Eritrea- the hidden tragedy

While the world struggles to confront what can only be described as a humanitarian catastrophe unfolding in Somalia, the people of neighbouring Eritrea are faring little better.

Contrary to the claims of dictator Isaias Afewerki that this year’s harvest has yielded at bumper crop; satellite imagery and thousands of malnourished refugees crossing into Ethiopia every month suggest that Eritrea has been hit just as hard, if not worse, as the rest of the Horn of Africa.  Ominously, some reports from the Ethiopian government have gone as far as suggesting that up to half of the Eritrean population may be now be starving.

Of course it is difficult to verify anything coming out of Eritrea.  Lingering at the bottom of the Press Freedom Index (below the likes of Equatorial Guinea, Iran and North Korea), this is one of the most closed-off societies in the world.  This year’s Amnesty International Report, gives a taste of the level of authoritarianism, highlighting how Afewerki’s thugs hold control through throwing dissidents into underground cells and metal shipping containers where they are routinely beaten and left without food or water.  Thousands of ordinary citizens have been detained for taking part in un-authorised religious services and eleven of the G-15, a group of parliamentarians who spoke out against the regime back in 2001, have spent the last decade locked away with no public confirmation of whether they are even alive.

Foreign ambassadors find it hard to move around Eritrea and UN peacekeepers (monitoring the fragile peace with Ethiopia) have been kicked out along with the majority of aid agencies, compounding the difficulties in confirming the precise situation when it comes to food security and famine.  With the burden of proof resting on Afewerki, the tyrant has given nothing other than empty rhetoric to back up his claim that Eritrea has somehow been insulated from the regional disaster.

Such denials, along with the prohibition on aid agencies, are undoubtedly exacerbating starvation across the country and underscore the political nature of this famine.  Climate change, soil conditions and wider poverty issues have all played a part, but it is the actions of tyrants such as Afewerki, along with the Islamist militia Al-Shabab and the Transitional Federal Government (TFG) across the border in Somalia, that are costing the lives of hundreds of thousands if not millions of people.  An interesting UN Dispatch article recently suggested that exacerbating the famine through hindering the relief effort could be considered a crime against humanity, citing the precedent of the Herero Genocide, where Imperial German troops deliberately starved thousands of Herero people in what was then Southwest Africa.

In this case, Afewerki stands out as particularly culpable.  As well as preventing any relief effort (or even serious assessment of conditions) in Eritrea itself, his government has long stood accused of providing financial and logistical support to Al-Shabab, and even of sending troops to support it’s insurgency.  It is highly likely therefore, that Eritrean authorities are at least indirectly responsible for much of the open hostility against civilians and aid workers currently taking place in Somalia, and rendering relief so ineffective there.   

Eritrea is already subject to sanctions and regular vocal criticism, but if the lives of Eritrean citizens and those throughout the region are to be saved, pressure must be seriously stepped up.  Failure to reign in Afewerki is just one more sign of the world’s ineffective response to the crisis in the Horn of Africa…and a death toll that is growing by the day. 

Technorati Tags: Isaias Afewerki,Eritrea,Somalia,Ethiopia,UN,famine,starvation,sanctions,Al-Shabab,aid,humanitarian assistance,relief effort,Herero,genocide

Somalia- where do we go from here?

The aid agency official looked at me across the table, lowered his voice and spelt out the situation: “hundreds of thousands of people are going to die…and there’s nothing we can do about it.”

It is not that donations towards famine relief in Somalia have been overtly inadequate across the board, although certain states such as Italy (putting up just $9.5 million) and South Africa (a pathetic $1.2 million) have utterly failed in their moral responsibility to halt the ever-growing humanitarian catastrophe.  In the UK public donations have surpassed $78 million and even in Kenya, itself affected by the drought, normal people have dug deep to the tune of some $7million for their Somali neighbours.  Governments and regional groupings have also been rising to the challenge; the US is leading with $593 million, followed by the EU with a collective $267 million.

More funds are desperately needed – but by far the most critical issue is that aid cannot reach eighty percent of  the areas where it is needed.  This is largely due to Al-Shabab, the vile Islamist militia that is blocking aid deliveries, preventing refugees from escaping and attacking areas controlled by the Transitional Federal Government (TFG).  However it is not alone in hampering the humanitarian relief effort: a recent report from Human Rights Watch highlights how the TFG itself, along with allied militia such as Ras Kamboni and Ahlu Sunna Wal Jama’a (backed by Ethiopia) and others backed by Kenya, have all prevented civilians in their areas from receiving assistance, either actively through their oppressive control mechanisms or inadvertently through their military activities and damage to infrastructure.

So far, attempts to halt the various overlapping conflicts between these groups and protect those caught in the crossfire have been woefully inadequate.  The beleaguered UN-mandated African Union (AU) peacekeeping force has been constantly beset by inadequate resources and ill discipline.  Even with the promised 3000 extra troops from Sierra Leone and Djibouti, the force will stand at just 12 000, far short of the 20 000 estimated to be required, and authorised by the UN.  The recent murder of journalists covering the famine by Burundian peacekeepers, has shone further light on the lack of control within the ranks; indeed the AU force received strong criticism in the Human Rights Watch Report.

This leaves the international community with a horrendous dilemma when it comes to creating an environment in which aid can be effectively and safely delivered to the three quarters of a million Somali people at risk of imminent starvation.  Supporting the TFG, the dominant focus so far, is likely to achieve little and could even be counter-productive if if its abusive authorities continue to hamper relief efforts and abuse human rights.  Similarly, channelling funds into the AU force may well boost its numbers but, given its incompetence so far and the control exercised by pseudo-psychotic dictators such as Yoweri Museveni, may prove equally fruitless.

The Dutch government has taken something of a fresh approach, continuing support to the TFG and the AU whilst taking a tough line on their performance and concurrently strengthening local authorities and the governments of autonomous regions, which may hold more legitimacy and ultimately more chance of stabilising the areas under their control. 

The USA has also continued unilateral drone attacks against Al-Shabab targets.  Though these present numerous objections and are currently focussed on killing high-profile militants rather than enabling relief, they should not be wholly written off as the left is often so keen to do.  Air attacks against militant groups that are actively disrupting aid efforts, or against their weapons dumps, should at least be discussed. 

Whatever the solution, a change of tact is needed – and fast.  Standing by and letting almost a million die of starvation is simply not an option, but aid by itself is not enough.  The authorities, the militias and even the peacekeepers must all be addressed if the food, water and medicine is to reach those who need it….before they are beyond help.

     

Technorati Tags: Somalia,famine,UN,AU,Al-Shabab,Ras Kamboni,Ahlu Sunna Wal Jama’a,Ehthiopia,Kenya,USA,donors,aid,humanitarian assistance,relief,drones,refugees,starvation,poverty

Somalia–aid, famine and Islamists

Five days on from the official declaration of famine in Somalia, the cataclysmic impact of the situation is strikingly clear. Millions of people are facing starvation and tens of thousands have fled the country in a desperate bid to survive. Walking miles on empty stomachs they face bandits and rapists before reaching refugee camps already at breaking point. Every day thousands enter Kenya and Ethiopia – countries themselves in the grip of the famine and with neither the space nor the supplies to cope. The early reports of children dying upon arrival are reoccurring with appalling frequency and stories of people taking their own lives to avoid watching their families starve to death are alarmingly common.

Yet the tremendous effort by aid groups, foreign governments and the UN to tackle this crisis is hampered at every turn by two factors. Firstly is the utterly unjustifiable failure of states such as France, Italy and Denmark to step up and meet their moral obligation to provide funds for relief. All three countries have come under fire from Oxfam for shirking their share of the burden in what is literally a minute-by-minute-life-or-death situation. There is categorically not enough aid coming in, creating the ominous likelihood that the already uncontrollable humanitarian disaster will spread even further.

Economic problems such as those currently gripping the EU pale into insignificance compared to this and no government can legitimately avoid the allocation of significant resources. It is up to the international community and domestic populations to pressure reluctant governments into genuinely joining the relief effort before it is too late.

The second major problem –posing a far more complex challenge, is Al-Shabab, the brutal Islamist militia that controls of much of Southern and Central Somalia including large parts of Mogadishu. Renowned for public beheadings, flogging women, stoning rape victims and even punishing people for watching football - all in accordance with its own warped interpretation of Islam, Al-Shabab has ruthlessly abused and oppressed the Somali people since it formed as an offshoot of the Union of Islamic Courts some five years ago. Perhaps the group's most damaging act so far has been to ban foreign aid agencies from operating in the areas it controls and murdering those aid workers who try to work there.

In recent days, as the famine death toll gathered pace, Al-Shabab relented and began to let in select agencies including the Red Cross. Yet just as progress seemed to be possible, its leaders re-asserted the ban on other major organisations including the World Food Programme, forcefully preventing its workers from reaching some 2.2 million Somalis in desperate need of food and water. Rubbishing speculation that Al-Shabab is changing its overall opposition to relief efforts –its spokesmen ludicrously denied that there is a famine, a claim that would be laughable were it not likely to result in thousands if not millions of needless deaths. Additionally, the group is exacerbating the situation by threatening the security of refugee camps inside Somalia - leading to the current mass exodus into neighbouring countries, piling pressure on their own starving populations and overburdening the humanitarian support there. There are also frequent reports of Al-Shabab militants stealing what little livestock has been left alive, robbing many Somalis of their last hope.

Whilst there is a general consensus that the organisation is not as strong as it once was and is now breaking into smaller loosely linked pockets, the fact of the matter remains clear: the security situation in Somalia is not conducive to relief efforts. The patch-work nature of Al-Shabab affiliated groups, with some allowing limited aid in, some staunchly resisting it and others open to persuasion or bribes, may actually make the environment even more dangerous and uncertain, with aid agencies unsure where they can or cannot safely operate and desperate internally displaced people living in a constant fear.

In many ways this is a case of history repeating itself: the breakdown of order in Somalia during the early 1990s meant it was impossible to adequately address the famine that then gripped the country. Amid the killing of aid workers and the theft of food supplies by local warlords, the UN Security Council authorised Operation Restore Hope -a US led intervention to protect the relief effort. However, whilst the operation itself was largely a success, subsequent attempts to stabilise Somalia were disastrous: the brutal mob killing of eighteen American soldiers and the shootings hundreds of Somalis during the infamous Black Hawk Down incident, following the torture and murder of civilians by Canadian soldiers in what was dubbed Canda's National Shame led not only to a permanent reluctance for the international community become involved in Somalia's affairs, but also disastrous anxieties about intervention elsewhere in Africa - including Rwanda where genocide broke out the following year.

In 2008 - as full scale civil war raged between the Somali transitional government and the Union of Islamic Courts, US forces went as far as undertaking limited airstrikes against Islamist held towns but left combat on the ground to government troops, African Union (AU) peacekeepers and the Ethiopian army- which had entered Somalia two years earlier in an attempt to crush the insurgency. The subsequent retreat by Ethiopian forces and fracturing of the Union of Islamic Courts has left the fight largely between Al-Shabab and the rapidly faltering AU force- stumbling along at the whim of the corrupt and self-serving Ugandan and Burundian governments, with the virtually impotent Somali administration providing what little support it can.

And with lingering memories of the 1990s disaster, an extensive operation to support the rebels in Libya, a protracted withdrawal from Afghanistan and on-going commitments in Iraq, the international community has precisely no impetus to step in militarily now- even to stabilise the situation for famine relief.

Yet whilst such intervention is currently incomprehensible, so is the prospect of doing nothing. It is painfully clear that aid alone is not enough: security for workers, supplies and refugees is absolutely essential if the already tragic death toll is to be contained or even slowed. And there are numerous ways of doing this without deploying more troops and guns: aid drops to citizens in Al-Shabab controlled areas, an effective framework to channel supplies from groups they’ve banned to groups they allow and a tactical redeployment of the AU forces to protect refugee routes and camps – supported by overhead reconnaissance flights to warn of impending militant attacks, should all be implemented with urgency. 

Even then however, the prospect of deploying more troops to Somalia, under the auspices of the AU or UN, with the specific mandate of protecting aid and refugees- as a very last resort- should not necessarily be ruled out.  There would undoubtedly be fears that the horrors of the 1990s intervention would be repeated; and there would undoubtedly be howls of protests from the anti-interventionist camp who’d cry imperialism and occupation.  But if all else fails would it not be the preferable option to letting Al-Shabab literally cause the starvation of millions?

There are many options to try before that stage and so much still to be done in terms of donations and distribution…but for the people of Somalia there is very little time left.

Click to donate  

Technorati Tags: Somalia,Ethiopia,Kenya,Djibouti,East Africa,Horn of Africa,famine,drought,aid,UN,AU,United Nations,African Union,intervention,relieft,Denmark,Italy,France,UK,USA,Black Hawk Down,Uganda,Burundi,Peacekeeping,Operation Restore Hope. Al-Shabab,Union of Islamic Courts

The debate on international aid–why now is not the time

Somewhat strangely for a 21st century world, where people are more aware than ever of the suffering faced by their fellow human beings, criticisms of international aid are numerous, frequent and come from all sides of the political spectrum.

There are those who complain that public money should be spent “at home”, constantly questioning why developed states should be helping the developing world, when they themselves are facing fiscal belt-tightening and often hard hitting cutbacks.

Of course the people levelling such arguments conveniently disregard the fact that the UN Millennium Development Project asks rich states to dedicate just 0.7% of their GDP to fighting international poverty and that the actual average given is far lower. They also overlook cataclysmic gulf between the nature and scale of poverty in states that give aid and states that receive it. Of course domestic poverty should never be ignored or belittled, especially when it comes to critical issues such as rising home repossessions, cuts to disability allowances and malnutrition; but neither should these issues distract from the even more staggering facts that one in eight people do not have access to clean water, one billion do not have enough to eat and nearly nine million children do not live to their fifth birthday. The “charity begins at home” lobby’s perverse opposition to developed states spending even one hundredth of their GDP on such issues, risks bordering on inhumanity and racism.

Somewhat more rational – though still often fallible arguments hinge on the premise that it is the current distribution of international aid which is wrong, particularly when it comes to states such as India with its rapidly increasing GDP, nuclear weapons and space programme. Again, those making such cases generally overlook the bigger picture: that in India and other states like it, millions still face crippling poverty and starvation. They should not be neglected by developed states because of their government’s misappropriation of funds to weapons or space research, any more than those in Burma, Zimbabwe and Sri Lanka should be denied aid because of their governments squandering of national finance on internal oppression.

The increasingly vocal (though still distinctly minority) school of thought that aid does not work at all presents more nuanced arguments around the potential of assistance programmes to prevent market-based economic development, encourage corruption and create a culture of dependence. However, these too face severe criticism of being grounded in specific anecdotal cases rather than a thorough global overview, placing too much emphasis on the free market and running contrary to the expertise of the majority of those involved in the field.

Still- despite their flaws, all of these positions must be noted, addressed and discussed. Only through respecting and analysing all points of view can we dispel cynicism over international aid and improve the systems which, whilst essential, no one suggests are anywhere near perfect. Debate over the nature, effects and basis of international aid are certainly necessary.

But not now.

Because right now the Horn of Africa is facing its worst drought in six decades; the water sources have dried up, the refugee camps have filled up, the cattle have died, the crops have withered, eleven million people across four states are in need of urgent food and children arriving into the UN’s care are already so weak that they are dying within 24 hours. Many families are now choosing whether to eat or drink, many more have no choice, many others never will – ever again. Hundreds of thousands have crossed borders, political instability will certainly ensue- the only variable is how bad it will be and how much it will affect the aid effort.

This is not the time to debate international aid. This is the time to dig deep, donate to the charities and intergovernmental agencies on the ground and support the practical work they are doing in providing water, food and medicine to a people who are no longer on the brink of disaster – but in the midst of one.

DONATE VIA OXFAM

DONATE VIA UNICEF

Technorati Tags: aid,international development,drought,East Africa,Kenya,Somalia,Ehtiopia,Djibouti,India,Oxfam,UNICEF,UN

Somalia and a mission on the rocks

The UN-mandated African Union peacekeeping force in Somalia has long seemed inadequate considering the enormous significance of the situation for the region, the continent and the wider international community. In recent years the Somali conflict has risked spilling over into neighbouring states, stoked fears of a new base of operations for Islamist terror groups and given rise to an endemic piracy problem. However, whilst on one level the force deployed there presents an optimistic sign of African nations helping to stabilise others nearby, the real picture is unstable, unpredictable and this weeks events would suggest - unsustainable.

Set up in 2007 to support the transitional government, the peacekeeping force consists almost solely of Ugandan and Burundian troops. The involvement of these states has come at a significant cost- loosing soldiers on the ground and facing retribution at home. Yet it is highly unlikely that such sacrifices are being made in the name of altruism, stability or horror at the human rights abuses committed by the Islamist militias they are taking on. It is far more probable that the real motivation lies in a combination of politicking and gain - one which is currently beginning to unravel in dramatic fashion.

Uganda's contribution has long provided despot Yoweri Museveni with a means of diverting attention away from his own horrific human rights abuses and destabilising role in Central Africa. The likes of the USA and UK are determined to prevent militant Islamists from gaining control of Somali yet are understandably reluctant to become physically embroiled on the basis of public pressure, over-stretched resources and psychological scars from previous US intervention. American bombing raids during 2008 were as far as any 'Western' power was prepared to go - so Museveni's willingness to 'put troops on the ground' was naturally seen in Washington and London as a golden opportunity- not to be jeopardised by condemning his authoritarian rule.

However, in the face of increased public and political opposition to his rule at home, continued losses of troops and open criticism from the international community regarding his government's barbaric treatment of homosexuals - Museveni is faltering. His threat this week to pull Ugandan forces out if the UN-mandate of the transitional government is not extended, undoubtedly comes less from concern for Somalia's stable development and more from a calculated desire to create a feasible exit strategy whilst sending a message to the world about the dangers in discontinuing appeasement of his regime.

And whilst the complex and cynical politics of Museveni begin to play out- all is not well amongst the Burundian part of the force. Troops claim that they have not been paid for some five months, underscoring the greed and corruption of President Pierre Nkurunziza's administration whilst giving credence to long-standing fears that Burundi's involvement was only ever a method for the political elite to cream off money from the UN (as well as arms from donor nations). With no sign of urgent rectification forthcoming, the potential for Burundian troops to withdraw, desert or even mutiny is by no means off the cards.

Ominously as Uganda and Burundi commit roughly 50% of the force each- neither could feasibly continue the mission without the other- meaning that if either of these situations develops into withdrawal, the whole peacekeeping venture will be likely to collapse.

It is widely agreed that productive, well-executed peacekeeping and stabilisation now is infinitely preferable to further breakdown of order, regional warfare or full scale US intervention at a later date- all of which are conceivable possibilities. However, the execution of the mission so far has been carried out by corrupt and authoritarian governments, fulfilling a good mandate for personal gain. That set-up is now starting to show signs of breaking apart...it is essential that something much better replaces it.

The terror spreads

It had been predicted for some time. Yet still, no one was prepared for the ferocity with which it unfolded. Last Sunday Al-Shabab militants from Somalia took their fight to Uganda.

Their target was a bar in Kampala where people were packed in to watch the World Cup final. Their aim was to pressure Uganda’s government into withdrawing troops from the African Union force that is currently struggling to prevent Al-Shabab and their fellow fundamentalists Hizbul-Islam from turning the whole of Somalia into to an Islamic Republic under Sharia Law.

Their victims were 76 innocent Ugandan men, women and children.

Uganda and Burundi are on the front line against Al-Shabab's brutal insurgency (see my previous piece for more background details). An intervention by Ethiopia in 2006 was short lived- despite back up from American bombers – and arguably served only to bolster the Islamists’ recruitment. This left the Ugandan-Burundian AU force to hold off the rising tide of militant fundamentalism and set up both nations prominent targets for attacks.

Whether Al-Shabab’s projection of its violence will achieve its goal remains to be seen. Uganda’s president Yoweri Museveni has vowed to bolster the Ugandan force in Somalia and crush the militants. But this is far from certain; there are growing calls for withdrawal from the Ugandan population and the country already faces its own insurgency in the North. Furthermore, Museveni- a dictatorial leader with an appalling human rights record- has a habit of reverting to nationalist rhetoric and erratic military force. There is no guarantee he will either follow through on his vows or succeed in his aims.

If Uganda does pull out, Burundi will surely follow rather than go it alone against an ever more powerful insurgency. The tragedy is that no state will take their place. Perhaps understandably, owing to the military quagmire that has unfolded in Afghanistan, Western nations refuse to even consider sending troops to Somalia. Combined with the concurrent lack of political and military will across the rest of the world, this means that it will be the AU not the UN taking on Al-Shabab and their ilk.

Yet this reluctance may be fundamentally short sighted. An Al-Shabab/Hizbul-Islam ruled Somalia would be a hotbed for terrorism, criminality and human rights abuses that will affect the entire globe. Economically supporting the floundering Somali government and replacing the AU troops with a robust UN force could realistically prevent this from coming to pass. Trying remove such a regime in five or ten years time will be infinitely harder.

How lucky we are

On Wednesday when you sit down to watch the next England game - maybe in a panicked state considering the possibility of Fabio Capello's boys crashing out in spectacular style - spare a thought for the football fans of Somalia.

Since governmental collapse in 1991 much of troubled nation has been run by militant Islamic groups who force a particularly barbaric brand of Sharia law (utterly at odds with the beliefs of most Muslims) upon the unwilling Somali people. Firstly the Union of Islamic Courts (UIC) rose to prominence, taking over vast swathes of territory. Then, when it was defeated by Ethiopian troops (with the support of US bombers) in 2006, it splintered into a range of equally brutal groups such as Hizbul-Islam and Al-Shabab (both of whom appear to have tacit links to Al-Qaeda).

Today the Islamists run Somalia South of the capital Mogadishu (which is tenuously controlled by the government backed up by African Union peacekeepers.) In these areas people are subjected to some of the worst human rights abuses in Africa; young girls are stoned to death for alleged adultery, students are targeted by bombers, opponents are beheaded in the streets, aid workers are slaughtered, the harrowing list goes on....

And those wanting to get away from the carnage by watching their continent's first ever World Cup have not been spared the brutality. Islamist groups, regarding the tournament as a 'distraction from jihad' have threatened to flog or execute anyone caught watching it. At least 10 people in Hizbul-Islam-controlled territory have already been arrested for doing so.

England might go out on Wednesday and football fans have every right to be upset if this happens. But all too often we in the democratic world take for granted the ability to watch a football match without the risk of being tortured or even killed.

Sometimes we forget how lucky we are.