Eritrea
Slams
UN Sanctions
for Leaks,
Favoring
Ethiopia,
Acting for
US & Rice
By
Matthew
Russell Lee
UNITED
NATIONS,
July 17 -- For
weeks there
has been talk
of two UN
reports
on Eritria.
The first,
shorter one
was put
online and
then taken
off,
as exclusively
reported
and published
by Inner City
Press.
The second
one was and is
the report of
the UN
Monitoring
Group on
Somalia and
Eritrea, said
to be over 400
pages in
length and
watermarked to
discourage any
leaking.
Still,
even
before the
Security
Council's
sanctions
committee met
Tuesday
about the
report, the
Monitoring
Group's
coordinator
Matthew Bryden
came out and
was quoted
that "We're
trying to make
the case that
any
improvement in
Eritrea's
conduct is the
result of
sanctions, and
that it's too
early to lift
them because
of the other
violations
they
have
committed."
Eritrea,
which says
it hadn't yet
been given a
copy of the
report as the
country
concerned, was
critical of
the procedure
and of
Bryden's
quote. Eritrea
also called
out US
Ambassador
Susan Rice, if
not by name
then by
position.
(Inner City
Press covered
Rice's
involvement
back in
December 2011
and would be
happy to run
any response
or comment,
even en
passant the
Council.)
For now, Inner
City Press is
publishing
pertinent
portions of
Eritrea's
presentation
to Tuesday's
closed door
meeting:
...
Eritrea
has not as yet
received a
copy of the
report. This
contravenes
the
fundamental
legal
principle of
the 'equality
of
arms.' As a
country of
concern,
Eritrea has an
inalienable
right of
respond to the
allegations
made by the
Group; and for
this to occur
Eritrea must
be provided
with all the
relevant
documents that
purport
to establish
its
culpability.
But in the
case of the
'Monitoring
Group'
reports, which
are almost
always leaked
to the press
before
the Security
Council
considers
them-including
the present
one, the
pattern has
invariably
been to bloc
Eritrea’s
access to the
accusations
leveled
against it,
while it has
granted access
to
others. It is
worth
recalling,
last year the
Monitoring
Group report
was presented
by an
international
civil servant
to the meeting
of
IGAD Heads of
State in an
attempt to
sway their
opinion
towards
calling
additional
sanction
against
Eritrea.
Similarly,
this year, a
news agency
was granted
access to the
report as well
as an
interview
with the
coordinator of
the Monitoring
Group... To
recap the
salient
points:
1.
The
2% recovery
and
rehabilitation
tax is levied
in accordance
with
the
legislative
act of the
National
Assembly that
was passed in
1994.
One wonders
why the
Monitoring
Group persists
in its
misnomer to
dub
it “Diaspora
tax”, and in
this
particular
report as
“extraterritorial
tax”... the
presumed
evidences on
“coercive
measures” of
collection are
based on
interviews
with “42
Eritreans
living
abroad”. But,
is this a
representative
sample? Who
are those
interviewed?
How can the
SEMG ascertain
whether the
testimonies
are not lies
peddled for
political
purposes? And,
how can
denial of
services to
those who fail
to pay their
tax
obligations be
misconstrued
as harassment
and
intimidation?
Furthermore,
it
must be noted
that Eritrea’s
detractors,
particularly
certain US
and Ethiopian
officials,
have always
been obsessed
with finding
ways
and means of
stopping both
remittance to
individual
households and
the recovery
tax. Indeed,
during
Ethiopia’s
third
offensive
against
Eritrea in May
2000, some
senior US
officials -
the current US
Permanent
Representative
to the UN
[Susan Rice]
chief among
them –
were mulling
over taking
these precise
unilateral
measures...
The
“Monitoring
Group”
computes the
presumed
maiden
earnings to
the
Government of
Eritrea that
may have
accrued from
the Bisha
Mining
Plant in 2011,
and jumps the
gun to
recommend
various
intrusive
measures
ostensibly to
ensure that
“these
revenues are
not spent in
violation to
UNSC
resolutions”.
The
“Monitoring
Group” does
not
provide a
shred of
evidence that
the Government
of Eritrea has
in the
past diverted
revenues from
mining to
“acts of
regional
destabilization”.
It does not
even care to
know how the
capital
expenditure of
the investment
was financed.
In any case,
sheer
speculation
and groundless
presumptions
cannot surely
be standards
for imposing
financial
restrictions
that impinge
on a country’s
sovereign
budgetary
rights. And
why single out
the mining
sector? Or
are these
unwarranted
intrusive
measures
designed for
creeping
application to
other
prospective
sectors in the
Eritrean
economy?
3.
The
“Monitoring
Group” finally
admits that
“it has no
evidence
to support the
allegation of
direct
Eritrean
support to
Al-Shabaab
during the
current
mandate”. The
admission is
acknowledged
with
obvious
resentment and
uncalled-for
caveats,
omissions and
“rationalizations”.
But it remains
a very
critical piece
of
information.
We must indeed
recall that
the principal
reason why
Resolution
1907 was
imposed
against
Eritrea in
December 2009
was its
presumed
support to
this group.
The bogus
accusation of
Eritrea’s
“delivery of
three plane
loads of arms
to Al-Shabaab
through the
town of
Baidowa” was
also
deliberately
peddled in
November/December
last year just
weeks before
the imposition
of Resolution
2023. In
effect, the
“Monitoring
Group” does
not have a
case against
Eritrea. ..
We
now
proceed to
address the
new additions
in the Report.
The
Monitoring
Group falsely
accuses
Eritrea of
“violating the
arms
embargo
through the
smuggling of
weapons and
ammunition for
commercial
sale via
Sudan”. As
usual, it
heaps insult
on General
Teklay Kifle
and alleges
that he
“receives at
least US$ 3.6
million
per year in
proceeds”. The
arms smuggling
that the
Monitoring
Group
attributes to
this General
is then
mingled with
“the more
lucrative
activity of
human
trafficking”.
As we
explained in
detail in our
response last
year, Eritrea
is the victim
of organized
and targeted
human
trafficking
that has been
pursued
deliberately
by its
adversaries to
weaken its
human
resources.
There are also
individual
criminals and
fugitives from
the law who
are embroiled
in this act.
The
“Monitoring
Group” gives
away its game
when it tries
to associate
Eritrea,
albeit
indirectly,
with the
killings of
the tourists
in
Ethiopia on 17
January 2012.
This is
despite its
earlier
assertion
which reads:
“The SEMG has
seen no
evidence to
suggest that
the
Government of
Eritrea bears
direct
responsibility
for the
killings of
Erta’Ale with
respect to the
planning or
conduct of the
operation”.
But then, it
speculates
that since
“Eritrea
continues to
host,
train and
support ARDUF,
some recent
ARDUF trainees
may have been
involved in
the incident”.
How the
“Monitoring
Group” can
deduce
Eritrea’s
“indirect
responsibility”
from these
flimsy
circumstantial
and
speculative
considerations
is difficult
to
understand.
The critical
question is:
does this
emanate from
professional
ineptness and
very low
standards, or,
does it betray
ulterior
political
motivations?
...what
is
curious in the
MG report is
the total
omission of
any reference
of
the repeated
and publicly
announced
attacks that
Ethiopia has
unleashed
against
Eritrea in the
past six
months. But as
its
unfounded but
principal case
on “Eritrea’s
role in
destabilizing
Somalia” has
evaporated in
thin air, it
has changed
tack to
fabricate new
allegations
focused on
Ethiopia. The
problem with
this
narrative is
Ethiopia’s
well-known
practices and
publicly
stated
agendas.
Ethiopia is
arming and
supporting
Eritrean armed
groups; it
pursues a
policy of
regime change;
and, it
continues to
occupy
sovereign
Eritrean
territories in
flagrant
violation of
international
law.
8.
The
Monitoring
Group asserts
that the arms
embargo has
severely
“affected the
operational
readiness of
the Eritrean
Air Force”.
On the one
hand, this is
not consonant
with its
accusations of
Eritrea for
violating the
arms embargo
through
organized
smuggling.
But more
importantly,
one wonders
why and for
whom this
information
is proffered.
Does
assessment of
Eritrea’s Air
Force and
inclusion
in its report
of aerial
photographic
analysis of
the ERAF
really fall
within its
purview?
Especially
when we recall
that in the
original
accusations of
Eritrean
destabilization
of Somalia,
the Air Force
was
not implicated
in any way.
And when
sovereign
Eritrean
territories
remain
occupied by a
belligerent
Ethiopia which
may be
contemplating
additional
acts of
aggression, is
the SEMG
oblivious to
Eritrea’s
legitimate
rights of
defense as
enshrined in
Article 51 of
the UN
Charter?
..
I
wish to take
this occasion
to renew our
earlier
invitation for
the
Security
Council
Sanctions
Committee to
visit Eritrea
for extensive
discussions
with the
Government.
Let
me
also renew our
consistent
call on the
Security
Council to
lift the
unjust and
unfair
sanctions
imposed on
Eritrea as i)
the initial
and
principal
accusation of
Eritrean
support to
Al-Shabaab has
now been
proven to be
non-existent;
ii) Eritrea
remains
committed to
the
facilitation
by the State
of Qatar to
overcome its
differences
with
the Republic
of Djibouti;
iii) the
events over
the past year
have
clearly shown
that it is in
fact Ethiopia
that is
actively
engaged in
destabilizing
Eritrea in
addition to
its continued
occupation of
sovereign
Eritrean
territory in
violation of
the UN
Charter; and
iv)
Eritrea
enhances its
positive
contributions
to regional
peace and
security. I
thank you, Mr.
Chairman.
And
there
you have it --
for now.
, 
