Eritrea: Land of
Can-Do People!
(Yikealo! kikewn eyu
kemey zeykewn!)

ERI-NEWS
Bi-Weekly Newsletter
Permanent Mission of the State of Eritrea to AU
and UNECA
Press Section

Eritrea reduces malaria infection by 95%

National Service: A toolfor Economic
Development, National
Cohesion and the
Defence of Sovereignty

Volume 1, Issue 901 MAY 2014
Inside this issue:

Ministry of Health of Eritrea indicatedthat it has reduced malaria infections by
95%. The Ministry made this remark
during the celebration of World Malaria
Day, on 25 April 2014, in Serejeqa, Central region.

prevention and control.

Furthermore, Head of Malaria Control in the Central Region, Mr,
Melles Gebresyesus, stated that effective implementation of programs
position Eritrea as one of the top
During the ceremony, Dr. Tesfai four performers in malaria control.
Solomon, Head of Central Region, Min- (shabait.com)
istry of Health, indicated that the ministry will redouble its programs in malaria

Ambassador Girma Asmerom Presents His Credentials toUnited Nations Secretary General

The Champ of
Boston Marathon
visits the Perma- 2
nent Mission of Eritrea to the United
Nations
Eritrean Movie“Debas” draws Plat- 2
inum Prize in RemiAward

Chatham House
Briefing Paper:
Sanitizing
Occupation is not
Creative3

On 23 April, 2014, Ambassador Girma During the occasion, Ambassador
Asmerom presented his credentials to the Girma delivered President Isaias
Afwerki’smessageconveying
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon.
goodwill to Mr. Ban Ki-moon.
In the course of the meeting, bothsides exchanged views focusing on
bilateral and regional relations.
They further agreed to hold extensive and continuous discussions on
issues of concern.
Mr. Ban Ki-moon indicated his plan
to visit Eritrea and expressed hisbest wishes to President Isaias.
Vol 1. Issue 9, 01 May 2014

Contact Addresses:
Tel: +251-116620052
Fax:+251-116620011
Email:eritreanaumission@
gmail.com
P.o.Box: 5527
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Eritrean Mission to
AU& ECA@EritreaAU

Page 2

Volume 1, Issue 9

The Champ of Boston Marathon Visits the Permanent Mission of Eritrea to the United
Nations
On Monday 28th April 2014, Meb
Kiflezghi, an Eritrean-American, NewYork and Boston Marathon winner andOlympic Silver Medalist, visited thePermanent Mission of Eritrea to theUnited Nation in New York.

sentative of Eritrea to the UN
and the staffs of the Mission.

During his visit Meb
Kiflezghi said “My message
to the youth of the world ingeneral and the Eritrean
Meb was congratulated on his tremen- youth in particular is that
dous accomplishments by Ambassador every human being has toGirma Asmerom, Permanent Repre- remember and reflect where
they came from, where they
are, and where they are going, that is why I'm proud tobe an American of Eritrean
origin”.
Meb also said “If you arefocused, dedicated, disciplined and humble you willdefinitely achieve whatever
you do and want to do inlife”.
He wishes President Isaias
Afewerki good health andprosperity to the people of Eritrea. He thanked Ambassador
Girma and the Mission staffs
for
the
warm
Eritrean
reception and greetings theyaccorded to him and his
brother and manager Mr.
Merhawi Kiflezghi.
Ambassador Girma on his part
thanked Meb Kiflezghi for his
visit and wishes him luck in
his future endeavors.

Eritrean Movie “Debas” Draws Platinum Prize in Remi Award 2014
The Eritrean movie “Debas” drew a Platinum prize inthe 2014 Houston’s Remi Award in the US. It ranked
first out of selected 49 movies.
A total of 4,500 movies from various countries werestaged at the International Movie Festival which was
conducted for the 47th time from 4 to 13 April 2014.
Mr. Mekonen Woldeab, director of the film, received
the award on 12th April in the US.
In the last two of years, Eritrean flims “Tiegisti” and“Aqlasia” received gold prizes in Remi Award.
(Shabait.com)

Vol 1. Issue 9, 01 May 2014

Page 3Eri-News

Chatham House Briefing Paper: Sanitizing Occupation is not Creative
By Eritrean Centre for Strategic Studies (ECSS), Asmara, 18 April 2014
The Chatham House Briefing Paper of 10 April
2014 by Jason Mosley, titled “Eritrea and Ethiopia: Beyond the Impasse”, supposedly sets out tochallenge and rectify obsolete perceptions of theHorn of Africa’s political dynamics and prevailing reality. This is refreshing and must be welcomed at the outset. Indeed, the author debunks
certain presumptions here and there in order toclear the way for what he aptly calls “creative
engagement” of the international community visa-vis the two countries, and especially Eritrea.
Jason Mosley lucidly underscores the fact thatconventional “Western” (read US) foreign policy
towards the region has thus far failed inpromoting a lasting and meaningful peace. And,
as a panacea to past flawed policies andapproaches, the author pleads for policy makers
in principal Western countries to reassess their
negative and often times overtly biased stanceagainst Eritrea. Unfortunately, he simultaneously
argues for continuation of “the special treatment”
and cuddling of Ethiopia. This ambivalent andpalpably contradictory disposition severely punctures the “novel approach” that he wants toearnestly enunciate.
Mosley rightly calls on the “international
community” to reconsider and reverse the ineffective and counterproductive policy measurestaken against Eritrea. In this vein, he boldly
argues for the lifting of the unwarranted, USengineered, UN sanctions on Eritrea as a vital and long-overdue gesture of goodwill andconfidence-building.
Mosley appropriately calls on IGAD to facilitate the resumption of Eritrea’s membershipthat has been blocked by Ethiopia for several
years now. He highlights the urgent need for theinternational community to increase proactive
economic engagement with Eritrea instead of
paying undue, or perhaps untimely, attention tointernal affairs under the pretext of human rights
and democracy. All these views and approaches
are certainly positive and reinforce new trends
that have gained currency in the recent months.

In as far as the Algiers Peace Agreement and the Eri
trea-Ethiopia Border Commission’s ruling are concerned, the author explicitly states:“Eritrea has the weight of international law on its
side, and correctly accuses Ethiopia of occupying its
sovereign territory…”
This unequivocal legal acknowledgement surely vindicates Eritrea’s firm position which is in consonancewith fundamental tenets of international law, the UN
and AU Charters, as well as, with time-tasted AU
principles on the sanctity of colonial treaties and borders. But unfortunately, the author changes tack at thispoint to advocate a “pragmatic approach” that makes a
caricature of basic edifices of international law. As it
happens, Mosley opines:“…the reality of Ethiopia’s demographic and, increasingly, economic predominance in the Horn ofAfrica must be understood, accepted and accommodated by its neighbours, including Eritrea, and by international actors…. it will probably mean violating
the letter (if not the spirit) of the 2000 peace deal, andworking around the EEBC ruling, since Ethiopia cannot be forced to comply with it…”
Why the author presumes that Ethiopia can rideroughshod and trample, with impunity, fundamental
pillars of international law is really mindboggling. The Algiers Peace Agreement contains explicit provisions empowering the UN Security Council
to invoke Chapter VII of the UN Charter to take punitive measures against the recalcitrant party. Surely,
Ethiopia is not a veto-wielding permanent member of
the UNSC and/or does not possess unassailable diplomatic clout to defy and forestall appropriate punitive
action by the latter.
Furthermore, Chatham House and the author must
know full well by now that the putative “controversy”
does not revolve around the “final and binding”
EEBC’s ruling anymore. This is now a case of unlawful occupation; pure and simple. The EEBC had indeed closed shop in 2007 after undertaking its demarcation of the border by coordinates and depositing its

Vol 1. Issue 9, 01 May 2014

Page 4Eri-News

demarcation decision with the UN Cartographic
Office as well as both parties.
In the event, Mosley’s reasoning can make sense
only if and when the political radar is zeroed on
the United States. If the author’s subliminal argument is that Ethiopia cannot be persuaded toabide by international law as long as it enjoys theblind protection of the United States; that is another matter. But then, one would expect the author not to mince his words; and, to call “a spadea spade”. In any case, this has nothing to do witha novel, “out of the box”, approach. It epitomizes
a meek endorsement of power politics; it represents toeing the line of the powers that be. And ofcourse, this approach can only set a dangerous
precedent, a Pandora’s Box, for unresolved border conflicts in the global south and elsewhere in
the world. It undermines the integrity of international treaties and the validity of Arbitration processes and awards by circumventing internationallaw despite solemnly signed international agreements and unequivocal rulings. It is not evenhelpful to Ethiopia as its historical claim on the
Ogaden ultimately rests on international treaties
and the sanctity of colonial borders.
Factual Inaccuracies and Flawed Assumptions
The Chatham House Briefing paper also contains
several assumptions and factual errors as we
illustrate below:
1. Causes of the war:
The article quotes Tekheste Negash and Kjetil
Tronvoll to substantiate the view that the cause of
the conflict transcends a good-faith border dispute. The problem with these sources is that they
are not neutral researches. Tronvoll has longstanding business associations with Ethiopia’s
Foreign Ministry.
Tekheste Negash was against Eritrea’s independ
ence during the liberation war (was involved with
the Mengistu regime as late as 1989) and openly
stated, in an interview with an Ethiopian Newspaper few weeks ago, that “the problem with the
EEBC ruling is not the mechanics of demarcation. The central issue is there should be no demarcation or border between the two countries atall”. Clearly, description/analysis of events by“scholars” with well-known political biases and perspectives cannot be taken at face value. In any case, as
far as Eritrea is concerned, disagreements on and pursuance of divergent policies would shape and influence the ebb and flow of bilateral ties between the twocountries; but they cannot be a cause of war. And forthe record, Eritrea-Ethiopia bilateral ties of cooperation were exemplary, and perhaps among the best in
the region, prior to the eruption of the border war in
1998.
2. Economic and power asymmetry between thetwo countries:A central theme of the article revolves around the assumption of an economic asymmetry between the twocountries. (“… Ethiopia’s demographic and increasingly economic predominance in the Horn of Africa
must be understood…”). The validity of this assumption is dubious. True, Ethiopia has a much larger population and considerable natural resources and endowments. But Eritrea has also substantial natural resources/potentials (mining etc.) as well vital locationaland comparative advantages. In a congenial environment of regional peace, Eritrea can develop its mining, tourism, agricultural, manufacturing, fisheries andlocational (ports) advantages to ensure rapid economic
growth on a sustainable basis. In a level playing fieldof peaceful competition and cooperation, Eritrea’s
economic prospects and performances will not lag behind that of Ethiopia. (This is discounting religious/
ethnic fault lines which are deep and pronounced in
Ethiopia). Apart from the distortions entailed by war
and its sequel, one must also factor in the massive international aid injections into Ethiopia’s economy in
the last ten years. Furthermore, it is worth noting herethat despite myriad challenges – mostly externallydriven – Eritrea has managed to creatively and conscientiously work on rebuilding andstrengthening its economy in ways that has impressed even themost skeptical observers. Some of the tangible
achievements include: the visible change in the quality of lives in all the rural areas; the remarkable rise inschool enrolment and literacy rates since independence; the increased access to clean water and healthfacilities and thus the ability to control many communicable diseases; the completion of major infrastructure projects that lay the foundation for future
expansion and growth and much more. In the event,
the relative economic growth of the two countries in
the past ten years with all its distortions cannot serve

Vol 1. Issue 9, 01 May 2014

Page 5Eri-News

as a good indicator of trends in the future.
3. Eritrea’s presumed propensity to trigger
proxy wars to undermine Ethiopia:This is an utterly wrong perception. As briefly
indicated above, Eritrea’s regional policy is firmly anchored on the precepts of a safe neighbourhood. Eritrea’s developmental and security interests are better served in a regional architecture ofconflict prevention and avoidance of tension. War
and/or continued tensions usually imply higher
expenditure on defence, prolonged national military service and other negative consequences for
trade and investment which are not positive factors for a small country. Indeed, Eritrea demobilized 65,000 soldiers, downsizing the size of the
new Eritrean National Defence Forces (EDF) to
35,000 only, immediately after independence
when the regional security environment was relatively conducive. Eritrea also launched a twophased, World Bank financed, demobilization
programme in 2001 when the Algiers Peace
Agreement was signed with Ethiopia. And until 2004, it demobilized around 105,000 soldiersfrom the National Military Service. But when
Ethiopia reneged on its treaty agreement, the demobilization programme was shelved and postponed.
In Somalia, Eritrea was not involvedin a proxy war with Ethiopia. This would not
make sense in pure military terms even from logistical considerations. But more pointedly, Eritrea is not involved in the business of incubating“proxy wars” with Ethiopia for the overriding
developmental considerations outlined above.
The US and Ethiopia know these facts full-well.
Still, the accusations that were conceived originally for the purposes of imposing the unfair
sanctions are willfully perpetuated in order to rationalize their continued maintenance. The speculation that South Sudan may become anotherarena of proxy war between Eritrea and Ethiopia
is equally unfounded and peddled for other ulterior reasons. In brief, these misperceptions are notbased on facts but used by the US and Ethiopia to
portray Eritrea as a “pariah State” in order tomaintain the unfair sanctions.

4. Economic interdependence of the two countries:In Eritrea’s view, long-term and ultimate continental
economic cooperation can only be realized throughconsolidation of regional economic cooperation andintegration at the level of the RECs. In the Horn ofAfrica, IGAD is the appropriate vehicle for incremental regional economic cooperation. Eritrea’s economic
ties with Ethiopia will be seen, in the future, within
this context. Eritrea has interests to develop economic
ties with the Sudan, the Republic of South Sudan, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia, as well as Kenya and Uganda. The ties of the distant past will not have much impact with what is and will develop in the future. One
must also take into account the economic development trajectories of the individual countries in question. In the case of Eritrea, for instance, developmentof its high-growth potential sectors: tourism, mining,fisheries, etc., will depend on investment/trade ties
with players outside the region. In short, Eritrea andEthiopia are not Siamese Twins joined at the hips
when it comes to future economic growth and developmental trajectories.
5. Eritrea’s purported international isolation:This perception is also wrong. True, Eritrea has a major problem with the United States. This is not of its
making. But it has reasonably good ties with the international community. It has investment/trade and bilateral/multilateral ties of cooperation with the European
Union, China, Japan, India, the Middle Eastern countries and a plethora of other countries in the rest of theworld as well as with various international agencies.
6. Assuaging Ethiopia:The author gives undue weight to “mollifying Ethiopia first” prior to any positive action of the“international community” in regards to Eritrea. This
unwarranted “note of caution” and role-reversal is intriguing. Ethiopia has no levers that it can wield
against the international community, depending, as it
does, on massive development assistance/budget support for its survival. Indeed, it is quite odd that a WB
grant was withheld in the case of Uganda for passing
legislation that had over 85% approval and yet similar
measures cannot be called for against a country like
Ethiopia whose more than 50% recurrent budget
comes from IFIs. In terms of international law on theborder issue, it is Ethiopia which is on the wrong; not
Eritrea or the international community. Eritrea has nointerest and innate proclivity to destabilize Ethiopia or

Vol 1. Issue 9, 01 May 2014

Page 6Eri-News

the region for all the reasons explained
above. Yet, the author emphatically pleads: “… afirm rhetorical stance by the international community that it will not tolerate efforts to destabilize
the region, or destabilize Ethiopia specificallyshould be maintained as part of efforts to reassure
Ethiopia”. His conclusion, which emanates fromwrong assumptions and perceptions, is not tenable by any stretch of imagination. As underlined
above, circumventing the border ruling and postponing pressure on Ethiopia in this regard is notwarranted and only creates negative precedence ininternational law.

terms of a collective market of more than 150 million people; considerable strategic resources andprime geopolitical advantages. These vantage
points will be unleashed when the multiple problems besetting the region are incrementally and irrevocably resolved. The region’s external partners
can be a force of good when they act not only toadvance their interests but also the principal interests of the peoples of the region in a balanced andjudicious manner. This includes both comprehensive and piecemeal measures to assist and facilitatein the resolution of pending conflicts. The various
players must also recognize that the old paradigmof client/patron States and subordination of the region to narrow geopolitical exigencies will not, indeed, have permanence and sustainability in achanging global reality.

7.Mr.
Mosleyalso
makes
allusions to “Ethiopia’s concerns for avoiding spillover in case of a disorderly political transition in
Eritrea”. Ethiopia’s long-standing approach is infact the opposite. Ethiopia has throughout sup-  As expounded above, Ethiopia’s occupationofsovereign
Eritreanterritories
ported an assortment of subversive, if ineffective,in flagrant violation of international law is not only
armed groups against Eritrea (RASDO, Kunama
untenable by all standards but it is also fraught
Liberation Front, Eritrean Jihad groups etc.). Ethiwith endangering peace and security in the Horn ofopia also talks about an official policy of “regime
Africa region. As such, a “business as usual” apchange” in Eritrea. Above all, Ethiopia remains
proach of rewarding Ethiopia with extensive supglued to a zero-sum power game; wants to see theport and assistance is counterproductive to thecontinuation of the sanctions as its recent secretquest of peace and the long-term cooperation of the
instructions to its diplomats underscores, and waspeoples of Ethiopia and Eritrea. In the event, it bebehind the false story associating Eritrea withhooves on the United States, more than ever beReich Machar in the crisis in South Sudan.
fore, to review its policies vis-à-vis Eritrea andEthiopia in regard to these cardinal issues.
The Way Forward
Mosley has tried to blaze a new road by pro-  Demonization and harassment of Eritrea throughvarious means, including the unlawful UN sancvoking fresh perspectives and approaches oftions, will not promote the cause of regional peace“creative engagement”. But his effort did not
and security. The challenges of economic developproduce a novel and viable road-map, hampered
ment and nation building in all the countries of theas it was, by flawed assumptions and principally,
Horn remain enormous, and, they should not bea misguided approach that relegated the pivotal
shrugged off and underrated lightly. In this context,
issue of occupation to the back burner. In our
it is imprudent and counterproductive for externalview, the elements of a viable approach must repartners to try to influence the national developvolve around and constitute of the following:mental trajectories through heavy-handed conditionalities and interferences. The ground rules and The Horn of Africa region is obviously undermatrices for sustainable partnership must be bettergoing through a difficult phase in its collective
articulated and agreed through symmetric consultahistory. On the one hand, the flash-points oftions and negotiations.
internal and/or inter-State conflicts remain
multiple and intractable. On the other hand,
this region which connects the Middle East andAfrica and that straddles major routes of global
maritime traffic has huge economic potential in
Vol 1. Issue 9, 01 May 2014