Ethiopia invaded Somalia, breaking IGAD and UN rules at the behest of US with IGAD’s acquiescence, Eritrea withdrew her membership from the group in 2007. After that period, the onslaught of decisions against Eritrea by the IGAD continued with impunity and unabated until they pushed the sanction measure against Eritrea.
The deceitful cutthroat approach the organization embarked on behalf of the US will certainly doom its future because it has lost credibility. However, in the short term, the US managed to use it as a tool against Eritrea in an effort to give the sanction an African face so the US State Department can confidently say it is an “African Initiative.”
Fast forward to march of 2010: in a last ditch effort to stop President Hassen Al-Beshir from visiting Eritrea and to ask him to join the IGAD meeting in Kenya, IGAD members sent Kenyan foreign minister Moses Wetangula and Ethiopian minister of foreign affairs Seyoum Mesfin to Khartoum. If Sudan were to accept the invitation and come onboard, they thought, it would seal the fate of Eritrea. However, Sudan utterly rejected their attempts because it was against its own national interest. It is also clear to Sudan the manner in which the sanction measure IGAD passed against Eritrea could likely be, applied against Sudan at some point.
The utter rejection showed, Sudan is convinced IGAD is not working for the interest of countries involved and does not trust its members and rendered IGAD worthless. For all practical purposes, Sudan is unofficially out of IGAD, Somalia is unsettled as a nation to matter and Eritrea has officially suspended its membership. Thus, it is safe to say that IGAD is all but dead as organization because Sudan and Eritrea are key actors who are not active members. Therefore, IGAD will not be able to claim it is working for its intended mission with any credibility while a significant portion of its membership is inactive.
Renders US/UN Sanction Decision Worthless
In the past, any US authored international sanctions meant a death sentence to any nation that they imposed it on as witnessed in Iraq and many other places. However, when the UN uses sanctions on nations based on considerations other than international peace; by using fabrications; without evidences and transparent legal process, it loses its intended meanings and effectiveness. In addition, when they apply sanction measures to prop-up US and other Western nations interests, the resistance for it hastens and it looses grip because it no longer serves the greater good or its intended mission. As a result, international cooperation for it wanes.
That is what just happened in Iran with China flatly rejecting US efforts to impose stiffer sanctions on Iran even when US is trying to exempt Chinese companies because it is counter to their interest. That is exactly what just happened with the Sudan and Eritrea. In fact, it is serving the reverse of what it is intended to achieve by pressuring this countries into working together in a much stronger bond. Furthermore, it alienates the powers who want to alienate the sanctioned nations because of its over-use and abuse.
It is a Rejection to Meles Zenawi
For the first time, there has been a concerted effort by the West to demonize the TPLF in order to appear as if they are still for democracy and the good side of the Ethiopian people. For the first time, the BBC attacked the TPLF gangs in a way that hastens the hatred the people of Ethiopia have towards the junta. In addition, Meles is getting measured reprimand from his masters in the US (crocodile tears by Senator, Russ Feingold). However, that is nothing compared to the rejection by the Sudan.
On February 9, 2010, Meles Zenawi met with General William Ward, commander of U.S. Africa Command, in Addis Ababa, and on February 17, 2010 Meles sent five [in reality US donated] helicopters to bolster peacekeeping missions in the Sudan. The US is key ally and supporter of the South Sudan. The alliance of South Sudan and the US and US military involvement with Meles is certain to have turned off Sudanese authorities. As usual, Meles is trying to eat with every side of his mouth. However, that lack of principle has finally paid of in turning the Sudan away from Meles altogether.
Time will tell what the ramifications of Sudanese rejection would mean to Ethio-Sudan Relations while the TPLF is in power. The TPLF tries to brag about their “Good relation and economic cooperation” but TPLF’s greed and deep political prostitution have certainly turned off Sudan. That means Sudan is working tightly with Eritrea as they pursue mutual security interest and all that it entails as evidenced by President Beshir’s recent visit to Asmara.
This is a clear indication that all the games Meles played have reached its culmination point. Meles wanted to play a double agent, by playing US agent in South Sudan as well as Darfur while at the same time trying to maintain excellent relations with Sudan. This turned out to be a conundrum of the highest form because for the first time, Meles must choose to either remain a US agent or pursue a major national interest and work with Beshir. He remained a US agent because he has no choice or say in this matter! In the process however, Meles jeopardized the interests of the people of Ethiopia and particularly people of Tigray with the Sudanese because Sudan is the KEY trading partner and a lifeline.
Eritrea and Sudan mean more to the people of Ethiopia than US interests in the region would mean to Ethiopians. The people of Ethiopia need to live in peace with the people in the region for them to thrive through trade and cooperation. Meles Zenawi is working against the interest of the people of Ethiopia and the region as he pursues US interests. That has certainly alienated him and his clique for good no matter how skillfully he tries to spin things in his favor and; jeopardized the livelihood of the people of Tigray in the process. Sudan and Eritrea (nations with ports) can shut down any products from passing to Tigray thus sanctioning Ethiopia in reverse.
The onslaught of bad news for the TPLF junta is an indication of a certain doom. After all, Meles is not as powerful as their masters would have us believe, just a yes man!
It Bolsters Chinese Position in the Region
The US has lost all credibility in the Horn of Africa by overwhelming majority of the people in the region for a number of reasons. Firstly, the US pursues its national interests at the expense of the people in the region. They ignore the people in the region and try to run US affairs using dictators that are not accountable to the people, ala Meles. Secondly, the US has incompetent diplomatic core that are belligerent and short sighted. They lack understanding of the political intricacies and fail to understand the consequences of their poor diplomatic manipulations and threatening postures. They pursue ill-calculated policies that work against US interests. For example, Ambassador Susan Rice failed to anticipate what would happen to IGAD after using it to seed the foundation of the sanction measure she hatched and implemented against Eritrea. In the least, she underestimated how it will affect Ethiopia. She failed to see how Sudan could counter. She and the Administration of which she is part of failed in a major way to see how China could take advantage of the “Blind leading the blind” policy of successive US Administrations regarding the Horn of Africa. Moreover, Susan Rice totally exposed her ignorance, by undermining the political brilliance, wit and willingness of Eritrean people to stand against her ill-conceived agendas.
The US has bet all its eggs on Meles Zenawi. In an effort to make Ethiopia the anchor state in the region, they put all their efforts on Addis Ababa firstly, because it is headquarters of the AU and secondly, because Meles Zenawi will do anything on command.
Furthermore, the people in the Horn of Africa have had it, they are fed up with US antiques. They want peace, development and cooperation, which the US will not entertain. The US, by betting entirely on Meles Zenawi, has lost a great swath of the Horn territories to China without China having to lift a finger. All the Chinese have to do is be the good people and help the countries exploit their resources peacefully and help them build their infrastructures. It is a much better alternative than what the US and the Western powers currently offer that is; the abuse of people, death and destruction in the guise of war on terror and, in the name of freedom and democracy.
The Chinese abstained from voting for sanctions against Eritrea and gave themselves a wiggling room to get out of it as they have with the Sudan. By now, it is clear that the sanction measure the US put in place against Sudan is not having any affects in the Sudan because China is a good ally and a major trading partner of Sudan. Any harm to the regime in Sudan can work against the interests of China. Therefore, US have not been able to penetrate Sudan regardless of the political maneuvers. That means the US is not in Sudan; and by sanctioning Eritrea, the US has just given China a clear path into Eritrea. That means China has no competition in a large swath of African territories that is full of oil and other natural resources. Where is the brilliance of team Obama in this? Instead, they are maintaining the failed Bush policies of propping up a puppet minority regime in Ethiopia; failed to implement legal border decision and by pushing the UNjust sanction measure on fabricated and trumped-up grounds.
It is disappointing to see successive US administrations trying to convince the American people that they are actually working for the hearts and minds of the people in a given region after they have cultivated hatred against the US by pursuing ill-conceived policies for decades.
To make matters worse for US position in the region, the fall of the minority clique in Ethiopia is imminent and would not be a peaceful transition contrary to newfound concern (crocodile tears) by Carter Center and Senator Russ Feingold for “free and fair election.” No election in Ethiopia can bring the kind of change Ethiopians can-believe-in while the minority clique is in power. Moreover, when that change comes, the Ethiopian people will not forget US alliance with Meles. Moreover, if Ethiopia falls into the hands of leaders that do not favor US position in the region, the US will be out of Ethiopia, Eritrea, and Sudan. This could certainly have a spiraling affect southward. That is all possible because incompetent US politicians have played zero sum games for decades by betting against the people in the region. That is very dangerous and impossible for the US to control once it is on the offing. In other words, US need to change its approach quickly in order to regain credibility and footing if there is a taker.
It Nullifies the Sanction Measure
No matter how tight, without total support of the sanction measure by all countries neighboring Eritrea and while the Chinese are in full support of Sudan; the UNjust sanction 1907 is null-and-void, irrelevant, ineffective and just propaganda exercises. The rejection by Sudan is a slap to the architects of the sanction, US, Ethiopia and IGAD. It is actually a blessing in disguise for Sudan and Eritrea because it strengthens their bilateral ties, enhances their cross border trade and strengthens people-to-people bonds. A good example of this is the fact that Sudanese are flocking to honeymoon and to tour Eritrea. It will also enhance the security cooperation and all that it entails. In addition, it clarifies the nature of alliances in the region for friends and foe.
Concluding Remarks
The US went the distance to give the sanction measure an African face as if the majority of African States had an interest on Eritrean sanction. The reality however, all African States know Ethiopia openly invaded Somalia. They know the US openly conducted and continues to operate militarily in Somalia illegally. Africans also know fully, the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia – the demarcation that followed based on colonial treaties, is sacrosanct to African boundaries. Africans know that Ethiopia continues to, openly reject international law. This is unconscionable, un-American and UNjust.
Yet, the Obama Administration contrary to campaign promises to engage is choosing deception. The American Ambassador at the UN, Susan Rice, after giving the Eritrean people the gift of Sanction on Christmas Eve turned around and said, “This is an African initiative.” Really? While that claim aimed to appease the international community from asking what in the hell is going on, it exposed the mediocrity of this half-baked politician.
Susan Rice forgot her race, forgot President Obama’s African American heritage and the history of African Americans. Because for sure, if it is up-to the White majority, Black Americans would still be slaves. Therefore, Susan Rice needs to stop deceiving herself because this is American initiative hatched, campaigned-for and implemented by Ambassador Susan Rice and Susan Rice alone. This is a continuation of the Bush Administration policies led by Dr. Jendayie Frazer another black educator! Dr Frazer pursued the placing of Eritrea into a list of Nations that Sponsor Terror and US congress rebuffed it because it was a farce. However, President Obama was able to subvert the process by making the UN Ambassador a cabinet position and making it a foreign policy matter under control of the president thus giving Rice full authority.
Susan Rice achieved what she wanted and set-off a dangerous political process that Africans need to reject: ugly sausage-making in a continent fraught by corrupted stooges of foreign powers.
At the same time, the incompetence of Ambassador Susan Rice has exposed the integrity of US as judicious arbiter of international matters. It brought to question the integrity of the UNSC and the UN. More importantly, it tarnished the UN emblem and defiled the UN brand. Eritreans in the process of fighting repeated injustices have effectively re-branded the blue with green wreath UN-designed flag into a sign of bloodiness and injustices.
The Obama Administration needs to reevaluate its position of African matters and make a carefully planned policy adjustment. They need to stop listening to people who are interested on power only by riding on the backs of the US by truly looking at the interest of the people and, at least, try to bring “Change We Can Believe in”. First, repeal the UNjust sanction because it will not serve the interest of the US in fact it will do the opposite.
The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria reports nearly 5 million lives have been saved since 2002 through programs it has supported for the treatment of these three killer diseases. A new report shows the fund’s multi-billion dollar investment is paying big dividends in improving the health of millions of people in developing countries.
Since its creation in 2002, the Global Fund has contributed more than $19 billion to combat AIDS, Malaria and Tuberculosis. The money has supported more than 600 programs in 144 countries. Countries in sub-Saharan Africa have been the major recipients.
The results are impressive. The fund reports 2.5 million people infected with HIV currently are being treated with antiretroviral therapy and this has resulted in a significant decline in AIDS deaths in many countries, including Ethiopia and Malawi.
It says around 6 million people with active tuberculosis are being treated for the disease. And, this too, is resulting in fewer deaths globally.
Through its malaria prevention program, the fund has distributed more than 100 million insecticide-treated nets. The report says 10 of the countries in Africa with the highest incidents of the illness have reported declines in new malaria cases and a decline in child mortality of 50 to 80 percent.
The fund’s Director of Strategy, Performance and Evaluation, Rifat Atun, says these programs saved at least 3,600 lives every day in 2009, and even more can be saved through continued funding of these programs.
“We can, for example, given the rate of investment and the scale at the moment we have, eliminate malaria as a public health problem, decline the mortality of under five in children, mothers and beyond,” noted Atun. “We can prevent millions of more HIV infections and also in tuberculosis. But, most importantly, we can look to a world that is free of HIV infection in children. We can virtually eliminate transmission of HIV from mother to child.”
But Atun, cautions continued progress will require the partnership to continue to work in the effective way in which it has done. He says support must be maintained for the countries that have been able to achieve these results.
The Global Fund is a combination public-private partnership among governments, civil society, the private sector and affected communities. Most of its money comes from the G7 industrialized countries. But, private organizations, such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation also contribute significant amounts.
The Global Fund says it will be able to reach several health-related Millennium Development Goals by 2015, if it receives the money it needs to continue scaling up its activities in the coming years.
The fund is setting its sights on reducing both child and maternal mortality rates by three quarters, to halt the spread of HIV and to reverse the incidence of malaria and other major diseases.
Eyewitnesses reported to Ethiopian Review yesterday that Tekeze River in northern Ethiopia has flooded, raising suspicion that the recently completed hydro-power dam may have sustained damage. Some speculate that the Woyanne regime flooded the river to restrict movement in the area, which has seen intensified movements by Ethiopian resistance groups who are fighting against the brutal regime.
Normally, until the month of July, Tekeze’s water level is low. In the past few days, unexpectedly the river flooded causing some people who tried to cross it to drown.
The Woyanne regime is not willing to give out any information about the flood.
The Tekeze hydro-power project was inaugurated on November 14, 2009. It has the capacity to generate 300 MW electric power and was constructed at a cost of 3.9 billion birr. The project took seven year to complete.
In late January, the Gilgel Gibe hydro-power dam in southern Ethiopia stopped power generation when a part of its 26-kilometer tunnel collapsed.
NAIROBI (Reuters) – Egyptian private equity firm Citadel Capital said on Monday it is setting up a new $150 million co-investment fund for Africa, focusing particularly on the east of the continent.
The main investors in the fund will be PROPARCO, a French development financial institution, the Dutch development bank FMO, along with the African Development Bank (AfDB) and potentially a fourth financier, which Citadel Capital would not disclose.
“(It is) our first ever fund, a co-investment fund. We are looking at closing for it by the end of the second quarter,” Citadel’s Karim Sadek, a managing director, told Reuters in an interview.
“They will be co-investing two-to-one for every dollar they have invested equity to. They are looking at a number of deals; waste management, the agrisector, transport.”
Citadel Capital, which manages $8.3 billion in investments, has said it is looking to expand its investments in Middle Eastern and East African countries, especially those with big domestic markets in commodities, such as Algeria, Egypt, Sudan, Ethiopia and Kenya.
Citadel Capital, which has created 17 companies to invest in the Middle East and East Africa, said in October it had set up at least two new funds for investment in these regions.
The Africa-centric fund is expected to take the lion’s share of the $500 million total Citadel Capital is targeting for the two new funds.
[the Woyanne regime in] Ethiopia criticized a British official’s call for the release of an Ethiopian opposition leader, saying it displayed “warped symptoms of a neo-colonial disposition.”
In a statement published on March 6 in the Addis Ababa-based Reporter newspaper, British Minister of State for Africa Baroness Glenys Kinnock said Ethiopia’s imprisonment of opposition leader Birtukan Mideksa “undermines” trust in the Horn of Africa country. A copy of the statement was e-mailed to Bloomberg today by the British embassy in Addis Ababa.
Kinnock also urged Meles Zenawi’s government to probe “serious allegations” that the distribution of foreign aid in Ethiopia was being used to win votes for the ruling party in elections scheduled for May 23.
Ethiopia’s government was surprised at “the temerity with which she took on the role of a mission-school mistress whose task it is to supervise the natives lest they slide back to their ‘primitive’ ways,” Ethiopia’s government’s said in a statement in the state-owned Ethiopian Herald yesterday.
Ethiopia’s opposition has claimed that it faces continued harassment and intimidation in the run-up to this year’s vote.
On March 2, an opposition candidate for parliament was stabbed to death in a restaurant he owned in northern Ethiopia. Earlier that week, a second opposition candidate was hospitalized after being beaten.
Opposition leaders have said Meles’ ruling party was behind both attacks. The government has denied the claims, saying both men were attacked by people who were not ruling party members.
Protesters Killed
Security forces loyal to Meles killed 193 protesters in unrest following a disputed 2005 vote and jailed many leading opposition leaders, including Birtukan. European Union observers concluded that the election fell short of international standards and was marred by irregularities in vote-counting.
Ethiopia also accused Kinnock of being “an ardent champion” of Eritrea, which fought a 1998-2000 border war with Ethiopia.
In addition, it said Kinnock had colluded with the 2005 EU electoral observer mission in an effort to foment a “revolution” to overthrow Meles’ government.
The dispute with Kinnock comes as Ethiopia’s Supreme Court today ordered four newspaper publishers that were closed after the 2005 ballot to pay fines imposed as a result of the treason trials that followed that year’s election.
The U.K. granted Ethiopia 220 million pounds ($333.2 million) in aid in the current fiscal year, according to the British embassy in Addis Ababa.
There is no way that elections can be fair, let alone credible, with opposition leaders in jail or unable to campaign freely. At the bare minimum, the international community should push for the release of these political prisoners ahead of the elections. And if nothing changes, we should not be afraid to stand with the Ethiopian people and state clearly that an election in name only is an affront to their country’s democratic aspirations.
March 2, 2010, statement by U.S. Senator Russ Feingold
Mr. President, I’d like to note the many challenges to democracy we are seeing across Africa today. I have long said that promoting and supporting democratic institutions should be a key tenet of our engagement with Africa, as good governance is essential to Africa’s stability and its prosperity. Africans are well aware of this and that is why we have seen spirited democratic movements throughout the continent, even against great odds. It is also why African leaders have committed at the African Union with the Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic and Corporate Governance that they will work to enforce “the right to participate in free, credible and democratic political processes.”
The previous administration spoke often about its commitment to promote democracy in Africa and throughout the world. The current administration too has committed to encourage strong and sustainable democratic governments, though it has rightly acknowledged that democracy is about more than holding elections. In his speech in Ghana, President Obama said, “America will not seek to impose any system of government on any nation – the essential truth of democracy is that each nation determines its own destiny. What we will do is increase assistance for responsible individuals and institutions, with a focus on supporting good governance – on parliaments, which check abuses of power and ensure that opposition voices are heard; on the rule of law, which ensures the equal administration of justice; on civic participation, so that young people get involved…”
Mr. President, I agree that we must take a more holistic approach in our efforts to promote and support democracy. Democracy is not just about a single event every few years; it is also about an ongoing process of governance that is accountable and responsive to the needs and will of citizens. And it is about citizens having the space, encouragement, and ability to educate themselves, mobilize and participate in that process. We must help countries build such institutions and encourage such space. And we must be willing to speak out against erosions of democratic rights and freedoms – and not only once a country reaches a crisis point such as a coup.
Mr. President, while some African countries have made great democratic strides, I am concerned about the fragile state of democracy on the continent, especially within a number of countries set to hold elections over the next 15 months. In particular, I am concerned by the democratic backsliding in several countries that are close U.S. partners and influential regional actors. It is notable that the Director of National Intelligence included a section on “stalled democratization” in Africa in his public testimony last month to the Senate Intelligence Committee on annual threat assessments. He stated, “The number of African states holding elections continues to grow although few have yet to develop strong, enduring democratic institutions and traditions. In many cases the ‘winner-take-all’ ethos predominates and risks exacerbating ethnic, regional, and political divisions.”
Elections are only one component of the democratic process, but still they are a significant one. The pre- and post-elections periods in many countries are ones in which democratic space and institutions are most clearly tested and face the greatest strains. They can be the periods in which democracy is at its best, but they can also be the periods in which democracy faces some of its greatest threats. This is the case not only in Africa; this is the case here in the United States and that is why I have worked tirelessly to limit the power of wealthy interests to unduly influence our elections.
Among those African countries scheduled to hold national elections in 2010 are Ethiopia, Sudan, Togo, Central African Republic, Burundi, Rwanda, Tanzania and Burkina Faso. Guinea, Madagascar, and Niger, three countries that have recently had coups, have also committed to hold elections this year. And in early 2011, Benin, Djibouti, Uganda, Nigeria and Chad are all scheduled to hold elections.
Mr. President, of all these elections, Sudan’s is already receiving significant attention, and for good reason. That election – the country’s first multiparty one in 24 years – has the potential to be a historic step toward political transformation in Sudan if it is credible. However, restrictions on opposition parties and the continued insecurity in Darfur have many doubting whether the conditions even exist for credible elections. Furthermore, increasing violence within southern Sudan is very worrying. In any case, the results of Sudan’s election in April will have a great influence on political dynamics within the country and region for years to come and will pave the way for southern Sudan’s vote on self-determination, set for January 2011. The international community is rightly keeping a close eye on these elections, and we need to continue supporting efforts to make them credible and be prepared to speak out against any abuses or rigging.
Similarly, we need to keep a close eye on the other African countries holding important elections this year. Let me highlight four countries whose upcoming elections I believe also merit close attention and specific international engagement.
The first is Ethiopia, which is set to hold elections in May. In his testimony, the Director of National Intelligence stated, “In Ethiopia, Prime Minister Meles and his party appear intent on preventing a repeat of the relatively open 2005 election which produced a strong opposition showing.” Indeed, in Ethiopia, democratic space has been diminishing steadily since 2005. Over the last two years, the Ethiopian Parliament has passed several new laws granting broad discretionary powers to the government to arrest opponents. One such law, the Charities and Societies Proclamation, imposes direct government controls over civil society and bars any civil society group receiving more than 10 percent of its funding from international sources to do work related to human rights, gender equality, the rights of the disabled, children’s rights or conflict resolution. Another law, the Anti-Terrorism Proclamation, defines terrorism-related crimes so broadly that they could extend to non-violent forms of political dissent and protest.
Mr. President, Ethiopia is an important partner of the United States and we share many interests. We currently provide hundreds of millions of dollars in aid annually to Ethiopia. That is why I have been so concerned and outspoken about these repressive measures. And that is why I believe we have a stake in ensuring that Ethiopia’s democratic process moves forward, not backward. With the elections just three months away, several key opposition leaders remain imprisoned, most notably Birtukan Mideksa, the head of the Unity for Democracy and Justice Party. There is no way that elections can be fair, let alone credible, with opposition leaders in jail or unable to campaign freely. At the bare minimum, the international community should push for the release of these political prisoners ahead of the elections. And if nothing changes, we should not be afraid to stand with the Ethiopian people and state clearly that an election in name only is an affront to their country’s democratic aspirations.
The second country I want to highlight is Burundi. As many people will recall, Burundi was devastated by political violence throughout the 1990s, leaving over 100,000 people dead. Yet, the country has made tremendous strides in recent years to recover and rebuild from its civil war. In 2005, it held multi-party national and local elections, a major milestone on its transition to peace. Burundians are set to head to the polls again this year. If these elections are fair, free and peaceful, they have the potential to be another milestone along the path toward reconciliation, lasting stability and democratic institutions. This would be good not only for Burundi, but also for the whole of Central Africa. Burundians deserve international support and encouragement as they strive for that goal.
Still, many challenges remain. The tensions that fed and were fueled by Burundi’s civil war have not entirely gone away. And there is some evidence that the parties continue to use the tools of war to pursue their political goals. According to a report by the International Crisis Group last month, “opposition parties are facing harassment and intimidation from police and the ruling party’s youth wing and appear to be choosing to respond to violence with violence.” Furthermore, there continue to be reports that the National Intelligence Service is being used by the ruling party to destabilize the opposition. If these trends continue, they could taint Burundi’s elections and set back its peace process. The international community, which has played a big role in Burundi’s peace process, cannot wait until a month before the election to speak out and engage the parties these issues. We need to do it now.
Mr. President, Burundi’s neighbor to the north, Rwanda, is also slated to hold important elections this summer. Rwanda is another country that has come a long way. Since the genocide in 1994, the government and people of Rwanda have made impressive accomplishments in rebuilding the country and improving basic services. It is notable that Rwanda was the top reformer worldwide in the 2010 World Bank’s “Doing Business Report.” President Kagame has shown commendable and creative leadership in this respect. On the democratic front, however, Rwanda still has a long way to go.
Understandably there are real challenges to fostering democracy some 15 years after the genocide, but it is troubling that there is not more space within Rwanda for criticism and opposition voices. The State Department’s 2008 Human Rights Report for Rwanda stated, “There continued to be limits on freedom of speech and of association, and restrictions on the press increased.” With elections looming, there are now some reports that opposition party members in Rwanda are facing increasing threats and harassment. The international community should not shy away from pushing for greater democratic space in Rwanda, which is critical for the country’s lasting stability. We fail to be true friends to the Rwandan people if we do not stand with them in the fight against renewed abuse of civil and political rights. In the next few months in the run-up to the elections, it is a key time for international donors to raise these issues with Kigali.
Mr. President, finally I would like to talk about Uganda, which is set to hold elections in February 2011. Uganda, like Rwanda, is a close friend of the United States, and we have worked together on many joint initiatives over recent years. President Museveni deserves credit for his leadership on many issues both within the country and the wider region. However, at the same time, Museveni’s legacy has been tainted by his failure to allow democracy to take hold in Uganda. Uganda’s most recent elections have been hurt by reports of fraud, intimidation and politically motivated prosecutions of opposition candidates. The Director of National Intelligence stated in his testimony that Uganda remains essentially a “one-party state” and said the government “is not undertaking democratic reforms in advance of the elections scheduled for 2011.”
Uganda’s elections next year could be a defining moment for the country and will have ramifications for the country’s long-term stability. The riots in Buganda last September showed that regional and ethnic tensions remain strong in many parts of the country. Therefore, it is important that the United States and other friends of Uganda work with that country’s leaders to ensure critical electoral reforms are enacted. In the consolidated appropriations act that passed in December, Congress provided significant assistance for Uganda, but also specifically directed the Secretary of State “to closely monitor preparations for the 2011 elections in Uganda and to actively promote…the independence of the election commission; the need for an accurate and verifiable voter registry; the announcement and posting of results at the polling stations; the freedom of movement and assembly and a process free of intimidation; freedom of the media; and the security and protection of candidates.”
Mr. President, again these challenges are not unique to Africa. Here in the United States, we too have to work constantly to ensure the integrity of our elections and our democratic processes. But I believe these upcoming elections in a number of African states could have major ramifications for the overall trajectory of democracy on the continent as well as for issues of regional security. I also believe several of these elections could significantly impact U.S. policy and strategic partnerships on the continent. For that reason, I do not believe we can wait until weeks or days before these elections to start focusing on them. We need to start engaging well in advance and helping to pave the way for truly democratic institutions and the consolidation of democracy. This includes aligning with democratic actors that speak out against repressive measures that erode political and civil rights. The Obama administration has done this well in some cases, but we need to do it more consistently and effectively. In the coming months, I hope to work with the administration to ensure we have a clear policy and the resources to that end.
