Biodun Iginla, BBC News

Biodun Iginla, BBC News
Showing posts with label nobel peace prize. Show all posts
Showing posts with label nobel peace prize. Show all posts

Friday, October 11, 2019

ANALYSIS: Assessing Abiy Ahmed, winner of the Nobel Peace Prize

by Rashida Adjani and Biodun Iginla, The Economist Intelligence Unit News Analysts

The record of Ethiopia’s prime minister remains incomplete, at home and abroad
Middle East and Africa

THERE ARE two types of Nobel Peace Prize winner. The uncontroversial ones are often campaigners, such as Nadia Murad (who won last year for her work highlighting rape during war) or the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (which won in 2013). The controversial ones are often the politicians who actually negotiate peace deals—think of Yasser Arafat or F.W. de Klerk. Politics in violent places is a nasty, messy affair, and peace deals don’t always last. The award of the prize on October 11th to Abiy Ahmed, Ethiopia’s prime minister, will spark more debate than most.
On the plus side, Abiy has tried hard to be a unifier since he took office last year. He often uses the Amharic word medemer (to add together) in speeches. Millions of Ethiopians have welcomed his promises of democracy, reconciliation and reform in a country that had long been oppressed.
In June 2018 he signed a historic peace deal with Eritrea, a smaller neighbour that seceded from Ethiopia in 1993. The accord brought to a close two decades of pointless conflict over a scrap of barren land. The war had led to tens of thousands of deaths, ripped apart families and severed the deep ties of blood, culture and language between the two countries.
Abiy broke the deadlock by promising to withdraw from the disputed territories, thus implementing the findings of a UN commission that Ethiopia had long rejected. He also took advantage of his close relationship with Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, whose financial largesse may have helped nudge Issaias Afwerki, Eritrea’s president, to the negotiating table. After the peace agreement, families and friends were reunited and cross-border trade flourished.
Berit Reiss-Andersen, the Nobel committee’s chair, said the prize recognised Abiy’s “efforts to achieve peace and international co-operation, and in particular his decisive initiative to resolve the border conflict with neighbouring Eritrea”. He has also been praised for helping to mediate a power-sharing accord between pro-democracy protesters and a military junta that took power earlier this year in Sudan.
But the peace he forged with Eritrea is far from complete. In early 2019 Eritrea once again closed all its border crossings with Ethiopia. A trade agreement drafted by Ethiopian negotiators has gathered dust in the Eritrean capital, Asmara, for almost a year. Physical demarcation of the border, the trickiest part of the deal, has not begun: the disputed areas remain under Ethiopian administration.
The lack of progress highlights some of Abiy’s shortcomings as a peace-broker. Ahmed Soliman of Chatham House, a think-tank in London, notes his reliance on “charm and bold personal initiatives” at the expense of institutions. He bypassed Ethiopia’s foreign ministry to strike his deal with Issaias (the details of which were never made public). And his attempts to foster goodwill between Kenya and Somalia, which are embroiled in a spat over their maritime border, as well as between warring factions in South Sudan, have yet to show results.
The prime minister’s record as a peacemaker in Ethiopia is also worryingly mixed. He has released political prisoners and promised fair elections. But he has failed to keep order. In 2018 almost 3m Ethiopians were forced from their homes by ethnic conflict. The causes were complex and many of the tensions long predate his term in office. But his government was slow to react, and at times appeared more concerned with its public image than with tackling the spiralling humanitarian crisis in the country’s south. For several months it blocked aid from reaching shelters for the homeless, and forced people to return against their will to areas that were not yet safe. This contributed to more violence, as well as starvation.
The Nobel prize will be a boost for the prime minister, who faces a national election next year. “At home we’re always squabbling but when it comes to the outside world, we’ll stand with any Ethiopian,” says a resident of the capital, Addis Ababa. Abel Abate Demissie, a political analyst, suggests that international recognition might keep Abiy honest, especially as his administration shows signs of reverting to the authoritarian tactics of its predecessor. “Hopefully, it will encourage him to live up to the prize,” he says. “He knows all eyes will be on him now.”
Reuse this contentThe Trust Project

Friday, October 6, 2017

The 2017 Nobel prizes--analysis

  This year’s Nobel peace prize rewards a nice but pointless idea

by Biodun Iginla, News Analyst, The Economist Intelligence Unit, London/New York


Banning nuclear weapons will not do much to advance the cause of peace
IT IS easy to see why the Nobel Committee decided to award this year’s peace prize to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons. The North Korea crisis has brought nuclear weapons to centre stage again and the campaign group has succeeded in producing a nuclear-ban treaty, which reached the United Nations in July when 122 out 193 countries voted in favour. It has been signed by 53 member states since the ratification process began on September 20th and will go into effect after 50 states have formally ratified it. But then what?
In all probability, not much. The nine nuclear-weapons states (the five permanent members of the Security Council—America, Russia, Britain, France, China—together with the “unofficial” ones—India, Pakistan, Israel and now North Korea) had nothing to do with the negotiations and boycotted the vote. America, France and Britain have declared the treaty “incompatible with the policy of nuclear deterrence which has been essential to keeping the peace for over 70 years”. They added that it failed to “address the security concerns that continue to make nuclear deterrence necessary”—or to do anything to help solve the problem of North Korea’s nuclear programme. Close allies of the five permanent members, including NATO members, have been similarly disdainful.

Latest updates

See all updates
Supporters of the treaty, who include William Perry, America’s defence secretary between 1994 and 1997, believe that the treaty would help further delegitimise the use of nuclear weapons. They think it would strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which requires officially recognised nuclear states to make efforts towards eventual nuclear disarmament, something critics accuse them of failing to do.
But that seems highly unlikely. Russia, China and America are committed to modernising their nuclear arsenals, which means they will exist until at least the end of this century. None of the unofficial nuclear states is remotely interested in reducing its nuclear capabilities. Indeed, North Korea’s rush to gain the capacity to deliver a thermonuclear device to the American mainland demonstrates nuclear weapons’ enduring allure.
The best approach to reducing the threat posed by nuclear weapons is through serious arms-control negotiations between the nuclear states themselves, above all between America and Russia. Those two countries still command the vast majority of the world’s arsenal. Talks should be aimed at cutting numbers further, banning some categories of weapon (such as battlefield or tactical devices) and taking land-based systems off hair-trigger alert (by shifting from launching weapons on warning of an attack to launching after an attack has begun). Unfortunately, there is little prospect of substantive new negotiations as long as relations between Russia and America remain poor.
The Nobel Committee no doubt regards the nuclear-ban treaty as a good deed in a bad world. Whether it will do anything to advance peace is, however, doubtful.
You’ve seen the news, now discover the story
Get incisive analysis on the issues that matter. Whether you read each issue cover to cover, listen to the audio edition, or scan the headlines on your phone, time with The Economist is always well spent.
Reuse this content

Friday, October 9, 2015

Nobel Peace Prize for Tunisian National Dialogue Quartet

by Natalie de Vallieres and Biodun Iginla, BBC News, Stockholm

5 minutes ago