Although the closure of the Eritrean Consulate in Oakland for what was wrongly labeled “reciprocal action” was used as a propitious occasion, Ms Frazer's real aim was to brandish the new threat of putting Eritrea on the “list of States sponsoring terrorism”. The singular purpose of the latest threat is to ratchet up the spiral of hostile measures the successive US Administrations have invariably been pursuing against Eritrea for the last ten years with varying intensity.
Why have successive Administrations in Washington chosen to resort to unwarranted measures of hostility against Eritrea? What is the validity of the incessant accusations, some of them invoked by the Assistant Secretary in her press statement, peddled by Washington to justify its acts? Have these acts served the interests of justice, peace and stability in our region?
Before addressing these issues, we shall first highlight numerous acts of hostility that Washington has taken against Eritrea in the past ten years in their chronological order.
1. US principal responsibility in stifling Eritrea's right of decolonization in the 1950s to promote its global strategic interests with the advent of the Cold War; its huge military support, including the training of local “counterinsurgency forces” to the Imperial Haile Selassie regime; its less prominent support to the Mengistu regime in spite of its undeniable alliance with the Soviet Union; and its opposition, until the 11 th hour, to Eritrea's legitimate struggle for liberation is indeed a matter of record. We shall not, however, dwell on the human and opportunity costs that these policies entailed to the Eritrean people who had to pay the huge price of more than 65,000 deaths in combat of their best sons and daughters. Following liberation, the Government of Eritrea chose to forgive and forget, to close the dark chapter, and, to begin on a new slate by fostering a new relationship of cooperation and friendship.
2. When Ethiopia declared war on 14 May 1998, and as Ethiopian jet fighters attacked Eritrea's capital, Asmara, on 5 June 1998, however, the then US Assistant Secretary of State for Africa broke diplomatic precedence to directly address the OAU Summit in Ouagadougou in support of Ethiopia and to lobby the OAU to adopt a resolution against Eritrea.
3. In July the same year, President Clinton brokered a Moratorium on Air Strikes between Eritrea and Ethiopia. Eritrea's declared preference was for a comprehensive secession of hostilities. But the US Administration insisted on the partial arrangement arguing that Ethiopia was not prepared to contemplate a comprehensive truce. Ethiopia abused the window of peace to purchase SU-27 jet fighters, mostly with western financial support. And on 6 February 1999, it launched a new military offensive against Eritrea by fabricating “Eritrea's air bombardment of Adi Grat”, a town in northern Ethiopia. The US authorities were fully aware of, and ascertained without a shred of doubt, Ethiopia's bogus justification and its flagrant breach of the Moratorium on Air Strikes. Still, they abstained from taking appropriate remedial action.
4. The United States nonetheless continued to “facilitate” the peace talks in conjunction with the European Union and the OAU. In the course of the tortuous negotiating process, the US “Facilitators” came up, in September 1999, with a detailed final document known as the “Technical Arrangements”. This Agreement was submitted to the parties as a “take it or leave it” package. Both parties accepted the document and pledged to be bound by its provisions. Soon after, Eritrea learned that Ethiopia had not accepted the Agreement in good-faith and was only biding time to launch another war. Subsequently, Eritrea's Head of State conveyed this information to the highest authorities in Washington who reassured Eritrea that Ethiopia would face severe consequences should this turn out to be the case. As it happened, Ethiopia declared the peace process in “terminal phase” and launched the third offensive on 12 May 2000. The US Administration backtracked on its commitments and only nudged the UN Security Council to impose military sanctions on both the guilty and aggrieved party.
5. The US also extended both directly and mostly through convenient proxies, military support to Ethiopia during the war. Although the Government of Eritrea has not to date disclosed fully the information at its disposal, US intelligence agencies were further embroiled, at the height of Ethiopia's third offensive in May 2000, in instigating acts of sedition and treason, including attempted liaison with Ethiopia, within a small ring of senior government officials.
6. Since 2001, Eritrean diplomats in Washington were denied of their diplomatic privileges on tax exemption in contravention of the provisions of the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. Eritrea did not take reciprocal action and US diplomats continue to enjoy their tax exemption privileges.
7. in June 2003, Eritrea was omitted from the list of East African countries slated to receive US funding for counterterrorism barely three months after its inclusion, and while at the same time retaining Eritrea's membership, in the “Coalition of the Willing”.
8. In October 2003, a visiting military team of the US Task Force based in Djibouti (CJTF-HOA) assisted the unlawful departure of an Eritrean citizen to Djibouti aboard its helicopter in violation of the domestic laws of the country.
9. In 2003, the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom (USCIRF) published its annual religious freedom report accusing the Government of Eritrea for “Violation of religious freedom”. In February 2004, the US Administration designated Eritrea a “Country of particular concern” and imposed sanctions on military sales.
10. In December 2003, President Bush announced the cancellation of Eritrea ' membership to AGOA, barely two years after its inclusion.
11. Since 2004, the US has continued to reject the right of, and expressed request by, Eritrea to purchase properly in New York for the residence of its permanent representative to the United Nations.
12. On 13 April, 2004, US Homeland Officers raided the Eritrean Community Center in Washington D.C. and confiscated money and documents forcefully from the Eritrean diplomatic against at gunpoint. In spite of Eritrea's repeated requests and in violation of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the US government continues to refuse returning the Embassy property.
13. In September 2004, Eritrea's Minister of Foreign Affairs was strip searched by US Security officers at the airport in New York .
14. At various times (2003-2007), the US embassy in Asmara intentionally delayed or refused to issue entry visas for numerous Eritrean senior government officials who sought to leave for the USA for official business. Officials denied visas include senior Government Ministers, and PFDJ officials.
15. In January 2006, the US Assistant Secretary of State visited the occupied Eritrean town of Badme through Ethiopia and without the knowledge and authorization of Eritrea. In doing so, Ms. Frazer not only sanctioned Ethiopia's occupation of a sovereign Eritrean town, but to add insult to injury, she proposed that a “referendum” be held to decide the future of “Badme”.
16. In November 2006, the US Ambassador to Eritrea demanded that the Ministry of Labour and Human Welfare pay 4.5 million US dollars for food aid donated to the needy by two NGOs (Mercy Corps and Catholic Relief Services) and that was utilized in accordance with the food-monetization policy. Similarly, the US Administration had previously demanded that Eritrea pay for food aid destined to Ethiopia and that perished in the Port of Assab in 1998 when the regime in Addis Abeba declared war and boycotted the port.
17. In November 2006, US authorities imposed travel restrictions on Eritrean embassy members and their dependents in Washington and Oakland. Ever since, State Department officials almost routinely reject most of the travel requests by the Ambassador and other Eritrean diplomats beyond the 25 km limit.
18. Although the Eritrean Government issued a visa to the US Embassy's new Visa Officer in Asmara, the US embassy nonetheless informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs in November 2006 that “effective December 4, 2006, non-immigrant visa services will be temporarily suspended due to staffing shortages. Nonimmigrant visa services will resume as soon as staff are granted permission to travel to Eritrea to provide this service”. This notice, that was posted in Website the same day, remains effective until today and Eritreans who wish to visit their relatives in the US have to travel to Nairobi or Cairo to apply for entry visas which is not always granted.
19. In July 2006, Eritrea's new Ambassador to U.S. was warned that “he will have a hard time during his tenure in Washington” during a courtesy call to the U.S. Under Secretary for Political Affairs.
20. In January this year, US security officers at New York's JFK airport conducted unlawful search on Eritrea's Ambassador to the United Nations. The Ambassador was isolated from the other passengers and ordered to pass through a special search machine. His hand luggage was searched in a special spot, disregarding his Diplomatic Identification Card. The security officer in charge informed the Ambassador that the special search was an order from higher authorities. Furthermore, upon arrival in Asmara, the Ambassador discovered that his baggage was forcefully opened and searched, without his approval and presence. A “Notice of Inspection” was inserted inside his baggage in acknowledgement of the act. This is in violation of Article 36 of the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations which clearly states: “inspection shall be conducted in the presence of the Diplomatic Agent or of his authorized representative”.
21. In February 2007, the US Embassy in Asmara wrote in Note Verbale No. 046/07: “the embassy wishes to inform the Government of the State of Eritrea that its continued failure to allow the unhindered entry of our diplomatic pouches, which contain items necessary for the full functioning of the mission, including materials vital to the issuance of the visas, has unduly interfered with Embassy operations. Unless we are able to resolve this matter, effective February 14, the Embassy of the United States will close to the public and suspend all visa operations”.
22. In February 2007, US visa revalidation office in the State Department delayed the renewal of visa of the Deputy Chief of Mission (DCM) in the Eritrean Embassy in Washington under the flimsy excuse of “administrative review” process.
23. In May 2007, the US Embassy in Asmara informed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs that the HIV/AIDS prevention program will be terminated on 31 May 2007. The termination of the program, which was incidentally very small compared to other countries in Africa, was again justified by the spurious pretext of permission obstacles to inspection trips.
27. The US State Department has been obsessed, especially in the last six years, with demonizing Eritrea and its Government. The annual human rights report is invariably replete with gross distortion of facts and events.
28. The US State Department put Eritrea as a “Country of particular concern” on religious freedom purely for political reasons. Eritrea is a secular State where all religions are respected and where Christianity and Islam have co-existed in harmony for over 1400 years. The trumped up charge of religions persecution was vigorously pursued for other ulterior motives. There are new and fringe groups, whose membership does not exceed a couple of hundreds, and who receive financing from abroad. These groups were asked to register in accordance with the laws of the country and to declare their income.
29. The controversy over diplomatic pouches has also been blown put of proportion. The two incidents arose when there were grounds to believe that the external markings of large crates that the US embassy was bringing as “diplomatic pouches” were at variance with the contents. The containers were not however detained. The Embassy was requested to allow Customs officials to open containers in the presence of US Embassy personnel. When this was not granted, the Embassy was asked to take back the containers. This happened only on two occasions. The US Embassy has otherwise enjoyed unfettered access to bring hundreds of these containers. The US Embassy is in fact operating a relaying radio station from within the Embassy premises without notifying the Government of Eritrea or requesting operational permission for the equipment as expressly stipulated in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations.
30. The decision to close the Eritrean Consulate in Oakland cannot be interpreted as “reciprocal action”. In the first place, US authorities have all along taken various measures against the Eritrean Embassy in Washington, including unlawful seizure of money and documents. The Government of Eritrea never took reciprocal action. The travel restrictions that Eritrea introduced recently in view of the prevailing tense situation with Ethiopia did not also single out the US Embassy. Temporary measures of this nature are indeed normative practices that States routinely take. The explanations of the Assistant Secretary of State cannot, therefore, be convincing. There are not, also, “400 Americans in Eritrea whose right of Consular protection has been adversely affected by this measures”.
31. The charges of “sponsoring terrorism” and “destabilizing the region” are the most preposterous allegations that belie the ulterior motives of the US State Department. Eritrea's position on Somalia has been spelled out unequivocally in various occasions and forums before; including at the IGAD and UN sessions. Equating Somalia's quest for national reconstitution after 16 years of mayhem with “Islamist terrorism” is either inexcusable ignorance or deliberate distortion of facts and events. As Eritrea has underlined repeatedly, the presumed presence of one or two alleged international terrorists cannot justify, by any stretch of imagination, the invasion of a sovereign country; and, the deaths of tens and thousands and displacement of almost half a million civilians.
32. The charge of regional destabilization is equally preposterous. Ethiopia has invaded Somalia in violation of UN Security Council Resolutions which were adjusted to “fit the new reality” because of the US support. Ethiopia's invasion of Somalia was long planned with the tacit encouragement and joint planning of the respective US agencies. Ethiopia is violating international law to occupy sovereign Eritrean territories and to spawn a permanent situation of regional tension and instability.
33. Finally Eritrea's constructive role in the Sudan cannot be sailed as “positive influence for the wrong reasons”. True, Eritrea in cooperation with Uganda and Ethiopia, pursued a policy of containment against the Sudan in the 1990s when Khartoum was flirting with terrorism an when Bin Laden had his headquarters there. The United States was, at least nominally, supportive of what it called the “Frontline States” in those times. Apparently, the US Assistant Secretary of State has not checked, or has deliberately chosen to ignore, the well-known positions of her government in the recent past.
News 
