August 15, 2007

US-Eritrea relations are deteriorating by the day. The latest order by the Bush Administration to close the Eritrean consulate in Oakland, California is one more piece in this worsening relationship. Each side is saying the other is to blame. United States officials will tell you Eritrea is to be blamed. Why? Their answer is: “Who is poor and small Eritrea, to challenge the United States?” In their opinion, Eritrea should know its place in the international pecking order of nations. Of course Eritrean officials will also tell you that the United States is to blame. Why? The United States, as a country that authored the Algiers Agreement, is not at the forefront pushing for the expeditious implementation of the “final and binding” Decision of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission (EEBC). Quite to the contrary, Eritrean officials say: “the United States is behind every act of Ethiopia and the United Nations that had made the implementation of the EEBC Decision impossible.” They add “we have nothing against the United States, except the fact that it is showing a blind favoritism towards a lawless regime in Ethiopia at the expense of Eritrea.”

Paradoxically both countries are right. Eritrea should have known that no one challenges the United States, no matter how justified the cause, and lives in peace.

International laws and norms are not meant for the rich and strong nations like the United States, but for the poor and the defenseless. Since Eritrea is of the latter, it should know its right place. Furthermore, Eritrean officials are not supposed to question any United States policy; their duty is to go along with whatever they are told. In addition, United States officials, no matter how insignificant, always know what is best for Africa and Africans. They are used to giving orders and developing countries’ officials like that of Eritrea are supposed to say “yes mom” or “yes sir” without any preconditions. More importantly, Eritrean officials shouldn’t forget John Foster Dulles’ “famous” words “From the point of view of justice, the opinion of the Eritrean people must receive consideration. Nevertheless, the strategic interests of the United States in the Red Sea Basin and world peace make it necessary that the country be linked with our ally Ethiopia.”

Is it any wonder then to read the following words from one Foreign Service officer of the United States, Mr. James Swan, working for the same State Department that John Foster Dulles once lead: “The Eritrean Government has fabricated a national mythology by demonizing neighboring Ethiopia, for the central purpose of garnering complete compliance with his autocratic domestic policies. By channeling Eritreans’ patriotism into hostility toward Ethiopia, the government ensures that [it] can rule as it likes, without public opposition?” No, not at all! It is clear to everyone that U.S. policy towards Eritrea is based neither on justice nor on facts and fairness. This was the case in the late 1940s and 1950s and it remains the same today.

However, there are a couple of questions Mr. Swan needs to think of carefully. Will it be fair to assert that President Bush is “fabricating a national mythology by demonizing Al–Qaeda for the central purpose of garnering complete compliance with his autocratic domestic polices”? Of course not! We have all seen how Al-Qaeda, in cold blood, attacked America, killing thousands and terrorizing millions. The terror of 9/11 is real, not “any invented story, idea, or concept.” If President Bush tries to demonize Osama Bin Laden, he is only trying to defend America from any future Al-Qaeda attacks, not “fabricating a national mythology to demonize Al-Qaeda.” The American public needs to be made aware of the evils of global terrorism so as another 9/11 would never occur again. Not on American soil and hopefully no where in the world as well!

Can anyone also accuse the Jewish people, the survivors of the Holocaust, of “fabricating a national mythology” if they try to demonize Nazi Germany? God forbid! The Holocaust was real, not some “unproved or false collective belief” or myth. Millions have lost their lives in Hitler’s gas chambers!

The same is true of the terror the Eritrean population faced from Ethiopia. The terrorist gang in Ethiopia, with the blessing of some people in the U.S. government, the likes of Mr. Swan, had attacked Eritrea, killing thousands and terrorizing hundreds of thousands. Ethiopia’s refusal, through the encouragement of the likes of Jendayi Frazer, to unconditionally demarcate the Eritrea-Ethiopia border and thus once more seeding the war clouds over the Horn of Africa is also real not a fabrication of the Eritrean government. One need not go far than reading the EEBC’s reports to see these facts. This means the Eritrean government doesn’t have to fabricate any mythology to demonize Ethiopia’s minority regime; its acts are there for anyone to see.

Mr. Swan is willing to look the other way, but what the minority regime is doing to its own people like those in the Ogaden is also another evidence that no body needs to fabricate anything to demonize the regime in Ethiopia. Thus the crimes of Ethiopian regimes, past and present, against the Eritrean people are hard facts not myths. But it is precisely these kinds of callous attitudes and remarks by our Foreign Service officials, the likes of Mr. Swan, towards other victimized people around the world that is denying us Americans the friends we deserve. Mr. James Swan might have thought, through his venomous speech against Eritrea, he was attacking Eritrea, however, by this kind of dishonest presentations he is doing more harm to the credibility of the United States government. This is a great disservice to this great nation. What a shame!

Mr. Swan also told his Kalamazoo audience, “We believe it is essential for the parties to discuss directly how to implement a workable boundary regime.” Does this mean the US now considers the Commission’s Delimitation is not binding because it didn’t come up without a workable boundary? Doesn’t this mean calling for an alternative mechanism, to which the EEBC had already called it “a departure from, and thus an amendment to, the terms of Article 4.2 of the Algiers Agreement?” Could it be these kinds of prejudiced statements that are making the Eritrean government blame the United States government for the impasse in demarcation and the deterioration of US-Eritrea relations?

It seems the real reason behind the deterioration of relation is because Mr. Swan’s boss, Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, Ms. Jendayi Frazer, is angry at the Eritrean government, because it refused to allow her to usurp the Border Commission’s authority and mandate. It is to be remembered, eighteen months ago, Secretary Frazer had, unilaterally, tried to amend the Algiers Agreement’s Article 4.2. While the Algiers Peace Agreement had clearly stated that the EEBC has no power to delimit and demarcate the border on “ex aequo et bono,” she insisted and is still insisting, from what Mr. James Swan told the gathering at Western Michigan University, that the border should be demarcated on “ex aequo et bono.”

This was precisely why Ms. Frazer had demanded to travel to Badme and other parts of the Eritrea-Ethiopia border. She wanted to look at the border for herself and then draw a new “workable boundary.” In fact she had tried to push such a new map and a General Fulford as an advisor to the EEBC, in one of the Commission’s meeting last year. The Eritrean government emphatically said NO to all these and according to the Commission “Eritrea’s insistence on strict adherence to the terms of the Delimitation Decision was a position which it was entitled to adopt in accordance with the Algiers Agreement.”

Thus the crux of the matter is that some U.S. officials have no interest in seeing the border demarcated and the tension between Eritrea and Ethiopia resolved. That is why they are insisting to change the substance of the Commission’s Decision knowing fully well that Eritrea is not going to compromise.

All what we are witnessing these days, including Mr. Swan’s statement at Western Michigan, the order to close the Eritrean consulate in Oakland, placing Eritrea on the list of Countries of Particular Concern, and the fabrication of Eritrean involvement in Somalia are retaliatory corollaries to the principled and legal stand of Eritrea.

In addition to all these, the planned press conference by Assistant Secretary Jendayi Frazer is designed to give some traction to the UN Somali Monitoring Group’s report because it did not seem to have had the reception Dr. Frazer and her office had hoped for. It is the same group that had said there were 2000 Eritrean troops in Somalia last year but could not find a single Eritrean soldier when Ethiopia invaded that country. Every bit of that report must have been fabricated because there was not even a single Eritrean soldier in Somalia.

So, here is a question all concerned journalists should ask: It seems the group’s earlier allegation against Eritrea had no basis in fact, so, why should the international community believe these recent charges against this country? The monitoring group last year told the international community that it was going to be a proxy war–between Eritrea and Ethiopia– in Somalia. However, many now feel that allegation was in fact designed to provide a cover for Ethiopia’s invasion of Somalia.

By Organization of Eritrean Americans (OEA)

Is the United States being served well by its diplomats in charge of African affairs? Looking at what is going on in one part of Africa, the Horn of Africa, the answer is a resounding no. The Horn of Africa team has utterly failed the United States both in fighting terrorism and winning the country indispensable friends. Africa, it seems, is at the bottom of US policymakers’ priority list; but in this ever shrinking, post 9/11, world of today, the United States cannot afford to neglect any part of the globe, let alone the Horn of Africa with its proximity to the volatile Middle East.

However, the incompetence shown by Foggy Bottom towards this part of the world is unfortunately not new. During the Cold War, U.S. policymakers pursued a short-sighted policy of basically blind support for Emperor Haile Sellassie in Ethiopian and broader Horn of Africa matters. What was the result of these policies? Ethiopia experienced a violent communist revolution, the likes of which was unprecedented in the Third World. Eritrea’s right to self-determination continued to be trampled and its war for independence entered a new phase. And all Somalia had to show for the U.S.’s brief opportunistic alliance in the late 1970s and 1980s was an unprecedented state collapse in the early 1990s.

Today’s American policy failure has three components: injustice towards Eritrea, double-standards in Ethiopia and total failure in Somalia. In the case of Eritrea, it is the continued rejection of a potential ally, and obstructing Eritrea’s just and legal rights to appease Ethiopia. In the case of Ethiopia, it is the recycling of the old policy toward Emperor Haile Sellassie in Prime Minister Meles Zenawi’s context and turning a blind eye to every atrocity Ethiopian regimes commit. In the case of Somalia, it is the creation of conditions of chaos and anarchy that will usher the Bush Administration’s self-fulfilling prophesy of the potential future radicalization of Somalia.

Eritrea: The U.S. Turning Away Allies

Before Osama Bin Laden made the mountains of Afghanistan his permanent abode he was in the Sudan. What was he doing there and who was his target? He was trying to export his terrorism to a one-year old African nation called Eritrea. To its credit this young nation had warned the U.S. and the world of the eminent danger of global terrorism and did all it could in its capacity to fight and expose Bin Laden. Eritrea’s clarion call was not listened to because U.S. officials dismissed it saying “our intelligence hasn’t reached it!” That was 1994. While U.S. diplomats were sleeping at the buzzer, Bin Laden turned his organization against U.S. interests and attacked its embassies in Nairobi (Kenya) and Dar es Salaam (Tanzania). The rest is history. Unfortunately realizing the error of not listening to reliable, credible and knowledgeable local intelligence sooner couldn’t undo the damage the American public had suffered since 1994.

Eritrea since the earliest days has sought good relations with the U.S. She has been willing for a constructive engagement and alliance with the United States, despite the gross injustices of the past. However, it was turned down. (This can be found from what the former U.S. Ambassador to Eritrea Robert Houdek relayed to U.S. Army Colonel David Crawford, who wrote a 2005 Master of Strategic Studies Thesis for the U.S. Army War College arguing the U.S. needs to engage with Eritrea.). There was a repeat of this in the years after 9/11, during which Eritrea had eagerly offered tangible assistance to and cooperation with the U.S. Remember, Eritrea was fighting Al-Qaeda and other terrorists seeking to destroy the secular government and multi-religious society of Eritrea before anyone else. Rather than enhancing cooperation and learning from Eritrea’s experiences of three decades of guerrilla warfare, the State Department’s response was to kick Eritrea out of AGOA (The African Growth and Opportunity Act) and put Eritrea on various religious freedom, human rights and democracy blacklists. As can be gleaned from public records, Eritrea has continued to seek good relations with the U.S., even to the extent of using scarce resources to hire expensive American consultants to help (unlike the case of Ethiopia’s extensive use of lobbyists, Eritrea had very little fungible “development aid” that it could recycle back to hiring lobbyists in Washington like Ethiopia).

Today we are in the bizarre situation where Jendayi Frazer’s Bureau of African Affairs is lobbying and threatening to designate Eritrea as a “State Sponsor of Terrorism” for an alleged involvement in Somalia. What is it that Eritrea has done to the US national interest to be included in the company of purveyors of nuclear technology? Why is the reconstitution of the Somali state against U.S. interest?

In any case if Assistant Secretary Frazer makes good on her threat, then we will have the unprecedented situation of branding as terrorist a nation that is itself an active target of Al-Qaeda, has been a “Coalition Partner” to the U.S. and still maintains good relations with U.S. allies like Israel. This is why the proposed designation is bereft of common sense, and proportionality.

The fundamental reason is that U.S. policy on Africa is designed on a lazy approach of focusing resources on the so-called “Anchor States” – defined as Nigeria, South Africa, Kenya and Ethiopia. What a reductionist policy, a complex continent of over fifty states and home to hundreds of ethnic groups is to be anchored to five “unrepresentative” countries. Pity particularly the states like Eritrea that may have problems – regardless of their merit or justice– with one of these anchor states. Imagine in this post 9/11 era, when winning the global war on terrorism is a top priority, the U.S. is not interested in multi-ethnic, multi-religious, internal conflict-free nations in the very near periphery of the Middle East that has experience fighting terrorists, for the simple reason that Eritrea is at odds with one of the “Anchor States”, Ethiopia!

Ethiopia: U.S. Comfort with Mirage of the Status Quo

The U.S.’s Cold War strategy for Ethiopia was to bet all of the U.S.’s diplomatic, economic and military capital in the Horn on Emperor Haile Sellassie. The State Department policy today is to do the same (with some window-dressing pushback by Washington here and there) with the minority regime of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi.

Reporters from the New York Times and the Washington Post are gradually awakening to the reality that all is not well in the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, particularly the Ogaden. There is no question that U.S. intelligence on the region is gathered by many unscrupulous and non-accountable NGOs, and intelligence ‘contractors’ people that are motivated by self-interest no matter what. This intelligence can easily fool officials and diplomats “who do not have first hand knowledge of the regions they work in.” As it relates to the broader Horn, U.S. diplomats in the region are too dependent on the self-serving analysis of the intelligence agents of Ethiopia. American diplomats have chosen to be taken in by Ethiopian duplicity and misleading politeness rather than soberly and carefully analyzing intelligence regarding the Horn of Africa. Ethiopian leaders have much to gain from feeding dubious to outright false information to the U.S. in order to further endear themselves to Washington. As a result the global war on terrorism is suffering as Ethiopia cries wolf over and over and devalues the seriousness of the real war against terrorism.

Former U.S. Assistant secretary of state for African Affairs Herman Cohen (no friend of Eritrea) admitted in June 2006 to PBS that he believes Ethiopia has been “feeding false intelligence about terrorists being hidden and that sort of thing” to the U.S. government. Why? Cohen explained “Because the Ethiopians are deadly afraid of Moslem control and also they have their own Moslem problem among the Oromo ethnic group in Ethiopia. So they want to keep the Islamists out of power, and they will bring the U.S. into it, if they can.” (PBS June 6, 2006). Even David Shin, a former U.S. Ambassador to Ethiopia, had admitted six years ago that the intelligence on Somalia is based on disinformation. Here are his words: “I would only note that there is also a lot of disinformation floating around Somalia. It has been a country where disinformation has been a parlor game for many years, and I hope that whatever information does exist on these linkages [between al-Ithad and al-Qaeda] is looked at pretty carefully and we try to ferret out the good from the bad.” (VOA, January 19, 2001). U.S. Africa Diplomats should know that the outsourcing of important intelligence work is a dereliction of duty that will have a negative consequence to the real interests of the United States.

To add insult to injury, there is plenty of evidence that Ethiopia in its continued effort to topple the government of Eritrea is actually supporting the Eritrean Islamic Jihad Movement (EIJM) in its war on Eritrea. EIJM was formed and trained by Bin Laden in the Sudan. This group is officially listed as a terrorist organization by the U.S, and one of their training videos was found in Afghanistan. Assistant Secretary Frazer should ask herself about the state sponsorship of terror by her intelligence collaborator Ethiopia.

The other failure in United States diplomacy is in Somalia. United States policy in Somalia for the large part is being shaped by Ethiopia’s intelligence. The minority regime of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi in Ethiopia was and is still responsible for the anarchy in Somalia.

Somalia: Creating Chaos and Self-Fulfilling Prophesies

The truth is that the current crisis in Somalia is a struggle for the very life of Somalia, the nation and its people. On the one had were those who had attempted to resuscitate life into the nation and had, with support of the Somali people, managed to bring about peace and order – for the first time in over sixteen years . On the other side are the warlords that were created and supported by Ethiopia, an aggressively belligerent neighbor that doesn’t want to see a united Somalia and was primarily responsible for the chaos that reigned the past decade and half. Add to these a misguided United States foreign policy and the situation has become dangerously explosive. If the U.S.-supported Ethiopian invasion was to prevent the potential for a radicalized Somalia, then it has failed miserably. In fact, the chaos and violence that exists in Somalia today may actually create the conditions for the very radicalization that Dr. Frazer and team feared.

There is another historical dimension to this. In the early 1990s the United States was fighting against the warlords (or at least some of them); now it is fighting to install some of the very same type of warlords whose actions led to the death of American soldiers in the 1990s. None of these warlords has been brought to justice. Such is the tragedy of policymakers who do not want to see beyond their noses and want to fight the battle of today only.

It is time for U.S. diplomats to really serve American interests rather than simply following what is familiar, convenient or “just the way things are done”. There is too much at risk for America’s long-term interests and for the lives of people who live in the regions for which these diplomats help set U.S. policy.

But, whoever reaches the White House in this race, he or she will have a lot of mess to clean up in the vital region of the Horn of Africa—courtesy of the current Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs!

Indeed if Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton gets the nomination and eventually wins the presidency, she will make history in the U.S. American women have waited close to 150 years for their right to vote, and more than 200 years to have the first female Speaker of the House (Nancy Pelosi, 2007), the first female Secretary of State (Madeleine Albright, 1997), the first female Attorney General (Janet Reno, 1993), the first female Supreme Court Justice (Sandra Day O’Connor, 1981) and many other firsts. Still the U.S. is behind many developed and developing countries in not having a woman as its head of state or government. Women like UK’s Margaret Thatcher, France’s Edith Cresson, Germany’s Angela Merkel, Norway’s Gro Harlem Brundtland, Ireland’s Mary Robinson and Mary McAleese, Switzerland’s Ruth Dreifuss, Canada’s Kim Campbell, Finland’s Anneli Jäätteenmäki, Portugal’s Maria Pintasilgo were among European leaders. Pakistan’s Benazir Bhutto, Indonesia’s Megawati Sukarnoptri, Turkey’s Tansu Çiller, Bahrain’s Kahlifa ibn Sulman Al-Kahlifa, and Bangladesh’s Chanrika Kumaratunga and Khaleda Zia were also women heads of state or government in predominantly Muslim countries. The largest democracy in the world, India, had a strong female prime minister in Indira Gandhi and India’s current president, Partibha Patil, is female. Israel too had a strong leader in the person of Golda Meir during one of its trying moments: the Yom Kippur War. In the Western hemisphere countries such as Nicaragua, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Haiti, Jamaica, and Guyana had women as their leaders. Heading east countries like Liberia, Guinea-Bissau, São Tomé and Príncipe, Mozambique, Burundi, Rwanda, the Philippines (Corazon Aquino and Gloria Arroyo) and Sri Lanka (the first country to have a female prime minister in Sirimavo Bandaranaike) are ahead of the United States.

Of course if Senator Barack Obama gets his party’s nomination and eventually wins the presidency he too will truly make history and will be a testimony that times had changed in the U.S. Indication that the U.S. indeed had gone through fundamental change of heart, from an official sanctioning of slavery in its Constitution, to Lincoln’s Emancipation Proclamation of 1862, from the shameful 1856 U.S. Supreme Court Dred Scott Decision that had basically said that “no person of African ancestry could claim citizenship in the United States” to the 1954 Brown v. Board of Education Decision of the same court that ended apartheid, and from the inhuman Jim Crow laws of the South, to the historic Voting Rights Act of 1965. Indeed with Barack Obama’s win the following famous words of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

“I say to you today, my friends, so even though we face the difficulties of today and tomorrow, I still have a dream. It is a dream deeply rooted in the American dream. I have a dream that one day this nation will rise up and live out the true meaning of its creed: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal.’ I have a dream that one day on the red hills of Georgia the sons of former slaves and the sons of former slave owners will be able to sit down together at the table of brotherhood. I have a dream that one day even the state of Mississippi, a state sweltering with the heat of injustice, sweltering with the heat of oppression, will be transformed into an oasis of freedom and justice. I have a dream that my four little children will one day live in a nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin but by the content of their character.”

would be on their way to a prophetic fulfillment. Yes, slowly but surely, the U.S. seems to have embraced change. Even Presidents Ronald Regan and George W. Bush known for their conservative views would go in history as having the first African American male and female National Security Advisors: Colin Powell (R. Regan, 1987) and Condoleezza Rice (G.W. Bush, 2001), and President G. W. Bush for having two consecutive African American Secretaries of State (Colin Powell 2001-2004 and Condoleezza Rice 2005- to date).

One thing is clear though, whether Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama from the Democrats, or John McCain, Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee for the Republicans, they will have plenty of mess to clean as far as U.S. foreign policy goes the day they become presidents. This is particularly true in the Horn of Africa. Due to the incompetence of Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Jendayi Frazer, a lot of damage has been done to U.S. national interest in that part of the world. Frazer has single-handedly damaged U.S. credibility in this vital region. She has alienated several moderate and reliable partners in the war against terrorism; the African nation of Eritrea is a prime example. Through her ineptitude she is overseeing mayhem in Kenya and even her own State Department is running away from her positions. Due to her lack of diplomatic skill this once stable African country is becoming potential Somalia if not Rwanda. Of course by encouraging the invasion of Somalia by neighboring Ethiopia, Frazer has managed to deny the Somali people the only hope and peace they had began to experience in 16 years. Frazer has also failed the U.S. in the Sudan particularly in Darfur. So, whosoever assumes the presidency come January 2009, needs to think how to clean Mrs. Frazer’s pile of mess.

By Organization of Eritrean Americans (OEA)

OEA Statement – January 14, 2008 – If more proof is needed to show that when you lie down with dogs, you are bound to get up with fleas in U.S.-Ethiopian relations, this is a good one. A U.S. Congressional leader goes on a fact-finding trip to the troubled region of the Horn of Africa and talks about bringing peace to the region. Congressman Donald Payne, who chairs the House International Relations subcommittee on Africa, while visiting Eritrea, reiterating what the whole world is saying, calls for the withdrawal of the invading Ethiopian troops from Somalia to end the humanitarian and political crisis in that country.

Then the Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs puts out a statement calling the U.S. Congressman “a terrorist.” The statement said, “Such a position brings one into the category of terrorists.”

For many unsavory regimes around the world, 9/11 has been ‘a pot of gold’ they could dip into to ensure U.S. political, diplomatic, and economic support. The dictatorial minority regime that rules Ethiopia today is probably the most adept at using terrorism to its advantage, including stealing an election in 2005 and justifying its many adventures in the Horn of Africa.

Meles Zenawi has been trying to label “terrorist” anyone or any country that didn’t support his many aggressive adventures in the Horn of Africa. That has been his favorite label for all of Ethiopia’s armed groups that have been struggling to topple his illegitimate regime, which is in power thanks to Washington’s political, economical, and diplomatic support.

There is virtually nothing the TPLF regime has not done to get the label to stick on Eritrea. Nothing has worked. In fact, every time it tries to do that, the world gets a chance to see the criminal nature of the regime.

Then the regime accused Norway last year of supporting terrorism in the Horn of Africa. It accused the European nation of supporting “terrorist groups” in Somalia, Eritrea and Sudan and it went on to expel six of the nine Norwegian diplomats from Ethiopia.

It is hard to believe, but this pales when compared with the regime’s statement this week against U.S. Congressman Payne. In a statement by the Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the regime noted that “the Congressman has expressed his position that the only solution for the Somali conflict is withdrawal of Ethiopian soldiers from Somalia.” Though the Congressman was reiterating what the entire world is saying to bring about peace to Somalia, the minority regime said such a position “is deliberately forwarded to bring terrorists to power.”

Adding, the Ethiopian Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement said, “Such a position brings one into the category of terrorists…..and that recommending the withdrawal of Ethiopian Soldiers from Somalia at this time should be equated with supporting remnants of Al Qaeda and the UIC to revive and disrupt the country’s stability.”

The Organization of Eritrean Americans (OEA) calls on the U.S. Department of State to force Meles Zenawi to apologize to Congressman Payne.

Furthermore, there is an important lesson that should be drawn from this unholy alliance with a dictatorial regime that uses the global war against terrorism to prolong its stay in power. This case brings the bitter lesson that working with such regimes will in the long run undermine the real war against terrorism.

Organization of Eritrean Americans
600 L Street NW Washington, D.C. 20001
B. Tecle
240-554-2597
oea@eritreanamerican.org
http://www.eritreanamerican.org

A not for profit organization working to foster a better understanding and harmony of the people of Eritrea and the United States.