Center for Peace and Democracy (CPD)

Sunday, October 23, 2005

QEYBDIID: Victim or Victimizer??

Swedish authorities’ move to arrest and question Mr. Abdi Qebdiid, has certainly brought high level of tension among the Somalis both back home and Diaspora. The questions that need to be answered will be, is the accused a victim of politically motivated charge or he is a victimizer? Did Jowhar and Mogadishu respond fairly? What are the rights of the alleged victims (in this case refugees from Somalia in Sweden)?

We all know that Sweden is a democratic country with functioning judicial system like many other countries and Mr. Qeybdiid will either be released by the court of law or prosecuted under the law and certainly he will not persecuted. The allegations are serious and the court cannot ignore them, simply because as lot of people put it, the accusers are from different tribe than Mr. Qeybdiid. Of course what was going on in Somalia during the period that he is alleged to commit the crimes was fighting among the tribes and therefore his victims will absolutely be from the opposite tribes. So, I am not surprised at all that the people who forwarded the allegations to the authorities are from the “other tribes”. Does that make him guilty automatically? I don’t think so; since the allegations are so serious there have to be enough evidence to show that he did what he is alleged to have done.

If the charges are politically motivated and there is no substance to them, then the court will order his release. Does that make him innocent? God knows, he might or might not be innocent, but one have to assume that one is innocent until proven guilty. Crimes against humanity happen in Somalia on daily basis where the warlord controlled militia deliberately kill and rape people from other tribes. So, the argument that states the alleged victims are from different tribe than the accuser, therefore the accuser is not guilty is wrong and injustice. I don’t believe that a Swedish judge will favor one Somali tribe from the other.

In my opinion, the person who is victimized has every right to seek justice and no agreement whatsoever made in any country can forfeit that right. To use the Somali reconciliation conferences as forum to burden all the crimes committed against innocent civilians or crimes against humanity is unacceptable and illegal. Individuals or the groups of people have the choice to forgive their victimizers in a forum like The Truth And Reconciliation process in South Africa or they certainly have the rights to pursue legal actions to get remedy for the wrongs done to them.

For the Speaker of the Somali parliament and his group to go in front of the whole world and say that Somalis reconciled their differences and all the crimes committed were forgiven is absolutely ridiculous. Can he (the speaker) speak for the rape victims, children whose parents slaughtered in front of them or mothers who lost their loved ones. He can advocate for his friend’s release but he cannot dismiss serious allegation like this with a false pretense.

I think the TFG responded professionally, they stated the facts of the case and their willingness to cooperate with the Swedish authorities about the case and they did not try to spin this for political reason and accuse other opposing warlords.

Let justice prevail and I hope that for future deterrence we should encourage the victims of horrible crimes to come forward and seek justice wherever possible. No matter what clan or social status the alleged victimizer is from, he or she should be prosecuted and if found guilty punished.

A. AbowToronto, Canada E-mail:
The opinions contained in this article are solely those of the writer, and in no way, form or shape represent the editorial opinions of "the Center for Peace and Democracy (CPD)"

Is this Jihad or Fratricidal Campaign Sacrilegious to Islam?

After the relocation of the Somali Transitional Federal Government without the deployment of foreign troops, the political polemic instigated by the controversy has abated significantly. The tension created by the conspiracy theory that Ethiopia has a sinister agenda to invade Somalia has also faded away; and despite the opposition of few stubborn warlords in Mogadishu, there is ample hope that the remaining political differences will be resolved through peaceful dialogue.

Amid the waning political storm, another disturbing phenomenon, “threats of Jihad (holy war) inimical to the government” has been resonant with the news from Somalia, as Mogadishu-based clerics who have accused the government as being secular, have vowed to fight it and prevent it from coming to the capital city. This article is to analyze the nature and justifiability of this bellicosity in the context of the pristine tenets of Islam. Is there any justifiable reason to fight or sabotage the fledgling government that is in the throes of restoring peace and serenity, or is this fratricidal campaign to cause more bigoted conflicts and mayhem so sacrilegious to Islam? Is this Jihad or exploitation of religion for providing legitimacy to clan hegemony?

To engage eclectic and theologically cogent analysis that gleans fair answers to the above questions, let us reflect on two salient issues – the historic conflicts that had devastated the early Muslim community, and the concept of Jihad with respect to communal stability and alleviation of oppression inflicted by heartless tyrants. The purpose of re-reading the Muslim history is to acknowledge the effectiveness with which Islam has corrected detrimental psychosocial behaviors (tribal honour and clan loyalty) inherited from the age of ignorance (Jahiliyya), and are ubiquitous in our contemporary society as they were in the Jahiliyya.

According to history records, the crises that have devastated the Muslim community have been precipitated by what is called “asabiya” (an Arabic word), which has close meaning of following terms: group or clan loyalty, group or clan solidarity, tribal honour. Although Islam has warned against the pitfalls of asabiya, it was the major problem that led the Muslim nation to droop and sag. The Qur’an addresses the issue with such eloquence – “O mankind! We created you from a single (pair) of a male and a female, and made you into nations and tribes, that ye may know each other (not that ye may despise (each other). Verily the most honoured of you in the sight of Allah is (he who is) the most righteous of you” (Ch. 49: 13). The Prophetic teachings have also reprimanded the practice of asabiya: "Abandon it for it is rotten”. “The one who calls for asabiya is not one of us [i.e. not a follower of Islam], and the one who fights on the basis of asabiya is not one of us, and the one who dies on asabiya is not one of us”.

Emulating the resplendent character of the Prophet (pbuh), and adhering to his teachings, early Muslims made a paradigm shift from group or clan loyalty to the loyalty of Allah and his Messenger. And that is why asabiya has been quiescent during the epoch of the Prophet (pbuh) and continued to be so until the last years of Caliphate Othman’s tenure. Right after the death of the Prophet (pbuh), Ansaar & Muhajiriin (companions of the Prophet, pbuh) contested for his successor. Their rationale was morally and political correct as both groups based their legitimacy for the leadership on the merits of their positive roles in Islam and their allegiance to the Messenger of God, and not on clan supremacy. That mind set allowed them to hastily agree on the issue without any ill- feelings.

When asabiya reemerged, it permeated the social fabrics of the society – the differences between Umayyads and Abbasids, then the differences between Al-khawarij sect and the rest of the Muslims. The Al-Khawarij phenomenon is a pertinent case example. The tribes that embraced the estranged Khawarij dogma were mainly from Al-Rabii’ah, while Al-Mudar tribes rejected it. The hostilities between the two tribes were remote, way before Islam. Their hostilities totally hibernated with the advent of Islam and only resurfaced when the Ummah weakened in faith. As the weakness continued, the disintegration was unremitting until it reached to the current abysmal level.

The alienation of the estranged Al-khawarij dogma was basically due to their wrong interpretation of the holy Qur’an that led to chaos and conflicts within the Muslim society. They rebuked Caliphate Ali Ibn Abi-Talib for trying to come to terms with Mu’awiyah over the divisive issue of Caliphate Uthman’s assassination. Their obsession with asabiya has fueled deep hatred towards their Muslim brethren. They would admonish some of their followers for eating few dates fallen from a tree without the permission of the owner, and at the same time permit act of fratricide and the murder of the companions of the Prophet (pbuh). The Mogadishu phenomenon is quintessential of the Khawarijits’ attitude (opposition to peace and promotion of violence in the name of Islam).

The analogy here does not necessarily equate the Khawarijits to the bellicose Mogadishu clerics in every aspect, but the parallels I am trying to draw between the two groups is their obsession with asabiya and exploitation of religion for providing legitimacy to group or clan. The very first revelation in which the permission of Jihad against forces of evil has been decreed was to secure peace and alleviate oppression inflicted by heartless tyrants. “And why should ye not fight in the cause of Allah and of those who, being weak, are ill-treated (and oppressed)? - Men, women, and children whose cry is: "Our Lord! Rescue us from this town, whose people are oppressors; and raise for us from thee one who will protect; and raise for us from thee one who will help!" (Ch. 4: 75).

“Permitted are those who are fought against, because they have been oppressed. And verily God is more Powerful for their aid. Those who have been driven from their homes unjustly only because they said: 'Our Lord is Allah, ' for had it not been for 'Allah's repelling someone by means of others, cloisters and churches and mosques, wherein the name of Allah is oft-mentioned, would assuredly have been pulled down. Verily Allah helps one who helps Him. Lo! Allah is Strong. Almighty" (Ch.22: 39. 41).

The above verses clearly elucidate that the purpose to fight in Islam is not for the acquisition of territory, love of power or clan hegemony, but to stop oppression and alleviate the sufferings of the oppressed masses. What did this religious group do about the lawlessness and the rescue of the ill-treated masses in Mogadishu and southern regions? Did they wage war on the oppressors (the ruthless warlords and their militias)? Did they refrain from violence and embark on promoting peace and fraternity as done by other religious groups? Did they construct an alternative vision of Islam through meaningful political process?

Unfortunately, all they have inspired was dread and misery. Unlike any other Islamic militant group (past & present), this group has immorally collaborated with punitive warlords and supported them in their oppression of the poor masses overtly and covertly. They also forcefully claimed plenipotentiary powers in imposing oligarchy rulership in regions they have entered by force and without the consent of its inhabitants. Their holy war rhetoric can have only one objective, to reinforce the waning opposition of the warlords in a bid to fuel chaos and conflicts.

The Islamic State established by Prophet Mohamed (pbuh) did not come through compulsion or bellicosity. It came through establishing the kingdom of God first in the hearts of the people, and people’s self-determination of accepting Islam as a political as Well as social system. We are far from genuine Islamic state as long as we warship clan and clan loyalty has precedence over the loyalty of Allah.

Burhan Alas
The opinions contained in this article are solely those of the writer, and in no way, form or shape represent the editorial opinions of "the Center for Peace and Democracy (CPD)"

Who Is Violating The Federal Charter: The Warlords Or The TFG?

The destructive Mogadishu warlords, Sharif Hassan; the run-away speaker of the parliament and their myopic tribalist followers have, in recent months, used the Somali transitional federal Charter in order to legitimize their vicious assault against the Somali transitional federal government by citing Clause 1. of Article 5 of the Charter which states:

The Capital of the Somali Republic shall be Mogadishu (Xamar).

The destructive Mogadishu warlords and Sharif Hassan kept telling anyone who is foolish enough to lend his/her ears to them that President Abdullahi Yusuf, Prime Minister Ali Gedi and the TFG are in violation of the interim federal Charter by relocating the government temporarily in Jowhar after it ended its exile in Nairobi, Kenya.

This absurd interpretation of the transitional federal Charter is interesting for at least three reasons. First, neither President Abdullahi Yusuf nor anyone else for that matter has ever suggested the notion of moving the seat of the Somali transitional federal government to Jowhar permanently. Indeed, the President reiterated many times that the capital of Somalia is Mogadishu and that he was eager to relocate his government there as soon as the security conditions in the capital improve. This meant that, as soon as the brutal tribal militias led by the destructive Mogadishu warlords lay down their arms, the President would be in “Villa Somalia”. Hence, the claim that President Abdullahi Yusuf is violating article 5 of the federal Charter is false. Indeed, at best, it is a figment of the deceptive minds of Sharif Hassan and the destructive Mogadishu warlords.

Second, one could reasonably argue that it is, in reality, the destructive Mogadishu warlords, Sharif Hassan and their tribalist political followers that are violating this very clause of the transitional federal Charter by denying the government its legitimate right to settle down in Mogadishu as dictated by the Charter. I will explain this point further later in this article, but suffice it to say that the fact is that if the warlords were willing to fulfill their political obligations and the legal requirements stated in the transitional federal Charter, we would not be having the current political deadlock today. Hence, the destructive Mogadishu warlords and Sharif Hassan, who by all accounts, turned out to be the puppet and political loud-speaker for the warlords are chasing their own tail to their peril.

Third, you would think, as common sense dictates, that Sharif Hassan and the destructives Mogadishu warlords would do what they are preaching by having the moral decency to follow the Charter which they are accusing the President and his government to be violating. Think again! Evidently, their approach to political ethics and morality is, simply put, “do as we say, but don’t do as we do”. Unfortunately, no one seems to have the moral courage to point out this self evident fact to the Somali populace. Thus, Sharif Hassan and destructive Mogadishu warlords are getting away with this flawed and contradictory political argument while the transitional federal government looks like a lame-duck sitting in Jowhar, with little to say about its own defense. As I have argued many times before, the transitional federal government failed thus far to formulate a coherent political communication’s strategy to counter such misleading claims by the destructive forces in the Somali political arena. As a result, this apparent lack of strategic communications agenda is undoubted giving Sharif and the destructive Mogadishu warlords the upper hand in the critical struggle to win the hearts and minds of the Somali people. Unfortunately, it may be too before the government can successfully put an end to Sharif Hassan’s dangerous brinkmanship.

Now, let’s be fair to the both sides by objectively taking a closer look at the Somali transitional federal Charter and see whether Sharif Hassan and destructive Mogadishu warlords are in breach of the transitional federal Charter. I can grantee you that you will be surprised when you finish reading the rest of this article.

Following are some of the most specific articles of the Charter that Sharif Hassan and destructive Mogadishu warlords have violated thus far. I am sure there are many more, however, this should be sufficient enough for the current argument.

Article 71, Clause 5: (Transitional Period) states:

The Transitional Federal Government shall devote the necessary efforts to restore peace and security, free movement of people, goods and services, disarmament and collection of illegal weapons in the hands of the public for safekeeping rehabilitation and reintegration of all militia in co-operation with regional administrations, traditional elders and members of the international community.

Indeed, President Abdullahi Yusuf and his government are trying very hard to achieve above objectives by reassembling the collapsed Somali national security institutions including the Somali National Army and the Police. What’s the warlord’s response to such important political and security initiative you may ask? Well, they are crying foul by accusing the president of igniting a new civil war. Pathetic! The fact is that Sharif Hassan; the run-away speaker and the destructive Mogadishu warlords are the biggest obstacle preventing the government’s endeavor to fulfill the objectives of the above article. Thus, the warlords and their political allies are the barrier to peace and successful completion of Somali peace process. Indeed, Sharif Hassan and his myopic tribalist warlords are at best slowing down the efforts to bring about broader political settlement in Somalia and at worst they are destroying that effort in its embryonic stages.

Article 71, Clause 8: (Transitional Period) states:

Effective from the conclusion of the Somali National Reconciliation Conference held in Kenya, all militia organizations, armed groups and factions in the territory of the
Somali Republic shall cease to exist and shall turn in their weapons to the Transitional Federal Government.

Well, you do not need to be a constitutional lawyer to figure out that the destructive Mogadishu warlords have clearly violated this article by refusing to disband their illegal tribal militias and lay down their arms as stipulated in this article of transitional federal Charter. Unfortunately, Sharif Hassan is acting as a load-speaker for those who trying to detail the Somali peace process by beating the political drums for the illegal and destructive activities of the warlords. The irony here is that the destructives Mogadishu warlords are cabinet members of the government they are complaining about. Indeed, some of the ministerial portfolios of the warlords include both internal and external security of the country. Hence, if they were honest about finding solutions to the security chaos in Mogadishu, they could have done it in a heart beat. More importantly, they own the brutal tribal militias that are preventing President Abdullahi Yusuf and his government to restore law and order in the devastated city of Mogadishu.

Article 28, Clause, 3: (Parliament) states:

The members of the Parliament shall represent the unity of the nation.

Yet, the warlords have divided the country and particularly Mogadishu among themselves. In addition, they introduced illegal military check-points for their own personal greed with utter disregard of the economic and security well being of the Somali people.

Article 31, Clause 2: (Eligibility Criteria for Membership of Parliament) states:

A person shall be disqualified from being a Member of
Parliament if that person:-
(a) Holds any other public appointment other than as member of the Cabinet;

Despites this clause in the federal Charter prohibiting the members of the federal transitional parliament to hold public positions, the warlords kept their role as brutal tribal chiefs and leaders of the illegal militias that are terrorizing the Somali people in and around Mogadishu.

Now, let’s look closely the specific articles of the transitional federal Charter that Sharif Hassan; the run-away speaker of the TFG has violated.

Article 34: (Procedures in Parliament)

1. The Parliament shall hold two (2) ordinary sessions annually.
2. The Parliament may be convened in extraordinary sessions by the Speaker at the request of the President or upon requisition by one third of its members.
3. Meetings of Parliament or its committees shall be valid with the presence of half plus one of its members.

Yet, in a clear violation of this article, Sharif Hassan rejected many requests President Abdullahi Yusuf made asking for an extraordinary session of the parliament in order to address the current political and security situation in the country. As we all know, Sharif Hassan blocked all the attempts the President and the Prime Minister made since the government ended its exile in Nairobi. Indeed, contrary to his role as neutral Speaker of the parliament as a whole, Sharif Hassan decided to lead splinter group into Mogadishu and saw the seeds of the current political deadlock. Unless we are blind-folded by myopic tribal loyalties, it should be clear to everyone that Sharif Hassan is solely responsible for splitting the parliament into two opposing factions.

Article 38: Proceedings of Parliament

Every Parliamentary sitting shall be presided over by: -
(a) The Speaker or
(b) In the absence of the Speaker any of the Deputy Speakers;
(c) In the absence of the Speaker or any of the Deputy Speakers, such other Member of Parliament as the members shall elect.

In short, it is a mystery to how the destructive Mogadishu warlords and their myopic political load-speaker; Sharif Hassan, could argue that President Abdullahi Yusuf and his Prime Minister; Ali Gedi are violating the transitional federal Charter. The fact is, as demonstrated above the warlords and Sharif Hassan are not only clear violating the Charter but they are killing the very spirit of the Charter, namely, Somali unity and national reconciliation.

One Nation, One Somalia! (Western Somalia-Ogaden and NFD are included)

Bill Ainashe
Washington, DC.
United States


Kofi Anan urges Somali Leaders to resume dialogue

NAIROBI, 21 Oct 2005 (IRIN) - Friction among Somalia's leaders is preventing the country’s federal institutions from functioning effectively, and if divisions among the leaders intensify, the fragile structures could be undermined, UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has warned in his latest report to the UN Security Council."There has been no progress in ameliorating the contention between leaders of the transitional federal institutions on four broad issues: the relocation of the transitional federal institutions, a national security and stabilization plan, national reconciliation and the peace support mission envisaged by the African Union/Intergovernmental Authority on Development," Annan said in the 11 October report.He said tensions between President Abdullahi Yusuf Ahmed and Prime Minister Ali Muhammad Gedi, who are based in Jowhar, and Speaker of Parliament Sharif Hassan Shaykh Aden and ministers and MPs based in the capital, Mogadishu, had exacerbated recently."Unless the differences within the transitional federal institutions are addressed, the current political impasse could grow into deeper divisions and undermine the very institutions that the people of Somalia so ardently desire and the international community and the United Nations are willing to support," Annan said.He expressed concern that the political tensions between leaders of the transitional federal institutions had given rise to "military preparations on their part," and called on the Somali leaders and countries of the region not to be part of an exacerbation in political and military tensions.Annan noted that while his special representative for Somalia, François Lonseny Fall, had made every effort to convince Yusuf, Gedi and Aden to reach agreements through dialogue, the leaders had thus far reneged on a face-to-face meeting.He called on the international community to support Fall's attempts to bring about an inclusive dialogue among the war-scarred nation's leaders.Source: IRIN

Too many GUNS, too little FOOD in Somalia

Chris Tomlinson Nairobi, Kenya

With too many weapons, too little food and three factions vying for control, Somalia's anarchy is fast overwhelming its new government even before it can establish itself in the country.

The competition for power, which threatens to trigger another civil war, could combine with a potential humanitarian crisis for a repeat of the disaster that followed the collapse of Somalia's last regime in 1991. A massive UN operation was mounted then to help the starving, but failed to set up a viable government in the Horn of Africa nation.

Experts agree that another civil war could create an opportunity for Islamic extremists to take power.

Already, at least one cell of the international terrorist group al-Qaeda is believed to have established itself in the Horn of Africa country. Homegrown Islamist militias move freely in some parts of Mogadishu, the capital, shutting down bars and destroying shops that reproduce or sell pirated DVDs and music cassettes.

The United States has long feared that Islamic militants may take advantage of the clan-fuelled anarchy in Somalia to establish new bases after the fall of the Taliban in Afghanistan.

Heightened tensions in the capital come as poor rainfall, mass displacement of farmers due to fighting and extensive environmental destruction have set the stage for widespread hunger.

The United Nations Food and Agriculture Organisation's Food Security Analysis Unit called in its October report for contingency planning for the possibility of widespread humanitarian relief needs in southern Somalia.

"Civil insecurity and unrest continues to be one of the main factors contributing to food and livelihood insecurity throughout the region," the report added.

Most Somalis already depend on some form of food hand-out to survive. Many live in wretched camps after clan fighting destroyed their homes. A local crop failure, which is feared, could increase their dependency on foreign food aid, which is already tenuous given the current political situation.

The year-old transitional federal government, intended to bring peace and the first central government the country has seen in 14 years, has split in two. The secular president and prime minister are located in the small town of Jowhar, while the warlords of Mogadishu, some of whom are also Cabinet ministers, have stopped
cooperating until they get some concessions from the president.

Forming a third force are Muslim fundamentalists who have set up an Islamic court system with militias to enforce the judge's rulings. They want an Islamic government, or else, a key leader has told The Associated Press.

All three sides in Somalia have received large shipments of arms -- often from neighbouring countries hoping to gain influence with Somalia's competing clans -- setting the stage for renewed war, according to a recent UN report.

The UN Monitoring Group on Somalia reported to the Security Council that there was a "severely elevated threat of widespread violence in central and southern Somalia".

Prime Minister Ali Mohamed Gedi has been working hard to make his government viable since he was sworn in last year. The product of the 14th peace process in 15 years, his government originally included all of the key warlords and received a great deal of international backing.

"We are trying to calm the militias, but it is not an easy task to restore security and stability in the country," Gedi said in an interview in neighbouring Kenya.

He dismissed the schism within his Cabinet, pointing out that out of 42 members, only five were in Mogadishu, refusing to cooperate with him.

"It is not as bad as people are saying," he said.

But it is bad enough to split the international community.

Diplomats can't agree on whether they should back Gedi and President Abdulahi Yusuf now, or instead wait to see if the Mogadishu warlords can be coaxed back into the peace process, officials familiar with ongoing discussions said.

While the four key militia leaders in Mogadishu control the only city in the country and most of Somalia's economy, the only thing they seem to have in common is a hatred for Yusuf, and what they say are his dictatorial inclinations. While reconciliation efforts are under way, few observers hold out any hope they will succeed.

Waiting in the wings are Somalia's fundamentalist Muslims, some of whom have been listed by the US State Department as al-Qaeda collaborators. The most prominent is Sheikh Hassan Dahir Aweys.

While Aweys will not address allegations he's had contacts with al-Qaeda, he has made no secret of his opposition to Yusuf, his readiness to declare a jihad should foreign peacekeepers enter Somalia, or his plans to establish an Islamic government.

Since none of the three factions are believed to have sufficient firepower to defeat the other, it is unclear how long the current status quo can last, but the threat of war hangs over relief workers who will try to provide aid to the hungry in the months to come. - Sapa-AP

Source: Mail & Guardian Online

ADB Group Prepares to Host Africa Infrastructure Consortium Secretariat

Tunis, 21 October 2005 - The African Development Bank (ADB) Group has begun to put in place the necessary structures and facilities required to host the secretariat of the Africa Infrastructure Consortium.

The inaugural meeting of the Infrastructure Consortium, which is composed of key African institutions and donors[1], was held on 6 October 2005 in London where the Bank was mandated to host the all-important Secretariat of the Consortium.

The Secretariat will facilitate close collaboration between the Consortium and the African Union, NEPAD, the Regional Economic Communities and the Bank on the development of infrastructure.
President Donald Kaberuka, who led the Bank's delegation to the London meeting, has stressed the importance of infrastructure development in the region. He pointed out that 39% of all ADB Group project approvals in 2004 were for infrastructure.

The Consortium is a major new effort to accelerate progress to meet the urgent infrastructure needs of Africa in support of economic growth and development. It will address both national and regional constraints to infrastructure development, with emphasis on regional infrastructure, in line with the prevailing challenges at the regional level. Members of the Consortium are expected to be more effective at supporting infrastructure in Africa by pooling efforts in selected areas such as information sharing, project development, and dissemination of good practice.

In acknowledging that infrastructure is key to accelerating growth, reducing poverty and promoting regional integration in Africa, the Consortium agreed to work together to ensure more effective and sustainable infrastructure activity on a larger scale, by drawing on the resources and expertise of both the private and public sectors. The Consortium promised to undertake intensive work, with others, and drawing on past lessons, ensure that the most effective approaches across the range of infrastructure sectors are adopted.

The Consortium plans to identify and overcome project development, financing, capacity, and business environment constraints, in a cooperative spirit that recognizes the comparative advantages of different donors, with emphasis on the need for greater coherence of donor efforts to reduce transaction costs and ensure more effective and efficient delivery of funding consistent with the commitments made in Paris on harmonization.

The Consortium has also worked out a set of joint actions in support of the Secretariat, NEPAD, Project preparation, analytical work and capacity building, in order to remove some of the immediate bottlenecks in the promotion and development of cross-border and regional infrastructure projects in Africa.

The next meeting of the Consortium is scheduled for June 2006 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.
Source: ADB