|
|
I funzionari
degli Stati Uniti smettano di demonizzare l’Eritrea, una nazione
africana giovane e di sani principi
Ghidewon Abay Asmerom
I rapporti
Usa-Eritrea si stanno deteriorando giorno dopo giorno. Il recente ordine
della gestione Bush di chiudere il consolato eritreo a Oakland, in
California, è un nuovo passo in questo peggioramento di rapporti. Ognuna
delle due parti accusa l’altra lato. I funzionari degli Stati Uniti
diranno che la colpa è dell’Eritrea. Perchè? La loro risposta è: “Chi è
la povera e piccola Eritrea, per sfidare gli Stati Uniti?” A parere loro
l’Eritrea dovrebbe sapere quale è il suo posto fra le nazioni.
Naturalmente i funzionari eritrei diranno che i colpevoli sono gli Stati
Uniti. Perchè?
Gli Stati
Uniti, come paese che ha creato l'accordo di Algeri, non sono in prima
linea per una rapida esecuzione “della decisione vincolante e finale”
della Commissione Confini Eritrea-Etiopia (EEBC). Al contrario, dicono i
funzionari eritrei: “gli Stati Uniti sono dietro a ogni atto
dell'Etiopia e delle Nazioni Unite che hanno reso l'esecuzione della
decisione dell’EEBC impossibile”. E aggiungono “non abbiamo niente
contro gli Stati Uniti, tranne il fatto che stanno mostrando un cieco
favoritismo verso il regime senza legge dell’Etiopia a scapito
dell’Eritrea”.
Entrambi i paesi paradossalmente hanno ragione. L’Eritrea dovrebbe
sapere che nessuno può sfidare gli Stati Uniti, non importa quale sia la
ragione, e vivere in pace. Le leggi e le norme internazionali non hanno
significato per le nazioni ricche e forti come gli Stati Uniti, ma solo
per quelli poveri e indifesi. Poiché l’Eritrea è fra questi ultimi,
dovrebbe conoscere il suo giusto posto. Inoltre i funzionari eritrei non
devono mettere in discussione alcuna politica degli Stati Uniti; il loro
dovere è di andare da qualunque parte gli venga detto.
In più i
funzionari degli Stati Uniti, non importa quanto insignificanti, sanno
sempre quale è la cosa migliore per l'Africa e per gli Africani. Sono
abituati a dare ordini e i funzionari dei paesi in via di sviluppo come
l’Eritrea dovrebbero dire “sì mamma” o “sì signore” senza alcuni
presupposti. Soprattutto i funzionari eritrei non dovrebbero dimenticare
le “famose” parole di John Foster Dulles: “Dal punto di vista della
giustizia l'opinione della gente eritrea deve ricevere considerazione.
Tuttavia gli interessi strategici degli Stati Uniti nel bacino del Mar
Rosso e pace del mondo rendono necessario che il paese sia collegato con
il nostro alleato Etiopia”.
C’è allora da sorprendersi nel leggere le seguenti parole di un
funzionario degli esteri degli Stati Uniti, sig. James Swan, che lavora
per lo stesso Dipartimento di Stato che una volta era condotto da John
Dulles? “Il governo dell’Eritrea ha fabbricato una mitologia nazionale
demonizzando la vicina Etiopia, allo scopo centrale di realizzare le sue
politiche domestiche autocratiche, canalizzando il patriottismo degli
eritrei in ostilità verso l'Etiopia il governo si assicura di poter
dominare senza opposizione pubblica”. No, per niente!
È chiaro a
tutti che la politica degli Stati Uniti verso l’Eritrea non è basata ne
sulla giustizia ne sui fatti e sull'imparzialità. Così era il verso la
fine degli anni 40 e gli anni 50 e così è adesso. Tuttavia ci sono un
paio di domande alle quali il sig. Swan deve pensare con attenzione.
Sarebbe giusto asserire che il presidente Bush sta “fabbricando una
mitologia nazionale demonizzando Al-Qaeda allo scopo centrale di
realizzare la conformità completa con le sue autocratiche politiche
domestiche”?. Naturalmente no! Abbiamo visto tutti come Al-Qaeda, a
sangue freddo, ha attaccato l'America uccidendo migliaia di persone e
terrorizzandone milioni.
Il terrore
del 9/11 è reale, non una “storia, idea, o concetto inventato”. Se il
presidente Bush prova a demonizzare Osama Bin Laden, sta provando
soltanto a difendere l'America da tutti gli attacchi futuri di Al-Qaeda,
non a “fabbricare una mitologia nazionale demonizzando Al-Qaeda”. Il
pubblico americano deve essere informato delle malvagità del terrorismo
globale perchè un altro 9/11 non accada mai più. Non su terreno
americano e possibilmente in nessun altra parte nel mondo!
Può qualcuno accusare la gente ebrea, i superstiti dell’olocausto, di
“fabbricare una mitologia nazionale” se provano a demonizzare la
Germania nazista? Il dio non voglia! L’olocausto è stato reale, non
alcuni “fatti non comprovati o falsa credenza collettiva” o mito.
Milioni hanno perso le loro vite nelle camere a gas di Hitler! Lo stesso
è vero per il terrore che la popolazione eritrea ha affrontato
dall'Etiopia. Il gruppo terrorista dell’Etiopia, con la benedizione di
qualcuno nel governo degli Stati Uniti, i simili del sig. Swan, aveva
attaccato l’Eritrea, le migliaia di uccisi e le centinaia di migliaia
terrorizzati.
Il rifiuto dell'Etiopia,
con l'incoraggiamento di persone come Jendayi Frazer, di delimitare
senza riserve il confine Eritrea-Etiopia e così una volta di più
seminare nubi di guerra sul corno d'Africa, è inoltre reale non un
montaggio del governo dell’Eritrea. Uno non deve andare lontano, basta
leggere le relazioni della EEBC per verificare questi fatti. Ciò
significa che il governo eritreo non deve fabbricare alcuna mitologia
per demonizzare il regime di minoranza dell'Etiopia; i suoi atti sono là
affinché chiunque li veda.
Il sig.
Swan guarda dall’altra parte, ma quello che il regime di minoranza sta
facendo alla sua gente come quella nell’Ogaden è ancora un'altra prova
che nessuno deve fabbricare qualche cosa per demonizzare il regime in
Etiopia. Così i crimini dei regimi etiopici, passati e presenti, contro
la gente eritrea sono fatti concreti e non miti. Ma è precisamente
questo genere di atteggiamento insensibile e i rilievi dei nostri
funzionari degli esteri, come il sig. Swan, verso altra gente
vittimizzata intorno al mondo che sta negando a noi Americani gli amici
che ci meritiamo.
Il sig.
James Swan potrebbe pensare, con il suo discorso velenoso contro
l’Eritrea, che lui stava attaccando l’Eritrea, tuttavia, con questo
genere di presentazioni disoneste sta facendo più danno alla credibilità
del governo degli Stati Uniti. Questo è un grave danno a questa grande
nazione. Che vergogna!
Il sig. Swan inoltre ha detto al suo pubblico di Kalamazoo, “noi
crediamo che sia essenziale che le parti discutano direttamente su come
realizzare un favorevole regime di confine”. Questo significa che gli
Stati Uniti ora ritengono che la delimitazione della Commissione non sta
realizzandosi perché non c’è un favorevole regime di confine? Questo non
significa richiedere un meccanismo alternativo, che la EEBC aveva già
denominato “un allontanamento e quindi una correzione ai termini
dell'articolo 4.2 dell'accordo di Algeri”? Non potrebbe essere che
questo genere di dichiarazioni pregiudizievoli stiano provocando nel
governo dell’Eritrea un sentimento di accusa verso il governo degli
Stati Uniti per l'impasse nella delimitazione e il deterioramento dei
rapporti Us-Eritrea?
Il motivo reale dietro al deterioramento delle relazioni sembra essere
perché il capo del sig. Swan, la Segretaria Assistente per gli Affari
Africani ms Jendayi Frazer, è furiosa con il governo eritreo perché non
le ha permesso di usurpare l'autorità e il mandato della Commissione
Confini. Deve essere ricordato che diciotto mesi fa la Segretaria Frazer
aveva provato unilateralmente di emendare l'articolo 4.2 dell'accordo di
Algeri. Mentre l'accordo di pace di Algeri aveva dichiarato chiaramente
che la EEBC non ha potere di demarcare e delimitare il confine “ex aequo
et bono” ha insistito e ancora sta insistendo, da quello che si evince
da ciò che il sig. James Swan ha detto alla riunione presso l’università
occidentale del Michigan, che il confine dovrebbe essere delimitato “ex
aequo et bono”.
Questo è successo precisamente perchè ms Frazer aveva richiesto di
viaggiare fino a Badme e altre parti del confine Eritrea-Etiopia.
Desiderava guardare il confine per conto suo e allora disegnare un nuovo
“confine realizzabile”. In effetti l'anno scorso aveva provato a
sostenere, come consigliere alla EEBC, un tale nuovo programma e un
General Fulford, nel corso di una riunione della Commissione. Il governo
eritreo ha detto NO platealmente a tutto questo e secondo la Commissione
“l'insistenza dell’Eritrea sulla aderenza rigorosa ai termini della
decisione di delimitazione era una posizione che è stata autorizzata ad
adottare conformemente all'accordo di Algeri”.
Così il nocciolo della questione è che alcuni dei funzionari degli Stati
Uniti non hanno interesse nel vedere il confine delimitato e lo stato di
tensione fra Eritrea ed Etiopia risolto. Ecco perché stanno insistendo
per cambiare la sostanza della decisione della Commissione sapendo
perfettamente bene che l’Eritrea non accetterà compromessi. Tutto quello
al quale stiamo assistendo in questi giorni, compresa la dichiarazione
all’università del Michigan, l'ordine del sig. Swan di chiudere il
consolato eritreo a Oakland, posizionare l’Eritrea sulla lista dei paesi
di particolarmente sensibili e sul montaggio della partecipazione
dell’Eritrea in Somalia sono i corollari di una rappresaglia al
comportamento di principio e legale dell’Eritrea.
Oltre a tutto questo la prevista conferenza stampa dell’Assistente
Segretario Jendayi Frazer è destinata a dare una certa spinta alla
relazione del gruppo di Verifica e Controllo delle NU in Somalia, perché
non sembra avere ricevuto l’apprezzamento che il dott. Frazer e il suo
ufficio avevano sperato. È lo stesso gruppo che l'anno scorso aveva
detto che c’erano 2000 soldati eritrei in Somalia, ma che non ha potuto
trovare un singolo soldato eritreo quando l'Etiopia ha invaso quel
paese. Ogni punto di quel rapporto deve essere stato fabbricato perché
non c’era neppure un singolo soldato eritreo in Somalia.
Così ecco qui una domanda che tutti i giornalisti interessati dovrebbero
fare: Sembra che le accuse iniziali del gruppo contro l’Eritrea non
avevano fondamento infatti, allora perchè la Comunità internazionale
dovrebbe credere queste recenti accuse contro questo paese? Il gruppo di
controllo l'anno scorso ha detto alla Comunità internazionale che si
stava andando incontro a una guerra per procura fra Eritrea ed Etiopia,
in Somalia. Tuttavia molti ora ritengono che l'accusa in effetti era
destinata a fornire una copertura per l'invasione etiopica della
Somalia.
L'articolo di
Ghidewon Abay Asmerom è la risposta ai contenuti della
"4th International Conference on Ethiopian Development Studies"
tenuta presso la "Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan"
il 4 agosto 2007 dal titolo:
"U.S. policy in the Horn of Africa", che si può leggere di seguito.
U.S. Policy in the Horn of Africa
James Swan, Deputy Assistant Secretary for African Affairs
4th International Conference on Ethiopian Development Studies
Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan
August 4, 2007
As Delivered
Good afternoon, and thank you, professor for
inviting me to join you in Kalamazoo. I am pleased to have this
opportunity to discuss U.S. policy and engagement in the Horn of
Africa. You have assembled an impressive and distinguished group of
panelists for this important conference.
THE CURRENT SITUATION
As all of you know, the Horn of Africa is a rough neighborhood. At
least one conflict – and frequently more – has raged in the region
continuously since 1960. Inter-state conventional wars.
Guerrilla-style liberation struggles. Coups. Revolutions. The Horn
has seen them all.
It is also a region that has suffered historically from poor
governance -- from the brutal excesses of Ethiopia’s Derg, to
authoritarian one-party systems in much of the region until the
1990s, to the lawlessness of the failed state of Somalia after the
fall of Siad Barre. Winner-take-all politics and violent regime
change have been the norm. And this historically unstable political
and security climate has been a profound impediment to economic
development.
The Horn ranks near the bottom in the world – and indeed below the
rest of Africa - on Human Development indicators. The region is
ecologically and economically fragile. Its peoples face the
challenges of overwhelming dependence on rain-fed agriculture, as
regular droughts trigger cyclical famines.
Yet, despite these longstanding challenges, in most of the region we
see signs of progress. Djibouti has held peaceful elections; its
port has become an economic hub; and the government has become a
partner in counterterrorism efforts. Somalia’s Transitional Federal
Government offers the best hope for peace and stability in the last
20 years. Ethiopia has made progress on democratic governance with
the release of political party detainees and parliamentary
discussions on electoral and media reform. Kenya, which has been
spared the conflicts that have impeded the development of its
neighbors, has become an economic powerhouse, has made tremendous
strides to consolidate democracy, and plays a lead role in complex
regional peace initiatives. Moreover, all of these countries and
governments are increasingly close partners of the United States in
the Horn of Africa.
The glaring exception to this favorable story is of course Eritrea,
which openly abuses its population and serves as a destabilizing
force in the region. I’ll come to that later.
While progress is fitful, and additional diplomatic and aid
resources will be necessary to sustain success, the overall
trajectory of the Horn is positive.
In keeping with Secretary Rice’s concept of Transformational
Diplomacy, United States government policy in the region focuses on
partnership, while promoting regional stability and security,
strengthening democratic processes and institutions, fostering
economic growth, expanding the scope and quality of basic services,
and responding to the humanitarian needs of vulnerable populations.
The Horn is a region where Muslims and Christians coexist and
intermingle, and where the cultures of ancient Ethiopia, of
traditional Africa, and of the Arab-influenced coastal regions have
combined in different ways to create unique national and regional
identities. It is a region in which all of our Embassies and their
officers are working to demonstrate our respect for different faith
traditions and to promote our commitment to religious tolerance,
political rights, and gender equality.
While our Embassies are the U.S. Government’s principal platforms
for promoting effective cooperation, governance reform and
sustainable development, we also have a great asset in the Combined
Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa in Djibouti. This U.S. military
initiative provides a vehicle for outreach to vulnerable communities
in the region and for contributing to the professionalization and
effectiveness of armed forces in the Horn.
So let me now discuss current developments and some of the key U.S.
interests and policies in each of the countries of the Horn.
DJIBOUTI
I’ll begin with Djibouti – which rarely gets top billing in a
discussion of the Horn, but will today -- and then move clockwise
through the region. Djibouti, which celebrated the 30th anniversary
of its independence in June, in many ways epitomizes both the
progress and the challenges we see on the Horn.
With the end of the conflict with the Front for the Restoration of
Unity and Democracy (FRUD) in the 1990s, and the return of the
Front’s leader to Djibouti in 2000, Djibouti has moved beyond
violent conflict. General elections in 1999 and 2003 were orderly
and peaceful, despite a boycott by the major opposition coalition.
Some opposition members are represented in local and regional
councils. More needs to be done to open up political space and
ensure that all citizens have a voice in government decisions. But
the transition from armed combat to political competition is a
positive step.
On the economic front, Djibouti remains a poor country with per
capita income below $1000. Yet it has a vision for development of
its key assets – its port and strategic location along major
sea-transport routes. Port tonnage – which tripled after the 1998
Eritrea-Ethiopia border war which cut access to Assab – has increase
30 percent per year between 2002 and 2004 under new management of
Djibouti port. And Djibouti aspires to become an international hub
for transit cargo serving not only the horn of Africa hinterland,
but a much wider worldwide clientele.
The United States, which has long had good relations with Djibouti,
has seen this partnership further deepen in recent years. Since
2002, Djibouti has hosted the only permanent U.S. military base in
sub-Saharan Africa, (CJFF-HOA)... We also value Djibouti’s
diplomatic role in the region, as a bridge among other countries in
the Horn and between African and Arab states.
So in Djibouti, we see a country that has ended a protracted violent
conflict, begun important steps toward greater political openness,
developed a vision for its economic future, and engaged in a close
partnership with the United States.
SOMALIA
Now let me turn to Somalia – a country that, for all its problems,
has perhaps the best opportunity in nearly two decades to overcome
its status as a failed state. Somalia is a priority for the United
States in Africa. U.S. policy is designed to promote stability in
Somalia – including by preventing Somalia from again becoming a
safehaven for terrorists, as it was under the Council of Islamic
Courts – to support humanitarian and development needs, and to
foster inclusive democratic institutions.
The key to Somalia’s success will be national reconciliation to
ensure inclusive representation in the Transitional Federal
Institutions and in the organizations that will prepare the way for
election of a permanent government in 2009, as called for by the
Transitional Federal Charter.
The National Reconciliation Congress, which opened in Mogadishu on
July 15 and is still ongoing, provides an opportunity for all
Somalis to achieve suitable representation in the TFIs and formulate
a roadmap for the remainder of the transitional period, in the
run-up to national elections in 2009. In support of the National
Reconciliation Congress, the United States has provided financial
assistance of $1.25 million, in coordination with other
international donors. Our Ambassador in Nairobi and our Special
Envoy for Somalia are in frequent contact with congress organizer
Ali Mahdi Mohamed, with Transitional Federal Government leaders,
with clan elders, with civil society leaders, and a wide array of
other stakeholders to encourage support for this process.
We believe it is important for the Somali people to focus on the
future, moving forward in the transitional political process as
envisioned by the Charter, rather than focusing only on the current
composition of the Transitional Federal Government and Institutions.
While imperfect, the Transitional Federal Institutions provide a
framework for achieving the objectives outlined in the Charter and
the formation of representative governance institutions following
the transitional process. We are steering clear from Somali politics
and focusing on a clear message of inclusion and accommodation to
all actors in Somalia.
To help stabilize Somalia and create conditions for national
reconciliation, the United States strongly supports the African
Union’s peace support mission in Somalia. The mission currently has
a lead contingent of approximately 1,600 Ugandan troops deployed as
part of the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM). At the
beginning of the year, the United States identified $19.6 million to
assist AMISOM forces. Approximately $10 million was used to provide
equipment and airlift to assist the deployment of Uganda’s AMISOM
contingent. Congress subsequently appropriated a further $40 million
in funding to support AMISOM.
AMISOM is important not only to help create conditions for national
reconciliation, but also to permit the reduction in presence of
Ethiopian forces and their eventual departure. We, the Somalis, and
the Ethiopians themselves recognize that an Ethiopian military
presence is not a long-term solution to insecurity in Somalia. For
there to be lasting security, there must be political dialogue and
accommodation among Somalis, improvements in Somali government
capacity, and training and deployment of a competent and respected
Somali security force.
The United States is the largest bilateral donor of humanitarian
assistance to Somalia, and has provided more than $102 million in
humanitarian and development assistance this year. We also
coordinate closely with other international partners diplomatically
and on our international assistance programs. We were founding
members of the International Contact Group on Somalia in June 2006,
and also are active in the International Advisory Committee for the
National Reconciliation Congress (NRC).
In short, there is an international consensus that we must seize
this moment of opportunity in Somalia. The United States is a leader
on both the diplomatic front and in our humanitarian and economic
response.
KENYA
Next let me say just a few words about Kenya, which is not always
discussed as part of the Horn of Africa, but lies on its southern
edge and is an important regional player. Nairobi hosts the largest
U.S. diplomatic mission in Sub-Saharan Africa, and we cooperate with
the Kenyans on a wide array of both bilateral and regional programs.
Our bilateral assistance program is more than $500 million in 2007.
Total resource flows from the U.S. to Kenya each year from all
public and private sources amount to about $1.5 billion.
Kenya’s peaceful, credible democratic elections in 2002 represented
an important step on Kenya’s path to becoming a fully functional
democracy. The next elections, scheduled for December 2007 offer an
opportunity to consolidate those gains. The U.S. is providing
election-related training to civil society organizations, political
parties, and youth and women candidates, as well as supporting the
work of the Electoral Commission of Kenya to ensure that these
elections are free, fair, and transparent.
Kenya is beginning to enjoy the fruits of its enviable regional
reputation for stability, openness, and tolerance. Economic growth
has increased to more than 6 percent in recent years, as Kenya
capitalizes on its role as a major regional hub. While important
challenges remain – specifically in combating corruption, moving
away from tribalism, and promoting gender equity – there is a
palpable sense of energy and optimism among the Kenyan people. Kenya
is clearly a country on the move in a positive direction.
We have worked closely with the Kenyans diplomatically on the
North-South peace agreement in Sudan and on Somalia issues, through
the International Contact Group as well as bilaterally. In its
capacity as President of the Intergovernmental Authority on
Development (IGAD), Kenya continues to occupy a leadership role in
promoting peace and stability in the Horn of Africa. We look forward
to continued close partnership.
ETHIOPIA
Now, Ethiopia, which has been the subject of your conference. With
more than 70 million people, bordering all of the other Horn
countries, Ethiopia is the giant of the region. Ethiopia is an
important strategic partner for the United States in the Horn of
Africa. We collaborate on a wide range of development objectives and
in efforts to promote regional stability. We share a commitment to
address threats by transnational extremist groups.
We are also eager to see progress in democratic institutions. As you
know, the run-up to the May 2005 national elections was the most
open, free, and competitive political campaign period in all of
Ethiopian history. Never before had opposition candidates had so
much access to coveted constituencies and the ability to convene
rallies and openly campaign against ruling party opponents.
Opposition candidates’ access to the press, including state-owned
and operated media, was unprecedented. Never before had the
electorate seen live, televised debates between government Ministers
and their opposition challengers.
Unfortunately, this spirit was lost in the contentious aftermath of
the vote, in bloody confrontations in the streets, in detention of
political leaders, and in strident and uncompromising positions that
for too long dominated the political leadership. As we consider the
democratic challenges facing Ethiopia today, we recognize that
sentiment has been so bitter precisely because of the heightened
expectations prompted by two decades of political reform.
With the release of 38 detainees, and anticipated release of the
remaining Coalition for Unity and Democracy leadership, and
anticipated release of the remaining CUD leadership, following
lengthy mediation by respected elders, Ethiopia’s political leaders
have committed themselves to a new collaborative relationship for
the good of the country. In Addis Ababa, U.S. foreign assistance
programs are bringing together leaders from across the political
spectrum to address critical questions of national governance and
the future of the country, build the capacity of parliament, and
bolster judicial independence.
We are again seeing a cautious, yet engaged host of political
parties that are committed to institutionalizing the advances of
March and April 2005. That ruling and opposition parties today
gather around the negotiating table to debate the relative merits of
reforms of democratic institutions is extremely positive.
We must all encourage this process. As stakeholders in Ethiopia's
stability, democracy, and prosperity – we urge all parties to remain
engaged, so that we can regain the advances of early 2005 and build
upon them for the people of Ethiopia.
Meanwhile, we continue a robust program of U.S. humanitarian and
development assistance for Ethiopia. We have contributed more than
$160 million in humanitarian assistance this year to help the
Ethiopian people break the cycle of famine and mitigate the impact
of drought and natural disasters. With over $300 million in
assistance to the health care system in Ethiopia this year alone, we
help ensure that clinics reach into previously underserved regions
including Afar and the Ogaden.
With respect to the Ogaden, we are concerned that insecurity and
impediments to commercial sales of commodities put the population of
this fragile region at further risk. We are currently working with
the government to ensure that humanitarian assistance and the more
important commercial shipments can flow to the Ogaden. We note that
rains have been relatively good this year, which should ease the
economic hardship faced by the pastoralist population.
In conflict-prone areas, U.S. programs bring together
representatives from diverse communities during periods of calm, in
order to build bridges of understanding and prevent potential
conflicts from erupting. We are working with local administrations
to build their capacity to govern for the people and to promote
transparency. We are working with the Ethiopian military to
transform that organization into a professional and apolitical
defense force for the nation. The challenges are many, but the
objectives merit the tremendous scope of the resources, time, and
commitment that we have focused on them. We are confident that
through partnership with local stakeholders, together we will
contribute to making Ethiopia more secure, more democratic, and more
prosperous for the next generation.
A STEP BACKWARD: ERITREA
Now, let me turn to Eritrea. While the rest of the Horn of Africa is
making political, economic, and social advances and seizing
opportunities -- albeit with periodic important setbacks -- the
opposite is true for Eritrea.
Eritrea has experienced economic decline and a lack of freedoms, for
the press and political expression. There is widespread and
arbitrary conscription. The government has worked to destabilize its
neighbors, including Ethiopia and Somalia.
Given the American penchant for supporting the underdog, it is
disheartening to see what has become of Eritrea in the 14 years
since it gained independence and produced a praiseworthy
constitution. President Isaias Afwerki has become increasingly
tyrannical and megalomaniacal. He has actively sought to destabilize
the Horn, fueling regional insurgencies and supporting groups
affiliated with terrorists.
Eritrean Government policies have also choked the Eritrean economy
and consolidated political power among a small cadre of cronies, who
are distinguished only by their unwavering loyalty to the President.
The government has actively blocked humanitarian
assistance from international donors. It initiated the border war
with Ethiopia that cost tens of thousands of lives.
The Eritrean Government has fabricated a national mythology by
demonizing neighboring Ethiopia, for the central purpose of
garnering complete compliance with his autocratic domestic policies.
By channeling Eritreans' patriotism into hostility toward Ethiopia,
the government ensures that [it] can rule as it likes, without
public opposition. Democracy and economic opportunity remain purely
theoretical concepts for the people of Eritrea.
As you know, the reality is atrocious. Youth are sent to camps for
indoctrination. Citizens in the prime of their lives are forced into
national service; anyone who refuses is beaten. If you flee, your
family is imprisoned. Those who fail to espouse officially
sanctioned opinions languish in metal shipping containers.
As in the former Soviet Union, the Eritrean government controls both
the message and the medium. There are no opposition political
parties, no non-governmental organizations, no private media. Any
senior government official who dares to speak out puts himself at
risk. The brave individuals known as the G-15, who challenged
Eritrea's path back in the spring of 2001, are missing.
Elsewhere in the region, Eritrea has chosen to support extremist
elements, including the al-Qaida affiliated al Shabaab militia in
Somalia, in an effort to undermine the political process. While the
rest of the region and the international community have united
behind a common strategy for achieving lasting peace and stability
in Somalia, Eritrea has opted to support terrorists and spoilers
while encouraging continued violence. There is no justification for
such actions. The ruling cabal is – to our great regret -- leading
Eritrea along the path toward increased domestic repression and
hardship, and regional and international isolation.
BOUNDARY DISPUTE
Since the border dispute with Ethiopia serves as the pretext for
Eritrea’s domestic authoritarianism, let me say a final few words
about how the U.S. sees this issue. This impasse has been a
long-festering flashpoint between Eritrea and Ethiopia, and it is of
course symptomatic of deeper divisions between the two countries.
The Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC) issued its
delimitation decision in 2002. Yet, the two parties have still not
cooperated on demarcation of the boundary. Both appear comfortable
with the status quo. Ethiopia avoids painful domestic political
decisions, while Eritrea uses the unresolved issue to goad Ethiopia
and deflect attention from a deteriorating domestic situation.
The United States government fully supports the “final and binding”
decisions of the EEBC and has consistently called on both parties to
cooperate with the EEBC and meet their commitments in the Algiers
Agreements. We work closely with the other Witnesses to the Algiers
Agreements -- including Algeria, the African Union, the European
Union, and the United Nations -- and other interested governments.
The level of urgency has increased, as the situation has recently
deteriorated. Both parties remain wedded to their positions and may
have hardened them. Eritrea has moved about 4,000 troops along with
supporting artillery and armor into the Temporary Security Zone (TSZ),
a buffer zone between the parties, and restricted the activities of
UNMEE, a UN peacekeeping force. Eritrea maintains a further 120,000
troops in the vicinity, while Ethiopia has deployed about 100,000
troops along the border.
We believe it is essential for the parties to discuss directly how
to implement a workable boundary regime, consistent with the
decisions of the EEBC, and to address the fundamental issues that
divide them. UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon has offered to engage
the parties, and we support his initiative. The Ethiopian Government
has agreed to participate in this initiative, and we urge the
Eritrean government to do so as well. We will continue our efforts
and support those of others to resolve this issue and remove one
flash point in an already unstable region and bring the parties
closer to a normalized relationship.
So, in conclusion, this is a tough neighborhood, economically
fragile, with a history of violent conflict and of uncompromising
politics. Huge challenges remain. Yet, overall, there is reason to
be hopeful about the Horn. Progress may not be uniform, but with the
exception of Eritrea, we are working in partnership with local
governments toward a more peaceful and prosperous Horn of Africa.
Thank you again for inviting me to join you today, and I look
forward to answering any questions that you may have.
Released on August 9, 2007
|
|