webmaster
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2011
All rights reserved
From: samuel Igbu (ypfdjbc@gmail.com)
Date: Thu Apr 14 2011 - 18:42:16 EDT
Wednesday, 23 March 2011 14:44 | Written by www.ecss-online.com | [image:
PDF]<http://184.154.228.7/%7Eshaebia/index.php?view=article&catid=35%3Alocal-a-intl-news&id=153%3Ainterview-with-he-president-isaias-afewerki-part-two&format=pdf&option=com_content&Itemid=41>
[image: Print]<http://184.154.228.7/%7Eshaebia/index.php?view=article&catid=35%3Alocal-a-intl-news&id=153%3Ainterview-with-he-president-isaias-afewerki-part-two&tmpl=component&print=1&layout=default&page=&option=com_content&Itemid=41>
[image: E-mail]<http://184.154.228.7/%7Eshaebia/index.php?option=com_mailto&tmpl=component&link=aHR0cDovLzE4NC4xNTQuMjI4LjcvfnNoYWViaWEvaW5kZXgucGhwP29wdGlvbj1jb21fY29udGVudCZ2aWV3PWFydGljbGUmaWQ9MTUzOmludGVydmlldy13aXRoLWhlLXByZXNpZGVudC1pc2FpYXMtYWZld2Vya2ktcGFydC10d28mY2F0aWQ9MzU6bG9jYWwtYS1pbnRsLW5ld3MmSXRlbWlkPTQx>
070.jpg (*image/jpeg*)
28K<?ui=2&ik=58cedadf65&view=att&th=12f562da40157e6b&attid=0.1&disp=attd&realattid=f_gmi9xc7z0&zw>
*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 c ountry 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.
Last Updated (Saturday, 26 March 2011 18:14)
-- Sincerely *YPFDJ British Columbia Chapter* YPFDJ Goal and Purpose- Our goal is to build a strong, conscious and patriotic youth movement.
Our purpose is:
- To raise the awareness and level of organisation of Eritrean youth to serve our nation - To reassert the identity, patriotism and unity of Eritrean youth - To promote the participation of Eritrean Youth in the national reconstruction of Eritrea as well as guarding the sovereignty of Eritrea - To enhance the position and influence of Eritrean Youth in their respective countries of residence.
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----