But even more recently, it's a fact, we know, that Ogaden Somalis have been somewhat active even after the putting in place of a new order in Ethiopia. Al Ittihad seems to be a continuation of that tradition of some kind of publicly, self-confessed, continuing operation against Ethiopia. And so Ethiopia is reacting against what it regards as a Somali-based, organised, military against its territory. I think you can understand the difference of the reactions in those terms. For example, warring Ethiopia and Eritrea are so directly involved in Somalia, it undermines the IGAD role in peace talks.
Attention is diverted elsewhere, there is no doubt about it.
This has been a most unfortunate development and it has definitely weakened the attention of IGAD, and the members, to a Somali solution. Djibouti and Kenya are the only two countries that have had no diplomatic row with one or other of the IGAD member states in recent times. And Ethiopia which has been given the responsibility of leading the IGAD peace talks in Somalia is now concentrating on the war with Eritrea and correspondingly with actions along its border with Somalia, because there are suspicions that both Asmara and Addis have their own client groups, if I may say so. But even under these very difficult circumstances, IGAD has kept the Somali question alive, and I think it is a significant coincidence that IGAD sent out an appeal to the European Union to release funds under the Lome arrangement, earmarked for Somalia, which had been held up falsely for use to alleviate suffering in areas in Somalia where some semblance of normality had returned, such as Somaliland and Puntland. The reasoning of IGAD presidents at the summit is that this should also offer encouragement to other Somali groups in the middle and south of the country to move to establish peaceful mini-states, as it were.