*Human Trafficking and the Human Rights Agenda Against Eritrea*
*
http://redseafisher.wordpress.com/2013/03/16/human-trafficking-and-human-rights-agenda-against-eritrea/
*
On March 1, 2013, Joel Millman of the Wall Street Journal published a
piece entitled “Ruthless Kidnapping Rings Reach From Desert Sands to U.S.
Cities.” The article chronicles the touching personal accounts of Eritrean
refugees being kidnapped and taken for ransom in Egypt’s Sinai desert. As
disheartening as this piece may be to even the most apathetic observers,
Eritreans are growing increasingly aware of the fact that similar articles
highlighting the trafficking of Eritreans are becoming a regular
occurrence. Although human trafficking, smuggling, and migration have been
longstanding problems that have plagued the so-called developing world, it
seems somewhat curious that Eritrea is suddenly getting the brunt of the
international attention. Why now? Although increased international
attention may be positive in that it sheds needed light on the plight of
the affected migrants, the reality is that pieces like this are often
politically motivated, lacking context, skewing the facts on the ground,
and serving as part of larger campaign to vilify and isolate Eritrea.
Before we delve into this whole human trafficking ordeal, we must note that
Eritrea was the target of UN sanctions in 2009. Since then, the Somalia and
Eritrea Monitoring Group (SEMG) has been regularly reporting on Eritrea’s
role in Somalia to the Security Council. The group has made many ridiculous
claims ranging from Eritrea’s alleged support of al-Shabab in Somalia to a
failed bombing attempt on an African Union summit in Ethiopia. Both
accusations were later shown to be false
[*1<
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33911.pdf>
*, *2<
http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/crimes/16-09-2011/119062-Wikileaks_says_Ethiopia_bombed_itself-0/>
*]. As the last SEMG report reveals, linking Eritrea to terrorism is a
futile task. [*3<
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/16/us-eritrea-somalia-un-idUSBRE86F0AK20120716>
*] The expectations of the nation seem like a moving target and now the new
focus of the international media and the SEMG is on Eritrea’s “use of
revenues from the taxation of Eritrean citizens in the diaspora, from human
trafficking of refugees through Sudan and Egypt, and from gold
mining.” [*4<
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/16/us-eritrea-somalia-un-idUSBRE86F0AK20120716>
*] The emerging concerns regarding a sovereign state’s use of its revenues
from any legitimate source–be it from a diaspora tax or gold mining or
whatever–is a mystery unworthy of pursuit. The human trafficking issue,
however, is a serious allegation that may be used in conjunction with
broader human rights allegations to build a case for the expansion of UN
sanctions on Eritrea. Thus, the issue requires further inspection.
In a speech regarding human trafficking delivered at the Clinton Global
Initiative on September 25 of last year, President Obama made the following
remarks:
I recently renewed sanctions on some of the worst abusers, including North
Korea and Eritrea. We’re partnering with groups that help women and
children escape from the grip of their abusers. We’re helping other
countries step up their own efforts. And we’re seeing results. More
nations have passed and more are enforcing modern anti-trafficking
laws. [*5<
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-clinton-global-initiative>
*]
What kind of “partnering” is he talking about, exactly? It’s not within the
US’s authority or obligations to help people escape from a nation. To do so
would be human smuggling. President Obama is essentially admitting to
taking part in smuggling people out of Eritrea and North Korea. The US can
only support those who take refuge in the US following immigration from
another nation. The president’s comments came as surprise to many Eritreans.
About one month later, Eritrea’s presidential advisor, Yemane Gebreab,
explained that “Eritrea is a victim of human trafficking” and that “for a
number of years now, some people have felt that one way that they could
weaken Eritrea would be by encouraging Eritrean youths to leave the country
in larger numbers.” [6] Are his claims valid? Is there a systematic effort
to drive youth out of Eritrea?
*Linking Eritrea to Human Trafficking*
Let us rewind to May 5, 2009. In a wikileaked diplomatic cable entitled
“Promoting Educational Opportunity for Anti-Regime Eritrean Youth,” the
then US Ambassador to Eritrea, Ronald K. McMullen explained that “Post
plans to restart visa services (completely suspended in 2007) for student
visa applicants; *we intend to give opportunities to study in the United
States to those who oppose the regime*.”
[*7<
http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=09ASMARA146>
*] He then goes on:
Post intends to begin adjudicating student visa applications, *regardless
of whether the regime is willing to issue the applicant an Eritrean
passport and exit visa*. If an applicant is otherwise found eligible for a
student visa, Post will issue it in a Form DS-232…With an Eritrean passport
and an F1 visa in a Form DS-232, the lucky young person is off to America.
For those visa recipients who manage to leave the country and receive UNHCR
refugee status, a UN-authorized travel document might allow the young
person to travel to America with his or her F1 in the DS-232.
…Due to the Isaias regime´s ongoing restrictions on Embassy Asmara, Post
does not contemplate a resumption of full visa services in the near future.
However, *giving young Eritreans hope, the chance for an education, and the
skills with which to rebuild their impoverished country in the post-Isaias
period is one of the strongest signals we can send to the Eritrean people
that the United States has not abandoned them. Were we to begin processing
student visa applications and require a regime-issued passport, we would be
seen as strengthening the dictatorship´s hand*. Thus, the limited
category-specific exemption outlined above is key.
The cable’s title alone, reveals the ambassador’s intentions. And if one
wonders why brain drain is an issue in the developing world, perhaps this
cable may provide some insight. What young person, anywhere in the world,
wouldn’t want a chance to come to the US? Though the more important
question is, why now? Why restart issuing visas in 2009 after a two year
suspension? Perhaps the answers will become clear shortly. McMullen, who
clearly seeks to weaken the Eritrean “regime” (as in “government we don’t
like”), also makes curious mention of preparing for a “post-Isaias period,”
which becomes more interesting when one considers that his doctoral thesis
at the University of Iowa was on the “Economic Consequences of African
Coups D’etat.” [8] He also served as the Charge’ d’Affaires in the Fiji
Islands during the 2000 coup d’etat. In another leaked cable he predicted
the Eritrean government is ‘‘one bullet away from implosion’’ and posed
that “any sudden change in government is likely to be initiated from within
the military.” [*9<
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-eritrea-president-asaias-afwerki>
*] McMullen is no longer the ambassador but in light of the recently
fabricated “coup” rumor that the international mainstream media has been
recklessly trumpeting,
[*10<
http://redseafisher.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/the-eritrean-coup-that-never-was/>
*] perhaps the US sent McMullen to make use of his expertise. As *Rafael
Correa <
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvUwC5JTAJY>* once jokingly stated,
“the only country that can be sure never to have a coup d’état is the
United States because it hasn’t got a U.S. Embassy.”
While on the one hand secretly promoting Eritrean youth migration, the US
administration was simultaneously taking actions against Eritrea for not
doing enough to stop it. One month after McMullen’s cable announcing the
secret restart of F1 visa processing, in violation of the basic tenets of
consular relations, the US Administration suddenly classified Eritrea as a
“Tier 3″ nation in the US State Department’s June 2009 “Trafficking in
Persons Report.” [*11<
http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2009/123136.htm>
*] Keep in mind that Eritrea didn’t even make the list in 2008 and, unlike
other nations that started off with Tier 1 and 2 warnings, Eritrea jumped
straight to Tier 3. The entire reasoning behind doing this is that it
allows trafficking nations to meet the “minimum standards” by the following
year. [12] As a result of this unprecedented move, President Obama added
Eritrea and 5 other African countries to a blacklist that would subject
them “to the trafficking sanctions, which can include a ban on
non-humanitarian and trade-related aid and U.S. opposition to loans and
credits from the International Monetary Fund and World Bank.”
[*13<
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-5091919.html>
*]
What did the report say about Eritrea, exactly? In essence it stated that
Eritrea was a “source country” for human trafficking and that it didn’t do
enough to prevent the practice. That could apply to almost every nation on
the planet. Notably, the report focused more on “large numbers of migrant
workers” and made almost passing mention of the Eritrean government being
“complicit in conscripting children into military service.” In spite of no
significant policy changes to the Eritrean national service program,
subsequent reports, which are released annually, focused less on the
“migrant workers” and increasingly more on the “conscripts,” “adolescent
children” being sent to Sawa, and “child laborers.” More on this later.
Following the TIP report, US ambassador McMullen’s writes in an August 26,
2009 leaked diplomatic cable about a young unnamed Eritrean “who is
preparing to flee the country” and supposedly confesses the intricate
details of his escape plan.
[*14<
http://www.aftenposten.no/spesial/wikileaksdokumenter/26082009-ERITREAN-YOUTH-IM-FLEEING-AND-HERES-WHY-5123036.html>
*] McMullen writes that he will “use one of the Eritrean National Security
Officers (ENSO), who he claimed to be the ringleaders in smuggling of
Eritreans to the Sudan border” and “he stated the cost at 80,000 nakfa.”
This is the first time we see official US documentation of claims that
Eritrean government officials are directly involved in the smuggling of
citizens outside the country. This is despite the fact that about a year
earlier the Chargé d’Affaires, Matthew D. Smith, confessed in another
leaked diplomatic cable entitled “How To Escape From Eritrea” that “the GSE
[Government of the State of Eritrea] is very keen to break these human
smuggling rings and dispatches agents to pose as potential customers. Other
agents pose as facilitators, making all of the supposed smuggling
arrangements prior to having the unsuspecting person arrested.”
[*15<
http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=08ASMARA575>
*]
In spite of the Eritrean government’s efforts to combat smuggling, the
Somalia and Eritrea Monitoring Group (SEMG) produced a report in 2011 that
expanded on McMullen’s claims. The report states:
421. The well-documented exodus of young Eritreans to escape poverty or
obligatory “national service” represents yet another opportunity for
corruption and illicit revenue. People smuggling is so pervasive that it
could not be possible without the complicity of Government and party
officials, especially military officers working in the western border zone,
which is headed by General Teklai Kifle “Manjus”. Multiple sources have
described to the Monitoring Group how Eritrean officials collaborate with
ethnic Rashaida smugglers to move their human cargo through the Sudan into
Egypt and beyond. This is in most respects the same network involved in
smuggling weapons through to Sinai and into Gaza.
422. According to former Eritrean military officials and international
human rights activists, military officers involved in the practice charge
roughly $3,000 a head for each person exiting Eritrea.
…The Monitoring Group has obtained details of a Swiss bank account into
which the proceeds from smuggling have been deposited and has provided the
Swiss authorities with information related to this account, together with
the personal and contact details of the Swiss-based coordinator of this
trafficking ring and details of the coordinator’s Egypt-based associates. [*
16 <
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2011/433>*]
For the SEMG’s extraordinary claims it cites as its only sources an
“interview with Eritrean individuals directly involved in people smuggling
operations” and an “interview with Eritrean source, Switzerland, March
2011.” In the 2012 follow-up report, the SEMG repeats the same human
trafficking claims, citing no sources as evidence. “The trafficking of arms
and people is managed by the same networks using the same vehicles, and the
same Eritrean officials are implicated,” the report states. The SEMG then
claims to have acquired 1,300 testimonies of which “61 were from Eritreans
who identified the names of Rashaida smugglers.” Artfully interweaving
groups of similar testimonies as vignettes, the report attempts to
illustrate the validity of earlier claims made by the SEMG. Finally, it
shows photos of body wounds of two unnamed and faceless torture victims.
The annex is only 3 pages long, filled with photos, and has nothing to do
with human trafficking allegations.
After reading both reports, one is left scratching their head. That’s it?
No real people’s names? No bank account numbers? No photos of human
traffickers? Where is the hard evidence? Extraordinary claims require
extraordinary evidence. To put things in perspective, imagine a man is
brought to trial on charges of torture and the prosecuting team presents
the following as their “evidence” against him:
1. Claims against him by *unnamed interviewers* with no transcripts for the
court to review
2. Pictures of *unnamed and faceless victims* he allegedly tortured
3. 61 snippets of testimonies by the *nameless victims* who he allegedly
tortured
4. Claims against him by people who openly call themselves his “*opposition*
“
5. Claims against him by one of his former torturer buddies, who is *unnamed
*
The defendant then demands access to the evidence and witnesses for
cross-examination but his request is denied. Based on the information, he
is then found guilty and expected to accept his sentence. Would that be
justice? Of course not. However, this is exactly what Eritrea has had to
face regularly in regards to the UN Security Council and SEMG reports. This
system of international law requires incredible trust in the
prosecutors–the SEMG, in this case–who Eritrea had no say in appointing.
And if we think that the SEMG is actually a committee of independent
experts as opposed to a prosecuting team, then why would the head of the
SEMG, Matt Bryden, say “we’re trying to make the case that any improvement
in Eritrea’s conduct is the result of sanctions, and that it’s too early to
lift them because of the other violations they have committed”?
[*17<
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/16/us-eritrea-somalia-un-idUSBRE86F0AK20120716>
*] In essence, he’s saying ‘yeah, I know we couldn’t find evidence that
they support terrorism but please keep the sanctions because of this new
human trafficking ordeal.’ In other words he is prosecuting and making a
case against Eritrea and, unfortunately, it’s completely within his mandate
to share his opinion
[*18<
http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1718/panelofexperts.shtml>
*]. That’s UN justice for you. The SEMG’s “evidence” would be considered a
joke if wasn’t so serious. According to the UNSC, the successful
implementation of “targeted sanctions” on any nation is premised on the
expectations that the “panel of experts” will uphold the highest standards
of evidence, which is the key tenet of the 2003 Stockholm Process. In this
regard, the 2003 UNSC states:
While recognizing that it might sometimes be necessary to uphold the
confidentiality of sources of information available to expert panels or
monitoring groups regarding sanctions busting or non-compliance, the
Stockholm paper notes that the credibility of the findings and the
integrity of the process required that evidence be as* transparent and
verifiable* as possible….*sanctions should be based on concrete
evidence*of violations of international law or Council obligations,
and
*not based on presumptions, media reports or motivated allegations*.
[*19<
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7672.doc.htm>
*]
The SEMG report clearly falls short. To make matters worse, Eritrea doesn’t
get to comment or defend itself at any point in the process because
according to the SEMG, which unprofessionally leaked the report to the
media before Eritrea could see it,
[*20<
http://www.innercitypress.com/som1jimale072412.html>
*] “the Government of Eritrea failed to provide responses to any Monitoring
Group correspondence and declined to grant the repeated requests.” How
convenient. Where have we seen this sort of tactic before? For years, the
world has been unable to hear Eritrea’s side of the story:
*A. On the Kenyan defections*: “Eritrean officials were *unavailable for
comment* on Tuesday.”
[*21<
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/12/15/uk-eritrea-footballers-idUKTRE5BE19520091215>
*]
*B. On Eritrea’s alleged bombing of the AU (proved false by WikiLeaks
[**22<
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/15/ethiopia-bombs-itself-blames-eritrea/>
**])*: “Eritrean officials were *unavailable for comment* on Tuesday.” [23]
*C. On claims of human trafficking*: “Eritrean government…*did not
respond*to requests to provide information for this report.” [
*24 <
http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2012/192366.htm>*]
*D. On relations with the US*: “It has been *difficult to talk to
Eritrea*frankly. We have had trouble getting them to talk to us. I
sent the
Assistant Secretary for African Affairs to talk with Mr. Isaias and he
didn’t see her.”
[*25<
http://archives.republicans.foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/38542.pdf>
*]
*E. On breakdown of US-Eritrea relations*: “Eritrean officials were *not
immediately available to comment* on the decision”
[*26<
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article18939>
**]*
The list goes on and on, ad infintum. The point is that Eritrea is not
allowed to defend itself in court, in the media, in reports, or anywhere in
the international arena. It’s no surprise that Eritrea is so misunderstood
by the world. In contrast, the darlings of the mainstream media, the US and
Ethiopia, were also accused of violating the Somali arms embargo by the
former Somalia monitoring groups yet we saw no prosecution by the UNSC. Is
this justice? No way! In the words of *Gerald
Celente<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vJOFDODqRxE>
*, it’s “just-us” and unfortunately Eritrea isn’t one of “them.”
Following the SEMG report, the UNHCR released a report in November 2012
entitled “Refugees and the Rashaida: human smuggling and trafficking from
Eritrea to Sudan and Egypt.”
[*27<
http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/documents/UNHCR_RefugeesandtheRashaida.pdf>
*] The document states that “it has come to light that some members of the
military and Eritrean Government are complicit in smuggling” and it
references the 2012 SEMG report. It talks about General Teklai Kifle,
adding no new information, and then goes on at length about the Rashaida
ethnic group’s involvement in the human trafficking business. In regards to
both of them, “it is thought there are varying levels of experience and
organization within the groups of Rashaida who engage in taking Eritreans
to Sinai. However other networks, such as those organized by some members
of the Eritrean Government for smuggling arms are highly organized.” In
other words, the government is the syndicate–the major player. What’s
interesting about this particular report is the divisive new ethnic and
regional dimension it seems to take:
There is a marked difference between the majority of the refugee population
and those now leaving Eritrea. Those now leaving the country are *young,
Christian, Tigrinya from urban areas*. Much like young Sudan-born refugees,
the new arrivals are generally unwilling to remain in an enclosed camp
setting without access to higher education or employment.
…Eritrean brokers are key to arranging onward movement with Rashaida from
within the camp. The facilitators in the route are *usually of the same
ethnicity* as those embarking on the movement (Hamood 2006: 50).
Furthermore, *life in the refugee camp is characterized by ethnic divides.
Different ethnicities are thought to have different aspirations. One
testimony states that people from Akele-Guzai region are thought to have
strong connections abroad and to be most likely going to Israel. Those from
Maekel region are believed to be going to Europe, while those from Gash
Barka are simply associated with smuggling people out of Eritrea and
settling in Sudan* (Mehari 2010).
Turning to the reference section to investigate the source of the
aforementioned claims, the report cites an “unpublished paper” by someone
named “Mehari, K” (Mehari, K. 2010. ‘Desert in Disorder’ unpublished
paper). Investigating the rest of the citations for follow-up is a futile
task as most references are made to personal interviews with individuals
like Meron Estifanos, who was integral in propagating the fabricated “coup”
in January 2013 and using it as a springboard for the so-called “Forto
2013″ campaign.
[*28<
http://redseafisher.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/the-eritrean-coup-that-never-was/>
*]
Returning to the latest publication of the US State Department TIP report,
we hear echoes of the SEMG’s allegations of corruption by senior Eritrean
army officers. As opposed to the 2009 report, the 2012 publication is
focused less on migrants workers more on youth conscripted into national
service. More notably, the report seems to focus on the Eritrean
government’s alleged conscription of minors. It states that “adolescent
children that attempt to leave Eritrea have been forced into military
service despite being younger than the minimum service age of 18. As part
of the requirements to complete their senior year of high school,
adolescent children are also sent to Sawa, Eritrea’s military academy,
prior to their eighteenth birthday.” Surprisingly, this claim was later
cited by Child Soldiers International in a 2012 case study to support the
claim that Eritrea uses child soldiers. This “study” was, in turn, posted
on the UNHCR website and is currently being used by journalists and various
NGO’s to propagate the notion that Eritrea’s use of “child soldiers” is
driving youth out of the country.
Nowhere is the international media’s desperation to point out the Eritrean
government’s blunders more evident than in its claim that Eritrea uses
“child soldiers.” When the average person reads about child soldiers in
Africa, she/he may conjure up the classical CNN-promoted image of
regime-indoctrinated 9 year-olds mowing down civilians. Perhaps the image
is sometimes a wee bit less graphic but the reality is that the claims of
child soldiers in Africa perpetuates the stereotype of a barbaric Africa
out of control and encourages intervention against nations like Eritrea.
Thus, such claims must be taken seriously. In regards to their Eritrea
study, Child Soldiers International states the following:
To prevent increasing evasion of national service by school leavers, the
government announced in 2003 that the final year of secondary education,
Year 12, must be performed at the Sawa Military Training Camp in western
Eritrea near the border with Sudan. Because the Year 12 designation is
based not on a child’s age but rather on the school grade achieved, some
Year 12 students are under 18 years old. According to a recent US State
Department report on human rights in Eritrea, “Students at Sawa were
typically 18 years old or older, although a fair percentage were as young
as 16 years old”.
The government denies underage conscription and argues that students
attending the twelfth grade in Sawa should not be confused with national
service conscripts. However, the Year 12 students at Sawa have military
status and are under the jurisdiction of the Ministry of Defence and
subject to military discipline. They are therefore in reality soldiers, *even
if not fully operational members of the Eritrean National Army*.
[*29<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/507d26022a.html>
*]
The sad part about this is that the “Eritrea recruits child soldiers” claim
is entirely based on this hair splitting of mandatory twelfth grade
education. Such reporting is irresponsible for two reasons. Firstly, this
report is based on non-independent politically biased sources like the US
State Department. Secondly, even if 16-year-olds attended Sawa they are not
considered members of the Eritrean National Army, as CSI even admits.
Consideration should also be given to the fact that while most of the world
submits to more lax standards on child soldier laws enshrined in the UN
Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), Africa has collectively gone
above and beyond by signing the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare
of the Child, which by default accedes to the “Optional Protocols” of the
CRC and increases the minimum military recruitment age from 15 to 18. [30]
Given these more stringent laws and the known fact that most reported child
soldiers are between ages 15-18 years old, it’s no surprise that half of
the world’s child soldiers are in Africa.
[*31<
http://www.irinnews.org/Report/66280/AFRICA-Too-small-to-be-fighting-in-anyone-s-war>
*] Regardless of the facts, the media is quick dish out the child soldier
label in Africa. There’s a reason why the spineless international media
points out “child soldiers” in Eritrea while it ignores “child soldiers” in
the UK, which is also a signatory to the Option Protocols and refers to the
exact same argument as Eritrea.
[*32<
http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_gb_rule137>
*] Let us also refresh the UN’s memory and recall that in 2002, the UNSC
Special Representative for Children and Armed Conflict, Olara Otunnu,
visited Eritrea to assess the use of child soldiers. He concluded that
there was “no systematic use of child soldiers” and said that “the absence
of the ‘child soldiering’ phenomenon was particularly impressive since no
other conflict zone he had visited recently had been free of the problem.” [
*33<
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=3221&Cr=Otunnu&Cr1=#.UUN0Ilemir4>
*]
As shown above, there seems to be a concerted effort to link Eritrea to
human trafficking. The reality is that we have yet to see any hard evidence
to support this allegation. To make matters worse the international press
almost reflexively blames it on child soldiers, forced labor, and lack of
[insert word like freedom, democracy, religion, or other's words used to
destroy Iraq, Libya, etc.]. As some of the wikileaked diplomatic cables
suggest, the US State Department has made efforts to drive youth out of
Eritrea to weaken the government. It then turns around and blames the
Eritrean government for “human trafficking.” These actions are part of a
broader concerted and systematic effort by the US Administration to destroy
Eritrea through the control of human migration. To understand this we must
go back in history.
*History of Migration in Eritrea *
When Eritrea gained independence in the 1991, there were approximately
500,000 Eritrean refugees living in the Sudan.
[*34<
http://www.unhcr.org/4eb3e5ea9.pdf>
*] At that time, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR)
deemed the Eritrean refugee situation in East Sudan as a “protracted
refugee situation.” Spanning back to the 1960′s, it was the world’s second
longest standing refugee program after Palestine’s.
[*35<
http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/UD/Vedlegg/FN/profilark2011/E886_E_UNHCR.pdf>
*] One year after independence, about 70,000 refugees returned home. In
subsequent years, repatriation dropped dramatically. By 1995, there were
still 282,000 refugees living in the Sudan, despite peace in Eritrea and
despite the nation entering the so-called “African Renaissance.”
[*36<
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/23/time/africa.html>
*] In a surprisingly honest 1996 Inter Press Service article, Arnulv
Torbjornsen, UNHCR-Sudan chief at the time, admitted that “we (UNCHR)
created a monster in Sudan”and that “we still support 2,000 jobs in the
refugee business there, and there are vested interests in keeping the
Eritrean refugees. If they repatriate, their refugee empire will collapse.
We have to take a lot of responsibility for creating the situation in
Sudan.” [*37<
http://www.ipsnews.net/1996/07/eritrea-population-refugees-caught-in-political-deadlock/>
*] He then goes on to explain that 80-90% of the refugees want to
repatriate in Eritrea. He also said that “UNHCR conducted a survey in the
camps in August 1995, and all said they wish to go home. But perhaps only
about 50 percent of those spontaneously settled want to return – they have
shops, houses, children in school, etc.” Therefore, complete repatriation
was impossible, despite peace and development in Eritrea, due to the
ineffectiveness of UNHCR and the adoption by refugees of a new cultural and
economic life in the diaspora.
In 1998, Eritrea was plunged into a two-year war with Ethiopia, displacing
hundreds of thousands once again. By war’s end, there were 50,000 returns
and with hostilities over, UNHCR invoked the “cessation clause” (under
Article 1. C. (5) of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees
[*38 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/3b20a3914.pdf>*]), which would
terminate Eritrean refugee status as of 2002 unless individual refugees
could demonstrate a continuing need for international protection. Thus,
Eritreans in the Sudan would no longer be considered refugees but rather
undocumented “migrants” and incoming refugees would no longer be accepted
“prima facie” (i.e. automatically without processing) as they had been for
decades. To gain UNHCR recognition and resettle in a wealthier nation, many
Eritreans began to seek asylum–whether real or not–on the grounds that they
would be persecuted if they returned to Eritrea. Thus, at this point
incoming Eritreans transitioned into “asylum-seekers” as opposed to
refugees. As one UN report explains “the number of Eritrean asylum seekers
entering Sudan has grown quite dramatically, from around 1,000 in 2003 to
almost 33,000 in 2008, with a somewhat smaller figure (between 22,000 and
25,000) in 2009 and 2010.” [*39 <
http://www.unhcr.org/4eb3e5ea9.pdf>*] This
rise in asylum-seekers stems from the sudden cessation of prima facie
recognition, which had been in place for decades and created a continuous
pipeline for many Eritreans to resettle in much wealthier nations around
the world. Instead of considering this reality, the UNHCR put together a
2004 position paper, taking a reductionist outlook and concluded that there
was a rise in Eritrean asylum claims and decreased repatriation because
“the human rights situation in Eritrea has seriously deteriorated in the
past two years…with regard to the treatment of opposition political groups
and movements, freedom of expression, freedom of religion, arbitrary
detention…and the treatment of draft evaders.” [40] The paper relied almost
entirely on highly biased and politically motivated US State Department
annual human rights reports on Eritrea. It also speckled in supposedly
“independent investigations” by Amnesty International, which:
1. Did not collect its data from within Eritrea;
[*41<
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR33/001/2002/en/37f3a8f8-d79f-11dd-b024-21932cd2170d/eur330012002en.html>
*]
2. Relied purely on the questionable personal accounts of nameless
asylum-seekers that seek resettlement; and
[*42<
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR33/001/2002/en/37f3a8f8-d79f-11dd-b024-21932cd2170d/eur330012002en.html>
*]
3. Has historically been used to promote imperial humanitarian intervention
in non-western nations.
[*43<
http://www.interventionism.info/en/CSI-comment:--Does-Amnesty-International-campaign-for-NATO>
*]
Notably, the UNHCR paper did not seek or consider the accounts of Eritrean
officials or, as some may prefer, the work of independent observers. The
paper, which strongly argued that Eritrean asylum-seekers should not be
returned to Eritrea, signified a new post-2004 policy direction for UNHCR
that would only serve to perpetuate migration out of Eritrea. The
“cessation clause” was revoked, meaning undocumented migrants would no
longer be carefully reviewed on a case-by-case basis but rather en masse.
Eritrea is still dealing with the consequences of this decision.
For UNHCR to somehow expect 100% of Eritreans to gleefully return to
post-war poverty in the face of a decades long culture of resettling in
other countries is quite ludicrous. Many still hadn’t returned in 1996
while the honeymoon of independence was still there. Significantly, the
UNHCR position paper–and their many other publications to follow–failed to
make the slightest mention of the other etiologies of increased asylum and
dwindling repatriation:
1. *Natural economic migratory patterns*. According to the Harris-Todaro
theory of migration, migrants make a rational decision to increase their
welfare or utility by moving to another place where they can expect to earn
a higher income. [44] This is evident all throughout Africa and is a
significant driving factor in “brain drain.” Why is Eritrea, a remarkably
poor nation, exempt from this consideration?
2. *“No peace no war” situation*. Despite the cessation of hostilities in
2000, the threat of a return to war in Eritrea is real and unrelenting. The
Ethiopian government not only refused a “final and binding” ruling that
would normalize relations but it also encroached on the Temporary Security
Zone (buffer), which is now sovereign Eritrean territory
[*45<
http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2004/32377.htm>
*]. In fact, Ethiopia initiated an attack on Eritrea last spring
[*46<
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/03/2012317172129621636.html>
*]. The year before that, Ethiopia openly called for the overthrow of the
Eritrean government, violating resolution 3314 (XXIX)(3)(g) of the UNGA. [*
47<
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-29/eritrea-calls-ethiopia-s-new-stance-a-declaration-of-war-.html>
*] Thus, the threat is very real today. It was even more real back then.
Why was this not considered?
3. *Internally displaced people (IDPs)*. Returning refugees had to compete
for resettlement with the 210,000 IDPs that were already present in 2000.
This cannot be ignored, considering that there were still 45,000 IDPs in
2005, who would not be fully resettled until mid-2008.
[*48<
http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/%28httpCountrySummaries%29/09DE409E7595E1C1C125755F002D831E?OpenDocument&count=10000>
*] Many of them were among the 80,000 forcefully expelled from Ethiopia,
after Meles Zenawi infamously stated that his government could “expel
anyone even if we don’t like the color of their eyes.” [49]
4. *Severed Eritrea-Sudan relations*. On account of the ruling National
Islamic Front’s support of terrorist groups like the Eritrean Islamic Jihad
Movement that were radicalizing Eritrean refugees in East Sudan during the
1990′s, official diplomatic relations between the nations were terminated
in 1995. [*50<
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200606/13/eng20060613_273561.html>
*] This made tripartite coordination between UNHCR, Eritrea, and the Sudan
difficult. Diplomatic relations were only resumed after 2006.
5. *Protracted refugee situation*. As alluded to above, the presence of a
decades-long UNHCR administered refugee program in East Sudan has created
an economy and culture that inhibits its termination. In fact, various
refugee camps economies were so successful that they became self-reliant
and transformed themselves into villages.
[*51<
http://www.refugeecooperation.org/publications/Sudan/07_bartsch.php>
*] In addition, various camps were seen as assets to the Sudanese
Government, as large local mechanized farms became dependent on the cheap
labor of Eritrean refugees.
[*52<
http://www.refugeecooperation.org/publications/Sudan/07_bartsch.php>
*]
6. *Reduced UNHCR donor funding*. With the war over, donors expected
Eritreans to return home and were reluctant to pledge more funds for East
Sudan. [*53<
http://books.google.com/books?id=i-tvZmg_ePUC&pg=PA144&dq=unhcr+proferi+ppp+eritrean+government+donor&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CldBUbzHKfXE4AP1uYHQDw&ved=0CDgQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=unhcr%20proferi%20ppp%20eritrean%20government%20donor&f=false>
*]
7. *Recurrent droughts*. During periods of drought some Eritrean families
would relocate to the Sudan.
8. *UNHCR-Sudan’s ineffectiveness*. UNHCR ignored the self-criticism of
Torbjornsen. It was only in later publications–when the damage was already
done–that the organization came to grips with it’s general ineffectiveness:
The internal factors which have visibly affected the operation in eastern
Sudan include UNHCR’s recurrent financial crisis; lack of consistent
long-term vision compounded by a lack of institutional memory; changes of
senior management without effective accountability, bringing about frequent
changes of direction … Disregarding the history of the operation has
invariably led to repeated reinventions and ultimately the waste of
opportunities and resources. [54]
Following the UNHCR’s change in policy, it was discovered that the UN
Peacekeeping Mission to Eritrea and Ethiopia (UNMEE), which was present in
Eritrea from 2000 to 2008, had also been involved in the trafficking of
Eritreans yet UNCHR reports fail to mention or downplay this key fact.
Instead they point the fingers at the Eritrean government, the Rashaidas,
or whatever boogeyman fits their agenda. Let us recall that in a January
18, 2007 wikileaked diplomatic cable entitled “UNMEE: Confronting Sexual
Abuse and Exploitation,” the US Chargé d’Affaires in Eritrea, Jennifer
McIntyre, wrote that “since the establishment of the UN Peacekeeping
Mission to Eritrea and Ethiopia in 2001, there have been few reported
incidents of sexual exploitation and abuse and trafficking in persons
within Eritrea.” However, she then goes to make the following admission:
*What has been an on-going problem is human smuggling*, with one highly
visible case in fall 2006 of a UN Volunteer who attempted to smuggle
several Eritreans to Ethiopia in an UNMEE vehicle. (Refs B&C) Other
smuggling cases have predominantly involved local staff crossing the border
in UNMEE vehicles. In one case, upon arrival in Ethiopia the local staff
called UNMEE headquarters in Asmara to inform UNMEE staff where in Ethiopia
they had abandoned the vehicle.
[*55<
http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=07ASMARA56>
*]
This diplomatic cable validates what Eritrean government officials had been
saying for years, despite downplaying or outright denials by UNMEE. In
addition to illegally spying on the Eritrean Defense Forces, peacekeepers
were accused of trafficking Eritreans, having sex with Eritrean children,
and making pornographic films of Eritrean women, contrary to traditional
culture. [*56<
http://books.google.com/books?id=l4KwJVeCp14C&pg=PA36&dq=%22unmee+were+having+sex+with+minors%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=fxNBUaT7ItW04AOFiYHoDw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22unmee%20were%20having%20sex%20with%20minors%22&f=false>
*, *57<
http://reliefweb.int/report/eritrea/un-investigates-alleged-sexual-abuse-peacekeepers-eritrea>
*] It was only in 2007 that UNHCR finally reported–albeit via passing
mention–that “according to the refugees, some members of the United Nations
peacekeeping mission to Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE) were involved in human
trafficking.” [*58<
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&date=2007-10-09&cat=Africa>
*] And for what reason were they doing this, exactly? In a meeting with a
group of Eritreans, a candid Italian UN officer admitted that “peacekeeping
is a lucrative business and that is why I am here.”
[*59<
http://dehai.org/demarcation-watch/articles/Ghidewon_Abay_Asmerom_UNMEE_abusing_the_welcome.html>
*] In 2008, Eritrea had seen enough and the “peacekeepers” were eventually
kicked out. However, the damage had already been done. A pipeline outside
of the country had been created through the work of foreign smugglers.
Often times this smuggling leads to exploitation, which then deems it as
“human trafficking.”
[*60<
http://www.ice.gov/news/library/factsheets/human-trafficking.htm>
*] To this day Eritrea is still dealing with this issue.
Another important point illustrated by McIntyre’s leaked cable is that
Eritreans were being smuggled into Ethiopia. Historically, Eritreans have
migrated to the Sudan for refuge and hope of resettlement but migration to
Ethiopia became somewhat of a new phenomenon that only took place after the
1998-2000 war with Ethiopia. Why is this the case? According to the US
government-funded Cultural Orientation Resource Center (COR), which is
responsible for “orienting” refugees, the “Eritrean refugees first crossed
into Ethiopia in May 2000 after the 1998-2000 border conflict” and “many
have fled conscription and come to Shimelba, a refugee camp just 25
kilometers (air distance) from the Eritrean/Ethiopian border.”
[*61<
http://www.culturalorientation.net/providing-orientation/overseas/programs/rsc-africa/eritrean-highlight>
*] They claim the camp is made of 60% Tigrinyas and that “roughly speaking,
about half the cases in the P2 group [those eligible for group US
resettlement] were born in present day Ethiopia, were deported by the
Ethiopian Government between 1996-2000, and then later fled back to
Ethiopia.” In other words, half of those eligible for US resettlement on
the basis that they are Eritrean are actually Ethiopian. The document then
states that the second largest group is that of the Kunamas. COR then goes
on to explain that “the camp is run by the Ethiopian government with UNHCR
oversight. There is a ‘central committee’ that is elected by the camp
population, and the committee represents the refugees on various issues,
liaising with NGOs and the Ethiopian government.” As we will see, this has
led to a new sort of politicized resettlement program of supposedly
Eritrean refugees.
In 2007, UNHCR announced that “700 ethnic Kunama refugees from Eritrea”
were resettled in America from the Shimelba Refugee Camp.
[*62<
http://www.unhcr.org/468d0f88c.html>
*] Notice that it doesn’t simply say “Eritreans” but rather takes a
divisive turn by singling out one ethnic group from Eritrea. This is
uncharacteristic of the highly nationalistic Eritreans (“kulu dihiri hager”
or “everything after nation”). So what’s going on here? Well, we learn from
COR that “for some Kunama, being in Shimelba is akin to ‘returning home,’
excepting the irony that they now are refugees in their own homeland.” What
COR is highlighting is that fact that Kunamas are located on both sides of
the border. During the Eritrea-Ethiopia war, many Ethiopian Kunamas were
displaced and found refuge at the Shimbela refugee camp. Still, why is it
that only Kunamas, whether Ethiopian or Eritrean, were being resettled in
the US?
We learn from the Chargé d’Affaires in Ethiopia, Deborah Malac, in an
October 6, 2008 wikileaked diplomatic cable entitled “The View From Inside
Ethiopia’s Eritrean Refugee Camps,” that politicized resettlement was
being used in the Shimelba refugee camp to organize an Eritrean opposition:
UNHCR officials declared that they were unaware of any Eritrean opposition
activity within Shimelba, though one Protection Officer noted that some
Tigrinya refugees had requested urban relocation due to opposition
harassment in the camps. ARRA [Ethiopian Administration for
Refugee/Returnee Affairs] officials stated that opposition activity within
the camps was not permitted, but a handful of Shimelba Kunama refugees
insisted that, in fact, the opposition “controlled” activity within camp
and moved in and out freely. They also alleged complicity between ARRA and
the Tigrinya and Kunama opposition. They said that the Kunama opposition,
DMLEK [Democratic Movement for the Liberation of the Eritrean Kunama],
ensured that all elected Kunama officials to the refugee council were
either DMLEK members or sympathetic to the opposition.
[*63<
http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=08ADDISABABA2749>
*]
It doesn’t end there:
According to the refugees, DMLEK used intimidation tactics to force
compliance from uncooperative refugees by threatening to use DMLEK’s
“relationship” with both ARRA and UNHCR to ensure that the offending
individual “would never leave the camp.” One refugee, after refusing to
join DMLEK, claimed he was arrested by the Ethiopian police on a trumped up
charge and held for several weeks. Another refugee, who was a veteran of
both the Eritrean liberation struggle and the 1998-2000 border war, said
that when he arrived in Shimelba, ARRA offered to send him to Addis Ababa,
and provide him with a vehicle, if he agreed to work in the opposition’s
radio station. When he refused he was told he would never be allowed to
leave, and that he would never be resettled. Another refugee said that the
largely Tigrinya “Sedeg’e” opposition group tried to force him to join by
telling him that if he did not, he would never leave the camp. (Note:
Sedeg’e is also known as the Eritrean Revolutionary Democratic Front
(ERDF), and is one of the three groups that joined together to form the
Eritrean National Salvation Front (ENSF). The DMLEK and the ENSF are both
members of the Eritrean Democratic Alliance (EDA). End note.)
The refugees said that armed persons could often be seen in the camp. They
said sometimes the armed persons were local Tigrayan (i.e. Ethiopian)
militia, but other times the armed men were opposition. The refugees said
that some DMLEK members had family living in the camp and would come and go
regularly. (Note: PolOff saw several armed Tigrayan militia walking through
the camp at various times.)
(C/NF) PolOff could not find any Tigrinya refugees who would speak as
openly as the Kunama, but the Kunama refugees said that the Tigrinya were
dominated by Tigrinya opposition groups just as the Kunama were dominated
by DMLEK. The Kunama refugees asserted that some Tigrinya refugees
regularly left the camp to receive military training for short periods of
time, and then would return. At one point during a conversation between
PolOff and contacts in the camp, the contacts visibly stiffened, and warned
PolOff that they were under observation by what they termed as a
“politically active” Tigrinya refugee.
Is this a refugee camp or rebel training camp? It’s sort of hard to tell.
This seems very reminscent of the Syrian Free Army organizing in Turkey
near the border before they started operating in Syria. Anyway, the cable
continues:
(C/NF) The Kunama refugees also said that DMLEK was opposed to resettlement
of the Kunama refugees, and therefore, pressuring people not to resettle.
The refugees stated that DMLEK wanted the people to stay to be used as a
resource, and wanted the young men to join their organization to fight
Eritrea. They said that DMLEK was spreading misinformation about life in
the United States including showing the movie “Roots,” alleging that the
Kunama would be treated like slaves in America. One refugee noted that in
the last year, positive reports from Kunama who had already resettled were
beginning to counter DMLEK’s negative message.
…The presence of Eritrean opposition activity in the camps was not
surprising. The defensive tone in EmbOffs discussions with UNHCR, ARRA, and
international NGO officials suggests that they had a vested interest in
denying any knowledge of it, otherwise they might be required to address
opposition harassment of refugees. The visit was yet another reminder that
a priority of ARRA’s refugee program was to address Ethiopia’s national
security concerns with Eritrea. Post cannot confirm complicity between ARRA
and the opposition groups, but we do note that ARRA, as an organization,
falls under the purview of the Ethiopian National Intelligence Security
Service. End Comment.
Thus, it comes as no surprise when websites like Asmarino.com–that brand
themselves as “Eritrean opposition”–write articles with headlines like
“Peaceful demonstration in Eritrean refugee camp Ethiopia (Shimelba)
06/12/2009.” [*64<
http://asmarino.com/en/54-awyat/427-peaceful-demonstration-in-eritrean-refugee-camp-ethiopia-shimelba-06122009>
*] Anyway, from reading past US State Department “Proposed Refugee
Admissions” reports for successive fiscal years, we learn about the US’s
role in bringing the Kunamas to America. The Kunama case was first
mentioned in the FY 2003 report (published in 2002), when they explain that
“among groups under consideration for possible P-2 designation are…Kuname
Eritreans in Walanibhy Camp in Ethiopia.”
[*65<
http://2001-2009.state.gov/g/prm/refadm/rls/rpts/2002/13892.htm>
*] Explaining why they are receiving P-2 designation, the report states
that “these 4,000 Eritreans have no local integration prospects and are
viewed with suspicion by Eritrea due to their decision to seek refuge in
Ethiopia during the war. We will actively pursue an appropriate P-2
designation for this group during FY 2003.” They were still under
consideration in FY 2003 and 2004.
[*66<
http://2001-2009.state.gov/g/prm/refadm/rls/rpts/2003/44338.htm>
*] In the FY 2005 (published in 2004) we learn something new. The report
says “we continue to monitor the situation of the group of Eritrean Kunama
in Ethiopia and have *urged UNHCR to consider a group resettlement referral
of those who do not choose to voluntarily repatriate to Eritrea* by the end
of 2004.” [*67 <
http://2001-2009.state.gov/g/prm/asst/rl/rpts/36116.htm>*]
Thus, we learn that it was the US, and not the UNHCR, that made the request
for resettlement. It is usually the other way around: UNHCR makes the
referral and the resettling nations choose whether or whether not to
resettle them. Why they specifically requested to resettle Kunamas is a
mystery. They do the same thing for religious minorities in Iran and Bantus
in Somalia. If not for genuine concerns for persecution, one can only
suspect an agenda to forge a sub-national identity and foment division. In
any case, in the FY 2007 report they finally said that they were processing
up to 2,500 Eritrean Kunama in Ethiopia, with the vast majority slated to
come to the USA in FY 2007.
[*68<
http://2001-2009.state.gov/documents/organization/74762.pdf>
*] The rest is history.
Thus, as the above shows, external entities have been using the refugee
situations in the Sudan and Ethiopia to drive a politicized migration out
of Eritrea. We have shown how US State Department reports were used by
UNHCR to grant Eritreans prima facie status following 2004 to expedite
resettlement processing and how they were granted P2 status (group
resettlement in US reserved for rare minorities) to resettle them in large
groups.
Moving on to more recent times, the US State Department’s “Proposed Refugee
Admissions for Fiscal Year 2012″ states the following:
For the first time in 20 years, staff representing the Departments of State
and Homeland Security began processing Eritrean refugees inside Sudan
residing in a remote camp along the eastern border. This initiative is
designed to bring hope to individuals who can neither return to Eritrea nor
locally integrate in Sudan.
…Eritreans continue to seek asylum in neighboring countries due to
political tensions and increasing political repression; many are attempting
dangerous onward migration to Europe and the Middle East in search of
better economic opportunities.
[*69]<
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/181378.pdf>
*
Thus, they are focusing more on resettling Eritreans living in East Sudan
on the basis of political repression. To call them “army defectors” or
“work migrants” in search of a better life would mean that they would have
to be returned to Eritrea, as practically every nation in Africa–dealing
with the same internal problem–has decided to do despite threats from UNHCR
(Libya, [*70 <
http://allafrica.com/stories/201303130930.html>*] Egypt,
[*71<
http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/11/15/egypt-don-t-deport-eritreans>
*] the Sudan[*72 <
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article25120>*],
Angola [*73<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,USCRI,,AGO,,485f50c0c,0.html>
*], Tanzania [74], etc.; see below).
Alas, we arrive at the latest Proposed Refugee Admissions publication. The
FY 2013 report states the following:
Both Eritrea and Sudan are currently designated as “Countries of Particular
Concern” (CPC) for particularly severe violations of religious freedom.
Both Eritrea and Sudan are currently designated as “Countries of Particular
Concern” (CPC) for particularly severe violations of religious freedom. *The
USRAP continues to be available through Priority 1 referrals to Sudanese,
Eritrean, and other refugees who are victims of religious
intolerance.*Refugees from Eritrea and Sudan with refugee or asylee
family members in
the United States also may have access to the USRAP through Priority 3,
subject to its resumption. Certain Eritrean refugees in Ethiopia may have
access to the USRAP through Priority 2.
Three countries of origin (Somalia, Democratic Republic of Congo, and
Eritrea) presently account for the vast majority of U.S. admissions from
the region. In East Africa, we continue to process P-1 Somalis in the
Dadaab and Kakuma refugee camps. We are coming closer to completing P-2
processing of Eritreans in Shimelba camp in Ethiopia, but will continue to
process P-1 UNHCR referrals after the P-2 group is completed. We were able
to conduct the first DHS circuit ride to Sudan in over twenty years to
process the first group of a protracted caseload of Eritrean refugees
there. [*75 <
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/198157.pdf>*]
Note that Eritreans and Sudanese are the only groups explicitly named that
are granted P1 status *ANYWHERE* on the grounds that they are undergoing
religious persecution. Somalis are restricted to certain refugee camps.
What African wouldn’t take advantage of this fact? Is it any surprise that
many of them are claiming Eritrean identity (see below). Also, if lack of
religious freedom was truly worth P1-status everywhere in the world, then
Saudi Arabians would be coming droves. However, we know that’s not the
case. In regards to Africa specifically, the report makes the following
proposal:
>From East and Southern Africa, we expect 9,000 admissions, primarily
Somalis in Kenya, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and South Africa; Eritreans in
Ethiopia and in Sudan; and additional small numbers of P-1 referrals of
various nationalities in the countries above, as well as in Namibia,
Zambia, and Zimbabwe.
…Outside of sub-Saharan Africa, we anticipate up to 1,500 Sudanese, Somali,
Ethiopian, Eritrean, and other sub-Saharan African refugees to be processed
in Tunisia, Egypt, Lebanon, Turkey, Jordan, and Russia.
A total of 2,032 Eritreans are slated to come to America this year, making
them the 6th highest ranking resettlement group. This is amazing when one
considers that Eritrea ranks 112th in population size and only contributes
0.079% of the world’s population. Much like the Palestinians and
Israeli-Jews, the Eritrean population has a very high proportion of its
people living in the diaspora with anecdotal numbers placing the diaspora
population at ~1.5 – 2 million versus a domestic population of 6 million.
Like the Israelis, Eritreans maintain dual citizenship and actively
participate in the Eritrean domestic economy. From the FY 2013 report, we
also learn of another concerning piece of information: most of the Eritrean
refugees targeted for resettlement are of *working age and male*. In a
section tabulating the age data of the top 20 most resettled groups,
Eritrean refugees have the highest percentage of “working age” resettlement
in America (84%), suggesting preferential recruitment of youth that would
have otherwise been developing their homeland. All the other refugee groups
don’t even come close. This is in line with McMullen’s aforementioned
comments on focusing on the youth. Clearly, the United States is set on
driving young Eritreans to resettle outside of Eritrea. Finally, it should
also be noted that Eritrean refugees are the most predominantly male
resettlement group (73.8%), beating the next group by almost 13% (the Sudan
had 60.8%). In the past, this has made depression a significant issue as
males have been unable to find Eritrean mates in the new land
[*76<
http://www.shabait.com/categoryblog/4120-the-hurdles-of-living-in-foreign-lands>
*].
*Resettlement in Third Countries*
As a result of the actions by the US and its client states to
preferentially resettle Eritreans outside of Eritrea, migrants from
throughout East Africa have picked-up on this trend and are using it to
their advantage. It is well-documented that migrants originating from
countries other than Eritrea regularly claim Eritrean identity to increase
their chances of acquiring visas and gaining refugee status. Nowhere is
this more obvious than in than in the case Israel.
In a March 2008 interview with Haaretz–long before Eritrea was in the human
trafficking limelight–the Eritrean Ambassador to Israel, Tesfamariam
Tekeste Debbas, said that he sent a letter of protest to the Israeli
Foreign ministry explaining that the refugees (referred to as
“infiltrators”) were “not political refugees, but rather work migrants or
army deserters.” The Haaretz article goes on:
The Eritrean ambassador, Tesfamariam Tekeste, noted…that his letter of
protest included several issues of concern to his government. First, he
said, at least half of the infiltrators represent themselves as Eritrean
while in fact they are from other African states, such as Sudan or
Ethiopia. “*They know the Eritreans automatically receive a six-month visa,
so they pretend to be Eritrean*,” he said.
The letter also mentioned the fear that hostile elements helping to smuggle
Africans into Israel could exploit them for carrying out terror attacks.
“If that happens, the accusing finger will point to Eritrea,” Tekeste said.
“Israel is turning itself into a migration destination for Eritrean
citizens fleeing from army service or looking for work,” Tekeste said. “*The
fact that you issue six-month visas encourages people to come here*.” [76]
Unfortunately, comments from Eritrean officials–as opposed to personal
accounts in Human Rights Watch reports–often fall on deaf ears. Few
believed the ambassador. However, in May of 2011 we learned that he was
right all along. According to Haaretz, an “asylum seeker, who can only be
identified as Ibrahim, came to Israel from Eritrea in November 2009. He was
arrested a month later and held at the Givon prison in Ramle for a year and
a half. The prolonged detention resulted from the Population and
Immigration Authority insisting that he came, in fact, from Ethiopia.” He
was then asked to provide an Eritrean birth certificate or prove his
identity. Being unable to do so he was questioned by the Population and
Immigration Authority. Ibrahim then “attempted to escape during the
interview, and eventually* admitted he was Ethiopian, rather than Eritrean*,
and was therefore immediately returned to custody.” [77]
It doesn’t end there, however. In October of 2011 we learned from another
Haaretz piece that false claims of Eritrean citizenship were so common by
Ethiopian “infiltrators” that the Interior Ministry began to seek
“documents issued by the Ethiopian consulate…to attest to the fact that
asylum seekers in Israel who claim to be Eritreans [were] entitled to
Ethiopian citizenship and [were] therefore not eligible for asylum.”
Haaretz also “obtained information which shows that the Ethiopian
consulate’s documents are *routinely issued in almost every case* in which
the documentation is sought by the Israeli Interior Ministry.” In addition,
the newspaper also “obtained minutes of the meeting from a committee that
advises Interior Minister Eli Yishai on refugee matters showing that the
Ethiopian consulate *almost always issues the transit documents for asylum
seekers at the Interior Ministry’s request, relying on Israeli authorities’
representation that the person in question is Ethiopian*.”
[*78<
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/eritreans-turned-down-for-asylum-after-ethiopia-claims-refugees-as-their-own-1.391628>
*]
By 2012, 52% of Jewish Israelis (compared to 19% of Arab Israelis) viewed
the so-called African infiltrators as a “cancer.” [79] And with more
reports of asylum fraud, news of the migrants quickly caught the media’s
attention, spurring further investigation by Israeli journalists. One
reporter for Ynet decided to go undercover in a predominantly Eritrean and
Sudanese neighborhood to shed light on the lives of the refugees. In his
article he reports:
My cover story has not been finalized yet, but luckily I run into Jeremiah,
who’s been in Israel for three years now. “What do I tell those who ask how
I got into Israel?” I ask him. *“Lie,” he says. “Don’t tell the whole
story. The Israelis, and mostly the non-profit groups working with the
infiltrators here, like to be lied to.”*
*“Say you were a soldier, and that if you return to Eritrea you’ll get a
death sentence. Keep in mind that you must be consistent with your story.
The bottom line is that everyone uses the story I’m telling you here, and
this way they fool everybody,” he says. “Almost none of them arrived on
foot from Egypt to Israel. None of us crossed any deserts…it’s all
nonsense.”* [*80 <
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4239481,00.html>
*]
If Jeremiah is telling the truth, then refugees are regularly exploiting
Eritrean identity. With merely the hope of raising their quality of life,
who can blame them? It’s simply way too easy given the fact that, according
to UN statistics, 90% of Eritrean refugees are eligible for refugee status.
[*81<
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/closing-the-holes-and-the-loopholes-1.278503>
*]
Over time, it became increasingly clear to Israeli officials that
practically all the “infiltrators” were not refugees but rather “migrants.”
As the Minister for Education, Mr. Gidon Sa’ar, announced, “we need to stop
the flooding of this country with immigrants from Eritrea. They are not
refugees, but rather labor immigrants.”
[*82<
http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/229304>
*] The former head of the Population, Immigration and Borders Authority,
Mí. Yaakov Ganot also acknowledged that “in our examinations, I would say
that 99.9 percent of them are here for work. They’re not asylum seekers:
they are not at any risk.”
[*83<
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/closing-the-holes-and-the-loopholes-1.278503>
*]
The abuse of the asylum system is not only limited to Israel. We see the
same thing happening in the United Kingdom. In a 2004, UK comptroller a
House of Common commissioned report entitled “Improving the Speed and
Quality of Asylum Decisions.” The report went on to state that, “disputed
nationality is a key issue in Ethiopian applications. The Directorate
generally sought to remove failed applicants to Eritrea irrespective of
whether the applicant had ever been there, and adjudicators often disagreed
with this approach. The Directorate has taken steps to improve its country
information and refusal letters.”
[*84<
http://www.nao.org.uk/report/improving-the-speed-and-quality-of-asylum-decisions/>
*] Then on June 16, 2009, the Daily Telegraph reported that former Miss
Ethiopia beauty pageant winner, Jerusalem Mehari, was caught abusing the
asylum system by taking on an Eritrean identity. She first “renounced her
Ethiopian citizenship in 2007, a few days before her UK student visa
expired, and claimed Eritrean nationality.” Her claim was that she “was a
Jehovah’s Witness and there was a risk of her suffering persecution in
Eritrea.” Sarabjit Singh of United Kingdom’s Home Office said that “the
only reason for seeking and maintaining Eritrean nationality is to claim
the right to remain in the UK…What the claimant is trying to do is nothing
short of an abuse of the asylum system.”
In Toronto last year, a refugee by the name of Nighisti Semret was stabbed
to death on her way home from work. She claimed to be of Eritrean origin
and was granted asylum in Canada in 2010. According to the Toronto Star,
she became a member of the local St. Michael’s Eritrean Orthodox Church and
“while members of Toronto’s close-knit Eritrean community said Semret was
not well-known because she hadn’t been in Canada long, a local Eritrean
church offered to pay for her funeral with funds from the community.”
Although the article admitted to not knowing why she sought asylum, they
were quick to point out that Eritrea “is ruled by one of the most
repressive regimes in the world.”
[*86<
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2012/10/24/cabbagetown_murder_stabbing_victim_was_a_married_mother_of_4_from_eritrea.html>
*] As later reported by Sam B of Natna blog (site down), she was later
found to be an Ethiopian by the Eritrean community.
[*87<
http://tedalo.blogspot.com/2012/10/by-sam-b.html>
*] After learning of this information, the police notified local reporters
who did not publish the new information but instead increased their attack
on Eritrea. As Sam B notes, Joe Warmington of the Toronto Sun even poses
that the Eritrean government may have had a motive to kill her. “Could that
motive have stemmed from a scam from her former country where refugees are
shaken down and threatened to pay a special tax back to their homeland or
face retribution?” he asks.
[*88<
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/10/26/police-keeping-open-mind-in-cabbagetown-murder>
*] In spite of full knowledge of her identity, the Eritrean community “did
not interfere in the prayer or vigil held for her. They in fact fully
supported it. As one community leader put it; ‘she has no one, Ethiopian or
otherwise, she is our sister, too.’”
[*89<
http://tedalo.blogspot.com/2012/10/by-sam-b.html>
*] Sadly, stories like these don’t make the headlines.
Asylum fraud under an Eritrean identity also happens regularly in the
United States as well. According to an article published in the Oregonian
on October 13, 2012, a group of Eritrean and African refugees were
resettled in Threemile Canyon Farms in Oregon via the International Rescue
Committee [*90<
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2012/10/steve_duin_the_endless_hours_o.html>
*]. The article states that among the refugees is “Thierry Gasasu, an
Eritrean.” Most Eritreans reading this are probably chuckling at this
quote. Although there are an array of different ethnic groups in Eritrea,
they know that Gasasu is not an Eritrean name. In fact, it is a well known
Rwandan name. Honest error? Perhaps. The reality is that this same sort of
error keeps happening again and again, often going unchecked by the media
or their watchdogs. For instance, back in 2010, the New York Times falsely
claimed that an Ethiopian indicted on terror charges was of Eritrean
origin. On March 10, 2010, however, Radio Sweden, reported that “Sabrina
Schroff, the man’s lawyer in the United States, says that the Ethiopian
native denies all the accusations. The New York Times identifies him as
Eritrean, but the Swedish Foreign Minister holds that he is originally from
Ethiopia.” [*91<
http://eastafro.com/Post/2010/03/10/swedish-foreign-minister-says-man-held-in-new-york-based-on-terrorism-charges-is-not-eritrean/>
*] Despite the NYT’s error CNN was still calling him a “resident of Sweden
originally from Eritrea” almost two entire years later.
[*92<
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/13/justice/new-york-al-shabaab>
*]
The above cases of asylum fraud and false claims of Eritrean identity
cannot be taken lightly. Firstly, they only represent the cases of those
who were caught. How about the countless others? As illustrated above, many
of the false asylum-seekers cases are of Ethiopian origin, which is likely
due to the shared cultural, linguistic, and physical features of the
sisterly peoples. Ethiopia, the second most populous country in Africa, is
15 times more populous than Eritrea. It also has multiple active
insurgencies and multiple reports of genocide in different parts of the
country. In fact, post-Meles Zenawi Ethiopia, a ethno-federalist state with
a quickly growing Muslim protest movement,
[*93<
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/04/ethiopias-anti-apartheid-movement/>
*] is among the top 15 states expected to disintegrate and become
ungovernable in the next fifteen years, according to the “Global Trends
2030: Alternative Trends” published by the US National Intelligence
Council. [*94<
http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/national-intelligence-council-global-trends>
*] Thus, how is it possible that Ethiopia comprises less asylum-seekers
than Eritrea (43,400 from Eritrea vs. 42,500 from Ethiopia)?
[*95<
http://www.unhcr.org/4ce531e09.pdf>
*] As illustrated in the many cases above, the authorities of resettling
nations are reporting of growing numbers of Ethiopians claiming asylum
under an Eritrean identity, dating as far back as 2004. If most nations
with the exception of the United States get their referrals from the UNHCR,
why do no official UNHCR documents make no mention of this trend?
If we also compare the US resettlement data from the department of Health
and Human Services website
[*96<
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/resource/fiscal-year-2012-refugee-arrivals>
*], we see that Eritrea has had progressively increasing resettlement
numbers while Ethiopian resettlement numbers have waned (Fig. 1). The drop
in FY 2002 is due to 9/11. From early 2007 to mid-2009, the US embassy
stopped processing non-immigrant visa, which may account for the dip in US
resettlement. [*97 <
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article18939>*] If
that is in fact the case, then that suggests that the issuing of visas by
the US Embassy in Eritrea has a significant effect on US resettlement. This
is something that should be monitored closely. 2,032 are expected to be
resettled in the US this year.
*Football Players*
By now, almost every Eritrean is aware of the repeated high-profile
defections by the Eritrean national football players during matches in
other African countries. In the case of Tanzania, 13 football players, who
participated in the July 2011 CECAFA Kagame Cup, failed to show up for a
flight back to Asmara. They later reported to the Home Affairs Ministry
asking for asylum but, according to the Tanzanian National Refugees
Committee, “none of the applications met the criteria for refugee status.”
[98] The UNHCR then intervened calling for their protection while
arrangements could be made for their transfer to a third country. Ten
months later, we learn from the Houston Chronicle that four of the players
had already made it to Houston, three were due to arrive one month later,
four were resettled in Boston, and two in Virginia.
[*99<
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/East-African-soccer-team-players-defect-settle-3580747.php#photo-2977220>
*] How is it possible that every single one of the 13 players was able to
arrive in America so quickly? According to the US State Department, only
less than one percent of refugees worldwide are ever resettle in a third
country, let alone America. [*100 <
http://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/c49034.htm>
*] This case may come as a surprise to many Eritrean refugees around the
world who have had to languish in refugees camps for years on end awaiting
resettlement. The article then goes on to explain that “after their escape
in Tanzania, where [the players] outran their handlers and met at a
rendezvous spot before going to the US Embassy to seek protection. They
were certified as refugees by the United Nations High Commission on
Refugees and spent months in Romania before being approved for placement in
the U.S.” The fact that they planned, in advance, to go to the US Embassy
is quite telling of the current US Adminstration’s role in promoting youth
migration. High profile asylums of Eritrean sports figures are designed to
send a message to the Eritrean football-loving youth that loudly declares,
“if you leave your country, then USA has your back.”
And make no mistake about it: the US knows the cultural significance
football to Eritreans. Following the first defection of 4 football players
in Kenya, US ambassador McMullen acknowledged in a 2010 diplomatic cable
under the derisive subheading “SOCCER TEAM 1 – REGIME 0,” that “Eritreans
are mad about soccer” and that the Kenyan defections “will be stunning news
for the Eritrean population.”
[*101<
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/239914>
*] This first round of defections, however, did not take place through the
US Embassy. They were discovered to be hiding in a refugee camp under the
protection of UNHCR and were granted automatic group asylum in Australia
eight months later.
[*102<
http://www.panapress.com/Tanzania-rejects-asylum-request-by-Eritrean-footballers--13-800034-18-lang2-index.html>
*] Apparently, their case takes priority over the millions of Somalians
sitting in the same Kenyan refugee camps, fleeing civil war, drought, and
religious persecution. Sensational headlines from the Associated Press,
re-printed by ESPN and Sports Illustrated read, “Official: Players say
death awaits them in Eritrea.”
[*103<
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=soccer&id=4747830>
*] Why does the AP take the asylum-seekers words at face value when they
clearly have a vested interest in inflating their story for the purpose of
resettlement? To this day, we have yet to see any evidence of deportees
being executed by Eritrean authorities; only the claims of asylum-seekers.
It should also be mentioned that in the case of the Tanzanian defection,
the players were transported via emergency evacuation from Dar es Salaam to
a holding facility in Romania. Do all Eritrean refugees get this kind of
treatment? Upon further inspection, we learn that this facility is the
Evacuation Transit Center that was built in 2008 (officially, 2009) “by the
Romanian government, UNHCR and the International Organization for Migration
(IOM) to provide a temporary haven for refugees in urgent need of
evacuation from their first asylum countries due to life-threatening
conditions….it received its first group of refugees, 40 Eritreans, last
November and all have been found resettlement homes.”
[*104<
http://www.unhcr.org/49ba623f2.html>
*] Since then, there have reports of the transportation of large groups of
Eritreans. In one case, 30 Eritreans were transported from Tunisia.
[*105<
http://www.unhcr.org/4daef2e39.html>
*]. This is important because it signifies a growing trend of expedited
large group evacuations of Eritreans from atypical locations. The
asylum-seekers no longer have to be at a sub-Saharan refugee camp to await
processing. They can be in a US Embassy, like the Tanzanian players, or
perhaps in the Middle East under temporary protection status. In the words
of the US State Department’s “Proposed Refugee Admissions for Fiscal Year
2012″:
And according to the Outside of sub-Saharan Africa, we anticipate Sudanese,
Somali, Ethiopian, Eritrean and other African refugees to be processed in
Yemen, Syria, Jordan, Lebanon, and Egypt. We will also process individuals
who were forced to leave Libya as a result of the conflict there, some of
whom will be interviewed at the UNHCR Evacuation Transit Center in Romania.
We project as many as 1,300 individuals will be referred to the USRAP from
the Tunisia/Libya border, and as many as 500 individuals will be referred
to the USRAP from the Egypt/Libya border, during calendar year 2011.
[*106<
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/181378.pdf>
*]
How many of those 500 were Eritreans? We don’t for sure. However, we do
know that after 3 years of operations, the facility has housed 600
refugees, which, according to the UNHCR, includes “Eritreans, Sudanese,
Palestinians, Ethiopians, Sri Lankans, Iraqis and Nigerians.”
[*107<
http://www.unhcr.org/print/4daef2e39.html>
*] Of that list, only Iraqis rank higher for US resettlement, according to
the Proposed Refugee Admission report for FY 2013. That should tell us
something.
Thus, it is clear that Eritreans are deliberately being resettled in third
countries with the complicity of the international media. Eritrea maintains
that it is a victim of the policies of external entities while the US and
various human rights groups point the finger at the lack of human rights in
Eritrea. Some groups have conducted independent studies and have come to
different conclusions in regards to the causes of migration out of Eritrea.
According to conclusions of a 2009 study conducted by the Global Forum on
Migration and Development, in cooperation with the European Commission and
the Eritrean Government:
Migration is not a phenomenon that happens only in Eritrea. It is a global
issue that needs global collaboration for a viable solution acceptable to
all parties involved. Eritrea is a poor country and therefore this
circumstance serves as a main factor for migration. To make migration a
positive contributing force to development, Eritrean migration policy needs
to be more flexible and up-to-date. The benefits of migration accrue in
terms of transfer of money (remittances), technology and know-how.
Important as they are, remittances don’t require the physical movement of
the migrants to the country.
To achieve all these, there is a need for planned and dynamic handling of
the benefits of migration. This has to be done without compromising the
rights and economic status of citizens by promoting openness and freedom of
movement but at the same time not compromising the national interest.
Therefore, the policy has to aim to address the manpower needs of the
country emphasizing creation of jobs (following labour intensive technology
in production) and In-country Human Resource Development Schemes as well as
encouraging remittance and technology transfer.
[*108<
http://www.gfmd.org/en/pfp/policy-tools/migration-profiles/repository/all/item/80-eritrea>
*]
They don’t blame the Eritrean government for human trafficking, child
labor, or human rights abuses. It does suggest “promoting openness and
freedom of movement but at the same time not compromising the national
interest.” Unfortunately, these conclusions fell on the deaf ears of the
international media as they do not fit the “human rights agenda.”
*The “Human Rights Agenda” *
So what does all this human trafficking business mean anyway? If we
consider the above and inspect some of the recent developments in regards
to human rights of Eritreans, we begin to see some trends. Most notably, it
seems like the international mainstream media is trying to connect human
trafficking of Eritreans to “human rights abuses” by the Eritrean
government–the “human rights agenda.” The press often sites the usual
suspects: US State Department human rights and TIP reports, US-funded
NGO’s, “Eritrean” opposition websites and members, SEMG reports, and biased
“experts”/”journalists” on Eritrea. In each case, the excuse for people
leaving Eritrea is always the same: human rights abuses. Not all the other
possible causes mentioned above. No one ever considers the words of
independent analysts or Eritrean officials. Most importantly, they ignore
the words of the people living in Eritrea with the excuse often being that
Eritreans are too scared to speak up. In saying so, they are unknowingly
calling the Eritrean people cowards, which is an insult considering what
Eritreans have gone through to achieve the liberation of their nation. In
contrast, however, they seem to have an incredible fondness for the words
of Eritreans that leave their nations–i.e. asylum-seekers. Asylum
seekers–whose hopes of resettlement rely on stories of persecution–make up
practically the entire basis of the reports and articles by HRW, AI, SEMG,
Dan Connell, and many others who seek regime change in Eritrea. Is it any
surprise then that the foundation of their entire “human rights abuse”
argument relies on asylum-seekers? Is it any surprise then that they fight
tooth and nail to “protect” them? Is it any surprise then that they are
promoting youth migration, politicizing it, and then calling it regime
sponsored “human trafficking?” No surprise at all.
What is a surprise, on the other hand, is the number of times that the
UNHCR publishes or references the work of petty anti-Eritrean websites,
organizations, and individuals who take the “human rights” stance. It
should be made clear that these entities are not only “anti-regime,” as
some like to pose, but rather outright anti-Eritrean since they all have
(1) called for sanctions against Eritrea; (2) practically ignored or
downplayed the ever-present existential threats against Eritrea; and (3)
consistently repeat the same line used by the late Meles Zenawi that “we
like the Eritrean people, we just want to get rid of their government.”
With that said, let us review how many times each of these anti-Eritrean
elements has been published or referenced by UNHCR:
*Human Rights Concern, Eritrea (Elsa Chyrum)*:
*1<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/507d26022a.html>
*, *2 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4d4aa7942.pdf>*,
*3<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/471338e90.pdf>
*, *4 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4860d1462.pdf>*,
*5<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4ea7b3f327.pdf>
*, *6 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,4b20f03b28,0.html>*,
*7<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,CSCOAL,COUNTRYREP,ERI,,507d26022a,0.html>
*, *8 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,4b20efeab,0.html>*
*Assenna.com*: *1<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,FREEHOU,,ERI,,4ecba64ec,0.html>
*, *2 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/4b9e52f978.html>*,
*3<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,USDOS,,ERI,,4da56dccc,0.html>
*, *4<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,COI,RSF,,ERI,,4fba1def1b,0.html>
*, *5<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,RSF,ANNUALREPORT,ERI,,4d82268828,0.html>
*
*Asmarino.com*: *1
<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4dabf33c2.pdf>*,
*2<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,RSF,ANNUALREPORT,ERI,,4d82268828,0.html>
*, *3 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4dafe0ec2.pdf>*,
*4<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,FREEHOU,,ERI,,4ecba64ec,0.html>
*, *5 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4d4aa7942.pdf>*,
*6<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,COI,RSF,,ERI,,4fba1def1b,0.html>
*, *7 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/469cd6b83.html>*,
*8<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/51249bad2.pdf>
*, *9 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4d4a68001f.pdf>*,
*10<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4e8c397b27.pdf>
*, *11 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/50659412d.pdf>*,
*12<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/447aa7904.pdf>
*, *13 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/40a8877cd.pdf>*,
*14<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/3c2b4e0ec.pdf>
*, *15 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/3df4aade6.pdf>*,
*16<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/486a52c50.pdf>
*, *17 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,46fb73e31e,0.html>
*, *18 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/47c67af12.pdf>*,
*19<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/47a3367c2.pdf>
*, *20<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,FREEHOU,,ERI,,47386924c,0.html>
*, *21 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/473869075a.html>*,
*22<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4d4185da2.pdf>
*, *23 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/46028b802.pdf>*
*Gedab News*: *1<
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&id=4fd8255d5>
*, *2 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/486a53680.pdf>*,
*3<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/40a8877cd.pdf>
*, *4 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/3df4aade6.pdf>*,
*5<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4029104f4.pdf>
*, *6 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/486a52c50.pdf>*,
*7<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/471338e90.pdf>
*, *8 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/47c67af12.pdf>*
*Nharnet.com*: *1<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,4b20f03b28,0.html>
*, *2 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,USCIS,,ERI,,3f520a484,0.html>*,
*3 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,3f7d4e4218,0.html>*, *
4 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,3f7d4d917,0.html>*,
*5<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,4b20efeab,0.html>
*, *6 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/47c67af12.pdf>*,
*7<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/471338e90.pdf>
*, *8 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,47d6519317,0.html>*,
*9 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/49de06122.pdf>*
*Awate.com*: *1<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,4b20f03b28,0.html>
*, *2 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4d4185da2.pdf>*,
*3<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/469cd6b83.html>
*, *4 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/49de06122.pdf>*,
*5<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,,,ERI,456d621e2,4fba1def1b,0.html>
*, *6 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4860d1462.pdf>*,
*7<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/46232e422.pdf>
*, *8 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4d4a68001f.pdf>*,
*9<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/47a87d412.pdf>
*, *10 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4c0775672.pdf>*,
*11<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/5084f3982.html>
*, *12 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4e8c397b27.pdf>*,
*13<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,49b92b4b0,0.html>
*, *14<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,FREEHOU,,ERI,,47386924c,0.html>
*, *15 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4e4e0b952.pdf>*,
*16<
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?page=search&docid=47d6544c23&skip=&query=eritrea+military+uniform>
*, *17 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,3f7d4e4218,0.html>
*, *18 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,49b92b4ac,0.html>*,
*19 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,FREEHOU,,ERI,,4ecba64ec,0.html>*,
*20 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4c19c3952.pdf>*,
*21<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/49f575b00.pdf>
*, *22 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/50659412d.pdf>*,
*23<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/48f357592.pdf>
*, *24 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4dafe0ec2.pdf>*,
*25<
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?page=links&skip=0&refcoi=ERI>
*, *26 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,4b20f03cc,0.html>*,
*27 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/46822c3f2.pdf>*,
*28<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/49e6dcc60.pdf>
*, *29<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,RSF,ANNUALREPORT,ERI,,4d82268828,0.html>
*, *30 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/49c39c212.pdf>*,
*31<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4e0214652.pdf>
*, *32 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/486a53680.pdf>*,
*33<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/447aa7904.pdf>
*, *34 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/473869075a.html>*,
*35<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,3f7d4d91e,0.html>
*, *36 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4d4aa7942.pdf>*,
*37<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,3f7d4d917,0.html>
*, *38 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/510278e42.pdf>*,
*39<
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&id=488046318>
*, *40 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/467f97062.pdf>*,
*41<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/46028b802.pdf>
*, *42<
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&id=4fd8255d5>
*, *43<
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&date=2008-07-18&cat=Africa>
*, *44<
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&date=2012-06-13&cat=MENA>
*, *45 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4a6d92bd2.pdf>*,
*46<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,49b92a991e,0.html>
*, *47 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,49b92a99c,0.html>*,
*48 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/5084f3412.html>*,
*49<
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain/opendocpdf.pdf?reldoc=y&docid=4bcff4fd2>
*, *50 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,4b20efeab,0.html>*,
*51 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,4b20efea2c,0.html>*,
*52 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,46fb73e31e,0.html>*,
*53 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,49b92a981e,0.html>*,
*54 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,47d6519317,0.html>*,
*55 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,3f7d4d9115,0.html>*
*Dan Connell*: *1<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,FREEHOU,,ERI,,4ecba64ec,0.html>
*, *2 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/473869075a.html>*,
*3<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/49e6dcc60.pdf>
*, *4<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,WRITENET,,SDN,,3ae6a6c04,0.html>
*, *5 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,ERI,,3ae6ac6c37,0.html>*,
*6<
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&id=471843668>
*, *7<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,FREEHOU,,ERI,,47386924c,0.html>
*, *8 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4059b7044.pdf>*,
*9<
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,IRBC,,SDN,,3f7d4e1523,0.html>
*
*Léonard Vincent*: *1 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/510278e42.pdf>*,
*2 <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/4f841d8e2.pdf>*,
*3<
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&date=2012-12-03&cat=Africa>
*
Perhaps this will help Eritreans learn how to prioritize their enemies. The
same Awate.com that spread the rumor that the Eritrean president was likely
dead is being published or cited by UNCHR documents almost 55 times.
[*109<
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gP63HJcTtZWnN4RONtzzSJoXZDTA?docId=CNG.21e4cd2a1db501ce2af389bd087b6d27.301>
*, *110 <
http://awate.com/the-unusual-absence-of-isaias-afwerki/>*] UNHCR
also cites the work of the same Léonard Vincent of Reporter Without Borders
(RSF), who openly admitted in *his
book<
http://www.eritreaembassy-japan.org/data/The_heroes_a_partial_translation_of_The_Eritreans.pdf>
* that he illegally smuggled an Eritrean Ministry of Information employee
through the assistance of RSF personnel and the French Foreign Office. You
simply can’t make this stuff up. It should be noted that for some of the
documents, the UNHCR website has a disclaimer that reads, “This is not a
UNHCR publication. UNHCR is not responsible for, nor does it necessarily
endorse, its content. Any views expressed are solely those of the author or
publisher and do not necessarily reflect those of UNHCR, the United Nations
or its Member States.” If that’s the case then why publish it in the first
place while not publishing material from non-US funded independent groups
or Shabait.com, the Eritrean Ministry of Information website, in response
to human rights allegations? Why are they so one-sided?
In light of the clear bias for anti-Eritrean entities, let us put things in
perspective. Imagine you’re a young bright-eyed UNHCR intern, fresh out of
Harvard, whose dream is to one day work for Human Rights Watch, Amnesty
International, or some other non-profit organization that the media says
helps the disparaged people of the world. At orientation, your boss assigns
you to work at a refugee camp in East Sudan next month and suggests that
you read up on the situation in Eritrea. Like a good intern, you log into
the UNHCR website and access
*RefWorld<
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refworld/rwmain?page=country&skip=0&coi=ERI&x=11&y=10>
*, the supposed “Leader in Refugee Decision Support.” You read through
countless documents on Eritrea, meticulous in your reading and checking up
on all citations. You also check out the US State Department-funded COR
website for some extra background on Eritrean refugees in Kassala. After a
while, you start to think, “surely it can’t be that bad,” so you check out
some Eritrean websites for Eritreans’ personal views of their country. You
remember all the websites listed in the citations of the UNHCR website so
you check them out. After reading all the latest articles from Awate.com,
Asmarino.com, Assenna.com, and their ilk, you come to the heart-crushing
conclusion that Eritrea must be the most horrible place on Earth. All your
dream organizations, like HRW, AI, RSF, and many others have nothing
positive to say about life in Eritrea. You come to see the Eritrean
government as an enemy of the Eritrean people that uses the “CIA” argument
as a scapegoat for its failures–essentially what the media tells you.
Although, you may have some doubts when talking to average Eritreans at the
local community center, who often speak wonders of the Eritrean government
and tell you about the FBI harassing them for supporting the Eritrean
government, you have trouble accepting the distant notion that there is
some crazy conspiracy to destroy Eritrea. Surely, you’re not crazy! You
accept that it’s just another African tragedy. Hopeless. Now all you want
is to be part of some great cause–like your hero Rachel Corrie, perhaps. As
a result, you join in on the “human rights agenda” against the Eritrean
government.
What we are seeing now is the “human rights agenda” on full display.
Following the fabricated coup in January and the failed attempt to turn it
into a campaign,
[*111<
http://redseafisher.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/the-eritrean-coup-that-never-was/>
*] we see people like Dan Connell and Elsa Chyrum going around the world
giving talks on human trafficking in Eritrea
[*112<
http://asmarino.com/press-releases/1664-ms-elizabeth-chyrum-and-professor-dan-connel-in-boston>
*]. We see people like Meron Estifanos and the so-called “International
Commission on Eritrean Refugees” writing letters to the UN Secretary
General, urging him to launch an investigation into what is causing the
human trafficking of Eritreans.
[*113<
http://asmarino.com/press-releases/1663-statement-from-icer-the-president-of-eritreas-letter-on-human-trafficking-to-the-secretary-general-of-the-un33>
*] In each of these instances, these individuals and groups have been
pointing the finger at the Eritrean government and we are now seeing
increased efforts to see actions taken against Eritrea for alleged human
rights abuses.
At its 21st session on September 27, 2012, the Human Rights Council
considered the situation of human rights in Eritrea under the terms of the
confidential complaint procedure (1503 procedure). By this method human
rights groups and victims of human rights abuses file confidential
complaints to the HRC. However, according to resolution 21/1 on Eritrea,
the HRC ultimately decided to switch to the public procedure (1235
procedure) under which it can hold an annual public debate about the
alleged gross violations of human rights in question.
[*114<
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session21/A.HRC.RES.21.1.doc>
*] This essentially represents an escalation of the case. If no change is
noted in regards to the human rights situation in Eritrea, the HRC can have
the Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC ) pass a resolution condemning
Eritrea. According to the Human Rights Education Association, this would
serve as public condemnation that “tarnishes the reputation of the leaders
in the state in question and discredits their legitimacy as political
elites.” [*115 <
http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=437>*] Resolution 21/1
also called for a “Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in
Eritrea” to investigate the complaints and report back to the HRC during
the twenty-third session in June 2013.
On September 28 2012, Ms. Beedwantee Keetharuth, a lawyer from Mauritius
who worked for Amnesty International’s African Regional office in Uganda
and is touted to have “extensive experience in monitoring and documenting
human rights violations across Africa,” was appointed as “UN Special
Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Eritrea” (Fig. 2). According to
the HRC’s meeting minutes:
Eritrea noted the decision of the Council to refer the situation in Eritrea
to the public and reminded the Council to abide by the principles of
neutrality and impartiality. The Council had clearly violated the
provisions prohibiting politicised action and had not justified its motion
to disregard those basic principles and criteria of admissibility. Eritrea
therefore rejected the decision of the Council because it was politically
motivated and did not accept the mandate of the Special Rapporteur on
Eritrea. [*116<
http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=12608&LangID=E>
*]
Following her appointment, there was no mention in the UN press release or
any media reports about Eritrea’s rejection of her appointment
[*117<
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=43831&Cr=Eritrea&Cr1#.UT6MlVeNASg>
*]. Without that needed context for the reader, they instead say that “she
had requested meetings with the country’s diplomats” but unfortunately,
“the meetings had yet to take place.”
[*118<
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=43831&Cr=Eritrea&Cr1#.UT6MlVeNASg>
*] Once again, Eritrea is made to appear uncooperative because Eritrea’s
voice is silenced. It should come as no surprise if her future report says
“I had trouble getting a hold of Eritrean officials.”
Figure 2. UN Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Eritrea,
Beedwantee Keetharuth (Sudan Tribune)
Upon further investigation we learn that Elsa Chyrum, the Director of *Human
Rights Concern, Eritrea <
http://hrc-eritrea.org/>*, was key in getting Ms.
Keetharuth appointed. According to the “Eritrean” opposition website
Asmarino.com:
Elizabeth (Elsa) Chyrum has been instrumental in bringing about the
appointment of a Special Rapporteur to Eritrea; four years’ work has
culminated in the UN Human Rights Council (UNHRC) appointing Ms. Beedwantee
Keetharuth as Special Rapporteur on the human rights situation in Eritrea.
Mrs. Chyrum has been advocating and lobbying at the HRC for recognition of
the severe human rights crisis in Eritrea since September 2008. She is
passionate about justice for Eritrea, and has doggedly campaigned for the
appalling human rights record of Eritrea to come to the fore of the
international agenda. She has done this, and more, largely by funding
herself and occasional contributions for travel and other expenses from
well-wishers and sisterly organizations.
[*119<
http://asmarino.com/editorial/1609-elizabeth-elsa-chyrum-a-woman-of-the-year-2012b>
*]
Acting in concert with other self-proclaimed African human rights
activists, Ms. Elsa sent multiple letters curiously addressed to “African
Heads of State”
[*120<
http://www.demcoalition.org/pdf/HRC%20Presidency%20Letter.pdf>
*, *121<
http://www.demcoalition.org/pdf/pdf/African%20States%20Open%20letter%20March%2031.pdf>
*] urging those states with the “highest standards of human rights” to
apply for the 5 vacancies in the African Group of the HRC. Exactly which
benevolent African leaders did she send them to? We may never know for sure
but what we do know is that Ethiopia, Kenya, Ivory Coast, Gabon, and Sierra
Leone were all elected to the African Group last November. Add in Uganda
(in office until December 2013) and we have a dangerous anti-Eritrean
triumvirate of IGAD members that will decide on Ms. Keetharuth’s report in
June 2013. [*122 <
http://www.un.org/en/ga/67/meetings/elections/hrc.shtml>*]
Ethiopia was voted in despite a letter of opposition from 18 AU nations. [*
123<
http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/13/au-don-t-endorse-sudan-ethiopia-rights-council>
*]
In addition, we can’t ignore the glaring fact that the US was also elected
into the HRC last year.
[*124<
http://www.un.org/en/ga/67/meetings/elections/hrc.shtml>
*] During the Bush Administration’s term in office, the US opted to sit out
in protest of the HRC’s excessive focus on the Israeli-Palestinian
conflict. [*125<
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033104115.html>
*] In 2009, however, Obama decided to change directions and the nation was
voted in. Now that the US has been re-elected and is in the company of its
client states in IGAD, the US-driven, anti-Eritrean campaign is expected to
continue with an East African face. Last year, Nigeria, Djibouti and
Somalia led [*126<
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session20/A.HRC.20.L.15_en.doc>
*] the HRC to create a Special Rapporteur on Eritrea with US co-sponsorship
[*127<
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2012/07/201207128920.html#ixzz2NMWKQXXz>
*] and we can pretty much expect the same moving forward. It’s also
critical to note that the Kampala-based East and Horn of Africa Human
Rights Defenders Project (EHAHRDP) was granted “special consultative
status” with the ECOSOC earlier that year.
[*128<
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ecosoc6493.doc.htm>
*] What does that mean exactly? The EHAHRDP, an umbrella human rights
organization with a nightmarish acronym, has the power to make
recommendations to the HRC and push for resolutions that promote its
agenda. Elsa Chyrum’s Human Rights Concern Eritrea is part of that network
and as the EHAHRDP website states, ECOSOC status will allow its “network
members to deepen their engagement at the UN Level.”
[*129<
http://www.defenddefenders.org/2012/12/end-of-year-message-from-ehahrdps-executive-director/>
*] If history is any indication, her influence will serve as a destructive
force against the Eritrean people. Back in 2011, an article on the HCRE
website declared that “as we celebrate International Human Rights Day, we
welcome the Security Council Sanctions on Eritrea as a means of bringing to
light some of the human rights abuses being perpetrated every day on
Eritreans.” [*130 <
http://hrc-eritrea.org/?p=467>*] Anyone who calls for
sanctions on a nation is an enemy of that nation. There has never been an
example in history where UN sanctions have benefitted the people of a
nation. How, then, can one be Eritrean or a friend of Eritrea and wish for
sanctions on Eritrea?
*The Global Human Rights Regime*
Intervention in the name of human rights is the emerging tool of
imperialism and we have seen a dramatic increase in targeted actions
towards sovereign nations–particularly African nations–by the *Global Human
Rights Regime<
http://www.cfr.org/human-rights/global-human-rights-regime/p27450#p1>
* (GHRR; not my term). Prior to 1990, there were only two UN sanctions:
Rhodesia in 1966 and South Africa in 1977. Both failed to accomplish their
stated goals. The 1990′s saw an explosion of UN sanctions, predominantly
used against African nations. Despite the use of “panels of experts” and
“monitoring groups” none of them worked. After a series of studies, the UN
then decided to transition into using “targeted” sanctions in the 2000′s.
Again, those didn’t work either. Eritrea, sanctioned in 2009, is a
testament to this reality. In fact, the sanctions only strengthened the
Eritrean people’s support of their government, as was evidenced by the
international Hizbawi Mekhete campaigns (“popular resistance”), in which
citizens around the world raised more money in support of their government,
[*131 <
http://youtu.be/mHrwa1rU2Nk>*] and the massive, worldwide anti-UN
demonstrations held on February 22, 2010.
[*132<
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hozKaSQy1bs>
*] In the spirit of resistance, Eritreans also initiated the
*E-SMART<
http://eritrean-smart.org/>
* campaign (“Eritrean Sanctions Must be Annulled and Repealed Today”),
which led to the creation of a website that is now the authoritative
internet resource for understanding the facts and myths regarding the UN
sanctions on Eritrea.
The Human Rights Council is also a new creation that came into existence in
2006 in order to promote the agenda of the GHRR. The HRC adopted special
complaint procedures and special rapporteurs were given mandates to
investigate alleged abuses. The US initially tried to appear as though it
didn’t dominate the institution by taking a back seat and supporting it
monetarily during its early years. China, Cuba, and other nations quickly
took advantage by employing “bloc voting” to protect themselves from
actions against their countries. Thus, the US position changed under Obama
in 2009 as the country was elected into the HRC and quickly used its
influence in the institution to invoke Responsibility-to-Protect (R2P)
against Libya in 2011. The actions of the HRC were coordinated with those
of the UNSC. Damaging human rights reports by Human Rights Watch, which is
a member of the International Coalition for the Responsibility to Protect,
were used to further justify intervention in Libya. The International
Criminal Court, which was established in 2002 and has issued 21 arrest
warrants (all Africans!), issued an arrest warrant for Muammer al-Gaddafi.
In a destructive symphony of the UNSC, HRC, ICC, HRW, and other
international institutions, an African nation was brought to its knees. The
well oiled GHRR acted in full force and wiped the Libyan Jamahiriya off the
planet in almost the blink of an eye. The odd thing, is that there seems to
be an overwhelming propensity for the GHRR to take actions against African
nations relative to others nations of the world. As an African nation,
Eritrea is now becoming the increasing subject of their focus.
US troops are now slated to enter 35 African countries this year.
[*133]<
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/12/ap-army-africa-brigade-train-anti-terror-teams-122412/>
* As Pepe Escobar wrote in a 2011 article for Al Jazeera, “Africom has some
sort of military “partnership”–bilateral agreements–with most of Africa’s
53 countries” but “the exceptions: Ivory Coast, Sudan, Eritrea and Libya.
Ivory Coast is now in the bag. So is South Sudan. Libya may be next. The
only ones left to be incorporated to Africom will be Eritrea and Zimbabwe.”
Thus, Eritreans must be ready for any eventuality as the external forces
that seek regime change in Eritrea–for simply not following their rules or
refusing to kneel down–are left with no choice but to pull the human rights
card. The “terrorism” card didn’t work. The fabricated “coup” card didn’t
work. They are now desperate for something–anything–as was seen by the
arson of multiple Swedish community centers
[*134]<
http://www.thelocal.se/46402/20130226/#.USyo2mft8wx>
*. Their desperation for an excuse makes them dangerous. “Human
trafficking” just might be their excuse. Will Eritreans allow the “human
rights” card to destroy Eritrea? That answer lies solely in the hands of
Eritreans.
*References*
1. *
http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/RL33911.pdf*
2. *
http://english.pravda.ru/hotspots/crimes/16-09-2011/119062-Wikileaks_says_Ethiopia_bombed_itself-0/
*
3. “Exclusive: Eritrea reduces support for al Shabaab – U.N. report.”
Maasho, Aaron. Reuters. July 16, 2012.
*link<
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/16/us-eritrea-somalia-un-idUSBRE86F0AK20120716>
*
4. ibid.
5. *
http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2012/09/25/remarks-president-clinton-global-initiative
*
6. “Eritrea Calls for Lifting of Sanctions.” Clottey, Peter. Voice of
America News.. October 17, 2012.
7. *
http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=09ASMARA146*
8. McMullen, Ronald Keith. Economic consequences of African coups d’etat.
Diss. University of Iowa, 1985.
9. *
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/dec/08/wikileaks-eritrea-president-asaias-afwerki
*
10. *
http://redseafisher.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/the-eritrean-coup-that-never-was/
*
11. *
http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2009/123136.htm*
12. Victims of Trafficking and Violence Protection Act of 2000 (P.L.
106-386). Sec. 108-109.
13. “U.S. Expands Human Trafficking Watchlist.” Associated Press. June 16,
2009. *link <
http://www.cbsnews.com/2100-250_162-5091919.html>*
14. *
http://www.aftenposten.no/spesial/wikileaksdokumenter/26082009-ERITREAN-YOUTH-IM-FLEEING-AND-HERES-WHY-5123036.html
*
15. *
http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=08ASMARA575*
16. *
http://www.un.org/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2011/433*
17. “Exclusive: Eritrea reduces support for al Shabaab – U.N. report”
Maasho, Aaron. Reuters. Jul 16, 2012.
*link<
http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/07/16/us-eritrea-somalia-un-idUSBRE86F0AK20120716>
*
18. *
http://www.un.org/sc/committees/1718/panelofexperts.shtml*
19. *
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2003/sc7672.doc.htm*
20. “In UN Sanctions Follies, Jim’ale Shifted to Somalia List, Eritrea
Report Down, Bryden Spins.” Russell, Matthew Lee. Inner City Press. July
24, 2012. *link <
http://www.innercitypress.com/som1jimale072412.html>*
21. “Eritrea football team “hiding” in Kenya – official.” Reuters. Jack
Oyoo Dec 15, 2009.
*link<
http://uk.reuters.com/article/2009/12/15/uk-eritrea-footballers-idUKTRE5BE19520091215>
*
22. *
http://www.counterpunch.org/2011/09/15/ethiopia-bombs-itself-blames-eritrea/
*
23. “Ethiopia accuses Eritrea of bomb plot.” Reuters. Steve Bloomfield.
February 2, 2007.
24. “Trafficking in Persons Report 2012″ US Department of State. June 2012.
*link <
http://www.state.gov/j/tip/rls/tiprpt/2012/192366.htm>*
25. “Foreign Affairs Committee. US Congress. 110th Session. Serial No.
110–131. Page 25. October 24, 2007.
*link<
http://archives.republicans.foreignaffairs.house.gov/110/38542.pdf>
*
26. “US to suspend issuing visas in Eritrea” Sudan Tribune. Nov 27, 2006. *
link <
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article18939>*
27. Humphries, Rachel. “Refugees and the Rashaida: human smuggling and
trafficking from Eritrea to Sudan and Egypt.” United Nations High
Commissioner for Refugees. Research Paper No. 247. November 2012.
*link<
http://www.humansecuritygateway.com/documents/UNHCR_RefugeesandtheRashaida.pdf>
*
28. *
http://redseafisher.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/the-eritrean-coup-that-never-was/
*
29. “Child Soldiers International, Louder than words – Case Study: Eritrea:
Widespread conscription of children goes unchecked.” September 12, 2012. *
link <
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/507d26022a.html>*
30. “Guide to the Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in
armed.” Coalition to Stop the Use of Child Soldiers. The United Nations
Children’s Fund. December 2003.
*link<
http://www.unicef.org/publications/files/option_protocol_conflict.pdf>
*
31. “AFRICA: Too small to be fighting in anyone’s war”. United Nations
Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs News and Analysis.
December 2003. *link<
http://www.irinnews.org/Report/66280/AFRICA-Too-small-to-be-fighting-in-anyone-s-war>
*
32. “Explanatory Memorandum on the Optional Protocol to the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child – Command Paper number: 5759″.
International Committee of the Red Cross. Customary IHL Study Database:
United Kingdom: Practice: By Country: United Kingdom: Rule 137. Article 1.
Paragraph 9. Updated on December 12, 2012. Accessed on March 15, 2013. *
link <
http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_gb_rule137>*
33. “UN envoy reports no evidence of ‘child soldiering’ in Ethiopia and
Eritrea” United Nations New Centre. March 26, 2002 2002.
*link<
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=3221&Cr=Otunnu&Cr1=#.UUN0Ilemir4>
*
34. “No turning back: A review of UNHCR’s response to the protracted
refugee situation in eastern Sudan.” United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees. Policy Development and Evaluation Service. November 2011.
*link<
http://www.unhcr.org/4eb3e5ea9.pdf>
*
35. “3. Norway’s policy towards UNHCR.” Norwegian Ministry of Foreign
Affairs. *link<
http://www.regjeringen.no/upload/UD/Vedlegg/FN/profilark2011/E886_E_UNHCR.pdf>
*
36. “Africa Rising” TIME Magazine. March 30, 1998.
*link<
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/03/23/time/africa.html>
*
37. *
http://www.ipsnews.net/1996/07/eritrea-population-refugees-caught-in-political-deadlock/
*
38. *
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/pdfid/3b20a3914.pdf*
39. “No turning back: A review of UNHCR’s response to the protracted
refugee situation in eastern Sudan.” United Nations High Commissioner for
Refugees. Policy Development and Evaluation Service. November 2011.
*link<
http://www.unhcr.org/4eb3e5ea9.pdf>
*
40. “Position on Return of Rejected Asylum Seekers to Eritrea.” United
Nations High Commissioner for Refugees. January 2004.
41. *
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR33/001/2002/en/37f3a8f8-d79f-11dd-b024-21932cd2170d/eur330012002en.html
*
42. *
http://www.amnesty.org/en/library/asset/EUR33/001/2002/en/37f3a8f8-d79f-11dd-b024-21932cd2170d/eur330012002en.html
*
43. *
http://www.interventionism.info/en/CSI-comment:–Does-Amnesty-International-campaign-for-NATO<
http://www.interventionism.info/en/CSI-comment:--Does-Amnesty-International-campaign-for-NATO>
*
44. “Views on Migration in Sub-Saharan Africa: Proceedings of an African
Migration Alliance Workshop.” Catherine Cross, Derik Gelderblom, Niel Roux
and Jonathan Mafukidze. Human Sciences Research Council. Apr 1, 2007. Page
104.
45. *
http://2001-2009.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2004/32377.htm*
46. *
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2012/03/2012317172129621636.html*
47. *
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-04-29/eritrea-calls-ethiopia-s-new-stance-a-declaration-of-war-.html
*
48. *
http://www.internal-displacement.org/8025708F004CE90B/%28httpCountrySummaries%29/09DE409E7595E1C1C125755F002D831E?OpenDocument&count=10000
*
49. “Ethiopia’s Ethnic Cleansing.” Calhoun, Craig. Dissent. pg. 47-50.
Winter 1999.
50. *
http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200606/13/eng20060613_273561.html*
51. *
http://www.refugeecooperation.org/publications/Sudan/07_bartsch.php*
52. ibid.
53. Kibreab, Gaim; Ohta, Itaru; Gebre, Yntiso D. “Displacement Risks in
Africa: Refugees, Resettlers and Their Host Population.” Trans Pacific
Press. Pg. 143-145. Mar 1, 2005.
54. R. Ek. “UNHCR’s operation in eastern Sudan, 1967-2009: lessons
learned.” UNHCR, March 2009.
55. *
http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=07ASMARA56*
56. “Regulation of Sexual Conduct in Un Peacekeeping Operations” Simić,
Olivera. Springer. Pg. 36. Aug 18, 2012.
57. “Eritrea: UNMEE Dismisses Criticism by Top Military Official.” United
Nations Integrated Regional Information Network. May 4, 2004.
*link<
http://reliefweb.int/report/eritrea/un-investigates-alleged-sexual-abuse-peacekeepers-eritrea>
*
58. *
http://www.unhcr.org/cgi-bin/texis/vtx/refdaily?pass=463ef21123&date=2007-10-09&cat=Africa
*
59. *
http://dehai.org/demarcation-watch/articles/Ghidewon_Abay_Asmerom_UNMEE_abusing_the_welcome.html
*
60. *
http://www.ice.gov/news/library/factsheets/human-trafficking.htm*
61. *
http://www.culturalorientation.net/providing-orientation/overseas/programs/rsc-africa/eritrean-highlight
*
62. *
http://www.unhcr.org/468d0f88c.html*
63. *
http://www.cablegatesearch.net/cable.php?id=08ADDISABABA2749*
64. *
http://asmarino.com/en/54-awyat/427-peaceful-demonstration-in-eritrean-refugee-camp-ethiopia-shimelba-06122009
*
65. *
http://2001-2009.state.gov/g/prm/refadm/rls/rpts/2002/13892.htm*
66. *
http://2001-2009.state.gov/g/prm/refadm/rls/rpts/2003/44338.htm*
67. *
http://2001-2009.state.gov/g/prm/asst/rl/rpts/36116.htm*
68. *
http://2001-2009.state.gov/documents/organization/74762.pdf*
69. *
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/181378.pdf*
70. *
http://allafrica.com/stories/201303130930.html*
71. *
http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/11/15/egypt-don-t-deport-eritreans*
72. *
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article25120*
73. *
http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/country,,USCRI,,AGO,,485f50c0c,0.html*
74. “Tanzania rejects asylum request by Eritrean footballers.” Panapress.
Oct 13, 2011.
75. *
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/198157.pdf*
76. “Eritrea asks Israel to deport ‘deserters.’” Ravid, Barak. Ha’aretz.
March 25, 2008.
77. “Israel detains Eritrean refugee for 18 months because he couldn’t
prove his identity.” Weiler-Polak, Dana. Ha’aretz. May 24, 2011.
78. “Eritreans turned down for asylum after Ethiopia claims refugees as
their own” Nesher, Talila. Ha’aretz. October 24, 2011.
*link<
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/news/eritreans-turned-down-for-asylum-after-ethiopia-claims-refugees-as-their-own-1.391628>
*
79. “The dark side of Tel Aviv.” Ynetnews. Adino Ababa, Danny. June 7,
2012. *link <
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-4239481,00.html>*
80. “52% of Jewish Israelis say illegal African migrants a ‘cancer.” LA
Times. June 8, 2012.
81. *
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/closing-the-holes-and-the-loopholes-1.278503
*
82. *
http://www.inn.co.il/News/News.aspx/229304*
83. “Closing the holes and the loopholes.” Wuraft, Nurit. Ha‘aretz. June
21, 2009. *link<
http://www.haaretz.com/print-edition/features/closing-the-holes-and-the-loopholes-1.278503>
*
84. “Improving the Speed and Quality of Asylum Decisions.” Report by the
Comptroller and Auditor General. HC 535, Session 2003-2004: June 23, 2004. *
link<
http://www.nao.org.uk/report/improving-the-speed-and-quality-of-asylum-decisions/>
*
85. “Former Miss Ethiopia unlawfully held by British immigration.” Daily
Telegraph. June 16, 2009.
86. *
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2012/10/24/cabbagetown_murder_stabbing_victim_was_a_married_mother_of_4_from_eritrea.html
*
87. Re-blogged link: *
http://tedalo.blogspot.com/2012/10/by-sam-b.html*
88. *
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/10/26/police-keeping-open-mind-in-cabbagetown-murder
*
89. Re-blogged link: *
http://tedalo.blogspot.com/2012/10/by-sam-b.html*
90. *
http://www.oregonlive.com/news/oregonian/steve_duin/index.ssf/2012/10/steve_duin_the_endless_hours_o.html
*
91. “Swedish Resident Charged with Terrorism in US Court.” Radio Sweden.
March 10, 2010. Re-published
*link<
http://eastafro.com/Post/2010/03/10/swedish-foreign-minister-says-man-held-in-new-york-based-on-terrorism-charges-is-not-eritrean/>
*
92. *
http://www.cnn.com/2012/06/13/justice/new-york-al-shabaab*
93. *
http://www.counterpunch.org/2013/03/04/ethiopias-anti-apartheid-movement/*
94. *
http://www.dni.gov/index.php/about/organization/national-intelligence-council-global-trends
*
95. *
http://www.unhcr.org/4ce531e09.pdf*
96. *
http://www.acf.hhs.gov/programs/orr/resource/fiscal-year-2012-refugee-arrivals
*
97. *
http://www.sudantribune.com/spip.php?article18939*
98. “Tanzania rejects asylum request by Eritrean footballers.” Pana Press.
Oct 13, 2011. *link<
http://www.panapress.com/Tanzania-rejects-asylum-request-by-Eritrean-footballers--13-800034-18-lang2-index.html>
*
99. “East African soccer team players defect, settle in Houston.” Susan
Carroll. Houston Chronicle. May 23, 2012.
*link<
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/East-African-soccer-team-players-defect-settle-3580747.php#photo-2977220>
*
100. *
http://www.state.gov/j/prm/ra/c49034.htm*
101. *
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/us-embassy-cables-documents/239914*
102. “Tanzania rejects asylum request by Eritrean footballers.” Pana Press.
Oct 13, 2011. *link<
http://www.panapress.com/Tanzania-rejects-asylum-request-by-Eritrean-footballers--13-800034-18-lang2-index.html>
*
103. *
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=soccer&id=4747830*
104. *
http://www.unhcr.org/49ba623f2.html*
105. *
http://www.unhcr.org/4daef2e39.html*
106. *
http://www.state.gov/documents/organization/181378.pdf*
107. *
http://www.unhcr.org/print/4daef2e39.html*
108. “Eritrea and European Community: Country Strategy Paper And National
Indicative Programme For the period 2009-2013.” Global Forum on Migration
and Development. Pg. 59. 2009.
*link<
http://www.gfmd.org/en/pfp/policy-tools/migration-profiles/repository/all/item/80-eritrea>
*
109. “Eritrean president appears to quash death rumour.” Agence France
Presse. April 28, 2012.
*link<
http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gP63HJcTtZWnN4RONtzzSJoXZDTA?docId=CNG.21e4cd2a1db501ce2af389bd087b6d27.301>
*
110. *
http://awate.com/the-unusual-absence-of-isaias-afwerki/*
111. *
http://redseafisher.wordpress.com/2013/01/24/the-eritrean-coup-that-never-was/
*
112. *
http://asmarino.com/press-releases/1664-ms-elizabeth-chyrum-and-professor-dan-connel-in-boston
*
113. *
http://asmarino.com/press-releases/1663-statement-from-icer-the-president-of-eritreas-letter-on-human-trafficking-to-the-secretary-general-of-the-un33
*
114. *
http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session21/A.HRC.RES.21.1.doc
*
115. *
http://www.hrea.org/index.php?doc_id=437*
116. *
http://www.ohchr.org/en/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=12608&LangID=E
*
117. *
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=43831&Cr=Eritrea&Cr1#.UT6MlVeNASg
*
118. ibid.
119. *
http://asmarino.com/editorial/1609-elizabeth-elsa-chyrum-a-woman-of-the-year-2012b
*
120. Letter dated February 2008. “Re: Presidency of the UN Human Rights
Council” *link<
http://www.demcoalition.org/pdf/HRC%20Presidency%20Letter.pdf>
*
121. Letter dated March 31, 2010. “Re: May 2010 UN Human Rights Council
elections” *link<
http://www.demcoalition.org/pdf/pdf/African%20States%20Open%20letter%20March%2031.pdf>
*
122. *
http://www.un.org/en/ga/67/meetings/elections/hrc.shtml*
123. *
http://www.hrw.org/news/2012/07/13/au-don-t-endorse-sudan-ethiopia-rights-council
*
124. *
http://www.un.org/en/ga/67/meetings/elections/hrc.shtml*
125. *
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/31/AR2009033104115.html
*
126. *
www.ohchr.org/Documents/HRBodies/HRCouncil/RegularSession/Session20/A.HRC.20.L.15_en.doc
*
127. *
http://iipdigital.usembassy.gov/st/english/texttrans/2012/07/201207128920.html#ixzz2NMWKQXXz
*
128. *
http://www.un.org/News/Press/docs/2012/ecosoc6493.doc.htm*
129. *
http://www.defenddefenders.org/2012/12/end-of-year-message-from-ehahrdps-executive-director/
*
130. *
http://hrc-eritrea.org/?p=467*
131. *
http://youtu.be/mHrwa1rU2Nk*
132. *
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hozKaSQy1bs*
133. *
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2012/12/ap-army-africa-brigade-train-anti-terror-teams-122412/
*
134. *
http://www.thelocal.se/46402/20130226/#.USyo2mft8wx*
Received on Tue Oct 29 2013 - 12:34:59 EDT