From: Biniam Haile \(SWE\) (eritrea.lave@comhem.se)
Date: Fri Sep 18 2009 - 10:55:59 EDT
The Financial Times
Interview with Eritrea's Isaias Afewerki
Published: September 18 2009 14:19 | Last updated: September 18 2009
14:19
Isaias Afewerki led a guerrilla army that helped to overthrow the
Ethiopian dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam in 1991 and win independence
for Eritrea, which the Red Sea country secured after a referendum two
years later. As Eritrea's president, he initially pledged to introduce
multiparty democracy and free markets. But a border war with Ethiopia
from 1998 to 2000 led to a sharp change in course.
At the presidential reception house in Asmara on July 21 2009, he spoke
to Barney Jopson, the FT's East Africa correspondent, about
international relations, domestic politics, military service, economic
management, and western aid. These are edited excerpts from the
interview.
FT: Let's talk about Eritrea's international relations. You don't have a
lot of allies in the rest of the world. You're often described as an
isolated state, even as a pariah state. Can you give me your take on how
the country has got to this point?
Isaias Afewerki: Who said that?
FT: Many independent analysts would describe Eritrea that way.
IA: It's their own choice . We have not endorsed the policies of the
previous administration in Washingon for very obvious reasons. The
policies were misguided. Part of the problems we talk about in Somalia,
the Horn of Africa, wer a result of the misguided policies of the
previous administration. I don't want to exclude anyone in this
administration, but it's too early. The last eight years of the previous
administration was chaotic. We disagreed on almost everything and they
categorised us as a pariah, or whatever you called them. It's demonising
someone who does not agree with you. We've sustained our position and
said in spite of the demonisation we have our views, be it on Somalia,
on the Horn of Africa, Sudan, name it. We need to have our own
independent positions and we need to defend those positions . We have
disagreed [with the US] on a number of other issues. But that's not
unique. It's misguided policies not only in the Horn but everywhere
else. Yes, for those who control the media, for those who have special
interests, who have made this world a very difficult place to live in .
demonising Eritrea has been based on misguided policies, and even those
who have disagreed with us our now changing because the world is now
changing.
FT: Which people do you think are changing?
IA: Everybody else. We maintain our policies and our positions have
proven to be correct. And many who may not admit it officially are
changing. Changing by denouncing previous policies and previous
interventions here and there . I don't exclusively mention one party or
another as to whether they've become favourable to us or not. I don't
think that's relevant because we don't live on the favours of others. We
don't expect others to be very kind to us or very generous to us when we
disagree with them. We don't like that to happen. We would like to agree
and disagree, but we should respect the opinion of others and others
will have to respect our opinion.
FT: You said it's too early to judge where the Obama administration is
going, but do you have any hope that the new administration might .
IA: Not at all. It would be very foolish to hope for this or that. We
don't live in hope. We don't have that culture. We don't expect manna to
come from the skies. We don't expect any administration in Washington is
going to bring in solutions for everything . We don't have that kind of
culture. We're not even interested. We're not even interested in hoping.
Hoping for something is disabling . You cannot expect anyone to come
with some miracle to solve your problem. And it's not interactive. It
does not engage people on the issues because you will be sitting around,
hands folded and expecting somebody to do it for you. We don't have that
culture. No hopes. No expectations. No dreams. Nothing like that. We
would like to see real things happen on the ground and we would like to
be party to those things.
FT: Okay, so setting aside hopes and dreams, would you like to improve
your relations with the US?
IA: The US will have to improve its relations with us. We have done
nothing wrong. We were not even doing anything to harm the US at all. To
the contrary. So the US will have to come to improve its rels with us.
We don't go and ask for improvement of relations. We don't ask their
favour. They have to correct their wrongs and then we can make friends.
We don't go their and ask for their favour. Not at all.
FT: Now, you laughed when I used the word "pariah". Another comparison
that's been made is with North Korea. Eritrea is sometimes described as
the North Korea of Africa.
IA: Isn't it ironic? This isn't a country with nuclear weapons. This is
a very small country of three million people and the comparison is even
daunting to me. And that's part of the game - demonising someone,
intimidating someone, trying to frighten people. It's a very sick
psychology. It's a very sick attitude for those who think they can
demonise, intimidate and frighten people. We have resisted to that kind
of attitude and we don't think it's healthy. It's sick.
FT: Now, let's talk about the domestic situation here. Your party is the
People's Front for Democracy and Justice but Eritrea is a one-party
state that's not had elections since independence.
IA: That's no problem. That's not a problem.
FT: But where's the democracy then?
IA: You go and ask the Chinese on their democracy. You go and ask the
Mauritanians, the Iranians, the Madagascari. You go and ask Congo
Brazzaville. You go and ask the Hondurans. You go and ask everybody
else. You go and ask people in Europe. People in Europe have not even
participated in the politics. You may know that only 20%, 18% in some
countries, are interested in politics in Europe and we, in this country,
in spite of all the demonization, we have everybody else participating.
Every citizen in this country participates in what happens in the life
of this country.
FT: How do they participate?
IA: In all forms. They have their own organisations. They have their own
ways of participation. We are unique in the Diaspora - the only people
who are organised and working together for the benefit of their own
family, their own neighbourhood, their own people and it's in spite of
the demonization that you find. People participate in politics, social,
cultural, economy, security, everything.
FT: But people do not feel free to express opinions about the
government.
IA: This is an opinion of special interest groups in Europe and the
United States. They would like to have one or two individuals who are
mouthpieces for their own special interest and they want these voices to
be heard . If you want to talk in Europe as a citizen of the United
Kingdom, a citizen of France, of Italy, if you want to talk in the name
of the special interest groups in the United States, say it direct.
Don't come and say it through a puppet or some dummy here and there.
That's a mistake many in Europe and the United States [make], to think
that they can speak through the mouths of some individuals who are
compromised or bought by some agencies in those countries, and we are
told these are representative of the people of this country. The people
of this country know what they want. They know who represents them. They
know how they participate in the life of their country. So, how can you
possibly tell people that voices are not heard. Which voices?
FT: Well, I'm not talking about these interest groups in Europe, I'm
talking about the mood here on the streets, and there seems to be a
climate of fear. People are scared to give their opinions. They're
scared to criticise the government because the government doesn't seem
to be tolerating dissent.
IA: It's a very important discovery on your part. You've been able to
discover this in how many hours?
FT: Well, I've been here since Saturday.
IA: It's very unique. You must have a very unique brain.
FT: I don't think so.
IA: To be able to know and read everything in this country in a matter
of hours, it's amazing.
FT: But it's my impression that people are nervous.
IA: It's amazing. It's amazing. I say it's amazing because you can make
judgement in a matter of hours. You must be a super-human.
FT: Well, I'm not.
IA: You may be, because doing something in a matter of hours is
something for super humans who can do miracles by seeing through things
and trying to read the minds of people and trying to read the minds of,
say, the citizens in this town, that would be 400,000, and reading that
is very funny.
FT: Well, let's look at it in another way then. Are people free to offer
critical opinions of the government, if they want to?
IA: They're free. They're free. This is a free country. This is a free
country. I mean, I would have expected you to say something else had you
been in Nairobi, in Lagos, other capitals, even in Europe, where you
can't even move after five o'clock in the evening.
FT: That's safety. That's a different issue.
IA: . where you can see it in the faces of human beings and make a
comparison. You can make a judgement, even though that's qualitative and
it's not inclusive of everything. You can make judgements. Anyone has
the freedom to make judgements but this is the place where people can
move freely and think freely. It's a place very unique in terms of the
freedoms people enjoy, in spite of the demonization, again. If you have
come with a notion prior to your travel to this country, you can say it
but.
FT: No, what I say is based on my conversations with people, not with
400,000 but with.
IA: Well, it's amazing. I would even question that, again, because
that's where journalists are not very professional or even honest with
themselves and say, 'Oh, I talked to one or two people'. Where did you
get these people? Where exactly were you when you talked to these
people? And how many hours did you take to make a judgement when you
talk to someone?. It's not honest. It's a pre-judgement of something and
it actually is a distortion.
FT: So, you say there's freedom of speech, there's freedom of thought.
Why then the crackdown in 2001 on the people known as the G15 who were
arrested and remain in jail?
IA: That is history.
FT: But they were.
IA: That's something related to the national security issue, related to
war, related to the water conflict. It has nothing to do with the
domestic politics or the political reality of this country. That is
history.
FT: But they were expressing their own opinions and you said this is a
free country.
IA: They were not expressing their opinion. They were working for
something that is a threat to the national security. I was interested to
listen to Obama saying the other day, national security is not an open
book. It's not an open book in the United Kingdom, it's not an open book
in France, in Italy, in Europe, elsewhere. National security is not an
open book. And don't mix what national security is and what politics is.
FT: Well, let's go even further back in history. In 1987, I think, at
the second congress of the EPLF you agreed to introduce multi-party
democracy. In 1997 the Constitution was ratified but it's not yet been
implemented. So, it seems there was a commitment.
IA: Agreed with whom?
FT: Among yourselves. Among the EPLF [guerrilla army] or.
IA: It's our own choice. We don't agree with anyone.
FT: No, but you seemed to be supporting democracy and elections then.
IA: What is democracy?
FT: Well, it can be multi-party elections.
IA: That is something else. You talk about multi-party elections, you
talk about democracy. You have your own definition of that.
FT: So, what is the definition that you understand for democracy?
IA: It's participating in the life of the country.
FT: But not through elections?
IA: You may not like the result of the elections in Iran and you make a
lot of noise about that but that's for the Iranians to decide. In Europe
you have standards, multiple standards, about democracy, about freedom
of speech, about elections, about freedom of press but who can trust or
believe what you say in Europe is democracy? The recent parliamentary
elections in Europe were proof that people are not interested in
politics. Do you know that in some countries in Europe only 18% of the
electorate participated? And 82% are saying, we are not interested in
politics. So, where is participation in politics?
We need, first of all, to define what we mean by democracy, what we mean
by elections, what we mean by participatory politics. The problems we
see today happening in every corner of the world have been as a result
of people who have tried to tell us what economics is all about, what
participation in politics is all about, what democracy is all about,
when it's Madoffs, it's corrupt officials here and there, when special
interests have made life very difficult for people who talk about
democracy . We believe we have to go through a process. We need to
socially, economically transform societies, allow for participation of
each and every citizen. We don't have to allow division amongst ethnic,
religious lines - what we see happening in so many parts of Africa.
There is no democracy. There is no participatory politics that involves
everybody. It's more groups, even families sometimes, who manage
countries like shops or supermarkets.
FT: So, you say you are in the midst of a process. Is this process going
to end up with some kind of multi-party system, with opposition allowed
and elections?
IA: It's not a process that will end up. This is a process for
generations to continue, yes. There is no political process that starts
and ends somewhere. If you have that notion, then that's a misguided
thing because life continues, life perpetuates and generations come and
go and definitely the political process goes indefinitely.
FT: Let's talk about national service, which is an important part of
life in Eritrea today. Can you explain why national service is necessary
for this country?
IA: It's necessary for every country.
FT: But not every country has conscription.
IA: It's necessary for every country.
FT: But not the mandatory national service.
IA: You can imagine. It's been there for, I don't know, for more than a
century now. When government and countries can afford it, they may have
one form or another of national service. Every country has got its own
preferences. We have gone through a very long war and we've,
unfortunately, found ourselves trapped in so-called border conflict. We
have our national security and we need to plan, like others, and we have
to find an alternative for that. National service is not very unique.
It's not a problem in this country. It's like every other place where
you have national services under different names and different forms.
FT: Well, you say it's not a problem but there does seem to be some
resentment over two things. One is that people receive very low salaries
and, two, is that the national service can be indefinite. So, why the.?
IA: It's not indefinite. If the United States can deploy troops in Iraq
and Afghanistan and those who served one year ago are again obliged to
come and serve again, what do you call that?
FT: No, but these people volunteer to join the army in the first place.
IA: They never volunteered. No one volunteers. They were enticed. They
were lured in in a very sophisticated manipulation and they suffer the
consequences. I don't want to talk about that. That's a very long story.
You tell me these are voluntary people. Do you know how people are
recruited in the United States? Do you know the mechanism of
manipulation that takes place there? Do you know the abuse that they
have in recruiting people in the United States? Do you know that?
FT: No.
IA: This is a different story. We don't mislead people. This is a duty
for every citizen, every young citizen. As long as the threat remains,
we need to be vigilant. That's very natural. I have indicated earlier
national security is not an open book. And you talk about salaries. This
is a very, very, very broad issue. We talk about salaries in Europe,
salaries in the United States, salaries in China - this is a different
story. It has nothing to do with national service. National service, you
are obliged to do service without any pay.
FT: Do you think that's fair?
IA: It's everywhere. It's everywhere. It was in Europe before Europe
overcame the whole difficulty after the Second World War. You go into
Germany, France, Italy, everywhere, and you know what was going on there
and you cannot come now and prescribe something else for me when you
have justified what you did 40, 50 years ago was right and you tell me
now that was wrong. That's not making any logical sense at all.
FT: But it seems there are a lot of young people who don't like the idea
of doing national service.
IA: Who likes the idea? Who likes the idea of doing service in the army?
FT: Well, not many people.
IA: Who likes the idea? Tell me. Who likes the idea? This is your duty.
This is a duty imposed upon every citizen in spite of your liking or not
liking. This is a duty. Every citizen of any country has a duty to
perform. It's one thing when the Prince of Wales or any other part of
the United Kingdom participates in a service for his country. You would
uphold that as something very holy. But when people are doing service in
their own countries, like here in Eritrea, you think that is a curse.
That's not a curse. It's a blessing to do your duty and everyone may not
like it but it's a duty for you and for everybody else in the country
because equality is the basis of citizenship and everyone has an
obligation and a duty to participate.
FT: I'm interested in the difference in the minds of the generation of
people who fought during the struggle, like you, and young people who
were born at the end of the struggle. I mean, somebody born in 1991 is
today 18 years old. The liberation fighters obviously have a lot of
pride in everything you fought for. But for the young people, do you
think they have the same passion for that cause?
IA: Maybe more but in a different form. Everyone has pride. A human
being, any human being anywhere has pride. It's part of you. Generations
come and go. Generations have their own culture, their own values, but
definitely pride is one thing. It's something 20, 30, 40 years ago; it's
a different thing today, but it's still there.
FT: What about the willingness to sacrifice? Because the struggle was
all about sacrifice but now Eritrea has won freedom. Do you think the
young people are still ready to sacrifice?
IA: Now, look, sacrifice is part of the value and the psyche of the
human being. You want to make money? You want to accumulate capital? You
will have to forego some of the benefits you think are immediate for you
now. Sacrifice is not something you do for free. It is something you do
for something else . But to think getting this generation back 40 years
and trying to expect them to fight for history, what does that mean? You
don't fight for history. You fight for the future and any sacrifice, you
do it for the future. So, I don't see anything unique for this
generation or the generation that is going to come after that. They will
have to do their own sacrifices and what provokes sacrifices is the
challenges that face communities and human beings.
FT: There are some young people who don't want to sacrifice for a future
in Eritrea and they're leaving the country, often illegally.
IA: Not at all. This is part of the human trafficking and organised
international crime. This is a different story.
FT: Who is organising this?
IA: There's organised mafia everywhere - within the country, in Sudan,
in the neighbouring countries, in Europe - who are making money out of
this business. How do they do it? They will have to make something in
the future somewhere very attractive and they will have to organise the
ways of taking these people somewhere else. Say, for example, they will
say "Oh, Europe is heaven. You can go to Italy, you can go Turkey, you
can go to Israel, you can go to the United Kingdom and life is better
there. You can clothe better, you can eat better, you can have a better
shelter, you can wash dishes but you can make more money than serving
the country under the national service and I can organise a trip for
you, a vacation." He will organise for these people to secretly move out
of this country, go to Sudan. They will take them to Egypt, to Libya, to
Israel and from there they take them to Europe. They end up in
concentration camps. That heaven is a concentration camp.
FT: You mean the refugee reception areas.
IA: They're concentration camps. And these people ended up in these
concentration camps because they were told that this is heaven and they
can go there and make a better living rather than live in this country
without salary, with no future, as far as they are told. Where do you
end up? You end up in a situation where your future is destroyed. If you
are 20 now and if you can live 80 years, 60 years of your life is
destroyed because of this organised crime of human trafficking. And this
is obvious. Everybody knows it. It's no secret anymore. And it's very
sad that these young people end up there. And the excuse always is, oh,
why do national service. You can go to anywhere in Europe or the United
States. You can live there. We can facilitate that. We can prepare
documents for your travel.
FT: Let's talk about the economy. We've mentioned the financial
meltdown, the global recession. How is this affecting the economy of
Eritrea?
IA: Not at all. It's not affecting us. I mean, it's not affecting us in
a big way. Why? Because we've been very serious about our economy from
day one and we have not been living on handouts. In spite of the limited
resources we have in this country, we have appreciated that our human
resources are our human capital. Investing in people means allowing them
to produce something. I'm not saying this is heaven. I'm not saying
everything has been resolved but, again, we have been focused on the
real things we need to do. With meagre resources, you need to sustain
the difficulties and hardships and overcome that by working and
producing.
Now, we have invested heavily in public programmes, infrastructure. We
still have a long way to go. But without putting that in place, it's
going to be difficult to talk about any growth in any economy. And we've
been sacrificing to do that, sacrificing and sacrificing and sacrificing
so we put in place an environment that is viable for future growth of
this economy. I don't think we have committed any mistake. In fact, now,
in hindsight, I can say we took the precautions at the right moment. It
does not imply that we have found a solution or a panacea for all the
problems. We have not committed mistakes that would lead to a serious
challenge, given the current financial meltdown or economic crisis
globally. We've been able to sustain it by maintaining an economy that
feeds the realities of the day. We have not exaggerated the expenses of
the government. We have been very austere economically in our dealings.
We have focused on serious economic programmes. We may not have gone a
long, long way but we have created a situation where we can easily
sustain shocks and challenges that may come as a result of global and
regional change.
FT: Now, you mentioned as part of this people are making sacrifices and,
again, I've heard that there are hunger problems in different parts of
the country, people not having enough to eat.
IA: Not hunger problems, no. One thing in this country is you don't have
someone with a full belly and someone else hungry. We don't. I mean,
distribution is one of the basics in our economics. The limited
resources will have to be distributed in a manner that is equitable. You
may sound to be very egalitarian when you say that but that's not
egalitarian, it's reality. Yes, some areas have been producing surplus,
some have been self-sufficient, other areas have not been able to
produce. Nomads are the ones who are easily affected because they are
not producing food, they are living on livestock and livestock are
affected by drought and other natural circumstances. When they cannot
afford to sell their livestock and buy food or a substitute for what
they need, definitely you will have to have a mechanism for distributing
and that's what we have learnt.
FT: But I've spoken to people who say they have relatives in rural areas
who are struggling to feed themselves.
IA: You will have to go and see that. People can tell you stories. I
have heard a number of things in this town but it's not true at all
because there is a distribution mechanism, a distribution mechanism that
does not allow for famine. Hunger may be there as a phenomenon at
different seasons of the year in different parts of the country, but we
have an almost efficient means of distribution. We cannot allow for
people to die of famine in this country when we can afford to have three
meals a day in some parts of the country. That's not at all the case.
Yes, food may not be available in abundance everywhere. I don't pretend
to say that but, again, we have to be able to distribute what is
available to those who need it and we have been very good at doing that
and that's been one aspect of our success story and the economy. This is
not big economics we're talking about. It's small economics but managed
well.
FT: And let's talk, again, about the global recession because one of the
big sources of income for Eritrea is remittances from the diaspora and
in Kenya and in Senegal and in Zimbabwe, which also depend on
remittances, the amount of money has been falling because the Kenyans
and the Senegalese and the Zimbabweans overseas have been losing their
jobs. Are you seeing a fall in remittances here from Eritreans living
overseas?
IA: Yes and no. That's one issue which is part of the economies of so
many developing countries and it depends on the attitude or the
responsibility of individuals. In some cases remittances are not even
there. People migrate to places in Europe, the United States, the Middle
East, Canada, any other place in the world, but they don't send back
money. I wouldn't disagree with someone who wants to go somewhere and
find a job and make money and come back here to support family or even
start a good, new life. That would be sensible. [But in] the
circumstances now, it's doing a lot of damage to individuals who are
going there not finding jobs. Even those who have been there before them
don't have jobs. They're laid off. They can't find jobs. So, that's a
bad thing. That's one negative effect of the global financial meltdown.
It has affected our diaspora in a very bad way. We've been encouraging
people outside [to] work hard, focus on savings, don't spend a lot of
money luxuriously, collect money and look towards a future and try to
have a home, try to have a good place to live in ultimately We are
looking for alternative solutions to the challenges people face in the
diaspora, given the global economic crisis.
FT: Now, Eritrea's never had a lot of foreign exchange of dollars and
the Diaspora's been one source of that but the shortage has caused a lot
of shortages of materials in this country. That's why the Coca-Cola
factory closed down, I think. That's why beer production every now and
again stops. How do you manage with such a.?
IA: There is no abundance of foreign exchange anywhere [in the
developing world] but the issue is how do you manage foreign exchange.
You need to have priorities, priorities for long-term plans, for
medium-term plans. Short-term is consumption, consumption meaning you
can spend foreign exchange on something that you need today and that
would sacrifice the long-term programmes that would have a sustainable
impact on the growth of your economy. You'll have to make a choice.
That's where we have been on the right track. We have focussed on
infrastructure, for example. I would say the whole population will have
to sacrifice a breakfast, for example, and you can use that saving for
putting in place a road anywhere which will enable communities to use
that road for producing and doing trade and business in their own
neighbourhood.
FT: So, breakfast for a road.
IA: Name it. You have to do something for the long-term and there has to
be a balance on what you do today and what you consume today and what
you save for tomorrow and for the day after. You need to be very careful
on that . It's not an individual sacrifice but it is sacrifice at a
national level.
I want to put in place roads, clean water, schools, health services,
electricity, communications. These are basics. If you postpone to do
them today, you will never be able to do them any time in the future. To
do them today for the long and medium-term, you will have to sacrifice
what you need today and that's a very simple logic. So, yes, foreign
exchange may be scarce, may be limited, but the question is how do you
manage that resource available to you.
FT: But one of the biggest [targets] of foreign exchange spending is the
military. Is that correct?
IA: Not at all. Why would you say that?
FT: Well, as you say, you've still got the border issue with Ethiopia.
There's still a threat there. That's why national service is important.
IA: Not at all. It's a matter of contingency for us. We decided early on
not to be held hostage to this reality. Yes, we have a contingency. We
would like to be vigilant all along, we'd like to be prepared all along
but we shouldn't be held hostage, meaning our human capacity will have
to be engaged on some other productive activity. That's where the army
and national service are being engaged in productive activities. If you
see what has been achieved in the last ten years in any aspect of
developmental programmes - infrastructure, agriculture, agricultural
production, fisheries - it's all done by these young people who may not
like it, may have other alternatives had circumstances been completely
different but, again, their contribution has been tremendous. We could
have done better without this conflict. We could have done better
without this psyche of having a conflict that is not resolved, being
prepared for any eventuality. That limits your resources but, again, you
don't have any other choice. The best choice for you is to not be held
fully hostage to this circumstance and find other productive activities
that will ultimately benefit the whole population.
FT: But my point was just that you need dollars to buy tanks, to buy
weapons.
IA: Not at all, no.
FT: Well, you have to buy them from Ukraine or Belarus or.
IA: No. It's a misconception. It's not missiles, it's not heavy tanks,
it's not heavy artillery that does the job. And for us to seriously
consider an option, a contingency, for self-defence we'll have to think
in a different manner. It's not tanks, it's not missiles, it's not
sophisticated weapons that make the difference in any military or
conflict situation. I say this [after] very long experience. Yes, it may
be useful to have tanks, artillery. [But] they're not at all 100 per
cent useful compared to other options. So, you don't need to spend a lot
of money on heavy artillery. Napoleon has said two-thirds or maybe
three-quarters of any battle is morals.
FT: Okay. Now, on economic management, it seems that in the last few
years the party has been increasing its involvement in the economy -
withdrawing some business licenses, taking control of construction
companies, for example. Why is that?
IA: It's transitional. It's a matter of efficient use of resources and
efficient use of time. Under the circumstance where the economy is
underdeveloped, where you don't even have the kind of businesses that
would assume the responsibility of putting in place programmes in a
number of sectors then the government will have to intervene. And this
is transitional. It's a necessity. It's not part of a long-term policy.
Governments have a job to put in place an environment that is conducive
for investment, putting in place an environment conducive for investment
means roads, electricity, water supply, telecommunications and that's
not an easy task and you cannot do it in a disintegrated manner. No
private sector can do a charity job by putting in place a road or an
infrastructure programme here and there. How was Europe rebuilt after
the destruction of the second world war? How much sacrifice, how much
control of government was there and how was it possible for those
economies to arrive at where they are now? You can't do miracles.
FT: So, I understand the logic of creating public construction
companies, for example, to build roads, but why at the same time would
you withdraw the licences from the private companies?
IA: There are no licences withdrawn from private companies.
FT: But now there are no private construction companies.
IA: They're out of business. They don't have the capacity. There is no
capacity . Any individual can come and tell you: 'Well, I'll do this.'
No. How can you possibly do it? Do you have the equipment? Do you have
the money? Do you have the human resource? How can you possibly put in
place a huge project with a limited amount of money?
For the transition there is no other alternative except for the
government to assume responsibility to put in place . What we see now
happening in Europe and the United States is trying to reverse the
process. Where government should have been there to regulate and control
and private companies come and do the job, the lopsided relationship has
created this problem we see now and governments are obliged now to
intervene.
FT: But you're not trying to create a Soviet Union style command
economy, or are you?
IA: We have never had any illusions about that kind of economy. We have
lived that experience when we were deep in the struggle.
FT: Right. The Mengistu struggle.
IA: Not Mengistu. Mengistu didn't represent anything but I remember the
political programme for the EPLF, now the PFDJ, was clearly defined as
mixed economy . It's a realistic way of managing an economy and I don't
think we have at any point in time tried to emulate any experience. I
mean, your own unique realities will have to be appreciated seriously
and you tailor a programme that suits or fits your own reality. Copying
examples from outside or having stereotypes is not always a solution.
FT: Let's talk a little bit about NGOs and the UN. I think at the high
point there were maybe 40 or 42 NGOs in the country. Most of them have
now either left or felt driven out and, similarly, UN agencies are under
very tight restrictions here. Why do you have this tough attitude?
IA: It's one of the phenomena that has damaged economies of developing
countries. I mean, it's unfortunate that this phenomenon mushroomed in a
very short period of time without anyone taking it seriously and
checking on what this phenomenon means to developing countries. You can
find books everywhere now talking about this problem. A more recent book
is [Dambisa] Moyo's.
FT: Dead Aid, yes.
IA: We simply asked questions about the validity and viability of NGOs
in developing countries. Is it doing any benefit? Ultimately we arrived
at the conclusion, which is now appreciated by everybody, it's very
crippling. It may have started as a good intention on the part of some
individuals and groups in Europe who wanted to help needy people but
gradually it was transformed into monsters or institutions that could be
considered monsters. The people employed, the money wasted, the
opportunity lost in terms of creating viable institutions of government
in developing countries is huge. It's not something emotional. It's not
liking or hating individuals or it's not a matter of liking or not
liking NGOs. If you have these institutions, you will never be able to
put in place viable institutions of government because they will
substitute everything. The money wasted by these organisations is in
billions, if not in trillions. These institutions have developed to be
institutions without any accountability and transparency and whenever
you try to ask for accountability and transparency, you are demonised as
someone who is against NGOs or humanitarian support. No. I think now
people are sober enough to seriously consider this matter.
I'm glad this time that people are realising that even those countries
who've been categorised as donors are now reconsidering the policy of
providing aid and even using NGOs as a means of implementing programmes.
Economic and developmental programmes could be implemented in a
different fashion and we don't need to continue depending or even give
more legitimacy to these institutions of non-government organisations to
be an obstacle in the two-way relationship of trade and investment
between the developed world and the developing countries.
FT: And what about the United Nations, which is an organisation of
government, it's not an NGO?
IA: Even some NGOs are better than UN agencies. I can tell you one
thing, one very simple example. We had peacekeepers here. For how many
years I don't know. Their annual budget was $200m. They stayed here for
more than five years. They may have had a budget of more than $1
billion. Where this money has gone nobody knows. Now, when they had to
terminate their operations here, we discovered things that we suspected
all along. We were asked to take garbage of all the resources that were
used by them. They took what they wanted to take. They sold some of the
equipment. Where, no one knows. How much they sold it for no one knows.
Now, can you imagine almost 5,000 people sitting here in this country as
if they were tourists, enjoying life, not even doing anything risky for
them with $200m per year and no one knows where this money has gone.
Their expenses are to me not only a wastage but an embezzlement and
there is no mechanism for checks and balances to guarantee
accountability and transparency.
FT: Now my final question, a two-part question. How would you, firstly,
describe your own style of leadership and, secondly, are there any other
leaders in other parts of the world who you particularly admire?
IA: My style is very simple. I say simple and direct, inexpensive and
efficient. I can see many [other world leaders] could have done their
job better under their own circumstances, given their own unique
realities, and I don't think it's easy to compare different realities..
There are shortcomings and failures here or there. What you need to do
is benefit and learn from the good of everybody else. Most of the times
you would like to see what these developed economies have done. You
don't go and look for similarities with those who are like you. I don't
think that's the best way of learning. What you need to learn is how
others have been able to do what they have done to change the quality of
life of their own people. You may not have the resources, you may not
have the time, you may not even be able to emulate them but at least you
learnt something and you tried to do it by relating it to your own
unique circumstances.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/35b8905c-a44b-11de-92d4-00144feabdc0.html
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----