Al-Shabaab

This content was published on December 7, 2018 6:33 PM Dec 7, 2018 - 18:33

eritreans

The normalising of relations between Switzerland and Eritrea is having an impact on asylum seekers. 

(Keystone)

Following a recent United Nations Security Council resolution, the Swiss government has decided to lift targeted sanctions against Eritrea. 

The sanctions - that include an arms embargo, travel bans and asset freezes - will be repealed as of Friday evening, said a government statementexternal link. The UN Security Council had imposed the sanctions in December 2009 after Eritrea was suspected of supporting armed groups like Al-Shabaab with a view to destabilising the region. A border dispute with Djibouti also helped contribute to the decision. 

The sanctions were lifted by the UN on November 14 after no conclusive evidence of Eritrea’s support of Al-Shabaab had been reported by the specially appointed Eritrea Monitoring Group. A meeting between the presidents of Eritrea and Djibouti in September also helped convince the Security Council to drop the sanctions. 

About 20,000 Eritreans live in Switzerland, the largest Eritrean diaspora in the world. In addition, Eritreans make up the largest national group of asylum seekers in Switzerland. 

Switzerland is moving towards a normalizing of relations with the Eritrean government. Recent announcements on resumption of development cooperation and reinforcement of diplomatic presence point to progress in this direction. The slow return of Eritrea to the international community fold has also had an impact on Switzerland’s asylum policy towards Eritreans fleeing compulsory military service.

swissinfo.ch/ac

Source=https://www.swissinfo.ch/eng/politics/al-shabaab_switzerland-lifts-targeted-sanctions-against-eritrea/44603344

Since the start of its search and rescue mission in February 2016, the MSF’s boat, the Aquarius, has assisted nearly 30,000 people in international waters between Libya, Italy and Malta.

MSF Rescue

London: As men, women and children continue to die in the Mediterranean Sea, international medical humanitarian organisation Médecins Sans Frontières/Doctors Without Borders (MSF) and its partner SOS Méditerranée have been forced to terminate the lifesaving operations of their search and rescue vessel, Aquarius.

Over the last two months as people have continued to flee by sea on the world’s deadliest migration route, the Aquarius has remained in port, unable to carry out its vital humanitarian work. This is due to a sustained smear campaign, spearheaded by the Italian government and backed by other European countries to delegitimise, slander and obstruct aid organisations trying to save the lives of vulnerable people in the Mediterranean.

Coupled with ill-conceived policies aimed at trapping people outside Europe’s borders, this campaign has undermined international law and humanitarian principles. With no immediate solution to these attacks, MSF and SOS Méditerranée have no option but to end the operations of the Aquarius.

“This is a dark day,” says Vickie Hawkins, MSF UK’s Executive Director. “Not only has Europe failed to provide dedicated search and rescue capacity, it has also actively sabotaged others’ attempts to save lives. The end of Aquarius means more lives lost at sea; more avoidable deaths that will go unwitnessed and unrecorded. It really is a case of ‘out of sight out of mind’ for UK and European leaders as men, women and children perish.

During the past 18 months, European attacks on humanitarian search and rescue operations seem to have come from the playbook of some of the world’s most repressive states. Despite working in full compliance with authorities, the Aquarius was twice stripped of its registration earlier this year and now faces allegations of criminal activity – allegations we categorically refute.

Amidst these smear campaigns and manoeuvres to undermine international law, people rescued at sea have been denied access to safe ports, refused assistance from other ships and left stranded at sea for weeks at a time.

The unavoidable end to Aquarius’ life-saving operations is happening at a critical time. An estimated 2,133 people have died in the Mediterranean in 2018, with departures from Libya accounting for the overwhelming majority of lives lost.

In addition, the UK and European governments have further fuelled the unnecessary suffering of thousands by enabling the Libyan coastguard to intercept more than 14,000 people at sea this year alone and forcibly return them to Libya.  This is in clear violation of international law. In 2015, Europe made a commitment to the UN Security Council that nobody rescued at sea would be forced to return to Libya.

Karline Kleijer, MSF’s Head of Emergencies, “Today, the UK and its European counterparts are directly supporting forced returns while claiming successes on migration. Let’s be clear about what that “success” means: a lack of lifesaving assistance at sea; men, women and children pushed back to arbitrary detention with virtually no hope of escape; and the creation of a climate that discourages all ships at sea from carrying out their obligations to rescue those in distress.”

“Just as we said when we launched our search and rescue operations in 2015 – we refuse to remain idle on shore as people continue to die at sea,”says Kleijer. “As long as people are suffering at sea and in Libya, MSF will look for ways to provide them with the vital medical and humanitarian care they desperately need.”

Since the start of its search and rescue mission in February 2016, the Aquarius has assisted nearly 30,000 people in international waters between Libya, Italy and Malta.

What Is Saudi Arabia Up to in the Horn of Africa?

Thursday, 06 December 2018 22:23 Written by

As America shifts away from the war on terror, Ethiopia is looking to the Gulf to fill our void.

Source: The American Conservative

The relationship between the United States and its longtime staunch ally in the Horn of Africa, Ethiopia, is on shifting ground. Why? Largely because U.S. foreign policy is focused less on the global war on terrorism and more on political and economic threats from the likes of China and Russia.

Since 2001, and as the fight against terror developed, the United States and Ethiopia have forged a strong bilateral relationship based largely on the latter’s large professional and capable army and ability to project both hard and soft power regionally.

In recent years, however, especially during the Trump administration, the U.S. has gradually come to perceive its biggest threats in Africa to be the presence of China and Russia rather than terrorism.

“Great power competition, not terrorism, is now the primary focus of U.S. national security,” Secretary of Defense James Mattis said in a January speech that outlined the 2018 National Defense Strategy. “We face growing threats from revisionist powers as different as China and Russia are from each other.”

 
 

This power struggle—driven by that age-old combination of rivalry and a desire to control the Suez Canal—isn’t necessarily a bad thing in itself. It could benefit the region’s benighted economies and has already achieved notable gains in terms of peace and stability, primarily with the opening of the Ethiopia-Eritrea border after 20 years of animosity and conflict. But the spider’s web of geopolitics could also unleash dangerous forces.

“U.S. policy is shifting and new powers are emerging,” says Hallelujah Lulie at Amani Africa, an Africa-based policy research, advisory, and consulting think tank. “There are all these rivalries, Iran versus Saudi Arabia, Saudi Arabia versus Qatar, Egypt versus Turkey, Turkey versus Saudi Arabia; interests over the Red Sea and Yemen; economic influence as a proxy; while Saudi Arabia is an ally of the U.S.: it’s a complex battleground.”

The tempo cranked up in 2017 when Saudi Arabia initiated an Arab nation blockade of Qatar. Both countries and their respective allies then descended on the Horn, where they rushed to build military bases, sign defense pacts, and take over commercial ports.

Ethiopia, which now has Africa’s second largest population and increasing diplomatic and commercial clout, has been dealing with meddling foreigners for the past two centuries. It has has proven adept at playing nations off against each other and switching allegiances to suit itself, a process that’s usually involved the U.S. in some manner.

During the reign of Emperor Haile Selassie, Ethiopia forged strong ties with the United States. But after a military coup overthrew the emperor in 1974, it pivoted to Russia. After the next revolution in 1991, it was back with the U.S. After 9/11, the partnership only deepened.

But over the past few years, the Ethiopian government, belayed since 2015 by ongoing protests and internal squabbles within its ruling party, took its eye off of the bigger picture outside Ethiopia. The result was that it failed to prepare itself for America’s shift away from the war on terror and towards China. For one thing, Ethiopia continued to accept enormous Chinese investments in infrastructure and to forge economic and diplomatic ties with Beijing.

The result was that the Ethiopian government suddenly found that the United States wasn’t offering as steadfast diplomatic support as it had been. That meant it wasn’t as willing to look the other way when protests were suppressed and human rights controversies made news. It became increasingly susceptible to its inner frictions and thereby less stable and sure of itself.

At the beginning of 2018, Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn resigned—the first Ethiopian leader to voluntarily cede power—in an effort to placate criticisms of his party and calm the turmoil gripping his country. A week after Desalegn’s replacement, Abiy Ahmed, took office, the U.S. House of Representatives unanimously adopted resolution HR-128, a resolution unusually outspoken in its condemning of various human rights abuses under the Ethiopian government.

Some say the shift in America’s relationship partly explains why Ethiopia has been increasingly drawn into the orbit of the Saudi-UAE bloc. Abiy Ahmed’s first official visit outside Africa in May was to Saudi Arabia, followed by meetings with UAE’s rulers.

“States on the Horn such as Ethiopia are trying to leverage these rapidly changing geopolitical dynamics to enhance their own influence,” says Awol Allo, a UK-based law professor and frequent commentator on Ethiopia and the Horn, writing for the website African Arguments. “Amidst the growing competition for influence among the Middle Eastern axes, Addis Ababa has managed to avoid taking sides—at least publicly—and leverage its geostrategic significance as the region’s hegemon to attract much-needed investment from several different partners.”

Despite this, according to staff at the U.S. embassy in Addis Ababa, America remains committed to Ethiopia “more than ever” for a multitude of reasons. Ethiopia is the largest contributor to UN peacekeeping missions globally, hosts one of the world’s largest refugee populations, plays a critical role in maintaining regional stability, and has enormous economic potential.

“The reform process launched by Prime Minister Abiy opens the door for further progress and collaboration in all of these areas, not least because democracy and good governance are powerful factors in building political stability and economic prosperity,” says a diplomat at the embassy. “Far from drifting away from Ethiopia, the U.S. is moving closer as we see a clear alignment in our priorities.”

The Ethiopia-Eritrea rapprochement is a good example of such an alignment between local and international players: both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia played a significant role behind the scenes in getting the formerly hostile sides to talk to each other. The peace and security dividend has some saying the Horn could finally come out of its decades-old shadow of conflict and suffering. Eritrea has also signed declarations of peace and cooperation with Djibouti and Somalia. After years of hostility over the building of the Renaissance Dam on the Blue Nile, Ethiopia and Egypt have seen a significant improvement in relations. Sudan, too, has mended relations with Egypt and has managed to get American sanctions lifted.

But such geopolitical developments are not lost on the citizens of the affected countries. Both Ethiopians and Eritreans are fearful of the potential consequences of being caught up in the ensuing struggle for influence in the region. They’re also worried that their respective governments could neglect their duties in their haste to comply with powerful external sources that opt for brinksmanship without considering the consequences for the still vulnerable states in the region. The Horn, after all, has a history of minor frictions mushrooming into far bigger problems.

“[Ethiopia] is engaged in a dangerous game,” Awol says. “The combination of the Gulf’s transactional politics and Africa’s often kleptocratic leadership could prove treacherous as historic rivalries take on new twists and matters develop beyond the Horn’s control.”

James Jeffrey is a freelance journalist who splits his time between the Horn of Africa, the U.S., and the UK, and writes for various international media. Follow him on Twitter @jrfjeffrey.

 

An important report by investigators from the Conflict Armament Research group shows just how the outside world has armed both sides in the civil war.

Major arms exporters – China, Israel, USA and the EU stand accused – while neighbouring states, including Uganda are implicated. The operation relies on the activities of what the researchers call “a wider international circle of European, Israeli, and US individuals and companies.”

Read the full report here: Weapons supplies S Sudan

There is no firm evidence, but the signs are that Somalia may be about to invite Ethiopia and Eritrea to send troops into its territory to replace the African Union’s AMISOM forces that are due to depart.

If this is confirmed, then the discussions between Somalia, Ethiopia and Eritrea in the Ethiopian town of Bahr Dar on 9th of November might be among the most important held in the region in recent years. They could see a re-shaping of the political relations in the Horn of Africa.

The three leaders, Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo, and President Isaias Afwerki were not in the city to enjoy the tourist sites on Lake Tana and the Blue Nile. At the end of their talks they signed an agreement.

These were the key sentences.

“They noted with satisfaction the tangible and positive outcomes already registered, and agreed to consolidate their mutual solidarity and support in addressing challenges that they face individually and collectively. In this regard, they stressed the importance of respecting the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of Somalia as well as their firm support for the Somalia people and Federal Government of Somalia and all its institution.”

This was hardly transparent, but they may presage an invitation from the Somali government for Eritrean and Ethiopian soldiers to be based on its territory.

A brief recap

The African Union Mission in Somalia – AMISOM – is going ahead with plans to withdraw its troops in February next year. By December 2020, all AMISOM combat troops are scheduled to leave all of Somalia’s cities, towns, and villages that they’ve liberated from the al-Shabaab terrorist organization.

Amisom Somalia

Troops from Uganda, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Kenya and Burundi, are currently deployed across the country, funded by EU and UN.

They fight alongside the Somali National Army, and continue to take casualties. They protect the Somali government and keep roads connecting the Somali capital to the regions. Their forces have liberated towns from al-Shabaab including Mogadishu, Kisimayo, Beletweyne and Baidoa.

Backed by US air and drone strikes, they have held al-Shabaab at bay. But the Islamists are by no means defeated.

Progress has been slow and difficult. “Somalia is like cleaning a pig,” one Ugandan AMISOM colonel told a reporter Foreign Policy. “You clean it, and it gets dirty.”

Everyone has attempted to train the Somali army. Turkey has a military academy, so too does Qatar. Egypt, Britain and the USA provide training. But what have they achieved? Arms and ammunition supplied to the Somali national army disappear – only to re-appear on the hands of al-Shabaab. The army’s communications systems are tapped by the Islamists.

Without AMISOM can President Farmajo survive?

This is an issue for the whole of the region and beyond. Keeping Islamists at bay has been a critical element in the American war on terrorism.

The US effort has been bolstered by the deployment of one of its most respected and knowledgeable diplomat  to the region.

Donald Yamamoto is the new ambassador to Somalia, and he is a heavyweight. Yamamoto played a key role in the reconcilliation between Ethiopia and Eritrea.

He was joined in Mogadishu by the head of US Africa Command in Mogadishu, General Thomas Waldhauser.

USA Somalia

So, will Ethiopia and Eritrea ride to the rescue?

As indicated at the start of this article there is no hard evidence. But with AMISOM winding down its operation, there are suggestions that Ethiopia’s Abiy Ahmed that his forces establish a military base inside Somali during the talks at Bahir Dar. President Farmajo is said to have agreed to the idea, with the town of Merca as a possible site.

The idea of Ethiopian forces being in Somalia has been around for nearly two decades. It was in November 2000 that the then Somali President, Abdiqassim Salad Hassan visited his opposite number, Meles Zenawi. It was the first visit to Ethiopia by a Somali head of state since 1974.

Since then Ethiopian troops have been in and out of Somalia, attempting to resist Islamist insurgents and – more recently – to bolster the Somali government.

For its part, Eritrea has played a double role in Somalia. There is evidence that it provided training and arms for al-Shabaab until this was uncovered by UN Monitors in 2011.

As their report stated: “While the Eritrean Government acknowledges that it maintains relationships with Somali armed opposition groups, including Al-Shabaab, it denies that it provides any military, material or financial support and says its links are limited to a political, and even humanitarian, nature.” The UN exposure did the trick and the Eritrean backing for al-Shabaab ended.

Now, it appears, President Isaias is considering sending his forces into Somalia to support President Farmajo.

Eritrea Somalia 1

Their forces could be joined by the Ugandans, who are already supplying most of the AMISOM troops. A visit to Kampala in November appears to have cemented these ties.

If all these developments come together it is possible to imagine the following:

  • Eritrean and Ethiopian forces replacing AMISOM, with a continuing Ugandan presence.
  • Ongoing backing for the Somali government by the various outside powers, including the USA, UK and Turkey.
  • The retention of Kenyan forces in Jubaland, which they have controlled since 2011.

Will this be enough to keep President Farmajo in power? Perhaps. It is hard to be more definitive when so much is still up in the air.

‘World’s worst environmental disaster’ set to be repeated with controversial new dam in Africa

November 28, 2018 12.34pm GMT

Source: The Conversation
Damning development. Wikimedia Commons/Mimi Abebayehu, CC BY-SA

 

Encompassing swathes of Ethiopia, South Sudan and Kenya, the Omo-Turkana Basin is one of the oldest landscapes in the world that is known to have been inhabited by Homo sapiens and is now one of the world’s most extraordinary examples of ethnic diversity. In the lower Omo Valley alone, a varied history of cross-cultural encounters has played out to produce eight distinct ethnic groups, speaking many languages from Afro-Asiatic to Nilo-Saharan.

In a cattle camp on the bank of the ancient Omo River a Mursi elder implored me to “tell our story so that others might know us before we are all dead in the desert”. Where the river ends in Lake Turkana, this sentiment was echoed by local fishermen: “You will find our bones in the desert.” The story of the Omo-Turkana Basin is now that of the Ethiopian state exploiting its periphery in the name of “development”, trampling on the human rights of its citizens in the process.

Hamar children milk one of their family’s cattle. J. Dubosson, Author provided

The dam and the damned

Over the past decade, the Ethiopian government has pushed ahead with a huge hydro-electric dam on the Omo, known as Gibe III. Without any meaningful consultation with the communities affected, the state has also appropriated grazing lands and freshwater, threatening their vital resources and local heritage.

All of this has happened despite the area gaining the status of a UNESCO World Heritage Site in 1980. As Richard Leakey, the Kenyan paleoanthropologist, conservationist and politician put it, “these happenings are profoundly disturbing”.

The completion of Gibe III, Africa’s tallest dam to date, has eliminated the annual flood and radically reduced the Omo’s flow, which produces 90% of Lake Turkana’s freshwater input. In doing so, it has reduced sediments and nutrients critical for traditional agriculture, riverside pastures and fish habitat.

 
The former lake bed. What remains of the Aral Sea is heavily polluted. T. Clack, Author provided

Over 30% of the lake inflow will be diverted for commercial irrigation projects. The result could be a fall in lake level comparable to that of Central Asia’s Aral Sea, which has shrunk by over two thirds since the 1960s because of irrigation abstractions and which has been called “the world’s worst environmental disaster”. To make way for the commercial plantations planned for the Omo Valley, tens of thousands of hectares of land will be expropriated and thousands of local people displaced.

Development at any cost

The need to see “development” as more than a simple matter of an increase in GDP is well established. In his seminal work, Development as Freedom, the Nobel Prize winning economist, Amartya Sen, demonstrated that sustainable development must be based on universal access to social and economic necessities as well as political and civil rights. The many communities in the Omo-Turkana Basin have suffered a systematic curtailment of their most basic and essential rights.

International agreements which the Ethiopian government signed up to, such as the 1993 International Convenant on Civil and Political Rights and the International Covenant of Economic, Social and Cultural Rights require it to protect and promote the rights of minority cultures and ensure the “right of everyone to take part in cultural life”.

Formerly the fourth largest lake in the world, the Aral Sea has reduced to around 10% of its size in the 1960s. T. Clack, Author provided

Since 1948, Ethiopia has also been signed up to the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Article II provides against the destruction of “a national, ethnical, racial or religious group”. Raphael Lemkin, who coined the word “genocide”, famously defined the specific need to protect against the “disintegration of the political and social institutions of culture, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups”.

It is difficult not to conclude that what we are seeing in the Omo is the wholesale disregard of these commitments by the Ethiopian government. Its development policies are not only transforming landscape and heritage but destroying complex systems of sustainable living that have endured for millennia. The huge injustice of all this is that the ecological costs will be borne by local communities while the profits will be enjoyed by central and international corporations.

Meanwhile, centuries of collective wisdom relating to livestock diversification, flood dependant cultivation and customary obligations and mechanisms of livestock exchange, will be made redundant.

 
Two Mursi warriors prepare for a ceremonial duel. T. Clack, Author provided

This is not to deny, of course, that development, in the sense defined by Sen, is a laudable and necessary enterprise. But we must also recognise that large-scale infrastructure projects are likely to have far reaching consequences for the lifestyles and cultural identities of those they displace.

Projects which set out to increase economic growth without regard for social justice and individual rights are not worthy of the name “development”. Development must benefit locals and for this to happen their voices must not only be heard but also given a central and determining role in any discussions about the future of their lands and livelihoods.

Both cradle and crucible of our species, the Omo-Turkana Basin is unique and precious. Its heritage and history, as well as responsibility for its future, are shared by us all.

Africa and EU to manage refugees

Thursday, 29 November 2018 22:01 Written by
 
Source: The ConversationNovember 28, 2018 12.37pm GMT
Migrants arriving on the island of Lampedusa, southern Italy in April 2011. EPA/Ettore Ferrari

Early in 2019 the Eritrean government will take over the chair of the key Africa and European Union (EU) forum dealing with African migration, known as the Khartoum Process.

The Khartoum Process was established in the Sudanese capital in 2014. It’s had little public profile, yet it’s the most important means Europe has of attempting to halt the flow of refugees and migrants from Africa. The official title says it all: The EU-Horn of Africa Migration Route Initiative. Its main role is spelled out as being:

primarily focused on preventing and fighting migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings.

Chairing the Khartoum Process alternates between European and African leaders. In January it will be Africa’s turn. The steering committee has five African members – Egypt, Eritrea, Ethiopia, South Sudan and Sudan. A number of others nations, such as Kenya to Tunisia, have participating status.

The African countries chose Eritrea to lead this critical relationship. But it’s been heavily criticised because it places refugees and asylum seekers in the hands of a regime that is notorious for its human rights abuses. Worse still, there is evidence that Eritrean officials are directly implicated in human trafficking the Khartoum Process is meant to end.

That the European Union allowed this to happen puts in question its repeated assurances that human rights are at the heart of its foreign policies.

The Khartoum Process

The Khartoum Process involves a huge range of initiatives. All are designed to reduce the number of Africans crossing the Mediterranean. These include training the fragile Libyan government’s coastguards, who round up migrants at sea and return them to the brutal conditions of the Libyan prison camps.

The programme has sometimes backfired. Some EU-funded coastguards have been accused of involvement in people trafficking themselves.

The EU has also established a regional operational centre in Khartoum. But this has meant European officials collaborating with the security forces of a government which has regularly abused its own citizens, as well as foreigners on its soil. President Omar al-Bashir himself has been indicted for war crimes and crimes against humanity by the International Criminal Court.

The centre requires European police and other officers to work directly with the security officials who uphold the Sudanese government. According to the head of the immigration police department,

The planned countertrafficking coordination centre in Khartoum – staffed jointly by police officers from Sudan and several European countries, including Britain, France and Italy – will partly rely on information sourced by Sudanese National Intelligence.

The centre also receives support from Sudan’s Rapid Support Forces, which grew out of the Janjaweed: notorious for the atrocities it committed in Darfur.

These initiatives are all very much in line with the migration agreement signed in the Maltese capital in 2015. Its action plan detailed how European institutions would co-operate with their African partners to fight

irregular migration, migrant smuggling and trafficking in human beings.

Europe promised to offer training to law enforcement and judicial authorities in new methods of investigation and to assist in setting up specialised anti-trafficking and smuggling police units.

It is this sensitive relationship that will now come under Eritrean supervision. They will be dealing with some of the most vulnerable men, women and children who have fled their own countries. It is here that the process gets really difficult, because Eritrean government officials have themselves been implicated in human trafficking. UN researchers, working for the Security Council described how this took place in 2011.

More recently, survivors of human trafficking interviewed by a team led by Dutch professor Mirjam van Reisen, described how the Eritrean Border Surveillance Unit ferried refugees out of Eritrea, at a price.

The danger is that implicated Eritrean officials will play a critical role in the development of the Khartoum Process.

Europe’s commitment to human rights

The EU has repeatedly stressed that its commitment to human rights runs through everything it does. Yet the Eritrean government, with which the EU is now collaborating so closely, has been denounced for its human rights abuses by no less than the Special Rapporteur for Eritrea to the UN Human Rights Council as recently as June 2018.

As Mike Smith, who chaired the UN Commission Inquiry into Eritrea in 2015, put it:

The many violations in Eritrea are of a scope and scale seldom seen anywhere else in today’s world. Basic freedoms are curtailed, from movement to expression; from religion to association. The Commission finds that crimes against humanity may have occurred with regard to torture, extrajudicial executions, forced labour and in the context of national service.

The EU itself has remained silent. It is difficult to see how the EU can allow its key African migration work to be overseen by such a regime, without running foul of its own human rights commitments. European leaders need to reconsider their relationships with African governments implicated in gross human rights abuses if they are to uphold these values.

The Khartoum Process may have reduced the flow of refugees and asylum seekers across the Mediterranean. But it hasn’t eliminated the need for a fresh approach to their plight.

Reports are beginning to circulate that as part the deal President Isaias struck with Somalia in Ethiopia, he is preparing to deploy troops to support the government in Mogadishu.

There is no confirmation at the moment that this is about to take place. But, as Kjetil Tronvoll remarks, if it did take place it would mean an end to plans to reduce the length of National Service, which currently continues indefinitely.

Sending Eritrean troops to Somalia would – of course – solve one of President Isaias’s dilemmas: what to do with thousands of demobilised young men and women, for whom he has no work. Having them hang around towns, including Asmara, could prove very difficult. With nothing to do and all day to do it they might become restless and law and order could evaporate.

Eritrea’s forgotten wars

Far better to send them on another foreign adventure.

This would not be Eritrea’s first international intervention: it has had a number of forgotten wars since independence.

These include conflicts in:

  • Sudan
  • Somalia
  • Congo
  • Djibouti
  • Yemen

Back into Somalia

President Isaias invervened in Somalia in the past.

The previous occassion followed the re-location of Somalia’s Islamic Courts to Eritrea in 2007, after the invasion of Somalia by Ethiopia.

Eritrea subsequently sent advisers and military equipment to the Islamist group, al-Shabaab, which arose out of the Islamic Courts.

As the UN Monitors put it in their 2011 report to the Security Council: “Asmara’s continuing relationship with Al-Shabaab, for example, appears designed to legitimize and embolden the group rather than to curb its extremist orientation or encourage its participation in a political process. Moreover, Eritrean involvement in Somalia reflects a broader pattern of intelligence and special operations activity, including training, financial and logistical support to armed opposition groups in Djibouti, Ethiopia, the Sudan and possibly Uganda in violation of Security Council resolution 1907 (2009).”

In President Isaias’s own words

Although the president later denied supporting Al-Shabaab, this was not always his position. As he declared in 2009: “We support all resistance from anyone in Somalia.”

This came in an interview with Channel 4 – the independent British news channel.

This is what he said:

In an interview with Channel 4 News Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki defended Somalia’s militants saying that as his country supported all Somalis it would be a “mistake” to limit this support to “one or two groups.”

“We support all resistance from anyone in Somalia,” he said.

“Somalis have worked with outside forces for money for fame for what have you. They have collaborated with outsiders, we are against collaborators – we are with Somalis.”

“You may not agree with the ideology of al-Shabaab, Somalis may not agree with the ideology of al-Shabab but it’s up to them to have their own ideology. You need to respect their choice.

“Categorising anyone political group as terrorist isn’t qualified as a common understanding of that qualification. Now, anyone in any government will call an opposition a terrorist organisation.”

Mr Afwerki claimed that the United States and its allies had “created a situation of chaos in Somalia by providing weapons” to warlords but that he didn’t think a culture of blame was the solution.

“I wish we had the resource and we had the ability to support Somali resistance in any way. Physically, it hasn’t been possible. Theoretically, we may want to see that happen.

“We don’t want to get into this cycle of accusations and counter-accusations on who’s being supplying this or that faction in Somalia for the last 20 years.

“We would like resistance to succeed in Somalia and Somalis to be left alone to find a solution for their own problems without an external intervention.

“If you agree to that, pull out from Somalia. Don’t supply weapons to warlords. Don’t divide and weaken Somalia. You leave Somalia to Somalis and Somalis will find a solution for themselves. As long as this conflict continues, we remain supportive of the resistance in Somalia in any form.”

Intervention in 2019

If the report quoted at the start of this article is correct, and the Eritreans go into Somalia again, it will be on the other side.

They will be backing President Mohamed Abdullahi “Farmajo” – not Al-Shabaab.

However this would not alter one fact: young Eritreans would be dying in a foreign land.

That has been the pattern of foreign policy followed by President Isaias since 1991: he is unlikely to change.

The past is not a sure means of predicting the future, but it is an important indicator. So what happened during the Ethio-Eritrea Common Market which existed between the effecive independence of Eritrea and the outbreak of the border war (1991-1998)?

Here is one assessment by Professor Worku Aberra, of Dawson College, Westmount, Quebec. If anyone has reached a different conclusion, please get in touch.

Below is the conclusion and the full paper can be found here: The Ethio-Eritrea Common Market (1991-1998)

Conclusion

“The decision of the transitional government to enter into a preferential trade agreement with the EPLF that benefitted Eritrea was not due to its carelessness, negligence, indifference, naiveté, hubris, or incompetence. It was a rational political decision that the TPLF leadership made to consolidate its grip on power in the early 1990s, but it resulted in a net economic loss for Ethiopia and a net economic gain for Eritrea.

The common market allowed the EPLF to transfer a large amount of Ethiopia’s resources, worth billions of dollars, to Eritrea over eight years. The transferred resources generated income, foreign exchange, and employment for Eritrea. Khadiagata (1999, p. 43), for example, asserts that the common market produced some 300,000 jobs in Eritrea.

Beyond the common market, the strategic alliance that the two fronts forged in the early 1990s, in part based on their shared negative attitude if not outright enmity towards Ethiopia, enabled the EPLF to acquire Ethiopia’s physical assets in Eritrea and to forego Eritrea’s share of Ethiopia’s national debt without any compensation or obligation to Ethiopia.

The preferential treatment of Eritrea at the expense of Ethiopia by the TPLF-controlled government is emblematic of its resolve, even today, to stay in power by pursuing policies that undermine Ethiopia’s economic interests, national unity, and political transformation to democratic governance.”

 

By Petros Tesfagiorgis 11-22-18

 

The amazing peace campaign by the new Ethiopian Prime Minister Dr Abiy Ahamed (PMAA) is one of the key moments in the history of Ethiopia. When PMAA signed peace with Eritrea, I was over the moon with happiness. I wrote an article on an Eritrean and Ethiopian websites encouraging my fellow Eritreans to be part of this remarkable initiative. For us, Eritreans, peace is priceless. However, for the people of Eritrean peace is not only with Ethiopia but more important internal peace that ends repression which is destroying the fabric of the Eritrean society.

However, President Isaias has failed to take advantage of this wind fall momentum. He has not released all prisoners of conscience, ended repression and become part of the movement bringing democracy to Eritrea. If he did adopt these win-win policies Isaias could have resigned with dignity and live the life of an elder, until his creator recalls him. For his part PMAAi s ignoring the repression in Eritrea. Yes the people of Eritrea are being sacrificed in order to appease his soul mate Isaias.

But Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed has missed the point, it is in Isaias DNA to thrive and rejuvenate through conflict. He is already creating a problem. Questions are being raised by Ethiopians about his interference in Ethiopian internal affairs. Indeed, he has become part of the conspiracy to isolate and weaken the Tigray Peoples Liberation Front (TPLF), the vanguard of the people of Tigray. This is in support of the Amhara -who felt that their right to rule Ethiopia from the Centre Addis Ababa  came to end when in 1991 the TPLF army defeated the military regime and entered   Addis Ababa in triumph, forming a government with other groups that represented the Amhara, Oromo and Southern people. Since then those Amhara who were part of Emperor Haile Selassie’s regime, or the Military Junta, have hated the TPLF. This, despite the fact that TPLF/EPRDF transformed the country from an undeveloped, famine stricken country, into a country with the highest economic growth in Africa. They build the infrastructure of roads and services and more that 40 universities, which provide the oppressed nationalities the skilled man power to govern themselves. More than that, they introduced a federal system of government that helped the formerly oppressed nationalities to be confident in themselves and to affirm their rightful place in Ethiopia.  Because of that the Amhara hate the TPLF and they have to alley with a devil to destroy them.

Videos From Around The World

It is absolutely right   to bring some corrupt TPLF/EPRDF officials to court and persecute them. But to politicise it in such a way as to undermine the heroic struggle of the people of’ Tigray is wrong. Isaias’s outburst of: “Game Over” has said it all although I don’t like Johar’s extremist politics  his complaint that PM Abiy is getting orders from the Arabs and Isaias is beginning to make sense.

The people of Eritrea has nothing to do with the interference of Isaias in the internal affairs of Ethiopia. On the country,we want to see a united, strong and prosperous Ethiopia at peace with itself and its neighbours. That is why many of us “justice seekers” resent the unholy alliance between PMAA and Isaias in order to damage the TPLF. Also there are things unforgettable: that it is the TPLF and the people of Tigray who unequivocally supported the right of Eritreans to determine their future because they were clear about the colonial history of Eritrea. While the Amhara movements such as EPRP (Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Party) wavered. They sought armed struggle training in the liberated areas of Eritrea on the basis of “my enemy’s enemy is my friend”. It is dangerous game which does not serve the interest of the Ethiopian people including the ordinary Amhara, because they too were oppressed under the feudal repressive Amhara rule.

For us Eritreans, it is the welfare of the people that has to be central to the peace. Peace is meant to bring repression to an end; to allow people to freely build their shattered lives and engage in economic and social development. In peace Ethiopia can have an access to the sea and there will be economic cooperation between the countries of the region that may develop into a Horn of Africa common market. Many Ethiopian intellectuals accuse TPLF/EPRDF of repression at home but when it comes to Eritrea they maintain silence. It is a double standard devoid of principle. Their claim about our brothers/sisters to Eritreans is a fake. Some Ethiopian know that Isaias is abusing   the people of Eritrea, that he has side-lined them and impoverished them by mismanaging the society and the economy.  Also, he had undermined the struggle for independence that encouraged some Ethiopians to dismiss it as a failure.

In his article Mamo Muchie said “Moving from failed 1991 -1993 transition to the 2018 re-union transition. From his perspective the victory of 1991 and the referendum in which the people of Eritrea voted for independence is a failure and a disaster." Eritreans are conscious of their own history (our own) history, his remarks exposed his chauvinist mind set.

 For Eritreans who fought for 30 years, it was a victory against the illegal annexation of Eritrea to Ethiopia which resulted in the destruction of our democratic institutions, including our political parties, student organisations and trade unions. It resulted in the abolition of Eritrean languages (Tigrinya and Arabic) which was replaced by Amharic, the ruling class language. All this gave rise to the beginning of arms struggle: the rest is history that led to an extraordinary achievement:  independence. It was  an amazing victory.

For Mamo Muchie it is OK to see Eritrea an ex-Italian colony, ripe to be appropriated by repressive feudal rulers of Ethiopia, unaware of the loss to life and property through air raids bombing of villages, and burning houses in addition to the death of thousands of fighters.

 

This perspective is not unique to Ethiopian intellectuals. In history we find that those who benefited from a repressive system have a different perspective of history from their victims. Mamo may have short memory but under the Amhara feudal rule Ethiopia was labelled a “prison of nationalities”. The 1974 revolution, spearheaded by the Ethiopian University progressive students was designed to get rid of the feudal repressive system and to allow all nationalities to participate in the Government as equal partners.

 

 

Take the example of the Oromos.  The Oromos have different perspective of history to that of the Amharas. For them Menelik1I is a brutal colonizer.  I quote from a publication titled OROMIA- a brief introduction by Gadaa Melban.

 

The Oromos were colonized during the last quarter of the 19th century by a black African nation –Abyssinia.  During the invasion Menelik reduced the Oromo population by about half. After colonization, Menelik continued to treat Oromos with utmost cruelty. Many were killed by colonial settlers, died of famine and epidemics of vicious diseases, or are sold as slaves. Haile Selassie consolidated Menelik’s gain and with the use of violence obstructed the free operation of the process of natural and historical development of the Oromo society. The military junta headed by Mengustu Haile Mariam (believed to be a distant relative of Menelik) continued on the path of Menelik and Haile Selassie in the oppression of Oromos.

 

The Amhara have a different perspective of this history. For the Amhara, the Amhara king, Menelik 11 (17 August 1844 – 12 December 1913) is a legend.  From his seat, Addis Ababa- Shoa –) he invaded the South inhabited mostly by Oromo’s and other minorities and build a strong feudal Ethiopia.  He is a king warrior and a modernized opened modern schools and built roads.  He famously is known for defeating the Italian army at the battle of Adwa in 1906. (see picture)

 

 Mamo Muchie’s perspective is shared by many Ethiopians.  They think that there was no need for Eritreans to fight for their independence and that it is a failure. This is simply incorrect. Many leaders of liberation movements who took up arms against occupation and seize power ended up as dictators. But their right to fight for independence was not disputed.

 

Petros Tesfagiorgis article 2

The key question is this:  Are Ethiopians going to respect Eritrean sovereignty? The people of Eritrea expected the marking of the boundary on the ground to take place, since Prime Minister Abiy has accepted the outcome of the boundary commission. But Isaias says there is no need for this boundary.

 

The Eritrean people are being side-lined in the peace process.  Isaias refused to end repression, hence, the Eritreans have no choice but to wake up, and stand up against these injustices in order to bring democratic change in Eritrea. The Eritreans in Diaspora have already risen up to the challenge and are engaging in debates and conferences to build united resistance with their aim of “power to the people”.

 

An understanding of history and acknowledgement of historical wrongs are essential to any honest and accurate evaluation of the present.  To continue

The end

 

Source=http://www.aigaforum.com/article2018/In-the-name-of-peace-eritrean-sacrifice.htm

 

EPDP Magazines