|
From shabait.com National News Your Excellency, would you brief us on the objective situation in Eritrea, the Eritrean-Ethiopian border conflict, differences with the United Nations and the relocation of the UNMEE forces from Eritrea?
Your Excellency, UN officials claim that the peacekeeping forces could not carry out their task in their posts due to the Eritrean government’s ‘prevention’ of fuel supply. What task would they accomplish once their mission is over? The only remaining task for the UN and the Security Council is to ensure the withdrawal of the Ethiopian forces from sovereign Eritrean territories. But as witnessed in a number of issues, the UN and the Security Council have failed to fulfill their obligation in this case too. Hence, it makes no sense to talk about that “there should be cooperation with the peacekeeping force in Eritrea in order to facilitate its mission.” According to the clarification you have just been making, it appears that Eritrea’s stance has changed. Earlier, you were mentioning about ‘border issue;’ now that the issue has reached legal conclusion, you are talking about Ethiopia’s occupation. Does your latest stance point to a possible outbreak of armed conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia? What would Eritrea’s response be? Time will answer it; we remain patient. Recently, the Ethiopian Prime Minister said that he wishes the border dispute with Eritrea to be resolved peacefully. Do you think this statement offers any hope; could it also lead to a solution.
Did you hold discussion with the Americans to re solve this problem? Certainly, we want to hold talks with the Americans because we wish to hear the stance of the US Administration that is the signatory of the Algiers Agreement. As member of the UN Security Council, the US is duty bound to implement the Boundary Commission’s ruling without any delay. As we see it, the problem is not that of the Ethiopian government but basically of the US administration itself. Currently, relations between Eritrea and the United Nations is strained;, what is the better method to normalize such relations? Your Excellency, whereas the UN has suspended the peacekeeping force on the Eritrean side, the one on the Ethiopian side is yet carrying out its task. Doesn’t this imply there exists problem between Eritrea and the world body? Definitely no! There is no problem between us and the UN. This is a choice of the UN and its peacekeeping force in our country, the mission of which has already terminated. On our part, we have asked the UN Secretary General and the Security Council to adopt a resolution calling for the withdrawal of Ethiopian forces from sovereign Eritrean territories. This task is basically the responsibility of the UN Peacekeeping force and that of the Security Council. Nevertheless, they are not prepared to put it into effect. Thus, in the final analysis the issue solely concerns the UN, and as such it is not a problem between Eritrea and the United Nations. How do you evaluate the UN peacekeeping force on the Ethiopian side? There is no so-called ‘UN force’ on the Ethiopian side. According to the Algiers Agreement, the UN force was to be deployed 25 km inside Eritrean territory. Perhaps, there might exist a UN office in Ethiopia, but there is no ‘UN force’ as such. Your Excellency, let’s raise an issue apart from Eritrea. Let’s start with Somalia; a year has already elapsed since Ethiopia invaded Somalia and ouster of the Union of Islamic Court. How do you assess the political situation in Somalia since then?
The international community supports the US- backed Ethiopian invasion of Somalia and the transitional government. Don’t you think that this represents a message of the international community that wishes the transitional government to bring the entire Somalia under its control? In the first place there is one thing we should be aware of. There is no such thing as the international community. If at all we are to talk about the international community, we are in essence to talk about the US Administration. There is no international community that is effective and real. All UN resolutions, including the Security Council are adopted under the pressure of the US Administration. Hence, what is taking place in Somalia reflects the choices of the USA in the Horn of Africa. As the US had declared in its documents, its choices in the Horn of Africa are executed through four regional agents that serve Washington’s interests. And we can’t perceive the prevailing political problems in Somalia or other areas outside such framework. Likewise, the Somali people are victims this strategy. Had there not been the influences and pressures from the US Administration, the international community would have been in a position to resolve the problem. However, the choices of the US Administration have become the decisive factor for the choices of the people of our planet. What’s more, the popular opposition we are witnessing in Somalia today is the outcome of Washington’s choices. The world community is lightly viewing this regional problem as being an ‘internal Somali problem.’ What is currently taking place in Somalia and the one over the past ten years is an outcome of US strategy. And we should look at it from such standpoint and act accordingly. Besides, there is no any other option than opposing it. Especially in the present epoch, talking about the international community is only deceiving oneself. The truth is that there only exists US Administration and not international community at all. You have already explained that popular opposition in Somalia is mounting. However, the objectives of Somali opposition forces to re-liberate the country over the past year have not been realized. They have not also succeeded in inculcating their ideology; the humanitarian crisis in Somalia has been aggravated. Thus, my question is: could you advise the Somali opposition forces to lay down their arms and hold negotiations with the Transitional Government of Somalia as a legitimate authority? People have their own choices. As the people of the Horn of Africa, we have our own choices, namely cooperating in harmony and lead a prosperous life free from external interference. But such a choice has not yet been realized. The reality is that the people of the region are compelled to heed imposed choices. As the people of this region, our choice is to foster cooperation. However, we are only left with the choice of opposing. The dire situation we are going through compels us not surrender. There is nothing like reconciliation in Somalia at present, because people of Somalia have not been provided with the opportunity for national reconciliation. Talks about so-called ‘putting an end to opposition’ are not at all allowed in Somalia and by the Somalis. Due to the strategy I have earlier mentioned, regional and international interferences are posing major obstacle to the Somali people. But there exist difference of views among the Somali opposition forces. As you maintain relations with some of them, have you ever exerted efforts to reconcile and bring the opposition forces together so that they may achieve their goals. In the first place, the issue is the concern of Somalis themselves. As far as I am concerned, I have no worries regarding this issue, because people naturally have internal differences, organizations and political movements. Even if personal differences prop up in leaderships, it is but only natural; what is regarded as unnatural is when bribe and seductive gifts occur within the forces through external influence. And such acts are perpetrated by those forces seeking to weaken the popular opposition of the Somali people through not only military might but also sowing the seeds of division among their ranks, as well as fomenting conflict among Somali ethnic groups and tribes. And this is the fundamental issue about which the Somalis should be well aware of. As differences in political views, it is but natural. But the differences witnessed in Somalia over the past 10 years occurred in the course of time. Following Ethiopia’s invasion, however, the Somali people have begun to be intimately aware of, especially their growing awareness of the impending danger to them. As for the differences being witnessed among the leaders and individual persons, these do not reflect the political reality in Somalia. We should understand that such differences emanate from congresses held abroad aimed at weakening and fragmenting the popular opposition in Somalia. Your Excellency, do you foresee that Somalia would overcome all humanitarian and political problems and eventually join the international community? Certainly! The Somali issue will be resolved. From the past, if we analyze the political developments in the Horn in the past decade, as well as the current situation and future trends, we can assert that the situation in this region will definitely change. The extent of the external interference in the Somali issue is a clear indication of the complexity of the issue. Had the Somalis been left alone to resolve their problems on their own, the problem would have been resolved within a short period. However, since the Somali issue is part and parcel of regional and international strategies, the Somali people are paying a price. The challenges are indeed immense. But since the demise of invaders and the forces of occupation that jock with people’s destiny is inevitable, the future of Somalia is bright. Previously, the Somali issue used to be regarded as a Somali affair. In the wake of the Ethiopian invasion, however, it could be asserted that it has prolonged the resolution of the problem. As I have mentioned on different occasion regarding the Somali issue, the Haileselassie regime in the 1960s did not violate Somali sovereignty; Army generals of the regime used to propose to the regime that Ethiopia should refrain from crossing the border. The situation in Ogaden was not simple either; the Haileselassie regime did not commit crimes in Ogaden. Similarly, the Mengistu regime in the course of its 17-year rule did not violate Somali sovereignty either. This indeed was the real state of affairs then. In contrast, the current regime in Ethiopia has committed strategic errors. Misled by media propaganda, many were deceived to believe that Ethiopia’s forces had the power. But due to the Ethiopian government’s strategic errors and calculations, the regime finds itself in deep quagmire. Contrary to claims that the regime would pull back its forces within a week, two or three weeks, it is still plunged in serious predicament in the wake of its utter failure. And with the growing opposition of the Somali people, it is difficult to predict when it will get relieved from such a quagmire. In my opinion, we should analyze history from past and present perspectives. And in the case of Ethiopian invasion, the developments we are witnessing daily fully attest to the regime’s utter failure. There are talks about sending AU peacekeeping forces to Somalia in order to replace the Ethiopian forces. But these forces did not yet enter Somalia. What do you think is the reason? The UN Security Council had earlier adopted a resolution calling for respect of Somalia’s territorial integrity and prohibited interference by neighboring countries. Yet, disregarding the Council’s resolution and encouraged by US support, Ethiopian forces invaded Somalia. With all its past failures, the African Union (AU) has no real power. With the exception of few countries that seek to win US favor, no African country wants to send its forces to Somalia. In view of the current volatile and dangerous situation in that country, the Security Council does not want to send a peacekeeping mission to Somalia, because the situation there will be hazardous for any forces. Does the AU really have the capacity to send troops to resolve the problem in Somalia? Certain quarters in the Security Council say that the AU has plans to send 27, 000 troops, but the forces there at present do not exceed 1,500. The problem is obvious; the way out is equally obvious. However, under US pressure, the UN continues to refrain from being involved in the Somali issue. The US Administration and its allies have been unable to abandon their strategies and withdraw from Somalia, and that is creating further complications and problems. There exists political tension between Sudan and Chad and both governments accuse each other on different issues. Will these disagreements influence or affect other neighboring countries? And what role could Eritrea play in normalizing relations between the two countries? Indeed, the issue has great influence on other neighboring countries. One cannot deny that the problem between Chad and Sudan goes beyond the borders of both countries. The developments within Chad and the external interferences there, particularly that of the US Administration and its partners have complicated matters. Without external interference, the Sudanese and Chadian governments could have resolved their differences, and even be able to resolve the Darfur issue. However, if we look at the developments over the past two or three years, the main problem had been external interference. An AU peacekeeping mission was sent into Darfur and failed to accomplish anything. Even more disturbing, they tried to rectify this failure with another big error; by sending a hybrid force to Darfur. And as this move further complicated the Darfur issue, Sudanese-Chadian relations further deteriorated. I would like to say once again that Sudan and Chad should work together to resolve the Darfur issue without any external interference. Only then can we hope for peace and stability in the Horn region. I believe it would only take a strong initiative to put an end to all these complications. Your Excellency, Sudan has long since suffered from internal problems. Do you believe there are quarters that do not want to see peace and unity prevailing in the Sudan? Certainly! That is the reality of the situation. Ever since independence, Sudan has had problems in the west, east, south and even in the north. But these problems were only complicated due to external interference. Regardless of the structure of the political forces in that country, Sudan has become a target, though one cannot say some Sudanese forces are still unaware of the conspiracy. In my opinion, the solution lies not in standing alongside one force against another. The important question here is whether external interference is in the interest of the Sudanese people as well as of the people of the Horn region. The answer is obviously no. All the Sudanese people should be aware of this fact and should resolve their problems themselves without giving room to external meddlers. Kenya being part of this region, how do you evaluate the recent developments there? My evaluation of the situation in Kenya is quite different from that of the media and others. The problem there is very complicated; it goes beyond election problems. Kenya’s problems have deep political, economic, cultural and social dimensions. The political process and structure in Kenya during the past 10 years had been treading on the wrong direction, and the recent developments were just like a volcano awaiting eruption. Enforcing foreign models of democracy on other societies would only lead to disintegration. A democracy that divides people on the basis of religion, ethnic group or clan, particularity among undeveloped societies is not democracy at all. Adopting foreign philosophies, particularly those that undermine people’s unity create problems that are difficult to resolve later on. Thus, as I mentioned earlier, the problem has political, cultural and economic depth, and the root cause is external interference. As I see it, the issue should be addressed from its basic origin without any outside interference. Approaches other than this might bring about temporary solutions, but eventually they would only create further problems that could go unnoticed for a while, but erupt in due course with the slightest provocation. The United States had been calling for support to the democratic process in Africa, but the recent developments in Kenya have prompted certain parties that oppose US actions to doubt its real motive. What are your views in this case? If there is anyone who believes that the US Administration wants to promote democracy in Africa, then he/she is mistaken. Washington’s only concern is to protect its interests. Regardless of whether or not there exists democracy in a given country, the US only strives to secure its own interests. The US Administration’s idea of democracy in Africa is just to divide societies along religious and ethnic lines. Such a division leads to the eruption of conflicts in which Washington arrives on the scene to administer crisis management. This is a well-known practice in the US Administration’s philosophy, and the various problems being witnessed around the world today are an outcome of that. Washington’s version of democracy is to create an atmosphere of conflict. Although African societies had in due course introduced social, cultural and economic changes, some communities embraced philosophies in the name of democracy that foment division among their ranks and did not conform to the real situation on the ground. These alien philosophies not only created tension among societies but also safeguard US interests, while at the same time compromising the choice and interest of the African people. Your Excellency, following the onset of the Kenyan crisis, the international community’s double standard has become ever more apparent. Whereas the problem in Kenya attracted a great deal of attention, other problems in the Horn region like that in Somalia have so far been ignored. Why is the case like that? Different media outlets have reported that hundreds of Kenyan nationals were displaced from their homes as a result of the crisis. Some of them were also provided with food aid. But when one compares it with the situation in Somalia, the problem in Kenya is far less serious. There are more than a million Somalis displaced from their homes and presently living in extremely dire condition, but they have so far been ignored by the media. So where is the much-adored so-called humanity? I think this is the most vivid double standard on the part of these quarters. Why give excessive attention to the Kenyan problem, while at the same time millions of Somalis are suffering from immense atrocities and problems? In my opinion, this scenario only reflects the US Administration’s strategies and interests. As they see it, there is no sense in talking about humanitarian issues that could not serve US interests. But if it serves their interest, even the most appalling humanitarian crisis is considered as being natural. Double standard is one of the basic rules and values of the US Administration. I think it is important to talk about timely issues. Five years have already elapsed since the US invasion of Iraq, and American leaders claim to have scored major victories in that country. Contrary to these claims, however, the Iraqi people are living under constant terror and misery. What are your views regarding the future of Iraq? I think that country has no future at all. I may be wrong, but I believe there can be no future for sometime at least. Regardless of claims that ‘the situation in Iraq is showing signs of progress for the better,’ the problems will continue as they are. I am not talking about Sadam Hussein’s rule or the circumstances before his downfall, but rather about the present humanitarian problems and security situation there. Nothing has changed as they claim but on the contrary things are escalating from bad to worse. Embracing certain forces while attacking others might appear as a positive development in certain parts of Iraq, but as I always say people should not be swayed by what is being disseminated in the media, but instead should draw their own conclusion by comparing both the past and the present. I don’t think the Iraqi situation will improve anytime soon, because the prevailing tension suits the interest of certain forces in the US. Just as everywhere else, US officials want the situation in Iraq to continue as it is so as to justify their policies by making the customary accusation of ‘terrorists or weapons of mass destruction’. Did the US draw more allies or enemies as a result the Administration’s policies regarding war on terror and other issues? In my opinion, it is the US Administration itself that gave rise to terrorism. I don’t want to talk about terrorism and opposition because the issue is quite clear and does not require explanations from any side. Certainly, there is opposition in Iraq, but as to the case of terrorism, was there any such activity before the downfall of the Sadam regime. Definitely not; we should not let those who claim the contrary mislead us and insult our intelligence. We have minds that can analyze and scrutinize the things that we observe. Everything that is happening in Iraq and Afghanistan is just because the reality on the ground did not suit US interests. We know they have interests, but the means they are employing to secure those interests are by far the worst in the 21st century. Your Excellency, at present you have a lot of differences with the US Administration. Can relations between Eritrea and the US normalize while they continue to support Ethiopia? And how can Eritrea’s relations with the United States get normalized? We are talking about the actual realities and developments; and we cannot hide or ignore the reality on the ground. The things we are talking about are not our choice but rather something imposed on us by the US. We have no interest in maintaining differences with any party. The basic issue is the policy that has created problem to the people of our region about which we have been talking about for long. An administration aimed at improving relations is our principled position. However, fostering relations on the basis of reservations from talking about realities and short of highlighting the objective situation could not serve either our interest or that of the United States. I personally disagree with those who argue that the ‘US is a world by itself,’ because that country is the outcome of a political process. It should be noted here that I am talking about the US Administration and not about America as a people, nation, values, economy or culture, etc. However, there is one indisputable fact, and that is the US status as a super power would at a specific historical juncture come to an end just like the great empires of the past. When we talk about the US, we are not talking about the entire American people but rather about a few who formulate or influence US policies. Whenever people have differences with the US Administration, it should not be conceived as if the said people have problems with the American people. But as long as Washington’s policies remain unchanged, differences will persist, because they have been imposed on us without our will. |
UNMEE forces were deployed in Eritrea in accordance with the Algiers Peace Agreement. The Agreement also provides that upon the issuance of the final and binding ruling of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Boundary Commission, UNMEE’s mission automatically ends. And the ruling was announced on 13 April 2002. However, the United Nations has failed to fulfill its duty of implementing the final and binding EEBC ruling on border delimitation. The UN, AU and the international community are equally bound by the decision. The question whether the international community exists or not is another matter. But the EEBC has been urging the UN and the Security Council over the past five years to effect actual border demarcation. And after five years, the Commission decided to virtually demarcate the border on the map, thus leading to the culmination of the border issue. As such, there exists no other border demarcation in Africa as clearly defined as that of the Eritrean-Ethiopian boundary. Hence, the Algiers Peace Agreement has reached legal conclusion. And after virtual demarcation, there is nothing to be discussed as regards the Eritrean-Ethiopian border issue, because virtual demarcation on the map has taken place. So what legal justification is there for a peacekeeping mission to be deployed along the border? As for talks on the part of some parties about so-called “differences between Eritrea and the UN,” I would like to point out that there exist no differences. 
In the first place what does border dispute imply? The border dispute has reached legal conclusion; and the border has clearly and indisputably been delineated on the map. So, there exist no differences at all. If there are some parties that claim there exists any special problem apart from Ethiopia’s occupation, we are keen to know what that problem is. It is true that there is a problem between Eritrea and Ethiopia, and that is the illegal occupation of sovereign Eritrean territories by Ethiopian forces. Thus, this force of occupation should withdraw from our territory. I don’t want to talk about the different statements and stances disseminated from various quarters. This is basically the problem of the United States. Ethiopia doesn’t have the power to occupy Eritrean territory without the support and encouragement of the US Administration. And this is the core of the problem.
As UN officials put it, the political situation in Somalia is the worst scenario in the world where gross violation of human rights is being committed. Certainly, it is a situation in which the worst humanitarian crisis in the world is being witnessed. In this connection, it is worth noting that about 1 million Somalis from Mogadishu and its surrounding alone have been displaced and compelled to migrate. Ghastly crimes like looting, rape and murder, etc continue to be perpetrated in the country in an organized manner. UN reports indicate that Somalia is a forgotten and fragmented nation where even the Security Council itself is not ready to raise the Somali issue. In short, as there exist no political activity and means in that country, there is no body willing to get involved in the prevailing humanitarian crisis there. The UN and the Security Council are not prepared to get involved in Somalia where one million refugees and hundreds of thousands Somali nationals live under dire conditions. On the other hand, mounting popular opposition of the Somali people continues to gain momentum from to time, whereas the enemy is sustaining heavy loss. As I have already mentioned, the Somali people’s opposition is getting ever more strength despite the odds. And the prevailing crisis in Somalia is due to the negligence of the international community and the conspiracies weaved.