June 21, 2018 (ADDIS ABABA) - An Ethiopian official from the border region of Tigray welcomed the decision of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed to withdraw troops from Badme town in line with Algeria peace agreement signed with Eritrea in 2000.
According to official Ethiopia News Agency (ENA), Debretsion GebreMichael, the Tigray deputy chief administrator, said the Abiy’s decision to "fully implement the Algiers’ Agreement is an icebreaker in the relationship between Ethiopia and Eritrea".
"The conflict had seriously affected the development of the border areas as well as the countries hindering the possibility of a joint development program which could have been of mutual benefit for the peoples of the two countries," he added.
Debretsion’s statement comes after statements by President Isaias Afewerki welcoming the move of the new Ethiopian prime minister and announced he would send a delegation to Addis Ababa to discuss its implementation
However, he warned against statements by what he described as "TPLF clique, and other vultures" saying they would seek to obstruct any positive change in the relations between the two countries.
Badme is the home of 15,000 people out of nearly 4.3 million Ethiopian in the Tigray’s drylands.
Reports from the border area say local residents are hostile to the government decision and consider it as a betrayal by Addis Ababa.
Some residents told Reuters that they would not remain idle and threatened to vague violence.
“We have no issues over reconciling with our Eritrean brothers. But we will not leave Badme. We do not want peace by giving away this land after all the sacrifice,” Teklit Girmay, a local government official told Reuters.
Also, the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front, which is part of Ethiopia’s ruling EPRDF issued a statement expressing their opposition to withdrawal from Badme.
"The Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front will not take part in any process that harms the interests of the people of Tigray," said the statement.
(ST)
Ambassador Nikki Haley said the withdrawal was not a retreat from the US's commitment to human rights, but called the 47-member, international council “an organisation that is not worthy of its name".
Ms Haley also accused the council of maintaining a “disproportionate focus and unending hostility towards Israel" that shows it is "motivated by political bias, not by human rights".
Zeid Ra'ad al-Hussein, the UN human rights chief, called the announcement "disappointing, if not really surprising".
"Given the state of human rights in today's world, the US should be stepping up, not stepping back," he said in a statement.
It also comes as the US faces intense criticism for detaining children separated from their immigrant parents at the US-Mexico border. Mr al-Hussein has called on Washington to halt the “unconscionable” policy.
Diplomats have said the US's withdrawal from the council could bolster countries such as Cuba, Russia, Egypt and Pakistan, which resist what they see as UN interference in sovereign issues.
Twelve rights and aids groups, including Human Rights First, Save the Children and CARE, wrote to Mr Pompeo to warn the withdrawal would “make it more difficult to advance human rights priorities and aid victims of abuse around the world".
“The US's absence will only compound the council's weaknesses,” they wrote.
The official said that “at its best” the council compels violators to act towards “positive action,” however they noted that ” all too frequently, it fails to address critical situations for political reasons – and undermines its own credibility”.
The human rights body was formed in 2006, but was shunned by the administration of President George W Bush. In 2009, President Barack Obama reversed that decision after taking office.
Ms Haley also called for the council to vote on resolutions against Venezuela, Syria, Eritrea, Belarus, Ukraine and the Democratic Republic of Congo.
The United Nations General Assembly votes 128-9 to declare the United States' Jerusalem capital recognition 'null and void'The relationship between the Trump administration and the UN has appeared fractious for much of the US president's time in office. In December the US officially recognised Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, prompting a vote of 128-9 in the general body to declare the unilateral decision “null and void”. Last month, the council voted to probe killings in Gaza and accused Israel of using excessive force in dealing with protests on the border. The United States and Australia cast the only “no” votes.
Anjali Dayal, an international security professor at Fordham University, previously told The Independent that although the move is not a surprise, the US is not without “valid criticisms” of the body. There are “human rights abusers with seats on the Council,” Ms Dayal explained.
But, Ms Dayal argued the issue was “not an unknown” drawback of the council. Ms Haley knew this was a problem coming into office since activists, observer groups, and smaller nations have complained about differing regional processes that have allowed it to happen for years. But the US “will have to be in the room” in order to make any significant change to the council, she said.
A sitting member of the Council has never dropped out in its 12-year history, though Libya was kicked out after a vote from the General Assembly in 2011.
ADDIS ABABA (Reuters) – Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki is dispatching a delegation to Addis Ababa for “constructive engagement” with Ethiopia after peace overtures from its new Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed, a senior Eritrean diplomat said on Wednesday.
Eritrean ambassador to Japan Estifanos Afeworki said on Twitter that Isais had made the announcement on Wednesday of the potentially significant break-through in one of Africa’s most protracted conflicts. He gave no further details.
This news has been confirmed by BBC Tigrinya service
Source=https://eritreahub.org/eritrea-sending-delegation-to-ethiopia-diplomat
Between 2015 and March 2018, Israel deported some 1,700 Sudanese and Eritrean asylum-seekers to Uganda.
Upon arrival in Uganda, deportees find a shambolic reception, which leaves them without papers, without protection and without sustainable resources.
This pushes many to continue their journeys to other African countries or to Europe.
This report argues that Israel’s deportations to Uganda violate Israel’s obligations under international law.
Israel’s deportation policy is a way to abdicate its responsibility towards the refugees and asylum-seekers under its jurisdiction and shift it to less wealthy countries with bigger refugee populations.
This report argues that Israel’s deportations to Uganda violate Israel’s obligations under international law.
Israel’s deportation policy is a way to abdicate its responsibility towards the refugees and asylum-seekers under its jurisdiction and shift it to less wealthy countries with bigger refugee populations.
Full Report:
Israel deporations of refugees AMNESTY
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In January 2018, the Israeli government launched a new Procedure for Deportation to Third Countries, under which Sudanese and Eritrean single men who had not applied for asylum by the end of 2017 (or whose request was denied) would be deported to a “third country” in Africa. According to Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, the measure was the third stage of Israel’s policy towards “infiltrators”, the term used in Israeli law to describe irregular migrants.
The first stage (2006-2012) consisted of physically blocking their entry with a tall razor-wire fence along the border with Egypt; and the second stage (2013-2017) involved transferring them to their country or origin or a “third country” on a “voluntary” basis.
In April 2018, the Israeli government admitted that the “third country”, Rwanda, had refused to accept deportations and announced the end of its deportation policy and a new solutions agreement with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), involving some 33,000 people.
Less than 24 hours later, however, the government cancelled the agreement with UNHCR, before rushing to reassure the Supreme Court that a deportation deal with a second “third country” (Uganda) was still valid. Despite these reassurances, the government was unable to show the Court a written deal with an African country accepting deportations. On 15 April, the Supreme Court ordered the suspension of the deportation plan and the release of all Eritrean and Sudanese asylum-seekers detained awaiting deportation.
At the time of writing, the deportations to African third countries are suspended. However, Israel and Uganda are still negotiating a possible agreement for the transfer of Sudanese and Eritrean nationals. Crucially, the “voluntary” transfers, which Israel has been carrying out since 2013, continue.
This report argues that, no matter the language used by the Israeli government, the transfers of Eritrean and Sudanese nationals to Uganda are not truly voluntary: they are not based on the free and informed consent of the individual concerned. Up to April 2018, the Israeli authorities used indefinite detention (or its threat) as the main tool to effectively force Eritrean and Sudanese nationals to leave Israel (chapter 2).
Several other measures and factors have made their lives very difficult:
▪ First, the Israeli asylum system is dysfunctional and unfair. As a result, the chances of finding protection in Israel are effectively close to zero. Despite the government’s claim that Eritrean and Sudanese nationals in Israel are economic migrants, most of them seek protection from persecution and other serious human rights violations. Israel’s asylum system creates obstacles to submitting asylum claims; handles them excruciatingly slowly; or rejects them after an unfair and deeply flawed process (chapter 1).
▪ Second, the refusal of the Israeli authorities to officially name the countries the deportees are sent to – and the failure to keep promises as to the treatment they will receive upon arrival – speak volumes as to the scant and misleading information the deportees are provided before leaving Israel (chapter 3).
▪ Third, racist and xenophobic discourse by government officials also weigh heavily on asylum-seekers’ decision to leave (chapter 4).
No consent for “voluntary” transfers can be free and genuine under these conditions.
As the transfers of Eritrean and Sudanese asylum-seekers to Uganda are forcible, even when the deportee signs consent papers, they must comply with the international law obligation of non-refoulement, which prohibits states from transferring anyone to a country where they would be at real risk of persecution or other serious human rights violations or abuses, or to a country where they would not be protected against such transfer.
This report argues that the deportations of Eritrean and Sudanese asylum-seekers from Israel violate the international law obligation of non-refoulement and the international law prohibition of discrimination.
Amnesty International urges the government of Israel to immediately halt all transfers of Eritrean and Sudanese asylum-seekers to “third countries” or their countries of origin, whether forcible or “voluntary”; and assume its fair share of the common responsibility for the world’s refugees, starting with the refugees and asylum-seekers already on its territory or under its jurisdiction.1 The organization also urges the government of Uganda to refuse any form of cooperation with Israel to carry out unlawful deportations, including by refusing to accept the deportees into their territory.
June 13, 2018 @ 05:13 PM 2,995
At the end of May 2018, the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Eritrea, a group of UK Parliamentarians from across both houses of Parliament, held a session at the UK Parliament to examine the ongoing religious persecution in Eritrea. The meeting was entitled ‘Religious persecution in Eritrea: A crime against humanity’ and was co-organised with the All-Party Parliamentary Group for International Freedom of Religion or Belief (another cross-party group consisting of over 110 UK Parliamentarians) with the support of Christian Solidarity Worldwide, Open Doors UK and Aid to the Church in Need. It was chaired by Lord Alton of Liverpool who, over the years, has been a vociferous advocate for international religious freedom. During the event, religious leaders representing the Evangelical Protestants, Muslims and the Orthodox Coptic Christians, spoke of the challenges faced by their respective religious communities in Eritrea. Lord Alton speaking on the religious persecution in Eritrea, described Eritrea as the North Korea of Africa. Lord Alton raised the fact that the UK government appears to downplay the atrocities perpetrated against religious groups in Eritrea in order to ‘normalise relations’ with the Eritrean government. He claims that crimes against humanity are being perpetrated in Eritrea, yet the world continues to look the other way. 
The session coincided with a debate in the House of Commons (the so-called Westminster Hall debate) organised by Chris Philp MP, focused on the persecution of Christians worldwide. The debate raised the issue of religious persecution of Christians in Eritrea and, in particular, the case of 33 Christian women who were imprisoned for taking part in a prayer. Both events helped to shed light on the fact that not only is the religious liberty of Eritrea threatened, there is a strong argument that it does not exist in the first place (not in accordance to international standards). Religious persecution in Eritrea affects several religious groups, including the Jehovah’s Witness and Muslim communities. These communities were the first religious groups to experience such challenges in Eritrea before other religious groups came under threat.
Indeed, Eritrean law incorporates very few protections on religious freedom. Theoretically, the Eritrean constitution provides for a protection for the right to freedom of thought, conscience and belief. Yet, despite the fact that the Constitution was ratified in 1997, it has yet to be implemented. More worryingly, it looks unlikely to be implemented since President Afwerki announced plans to draft a new constitution in 2014, rather than to implement the existing one. As a result, religious freedom does not have any effective protection under the Eritrean law. The fact that the constitution has not been implemented detrimentally also affects the protection of other fundamental human rights.
The question is then, is Lord Alton correct to claim that the religious persecution in Eritrea amounts to crimes against humanity? In short, certainly yes. He is certainly not the only one to have reached such a conclusion. In fact, in 2016, the UN Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea (the CoI-E) http://www.refworld.org/docid/575920394.html">stated that there were reasonable grounds to conclude that crimes against humanity were being perpetrated in Eritrea. For this reason, the CoI recommended that the UN Security Council refer the situation to the International Criminal Court. In July, the CoI-E recommended that ‘an accountability mechanism to investigate, prosecute, and try individuals accused of committing crimes against humanity in Eritrea, including engaging in torture and overseeing Eritrea’s indefinite military service, which the CoI-E equated to slavery’ be implemented by the African Union.
Eritrea is a religiously diverse country and the government encourages a multi faith tradition, so long as the religion is officially recognised. The problem lies in the fact that the Eritrean government recognises only four religious groups: the Eritrean Orthodox Church, Sunni Islam, the Roman Catholic Church and the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Eritrea. Other religious groups are subject to registration. Any religious group that is not registered is not allowed to conduct any religious activities until such time as the registration is granted. Having said that, according to Pew Research Centre, ‘the Eritrean government has not approved registration for any additional religious group since 2002.
The result of the requirement to register religions is that certain religious factions become effectively outlawed. Evangelical and Pentecostal religious groups are two such examples of religions which were effectively outlawed after the introduction in 2002 registration requirement. Groups practicing these religions face the risk of arrest followed by indefinite detention without charge or any chance of redress, as well as the physical and psychological violence often experienced in detention.
In its 2017 report, USCIRF found that
"Systematic, ongoing, and egregious religious freedom violations include torture or other ill treatment of religious prisoners, arbitrary arrests and detentions without charges, a prolonged ban on public religious activities of unregistered religious groups, and interference in the internal affairs of registered religious groups.
According to USCIRF, religious prisoners are routinely detained in the harshest of prison environments where they are subjected to cruel punishments. The report further states that
"Released religious prisoners have reported that they were kept in solitary confinement or crowded conditions, such as in 20-foot metal shipping containers or underground barracks and subjected to extreme temperature fluctuations.
USCIRF identified that the situation is particularly severe in the case of unregistered Evangelical and Pentecostal Christians as well as Jehovah’s Witnesses.
As a result of these challenges, USCIRF indicated that Eritrea meets the requirements for a country of particular concern (CPC) designation under the International Religious Freedom Act. Indeed, the religious persecution in Eritrea is of concern and needs to be addressed urgently. As long as the Eritrean government is willing to engage in a constructive dialogue with the UN and individual states, there is some hope that the dire situation of persecuted religious groups will change. However, if that dialogue fails, Eritrea may well deserve the designation of being the North Korea of Africa.
Ewelina U. Ochab is a human rights advocate and author of the book “Never Again: Legal Responses to a Broken Promise in the Middle East.”
Houhouthi
Houthi rebels are trying to hold the port city against government forces, backed by Saudi Arabia
Military sources here in the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have told the BBC that a major force of Yemeni, UAE and Sudanese troops is on standby in Eritrea to take part in a final push to retake Hudaydah port from Houthi rebels.
The military campaign to drive out the Iranian-backed rebel militia from the key Red Sea port is being directed, funded and led by the UAE.
Officials here have responded to international objections to the campaign by emphasising that Hudaydah port remains open and that maintaining the flow of aid is a top priority.
Over the last two days a ground force of three Yemeni brigades has been advancing northwards towards the outskirts of the city, supported by UAE air strikes and helicopter gunships.
"They have punched through the green zone (of fertile land) relatively quickly to reach the gates of the airport" an unnamed spokesman said on Friday.
He added that the Houthis had laid multiple mines along the coastal strip as well as Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) that he said bore similarities to Iranian and Hezbollah devices used in Iraq and Lebanon.
Reuters Emirati soldiers flying over the Yemeni desert
Around two thirds of Yemen's much-needed aid arrives through the rebel-held city and there have been international calls to halt the military operation for fear of disrupting the flow of aid.
But UAE officials say the delivery of humanitarian aid has always been an integral part of their planning which began two years ago. On Thursday they announced a 5-point plan to keep aid flowing in despite the military campaign.
Hudaydah has been in rebel hands for the last three years and the UAE believes it provides the Houthis with up to $40 million (£30m) a month in revenues.
The UAE also accuses the rebels of smuggling in arms from Iran, including ballistic missile parts, which both Iran and the Houthis deny. A UN report found that some weaponry had been supplied by Iran but could not determine when.
The coalition believes that if it can deprive the Houthis of these funds then they will quickly capitulate and negotiate a peace deal that ends Yemen's disastrous civil war.
But previous estimates of Houthi weakness have been misplaced and after more than three years of war the rebels still control most of the heavily populated areas in Yemen.
UAE military sources also said they had been deploying a deception plan with more actions to come. They said this had involved luring the Houthis into believing they were being attacked from the sea to the north of the city when in fact the coalition ground force was advancing up from the south.
But this has come at a cost. They said an anti-ship missile fired by the Houthis at a cluster of UAE naval vessels 24 nautical miles offshore killed 4 Emirati navy personnel.
Meanwhile on the UAE-leased base in Eritrea a "significant" force of UAE F16 and other military aircraft is poised to carry out more air strikes.
EPA Air strikes have killed thousands in Houthi-held areas of Yemen
The UAE spokesman said "you are not going to see a Mosul situation where air power will flatten whole city blocks".
Yet air strikes by the Saudi-led coalition have already caused high casualties in Yemen while failing to dislodge the Houthis from most major cities.
On Friday the CEO of the International Rescue Committee (IRC), David Miliband, told the BBC that out of 100,000 air strikes over the last 3 years, around 4,500 had hit civilians.
By Samuel Smith , CP Reporter | Jun 15, 2018 1:14 PM 
(Screenshot: YouTube.com/Tearstojoyministries.org)Protesters gather to protest the arrest of religious minorities in Eritrea in this undated screenshot.
A pastor in the small East African nation of Eritrea has been released after being falsely imprisoned for 11 years in one of the worst nations in the world when it comes to Christian persecution.
Voice of the Martyrs Australia has confirmed that Pastor Oqbamichel Haiminot, the senior pastor of Kale Hiwot (Word of Life) Church in Asmara, has finally been released from prison at the 5th Police Station.
Haiminot, a married father of three, was among over 60 evangelical Christians who were arrested in 2005 while participating in a wedding ceremony and were taken to the Sawa military center for "military punishment."
The global persecution advocacy organization reports that while the police gradually released several of the Christians, Haiminot and about five others were kept in detention as military officials tried to get them to recant their faith in Christ.
After refusing the request to deny Jesus, Haiminot was placed in solitary confinement. He was also subject to cruel punishments and inhumane conditions that include being forced to carry rocks up a mountain.
(Photo: ChurchinChains.ie)Pastor Oqbamichel Haiminot
Although he was later released after he suffered a mental breakdown, Pastor Haiminot was re-arrested in 2007 and would stay locked up for over the next decade.
While it is unclear why Pastor Haiminot was finally released after years of advocacy from international rights groups, Voice of the Martyrs reports that Haiminot was in need of medical attention following his release.
"Many pastors [in Eritrea] have been arrested. Many Christians have been arrested," Todd Nettleton, chief of media relations for Voice of the Martyrs USA, said in a statement. "Typically, however, they're not held as long as Pastor Oqbamichel was... We don't know exactly why he was released at this time. Why not a year ago? Why not a year from now? We don't know what the logic behind that is — or if there is any logic behind it."
Haiminot gained international attention in 2003 after he became the first church leader in Eritrea to be imprisoned for religious activities.
His release comes as Eritrea ranks as the sixth worst nation in the world when it comes to the persecution of Christians, according to Open Doors USA's 2018 World Watch List.
"The arrest, harassment and murder of Christians accused of being agents of the West is commonplace [in Eritrea]," Open Doors reports. "At the same time, Muslims, who make up roughly half of the population, are becoming more radicalized, resulting in increased vulnerability for Christians living in their vicinity."
According to Nettleton, Eritrea has gone through crackdown against the evangelical Christian community that started in 2002.
"The government actually closed all of the Evangelical churches in Eritrea," he said. "[They] basically called in the church leaders and said, 'Your churches can't meet anymore.' Every Christian activity after that became illegal."
The crackdown was renewed in 2017 and rights groups reported that over 200 Christians were arrested in house-to-house raids, according to the U.S. State Department's 2017 International Religious Freedom report.
"There were reports of deaths of members of minority religious groups imprisoned for their religious beliefs as well as physical mistreatment of persons in custody," the report states. "In October the government's enforcement of its ban on religious groups operating schools sparked demonstrations that led to the arrest of an Islamic school director and at least 40 other persons."
Last August, Fikadu Debesay, an evangelical mother of three, died while she was imprisoned at the Metkel Abiet camp. It is possible that some form of "mistreatment" could have contributed to her death.
A relative at her funeral told Morning Star News that she saw a scar on the Debesay's face and another scar on her hand that "could have been a sign of some mistreatment or intense sunburn that resulted to her untimely death."
"It has been very difficult consoling [her] children," the relative said. "They want to know what happened to their mother."
Two Pentecostal Christians died last March while on a hunger strike to protest their mistreatment. Their bodies were reported to have shown signs of sexual abuse.
Jehovah's Witnesses have also been arrested and died in Eritrean prison.
"Two Witnesses have recently died after their transfer to the Mai Serwa Prison. Habtemichael Tesfamariam died at age 76 on January 3, 2018, and Habtemichael Mekonen died at age 77 on March 6, 2018," JW.org reports. "Eritrean authorities imprisoned both men in 2008 without charges. A total of four Witnesses have now died while imprisoned in Eritrea."
A summary of key facts and recommendations made in this report for officers of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Eritrea:
Since 1993, Eritrea has been ruled as a one-party state under the dictatorship of President Isaias Afwerki. There is no independent judiciary, civil society or independent media in the country, and the Constitution of Eritrea – ratified in 1997 – has never been fully implemented. As a result, many thousands flee into exile every month.
A 2016 UN Report of the Commission of Inquiry on Human Rights in Eritrea found that enslavement inside the country “has been committed on an ongoing, widespread and systematic basis since 2002.”
At the age of 18, Eritrean citizens are drafted into compulsory indefinite military or national service. The UN Commission of Inquiry report found that most “are subject to forced labour” in public and private companies.
Any foreign firm operating in Eritrea is required by law to contract public construction companies. The US State Department reported in 2015 that the country’s “mandatory national service programme,” and tendency to “place persons performing national service in commercial enterprises, may leave businesses open to charges of relying on conscripts as forced labour.” These concerns were echoed in 2016 and 2017.
The 2016 UN Commission of Inquiry report stated that the mining industry was “one of the most successful economic sectors in Eritrea” and that proceeds from mining operations jointly owned by the Government and transnational corporations were an “important and undisputed source of revenue.”
UN Security Council Resolution 2023 expressed concern that the mining sector was being used as a financial source “to destabilize the Horn of Africa”, and called on Eritrea to “show transparency in its public finances.” This has not been complied with.
At least 17 mining and exploration companies – including from Australia, Canada, China, and the United Kingdom – currently operate in Eritrea.
Of the approximately 1,500 people working for Nevsun Resources Ltd, which manages the Bisha mine west of Asmara, more than 1,400 are sub-contracted by Segen Construction. Segen, owned by the ruling party, is accused by Human Rights Watch of relying heavily on conscript labour.
Nevsun’s 2016 financial statement showed that the company had paid more than $1bn in taxes to the Eritrean state since production began at the Bisha mine in 2011. Nevsun has “consistently cited confidentiality non-disclosure agreements” when questioned about its finances by the UN Monitoring Group on Eritrea and Somalia.
A 2013 report by Human Rights Watch into the Eritrean mining sector found “clear evidence that many of Segen’s workers at Bisha…faced terrible conditions, from inadequate food supplies to unsafe housing”. Workers interviewed said that they “lived in fear and were ordered not to complain about their plight.”
First hand testimonies collected for this report found evidence of forced labour and torture. National Service conscripts were being subjected to abusive working and living conditions, hazardous working and living conditions, and the withholding of wages.
At the time of writing, British investment management company M&G Investments, whose parent company is the insurance and financial services firm Prudential plc, holds almost 29 million shares (9.5%) in Nevsun.
J.P. Morgan Asset Management, headquartered in the UK, holds shares in both Nevsun and Danakali, an Australian company engaged in a joint project with Eritrean state-owned mining firm ENAMCO.
UK-based Andiamo Exploration currently holds an exploration licence for copper and gold in Eritrea. Major investors include Ortac Resources Ltd., whose own shareholders include the investment arms of Halifax and Barclays banks.
Under Section 54 of the UK’s Modern Slavery Act 2015, every organisation operating in the UK with an annual turnover of £36m or more is required to produce a yearly slavery and human trafficking statement, setting out what action they have taken to ensure slavery is not taking place in their supply chains. If a business fails to produce a slavery and human trafficking report for a particular financial year, the Home Secretary may bring a High Court injunction requiring the company to comply. Failure to do so is punishable by an unlimited fine.
There is currently no requirement for these reports to be independently audited. There is also no effective monitoring system to record which companies fail in their obligation to report, and no effective enforcement mechanism for compliance.
The first recommendation is that the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Eritrea invites the company directors of M&G Investments/Prudential Plc, Ortac Resources Ltd, and JP Morgan UK, along with the relevant officials from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who deal with the implementation of the United Nations Guiding Principles, to appear before the APPG to address the concerns raised in this report.
The second recommendation is for the All-Party Parliamentary Group to write to M&G Investments/Prudential Plc, JP Morgan UK, Halifax and Barclays, to ask what steps they are taking to produce human rights impact assessments.
The third recommendation is for the All-Party Parliamentary Group to ask the appropriate government departments what steps are being taken, in the light of the evidence of gross human rights violations, to ensure that measures in accordance with UK Anti-bribery legislation, the Modern Slavery Act, and the Extractive Industries Transparency Initiative are applied to company activities in Eritrea.
The fourth recommendation is for the All-Party Parliamentary Group to issue a statement highlighting the abuses outlined in this report, publicly calling for companies to end their activities in Eritrea until there is a sustained and verifiable improvement in human rights within the country.
The fifth recommendation is for the All-Party Parliamentary Group to write to the relevant ambassadors and High Commissioners of the countries in which companies operating in Eritrea, and their investors, are headquartered, raising the human rights concerns detailed in this report while at the same time remaining actively informed about the developments in Eritrea’s mining sector.
The sixth recommendation is for the All-Party Parliamentary Group to write to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and the Department for International Trade, asking what steps have been taken to force the provisions of UN Security Council Resolution 2023, and what the outcome of such advice has been.
This map, which was produced by the UN Cartographic Section in September 2000, shows the Temporary Security Zone all along the Ethiopia-Eritrea border.
It was drawn to show the twenty-five kilometre deep area inside Eritrea that was created along the border, awaiting the outcome of the Boundary Commission, which would decide exactly where the border would be.
The zone was created in line with Agreement on Cessation of Hostilities drawn up by the OAU (predecessor to the African Union) of 18 June 2000.
Paragraph 9 stated: “Ethiopia shall submit redeployment plans for its troops from positions taken after 6 February 1999, and which were not under Ethiopian administration before 6 May 1998, to the Peacekeeping Mission. This redeployment shall be completed within two weeks after the deployment of the Peacekeeping Mission and verified by it.”
Paragraph 12 stated: “In order to contribute to the reduction of tensions and to the establishment of a climate of calm and confidence, as well as to create conditions conducive to a comprehensive and lasting settlement of the conflict through the delimitation and demarcation of the border, the Eritrean forces shall remain at a distance of 25 km (artillery range) from positions to which Ethiopian forces shall redeploy in accordance with paragraph 9 of this document. This zone of separation shall be referred to in this document as the ‘temporary security zone.'”
The Boundary Commission subsequently ruled on where the border lay, but Ethiopia insisted (until this month) that it would only implement the ruling after further talks. This position has now changed.
To resolve the border it is necessary for both sides to adjust the location of their forces in two ways. Firstly, they have to reposition them away from areas that the Boundary Commission ruled lay inside the other state. Secondly, Ethiopia will have to allow Eritrean forces to enter the Temporary Security Zone (where they have not done so already). Both will require careful planning and co-ordination if they are to be undertaken successfully, without further incidents.
It would, of course, be sensible to take into account the feelings and wishes of local people. This was not allowed for by the Algiers Agreement, which both countries signed. This stated that: “The parties agree that a neutral Boundary Commission composed of five members shall be established with a mandate to delimit and demarcate the colonial treaty border based on pertinent colonial treaties (1900, 1902 and 1908) and applicable international law. The Commission shall not have the power to make decisions ex aequo et bono.” The Latin phrase means that the Commission was forbidden from using fairness or justice as criteria in making their judgement.
At the same time there is nothing to preclude Ethiopia or Eritrea from being fair of just, as they move to end this border stalemate.
