- The scale of the suffering by the tens of thousands fleeing Eritrea demands action: they cannot be treated as “economic migrants.”
- The UN special rapporteur on human rights in Eritrea, Ms. Sheila B. Keetharuth, is about to visit the UK to collect evidence.
- Ethiopia is due to hold an election in May and international scrutiny of this is vital.
What was impressive was that many of the speakers could draw on personal experience of both countries: Baroness Kinnock (Glenys Kinnock) recalled her visit to Eritrea, as did Lord Dubs (Alf Dubs) and Lord Avebury. Lord Rea remembered meeting Petros Solomon (one of those who has been jailed by the Eritrean government for the last 13 years). They also drew on their experiences during the debate.
Two flaws
Overall this was an important and well-informed debate. But there were two flaws.
Firstly, the government was not prepared to be frank about how the Khartoum Process would work. No details were really given of what it would mean or how British policy would change as a result of it.
Secondly, it is clear that if the Eritrean regime really reduces its conscription to 18 months, then far fewer Eritreans are likely to be given refugee status in the UK. It is because of the fear of returning to Eritrean after Eritreans have fled from conscription that has been the reason most refugee cases have been accepted. As the minister said: “That is why some of the figures of asylum grants by us to Eritreans look so high, because clearly there has been concern about them returning to that country given their reasons for leaving.”
Martin
Ethiopia
Most attention was paid to Eritrea, but there were important points made about Ethiopia, which I will deal with first.
- Baroness Kinnock (Glenys Kinnock – Labour and former development
minister) criticised both regimes. “Both Eritrea and Ethiopia have a
Marxist-Leninist heritage. Ethiopia is still effectively controlled by
the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front, through a system of ethnic
federalism. Although there has been some improvement we have to ask how
it can be that, at the 2010 election, the EPRDF won 90% of the vote.”
- Lord Dubs (Labour) raised the question of freedom of speech in
Ethiopia, in the context of the coming election. “Human Rights Watch
said last week that 22 journalists, bloggers and publishers were charged
with criminal offences in the past year, Six independent publications
were intimidated and closed, with dozens of staff forced into exile.
Three owners of publications also fled abroad to escape false charges
that led to sentences of three years in prison in absentia. Six members
of Zone 9, a bloggers’ collective, were charged under the
counterterrorism laws and have been in custody for 274 days, sending a
chilling message to online activists. Can the Government not make
representations to Prime Minister Desalegn to relax the stringent
controls on freedom of expression so that Ethiopians can have a genuine
election in May?”
- Lord Avebury (Liberal Democrat) also called on Ethiopia to resolve its border dispute with Eritrea, and to abide by the Algiers Agreement by accepting the Border Commission’s findings. “Both countries had agreed to accept the commission’s decision as final, but when the details were published in April 2002, Ethiopia found one excuse after another to dispute the findings… The Ethiopians unlawfully occupied territory all along the border that should have been demilitarised under the settlement, and Eritrea has been forced to maintain large armed forces as a precaution against further military attacks by its bullying neighbour.”
The criticism of Eritrea during the debate was even stronger than of Ethiopia.
- Baroness Morgan (Labour spokeswoman in the House of Lords on Foreign
Affairs) made this important point: “What is driving this mass exodus,
which includes not just women and children but thousands of
unaccompanied minors? The simple answer is that neither Ethiopia nor
Eritrea is a functioning democracy. Although both Ethiopia and Eritrea
are suffering real problems, there is more scope to influence activities
in Ethiopia. In the past, there seems to have been a modicum of free
speech and a free press in Ethiopia, although the Government’s
intolerance of dissent seems to be increasing significantly in the face
of general elections in May. There have been large-scale arrests of
protesters and a crackdown on opposition opponents. This is particularly
true in the Oromo region, where at least 5,000 people have been
arrested as a result of their opposition to the ruling party. But if we
think that the situation is bad in Ethiopia, it is truly catastrophic in
Eritrea, where all freedoms were suppressed in September 2001. There is
no religious freedom, as the right reverend Prelate underlined, no
political pluralism, and no independent press in the nation. The forced
and interminable military service to fight the unending border war with
the neighbours in Ethiopia is clearly a real problem that is driving
people from the country.”
- Baroness Kinnock described Eritrea in these terms: “The cruelty,
tyranny and oppression of Isaias Afewerki and his regime know no bounds.
Eritrea is isolated politically, regionally and internationally and it
is under UN sanctions because of its alleged support for al-Shabaab in
Somalia. The country is often described as Africa’s North Korea. All
rights and freedoms are denied. There is no religious freedom or
political pluralism, and no freedom of the media or of speech.”
- Baroness Kinnock went on to ask what the aim of the British
government was in visiting Asmara and follow an apparent willingness
from the European Union to have a “new beginning with Eritrea”. “ Does
the Minister agree with the suggestion made by some European Governments
that it is necessary now to offer additional support and engagement to
Eritrea, arguing that additional aid will lead to more openness and to
change? Surely there can be no “new beginning”, as has been suggested,
with this regime. As history proves, concessions to regimes such as
Eritrea will achieve absolutely nothing. I ask the Minister to give some
detail on the apparent willingness of the UK to have discussions with
the Eritrean regime on, “drivers of irregular migration and ways to
mitigate it, asylum and returns, and potential areas for joint
co-operation”. [Official Report, 6/1/15; col. WA 136.] What exactly does
that mean? Will the UK delay any response on refugee policy until the
UN commission of inquiry issues its report on the subject? European
Governments should not make major Eritrean policy changes until they see
the inquiry findings. Let us see if Eritrea is prepared to co-operate
with the UN commission of inquiry before taking any hasty decisions. Now
there are signs of unbelievable courage and determination in Eritrea on
challenging Isaias Afewerki. The people are aware of the dangers of
open protest, but we have to ask just how long they—and he—can hold on.
We must urge the EU and others to make sure that the UN commission is
given clear and urgent access. Isaias Afewerki’s agreement to co-operate
would be the first test of whether he is ready to accept change.
Whatever happens, if there is negotiation, the European Union and member
states must not make quick concessions but use any momentum to ensure
that there can be—and will be—fundamental change. The release of Dawit
Isaak would be a welcome and symbolic victory.”
- Baroness Kinnock made the point that most Eritreans arriving in Europe should be considered as refugees, not ‘economic migrants’. “My final point relates to what are routinely called “irregular migrants”. These people arrive in Calais having endured a terrifying journey and are then treated as if they are economic migrants. This is clearly not what persuades them that they must leave Eritrea. Many other African countries are just as poor as Eritrea, but their citizens do not come to Europe in their thousands, as they do from Eritrea now. Will the UK argue for their right to stay and ensure that they are treated as refugees?”
Replying to the debate for the government minister, Baroness Anelay (Conservative) accepted some of the points raised, but was naturally more cautious in what she had to say.
- UN Eritrea Monitoring Group:
“I understand that Eritrea denies any support for al-Shabaab but
continues to refuse entry to the monitoring group. We urge it to
co-operate fully with the group’s work. I am entirely at one with the
noble Lord in this matter.”
- EU-African Union Khartoum process,
designed to tackle people smuggling and human trafficking. “We welcome
the fact that both Ethiopia and Eritrea have expressed commitment to the
Khartoum process. It provides the best framework to drive this issue
forward. Noble Lords have drawn attention to the tension between
Ethiopia and Eritrea. I would say to them that if they are taking the
Khartoum process seriously, they have to take negotiation on the basis
of solving the differences between them seriously too. As a member of
the core group of EU and AU member states steering the development of
how we take this process forward, we as a country are keen to ensure
that we maintain momentum and that the process leads quickly to concrete
projects that combat the smuggling and trafficking.”
- Eritrean conscription: “Having
left and broken the rules on conscription, people are—I cannot think of
the right word—terrified to return. That is why some of the figures of
asylum grants by us to Eritreans look so high, because clearly there has
been concern about them returning to that country given their reasons
for leaving.”
- The UK official’s visit to Eritrea in December 2014: “They
looked at the drivers of migration and particularly discussed the
matter of extended military service. I can say to my noble friend Lord
Chidgey that this was a useful starting point for further co-operation. A
similar visit to Ethiopia is planned for the near future. With regard
the visit to Eritrea, the Eritrean Government representatives assured
the officials from the FCO that military service will be strictly
limited to 18 months and, indeed, I have been briefed by those officials
today. The undertaking has been given. It is matter now of making sure
that that is put into practice.”
- The Algiers Agreement: Pushed by Lord Avebury, the minister said: “My Lords, international agreements, once entered into, should be adhered to”
- Human Rights: There
are human rights abuses across the board. The right reverend Prelate
raised the issue of religious freedom. We will continue to look very
carefully at the matters he raised because, clearly, those are abuses
that have occurred and, as he rightly says, particularly against groups
that are not registered under the Eritrean system. There was a reference
to the detention of political prisoners and journalists. We certainly
try to establish the facts. There are still journalists in detention
despite reports that six have been released. There was a reference to
the Swedish-Eritrean journalist Dawit Isaak, who is still under arrest.
With regard to all these matters, we do not give up. Just because it is
difficult, we do not give up in pursuing our relationship with these two
countries. Walking away would leave those who are the victims of
persecution and misbehaviour by Governments in a more perilous position
than they currently face. The commitment of this Government is that this
is a challenge that requires a global, long-term response to a
difficult problem. We will all keep trying to ensure that, as an
international community, we do our best to tackle it for the sake of
those behind the traffickers and behind Governments who do not have good
governance.
====================================================================
No comments:
Post a Comment