Saturday, 01 February 2020 21:19

U.S. expanding immigrant limits

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/

Saturday, 01 February 2020 20:26

Radio Dimtsi Harnnet Sweden 01.02.2020

Written by

“ንጽባሕ ዝብል ኣየጽበሓሉ” ዝብል ኣበሃህላ ልሙድ እዩ። ናይዚ ምሳልያዊ ኣበሃህላ መልእኽቲ፡ ሎሚ ክዕመምን ክትግበርን ዝግበኦ ብዘይወዓል ሕደር ሎሚ ክፍጸም ኣለዎ ንምባል እምበር፡ ንናይ ጽባሕ ግደን ሓላፍነትን ንምጉሳይ ወይ ንምንእኣስ ዝበሃል ኣይኮነን። ከምቲ ብዛዕባ ሎሚ ክንሓስብ እንከለና፡ ንትማሊ ጠሪስና ክንርሰዖ ዘይግበኣና፡ ብዛዕባ ሎሚ ክንሓስብ እንከለና ብዛዕባ ጽባሕ እውን ኣብ ግምት ከነእቱ ናይ ግድን እዩ። እቲ ክንጥንቀቐሉ ዝግበኣና ኣብ መንጎ፡ ትማሊ፡ ሎምን ጽባሕን ዘለና ኣድህቦ ከነመጣጥን ክንበቅዕ ዝግበኣና ምዃኑ እዩ። ዝያዳ ናብ ትማሊ እንተ ኣዛዚና፡ ኣብ ዝሓለፈ ክንነብር ኢና። ኣብ ሎሚ ጥራይ እንተ ኣድሂብና ድማ ኩሉ ግዜ ኣብ ደውታ ንኸውን። ብዛዕባ ጽባሕ ጥራይ እንተ ኣድሂብና ከኣ ተመነይቲ ጥራይ ኮይና ክንተርፍ ንኽእል። ብዛዕባ ኣገዳስነት ኣብ ሎሚ ኮይንካ ብዛዕባ ጽባሕ ምሕሳብ “ብናይ ትማሊ ድኽመት ጥራይ ከማርር ወይ ብዛዕባ ናይ ትማሊ ኣውንታ ጥራይ ክሕበን ዝነብር፡ መጻኢ ብሩህ ተስፋ ዘየብሉ እዩ” ዝበሃል ከኣ ነዚ ንምብራህ እዩ።

ጽባሕ ካብ ትማልን ሎምን ዝሓሸ ናይ ምዃን ዕድል ኣለዎ፡ ምኽንያቱ ካብ ክልቲኡ ናይ ምምሃርን ምሙኳርን ዕድል ስለ ዘለዎ። ንሕና ከም ናይ ለውጢ ደንበ ዝሓለፈ ተመኩሮና ክንድህስስ እንከለና፡ ናብ ድሕሪት ኣርሒቑ ክወሰድና ሰለ ዝኽእል፡ ዝሓለፈ 20 ዓመታት ጥራይ’ኳ እንተዳህሰስና፡ ብዙሕ ዘጣዕሰና ሕጽረታትን ዝሓለፈና ዕድላትን ክንረክብ ንኽእል። እዚታት ኣካል ናይቲ ዝሓለፍናዮ ጉዕዞ ስለ ዝኸነ ሓጢጥና እንድርብዮ ኣይኮነን። ኣብ ክንዳኡ ካብኡ ክንመሃር እሞ ሎሚ ኮነ ጽባሕ ከይንደግሞ ጥራይ ኢና ክንጥንቀቕ ዝግበኣና። ናይ ትማሊ ተመኩሮና ሓኺኽካ ብምልኡ ኣሉታዊ  ጥራይ ነይሩ ኢልካ እትጉሕፎ ኣይኮነን። ከምኡ ስለ ዘይኮነ ኢና ከኣ ክሳብ ሎሚ ምስ ኩሉ ሓጐጽጐጽ ኣብ መስመር ቃልሲ ምእንቲ ለውጢ ቀጺልና ዘለና። እቲ ምቕጻልና ትርጉም ዘለዎ ምቕጻል ክኸውን ከኣ ካብቲ ቆላሕታ ክንህቦ ዝግበኣና ዕማም ካብቲ ኣሉታዊ ኮነ ኣውንታዊ ተመኩሮና ምምሃር እዩ። ስለዚ ነቲ ዓበይቲ ናይ ትማሊ ሕጽረታት እንዳወገድና፡ ነቲ ናእሽቱ ኣብ ክሳብ ሕጂ ምቕጻልና ግደ ዘበርከተ ኣውንታታት ዝያዳ ከነዕኩኾን ከነማዕብሎን ክንቃለስ ይግበኣና።

ኣብ ታራ ናይ ኣጋር  ጉዕዞ እኳ፡ ደኒንና መሬት እንዳረኣና ኣይኮናን እንኸይድ፡ ኣብ ክንድኡ ንቕድሚትን የማነ ጸጋምን ኣንዊሕና ኣማዕዲና እንዳጠመትና፡ ኣብ ቅድሜና ዘሎ ዕንቅፋታት ብኸመይ ክንሓልፎ ከም ዝግበኣና፡ ብሓሳብ እንዳወገንናን መማረጽታት እንዳ ኣስፈርናን ኢና ንኸይድ። ከምኡ እንተዘይገርና ግና ምስ ኣቐዲምና ዘይረኣናዮ ዕንቅፋት ተላቲምና ናይ ምውዳቕ ዕድልና ሰፊሕ እዩ። ኣንዊሕካ ናይ ምጥማት ጠቕሚ ከኣ ካብ ኣብ ዘይሓሰብካዮ ምውዳቕ ሓደጋ የድሕነና። እዚ ማለት ኣብ ፖለቲካዊ ምስርሕ እቲ ዝኸበደ፡ ሎሚ ኣብ ኢድካ ዘሎ ምምሕዳር ዘይኮነ፡ ብዛዕባ ጽባሕ ከጋጥም ዝኽል ከሎ ጌና ክትእምት ምብቃዕን ዘይምብቃዕን እዩ።

ሎሚ ብጉዳይ ፖለቲካ ሃገርና ክንሓስብ እንከለና፡ ኣብ እንዳ ገዛኢ ጉጅለ ህግዲፍ ኮነ፡ ኣብቲ እንዳሓደረ ዝልብም ዘሎ ደንበ ተቓውሞና ብዙሓት ምዕባለታት ኣለዉ። ብትሕዝተኦም ከኣ ተጻረርቲ እዮም። ምዕባለታት ኣብ እንዳ ገዛኢ ጉጅለ ህግድፍ፡ እቲ ኣብ ልዕሊ ህዝብና ክፍጸም ዝጸንሐን ዘሎን ወጽዓ ከይኣክል፡ ሃገር ኣብ ሓደጋ ናይ ምእታውን ንህዝቢ ተስፋ ናይ ምቑራጽን ምልክታት እዩ። ብኣንጻሩ ኣብ ደንበ ለውጢ ካብ ናይ ቅድሚ ሕጂ ምብትታንን ምንጽጻግን ተማሂርካ፡ ህዝብን ሃገርን ናይ ምድሓን ናይ ሓባር ዓቕሚ ናይ ምድላብ ድልዉነት ኢና ንዕዘብ ዘለና። እዚ ትስፉው ምጽልላም፡ ምንጽጻግን ምርሕሓቕን ዘወግድ ዘሎ ምዕባለ ደንበና ሎሚ ዝስራሕ ዘሎ ጥራይ ዘይኮነ፡ ብናይ ትማሊ ተመኩሮ ዝሃብተመ ጽባሕ ከኣ ኣብ ዘተኣማምን ባይታ ዝረግጽ እዩ።

ሎሚ ማእከላይን ቀዳማይን ዕማም ሓይልታት ለውጢ፡ ልኡላውነት ኤርትራ ምዕቃብ፡ ወጻዒ ጉጅለ ህግደፍ ምውጋድን ተሳትፎ ኩሎም ኤርትራውያን ኣብ መስርሕ ለውጢ ምውሓስን እዮም። ኣብዚ እነድምዕ ከኣ ካብ ናይ ትማሊ ጉዕዞና ተመኩሮ ብምድላብ እዩ። ተመኩሮ ምድላብ ክንብል እንከለና፡ ነቲ ትማሊ ነዚ ናይ ሓባር ዕላማ ከይነዕውት ክዕንቅፈና ዝጸንሐ ግጉይ ኣተሓሳስባን ኣተሓሕዛን ዘይምድጋሙ ማለት እዩ። እዚ ካብ ተመኩሮኻ ምምሃር ካብ ውልቀ ሰብ ጀሚርካ ክሳብ ውድባት ሰልፍታትን ማሕበራትን ክምዕብል ዝግበኦ እዩ። እዚ ክንብል እንከላና ግና ንጽባሕ ረሲዕና ኣብ ትማልን ሎምን ጥራይ ነኹድድ ማለት ኣይኮነን። ነዚ ጭቋንን ብክብሪ ሃገርን ህዝብን ዝዋገን ጉጅለ ምስ ኣወገድና፡ “ከመይ ዝኣመሰለት ኤርትራ ኢና ክንሃንጽ” ዝብል ኣተሓሳስባ ኣብ ኣእምሮና ቦታ ኣይህልዎን ማለት ኣይኮነን። ኣብ ሎሚ ኮይና ክሳብ ጽባሕ ኣንዊሕና እንተዘይጠሚትና እሞ ቃልስና “ካብ ኢድ ናብ ኣፍ” እዩ ክኸውን። እቲ ቀንዲ ውሕልነት እምበኣር ኣብዚ ሰንሰለታዊ መስርሕ ቃልሲ፡ ንትማሊ፡ ንሎምን ጽባሕን እንህቦ ኣድህቦ ተመጣጣኒ ክኸውን ይግበኦ። ኣብቲ መስርሕ እቲ ቀላሲ ሎሚ እነካይዶ ፍጻመ ኮይኑ፡ ንናይ ትማሊ ተመኩሮ፡ ብፍላይ ከኣ ንናይ ጽባሕ ውጥን ግቡእ ቀልቢ ዝህብ ክኸውን ይግበኦ። ናይ ሎሚ ቀዳማይ ሓላፍነትና ምውጋድ ጭቆና ህግዲፍ እዩ። እቲ ናይ ጽባሕ ንልዕልናን ወሳንነትን ህዝቢ ቅድሚት ዝሰርዕ ብሕገመንግስቲ ዝግራሕ ብዙሕነታዊ መተካእታ ንምዱኳን ከኣ ምስ ምውጋድ ጨቋኒ ጉጅለ ተኣሳሲሩ ዝኸይድ እዩ። እምበኣር መተካእታ ንምዱኳን፡ ምውጋድ ጭቆና ኣብ ኤርትራ ዘይስገር ቅድመ-ተደላይነት እዩ። ስለዚ ኣብ ኩሉ ጉዳያት ንቕሎናን ተበግሶናን ቀዳምነት ክንህቦ ዝግበኣና እዩ።

"ይኣክል" ጭርሖ ቃልሲ ስለዝኾነ፡ ቃልሲ መዓስ ተጀሚሩ መዓስ'ከ ክውዳእ ኢዩ ኢልካ ምሕታት የዋህነት ክመስል ይኽእል ኢዩ። እንተኾነ ግን፡ ቃልሲ በቢእዋኑ ኣብ መስርሑ ብርክታት እናገበረ ስለዝጎዓዝ በቢብርኩ ክትዛረበሉ ስለ ዝከኣል ኣብቲ ደሚቑ፡ ከም ማዕበል ኮይኑ ዝተራእየሉ እዋን፡ ብዝረኸቦ ቆላሕታ ከም ሽዑ ዝጀመረ ከምስሎ ስለ ዝኽእልን እቲ ሕቶ ምኽንያታዊ ኢዩ ዝኸውን።

ዝደፍኦ ኣጋጣሚ ረኺቡ፡ ከም ማዕበል፡ ብዝለዓለን ብዝሰፍሐን መልክዑ ናይ ይኣክል ድምጺ ዝተጨደረሉ መድረኽ፡ ከም ሓደ ነጥበ-መቐይሮ ብርኪ ናይ መስርሕ ቃልስና ክውሰድ ይኽእል ኢዩ። እዚ ንደረጃ ቃልሲ ኣንጻር ምልኪ ናብ ዝለዓለ ጥርዙ ዘሰጋገረ ናይ ቃልሲ ተርእዮ ብዝተፈላለየ ዓይኒ ክጥመት ኣኽኢሉ ኢዩ።

ንምልካዊ ስርዓት ኤርትራ ዓቢ ራዕድን ፍርሕን ፈጢርሉ። ንክቕህሞ ድማ ኩሉ ዓቕሚታቱ ኣዋፊርሉ ዘሎ ጉዳይ ኢዩ። ንኣብ ስቓይ ዝነብር ኣብ ውሽጢ ሃገር ዘሎ ህዝቢ ኤርትራ ተስፋ ለውጢ ዘሕደረሉ፡ ከይዳኸምን ትዓዊቱ ክወጽእን ብሃንቀውታ ዝጸበዮ ዘሎ ኢዩ። ነቲ ምእንቲ ፍትሒ ዝቃለስ ዝነበረ ነባር ሓይልታት ድማ ተወሳኺን ወራስን ሓይሊ ብምርካቡ ከም ዓወት ዝቖጸረሉ ኢዩ።

ማዕበል ይኣክል ብዙሓት ክምለሱ ዝግብኦም ሕቶታትን ብድሆታትን ሓቑፉ ምምጽኡ ግን ኣይተረፎን።

ገለ ሸነኻት፡ ንማዕበል ይኣክል ንናቶም ጥሙሓት ፖለቲካዊ ስልጣን ንምርግጋጽ ክዝውርዎ ዝሓስቡ ኣይተሳእኑን፥

ገለ ሸነኻት ድማ፡ ካብ ፖለቲካዊ ሕሳባቶም ወጻኢ ኮይኑ ስለዝተራእዮም እቲ ማዕበል ንሳቶም ብዝቆጻጸርዎ እንተዘይኮይኑ፡ ከይስስን ዝደልዩውዎን ኣማዕድዮም  ዝጥምትዎን ተራእዮም።

ካልኦት ውን፡ ንማዕበል ይኣክል ከም ንብረቶም ብምቑጻር ንነባራት ተቓለስቲ ክሕውሱ ዘይምድላይ መንፈስ ኣርእዮም።

ብኣንጻሮም ድማ፡ ኣብ ማዕበል ይኣክል ዝተዋሰኑ ኮይኑ ዝስምዖም ብስግኣት ዝጥምትዎ ሸነኻት ወዘተ... ዝዓይነቶም ኣካላት ተኸሲቶም ኢዮም።

ማዕበል ይኣክል ብፍሉይ ኣጋጣሚ ተበራቲዑ ከም ዝመጸ ተርእዮን ደምበ ፍትሒ ድማ ኣብ ሓድሕዱ ስጥመትን ምርድዳእን ኣብ ዘይውንነሉ ኩነታት ብምንባሩ፡ እዚኦም ክኽሰቱ ዘይንቡር ኣይነበረን። እቲ ኣገዳሲ ነገር ዝኸውን ግን፡ ናይዞም ስምዒታት'ዚኦም ጠንቂ ክኾኑ ዝኽእሉ ሕቶታታት ኣለሊኻ ምምላስ ኢዩ። ነዚ ሕቶታት'ዚ ንምምላስ ድማ፡ ኩለን ኣብ ሃሃገሩ ዘለዋ ባይቶታት ይኣክል ብዕቱብ ክሰርሓሉ ይህልወን። ነዚ ሕቶታት'ዚ መሊሰንን ኣብሪሀንን ኣብ ስራሕ ዝኣተዋ ባይቶታት ህሉዋት ከም ዘለዋ’ውን ምዝካር ዘድሊዮ ኢዩ።

ካብቶም ድርኺት ናይዚ ዝተፈላለየ ኣጠማምታ ክህልዉ ዘኽእሉ፡ ምብራህ ካብ ዘድሊዮም ገለ-ገለ ሕቶታት ነዚኦም ምጥቃስ ይከኣል።

1/ ናይ ዋንነት ሕቶ፡ ይኣክል ናይ መን ኢዩ?

2/ ዕላማ ይኣክል እንታይ ኢዩ?

3/ ውደባ ዝምልከት ሕቶ፡ ይኣክል ፖለቲካዊ ውድብ ዲዩ ምንቅስቓስ?

4/ ናይ ቅርጻ ዝምልከት ሕቶ፡ ናይ ይኣክል ቅርጻ ከመይ ይኹን?

5/ ይኣክል፡ ግደኡ ኣብ ለውጢ?

6/ ይኣክል ክሳብ መዓስ'ዩ?

እዞም ሕቶታት'ዚኦም መሰረታዊ ሕቶታት ስለዝኾኑ፡ ዕቱብ ምይይጥን ዘተን ተኻይድሎም ክውገኑ ዝግብኦም ኢዮም። ኣነ ብዝርድኣኒ ሓሳበይ ከቕርብ እንተኾይነ ግን፡ ይኣክል ናይ መን ኢዩ? ንዝብል ሕቶ፡ ማዕበል ይኣክል ናይ ህዝቢ ድምጺ ኢዩ። በቢቦትኡን በቢግዚኡን እናተዋህለለ ክመጽእ ዝጸንሐ ናይ ህዝቢ ምንቅስቓስ ዝፈጠሮ ማዕበል ኢዩ። እዚ ኣብ ውሽጢ ዝተፋላለየ መድረኻት መስርሕ ቓልስና ክግበር ዝጸንሐ ናይ ተቓውሞ ድምጽን ምንቅስቓስን ዝሕግዞ ኣጋጣሚ ረኺቡ ዝተፍጥረ ህዝባዊ ባርዕ ኢዩ። እኩብ ድምር ናይቶም ብጊሓቱ ንመንነት ዲክታቶርያዊ ስርዓት ፈሊጦም ዝተቓለሱን ስዒቦም ንመንነቱ ኣለሊዮም ይኣክል ዝበሉን ኢዩ። እዚ እናተደራረበ ዝኸይድ ኣገባብ'ዚ ሒዙ ይጎዓዝ ብምህላው ኢዩ ድማ ቃልሲ ናብ ዝለዓለ ጥርዙ በጺሑ መላእ ህዝቢ ዝዋደቐሉ ዝገብሮ።

ብንጽር ዝበለ፡ ማዕበል ይኣክል ኣብ ዝተፈላለየ እዋናት ዝተጸናበሩ፡ ካብ ሰለስተ ኣመጻጽኣ ኣቕጣጫ ዘለዎም ወሓይዝ-- ውዱባትን ዘይውዱባትን ደለይቲ ፍትሒ ኤርትራውያን ተዋህሊሉ ዝቖመ ህዝባዊ ማዕበል ከም ዝኾነ ክምስከር ይክኣል ኢዩ።

ዲክታቶርያዊ ስርዓት ኣብ ኤርትራ ካብ ምትካሉ ኣትሒዞም፡ ንህዝብን ዓለምን እናኣሰምዑ ዝመጹ፡ ምእንቲ ፍትሕን ደሞክራስን ዝቃለሱ ደለይቲ ፍትሒ ሓደ ኣካል ናይ ማዕበል ይኣክል ኢዮም።

ኣብ ሰውራ ዝተኣትወ መብጽዓ ክጥለም ምስ ረኣዩ፡ ነዚ ኣይነበረን ዝተቓለስናዮን መስዋእቲ ዝኸፈልናሉን ብምባል ኣንጻር ዲክታቶርያዊ ስርዓት ዝቃለሱ ዘለዉ ደለይቲ ፍትሒ ካልእ ኣካል ናይ ማዕበል ይኣክል ኢዮም።

ንሕሰምን ስቓይን ህዝብና ናብ ዝኸፍአ ደረጃ ምኽታቱ ከይኣኽሎ፡ ንልዑላውነት ሃገር ኣብ ሓደጋ ብምእታዉን፡ ብኸቢድ መስዋእቲ ዝተረጋገጸ ሃገራዊ መንነት ውሕስነቱ እናተባሕጎገ ይኸይድ ምህላዉ ብምርኣዩን ነዚ ብቁጥዐን ነድርን ንክቃወም ዝተበገሰ ሰፊሕ ሓይሊ ሳልሳይ ኣካል ናይ ማዕበል ይኣክል ኢዩ።

ማዕበል ይኣክል በዞም ነንሕድሕዶም ዝመላልኡ ሰለስተ ነናቶም ታሪኻዊ ኣመጻጽኣ ዘለዎም ሸነኻት ዝቖመን ሓደ ዕላማ ዘለዎ ተርእዮ ኢዩ።

2/ ዕላማ ይኣክል እንታይ ኢዩ?

ኣብ ላዕሊ ተጠቒሱ ከም ዘሎ ማዕበል ይኣክል፡ ዝተፈላለየ ኣመጻጽኣ ብዘለዎም ሸነኻት ዝቖመ ኢዩ። ክሳብ እዚ ቀረባ እዋን ደገፍቲ ናይ ህግደፍ ኮይኖም ዝጸንሑ ውን ዝተጸንበርዎ ኢዩ። ኩሉ ኣብ ማዕበል ይኣክል ዝተሓቑፈ ኩነታት ሃገርና ክልወጥ ይደሊ ኣሎ። ኩሉ ዝሰማማዓሉ ዝተሓተ ኣናብባኡ ኣብ ለውጢ ድማ፡ እዚ ኣብ ኤርትራ ተተኺሉ ዘሎ ምልካዊ ስርዓት ተቐይሩ ኣብ ክንድኡ ደሞክራስያዊ ስርዓት ንምትካል ኢዩ። ሃገራውን ህዝባውን ልዑላውነት ምውሓስን ፍትሕን ደሞክራስን ንምንጋስን ኢዩ።

3/ ውደባ ዝምልከት ሕቶ

ማዕበል ይኣክል ዝተፈላለዩ ኣተሓሳስባታት ዘለዎም ሸነኻት ዝሓቖፈ ህዝባዊ ምንቅስቓስ ኢዩ። ብዙሕ መዳያት ክዓምም ዝኽእል ውን እንተኾነ፡ ብመሰረት ኣመጻጽእኡ ክረአ ከሎ ግን፡ ፖለቲካዊ ምንቅስቓስ ኢዩ። ከም ፖለቲካዊ ምንቅስቓስ፡ ኣብ ኤርትራ ንዘሎ ፖለቲካዊ ኩነታት ንምቕያር ይዋሳእ። መተካእታ ንክኸውን ወይ ፖለቲካዊ ስልጣን ንክሕዝ ግን፡ ናይ ፖለቲካዊ ውድብ መግለጺ ከውህቦ ዝኽእል መለለይታት የብሉን። መለለይታት ናይ ሓደ ፖለቲካዊ ውድብ ብዉሑዱ፡ ፖለቲካዊ መደብ ዕዮ /ፕሮግራም/፡ ውድባዊ-ቅርጻን ኣባልነትን ክህልዉ ኣለዎም።

4/ ቅርጻ ዝምልከት ሕቶ፡

ቅርጻ ናይ ሓደ ምንቅስቓስ በቲ ንሱ ክገብሮ ዝነቐለሉ ዕላማ ኢዩ ዝውሰን። ዕማማትካ ምስ እተስፍሖ  ብኡ መጠን ንቅርጻኻ እናኣማዕበልካዮ ክኽየድ ይከኣል ኢዩ።

ብመሰረቱ፡ ማዕበል ይኣክል ቦታዊ /local/ ስራሕ ማእከሉ ዝገበረ፡ ህዝቢ ኣላዓዒሉ ኣንጻር ምልካዊ ስርዓት ቃልሲ ምዕዋት ኢዩ። እዚ ምንቅስቃስ'ዚ ብዓወት ክዛዘም ቀዳምነታት ብምስራዕ በቢደረጃኡ ዝዕየ መደባት ክሕንጽጽ ይህልዎ።

ንምንቅስቓሱ ዘስርሖ ቅርጺ ክገብረሉ ካብ ቀደምቲ ዕማማቱ ሓደ ኢዩ። እዚ ኣብ ሃሃገሩ ዝኸይድ ዘሎ ምምስራት ባይቶታት ይኣክል ነዚ ቀዳማይ ዕማም'ዚ ኣብ ምፍጻም ይኸይድ ኣሎ። ቅኑዕ መንገዲ ዝሓዘ ኣሰራርሓ ድማ ክበሃል ይከኣል። ድሕሪ ምምስራት ባይቶታት'ከ ናበይ? ዝብል ሕቶ ስዒቡ ክምለስ ዘለዎ ሕቶ ኢዩ። እቲ ቅርጻ ንትኹል /ንላዕሊ/'ዶ ወይስ ንጋድም ይኺድ?

እዚ ምንቅስቓስ'ዚ ህዝቢ ንግዝኣት ምልኪ እምቢ! ይኣክል ንክብል ዘለዓዕል ምንቅስቓስ ስለዝኾነ ንጋድም ኣብ ውሽጢ ህዝቢ ክሰፍሕ ዘለዎ ኢዩ። ኣብዚ፡ ኣብ ታሕቲ ገና ዓበይቲ ስራሓት ክስርሑ ኣብ ዝጽበይሉ እዋን ቅርጻታት ንትኹል ምህናጽ መስርዑ ዝሓለወ ኣይኮነን። ኣብ በቦትኡ ሓያላት ባይቶታት ምህናጽን ንህዝቢ ኣብ ክልታቶም ከምዝዓስሉ ምግባር፡ ምትሕብባርን ምትሕግጋዝን ናይ ባይቶታት  ናይዚ እዋን' ዚ ቀንዲ ስራሓት ኢዮም።

5/ ማዕበል ይኣክል ገደኡ ኣብ ለውጢ

ናይ ህዝቢ ምንቅስቓስ ስለዝኾነ ኣብ ለውጢ ወሳኒ ግደ ኣለዎ። ኣብ ዲያስፖራ ስለዝተበገሰ፡ በቲ ዲያስፖራዊ ሓይሊ ዘለዎ ተራ ኣብ ለውጢ ዝምዘን ኣይኮነን። ስፍሓቱ ኣብ ግዳም እናዓበየ ምስ ዝኸይድ ናብ ውሽጢ ልሒሙ ንከይኣቱ ዝዓግቶ ሓይሊ ኣይህሉን ኢዩ።

ባይቶታት ይኣክል ኣብ ዘዘለዉዎ ንመሓውራት ምልካዊ ስርዓት ኣብ ክሰርሕሉ ዘይክእሉሉ ደረጃ ንምብጻሕ ክቃለሱ ኣለዎም። ኩሉ ኣብ በቦትኡ ነዚ እንተጌሩ፡ ተደማሚሩ ሞት ናይ ምልካዊ ስርዓት ከምጽእ ኢዩ።

እቲ ቀንዲ ስራሕ ናይ ባይቶታት ይኣክል ኣብ ሃሃገረን ይኹን ድኣምበር፡ ኣብ መንጎ ሃገራተን ምትሕብባርን ምትሕግጋዝን ክገብራ ግድን ኢዩ። ነዚ ዘተሓባብራሉ ኣገባብ /መካኒዝም/ ድማ ምፍጣር የድሊየን።

6/ ምንቅስቓስ ይኣክል ክሳብ መዓስ ኢዩ?

ኣብ ምንቅስቓስ ይኣክል ብዙሓት ሸነኻት ተሓቑፎም ኣለዉ። ዝተወደቡ፡ ዘይተወደቡ፡ ፖለቲካዊ ውድባት፡ ሲቪካዊ ማሕበራት፡ ሙያውያን ማሕበራት.... ወዘተ ኣትዮም ክዋስእሉ ዝኽእሉ ሰፊሕ ምንቅስቓስ ኢዩ። ዘሰማምዖም ዕላማ፡ ንምልካዊ ስርዓት ኣብ ኤርትራ ኣልጊስካ ኣብ ክንድኡ ዲሞክራስያውን ፍትሓውን ስርዓት ምትካል ኢዩ። እዚ ዕላማዚ ክሳብ ዝረጋገጽ ምንቅስቓስ ይኣክል ብዘለዎ መልክዕ ክቕጽል ኢዩ። እዚ ዕላማ'ዚ ምስ ተረጋገጸ ግን ሒዝዎ ብዝጸንሐ መልክዕ ክቕጽል ኣይክእልን። እቲ ዝመጽእ መድረኽ፡ ምስ ሓደስቲ ብድሆታት ስለ ዝመጽእ ካልእ መልክዕ ስርርዓት ዝጠልብ ክኸውን ኢዩ። ምንቅስቓስ ይኣክል ንብዙሓት ተቓለስቲ ከላሊ ስለ ዝኽእል’ውን፡ ኣብ መጻኢ  ዝዋሰኣ  ፖለቲካዊ ሰልፍታት  ኣብ ምቕራጽ ዓቢ ግደ ክህልዎ ክኽእል ኢዩ።

1 ለካቲት 2020

ቦሪስ ጆንሰን Image copyright Getty Images

 ድሕሪ ብረግዚት [ምውጻእ ብሪጣንያ ካብ ኤውሮጳዊ ሕብረት]፡ ብሪጣንያ ምስ ኣፍሪቃ ንግዲ ንምዕዛዝ ትደሊ ኣላ። ኣብ ለንደን፡ ብሪጣንያ-ኣፍሪቃ ናይ ንግዲ ዋዕላ ዝካየደሉ ዘሎ እዋን ልኡኽና ማቲው ዴቪስ፡ ናይ ብሓቂ ንኣፍሪቃ ዝኾኑ ሓደስቲ ዕድላት ኣለዉ`ድዮም ክብል ይሓትት።

ንግዲ ጥበብ/ብልሓት የድልዮ። ውዕላት ንግዲ ድማ ዝያዳ ጥበብ የድልዮም። ኣብ ውዕል ንኽትበጽሕ ዝግበሩ ዝርርባት ድማ ውሕልና ዘድልዮም ኣዝዮም ዝተሓላለኹ`ዮም።

እቲ ነዊሕ ጉዕዞ ብረግዚት ድማ ብቕልጡፍ ይዛዘም ኣሎ።

ብሪጣንያ ለሎሚ ለይቲ መወዳእታ ጥሪ ካብ ኤውሮጳዊ ሕብረት ምስ ወጽአት ተመሊሳ ብሕግታት ዓለማዊ ውድብ ንኸይትቕየድ፡ ምስ ኤውሮጳዊ ሕብረት ከስርሓ ዝኽእል ውዕል ክትነድፍ ኣለዋ።

ቀዳማይ ሚኒስተር ቦሪስ ጆንሰንን ኣብ ጉዳይ ብረግዚት ደገፍቱን፡ ንረብሓታት ምውጻእ ብሪጣኒያ ካብ ኤውሮጳዊ ሕብረት፡ ንዜጋታት ዘርብሕ ናይ ባዕላ ውዕላት ንግዲ ናይ ምዝርራብ ተኽእሎ ሓዊስካ ማለት'ዩ፡ ከብርሁ ክሕተቱ ጸኒሖም ኣለዉ።

ኣካል ናይ ሓደ ዓቢ ሕብረት ምዃን ናይ ገዛእ ርእሱ ረብሓታትን ሃስያታትን ኣለዎ። እወ፡ ምስ'ቶም ናይ ሓባር ፖሊሲታት ንኽትቃዶ ክትብል ናይ ባዕልኻ ሸቶታት ኣብ ዋጋ ዕዳጋ ተእቱ።

እንተኾነ ግን ኣብ እተካይዶም ናይ ንግዲ ዝርርባት ሓይልን ድርኺትን ናይ'ቲ ሕብረት ድማ ትጥቀም።

ሰራሕተኛ ፋብሪካ ወይኒ ደቡብ ኣፍሪካ Image copyright Getty Images

እዚ ግን ንኣፍሪቃ ኣበይ የቐምጣ?

ኩሉ ሰብ ከምዝጽበዮ፡ ሚኒስተር ዓለም-ለኻዊ ዕቤት ብሪጣንያ ኣሎክ ሻርማ ኣዝዩ ርግጸኛ ኮይኑ ዝምድና ብሪጣንያ ምስ ኣፍሪቃ የማነ-ጸጋም ውዕላት ንግዲ፣ ዋኒናትን ወፍርን ዝኽተምሉ "ብልዑል ጸቕጢ ናህሪ ዝፈጥር [turbo-charged]" ክኸውን'ዩ ኢሉ።

መንግስቲ ብሪጣኒያ ንዝምድና ኣፍሪቃ ብዕቱብ ዝሓዞ ይመስል፤ እቲ ዋዕላ ወፍሪ ብሪጣንያን ኣፍሪቃን ድማ ከም ሓደ ኣብነት ገይርካ ክውሰድ ይከኣል ይኸውን። ዝኾነ ክመጽእ ዝኽእል ለውጢ ኣብ ኩነታት ንግዲ ግን ኣዝዩ ርሑቕ'ዩ፤ ምናልባት ዓመታት እውን ክወስድ ይኽእል'ዩ።

ብሪጣንያ ምስ ወጽአት እንታይ'ዩ ክቕየር?

ኣብ መወዳእታ ጥሪ ዝቕየር ነገር የለን።

ብዙሕ ፖለቲካዊ ምስሉይነትን መደረታትን ክህሉ'ዩ፡ ብሪጣኒያ ግን ክሳብ መወዳእታ ናይ'ዚ ዓመት ብሕግታት ጉምሩኽን፡ ሓደ ዕዳጋን ናይ ኤውሮጳዊ ሕብረት ክትቅየድ'ያ። ነዚ ብኽልተ ተወሰኽቲ ዓመታት ከተናውሖ ዘኽእላ ሕጊ'ውን ኣሎ፤ ቀዳማይ ሚኒስተር ጆንሰን ግን ነዚ ድሮ ነጺግዎ'ሎ።

እዚ ማለት ድማ ኣብ 2020 ዝምድና ንግዲ ብሪጣኒያን ኣፍሪቃን ከም ዘለዎ ብሕጊ ኤውሮጳዊ ሕብረት ተቐይዱ ክቕጽል'ዩ ማለት'ዩ።

ድሕሪ 2020'ከ?

ድሕሪ 2020'ውን እንተኾነ፡ ውዕላት ንግዲ ሓያሎ ሃገራት ኣፍሪቃ ምስ'ታ ምሉእ ብምሉእ ካብ ኤውሮጳዊ ሕብረት ዝወጽአት ብሪጣኒያ ኣብ ትሕቲ "ቀጻልነት/ምትእስሳር ዘለዎም ውዕላት" ከም ዘለውዎ ክቕጽሉ'ዮም።

እዚ ማለት ድማ እቶም ናይ ኩነታት ንግዲ (ቀረጻት፣ ብጽሒት/እጃም፣ መለኪዒታትን ካልኦትን) ከምዘለውዎ ክቕጽሉ'ዮም፡ ማለት ብመስረት'ቶም ምስ ኤውሮጳዊ ሕብረት ዝተኸተሙ ውዕላት ክቕየዱ'ዮም።

ንኣብነት፡ ብሪጣንያ፡ ኣብ ዝሓለፈ ወርሒ መስከረም ምስ ደቡብ ኣፍሪቃ፣ ቦትስዋና፣ ናሚቢያ፣ ሌሰቶ፣ ኤስዋቲኒን [ናይ ቀደም ስዋዚላንድ] ሞዛምቢክን ዝርከብኦ ሕብረት ጉምሩኽ ሃገራት ደቡባዊ ኣፍሪቃ (ሳኩ) ውዕል ቁጠባዊ ሽርክነት ኣበጊሳ።

እዚ ውዕል'ዚ እተን ኣባል ሃገራት ምስ ብሪጣኒያ ዘለወን ንግዳዊ ውዕል በቲ ምስ ኤውሮጳዊ ሕብረት ዘለወን ውዕል ተቐይዱ ክቕጽል ዘኽእል'ዩ።

እዚ ውዕል'ዚ "ድሕሪ ብረግዚት፡ ኩባኒያታት ንግድን ብዘይ ገለ ተወስኽቲ ዕንቅፋታት ክቕጽላ ከኽእለን'ዩ" ኢላ ጸሓፊት [ሚኒስተር] ዓለማዊ ንግዲ ብሪጣኒያ ሊዝ ትራስ።

ዕላማ ናይ ብሪጣኒያ ድማ ከምኡ ይመስል። ማለት ኣብ መንጎ ብሪጣኒያን ሃገራት ኣፍሪቃን ዘለዉ ውዕላት ብመሰረት'ቶም ምስ ኤውሮጳዊ ሕብረት ዝተኣትዉ ቅድመ-ኩነታት ክቕየዱ እዮም። ብሪጣኒያ ምስ 70 ሃገራት ዓለምና 40 ተመሳሰልቲ ውዕላት ኣለዉዋ።

ንምንታይ'ቶም ውዕላት ዘይተቐየሩ?

ገለ ካብ`ቲ እቶም ውዕላት ዘይተቐየርሉ ምኽንያታት ብሪጣኒያ ምስ ኤውሮጳዊ ሕብረት ውዕል ምስዘይብለን ሃገራት ሓደስቲ ውዕላት ክትክትም ንከኽእላ ተባሂሉ ዝተሓስበ`ዩ። ኣብ`ዚ እታ ዝዓበየት ሃገር ኣሜሪካ`ያ።

ቀሊል ይመስል፡ ግን ኣይኮነን። ብውሑዱ ኣብ ዝነውሐ እዋን ብምኽንያት ዘይርግጹነት መጻኢ ድሕረ-ብረግዚት።

እቶም "ቀጻልነት ዘለዎም ውዕላት" ኣብ መወዳእታ ከብቅዑ`ዮም፡ ሽዑ`ዮም ከኣ እቶም ሓቀኛታት ዕድላትን ብድሆታትን ሃገራት ኣፍሪቃ ዝቕልቀሉ።

ሃገራት ኣፍሪቃ ካብ ብሪጣኒያ ዝሓሸ ውዕል ክረኽባ ይኽእላ`ዶ?

ብሪጣኒያ ካብ ኤውሮጳዊ ሕብረት ወጺኣ ዝተሓተ ናይ ምውዕዓል ጽልዋ`ዩ ክህልዋ። እዚ ማለት ድማ ምስኣ ንግዲ ዝገብራ ሃገራት ኣፍሪቃ ዝሓሸ ውዕላት ንምርካብ ክጸምቁኣ/ከዋጥራኣ ይኽእላ`የን - ምናልባት።

ኣቐዲሙ ከምዝተገልጸ፡ ንግዳዊ ዘተታት፡ ዝተሓላለኹን ጊዜን ክእለትን ዝሓቱን`ዮም።

እታ ናይ ፈላሚት ጥይት ሎሚ ዓርቢ 31 ጥሪ ሰዓት 11 ናይ ምሸት ምስ ተተኮሰት፡ ንግዳዊ ዝርርባት ብሪጣንያ ቀዳምነት ክወሃቦም`ዩ።

ሰራሕተኛ መፍረጹ ዕምበባ Image copyright Getty Images

ብሪጣንያ ኣብ ኣፍሪቃ ከተትኩር ድያ?

እቲ ዝዓበየ ኣድህቦ ብሪጣኒያ ምስ`ቲ ዝቐረበን ዝዓበየን መሻርክቲ ንግዳ ዝኾነ ኤውሮጳዊ ሕብረት ዝበለጸ ውዕል ኣብ ምርካብ ከተኩር`ዩ።

ካብ`ኡ ቀጺሉ ምስ ኣሜሪካ፣ ቻይና፣ ደቡብ ኮሪያን ኣውስትራሊያን ዝግበሩ ውዕላት ቀዳምነት ክወሃቦም`ዩ። እዚ ማለት ድማ ሃገራት ኣፍሪቃ ኣብ ታሕቲ/ድሕሪት ናይ`ቲ ዝርዝር/ሊስታ ክስርዓ`የን ማለት`ዩ።

እንተኾነ ግን ሕቶ ዓቐንን ፋይዳን/ኣድላይነትን`ውን ኣሎ። ንኣብነት፡ ደቡብ ኣፍሪቃ ኣብ ትሕቲ ሰሃራ ካብ ዝርከባ ሃገራት እታ ምስ ኤውሮጳዊ ሕብረት ዝዓበየ/ዝበዝሐ ንግዲ ዘለዋ ሃገር`ያ።

ማዕድናት፣ መካይንን ምህርቲ ሕርሻን ናብ ኤውሮጳዊ ሕብረት`ዮም ዝለኣኹ፡ 18 ሚእታዊ ካብኡ ድማ ናብ ብሪጣንያ። ገለ ምህርቲ ሕርሻ ግን ብውዕል ብጽሒት/እጃም ይቕየዱ`ዮም።

ብሪጣንያ ንሕጊ እጃም ተልግሶ`ዶ ትኸውን?

ብኽልስ-ሓሳብ ብሪጣንያ ካብ`ቲ ሕጂ ኣብ ትሕቲ ኤውሮጳዊ ሕብረት ዘላቶ ቀይዲ ወጺኣ ንዕዳጋ`ታ ሃገር ኣስፊሓ ክትከፍቶ ትኽእል`ያ። ነዚ ዕድላት ድማ ደቡብ ኣፍሪቃውያን ኣፍረይቲ ነቢት ክጥቀምሉ ይኽእሉ።

እንተኾነ ግን፡ ፈረንሳውያን መዘናታትቶም ነቲ ኣብ መንጎ ብሪጣንያን ኤውሮጳዊ ሕብረት ዝግበር፡ ሓለፋ ዘለዎ ውዕላት ተጠቒሞም ፍርያት ነቢቶም ናብ ብሪጣንያ ከምዝለኣኽ ክገብሩ ይኽእሉ`ዮም።

ብግደ ሓቂ ግን፡ እንታይ ከምዘጋጥም ክትንበ ኣይትኽእልን ኢኻ። እዚ ድማ ዝርርባት ንግዲ ክሳብ ክንደይ ዝኣክል ሕልኽላኻት ከምዘለዎ`ዩ ዘርእየካ።

ንምግጣሙ ዝግበሩ ዘለዉ ጻዕርታት ብዘየገድስ፡ ዘይርግጹነት ሓደ ዓቢ ረቛሒ`ዩ።

"ዋላ`ኳ ብሪጣኒያ ንዝዝርብ ንግዲ ብኽልተ ዓመት ክናዋሕ ብምእማማ እቲ ሻቕሎት እንተተቓለለ፡ ንግዚኡ ግን እቲ ዝህሉ ጽልግልግን ዘይንጽሩነትን ኣብ ልዕሊ`ቶም ክህልዉ ዝኽእሉ ዕድላት ጸብለልታ ክህልዎ`ዩ" ትብል ራዚያ ኻሃን ናይ ስታንዳርድ ቻርተርድ ባንክ።

ብረክዚት ካልእ መዳያት ቁጠባ ኣፍሪቃ ክጸሉ ይኽእል`ዶ?

ብርግጽ፡ ብረክዚት ልዕሊ ንግዲ ክኸይድ`ዩ። እዚ ድማ ብሪጣንያ ድሕሪ ብረክዚት ኣብ ቁጠባዊ ዝሕጠት [recession] እንተኣትያ ክረአ ይኽእል። እዚ ንከም ደቡብ ኣፍሪቃ ንዝኣመሰላ ሃገራት ብኸቢድ ክሃስየን`ዩ።

ብደረጃ ዓለም፡ ብሪጣንያ ሻሙነይቲ ዝዓበየት ዕዳጋ ሰደዳት/እትወታት ደቡብ ኣፍሪቃ`ያ ኢሉ ውድብ ሕቡራት ሃገራት ቀሚሩ'ሎ።

ቁጠባ ብሪጣንያ ጉንፋዕ እንተሒዝዎ፡ ደቡብ ኣፍሪቃ ኢንፍሉዌንዛ ክሕዛ`ዩ።

ቁጠባ ደቡብ ኣፍሪቃ ጎብለል ኣህጉራዊ ቁጠባታት ብምዃኑ፡ ንሳዕቤን ዝሕጠት ቁጠባ ብሪጣንያ ኣብ`ተን ካልኦት ሃገራት ኣፍሪቃ ዝኸበደ ይገብሮ።

ኣፍረይቲ ዕምባባታት ኬንያ`ኸ?

ንገለ እታወታት [ኢምፖርትስ] ንምስሳይ፡ ብሪጣንያ ሓዲሽ ትሕተ-ቅርጺ`ውን ከድልያ ይኽእል`ዩ።

ፍርያት ዕምባባ ሓደ ካብ ዓበይቲ ሰደዳትን ምንጪ ናይ ወጻኢ ሸርፍን ናይ ኬንያ`ዩ። እዚ ጽላት`ዚ ዓቢ ፈጣሪ ሸቕለት ኮይኑ፡ ሓደ ሚእቲ ሽሕ ሰብ ብቐጥታ ከሸቅል እንከሎ ኣስታት ክልተ ሚሊዮን ሰብ ድማ ብተዘዋዋሪ የሸቅል።

ኣብ መፍረዪ ዕምበባ ዝሰርሕ ሰብኣይ Image copyright Getty Images

ኣብዚ እዋን ምህርቲ ዕምባባ ኬንያ ብመንገዲ`ቲ ዓርሞሸሽ ዕዳጋ ኣምስተርዳም [ሆላንድ] ኣቢሉ`ዩ ናብ ኤውሮጳዊ ሕብረት ዝኣቱ። ዓሰርተ ሸሞንተ ሚእታዊት ካብ`ኡ ድማ ናብ ብሪጣኒያ ይኣቱ። ድሕሪ ብረክዚት ግን እንታይ`ዩ ክኸውን?

ውዕል ዜሮ ቐረጽ ኣብ ትሕቲ ቀጻልነት ዘለዎ ውዕል ክቕጽል ይኽእል`ዩ፡ ኣካላዊ [ፊዚካል] ጸገማት ግን ክህልዉ`ዮም።

ባይቶ ዕምባባ ኬንያ [Kenya flower Council] ዕምባባታት ኬንያ ብቐጥታ ናብ ብሪጣንያ ክትሰድድ ዘሎ ትሕተ-ቅርጺ ከም`ቲ ናይ ናይሮቢ-ኣምስተርዳም ምዕቡል ኣይኮነን ኢሉ።

ብኻልእ ኣዘራርባ፡ ሃስያ ክህሉ`ዩ ማለት`ዩ።

ነጋዶ ኣብ ምንታይ`ዮም ክጥምቱ ዘለዎም?

ንኩባንያታት ኣፍሪቃ ዝምልከት፡ ድሕረ-ብረክዚት ኩነታተን ኣብ`ቶም ምስ ኤውሮጳዊ ሕብረትን ብሪጣንያን ዘለውወን ዓይነት ንግድታት ክምርኮስ`ዩ።

"እተን ኣብ`ቲ ምስ ሓለፋታት ኤውሮጳዊ ሕብረት ዘለዎ ዕዳጋ ብሪጣኒያ ብኸቢድ ዝምርኮሳ ኩባንያታት፡ ኣብ ኤውሮጳ ዝመጽኡ ዘለዉ ምዕባለታት ኣቓልቦ ክህበኦም ይግብአን። ከምኡ`ውን ነቶም ኣብ መንጎ ሃገረንን ብሪጣንያን ዝግበሩ መጻኢ ውዕላት ከድህባሎም ኣለወን" ኢሉ ማቲው ስተርን ናይ ዲ ኤን ኤ ቁጠባ [DNA Economics] ኣብ ደቡብ ኣፍሪቃዊት ከተማ ፕሪቶሪያ።

"ኩሉ በቲ ዝወጽኣሉ ውጥን እንተድኣ ተፈጺሙ፡ እቶም ሓለፋታት ክዕቀቡ`ዮም። ዝኾነ ሸታሕታ ናይ ሓደ ኣካል ግን ንገለ ትካላት ከቢድ ዋጋ ከኽፍለን`ዩ" ድማ ይብል።

ኣፍሪቃውያን ፖለቲከኛታትን ነጋዶን ኣብ ዋዕላ ወፍሪ ብሪጣንያ-ኣፍሪቃ ኣብ ለንደን ኣብ ዝጋብእሉ ዘለው እዋን ግን ዘይርግጹነት የንጸላሉ`ሎ።

እዚ ዘርግጹነት`ዚ ብገለ ሸነኻቱ በቶም ሓደስቲ ዝርርባት ይቃለል ይኸውን፤ ጸኒሕካ ግን ሓደስተ ዝርርባት ይካየዱ ይኾኑ።

ዘይርጉጽነት ጸላኢ ናይ ወፍሪ`ዩ፡ እዚ ድማ ሓደ ካብ`ቶም ብድሕሪ`ቶም ኣብ`ቲ ዋዕላ ናይ ለንደን ዝተራእዩ ፍሽኽታታትን፡ ምልውዋጥ ሰላምታን ኢድን ዘለዉ ስክፍታታ`ዩ።

Source=https://www.bbc.com/tigrinya/news-51321965

Saturday, 01 February 2020 11:28

Ethiopia’s navy is reborn – in Djibouti

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.”

January 30, 2020 News

The background to this ruling was the report carried by NRK that members of the Eritrean diaspora went a meeting celebrating Eritrean government policies, despite claiming asylum in Norway for having escaped indefinite conscription, or ‘National Service.’

This report is computer translated.

Liv Ekeberg, Sylo Taraku and Frode Hansen at the PFU meeting on 29 January.
Liv Ekeberg, Sylo Taraku and Frode Hansen at the PFU meeting on 29 January. (Photo: Erik Szabo)

PFU: NRK and Dagsrevyen did not break the good news for Norwegian Eritreans

NRK was not fielded in the Press’s Academic Committee for the much-discussed feature of Norwegian Eritreans at a party.

NRK did not break good press for a feature on Norwegian Eritreans in Dagsrevyen 2 September 2019, as well as an online article titled: “Norwegian Eritreans went to a party for the regime they fled from”.

This was stated by the Press’s Trade Committee (PFU) at Wednesday’s meeting.

The committee agreed, and several praised NRK for their journalism in the discussion round.

“They are nowhere near breaking the Weather Varsom poster,” said committee member Liv Ekeberg. 

The recommendation of the PFU Secretariat was also that NRK has not broken good press practice.

Read the case papers at PFU here!

Both the TV show and the webpage are about the 25th anniversary of the National Service and the Sawa recruiting school in Eritrea, and it turns out that this military duty service is the
main reason many Norwegian Eritreans have been granted asylum in Norway.

Complaints are Eritrean association in Oslo, and they believe NRK will come up with falsehoods about the event, and that the Weather-Varsom poster (VVP) has been broken on several points – including points 3.2 and 4.4.

Complainants believe, among other things, it is wrong that the party was for the regime in Eritrea or a celebration of the military service.

The recommendation of the PFU Secretariat states:

« NRK could have more clearly expressed the uncertainty as to whether the organizer had planned such a marking of the military service. The committee also sees that NRK in the online article addressed a formulation related to the advertisement, when NRK became aware of the complainant’s reaction, cf. VVP 4.13. This was also stated at the bottom of the article.

However, the Committee believes that this imprecision is not enough to trap NRK. The committee believes that at the time of publication NRK had sufficient grounds to describe the party in this way, cf. VVP 3.2 and 4.4.  

The committee also cannot see that the connection between previous cases of asylum fraud and the mention of the celebration is insignificant. In the last article, the association is not mentioned either. The committee also sees that one of the sources in the case nuances the motive for participating in the party. “.