Archive for the ‘ERI’ Category

The Balkanization of Sudan: The Redrawing of the Middle East and North Africa

January 16, 2011 Comments off

The following commentary is reprinted with permission from Global Research.

The Balkanization of Sudan:  The Redrawing of the Middle East and North Africa
©  Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya
Source:  Global Research
January 16, 2011

Sudan is a diverse nation and a country that represents the plurality of Africa through various tribes, clans, ethnicities, and religious groups. Yet the unity of Sudan is in question, while there is talk of unifying nations and of one day creating a United States of Africa through the African Union.

The limelight is on the January 2011 referendum in South Sudan. The Obama Administration has formally announced that it supports the separation of South Sudan from the rest of Sudan.

The balkanization of Sudan is what is really at stake. For years the leaders and officials of South Sudan have been supported by America and the European Union.

The Politically-Motivated Demonization of Sudan

A major demonization campaign has been underway against Sudan and its government. True, the Sudanese government in Khartoum has had a bad track record in regards to human rights and state corruption, and nothing could justify this.

In regards to Sudan, selective or targeted condemnation has been at work. One should, nonetheless, ask why the Sudanese leadership has been targeted by the U.S. and E.U., while the human rights records of several U.S. sponsored client states including Saudi Arabia, Egypt, the U.A.E., and Ethiopia are casually ignored.

Khartoum has been vilified as a autocratic oligarchy guilty of targeted genocide in both Darfour and South Sudan. This deliberate focus on the bloodshed and instability in Darfour and South Sudan is political and motivated by Khartoum’s ties to Chinese oil interests.

Sudan supplies China with a substantial amount of oil. The geo-political rivalry between China and the U.S. for control of African and global energy supplies is the real reason for the chastisement of Sudan and the strong support shown by the U.S., the E.U., and Israeli officials for the seccession of South Sudan.

It is in this context that Chinese interests have been attacked. This includes the October 2006 attack on the Greater Nile Petroleum Company in Defra, Kordofan by the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) militia.

Distorting the Violence in Sudan

While there is a humanitarian crisis in Darfour and a surge in regional nationalism in South Sudan, the underlying causes of the conflict have been manipulated and distorted.

The underlying causes for the humanitarian crisis in Darfour and the regionalism in South Sudan are intimately related to economic and strategic interests. If anything, lawlessness and economic woes are the real issues, which have been fuelled by outside forces.

Either directly or through proxies in Africa, the U.S., the E.U., and Israel are the main architects behind the fighting and instability in both Darfour and South Sudan. These outside powers have assisted in the training, financing, and arming of the militias and forces opposed to the Sudanese government within Sudan. They lay the blame squarely on Khartoum’s shoulders for any violence while they themselves fuel conflict in order to move in and control the energy resources of Sudan. The division of Sudan into several states is part of this objective. Support of the JEM, the South Sudan Liberation Army (SSLA), and other militias opposed to the Sudanese government by the U.S., the E.U., and Israel has been geared towards achieving the objective of dividing Sudan.

It is also no coincidence that for years the U.S., Britain, France, and the entire E.U. under the pretext of humanitarianism have been pushing for the deployment of foreign troops in Sudan. They have actively pushed for the deployment of NATO troops in Sudan under the cover of a U.N. peacekeeping mandate.

This is a re-enactment of the same procedures used by the U.S. and E.U. in other regions where countries have either formally or informally been divided and their economies restructured by foreign-installed proxy governments under the presence of foreign troops. This is what happened in the former Yugoslavia (through the creation of several new republics) and in Anglo-American occupied Iraq (through soft balkanization via a calculated form of federalism aimed at establishing a weak and de-centralized state). Foreign troops and a foreign presence have provided the cloud for state dismantlement and the foreign takeover of state infrastructure, resources, and economies.

The Question of Identity in Sudan

While the Sudanese state has been portrayed as being oppressive towards the people in South Sudan, it should be noted that both the referendum and the power sharing structure of the Sudanese government portray something else. The power sharing agreement in Khartoum between Omar Al-Basher, the president of Sudan, includes the SPLM. The leader of the SPLM, Salva Kiir Mayardit, is the First Vice-President of Sudan and the President of South Sudan.

The issue of ethnicity has also been brought to the forefront of the regional or ethno-regional nationalism that has been cultivated in South Sudan. The cleavage in Sudan between so-called Arab Sudanese and so-called African Sudanese has been presented to the outside world as the major force for the regional nationalism motivating calls for statehood in South Sudan. Over the years this self-differentiation has been diffused and socialized into the collective psyche of the people of South Sudan.

Yet, the difference between so-called Arab Sudanese and so-called African Sudanese are not that great. The Arab identity of so-called Sudanese Arabs is based primarily on their use of the Arabic language. Let us even assume that both Sudanese ethnic identities are totally separate. It is still widely known in Sudan that both groups are very mixed. The other difference between South Sudan and the rest of Sudan is that Islam predominates in the rest of Sudan and not in South Sudan. Both groups are still deeply tied to one another, except for a sense of self-identification, which they are well in their rights to have. Yet, it is these different identities that have been played upon by local leaders and outside powers.

Neglect of the local population of different regions by the elites of Sudan is what the root cause of anxiety or animosity between people in South Sudan and the Khartoum government are really based on and not differences between so-called Arab and so-called African Sudanese.

Regional favouritism has been at work in South Sudan.

The issue is also compounded by social class. The people of South Sudan believe that their economic status and standards of living will improve if they form a new republic. The government in Khartoum and non-Southerner Sudanese have been used as the scapegoats for the economic miseries of the people of South Sudan and their perceptions of relative poverty by the local leadership of South Sudan. In reality, the local officials of South Sudan will not improve the living standards of the people of South Sudan, but maintain a klepocratic status quo. [1]

The Long-Standing Project to Balkanize Sudan and its links to the Arab World

In reality, the balkanization project in Sudan has been going on since the end of British colonial rule in Anglo-Egyptian Sudan. Sudan and Egypt were one country during many different periods. Both Egypt and Sudan were also one country in practice until 1956.

Up until the independence of Sudan, there was a strong movement to keep Egypt and Sudan united as a single Arab state, which was struggling against British interests. London, however, fuelled Sudanese regionalism against Egypt in the same manner that regionalism has been at work in South Sudan against the rest of Sudan. The Egyptian government was depicted in the same way as present-day Khartoum. Egyptians were portrayed as exploiting the Sudanese just as how the non-Southern Sudanese have been portrayed as exploiting the South Sudanese.

After the British invasion of Egypt and Sudan, the British also managed to keep their troops stationed in Sudan. Even while working to divide Sudan from Egypt, the British worked to create internal differentations between South Sudan and the rest of Sudan. This was done through the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium, from 1899 to 1956, which forced Egypt to share Sudan with Britain after the Mahdist Revolts. Eventually the Egyptian government would come to refuse to recognize the Anglo-Egyptian Condominium as legal. Cairo would continously ask the British to end their illegal military occupation of Sudan and to stop preventing the re-integration of Egypt and Sudan, but the British would refuse.

It would be under the presence of British troops that Sudan would declare itself independent. This is what lead to the emergence of Sudan as a separate Arab and African state from Egypt. Thus, the balkanization process started with the division of Sudan from Egypt.

The Yinon Plan at work in Sudan and the Middle East

The balkanization of Sudan is also tied to the Yinon Plan, which is a continuation of British stratagem. The strategic objective of the Yinon Plan is to ensure Israeli superority through the balkanization of the Middle Eastern and Arab states into smaller and weaker states. It is in this context that Israel has been deeply involved in Sudan.

Israeli strategists viewed Iraq as their biggest strategic challenge from an Arab state. This is why Iraq was outlined as the centre piece to the balkanization of the Middle East and the Arab World. The Atlantic in this context published an article in 2008 by Jeffrey Goldberg called “After Iraq: What Will the Middle East Look Like?” [2] In the Goldberg article a map of the Middle East was presented that closely followed the outline of the Yinon Plan and the map of a future Middle East presented by Lieutentant-Colonel (retired) Ralph Peters in the U.S military’s Armed Forces Journal in 2006.

It is also no coincidence that aside from a divided Iraq a divided Sudan was shown on the map. Lebanon, Iran, Turkey, Syria, Egypt, Somalia, Pakistan, and Afghanistan were also presented as divided nations too. Of importance to East Africa in the map, illustrated by Holly Lindem for Goldberg’s article, Eriteria is occupied by Ethiopia, which is a U.S. and Israeli ally, and Somalia is divided into Somaliland, Puntland, and a smaller Somalia.

In Iraq, on the basis of the concepts of the Yinon Plan, Israeli strategists have called for the division of Iraq into a Kurdish state and two Arab states, one for Shiite Muslims and the other for Sunni Muslims. This has been achieved through the soft balkanization of federalism in Iraq, which has allowed the Kurdistan Regional Government to negotiate with foreign oil corporations on its own. The first step towards establishing this was a war between Iraq and Iran, which is discussed in the Yinon Plan.

In Lebanon, Israel has been working to exasparate sectarian tensions between the various Christian and Muslim factions as well as the Druze. The division of Lebanon into several states is also seen as a means of balkanizing Syria into several smaller sectarian Arab states. The objectives of the Yinon Plan is to divide Lebanon and Syria into several states on the basis of religious and sectarian identities for Sunni Muslims, Shiite Muslims, Christians, and the Druze.

In this regard, the Hariri Assasination and the Special Tribunal for Lebanon (STL) have been playing out to the favour of Israel in creating internal divisions within Lebanon and fuelling politically-motivated sectarianism. This is why Tel Aviv has been very vocal about the STL and very supportive of it. In a clear sign of the politized nature of the STL and its ties to geo-politics, the U.S. and Britain have also given the STL millions of dollars.

The Links between the Attacks on the Egyptian Copts and the South Sudan Referendum

From Iraq to Egypt, Christians in the Middle East have been under attack, while tensions between Shiite Muslims and Sunni Muslims are being fuelled. The attack on a Coptic Church in Alexandria on January 1, 2011 or the subsequent Coptic protests and riots should not be looked at in isolation. [3] Nor should the subsequent fury of Coptic Christians expressed towards Muslims and the Egyptian government. These attacks on Christians are tied to the broader geo-political goals of the U.S., Britain, Israel, and NATO in the Middle East and Arab World.

The Yinon Plan stipulates that if Egypt were divided that Sudan and Libya would also be balkanized and weakened. In this context, there is a link between Sudan and Egypt. According to the Yinon Plan, the Copts or Christians of Egypt, which are a large minority in Egypt, are the key to the balkanization of the Arab states in North Africa. Thus, the Yinon Plan states that the creation of a Coptic state in Upper Egypt (South Egypt) and Christian-Muslim tensions within Egyptian are vital steps to balkanizing Sudan and North Africa.

The attacks on Christians in the Middle East are part of intelligence operations intended to divide the Middle East and North Africa. The timing of the mounting attacks on Coptic Christians in Egypt and the build-up to the referendum in South Sudan are no coincidence. The events in Sudan and Egypt are linked to one another and are part of the project to balkanize the Arab World and the Middle East. They must also be studied in conjunction with the Yinon Plan and with the events in Lebanon and Iraq, as well as in relation to the efforts to create a Shiite-Sunni divide.

The Outside Connections of the SPLM, SSLA, and Militias in Darfour

As in the case of Sudan, outside interference or intervention has been used to justify the oppression of domestic opposition. Despite its corruption, Khartoum has been under siege for refusing to merely be a proxy.

Sudan is justified in suspecting foreign troops and accusing the U.S., Britain, and Israel of eroding the national solidarity of Sudan. For example, Israel has sent arms to the opposition groups and separatist movements in Sudan. This was done through Ethiopia for years until Eritrea became independent from Ethiopia, which made Ethiopia lose its Red Sea coast, and bad relations developed between the Ethiopians and Eritreans. Afterwards Israeli weapons entered South Sudan from Kenya. From South Sudan, the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement (SPLM), which is the political arm of the SSLA, would transfer weapons to the militias in Darfur. The governments of Ethiopia and Kenya, as well as the the Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF), have also been working closely with the U.S., Britain, and Israel in East Africa.

The extent of Israeli influence with Sudanese opposition and separatist groups is significant. The SPLM has strong ties with Israel and its members and supporters regularly visit Israel. It is due to this that Khartoum capitulated and removed the Sudanese passport restriction on visiting Israel in late-2009 to satisfy the SPLM. [4] Salva Kiir Mayardit has also said that South Sudan will recognize Israel when it separates from Sudan.

The Sudan Tribune reported on March 5, 2008 that separatist groups in Darfur and Southern Sudan had offices in Israel:

[Sudan People’s Liberation Movement] supporters in Israel announced establishment of the Sudan People’s Liberation Movement office in Israel, a press release said today.

“After consultation with the leadership of SPLM in Juba, the supporters of SPLM in Israel have decided to establish the office of SPLM in Israel.” Said [sic.] a statement received by email from Tel Aviv signed by the SLMP secretariat in Israel.

The statement said that SPLM office would promote the policies and the vision of the SPLM in the region. It further added that in accordance with the Comprehensive Peace Agreement the SPLM has the right to open in any country including Israel. It also indicated that there are around 400 SPLM supporters in Israel. Darfur rebel leader Abdel Wahid al-Nur said last week he opened an office in Tel Aviv. [5]

The Hijacking of the 2011 Referendum in South Sudan

What happened to the dreams of a united Africa or a united Arab World? Pan-Arabism, a movement to unit all Arabic-speaking peoples, has taken heavy losses as has African unity. The Arab World and Africa have consistenly been balkanized.

Secession and balkanization in East Africa and the Arab World are on the U.S., Israeli, and NATO drawing board.

The SSLA insurgency has been covertly supported by the U.S., Britain, and Israel since the 1980s. The formation of a new state in the Sudan is not intended to serve the interests of the people of South Sudan. It has been part of a broader geo-strategic agenda aimed at controlling North Africa and the Middle East.

The resulting process of “democratization” leading up to the January 2011 referendum serves the interests of the Anglo-American oil companies and the rivalry against China. This comes at the cost of the detriment of true national sovereignty in South Sudan.


[1]  A kleptocracy is a government or/and state that works to protect, extend, deepen, continue, and entrench the wealth of the ruling class.
[2]  Jeffrey Goldberg, “After Iraq: What Will The Middle East Look Like?” The Atlantic, January/February 2008.
[3]  William Maclean, “Copts on global Christmas alert after Egypt bombing”, Reuters, January 5, 2011.
[4]  “Sudan removes Israel travel ban from new passport”, Sudan Tribune, October 3, 2009:
[5]  “Sudan’s SPLM reportedly opens an office in Israel – statement”, Sudan Tribune, March 5, 2008:


Mahdi Darius Nazemroaya is a Research Associate of the Centre for Research on Globalization (CRG).

Share:          Delicious     Add this page to Mister Wong  


Eritrea’s Submission To The Security Council On Peace And Justice In Somalia

July 6, 2010 Comments off

The following statement is issued by the Eritrea Ministry of Information.

State of Eritrea
Ministry of Information
July 6, 2010

The extortion of its citizens by ruthless and callous warlords; the mushrooming and proliferation of piracy along its coasts and adjacent sea lanes; the unconscionable plundering of its maritime resources by extraneous forces; the instrumentalization of the weak and fragmented entities by neighboring countries both to extract unfair and illicit agreements or to use these fragile Mini-States as an appendage of their domestic economies are some of the disturbing realities that this simmering Somali situation has given rise to.

As a result of this poignant state of affairs, tens of thousands of Somalis have lost their lives. Hundreds of thousands more have been driven into internal dislocation; compelled to seek refuge abroad; and/or, are living in very abject conditions. The crisis has gone beyond Somalia to affect the stability of the Horn of Africa as a whole. The situation is, furthermore, deteriorating from bad to worse almost on a daily basis.

Somalia’s problems may have indigenous or local origins. But this is only part of the story. Perceived geopolitical considerations by major powers and regional actors, military involvement of external forces, misrepresentation of Somali political realities in the aftermath of September 11, and the failure of several ill-conceived peace initiatives have further compounded the internal commotion.

The crisis that we see unfolding today is the byproduct of all these complications. Clearly, the complexity of the situation and the multiplicity of the actors cannot be a reason to absolve the main internal and external players who have willfully exacerbated the crisis in Somalia to induce gross and unparalleled sufferings on its population. Eritrea maintains that the U.N. Security Council ought to launch a comprehensive investigation of the crisis in Somalia from its origins through its truncated evolution with a view to finding a durable solution and ending impunity.

In Eritrea’s views, those who bear prime responsibility for the immense sufferings of the Somali people are: i) Somalia’s warlords; ii) Somalia’s immediate neighbors; and iii) the misguided policies of successive U.S. Administrations.

i)  Somalia’s Warlords:

Somalia’s warlords are primarily responsible for the turmoil and mayhem that has seized Somalia since 1991. The practices of flagrant extortion, banditry; piracy and wanton killing of civilians and ransacking of their property are war crimes that cannot be justified by the absence and fragmentation of central political authority.

ii)  Somalia’s Immediate Neighbors:

a)  Ethiopia: Among Somalia’s immediate neighbors, Ethiopia bears highest responsibility for its intermittent military invasions of Somalia and other deliberate acts aimed at destabilizing the country in order to make it fragile and divided. Ethiopia’s motivations emanate from historical animosity between the two countries – Ethiopia and Somalia had gone to war twice (1964 and 1977) prior to the current crisis – on account of the Ogaden. Ethiopia used this historical baggage and its domestic internal problems to work relentlessly since 1991 to bring about the fragmentation of Somalia. Ethiopia was instrumental in encouraging the unilateral separation of Somali-land without due process of law and popular plebiscite. Furthermore, Ethiopia violated U.N. Security Council Resolution 1725 (2006) to invade Somalia at the end of 2006. Ethiopia’s invasion was responsible for the displacement of around half a million Somalis and the death and maiming of thousands. It must be borne in mind that Ethiopia’s invasion of Somalia represented a clear act of aggression and violation of international law.

b)  Kenya and Djibouti: These two governments are also increasingly involved in exacerbating the current crisis in Somalia. Both countries have historically had strained relations with independent Somalia since the 1960s because of their adjoining regions and territories (French Somali-land (Djibouti) and the Northern Eastern District in Kenya) invariably inhabited by ethnic Somalis and which were incorporated – in constitutional terms – by the newly independent Somalia. With the encouragement of the United States, both Kenya and Djibouti have increasingly augmented their involvements in the internal affairs of Somalia in the recent years further polarizing and poisoning the Somali political landscape.

c)  The Misguided Policies of the United States: In 1992, the Bush Administration decided to intervene in Somalia under “humanitarian” considerations. At the time, many in the region, including Eritrea, had voiced their reservations about an external military intervention that was not predicated on a well thought-out peace formula. U.S. military presence in Somalia came to an abrupt end when a mission by U.S. forces to capture General Aideed was ambushed and several U.S. army men killed and brutally dragged in the streets of Mogadishu. The United States was largely absent from the Somali political arena until the recent times. But its recent interventions under the rubric of “combating terrorism” have not only been counterproductive but have contributed to worsening the situation in Somalia. The United States provided financial support to notorious warlords in 2006 in its ill-conceived efforts to counter-balance the growing influence of the Union of Islamic Courts. Washington then pushed Ethiopia to invade Somalia in contravention of international law and U.N. Security Resolutions. In the past years since then, U.S. jet bombers and drones have carried out several aerial bombings in Somalia and also provided arms, further inflaming the situation.

Eritrea requests for a sober assessment of these facets of the Somali crisis with a view to taking remedial action. Eritrea further believes that a durable and viable solution to the Somalia crisis should be predicated on:

i)  The long term objective must be the restoration of a unitary Somali State with effective institutions of central government.

ii)  If the desire is to divide Somalia into several Mini-States (Somaliland, Punt-land; Juba-Land; Benadir-Land; … etc), this should transpire only when and after the requisite legal and political processes are consummated. To tolerate as accomplished facts the proliferation of fragmented and non-sovereign entities for an indefinite period of time is not only devoid of legal, political and moral justifications but it is also tantamount to relegating the Somali people and the Horn of Africa region to a situation of perpetual crisis and destruction.

iii)  A “Transitional Political Arrangement” which paves the ground for achieving the ultimate goal or which can be operational in the interim period, needs to be in place. To this end, a “Transitional Administration” would be formed with a clear mandate and for a specific time-frame. (The flawed approach, repeated three times in recent years, of imposing in Mogadishu of an externally established government with presumed sovereign legitimacy and authority on the county as a whole must be avoided for obvious reasons).

iv)  In order to expedite the formation of the “Transitional Political Arrangement” and the “Transitional Administration”, an inclusive political process would be set in motion. It must be recognized that this process cannot be achieved through a quick-fix. It would also be vital to ensure that the process is not hampered and distorted by unacceptable pre-conditions and/or the exclusion of important stakeholders. In this regard, the role of facilitators would be critical.

v)  The vital issue of the “very survival of Somalia” should not be intertwined with the problem of “terrorism”. The “war against terror” must be identified clearly by mapping out a common strategy as well as the mechanism of its implementation. In this connection, it must be acknowledged that the ultimate remedy rests on the existence of an effective Somali Government that is equipped with effective institution of defense and security. Other alternative or interim arrangements will not indeed bring about a lasting solution.

vi)  That the United States can play a pivotal and constructive role is evident indeed. It is however essential that it disengage first from its on-going, ill-advised involvement. This will require a fresh start and a new engagement on the basis of revised policies and strategies.

Ministry of Information


Categories: ERI, ETH, SOM

ERITREA: Press Statement by the Ministry of Information

June 9, 2010 Comments off

The following statement is issued by the Eritrea Ministry of Information.

State of Eritrea
Ministry of Information
June 9, 2010

In continuation of the acts of jamming and interference against Eritrean media outlets, as of late too some parties are ‘hacking’ the website of the Eritrean Ministry of Information, and thereby issuing statements in the name of the Ministry and intercepting the account of Heads.

Hence, we would like to inform that any statement or massages that is not authenticated by the Ministry of Information through Eri-tv and Dimtsi Hafash (Radio of the Broad Masses) is not at all authentic and thus not official. We also urge the cooperation of all on this issue.

Victory to the Masses!

Ministry of Information


Categories: ERI

ERITREA: Press Statement by the Ministry of Information

May 20, 2010 Comments off

The following statement is issued by the Eritrea Ministry of Information.

State of Eritrea
Ministry of Information
May 20, 2010

The people and Government of Eritrea inside the country and abroad are currently celebrating Independence Day in an enthusiastic and colorful manner more than ever before. And this, in the wake of their strong denunciation of the unjust and illegal sanctions resolution in a united and resolute voice, coupled with ever more steadfastness and resolute rebuff, as well as making 2010 the year of national rebuff and reinforcement of national strength, contrary to enemy expectations.

At a time when acts of slander and lies on the part of external forces and their stooges are being fully exposed and rendered futile over time, thanks to the Eritrean people’s rebuff to the sanctions resolution, these external forces seek to muffle Eritrean voice through jamming Eritrean radio and satellite transmission.

It is not difficult to discern as to who is behind such a ploy and why or wherefrom such acts of jamming are being undertaken through highly sophisticated technology.

If the objective of this illegal act is to stifle the just and true Eritrean voice of freedom that many are endorsing, it is but utterly futile. And time as well as history will play their due role.

Ministry of Information


Categories: ERI

ERITREA: Statement from Ministry of Foreign Affairs pertaining to U.S. State Department Report on Human Rights

March 17, 2010 Comments off

The following statement is issued from the Eritrea Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

State Department Report on Human Rights: an Exercise in Duplicity
State of Eritrea
Ministry of Foreign Affairs
March 17, 2010  09:32


As usual, the 2009 “Country Reports on Human Rights” issued by the U.S. State Department is replete with unsubstantial, politically motivated, accusations and double standards. Factual inaccuracies aside, what finds one more intriguing is the omission in this annual report, as indeed was the case in previous years, of any “appraisal” of the human rights violations of the United States itself both domestically and in its foreign engagements. Apparently, the United States can take the liberty to judge other sovereign countries but shies away from even a nominal introspection of its own track record. Yes, the United States is a global power, but this does not endow it with special treatment or a blanket waiver against accountability. In the section of Eritrea, the Report claims, among other things, that Eritrea is engaged in “supplying arms” and other “logistical” support to the opposing factions in Somalia. Eritrea has repeatedly and empathically explained the fallacy of this accusation which is advanced to pursue other ulterior objectives. But, at least for good measure, the Report should acknowledge that U.S. misguided interference in Somalia – whether through the provision of finance and arms to Warlords; through instigation of and support to Ethiopia to invade the country in early 2007, or through the periodic aerial pulverization of villages in Somalia – have contributed to aggravate the political and humanitarian crises that is bedeviling the country today.

The Report further accuses Eritrea for supporting “opposition groups in the region to destabilize the neighboring countries”. Again, this generic accusation is not substantiated by credible facts. What is more, the State Department Report conveniently ignores the fact that Ethiopia and the United States are supporting an assortment of Eritrean subversive groups, including two jihad factions. The litany of other accusations against Eritrea contained in the Report are either torn out of context or characterized by willful distortion and exaggeration.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs


Categories: ERI