This cable, made public by Wikileaks, was sent by the then Ambassador to Ethiopia, Don Yamamoto on 24 April 2007. Although dated, it is still of considerable interest.
Classified By: AMBASSADOR DONALD YAMAMOTO. REASON: 1.4 (B) AND (D). 1. (U) Post responses are provided per ref A. A. (S/NF) WHAT ARE ETHIOPIA’S PLANS AND INTENTIONS FOR DEALING WITH ERITREAN PRESIDENT ISAIAS AND THE BORDER IMPASSE?
PERCEPTIONS OF ERITREA
2. (S/NF) Prime Minister Meles and the hard-core elements of the ruling Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) view Eritrea as a state in collapse whose population, if supported by the outside and encouraged by open internal dissension, would revolt against Isaias. The Prime Minister and his cabinet view going to war with the people of Eritrea as a waste of limited resources that would achieve very little. At this time, Meles opposes any war with Eritrea as a futile effort with little benefits, distracting Ethiopia from more pressing issues: Somalia and Sudan.
3. (S/NF) Dealing with President Isaias and the border impasse are two distinct yet interrelated problems. Further, how Ethiopia and its leadership view Isaias and Eritrea, two separate issues, also influences how they will deal with Isaias specifically and Eritrea generally. Perceptions by Meles and his leadership, whether correct or not, have become more emotional and more firmly negative toward Isaias, and have shaped the approach, whether wise and logical or not, that Ethiopia is taking towards Isaias.
PERCEPTIONS OF ISAIAS
4. (S/NF) President Isaias is viewed by Meles and his government as an extremely dangerous, hostile, and evil individual whose sole goal is to make Eritrea the dominant power in the Horn of Africa and to promote Isaias’ role as paramount leader in the region. Ethiopia stands in the way of Isaias’ desire for dominance in the region. Meles and the TPLF leaders believe Isaias has no “death wish” but that Isaias’ self preservation does not merely mean survival, but forcing others to make sacrifices, from enduring great economic hardship to even the pain of death, to ensure Eritrea’s continued existence and eventual elevation of Isaias as primus inter paris leader in the region. Meles and others firmly believe that Isaias knows that he lacks the military might to confront Ethiopia directly. Isaias’ strategy, Meles believes, is to attack Ethiopia by expanding the battlefield to include destabilizing Somalia and using Sudan to conduct attacks on western Ethiopia (e.g., Gambella); increasing tensions between Djibouti and Ethiopia over use of the port of Djibouti, the main lifeline for landlocked Ethiopia’s access to the Red Sea; training anti-Ethiopian rebels; supporting internal political divisions in Ethiopia; planning terrorist attacks on public areas and assassinations of Ethiopian leaders; and keeping the international community off-balance to minimize criticism and sanctions of Eritrea. In our conversations with Isaias over the years, he has made it clear that any future conflict with Ethiopia would be “war by other means” and not a direct military battle of “interior lines” of both forces.
DEALING WITH ISAIAS
5. (S/NF) Meles and his leadership believe that dealing with Isaias directly or indirectly is dangerous and detracts from more pressing and immediate challenges. For Meles and his leadership, Ethiopia’s national strategic interests lie in stabilizing Somalia, eliminating extremist threats, and establishing a government in Mogadishu that has wide clan support and is closely aligned with Addis Ababa. The other ADDIS ABAB 00001275 002 OF 007 threat is Sudan. As Meles deeply fears that an unstable Sudan potentially poses a greater threat to Ethiopia’s security and to regional stability, he looks to the international community to stabilize Sudan. Between these two pressing and dangerous situations is Isaias. Isaias hosts 30 different opposition groups, and his more effective management of groups opposed to Ethiopia, in contrast to Ethiopia’s clumsy and ineffective efforts to support groups antagonistic to Isaias, underscores Isaias’ potential to add to regional instability. Historically, Meles’ approach was to carefully keep Isaias in a “box” by strengthening Ethiopian forces along the border, neutralizing Eritrea’s influence in Somalia, and increasing Eritrea’s isolation in the international community.
6. (S/NF) But now, Meles sees that this approach must be modified to include more vocal criticism of Eritrea as a “rogue state” sponsoring terrorism and seeking to destabilize the region. The Foreign Ministry has pressed the international community to openly criticize Eritrea, and wants to introduce UN Security Council resolutions and African Union Peace and Security Council (PSC) communiques condemning Eritrea as a state sponsor of terrorism. Further, Meles has elevated Eritrean opposition groups in Ethiopia, designating GOE State Ministers, rather than office directors, to deal with them. Meles is also carefully working the Sanaa Forum and IGAD to increase pressure and isolation of Eritrea: Eritrea’s recent decision to suspend participation in IGAD followed an April 13 IGAD Ministerial communique endorsing Ethiopian actions in Somalia as “fully consistent” with the region’s goals. Meles has commented to us that he is in a “bind”. He does not want, nor can he afford, to go to war with Eritrea, because it will divert resources from the more important goal of stabilizing Somalia for now and perhaps Sudan down the road. For now, Ethiopia will not go to war with Isaias and will not take any extraordinary measures to neutralize him, but expects the international community to pressure Isaias on his destabilizing activities. We have assured Meles that we recognize Eritrea’s unhelpful activities, but that Meles should focus on our mutually shared efforts in Somalia: providing force protection for AU Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) troops, support for Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government (TFG), and security at the airport and seaport and for the upcoming national reconciliation conference.
BORDER IMPASSE
7. (S/NF) Despite occasional public statements to the contrary, Meles and other GOE principals do not want the UN Mission in Ethiopian and Eritrea (UNMEE) to go away, because it serves as a useful tripwire, and its departure would eliminate the last remnant of international community commitment to avert war. Further, Meles views UNMEE as an important element, if not necessarily an effective mechanism, in tracking Eritrea’s encroachment into the Temporary Security Zone (TSZ) and serving as a challenge to Isaias who has imposed numerous restrictions on UNMEE. Both the current UNMEE Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General (SRSG) and his predecessor have consistently hailed Ethiopian cooperation with UNMEE, and the GOE’s relative transparency in declaring Ethiopian troop movements. Meles will maintain a sizable force along the border but primarily in defensive positions ready to repel Eritrean aggression. Meles believes that resolution of the border conflict depends on addressing the fundamental issues that divide both countries. Even acceptance of a demarcated border would not end the dispute; Meles believes that Isaias would only find another issue to antagonize Ethiopia. Meles will continue to seek international support for normalization talks, pointing to the support by the Witnesses to the Algiers Agreement of 12 December 2000 (i.e., Algeria, the AU, EU, the United States, and the UN; see S/2006/126 of February 2006) as a critical condition to ensure the peaceful resolution of the border dispute. B. (S/NF)
WHO ARE PRIME MINISTER MELES’ MOST INFLUENTIAL ADVISORS AND WHAT ARE THEY TELLING HIM REGARDING THE BORDER?
8. (S/NF) After the assassination of his security chief, Kinfe, and the 2001 firing of the CHOD, Lieutenant General Gebretsadkhan Gebretensae, there are few who have the intellectual depth to stand up to Meles’ keen insights into problems. Meles seeks advice from a wide variety of people with divergent views, even antagonistic to his own, in order to ensure that he fully understands all sides. He does not want to be isolated or confined to one single approach. Meles does not stand on protocol and readily invites visitors to meet with him even after our Embassy would not normally make such a request.
9. (S/NF) Meles is an avid reader, with books and reading materials throughout his private home. He is deeply inquisitive and constantly asks questions, verifying information with a variety of sources. He has even called the Ambassador in for private discussions on politics in the U.S. Meles is also very interested in knowing people, who they are, their background, and how they came to have certain ideas and views. But of importance is that Meles constantly challenges set views and policy ideas. The most revealing insight into his flexibility and ability to change positions was his November 2006 conversation with General Abizaid. General Abizaid spoke of lessons learned in Iraq and the importance of understanding your advisors and what goals were to be achieved. He dissuaded Meles from targeting only “technicals” as a waste of time and resources with little benefit, and said that a comprehensive approach was necessary. That conversation, and Meles’ own propensity to think differently, influenced Meles’ approach to Somalia during the initial stages of the conflict, and also the approach in trying to stabilize Somalia. An avid scholar of history, he looked at how other leaders faced challenges and how they responded to crises of faith as well as security threats. Interestingly, Isaias shares some of Meles’ traits (the same inquisitiveness), though perhaps not the flexibility of thought that Meles so keenly possesses.
10. (S/NF) While National Intelligence and Security Service (NISS) chief Getachew and CHOD Lieutenant General Samora Yonus (General Tsadkhan’s successor) formally head Ethiopia’s security services and military respectively, they are not believed to be among PM Meles’ closest advisors. Currently, Meles’ main advisors include: TPLF founding member Seyoum Mesfin, who has served as Foreign Minister since 1991; Public Relations Advisor (with rank of Minister) Bereket Simon (AKA Mebratu Gebrehiwot), a founder of the Amhara National Democratic Movement (ANDM), the ethnic Amhara wing of the ruling Ethiopia People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF), who also serves as EPRDF spokesman; and a number of other TPLF/EPRDF members. But Meles is changing and moving to new people. TPLF founding member Sebhat Nega’s (AKA Woldeselassie Nega) influence may be waning, while London-based businessman Abdul Aldish’s may be rising. The old TPLF standard-bearers have argued that Meles stopped too soon and should have gone to Asmara. Meles still believes that would have been disastrous in terms of international criticism and also the prospect of being bogged down in a long guerrilla war with Eritrea. The new faces in the EPRDF and TPLF leadership are technocrats with a vision for a new prosperous Ethiopia, e.g., Health Minister Tewodros Adhanom. For these advisors, the border is a distraction, drawing energy and resources away from more important ventures. Ultimately, however, Meles heeds his own counsel. C. (S/NF)
TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE RECENT SUCCESS IN SOMALIA INFLUENCED THE DECISION TO RENEW CONFLICT WITH ERITREA?
11. (S/NF) It is in the Ethiopian character to never dwell on limited or temporary tactical military successes on the battlefield. Rather, it is the final result which will determine success. Citing Ethiopia’s large ethnic Somali population, shared contiguous border with Somalia, and a delicate balance within Ethiopia between Orthodox Christianity and Muslim ascendancy, Meles and the leadership view stabilizing Somalia as a “critical” national security interest but a work still in progress. The operation is ADDIS ABAB 00001275 004 OF 007 expensive, has cost many lives, and the prospect of failure increases the longer Ethiopian troops remain in Somalia and the longer it takes the TFG to stabilize Mogadishu, the center of gravity in the conflict in Somalia. Meles has always made it clear that Ethiopia, the TFG, and the international community have no more than six months to make a significant impact on Somalia’s future stability. If they do not get the “formula” correct now, the prospect for insurgent battles in Mogadishu, and for Somalia becoming an even greater base for foreign extremists and homegrown terrorists, will make Somalia even more destabilized and that much harder to correct.
12. (S/NF) Tactical military successes in December 2006 and January 2007 in Somalia may have forced some Eritrean “advisors” out of Somalia, it has not stopped Eritrea’s efforts to continue to destabilize Somalia. The presence of former Council of Islamic Court (CIC) members in Asmara, and Isaias’ support and hosting of conferences of groups opposed to Ethiopia and the TFG, is a direct threat to stability in Somalia. Further, while angered by the Eritrean “advisors” who helped prepare CIC extremists for conflict with Ethiopia, the Ethiopians are equally disappointed with the Kenyans, who the Ethiopians believe allowed the fleeing Eritrean military advisors to return to Asmara. Eritrea continues to be a negative factor in Somalia, but Meles’s approach is to neutralize Eritrean influence, not to prepare for direct conflict with Eritrea. He still expects the international community to share the same goals of stability in Somalia, and to believe that Eritrea is a threat to this end state. Severe international criticism and cutting off Eritrea from the outside remains Meles’ current approach to Eritrea. D. (S/NF)
TO WHAT EXTENT HAS THE RECENT INCREASE IN ETHNIC INSURGENT ACTIVITY NEAR THE BORDER INFLUENCED THE DECISION TO RENEW CONFLICT WITH ERITREA?
13. (S/NF) Ethnic insurgent conflict has increased, particularly in Ethiopia’s Somali (Ogaden) and Oromiya regions, which host the two main rebel groups, the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) and the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF). The GOE has been reportedly ruthless in rounding up suspected supporters and fighters for these groups, which has increased the tensions in these two areas. Eritrea’s support in providing military training and advice has only fueled growing dissension between these groups and the central government. While not viewed as controlling or directing these groups, Eritrea’s influence is significant. Eritrea’s demonstrated activities supporting the ONLF and OLF is not, however, enough to trigger war plans against Eritrea by Ethiopia. The approach by the GOE has been sharp and at times brutal, in neutralizing anti-GOE elements as the best way to minimize Eritrea’s influence.
14. (S/NF) Our efforts to promote a comprehensive approach of assistance and development have so far fallen on deaf ears. Should tensions and conflict in Oromiya and Ogaden increase, and if the GOE does not heed international approaches for more engagement, there is the possibility of increasing blame on Eritrea for Ethiopia’s failed policy approach to these two areas. But we doubt that this would be sufficient to launch any attack on Eritrea. Ethiopia’s problem remains one of manpower and the inability to commit troops and resources to multiple battlefronts. Somalia and internal dissent in Ethiopia remain the focus for Meles. Another war over the border would be impossible to handle. E. (S/NF)
TO WHAT EXTENT WILL ETHIOPIA LOOK TO THE U.S. FOR INTELLIGENCE, MILITARY, FINANCIAL, AND OTHER SUPPORT BEFORE A NEW CONFLICT?
15. (S/NF) If war were imminent with Eritrea, Ethiopia would not/not look to the U.S. for assistance, primarily because the U.S. is far too slow and has yet to fulfill normal promises made to the GOE in response to simple requests such as C-130 repair (seven years and still counting). Further, the U.S. would not support any preparation by Ethiopia or Eritrea for conflict. The primary source for Ethiopia would be the same countries that helped Ethiopia in the last ADDIS ABAB 00001275 005 OF 007 conflict with Eritrea: the Chinese can provide guns and jeeps, the Israelis maintenance necessary, and Russia and Ukraine would likely provide pilots and spare parts. Due to their competitive pricing, North Korea can also be expected to provide materiel to Ethiopia. The Ethiopian National Defense Force (ENDF) is currently using unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) of Israeli origin. But Ethiopia and Eritrea have used the past seven years to restock their military supplies and reposition troops, rendering any international arms embargo useless.
16. (S/NF) Ethiopia does, however, want U.S. intelligence on positioning of Eritrean forces along the border, an early warning of imminent Eritrean attack, as well as information on the extent of Eritrean support for the OLF and ONLF, and activities in Somalia. They would also want information on Eritrean operatives or elements supported by Eritrea planning terrorist attacks in Addis or in other areas of Ethiopia. Ethiopia would likely seek USG satellite imagery on Eritrea, as it did on Somalia. F. (S/NF)
TO WHAT EXTENT ARE THE ETHIOPIANS CONCERNED ABOUT INTERNATIONAL CRITICISM IF THEY INITIATIVE HOSTILITIES WITH ERITREA AND HOW DOES THAT INFLUENCE THE WAR DECISION?
17. (S/NF) As underscored by Ethiopia’s current intervention in Somalia, international criticism (e.g., EU allegations of suspected war crimes) will not sway Ethiopia’s plans if Meles assesses there is sufficient support in alternate international fora or among key allies/donors. Ultimately, Meles will do what he wants. It would be extremely important for the U.S. to take the lead in unifying the Witnesses in sending a consistent and very strong message that war is unacceptable. No country can convey any different message. More important, unlike the previous conflict, no country can either provide support to, or undercut any arms embargo on, both countries during a conflict. Those countries whose nationals support either country must stand firmly and vocally in opposing any assistance and should take action, even if it proves to be ineffective, to prosecute their nationals for violating the arms embargo. At the same time, we need to be clear to Ethiopia that it plays an important role in promoting regional peace and stability and that the international community supports Ethiopia. Criticism without expression of Ethiopia’s value would only antagonize the Meles government. For Eritrea, as well, the message of hope for a more prosperous future for its people must also be conveyed. Finally, the most compelling action we can take is to cut off the money from the diaspora to both countries. While probably ineffective in the short term and almost impossible to implement, it would send a powerful message to both countries that the consequence of war is financial disaster. Meles and his government, as well as President Isaias, clearly understand this point. During discussions, the cutting off of diaspora funding was raised as one consequence of renewed conflict. Isaias was furious and Yemane Gebreab conveyed to us privately that this action would be tantamount to a declaration of war. Since this hit such a raw nerve, it was never mentioned again by the U.S. G. (S/NF)
TO WHAT EXTENT WILL ECONOMIC FACTORS INFLUENCE THE DECISION TO GO TO WAR WITH ERITREA AND WHAT ARE THEY?
18. (S/NF) Eritrea alone could not inflict any economic reasons for Ethiopia renewing conflict with Eritrea. Given Eritrea’s growing economic isolation, Ethiopian officials assess that maintaining the status quo favors Ethiopia in the long term. There must be two parallel and corresponding conditions for Ethiopia to go to war for economic reasons. First, as the eighth-lowest ranked country in the world, according to the UN Human Development Index, Ethiopia remains largely dependent on foreign donor assistance. Should the U.S. and other donors decide to cut off or severely limit assistance to Ethiopia specifically to punish Ethiopia on the border and show that we clearly favor Eritrea, then Ethiopia would reevaluate its relations with the outside world. Second, international action alone, however, is not enough for Ethiopia to go to war. What would be essential in conjunction with any international action against Ethiopia ADDIS ABAB 00001275 006 OF 007 would be Eritrean action to cut off Ethiopia’s lifeline to the Red Sea, the port of Djibouti. Losing port access is one of landlocked Ethiopia’s redlines. In actuality, making Djibouti close operations to Ethiopia would require support from the international community and would signal a clear intent to isolate and sanction Ethiopia, and to hurt Ethiopia economically. However, if Ethiopia assessed that Eritrea were responsible, then this could trigger conflict. H. (S/NF)
HOW WILL THE ERITREA ETHIOPIA BORDER COMMISSION (EEBC) DECISION TO REMOTELY DEMARCATE THE BORDER IN NOVEMBER 2007 CHANGE THE ETHIOPIAN DECISION TO GO TO WAR?
19. (S/NF) Like Eritrea, Ethiopia rejects the EEBC’s authority to demarcate the border by coordinates. Should the EEBC decision be finalized but with no further action, this would not precipitate renewed conflict with Eritrea. However, should the international community determine that the border is demarcated, and then impose sanctions and economic restrictions specifically and primarily targeted against Ethiopia without discussion or any effort to bring both parties together, then Ethiopia would reevaluate its position. If Eritrea then proceeds to move troops towards Badme by force, with the consent or non-opposition of the international community, then conflict would commence immediately.
20. (S/NF) The EEBC decision potentially holds the greatest threat to pushing the parties to renewed conflict. It goes against their original guidance on physical demarcation, and on discussion and agreement with the parties to bring both sides to discuss and mutually agree on the placement of the pillars. It also ignores the informal private discussions with the EEBC by the Witnesses on measures to avoid conflict and promote the parties dealing directly with each other on areas of contention. In the rush by the EEBC to finalize the demarcation by any means and conclude the EEBC’s work, they may be inadvertently sowing the seeds of dissension and potential renewed conflict.
21. (S/NF) The international community, specifically the Witnesses, must carefully coordinate a consistent and unequivocal position with the U.N. Security Council and the EEBC, that is conveyed clearly and unambiguously to the parties themselves. Non-action by the international community or the sending of a vague message could potentially increase tensions and have the unintended consequence of pushing one or both parties towards conflict. The Witnesses should be meeting on the EEBC decision immediately, if we are serious about eliminating any potential for war. Our message should also be consistent with the last Witnesses meeting chaired by Assistant Secretary Frazer in February 2006, and with the U.S. negotiated approach on normalization talks to eliminate tensions. I. (S/NF)
HOW WILL MELES PREPARE THE ETHIOPIAN PUBLIC AND THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY FOR WAR?
22. (S/NF) Prime Minister Meles would have an extremely difficult time gaining popular support and preparing the Ethiopia public for war. Few want renewed conflict, and most view the past war as a conflict by Tigray and the Meles government, not of the Ethiopian people. While the conflict in Somalia is a strategic issue, renewed conflict with Eritrea is seen as a personal issue between two leaders trying to settle private scores. Despite the dominance of state-run media, mere rhetoric on the threat from Eritrea would have little effect in swaying the vast majority of the Ethiopian population. There would need to be a multiple series of actions by Eritrea to incite general support for renewed conflict: e.g., assassination of leaders in Addis Ababa, terrorist attacks against the general Ethiopian population, and a limited and specific military attack by Eritrea against Ethiopia along the border. No one action is sufficient to renew total conflict by Ethiopia against Eritrea, except to respond to “total” war by Eritrea.
23. (S/NF) Preparations for conflict would likely include large-scale mobilization of reserves, and deployment of key ADDIS ABAB 00001275 007 OF 007 military units, such as the Agazi (special forces) commandos. On the economic front, measures could include introduction of rationing on consumer products and/or fuel, the imposition of special surtaxes, and raising the price of state-controlled commodities. 24. (S/NF) Should Ethiopia determine that Eritrea poses a clear and imminent threat, Meles and his government would want international support prior to any conflict (and especially domestic support). As it did prior to intervening in December 2006 in Somalia, Ethiopia would likely seek support in international fora, such as IGAD and the African Union, where it holds a prominent seat as one of 15 members of the AU Peace and Security Council, and is able to galvanize support from throughout the continent. Further, Ethiopia would begin to signal not only hostile anti-Eritrean rhetoric but also, more important, messages that conflict is likely. (The current rhetoric by Ethiopia against Eritrea is troubling, but thus far we have been consistent in our approach that such rhetoric is unhelpful.) In such a scenario, it would be extremely important for the international community to be unified and to express to both sides a consistent and strong message that conflict would not be tolerated. In 2001 in our resumption of discussions with both parties over the border, we delivered strong messages of the consequences of renewed conflict, intentional or unintentional. Both parties understood clearly what our message was, and that the witnesses stood firmly behind the U.S. The problem now, is that we hold very little leverage over Eritrea, they do not listen to us, and even the benefits of not going to war (debt relief and reconstruction funds) may not be important to Isaias. For Ethiopia, our message in 2001 still holds sway over this government. YAMAMOTO
ሕጊ ወይ ስርዓት ሰፊሕ ትርጉም ኣለዎ። ኣገዳስነቱን ዝህቦ ኣገልግሎት’ውን ከምኡ ሰፊሕ እዩ። ብውሑዱ ግና ናይ ሓደ ትካል ኣካላት ናይ ሓባር ዕላምኦም ንምዕዋት ብሓባር ክጐዓዙ ዘኽእል መጥመሪ እዩ። ተልእኾ ሕጊ እዚ ኮይኑ፡ ከከም ደረጃ ናይቲ ዝግልገለሉ ትካል ዕምቆቱን ስፍሓቱን ክፈላለ ይኽእል። ኣብ ክሊ ሓደ ዓብይ ትካል፡ ኣብ ታሕተዎት ኣካላት ዝስርሓሎም ሕግታት ኣብ ሕድሕድ ክናበቡን ከሳንዩን ናይ ግድን እዩ። ንኣብነት ኣብ ሓደ ሃገር ቅዋም ናይ ኩሉ ሕግታት ዝለዓለ እዩ። እቲ ካልእ ፖለቲካዊ፡ ምምሕዳራዊ፡ ቁጠባዊ ይኹን ፍርዳዊ ሕግታት ከኣ ምስዚ ቅዋም ዝጻረር ክኸውን ኣይፍቀድን። እንተተፈተነ’ውን ኣፍራሲ’ዩ። ኣብ ሰልፍታትን ውድባትን እንተመጻእና እውን ሰልፊ ይኹን ውድብ ዝምረሓሉ ቅዋም ብጉባአ የጽድቕ። ድሕሪኡ ብዝተፈላለዩ ጽፍሕታትን መዳያትን ዝወጹ ሕግታትን መምርሕታትን ምስዚ ቅዋም ከም ዘሳንዩ ኮይኖም ክሕንጸጹ ግድን እዩ።
ሕጊ ናይ ብሓቂ ሕጊ ንክኸውን ክሓልፎ ዝግበኦ መስርሕ ኣለዎ። ሕጊ ምስ ኮነ ዝመርሕሉ ኮነ ዝምርሕሉ ኣካላት፡ ኣብ ምፍጣሩ ንበሎ ምጽዳቑ፡ ይሳተፉ። እቲ ኣሰታትፋ ከከም ምርጫ ናይቲ ነቲ ሕጊ ዘጽድቕ ትካል ወይ ውደባ ቀጥታዊ ድዩ ዘይቀጥታዊ ክፈላለ ይኽእል። ቀንዲ ሕመረት ናይቲ ተሳትፎ እቶም ተሳተፍቲ ሕጊ ኮይኑ ምስ ጸደቐ፡ ክቕየድሉ ስለ ዝኾኑ ኣቐዲሞም ናትና ክብልዎን ፈትዮም ክኣትዉዎን እዩ። ኣብዚ ዘይዝንጋዕ ቀንዲ ባህርያት ቅዋም ምግዳድ እዩ። ቅዋም “ከምዚ ክግበር ይግባእ” እንድሕሪ ኢሉ ከምኡ ይትግበር። “ከምዚ ክግበር ኣይግበኦን” እንተይሉ ድማ ኣይትግበርን። እዚ ኣብ ወለንታ ዝምርኮስ ኣይኮነን። ንኣብነት ኣብ ብዙሓት ሰልፍታት “ዝኾነ ኣባል ንሕግታትን መምርሕታትን ሰልፊ ምእዙዝ ይኸውን፤” ዝብል ዓንቀጽ ንረክብ። እዚ ናይዚ ሰልፊ ኣካል ኮይንካ ንክትቅጽል ኣገዳዲ እዩ።
ኣብ መስርሕ ምትግባር መደባት ናይ ሕጊ ኣገዳድነት ቅድሚት ኣይመጽእን እዩ። ብዝከኣል ጉዳያት ብድሌትን ናይ ሓባር ስምምዕን ንክትግበር እኹል ጻዕሪ ይግበር። ንሓደ ጉዳይ በዚ እንተዘይወዲእካዮ ግና ብሕጊ ክውዳእ ናይ ግድን እዩ። ምኽንያቱ ናብ ናይ ሓባር ስምምዕ ንምብጻሕ ዘይጻዒ ክትሓቁን ምንባር ስለ ዘይከኣል። እዚ ሓደ ካብቲ ኣድማሳዊ ባህሪ ኣጠቓቕማ ሕጊ እዩ። ናይ ሕጊ ሴፍ ክትምዘዝ እንከላ ነቶም ኣብ ሓደ ጉዳይ ናይ ሓባር መረዳድኢ ክፈጥሩ ዘይከኣሉ ኣካላት ማዕረ ምቓረት ኣይትህቦምን እያ። ንገሊኦም ብዕግበት ንገሊኦም ድማ ብቀይዲ እያ እትሕዞም። ነቶም ነቲ ውሳነ ዓጊበምሉ ዘይኮነስ፡ ምእንቲ ሕጊ ከኽብሩ ዝምእዘዙ ይመሮም እዩ። ግና ድማ ብዘይካ ብመራራ ምቕባል ካልእ መተካእታ የለን። ካብዚ ወጻኢ እንተኾይኑ ሳዕቤኑ ሕማቕ ስለ ዝኸውን። እዚ ክበሃል እንከሎ ግና ኣብ ሓደ ኣጋጣሚ ብሕጊ ትግደድ ኣብ ካልእ ኣጋጣሚ ድማ ብኣንጻሩ ንስኻ ትዓግብ እቲ ካልእ ወገን ድማ ይግደድ። እቲ መስርሕ ብክብ ለጠቕ ይቕጽል። ኣብዚ መስርሕ ተፈቲንካ ክትሓልፍ ካብ ኣነነት ወጺእካ ምራቕካ ውሒጥካ ዕጉስ፡ ጸዋርን ልዕልና ሕጊ እትግንዘብን ክትከውን ግድን የድሊ።
ቅዋም ብሓፈሻ ዘገድድ ተባሂሉ ዝሰፍር ጥራይ ዘይኮነ ንዝተፈላለዩ ኣካላት ነናቶም ናይ ሓላፍነት ደረት ይምጥን። ውሳነታት ካብ ላዕሊ ንታሕቲ፡ ለበዋታትን መተሕሳሰብታትን ድማ ካብ ታሕቲ ናብ ላዕሊ ከመይ ከም ዝውሕዙ ብንጹር እዩ ዘስፍር። ኮታ ግደን ሓላፍነትን ላዕለዎትን ታሕተዎትን ኣካላት ሰልፍን ውድብን ይድርት። ካብዚ ሓሊፉ ሰባት ኣብ ሓደ ዛዕባ ብኣረዳድኣ ክፈላለዩ ከም ዝኽእሉ ኣብ ግምት የእቱ። ካብቶም ብሓሳብ ዝፈላለዩ ገሊኦም ብዙሓት ገሊኦም ከኣ ውሑዳት ክኾኑ ባህርያዊ እዩ። ኣብዚ እውን ናይ ብዙሓት ይኹን ናይ ውሑዳት ግደን ሓላፍነት ይንጸር። ከም ኣብነት ናይ ብዙሓት ሰልፍታት ቅዋም እንተተወከስና “ኣቦ-መንበር ሰልፊ ኣብ ቅድሚ ሕጊ ዕላዊ ተሓታትነትን ውክልናን ኣለዎ።” ዝብል ዓንቀጽ ንረክብ።
ካብዚ ዝተጠቕሰ ከም እንርደኦ ኣድላይነት ወይ ግደ ቅዋም ገኒኑ ንቕድሚት ዝወጽእ ኣብ ኣረዳድኣ ጉዳያት ምፍልላይ ወይ ምፍሕፋሕ ከጋጥም እንከሎ እዩ። ገለገለ ሰባት ግና ኣብ ናይ ርኢቶ ፍልልይ እንተበጺሕካ ደኣ እንታይ ሕጊ ኣሎ ዝብል መስሓቕ ዘረባ የምጽኡ እዮም። ሓደ ኣካል ሕጊ ኣኽቢሩ ዝበሃል እቲ ሕጊ ዝሃቦ ደረት ሓላፍነት ከይጠሓሰ እንተ ብዕግበት ወይ ብሕጊ ብምቕያድ ኣብቲ መስመር ገጥ ክብል እንከሎ እዩ። ኣብቲ ዝቕየደሉ ውሳነ ዘይዕግበትን ትዕዝብትን የብሉን ማለት ኣይኮነን። ብኣንጻሩ ሕጊ ጥሒሱ ዝበሃል ልዕሊ እቲ ሕጊ ዝሃቦ ናይ ሓላፍነት ክሊ ክምጠጥ ዝህቅንን ጉዳያት በቲ ነዓይ ቅኑዕ ኮይኑ ዝረኣየኒ ጥራይ ክተሓዙ ኣለዎም ዝብልን ወይ ንጉዳያት ባህ እንተኢለሙኒ እምበር፡ ባህ ተዘይኢሉኒ ኣይቅበሎን ክብል እንከሎ እዩ።
ንኣብነት ብመሰረት ቅዋም ሓያሎ ሰልፍታት “ኣቦመንበር ሰልፊ ኣብ ቅድሚ ሕጊ ዕላዊ ተሓታትነትን ውክልናን ኣለዎ።” ዝብል ብንጹር ዝተቐመጠ ኣሎ። ናይዚ ትርጉም ድማ ካብ ኣካላት ሰልፊ ናብ ኣቦመንበር ማለት ላዕለዋይ ኣካል ዝቐርቡ ናይ ምግዳድ ባህሪ ዘየብሎም ለበዋታትን መተሓሳሰብታት እምበር ንሓላፍነቱ ጅሆ ዝሕዙ ኣይኮኑን ዝብል መልእኽቲ እዩ ዘመሓላልፍ። ኣቦመንበር ብስም መሪሕነት ሰልፊ ናብ ታሕቲ ዝወርዱ ውሳነታት ግና ናይ ምግዳድ ባህሪ ኣለዎም። ምናልባት ኣቦመንበር ነቲ ዝተዋህቦ ሓላፍነት ብዘይግቡእ ክጥቀመሉ እንተፈቲኑ እዩ ኣብ ሕጋዊ መድረኽ ዝሕተት። ኣብ ተመኩሮ ደንበ ተቓውሞና ዝረአን ጠንቂ ምፍልላይ ዝኸውንን ግና እቲ ሓቀኛ ድሌት ካልእ እንዳሃለወ ብሕጋዊ ጥሕሰት ኣመኻኒኻ ንገዛእ ርእስኻ ናይ ሕጊ ተሓላቒ መሲልካ ክትቀርብ ምፍታን እዩ።
ሓደ ቅዋም ወይ ሕጊ ጸዲቑ ኣብ ግብሪ ክውዕል ምስ ጀመረ ካብቲ ዝተጸበኻዮ ወጻኢ ድሌትካ ዝዓግት ክኸውን ይኽእል እዩ። ንስኻ ድማ ካልእ ዝያዳ ንድሌትካ ዘንጸባርቕ ትብህግ። እዚ ግና ነቲ ኣብ ኢድካ ዘሎ ሕጊ ብምጥሓስ ዘይኮነ፡ ኣብ ሕጋዊ መድረኽ ንኣብነት ኣብ ጉባአ ብኻልእ ሕጊ ብምትካእ ጥራይ ኢኻ እተረጋግጾ። ባህ ንዘይበሉኻ መራሕቲ’ውን ከምኡ። ካልእ ኣቋራጭ ብስምዒትን ውልቃዊ ድሌትን ዝድፋእ ምርጫ ግና መንገዲ ደሓን ኣይከውንን።
ኤርትራ ሃገርና በብዓይነቶም ዕምበባ መሮርን ንመሬት ዘወቅቡን ዘማዕርጉን ተፈጥሮኣዊ ኣዝርእትን ኣለዉዋ። ምስዚ ኣብ መሬት ኤርትራ ዝቕመጡ ዝተፈላለየ ሃይማኖት ዝእምነቶም፥ ዝተፈላለየ ቋንቋታት ዝዛረቡን ኣብ ዝተፈላለዩ ኣውራጃታት ዝነብሩን፥ ከምኡ እውን እንዳታት ዝሓቘፍ ብዙሕነት ዝግለጽ እንብሎ ዘለውዋ እያ። እዚ ብዙሕነት እዚ ከኣ ነቲ ፍልልያት ልክዕ ከምቲ ዕምበባ መሮር ንመሬት ዘመልክዖ ንህዝቢ ኤርትራ ዘመልክዖ እዩ። ከምኡ ስለዝኾነ ከኣ እዩ ህዝቢ ኤርትራ ነዛ ክብርቲ ሃገሩ ንምግሃድ ሓቢሩን ሰሚሩን ተቓሊሱ ዝተዓወተ።
ታሪኽ ብዘይ ኣሉታን እወንታን ኣይፍጸምን እዩ። ስለዝኾነ ከኣ እቲ ታሪኽ ንኹሉ ኣሕቢሩ እዩ ዘዘንትዎ ወይ ዝስንዶ። ብዙሕ ግዜ ብዛዕባ ኣብ ሕሉፍ ምንባር ገዲፍና ኣብ ናይ መጻኢ ነቋምት ዝብል ይዝረብን ይጸሓፍን እዩ። እወ! ሕሉፍ ክቕየር ዘይከእል፡ ዘይጠፍእን ዘይሕከኽን ምዃኑ ንግንዘብ ኢና። ግን ከኣ ዋላ ጸጸኒሕና ንዛረበሉ እምበር ናትና ሽግር ኣይኮነን እንስከሞ ይኹን እንሕተተሉ ሓላፍነት እውን የለን። ስለዚ ነቲ ሕሉፍ ክንደግሞ ደኣ ኢና ዘይብልና እምበር ክንልውጦ ኢልና ህርድግ እንተበልና ከምዘይንኽእል ርዱእ እዩ። ግን ከኣ ብኡኡ ተዋሒጥና ክንነበር እንተዀንና ንሕና ውን ክንልወጥ ስለዘይንኽእል ኣእምሮና ከም ዝድንዝዝ ውሁብ እዩ።
እዚ ናይ ኣእምሮ ምድንዛዝ ዝስዕቦ ብልሽውና ከኣ እዩ ነቲ ንቕድሚት ኣብ ክንዲ ንስጉምን ንቀራረብን እንረሓሓቕ። ንሓቂ ክሒድና ንጭብጢ ዘይብሉ ክንኣምንን ክነእምንን እንገብሮ ጻኦሪ እዩ እቲ ቀንዲ ሽግር ዝፈጥር። እዚ ከኣ ነቲ ህልውን መጻእን ዕድላትና በቲ ንሱ ዝጠልቦን ዝገዝኦን ኩነታት ምኽታል ገዲፍና፥ ኣብ ሕሉፍ እሞ ከኣ ፍታሕ ክነምጸኣሉን ክንቅይሮን ዘይንኽእል ንምርኰስ። በቲ መጻኢ ኣብ ክንዲ ንጭነቕ በቲ ዝሓለፈ ዝፈላልየና ክነሳውርን እሞ ከኣ ንሕና ብዘይፈጸምናዮ ንሃልኽ:: እቲ ሕሉፍ ተረኽቦታት ዝተፈጸመሉ ኩነታት እንድሕሪ ተረዲእና፡ ንሱ ክንመሃረሉ እኹል መኾነ። ወገሐ ጸብሐ ኣሉታዊ ተዘክሮታት ብምድጋም ፍታሕ ናይ ህልዊ ወይ መጻኢ ክርከብ ኣይከኣልን እዩ። ብእንጻሩ ንስኻ ኣተሓሳስባኻ ክትልውጥ ስለዘይከኣልካ በቲ ዘይልወጥ ሕሉፍ ተገዚእካ ፍታሕ ክተናዲ ትህንደድ። ብሕሉፍ ምስ እንግዛእ ከኣ ኣእምሮና ሓቂ ናይ ምድላይ ወይ ይቕረ ናይ ምባል፡ ምትዕራቕን ሕድገት ምግባርን ፈጺሙ ዘይሕሰብ እዩ። ኣብ ከምዚ ኩነታት ኣእምሮና ብኽፍኣትን ምፍልላይን ይመልእ እሞ እቶም ዝተጠቕሱ ሃነጽቲ ሓሳባት ቦታ ኣይህልዎምን። በዚ ምኽንያት እቲ ኣብ ሕሉፍ ጠቢቕካ ምንባር ነቲ ህልዊ ዘቋስልን፥ ነቲ ቅኑዕ ዝምድና ክፍጠር ዝኽእል ዝጐድእን እዩ ክኸውን እምበር ትምህርቲ ኣይክውንን እዩ። ስለዚ ኩሉ ቀልብና ብዛዕባ መጻኢ ክንጭነቕን ንናይ ዝሓለፈ ስምብራት ይኹን ማህሰይትታት ንኸይድገምን ደኣ ክንጽዕር ኣሎና እምበር ህልዊ ዝፈጠሮ ጸገም ኣይኮነን። ካብ ሕሉፍ ወጺእና ንነፍስና ክንልውጥ እንተዘይክኢልና ኣብ ንሕናን ንሶምን፥ ተዋሒጥና ኣእምሮና ንምሕዳስ ኣይዳሎን፥ ንሽግራት ኣብ ምፍታሕ ኣይነድህብን ወዘተ።
ንሕሉፍ ክንዝርዝርን ክንዛረበሉን ተመሊስና ከኣ ክነስተንትነሉ እንከሎና ኣብ ጉዕዞና ዓጋቲ ተራ እዩ ክህልዎ። ልክዕ እዩ ንሕሉፍ ክነጽንዖን ክንርድኦን እንከሎና ኣብ ሎሚ ኮይና “ንሕና መን ኢና?” ንኽንምልስን ናበይ ገጽና ኢናኸ እንምርሽን ንምርዳእ ይሕግዘና እዩ። ካብኡ ሓሊፉ ነቲ ኣሉታዊ ሸነኹ ሒዝና ወገሐ ጸብሐ ክንዛረበሉ ንግላዊ ስምዒትን መንፈስ ምፍልላይን ዘራጉድ ጥሩምባ ምንፋሕ እዩ። እቲ ሕሉፍ ክንመሃረሉ ዝግባኣና እኮ ንሓቀኛ ጉዳያት ተረዲእና ነቲ ህልዊ ዝምድናን ምትእስሳርን ደቂ ሰባት ምእንቲ ከየበላሹ እዩ። ምኽንያቱ ነቲ ኣብ ሕሉፍ ዝተፈጸመ ጉዳያት እንታይ ክንረብሓሉ ኢና ዝብል ቅድመ ኩነታዊ ምርምር ዘድልዮ እዩ። እቲ ቀንዲ ተበግሶና ንሕሉፍ ክነጽንዕ ዝድርኽ ሓቂ ንምድላይን እእምሮና ከኣ ንኽፍኣትን ተንኮልን ቦታ ንኸይህቦም ንምጥንቃቕ እዩ።
ካብኡ ሓሊፉ ሕሉፍ ተመኩሮ ብጠቓምን ጐዳእን ፍጻመታት ዝግለጽ ታሪኽ እዩ። እቲ ቀንዲ ዕላማ ንሕሉፍ ናይ ምብርባር ከኣ ሕማቕ ንምውጻእ ዘይኮነስ ነቲ ቅኑዕ መጻኢ ንምስሳን እዩ። እቲ እወንታን ጠቓምን ተግባራት እንታይ ነይሩ ኢና ቅድም ክንፈልጥ’ዩ ዝግበኣና። ምኽንያቱ ንህቢ እኮ እናነኸሰካ ኢኻ ነቲ ጥዑም ዝኾነ መዓር ትብርብር እምበር እቲ እትንከሶ ኣይኮነን ዘገድሰካ። ንህቢ ክትብርብር እንከሎኻ ንኸይትንከስ እንታይ ብልሓታት ትጥቀም ክትመሃርን ክትጥንቀቕን ይግባእ። ልክዕ እዚ ነቲ ኣሉታን እወንታ ዝተፈጸመ ታሪኽ ከኣ ክንፍትሾን ክንመራመረሉን ከሎና እቲ እወንታ ብዘይኣሉታ ክነብር ከምዘይከኣል ንርዳእ።
ነቲ ሕሉፍ ትምህርቲ ንቐስመሉ እሞ ንብድሕሪ ሕጂ ከመይ ምስ እንገብር እዩ እወንታዊ ዝኾነ ሓሳባትን ተግባራትን ክንሰንቕ ዝብል ጉዳይ ብተገዳስነት ክተሓዝ ዝግበኦ እዩ። እንተዘይኮይኑ ነቲ ኣሉታ ጥራሕ ወሲድና ኣብ ናይ ሕነ-ምፍዳይ ክንጥቀመሉ እንተኾይና መደባትና ንበዓል ክፉእ ፍርዱ ኣብ እንህበሉ ደረጃ ኢና ሸታሕታሕ ክንብል። ስለዚ እቲ ሎሚ ክንገብሮ ዝግበኣና፡ ነቲ ሕሉፍ ዝፍውስ ጥራይ ዘይኮነ ናብ ናይ ጽባሕ ጽቡቕ ዘማዕደወ ኣሳታፍን ሓቛፍን ግብራዊ ስጉምቲ ዝመርሓና ክኸውን ይግባእ።
June 27, 2017
Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID) is delighted to announce the appointment
of Anneke Van Woudenberg as its new executive director, and said it plans to expand its work.
Date: 27/06/2017Author: Martin Plaut
By RAID
June 27, 2017
Rights and Accountability in Development (RAID) is delighted to announce the appointment of Anneke Van Woudenberg as its new executive director, and said it plans to expand its work.
Patricia Feeney, RAID’s outgoing director, is retiring after 18 years during which she earned RAID the reputation as a small and highly effective organization spearheading efforts in the field of business and human rights. She will be replaced by Van Woudenberg, who was previously deputy Africa director at Human Rights Watch.“
Anneke has 20 years of experience on the frontlines of human rights in Africa and I’m thrilled to be handing over to her,” said Feeney. “She is just the person to lead RAID as it takes on corporations that believe they can tread on the rights of people in Africa without consequence.”
Feeney’s work will be celebrated at an event at Matrix Chambers on 28 June.
Van Woudenberg’s work at Human Rights Watch included in-depth fact-finding and reporting on human rights violations across sub-Saharan Africa, especially in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), a major focus of RAID’s existing portfolio. She has briefed the UN Security Council, the US Congress and the British and European parliaments, and is a frequent commentator in the international press on human rights and justice issues. Prior to joining Human Rights Watch, Van Woudenberg was the country director for Oxfam in the DRC.
“Anneke brings the perfect experience, skills, and passion to build on Patricia’s remarkable legacy,” said Dr. Bronwen Manby, chair of RAID’s board. “Her work in Congo has shamed governments, changed international policy, and led to international trials against notorious warlords. We need the same tenacity to bring greater accountability for corporate complicity in human rights violations across the continent.”
Since it was founded in 1998, RAID has led the way in the use of detailed research to achieve justice for victims of corporate human rights abuse and environmental damage. RAID’s pioneering cases cover the DRC, Zambia, Zimbabwe and Tanzania, amongst others, and range from legal actions against mining companies complicit in war crimes to pressing stock markets to more effectively regulate companies involved in corruption and rights abuses.
In 2008, RAID’s meticulous case work led to the first ever determination that a British company had breached the human rights provisions of the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises, paving the way for other such cases. The precedent set helped lead to the adoption of explicit business and human rights standards by the United Nations in 2011.
“I have long admired RAID’s powerful combination of in-depth research with seeking justice for the victims, no matter how long it takes and how impossible the struggle appears,” Anneke said. “It’s a great honour to lead this small organization and to take RAID into its next chapter.”
Biography:
Born in the Netherlands and raised in Canada, Anneke graduated from the London School of Economics with a Masters in International Relations in 1992. She went on to work in the parliamentary office of the former British Prime Minister, Sir Edward Heath before entering the corporate world with Andersen Consulting and NatWest Bank, working in London, Moscow, New York and Johannesburg. Her work in the private sector was followed by work with Marie Stopes in Malawi on reproductive health, Oxfam as Country Director in the Democratic Republic of Congo and with Human Rights Watch from 2002 to 2016. Anneke is also finishing a book on her personal journey seeking justice for mass atrocities in Congo.
በይ ኤርያ ኤርትራውያን ን ደሚክራስያዊ ለውጢ ከም'ቲ ልሙድ ንዝኽሪ 20 ሰነ መዓልቲ ሰማእታት ኤርትራ፡ ምኽንያት ብምግባር፡ ሰፊሕ ህዝባዊ ተሳትፎ ዝነበሮ ሰሚናር ኣቶ ክብሮም ዳፍላ ብ24 ሰነ 2017 ኣአንጊዱ። እዚ ሰሚናር ብዓይነቱ ፍሉይ ዝገብሮ ናይ ዝሓለፉ ሕልኽላኻት ቃልሲ ንጎድኒ ገዲፍና ንቕድሚት ብምጥማት ከመይ ጌርና ናብ ትግባረ ንሰጋገር ዝብል ገጂፍ ኣርእስቲ ሰፊሕ መብሪሂ ሂቡሉ፡
ኣቶ ክብሮም ኣስዒቡ ኣብዚ ሕጂ እዋን ህዝብና ዘድልዮ ዘሎ፡ ብሓያል ወዳበን ምትእምማንን ናብ ተግባራዊ ቃልሲ ዝመርሖን ነቲ ኣብ ፈቐዶ ጎዳጉዲ ብዘይ ዝኾነ ወሳነ ቤትፍርድን መሰልን ሎሚ ዶ ጽባሕ ካብ ጸልማት ይወጽእ ኢሉ ሃንቀው ዝብል ዘሎ ህዝቢ ከነድሕኖ እዋኑ ሕጂ ምዃኑን፡ ይጽነሓለይ ዘይበሃልን ግዚኡ ከምዝኣኸለን ኣብሪሁ።
ኣቶ ክብሮም ነታ ኣብ ዝሓለፈ ሳምንታት ኣብ ዓዲ እንግሊዝ 24 ደርቢ ዘለዎ ፓላሶ፡ እሞ ኣብ ውሽጢ ሓደ ሰዓት ዝነደደት ከም ኣብነት ብምምጻእ፡ ሃገርና ኤርትራውን ሕጂ ስጉምቲ ወሲድና እንተዘይድሒንናያ ልክዕ ከም'ታ ፓላሶ ናይ ዓዲ እንግሊዝ ከየርከብናያ ክትበታተን ልዑል ተኽእሎ ከምዘሎ ወሲኹ ኣብሪሁ።
ኣስዒቡ ኣቶ ክብሮም ብመጽናዕቲ ዝተደገፈ ናብ ተግባራዊ ቃልሲ ዝወስድ ውጥን ተወጢኑ ከምዘሎ ሓቢሩ። እዚ ተወጢኑ ዘሎ መደብ ብዓይነቱ ፍሉይን ብውሽጥን ብደገን ሓያል ናይ ህዝቢ ደገፍ ዘለዎ ከምዝኾነ ገሊጹ። ኣብዚ ፍሉይን ታሪኻውን መደብ ኩሉ ደላይ ለውጢ ኣባል ውድብ ይኹን ካልእ ብማዕረ ዘሳትፍ ስለዝኾነ በቲ ኣጋጣሚ ንኹሉ ኤርትራዊ ዜጋ ኣብዚ ፍሉይን እዋናውን መደብ ብዝጥዕሞ ክሳተፍ ማለት ብግዜ፡ ብንዋትን ብሞራልን ተሳትፍኡ ከዛይድ ጸዊዑ።
ቐጺሉ ኣቶ ክብሮም ዳፍላ ጸላኢና ከነለሊ ከምዝግባእናን፡ ህግድፍ ዝበሃል ፓርቲ ኣብ ግብሪ ከምዘየለን፡ ኣረኣእያናን ኣተኩሮናን ን ኢሰያስ ስልጣኑ ናብ ህዝቢ ከረክብ ብውሽጥን ብደገን ጽቕጢ ምግባር እቲ እንኮ ኣማራጺ ከምዝኾነ ኣዘኻኺሩ።
ኣብ መወዳእታ ኣቶ ክብሮም ነዚ ሃገራዊ ወፈራ ኩሉ፡ሰብ እጃሙ ከበርክት ብምጽዋዕ እንተዘየለ ግን ናይ ታሪኽ ተሓተቲ ከምዝኾና፡ ብምዝኽኻር ካብ ህዝቢ ንዝቐረበሉ ሕቶታት ብዘዕግብ መሊሱ። ተጋባእቲ ከኣ በዚ ወጺኡ ዘሎ ሓድሽን እዋናውን ሃገራዊ ወፈራ ዘለዎም ተስፋን ኣብ ትግባረ ክሳተፉ ቁሩባት ምዃኖም ኣስሚሮም።
በይ ኤርያ ኤርትራውያን ን ደሞክራስያዊ ለውጢ ኣብ ዝሓለፈ ወርሒ ግንቦት 24 መዓልቲ ናጽነት ምኽንያት ብምግባር ብ ኣባል ሕብእቲ ሰልፊ ህዝባዊ ግንባር ነበር ኣቶ የማነ ተኽለገርጊሽ ተመሳሳሊ ሰሚናር ከምዘካየደ ዝዝከር እዩ።
በይ ኤርያ ኤርትራውያ ን ደሞክራስያዊ ለውጢ
ኦክላንድ ካሊፎርንያ
25 ሰነ 2017
ኣሮን ናኦድ
ከተዕውቶ ዝመደብካዮ ዋኒን ኣብ መፈጸምትኡ ንምብጻሕ እትምረሓሉ ስኑድ ኣሰራርሓ ክህልወካ መሰረታዊ እዩ። ነዚ ብሓባር ሰሪሕካ ናይ ምዕዋቱ መሰረታዊ መሳርሒ ከኣ “ይርሓሰና” ኢልካ ምስ ተቐበልካዮ ክትቅየደሉን ውልቃዊ ስምዒትካ ክትቀጽዓሉን ዝግበኣካ ከከም ክብደት እቲ ዋኒን ዝቕረጽ ሕግን ስርዓትን እዩ። ናይዚ ባዕልኻ ረዲኻን ፈቲኻን ዝተሰማማዕካሉ ሓቢርካ ናይ ምጉዓዝ ቃልኪዳን ቅዩድ ምዃንን ዘይምዃንን መሰረታዊ ናይ መንነትካን ኣበርክቶኻን መለክዒ እዩ። እዚ ኣብ ፖለቲካዊ መስርሕ ጥራይ ዘይኮነ ኣብ ኩሉ ማሕበረ-ቁጠባዊ ህይወት እውን ልሙድን መተካእታ ዘየብሉን ኣሰራርሓ እዩ። እዚ ነቶም ኣብ ፖለቲካዊ ዓለም ዘለና ኣብቲ መጀመርያ ናይ ተሳትፎና ግዜኦም ዝሓዝናዮ መባእታዊ ናይ ግንዛበን ስነስርዓትን “ሀሁ” እምበር ከም ሓድሽ ዝንገረካ ኣይኮነን።
ንሕና ከም ተቓለስቲ ቀደም ኮነ ሎሚ፡ ባህግና ዓሚቕ ድሌትና ድማ ብዙሕ እዩ። ካብ ንዓና ሓሊፍና ንህዝብና እንምነየሉ ጽቡቕን ራህዋን ማእለያ የብሉን። ነዚ እንምነዮ ንምዕዋት ኣብ እንገብሮ ቃልሲ ዘጋጥመና ገለን ዝተጸበናዮም ገለን ከኣ ዘይተጸበናዮም ውረድ ደይብ ከኣ ብዙሓት እዮም። ብዚ ሓጐጽጐጽዚ ሓሊፍና ኣብ ቁምነገር ንምብጻሕ ካብ ዝሕግዙና መሳርሕታት ሓደን ቀንድን ከኣ ምኽባር’ቲ ኣቐዲሙ ዝተጠቕሰ ሓቢርካ ናይ ምጉዓዝ ቃል ኪዳን እዩ።
ነቲ እነማዕድዎ ጸጽቡቑ ከነተግብር ቅሩባት ምዃን ኣገዳሲ ናይ ዓወት ነጥቢ እዩ። እዚ ቅርቡነትን ድልውነትን’ዚ ብንመትከላዊ ምእዙዝነት እንተዘይተሰንዩ ግና ከቶ ኣብ ፍረ ኣይበጽሕን እዩ። ብቕዓት፡ ዓቕሚ፡ ንዋትን ብዝሕን ዝኣመሰሉ መዕቀንታት ኣብ መንገዲ ዓወት ታረኦም ውሁብ ኮይኑ፡ ብጉቡእ ተወጊኖምን ልዕሊ ኩሉ ከኣ ብትካላዊ ኣሰራርሓን ደሞክራስያዊ ኣዕኑድን እንተዘይ ተወዲኖም ግና ኣብ ድማዕ ኣየብጽሑን እዮም። ዝኾነ ዓቕሚ፡ ድሌትን ቅሩብነትን ንከድምዕ ብጽኑዕ መትከላዊ ኣሰራርሓ ክቃነ ግድን ምዃኑ ኣብዚ ንርከበሉ ዘለና ዘመናዊ ኣካይዳ ጥራይ ዘይኮነ፡ ብባህልና እውን “ሺሕ ፈልጺ መእሰሪኡ ልሕጺ” እዩ ዝበሃል። ዘይተኣስረ ከኣ ዕድሉ ፋሕፋሕ እዩ። እዚ ዝተጠቕሰ ናይ ብቕዓት መዕቀንታት መመሊሱ ክሕደስ ዝግበኦ እምበር ሓንሳብ ምስ ወነንካዮ ምሳኻ ዝነብር ኣይኮነን።
እቲ ኣብ ኤርትራ በዂሩ ዘሎን ህያው ንምግባሩ ንቃለሰሉ ዘለናን ግዝእተ ሕጊ፡ ብልዕልና ርኢቶ ኣብዝሓ ዝቃነ ደሞክራስን ምኽባር ኩለመዳያዊ መሰልን ዝረጋገጽ፡ ዝያዳ ኩሉ ካብ ናትካ ጸቢብ ድሌትን ስምዒትን ወጺእካ ናይቲ ድሌትን ስምዒትን ብዙሓት ኣብ ግምት ኣእትዩ ዝተቐርጸ ማእከላይ መትከላዊ ኣሰራርሓ ምእዙዝ እንተኮይንካ ጥራይ እዩ። በመንጽር እዚ ጽባሕ እንታይ ከም እንገብር ብናይ ሎሚ ተግባርና ስለ ዝምዘን፡ ሎሚ ኣብዞም ብስም ህዝቢ እንጭረሓሎም ዛዕባታት ክሳብ ክንደይ ምእዙዛት ከም ዘለና ንምርዳእ ነነብስና ክንሓትት ግድነት እዩ።
ሎሚ ኣብ ውድቡ፡ ሰልፉ፡ ማሕበሩን ካልእ ናይ ቃልሲ መድረኽን ንግዝኣተ ሕግን ልዕልና ብዙሓትን ዘይተማእዘዘ ብኣንጻሩ ካለኦት ካብቲ ናይ ሓባር ቃልኪዳን ወጺኦም በቲ ንሱ ዝሃንደሶ ቅዲ ክኸዱ ክደፍእ ዝደናደን ጽባሕ ንግዝኣተ ሕጊ ኣኽቢሩ መሰረታዊ መሰላት ህዝቢ ክኽብር’ዩ ኢልካ ምጽባዩ ኣጸጋሚ እዩ። መላኺ ኢሳይያስ እውን ንዲክትቶርነት ካብ ቀደም ዝረዓሞ እምበር ኣስመራ ምስ ኣተወ ዝሓደሮ ውቃበ ከምዘይኮነ ብዙሓት ካብ ቀደም ጀሚሮም ብቐረባ ዝፈልጥዎ ዝምስክርዎ ዘለዉ እዩ። ሓደ ኣካል ሎሚ ናይታ ዘለዋ ውዳበ ሕግታት ከየኽበረ፡ ጽባሕ ሕገመንግስታዊ ስርዓት ከውሕስ’የ እንተበለ ክትቅበሎ ዘተባብዕ ኣይኮነን። ህግደፍ ባዕሉ ዘጽደቖ ሕገመንግስቲ ከተግብር ተደጋጋሚ ምሕጽንታ ክቐርበሉ ምስ ጸነሐ፡ ኣብ መወዳእታ ኣይኮነንዶ ከተግብሮ “ እቲ ሕገመንግስቲ ሞይቱ እዩ” ዝብል መርድእ ዝዘርሐ ካብ ቀደሙ እውን ቅዋማዊ እምነት ከምዘይነበሮ ዘመልክት እዩ። ሎሚ ኣብ መስርዕ ቃልሲ ምእንቲ ደሞክራስን መሰረታዊ መሰላትን ዘለና ጽባሕ እንታይ ዓይነት ስርዓት ከነተኣታቱ ከም እንደሊ ዘይኮነስ ንምትግባሩኸ ንኽእልዶ ኣይንኽእልን ኣብ እንፍተነሉ ደረጃ ከም ዘለና ክንርስዕ ኣይግበኣናን። ነዚ ናይ ሎሚ መድረኽ ብሸፈጥን ዓመጽን ሰጊርና ጽባሕ ኣብ ምርግጋጽ ፍትሓውነትን ልዕልና ሕግን ሸለውለው ምስ በልና፡ ኣብ ልዕሌና “ባዕላ ሰቒላቶ ረሓቐ፡ ባዕላ ሰንኪታቶ በሓቘ ” ከም ዝምሰል ኣይንዘንግዕ።
ኣብ መንግስታት ኮነ ከምዚ ንሕና ዘለናዮ ኣብ ውድባትን ሰልፍታትን ዝወጽእ ሕጊ ክትግበር እንከሎ ከይዕንቀፍ ዝሕልውዎ፡ ዝትርጉምዎን ዘተግብርዎን ኣካላት የድልይዎ እዮም። ናብዚ ቀንዲ ሓላፍነት ዝስከሙ መንግስታትን ኣብ ውድባት ድማ መሪሕነታትን እዮም። ካለኦት ተግበርቲ ኣካላት እውን በብደረጃኦም ሓላፍነት ኣለዎም። መሪሕነታት ሕግን ስርዓትን ንዝኽብሩ ኣካላት ምትብባዕ ጥራይ ዘኮነ፡ ካብ መስመር ንዝወጹ ኣካላት ናብቲ ግቡእ መስመር ምምላሶም ኣድላይ ስጉምቲ ናይ ምውሳድ ግድነት እውን ኣለዎም። እቶም ናብ ግቡእ መስመር መምለሲ መሳርሕታት ብዙሓት ስለ ዝኾኑ ኣየናይ ስጉምቲ፡ መዓስን ብመንን ክውሰዱ ከም ዘለዎም ምርዳእ መሰረታዊ ጉዳይ እዩ። ካብዚ ሓሊፉ ሕግን ስርዓትን ዘይመልክዑ እንዳሓዘ ዝዝንግዕ መሪሕነት ኣብ ቅድሚ እቲ ናይ ሓባር ቃልኪዳን ዝበልናዮ ሕጊ ተሓታቲ እዩ። ምስዚ ኩሉ ግና እዚ ዕማምን ሓላፍነትን ንመሪሕነት ጥራይ ዝግደፍ ዘይኮነ ናይ ኩሉ ኣካላት ውሁድ ተሳትፎ ከም ዘድሊ ክዝንጋዕ ዘየብሉ እዩ።
ቤት ጽሕፈት ዜና ሰደህኤ
ባይቶ ሰብኣዊ መሰል ሕቡራት ሃገራት፡ ብ23 ሰነ 2017 ኣብ መዛዘሚ መበል 35 ኣኼባኡ ወ/ሮ ሸይላ ኪታሩዝ ኩነታት ግህሰት ሰብኣዊ መሰል ኣብ ኢርትራ ምክትታለን ክቕጽላ ወሲኑ። እቲ ባይቶ ነዚ ዝወሰነ ነቲ ኣካል ሕቡራት ሃገራት ዝኾነ ትካል ብሓያል ተገዳስነት፡ “ሜላዊ፡ ሰፊሕን ጃምላውን ግህሰትን ጥሕሰትን ሰብኣዊ መሰል” ብዝብል ዝኾነኖ ብመንግስቲ ኤርትራ ዝተፈጸመን ዝፍጸም ዘሎን ግህሰት ሰብኣዊ መሰል ንምክትታል እዩ።
እዚ ሓድሽ ኩነነ ባይቶ ሰብኣዊ መሰል ሕቡራት ሃገራት ኣብ ልዕሊ ጨቋኒ ስርዓት፡ ነቲ ብመንግስቲ ዝፍጸም ዘሎ “ ቀጻሊ ኮነ ኢልካ ምእሳር፡ ምስዋር ከምኡ እውን ሕሱም ህይወት ኣብ ኣብያተ-ማእሰርቲ” ክብል ገሊጽዎ። ኣተሓሒዙ ድማ መንግስቲ ኤርትራ ኣብ ልዕሊ ህዝቡ ዝፍጽሞ ዘሎ በደል፡ ብውሕዱ ካብቲ ብባይቶ ሕቡራት ሃገራት ኣብ ዝሓለፈ ዓመት ዝቐረበሉ 92 ለበዋታት ዝተወሰነ ከተግብር ሓቲቱ።
ብዘይካዚ እዚ መበል 35 ኣኼባ ባይቶ ሕቡራት ሃገራት፡ ነቲ ኣብ ዝሓለፈ ዓመት ብመርማሪ ኮሚሽን ሕቡራት ሃገራት ዝተነጸረ፡ ናይ ጥርጡራት መንነትን ብጥንቃቐ ዝቐረበ ተዛማድን ኣብ መጻኢ ተሓታትነት ኣብ ምንጻር ዝሕግዝን ሓበሬታን ብግቡእ ኣስተብሂልሉ። ምስዚ ከኣ ወ/ሮ ሸይላ ኪታሩዝ ምክትታል ኩነታት ሰብኣዊ መሰል ኤርትራ ኣሕይለን ክቕጽላ ሓቲትወን።
ቤት ምኽሪ ጸጥታ ሕቡራት ሃገራት ኣብ ጉዳይ ሰብኣዊ መሰል ኤርትራ ክሳብ ሕጂ ከምዘይሰርሐ ብምጥቃስ፡ ባይቶ ሰብእዊ መሰል ሕቡራት ሃገራት፡ ተቕላላ ጉባአ ሕቡራት ሃገራት ንጻብጻን ናይ ቃል መብርህን መርማሪ ኮሚሽን ሰብኣዊ መሰል ኤርትራ፡ ኣድላይ ስጉምቲ ንክወስዳ ናብ ዝምልከተን ኣካላት ሕቡራት ሃገራት ከቕርቦ ሓቲቱ።
ካብዚ ሓሊፉ እቲ ባይቶ ሰብኣዊ መሰል ሕቡራት ሃገራት፡ ሕብረት ኣፍሪቃ ኣብ ጉዳይ ኤርትራ ናብ ምንጻር እቶም ተሓተትን ናብ ፍትሒ ምቕራቦምን ዝዓለመ ምጽራይ ብምክያድ እቲ ብመርማሪ ኮሚሽን ሰብኣዊ መሰል ኤርትራ ዝተነጸረ ኣብ ግብሪ ዝውዕለሉ ስጉምቲ ንክወስድ ዳግማይ ኣተባቢዕዎ።
እዚ ናይ ሎሚ ዘበን ውሳነ ሰብኣዊ መሰል ሕቡራት ሃገራት፡ እታ ሴፍ ሕጂ እውን ኣብ ክሳድ ዲክታቶር ኢሳይያስ ኣፈወርቅን ኣብ ልዕሊ እታ ካብ ኣፍሪቃ ቀንዲ ጨቋኒት ዝተባህለት ጸባብ ጉጅለኡን ከም ዘላ ዘመልክት እዩ።
ኣቦ መንበር ሰልፊ ዲሞክራሲ ህዝቢ ኤርትራ (ሰዲህኤ)፡ ሓው መንግስተኣብ ኣስመሮም፡ ብ25 ሰነ 2017 ኣብ ከተማ ሳንድየጎ፡ ካሊፎርንያ፡ክፉት ህዝባዊ ሰሚናር ኣካይዱ።
ነቲ ኣኼባ ዝኸፈተ፡ ሓው መንግስ ሃይለ ካብ ጨንፈር ኣሪዞና፡ ንዕዱማት ኣጋይሽ ናይ ምስጋናን እንቋዕ ደሓን መጻእኩምን መልእኽቲ ድሕሪ ምትሕልላፍ፡ ሓጺር መግለጺ ብዛዕባ ግደን ተራን ሓው መንግስተኣብ ኣስመሮም ኣብ ቃልሲ ኣቕሪቡ፡ መድረኽ ንኣቦ መንበር ሰልፊ ኣመሓላለፈሉ።
ሓው መንግስተኣብ ኣስመሮም፡ ከም ቀንዲ ዛዕባ ኣኼባ ገይሩ ዝተዛረበሉ ኣርእስቲ፡ ብሰልፊ ዲሞክራሲ ህዝቢ ኤርትራ (ሰዲህኤ)፡ ኣብ’ዚ ቀረባ እዋን ዝቐረበ፡ ንሓባራዊ ዕዮ ተቓወምቲ ውድባት ዝጽውዕ እማመ ኢዩ ነይሩ። ከም መእተዊ ንመግለጺኡ ከኣ፡ ነቲ ሃገር/ደውላ (state) ዝብል ኣምር ብምግላጽ ኢዩ ጀሚሩ።
ሃገርን መንግስትን (state and government0 ክልተ ዝተፈላላዩ ኣምራት ምዃኖም ድሕሪ ምብራህ፡ ንመንግስቲ ምቅዋም ማለት ንሃገር ምቅዋም ከምዘይኰነ ኣብሪሁ። ኣስዒቡ ሃገር ብ4 ኣካላት ዝቖመ ምዃኑ፡ ንሳቶም ድማ፦
1. መንግስቲ
2. ህዝቢ
3. ዶባቱ ዝተነጸረ መሬት (territory)
4. ኣህጕራዊ ተፈላጥነት ኢዮም።
1. መንግስቲ፦
ንመንግስቲ ኣመልኪቱ፡ ሓው መንግስትኣብ፡ እቶም ሰለስተ ኣካላቱ ማለት ሓጋጊ፡ ፈጻምን ፈራድን ኣብ ትሕቲ ፍጹም ምቍጽጻር ናይ መራሕ መንግስቲ ኤርትራ ከም ዝውደቑ ዝርዝር መብርሂ ሂቡ።
2. ህዝቢ፦
ህዝቢ ኤርትራ፡ ብስእነት ሓርነት፡ ስእነት ግዝኣተ-ሕጊ፡ ስእነት ማይ፡ መግብን መንበሪ ኣባይቲ፡ ስእነት ስራሕ . . .ወዘተ ዝሳቐ ዘሎ ህዝቢ ምዃኑ ሰፊሕ መግለጺ ኣቕሪቡ። ቀጺሉ እታ መስረታዊት ኣሃዱ ናይ ሕብረተሰብ ዝዀነት ስድራቤት ተበታቲና ምህላዋ፤ ስደት፡ መለለዪን መጸውዕን ህዝቢ ኤርትራ ኰይኑ ምህላው ድሕሪ ምግላጽ መንግስቲ ኤርትራ ንስደት ከም ምንጪ ናይ ወጻኢ ባጤራ ንኽጥቀመሉን ብስእነተ ስራሕ ክፍጠር ንዝኽእል ህዝባዊ ናዕብታታ ንምዕጋትን ኰነ ኢሉ ዘተባብዖ ዘሎ ፖሊሲ ምዃኑ ኣስሚርሉ።
3. መሬት፦
ዲክታቶርያዊ ስርዓት ኤርትራ ብሰንኪ ጻሕታሪ ግርጭታት ዝዀነ ፖሊሲታቱ፡ ሰፊሕ ክፋል ካብ መሬት ኤርትራ ኣብ ትሕቲ ናይ ኢትዮጵያ ክወድቕ ምግባሩ። ነዚ መሬት’ዚ ብሓይሊ ይኹን ብሰላም ክመልስ ዘይምብቃዑ፡ ንልዑላውነት ሃገር ንሓደጋ ዘቃልዐ ስርዓት ምዃኑ ኣረዲኡ። ኣብ’ዚ እዋን’ዚ እውን ማያት፡ መሬትን ሰማያትን ኤርትራ ንናይ ወጻኢ ሓይልታት ኣሕሊፉ ሂቡ ምህላውን እዚ ኣብ መጻኢ ክፈጥሮ ዝኽእል ጸገማትን እውን ኣሚቱ።
4. ኣህጕራዊ ተፈላጥነት፦
ብቓልስን ድምጽን ህዝቢ ኤርትራ ዝተረጋገጸ ኣህጕራዊ ተፈላጥነት ኤርትራ ጌና ኣብ ቦታኡ ዘሎ እኳ እንተዀነ፡ ስርዓት ኤርትራ ብዝኽተሎ ዘሎ ግጉይ ፖሊሲታት፡ ንሓደጋ ክቃላዕ ከምዝኽእል ድማ ኣዘኻኺሩ።
ሓው መንግስተኣብ ኣስመሮም፡ ብሓደ ሸነኽ ኤርትራ ከምሃገር ናብ ፍሽለት ገጻ ተምርሕ ከምዘላ፤ ብኻልእ ሽነኽ ከኣ፡ ነታ ሃገር ካብ ፍሽለት ከድሕን ዝኽእል ዝተጠርነፈ ተቓዋሚ ሓይሊ ዘይምህላው፡ ንሰልፊ ዲሞክራሲ ህዝቢ ኤርትራ ኣዝዩ ዘሻቕል ጕዳይ ምዃኑ ሓቢሩ።
ካብ’ዚ ተበጊሱ፡ ኣድላይነት ናይ ሓባራዊ ዕዮ ተቓወምቲ ውድባት ኤርትራ፡ ህጹጽን ዕዙዝን ጕዳይ ምዃኑ ኣስሚርሉ። ቀጺሉ፡ ዝሓላፈ ተመኵሮታት ናይ ሓባራዊ ዕዮ፡ ብሰንኪ ቀዳምነታት ዘይምስራዕን ብሰንኪ ናይ ህልኽን ኣሉታዊ ናይ ምውድዳር መንፈስን ክሰምር ወይ ክዕወት ከምዘይከኣለ ገሊጹ።
ነዚ ንምፍዋስ ኣብ’ዘን ዝስዕባ መትከላት ዝተሰረተ፡ ሓባራዊ ዲፕሎማስያዊ፡ ዜናውን ህዝባውን ዕዮ ክካየድ ከምዝግባእ ኣገንዚቡ። ነዚ ንምግባር ድማ ሰዲህኤ ምስ ኵለን ተቓወምቲ ውድባት ክራኸብን ኣብ ናይ እንካን ሃባን መስርሕ ክኣቱን ድልዊ ምህላዉ ኣረዲኡ።
1. ምዕቃብ ልኡላዊ ግዝኣት ኤርትራ፤
2. ምውዳቕ ዲክታቶርያዊ ስርዓት ህግደፍን ምልጋስ መሓውራት ጭቆናኡን፤
3. ድሕሪ ውድቐት ስርዓት ህግደፍ፡ ኣብዝሓ ሰልፋዊ ስርዓት ዝሰረቱ ህዝባዊ ዲሞክራስያዊ ስርዓት ምቛም፤
4. ግዝኣተ ሕግን ዲሞክራስያዊ መሰላትን መላእ ሓርነታትን ህዝቢ ምቕባል፤ ዝብላ ኢየን።
ኣብ መወዳእታ፡ ካብ ኣኼበኛታት ንዝቐረበሉ ሕቶታት መሊሱ። ኣኼበኛታት ድማ፡ ኣዝዩ ብጋህዲ ዝስምዖም ርእይቶታን ለበዋታትን ኣቕሪቦም።
by Leonard Vincent and Martin Plaut
Introduction
You might think that a regime that incarcerates and tortures its citizens – regularly; that holds its people in complete subjection – would be cold-shouldered.[1]
You might think that a government that is held by a United Nations Commission to have been guilty crimes against humanity would not really be attractive to foreign supporters.
You might think that a State without a constitution, independent judiciary or free press, and in which the only applicable law is the caprice of an unelected President, would be ostracised by people of good conscience around the world.
You might think that an administration that holds most of its citizens in perpetual servitude, under the guise of ‘National Service’, would be an international pariah.
And in the case of Eritrea you would, on the whole, be right. Of course some European governments, fed up with the flood of Eritrean refugees crossing the Mediterranean, are now seeking to achieve a ‘new engagement’ with President Isaias’s government to halt the exodus, even though there continues to be some resistance to this project in Brussels and certain European capitals.
The same cannot be said of a group of foreign individuals and institutions who have become what might be termed ‘friends of the Eritrean government.’ For a variety of reasons they have become its ‘cheerleaders’ abroad. They are, of course, not to be confused with friends of the Eritrean people (among whom are both authors of this article). These are supporters the government of President Isaias Afwerki, no matter how compelling the evidence of human rights violations in the nation over which he presides. This article will look briefly at these foreign ‘friends’.
Ruby Sandhu
Ruby Sandhu is a British lawyer, and a partner with the law firm, The Brooke Consultancy LLP.[2] Her website says she has: “…worked on corporate commercial law, high profile cases, involving abuse of due process, political prisoners and politically exposed persons requiring a multi-jurisdictional approach to complex issues. She combines this experience to focus on Business and Human Rights law from a systems and organisational perspective.”
Ms Sandhu highlights her ethical interests and concerns: “Ruby is a passionate animal rights advocate and practising ethical vegan. She enjoys solo outdoor trail running with her springer spaniel (Bono), cycling and yoga.”
No hint here that she would ever countenance advocacy work supportive of one of the world’s most repressive regimes. Yet her tweets tell a rather different story. Ms Sandhu has publicised Eritrean government press statements criticising the work of the Commission of Inquiry of the UN Human Rights Council.
Other tweets have praised the achievements of the country, with no reference to the appalling repression which its population suffers.
In public forums, Ruby Sandhu has gone out of her way to argue that Eritrea is misunderstood, and that critics of the regime are misguided. In a discussion at the Overseas Development Institute – Britain’s top development think-tank – she argued that it was necessary to adopt a new approach and to “engage in a manner that is constructive.”[3] What is required, she argued, is a “more holistic, engaged and innovative approach”. It was only fifty minutes into the discussion, after being challenged by Martin Plaut, that she revealed a key fact that had been omitted when she was introduced as a member of the panel: Ruby Sandhu is a consultant, paid by Nevsun Resources, which is mining in Eritrea. “I must disclose I am a consultant for Nevsun Resources Limited,” she told the meeting.
Ms Sandhu’s relationship with Nevsun can be found on the company’s website.
Here Ms Sandhu is described as playing “…a key advisory role in advising the company on best practices in the rapidly-evolving field of international business conduct.” She also liaises with “…diverse stakeholder groups in the U.K. and European Union.”
Nevsun is named in the UN Commission of Inquiry Report as having been implicated in the use of forced labour at its Bisha mine. “The Commission collected evidence that forced labour occurred in the context of the development and exploitation of the Bisha mine, 150 km west of Asmara, which to date is the only mine in operation in Eritrea.”[4] On 20 November 2014, three Eritreans filed a lawsuit against Nevsun in the Supreme Court of British Columbia, Canada, complaining that Nevsun had relied upon forced labour to develop the project. The case continues.
Ms Sandhu has intervened in a range of public forums, often explaining that the situation in Eritrea is more “complex” than its critics would suggest, and calling for an understanding of the problems it faces as a developing country. It is a position that is similar to that adopted by Eritrean government spokesmen when speaking to international audiences.
Bronwyn Bruton
Bronwyn Bruton, is deputy director of the Africa Center, which is run by the US think tank, the Atlantic Council, which is another beneficiary of Nevsun’s largess. After some prevarication, she confirmed to a US Congressional hearing that Nevsun Resources provided the Atlantic Council with $105,000 in the financial year 2015.[5]
Ms Bruton has appeared on panels organised by the youth wing of Eritrea’s ruling party, the YPFDJ, with Todd Romaine, Vice-President of Nevsun. Despite this, she told the Congressional hearing she had “no direct relationship with Nevsun.”
According to testimony before the Congressional hearing Ms Bruton has regularly appeared on such platforms.
At the same time Ms Bruton does not deny the human rights abuses practiced by the Eritrean government. When asked by Congressman Christopher Smith about this she was unequivocal.
“Mr. SMITH. Let me just ask you with regards to the human rights situation, the State Department’s Country Reports on Human Rights Practices is an indictment on a myriad of human rights abuses being committed. I mentioned the CPC designation based on religious persecution and Father Ghebre-Ab elaborated on just a number of people who are actually incarcerated for their faith and the Tier 3 designation by the U.S. Department of State’s TIP office, which painstakingly looks at child and sex trafficking, they’re among the worst in the world. Do you agree with that or disagree with that?
Ms. BRUTON. I do not disagree with that.”
That would appear to be clear enough. But Ms Bruton practices what was perhaps best be described by the philosopher Roland Barthes as ‘Operation Margarine’.[6] This requires first accepting that something is bad and clearly unacceptable, but then gradually qualifying this judgement, before finally suggesting that one’s initial belief was just prejudice (as in the comparison between margarine and butter, in the Barthes example.)
In Ms Bruton’s case this is clearly revealed in her article for the New York Times entitled: ‘It’s bad in Eritrea, but not that bad.’[7] Here she first accepts a number of shortcomings of the regime (no constitution, many dissidents detained and never heard of again, no opposition parties, etc.) She then goes on to attack the findings of the UN Commission of Inquiry, arguing that: “The Eritrean government deserves to be called out for these practices. But the criticism, to be credible and effective, must be scrupulously fair, and the commission’s report is not. It extrapolates from anecdotal examples — like instances of rape by military forces — to allege systemic abuses and blame them on state policy.”
In her opinion the 500 interviews conducted by the UN Commission,[8] can be dismissed as merely ‘anecdotal examples,’ despite the fact that they included first-hand accounts of the most egregious crimes, including rape, torture and enslavement. Ms Bruton admits that Eritrea has a poor record, only to then undermined the case against the regime. As a result, the situation in Eritrea is obfuscated.
Another example of this technique is the Eritrean government’s policy of ordering its border guards to shoot to kill anyone attempting to flee across its border illegally. The UN Commission of Inquiry detailed the policy and spoke to witnesses who had evidence that it was practiced.[9] Yet Ms Bruton dismissed this, saying: “The COIE’s claim that Eritrea maintains a “shoot to kill” policy on the border is an especially egregious example—I’ve never heard of any meaningful evidence that would support that claim, except perhaps in a few, highly militarized spaces along the border, where Eritrea is actively in conflict with its neighbors. But even there, the evidence seems thin.”[10]
It is extraordinary for a senior research analyst working for a major think-tank to claim that she had never heard of ‘any meaningful evidence’ to this effect. There is considerable evidence for Eritrea’s shoot to kill policy which is readily available, not least from reputable organisation like Human Rights Watch. As HRW stated in its 2015 report: “Since 2004, over 200,000 Eritreans have fled to remote border camps in eastern Sudan and Ethiopia, evading Eritrean border guards with shoot to kill orders against people leaving without permission.”[11]
The cumulative effect of these denials is to whitewash one of the worst human rights abusers in Africa. Francoise Christophe, a former political attaché at the French embassy in Eritrea, concluded after reviewing Ms Bruton’s work that, “…the Atlantic Council’s artful spin amounts to nothing less than revisionism.”[12]
Toni Locher
Toni Locher is a Swiss citizen, who founded SUKE – the Swiss Support Committee for Eritrea.[13] The organisation’s annual reports date back to 2008.[14] Dr Locher works with two other Swiss citizens, Hans-Ulrich Stauffer, a lawyer, who recently published a book called “Eritrea – the second glance”[15] and Pablo Loosli, who is married to an Eritrean citizen and is the chairwoman of the Eritrean cultural association of Bern.
Dr Locher is the honorary consul for Eritrea in Switzerland.[16] In this capacity he regularly supports the Eritrean government, although he denies that he is a lobbyist. Dr Locher says he is not paid for his work, but has rather won the trust of the Eritrean regime after years of dedicated commitment to the country.[17]
Photo: Die Weltwoche
Dr Locher, who is an obstetrician, says he began his involvement in Eritrean politics after being involved in far-left politics as a student in Switzerland.[18] He made links with the Eritrean liberation movement, the EPLF, and its aid wing the Eritrea Relief Association. When Eritrea became independent he founded the Swiss Support Committee for Eritrea to help develop the country. And – in his view – Eritrea has made great strides in its development. “I am not a politician, but a doctor and I see the development of the country and I say ‘yes,’ this country has a chance.’”
At the same time, he takes controversial stances on key questions. The system of indefinite National Service in Eritrea, is regarded as a form of slavery[19] by the UN Commission of Inquiry since it can continue for decades. Yet it is portrayed by Dr Locher in a rather different light. In a newspaper interview he appeared to regard it as a legitimate form of nation-building.[20] ‘“A large part of the civilian service is provided, for example, as teachers in the villages. This is, of course, hard, and it is not particularly appealing to young city dwellers,’ says Dr. Locher. The pay has been relatively modest, but he says it has recently been greatly increased. Other operations are being carried out in the ‘Land of a thousand dams,’ as Eritrea is also called. Or help the farmers at the harvest. While not denying that Eritrea is an autocratic state, Dr Locher’s position is that African states need time to develop democratic structures.”
Dr Locher organised a mission to take six Swiss Parliamentarians to Eritrea in February 2016.[21] The politicians returned, explaining to the media that most Eritreans arriving in Switzerland were economic migrants, rather than refugees.[22] They also called for a diplomatic dialogue with the Eritrean government, as a way of resolving the refugee issue.[23] Only one parliamentarian, Ms. Yvonne Fehri, who was part of this mission, refused to sign the motion, saying she had been unable to obtain sufficient insight into Eritrea’s detention policies or the role of its military.
Thomas Mountain
Thomas C. Mountain was born in Honolulu, Hawaii. He told a conference of Eritrea’s sole legal party in Stockholm in July 2006, that he was someone who always believed in the “armed struggle,” rather than democracy.[24] He says he has supported the Eritrean liberation movement since 1983 and in 2006 decided to move to Eritrea with his Eritrean wife, where he has remained ever since. Mr Mountain lives in Massawa, enjoying the fishing, and moving to Asmara when it becomes too hot. “It’s a good life for us,” he says, even though there are problems with water and electricity.
Mr Mountain describes himself as an independent journalist. He writes for Counterpunch – which he says is “the largest, most reliable left-wing website in the United States.” He says it publishes most of his articles, and certainly the website have carried a number by Mr Mountain.[25] Other left wing websites also take what he says, but he has had little success with more mainstream media.
It is not hard to see why this is the case. Some of his claims are simply incorrect. In October 2016, he claimed that Cuba and Eritrea have many similarities, and went on to make this claim. “Cuba is the only country in Latin America to come to power through armed struggle, just as Eritrea is the only country in Africa to come to power out of the barrel of a gun.”[26] Zimbabweans would find this difficult to credit; so would Angolans, Mozambiquans and Rwandans – to name but a few.
Mr Mountain suggested that Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch were paid by the US State Department to undermine the Eritrean government.[27] He also believes that the opposition by members of the Eritrean diaspora to a conference being held by the Eritrean ruling party in the Netherlands was evidence of the rise of fascism and racism.[28] “Their ‘crime’? Being Eritrean, that is supporting their country publicly in the midst of a racist and fascist fullisade [sic.] of attacks by right and left wing Europeans against any and all things Eritrean.”
Such views are unlikely to gain Mr Mountain much of a following outside of the far-left media, although he says he is sometimes approached by Russian Radio for contributions. His influence beyond Eritrea is limited.
Sihem Souid
In France, Sihem Souid also presents herself as a ‘friend of Eritrea’. Ms Souid, a former French policewomen, now describes herself as a ‘communication operative’, whose clients include Saudi Arabia.[29] In 2015 and 2016, she obtained Eritrean visas and interviews with Eritrean politicians for the French press, and has personally accompanied French journalists during their carefully monitored ‘tours’ of the country. After one such visit Ms Souid described Eritrea as “a land run by women” on her personal blog, hosted by the website of the renowned right-wing weekly Le Point.[30] She even served as a press attaché for the Eritrean embassy in Paris: her mobile phone was the contact number provided on the embassy’s letterhead when it organised a press conference to try to smear the author of a TV report critical of the Eritrean regime after it had been broadcast by the public channel France 2.
Conclusion
These ‘friends’ are not without influence. In their professional capacities, Ruby Sandhu (in the UK) and Bronwyn Bruton (in the USA) have received funding from Nevsun Resources, a company which clearly believes they need to, and can, polish their international image. Ms Bruton has given evidence to Congress, while Ms Sandhu has spoken in the British Parliament. Ms Bruton has been used by the media as a serious commentators. Toni Locher (although honorary consul for Eritrea), Sihem Souid and Thomas Mountain are more peripheral figures, and there is no evidence they were paid for their work.
There is growing interest by mining houses in Eritrea’s minerals and they may well wish to fund consultants and spokespeople to intervene to improve Eritrea’s image in the international community. In the era of mass communication, good business means, first of all, a good business climate. After years of isolation, international corporations are starting to return. The French oil giant Total has in fact inaugurated a brand-new refinery in the port of Massawa.
The European Union has become ‘re-engaged’ with the country once more and member states are encouraging some non-governmental organisations to follow their lead. Finnish Church Aid is already operational in Eritrea; others may follow. Finnish Church Aid held a meeting at the United Nations with the Eritrean government and UNDP in October 2016.[31] For the Eritrean government, isolated and shunned by large sections of the international community, this was manna from heaven.
Together these groups and individuals, who are supportive of the Eritrean regime, despite its notorious reputation, could gain influence. They form a subtle system designed to ‘bring back Eritrea from the cold’. It is therefore all the most surprising that corporate lobbyists can be presented as well-informed commentators of a distant country.
It is worth noting, however, that so far these lobbyists and activists have not gained sufficient weight to prevent the UN Human Rights Council from continuing to hold the Eritrean government to account. In June 2017, the Council condemned “…in the strongest terms the reported systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations that have been and are being committed by the Government of Eritrea in a climate of generalized impunity.” The Council also renewed the mandate of Sheila Keetharuth, the Special Rapporteur for Eritrea.[32]
The balance of forces within the international community still upholds the reports of the UN and the work of groups like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. But if Eritrea’s links with the Saudis grows; its ties with various mining companies develop, and the EU works with the regime to halt refugees from crossing the Mediterranean, these human rights concerns could carry less weight. Ethical considerations might finally be waved aside. Anyone dismissing this possibility need look no further than the case of Sudan and President Omar al-Bashir.
Source=https://martinplaut.wordpress.com/2017/06/26/who-are-eritreas-foreign-friends/
