Eritrean President Afewerki on Local, Regional Issues, `US Failure in Somalia`

Al-Hayah Online
Saturday, February 20, 2010

Interview with Eritrean President Isaias Afewerki by Muhammad al-Makki Ahmad in Massaw, northern Eritrea; date not given: “Afewerki Tells Al-Hayah: America`s Failure in Somalia is Behind Resolution to Punish Eritrea; I call on the Red Sea States to set up a Premeptive Mechanism to Confront any Danger”

Eritrean President Isaias Afewerki has strongly criticized the United States, saying that it is behind an “unjust” UN Security Council resolution aimed at imposing sanctions on his country. He said that the UNSC resolution is an attempt by the United States to conceal its failure in Somalia. He asserted that it was Washington that fabricated the Eritrean-Ethiopian border crisis. In an interview with Al-Hayah, Afewerki urged the Red Sea littoral states to find a preemptive mechanism to confront any potential danger in the coming years. He emphasized that Saudi Arabia, Eritrea, Sudan, and Yemen are capable of protecting the Red Sea. Expressing a noteworthy stand, he suggested reaching “geographic” solutions in the region in order to enable the Palestinian people to have stability and a decent life. He said: “Anyone marketing the idea of the two states (Palestinian and Israeli is living a dream”. He also emphasized that neither the Al-Qa`ida organization nor any Somali forces should be allowed to interfere in Yemeni affairs. He added that the United States is trying to exploit statements in this regard in order to peddle its policies in the Horn of Africa region. Afewerki emphasized that Yemen is capable of solving its political, security, and economic problems.

Following is the text of the interview held in the port city of Massawa, the capital of the Northern Red Sea, on the 20^th anniversary of the liberation of the city in 1990 that paved the way for the independence of Eritrea:

(Ahmad) During my stay in Asmara, the capital of Eritrea, and in Massawa, the capital of the northern Red Sea, I noted that there is no voice higher than that of the popular and government criticisms of a resolution issued by the Security Council in December 2009 that imposed sanctions on Eritrea. What is your opinion on this resolution and its ramifications?

(Afewerki) First of all, questions are still being asked on the justifications that led to this resolution. The fact and the reality is that this resolution is due to the failures of the successive US Administrations in the Horn of Africa region. We do not view this resolution in isolation from the circumstances that have been prevailing in this region for almost 20 years. US policies in the Horn of Africa have failed and created a turbulent situation in this region. The Security Council resolution (against Eritrea) hurts the situation in Somalia first and foremost. It ties the situation in Eritrea to the events in Somalia instead of basing it on this and that (he means that it was not based on convincing justifications and evidence). We have to look at the background of the resolution. The question that should be asked is why is Eritrea being punished for the situation in Somalia? Has Eritrea indeed been contributing for almost 20 years in a negative manner regarding what is happening in Somalia now? What has been the role of the United States in Somalia over the past 20 years after the fall of (former Somali President) Siad Barre? Of course, history attests to this (US role) and it is documented. What was the role of the countries neighboring Somalia - like Kenya, Ethiopia, and Djibouti - in the instability in Somalia? There was the obsession with the danger on national security or the Somali danger on all these countries. This obsession coincided with the US stand for the wrong considerations. After the Cold War, the United States tried to have a zone of influence and an army in this region in order to promote its policies in this critical geographic region. It interfered in Somalia and Ethiopia and in the border problems between Ethiopia and Eritrea. It also interfered in Sudan. The US meddling (in the form of imposing sanctions on Eritrea) is a part that complements US policies. All these policies have failed, especially in Somalia. As for the (US) accusation of Eritrea that it supports one Somali side against another, we feel that the religious approach does not solve political, social, cultural, and security problems in any country in the world. We believe that the application of Shari`ah (Islamic law) does not solve Somalia`s problems. We also feel that whether this (the application of Shari`ah) takes place in Somalia or not, this is an issue that is decided upon in a political process in which all the (Somali) sides participate. The issue of which is the extremist side and which is not is an internal and domestic issue.

The United States is justifying its failure in Somalia by accusing Eritrea of creating problems in Somalia. This is an unjust accusation based on an unjust resolution. This is the primary cause of this problem. But what about the position of the Security Council in 2006 when the (regime) of the (Islamic) courts was in Mogadishu and then came Ethiopia and overran Mogadishu and the courts (led by the current President Shaykh Sharif Ahmad) left and came to Eritrea with other Somali political forces? Are there political alternatives to that process (intervention in and invasion of Somalia)? The countries neighboring Somalia do not want a constructive alternative in Somalia because there is this imagined fear or obsession that Somalia constitutes a danger to the security of Djibouti, Ethiopia, and Kenya. Whatever the expectations or fears of these governments, Somalia that is not present on the political landscape (in light of the absence or weakness of a stable political regime) cannot pose a danger to the security of these countries. Moreover, the fabrication of the issue of the Al-Qa`ida organization in Somalia or the attempt to tie the situation in Somalia to terrorism inside and outside the region was used by the United States to impose the a resolution against Eritrea in the name of the United Nations or the Security Council. People (in Eritrea and the region) wonder about and question what the connection is between the situations in Somalia and Eritrea. The fact is that this connection is not surprising if people consider the background on which the Security Council resolution (against Eritrea) was built. We do not blame the Security Council because its powers have become marginalized regarding many regional and international issues. The Security Council is absent while the United States is peddling resolutions and creating problems and fears as it frightens the people that the danger is here and there. At the same time, it is fomenting domestic problems (in some African countries) and then manipulating these crises to serve its interests and agenda in the Horn of Africa, the Red Sea, and the Middle East region in general.

(Ahmad) Mr. President, you just referred to an important issue concerning the Al-Qa`ida organization. A few days ago, we noticed that a Somali faction that Eritrea is accused of supporting referred to the importance of jihad in Yemen. Moreover, statements have been attributed to the Al-Qa`ida wing in Yemen calling for the closure of Bab el-Mandeb Strait. How do you view these two developments?

(Afewerki) This is baseless propaganda. Without building on a statement made by another side, how can Somali forces or Al-Qa`ida interfere in Yemeni affairs in the first place? How can such forces close Bab el-Mandeb on behalf of this region and its affairs? In whose interest would they be doing that and with what powers? Who gave them the permission to close this strait? (Laughing) I say that these statements are meaningless. Anyone that builds on them or refers to them for some reason is using them as an excuse to justify stands. This is an excuse that is worse than the assumed guilt. These sides may make such statements as a sort of propaganda for the media or as part of a psychological war; but the nations in this region have brains and understand issues. There are very simple questions (in this regard).

(Ahmad) Do you mean to say that you belittle the danger that the Al-Qa`ida organization poses to the region, Bab el-Mandeb, Yemen, and Somalia? Does not Eritrea feel that some dangers may emerge in this regard?

(Afewerki) I am not exaggerating regarding this operation. If the facts are present in Somalia, Kenya, and Tanzania, there may be some cells that are active in several places for reasons that are actually unjustifiable to the peoples of this region. The danger is in Britain, France, and the United States, and the events confirm that the danger is here and there but this process is being fomented in the region. Another question that poses itself: Is the region capable of and qualified to confront this danger if it does exist? Certainly, it would be qualified and capable to confront it if they join efforts and if there is a local mechanism. The local people in a region are more qualified and capable of confronting a danger if it exists. We should not toy with the intelligence of the people and exaggerate this danger then justify US intervention in this region. We are not now in the process of arguing whether there is a danger or not. Whatever the case and whether this danger is big or small its confrontation is the responsibility of the peoples and governments in the region.

(Ahmad) Does this mean that you in Eritrea reject US intervention?

(Afewerki) It is totally rejected. There is no reason for the intervention of any force in this region, whether it is American or not. Why should anyone interfere? Are the governments in the region incapable? Are the governments and institutions in the region incapable of confronting this danger? The mere adoption of a common mechanism by all the institutions in the region will be able to confront any danger and not just a danger posed by groups that may carry out bombings here or there. The material, human, and military resources of the peoples in the region as well as their interests and stability of their countries and region mean that they are better suited to bear the responsibility of confronting any danger that threatens their security, existence, and stability. Yemen is capable of confronting the danger and it is capable of solving its political, security, and economic problems. The Yemeni people and government are capable of confronting any challenge. If there is a weakness here or there, the Yemeni government should be supported so it could c confront the danger. This would be in the interest of everyone in the region. It is unacceptable, however, for a foreign alternative to come and foment the situation and gain from that in order to justify agendas that do not serve the interests of the peoples of the region.

(Ahmad) This brings us to ask about the situation in the Red Sea where Eritrea has a long coast. Do you believe that the situation in the Red Sea is calm and stable or do you think that there is a need to mobilize local efforts so that the Red Sea would not turn into an area for foreign intervention?

(Afewerki) This too should not proceed from fear or deliberate terrorization. Preemptive action is necessary but dealing with issues by reacting to them may not be useful. If there is a need to ensure the security of the Red Sea, all the Red Sea littoral countries should cooperate to create an environment of security and stability in the region without foreign intervention.

(Ahmad) How can this be done? Do you a particular vision in this regard?

(Afewerki) It is simple; there is no need for creativity. Yemen, Eritrea, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Egypt have capabilities and resources. If a mechanism for preemptive cooperation is set up to deal with any potential danger in the next five or 10 years, these countries and peoples would be capable of protecting the security of the Red Sea. They are familiar with the Red Sea as well as their own backyards and they know where their interests lie. They can handle the security of the Red Sea whereas (foreign) fleets cannot. I will give you an example. Have the fleets that came to the Gulf of Aden and to “Puntland” accomplished anything? Was there an alternative? Yes, there was. The alternative is that the peoples of the region should have assumed that role (the protection of the security of the Red Sea). If there is no government or institutions in Somalia that can handle this issue, fleets from Japan, Iran, the United States, Germany, and France cannot solve this problem. There is also the strategic angle in this issue. The Red Sea is an international security waterway. It needs to be secure. There should be no manipulation of this issue no matter how great the dangers may be. The governments of the Red Sea region should set up a mechanism and should have a strategy and plans on how to deal with any danger from any side that threatens the region.

(Ahmad) These days, you are celebrating the 20 th anniversary for the liberation of Massawa in 1990 in The Battle of Fenkil (a word in Tigrinya meaning emancipation) that paved the way for the total liberation of the Eritrean soil in 1991 from the Ethiopian occupation. But relations between Eritrea and Ethiopia continue to mark time. Is there anything new on this file and on the demarcation of the border between the two countries? Is President Afewerki prepared to meet with Ethiopian Prime Minister Meles Zenawi to solve the problems?

(Afewerki) Let me tell you a fact about this issue. First of all, the border issue is fabricated in the full sense of the word; the United States fabricated this issue. The two governments and peoples in Eritrea and Ethiopia and the other peoples in the region can embark on a historic stage to achieve integration and cooperation. The Americans fabricated this problem out of nothing. What is the border problem? What caused it and was a mistake made in the demarcation of the borders when colonialism was present in this region? Are the peoples in this region to blame if a mistake was made here or there? Is a border dispute justified? The Americans fomented this issue in order to serve their interests. There are documents regarding this issue. The Ethiopians have become involved in something that the region does not need and can do without. After that, agreements that were internationally binding (on both countries) were signed and a court was formed. We resorted to international arbitration and a decision was issued in 2002. Ethiopia is not the obstacle concerning this decision (that Ethiopia has refused to implement regarding the borders with Eritrea). It is the United States that became involved and fomented this issue.

(Ahmad) Eritrea cares about Sudanese affairs and Qatar (as chairman of the international Arab-African commission on Darfur) is currently mediating to convene a round of negotiations between the Sudanese government and the armed movements in Darfur. What do you think of Qatar`s role in this regard? Are you optimistic that the crisis in Darfur would be resolved peacefully?

(Afewerki) I believe that the Qatari mediation is the last stage to solve this problem. But how can a solution be found? Our position in Abuja (that led to a partial agreement that did not include several movements in Darfur) was made when there were only two factions in Darfur. Talks were held between the Sudanese government and one faction in Darfur. The Abuja agreement was signed by one faction only. We in Eritrea said that this was a mistake and complicates the situation in the field in Darfur, and that is what happened. The Abuja agreement was imposed by force and with haste. It was Robert Zolleck (the US envoy) that was threatening and pushing for signing the agreement (between the Sudanese government and a faction led by Mani Arko Minawi, the chief aide of the current Sudanese president), although it had not yet matured and did not lead to a comprehensive solution to that issue. The United States forced the people (in Sudan) to sign the Abuja agreement. The result was more complications. The agreement did not bring a solution but foreign interventions (in Darfur), internationalization, platforms, initiatives, and factions splitting into smaller factions. This is how things went on without end with international intervention and hybrid (African-international) troops. Does Sudan need such solutions? Does Darfur need this clamor? The problem could have been resolved internally in Sudan without much clamor. Neither Abuja brought a solution, nor did the various initiatives contribute to paving the way for a climate suitable for a solution, and nor did the situation in the field help those that claim that they represent the people in Darfur and are struggling for their interests and wishes to reach an agreement that would unify the various opinions and negotiating stands. None of this took place. On the contrary, the situation is becoming more and more complicated every day. All these complications are not needed if the aim is not to internationalize the issue of Darfur and to create a climate amenable for a Sudanese-Sudanese solution, one initiative instead of several, and help Sudan emerge from its current crisis where relief organizations, the United Nations, African forces, and peace-keeping forces are all involved. I say that all this is the result of policies by certain quarters that do not wish to see Sudan emerge from the quagmire. Then came the Qatari initiative, which is capable of loosening these problems and returning us to square one rather than to the internationalization that took place after all these other initiatives. Qatar can bring together a unified stand for negotiations among the various factions in Darfur, to negotiate with the government, and to convince the two parts of Sudan that a solution is important. If there is no Sudanese will, solutions cannot be imposed from the outside; Sudan`s problems cannot be solved under the umbrella of the United Nations. The Sudanese are capable of solving their problems and no one is qualified to replace them in solving their problems. In view of this experience from which we learned and that we saw with our own eyes, I believe that foreign solutions do not lead to a solution. I believe that the Qatari initiative can help in finding a solution if the opposition movements, the governments, and the sides that tried to bring a solution but failed - like the United Nations and the African Union - are convinced. We have to admit that all the past initiatives have failed and that we have to find a climate that is amenable to a radical solution of this issue.

(Ahmad) There is another hot issue in Sudan related to the decision of the International Criminal Court (ICC) against Sudanese President Umar al-Bashir. Do you support handing over the Sudanese president to the ICC?

(Afewerki) The issue is not Al-Bashir or a prime minister or a head of state. The reason for the decision is the situation in Darfur. Evidence should be put forward if crimes were committed in Darfur. It has been reported that the ICC obtained detailed information on the crimes that were committed. Where is this evidence so that we would be convinced legally? Is there indeed such evidence? Firstly, is there anyone else apart from Ocambo who says there is evidence compiled by humanitarian organizations, by the movements in Darfur, and by independent individuals? All this evidence should be collected to provide transparency so we would be convinced and persuaded that there are legal grounds justifying the decision against Al-Bashir. I do not see this. No one has convinced us and no one can convince us that there is such evidence. Secondly, what is the political interest? As far as the people of Darfur are concerned, if there are such complaints or political, social, economic, and security problems, the people should be assisted to emerge from these problems by finding a radical and comprehensive solution to this issue. Thus, we will need to spend millions of dollars on the needs of the peacekeeping forces and (if the issue is solved), the people would not need astronomical amounts of money and expenses that come in the name of the humanitarian organizations. If all this money is used in changing the environment in Darfur, it will be the people there that will benefit.

(Ahmad) Talking about complications in the Sudanese situation, arrangements are being made to hold elections in April. Do you think that elections in the midst of such complications can help in resolving the Sudanese crisis or will they act as a factor that might exacerbate the crisis?

(Afewerki) We are talking objectively about this issue. The Nifasha agreement (that ended the war between the south and the north) is the cause of the problem. It stipulates that the elections should be held (next April) before holding the referendum on self-determination in the south in 2011. How could the people accept this process? The referendum will be the decisive factor on whether Sudan will continue to be or not to be. If Sudan remains united after the referendum, then this is one option, but if it will be divided into south and north then this will be a second option. The question is whether there is a strategy that is bigger than this issue; namely, whether Sudan will be or not be.

(Ahmad) There are old-new questions dealing with Eritrea`s relations with the Arab countries. What is your opinion on the issue of peace in the Middle East? Do you think peace will be reached? What is your opinion on the Palestinian Authority and the HAMAS movement?

(Afewerki) This issue should be viewed from a historic and realistic angle. When the Palestinian issue first emerged, the situation in the region and the Arab world was different from what it is today. In the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, there was a lot of support for Palestinian issue. The Palestinian issue was the main and strategic issue for the Arab world, and a solution and alternative was available. Today the situation has changed. Even the internal situation among the Palestinians has changed. Inside Palestine, there are those that are unrealistic. They say that the rights and right to self-determination of the Palestinians can be reached through struggle. But is this possible? This is a question that begs an answer. Which forces can achieve this approach and this strategy if these are the preferred options of the Palestinian people? Other forces inside Palestine believe that capitulation is the solution. But is this the final solution of the issue? What will be its outcome and what will be the outcome of taking an unrealistic approach? Since the early 1990s, we have been saying that the Oslo agreement will not bring anything and that it puts the issue in a labyrinth until we reached Annapolis and matters have been taking an unrealistic and illogical approach. Some defend this approach while others reject it. I say that this is not an essential issue; in other words, matters are not that simple. The issue has become more complicated than a person can imagine and circumstances have changed more than when it was based on emotions about three or four decades ago. This is something that is not present now. The situation now has been the cause of differences in Arab stands and the multiplicity of conflicts. I believe that the situation has become more complicated than one can imagine. In my opinion, there are many ideas on the table; the issue is not HAMAS or the Palestinian Authority. We are not arguing on who is right and who is wrong or whether it is HAMAS or the PA. This is not the essential issue, in my opinion. The issue is whether it is possible to establish two Palestinian and Israeli states. In my opinion, this is not possible. The one that promotes such an idea is living in a dream. Is there the possibility for establishing a unified homeland (for the Palestinians and Israelis) as Libyan leader Mu`ammar al-Qadhafi proposed when he suggested the establishment of “Isratin” instead of the two states of Israel and Palestine? We say there is another alternative instead of talking about the West Bank and Annapolis and Oslo.

(Ahmad) Israel was created after the Second World War as a solution for the Jews after the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazi regime in Germany. A country was thus created for them in this region. Why do we not think that a solution for the Palestinians can be found within the framework of a specific regime in Jordan or in the east in the West Bank, in other words, geographic solutions that can ensure to the Palestinians a decent life, stability, and an end to their tragedy. Israel would be present and secure in this region since it is a recognized reality in the region and the Palestinian state would be recognized rather than the West Bank and Gaza and that broken geography that is not contiguous and becoming more and more complicated with each passing day with the wall and all that.

(Afewerki] I say that the Palestinians should think in a realistic and logical way. I am not calling on them to concede their rights and to bring illogical solutions. I am calling on them to resolve their differences in order to find solutions to the situation and then propose an alternative. Continuing to be embroiled in Oslo and that process will increase the complications and the divisions and differences in the (Palestinian) stands. I am saying that this will not lead to a solution either in favor of Israel or in favor of the Palestinians. One can propose ideas but no one can act on behalf of the Palestinians. They know their issue better than anyone else. But the Palestinian issue cannot be separated from the Arab issues and there can be no Arab issue without Palestine.

(Ahmad) Do you call on the Arabs to reconsider their stand that rejects the repatriation of the Palestinians in Arab countries?

(Afewerki) If the repatriation of the Palestinians means dividing them and dispersing them, this is not a solution. On the contrary, it would complicate matters. I am saying that the Palestinians must have a geography in which they have a decent life and are respected like any other people. Repatriating them and dispersing them will not be in the interest of the Arabs or of the Palestinians.

(Ahmad) Is this geography for the Palestinians outside the known land of Palestine?

(Afewerki) If you are talking about Palestine that existed 1,000 years or 2,000 years ago, I say that this does not exist at present. Sometimes, a person says what is the use of talking about nations that existed thousands of years ago? Is it useful for any side to talk about a history that is 2,000 years old and say we were here but so and so was not? What is the usefulness of this? I am not saying that Palestine should be in Indonesia or Uganda or South America but in the region. Instead of the geography of Gaza and the West Bank, there should be some thinking concerning this process. After that, geography will define a secure place for a Palestinian state where the Palestinians would enjoy all the rights enjoyed by nations and contribute to the stability of the region. How long will these conflicts continue without a light at the end of the tunnel? I do not see a light in the tunnel; I see a dark tunnel and no one sees an outlet. What brought the region to this state are the events and accumulations of the 1960s and 1970s followed by Oslo and its consequences.

(Ahmad) Our last question: Now that many years have passed since the success of the Eritrean revolution (in liberating Eritrea in 1991) under your leadership and under the (Eritrean Liberation) Front and the Eritrean people, do you feel that the coming period may witness political reforms toward pluralism?

(Afewerki) Let me start by saying that this is not correct. A political regime is a means. A kingdom may be in a specific place, an emirate in a second place, and a liberal regime somewhere else. A regime is established to accomplish a social, economic, and cultural goal for the people. We should not think that a system of governance in industrially advanced countries is the alternative or is best for our peoples. Do “identical photocopies” of these regimes bring solutions to the problems of Africa? I say that these societies should go through specific political, cultural, and economic stages until they raise the standard of living of the people, not only economically but also on the social, cultural, and political levels so that the peoples would have equal opportunities and contributions. Then these societies select the political system that would act as a means to realize their aspirations. There is no stagnant political system. With every economic or social development, a system emerges that is suitable to the reality. We are still at the beginning. We cannot talk about a political system at a specific historical stage and then say the political process is over or we cannot say that there is a positive transformation as if we deny our realities and the situation in which we are. We always hope there will be a better reality. Thus, a reality cannot be imposed; the people select their political system. Politics is process of dynamic motion and transformations inside a society are a means for an end. The peoples of the region will definitely be mistaken if ultimately the end is photocopies of what exists, for instance, in France or Britain or anywhere else in Europe or America. After 20 years of our liberation, we in Eritrea must lay down the strong foundations for a political, social, and cultural system for our country. To do this, we should not begin from the top but from the foundations and we are in the process of building these foundations.

(Description of Source: London Al-Hayah Online in Arabic -- Website of influential Saudi-owned London pan-Arab daily. URL: http://www.daralhayat.com)

© Compiled and distributed by NTIS, US Dept. of Commerce. All rights reserved.