The US and UN not only unjustly sanction Eritrea, but trivialize fundamental principles of international law by overlooking of Ethiopia’s aggression.
During one of his debates with Socrates, Thrasymachus alleges that “justice is nothing else than the interest of the stronger.” For Eritreans (as well as many other regional observers), a clear reflection of this point are the ongoing sanctions imposed against the country. Not only do the sanctions lack basis and remain counterproductive, they reveal a long-existent and glaring double standard.
On December 23, 2009, the United Nations Security Council adopted Resolution 1907, imposing a sanctions regime against Eritrea. The pretexts for the sanctions were Eritrea’s alleged support for Al-Shabaab, a Somali terrorist group, and its dispute with neighbouring Djibouti. Shortly thereafter, in 2011, the sanctions were expanded through Resolution 2023 (2011), adopted by the Security Council during its 6674th meeting, held on December 5, 2011.
Setting aside the considerable issue of the dubious legitimacy or basis for the original adoption of sanctions against Eritrea, it is starkly apparent that their continued imposition is essentially illegitimate. Simply, the pretexts for them are non-existent. In a statement made at the United Nations (UN) on September 27, the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General (SRSG) for Somalia, Michael Keating, stated that “I have seen no evidence of Eritrea supporting Al-Shabaab.”
This came only days after a public statement by Qatar’s Minister of State for Foreign Affairs H.E. Sultan bin Saad Al Muraikhi explaining how efforts by Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani led to the “resolution of the border conflict between Djibouti and Eritrea, achieving a fair and peaceful settlement based on principles of good neighborliness and mutual respect for territorial integrity and sovereignty within the internationally recognized borders and the release of all Djiboutian prisoners of war.”
Importantly, these are not breaking developments. Over several years, 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,” while in 2010 Eritrea and Djibouti signed a comprehensive agreement entrusting Qatar to play a mediating role, quickly followed by a process of implementation. According to Herman Cohen, former US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, the sanctions on Eritrea have “no basis in fact,” are a case of “bullying,” and while 14 Security Council members wanted to lift the sanctions in 2014, the US vetoed the move.
It is quite telling that although the US recently appointed a new Charge d’Affaires in Eritrea, accompanied by a series of platitudes, on September 29, mere days after the arrival of the new Charge d’Affaires in Asmara, the US updated unilateral sanctions against Eritrea in the US Federal Register.
The continued illegitimate sanctions against Eritrea, largely due to pressure from the US and several partners, add to the long list of general criticisms and troubling questions often raised about the use, legitimacy, poor execution, and overall effectiveness of international sanctions. In fact, many studies have found the success rate of sanctions to be poor (Pape 1997; Baldwin and Pape 1998; Allen 2005; CFR 2006; Spadoni 2010).
The checkered history of sanctions is probably best reflected in Iraq, where a study by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) found that between 1991 and 1998, during the height of the Iraqi sanctions regime, there were 500,000 “excess” deaths of Iraqi infants under the age of five (“excess” meaning deaths that would not have otherwise occurred in the absence of the sanctions regime). Denis Halliday, a distinguished senior UN official assigned to Iraq who ultimately resigned in protest, described his assignment as, “to implement a policy that satisfies the definition of genocide: a deliberate policy that has effectively killed well over a million individuals, children and adults.” Later, the UN Assistant Secretary General, Hans Von Sponeck, who additionally served as UN Humanitarian Co-ordinator in Iraq, stated, “[M]ake no mistake, this is deliberate. I have not in the past wanted to use the word genocide, but now it is unavoidable,” before also resigning.
A number of other problematic cases (e.g. Cuba) have meant that sanctions have an inconclusive track record and remain plagued by considerable questions about their utility.
In the case of Eritrea, sanctions, beyond being fundamentally illegitimate, are counterproductive. They have only served to promote misunderstanding and distrust, diminish possibilities for effective cooperation or partnership, stunt development, investment, and socio-economic growth, and further destabilize the Horn of Africa through contributing to unnecessary rivalry, conflict, and regional insecurity.
Additionally, the sanctions also reflect a blatant double standard. It is hard to overlook the troubling paradox that while Eritrea remains burdened by sanctions—even, as it must be underscored, in the absence of any supportive evidence for their pretext—the UN and the international community have long ignored its neighbour Ethiopia’s complete failure to abide by its international legal obligations and responsibilities for demarcating the border, and its ongoing military occupation and state of war and aggression toward Eritrea.
Moreover, in a twisted case of illogic, Eritrea is doubly punished since the sanctions (particularly the arms embargo and severe limitations on defensive materials) effectively mean it is restricted in defending itself—a fundamental international right enshrined under the UN Charter—against Ethiopia’s military occupation and unrelenting aggression or terror-related threats which abound throughout the region.
Only this past summer, on June 12, 2016, in a clear illustration of the double standard, the Ethiopian military launched a large, unprovoked attack against Eritrea on the Tsorona Central Front, leading to the death of hundreds of Ethiopians and 18 Eritreans. Aggression, it should be recalled, is a grave breach of international law and the UN Charter, and was described by the Nuremberg Tribunal as “not only an international crime; it is the supreme international crime”. Although Eritrea immediately reported the incident and quickly called upon the Security Council to investigate and take appropriate action, it was only met with tepid responses by the UN Secretary General, which meekly called for “restraint” from both sides. Beyond representing a resounding failure to condemn Ethiopia’s continued belligerence and uphold international law, this unjustly assigned equal blame to both victim and aggressor.
Rather than an isolated incident, the June attack was but the latest in a long series of deadly provocations by Ethiopia. Since the end of the destructive 1998-2000 war between the two countries, the Ethiopian government has not only made regular illegal incursions into and attacks against Eritrea, it has also made persistent calls for the overthrow of the Eritrean government and, through belligerent, threatening statements via government-owned media outlets, proclaimed its intentions to carry out “military action to oust the regime in Eritrea”—again, violating the UN Charter and international law.
In 2014, Ethiopia’s Prime Minister, Hailemariam Desalegn, stated that the “no war, no peace situation with Eritrea is over. Ethiopia from now on is ready to take military action against Eritrea,” while in 2015 and early 2016, he claimed Ethiopia was ready to take “proportionate military action against Eritrea.” As well, shortly after the disastrous June 2016 attack, high-level Ethiopian officials (including the Prime Minister, Minister of Defence, and Minister of Government Communication) proudly boasted in parliament about Ethiopia’s aggressive actions against Eritrea (including statements made on 14 June, 28 June, and 5 July 2016).
Ultimately, not only do the UN and the international community unjustly sanction Eritrea, their oversight of Ethiopia’s occupation, repeated aggression, and continuing threats trivializes fundamental principles of international law and sovereignty and neglects the flagrant violation of the collective rights of an entire nation.
Recently, an increasing number of observers, analysts, and foreign officials have expressed the need for a “new approach” toward Eritrea and the Horn of Africa; to borrow from the inimitable Ray Hudson, “even a blind man on a galloping horse in thick fog could see that.” The ongoing crises in the region, marked by increasing instability, conflagration, and emigration, are a testament of the fundamental flaws within the international community’s approach and policies. However, despite the rhetoric, few genuine or tangible shifts have occurred.
Moving forward, in the absence of any credible evidence, the sanctions against Eritrea should be removed. As well, the international community (specifically the UN, the AU, and EU) should shoulder its legal responsibility and obligations by genuinely censuring Ethiopia’s illegal military occupation and repeated aggressive actions towards Eritrea, and calling for the immediate, unconditional implementation of the “final and binding” Eritrea Ethiopia Border Commission (EEBC) 2002 Delimitation and 2007 Demarcation decisions. Importantly, such steps will both reflect and fulfill commitments to key principles of international law, represent positive gestures that can help encourage fruitful and effective cooperation, remove unnecessary, harmful distractions and support the addressing of internal issues, and ultimately potentially prove to be useful measures toward promoting lasting, sustainable peace, stability, socio-economic growth, and development throughout the region.
Mr Emhatsion, you are saying sanction is unjustified and unproductive. What about the Evil regime, is it justified and innocent. How come you did not write about the criminal regime? I am sure you know the oppressive and brutal character of the regime, but maybe you have vested interested you did not touch it even symbolically.
You must be delusional to write this article! You really believe that the sanctions against Eritrea and the state of Ethiopia are the problems that diminished our development and caused conflicts and religion insecurities?
Well let me phrase it for you. It’s people like you who are the enemies of the people of Eritrea.
Who cares about sanctions are legitimate or illegitimate. We have illegitimate regime in Eritrea, and this is our fundamental problem.
That’s like asking, “Who cares whether the entire civilian population of Eritrea is being collectively punished by Western governments to pursue their political aims?”
We are collectively punished by our own government anyways. And instead of talking about the elephant in the room, its being ignored and attention is given to the secondary causes. Ethiopia, Sanction, America, Djibouti, Sudan, Europe countless excuses for the mess in the country. These are not the primary problems.
The Eritrean government is oppressive, therefore it’s okay for Western governments to collectively punishing the civilian population there doesn’t seem like very sound logic to me.
What I am trying to say is that, the fact that we have sanctions imposed and other problems are because of the ill governing of the government. So instead of talking about the sanctions and other resulted problems, why cant we point out the cause of the problem?
And I believe the government is happy to see this sanction imposed because it diverts the attention from him and gives him time in power.
But thank you for your impute.
Your suggestion that the Eritrean government is happy to have these sanctions imposed only bolsters the point of the article.
Thank you!
Are you really telling me your interest, or the bare facts in Eritrea? Don`t forget we`re living in the “information era”!
I believe the first paragraph with the Socrates debate says it all – when it comes to sanctions on many of the worlds countries and regions. When the Autonomous region of Crimea voted for the annexation to Russia, based on the facts that they have already been terrorized by Ukraine Neo-Nazi’s, this region had sanctions placed on them. For being democratic, this was their punishment. This was not the first time Crimea asked for a democratic vote to return to RU. The first time the vote was detained and sabotaged by Kiev. Socrates said it all.
Wherever such sanctions (read exclusively US sanctions) have been imposed, result has always been disastrous mainly for the civilians. Ideal solution is this that such constraints be limited and exclusive only for those who commit crimes against humanity and against the International Law. And these be approved by a majority vote of UN SC.
There is no evidence Eritrea has supported Somalian terrorist. Eritrea had a good realtion to the former somalian government under Syad barre the arch enemy of the etnic clan and religious groups who tried to take over the country I did not come to power to divide Somali but to unite them, and I will never deviate from this path. I shall respect a Somali individual as long as he deserves respect, but if he turns away from the correct path, then that is not my business.
Mogadiscio Domestic Service in Somali, 0448 GMT (1 May 1978). And about the common somali-eritrean interest The people colonized by Abyssinia will be free. Eritrea will be free, and they cannot refuse to let them be free. Western Somalia will be free, and they cannot refuse to grant it freedom. The numerous Abo will be free because this is history, and no one can prevent the sunshine from reaching us.
Mogadiscio Domestic Service in Somali, 0448 GMT (1 May 1978). The un group has controlled and surveilled The eritrean and somali government and has founf out that there is no evidence that Eritrea supports al shabab. Actually, it is the 4th time that the SEMG is stating that it has not found evidence to support the allegations against Eritrea. According to http://shabait.com/categoryblog/22917-eritrea-un-monitoring-group-says-no-evidence-of-support-for-al-shabbab. Eritrea’s alleged support for Somalia-based insurgent group Al-Shabaab cannot be proved according to a report by a United Nations team of experts. https://www.google.de/amp/www.africanews.com/amp/2017/11/10/eritrea-support-for-al-shabaab-unprovable-un-experts-want-sanctions-lifted/ and
Outlining that panel’s efforts over the last four months, he said the Somalia Eritrea Monitoring Group had found no links between Al-Shabaab and Eritrea. According to https://reliefweb.int/report/somalia/al-shabaab-biggest-threat-peace-somalia-sanctions-committee-chair-tells-security While recognizing that for over four mandates the Monitoring Group had not found conclusive evidence that Eritrea supported Al‑Shabaab,
https://www.un.org/press/en/2017/sc13065.doc.htm We should not be just hanging our hats on the side of someone like the Ethiopians and just letting them direct what our policy is,” he said. “Eritrea is in a very strategic location, and it is working with people that I think are very responsible people in terms of the war against terrorists.”
Eritrea hosts a military base operated by the United Arab Emirates at the port city of Assab, from which the UAE conducts missions in its war against Houthi rebels in Yemen. According to Dana Rohrbacher https://www.google.de/amp/s/www.voanews.com/amp/3972539.html. Following a meeting with Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld said that the United States can learn much about combating terror from the people of this small African nation. Afwerki said his country would cooperate gladly in the global war on terrorism, because it has been the victim of terrorism. http://archive.defense.gov/news/newsarticle.aspx?id=42407 The United Nations Security Council has decided to continue sanctions against Eritrea for another year. This decision has no basis in fact. It was taken because certain persons in the highest levels of the United States Government have mean spirited grievances against Eritrean President Isayas Afwerki. All accusations against Eritrea regarding alleged assistance to the Islamist terrorist group al-Shebab in Somalia have never been substantiated. All experts on Somalia now agree that for the past three years, there have not even been rumors about such assistance. This is pure bullying. According to Herman j cohen http://www.cohenonafrica.com/homepage/2015/10/31/sanctions-on-eritrea
According to Herman Cohen, former US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, the sanctions on Eritrea have “no basis in fact,” are a case of “bullying,” and while 14 Security Council members wanted to lift the sanctions in 2014, the US vetoed the move.https://www.foreignpolicyjournal.co…
Importantly, these are not breaking developments. Over several years, 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,”
People should divide between their own interest and the fact that Eritrea has been punished for no reason
Economic sanctions and Ethiopias illegal occupation of eritrean territories are the main problem for Eritrea
It has also a big impact of the people:
Unjustified economic sanctions
Government not having enough money for
The country(Army,Education…
government and people not having enough acces to water,electricity,Wlan
enconomic development is prevented by the sanctions
Ethiopians ilegal occupation of eritrean territories:
No war no peace situation between The 2 countries;a militiarised border a small mistake can break out a war; Eritrea: the use of many Eritreans as Reservist for the Eritrean army;unlimited military service to have enough Reservist to defend an Ethiopian invasion; Ethiopians
population(100mio);Eritrea(6mio)
Thats why so the eritrean army needs so many Eritreans as reservists