A South African court has issued an interim order stopping Sudan’s leader Omar al-Bashir, who faces war crimes charges, from leaving the country.

The Pretoria High Court says Mr Bashir must stay until it rules on Monday on whether he should be handed over to the International Criminal Court (ICC).

President Bashir is in Johannesburg for an African Union (AU) summit.

He is accused of committing war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide during the Darfur conflict.

About 400,000 people have died and more than two million have fled their homes since rebels took up arms in 2003, the UN says.

Government forces and allied Arab militias are accused of targeting black African civilians in the fight against the rebels.

Tensions

President Bashir was welcomed by South African officials as he arrived in Johannesburg. After the court announced it would rule on a request to arrest him, he posed for a group photo with other African leaders.

The High Court initially said it would issue its ruling on Sunday. But it later postponed the hearing until Monday, when the summit is due to end.

There are tensions between the ICC and the AU, with some on the continent accusing the court of unfairly targeting Africans.

The warrants against Mr Bashir, who denies the allegations, have restricted his overseas travel. He has, however, visited friendly states in Africa and the Middle East.

Analysis: Andrew Harding, BBC Africa correspondent

South Africa has often shied away from this sort of diplomatic headache, but this time the government has stepped straight, and deliberately, into controversy, courting Western fury by rolling out the welcome carpet for President Bashir.

The South African government must, surely, have foreseen the possibility of a legal challenge. If President Bashir is allowed to return home unimpeded, South Africa’s actions will be bitterly condemned internationally – if less loudly within the continent – as a blow against the credibility of the ICC.

And if Sudan’s president is detained, or perhaps even arrested, then Pretoria will be accused of luring a fellow African leader into a trap. Some would call that a no-win situation.

But it’s clear that South Africa’s government has chosen to flaunt its growing antipathy towards ”Western” rules, and towards a court in which so many African leaders now appear to have lost faith.

Sudan’s bloody stalemate

The ICC relies on member states to carry out arrests.

However correspondents have said the South African government – a signatory to the treaty establishing the ICC – is unlikely to move against the Sudanese leader.

South Africa’s governing ANC said immunity had been granted to ”all (summit) participants as part of the international norms for countries hosting such gathering of the AU or even the United Nations”.

The ANC also said the ICC was ”no longer useful for the purposes for which it was intended”.

The court, which sits in The Hague, was set up in 2002 to try cases of genocide, crimes against humanity and war crimes, when national courts cannot handle them.

The official theme of the Johannesburg summit, chaired by Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe, is women’s empowerment and development.

But the political turmoil in Burundi, crisis in South Sudan and recent xenophobic attacks in South Africa were also likely to feature heavily.

BBC

መትሮፖሊታን ኦርቶዶክሳዊት ቤተ ክርስቲያን ምስሪ ምስ ፓትርያርክ እንጦንዮስ ኣብ ኣስመራ ተራኺቦም

ክቡራን ሕዝበ-እግዚኣብሔርን ውሉደ-ክህነትን ኦርቶዶክሳዊት ቤተ ክርስቲያን ኤርትራ፥
ኣብ ዝሓለፈ ወርሒ ግንቦት፥ መትሮፖሊታን ሊቀ ጳጳስ ኦርቶዶክሳዊት ቤተ ክርስቲያን ምስሪ ዝመርሕዎ ጉጅለ፥ ምስ 3ይ ፓትርያርክ ቅዱስ ኣቡነ እንጦንዮስ ኣብ ኣስመራ ተራኺቦም። ብተወሳኺ፥ ፓትርያርክ እንጦንዮስ፥ ብኹነታት ጥዕናኦም ደሓን ከምዘለዉ’ውን ክፍለጥ ተኻኢሉ ኣሎ።

ኣብ ቤተ ክርስቲያን ተዋሕዶ ን10 ዓመታት ከቢድ ዕንወት፥ ውግዘት፥ ማእሰርቲ፥ ምፍልላይን ሕጊ-ኣልቦነትን ነጊሱ ከምዝጸንሐ ዝፍለጥ ኮይኑ፥ መደብ እግዚኣብሔር ኮይኑ ግና ኣብ ወርሒ መስከረም 2014 ብተበግሶ ሥምረት ገዳማት ኤርትራ ዝጀመረ ምግላፍ ዘይሕጋዊ ምምሕዳር ኣቶ ዮፍታሄ ድሜጥሮስን ቀሺ ሃብቶም ርእሶምን፡ ሓድሽ ኵነታትን ኣንፈትን ከም ዝተፈጥረ ዝዝከር እዩ።

ን10 ዓመታት ዝኣክል ሕቶ መንበረ ጵጵስና ሰሜን ኣሜሪካ’ውን ንጹርን ዘየማትእን ኮይኑ እዩ ጸኒሑ። ንሱ ድማ፥ ዝተጣሕሰ ቀኖና ቤተክርስቲያን ተዋህዶ ናብ ንብሩ ይመለስ፥ ፓትርያርክ እንጦንዮስ ናብ ቦታኦም ተመሊሶም ንቤተ ክርስቲያን ተዋህዶ ይምርሕዋ ዝብል እዩ። እዚ ምስ ዝኸውን እዩ ቤተ ክርስቲያን ተዋሕዶ ብሓዋርያዊ መሪሕነትን ስምረት ክትነብር ትኽእል።

ሕጂውን ኣብ ሕጊ፥ ጽድቅን ሓቀኛ ፍቕርን ዝተመሥረተ ወግዓዊ ዕርቂ ኣብ መንጎ ቅዱስ ፓትርያርክ እንጦንዮስን ጳጳሳትን ንኽትግበር መልእኽትና ነመሓላልፍ።

መንበረ-ጵጵስና ኣህጉረ ስብከታት ሰሜን ኣሜሪካ፥ ኤውሮጳን ማእከላይ ምብራቕን                            

13 ሰነ 2015 (፮ ሰነ ፳፻፯ ዓ.ም ግእዝ) 

ግህሰት ሰብ-ኣዊ መሰላት ኣብ ኤርትራ ደው ይበል፡ 1ይ – 2ይ – ክፋል

On Monday, the United Nations released the results of a year-long investigation into human rights in Eritrea. What it found was horrific. Detailing ”systematic, widespread and gross human rights violations,” the U.N. commission of inquiry argued that Eritrea was operating a totalitarian government with no accountability and no rule of law.

”The commission also finds that the violations in the areas of extrajudicial executions, torture (including sexual torture), national service and forced labor may constitute crimes against humanity,” the report said.

However, it appears the report failed to produce any mainstream outrage. Unlike similar U.N. reports on alleged crimes against humanity in North Korea, or online criticism of human rights abuses in places such as Saudi Arabia or Qatar, the horrific accusations against Eritrea didn’t produce a viral outcry.

Why not? It certainly doesn’t seem to be because of the severity of the accusations. Crimes against humanity are pretty much as serious as you can get, and it’s hard to read the United Nations’ full report and not be shocked.

It’s hard to imagine now, but hopes were initially high for Eritrea in 1993 after it gained independence from Ethiopia after 30 years of civil war. Since then, however, President Isaias Afwerki has clamped down and allowed no room for an opposition. The U.N. report described a Stasi-like police state that leaves Eritreans in constant fear that they are being monitored.

“When I am in Eritrea, I feel that I cannot even think because I am afraid that people can read my thoughts and I am scared,” one witness told the U.N. inquiry.

The system leads to arbitrary arrests and detention, with torture and even enforced disappearances a part of life in Eritrea, the U.N. probe found, and even those who commit no perceived crime often end up in arduous and indefinite national service that may amount to forced labor. Escape is not a realistic option for many: Those who attempt to flee the country are considered ”traitors,” and there is a shoot-to-kill policy on the border, the report said.

It’s also worth noting the significant effort and risk put into creating the report: The Eritrean government refused to allow the United Nations access to the country to investigate, so the U.N. team interviewed more than 550 witnesses in third countries and accepted 160 written submissions. Many approached by the United Nations declined to give testimony, even anonymously, citing a justifiable fear of reprisal.

Still, experts don’t seem too surprised at the lack of outrage generated by the report. ”Clearly, Eritrea doesn’t capture the imagination, or rouse the conscience of Americans, much in the way North Korea does,” Jeffrey Smith, an advocacy officer at the Robert F. Kennedy Center for Justice and Human Rights, explained. ”President Afwerki, while unquestionably a chronic human rights abuser and eccentric despot, isn’t portrayed by the American media in the same way that Kim Jong Un is.”

”North Korea also makes headlines for other reasons — namely its nuclear ambitions and the ongoing threat it poses to regional stability in East Asia,” he added. ”Similarly, while Eritrea is certainly a police state similar to North Korea in many ways, it’s largely kept out of the headlines because Africa in general doesn’t feature highly on the agenda of policymakers here in the United States.”

The fact is, while the scope and authority of the U.N. report lent its allegations an added weight, academics and human rights researchers had long written similar things about the Eritrean state without a significant mainstream response in America or Europe.

In 2014, for instance Human Rights Watch called Eritrea ”among the most closed countries in the world” and pointed to ”indefinite military service, torture, arbitrary detention, and severe restrictions on freedoms of expression, association, and religion.” Reporters Without Borders has repeatedly ranked it as the worst country in the world for press freedom — worse even than North Korea.

”The U.N. report? We knew it already,” said Ismail Einashe, a Somali-British journalist who works with Eritrean migrants. ”Too little, too late.”

Despite this, some reports on the country ignore this and focus on another aspect of Eritrea: Its unlikely tourism sector. International isolation, a history as an Italian colony and reported Qatari investment may have made Eritrea a unique if distasteful vacation destination: As one travel blogger put it last year, the capital of ”Asmara felt much more like Naples than North Korea.”

Sara Dorman, an expert in African politics at Edinburgh University, doesn’t think much of either comparison.

”I don’t think it’s particularly helpful,” she said of the country’s reputation as the ”North Korea of Africa.” At the same time, she stressed that Eritrea really does deserve to be seen as a special case. ”As somebody who studies authoritarian regimes elsewhere in Africa, the Eritrean regime’s control over its population is qualitatively different than other African states,” Dorman said, before pointing to features such as the scale of Eritrea’s intelligence service and the practice of punishing entire families for the crimes of one member.

There are plenty of historical arguments for why the world should pay more attention to what’s happening in Eritrea. Former colonial rulers Italy and Britain have an obvious legacy there, and so does the United States, which allowed Ethiopia to incorporate Eritrea with the aim of keeping the U.S. Kagnew Station military base in the country. In addition, Eritrea has a difficult recent history with its East African neighbors: It’s currently under U.N. sanctions for supporting al-Shabab, the Somali Islamist group, and others in the region.

But one important reason to pay attention has become an unavoidable reality for Europe. Eritreans make up a large share of the migrants crossing the Mediterranean in flimsy boats to seek asylum in Europe: More than 22 percent of those who made the journey in 2014 were from the country, according to the U.N. High Commissioner for Refugees, second only to Syrians. They flee not because of a civil war like that in Syria, but because of the immense restrictions the Eritrean state puts on their lives. As one escaped Eritrean put it, life there is a ”psychological prison.”

The Washington Post

In recent years, Eritrea has been the country with the most asylum seekers to Norway. Many have fled from the very repressive regime. Several of them said, however, that there are people who support the Eritrean regime, which has been granted asylum in Norway. What do they do here?