Interview with British Ambassador Myles Wickstead

Myles Wickstead is the British Ambassador in Ethiopia. Here he tells IRIN about the UK’s willingness to increase military aid to Ethiopia, how the country could provide peacekeepers for the United Nations and why the UK government is shifting towards Direct Budget Support in Ethiopia. QUESTION: Can you explain what has prompted Britain's large increase in aid to Ethiopia? ANSWER: Our recent relationship has been characterised by a strengthening across the board in diplomatic terms, defence terms, trade terms and also in terms of development assistance. We are looking to move to a development assistance framework of around GBP 30 million per year - more than double what it is at the moment. I believe within three or four years there is a very real prospect of us doubling that again as long as the enabling environment remains right. What we are keen to see is that Ethiopia is really serious about tackling poverty. We believe it is. Q: What does strengthening defence with Ethiopia involve? A: We held a very recent course with the military, supported by the British Ministry of Defence and Cranfield University. The broad theme of this was the role of the military in a democracy. And it is very important in a country like this that the army has a clear sense of its role. Ethiopia is a significant regional power. Ethiopian troops ought to be used in regional peacekeeping operations, in peacekeeping operations in western Africa and indeed in peacekeeping operations around the globe, operating under a UN framework. They are competent, they have showed their abilities, the government is holding defence spending down - it wants a leaner, trimmer, but more efficient defence force and I think that anything we can do to help with that will be very positive and that will give the Ethiopian defence forces the ability to perform this broader role. Q: Is the door still open to providing military equipment? A: I think the whole international community had various sanctions, arms embargoes in place during the conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea. Those sanctions are no longer in place and I think we would want to consider any requests very much on their merits. We would have to be assured of course that any such equipment was being provided only for defensive purposes. We would want to look very carefully at the overall security situation in the region. Our overall objective, which I believe is shared by the government of Ethiopia, is to see a more peaceful and more stable Horn of Africa. So my hope is that the need for the provision of this sort of equipment becomes unnecessary. Q: The EU said the EPRDF [ruling Ethiopian People's Revolutionary Democratic Front] is stifling opposition in the country. What is the British view on this? A: The EU statement was intended to be a rather balanced view of things, paying due tribute to areas in which the EU felt significant progress had been made, but also putting the government on notice that there are certain things we want to see happening which perhaps at the moment aren't happening. We are very encouraged by the dialogue that has been opened between the government and the private sector, the government and the media, the government and academia. That dialogue has not yet opened up in a significant way between the government and the opposition. That is partly because the opposition itself has been divided. The fact that the government is to have discussions - albeit indirect - with the opposition, in an initiative organised by the Inter Africa Group over the next couple of weeks, is a positive development. Q: Britain is moving towards Direct Budget Support. What checks and balances are in place concerning accountability, democracy and human rights? A: What we are interested in is seeing Ethiopia make progress towards the Millennium Development Goals, increasing its health expenditure, increasing its expenditure on education, getting more children into schools, getting more very young children vaccinated. This lies at the heart of their poverty reduction strategy, and we are going to hold them to that. If we are satisfied with their performance at the end of the year we will say: 'Here is your contribution for next year'. The mechanisms for delivering direct budgetary support are further complicated by the decentralisation process, which essentially means regions will have a great deal more control and power over how they spend their budget - they will be able to take decisions over whether they have a new road, school or hospital. Can we hold central government accountable for those decisions, or do we have to work direct with the regional authorities? The truth is we haven't quite worked out how this is all going to work. How, if we put money into the central budget, can we be sure the regions are using it for the purpose we want them to use it for? These are quite hard questions and ones that we will be addressing with the government in January when we will be holding development talks in Addis Ababa. We are absolutely convinced that the direction of moving away from projects towards more Direct Budget Support is the right one. Q: Does Direct Budget Support sound the death knell for non-governmental organisations? A: I think the government has made clear it sees NGOs as playing potentially a very important role at grass roots level in delivering health, education and other interventions. The issue perhaps is what is the role of the international NGOs in this, because increasingly government is working with indigenous NGOs. When that happens the role of international NGOs becomes less certain. My own view is that they will still have a very important role to play, not least in capacity-building, advocacy and raising resources from people in western countries. Q: How would the killings in Tepi and Awassa [last year in southern Ethiopia when security forces opened fire on protesters] affect the British government's decisions surrounding Direct Budget Support? A: The key thing about Direct Budget Support is that we must have confidence about what the government is doing in its economic programmes, but also in creating a political environment in which all parts of the population can enjoy the benefits of development. The government is committed to decentralisation, and part of the consequence of that is likely to be a disturbance of the existing local political and economic power structure in various places. It would be wonderful if there were no further incidents such as those that happened in Tepi and Awassa, but under these circumstances they may recur from time to time. Where such incidents occur, they must be investigated swiftly and the due process of law brought to bear at once. We believe the government has listened carefully to the concerns of the international community about those particular incidents and responded rather positively. Arrests have been made. We shall continue to watch this carefully. But we have to take a balanced approach to this, so that as soon as one incident happens we shouldn't switch off the tap. Q: Are you confident that they can spend the money, given that the National HIV/AIDS Secretariat spent just a tiny fraction of World Bank money? A: There was a lot of money that went into the system, and the mechanisms in the secretariat and countrywide were not in place to be able to deliver that. I feel a lot more optimistic over the last three months that that problem is being addressed. We are now beginning to see those very substantial resources getting to the places where they are most needed. The capacity issue is a very significant one. If the government lacks a degree of capacity at the centre, how much more will that capacity be lacking at the regional level. We think the government has made some very serious efforts over the last year or so to address those capacity constraints. Q: Is it necessary to speed the process of sensitisation regarding territorial changes with demarcation of the border with Eritrea? A: I think we might well need to speed it up. I think one of the problems is that the Military Coordination Commission (MCC) has not met for some time, but did so recently. That is a significant step forward and I am sure that an important part of their discussions over the next two or three months will be about how to deal with this problem. How do we make sure that tensions are not raised? One important element of this will be that both governments prepare their populations along the border for the fact that there may be transfers of territory in certain areas as a result of the demarcation process. Q: Do you agree with USAID's Famine Early Warning System (FEWS) that the Ethiopian government should contribute more food aid itself? A: Whether the Ethiopian government itself should be contributing 50,000 tons or 100,000 tons or 200,000 tons is a matter for discussion. The truth is that what they spend on food, given their very limited resource base, will mean less to spend in other ways, on longer-term health projects, education projects etc. As long as we are convinced that the government is doing what is says about putting more resources into health, into education, into the social sectors, that it is holding down defence expenditure, then to be honest with you, I don't mind whether they put in 45,000 tons or 75,000 tons. They must play their part, but if the very large food gap of 1.5 million tons is to be filled, they will have to look to the international community. That is what they are doing, and the international community is responding. If that continues to happen, I remain convinced that this serious situation need not develop into a crisis.