webmaster
© Copyright DEHAI-Eritrea OnLine, 1993-2011
All rights reserved
From: Biniam Tekle (biniamt@dehai.org)
Date: Fri Jun 24 2011 - 08:34:18 EDT
http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/2011/1053/intrvw.htm
23 - 29 June 2011
Issue No. 1053
*Interview*
Fighting words of peace
Fear and anxiety, realism and optimism, love for Africa and passion in its
defence -- these were some of the sometimes conflicting emotions that
surfaced in the course of the *Al-Ahram Weekly* interview with Eritrean
President Isaias Afewerki. Egypt was an object of that fear and anxiety,
which triggered Afewerki's anger at the forces that were collaborating to
destroy his country and his bitterness at the hypocrisy of the international
community and the US, in particular. The emotions were mirrored in his face,
which reflected at once the sensitivity of the applied artist and the pride
and determination of the freedom fighter whose ardent patriotism drove him
to leave the school of engineering in order to dedicate himself to the fight
for his nation.
*What is your reading of the democratic revolutions that are sweeping the
Arab world and North Africa?*
I don't call them revolutions, but rather explosions. I have certain reasons
for this, but first let's not generalise. Egypt isn't Tunisia, or Bahrain,
or Libya or any other Arab country. Every Arab country has its own
realities. What happened in Egypt was the culmination of decades of
accumulated problems. It had a corrupt government. That is undeniable.
However, we cannot ignore the regional and international dimensions that
contributed to this reality, which eventually precipitated the explosion.
Yes, the cumulative effects of increasingly dire economic straits generated
what we might call a revolutionary condition. But it wasn't a revolution,
because there was no explicit manifesto or programme, and there was no
identifiable leadership. It was a spontaneous eruption of cumulative
pressures in which many other countries played a part not only during the
past 30 years, which is the life of the Mubarak regime, but during the past
40 or more years, in which Egypt had come under international crosshairs,
faced numerous challenges, fought several wars and emerged as the pivotal
power in the region. The attempt to destroy Egypt did not just come from
within. If there's going to be apportioning of blame, then fingers should
also point to all those regional and international powers that created this
situation. If there were thieves in Egypt, they had regional and
international parties to work with. In other words, the internal situation
was important. But the external factor carried greater weight in Egypt than
it did in other countries, such as Tunisia.
*Please amplify on the part played by the external factor. *
During my visit to Egypt, when we were having refreshments on the banks of
the Nile, small fishing boats pulled up next to us and their owners begged
for handouts. Nothing could more vividly reflect the unjust distribution of
wealth. How is it that a small minority came to control everything in Egypt?
What was their power based on? What kind of government created these
conditions? What we have to do first is to study the causes of all these
crises and that explosion and subsequent chaos. The regime had enjoyed the
support of all the countries that are currently condemning its dictatorship
and the theft of Egypt's wealth. Where were those governments, the US and
European banks, and the investors in the so-called global private sector
then, if not collaborating in all that plundering? It was not just certain
domestic parties that were responsible for the privatisation and destruction
of Egypt's economy and agriculture. All such factors need to be studied very
carefully if the aim is really to make the concrete changes that will enable
Egypt to progress and secure the international status it merits.
Unfortunately, what we see now is creative chaos. The forces that were taken
by surprise by the explosion are now fomenting chaos in order to buy to plan
and rearrange things to suit their purposes. Everyone needs to be aware of
this, because Egypt belongs not only to Egyptians, but to the whole region.
*Are the forces you're speaking of the ones that are currently trying to
ignite sectarian strife in Egypt? *
That's as plain as day. It doesn't make sense to see discord between Muslims
and Copts in Egypt. Everyone must be on guard against being lured into that
kind of thing.
*What do you expect from the "new" post-revolutionary Egypt with respect to
its regional or international role? *
What worries me is that this explosion occurred without any organisation,
with no aim or strategy, and without a leadership. Ad hoc handling of
explosions offers no solution. We have to wait and see whether order comes
to the randomness and offers a vision of the contours of the future. Right
now, it is impossible to predict what will happen in the next few months.
*In your opinion, how will the revolution affect the bilateral relations
between Egypt and Eritrea. You have long charged that Africa has declined in
Egypt's scale of priorities. *
Even Egyptians have acknowledged that Egypt's compass turned northward and
that Egypt ignored the situations in Sudan, the Nile Basin and the Red Sea.
Today, I believe that Egyptians are considering how to rectify the
orientation of their compass. However, one can only judge by actions, not by
hopes and intentions. We want to see changes on the ground. The old order
has gone and a new order is coming. This is a transitional phase and it is
still impossible to predict how all the regional and domestic equations will
play out on the ground in Egypt.
*How can Eritrea prepare for the winds of change sweeping the Middle East,
of which it is a part?*
We are in the heart of the Middle East geographically, but our capacities
are limited. We want our environment to be safe and prosperous. We have
domestic and regional resources. If the situation stabilises and the
countries of this region can work together without foreign interventions and
designs to divide us we will be able to realise our aspirations.
*Tell us about political party plurality in Eritrea.*
That's just a product that's intended to tear societies apart. This is not
to say that we don't want democracy. We do. But we don't want strife,
between Muslims and Christians, for example. During a transitional period we
need democracy more than other countries. However, that product that they're
marketing in Europe and US is for their benefit, not ours. It creates crises
that serve them and divisions that they can exploit. We need societies that
can develop economically, socially, culturally and politically. Domestic
transformations are the concerns of the citizens of a particular country,
not foreign powers who want to impose certain political choices or a certain
type of government, pluralistic or otherwise.
*What is your opinion of the international community's handling of the
popular uprisings?*
By international community do you mean the US and Europe? How about China,
Brazil, Germany and India, the powers that are said to be leading the way to
a new world order? Where's Africa, Latin America and Asia?
*But you would agree that the international community's approach towards
Libya is not the same as its approach towards Yemen and Bahrain?*
First, we have to ask ourselves what the aim is in all this. There are many
unanswered questions with regard to the nature of the criteria and the
legitimacy of these interventions. Didn't all those countries once accept
and respect the Libyan regime? But what they did was to pour oil on fire.
Again, the purpose was to foment creative chaos so that it would spread
throughout the region, instead of remaining confined to a single country.
*You once said that Sudan must remain united and that secession only serves
shop owners. How will you deal with the new government?*
We are still convinced that what happened was a mistake. However, we've been
dealing with the SPLF for more than 20 years and we sympathise with the
right of self-determination for the people of the south. We had hoped that
the marginalisation of the south would end. However, the fact is that the
south will become independent and we hope that what is left of Sudan in the
north will become stable and remain safe and united. Also, good relations
between the south and north serves the interests of both sides and
neighbouring countries. We in Eritrea must play a part. But Egypt's role is
also very important, especially since Sudan is integral to Egyptian national
security.
*Does this mean that you foresee three-way cooperation between Egypt, Sudan
and Eritrea in the near future?*
Yes. Cooperation is not a luxury for any of us.
*Some maintain that the secession of the south won't be the last, and that
other secessions will follow. What is your opinion?*
That is a lot of idle speculation. We need to think positively. It is
foolish to claim that the whole of Africa is going to disintegrate.
*What is your opinion on the elections crisis in Somalia? Do you have any
suggestions to offer on that issue? *
Somalia doesn't need to "change fabrics". Somalia has been torn for 20
years. But the Somali people need to solve their crisis by themselves,
without outside interventions. Only then will they be able to create a
political climate that will enable them to create a government
representative of all shades of the political spectrum, even the most
divergent.
*What are the results of the Qatari mediation between Djibouti and Eritrea?*
There is no Qatari mediation. The emir of Qatar had offered to mediate, but
it wasn't necessary because the situation between Djibouti and Eritrea
returned to normal. We hope we have put that problem behind us.
*Since you raised the subject of a safe and stable environment, how is your
relationship with your neighbour, Ethiopia, at present?*
There's no problem. What happened was due to the borders and putting off the
solution after arbitration. There is no justification for delay. There is no
need for one country to occupy another's land and to depend on foreign
powers to create problems. That is all part of the game of fragmenting this
region and fomenting strife between peoples and nations. Only when other
powers stop meddling in our affairs will our peoples and the region enjoy
stability.
*Does that mean you are prepared to negotiate?*
If someone broke into your house, destroyed its contents and then asked you
to negotiate, what would you do? What's there to negotiate over?
*What is your opinion on the concept of the Egyptian people's diplomatic
missions that have toured the Nile Basin countries, and on what they have
accomplished so far?*
Popular diplomacy cannot serve as a substitute for official diplomacy, even
in the event of a breakdown in the institutions of state. Ultimately, they
are no more than popular initiatives. It is governments that must represent
and act on the issues that promote the welfare of their peoples and
societies. Then comes the turn of popular initiatives to support
governments.
*What is your vision for a resolution to the Nile Basin question?*
There are two options. The first is cooperation and economic integration,
using the latest technologies. The Nile waters are sufficient not only for
the present but for future generations. They could have been a font for a
paradise on earth rather than a source of tension and dispute. The second
option is to engage in polemics over the use of the water locally and
regionally, opening the door to outside interventions. This is the negative
route. It is not constructive, as we have already seen. It is pointless to
embroil ourselves in senseless conflicts.
*Twenty years after independence, how do you see the future of your country,
especially in light of observers' predictions of an economic boom?*
The future is bright. During the past 20 years we have laid the foundations
for sustainable economic development in agriculture, infrastructure and
basic services, and the distribution of wealth and opportunity among our the
people. This is part of the assets for our economic future, along with the
discovery of new resources that will bolster our accomplishments as long as
we continue to manage them appropriately.
*Eritrea has the longest coast on the Red Sea. Are the resources there being
exploited optimally? *
You have a point. Our marine wealth is around 120,000 tonnes of fish per
year. However, it remains unexploited, in spite of its potential benefit to
the entire region. We have tried over and over again to cooperate with Egypt
in this domain. I don't want to go into detail on this matter, but our
efforts have been futile. Still, I maintain that there has to be economic
cooperation between Eritrea, Egypt, Saudi Arabia and other neighbouring
countries.
*How will you be able to do this given the UN economic sanctions against
your country? *
The sanctions are military, not economic, and they relate to the failures in
the region with respect to the Ethiopian-Eritrean border problem which have
driven some powers to take illegal, prejudicial, ineffective and unwarranted
actions. In any case, Eritrea does not need arms. It needs building
materials and equipment. It needs economic development.
*What is your current position with respect to international organisations?
*
We don't need handouts. We need to rely on our own abilities. Economic
dependency has promoted a condition in Africa that has worked to marginalise
it in the international economy. The more international monetary
organisations there are, the worse our economic and political crises become.
Our policy is to cooperate initially and then to rely on our own capacities
to build solid foundations for economic development.
*Could African economic integration compensate for this?*
It certainly could. This region does not need aid. The resources and
potential are there. If all these governments worked together, we would be
able to help others.
*So you do not think that Africa's partnerships with Japan, Europe, China or
other blocs are worthwhile.*
Those are partnerships in name only. They are another word for humanitarian
aid packages to a marginalised continent. A real partnership needs to be
built on mutual trade and investment. It means that Africa buys and sells
and has a trade surplus. It means an equal relationship. But what have all
those other countries done for Africa since independence apart from weigh it
down in debt, sow corruption and marginalise it?
*What do you have to say about the WikiLeaks cable in which the US
ambassador to Asmara described the Eritrean government as a dictatorship? *
That is a product of stupidity and hatred. WikiLeaks speak for themselves.
What can you say to a government that acts on the basis of reports of that
nature?
*How do you see the world after the death of Bin Laden?*
Al-Qaeda has been built up into a global problem that is used to frighten
and intimidate societies around the world and, particularly, in the Middle
East, which possesses 60 per cent of the world's energy resources. Bin
Laden's existence or non-existence is not a fundamental problem. People
should look at the bigger issues.
*In your latest speech, you mentioned a plot to destabilise your country and
Eritrea's apprehension of a British ship carrying arms. Could you speak
about this? *
I have no intention of engaging in media polemics. I don't need to resort to
propaganda tactics. It was an insignificant incident that had no effect on
our stability or security.
*However, a British official said that Eritrea refused to grant consular
officials access to the prisoners. *
If a group of armed Egyptians entered Uganda how would they be treated? This
is the way they try to turn the tables. It only underscores the weak
position of those governments that try to interfere in the affairs of others
and then quote international law and the Geneva conventions in order to
distract everyone with other issues. It's an old tactic.
*Interview by Marwa Tawfiq *
----[This List to be used for Eritrea Related News Only]----