“We are all different, which is great because we are all unique. Without diversity life would be very boring.”

— Catherine Pulsifer 

Governments, political parties and communities around the globe in advanced and developing countries strive to adopt their constituents’ voice and interest by incorporating representative policy in their charters to reap better social, economic and political progress. This concept of participatory governing or process is called political diversity. What is the essence of diversity?

According to the Queens Borough Community College website, “The concept of diversity encompasses acceptance and respect. It means understanding that each individual is unique, and recognizing our individual differences.  These can be along the dimensions of race, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, age, physical abilities, religious beliefs, political beliefs, or other ideologies.  It is the exploration of these differences in a safe, positive, and nurturing environment. It is about understanding each other and moving beyond simple tolerance to embracing and celebrating the rich dimensions of diversity contained within each individual.”

Therefore, political diversity is a framework that allows people of one nation to establish a representative governance to have a saying on the decision making process that affects their livelihood. It brings diverse people from different ethnic groups, regions and religions together to form a governing body that respects, accepts and recognizes the human and political interests of all stakeholders. In a nutshell, political diversity is a system that fulfills the political interests of all parties involved. The process guarantees its owners to participating in the decision making process in policies that affect their political, social, and economical life.

Eritrea (like India, Nigeria and Switzerland) is a multiple ethno-territorial diverse country. Nonetheless, Eritrea’s ethno-linguistic and religious blood relationship offers a better situation for harmonious political diversity than the said examples. The Bilen and Saho religious bi-communal formation, and the ethno-linguistic Tigre blood relationship with the Tigrina are core foundations of our social and political make up. This unique formation is a winning formula that should not be squandered.

It is for that reason that the Eritrean People’s Democratic Party (EPDP) is striving to establish a representative governance system to advance the interests of all Eritreans. A government where all ethnic groups and regions participate in the process through their representatives. This way all Eritreans will have a voice in their government and their political  interest are respected and recognized. 

Could diversity mean the give up or submission of one’s culture? Or, does diversity mean the coercion of one culture in favor of another? Absolutely not. A culture is the way people live their daily lives. Fortunately, each ethno-linguistic group in Eritrea have very distinctive culture, and representative system of governing empowers the culture of every stakeholder. It never promotes the coercion or submission of cultures. It rather allows diverse cultures to co-exist side by side in harmony and bondage. Thus, one can confidently say that political diversity is about inclusiveness and not exclusiveness. 

In conclusion, our diversity is unique and rich. We need to explore and invest on our uniqueness from a human aspect where we can build bridges of understanding and dialogue. This way we are stronger and will come out winners together.

Source=https://news.vice.com/article/libyas-migrant-cattle-trade-one-refugees-story

Libya's Migrant Cattle Trade: One Refugee's Story

By Marco Salustro

September 16, 2015 | 1:55 pm

Borderlines (2015) is Michela Wrong’s debut novel. Taking the perspective of a British narrator named Paula, it tells the tale of a newly-independent fictitious African nation named North Darrar, which relapses into border conflict with its neighbour. Although the country is never mentioned, Wrong’s North Darrar looks very much like the real African nation of Eritrea. The story very much seems like a fictionalized account of events and anecdotes that took place in Eritrea in the last decade, events which Wrong has written extensively on in other publications.

In this well-written novel, Wrong weaves the picture of a curious and naive British lawyer who lands in Africa for the first time, carrying with her all the stereotypical images of the continent. And, at least initially, the bond between North Darrar and Paula, seems driven by her career more than anything else. As the story unfolds, Wrong depicts a country encapsulated in an early decolonizing process, trying to present itself to the world amid acute shortages of skilled human power, resources, and paranoid political leadership. Paula encounters a society that is generous, simple, hopeful, and yet ruled by a culture of pervasive paranoia. The paranoid culture, as the narrator Paula eventually understands, results from the long years of colonial rule, isolation, and political corruption. The commingling of seclusion, detachment, and inwardly looking culture further reinforce, according to one of the characters in the novel, the trauma and mutual distrust in the society:

Half the residents are related to each other and the other half fought alongside one another during the liberation struggle. They loathe or love each other, often simultaneously (102).

The story is roughly divided into three parts. The first section is where the narrator lands in a country that is yet going through the early steps of decolonization. Described in vivid detail are: impressive and ruined buildings; hope and anxiety; sense of loss and victory; as well as the seemingly monotonous life of the diplomatic and expatriate communities. In the second part, Paula and her team collect facts and evidence about the border conflict, as part of her preparation to represent the country in the international court of justice in The Hague. The third part chronicles hopeful stories of citizens who are gradually zombified. Paula also gets involved in the internal affairs of the country, campaigning against the political system’s corruption, which effectively ends the job that sent her there in the first place.

What is interesting is that Wrong’s writing avoids a simplistic over-generalization about the population of North Darrar, that reduces a people’s complexity into one-dimensional stereotypes. Different characters such as Dawit, who doubles as operations and opposition; the truly devoted yet ambitious revolutionary character of Dr. Berhane; and the pleasant personality of a government agent named Abraham all help paint the book’s multi-faceted landscape. The descriptions of a monotonous and slow daily life, the wearisome entrances into the world of international law where time is jagged into an eternity, punctuated by a sudden course of actions that result in unexpected outcomes, are symbolic representations of the country and its fate. Although at times the narrative seems extended, the story also benefits from the author’s wonderful curiosity for detail. This allows the author to create an interesting picture of the country by intertwining small stories into a bigger image of a state in limbo.

Source=http://africasacountry.com/2015/09/borderlines-the-tale-of-limbo-state/

“It is good to be a Catholic at this time."

  Iman Khalid Latiff, NYU

The visitation of Pope Francis in the USA last week touched people of all faiths and diversities. His mass services, public speeches, visitation to the jail and the homeless luncheon attracted not just faithful Catholics, but interfaith masses. Spiritually, he truly walks the life of Jesus Christ.  Politically and socially, he centered his policy under dialogue and inclusiveness.

Glued on TV watching the Interfaith Prayer Service hosted by his Holiness in Ground Zero, New York, was beyond emotion. It was a communion of different faith leaders remembering the 9/11 casualties in spiritual and brotherly tone. It was a moving moment to watch Imam Khalid Latiff passing well wishing card to Pope Francis, and his Holiness accepting it with a booming smile, his signature. What does his Holiness teach us from his pastoral journey? Dialogue and inclusiveness.

Naturally, when the political situation of a country hits abyss, nationals wake up from the slump in urgency to resurrect their countrymen. At this juncture, instead of building bridges, we continue building walls of separation, the root cause of mistrust. This act is emboldening the dictator from his death bed. An open dialogue done with inclusiveness is our only revival to a victory lane.

Reaching out to every human being is at the center of the Pontiff’s mission. Of course, his Holiness does it from a spiritual aspect. Politically, it will also work equally. Human beings love to be touched, cared, respected, and loved. Truly, Pope Francis has made an impact on many people by caring about them, reaching them out, and telling them they are also loved by God. 

In conclusion, as many faithful Catholics have felt, I also felt it is good time to be a Catholic. It is good feeling to see many people from all walks of life to express their admiration of his humility, love and compassion. It was a memory that took me back to my childhood roots in the Combonian compounds in Decamere. He had a message for everyone that we are all sons and daughters of God and can overcome all our issues in this life through dialogue.

Residents of Asmara, Eritrea’s capital reputed for its Modernist architectural heritage lament the city’s decline as the regime obstructs crucial maintenance of the buildings that gained the city its reputation as ‘Little Rome’ where Italian architects freely experimented daring and innovative designed in the 1930s.

In recognition of the importance of this heritage the world bank funded projects to conserve and maintain these buildings, however these project and other similar initiatives seem to have ground to a halt as many buildings stand derelict and devoid of their potential as tourist attractions.

A case in example is the historic Asmara Icon known locally as Palaso Aba Habesh, in a picture given by a recent Asmara visitor. The building is in total decline and in dyer need of maintenance and conservation, however the regime’s policy prevents any building and construction projects to be undertaken by citizens. As a consequence many residential buildings constructed by individuals to salivate the severe housing shortage in the city are being demolished without regard for the economic and social damage that this is causing residents.

In 2014, in a rare case of private initiative to modernise and conserve old buildings four individuals bought to renovated a building in the commercial heart of the city deploying resources estimated in millions of 'Nakfas', however as the building work was nearing completion and the building almost ready for commercial use officials ordered its demolition and the result is total dereliction of the building as seen in the picture.

Asmara residents note that all of this adds to the hopelessness in the city and fuels the exodus of the young and resourceful citizens.

Project Freedom Friday

Question. Although Eritreans, at least those in the Diaspora, are familiar with your picture and your being one of the trio of the UNCOI, can you provide us with an introduction as to your background and how you ended up with the COI team?

Answer. I am a lawyer from Mauritius and have been working on human rights issues on the African continent for almost three decades.  I have served as the UN Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Eritrea since November 2012.  On 27 June 2014, when the UN Human Rights Council adopted Resolution A/HRC/RES/26/24 setting up the Commission of Inquiry on Eritrea, it specifically indicated that the Special Rapporteur would be one of the three members. This explains my presence on the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea (COIE) as one of the Commissioners.

Q. What is the COI and how does it come into existence?

A. Following the presentation of my reports (A/HRC/23/53 in June 2013 and A/HRC/26/45 in June 2014) in my capacity as Special Rapporteur, and taking into account the non-cooperation of the Eritrean Government with the mandate and other human rights mechanisms, in June 2014, the UN Human Rights Council (HRC) decided to establish, for a period of one year, a commission of inquiry on human rights in Eritrea (COIE). The HRC mandated the COIE to investigate violations of international human rights law, as outlined in the reports of the Special Rapporteur on human rights in Eritrea. There were also calls for the setting up of the Commission of Inquiry on Eritrea made by civil society and other Eritreans, including those in the diaspora. Following the presentation of the Commissino’s report containing its findings in June 2015, the HRC decided to extend the mandate of the COIE for one year to investigate systematic, widespread and gross violations of human rights in Eritrea with a view to ensuring full accountability, including where these violations may amount to crimes against humanity.

Q. Are members appointed or they have to express an interest and even have to apply to be member of such a commission?

A. The President of the Human Rights Council approaches suitably qualified candidates to see whether they may be interested and then appoints members from among those who express an interest in being part of the Commission.

Q. Since your work entails having to investigate a government’s policy and behavior, does the government in question have a say in approving the members?

A. Appointment of the Commisioners remains the responsibility of the UN Human Rights Council and does not entail the approval of the Government concerned.

Q. What in short were you able to firmly establish from your investigation of the Eritrean regime?

A. The Commission found that systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations have been and are being committed with impunity in Eritrea under the authority of the Government. Some of these violations may constitute crimes against humanity. Our investigation identified specific patterns of systematic human rights violations, based on several factors. They included:

• The high frequency of occurrence of violations documented and corroborated;

• The number of victims and the replication of the violation over a certain period of time;

• The type of rights violated; and

• The systemic nature of these violations, meaning that they cannot be the result of random or isolated acts by the authorities.

The COIE was able to confirm serious human rights violations in Eritrea, including cases of extrajudicial killing, enforced disappearance and incommunicado detention, arbitrary arrest and detention, torture, inhumane prison conditions, violations of human rights in the context of the indefinite national service, which in effect amounts to forced labour, sexual violence in the national service, lack of freedom of expression and opinion, assembly, association, religious belief and movement.

Q. Was there any information that you came across thar surprised you most? What was it, why?

A. It was the extent to which the vast security network reaches into every level of society in-country but also in other countries.  This is one of the reasons why the Commission said that Eritrea is a country ruled by fear and not by law.  While I had an indication of this state of affairs, the Commission was able to gauge how wide-reaching it was.

Q. Have you heard of, read or even worked on a situation like that of Eritrea? Are there regimes out there like the PFDJ?

A. The COIE’s mandate is to focus on human rights violations in Eritrea and it is best to avoid making comparisons with other countries.  However, human rights violations in Eritrea are systematic, widespread and indeed happening on a large scale and we seldom see human rights violations of the scope and scale we see in Eritrea today.

Q. The regime’s constant criticism of the report is that you have never been into the country. How much did you try to convince the regime to allow you in?

A. Although the Commission repeatedly sought the cooperation of the Government in carrying out its work, it received no response.   The Chair wrote to President Isaias Afewerki seeking his invitation and collaboration right at the start and followed up on several occasions, including with requests for information. The Commission even sent an advance copy of the report to the Eritrean authorities. There was no response.

Q. Do you think not being able to talk to the people inside undermined your report?

A. The Commission conducted interviews with some 550 witnesses in eight countries and received 160 written submissions.  As was indicated by the Chair, Mike Smith, the Commission recorded the voices of real Eritrean people as articulated in these 550 testimonies and 160 submissions received. The Commission also reflected the silenced voice of the majority of Eritreans who have never been able to elect their own representatives in national, free, fair and democratic elections, as well as the voices of imprisoned and ill-treated critics, journalists, religious leaders and others who have disappeared into a vast network of jails, the muzzled voice of those subjected to forced labour and inhumane conditions for years on end. Finally, the Commission highlighted the voice of those who every day risk their lives to flee a government that has failed them and all of the others.

Q. There was also this incident of a cut and paste situation involving a North Korean document that somehow ended up being inserted in that of Eritrea. What exactly happened and why? Do tragic errors like that undermine or compromise the credibility of the UN and specifically the COI?

A. This “incident” as you call it did not involve the COIE and it is not something I have personal knowledge about. It is therefore difficult for me to talk about this specific happening. However, not related to the COIE work, it has no incidence on the credibility of the COIE.

Q. You are also accused of being anti-PFDJ because you had previously worked for humanitarian organizations. Can you be an objective investigator with a background of opposing unpopular governments?

A. I have dedicated my time and energy for years to monitor, document, investigate, advocate against human rights violations and even to  litigate abuses wherever they happen, mainly in Africa. I have grounded my work in the human rights treaties and documents accepted universally as well as regionally, on the African continent. I have no interest in opposing any specific political organisation or government. I oppose human rights violations as my unwavering pursuit for human dignity for all.

Q. In fact, what was it like having to work on the Eritrean case?

A. It has been challenging; a situation which I can describe as taking two steps forward and one backward.  However, the work which the Commission was able to achieve with the support of its Secretariat is there for the international community to appraise.  

Q. If you had to do it again, would you still be part of the COIE?

A. I make it a point to deliver on my responsibilities. This is exactly what I did and would continue doing.

Q. There were reports that Commision members were threatened during the Geneva Demonstration by the regime’s supporters. What exactly took place and what can you tell us about the results or status of that investigation?

A. The President of the Human Rights Council made a statement to that effect on 23 June 2015 before the Commission presented its report.  As the investigations are ongoing, I would not like to comment further on the matter.

Q. What was it like to be threatened by the supporters of a regime that you documented as ruling by fear? Would you say the regime unwittingly helped make your case or could one say that people found the report so unfounded that they resorted to threats?

A. It is unfortunate that this happened.  There are other ways of engaging on substantive issues and the Commission has always kept the channels of communication open to address the core of its mandate, that is, human rights violations committed by the Eritrean authorities against its citizens.

Q. You seem to be the most accessible and visible in the media, we do not hear from your colleagues as much. Have you been delegated to be the team spokesperson?

A. Not at all. My fellow Commissioners are also very active and available.  The only difference is that I have been highlighting the situation of human rights in Eritrea since November 2012 in my capacity as Special Rapporteur.

Q. What’s next for the COIE, where do you go from here?

A. The COIE is currently transitioning to its next phase and developing its programme of work.  This is work in progress.

Q. What is it that you would have achieved by the end of the tenure of the Commision?

A. By the end of the tenure of the COIE we are aiming at bringing clarity regarding responsibility for human rights violations committed in Eritrea. Our goal is to pave the way for accountability, in a country where a pervasive culture of impunity is firmly entrenched.

Q. What is meant by Crimes against Humanity?

A. The definition of crimes against humanity is threefold:

–  Crimes against humanity include: murder (killing or causing death, including the deprivation of access to food and medicine); extermination (mass killing or causing death to a part of the population); enslavement; imprisonment or other deprivation of physical liberty; torture; rape; sexual slavery; sexual violence; enforced disappearances of persons; persecution (intentional and severe deprivation of one or more fundamental rights contrary to international law by reason of the identity of the group); and other inhumane acts committed during peace time or war time.

– Crimes against humanity should take place in the specific context of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population: the act should not be isolated or sporadic incident but it should be a course of conduct involving the multiple commissions of acts/ crimes against any civilian population.

– In addition, there should be two subjective or mental elements: the criminal intent to commit the inhuman act/conduct and the knowledge that it is part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population. Gross negligence or inadvertent recklessness is not sufficient for the commission of crimes against humanity.

Q. Will you be able to enter into the country this time around? Even if allowed, how would you be able to guarantee your safety? 

A. As the Commission has previously indicated, the preferred way to conduct its investigations would be in situ, that is in the country and we hope to be invited.  It is the responsibility of the host government to provide security to those it has invited.

Q. Just as importantly, how would you guarantee the safety of those you interview?

A. The prime responsibility for the safety of those whom the COIE interview remains with the government authorities.  Witnesses and victims’ protection is a central concern for the Commission. We have adopted procedures and methods of work aimed at protecting such persons, as well as the information they have chosen to share with us, during all stages of our work and beyond the release of our report.

However, our ability to physically protect concerned persons is limited and we count on the governments of the countries we have visited to respect their primary responsibility to protect their residents, including the victims and witnesses we have interviewed. We have systematically sought guarantees from the concerned States that individuals wishing to meet us shall have unhindered access to us, and that none of them shall, as a result of meeting us, suffer any harassment, threat, act of intimidation, ill-treatment or reprisal, or face any criminal prosecution or other judicial proceedings.

Q. What if the regime availed only people that would refute your original report?

A. As part of its working methods, the COIE ensures that it has total freedom to interview any witness who can shed light on human rights violations in Eritrea, as per its mandate.

Q. Are you planning to interview as part of the investigation the current ruler of Eritrea, Mr. Isaias Afewerki or senior officials?  Have there been attempts to contact him directly?

A. As indicated above, the COIE wrote directly to the President at the start of the first mandate and followed up.  We will certainly seek an invitation to Eritrea again.

Q. African leaders seem united in their opposition as discriminatory the International Crimes Court (ICC). What is the point of the COIE and how does it help the victims of the regime you’re investigating?

A. On renewing its mandate in June 2015, the Human Rights Council decided “to extend, for a period of one year, the mandate of the commission of inquiry to investigate systematic, widespread and gross violations of human rights in Eritrea with a view to ensuring full accountability, including where these violations may amount to crimes against humanity”. The mandate is clear.  What the HRC decides to do with the findings is not in the hands of the COIE.  The work of the COIE will also serve as a record of the human rights violations victims have been subjected to at the hands of the authorities.  However, the COIE aims at providing the basis to break the cycle of impunity for human rights violations in Eritrea. To do this the COIE has based and will continue using as legal framework all obligations assumed by Eritrea under international human rights treaties and other relevant treaties as well as those applicable under customary international law.

Source=http://www.erivision.org/an-interview-with-ms-sheila-b-keetharuth-commissioner-commission-of-inquiry-on-eritrea/

Part II:  The Myth of Sanctions against Eritrea

I chose this issue as a separate topic because it exemplifies the twisted nature of politics.  The irony of the UNSC sanction is that both the regime and opposition see political benefits in maintaining the sanctions.  When examined closely, the purpose and effectiveness of the UNSC sanctions have been distorted to fit the target audience.  Contrary to his public lamentations, DIA is using sanctions to further justify his oppressive rule, while the opposition see that sanctions will weaken the regime.  DIA needs plausible justification to oppress the population, while opposition needs ever more oppression to ignite, hopefully, a popular uprising, while the world pretends to do something by imposing an empty sanction. Moreover, the regime needs a cause to rally its dwindling supporters.  The regime’s latest propaganda is, ‘the US and West hates us, and has never accepted us as an independent country, and wants to shove us back into Ethiopia by punishing us economically.  We shall overcome as we always have done.’

1. History and Effectiveness of Sanctions (in general)

The use of international sanctions, i.e. diplomatic and trade, is a recent phenomenon, which arose from the creation of organized international institutions such as the United Nations (UN) and European Union (EU), along with tremendous growth in trade and economic integrations in post second world war era.

Before this period, countries engaged in a form of self-sanction, or isolationism, such as China in 1371 under Ming Dynasty which banned maritime shipping, and Japan in the 1650s under Tokugawa shogunate (Sakoku/kaikin policy).  In a form of reverse sanctions, Britain forced China to trade in the 1850s, which led to the Opium War and eventually acquiring Hong Kong to achieve its mercantile aims.  Similarly, Portugal established its base in Macau for the same purpose.  The United States forced Japan to open its trade in 1850s - and told in no uncertain terms that if it failed to open its markets that it faced military consequences.  Ironically, it was a century of military threats if countries didn’t open up from their self-imposed sanctions.  The less fortunate countries became ‘overseas colonies’. Forcing others to trade was at the heart of medieval mercantile adventures.

Today it is isolating countries, rather than forcing them to engage to trade that has become a modus operandi of international politics.  The shift from forcing a nation to trade to withholding trade has been necessitated by changes in international politics, i.e. war as last resort, and due to increased economic integrations of the world. But it is still understood that encouraging isolationist countries to engage is one approach to deal with entrenched and antagonist regimes.  China is one example, and current efforts with Iran and Cuba are the latest examples.

It is debatable whether sanctions do work.  Under what circumstances do sanctions work?  Do sanctions bring about change, i.e. is it about changing regimes or is it about changing the behavior of a regime? Does its effectiveness depend on whether the population is generally active versus pacifist, strong economic class exists, or other factors (or combinations thereof)?

Some examples where sanctions has had some impact

• South Africa

• Iran

• Zimbabwe

• Russia

No Impact

• Cuba

• North Korea

• Saddam’s Iraq

• Syria

One may argue that there are some factors that determine if sanctions may have some impact:

• The sponsors must impose strict sanctions and pursue the sanctions aggressively and wholeheartedly, as the UK did with Zimbabwe, the US with Iran, and the US and EU with Russia and South Africa.

• The targets of the sanctions are governed by ‘opportunist dictators’ than ‘ideologue dictators’, and face some degrees of public pressure to alleviate adverse economic conditions and are willing to address them to certain degrees.

2. Background on Sanctions against Eritrea

DIA and its spin-masters would like us believe that the UNSC sanctions is a U.S. (our bogeyman / hoongoogoo) plot to strip away our sovereignty and give us away to those evil Woyanes like they did to us in the 1950s. What a crap!

The hard fact is that the UNSC sanction against Eritrea is because of the regime’s PATTERN of belligerent behaviour over almost two decades that even Russia and China, members with veto powers, couldn’t condone and thus allowing the sanction to pass. China and Russia insisted a watered down version more out of fear of precedence than concern for the Eritrean regime.

The 2009 Eritrea-Somalia sanctions, UNSC Resolutions # 1907 and #2023, were imposed ostensibly due to active meddling in the internal Somali, Djibouti, and possibly Ethiopian political affairs. Of course, all nations have rights to pursue their national interests, but only in smart way lest it becomes self-destructive. As a nation way down the international political food chain, political prudence goes a long way to achieve both short- and long-term national interests.

Even the most politically naive can surmise that the regime has been actively accosting diplomatic, political, and supposedly economic sanctions against itself. It sought, and continues to seek, needless confrontations with regional and international interest groups, nations and organizations over IssacDawit, Djibouti, and Somalia - while trying to cozy up with rogue regimes.

At the risk of being repetitive, it is worth reminding like a tired television commercial, that DIA’s belligerent politics has resulted in,

• Loss of Hanish Islands to Yemen: islands that were in possession of Eritrea historically (and Ethiopia while it occupied Eritrea). Worse is Eritrea losing the fishing and other rights associated with water territory!

• Conflict with Ethiopia resulting in loss of over 20,000 precious Eritreans, two-to-three times that many injured in this needless war. One of the Eritrea’s heroes, Min. BerakiGhebresilase, had voiced prudent approach to handling the situation but fell on deaf ears of the regime. Although DIA wants to tell us that we gained Badme, in reality, Eritrea lost most of the lands that belonged to it under colonial treaties and enshrined in the AU founding documents.

• Conflict with Djibouti, which eventually nudged the UNSC, which includes China, to impose sanctions.

• Meddling, which is different than constructively engaging, in Somali politics, resulting in UN sanctions.

• Belligerent tones towards the West, esp. the US, regional and international organizations - and everything in-between.

The latest news that Al Jazeera staff were released in Egypt after “Presidential Pardon” is just one example how astute politicians with a well formed agenda play their hands in international politics. For example, releasing IssacDawit would have the regime’s cause with Sweden, albeit Sweden hasn’t done much, and the EU in general. They would all have removed that one small stone out of their shoes, but PIA insists on imprisoning IssacDawit although he poses absolutely no risk to the regime. One can only surmise that DIA is pursuing self-isolationism by antagonizing the rest of the world with whatever little way he can - and in the process destroy everything Eritrea and Eritrean. It is sadism at its zenith.

Examining the sanctions themselves, despite the regime’s ever louder complaints of the UN sanctions, in reality, UNSC sanctions have been symbolic rather than having any noticeable impact on the regime.

With undying hope of becoming a regional super-power, ‘goblel’, at least, in the Horn of Africa, and eternally hoping to become the next darling of the US, DIA is pursuing Pyrrhic Victory to annihilate Ethiopia and take the mantle. DIA was forced to retract into its shells after its Somalia agenda was utterly defeated and discredited. However, now that DIA has found some hope that his involvement with the ‘coalition’ against the Houthis in Yemen would give him some leverage that he has boldly and publicly welcomed Dr. BerhanuNega of GINBOT 7. DIA is gambling that he has now some leeway to interfere in Ethiopia’s domestic politics because he is more valuable politically to the Middle Eastern crisis, and also to take advantage of the recent Ethiopian election. Unfortunately for DIA, and probably fortunately for everybody else, TPDM’s defections has thrown a monkey wrench into DIA’s plans to torch the entire Horn of Africa. Still, DIA’s undying belief in gunboat diplomacy, where he is receiving cash and oil from Sudan, Egypt, Iran ,Gulf States, and who knows who else, in exchange for offering a mercenary army and access to our territory is the root cause of Eritrean suffering. His policies are predicated on one belief, that “Might is Right” in dealing with the Eritrean population as well as the world.

Although not all conflicts were started by DIA, his opponents understood his reckless disregard for rule-of-law and international politicking and thus giving them carte-blanche to advance their political agenda before an accountable regime is established in Eritrea. In his many interviews, which have become rare lately, DIA wants to project an image of a well-meaning guy who is misunderstood by everybody. Even if one assumed so, the job of a well-meaning leader isn’t to run a nation as his personal fiefdom and run a socio-economic and politics experiments to the detriment of everybody else who subjected to unnecessary and indefinite cruelty. In other words, no amount of well-meaning intentions can excuse human right abuses.

As a result of DIA’s PATTERN of disruptive and destructive behavior, the UNSC - which includes CHINA and RUSSIA passed the following resolutions,

• S/RES/1907 (2009) passed on December 23, 2009 and imposes the following sanctions

  • Arms embargo

  • Travel ban

  • Asset Freeze

• S/RES/2023 (2009) passed on December 05, 2011 expands on the Resolution 1907

  • Cessation from collecting “Diaspora Tax” under CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (section 11 of the resolution)

  • Due diligence in dealing with the Eritrean mining sector (sections 13 and 14). Due diligence is open to wide interpretations.

          There are corresponding legislations by EU, Australia and other countries.

III Effects of Sanctions on Eritrea        

After attempting to downplay the effects of sanctions at the beginning, DIA has now embraced the so-called sanctions against Eritrea as yet another tool in his endless and tiring political propaganda. But in reality, the sanctions may have affected DIA diplomatically but nothing else. The impact of diplomatic isolation might be to shift from the regime’s ostensible campaign to finalize the physical demarcation of the border to DIA’s destabilizing role in the region, but this diplomatic isolation is, wittingly or unwittingly, DIA’s choosing.

1. Military hardware sanctions(arms embargo) against the regime has NO impact on the regime. It doesn't have the budget and hard currencies to buy military hardware anyway. In fact, it may be selling its armaments to raise hard currency. If ever it needs to buy armaments, it can do so clandestinely in the black markets.

Impact of military hardware sanctions: nil

2. Diplomatic sanctions(travel ban) have been embarrassingly non-existent. After voting to impose sanctions on high-level regime officials, no country has imposed on any regime official six years later. To the contrary, regime officials have been allowed to freely travel to many countries without any form of restrictions, except possibly to and within the US. This is in contrast, for instance, to Zimbabwe where the UK imposed strict limitations and forced other EU members to follow. The US did put Mr. YemaneGebreab on the list but is still allowed to travel to United Nations in New York because of an agreement with the UN when establishing its headquarters in New York.

Impact of diplomatic sanction: NIL (US travel restrictions within the US for Eritrean diplomats is an eye-for-an-eye for the Eritrean regime’s actions.)

3. Economic sanctions against the regime consists of a couple of countries curtailing the 2% Diaspora Tax and putting unspecified limitations on the mining sector.  Despite being mentioned in the sanctions, not all nations enforce it, and is done in duplicitous manner.  For instance, Canada expelled the Eritrean representative over illegal collection of 2% to fund illegal activities, and yet a Canadian mining company, Nevsun, still operates in Eritrea pouring billions of dollars into DIA coffers while violating international laws against slavery.The Eritrean dictatorship has been allowed to earn hundreds of millions (nearly $1 billion in US) in 4 years. The same with other countries such as the UK and Australia. One may even surmise that banning the 2% is designed to force the regime to allow foreign companies to extract minerals; thus for their own interests.

Pertaining to the ‘Diaspora Tax’, the wordings in the resolution states that the regime can’t coerce or force Eritreans to pay it.  Strictly speaking, it doesn’t even prevent voluntary payments.  Does requiring Eritreans to pay for services considered ‘coercing’?  The vague nature of the resolution, or no subsequent clarifications, has rendered the sanctions toothless.  The fact remains that those Eritreans who have personal affairs to attend to back in Eritrea must somehow pay it.  As such, this specific sanction can only be referred to as an ‘inconvenience’ sanction.  Inconvenience has its functions, but in this particular case, it is not effective enough.

Impact of economic sanction: almost NIL (more inconvenience than being effective)

It is worth reiterating that economic hardships in Eritrea is totally and absolutelyself-inflicted.  For instance remittances have been falling because DIA

• Has banned private construction of housings

• Has practicallybanned all private enterprise

• Purposely abandoning public projects (Chinese finance in Ethiopia for instance) including infrastructure, Free Port/Zone, and others. The regime's behavior is judged within its pattern of behavior soon after independence rather than post UNSC sanctions.

In addition, DIA is creating high inflation by printing money and thus devaluing the currency. As Eritreans find that their wages and salaries are being eroded while rent and food prices going up, this feeds into rampant corruption. All this feeds into chaotic system that is destroying the country.

4. Asset Freeze - No impact as no official has been designated yet, as is for the travel ban.

Trade Sanctions - there is no trade sanctions, except some due diligence in dealing with mining sector as discussed above, on Eritrea. However, even if there was trade sanctions, it would have had little impact on Eritrea because DIA has deliberately stifled the private sector in Eritrea, which would have been the source of export for Eritrea. Similarly, Eritrea's imports, which is not under sanctions, is minimal limited to food and energy, and the rest being so negligible on the world scale, that it would be useless to sanction. Moreover, there is no need to impose formal trade sanctions as the regimes reckless economic governance is leading to total collapse of its currency, making imports too expensive for ordinary Eritreans.

World Bank, IMF, China and Eritrea

DIA propaganda machinery tells us implicitly that Eritrea's economic woes is due to international sanctions preventing it from obtaining funds from World Bank, IMF and other international organizations and states.

But DIA's policy of self-reliance and self-sufficiency (more like self-destruction), remnant of old communist and Maoist beliefs, has been the main culprit in isolating itself from engaging with international organizations. The main reason for shunning these organizations isn't because DIA is averse to borrowing, but doesn't want the West to use 'indebtedness' as political leverage against him.  Otherwise, PIA is probably astute enough to know his deeply held belief in Maoism hasn't even worked in its home county, but the hoopla of 'self-sufficiency' is being used to sustain its repressive policies.

If DIA had really wanted to engage in economic development, he would have dealt with China, NOT the US, EU, World Bank.  China is fuelling most of African and Asian, and now South American, economic growth.  China is not averse with dealing with the most repressive regimes, internationally sanctioned countries, or any regime operating outside international norms. It is DIA that is shunning China. Whenever DIA needed China, from stashing away millions, if not billions, of dollars of unaccounted and stolen Eritrean money, to repairing the Hirgigo Power Plant, to building the Gedem Cement Factory, China has been there whenever DIA needed China.  

Of course, the US, France and other Western countries have sector specific grants available for third world countries such as for energy (electricity) developments, which Eritrea could have tapped into if it wasn’t for DIA’s ideological rigidity entangled with his ego.  There are now rumours that the EU is set to grant over $200 million for economic developments in Eritrea - probably out of misguided belief that the regime can be bribed into stemming down the Eritrean refugee crisis.  Throwing money at ideologue dictators is like throwing into the wind.

Graver Political Developments than Sanctions & the Outdated Westphalian Treaty

Tired of continuous wars in Europe, its monarchs and leaders met in the Town of Westphalia in the year 1648 to formulate a new principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states.  Before 1648, European nations invaded others on whimsical excuses that put the continent on perpetual war footing.  Nearly 300 years later, the UN and later the AU (OAU) adopted the same principles of non-interference as the cornerstone of international diplomatic relations and conduct of nations and international brotherhood.

However, the principles of non-interference in the internal affairs of sovereign countries has been modified in the last few years, especially after the 1994 Rwandan genocide when the world powers realized adverse events in a sovereign country impacts other countries directly through refugee crises and indirectly through the collective consciousness of people as unified human beings. Should be ignore the immense sufferings of other people just because they live across artificial borders?  Of course, there are dangers of using human rights violations to interfere in the internal politics of sovereign countries.

Post-1994 Rwanda, the general consensus is that the world, as represented by the United Nations, UN Security Council - and even regional groupings such as ECOWAS have the moral and political obligations to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign countries if violations consisted of genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes - and even coups against democratically elected governments.  These international groups may use sanctions or force to pre-emptively prevent mass human sufferings or to restore political stability.  ECOWAS, for instance, has played effective roles in restoring and stabilizing political situations in Guinea Bissau, Burkina Faso and elsewhere.  Moreover, the recent coup in Burkina Faso met swift reactions from the Peace & Security Council of the AU and West African nations.

It is also worth noting that during the latest UN Human Rights Council meeting over Eritrea, the Representative of Ghana echoed this very same sentiment.  The Ghanaian representative stated that although the AU founding principlesare based on non-interference in the internal affairs of other member states, i.e. Westphalia model,African leaders have also come to understand that to promote African democracy, and hence to realize socio-economic growth,that African leaders must now believe in the principle of non-indifference.

Ironically, despite DIA's complaints of foreign interference in the internal affairs of Eritrea, DIA, as die hard Maoist follower and ardent disciple of communist thoughts, is the biggest subscriber of the principle of non-indifference.  DIA's fingerprints are all over Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, Djibouti, Yemen, DR Congo, (Great Lakes) and other countries.  Political hypocrisy is to complain when others interfere in your internal affairs, but justify interference in affairs of other countries as necessities of security, to help our brotherly neighbors, or for some other high sounding but ultimately for self-serving reasons. 

Opposing Sanctions

Although the opposition camp supports sanctions as way of, ostensibly, diminishing the legitimacy of the regime, but at the same time, it is predicated on increasing hardship on the general public that could spark public uprising.  Unfortunately, as stated above, the UNSC sanctions is toothless.  Unless the world body imposes severe, and ever increasing, sanctions against an oppressive regime, as was done with Zimbabwe, Iran, Russia, and others, these sanctions have no effect.  As shown above, the sanctions against Eritrea is in name only. As the regime is not democratically elected and cares less for domestic or world opinion, it doesn’t even suffer from the stigma.  

DIA is someone who believes that he can get away with anything and that one day - either of his own choosing or fate - things will change and that all the pain and sufferings of the past will be forgotten like the morning mist.  

In my view, the opposition should NOT indefinitely support empty sanctions as a victory against the regime.  There is no hypocrisy in welcoming sanctions at first and then call for it to be rescinded if it no longer serves a purpose, or runs against one’s political strategy - if there is one.  In other words, if the world body isn’t serious enough to impose tough sanctions that will bring about change, then it should lift sanctions, and thus depriving the regime of the propaganda that the world, and esp. the US, is trying to strip Eritrea of its nationhood. 

Having observed the nature of dictatorial regimes, which are replete with historical observations, one may even argue that forcing the regime to open up economically, as is being done with the mining sector, is the better route to address Eritrea’s woes than pursuing the strangulation route.  More than anyone, it is PIA who is politically allergic to any form of socio-economic development because growing wealth will necessarily lead to calls for socio-economic reforms.  Moreover, openness in today’s world means greater integrations with the world, which, again, lead to calls for socio-economic reforms.  Thus, one may argue, either the West should impose serious and severe sanctions against the regime, or force the regime to open up economically - not unlike middle and late medieval China and Japan, which were forced to trade and thus ending their isolationist policies.  Similar questions are raised over Cuba which has remained isolated for over half-a-century. 

In fact, as will be discussed later, many roads lead to Rome, [as in all], and it is not necessarily the politics of destruction, isolationism, division, and other negative acts that will only get us to our destination.  We do NOT need to be the mirror reflection of the regime, or react in tit-for-tat manner.  If so, the regime has control over us.  Our every political approach should evaluated dispassionately and purely on the merits of its outcome and based on the very principles we want to project.  Nothing more, nothing less!

The opposition camp should be flexible and strategically oriented enough to adjust its political position to advance its cause.  Equally, the opposition camp would require strong communication to avoid appearing to be dithering or equivocating. Our position to the world body (UN) should be, either get serious enough with the sanctions or rescind it.

Ultimately, the current toothless sanctions regime may have value to the Ethiopian government only, which allows it to pre-empt any pressures to resolve the border issue.  Others concerns, such as interference in Somali affairs, have now subsided as the wings - not just the feathers - have been clipped off of the Eritrean Pol Pot regime. 

Lifting sanctions doesn’t necessarily end opposition camp’s efforts to isolate the regime.  There are still other avenues, including through UN & AU Human Right Councils, to address many of the regime’s abuses as manifested by the refugee crisis, slavery campaigns, and other national local legal avenues available to pursue.  We are only limited by our imagination, pooled resources, and determination in pursuing other effective legal avenues. One may surmise that the fact there is a UN sanction on the regime would embolden other jurisdictions to take tougher stance on the regime, but this is not supported by facts.  Conversely, one may fret that lifting the sanctions regime would weaken other efforts to weaken the regime.  For example, the recent heavy COIE criticism of the regime would still not have changed even if sanctions were not imposed.  The COIE was established because of the epic level Eritrean refugee crisis.  It is the West’s shot across the bow to warn the regime to stem the tides of Eritrean refugees.  If this tide continues, the regime WILL be officially accused of crimes-against-humanity - regardless of any other efforts because it directly threatens the West’s interests.

Having understood that the West, and similarly with the Ethiopian government, will not do one iota more than what is for their ultimate interests, it is time we engage in a constructive debate and then formulate policies and action plans that reflect political reality.

Of course, we should be glad to have wedo-geba.net quote us on this one!

BerhanHagos

September 25, 2015