Eritrea’s Struggle for Human Rights, Sovereignty, and Constructive Engagement

By David Yeh

Eritrea’s struggle has always been deeply rooted in the principles of human rights and social justice. From the earliest days of the liberation movement, Eritreans sought to assert their fundamental rights to self-determination, dignity, and equitable development. The fight against colonial powers, foreign annexation, and regional domination was not merely political or military, it was moral, rooted in the conviction that every Eritrean deserved the ability to shape their own destiny. The armed struggle was, therefore, both a liberation campaign and a human rights endeavor, emphasizing the inseparable link between sovereignty, social justice, and individual dignity.

Even after independence in 1991, Eritrea’s guiding principles have consistently reflected this commitment. The state’s policies prioritize not only political sovereignty but also the promotion of social and economic rights: equitable access to education, healthcare, employment, and food security. These goals are embedded in Eritrea’s vision of a self-reliant, prosperous nation, grounded in the belief that fundamental human rights extend beyond civil and political liberties to include economic, social, and cultural dimensions.

Historical Context: From Colonization to Independence

Understanding Eritrea’s current human rights and policy framework requires a careful examination of its history. Eritrea’s modern history has been marked by centuries of foreign domination first under the Ottoman Empire, then Italy, and subsequently under British administration following World War II. Following Italy’s defeat, Eritrea was forcefully federated with Ethiopia in 1952 under United Nations supervision, but the federation was annulled by Ethiopia in 1962, leading to full annexation.

This series of external impositions created a profound historical legacy of resistance, shaping Eritrea’s national consciousness. The thirty year armed struggle for independence (1961- 1991) was not only a military campaign but also a socio – political project aimed at establishing a just society in which human rights and social justice would be central. Liberation fighters emphasized equality, literacy, and community participation even during wartime, reflecting a broader vision for post-independence Eritrea that went beyond merely removing Ethiopian control.

After independence in 1991, the government faced the enormous task of nation building amidst destroyed infrastructure, limited human capacity, and persistent regional tensions. Despite these challenges, the state prioritized universal education, public health, gender equality, and environmental sustainability. By embedding social justice into policy frameworks, Eritrea sought to ensure that development and human rights were mutually reinforcing.

The Politicization of Human Rights Mechanisms

Despite Eritrea’s historical and contemporary efforts to promote human rights, the country has often been the target of politicized international scrutiny. Reports issued by the United Nations Human Rights Council and associated commissions of inquiry frequently depict Eritrea as a nation in systemic crisis, emphasizing alleged abuses while failing to provide sufficient context or verification.

The Human Rights Council, tasked with promoting universal respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, has in many cases allowed its work to be diverted by narrow political interests. Instead of serving as an impartial arbiter, it has at times produced reports that reflect selective narratives, relying on uncorroborated or anecdotal evidence and failing to engage meaningfully with the Eritrean government or the majority of citizens. This pattern undermines both the credibility of the Council and the legitimacy of the human rights discourse it purports to advance.

Eritrea’s experience with the Commission of Inquiry (COI) is illustrative. The COI has compiled reports based on limited testimonies, often from individuals including non-Eritreans living outside Eritrea, with little verification and minimal engagement with on the ground realities. Many Eritreans compare these reports to Mother India, which Gandhi famously criticized as a “drain inspector’s report,” selecting only the most negative elements to characterize the entire country. Just as Gandhi argued that “the drains are India” was a false equivalence, Eritreans assert that these reports unfairly conflate isolated incidents with systemic conditions, implying that Eritrea itself is defined by these alleged violations. The drains are not Eritrea.

Such reports often fail to recognize critical historical and security contexts. Eritrea’s prolonged no war, no peace situation with Ethiopia, resulting from the illegal occupation of territories such as Badme and Ethiopia’s noncompliance with the Eritrean – Ethiopian Boundary Commission (EEBC) ruling, has necessitated national security measures, including extended national service. Misrepresentation of these policies as tools of oppression, without acknowledging the persistent threat of aggression, creates an incomplete and misleading narrative.

Sanctions, Economic Constraints, and Migration Pressures

The illegal International sanctions, imposed over years under the pretext of security concerns, have further complicated Eritrea’s nation building efforts. Sanctions restricted access to international finance, deterred foreign investment, and limited trade opportunities. For a country still recovering from decades of conflict, such economic barriers significantly hindered job creation, infrastructure development, and broader economic growth.

When employment opportunities are limited and the economic environment is constrained by sanctions, migration naturally increases. Eritrea has seen significant outward migration, particularly among youth seeking better livelihoods and opportunities abroad. While migration is a global phenomenon, in Eritrea it is magnified by economic constraints. The state’s allocation of resources to maintain national security, border protection, and the obligations imposed by a prolonged no war, no peace situation with Ethiopia limits the capacity for widespread economic expansion.

The situation is further complicated by international asylum systems that have, at times, provided preferential treatment to refugees claiming Eritrean identity. While many Eritrean nationals seeking protection are genuinely fleeing economic hardship, the perception of high and majority recognition rates has incentivized some individuals from other countries to assert Eritrean nationality strategically. This phenomenon has contributed to an inflated number of recorded Eritrean refugees in Europe and North America, which in turn reinforces biased narratives of systemic crisis within Eritrea.

From a policy perspective, this cycle illustrates the unintended consequences of selective asylum incentives and politicized reporting. By creating a perception of widespread human rights violations, these narratives exacerbate migration pressures, while simultaneously undermining Eritrea’s efforts to develop domestic economic opportunities and engage constructively with the international community.

The Youth, Western Narratives, and Social Perception

A significant factor in Eritrean migration and international criticism is the influence of global media and the so-called Western dream. Satellite television, social media, and diaspora networks project images of prosperity, freedom, and opportunity abroad, which can create unrealistic expectations among youth. Some young Eritreans, who did not directly participate in nation building, feel disconnected from the state and are drawn to the empty promise of economic and personal opportunity in Western countries.

Critically, international reports often fail to consider these social dynamics. They present migration as evidence of systemic oppression rather than as a complex interplay of economic, security, and aspirational factors. This reductionist approach contributes to a narrative that portrays Eritrea as uniquely repressive, while ignoring the legitimate structural challenges facing other developing nations.

In reality, many Eritreans remain committed to nation building and development at home. They value education, public services, and social stability, yet they face the same global pressures of youth unemployment, saturated labor markets abroad, and economic aspirations. By ignoring these realities, biased reports distort the lived experience of Eritreans, reducing a complex society to a caricature defined by alleged abuses.

Nation – Building Under Pressure

Despite illegal sanctions, migration pressures, and international scrutiny, Eritrea has maintained a clear developmental vision. The government prioritizes literacy, gender equality, healthcare, environmental sustainability, infrastructure improvements, and equitable economic development. Education is universally freely accessible and taught in a global context, preparing Eritreans to engage internationally while remaining rooted in national priorities. Public subsidies, including heavily subsidized transport and food security programs, reflect a commitment to social justice and equity.

Critical sectors, such as mining, are managed with national development in mind. The state maintains significant stakes in major ventures to ensure that revenue benefits the broader population rather than narrow corporate interests. These policies demonstrate an approach to governance and economic management that prioritizes national interest, equitable distribution of resources, and sustainable development.

Eritrea has also signed and ratified multiple international human rights treaties, including the Convention Against Torture, and actively participates in the Universal Periodic Review process. The state emphasizes that progress must be understood within the context of capacity constraints, illegal sanctions, and regional security pressures. This approach reflects a nuanced understanding of human rights as inseparable from development, sovereignty, and national security.

Critique of Biased Human Rights Reporting

The core issue for Eritrea is not the principle of human rights, but the manner in which international mechanisms interpret and report on the country. Selective reporting, reliance on unverified anecdotal evidence, and the amplification of certain narratives over others create a distorted image of Eritrea in global discourse.

For example, the COI often relies on testimony from small numbers of individuals including none eritreans, frequently located outside Eritrea, without proper verification or contextualization. Allegations are amplified as systemic realities, while achievements in education, healthcare, gender equality, and economic development are frequently ignored. Such reports fail to recognize Eritrea’s constraints, including illegal sanctions, regional insecurity, and the legacies of a protracted liberation struggle.

This selective approach to human rights reporting has several detrimental effects:
1- Erosion of credibility: When international bodies appear to prioritize political agendas over impartial investigation, their legitimacy is undermined.
2- Reinforcement of migration incentives: Reports portraying Eritrea as a systemic crisis feed perceptions among youth and asylum seekers that migration is necessary for safety or opportunity.
3- Policy distortion: Biased reporting pressures the state to respond defensively, often diverting attention and resources from development priorities.
4- Demonization of sovereignty: By ignoring security threats and regional conflicts, reports portray Eritrea’s national service and security policies as oppressive, rather than protective and strategic.

The cumulative effect is an international narrative that misrepresents Eritrea, exaggerates the scale of violations, and fails to acknowledge the state’s proactive policies in human rights, social justice, and development.

Constructive Engagement as the Path Forward

Eritrea advocates for a more balanced approach: engagement based on context, verification, and fairness. Constructive engagement emphasizes collaboration, technical assistance, and support for development initiatives rather than politicized denunciation. The European Union’s cooperation frameworks with Eritrea exemplify this approach, combining development, dialogue, and mutual respect. Such engagement acknowledges Eritrea’s constraints as one of the world’s poorest nations while supporting its efforts to enhance governance, development, and human rights outcomes.

Eritrea argues that this model focusing on context, holistic understanding, and partnership can reconcile international human rights concerns with the realities of nation building. By addressing verified issues transparently while respecting sovereignty and security imperatives, constructive engagement avoids the harms of politicized reporting and selective enforcement.

Conclusion

Eritrea’s human rights record must be understood within the broader context of historical struggle, sanctions, regional insecurity, and development priorities. Reports that rely on anecdotes, selectively amplify allegations, or ignore context do not provide an accurate or fair assessment.

Sanctions and international pressure have compounded economic difficulties, contributing to migration pressures. Preferential treatment for Eritrean asylum claims, while well intentioned, has further skewed perceptions, sometimes encouraging strategic identity claims by non Eritreans and amplifying narratives of crisis. These distortions, combined with selective human rights reporting, have created a global perception that undermines Eritrea’s sovereignty and nation building efforts.

Eritrea remains committed to upholding fundamental rights, promoting social and economic development, and engaging constructively with international partners. At the same time, the country rejects biased reporting, politically motivated denunciation, and misrepresentation of its security, developmental, and social context. Sustainable solutions require fairness, impartiality, and recognition of Eritrea’s historical and contemporary realities.

Eritrea stands ready to collaborate with all genuine partners in the spirit of mutual respect, development, and peace. Only through balanced engagement and a recognition of sovereignty can the global community advance the shared ideals of justice, human dignity, and sustainable development. As Eritreans often say: the dog barks, but the camel keeps marching.