Mereja.Forum

[Zmeselo]

ፈረንሳ፡ ዘየቋረጸ ምዝመዛ ኣፍሪቃ

https://shabait.com/2023/04/29/%e1%8d%8 ... %e1%89%83/

Apr 29, 2023

ህላወ ፈረንሳ ኣብ ኣፍሪቃ፡ ካብ መበል 17 ክፍለ-ዘመን ከምዝጅምር መዛግብ ታሪኽ ይሕብሩ።

ፈረንሳ ከም መግዛእታዊ ሓይሊ ዝተቐልቀለት ግና፡ ኣብ መበል 19 ክፍለ-ዘመን’ዩ።

ኣብ 1830 ብኣልጀርያ ዝጀመረ ግዝኣታ፡ ድሕሪ ዋዕላ በርሊን ንኣፍሪቃ ንምምሳሕ ብዝተገብረ ጉያ-ጉያ፡ ንቱኒዝያን ሞሮኮን ከም መንጠሪ ባይታ ተጠቒማ፡ ነቲ “ናይ ስልጣነ ተልእኾ” (civilizing mission) ዝሰመየቶ ናይ ምስፍሕፋሕ ውጥን፡ ናብ ምዕራብን ዞባ ኤኳቶርያዊ ኣፍሪቃን ዘርጊሓቶ። ኣብ 1930 ድማ፡ ግዝኣት ፈረንሳ ኣብ ኣፍሪቃ ናብ 20 ሃገራት ክብ ብምባል፡ ልዕሊ 13 ሚልዮን ትርብዒት ኪሎ-ሜተር ዝሽፍን ዓቢ ኤምበራጦርያ ኰነ።

ፈረንሳ ነተን ኣብ ትሕቲ ግዝኣታ ዘእተወተን ሃገራት ኣፍሪቃ፡ ኣብ ክልተ ደረጃ’ያ ከፊላተን። ኣብ ትሕተ-ሳሃራ ዝርከባ – ምንጪ ዝምዝመዝ ጸጋታት፣ ኣብ ሰሜናዊ ኣፍሪቃ ዝርከባ ድማ ፈረንሳውያን ሰፋሮ ዝቕመጡለን። ብኸም’ዚ፡ ንመሬት፡ ህዝብን ጸጋታትን ናይ’ተን ሃገራት፡ ክሳብ እዋን ምዝርዛር መግዛእቲ ሃንኲታቶ። ንምዝመዛ ፈረንሳ ካብ’ቶም ካልኦት ገዛእቲ ሓይልታት ፍልይ ዘብሎ ግና፡ ድሕሪ ምእዋጅ “ናጽነት” ናይ’ተን ሃገራት’ውን እንተዀነ ምቕጻሉ’ዩ።

ፕረዚደንት ፈረንሳ ነበር ዣክ ሺራክ ኣብ 2008፡

ፈረንሳ ብዘይ ኣፍሪቃ፡ ናብ ደረጃ ሳልሳይ ዓለም ሸታሕታሕ ምበለት

ኢሉ ነይሩ።

ካብ 1981 ክሳብ 1995 ፕረዚደንት ዝነበረ ፍራንስዋ ሚተራንድ’ውን፡ ኣብ 1957

ብዘይ ኣፍሪቃ፡ ፈረንሳ ኣብ መበል 21 ታሪኽ ክህልዋ ኣይኰነን

ኢሉ ምንባሩ’ዩ ዝዝንቶ።

ብሕጽር ዝበለ፡ ፈረንሳ ብዘይ ኣፍሪቃ፡ ሩሕ ከምዘይብላ’ዮም ደምዲሞም።

ኣብ እዋን ምዝርዛር መግዛእቲ መራሕቲ ፈረንሳ ዝነበሩ ዝተኸተልዎ ኣገባብ’ውን ነቲ ዘይረዊ መዝማዚ ሸውሃት ባይታ ዘጣጥሕ’ዩ ነይሩ። ነተን ኣብ ትሕቲ ግዝኣቶም ዝነበራ ሃገራት ትሕተ-ሳሃራ ኣፍሪቃ “ናጽነት” ከፍቅዱለን ከለዉ፡ ኣብ ቀያዲ መግዛእታዊ ኪዳን (colonial pact) ከምዝኣትዋ ብምስግዳድ፡ ቅድመ-ኩነታት ደርዲሮምለን። ነዚ ዘየማልአ መራሒ ድማ፡ ኣብኣ ትደዮ። ወይ ይቕተል ወይ ድማ ብወተሃደራዊ ዕልዋ ይውገድ።

እዚ ምስ በኒን፡ ቡርኪናፋሶ፡ ጊኒ-ቢሳው፡ ኣይቮሪ-ኮስት፡ ማሊ፡ ኒጀር፡ ሰነጋል፡ ቶጎ፡ ካሜሩን፡ ሪፓብሊክ ማእከላይ ኣፍሪቃ፡ ጫድ፡ ኮንጎ-ብራዛቪል፡ ኤኳቶሪያል-ጊኒን ጋቦንን ዝተኣትወ፡ ቀጻልነት ምዝመዛ ፈረንሳ ዘውሕስ ኪዳን፡ ልኡላዊ መሰላት ናይ’ተን ሃገራት ዝነፍግ ጥራይ ዘይኰነ፡ ንፈረንሳ ፍሉይ ሓለፋ ዘረጋግጽ’ዩ። ብመሰረት’ቲ ውዕል፡-

• መግዛእታዊ ዕዳ፦ እተን “ናጽነተን” ዝረኸባ ሃገራት፡ ወጻኢታት ናይ’ቲ ኣብ እዋን መግዛእቲ ፈረንሳ ዝተሃንጸ ትሕተ-ቅርጺ ክኸፍላ ይግደዳ።

• ምህጋር ሃገራዊ ትሕጃታት፦ እተን ሃገራት፡ ልዕሊ 80% ናይ ወጻኢ ሸርፊ ትሕጃአን (foreign reserve)፡ ኣብ ማእከላይ ባንክ ፈረንሳ ከቐምጣ ይግደዳ። ምሕደርኡ ድማ ኣብ ትሕቲ ክፍሊ ግምጃ ፈረንሳ (French Treasury) ይኸውን። እተን ሃገራት ካብ’ቲ ገንዘብ ክጥቀማ ምስ ዝደልያ፡ 20% ጥራይ ይፍቀደለን። ንሱ’ውን ብመልክዕ ልቓሕ። ብኸም’ዚ ኣገባብ፡ ኣስታት 500 ቢልዮናት ገንዘብ ሃገራት ኣፍሪቃ ኣብ ፈረንሳ ይርከብ።

• መሰል ዕድጊ ባህሪያዊ ጸጋታት፦ ፈረንሳ ኣብ’ተን ግዝኣታ ዝነበራ ሃገራት ዝርከብ ተፈጥሮኣዊ ጸጋታት ናይ ምዕዳግ ቀዳመይቲ በዓልቲ መሰል’ያ። ፈረንሳ “ኣየድልየንን’ዩ” እንተ ኢላ ጥራይ’ያ፡ እተን ሃገራት ካልእ ዓዳጊ ዘናድያ።

• ቀዳምነት ንረብሓታት ፈረንሳን ኩባንያታታን፦ እተን ኣፍሪቃውያን ሃገራት ኣብ ዘውጽእኦ ኩንትራት/ጨረታታት፡ ኩባንያታት ፈረንሳ ቀዳምነት ይወሃበን። ዋላ’ኳ እተን ካልኦት ተወዳደርቲ ኩባንያታት ካብ’ተን ናይ ፈረንሳ ዝተሓተ ዋጋ እንተቕረባ፡ እቲ ዕድል ነተን ናይ ፈረንሳ’ዩ ዝወሃብ።

• ቀረብ ወተሃደራዊ ንዋትን ስልጠናን፦ ኣብ’ቲ መግዛእታዊ ውዕል፡ “ወተሃደራዊ ስምምዕ” ኣብ ዝብል ንኡስ ውዕል፡ እተን ኣፍሪቃውያን ሃገራት፡ ወተሃደራዊ ዕጥቂ ኰነ ስልጠናታት ካብ ፈረንሳ ወጻኢ ካብ ካልእ ሃገር ክገዝኣ ኣይፍቀደለንን።

• ምውፋር ሰራዊት፦ ፈረንሳ ኣብ’ተን ሃገራት ወተሃደራዊ ምትእትታው ክትገብርን ሰራዊታ ብቐዋምነት ክተሰፍርን ሕጋዊ መሰል ይህልዋ።

• ተጠቃምነት ቋንቋ ፈረንሳ፦ እተን ሃገራት፡ ብዋጋ ቋንቋታተንን ባህለንን፡ ንቋንቋ ፈረንሳ ከም ወግዓዊ ቋንቋን ናይ ትምህርቲ ቋንቋን ክርዕማ እቲ ስምምዕ ይቕስበን።

• ተጠቃምነት ፍራንክ፦ እተን ሃገራት መግዛእታዊ ባጤራ ናይ ፈረንሳ ክጥቀማ ይግደዳ።

• ምልኣኽ ጸብጻባት፦ እተን ኣፍሪቃውያን ሃገራት፡ ዓመታዊ ሚዛን ገንዘባዊ ሕሳባትን ሃገራዊ ትሕጃን ናብ መንግስቲ ፈረንሳ ከቕርባ ይቕሰባ።

• ወተሃደራዊ ልፍንቲ ዘይምፍጣር፦ እተን ሃገራት ምስ ዝዀነት ካልእ ሃገር ኣብ ዝዀነ ወተሃደራዊ ልፍንቲ ወይ ኪዳን ክኣትዋ ክልኩላት’የን።

[Temt]

US State Department: Policy of Unremitting Hostility towards Eritrea
Apr 29, 2023



In the fourth week of last month, the US State Department posted on its website a shoddy policy paper entitled: “Integrated Country Strategy on Eritrea’’.

The policy paper, reportedly prepared by a strident former Chief of Mission at the US Embassy in Eritrea, virtually advocates for illicit acts of political subversion against the country. More precisely, the policy paper cannot be shrugged off as the idiosyncrasies of an unhinged diplomat as it was duly endorsed by the State Department “for Public Release” on May 5, 2022.

For reasons that remain opaque, and notwithstanding implausible explanations belatedly pronounced by junior State Department officials, the policy paper was not publicized until early this month. In the event, the timing is baffling by and in itself and provokes a host of questions.

The litany of baseless accusations peddled in the policy document defies reason and established diplomatic norms. In many respects, the policy document accentuates the visceral and unwarranted hostility that US policy-making circles have pursued for decades against Eritrea, purely and simply in order to advance their perceived global interests at the expense of a sovereign nation.

The policy document announces for the first time, that the US has indeed been pursuing, “since September 2021, US National Security Council (NSC) – endorsed policy of disciplined confrontation with the Eritrean Government”.

In accordance with this subversive directive, core tasks of the US Embassy in Eritrea primarily revolve around: “rigorously challenging government mis/disinformation… seeks to isolate Eritrea’s toxic (sic?) regional influence and limits its engagement with political-level regime officials”.

The legality, rationale, and national security ramifications of what is termed as a policy of “disciplined confrontation” aside, it must be underlined that the now formally declared hostile US position was never communicated to Eritrea prior to the publication and official dissemination of this policy paper.

Be that as it may, the temerity of the US Administration to arrogate to itself the mandate and mission of mapping out Eritrea’s future political trajectory is outrageous and deplorable. Indeed, the policy document unabashedly announces: “Our primary strategic policy goal is to cultivate Eritrea’s next generation and prepare for a post-Isaias regime”.

The arrogance and imperial hubris amplified in this illicit position, which is in flagrant contravention of international law; the UN Charter on the equality and sovereignty of all nations irrespective of their size and power; and, the norms and provisions of what they flaunt as “rules-based international order”, is too palpable to merit elaboration.

But speaking with forked tongues and whimsical cherry-picking of international law is not alien to US Administrations who have fabricated preposterous justifications to flout international law and subjugate independent peoples and nations when and if they are perceived as “impediments” to the US dangerous quest of global domination and hegemony.

The policy document enumerates the inventory of illegal unilateral sanctions that various US Administrations have imposed on Eritrea in the past two decades.

The vicious cycle of adversity was trigged by, and set in motion when the Clinton/Bush Administrations chose to change the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) Arbitral Award to mollify their client State – the TPLF regime – in violation of international law and the explicit provisions of the Algiers Peace Agreement brokered by the US itself in conjunction with the EU and the African Union.

Eritrea rightly refused to “play ball” and sheepishly compromise its sovereign rights. This aroused US ire and subsequently led to the spiral of hostile acts that ensued in subsequent years.

As it happened, the US leveraged its diplomatic clout at the UNSC to impose wide-ranging sanctions – including an arms embargo precisely at a time when large swathes of its sovereign territories were occupied by Ethiopia in violation of the Algiers Agreement and international law. The US and its allies further unleashed a vicious policy of “strategic depopulation” to wean Eritrea’s youth from the National Service and arduous tasks of nation-building by systematically granting blanket asylum in their countries to all Eritreans that fall in these categories.

Furthermore, US Administrations invoked spurious pretexts to harass Eritrea by leveraging various instruments in their toolbox of illicit, unilateral, sanctions.

In this web of lies and vilification, Eritrea was and remains “ranked as Tier 3 for Trafficking in Persons due to its mandatory, indefinite National Service”. Eritrea has also been “designated a Country of Particular Concern for international religious freedom”. (Eritrea is a highly pious country of religious pluralism with centuries-old Abrahamic faiths that live in exemplary co-existence and harmony).

And in the wake of TPLF’s war of choice and Insurrection in November 2020, the Biden Administration also invoked what it calls “the Global Magnitsky Act” to impose unlawful and unilateral sanctions on the Chief of Staff of Eritrea’s Defense Forces.

Furthermore, and as odd as it may sound, the Biden Administration dubbed the war in northern Ethiopia as constituting “an unusual and extraordinary threat to the national security and foreign policy of the United States”, prompting President Biden to “declare a national emergency’’ and thereby enact Executive Order 14046.

As it happened, this instrument was principally used to “sanction several Eritrean entities and individuals”; (Annex 2).

This list has not been published as yet. In this act, the US has concocted a spurious rationale precisely in order to whitewash and absolve the TPLF’s crimes of war and Insurrection and target Eritrea for its acts of legitimate self-defense and regional stability.

The US policy document also contains various operative paragraphs on, and references to, Eritrea’s legitimate ties with China (and to some extent, Russia) as well as lamentations on Eritrea’s voting patterns “on most contested issues” in the UN General Assembly that do not kowtow US positions. In this vein, it alludes to Eritrea’s accession to the “Belt and Road Initiative… its hosting of Chinese Foreign Minister Yang Yi in January 2022, …China’s maintenance of a relatively large Embassy… and even some scholarships that China has offered to Eritrean students’’ in the past years.

These presumptuous postulates are too trite to merit a serious response. Eritrea is not a client or vassal State of the United States. It has every right, and indeed duty, to cultivate ties with all nations in our global community on the basis of mutual respect, and common benefits and interests. Indeed, Eritrea’s sound international and regional policies, and the ties of friendship and cooperation that it cherishes to nurture with all countries, are anchored on these normative parameters.

The US policy document not only fails to acknowledge these normative variables of foreign policy but goes further to speculate that “an Eritrea strategically aligned with China… could deny the United States access to a large part of the most valuable shipping route in the world and increase China’s foothold in the Horn of Africa”.

This speculative assertion is not only utterly false but reeks of US “strategic considerations” and arguments in the 1950s for subordinating and compromising Eritrea’s legitimate national rights on the altar of US global hegemony. Eritrea’s responsible conduct in safeguarding maritime traffic to all nations as a littoral State in the Red Sea is otherwise a matter of impeccable track record.

The US policy document contains additional operative paragraphs that purport to depict Eritrea as a “force of destabilization in the Horn of Africa”. It goes on to say: “The Embassy is advancing a broader policy of regime isolation and financial sanctions to limit its ability to perpetuate the conflict in northern Ethiopia”.

Again, these presumptions are contrary to the realities on the ground. As far as the war in northern Ethiopia is concerned, the US has been privy to, and complicit in, the TPLF’s war of Insurrection and subsequent two offensives that the TPLF clique unleashed even when the Ethiopian Federal Government had declared unilateral and humanitarian cease-fires.

US footprints are also discernible in the destabilizing conflict that has wreaked havoc in Somalia for almost three decades. US lop-sided policies contributed to perpetuating the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia for two decades even when the putative border dispute was legally settled through a binding Arbitral Award.

On the wider North African-Middle Eastern operational theatre, US wars of destabilization in Libya, Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan, etc., are well-known, and these days, openly admitted by various circles within the US Establishment.

In the event, to point an accusing finger against Eritrea is really disingenuous and morally vacuous.

The US policy document waxes eloquent on human rights to vilify Eritrea in the most wicked terms. But this is a long-discredited ploy that the US often resorts to in order to claim the moral high ground and cloak its nefarious and illicit policies and acts of destabilizing sovereign nations in humanitarian garb.

As illustrated in the attached document (Annex 1), the US policy of unwarranted antagonism and hostility is not new. The current policy document perhaps signals that the US continues to dwell on, and even ramp up, its decades-old, unjustified, and counter-productive stance against Eritrea.

Eritrea has, for its part, explored all avenues to restore normalcy in its bilateral ties with the United States. Among other things, President Isaias Afwerki had sent a letter with the annex referred to above to President Trump during the first year of his Presidential term. But even then, the initial responses that appeared positive did not come to fruition and crystallization. And for reasons better known to itself, the Biden Administration has reverted to, and ratcheted up, the adversarial ties of the past decades.

In the event, the malaise lies in the US's misguided calculus and policy choices of flouting international law and the norms and practices of diplomatic ties between sovereign nations to advance its narrow geopolitical interests.



(Annex 2)

Recent US Sanctions and/or Designations on Eritrea

1. Executive Order 14046 – Imposing Sanctions on Certain Persons with Respect to the Humanitarian and Human Rights Crisis in Ethiopia (Signed by JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America).
→ September 17, 2021
→ Establishes a new sanctions regime that will allow us to target those responsible for, or complicit in, prolonging the conflict in Ethiopia, obstructing humanitarian access, or preventing a ceasefire. It provides the Department of the Treasury with the necessary authority to hold accountable those in the Government of Ethiopia, the Government of Eritrea, the Tigray People’s Liberation Front, and the Amhara regional government, among others, that continue to pursue conflict over negotiations to the detriment of the Ethiopian people.
→ These sanctions are not directed at the people of Ethiopia or Eritrea, but rather at the individuals and entities perpetrating the violence and driving a humanitarian disaster.
2. Treasury Sanctions Eritrean Military Leader in Connection with Serious Human Rights Abuse in Tigray
→ August 23, 2021
→ The U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) sanctioned General Filipos Woldeyohannes (Filipos), the Chief of Staff of the Eritrean Defense Forces (EDF), for being a leader or official of an entity that is engaged in serious human rights abuse committed during the ongoing conflict in Tigray. Filipos is designated pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 13818, which builds upon and implements the Global Magnitsky Human Rights Accountability Act and targets perpetrators of serious human rights abuse and corruption around the world.
3. Treasury Sanctions Four Entities and Two Individuals in Connection with the Crisis in Ethiopia
→ November 12, 2021
→ Today, the U.S. Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) designated four entities and two individuals pursuant to Executive Order (E.O.) 14046 in response to the growing humanitarian and human rights crisis and expanding military conflict in Ethiopia.
→ The individuals and entities designated today are the Eritrean Defense Force, the People’s Front for Democracy and Justice, Abraha Kassa Nemariam, Hidri Trust, Hagos Ghebrehiwet W Kidan, and Red Sea Trading Corporation.
4. Ethiopia-Related Designations; Kingpin Act Designations Removals; Issuance of Ethiopia-Related General License and Frequently Asked Questions
→ 11/12/2021
→ The Department of the Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) has issued Ethiopia General License 4, “Authorizing the Wind Down of Transactions Involving Hidri Trust or Red Sea Trading Corporation.” OFAC has also updated Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) 927 and published two new FAQs (935 and 936).
→ The following individuals have been added to OFAC’s SDN List:
NEMARIAM, Abraha Kassa (a.k.a. KASSA, Abraha; a.k.a. KASSA, Wedi), Eritrea; DOB 15 Jul 1953; POB Eritrea; nationality Eritrea; Gender Male; Passport D000294 (Eritrea) (individual) [ETHIOPIA-EO14046].
W KIDAN, Hagos Ghebrehiwet (a.k.a. WELDEKIDANE, Hagos Ghebrehiwet; a.k.a. WOLDEKIDAN, Hagos Ghebrehiwet), Asmara, Eritrea; DOB 25 Apr 1953; POB Senafe, Eritrea; nationality Eritrea; Gender Male; National ID No. 0882109 (Eritrea) (individual) [ETHIOPIA-EO14046].
The following entities have been added to OFAC’s SDN List:
ERITREAN DEFENSE FORCES (a.k.a. ERITREAN DEFENSE FORCE), Eritrea; Organization Established Date 1993; Target Type Government Entity [ETHIOPIA-EO14046].
HIDRI TRUST, Felket Street, Asmara, Eritrea; Organization Established Date 1994 [ETHIOPIA-EO14046].
PEOPLE’S FRONT FOR DEMOCRACY AND JUSTICE, Eritrea; Organization Established Date 1993; Organization Type: Activities of political organizations [ETHIOPIA-EO14046].
RED SEA TRADING CORPORATION, Felket Street, Asmara, Eritrea; Dubai, United Arab Emirates; Organization Established Date 1984 [ETHIOPIA-EO14046].
5. Country of Particular Concern (CPC) for religious freedom violations
→ December 2, 2020,
→ The U.S. Secretary of State redesignated Eritrea as a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) for engaging in or tolerating “particularly severe violations of religious freedom” as defined by the International Religious Freedom Act of 1998. This designation imposes certain restrictions on U.S. assistance and diplomatic engagement with Eritrea.
6. Tier 3 country for human trafficking
→ June 25, 2020
→ The U.S. Department of State placed Eritrea in Tier 3, the lowest ranking, in its annual Trafficking in Persons Report for not meeting the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and not making significant efforts to do so. This designation subjects Eritrea to certain sanctions and limitations on U.S. foreign assistance and support in international financial institutions.
7. Country of Particular Concern (CPC)
→ November 30, 2022
→ Eritrea is included in the list of the most recent Countries of Particular Concern designated by the U.S. Secretary of State.

[Fiyameta]

[Zmeselo]

Why not stay at home, like the honorable President Isaias?

[Temt]

Chronology of Unfriendly Policies and Acts Pursued by Previous US Administrations
May 4, 2023



(Annex 1)

1. The profound misunderstanding that characterizes US-Eritrean ties does not emanate, as is often insinuated, from substantive differences in events surrounding the war in Somalia in 2006. It predates this singular episode.
2. Indeed, since the 1950s when overriding US strategic interests compromised Eritrea’s right of decolonization, successive US Administrations have invariably propped up Ethiopian colonial presence in Eritrea. US principal responsibility in stifling Eritrea’s right of decolonization in the 1950s to promote its global strategic interests with the advent of the Cold War; its huge military support, including the training of local “counter-insurgency forces” to the Imperial Haile Selassie regime; its less prominent support to the Mengistu regime in spite of the latter’s undeniable alliance with the Soviet Union; and its opposition, until the 11th hour, to Eritrea’s legitimate struggle for liberation are indeed matters of the indisputable historical record.
3. The human and opportunity cost that these policies entailed to the Eritrean people, who had to pay the huge price of more than 65,000 deaths in combat of their best sons and daughters, are too evident to merit emphasis.
4. Following liberation, the Government of Eritrea chose to forgive and forget, to close the dark chapter, and, to begin on a new slate by fostering a new relationship of cooperation and friendship. This was reciprocated by the US Administrations and bilateral relations were good until 1998.
5. However, when Ethiopia declared war against Eritrea on 14 May 1998, and as Ethiopian jet fighters attacked Eritrea’s capital, Asmara, on 5 June 1998, the then US Assistant Secretary of State for Africa broke diplomatic precedence to directly address the OAU Summit in Ouagadougou in support of Ethiopia and to lobby the OAU to adopt a resolution against Eritrea.
6. In July of the same year, President Clinton brokered a Moratorium on Air Strikes between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Eritrea’s declared preference was for a comprehensive secession of hostilities. But the Clinton Administration insisted on a partial arrangement arguing that Ethiopia was not prepared to contemplate a comprehensive truce. Ethiopia abused the window of peace to purchase SU-27 jet fighters, mostly with Western financial support. And on 6 February 1999, it launched a new military offensive against Eritrea by fabricating “Eritrea’s air bombardment of Adi Grat”, a town in northern Ethiopia. The US authorities were fully aware of, and ascertained without a shred of doubt, Ethiopia’s bogus justification and its flagrant breach of the Moratorium on Air Strikes. Still, they abstained from taking appropriate remedial action.
7. The United States nonetheless continued to “facilitate” the peace talks in conjunction with the European Union and the OAU. In the course of the tortuous negotiating process, the US “Facilitators” came up, in September 1999, with a detailed final document known as the “Technical Arrangements”. This Agreement was submitted to the parties as a “take it or leave it” package. Both parties accepted the document and pledged to be bound by its provisions. Soon after, Eritrea learned that Ethiopia had not accepted the Agreement in good faith and was only biding time to launch another war. Subsequently, Eritrea’s Head of State conveyed this information to the highest authorities in Washington who reassured Eritrea that Ethiopia would face severe consequences should this turn out to be the case. As it happened, Ethiopia declared the peace process in a “terminal phase” and launched the third offensive on 12 May 2000. The US Administration backtracked on its commitments and only nudged the UN Security Council to impose military sanctions on both the guilty and aggrieved parties.
8. The US also extended both directly and mostly through convenient proxies, military support to Ethiopia during the war. Although the Government of Eritrea has not to date disclosed fully the information at its disposal, US intelligence agencies were further embroiled, at the height of Ethiopia’s third offensive in May 2000, in instigating acts of sedition and treason, including attempted liaison with Ethiopia, within a small ring of senior government officials.
9. In 2001, Eritrean diplomats in Washington were deprived of their diplomatic privileges on tax exemption in contravention of the provisions of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Eritrea did not take reciprocal action and US diplomats continue to enjoy their tax exemption privileges.
10. In June 2003, Eritrea was omitted from the list of East African countries slated to receive US funding for counter-terrorism barely three months after its inclusion, and while at the same time retaining Eritrea’s membership, in the “Coalition of the Willing”.
11. In October 2003, a visiting military team of the US Task Force based in Djibouti (CJTF-HOA) assisted the unlawful departure of an Eritrean citizen to Djibouti aboard its Helicopter in violation of the domestic laws of the country.
12. In 2003, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) published its annual religious freedom report accusing the Government of Eritrea of “violation of religious freedom”. In February 2004, the US Administration designated Eritrea a “country of particular concern” and imposed sanctions on military sales.
13. In December 2003, President Bush announced the cancellation of Eritrea’s membership to AGOA, barely two years after its inclusion.
14. Since 2004, the US has continued to reject the right of and expressed request by, Eritrea to purchase property in New York for the residence of its permanent representative to the United Nations.
15. On 13 April 2004, US Homeland Officers raided the Eritrean Community Centre in Washington D.C. and confiscated money and documents forcefully from the Eritrean diplomatic agent at gunpoint. In spite of Eritrea’s repeated requests and in violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the US government continues to refuse to return the Embassy property.
16. In September 2004, Eritrea’s Minister of Foreign Affairs was strip-searched by US Security officers at the airport in New York.
17. At various times since 2003, the US embassy in Asmara intentionally delayed or refused to issue entry visas for numerous Eritrean senior government officials who sought to leave for the USA for official business. Officials denied visas include senior Government Ministers, PFDJ officials, and even musical groups for concerts at festivals of Eritrean communities in the US.
18. In January 2006, the US Assistant Secretary of State visited the occupied Eritrean town of Badme through Ethiopia without the knowledge and authorization of Eritrea. In doing so, Ms. Frazer not only sanctioned Ethiopia’s occupation of a sovereign Eritrean town but to add insult to injury, she proposed that a “referendum” be held to decide the future of “ Badme”.
19. In November 2006, the US Ambassador to Eritrea demanded that the Ministry of Labour and Human Welfare pay 4.5 million US dollars for food aid donated to the needy by two NGOs (Mercy Corps and Catholic Relief Services) and that was utilized in accordance with the food-monetization policy. Similarly, the US Administration had previously demanded that Eritrea pay for food aid destined for Ethiopia and that perished in the Port of Assab in 1998 when the regime in Addis Abeba declared war and boycotted the port.
20. In November 2006, US authorities imposed travel restrictions on Eritrean embassy members and their dependents in Washington and Oakland. Ever since State Department officials almost routinely reject most of the travel requests by (the Ambassador and) other Eritrean diplomats beyond the 25 km limit.
21. Although the Eritrean Government issued the requested visa to the US Embassy’s new Visa Officer in Asmara, the US embassy nonetheless informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in November 2006 that “effective December 4, 2006, non-immigrant visa services will be temporarily suspended due to staffing shortages. Non-immigrant visa services will resume as soon as staff are granted permission to travel to Eritrea to provide this service”. This notice, which was posted on Website the same day, remains effective until today, and Eritreans who wish to visit their relatives in the US have to travel to Nairobi or Cairo to apply for entry visas which are not always granted.
22. In July 2006, Eritrea’s new Ambassador to the US was warned that “he will have a hard time during his tenure in Washington” during a courtesy call to the US Under Secretary for Political Affairs.
23. In January 2007, US security officers at New York’s JFK airport conducted an unlawful search on the person of Eritrea’s Ambassador to the United Nations. The Ambassador was isolated from the other passengers and ordered to pass through a special search machine. His hand luggage was searched in a special spot, disregarding his Diplomatic Identification Card. The security officer in charge informed the Ambassador that the special search was an order from higher authorities. Furthermore, upon arrival in Asmara, the Ambassador discovered that his baggage was forcefully opened and searched, without his approval and presence. A “Notice of Inspection” was inserted inside his baggage in acknowledgment of the act. This is in violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which clearly states: “Inspection shall be conducted in the presence of the Diplomatic Agent or of his authorized representative”.
24. In February 2007, the US Embassy in Asmara wrote in Note Verbale No. 046/07: “The embassy wishes to inform the Government of the State of Eritrea that its continued failure to allow the unhindered entry of our diplomatic pouches, which contain items necessary for the full functioning of the mission, including materials vital to the issuance of the visas, has unduly interfered with Embassy operations. Unless we are able to resolve this matter, effective February 14, the Embassy of the United States will close to the public and suspend all visa operations”.
25. In February 2007, the US visa revalidation office in the State Department delayed the renewal of the visa of the Deputy of Chief of Mission (DCM) in the Eritrean Embassy in Washington under the flimsy excuse of the “administrative review” process.
26. In May 2007, the US Embassy in Asmara informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the HIV/AIDS prevention program will be terminated on 31 May 2007. The termination of the programme, which was incidentally very small compared to other countries in Africa, was again justified by the spurious pretext of permission obstacles to inspection trips.
27. In June 2009, President Obama signed Executive Order 1349 putting Eritrea in the league of “human trafficking” nations and imposing a series of financial sanctions against it. In reality, it was US Administrations that were willfully engaged in inducing human flight from Eritrea for reasons better known to them. In 2004, the US Government employed the services of the UNHCR to encourage the entire Kunama language group in Eritrea to seek and obtain asylum in the United States. Again in February 2009, the Bureau of Refugees in the State Department announced that it has allocated asylum rights for 10,000 Eritrean youth who may desert the National Service. (This act in fact violates US laws against army deserters as well as undermining the elaborate extradition proceedings that the Pentagon routinely resorts to so as to bring to court US army deserters from Iraq and other war zones who seek asylum in third countries).
28. The Obama Administration continued until the end of its term the annual and offensive ritual of designating Eritrea as “a Country of Concern for practicing religious persecution”.

Unlawful Interference in the Boundary Demarcation Process
29. The US Administration acted unlawfully to obstruct the demarcation of the boundary in accordance with the “final and binding” decisions of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC). When Ethiopia’s Prime Minister rejected, in September 2003, the EEBC Award as “illegal, irresponsible and unjust” and requested the UN Security Council to create an “alternative mechanism”, this was done in consultation and with the approval of the US Administration. The appointment of Lloyd Axeworthy and the subsequent decision of the US Government to appoint General Fulford are, among other things, clear testimonies to the collusion between the United States and Ethiopia to alter the colonial boundary by circumventing the EEBC.
30. Indeed, General Fulford, rather unwisely, wrote to Eritrea’s Legal Counsel that he was seeking operational latitude to shift the boundary by about 1 km. In her press statement in May 2007, the Assistant Secretary of State crowed about “satellite technology” to address the issues of “some farms that would be split from their wells”. It must be underlined that there are no “mosques” or “churches” that will be split into two. We are talking about a 1000 km borderline with no “nightmarish” scenarios. But above all, the litigation process was exhaustive and conducted over a two-year period with the submission of voluminous memorials, counter-memorials, and, hearings where all issues were argued out and trashed. In any case, if US official position is the implementation of the “final and binding” Award of the EEBC decision without any qualification, in accordance with the Algiers Agreement, the stance of the Assistant Secretary of State is at variance with her government’s views.
31. Ambassador John Bolton, former US Permanent Representative to the UN, in his book ‘Surrender is not an Option: Defending America at the United Nations notes, in regard to the border issue between Eritrea and Ethiopia:
“I certainly had no favorite, but it seemed that Eritrea had a point. Ethiopia had agreed on a mechanism to resolve the border dispute in 2000 and now was welching on its deal in flat violation of its commitments…I said we should solve the problem and not let it fester forever, France, Japan and several other Council members agreed with me… For reasons I never understood, however, Frazer reversed course and asked in early February to reopen the 2002 EEBC decision, which she had concluded was wrong, and award a major piece of the disputed territory to Ethiopia. I was at a loss how to explain that to the Security Council…”
32. On a similar issue, Mr. Azouz Ennifar, former Acting Special Representative of the UNSG to Eritrea and Ethiopia reported:
“I met on 24 June 2006 with Jendayi Frazer, U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs in Addis Ababa. She regretted that the EEBC is not flexible. She told me that she has developed parallel tracks to deal with the matter. In her view, demarcation as Eritrea wants it is not feasible. She also said that the status quo would benefit Ethiopia and demarcation would not take place without dialogue”. U.S. Embassy Berlin cable of 11 August 2009, similarly, reads: “We agreed that Ethiopia is an ‘indispensable partner’ to stability in the region, the border conflict between Ethiopia and Eritrea is ‘frozen’ for the foreseeable future;”
33. The United States has been instrumental in ensuring that UN Security Council Resolutions are distorted to apportion equal blame to Eritrea and Ethiopia. At times, the US has even succeeded in portraying Eritrea as the culprit party. Ethiopia has rejected the EEBC decision which should have been enforced by the UN Security Council. Yet to date, Ethiopia continues to occupy sovereign Eritrean territories in violation of the Algiers Peace Agreement, the Charter of the UN, as well as UN Security Council Resolutions, adopted in 2002 requesting Ethiopia to dismantle settlements in the Badme area. All these issues have “faded with time” and US leverage is being brought to bear on the UN Security Council so as to misdirect its punitive measures against Eritrea. In a confidential cable communication from the US Secretary of State issued on March 1st, 2008, the US mission to the UN is instructed to canvass for support from certain Security Council members and UN troop-contributing countries for sanctions against Eritrea “for its interference with UNMEE, especially its recent refusal to reinstate fuel supplies to the Mission”. The cable states: “Potential options include, i) imposing a travel ban on key Eritrean government officials; ii) placing an assets freeze on these same officials and/or other Eritrean assets/resources; iii) imposing trade, investment, or other restrictions related to Eritrean resources, including mining; iv) imposing an arms embargo on Eritrea”.

US role in exacerbating the conflict with Djibouti
34. The United States and Ethiopia colluded to nudge Djibouti to fabricate a border dispute and falsely accuse Eritrea “for military aggression against its small neighbor.” Indeed, Djibouti-Eritrea relations were improving steadily even as the situation in Somalia was taking a turn for the worse in 2006. A 14 September 2006 cable from the Embassy of France reports on a September 7-8 meeting with U.S. Ambassador to Djibouti W. Stuart Symington and French officials, (Helene Le Gal and desk officer Francois Gautier; President Chirac’s Africa Advisor Michel de Bonnecorse; and his deputy Jacques Champagne de Labriolle). According to the cable:“…Djibouti had managed to maintain a balanced relationship with Ethiopia and Eritrea…The French noted that the possibility of social unrest existed in Djibouti, in part because income from the bases was not necessarily being distributed broadly…The widespread use of khat, a stimulant imported mainly from Ethiopia, was a significant factor in Djiboutian society. It had generally negative effects on the political process and economy. Social unrest was always possible when supplies of khat dwindled…Increasing numbers of Somalis, Eritreans, and Ethiopians were in Djibouti, attracted by Djibouti’s port and the illusion that it would always provide more jobs, which was not the case. Ethnic tensions were growing in Djibouti…”
35. In a 16 September 2006 cable, “Ethiopia: Deputy Minister Tekeda Talks Somalia, Regional Issues with Das Yamamoto”, the Ethiopian Deputy Minister Tekeda Alemu tells the US official in Addis that he wants a break in Djibouti-Eritrea ties. The cable from US Ambassador Donald Yamamoto begins with this: “…Tekeda expressed concern about increasing Eritrean influence over Djibouti as well as CIC contacts with President Guelleh. He encouraged the USG to speak frankly with Djibouti about the risks of its behavior… Tekeda maintained that the GOD was “on the wrong path,” and added that Djibouti was not strong enough to take Ethiopia’s continued friendship and forbearance for granted…”
36. But in February-March 2008, a putative Eritrea-Djibouti border dispute was deliberately escalated to advance the US-Ethiopia agenda against the State of Eritrea. The Government of Djibouti unleashed an intensive campaign accusing Eritrea of deploying forward troops on the common border. This was not contested by the French Government as the following cable illustrates: “…French Ambassador to Djibouti Dominique Decherf said that while he had to take note of the assertions by Djibouti’s Foreign Minister, French military observers in the field had not/not seen any concentration of Eritrean troops along the border with Djibouti. He said French fixed-wing aircraft dispatched to the area on April 17 “did not see anything conclusive,” and did not/not see massive troop concentrations along the border…”
37. On 12 May 2008, France’s position on the issue remained the same. A cable from the US Embassy in Paris reported the following: “…Le Gal said the Djiboutians had been phoning her “three times a day” and that her message to them was to avoid raising tensions in the region over an incident that had resolved itself peacefully. She repeated that, while Ethiopia’s border dispute with Eritrea was long-standing, there appeared to be no historical basis for a border dispute between Eritrea and Djibouti, which was another reason that both sides should avoid turning this episode into a real problem…”
38. But while France offered to mediate between Djibouti and Eritrea to resolve the issue, the United States took Djibouti’s side from the very first instance. And when Djibouti forces attacked Eritrean units on June 10, 2008, the US promptly condemned what it termed “Eritrean aggression” and pushed the UNSC to pass a resolution against Eritrea. US conduct in these affairs is again illustrated by the following WikiLeaks cables: “A 15 January 2009 cable shows the close coordination between the US and Djibouti and the agenda vis-a-vis Eritrea. ‘…Foreign Minister Mahmoud Youssouf called Ambassador on January 15 to express thanks for UNSCR 1862 regarding the Djibouti/Eritrea border dispute. Youssouf said the GODJ was pleased with the outcome. Ambassador responded that we, too, thought it was a strong resolution — one that had resulted from a collaborative effort, including close consultation with Djiboutian PermRep Roble Olhaye. Separately, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs circulated the text of UNSCR 1862 via diplomatic note to all foreign missions in Djibouti, highlighting that “the Security Council placed responsibility for the aggression on Eritrea and demanded that it withdraw its troops from Ras Doumeira and Doumeira Island within five weeks.” Admitting it was unlikely that the GSE would respond positively to the resolution, the Foreign Minister commented that the GODJ must now begin to develop a strategy for “the next stage,” after the five-week deadline has elapsed. This is a point that Embassy Djibouti has made repeatedly over the past two months to senior GODJ contacts, including Youssouf, National Security Advisor Hassan Said Khaireh, and Presidency Secretary General Ismail Tani. Ambassador offered to work closely with Youssouf as the GODJ develops its strategy.”

US primary role in UNSC Resolutions 1907 and 2023
39. The United States was and remains the principal architect behind the punitive sanctions that the UN Security Council imposed against Eritrea in 2009 and 2011 respectively. In the words of the former Assistant Secretary of State for Africa, the strategy pursued by the US Administration was to ‘pin down and punish Eritrea’ for refusing to give up the legal course. This fact is illustrated by, among other pieces of evidence, Wikileaks cables that are now in the public domain.
40. According to these cables, Ambassador Susan Rice was personally involved in the push for sanctions against Eritrea under the ruse of Eritrea’s conduct of “regional destabilization”. The cable, “UGANDA TO CONSIDER ERITREA SANCTIONS RESOLUTION WHICH COVERS DJIBOUTI; REMAINS COMMITTED TO AMISOM”, details a conversation Susan Rice had on 20 September 2009 with Yoweri Museveni, the President of Uganda: “…Rice emphasized that the U.S. strongly supports a resolution addressing the issue of Eritrea invading Djibouti. It is a matter of principle that the U.S. cannot ignore, which puts UNSC credibility at stake, and would make Eritrea feel it can continue to invade neighbors with impunity, she said. Museveni expressed concern that references to both Somalia and Djibouti in the draft UN Security Council (UNSC) sanctions resolution might jeopardize its adoption chances. Rice said that she believes there is only one chance to secure a resolution, so Djibouti must be included, and noted that the international community has never effectively confronted Eritrea for invading neighboring countries on five occasions (Yemen, Sudan, Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Somalia). She noted that in January, the UNSC gave Eritrea a deadline of six weeks to leave Djibouti or face sanctions…”
41. Rice was not interested in providing evidence to support her allegations against Eritrea and her remarks about the members of the UN Security Council show her that she was willing to deceive the Council to advance her agenda: “…Rice reminded Museveni that past experience suggested that the UNSC would not block a resolution led by African members and supported by the African Union. She shared the U.S. read that, if Burkina Faso and Uganda co-sponsor this resolution, the British will support it, the French will “keep their heads down” and will not block. FM Kutesa noted that Uganda had no substantive concerns over including Djibouti in the resolution. His concern, he said, was that because the AU had never passed an actual resolution that included Djibouti, the Russian and Chinese delegations would have to consult with their capitals before agreeing to it. Rice advised Kutesa not to be overly cautious and reasserted that a resolution perceived to be African-led would not fail. She noted that, if it became clear during consultations that Russia and China had insurmountable concerns about including Djibouti, they could be dealt with before the issue came to vote…”

Persistent Smear Campaigns
42. The US State Department has been obsessed, especially in the last ten years, with demonizing Eritrea and its Government. The annual human rights report is invariably replete with gross distortion of facts and events.
43. The US State Department put Eritrea as a “Country of particular concern” on religious freedom purely for political reasons. Eritrea is a secular State where all religions are respected and where Christianity and Islam have co-existed in harmony for over 1400 years. The false charges of religious persecution were vigorously pursued for other ulterior motives. There are new and fringe groups, whose membership does not exceed a couple of hundred, and who receive financing from abroad. These groups were asked to register in accordance with the laws of the country and to declare their income.
44. The controversy over diplomatic pouches has also been blown out of proportion. The two incidents arose when there were grounds to believe that the external markings of large crates that the US embassy was bringing as “diplomatic pouches” were at variance with the contents. The containers were not however detained. The Embassy was requested to allow the Customs officials to open the containers in the presence of US Embassy personnel. When this was not granted, the Embassy was asked to take back the containers. This happened only on two occasions. The US Embassy has otherwise enjoyed unfettered access to bring hundreds of these containers. The US Embassy is in fact operating a relaying radio station from within the Embassy premises without notifying the Government of Eritrea or requesting operational permission for the equipment as expressly stipulated in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
45. The decision to close the Eritrean Consulate in Oakland cannot be interpreted as “reciprocal action”. In the first place, US authorities have all along taken various measures against the Eritrean Embassy in Washington, including unlawful seizure of money and documents. The Government of Eritrea never took reciprocal action. The travel restrictions that Eritrea introduced recently in view of the prevailing tense situation with Ethiopia did not also single out the US Embassy. Temporary measures of this nature are indeed normative practices that States routinely take. The explanations of the Assistant Secretary of State cannot, therefore, be convincing. There are not, also, “400 Americans in Eritrea whose right of Consular protection has been adversely affected by this measure”.
46. The charges of “sponsoring terrorism” and “destabilizing the region” are utterly baseless allegations that belie the ulterior motives of the US State Department. Eritrea’s position on Somalia has been spelled out unequivocally in various occasions and forums before; including at the IGAD and UN sessions. Equating Somalia’s quest for national reconstitution after 16 years of mayhem with “Islamist terrorism” is either inexcusable ignorance or deliberate distortion of facts and events. As Eritrea has underlined repeatedly, the presumed presence of one or two alleged international terrorists cannot justify, by any stretch of the imagination, the invasion of a sovereign country; and, the deaths of tens of thousands and the displacement of almost half a million civilians.
47. The charge of regional destabilization is equally preposterous. Ethiopia invaded Somalia in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions which were adjusted to “fit the new reality” because of US support. Ethiopia’s invasion of Somalia was long planned with the tacit encouragement and joint planning of the respective US agencies. Ethiopia is violating international law to occupy sovereign Eritrean territories and to spawn a permanent situation of regional tension and instability.
48. In the same vein, Eritrea’s constructive role in the Sudan cannot be sallied as a “positive influence for the wrong reasons”. True, Eritrea in cooperation with Uganda and Ethiopia, pursued a policy of containment against the Sudan in the 1990s when Khartoum was flirting with terrorism and when Bin Laden had his headquarters there. The United States was, at least nominally, supportive of what it called the “Frontline States” in those times. Apparently, the US Assistant Secretary of State has not checked or has deliberately chosen to ignore, the well-known positions of her government in the recent past.
49. Furthermore, the United States has been feverishly working, especially in the last ten years, to isolate Eritrea and to undermine the flow of investment and economic cooperation from Europe and the Middle East in particular. The following cables illustrate the scope and extent of this campaign.
50. According to a 29 May 2009 cable, A/S CARTER’S APRIL 23 MEETING WITH BELGIAN MFA AFRICA TEAM, at a breakfast on 23 April 2009 for visiting Acting A/S for African Affairs Phillip Carter and NSC Senior Director for Africa Michelle Gavin with the Belgian MFA Africa Team, Phillip Carter repeated his accusations against Eritrea and questioned EU’s assistance to Eritrea. “…Carter also asked about the EU’s large grant to the regime in Eritrea.… Carter hoped the international community would support AU's calls for sanctions. He also questioned the wisdom of giving EUR 122 million to a regionally-destabilizing pariah regime in Eritrea…”
51. In his conversation with Meles Zenawi in Ethiopia on 19 November 2009, US Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Karl Wycoff divulges the US campaign to isolate Eritrea. “…Wycoff agreed there is no evidence that Eritrea has shown improvement in its behavior, although he added that President Isaias had recently undertaken something of a charm offensive targeted at European diplomats, a possible indication that he may be considering options. Wycoff assured Meles that the U.S. remains committed to achieving a UNSC sanctions regime against Asmara and continues to broaden the discussion beyond the P3 and Uganda with a hard push by USUN. He said the USG was also expanding efforts to undercut support for Asmara, noting, for example, he had been sent on a trip to Cairo, Riyadh, Jeddah, and other cities both to promote efforts to undercut flows of support to Asmara but also to seek concrete support for Somalia’s TFG. He said he has observed that some EU member states, formerly more supportive of Eritrea, have come to accept that Eritrea is playing a seriously negative role in the region and that the UK now believes that Eritrea has become a significant threat to its own domestic security…”
52. As a continuation of unprovoked hostilities against Eritrea, Susan Rice was at the forefront of lobbying and arm-twisting the Geneva-based Human Rights Council to adopt a country-specific special mandate and appoint a Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Eritrea in July 2012. To this end, Djibouti, Nigeria, and Somalia (non-members of the Council) were handed a script to sponsor the resolution.
53. Again in 2014, the US was a lead lobbyist in the establishment of the Commission of Inquiry on Eritrea.
54. In 2014, according to Herman Cohen, former Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, fourteen members of the UN Security Council were contemplating lifting the sanctions against Eritrea. Susan Rice threatened to veto any resolution towards that end.
55. In June 2016, as the UN Human Rights Council Session was going on in Geneva, the US encouraged the Ethiopian government to invade Eritrea. Fortunately, the attempt was crushed.
56. In October 2016, Eritrea’s Presidential advisor’s speech at the Atlantic Council was canceled due to White House coercion on the organizers.
57. In October 2016, a public meeting of Eritrean Americans with Eritrea’s High-Level Delegation visiting Washington, DC was canceled due to pressure from the Administration.
58. On 13 September 2017, Nick Turse maintained, in an article entitled “How the NSA built a secret Surveillance Network for Ethiopia” that the US was involved with an eavesdropping project called “Lion’s Pride” to help the minority government in Ethiopia spy not only on its people but its neighboring countries as well. The relevant paragraph reads: “…according to classified U.S. documents published Wednesday by The Intercept, the National Security Agency forged a relationship with the Ethiopian government that has expanded exponentially over the years. What began as one small facility soon grew into a network of clandestine eavesdropping outposts designed to listen in on the communications of Ethiopians and their neighbors across the Horn of Africa in the name of counterterrorism…”
59. The United States continues to place Eritrea on its list of “Countries of Particular Concern” in its annual Religious Freedom reports.
60. Every year around the month of May, the US administration continues to issue negative travel warnings regardless of the prevailing situation in Eritrea.
61. On Sept 25, 2012, at the Clinton Global Initiative, President Obama stated the following: “I recently renewed sanctions on some of the worst abusers, including North Korea and Eritrea. We’re partnering with groups that help women and children escape from the grip of their abusers. We’re helping other countries step up their own efforts.
62. The Obama administration invited nearly all of Africa’s leaders to the US-Africa Leaders Summit. President Isaias Afwerki was left out on instructions from Susan Rice.

Reasons Behind Misguided US Hostility
63. The spiral of hostility that characterizes US policy towards Eritrea boils down to one overriding reason. This was true in the 1950s and it is also true in present times. This has nothing to do with the principles of international law or with the values of justice, democracy, and human rights. The United States has all along believed that its perceived strategies in the region can be better served by Ethiopia; irrespective of the philosophical persuasions of the regime in power in Addis Ababa. This consistent and overriding policy was couched in Cold War terms in the 1950s. It was subsequently articulated in terms of regional “Anchor States” as spelled out in the US National Security Strategy of 2002.
64. This policy did not serve the interests of Eritrea, Ethiopia, the region, and even the United States. Yet, it continued for six decades with damaging consequences. Eritrea hopes that now, it can be finally redressed contributing to regional peace and security and promoting US interests.

[Temt]

የአሜሪካ ተወካይ ኤርትራን አመሰገኑ: በአስመራ ቤተ መንግስት የተደረገው ውይይት