BY FIKREJESUS AMHAZION (PhD)

This week represents the 25th anniversary of the Eritrean referendum for independence. The three-day, internationally sponsored and observed plebiscite took place April 23-25, 1993, offering Eritreans residing in Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, and in over 40 other countries including Canada, the US, across Europe, and parts of the Middle East, the opportunity to finally – and resoundingly – determine their future and exercise the rights that they had been denied for decades.

As expressed by the then US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Herman Cohen, and increasingly realized globally, “If [Eritreans] want to exercise the right of self-determination, there’s nobody who’s going to stop them.”

Officially, there were over 1.1 million registered eligible voters in the referendum, with the country’s multilingual, multicultural, and multi-religious character being represented. A highly impressive 98.5 percent turn out was recorded, including many in rural and remote desert areas.

Remarkably, 99.81 percent of Eritreans voted for independence from Ethiopia, an emphatic result that many international observers explained they would not have believed had they not witnessed the entire process firsthand.

The figures are even more striking when considered alongside those from the greater than 50 other independence referendums held around the world over the years: the average turnout and “YES” vote for independence is approximately 80 percent and 83 percent, respectively.

One memorable account of Eritrea’s electoral process by an international observer vividly describes how,

“during the polling, there was euphoria, more religious it appeared, than political. The polling stations we attended were decorated with lights, streamers, woven rugs, and flowers. One American observer claimed that the palms people waved were spread in his path as they entered the polling area. Popcorn was thrown and people clapped while the women went into a rhythmic dance. The high shrill ululating cheer of the women met us the moment we were sighted approaching for the inspection tour.” The observer goes on to describe how, “after voting overwhelmingly for independence, people danced in the streets of Asmara and other towns with flags flying and flowers waving. They were all smiles and welcomed us observers with applause and the traditional ululating shrill greeting of the women in this part of Africa” (Shepherd 1993: 84).

On April 27, 1993, several days after the votes had been cast and tallied, and as the provisional results were being shared, Isaias Afwerki, the then Secretary-General of the Eritrean People’s Liberation Front (EPLF) and the Provisional Government of Eritrea (PGE), announced, “Eritrea is a sovereign country as of today.”

Weeks later, independence would be formally declared on May 24, 1993, two years to the day after the EPLF had entered and taken control of Asmara, the Eritrean capital, which had been abandoned by retreating Ethiopian troops.

Subsequently, four days after formally announcing independence, Eritrea was admitted to the United Nations (UN) as its 182nd member by General Assembly Resolution 47/230 of May 28, 1993. As well, the country established permanent representation at the Organization of African Unity (OAU, now the African Union), joined the Intergovernmental Authority on Drought and Development (IGADD, renamed the Intergovernmental Authority on Development [IGAD] in 1996), and assumed observer status at the Arab League.

Notably, upon gaining independence, Eritrea not only became the first state in Africa to achieve independence from an African state, it also had won the longest armed conflict in Africa’s history.

Though the outcome of the referendum was hardly ever in doubt, the victorious EPLF refrained from declaring outright independence in May 1991. This was because it was keen to demonstrate the Eritrean people’s strong preference for independence, and it was aware that sovereignty, legitimacy, and membership in the international community were “predicated on a democratic and legal conclusion to the conflict.”

Thus, quickly after the EPLF triumphantly rolled into Asmara in 1991, winning de facto independence and welcomed by ecstatic crowds, preparations began to allow the Eritrean people to determine their political future through an internationally supervised referendum.

On May 29, 1991, Isaias Afwerki called upon the UN to “shoulder its moral responsibilities [to help conduct a free and fair referendum on Eritrean self-determination] without further delay.” In April 1992, the PGE set up a Referendum Commission, and it also passed the Eritrean Nationality Proclamation (No. 21/1993), which set the criteria of citizenship as a prerequisite for participation in the referendum. A computerized registration of voters was also organized.

Later that year, the UN General Assembly authorized the Secretary-General to establish the UN Observer Mission to Verify the Referendum in Eritrea (UNGA Res 47/114 [16 December 1992]). The mission was deployed to Eritrea in January 1993, opening offices in Asmara, Adi Keih, Mendefera, and Keren. Inter alia, the UN would help with the technical task of assessing the conduct of voter registration, campaigning and polling, explaining the referendum process to the population, the launch of a civic education programme to promote the right to popular participation, and the organization of international observers.

While the referendum was characterized by excitement, celebration, and jubilation, the road to that point, confirming Eritrea’s ultimate freedom and independence, had been long, tumultuous, often dark and bloody, and extremely difficult.

Beginning in the sixteenth century, the country was occupied, in turn, by Ottoman Turks, Egyptians, and Italians (from 1886 until 1941). For Italy, particularly under Benito Mussolini’s rule, Eritrea became the base for implementing Italy’s expansionist ambitions in the Horn of Africa and the colony became the industrial centre of the Italian empire. After Italian colonization, the British, who defeated Italian forces in Eritrea at the Battle of Keren during the Second World War, administered Eritrea from April 1941 to September 1952. During this period, first the “Four Powers” (comprising the US, UK, France, and the USSR) and then the UN sought to “determine the final disposal of Italy’s territorial possessions in Africa” and a potential “solution [to] the problem of Eritrea.”

One proposal that nearly came to pass was the “Bevin-Sforza Plan” proposed by the UK and Italy in 1949. The plan, negotiated between the UK’s foreign secretary, Ernest Bevin, and his Italian counterpart, Count Sforza, proposed the partitioning of Libya and Eritrea, with Eritrea to be divided between Ethiopia and Sudan. Ethiopia would have gained the highlands and eastern lowlands, and Sudan the western lowlands.

Throughout the period, Ethiopia, under Emperor Haile Selassie, who had returned from exile, strongly emphasized its claims to Eritrea and actively lobbied the international community to support its stance. In 1949, still unable to find a solution, the UN decided to send a commission of inquiry into Eritrea to explore the situation. Prophetically, one of the delegation’s members, Sir Zafrulla, the Pakistani representative, in a subsequent report on the mission, warned:

“An independent Eritrea would obviously be better able to contribute to the maintenance of peace (and security) than an Eritrea federated with Ethiopia against the true wishes of the people. To deny the people of Eritrea their elementary right to independence would be to sow the seeds of discord and create a threat in that sensitive area of the Middle East” (GAOR 1950: 346; Haile 1988: 21).

Of note, US officials in Eritrea also acknowledged that the large majority of Eritreans preferred independence and that there was “no real sentiment” among the population for federation with Ethiopia. However, the US, prioritizing foreign policy and geostrategic interests at the expense of justice and the desires of the Eritrean people, supported the claims of its ally Ethiopia.

Soon after, on 2 December 1950, the UN General Assembly adopted Resolution 390 A(V), of which the US was the chief architect, declaring that, “Eritrea shall constitute an autonomous unit federated with Ethiopia under the sovereignty of the Ethiopian Crown.”

The resolution created a loose federation where Eritrea would be placed under the Emperor’s control but retain its own administrative and judicial structures, its own flag, two official languages (Tigrinya and Arabic), and control over its domestic affairs, including police, local administration, and taxation.

From the start of the federation, however, Haile Selassie undermined Eritrea’s autonomy. He decreed a preventive detention law that allowed Ethiopian forces to suppress Eritrean political movements and arrest newspaper editors, while also forcing elected community leaders to resign. The Emperor also replaced the Eritrean flag with that of Ethiopia’s and replaced Eritrea’s code of laws with Ethiopia’s code.

Furthermore, Haile Selassie imposed the use of Amharic (Ethiopia’s main language) in public services and schools, which beyond violating the UN Resolution, created a formidable obstacle to the learning abilities of Eritrean children and youth, particularly in secondary and university entrance examinations, and effectively barring the way of thousands of Eritreans to higher education. Additionally, the Emperor seized Eritrea’s share of customs duties, banned trade unions, and moved most of Eritrea’s industries and businesses to Ethiopia.

Then, on November 14, 1962, Ethiopian troops forced the Eritrean Parliament to dissolve, and Eritrea was officially annexed as Ethiopia’s fourteenth province.

Throughout this period, Eritreans peacefully protested and resisted Ethiopia’s attempts to jeopardize the Federation. Mass demonstrations and strikes by students, teachers, and workers were common. The response by the authorities was often brutal, involving mass and arbitrary arrests, extended detentions, assaults, and the killing of Eritreans.

Eventually, seeing little other viable alternatives, Eritreans transitioned from street demonstrations, non-violence, and peaceful protest, to active, armed resistance. On September 1, 1961, Hamid Idris Awate and a small group of companions fired the first shots of what would become the 30-year armed struggle for independence.

Eritrea’s war for independence from Ethiopia, which was ruled first by Emperor Haile Selassie and then the Marxist Government of Colonel Mengistu Haile Mariam, killed tens of thousands of combatants and civilians and created hundreds thousand refugees. It also severely damaged the economy, contributed significantly to regional instability, and was exacerbated by harsh environmental conditions.

Despite lacking any considerable international economic, political, or military support, Eritrea – initially through the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF), before its fragmentation, and then through the self-reliant, more successful EPLF, which became one of the world’s most organized, cohesive guerrilla organizations – posed a formidable opponent to Ethiopia, one of Africa’s largest and best-equipped militaries. At various times throughout the duration of the conflict, Ethiopia was greatly supported by the Cold War superpowers, the US and USSR (sometimes simultaneously), as well as many other countries, including, among others, Israel, East Germany, Cuba, and Yemen.

By early 1991, the EPLF intensified its attacks along the eastern coast to seize Assab and cut off Ethiopian access to the sea. On May 21, they captured the city of Dekemhare, and Colonel Mengistu fled from Addis Ababa to Zimbabwe. Days later, the EPLF entered Asmara welcomed by jubilant crowds, signifying the end of the armed struggle for independence, and the plans for the historic referendum were begun.

Two years later, the Eritrean dream, which many had ignored, claimed was unattainable and impossible to achieve, or sought to extinguish, became reality. Eritreans finally were able to exercise their inviolable and inalienable right to self-determination in a free and fair referendum on the issue for which they had long campaigned and fought for: Freedom and Independence.

1993 Eritrea Independence Referendum Results

The post A Look Back on Eritrea’s Historic 1993 Referendum appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY ADDIS STANDARD

The UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein began his second official visit to Ethiopia as of Sunday, April 22, “at the invitation of the Government”, his office said in a statement. “During his visit, he will also take part in a high-level dialogue between the African Union and the UN Human Rights Office.”

High Commissioner Zeid last visited Ethiopia in May 2017, when he met the then Prime Minister, [Hailemariam Desalegn], and other high-ranking Ethiopian officials and civil society members to discuss the human rights situation in the country and the work of the UN Human Rights East Africa Regional Office.

“The Government of Ethiopia earlier this year invited Zeid to conduct a follow-up visit to the country,” according to Zeid’s office.

“During his four-day visit, Zeid is due to meet with the new Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed as well as other high-level officials, the Speaker of the House of People’s Representatives and the Chairperson of the Ethiopian Human Rights Commission, representatives of civil society and Government critics who have recently been released from prison.”

Ethiopia is currently a member of both the United Nations Security Council and the United Nations Human Rights Council. However, since 2007, the government consistently denied access to all UN special rapporteurs as well as the African Commission and European parliament for investigations into pervasive human rights abuse committed by the state.

In August 2016 Zeid himself urged Ethiopian authorities to allow international observers to conduct independent investigations into then ongoing killings of protesters by security forces. It is not clear if the government’s invitation of High Commissioner Zeid signals a change in approach.

In addition to meeting with Ethiopian officials, on Tuesday, April 24, “Zeid will deliver opening remarks and participate in the African Union-United Nations High-Level Dialogue on Human Rights,” the statement from his office further said.

AU Chairperson Moussa Faki Mahamat and Zeid will also conduct a joint press briefing at the end of the dialogue. On the same day, he is expected to “deliver a lecture at Addis Abeba University.”

The post UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Visiting Ethiopia appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY ENGIDU WOLDIE | ESAT NEWS

Members of the opposition and journalists who were recently released from prison had held talks with UN human rights chief and gave firsthand account of the human rights violations in the country.

Ethiopian authorities allow UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein, to take a closer look at the human rights situations in the country after blocking access to him and his staff for two years.

Opposition political leaders and journalists have reportedly told the rights chief that what Ethiopia needs was not a minor reform but a major overhaul of the political landscape and get rid of undemocratic practices by the regime.

Al Hussein also signed a memorandum of understanding with the regime to open a UN Human Rights Office for East Africa in the country that will closely monitor human rights situations.

In a statement issued today at the end of his visit, the rights chief said some of the restrictive laws of the country need to be reformed.

“The Charities and Societies Proclamation, the Anti-Terrorism legislation and the Mass Media Laws, are in desperate need of reform.”

“The goal is to ensure that the human rights of all in Ethiopia are fully respected.”

Al Hussein said he wants to see an Ethiopia “where people express their views on public policies, unafraid.”

The rights chief and his rapporteurs have been trying to get access to investigate the killing of hundreds of people in the 2015/2016 anti-government protest and the arrest and detentions of tens of thousands of people.

“We all want to see an Ethiopia with continued economic development where all people benefit, and where people express their views on public policies, unafraid,” said the Commissioner at the end of his official visit to Ethiopia.

The UN rights chief who recognized the inspiring words of PM Abiy Ahmed also expressed anxiety over the future of Ethiopia.

“There was tremendous hope, but also anxiety,” he said, citing the words of a former political detainee, who was quoted as saying. “We have repeatedly been victims of broken promises,” according to UN News.

UN High Commissioner for Human Rights at the End of His Official Visit to Ethiopia

BY OHCHR

I am grateful to the Government of Ethiopia for inviting me not once, but twice to this remarkable country during my term as High Commissioner. Inviting a UN High Commissioner for Human Rights once already shows that a Government is willing to openly discuss the human rights challenges in the country. Inviting me twice demonstrates real sincerity and is very encouraging indeed.

During my last visit in May 2017, I had listened attentively to many voices – Government, opposition, civil society and detainees at the Kilinto remand center. I found much to praise but also gave a frank assessment of the human rights issues and challenges in Ethiopia and called for my Office to be given access to Oromia and Amhara, the two regions most affected by the protests, many of which were suppressed violently.

I am encouraged that the Government viewed my initial visit in the constructive, friendly spirit it was intended to convey. This is certainly not always the case with all States. So when I received an invitation to conduct a follow-up mission, which included visiting the Oromia region, I accepted.

In all my meetings – in the Oromia region and in Addis Ababa – I heard clear expressions of optimism and hope that the new Government, led by Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed would deliver on the heartening and inspiring speeches he has made during his first three weeks in office. We heard of the Prime Minister’s recognition of “the need to address existing inequities that led to recent unrest”, that “democracy cannot be realised in the absence of rights – be it civil or economic rights” and that the “right of people to express opinions, rights of people to organise themselves and engage in effective dialogue and participate in the governance system is inherent in our humanity…not for any government to bestow…as it sees fit.”

I welcome the release of a large number of people, including bloggers, political opponents and others who had been detained in relation to their participation in protests and their criticism of the Government. I was fortunate enough to listen to a number of them in private during this visit.

There was tremendous hope, but also anxiety. One former political detainee said: “we have repeatedly been victims of broken promises.” Ethiopians, young and old, women and men, expressed their eagerness to work constructively with the Government to ensure that Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed’s vision is realized, to ensure that the momentum is sustained.

In the Oromia region last Monday, I met with the regional authorities and the traditional leaders, theAba Gadas. While Government representatives accompanied me and my team during all the meetings, I was struck by the frank and robust expression of grievances by the Aba Gadas.

The Aba Gadas too spoke of their hopes of working with the new Government to resolve longstanding human rights issues in the region. They spoke about how they will continue to push for the truth to be told about what has happened over the past few years, including during protests where people were killed. They demanded investigations and accountability for excessive use of force by the authorities. They expressed their desire for justice and human rights for all Ethiopians and for their voices to be heard without fear of reprisal.

I thank the Government for facilitating this initial interaction with the Aba Gadas and regional authorities in the Oromo region. I look forward to further access to the UN Human Rights Office in the Oromo and Amhara regions so that my colleagues are able to conduct more in-depth conversations with a variety of people. This will enable us to better assess the human rights situation, assist the Government in widening the democratic space and in efforts to ensure accountability for human rights violations. The expectations of meaningful accountability for alleged serious human rights violations must not be allowed to fester.

I was also impressed with the articulate expression of human rights demands by students at Addis Ababa University and others. Civil society representatives, bloggers, religious leaders, political opponents raised numerous important human rights issues with me. They called for further releases of people detained merely for exercising their rights to freedom of assembly, expression, and opinion. While the closure of the Maekelawi detention centre is welcome, there is an expectation that this should foreshadow the closure of other such detention facilities across the country. They also called for the State of Emergency to be lifted, reform of law enforcement authorities, the prison system, and judicial reform, pushing for the strengthening of the independence of institutions. They called for an inclusive political dialogue and for all Ethiopians to be able to speak, tweet, blog, and protest without the fear of arrest.

We conveyed many of these sentiments to the Prime Minister and a rich discussion ensued. I also met with the Speaker of the House, the head of the Ethiopian National Human Rights Commission, the Deputy Attorney-General and the Minister of Foreign Affairs. While my Office has been working with the Ethiopian National Human Rights Commission, we believe that greater efforts should be invested into making it fully independent.

Yesterday, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and I signed a Memorandum of Understanding between the Regional UN Human Rights Office for East Africa and the Ethiopian Government, which will strengthen our Office’s ability to do human rights work in the country and the region. I welcome the Government’s recognition of the important role the Office can play in helping advance the promotion and protection of human rights. We have already offered our assistance in revising the Charities and Societies Proclamation, the Anti-Terrorism legislation and the Mass Media Laws, which are in desperate need of reform.

Moments of transition are rarely ever smooth. Ethiopia has struggled with a heavy history, but it has the wisdom of a tolerant, vibrant, youthful population to harness. For our part, we will continue to encourage, advise and sometimes lean on the authorities to keep the positive momentum going and to keep translating the inspiring words in the Prime Minister’s inaugural address into action. For our goals should be the same: to ensure that the human rights of all in Ethiopia are fully respected.

We all want to see an Ethiopia with continued economic development where all people benefit, and where people express their views on public policies, unafraid. In this 70th anniversary year of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, when too many leaders risk reversing hard-won human rights gains, we look to Ethiopia to continue to give cause for optimism and hope.

The post UN Human Rights Chief Met Ethiopia Opposition Leaders, Journalists appeared first on TesfaNews.

Press Release

BY DANA ROHRABACHER (R),

Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Europe, Eurasia, and Emerging Threats, this week urged Secretary of State Michael Pompeo to improve relations with Eritrea and resume military cooperation with the troubled African nation.

In a letter to the newly confirmed top diplomat, the California Republican wrote, “Eritrea defeated the Stalinist dictatorship ruling Ethiopia to gain independence in 1991” and “is a key member of the coalition led by Saudi Arabia and the UAE fighting against Iranian backed Houthis in Yemen. Eritrea has excellent relations with Israel, UAE, and Egypt. Cooperation with Eritrea to address the growing Chinese influence in the region, including their new military base in Djibouti and the ongoing fight against radical Islam makes sense.”

In 2009, prodded by the Obama administration, the United Nations imposed sanctions on the country.

“The Obama sanctions,” wrote Rohrabacher, “are a burden and a stigma on Eritrea. They impede economic development and undermine our bilateral relationship. Whatever legitimate problems exist – whether involving human rights, diplomatic differences, or other issues – can be better addressed and solved in the context of normal relations and cooperation.”

Below is the full text of the letter.

Download (PDF, 33KB)

Dana Tyrone Rohrabacher is a member of the U.S House of Representatives representing California’s 48th congressional district.

The post Congressman Dana Rohrabacher (R) Urges Secretary Pompeo to Improve Ties with Eritrea appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY DAWIT ENDESHAW | THE REPORTER

The Office of the Prime Minister issued a new circular imposing more restrictions on foreign travels by officials. In a circular signed by the outgoing minister of cabinet affairs, Alemayehu Tegenu, all government agencies are to restrict all unnecessary travels. The Office has attributed the latest instruction to the current foreign currency shortage.

The letter was circulated to all federal public agencies on April 18, 2018.

Furthermore, all travel requests by public agencies from experts to ministers have to be first submitted to the Office of the PM for approval. The office in return will evaluate the importance of the travel request and has the power to approve or reject the request.

The importance of the travels will also be evaluated in accordance with the current foreign currency shortage.

It is to be recalled that, a few weeks ago Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, during his meeting with the business community indicated that the country is facing a serious shortage of foreign currency. He also said that his government might be forced to ask some of the business community to bring back some of their foreign currency which the PM said is deposited in foreign banks.

This is not the first time that the government issued such instructions.

In September 2017 Ministry of Finance & Economic Cooperation, issued a directive which puts a strict embargo on unnecessary foreign travel by staff members of government agencies. The directive also gave the office of the Prime Minister the mandate to approve such travels as it sees fit.

>> ALSO READ : Shortage of Hard Currency Crippling Ethiopia’s Economy: Governor

However, this directive was not effective enough to stop officials from wasting taxpayers’ money.

According to a director of an agency whose name withheld upon request states that “he has seen on a number of occasions when the directive was violated.” Hence, this attempt by PM office might be in response to this problem, he added.

It is to be recalled that the same directive had also introduced provisions to minimize other unnecessary costs.

In this regard, the directive listed around 19 different purchase activities under recurrent expenditure that should be taken into consideration by the federal offices while using their budget.

It prohibits the procurement of promotional materials such as printed paper, notebooks, pens, calendar, agendas, and yearbooks and so on. Yet again, common stationery items are among the things whose consumption has to be reduced significantly.

Moreover, government offices are also allowed to serve only water and coffee while hosting workshops, seminars and different meetings during the budget year. It is also forbidden to purchase T-shirts, bags and cultural dresses which has become a common practice across government institutions.

It is to be recalled that this particular directive came just after the government started its crackdown on corruption that resulted in the arrest of a number officials and business people in the country. In most cases, the accused are either implicated with construction projects or public procurements contracts.

The post Ethiopia Restricts Foreign Travel by Officials appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY SUDAN TRIBUNE

The former Ethiopian Prime Minister Hailermarian Desalegn said President Salva Kiir should resign and cede his place for the young generation to achieve peace and to end the suffering of South Sudanese people.

Desalegn unexpectedly resigned on 15 February 2018, saying he hoped to end years of unrest and political turmoil in his country, after ruling the country for six years.

The former premier who also was the chair of the East African bloc IGAD that mediating the peace process, made his remarks at The Ibrahim Governance Weekend organized by MO Ibrahim Foundation held in Kigali Rwanda on Saturday.

Speaking about the need for peace in South Sudan, he regretted the non-implementation of the IGAD-brokered peace agreement by the South Sudanese leaders.

“Immediately after my resignation, I asked them “Please, would you resign because you failed to resolve the problem in South Sudan?” He said, according to a video of his remarks obtained by Sudan Tribune.

Then he was asked if he had said that to President Salva Kiir, he answered: “Yes, I talked to all”.

“Leaders have to come to their senses, to their mind and they should somehow leave so they give power to new young leadership that can continue to the next step,” he added.

The former Ethiopian leader, however, said everybody has to help to end the war in South Sudan including the African Union and the United Nations

“The UN should take aggressive action,” he emphasized.

The statements reflect the mindset of IGAD leaders about the South Sudanese conflict.

Ethiopia is very impacted by the ongoing conflict in South Sudan as the region Gambella, which border the troubled country is inhabited by a Nuer clan and fears that rebels who are from the same ethnic group bring their instability.

Speaking about Ethiopia, the former prime minister said he resigned because his country has a problem of addressing multi-ethnic society, and there is a need for deep reform. “So I said, I have to set aside myself in order to achieve these deep reforms”.

“The main problem in African politics is people stick to power. And I wanted to show that it is possible that you can leave while having power as a citizen of the country,” he stressed.

The post Salva Kiir Should “Resign” Like Me, Says Former Ethiopian PM appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY ALEMAYEHU MARIAM | THE HILL

An old Ethiopian aphorism propounds, “If spiders could gather up their silk in a single twine, they could tie up a lion.” In other words, many weak and powerless people could band together and defeat a mighty adversary.

Marian Wright Edelman, founder, and president of the Children’s Defense Fund said: “You just need to be a flea against injustice. Enough committed fleas biting strategically can make even the biggest dog uncomfortable and transform even the biggest nation.”

The spiders and fleas today are committed Ethiopian immigrants in the U.S. who teamed up with their House representatives to pass a human rights resolution for Ethiopia on April 10.

The bite of the grassroots activists made the regime in Ethiopia so uncomfortable they secured the services of a lobbying firm to fight the resolution at the rate of $150,000 dollars a month.

The firm’s recent report shows its lobbyists held “meetings with members of Congress, their staffs, and executive branch officials to broaden government outreach” on behalf of the Ethiopian regime.

H.Res. 128, introduced in February 2017, aims to “support respect for human rights and encourage inclusive governance in Ethiopia.” A floor vote on the resolution scheduled for October 2, 2017 was deferred because the Ethiopian regime “threatened retaliation against the United States should it be passed.”

H.Res. 128 was a David vs. Goliath match-up between an informally organized small grassroots army of committed Ethiopian immigrant human rights advocates, activists and their champions in Congress and big money lobbying.

In February 2018, Reps. Christopher Smith (R-N.J.) and Mike Coffman (R-Colo.) issued a showdown ultimatum to put the bill to a floor vote unless the Ethiopian regime allowed “independent UN teams access” to investigate human rights abuses. Coffman reported he had a “lot of meetings with Ethiopian government” officials and they were “most opposed about having UN rapporteurs investigate” abuses.

Since 2007, the Ethiopian regime has denied entry to all UN special rapporteurs.

On April 22, 2018, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein visited Ethiopia at the invitation of the regime. On April 26, a joint memorandum was signed to “strengthen the Regional UN Human Rights Office for East Africa to do human rights work in (Ethiopia) and the region.”

H.Res.128 is only the latest attempt in Congress to improve human rights in Ethiopia. The longtime global human rights stalwart Rep. Christopher Smith (R-N.J.) introduced HR 5680 following the May 2005 Ethiopian parliamentary election in which hundreds of unarmed protesters were killed or wounded by security forces.

In April 2007, HR 2003, essentially a duplicate of HR 5680, was introduced by the late Representative Donald Payne (R-N.J.) and passed in October 2007, only to die in the Senate supposedly due to a hold by Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.). Inhofe recently urged the House to “reject the strongly worded resolution”.

Coffman not only led the battle on the hill to get H.Res.128 to a floor vote but also negotiated with the Ethiopian regime and arranged negotiations with the House majority leader’s office to persuade the Ethiopian government to allow “an independent examination of the state of human rights in Ethiopia.”

Coffman, whose district has a sizeable Ethiopian immigrant population, became their warrior on the hill. He identified with their cause and passionately and resolutely articulated their concerns and demands. He said failing to pass the resolution would send a wrong message to the “Ethiopian government that those Ethiopians in the United States have no power … they have no influence on the American government” and embolden the regime to “just continue what (they are) doing.”

In his floor speech, Coffman argued:

“The (Ethiopian) government has so often used the weapons that we have provided them not to fight terrorism but to terrorize their own people.”

The Ethiopians managed a smart grassroots campaign. They effectively educated their members of Congress and staffers about human rights abuses in Ethiopia as it affected them personally. They invested time with their representative and made him part of their community. Coffman worked with the Ethiopians for over three years and gradually became a crusader for Ethiopian human rights. Smith called him “an outstanding leader on Ethiopian human rights”.

As Coffman got to know his immigrant constituents better, he called them “part of the fabric of our community in my congressional district.” He spent “weekends going to the Orthodox Church, the evangelical church and the Mosque” of Ethiopians in his district.

Coffman kept faith with his immigrant constituents as they did with him. He refused to submit to subtle pressures of colleagues.

The Ethiopian grassroots activists understood a clenched fist is far more powerful than five fingers on an open palm and dissolved their ethnic differences and advocated in solidarity to improve human rights for all Ethiopians. They also partnered with international human rights organizations and other Ethiopian activists throughout the U.S. They worked fast and furiously to line up the 116 cosponsors to ensure passage of H.Res.128.

Other African immigrant groups interested in congressional advocacy to improve human rights in their home countries may draw a few lessons from the grassroots efforts of the Ethiopian immigrant human rights advocates and activists: Reach out to their members of Congress; they don’t bite. Educate their representatives and their staff with personalized accounts of human rights abuses. Keep their eyes fixed on the human rights prize. That means to speak in one voice, present a unified front and avoid enervating ethnic politics in congressional advocacy. Partner with international human rights organizations because they are powerful force multipliers. Use social media to mobilize broader support among Americans.

When the chips are down, grassroots underdogs holding the right cards can sometimes outplay the top dogs on Capitol Hill.

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 How Ethiopian Americans Changed US Policy on Ethiopia appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY MEMO

Sudan and Ethiopia have agreed to set up joint forces which will protect Addis Ababa’s Grand Renaissance Dam.

The Chiefs of Staff of both countries, Kamal Abdul-Marouf Al-Mahi and Samora Yunus, met last week to discuss the defense protocol signed between the two countries and a number of issues of common concern.

The Ethiopian-Sudanese Joint Military Commission concluded its work in the Ethiopian capital last Friday.

The two sides stressed “the need to abide by the results achieved and the readiness for full solidarity in securing the border, the exchange of information and control of rampant groups, combating smuggling, human trafficking, arms trade, drugs and transient crimes.”

>> ALSO READ : Sudan Denies Qatar Funding Instability Along Eritrea- Sudan Border 

They agreed to “activate forces … to maintain security and stability, as well as cooperation in the fields of joint training and exchange of experiences.”

The Grand Renaissance Dam has been built about 20 kilometers away from Sudan’s border. Its construction has led to a bitter diplomatic spat between the countries and their north African neighbour Egypt.

Cairo fears a possible negative impact of the Renaissance Dam on its annual share of Nile water, Egypt’s main water source; while Addis Ababa says that the dam will be highly profitable, especially when exploited in the production of electricity, and will not affect the downstream countries, Sudan and Egypt.

The post Sudan, Ethiopia Agree to Joint Military Force to ‘Protect Dam’ appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY DANIEL OGBAHARYA | PAMBAZUKA

In what seems like a watershed moment, Ethiopia has a new head of state: Abiy Ahmed, who was sworn in amid much fanfare on 2 April 2018. Perhaps owing to his youth, oratory, and meteoric rise, Ahmed has been dubbed Ethiopia’s “Obama”.

Though the analogy may be truncated (as a prime minister, Ahmed was not elected in a presidential election; merely selected by party insiders) the promising new leader has stirred high expectations among Ethiopians for swift change. There is a narrow window in which the good doctor must act before the hopes of Ethiopians turn into a winter of discontent.

The task before Ahmed is indeed gargantuan: to salvage Ethiopia from an intricate web of social and economic catastrophe, if not an impending state collapse. There is little room for error.

A Historic Leader?

The inauguration of the 42-year-old “reformist”, from the largest but increasingly restive region of Oromia, marks the second peaceful handover of power since 1991 when the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) came to power having ousted the Derg, a military junta that ruled Ethiopia between 1974 – 1991.

For some observers, Ahmed, a self-identifying ethnic Oromo and the newly minted chairman of the Oromo People’s Democratic Organisation signify a new chapter in Ethiopian history. For the first time, power at the centre has shifted to the periphery. The Oromos, once treated as second-class citizens and domestically colonized subjects in feudal Ethiopia, have finally arrived.

Perhaps more important than the symbolism of an Oromo prime minister is the fact that Ahmed has risen to power on the tails of a vibrant youth movement in Oromia known as the Qeerroo. Ahmed is the culmination of “a grassroots protest movement [that] has managed to force one of the most powerful regimes in Africa to surrender to its demands,” and which threatens to “upend US policy in the Horn of Africa” (Bruton, 2018).

With this social movement behind him, Ahmed stands in contrast to his predecessor, who was a handpicked protégé of Ethiopia’s first post-socialist strongman, the late Meles Zenawi. Ahmed’s predecessor, Hailemariam Desalegn, who resigned on 15 February 2018, was so ineffective he was dubbed the “placeholder” prime minister (Ademo & Hussein, 2018).

The Qeerroo is an Arab-spring-like uprising that commenced in earnest more than two years ago, chiefly as a result of the expansion of the environs of Ethiopia’s capital, Addis Ababa. The implementation of a new master plan for the capital encroached on the fertile agricultural and ancestral land of the Oromos. The movement is largely peaceable, relying mostly on apparently externally coordinated tactics bordering on civil disobedience. Its impact in the most populous region of Ethiopia has been an economic standstill and increased social disarray that forced the federal government to not only declare two states of emergencies in under two years but also brought about the resignation of Hailemariam Desalegn.

The Qeerroo uprising is a microcosm of long-festering structural contradictions in state-society relations in Ethiopia. On the one hand, the Qero is a call for more proportional representation in a federal system of government that in theory works according to ethnic composition.

The Oromos, approximately a third of the Ethiopian population, are rightly demanding that they should govern Ethiopia, not the minority Tigrayans. The latter constitute only about six percent of the population but have a virtual monopoly over the military, the national economy, and the security network.

On the other hand, the discontent in Oromia and the rest of Ethiopia is a by-product of a rapidly modernizing country whose government is unable to keep up with and quench the multiplying demands and needs of the youth, the largest majority of the population. Ethiopia is considered one of Africa’s “lion economies” for having registered a gross domestic product growth of more than ten percent; yet economic growth has not stemmed unemployment, rural and urban poverty, and periodic food shortages. In fact, these social ills seem to have worsened as the economy expanded.

In addition to impoverishment, hyperinflation, and uncontrolled urbanization, economic modernization has also come about at a heavy price: a growing and unsustainable external debt estimated to have reached more than US $40 billion, a steep decline in export revenues, worrying levels of capital flight, and the accompanying shortages of hard currency. The hard currency crunch is reaching a critical phase and will probably be insurmountable for years to come.

Part of the financial debacle Ethiopia faces has to do with massive capital flight. In an exclusive meeting with wealthy Ethiopians soon after his inauguration, the new prime minister had to plead with them to return the money they had transferred to bank accounts in Dubai and China:

“Are your hard currency reserves only kept inside the country? Have you not stashed them in accounts in Dubai? If you would transfer them back to Ethiopia from your accounts in Dubai and China, it would be of immense benefit to a country that is struggling with shortages at the moment.” (Ahmed, 2018).

Ethiopia’s financial woes are instructive about the viability of pursuing an export-oriented strategy in an increasingly competitive, exploitative, and unequal global economy. The state-led development approach Ethiopia has followed in recent years may have worked for a while, but it has its own limits and Ethiopia’s experience has so painfully pointed out the dangers of such an outward-looking economic strategy.

Rising social pressure for justice and fair distribution of economic gains is a stress test to the state-led economic model. The model requires that the state becomes more centralized and more independent from social pressure in order to make the right economic decisions, not succumb to societal interests that seek more expenditure on social services.

A Puppet Prime Minister? No More!

Six years after his death, Meles Zenawi remains an influential figure in Ethiopian politics. The ideas he championed, the policies and the organs of state that he instituted, and the coterie of a new crop of leaders he recruited from non-Tigrayan ethnicities continue to hold sway over the levers of the state. A legacy of the late leader that has been controversial is ethnic federalism: the division of Ethiopia into ethnically organized provincial governments known as Regional States that are constitutionally entitled to the right to self-determination. For critics, this unconventional system is to blame for the real possibility of dismemberment that today Ethiopia faces.

Hailemariam Desalegn, Meles’s handpicked successor, could not escape the outsized shadow and influence of the “Great Leader”. Indeed, as one observer puts it, Meles continued “to rule from beyond the grave” (LeFort, 2012).

Therefore, the first real challenge for Ahmed is that he needs to demonstrate in swift tangible actions that he is no Hailemariam Desalegn. There seems to be no patience now in the Ethiopian body politic or the public at large for a “titular head”.

During Desalegn’s rule, effective state power was invested in unelected military and intelligence cabal who assembled and ruled collectively. The imposition of the two states of emergencies in the past two years has so diminished the office of the prime minister that the military and security bosses now exercise power down to the lowest level of government through a command and control structure. For all intents and purposes, Ethiopia now functions more like a centralised police state rather than a federation.

There are signs Ahmed will not be a puppet for the ruling group. However, many doubt that he will be able to successfully navigate the increasingly fragile Ethiopian state. Saving Ethiopia from an imminent danger of state collapse will require a herculean effort in initiating and executing deep and far-reaching reforms.

The hegemony of the TPLF in both economic and political spheres is perhaps the biggest threat to peace in Ethiopia as a conflict is most likely to erupt in societies where there are “simultaneously both economic and political inequalities” (Frances, 2016,). If Ethiopian history is any guide, the chances of such fundamental changes in state-society relations taking place peacefully are close to nil.

Conclusion

In the meteoric rise of Ahmed, Ethiopia faces both a historic opportunity and a breaking point. Ahmed’s tenure represents a historic opportunity because the young leader could enact and usher in a peaceful break with revolutionary democracy, paving the way for truly competitive multiparty politics in the near future.

These reforms point towards a greater political accountability, neutralization of ethnic politics, rule of law, and end of kleptocratic corruption that has stifled Africa’s fastest growing economy. Doing so might entail displeasing powerful interests within the Ethiopian state and in the private sector that stand to lose numerous financial and economic benefits.

If these interests block Ahmed from enacting much-needed reforms, social tension in Ethiopia may simmer in the foreseeable future with real dangers to peace and stability in the increasingly volatile and geo-politically important region of the Horn of Africa.

The post Ethiopia’s Leader: Old Wine in New Bottle? appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY MARTIN PLAUT | NEW STATESMAN

Africa is – tragically – no stranger to conflict. But the war that erupted between Ethiopia and Eritrea on 6 May 1998 was unlike any the continent had seen since the Second World War. This was no slaughter between troops and rebels mainly armed with Kalashnikov and machetes. This was a full-blown conflict using everything from heavy artillery and trench warfare to ariel combat involving modern aircraft.

No-one knows the numbers dead and wounded, but estimate as many as 100,000 were killed. Some put the figures even higher.

The outcome of the war hangs like a dark cloud over the whole region. The Algiers Peace Agreement, signed on 18 June 2000 was meant to end the conflict. It was a Rolls Royce of an agreement, brokered by the international community. Prisoners were exchanged, compensation paid for losses on both sides and a UN peacekeeping force was dispatched to patrol the border.

>> MUST READ : Why Gen. Tsadkan Broke into Tears in the 1998-2000 Border War with Eritrea?

Both sides were required to abide by the [final and binding] findings of a Boundary Commission which would define where the border lay. This was duly completed, only for Ethiopia to insist that further discussions be held. This Eritrea refused – as it had every right to do. Instead of peace, relations between the two countries have been frozen for the past 20 years. The border is sealed and tens of thousands of troops face each other over the barren frontier.

The result?

Eritrea hosts Ethiopian rebel movements, who attempt from time to time to overthrow the government in Addis Ababa. Ethiopia does much the same, in reverse. But the Eritrean government went further, training and supplying Islamist rebels of al-Shabab in Somalia. It was aggressive intervention across the region that resulted in the United Nations imposing sanctions on Eritrea in 2009, which remain in force. [NOTE: The UN Monitoring experts that tasked to investigate the matter has, for its fourth consecutive mandate, not found any conclusive evidence of support provided by Eritrea to Al-Shabaab.]

>> ALSO READ : No Eritrea Support to Al-Shabaab: UN Report

Ethiopia too has suffered. Its natural outlets to the sea, the Eritrean ports of Massawa and Assab are unavailable and Ethiopia has had to develop a convoluted transport network via Djibouti get its goods to the outside world. Communities on both sides of the border have been divided; unable to reach the lands they once tilled and neighbours they once married. It is a tragedy all round.

Two decades on, this confrontation serves neither people. There are – at last – some small signs of progress.

The first is an informal and unofficial. In recent years a few hundred Eritrean villagers have been allowed to cross the disputed border to visit the town of Axum for the festival of Maryam Zion. A chapel in Axum is said to contain the Arc of the Covenant and is sacred to the Christian Orthodox church to which most highlanders in both countries belong.

The potential for peace was reinforced by the World Council of Churches, during a rare visit to Eritrea in October last year. It was – as the press release put it “the first such visit in more than 10 years” and the church leaders left promising to “pray and work for peace between Eritrea and its neighbor Ethiopia as they attempt to resolve a border dispute.”

Others have followed. Most recently the most senior African official in the Trump State Department, Donald Yamamoto. A consummate diplomat, with extensive African experience, he completed a visit to Eritrea, Djibouti and Ethiopia on 26 April. It’s not yet clear what the Yamamoto managed to broker, but he is unlikely to have made the trip without a clear objective in mind.

The omens on the Ethiopian side are promising. Former Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn began talking of a “new policy” towards Eritrea a year ago, without going into any detail. He was replaced in April by Abiy Ahmed, who called for an end to “years of misunderstandings” between the two countries. “I call on the Eritrean government to take the same stand,” he said.

The Eritrean response was less than enthusiastic. Eritrea’s official spokesman declared that the ball remained in the Ethiopian government’s court.

“Ethiopia needs to honour its treaty obligations and respect Eritrea’s sovereignty and territorial integrity by withdrawing from occupied territories,” the spokesman insisted.

These moves to end the stalemate come at a difficult moment. Ethiopia is still coming to terms with the ethnic divisions that have riven the country for many months. A state of emergency has been ruthlessly enforced and thousands arrested. Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed is struggling to introduce reforms, but needs to establish his authority.

On the surface Eritrea is far more stable. In reality there is deep anger among its citizens. The country’s youth are trapped in a permanent system of conscription that can be extended indefinitely. Rather than spend years, if not decades, manning trenches along the Ethiopian border tens of thousands have fled into exile.

This suits Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki [..]. The no-war, no-peace confrontation with Ethiopia has provided the perfect excuse for permanently keeping the lid on Eritrean democracy. There are few incentives for him to make concessions to resolve the situation with Addis Ababa.

Only a dramatic gesture from Ethiopia, reinforced by a promise that UN sanctions will be lifted and closer economic and possibly even military ties with Washington might end this stalemate.

The post After 20 Years, can Ethiopia and Eritrea Ever Reconcile? appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY DR. FIKREJESUS AMHAZION 

Last week, The Economist featured a brief article on the possibility for rapprochement and peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea. The article requires several important clarifications, some of which are outlined below.

First, in contrast to what the article suggests, there is no contested or “disputed” border between Eritrea and Ethiopia. The Eritrea Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC), formed in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Algiers Peace Agreement of 2000 and composed of five prominent and highly respected lawyers, unanimously delivered its final and binding delimitation and demarcation decisions in April 2002 and November 2007, respectively.

Through modern techniques of image processing and terrain modeling, in conjunction with the use of high-resolution aerial photographs to identify boundary points and both grid and geographical coordinates, the Commission virtually demarcated the Eritrea-Ethiopia border in 2007.

Subsequently, it wrote a letter to the two parties, as well as to the Secretary-General of the United Nations (UN), stating that,

“The Commission hereby determines that the boundary will automatically stand as demarcated by the boundary pillars points listed in the Annex hereto and that the mandate of the Commission can then be regarded as fulfilled.”

Moreover, signed copies of 45 maps containing the demarcation of the boundary by coordinates were sent to both Eritrea and Ethiopia on 30 November 2007, with copies also deposited with the UN and the Office of the UN Cartographer.

Collectively, the above reflects the legal and technical closure of the Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict. To be clear, what remains then is Ethiopia’s military occupation of sovereign Eritrean territories, which is a flagrant violation of international law and its obligations under the Algiers Agreement.

Another important point is while the EEBC’s decision has been accepted by Eritrea, and although the entire process was guaranteed by the UN and the OAU/AU and witnessed by the US, EU, Algeria, and Nigeria, Ethiopia has not only “refused to accept the findings of a UN boundary commission,” it has completely failed to shoulder its legal obligations and responsibility for demarcating the border.

What is more, however, is that since the end of the destructive 1998-2000 war between the two countries, the Ethiopian government has made provocative and persistent calls for the overthrow of the Eritrean government and, through belligerent, threatening statements within the Ethiopian Parliament or via government-owned media outlets, proclaimed its intentions to carry out “military action to oust the regime in Eritrea.”

In addition, Ethiopia has funded, trained, harbored, and otherwise supported several Eritrean opposition groups – internationally recognized as terrorist organizations – targeting the Eritrean government, as well as making regular illegal incursions into and attacks against Eritrea, most recently in the disastrous June 2016 attack on Tsorona.

And while it is true that Ethiopia’s new PM, Abiy Ahmed, promised “to make peace with Eritrea,” it should be recalled that previous Ethiopian leaders did the same before ultimately going on to engage in provocation and aggression toward Eritrea.

Of note, The Economist neglects to mention, even in passing, the failure of the international community. Specifically, rather than condemn Ethiopia’s illegal military occupation and repeated aggressive actions, which represent violations of international law, the Constitutive Act of the African Union, and the UN Charter, or call for the immediate, unconditional implementation of the EEBC decision, the international community, principally led by the US – which itself has undermined and sought to reopen, adjust, or reverse the EEBC decision – has encouraged Ethiopia’s violations by offering it vast diplomatic, military, and economic support.

The Economist also describes Eritrea as having “retreated into isolationism,” seeming to suggest that the country dismissed global or regional engagement and cooperation, instead choosing to isolate itself. This is inaccurate and overlooks the fact that it is the international community, again led by the US, which has pursued a policy of isolation toward Eritrea.

Peaceful and cooperative regional and international co-existence and integration have long been fundamental bedrocks of Eritrean foreign policy. However, the country has been the target of an externally-driven strategy to isolate it, particularly through attempts at blocking foreign agreements and trade or investment deals.

For example, according to a leaked US embassy cable in Addis Ababa sent by Chargé d’Affaires Vicki Huddleston (dated November 1st, 2005), the strategy of the US-backed Ethiopian proxy was to “isolate Eritrea and wait for it to implode economically.”

A 2009 cable sent by Chargé d’Affaires Roger Meece reveals that the “USG [US government] has worked to undercut support for Eritrea,” while a cable from November 2nd, 2009 mentions that the German government’s rescinding of a credit guarantee to banks for a commercial loan of $US146m to Eritrea’s Bisha mining project was the result of “caving in to…American pressure.”

In another 2009 cable, it is revealed that the US worked “to convince the Government of Egypt not to invite the Government of the State of Eritrea (GSE) as an observer to the Bright Star military exercise.”

As well, in 2011, as Eritrea was facing another round of sanctions, “only the US” was opposed to the Eritrean President, Isaias Afewerki, speaking to the UN Security Council, and it worked to block his appearance. More recently, in late 2014, Eritrea was one of the few African countries excluded from participating in the highly publicized US-Africa Summit in Washington, DC, focusing on trade, investment, and security, while in 2015, when Egypt, which was then preparing for its presidency at the UN Security Council, proposed a Council trip to Somalia, Egypt, and Eritrea, the US did “not want a Council trip to include Eritrea,” and argued against its inclusion.

Generally, insinuations about Eritrea’s supposed isolationism are rooted in a lack of understanding about Eritrea’s “unconventional” approach to development and external aid. Specifically, Eritrea turns down aid when it does not fit the country’s needs or its capacity to use effectively.

Eritrea does not reject external support – it actively welcomes it, but only when it complements the country’s own efforts. The Government has long encouraged aid that addresses specific needs which cannot be met internally, which is designed to minimize continued external support, and which complements and strengthens (instead of replacing) the country’s own institutional capacity to implement projects.

Eritrea’s unique approach is rooted in the country’s long struggle for independence, which was largely self-reliant, with much of the international community completely ignoring or actively working against the independence movement. Furthermore, the country has a strong desire to avoid crippling dependence, encourage the initiative of Eritreans, and foster a clear sense of responsibility for the country’s future among all citizens.

Importantly, the article does not provide proper context regarding sanctions against Eritrea. Although it mentions that “a panel of experts appointed by the UN Security Council found no evidence of arms transfers and advocates lifting the embargo,” it is vital to point out that this is not a breaking development.

Instead, over a period of several years now, a long series of UN Somalia Eritrea Monitoring Group (UN SEMG) reports have consistently concluded that they have found “no evidence of Eritrea’s support for Al-Shabaab.”

Furthermore, while The Economist notes that “America sounds open to the idea [of removing sanctions],” more context would reveal that it was the US which was the key architect of the dubious sanctions adopted against Eritrea, and that it is the US that remains the fundamental obstacle to their removal – despite the international community increasingly recognizing and acknowledging that the pretexts for them are non-existent, their continued imposition is illegitimate and unjust, and that they are counterproductive.

The Economist is also incorrect in its understanding of Eritrea’s approach toward port access and normalization of relations with Ethiopia. Rather than Eritrea fearing normalization or choosing to be on a “war footing,” as suggested by the article, leaked US diplomatic cables from September 2007 and May 2009 reveal how Meles Zenawi, the former PM of Ethiopia, acknowledged that implementing the EEBC “would cost him his prime ministership,” and that he was “content to allow the status quo with Eritrea [to] continue with no resolution of the border impasse, and he would not welcome any new attempt by the UNSC to engage on this issue.”

The fact is that until the war in 1998, the two countries enjoyed strong economic, cultural and security relations, and Ethiopia had been using Eritrean ports at symbolic rates and without any hindrance. Even during the bitter war, Eritrea offered the use of its ports to transport humanitarian aid to Ethiopia (which it refused).

In 2007, Isaias also stated that

“We can live together [with Ethiopia]. There is nothing to prevent us from developing a relationship. Imagine how much we could have achieved in terms of economic cooperation, working together on the stability of this region, working together to fend off threats. We know we can live in peace and live by cooperating and probably integrating our economies gradually and doing trade. This border issue should not be. We have to remove it somehow.”

Additionally, in April 2011, during the 275th Meeting of the African Union Peace and Security Council, held in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, Eritrea’s Representative to the African Union, the late Ambassador Girma Asmerom, stated unequivocally that, “[O]nce Ethiopia vacates sovereign Eritrean territory, including Badme, the Government of Eritrea is ready and willing to normalize its relation with Ethiopia.”

Ultimately, peace and diplomacy should always be encouraged. There is little doubt that the people of Eritrea and Ethiopia would greatly benefit from peace and a normalization of relations between the two countries. However, that can only be possible and sustainable with respect for and observance of international law.

The post Clarifications on The Economist’s Recent Article on Eritrea and Ethiopia appeared first on TesfaNews.

“She [Ethiopia’s State Minister for Foreign Affairs] must be living in Cuckoo’s land …”

BY UBUNTU | AFRICA SAHARA

Eritrea’s Information Minister on Thursday responded to an Ethiopian state minister when she asserted that Eritrea continued to have a disruptive role in the Horn of Africa region.

According to Minister Yemane Ghebre Meskel, Ethiopia was unnecessarily blowing its role in the sanctions which extend to almost a decade ago.

Hirut Zemane, a State Minister for Foreign Affairs, claimed that Asmara was still engaged in destabilizing acts and hence the U.N. sanctions if must be lifted should reflect the practical realities.

But Minister Yemane responded in a tweet which read in part: “She must be living in Cuckoo’s land if she really believes that Ethiopia had, or has, any diplomatic clout in this matter.”

>> ALSO READ : Eritrea Sees ‘No Real Value’ in Allowing Visit by UN Monitoring Group

He explained further in two tweets the circumstances surrounding what Asmara insists is a series of illegal sanctions. Eritrea has denied the reason for the sanctions – that it backs Somalia insurgents, Al Shabaab.

“The truth is the illicit sanctions – that had no basis in law or fact – were imposed against Eritrea in 2009 to serve z political agendas/perceived interests of z US Administration at the time. The underlying calculus transcended the inconsequential wranglings of the TPLF regime.”

“If UNSC decisions were based on legality and justice, punitive sanctions should have long been applied to Ethiopia, circa 2002, for its flagrant violations of z Algiers Peace Agreement – guaranteed by the UNSC – & the UN Charter on z sovereignty and integrity of UN Member States.”

Incidentally, the exchange comes at a time the Ethiopian Premier Abiy Ahmed has called for a normalization of relations.

>> ALSO READ : UNSC to Reconsider Eritrea Sanction Regime

Eritrea, on the other hand, says Ethiopia should respect international obligations and withdraw from [occupied] Eritrean territory.

The town at the heart of the dispute is Badme. Eritrea says if Ethiopia gives it back, all is well and the two nations can finally put behind them tensions that have divided them for two decades.

The post Eritrea ‘Schools’ Ethiopian Minister Over Sanctions Remarks appeared first on TesfaNews.

“We call upon the Ethiopian government to stop illegal movements of rebels inside its territory and interference in the internal affairs of South Sudan”

BY NYAMILEPEDIA

South Sudan’s government on Monday accused the government of the neighboring Ethiopia of allowing the rebels to use its territory as a launching pad for offensives against the South Sudanese government.

The accusation came hours after the rebels say they were fighting government troops inside the border town of Pagak.

In an exclusive interview with the Nyamilepedia this afternoon, Col. Dickson Gatluak Joak, the military spokesman of the forces loyal to the country’s first vice president Taban Deng Gai, said the rebels are using Ethiopian territory as a launching pad.

“Their land [Ethiopian] Pilual area is being used as a launching pad [by the rebels],” Gatluak said pointing out that the army has all the information about the rebel presence in the Ethiopian territory.

He said the presence of the South Sudanese rebels in the Ethiopian territory represents a violation of the cessation of hostilities agreement signed in December 2017 calling on the Ethiopian government to stop the cross-border movement of the rebel group fighting the South Sudanese government and to cease interference in the internal affairs of the country.

“This is a violation of the COHA and we call upon the Ethiopia government to stop illegal movements of rebels inside its territory or interference to the affairs of South Sudan,” Gatluak said.

Pagak, has been a military stronghold of the armed opposition group, SPLM-IO before its capture by government troops and their allies in August 2017 after some local youth and SPLA-IO defectors help government operation in capturing the area.

Previous attempts by the rebel group to regain control failed owing to lack of military logistics as well as internal divisions engulfed the movement as FVP Taban Deng Gai lure some to leave Machar’s camp.

South Sudan descended into civil war in December 2013 after forces loyal to the country’s president, Salva Kiir Mayardiit and his then Governor of Northern Bahr Al-Ghazal State Gen. Paul Malong Awan went door-to-door in the capital Juba killing civilians belonging to the Nuer ethnic group sparking a nation-wide protests from top army generals from the Nuer leading to a civil war.

A peace agreement signed in August 2015 by President Kiir and rebel leader Riek Machar and negotiated under the auspices of the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) and the African Union (AU) in presence of Troika and other international observers collapsed in July 2016 following fighting at the presidential palace in Juba “J1” reportedly after President Kiir ordered a failed attempt to arrest the SPLM-IO leader Riek Machar.

Late last year, the IGAD decided to revive the peace agreement and had initiated a peace revival mechanism known as the High-Level Revitalization Forum (HLRF) to bring back to life the 2015 peace agreement.

Previous rounds of the HLRF has been unsuccessful and the IGAD said it expects the warring parties to negotiate on the last round of talks on 17th of May.

Representatives of the negotiating parties are currently in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia after the mediation invited them for consultations.

The post Rebels Using Ethiopian Territory to Launch Attacks, South Sudan Decries appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

In the past two weeks during the visit of the new Prime Minister of the Federal Republic of Ethiopia to the Sudan, both governments have reportedly agreed “to extend support to what they termed as Eritrea’s armed opposition groups in order to enable them to properly execute their objectives”.  

To this end, both governments “have agreed to provide these groups with material support inside their respective borders as well as to extend to them requisite facilities for enhancing their free and unhindered, cross-border, movements in the two countries”.

To ensure the effective coordination of these operations, the Ethiopian side has appointed the Consul in its Embassy in Khartoum, a certain Mr. Burhan, who has also been acting as the principal supervisor of the operations of Qatari funded Jihadist groups.

The Sudan has similarly appointed General Hamid Al-Mustafa, as a counterpart for the Ethiopian appointee, for the coordination task.

This scheme, launched at a time of intense and pretentious PR campaigns, is in essence, neither new nor surprising.  We hardly need to emphasize its futility.

Ministry of Information
14 May 2018
Asmara

MUST READ : Why Does Qatar Involve Itself in Senseless Intricacies Against Eritrea?

The post Sudan and Ethiopia Facilitating Qatari Funded Jihadist Movement Against Eritrea (Press Release) appeared first on TesfaNews.

In a meeting with senior government officials including members of his cabinet, Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed said the government was investigating foreign bank accounts held by senior government officials, a source who attended the meeting told Addis Standard.

During the meeting held in his office today, the Prime Minister also criticized what our source said was “the spoon feeding culture” among members of his cabinet and senior government officials, who the PM blamed were “not forthcoming with sound policy ideas” and are “lacking the culture of creativity.”

The meeting, reported by state-affiliated and state-owned media houses who were allowed inside as a “half day discussion with high-level government officials including Ministers on how to deliver the results and respond public demands,” was held inside the PM’s office.

>> ALSO READ : Ethiopia Feeling the Pinch of Illicit Financial Outflows

According to our source, who wants to remain anonymous, the prime minister told attendees that foreign countries where bank accounts held by senior government officials are cooperating with his government in its investigations.

The Prime Minister also decided to move the weekly cabinet meetings from Friday to Saturday in order not waste working days by meetings.

Earlier today, the PM’s office released a statement containing names of five party veterans who have been discharged from their duties on retirement.

The list includes TPLF stalwart Sebehat Nega, who was the head of Foreign Relations Strategic Research Institute.

>> ALSO READ : Ethiopia: Capital Flight Reaching Alarming Level

Others include, Belete Taffere, head of the Integrated Land Management, Planning and Policy Project bureau, Kassu Ilala (PhD) and Mekonnen Manyazewal, both from Policy Research Institute, and Tadesse Haile of the Trade and Industry Policy Planning and Execution bureau, who was best known as the longest-serving state minister at the ministry of trade and industry.

Yesterday, another letter signed by the Prime Minister announced the replacement of Zeray Asgedom, Director General of the Ethiopian Broadcasting Authority, by Solomon Tesfaye, who has served the authority under the capacity of a deputy, among others.

The post Ethiopia: Gov’t Investigating Offshore Bank Accounts of Senior Officials appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY MINISTRY OF INFORMATION

In its latest publication (No. 1474) of 18 May last week, the Indian Ocean Newsletter floats a litany of wild stories on Eritrea on the basis of innuendos; apparently without minimum verification.

To highlight some of its outlandish assertions:   



1) In reference to MOI’s press release of 14 May this month on joint Ethiopian-Sudanese agreement to continue supporting what they term “Eritrean armed opposition groups”, the ION claims, quoting unnamed “sources in Addis Abeba” that Eritrea’s President “has reacted by mobilizing his troops to counter any potential threats, calling up reservists and young conscripts”.

This is utterly false and ludicrous.

Eritrea has not and does not need to mobilize troops to counter inconsequential acts that have been going on for many years now.  The MOI Press Release on the subject indeed underlined that the scheme was “neither new nor surprising”; … and its “futility hardly needed emphasis”.

2) In a separate article on Djibouti and the Bab-el-Mandeb in the same publication (page 4), the ION claims that “the head of the African Affairs Bureau at the State Department, Donald Yamamoto, raised the issue of … demilitarizing the Obock region, with President Issayas Afwerki during his visit” to Asmara in April.

The ION continues to assert that “the President responded by saying that it will not be possible to reach a solution without an accord with the FRUD army.”

Again, this is utterly false.  A subject of this nature was not even mentioned, let alone discussed, in the meeting between the President and the visiting US Deputy Assistant Secretary for Africa.

3) In a third article in the same publication, the ION alludes to some “hotspot” in Djibouti that would “serve as a center to process the claims of Eritrean migrants”.

The ION then proceeds to tell us that “discussions on the issue which are being spearheaded by France and the European Union, seem to have been positively received so far by both Ismail Omar Guelleh and Issayas Afeworki”.

These fictitious stories are too crass to merit a substantive response.  But, for reasons better known to itself, the ION seems to relish disseminating or recycling wild and hoax stories on Eritrea these days.  This has indeed become its trademark in the past months.

As we pointed out in a previous Press Release, the MOI urges the ION to show some respect to its readers and desist from disseminating hoax news on Eritrea for trite reasons of sensationalization or other sinister agendas.

Ministry of Information

Asmara

22 May 2018

The post The ION: A Litany of False Stories on Eritrea appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY AARON MAASHO | REUTERS

Ethiopia pardoned on Saturday an opposition leader with British citizenship who had been sentenced to death, the latest in a series of pardons and releases of jailed dissidents announced in the wake of years of violent unrest.

Andargachew Tsige was sentenced to death in absentia in 2009 over his role in the opposition group Ginbot 7, leading to his arrest in Yemen five years later and extradition to Ethiopia.

Andargachew served as secretary-general of the anti-government group, which describes itself as a reform movement but is branded a terrorist organisation by Addis Ababa.

Attorney General Berhanu Tsegaye said on Saturday Andargachew has been pardoned “under special circumstances” along with 575 other inmates.

The decisions were made with the “intention of widening political space,” the attorney general told reporters in the capital, Addis Ababa. Andargachew is expected to be released within the next two days.

Thousands of prisoners, including several senior opposition leaders, have been freed since January having been accused of a variety of charges such as terrorism or incitement to topple the government.

The pardons are part of reforms that the government has pledged to undertake after violent unrest broke out three years ago, sparked by an urban development plan for Addis Ababa that critics said would trigger land seizures in the surrounding Oromia region.

The protests broadened into rallies over political rights, leading to the resignation of Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn in February. He has since been replaced by former army officer Abiy Ahmed.

Ethiopia last carried out an execution in 2007, a rare move against a military officer convicted of killing a former head of security and immigration.

Ginbot 7 is among five groups Addis Ababa has blacklisted under anti-terror legislation, alongside the secessionist groups Oromo Liberation Front and the Ogaden National Liberation Front, as well as al Qaeda and Somalia’s al Shabaab.

Last week, the government and an exiled opposition party from Oromiya opened talks with the aim of enabling it to return to the political fold.

The Oromo Democratic Front (ODF) was formed in 2013 by former members of the Oromo Liberation Front and seeks self-determination for ethnic Oromos, Ethiopia’s largest ethnic group. Its leaders have been living in exile.

The post Ginbot 7 Secretary-General Andargachew Tsige Pardoned appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY ADDIS STANDARD

Ethiopia has finally released Andargachew Tsige, the co-founder, and secretary-general of Arbegnoch Ginbot 7 (AG7), Movement for Justice, Freedom and Democracy. In the same day, the Attorney General confirmed that active criminal charges against Dr. Berhanu Nega, leader of AG7 were dropped.

Andargachew was released this afternoon after speculations of his release gripped the country since yesterday.

He is currently at his family’s house in Bole, Olympia area.

The 63 years old father of three, Andargachew, a.k.a Andy, has been in an Ethiopian prison for the last four years after Ethiopian security forces have kidnapped him from Sana’a airport in Yemen and renditioned him secretly to Ethiopia where he was already sentenced to death in 2009.

In a similar development, the Attorney General office confirmed this afternoon that criminal charges against Jawar Mohammed, a prominent Oromo activist and Executive Director of the Oromo Media Network (OMN), has been discontinued.

Dr. Berhanu and Jawar were the second and third defendants in absentia under the infamous criminal charges file under Dr. Merera Gudina, leader of the opposition Oromo Federalist Congress (OFC), who was released in March after his charges were also dropped.

The Attorney General’s office has also said charges against two foreign-based media organizations, OMN and Ethiopia Satellite Television (ESAT) were dropped.

Both institutions were charged under the country’s repressive anti-terrorism law.

The post New Ethiopia Gov’t Drops Charges Against Berhanu Nega, Jawar Mohammed, ESAT and OMN appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY BBC NEWS

Ethiopia’s surprise announcement that it will abide by a 2002 border ruling raises the prospect of a final end to what was Africa’s deadliest border war and peace with its long-time rival, Eritrea.

Tens of thousands of people were killed in the two-year conflict and Eritrea remains on a war footing, demanding that Ethiopia withdraws from the “occupied territory”.

Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed signalled in his inauguration speech in April that a major policy shift could be in the offing – he called on Eritrea to resolve their differences, saying the two neighbours were “not only intertwined in interests but also in blood”.

Now, the ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) has announced it will fully accept and implement the peace deal that ended the war.

Mr Abiy said soldiers deployed to the contested town of Badme had experienced “psychological effects”, according to the state-linked Fana Broadcasting Corporate.

“We should end this suffering, and fully return to peace,” the prime minister is quoted as saying.

Ethiopia’s previous leaders always said they accepted the 2002 ruling but they never actually implemented it.

Mr Abiy’s announcement is especially significant as it comes after the release of thousands of jailed politicians, activists and protesters, including British citizen Andargachew Tsege who was being held on death row, and the promise of wider reforms.

What does Eritrea say?

Eritrea has not commented on Ethiopia’s announcement but Information Minister Yemane Gebre Meskel had previously told the BBC that relations could not be resolved until Ethiopia withdrew “from the occupied territories”.

What happens next?

Assuming that Eritrea accepts Ethiopia’s goodwill, the next step would be for officials from the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission to physically demarcate the border.

Until now, this has been impossible because it is a military zone.

The main bone of contention is the town of Badme, the main focus of the war, but there are other disputed areas right along the border.

What’s happening in Badme?

Badme is a nondescript, heavily militarised small town with little or no social activity.

More than 1,000 people live there, with almost all their activities limited to military services, says the BBC’s Berihu Lilay, who visited the town in January.

He says he saw Eritrean and Ethiopian forces sitting in neat rows facing each other across the border, with just a few kilometres separating them.

Residents told our reporter they look forward to peace between the two nations.

Despite the strain, the 16-year standoff has not cut the ancient ties between the two border communities who both belong to the Tigrinya ethnic group, our reporter says.

A potential flashpoint, he says, which will need to be negotiated delicately, is the fate of a graveyard where thousands of Ethiopian soldiers, including top army leaders, who died in the conflict have been buried.

Why is it happening now?

It seems as though everything is changing pretty fast in Ethiopia, since Mr Abiy came to power.

Just a few months ago, a state of emergency was imposed following the resignation of Hailemariam Desalegn as prime minister. He said he was standing down in order to end months of anti-government protests, which had led to many deaths and arrests.

Since taking office, Mr Abiy has moved fast to spend the political capital he had earned after gaining the backing of the EPRDF to become prime minister.

Three months in, he has managed to get the ruling coalition to back his policies including the lifting of the state of emergency.

Being the leader of the Oromo People’s Democratic Organisation (OPDO), one of the four ethnic parties which make up the EPRDF coalition, provides him with a solid political base to implement his policies.

He has also in a short time managed to assert his authority and created excitement in the country about his leadership.

“There’s palpable optimism about Mr Abiy in the country,” says the BBC’s Emmanuel Igunza in Addis Ababa.

The post How Genuine is Ethiopia’s Peace Offer to Eritrea? appeared first on TesfaNews.

BY TESFANEWS

Ethiopia’s new Prime Minister replaced the heads of the military and intelligence services as he pressed ahead with his political reforms in the country.

He named General Seare Mekonen as the new Chief of Staff of the armed forces replacing General Samora Yunis. Both Samora and Seare are senior members of the TPLF from Tigray ethnic group that largely held the top military, security and intelligence ranks since they come to power in 1991.

Samora had held the role of Chief of Staff since 2001.

The Prime Minister also named air force head Major General Adem Mohamed (ANDM, Amhara) to head the National Intelligence and Security Services (NISS), replacing another TPLF senior member Getachew Assefa, effective immediately.

The reasons for the changes were not yet disclosed. However, the surprise move to get rid of these two long-serving Tigrayan untouchables shows how the Premier is gradually consolidating power.

Meanwhile, the Premier also reinstated stars and full ranks to Major General Alemeshet Degfe and Brigadier General Asaminew Tsige.

The former TPLF dominated regime had stripped the ranks of these two Generals from the Amhara ethnic group after they had held a position that the regime had to respect the vote of the people following the controversial 2005 election when TPLF lost in a landslide to the opposition.

They had also demanded at the time the army should not involve in politics.

“The two Generals were stripped of their stars and ranks in the past but will now retire with their full pension,” Fitsum Arega, Chief of Staff at the Prime Minister Office said in a tweet.

“This certainly indicates a weakening of the TPLF,” said one university lecturer in the capital Addis Ababa who declined to give his name.

The TPLF is dominated by ethnic Tigrayans, while PM Abiy is an ethnic Oromos.

The post Ethiopia: Army and Intelligence Chiefs Replaced appeared first on TesfaNews.