Even
As Ethiopia Now Urges Removal
of UN Sanctions on Eritrea the
UK and Others Say No
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Video
UNITED NATIONS,
July 10 – Even with Ethiopia
now calling for the removal of
UN sanctions on Eritrea, the
idea was removed from the UN
Security Council's 10 July
2018 Press Statement, below.
It is easy to impose
sanctions, at least on
country like Eritrea, but very
hard to take them off even
when the original reasons,
support for Al Shabaab in
Somalia, is gone. Cote
d'Ivoire on July 10 carried
the water of Djibouti; others
including the penholder the UK
have their own reasons. The
about-face of Ethiopia - which
hasn't changed its UN
Ambassador despite the changes
in Addis Ababa - didn't move
the needle. Meanwhile Inner
City Press, which exposed the
use of the UN's Panel of
Experts to call for regime
change, remains banned from
even entering the UN.
Fox
News story here
("UN roughs
up, ejects,
bans reporter
from
headquarters:
Caught on
tape");
petition to
Guterres here;
GAP blogs I
and II (“Harassment
of US
Journalist
Intensifies at
the UN”). The
UN under
Antonio "Winds
of Change"
Guterres is
corrupt.
And it is hard to know the
UK's reasons, not only in
light of the telling chaos of
Boris Johnson's resignation,
but due to secrecy. The UK
denied Inner City Press'
request under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 for
documents, and banned it from
its Mission's "background
briefing," ostensibly finding
tape recorder holders for
Japanese media which write
more about US rappers than the
UN to be more "international
media" that Inner City Press.
The P2 are a joke. Back on 14
November 2017 before the
Security Council voted again
on Somalia and Eritrea
sanctions, Inner City Press
asked the penholder on the
resolution, the UK's
then-Ambassador Matthew
Rycroft, if there is any
evidence of Eritrea supporting
Al Shabaab and if not, why not
at least separate the two
sanctions regimes. Rycroft
acknowledged there is no
evidence, but said discussions
on separating the two hadn't
been successful. Video here.
Fromthe UK transcript: Inner
City Press: On the Eritrea
sanctions, is there any
evidence that Eritrea has been
supporting Al Shabab? And if
there’s not, why aren’t there
two separate sanctions
regimes? Does the UK favour
that? Amb Rycroft: "We did
explore that actually with our
Council colleagues and there
wasn’t the appetite on the
Security Council to do that. I
think there has been progress
on the Al Shabab issue.
There’s no evidence at the
moment that the Eritrean
authorities have been
supporting Al Shabab, and we
very much welcome that. But as
you know, there are other
aspects to why there is a
sanctions regime on Eritrea,
and what we urge the
authorities there to do is to
engage with the monitoring
group, to engage with the
chair of the sanctions
committee, so that those
people can come back with that
positive evidence which they
say is there, and that would
help change the dynamic in the
Security Council." Later on
the morning of November 14,
after four abstentions from
the combined sanctions, Inner
City Press was informed by a
well-placed wag that the UK
was not opposed to splitting
the two: "the UK would rather
get 15-0 votes for Somalia
then all these abstentions
because of the Eritrea issue."
We hope to have more on this.
Back in May 2017, Rycroft said
"six months ago, the Security
Council was quite divided on
whether there should be
sanctions or not on Eritrea.
Before the next decision on
the sanctions regime on
Eritrea, coming up in
November, we are going to do a
review today of whether there
should be a sanctions regime.
We, as penholder on that
issue, are seeking to find a
way to unite the Security
Council so that there can be
some specific measures in a
roadmap that the authorities
of Eritrea would need to meet
in order to lift the sanctions
regime. Our national position
is that the conditions are not
yet right to lift the
sanctions. But that if Eritrea
did some of the things which
we will set out today then we
would look at it on the basis
of the evidence."
When
the UN Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights in the
State of Eritrea Sheila
Keetharuth held a press
conference at the UN on October
28, Inner City Press went to ask
her if she considered the impact
of sanctions on Eritrea.
Video here. She
answered only in terms of arms
embargo, they said she simply
chose not to look at the issue.
On November 10, when Somalia
Eritrea sanctions were voted on,
five countries abstained:
Angola, China, Egypt, Russia and
Venezuela. Eritrea's charge
d'affaires made a statement,
which we've
published on Scribd, here.
Before the vote, Inner City
Press asked UK Ambassador
Matthew Rycroft a question; he
spoke about the Somalia Eritrea
sanctions helping to limit
support to Al Shabaab. Video
here. But the current lack
of evidence of Eritrean support
to Al Shabaab has been
repeatedly cited. And there are
new reports calling
the SEMG and its former
officials into question, here.
We'll have more on this.
By contrast to
Keetharuth, the Rapporteur on
the Democratic People Republic
of Korea Tomas Ojea Quintana
answered detailed questions from
Inner City Press about sanctions
including unilateral sanctions
on coal sales, for example. Is
there no consistency between UN
Special Rapporteurs? Video
here.
There were only three
journalists asking questions at
the October 28 press conference
- and yet Inner City Press was
in 2016 ousted and evicted, and
it is still under Antonio
Guterres restricted to a minder.
Petition
here.
***
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
Past
(and future?) UN Office: S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA
For now: Box 20047,
Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other,
earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in
the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright
2006-2017 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
for
|
,
