Eritreas Youth as an Independent Nation and the Global Criticism of its Authoritarian Regime

Sesinna Sium

Eritrea: widely referred to online as ‘the North Korea of Africa, led by a president with the human rights understanding of a ‘renaissance leader.’ Isaias Afwarki, the current and only leader of Eritrea, located in the Horn of Africa; an independent nation, after decades of struggle for liberation from Ethiopia, faces ongoing criticism for his authoritarian government.

Before exploring reasons for such criticism, one must familiarise themselves with the history of Eritrea and how it has gotten to where it is today.

The focus of this article is not so much the history of the nation but rather the global and online criticism it has received and the constant slander against their leader. Dating back to colonial times, in 1890, Eritrea was officially declared an Italian colony all the way to the 20^th century. In 1949, during the fourth session of the United Nations General Assembly, western powers decided former British and Italian colonies like Somalia and Libya would be granted independence. In deciding Eritrea’s fate, despite the people of Eritrea in favour of full independence, the UN General Assembly forced Eritrea to accept federation with Ethiopia.

The Bloody War of Federation began with Ethiopia in 1961, lasting thirty years, with over twenty thousand Eritrean soldiers killed. Eritrea was liberated, officially becoming an independent nation free of colonisation, on May 24^th, 1991.

The picture to paint on Eritrea, intended by this article, is to understand the timeline and stage of life the country is currently at. Before its progress and the counterparts of the country can be objectively compared to western societies, one must consider its current developmental stage.

Just as one would not hold a child to the same expectations of a fully developed adult, perhaps it is unreasonable to evaluate Eritrea by the standards of the long-standing stable and powerful nations like the United States and Canada. Rather, it should be acknowledged they do not settle on the same footing.

This is not to overlook or dispute the critiques on the progress of Eritrea, as many argue the country should be working towards a more progressive society and that citizens should have the freedom to leave and return as they wish and so on. This article does not deny that.

This article intends to deviate from exercising blame on the current leadership of Eritrea, as it cannot be the sole reason for its progress, and to explore the numerous external factors that have contributed to Eritrea’s economic and political state, factors that have also impacted countless African countries.

Evaluate the current state of almost every African country. How are they perceived by the media? Have they all introduced democracy? How long have they been liberated? How has colonisation impacted their political and economical status? How have involvements from other countries and humanitarian organisations supported the county’s development?

Eritrea’s president, Isaias Afewerki, served and fought on the frontlines in the battle against Ethiopia before taking office after Eritrea earned its independence. In an exclusive rare interview in 2011, he was confronted on his refusal to accept aide from humanitarian organisations, and he responded by saying Eritrea does not need to accept aid from outsiders and will support its country themselves. He questioned why they must want to help. Note that the United Nations had imposed sanctions on Eritrea in 2011 for supposedly supporting terrorists' groups in neighbouring Islamic states. Eritrea has been clearly reported as a Christian dominated and led nation with very minimal resources, as it is slowly recovering from war and colonisation. In the interview, the president denied any affiliations and questioned the logic behind the imposing of these sanctions on what might be labelled a weak and recovering country. Such sanctions only economically weaken a country like Eritrea.

In the interview, the president claimed the lies about terrorism in his country are used as an excuse to push an agenda for destabilising the region. The president remains sceptical of outside involvement in developing and vulnerable African counties, claiming countries like the US and United Nations involvement to be far from supporting for vulnerable post-war nations.

Perhaps this is a fair stance. Post-war civilisations are extremely vulnerable to exploitations, and based on this viewpoint, Isaias Afwerki believes Eritrea will be responsible for its future developments. Undoubtedly, concern will be raised on how much progress the country has achieved since liberation, but consider the following factors:

(1)  Eritrea is one of the youngest nations to exist, having only been liberated since 1991.

(2)  It is still recovering from the lasting effects and impacts of colonisation and war.

(3)  It was sanctioned by the United Nations Council in 2011 on the grounds of terrorism.

(4)  It was financially sanctioned again by the United States in November of 2021.

Consider then how these external factors would affect the development of Eritrea and the stigma that all African nations receive. How often are African nations labeled as third world countries? How often has it been revealed these very nations experience exploitation of resources by billion-dollar cooperations? Perhaps Isaias Afwerki is not the sole reason for the current economic status of the developing nation.

One might say that he deserves some grace, and perhaps the trajectory of Eritrea may have taken another course had it not been for the decisions and interventions of powerful nations. Much like other African nations, Eritrea has emerged from generations of colonialism and conflict. Judgements and expectations from countries like the United States and members of the United Nations, who stand in positions of privilege and stability, show their failure to appreciate the burdens these nations have faced.