by AFP

• 0 Comments

In the heady days after longtime foes Ethiopia and Eritrea signed a peace deal a year ago, Teklit Amare’s Peace and Love Cafe near the newly-opened border overflowed with customers.

“When they shut the border so soon after opening it, that was the saddest moment,” said Teklit, a former teacher who now struggles to pay his rent.

During the stalemate that followed the end of active hostilities in 2000, Zalambessa was all but abandoned, deprived of infrastructure and other investments.

“After the opening it was very obvious that everybody was happy. They want to trade, to have these connections,” said Hadush Desta, Zalambessa’s top municipal official.

“But now, because of no reason, it’s closed. People are emotional about it. They say, ‘Why is this happening to us?’”

– ‘Devil in the details’-

The border opening was just one breakthrough in the whip-fast rapprochement between Ethiopian Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed and Eritrean President Isaias Afwerki that began just over a year ago.

Following Abiy’s initial overtures, the two sides embarked on a rapid mending of ties that caught even close observers by surprise, re-opening embassies, resuming flights and taking meetings across the region.

But enthusiasm for the deal has given way to frustration — and not just near the border.

On other goals too –- from inking new trade deals to granting Ethiopia access to Eritrea’s ports –- high initial hopes have gone unmet.

The lack of communication from both governments makes it difficult to pinpoint why the peace process appears stuck.

Abiy paid a two-day visit to Asmara last week and pledged to “further enhance” the peace process, but no detail was given of their discussions.

“As they say, the devil is in the details. We are not so clear what is going on,” said Abebe Aynete, an Addis Ababa-based senior researcher with the Ethiopian Foreign Relations and Strategic Studies think tank.

Many analysts and diplomats suspect Eritrea is guilty of foot-dragging.

Opening up to Ethiopia would force Isaias to surrender a measure of control, something his critics say he is unlikely to do.

“I personally believe that as long as the current group in Asmara stays in power, I don’t think the border will open and the two countries will not proceed to normal relations,” said Mehari Tesfamichael, chairperson of the opposition Eritrean Bright Future Movement.

Isaias’ notoriously iron-fisted government has long cited the standoff with Ethiopia in justifying harsh policies like compulsory national service, which forces citizens into specific jobs at low pay and bans them from travelling abroad.

Last October, the UN refugee agency noted a seven-fold increase in refugees fleeing Eritrea after the borders opened, with around 10,000 refugees registered in one month.

The peace deal “provided some hope that restrictions on national service would be lifted, but so far there has been little change” in Eritrea, said Human Rights Watch.

– Abiy’s woes –

Ethiopia’s domestic politics could also be part of the problem.

Abiy’s ambitious reform agenda has run into roadblocks, a fact underscored by the assassination last month of five government and military officials.

The changing landscape has inflamed tensions between Abiy and the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front (TPLF), the party that dominates the northern Tigray region and was the strongest political force in the country before Abiy came to power.

Tigray’s administration of Ethiopian border areas means the TPLF should be a major player in normalising ties with Eritrea, provided it plays along.

“Solving issues related to the border ideally needs the full cooperation of Tigray and the TPLF. That isn’t what we have right now,” said William Davison, senior analyst at the International Crisis Group think tank.

“We have significant rifts between TPLF and its ruling coalition partners and also disputes between the Tigray region and the federal government in Addis.”

– ‘A better place’ –

However observers say it’s important not to lose sight of the progress that’s been made.

“Up front we have to acknowledge that we’re in a much better place than we were before the rapprochement, when the possibility of state-on-state conflict was quite high,” said Michael Woldemariam, an expert on the Horn of Africa at Boston University.

Even at the border, the news is not all bad.

Though the Zalambessa crossing closed completely in December, soldiers on both sides have since loosened restrictions. Ethiopian traders say that on some days they cross into Eritrea unimpeded, and on others they can often get through using unofficial crossings.

Back at the Peace and Love Cafe, owner Teklit said he is not giving up just yet.

He said he is encouraged by the fact that ties between the two countries are still officially warm.

by Martin Plaut

July 19, 2019

in Opinion

 

African migrants in a packed room at the Tariq Al-Matar detention centre on the outskirts of the Libyan capital Tripoli. Photo: Taha Jawashi, AFP

The images were terrible: the twisted metal and concrete were all that remained after the bombing of the Tajoura Detention Center in Libya’s capital Tripoli. People gathered outside, praying and weeping for those who had been trapped inside. It is more than two weeks since the airstrike hit the center on July 2, leaving at least 53 people dead and many more wounded.

The detention center was estimated to be holding 200 refugees and asylum seekers at the time. Some have since been released, a step welcomed by the European Union. But their statement, describing the development as “positive,” rings a little hollow. Not long afterward another 90 people attempting to leave Libya were intercepted at sea by the Libyan Coast Guard, trained and equipped by the European Union, and taken to Tajoura.

There are dozens of detention centers, spread across Libya and holding an estimate 6,000 desperate African migrants. The centers are – in reality – very much part of E.U. foreign policy. It has been clear for some time that European politicians are determined to exclude migrants; whether they are coming for economic reasons or as refugees.

The rise of populist parties has threatened the European political order with migration as the most toxic issue. But the May 2019 elections across the E.U. saw populists fail to make the ground they had hoped to (except in the U.K.). Rather, there was a surge in support for liberal and green parties.

Wall Along Mediterranean

The fall in migration has been dramatic and the E.U.’s own statistics tell the story. Back in 2015 more than a million migrants arrived. As the E.U. puts it:

“Irregular arrivals in the E.U. have decreased significantly since the peak of the migration crisis in 2015. Between January and June 2019, 35 000 irregular arrivals have been registered.”

What has happened is a simple matter of policy. While President Donald J. Trump has talked about building a wall on the U.S.-Mexican border, the Europeans have acted. As I pointed out over two years ago, the E.U. wall was almost complete.

This is particularly true for African migrants, who have found one route after another effectively sealed. All along the Mediterranean, a virtual “wall” has been constructed. From the Canary Islands in the West to the Sinai in the East, impenetrable obstacles have been put in their way. Little wonder that a flood has turned to a trickle!

A price has been paid for this “success.” Migrants regularly drown in the Mediterranean. Operations by rescue ships, picking up those who get into difficulties, have been blocked.

EU’s Efforts to Halt Migration

But these are not the only “bricks” in the E.U.’s “wall.” In the Sudanese capital, Khartoum, a regional operational center does all it can to turn back African migrants. The E.U.’s work in Sudan includes support for several detention centers in which the migrants have been held.

These activities have continued throughout the upheavals Sudan has been undergoing, which have seen President Omar al-Bashir removed. The E.U. is accused of having links with some of the most repressive forces inside the new administration, including Mohamed Hamdan Dagolo, better known as “Hemeti,” whose Janjaweed forces are` responsible for the atrocities in Darfur.

Niger is another location of detention facilities supported by the E.U., and for a similar purpose. Africans who make it to Niger – often after having paid their life savings to smugglers – find themselves detained and persuaded to return to their home countries.

Those who are captured in Libya, or on boats in the Mediterranean, face similar treatment. These are all part of the E.U.’s plans to halt and deter the influx of migrants seeking sanctuary on European shores.

The E.U. is fully aware of just how terrible the conditions in the Libyan detention centers really are. But for European politicians that is not the issue. Keeping populist threats at home at bay has a higher priority.

Martin Plaut is the author of Understanding Eritrea.