Political Decision in face of Conflict of Interest: The Role of a US Politician on Eritrea’s “mistrial”
In the world of medicine, a researcher who promotes a given drug through teaching, symposium or media is required to disclose any affiliation or vested interest he/she may have with the company that makes the product. Such disclosure is important in that: 1. It prevents and/or minimizes the risk for marketing ineffective and sometimes harmful products on the bases of falsified or biased reports 2., It reinforces the fulfillment of the basic principle of ethics that is required from all healthcare personnel: the provision of unbiased quality patient care for all and, 3. It promotes neutrality on the part of researchers in advancing medicine.
What does this have to do with the subject at hand? one may ask. As in medicine, people in politics also have to uphold and follow certain codes of conduct. Any political decision at their disposal has to be based on facts and devoid of conflict of interest.
The day President Obama appointed Dr. Susan Rice to represent his government at the UN level, it was expected that all of her actions with respect to Eritrea would be full of antagonism and in favor of Meles’s Ethiopia. Because the role of US Ambassador to the UN in regards to Eri-Ethiopia conflict is only a small fraction as compared to the overall global crisis, coupled with the misguided view of Ethiopia’s role on the war on terror, no one from Obama administration bothered or had the will to check Dr. Rice’s credibility on her views about Eritrea or requested for a disclosure about her affiliation with the regime in Addis Ababa which, for those who closely followed her political career, are one too many.
As an individual and a citizen of a country where freedom of expression is one of the core values enshrined in the US constitution, Dr. Rice has the right to express her views about Eritrea or any other country for that matter. This writer is using such right and opportunity to express his views about the personalities and the political dramas unfolding in the UN with regard to Eritrea and its region.
The question one must ask is whether or not the Ambassador has the right, the neutrality or is she credible enough to make any political decision about a country which she obviously loves to hate and one that will have a major socioeconomic impact on the ordinary citizens.
Conflict of Interest at the Highest Level:
In light of the fact that the Ambassador is a close associate to Meles Zenawi, Ethiopia’s Prime Minister who waged an unprovoked unilateral war against Eritrea; considering that Susan Rice, as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs under Bill Clinton, was siding with Ethiopia’s warmongering policy and refused to listen to Eritrean views at the height of the conflict are some of the reasons which render any political decision she makes about Eritrea, including the new resolution she is working on, nil and void. The same also goes for the Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group (SEMG), an agent whose members are hand picked by the Ambassador and her likes, whose agenda is clearly to harm Eritrea by any means necessary.
Despite the admittedly lack of any evidence of Eritrea’s involvement with the cooked-up allegation of supporting the Al-Shabab, as was illustrated on its most recent report to the UN “The Monitoring Group has found no evidence to substantiate allegations that Eritrea supplied Al-Shabaab with arms and ammunition by air in October and November 2011 (see Annex 5.1)”, Eritrea’s call to lift the sanction is being met with resistance. According to report by VOA dated 7/17/12, http://blogs.voanews.com/breaking-news/2012/07/17/un-investigator-too-early-to-lift-eritrean-sanctions/, the Head of SEMG and one of the architects involved in linking Eritrea to terrorism, Matt Bryden, is blocking Eritrea’s request to be removed from the UN sanction.
Dragging African countries like Gabon, Djibouti and now Nigeria into this picture to justify the unjustifiable sanction on Eritrea and make it look like “African Initiative” is only fooling ones self and will not change the underlying cause and the nature of the problem: misguided foreign policy and invasion of a sovereign country (Somalia) in contravention to the international law.
In summary, if justice and peace is to reign on this earth, neutrality, credibility and an entity void of vested interest, be it financial or political, are some of the qualifications the United Nations should seek for from its staff and affiliates and see implemented. One of the reasons the world hasn’t moved an inch in achieving peace is because the UN is severely infested with officials with enormous greed who put their personal financial/political advancement before that of world peace and stability.
While the UN may not have the mandate to check the background of every Ambassador appointed by a given country, it nonetheless should have the obligation to thoroughly and freely investigate UN representatives with shady characters and a personal vendetta against a nation, as has been clearly exhibited by US Ambassador to the UN, and on the verge of making yet another political blunder that’s damaging to both the victimized nation, in this case Eritrea, and consequently the world at large.
Eritrea Sanction Must be Annulled and Repealed Today!!!