Thursday, April 2, 2026
Home Blog Page 3941

“A more assertive EU in a volatile world”

0

By Helga Schmid
The predictions made last year with regard to the growing importance of great power rivalries still rings in our ears.
What is more, our strategic environment grows ever more unpredictable. Today, major powers openly challenge the rules based international order and seek to promote alternative visions of a world divided into spheres of influence. Geopolitical rivalry stokes tensions and raise the alarm bell of a new “proliferation age” that risk escalating into inadvertent military confrontation. Climate change is becoming an existential threat while cyberspace and disinformation campaigns are the new weapons of the 21st century
For the European Union, the answer is clear: these challenges can only be tackled through a multilateral approach. Together we have the tools and the political weight to shape the future global order if we stay united. This is why instead of retreating from international cooperation and global partnerships, the EU is stepping up its commitment to address global challenges together with its partners: this is true for the Paris agreement on climate change, the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) on non-proliferation, the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, the EU’s strategy for connectivity between Asia and Europe or the reform of the WTO.
While these agreements are – in essence – hard to reach, we are convinced they are the best way to ensure a more peaceful, prosperous and secure world environment. Even more so when it is clear that no single country can address these challenges alone. I am convinced this approach is the right one and the fact that demand for European action from our partners has never been so high speaks for itself.
At every given opportunity, the need to define common answers to common problems is not only highlighted but translated into action. The European Union is therefore investing in broader international cooperation and partnerships above all with NATO, the UN, and regional organisations such as the Africa Union and ASEAN. Our trilateral EU-AU-UN cooperation on common challenges such as migration illustrates how multilateral solutions can contribute to greater safety, stability and prosperity.
For instance, as the UN IPCC Special Report on Global Warming warned us recently, there is an urgent need to act on climate change. This is the logic for the EU’s tireless efforts to reach a successful outcome at COP 24 in Katowice. The EU will lead by example by turning its own ambitious commitments for 2030 into concrete action. This was made clear at the high level event on Climate and Security hosted by the EU last June.
In the security sector, the European Union continues to assert its role as a security provider. Not only it is working internally to intensify joint efforts to effectively fight terrorism, hatred and violent extremism, the Union is engaged on the ground with 16 crisis management missions i.e. nearly 4.000 men and women. From building capacities in Mali, Niger and Central African Republic, to supporting security sector reform in Iraq, fighting piracy off the coast of Somalia or preventing a resurgence of violence in Georgia, the Union continues to strengthen international security in its neighbourhood and beyond. This is complemented by continued engagement in more than 40 mediation activities across the world, from Colombia to Yemen and Philippines, and underpinned by financial assistance as the EU remains the lead donor for development and humanitarian aid.
As Europe is taking more responsibility for its own security, the debate on European strategic autonomy has moved to the fore and not without controversy. However, at its heart is a simple reasoning: when needed, Europeans need to be able to protect and defend European interests and values and have the capacity to act. We want to be able to cooperate with third countries on our own terms.
In this respect, we stepped up the development of joint military capabilities through our ‘Permanent Structured Cooperation’ (PESCO), we will increase joint investments through the European Defence Fund, we are streamlining military command structures (MPCC), and we agreed a Compact to strengthen our civilian crisis management. As such these initiatives also contribute to strengthen NATO’s European pillar and contribution to collective defence.
Greater responsibility also includes beefing up our own resilience and capacity in energy, space, infrastructure and other critical sectors. We Europeans cannot accept interference and destabilisation through hybrid and cyber-attacks, hence our on-going focus on reinforcing cybersecurity capacities, improving the protection of data and containing disinformation through the recently adopted Action Plan on Disinformation.
We also need to be extra vigilant to preserve achievements on non-proliferation, such as the INF treaty or the nuclear deal with Iran, as the stakes for our own security are simply too high. The starting point cannot be to dismantle the current architecture and start from scratch. We Europeans are working at all levels to promote the universalisation and implementation of existing agreements, such as the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty or the Hague Code of Conduct against Ballistic Missile Proliferation. We are also pushing for the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty to come into force which could play an important role as we work towards a complete, verifiable and irreversible denuclearisation of the DPRK.
Taking greater responsibility does not stop at defence issues. Security today is also about economic security. This notion includes the strategic importance of the Euro and the need to ensure that the single currency can play its full role on the international scene. Promoting the Euro’s international role is part of Europe’s commitment to an open, multilateral and rules-based global economy. The extra-territorial effects of sanctions also challenge the Union’s capacity to follow through on our own political commitments. In this context we are developing mechanisms that will assist, protect and reassure economic actors to pursue legitimate business abroad.
As Europeans we cannot afford to waste time or to be less innovative than others. We need to modernise our approaches and engage more actively with new actors at the intersection of technology and foreign and security policy. This is why the High Representative launched the Global Tech panel, with the CEO of major Tech companies, in order to help ensure that international ethics and rules can keep pace with human ingenuity. To harness these opportunities, we also must take the security implications seriously, hence the recent European Commission Communication on Artificial Intelligence.
All in all, supporting rules based multilateralism and greater European strategic autonomy are not contradictory objectives. If we strengthen our resilience in the face of new risks, the European Union will play its part in reinvigorating the multilateral order and be reckoned as an assertive actor in a volatile world.

Helga Schmid is Secretary General of the European External Action Service
This article originally appeared in the newspaper “The Security Times”

Beyond the symptoms: Why we cannot overlook the land tenure system in Ethiopia

0

Joining the pieces

According to the internal displacement monitoring committee (IDMC)1 ,about 1,391,000 Ethiopians were internally displaced due to conflict, between January and June 2018.The international property rights index(IPRI: 2018) ranked Ethiopia 106th out of 125 with a score of 4.42 in a 0-10 scale. She took the 18th place in Africa (Rwanda scored 6.56 and came out 1st in Africa, and 32nd in the world) 2. A recent report by the World Bank3 regarding the “ease of doing business”, put Ethiopia 159th out of 190 countries.
Through all the above three reports runs a shared theme, the extent to which countries ensure business confidence and protect property rights. In this piece I will single out the land property right and its contribution to the existing problems in Ethiopia. Then, I will shed some light on the possible “way outs”. Given the role of land in any society’s life and the particular agrarian nature of the Ethiopian Economy, a closer examination on how land is being employed is paramount importance. I believe that the land ownership question is at the heart of the recent political uprising as it was in the late 1960s and early 70s.
“Land to the tiller” marched the students of the late 60s and early 70s. The very same people came to power in 1991 and a ratified a constitution that maintained the socialist land policy of the Dergue and denied the tiller full ownership of a piece of land, ultimately making themselves the new land lords. The negative effects of this decision are haunting the Ethiopian society up to this very moment in different parts of the country. Be it in displacement (remember the millions), low agricultural productivity, conflict, corruption, poor land management, to name a few. However, no discussion is going on, no measures are being taken, and no lasting remedy is being put in place to tackle this critical issue of our day.
In the past, there were hot debates on Article 40(3) of the current constitution which states “The right to ownership of rural and urban land …is exclusively vested in the State and in the peoples of Ethiopia… Land shall not be subject to sale or to other means of exchange “. This has received wide spread criticism from home and beyond. A research report by EEA (2002) says “Major features of the existing land tenure system such as declining farm size, tenure insecurity, and subsistence farming practices, are identified as part of the causes of the poor performance of the agricultural sector”. Similarly, the UN (2014) reported that”… (in Ethiopia) land tenure appears to be insecure due to the limited transferability of land rights; the state still has the ultimate rights to land and exercises the power to do whatever local or national authorities want at any time.”
On the other hand, the ruling party, EPRDF has had two lines of argument: one is the “fair distribution of land” and “historical justice”. Does this match with the reality on the ground? Aren’t the farmers and urban dwellers subjected to the new bureaucratic landlords “the hour and the day “of whose coming “no one knows”? Why do we still import food items despite having a vast fertile land?
The good norm and the facts
Both temporal and spatial experiences are crystal clear when it comes to the critical role of individual property (a secured one) to overall development. This revelation dates back to the time of Adam Smith (in his Wealth of nations) Human beings are driven by incentives-self-interest. Out of this incentives comes economic (market) consciousness which in turn gives rise to efficiency and productivity. The freer the individual to decide with all the resources she/he has, the better the productivity and the bigger the size of national cake. In their far famed 2012 book “Why Nations Fail”, Acemoglu and Robinson argue that “… leaders of African nations that have languished over the last half century under insecure property rights and economic institutions, impoverishing much of their populations”. Indeed, there is a strong correlation between secure property rights and over all development. Nordic countries are at the very top of the IPRI ranking as they are in every holistic measure of progress. And those at the bottom are the ones which sideline the individual citizens from owning property, and those with weak property right enforcement.
Given, the status quo, the rural land registration in Ethiopia has been praised for increasing land tenure security. But, of course, what can be completely cured should not be subjected to a non-stop painkiller. We have a long way to go. And we should start it now.
The wrong way and the bitter fruits
All the highly advanced economies (say group seven) have strong private property enforcement (including land ownership). That helped them own the lion’s share of the global GDP. Is Ethiopia afraid of its potential success? What if she follows suit? Let the Ethiopian state be busy with the matters of its own. The land ownership will be best economized left to the individual citizens for the reasons I enumerate below
According to enormous research findings at different countries in different times, state ownership of land is associated with low productivity, poor land management, weak environmental conservation, insecure land tenure. Ethiopia is not different. Belay Kassa (2004) noted that “…because of the fact that land constitutionally belongs to the state, farmers are rather sceptical to invest in long-term land improvement practices (such as tree planting, construction of anti-erosion barriers, building of ditches and furrows)”.
Moreover, as EPRDF itself confirmed in many press releases, its appointees were found to have been engaged in a grave land related corruptions. As Lord Acton once said it “absolute power corrupts absolutely”. The state monopoly over land ownership is most likely to be abused either for political gain, economic benefit or for both.
Another natural consequence of insecure land tenure is conflict. Lack of a clearly defined land ownership can become a source of horizontals and vertical conflict (at times communities quarrel with communities, and at other times municipalities and other administrative ranks come in to direct confrontation with citizens.
The exit (from the problem, and of course, of this article).
Properly redesigning and clear definition of as which part of the land belongs to private citizens, communities, and the public (state) and installing strong enforcement mechanisms will avert the aforementioned bitter fruits of insecure land tenure. This will nurture rapid development in the agricultural sector which in turn will vitalize the expansion of agro industries and the overall economy.
Given our recent experiences and lessons from abroad, lasting peace and sustained development will be realized only when individual citizens are free to play their roles- including fully owning a piece of land.

By Etsubdink Sileshi

The writer can be reached at etsubdink08@gmail.com

The Facilitator that Delivers

0

Africa Finance Corporation (AFC) is a pan-African multilateral development finance institution established in 2007 to bridge Africa’s infrastructure investment gap through the provision of debt and equity finance, project development, technical and financial advisory services. Sanjeeve Gupta is responsible for advising on the treasury, trade finance, debt, and Ethiopia’s relationship with AFC. He was a corporate and financial strategist before he joined AFC. He has worked for Ernest & Young Global, and the South African insurance company, Sunland. The former CEO for businesses on two continents, Sanjeeve, grew up in India but has lived in Africa for the last 20 years. He has been Executive Director of AFC since November 2015. He talked to Capital about his mission in Ethiopia. Excerpts;

 

Capital: How is AFC different from other Development Financial institutions?
Sanjeeve: AFC is a multicultural financial development institution. So in many ways it’s very similar to IFC or the African Development Bank or Afro- Exim bank or TDB but there are some differences. We only look at certain sectors. Our focus is on power, telecom, mining, oil and gas, heavy industries and transport (road, rail, airports). Unlike other DFI’s we do project development, so we take early stage project development risk, we do that because we believe that to find proper investments we need to able to develop from the early stage development risk. Not all DFI’s do that. Secondly we do equity, we also do long term debt and we do trade finance, short term. Different DFI’s do different parts of all those we perhaps we are the one who does all of these. The other thing that makes us unique is public private share holders, we have the private sector share holding from some of the larger African Banks. As a matter of fact, our total private sector shareholding is more than our public shareholders. We don’t have any shareholding outside African institutions and African governments it makes us truly an African institution and representative of African interests funded by Africans. This is very unique even the African Development Bank has shareholders from the outside Africa so the dialogue tends to be different.

Sanjeeve Gupta (Photo: Anteneh Aklilu)

Capital: AFC is utilized by governments and entities in Africa. How does this structure help AFC and the African Continent?
Sanjeeve: Structures don’t help companies, strategies do. I think the structure that we have allows the African government and African institutions to be invested, which is useful but what really makes us successful is our strategy. Our strategy is very simple. We are very simple. We don’t go outside sectors because we don’t want to invest in sectors that we don’t understand. It is as simple as that. That keeps us very clean you know the moment that you start looking at things you don’t understand you likely will make mistakes so we employ people who have worked in these sectors. I’m telling you that a lot of our investment professionals are not corporate finance people. They actually are engineers who worked in our business. So our power sector, we have people who were engineers who have worked in power companies we have got people in our transport sector who worked it ports so when we are are looking at investing in these areas we get a very serious amount of experience and insight from people who manage business. The other thing is that because of our private public shareholding, the thinking tends to be commercial and that helps the moment you look start investing purely and only from the development angle and don’t think about the commercial viability. Inevitably you invest in projects that overtime will not be sustainable. However, if you make it commercially viable. That allows other investors to come. It allows you to diversify investors. It allows you make money out. It allows you to do more.

Capital: Tell us about your success stories.
Sanjeeve: We have invested in more than 29 counties in Africa so far, this includes counties like Egypt, Tunisia, and Morocco, so we are not just sub-Sahara, were are in North Africa as well. In this region we have invested in Rwanda, Djibouti, and Kenya and soon Ethiopia. We have interesting projects, let me explain if you go to Côte d’Ivoire, you will see a bridge that connects the main residential areas of Abidjan to the main commercial area. We developed that bridge from conception to financial closure and it’s made a big difference in people’s lives. Previously it would take more than two hours now it takes thirty minutes so it’s very satisfying. There was a need and we fulfilled the need and are making money. We developed power projects in Rwanda using technology from Finland that created 80mw the nation’s own resources. In Cape Verde we used the tremendous amount of wind they have to create a wind project that gives them 30 percent of the power they need. In Djibouti we are developing their first wind power project that will make 60mw. In Gabon, which is known for minerals and agriculture, we developed the Olam Special Economic Zone. We added technology to local resources. These projects cost up to USD 600 million. So we brought in investors and let them see we are doing it properly. In Ethiopia we plan to get involved in mining. Eventually telecom, aviation and gas when privatization becomes a reality.

Capital: How much does membership cost countries?
Sanjeeve: Zero.

Capital: Why have you done it this way?
Sanjeeve: You know when we tell countries, the idea is not making money out of that money we are not a club right? The idea is for countries to become members. It gives us certain privileges. We do long term investments like mining, roads, ports rail, power. These are not two year investments; it takes time to build them and it takes another seven, eight, years to make money out of it these are ten fifteen twenty year investments. So for us it really important that counties give a certain protection we don’t want counties to encourage us to come in and tomorrow leave. Membership to us is the commitment the country shows to us because once they become members what they essentially provide to us are certain privileges around preferred access to foreign exchange currency we need pay the debt so now you can ask the country that is giving that what they can give the counties getting it in return. First, when the country becomes a member I can do much more investment in that country that I can do in a non-member country. Number two and most important remember when we invest practically when we lend money for a project, most lenders including us when we come in the country there is something called political risk so when a non member country comes that means we are not protecting against the political risk that means we go separately and buy political risk insurance from somebody else that adds cost to the lending so the counties says no I am going to sign as the member that’s cost saved now. When that cost is saved, I am not taking the money, it’s the country benefiting my cost is the same. I’m just adding another insurance cost. I don’t have pay for my insurance, the prefect cost is lower so it helps both partners so membership is zero we encourage members to become an investor in AFC. We say when you are going to be a member why don’t you become the investor in AFC but it’s not mandatory it is not compulsory it’s a win- win, you give us privileges we do more in your country both parties win. It’s another insurance cost. I don’t have pay for my insurance, the prefect cost is lower so it helps both partners so membership is zero we encourage members to become an investor in AFC. We say when you are going to be a member why don’t you become the investor in AFC but it’s not mandatory it is not compulsory it’s a win- win, you give us privileges we do more in your country both parties win.

Capital: I understand that you are here to lobby for Ethiopian membership. Why now? Why Ethiopia?
Sanjeeve: Ethiopia is a large country that it’s growing with many opportunities, but more importantly there are serious policy reforms. In terms of privatization, in terms of wanting to work with other financial institutions those are enabling factors right? These don’t exist all the time it’s existing now that’s attracting people like us.
In terms of the meeting I have had, I met the Minister of Finance, the governor, investment commissioner, all in all I have been extremely gratified with hospitality and more importantly the enthusiasm for them to help us. Everybody welcomed us with open arms. People have told us you should do business in Ethiopia and all of them have confirmed that they will definitely take up the membership very seriously we had very positive meetings, the energy level is very good, you know at the end of the day engaging and investing you feel good.

Capital: Is there a local partner who advises you?
Sanjeeve: Yeah, we have someone named Zekarias, a young man from Ibex Frontier Investment Advisory, who is helping us, advising us, in existing opportunities and introducing us to the relevant people. He adds to our credibility and tells us what to avoid. You know, investing is not only what you do, what you don’t do as well, that is what makes you successful. Because there are enough investments in this world, because one bad investment kills five good investments.

Sanjeeve Gupta (Photo: Anteneh Aklilu)

Capital: What is AFC’s vision for Africa? Specially Ethiopia?
Sanjeeve: It’s the same. The vision what we have for Africa is the vision that we have for Ethiopia. We want to be the institution that facilitates investors, operators, from outside Africa to come and engage in Africa to fill up the infrastructure deficit, create jobs. We don’t’ want to invest we need to be the platform. We want to create the opportunities for the world of investors
For example, a cement company would like to come in a cement project, so we want to be that platform we go to advise we have money, yes our money alone cannot change Africa. We can add value by bringing expertise; create projects. Because Africa’s need is our vision cannot be fulfilled by one institution. So please remember this, we don’t see ourselves as a junk book that will solve we primarily see ourselves as facilitator that brings.

Capital: How successful is AFC?
Sanjeeve: We have been operating only for 11 years, which is not long in infrastructure. We have successfully managed to deploy close to twenty billion USD. Our current balance sheet size is just below five billion USD. We have invested in 29 countries. We have been profitable if you look at our results for the few years in spite of investing assets and that it takes time to make money. We pay dividends for our share. Not every DFI pay dividends. We consistently pay and in those great stories of ours, we have maintained very very high credit ratings. We have a rating of three, which is the second best rate next to African Development Bank. It is clear we manage risks well; otherwise the current rate cannot be possible. I think its good story and a good ride, and should be replicated for the next ten years.

Capital: Is there anything you want to add?
Sanjeeve: I represent an institution that has shown you can invest wisely and profitably in Africa. It’s possible because of project preparation, project structure. There are no quick fixes but we have proven that it is possible. We just hope that we can replicate that in the coming years. Our success gives confidence to other people. As I said African needs are a thousand times bigger than we can do. All we can do is encourage and inspire others to achieve as we have. I do hope the Ethiopian government will provide the environment for us to be successful. There are 100 million people in Ethiopia. They need jobs and better lively hoods without infrastructure and industry, jobs will not happen, without jobs taxes will not be collected, without tax Ethiopia will remain poor. Right?

“LET’S TALK ABOUT LOCKS…”

“…reflecting on the braided and afro-heads of our jegenna (warriors) …winning the Battle of Adwoa, in defense of our dignity and sovereignty. If it was good enough for our ancestors why is not good enough for us?”

Hair, an “American tribal love-rock musical,” is an award winning 60’s play which emerged out of the counterculture hippie movement. The long haired personalities in the play, filled their flowing manes with flowers; symbols and statements of love, freedom and resistance against the status quo. The play ran in hundreds of cities in the USA, Europe and the world. During the same ‘60’s, the Black Panther Party was founded by Americans of African descent, countering racism and other forms of social and political injustice on their own terms, in and for their own communities. They famously donned large Afros and wore dashikis, growing from an Oakland area phenomenon to an over 68 city wide movement with thousands of members, all in Fro’s. Also rising in the 60’s was the Rastafari Movement whose devotees wore what is commonly known as dreads or dreadlocks, reflecting African roots. The word “dread” referenced Rastafarians fear or dread of the Most High, while on the other hand referred to the fear or dread that non-Rastas were said to experience upon encounter with the Rasta Man. This perception based on Rastas natural indigenous appearance juxtaposed to the “clean-cut” X-British colony choice of coiffure, typical for Jamaicans. Suffice it to say, hair in the 20th and 21st centuries have been front and center of counter-culture and resistance as well as expressions of spiritual and cultural identities.
Historically, however, Africans, have donned endless and exceptional hairstyles, an essential part of identity including one’s social status and belonging, be it to a family, a clan or a tribe. The hairstyle of a young girl entering puberty, or a young male seeking a wife, or an elder in mourning, the list is endless. In bridging the gap on the discourse on hair, then and now, and specifically as it relates to natural hairstyles for people of African descent, especially women; we still find ourselves in a quagmire of conflicts.
Did you know wearing natural black hair impacts opportunities for employment, housing, education and even health care, emphasis on women and youth? Be it afros, braids, bantu knots, cornrows, locks or other expressions of culture and identity through hair; why are qualified Black women with degrees being counseled by concerned kith and kin to straighten or cut natural hair or wear wigs in order to apply for certain posts? Why do schools on the continent and abroad deny admission to children and adolescents of Africa descent who wear natural hair various reasons?
We know that in the African Diaspora, anything too black or African is perceived as an affront or inappropriate to the status quo. And yes in 2019 there remains public outrage and outcries for justice based on discrimination against natural hairstyles, including locks. In a loss for Black hair in 2016, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled against a lawsuit filed by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission verse Catastrophe Management Solutions, ruling that “…refusing to hire someone because of dreadlocks is legal”. However, just last month New York City Commission on Human Rights found that, “…judgment and mistreatment of people because of their hair or hairstyle will be considered a form of racial discrimination at work in school, or in public areas in the city.” Acknowledging the landscape of race and social inequality in the US is one thing, but what about right here at home in Africa?
Why should an African woman, proud of her heritage and hair be discourage or judged wrongly on appearance because she is not in straightened or imported hair from India? Why should students in South Africa to Kenya be denied education because of natural hair? Are African’s attitudes towards their identities influenced by Western standards so much that we deny our history and culture? Shouldn’t African hairstyles be encouraged as part of the Pan African narrative of an ‘Africa on the rise’? Should we mainstream African culture in professional and institutional environs, especially in consideration of Women’s Day? Does media/TV depiction adversely impact attitudes and policies on natural hair? These and other questions will help shape the upcoming LETS’ TALK ABOUT LOCKS… Art Exhibition and Colloquium on Saturday March 9 at bluSpace on Bole, curated and moderated by yours truly.
LETS’ TALK ABOUT LOCKS… will address heritage and identity as we explore perceptions and biases on African-ness as related to hair. Panelists include Adwoa Kufuor, Regional Gender Advisor, UNOHCHR; Victoria Maloka, Head of AU’s Gender Outreach; Child Psychologist Zahara Legesse-Kauffman, M.A. MSW; Pastor Zerubbabel Beta Mengistu, aka Pastor Zee, Beza Ministries; and Fine Artist Merid Tafesse, creator of the illustrations published in I LOVE LOCKS children’s book. It is safe to say we intend a 360 degree perspective. But as I close, I am reflecting on the braided and afro-heads of our jegenna (warriors) who defended Ethiopia against Italian invasion, winning the Battle of Adwoa, in defense of our dignity and sovereignty. If it was good enough for our ancestors why is not good enough for us? Happy Adwa Day.

Dr. Desta Meghoo is a Jamaican born
Creative Consultant, Curator and cultural promoter based in Ethiopia since 2005. She also serves as Liaison to the AU for the Ghana based, Diaspora African Forum.