27/12/2014
In a
draft report on the role of local and regional authorities in managing migration in the Mediterranean, the authors note that a "paradigm shift" has taken place in migration in the countries of the Southern and Eastern Mediterranean.
As well as being the countries of origin of many immigrants residing legally in the EU, they are countries of transit and destination for migration flows from the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa, receiving substantial numbers of immigrants from Sudan, Eritrea and Somalia, among others.
Conflict and political instability and insecurity in the Middle East and in Sub-Saharan Africa, the authors note, "will continue to generate migration flows that will affect the entire Mediterranean region". However, of the countries involved, Eritrea contributes the
second-largest number of asylum seekers in Europe (after Somalia), with a
significant increase in numbers being observed.
And, as we have seen, a significant number of these head towards Calais, with the specific intention of seeking asylum in the UK. Slowing the flow of this migration is a desirable outcome for the UK and since this is dependent on restoring stability and security in these sending and transit areas, it stands to reason that UK foreign policy should encompass the restoration of peace stability and security in these areas.
Given the high and increasing contribution of Eritrea to the migrant flow, one would expect that country to be high on the list, to which effect is we thought it useful to examine the current status of UK relations with the government of Eritrea.
What we are unable to find, though, is any clear declaration of government policy towards Eritrea, or anything that gets close to a policy.
The country itself is regarded as one of the worst transgressors in terms of human rights, and one notes that the UK has been voluble in condemning
its performance.
Specifically, the FCO has expressed
significant concerns on areas such as "arbitrary and inhumane detention, religious freedom, freedom of expression and assembly, freedom of movement, and progress in the implementation of a constitution which would provide for fully participative politics".
But what we see
anecdotally, is that the main migration driver is the system of compulsory
national service.
According to
Human Rights Watch, since 2002 Eritrea has misused its national service system to keep a generation of Eritreans in bondage. Service is indefinitely prolonged, extending for much of a citizen's working life. Pay is barely sufficient for survival.
Recruits are used as cheap labour for civil service jobs, development projects, and the ruling party's commercial and agricultural enterprises. Female recruits have reported sexual abuse by higher-ranking officers.
Something that has been widely recognised in the
European Parliament and
Westminster, on top of
religious intolerance has led to thousands of Eritreans, mostly of younger generations, fleeing the country because of the harsh conditions.
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) reported in early 2011 that 220,000 Eritreans, about five percent of the 6 million population, have fled. During a visit to a refugee camp in Ethiopia in mid-2011, an assistant high commissioner said she was shocked to see such a "sea of young faces". The new refugees included a significant number of unaccompanied children, some as young as six-years-old.
Yet declarations from the FCO are as
weak as ditchwater, referring to working with the EU and of "encouraging constructive Eritrean behaviour", welcoming Eritrea's "positive efforts" and of encouraging Eritrea to open up economically, introducing economic reforms and pursuing regional economic integration.
Meanwhile, an action take against Eritrea includes a travel ban and asset freeze imposed on listed individuals deemed a threat to peace and the national reconciliation process. Additionally, there is an arms embargo in force but, since this is both a UN and EU imposed embargo, it precludes further, unilateral action by the UK.
Whether this is directly material, or not, one observer
has remarked that British government policy towards Eritrea "appears to be somewhat confused". On the one hand David Cameron's wishes to press Eritrea to implement human rights reforms, on the other hand it is cosying up to the Eritrean authorities and attempting to smooth the way for British investments in the country, making the situation
considerably worse.
In other words, as always, the British government speaks with forked tongue. It repeatedly calls for improvements to Eritrean human rights, yet does next to nothing to bring it about, while aiding commercial interests that are exacerbating the problems. This is a policy reminiscent, it is said, of the stand taken by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who refused to countenance sanctions to end apartheid in South Africa.
Other commentators
talk glibly about Eritrea's need to develop a foreign policy that will safeguard her independence and territorial integrity, enhance economic security and provide partnerships to support development, but there is little talk of British failings â much less those of the international community.
Yet, this is a country with a population larger than Scotland, that boasts a GDP of less than $5bn (against Scotland's $250bn), with over 80 percent of its employed population engaged in subsistence agriculture. On the face if it, it should be amenable to economic aid, and willing to accept a certain level of "strings" attached to that aid.
Unfortunately, under a dictatorial leader, this is a nation that seems to have chosen the path of isolation and, although
there are efforts to bring the country back into the fold, these have not so far been successful.
Nevertheless, there are
some reports that Eritrea is looking to re-engage, and the time might be right to reconsider the sanctions regime in return for some concessions from the Eritrean government.
Certainly, talk of
normalisation of relations with the United States is in the air, despite "irrefutable evidence" that Eritrea is playing a major role in financing, arming and training terrorist organizations in the Horn of Africa, to de-stabilize South Sudan and, especially, Ethiopia.
This is all the more reason why the UK should be playing a global role, working with international partners, to broker a deal where Eritrea no longer feels the need to stand apart, and is willing to work with other countries, and its closest neighbours â even if this takes regime change to achieve it.
This is a problem, though, that is not going to go away. On
Christmas Day, at least 1,250 refugees and migrants were rescued by the Italian navy in four different operations. Most were from Syria and Eritrea.
These are countries a long way away, of which we know little, but the effects of their strife are being felt on our doorsteps. We cannot afford to ignore the bigger picture. To those politicians who purport to be getting a grip on immigration, we should be asking: what is your policy on Eritrea?
