| ERITREA State of Eritrea Hagere Ertra Joined United Nations: 28 May 1993 Human Rights as assured by their constitution Click here Updated 12/07/10 |
| CAPITAL |
| POPULATION |
| CHIEF OF STATE |
| SELECTION PROCESS |
Asmara (Asmera)
5,792,984 (July 2010 est.)
President elected by the National Assembly for a five-year term
(eligible for a second term); the most recent and only election held 8
June 1993
Next election date: uncertain as the National Assembly did not
hold a presidential election in December 2001 as anticipated)
(eligible for a second term); the most recent and only election held 8
June 1993
Next election date: uncertain as the National Assembly did not
hold a presidential election in December 2001 as anticipated)
HEAD OF GOVERNMENT
SELECTION PROCESS
According to the Eritrean Constitution, the president is both the
chief of state and head of government and is head of the State
Council and National Assembly
Next scheduled election: Uncertain
chief of state and head of government and is head of the State
Council and National Assembly
Next scheduled election: Uncertain
| DECLARATION OF HUMAN RIGHTS |
| ETHNIC GROUPS |
Tigrinya 50%, Tigre and Kunama 40%, Afar 4%, Saho (Red Sea coast dwellers) 3%, other 3%
| RELIGIONS |
Muslim, Coptic Christian, Roman Catholic, Protestant
| GOVERNMENT STRUCTURE |
Transitional government with 6 regions (zobatat, singular - zoba); Legal system's primary basis is the Ethiopian legal code of 1957, with
revisions; new civil, commercial, and penal codes have not yet been promulgated; government also issues unilateral proclamations
setting laws and policies; also relies on customary and post-independence-enacted laws and, for civil cases involving Muslims,
Islamic law; does not accept compulsory ICJ jurisdiction
Executive: President elected by the National Assembly for a five-year term (eligible for a second term); the most recent and only election
held 8 June 1993 (next election date uncertain as the National Assembly did not hold a presidential election in December 2001 as anticipated)
Legislative: Unicameral National Assembly (150 seats; members elected by direct popular vote to serve five-year terms)
elections: in May 1997, following the adoption of the new constitution, 75 members of the PFDJ Central Committee (the old
Central Committee of the EPLF), 60 members of the 527-member Constituent Assembly, which had been established in 1997 to
discuss and ratify the new constitution, and 15 representatives of Eritreans living abroad were formed into a Transitional National
Assembly to serve as the country's legislative body until countrywide elections to a National Assembly were held; although only 75
of 150 members of the Transitional National Assembly were elected, the constitution stipulates that once past the transition stage, all
members of the National Assembly will be elected by secret ballot of all eligible voters; National Assembly elections scheduled for
December 2001 were postponed indefinitely
Judicial: High Court - regional, subregional, and village courts; also have military and special courts
revisions; new civil, commercial, and penal codes have not yet been promulgated; government also issues unilateral proclamations
setting laws and policies; also relies on customary and post-independence-enacted laws and, for civil cases involving Muslims,
Islamic law; does not accept compulsory ICJ jurisdiction
Executive: President elected by the National Assembly for a five-year term (eligible for a second term); the most recent and only election
held 8 June 1993 (next election date uncertain as the National Assembly did not hold a presidential election in December 2001 as anticipated)
Legislative: Unicameral National Assembly (150 seats; members elected by direct popular vote to serve five-year terms)
elections: in May 1997, following the adoption of the new constitution, 75 members of the PFDJ Central Committee (the old
Central Committee of the EPLF), 60 members of the 527-member Constituent Assembly, which had been established in 1997 to
discuss and ratify the new constitution, and 15 representatives of Eritreans living abroad were formed into a Transitional National
Assembly to serve as the country's legislative body until countrywide elections to a National Assembly were held; although only 75
of 150 members of the Transitional National Assembly were elected, the constitution stipulates that once past the transition stage, all
members of the National Assembly will be elected by secret ballot of all eligible voters; National Assembly elections scheduled for
December 2001 were postponed indefinitely
Judicial: High Court - regional, subregional, and village courts; also have military and special courts
| LANGUAGES |
Afar, Arabic, Tigre and Kunama, Tigrinya, other Cushitic languages
| BRIEF HISTORY |
Eritrea is an ancient name, associated in the past with its Greek form Erythraía (Greek alphabet Ερυθραία), and its derived Latin
form Erythræa. In the past, Eritrea had given its name to the Red Sea. In 1998 a cranium of a hominid, an intermediate between a
Homo erectus and an archaic Homo sapiens was found in Buya, Eritrea by American scientists dated to over 1 million years old
(the oldest of its kind), providing a link between hominids and the earliest humans. It is also believed that Eritrea was on the route
out of Africa that was used by early man to colonize the rest of the Old World. Furthermore, the Eritrean Research Project Team
composed of Eritrean, Canadian, American, Dutch and French scientists, discovered in 1999 a site with stone and obsidian tools
dated to over 125 000 years old (from the paleolithic) era near the Bay of Zula south of Massawa along the Red Sea coast.
Furthermore it is believed that the Eritrean section of the Denakil Depression was a major player in terms of human evolution and
may "document the entire evolution of Homo erectus up to the transition to anatomically modern humans." Eritrean history is one of
the oldest of sub-Saharan Africa and even the world. Together with Ethiopia and the western Red Sea coast of Sudan, it is
considered the most likely location of the land known to the ancient Egyptians as Punt (or "Ta Netjeru," meaning land of the Gods),
whose first mention dates to the 25th century BC. The earliest known reference to the Sea of Eritrea (referring to the Red Sea,
"Eritrea" meaning "red") from which the modern state takes its name is from Aeschylus (Fragment 67) in which he refers to the
"Mare Erythreum" ("Red Sea") as "the lake that is the jewel of Ethiopia" (though Ethiopia in this case most probably meant Nubia or
Africa south of Egypt in general). Around the 8th century BC, a kingdom known as D'mt was established in northern Ethiopia and
Eritrea, with its capital at Yeha in northern Ethiopia. Its successor, the Kingdom of Aksum, emerged around the 1st century BC or
1st century AD and grew to be, according to Mani, one of the four greatest civilizations in the world, along with China, Persia, and
Rome. Central areas of Eritrea and most tribes in today's northern Ethiopia share a common background and cultural heritage in the
Kingdom of Aksum (and its successor dynasties) of the first millennium (as well as the first millennium BC kingdom of D’mt), and in
its Ethiopian Orthodox Christian Church (today, with an autocephalous Eritrean branch), as well as in its Ge'ez language. With the
rise of Islam in the 7th century the power of Aksum declined and the Kingdom became isolated, falling to the pagan or Jewish
queen Gudit in the 9th or 10th century and the rule of the Zagwe dynasty. The Dahlak archipelago, northern and western Eritrea,
came under increasing control of Islamic powers based in Yemen and Beja lands in Sudan. The Beja rulers in Eritrea, while
maintaining their own language and culture, also adopted the local Ge'ez based language of Axumite origins which later came to
evolve into Tigre with a heavy Arabic influence and serve as the regional lingua franca among diverse nomadic tribes. The Beja were
often in alliance with the Umayyads of Arabia who themselves established footholds along stretches of the Eritrean coastline and the
Dahlak archipelago while the Funj of Sudan exacted tribute from the adjacent western lowlands of Eritrea. The culmination of
Islamic dominance in the region occurred in 1557 when an Ottoman invasion during the time of Suleiman I and under Özdemir
Pasha (who had declared the province of Habesh in 1555) took the port city of Massawa and the adjacent city of Arqiqo, even
taking Debarwa, then capital of the local Ethiopian ruler Bahr negus Yeshaq (ruler of Midri Bahri). The Eritrean highland regions
enjoyed significant autonomy from the Ethiopian empire from the Yeshaq, until the early 1800s. The Ottoman state maintained
control over much of the northern coastal areas for nearly three hundred years, leaving their possessions (the province of Habesh, to
their Egyptian heirs in 1865 before being given to the Italians in 1885. In the southeast of Eritrea, the Sultanate of Awsa, an Afar
sultanate, came to dominate the coastline after its founding in 1577, becoming vassal to the Emperor of Ethiopia under the reign of
Susenyos. Meanwhile the central highlands of Eritrea preserved their Orthodox Christian Aksumite heritage. The boundaries of
modern Eritrea and the entire region were established during the European colonial period between Italian, British and French
colonialists as well as the lone landlocked African Empire of Ethiopia which found itself surrounded and its boundaries defined by
said colonial powers. Ethiopia was, for a time until the Italian conquest of Ethiopia in 1935, the only independent country in Africa
(with the exception of Liberia). The Kingdom of Italy created Eritrea at the end of the nineteenth century, using the classical name
for the Red Sea. The Italian possession of maritime areas previously claimed by Abyssinia/Ethiopia was formalized in 1889 with the
signing of the Treaty of Wuchale with Emperor Menelik II of Ethiopia (r. 1889–1913) after the defeat of Italy by Ethiopia at the
battle of Adua where Italy launched an effort to expand its possessions from Eritrea into the more fertile Abyssinian hinterland.
Italian administration of Eritrea brought improvements in the medical and agricultural sectors of Eritrean society. Benito Mussolini's
rise to power in Italy in 1922 brought profound changes to the colonial government in Eritrea. Mussolini established the Italian
Empire in May 1936. When the British army conquered Eritrea from the Italians in spring 1941, most of the infrastructures and the
industrial areas were extremely damaged. The following Italian guerrilla war was supported by many Eritrean colonial troops until
the Italian armistice in September 1943. Eritrea was placed under British military administration after the Italian surrender in World
War II. In the United Nations the debate over the fate of the former Italian colonies continued. The British and Americans preferred
to cede Eritrea to the Ethiopians as a reward for their support during World War II. On September 11, 1952, Emperor Haile
Selassie of Ethiopia (r. 1930–74) ratified the constitution. The Representative Assembly subsequently became the Eritrean
Assembly. In 1952 the United Nations resolution to federate Eritrea with Ethiopia went into effect. Militant opposition to the
incorporation of Eritrea into Ethiopia had begun in 1958 with the founding of the Eritrean Liberation Movement (ELM), an
organization made up mainly of students, intellectuals, and urban wage laborers. During the 1960s, the Eritrean independence
struggle was led by the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF). By 1971 ELF activity had become enough of a threat that the emperor had
declared martial law in Eritrea. The United States played a facilitative role in the peace talks in Washington during the months
leading up to the May 1991 fall of the Mengistu regime. In May 1991 the EPLF established the Provisional Government of Eritrea
(PGE) to administer Eritrean affairs until a referendum was held on independence and a permanent government established.Eritreans
voted overwhelmingly in favor of independence on April 23-25, 1993 in a UN-monitored referendum. The Eritrean authorities
declared Eritrea an independent state on April 27. In July 1996 the Eritrean Constitution was ratified, but it has yet to be
implemented. In 1998 a border dispute with Ethiopia led to the Eritrean-Ethiopian War in which thousands of soldiers from both
countries died. Eritrea suffered from significant economic and social stress, including massive population displacement, reduced
economic development, and one of Africa's more severe landmine problems. The border war ended in 2000 with the signing of the
Algiers Agreement. One of the terms of the agreement was the establishment of a UN peacekeeping operation, known as the
United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE); over 4,000 UN peacekeepers remain as of April 2006. Another term of
the Algiers agreement was the final demarcation of the disputed border area between Eritrea and Ethiopia. After extensive study, an
independent, UN-associated Eritrean-Ethiopian Boundary Commission (EEBC) issued a final border ruling in 2003, but its decision
was rejected by Ethiopia. As of 2007 the border question remains in dispute, while a tentative peace remains in place.
Source: Wikipedia: History of Eritrea
form Erythræa. In the past, Eritrea had given its name to the Red Sea. In 1998 a cranium of a hominid, an intermediate between a
Homo erectus and an archaic Homo sapiens was found in Buya, Eritrea by American scientists dated to over 1 million years old
(the oldest of its kind), providing a link between hominids and the earliest humans. It is also believed that Eritrea was on the route
out of Africa that was used by early man to colonize the rest of the Old World. Furthermore, the Eritrean Research Project Team
composed of Eritrean, Canadian, American, Dutch and French scientists, discovered in 1999 a site with stone and obsidian tools
dated to over 125 000 years old (from the paleolithic) era near the Bay of Zula south of Massawa along the Red Sea coast.
Furthermore it is believed that the Eritrean section of the Denakil Depression was a major player in terms of human evolution and
may "document the entire evolution of Homo erectus up to the transition to anatomically modern humans." Eritrean history is one of
the oldest of sub-Saharan Africa and even the world. Together with Ethiopia and the western Red Sea coast of Sudan, it is
considered the most likely location of the land known to the ancient Egyptians as Punt (or "Ta Netjeru," meaning land of the Gods),
whose first mention dates to the 25th century BC. The earliest known reference to the Sea of Eritrea (referring to the Red Sea,
"Eritrea" meaning "red") from which the modern state takes its name is from Aeschylus (Fragment 67) in which he refers to the
"Mare Erythreum" ("Red Sea") as "the lake that is the jewel of Ethiopia" (though Ethiopia in this case most probably meant Nubia or
Africa south of Egypt in general). Around the 8th century BC, a kingdom known as D'mt was established in northern Ethiopia and
Eritrea, with its capital at Yeha in northern Ethiopia. Its successor, the Kingdom of Aksum, emerged around the 1st century BC or
1st century AD and grew to be, according to Mani, one of the four greatest civilizations in the world, along with China, Persia, and
Rome. Central areas of Eritrea and most tribes in today's northern Ethiopia share a common background and cultural heritage in the
Kingdom of Aksum (and its successor dynasties) of the first millennium (as well as the first millennium BC kingdom of D’mt), and in
its Ethiopian Orthodox Christian Church (today, with an autocephalous Eritrean branch), as well as in its Ge'ez language. With the
rise of Islam in the 7th century the power of Aksum declined and the Kingdom became isolated, falling to the pagan or Jewish
queen Gudit in the 9th or 10th century and the rule of the Zagwe dynasty. The Dahlak archipelago, northern and western Eritrea,
came under increasing control of Islamic powers based in Yemen and Beja lands in Sudan. The Beja rulers in Eritrea, while
maintaining their own language and culture, also adopted the local Ge'ez based language of Axumite origins which later came to
evolve into Tigre with a heavy Arabic influence and serve as the regional lingua franca among diverse nomadic tribes. The Beja were
often in alliance with the Umayyads of Arabia who themselves established footholds along stretches of the Eritrean coastline and the
Dahlak archipelago while the Funj of Sudan exacted tribute from the adjacent western lowlands of Eritrea. The culmination of
Islamic dominance in the region occurred in 1557 when an Ottoman invasion during the time of Suleiman I and under Özdemir
Pasha (who had declared the province of Habesh in 1555) took the port city of Massawa and the adjacent city of Arqiqo, even
taking Debarwa, then capital of the local Ethiopian ruler Bahr negus Yeshaq (ruler of Midri Bahri). The Eritrean highland regions
enjoyed significant autonomy from the Ethiopian empire from the Yeshaq, until the early 1800s. The Ottoman state maintained
control over much of the northern coastal areas for nearly three hundred years, leaving their possessions (the province of Habesh, to
their Egyptian heirs in 1865 before being given to the Italians in 1885. In the southeast of Eritrea, the Sultanate of Awsa, an Afar
sultanate, came to dominate the coastline after its founding in 1577, becoming vassal to the Emperor of Ethiopia under the reign of
Susenyos. Meanwhile the central highlands of Eritrea preserved their Orthodox Christian Aksumite heritage. The boundaries of
modern Eritrea and the entire region were established during the European colonial period between Italian, British and French
colonialists as well as the lone landlocked African Empire of Ethiopia which found itself surrounded and its boundaries defined by
said colonial powers. Ethiopia was, for a time until the Italian conquest of Ethiopia in 1935, the only independent country in Africa
(with the exception of Liberia). The Kingdom of Italy created Eritrea at the end of the nineteenth century, using the classical name
for the Red Sea. The Italian possession of maritime areas previously claimed by Abyssinia/Ethiopia was formalized in 1889 with the
signing of the Treaty of Wuchale with Emperor Menelik II of Ethiopia (r. 1889–1913) after the defeat of Italy by Ethiopia at the
battle of Adua where Italy launched an effort to expand its possessions from Eritrea into the more fertile Abyssinian hinterland.
Italian administration of Eritrea brought improvements in the medical and agricultural sectors of Eritrean society. Benito Mussolini's
rise to power in Italy in 1922 brought profound changes to the colonial government in Eritrea. Mussolini established the Italian
Empire in May 1936. When the British army conquered Eritrea from the Italians in spring 1941, most of the infrastructures and the
industrial areas were extremely damaged. The following Italian guerrilla war was supported by many Eritrean colonial troops until
the Italian armistice in September 1943. Eritrea was placed under British military administration after the Italian surrender in World
War II. In the United Nations the debate over the fate of the former Italian colonies continued. The British and Americans preferred
to cede Eritrea to the Ethiopians as a reward for their support during World War II. On September 11, 1952, Emperor Haile
Selassie of Ethiopia (r. 1930–74) ratified the constitution. The Representative Assembly subsequently became the Eritrean
Assembly. In 1952 the United Nations resolution to federate Eritrea with Ethiopia went into effect. Militant opposition to the
incorporation of Eritrea into Ethiopia had begun in 1958 with the founding of the Eritrean Liberation Movement (ELM), an
organization made up mainly of students, intellectuals, and urban wage laborers. During the 1960s, the Eritrean independence
struggle was led by the Eritrean Liberation Front (ELF). By 1971 ELF activity had become enough of a threat that the emperor had
declared martial law in Eritrea. The United States played a facilitative role in the peace talks in Washington during the months
leading up to the May 1991 fall of the Mengistu regime. In May 1991 the EPLF established the Provisional Government of Eritrea
(PGE) to administer Eritrean affairs until a referendum was held on independence and a permanent government established.Eritreans
voted overwhelmingly in favor of independence on April 23-25, 1993 in a UN-monitored referendum. The Eritrean authorities
declared Eritrea an independent state on April 27. In July 1996 the Eritrean Constitution was ratified, but it has yet to be
implemented. In 1998 a border dispute with Ethiopia led to the Eritrean-Ethiopian War in which thousands of soldiers from both
countries died. Eritrea suffered from significant economic and social stress, including massive population displacement, reduced
economic development, and one of Africa's more severe landmine problems. The border war ended in 2000 with the signing of the
Algiers Agreement. One of the terms of the agreement was the establishment of a UN peacekeeping operation, known as the
United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea (UNMEE); over 4,000 UN peacekeepers remain as of April 2006. Another term of
the Algiers agreement was the final demarcation of the disputed border area between Eritrea and Ethiopia. After extensive study, an
independent, UN-associated Eritrean-Ethiopian Boundary Commission (EEBC) issued a final border ruling in 2003, but its decision
was rejected by Ethiopia. As of 2007 the border question remains in dispute, while a tentative peace remains in place.
Source: Wikipedia: History of Eritrea
| ECONOMIC OVERVIEW |
Since independence from Ethiopia in 1993, Eritrea has faced the economic problems of a small, desperately poor country,
accentuated by the recent implementation of restrictive economic policies. Eritrea has a command economy under the control of the
sole political party, the People's Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ). Like the economies of many African nations, a large
share of the population - nearly 80% - is engaged in subsistence agriculture, but they produce only a small share of total output. The
Ethiopian-Eritrea war in 1998-2000 severely hurt Eritrea's economy. GDP growth fell to zero in 1999 and to -12.1% in 2000. The
May 2000 Ethiopian offensive into northern Eritrea caused some $600 million in property damage and loss including losses of $225
million in livestock and 55,000 homes. The attack prevented planting of crops in Eritrea's most productive region, causing food
production to drop by 62%. Despite the fighting, Eritrea developed its transportation infrastructure, asphalting new roads, improving
its ports, and repairing war-damaged roads and bridges. Since the war's conclusion, the government has maintained a firm grip on
the economy, expanding the use of the military and party-owned businesses to complete Eritrea's development agenda. The
government strictly controls the use of foreign currency by limiting access and availability. Few private enterprises remain in Eritrea.
Eritrea's economy depends heavily on taxes paid by members of the diaspora. Erratic rainfall and the delayed demobilization of
agriculturalists from the military continue to interfere with agricultural production, and Eritrea's recent harvests have been unable to
meet the food needs of the country. The Government continues to place its hope for additional revenue on the development of
several international mining projects. Despite difficulties for international companies in working with the Eritrean Government, a
Canadian mining company signed a contract with the government in 2007 and plans to begin mineral extraction in 2010. Eritrea's
economic future depends upon its ability to master social problems such as illiteracy, unemployment, and low skills, and more
importantly, on the government's willingness to support a true market economy.
Source: CIA World Factbook (select Eritrea)
accentuated by the recent implementation of restrictive economic policies. Eritrea has a command economy under the control of the
sole political party, the People's Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ). Like the economies of many African nations, a large
share of the population - nearly 80% - is engaged in subsistence agriculture, but they produce only a small share of total output. The
Ethiopian-Eritrea war in 1998-2000 severely hurt Eritrea's economy. GDP growth fell to zero in 1999 and to -12.1% in 2000. The
May 2000 Ethiopian offensive into northern Eritrea caused some $600 million in property damage and loss including losses of $225
million in livestock and 55,000 homes. The attack prevented planting of crops in Eritrea's most productive region, causing food
production to drop by 62%. Despite the fighting, Eritrea developed its transportation infrastructure, asphalting new roads, improving
its ports, and repairing war-damaged roads and bridges. Since the war's conclusion, the government has maintained a firm grip on
the economy, expanding the use of the military and party-owned businesses to complete Eritrea's development agenda. The
government strictly controls the use of foreign currency by limiting access and availability. Few private enterprises remain in Eritrea.
Eritrea's economy depends heavily on taxes paid by members of the diaspora. Erratic rainfall and the delayed demobilization of
agriculturalists from the military continue to interfere with agricultural production, and Eritrea's recent harvests have been unable to
meet the food needs of the country. The Government continues to place its hope for additional revenue on the development of
several international mining projects. Despite difficulties for international companies in working with the Eritrean Government, a
Canadian mining company signed a contract with the government in 2007 and plans to begin mineral extraction in 2010. Eritrea's
economic future depends upon its ability to master social problems such as illiteracy, unemployment, and low skills, and more
importantly, on the government's willingness to support a true market economy.
Source: CIA World Factbook (select Eritrea)
| POLITICAL CLIMATE |
Independent local sources of political information on Eritrean domestic politics are scarce; in September 2001 the government
closed down all of the nation's privately owned print media, and outspoken critics of the government have been arrested and held
without trial, according to domestic and international observers, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. In 2004
the U.S. State Department declared Eritrea a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) for its alleged record of religious persecution.
At independence, the government faced formidable challenges. Beginning with a nascent judicial system, and an education system in
shambles, it has attempted to build the institutions of government from scratch, with varying success. Since then, the impact of the
border war with Ethiopia, and continued army mobilisation, has contributed to the lack of a skilled workforce. The present
government includes legislative, executive, and judicial bodies.
Source: Wikipedia: Politics of Eritrea
closed down all of the nation's privately owned print media, and outspoken critics of the government have been arrested and held
without trial, according to domestic and international observers, including Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International. In 2004
the U.S. State Department declared Eritrea a Country of Particular Concern (CPC) for its alleged record of religious persecution.
At independence, the government faced formidable challenges. Beginning with a nascent judicial system, and an education system in
shambles, it has attempted to build the institutions of government from scratch, with varying success. Since then, the impact of the
border war with Ethiopia, and continued army mobilisation, has contributed to the lack of a skilled workforce. The present
government includes legislative, executive, and judicial bodies.
Source: Wikipedia: Politics of Eritrea
| INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES |
Eritrea and Ethiopia agreed to abide by 2002 Ethiopia-Eritrea Boundary Commission's (EEBC) delimitation decision but, neither
party responded to the revised line detailed in the November 2006 EEBC Demarcation Statement; Sudan accuses Eritrea of
supporting eastern Sudanese rebel groups; in 2008 Eritrean troops move across the border on Ras Doumera peninsula and occupy
Doumera Island with undefined sovereignty in the Red Sea.
party responded to the revised line detailed in the November 2006 EEBC Demarcation Statement; Sudan accuses Eritrea of
supporting eastern Sudanese rebel groups; in 2008 Eritrean troops move across the border on Ras Doumera peninsula and occupy
Doumera Island with undefined sovereignty in the Red Sea.
| REFUGEES AND INTERNALLY DISPLACED PERSONS (IDPS) |
IDPs: 32,000 (border war with Ethiopia from 1998-2000; most IDPs are near the central border region) (2007)
| ILLICIT DRUGS |
None reported.
| HUMAN RIGHTS STATEMENTS, ANALYSIS AND CRITIQUES |
2009 Human Rights Report: Eritrea
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
March 11, 2010
Eritrea, with a population of an estimated 5.5 million, is a one‑party state that became independent in 1993 when citizens voted for
independence from Ethiopia, following 30 years of civil war. The People's Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ), previously known
as the Eritrean People's Liberation Front, is the sole political party and has controlled the country since 1991. The country's president,
Isaias Afwerki, who heads the PFDJ and the armed forces, dominated the country, and the government continued to postpone
presidential and legislative elections; the latter have never been held. The border dispute with Ethiopia continued, despite international
efforts at demarcation. The situation was used by the government to justify severe restrictions on civil liberties. Although civilian
authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces, consistent and systemic gross human rights violations persisted
unabated at the government's behest.
Human rights abuses included:
The government acted as a principal source and conduit for arms to antigovernment, extremist, and insurgent groups in Somalia,
according to a June report issued by the UN Munitions Monitoring Group.
Click here to read more »
Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor
2009 Country Reports on Human Rights Practices
March 11, 2010
Eritrea, with a population of an estimated 5.5 million, is a one‑party state that became independent in 1993 when citizens voted for
independence from Ethiopia, following 30 years of civil war. The People's Front for Democracy and Justice (PFDJ), previously known
as the Eritrean People's Liberation Front, is the sole political party and has controlled the country since 1991. The country's president,
Isaias Afwerki, who heads the PFDJ and the armed forces, dominated the country, and the government continued to postpone
presidential and legislative elections; the latter have never been held. The border dispute with Ethiopia continued, despite international
efforts at demarcation. The situation was used by the government to justify severe restrictions on civil liberties. Although civilian
authorities generally maintained effective control of the security forces, consistent and systemic gross human rights violations persisted
unabated at the government's behest.
Human rights abuses included:
- abridgement of citizens' right to change their government through a democratic process;
- unlawful killings by security forces;
- torture and beating of prisoners, sometimes resulting in death;
- abuse and torture of national service evaders, some of whom reportedly died from their injuries while in detention;
- harsh and life-threatening prison conditions;
- arbitrary arrest and detention, including of national service evaders and their family members;
- executive interference in the judiciary and the use of a special court system to limit due process;
- infringement on privacy rights, including roundups of young men and women for national service, and the arrest and detention of
the family members of service evaders. - The government severely restricted freedoms of speech, press, assembly, association, and religion.
- The government also limited freedom of movement and travel for citizens in the national service, foreign residents, employees of
diplomatic missions, the UN, and humanitarian and development agencies. - Restrictions continued on the activities of nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and the International Committee of the Red
Cross (ICRC). - Female genital mutilation (FGM) was widespread,
- societal abuse and discrimination against women, members of the Kunama ethnic group, homosexuals, and persons with
HIV/AIDS were problems. - There were limitations on worker rights, including forced labor.
The government acted as a principal source and conduit for arms to antigovernment, extremist, and insurgent groups in Somalia,
according to a June report issued by the UN Munitions Monitoring Group.
Click here to read more »
23 June 2008
COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Forty-eighth session
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 44 OF THE CONVENTION
Concluding observations: ERITREA
Introduction
2. The Committee welcomes the submission of the report, the written replies to its list of issues (CRC/C/ERI/Q/3 and Add.1) and legal
documentation as well as the constructive dialogue with a high-level, cross-sectional delegation. The Committee would have appreciated
the presence of a representative of the inter-ministerial Committee responsible for coordination of policies on the rights of children.
B. Follow-up measures undertaken and progress achieved by the State party
3. The Committee welcomes a number of positive developments in the reporting period, inter alia:
(a) Proclamation No. 158 of 2007 aimed at abolishing female genital mutilation;
(b) The efforts made to reduce the number of infant and under five mortality rates.
4. The Committee also welcomes the accession to the following international human rights instruments:
(a) The Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography on 16 February 2005;
(b) The Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict on 16 February 2005.
C. Factors and difficulties impeding the implementation of the Convention
5. The Committee acknowledges that the aftermath of the armed conflict as well as poverty and drought continue to hamper progress in
the effective implementation of the provisions of the Convention.
D. Main areas of concern and recommendations
1. General measures of implementation (arts. 4, 42 and 44, para. 6, of the Convention)
The Committee’s previous recommendations
6. The Committee notes with satisfaction that certain concerns and recommendations (see CRC/C/15/Add.204) made upon the
consideration of the initial report of the State party in 2003 have been addressed. However, the Committee is concerned that
recommendations regarding, inter alia, legal reform, national plan of action, independent monitoring, resources allocation, data collection,
harmful traditional practices, birth registration, child labour and juvenile justice have not been given sufficient follow-up. The Committee
notes that those concerns and recommendations are reiterated in the present document.
7. The Committee urges the State party to take all necessary measures to address those recommendations contained in the concluding
observations on the initial report that have not yet been implemented and to provide adequate follow-up to the recommendations
contained in the present concluding observations on the second and third periodic report.
Click here to read more »
COMMITTEE ON THE RIGHTS OF THE CHILD
Forty-eighth session
CONSIDERATION OF REPORTS SUBMITTED BY STATES PARTIES UNDER ARTICLE 44 OF THE CONVENTION
Concluding observations: ERITREA
Introduction
2. The Committee welcomes the submission of the report, the written replies to its list of issues (CRC/C/ERI/Q/3 and Add.1) and legal
documentation as well as the constructive dialogue with a high-level, cross-sectional delegation. The Committee would have appreciated
the presence of a representative of the inter-ministerial Committee responsible for coordination of policies on the rights of children.
B. Follow-up measures undertaken and progress achieved by the State party
3. The Committee welcomes a number of positive developments in the reporting period, inter alia:
(a) Proclamation No. 158 of 2007 aimed at abolishing female genital mutilation;
(b) The efforts made to reduce the number of infant and under five mortality rates.
4. The Committee also welcomes the accession to the following international human rights instruments:
(a) The Optional Protocol on the sale of children, child prostitution and child pornography on 16 February 2005;
(b) The Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict on 16 February 2005.
C. Factors and difficulties impeding the implementation of the Convention
5. The Committee acknowledges that the aftermath of the armed conflict as well as poverty and drought continue to hamper progress in
the effective implementation of the provisions of the Convention.
D. Main areas of concern and recommendations
1. General measures of implementation (arts. 4, 42 and 44, para. 6, of the Convention)
The Committee’s previous recommendations
6. The Committee notes with satisfaction that certain concerns and recommendations (see CRC/C/15/Add.204) made upon the
consideration of the initial report of the State party in 2003 have been addressed. However, the Committee is concerned that
recommendations regarding, inter alia, legal reform, national plan of action, independent monitoring, resources allocation, data collection,
harmful traditional practices, birth registration, child labour and juvenile justice have not been given sufficient follow-up. The Committee
notes that those concerns and recommendations are reiterated in the present document.
7. The Committee urges the State party to take all necessary measures to address those recommendations contained in the concluding
observations on the initial report that have not yet been implemented and to provide adequate follow-up to the recommendations
contained in the present concluding observations on the second and third periodic report.
Click here to read more »
Freedom In The World 2010 Report
Political Rights Score: 7
Civil Liberties Score: 7
Status: Not Free
Ratings Change
Eritrea’s civil liberties rating declined from 6 to 7 due to the government’s persistent and intense repression of religious
minorities, its dominance over the judiciary, and its harsh system of national service, which ties people to the state for much
of their working lives.
Overview
The government of Eritrea intensified its suppression of human rights in 2009, using arbitrary arrests and an onerous conscription
system to control the population. Religious minorities faced particular pressure from the authorities, who continued to use a pliant judicial
system to detain political prisoners indefinitely. Meanwhile, Eritrea defied a UN Security Council resolution instructing it to withdraw its
troops from the disputed border with Djibouti following clashes between the two countries’ armies in 2008.
The government clamped down on nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in 2005, and ordered the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) to end its operations in the country. In 2006, reports emerged that hundreds of followers of various unregistered
(mostly Protestant) churches were being detained, harassed, and abused.
The government continued this pattern of suppressing civil society and political dissent over the next three years, and arbitrary detention
remained the authorities’ most common method of stifling independent action by citizens. In 2009, Human Rights Watch released a
report detailing Eritrea’s practice of conscripting both men and women for mandatory and indefinite national service; a related article
described the country as a “giant prison.”
Eritrea maintained an aggressive stance toward its neighbors in 2009. Eritrean army units had attacked Djiboutian forces at the disputed
border in June 2008, and there was no indication at year’s end that Eritrea would comply with a UN Security Council resolution calling
on it to withdraw its troops from the area. Eritrea was also accused of supporting rebel movements in Ethiopia, Sudan, and Somalia.
According to the CIA World Fact Book, Eritrea spends 6.3 percent of its gross domestic product on the military, the ninth-highest
percentage in the world. By contrast, the UN Development Programme’s 2009 Human Development Index ranked Eritrea 165 out of 182
countries measured, and the World Bank put the country’s gross national income per capita at just $630 for 2008, one of the worst
figures in the world.
Click here to read more »
Political Rights Score: 7
Civil Liberties Score: 7
Status: Not Free
Ratings Change
Eritrea’s civil liberties rating declined from 6 to 7 due to the government’s persistent and intense repression of religious
minorities, its dominance over the judiciary, and its harsh system of national service, which ties people to the state for much
of their working lives.
Overview
The government of Eritrea intensified its suppression of human rights in 2009, using arbitrary arrests and an onerous conscription
system to control the population. Religious minorities faced particular pressure from the authorities, who continued to use a pliant judicial
system to detain political prisoners indefinitely. Meanwhile, Eritrea defied a UN Security Council resolution instructing it to withdraw its
troops from the disputed border with Djibouti following clashes between the two countries’ armies in 2008.
The government clamped down on nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in 2005, and ordered the U.S. Agency for International
Development (USAID) to end its operations in the country. In 2006, reports emerged that hundreds of followers of various unregistered
(mostly Protestant) churches were being detained, harassed, and abused.
The government continued this pattern of suppressing civil society and political dissent over the next three years, and arbitrary detention
remained the authorities’ most common method of stifling independent action by citizens. In 2009, Human Rights Watch released a
report detailing Eritrea’s practice of conscripting both men and women for mandatory and indefinite national service; a related article
described the country as a “giant prison.”
Eritrea maintained an aggressive stance toward its neighbors in 2009. Eritrean army units had attacked Djiboutian forces at the disputed
border in June 2008, and there was no indication at year’s end that Eritrea would comply with a UN Security Council resolution calling
on it to withdraw its troops from the area. Eritrea was also accused of supporting rebel movements in Ethiopia, Sudan, and Somalia.
According to the CIA World Fact Book, Eritrea spends 6.3 percent of its gross domestic product on the military, the ninth-highest
percentage in the world. By contrast, the UN Development Programme’s 2009 Human Development Index ranked Eritrea 165 out of 182
countries measured, and the World Bank put the country’s gross national income per capita at just $630 for 2008, one of the worst
figures in the world.
Click here to read more »
2 July 2010
URGENT ACTION
200 Eritreans IN LIBYA at risk OF FORCED RETURN
More than 200 Eritrean nationals in Libya are said to have been beaten and forcibly transferred from Misratah Detention Centre to Sabha
Detention Centre, where conditions of detention are much poorer. They are now at risk of forcible return to Eritrea, where they would
be at risk of torture
Misratah Detention Centre and Sabha Detention Centre are both designed for "irregular migrants", although the Libyan authorities make
little efforts to distinguish between asylum-seekers, refugees and migrants.
About two weeks ago, Libyan security officials circulated a form around Misratah detention centre in Tigrinya language, spoken in
Eritrea, to be completed by Eritrean nationals. About half of the Eritrean nationals refused to do so; others completed the forms. Many of
the detainees were concerned that any personal information that they disclosed would be passed on to the Eritrean authorities. As a
result, on 29 June, about 15 detainees tried to escape from the detention centre, 13 of which were reportedly recaptured over the next
two days.
According to information received by Amnesty International, on the night of 29 June 2010, about 100 military and police men
surrounded the detention centre in Misratah. They were armed with tear-gas guns and weapons. On 30 June, at around 5 am, the
military and police force entered the cells and started beating the detainees with sticks and whips. At least 14 people were reportedly
seriously injured and taken to hospital the next day. That same day, more than 200 Eritrean detainees were forcibly transferred in two
truck-containers to Sabha, guarded by a military and police convoy. At least four men were separated from their families. 13 Eritrean
women and seven children are still in Misratah detention centre; none of them were transferred or beaten.
Eritreans now in Sabha Detention Centre are held in poor conditions with a shortage of food and water, bad sanitation and over-crowded
cells. Several detainees who sustained serious injuries have been denied medical treatment. Eritreans currently detained fear forcible
deportation to Eritrea, where they are at risk of torture and other ill-treatment as punishment for "betraying" the country or fleeing
military service. Their fears are compounded by threats by Libyan security forces while beating them that they would either be killed or
deported.
Click here to read more »
URGENT ACTION
200 Eritreans IN LIBYA at risk OF FORCED RETURN
More than 200 Eritrean nationals in Libya are said to have been beaten and forcibly transferred from Misratah Detention Centre to Sabha
Detention Centre, where conditions of detention are much poorer. They are now at risk of forcible return to Eritrea, where they would
be at risk of torture
Misratah Detention Centre and Sabha Detention Centre are both designed for "irregular migrants", although the Libyan authorities make
little efforts to distinguish between asylum-seekers, refugees and migrants.
About two weeks ago, Libyan security officials circulated a form around Misratah detention centre in Tigrinya language, spoken in
Eritrea, to be completed by Eritrean nationals. About half of the Eritrean nationals refused to do so; others completed the forms. Many of
the detainees were concerned that any personal information that they disclosed would be passed on to the Eritrean authorities. As a
result, on 29 June, about 15 detainees tried to escape from the detention centre, 13 of which were reportedly recaptured over the next
two days.
According to information received by Amnesty International, on the night of 29 June 2010, about 100 military and police men
surrounded the detention centre in Misratah. They were armed with tear-gas guns and weapons. On 30 June, at around 5 am, the
military and police force entered the cells and started beating the detainees with sticks and whips. At least 14 people were reportedly
seriously injured and taken to hospital the next day. That same day, more than 200 Eritrean detainees were forcibly transferred in two
truck-containers to Sabha, guarded by a military and police convoy. At least four men were separated from their families. 13 Eritrean
women and seven children are still in Misratah detention centre; none of them were transferred or beaten.
Eritreans now in Sabha Detention Centre are held in poor conditions with a shortage of food and water, bad sanitation and over-crowded
cells. Several detainees who sustained serious injuries have been denied medical treatment. Eritreans currently detained fear forcible
deportation to Eritrea, where they are at risk of torture and other ill-treatment as punishment for "betraying" the country or fleeing
military service. Their fears are compounded by threats by Libyan security forces while beating them that they would either be killed or
deported.
Click here to read more »
From the Horn of Africa, a Ray of Hope
by Chris Albin-Lackey
Published in: The Huffington Post
July 21, 2010
Ask people what they know about Somalia and most will probably start talking about pirates, terrorists, and Black Hawk Down. Not
many would think to mention democracy or free elections as well, but they should. Last month, Somaliland--an impoverished sliver of
territory that has maintained de facto independence from Somalia since 1991--held elections that put the democratic pretenses of its
neighbors in the Horn of Africa to shame.
The presidential election was described by independent observers as free, fair, and peaceful. Even more remarkable, a veteran opposition
politician, Ahmed Silanyo, was declared the winner and the incumbent president, Dahir Riyale Kahin, handed over power to his rival.
This is headline news that unfortunately hasn't made the headlines.
In terms of human rights, the rule of law, and good governance, the whole region is moving in a grim direction. Somalia, which has not
had a functioning government since 1991, continues to be ravaged by indiscriminate warfare, with major regional implications illustrated
by the recent bombings in Kampala. Ethiopia, once seen as a country taking tentative steps toward democracy, is settling into a
dictatorship after the ruling party won farcical elections in May with 99 percent of the vote.
In Kenya, a coalition government that was cobbled together in the wake of fraud-riddled elections in 2007 is now paralyzed by
corruption and political infighting. Eritrea's brutally repressive government has earned its country the nickname "North Korea of Africa,"
while tiny Djibouti has languished under the same leadership since 1999. Only Somaliland has chosen a different path.
None of this has come easy. These elections were supposed to have taken place more than two years ago, and at various points along
the way it seemed that they might not happen at all. The government has not always chosen the democratic path either. It has regularly
used illegal "security committees" to imprison people without fair trials, and it has at times harassed independent journalists and
government critics. Government institutions are weak, and the rule of law is often more of an aspiration than a reality. But for all that
Somaliland has been a peaceful and comparatively democratic place for 19 years now, against great odds and with precious little support
from the outside world.
Click here to read more »
by Chris Albin-Lackey
Published in: The Huffington Post
July 21, 2010
Ask people what they know about Somalia and most will probably start talking about pirates, terrorists, and Black Hawk Down. Not
many would think to mention democracy or free elections as well, but they should. Last month, Somaliland--an impoverished sliver of
territory that has maintained de facto independence from Somalia since 1991--held elections that put the democratic pretenses of its
neighbors in the Horn of Africa to shame.
The presidential election was described by independent observers as free, fair, and peaceful. Even more remarkable, a veteran opposition
politician, Ahmed Silanyo, was declared the winner and the incumbent president, Dahir Riyale Kahin, handed over power to his rival.
This is headline news that unfortunately hasn't made the headlines.
In terms of human rights, the rule of law, and good governance, the whole region is moving in a grim direction. Somalia, which has not
had a functioning government since 1991, continues to be ravaged by indiscriminate warfare, with major regional implications illustrated
by the recent bombings in Kampala. Ethiopia, once seen as a country taking tentative steps toward democracy, is settling into a
dictatorship after the ruling party won farcical elections in May with 99 percent of the vote.
In Kenya, a coalition government that was cobbled together in the wake of fraud-riddled elections in 2007 is now paralyzed by
corruption and political infighting. Eritrea's brutally repressive government has earned its country the nickname "North Korea of Africa,"
while tiny Djibouti has languished under the same leadership since 1999. Only Somaliland has chosen a different path.
None of this has come easy. These elections were supposed to have taken place more than two years ago, and at various points along
the way it seemed that they might not happen at all. The government has not always chosen the democratic path either. It has regularly
used illegal "security committees" to imprison people without fair trials, and it has at times harassed independent journalists and
government critics. Government institutions are weak, and the rule of law is often more of an aspiration than a reality. But for all that
Somaliland has been a peaceful and comparatively democratic place for 19 years now, against great odds and with precious little support
from the outside world.
Click here to read more »
STATEMENT BY HIS EXCELLENCY MR. OSMAN SALEH MINISTER OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF THE STATE OF ERITREA
AT THE GENERAL DEBATE OF THE 65th SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
NEW YORK, 28 SEPTEMBER 2010
Mr. President,
We meet again at this 65th session of the General Assembly to expound on the state of our individual countries and to reflect on regional,
continental and global affairs. We come year after year to this august gathering to share our thoughts and explain our positions on some
issues of interest. Yet, we realize that the outcome of our deliberations and resolutions fall far short of our own expectations, let alone the
aspirations of humanity. We agree that the institutions and procedures of this organization have long outlived their time; and yet, we
remain paralyzed in transforming the United Nations.
While the United Nations grapples with Sudan and Somalia, it continues to ignore the grave consequences of Ethiopia's continued
occupation of sovereign Eritrean territory, eight years after the ruling of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC), and three
years after the Commission ended its work by depositing in the United Nations the demarcated boundary between the two countries.
Ethiopia's illegal occupation and the United Nations' silence, which mean the continuation of the conflict, is exacting a heavy price on the
peoples of Eritrea and Ethiopia and complicating the regional situation. I wish to remind the United Nations that Eritrea awaits responsible
and urgent action to end Ethiopia's violation of international law and its threat to regional peace and security.
Eritrea's constructive engagement on regional and international matters stems from its film conviction that a conducive, external
environment is essential for nation building. As Eritrea enters its 20th year of independence, it remains focused on broad-based and
people-centered political, economic, social and cultural development that will afford a life of dignity and prosperity to our people. After
several years of consistent investment in health, education, agriculture and other essential infrastructure, we have created a solid basis
for sustained economic growth. It is expected that trade as well as domestic and foreign investment will provide additional impetus for
the growth of our economy. I wish to seize this opportunity to extend our invitation to all interested countries and their enterprises to
become our partners in development.
Click here to read more »
AT THE GENERAL DEBATE OF THE 65th SESSION OF THE UNITED NATIONS
GENERAL ASSEMBLY
NEW YORK, 28 SEPTEMBER 2010
Mr. President,
We meet again at this 65th session of the General Assembly to expound on the state of our individual countries and to reflect on regional,
continental and global affairs. We come year after year to this august gathering to share our thoughts and explain our positions on some
issues of interest. Yet, we realize that the outcome of our deliberations and resolutions fall far short of our own expectations, let alone the
aspirations of humanity. We agree that the institutions and procedures of this organization have long outlived their time; and yet, we
remain paralyzed in transforming the United Nations.
While the United Nations grapples with Sudan and Somalia, it continues to ignore the grave consequences of Ethiopia's continued
occupation of sovereign Eritrean territory, eight years after the ruling of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC), and three
years after the Commission ended its work by depositing in the United Nations the demarcated boundary between the two countries.
Ethiopia's illegal occupation and the United Nations' silence, which mean the continuation of the conflict, is exacting a heavy price on the
peoples of Eritrea and Ethiopia and complicating the regional situation. I wish to remind the United Nations that Eritrea awaits responsible
and urgent action to end Ethiopia's violation of international law and its threat to regional peace and security.
Eritrea's constructive engagement on regional and international matters stems from its film conviction that a conducive, external
environment is essential for nation building. As Eritrea enters its 20th year of independence, it remains focused on broad-based and
people-centered political, economic, social and cultural development that will afford a life of dignity and prosperity to our people. After
several years of consistent investment in health, education, agriculture and other essential infrastructure, we have created a solid basis
for sustained economic growth. It is expected that trade as well as domestic and foreign investment will provide additional impetus for
the growth of our economy. I wish to seize this opportunity to extend our invitation to all interested countries and their enterprises to
become our partners in development.
Click here to read more »
Eritrea: Peaceful Resistance Or Peaceful Surrender—The New Non-Violence Mantra
By Ismail Omer-Ali, December 3, 2010
The term “non-violent” or “peaceful resistance” has a nice ring to it. It suggests that the person espousing it must be for peace and all
others for violence. For those who want to distinguish themselves from the rest of us (run of the mill Eritreans), no other slogan would
do as well. Its idealistic charm is a perfect fit for Diaspora intellectuals who are determined to fight the oppressive regime from afar with
everything they have got – pen, paper and keystrokes. EPDP, notwithstanding its recent internal squabbles, is such a one. Its editorial
recently posted, an article titled “Peaceful Resistance: A window to progress and tranquility” (November 5, 2010) where the authors
solemnly defend their espousal of the non-violence method of struggle.
EPDP is not the only one that is advancing this mode of struggle however. In fact, it can be said that advocacy of non-violence has
replaced communism as the new mantra within certain intellectual circles who once again are falling for a new fad without considering
the circumstances under which it can succeed. Fad-hopping enthusiasts aside, there are also some sincere souls that are advocating such
a strategy out of purely morally motivated reasons. It is mainly to the latter (whose opinions I highly respect) that I direct this article.
To begin, let us clearly understand where the difference of opinion lies. The disagreement is not between those who are for violence and
those who are for peace. I think we are all in agreement that peaceful and non-violent means are generally preferable to violent methods
in cases where the probability of success of the former is greater and when directed against someone or some entity more likely to
respond to such techniques. The disagreement thus centers on whether we must always and under all circumstances employ non-violent
techniques or whether we should use whatever tactics are most appropriate for a particular situation. The writers of the editorial
apparently belong to the former. Others (including I) believe that we need to employ whatever means is available to us including (but not
exclusively) armed self-defense.
A relevant question to ask here is: from whence did this recent global craze over non-violence emanate? How and why did non-violence
become so popular these days despite its shaky impracticality? Non-violence and pacifist ideas gained currency in modern times largely
due to the specter of nuclear warfare and the devastation wrought by the two world wars. With the invention of nuclear bombs, earth’s
very survival took center stage overshadowing all other concerns. Realizing that there can be no winners in such a dreadful war, leading
thinkers, philosophers and scientists rose to the occasion and began to advocate non-violence as a means of averting a global disaster.
Armed resistance, however, should not be an end in itself but a means to an end – a means to erect a rule of law and democracy. Once
the objective achieved, a more forgiving and a more charitable attitude should be adapted. It will be the collective responsibility of our
people to watch out for those with tendencies to commit excesses. Too severe punishments should be an exception not the rule reserved
for those who committed heinous verifiable crimes against our people. In other words, the opposition in triumph must act responsibly,
wisely, and with a goal of paving the way to a peaceful prosperous Eritrea.
Click here to read more »
By Ismail Omer-Ali, December 3, 2010
The term “non-violent” or “peaceful resistance” has a nice ring to it. It suggests that the person espousing it must be for peace and all
others for violence. For those who want to distinguish themselves from the rest of us (run of the mill Eritreans), no other slogan would
do as well. Its idealistic charm is a perfect fit for Diaspora intellectuals who are determined to fight the oppressive regime from afar with
everything they have got – pen, paper and keystrokes. EPDP, notwithstanding its recent internal squabbles, is such a one. Its editorial
recently posted, an article titled “Peaceful Resistance: A window to progress and tranquility” (November 5, 2010) where the authors
solemnly defend their espousal of the non-violence method of struggle.
EPDP is not the only one that is advancing this mode of struggle however. In fact, it can be said that advocacy of non-violence has
replaced communism as the new mantra within certain intellectual circles who once again are falling for a new fad without considering
the circumstances under which it can succeed. Fad-hopping enthusiasts aside, there are also some sincere souls that are advocating such
a strategy out of purely morally motivated reasons. It is mainly to the latter (whose opinions I highly respect) that I direct this article.
To begin, let us clearly understand where the difference of opinion lies. The disagreement is not between those who are for violence and
those who are for peace. I think we are all in agreement that peaceful and non-violent means are generally preferable to violent methods
in cases where the probability of success of the former is greater and when directed against someone or some entity more likely to
respond to such techniques. The disagreement thus centers on whether we must always and under all circumstances employ non-violent
techniques or whether we should use whatever tactics are most appropriate for a particular situation. The writers of the editorial
apparently belong to the former. Others (including I) believe that we need to employ whatever means is available to us including (but not
exclusively) armed self-defense.
A relevant question to ask here is: from whence did this recent global craze over non-violence emanate? How and why did non-violence
become so popular these days despite its shaky impracticality? Non-violence and pacifist ideas gained currency in modern times largely
due to the specter of nuclear warfare and the devastation wrought by the two world wars. With the invention of nuclear bombs, earth’s
very survival took center stage overshadowing all other concerns. Realizing that there can be no winners in such a dreadful war, leading
thinkers, philosophers and scientists rose to the occasion and began to advocate non-violence as a means of averting a global disaster.
Armed resistance, however, should not be an end in itself but a means to an end – a means to erect a rule of law and democracy. Once
the objective achieved, a more forgiving and a more charitable attitude should be adapted. It will be the collective responsibility of our
people to watch out for those with tendencies to commit excesses. Too severe punishments should be an exception not the rule reserved
for those who committed heinous verifiable crimes against our people. In other words, the opposition in triumph must act responsibly,
wisely, and with a goal of paving the way to a peaceful prosperous Eritrea.
Click here to read more »
CSW and HRCE Welcome Papal Intervention on Plight Of Refugees in Sinai Desert
published by Admin added on 7th, December 2010
6 December 2010: Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) and Human Rights Concern-Eritrea welcome the intervention by Pope
Benedict XVI on behalf of refugees from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia and Sudan who are being held hostage in the Sinai Desert by people
traffickers.
During his Angelus address for the second Sunday of Advent, Pope Benedict XVI invited his listeners “to pray for all situations of
violence, intolerance, suffering in the world, that the coming of Jesus may bring consolation, reconciliation and peace. I think of the
many difficult situations, such as the continuous attacks that occur in Iraq against Christians and Muslims, the clashes in Egypt where
there were deaths and injuries, the victims of traffickers and criminals, such as the drama of the hostages, Eritreans and of other
nationalities, in the Sinai desert. Respect for the rights of all is the prerequisite for peace. Our prayer to the Lord and our solidarity can
bring hope to those who are suffering.”
Hundreds of refugees from the Horn of Africa have been held for months on the outskirts of a town in the Sinai Desert in purpose-built
containers, where Bedouin people traffickers are demanding payment of up to US$8,000 per person for their release, though the
hostages had already paid US$2,000 for passage to Israel.
On 1 December Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Human Rights Concern Eritrea, Agenzia Habeshia and EveryOne Group issued a joint
appeal for urgent international intervention in the plight of the refugees, who are currently being held in degrading and inhumane
conditions, bound by chains around their ankles and denied adequate food and water. The appeal details extreme methods of torture
suffered by the refugees, including electric shocks, to force friends and families abroad to make the payments. The women in the group,
who have been separated from the rest, are particularly vulnerable to severe abuse.
Elsa Chyrum, Director of Human Rights Concern Eritrea said “We are grateful for the Pope’s intervention. It will assure Eritrean and
other refugees that their plight is not forgotten, and will hopefully spur the international community into action”.
CSW’s Advocacy Director Andrew Johnston said, “While we are extremely encouraged that Pope Benedict XVI is drawing attention to
this appalling situation, there is still a need for urgent action on the part of the Egyptian government and the international community to
ensure the freedom and safety of these refugees.”
Click here to read more>>
published by Admin added on 7th, December 2010
6 December 2010: Christian Solidarity Worldwide (CSW) and Human Rights Concern-Eritrea welcome the intervention by Pope
Benedict XVI on behalf of refugees from Eritrea, Ethiopia, Somalia and Sudan who are being held hostage in the Sinai Desert by people
traffickers.
During his Angelus address for the second Sunday of Advent, Pope Benedict XVI invited his listeners “to pray for all situations of
violence, intolerance, suffering in the world, that the coming of Jesus may bring consolation, reconciliation and peace. I think of the
many difficult situations, such as the continuous attacks that occur in Iraq against Christians and Muslims, the clashes in Egypt where
there were deaths and injuries, the victims of traffickers and criminals, such as the drama of the hostages, Eritreans and of other
nationalities, in the Sinai desert. Respect for the rights of all is the prerequisite for peace. Our prayer to the Lord and our solidarity can
bring hope to those who are suffering.”
Hundreds of refugees from the Horn of Africa have been held for months on the outskirts of a town in the Sinai Desert in purpose-built
containers, where Bedouin people traffickers are demanding payment of up to US$8,000 per person for their release, though the
hostages had already paid US$2,000 for passage to Israel.
On 1 December Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Human Rights Concern Eritrea, Agenzia Habeshia and EveryOne Group issued a joint
appeal for urgent international intervention in the plight of the refugees, who are currently being held in degrading and inhumane
conditions, bound by chains around their ankles and denied adequate food and water. The appeal details extreme methods of torture
suffered by the refugees, including electric shocks, to force friends and families abroad to make the payments. The women in the group,
who have been separated from the rest, are particularly vulnerable to severe abuse.
Elsa Chyrum, Director of Human Rights Concern Eritrea said “We are grateful for the Pope’s intervention. It will assure Eritrean and
other refugees that their plight is not forgotten, and will hopefully spur the international community into action”.
CSW’s Advocacy Director Andrew Johnston said, “While we are extremely encouraged that Pope Benedict XVI is drawing attention to
this appalling situation, there is still a need for urgent action on the part of the Egyptian government and the international community to
ensure the freedom and safety of these refugees.”
Click here to read more>>
| Click map for larger view |
| Click flag for Country Report |
Isaias Afworki
President since 8 June 1993
President since 8 June 1993
| TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS |
Current situation: Eritrea is a source country for men, women, and children trafficked for the purposes of forced labor and
commercial sexual exploitation; each year, large numbers of migrant workers depart Eritrea in search of work, particularly in the
Gulf States, where some likely become victims of forced labor, including in domestic servitude, or commercial sexual exploitation;
thousands of Eritreans flee the country illegally, mostly to Sudan, Ethiopia, and Kenya where their illegal status makes them
vulnerable to situations of human trafficking; the government remains complicit in conscripting children into military service
Tier rating: the Government of Eritrea does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not
making significant efforts to do so; the Eritrean government does not operate with transparency and published neither data nor
statistics regarding its efforts to combat human trafficking; it did not respond to requests to provide information for this report; the
government made no known progress in prosecuting and punishing trafficking crimes over the reporting period and did not appear
to provide any significant assistance to victims of trafficking during the reporting period (2009)
commercial sexual exploitation; each year, large numbers of migrant workers depart Eritrea in search of work, particularly in the
Gulf States, where some likely become victims of forced labor, including in domestic servitude, or commercial sexual exploitation;
thousands of Eritreans flee the country illegally, mostly to Sudan, Ethiopia, and Kenya where their illegal status makes them
vulnerable to situations of human trafficking; the government remains complicit in conscripting children into military service
Tier rating: the Government of Eritrea does not fully comply with the minimum standards for the elimination of trafficking and is not
making significant efforts to do so; the Eritrean government does not operate with transparency and published neither data nor
statistics regarding its efforts to combat human trafficking; it did not respond to requests to provide information for this report; the
government made no known progress in prosecuting and punishing trafficking crimes over the reporting period and did not appear
to provide any significant assistance to victims of trafficking during the reporting period (2009)
Isaias Afworki
President since 8 June 1993
President since 8 June 1993