Eritrea Slams UN Sanctions for Leaks, Favoring Ethiopia, Acting for US &
Rice
By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, July 19, 2012 -- For weeks there has been talk of two UN
reports on Eritria. The first, shorter one was put online and then taken
off, as exclusively reported
<
http://www.innercitypress.com/ban3eritrea062812.html> and published
<
http://www.innercitypress.com/ban2eritrea062712.html> by Inner City Press.
The second one was and is the report of the UN Monitoring Group on Somalia
and Eritrea, said to be over 400 pages in length and watermarked to
discourage any leaking.
Still, even before the Security Council's sanctions committee met Tuesday
about the report, the Monitoring Group's coordinator Matthew Bryden came out
and was quoted that "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."
Eritrea, which says it hadn't yet been given a copy of the report as the
country concerned, was critical of the procedure and of Bryden's quote.
Eritrea also called out US Ambassador Susan Rice, if not by name then by
position. (Inner City Press covered Rice's involvement back in December 2011
<
http://www.innercitypress.com/usun7eritrea113011.html> and would be happy
to run any response or comment, even en passant the Council.)
For now, Inner City Press is publishing pertinent portions of Eritrea's
presentation to Tuesday's closed door meeting:
... Eritrea has not as yet received a copy of the report. This contravenes
the fundamental legal principle of the 'equality of arms.' As a country of
concern, Eritrea has an inalienable right of respond to the allegations made
by the Group; and for this to occur Eritrea must be provided with all the
relevant documents that purport to establish its culpability. But in the
case of the 'Monitoring Group' reports, which are almost always leaked to
the press before the Security Council considers them-including the present
one, the pattern has invariably been to bloc Eritrea's access to the
accusations leveled against it, while it has granted access to others. It is
worth recalling, last year the Monitoring Group report was presented by an
international civil servant to the meeting of IGAD Heads of State in an
attempt to sway their opinion towards calling additional sanction against
Eritrea. Similarly, this year, a news agency was granted access to the
report as well as an interview with the coordinator of the Monitoring
Group... To recap the salient points:
1. The 2% recovery and rehabilitation tax is levied in accordance with the
legislative act of the National Assembly that was passed in 1994. One
wonders why the Monitoring Group persists in its misnomer to dub it
"Diaspora tax", and in this particular report as "extraterritorial tax"...
the presumed evidences on "coercive measures" of collection are based on
interviews with "42 Eritreans living abroad". But, is this a representative
sample? Who are those interviewed? How can the SEMG ascertain whether the
testimonies are not lies peddled for political purposes? And, how can denial
of services to those who fail to pay their tax obligations be misconstrued
as harassment and intimidation?
Furthermore, it must be noted that Eritrea's detractors, particularly
certain US and Ethiopian officials, have always been obsessed with finding
ways and means of stopping both remittance to individual households and the
recovery tax. Indeed, during Ethiopia's third offensive against Eritrea in
May 2000, some senior US officials - the current US Permanent Representative
to the UN [Susan Rice] chief among them - were mulling over taking these
precise unilateral measures...
The "Monitoring Group" computes the presumed maiden earnings to the
Government of Eritrea that may have accrued from the Bisha Mining Plant in
2011, and jumps the gun to recommend various intrusive measures ostensibly
to ensure that "these revenues are not spent in violation to UNSC
resolutions". The "Monitoring Group" does not provide a shred of evidence
that the Government of Eritrea has in the past diverted revenues from mining
to "acts of regional destabilization". It does not even care to know how the
capital expenditure of the investment was financed. In any case, sheer
speculation and groundless presumptions cannot surely be standards for
imposing financial restrictions that impinge on a country's sovereign
budgetary rights. And why single out the mining sector? Or are these
unwarranted intrusive measures designed for creeping application to other
prospective sectors in the Eritrean economy?
3. The "Monitoring Group" finally admits that "it has no evidence to support
the allegation of direct Eritrean support to Al-Shabaab during the current
mandate". The admission is acknowledged with obvious resentment and
uncalled-for caveats, omissions and "rationalizations". But it remains a
very critical piece of information. We must indeed recall that the principal
reason why Resolution 1907 was imposed against Eritrea in December 2009 was
its presumed support to this group. The bogus accusation of Eritrea's
"delivery of three plane loads of arms to Al-Shabaab through the town of
Baidowa" was also deliberately peddled in November/December last year just
weeks before the imposition of Resolution 2023. In effect, the "Monitoring
Group" does not have a case against Eritrea. ..
We now proceed to address the new additions in the Report.
The Monitoring Group falsely accuses Eritrea of "violating the arms embargo
through the smuggling of weapons and ammunition for commercial sale via
Sudan". As usual, it heaps insult on General Teklay Kifle and alleges that
he "receives at least US$ 3.6 million per year in proceeds". The arms
smuggling that the Monitoring Group attributes to this General is then
mingled with "the more lucrative activity of human trafficking". As we
explained in detail in our response last year, Eritrea is the victim of
organized and targeted human trafficking that has been pursued deliberately
by its adversaries to weaken its human resources. There are also individual
criminals and fugitives from the law who are embroiled in this act.
The "Monitoring Group" gives away its game when it tries to associate
Eritrea, albeit indirectly, with the killings of the tourists in Ethiopia on
17 January 2012. This is despite its earlier assertion which reads: "The
SEMG has seen no evidence to suggest that the Government of Eritrea bears
direct responsibility for the killings of Erta'Ale with respect to the
planning or conduct of the operation". But then, it speculates that since
"Eritrea continues to host, train and support ARDUF, some recent ARDUF
trainees may have been involved in the incident". How the "Monitoring Group"
can deduce Eritrea's "indirect responsibility" from these flimsy
circumstantial and speculative considerations is difficult to understand.
The critical question is: does this emanate from professional ineptness and
very low standards, or, does it betray ulterior political motivations?
...what is curious in the MG report is the total omission of any reference
of the repeated and publicly announced attacks that Ethiopia has unleashed
against Eritrea in the past six months. But as its unfounded but principal
case on "Eritrea's role in destabilizing Somalia" has evaporated in thin
air, it has changed tack to fabricate new allegations focused on Ethiopia.
The problem with this narrative is Ethiopia's well-known practices and
publicly stated agendas. Ethiopia is arming and supporting Eritrean armed
groups; it pursues a policy of regime change; and, it continues to occupy
sovereign Eritrean territories in flagrant violation of international law.
8. The Monitoring Group asserts that the arms embargo has severely "affected
the operational readiness of the Eritrean Air Force". On the one hand, this
is not consonant with its accusations of Eritrea for violating the arms
embargo through organized smuggling. But more importantly, one wonders why
and for whom this information is proffered. Does assessment of Eritrea's Air
Force and inclusion in its report of aerial photographic analysis of the
ERAF really fall within its purview? Especially when we recall that in the
original accusations of Eritrean destabilization of Somalia, the Air Force
was not implicated in any way. And when sovereign Eritrean territories
remain occupied by a belligerent Ethiopia which may be contemplating
additional acts of aggression, is the SEMG oblivious to Eritrea's legitimate
rights of defense as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter?
.. I wish to take this occasion to renew our earlier invitation for the
Security Council Sanctions Committee to visit Eritrea for extensive
discussions with the Government.
Let me also renew our consistent call on the Security Council to lift the
unjust and unfair sanctions imposed on Eritrea as i) the initial and
principal accusation of Eritrean support to Al-Shabaab has now been proven
to be non-existent; ii) Eritrea remains committed to the facilitation by the
State of Qatar to overcome its differences with the Republic of Djibouti;
iii) the events over the past year have clearly shown that it is in fact
Ethiopia that is actively engaged in destabilizing Eritrea in addition to
its continued occupation of sovereign Eritrean territory in violation of the
UN Charter; and iv) Eritrea enhances its positive contributions to regional
peace and security. I thank you, Mr. Chairman.
***************************************
On Sudans' Aug. 2 Deadline, Rice Says "Lot to Do," Of ICJ Plans & Oil Rumors
By Matthew Russell Lee
UNITED NATIONS, July 17 -- As the August 2 deadline for agreement between
Sudan and South Sudan approaches, Inner City Press late on July 16 asked US
Ambassador Susan Rice if she thought the two countries will strike a deal by
then.
Rice exclusively told Inner City Press that "there's a lot to get done in
a short period of time... they ought to."
This followed upbeat coverage of the one on one meeting on July 14 between
the two countries' presidents, including reports that they had agreed on an
$8 a barrel oil transfer fee, much lower than the $36 a barrel Khartoum had
demanded, but up from Juba's less than $1 a barrel offer back on the
arrangement between Chad and Cameroon.
Last week, well placed sources told Inner City Press that South Sudan is
opposing any extension of the August 2 deadline, and intends to "take the
issue of the border to the Hague," the International Court of Justice.
The African Union panel's Thabo Mbeki is now slated to come and brief the
UN Security Council on July 26. Whereas at the Council's last session on the
issue Sudan emphasized "progress" that is being made, and that the Colombian
presidency of the Council for July said the August deadline wasn't set in
store or "the Bible," South Sudan now disagrees.
South Sudan anticipates that Mbeki will come painting a positive picture
and asking for an extension. And South Sudan will oppose any extension,
saying they'll take it to the ICJ.
Another of Mbeki's panel members, as exclusively reported by Inner City
Press, diagnosed that South Sudan is betting the Omar al Bashir will be
overthrown, now that he cannot spend revenue from oil or oil transfer fees.
The austerity protests are growing.
At the July 13 UN noon briefing, Inner City Press asked again for any Ban
Ki-moon or UN reaction to the tear-gassing and detention of protesters.
Ban's spokesman responded with a generic statement about the right to
protest. Oh, and leaders should listen to their people.
Meanwhile Inner City Press asked for the United STATES position on Sudan
joining the Human Rights Council and received in return this, from a US
official:
"We are obviously very much opposed, but this is not a done deal, and we
urge members of the AU to do the right thing and stop an ICC-indicted war
criminal from taking a seat on the Human Rights Council."
But what's the US position on extending the August 2 deadline? Or would
the US fully support South Sudan taking the border issue to the Hague? Watch
this site.
Received on Thu Jul 19 2012 - 22:34:43 EDT
