President Isaias’ Interview with the National Media Regarding National, Regional and Global Issues - Part II

President Isaias’ Interview with the National Media Regarding National, Regional and Global Issues - Part II

By Jan 17, 2009, 14:35

Excellency, could you brief us on the development of the nation’s higher institutions of learning? The fact that there is a need for developing such institutions is indisputable. But figuratively speaking, it’s still at its infant stage. It cannot be compared to the institutions elsewhere which are over a 100 or 150 years old. The acquired educational culture, capacity and the opportunities these institutions can provide cannot be compared with our new institutions just opened. We need to improve a lot, like educational facilities. But this doesn’t mean that it is an issue that’s being taken lightly. Nevertheless, this doesn’t mean that the work is done. I prefer calling someone ‘educated’ provided that he, for example, goes to an agricultural college and applies his newly acquired knowledge in boosting crop production, etc; but not because he has a certificate. For instance, the Sawa Vocational Training Center aims at instilling vocational skills, which is bearing fruitful outcome, although more remains to be accomplished. Excellency, let’s go to the issue of women now. Is the dedication of the Eritrean government and the PFDJ on the issue of gender equality the same as it was? Don’t you think the participation of women in national affairs has slightly decreased compared to the days of the armed struggle for independence? I am not sure such claims are based on fact. No one can belittle the massive contribution of Eritrean women in the country’s history. In fact, every time an issue of importance is raised, we first consider the relation of the issue with gender, because it usually is overlooked and has major importance. But I question the aforementioned claim in light of women’s growing participation in education. They have reaffirmed their stance by participating in all aspects be it agriculture, food security and the like. This kind of talk doesn’t conform to the reality on the ground. Let’s proceed to Eritrean-US relations. Now that the Bush Administration is coming to an end and a new President has been elected, what can we expect as regards bilateral relations. Has any new attempt been made to normalize relations between the two countries? I don’t think it is wise to speak in terms of Presidents, be it Bush or Obama at the moment. The election of Obama is the outcome of the American people’s opposition to the status quo in the United States. Perhaps his election victory could be linked to Washington’s interference in numerous cases abroad that led to utter failure. The economic crisis in that country, US policy of domination, the issues of Afghanistan and Iraq and many other instances have brought about change in American public opinion, thus giving rise to the need for change and electing a new leadership. But it would also be difficult to assume that because Obama was elected as the new US President; all the issues at hand will find an immediate solution. Some of the good things Obama highlighted in his election campaign speeches, perhaps a single term or four years won’t be even enough. It is very difficult to solve the problems that have taken years and decades in one go. However, this being the case, we must not forget that the change is positive. To assume and conclude that forces that have caused the current global turmoil i.e. forces that have caused pain and death in different parts of the world will stop because Obama is assuming office is a bit farfetched. We have no problem with anybody, and there is nothing that could hinder Eritrea’s efforts to foster relations with any country. The problems witnessed in the past years were caused by the flawed US foreign policy under the outgoing Administration. And I hope that the change in the US would lead to change in foreign relations with other countries, including Eritrea, as such kind of relations are mutually beneficial. And we can normalize relations with the US by ourselves; we do not want any party to serve as a go-between to improve Eritrea’s relations with the United States. But we do hope and wish that the new President will work for changing the status quo. Perhaps in a year or two we may see concrete outcome, we will see what happens when Obama formally assumes office on the 20th of January. Do you think some of the beneficiaries of past US foreign policy and the CIA will allow Obama to bring about change? This is a big issue. It all depends on how Obama can overhaul the previous system and bring change in spheres such as the finance. I do not think he can automatically do away with the stance of many forces of yesterday, forces that control the economic and financial centers, as well as the arms industries, technology and the like overnight. For instance, if we talk about Iraq, there are an estimated 150 or 160 thousand American soldiers in that country. They are not the only ones though, because forces that stand to gain from the conflict and bloodletting are there. And others who have been there for centuries such as the FBI, Homeland Security, who in one way or the other support such organizations, cannot be changed overnight just because the new Administration wants it. The Bush Administration is continuing its provocations against Eritrea. What exactly is being done on our part in this regard? What can we expect after January the 20th? As we know, the Bush Administration has been heaping accusations against Eritrea such as linking it with the issue of piracy along the coast of Somalia, Eritrea’s alleged involvement in the current war in Gaza ‘collaborating’ with Iran and Yemen and many others. This is the last ditch attempt by the Bush Administration to pass over such issues and blunders to Obama’s leadership. It appears that the Bush Administration is doing its level best to place Eritrea in the list of states sponsoring terrorism. But we are waiting to see change, and we are willing to work for it. I’m not amazed or worried about the last ditch attempts of the Bush Administration though. Eritrea has established diplomatic relations with Iran and Syria. It appears as if Eritrea has been working towards fostering such relations with the two countries more than with any other ones in the Middle East. What are the objectives of these diplomatic ties? Would it not affect our relations with Israel and its supporters? I don’t think this is a new phenomenon. Everyone knows that in our struggle for independence we had relations with Syria. I think it is a misunderstanding to assume that a new course of events are bringing us closer to either Iran or Syria. We were compelled to stall the relations after 1991 because of some factors. Our policies govern that we could establish diplomatic relations with even former colonizers, let alone Iran or Syria. We may have common understanding of issues and benefits from these countries. And we also need to remember that the states concerned are the ones that extended material, moral and financial support throughout our struggle for independence. Sheik Zaid of the United Arab Emirates has always stood on the side of our struggle. The same also holds true of the other countries in that region. There is also the contribution they have made to us in the nation building process over the past 18 years. It is actually a recent trend that emerged due to recent global phenomenon that requires strategic unity among countries in the same region. The issue whether this is going to affect our relations with Israel and its allies is something else. Perhaps at this time it would be improper to avoid the question as it may be important to some people. Provided that there is more time, an exclusive answer could be given to this issue. I need to further reiterate that relations and diplomatic ties we establish will not put Eritrean sovereignty in question. We do not approach nations with such undertones. We want to establish lasting relationship. Mr. President, let’s come to regional issues. What is the exact capacity of the TPLF regime? What is its overall situation? It could be seen in different perspectives. Is it political, security or military wise? The evaluation should begin with the regime’s nature and the basic denominators that characterize its nature. We do not need to evaluate the nature of the regime on the basis of day-to-day, month-to-month or year-to-year events. The nature of this regime could be evaluated on the basis of three dimensions: narrow mentality, inconsistency and lack of confidence. The current political situation of the TPLF regime is the result of the continuous policy it has been perusing based on its nature. From the beginning, the regime had no Ethiopian agenda. Its narrow mentality has been observed wrangling from time to time and after it seized power in 1991 the real challenge in its political thinking and governance emerged. The regime, in order to stay in power, pursued the philosophy of divide and rule. The so-called Federal Administration adopted in 1995 and other political versions of the regime are not deviated from its narrow mentality. Hence, when we evaluate the nature of the regime, we should take into account these fundamental issues. The TPLF’s way of thinking is that, “if you want to stay in power the Ethiopian people should be divided along the lines of ethnicity and nationality”. If we ask ourselves, what is the power and capacity of the TPLF regime, on whom is it depending to stay in power? With every parameter, the regime has no power and capacity. The only way that it could survive is when the Ethiopian people are divided and in conflict with one another. The formation of a political system based on nationality and the rights of ethnic groups and nationalities is only for propaganda consumption. The very fanciful constitution which states the rights of nationalities and allows for the rights to self-determination up to secession may appear as a democratic political system for those onlookers. In reality, however, this is not the case. What the regime has been doing in its 18 years in power in terms of institutionalizing the concept of political formation based on nationalities has never been seen in the history of that country. The design is simply to divide and rule Ethiopia. All the devious political maneuvers of the regime are only shortening the days of its stay in power. The tangible evidence is that when the Ethiopian people became aware of the regime’s nature and political agenda, they disclaimed it during the 2005 elections. At that time, the opposition of the Ethiopian people reached its highest peak. The TPLF regime was saved from the turmoil not by its internal capacity but due to the support of external forces. The regime then resorted to crashing the opposition through sheer force. Crashing popular uprising through means of force is not, however, long lasting. The popular uprising and opposition is ongoing and evidently it is pushing the regime to demise. When you talk about the prevailing situation in Ethiopia, we should not forget the Tigrayan people. It is a wrong conception to mix up the people of Tigray with the TPLF regime. Seizing power as a result of the Tigrayan people’s struggle, the TPLF did not look out for the interest of the Tigrayans. As a result of the TPLF’s brutality and narrow mind, they have been forced to live in constant fear and face animosity on the part of the other sections of the Ethiopian people. The constant fear of the Tigrayan people has been the creation of the TPLF regime expecting that the people could support it in order to relieve itself from its state of mind. The people of Tigray have gained no benefit in the past years; on the contrary they have fared worse. What we have practically observed is that by putting the people into the worst situation of fear and doubt and eventually to use it as a sanctuary. The people of Tigray have nothing to benefit from this regime. The survival of the internal political situation of the TPLF over the last couple of years has been through subsidy from outside quarters. This might look prolonging the stay in power of the regime, but through time its existence is diminishing. What is currently happening in the Oromiya, Ogaden, Afar, Amhara and Tigray regions is the result of hatred and isolation of the people towards the TPLF regime. The regime in its history has never thought and worked considering itself as an Ethiopian entity. Moreover, the TPLF, in order to stay in power, has perused the policy of alignment with foreign forces. Not only the current situation in Ethiopia but in every country where governments or regimes that lack popular support from their people have to seek someone that could stand beside them so that they could stay in power repressing their own people. As we have witnessed in the past 18 years especially the past 8 years, the regime can only survive by relying on external support. That is where the US Administration comes in. Domestically it has no chance of surviving with the ever mounting opposition of the Ethiopian people. The TPLF regime in order to get external support has to offer itself for sale. And to get the highest bidder it has to serve the interest of the buyer because there is no support for free. That is exactly what we observed in the last 8 years. In recent years, the bond between the US and the TPLF regime has been deepening as the regime is serving as a proxy for American interest in the region in the name of terrorism. The TPLF regime’s invasion of Somalia and the border crisis are examples of the regime’s servitude of American interest. What does the regime benefited from this? What it expected to benefit is survival in Ethiopia. This might seem working for the time being. If we look at the last days of the Bush Administration with the unrealistic measures sought to be taken against Eritrea fading out, there were some activities underway to use the TPLF regime as a proxy in the region. On the other side they have come also to realize that the capacity of the regime was not as they expected it to be. Washington officials have been questioning for some time that they could remain without a substitute servant. Because with all the funding and support the TPLF regime was getting was not found to fulfill the mission as expected. If we observe the political situation of the TPLF regime from within and outside, we can draw the conclusion that its profile is being exposed to the world. The current political situation the TPLF regime is in foretells the long-term outcome of the regime’s future. The regime is stalling for the time of its downfall. And what does one do to stall for time? One would concern oneself with security. Strengthening the security system within the organization and on the other hand trying to control the economy. The opposition of the Ethiopian people, especially since 2005, the discharge of personnel within the Army or other individuals in different posts who are thought to pose a threat - all these indicate the growing weakening and eventual collapse of the TPLF regime. In some instances, the regime might have delayed the discharge of Army members so as to make use of them for purposes of border aggression. The TPLF is using the Army as a means of prolonging its stay in power. The Army is considered as the last card that will protect the regime from any challenges the regime might face. The developments witnessed in 2005 have also influenced the Army members and in realization of that, the TPLF has suppressed any opposition that may arise within the armed forces. Some incidents might be cited specifically meant for publicity purposes, but everything is falling apart for the regime. However, due to the rising threats now and then, the Ethiopian Amy has been kept as an insurance and for serving the regime’s interests. For instance, as regards the Somali issue, the TPLF has been appearing as if it has the might and many times it has tried to oppress the opposition within through force. If we should ask whether this stance has changed anything at all, I think the reality on the ground tells it all. The force that protects the TPLF political organization has been weakening from time to time despite the subsidies it gets from abroad. To strengthen this force, a number of attempts have been made, including the training program in collaboration with US Army. Sometimes they try to give explanations for this, saying the training is aimed at preparing troops for service in UN peacekeeping force. It’s like being sent on a fool’s errand, just to prepare the Army for the life of servitude just like the TPLF itself. If we see the instruments the TPLF used to crash the popular opposition in 2005, it is all Washington’s scheme. Following this, the TPLF regime has been announcing that it will send so-called peacekeeping force to Sudan and Burundi. The adventurism that we have been witnessing in Somalia also confirms this fact. We might read about that but to someone who reads between the lines, it sends out clear message that all this is being orchestrated for political purposes. If we should observe what has been done one by one both within the country or outside, if we ask what developments it have brought about, it indicates one thing, and that is that the TPLF is falling apart. There might arise some economic and lateral questions here, the Somali situation, the border dispute, and the TPLF regime’s interference in the regional issues – it all sums up to be a failed mission. If we take a glance at the 11-year old border issue, all the ploys the TPLF has been applying have resulted in utter failure; the delaying tactics on the part of the regime under the guise of ‘negotiations’ and other ploys have all failed, despite the collaboration of the US Administration with the regime. It is true that sovereign Eritrean territories still remains under occupation. The TPLF regime has invaded our sovereign territories, but this is another topic. In any case, the TPLF regime has been totally defeated legally as far as the border issue is concerned. Despite the regime’s continuous futile schemes and tactics designed to delay the implementation of the EEBC ruling, we have not faltered even for a second in our stance. Looking at the issue from both political and legal standpoint, we have firmly established that our sovereignty is legally guaranteed. The TPLF regime’s ploys in the region are proving more and more futile. It could also be asserted that the current political, economic and security crisis which the US Administration is facing has an impact on the regime. This crisis by itself is a big loss. So taking all this into account we can conclude that the TPLF regime is in search of rescue from its current desperate situation. Considering the TPLF regime’s servitude to which you have already referred, there are speculations that the relations between the US and the TPLF will not continue the way it has been. Your comments on this, Mr. President? With the new US Administration in office, concerns are being raised such as what Washington’s policies towards Ethiopia and the rest of the region would look like. The TPLF has been continuously serving the CIA. The puppet strings might be cut any minute now. There are also questions regarding the subsidies that have been extended to the regime that are directly or indirectly linked to the US interests or the different enlisted lobby groups in the United States. The TPLF regime is still working on the regional issues that have not yet found a solution in an attempt to resume the marionette role it has always been playing. To predict that the relations between the US and the TPLF might not work as it used to be, might sound a bit exaggerated. At this moment, we can’t foretell what the outcome might be after six months or a year. It requires close follow-up of situations and their developments patiently. But the intensive care the TPLF has been accustomed to might not continue as it used to be. Not only with the TPLF regime but also in similar other cases in the African continent or other regions of the world, the benefit one gets from a certain power don’t necessarily continue once the concerned leadership is out of office. The benefit is only temporary till the concerned power in the office is still holding the upper hand. Hence, before we rush to make any hasty speculations, we can look back at history and see for ourselves how the policies pursued by the US in the past had influenced countries all over the world. We should observe in gross that the US global adventurism and its influence on many countries of the world, during and the post-cold war era, as well as the recent abrupt developments and their impact are not only influencing Washington’s domestic situation but also having impact worldwide. Personally, I don’t think the TPLF regime would continue on getting the favors it was accustomed to. But referring to the tangible facts we should ask how the situation looks like in those regions where the TPLF regime has been rendering its servitude? How is Washington’s policy going to look like in these cases? Only time would tell as to how the regime is planning to prolong its stay in power, what tricks would it apply this time to secure its existence in Ethiopia? But as old habits die hard, the TPLF would not be changing the pattern it has been pursuing to achieve its set objective. This is the overall situation the TPLF regime now finds itself and how its future looks like. Putting dramas aside, the regime is heading to its demise. The TPLF has monopolized the Ethiopian economy through establishing various economic and financial institutions; what would the impact of this scenario be on the Ethiopian people as a whole? And what would the benefit of the regime and the people of Tigray be as a result of such monopoly? If we are to talk about controlling the market, the mentality is always controlling the market with shares of partnership. It is not only in the areas of security force and power and political strategies and tactics but also controlling the economy. The economy should be in the hands of those few that struggle to stay in power. This is the mentality of the TPLF. This doesn’t mean that the TPLF regime has not invited other avaricious partners to the feast. This is to prolong its ever weakening existence. The other side of the drama is that the TPLF has made sure that the economy would be in the hands of its cadres. So if they should talk about development, where exactly did such development take place? In what way was the development accomplished? Why? To whose benefit is it directed? If we should go into details it is really vast. These days, if the TPLF cadres’ source of income should be evaluated and questioned as to how much they have in their bank accounts? What their monthly salary is? Who pays the salary? How do they secure additional source of income? The manner they accept bribe demonstrate the regime’s strategies in securing the wealth of the nation to the benefit of the few. Most of these circles engage in commerce, foreign investments and the like; they all control the local market. To prevent any economic development in the rest of the Ethiopian administrative regions and to control the economy, the TPLF has been setting barriers and issuing regulations. Thus it has become very impossible to invest and carrying trade activities from one region to another. The ruling clique has not been able to bring about economic or social change even within their own place of origin. Only a few TPLF cadres have been provided with economic opportunities while the majority have so far been denied any benefits. The people don’t have the opportunity to participate equally in the economic activities of their respective regions. Only those individuals which the TPLF can use anytime it wants have access to economic opportunities and are provided with certain privileges. This is the overall picture as regards the TPLF regime’s way of thinking and outlook. In general, the regime’s strategy of monopolizing the economy has created a lot of resentment even among the people of Tigray themselves. The people from other Ethiopian regions might wrongly be prejudiced against the Tigrayans thinking that the latter are the ones getting all the benefits. But the reality on the ground is quite the opposite. Most of the financial and commercial institutions in that country are all ridden with corruption. And this is the TPLF regime’s version of economic activity. What do the development projects in different regions look like? Some regions, including those in dire need of governmental intervention have never received any attention. For instance, even with their vast and fertile lands the Oromo people’s participation in the country’s economy is almost nonexistent. As I mentioned earlier, except a handful of individuals that serve the regime, the majority of the Ethiopian people have not secured economic opportunities. The people of Tigray are more close to Eritrea in terms of geographical location than to Ogaden or to the southern or western parts of Ethiopia. A number of geographical and other factors can be cited to explain this phenomenon. Hence, if anything major factor transpires either in Tigray or Eritrea, it will be heard and talked about on both sides; if the TPLF regime had done anything significant in Tigray, it could be easily learnt about on the Eritrean side. At any rate, if the Ethiopian people had been given the chance to freely engage themselves in economic activities without regional restrictions, how could Ethiopia stand in the present state of affairs? How would the people of Tigray benefit from an economic system of equal opportunities? They would have lived and prospered free from resentment by other nationalities. But the TPLF regime is manipulating Tigrayans and holding them hostage. Considering all its rich natural endowments, had serious and tangible development endeavors been carried out in the past 18 years, Ethiopia not only would have been able to feed itself but would even have provided the surplus for others. Ethiopia’s natural resources are by no means small or insignificant, and they could have been used to achieve a lot. However, under the TPLF rule, every year we hear that a quarter of the population is at risk of starvation. As everyone can observe, the country’s economy has thus far been monopolized by very few individuals. In talking about the economic situation in Ethiopia, one must not forget the continuous external subsidies, which have so far been used only in increasing economic opportunities for TPLF cadres. And if we relate these economic problems with the political reality there exist a lot of problems than cannot be seen on the surface. We can talk about the TPLF regime’s attempts to create hostility between the peoples of Ethiopia and Eritrea. The regime has placed the people of Tigray in a very precarious situation in the history of this region, and this is one of the major worries of the Tigrayans. The feelings of hatred and resentment created inside Ethiopia as a result of the TPLF regime’s actions cannot be denied. Sometimes, the TPLF regime even tries to make it sound as if the Eritrean people hold an unrelenting grudge against Tigrayans, which is totally a baseless allegation. This goes hand in hand with the regime’s strategy of holding the people of Tigray hostage. Had the TPLF regime worked for an economic partnership between the two peoples, then everyone could have benefited. More importantly we feel that the people of Tigray would have played a very significant and productive role in this case. There are also other related issues of strategy, geography and security. A lot could be said as regards where we would have been today had the political atmosphere been conducive, and we can easily evaluate the missed opportunities. From this point of view, we can see the damage done to the economy of both countries and the region as a whole as a result of the erroneous TPLF regime’s economic and political strategies. The situation in Ethiopia in particular is getting ever worse with each passing year. This year’s famine problems are worse than that of previous years, and the next year it will be far worse. We can assert that the current economic problems in the country are a direct outcome of the economic and development policies pursued by the TPLF regime. So, what is the Eritrean government’s attitude towards the Tigrayan people? We have under no circumstance made any mistakes in this case. We have never drifted into an emotional thinking. We take a practical stock of the situation and we hold no grudges. We won’t say that we are happy with the TPLF regime’s actions but who is this clique? The regime might claim about being one with the people of Tigray and there might be certain people who might have been misled by the regime’s fake claims; but the Government of Eritrea does not harbor any resentment against Tigrayans. We look beyond present circumstances into the future and everything will unfold as it should. All the current crises and the missed opportunities are a result of the TPLE regime’s narrow mentality. The mistakes of putting all blames on the people of Tigray is unthinkable in Eritrea; for we are from two different schools of thought. Our principles and philosophies are not based on creating division but on bringing people together under one vision while prioritizing development endeavors. Our principles did not just spring to life in 1991 but had been nurtured throughout the years of the struggle for independence, and we had been working beyond narrow sub-national attitudes since then. Our domestic strategies are totally different from that of the TPLF regime; for theirs is by all measurements a strategy of divide and conquer. I don’t think anyone can say that there exists hatred or hostility against the people of Tigray on our part because one has to be able to look beyond the horizon. The TPLF’s motives in fomenting feelings of hatred and hostility between the people of Tigray and other Ethiopian nationalities, as well as the Eritrean people are quite obvious. Our primary focus has always been on how to develop our country and foster peaceful and cooperative relations with our neighboring states. We harbor no ill will against the Tigrayans. If there is going to be any improvement or change in Ethiopia’s relations with its neighbors, particularly with Eritrea, the people of Tigray will play a significant role. The Tigrayans have learned a lot from the experience of the past 18 years, and thus the role they can play in improving relations with others cannot be viewed lightly. Taking into account the aforementioned facts, it is impossible to think that there exists narrow-minded grudge or hostility in Eritrea towards the people of Tigray. Going back to the issue of economy, the only government claiming to have scored economic progress at this time in the world is the TPLF regime. At a time when even countries like the US, China and France are talking about economic crisis, what are we to make of the TPLF regime’s boasting of economic boom? This is just pure irony. It is nothing but a sarcastic joke. How can the economy be booming while a quarter of the Ethiopian population is facing starvation? Quoting GDP figures and making claims of economic growth is just a game played by changing statistical data. Does the starvation of a quarter of the population signify development? And which parts of Ethiopia are witnessing this so-called development? Development is not just the fluctuation in annual figures. It should be noted that sustainability of any economic progress should be based on internal capabilities and potential. An economic progress that is dependent on external subsidies has no sustainability. One of the biggest challenges facing Ethiopia today is the culture of dependency on external assistance which in turn has given rise to serious problems in the day-to-day economic activities of the population. While the TPLF regime is boasting of economic progress, the IMF is saying that Ethiopia needs a one-billion dollar subsidy. The IMF and the World Bank have been providing subsidies to Ethiopia as per the US Administration’s strategies. So, if these organizations are saying that Ethiopian needs that much aid, then where did the TPLF bring the figures signifying ‘economic progress.’ One can say a lot by playing with statistical data, but you cannot change the reality on the ground. The TPLF regime’s claims are but just a joke. You have been referring to the massacre and unrest witnessed during the May 2005 elections in Ethiopia. Still, the TPLF is presently preparing for elections in 2010. How will such an election look like when opposition movements are saying peaceful political opposition is over and the way forward is for armed struggle? Under the circumstances, what will the Ethiopian people’s political stance be? So many things will surface in Ethiopia within the next two years until the so-called 2010 elections. We won’t talk about it as if it will at all take place as scheduled. The things I have mentioned earlier, the existing political state of affairs in the Ethiopian security apparatus and the various internal scenarios all these problems created by this regime are not simple. There is a political game underway with the assistance of the US so as to help the regime in the same manner as the 2005 elections. Due to the popular uprising in 2005, the predicament the TPLF regime was then indeed deep. But the turmoil was not only for the regime but also for Washington. We can easily look over the past three years resulting from the aforementioned political scenario. A number of mechanisms were resorted to in a bid to weaken the popular opposition such as that of the Oromo opposition forces. So much have been invested to divide and dismantle the Oromo Liberation Front, especially in the Diaspora. This was purposely done to weaken the political developments that could emerge in spite of the ever growing opposition over the past couple of years. An intensive campaign has been going on over the past three years along with the collaboration of the US and its allies, particularly the UK to undermine the resistance movement, which nonetheless ended up in failure. When one looks into the political or armed opposition on the part of forces in Tigray, the Amhara, the Benshangul from the south and southwest of Ethiopia, the Oromos, the Ogadien people, the Afars and others have actually been gaining strength from time to time. You can’t say that these campaigns don’t have anyinput at all. Still, we shouldn’t take election time as a timeframe. There exist other types of speculation that should be taken into consideration. In recent time, the TPLF regime is harping on a concocted ‘Afar issue’, I just want to cite this as an example. The TPLF cadres have launched a program for those they refer to as Afari cadres aimed at articulating as if Assab was the center of the Afar people in the Horn of Africa from Ethiopia, Djibouti and Eritrea. What is the reason for the regime to resort to such kind of comical game? Is it for the sake of the Afar people? To find solution for the internal turmoil created? According to the TPLF, the wild thinking boils down to ‘finding a passage to the sea because you don’t have one.’ All these futile attempts emanate from of the political bankruptcy of the regime. Looking at the situation from a regional perspective, taking as a pretext the opposition movements operating along the border with Sudan, the TPLF regime is blackmailing Khartoum. Similar acts could also be mentioned with regards to Kenya. Generally speaking, when one looks at how the TPLF regime is playing its cards, it only indicates that the regime is in a state of total bankruptcy. At a later stage in this interview, we would look into the prevailing situation of the regime with regard to Somalia and others. How about Eritrea’s relations with the various political movements in Ethiopia? Well, what is particularly frightening as far as the TPLF cadres are concerned is Shaebia. This is not something that needs an explanation. Whatever problem the region is facing, the TPLF regime will accuse Shaebia or the Eritrean government as if they were the ‘cause’ for that. Such a distorted thinking emanates from the TPLF’s disturbed state of mind. To come to the point, following World War II, the Eritrean people’s right to self-determination was neglected, and for that very reason, the Eritrean people were compelled to wage a protracted and bitter struggle for liberation entailing enormous sacrifices. What we believed in our 30-year long struggle for independence is creating conducive atmosphere for mutual cooperation with the entire Ethiopian people. Furthermore, we worked hard to foster relations of friendship and understanding among peoples both at the regional and international level. The cooperation we had fostered with the Ethiopian opposition movements in the days of the Haileselasie reign or that of the Mengstu regime was based on the aforementioned assumptions. Even our relation with the TPLF could not be viewed differently from this stance. Besides, the other relations we had with the various political entities in the region is based on this stance. The TPLF regime has strived to undermine efforts to realize the lofty objectives just mentioned. As a result, both the Eritrean and Ethiopian peoples have been deprived of reaping the fruits of mutual development and prosperity. We won’t abandon the principles which we had been nurturing domestically and regionally as regards relations with the Ethiopian people. Not only for ourselves but also for the whole region, we still aspire for prospects of a prosperous and peaceful region. However, we won’t let the TPLF regime ruin such cherished goals. We have a moral obligation to stand alongside the Ethiopian people and their resistance. It is a basic principle that we have cherished for long and still uphold in the interest of both the Eritrean and Ethiopian people. During the past 20 years, relations between Eritrea and the Sudan witnessed ups and downs. What is the current status of the relations? Could you explain Eritrea’s position regarding the policies of the Sudanese Government of National Unity in general and the issues of South Sudan, Darfur and East Sudan? At the Conference of the Sudanese People’s Initiative towards Peaceful Resolution of the Darfur Issue which was held recently in Khartoum, I had raised two important ideas. Sudan today is at a cross road. Under the prevailing circumstance, it is well known as to what our relations with the Sudanese central government, the NIF and later on the Popular Party, as well as other forces in the Sudan. What relations we maintain with the SPLM? How did it develop? It is a long story. The main issue is that Sudan being in a cross road, our policy towards the country is that we do not want to see it getting engulfed in an endless quagmire and civil strife. Based on this strategy, Sudan should get every support we could afford. A situation of conflict and civil strife in that country does not benefit t the Sudanese people and that of the region as a whole. Hence, all our attention and strategy should be geared towards this. But what do we mean by being at a cross road? After all the years of conflict in the Sudan, an agreement was signed in Naivasha, Kenya, between the SPLM and the Sudanese Popular Party. With all reservations, we hoped a positive outcome might be borne from the Agreement. In the hope that the Naivasha Agreement would bring about peace and stability in Sudan, we decided to positively engage with full capacity in the process. However, the situation did not proceed as we expected. Within three years since the signing of the Agreement, the situation further deteriorated. The responsibility, however, does not fall on the side of the South or North Sudan or that of the SPLM and the Popular Party. The developments taking place in South Sudan represent very dangerous ones that could lead to more crises. The details are many. Viewed at from the political, economic and security angles, we could say the situation is going out of hand. Who might be harmed from the situation? Over the last three years following the signing of the Naivasha Agreement, with all the distrust, hatred and accusations, the amount of money provided to the Government of Southern Sudanis not small. The Government of Southern Sudan has received more than five billion dollars of its share. Where has this amount of money gone? What change did it bring about? If we ask how many roads have been constructed; to what extent has the supply of potable water being made available, what health service has been provided, what job opportunities have been created, development and investments projects implemented in Southern Sudan? The answer is definitely none. Instead of perusing unity, ethnic and clan divisions became rampant. Instead of good governance, a corrupt system has been established. This is an alarming situation. I do not want to explain it in figures. In what position has this placed the Naivasha Agreement, the overall situation in the Sudan, particularly South Sudan, is really upsetting. Things have to be rectified. To this end, the core problem has to be identified. There is nothing that could be done by hiding the problems. This is one issue. After the Naivasha Agreement that was believed to bring peace and stability to the country, the Darfur crisis followed. In the past few years, an AU peacekeeping mission was deployed to Darfur which failed to accomplish anything. Then the UN came into the scene which further complicated the situation. As a result of all of this, the situation in Darfur is going out of hand. You could not foresee an immediate solution. The splitting up of the different factions is growing; the interference of external forces is on the rise leaving no room for domestic initiative towards tackling the problem. We could say the situation in Darfur is worsening with each passing day. The prospects for lasting solution are far from showing any positive trend. It requires more and serious effort. Within the past eight years, the Bush Administration’s interference to destabilize and to foment conflict in the Sudan has been enormous. The target of the external interference is the instability of Sudan and its people through creating animosity among the country’s citizens. Hence, the interference of external forces has further aggravated the situation in the Sudan. Besides, the situation in East Sudan has not progressed either as expected. However, it is not comparable to that being witnessed in South Sudan and Darfur. What is our policy regarding this? We do not want to contemplate over what transpired in the past. The territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Sudan should be respected. The central government of Sudan, with all its setbacks and challenges should be supported. The stability and peace in Sudan is to the interest of our region. The problems in that country should be handled and carefully scrutinized sector by sector and issue by issue. Otherwise, creating further fragmentation of the Sudanese people that could be beyond resolution, leaving aside the main issues and concentrating on minor cases that would eventually complicate the situation, will not benefit the people of Sudan and the neighboring countries. The problems have to be evaluated with their objective reality without perusing for personal interests. The different forces in the Sudan should put aside their differences and work for viable solution. On our part, we are working towards reconciliation of the different factions and the normalization of relations between Chad and Sudan. Other friendly countries are also working to this end. Our stance regarding mitigating the problem in Sudan will never weaver with the regional and global political changes. The end result is to be seen in due course. Excellency, what is the level of external interference in Sudan? What is the real problem in South Sudan? Is it the Naivasha Agreement; is it internal problem or the interference of external forces? Could you give us an insight on the real cause? This is a big issue that could not be easily articulated. The Naivasha Agreement was signed for realizing self-determination on the part of the people of South Sudan. The people of South Sudan beginning from Sudan’s attainment of independence in 1956 until the signing of the Agreement have been marginalized and sporadic armed opposition has been witnessed. The Naivasha Agreement was an important step forward. We had reservations regarding power-sharing and allocation of resources. With all the reservation on the philosophical, legal and practical aspects of implementation of the programs designed during the transitional period and later, we had the conviction that these would be rectified through time. John Garang had a big influence on the organization. After his death, a huge gap was created in the SPLM. It does not mean that there was clean and efficient direction during his leadership. There was unfinished political process which was underway that led to the signing of the Naivasha Agreement. The situation that we observed later, the division of the people on the basis of clan and ethnicities is the creation of external forces. The political development that was on the process was not finished and the organizational structure that was supposed to consummate the process was also not solid. The amount of money that was squandered in the name of the Agreement within the short time since its signing is substantial. According to the figures we are familiar with; it has reached an estimated 6 billion dollars. One would expect that such an investment would help South Sudan to achieve significant development. But the amount has disappeared without a trace because of corruption due to the existing political vacuum. Although the corruption is byproduct of the political status quo, it further aggravates the situation and creates more division, thus making the solution much more difficult to achieve. Relations between Meatemer and the SPLM, instead of improving over the past 3 years, it has brought further conflict and rift. Some claim that South Sudan will be divided. But what will happen if it is divided tomorrow. It will be a stateless chaos, with no unity; it could become a bizarre display of sectarian violence. We would witness the same thing that is happening to the Central African Republic. The neighboring countries of South Sudan, due to the fact that they want to make use of developments in the region to their advantage, do not contribute anything towards helping solve this dilemma. It is obvious what would happen to South Sudan and its people if it is divided. But considering the domestic issues of South Sudan, interference by external forces would further complicate the issue and entail huge consequence. The issue calls for constant attention and follow up, and this is the basisof our foreign policy regarding the issue. Let’s go back to the topic we raised earlier as regards relations between Chad and Sudan. As you have mentioned earlier, Eritrea has been striving to solve the problems between the two countries. Taking into consideration the complications external forces are creating, what could we expect as regards developments in Sudanese-Chadian relations? What would be the effective approach to tackle this problem? Yes, there might be different opinions regarding this issue, but the solution should emanate from shared views and direct dialogue with the concerned parties. The problem in relations between Chad and Sudan is connected with the situation in Darfur. How did the situation in Darfur become a complicated issue? Has the Central Government in Khartoum anything to do with this? We could raise the aforementioned questions and discuss the matter, but the situation has assumed a complicated phase where the concerned parties are engaged in counter accusations and the involvement of foreign powers has complicated matters and has even been aggravated into conflict. So instead of focusing on the main issue of Darfur, it has become a conflict between the two governments. Both sides have their own reasons and their own justification, but this mainly concerns them. However, this is obvious and clear to us, and thus if Sudan is to enjoy lasting peace the Sudan-Chad issue should to be resolved first. The conflicts that had evolved as a cause needs to be averted. Hence, relations between Chad and Sudan as one issue by one side and the situation in Chad by the other side should be resolved one by one and again together as one issue. This requires the goodwill of both concerned parties. On top of this, it needs honest and candid parties of reconciliation; it calls for candid mediators. So far, the parties that have been engaged in the reconciliation of the two parties have been abusing, misusing and exploiting the issue. Neither to bring any solution to the Darfur case nor to resolve the conflict between Sudan and Chad, what is the case here then? It simply shows that tackling the issues at hand was the least concern of the reconciling parties. What is the motive behind Washington’s interference in this case? Or any European countries for that matter? Especially the countries that don’t want the stability of Sudan, this is a big opportunity for them and they are using such an opportunity. But despite all this, we have been working relentlessly to promote stability in the Sudan. It is our duty to offer what we can towards normalizing Sudanese-Chadian relations or promote solution of the Darfur issue. Lately, there emerged a note from the International Court concerning the Sudanese issue. Despite its legal irony, what is the message they are trying to convey through this? This is a ploy designed to expose Sudan to permanent crisis. This is not aimed at securing justice or guaranteeing human rights for the Darfur population, nor is it aimed at directing the future of Darfur along the correct path. By all standards, this has nothing to do with Beshir either; the whole thing is but an attack directed against the Sudanese people. We can raise a number of questions in this regard: What are its legal aspects? What is it based on? How did they initiate the issue and do they have concrete evidence for this? How many lives were lost in this conflict, what is the number of casualties here? Why is the Darfur case so important to them? Is it because the degree of the catastrophe is so intense here compared to other incidents around the globe? Or is it because this holds a special appeal to their interests? All these have their own answers. But ultimately this is not all to contradict Beshir but to put Sudan in permanent crisis. When still the Naivasha Agreement is under implementation, when it is clear to everyone that there would be challenges in the implementation process, and when the Darfur situation has not yet been directed along the right path of reconciliation, when there still prevails the situation in East Sudan and when the general situation in the North is still in as it is, I don’t see why they are so insistent on resolving the issues in Darfur or protecting the right of the Darfur people. What is the preoccupation with this issue? If we should ask the impact of this in undermining the political structure of Sudan and the overall outcome of this on the people of the country and how many more lives it is going to affect? If we should contrast all that has been going on, in all measurements looking at it from both political and legal standpoint, this is unjustifiable. This is a challenge and despite the political differences they have, the people of Sudan should work against this because it affects them in every aspect. Our stance on this is clear and we have voiced it on numerous occasions. Thus, any developments that might arise in the future would be looked at from this policy and it would be possible to attain the desired goal. The situation between Chad and Sudan should hence be considered side by side with Sudanese issue, which by the way should be given increased attention. As you have already made reference to, the International Court has charged Beshir with ‘crimes of genocide’ and has demanded that Sudan should hand him over. What do such institutions stand for? Who administrates them? How do they operate? What is the stance of the Government of Eritrea regarding such issues? This is a very broad topic. We could raise questions such as what the origin of such institutions is or who funds them? Do they really know the law or are just mere messengers? Do they stand for justice or have some other hidden agendas? If we look at it in different angles, this was initiated by the Security Council. Invisible elements that pushed the Council to initiate this was the United States. The Bush Administration has orchestrated it. When they announced that genocide has been committed they were merely making a political statement not because they were concerned about the number of casualties or the war that was going on. It is not possible to debate whether genocide has been committed or not or the fact that the situation was getting out of hand. The reality on the ground is sufficient testimony. But right the moment the situation was studied whether genocide has been committed or not, it was announced that it was a genocide attack. The reason behind this is political in nature. And due to some political interests, the issue was escalated just like that not because there was a concern about the situation of Sudan or to relieve the people of Darfur from their miseries but due to some political interest. This was used as a means to exploit the situation in Sudan so as to achieve some hidden agendas. Thus, the Security Council was used as a means. If the Council is really interested in resolving issues, how come its decision on the Eritrea-Ethiopia border issue that was passed six years ago has not yet been implemented on the ground? How come the Security Council failed to address the Somalia issue? Why is the Council specially interested on the case mentioned above? This leads to the conclusion that in this case there is some hidden political agenda behind and they are using this opportunity. The plan behind all this is to hold Sudan hostage using the issue as a pretext. The situation would continue as long as they get what they want and they will realize it by exploiting the situation in the Sudan. So, by appearing to master the situation in Sudan, they are delaying a possible solution so as to pursue their agenda. By securing their stay in Sudan, they are attempting to exercise their agenda on the region. This is the policy that the Bush Administration has been pursuing. This is not a matter of law or lawlessness; it is not a matter of justice or injustice either. These so-called human right advocators are simply a symbol. What are they trying to highlight by saying the genocide in Darfur is the most terrible act as compared to other atrocities committed all over the world? Why has it drawn international attention? These quarters could claim to be ‘impartial’ or advocates of the rule of law and justice and that they are ‘independent’. But from what we have witnessed over the past 20 years or even before, we can tell who manages these institutions. Whom does the Security Council serve or by the same token the other international organizations for that matter? And who controls the World Bank or the IMF? Who brought the so-called human rights activist organizations? How did they originate? And from where do their staff members come from? Who pays and gives them orders or work directives? Various documents could be referred in connection with these matters. But generally speaking, the intention to bring Bashir to court is conspired for the purpose of realizing different hidden political agendas. If they are really fighting for human rights or working to solve or to look on matters of genocide, why don’t the so-called organizations do something to verify the allegation. You might put aside the issue of bringing somebody to justice. However, why does one bring another obscure problem that would further complicate the prevailing crises? It is really baffling to talk about these so-called organizations. If you look back into history to identify the origin of the NGOs, it is not difficult for anybody to find out the real truth. I can only say that the latest information being disseminated about the origin of such organizations or their staff members is enough for someone who wants to have a clue. There is no new thing to talk about them. Two years ago, when the TPLF regime and its masters were preparing to invade Somalia, you said that the war was bound to be a march into a quagmire. Your predictions were proven right not long after the invasion took place. How do you view the developments over the past two years since the invasion and what would future developments look like? And what will Eritrea’s role be in this case? We now have to look at it from two angles, though we can’t make detailed predictions. Anyone who knows enough about Somalia couldn’t have taken such adventurous actions. Even if you stand to gain something, in the end one cannot gain much from servitude. As their initial claims of “we will leave Somalia in a matter of weeks,” implies that they could easily crush any opposition and accomplish what they want. It is not something they were saying to deceive people but the TPLF really believed that they will easily put Somalia under their control and then receive compensation from the US for their servitude. If we look at it from a global perspective, the Security Council had just then passed a resolution banning Ethiopia, Djibouti and Kenya from interfering. If we look back and read the aforementioned resolution, it uses phrases pertaining to the sovereignty and unity of Somalia. Confident in the supremacy of the US, the TPLF regime took this adventurous step disregarding both the UN resolution and the situation in the region. But if you look back even into the early 90s, it is really difficult to imagine the Somali people’s ferocity of opposition. As I had mentioned on a number of occasions before, with all their advantages even the Haileselassie and Derg regimes did not commit such a disastrous mistake. It was because they knew a lot of things and refrained from taking such a step. Even with substantial external support, these regimes were not able to completely control the Somali people in the Ogaden region. But the TPLF regime did make this adventurous mistake. So it is natural now to ask what transpired over the past two years in relation to what was said at the beginning of the invasion. But first and foremost, the Ethiopian people should ask why the TPLF regime entered into war with Somalia. As everyone knows the primary reason that drove the TPLF regime to take such a measure is to gain some benefits from its backers and prolong its stay in power. The claims that terrorism and terrorists in Somalia posed a national security threat to Ethiopia were just baseless deceptions. Now the TPLF regime is talking about withdrawing, but what had the regime accomplished in the past two years? Even using as much military force as they could, the TPLF troops were unable to accomplish a single thing. Instead they created chaos and destruction among a people who had just been able to experience relative stability. Though well-concealed from the rest of the world due to Washington’s influence, the war crimes committed against the Somali people over the past two years are beyond comparison. But since the direct legal responsibility rests on both the US Administration and the TPLF, the crimes and humanitarian crisis were prevented from being aired and reported by the media. A day will come when all the crimes will be revealed before the world. Countless Somalis have lost their lives in the past two years; who is to take responsibility? Displaced from their homes, Somali people are now living in misery and hunger. This is what happened in the past two years. Maybe the TPLF regime would take this as an accomplishment, but the hatred it has created in the past two years will entail repercussions for years to come. Besides the problems created in the past two years, we should also look at the political atmosphere that arose during the rule of the warlords. The people of Somalia were gradually strengthening their unity and building their country till 1990. Though there were certain weaknesses that emerged shortly before the end of the Siad Barre regime, the Somali people had made some progress. After the English and Italian colonies were unified as one people under one government in 1960, the Somali people began to slowly build their nation. This progress took a down turn during the final days of the Siad Barre regime and the rule of the warlords began to expand during the extensive period of power vacuum. If we remember the Black Hawk incident, a number of attempts were made by external forces to perpetuate the state of lawlessness and power vacuum. During the prolonged period of the rule of the warlords, the progress the Somali people were making in building a unified nation of one language and one nationality began to quickly decline. The US, the TPLF and other external forces manipulated this situation to advance their interests. Even the piracy situation we are witnessing at present is a result of the power vacuum. How did the divisions of Somaliland, Puntland and Benadir land came about? This was the work of the warlords who were being encouraged and subsidized by external forces. We can say that the turmoil and division encouraged the TPLF regime. Somalia’s brief return to stability in 2006 created an unfounded anxiety for the TPLF. Being a country with 3000 km-long coastline and than other African states, Somalia could play a significant role in this region. Facing enough problems within Ethiopia, the TPLF regime is always afraid and suspicious of any stability in the region. But although there are problems of terrorism and other threats, the clique’s primary challenge is the Ethiopian people. In the Somali case, the TPLF and the US Administration manipulated the warlords and encouraged the division of Somalia into different areas. So you can say that they gave rise to terrorism themselves because they wanted to manipulate the situation. We cannot ask why things changed in Somalia in 2006 because it is something that happens everywhere in the world. How and where the change came from is another topic altogether. I don’t think that anyone could be surprised as to why a group of people with strong Islamic philosophies began to effect the change. The developments in 2006 clearly showed that the people of Somalia had had enough of the warlords and civil war. Given the chance to continue with their initiative, the Somali people might have once again unified their country which had been divided into different areas. As I mentioned earlier, when the Security Council was talking about the sovereignty of Somalia, it meant about the entire nation. I can talk a lot about our views regarding Somaliland, but generally these separatist movements would further exacerbate the overall situation in Somalia. Why did the TPLF take hasty measures in 2006? What were they planning to do once they oust the UIC from Mogadishu? If as they said their intention was to wipe out terrorism then it must be a joke. And if they were intending to fi ll the power vacuum in Somalia, then this is not something that can fool anyone. The TPLF felt threatened by peace in Somalia but the Ethiopian people had nothing to fear from the unity and stability of a neighboring country. Since the TPLF regime had already troubles securing control within Ethiopia, the stability of a neighboring country may seem like a big threat. If we look at it from the perspective of the US Administration’s global strategy, particularly after 9/11, the TPLF regime was more than encouraged to enter into Somalia. For the past two years, the TPLF regime’s forces have been bearing the consequences of the foolhardy measure. How many Ethiopian soldiers have lost their lives so far? Where were they operating till now? We can go into details as to what the two years have entailed for the TPLF regime, but it would only be stating the obvious. The regime had utterly failed. Now to cover up their failure, they are saying that they will withdraw from Somalia very soon. But we have already seen what happened in the past two years, and thus we will just wait and see what happens in 2009 and 2010. What about Eritrea’s role? It is as I mentioned earlier. Our views and opinions have not changed. Our commitment to bringing about peace and stability in this region is not something that developed suddenly. Somalia’s strategic geographical location has a crucial effect in the peace and stability of the Horn of Africa. Had circumstances enabled the Somali people to keep on with the progress they initiated in the 1960s, it is not difficult to imagine the contribution it would have made to the peoples of the region. This is how we can look at the missed opportunities. Everyone knows the kind of cooperative relationship we had with the TPLF before and after 1991, but it was thwarted after 1998. The Somali case is no different. When you look at it from a wider perspective, the TPLF regime ruined and obstructed the conducive atmosphere that could have been created for all peoples of the region. Thus, we should sympathize with the Somali people, taking a practical stock of all developments and without taking sides with any group. We showed our support for the developments of 2006 because we felt it could lead to creating a better situation. Like I mentioned earlier, we had worked with Ethiopia towards a common goal and mutual benefits with good intentions. The same is true when we come to Somalia. The Ethiopian regime has, however, obstructed the stability of the Horn region. For this particular reason, we stand with the Somali people. We have followed the Somali case closely after 2006 because we thought it was a hopeful situation. We did not choose to get involved during the rule of the warlords. We see some hope in Somalia, but this is still the beginning. The allegations that are being propagated by Washington and its cronies such as the Ethiopian government about Somalia being a proxy are simply baseless. We just chose to be involved in Somalia because we saw an opportunity after 2006 to draw Somalia out of the shambles it was in. When the Asmara Conference on Somalia was held, a lot of Somalis from all over the world participated, and we once more reaffirmed our stance that it is our duty to assist the Somali people to draw experience from the rule of warlords and rebuild a better Somalia. So, although we had a border issue with the TPLF regime, we cannot have used that as a pretext of getting involved in Somalia. Somalia has been degraded into a stateless chaos; it is not recognized by the Arab League, the African Union or anything else. It ceased to exist in maps and there is no governance. These are the things that have caused the religious extremism and terrorism and issues such as that of piracy, issues that benefit the Ethiopian regime and those who do not want to see a united Somalia. Terrorism, religious extremism and piracy are not to the advantage of the Somali people anyway. The tripartite grouping among Yemen, Sudan and Ethiopia recently made Djibouti and Somalia to join it and they recently conducted a meeting. What is the motive? It has no aim at all. It was used by the Ethiopian regime as a pretext to isolate Eritrea. There is no bilateral financial aid or treaty or anything like that. It is something that was created with the backing of the United States. At first some of the members, like Yemen and Sudan were fooled into joining the grouping, but they eventually realized that it is one of the many ploys employed by the TPLF regime to isolate Eritrea, and as such they are not as active as they used to be. For instance, if we try to read between the lines of what President Ali Abdalla Saleh of Yemen said, we could see what he exactly feels about the whole thing. The TPLF regime has got nothing else to dream about other than vainly trying to create problems for Eritrea. The grouping finally added Somalia and Djibouti to its membership. There is nothing Djibouti can gain from this; it is engaging in a severe blunder. Why would Puntland be included in this, it’s not even a sovereign entity. It is one of the numerous foreign policy failures of the TPLF regime. Still on African issues, last year the Eritrean government played a major role in attempting to solve the Zimbabwean political crisis as well as the civil war that erupted in the Democratic Republic of Congo. What do other Africans learn from this? I cannot say I know much about this. This has not been one of our priorities and because we haven’t been able to continue the initiative as envisaged. We tried to play due role in stabilizing nations such as Rwanda, the Democratic Republic of Congo because the stability of this region concerns us. Although different nations in Africa can solve the problems that may arise in their respective regions, we have been involved because that may also affect us. We have pushed for such initiative during the 63rd Summit of the African Union in Cairo. But it was one of the issues in which the Ethiopian regime tried to obstruct our efforts. Most of the problems were mainly caused by the fl awed strategy of the Bush Administration. We cannot say that the Zimbabwean case was a just one. However, we question why so much effort was put into giving it such a major media attention when there exist several other important issues at hand that deserve extensive media coverage. The Bush Administration has been very much concerned with creating such scenarios of chaos and then managing these things to its advantage. What we are witnessing in Africa today is a mere continuation of the divide and rule policy on the part of Washington so as to manage it. We are observing the consequences of such policy today; some understand this policy and choose to become accomplice for reasons of pure self-interest and others get simply misled. In view of the fact that IGAD, the AU, the UN and other international organizations are puppet bodies of the uni-economic power, USA, how can an organization or organizations capable of providing leadership at global level come into being? On the other hand, there is an argument that it is better to work inside these organizations and fight to reorganize their structure rather than suspending one’s membership. Your views regarding this, Excellency? There may be arguments on this. However, you can’t argue without having a case and evidence and sufficient knowledge on that matter. When you even speculate you need to have concrete information. After 1991, the end of the Cold War era, there were so many things that could have happened looking through different perspectives. And the reason is quite obvious. It is what the Washington Administration resorted to in order to control the former Organization of African Unity (OAU) at present the African Union by way of dividing the African continent into four major regional centers of powers via Addis Ababa as it is assumed to be a convenient spot. It is a conspiracy designed to control the organization and serve the US strategy; this is not a secret. I am not saying that regional or continental organizations are irrelevant or unnecessary; there is no option either. The contemporary world needs the existence of global, continental, regional or sub-regional organizations. However, conducive ground should be created to make them viable institutions. If you happen to be working for the agenda of the Bush Administration and its allies, you need to control not only a regional African organization but also others in different parts of the world. When you look at the matter from the military perspective, you can have a much more clear picture about the entire topic. It is only about ensuring world domination; monopoly status over financial institutions, technology, and now practicing the agenda in Africa through different organizations such as IGAD, ECOWAS, SADEC and so forth. Weaving a number of conspiracies, one sees to it that the particular organization serves Washington’s interests. And we have witnessed some disgraceful agents or organizations. For instance, if we take the case of IGAD, it is just in that status. It is an organization that not only helplessly watching the genocide committed in Somalia but also actually voted against the will and choice of the Somali people through siding with the Security Council. So, how can we be a member of such an organization? In expression of our solidarity with the Somali people, we decided to suspend membership in IGAD. However, this does not mean that we don’t need regional or global organizations. There should exist bodies that work for mutual benefit and collaboration among peoples. Still, you need to fight for the right alternative being inside paralyzed organizations. In the case of IGAD, you can restructure it as a member. We can also take the case of the Sana’a grouping; had it been serving a worthwhile purpose, why not participate in it. Countries should strive for mutual benefit. Till now, however, from what we have observed, there is nothing significant to benefit from such organizations. But how can dynamic organizations come into being? It is not a desire or choice. It requires a long struggle; we have witnessed so many things since 1991. What should we do to create a viable regional organization the membership of which comprises Sudan, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Djibouti, Somalia or even Yemen? When you give this assignment to anyone with or without the necessary information about the situation in each country, what would one do? We are working to accomplish the demanding task on the basis of our capacity, for instance the Sudanese issue. We are doing this not only to secure bilateral advantages but also promote greater interaction at the regional or global level. Earlier, we have talked about the Somali issue, the Ethiopian crisis and the Djiboutian case. In order to meet these challenges, we are exerting maximum efforts to lay a conducive groundwork.