A difficult pair

A difficult pair

5 November, 2010 | By C.H. (Economist Blog)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

JUST as a meeting of east

African heads of states was

delayed due to difficulties

accommodating Omar al-

Bashir, Sudan’s pariah

president, two new reports

have cast still more

unfavourable light on the

governments of Sudan and

Ethiopia. The long-anticipated

referendum on independence for southern Sudan, scheduled for January
9th 2011 is the focus of “Race Against Time”, by the Rift Valley
Institute, a non-profit research organisation operating in the region. With
optimism that the vote would proceed smoothly already waning in the
face of overwhelming secessionist sentiment in the south, and equally
overwhelming denial of such sentiment in the north, Aly Verjee, the
author, goes a step further. Delays and disputes in planning for the vote,
and their likely effect on the credibility of the process could, he says,
end up reigniting the civil war that had become Africa’s longest when it
ended it 2005, with 2.5m people killed and many more displaced over
two decades.

With less than ten weeks until the referendum, the report argues that
“the self-determination process is in peril.” Disputes over voter
eligibility, registration and border demarcation between the two main
political forces—the Sudan Peoples’ Liberation Movement (SPLM) in
the south and the National Congress Party (NCP) in the north—mean
the likelihood of the vote taking place on time within the agreed laws is
small. Yet postponement would be dangerous: the SPLM fiercely
opposes any deferral, interpreting (probably correctly) the NCP’s
stalling as an attempt to derail the process, or to cast doubt on the
credibility of the predicted outcome—that the south will vote to secede.

Unpromising terrain to make recommendations from, but the institute
does so nonetheless, calling for a new deal between the SPLM and the
NCP that recognises that it is too late to hold the vote in strict
accordance with the laws, and that parks some issues—such as
physical border demarcation—until later. The referendum commission
needs to act “with unprecedented speed” in order to overcome the
logistical hurdles to hold a vote.

How likely is this? It would assume goodwill on both sides. But the
report also points out that “lessons need to be learned” from the
conduct of the presidential election in April. The SPLM may smile wryly
at the NCP’s pledge that they will accept the referendum result only on
the basis of a “free and fair” process. The institute is forthright about
the scale of the task ahead but is motivated most of all by a need to
focus minds, within Sudan and without, on what is at stake. “At this
final stage, brinkmanship, delay and broken agreements…threaten to
turn the political and technical challenges into a national disaster. Only
concerted international attention and skilful diplomacy can bring the
process of self-determination in Sudan to a successful conclusion.”

With Sudan, international expectations have long been low. A report on
Ethiopia, from New-York based Human Rights Watch (HRW), indicates
how far a country’s halo can slip. Once upon a time, the Ethiopian
People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) led by Meles
Zenawi, the prime minister, was hailed as part of a new democratic
dawn in Africa. The country became an “aid darling” for the West. Yet
today, after suppression of opposition following the election in 2005 and
a rigged poll earlier this year, life in Ethiopia is more akin to the days of
the “Derg” regime, overthrown by the EPRDF in 1991.

Ethiopia, desperately poor, remains one of the largest recipients of
foreign development aid—some $3 billion annually. HRW argues that the
aid has become subject to “political capture”, with the doling out of
donor funds at local level used “to control the population, punish
dissent, and undermine political opponents—both real and perceived.”
HRW reached its findings after a six-month investigation in the second
half of 2009, which ended with Ben Rawlence, its researcher, being
deported.

The Ethiopian population, says HRW, “pays a heavy approach for this
approach to development.” But its ire is focused on the donors as well
as the Ethiopian government. Speaking in London at the report’s launch,
Mr Rawlence pointed out that development agencies—such as Britain’s
DFID—recognised the harm the government’s actions caused, but
turned a blind eye, because of policy that governments themselves
“own” aid policy. Monitoring mechanisms which focus on fiscal
controls simply did not detect the politicisation of aid.

Such a situation poses a familiar dilemma for donors: aid is often
misused, but stopping aid harms people in recipient countries. HRW is
not calling for this. Instead, it calls on donors to acknowledge the
politicisation of aid “across the board” in Ethiopia and to work together
in bringing pressure on Ethiopia’s government when the current country
assistance strategy expires in 2011. Easier said than done perhaps, but
very necessary, especially if donors are to adhere to their own belief
that “aid is most effective when defined by accountability and
transparency.” Ethiopia, says HRW, is “a case study of contradiction in
aid policy.”

Courtesy