What is Eritrea’s Sudan strategy?

Bill Weinberg

Over at the CIA, they must really be scratching their heads over Eritrea. It is hosting the exiled Islamist leaders of Somalia and is accused by Washington of backing Islamist insurgents there. But the New York Times reports Oct. 5 that it also hosts “more than half a dozen Darfur rebel groups” fighting the Islamist government of Sudan—including the United Front for Liberation and Development, which has been provided with its own offices by the Asmara regime, free of charge. The Times also points out that last year Eritrea’s President Isaias Afewerki “brokered a peace deal between the Sudanese government and rebels in a separate conflict in eastern Sudan that had ground on for 15 years and that cost thousands of lives.” (This is a reference to the Beja region, although the Times, in its maddening way, does not mention it by name.) Is this a schizophrenic policy, or is there some consistency here that we’re missing?

“It’s not easy fighting against regimes supported by superpowers,” Afewerki said in a rare interview with the NY Times‘ Jeffrey Gettleman, published Oct. 2. “But we did it.” This is a clear reference to Ethiopa, and, less clearly, to Ethiopia-occupied Somalia. So why is Afewerki supporting rebels fighting Sudan, a regime also on the outs with the American hegemon?

It’s especially odd given that Eritrea, like Sudan, is wooing Chinese investment for its resource sector. South Africa’s IOL reports Oct. 5 that Eritrea’s Ministry of Mines has granted two exploration licences to a Chinese base metal company and a joint Chinese-Eritrean gold venture, the Beijing Donia Resources Ltd and the Eritrea-China Exploration & Mining Share Company, respectively.

The Los Angeles Times also noted Oct. 2 that Eritrea, one of the world’s poorest nations, “walked away from more than $200 million in aid in the last year alone, including food from the United Nations, development loans from the World Bank and grants from international charities to build roads and deliver healthcare.” Afewerki vows he will not lead another “spoon-fed” African country “enslaved” by international donors.

“We need this country to stand on its two feet,” Isaias told the LAT. Fifty years and billions of dollars in post-colonial international aid have done little to lift Africa from poverty, he said. “These are crippled societies,” Afewerki said of neighbors who he charged rely heavily on donors. “You can’t keep these people living on handouts because that doesn’t change their lives.”

Afewerki has conscripted about 800,000 of Eritrea’s citizens for the self-sufficiency drive, which the LAT finds “so far has shown promising results. Measured on a variety of UN health indicators, including life expectancy, immunizations and malaria prevention, Eritrea scores as high, and often higher, than its neighbors, including Ethiopia and Kenya.”

“It’s like they have self-imposed sanctions,” said one diplomat, who feared government retribution if identified. “They’re turning into an Albania or North Korea.”

See our last posts on Darfur and the Sahel, and Eritrea and the Horn of Africa.

    2. I told you so to the United States ??
      It might be a staraight forward strategy to stabilise Sudan and as “I told you so” to United States.

      Don’t believe the numerous negative stuff in the media about Eritrea, they seem to know they are doing.

      1. You mean “DE-stabilize”
        Hello? They are backing the guerillas in Darfur! That certainly isn’t a strategy to “stabilize” Sudan! If they were working with Sudan, that would make political sense, and wouldn’t have raised any questions.

        Go ask Amnesty International about Eritrea. I’m sure they will agree that the goons who run Isaias Afewerki’s torture state know exactly what they’re doing. Oh I forgot, Amnesty International is a tool of the evil imperialist conspiracy. Right?

        1. If you assume, it makes an ass of u & me 🙂
          If you dig a bit deep enough, you will find few months back the Sudanese president was praising Eritrea for helping him broker the peace deal. I believe they are still in good terms.
          english.peopledaily.com.cn/200704/23/eng20070423_368855.html

          Let us not blow things out of proportion about Amnesty, I am not condoning the repression and torture, but you can find similar reports for Israel prisons as well.

          From what I know in the few years I lived there, and the people I spoke to, from all walks of life, I do not see the bad stuff I hear in the Media. Saying that I am not advocating his strong man way of ruling his people.

          In a final note, I am happy capitalist who thinks good of amnesty 😉

          1. Gee, original line
            Well yes, I would imagine Bashir would say some nice things about the broker upon the signing of a peace accord. It doesn’t alter the fact that Afewerki is BACKING THE GUERILLAS IN DARFUR! Helloooo….?

            Oh, I get it. If Israel uses torture, then it’s OK for Eritrea to do it. Good thinking there.

            1. Cook it how ever you want.
              I think you missed the point, Eritrea has been supporting the darfur rebels and SPLA, even when the Eritreans themselves were rebels.

              He expressed appreciation of Eritrea’s efforts for persuading the Darfur rebel movements, which had first refused to sign the DPA, to join the peace process.

              Aferwerki, for his part, reiterated Eritrea’s desire for realizing the peace in Sudan, saying that “the peace in Sudan is a part of the peace in Eritrea.

              Again about Amnesty’s report I am not condoning torture, but simply pointing out Israel and the United States rightly are on Amnesty’s torture records as well.

              1. Enigmatic berbere
                Cooking? Berbere is the distinctive spice mix of the Horn of Africa, what curry is to India. Afewerki’s is a particularly enigmatic mix.

                Interesting that Eritrea has peacekeepers on the Chad-Darfur border, presumably with Khartoum’s approval. A part of Afewerki’s Sudan strategy seems to remain on good terms with both sides (which, the Times article said, even the US acknowledges has been helpful.)

                I don’t think the US or Israel are quite in Eritrea’s league in the torture department. But such comparisons are ugly. One torture state does not excuse another.

                1. Finally we agree !!
                  Finally we agree 🙂

                  Kudos to you talking about this kind of topic.
                  I don’t think many Americans bother to understand what is going on in that part of the world and only rely on what they get in the skewed media.

                  I am sure the topic will be around for some time.

                  Dan.

                2. You seem to know next to nothing
                  You seem to know next to nothing about Eritrea. Eritrea did fight and win against superpowers–the US and the USSR. The fact that you thought Isaias was referring to Ethiopia reveals volumes about your pedestrian knowledge about Eritrea and the region.

                  Eritreans oppose Ethiopia’s brutal adventure in Somalia because they, too, know what it means to be a victim of the same violent, hallow nation whose existence is maintained and guaranteed by its ability to function as a willing and compliant water carrier of Western hypocrisy.

                  1. Chill out, Isaias-booster
                    I certainly know that Eritreans fought Ethiopia both back in the ’80s when it was backed by the USSR and still today now that it backed by the US. It never fought either superpower directly (unless you count military advisers, perhaps), and your pal Isaias didn’t even say that. Of course he was referring to Ethiopia when he said “regimes supported by superpowers.”

                    1. Hey wait…
                      Gentlemen- let’s not get carried away here. Just like any other nation state, Eritrea has the right to pursue its interests which ever way it sees fit. Pretty much the same way the US or anyother nation does. And yes, its governance is very far from perfect.

                      The Eritrean way of thinking is deeply rooted in maintaining political and economic independence so that national policies and decision making processes do not end up being subservient to foreign hegemonic interests. Be it torture state or not, resolutions like HR 2000 (or whatever it is a congressional committee passed on Ethiopia recently) do not have an effect on Eritrea. this only because it has resisted the temptation of accepting easy handouts and the politial cost that comes with it.

                      These days the Horn is a checkerboard of geopolitical entities whose foreign policies are based on ideals of realpolitik. As it happens, the Eritreans are better at it than anybody else in the neighborhood. Whether the West accepts it or not, the key to the stability of the Horn is in Eritrea. The US and its war on terrorism are better served by allowing the demarcation of the Eritrean & Ethiopian border.

                      Yes, Eritrea will maintain its policy of stabilizing Sudan. But will maintain effective control of all Sudanese factions-even after they join the sudanese government. Eritrea needs sudan for crucial imports, and will do its best to keep it stable and in check. The EPLF did just this throughout the 80s. Much of its Sudan policy will continue to be dictated by its relations with Ethiopia.

                      Apologies for the typos…

                    2. Bill – Are you idot by nature or what?
                      Please don’t write analysis with out knowing what the answer is.

                      “Oh…here comes another Isaias booster”

                    3. Relax…Billy
                      Billy man – Please relax. Either answer the question you’ve raised as an analysis or just shut-up if you don’t know the answer.

                      Speaking of torture, please enlighten me, who the leaders are in that league?

                    4. There you go with “stabilize” again…
                      Backing guerillas on a neighbor’s territory is an odd way to “stabilize” it… The only conceivable way you can read it that way is the possibility that Afewerki is wooing the guerillas away from the US and to the negotiating table. Which I suppose is a possibility.

                      I don’t claim to know what Eritrea’s Sudan strategy is. I merely raised the question for discussion. Does somebody have a problem with that?

                      Did you bother to read the Amnesty International page I linked to? Perhaps you missed this paragraph:

                      Torture
                      Torture is routinely used as a punishment by the Eritrean security forces for political, military and religious prisoners. They are held incommunicado without charge or trial in military or security prisons. Virtually no medical treatment is provided for torture injuries or any illness contracted in the harsh conditions in the prisons or metal shipping containers where many detainees are held. The judicial or security authorities have never investigated or prosecuted any case of torture, enforced disappearance or death in custody.

                      Torture methods include being beaten severely and being tied for long periods in painful positions, which is also commonly used against men and women fleeing conscription or for other military offences.

                      If you make excuses for this shit, you squander your legitimacy to oppose what is going on at Gitmo. Or didn’t that occur to you?

                      Being called an idiot by someone who can’t spell the word is too ironic to warrant comment.

                    5. Bill,
                      By repeatedly stating (with a typically American attitude of pushy, presumtious ignorance) that you can’t figure out how a country can stabilize another by supporting its insurgents/rebels you are loudly describing just how big of a novice you are in this subject being discussed.

                      I mean the concept is as old and standard as history itself.

                      Let me dumb it down for you:

                      Destabilization is not an end. It is not a final objective.
                      It is only a MEANS to achieve another greater end, which is
                      CHANGE and ultimately STABILITY under a different (more workable) order…

                      Now that you have been humbled. Let me give you some background info on the Horn of Africa:

                      Sudan’s instability did not begin with Eritrean involvement,
                      it was there long before and had a severely adverse effect on Eritrea and many other neighbours of Sudan, ehmm not to mention on Sudan itself. Eritrean involvement does not seek
                      to continue destabilizing Sudan bur rather to STABILIZE Sudan, RECONCILE its difference, STRENGTHEN it, only this time under an order which is more in tune with and friendly
                      towards Eritrea and Eritrean interests (trade and balance of
                      power against the threat of ETHIOPIA).

                      Sudan, Somalia and Ethiopia destabilized eachother in order to ultimately win and “stabilize” eachother under the total influence and dominance of one over the other. Well in the case of Somalia it was merely to recover what it considers Somali territory (Ogaden) occupied by Ethiopia.

                      After Ethiopia’s defeat and Eritrea’s independence, Sudan hoped to take over the spoils and “stabilize” the region by exertings its influence over both countries but neither the Eritreans nor the new Ethiopian government (which Sudan considered its little puppets) complied. Both Eritrea and Ethiopia actually got along quite well since both leaders
                      had cooperated to overthrow the previous brutal communist dictator of Ethiopia and reverse centuries of Amhara ethnic hegemony. So Sudan went back to playing the same game with Ethiopia (destablization by way of islamic terrorism) and targetted newly independent Eritrea as well. Hence Eritrea joined Ethiopia as a junior partner against former friend Sudan. Somalia of course imploded under its own internal opposition much to the benefit of Ethiopia.

                      Eritrea and Ethiopia soon started fighting over the border, the economy and the level of Eritrea’s true independence when Ethiopia switched to a “new” policy of recovering all of its influence over its former seacoast province with US help. Eritrea had to quickly reorganize its foreign policy as less of a partner/junior brother of Ethiopia’s and one where Ethiopia became enemy no.1 once again, threatening/dwarfing its very existence.

                      So all Ethiopia’s enemies are now Eritrea’s friends. But Eritrea does not want to (cannot logically with a prominent
                      half-christian population) succumb to domination under an isamic force nomatter how anti-Ethiopian it is and how prepared it is to help Eritrea fight Ethiopia (this would only come at an unaffordable price). So it is taking a pragmatic risk-managing approach to dealing with Ethiopia’s largely islamic and islamist enemies as allies. With Somalia there is no risk or even trend of Somali islamism spreading to Eritrea as the Somalis are not interested in spreading their rule or influence or whatever beyond their domain and are focused on recovering and reconstituting their country (which is 100% moslem anyways, so no oppressed
                      religious minorities to speak of). Moreover the Somali islamists are the only force who managed to peacefully unite and stabilize their country deriving their support mainly from Somalis and including all clans and groups without discrimination before facing Ethiopian agression.
                      So Eritrea has no problem wholeheartedly supporting them against Ethiopian agression which cynically sees a unified
                      Somalia as a threat and thus seeks to maintain Somalia weak,
                      divided and dictated to by Ethiopia. Eritrea wants a strong
                      and friendly Somalia to counter-balance and weaken the big
                      Ethiopian threat.

                      With Sudan, the solution is much more complicated. Eritrea
                      wants an equally strong and friendly Sudan for much the same
                      reasons, although trade is another incentive for Eritrean involvement. If you divide Sudan in two parties, one made up of the previously hostile islamic Sudanese government and the other made up of the many opposition movements all gathered under one Asmara-based umbrella, either party is too weak to totally consolidate rule over Sudan and strengthen it. So Eritrea would only be spoiling for itself and weakening Sudan by helping one side against the other.
                      It would also not help its budding relations with China, a major investor in Sudan’s petroleum industry. So Eritrea has embarked on the feat of reconciling and uniting the Sudanese and seems to be doing quite well in that area much
                      to USA’s and Ethiopia’s dismay who see their influence has faded.

                    6. “Humbled”?
                      Not by this illogical tirade.

                      The neocons who want to destabilize Sudan and Iran and Syria would also eventually like to see “stable” regimes under US control in those countries. It doesn’t alter the fact that NOW they are seeking to overthrow them. So your comments about Eritrea seeking “stability” under a “different order” in Sudan tells us nothing.

                      I never claimed that Sudan’s instability began with Eritrean involvement. Sudan was at war with itself a generation before Eritrea became an independent state.

                      If Afewerki is really working for a just reconciliation in Darfur, I wish him the best of luck.

                    7. It is difficult to humble an obstinate fool.
                      “Illogical tirade”!? Perhaps the question before posting should be one dealing with reading comprehension rather than arithmetic…I am sure the likes of Bill know the sum of two and two, but whether they can put them together and deduce logic, is doubtful given the last input. How’s that for ironic?

                      So let me dumb it down even further.

                      Eritrea is not trying to overthrow the government of Sudan.
                      Hence Eritrea is not trying to destabilize or weaken Sudan
                      or even the Sudanese government. That job was allready done,
                      most of it by the Sudanese themselves.

                      Eritrea is trying to RECONCILE the Sudanese government with the rebels so that they can work with eachother and jointly strengthen Sudan. Why? Because Eritrea needs a stable Sudan on its side, a power in its own right with whom Eritreans can partner on equal, cooperative terms as a counterweight to onesided, US-aided Ethiopian influence in the region.

                      This can only go as well as Eritrea manages its long hard background work (still ongoing by the way) of trying to get the many Sudanese opposition/rebel movements to get along amongst themselves. Hence the umbrella movement NDA based in Asmara. Without this, the rebels would have no leverage in face of the Sudanese government which despite its weaknesses is a hell of a lot stronger than they are individually. It would be easy for Khartoum to just divide
                      and conquer (and they have, over decades).

                      Troubleshooting you: who would probably hatch a predictably simplistic argument once again, laced with pompous sarcasm, that it is better to simply get rid of the Sudanese regime
                      entirely.

                      Well no, because: a) it would not necessarily lead to any stability in the long run, but rather more instability and chaos (like in Iraq), because neither Bashir’s government alone nor any coalition of opposition movements are strong enough to exclusively sustain Sudan as a stable, strong, united country while facing the other sides insurgency (which would obviously be supported by foreign forces: either Ethiopia and the west on the side of the opposition
                      or islamic regimes on the side of Bashir). Each side is only strong enough to weaken the other at the expense of long-term regional stability at large. This would only benefit third party powers financially strong enough to
                      outsource Sudan’s military occupation to a cheaper military
                      (under the guise of “peacekeepers”), keep the Sudanese weakened by in-fighting and suck them dry of their oil and gas. Ethiopians make very cheap “peacekeepers” by the way.

                      That is why Eritrea is trying to get the Sudanese to reach a concensus by which they can work towards the same goal (which would be a goal that benefits Eritrea as well) and be a power in their own right rather than a pawn in the game of foreign powers…Eritrea wants a strong stable Sudan, a power in its own right, at its side, as a viable counterweight against Ethiopian US-mercenaries.

  2. listen to me if u care about Africa
    I say USA is making all this rubbish about Eritrea coz they are so scared they know they will loose a lot from East Africa ..they got that right.. on my opinion when Eritrea is back on track by that i mean when Eritrea is in full economic control the whole East Africa will be following how Eritrea made by itself with out bending your ass to USA… that will be a Freedom of choosing with whom to trade not only with some greedy blood suckers college graduates Hollywood inspire young Americans ..mind u this ppl come in all shapes and forms and they dont give a damn about the young boy in Eritrea who is strangling to get to hospital when he has got simple curable disease ..they dont give a shit about the young Eritrean girl which her dreams are to have a decent shoos for her first date …this ppl are so greedy they will do any thing to have it their way ..that is why they keep crying back to white house every time they face an intelligent African who asks the right questions ” like live the fuck us alone we will ask your generosity when we cat feed ourself at the moment we want to work for our food coz we know there is food just under our feet”…and they make up the names like terrorists and fascist and dictator ..i admit some African leaders dont know how to fight this greedy blood sucker parasites but Eritrea and few more African countries are getting there there is more work to do with communicating intelectual Eritrean and Africans in diaspora …luv and peace to Africa by D.G.

    1. Calm Down !!
      Wow …. you have touched a raw nerve there Bill.

      To all the Eritreans out there, calm down!! There are a lot more people that know about your struggle that you think. Don’t just jump on any one who asks legitimate question.
      It was just a question and you can inform us by stating the facts if you know the answer. If you bother to read the whole thread you would have found your answer.

      Try to chill a bit some times 🙂

      1. i know there a lot of americans who r friends of africa
        i know there a lot of Americans who r friends of Africa so i dont mean there are not but i know what i am talking about

        1. Bill…
          I urge you to spend
          Bill…

          I urge you to spend more time reading about Eritrean history and the price the people of Eritrea have paid to gain they rightful independence. Writing about a topic you hardly know seems the norm these days. BTW don’t get defensive and patronizing when someone disagree with you.

          1. I couldn’t agree more…
            …that writing about a topic you hardly know seems the norm these days. I don’t believe I fall into that category. I am certainly aware of the price Eritreans have paid for their independence. I don’t believe that lets anyone off the hook for torture.

            1. Gurdian review
              Gurdian review

              Orwell said the future was a boot stamping on a human face, and for much of the 20th century Eritrea seems to have been that face. But against all the odds, the Eritrean people defeated both cold war superpowers in turn, and in 1993 gained their independence through a referendum. Despite the brutalisation and neglect, and despite the troubled times that have followed independence, Wrong offers an uplifting testament to the resilience of the human spirit. Eminently readable and full of fascinating detail, this is a book that deserves and needs to be read.

              http://books.guardian.co.uk/reviews/history/0,6121,1406008,00.html

              http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4729800

            2. As for torturing you friend
              As for torturing you friend Meles Zenawi your country favorite poodle in the Horn of Africa is a shining example of your faild and misguided policy of fighting terror. I Believe the US of A is the the last country ever on this planet to talk about torture, have we forgotten abu ghraib already?. I’m starting to believe your motive are far more than just torture. Someone have mentioned earlier on about they way Eritrea trying to free it self from the Aid/Loan/Evangelical Church trap, could that be the underling factor here?. You’ve raised a valid point when you said you don’t condone torture.

              I don’t believe anyone on his rightful mind will disagree with you. However, have you read the recent news about you’re own president and the repeated lie he told on tv saying the USA does not condone torture meanwhile the CIA and they raccoon do it all over the world.

              the systemic torture of innocent people in American prison and American sponsored prison across the world are absolutely appalling. check you’re own human right record here http://www.amnestyusa.org/annualreport/statement.html
              I think if you’re serious about the issue you’ve raised you should first star with you own country only then I believe you stand a chance.

              P.S if you answer my question, with a question then I will definitely rest my case. I also believe you’re one of the Evangelical neocon trouble maker. only interested in creating trouble when you don’t get your way with things.

            3. Bill I gather your name
              Bill I gather your name tells that you are a “JEW”. Now wouldn’t it be better you clean your own house before you blabber about the rights of ERITEANS? You and I and everyone in the world know that the jews have slaughtered millions of people in the world, starting from the palestinians, Ethiopians Eritreans nad more by either supplying and selling drugs to support Mosad’s dirty operations.

              How about the torture that is being perpetrated by the mighty US of A? How about the 4 million who were slaughtered in Congo and counting? who was behind that? Who was behind the Ruwanda massacar? who was and is the slaughter of the south sudan and Darfur? the list goes on.

              Now my interenet tiger you better shut the hell up than talking about stuff you do not know?

              Proud to be Eritrean

            4. Show me the evidence!
              The UN reports have repeatedly proven themselves to be untrustworthy. History has shown that “facts” presented by the United Nations are hardly ever unbiased when it comes to Eritrea. For instance, take the recent UN report that claimed there were 2,000 Eritrea troops in Somalia prior to the Ethiopian invasion. Ha! Only a fool would believe this. Where were these troops? Where’s the evidence? The Eritrean government has challenged the UN to present evidence, and they have yet to do so.

              It’s no surprise that numerous opportunistic diaspora-based Eritrean political dissenters work for organizations such as Amnesty international, Reporters Without Borders, etc. simply to use these mediums to disseminate lies and tarnish the image of the PFDJ. Eritreans know who these people are. They are the ones responsible for making claims of torture or being victims of torture. Once again, where is the evidence? Show me one picture; show me one torture chamber; etc. All lies. You’re telling me that the same organization that refused to torture Ethiopian POWs for 30 years during the independence struggle–to the amazement of external observers–suddenly decides to torture its own people?!?! What a joke!

              The truth is that the government of Eritrea is extremely popular. How is this so? 85% of Eritrea is made up of countryside peasants who are experiencing the benefits of having new hospitals, dams, roads, etc. built in their local communities through organized popular campaigns. The new generations are getting educated and entering a new Fordist era in Eritrean history. Not only is the government maintaining the faith of its own people but its starting to win the hearts of many Ethiopians, Somalis, and Sudanese.

              The PFDJ has come to understand that regional stability free of political tribalism, clannism, regionalism etc. is a necessity for Eritrea to meet its goals of development. People find this hard to believe but the EPLF/PFDJ history serves as a clear testament to these principles. Read their manifesto.

              The government has repeatedly claimed that “might is right” and their actions have further validated this point. I know we’re living in a Machiavellian world but why is it so hard to believe that doing the “right thing” might one day pay its dues?

              1. Ask Amnesty for the evidence
                You can’t claim Amnesty as a credible source when it accuses the US of torture, and then dismiss it as a pawn of a conspiracy against Eritrea when it makes claims about your government. That is the logic of George Bush, who touts the findings of human rights organizations against regimes he doesn’t like, while dismissing the same groups’ findings on Guantanamo Bay. You’re going to have to do better than that.

                1. Still, where is the evidence?
                  I don’t know who you’re replying to Bill, but I never made any claim about human rights in the US and I don’t intend to. My concern is solely with Eritrea.

                  My point is clear: there is no evidence of torture in Eritrea. Torture is a serious claim and we have yet to see evidence of such happenings taking place in Eritrea. All these screams of torture are simply allegations and nothing more. The allegations are then used to tarnish the image of the Eritrean government. Instead of dodging the substance of what I wrote by claiming I’m a conspiracy theorist, why don’t you respond to me in a manner that addresses actual issue-the evidence?

                  It is a well-known by many that Amnesty International displays bias in its reports. Here’s a quick little bit on this from wikipedia:
                  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amnesty_international#Alleged_selection_bias
                  There is much more information on this bias if you look into it a little more.

                  So once again, where is the evidence? Where are the 2000 soldiers? Where are the photos expanding on torture allegations?

                  1. Still, ask Amnesty
                    You are shooting yourself in the foot with that Wikipedia link, which notes that “critics point to a disproportionate focus on allegations of human rights violations in for example Israel, when compared with North Korea or Cambodia.” Every state Amnesty accuses of torture charges back that it is biased. Amnesty does not make claims it cannot back up. I suggest you address your questions to them.

                    1. Once again…
                      I don’t understand how the following statement, as you claim, shoots myself in the foot:

                      “critics point to a disproportionate focus on allegations of human rights violations in for example Israel, when compared with North Korea or Cambodia.”

                      This actually strengthens my point: Amnesty is biased. Is Israel exempt from this organizations bias?

                      You say ask Amnesty? That’s odd because the last time I checked the burden of proof lied not on me but on you and Amnesty given that it was Amnesty that brought forth the initial allegation. Do I call you a murderer on a piece of paper and expect people to believe me or use my claim as fact without showing anyone any evidence? Get out of here! Amnesty has been asked for evidence by various Eritrean groups and reporters and it still has nothing more to show than it’s annual report.

                      Simply saying ‘Amnesty is a trusted HR organization’ will not get you anywhere my friend. I want the facts. I want the evidence!

                    2. And once again…
                      Wikipedia was citing the critics who perceive that Amnesty is biased against US clients like Israel, and overlooks abuses by regimes on the outs with Washington, like North Korea and (Pol Pot-era) Cambodia—and now Eritrea.

                      For the last time: address your queries to Amnesty. Indeed the burden of proof does lie with them, and that is why you should talk to them if you believe you have reason to doubt their claims. I am just reporting what they say. I have no reason to believe they are less than neutral in the case of Eritrea.