State-of-Eritrea

Eritrea has requested the United Nations Security Council for an alternative date for President Isaias’s address to the Council, citing the “extremely short notice” it was given as well as the need to make necessary travel arrangements.

Eritrea had formally requested the Security Council to grant an audience to President Isaias on 24 October 2011. After being held up by the objection of the United States for over five weeks, the Security Council informed Eritrea at the end of the working day on Wednesday that it had scheduled the President’s for Monday. The fact that Eritrea received the Security Council’s notification on Thursday meant that it had only one working day to complete preparation for the trip. The President and his delegation had also not received visas to the United Stated as late as Friday afternoon and no information on when these visas would be available.

Two years ago sanctions against Eritrea were rushed through the Security Council during the festive Christmas period. The United States is now working on a repeat, going to the extent of begrudging the Head of State the time to have a rightful hearing before the Security Council.

Eritrea has therefore called on Security Council members to reaffirm their suppert for the participation of President Isaias in the Council’s deliberations, as there is no justifiable reason to rush a decision that will have incalculable consequences on the peoples of Eritrea and the Horn of Africa.

UNITED NATIONS — AP – The U.N. Security Council has approved an arms embargo and other tough sanctions against Eritrea for supplying weapons to opponents of the Somali government and refusing to resolve a border dispute with neighboring Djibouti.

The U.N.’s most powerful body adopted a resolution Wednesday imposing the measures by a vote of 13-1, with Libya voting “no” and China abstaining.

The resolution bans the import and export of weapons to Eritrea and calls on U.N. member states to inspect all suspect air and sea cargo between the Red Sea nation and Somalia.

The resolution also imposes a travel ban on individuals — including Eritrea’s political and military leadership — who violate the arms embargo and obstruct a border settlement with Djibouti.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. Security Council was expected to approve an arms embargo and other tough sanctions against Eritrea for supplying arms to opponents of the Somali government and refusing to resolve a border dispute with neighboring Djibouti.

The U.N.’s most powerful body was likely to approve the sanctions resolution on Wednesday, diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

It would ban the import and export of weapons to Eritrea and call on U.N. member states to inspect all suspect air and sea cargo between the Red Sea nation and Somalia.

The draft resolution would also impose a travel ban on individuals — including Eritrea’s political and military leadership — who violate the arms embargo, obstruct a border settlement with Djibouti, or “perpetrate acts of violence or terrorist acts against other states or their citizens in the region.” The financial assets of these individuals as well as government and private companies responsible for similar violations would be frozen.

The Security Council committee monitoring sanctions against Somalia would designate the individuals and companies subject to the new sanctions against Eritrea.

Eritrea earlier this month called the proposed resolution “politically motivated,” saying it was based on “unfounded accusations.”

The African Union asked the Security Council to impose sanctions on Eritrea for providing support to armed groups trying to destabilize Somalia.

A U.N. panel monitoring an arms embargo against Somalia has accused Eritrea of secretly shipping large quantities of arms, including missiles and explosives, to Islamic insurgents trying to overthrow the country’s Western-backed transitional government.

Somalia has not had an effective government since 1991 when warlords overthrew longtime dictator Mohamed Siad Barre and then turned on each other, plunging the country into chaos and anarchy. The fragile U.N.-backed government and an undermanned, poorly resourced African Union peacekeeping force have struggled to defend government buildings, the port and airport in the capital, Mogadishu, against the militant al-Shabab group and other Islamic insurgents.

The draft resolution demands that all U.N. member states, “in particular Eritrea, cease arming, training and equipping armed groups and their members including al-Shabab, that aim to destabilize the region or incite violence and civil strife in Djibouti.”

The African Union expressed grave concern at Eritrea’s failure to withdraw its forces from the Djibouti border.

Eritrea gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993 after a 30-year guerrilla war. It has been feuding over its border with Ethiopia ever since, and uncertainty over its border with the tiny port nation of Djibouti led to hostilities between the two countries twice in the 1990s.

In June 2008, the Security Council condemned Eritrea for launching an attack against Djibouti, a key U.S. ally in the Horn of Africa, which the U.S. said left 44 Djiboutian soldiers dead and many more missing. The council called for a cease-fire and urged the two countries to withdraw their forces from the border, which overlooks key Red Sea shipping lanes. Djibouti did withdraw, but Eritrea has not.

The draft resolution demands that Eritrea immediately comply with the 2008 resolution and pull back its troops. It also demands that Eritrea provide information about Djibouti combatants missing in action since the clashes.

By Edith M Lederer (AP)

UNITED NATIONS — The U.N. Security Council was expected to approve an arms embargo and other tough sanctions against Eritrea for supplying arms to opponents of the Somali government and refusing to resolve a border dispute with neighboring Djibouti.

The U.N.’s most powerful body was likely to approve the sanctions resolution on Wednesday, diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

It would ban the import and export of weapons to Eritrea and call on U.N. member states to inspect all suspect air and sea cargo between the Red Sea nation and Somalia.

The draft resolution would also impose a travel ban on individuals — including Eritrea’s political and military leadership — who violate the arms embargo, obstruct a border settlement with Djibouti, or “perpetrate acts of violence or terrorist acts against other states or their citizens in the region.” The financial assets of these individuals as well as government and private companies responsible for similar violations would be frozen.

The Security Council committee monitoring sanctions against Somalia would designate the individuals and companies subject to the new sanctions against Eritrea.

Eritrea earlier this month called the proposed resolution “politically motivated,” saying it was based on “unfounded accusations.”

The African Union asked the Security Council to impose sanctions on Eritrea for providing support to armed groups trying to destabilize Somalia.

A U.N. panel monitoring an arms embargo against Somalia has accused Eritrea of secretly shipping large quantities of arms, including missiles and explosives, to Islamic insurgents trying to overthrow the country’s Western-backed transitional government.

Somalia has not had an effective government since 1991 when warlords overthrew longtime dictator Mohamed Siad Barre and then turned on each other, plunging the country into chaos and anarchy. The fragile U.N.-backed government and an undermanned, poorly resourced African Union peacekeeping force have struggled to defend government buildings, the port and airport in the capital, Mogadishu, against the militant al-Shabab group and other Islamic insurgents.

The draft resolution demands that all U.N. member states, “in particular Eritrea, cease arming, training and equipping armed groups and their members including al-Shabab, that aim to destabilize the region or incite violence and civil strife in Djibouti.”

The African Union expressed grave concern at Eritrea’s failure to withdraw its forces from the Djibouti border.

Eritrea gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993 after a 30-year guerrilla war. It has been feuding over its border with Ethiopia ever since, and uncertainty over its border with the tiny port nation of Djibouti led to hostilities between the two countries twice in the 1990s.

In June 2008, the Security Council condemned Eritrea for launching an attack against Djibouti, a key U.S. ally in the Horn of Africa, which the U.S. said left 44 Djiboutian soldiers dead and many more missing. The council called for a cease-fire and urged the two countries to withdraw their forces from the border, which overlooks key Red Sea shipping lanes. Djibouti did withdraw, but Eritrea has not.

The draft resolution demands that Eritrea immediately comply with the 2008 resolution and pull back its troops. It also demands that Eritrea provide information about Djibouti combatants missing in action since the clashes.

By Louis Charbonneau

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters) – Eritrea has warned the U.N. Security Council that a draft sanctions resolution would impose “ludicrous punitive measures” on Asmara for aiding Somali rebels and might further destabilize the Horn of Africa.

“Eritrea urges all members of the U.N. Security Council to use their influence to ensure the rejection of this draft resolution in its entirety,” Eritrea’s U.N. ambassador, Araya Desta, said in a letter to the 15-nation Security Council.

“This measure risks engulfing the region into another cycle of conflict as it may encourage Ethiopia to contemplate reckless military adventures,” he said in the letter, dated Dec. 15 and obtained by Reuters on Friday.

The United States and other council members accuse Asmara of supplying Islamist al Shabaab rebels with funds and arms as they fight to topple a fragile U.N.-backed transitional government in Somalia, a virtually lawless Horn of Africa nation.

Eritrea’s regional rival Ethiopia invaded Somalia in 2006 with tacit U.S. backing to rout an Islamic courts movement from Mogadishu. It withdrew its troops earlier this year and denies accusations by Somalia’s rebels that they have returned. Addis Ababa backs Somalia’s transitional government.

Uganda is credited with drafting the sanctions resolution, which would impose an arms embargo and asset freezes and travel bans on designated Eritrean individuals and firms. But Desta said in his letter that Washington was its true author.

“In reality, the main architect of this resolution and the single country which has been campaigning frantically in the corridors of the U.N. premises in New York … for its adoption is the United States,” he said.

ERITREA WANTS NEW AU MEETING

Desta also reiterated Asmara’s denials that his country is supporting al Shabaab in any way.

In May, the African Union called on the Security Council to sanction Eritrea.

In a telephone interview with Reuters, Desta insisted that “many African nations do not support the idea of sanctions.” He said Eritrea was urging the AU to hold another summit meeting next year to discuss the sanctions issue.

“When we speak with African leaders, many of them say they had no idea that sanctions are being considered against Eritrea,” he said. “They don’t like the idea.”

The AU officially supports sanctions against Asmara, but the organization’s current chair, Libya, has said it would vote against the Ugandan draft resolution. The Libyans have a temporary seat on the U.N. Security Council until the end of December.

Council diplomats told Reuters on condition of anonymity that they expected the council to vote on the resolution before the end of the year and predicted it would get 14 votes in favor. Libya is likely to cast the sole vote against it.

Security Council members from the West had originally expected negotiations on the resolution to run into next year. But diplomats said an agreement had emerged after Russia and China took an “unusually cooperative” stance on the resolution.

A U.N. arms monitoring body, which was set up to record violations of a 1992 arms embargo on Somalia, has said Asmara was sending munitions to Somali rebels, as well as providing them with logistical support.

Somalia has been mired in chaos for nearly two decades and there is little sign the latest attempt to establish a central government is proving any more successful than the 14 previous efforts since a dictator was ousted in 1991.

(Editing by Eric Beech)

Fiji Islands

Last Thursday, a U.N. Security Council draft called for sanctions including an arms embargo against Eritrea. The alleged sanction in the name of “aiding Islamist insurgents in Somalia” targets at travel bans and asset freezes for government officials and military leaders.

However, there are also claims that the call for sanctions against Eritrea touches on trade barriers for protecting its domestic market. U.N. diplomats said that the resolution was drafted by temporary Security Council member Uganda and has been circulated to other members of the 15-nation panel.

IGAD is supporting the sanction strongly. IGAD member States include – Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, Sudan and Uganda. The accusation against Eritrea claims supplying al Shabaab rebels with money and weapons to Islamist insurgents in Somalia.

The draft includes the ban of all sales of weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts  to Asmara. Besides, it is targeting technical assistance, training, financial and other assistance, related to the military activities.”

Eritrea denies supporting al Shabaab and has said that the threat of U.N. sanctions is of “no concern at all’’. However, the Security Council, African Union (AU) and United States insist that Eritrea is destabilizing Somalia. They accuse Asmara of sending plane- and boatloads of munitions to Somali rebels, as well as providing them with logistical support.

Yet it is not clear when the council would vote on the resolution. Nevertheless, diplomats call for the need to revise the case to avoid a veto from China and Russia, which are not pro-sanctions.

Reuters reports that ‘’the resolution would authorize U.N. member states to inspect “all cargo to and from Somalia and Eritrea” via land and sea if there were grounds to suspect that the cargo included banned items.’’

However, the draft is not clear and lacks substance. First of all, the council has yet not provided any evidence on ground regarding the case to the public. Besides, the accusations should not include the issue of trade barriers. The US by itself protects its farmers through subsidies and the same goes to the European Union killing many subsistence farmers in the third world who do not have the capability to compete.

It is very tempting to draw the line between “smart sanctions” and “smart bombs”.  The new “smart bomb”, which helps to shape new geo-political and economic realities, is called “smart sanction” and can hit a specific target like a precision guided munition. They call it modern warfare and it’s like star wars.

Some analyst caution that the widespread belief targeted sanctions could not hurt the ordinary population could be misleading.

Perhaps sanctions are not smart at all as the example of a small island nation in the South Pacific Ocean comprising of an archipelago of about 322 islands and a population of 849,000 shows.

The state is called Fiji and is ranked number 40 in the list of the world’s smallest countries next to Qatar and Cyprus.

Sugar exports and a strong tourism sector were the backbones of the national economy providing major income from foreign exchange and a strong growth in GDP. In 1999, Australia and New Zealand used to have close ties with Fiji because of business interests in tourism, natural resources and fisheries.

In 2006 a military commander of the armed forces staged a military takeover accusing the prime minister of promoting corruption in the government. It has to be mentioned that there had been two military coups earlier in 1987 and 2000. Nevertheless, as a consequence of the coup in 2006 Australia, New Zealand, Europe, the United States followed by the international community implemented the so called “smart sanctions” against the tiny island state.

Academics at the department of economics at the University of the South Pacific warned the international community to be mindful regarding sanctions as they could be counterproductive and hurt Fiji as a whole. They were referring to developments such as the announcement by the Government of New Zealand to exclude Fiji from a guest worker scheme for seasonal workers and stop issuing scholarships to Fiji students.

The danger of “smart sanctions” becomes also evident in the example of how the European Union dealt with the blurry and distorted definitions of targeted sanctions. For example in 2007 the European Union froze funds used to subsidize sugar farmers in Fiji categorizing them as non-humanitarian aid.

It was the experience made in Fiji that generic travel bans on all citizens serving on government or quasi government boards only seemed to undermine governance and social stability. In a recent statement the Australia Fiji Business Council called the international community to lift travel bans because it limits the ability of both the public and private sector from recruiting and training the best available talents.

The fact is that the public and private business sector heavily depends on the freedom of movement of public servants, government officials and local authorities especially in small countries such as Fiji or Eritrea. “Smart sanctions” do not translate into practice in general, not for citizens in Fiji or in any other country of this world.

As a result of the “smart sanction” Fiji’s sugar exporting industry has been harmed and brought to a still stand, tourism arrivals were down by 6% in 2007. The tourism industry is damaged and facing uncertain recovery time. The fact is that “smart sanctions” target the GDP of a country which is basically the same as targeting the population of a nation.

In 2007 the GDP of Fiji dropped by 7% hurting directly the people of Fiji. In the list of countries ranked by their GDP Fiji dropped by 16 places from number 137 in 2005 to 153 in 2008. The problems between the current Fiji government and the international community have not improved and constructive dialogue has been replaced by tension and mistrust. The latest development is that Fiji is turning its back on the West looking for new allies such as China, which has strategic interests in the Pacific region.

Fact is there is no such thing as “smart sanctions” and isolating Eritrea might make things worse for Eritreans. The good news is there is hope that the permanent UN Security Council member states China and Russia might block any resolution to put sanction against Eritrea in place.

The question is does it make a difference or not? Just recently a student holding an Eritrean passport in Europe told me, “I have been one of the best performer at my University and was competing for a scholarship at my faculty due to a lack of funds. They refused to support me because today it can make a big difference, whether you are Eritrean or Kenyan. There was a time not too long ago you could get scholarships from Universities in places such as Canada, USA, England, Netherlands and Sweden without any problem. This has changed! We are singled out!”