An index of African governance

An index of African governance

A rum old mix

The Economist

From happy islands to the swamps of misery

Oct 7th 2010 | Nairobi

ONCE again Africa’s worthiest and perhaps happiest countries, according to Mo Ibrahim’s latest measure of all-round governance, scrutinising data gathered for last year, are offshore. Mauritius is the runaway winner, followed by the Seychelles in second place and Cape Verde fourth (see table). On the African mainland, Botswana, with the advantages of ethnic homogeneity, a small population, diamonds and good leaders, does best, in third place, with South Africa, by far the weightiest country in Africa, fifth. At the other end of the scale, the most wretched land is Somalia, with Chad, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zimbabwe competing for Africa’s wooden spoon.

[Editor's Note: The worst nations in a chronological order are as follows: 53, Somalia; 52, Chad; 51, Congo; 50, Zimbabwe; 49, Eritrea; 48, Sudan; 47, Central African Rep.; and 46, Equatorial Guinea. For a display of the table visit: The Economist.]

There are no big changes in the pecking order. The yardsticks applied by Mr Ibrahim, a Sudanese-born British telecoms magnate and philanthropist, judge countries on a mix of four main criteria: “safety and the rule of law” (looking at the murder rate and corruption, among other things); “participation and human rights” (that little matter of being able peacefully to chuck out a bad government); “sustainable economic opportunity” (including such things as fiscal management, free markets and inflation); and “human development” (in essence, education and health care).

Some countries do surprisingly well despite their lack of democracy. Tunisia, which is run by a dictator but gives its people a decent life in other respects, comes eighth; Libya, which has one of the nastiest human-rights records in Africa but gives its people loads of welfare, is a respectable 23rd. Others, despite wealth and civil vibrancy, do notably badly. Nigeria is down in 40th place and Angola, though it oozes oil, comes a dismal 43rd. Two countries favoured by many development buffs, Rwanda and Ethiopia, do badly because of their deteriorating human-rights records: Rwanda is in 31st place and Ethiopia in 34th.

In regional and religious terms, it may be noted that Muslim and Maghreb countries do badly on the democracy and human-rights index. Green-minded advocates also think Mr Ibrahim should think of applying a new criterion for managing natural resources and tackling climate change. Urban planning and innovation could also usefully be measured. Particularly pleasing, for Mr Ibrahim and for Africa’s well-wishers at large, is that governments across the continent are taking the table seriously. There is nothing like a bit of naming, shaming and praising.

Source: http://www.economist.com/node/17209794?story_id=17209794

Sometimes a “Draw” is Good

Abraham G. Ghiorgis ***

(*** First published under the pen-name of Mogos Tekeste)

On September 21, 2010, the International Crisis Group (ICG) issued its report on Eritrea titled “Eritrea: The Siege State.” The ICG succinctly summarized the Eritrean history in its glories and its failings. To speak for myself, this is the best summary of Eritrea‘s history that I have read. This is an outstanding primer, which one can consume in a single sitting of reading and I could confidently recommend as a worthwhile reading to anyone who wants a quick grasp of the complexities of Eritrea including my college-educated children. That is how valuable I consider this document.

On September 29, 2010 Saleh Younis gave his critical appraisal of the “The Siege State.” I believe Sal did an admirable job; the following major highlights are some of my misgivings on his appraisal.

The Eritrean regime is up to arms against “The Siege State.” This in itself speaks volumes of how the Eritrean regime considers damaging the article is to its persona. Remember, the international community will care about Eritrea if many organizations such as the ICG expose the atrocities of Isaias - the authoritarian leader of Eritrea. If the exposition of the wrongdoings of the Eritrean regime is limited only to that of Eritreans, it will amount to nothing, and no one will take us, democratic Eritreans, seriously. It is also naive to assume that the views of the ICGs and other outsiders will invariably align one hundred percent of the time with the views of the Eritrean liberal democratic opposition. Sad to state but it is a fact that our own Eritrean opposition itself does not have a coherent message and a simple solution to our problems that is acceptable to the overwhelmingly majority of the Eritrean people. This being the case it is not fair to demand such exactitude from non-Eritreans. If we do not recalibrate our views realistically, we will consistently be disappointed and will unnecessarily alienate forces that can be of use for the good of the Eritrean people. I believe the ICG is a formidable force that the Eritrean opposition can make to good use. The ICG has a lot of credibility within the power movers and shakers in the United Nations.

Essentially, the ICG has almost taken the banner of the opposition in exposing the gross abuses of human rights that are taking place in Eritrea under the rule of Isaias in its “The Siege State.” That the ICG views the Eritrean problems in almost exact fashion as democratic Eritreans do should at least entitle us to congratulate ourselves that someone else is also listening to the appeals of the sufferings and pains of the Eritrean people.

Fundamental solutions to Eritrea’s agony can only come from the Eritrean people. Outsiders can only be facilitators. Thus, we should not be discouraged of any solutions that the ICG is proposing if it happens to be to our dislike; instead we should concentrate on their good points at elucidating the fundamental problems of Eritrea -- which undoubtedly “The Siege State” does admirably. If we do that, our mindset will take “The Siege State” as a win for the Eritrean people. To reiterate, the findings of solutions to our problems are up to us Eritreans. No NGO worth its salt proposes a solution that is a win-lose result from the protagonists’ viewpoint. By its very nature an NGO is not in a position and business to directly and bluntly shame one group and elevate the prestige of another group. A good proposal will always be either a draw or a win-win situation, an impossibility in Eritrea. In the current circumstances of the Eritrean liberal democratic opposition, a draw is not bad.

In some instances, I believe that as a rule it is unwise to guess a hazard as to whose pen is behind the contents of an article. This may unwisely bias people against an article despite its excellence, which I believe “The Siege State” is. I hope we are aware of the powerful lessons “Common Sense” played during the American Revolution. That pamphlet was signed "Written by an Englishman." Though unknown to the majority of the “Common Sense” readers at its time of publication, Thomas Paine wrote the pamphlet. The American people read the pamphlet with an open mind, and they gave their verdict based on the merits of the ideas it espoused and not based on the personality of the author behind it.

It sounds that some are suddenly opposed to the concept of “dialogue,” despite the fact that they were at one time messengers of dialogue. This was even when it was clear that the Ethiopian regime was in the wrong for outright rejection of the Eritrean-Ethiopian Boundary Commission’s verdict when it was issued the first time. More Eritreans died in the Eritrean-Ethiopian wars than in the internecine fighting among Eritreans themselves. It is very astounding that they enthusiastically support dialogue with Ethiopia and I might add rightly so, but on the other hand, it seems they oppose certain dialogues among Eritreans. This is either hypocrisy or lack of deep knowledge of the power of dialogue. By any measure, dialogue does not free the Eritrean leadership from any wrongdoing it committed, if one wants to be vindictive and not forgiving. It is foolish to be allergic to the concept of dialogue when outsiders propose it, since invariably that is what they will propose. The wise thing to do is not to out rightly reject dialogue but to come up with creative mechanisms to overcome it in order to make it work for the welfare of the Eritrean people. NGOs are supposedly in the business of peace and thus they see dialogue as a solution. This does not mean they are not doing other things. They are and a perfect example is the UNSC’s sanctions on Eritrea. There are many documents incorporated within the sanctions orders that finally will incriminate Isaias and his lackeys in a court of law for their illegal actions outside Eritrea. This is on top of their lawless activities inside Eritrea. All tools are necessary to dismantle the authoritarian Eritrean regime. If Mandela was able to use dialogue as one of his tools to take to pieces the Apartheid regime, why should one deny the Eritrean people this powerful instrument if used wisely?

Many democratic Eritreans played a bad role during the 1998-2000 war. Some were cheerleaders of the war. This includes some of the top leadership of the PFDJ -- the G15. In essence, the G-15 was a mouthpiece of Isaias. Finally, the G15 publicly recanted its serious errors and seriously apologized to the Eritrean people. Among other things, it appealed for the restoration of the rule of law in Eritrea and it paid a heavy price for its heroic repentance and defiance.

In the Diaspora, the majority of educated Eritreans was for the war and this included some members of the Awate Team itself. Now, after the fact it is not good to self-righteously demand from others to repent for their past sins when one knows for sure that the accusers who try to wear a saintly mantle are not holy themselves. It is about time that the Awate Team practices what it preaches. Otherwise it is hypocrisy and immoral. The Diaspora cheerleaders of the past war were outside the leadership of the Eritrean regime; their cheerleading gave Isaias an undeserved legitimacy and a blank check in his disastrous war with Ethiopia. There is no need to be more saintly and more self-righteous than others are. If people recant for past mistakes, not through mere words as the Awate Team is demanding, but through concrete good deeds then that is priceless in my book. In that regard, as far as I am concerned, no Eritrean has been able to write as an excellent article as “The Siege State”. If the Awate Team so desire then I personally take “The Siege State” as an apology to the Eritrean people, since this mere short pamphlet is a powerful weapon in the domains of those who hold power in the world. We have to have big hearts to help our people who are still supporting Isaias to mend their erroneous ways, and more importantly, we have to forgive, forget, and move positively forward.

The ICG appears to be indecisive on the UNSC’s sanctions on Eritrea, and criticisms on this issue are valid. In fairness however, we also know who was insipid on this very issue when the United Nations imposed sanctions on Eritrea. The Awate Team is on record for opposing the arms embargo part of the sanctions. In fact, I obtusely reprimanded the Team on my article “The UNSC’s Sanctions on Eritrea Revisited.” In fact, I do not see that much of a difference on the position of the sanctions on Eritrea between that of the ICG and that of the Awate Team. It is within the realm of possibility that the Awate Team may have wrongly influenced the ICG to take an ineffective position on the sanctions. You reap what you sow.

Eritrea: The Siege State ***

Eritrea: The Siege State

Africa Report N°163 21 Sep 2010

International Crisis Group

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Eritrea has been deeply troubled since independence in 1991. Following the devastating war with Ethiopia (1998-2000), an authoritarian, militarised regime has further tightened political space, tolerating neither opposition nor dissent. Relations are difficult with the region and the wider international community. At African Union (AU) behest, the UN Security Council imposed sanctions in 2009 for its support of the Somali Islamic insurgency. It has become, in effect, a siege state, whose government is suspicious of its own population, neighbours and the wider world. Economically crippled at birth, it is a poor country from which tens of thousands of youths are fleeing, forming large asylum-seeking communities in Europe and North America. But Eritrea is an extreme reflection of its region’s rough political environment, not its sole spoiler. More effort to understand the roots of its suspicions and greater engagement rather than further isolation would be a more promising international prescription for dealing with the genuine risks it represents.

The militarism and authoritarianism which now define the political culture have their roots in the region’s violent history. The 30-year war of independence was part of a network of conflicts which devastated north-east Africa. The real significance of that legacy has only become clear in the last decade, as President Isaias Afwerki and a small cohort of ex-fighters have strengthened their grip on power, while suppressing social freedoms and economic development in favour of an agenda centred on an obedient national unity and the notion that Eritrea is surrounded by enemies. Isaias’s supporters, diminishing in number, assert that only he has the vision to guide it through difficult times; the growing ranks of his critics argue that he has hijacked the nation-building process; betrayed the sacrifice of hundreds of thousands who achieved and defended independence, and brought ruin to the country.

Conditions are worsening dramatically. Since the 2001 crackdown that ended a brief period of public debate, jails have been filled with political prisoners and critics, religious dissidents, journalists, draft evaders and failed escapees. Isaias uses the standoff with Ethiopia to justify severe internal discipline and military adventures across the region. Ethiopia has reneged on part of the Algiers Agreement that ended the war, in particular by not accepting what was to have been a special commission’s binding decision on the border. The Security Council’s failure to compel compliance reinforced the sense in Asmara that the international community is inherently hostile. Eritrea subsequently placed restrictions on UN peacekeepers that led to their withdrawal in 2008 from the demilitarised zone between the belligerents, citing total lack of cooperation. Isaias’s foreign policy became even more fixated on forcing Ethiopia to accept the border decision, with proxy warfare rather than conventional diplomacy the favoured tool.

Militarised politics has spilled into foreign policy, the latter frequently involving armed responses and aggressive adventurism at the expense of conventional diplomacy. To date, Eritrea has fought, directly or indirectly, with Ethiopia, Yemen, Djibouti and Sudan and involved itself in various ways in the conflicts in eastern Sudan, Darfur and Somalia. While it asserts that it is pursuing legitimate national security interests and lambasts the U.S. in particular for intervening in the affairs of others, the aggressive approach and abrasive tone have left it increasingly isolated. The willingness of potential friends to consider the legitimacy of at least some of its concerns is diminished by Eritrea’s unwillingness to demilitarise its foreign policy and to make concessions on any level.

The economy has been shattered by the vagaries of regional rainfall, the state’s destruction of the private sector and the huge costs of military mobilisation. Society more broadly is under enormous strain. Remarkably, there have not yet been serious protests, but pressure is building, both inside the borders and in the extensive diaspora, whose remittances have been a major financial support. A range of external opposition groups – though still deeply divided – are lining up against the regime.
To avoid a fresh crisis in the Horn of Africa, the international community and the Eritreans alike will need to demonstrate a new level of imagination and flexibility. It is vital that the international community engages with Eritrea, politically and economically, and rigorously assesses the country’s internal problems as well as its external pressures. Development assistance and improved trade links should be tied to holding long-promised national elections and implementing the long-delayed constitution. At the same time, in particular the UN Security Council should pressure Ethiopia to accept the border ruling. All this is necessary to prevent another failed state from emerging in the Horn. That outcome is otherwise distinctly possible given the widespread lack of support for the government within the country and the deteriorating state of the army, whose ability to either sustain Isaias Afwerki’s regime or to successfully manage regime transition is increasingly questionable.

Nairobi/Brussels, 21 September 2010

Source: http://www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/africa/horn-of-africa/ethiopia-eritrea/163-eritrea-the-siege-state.aspx

_______________________________________________________

***Note: For a full PDF Report please visit: http://www.crisisgroup.org/~/media/Files/africa/horn-of-africa/ethiopia-eritrea/163%20Eritrea%20The%20Siege%20State.ashx

Praise and Criticize

Abraham G. Ghiorgis
(First published under the pen-name of Mogos Tekeste)




First and foremost, I congratulate Mejlis Ibrahim Mukhtar for taking the initiative of amending the Eritrean constitution using a mixture of the 1952 Eritrean Federal constitution and the ratified 1997 Eritrean constitution in his The Eritrean Accord contribution. Rightly you deserve a great praise on this one. Hopefully, others will follow you.

I for one am on record for advocating the use of the ratified 1997 Eritrean constitution to unify the Eritrean people in their quest for establishing the rule of law in Eritrea. See the Rule of Law in Eritrea. This is assuming that it is amended to remove provisions that violate the rule of law such as the allowance of the sole ownership of land by the state. I am not infatuated with the 1997 ratified Eritrean constitution; if the rule of law can be established in Eritrea using an amalgam of the 1952 Eritrean federal constitution and the ratified 1997 constitution so much the better.

Still, I need to stress the fact that on this item, a major one in my book, you are one of the first groups who have finally seen the daylight and the wisdom that using the constitution as a unifying factor is the best method to struggle against the PFDJ. Moreover, only those kinds of constitutions are the solutions to Eritrea's problem – the need to create a state that is governed by a constitutional liberalism. This seems to me a paradigm shift that is a thinking that swings away from the fight for group rights (highlanders versus lowlanders) to the fight for the respect of the rights of individual citizens and the respect of the rights of minorities of all kinds and the fight for the rule of law. The route is the constitution.

Now to the major blunders you committed. At times you seem to personalize issues and view items from highland versus lowland dichotomy and inter-Kebessa conflict (Hamsien v Seraye v Akelguzai) and not examine policies and ideologies in their historical contexts. If you delve into personalities, you will do major errors, and thus lose all credibility you may have and thus you will be unable to convince Eritreans on the major project, for example the harmonizing of the constitutions.

To speak bluntly, most of your points highlighted in bullet items eight to twelve are rubbish, unsubstantiated rumors, and in some instance pure lies and conjectures in order to propagate false theories. These are unworthy to come out from the pens of educated and assuming ethical and rational Eritreans. You assert you are for the rule of law, but on the other hand maybe unconsciously, you propagate fanaticism of regions and religions that are not in tune with the current sociological factors of Eritrea. You also violate rights of privacy and the protection of property rights. Let me bring to your attention two major blunders and pure lies. Unfortunately I will delve into accomplishments of individuals to prove my points, and show you that in essence you have not fully grasped the concepts of the rule of law and the respect of the rights of individual citizens. That includes the respect of the rights of individuals who are not in your group and I might add that includes also people who you may even consider your enemies. The rule of law has to be applied equally to all. Mind you it is not only the state that violates the rights of individuals, many non state actors do so such as you have done in my following examples. The only reason we concentrate on the state is that when the state violates those rights it is worse since the state can go the extra mile and use violence.

First, on item #10: You presented that the firing of so many teachers from Asmara University in mid 1990s is because of the “conflict” between Hamasien and Akleguzai. This seems to me that you are copying the playbook of Isaias Afwerki. I never imagined such an utterance to come out from an opposition group and a liberal one at that. To substantiate your argument, you claim that Andebrhan Woldegiorgis is from Akeleguzai. Nothing is far from the truth; this is a lie of the highest order. I know for a fact that Andebrahan is from Seraye, a village not far from Mendefera. (Disclosure: I myself am from Seraye, from Adi Quala.) In addition, you claim that Andebrahn does not have the academic credentials to run the Asmara University. I have no clue about the academic credentials of the members of your group. What I know is that Andebrhan has a graduate degree from the University of Colorado. At one time he was a lecturer at the Business School at Haile Selassie University. He was a PhD candidate at Harvard University before he joined the EPLF in the field. What more do you want?

Branding a person of something he is not is equivalent to the approbation of his property which is a violation of the rule of law. Property rights do not deal only with land and houses or other tangible properties, but they also deal with intangible properties like once being, intellect and once origin. Spreading falsehood about a person is tantamount to the violation of his property rights and the violation of his privacy. This applies also to people who you may consider are in the “enemy camp,” including Isaias himself. What are the points of the lies then?

Truth be told, Isaias is anti educated Eritreans and thus in order to demolish the Asmara University; he does not need someone from “Akeleguzai,” nor does he need someone with a PhD from Yale University. Isaias only needs an errand boy. I am not here to defend Andebrahn, the least of my concern, I have no idea what his role was in the demolition of the university. I also know the university was demolished much later under a different administrator. I am here to expose a lie despite the fact that it carries the banner of an opposition. I firmly also believe in the concept of the due process of law and innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. This has nothing to do with Andebrahn being an “Akeleguzetai” or not having “academic credentials” – both counts false. As far as Isaias is concerned that messenger assigned to demolish the university can be from Keren or Agordat or Massawa. If one were to take your analysis to its logical conclusion then one would wrongly characterize it as a conflict between the highlanders and the lowlanders and not face the truth that Isaias is anti high caliber education. And we have seen a lot of that kind of shoddy analysis.

Isaias does not care about Hamasien, nor does he hate Seraye or Akelguzai or Keren or whatever. He cares only about his power, and he will use regionalism or provincial attachments to pursue his interests. I do not believe the Eritrean people are in the game that Isaias plays. Just examine the intermarriages between the highland provinces in your area. The problem is that if you view items through the lens of regionalism or religion you will always fall into the very traps of Isaias – an Eritrean society divided along religious and region lines. If you view it from the point of view of individual citizen rights and not group rights (in this case Akeleguzai and Hamsien) and the rule of law you will not fall into that trap.

Second, on Item 11. You falsely assert that the Eritreans for Liberation in North America (EFLNA) was established when the Ethiopian Army started massacring highland Christians. This is a deliberate lie to falsely accuse that educated Christian highlanders never cared about the plight of their fellow Eritrean lowlanders. EFLNA was established in 1970 when a major massacre took place around Keren when an Ethiopian Army general was ambushed and killed by the ELF. The last time I checked Keren is in the lowlands. The massacre of Christian highlands started around 1975 when the Derg was in full control, about five years after the establishment of the EFLNA. What is the point of the lie? Your mind seems to be so clouded with viewing all issues through the prisms of religion and region that you have become so audacious to distort and falsify facts that are well known to all.

It seems in certain instances you are unable to do a simple fact check. The point is if you are not careful with such simple facts and disseminate such falsehood to the whole world, how can I trust you with other earth shattering and consequential facts to the Eritrean people? Once these untruths are exposed some of your analysis about the so called dichotomy of the Christians and Muslims and the inter-Kebessa squabbling you yourself created in your writing to fit your assumptions that are hinged on falsehoods will crumple down like a house of cards.

“Majority Rule” and “Minority Rights”

-->

Abraham G. Ghiorgis ***

(*** First published under the pen-name of Mogos Tekeste)

I have great respect for Semere Tesfai for boldly articulating his views. There are crucial points that he and I are in complete concurrence, in particular his analysis of not resorting to group rights to solve Eritrea's problems; that is the main crux of his analysis. I believe the solution still remains a state that is governed by a constitutional liberalism.

One major quarrel I have with Semere and I believe his Achilles’ heel on his otherwise excellent analysis is his understanding of "Majority Rule" and "Minority Rights."

He comes across to me, maybe inadvertently, as advocating for the majorities to do whatever they desire since they have the numbers. Democracy may allow this, but the rule of law does not. Democracy without the rule of law is unworkable; in fact it becomes a “tyranny of the majority.”

Today, in the USA democracy and the rule of law go hand in hand. For example, the white Americans just because they have the numbers do not mean they can lord over the black Americans, which they “legally,” institutionally and openly did at one time. That was a violation of the rule of law. Actually, the rule of law is a break on democracy.

In a multi ethnic and multi religious and as of yet culturally and economically undeveloped Eritrea, we need more the rule of law than democracy. If we can achieve both - the rule of law and democracy - at the same time, it is prefect, but that is living in a pipedream. The opposition is infatuated with “democracy,” a concept that is wrecking havoc in Africa, since most African nations just like Eritrea do not have a basic prerequisite for democracy – the rule of law.

The rule of law protects the rights of individuals as well the rights of minorities of all kinds, and it constrains the state and the majorities from abusing their power. If we can achieve the rule of law, it will eventually enable us to have a democratic and prosperous society. England the mother of all civil liberties for centuries was ruled by monarchs and yet that power emanated and was constrained by the rule of law; the same in the USA -- the rule of law preceded democracy. (Singapore is a typical example where the state is governed by a very adequate rule of law; yet there is no democracy that is comparable to the USA. Can we, Eritreans, learn something valuable from this?)

To elaborate more, here is a succinct explanation of the balance between "Majority Rule" and "Minority Rights” as explained by a state department site.

The text is as follows:

"On the surface, the principles of majority rule and the protection of individual and minority rights would seem contradictory. In fact, however, these principles are twin pillars holding up the very foundation of what we mean by democratic government.

· Majority rule is a means for organizing government and deciding public issues; it is not another road to oppression. Just as no self-appointed group has the right to oppress others, so no majority, even in a democracy, should take away the basic rights and freedoms of a minority group or individual.

· Minorities -- whether as a result of ethnic background, religious belief, geographic location, income level, or simply as the losers in elections or political debate -- enjoy guaranteed basic human rights that no government, and no majority, elected or not, should remove.

· Minorities need to trust that the government will protect their rights and self-identity. Once this is accomplished, such groups can participate in, and contribute to their country's democratic institutions.

· Among the basic human rights that any democratic government must protect are freedom of speech and expression; freedom of religion and belief; due process and equal protection under the law; and freedom to organize, speak out, dissent, and participate fully in the public life of their society.

· Democracies understand that protecting the rights of minorities to uphold cultural identity, social practices, individual consciences, and religious activities is one of their primary tasks.

· Acceptance of ethnic and cultural groups that seem strange if not alien to the majority can represent one of the greatest challenges that any democratic government can face. But democracies recognize that diversity can be an enormous asset. They treat these differences in identity, culture, and values as a challenge that can strengthen and enrich them, not as a threat.

· There can be no single answer to how minority-group differences in views and values are resolved -- only the sure knowledge that only through the democratic process of tolerance, debate, and willingness to compromise can free societies reach agreements that embrace the twin pillars of majority rule and minority rights." Source: Principles of Democracy

Mogos Tekeste

The Time of Reckoning Part II

-->

Abraham G. Ghiorgis ***

(*** First published under the pen-name of Mogos Tekeste)

Canada has issued a plan of the implementation of the UNSC Resolution 1907. Appendix O deals with Eritrea. See the Canada plan.

Lately, the top guns of the Eritrean regime have been travelling the globe. This appears to be to avert the UNSC Resolution 1907 from taking effect; though their engagements include only nations who are not members of the UNSC – be it permanent or non permanent members. President Isaias went to Qatar and Egypt, and the foreign minster of Eritrea was dispatched to South Africa. This is an excursion in futility, too late for such kind of detours. Such maneuvers are ill advised, since they do not answer the underlying requirements of the UNSC Resolution 1907. Globe trotting will not change anything. Qatar, Egypt and South Africa cannot overturn the UNSC Resolution 1907; on the contrary like all other members of the United Nations they are duty bound to abide by the UNSC Resolution 1907. (Resolutions passed under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charters are mandatory legal requirements on all members.)

It appears that the major powers that have significant impact on Eritrea -- in terms of financial aid to and trade with Eritrea -- have already issued their plans on how they plan to implement the resolution in their respective jurisdictions. These include Australia, Japan, Switzerland, Canada and the European Union. (I assume the plan of the European Union covers for such big nations as the UK, France, Germany, Italy and so forth.)

As far as I know, the only important Western power that has as of yet not issued its plan is the USA. The questions are: Will there be any surprise when the USA issues its plan? Is the USA contemplating the suspension of its diplomatic relationship with Eritrea? Will the USA outlaw the PFDJ from operating in the USA?

Terrorism is not taken lightly in the USA. We now that for all intents and purposes the USA has already branded the top political guru of the PFDJ as a terrorist. The implication of such an acknowledgement is that the very organization that such a top rabbi leads itself must be a terrorist one too. This is an external recognition. As far as the Eritrean people are concerned, the PFDJ is an organization that is terrorizing them everyday, and Eritrea under the PFDJ is hell on earth. That the USA is now approximately in the same wavelength with the Eritrean people regarding the nature of the PFDJ is a godsend. Currently, the USA includes Cuba, Iran, Sudan and Syria in its list of states that sponsor terrorism. In all likelihood, Eritrea may join this infamous list. In that case, what follows next will be the suspension of diplomatic relationship between Eritrea and the USA. And then real pain will be inflicted on those Diaspora supporters of the PFDJ who reside in the USA, who are the lifeline of the oppressive organization. That will help in heralding the quick downfall of the Eritrean regime.

Eritrea under the PFDJ is an abnormal nation. The abnormality emanates from the inherent nature of the Eritrean regime to act outside the laws. In the international arena, one of the results of the lawless nature of the Eritrean regime is that it brought upon itself the UNSC Resolution 1907, and it is in direct combat with the USA -- and of all things issues that deal with terrorism. The relationship between the USA and the Eritrean regime cannot continue as is. I believe the USA will have an ordinary and customary relationship with Eritrea only when Eritrea becomes a normal nation -- that is a nation that subscribes to the rule of law internally and respects international law externally.

These days one is forced to recollect the fates of Charles Taylor, Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, Idi Amin and Ian Smith; such villains lived outside normal laws and acted as if they were omnipotent and supreme in their days; are the actions of Isaias that different?

The Time of Reckoning

-->

Abraham G. Ghiorgis ***

(*** first published under the pen-name of Mogos Tekeste)

The deadline of the submission of the implementation plans of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) Resolution 1907 by member states in their respective jurisdiction is by April 23, 2010.

The following note is a brief recap of where we are as of April 22, 2010.

“United Nations Security Council Resolution 1907, adopted on December 23, 2009, imposed an arms embargo on Eritrea, travel bans on its leaders, and froze the assets of some of the country's political and military officials as punishment for aiding anti-government rebels in Somalia and refusing to withdraw troops from its disputed border with Djibouti, following a conflict in 2008.” Source: UNSC Resolution 1907

The UNSC Resolution 1907 Paragraph 20 “calls upon all Member States to report to the Security Council within 120 days of the adoption of this resolution on steps they have taken to implement the measures outlined in paragraphs 5, 6, 10, 12 and 13 of the resolution. The reports of Member States are expected to be submitted by 23 April 2010.” Source: UNSC April 2010 Forecast

As of April 22, 2010, I believe the European Union, Switzerland, Australia and Japan have issued their plans of the implementation of the UNSC Resolution 1907. It is expected that by April 23, 2010 all member states will present their plans of the implementation of the resolution 1907 in their respective jurisdictions. This is a legal requirement.

How about the Eritrean regime, will it buckle and shamefacedly comply with all the requirements of the UNSC Resolution 1907, despite all its bravados and boastings? Will the Eritrean regime present its plan of complying with the UNSC Resolution 1907? If not, then the clock starts ticking for the UNSC to go up to the extent of the use of military force to compel the Eritrean regime to abide by its orders since the resolution was passed under Chapter VII of the United Nations charters.

The Eritrean regime has been slandering, bad mouthing and accusing the USA for allegedly instigating the UNSC sanctions against Eritrea. In essence, the Eritrean regime has implied that all members of the UNSC including Russia and China toe the line of the USA, at least when it comes to the case of Eritrea. In addition, the Eritrean president accused the USA for setting off the Eritrean-Ethiopian border war and for all intents and purposes has branded the USA as an archenemy of Eritrea.

The question is how will the USA take such accusations? Will it ignore all the tantrums and stick to what the UNSC sanctions on the Eritrean regime call upon or will the USA go beyond what the minimum requirements stipulate when it issues its implementation plan of the UNSC Resolution 1907?

The time of reckoning has approached. It is April 23, 2010.