INTERVIEW WITH PRESIDENT ISAIAS AFWERKI: ON GLOBAL AND REGIONAL ISSUES PART 1; Second Segment
Providing key insights into current affairs, President Isaias Afwerki sat down with national media outlets on July 19, 2025. The wide-ranging first part interview delved into timely global and regional issues. Excerpts of the first part, second segment, of Saturday’s interview follow.
Q. Mr. President, in your Independence Day address, you stated: “The global situation provides an opportunity for Africans to change the oppressive regimes that have been governed by aids and subsidies”. What specific opportunities and challenges does the current global landscape present for Africa? Additionally, what policy shifts and structural reforms are needed for the continent to move beyond its hindered/fettered state and meaningfully contribute to a more just and equitable global order?
PIA: Throughout its history, Africa has faced injustices and external interference at every stage. It is, therefore, understandable that we often lay the blame on outside forces. And indeed, those responsible must be held accountable. However, continuously engaging in a cycle of blame will neither yield results or move us forward. The more urgent question is: What have we done for ourselves? And more importantly, what must we now do?
Africa possesses an estimated 60% of the world’s natural resources, an extraordinary endowment by any measure. Yet, the continent remains in a state of low socio-economic development, largely confined to a primary or nascent economic structure. This must change. Rather than lamenting that we have been violated, robbed, and denied justice, we must take ownership and bring about the process of transformation ourselves. There is no form of bondage more degrading than dependency – living on subsidies and hand-outs. To rely on aid instead of working, producing, and utilizing one’s resources to achieve a higher standard of living is, in effect, a modern form of slavery. It is as the specter of the possible deaths of many in Africa that they are raising now because of the shutting down of US aid programs for HIV/AIDS. Why should this be so?
Africa adds little value to the global economy beyond raw material extraction. These resources are exported, often under exploitative conditions, only to be imported as expensive finished goods. Why should that be the case? Take Niger, for instance, one of the continent’s richest countries in uranium. For the past five decades, France has extracted and benefited from Niger’s uranium through its corporate ventures. And yet, Niger has not been able to build a single Reactor to generate electricity for its people. This is perhaps at the highest end; but opportunity lost in Niger in the last 80 years is not inconsiderable. The same pattern exists in Burkina Faso, Mali, Senegal, and Gabon. Despite abundant resources, what is the standard of living in West Africa. The question remains: How can Africa chart a new path of progress within an evolving global order? The answer lies in discarding debilitating dependency and building internal capacity; that is, in developing indigenous knowledge systems, harnessing human potential so as to fully exploit our natural wealth.
One of the gravest obstacles to this transformation is the systematic depletion of Africa’s intellectual capital. Skilled professionals and scholars are lured away with promises of better pay abroad, while their home countries are left unable to develop the human resources essential for rapid economic progress.
The Democratic Republic of Congo’s untapped mineral wealth, for example, is estimated at over $25 trillion. While this immense fortune continues to be ruthlessly plundered, the Congolese people stay trapped in a cycle of poverty. Should this be the fate of such natural abundance? Should Africa be confined to exporting raw materials while industrialized nations continue to benefit from it?
To alter this trajectory, Africa must invest in innovative resilience, especially in education and professional training. Besides the severe material extraction, the most insidious harm done to the continent is psychological. Aid and dependency breed resignation and debilitation.
In this respect, Trump’s recent policy shift in Washington may have unintended consequences. Many aid-programs are being cut. This can be considered as a blessing in disguise which will impel a quest for other alternatives – that will push Africa to think differently, to seek new solutions, and to build internal systems of support. There is now talk of new bilateral agreements that Washington is mulling to redirect assistance previously disbursed by USAID through other channels, ostensibly to mitigate the “deaths and hunger that will otherwise ensue”. This undercurrent may have been prompted by wider considerations in some cases; it does not, otherwise, constitute a wholesale policy reversal.
Africa’s long-term survival and prosperity depends on its ability to industrialize and elevate its position globally. This means acquiring the capacity to process raw materials and to participate meaningfully in domestic, regional, and international markets. It means raising the educational and professional competencies of our people in order to transform and modernize our economies. This is not an easy task. But it is the only route for guaranteeing viable economic progress and status for future generations.
The current state of social services throughout the continent is also troubling. In many countries, these programmes are for the most part run by UN agencies, and especially NGOs. The preponderance of NGOs, which runs into 400/500 in some countries, is disconcerting. These organizations function as intermediaries of global powers. For them, aid distribution has become a business, which makes it all the more difficult to dismantle because too many benefit from its perpetuation. Under the guise of relief and support, the cycle of exploitation continues. Can Africa free itself from this reality? It will not be easy. But it is absolutely essential.
Internal turmoil is still one of Africa’s most pressing challenges. We are no longer living in the age of feudalism. The world is rapidly transitioning into a new industrial era; defined by speed, innovation, and transformation. In this context, Africa must prioritize and respect national sovereignty, nation-building, and the pursuit of greater unity across the continent. Unfortunately, divisive and discriminatory politics of polarization that whip up ethnic and other cleavages are rampant in many countries in our region and other parts in the African continent. Internal cohesion and stability of societies is disrupted when these dangerous policies, packaged in highly cosmeticized and decorated formats, are introduced. This issue must be addressed as a priority. The politics of division must end. Without social cohesion and political stability, there can be no sustainable development.
Stability cannot be achieved simply by copying Western political systems. Africa must build governance systems that are rooted in its own realities, and that are capable of lifting nations out of crisis and propel them towards long-term transformation.
External interference has long been used to establish and deepen internal divisions. It is a well-worn strategy: divide a country internally, pit one group against another, or fragment regions in order to maintain foreign influence. Whether it’s in Niger, Mali, Nigeria, or Somalia, the same pattern repeats where the “narrative of incipient terrorism” is invoked to justify external interventions and sow instability. Africa must break this cycle. Again, the first step is to establish strong, sovereign institutions. That begins by strengthening social cohesion, resisting division, and fostering inclusive citizenship to bring about national unity. Only then can nations hope to effectively harness their resources for development. These tasks are not easy and will not be achieved through mere policy declarations. It is a process and takes time.
The ability to create national unity cannot be outsourced. It must be built by Africans themselves. What naturally follows is regional cooperation. No African nation can prosper in isolation. In this highly interconnected world, partnerships across neighbourhoods, sub-regions, and the continent as a whole are essential. Regional collaboration is where synergies and enhanced capacities are created.
The positive policies (of cutting aid) currently pronounced by Washington offers timely stimulus for Africa to extricate itself from structural dependency. There is no time for complacency. And, history offers us compelling examples of transformation. Let us recall that China, now a leading economic power globally, was part of the Third World not long ago. The US and Europe too, followed their own historical paths to growth which had its own specific dynamics in those times. Africa cannot replicate these models exactly. We need a distinct process for more rapid socio-economic development as well as institutional and regional stability. This does not evolve as a consequence of dependency and helplessness, we have to reject hand-outs and rely on our own efforts, toil and resilience. Even in times of hardship, we must strive to learn, build, and grow on our own terms. That spirit, when it takes hold among citizens and communities, can reverse external influence and strengthen internal sovereignty. The politics of fragmentation and relief dependency that have reigned in Africa must end.
The essential parameters for a path forward are not mysterious. Meaningful development will remain elusive in a climate of internal social polarization and internecine conflict. Each country must assess its own situation honestly, identify what needs to change, and begin the transition. African countries cannot be built by warlords and militias, but on the solid foundations of sovereign institutions. No stable society exists without stable political systems, and no transformation can occur without solid foundations. At the same time, regional integration and coordination must also be pursued. Development must be backed by infrastructure – roads, communication systems, and economic programs – that connect regions and facilitate growth. This may look formidable but in reality the challenge is surmountable and a matter for appropriate professional experts to determine.
If Africa is to play a meaningful role in the emerging new global order, it must first resolve its internal crises. Without that we cannot effectively participate in shaping global, regional, or even sub-regional systems. The prevailing politics of hand-outs and exploitation will plunge us deeper and deeper into the abyss of poverty and crisis. This transformation will not happen overnight but it must begin in earnest. Each country must chart its political course with clear purpose and, over time, the cumulative result can change the continent’s trajectory. But if the current course continues, Africa will remain on the sidelines. We cannot wait for others to draw our roadmap; we must take initiative in shaping our role in the new world order. Our priorities must be worked on through clear, strategic programs and political frameworks, not through rhetoric. Our regional approach must also be predicated on the same methodology. Africa’s progress requires clearheaded and structured action. It demands a firm, united, and strategic approach, both within nations and across the continent.
Q. Mr. President, with the return of Donald Trump to the White House, do you foresee any significant changes in the policies of the United States and its allies towards the Horn of Africa? Given the steps Eritrea undertook during President Trump’s first term, what are the prospects for normalizing relations this time around, even if the current timeline for engagement has evidently been brief?
PIA: This is a matter that requires extensive discussion. One cannot help but ask: is it truly beyond Washington’s capacity to adopt sound, forward-looking policies in this region? Why must the same flawed approaches be repeated time and again over the span of nearly eight decades? The injustices that have been committed against Eritrea as a result of misguided US policies has been considerable indeed. Many efforts have been made to undermine and crush us during our protracted struggle for liberation. Nevertheless, upon achieving independence, we made a deliberate and conscious decision to put the past behind us. Since 1991, Eritrea has pursued a policy of constructive engagement. Not in the hope of securing subsidies, handouts, or protection from them, but rather in the belief that past mistakes should be corrected and that new constructive relationships can be built.
We are fully aware that our calls may fall on deaf ears, and that there may be those in Washington who would dismiss them. But, despite this, we have continued to reach to explain the damaging consequences of these policies, and to offer a better path forward.
In 2016, with the election of President Trump, we recognized an opportunity, because the circumstances at that time had matured and accumulated to a point where a substantive and open conversation might be possible. It was not a matter of asking for special favours or urging the United States to review its policies on account of Eritrea. Rather, we believed that the time was ripe to address the devastation and instability brought about by decades of flawed policy in our region. The suffering inflicted as a result of these US policies is not minor, nor is it confined to one episode. In this respect and while fully addressing our domestic agenda and simultaneously striving to foster a cooperative and stable regional environment, we felt it was timely and appropriate to voice our concerns to them on their misguided policies.
In this spirit, Eritrea took the initiative for constructive engagement in 2017; the details of which I prefer not to elaborate at this point in time. The initial response was, in fact, positive. Unfortunately, for a number of reasons, this engagement was not sustained. Three years of President Trump’s first term passed without progress. This was then followed by the Biden administration – four years in which the situation deteriorated further. Those years were marked by an onslaught of sanctions, restrictions, threats, and overt hostility. The hostile measures were numerous and wholly inexplicable. It became impossible to meaningfully continue the process of engagement under such conditions. It is important to emphasize here that our aim was never to dwell on the past, nor to assign blame in retrospect. Our focus continues to be on the future and on restoring a functional and constructive relationship based on mutual respect and understanding.
As I have noted, the three years under Trump were effectively lost, and the four years under Biden compounded that loss. Now, during Trump’s second term, we intend to resume the initiative we had once begun with the firm conviction that the fundamental flaws in US regional policy must be addressed. If those policies remain unchanged, there is no basis for engagement, at least not the kind that leads to meaningful outcomes. Eritrea’s engagement has never been about narrow interests or isolated demands. Our primary concern is the destabilizing policies that have affected not only Eritrea but the Horn of Africa and the wider region as a whole. We believe that a reorientation of US policy is essential for the collective wellbeing of the region. It is not a task that Eritrea can pursue alone. It requires a concerted effort among neighbouring countries and peoples, a spirit of dialogue and solidarity between them. Our message, then, is not confined to a single nation or grievance. It speaks to the urgent need for a significantly more rational and just approach to international engagement in our region.
Our region is defined by four interconnected geopolitical components: the Nile Basin, the Horn of Africa, the Red Sea, and the Gulf. It is essential to critically examine the policies of Washington across these spheres. What strategic posture has the United States adopted toward each of these zones, and what are the most fundamentally misguided policies we have witnessed in this area throughout the past three decades? It is necessary to establish a clear appraisal of the most detrimental policies, in order to identify which ones urgently require correction. Our efforts must be collective in order to create a platform that allows Washington to re-evaluate and, where necessary, recalibrate its current policies towards the region. This raises several issues that need detailed examination: what is being rectified, if anything? What concrete steps must be taken to correct past misjudgments? And importantly, what consequences, intended or otherwise, will these policies engender?
The key imperative is engagement. The seven years that were lost provide us with the opportunity to draw appropriate lessons. We should not be dismayed by the missed opportunities. Instead, we acknowledge them and recognize that opportunities for engagement still exist. Our approach to re-engagement is not born out of grievance. We are not appealing for empathy because sanctions were imposed on us, or because we were wronged through illicit measures. We are fully aware that unless there is a fundamental shift in the overarching policy framework, there can be no tailored or adaptable approach specifically applicable to Eritrea. In this regard, the coming three or four years under the Trump administration may offer an opening to address not only regional concerns but also broader global dynamics. However, this must be understood within a larger context: it is not solely a matter of Washington’s policy choices. One must not overlook the negative influence of forces operating in our neighborhood who are actively lobbying against our cherished objectives, propagating distortions, and seeking to obstruct meaningful engagement.
We are committed to building a platform for constructive cooperation with our neighbours. Our intention is not to vie against each other, but to cultivate relations that serve our collective progress and regional stability.
In this perspective, our plan is to resume engagement with the Trump administration starting from 2026 up to 2028. The themes of engagement are not new; they are the same issues that we have been discussing in the past. Moreover, these topics are interlinked with the bigger question of the emerging global order. Our focus is not exclusively geared towards US policy. We must also consider our diplomatic stance toward Russia, China, the EU, India, Latin America, Japan, South Korea, and other partners around the world. While each bilateral relationship may require specific strategies, the overall orientation does not differ. Engagement with the United States is one of several important priorities. We do not anticipate that a change in US administration alone will deliver miraculous outcomes. Whether or not we achieve the results we seek, it is our responsibility to present to Washington our views and ideas clearly and consistently.
Our engagement has to expand with time, fully realizing the role of other players and that the aggregate outcome will not depend on US policy choices alone. We must also recognize that the situation remains fluid, influenced as it is by many uncertainties, and that it will require objective and continuous assessment.
In as far as the current political climate in Washington is concerned, I would characterize it as in a state of flux. Nonetheless, we must work to re-establish the engagement that was interrupted during President Biden’s tenure. We should not rush to premature conclusions, whether based on hope or doubt. Our task is not to engage in speculative analysis. Engagement must continue – and continue it will.
Q. Mr. President, is the time frame you mentioned for resuming constructive engagement in 2026 not a bit late?
PIA: Indeed. But considering that the current year is already halfway through, we have to strive to accomplish meaningful progress in the period from 2026 until 2028. We are not asking to be prioritized before others. In realistic terms, we consider 2025 as a year for laying the groundwork. We recognize that the United States has its own internal and external priorities. In the event, we will finalize our preparations this year and vigorously pursue our policy of constructive engagement in the subsequent three years.
In parallel with our diplomatic efforts, we are also carefully monitoring and assessing the lobbying campaigns and disinformation efforts that aim to dissuade the Washington establishment from engaging with us in good faith. These campaigns are designed to misinterpret our intentions and to obstruct constructive dialogue. However, these will not inhibit or alter our approach.
As I underlined before, Washington is currently preoccupied with a range of global concerns: the situation in Ukraine, the tension with China, and even more peripheral matters such as those involving Panama, Greenland, and Canada. But as these issues begin to settle and the noise surrounding them subsides, there will inevitably be a recalibration of priorities within the US administration. We anticipate that this will create for us the space for substantive engagement. Our posture remains one of patience and preparedness. We are confident that the moment for meaningful dialogue will come, and when it does, we will be ready to engage with clarity and purpose.
As for the disinformation being recycled (by Ethiopia) claiming that Washington is one of the key supporter of their quest for maritime access, these are misleading narratives quite divorced from the actual position held by the US. There is no reason for us to issue premature statements, affirming or dismissing the veracity of this absurd claim, at this point in time. We will continue to observe, prepare, and wait until the conditions for responsible engagement materialize in the coming year.
Q. Mr. President, amid the ongoing political and security crisis in Ethiopia, accusations have been leveled against Eritrea to divert and externalize the country’s domestic turmoil. In what seems to be a repetition of history, a campaign has emerged promoting unrealistic ambitions under the guise of access to the sea. In spite of these campaigns, the Eritrean government has refrained from engaging in unnecessary media acrimony. However, the Ethiopian government has recently sent official letters to the UN Secretary-General and several Heads of State and Government accusing Eritrea. What is the purpose of this campaign?
PIA: These statements are infantile and difficult to fathom; one wouldn’t expect even a child to speak in such a way. Fabricating and spreading cheap lies is both disgusting and unbecoming. The question remains: why are such childish tactics being employed? Why is Eritrea being falsely accused? This is not just immature – it is a calculated diversion, a pre-emptive way of avoiding responsibility. We will address the so-called “preparations” later. But why target Eritrea now? On what grounds? With what evidence or facts? Is there something hidden from the world? And to what end is this being done? It is possible to raise many matters. The current challenges in Ethiopia defy simple descriptions or clear assessment. The chasm between the euphoria and optimism that was created at the beginning and the disillusionment that prevails now is striking.
When the war ended, the expectation was to move on to other matters. We can delve into details of that period that were revealed or that still remain unrevealed. In the end, however, the internal situation in Ethiopia became a challenge in itself. The Pretoria Agreement was signed. But why was it not implemented? It was stated that they needed to eliminate the Amhara FANO prior to the implementation of the Agreement. By what was the logic behind this policy choice? We are witnessing the situation in different parts of the country. Today, there is ostensibly a Prosperity Government in Ethiopia. But it is a waste of time to discuss whether it can really achieve its pronounced objectives. The hopes and aspirations of the Ethiopian people have been shattered. Therefore, the PP needed to devise diversions to escape from the situation. The crises in Ethiopia are endless. The existing security and economic crises cannot be easily solved by disjoint tactics of political cherry-picking. The allegations that Eritrea is aligning with Tigray and FANO stem from tactics designed to deflect attention from self-induced internal crises.
The preparations for war are openly and blatantly evident. War has been declared in effect through insidious saber-rattling and other utterances. Lodging a complaint with the UN Secretary-General to accuse Eritrea of provoking conflict is a duplicitous and shameful act designed to cover-up the actual declared war. In the event, we can only urge them to desist from these diversionary ploys and focus on resolving their own internal problems.
We had embarked on numerous cooperation initiatives in good faith and with sincerity in previous times. We worked diligently so as to surmount the centuries of adversity and move towards a better future. Unfortunately, this has been discarded and they have opted to accuse Eritrea while they are actually the party which is preparing for war? This kind of lies, evasive deception, and duplicity have never been seen in the history of Ethiopia. This is not directed at Eritrea only; it also affects all the peoples in Ethiopia. The propaganda that they are spreading claiming that their scheme has earned the the support of France, the US, the UAE and others is meant to deceive the Ethiopian people. This must be rectified since it is designed to hoodwink the people of Ethiopia and the wider region. We are not going to blame the US or Europe. We are not also bothered by what the pronouncements that the UNSG may make. difference what the Secretary-General says or not now that he has received the complaint.
For our part, we are not really perturbed due to our experience in our long history. We should not be derailed. We need to move forward along the path that we have charted. The critical question is what will transpire next as the prevalent optimism has been shattered. This is not indeed a matter that concerns Ethiopia only. It is an issue that affects the wider region as a whole, i.e. Somalia, Kenya, South Sudan, Central African Republic, Sudan and other Red Sea countries.
Q. Regarding access to the sea, they have maintained on many occasions that they have a population of 130 million and a population of this size cannot be a nation without access to the sea…
PIA: The concept of a “sea corridor,” ports, or a naval base, as some describe it, has more profound implications that extend beyond casual discussion. This is not a new topic; it must be viewed from various geopolitical angles, especially given the region’s strategic importance. For instance, after World War II, when it was declared that “Eritrea does not serve our strategic interests,” the Red Sea and sea access were key considerations. This time around, some parties that claim to be regional hegemons are attempting to leverage similar tactics. We were told by the current Ethiopian government, that Djibouti makes 3 to 4 billion dollars; and that we could take half, or even all of the revenue. This implicitly suggested crippling Djibouti by having Ethiopia use the port of Assab only. This notion is a moral taboo to us. We harbor no such intentions. We do not envy Djibouti’s revenues, whether it is $4 billion or $5 billion. We do not take actions to undermine or compete with Djibouti. This was policy from the onset and remains fundamentally unchanged.
We have followed the overtures in Somaliland. While such reckless notions are not new, they are covert messages aimed at the current Ethiopian administration so as to foment chaos. Achieving this involves significant financial outlays, influence peddling, and outright purchases; the source of these detrimental investments are well-known.
It would be inappropriate to lay the blame broadly on the UAE. It is the UAE president who specifically bears responsibility. The notion of controlling ports from the Suez Canal to Dar e Salaam – including Jeddah, Hudaydah, Massawa, Assab, Djibouti, Berbera, Mogadishu, Lamu, and Mombasa—can only originate from an audacious mindset. There is not much that one can do when this ludicrous idea is backed by financial appropriation. The funds pouring into Ethiopia to buy influence and incite various crises are limitless. Furthermore, the financial expenditures in Kenya; the money allocated to exacerbate the civil war in Sudan, and the situations in Djibouti, Somaliland, and Yemen are far from secret.
The allegations peddled these days accusing Eritrea of preparing for war are not Ethiopia’s agenda. This is not a new issue; it has always existed, and has recently resurfaced by new, self-proclaimed, “hegemons” with their own agendas. You cannot attribute this to the Ethiopian government or a single politician, as it threatens their very existence. People will indeed say why digress into other agendas instead of solving internal problems. The wider agenda of establishing naval bases and creating problems in Somaliland, Kismayo, Mogadishu, and Dar es Salaam can only result in spiraling destabilization.
Overall, however, this is not an agenda of the Ethiopian government or the Prosperity Party. It is the agenda of others, and should be viewed in connection with various upheavals and crises that have and continue to afflict our region. European countries, American intelligence agencies, and various other global, regional, and neighboring parties—all claiming regional hegemony and seeking to increase their influence—have been interfering.
We need to understand these matters profoundly. With deep insight, all peoples in the region must act wisely to prevent these actions from inculcating collective damage.
Therefore, as I underlined in the outline of our engagement policies earlier, we must discuss such issues through our engagement with the United States, European countries, Asian nations, and other influential forces to ensure regional stability and peace. Attempts to plunge this region into endless chaos and turmoil must cease. We need to focus on a constructive path and avoid being drawn into various campaigns trying to pull us in different directions. Overall, however, this issue does not reflect the true situation in Ethiopia or Ethiopian politics. It is both childish and adventurous; and, potentially fraught with dangerous consequences.
Q. In your speech last May, Mr. President, you stated that everybody is aware of the technology and weapons that are being purchased to ignite war; the saber-rattling and psychological warfare peddled constantly to hide the truth and spread disinformation, as well the various subversive schemes plotted against the people and Government of Eritrea. How would you characterize the role of external forces in these subterfuges?
PIA: We have no interest, whatsoever, in waging war. If in the past 80 years, Eritrea has ever entered into war, it has done so by compulsion, not by choice. This country has never waged war to seize the land of others, to pursue expansionist ambitions, or for any other ulterior motive. We have been dragged into conflicts in the past, but we can also say that we have emerged from them with important lessons. Eritrea and its people abhor war. But, when and if war is brought to our doorsteps, we know how to defend ourselves. The wars we have experienced over the past three generations were never of our choosing. And we have no intention of entering into new ones. But if war is imposed upon us, there is no option but to confront it.
Those who accuse Eritrea of warmongering or of harboring ambitions of military aggression are either ignorant of history or deliberately misrepresenting it. Such allegations are not only unfounded but infantile. No rational person could make them, or take them seriously.
We hear obstinate statements such as: “We are 130 million strong.” But what does this mean? Whom do you intend to intimidate with such rhetoric? The very tone of these declarations reveals how infantile and absurd they are. We hear talks of drones being deployed to presumably obliterate designated targets; kill and eliminate at will; and, demolish certain areas. And at the end of the day, what comes of it? Is there anything more immature than this kind of posturing? We hear boasts of newly procured weapons, including missiles with a range of 3,500 kilometers, tanks and artillery. The weapons purchasing spree on a constant basis is indeed well-known to everybody. The intransigent pronouncements include their plans to invade Assab, the pincer assaults they intend to launch along the Gash Barka area, and advance through Sudan to achieve certain objectives. Can any rational person contemplate these war plans? It is, quite frankly, childish.
A network of propaganda institutions are engaged in constant disinformation, distorting facts and misleading public opinion. The diplomatic support that they claim they have garnered is part and parcel of this psychological warfare. These are not serious institutions; they are infantile outfits by every standard. They speak of drones, but how many? Where are they stationed? Regarding the aircrafts, how many are there; where are they deployed and what is their payloads? On artillery, how many pieces, and where are they positioned? We hear boasts of GIS mapping, reconnaissance, and satellite technology to identify any target precisely and launch attacks rapidly. Similar, what is configuration of the military force deployed in Semera, or in other regions? Where is it all headed? The entire discourse is akin to a game of make-believe.
Whether with drones and aircraft or without them, these aggressive discourse is not new to us. I can only repeat vehemently again: all this is sheer folly. Our message remains simple: stay put in your place; steer clear of this nonsense; abandon the infantile folly.
Their presumption that a population of 130 million can overwhelm Eritrea, irrespective of the costs that they may sustain, through sheer force or wave of attacks belie arrogance and ignorance. What do they intend to achieve with wave attacks? This kind of thinking risks dragging the Ethiopian people into a senseless and unwanted war, into a dangerous political dead end. Ethiopia must first solve its internal problems. It has no conceivable reason to stumble into such mayhem. These reckless schemes and propaganda campaigns are conceived as diversionary ploys from key internal problems.
The Eritrean people have no desire for conflict. And while all the bluster we hear is shortsighted and infantile, it does not mean that we will not continue to be vigilant. One must always be prepared for the possibility that recklessness and desperation by a rogue party may trigger uncalled-for conflict. But no actor should overestimate their capabilities. What is often presented as psychological warfare is, in truth, little more than therapy, an attempt to soothe one’s own panic, to mask fear and confusion behind a veil of bravado.
Such antics may serve to reassure the architects of these schemes themselves, or to rally domestic sentiment. They have no impact on us. They neither shock nor intimidate us. There is no justification for such dangerous confusion. And if all this talk is simply intended to boost morale or deceive the public, our message remains: Abandon this folly!
Q. Your Excellency, the abrupt treachery and deceit by the Ethiopian government, which stands in stark contrast to Eritrea’s goodwill and initiatives, has taken many by surprise. Furthermore, provocations and inflammatory rhetoric aimed at neighboring countries have extinguished the hopes that had emerged. What additional efforts are required to counteract the steady erosion of the long-term strategic vision and realize the desired objective?
PIA: Fostering integration at the regional and wider neighborhood levels remains a matter that we continuously strive for through political goodwill and sound policies. This is a task that cannot be set aside, even amidst the crises and obstructions created by global power politics. If we look at the global level, the prevailing trend is towards alliances or integration. We cannot be oblivious to this reality. Regional integration is crucial. As an idea, it is not a new invention. It is something that has been worked on for a long time. For instance, the idea of establishing IGAD predates the current unipolar world order. After securing our independence, we set out to create a conducive atmosphere at the regional and neighborhood levels. This, in turn, requires a mechanism or an apparatus. Departing from this objective, an attempt was made to transform IGAD into an intergovernmental forum for cooperation. Today, IGAD does not exist in any practical sense.
On a larger scale, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) was initially created with the goal of transitioning us to African unity. The aspiration of the peoples is always the same: peace and development. However, goodwill or aspirations alone are not sufficient. There must be a mechanism to create that integration. Yet, all the mechanisms attempted in the past have failed. There was the OAU, and then the African Union (AU) came after it. If we ask, “does the African Union truly exist today?” the answer is no, because it failed to carry out the tasks it was entrusted with. If we ask “Why?” we can primarily point to Africa’s own weaknesses. But that is not the only problem. The external interferences perpetrated to paralyze it were boundless.
Creating integration at the continental level in Africa may be a broad issue. There are organizations like IGAD, SADC, and ECOWAS that were formed in various regions. They were established under the umbrella of the OAU to consolidate the regions. Did that work? What did it produce? In practice, it has not worked. But the fact that it did not work is not a reason for despair. On the contrary, it engenders the impetus to persist with greater commitment for stronger institutions. This is because we cannot move forward in the current global situation without achieving it. We must work with greater intensity, especially at our neighborhood level. It is not feasible to proceed with the current situations in Sudan, Somalia, and Ethiopia. An approach where Somalia is separate, Puntland, Benadirland, Jubaland, and Mogadishu all separate—scattered like checker pieces—is not viable. It must change. When we secured our independence in 1991, our mission was not, in a sense, fully realized. Because regional stability and mutual complementarity are important for the consolidation of our independence.
We can look at the situation in Ethiopia over the past thirty years and the conditions that exist now. The problems are not simple, but neither are they hopeless. While the primary responsibility for the positive developments that must occur in Ethiopia lies with its own people, the infantile recklessness we are currently discussing, which is fraught with inducing fragmentation, should not be observed in silence. A situation that leads to unnecessary friction and crises with neighbors must not be created. We must work on this. We must have constructive engagement and active diplomacy with the peoples of all neighboring countries. It may take time, the nature of the challenges may vary, but ultimately, we must create one integrated region.
It is only after we have secured regional peace and stability that we can proceed to development. Our development path will have momentum and sustainability only when it is cumulative. Actions taken in isolation might bring some progress, but in the end, they cannot bring about tangible, sustainable results.
We can take Sudan as one example. Before 2011, Sudan was one country; the people of the South, the North, Kordofan, Darfur, and Blue Nile all together as one Sudan. The efforts made to unify these different parties were not insignificant. But the plots to fragment Sudan proliferated, and the efforts made were squandered. Ultimately, the secession of South Sudan occurred. It was a matter driven by external interference and conspiracies, which the people of South Sudan themselves did not want. Now, we also see the situation in the north. Who is fueling this ongoing war? Why are we descending into this chaos? And as this happens, should we remain silent observers? Is it viable? Is it right?
We have a long experience with Somalia. The games played with numerous checker pieces, the conflicts instigated by warlords, have not benefited Somalia. The role a united Somalia can play in the Horn of Africa is not insignificant. Therefore, stability must come to Somalia, Sudan, Ethiopia, and others. Internal problems must be resolved. Since these problems are a major obstacle to regional stability and integration, we must work concertedly to change them. This is not something to be abandoned in despair under any circumstances.
To solve the existing problems, the awareness of the peoples is essential. But that alone is not enough. National institutions must also be built. On our part, the reason we trained ten thousand Somali soldiers was to help create sovereign defense and security institutions in Somalia. However, because there are continuous plots to fragment Somalia, we have faced various challenges as they work to break it apart. But this is not an issue for despair. The complementarity and integration of this region is not a task that cannot be sidelined under any circumstances. While managing our domestic affairs, we will not set it aside. To achieve this, we must work closely with our neighbors. Beyond our region and neighborhood, we must also align with influential regional and global powers further afield. This is work we must carry out in parallel with nation-building.
Therefore, what we call regional complementarity is something we view broadly; have worked on as much as we could in practice; and will continue to work on with diligence. So far, our efforts have not succeeded. It is not something we should lose hope over, saying we have not succeeded. The existing challenges only make us more resolute and impel us to strengthen our initiative for partnership. Therefore, in the coming years, before we speak of Africa and other parts of the world, we must be more active regarding the situation in our immediate neighborhood. We are not going to meddle in the internal affairs of countries and advise them to do this or that. Our aim is to assist in their efforts to correct the conditions that exacerbate internal problems, thereby steering toward the desired broader integration. This is a matter we cannot set aside. That it could not be accomplished under the banner of IGAD is not a problem. That it was not accomplished under the African Union is not a problem. That it was not accomplished under the UN is not a problem. While acknowledging the problems and conspiracies in each country, we must continuously work to create a truly conducive environment and foundation, ensuring the participation of everyone in the neighborhood, to counter the existing challenges. We cannot proceed by saying “what does it matter to us,” focusing solely on our own domestic situation without creating a secure regional environment.
What invites us into such predicaments are not only external conspiracies but primarily internal weaknesses. Preparing the ground to counter this is, for us, a part of nation-building. We do not see it as separate from nation-building. The efforts we made in the past did not yield the results we desired. However, this only strengthens our conviction and compels us to develop our collaborative approach with greater depth and breadth. As we ensure the collaboration of surrounding countries like Sudan, South Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Djibouti, Yemen, and others, we must ask what kind of new apparatus or mechanism we can create, or even what can be done by patching up the existing ones. All options are on the table. The path that can best take us forward will be tested, and thereafter, you can continue by making improvements. As I mentioned earlier, even if the challenges intensify, the awareness of the peoples is rising to a higher level. This in itself is a strength. If we look at the situations in Somalia, Ethiopia, Sudan, South Sudan, and Yemen collectively, awareness is growing stronger. Therefore, without being discouraged by the current situation, we must develop our partnerships. Integration is an irreplaceable choice.