According to the Proclamation of National Service,  Eritrea's youth were supposed to serve their nation for 18 months of “active national service.”   The active national service could be supplemented by additional service in the “reserve military service”, but since this was for the purpose of supplanting the regular army in times of war/mobilization, and/or for dealing with natural disasters, an Eritrean had, at the time the proclamation took effect in 1995, every reason to believe that the young would serve for 18 months only.

But thanks to the government’s abusive and aggressive policies, the nation has been embroiled in one war or another since 1995, and many of Eritrea’s youth have been in a state of conscripted service for 3, 5, 8, 10 years.  Some have been in a state of conscription since 1995. It is this which accounts for Eritrea becoming, on a per capita basis, the world’s largest exporter of refugees.

That and the decision by Eritrea’s ruling party--the People’s Front for Democracy & Justice (PFDJ)—to create a police state where the youth, like their fellow citizens, have no rights: no right to speech, to assembly, to religion, to movement, to due process, to elect, or to be elected, to petition their government, or to have a representative government.   They need permit to move around their own country; they have no educational and career prospects, and the only thing they can look forward to is a lifetime of quiet servitude.   

To escape from this harsh environment, they have been escaping from their home country, Eritrea, where the right to freedom of movement within and outside the country is enjoyed only by one class of people: the senior ranks of the PFDJ.  The youth have been flocking to Sudan, Ethiopia, Djibouti, and from there to Kenya, South Africa, Libya, Egypt, Israel, South America, Europe and North America where, according to ICE, they account for most of the illegal immigrants from East Africa.

Refugee Rights

The convention relating to the status of refugees was adopted in 1954.  Article 33 of the Convention specifically prohibits the expulsion or return (“refoulement”) of refugees:

No Contracting State shall expel or return ("refouler") a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.

The convention was geography-specific: written so soon after World War II, it was intended to specify the rights and duties of European refugees.  The convention achieved universality when it reappeared as the Protocol in 1967, and required of member states to abide either by acceding to the treaty (if they were not party or the Convention), or recognize it as a successor to the Convention (if they were.)

Member states entered into this multilateral treaty while reserving their right to register their declarations, reservations or objections to the specific chapters of the convention.

Some countries, like Eritrea, are not signatories to the Protocol and are not bound by it.  Others, like Egypt, are signatories to the Protocol—and, in fact, registered no declarations, reservations or objections to any of the chapters—and are, in accordance with International law, obliged to observe the terms of the Convention and the Protocol.  Here's a list of the participants. 

Forcible Return

In 2002, hundreds of Eritreans who had sought refuge in Malta were forcibly returned to Eritrea—despite warnings from human rights organizations that they would be tortured.  

They were.

We know this because of the testimonies provided by those who managed to escape from incarceration.

In 2004, hundreds of Eritreans were deported by Libya.  The deportees knew what awaited them in Eritrea and, out of sheer desperation, hijacked the plane that was carrying them and forced it to land in Khartoum, Sudan.   Sudan arrested the hijackers and agreed to consider the asylum application of the rest.   The UNHCR recommended that even those whose asylum application is rejected be NOT returned to Eritrea.

In 2005-2007, Eritrea became the highest exporter of refugees (per capita) than any other nation in the world.  In 2006, Eritrean asylum seekers in EU outnumbered those from Iran and Afghanistan.   Eritreans were seeking asylum in some of the poorest nations (Ethiopia) and some of the richest (England.)  They were crossing dangerous waters on rickety boats and dying in the process.

In 2008, the government of Egypt deported hundreds of Eritreans—despite appeals from human rights organizations.  The government of Eritrea, issued a statement that it had welcomed them and provided them with hospitality.

Why is this happening?

Why do Eritreans keep getting deported back to Eritrea?  Nations will act in a way that its politicians believe promotes their interest.  If some countries think that it is in their national interest to expel Eritreans (or if they are pressured to believe that it is), they will.

We, the Eritrean citizens, have an obligation to protect our compatriots.  But we need to do this in a proactive way.  Instead of jumping from one disaster to another, we must form a permanent task force, an entity that can help the handful of Eritreans who are, with little resource, trying to make meaningful change.

I.                   Eritreans are being deported because we have not made the case that the Eritrean government mistreats its citizens based on “race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion.”

In fact, many of the government's supporters and apologists take pride that the government is an “equal opportunity” violator.  First of all, even if this were true, it is not something to be proud of.  It is like a murderer who claims that he does not discriminate in the selection of his victims.   Secondly, it is not true: the government does target its victims on the basis of religion, membership of a particular social group and political opinion.  It just takes turns in targeting the religion or the social group. 

When Eritreans were deported from Malta, they were all interrogated.  Two of the questions they were asked were: “While in Malta, which opposition groups did you meet with? Who was organizing you?”  The testimony provider added: “If you are unable to give them the answers they like to hear, you are beaten.”

Political affiliation does endanger one’s freedom and life in Eritrea. There are several political affiliations allowed in Eritrea: to be an enthusiastic supporter of the PFDJ or a less enthusiastic supporter of the PFDJ.  It is not possible to be openly against the policies of the PFDJ.  Membership in a particular religion is also illegal.  In the 1990s, the prohibited religions were “Jehovah’s Witnesses” and “Jihadist” (which was an appellation applied to any conservative Muslim.)  Since 2002, the targets have been all “Pentes” a derisive name applied to any Christian who is not a follower of the Eritrean Tewahdo Orthodox Church, the Roman Catholic Church, or the Eritrean Lutheran Church.     

II.                 Eritreans are being deported back to Eritrea because we have not made the case that Eritreans will be tortured and denied their freedom or their life once they return;

This is a failure to document material in an organized way.  But for any one looking, the material is available at awate.com, at Amnesty, Human Rights Watch and many other human rights advocates.

III.              Eritreans are being deported back to Eritrea because the host countries are under no pressure to do the right thing;

This speaks to our failure to organize and apply pressure intelligently.   Libya will most likely not be amenable to pressure because it is not even a signatory to the convention or the protocol.  But Egypt should be because it is concerned about its international image and it is a signatory to the Protocol.

What we need is organization and co-ordinated effort in a pro-active way.  Otherwise, we will continue to observe Eritreans being mistreated by the nation they escaped, the nation that hosts them, which then sends them to the nation they escaped who, while torturing them, seeks congratulations for its hospitality. 

Pro-active also means that we need to address the problem at its root--having a representative government which debates, ratifies, amends, or throw away the National Proclamation or, at the very least, the apalling way it is being practiced now. Let's make Egypt the last nation to deport Eritreans back to Eritrea.  

This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it