1. Art and Diseño

Eritrea and Ethiopia
Question for Short Debate
Asked by Lord Chidgey
To ask Her Majesty’s Government what assessment they have made of
recent events in Eritrea and Ethiopia, and of their impact on migration to
western Europe.
Lord Chidgey (LD): My Lords, according to the UN refugee agency,
in the first 10 months of 2014, the number of asylum seekers in Europe
from Eritrea nearly tripled. In Ethiopia and Sudan, the number of Eritrean
refugees also increased sharply. By November, some 37,000 Eritreans had
sought refuge in Europe, compared with around 13,000 a year ago. Most
asylum requests have been lodged in Sweden, Germany and Switzerland,
with the vast majority arriving by boat from across the Mediterranean.
Eritreans were the second largest group to arrive in Italy by boat, after
the Syrians. An unprecedented number of Eritreans are fleeing their
country as refugees, on a precarious journey to Europe as well as to
bordering countries. As at mid-2013, the UNHCR estimated that the total
population of concern originating from Eritrea was more than 313,000
people, including more than 292,000 refugees and 20,000 asylum seekers.
27 Jan 2015 : Column 176
Sheila Keetharuth was appointed special rapporteur on the human rights
situation in Eritrea by the UN Human Rights Council in September 2012.
Since then, she has made several requests to visit Eritrea; so far, her
requests have been denied. She has nevertheless reported on the human
rights situation in Eritrea. In her second report, in May 2014, she
confirmed that violations included indefinite national service; arbitrary
arrests and detention; extrajudicial killings; torture; infringement of
freedom of movement, assembly, association and religious belief, and so
on. In November 2014, the UN announced that the commission of inquiry
into human rights abuses in Eritrea, established in response to the steep
rise in migration out of the country, had begun operations. It is due to
report in June 2015.
A common argument from Eritrean pro-government supporters is that the
exodus of Eritreans is due to economic pull factors. If this were the case,
one would surely expect to see refugees from other developing countries
fleeing in similar epic proportions. They clearly do not. On the other hand,
there are apparently numerous human rights violations that incite
Eritreans to leave the country. In this regard, the indefinite national
service and arbitrary arrests and detention, or fear of them, are the top
push factors for flight, according to the special rapporteur.
According to reports from the UN Human Rights Council, Eritrea holds
many detainees without charge or due process. Some have been in prison
for more than a decade. Others have died in detention. Apparently,
detention without recourse to justice is common in Eritrea, there being no
avenues for detainees to submit complaints to judicial authorities, or to
request investigations of credible allegations of inhumane conditions or
torture. There is no independent authority serving on behalf of detainees.
Furthermore, detainees and family members do not challenge, allegedly
for fear of reprisals. The state does not investigate or monitor conditions
in detention centres, nor does it appoint independent monitors to do so.
The Danish Immigration Service undertook a fact-finding mission to
Ethiopia, London and Eritrea in the autumn of 2014, publishing its findings
and conclusions in November 2014. The conclusions of the report differed
significantly from the body of the text in its interpretations of the causes
of emigration, quoting information from UN agencies that could not be
verified by the UNHCR. Supporters of the Eritrean Government have
nevertheless quoted the report widely in response to concerns about the
unprecedented number of Eritreans fleeing the country. The UNHCR
published its concerns regarding the methodology used by the DIS,
stressing that information ascribed to the UN in the report was not
provided by the UNHCR, as inferred. Information provided by the UNHCR
about Eritrean arrivals was not included; instead, the report relied on the
speculative statements of others.
In December 2014, the UNHCR published a detailed, point-by-point
commentary and critique of the DIS report. It pointed out the absence of
any information on regulatory frameworks for the media, NGOs, research
institutes and other actors, and of any assessment of the reliability of
information from those sources. It is understood that the DIS has
withdrawn its report
27 Jan 2015 : Column 177
for further consideration. In the mean time, the 17 recommendations
made to the international community in the first report of the UN Human
Rights Council special rapporteur on Eritrea still stand.
With regard to development co-operation, for more than a decade, the
Eritrean Government have encouraged mining and exploration firms to
participate in the exploitation of the country’s mineral resources. Although
major firms have stayed away, possibly aware of the risk of complicity in
human rights violations through the use of national service conscripts, a
number of smaller firms have acquired mining and exploration licences.
According to Human Rights Watch, those mining firms are walking into a
potential minefield of human rights problems, particularly getting
entangled with the Eritreans’ uniquely abusive programme of indefinite
forced labour—the inaptly named national service programme. The
programme was originally set at 18 months, but now requires all ablebodied men and most women to serve indefinitely, often for years with no
end in sight, under harsh and abusive conditions. Some conscripts are
assigned to state-owned construction companies, which have a complete
monopoly in their field. International firms operating in the country are
more or less forced to engage those companies as subcontractors, thus
indirectly supporting a system of forced labour.
The relationship between Eritrea and Ethiopia is arguably the most
important and volatile in east Africa. The fall-out between the two former
brothers in arms initiated a two-year long border war in 1998. Apparently
triggered by a dispute over the border district of Badme, the war claimed
about 100,000 casualties, cost billions of dollars, and remains the main
source of instability in the region.
Fighting ended with the signing of the Algiers peace agreement and
establishment of the Ethiopia-Eritrea border commission in 2000. The
commission delivered its delimitation decision in early 2002—importantly,
placing Badme inside Eritrean territory. Initially, Ethiopia refused to accept
the commission’s findings and refused to withdraw to the border that it
had established, leaving thousands of internally displaced people in
refugee camps.
Ethiopia eventually accepted the commission’s ruling in 2006, but its
implementation continues to be the source of severe tension between the
two Governments. Indeed, the UN special rapporteur on Eritrea stated in
her second report in May 2014 that she holds the view that border issues
should not serve as an excuse for the Government of Eritrea to violate the
rights of its citizens within its own territory.
Furthermore, a sustainable peace is unlikely to emerge as long as conflict
is seen solely in terms of border demarcation. The economic, political,
cultural and historical links that bind the two states together should be the
basis for a sustainable framework for peace. According to the Royal
Institute of International Affairs—Chatham House—opportunities exist for
external efforts to foster improved relationships. A fresh approach should
involve engaging with each country separately, rather than immediately
attempting to promote dialogue between them.
27 Jan 2015 : Column 178
Economic incentives are central to enabling improved relations between
the two states, although prospective economic benefits from reopening
the border are unlikely to be persuasive, given that they were unable to
prevent the war. International engagement on areas of mutual interest
could help foster a sense in Eritrea of stable economic sovereignty against
Ethiopia’s economic predominance. Waiting for changes of leadership
before making significant efforts to engage is, however, untenable, with
no guarantee that successors would adopt a different foreign policy.
In discussions prior to this debate, it has been claimed by Eritrean
Government supporters that the Eritrean Government now plan to restrict
national service to 18 months as set out in law, probably by the end of the
year. I have also acquired a document issued by the Permanent Mission of
Eritrea to the UN in New York. The document is entitled “Leaked Memo”
and claims to reveal Ethiopia’s destabilising policy against Eritrea. It is
apparently a translation into English from Amharic of a news item from
the Shabait news agency website last February. I would be grateful if my
noble friend the Minister could comment on these developments and
perhaps give a considered response in due course.
My noble friend will be aware that since December 2014 a number of
responses have been given to Written Questions on Eritrea submitted by
noble Lords, including the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock. These have been
commented on in the past but can my noble friend provide an update, for
example on the outcomes of meetings of FCO and Home Office officials
with Eritrean Ministers in December; on EU negotiations on policies
towards Eritrea, to suppress the number of refugees from that country;
and on the release of political prisoners in Eritrea since FCO officials raised
the issue with the Eritrean ambassador in March 2004, considering that
since then a new ambassador has been appointed?
Lord Patten (Con): My Lords, migration from Ethiopia and Eritrea to
western Europe can be understood only in relation to where those leaving
go to. Take Ethiopia. Following my noble friend’s excellent speech and the
point he made on Ethiopia, we must recognise, however, that that country
is now host to more than 600,000 immigrants—the highest number of
refugees taken in by any African country. The Government of Ethiopia
should be highly commended for accepting and managing so many with
such scant resources—and not attacked.
The first question is where these refugees come from. A minority come to
Ethiopia from sub-Saharan Africa—from countries even poorer than
Ethiopia. Far more come from countries nearer at hand. A lot of Somalis,
many more from the Sudan and more from Eritrea itself, of course, flood
into Ethiopia. Then there is the huge number—more than 160,000—of
recent returnee refugees: Ethiopians returning to Addis Ababa from Saudi
Arabia since the amnesty there granted by the late King Abdullah ended.
They, too, are often destitute when they arrive.
Where do all these people go to if they try to get away from Ethiopia? The
answer is that not all, by any means, go to Europe—that is a
contemporary urban
27 Jan 2015 : Column 179
and media myth. Quite a lot travel south to South Africa. Ethiopia and its
Eritrean refugees generate by far the largest number of migrants out of
the Horn of Africa to the Yemen and through Djibouti. Certainly, some
travel the western route, aiming north for countries such as Libya and
thence to attempt those perilous sea crossings to reach the warm waters
of southern Europe, before travelling further north. Far from all of them,
however, come, or seek to come, to Europe.
Vital work needs to be done to try to anchor people where they are in
Ethiopia or Eritrea—to develop there a stable, trustworthy civil society
within which sustainable local livelihoods can emerge. This does not need
grand plans, geopolitical initiatives or great gestures, let alone a bunch of
selfie-taking celebs jetting in and then, just as quickly, jetting out as soon
as possible. Rather, it needs some money and lots of slogging, grinding
hard work.
Many are trying to do it. For example, there are three outfits in Ethiopia
that I know doing just this, in the shape of CAFOD, the UK-based Catholic
Agency for Overseas Development, and two sister—or brother—
organisations of theirs from the Caritas network: SCIAF and Trócaire.
They are all working to promote sustainable livelihoods and then to anchor
the otherwise wannabe migrants, whether they are refugees in transit
from the countries I have described or younger native-born Ethiopians
seeking the somewhat illusory betterment that they think they might get
abroad through migration.
As it happens, my own daughter, Mary-Claire, is not long back from a visit
to Tigray in northern Ethiopia, with CAFOD, for whom she works, happily
just in time for this debate. She has told me what it is like on the Eritrean
border, marked by just a line of straw across the asphalt track between
the two countries. The programmes run by these three bodies have to
date reached more than 65,000 people, more than 60% of whom are
women and girls, which is much to the good.
What do these programmes do? They provide training and support on
business development and entrepreneurship skills to poor female and
male farmers—former pastoralists—as well as to the urban self-employed,
predominantly women and girls. They also help organise farmers into cooperatives and support groups and get the young training in business,
finance, numeracy and literacy, and lots more.
None of this is easy; nor is it easy at the moment for our own Government
to deal with much of the raucous criticism of our taxpayer-funded
overseas aid budget. I suspect but do not know that much of it, directly or
indirectly, goes on trying to help people in the end to stay put and not to
migrate—to be where all of us would want to be, at home if at all possible.
I say to my noble friend the Minister on the Front Bench that figures are
perhaps available. If figures to this end are available, they might persuade
more of our fellow citizens that the overseas aid budget is well spent on
trying to anchor the otherwise migrant-inclined.
Baroness Kinnock of Holyhead (Lab): My Lords, I will briefly touch on
the situation in Ethiopia. With an election looming there in May, we learn
that its media
27 Jan 2015 : Column 180
are being decimated. The right to free expression continues to be denied
and at least 60 journalists have fled the country since 2010. The reality is
that the Ethiopian Government cannot tolerate independent voices being
raised or information and analysis being disseminated. Intimidation,
harassment, threats and unbearable pressure are put on those whose
voices are raised against policies which threaten political opposition.
Both Eritrea and Ethiopia have a Marxist-Leninist heritage. Ethiopia is still
effectively controlled by the Tigrayan People’s Liberation Front, through a
system of ethnic federalism. Although there has been some improvement
we have to ask how it can be that, at the 2010 election, the EPRDF won
90% of the vote. At this stage, I particularly commend the work of Human
Rights Watch, which argues relentlessly for recognition of the effects of
the Ethiopian denial of fundamental rights and the need for its friends and
donors to speak out on issues which are of life-and-death proportions to
so many brave people.
In 1988 I travelled to Eritrea, which was at war at the time with Ethiopia.
Since 1962 they had been deadly enemies; tensions and conflicts have
characterised all the years since. It was the longest running struggle for
independence in Africa and was about independence from Ethiopia. As we
know, the people of Eritrea continue to suffer and such is their
desperation that they seek refuge in other countries, which can very mean
long journeys.
On the subject of migration, I begin with a shocking fact which serves to
illustrate the desperation of Eritreans. Almost as many Eritreans fled their
country—a country which, incidentally, is not at war—as Syrians fled
theirs in 2014. UNHCR has said that:
“From January to October 2014, more than 60,000 Syrians, including
almost 10,000 children, arrived by sea. In the same period almost 35,000
Eritreans arrived by sea in the Mediterranean, including 3,380
unaccompanied children”.
Surely, we have to ask exactly what makes people take such terrible risks
to leave their country. The cruelty, tyranny and oppression of Isaias
Afewerki and his regime know no bounds. Eritrea is isolated politically,
regionally and internationally and it is under UN sanctions because of its
alleged support for al-Shabaab in Somalia. The country is often described
as Africa’s North Korea. All rights and freedoms are denied. There is no
religious freedom or political pluralism, and no freedom of the media or of
speech.
The 2015 FCO report has given details of Eritrean abuses: arbitrary and
inhuman detention, indefinite national service, lack of religious freedom,
no job prospects and much more. Indefinite national service is clearly the
main driver of migration. UNHCR has confirmed that young Eritreans are
conscripted into endless military service characterised by harsh treatment.
They are sent to work in gold and copper mines or to camp out on the
Ethiopian border. National service should be limited to 18 months but
conscripts are often held for as long as 20 years. Is it surprising that they
are prepared to take such risks in the hope of a chance of a better life?
The number of Eritreans seeking to come to Europe has nearly tripled over
the last year and is mostly made up of very young refugees. The special
rapporteur says that the authorities in Eritrea show no inclination to tackle
the root causes of the
27 Jan 2015 : Column 181
exodus. She confirms a lack of rule of law, and reported cases of
extrajudicial disappearances, arbitrary detention and torture in detention.
Also, does the Minister agree with the suggestion made by some European
Governments that it is necessary now to offer additional support and
engagement to Eritrea, arguing that additional aid will lead to more
openness and to change? Surely there can be no “new beginning”, as has
been suggested, with this regime. As history proves, concessions to
regimes such as Eritrea will achieve absolutely nothing. I ask the Minister
to give some detail on the apparent willingness of the UK to have
discussions with the Eritrean regime on,
“drivers of irregular migration and ways to mitigate it, asylum and
returns, and potential areas for joint co-operation”.—[
Official Report
6/1/15; col.
WA 136]
What exactly does that mean? Will the UK delay any response on refugee
policy until the UN commission of inquiry issues its report on the subject?
European Governments should not make major Eritrean policy changes
until they see the inquiry findings. Let us see if Eritrea is prepared to cooperate with the UN commission of inquiry before taking any hasty
decisions. Now there are signs of unbelievable courage and determination
in Eritrea on challenging Isaias Afewerki. The people are aware of the
dangers of open protest, but we have to ask just how long they—and he—
can hold on. We must urge the EU and others to make sure that the UN
commission is given clear and urgent access.
Isaias Afewerki’s agreement to co-operate would be the first test of
whether he is ready to accept change. Whatever happens, if there is
negotiation, the European Union and member states must not make quick
concessions but use any momentum to ensure that there can be—and will
be—fundamental change. The release of Dawit Isaak would be a welcome
and symbolic victory.
My final point relates to what are routinely called “irregular migrants”.
These people arrive in Calais having endured a terrifying journey and are
then treated as if they are economic migrants. This is clearly not what
persuades them that they must leave Eritrea. Many other African countries
are just as poor as Eritrea, but their citizens do not come to Europe in
their thousands, as they do from Eritrea now. Will the UK argue for their
right to stay and ensure that they are treated as refugees?
Lord Avebury (LD): My Lords, I warmly congratulate my noble friend
Lord Chidgey on securing this short debate that links Eritrea and Ethiopia,
and on his masterly summary of the human rights violations in Eritrea and
the consequent exodus of large numbers of refugees.
The two countries were linked in a forced marriage when the UN organised
a bogus test of public opinion in Eritrea and imposed a federal union of the
two countries in 1952, followed 10 years later by Emperor Haile Selassie’s
annexation of Eritrea. There followed a 30-year war of liberation to restore
Eritrea’s independence.
27 Jan 2015 : Column 182
In the 1970s, I was chairman of the Eritrea Support Group, which
campaigned in Parliament and the media for Eritrea’s freedom and tried to
persuade Ministers to support the self-determination of the Eritrean
people, sanctioned by international law. Ministers would always reply with
the mantra, “We believe that a federal solution would be best for the
people of Eritrea”. I tried to ask them how they dared to usurp the right of
the people themselves to exercise the most fundamental right of all
peoples, emphasised by its position as Article 1 of the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
In 1981, I visited Eritrea at the end of the Ethiopian sixth offensive. I
travelled by Port Sudan through the desert and then along the Freedom
Road, which was blasted out of the rock, up into the highlands, where I
stayed at the Nacfa Hilton, a cave behind the front line. At dawn we saw
the Antonov bombers dropping their loads on the ruins of Nacfa, in which
the only building standing was the tower of the mosque. The corpses of
Ethiopian conscripts killed in a hopeless attack on the cliffs protecting
Nacfa were still lying where they had fallen, testifying to the futility of the
Dergs’ colonialism.
In 1993, after the Eritreans gained their freedom, they held a referendum,
in which there was a 99.3% turnout, in favour of independence, an event
that no one who was there could ever forget. There was a spontaneous
outburst of joy, with singing and dancing in the streets, and it seemed as
if Eritrea, with its talented and hard-working people, would become a
beacon of democracy and prosperity in the Horn of Africa. However, that
dream was shattered when Ethiopia launched a fresh war of aggression on
the pretence of a dispute over the border between the two countries.
After tens of thousands of lives had been lost on both sides and hundreds
of millions of dollars had been spent on sophisticated weapons, it was
agreed to refer the demarcation of the boundary to a commission headed
by the distinguished British jurist Sir Elihu Lauterpacht, who was a
schoolmate of mine 66 years ago. Both countries had agreed to accept the
commission’s decision as final, but when the details were published in
April 2002, Ethiopia found one excuse after another to dispute the findings.
Ostensibly, its main reason was that the commission had awarded the
small town of Badme to Eritrea, but as it had no significant value there
must have been other reasons. The suspicion is that the long-term
objective of Ethiopia is to re-annex its former dependency and, meanwhile,
to weaken it by threatened aggression along the border and working to
intensify sanctions on false charges of supplying weapons to the alShabaab terrorists in Somalia.
The Ethiopians unlawfully occupied territory all along the border that
should have been demilitarised under the settlement, and Eritrea has
been forced to maintain large armed forces as a precaution against further
military attacks by its bullying neighbour. That was its justification for the
much criticised imposition of indefinite military service, which was
mentioned by my noble friend. The Eritrean ambassador told us that from
last November conscription was limited to 18 months and that conscripts
would not be required, as before, to perform civilian work such as road
building, earning no more than $30 a month. Thousands of young people
27 Jan 2015 : Column 183
are fleeing the country every month, and Eritreans are the most numerous
of those attempting the risky crossing from north Africa to Europe in
which so many lose their lives. There is hope now that the flood of
Eritrean asylum seekers will abate and that the colony will receive a boost
from the extra labour in the private agricultural sector from the release of
the indefinitely conscripted young people in the system.
The permanent existence of a state of “no war, no peace” is a major
reason for the plethora of human rights violations by Eritrea, which have
been mentioned by both my noble friend and the noble Baroness, Lady
Kinnock. These include the arrest and disappearance of 21 opponents of
the Government in 1991, arbitrary arrests and severe restrictions on
freedom of expression and assembly. These are undoubtedly seen by the
regime as necessary protections against their unscrupulous and
determined enemy. That is not to defend such practices but to make an
observation. Does the Minister not agree that, if the threat of aggression
were lifted, violations of human rights would diminish and the flow of
refugees would be further reduced? Trade between the two countries and
access by Ethiopia to the ports of Assab and Massawa would boost
economic activity throughout the region and lower unemployment locally
and internationally, thus reducing the incentive to emigrate.
Ethiopia, on the other hand, has no enemies in the region and therefore
has no reason for the severe restrictions on freedom of expression that it
imposes. Human Rights Watch said last week that 22 journalists, bloggers
and publishers were charged with criminal offences in the past year, Six
independent publications were intimidated and closed, with dozens of staff
forced into exile. Three owners of publications also fled abroad to escape
false charges that led to sentences of three years in prison in absentia. Six
members of Zone 9, a bloggers’ collective, were charged under the
counterterrorism laws and have been in custody for 274 days, sending a
chilling message to online activists. Can the Government not make
representations to Prime Minister Desalegn to relax the stringent controls
on freedom of expression so that Ethiopians can have a genuine election
in May?
Above all, I call on the Government, and through them the EU, to launch a
new diplomatic effort for peace in the region—for Ethiopians of all political
parties to accept the Lauterpacht settlement unequivocally and to
withdraw their forces from Eritrean territory.
The Lord Bishop of Derby: My Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord, Lord
Chidgey, for his comprehensive and challenging analysis and assessment.
I will make some general remarks and then one or two specific points.
This complex situation is partly because the region is very unstable and
there is a lot of movement from both of these countries to Saudi Arabia
and the Yemen, as well as to Europe. Such an unstable context requires
some big picture approaches. Then there is the conflict between Ethiopia
and Eritrea, as the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has clearly explained. That
complexity makes a neat solution very difficult.
27 Jan 2015 : Column 184
We have heard something of the human rights abuses. We need to put
firmly on record in this House the particular suffering of women and girls,
not least through military service, through trying to avoid military service
by escaping into marriage and getting married at a very young age. There
is also the problem of religious freedom in Eritrea. The constitution there
guarantees religious freedom but only four groups are allowed to
worship—Orthodox Christians, Catholics, Sunni Muslims and Lutheran
evangelicals. Any mature country in that region needs to honour the
spirituality and aspirations of its citizens.
We are told that 4,000 people a month are fleeing from Eritrea into
Ethiopia, which further complicates the dynamic between the two
countries. Because many who flee are women and children and
unaccompanied minors, they are ripe for what we call human trafficking.
Many of them are picked up and exploited by labour gangs for sexual
slavery and even for body parts. The noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, spoke
of their sheer desperation and desire to escape. In Matlock, in the Peak
District of Derbyshire, you might think that you could not be further from
Ethiopia and Eritrea. However, when a couple who had driven back from
the continent in a campervan arrived in Matlock, out from underneath
crawled a refugee. He had had a desperate experience and was shaking,
crying and happy to be turned in to the police. This tragic vignette
illustrates the issue.
I am privileged to be a trustee of Christian Aid, which, along with CAFOD,
is working on the ground in Ethiopia. It has been there for 30 years. It
started by engaging with emergency work and is now doing very
important development work with HIV, malaria, maternal and child care
and especially the safeguarding of the rights of women and girls and of
their educational development. I tell noble Lords that in part because it is
a sign of hope, but Christian Aid—and possibly CAFOD, too—does not work
in the north of Ethiopia or in Eritrea. It cannot get access to do that
voluntary work; often we can work with partners on the ground, growing
capacity, but Eritrea and the north of Ethiopia is a no-go territory because
of the chaos. That means that the partnership that government can often
assume from the voluntary and faith sector is not able to operate, which is
a further challenge and complexity.
The number of migrants we experience in western Europe is simply a cry
for help, showing us the scale and seriousness of government malfunction
and the complexity of the history we are looking at. Therefore, there has
to be an approach that is not just bilateral, with these countries trying to
work with their difficult histories and tensions. Rather, we have to ask our
Government to work with the EU, the UN and through the Foreign Office,
and to try not just to look at the political possibilities but to engage with
the voluntary and faith sectors to work with the desperate need on the
ground, especially in northern Ethiopia and Eritrea, where there is all that
suffering and no real access to giving help.
Therefore, I will be interested if the Minister can comment on the overall
strategy and on how working with Europe and the UN might give some
hope, besides bilateral things; on any representations on honouring
religious freedom in Eritrea; and on how
27 Jan 2015 : Column 185
voluntary and faith groups might assume the partnership they often have
with Governments in other needy areas to some offer support and
development on the ground within the context of that complex political
situation.
Lord Rea (Lab): My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Lord, Lord
Chidgey, for securing this short debate. I thank the noble Lord, Lord
Avebury, for introducing me to Eritrea in the year 2000 during a lull in the
war with Ethiopia. In the next phase of the war the Eritreans did not do so
well; it ended in a rather unsatisfactory ceasefire a year or so later. The
subsequent developments in the economically damaging state of “no war,
no peace”, were described extremely well by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury.
The unresolved border tension, as several noble Lords have said, is having
a major impact on Eritrea’s economy—less so, I guess, than in Ethiopia,
which has a much bigger population. The standing army that Eritrea
maintains is a major drain on a country with only 3 million people.
When we were in Eritrea, we visited, among other places, the Red Sea
port of Massawa, where we met the Minister for the coast and fisheries,
Petros Solomon, an impressive former senior officer in the independence
struggle. He took us to see a remarkable coastal prawn and tilapia
aquaculture pilot project, which was being developed with the help of a
small American grant. If that project had gone ahead and expanded it
could have become a valuable food-producing and export industry. Sadly,
it was abandoned a year or so later, possibly due to government
opposition to external NGOs.
In 2001, I was among those invited to attend the 10th anniversary
celebrations of the end of the independence struggle. Among other visits
we were taken by helicopter to the former battleground of Nakfa, which
the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, described. We were impressed by the
ingenuity and courage of the Eritreans and their capacity for hard work.
However, shortly after our visit, 15 senior government members, known
as the G15, who had signed a letter to President Isaias Afewerki urging
him to implement the agreed democratic constitution and hold elections,
were all arrested. They included Petros Solomon, whom the noble Lord,
Lord Avebury, and I had met one and a half years earlier. Some 13 years
later, he is still in prison, without trial and held incommunicado, as is his
wife. Can the noble Baroness, to whom I gave notice of this question, say
whether our embassy has been able to obtain any information about this
man and his colleagues who are still detained? Some fear that he and
some of the other G15 letter writers may no longer be alive.
There are other long-term political prisoners, including a number of
journalists known as the 31, whose fate is unknown, and there are almost
certainly many more. Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International
have condemned these and other arrests and disappearances, as the
noble Baroness is fully aware. As all other speakers have said, there is
compulsory conscription for national service and not all of it is military.
Some consists of what could euphemistically be called vocational training,
but pay is very low—pocket money if you are
27 Jan 2015 : Column 186
lucky. There is also a large standing army which has to be maintained
because of the tension with Ethiopia and which the country can ill afford.
It is alleged that many national service recruits are being used as virtual
slave labour, in poor conditions in ore-producing mines. The Eritrean
Government deny this. Does the noble Baroness have any information on
this? According to an independent report by the Danish immigration
service, the reason given by most Eritrean asylum seekers for leaving the
country is economic rather than political, although deserters from national
service naturally fear punishment if they return. As noble Lords have said,
this report appears to have been withdrawn. Other noble Lords have
testified to the important part played by human rights abusers in the
exodus of Eritreans. As we hold this short debate, there is a UN human
rights commission of inquiry going on. It was not allowed into Eritrea itself,
so it has, apparently, had to rely on external testimony. Does the noble
Baroness have any information on the progress of this inquiry?
Other informants give another, rather more hopeful, side to the story.
There is grass-roots development and, within limits, considerable local
democracy. As can be imagined, this does not include criticism of the
president who, like President Putin, is unaccountable but still apparently
popular, despite having lost the war with Ethiopia and heading an
autocratic regime. As in Russia, support for the president is strongest in
provincial and rural areas. In part, this is due to the policy of land reform
which grants land—all of which is state owned—to landless farmers on
equitable long-term leases. WHO and UNDP have praised the effectiveness
of Eritrea’s antimalarial programme and its collaboration with external
advisers in public health. It has achieved the millennium development
goals in education and maternal and child health. This information comes,
not just from the Eritrean Government, but from United Nations agencies.
Its expansion of free education and healthcare is well ahead of most other
countries in Africa.
Eritrean support of al-Shabaab in Somalia is denied by the regime’s
supporters who say that, in fact, Eritrea has its own jihadist problem.
Does the noble Baroness have direct evidence of this alleged Eritrean
involvement in Somalia? Could this possibly be Ethiopian propaganda?
Eritreans are intensely proud people and respond negatively if told what to
do. They are determined to pull themselves up by their own bootstraps—
hence their rejection, often to their own detriment, of many projects by
aid agencies, whether official or non-governmental, and their stringent
conditions for accepting much needed inward investment. They are
determined not to be exploited by multinational corporations. It would be
very useful to hear what the UK’s experience of investment in capital
projects has been in Eritrea.
I suggest that, as with other long-drawn-out conflicts, discussion, initially
perhaps behind closed doors, is more likely to lead to an acceptable
outcome than open confrontation or sanctions. Having said that, political
prisoners such as Petros Solomon, of whom I spoke, must be released, or
at least be tried in open court. Their continued detention without trial and
the failure to implement independent Eritrea’s agreed
27 Jan 2015 : Column 187
democratic constitution are major factors blocking the development of
normal relations between Eritrea and the rest of the world.
Baroness Morgan of Ely (Lab): My Lords, I congratulate the noble Lord,
Lord Chidgey, on securing this very important debate, and particularly on
his illuminating introduction.
The tragedy unfolding in Eritrea and Ethiopia is impacting directly on us
here in the UK and across the EU, and the picture painted by the right
reverend Prelate tugs at your heartstrings. It is another example of how
we cannot isolate ourselves from the problems of the world; we cannot
haul up the drawbridge and hope that the situation will go away.
Hundreds of thousands of innocent people are desperate in both these
countries: so desperate that they are prepared to risk everything—and I
mean everything—to start a new life, not just here in Europe but in other
African countries, too, as noble Lords have said.
There is no doubting the seriousness of the situation, particularly in
Eritrea. As has been suggested, Eritreans and Ethiopians are the main
nationalities of the irregular migrants seeking asylum in the EU, apart
from Syrians. They come either by land, normally through Lebanon and
Syria into Turkey and the western Balkans, then on to the EU, or by sea,
often using Tunisia or Alexandria in Egypt as their key point of departure.
I ask the same question as that asked by my noble friend Lady Kinnock:
what are they fleeing from? What is driving this mass exodus, which
includes not just women and children but thousands of unaccompanied
minors? The simple answer is that neither Ethiopia nor Eritrea is a
functioning democracy.
Although both Ethiopia and Eritrea are suffering real problems, there is
more scope to influence activities in Ethiopia. In the past, there seems to
have been a modicum of free speech and a free press in Ethiopia,
although the Government’s intolerance of dissent seems to be increasing
significantly in the face of general elections in May. There have been
large-scale arrests of protesters and a crackdown on opposition opponents.
This is particularly true in the Oromo region, where at least 5,000 people
have been arrested as a result of their opposition to the ruling party.
But if we think that the situation is bad in Ethiopia, it is truly catastrophic
in Eritrea, where all freedoms were suppressed in September 2001. There
is no religious freedom, as the right reverend Prelate underlined, no
political pluralism, and no independent press in the nation. The forced and
interminable military service to fight the unending border war with the
neighbours in Ethiopia is clearly a real problem that is driving people from
the country.
There are some key points which we would like the Government to take
on board. We believe that all possible pressure should be brought to bear
in particular on the Eritrean regime to give way to a democratic
Government who will respect human rights and the wishes of their people.
What this does not mean is attempting to start a new relationship with the
existing Eritrean authorities through providing unconditional
27 Jan 2015 : Column 188
aid. Given the failure of all previous attempts to engage in a meaningful
way, do the Government really believe that the regime can respond
positively? Do the Government agree that, unless there is clear and
verifiable evidence that human rights in Eritrea have improved, there
should be no new beginning with the regime?
I understand that the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on Human
Rights in Eritrea will visit the UK this week to hold meetings and collect
testimonies and accounts on the human rights situation in Eritrea. Can the
Minister give an assurance that the Government will support the UN in its
work and ensure that an objective picture of the situation in the country
can be assembled?
We are all aware that there are fears and concerns within the British
population about the scale of immigration to the UK. Such a fear is not
just here in the UK, but true across the EU. We need to ensure that,
across the EU, we have a co-ordinated approach to migration from this
part of the world. Let us be clear: if Britain left the EU it would not stop
people from coming, but it would stop us from working together in a coordinated fashion with our EU partners.
A €5 million programme is being established between FRONTEX—the
agency of the EU that manages co-operation between national border
guards to secure the external borders of the Union, including from illegal
immigration, human trafficking and terrorist infiltration—and the UNHCR
to help the countries of the western Balkans strengthen their asylum and
migration policies and capabilities. Additionally, FRONTEX is co-operating
closely with Turkey, which has helped to stem the flow of the ghost ships
that we saw before Christmas. I understand that it has assigned a
member state expert to help the Turks to improve security around the
port of Mersin.
The EU has also signed a readmission agreement with Turkey, which
means that Turkey must take back not only nationals who may be
irregular migrants, but migrants who are seen to have come from Turkey.
There is close and joint co-operation in the Aegean Sea and on the Greek
and Bulgarian land borders. Could the Minister explain how on earth the
UK could begin to influence or support these actions if we were outside
the EU?
We should not underestimate the people who are seeking to benefit from
people’s immense suffering: the people traffickers who extort thousands
from these desperate people. Europol is ensuring that there is an
exchange of information across Europe and with our partners in the
western Balkans and Turkey that ensures that European nations can
tackle some of the criminal aspects behind this migration.
However, we should be clear that none of this will stem the flows out of
Ethiopia and Eritrea. The human rights violations are simply too much for
many of the population to bear. While Eritrea is considered a real basket
case in terms of human rights, the tragedy is that things seem to be
getting worse in Ethiopia, which was once the darling of the international
aid community. Can the Minister explain how aid, being conditional on
improvements in human rights, can be strengthened for Ethiopia? Can she
outline how we can offer more support to Eritreans in the camps in
27 Jan 2015 : Column 189
Sudan and Ethiopia? Finally, can the Minister clarify the situation relating
to migrants from these two countries when they arrive in the UK? What
proportion of them are termed “irregular migrants”? What proportion are
given asylum status? Is there any recognition that there are many
desperately poor countries in Africa, but that poverty and economic
migration does not explain the disproportionate numbers arriving from
these two countries?
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office
(Baroness Anelay of St Johns) (Con): My Lords, I congratulate my
noble friend on securing today’s debate. I also commend the important
work of the various all-party groups of which he is an active member,
including the All-Party Group on Africa. As he has described, there are few
more moving stories than those of migrants who undertake perilous
journeys to reach western Europe, sometimes losing their lives in the
process. The noble Baroness, Lady Morgan of Ely, has just described that
graphically. Today’s debate is, therefore, a welcome opportunity to discuss
an issue that clearly links the United Kingdom and our partners in Africa—
and indeed, our partners in the European Union in our work to reduce the
need for migration and the need for unsafe migration.
The Government have made it very clear that the international community
must act together to reduce the risk of migrants losing their lives or falling
prey to the traffickers. Migrants make the journey for a number of
reasons—whether seeking more economic opportunities or to escape
human rights abuses and persecution. I shall come in a moment to some
of the more specific points which noble Lords have made on that matter.
Poverty and instability in the Horn of Africa drives individuals to seek a
better life in Europe and beyond. For those who cannot leave, these same
factors contribute to an environment in which fundamentalism and
extremism can prosper. Tackling illegal migration to the EU from the Horn
of Africa is therefore clearly in our interest and that of all countries in the
region. We must address the problem at its source, and the UK is
committed to playing its part.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, in particular asked questions about al-Shabaab
and the terrorism link with regard to that. He mentioned the United
Nations and Eritrea monitoring group. I understand that Eritrea denies any
support for al-Shabaab but continues to refuse entry to the monitoring
group. We urge it to co-operate fully with the group’s work. I am entirely
at one with the noble Lord in this matter.
Clearly co-operation through our European Union partners is important. I
was asked about that not only by the noble Baronesses, Lady Morgan and
Lady Kinnock, but by my noble friend Lord Chidgey and the right reverend
Prelate. In addition to our bilateral work with key regional partners, we
play an active role in the new EU-African Union Khartoum process, which
includes of course both Ethiopia and Eritrea, supporting dialogue and cooperation to tackle people smuggling and human trafficking in the region.
I can tell the noble Baroness, Lady Morgan, that the Prime Minister’s
position is that we will negotiate a successful
27 Jan 2015 : Column 190
resolution to our relationship with the European Union, and in any future
decision by the British people we would put a very positive case and would
certainly hope that we would remain part of it. That is the result of
successful negotiation by my right honourable friend Philip Hammond,
who has been travelling around countries throughout western Europe,
taking soundings and getting some very positive results—more positive
perhaps than some of the press makes clear on some of the issues that
we have been broaching. There is still a long way to go. We know that but
we are making progress.
We welcome the fact that both Ethiopia and Eritrea have expressed
commitment to the Khartoum process. It provides the best framework to
drive this issue forward. Noble Lords have drawn attention to the tension
between Ethiopia and Eritrea. I would say to them that if they are taking
the Khartoum process seriously, they have to take negotiation on the
basis of solving the differences between them seriously too. As a member
of the core group of EU and AU member states steering the development
of how we take this process forward, we as a country are keen to ensure
that we maintain momentum and that the process leads quickly to
concrete projects that combat the smuggling and trafficking.
Several noble Lords asked me, in particular, about extended military
service—very much a euphemism. I listened very carefully to all the words
used by the noble Lord, Lord Rea, the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock, my
noble friends Lord Avebury and Lord Chidgey, and the right reverend
Prelate about the real nature of this—one or two noble Lords referred to it
as being like slave labour—and the fact that it acts as a serious driver for
people to leave the country. Having left and broken the rules on
conscription, people are—I cannot think of the right word—terrified to
return. That is why some of the figures of asylum grants by us to
Eritreans look so high, because clearly there has been concern about them
returning to that country given their reasons for leaving.
We did indeed have a joint visit to Eritrea by Home Office and Foreign
Office officials in December. They looked at the drivers of migration and
particularly discussed the matter of extended military service. I can say to
my noble friend Lord Chidgey that this was a useful starting point for
further co-operation. A similar visit to Ethiopia is planned for the near
future. With regard the visit to Eritrea, the Eritrean Government
representatives assured the officials from the FCO that military service will
be strictly limited to 18 months and, indeed, I have been briefed by those
officials today. The undertaking has been given. It is matter now of
making sure that that is put into practice.
The noble Lord, Lord Rea, made the valid point that not everybody fleeing
Eritrea is fleeing persecution; some leave for strong economic reasons,
and the extension of the 18 months’ military service, with no knowing
when it would finish, was an awful position to be in. That is very different
from some of the drivers that one sees for people fleeing from Syria.
The matter of development assistance was raised by my noble friend Lord
Patten. He asked about the role of aid. We are firmly committed to the
use of aid
27 Jan 2015 : Column 191
in ensuring that there is security and prosperity in countries that currently
experience neither. Our total spend over all countries in 2013 was almost
£11.5 billion, second only behind the USA in overall volume. We believe
that that is helping to change the lives of many millions of ordinary
citizens across the Horn of Africa. In Ethiopia, in particular, last year our
funding allowed over 1.6 million children to go to primary school, helped
110,000 mothers to give birth safely and provided clean water for more
than 250,000 people. Our funding is also helping Eritrean refugees in
Ethiopia, particularly with shelter and support to unaccompanied minors,
as well as warning refugees of the risks of illegal migration. I know that
none of that will be a surprise to the noble Baroness, Lady Kinnock. When
she was a Minister she was passionate about these issues, and rightly so.
I can assure her that that passion remains in government.
Source:
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201415/ldhansrd/text/150127-0002.htm#15012770000281