webmaster
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2011
All rights reserved
From: B-Haile (eritrea.lave@comhem.se)
Date: Fri Mar 25 2011 - 00:51:05 EST
INTERVIEW WITH H.E PRESIDENT ISAIAS AFEWERKI (Part two)
Wednesday, 23 March 2011 14:44 | Written by www.ecss-online.com |
The first part of this interview focused on Eritrean internal issues. In this second part, President Isaias Afwerki elaborates the values and principles underlying Eritrea's foreign policy, in general, and Eritrea's regional policies, in particular.
ECSSW: Your Excellency, in the first part of our interview you clarified Eritrea's internal policy. Let us now move to Eritrea's foreign policy in this second part. What are the values governing Eritrean foreign policy and the principles underlying it?
President Isaias: Our vision during the armed struggle was wider in scope and looked far into the future. There has been solidarity and cooperation among peoples. When we speak about the independence of Eritrea, it should be mentioned that there were peoples inside and outside our region who stood alongside the Eritrean people, because they believed independence was the right of people. The solidarity might have been only political, but the essence was that no people in any country could live isolated from their environment, whether regional or global. As such, since independence our foreign policy has been based on principles capable of creating a conducive atmosphere for solidarity and cooperation among peoples of the Middle East and the Horn of Africa. This, however, does not mean that we are confined to the regional aspect and isolate ourselves from the international arena. We will be required to maintain relations with Asia, Europe, America and the other continents.
All the same our international relations should not prevent us from establishing relations of solidarity and cooperation with peoples in our region. Any relations we have with the peoples of Ethiopia, Sudan, Somalia, Kenya and others, as well as with the peoples of the Middle East are thus based on this strategic understanding. For example, IGAD as an organization set up to foster regional cooperation would have to expand and develop. This is one of the principles on which Eritrea's foreign policy is based. It is necessary to strengthen the bridge built during the armed struggle to link us with the Arab world. This is only a natural thing which reflects the relations existing among countries and political forces in the Middle East. The same is true with Europe and other parts of the world. Creating extensive cooperation requires building institutions. For instance, if we are to speak about economic development, infrastructure, social services and others, such projects should be related with Sudan, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia, Kenya, Uganda, Saudi Arabia, Yemen and all the surrounding countries. However, for such cooperation to exist the region should enjoy peace and stability that allow its peoples to cooperate with each other. Our foreign policy operates with this understanding.
We Eritreans have paid a heavy toll for the liberation of our country. As such, we should strive to create an environment of cooperation in our region. Once it develops it may spread to other regions. Such relations are built by outlining a strategy for achieving the aims on which the foreign policy is built. In my opinion, it is also necessary to create mechanisms, establish institutions and prepare a plan for realizing these goals. In brief, our foreign policy is based on the principles of mutual respect and peaceful cooperation that ensure people's sustainable development in their living standards and lives.
ECSSW: Since the early days of independence, Eritrea has undertaken serious diplomatic efforts to solve the internal problems of Somalia, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Yemen. What are the motives for those efforts and how much did they realize their intended goals?
President Isaias: All communities have conflicts. When a class has interests over and above those of others, conflict arises between the classes which wish to perpetuate their interests at the expenses of the majority which also wishes to ascertain its interests. Wars have been ignited in our world because few who have power and influence wanted to live at the expense of others. This is the reality of the 20th and 21st centuries we are living in .There are also privileged private individuals and corporations that exploit the resources of others. Political conflict, or "the conflict of civilizations" which I think is a misnomer, is also continual .When we speak about the challenges of the past 20 years, we are referring to the conflicts that ensued .When we liberated our country in 1991, we used to declare that the era of war had come to an end and we had entered a new era. The people secured their freedom. In addition, change occurred in the Sudan at the end of the eighties and the beginning of the nineties. One would have expected these peoples to create an environment enabling them to help each other improve the prevailing conditions. While the peoples of our region, namely the Somalis, Sudanese, Yemenis and others were aspiring to create an atmosphere of cooperation, we should know that there were , on the contrary, dominating and greedy forces which did not permit such cooperation. In various parts of the world, we observe ongoing struggle between peoples who desire to create an atmosphere of free cooperation and a global force that wishes to dominate. This struggle is going on and will continue in the future.
The efforts we exerted in Somalia are to be understood within this context and we have never had a hidden agenda nor do we have one now. We cooperated in the liberation of the Ethiopian people and we also liberated our selves. The ultimate objective for us and the Ethiopian people was to create a new environment for the coming generations. We also cooperated with Sudan and Yemen with these visions and objectives. We stood alongside the people of Yemen in their struggle for unity and development. It was natural for Eritrea to take such a stance because it was its region. Peace should prevail in Yemen. The creation of a secured region with opportunities for cooperation among peoples in place preserved thus ensuring the security of the Red Sea is an important and urgent matter. Initiatives undertaken to resolve disputes in our region were based on policies intended to create an environment of cooperation and peaceful coexistence among the peoples. These peoples have been living together for thousands of years and centuries. Thus, it is natural for them to work together during the 21st century for a better and advanced historical future. The sad thing is that there is a global force which abhors the creation of better circumstances anywhere .This force is interfering in Somalia, Sudan and Yemen and creating problems in the Red Sea. It is also creating tensions in the Gulf of Aden. So, this is the reality we are facing and we have to deal with it rationally. Our sacred principles which aim at promoting solidarity and cooperation among the peoples of our region are there to stay .We should neither abandon our mission nor waver because of fear of this big force which wishes and attempts to misappropriate our peoples' resources. Although this struggle is bound to continue, we should persist without scruples until we achieve our objectives nationally and regionally.
ECSS: How do you read the current situation in Sudan and its future developments and what role can Eritrea play?
President Isaias: The answer to this question lies in the principles that I have clarified above. Eritrea's relation with each of its neighbors has its peculiarities. Our relationship with the Sudan is a strategic one, regardless of the circumstances that face it, and will remain so for generations to come. The question only is as to how we assess and understand it. How do we read the current transformation in Sudan and our relations with it? I will focus on the current issues about the referendum and the secession of Southern Sudan and other issues. And it all indicates that the mode of resolving conflicts that had existed for more than half a century since independence was a failure. Nevertheless, I think that it is now outdated to talk about what happened in 1956 and the subsequent historical and political stages. We should now talk about the last two decades, and that is, since the end of the Cold War and the emergence of a new environment in our region. The Sudan could have overcome its inherited crisis.
The problem of Southern Sudan is a historically inherited one. This problem might be susceptible to explanations. But in the beginning of the 1990s Sudan had the opportunity to solve this problem. We in Eritrea had a clear stand in this regard and believed that the historical problem in South Sudan could be resolved only by respecting rights for all, regardless of whether it was to be called self determination or given any other term. When we say right of self-determination, this is not in the traditional sense but within a context of unity by overcoming differences and bringing to an end the circumstances that led to the marginalization of the people of Southern Sudan, thereby creating a Sudan that is based on citizenship with equal right and giving the southerners their rights, ending the war and creating a political environment that guarantees peaceful co-existence for all Sudanese. Our first effort was to reorganize IGAD and have the Sudanese crisis resolved within it. Regarding this matter Eritrea had also been in contact with our brothers in northern and southern Sudan.
As is well known, the SPLM began its struggle during the Numairi regime in 1983. Historically, the SPLM had embraced two views, namely the secession of South Sudan, on the one hand, and the ascertainment of legitimate rights within a unified Sudan, on the other. I recall that in the early 1990s Rick Machar, the present Vice President of the Government of South Sudan, was calling for secession, while at that time Dr. John Garang was calling for unity, on the grounds that the future of South Sudan was intrinsically linked with that of the north. Such unity according to Dr. Garang meant establishing a new Sudan based on full and equal citizenship rights and obligations.
Hence, if this right were realized the people of South Sudan, too, would be lined up as first class citizens like all the other Sudanese and the problem of the South would be settled. Subsequently, issues of the development of Southern Sudan would follow, which would be secondary and an outcome of the political reality which guarantees the equal rights of citizens. This outlook was consistent with ours and we did not envision the possibility nor the belief of separation of South Sudan. But now separation appears to be a reality. When discussing about self-determination we predicted the possibility of unity would be 99 % and that of separation, 1%. This was a numerical expression reflecting the stance of unity of Sudan upon guaranteeing southerners' rights. However, twenty years of wrong conflict resolution committed by the parties then in power and others has resulted in the present condition. It may not be appropriate now to put the blame on one party or another, though mistakes have certainly been committed. In addition, foreign intervention and agenda have complicated matters bringing them to the current stage. Internal developments such as the death of Dr. John Garang also played a role in this respect. There is an important fact I would like to reaffirm here namely, that we had reservations on the Naivasha Agreement then. One of our reservations was that power and wealth sharing between the two parties could not lead to the unity of the Sudan. The Agreement itself laid the foundations for secession, by creating separate structured governments and separate armies in Khartoum and Juba, respectively. We expressed our reservations thereon right away. We explained the Naivasha Agreement was full of endless substantive pitfalls and that it be deferred. This was our stand before 2005. Despite all our reservations, our choice was thus only to honor the stand of the concerned parties, since we could not replace them, interfere in their internal matters and impose our views on them.
The agreement was named "the Comprehensive Peace Agreement" (CPA), though we had pointed out that it could not be comprehensive, because its coverage could have been expanded. At that time we informed the concerned parties expressly that signing the Agreement would bring about serious problems. However, the two parties proceeded to sign the agreement and the problems ensued.
The second reservation is the external intervention and internationalization of the issue. This matter could have been avoided. When the peace process began, the matter was within IGAD only, but gradually so-called "friends" of IGAD came into the picture and then the so-called partners of IGAD followed, and ultimately the matter went outside the control of IGAD and IGAD was converted in a tool and an umbrella of external forces. In effect, internationalization further complicated the issue. Matters did not stop there. The African Union and mixed forces came into the scene and the Darfur problem further complicated matters.
If one looks at the Eastern Front Agreement, however, one discovers that it was exemplary, because it was based on the principles I have already mentioned. This Agreement did not discuss about the sharing of wealth and power, nor did it involve external intervention such as that of the United Nations or African Union. It was confined to Sudanese effort. It should have served as a model for resolving the problems of South Sudan and Darfur. The Darfur crisis which emerged subsequently resulted in the Abuja Agreement. We also repeated the same reservations there, because agreement could not be reached fast between the two parties only. The result was further complication of the crisis in the month and years ahead, just like what happened in the Naivasha Agreement. The problems and developments between 2005 and 2011 were so interwoven that five years were not enough to overcome the complications. In addition, the Agreement was regarded sacred and by no means open to change. Instead of postponing the time of the referendum and studying the problems and coming up with a solution satisfactory to all parties. Some internal and external forces insisted that the referendum be carried out at the fixed time. Was it worth it? Time will tell. We had discussed from the beginning that such an approach would not bring about stability and resolve the problems of southern, northern and western Sudan.
Perhaps this may not be the appropriate time to talk about an external agenda fully engaged to complicate matters and utilize it for its own interests because it is too late and would be valueless. Such kind of discussion would be outdated and not provide an opportunity to restore things to where they were..
We have reached a dead end because the problem has assumed an international image and become interwoven with internal and external complications. It's a dead end for the Sudanese's as well as for our region. The Sudan's strategic, social and historical position in our region is by no means to be underestimated. The results of the referendum will no doubt lead to several scenarios. Discussing it takes a lot of time. But in sum, it is the outcome of shortcomings, complications and foreign interference. It would be unrealistic to look for solutions at this late stage. All the same in our region where the cooperation of all peoples and countries is required, our efforts to enable the Sudan to play an effective political rule will be continuous.
ECSSW: Somalia has been bogged in a crisis for more than two decades. What is your reading of the crisis? And what does Eritrea think the solution is?
President Isaias: There is nothing new in this matter. Our relation with Somalia begins during the 19th century. As a result of the environment created for the two peoples by colonialism, there grew during the 20th century common work and affinity between them. This colonial experience brought about relationships of mutual respect, fraternity, interest and sympathy between Eritreans and Somalis. In the early sixties, with the advent of the era of freedom and independence, two parts of Somalia's, the northern part which had been under British rule and the southern part which had been under Italian rule united to form Somalia. It was a voluntary unity. The situation of Somalia is complicated and requires extensive study. Customarily, it is argued Somalia qualifies to be a closely unified country because it enjoys the privileges of a single language, race, religion, culture and geographic area.
In addition, since the Middle Ages, Somalis have inhabited some parts of Djibouti, Ethiopia (Ogaden) and also a part of Northeast Kenya. In other words, they regarded themselves as one people. From this emerged the aspiration to form a Greater Somalia in the Horn of Africa. Was this a legitimate ambition? This is left for history to decide. Whether we like it or not, this feeling exists and is part of the problem that arose during the Cold War. This Somali aspiration has remained an obsession and a cause for worry in our region. Notwithstanding what transpired during the middle Ages, hatred of Somalis developed in Ethiopian mentality during the 20th century, and as a result Somalia became a big challenge for Ethiopians. As is known, Ethiopia was only established as a state at the beginning of the 20th century. From the inception of the imperial Ethiopia, its rulers have regarded Somalia as a major threat because of the conflict which has existed between them.
Somalis inhabiting Ogaden have never regarded it as part of Ethiopia. On the contrary, they regarded it as part of Somalia. Similarly, the Somalis living in North East Kenya considered their habitat part of Somalia. During the Cold War, several factors, including Somali aspirations and problems in neighboring countries like Djibouti, Kenya and Ethiopia, brought problems in Somalia. Djibouti was safe due to its peculiarities and French presence. However, the successive regimes in Ethiopia and Kenya viewed Somalia as a source of unrest. Here, I am not talking about the Ethiopian people but the regime in Addis Ababa which believed that Somalia constituted a danger for Ethiopian national security. The same applied to Kenya, as well.
During the Cold War, full pledged war broke out between Ethiopia and Somalia in 1964 and 1977 and in more intensity than between Djibouti and Somalia or Kenya and Somalia. The threat continued until the end of the Cold War in 1990 and the collapse of President Siad Bari's regime, after which the regional factors, especially Ethiopia began to play a critical role in disintegrating Somalia. We were hoping that, after Mengistu's regime was toppled and a new regime replaced it, the Ethiopians would build new relations and usher a new chapter with the Somalis. I do not want to delve into details here, but the tragic thing was that the new regime in Addis Ababa, based on its internal predicaments, began to view the Somali and Ogaden situation as part of its national security problem. It is true that at that time Somalia was being stirred by its own internal problems, but the bigger problems were coming from Somalia's neighbors, despite differences of intensity among Ethiopian, Kenyan and Djiboutian negative roles. But, in general, these neighbors regarded the fall and disintegration of the State of Somalia would serve their interests. It is this kind of mentality which complicated matters after the collapse of the Siad Bari's regime. Bari's regime certainly had its own internal problems, too. The inhabitants of Somaliland and others had felt marginalized by discriminatory policies. Somalia's defeat in the war with Ethiopia had also resulted in defeatist mentality and contributed to internal fragmentation. All these cumulated to aggravate the problem. In my opinion the major one was the regional factor. The Ethiopian regime adopted an unexpected policy of disintegrating Somalia and the Kenyan regime followed suit, and fortunately for Ethiopia and Kenya and unfortunately for Somalia and our region, the 9/11 incidents occurred .The US began to interfere in Somalia. It is true that Washington had previously on one special occasion intervened, but the intervention brought about diplomatic and military setbacks to the US Administration. Consequently, American politicians decided to interfere indirectly through their regional puppets Ethiopia, Kenya and Djibouti. The US endorsed this policy after 9/11 and began to implement it.
Thus, the phenomenon of terrorism and war on terrorism appeared. Somalia became part of this map. All this was a concocted scheme. It was finally contrived by global forces to link Somalia with the Kenya and Tanzania incidents and portray Somalia as a threat to our region. The reason was that their interests so dictated. It would also serve to implement the agenda of big powers. This international factor further complicated the Somalia issue. Currently, the Somali problem is not a local problem but a regional one. Somalia's neighbors are now part of the problem and are exploiting the issue of terrorism and the so-called war on terror. To implement it they are especially relying on US support. Somalia has thus become a scapegoat for everything as well as a justification for local problems in Ethiopia, Kenya or Djibouti. It has also become a pretext for robbing Somali resources, including marine, agricultural and livestock. And, of course the, the robbers are these countries.
We maintained and still maintain the stand that Somalia should not be isolated from its surrounding. Somali problems should be solved by the Somali people themselves. But the major problem is that there are regional forces intent on splitting Somalia into meaningless small fragments like the Somaliland, Puntland, Jubaland, Banaderland. etc. No regional or global power is entitled to disintegrate Somalia. Disintegrating Somalia has also adverse effects on stability in the region. Presenting Somalia as a security risk for regional countries or asserting that Washington's security is interwoven with Somalia's situation by exaggerating Somalia's reality is nothing more than creating a crisis and executing one's agenda in the region. Irrespective of the intricacy or magnitude of the problem Eritrea's stance is clear. Somalia should preserve and maintain its unity, because the disintegration of Somalia does not benefit Somalis. Our entire region and Somalia's neighbors also stand to gain nothing from it. The people of Kenya face no threat from Somalis. It is only the regimes that are talking about threats.
Neighboring countries should not intervene in Somalia's affairs, since they are already part of the Somali problem. In principle, IGAD should have served as a regional instrument to resolve the Somali problem. But as I have already explained this organization which had undertaken the initiative to solve the problem of south Sudan has not been able to play its role pursuant to the responsibility it shoulders and ultimately was only reduced to an umbrella serving other forces. Currently, it is only working as a club where Somalia's neighbors convene and facilitate severally or jointly the realization of their interests. Our stand is firm and will never change. All foreign hands should withdraw from Somalia. Although some Somalis want to separate from Somalia and establish their own country, a conducive atmosphere should be guaranteed for all Somalis in order to decide what they want. Whether Somalis want federal, confederal or other arrangements, the choice is to be left to them. The important thing is giving Somalis the choice.
Whoever wishes the best for Somalis should help them solve their problems themselves. But no one can replace them and bring them miraculous solution. The main challenges in the Somali problem are lack of clarity of things and their being intricately interwoven, providing a wrong image and supplying complicated options instead of presenting solutions. As I have already clarified, although it has led us to confrontation with the Security Council and others, our stand is principled, historical and unwavering, we have held it for the past two decades and we resolutely stand by it. There is no alternative except to remove all regional and global interference from the Somali political arena and to leave the Somalis alone. The Somalis should be helped to build effective government institutions capable of guaranteeing the State, copping with piracy and curbing the process of exploration and ripping off Somalia's resources. Somalia has to be an integral part of a stable and complementary Horn of Africa region.
ECSSW: Your Excellency, there are some parties which contend that Ethiopia's future is in danger. Which way is Ethiopia going?
President Isaias: I do not want to make speculations as to which way Ethiopia is going. I can say that Ethiopia is going in the direction charted for it by the Woyane group administering Ethiopia. This group stood before, and still stands now, to gain nothing at all from Ethiopian unity. An examination of this group's program which is holding the reigns of power in Ethiopia reveals that its objective since the 1975's was to establish and independent sovereign state in Tigrai. We conducted relentless struggle to change this viewpoint and introduce them into a single Ethiopia program. But this viewpoint has as yet not disappeared. This regime is still in the process of creating a conducive environment to disintegrate Ethiopia. It does not have Ethiopian national feelings. For instance, if we examine the Ethiopian constitution, especially Article 39 thereof, we observe that it permits right of self-determination up to secession. There is no constitution in the world during this epoch with this kind of provision.
If we look into the policy this regime has been pursuing during the past 20 years, we notice that it has succeeded in splitting and controlling the Oromo, Afar, Somali, Tigrai , Amhara and other nationalities. Ethiopia has been divided into national regions in accordance with the policies pursued by this group. Can this reality lead to armed conflict? These policies would have led to internal armed conflicts had external intervention not taken place. The change of policies we have seen during the past 20 years, especially during the first 12 years, i.e after this group concocted a border incident with Eritrea in 1998 to remain in power, was dependent upon US and other international forces. The surprising thing is that this regime became the executor of the agenda of global forces in our region and the provider of free services to foreign powers in order to ascertain its stay in power. Although this policy has succeed to an extent during past years, it cannot continue thus until the end. The Ethiopian reality cannot continue as it is indefinitely. Attempts to buy time with foreign support and assistance are a wrong choice of no effect. Border dispute with Eritrea, the Somalia problem, the piracy issue, terrorism . etc, and the agenda of global forces, are all designed to ascertain its stay in power. The Ethiopian regime has so far used this tactic to stay in power. But its stay in power can be only temporary .We have to examine everything patiently and in terms of its historical and political context. Is it to continue like that? There can be no everlasting thing in Ethiopian or any other experience.
The domination of a minority ethnic regime over majority nationalities cannot continue indefinitely. It is not sustainable to keep away 90 % majority nationalities and control government institution by force. Such kind of regime's life is bound to be limited. The duration of political conspiracies, as well as of policies of disintegration and divide- and- rule, too, can only be ephemeral. Dependence on external forces as well is condemned to be short-lived. It cannot continue for generations without a time bar .This pent-up volcano is bound to erupt on due date. When it is going to explode is left for the future. But it certainly is a volcano which they have temporarily choked with all the force at their command. This regime may appear to be enjoying diplomatic and political victories here and there. Present regional conditions may also portray such regimes as continual. But we have seen regimes like that of Emperor Haileslassie long before this regime. The Emperor's regime used to be called a "colossal regime ". It used to be propagated, that because it was a regime that could not be toppled, the possibility of Eritrea gaining independence and the internal conditions of Ethiopia changing were virtually non-existent. The Mengstu regime which followed was also one of the strongest in Africa. All these have now become old stories. Mengistu's regime collapsed.
Although the current regime in Ethiopia is making futile attempts to perpetuate its existence in power, its duration is limited. To conclude that a regime cannot be toppled merely from a single experience is a blunder. There is no new innovation regarding the so-called diplomatic victories of Ethiopia. For example the Haileselassie regime would not have stood against the struggle of the Eritrean and Ethiopian people had it not received foreign assistance. A regime with no internal social, political and cultural foundation is bound to depend on foreign forces. The Mengistu regime followed the tracks of the previous regime. The present regime, too, is merely repeating what we have seen in past history. I would like to remark here that it is inappropriate to read a single line of a single book only to arrive at a conclusion because the book contains various chapters, topics and details. Any regime which subscribes to such ideology is short-lived.
ECSSW: Your Excellency, the Ethiopian regime is occupying sovereign Eritrean territory in defiance of the decision of the Boundary Commission, the international community and the Security Council .What, in your opinion, is the solution to this problem?
President Isaias: As I have already explained previously, the Ethiopian regime has become a tool of foreign forces. The border issue was one of the ploys to create tension. Perhaps it was concocted to benefit the Ethiopian regime. It could also have been designed to justify the intervention of a foreign power. But ultimately we went to arbitration. The menace now is that if Eritrea becomes stable, its people will be a source of threat to these forces. So it means you have to create uninterrupted problems for Eritrea. Once the decision was rendered, despite all its inequities, there was no other alternative except to accept it, because we had agreed to accept it as binding, final and non-appealable. As such, we had to enforce it whether we liked it or not. If for instance, the agreement had been implemented, a new environment would have been created.
In hindsight, when we pose a question as to what scenarios would have unfolded if the decision of the Boundary Commission had been executed in 2002, the response would be that Eritrea would have had the opportunity of making a giant stride. And that what all hostile forces dreaded, because the matter had been engineered to hamper Eritrea's political and economic progress. Also the decision appeared as another problem. These people cannot rest without causing problems. The scheme also included creating additional problems for Eritrea. In this connection the resolution of the Security Council imposing sanction on Eritrea on 2009 can be mentioned as an example. On what basis was the decision to sanction Eritrea issued? The intention was to put Eritrea in a position where it could not defend itself and its interests. The decision did not crop up suddenly. It was part of a series of obstacles and hindrances intended to hamper Eritrea's development. Although such conspiracies were temporary, I do no regard them as trivialities. The parties that planned the sanction concocted in advance justification that would enable them to pass the resolution. They introduced talks about Eritrea's intervention in Somalia and fabricated border disputes between Eritrea and Djibouti.
The fundamental objective was to create problems for the Eritrean people and Government, bring about economic and political crises in Eritrea and remove Eritrea from the political map. It was supposed to be a plan and strategy to be implemented step by step. If we look at the documents the American ambassador leaked to the Wikileaks, we can only conclude that these parties who thought Eritrea would crumble due to the obstacles they improvised suffered from psychological illness. When the Security Council used all its resources to pass Resolution 1907, its objective was to weaken Eritrea internally and subsequently bring about its political downfall. They were, therefore, continuously preaching as if in Eritrea there were human rights violations, religious conflicts between Christianity and Islam, and as if within Christianity, too, there were regional divisions and opposition. This was over and above their attempts to impose economic, military, security and other sanctions. Whenever each attempt which they undertook failed, they tried another one. What we understand from this is that these people will never stop until they attain their objectives. But whatever attempts they take will never succeed. Regarding the border dispute, I cannot predict that it will be resolved within a short time. Some people speculate that if challenges cumulate, they will create problems for Eritrea and weaken it. However, whenever Eritrea confronts challenges, its people and government emerge stronger. Consequently, non wander conditions have become more favorable for Eritrea. By the way, is the border issue one of our priorities right now? It cannot be one of our priorities. In accordance with the rules of military and political conflict, it is understood that the Ethiopian regime will inevitably defeat itself. When is this defeat to occur? Is it due to its internal developments or Eritrea's pressure upon it? Is it due to conditions around the Horn of Africa or global conditions? We could probably present a plethora of analyses and details. We may even have several scenarios. The indisputable fact is that this regime will expose itself to defeat. Its improvisation of new policies and modalities is not to avoid defeat but only postpone its stay in power a little pit. We should thus read history from this perspective and wait patiently. Things will change without us exerting direct influence and, sooner or later, our land will be free from occupation.
ECSSW: One of the concoctions and interferences which Eritrea withstood and is now under Qatari mediation is Djibouti's claim of a border problem with Eritrea? At what stage is the Qatari mediation to be found now?
President Isaias: To be clear on this matter, we should not wrongly blame the Government and people of Djibouti. Djibouti and its people are our neighbors and part of our region. As such, we should not have a wrong understanding of the case. We should view this case in the light of regional and global developments. This case would not have arisen had there not been an external agenda. Due to Djibouti's geographical importance, the external agenda has adopted a plan in the Horn of Africa region and the Red sea, taking Djibouti as a starting point. Since it has actually appeared on the ground, there is no need for analysis and explanation. Eritrea is one of the countries which reject this internal interference. As I have already clarified, if we look into the circumstances of Somalia and the Sudan, we observe that it is being implemented within this strategy. Those that serve this agenda are Ethiopia and others regimes in our region. The scheme aims at complicating the conditions of our region and creating crisis and then managing the same. In this matter Djiboutians have no involvement even remotely. I am not feigning. The French have had presence in Djibouti since independence. Though French presence did not have importance, we were never worried about it. The French also played a positive role, because they brought stability to Djibouti. There was also no harm inflicted in our region due to French presence. But after 9/11 conditions changed completely. The matter is clear for everybody.
As a continuation of the conspiracy to pose obstacles for Eritrea, this fabricated border problem arose. It appeared suddenly in April, 2008. As we had been following things closely, we realized the problem did not come from Djibouti but from an external agenda. I do not wish to go into details. President Ismail Guelleh submitted the matter to the Amir of Qatar in April 2008, when he could have directly discussed the problem with me. The Amir of Qatar, thinking in good faith that we had a border problem contacted me by telephone and informed me about it. I honestly told the Amir that President Ismail Omar Guelleh was my neighbor and so instead of talking with him, he should have talked with me directly and that we could solve it bilaterally. The Amir of Qatar apologized and expressed concurrence with me and hang up. Two days after that President Guelleh came to the border with his troops. I do not blame me because of what occurred. Subsequently, a statement was issued from the US State Department disclosing the matter. How could the US State Department issue such a statement? Maybe Wikileaks will reveal the details of what went on behind curtains, since it has become a referral for all occurrences. We may not have known how things were going, but now the documents are easily available.
The US State Department had no diplomatic or legal justification to issue a statement that Eritrea had occupied Djiboutian territory. How can a technologically and industrially advanced country issue such kind of statement? Would it not have been better to leave it to the concerned parties? Otherwise, it should have verified the matter through the proper means. The matter was clear as of day one. The statement released merely illustrated Washington's vanity. Personally, I prefer to call it mere political and diplomatic folly. The State Department unduly hastened to condemn Eritrea and was thus exposed from the inception. It is clearly known that Djibouti had no role in this concocted scheme. At the beginning the Government of Djibouti was not aware of the matter. Maybe it was a trap for it too. The surprising thing is that right after the US State Department's statement another statement, identical in context with that of the US was released from the UN, as if the UN had been reduced to an office of the US State Department. How come the UN issued such a statement? It is thus clear that the matter was nothing but a drama concocted from the beginning. At any rate, since I have already explained the background I do not wish to delve further into the matter. Documents which expose several facts have also lately began to appear. Perhaps other documents which reveal the entire process may crop up. When the inequitable decision of 23rd December, 2009, which was devoid of legal justification, was issued, matters began to lose their bearing.
The Qataris again presented their initiative advising us that complication of the matter was unnecessary and that our case as brothers should be resolved within narrow bounds. This did not differ from our stand. Our desire had been to resolve the problem at the bilateral level. But since the matter had gone out of control, we indicated that we had no problem if the matter could be decided by professionals and by legal means rather than by third parties through diplomatic agreements. We contended that if there were claims of possession or dispossession, they should be ascertained legally. We had been reaffirming that we had never crossed our border and occupied Djiboutian territory. This too, would have to be proved by adducing evidence before professional lawyers. We did not wish matters to go out of control. The matter has now become clearer. There had been an external agenda intended to create problems instead of promoting the interests of both Djibouti and Eritrea. So we accepted the Qatari initiative because it did not contradict our stand. Our brothers the Djiboutians also accepted it. The case is proceeding under normal procedures. The attempts to tie the problem with other agendas of the region have now disappeared. The attempts that were being made to give the case an international image and create problems for Eritrea have thus disappeared. Now there is no problem between Djibouti and Eritrea, though as the saying goes the continuation of water by some quarters still continues. The important thing is that the concocted scheme has now, after two years, been exposed and clear for everybody. Honest people at home and abroad now know the truth. As for the hostile agenda, some neighboring countries, especially Ethiopia and some countries under the IGAD umbrella are still harping it. Aside from this, there are ongoing attempts to complicate the problem through AU institutions. But in general, since this agenda has been exposed, no force in our region has legal or political justification to create other problems in order to aggravate or exacerbate this matter.
ECSSW: your Excellency, Yemen has been encountering various problems. What is Eritrea's position on this matter?
President Isaias: Regarding Yemen, there is no change to our stand of the early nineties which had been manifested in practice. Our stand which is based on cooperation with Yemen is derived from our understanding of securing a stable environment that guarantees cooperation among countries. We support the unity of Yemen. Our stand is quite clear and principled. During colonization and subsequently thereafter, there were two Yemens, namely North Yemen and South Yemen. Unity then emerged with the consent of the people of North and South Yemen. Our stand is for the unity of Yemen, because we believe unity serves the interests of the people of Yemen and the entire region. If we look into the conditions of the Horn of Africa, too, we observe that Yemen is in the political map of this region. As such, the stability of Yemen is of great interest to us.
Although there are economic, social, political and cultural problems in Yemen, they have to be resolved within the context of unity. Matters should not be aggravated to develop into regional and international problems. Global forces which exploit the question of terrorism and combating it as an agenda to promote their interests should not be given such opportunity to ascertain their interests in Yemen. Yemenis can themselves solve their problems. As I have stated earlier, Sudanese problems should be solved only by the Sudanese, Somali problems only by the Somalis and Yemeni problems only by the Yemenis. There is no doubt that Yemenis have the capacity and resources to resolve their problems. Any intervention in Yemen on the pretext that there are harm, inequity and demands which are intended to benefit from the conditions in Yemen and to disrupt the peace, stability and security of Yemen is, on our part, not acceptable. And we firmly reject it. Foreign interference is thus rejected under any circumstance. Yemenis know their problems more than others and they are capable of resolving them without external intervention. We Eritreans strongly believe that Yemeni solution and not external solution is the best approach. The questions of development, governance and political order are all matters that concern only Yemenis and should be resolved by them. In effect, Eritrea has stood and still stands alongside the Yemenis. It supports the stability and unity of Yemen as well as the resolution of Yemeni problems by the Yemenis themselves.
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
Version: 9.0.894 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/3526 - Release Date: 03/24/11 08:34:00
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----