Demolish the Racist Amhara Tyranny of Abyssinia (Fake Ethiopia), and Eritrea Will Soon Be Democratic

It is incredible to find an extensive analysis and severe criticism of Eritrea’s foreign policy in a HRW Report on Eritrea and Human Rights violations perpetrated in the small Red Sea country, and more particularly in a chapter entitled "Responding to Eritrea’s Crisis".

Either it pleases several colonial capitals of the West or not, the Eritrean foreign policy will not be as they would like it to be. Of course, this is not an absolute statement because Eritrea’s foreign policy is not totally out of the frame conceived and implemented by the colonial powers in Eastern Africa. However, it is certain that various aspects of the Eritrean foreign policy truly embarrass Washington and London; and to lesser extent Paris.

But what does this have to do with ….. purported violations of Human Rights in Eritrea?

Nothing!

It simply helps reconfirm the interpretation of the intentions behind the elaboration of the said Report. Political use; politics; a corrupt mentality and attitude of today’s decayed and inane elites.

- You don’t like President Afeworki’s foreign policy?

- Throw an HRW Report on his face!

How silly this approach is!

In fact, there is a very simple answer to this endeavours, perceptions and attitudes of policy making:

If you want Eritrea to become instantly a fully democratic country, break down the abysmal tyranny of Abyssinia, the world’s most excruciating colonial fossil, Africa’s most inhuman tyranny, the racist state of the Amhara gangsters who by fallaciously labeling Abyssinia as "Ethiopia", implemented all vicious methods to achieve the spiritual, cultural, and physical extermination of no less than 14 distinct nations.

By liberating the subjugated and terrorized nations of the Abyssinian Hell, the supposed democratic countries of the West would automatically remove all possible reasons of, and pretexts behind, the implementation of authoritarian policies in Eritrea – a small state of ca. 7 million people that has ceaselessly been targeted by the evil Ethiopianist regime of the racist Amharas.

In seven earlier articles entitled "Shameful and Biased HRW Report to Promote Anti-Eritreanism for Fake Ethiopia’s Amhara Gangsters" (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/100961), "Oblivious of the Abyssinian Tyranny and the Amhara Racism, HRW Wastes Resources on Eritrea" (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/100966), "Eritrean – Iranian Relations: Reason for A Biased HRW Report and Silence on Genocides in Ethiopia?" (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/100967), "Ill-timed HRW Report on Eritrea Helps Forget the Ongoing Genocides in Abyssinia (Fake "Ethiopia")" (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/101078), "Highly Controversial HRW Report Geared to Shift Focus From Fake Ethiopia, Africa’s Worst Tyranny" (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/101079), "HRW Called to Focus not on Eritrea but on Abyssinia (Fake Ethiopia) and Stop Ongoing Genocides" (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/101080), and "Demonizing Eritrea Helps Contributing to 14 Genocides Now Perpetrated in Abyssinia (Fake Ethiopia)"
(http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/101168), I republished several parts of the controversial and highly ill-timed HRW Report on Eritrea, notably the Contents, the Summary, the Methodology, the Recommendations, the Background, the Human Rights Violations, the Experience of Eritrean Refugees, and Eritrea’s Legal Obligations.

In a parallel article, entitled "HRW Report and the Anti-Eritrean Hysteria of the Amhara Gangsters – Supporters of Fake Ethiopia" (http://www.americanchronicle.com/articles/view/101163), I presented an accurate self-portrait of those among the Amharas who oppose my severe criticism of the racist, colonial fabrication "Ethiopia", a falsely named state geared to effectuate genocides. I published mails sent and comments composed by readers who reject my Call to HRW to deepen their research and exert their focus on the 14 ongoing genocides that are being perpetrated in Abyssinia (Fake Ethiopia).

In the present article, I republish further parts of the Report, namely Part 5: Responding to Eritrea’s Crisis.

In forthcoming articles, I will expand on criticism and investigation of the Report’s purposes. I will also voluntarily publish comments and analyses, denunciations and criticisms by Eritreans and others who find it incredible for the leading humanitarian NGO HRW to waste resources on Eritrea and disregard the aforementioned nations that have been invaded, subjugated and forced to remain within the Amhara Abyssinian (Pseudo-Ethiopian) Hell – until their extinction.

Responding to Eritrea’s Crisis
http://www.hrw.org/en/node/82280/section/10

Eritrea’s occasionally isolationist but always independent behavior is rooted in the history of the EPLF and the independence struggle. The Eritrean people achieved independence against all expectations, defeating a country with a much larger army, which received, at different stages, massive amounts of US and Soviet military assistance.

Since 1962, when the UN failed to condemn Ethiopia’s dissolution of the Eritrean federation, the history of the struggle for Eritrean independence is a singular story of hardship and discipline in the face of international indifference. This history has left a strong attitude of self-reliance which has increasingly led Eritrea to isolate itself from what it views—rightly or wrongly—as an international community tainted by pro-Ethiopian bias. As this attitude deepens in the context of the ‘no war no peace’ stand-off with Ethiopia, it is not just Eritreans but the entire region that suffers.

Eitrean Fotreign Policy

Eritrea’s most important relationship is clearly with Ethiopia. For better or for worse, it shapes Eritrea’s policies regionally and beyond. The border war between Eritrea and Ethiopia and the subsequent impasse has not only had serious domestic effects in each country, it has complicated the security situation in the entire region. The search for a solution to the conflict in Somalia is hampered by the way Eritrea and Ethiopia have supported opposing sides in a form of proxy war. In addition, over the past years, Eritrea’s government has had military confrontations with all of its neighbors—not just Ethiopia, but also Yemen, Sudan, and most recently, Djibouti.

Eritrean forces continue to occupy Djiboutian border posts in defiance of a January 2009 UN Security Council resolution calling on the Eritrean troops to withdraw. Tensions are high, and since Eritrea withdrew from the regional Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD), there is no regional forum in which these differences can be articulated. Eritrea suspended its membership of IGAD in April 2007 because of its perceived bias in favor of Ethiopia and its intervention in Somalia to support the TFG—Eritrea had been arming the Islamist groups opposing the TFG, as well as Ethiopian armed opposition groups.[374]Similarly, Eritrea has had tensions with the African Union because of its perceived support of Ethiopia. Isolated from its neighbors and deeply mistrustful of the US, Eritrea has cultivated other international relationships in recent years, notably with China, Libya, Iran, and Qatar. Qatar is reportedly financing a major resort in the Dahlak Islands.

There is no obvious regional leader whom the Eritrean government views as sufficiently impartial to broker a peace with Djibouti or Ethiopia and articulate what regional cooperation might look like. As long as Ethiopia and Eritrea seek to exploit the instability in Somalia rather than reduce or solve it, the whole region—and international shipping—suffers, both in terms of regional security threats from terrorism and piracy but also massive displacement of population, famine, and humanitarian crises all exacerbated by regional mistrust and the proxy war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. As long as the standoff continues, there is little opening to engage with the Eritrean government on human rights issues, since the regime justifies its mass mobilization and repression in terms of national security and emergency.

The US, European Union, the AU, and the UN working together in a coordinated fashion could and should play a role in reducing regional tensions, but doing so will require a marked shift in policy (see below).

The United States

Relations between the US and Eritrea were good during the 1990s, with military cooperation stemming from US interest in using the Red Sea ports of Assab and Massawa. But relations have soured since the border war of 1998-2000, and particularly since the US and the international community more broadly—including the UN Security Council—failed to force Ethiopia to accept the decision of the border commission. After the US chose Djibouti for the site of its Combined Joint Task Force Headquarters, relations went from bad to worse, even as the US was developing closer cooperation with Ethiopia on security matters in the Horn of Africa.[375]

Relations with the US were pushed further towards an impasse when during the G-15 crackdown in 2001 Eritrea arrested two US embassy employees whom it accused of spying. The two Eritrean staff remain in detention up to now. In 2005 Eritrea stopped all USAID programs and arrested two more Eritrean staff of the US embassy, this time on allegations of human trafficking.[376]

In response, the US imposed restrictions on Eritrean diplomatic staff in the US and forced the closure of Eritrea’s only consulate in Oakland, California.[377] In a gradually rising tide of insults, relations with Eritrea have steadily deteriorated. The normalization of diplomatic relations is conditioned on the release of the four US employees.

In the meantime Eritrea continues to support armed opposition groups in Ethiopia, eastern and western Sudan; and anti-Ethiopian forces in Somalia. As a result of its funding and arming of Somali opposition forces, particularly the al-Shabaab, in 2007 the US threatened to put Eritrea on its list of state sponsors of terrorism although it has yet to do so.[378] Instead, in May 2008 the US stated that Eritrea was "not co-operating fully" in the war on terror.[379] Eritrea, for its part, claims the CIA is trying to undermine it and even blamed the US for "meddling" when Eritrean forces attacked Djibouti.[380]

Despite Eritrea’s apparently hostile rhetoric, the US remains a critical player in the Horn of Africa. For years US policy in the Horn of Africa has prioritized security—and particularly its counterterrorism partnership with Ethiopia—above all other concerns. In order for human rights and democratization to gain ground in Eritrea, it is important that policy from Washington becomes more nuanced and balanced, particularly vis-à-vis its relationship with Ethiopia. Unwillingness to criticize Ethiopia over its human rights record or its failure to allow demarcation of the border will undermine US credibility with Eritrea. The very serious human rights human rights concerns in both Eritrea and Ethiopia are linked and should be placed at the forefront of US policy in the Horn.

The European Union

At first sight the EU appears to be in a stronger position to engage with the government of Eritrea on human rights and democracy. The EU recently allocated €122 million of development funds for Eritrea under the 10th European Development Fund (EDF) which spans the period 2008-2013.[381]At the time of writing, however, the funds have yet to be disbursed because of lingering questions from the European Parliament about Eritrea’s human rights record and lack of progress in establishing a democratic framework.

Under the Cotonou Agreement, funds disbursed as part of the EDF are subject to strict human rights clauses. This does not include humanitarian aid which comes from a different budget. Title II of the agreement deals with what is called the "political dimension" of the development partnership between the EU and the African, Caribbean, and Pacific countries that have signed the agreement. Article 8 under this title commits both parties to a "political dialogue" which states, inter alia: "The dialogue shall also encompass a regular assessment of the developments concerning the respect for human rights, democratic principles, the rule of law and good governance."[382] Article 9 states, "Respect for human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law, which underpin the ACP-EU Partnership, shall underpin the domestic and international policies of the Parties and constitute the essential elements of this Agreement .... The Partnership shall actively support the promotion of human rights, processes of democratization and good governance."[383]

According to the Commission, the money for 2008-2013 has been allocated but will only be disbursed according to negotiated agreements with the Eritrean government, part of which should involve dialogue on human rights as above.[384] However, spending the money is unlikely to be easy. Only 25 percent of the last tranche of assistance has been paid. The European Commission in its Humanitarian Aid Decision of February 2008 notes that:

Since the interruption of the democratisation process in 2001, EC cooperation with Eritrea has been confronted with major political and technical difficulties. Cooperation was frozen for several years in reaction to the expulsion of the Italian Ambassador, which led to a certain backlog with the 9th EDF funds. Technical hurdles include the limited number of private enterprises able to participate in tenders, restricted access for consultants and even EC staff to projects, and bureaucratic delays. As of 25 September 2008, only half of the 9th EDF had been contracted and 25 percent had been paid.[385]

The response of the Commission to intransigence from the Eritreans was to "reinvigorate" development cooperation and to begin a round of political dialogue to be evaluated at the end of 2008.[386] Diplomats at the European Commission claim that the monthly dialogue on political issues is going well and are reluctant to suspend assistance on human rights grounds.[387] The difficulty in the EU’s relationship with Eritrea is that the Cotonou Agreement envisages teleological progress towards more democracy and stronger respect for human rights, not less.

The human rights environment is deteriorating rapidly in Eritrea, not moving in the other direction. The European Parliament, for its part, has noticed this and has sounded an increasingly critical note on Eritrea’s human rights record. In the report of its mission to Eritrea in 2008 the Parliament said:

As it could be argued for other countries in the Horn, in Eritrea, the current situation is not in conformity with the essential elements of cooperation stated in Article 9 of the Cotonou agreement. Tangible progress in the near future in the field of human rights is critical for the European Parliament, which will follow closely the political dialogue and the process towards adoption of the Country Strategy Paper. As a first step, the Eritrean authorities should enhance transparency about the prison system and allow independent humanitarian organisations, such as the ICRC, to regularly visit all prisoners, including the so-called G11 and the group of journalists arrested in September 2001. Access to families, lawyers and medical treatment must equally be granted in accordance with international human rights standards. Where no charges have been brought against prisoners in a reasonable period of time, they should be unconditionally released. Those with specific charges against them should be brought to a speedy and fair trial. Bodies of prisoners who died in detention should be handed over to their families."[388]

It is ambitious of the EU—to say the least—to forge ahead with negotiations for further assistance with a country so obviously uninterested in the principles of the Agreement. However, the economy of Eritrea is very weak. The country cannot afford food imports. It defaulted on World Bank credits in October 2008.[389] The cost of massive mobilization and repression is taking its toll on the productive capacity of the nation, not to mention the fact that the manpower is leaving in droves. At such a time, the EU has an opportunity to strengthen its commitment to human rights in Eritrea by conditioning future development assistance on human rights benchmarks. To continue in the current vein, characterized by intransigence and non-cooperation from the Eritrean government, and when it is impossible to tell where EU money is going, is unsustainable. The mere existence of a dialogue is not evidence of concrete improvements in human rights.

Eritrea consistently maintains that the massive mobilization measures and suspension of freedoms are somehow justified by the frozen border dispute with Ethiopia. As a major development partner of both Ethiopia and Eritrea, together with pushing for a resolution of the demarcation standoff, the EU needs to vigorously press for progress on human rights as a basic first step to improving the lives of Eritreans.[390]

Forced labor for development

Testimony from refugees, UN officials and others working in Eritrea suggests that all government development projects are implemented by national service recruits, whose labor is by definition, forced and, often, essentially unpaid.[391] In some cases, professionals with expertise may be deployed to work for other agencies and their salaries paid to the Ministry of Defense, in others prisoners or conscripts are made to do the work and the NGO or UN agency is billed for the labor cost at commercial prices.[392]

Under the second United Nations Development Assistant Framework (2007-2011), the following agencies are active in Eritrea: UNDP, UNICEF, WHO, FAO, UNHCR, UNFPA, ILO, UNIFEM, UNESCO, as well as IFAD.[393] However, a former UN official told Human Rights Watch, "the national service and prison labor are used to implement construction projects. What we [the UN] are interested in is that the project is implemented, we turn a blind eye to how it is done. UN agencies understand that the Eritreans use national service but we don’t care... We give them money, they do the labor, we don’t pay salaries, they ask for a lump sum for each project... the labor cost will be calculated, receipts issued... we don’t go into too much detail otherwise they will kick us out of the country."[394]

It appears that development projects funded by the European Union are implemented in the same way, with conscript labor organized through the government. The EU has complained about the lack of access to monitor its projects—to check that the money is being spent as agreed.[395] In such circumstances it is impossible for the EU to be able to verify whether its projects are being implemented at all, let alone to see whether forced labor is being used.

In interviews with Human Rights Watch, diplomats in Asmara and at the European Commission in Brussels were open about the use of national service labor in implementing assistance projects, saying that the main concern was the amount people were paid, not the fact that they might face punishment if they did not work. At the Commission, an official acknowledged that conscript labor was used by companies with ties to the military and the party who were tendering for Commission projects, but that the relevant European regulation being violated was one of "fair competition" because low labor costs meant that such companies could undercut others.[396] Forced labor should be on the EU’s agenda for dialogue on human rights, not just fair competition.

An EU spokesman claimed in an article that the Eritrean government does not receive aid directly from the EU.[397] This is a disingenuous claim given that there are so few NGOs and monitoring projects and distribution aid to appropriate standards is impossible. There are no independent private companies in Eritrea therefore any company receiving EU money has ties to the regime and may use forced labor. It is impossible to argue that supporting the military and party elites within a system that impoverishes its own citizens is not supporting the government. As Glenys Kinnock MEP has noted with regard to EU development assistance, "There are no NGOs in Eritrea. So who is distributing the aid? Who is ensuring that it doesn’t go into the wrong hands?"[398]

Monitoring to check where EU money is ending up and to ensure that forced labor is not used to implement EU and UN funded projects should be a priority and a matter of urgency.

The United Nations

The UN was forced to terminate the United Nations Mission to Eritrea and Ethiopia (UNMEE) after its operations were continually frustrated by the Eritrean government (in response to Ethiopia’s adamant refusal to comply with United Nations demands that it permit demarcation of the border in accordance with the Algiers Agreement). The final report of UNMEE was forwarded to the Security Council on October 15, 2008.

The UN agencies working in Eritrea should demand much higher levels of accountability on human rights standards from the Eritrean government. Moreover, the United Nations has a role to play along with the AU, EU, and US in shaping the regional security environment within which human rights can be addressed. This is particularly important given the humanitarian consequences of the border stand-off and Eritrea’s unwillingness to co-operate with independent agencies on emergency relief.

Notes

[374] "Eritrea pulls out of African bloc", Al-Jazeera, April 22, 2007 http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2007/04/2008525144333672612.html (accessed January 5, 2009).

[375] For an excellent analysis of US-Eritrea relations see, Dan Connell, "Eritrea and the United States: the ‘war on terror’ and the Horn of Africa," in Richard Reid (ed.) Eritrea’s External Relations: Understanding its regional role and foreign policy (Chatham House, 2009).

[376] "Eritrea suspends US aid efforts," BBC news online, August 26, 2005 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/4186728.stm (accessed March 3, 2009).

[377] "Eritrea arrest two US embassy staff accused of human trafficking," Voice of America, September 15, 2005 at http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2005-09/Eritrea-Arrests-Two-US-Embassy-Staff-For-Alleged-Human-Trafficking.cfm (accessed January 29, 2009).

[378] Peter Martell, "How Eritrea fell out with the west," BBC news online, September 11, 2007 at http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/6987916.stm (accessed March 3, 2009).

[379] International Crisis Group, Beyond the fragile peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea: Averting new war, Africa Report No. 141, June 17, 2008, p. 18, http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5490&l=1 (accessed January 8, 2009).

[380] AP, "Eritrea denounces US ‘meddling’ in the Horn of Africa," International Herald Tribune June 11, 2008 http://www.iht.com/articles/ap/2008/06/13/news/Eritrea-Djibouti-US.php (accessed January 8, 2009).

[381] Stefano Manservisi, Director General, European Commission, Directorate-General Development and relations with African Caribbean and Pacific States, Letter to Elsa Chyrum, June 18, 2007, on file with Human Rights Watch.

[382] The Cotonou Agreement, Article 8 (4) http://ec.europa.eu/development/geographical/cotonouintro_en.cfm (accessed January 7, 2009).

[383] Ibid, Article 9 (2) and (4).

[384] Manservisi to Chyrum, June 18, 2007.

[385] European Commission, Directorate General for Humanitarian Aid – ECHO, Humanitarian Aid Decision 23 02 01, ECHO/ERI/BUD/2008/0100, February 26, 2008.

[386] Ibid.

[387] Human Rights Watch interview with diplomat, European Commission Humanitarian Office (ECHO), Brussels, by phone, January 22, 2009.

[388] Report of the fact-finding mission of a Delegation of the Development Committee of the European Parliament to the Horn of Africa (Eritrea, Djibouti, Ethiopia) (25 October-2 November), p. 11.

[389] Ibid., p. 6.

[390] The report of the fact-finding mission stated in part: "Members of the delegation, while acknowledging the need for a transitional phase after the war and the process character of democratic transition, underlined the need for identifying a perspective for returning to a democratic process and reinstating basic human rights in line with the international commitments of Eritrea. They were very concerned that the "no war no peace situation" was used to justify the upholding of an undemocratic regime." p. 8.

[391] Human Rights Watch interviews with refugees, UN officials and diplomats, Italy and Asmara, October and December 2008 and January 2009.

[392] Human Rights Watch interview with Gaim Kibreab, London, December 11, 2008; Human Rights Watch interview with former conscript who worked on a private farm, London, November 13, 2008; Human Rights Watch interviews with Eritrean refugees, London, UK, and Sicily, Italy, September and October 2008; Human Rights Watch interview with UN official, by phone, December 19, 2008; and interviews with diplomats, by phone, January 13, 17, and 22, 2009.

[393] Human Rights Watch email communication with UN Resident Representative in Eritrea, January 14, 2009.

[394] Human Rights Watch interview with former UN official, by phone, December 19, 2008.

[395] The Parliament report recommends that, "The Eritrean government should allow the EC unhindered access to EC funded projects and enhance its openness to technical assistance for jointly agreed projects and programmes," p. 11.

[396] Human Rights Watch telephone interview with ECHO official, January 22, 2009.

[397] David Cronin, "EU cautioned over aid to Eritrea," Inter Press Service, July 11, 2008.

[398] Ibid.

Note
Picture: Asmara, a common street view