US opts not label Eritrea State Sponsor of Terrorism

By Michael Abraha

October 23, 2008 — The US has banned arms sales to Eritrea in retaliation against its alleged support of Somali insurgents whom the Bush Administration regards as terrorists. In so doing, the US has gone as far as it needed to go in linking Eritrea to global terrorism without formally placing it in its dreaded list of terror sponsoring states. Or has it?

Washington’s Oct 6 arms ban announcement followed repeated threats over the past two years to declare Eritrea as a ‘state sponsor of terrorism’. Blacklisting Eritrea appeared a likely outcome particularly after the US decided in April to designate Somalia’s Al-Shabab a terrorist organization. Eritrea’s alleged link to the group is sufficient grounds for designation as stipulated in US anti-terrorism rules and regulations. Under these same rules, the US has listed Syria, Iran, Sudan and Cuba as terror sponsoring states accusing them of providing “safe haven, substantial resources, and guidance to terrorist organizations,”

The State Department says Eritrea is harboring members of Al Shabab’s political leadership operating from exile in Eritrea. They include former Islamic Court leader Sheik Hassan Dahir Aweys whom the UN Security Council has designated a terrorist with alleged ties to Al Quada. US officials have accused Eritrea of funneling funds and weapons including anti-aircraft missiles and suicide vests to the Somali insurgents bogged down in a bloody confrontation with the Somali Transitional Government backed by Ethiopian troops. UN and US reports also claim that some Moslem countries have been channeling money and weapons to the insurgents via Eritrea. Eritrea denies these charges.

US ban of arms sales will have no direct impact on Eritrea’s armament needs. But by linking the ban to terrorism, the US seems determined to further isolate Eritrea in the Horn of Africa. The good news is Eritrea has not landed on the blacklist which would have amounted to a death penalty on Eritrea’s relations with the US. Although bilateral, such a move would also have damaged Eritrea’s relations with other countries especially US allies and friends around the world. Added to this would have been more sanctions including curbs on financial transactions between US citizens and Eritrea coupled with imposition of travel restrictions on Eritrean officials.

How did Eritrea lose US Goodwill?

The root cause is, of course, the existing animosity and rivalry between Eritrea and Ethiopia emanating from unpredictable and uncontrollable outcome of a bitter and devastating war a decade ago, which has badly incapacitated the two sides to demarcate their border and normalize relations. Both sides are trying to find a meaning to their senseless and tragic losses at the expense of each other’s interests and expectations.

Eritrea blames the US for not pressuring Ethiopia to demarcate the border in accordance with a legally binding UN finding. This is a fair proposition but, doubtless, unrealistic. Is it possible for the US to persuade or force Ethiopia to come to terms with Eritrea’s position given the long history of bloodshed between the two peoples? History shows the US has not been good at bringing feuding neighbors or divided peoples together. One only needs to look at US involvement in Vietnam, the Middle East and Southern Africa during the Cold War.

For a change, Eritrea should try what it does not like doing: it should try if diplomacy would serve its interests. With the help of a mutually trusted negotiator, Eritrea and Ethiopia should start working on normalization of their neighborly relations and incrementally begin to resolve differences and issues including demarcation, economic cooperation and trade. Normalization before demarcation is unpopular in Eritrea. And demarcation before normalization is unacceptable in Ethiopia. The word is compromise – splitting the differences!

As far as Somalia is concerned, the best way to help that country would be for Eritrea to put a meaningful pressure on the Asmara-based Islamic Courts to sit down with all political groups and tribal factions and find a fair and just political way out to that nation’s predicament.

Eritrea’s attempts to undermine US security interests by allegedly supporting violent opposition groups in the Horn of Africa have not changed any minds to the advantage of Eritrea. Spending money and energy in opposing a super power is a very expensive enterprise which only hurts Eritrea.

The fact that the US has not placed Eritrea in its terrorism list and that the scope of the new sanctions is limited to arms sales means there is a chance for mending ties between the two at least in the long term. Eritrea cannot change Washington’s inadequate and highly politicized antiterrorism dogma by behaving like a ‘rogue state.’ The best way to challenge American foreign policy is by building a strong and prosperous Eritrean society where there is freedom, justice, rule of law and respect for human rights.

The author is an American working as a refugee/immigrant rights advocate