By Sam B.,
THE United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 2182 (2014) on 24 October 2014.
The resolution states that it is: “recalling all its previous resolutions and statements of its President on the situation in Somalia and Eritrea” and is “taking note of the final reports of the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group (the SEMG) and their conclusions on the situations in both Somalia and Eritrea”
What prompted the title question: “Does the UNSC Read its Own Reports?” is the following statement in Resolution 2182 (2014):
“Determining that the situation in Somalia, Eritrea’s influence in Somalia, as well as the dispute between Djibouti and Eritrea, continue to constitute a threat to international peace and security in the region,”
This is flabbergasting. Especially since this resolution – Resolution 2182 (2014) – states that it is “taking note of the final reports of SEMG” and the SEMG’s “conclusions on the situations in both Somalia and Eritrea”.
– – – – – – –
ALSO READ: Why Russia Abstained on a Draft Security Council Resolution on Somalia and Eritrea
– – – – – – –
The SEMG report is an equivocal in its assessment of “Eritrea’s influence in Somalia”, for the last three years. For instance in its 13 July 2012 report (S/2012/545) the SEMG states:
“The Monitoring Group received no credible reports or evidence of assistance from Eritrea to armed opposition groups in Somalia during the course of the mandate… it is the Monitoring Group’s assessment that any such assistance is negligible, and that Eritrea is currently a marginal actor in Somalia, with little, if any, influence, either positive or negative, on the course of events.”
Additionally in its latest report (S/2014/727) submitted on 13 October 2014 the SEMG states:
“The Monitoring Group has found no evidence of Eritrean support to Al-Shabaab during the course of its present mandate. … it is the overall assessment of the Monitoring Group that Eritrea is a marginal actor in Somalia …”
How is it then Resolution 2182 (2014) – which is supposedly “taking note of the final reports of the SEMG” and its “conclusions” – determines “Eritrea’s influence in Somalia,” to still “continue to constitute a threat to international peace and security in the region”?
The “overall assessment of the Monitoring Group [being] that Eritrea is a marginal actor in Somalia” and that Eritrea, the marginal actor, which has “little, if any, influence, either positive or negative” manage then to still “continue to constitute a threat to international peace and security in the region”?
How are these reports that are supposedly “taking note” of each other and are supposedly based on the “conclusions” found therein compatible with each other? Is logic totally abandoned? Is there not, at least the pretence, for rational deliberation and professionalism in the UNSC anymore? How is such sophomoric logical inconsistency allowed in such institution of the highest order?
– – – – – – – – – –
EDITORS NOTE:
– – – – – – – – – –
The original title of the above article was “Does the UNSC Read its Own Reports?” However, since the usual three veto-wielding powers at the UN Security Council – USA, UK, and France – are the forces behind this sanctions regime in the first place, We should assume that they not only have read it but have a big hand behind the scenes in orchestrating and ramming it through the UNSC. Therefore, the pertinent question that should be raised here is for the remaining two veto-wielding powers – Russia and China. Then we ask, “Do the Russian Federation and the People’s Republic of China actually read the SEMG’s report before they countenance yet another bogus sanctions regime against Eritrea?” ( Courtesy of Elias Amare)
