Gentler resolution on situation of human rights in Eritrea garners consensus at HRC, exposing TPLF political machinations

6 Jul

By Keffyalew Gebremedhin, The Ethiopia Observatory (TEO)
 

At long last, even after a border clash involving several deaths between Eritrea and Ethiopia last month, the Human Rights Council (HRC) at the closing of its session on July 1, 2016 appropriately resolved the shame and anomaly by rejecting the original draft resolution’s operative paragraph 17, already in circulation. Instead it adopted an orally revised understanding, which removes the idea of referral to the Security Council. This helped member states to adopt it by consensus.

This was possible because there were member states that did not want to swallow the politically motivated gibberish concocted by Ethiopia and its allies to be pushed down their throats. When it was orally revised during the adoption, many nations joined the consensus.

Even despite that, for instance, Russia and Cuba, made it clear that what the language of operative paragraph 17 proposes was beyond the mandate of the council. They dissociated their countries from it. While sharing that, Cuba focused more on the language of the resolution as worded presently; it gives the implication, even after revision, speaking about “sending of the report by the Commission of Inquiry to the Security Council and Cuba did not share the criteria of involving this or any other United Nations body outside of the scope of the Council.” Without explanation of its vote, Venezuela simply spoke of dissociating itself from the resolution.

In its present form, nonetheless, it is a resolution that has dashed the false hope and expectations of my own country, Ethiopia, and its less honest allies that wanted to punish Eritrea into the ‘gallows’. This may possibly be because of Asmara’s anti-Western stand. It means that the veneer of their concern about the human rights of the Eritrean people were baseless. If it were true, those member states could have long shown their principles and values, when the TPLF ruling Ethiopia with which they are in bed, by ringing the alarm at its unlawful imprisonments and systematic and open elimination of citizens.

Instead, doing this has brought to the TPLF reward, when it was allowed to become judge and jury on the HRC for more than four years now. It has also been awarded membership of the United Nations Security Council as at January 2017. What made several nations to turn away from the Commission’s report and its recommendation is its failure to compare Eritrea’s crimes to that of the TPLF, some of which in contrast are no less reprehensible than that of the Schutzstaffel (the so-called SS – i.e., Protection Squadron) under Hitler’s Germany.

Consequently, of all countries on the planet Earth, it comes as a surprise that the TPLF in Ethiopia and its allies should push others to refer Eritrea to the International Criminal Court (ICC) for violation of the human rights of the Eritrean people. When I read the Inquiry Commission’s report, as a former diplomat and also as an International Civil Servant with the United Nations, not only that I was extremely ashamed by its lack of balance and its poor quality, as I discussed in my article of June 8, 2016, I was also extremely disappointed.

I was also frightened by the report’s hatchet man’s job and its daring that is replete with a spirit of vindictiveness. Its clear objective was to mislead the international community. Equally shameful is the joy that intoxicated the TPLF, hoping to see Eritrean leaders on the ICC docks that it went for brief skirmishes. I am glad that the TPLF has not succeeded in its political machinations.

This is not a defense of the Eritrean leadership, on whose face are written injustice and human rights crimes. However, the TPLF’s is worse. Therefore, what has led to such negative conclusion by the Commission must simply be the bias of the persons manning the three-member commission, fed bad information by the TPLF.

For that matter I had made it clear a couple of times that I see no difference between the Ethiopian and Eritrean leaderships. After all, they used to be buddies in the bushes. They came to the political scene at the same time in early 1991. They had and still have the same agenda that are being translated into respective realities not by sensible and sedate policymakers, but by known torturers as ‘liberation movement’ members and practiced murderers in both camps.

In that regard, I stated:

    This is not being stated in defense of Eritrea’s records under the EPLF. No amount of explanations would cover Asmara’s barbarism, horrendous as they are.

    After all, it would not be lost on Ethiopians that the TPLF and EPLF are twins; their politics, policies and attitudes are guided by self-serving convictions; they also came to the political scene at around 1991 as buddies in their respective ‘liberation struggles’ only to prove to be the dogs of war from 1998-2000 war between Ethiopia and Eritrea, in which reportedly over 70,000 Ethiopians perished.

    It is real that, with war or without, both rule with strong hand, as the report fear that cowers citizens to their core, since they are both murderers and persecutors of their respective citizens. In respect of Eritrea, the Inquiry Commission stated that Asmara did everything it does at “maintaining control over the population and perpetuating the Eritrean leadership’s rule.” This is also true of the TPLF in Ethiopia, which all of a sudden being pushed to status of a nation that tries to overcome poverty. Reality shows that the TPLF too does not fit the mold, because of which it takes its habitual seasons of killing and massacring citizens.

The reasoning behind the HRC to set Eritrea free from the ICC, while maintaining continuous monitoring and observation of its actions is appropriate. In that respect, the Council has appropriately extended the mandate of the Special Rapporteur for a period of one year and to revise forthwith the mandate to include the follow up of the implementation of the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry.

The question that Member States and citizens need to ask is why the TPLF regime did not get its way in getting Eritrea penalized by being referred by the Security Council to the ICC. To my understanding, States see that any heavy-handed action by one nation or a group of nation is considered hazardous. They do not want it to become a precedent setter and at a later date come back at them as a boomerang.

The only state power in the world bereft of this sensibility is the TPLF. All that matters to the Front are its guns, torture weapons, prisons and all forms of violations of human rights and killings, originating from a not healthy mind!
 

Related:

    “The truth is elsewhere:” French journalist warns Eritrea Commission of Inquiry on allegations in its report

    UN Eritrea Commission of Inquiry seeks Security Council to refer Asmara to ICC Prosecutor

    TPLF suspscted of orchestrating UN Eritrea Inquiry Commission report

    Eritrea-Ethiopia two-day war ends; Ethiopia withdraws its forces: Is war a luxury only the West’s ally & now UNSC candidate can enjoy?

    US statement on report of the Eritrea Inquiry Commission

    Conflict flares up at the Eritrea-Ethiopia border: Has the Eritrea Inquiry Commission’s report encouraged TPLF to exploit the situation to divert attention from its worsening internal problems?

 

%d bloggers like this: