Friday, June 16, 2006

Crisis talks over Horn border row

By Martin Plaut BBC Africa analyst

The two countries fought a trench war of attritionA commission that is attempting to end the border dispute between Ethiopia and Eritrea is holding crisis talks in the Netherlands after Eritrea decided to boycott any further meetings to discuss the issue.
The Eritreans claim that the Boundary Commission - which was established in 2000, at the end of the border war between the two countries - is straying beyond its terms of reference, by making what are described as "further concessions" to Ethiopia.
The Boundary Commission is now suggesting the establishment of a new mechanism to resolve serious disputes between Ethiopia and Eritrea.
It calls for the United Nations or the international community to set up a new forum to deal with these irreconcilable problems.
'Implacable'
Its new proposal calls for the secretary of the Boundary Commission to: "inform the Secretary-General of the United Nations and the Witnesses of the Algiers Agreement [that ended the Ethiopia-Eritrea border war] that the situation is one which is beyond the Commission's powers to remedy on the grounds of manifest implacability.


Click here to see a map of the border
"Any further action to resolve any problems which arise in respect of those situations will be a matter for decision within whatever mechanism or for a which the UN or other Witnesses may establish for that purpose."
The suggestion has been angrily denounced by Eritrea, which has written to the commission accusing it of giving in to Ethiopian pressure.
A letter from the Eritrean legal adviser, Professor Lea Brilmayer, dated 13 June declares that no progress will be achieved until Ethiopia accepts without reservation the Boundary Commission's ruling.
It concludes: "Appeasing Ethiopia at this point will serve only to postpone - and not remedy - Ethiopia's continuing obstructionism and defiance of the Commission's 13 April 2002 Award."
US role
Ever since the commission ruled on the border four years ago, Eritrea has demanded that the decision be implemented without further changes.
Ethiopia - on the other hand - has insisted that around 30 border villages cannot be split in half.

Eritrea believes that any new disputes mechanisms would allow Ethiopia to pick apart the commission's decisions, by challenging its ruling point by point all along the 1,000km border.
And Eritrea sees the hand of the United States behind these changes.
Certainly Eritrea has done little to win over friends in Washington - having repeatedly refused to even meet senior American diplomats who have come to see them.
Interviewed after he returned from a trip to the region earlier this month, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Donald Yamamoto complained that no senior Eritrea was even prepared to meet them.
"We went to Eritrea earlier in the month, and of course we only saw one official.
"We've made repeated requests to talk with President Isaias [Afewerki] and he ignored us at every step... The only people who have opened their doors have been Ethiopia, and not Eritrea. We find it very frustrating but also very disappointing."
The Boundary Commission has been attempting to deal with the apparently irreconcilable demands of Ethiopia and Eritrea.
It insists that its attempts to resolve these dispute have not been fatally undermined.
And the commission will now write to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan to ask for his support - arguing that none of the proposed changes alter their decision on the Ethiopia Eritrea border in any fundamental way.

Delivery of Petition to the Swedish Government By Eritrean Anti-Tyranny Global Solidarity ? Sweden


May 18, 2006, 21:49 PST

Report in Arabic at farajat.com

A delegation of six persons representing almost all Eritrean civic and political organisations in Sweden met with Mr Andreas Ershammar desk officer at the Africa Department of The Ministry of Foreign Affairs in Sweden.

The purpose of this meeting was to deliver the petition letter and the sealed envelope with the names of the petitioners. Mr Andreas listened carefully to the issues raised by the delegation and cordially gave his response to each of them. The delegation found Mr Andreas to be well informed on most of the issues. On his recent visit to Eritrea he said that he could witness the Government of Eritrea rejecting appeals from governments and human rights organisations to release the huge amount of food aid locked and rotting in warehouses. He was there when UN special humanitarian envoy for the Horn of Africa Mr Kjell Magne Bondevik raised the subject with Mr Issayas Afewerki.


He went on to explain that the Swedish government was no longer giving any development aid to the regime in Eritrea as most of other European governments have done the last two years. On the question of travel ban of PFDJ and government officials he said that he himself was not expert on the issue of sanctions but that he would forward the delegations request for consideration.

The delegation explained further that the Eritrean embassies are centres of espionage against Eritreans residing abroad and that money laundering and other illegal activities under the guise of diplomatic immunity have substituted most of the ordinary business. The delegation called on the Swedish government to take a closer look on this and take strong measures to stop the embassies and their supporters from harassing and intimidating those who oppose the dictatorship in Eritrea.

Mr Andreas assured to the delegation of conveying the message and documents of the delegation delivered to the foreign minister H.E. Mr Jan Eliasson. After almost an hour the delegation departed the official with the satisfaction of having accomplished mission of the delegation.

The following were the members of the delegation:

Mrs Semainesh Asfaha,
Mr Fessehazion Nair
Mr Solomon Ghebrai
Mr Mahari Abraham
Mr Fitsum Asfaha Mr Samson Tesfamichael

Thursday, June 15, 2006

Fate of Eritrea-Ethiopia meeting on border row seems unclear

Thursday 15 June 2006 00:09.

June 14, 2006 (ASMARA) — Arch-foes and Horn of Africa neighbours Ethiopia and Eritrea tussled Wednesday over the holding of a meeting to discuss their simmering border dispute, as the fate of the planned talks remained unclear.
Asmara said that it would not attend the meeting set for Thursday in The Hague in the Netherlands unless Addis Ababa agreed to the terms of a 2002 border ruling which it has repeatedly called to be reviewed.
"There will be a meeting on the basis of assurances from Ethiopia that it unequivocally accepts the boundary commission’s decision," Yemane Gebremeskel, director of the president’s office, said.
"Eritrea has asked for clarification. If we get that assurance tomorrow, then a meeting will take place," Yemane said.
But Ethiopia said that the meeting was called off because of Eritrea’s refusal to participate and regretted the move as "disappointing."
"The meeting scheduled for tomorrow has been cancelled due to Eritrea’s refusal to participate," a foreign affairs ministry official said in Addis Ababa.
"This is very disappointing. What appears is that what Eritrea wants is tension in the region and a boundary dispute. They don’t want to bring the process of demarcation forward, they are not interested in peace," added the official.
Last month, the two countries blamed each otherfor the failure of talks held in London aimed at ending the deadlock over their tense border that many fear could spark a new war.
Ethiopia wants the border ruling to be reviewed as it awarded the flashpoint town of Badme to Eritrea, arguing it unfairly splits families and homes between the two countries.
Eritrea has rejected that stance, arguing that the demarcation is final and has loudly complained that the international community has not done enough to press Ethiopia to accept the decision.
"Fruitless meetings are not useful," said Yemane, accusing the failure of the London talks on Ethiopia’s insistence on the review ofthe border ruling.
"At the last two meetings Ethiopia obstructed demarcation by asking for partial demarcation and changes in the ruling’s implementation. What is the point of talking about practical issues when Ethiopia is intransigent on its position?"
As a sign of frustration, Asmara slapped wide-ranging restrictions on the UN border mission there called UNMEE, restricting patrols, grounding helicopters flights as well as expelling all Western staff attached to the mission.
(ST)

Wednesday, June 14, 2006

Eritrea issues strong démenti apropos Somalia

13 June 2006

Following is the statement of Ambassador Girmai Gebremariam of Eritrea at the Nairobi IGAD Summit today:

- A deliberate smear campaign was peddled against my country in the past few weeks as the fighting in Mogadishu intensified from certain quarters in the region as well as from without the region for a variety of reasons. In the event, let me set the record straight and underline the bedrock of the constructive policy of my Government regarding Somalia.
- During the past 15 years in which we saw our Somali brothers embroiled in tragic internal strife, Eritrea has pursued a consistent and coherent policy hinged on the following considerations:
We firmly believe that the balkanization of Somalia, the polarization of its society, and erosion of its sovereignty and territorial integrity would neither serve the primary interests of our Somali brothers nor contribute to regional peace and stability. In this respect, ah external forces that have the welfare of Somalia and the region at heart are duty bound to encourage national reconciliation and peace instead of aggravating the internal divisions of our Somali brothers. On the basis of this fundamental approach, Eritrea has never meddled in internal Somali affairs to sponsor, arm or otherwise favour one group against the other.
Eritrea has never seen Somalia as a proxy battlefield to settle scores with Ethiopia. Grave as it may be, the border conflict with Ethiopia is a bilateral dispute between the two countries that should not and cannot be catapulted to or played out in Somalia.
Countries in the region which may have had historical disputes with Somalia should not exploit the current realities to serve their narrow interests As emphasized earlier, instability and turmoil in Somalia will not only harm the welfare of the Somali people as a whole but also jeopardize, in the long-term, the stability and security of the whole Horn of Africa region.
The political solution to the myriad problems in Somalia rests, ultimately, on the Somali's themselves. The role of other players, IGAD, the African Union etc. can only be to facilitate a conducive environment for the Somalis to put their house in order.
- The mendacious accusations leveled against Eritrea in the recent weeks alleging that it has extended military support to this or that group is thus a total fabrication that goes contrary to our declared policy outlined above and proven conduct in. Some have even gone above the board to accuse Eritrea of supporting “terrorist groups” in Somalia. Eritrea's track record in combating terrorism in our region, which emanates from its own strategic perspectives and exigencies of national security, is too well known to merit elaboration here. And this fact is perfectly known to those who have chosen to peddle these lies for reasons better known to them. Shabait.com

Tuesday, June 13, 2006

مشاركة سودانية إرترية في مراسيم السفير عبده لجسي



مركز "الخليج" 13/يونيو 2006م GIC
دفن في مثواه الأخير السفير عبده لجسي بشرى بعد ظهر اليوم في أديس أبابا، وشارك في مراسيم الدفن وزيرة الدولة بالوزارة الخارجية الدكتور تقدا ألمو وأسرة وزارة الخارجية ومسئولين كبار في الحزب الحاكم، كما شاركت السفارة السودانية في مراسيم الدفن، وسجلت المعارضة الإرترية حضور كبير في مراسيم الدفن، حيث شارك بصورة كبيرة من قيادات وكوادر المعارضة الإرترية المتواجدين في إثيوبيا ، بالإضافة إلى عدد كبير من شخصيات اعتبارية إرترية، وفي مقدمة المشاركون من المعارضة الإرترية كل من تولدي جبرسلاسي والدكتور محمد عثمان أبوبكر وإبراهيم أبوبكر وجمع علي بخيت وعبدالله محمود وعثمان شوم ومصطفى عبده، بالإضافة إلى شخصيات اعتبارية وأعيان الجالية الإرترية ، حيث نقلوا تعازيهم إلى أسرة الفقيد وإلى الحكومة الإثيوبية، كما قدمت السفارة السودانية تعازيها إلى أسرة الفقيد والحكومة الإثيوبية التي قدمت هي الأخرى تعازيها إلى أسرة الفقيد.
وبث التلفزيون الإثيوبي فقرات مطولة تضمنت السيرة الذاتية للراحل، وأشادت بدوره إبان الحرب ضد نظام منجستو وجهوده في تعزيز العلاقات السودانية الإثيوبية ومساهماته لعكس صورة إثيوبية الإيجابية في السنوات التي عمل فيها كدبلوماسي في كل من السودان والسعودية.

ሓጺር ዜና

ከምቲ ኣብ መርበብ ኢንተርነታት ክሕበር ዝቐነየ ትማሊ ቀዳም 10 ሰነ 2006 ዓ.ም ኣብ ከተማ Göteborg /ዮተቦሪ/ በቲ ብጉዱሳት ኤርትራውያን ዝተጸወዐ ኣገዳሲ ኣኸባ ብዓወት ተሰላሲሉ ።
እቲ ኣኸባ ካብ ሰዓት 3 ክሳብ ሰዓት 8 ናይ ምሸት ኣስታት ናይ ሓሙሽተ ሰዓታት ዝወሰደ ኮይኑ ዝተዛረበሎም ኣጀንዳታት፡-
1፡- ህሉው ኩነታት ሃገርን፤ ብዛዕባ ሓደስቲ ሓተቲ ዕቑባን ኩነታቶምን
2፡- ሕብረተ ሰብን ትርጉም ስቪካዊ/በርገሳዊ/ ማሕበርን፡ ምቛም በርገስዊ ማሕበርን ጠቕሙን

ኣብዚ ኣብቲ ቀዳማይ ኣጀንዳ ብጋዜጠኛ ሓው ኻልድ ዓብዱ ኩነታት ሃገርን፡ ሓደስቲ ሓተቲ ዑቕባን ክኽተልዎ ዘሎዎም ኣገባብን ሰፊሕ ሓበሬታ ኣብ ርእሲ ምሃቡ፡ ኣብ ዝሓለፈ ዓመታት ተሞኩሮ ናይ ማሕበር ሓተቲ ዑቕባ ኣብ ሃገር ሽወደን ሰፊሕ መብርሂ ሂቡ።

ኣብቲ ካልኣይ ኣጀንዳ ንዝምልከት ድማ ሓው ግንቦት ኣብርሃ፡ ብዛዕባ ስቪክ ማሕበርን ትርጉሙን ኣገዳሲ ኣስተምህሮ ሂቡ። ኣብዚ ዘሎናዮ እዋን ድማ ብዛዕባ በርገሳዊ ማሕበርን ኣገዳስነቱን ሰፊሕ ሓበረታን ዓሚቕ ኣስተምህሮን ኣቕሪቡ።

ድሕሪ እዚ ንሕቶን መልስን ርእይቶን ናብ ገዛ ተገዲፉ፡ ኣገደስቲ ሕቶታት ቀሪቡ፡ ንሕቶታት ምስ መብርሂኡ ድማ መልሲ ተዋሂቡውም። ኮምኡ እውን ኣገደስቲ ርእይቶታት ካብ ኣኸበኛታት ቀሪቡ።
ኣብ መጨረሻ ድማ ኣብ ዮተቦሪ እውን ሓደ ሓያል በርገሳዊ ማሕበር ክህሉ ኣኸበኛ ብምልኣት ስለዝዓገበሉ ሓንቲ ቅዋም ማሕበር ነዲፋ ማሕበር ንሙቛም መዓልቲ ክትውስን ካብ ኣኸበኛታት ሓንቲ ሓሙሽተ ዝኣባላታ ኮሚቴ ከም ዝተመርጸት ተሓቢሩ ኣሎ።
በዚ ድማ እቲ ኣኸባ ብዓወት ተደምዲሙ።

PFDJs Public dialogue, do they really mean what they Say !

Public Dialogue Human Rights in EritreaTranslated from Tigrinya by Dr. Gebre Hiwet Tesfagiorgis, Jun 1, 2006

The publication, Hidri, conducted a public dialogue (panel), which lasted for over six hours, on the topic, “Human Rights in Eritrea.” It was a forum in which panelists shared their thoughts and experiences and about 120 attendees made comments and expressed their views. The panelists were Weizero Fawzia Hashim (Minister of Justice), Professor Asmerom Legesse (Citizens for Peace), Brigadier General Abraha Kassa (Head of National Security), and Ato Yemane Gebremeskel (Director, President’s Office).

Following is the first part of the public dialogue:
Question. Human rights, is a controversial concept, although its liberal interpretation currently dominates. Thus, I think it is necessary to start our dialogue with the meaning of the concept. What is meant by human rights? What does it entail? And how is it implemented?

Professor Asmerom Legesse. The concept of human rights was initiated through international conventions and emerged from the civil liberal democratic systems of Western Europe and North America. Basically, it focuses on individual rights, and not on social lives and rights. By linking it with the fame, dedication and heroism of individuals, Westerners portray human rights as a symbol of fame with individual elements. India’s Mahatma Gandhi, America’s Martin Luther King, and the Chinese youth who stood in front of rolling tanks at Tiananmen Square can be mentioned as examples. Individualism is the foundation of Western political philosophy.When translated into Tigrinya, individualism is associated with selfishness and similar notions, and does not properly convey its positive aspects. At any rate, the efforts a human being makes to realize his dreams and goals, to accumulate knowledge and skills, and freely use his talents to improve his living conditions, are all incorporated in the concept of individualism.When being drawn or drafted in chapters of international conventions, human rights starts with the words, “Every human being … has rights.” And there were significant oppositions from African and East European countries. Why? Because the chapters mention the rights of the ‘individual,’ but not of nationalities, villages or other groups. The provisions do not advocate for the right to self-determination of peoples either. That is why when the African commission for human rights was established, it was named, the African Commission for Human and Peoples’ Rights.

Wzo/ Fawzia Hashim. Human rights emerged in connection with the aftermath of the race-based Fascism and Nazism as well as the cold war of the post-World War Two era. The concepts enunciated in the Universal Declarations of Human Rights are extensive. Related to the Declaration, there are also conventions on cultural, economic and social rights. In addition, there is what is known as the Geneva Convention, dealing with treatment of prisoners of war and the like. For example, Article 29 of the Declaration of Human Rights has provisions, not only on rights of individuals, but also of communities. The two should not conflict, although the boundary should be clear. Another point worth mentioning is that the Declaration has been influenced by the ideological differences prevalent at the time of its drafting. What was drafted reflects the interests of the powerful imposed upon the weak, and of the rich imposed upon the poor. And there are all kinds of inconsistencies in the implementation of these rights. In the current global situation of dominance by a single superpower, as there is no independent advocating or enforcing authority, we cannot say that human rights are safeguarded.

Br/ General Abraha Kassa. As stated in the question, the concept is controversial, and it will continue to be so. This is because there had been, and there still are, different interests. If there are colonizers and colonized (or rulers and ruled), aggressors and defenders, there is bound to exist differences in interpretation. As long as there is no justice, as long as economic and political liberations are not achieved, giving different interpretations to human rights will continue.Human beings have wants and desires. They desire the world we live in to become heaven. This dream can be within or beyond reach. This desire can be stunted by rulers or the society, or by nature. Consequently, human beings continuously demand and struggle to realize their dreams. It was through long, arduous struggles for human rights, economic justice, and political liberation that human beings were able to reach the current understanding of human rights. And the various declarations and conventions on rights are outcomes of these protracted struggles.However, the Universal Declaration of human Rights, reached in 1948, does not have any legal authority. It only has documents describing common standards by which to measure countries’ or peoples’ progress in upholding human rights. And each country implements the provisions in conjunction with its own constitution and its own laws.Human rights starts from human dignity, as human beings are endowed with dignity. And the Declaration of Human Rights declares, in 30 articles, prohibitions of human suffering, servitude and bondage, unlawful detention, restriction of movement. It also provides for the rights of belief, expression, equality of opportunity, etc. With time, this conception of human rights extended from the focus on individual rights to the struggle for the rights of peoples, and incorporated the right to self-determination in 1966. As Fawzia mentioned, individual rights should not conflict with community rights. You don’t safeguard your rights at the expenses of others’ rights. One cannot always do as he wishes. This is not possible even within a family let alone in a society, In other words, one should also consider national well-being. Individual rights should not conflict with the national or peoples’ interests and benefits. The interests of the individual should go hand in hand with the interests of the country and the people.

Ato Yemane Gebremeskel. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, like any other international treaty, reflects the interests of the drafters, and is likely to be liberal. Which countries drafted the 1984 Declaration that contains 30 articles? And for what purpose? In what kind of political atmosphere did the declaration emerge? If we pose and answer such questions, it will not be difficult to understand the gap between the letters of the document and the ideas behind it. What we need to understand is that most declarations and treaties reflect the values of the initiators. As a result, the Declaration of Human Rights focuses on individual rights, and rarely touches economic distribution or rarely considers community interests. Nevertheless, as Fawzia pointed out, Article 29 allows for limiting individual rights when conflict arises with community rights and interests.At the present time, international law on human rights encompasses the 1948 Declaration of Human Rights and the various subsequent conventions and laws related to economic, social and political rights. In addition, as was already mentioned, even though there are translational and interpretational problems, there are also humanitarian laws related to war, collectively known as the Geneva Convention. As we know, there are conditions and times where war can be justified by international law. The Charter of the United Nations allows an invaded nation to conduct war in self-defense. And if war starts, it is known that even innocent civilians can suffer and die. The humanitarian law contains provisions related to the conduct of war, treatment of war prisoners, and rights of innocent civilians. The international law, that combines all these elements, has limitations not only those related to the liberal interpretation. Do these laws get implemented in their totality all the time? Do they have enforcement procedure? Do the rights exist in any society at any time or do they develop with time? For example, the right to self-determination is first mentioned later in the 1966 Convention on Civilian and Political Rights. It does not exist in the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This means, while addressing individual rights, the Declaration slighted peoples’ rights. This shows that international law on human rights has temporal and geographic dimensions. Question. Especially after the end of the cold war, human rights based politics has become paramount. There are policies, and campaigns and actions related to global issues of human rights, undertaken mainly by Western governments, non-governmental organizations (NGOs), advocates of human rights. How do you assess this situation?

Ato Yemane Gebremeskel. In the question, Western countries, NGOs and advocates of rights are presented as three independent players. This is not a true representation though, because it is the Western countries themselves or their agencies that finance the NGOs or the advocates of human rights. As such, their positions are not different from those of the Western countries. The question to raise here is: Why do Western countries use human rights as an instrument of their policies at this time? This issue has two aspects: First, international relations or economic co-operation, have never been dependent on human rights. International relations depends on concrete economic, strategic, political and security interests. Second, in the last ten years, however, emerging victorious in the cold war, and wanting its political and economic values to dominate, the Western hemisphere is observed using human rights as an instrument in certain countries.Without going very far, we can present a concrete example. When Ethiopia, in contravention of the Algiers Agreement, reneged from demarcating the [Eritrea-Ethiopia] boundary, America and the European countries should have taken a stand against Ethiopia. Why? because the right of self-determination, and thus human rights, has been violated. We are also witnessing several dictatorial regimes receiving foreign aid.There is an annual report on human rights of all countries prepared by the United States Congress. However, in that report, there is no account on the United States itself. Amnesty International’s report also has its own bias. At this time, Western countries try to link bilateral economic assistance with what, in their view, is good governance, multi-party system, elections, etc. Whether such conditions lead the country to progress or retrogress is of no interest to them. For example, they described the election conducted in Iraq as a big success, but the condition in which Iraq is found is obvious to every one.Thus, when viewed in general, human rights are being used as criteria in those countries upon which one wants to place pressure, even though relations among countries are not founded on human rights.

Br/ General Abraha Kassa. All [political] systems provide for human rights in their constitutions and laws. There is no system that admits violation of human rights. In practice, however, it is a different matter. As the United Nations declarations lack legally binding enforciing authority, every country conducts affairs through its own constitution and laws. Consequently, it is impossible to have a common understanding. And our understanding varies according to different interests. The world is divided into the powerful and the weak, the rich and the poor. As the powerful and the rich are getting more powerful and richer at the expense of the weak and the poor, there cannot exist a common view. As long as this situation exists, the talk about human rights will remain meaningless. The players mentioned in the question, be it governments or NGOs, as Yemane mentioned, are not independent; they are from the same source. The assessments presented by such players can only be lacking balance, are results of double standards and are intended to put pressure. Let’s take, for example, the United Nations’ [Security Council]. Not all member countries have equal votes. There are five countries that have veto power. In addition, there is dominance by the United States of America. Thus, in a situation where a handful countries dominate, be it human rights or political and security issues do not receive equal treatment. As was already mentioned, even after the end of the cold war, conflict rather than peace is prevailing [globally]. And as a result of the conflicts, violations of human rights abound.And do they truly want respect of human rights? The answer is, No. If they did, they would not assist oppressive regimes. And we observe violations of self-determination of peoples. When Eritrea conducted a bloody armed struggle until 1991, who came to her aid? From legal and rights points of view, we should have been assisted.In France, there was disturbance last time due to discrimination on immigrants from Africa. Why are they discriminated? Why are their human rights violated? Similar discrimination exists in [Great] Britain and America. Why does this persist, why does it not find a solution?Is there truly such a thing as free press? They [Western countries] use it when it serves their interest or for psychological warfare against others. When it comes to themselves, however, they keep silent or even hide from press exposure an event if it does not serve their purposes. The right of religion, likewise, is raised only when it serves their interest. For example, they did not raise a voice against Saudi Arabia in the past 40 years. Why, all of a sudden, are they raising the issue of religious rights at this time? Why do their standards shift? In America, detaining any suspect is now allowed, which did not exist in the past. There is a special court. Special detention centers, such as the Guantanamo, have been established. This shows that human rights depends on the conditions and is linked with national interest. For human rights to be observe, there must exist economic equality or justice; political freedom must prevail. Without equality, human rights cannot be observed.While the world is still divided due to lack of justice and equality, efforts are being made to make it a free market under the guise of globalization. But, rich countries force other countries’ to be open, while keeping closed or protecting their own. In short, it is important to realize that without respecting the rights of others, without setting yourself as an example, to give exaggerated and distorted accounts of others is nothing but serving one’s interest.

Wzo/ Fawzia Hashim. When the Declaration of Human Rights was declared in 1948, African countries and most countries of the world were under Western colonial rule. Due to this situation, the rights enunciated did not take into account the peoples of the majority of the populations. And if we come to our own history, we didn’t see anyone who advocated the rights of the people of Eritrea. When considering rights, the rights to basic food, shelter and basic social services should have been accorded priority. The economic and social conditions of the African countries that gained their independence after the 1960s are getting worse. There is no initiative, beyond occasional aid assistance, to safeguard basic rights. The rich countries are observed not helping eliminate poverty, but exacerbating it. Thus, human rights should be viewed in conjunction with existential security.

Professor Asmerom Legesse. During the mass expulsion of Eritreans from Ethiopia, we [Citizens for Peace] visited several countries to bring the situation to their attention. And we were facing different situations. In some countries, like the Scandinavian, regardless of their relations with Eritrea, people were paying attention when we raised human rights, and they accorded opportunities to convince them. Countries like America and Canada, however, they relate the issues with their own interests. If the violator of human rights is their ally, they brush it off. But, if the violator is their enemy, they globally expose him. Here you have to ask: Where do countries place human rights in the hierarchy of their value system? And what is the meaning of human rights if it is linked to [national] interests? And what do we need to do in order to make our case?The Universal Declaration basically is not law. The conventions and covenants, however, are laws. And if a government signs and ratifies a convention or a covenant, it is bound by that law; how is a different question. Eritrea is a signatory to the covenants on rights of: women, children, economic, social, and civil and political. And if a government is a party, it can be sued in accordance with the provisions [when it violates]. During our campaign, we were told, “Since you didn’t respect the provisions, you have no right to accuse others.” That means, we did not have any ground. Thus, we were presenting our pleas in the name of other countries and organizations. The process goes in stages, from the signing to implementing the covenant laws. It is essential to check that the international laws are consistent with the national laws. If there are laws that are not acceptable, you reject them. That means, the country takes an exception. We can use international laws. To do that, we must accumulate capacity. If we do not accumulate skillful capacity, that means we will not be participants in the international activities on human rights. Above all though, what is meant by advocacy? It means collecting evidence. If evidence is collected in a scientific way, meets critical evaluation by outsiders, and is publicized throughout the world, it can be hugely beneficial. The report on those [Eritreans] evicted from Ethiopia, we had titled it, “Scientific Study.” When they saw this, Amnesty International sent reporters to confirm what was reported. And they were convinced. The report they published after that was totally based on our report. What we write is usually read by limited number of people. If they publicize the case though, it is heard throughout the world. The government of Ethiopia was upset by what had happened, and had declared that it will ban Amnesty from entering Ethiopia. Thus, if scientific evidence is collected, it is possible to attract global attention on human rights.

Ms. Fawzia Hashim. There is something that concerns me a bit. If they [Westerners] are not interested in the issue, will they even pay attention to your appeal? I think this is a basic question. With regard to the Geneva Convention, let alone now, even during our armed struggle, as it was a struggle for human rights, we treated Ethiopian war prisoners respecting their human rights, yet, we never heard words of appreciation from any one. As we advanced towards achieving the right to self-determination, we were in fact told not even to think about it. It is good to view this based on reality and the truth. It is true, as the Professor [Asmerom] stated, that in the present global situation, it is important to spread information, regardless of whether or not people will actually pay attention. The culture we have had, typified by the view, “Our work speaks for itself,” can perhaps be described as a bit naive when viewed from the expected results. The efforts done by the group the Professor has been describing did bring some results. However, in the face of the lose of property and generally uprooting of the population [Eritreans in Ethiopia], other than expressions of shock, what measure was taken against Ethiopia? Thus, in the absence of a consistent global policy, I have concern that the current handling of human rights may mislead us.If we are to talk on the topic raised in the question, all those claiming to be advocates of human rights or non-governmental organizations, where did they disappear when tens of thousands of people were uprooted? It was our people who came to the aid of the uprooted. What else was concretely done? I do not mean that the effort made should be slighted; publicizing is good. However, can you change a policy that has already been determined? It seems to me that in order to establish your identity, it important to first be able to stand on one’s feet.

Ato Yemane Gebremeskel. The limitation of our ability in diplomacy is obvious, and our ability in public relations is likewise limited. Thus, there may be truth to the statements to the effect that we are at a disadvantage due to the fact that the portion of world community that should have heard our case has not. However, its truthfulness is limited. As a result of the campaign, perhaps the Scandinavian countries may have expressed sympathy. In practice, however, Finland, Sweden, and Norway have expanding donor relationships with Ethiopia since 1989. Sweden’s minister of foreign affairs had said that Sweden will stop aid if Ethiopia does not accept the border decision [Commission’s]. Aid provided to Ethiopia for humanitarian purposes is not the concern here, but budgetary aid is a different matter, as it can be diverted by the recipient to other purposes. This type of aid should have been either stopped or aligned with the objective progress in development process. But, the donors give a deaf ear to such appeals.The relationships and campaigns you pursue can be beneficial if they are clear and informative. But it takes time for such efforts to influence governmental policies. There is always a time gap, as foreign policies are never based on human rights. Let me cite an easy example. Recently, Eritrea was listed as one of those countries that violated human rights. And measures were taken on Eritrea alone. The measure that should have been taken on Saudi Arabia, however, was postponed for six months, as [US] Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice was about to visit the country. Uzbekistan, which has worse record, was not included in the list, reasoning that doing so would conflict with America’s national interest, as Uzbekistan had granted the US a base during the war against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan. How does one assess this policy? As it is beyond our ability, I think it should be assessed.Question. Let us delve into our main topic, the human rights condition in Eritrea. Taking the condition of silence and isolation during our liberation struggle as given, between 1991 and 1998, Eritrea had a positive image in Western presses as well as reports on human rights. Even somewhat exaggerated descriptions about us were presented. Later, however, especially after 2001, reports on Eritrea have shifted to the other extreme and are very negative. Why?

Br/General Abraha Kassa. Until 1998 Eritrea’s image was good. After that, however, there are allegations to the effect that the system is oppressive. What has changed? Our philosophy, our views, and our understanding have not changed. In fact, we have accumulated experience. After 1998, however, the world has taken side, and continues to do so. The smear campaign about us has no bounds. There are measures we have taken for our national security reasons, and they will continue. Unless our border is demarcated on the basis of the decision [the Commission’s], we are not going to stop the measures we take for purposes of national defense. Some of the measures we took for national defense were actually instigated by those who are now accusing us. When it is known that we are not going to slack in our defense, what is the purpose of their statements such as: “They have amassed the youth at the front, rendering them to servitude forever?” It is true that the no-peace, no-war situation exacerbates the suffering of our people. The situation was caused by them and by their failure to shoulder their responsibilities. As such, they are the ones who are violating our human rights. Their smear campaign is due to the fact that their attempt to interfere [in Eritrea’s affairs] did not succeed. Also we were alert to their attempts at interfering and weaken us using religion as a pretext. Beyond the smear campaign, we have uncovered and detained some youth to whom they issued visas to encourage them to illegally immigrate to their country. It was alleged, “There is chronic human unrest in Eritrea; and the Government of Eritrea banned humanitarian aid.” There is no one who cares more for the people of Eritrea than the government of Eritrea! They transformed everything into politics. Adding all these, it is alleged that Eritrea is violating human rights. Our essence has not changed. On the other hand, they have not fulfilled their obligation. They know that our view on human rights has not changed since 1998. They know the values we want to cultivate and disseminate. They also understand our philosophy. As their interference failed to succeed, we are in a state of attrition. That is why they are accusing us of violation of human rights.

Ato Yemane Gebremeskel. On this question, we need to talk not only about press but also the freedom of the press. We may think that the BBC, AFP, and Reuters are independent. But, if we look at BBC’s coverage of the violence that occurred in Ethiopia, there was a cover-up in the news. Why? The crisis in Zimbabwe, however, though not as severe as in Ethiopia, was reported daily. If we see the war in Iraq, both the first and the current one, as striking civilian targets raises the question of accountability by the Geneva Convention, the term ‘collateral damage’ was invented. If this action was performed by others, such reference would have been absent. Thus, the terms used to describe the actions of America and the actions of others are different. One denotes destruction, the other does not. There is also what they refer to as ‘embedded reporter.’ The reporter is made to move in vehicles at the tail end of the fleet, and in the final analysis, only contents the official reports are presented.Thus, as was previously mentioned, unless the double standard changes, you cannot expect [policy] stands to change. Many of the actions we take are being exploited. And if they are essential to our [national] existence, we are obliged to take them. Had the ones now criticizing us been in our position, they would have done the same thing. In America, the terrorist act of September 11, 2001 resulted in the death of 3,500 people. What is this magnitude in the context of a population of 250 million? A human being is a human being, this is not to minimize what happened. In the last war, we paid the lives of 20 thousand. What legal actions to take, and how to implement them, in order to prevent such future loses and protect national security, is our right. When they are not willing to take a legal stand on issues that are critical to our national existence, they do not have the right to express views on the actions we take to secure our existence.

Professor Asmerom Legesse. It was said the image [of Eritrea] was good until 1998, but has been negative since 2001. However, there is the year 1999 in between. That was the year many reporters came to Eritrea. There was an Eritrea government official located at Embasoira Hotel facilitating the affairs of the reporters. Up to that point, the Woyane [reference to Ethiopia’s regime] enjoyed diplomatic success. Then, things began to change; Woyane’s lies began to be exposed. When a reporter from Kenyan started to expose Woyane’s lies, he was banned from entering Ethiopia. Thus, not all the said years were in darkness. During the period, 1976-1978, there was a wide coverage of the [Eritrean] armed struggle in American newspapers. Later, at independence, in 1991, there was not much media coverage. Thus, conditions do change; and governments’ handling of things also change. There is not always a solid consensus in a government; there tend to be differences of opinion within. If one closes the door on you, his opponent [political] opens it for you. Thus, we should be able to compete in the [political] arena. In the arena of diplomacy, Ethiopia has age-old institutions. It has the manpower. And as there are several international organizations and institutions located in the country, it has the opportunity to influence world opinion. I do not think it is useful to simply conclude that the world has taken a side against us and do nothing. We must gather our diplomatic capacity and compete in the international community. The community encompasses human rights and other political organizations. There is always the possibility to shift political opinion to your favor. If you cannot do this, that means you are defeated. It is not a problem that can be solved quickly. If we gather our capacity, improve our relations, we can be at par with those who are campaigning against us.

Wzo/ Fawzia Hashim. The issue of human rights is the issue of the spirit. And our basic struggle is to respect human rights. To stand as a country and a people, we have the right to exist, which is basic to our human dignity. As we experienced throughout our history, ensuring one’s survival and national well being are basic. From the legal point of view, to have a different opinion and to write in newspapers is no problem. But, writing in order to smear individuals’ names goes contrary to basic human rights. In the burgeoning newspapers we had, as articles with questionable contents started to appear, they were let go, hoping they would eventually mature. As this developed into illegal ways, however, a legal action had to be taken to stop the illegal activity. And the legal action taken does not contravene the right to expression and writing.Further, there is no one in Eritrea who has been detained on account of his faith. People have practiced faiths of their choice. When illegal activities started to appear, however, a guideline was issued to stop them. But, the activities continued. The action taken was not against the faith, but against the illegal activities perpetrated in the name of faith. We are witnessing disguised external pressure intended to weaken internal capacity. After the legal confirmation of our independence, the second phase of the national struggle is national reconstruction.

Br/General Abraha Kassa. It seems to me that it is helpful to distinguish between the fundamental from the non-fundamental [issues]. It has been said that the rights of the people of Eritrea are violated. And we are saying to them, “You are violating the rights of the people of Eritrea.” As a diversion, they are engaged in a smear campaign against us. And it is a campaign to cover their evil intentions. Our basic issue is the issue of sovereignty. Our people must live in peace. If our sovereignty is secured, if peace comes, our condition will improve. We have been making efforts in diplomacy; it is not because we failed to campaign or were absent at international gatherings. We will continue to pursue all beneficial avenues. The policies of those who accuse us of human rights violations are against us; we have to figure out how to deal with this challenge.To be continued…
© Copyright 2001-2005 Shaebia.org

PFDJs Public dialogue, do they really mean what they Say !

Do PFDJians mean what they say ! Read throughly and you will find that what is said is not true!


Public Dialogue: Human Rights in Eritrea (PART II & Final)Translated from Tigrinya by Dr. Gebre Hiwet Tesfagiorgis, Jun 6, 2006

Question. Let us shift from the general, so far under discussion, to the specific issues. At the moment, the main topic happens to be the issue of religious rights. Continuously spreading are reports alleging that outside of the main religions, all other faiths are banned; in particularly, adherents of Jehova Witnesses and Pentecostals are being oppressed and jailed. What is the policy; and how about its implementation?

Br/General Abraha Kassa. There is the allegation that the right to religion is not respected in Eritrea. America has listed Eritrea among eight countries of concern (Eritrea, Sudan, Burma, Saudi Arabia, Iran, North Korea, China and Vietnam). And America has singled out Eritrea for banning the sale of any military equipment from America. Setting aside the question of whether or not we buy military equipment, what is the link between religion and military equipment? What we believe in, and our ways, are known. The experience and history we have on this issue are exemplary. This population has accepted Christianity, especially Coptic, starting from the 4th Century. Islam was introduced in the 7th Century. And after the mid 19th Century, Protestantism and Catholicism were introduced. These four religions have for more than 100 years coexisted in peace, harmony and mutual respect. People who believe in freedom of religion, tolerance and mutual respect, as the people of Eritrea do, are in fact rare. The good aspect is that the values taught by churches and mosques and the values cultivated by the government of Eritrea are similar. And the government is working through the department of religious affairs to strengthen the relationships between the government and the religious establishments.There are some faiths that have been introduced from Europe and America, especially from America, after the Second World War. They have multiplied after 1998, and have reached nearly 20 now. All of these faiths are funded from outside, are instruments of foreign interests, and have been found working to disrupt the Eritrean society, and weaken Eritrean nationalism. They were given a notice in 2002 to suspend their religious activities until a comprehensive study is conducted. However, they secretly continued their activities, being funded by outsiders, in violation of this notice. And we were obliged to take action in the interest of our national security. Even now, they are still using them to disrupt our unity and weaken our national spirit. And we are taking action. There is no truth to the allegation that 1,900, or sometimes 2,000, have been detained. It is all exaggeration. Most of the youth we detain are national service dodgers. The number is exaggerated because, those detained for failure to report to Sawa [the national service training center] or those detained trying to escape from service are often reported as ‘detained for their belief.’ The number of those detained due to violation of the notice or actual commitment of crime is very small. This is the truth, and we should not be surprised if those who failed to succeed in disrupting our system try to smear our name in the name of religion. There are none detained on account of their religion, except violators of guidelines and laws.
Ato Yemane Gebremeskel. As wedi Kassa [son of Kassa, reference to Br/General Abraha Kassa] has discussed this in detailed, what I am going to address is related to the questions: Who is behind the issue [of religion]? And what have we attempted with them? The initiator of these issues is the American Foreign Relations, especially the Office of Religious Affairs. The actions they took in the last three years include: One, they expelled us in 2003 from what is known as AGOA [African Growth and Opportunity Act], which accords favorable trade terms to agricultural products from Africa. The second country expelled was Swaziland. There is a big difference between Eritrea and Swaziland when it comes to administration and political rights. Later, they denied us the right of credit transfer activities -- which we have been utilizing since the liberation struggle -- under the pretext of post-September 11 regulations, in violation of the Vienna Convention. They broke into our Embassy office and confiscated money amounting to approximately one million dollars. On the border issue, as we constantly remind them to take action on Ethiopia, for violating a binding decision and basic human rights, in their capacity as a member of the Security Council and guarantor of the Algiers Agreement, they take these actions to put us in a bind. There are also some that say, “In order for us to take a stand on the border issue, why don’t you do something in your internal affairs?” Regardless of the type of government in Eritrea, does the Charter of the Unite Nations allow the occupation of Eritrean land by another country? And why apply double standard when it comes to Eritrea? All these bring us to using religious issues as a pretext. The Office of Religious Affairs of America had sent a delegate two years ago that met with religious groups and government officials. The reasons for the actions we took, that in Eritrea both Muslims and Christians face no obstacle in practicing their faith, and that they coexist tolerating and respecting each other, were all explained to them. Is the introduction of foreign-funded new religions because the population has no religion? And if allowed, why should it not be done legally? The issue of religion is being raised because it is their agenda. As they are not fulfilling their obligation to take action under the law, they are raising religious issues to exert pressure on us.

Professor Asmerom Legesse. The actions taken by America are amazing. It is important to ask why though. America views religious right above everything else. And the reason is that many of the people who migrated from the various European countries and settled in America did so due to religious oppression. Even then, they should not have resorted to exaggerated reactions.

The other question that comes to mind: Have all these new religions that are now being closed committed crimes? And have all their members committed crimes? The issue must be examined case by case. Those who committed crimes should be identified and made legally accountable and punished, but it should not be indiscriminately. Some of the religions described as new, like the Seventh Day Adventist Mission, are age old rather than new.

Br/General Abraha Kassa. When viewed in relation to the four big religions in our country, [the ones described as new] are religions that expanded especially after the Second World War. They have not all been subjected to the same treatment; and they have not been told that they are closed. As some questionable activities have been discovered, they were told to suspend their activities until a study is conducted. Some of them, however, were secretly conducting their activities, being financed from outside, and still continue to do so. And action is being taken on those violating laws and regulations.

Ato Yemane Gebremeskel. It was stated that Americans view religious right in relation to their historical experience. However, America is also a country that struggled for self-determination against British colonial oppression. And self-determination is one of the corner stones of American policy. As I previously mentioned, when they came here, we posed: “Why do you view issues in isolation? The suffering of people resulting from the lack of border demarcation is more severe than the exaggerated issues of religion. And how do you view this?” Their response was that what concerns them was religious issues only.For our own sake, and because we believe in rights, it is good to examine our activities. As we understand why they exert pressure on some, while they show leniency on others, we should not speculate about what we should or should not have done. If everyone implicitly and explicitly goes against us, however, it seems to me, it is appropriate to ask the question, what comes next?

Question. The extension of the national service, and the participation of armed forces in development, described as “uncompensated labor,” are also listed among the violations of human rights in Eritrea. Related to those, the actions taken on dodgers and their parents, and denial of freedom of movements also are mentioned. How do you view these issues?

Ms. Fawzia Hashim. First, we have to consider the situation in which we find ourselves. Our situation is such that, on the one hand, we strive to secure our sovereignty, and on the other, we conduct productive activities to exist as human beings. What placed us in this situation is the failure of timely implementation of the border decision reached on the basis of the Algiers Agreement. There is no such a thing as forced or unforced labor. We know our responsibility to our youth. We also know what colonial systems did, before independence, to weaken the spirit of our youth in work, education and other areas. The campaign about which we hear now has a similar purpose. Thus, it is our responsibility to produce healthy, responsible, hard working and educated citizens.In our present war situation, to say that the youth should be confined to the war front, with arms in hand, divorced from production, is not right. Under the given situation, what is the problem if the youth combines both, working for its own and the people’s benefits? Those who claim to be sympathizers and advocates, if they are truly concerned, why don’t they work towards effecting the agreement of which they are guarantors so that rule of law is respected? What we give priority to is the national question. And the question of national survival is a question of right. We are working to ensure that the youth works for the interest of its country and people, in unity and strength, and to ultimately become the beneficiary of the country’s resources. There is more peace in Eritrea than in any of our neighboring countries. With all the challenges we face, thanks to our efforts to become self-sufficient, no Eritrean is dying of hunger. However, this does not mean that there are no shortcomings. Other than problems created by our current situation, we do not have problems that are deliberately committed. The question of democracy is also often raised. What kind of democracy though? At any rate, in the past years, we conducted a referendum [for independence], we drafted a constitution through a commission. In addition, we drafted laws, albeit interrupted by the Woyane invasion. Even then, undaunted by the current situation, we are striving to expand a democratic system. This includes self-administration of villages, the establishment of regional (Zoba) assemblies, etc. In short, struggling for survival, to strive to improve one’s living conditions should not be linked to human rights.

Br/General Abraha Kassa. The National Service was proclaimed in 1995, long before the starting of the war [of 1998]. The basic belief, the objective, was to raise productive citizens, to accelerate development projects, to cultivate a generation capable of defending the country, and in the main, to make the burden of national defense and of national development the responsibility of the whole society. Thus, every citizen must complete the national service. The proclamation states that a citizen that reaches age 18 has an obligation to fulfill a national service for 18 months, which can be extended if situations warrant. Accordingly, those who served in the first to fourth rounds were released. The Woyane invasion occurred one month before the release time of the fifth round participants. The extension of national service was thus dictated by the situation. In addition, the proclamation contains a provision to the effect that any citizen, until the attainment of age of 50, can be considered as a potential member of the armed forces. This means, any person can be called and trained within a period of six months or a year. This practice is not unique to Eritrea; it is practiced in countries like Israel and others. [According to the proclamation], failure to participate in the national service is punishable by a two-year jail term or 3,000 Nakfas [the Eritrean currency]. Anyone who disappears after undergoing training is subject to a five-year jail term, revocation of license, and denial of any land allocation.The measures that are being taken now, though should have been taken earlier, are not outside of the law or the proclamation. Any deserter to be detained, any aiding parent to be accountable are allowed by law and by the proclamation. I would not say there are no shortcomings in the implementation, but they can be corrected in the process. If Eritrea is to belong to all of us, we all have to participate in both good times and trying times. Dodging from national service and aiding and abetting sons/daughters to escape cannot entitle one to rights, and should not go unpunished.The engagement of national service participants in productive services has not only been described as “uncompensated work,” but also as “servitude” by those engaged in smear campaign. The work is done for the benefit of the country -- construction of roads, erection of bridges and dams, and development of agriculture. All of this is for the development of the country. The development so far accomplished would not have been possible without the national service initiative.Freedom of movement was raised [in the question]. We also believe that any citizen has the right to freely move anywhere, any time he desires. It is provided in our constitution and in our laws. And we had been observing it until 1998. After the Woyane invasion, conditions changed; and it was natural to introduce some limitations. As the proclamation considers anyone under age 50 a potential member of the armed forces, to place some limitation on movements of people under age 50 is allowed by law and by the proclamation. To say all under age 50 should be free to go anywhere they desire is equivalent to saying the country should be without the manpower needed to defend it. It is equivalent to saying, “do not strive to safeguard your rights and your sovereignty.” When it comes to movement, the government is handling things according to the situation. People have been excused and released from national service on account of health or other legitimate reasons. Women who fulfilled their national service obligation in particular have had their movement-related cases quickly resolved.

Ato Yemane Gebremeskel. As things have already been explained in detail, let me add a brief one. It is amazing that the participation of armed forces in production is considered as a violation of human rights. Participation of armed forces in production is not unique to us; it is practiced everywhere. For example, when an earth quake struck Pakistan, not only the Pakistani armed forces, also NATO’s, participated [in rescue and aid efforts]. The UNMEE, stationed in our country, participates in small projects. Similarly, the participation of the American armed forces stationed in Djibouti in digging wells and other activities is often reported in the press. Thus, the participation of armed forces in development is normal. Why does that become a topic of discussion when it comes to our case? If a citizen deserts, it is legal to make that individual legally accountable. If there is a problem in the process of implementation, that is another issue. Besides, war impacts every one, the burden of this war is on the shoulders of everyone. During the invasion, members of the armed forces were paying additional taxes. Citizens residing in foreign countries have been paying reconstruction tax for a long time. There was a time when people in business were asked for contributions. All this is not different from the normal conduct of affairs. It is not unique to us either. But, why is it viewed differently when it comes to us?

Professor Asmerom Legesse. There was an interview I gave when the national service was proclaimed. At the time, Eritrea had stated that as a small country, it is appropriate to mobilize its population to meet challenges directed from its enemies. The example, I mentioned was not Israel’s but Switzerland’s. Switzerland mobilizes all of its citizens and gives them military training. Because of that, while neighboring countries, like Holland and Norway, were invaded during the Second World War, Switzerland was not. After the military training, however, the trainees return to civilian life. And they are recalled every year for a two-week refresher military training. In our case, however, those once recruited are in the military for a long time. They are no able to lead a normal life. Thus, it is important to create a situation where our national service is aligned with civilian life. And we have to accept the views expressed on this issue.

Br/General Abraha Kassa. Although it is good to learn from other countries, each country has its own unique situation. It is obvious that if the national service is too long, it can result in social problems. And it is possible to conduct a study to determine what we need to do to avoid social problems. But, it is not feasible to disperse the armed forces by shortening the national service hoping doing so will prevent the occurrence of social problems. What can happen should be obvious to all of us. When you mobilize people, you take into account not only your own situation, but also that of your enemy. And it is for this reason that the government did not release members of the forces, except the ones who were resettled. War is not something that should be left to the armed forces only. It is because of he participation of the whole population that we succeeded. And at the present situation, everyone is contributing to the extent of his/her capacity to national defense. If a 60-year old woman ululates to encourage her children, if a 60-year old man fetches water, that means they both are participating, as they are contributing moral and material support. In time of war, the people, the armed forces and the government are in unison.

Comments from the Participating Audience

Ato Fitsum Tesfatsion (University of Asmara). Although the emergence of the concept of human rights is based on Western philosophy, the basic source of the rights center on the question: what rights should a human being be endowed with or acknowledged as entitlement? The rights are relevant to all societies and peoples of the world. Some of the rights, although stated incorporating the term, “individual,” I think are implemented in the form of groups or communities. For example, in the right to participate in politics, it is by organizing into groups, associations or organization, and not individually, that participation is possible. Even though countries establish their own laws, they also come together and collectively establish international laws. At any rate, a person is entitled to certain fundamental human rights. Generally, the mere existence of laws on paper is meaningless; it seems to me that rights should be respected at individual, government and other levels for rule of law to prevail.The interference of America and other countries was mentioned. In my view, however, a country should uphold human rights for the sake of its own people and not to appease others. I do not think that upholding or violating human rights in a given country should be measured by what other countries’ practices on human rights are. What is important is the measures a given country takes to uphold human rights.

Ato Binyam TeKle (Ministry of Justice). Is our discussion centered on the response needed to counter the criticisms coming from outside or on the human rights of the people of Eritrea? At the outset, we described human rights as dominated by liberal interpretation. If we are rejecting human rights because of that, can we survive by doing so? If there are competing interpretations to the liberal, which one have we adapted? And have we fully grasped it, and do we have the capacity to use it? In the final analysis, human rights should serve us, not vice versa.

Ato Zemehret Yohannes. Let me give a brief view on the issue just mentioned. First, I do not think one can say that liberal interpretation is the only correct way of interpreting or that it is the only way that prevalent. There can be no debate without competing views. As the liberal interpretation itself is the outcome of a certain society, culture, ideology and interest, other societies can develop their own views that reflect their own cultures, experiences and interests. We cannot take this as the final view. Thus, a reference was made to the dominance of liberal interpretation at this time, and not as the only one without any substitute. Second, the way the question was posed for debate was in itself problematic. Indeed, most of the questions were posed in a “reactive” fashion, as the question of human rights in Eritrea, in the main, is connected with foreign powers, foreign policies and foreign policy stands. To speak the truth, however, and as the participants also alluded to, whatever we do should not be to appease or please foreign powers or to be patted on the shoulder, but because the issue is of interest to us -- it is the issue of our people, of our lives, and of our future. For us, the question of human rights is primarily the question of the people of Eritrea, and our internal question. We will come to questions related to these aspects later. Even though the question was posed in terms of what is being said about us by outsiders, and in published reports, etc., the issue is primarily our internal issue.

Ato Alemseged BeKuretsion (Assembly of Maekel Zoba). Some rights, such as freedom from search, were raised. If a situation that tests national security arises, you would be obliged to take such measures. Had such a measure been taken during a normal situation, it would have been described as a violation. What is important here is the message. Those who are given the responsibility to implement, take questionable actions that go beyond the bounds of what was intended. So, why don’t we properly train them or give them proper advice? There are issues of concern in the way we handle things. It was stated [human rights] is a question of spirit; that is good. Our treatment of prisoners of war [during the armed struggle] with 100% observance of rights was not to gain global recognition or to implement the Geneva Convention; it was because of our principled belief. Participation of armed forces in production is good. However, it is also good to provide incentives to those who works. Although the education and knowledge they gain are significant incentives, offering something different would have been helpful. One also hears rumors that raise concern. Who is benefiting from the fruits of the participation in productive services? If, as sometimes rumored, individuals are benefiting, it certainly is a violation of human rights.There were some points Wedi Kassa mentioned about the national service. He said, “We did not implement the provisions of the proclamation until recently.” However, the activities were still going on. Some people were even brought to court. But, the commanders were not satisfied with either the charges filed by the attorney general or the decisions rendered by the military court. So, they were taking their own actions instead. That religious issues have been getting out of hand, starting in 1998, has even been brought to the attention of the government. This was pointed out at EPLF meetings. It is true that some have used religion as a means to escape from one’s responsibilities, and others as a means to fatten their pockets. Beyond that, for example, there were some that refused to fire shots, claiming to obey the commandment, “don’t kill.” To the one who comes to “feed” you fire, you don’t reward him with bread! When hurling grenades, they were doing so wishing and praying each grenade falls on stones or empty grounds. By contrast, there were some who fought courageously. Thus, the government should not have waited until 2002.

Ato Tahir Ibrahim (National Association of Eritrean Youth and Students). There are some citizens jailed whose crimes have not been officially revealed. They are people some of whom were jailed in September 1991 and some in December 1994. They should have been charged as a group. But, their case has not yet been resolved, and their families are left in a state of limbo. This case deserves legal resolution.

Ato Meles Woldeselassie (author/writer). I admire the manner in which the youth were cultivated and guided in the field [reference to the period of armed struggle]. At this time, however, I think the nature, effectiveness and manner of handling things have been slanted. We need our youth; we need to be flexible. We must be able to compete with our adversaries. Let us not say, “We don’t make mistakes.” We should embrace the view that mistakes lead to corrections. We need to send citizen representatives to international organizations to publicize the true image of our country to the international community.What I would like to mention here is that in our current situation, our economy must develop and production in general must grow.

As Professor [Asmerom] was saying, as war goes hand-in-hand with economy, we must device a way for returning the youth to civilian life. Let me tell you about a Turkish poem that is 700 years old. It goes as follows: To sustain a country, there must be a huge army and many horses. To administer those, you need money. To obtain money, the people must become prosperous. And for people to become prosperous, there must be law. If one of the four is missing, however, none of them exists.I have full confidence in the leadership of EPLF; they have been flexible, they have been patient. But, the world is against us. The threats and smear campaign conducted by the international media, like the BBC, is disappointing. Thus, there is no reason why we cannot be like in the past [restore our positive image]. We preserve our unity not only by combating sectarianism, but also solving our economic and social problems.

Responses from the Panelists

Ato Yemane Gebremeskel. The point of discussion here is not what human rights should exist in Eritrea. That has been answered. It is in our Charter; it is in our Constitution. Here the questions have been raised: As a concept, what does the International Bill of Human Rights entail? And what limitations does it have? We have to answer them. As was previously mentioned, the International Bill of Rights focuses on individual rights, and not on group or community rights. Rights of peoples were incorporated much later. The commissions on economic and social rights or the rights commission of the United Nations itself, other than giving notice, are not enforcing bodies. The rules themselves are such that one can make exceptions. And several countries do so.The People’s Front struggled for the independence and liberation of the Eritrean people. If it does not ensure human rights of the people of Eritrea, independence alone has no meaning. When [EPLF] says our policy is to expand social justice and balanced development, it is to ensure these rights. Our response [to the allegations of violations of rights] should not sound like justifying our actions in the light of violations of other countries. We all hear the baseless reports broadcast over the Voice of America and the BBC. To this, we definitely must respond. Especially if these reports originate from certain angles, we must expose their biases. We must be able to know whether they are doing this out of genuine concern for human rights or to further another agenda. I am singling out American and European because we ought to know what their intentions and their actions are in situations like ours. About the Warsai Yikealo [national service] campaign, issues were raised related to its effectiveness, administration and incentives. However, as these questions are related to administration, and not human rights, they are issues that can be raised some other time. Related to accounting, for example, there is the Auditor General. It should not be mixed with the topic of human rights.

Professor Asmerom Legesse. It is proper to give group rights their rightful place. And I think individual rights should also be given equivalent emphasis. Let me give you an example. Those of us who were residing in foreign countries were given permission to bring in property free of excise tax. It was rescinded because traders took advantage of it. When my property arrived, which was already en route [i.e., before the ban], I was told that it will be treated just like the rest. My case should have been treated as an exception. I appealed my case, and as a result, directives were given to treat things on a case-by-case basis. I raised this issue to point out that it is not good to treat things indiscriminately. Perhaps caution should be exercised so that individual treatment does not lead to corruption. But, to insist on approaching things only collectively is to slight individual rights and individual questions. And with such approach, individual rights cannot be respected.

Wzo/ Fawzia Hashim. We have never claimed we never make mistakes or that we have perfect institutions. We have to consider in our views the stage we are in, the challenges we are facing, and the fact that we are young as a country. Our desire is one thing, but our capacity is another. With all the challenges we face, we try to examine things case-by-case. That means, there is a distinction between ensuring rule of law and operating within the law. Ensuring rule of law means, to work according to the law once established. However, to abide by the law, it seems to me, is to apply as situations demand.Another issue, let us take corruption. It may have changed its form now, but we had fully controlled it at one time. Basically, struggling against corruption requires the participation of every body. Anyone who claims to be a victim should be able to legally redress the wrong. If he attempts to do this outside of the law, however, he is forfeiting his rights. Rights are not things that are given or denied at will. We all should understand that rights are earned through struggle. There is no reason why a government authority should not examine the uniqueness of cases and appeals presented to him, and resolve them. If one is confident about his work, he can accomplish them. And if there is some one who claims his case or appeal has not been heard, let him come forth.

Br/Genral Abraha Kassa. There is a point that I have heard being repeated that bothers me. And that is, if we are considering the Derg [former Ethiopian military dictatorship] and the Woyane regimes as upholders of human rights and admired by intellectuals, we are making a big mistake. The truth is the opposite. There are more skilled Eritreans who love their country than Ethiopian intellectuals who admire the Woyane. Second, it is not because Woyane is more effective or more persuasive in its appeal or has engaged larger human resources. What is hurting us is the taking of side [by the West], which we already have discussed. The reason why the Woyane is not facing any complaint or pressure while jailing and killing innocent civilians is not because the regime is effective in diplomacy or other areas. It is because they [Western media] close their eyes and turn deaf ears to the suppression and crimes committed by Woyane. Had we committed similar acts, it would have been a different story.As in the past, it is if we work with the participation and cooperation of our intellectuals, farmers, herders, etc. that we can succeed.END
© Copyright 2001-2005 Shaebia.org

Saturday, June 10, 2006

Anything that Ethiopia supports, Eritrea goes against

Herman Cohen on PBS NewsHour Program on Tuesday June 6 2006 alleged that Ethiopia is probably feeding false intelligence about terrorists being hidden in Somalia.


MARGARET WARNER: "So if all of this is the case, Secretary Cohen, then why is the U.S. government apparently -- though they've never confirmed that the U.S. has been supporting the warlords financially -- why is the U.S. so concerned about this Islamic group?"
HERMAN COHEN: "I think the U.S. government panicked. They saw Islamic group; they said, "Taliban is coming."
Also, there are friends in the region, like the Ethiopians, who probably are feeding false intelligence about terrorists being hidden and that sort of thing, because the Ethiopians are deadly afraid of Moslem control and also they have their own Moslem problem among the Oromo ethnic group in Ethiopia.
So they want to keep the Islamists out of power, and they will bring the U.S. into it, if they can."
MARGARET WARNER: But, in the meantime, the warlords are still vowing that they're not going to give up without a fight. They certainly, this large clan in Mogadishu, had this big rally today. Do you foresee more fighting?
HERMAN COHEN: I do foresee more fighting. They're not going to give up, but this is the job of the United States right now, to put pressure on the Ethiopians, "Look, stop supporting these guys. This is only trouble."
MARGARET WARNER: You mean that money has been funneled through the Ethiopians, you believe, to the warlords?
HERMAN COHEN: And also there's the other element of Eritrea. Anything that Ethiopia supports, Eritrea goes against, so Eritrea is feeding arms to the Islamic courts. We should tell them, "Stop doing that now. Now is the time for talks instead of fighting."

Tuesday, June 06, 2006

World’s Press Condemns Jailing of Journalists in Eritrea

Moscow, Russia, 6 June 2006


The Board of the World Association of Newspapers has condemned the continued imprisonment of 15 journalists in Eritrea and has called on the east African nation, where all independent media have been shut down since 2001, to restore freedom of the press and access to information.

"The Eritrean government has refused to provide information on the health, whereabouts, or legal status of the detained journalists. Most have not been formally charged despite having spent five years in detention," said the WAN Board in a resolution issued during the World Newspaper Congress and World Editors Forum, the global meetings of the world’s press.
The resolution said:
"The Board of the World Association of Newspapers, meeting at the 59th World Newspaper Congress in Moscow, Russia, 4 to 7 June 2006, calls for the release of fifteen journalists in Eritrea.
"Most of the journalists were imprisoned following a government crackdown in 2001 that saw the closure of all independent media outlets and the suspension of civil and political liberties in Eritrea.
"The Eritrean government has refused to provide information on the health, whereabouts, or legal status of the detained journalists. Most have not been formally charged despite having spent five years in detention. Eritrean law stipulates that an individual cannot be detained without charges for more than 30 days.
"The journalists currently imprisoned are: Said Abdulkadir, Saadia Ahmed, Yosuf Mohamed Ali, Saleh Al-Jezaeri, Amanuel Asrat, Temesgen Gebreyesus, Mattewos Habteab, Dawit Habtemichael, Medhanie Haile, Dawit Isaac, Fessahaye Yohannes, Hamid Mohamed Said, Seyoum Tsehaye and Ghebrehiwet Keleta.
"Zemenfes Haile and Selamyinghes Beyene were reportedly sent into the national service for an unspecified period as a punitive measure for their professional activities.
"The detention of these journalists constitutes a clear breach to their right to freedom of expression, which is guaranteed by numerous international conventions, including Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Furthermore, the United Nations Commission on Human Rights considers that ’detention, as punishment for the peaceful expression of an opinion, is one of the most reprehensible ways to enjoin silence and, as a consequence, a grave violation of human rights’.
"The Board of WAN calls for the immediate and unconditional release of the fifteen imprisoned journalists and for President Isaias Afworki to restore all civil and political liberties in Eritrea, including freedom of the press and access to information."
The Paris-based WAN, the global organisation for the newspaper industry, defends and promotes press freedom world-wide. It represents 18,000 newspapers; its membership includes 73 national newspaper associations, newspapers and newspaper executives in 102 countries, 11 news agencies and nine regional and world-wide press groups.
Inquiries to: Larry Kilman, Director of Communications, WAN, 7 rue Geoffroy St Hilaire, 75005 Paris France. Tel: +33 1 47 42 85 00. Fax: +33 1 47 42 49 48. Mobile: +33 6 10 28 97 36. E-mail: lkilman@wan.asso.fr
Printarticle

Vad är kultur?”

Delrapport Fredsfusion sommarläger

Dagen började med smågruppsdiskussioner på temat ”vad är kultur?” där både nykomna volontärer och fredsfusiondeltagare deltog tillsammans. Syftet var att deltagarna skulle komma upp med olika fenomen som kan betecknas som kultur: mat, religion, värderingar etc för att sedan placera dem i en isbergsmodell där somligt är medvetet och annat omedvetet. Detta för att underlätta arbetet med att lära sig leva i ett nytt land.
Men på grund av frågans stora bredd och att många deltagare framförde starka åsikter och provocerades av varandra tog passet sig en delvis annan vändning. Som jag uppfattar det fanns det dels de som menade att kulturbegreppet kunde vara farligt för att det skapade skillnader snarare än övervann dem. Att det inte kunde knytas till en nation utan snarare borde knytas till olika samhällsklasser och subkulturella grupperingar och t o m individer. Att kultur dessutom förändras och överhuvudtaget inte är något absolut.
Å andra sidan fanns det de som menade att kulturskillnader trots allt har en nationell koppling och att det ändå i ett praktiskt perspektiv är meningsfullt att informera volontärerna om svensk kultur.
Det var också intressant att höra den Indiske volontären driva tesen att deras sätt att hälsa har varit detsamma under lång tid och att det kommer att fortsätta i framtiden och att den indiska kulturen är över 10 000 år gammal etc. Jag skulle vilja säga att det speglar ett mer absolutistiskt förhållningssätt till kultur, där det finns en tydlig koppling till den egna identiteten. Medan internationellt intresserade svenska ungdomar istället ofta har ett kritiskt och distanserat förhållningssätt som speglar vad man lärt sig genom universitetsstudier. Vilket ibland kanske skymmer att vi naturligtvis också har ett känslomässigt förhållningssätt till vår kultur och våra ideal och inte alltid blir glada när de kritiseras.
Många tyckte att diskussionen varit spännande och mycket givande men flera efterlyste ändå tydligare ramar och mer avgränsade diskussionsämnen. Kanske kunde en mer noggrann presentation och genomgång av begreppet underlätta den gemensamma diskussionen.
Därefter gjorde vi en övning om identitet och fördomar. Varje person i smågrupperna fick en lapp uppklistrad i pannan med ett av följande engelska adjektiv: rich, poor, bossy, confused och patriot. Bara de andra fick se ens lapp och man skulle utifrån dem behandla var och en som om han eller hon hade den egenskap som lappen angav. Syftet med övningen är att alla ska få känna hur det är att bli behandlad efter en stereotyp. Många berättade om hur de kände sig irriterade över att bli ”påklistrad” en egenskap man inte själv kände sig befryndad med. Flera beskrev samtidigt hur man tenderade att anpassa sig efter hur man behandlades.
Därefter försvann volontärerna till sina aktiviteter och vi fredsfusiondeltagare fick börja fundera kring vad som är svenskt och hur svenskar är. Detta utmynnade sedan i en rad presentationer för volontärerna om vad de ska tänka på när de är i Sverige.
I slutet av dagen spånade vi idéer om olika projekt som vi skulle kunna genomföra tillsammans i framtiden. Det handlade dels om att ordna sociala aktiviteter för att skapa kontaktytor mellan eritreanska asylsökare och svenskar. Fotboll, svenska undervisning, familjekontakter mm föreslogs. Det fanns även en idé om att göra ett tjejprojekt för att involvera även de Eritreanska tjejerna. Vi diskuterade under kvällen också möjligheten att PeaceQuest skulle kunna hjälpa till som medlare mellan olika Eritreanska och Etiopiska grupper i Sverige

Conflict Management (22 Aug 2005) by Öjvind

Part I Sweden In Peace
First part of the workshop was “Sweden in Peace.” Sweden has been in peace for about 200 years. From 1521 – 1814 Sweden has 16 kings. 13 of the kings were in conflict or war with Denmark or Russia. The cause was the kings’ ambition to make Sweden a big empire. However, in 17 century Sweden lost war after war.
In 1814 a new French miltary, Bandot became king in Sweden. He took Swedeish name. He was realsitic and strategic. He convinced that Sweden is small country that can’t envade other countries. He was able to avoid war and eventually to establish Sweden. His son also started cultural and social exchange with Denmark.
After 1814 Sweden has never been in war or conflict, but it has been on edge of war on different occassions.
When Germany envaded Denmark, Sweden threated that they will go to war in support of Denmark when Russians backed their idea. But it was avoided when Russians changed their idea.
In 1905 Norway was separated from Sweden by majority vote. Some Swedish elites were against the separation of Norway and there was a threat of war again.
Afterwards Sweden started to develop a new system: free alliance and being neutral in war. Although in reality it was not. Thus, they started to build relation with both sides of antagonists. For instance, in 1914 during WWI started to support first France and then Russia.
During WW II Sweden was in threat of war from Germany. But Sweden started to export iron to Germany and support the Nazis. After Germany started to lose the war they started to support the alliance. At that time Norway was disappointed with Sweden for letting Germany soldiers.
During cold world war Sweden claimed neutral. But USA set up a radar on the East Coast of sweden. On the other hand Sweden was supporting Russia, which was a paradox.
Then the workshop was open for the attendees for questions and opinions. Some of the opinions were:
Nordic countries are suspious of Sweden
Sweden feel quite safe nowadays.
Sweden has a policy of neutrality, which is not in reality. But it is a way of avoiding war.
Sweden avoids to sell arms and weapons for countries in conflict, at least in policy.
Swedes have a long history of believing that what their leaders (politicians) doing is correct and true.
Sweden used to export weapon to India and in 1960 there was a plan to build a nuclear weapon.
On the contrary of Sweden’s experience, Eritrea uses every opportunity to start conflict and war.
Part II What is Conflict?
The second part of the discussion was about “conflict”. In this section the attendees were divided into two groups: Swedish and Eritreans. The two groups were assigned to find as many synonames as they can that can express conflict in their own langauge. Each group dramatized its _expression of conflict.
Based on the dramas the attendees were able to identify what a conflict is and cause of the conflict. Then, how the conflict starts and reachs the total extinction stage was explained in graphic way by Öjvind.
Escalation of conflict
Total
extinction
Hit on sensitive
points
Attack
Threat
Lose face
Enemy
Run over
Need to win
Discussion
Conflict issue
After run over it is easy to solve the conflict. But if it reaches the attack stage it is difficult to solve it. It needs a long time. However, if it reaches total extinction it is unsolvable. At this stage mediator is needed. Eg. UN forces are required in case of border war.
Part III Examples of conflict stories
The third part of the workshop was to come up with examples of conflict that really happened in the individuals life. The attendees were divided into four groups. Each group has to choose one story and dramatize it.
Each conflict story should have answer for the following three main questions.
Where is the conflict?
What is your role in the conflict?
What is the core of the conflict?
After each conflict drama the attendees were asked to stop the acters and try to solve the problem by acting themselves before it reaches conflict at different stages.
Methods of conflict mangemnet
Based on the the stories and dramas all attendees were able to suggest some points on methods of solving conflict.
Dialogue with all parties - early intervention
Avoiding argument before violence
Compromise
Understanding the “enemy”
Patience- choose the right situation
Concentrate on the actual problem
See the needs of the other side
Avoid use the word “enemy” and “problem” instead more postive words
Use a mediator
Admittance of fault- should not be to the extreme
Be nice and kind
Put the challenge (problem) in a larger perspective
At the end of the workshop Öjvind recommended a method which is good at solving problem:
Unconditional constructive strategy
Respect your agreement even if the other side breaks it
Avoid the bad manner of the other side
Admitt your fault little by little but not totaly all together
Joking sometimes can avoid conflict

ASYLDAGEN :AEASS arbete i Sverige

Efter första dagens presentationer och lära-känna-varandra-lekar drog vi på söndagen igång med en heldag om asylpolitik och om hur det är att leva som asylsökande. AEASS (Asociation for Eritrean Asylum Seekers in Sweden) var ansvariga för dagens program som framför allt bestod av föreläsningar som Khaled stod för.
Khaled började med att kortfattat förklara situationen i Eritrea, om ett folk på 4 miljoner invånare som består av kristna, muslimer och animister. Han berättade om hur EPLF kom till makten vid Eritreas självständighet 1991 och att landet sedan dess inte haft några fria val. Ett skyttegravskrig pågår på den obestämda gränsen mot Etiopien och 10% av befolkningen är just nu i armén. Bland annat på grund av tvånget för alla mellan 18 och 55 år att tjänstgöra som militärer pågår nu en massflykt från Eritrea.
I Sverige finns idag ca 3000 eritreanska asylsökande. Tidigare har 90% av de eritreaner som sökt asyl fått avslag på sina ansökningar, men bl a på grund av AEASS lobbingarbete mot riksdag och regering har situationen delvis förändrats. AEASS har bjudit in representanter från Amnesty, regeringskansliet, migrationsverket m.m. för att informera om situationen i Eritrea och det ledde nyligen till nya bestämmelser om asylsökande från Eritrea.
Efter denna lilla presentation övergick Khaled till att prata om hur det är att vara asylsökande i Sverige och vilken roll AEASS har för dessa enskilda individer. Asylprocessen i Sverige tar normalt 2 år vilket är en ganska lång tids orolig väntan. Under den tiden har man 200 kr/mån att leva på och några månaders svenskundervisning som ofta avslutas långt innan man kan prata. Ett stort problem för de asylsökande är att få känner till sina rättigheter och inte har självförtroende att ställa några krav. Därför hänger hela deras liv på den personliga kontakten med deras handläggare. Det är här AEASS gör ett viktigt arbete. De jobbar hittills endast i Stockholm där de har 200 medlemmar. De försöker kämpa för sina rättigheter och ge självförtroende till de asylsökande. De försöker hjälpa dem som behöver ekonomiskt och praktiskt stöd. Khaled trodde att AEASS arbete har en stor del i att det bland eritreaner i Sverige finns få självmord och få galna och kriminella asylsökande.%