“I call the government to immediately release him without conditions” – Senator Marco Rubio

BY CPJ

The Committee to Protect Journalists condemns the Ethiopian government’s attempts today to compel Ethiopian journalist and blogger Eskinder Nega to sign a false confession before releasing him under a presidential pardon.

Eskinder, who has spent almost seven years in jail for his work, was one of 746 prisoners due to be pardoned by President Mulatu Teshome on February 8, according to media reports.

“Through this deplorable behavior the Ethiopian government is undermining any goodwill it might have generated by releasing an innocent man from prison,” said CPJ Africa Program Coordinator Angela Quintal.

“Ethiopian authorities should immediately release Eskinder Nega without condition.”

At 11 a.m. local time, a prison official asked Eskinder to sign a form which falsely stated that he was a member of Ginbot 7, an organization that the government deems a terrorist group, Eskinder’s wife, Serkalem Fasil, told CPJ.

Eskinder refused and asked to see a more senior official. That request was not granted and the journalist was returned to his cell, his wife said.

Eskinder is serving an 18-year sentence on vague terrorism charges, according to CPJ research.

The U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention condemned his 2012 trial and conviction and said it was connected to his “peaceful exercise of the right to freedom of expression.”

The group found his arrest without warrant and prosecution was flawed, and the trial fell short of international standards of fairness.

The post Eskinder Nega Refuses to Sign False Confession in Exchange for Prison Release appeared first on TesfaNews.

The very least the U.S. government can do this time is taking a stand

BY ALEMAYEHU G. MARIAM

In the lore of the Wild West, cowboys would have quick-draw duels at noon when the sun is high in the sky. It is a do-or-die moment. The U.S. Congress has set high noon on February 28, 2018, for the Ethiopian government to meet its demands for human rights accountability in H.Res.128 or face the music on the House floor.

At an impromptu press conference last week, Reps. Christopher Smith (R-N.J.) and Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) delivered the showdown ultimatum:

“Should the Ethiopian government not announce by February 28th that it will allow the independent UN teams access, H.Res.128 would be sent to the floor irrespective of retaliatory threats by the Ethiopian government.”

The Ethiopian regime has long declined to undertake its own credible investigations of human rights violations and spurned investigative exhortations by Congress. Since 2007, the regime has denied entry to all UN special rapporteurs seeking to undertake independent investigations.

Smith announced an agreement has been reached with House Majority leader Kevin McCarthy “for floor action (on HR 128)”. He warned,

“The Ethiopian government must show action, real tangible reform or that resolution will be on the floor.”

Smith emphatically declared:

“We want the people of Ethiopia to enjoy human rights they are guaranteed, universally recognized human rights. People are being tortured. Journalists are being mistreated. All of that is unacceptable.”

Coffman added:

“For too long the United States has looked the other way on the human rights abuses of Ethiopia in favor of their security cooperation while Ethiopia is terrorizing its own people, and it is time the United States acknowledges the problems of Ethiopia to respect human rights and become a pluralistic democracy.”

For years, the Obama administration turned a blind eye to human rights violations in Ethiopia. In July 2015, Obama legitimized the Ethiopian governing party, which claimed to have won 100 percent of parliamentary seats in May 2015, calling it “democratically elected.” Between 2010 and 2016, the U.S. provided well over $5 billion to Ethiopia, making it the second-largest recipient of U.S. aid in Africa.

H.Res.128 is aimed at “supporting respect for human rights and encouraging inclusive governance in Ethiopia.” A floor vote on the resolution was scheduled on October 2, 2017 but was withdrawn, Coffman’s office writes, following a “threatened retaliation against the United States should it be passed.” To defeat the resolution, the Ethiopian regime “hired a Washington D.C. lobbying firm for $150,000 month”.

S.Res.168, mirroring the House version, was introduced by Senator Ben Cardin (D-Md.) and co-sponsored by 23 senators. A similar bill (H.R. 2003) passed in the House of Representatives in October 2007 but died in the Senate.

In early January 2018, the Ethiopian regime announced the release of political prisoners, whose existence the country had denied for more than a decade. A major opposition leader was released and charges against hundreds of others were dismissed.

On February 8, the Ethiopian regime announced it will be releasing 746 more prisoners including Eskinder Nega, the internationally-celebrated journalist, and Andualem Aragie, a dynamic young lawyer and opposition leader, whose detention was condemned by the U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detention as “arbitrary”. Both refused to sign what they say are false confessions in exchange for their release.

Is concern over human rights trumping what had been an all-consuming U.S. counterterrorism cooperation policy with Ethiopia in the Trump era? Is a more aggressive U.S. approach to human rights likely to produce swift results where past policies of turning a blind eye and appeasement of repressive African regimes have failed?

In September 2017, U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Nikki Haley told Ethiopian authorities, according to reports, “that they face growing instability if undemocratic practices continue.” In early December 2017, Acting Assistant Secretary of State Donald Yamamoto stated the Trump administration will be “very aggressive” and “vigilant” on human rights and good governance issues in Africa. In February 2018, Congress is playing hardball with the Ethiopian regime and political prisoners are finally being released.

I believe the U.S. is taking a more aggressive approach for three reasons.

First, it is becoming increasingly clear to the U.S. that Ethiopia, one of the more stable countries in the Horn of Africa, is slowly sliding towards an ethnic civil war as an entrenched repressive ethnic minority regime shuts down all political space. Smith, Yamamoto, and Haley euphemistically use the word “stability” to signify their concern about an interethnic civil war in Ethiopia. This puts the U.S. on the horns of dilemma: risk losing counterterrorism cooperation with the Ethiopian regime by pressuring changes or act aggressively to improve human rights and avert a civil war.

Second, the current crises present a unique opportunity to the U.S. to pressure the Ethiopian regime into making significant improvements in human rights and political concessions. The regime which at one time presented a monolithic face under the leadership of the late Meles Zenawi is today in a state of disarray. As Rene Lefort wrote, the regime’s “ethnic federalism” has fostered “ethno-nationalism (that) is intensifying to the point of detonation, triggering centrifugal forces in the federal system of power.”

Third, the U.S. Congress and the Trump administration are realizing that standing up for American values is more effective in improving human rights in Africa than appeasing African dictators and accepting their human rights violations.

It is reasonable to assume members of Congress and the State Department are coordinating on human rights policy in Ethiopia. In 2009, Ambassador Yamamoto argued for “swift and decisive action” to improve human rights, which is precisely what H.Res.128 aims to accomplish today.

Rep. Smith said, “We want the people of Ethiopia to enjoy human rights.”

The ball is in the Ethiopian regime’s court. The countdown clock for a showdown on the Hill at high noon on February 28, 2018, keeps on ticking.

Alemayehu (Al) Mariam is a professor of political science at California State University, San Bernardino, with research interests in African law and human rights. He is a constitutional lawyer and senior editor of the International Journal of Ethiopian Studies.

The post Washington Puts Ethiopia’s Human Rights Abusers on Notice appeared first on TesfaNews.

Ethiopia Oromo protestors today celebrating a victory that is unprecedented in African history: peacefully forcing the most powerful regime on the continent to set thousands of political opponents free. But what happens next?

BY BRONWYN BRUTON

The protest movement playing out in Ethiopia is one of the most consequential conflicts on the African continent – more than any other, it has the potential to upend US policy in the Horn of Africa. It could disrupt counterterrorism efforts in Somalia and reduce the number of peacekeeping troops in South Sudan. But alarmingly, it has barely registered in Washington policy discussions or in the American press.

Ethiopia’s Oromo population is celebrating a victory today that is probably unprecedented in African history. Without extensive violence or bloodshed, and while almost all of its leading voices languished in jail, a grassroots protest movement has managed to force one of the most powerful regimes in Africa to surrender to its demands.

As an organized strike involving tens of thousands of Oromo youths drew closer to the capital city of Addis Ababa, Ethiopian authorities agreed to release a host of important political prisoners, including Bekele Gerba, a compelling activist whose release from prison the government has fiercely resisted. (Just the week before, Bekele had been sentenced to an additional half-year behind bars, for the crime of singing a protest song in front a judge.)

In honor of Bekele Gerba’s release, the Oromo strikes were suspended, and the crowds in the street turned jubilant. Then, on February 14, authorities stunned and delighted the protestors further by releasing other extremely prominent dissidents (including among others the blogger Eskindir Nega, opposition leader Andualem Aragie, former Gambella Governor Okello Akway, and the Muslim religious freedom activist Ahmedin Jebel), some of whom had been imprisoned on “terrorism” charges for years.

Ethiopian prime minister Hailemariam Desalagn had promised the release of a large number of political prisoners in early January and did later release a number of political activists, including opposition leader Merera Gudina.

Government officials claimed at the time that the move was intended to widen the political space and foster a genuine dialogue with the political opposition and with the ethnic-based protest movements. But skeptics (including the majority of protestors) saw the move as largely symbolic, and perhaps even calculated to sow discord within the opposition, as some individuals were released and not others, and particularly as the most influential figures remained behind bars.

After the events of February 13 and 14, however, there can be little doubt about the seriousness of the Ethiopian authorities. The severity and persistence of the protest movements have clearly become an existential threat to the regime, and the need to diffuse the protests’ momentum is imperative enough, apparently, to overcome differences of opinion between the so-called “moderate” and “hardliner” factions with the Tigrean People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), which is the most powerful faction with the ruling party.

The TPLF’s alarm is well-founded; the only question is whether its belated concessions to the protestors, after years of growing unrest, may be too little, too late. Anger at the perceived economic and political dominance of the small Tigrean ethnic faction is a moving force behind the protests, and the threat of a genocide or other targeted ethnic violence against Tigrean individuals appears to be escalating.

Fearful Tigrean citizens have reportedly relocated in large numbers from the Amhara and Oromo regions of the country, and attacks on Tigreans (a rarity in the past) are reported. At the same time, violent clashes between other ethnic groups, particularly the Oromo and Somalis, have dramatically increased. Tensions are high across the board; the protestors are flush with victory, and the newly-released scores of political dissidents may vie for prominence. Is there any chance of the protests subsiding?

Probably not, though it is surely the TPLF’s hope that Bekele Gerba, Ahmedin Jebel, Eskindir Nega and their colleagues will prove to be wise and moderating voices in the coming dialogue. They have in the past not only been decisively less radical but have been firmly committed to non-violence – unlike the radio and social media personalities, some of them based in the diaspora, that have risen to prominence in their absence and are now driving the opposition discourse in real time.

Having achieved so much through protest, it is unlikely that the Ethiopian people will accept half-hearted reforms. Speculation is rampant, for example, that Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalagn – who is not Tigrean but is widely regarded as an instrument of the TPLF elite – will be replaced with an Oromo at the ruling party’s upcoming conference in three weeks’ time. (Lema Megersa, president of the Oromia Regional State, is a prime focus of this speculation.)

These rumors are mere speculation but have taken on the force of expectation, and disappointment could easily lead to another round of protests. Another round of civilian deaths at the hands of Ethiopian security forces, or the declaration of another state of emergency, could have the same effect. Next time, the Ethiopian government’s concessions may not be enough to halt the protests. If dialogue fails, and the security forces are unleashed, the resulting conflict will be bloody and awful – and will certainly not succeed in ending the uprising.

Implications for US Policy

Washington, of course, has every incentive to avoid such a scenario.

The United States has much at stake in Ethiopia, whose troops and cooperation have been essential to Washington’s efforts to stabilize Somalia and South Sudan. American strategy in the Horn of Africa is deeply flawed and is demonstrably failing to achieve its objectives (as the situation in both countries continues to deteriorate). But no alternative policy proposals are on the table, and a sudden collapse of Ethiopian capacity to support American policies with African boots on the ground would be catastrophic.

The African Union mission in Somalia, already on its last legs, would probably not survive a sudden and wholesale withdrawal of Ethiopian forces – and countless civilian lives in Southern Sudan would be endangered. A disordered Ethiopia is, of course, more vulnerable to incursions by the al Qaeda-linked Somali terror group, al Shabaab, which has already managed to establish a vibrant offshoot in Kenya amid similar social conditions (a large population of unemployed youths, a disenfranchised and vilified Muslim population, and rampant police brutality).

Unfortunately, few countries are more poorly positioned than the United States to play a constructive role in Ethiopia’s future. This stems from Washington’s long history of providing budgetary support to Ethiopia’s ruling party, the close cooperation between the two countries’ military and intelligence services, and the long-standing refusal of American officials to criticize the human rights record of the regime or to challenge the imprisonment of thousands of civilians.

Washington’s silence on Ethiopia’s deteriorating human rights and security situation is a result of many factors.

First and foremost, of course, the Ethiopian regime has served as Washington’s indispensable partner in the “war on terrorism” since the early 2000s.

Second, the former prime minister and architect of the ruling party, Meles Zenawi, cultivated warm personal friendships with senior American policymakers who subsequently championed the regime and shield it from public criticism.

Third, as is the case in Rwanda, Western policymakers paraded Ethiopia as an “African success story” as a means of facilitating continued aid and investment to the continent, and drawing attention to the human rights narrative was inconvenient.

Fourth – and not least important – public criticism of the Ethiopian regime was found by American diplomats not to work very well: over the years it has resulted in numerous journalists, diplomats and American non-governmental organizations being expelled from Ethiopia over the years, without causing a whiff of improvement in the regime’s conduct.

And Ethiopia’s ability to restrict access to the African Union (AU headquarters are located in Addis) has led many otherwise reputable analysts and journalists to practice self-censorship. Ethiopia has also proved very willing to retaliate against diplomatic pressure by holding American security interests, hostage: in September 2017, for example, when the House Subcommittee on African Affairs attempted to pass a resolution drawing attention to Ethiopia’s human rights abuses, Ethiopia’s then-ambassador to the United States, Girma Birru, visited the Subcommittee members and threatened to withhold counterterror cooperation in Somalia. Faced with this threat, the Subcommittee immediately abandoned the resolution. (The Subcommittee threatened yesterday to bring the resolution to the floor for a vote on February 28, unless the Ethiopian government gives UN investigatory teams access to the country.)

The most credible voices among the protest movement have already condemned US inaction, and would not consent to a dialogue with US officials – indeed, they argue that engaging with Washington would erode their credibility, and they are probably right.

Washington can of course attempt to pressure or persuade the TPLF to undertake credible and meaningful reforms – but Washington’s chequered diplomatic history with Addis suggests that such efforts are unlikely to bear fruit. It is also unclear what reforms would appease the public: while there have been calls for Ethiopian security forces to leave the Oromo and Amhara and other regions (including the Somali or “Ogaden” zone), absolutely no one is demanding fresh elections (which have historically been heavily rigged) or other staple democratic measures to restore the peace.

The next month and days will be decisive. The Ethiopian regime will either commit to its current course and expand on its commitment to reform, signaling this commitment perhaps by offering the prime ministership to an Oromo leader. Or it will double down on its previous course, and declare a state of emergency. But this would be a deadly decision, as a new state of emergency would surely be regarded by opposition leaders and the protestors as a “declaration of war”.

Ethiopia’s only hope for peace is a series of rapid and sincere concessions by the TPLF elite, which must certainly involve a meaningful redistribution of political and economic power. The Ethiopian public has tasted its power, and one way or another, the status quo will not survive.

Bronwyn Bruton is deputy director and director of programs and studies in the Atlantic Council’s Africa Center. Follow her on Twitter @BronwynBruton.

The post Ethiopia: End Game? appeared first on TesfaNews.

The TPLF is in chaos, their tyranny is coming to an end

BY GRAHAM PEEBLES

Under relentless popular pressure the Ethiopian Prime-Minister, Hailemariam Desalegn, has been forced to resign, other members of the government are expected to follow. The ruling party responded with panic, and instead of entering into talks with opposition groups, imposed another State of Emergency – this follows on from the previous one, which last ten months (from October 2016), and achieved nothing.

It is another mistake in a long line of errors by the government, who will do anything it seems to hang on to power.

In his resignation speech, Hailemariam Desalegn acknowledged that ”unrest and a political crisis have led to the loss of lives and displacement of many.”  ‘Loss of lives’ of innocent Ethiopians at the hands of TPLF security personnel to be clear.

“I see my resignation as vital in the bid to carry out reforms that would lead to sustainable peace and democracy.”

This is a highly significant step in what may prove to be the total collapse of the ruling party. It has been brought about by the peaceful movement for democratic change that has swept across the country since late 2005. Protests began in Oromia triggered by an issue over land and political influence and spread throughout the country.

A little over a month ago, former Prime-Minister, Hailemariam Desalegn, announced that the government would release ‘some political prisoners’, in order, Al Jazeera reported, “to improve the national consensus and widen the democratic space.”

Since then a relatively small number of falsely imprisoned people (some western media claim 6,000 but this is unconfirmed – nobody knows the exact number, probably hundreds, not thousands) have been released, including some high profile figures (Merera Gudina, chairman of the opposition Oromo Federalist Congress, Journalist Eskinder Nega and opposition leader Andualem Arage for example).

Many of those set free are in extremely poor health due to the ill-treatment and, in some cases, torture suffered in prison.

Despite these positive moves and the ex-prime minister’s liberal-sounding rhetoric, the methodology of the ruling party has not fundamentally changed: the TPLF dominated government continues to trample on human rights and to kill, beat and arrest innocent Ethiopians as they exercise their right to public assembly and peaceful protest.

The total number killed by regime forces since protests erupted in November 2015 is unclear: hundreds definitely (the government itself admits to 900 deaths), tens of thousands probably. A million people (Oromo/Somali groups) according to the United Nations have been displaced – due to government-engineered ethnic conflict – and are now in internal displacement camps (IDP’s) or are simply homeless. Tens of thousands have been falsely imprisoned without due process; their ‘crime’ to stand up to the ruling party, to dissent, to cry out for democracy, for freedom, for justice and an end to tyranny.

All ‘political’ prisoners, including opposition party members (British citizen Andergachew Tsige e.g.), and journalists, should, as Amnesty International rightly states, “be freed immediately and unconditionally………as they did nothing wrong and should never have been arrested in the first place.”

Not only should all political prisoners be released forthwith, but the laws utilized to arrest and imprison need to be dismantled, and the judicial system — currently nothing more than an arm of the TPLF – freed from political control.

The primary weapons of suppression are the 2009 Anti-Terrorist Proclamation and The Charities and Societies Proclamation. Draconian legislation both, allowing the ruling party to detain anyone expressing political dissent in any form, to use torture and information elicited during torture to be used in evidence — all of which is illegal under the UN Convention against Torture, which the Ethiopian Government signed, and ratified in 1994.

Unstoppable Movement for Change

The release of a small number (relative to the total) of political prisoners and the resignation of the Prime Minister does not alter the approach of the government or their brutal method of governance. It is simply a cynical attempt by the TPLF to subdue the movement for change and to appease international voices demanding human rights be upheld.

Arrests and killings by TPLF security personnel continue unabated. Reports are numerous, the situation on the ground changing daily, hourly: At the end of January, soldiers from the Agazi force arrested an estimated 500 people in northern Ethiopia reports ESAT News. In Woldia (also in the north), TPLF soldiers forced “detainees [to] walk on their knees over cobblestones. They [TPLF soldiers] have also reportedly beaten residents including children and pregnant women.”

These arrests follow the killing of 13 people in the town; “several others were killed in Mersa, Kobo and Sirinka.” And the BBC Amharic service relates that six people were killed at the Hamaressa IDP camp for internally displaced persons (IDP) (according to UNOCHA Hamaressa IDP camp was home to over 4,000 people internally displaced by the Oromo-Somali disputes) in Eastern Ethiopia. The victims were protesting against the appalling conditions in the camp and demanding they be allowed to go back to their villages when they were shot.

No matter how many people are killed, falsely imprisoned and beaten, the movement for lasting democratic change will not be put down. The principal target of protestors and activists is the dominant faction within the EPRDF coalition, the TPLF, or Woyane (relating to men from the Tigray region), as it is known.

This small group took power in 1991 and has controlled all aspects of life in the country including the judiciary, the army, the media and the sole telecommunication supplier (enabling the regime to limit internet access and monitor usage) ever since. The issues driving the protests are broad, interconnected and fundamental; the fact that Ethiopia is a single party state in all but name; the wholesale abuse of human rights; the lack of freedoms of all kinds; the partisan distribution of employment, businesses, and aid; the regime’s dishonesty and corruption; state-orchestrated violence false imprisonment and torture.

The people will no longer live under the suffocating blanket of intimidation that has stifled them for the last 27 years and are demanding fundamental change, calling on the government to step down and for ‘fair and open’ democratic elections.

Until now the regime’s response has been crude and predictable; rooted in force, shrouded in arrogance and unwilling to respond to the demands of the people, the government consistently falls back on the only strategy it knows: violence and intimidation; as the people march in unison, the regime unleashes its uniformed thugs.

But whereas in the past fear kept people silent, now they are filled with the Fire of Freedom and Justice; they may well be frightened, but in spite of the threats more and more people are acting, engaging in organized acts of civil disobedience (stay-at-home protests) and taking to the streets in demonstration against the regime. Gatherings of thousands of people, innocent men, and women, young and old, who refuse any longer to cower to the bully enthroned in Addis Ababa. And with every protestor, the regime kills, beats and imprisons the Light of Unity glows a little brighter the resolution of the people strengthens, social cohesion grows.

The demand for change is of course not limited to Ethiopia; throughout the world, large groups are coming together demanding freedom and social justice, cooperation and unity; the reactionary forces resist, but it is a global movement that, while it may be denied for a time, cannot be stopped.

The TPLF is in chaos, their tyranny is coming to an end, they may cling on to power for a while yet, a few months, a year or two perhaps, but even if they remain in office their no longer have a hold over the population. The Ethiopian people have a common foe, a unified cause, a shared purpose. The TPLF is the foe, the cause is their removal and the purpose is to bring lasting democratic change to Ethiopia, and no matter what the regime does, this time they will not be stopped.

The post Ethiopia: Final Days of the TPLF Regime appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY JON GAMBRELL | AP

Djibouti has seized control of a container terminal run by Dubai-based port operator DP World, the latest move in a long-running legal dispute over the facility in the East African nation.

The nationalization of the Doraleh Container Terminal in Djibouti comes as the United Arab Emirates’ interests across East Africa now also include a series of military bases allowing it to project power into the Red Sea and the crucial Bab el-Mandeb strait.

A statement on behalf of President Ismail Omar Guelleh’s office issued Thursday said the government had “decided to proceed with the unilateral termination of the concession contract … awarded to DP World.”

The statement blamed the seizure on DP World’s refusal to “settle amicably,” likely a reference to international arbitration between the port firm and Djibouti, a nation of 865,000 people slightly smaller than the U.S. state of New Jersey.

DP World issued a statement late Thursday acknowledging that Djibouti authorities seized the port, which it described as the East African nation’s largest employer.

“The illegal seizure of the terminal is the culmination the government’s campaign to force the DP World to renegotiate the terms of the concession,” DP World said.

DP World added the seizure would not have a “material financial impact” on the Dubai government-backed company traded on the NASDAQ Dubai. DP World stock closed slightly up Thursday to $25.10 a share, the last day of trading ahead of the weekend in Dubai.

DP World won a 30-year concession to operate the port in 2006. The port opened in 2009 and DP World says it has operated with a profit ever since.

In 2014, however, the government of Djibouti brought a legal challenge against DP World, accusing it of bribing the head of Djibouti’s port authority and calling the overall agreement unfair.

In February 2017, Dubai said a panel operating under London Court of International Arbitration rules fully exonerated DP World, dismissing Djibouti’s claims and ordering it to pay arbitration and other costs. A commercial court in London separately cleared Djibouti port authority head Abdourahman Boreh of misconduct in 2016.

DP World, one of the world’s largest port operators, said it started a new lawsuit on Thursday over Djibouti seizing control of the terminal.

“The government’s conduct is particularly oppressive and cynical,” DP World said in its statement, noting Djibouti lost its previous court challenges.

Djibouti’s port is particularly crucial to its landlocked-neighbor Ethiopia. More than 95 percent of Ethiopia’s imports come through Djibouti, authorities say.

Guelleh has been Djibouti’s president since 1999 and his family has controlled the small nation since it gained independence from the French in 1977. Corruption allegations have surrounded his rule.

However, Djibouti’s location near the Bab el-Mandeb, a chokepoint at sea for oil tankers heading from the Gulf to Europe, makes it a militarily crucial location.

Djibouti is already the site of a U.S. base that launches drone missions over Somalia and Yemen, as well as a Chinese military base and Japan’s first overseas base since World War II. Saudi Arabia also is considering building a base there.

Meanwhile, the UAE has expanded its military presence across East Africa. In Eritrea, the UAE has a base at the port in Assab. Another Emirati military base will be built in Somalia’s breakaway northern territory of Somaliland.

The post Djibouti Seizes Control of DP World’s Container Terminal appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY SHABAIT

President Isaias Afwerki was interviewed by local media on topical regional issues on Sunday, 14 January this month. Shabait.com is serializing Excerpts of the interview.

Q: Mr. President, last week the Al-Jazeera television channel broadcast a story asserting that Egyptian and Emirati troops equipped with tanks and aircraft were deployed in Sawa (western Eritrea). This news story was recycled by numerous media outlets without any verification. What are the origins and aim of this story?

I heard this news story while I was on the plane back home from Abu Dhabi. Frankly, I consider it a silly joke of 2018. We can raise many questions with regard to its aim, its timing and its links with various events taking place in our region and the wider neighborhood. This issue is not new at all. This false news is part and parcel of the cumulative lies, related to Eritrea, that has been fabricated in a similar manner.

While we can mention a number of examples in relation to how such news stories originate and their potential consequences, what immediately comes to my mind is a previously fabricated news story claiming that Egyptian troops were deployed in Tsorona. Before they launched the attack against Eritrea at Tserona, the Weyane (TPLF) cadres told their army that “Egyptian army contingents had been deployed there”.

How the Weyane regime tries to misconstrue and distort its ties and perspectives with Egypt is a broad and complicated issue. Leaving this aside, how can one justify the loss of life and other sacrifices that ensue from these fabrications?

At this moment, it is being claimed that Egypt has deployed soldiers and weapons in Eritrea. What was aired by the Al-Jazeera news agency was a fraction, the tip of the iceberg, in this campaign of disinformation. It was subsequently claimed that Egyptian troops have also been deployed in Barentu. This was apparently concocted to entangle Sudan into the trap. There were allusions to verification of this story by independent and credible sources. We hear intelligence and security officials from Ethiopia and the Sudan held meetings in Kassala “to assess the exact locations of this supposed Egyptian troop deployment and to monitor its activities”.

All these stories are pure fabrications. But the architects of these lies often cite places and names in order to imbue credibility to their wild allegations. For example, it was claimed in one of the news reports that a military officer named Tekle Manjus has been assigned to coordinate the troops deployed in Southern Barentu. How does such disinformation influence ordinary people and decision makers?

The lie associated with Sawa is the most baseless one. It has to be the most ridiculous joke because of its short-lived nature. In a way, it illustrates that those who fabricate these lies are not sophisticated enough to mislead the public.

Al-Jazeera is a news agency serving such purposes. Obviously, we need to take into account how it is funded, led and managed. Al-Jazeera has established an office in Addis Ababa with the express purpose of coordinating the malicious agendas and conspiracies targeting Eritrea. Regardless of the claims made during its inauguration, this office is there to spread ill-advised propaganda against Eritrea. The fictitious news about Sawa was fabricated by this office. When you consider how informed those who are involved in the fabrication and spread of the false news are, you tend to feel that they are aliens from Mars or other planets.

CGTN is a Chinese TV channel. Their correspondent in Cairo was asked to comment on the news story. He was supposedly an expert on the region and well-informed about the issue. He stated, unabashedly: “I know that the UAE has a military base at Sawa Island! But I am not sure whether the Egyptians are there or not.”

This shows how such fake stories are spread without minimum verification. What will this correspondent say if asked whether there is indeed an Island called Sawa and in which Sea it is found? Other big TV channels too followed suit. The story was gullibly recycled by Russia Today and other major networks who quoted and requited Al Jeezera without any validation. All these fabrications indicate the frivolity of the architects of these lies: the Weyane regime and its patrons. The Weyane regime is really a surrogate that does not have its own independent agenda. So in a way, the blame rests squarely on its patrons.

This latest disinformation is linked to what was previously propagated about Israeli surveillance station at Emba Soira. That Israel and Iran have military bases in Eritrea’s Dahlak Islands was routinely claimed for almost a decade now. Most lies are short-lived; just the same as how dew evaporates shortly. The lie associated with the deployment of Egyptian troops is the most frivolous one and it is less likely to mislead the public. What will Egyptian troops deployed in Sawa do? If we really assume that Sudan is the target of “this conspiracy” what is the point of Sawa as Egypt’s border with Sudan in the north is wider and closer to the Sudan. Therefore, why do Sawa, Barentu, Haykota, Tserona become issues? Is the threat directed at the Weyane regime? Again, this is silly and deliberately propagated to deflect public attention from the Woyane’s domestic woes and crisis. The fact is Ethiopia’s situation has become very worrisome and uncontrollable, both to Weyane and its patrons, and hence the ramping up of the disinformation campaign.

Weyane has multiple patrons. The fact that over time the situation in Ethiopia has been very disheartening and disappointing to all of them on the one hand, and the futility of the conspiracies engineered against Eritrea in the last 25 years on the other, have caused and fueled such fabrications and diversions.

I would like to take this opportunity to praise the Eritrean people for their steadfastness and resilience to overcome the prolonged conspiracies against our country. While Weyane was supposed to be a servile agent of its patrons and a lot has been invested to strengthen it and weaken others in the region, the reverse has happened. What is being propagated in relation to Egypt is a baseless claim and a lame excuse intended to cover up the failures associated with the misguided policies of Weyane and its patrons.

The lies and propaganda messages mainly target Sudan as it is assumed that Egypt’s presence in Eritrea is a threat to Sudan. There are issues involving the Weyane regime and some interest groups in Sudan. These matters may be raised at an appropriate time in the future. Such interest groups aim to mislead the people of Sudan and they are not concerned about the problems or consequences created. This is coupled with the desire of Weyane and its patrons to make Sudan part of the alliance against Eritrea, Egypt and others in our region.

Therefore, the fabricated stories are ultimately expected to culminate in pushing Sudan into conflict with Eritrea. Recently, the border between Eritrea and Sudan was closed and there are maneuvers around the border. I have learned that parallel to the fabricated news story, Weyane, and Sudan agreed last week for the former to deploy its troops in the southern part of the Kassala Province in the Sudan; in a place called Wilayat. It is said that financing the activities of such an army is the responsibility of the Sudanese government. This is not mere speculation but an established fact.

How will this operate? What will be its outcome? Is this army really expected to respond to an imagined attack against the Sudan from Sawa by Egypt?.

The ultimate aim of such false stories is to create conflicts and stoke tension between neighboring peoples. Thereafter, it becomes easy to abuse or manage the ensuing crisis. An intractable crisis situation, in turn, tends to create a fertile ground for deflecting attention from real problems. What comes to mind is the ignominious fabricated report of Iraq’s possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) by Colin Powell to the UN in an attempt to justify the war against Iraq. Look at the consequences of this act; how it has impacted Iraq.

The Woyane regime claims that Egypt aims to weaken Ethiopia because of the Millenium Dam Project. Eritrea is considered, in Weyane’s eyes, an instrument to weaken Ethiopia. This wrong perception has to be bolstered by an intensive media campaign. Given the extensive coverage of today’s communication technology, there is a misguided belief that fabricated news stories can be consumed as truth. It is believed that once false stories are repeated and recycled by various media outlets, the public can be convinced and influenced accordingly.

The Weyane regime can continue to buy time. It may continue to be provided with intensive care and preferential treatment by its patrons. However, the situation in Ethiopia is irreversible. The ploys and games described above and that are masterminded by Weyane and its patrons can no longer be effective. The past 25 years are indeed lost years. There are changes in the world, as well as in our region and our broader neighborhood. Such lies can never be useful for the survival of the Wayane regime. What is being amplified by Al-Jazeera will, therefore, be futile.

The message that I wish to convey to the people of Ethiopia, Sudan, and Egypt is that it is time to say enough is enough. On our part, while we believe that such fabrications easily evaporate as dew, we have been doing what we should.

Regardless of what is being said and propagated about the deployment of an army, about whether the border is closed or opened, we firmly believe that this has nothing to do with the national interest of the people of Sudan. As I asserted earlier, the issue is associated with creating a crisis and maximizing the interests of those who happen to mastermind such games in the course of managing and sustaining the crisis or conflict situation.

So I earnestly remind the people of Sudan to open their eyes and their ears so that they can be conscious not to be misled by the frivolous propaganda games. We should all be conscious enough to fight and uproot such ills and wicked intentions from our region. Enough lessons have already been learned regarding the lost opportunities in the last 25 years and we should not tolerate further losses.

The interest groups in Sudan are not concerned about Weyane or the Ethiopian people. Their problem is associated with their fear that peace and cooperation between Eritrea and Ethiopia do not serve their purposes; good relations between Eritrea and Ethiopia are perceived to be not advantageous to them. This perspective was there prior to the current regime in Sudan. A similar fear was experienced or harbored in the minds of these interest groups when the situation changed in our region in 1991 and when this situation created a fertile ground for cooperation between Eritrea and Ethiopia.

We say to such minority interest groups, who do not represent the people of Sudan at all and who are now conspiring with the Weyane, “Please be sensible enough to realise that attempts to create conflicts and border disputes between the people of Eritrea and Sudan are useless and it is better to come to your senses and discontinue creating conflict between the two peoples.”

I would like to take this opportunity to make things clear that on our part we will never consider an invitation to such issues.

We may also relate these developments to our domestic situation. However frivolous and baseless they may be, they help us interrelate our situation with what is happening in neighboring communities. As I said earlier, the last 25 years are the lost years. Our region has been afflicted by interminable conflicts essentially to provide fertile ground to those who aim to maximize their vested interest and benefits by sustaining crisis. Let us say what has happened is enough and let us avoid further losses.

Coincidental as it may be, the fact that Christmas was celebrated at Sawa must have conveyed the right message to those who fabricated the lies of a phantom Egyptian military base there. I do not know why and how it was organized, but I must say that the Ministry of Information has done a good job.

Q: Last month, several media outlets reported that Turkey has plans to establish a military base in Sudan, in addition to its military involvement in Somalia. Many pundits maintain that the Horn of Africa is influenced by and interlinked with the geopolitical strategies of major countries in the Middle East. What is Eritrea’s perspective in this regard? What is the stance of Eritrea with regard to the developments in our region?

Such concerns need to be examined from the perspective of a broader framework. After the end of the Cold War, during the last 25 years, it was believed that a unipolar economic system would be created. Consequently, there have been major developments in our region. The situation in Somalia is one of the major disappointing consequences of such a perspective and prevailing developments. As part of our foreign policy, we firmly believe that whenever and wherever there is a gap in a particular neighborhood or region, this becomes a major cause of political instability. Whenever one country or government is excluded in any neighborhood or region, a major gap is created and this is a major cause of political instability. Think of what happened in the region or the broader neighborhood after the end of the Cold War. Consider what happened in Afghanistan after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Afghanistan may be far from our region, however, there is a major gap there. Everyone is aware of the situation in Afghanistan. If we explore the origin of such a situation, the motives associated with what has happened there, and why it is sustained, we can easily see the similar effects of similar motives in our own region. The situation in Iraq is also another major gap. A lot may be said about Iraq. The overall situation in Iraq, including what is happening with the advent of ISIS and other terror-related problems, has caused a perpetually tense state or condition in the region. This major gap is also related to the eight-year war between Iraq and Iran, the invasion of Kuwait by Iraq, and the invasion of Iraq by the USA.

Further, consider what is happening in Syria. There is also a similar problem or gap in Lebanon. All such problems are interrelated in terms of their effect on creating an unstable political situation. What recently happened in Libya and Somalia also needs to be added to such gaps. All such situations are the same in terms of their cause: decisions that were based on fabricated lies led to such situations.

Similarly, all that was said against Eritrea before the 2009 sanctions that were decided by the UN Security Council will remain in our active memory. Consider the lies fabricated in relation to nonexistent deployment of 2000 Eritrean troops in Somalia and the lies fabricated in relation to other issues by the officials of the Clinton and Bush Administrations in the US.

Somalia is a part of the Horn of Africa. In terms of strategic geopolitical relevance, Somalia is a very important country. The Somali people are proud people who are capable of making a great and constructive contribution in our region. However, Somalia has been excluded from the map in terms of its potential contribution in the region for a quarter of a century. This major gap became a fertile ground for terrorism. This has been caused by the strategy of Weyane and its patrons in the last 25 years. They aimed to destabilize Somalia.

In 1960, when Somalia became independent, it was divided into two parts – South and North. However, the people of Somalia became united and one country through their voluntary initiatives and endeavors. This was a unique occurrence in Africa. Who knows, they might have planned to reach beyond this so as to include Ogaden, Djibouti, North or Eastern regions and Kenya? The central point is that Somalia’s nationalism and patriotism were at its apex at that time. It can be claimed that it was a very exemplary one in our region.

In the course of their nation-building process, once unity was achieved between the two parts of Somalia, the Somali people were determined to uproot tribalism from their society. This was a miracle and very symbolic. It means Somalia was one of the most powerful countries in our neighborhood. Unfortunately, warlords were created to destabilize Somalia. Clan or tribalism was considered the weak point to be exploited in order to create vertical polarization, cleavages, and conflicts among the communities of Somalia.

The efforts to weaken Somalia are linked to the establishment of anchor states in different parts of the world, which is part of the 2002 National Security Strategy of the USA. Ethiopia was selected to be an anchor and police state in the Horn of Africa. The intention was to make Ethiopia a regional superpower and make the rest of the states of the region subordinate ones that need to be disciplined by the boss or police state – Ethiopia.

Somalia was considered a threat to this strategy. The situation in Kenya and Djibouti also has to be looked at from this perspective. The ultimate consequence is that Weyane became a regime that is a servile agent of its patrons in our region. The Weyane regime became a policy instrument for implementing the agenda of its patrons. Even though the question we have raised is related to Somalia, the Eritrean case is linked to this situation and assessed from the same analytical framework.

Because of the motives described above, during the last 25 years, unity has been undone in Somalia and its sovereignty has been undermined due to the polarized cleavages and civil war. Somalia’s previously strong military institution is no longer there. At this time, it is not able to resist terror groups and those who are involved in piracy, such as Al-Shabaab. Somalia once had the strongest air force in the Horn of Africa. At this time, it is non-existent. In terms of its potential influence and contribution, Somalia has been excluded from the region. During the Siad Barre administration, especially at the end of his rule, there were excuses associated with terrorism and Islamic fundamentalism, mainly related to Etihad. Such pretexts were intended to weaken Somalia and eventually make it inactive in the politics of our region.

The invasion of Somalia by Weyane was not endorsed by the Security Council. It was just imposed and Weyane was ordered to invade Somalia by its patrons. Three consecutive US administrations significantly supported Weyane and contributed considerably to having Somalia eventually destabilized. A lot is said about Al-Shabaab. We may talk a lot with respect to who actually supports Al-Shabaab, who provides financial and logistical support to Al-Shabaab.

Given this background, what is the need for the intervention of Turkey in Somalia? In terms of what is claimed by Turkey, there is a need to fight terrorism where it is – at its origins or sources. To this effect, does it mean Turkey should go to Somalia to fight Al-Shabaab and other terrorists that may be in Somalia? Can such a joke mislead us or eclipse what we can easily see with our eyes?

The post Interview with President Isaias Afwerki (Part I) appeared first on TesfaNews.

Deal comes a week after Djibouti seizes Doraleh Container Port

BY GULF NEWS

Ethiopia has acquired a 19 percent stake in the Port of Berbera in Somaliland following an agreement with DP World and the Somaliland Port Authority.

The agreement leaves DP World as the majority shareholder in the port, with 51 percent. Somaliland will hold 30 percent.

Under the deal, landlocked Ethiopia will invest in the port as a trade gateway.

The deal announcement comes a week after the government of Djibouti illegally seized the Doraleh Container Port, where DP World holds a 30-year concession.

According to the World Bank, around 90 percent of Ethiopia’s cargo currently travels through Djibouti.

Despite the seizure — which DP World is contesting through the London Court of International Arbitration — DP World Chairman and CEO Sultan Ahmad Bin Sulayem still referred to the port while commenting on the new deal.

In a statement on Thursday, Bin Sulayem said he was excited about the prospects of working with the Ethiopian government.

“Ethiopia is home to approximately 110 million people. The ports of Berbera and Doraleh will provide significant capacity to the region. Both these ports and more capacity will be needed to serve the region’s growth potential in the future.”

He added: “The economies of the region are growing at a pace that needs the development of Berbera supplementing Djibouti and additional gateways in the future.”

Ethiopian Transport Minister Ahmad Shide said the deal had been a year in the making.

“The agreement will help Ethiopia secure an additional logistical gateway for its ever-increasing import and export trade driven by its growing population and economy,” he said.

“In addition, Ethiopian participation in the development of the port of Berbera and the Berbera Corridor will help bring increased economic development and opportunity to the people of Somaliland. Ethiopia will continue to further invest in and develop the Djibouti corridor and further consolidate the use of existing ports in Djibouti. It will also look for other opportunities to develop additional ports and logistics corridors in the region.”

Dr. Saad Al Shire, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Co-operation for the Republic of Somaliland, said, “this is a very important project that will address some of the problems facing Somaliland concerning employment and investment.

“It is a welcome development that will benefit the region as a whole. The economies of the region are growing at a pace that necessitates the development of multiple ports and outlets. The extension of the port will increase the capacity of the region to accommodate the increase in trade.”

The post Ethiopia Acquires 19% Stake in DP World Berbera Port appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY SARAH TOWNSEND | THE NATIONAL

The Republic of Somaliland has hit back against the Somalian prime minister’s statement on Friday that a tripartite port deal involving UAE ports operator DP World to grant Ethiopia a stake in the Port of Berbera was “null and void”.

“The present agreement has nothing new,” a statement from the office of the President of Somaliland, Muse Bihi Abdi, said on Saturday. “It is an extension of the agreement entered into between the Republic of Somaliland and DP World and approved by the Parliament.”

Somaliland’s parliament approved the partnership with DP World in 2016, paving the way for the world’s fourth-biggest port operator to invest $442 million to rebuild the Port of Berbera and manage it through a 30-year concession.

According to the deal announced on Thursday, Ethiopia will become a 19 percent shareholder in the Port of Berbera, with DP World controlling 51 percent stake in the project. Somaliland will hold the remaining 30 percent.

The Ethiopian government will also invest in infrastructure to develop the Berbera Corridor as a trade gateway for the landlocked nation.

However, the Somalian Ministry of Ports and Marine Transport dismissed the agreement as “defective” in a statement on Friday, saying the terms of the deal “contravene procedure and are in blatant breach of the Provisional Constitution [of] Somalia. “The Ministry, therefore, considering the above factors, declares this deal as non-existent, null and void.”

The ministry said that the Somalian government was not party to the agreement, which it termed as “detrimental to the sovereignty of the Federal Republic of Somalia and the unity of the country.”

In its response, Somaliland said Somalia’s oppositional stance is “not helpful in creating a conducive environment for dialogue between Somaliland and Somalia, and has no bearing, whatsoever, on the commercial and investment agreement between the Republic of Somaliland, the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and DP World, which we expect the international community and the neighbouring countries to support,” its statement said.

>> ALSO READ : Ethiopia, Somaliland Sign Accord to Use Berbera Port

Development of the Berbera corridor is expected to address some of the region’s most pressing employment and investment issues, Saad Al Shire, Somaliland’s minister of foreign affairs said in a statement announcing the deal last week.

“The economies of the region are growing at a pace that necessitates the development of multiple ports and outlets…to accommodate the increase in trade,” he said.

DP World plans to build an additional berth in line with the Berbera masterplan as part of its concession agreement and said on Sunday it had signed the final agreement with the Government of Dubai to develop a 12 square kilometre greenfield economic free zone in Somaliland to complement growth of the port.

“Our vision for Berbera is to make it a regional maritime hub in the Horn of Africa and its development will encourage growth for the region’s economy,” DP World chairman Sultan bin Sulayem said.

The ports operator declined to comment on Somalia’s rejection of the Ethiopia deal or Somaliland’s defense. The latter’s statement on Saturday said Article 90 of its constitution gives it “every right to sign treaties and agreements with third parties that advance its development aspirations”.

“This is a development initiative which creates jobs, meets the fast-growing demand for logistics and infrastructure corridors in the region and facilitates economic integration,” the statement said.

DP World is embroiled in a separate dispute over its operations at the Port of Djibouti, west of Somalia. The company said last month Djiboutian authorities took control of the Doraleh Container Terminal from a DP World-owned entity that designed, built and operated the terminal after winning the concession in 2006.

DP World has commenced arbitration proceedings in the UK to protect its rights, or to secure damages and compensation for breach or expropriation.

The illegal move will have “no material impact” on its finances, DP World, which recorded 10.1 percent growth in gross container volumes on a reported basis in 2017, said in a bourse filing in February.

The post Somaliland Defends DP World Berbera Port Stake Sale to Ethiopia appeared first on TesfaNews.

Oromia defy the state of emergency, killings continue

BY TESFANEWS *

Across Ethiopia’s Oromia region, shops and markets are closed and transport paralysed as protesters begin the first of three days of a boycott called by activists.

In some places, public buses and minivans withdrew their services leaving many people stranded. Schools have also been affected.

The strike action is against the state of emergency announced by the government last month, which was controversially ratified by parliament last week. But the Command Post – the body which oversees the martial law – has warned protesters against disrupting normal life in the country.

Over the weekend at least five people died from bullet wounds amid clashes with Ethiopian security forces as demonstrators opposed to the emergency rule, which is the second in just two years.

The state is struggling to reassert its authority in the Oromia and Amhara regions, where sporadic anti-government protests over the past two years left hundreds of people dead. The government’s failure to stem the unrest culminated in Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn’s resignation last month.

Doctors at hospitals in the Oromo towns of Nekemte, Gimbi, Ambo and Dambi Dolo said on Sunday they’ve handled 18 casualties with bullet wounds since the government suspended the constitution on Feb. 16. Ambo General Hospital documented two deaths on arrival and 13 casualties on Saturday, according to Garoma Shure, a doctor at the facility.
“Both died from bullet injuries to the chest amid clashes with security forces,” he said by phone.

Roads to Gimbi were blocked and hospitals couldn’t receive supplies, said Desalegn Abebe, a doctor at Gimbi General Hospital.

Desalegn Tadesse, medical director of Nekemte General Hospital, said his hospital received 20 casualties last week. Two of them died of bullet wounds, he said.

“Federal military soldiers are here in every street,” said Gamachu Worku of Dambi Dolo General Hospital, which documented one death by a gunshot to the head and six casualties with bullet wounds on Feb. 23.

Information Minister Negeri Lencho said he was out of the country on government business and referred queries to the defense ministry.

Defense Minister Siraj Fegessa didn’t respond to three calls and three text messages. Addisu Arega, Oromia’s spokesman, confirmed in a Facebook post on Monday that “lives have been lost” and that market boycotts are ongoing.

“We have to discuss in a peaceful and democratic way about the complaints we have,” Addisu said.

The state of emergency forbids rallies and public meetings without permission, strikes and absence from work “without enough reason,” Fana Broadcasting Corp. reported, citing Siraj.

The government also declared illegal any “intentional underperformance,” disruption of transport services, social-media posts and distribution of publications that could incite violence, according to the broadcaster funded by the ruling party.

* BBC News and Bloomberg contributed to the story

The post Protests and Killings Paralyse Ethiopia’s Oromia appeared first on TesfaNews.

Eritrea’s Geneva Mission Statement on Enhanced Interactive Dialogue

BY ERITREA MISSION GENEVA

H.E. Mr. Vojislav SUC,
President of the Human Rights Council, Twelfth Cycle (2018)

I have the honor to write you in relation to the “enhanced interactive dialogue” on Eritrea scheduled for 12 March 2018. For over a month, the Eritrean delegation has engaged with Your Excellency, in your capacity as the President of the Human Rights Council, and the Secretariat – OHCHR, seeking clarification on the nature of the interactive dialogue and the composition of the panelists.

In those meetings, Eritrea’s concern on the lack of transparency and absence of fairness in the selection process have been raised.

As your Excellency and the Secretariat might recall, Eritrea made a request for the inclusion of organizations working inside Eritrea, and mining companies implicated in consecutive HRC resolutions.

They have been asking for a chance to share their experience and concerns on the state of affairs handled by the Council.

Along that, the Permanent Mission of Eritrea to the United Nations and other international organizations on 5 March 2018 sent a Note Verbal to the OHCHR. Subsequently, the Chief of the East and Southern Africa Section of the OHCHR, informed my delegation: –

• the selection of panelists and decision on the participation of Eritrea’s representative was made in close consultation with the sponsor (Djibouti) of the resolution. It is to be known that Djibouti is in conflict with Eritrea and has been benefiting from every space it can at the international forum
•  the Secretariat was guided by the sponsor’s rejection of Eritrea’s requests and that the final decision rests within the purview of the president.

The process set in motion by the Secretariat is indeed tantamount to allowing an accuser to select not only all the witnesses but also gives the accuser an absolute power to stifle any voice that does not conform to its established position on allegations. The process and action taken deprives the UN Human Rights Council to listen to diverse views on an issue.

As it stands now, the panel ’s composition reflects the political motives harbored. It includes a person who is a member of an organization involved in subversive activities against the Eritrean government, a personality with long-standing anti-Eritrea political stance and a special rapporteur whose mandate has long been undermined by her anti-Eritrea political activism.

The political manifestations were clear right from the beginning, yet Eritrea engaged the Council and the OHCHR in good faith, with the aim of ensuring fairness and balance in the dialogue. However, as it stands, the process is predicated on the will of the sponsor that wants to bring its political agenda of regional conflict to the platform of the Human Right Council. This is an abuse of the human rights mechanisms that we remain opposed.

Excellency,

The situation has dashed Eritrea’s goodwill and efforts to engage on the matter.  It creates a negative precedence and derails the Council’s efforts to discharge its lofty objectives of ensuring transparency, fairness, and balance. The genuine discourse and interactions that befit the promotion and protection of human rights are also undermined.

Let me state again that the exercise is serving the regional conflict that the sponsors would like to impose in the name of the Council.  In the situation of the impasse that transpired, the Government of Eritrea sees no purpose in participating in a politically driven exercise that denies dignified and fair engagement and flouts principled and impartial approaches.

I appreciate it very much if this letter is brought to the attention of the members of the UN Human Rights Council and distributed at a document of the Council.

Please, accept Excellency, the assurances of my highest consideration.

—
cc:
Mr. Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein
United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

The post Eritrea Snub UNHRC Enhanced Interactive Dialogue appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY TESFANEWS

Somalia’s lower parliament has voted to nullify a port investment deal between DP World, Ethiopia and the autonomous region of Somaliland with a landslide 168 votes out of 170.

The agreement announced on March 1, would give landlocked Ethiopia a 19 percent stake in Somaliland’s Port of Berbera, which is being developed by DP World under a 30-year concession agreement.

The Somali parliament, therefore, asserted that “it is only the Federal Government of Somalia that can engage in international deals,” and that “all ports . . . in the country are national property.”

Furthermore, the parliament found that “the DP World company intentionally violated the sovereignty of Somalia, so is banned completely from operating in Somalia [Puntland and Somaliland included].”

“Any agreement signed with DP World is null and void since it opposes the constitution, the rule of foreign investment in Somalia, and other rules of the country,” reads the resolution.

“DP World openly violated the independence and unity of Somalia and so DP World is banned from Somalia,” it said.

DP World previously reached agreements with Somaliland over the Berbera and Bosaso ports but with this vote – both deals are “null and void.” If the Upper House reaches a similar decision the President will sign it into law.

After Somalia parliament quashed its alternative port development dream, foreign ministry of landlocked Ethiopia announced that his country will continue its reliance on Djibouti port as a gateway for all its import-export trade.

The post Somalia Parliament Bans DP World, Rejects Somaliland’s Berbera Port Deal With Ethiopia appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

As it will be recalled, the fabricated news of “the deployment of Egyptian troops in Sawa”, and the subsequent closure of the border by Sudan that “this event ostensibly triggered” was recycled and amplified with high drama recently. But the story did not end there.

In these times where past events fast evade memory, it may be useful to reiterate the fundamental truths occasionally so that the public is not confused.

In this respect:

• In early January, the State of Qatar gave the Sudanese Defence Forces 3 MIG jet aircrafts that were subsequently deployed in Kassala. This was purportedly done to “thwart an attack from Eritrea that would be unleashed with the support of the United Arab Emirates”The pilots for the three Mig fighter planes being two Sudanese and an Ethiopian. The Sudanese Security and Intelligence apparatus is in charge of the operations, including determining specific missions as well as overall administration.
• In early February, the followers (the full list is available) of the radical Islamic Cleric, Mohammed Jumma, opened an office, under extreme secrecy, in a secluded area to organize political and military activities as well as to train their members. Funding of their activities is provided by the Embassy of Qatar in Khartoum. Training and other logistical functions are managed by the Sudanese Security and Intelligence Service.
• At the beginning of March, a delegation of Qatari military officers, led by the Ambassador of Qatar in Khartoum, Rashid Bin Abdurahman Alnueimi, paid a visit to the “Joint Sudanese-Ethiopian Defense Unit”, to inspect its operations and gauge the security situation in the Kassala area.This outfit was recently established by the Sudanese and Ethiopian Armed Forces with the funding from Qatar.

The question is why does Qatar involve itself in such senseless intricacies?

Ministry of Information
Asmara
22 March 2018

The post (Press Release): Why Does Qatar Involve Itself in Senseless Intricacies Against Eritrea? appeared first on TesfaNews.

Following Eritrea’s latest accusation against Qatar for financing a secret jihadist movement led by a radical Islamic Cleric Mohammed Jumma and funding for the establishment of a joint Sudanese – Ethiopian Defence Unit at the Southern part of the border town Kassala, Foreign Ministry of Sudan categorically denied the allegation as “fabricated and baseless”.

The Foreign Ministry press statement expressed its deep surprise by the Eritrean Information Ministry statement and categorically denied the existence of any Eritrean Islamic radical group on its soil.

The statement, however, didn’t deny the formation and deployment of a joint Sudanese-Ethiopian military unit alongside the Eritrean border with Sudan that was fully financed by the Qatari Embassy in Khartoum.

At the beginning of the year, Sudan deployed thousands of its paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF) fighters in Kassala and closed its border with Eritrea.

At the time, Khartoum pointed an accusing finger at Egypt.

Prior to the deployment of RSF and closing the Kassala border, Muslim Brotherhood-affiliated media outlets, such as Al Sharq and MEMO along with Qatari state-owned Al Jazeera started to simultaneously report a story on the arrival of a UAE backed Egyptian troops, armed with modern technology and heavy armored vehicles in Eritrea.

Eritrea’s President Isaias Afwerki trashed this fictitious news story of Egyptian troops arrival and training Eritrean troops at a military academy in Sawa as ‘too ridiculous’ to merit a serious response and described it as the ‘joke of the year 2018’.

But that doesn’t stop the Sudanese government from justifying its massive military build-up along its eastern border and issue a six-month state of emergency decree citing imminent Egyptian security threat coming from the Eritrean side.

Although these Qatari propagated false claims have been proven to be not true by several diplomats in Asmara and many Sudanese political groups in Khartoum, the Sudanese move still cannot justify the need for the establishment of a joint Defence Unit with Ethiopia along the Eritrea-Kassala border.

What is the purpose of this joint defense unit? 

According to the Eritrean intelligence reports, the joint defense outfit was fully funded by the State of Qatar. The Eritrean Information ministry statement claimed that,

“at the beginning of March, a delegation of Qatari military officers, led by the Ambassador of Qatar in Khartoum, Rashid Bin Abdurahman Alnueimi, paid a visit to the “Joint Sudanese-Ethiopian Defense Unit”, to inspect its operations and gauge the security situation in the Kassala area.

Asmara also said the Sudanese intelligence and security services are tasked with the operation “including determining specific missions as well as overall administration”.

In early January, the State of Qatar gave the Sudanese Defence Forces 3 MIG jet aircraft that were subsequently deployed in Kassala. This was purportedly done to “thwart an attack from Eritrea that would be unleashed with the support of the United Arab Emirates” The pilots for the three MIG fighter planes being two Qataris and an Ethiopian.

Eritrea hasn’t yet leveled any accusations against Sudan. However, it questioned the motive behind Qatar’s anti-Eritrea propaganda and security activities using Sudan as a springboard.

“The question is why Qatar involves itself in such senseless intricacies against Eritrea,” quizzed the Eritrean Ministry of Information statement.

Sudanese Foreign Ministry, however, reiterated that Sudan pursues a policy of good neighborliness and non-interference in internal affairs of neighboring countries.

The post Sudan Denies Qatar Funding Instability Along Eritrea- Sudan Border  appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY OAKLAND INSTITUTE

Today, charges against Pastor Omot Agwa, an indigenous land rights defender from the Gambella region of Ethiopia, were finally dropped by an Ethiopian court.

In March 2015, Pastor Omot was arrested in Addis Ababa while attempting to travel to Kenya to attend a food security conference. For six months, he was detained without charge, denied access to legal representation, and endured torture and solitary confinement.

Then, in September 2015, Pastor Omot was charged as a terrorist on the preposterous claim that the food security workshop he was trying to attend—organized by Anywaa Survival Organization (ASO) with support from the international organizations Bread for All and GRAIN—was a “terrorist group meeting.”

Pastor Omot is a dedicated advocate for land rights in Ethiopia’s Gambella region. In 2014, he worked as an interpreter for the World Bank Inspection Panel’s investigation into the forced displacement of indigenous Anuak during the Bank’s Promoting Basic Services (PBS) program.

Just one week after the Inspection Panel’s scathing report was released, Pastor Omot notified international colleagues that he was facing threats and increasing pressure from Ethiopian security officials because of his participation in the investigation. Very shortly thereafter, he was arrested.

“Pastor Omot provided an important service for the World Bank’s Inspection Panel, but the Bank failed to take action when he was detained, arrested, and tortured for this work,” said Anuradha Mittal, Executive Director of the Oakland Institute.

“The Bank did exactly the same to the Anuaks—actively disregarding their own massive failures and shortcomings when abuses were revealed. This failure of an institution that purportedly helps the poor is appalling and donor governments must hold it accountable.”

The Inspection Panel’s report, released in early 2015, found an “operational interface” between the PBS program and the Ethiopian government’s horrendous villagization scheme, which forcibly displaced indigenous communities from their land to make it available to foreign investors. However, as the Oakland Institute exposed in its report Moral Bankruptcy, rather than addressing these significant problems, the Bank chose instead to quietly end the PBS program and launch a nearly identical program under a new name, which continues in Ethiopia today with $600 million of funding from the Bank.

After nearly two years in jail, Pastor Omot was released on bail in January 2017. Over the past year, Ethiopian authorities continually rescheduled his court dates and withheld his passport, preventing Pastor Omot from having his name cleared, traveling to get medical attention, and seeing his wife and children in Kenya.

“Today, as we celebrate Pastor Omot’s release, we also recognize the many courageous indigenous leaders, journalists and land rights activists who are still under attack in Ethiopia,” said Nyikaw Ochalla, Director of Anywaa Survival Organisation.

“We call on the World Bank and its donors to stop writing blank checks to oppressive governments and funding destructive projects that displace people, and start standing up for those who risk their lives and liberty in the defense of justice and human rights.“

The post Ethiopia: Charges Against Indigenous Land Rights Defender Dropped appeared first on TesfaNews.

Egypt, Ethiopia, and Sudan fail to make progress over the impact of the controversial Ethiopia Dam (GERD) on the water share of downstream countries.

Talks in Khartoum between Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt to resolve differences over a dam Ethiopia is building ended early on Friday without agreement, the Sudanese foreign minister said.

Egypt and Ethiopia are at loggerheads over the construction of the Grand Renaissance Dam, a $4 billion-hydroelectric project that Cairo fears will reduce waters that run to its fields and reservoirs from Ethiopia’s highlands and via Sudan.

Addis Ababa denies the dam will undermine Egypt’s access to water. Ties between Egypt and Sudan were strained when Khartoum backed the dam because of its need for electricity.

The issue is being closely followed in Nile capitals that are dependent on the river for irrigation and drinking water.

“We were not able to reach an agreement on a joint decision, and it’s a technical issue that we cannot discuss,” Sudanese Foreign Minister Ibrahim Ghandour told reporters after the talks that began on Thursday morning and lasted about 16 hours.

Ghandour said the talks on the dam on the Blue Nile were constructive and important, but more time was needed, Khartoum’s state news agency SUNA said.

The talks were attended by the foreign ministers, irrigation ministers and intelligence chiefs of the three countries.

No date has been set for further discussions, but irrigation ministers are planning to meet at some point for more talks on the matter, the minister said.

The post Latest Three-nation Talks on Ethiopia Dam Fail appeared first on TesfaNews.

The resolution calls for commitment to human rights, democracy, rule of law in Ethiopia

BY FELIX HORNE | HRW

Today, the US House of Representatives passed a resolution encouraging Ethiopia’s government to increase respect for human rights, rule of law, and democracy. This non-binding resolution, combined with recent statements from the US Embassy in Addis, sends a strong signal to Ethiopia’s new prime minister that the US expects significant reforms ahead.

Resolution 128 was passed in large part because of Ethiopian-American voters concerned with the Ethiopian government’s rights record, who worked together to make themselves an important constituency.

Their persistent efforts despite the efforts of the Ethiopian embassy and their Washington lobbyists led to an impressive 108 Congressional representatives from 32 states co-sponsoring this resolution.

Hopefully, they can build on this success and advocate for binding legislation on Ethiopia.

Amongst other things, the resolution calls for Ethiopia’s government “to allow an independent examination of the state of human rights in Ethiopia by a rapporteur appointed by the United Nations.”

Ethiopia has repeatedly rebuffed efforts to investigate allegations of serious crimes by government forces and has not let in any UN Special Rapporteur to investigate allegations of abuse since 2007.

With a new prime minister, now is the time for Ethiopia to change course and allow independent experts to investigate, including the Special Rapporteurs on torture and freedom of assembly.

Over the past two years, Ethiopia’s government security forces have arrested tens of thousands of people protesting government policies and have killed over 1,000 demonstrators. Torture in detention is rife, and independent media, civil society, and opposition parties are severely limited.

The United States, like many of Ethiopia’s international partners, is focused on collaborating with the country on counterterrorism efforts, peacekeeping, and economic growth. Yet for the partnerships to be effective, Ethiopia needs to be stable. And in light of the past two years’ sweeping protests, the question of stability is inextricably linked to Ethiopia’s harsh response to dissent and political opposition.

This resolution not only encourages the government to implement key reforms, but says that future US cooperation should be tied to Ethiopia’s “demonstrated commitment to democracy, the rule of law, and human rights.”

Encouraging those reforms with measurable, specific, and transparent benchmarks in exchange for future cooperation is critical. It is also important that other countries follow the US Congress’ lead on tying support to tangible progress.

The post Ethiopia: US House Resolution 128 Passed appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY SOPHIA TESFAMARIAM | SHABAIT

April 13th will mark the 16th anniversary of the Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission’s (EEBC) “final and binding” decision on the Eritrea Ethiopia border. There is not much that can be said about the historical decision that has not been said before, but it would not hurt to re-iterate some facts:

1) Ethiopia’s rejection of the EEBC’s ruling and the 16-year long occupation of sovereign Eritrean territories remains an obstacle to peace in the region and prospects for any normalization of relations.

2) By refusing to take any punitive actions, the UN Security Council, long considered to be the vanguard of international peace and security, has emboldened the minority regime in Ethiopia to flout international law and continue to violate the rights of the Eritrean people to live in peace and security within their own internationally recognized borders.

3) It is the responsibility of the UN Security Council to enforce the EEBC’s final and binding delimitation and demarcation decisions.

When the Eritrea-Ethiopia border conflict of 1998-2000 ended and the Algiers Agreements were finally signed in December 2000, the whole world sighed with relief. It was a bloody war that left thousands dead and injured. The humanitarian disaster created by Ethiopia’s aggressive war of expansion and occupation left vital infrastructures totally destroyed, millions displaced from their homes and villages, over 80,000 Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean descent deported from Ethiopia and their belongings confiscated. So no doubt, it was a welcome event, cheered by millions and said to have the blessings of the international community which helped broker the deal.

In its Presidential Statement, the Security Council said:

“…The Security Council, reiterating its strong support for the Agreement of Cessation of Hostilities signed by the parties in Algiers on 18 June 2000 (S/2000/601), strongly welcomes and supports the subsequent Peace Agreement between the Government of the State of Eritrea and the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (S/2000/1183) signed in Algiers on 12 December 2000 (“Algiers Agreemen”). It commends the efforts of the Organization of African Unity, the President of Algeria and his Special Envoy, as well as the United States of America and the European Union for their role in achieving the Algiers Agreement…”

The Algiers Agreements were signed by President Isaias Afwerki for Eritrea and by Prime Minister Meles Zenawi for Ethiopia and witnessed and guaranteed by Secretary-General Kofi Annan representing the United Nations, President Abdelaziz Bouteflika of the Democratic Republic of Algeria, President Obasanjo of Nigeria, Secretary of State Madeleine Albright representing the United States, Secretary General, Salim Ahmed Salim representing the OAU [now AU], and Senator Renato Serri representing the European Union.

Article 4 of the Algiers Agreements stated the following:

“…The parties agree that a neutral Boundary Commission composed of five members shall be established with a mandate to delimit and demarcate the colonial treaty border based on pertinent colonial treaties (1900, 1902 and 1908) and applicable international law…The Commission shall not have the power to make decisions ex aequo et bono… Upon reaching a final decision regarding delimitation of the borders, the Commission shall transmit its decision to the parties and Secretaries General of the OAU and the United Nations for publication, and the Commission shall arrange for expeditious demarcation….The parties agree that the delimitation and demarcation determinations of the Commission shall be final and binding. Each party shall respect the border so determined, as well as territorial integrity and sovereignty of the other party….”

On 13 April 2002 the EEBC, established pursuant to the Algiers Agreements, delivered its “final and binding” delimitation decision on the Eritrea Ethiopia border issue. On that same day, the UN Security Council in its Press Release said:

“…Members of the Security Council express their satisfaction that a final legal settlement of the border issues between Ethiopia and Eritrea has been completed in accordance with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed by the parties in Algiers in December 2000… Members of the Security Council welcome the decision by the Boundary Commission, announced in The Hague on 13 April 2002, which is Final and Binding…”

The African Union (AU), European Union (EU), United Nations (UN), and the United States (US), through their respective Press Statements and Releases officially endorsed and confirmed that the Border Commission’s decision was final and binding, and the UN Security Council adopted and endorsed it as such.

In addition to Eritrea and Ethiopia, the witnesses and guarantors were not there just for some photo opportunity-they also had moral and legal responsibilities under the Algiers Agreements.

Eritrea accepted the EEBC ruling and Ethiopia rejected it. For the next five years, Ethiopia presented several gimmicks and ploys to amend, reverse, and revisit the decision that awarded Badme, the casus belli for the border conflict, to Eritrea.

Ethiopia repeatedly challenged the EEBC’s ruling and created obstacles to prevent the EEBC from fulfilling its mandate to demarcate the Eritrea-Ethiopia border. The UN Security Council (UNSC) adopted over a dozen resolutions calling on Ethiopia to abide by its treaty obligations but took no punitive actions against the belligerent regime.

Suffice it to mention a few of them:

• In 2004, the UN Security Council expressed its concern about ‘Ethiopia’s ongoing rejection of significant parts of the Boundary Commission’s decision, and its lack of cooperation with the Boundary Commission’- (Resolution 1560)
• In 2005, the UNSC demanded that ‘Ethiopia accept fully and without further delay the final and binding decision of the Eritrea- Ethiopia Boundary Commission and take immediate concrete steps to enable, without preconditions, the Commission to demarcate the border completely and promptly’ (Resolution 1640)
• In 2007 repeated its call for Ethiopia to accept ‘fully and without delay the final and binding decision of the Eritrea- Ethiopia Boundary Commission and take immediate concrete steps to enable, without preconditions, the Commission to demarcate the border completely and promptly’ (Resolution 1741)
• Etc. etc.

John Bolton, U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations addressed Ethiopia’s non-compliance. Speaking to the Press corps on 14 December 2005, Bolton hit the nail right on the head when he said:

“…One of the reasons we are in this dilemma is that the government of Ethiopia has never complied with its obligations under the 2000 agreement and the 2002 border demarcation… [And also because of] the council’s unwillingness or inability to confront Ethiopia’s three-year-long refusal to adhere to the very agreement it made in 2000. It is an example of what happens when the Security Council is not able to bring an international solution with a U.N. peacekeeping force to a prompt conclusion consistent with the wishes of the parties…”

Bolton understood that it was the responsibility of the UNSC to bring Ethiopia into compliance.

Malcolm N. Shaw, and in his 2007 article, “Title, Control, and Closure? The Experience of the Eritrea- Ethiopia Boundary Commission” said that the composition of the EEBC reflected “considerable judicial, arbitral and scholarly experience. The EEBC consisted of a former President of the International Court of Justice, a former Judge of the International Court, a former ad hoc Judge of the International Court, a former President of the Inter- American Commission on Human Rights and a former Legal Adviser to the UK Foreign and Commonwealth Office. The EEBC’s credentials remain impeccable.

Malcolm N. Shaw also wrote about the international community’s responsibility:

“…The close and institutionalized involvement in the settlement of volatile boundary disputes by significant international players, particularly the United Nations… is likely to prove an important precedent. Although to date such involvement in the Eritrea-Ethiopia dispute has demonstrated impotence rather than success, in the longer term that may not necessarily remain so and the resolution of many boundary disputes could be given additional legitimacy and weight by such international underpinning, as well as ensuring a level of resource allocation to enable the boundary delimitation and demarcation processes to be completed and ensured. However, it is important to realize that any such international involvement implies responsibility for implementation…”

The international community, represented by the UN, AU, EU, and the USA, assumed the responsibility of implementing the EEBC’s decisions. So why are the guarantors shrugging off their responsibilities by leaving the implementation of the EEBC’s final and binding delimitation and demarcation decisions on the “two parties”?

The US-led international community and specifically the guarantors and witnesses of the Algiers Agreements could have acted in accordance with Article 14 of the Cessation of Hostilities Agreement adapted and endorsed by the United Nations Security Council which clearly tells them what to do when one or both parties refuse to abide by the Agreements signed. It said:

“….the OAU and the UN commit themselves to guarantee the respect for this commitment of the parties. This guarantee shall be comprised of measures to be taken by the international community should one or both parties violate this commitment, including appropriate measures to be taken under Chapter 7 of the Charter of the United Nations by the Security Council…”

The UN Security Council chooses instead, to appease the crying and lying regime in Ethiopia. After 16 years, this author is reminded of a boisterous Statement released by the Ethiopian Foreign Ministry on 15 October 2003. It said:

“…There is no use for Eritrea to continue wishing that the Security Council would impose sanctions on Ethiopia and waiting for the prospect of drawing vicarious satisfaction from that. That is unlikely to happen. Not because Eritrea is not big enough to have its way, but because the idea is too crazy and too unrealistic…”

Such statements reflect the minority regime’s contempt for international law, but more importantly, it shows the impotence of the UN Security Council and the regime in Ethiopia banks on it.

Ethiopia is one of the few countries that repeatedly violates UN Security Council resolutions and never suffers any consequence for doing so. Successive Ethiopian regimes have enjoyed diplomatic, political and military shield and support while flouting international law and violating Security Council resolutions …and the peoples of the region have paid dearly for the excesses and belligerence of Ethiopia’s myopic leaders. The double standards employed for the last 16 years has eroded the moral legitimacy of the international system and contributed to Ethiopia’s pernicious behavior.

Why is the UN Security Council refusing to enforce its own resolutions on the Eritrea-Ethiopia border issue?

Why is the Council allowing Ethiopia to feel that it can violate resolutions with impunity? It is NOT, as has been repeatedly stated by some quarters, up to the “two parties”, to enforce the EEBC’s decision. The Security Council itself – all the 15 – must take responsibility to respond to Ethiopia’s violations of its own resolutions, the EEBC’s decisions, UN Charter and international law. When will the Security Council shoulder its moral and legal obligations and end Ethiopia’s 16-year long occupation and restore Eritrea’s sovereignty and territorial integrity?

Today, in a bid to divert attention away from the domestic chaos, Ethiopia’s leaders want to talk about “Ethiopia-Eritrea relations”.

Once again, this author is reminded of the words of the former Ethiopian Foreign Minister Seyoum Mesfin. When the EEBC delivered its final and binding delimitation decision, he said that Eritrea’s “transparency and predictability” in abiding by its treaty obligations would be the basis for any normalization of relations. Well! What is good for the goose is also good for the gander…Any future Eritrea relations with Ethiopia will also depend on the regime in Ethiopia abiding by its treaty obligations in full “transparency and predictability” – Unfortunately, Its history and record is bleak… Don’t hold your breath!

The post Impotence of the UN and Ethiopia’s Impunity appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY BEREKET KIDANE

When I heard the new Prime Minister of Ethiopia, (Lt Col) Dr. Abiy Ahmed, told kilil Tigray residents that “Tigray is the motor that runs Ethiopia”, I could not believe it. I thought it was a joke. But it wasn’t. He actually said it.

PM Abiy basically told the residents of Makelle that Tigray is the best thing since sliced bread. It’s obvious that the speech he delivered in Tigrigna was full of praise for Tigray, referring to Tigray as “The motor that runs Ethiopia” was written for him by his TPLF handlers.

Is Tigray the motor that runs Ethiopia though? That would mean that as goes Tigray so goes the rest of Ethiopia. Which begs the question: When has Tigray ever been the economic engine of Ethiopia?

When former Ethiopian Strongman Mengistu Haile Mariam was asked why the Dergue forces simply abandoned the then province of Tigray without bothering to put up a fight he responded by saying “Tigray is a one mill province. It has nothing of value.” That was thirty years ago. Fast forward to 2018, Tigrayans are still lining up on Saturdays to claim their ration of donated USAID wheat. So not much has changed. Tigray is still dirt poor.

So where does PM Abiy get the notion that Tigray is the engine that runs Ethiopia? Many Ethiopians, in fact, blame Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), the dominant party within EPRDF, for all sorts of ills that afflict the Ethiopian state today. TPLF, which hails from Tigray, is rightly blamed by Ethiopians for inciting inter-ethnic hatred and waves of ethnic violence among other things.

If TPLF is Tigray and Tigray is TPLF [courtesy of Gen. Samora Yonus] as some Tigrayan nationalists are fond of saying, then someone has to answer for all that kleptocracy, malfeasance and divide-and-conquer bantustanization that went on during the era of TPLF.

Having come into office with zero votes from the TPLF, the thematic speech that PM Abiy should have given in Tigray is the following: The era of TPLF is over. But he doesn’t have the cojones.

The post PM Abiy to Tigray: ‘You Are the Motor that Runs Ethiopia’ appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY SIMON WELDEMICHAEL

Eritreans conducted a long, difficult struggle against Ethiopian colonization. During the thirty years-long war of liberation, the people of Eritrea were forced to make a tremendous sacrifice. The losses, in terms of time and opportunity, as well as human and material costs, were significant.

In the course of the revolution, Eritrean people showed extraordinary heroism and sacrifice. Mao when explaining revolution, said that “A revolution is not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous. A revolution is an insurrection, an act of violence by which one class overthrows another.”

The massacres, displacement, emigration, and destruction experienced by Eritrea during its revolution reflect Mao’s explanation.

The merciless and inhuman Ethiopian aggression coupled with the utter silence of the international community inflicted enormous injuries which Eritreans continue to remember. The Eritrean revolution witnessed unparalleled sacrifice and perseverance on the Eritrean side and incomparable ferocity and murder by the colonial occupying forces.

The people of Eritrea received untold suffering under chauvinistic and despotic Haile Selassie (“it is Eritrea’s land that we want not its people”), brutal Mengistu Haile Mariam (“To kill the fish, dry the sea”), and tyrannical Weyane (“hunt Eritrean blood”).

The mass killing and displacement of Eritreans have had several objectives. These include destroying property and disrupting regular life, terrorizing and demoralizing the people, cutting the lifeblood of the revolution, and deterring the liberation forces from capturing towns for fear that they would be destroyed and taking revenge for defeats.

In his influential book, Turning the Tide: US Intervention in Central America and the Struggle for Peace, Noam Chomsky observes, in regard to killing the dream, it is “a wiser strategy [to] first…kill the dream by a campaign of terror, intimidation, sabotage, blocking of aid, and other means available” (1985: 146).

Ethiopia’s killing, torture, and deportation aimed to kill the confidence and morale of Eritreans. Instead, it simply added to the determination of the people. As they say, “where there is oppression, there is resistance.”

The Eritrean people stood up for their rights and dignity. In addition to the strong sense of Eritrean national identity, the oppression and humiliation of Ethiopian colonization added a layer of determination to the Eritrean cause.

In April 1984, Major Bezabih Petros, a well-known pilot trained in the USA and USSR, was shot down and captured by the EPLF. Afterward, as a prisoner of war, he stated:

“We definitely know civilians will get hurt. But, knowing that the people sympathize with the rebels, the order is to bomb everything that moves” (News from Africa Watch 1990: 9).

An Africa Watch Report also brought into notice that between February and April 1987, the Ethiopian army burned 62 villages, including Mogoraib, Zamla, Ad Ibrahim, Gerset, Gurgur, Adi Bera, Asir, Fori and Ad Habab, while villagers were ordered to collect at army posts for screening. The soldiers were assisted by artillery and aerial bombardment using incendiaries (1991: 43). Other credible reports of killings in April 1988 include April 5, Godeiti; April 15, Qazien; and April 20, Shebah. Many civilians were shot dead by soldiers and suffered aerial bombardment.

Ethiopia followed a scorched earth policy in Eritrea for over thirty years. The day-to-day brutality of the Ethiopian army caused many cases of abuse of human rights. Dawit Woldegiorgis, who served in Eritrea as a colonial army officer and Governor said that

“The army made a crucial error in this operation; it did not concentrate on attacking the guerrillas directly; instead it devastated the villages suspected of harboring them.”

He further recounted his personal memory “I remember soldiers slaughtering cattle, eating what they wanted, and then leaving the rest to rot. Sometimes soldiers would kill cattle just to get the livers” (1989: 82). Under Ethiopian brutality, Eritreans were denied the basic right to life and property.

The Ethiopian army also had a tradition of taking revenge for military defeat in battlefields. The victims were innocent civilians. Whenever the Derg lost a battle or suffered a devastating setback, they turned their guns on the unarmed civilians. Traders were singled out since they were believed to be responsible for supplying food to the rebels. Some were killed just because they had a beautiful wife, which the security and military officials wanted, while others were killed for their intelligence. For many, the simple fact they were Eritreans made them disappear.

For the Ethiopian army, there was no distinction between military and civilian targets. In Erlich’s “The Struggle Over Eritrea 1962-1978”, readers are provided the observation of one Israeli advisor in Ethiopian army who states

“The [Ethiopian army] is very efficient in killing innocent people. They are alienating the Eritreans and deepening the hatred that already exists. Their commander … ordered them: ‘from here to the north — clear the area.’ Many innocent people were massacred and nothing of substance was achieved” (1983: 58).

On 17 April 1975, the Ethiopian army raided Hirghigo and killed 235 innocent civilians. As well, 18 April 1984 inhabitants of Naro, 21 April 1988 massacre in Shebah, and the aerial bombing of Massawa on 4th April 1990 with napalm are other recorded massacres. When the Ethiopian air force began a series of sustained attacks on Massawa, the inhabitants were compelled to spend the day in storm drains, under bridges, in the cellars of houses, or to evacuate the town altogether. On April 13th, one of the encampments of evacuees, at Foro, was bombed and the civilians who were sheltering there were burned.

It’s difficult to estimate the exact number of victims of Ethiopia’s open aggression. In addition to the bombing and indiscriminate killing pursued by the Ethiopian army, many more were killed as a result of torture in prison. If we add the number of maimed, displaced, raped and those with other physical and psychological injuries to the long list of those killed, Eritreans would be by far the number one people receiving and standing against atrocities.

The perseverance of Eritreans assured the truism of the saying “a hammer shatters the glass but wields an iron”. Eritreans proved that they refuse to kneel down or disintegrate under any circumstances of foreign aggression. Dawit Woldegiorgis estimated that two hundred eighty thousand Eritreans were killed in Eritrea alone between 1975 and 1982 (Haile 2000: 174).

Finally, Eritrea got its independence after a long struggle and the immeasurable sacrifice of its people. In the course of the history of resistance of Eritrean people for independence and dignity, the leadership of the People’s Front holds a special place. In this case, the Eritrean People’s Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ), a political organization that led a successful revolution, that has widespread public support, and that is committed to the national interest and social justice has a central place in the future of Eritrea.

The independence of Eritrea is a bitter pill our enemies should have swallowed in 1991 when the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front defeated and ousted the Ethiopian army. The bitter pill struck on the throat of our enemies when they observed and recognized the fact that Eritrea was able to maintain and advance her independence under the leadership of PFDJ. The people and government of Eritrea, who are at one time unhindered by subjugation and massacre, can’t be arrested by declared and undeclared sanctions and sabotages. For the last 26 years, Eritrea has succeeded in safeguarding its national security, promoting social justice, and bringing about holistic development.

As in the past, when the mass killing and suffering failed to extinguish our hope for independence, now the various intrigues and open victimization cannot obstruct us from working for a better future. We will continue to consult our experience and draw lessons from it to make the future journey of our country safe.

The post Important Dates in Eritrea’s History: April appeared first on TesfaNews.

“The Egyptian government will continue to defend the rights of the Egyptian people to the water of the Nile by numerous means at its disposal” – FM Shoukry.

BY ASSOCIATED PRESS

Egypt’s foreign minister has delivered a warning to Ethiopia over a dam it is building on a Nile River tributary.

Sameh Shoukry says in TV comments aired Thursday that all parties “should know that Egypt will not accept the status quo … and continues to defend the interests of its people regarding the Nile by several means.”

He did not elaborate.

Earlier in April, the foreign ministers of Sudan, Egypt, and Ethiopia met in Khartoum but talks ended with no deal on the lingering dispute of access to the Nile’s waters. Egypt has called for another meeting in Cairo.

Egypt is alarmed the so-called Renaissance Dam that Ethiopia is completing will drastically impact its share of the Nile’s waters.

Ethiopia and Sudan are expected to benefit from the construction.

Time Running Out for Egypt, Ethiopia Over Nile Dam

BY THE BRICS POST

Days after winning his second term in office, Egyptian President Abdel-Fattah el-Sisi faces the most challenging crisis of his tenure –Egypt’s dispute with Ethiopia over the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) project.

Last week, marathon 18-hour talks in Khartoum failed to secure an agreement, with no date set for a resumption of negotiations.

The dispute over the Renaissance Dam has been ongoing for years. It started in March 2011, amidst the turmoil in Egypt following the ousting of ex-president Mubarak, when the project was made public. Tension rose between the two countries in May 2013, when Ethiopia unilaterally started to divert a stretch of the Blue Nile for the purpose of building the dam.

In the same month, Ethiopia belittled Muslim Brotherhood President Morsi by only sending its Mining Minister to receive him at the airport during a formal state visit. During President Sisi’s first term, Egypt tried to mend relations with Ethiopia.

In March 2015,Egypt managed to secure a tripartite Declaration of Principles on Ethiopia’s Renaissance Dam, which was signed by Egypt, Sudan, and Ethiopia.

In February 2018, however, the Ethiopian government formally handed over to Egypt and Sudan a unilateral plan for filling the dam reservoir.

Reports suggest that Ethiopia has named two phases of the filling process: The first is a filling phase to start generating power; the second is to fill the dam reservoir to its full capacity.

The reservoir of the GERD will have the capacity to store up to 74 billion cubic meters of water, which is 40% more than Egypt’s entire annual Nile water supply. Experts dispute whether the declaration of principles provides a legally binding framework for Ethiopia on the timing of the filling, compounding Egypt’s fears from Ethiopia’s unilateral actions.

Nonetheless, Egypt is in no mood to escalate disagreement. Before the Khartoum meeting, Egyptian President El-Sisi congratulated the new Ethiopian Prime Minister, Abiy Ahmed, and asserted his desire to maintain good relations with Ethiopia.

This charm offensive, however, was not enough to soften the Ethiopian stance. The new Ethiopian PM is clearly not keen to portray a softer image, while his country is facing the prospect of inter-ethnic civil war, and sees the dam as a tool for national unity.

In his first government meeting after being elected, President Sisi discussed new water policies, including 19 new desalination projects.

For years, Egypt was rightly criticized for abusing its Nile water. Such recklessness has changed recently.

A more constructive water policy has started to evolve, with planned desalination projects and local media adverts encouraging people to cut water consumption in view of the current shortage.

Are Egypt’s rational diplomatic efforts and its new water preservation policies enough to save the country from a looming water crisis? Unfortunately, the answer is no. Ethiopia simply has no incentive to compromise. Therefore, the Egyptian leadership needs to consider changing its approach:

First, enough with polite secrecy:

Egypt has understandably remained tight-lipped on all the details of disagreement for fear of ruining its chances of securing a fair deal. Now that negotiations have failed, it is time for the Egyptian authorities to rally public support, inside and outside of Egypt, against Ethiopia’s passive aggression.

Second, engaging the international community:

A water dispute between two African countries may seem trivial in comparison to other global conflicts, and some countries will even be happy watching Egypt suffer from drought in the hope that it can speed up a collapse of the regime.

In light of this, it is the duty of the Egyptian leadership to garner support, isolate regional enemies, and ring the alarm bells in Western capitals of the implications of the deadlock with Ethiopia. International mediation and pressure are needed to convince the Ethiopian leadership to forge a fair deal with Egypt.

Third, the dreaded military option:

Ethiopia is galloping to finish the first filling phase of the dam because it knows that any Egyptian military strike will be almost impossible following that phase.

Hence, Egypt is snookered; it has only a few months to consider a military intervention of some sort. There are practical challenges that prevent the country from launching air strikes against the Ethiopian Dam, but it is still possible, particularly with regional support from Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Ethiopia’s rival, Eritrea.

The Egyptian president has rightly asserted that Egypt does not want war with its African neighbors. But reducing Egypt’s share of Nile water is simply an act of aggression that cannot be ignored.

The desire to secure Egypt’s water supply is not new. Khedive Ismail tried to invade Ethiopia twice – in 1875 and 1876 – but the Egyptian troops were badly defeated. Underestimating the terrain and lack of appreciation among soldiers of the purpose behind the war were the main reasons behind the defeat.

It has become increasingly clear that Ethiopia is playing for time, creating facts on the ground that will be hard to reverse. Egypt is neither a warmonger nor a smug neighbour that once tried to invade others.

For more than four years Egypt negotiated in good faith but still failed to secure a deal. How long can Egypt afford to wait? Perhaps the military pressure is needed to ensure political success.

Waiting for Egypt to struggle with drought is simply not an option!

A version of this article was previously published in Arabic and English on the Al Hurra website

The post Egypt FM Warn Ethiopia Over Nile River Dam appeared first on TesfaNews.