As
Ethiopia Urges Removal of UN
Sanctions on Eritrea Guterres
Takes Credit For CERF and Bans
Press
By Matthew
Russell Lee, Video
UNITED NATIONS,
July 12 – Even with Ethiopia
now calling for the removal of
UN sanctions on Eritrea, the
idea was removed from the UN
Security Council's 10 July
2018 Press Statement, below.
On July 11, the United Arab
Emirates, like the UN's
Antonio Guterres, was
bragging: "Several diplomats
have praised the efforts of
the UAE government to bring
about security and stability
across the world such as in
Ethiopia and Eritrea. They
applauded the role played by
His Highness Sheikh Mohamed
bin Zayed Al Nahyan, Crown
Prince of Abu Dhabi and Deputy
Supreme Commander of the UAE
Armed Forces." Other than
Ethiopia's foreign minister,
who are these "several
diplomats" praising the UAE?
Do they include (ex) diplomat,
and former UN envoy,
Bernardino Leon who negotiated
a job at the UAE Diplomatic
Academy while still ostensibly
working for the UN on Libya?
Now on July 12, hours before
his belated press conference
arranged to be without press,
Guterres rather than OCHA head
Lowcock bragged about and took
credit for public money
directed to Ethiopia: "The
UN’s Central Emergency
Response Fund (CERF) released
today US$15 million to
urgently scale up humanitarian
assistance to people affected
by escalating inter-communal
violence in Ethiopia.
Historical tensions between
communities in southern
Ethiopia escalated in April
2018 and led to large-scale
displacements, damage of
properties and loss of
life. Close to one
million men, women and
children are currently being
sheltered with already food
insecure relatives or residing
in cramped public buildings
without adequate food and
water and substandard
sanitation and hygiene
facilities. “Under the
leadership of Dr. Abiy Ahmed,
new measures to bring unity
and reconciliation have
spurred great enthusiasm
within the country and high
international praise,” said UN
Secretary-General António
Guterres. “However, the impact
of inter-communal tensions
presents a challenge for the
new leadership. Nearly one
million people are displaced
and require urgent help,
especially during this rainy
season. It is critical to act
immediately and that is why
CERF is releasing $15 million
to enable urgent aid." In the
past, such announcements were
done by OCHA. But Guterres
needs a win, and so wants
"better" press coverage that
he has allowed the roughing
up, and now has banned, the
Press.
Fox News story
here,
GAP blogs I
and II. It
is easy to impose sanctions,
at least on country like
Eritrea, but very hard to take
them off even when the
original reasons, support for
Al Shabaab in Somalia, is
gone. Cote d'Ivoire on July 10
carried the water of Djibouti;
others including the penholder
the UK have their own reasons.
The about-face of Ethiopia -
which hasn't changed its UN
Ambassador despite the changes
in Addis Ababa - didn't move
the needle. Meanwhile Inner
City Press, which exposed the
use of the UN's Panel of
Experts to call for regime
change, remains banned from
even entering the UN.
Fox
News story here
("UN roughs
up, ejects,
bans reporter
from
headquarters:
Caught on
tape");
petition to
Guterres here;
GAP blogs I
and II (“Harassment
of US
Journalist
Intensifies at
the UN”). The
UN under
Antonio "Winds
of Change"
Guterres is
corrupt.
And it is hard to know the
UK's reasons, not only in
light of the telling chaos of
Boris Johnson's resignation,
but due to secrecy. The UK
denied Inner City Press'
request under the Freedom of
Information Act 2000 for
documents, and banned it from
its Mission's "background
briefing," ostensibly finding
tape recorder holders for
Japanese media which write
more about US rappers than the
UN to be more "international
media" that Inner City Press.
The P2 are a joke. Back on 14
November 2017 before the
Security Council voted again
on Somalia and Eritrea
sanctions, Inner City Press
asked the penholder on the
resolution, the UK's
then-Ambassador Matthew
Rycroft, if there is any
evidence of Eritrea supporting
Al Shabaab and if not, why not
at least separate the two
sanctions regimes. Rycroft
acknowledged there is no
evidence, but said discussions
on separating the two hadn't
been successful. Video here.
Fromthe UK transcript: Inner
City Press: On the Eritrea
sanctions, is there any
evidence that Eritrea has been
supporting Al Shabab? And if
there’s not, why aren’t there
two separate sanctions
regimes? Does the UK favour
that? Amb Rycroft: "We did
explore that actually with our
Council colleagues and there
wasn’t the appetite on the
Security Council to do that. I
think there has been progress
on the Al Shabab issue.
There’s no evidence at the
moment that the Eritrean
authorities have been
supporting Al Shabab, and we
very much welcome that. But as
you know, there are other
aspects to why there is a
sanctions regime on Eritrea,
and what we urge the
authorities there to do is to
engage with the monitoring
group, to engage with the
chair of the sanctions
committee, so that those
people can come back with that
positive evidence which they
say is there, and that would
help change the dynamic in the
Security Council." Later on
the morning of November 14,
after four abstentions from
the combined sanctions, Inner
City Press was informed by a
well-placed wag that the UK
was not opposed to splitting
the two: "the UK would rather
get 15-0 votes for Somalia
then all these abstentions
because of the Eritrea issue."
We hope to have more on this.
Back in May 2017, Rycroft said
"six months ago, the Security
Council was quite divided on
whether there should be
sanctions or not on Eritrea.
Before the next decision on
the sanctions regime on
Eritrea, coming up in
November, we are going to do a
review today of whether there
should be a sanctions regime.
We, as penholder on that
issue, are seeking to find a
way to unite the Security
Council so that there can be
some specific measures in a
roadmap that the authorities
of Eritrea would need to meet
in order to lift the sanctions
regime. Our national position
is that the conditions are not
yet right to lift the
sanctions. But that if Eritrea
did some of the things which
we will set out today then we
would look at it on the basis
of the evidence."
When
the UN Special Rapporteur on the
situation of human rights in the
State of Eritrea Sheila
Keetharuth held a press
conference at the UN on October
28, Inner City Press went to ask
her if she considered the impact
of sanctions on Eritrea.
Video here. She
answered only in terms of arms
embargo, they said she simply
chose not to look at the issue.
On November 10, when Somalia
Eritrea sanctions were voted on,
five countries abstained:
Angola, China, Egypt, Russia and
Venezuela. Eritrea's charge
d'affaires made a statement,
which we've
published on Scribd, here.
Before the vote, Inner City
Press asked UK Ambassador
Matthew Rycroft a question; he
spoke about the Somalia Eritrea
sanctions helping to limit
support to Al Shabaab. Video
here. But the current lack
of evidence of Eritrean support
to Al Shabaab has been
repeatedly cited. And there are
new reports calling
the SEMG and its former
officials into question, here.
We'll have more on this.
By contrast to
Keetharuth, the Rapporteur on
the Democratic People Republic
of Korea Tomas Ojea Quintana
answered detailed questions from
Inner City Press about sanctions
including unilateral sanctions
on coal sales, for example. Is
there no consistency between UN
Special Rapporteurs? Video
here.
There were only three
journalists asking questions at
the October 28 press conference
- and yet Inner City Press was
in 2016 ousted and evicted, and
it is still under Antonio
Guterres restricted to a minder.
Petition
here.
***
Feedback:
Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
Past
(and future?) UN Office: S-303, UN, NY 10017 USA
For now: Box 20047,
Dag Hammarskjold Station NY NY 10017
Reporter's mobile (and weekends):
718-716-3540
Other,
earlier Inner City Press are listed here, and some are available in
the ProQuest service, and now on Lexis-Nexis.
Copyright
2006-2017 Inner City Press, Inc. To request reprint or other
permission, e-contact Editorial [at] innercitypress.com
for
|
,
