Family of journalist and professor Aaron Berhane – co-founder of the first private newspaper in independent Eritrea, will host signing of his memoir “The Burden of Exile” at 12:30pm on November 6th at Hirut Café in Toronto Canada. Aaron’s daughter Ms. Frewini Berhane in charge of the book signing event and family members will be present at this special event, that is open for the public. The editor of the book , and PEN Canada’s executive director Brendan Caires will also be attending the book signing.
Aaron Berhane was the co-founder and editor-in-chief of the first private newspaper in Eritrea published after the Press Proclamation No.90/1996 – Gazette of Eritrean Laws. Aaron passed in May 2021 before his memoir made it to the publisher. Aaron was dedicated husband, father, journalist, professor and activist.
“The Burden of Exile” narrates Aaron’s life journey as young reporter, father, and the dangerous journey to escape Eritrean government’s nationwide hunt and incarceration of dozens private newspaper journalists in September 2001.
Speaking to Setit media on the high anticipation of readers and what to expect from her father’s memoir, Frewini said “The readers should expect to gain a deeper understanding and insight into the extreme challenges and obstacles journalists face in Eritrea for speaking or broadcasting the truth.” She further added “The challenge doesn’t stop there however, even after escaping the dictator regime, the government tries to find a way to create more obstacles that directly interferes their freedom of speech. ”
‘The Burden of Exile’ published by Dundurn Press is now available online at the Dundurn Press website. Excerpts from the publisher reads -“Berhane’s story is one of bravery amid complicated international geopolitics, of spies, guns, and betrayal, and — ultimately — of triumph and the piecing together of family in a cold new country.” Dundurn Press.
Echoing her late father’s tenacity and staying the course in purse and realization of free press and justice, Frewini expressed her expectation saying “People both in exile and at home to understand the true meaning of resilience and to fight for the cause you believe is right tirelessly. Never give up.”
The book signing will take place at the following address Hirut Café, 2050 Danforth Ave, Toronto ON M4C 1J6 Canada. ብዳሓንምጹ!
Access to the sea is currently a topic of discussion among Eritreans and Ethiopians in the mass media primarily due to continuous assertions of access to the Red Sea by Ethiopian individuals and groups, including Tigrayans.
Ethiopian assertions of access to the sea can be placed into two categories: (1) ownership of the Red Sea, the Eritrean port of Asseb in particular; and (2) the right of access to the sea and freedom of transit. The issue of ownership targets the independence, sovereignty and territorial integrity of Eritrea, issues that were litigated, and settled when Eritrea emerged as an independent and sovereign state within internationally recognized borders in the early 1990s. Thus, it is only briefly discussed here.
The right of access to the sea and freedom of transit, however, is an on-going and debatable issue and is, therefore, the focus of this essay. What does “the right of access” mean? What is the legal basis for it? And how should it be applied in general and specifically to Ethiopia and Eritrea? This essay addresses these and related questions.
Two terms that are used throughout this essay are defined as follows: “Land-locked State” means a state which has no seacoast, and “Transit State” means a state situated between a land-locked State and the sea, through whose territory traffic in transit passes.[1]
Map of Eritrea and the Red Sea, 1996 [Shading added]
Map of Eritrea and the Red Sea, 1996 [Shading added][2]
Claims of Ownership of Eritrea’s Red Sea Coast and/or Port of Asseb Are Dismissible
Ownership of the Red Sea coast, and especially that of the port of Asseb, appears to be a never-dying issue for some Ethiopian scholars and government officials. Even after Eritrea’s formal independence in 1993, with international recognition as sovereign State, assertions of ownership continue to be raised.
1.1. Persistent Claims of Ownership by Ethiopian Scholars
In this regard, two recent publications in particular need mentioning. One is a thesis by Abebe T. Kahsay titled, “Ethiopia’s Sovereign Right Access to the Sea under International Law,”[3] and another, a book in the Amharic language by Yacob Hailemariam bluntly titled, Asseb yeman nat? (Whose is Asseb?)[4] And his answer, predictably, is Ethiopia.
The contents of the two publications are similar, and they feed on each other. Both writers detail the disadvantages and challenges of being a land-locked State and the desirability of having access to the sea; they both detail historical and cultural connectivity going back to the Axumite Era; they both dismiss the colonial treaties of 1900, 1902 and 1908, that defined Eritrea’s territory, as “defunct, and obsolete treaties.” This assertion may have a political appeal, but legally, it runs counter to the principle of African uti possidetis,[5] which sanctions colonially inherited boundaries. Both authors fault the Ethiopian Peoples’ Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF)[6] for supporting Eritrea’s independence, describing the support as “handing over Asseb, Ethiopia’s natural outlet to the sea,” to the Eritreans, notwithstanding the fact that Eritreans won the war of independence. Moreover, both writers consider the Algiers’ Agreement[7] as a missed opportunity for EPRDF to reassert Ethiopia’s right to the sea. Further, they, especially Yacob, passionately call for exerting continued efforts to repossess Asseb and its environs.
1.2. Assertion of Ownership from Unexpected Quarters
Claims of ownership of the Red Sea coast and Eritrean ports made by Tigrayans may seem unexpected, but not surprising. Recently, Dedebit Media, one of the Tigrayan mass-media outlets, declared, “Tigray is the owner of a sea! It has a historical and legal right of ownership of sea.”[8] The presenter’s basis for the claimed ownership is, as would be expected, historical and cultural links, going back to the Axumite Era. What is interesting is his pronouncement of ownership of the sea and the legal right of access to the sea in the same breath. If one claims ownership of sea, the right of access to the sea is moot, as the latter, as will be elaborated in Section 2, is applicable to a situation of a land-locked State and a transit State.
A group calling itself the Global Society of Tigray Scholars and Professionals (GSTS), and claiming to represent over 3,500 Tigrayan scholars and professionals, stated as one of seven “non-negotiable vital interests of Tigray, stating, “[R]elated to the territorial integrity of Tigray is access to international borders, and the right of access to and from the sea and freedom of transit as provided in article 125 of the Law of the Sea.”[9] Putting aside whether the Group sees Tigray as an already independent sovereign entity, or is anticipatory, what is relevant here is that the Group’s reference to article 125, again, as will be shown in Section 2, is distorted, or more correctly, incomplete.[10]
1.3. Claim of Ownership is an Affront to Eritrea’s Sovereignty and Territorial Integrity
The claim of ownership of the Red Sea coast, and/or of the port of Asseb, by certain elements within Ethiopia, be they Tigrayans or others, is an affront to Eritrea’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Eritrea has been an internationally recognized sovereign State for the last thirty years. Its internationally recognized territory was defined by the colonial treaties of 1900, 1902 and 1908 which includes the Red Sea coast and its ports. It is the same definition that the U.N. took up for disposal, as one of three former Italian colonies, following Italy’s defeat in World War II; the same definition for which a costly war and political struggles were conducted for self-determination for over five decades; the same definition on which the internationally observed referendum of 1993 was conducted resulting in formal independence supported by a vote of 99.8%; the same definition to which recognition was extended by the international community (including Ethiopia itself) as an independent, sovereign State; and the same definition the Eritrea Ethiopia Border Commission (EEBC) considered for adjudicating the border conflict in 2001.
The claims of ownership, such as the ones mentioned above, are consistent with the “Greater Ethiopia” narrative advanced in opposition to Eritrea’s struggle for self-determination and independence. That narrative asserted that Eritrea, before Italian colonization, was an integral part of Ethiopia, going back to the Axumite Era, and the federation and eventual union with Ethiopia in 1962 comprised the restoration of a lost territory. This contrasts with the Eritrean narrative, which is: As a former Italian colony for nearly 60 years, Eritrea should have been entitled to self-determination and national independence, as was the typical outcome for colonized peoples. Instead, the Western powers imposed an ill-conceived, faulty federation with neighboring Ethiopia, contrary to the wishes of the majority of the people of Eritrea. Left with no other option, the Eritreans waged an armed struggle for self-determination that resulted in winning independence and establishing a national sovereignty in 1993. This narrative is consistent with the African uti possidetis. There is a rich body of literature on the Eritrean narrative.[11]
The Eritrean narrative was borne out by the emergence of Eritrea as an independent sovereign State, following an internationally observed referendum that was held in 1993. Thus, the issues of Eritrea’s self-determination, and sovereignty have already been litigated and settled. There is a saying in Tigrinya that aptly describes this situation: Weyo tQalisnas tewadiQna’qua (loosely translated, “We have already wrestled, and landed on the ground.)”[12]
Any assertion of ownership of the Red Sea coast, or ownership of Asseb, typified by the ones mentioned above, is an affront to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Eritrea, and therefore dismissible. The issue of the right of access to the sea, however, has legitimacy, and is taken up in the following section.
Right of Access to the Sea and Freedom of Transition
Globally, there are forty-four land-locked states, sixteen of them, including Ethiopia, are in Africa.[13] Right of access to the sea and freedom of transition is a legitimate issue for land-locked countries. The question is: What does it mean and how should it be implemented?
First, a brief history of the concept and how it developed into an internationally recognized principle and right.
2.1. Brief History of the Right of Access to the Sea
The history of the issue of access to the sea is marked by land-locked states desiring and pushing for unrestricted right of free access countered by transit states pushing back, claiming the supremacy of territorial sovereignty. Historically, several conventions were held to reconcile the two competing principles. Following are some of the significant ones.[14]
In 1804 The Convention of Vienna adopted the principle of the freedom of navigation on the Rhine, an important international river in Europe. That convention laid the foundation for another one that followed, the Vienna Congress of 1814 that established the freedom of navigation without discrimination in international rivers and their tributaries.[15]
The Barcelona Convention of April 20, 1921, established the principle of freedom of transit by requiring “all contracting states to facilitate freedom of transit by rail or international navigable waterway.” However, it added, “provided the security and vital interests of the transit country are not adversely affected.”[16]
The New York Convention of 1965 (came into force in 1967) adopted a resolution “advocating the necessity of recognizing the right of free transit to the sea” for land-locked states. However, it added that such a right is “permitted under mutually acceptable means.”[17] The New York Convention is significant on two counts: one, it was the first international agreement that dealt exclusively with the specific issue of transit trade; and two, and more importantly, it recognized the access issue as “right,” as opposed to “need,” described in previous conventions. But, like its predecessor conventions, its provisions attempted to establish a balance between the principles of freedom of transport and that of sovereignty.
A series of conventions and discussions held by the UN and its specialized agencies in the 1970s and early 1980s, led to the emergence of the U.N. Convention on the Law of the Sea (often called “The Law of the Sea” for short), now considered as the international law governing the right of a land-locked state’s access to the sea and free transition.
2.2. The United Nations Law of the Sea
The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, an international agreement adopted in 1981 (came into force in 1994), establishes a legal framework for maritime activities. Part X of the convention, covering Articles 124-132, deals with rights of access of land-locked states. Article 125 is the one that addresses specifically the right of access to and from the sea and freedom of transit. It is helpful to look at its text verbatim:[18]
Article 125 (1).Land-locked states shall have the right of access to and from the sea for the purpose of exercising the rights provided in this Convention including those relating to the freedom of the high seas and the common heritage of mankind. To this end, land-locked States shall enjoy freedom of transit through the territory of transit States by all means of transport.
Article 125 (2). The terms and modalities for exercising the freedom of transit shall be agreed between the land-locked States and transit States concerned through bilateral, subregional or regional agreements.
Article 125 (3). Transit States, in the exercise of their full sovereignty over their territory, shall have the right to take all measures necessary to ensure that the rights and facilities provided for in this Part for the land-locked States shall in no way infringe their legitimate interests.
It is not uncommon for land-locked states to invoke just 125 (1), ignoring 125 (2) and 125 (3), to assert their right of access to the sea. (That is what the Tigrayan’s GTSP statement did.) However, invoking Paragraph 1 alone is incomplete. Paragraph 2 of the Article makes it clear that the land-locked state’s right is contingent on an agreement between the land-locked and transit states. Further, Paragraph 3 of the Article reiterates that the transit state exercise its full sovereignty over its territory in the execution of the land-locked state’s rights. Thus, a land-locked state’s right of access to the sea and freedom of transit, as articulated in Article 125, is not absolute. In other words, when viewed in its totality, Article 125 of the U.N. Law of the Sea balances the right of the land-locked state with the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the transit state.
2.3. Land-Locked State Ethiopia and Transit State Eritrea
In view of the above-described UN Law of the Sea provisions, Ethiopia as one of the sixteen African countries that do not have access to the sea, can invoke its right of access to the Red Sea through the transit State of Eritrea. But, as pointed out above, that right can only be exercised through an agreement between the two States.
There is, in fact, a precedent. On August 2, 1929, Italy (then colonizer of transit Eritrea) and land-locked Ethiopia concluded an agreement addressing Ethiopia’s access to the sea. Italy granted to Ethiopia a free zone in the Port of Asseb and allowed it to construct warehouses in the zone. Further, the agreement dealt with the construction of a road linking Asseb to the City of Dessie in Ethiopia.[19] Following are examples of other agreements signed between land-locked and transit states.
A Protocol was signed between land-locked Rwanda and Kenya on February 26, 1992, allowing Rwanda to construct warehousing facilities at Kenya’s port of Mombasa. On a more general level, the states of Burundi, Kenya, Rwanda, South Sudan, Tanzania, and Uganda belong to the East African Community (EAC), a regional economic integration bloc. The Community facilitates access to the sea for the land-locked States of Burundi, Rwanda, South Sudan, and Uganda through the territories of the transit States of Kenya and Tanzania.[20]
A Treaty of Commerce exists between Nepal and India, signed on July 31, 1950. The State of India recognizes the State of Nepal’s “full and unrestricted right of transit of all goods and manufactures through the territory of India. Further, goods and merchandize originating from Nepal, in transition through India, are exempt from excise and import duties.”[21]
Mali and Senegal signed an agreement on June 8, 1963, which created a free zone for land-locked Mali at the two ports of the transit State of Senegal, Dakar and Kaolack.[22]
The International Court of Justice case between Bolivia and Chile provides a good lesson on what can happen when a bilateral agreement between a land-locked state and a transit state does not work, or when the land-locked state becomes overzealous.
Bolivia and Chile had signed a Treaty of Peace and Friendship on October 20, 1904, that granted Bolivia a complete right of transit of trade on Chile’s territory and authorized Bolivia to establish customs offices in Chile’s ports.[23] Bolivia was not satisfied with the agreement, and petitioned the International Court of Justice (ICJ) on April 24, 2013, asking the Court to obligate Chile to negotiate to reach an agreement that grants Bolivia “a fully sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean.” On October 1, 2018, the Court concluded that Chile has no obligation to negotiate Bolivia’s sovereign access to the Pacific Ocean. But the Court added that its finding does not “preclude the parties from continuing their dialogue and exchanges, in a spirit of good neighbourliness, to address the issues relating to the landlocked situation of Bolivia, the situation to which both had recognized to be a matter of mutual interest.”[24]
Recently, the BBC News, Tigrinya, posed the question: “Red Sea: Can Ethiopia force Eritrea to grant her access to the sea?” By interviewing four experts on maritime laws, it arrived at an answer in the negative.[25]
Summary and Conclusion
To summarize, any claim of ownership of the Red Sea coast portion of Eritrea or ownership of the Port of Asseb is a direct affront to the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Eritrea. Claims for Eritrea (or any territorial pieces thereof), based on historical background or cultural similarities, were already litigated, and settled when Eritrea emerged as an independent sovereign state in 1993 with internationally recognized boundaries. What remains to be amicably resolved is Ethiopia’s right of access to the sea, which, according to international law, should be implemented through a bilateral agreement between the land-lock State of Ethiopia and the transit State of Eritrea. Thus, two main suggestions are in order:
First, Ethiopians should accept the independence and sovereignty of Eritrea. Eritrea, for the last 30 years, has been an internationally recognized sovereign state, covering a territory that includes the coasts of the Red Sea and its ports of Massawa and Asseb. Neither voluminous reciting of historical and cultural connections nor emotional appeals can change that fact. Eritrea, defined as such, is here to stay. Any dealings between the two countries must start with that reality as the premise.[26]
Second, Eritrea and Ethiopia should negotiate for a bilateral agreement that provides Ethiopia an access to the sea and freedom of transit of its goods in a way that does not infringe on Eritrea’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. The precedent of the 1929 agreement between colonial Italy and Ethiopia was already mentioned. A much better and mutually benefitting agreement between the two states can be reached if approached in good faith. Eritrea is not the only transit State for Ethiopia’s trade and commerce. Djibouti, Somalia, and even Sudan and Kenya, also are transit States for land-locked Ethiopia. Thus, the establishment of a regional economic bloc should be explored covering at least Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and Somalia, which can facilitate Ethiopia’s access to sea and transit of goods, similar to how the East African Community (EAC) facilitates for the land-locked States of Burundi, Rwanda, South Sudan and Uganda.
As a final note and reminder: There is no denying of the historical and cultural connections between the peoples of Eritrea and Ethiopia, the legacy of the Axumite Era and subsequent periods. But that is history, a history the people of the region should be proud of and should teach to current and future generations. Much has happened since then, the most significant of which was the nearly sixty years of Italian colonial rule over Eritreans. Also, there is no denying of the special cultural and emotional ties between the two peoples. But this aspect should be channeled towards friendship and cooperation between the peoples of the two countries for mutual benefits, respecting each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, rather than towards making territorial claims.
Gebre H. Tesfagiorgis earned his Ph.D. and J.D. from the University of Wisconsin-Madison. He held senior administrative positions at the University of Wisconsin, and the University of Nebraska. He was Director of Institutional Research when he retired from Iowa State University at the end of 2016. He now resides in Madison, Wisconsin, USA. He was a member of the Constitutional Commission of Eritrea. His scholarship interest is in Eritrea and the Horn region of Africa. He has written, and edited, several publications on Eritrea. He was the Executive Editor of the Eritrean Studies Review, journal of the Eritrean Studies Association.
[1] Definitions given in The UN Law of the Sea, Article 124 (1).
[5] The African uti possidetis is a reference to the principle adopted in 1964 (when the Eritrean war of independence was on-going), by the then Organization of African Unity (OAU) which declared sovereignty and inviolability of colonially inherited boundaries regardless of pre-colonial territorial configurations. The principle has acquired a status of international law.
[6] The Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) was the coalition party dominated by the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF) that ascended to power when Eritrea became formally independent in1993.
[7] The Algiers Agreement was the peace agreement signed by Eritrea and Ethiopia in 2000, following the border war of 1998-2000, on the basis of which the Eritrea-Ethiopia Border Commission (EEBC) ruled on the border dispute between the two countries.
[8] In Tigrinya: ትግራይወናኒትባሕሪእያ! ባሕሪናይምውናንታሪኻውንሕጋውንመሰልኣለዋ! Dedebit Media, disseminated through YouTube on 01/02/2022.
[10]A reminder to Tigrayans: The assertions that Tigray has ownership of the Red Sea coast, hopefully, is the position of some fringes in the Tigray cause. However, to the extent that Dedebit claims to advocate for the cause, and in the case of GSTS, to the extent the group claims to represent 3,500 scholars and professionals, it is prudent to remind both that Eritreans, regardless of their position in the country’s current political spectrum, are unanimous about and very protective of their country’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
[11] To cite a few: Travaskis, GKN, Eritrea: A colony in Transition (1960); Bereket Habte Selassie, Conflict and Intervention in the Horn of Africa (1980); Gebre H. Tesfagiorgis, “Self-Determination: Its Evolution and Practice by the UN and Its Application to the Case of Eritrea” in Wisconsin International Law Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, (pp 75-127) Fall 1987; Tekie Fessehatzion, “Eritrea from Federation to Annexation,” a working paper (1990); Ogbazghi Yohannes, Eritrea:A Pawn in World Politics (1991); Jordan Gebremedhin, Peasants and Nationalism in Eritrea (1993); Gebre-Ab Habtu, Ethiopia and Eritrea (1993); Ruth Iyob, The Eritrean Struggle for Independence: Resistance and Nationalism, 1941-93 (1995).Tekeste Negash, Eritrea and Ethiopia: The Federal Experience (1997); Alemseged Tesfai, a trilogy of books in Tigrinya titled: Aynfalale (2002), Federation Ertra ms Etiopia kab Matienso ksab Tedla1951-1955 (2005), and Ertra kab federation nab GobeTansewran 1956-1962 (2016); Andebrhan Welde Giorgis, Eritrea at a Crossroads (2014).
[13] The land-locked countries in Africa are Botswana, Burundi, Burkina Faso, Central African Republic, Chad, Ethiopia, Eswatini (Lesotho), Malawi, Mali, Niger, Rwanda, South Sudan, Swaziland, Uganda, Zambia, and Zimbabwe. See Thought Co., part of Dotdash Publishing family, June 22, 2019.
[14] For a detailed discussion on the history and development of the principle of the right of access to the sea, See Uprety, Kishor, “Landlocked States and Access to the Sea: An Evolutionary Study of a Contested Right,” in Penn State International Law Review, Vol. 12, No. 3, Article 2 (1994).
[15]See Statute on Freedom of Transit, adopted by the Convention of Vienna, April 20, 1921, 7 L.N.T.S. 11
[16]See The Statute of Barcelona on Freedom of Transit, April 20, 1921, reported in the League of Nations, Treaty Series, Vol. VII, at 37.
[17]See Convention on Transit Trade of Landlocked States, held in New York, July 8, 1965, 597 U.N.T.S. 42.
[19]See Report of the Secretariat of the Economic Commission for Africa, Transition Problems of Eastern African Landlocked States, at 14, UN Doc. E/CN 14/INR/44 (1963).
[20] Nkusi, Fred, “Being Landlocked Country,” Opinion in The New Times, Rwanda’s daily, January 14, 2019.
[21] Articles 1 and 2 of the Treaty of Commerce between India and Nepal of 31 July 1950.
[26] The experiences of Sweden and Norway can be instructive (Their relationship has parallels with that of Ethiopia and Eritrea, except no issue of access to sea is involved). Norway was forcibly linked to Sweden to form an uneasy Union in 1815. When Norway declared its independence following a referendum, based on the principle of self-determination, and gained international recognition in 1905, there was consternation on the part of the Swedes. But the latter eventually accepted the status of Norway and the two states now co-exist cooperating and respecting each other’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.
A website TEFETAWI SHOW without authorization copied entire contents of several Tigrinya news stories from Setit Media, Saturday, February 26. TEFETAWI TALKSHOW site placed Setit news articles on its site not only failed to cite source or link the content to Setit, but also removed bylines of setit media journalists from the stories and placed Tefetawi show.
Setit material in the past had been subjected to plagiarism but this incident was unprecedented immediately triggering a system notification alert.
Exceeding beyond the level of plagiarism, an over 10 setit media Tigrinya news articles were harvested by TEFETAWI TALKSHOW website. Setit media material are now moved from the website after we informed contact person to remove them.
Such act is considered online theft – unlawful copying or reproduction action and is prosecuted under the law violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
Setit media is run by volunteer journalists and web content specialists. The website is among the few credible sites producing news, articles, and YouTube programs with contents focusing on Eritrea, regional and international issues.
They say the death of an elderly man is like a burning library. How would one measure the loss or cope grief when such figure wasn’t just aged but he was Patriarch for the Eritrea Orthodox Tewahedo Church, Abune Antonios? A leader deposed, and under house arrest for over 15 years.
What is the calamity of such loss of a leader of religious group that makes up 40% of the Eritrean population? And do we mourn or celebrate his life knowing such God serving figure-this burning library was left to burn slowly before demise? It is all mixed feelings. conflicting feelings driven by anger, guilt and despair. At its core, this burning emotion is endless superfluous mistreatment of Eritreans – regardless of religion affiliation, ethnicity or rank.
If there is anything well retained in the memories of Eritreans, it is their historic struggle for independence, offensive wars from the south and the unaccounted and silenced many perishing – jailed Eritreans who question or criticize the administration of president Isayas Afwerki, yet the nation to hear their fate.
With similar circumstances, some nations read their prisoners verdict, others issue pardon -and Eritreans dare ask. Many are languishing in prisons inside Eritrea for decades with no due process.
With no official statement from Issaya’s administration and no news report by Eritrean government run media, reports on the death of Patriarch, Abune Antonios, the third Patriarch of the Eritrea Orthodox Church surfaced in social media on Wednesday.
Anger and guilt of failure, knowing this is another passing of Eritreans jailed and held incommunicado. And just like the rest their body put to rest in graves with no questions asked or explanation offered. In 2018 Eritreans grieve for the passing of Haji Musa Mohamed Nur, honorary president of the Al diaa Islamic school who died in detention in Asmara. Both religion leaders stood for the autonomy of religion and resists government intrusion.
The never ratified constitution of Eritrea of 1997, article 19 (Freedom of conscience, religion, expression…..) address the rights that were denied to those religion leaders. Gazette of Eritrean Laws, Proclamation 73/1995, also outline separation of religion and government.
In May 2021, the government of Eritrea announced Eritrean Orthodox Tewahdo Church had elected Reverend Abune Qerlos as the patriarch, claiming it was conducted in accordance with the norms and regulations of the Holy Synod and the Church.
For many it came as a shock. It was unheard of for the Orthodox Tewahdo Church to elect a new Patriarch, when it’s sitting Patriarch, Abune Antonios, the third Patriarch was still alive. The government in power will go to such length, announce the election of church leader, when the leader in power, President Issayas Afwerki shies away from election and leadership responsibilities – an issue that had landed many Eritreans in prison. The Orthodox Tewahdo Church, pressured by the government of Eritrea to replacing the late Abune Antonios while still alive and on house arrest was a total sham to say the least.
With life expectancy for male Eritreans at 64-65, Eritrean Patriarch Abune Antonios, the third died at the age of 94. His death at such age indeed calls for us to celebrate his life. Alas we will always be reminded as a nation, Eritrean Patriarch Abune Antonios spend the last 15 years of his life not serving his God and church but in house arrest.
“The church, that we had inherited from our fathers is autonomous and we abide by its rules. I was in jail for the past 12 years and I still remain in jail for following those rules.” Those are direct quote of Abune Antonios during public appearance in 2018. “I shall not abandon but die upholding the rules of the church and I pray to God to bestow strength upon me.”
Abune Antonios has passed remembered by Eritreans and the world as principled leader who stood up to power to protect the orthodox Tewahdo church and its congregation.
In Tigrinya they say Nemewot aytebkeyo, nehelfet bekeyo (ንምውት ኣይትብከዩ ንሕልፈት ብኽዩ) – close translation, don’t cry for the death, cry for the ineffective. Imagine what could have been accomplished if government of Eritrea is run by a leader, just like Abune Antonios, a leader who serves and put the nation and its people first, rather than one dictates, intimidates and set the nation on down spiral. Those are the times one is remined indeed, ንምዉት ኣይትብከዩ ንሕልፈት ብኽዩ።
Refugees must not be held hostages in the conflict. Those are words we often hear from UN and UN agents for refugees and human rights. But yet Eritrean refugees in Tigray are treated as hostages, assaulted, raped and dying not only from boom shells but from hunger and shortage of medical treatment.
“10 refugees died when I was still in the camp.” said Tecklit one of the refugees who spoke to Setit Media journalist Abdu Ismail. Tecklit made it safe last week from Adi Harush to Dabat camp in the Amhara region. “A mother took her life, cause she didn’t have food to feed her kids, the next day another died while in labor due to lack of medical attention. In our camps there are stories also of children death attributed to trauma and hunger.”
The situation of Eritrean refugees is getting worse as they are running out of belongings that they can sell to buy food. We will sell one cloth and buy a half kilo onion or tomato and now refuges in camp are running out of cloths, and I don’t know what they will do, recalls one witness who made it to Dabat camp last week. Villagers from close area would stop on their way to town and buy clothes from the refugees.
UNHCR spokesperson Boris Cheshirkov, had also echoed similar situation in the camps, in a virtual press briefing held at the end of January after UNCHR staff were able to reach camps of Mai Aini and Adi Harush in Tigray. Those two camps are home to over 25,000 Eritrean refugees. And despite the ongoing call for a safe passage and relocation to a safer region or third party, refugees find themselves entangled, vulnerable and prone to political exploitation. Neither the Ethiopia Federal government nor the Tigray regional government had taken measures to ensure safety, conducive human condition or facilitate their relocation.
Moreover, with ongoing conflict between Ethiopia’s regions of Tigray and Afar, many more Eritrean refugees are at risk. Despite talks on peace and reconciliation, all parties, including the Ethiopia government are engaged in blackmailing and pointing fingers, while innocent, unprotected civilians including refugees are left to deal with catastrophes owing to constant conflicts that keep ignited in regions of Ethiopia. One could argue Ethiopia PM Abiy “Leave no stone unturned” for lasting peace remarks during the 35th African Union Summit is merely rhetoric, giving the ongoing conflict in Afar region waged by TPLF. A shift in paradigm may be, but Ethiopia is still in civil war and safety, security and lasting peace seems a far cry. And for Eritrean refugees in Afar region and Tigray the situation is much worse.
UN staff members who visited Adi Harush and Mai Aini at the end of January reported deteriorating conditions of both camps and Eritrean refugees starving and barely getting enough to eat, lack of medicine and access to clean water. Refugee who spoke to Setit media point out it is much worse.
On top of shortage of food, water and medical supplies, Eritrean refugees in Tigray are constantly at fear for their lives. Armed forces target refugees for pity theft. “There is no security. In broad daylight armed young men had robbed refugees, they will empty whatever they find in our pockets, take our mobile phone, jewelry and anything they think valuable.” Says Tecklit. At nights, the men will be on watch to protect the camp, but often met with armed predators. Unarmed, hungry and some even ill Eritrean refugees will take shifts at night to protect the most vulnerable, women and children and chase the robbers despite gun shots being fired at them. “We lost three men during those firing at night.” said Tecklit.
Every day Eritrean refugees in Tigray grapple with hunger, illness, and terror and there is no sign of end to the debacle. And for many refugees who were able to escape the dire situation at the refugee camps in Tigray they feel they were abandoned by the international communities.
At times it is hard to distinguish between the aid staff and individuals from the regional government who visit the camps says Tecklit. Aid staff in UN vehicles will pay refuges a visit , conduct interview, promising solution and report the situation to the international communities. Seldom do we hear back from the UN staff and living condition of refugees deteriorates further, and much worse, Tecklit recalls staff from Tigray administration will visit the camp and ask them to hold demonstrations along Tigrians but not independently. “We keep informing them that we are refugees, and we don’t want to get involved in politics. We did told we would rather organize our own demonstration for refugees only. And I left the camp while this confrontation was going on.” he added.
Finding themselves at a crossfire, beyond the fear of violence, Eritrean refugees in Tigray have to deal with trauma involving rape of Eritrean women refugees said Tecklit . “Armed men would take our sisters from the camp and drop them late hours at night. Some of the women will scream helplessly gripped with fear. Sometimes women are left unconscious in dark alley.”
Constant fear, with no food, clean water and no more cloths left to sell for food, Tecklit and three others, made it to Dabat camp in Amhara region. It took them 4-5 days, walking at nights to avoid being caught by TDF.
If caught running away in search of a safe place, prison and harsh conditions awaits Eritrean refugees. As some are savagely beaten with sticks and transported to detention area, they also face verbal abuse. “ You shouldn’t have brough them here. You should have killed them on the spot” Tecklit recalls the words of armed prison guards when 11 Eritrean refugees were caught and brough to the prison during his visit – his friend was caught earlier trying to make it to safety.
This might be a story of those who survived the escape from refugee camps in Tigray and made it to safer refugee camp in Ethiopia. But their dangerous journey also uncovers the untold story of the many Eritrean refugees who vanished and are missing trying to reach a safe place. “We saw many identification cards scattered everywhere in the path.” Said Tecklit.
According to UN reports from last year, there are at least 20,000 refugees missing from camps in Tigray region. Despite news of peace talks, the civil war is still on. TDF has launched offensive attack in Afar region. People are dying, innocent civilians affected and caught in this prolonged crossfire, Eritrean refugees’ plight is getting worse with no hope in sight, their horrors continue.
Sources have reported that two Eritrean refugees have been physically assaulted and have sustained critical injuries in Adi Harush, Tigray. The attack occurred on July 16th while the refugees were in search of grain mill machine. According to the report, they were attacked by armed individuals. The refugees are now admitted in the local hospital and are in critical condition. The report also added these victims are not getting sufficient treatment and care due to the shortage of medical care supplies that has been impacted by the war.
The sources also reported that the refugees in Adi harush and Mai-Aini camps are being forced to give up their currency and cellphones. The intense conflict in the area has led to the closure of the local bank and the expense of living has increased significantly.
The UN has stated that Eritrean refugees have been victim of retaliation , imprisonment and neglect in the Tigray region. Eritrean refugee has been killed by the Tigrayan militia in recent eventd as a result. Additionally ,Radio Erena reported that the refugees are forced to carry and transport armory’s that were ceased in the war.
Currently, two refugee camps have been completely destroyed and are not suitable for living conditions. The whereabouts of most of the resident refugees remains unknown up to this present time. “
Spokesperson of Ethiopian Foreign Affairs Comments about Eritreans not being happy for [tooltip text=”breaking away” gravity=”nw”]1991 Independence of Eritrea[/tooltip] from Ethiopia has caused anger among many Eritreans. This came after Ambassador Dina mufti’s comments on Tuesday March 30th. The Ambassador, when asked about exiting of Eritrean Soldiers from Tigrai Region “Eritreans never felt happy about the day that they seceded from Ethiopia and they do not respect that day” he said. “This is what Eritreans in Diaspora often talk about” the spokesperson Added.
These remarks have angered many Eritrean and they are calling out the spokesperson. Some also have demanded an apology from the diplomat. Many, including prominent Eritrean Artist Dahab Fatinga took their anger to Social media and has attracted a wide attention from many.
These comments came amid worsening humanitarian crisis in the northern region of Ethiopia, where soldiers of Ethiopia and Eritrean may have committed gross violation of human rights according to the allegation by rights group.
A website TEFETAWI SHOW without authorization copied entire contents of several Tigrinya news stories from Setit Media, Saturday, February 26. TEFETAWI TALKSHOW site placed Setit news articles on its site not only failed to cite source or link the content to Setit, but also removed bylines of setit media journalists from the stories and placed Tefetawi show.
Such act is considered online theft – unlawful copying or reproduction action and is prosecuted under the law violation of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).
UNHCR spokesperson Boris Cheshirkov, had also echoed similar situation in the camps, in a virtual press briefing held at the end of January after UNCHR staff were able to reach camps of Mai Aini and Adi Harush in Tigray. Those two camps are home to over 25,000 Eritrean refugees. And despite the ongoing call for a safe passage and relocation to a safer region or third party, refugees find themselves entangled, vulnerable and prone to political exploitation. Neither the Ethiopia Federal government nor the Tigray regional government had taken measures to ensure safety, conducive human condition or facilitate their relocation.
ብመሰረት ካብ ዓለማዊ ውድብ ሕርሻ( FAO) ዝተረኽበ ሓበሬታ፡ ኤርትራ ትርከበን ሃገራት ቀርኒ ኣፍሪቃ ኣብ ትሕቲ ጽኑዕ ሓደጋ ወራር ኣንበጣ ከምዘለዋ ተፈሊጡ። ኣብዘን ዝሓለፋ ሒደት መዓልታት ኣብ ሰሜናዊ ምዕራብ ሶማል፡ ደቡባዊ ጅቡቲ፡ ምብራቕ ኢትዮጵያን ሰሜናዊ ምብራቅ ኢትዮጵያን ከምኡ ድማ ኣብ ምብራቅ ክልል ኣምሓራን ዕስለ ኣንበጣ ብብዝሒ ይረአ ምህላው እቲ ትካል ኣብ ጸብጻቡ ኣፍሊጡ ኣሎ። 