Home | Submit News | Forum | Contact

Prime Minister Meles Zenawi on Wednesday responded to journalists who raised questions related to various issues; top at the list of questions was the latest developments in Somalia and their implications on Ethiopia and the region as whole. Excerpts:

Sources say that Ethiopian Military is interfering in Somalia, how would you respond to that?

There are lots of allegations against your government; violation of the arms embargo, supplying arms to the warlords in Somalia, particularly Mohamed Dir. There is also another allegation that Ethiopia has sent 300 troops into Somalia who are now allegedly protecting the airport in Baidowa. Third, you are said to have actually threatened that you will not hesitate to attack the Islamists if they attack Baidowa, which is the seat of the Transitional Government of Somalia. These are allegations the International community would like to hear you respond to. Thank you.

First, let me say that Ethiopia fully supports the position taken by the international community - AU, IGAD and practically the whole of the international community with regards to the peace process in Somalia.

There are a number of fundamental points here. First, the international community fully supports the Transitional Federal institutions in Somalia - the transitional government, the parliament and the transitional charter. Ethiopia fully endorses this position.

Second, the international community is of the opinion that the so called Union of Islamic Courts should not extend its military operations and that there should be no resumption of conflicts in Somalia. We fully endorse that position.

Thirdly, the Transitional Government in Somalia should engage all those who would want to talk to it on the basis of accepting the transitional charter and the transitional institutions of governance. So as far as the future for peace in Somalia is concerned, Ethiopia's position is identical to that of the international community as a whole. We do not have a specific axe to grind here.

With regards to the implications of the resurgence of terrorist groups within Somalia on the security and stability of Ethiopia, naturally - like any country - we reserve the right to defend ourselves against all attempts to destabilize our security and stability. We are aware, of course, that the Union of Islamic Courts is a union of desperate forces. There are those Somalis who have supported the establishment of such courts because of the desperation that came as a result of the absolute chaos and lawlessness in Mogadishu.

So, in a sense, for much of the supporters of these courts, the issue is one of order and stability. We understand their desire and we have nothing against that desire.

And then you have the messenger boys of the government of Eritrea who have been actively involved in the fighting in Mogadishu. Their's is not specifically a Somali agenda.

Finally, you have the Jihadists led by Al-Itihad Islami which, as I am sure you know, is registered by the United Nations as a terrorist organization.

So for us the Union of Islamic Courts is not a homogenous entity. Our beef is with Al-Itihad - the internationally recognized terrorist organization. It so happens that at the moment the new leadership of the Union of the Courts is dominated by this particular group. Indeed, the chairman of the new council that they have established is a certain colonel who also happens to be the head of Al-Itihad. Now, the threat posed to Ethiopia by the dominance of the Islamic Courts, by Al-Itihad is obvious, because as many of you would remember Al-Itihad had been involved in terrorist outrages here in our capital. It would be absolutely prudent and proper for us to take the proper precautionary measures.

Having said this principle, I think it is quite clear to the international community now that we have not violated the arms embargo. The Security Council has reports of violations of the arms embargo in Somalia.
These reports unequivocally state that Eritrea has been arming these terrorist groups. It does not say anything about the violation of the arms embargo by Ethiopia.

It does not say anything about the violations of this arms embargo by Ethiopia for the simple reason that Ethiopia has not violated this arms embargo. On the other hand, Ethiopia is of the opinion that there should be peace-keeping troops and that the Transitional Government, which is an internationally recognized government, has the right to defend itself and has the right to protect itself. And the international community should afford it the possibilities of defending itself.

Be that as it may, we have not, as I said, and I wish to repeat it, we have not violated the arms embargo and we have not sent troops beyond our border into Somalia.

However, we have beefed up our defenses all along the border to prevent any threat to our security that might emanate from the resurgent Jihadists in Mogadishu to the extent that they deploy their forces in such a way as to be an immediate, clear and present danger to our security. To that extent we reserve the right to act.

To the extent that they do not pose clear and present danger to our security we do not feel that there is a need to act. At the moment they are not a clear and present danger to us. They may become so if they cross the line. They know that line, we know that line. So far they have not crossed it, therefore there is no need for us to act.

We are simply watching developments in Somalia carefully, patiently and in the hope that there won't be any need for us to act.

Ethiopia is moving towards extracting oil in Ogaden, how will this tension with Somalia affect the process? The Ethiopian Flag is being burnt in public in Somalia, how did the government react? There have been clashes on the Ethio-Kenyan border for some time; there has also been trouble in the Gambella region with alleged ethnic clashes which got people killed; there are persisting problems with Eritrea and now with Somalia, and there are also the bombing incidents in Addis Ababa and other parts of the country. How safe are we in terms of our security?

I think I have said all I need to say about the developments in Somalia.
If, indeed, flags have been burned by some in Mogadishu that should not come as a big surprise. After all, as I said earlier, the courts are now being led by the leader of Al-Itihad al-Islami. This is a group that had no qualms about planting bombs in Addis. Therefore, I would not be surprised if they were to involve in flag burning. To the extent that they limit their outrages to flag burning that is tolerable. What we are concerned about is whether they will go beyond that and cross the red line. So far they have not crossed the red line, and they are unlikely to cross that red line any time soon. Therefore, to that extent they do not pose a clear and immediate danger to us.

With regards to crossborder tensions in Kenya, anybody who knows about that area knows that this is an old practice of cattle rustling, conflicts related to water and pasture exacerbated by drought which was particularly prominent this year. While clearly some would try to fish in these troubled waters, the underlying issues are age-old and therefore not of immediate and serious concern. Obviously, because this results in loss of life, all of us are deeply distressed and we need to do all we can to prevent it and stop it. But it is not something that is unheard of.

Generally speaking, there are instances of lawlessness and violence that you have enumerated in Ethiopia. However, I do not believe that the average Ethiopian is less secured than the average Kenyan is in Nairobi or the average South African is in Johannesburg or the average American is in New York. Indeed they are probably more secure here. This is not to say that these threats should not be taken seriously and addressed. This is to say they should not, on the other hand, unnecessarily be exaggerated.


You have said that you have beefed up troops along the border, can you tell us the details regarding how many troops are deployed? It has been more than a year since the international community, the AU in particular, has been talking about a peace-keeping mission for Somalia. The mission has still not been sent and if nothing happens in the next week would Ethiopia decide to support the Transitional Government on its own? There are reports that 100 rebels coming in from Eritrea have been killed. Could we know who these people are, what their nationalities are, what their agenda was and why they had to be killed?

I am sure you will understand when I say I am not eager to divulge these figures. All I can tell you is that we believe we have enough to deter would-be threats to our country from engaging in adventurism, and if need be to rein in such risks from adventurism. I believe so far that it has been quite successful - quite successful in the sense of deterring any emerging threats to our country. We hope and expect that this will continue to be the case, thus obviating the need for us to take any further action.

With regards to support to the Transitional Government, we, along with the international community, back the transitional government in Somalia and the transitional institutions. We believe that there should be a peace-keeping operation in Somalia to provide support for the Transitional Government. We expect the African Union to take steps in that direction. The fact that the mission has not been deployed does not mean it will not be deployed. And if that were to be the case, at the moment there is no need for Ethiopia to pre-empt actions by IGAD or the African Union. As usual, we will follow the lead of the African Union and IGAD, and we will not pre-empt their activities.

With regards to rebels killed, I think this, as far as I am concerned is an old story that happened several months ago.

It was an attempt by the government in Eritrea to infiltrate the so-called Patriotic Front through the north-west part of our country.

The defense forces were aware of their activities and plans. Attempts were made to apprehend them, but as you know these are armed detachments that are unlikely to obey orders to surrender their weapons and hand themselves in. The attempts to apprehend them were not successful; attempts to apprehend them peacefully were not successful at which point the defense forces had to take all the necessary measures to eliminate the threat, and that is what they did.

If the new leader of the Islamic Council in Somalia - Hassan Dahir Aweys - manages to make a deal with the Transitional Government and be a part of it, what will be the position of Ethiopia? Eritrea is not only arming warlords in Somalia, but it is also sending its own military and intelligence personnel into the country. Some of those were even caught by your forces. Eritrea is now also portraying your government as a war mongering one which has problems with Sudan and Kenya�. Why is your government not responding to such statements by the Eritrean side?

With regards to Aweys and the Al-Itihad group, there are two separate issues here - what the Somalis might wish to do amongst themselves and what the response of the international community, including Ethiopia, should be, what the response should be to the presence of a person known internationally to be a terrorist in the government. These are two separate issues.

Obviously, it is up to Somalis to decide whom to include in their government and whom to exclude in their government and we respect that right. I would be very surprised if Aweys and his group were to recognize the Transitional Government and the Transitional Charter.

The Transitional Charter says nothing about Taliban-type governance, it says everything about some sort of democratic governance in Somalia. That, I suspect, would be directly contrary to Aweys' and company's views about governance.

It would come as a big surprise to me if these groups were to recognize the Transitional Charter and to recognize the Transitional Charter and engage it in dialogue seriously. That does not go along well with their ideology. Neverthe less, that is for the Somalis to sort out.

What the response of the international community should be to the presence of an internationally known terrorist in a government, that, again, is a separate issue.

And obviously we would find it difficult to interact with such a government. A very well-known internationally recognized terrorist in positions of influence of any government would be a source of concern to any country and to the international community as a whole. In general, however, this is, I think, a hypothetical issue. Hypothetical, in a sense, as I said these are terrorists.

The Aweys group is terrorists, internationally known terrorists. Their model is the Taliban; it is not on par with the charter of the transitional government. I would be very surprised if they were to wish to be on par with the transitional government.

However, we have to be careful and make sure that we do not lump all those who are associated with the Islamic courts with the Itihad.

There are people in Mogadishu, for example, associated with a certain clan in Mogadishu who are in this process largely because of their desire for stability rather than their desire for Taliban-style governance. Therefore, we have to recognize that the Union of Islamic Courts, is in general, a mixed bag.

It so happens that they are now being led by the most extreme elements of that bag. With regards to attempts of destabilization of Somalia, Ethiopia and Sudan and so on�, I think it would not help to engage in allegations and counter- allegations. I think we should defer to reports of independent bodies.

What countries are doing in Somalia is being monitored by a United Nations- mandated body and that United Nations-mandated body has recently submitted its report to the Security Council of the United Nations.
That report is quite clear and quite explicit. It does not say [anything] about Ethiopia violating the arms embargo, that it is arming this or arming that.
But it has detailed reports of what Eritrea is doing to arm the forces of instability in Somalia, to train them and provide all sorts of assistance. That is a matter of record, not a matter of allegation on the part of Ethiopia; it is a record in the United Nation Security Council.

Because we believe that that speaks for itself, we have refrained from a tit-for-tat exchange of allegations and propaganda with the government of Eritrea.

Secondly, we feel the overall strategy of the government of Eritrea to destabilize the region - whether it is, again, in Sudan, this again is a matter of public record that the Eritrean government has been supporting the rebels in Darfur, in particular the GEM, which is associated with Sheik Turabi of the Islamist groups in Sudan. That is again a matter of public record.

The GEM has its headquarters in Asmara. It is very well known again that they are trying to destabilize Ethiopia, it is also very well known that they are trying to destabilize Somalia. For me this is a strategy of desperation and chaos. And I believe it will collapse on its own weight. I believe we should not give it the honor it does not deserve by responding in kind.

If a desperate and frustrated group wants to take everyone around on its way to oblivion, that is its business. All we can say is, "have a speedy journey but we are not part of that trip."

Where are we now in the talks of the border demarcation between Ethiopia and Eritrea? Some also say the relationship between Sudan and Eritrea is taking on a new shape, this same people say that such development would aggravate the Ethiopia-Eritrea relations. What would you say about these topics?

With regards to the demarcation and the Ethio-Eritrea conflict, as a whole, we had hoped, perhaps against hope, that the initiative taken by the witnesses to the Algiers agreement - the United Nations and the United States - to jump-start the stalled engagement with the boundary commission would have perhaps bear some fruit.

As it happened the position taken by the Eritrean government throughout the process of meetings in London has been one of obstinacy and extremism.
I have said that they are not interested in dialogue, they are not interested in engagement and of late they have even declared that they will not participate in the meetings. That is why the third meeting, which was scheduled for June, could not be held.

And so it appears that Eritrea has buried this particular initiative.
Naturally, we would have hoped that Eritrea would engage us in dialogue in earnest leading to sustainable peace in our neighborhood. The failure on the part of Eritrea to do so is a source of dismay and concern to us. We shall continue to persevere in our search for lasting peace on the basis of the five- point peace plan that we have put in place.

The fact that the current initiative appears to be dead does not mean there can not be future initiatives. We hope when the time is right there will be such initiatives which will lead to peace.

With regards to the so-called new opening in Eritrea-Sudan relations, if Eritrea wants to have good relations with its neighbors in earnest we would be the first to welcome such an approach. However, we are not yet convinced that Eritrea is seriously seeking peace with its neighbors.

As I said earlier on, all the activities of the Eritrean government point to a strategy of desperation and chaos, rather than a strategy of engagement and accommodation. I would be surprised if the current clamor around the recent exchange of visit will lead to anything substantive by way of improvement of relations between Eritrea and Sudan and other neighbors.

I would be surprised if this were to be the case simply because I see no indications of the Eritrean government changing its strategy of desperation and chaos. But I would be the first to applaud the Eritrean government, if it were to change its strategy of desperation and chaos, and if it were to move towards engagement and accommodation.

With regards to Ethio-Sudanese relations they are as good as they have ever been and I expect them to continue as such.

Speaking of regional issues, where does Somaliland fit in the whole thing?

The view of Ethiopia with regards to Somaliland has not changed. The ultimate status of Somaliland, in our view, will depend on the will of the Somali people, not on the will of the Ethiopian government.

Until such time as its final status is resolved in some fashion, Somaliland remains to be a beacon of stability in a troubled region. And that is a very welcomed development for Ethiopia and, I believe, the international community.

Source: The Ethiopian Reporter