PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR PROVIDES INSIGHT INTO GSE VIEWS ON

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 08 ASMARA 000620 SIPDIS SENSITIVE SIPDIS LONDON FOR AFRICA WATCHERS PARIS FOR AFRICA WATCHERS E.O. 12958: N/A TAGS: PGOV PHUM KIRF ER SUBJECT: PRESIDENTIAL ADVISOR PROVIDES INSIGHT INTO GSE VIEWS ON VARIOUS TOPICS ¶1. (U) In an interview posted on www.shaebia.org on July 9, Yemane Ghebremeskel, Director of the Office of President, offered the position of the Government of the State of Eritrea (GSE) on a wide range of topics -- from religious freedom and human rights to international relations and Somalia. (Full text follows below.) Mr. Stefano Pettini, an Italian journalist and purported friend of Eritrea conducted the interview. Items of note in the interview include GhebremeskelQs denial that the GSE has violated its citizensQ religious freedoms, noting that any targeted individuals were members of QfringeQ religions and his claim that Eritrea maintains an open atmosphere for members of the press. Ghebremeskel further described the 2001 arrest of the G-11 (members of the government who had publicly dissented against GSE policies) as the arrest of individuals who had committed treason. He explained that Eritrea has a legal right to arrest and punish its citizens who have been repatriated as these individuals had left illegally and broken Eritean law. ¶2. (SBU) Comment: Ghebremeskel has long been viewed as the voice of President Isaias and one can properly assume that his views reflect those of the President. In typical Eritrean fashion, Ghebremeskel, if perhaps not outright lying in many responses, has either evaded the question or spun the truth to its limit. Also typical of the Eritrean government party line, he finds the U.S. and others largely to blame for EritreaQs woes. The Shaebia website is the official website for the only political party in Eritrea, the PeopleQs Front for Democracy and Justice. End Comment. ¶3. (U) Begin text (Note: text is exactly as posted and has not been edited for translation mistakes): SHAEBIA INTERVIEW Interview with Mr. Yemane Ghebremeskel Jul 9, 2007, 8:00am Mr. Stefano Pettini, an Italian writer and who follow up very closely the social and political situation in Eritrea, interviewed Mr. Yemane Ghebremeskel, Director of the Office of the President of Eritrea, regarding the social, political and economic situation in the country, excerpts follow: -------------- --- Q: Eritrea is accused of hindering the relations with foreign press by preventing the journalists to exercise their job freely or refusing entry visas to the country. What is the official position of the Government? A: The accusation is groundless. First off all, we do not have a policy of preventing entry or of refusing visas to foreign journalists. We have several resident journalists here. Agence France Presse has a resident journalist; Reuters have a bureau; and there are resident reporters for Al-Sharq Al Awsat (Middle East daily paper),Deustche Welle etc. So there are a number of journalists who are accredited to the country and have residence visas and work permits. Secondly, our Embassies routinely issue permissions whenever there are requests for foreigners who want to come here for short business visits: interviews, reports etc. There are no restrictions in terms of entry visas, or on what they want to do. The allegation is thus at variance with the truth. -------------- --- ¶Q. According to Reporters Sans Frontier, Eritrea finds itself in the bottom rung of countries that allow free press, which is considered virtually absent in the country. How do you explain this? ¶A. Let me first underline that this outfit is not a neutral and credible association. In fact, it is substantially funded by dubious US institutions that funnel money to specific organizations that advance certain policy objectives of the US Administration. I do not think we need a bill of health from bodies of dubious credibility. ASMARA 00000620 002 OF 008 The second issue is our so-called international ranking. Let us be realistic. I don't believe that there is free press without any curtailment all the time anywhere in times of war and conflict. This is true in Europe and the United States. In the second Gulf War against Iraq, for instance, the US invented the term: "embedded journalism". Journalists were not covering the war without any hindrance. They were put in the middle of a military convoy to report what was recounted to them by the military. Previously, in the first Gulf War, the Americans introduced the "pool system" to censure and regulate what was reported. Look at the situation in Somalia these days. There is a virtual blackout of news. Why? US bombers have pulverized villages in Somalia. But there are no images on our TV screens; journalists have been barred from there. To accuse or single out Eritrea for taking legitimate measures in a situation of conflict is for me hypocrisy and double standards. In regard to the absence of a "free press", we have had a limited experience in the past. A Press Law was enacted in ¶1996. The government had in fact no intention of preventing the free press from growing. After all, monopoly, whether in economics or politics, has its own drawbacks, and, in this vein, a free press is essential for a healthy society. Thus in terms of generic principles and abstract theories, there is no controversy. The question is what are the rules of the game? How does this play out in real life? What is the normative practice in war times? The press law of 1996 had its own defects which came to the surface in 2000/2001 related to internal subversive developments. The press law clearly stipulated that foreign funding was not allowed. But the accountability procedures were not strictly monitored and implemented. As it happened, most of these "private papers" were largely funded by Western countries to promote certain agendas in contravention of the Press Law itself. Furthermore, the Press Law had no adequate provisions for libel suits against defamation. There were no standards for accreditation, or code of ethics to ensure minimum quality standards. As it happened, they were easily manipulated, infiltrated and paid by foreign services to serve ulterior purposes. In those circumstances, the matter was discussed at the National Assembly and the press law was suspended pending a full review. -------------- --- ¶Q. Eritrea is also accused to be repressive towards the freedom of faith and has been responsible for mass arrests of believers who only ask to pray in a free way. What is the response of the Government in the case? ¶A. When you talk about mass arrest of believers, I am puzzled at the hyperbole. What is mass arrest? Who were the "mass people" allegedly detained from time to time? The truth is people have never been denied or prevented from their right to pray freely because this is a very pious society; a society of ancient religions. We have all kinds of faiths in this country. We have Christianity and Islam. We have even a Synagogue in this town. If you look at Asmara, one of its peculiarities is that its sky line is doted with Mosques and Churches. We have Mosques and Churches adjacent to each other. As I said earlier, this is a very pious and religious society. So we are talking about strong traditions; entrenched believes; very religious people. The government cannot interfere in people's religious believes. And in Constitutional terms, the country is a secular State. So there are no legal or practical problems in regard to the freedom of faith. But, we had problems with a handful of "new faiths"; of a few fringe groups that are alien to the society at large. We have to be clear about the distinction. The Jehovah Witnesses, for example, refused to participate in the ASMARA 00000620 003 OF 008 national referendum to determine Eritrea's independence. Their argument was that "they do not recognize a temporal State or Government". They maintained that "they do not recognize a Government on earth as they are accountable to Jehovah only". They also objected to the mandatory national service when it was enacted in 1994. The Government's reaction was measured. And this was to refuse issuing or renewing business licenses to their members. Because they cannot have it both ways: refuse to recognize the Government but at the same time ask legal services from the same Government. Other small groups have also emerged in the past seven, eight years. Most of these groups were beneficiaries of secret or undeclared foreign funds. Most of them went SIPDIS against the national fabric: to oppose the national service or to penetrate and sow division within the traditional faiths. The Government subsequently requested all these faiths to register officially, with honest declaration of the origin of their funds etc. The periodic arrests, which are distorted and exaggerated, occur when members of these fringe groups assemble illegally. -------------- --- Q: Ethiopia is considered the bulwark of Christianity against the expansion of Islam and a reference in the fight against terrorism in the Horn of Africa. What is the position of the Government of Eritrea on these two matters? ¶A. In the first place, when you compare Eritrea and Ethiopia in terms of religious diversity and the relative size of the different faiths, the picture is more or less the same. In Eritrea, the population is more or less equally divided between Christians and Moslems. In Ethiopia too, the percentages are close. In Sudan, there are Christians and Muslims. So, to portray Ethiopia as a bulwark of Christianity or as an "island of Christianity" in the Horn of Africa is factually wrong and inaccurate. But more fundamentally, the relative percentages are irrelevant. If the State is a secular State in the circumstances of religious diversity, there will be no grounds for religious strife. Coexistence and harmony between the different faiths and religions can be cultivated and maintained. In Eritrea's case, Christians and Muslims have coexisted in harmony for more than 13 centuries now. We have had no communal, religious motivated, civil fighting in our long history. We fought together against common enemies. Religion has been and remains a private matter. So, the manner in which the question is framed is not proper in the first place. Because, the different religions can co-exist in a secular environment. In addition, in purely statistical terms, Ethiopia is not "an island of Christianity in the Horn". As I said earlier, the composition of the two religions is more or less the same in Eritrea and Ethiopia. On the issue of terrorism, unfortunately, there is a wrong or misguided trend of amalgamating terrorism with Islam. Islamic communities are not inherently inclined, nor do they possess a peculiar propensity, for terrorism or terrorist acts. In brief, terrorism cannot be equated with Islam. Why did terrorism emerge? How did it emerge? What was the role of certain powers at particular historical junctures? If you are talking about Afghan Arabs, it is well known that the US supported them at a given point in time in the context of the Cold War. The historical, social and political reasons that fostered terrorism is a complex matter. It cannot be reduced to a mechanical Christian/Moslem divide. Similarly, the simplistic propaganda that depicts Ethiopia as "the bulwark of Christianity" and the "epicentre for the war against terrorism" is a myth fabricated by Ethiopia, and perhaps the US, to serve other ulterior purposes. -------------- --- ¶Q. The Government of Eritrea is explicitly accused of ASMARA 00000620 004 OF 008 supporting the Union of Islamic Courts in Somalia, above all against Ethiopia supplying them with men and weapons. How do you comment to this assertion? ¶A. Eritrea's position on the Somali problem is very clear. We have stated this openly in various forums: in IGAD, at the UN General Assembly last September, and in other platforms. For us, the question is not a matter of political preference between the Union of Islamic Courts and the Transitional Federal Government. Eritrea has had historical links with Somalia spanning for over 50 years. This is across the entire political spectrum. All Somalis supported Eritrea's liberation struggle. This is one dimension. Second, when after 1991 Somalia was drifting and embroiled in internal conflict, Eritrea was involved in various initiatives to help stem the dangerous trend. Between 1992 and 1994, we were working with Ethiopia. The overriding objective was to promote internal political reconciliation within Somalia. But Ethiopia drifted to its traditional policy of dividing and weakening Somalia along ethnic lines. This was manifested in the Sodere Conference, convened in Ethiopia sometime around 1997. Ethiopia's policy ever since has been to divide Somalia into four/five mini States: Somaliland, Punt Land, Benadir Land, etc. This policy emanates from Ethiopia's perceived threat; remember Ethiopia and Somalia went to war twice in the past forty years (1963 and 1977). Eritrea does not support this policy because it is a recipe for continuous regional instability. If there are territorial disputes (over the Ogaden etc.),the solution rests on resolving them on the basis of the sanctity of colonial boundaries. Eritrea strongly opposed Ethiopia's recent invasion of Somalia. This is illegal by all standards. Ethiopia's Prime Minister gave three contradictory explanations in the space of three days when he launched the invasion. The first explanation was that Ethiopia was responding to a threat from the Union of Islamic Courts. But as you know, the UN Charter does not condone pre-emptive invasion. Then, the next day, perhaps realizing the flawed argument, the Prime Minister said he was sending troops in response to an invitation by the TFG. These two explanations are contradictory. The TFG was originally formed to act as a catalyst to bring about national reconciliation. Does it have legal powers to invite a foreign power to crush internal opposition? The third explanation the Prime Minister gave when his troops were approaching Mogadishu, dropped subsequently, was that the objective of the invasion was to "sufficiently downgrade" the UIC so that it would come to the negotiating table. This is pure interference and illegal in terms of international law. Ethiopia's invasion cannot be justified by any stretch of imagination. If the Security Council has not condemned Ethiopia, it is because of US protection; pure and simple. And the various accusations against Eritrea arise from the desire to balance Ethiopia's invasion and to fabricate a plausible pretext. The persistent propaganda from the US State Department revolves around portraying the situation as a proxy war between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Before the invasion, there were persistent allegations, originating from the State Department, asserting that there were 2000 Eritrean soldiers in Somalia. This allegation vanished in thin air after the invasion because they knew it was false from the beginning. The UIC was demonized and portrayed as the Taliban of the Horn. All these propaganda are factually false and deliberate creations to justify the invasion of Somalia. -------------- --- ¶Q. How do you explain the deterioration of the diplomatic relations which from time to time brought to an attitude of closure and of isolation of the country? ¶A. Eritrea is not isolated. We have diplomatic ties with literally all countries. We have more than 20 foreign resident embassies in the country. True, we may have problems with certain countries. But that has to do with ASMARA 00000620 005 OF 008 their policies. Obviously, if some governments want us to compromise our sovereignty and territorial integrity, this is not a price that we are prepared to pay in order to have or maintain diplomatic ties with them. There is a red line that we are not prepared to cross. Other wise, we have good ties with many European countries although we may have had one or two problems with Italy for certain reasons. We have good ties with many of our neighbours and the other African, Asian, and Latin America countries. So, in general, our diplomatic relations is in good shape. Our main problem, currently, is with the United States. This is simply because US policy in this region is not balanced. The United States is primarily responsible for the border problem. The Boundary Commission decision would have been long implemented without the obstruction of Washington. All the notion about Special Envoys Axworthy; Fulford, etc - is the creation of Washington. Recently, they were talking about a Contact Group. The strategy is to create complications and obstruct peace in this region. This cannot be acceptable to us. -------------- --- ¶Q. President Isaias has been accused by some observers of having imposed authoritarian rule beginning with the arrest of senior government members who are till now under detention without specific charges. What are the reasons behind this attitude? ¶A. This is a smear campaign propagated by certain powers that do not have the welfare of Eritrea at heart. The detention of these personalities is not controversial. Irrespective of one's position in Government, if one commits an offence against the national security of the country, he or she cannot be immune from detention. And in this case, the detentions have their own history. The persons in question have committed acts of treason. The liaison they attempted to create with Ethiopia at the height of the invasion is known even to the Facilitators. These are known facts. The whole population knows these facts. Any government facing this kind of situation could not have reacted differently. The substance of their crimes is not controversial. They cannot be camouflaged by procedural modalities. -------------- --- ¶Q. Why is the Government of Eritrea showing an increasing hostility towards Italy? First, Ambassador Antonio Bandini was expelled. Then the Carabinieri were expelled some years later. The First Secretary of the Embassy, Ludovico Serra, was also expelled last year following the episode of the demolition of Villa Melotti. How do you explain this string of acts? ¶A. The Government of Eritrea has no hostility towards Italy. The relationship between the two countries goes back to more than one hundred years. We have deep cultural affinities, economic interests and population movements from the colonial times. Eritrea's interest in fact lies in fostering and consolidating the historical relationship. So the term "increasing hostility towards Italy" is not correct. But that does not mean that we do not have problems from time to time. These may not even be problems between the two countries or two governments. They may be due to individual acts of some people. You ask me about Ambassador Bandini. This is an old case. The Ambassador meddled many times in internal issues of national security. He was asked to leave the country. This is normal and in accordance with art. No. 9 of Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. The case of the Carabinieri is a separate matter. First of all, the Government has never requested the expulsion of the Carabinieri, but only to wind down their job of policing in the Capital which was not their competence. The Carabinieri were not here as an Italian contingent on the basis of a bilateral arrangement with Eritrea. They were here as part of United Nations Mission to Ethiopia and ASMARA 00000620 006 OF 008 Eritrea (UNMEE); they could have been Indians, Chinese, Germans, whatever. Their nationality had nothing to do with the act. The problem was the nature of their job here as military police of UNMEE. When UNMEE was deployed, we agreed on a Protocol of Rules of Engagement. There is no provision in that Protocol for policing activities in the capital. Policing activities in the country cannot, indeed, be delegated to UNMEE. This is the jurisdiction of the Government. If some UNMEE military officers are not showing up at their post in the TSZ, there should be another mechanism for monitoring that. Otherwise, we cannot have a Police contingent in Asmara for an undefined task. This was outside the agreement and was explained at the time. It has nothing to do with Italy. In other words, the decision of re-entry was of the Carabinieri and only their. And at the moment of their departure, the Government had no hesitation to collaborate when a request came from Italian Embassy to find solution to the embarrassing logistic faults created by the Carabinieri. In the case of the First Secretary Ludovico Serra, let me emphasize one fundamental issue. Whether a house is legally owned by a foreigner or an Eritrean citizen, the law has provisions for appropriation, or demolition as the case may be, by Government for development purposes with appropriate procedures and guarantees of compensation. Villa Melotti cannot be handled with exception outside the law. Unfortunately the First Secretary went out of his way to personally block the municipal act. This is an insult and constitutes disrespect of the laws of the country. We expect senior Italian Embassy staff assigned here to cultivate ties between the two countries; not to aggravate them without reason. What does his attitude tell you? -------------- --- ¶Q. The phenomenon of clandestine immigration of Eritrean citizens in Italy is increasing. How does the Government of Eritrea see this new tendency? ¶A. The issue might be somewhat exaggerated. But even if true, I believe this is a very temporary phenomenon induced by the situation of "no war, no peace". Naturally, some cannot withstand the pressures and tension of a looming war. It is not the first time in our history. During the years of liberation, thousands of young people were joining the struggle; but few others opted for exile abroad. It is probably clandestine, because we have mandatory national service and those who leave are eligible. But these are very temporary problems. Once we have peace, I would expect a reversal of the situation. That is what happened in 1991 after liberation. More than 100.0000 refugees returned in the first few years from the Sudan through spontaneous and organized repatriation. Thousands more of our compatriots returned from all over the world and invested in their homeland. Even during these presumably difficult times, the overall trend is not characterized by a one-way street towards migration. If you look at annual local tourism statistics, between 70,000 to 80,000 Eritreans, including repeat travellers, come home for short visits back home. Indeed, the increased migration you cited is not more than a few hundred a year and does not compare in anyway with the reverse annual flow - for temporary stay or repatriation of our citizens from the Diaspora. -------------- --- ¶Q. Recently, the problem of some Eritrean citizens under detention in Libya and Malta who risk to be repatriated to their homeland with consequent possible reprisal against them has come to the fore. What is the position of the Government on this problem? ¶A. Again, let us not blow the issues out of proportion. We are probably talking about the case of few individuals. Leaving numbers aside, the question is essentially a legal one. If a person evades the mandatory national service, and leaves the country illegally, he or she will be accountable for the felony they have committed: evasion of ASMARA 00000620 007 OF 008 national service and illegal migration. There are laws and regulations in respect to these offences and the Government has to enforce them accordingly. This is normal and uncontroversial. The distortions arise when so-called advocacy groups - such as Amnesty International - want to twist the arm of Government and impose conditions outside the law for what they call "refouled asylum seekers". These people are not bona fide asylums seekers in the first place. They have no credible grounds of persecution. They cannot be treated differently and enjoy a waiver from the mandatory national service. This would be discriminatory and contrary to fundamental principles of equity and equality of all citizens before the law. -------------- --- ¶Q. Although Eritrea is considered to be one of the poorest nations of the world, various NGOs complain of encountering increasing difficulties to work in the country and accuse the Government for the expulsion of some of them because they are seen as unwelcome witnesses. How does the Government of Eritrea see humanitarian and international co-operation? ¶A. In the first place, the label of "one of the poorest nations" requires real qualification. Eritrea is a very young nation which has emerged from a 30-year war of national liberation. After a respite of 7 years, it was again forced into another bout of conflict by Ethiopia. So if standard GDP and other economic indicators are low, it is not surprising. I would rather focus on the industriousness of the people, the prudent macro-economic policies of the Government and the considerable endowments of the country to gauge its real potential in a conducive environment of peace. There are various sectors, including tourism, agriculture, mining and fisheries that have huge potential. Before Ethiopia's invasion in 1998, the country was growing at an annual rate of 7-9%. Once irreversible peace is guaranteed, the country will grow at a rapid pace and steadily to ensure a good standard of living for its own population. Thus, I do not share this gloomy depiction of Eritrea both in terms of its potential and future. Eritrea is not indeed an inherently or structurally poor nation doomed to live on handouts from NGOs or benevolent organizations for an indefinite period of time. Second, on the question of NGOs, there is some distortion. The government has explained its position comprehensively several times before. NGOs were very supportive of the liberation struggle and have useful function during critical phases. About twelve NGOs are operating now. As far as humanitarian assistance and development cooperation are concerned, we recognize the abnormality of our situation and we have no inhibitions in seeking assistance. But at the same time, we do not want this assistance to create a situation of chronic dependency. In regard to NGOs, there are transparent regulations regarding overhead costs, modalities of implementation and prioritization of programmes. We do not want to see a proliferation of NGOs engaged in small, disjoint, programmes that will waste resources and that will not, also, be sustainable. There are additional regulations concerning consultancy work and local capacity building; in the sense that priority is always given to local capacity building. Differences of approach on all these issues are the reasons why development cooperation encounters problems at times and why some NGOs cannot qualify for registration. In the case of NGOs in particular, there are lower ceilings for annual budgets (two million US$) that they must be able to mobilize to be operational. The underlying rationale for the ceiling is to ensure implementation of meaningful programmes and to avoid, small, one-off, projects that have no sustainability and that may breed dependency. -------------- --- ¶Q. What is the attitude of the Government specifically towards the Italian NGOs? ¶A. Some are operational. Others which did not satisfy the requirements could not register. At any rate, Italian NGOs ASMARA 00000620 008 OF 008 are not seen in any discriminatory way from other NGOs. On the contrary, the desire is to allow Italian NGOs to operate if and when they are closer to the threshold. -------------- --- ¶Q. In many occasions the Government of Eritrea has stated that the poverty in Eritrea has its origins in external political responsibilities. What are the basic facts of this assertion? ¶A. Without the declaration of war by Ethiopia in 1998 and what happened afterwards, Eritrea's economic growth today would have been significantly different from the present reality. The reasons why Ethiopia has been encouraged and allowed to reject the arbitration Award and maintain a tense situation further lies in external, geopolitical interests and considerations. The negative factors that are inhibiting or hampering rapid economic development and growth are all rooted on hostile acts of regional and international actors. These are the main problems. Otherwise, in the context of conducive, peaceful and stable regional environment, Eritrea's potential is really huge. We have sectors with comparative advantage that can be exploited and that can contribute to a very dynamic and vibrant economy. -------------- --- ¶Q. How do you think can it be possible for the Government to achieve the goal of food security in spite of the economic and manpower shortages in the country? ¶A. I do not agree with your assertions. If by manpower shortages, you are alluding to the national military service, this is not true. The fact is most of them are involved, during periods of relative peace, in productive economic activities. So, manpower is not a constraint. In terms of economic inputs for food security, the investment required over a three year period is not enormous. We are basically talking about better water management or harvesting, diversion of canals and construction of small dams. We are not talking about investment in the range of billions of dollars. Hence, it is doable. We are not talking about abstract theories or ambitious, elusive, programmes. Perhaps, the rains were exceptionally good last year. But it is the combination of good rains and intensive programmes of food security that have ensured a really good harvest. End text. MCINTYRE