Adal Voice of Eritreans on 93.2 FM across Sheffield uk and throughout the world.

To listen to Adal Voice live everySunday, click here

You can listen to the show live every Sunday

Adalvoice Real life Radio

Sunday Dec – 27 – 2009 Radio Shew

From 11 : 00 am to 12 : 00am GMT – Part 2

From 10 : 00 am to 11 : 00 am GMT – Part 1

Click map to see where our visitors come from

Angola press

25/12/09

The Eritrean government said on Thursday that it will not be affected by the sanctions imposed by the United Nations Security Council.

Araya Desta, Eritrea’s ambassador to the United Nations, boycotted the accusations from the UN members that his government gives money and military support to the Islamist fighters who are fighting against the transitional Federal Government and destabilize the security of horn African region.

Mr. Desta said that Eritrea did not help any one in Somali for fighting or other reasons saying that all criticisms were baseless propaganda adding that Eritrea is not a government that wants creating insecurity situation in the Horn of Africa.

He also disproved that troops from Eritrea were involving the fighting going on in Somalia asserting that there was no a single Eritrean soldier in the Somali country.

The statement of the ambassador of the Eritrean government for the UN Araya Desta comes as the 13 member of the UN voted to impose arm embargo on Eritrea on Wednesday after accusing that it repeatedly supported the Islamist fighters in Somalia.

Security Council

SC/9833

Security Council

6254^th Meeting (AM)

23/12/2009

Department of Public Information

News and Media Division – New York

Security Council Imposes Sanctions on Eritrea over Its Role in Somalia,

Refusal to Withdraw Troops Following Conflict with Djibouti

Resolution 1907 (2009) Stipulates Arms Embargo, Travel Restrictions, Asset Freezes

Gravely concerned about findings that Eritrea had provided support to armed groups undermining peace and reconciliation in Somalia and that it had not withdrawn its forces following clashes with Djibouti in June 2008, the Security Council today imposed an arms embargo on that country, in addition to travel restrictions on and a freeze on the assets of its political and military leaders.

Adopting resolution 1907 (2009) by a vote of 13 in favour to 1 against (Libya), with 1 abstention (China) under Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter, the Council reiterated its demand that Eritrea withdraw its forces to the positions of the status quo ante in the area where its conflict with Djibouti had occurred, acknowledge its border dispute and cooperate fully with the Secretary-General’s good offices.  It further demanded that the country cease all efforts to destabilize or overthrow, directly or indirectly, the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia.

The Council demanded that all States, in particular Eritrea, cease arming, training and equipping armed groups and their members, including Al-Shabaab, which aimed to destabilize the region or incite violence and civil strife in Djibouti.  It further demanded that Eritrea cease facilitating travel and other forms of financial support to individuals or entities designated by the Committee established pursuant to resolution 751 (1992) regarding Somalia and other sanctions committees, in particular the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999) regarding Al‑Qaida and the Taliban.

Imposing an embargo on arms and associated materiel to and from Eritrea, the Council called upon all States to inspect all cargo to and from Somalia and Eritrea, and upon discovery of prohibited items, to seize and dispose of them.  It decided that travel restrictions and an asset freeze should apply to individuals, including but not limited to, the Eritrean political and military leadership, so designated by the Committee on Somalia Sanctions, as well as to governmental and parastatal actors and entities privately owned by Eritrean nationals living within or outside Eritrean territory, so designated by the same Committee.  Also by the text, the Council expanded the Committee’s mandate to undertake those additional tasks, as well as that of the Monitoring Group assisting the Committee.

Libya’s representative, in explaining his negative vote, said more time and concerted cooperation were needed to persuade all countries in the Horn of Africa to establish mechanisms to deal with their problems.  Libya had advocated the use of international legal bodies to resolve border disputes, which were the main cause of disagreement in the region.  Describing the resolution as unrealistic and too hasty, he said sanctions were not the ideal way to solve the current problem and their humanitarian effects would exacerbate current tensions.  Libya would have preferred that the Council wait until the African Union Summit in January, which would consider the problems of the Horn of Africa.

China’s representative said he had abstained from the vote because the Council should always act prudently in imposing sanctions.  The priorities in the region were dialogue between countries and restraint from violence.  China supported international efforts to encourage reconciliation in Somalia, but the resolution of that country’s problems required the cooperation of all countries in the region.  In addition, the African Union was better suited to address conflicts in the Horn of Africa through diplomatic methods.

Djibouti’s representative said that, by adopting the resolution, the Council had further highlighted its growing cooperation with the African Union in maintaining peace and security on the continent.  Noting that the July 2009 African Union Summit in Sirte, Libya, had called upon the Council to impose sanctions on foreign actors, particularly Eritrea, supporting the efforts of armed groups to destabilize Somalia, he said Eritrea had also refused to implement resolution 1862 (2009) regarding its border dispute with Djibouti.  The Government of Djibouti today warmly welcomed justice at last against the “unprovoked, naked and blatant aggression against my country by Eritrea almost two years ago”.  Hopes were high in the Horn of Africa that today’s action would be the beginning of the end to prolonged, destructive, senseless and wasteful wars and hostilities.

Somalia’s representative said Eritrea had been a major negative factor in prolonging the conflict in his country.  Eritrea had been giving refuge and safe haven to known terrorists, rebels, spoilers and violators of human rights, whose purpose all along was to destabilize Somalia.  It had been providing, financing and facilitating the flow of arms and other resources to the extremists and terrorist elements in Somalia, as well as economic, political, moral and propaganda support to the armed insurgents and spoilers.  However, the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia stood ready to enter into serious dialogue with Eritrea in order to solve any outstanding matters.

Other speakers welcomed the Council’s adoption of the resolution following the request of the African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority for Development.  Noting that the measures imposed by the resolution were not comprehensive but targeted and corrective, and that designation of individuals and entities to be subjected to its measures was in the hands of the Somali Sanctions Committee, they expressed hope that future actions by Eritrea would allow the Council to review the measures in a positive way.

Also speaking were the representatives of Uganda, Viet Nam, Austria, Japan, United Kingdom, Mexico, Turkey and Burkina Faso.

The meeting began at 10:40 a.m. and ended at 11:25 a.m.

Background

The Security Council met this morning to consider a draft resolution submitted by Uganda regarding the situation between Djibouti and Eritrea, as well as the Djibouti Agreement and Peace Process for a resolution of the conflict in Somalia.  Also before it was a letter dated 15 December from the Permanent Representative of Eritrea to the Council President (document S/2009/658), in which he urges Council members to use their influence to ensure the rejection of the draft in its entirety.

Action on Draft Resolution

The Council adopted the draft resolution with 13 members voting in favour to 1 against ( Libya), with 1 abstention ( China).

The full text of resolution 1907 (2009) reads as follows:

“The Security Council,

“Recalling its previous resolutions and statements of its President concerning the situation in Somalia and the border dispute between Djibouti and Eritrea, in particular its resolutions 751 (1992), 1844 (2008), and 1862 (2009), and its statements of 18 May 2009 (S/PRST/2009/15), 9 July 2009 (S/PRST/2009/19), 12 June 2008 (S/PRST/2008/20),

“Reaffirming its respect for the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence and unity of Somalia, Djibouti and Eritrea, respectively,

“Expressing the importance of resolving the border dispute between Djibouti and Eritrea,

“Reaffirming that the Djibouti Agreement and Peace Process represent the basis for a resolution of the conflict in Somalia, and further reaffirming its support for the Transitional Federal Government (TFG),

“Noting the decision of the 13th Assembly of the African Union (AU) in Sirte, Libya, calling on the Council to impose sanctions against foreign actors, both within and outside the region, especially Eritrea, providing support to the armed groups engaged in destabilization activities in Somalia and undermining the peace and reconciliation efforts as well as regional stability (S/2009/388),

“Further noting the decision of the 13^th Assembly of the AU in Sirte, Libya expressing its grave concern at the total absence of progress regarding the implementation by Eritrea of, inter alia, resolution 1862 (2009) regarding the border dispute between Djibouti and Eritrea (S/2009/388),

“Expressing its grave concern at the findings of the Monitoring Group re‑established by resolution 1853 (2008) as outlined in its December 2008 report (S/2008/769) that Eritrea has provided political, financial and logistical support to armed groups engaged in undermining peace and reconciliation in Somalia and regional stability,

“Condemning all armed attacks on TFG officials and institutions, the civilian population, humanitarian workers and the African Union Mission to Somalia (AMISOM) personnel,

“Expressing its grave concern at Eritrea’s rejection of the Djibouti Agreement, as noted in the letter of 19 May 2009, from the Permanent Representative of Eritrea to the United Nations addressed to the President of the Security Council (S/2009/256),

“Recalling its resolution 1844 (2008) in which it decided to impose measures against individuals or entities designated as engaging in or providing support to acts that threaten peace, security and stability in Somalia, acting in violation of the arms embargo or obstructing the flow of humanitarian assistance to Somalia,

“Expressing its appreciation of the contribution of AMISOM to the stability of Somalia, and further expressing its appreciation for the continued commitment to AMISOM by the Governments of Burundi and Uganda,

“Reiterating its intention to take measures against those who seek to prevent or block the Djibouti Peace Process,

“Expressing its deep concern that Eritrea has not withdrawn its forces to the status quo ante, as called for by the Security Council in its resolution 1862 (2009) and the statement of its President dated 12 June 2008 (S/PRST/2008/20),

“Reiterating its serious concern at the refusal of Eritrea so far to engage in dialogue with Djibouti, or to accept bilateral contacts, mediation or facilitation efforts by sub-regional or regional organizations or to respond positively to the efforts of the Secretary-General,

“Taking note of the letter of the Secretary-General issued on 30 March 2009 (S/2009/163), and the subsequent briefings by the Secretariat on the Djibouti-Eritrea conflict,

“Noting that Djibouti has withdrawn its forces to the status quo ante and cooperated fully with all concerned, including the United Nations fact-finding mission and the good offices of the Secretary-General,

“Determining that Eritrea’s actions undermining peace and reconciliation in Somalia as well as the dispute between Djibouti and Eritrea constitute a threat to international peace and security,

“Acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

“1.   Reiterates that all Member States, including Eritrea, shall comply fully with the terms of the arms embargo imposed by paragraph 5 of resolution 733 (1992), as elaborated and amended by resolutions 1356 (2001), 1425 (2002), 1725 (2006), 1744 (2007) and 1772 (2007) on Somalia and the provisions of resolution 1844 (2008);

“2.   Calls upon all Member States, including Eritrea, to support the Djibouti Peace Process and support reconciliation efforts by the TFG in Somalia, and demands that Eritrea cease all efforts to destabilize or overthrow, directly or indirectly, the TFG;

“3.   Reiterates its demand that Eritrea immediately comply with resolution 1862 (2009) and:

(i)   Withdraw its forces and all their equipment to the positions of the status quo ante, and ensure that no military presence or activity is being pursued in the area where the conflict occurred in Ras Doumeira and Doumeira Island in June 2008;

(ii)  Acknowledge its border dispute with Djibouti in Ras Doumeira and Doumeira Island, engage actively in dialogue to defuse the tension and engage also in diplomatic efforts leading to a mutually acceptable settlement of the border issue; and,

(iii)Abide by its international obligations as a Member of the United Nations, respect the principles mentioned in Article 2, paragraphs 3, 4, and 5, and Article 33 of the Charter, and cooperate fully with the Secretary-General, in particular through his proposal of good offices mentioned in paragraph 3 of resolution 1862 (2009);

“4.   Demands that Eritrea make available information pertaining to Djiboutian combatants missing in action since the clashes of 10 to 12 June, 2008 so that those concerned may ascertain the presence and condition of Djiboutian prisoners of war;

“5.   Decides that all Member States shall immediately take the necessary measures to prevent the sale or supply to Eritrea by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft, of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned, and technical assistance, training, financial and other assistance, related to the military activities or to the provision, manufacture, maintenance or use of these items, whether or not originating in their territories;

“6.   Decides that Eritrea shall not supply, sell or transfer directly or indirectly from its territory or by its nationals or using its flag vessels or aircraft any arms or related materiel, and that all Member States shall prohibit the procurement of the items, training and assistance described in paragraph 5 above from Eritrea by their nationals, or using their flag vessels or aircraft, whether or not originating in the territory of Eritrea;

“7.   Calls upon all Member States to inspect, in their territory, including seaports and airports, in accordance with their national authorities and legislation, and consistent with international law, all cargo to and from Somalia and Eritrea, if the State concerned has information that provides reasonable grounds to believe the cargo contains items the supply, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 5 and 6 of this resolution or the general and complete arms embargo to Somalia established pursuant to paragraph 5 of resolution 733 (1992) and elaborated and amended by subsequent resolutions for the purpose of ensuring strict implementation of those provisions;

“8.   Decides to authorize all Member States to, and that all Member States shall, upon discovery of items prohibited by paragraphs 5 and 6 above, seize and dispose (either by destroying or rendering inoperable) items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 5 and 6 of this resolution and decides further that all Member States shall cooperate in such efforts;

“9.   Requires any Member State when it finds items the supply, sale, transfer, or export of which is prohibited by paragraphs 5 and 6 of this resolution to submit promptly a report to the Committee containing relevant details, including the steps taken to seize and dispose of the items;

“10.  Decides that all Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the entry into or transit through their territories of individuals, designated by the Committee established pursuant to resolution 751 (1992) and expanded by resolution 1844 (2008) (herein “the Committee”) pursuant to the criteria in paragraph 15 below, provided that nothing in this paragraph shall oblige a state to refuse entry into its territory to its own nationals;

“11.  Decides that the measures imposed by paragraph 10 above shall not apply:

(a)   where the Committee determines on a case-by-case basis that such travel is justified on the grounds of humanitarian need, including religious obligation; or,

(b)   where the Committee determines on a case-by-case basis that an exemption would otherwise further the objectives of peace and stability in the region;

“12.  Decides that all Member States shall take the necessary measures to prevent the direct or indirect supply, sale or transfer by their nationals or from their territories or using their flag vessels or aircraft of arms and related materiel of all types, including weapons and ammunition, military vehicles and equipment, paramilitary equipment, and spare parts for the aforementioned and the direct or indirect supply of technical assistance or training, financial and other assistance including investment, brokering or other financial services, related to military activities or to the supply, sale, transfer, manufacture, maintenance or use of weapons and military equipment, to the individuals or entities designated by the Committee pursuant to paragraph 15 below;

“13.  Decides that all Member States shall freeze without delay the funds, other financial assets and economic resources which are on their territories on the date of adoption of this resolution or at any time thereafter, that are owned or controlled, directly or indirectly, by the entities and individuals designated by the Committee pursuant to paragraph 15 below, or by individuals or entities acting on their behalf or their direction, and decides further that all Member States shall ensure that no funds, financial assets or economic resources are made available by their nationals or by any individuals or entities within their territories to or for the benefit of such individuals or entities;

“14.  Decides that the measures imposed by paragraph 13 above do not apply to funds, other financial assets or economic resources that have been determined by relevant Member States:

(a)   to be necessary for basic expenses, including payment for foodstuffs, rent or mortgage, medicines and medical treatment, taxes, insurance premiums, and public utility charges or exclusively for payment of reasonable professional fees and reimbursement of incurred expenses associated with the provision of legal services, or fees or service charges, in accordance with national laws, for routine holding or maintenance of frozen funds, other financial assets and economic resources, after notification by the relevant Member State to the Committee of the intention to authorize, where appropriate, access to such funds, other financial assets or economic resources, and in the absence of a negative decision by the Committee within three working days of such notification;

(b)   to be necessary for extraordinary expenses, provided that such determination has been notified by the relevant Member State(s) to the Committee and has been approved by the Committee; or

(c)   to be the subject of a judicial, administrative or arbitral lien or judgment, in which case the funds, other financial assets and economic resources may be used to satisfy that lien or judgment provided that the lien or judgment was entered into prior to the date of the present resolution, is not for the benefit of a person or entity designated pursuant to paragraph 13 above, and has been notified by the relevant Member State(s) to the Committee;

“15.  Decides that the provisions of paragraph 10 above shall apply to individuals, including but not limited to the Eritrean political and military leadership, and that the provisions of paragraphs 12 and 13 above shall apply to individuals and entities, including but not limited to Eritrean political and military leadership, governmental, and parastatal entities, and entities privately owned by Eritrean nationals living within or outside of Eritrean territory, designated by the Committee:

(a)   as violating the measures established by paragraphs 5 and 6 above;

(b)   as providing support from Eritrea to armed opposition groups which aim to destabilize the region;

(c)   as obstructing implementation of resolution 1862 (2009) concerning Djibouti;

(d)   as harbouring, financing, facilitating, supporting, organizing, training, or inciting individuals or groups to perpetrate acts of violence or terrorist acts against other States or their citizens in the region;

(e)   as obstructing the investigations or work of the Monitoring Group;

“16.  Demands that all Member States, in particular Eritrea, cease arming, training, and equipping armed groups and their members including Al-Shabaab, that aim to destabilize the region or incite violence and civil strife in Djibouti;

“17.  Demands Eritrea cease facilitating travel and other forms of financial support to individuals or entities designated by the Committee and other Sanctions Committees, in particular the Committee established pursuant to resolution 1267 (1999), in line with the provisions set out in the relevant resolutions;

“18.  Decides to further expand the mandate of the Committee to undertake the additional tasks:

(a)   To monitor, with the support of the Monitoring Group, the implementation of the measures imposed in paragraphs 5, 6, 8, 10, 12 and 13 above;

(b)   To designate those individuals or entities subject to the measures imposed by paragraphs 10, 12 and 13 above, pursuant to criteria set forth in paragraph 15 above;

(c)   To consider and decide upon requests for exemptions set out in paragraphs 11 and 14 above;

(d)   To update its guidelines to reflect its additional tasks;

“19.  Decides to further expand the mandate of the Monitoring Group re‑established by resolution 1853 (2008) to monitor and report on implementation of the measures imposed in this resolution and undertake the tasks outlined below, and requests the Secretary-General to make appropriate arrangements for additional resources and personnel so that the expanded Monitoring Group may continue to carry out its mandate, and in addition:

(a)   Assist the Committee in monitoring the implementation of the measures imposed in paragraphs 5, 6, 8,10, 12 and 13 above, including by reporting any information on violations;

(b)   Consider any information relevant to implementation of paragraphs 16 and 17 above that should be brought to the attention of the Committee;

(c)   Include in its reports to the Security Council any information relevant to the Committee’s designation of the individuals and entities described in paragraph 15 above;

(d)   Coordinate as appropriate with other Sanctions Committees’ panels of experts in pursuit of these tasks;

“20.  Calls upon all Members States to report to the Security Council within 120 days of the adoption of this resolution on steps they have taken to implement the measures outlined in the paragraphs 5, 6, 10, 12 and 13 above;

“21.  Affirms that it shall keep Eritrea’s actions under review and that it shall be prepared to adjust the measures, including through their strengthening, modification, or lifting, in light of Eritrea’s compliance with the provisions of this resolution;

“22.  Requests the Secretary-General to report within 180 days on Eritrea’s compliance with the provisions of this resolution;

“23.  Decides to remain actively seized of the matter.”

Statements

RUHAKANA RUGUNDA ( Uganda) recalled that, at its 2009 Summit in Sirte, Libya, the African Union had called on the Council to impose sanctions against foreign actors both within and outside the region, especially Eritrea, who provided support to armed groups in Somalia, thus undermining peace and reconciliation efforts as well as regional stability.

He said the resolution just adopted was a clear manifestation of the cooperation between the United Nations and the African Union in efforts to resolve conflicts on the continent.  The measures imposed by the text were not comprehensive, but targeted and corrective, and it was to be hoped that Eritrea would take sufficient actions to enable the Council to positively review the measures imposed today.

LE LUONG MINH (Viet Nam), noting that he had voted in favour of the text, called on the parties concerned to show maximum restraint in implementing relevant Council resolutions, and to engage in dialogue to resolve the border dispute between them.  International conflicts, including border disputes, should be resolved by peaceful means and in compliance with international law and the provisions of the United Nations Charter.  He urged the Council to keep the situation under constant review.

ABDURRAHMAN MOHAMED SHALGHAM ( Libya) said more time and concerted cooperation was needed to persuade all countries in the Horn of Africa to establish mechanisms for dealing with their problems.  Libya advocated the use of international legal bodies to resolve border disputes, which were the main cause of disagreement in the region.  It supported Somalia’s Transitional Federal Government and the proposed creation of a Government of National Unity there, under the Djibouti Agreement.  Libya called on all parties to sign up to and implement that accord.

Describing the resolution just adopted as unrealistic and too hasty, he said his own country had been subject to sanctions and knew well their counter-productive effects.  Sanctions were not the ideal way to solve the current problem, and their humanitarian effects would exacerbate current tensions.  The African Union would hold its next Summit in January, when it would consider the problems in the Horn of Africa.  Libya would have preferred that the Council wait until the results of that meeting were known, he said.

ZHANG YESUI ( China) said he had abstained from the vote because the Council should always act prudently in imposing sanctions.  The priorities in the region were dialogue between countries and restraint from violence.  China hoped that countries in the region would make stronger efforts to create a harmonious environment so that reconciliation could take place in Somalia and the wider region.

Expressing support for international efforts to encourage reconciliation in Somalia, he said, however, that resolution of the country’s problems required the cooperation of all countries in the region.  China called on them to engage with each other in that spirit.  In addition, the African Union was better suited to address conflicts in the Horn of Africa through diplomatic methods.

CHRISTIAN EBNER ( Austria) said he had voted in favour of the text as his country condemned all acts undermining the peace process in Somalia.  It was significant that the targeted sanctions were based on a two-step approach.  Designation for targeted sanctions would be determined by the Somalia sanctions Committee, but beyond the imposition of sanctions, it would be important to seek solutions to the underlying problems.

YUKIO TAKASU ( Japan) said he had voted in favour of the resolution as his country respected African initiatives to address the conflicts in the Horn of Africa.  The disputes should be resolved through diplomatic means, including mediation.  There was a need to accelerate efforts to resolve conflicts in the Horn of Africa, and it was to be hoped that all States in the region, including Eritrea, would comply with the resolution.  The Council would keep the measures under constant review in light of future developments.

MARK LYALL GRANT ( United Kingdom) said the resolution had created a new sanctions regime in response to continued violations of Council resolutions in the Horn of Africa.  It followed requests by two regional organizations, the African Union and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD).  The Monitoring Group on sanctions regarding Somalia had presented evidence that Eritrea was providing support to armed groups undermining the country’s peace process.  Moreover, Eritrea had failed to comply with resolution 1862 (2009) regarding its border dispute with Djibouti.  The United Kingdom urged the Government of Eritrea to stop its illegal actions and engage with international partners to increase stability in the region.  Future Council actions would depend on its response.

CLAUDE HELLER ( Mexico) said the sanctions regime would improve chances for reconciliation in Somalia, and his country, which chaired the Sanctions Committee, would continue working to ensure that the measures provided incentives for the various regional actors to join a process leading towards stability in the region.

ERTUĞRUL APAKAN ( Turkey) said that, in principle, disputes should be solved through diplomacy and dialogue, and it was therefore to be he hoped that the resolution would be used by all parties to encourage dialogue and to resolve all outstanding issues in the Horn of Africa.

Council President MICHEL KAFANDO (Burkina Faso), speaking in his national capacity, said that while his country considered sanctions as a mechanism of last resort, he was deeply concerned by the serious deterioration of the security situation resulting from attacks by the Al-Shabaab movement, which was supported by foreign entities.

He said he remained convinced of the African Union’s importance in resolving the continent’s conflicts, noting that the resolution included review mechanisms.  He urged Eritrea to work with others in the region to foster a diplomatic solution to the problems in Somalia and the wider Horn of Africa.

ROBLE OLHAYE ( Djibouti) said that by adopting the resolution, the Council had further highlighted its growing cooperation with the African Union in maintaining peace and security on the continent.  The Sirte Summit had called on the Council to impose sanctions on foreign actors, particularly Eritrea, that supported the efforts of armed groups to destabilize Somalia and minimize reconciliation efforts.

Noting that Eritrea had refused to implement resolution 1862 (2009) on its border dispute with Djibouti, he said there had been a convergence of views between the Council and the African Union on the lack of cooperation and dialogue on the part of Eritrea, which had shown nothing but disdain while refusing to cooperate, in spite of the offers of good offices made by the two organizations.

The part of Djibouti’s territory now occupied by Eritrea had been the subject of a previous contention in 1996, he recalled.  A decade later, in 2008, there had been a military confrontation between the two countries, followed by the occupation of Ras Doumeira and Domeira Island by Eritrean forces.  The conclusions of a Security Council fact-finding mission had been clear, unmistakable and far-reaching.  They were a damning indictment of the Eritrean regime’s erratic behaviour and its dishonest and deliberate distortions of facts.

Recalling Eritrea’s rejection of resolution 1862 (2009), which demanded that it implement specific actions within six weeks, he said it was inconceivable that a year had passed without any implementation of the resolution.  Today, justice had been done at last against the “unprovoked, naked and blatant aggression against my country by Eritrea almost two years ago”.  Rarely had a sanctions resolution involved three countries, impacting on a whole region, and hopes were high in the Horn of Africa that today’s action would be the beginning of the end of the prolonged, destructive, senseless and wasteful wars and hostilities.  The measures outlined in the resolution targeted only the Eritrean regime’s destructive role in Somalia and its infringement of Djibouti’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.

He went on to point out that Eritrea had been “stonewalling” for one and a half years to avoid providing information about the conditions and whereabouts of 19 Djiboutian prisoners of war, while denying access to them by the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies.  However, Djibouti continued to treat Eritrean prisoners of war humanely, allowing access to all concerned.  He demanded that Eritrea, as a Member State of the United Nations, accept its international obligations under the Third Geneva Convention.

ELMI AHMED DUALE (Somalia) said Eritrea had been a major negative factor in prolonging the conflict in his country, while, on the Djibouti front, it had had demonstrated an unfriendly and non-neighbourly attitude all along.  Eritrea had been giving refuge and safe haven to known terrorists, rebels, spoilers and violators of human rights, whose purpose all along was to destabilize Somalia.  It had been providing, financing and facilitating the flow of arms and other resources to the extremists and terrorist elements in Somalia, as well as economic, political, moral and propaganda support to armed insurgents and spoilers.

He said Eritrea’s hostile activities of the past two decades included blatant sabotage of peace efforts and reconciliation, as well as frustrating the efforts of the previous Transitional National Government and the current Transitional Federal Government.  Despite all those hostile activities, however, the Transitional Federal Government was ready at any time to enter into serious dialogue with Eritrea to solve any outstanding matters, although that country’s past actions did not give confidence that it would change its hostile attitude.  Somalia therefore sought the support of the Council, the United Nations and the international community in confronting Eritrea squarely, now rather than later, and encouraging it to join the ongoing international efforts to enhance the ongoing peace and stabilization process in Somalia.

For information media • not an official record

Posted in News & Information ]]> http://adalvoice.wordpress.com/2009/12/24/read-more-details-un-sanctions-on-eritrea/feed/ 0 Adal voice of Eritrean's http://adalvoice.wordpress.com/2009/12/23/eritrea-press-releaseun-not-taking-action-on-the-basis-of-justice/ http://adalvoice.wordpress.com/2009/12/23/eritrea-press-releaseun-not-taking-action-on-the-basis-of-justice/#comments Wed, 23 Dec 2009 21:37:49 +0000 Adal voice of Eritrean's http://adalvoice.wordpress.com/?p=5072 ]]>

23/12/09

shabait3.com NEWS

The UN Security Council has today passed a shameful resolution imposing sanctions against Eritrea. The unjustifiable measures imposed on Eritrea include: an arms embargo; the inspection and seizure by Member States in their territory of such cargo to and from Eritrea; and, the imposition of a travel ban, and the freezing of assets of, Eritrea’s political and military leadership who may be blacklisted by a Committee.

As Eritrea has strongly emphasized in the past weeks, this brazen act is neither based on fact nor on the provisions of international law. It constitutes a travesty of justice and amplifies the dangers inherent in a unipolar world.

The fact of the matter is this resolution was originally conceived and feverishly executed by the United States. Britain, and especially Uganda, were co-opted as sponsors of the resolution for purposes of deceitful packaging. The US Mission to the UN further tried to invoke a resolution of the African Union to disguise the real culprit. But in the end, this cover did not work. As it happened, the US Ambassador to the UN was ultimately forced to come out of the closet and cajole UN Member States to adopt the resolution willy-nilly.

Setting aside the misguided policies of the US Administration in the Horn of Africa region and the loathsome personal agenda of the US Ambassador to the UN who could not hide her obsession to “punish Eritrea” and “break its arrogance”, what are the accusations leveled against Eritrea? How do these accusations square with the provisions of the UN Charter? Does the
heavy-handed process pursued in this case conform to the modalities and precedents of the UN Security Council in imposing sanctions against a Member State?

1.     It must be stressed that the accusations against Eritrea for involvement in Somalia have never been substantiated or verified. Many Member States objected to the draft resolution in the early days precisely for these reasons though they acquiesced to US pressure later. The Somalia Monitoring Group had previously accused Eritrea for “supplying arms to those opposing the TFG”. This clause was later dropped quietly and the revised version indicts Eritrea for “providing political, financial, and logistical support to armed groups engaged in undermining peace and reconciliation in Somalia”. As pointed out earlier, these allegations were, again, not explained or substantiated. Indeed, how can Eritrea provide logistical support to armed groups in Somalia when it does not have a contiguous border with that country? The allegation of financial support is equally tenuous. Eritrea has neither the political will nor the financial clout to bankroll armed groups in Somalia. As for the accusations of political support, it is well-known that Eritrea has not recognized the TFG for cogent and well-thought out reasons. This was also the case with the externally established previous TFGs installed in Mogadishu without the consent of the Somali people. Eritrea’s impartial and balanced position emanates from its profound desire to contribute to a durable and sustainable solution to the crisis in Somalia. These political considerations aside, the fundamental legal issue at hand is whether this matter of purely sovereign national jurisdiction can be misconstrued as a subject of UN Security Council concern. Is it the mandate of the Security Council to punish any Member State on account of the political views it holds or the diplomatic choices it makes? Has the Security Council ever imposed sanctions against one or more countries because they have not recognized Kosovo, Abkhazia, or South Ossetia? Does controversy on matters of this nature empower the UN Security Council to take punitive measures against a defenseless country arbitrarily?

2.    The resolution refers to the “decision of the 13th Assembly of the African Union in Sirte, calling on the Council to impose sanctions against Eritrea”. Again, this assertion is replete with distortions and half-truths. As underlined earlier, the resolution was co-sponsored by Uganda in its individual capacity. It was not tabled, but on the contrary, vehemently opposed by Libya which is the current Chair of the AU and a non-permanent member of the UN Security Council. More importantly, the UN Security Council’s function is not to rubber-stamp resolutions adopted by a regional organization when invoking Chapter VII of the UN Charter to impose sanctions against a Member State but to do so independently and only on the basis of incontrovertible facts and law.

3.    In a feat of unprecedented cynicism, the UN Security Council Resolution recommends other punitive measures against Eritrea on account of the U.S. fabricated “border dispute with Djibouti”. For seven long years now since the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission gave its final and binding Award on the border dispute between Eritrea and Ethiopia in April 2002, the Security Council has refused to shoulder its responsibilities to ensure the respect of the arbitration decision in accordance with the provisions of the Algiers Peace Treaty that was largely drafted and explicitly guaranteed by this same body. This has encouraged Ethiopia to violate its treaty obligations, the UN Charter and international law to continue its occupation of Badme and other sovereign Eritrean lands. This same Security Council is now singing to a different tune, simply because it is played by Washington, to threaten Eritrea with punitive measure for a non-existent border conflict.

Security Council Resolution 1907(2009) is thus not based on law and incontrovertible facts. The United States has simply employed its preponderant influence to ram through unjustifiable sanctions against a small country. What is shameful is that the United States has been allowed to use the platform and authority of the United Nations to perpetrate injustices against the people and Government of Eritrea; for the second time in recent history. What is shameful is that other major powers in the UN Security Council cannot go beyond expressing their disappointment, mostly in private meetings, to check the excesses of Washington. What is shameful is that the United States can turn the tables and victimize an innocent nation for the very crimes that it is responsible for in the first place. Because the truth is, the United States is mostly responsible for the mayhem and suffering that is bedeviling Somalia today. Indeed, it is common knowledge that as intractable as the Somali crisis is, there were real hopes of a turnaround for the better in 2006. For reasons that defy reason, the Bush Administration then acted to roll back those promising developments to instigate and support Ethiopia’s invasion of Somalia. That single debacle claimed the lives of thousands of innocent Somalis, made half a million people homeless and aggravated the humanitarian crisis in Somalia to unprecedented levels. But then, the Security Council is not taking action on the basis of justice and legality. It is taking action on the basis of the existing power balance in a largely unipolar world. This does not bode well for international justice and peace. This is why today is a shameful day for the United Nations.

Ministry of Foreign Affairs
Asmara
23 December 2009

The great day of September 1st 1961, which remains as one of the most important turning points in our history.

Awate, the man of history, occupies special place in our hearts and memories. He was the guardian, the defender and above all father and the founder of the Eritrean revolution. While Awate’s name was a source of terror and intimidation to the enemy’s ear and its collaborators, it was causing a sense of great hope for Eritreans, a feeling of protection, defiance, and confidence in the inevitability of the ultimate victory of their legal and just struggle.
Awate is the first Eritrean revolutionary and leader who fired thefirst bullet of Eritrean armed struggle with 13 other pioneers in the historic battle of Adal. He dedicated his life serving the cause of his people and demanded no less than the liberation of the man and the land.

History

Eritrea was part of the first Ethiopian kingdom of Aksum until its decline in the 8th century. It came under the control of the Ottoman Empire in the 16th century, and later of the Egyptians. The Italians captured the coastal areas in 1885, and the Treaty of Uccialli (May 2, 1889) gave Italy sovereignty over part of Eritrea. The Italians named their colony after the Roman name for the Red Sea, Mare Erythraeum, and ruled it up until World War II. The British captured Eritrea in 1941 and later administered it as a UN Trust Territory until it became federated with Ethiopia on Sept. 15, 1952. It was made an Ethiopian province on Nov. 14, 1962. A civil war broke out against the Ethiopian government, led by rebel groups who opposed the union and wanted independence for Eritrea. Fighting continued over the next 32 years.

UN : repeat mistake against Eritrea….. 23/12/09

Title NEWS Adal voice

NEWS by – Times Online

23/12/09

The United Nations Security Council imposed an arms embargo and other sanctions on Eritrea today in a move that in effect brands the country a pariah state.

The UN voted to punish Eritrea for illegally supplying arms to al-Qaeda-linked Islamic insurgents in Somalia and for occupying disputed territory on its border with Djibouti.

The 13-1 vote, with Libya against and China abstaining, represents an escalation of condemnation of Eritrea, which has repeatedly been accused of destabilising the Horn of Africa since it gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993 after a 30-year guerrilla war.

Eritrea has gone to war against both Ethiopia and Djibouti and backed al-Shabaab Islamic rebels battling the internationally recognised government in Somalia, despite an arms embargo on that country.

Sir Mark Lyall Grant, Britain’s UN envoy, said he hoped Eritrea would heed the warning sent by the Security Council in adopting today’s resolution.

“The United Kingdom urges Eritrea to stop its illegal actions … and to engage constructively with international partners to help increase stability in the Horn of Africa,” he said. “The nature of the international community’s engagement with Eritrea in future will depend on that response.”

But Eritrea’s ambassador to the UN rejected the Security Council resolution, blaming Ethiopia and the United States.

“The Security Council has decided to impose sanctions on Eritrea on fabricated lies mainly concocted by the Ethiopian regime and the US administration,” Araya Desta, the Eritrean envoy, said outside the meeting.

The Security Council resolution is a rare case of “secondary sanctions” being imposed on a country accused of sanctions-busting in another state.

A UN monitoring group has accused Eritrea of secretly shipping arms, including missiles and explosives, to Islamic insurgents trying to topple the Western-backed transitional government in Somalia, which has not had an effective government since the overthrow of the dictator Mohamed Siad Barre in 1991.

The resolution demands that all UN member states, “in particular Eritrea, cease arming, training and equipping armed groups and their members, including al-Shabaab, that aim to destabilise the region or incite violence and civil strife in Djibouti”.

The arms embargo will cover imports and exports of arms into and out of Eritrea, and calls on other UN members to inspect all suspect air and sea cargo to or from Eritrea and Somalia.

The resolution also imposes a travel ban and asset freezes on “the Eritrean political and military leadership” and other individuals to be designated by a UN sanctions committee.

The measures were drafted by Uganda, a Security Council member with peacekeeping troops in Somalia, after a request for sanctions against Eritrea by the African Union.

Even so, Libya, the current African Union president, voted against the resolution saying that, as a former target of UN sanctions over the Lockerbie bombing, it opposed any UN sanctions on an African nation.

Images adalvoice google Search

UNITED NATIONS

AP – 23/12/09

The U.N. Security Council has approved an arms embargo and other tough sanctions against Eritrea for supplying weapons to opponents of the Somali government and refusing to resolve a border dispute with neighboring Djibouti.

The U.N.’s most powerful body adopted a resolution Wednesday imposing the measures by a vote of 13-1, with Libya voting “no” and China abstaining.

The resolution bans the import and export of weapons to Eritrea and calls on U.N. member states to inspect all suspect air and sea cargo between the Red Sea nation and Somalia.

The resolution also imposes a travel ban on individuals — including Eritrea’s political and military leadership — who violate the arms embargo and obstruct a border settlement with Djibouti.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE. Check back soon for further information. AP’s earlier story is below.

Two top Somali opposition Eritrean capital Asmara on 14 September 2007

UNITED NATIONS (AP) — The U.N. Security Council was expected to approve an arms embargo and other tough sanctions against Eritrea for supplying arms to opponents of the Somali government and refusing to resolve a border dispute with neighboring Djibouti.

The U.N.’s most powerful body was likely to approve the sanctions resolution on Wednesday, diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

It would ban the import and export of weapons to Eritrea and call on U.N. member states to inspect all suspect air and sea cargo between the Red Sea nation and Somalia.

This man is the Problem!

The draft resolution would also impose a travel ban on individuals — including Eritrea’s political and military leadership — who violate the arms embargo, obstruct a border settlement with Djibouti, or “perpetrate acts of violence or terrorist acts against other states or their citizens in the region.” The financial assets of these individuals as well as government and private companies responsible for similar violations would be frozen.

The Security Council committee monitoring sanctions against Somalia would designate the individuals and companies subject to the new sanctions against Eritrea.

Eritrea earlier this month called the proposed resolution “politically motivated,” saying it was based on “unfounded accusations.”

The African Union asked the Security Council to impose sanctions on Eritrea for providing support to armed groups trying to destabilize Somalia.

A U.N. panel monitoring an arms embargo against Somalia has accused Eritrea of secretly shipping large quantities of arms, including missiles and explosives, to Islamic insurgents trying to overthrow the country’s Western-backed transitional government.

Somalia has not had an effective government since 1991 when warlords overthrew longtime dictator Mohamed Siad Barre and then turned on each other, plunging the country into chaos and anarchy. The fragile U.N.-backed government and an undermanned, poorly resourced African Union peacekeeping force have struggled to defend government buildings, the port and airport in the capital, Mogadishu, against the militant al-Shabab group and other Islamic insurgents.

The draft resolution demands that all U.N. member states, “in particular Eritrea, cease arming, training and equipping armed groups and their members including al-Shabab, that aim to destabilize the region or incite violence and civil strife in Djibouti.”

The African Union expressed grave concern at Eritrea’s failure to withdraw its forces from the Djibouti border.

Eritrea gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993 after a 30-year guerrilla war. It has been feuding over its border with Ethiopia ever since, and uncertainty over its border with the tiny port nation of Djibouti led to hostilities between the two countries twice in the 1990s.

In June 2008, the Security Council condemned Eritrea for launching an attack against Djibouti, a key U.S. ally in the Horn of Africa, which the U.S. said left 44 Djiboutian soldiers dead and many more missing. The council called for a cease-fire and urged the two countries to withdraw their forces from the border, which overlooks key Red Sea shipping lanes. Djibouti did withdraw, but Eritrea has not.

The draft resolution demands that Eritrea immediately comply with the 2008 resolution and pull back its troops. It also demands that Eritrea provide information about Djibouti combatants missing in action since the clashes.

UNITED NATIONS (AP)

23/12/09

The U.N. Security Council was expected to approve an arms embargo and other tough sanctions against Eritrea for supplying arms to opponents of the Somali government and refusing to resolve a border dispute with neighboring Djibouti.

The U.N.’s most powerful body was likely to approve the sanctions resolution on Wednesday, diplomats said, speaking on condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak publicly.

It would ban the import and export of weapons to Eritrea and call on U.N. member states to inspect all suspect air and sea cargo between the Red Sea nation and Somalia.

The draft resolution would also impose a travel ban on individuals — including Eritrea’s political and military leadership — who violate the arms embargo, obstruct a border settlement with Djibouti, or “perpetrate acts of violence or terrorist acts against other states or their citizens in the region.” The financial assets of these individuals as well as government and private companies responsible for similar violations would be frozen.

The Security Council committee monitoring sanctions against Somalia would designate the individuals and companies subject to the new sanctions against Eritrea.

Eritrea earlier this month called the proposed resolution “politically motivated,” saying it was based on “unfounded accusations.”

The African Union asked the Security Council to impose sanctions on Eritrea for providing support to armed groups trying to destabilize Somalia.

A U.N. panel monitoring an arms embargo against Somalia has accused Eritrea of secretly shipping large quantities of arms, including missiles and explosives, to Islamic insurgents trying to overthrow the country’s Western-backed transitional government.

Somalia has not had an effective government since 1991 when warlords overthrew longtime dictator Mohamed Siad Barre and then turned on each other, plunging the country into chaos and anarchy. The fragile U.N.-backed government and an undermanned, poorly resourced African Union peacekeeping force have struggled to defend government buildings, the port and airport in the capital, Mogadishu, against the militant al-Shabab group and other Islamic insurgents.

The draft resolution demands that all U.N. member states, “in particular Eritrea, cease arming, training and equipping armed groups and their members including al-Shabab, that aim to destabilize the region or incite violence and civil strife in Djibouti.”

The African Union expressed grave concern at Eritrea’s failure to withdraw its forces from the Djibouti border.

Eritrea gained independence from Ethiopia in 1993 after a 30-year guerrilla war. It has been feuding over its border with Ethiopia ever since, and uncertainty over its border with the tiny port nation of Djibouti led to hostilities between the two countries twice in the 1990s.

In June 2008, the Security Council condemned Eritrea for launching an attack against Djibouti, a key U.S. ally in the Horn of Africa, which the U.S. said left 44 Djiboutian soldiers dead and many more missing. The council called for a cease-fire and urged the two countries to withdraw their forces from the border, which overlooks key Red Sea shipping lanes. Djibouti did withdraw, but Eritrea has not.

The draft resolution demands that Eritrea immediately comply with the 2008 resolution and pull back its troops. It also demands that Eritrea provide information about Djibouti combatants missing in action since the clashes.

UNITED NATIONS (Reuters)

23/12/09

The U.N. Security Council was set to impose sanctions on the Horn of Africa state of Eritrea on Wednesday because of aid council members say it has given to Islamist insurgents in Somalia.

World

The United States and other nations accuse Eritrea of supplying al Shabaab rebels with funds and arms as they fight to topple a fragile U.N.-backed transitional government in Somalia, a state that has been virtually lawless for 18 years.

Eritrea has repeatedly denied the allegation.

A resolution expected to garner the support of all Security Council members but one imposes an arms embargo. It would also impose asset freezes and travel bans on Eritrea as well as individuals and companies to be designated by an existing sanctions committee. Those hit would include members of Eritrea’s leadership.

A draft of the resolution obtained by Reuters demands that Eritrea “cease arming, training, and equipping armed groups and their members including al Shabaab, that aim to destabilize the region” and also resolve a border dispute with Djibouti.

The resolution says “Eritrea’s actions undermining peace and reconciliation in Somalia as well as the dispute between Djibouti and Eritrea constitute a threat to peace and international security.”

Eritrea would be the first new country to be subjected to U.N. sanctions since Iran in December 2006.

Council members say Uganda originally drafted the resolution after the African Union called on the 15-nation body in May to punish Eritrea over its role in Somalia. But Eritrea has charged that its true author is the United States.

“CYCLE OF CONFLICT”

In a letter to the council last week describing the sanctions as “ludicrous punitive measures,” Eritrea’s U.N. ambassador, Araya Desta, warned that the move risked “engulfing the region into another cycle of conflict as it may encourage Ethiopia to contemplate reckless military adventures.”

Eritrea’s regional rival, Ethiopia, invaded Somalia in 2006 with tacit U.S. backing to rout an Islamic courts movement from Mogadishu. It withdrew its troops earlier this year.

In a telephone interview with Reuters last week, Desta insisted that “many African nations do not support the idea of sanctions.” He said Eritrea was urging the AU to hold another meeting next year to discuss the sanctions issue.

Despite official AU support for sanctions against Eritrea, the organization’s current chair, Libya, is expected to be the only Security Council member not to vote for the resolution. Libya has a two-year seat on the council, but holds no veto.

A U.N. arms monitoring body, set up to record violations of a 1992 arms embargo on Somalia, has said Eritrea was sending munitions and giving logistical support to Somali rebels.

There is little sign the latest attempt to establish a central government in Somalia is proving any more successful than previous efforts since a dictator was ousted in 1991.

As UN Council Delays Eritrea Sanctions and Guinea, Buries W. Sahara, France in Mix

By Matthew Russell Lee

Inner City Press

UNITED NATIONS, December 21 — With Christmas four days away, the UN Security Council has scheduled a December 23 vote on sanctions on Eritrea, delayed at the request of France, while putting off consideration of the UN’s report on war crimes in Guinea, because it is only in French. Meanwhile the promised briefing on Western Sahara, Moroccan sources gleefully tell Inner City Press, may not take place at all. Is this any way to run a Council and world?

Inner City Press asked this month’s Council president Michel Kafando of Burkina Faso what has happened to the briefing on Western Sahara, which several Council members affirm was agreed to be consensus last week. “We are still in consultations,” Kafando answered. Video here, from Minute 6:07.

Asked when the Council will meet on the already leaked report on war crimes in Guinea, Kafando claimed that the Council does not yet have the report. Later at the stakeout it was clarified that until the report is translated from French into English, the Council will not meet on it. Whether the translation can be done and distributed by Wednesday is not clear.

Murkiest of all is the resolution imposing sanctions on Eritrea. Last week it was said it would be put to a vote on Monday, with Libya abstaining or voting “no.”

But on Monday a Permanent Five member of the Council told Inner City Press that “France asked Uganda for a delay.” Uganda, an IGAD member, is the ostensible sponsor of the resolution, and has confirmed France’s request.

NEWS update 23/12/09

UN : repeat mistake against Eritrea….

Cultural barriers and lack of outreach services have sent rates

of HIV/Aids among black African immigrants soaring

Hazel Barrett

guardian.co.uk,

Tuesday 22 December 2009 15.00 GM

Article history

My research in the west Midlands with postgraduate student Betselot Mulugeta, talking to groups of immigrant men and women from the Ethiopian and Eritrean communities, has revealed serious misconceptions about the nature of the HIV/Aids epidemic in the UK. Lack of information tailored for different migrant groups, alongside lower awareness of HIV/Aids through media coverage as a whole, is a problem with real consequences.

Newly reported cases of HIV in the UK are higher than ever before. Between 1995 and 2006, the rate of HIV infection among black Africans in the west Midlands increased 100-fold, compared to a two-fold increase among white people, a three-fold increase among black Caribbeans and a six-fold increase among other mixed ethnic groups (according to the region’s strategic health authority figures).

Taking the Ethiopian and Eritrean population as one example: they are predominantly young and single, tend to live alone and are often sexually active. Their culture and language restrict the information available to them. This group therefore represents a reservoir of HIV infection which is both a concern for the immigrant community itself and the host population. As social networks among the Ethiopian and Eritrean communities in the west Midlands do not condone or tolerate the discussion of sexual issues, external information networks are crucial in raising awareness of the HIV situation in the west Midlands and reducing stigma and discrimination of those who are HIV-positive.

The respondents in our study said they believed the UK was “civilised” and therefore they could not contract HIV/Aids, that the problem had been left behind in Africa. Some commented that they believed all migrants were screened before being allowed entry, and that drugs were available in the UK that would “cure” Aids. Perhaps most tellingly, interviewees said that Aids wasn’t talked about in the UK and no information or warnings were provided, so they had assumed there wasn’t a problem. Culturally, condoms are a difficult issue. It is considered unacceptable for either partner in a sexual relationship to ask for a condom to be used, because it’s thought to suggest the woman is promiscuous or a prostitute, or that there is a lack of trust between them.

One of the main reasons for this lack of appreciation of the HIV risk environment in the west Midlands appears to be a lack of communication and understanding between HIV-related service providers and immigrant communities. In particular there are very few culturally sensitive outreach sexual health promotion programmes aimed at different immigrant groups from high HIV-prevalence source regions in the west Midlands, with hidden groups such as failed asylum seekers and irregular migrants often ignored.

The ruling by the UK court of appeal earlier this year that refused asylum seekers and other “not ordinary UK residents” are not entitled to free NHS treatment and care is creating a reservoir of HIV infection in the UK. It is these marginalised and often hidden groups, who are highly vulnerable to HIV infection due to their socio-economic situation, that are being denied free medical treatment. Denying unrestricted NHS HIV treatment to this group is a serious public health issue which may well fuel the epidemic in the UK.

There is a desperate need to understand the social context of the disease both in terms of the migrants’ region of origin as well as in their new UK communities. The British government is yet to address the steep rise in rates of the disease among heterosexuals and a new Aids awareness campaign targeted at those most at risk of spreading it is imperative. It’s a campaign they are reluctant to undertake because of the sensitivities around immigration, race and perceptions of neo-colonialism.

Sub-Saharan Africa is home to 67% of global cases of HIV/Aids, but it is dangerous to think of the disease as just an African problem now that we can travel easily between continents. Surely it is time we had another UK national campaign to bring this deadly disease to everybody’s attention and to correct the misconceptions both the host and migrant communities have of the HIV/Aids epidemic in the UK.