February 6, 2020 News

In an under-reported visit, Prime Minister Netanyahu has been in Sudan and Uganda, mending fences and possibly preparing the ground for expelling African asylum seekers now living in Israel.

This is the view of Ha’aretz, which wrote this story: “Warming Israeli-Sudanese Relations Worry Asylum Seekers Waiting for Refugee Status. Netanyahu’s comments have shaken up community of 6,000 Sudanese in Israel, fearing their lives could be upended.”

Eritreans may also face deportation to either Sudan or Uganda.


Source: Al-Monitor

Netanyahu’s Africa blitz: photo-ops and pleasing the US

ARTICLE SUMMARY
Israeli diplomats fear that the drive for cooperation projects with African countries is being replaced by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s desire for photo-ops and by hints that relations with Jerusalem would open the door to Washington.

Sudan reported Feb. 2 that Washington had invited head of its Sovereign Council Gen. Abdel Fattah al-Burhan for a visit. The following day, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu visited Uganda, secretly meeting there with Burhan. After the meeting, Netanyahu announced proudly to the world that Israel and Sudan, two enemy countries, agreed to work together toward normalizing ties. A statement issued by Netanyahu’s office noted that the prime minister believed the current Sudanese regime is headed in a new positive direction, and that he had also expressed this view to US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. “Burhan is eager to help his country modernize by taking it out of isolation and putting it on the world’s map,” the statement read.

Indeed, Netanyahu’s diplomatic blitz was applauded not just in Jerusalem, but also in Washington. Pompeo praised both countries, congratulating Burhan on “his leadership in normalizing ties with Israel.” In Sudan, on the other hand, things looked a bit different, with the government cautiously noting that Burhan informed no one and consulted no one before taking off to Uganda. Clearly, the road to normalizing ties between Khartoum and Jerusalem is not going to be as smooth as presented by Netanyahu in Kampala.

Israel and Sudan have a turbulent past, with two issues at the crux of animosity: Iran and the conflict with the Palestinians. Back in January 2009, mysterious fighter jets attacked an Iranian arms convoy in the Sudanese desert. In April that year, an Iranian vessel laden with arms bound for the Gaza Strip was torpedoed off the coast of Sudan. Khartoum suspected that Israel was behind the attacks, in an attempt to thwart arms smuggling into Gaza. The toppling of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in April 2019 changed the country’s priorities, with its new leaders distancing themselves from Tehran. But what exactly do the current leaders in Khartoum expect from Israel?

Over the past decade, Netanyahu has invested much efforts in cultivating Israeli ties with African states, or in his own words, “bringing Israel back to Africa.” He had stated on numerous occasions that Africa is part of Israel’s list of diplomatic priorities. Netanyahu made no secret of the fact that he was hoping to change the balance of power within the United Nations through this African campaign. He argued that Israel needs the African countries on its side in its UN battles against the Palestinians. Still, he kept noting that his African efforts embodied Israel’s long-term vision of showcasing its commitment to share with others its best practices and technologies in fields that include smart agriculture, water management, high-tech and health innovation.


Bribes, Bombs and Saudi Billionaires: The Secret History of Israel’s Explosive Relations With Sudan

Source: Ha’aretz

Netanyahu wants Sudan to join the ‘friends of Israel’ club of Sunni Arab states. The Mossad, with Saudi help, has tried that before

Yossi Melman

Feb 05, 2020 3:51 PM

The meeting Monday in Uganda between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, head of Sudan’s transitional Sovereignty Council, is just another chapter in the convoluted history of the two countries. It is a story of ups and downs, war, expedience, animosity, gun-running and people-smuggling, conspiracies, the long reach of Iran, clandestine bank transfers and – above all – a relationship wrapped in overlapping layers of secrecy.

The opening chapter in that history was written in the first half of the 1950’s. Sudan was negotiating its independence from the joint British and Egyptian government, known as the “condominium,” which had ruled since 1899.

Sudan’s major opposition, the Umma party, feared that Egyptian president Gamal Abdul Nasser, keep to concretize his ideology of pan-Arabism ideology, and his ambitions for leadership of Africa and the Arab world, would try to bloc Sudan’s independence, in coordination with those Sudanese nationalists who favored unification with Egypt.

Umma’s representatives, led by Sadiq al-Mahdi – who, 30 years later would become Sudan’s prime minister – met secretly in London with Israeli diplomats, among them Mordechai Gazit, then the first secretary of the London embassy. The Sudanese emissaries sought the diplomatic and, if possible, economic assistance of Israel, a sworn enemy of Egypt.

In January 1956, Sudan gained its independence and was recognized by both the UK and Egypt. The task of maintaining the clandestine encounters with Israel, which continued for a few years, was transferred from Israel’s Foreign Ministry to the Mossad.

From the beginning, Sudanese-born Nissim Gaon, an Israeli-Swiss international businessman, played an important role in facilitating relations between Israel and Sudan, with an emphasis on economic ties. Over the years Israel benefited from Gaon’s investments and experience in the tourism and hotel industries.

The honeymoon in the relations between the two countries was cut short at the end of the 1950’s. A military coup d’état – one of several to come – and Nasser’s beguiling spell turned Sudan into Israel’s adversary. Sudan even sent a small military contingent to assist Egypt in the Six Day War of June 1967, and for the next decade there were no bilateral encounters, not even clandestine ones.

With this reality in mind, Israel replayed the old dictum of my enemy’s enemy is my friend, and set to work to build secret ties with forces in opposition to the Sudanese government. Mossad operatives, led by David Ben Uziel, better known as “Tarzan,” infiltrated Sudan in 1969. Their mission was to help the South Sudanese tribes fighting against the central government in Khartoum.

Using air strips and bases in Uganda and Kenya, Israeli air force pilots dropped ammunition and weapons to assist the rebel forces of General Joseph Lago, who also traveled to Israel and met with Prime Minister Golda Meir. On the ground, “Tarzan” and his team, together with Lago’s troops, walked hundreds of kilometers in the bush, bombing bridges on the Nile and ambushing Sudanese soldiers.

The civil war ended in the mid 1970’s – but it wasn’t the end of Israel’s involvement. Instructed by Prime Minister Menachem Begin, Mossad and Israeli navy personnel smuggled Ethiopian Jews to Promised Land, using that accumulated knowledge and experience of the terrain. Risking their lives and working alongside with Israelis of Ethiopian origins, they devised a highly daring plan, which eventually had two phases.

The first, between 1977 and 1980 and codenamed “Operation Brothers,” used Israeli boats to rescue Ethiopian Jews picked up from Sudan’s Red Sea coast. To enhance the operation, the Mossad registered a front company in Europeand rebuilt a defunct diving resort. With Mossad operatives masquerading as diving instructors, the resort served as a command and control center. In this way 17,500 Jews were brought to Israel – yet it was achieved at a slow pace, and it could not be scaled up.

So in 1981, Defense Minister Ariel Sharon met secretly in Kenya with Sudanese leader General Jaffar al-Numeiri. Sharon, with the help of Israeli businessman Yaacov Nimrodi, former Mossad operative Dave Kimchi, and Saudi billionaire Adnan Khashoggi (acting quasi-independently of the Saudi authorities), plotted to turn Sudan into a depot for weapons intended for use to overthrow Ayatollah Khomeini’s relatively young regime in Iran.

The scheme called for Israel to send weapons to Sudan, financed by Khashoggi (both Khashoggi and Nimrodi foresaw tidy commissions.) Numeiri would receive a generous payoff. The deposed Shah’s son would be installed as Iran’s new ruler. Another goal was to divert some of the weapons to foment a rebellion in Chad, and country that could boast uranium mines of strategic interest, that would result in an Israel-friendly government.

But Sharon and his plotters were conspiring behind the back of the Mossad. When Mossad chiefs Yitzhak Hofi and Nahum Admoni learnt about the plan, they first complained to Begin and then they killed it.

Three years later, in 1984, the Mossad proved its strength once again. It decided to adapt once again the modus operandi for the emigration of the Ethiopian Jews. Thanks to bribes given to both Sudanese leader General Jaafar al-Numeiri and Omar Abu Taib, his security agency head, they agreed to turn a blind eye. Those 30 million dollars – donated by the American Joint Distribution Committee, the largest global Jewish welfare organization – lubricated the establishment of a new stage in smuggling out Ethiopia’s Jews.

The Ethiopian Jews were taken at night to Khartoum airport, and flown by “Trans European Airways” to Israel via Brussels. The company was owned by George Gutelman, a Belgium Jew who was more than happy to help the Mossad. Ephraim Halevy, later Mossad head, was in charge: It was called “Operation Moses.” Ironically the main business of Gutelman’s airline – a charter company offering low-cost flights -was to ferry Muslim pilgrims to Mecca.

In executing Operation Moses, the Mossad was assisted by the CIA. This way an additional 30,000 Ethiopian Jews were brought to Israel. But the airlift played a part of the downfall of the Numeiri regime, which was accused of collaborating with Israel. For a short time, Numeiri was replaced by Israel’s old friend, Sadiq al-Mahdi.

Soon, another military coup d’état took place in Khartoum and brought General Omar al-Bashir to power in 1989. Deeply influenced by a charismatic Muslim cleric called Hassan Tourabi, the duo controlled Sudan and turned it into a military theocracy. Osama bin Laden found sanctuary in Sudan from 1990 to 1996. And Sudan formed strong ties with Iran.

The result was that Sudan allowed its territory to be used as a transit point and storage facility for weapons smuggled by Iran’s Qods Force to Hamas in Gaza.

Israel couldn’t watch from the sidelines. From 2009 onward the Mossad – providing information – and Israel’s air force retaliated with a series of air strikes against boats and trucks carrying Iranian weapons and on arms depots on Sudanese soil.

In the last decade, the Sudan-Israel rollercoaster has turned and twisted on. General Bashir was declared a war criminal by the International Criminal Court for his part in perpetrating genocide in the Darfur region and in south Sudan. Sudanese refuges escaping the atrocities hoped to find shelter in Israel; treated as asylum-seekers in only the most formalistic manner, almost none were recognized as refugees, and now Netanyahu and his rightwing cabinet hope the conditions are right to deport them.

South Sudan, which suffered so much, declared its independence, and promptly began to purchase weapons from Israel – and in another historical irony, it, too, embarked on a civil war and perpetrated its own atrocities.

And General al-Bashir’s attraction to Iran waned, and with it, sprung the seeds of a renewed relationship with Israel. Bashir betrayed Iran, and befriended Saudi Arabia, solidifying his reorientation by sending Sudanese troops to fight in the civil war in Yemen – which partly functions as a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia – in return for Saudi money and oil.

Encouraged by the last five years of Saudi Arabia’s burgeoning openness towards the Jewish state, Bashir started to flirt with Israel. He had deeply expedient reasons: he hoped that Netanyahu and the Mossad would be able to leverage the political clout of AIPAC and U.S. Jewish organizations to cleanse him of his crimes, to rehabilitate his reputation, in return for forming diplomatic relations with Israel.

According to foreign reports, in the twilight years of al-Bashir’s rule, Mossad chief Yossi Cohen met with his Sudanese counterpart General Salah Goshfor initial discussions on some form of trade and diplomatic relations between the two countries.

But Sudan’s domestic unrest and a long-pent up wave of opposition to his rule stood in his way. By then, the Mossad knew he was a dead horse, and his days in power numbered. He was finally deposed in April, 2019.

Now, with al-Bashir gone, the conditions could be ripe for a renaissance of relations between Jerusalem and Khartoum. With a tail wind from U.S. President Donald Trump and various Gulf states, Netanyahu’s government has quietly but eagerly renewed its efforts to turn Sudan into another regional Sunni Arab state friendly to Israel. For the time being, Israel’s immediate request is small, and mundane: to allow Israeli planes to over fly over Sudan’s airspace.

It won’t be an easy ride: Sudan’s political opposition challenged al- Burhan’s stance the moment news of his meeting leaked out; they accused him of cooperating with the “enemy,” while the country’s civilian leadership claimed that they had not been notified about the meeting in advance at all. Al-Burhan deflected the criticism with the all-purpose reasoning that he met with Netanyahu for the benefit and welfare of the Sudanese people – emphasizing that the détente does not diminish his support for the Palestinians.

Netanyahu’s immediate political concern was to grab headlines to enhance his pre-election prestige. Indeed, former defense minister Moshe Ya’alon, a leader of the anti-Netanyahu opposition, argued that Israel’s national interests would have been better served by keeping the meeting secret and not publicizing it for short-term domestic political gains.

Clearly the bigger prize would be to open formal trade and diplomatic ties. It is certainly still a defense and security win that the leader of a state as overtly hostile as Sudan was, only a few years ago, has divested from Iran and Hamas, and is interested, however cautiously,in accommodation with Israel.

Netanyahu likes to say it’s another clear sign of how the Middle East’s geopolitics are changing. The jagged and inconsistent history of relations between Israel and Sudan suggests this particular change might not be so smooth, or sustained.

January 29, 2020 News

Source: Businessweek

The United Kingdom and Somaliland are seeking ways with which they can partner to improve security in the Horn by building the capacity of the defence forces.
AFRICA INDUSTRY

UK Seeking Working Relationship With Somaliland On Military Matters

The United Kingdom and Somaliland are seeking ways with which they can partner to improve security in the Horn by building the capacity of the defence forces.

The newly appointed defence attaché at the United Kingdom Embassy for Somalia/Somaliland, Lt Col Huan Davies has been in Somaliland where he held talks with high ranking military personnel of the country and officials of the ministry of defence.

Lieutenant-Colonel Davies met with the Somaliland Defense Minister, Abdiqani Mohamoud Atteeye, and the Army Chief of Staff, Major-General Nouh Tani, with whom he discussed defence matters of mutual concern and the strengthening of ties between the two sides besides an update of progress on programmes implemented.

On the other hand, The Somaliland officials have appreciated UKAID support for defence sector delivered by Axiom and the UK office in Hargeisa.

Axiom International is implementing a capacity building programme in Somaliland on behalf of the UK Government. Ultimately the objective is to increase stability and security in Somaliland.

Sources close to the deliberation stated that the Attaché is following up on several security-related projects the United Kingdom partners with national agencies and security branches which cover defence issues, training, capacity-building, provision of basic supplies indispensable to peace and stability and the rule of law.

Somaliland which remains internationally unrecognized has an army which has played a vital role in the security of the horn of Africa which previously was a hub of pirates.

Somaliland has severally expressed an interest in hosting British and Russian naval bases, which would add to an already active military presence along the coast of the Red Sea – one of the world’s busiest and most strategically important maritime passages.

Last January, the then British Defense Secretary Gavin Williamson paid an unannounced visit to Somaliland and met with President Muse Bihi Abdi, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Yasin Hagi Mohamoud, and Defense Minister Essa Ahmed as well as Nuh Ismail Tani, a top army general.

In 1991, the Horn of Africa territory of Somaliland seceded from Somalia, which had itself gained independence from Britain in 1960. But for the past 28 years, Somaliland has remained officially unrecognized as a country – a status it resents.

Russia has also previously announced its intention to set up a naval base in Saylac, Somaliland while the United Arab Emirates is also building a military base in Berbera which includes a coastal-surveillance system.

February 3, 2020 News

Source: Ha’aretz

Netanyahu Heading to Uganda to Meet Regional Leaders

Israel currently deports asylum seekers to Uganda ■ Reports in recent years said Israel may renew ties with Muslim nations in Africa

Yoweri Museveni and Benjamin Netanyahu at the Entebbe airport in Uganda on July 4, 2016.

REUTERS/Presidential Press Unit/Handout via REUTERS

Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu set out on Monday morning for a one-day visit to Uganda, where he is expected to meet with leaders of other African countries.

“I am setting out for another visit to Africa, my fifth in three and a half years,” Netanyahu stated. “Israel is making a big return to Africa, and Africa has already returned to Israel. These are important ties politically, economically and in terms of security,” he said, adding that he hopes to have good news upon his return.

In July 2016, the prime minister participated in a ceremony in Uganda to mark the 40th anniversary of Operation Entebbe, a hostage rescue by Israeli commandos at Entebbe Airport in 1976. The operation, which aimed to rescue 106 passengers of an Air France flight that was hijacked by members of the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, succeeded in freeing 102 of the hostages. Netanyahu’s brother Yonatan, who led the mission, was killed.

During the 2016 visit, Netanyahu met Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni, Kenyan President Uhuru Kenyatta, Rwandan President Paul Kagame, South Sudan President Salva Mayardit, then-Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn Boshe, Zambian President Edgar Lungu and former Tanzanian Foreign Minister Augustine Mahiga.

It has also been reported that in the past, Israel contacted the American administration and other foreign governments in an attempt to encourage them to improve their relations with Sudan and to make overtures in its favor, in light of the severance of ties between the Arab-African country and Iran.

Reports in Israel and abroad in recent years have said that Israel might renew its diplomatic relations with several Muslim countries on the African continent, including Mali, Niger and Sudan. After Netanyahu visited Chad in 2019, it was reported that Israel was working to formalize ties with Sudan, and Israeli officials spoke  about it publicly on several occasions, especially after the ouster of  dictator Omar al-Bashir.

Haaretz previously reported that Israel had secretly deported asylum seekers from different African countries to Uganda. To this day, asylum seekers are being deported to Uganda in what Israel has called “voluntary departure.”

31 January 2020

United States Department of the Treasury (Washington, DC)

Washington, DC — The Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Water Resources of Egypt, Ethiopia and Sudan and their delegations met with the Secretary of the Treasury and the President of the World Bank, participating as observers in negotiations on the filling and operation of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), in Washington, D.C. on January 28-31, 2020.  At the conclusion of the meetings, the Ministers reached an agreement on the following issues, subject to the final signing of the comprehensive agreement:

  1. a schedule for a stage based filling plan of the GERD; 
  2. a mitigation mechanism for the filling of the GERD during drought, prolonged drought, and prolonged periods of dry years; and
  3. a mitigation mechanism for the annual and long-term operation of the GERD in drought, prolonged drought, and prolonged periods of dry years.

They also discussed and agreed to finalize a mechanism for the annual and long-term operation of the GERD in normal hydrological conditions, a coordination mechanism, and provisions for the resolution of disputes and the sharing of information.  Moreover, they also agreed to address dam safety and pending studies on the environmental and social impacts of the GERD.

The Ministers have instructed their technical and legal teams to prepare the final agreement, which shall include the agreements reached above, for a signing of the three countries by the end of February, 2020.

The Ministers recognize the significant regional benefits that will result from this agreement and from the operation of the dam with respect to transboundary cooperation, regional development and economic integration.  The Ministers reaffirmed the importance of transboundary cooperation in the development of the Blue Nile to improve the lives of the people of Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan.

February 1, 2020

Trump’s Travel Ban Expanded

President Donald Trump is expanding his controversial travel ban to include six more countries.

Trump’s Travel Ban Expanded
HuffPost

LAGOS (Reuters) - Eritrea denounced a U.S. ban on immigrant visas for its citizens as "unacceptable" on Saturday, while Nigeria's government said it had created a committee to address the issues that prompted U.S. President Donald Trump to add the country to the ban.

Nigeria and Eritrea were among six countries, four of them in Africa, added to an expanded version of the U.S. visa ban announced on Friday in a presidential proclamation.

U.S. officials said the countries failed to meet U.S. security and information-sharing standards, which necessitated the new restrictions.

"Nigeria remains committed to maintaining productive relations with the United States and other international allies especially on matters of global security," a Nigerian presidential statement said.

Nigeria, the most populous nation in Africa, is the biggest country on the list whose citizens will be suspended from U.S. visas that can lead to permanent residency. Eritrea, Kyrgyzstan and Myanmar were also slapped with a similar ban.

Nigeria's information minister told Reuters they had no warning of their inclusion on the list before it appeared in the media. [L8N29W549]

Eritrean Foreign Minister Osman Saleh Mohammed said the government saw the ban as a political move that would hurt the country's relations with the United States.

"We find this move unacceptable," he told Reuters by telephone. "We will, however, not expel the U.S. ambassador," he added.

The U.S. government also said it will stop issuing "diversity visas" to nationals of Sudan and Tanzania.

The visas, which Trump has criticized, are available by lottery for applicants from countries with low rates of immigration.

(Reporting by Libby George in Lagos and Felix Onuah in Abuja Additional report by Giulia Paravicini in Addis Ababa; Editing by Angus MacSwan and Helen Popper)

Source=https://news.yahoo.com/nigeria-creates-committee-tackle-issues-145352173.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuYmluZy5jb20vc2VhcmNoP3E9ZXJpdHJlYStibGFzdHMrdS5zLit2aXNhK2JhbiUyQytuaWdlcmlhK2NyZWF0ZXMrY29tbWl0dGVlK3RvK2FkZHJlc3MraXNzdWVzJmZvcm09RURHVENUJnFzPVBGJmN2aWQ9MDc1Y2YxM2YxMDdjNDhhMGJiNThlZmFlM2NmYTI0MjYmcmVmaWc9YmRmYTU5YTQxNDZhNDQwY2UxYmM5ZTM4MzUwOTc4MzcmY2M9U0Umc2V0bGFuZz1lbi1VUyZlbHY9QVkzJTIxdUFZN3RiTk5aR1oyeWlHTmpmT0Vidnc2MXFlZDZMN0xIZmhWbkVhVUtwaG9mVjg0NDQzMGQzb044R2E5aVd6b3JqajVlYW4zbEV0NEJUSkxERWtXRnRyY2RXeW1GQWFYU2JUcHRzdkcmcGx2YXI9MCZQQz1MQ1RT&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAARIvAqGMOiUzx2mMfRm1qU7q5UJvm5wxBLwATLIuLdTwqj-W2uWPbJx4CToYH8bqzworh9rOoyhvUDtnSQuKUYxkSOBmnwyv5rgFBZItGawBZdnsqNNzQyX9m3KZvQlFNEPNRCp4eWyFkqGpOvJDRnxdcRWixK0ryJgsCpy9JgB

U.S. expanding immigrant limits

Saturday, 01 February 2020 21:19 Written by
story.lead_photo.caption In this Sept. 2017 file photo, a flag is waved outside the White House, in Washington. The Trump administration announced Friday that it was curbing legal immigration from six additional countries that officials said did not meet security screening standards, as part of an election-year push to further restrict immigration. Officials said immigrants from Kyrgyzstan, Myanmar, Eritrea, Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania will face new restrictions in obtaining certain visas to come to the United States. (AP Photo/Carolyn Kaster)

WASHINGTON -- The Trump administration announced Friday that it was restricting immigrants from six additional countries that officials said failed to meet minimum security standards.

Officials said immigrants from Kyrgyzstan, Burma, Eritrea, Nigeria, Sudan and Tanzania will face new restrictions in obtaining certain visas to come to the United States. But it is not a total travel ban, unlike President Donald Trump's earlier effort that generated anger around the world for targeting Muslims.

Trump signed a proclamation on the restrictions Friday; they take effect Feb. 21.

The announcement came as Trump tries to promote his crackdown on immigration, highlighting a signature issue that motivated supporters in 2016. The administration recently announced birth tourism restrictions, and it is touting the sharp decline in crossings at the U.S.-Mexico border and citing progress on building the border wall.

"It is fundamental to national security, and the height of common sense, that if a foreign nation wishes to receive the benefits of immigration and travel to the United States, it must satisfy basic security conditions outlined by America's law enforcement and intelligence professionals," the White House said in a statement.

Kyrgyzstan, Burma, Eritrea and Nigeria are to see all immigrant visas suspended; those are applicants seeking to live in the U.S. permanently. They include visas for people sponsored by family members or employers as well as the diversity visa program that made up to 55,000 visas available in the most recent lottery.

In December, for example, 40,666 immigrant visas were granted, with the State Department using a computer drawing to select people from around the world.

Sudan and Tanzania will have diversity visas suspended. Nigeria is already excluded from the lottery along with other countries that had more than 50,000 natives immigrate to the U.S. in the previous five years.

Nonimmigrant visas are not affected. They are awarded to those traveling to the U.S. for a temporary stay, including visas for tourists, those doing business and people seeking medical treatment. During December, for example, about 650,760 nonimmigrant visas were granted worldwide.

The new restrictions were met with criticism from immigrant advocates, who slammed them as a new Muslim ban.

Sudan and Kyrgyzstan are majority-Muslim countries. Nigeria, the seventh-most-populous nation in the world with more than 200 million people, is about evenly split between Christians and Muslims but has the world's fifth-largest population of Muslims, according to the Pew Research Center.

Omar Jadwat, director of the American Civil Liberties Union's Immigrants' Rights Project, said the previous visa restrictions should not be expanded.

"President Trump is doubling down on his signature anti-Muslim policy -- and using the ban as a way to put even more of his prejudices into practice by excluding more communities of color," he said, saying families, universities and businesses in the United States would be affected the most.

Rumors swirled for weeks about a potential new ban, and initially Belarus was considered. But Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was headed to the Eastern European nation as the restrictions were announced, and Belarus was not on the list.

Acting Homeland Security Secretary Chad Wolf said Homeland Security officials would work with the countries on bolstering their security requirements to help them work to get off the list. Wolf said some nations were able to comply with the new standards in time.

"These countries for the most part want to be helpful, they want to do the right thing, they have relationships with the U.S., but for a variety of different reasons failed to meet those minimum requirements," Wolf said.

The current restrictions follow Trump's travel ban, which the Supreme Court upheld as lawful in 2018. They are significantly softer than Trump's initial ban, which had suspended travel from Iraq, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen for 90 days, blocked refugee admissions for 120 days, and suspended travel from Syria. The government suspended most immigrant and nonimmigrant visas to applicants from those countries. Exceptions are available for students and those with "significant contacts" in the U.S.

Trump has said a travel ban is necessary to protect Americans. But opponents have argued that he seeks to target Muslim countries, pointing to comments he made as a candidate in 2015 calling for a "total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering the United States until our country's representatives can figure out what is going on."

The seven countries in the travel ban include nations with little or no diplomatic relationship to the U.S. and five majority-Muslim nations: Iran, Libya, Somalia, Syria and Yemen.

Observers had expected a new announcement around the third anniversary of the Jan. 27, 2017, enactment of the first order.

A Section on 02/01/2020

Print Headline: U.S. expanding immigrant limits

Source=https://www.arkansasonline.com/news/2020/feb/01/u-s-expanding-immigrant-limits-20200201/

Ethiopia’s navy is reborn – in Djibouti

Saturday, 01 February 2020 11:28 Written by

February 1, 2020 Ethiopia, News

The revival of Ethiopian Navy, the Horn of Africa, the Red Sea, Regional power dynamics

Special for Africa ExPress
Makeda Saba
24 January 2020

The modern Ethiopian Navy was established by Emperor Haile Selassie, with the assistance of the United Kingdon, in 1955 and had its Naval Headquarters in Massawa with presence in: Assab; Dhalak Islands and Asmara.

In 1991, at the end of the Eritrean war for independence, Ethiopia became a landlocked country. For a while, the Ethiopian Navy continued to patrol the Red Sea, using Yemen as its operational base. By 1993 operations from Yemen ceased and the Ethiopian Navy moved to Djibouti. Though the Ethiopian Government attempted to negotiate, with Eritrea, access for its Navy to Assab, this was not an arrangement that newly independent State of Eritrea could accept.

Djibuti to host Ethiopia’s Navy

Even though, Eritrea did not allow Ethiopia to establish a Naval presence in Assab, at the time it did seek Ethiopian support during it dispute with Yemen over the Hanish Islands. Hence, Ethiopia leased to Eritrea (1996) 4 military helicopters. These helicopters were never returned to Ethiopia as by 1998 the Eritrea/Ethiopia border war started.[i]

By 1996 the Ethiopian Navy ceased to exist. However, Ethiopia’s commercial fleet continued to access both the port of Massawa and Assab. This activity ended when the Eritrea/ Ethiopia border war started in 1998.[ii] Therefore, Ethiopia with a population of over 100 million people, became totally dependent on Djibouti for commercial access to the sea. [iii]

Since 1998, realising the vulnerability of depending on only one port, Ethiopia has adopted a strategy of diversification of port access both on the Red Sea as well as the Indian Ocean. Therefore, it has negotiated access to ports in Djibouti, Somalia (Berbera); Kenya (Mombasa; Lamu); Sudan (Port Sudan). In the port of Berbera, the Ethiopian government has acquired a 19% interest in the development of the port. The other partners in the project are DP World with a 51% share: and Somaliland with a 30% share. [iv] The Ethiopian government has also negotiated an ownership share in the port of Djibouti [v] as well as Port Sudan.[vi] And, it has been busy developing the infrastructure to connect Ethiopia to the ports such as the rail link to Djibouti[vii]; the road links to Berbera[viii] and Lamu. [ix]

Ethiopia is not the only State seeking to establish a strategic presence along the shipping routes of the Bab al Mandab Strait and the Suez Canal. A route that links the Indian Ocean, the Red Sea and the Mediterranean Sea.  In recent years, China; Turkey, United Arab Emirates (UAE) have, in addition to economic presence, secured a military presence in an effort to secure the shipping lane from pirate and other interferences. [x]

Since the events of the Arab Spring in 2011 both Saudi Arabia and UAE started to focus on the East and Horn of Africa as strategic for their efforts to counter and minimize the reach and influence of Iran and possibly contain ‘Arab Spring Like “democratising events. Both governments are absolute monarchies who according to Dr Mehari Taddele Maru[xi]:

“…. [totally] reject any form of republican democratic rule. As a result, they are resistant to any kind of democratic dispensation in the region as well as the Horn of Africa……. [The] monarchs of these two countries…. [ consider] that any democratic dispensation in the region could …[threaten] their power.”

In the Horn of Africa, the Saudi and UAE governments have acquire interests in the management of key port facilities (Djibouti, Berbera; Port Sudan), they have also established military bases in Somalia (Mogadishu); on the Yemeni Island of Socotra as well as in Eritrea (Assab). From Assab the Saudi/UAE coalition are launching military operations against Yemen as well as carrying out training of Yemeni counterterrorism forces. The Saudi/UAE coalition also provides equipment to the trained Yemeni counterterrorism forces.

The expanding UAE/Saudi influence in the Horn of Africa region, was recently evidenced in June 2018:

“…. [when] Eritrea and Ethiopia announced – after a flurry of visits to and from Emirati officials – that they had reached an agreement to end their thirty-year war.

The ending of the “No Peace and No War” status between Eritrea and Ethiopia, was followed by the: opening of land borders; lifting of UN sanctions on Eritrea; re-establishing of telecommunication links as well as air transport. For the first time, in more than twenty years, Ethiopian ships docked in the Eritrean ports of Massawa and Assab fuelling the hope of future trade and economic normalisation between the two countries and, there were visions of road and possibly rail networks linking the two countries.

However, as of December 2018, all the land borders between Eritrea and Ethiopia are closed. And, there is no clear and transparent process addressing the border issues between the two countries or the economic and trade normalisation. The peace process between the two countries, is stagnating as is highlighted by such events as the failure of President Isaias Afwerki to accept, for more than 18 months, the credentials of the Ethiopian Ambassador H.E. Redwan Hussein. A situation that was remedied only in December 2019 after the intervention of the UAE. [xii]

Thoughthis stagnation is not ideal, it may be a situation that Prime Minister Abiy is temporarily happy to live with, as he works to: (i) transition the country away from a command style economy as well as a political environment dominated by the Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) and, by extension the Tigray People Liberation Front (TPLF); (ii) prepare the country  for the general elections in 2020; (iii)  assert the role of Ethiopia as a regional power and, (iv) protect her interests by securing negotiated access to multiple port facilities; as well as projecting military power.

Abiy Ahmed, primo ministro dell’Etiopia

According to a BBC report [xiii] the Ethiopian government became very concerned that: “that Djibouti was controlled by foreign naval forces. US, China, Japan and France ….”.  Therefore, aware of the strategic and political threat posed to the Ethiopian interest  by: (i) the presence of foreign military powers along the coastal areas of the Horn of Africa; (ii) piracy; (iii)human trafficking;  as well as (iv) the ongoing proxy war between Saudi Arabia/UAE coalition and Iran in Yemen; the Ethiopia government, in addition to a strategy of diversifying its access to ports, has also adopted a strategy of boosting its military presence in the region by establishing a Navy to protect its interest in the shipping routes of the Bab al Mandab Strait with a focus on both the Red Sea and the Indian Ocean.[xiv]

The formation of the new Ethiopian Navy is an initiative that has received support from France. Who, in March 2019 agreed, as part of its own endeavours to boost its economic ties with the country, to help the Ethiopian government to build a navy.[xv] According to Capital Ethiopia the new navy[xvi]: “… [ will] be based in Djibouti”? A location that is facilitated by the existing infrastructure links such as roads and rail.

In addition to the economic and military efforts, the Ethiopian government is also working at the diplomatic level to maintain political relationships with all the foreign powers with an interest in the Horn of Africa and, the shipping routes of the Bab al Mandab Strait.  This diplomatic engagement includes Qatar, who is a rival of the Saudi and UAE. Hence, the President of Ethiopia – Sahle Work Zewde, has recently met with the Qatar’s Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs, H.E Sheikh Mohamed bin Abdulrahman Al Thani, to review bilateral relationships between the two states and how to improve them. [xvii]

To date, though Eritrean government websites such as TesfaNews have reported on the formation of the new Ethiopian navy and its location in Djibouti, officially the Eritrean government has not reacted. Despite the efforts of the Saudi/Emirate coalition, as well as the Ethiopian government, the relationship between Eritrea and Djibouti is also not progressing to address outstanding issues of the Eritrea/Djibouti border; as well as the fate of Djiboutian soldiers missing in action since 2008.[xviii] Hence, It is possible that the Eritrean government will interpret the presence of an Ethiopian navy in Djibouti as a threat and a further justification to maintain  a policy of  indefinite National Service.

February 1, 2020 Ethiopia, News

Source: Reuters

Egypt, Ethiopia, Sudan say final agreement on Blue Nile dam ready by next month

The Blue Nile flows into Ethiopia’s Great Renaissance Dam in Guba Woreda, some 40 km (25 miles) from Ethiopia’s border with Sudan, on June 28, 2013. REUTERS/Tiksa Negeri

The countries have been at odds over the filling and operation of the $4 billion Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD), under construction near Ethiopia’s border with Sudan on the Blue Nile, which flows into the Nile river.

The three regional powers convened in Washington for what were supposed to be two days of meetings on Tuesday and Wednesday to complete an agreement after talks earlier this month, but negotiations dragged into Friday and disbanded without a final accord.

In a joint statement with the United States and the World Bank after the talks, the nations said they had agreed on a schedule for staged filling of the dam and mitigation mechanisms to adjust its filling and operation during dry periods and drought.

The nations still have to finalize several aspects of the dam, including its safety and provisions for the resolution of disputes, the statement said. But it added that a final agreement on the dam would be signed by all three countries by the end of February.

“Documents to be signed will be further deliberated by legal team supported by technical team. This will continue next week to complete comprehensive document within 30 days,” Sileshi Bekele, Ethiopian minister for water, irrigation and energy, said on Twitter.

The United States has hosted several rounds of talks in Washington with ministers from the three regional powers and the World Bank after years of trilateral negotiations failed.

U.S. President Donald Trump, in a call with Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed on Friday, expressed optimism that an agreement on the dam was near and would benefit all parties involved, a White House spokesman said.

The dam is the centerpiece in Ethiopia’s bid to become Africa’s biggest power exporter but has sparked fears in Cairo that Egypt’s already scarce supplies of Nile waters, on which its population of more than 100 million people is almost entirely dependent, would be further restricted.

Even without taking the dam into account, largely desert Egypt is short of water. It imports about half its food products and recycles about 25 billion cubic meters of water annually.

Addis Ababa, which announced the project in 2011 as Egypt was beset by political upheaval, denies the dam will undermine Egypt’s access to water.

January 30, 2020 News

Source: Statewatch

Analysis

Italy guilty of refoulements in 2009 handover of Eritrean shipwreck survivors to Libya

Yasha Maccanico January 2020

An Italian court has ruled that the country’s Cabinet presidency and defence ministry were responsible for the refoulement of 14 Eritrean nationals in July 2009, when a warship rescued some 80 people and took them back to Libya, ignoring requests for international protection.

Screenshot 2020-01-30 at 12.00.14

On 14 November 2019, the first section of the Rome civil court ruled on a case brought by 14 Eritrean nationals against the interior, defence and foreign affairs ministries and the Cabinet presidency, for a collective refoulement at sea on 1 July 2009. The court, presided over by judge Monica Velletti, handed down a sentence upholding the claims made by the 14. The Italian state has been ordered to pay €15,000 in compensation to each individual and to permit them entry into Italy to apply for international protection.1

This sentence upholds several basic legal principles that are being actively undermined by current EU and Italian efforts to prevent sea crossings in cooperation with the so-called Libyan coastguard. In particular, the sentence clarifies that an act undertaken in accordance with an Italian ministerial decree against irregular migration and a bilateral treaty between Italy and Libya does not allow authorities to disregard the international, EU and national legal frameworks – the latter take precedence over the former.

The normative framework that applied at the time obliged Italian authorities to accept the submission of asylum claims and prohibited refoulements to unsafe territories. 2 This reasoning could be extended to the so-called “code of conduct” for NGOs3 that seeks to subordinate the law of the sea to instrumental measures aimed at obstructing rescues by civilians and to operative arrangements giving the so-called Libyan coastguard exclusive responsibility for maritime rescues in the central Mediterranean.

1 Sentence no. 22917/2019, first civil section of the Rome Court, published on 28 November 2019, p. 17, http://statewatch.org/news/2020/jan/it-refoulement-eritrean-refugees-judgment-11-19.pdf
2 Ibid, pp. 10-11.
3 ‘Italy’s proposed code of conduct for Mediterranean NGOs “threatens life-saving operations”’, Statewatch News ̧11 July 2017, http://statewatch.org/news/2017/jul/med-ngo-code.htm

Italy guilty of refoulements to Libya | www.statewatch.org | 1

Two organisation involved in the case, Amnesty International (AI) and ASGI (Associazione per gli Studi Giuridici sull’Immigrazione), described this sentence as “historic” for its interpretation of Article 10.3 of the Italian Constitution that safeguards the right to seek asylum, and in relation to policies to externalise the EU’s border control and restrictive immigration policies.4 A wide reading of this point makes it conceivable that thousands of people were denied the opportunity to apply for asylum as a result of the EU’s externalisation of border management to Libyan authorities in the Mediterranean. In fact, the statement by AI and ASGI stresses that the outcome of such practices has amounted to preventing access to protection for people taken back to Libya.

Facts of the case

After fleeing their country, the Eritrean plaintiffs embarked from the Libyan coast on 27 June 2009 to reach Italy and seek international protection. Their vessel had an engine failure on 30 June in the high sea off Lampedusa that left it at the sea’s mercy until an Italian Navy ship, the Orione, intervened to rescue its 89 passengers. They were transferred on board, searched, had some personal effects confiscated (including photographs, money and documents), were photographed and issued an identification number. They were assured that they would be taken to Italian territory, where they could have applied for international protection.

In the early hours of 1 July, the rescued people realised that the Orione was heading for Libya and began complaining. They panicked when a Libyan vessel flanked the Orione, and many of them started shouting that they were seeking international protection and asylum, begging not to be handed over to the Libyans because they had been tortured, imprisoned and persecuted in Libya. Nonetheless, they were handed over and transferred onto the Libyan vessel, where they were cuffed with plastic handcuffs.

Hence, the plaintiffs argue that they were collectively refused entry without undergoing any formal procedures, in violation of Italian and international law. They were denied access to procedures to obtain international protection and were returned to Libya, where they were brutally and indiscriminately beaten and detained for several months in inhuman and degrading conditions.

The plaintiffs then tried to reach Europe by land, across Egypt and the Sinai Peninsula, reaching Israel in 2010, where they were arrested before being released without any guarantees. They argue that their fundamental rights are being violated, that they are experiencing inhuman and degrading treatment at the hands of the Israeli authorities and face a risk of refoulement to Eritrea. On 25 June 2014, the plaintiffs sent a formal notification of their plight and complaints to the accused Italian authorities, which failed to acknowledge receipt. They demanded damage payments and for action to be taken to curtail violation of their rights by allowing them to enter Italian territory and apply for protection. Their demands in this civil case are for admission into Italian territory, with all the consequences this implies, and payment of €30,000 in damages for each plaintiff for a failure to adopt necessary measures to allow entry for the purpose of requesting protection.

4 Respingimenti e richiesta d’asilo. Importante sentenza del Tribunale civile di Roma. Grande la soddisfazione di Amnesty International Italia e ASGI, 3.12.2019, http://www.cronachediordinariorazzismo.org/respingimenti-e-richiesta-dasilo-importante-sentenza-del- tribunale-civile-di-roma-grande-la-soddisfazione-di-amnesty-international-italia-e-asgi/

Italy guilty of refoulements to Libya | www.statewatch.org | 2

Preliminary objections advanced by the defendant administrations

The ministries and Cabinet presidency asked that the court reject the claims. They argued that 82 people were rescued in the incident (rather than 89), that the rescue was in international waters 26 nautical miles south of Lampedusa, and that none of the migrants expressed their wish to seek asylum. The defendants also argued that the handover complied with the 2008 Treaty of Friendship, Partnership and Cooperation between Italy and Libya and with Article 1.4 of an Italian ministerial decree of 14 July 2003. For these reasons, they asked the court to deem the case unfounded and inadmissible, because the plaintiffs were not legitimated to act, the statute of limitations had intervened for their damage claims, and the demands should be rejected as unfounded and not proven. The plaintiffs’ precautionary request was rejected on these grounds on 23 November 2016, because it was impossible to state with certainty that the plaintiffs were involved in the rescue and because of the time that had elapsed since the events.

Three witnesses were heard by the court – two of whom attempted the crossing with the plaintiffs and a third one had met them in Israel whilst working for Amnesty International – and documents were submitted by both parties. The plaintiffs’ identity as the people involved in the rescue was established using photographs taken on the Orione ship while the survivors held the identification numbers given to them, and those taken at Amnesty International’s office in Israel. The witness’s testimonies were useful for this purpose, providing positive identification of subjects whose names did not appear in the images and confirmation of further elements described by the plaintiffs. Thus, the court agreed they had a legal right to act in these proceedings.

Another preliminary objection raised by the defendant administrations concerned expiry of the five-year term for damage payments. The plaintiffs deemed that their communication to notify Italian administrations of the situation had interrupted the statute of limitations from intervening, despite not receiving confirmation of its receipt from the addressees. The Italian authorities deemed that the period to be considered was from 30 June 2009 to 7 January 2016, whereas the recorded delivery from the plaintiffs was dated 25 June 2014, just before the expiry of five years after the events. The defendant administrations are deemed to have responded to the claim after the deadline within which they could have raised this exception and, in any case, the court deems the recorded delivery suitable to interrupt the statute of limitation from intervening. Thus, the request for damages was admitted.

Similar reconstructions, divergent interpretations

Regarding damage compensation, based on both parties’ testimonies, the documents they submitted and witness accounts of incident, several points were ascertained. On 30 June 2009, the Italian Navy carried out a rescue operation of a group of around 80 people who were transferred onto an Italian vessel that headed towards Libya; data from the administration showed the rescue took place in international waters, 26 miles south of Lampedusa; on 1 July 2009 the migrants were photographed, assigned an identification number and handed over to the Libyan authorities. Witnesses confirmed the plaintiffs’ account that they were told they were heading towards Italy, that they said they did not want to return to Libya because they were refugees and wished to apply for international protection, when they found out that they were being returned to Libya. It was also confirmed that the rescued people were handed over to the Libyans without having the opportunity to lodge asylum applications. The parties’ reconstructions of events were similar, although their understandings differed regarding the

Italy guilty of refoulements to Libya | www.statewatch.org | 3

legality of the Italian authorities’ actions, namely the rescue and subsequent handover to the Libyan authorities. The plaintiffs argued that – aside from facing a violation of the non-refoulement principle and denial of access to asylum proceedings – they were consigned to an unsafe place. Collective refoulement with no examination of individual circumstances and the de facto denial of access to international protection breaches the 1951 Geneva Convention on refugee status, the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), the UN Convention against Torture, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Montego Bay Convention, the Convention on the Safety of Life at Sea, the Treaty of the European Union, the Schengen Borders Code (at the time, EC Regulation 526/2006), and the Refugee Procedures Directive (2004/83/EC) laying down minimum standards for refugee status recognition transposed into Italian laws no. 25/2008 and no. 286/1998. The Hirsi Jamaa et al vs. Italy sentence of 23 February 2012,5 in which the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) found Italy guilty in a case involving returns to Libya by the Italian Navy, served as a precedent.

The defendant administrations disagreed, arguing that the actions adopted were lawful, in accordance with Article 1.4 of a ministerial decree of 14 July 2003 on countering irregular migration and the 2008 Treaty of Friendship, Partnership and Collaboration with Libya.6 The Italian authorities had merely executed the contents of an international agreement, within that normative framework. However, the sentence makes clear that lawfulness of the action must be assessed in the light of the entire normative framework that applied at the time.

The Geneva Convention sets out the non-refoulement principle that forbids expulsion or refusal of entry leading to the return of individuals to territories where their life or well-being are at risk. UNHCR deems this a fundamental principle that does not allow exceptions connected to the right to seek asylum (UDHR) and the absolute prohibition of torture and cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment (ECHR, art. 3). The 4th Protocol to the ECHR states: “The collective expulsion of foreigners is prohibited.” Such rights are guaranteed in Italian laws including the Constitution’s recognition of the right to asylum (Article 10.3), and the inclusion in EU law of principles guaranteed under international law, including the non-refoulement principle, as found in Article 19 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The ECtHR’s judgment in Hirsii Jamaa is relevant to appreciate these measures’ scope and substance, viewed as the premises for which Italy was found guilty in a case that shares several features with this one. UNHCR deems this principle to apply whenever an act by a state may lead to the return of an asylum seeker or refugee towards the border of a territory where their life or freedom would be at risk and they may face persecution. It may apply to refusal of entry at the border, interception and indirect refoulement, whether it concerns a person seeking asylum or a substantial population’s movement, and it applies when refugee status has not yet been granted, also in the high seas. The non-refoulement principle’s intimate connection to the right to seek asylum (Article 14 UDHR) means that everyone has a

5 European Court of Human Rights, Grand Chamber, Hirsi Jamaa and others vs. Italy (no. 27765/09), Judgement, Strasbourg, 23.2.2012, https://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#{“itemid”:[“001-109231”]}
6 On the aftermath at the time of the Arab Spring uprisings, see “The EU’s self-interested response to unrest in north Africa: the meaning of treaties and readmission agreements between Italy and north African states”, Statewatch news online, Jan. 2012, http://www.statewatch.org/analyses/no-165-eu- north-africa.pdf . On the situation at the time of the treaty, see “Relaciones peligrosas: el acercamiento italo-líbico y sus efectos para los migrantes”, Informe Derechos Humanos en la Frontera Sur 2008, Asociación pro Derechos Humanos de Andalucía, pp. 80-90, https://www.apdha.org/media/fronterasur2008.pdf .

Italy guilty of refoulements to Libya | www.statewatch.org | 4

right to seek and enjoy protection from persecution in other countries. This juridical situation falls within customary international law and is binding for all states. Article 3 of the ECHR forbids torture and cruel inhuman or degrading treatment and, in combination with Article 33 of the Geneva Convention, this also applies when people refused entry or turned back risk undergoing torture or other inhumane or degrading treatment.

In the Hirsi Jamaa et al vs. Italy case, among others, the ECtHR established that a person must not be removed if they run the risk of prohibited treatment in the destination country, a condition that the returning state must check. In situations where human rights violations are systematic, this means the returning state must find out to what treatment returnees would be subjected, and the failure to submit an asylum application does not allow states to disregard this duty. Thus, even in the absence of explicit asylum requests, states should not ignore the possibility that a return may lead people to experience cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment. The 4th Protocol to the ECHR forbids collective refoulement and the Hirsi Jamaa case established that this applies beyond national borders and, in particular, on the high seas. The sentence upheld the criterion that states cannot expel groups of foreigners without examining their individual cases.

The decision

In light of the above normative framework, if a state’s authorities intercept migrants at sea their cases should be examined individually and they have a duty not to expel refugees to territories where their life or freedom would be in peril, and where they may risk persecution. The failure to submit an asylum application does not allow states to ignore the systematic violation of human rights in some countries.

In the case of Libya, this was documented in several reports issued between 2006 and 2010 by international organisations – Human Rights Watch, the UN Commission on Human Rights, Amnesty International and the US State Department. Italian authorities should have been aware that Libya has not ratified the Geneva Convention, does not have a national asylum system and could not be considered safe. There was a concrete risk of migrants being detained, subjected to violence or deported to Eritrea, a country for which several reports documented systematic violations of human rights by the government, including torture, arbitrary arrest, inhuman detention conditions, forced labour, serious restrictions on freedom of movement, expression and worship. The Hirsi Jamaa judgment explicitly recalled relevant reports by the UN Human Rights Commission, Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.

The measures recalled by the defendant authorities, including the international agreement between Italy and Libya, function within this normative and factual context. Even if one were to accept that the agreement expressly provided for the return to Libya of migrants intercepted in the high seas (which it does not explicitly mention), this would not relieve Italy of its obligations under international legal instruments it has ratified. Italy cannot relinquish its responsibilities by evoking duties that may arise from bilateral agreements with Libya, which must give way to Constitutional and supranational prescriptions – Article 10 of the Constitution and Articles 18 and 19 of the EU Charter on Fundamental Rights.

Furthermore, the 2008 Treaty of Friendship with Libya is not limited to allowing returns, but in Article 1 it claims compliance with international law by recalling their duties deriving from its universally recognised principles and norms. Therefore, the Italian authorities’ actions contravened their obligations under Italian constitutional law and international law.

Italy guilty of refoulements to Libya | www.statewatch.org | 5

Additionally, the Hirsi Jamaa et al ECtHR sentence in 2012 obliged Italy to pay compensation to a group of Somali and Eritrean migrants in similar circumstances (a rescue by the Italian Guardia di Finanza – customs police – and Coast Guard on 6 May 2009, 35 nautical miles south of Lampedusa in Malta’s SAR zone, followed by the handover of the individuals to Libyan authorities without allowing them to request international protection).

Having ascertained that this conduct contravenes juridical norms, the court sought to clarify that Italian authorities were aware or could have been aware that Libya should not be considered a place of safety due to the existence of several reports by international organisations. Thus, the authorities concerned are guilty and are objectively responsible, meaning that the damage incurred should be identified, not in terms of monetary damage, but that connected to the serious violation of people’s basic rights that cannot be contravened and are protected by the Constitution, including the right to apply for international protection. Such damage must be alleged and proven by those seeking compensation. In this case, the plaintiffs have alleged experiencing harm including the suffering they underwent and risks to protected goods like health, psycho-physical well-being and personal freedom, that resulted from being returned to an unsafe country. The negative repercussions that actually affect a person harmed by a crime or breach of people’s inviolable rights must be identified.

In this instance, these considerations apply to denial of access to asylum procedures intimately connected to the refusal of entry and the harm suffered as a result of forced return to Libya, where imprisonment, torture and violence occurred. Equitable damage payments are necessary, and the relevant reference is the Hirsi Jamaa case, in which they amounted to 15,000 euros, rather than the 30,000 euros requested by the plaintiffs in this case, whose characteristics are similar. The defence ministry and the presidency of the Cabinet should pay this compensation. The latter is responsible for the Italian state’s actions in application of the Italy-Libya treaty, whereas Navy personnel physically carried out the refoulements. Neither the ministry for internal affairs nor the foreign affairs ministry were deemed responsible.

The plaintiffs also demanded that restrictions to their entry into Italian territory be lifted and that the defendant administrations act to make this possible, so that they may request international protection, to remove the harmful consequences of the unlawful conduct they underwent.

The administrations opposed this claim, arguing that the situation prior to the violations that have been identified could not be re-established, that the migrants were not in Italian territory but in international waters at the time of the rescue, and that boarding an Italian vessel did not automatically mean that they would have applied for or would have been granted international protection. However, witness accounts by people on board contradicted this claim because they declared that everyone expressly asked to apply for asylum or international protection when they first came into contact with Italian military personnel, as refugees from Eritrea.

The sentence rules that this claim does not require compensation, but rather, to demand verification of the right to apply for international protection. The administrations’ defence does not seem to apply, because once the rescued shipwreck victims were on board the Navy ship, they were in Italian territory. A comprehensive reading of Article 10.3 of the Constitution, rulings by the United Sections of the Court of Cassation (Italy’s highest appeal court) and by the Supreme Court consider the right to international protection as a perfect subject of law with constitutional and customary derivations. This means that the right to asylum in the Constitution may take the form of a right of access to submit an asylum application, when the

Italy guilty of refoulements to Libya | www.statewatch.org | 6

fact that an individual is not present in Italian territory is a result of unlawful acts by the administrations in question (a refoulement to Libya). This view is strengthened by evidence that, in 2019, serious and systematic human rights violations still take place in Eritrea, as certified by Human Rights Watch. The court thus also ruled that the plaintiffs may enter Italian territory to apply for protection.

Sources

Sentenza n. 22917/2019, first civil section of the Rome Court, published on 28.11.2019 (pdf) Respingimenti e richiesta d’asilo. Importante sentenza del Tribunale civile di Roma. Grande

la soddisfazione di Amnesty International Italia e ASGI, 3 December 2019

Statewatch does not have a corporate view, nor does it seek to create one, the views expressed are those of the author. Statewatch is not responsible for the content of external websites and inclusion of a link does not constitute an endorsement.

© Statewatch ISBN 978-1-874481-61-4. Personal usage as private individuals/”fair dealing” is allowed. We also welcome links to material on our site. Usage by those working for organisations is allowed only if the organisation holds an appropriate licence from the relevant reprographic rights organisation (e.g. Copyright Licensing Agency in the UK) with such usage being subject to the terms and conditions of that licence and to local copyright law.

Italy guilty of refoulements to Libya | www.statewatch.org | 7

Statewatch is a non-profit-making voluntary group founded in 1991. It is comprised of lawyers, academics, journalists, researchers and community activists. Its European network of contributors is drawn from 18 countries. Statewatch encourages the publication of investigative journalism and critical research in Europe the fields of the state, justice and home affairs, civil liberties, accountability and openness.

One of Statewatch’s primary purposes is to provide a service for civil society to encourage informed discussion and debate – through the provision of news, features and analyses backed up by full-text documentation so that people can access for themselves primary sources and come to their own conclusions.

Statewatch is the research and education arm of a UK registered charity and is funded by grant-making trusts and donations from individuals.

Web: www.statewatch.org | Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. | Phone: (00 44) 203 691 5227

Post: c/o MDR, 88 Fleet Street, London EC4Y 1DH

Charity number: 1154784 | Company number: 08480724 Registered office: 2-6 Cannon Street, London, EC4M 6YH

Italy guilty of refoulements to Libya | www.statewatch.org | 8

January 30, 2020 Uncategorized

Tesfanews has produced a report providing an official view of how the campaign against the massive threat from desert locusts is progressing.

This key finding suggests the problem is being dealt with:

Screenshot 2020-01-30 at 08.00.01

The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organisation suggests that the battle is far from over. The crops may not have yet been ‘saved’ nor gange lands secured.

This is what the FAO’s latest update (Tuesday 28th January) says:

Eritrea. Ground control operations are underway against hopper groups that are fledging and forming adult groups on the northern and central coast. At least one swarm arrived on the southern coast near Assab on the 20th either from Yemen or Ethiopia.”

This plague is still very serious. As the FAO explained:

“Locusts will increase further as a new generation of breeding starts in the Horn of Africa

“The current Desert Locust situation remains extremely alarming and represents an unprecedented threat to food security and livelihoods in the Horn of Africa. This will be further exacerbated by new breeding that has commenced, which will cause more locust infestations.”