US Strategy in the Horn of Africa and the Middle East--Interview with Eritrean Presid

[NASSIR]

Eritrean President Says Iran Has No Military Bases in His Country

 

Al-Alam TelevisionFriday, May 8, 2009

 

Tehran Al-Alam Television in Arabic at 1805 GMT on 7 May carried its regular "With the Event" program in which Eritrean President Isayas Afewerki is interviewed. He answers a number of questions on relations with Israel, the Palestinians, relations with Arab and Muslim states, the US strategy, as well as Iran`s policy in the region.

 

He was asked several questions about Iran.Presenter Husayn Murtada asked: "Your excellency the president! In a number of interviews you have pointed out the US strategy. Let us now deal with the US strategy in the region. Who is also trying to incite sedition among the peoples and states of the region? There is talk, perhaps, about Iranian or Israeli danger? What is your comment?

 

"President Isayas Afewerki replied: "The question is composed of two parts. In my view, the US strategy was clear from the end of World War II to the end of the Cold War. This is a great power which emerged to dominate the entire world and to dominate the resources of parts of the world through military might. This is a clear strategy. There was competition between the former Soviet Union and the US strategy during the Cold War. The main change in the US strategy following the collapse of the Soviet Union -- despite the fact that there was no change in its content -- is that the so-called US Neo-Conservatives have changed their strategy. They adopted the strategy of domination and absorption as well as management of the affairs of regions through a concept that there would be no domination: Domination through creating problems and crisis; domination through military and technological superiority; domination through inciting sedition among peoples and states in given regions. This is the general picture of the US strategy."These are basic facts. There is a theory which says that if Arabs and the region are left alone it would be possible to find solutions to the region`s problems, even if there are differences. The US strategy is to create a situation that would strengthen the US influence in this region by provoking crises which did not exist.

 

"Murtada then said: "Let`s deal with the second part of the question! Perhaps the conflict is among Muslims, among the states in the region. Sedition!

 

"Afewerki said: "Sedition is being fomented among Muslims, between Muslims and Christians and among ethnicities and tribes. One of the political means of the strategy is to incite sedition. For instance, if a country has tribal, ethnic or sectarian problems the objective is to inflame these problems and to take advantage of the weaknesses in a given country. For instance, establishing the so-called democracy, a democracy which is not in the interest of everyone or of the majority, but a democracy which aims to divide societies and incite sedition; inciting sedition which would lead to confrontation among states and governments in a given region. Military presence strengthens this strategy. There are different political systems, republics, kingdoms, and others. They may be differences in their orientations and in the way they manage their political systems, but there is no justification for conflicts because common interests are achieved through cooperation and co-existence in a given region. If somebody says there is a conflict between Shiites and Sunnis, these are fabrications.

If you follow (celebrated Egyptian journalist) Muhammad Hasanin Haykal`s statements on satellite TVs he speaks about the history of the Arab-Iranian relations, or relations between the Shah and governments in the Arab world! At the time there was no Shiite-Sunni conflict in this region. So where are these conflicts coming from? There may be doctrinal, historical or philosophical differences with regard to this issue, but this existed in the past.

 

"Murtada asked: "The mistake, as your excellency pointed out, is the danger of the Sunni-Shiite sedition. Who is flirting with this danger in your view?

 

"Afewerki said: "It is the Americans, their allies or the US strategy in the region who are flirting with this danger. If the objective is to create and manage crises in this region, what are the factors for creating such crises? We have seen that the justifications which led to intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan have now been proven wrong. Now the only pretext used by the Americans is the danger coming from Iran. Simply, we may not be able to understand complicated issues, but what is the danger represented by Iran in the region? Is there any country which represents a danger to another in this region? What are the causes of such a danger? Is it Iran`s nuclear program? All countries want to have a nuclear program for peaceful purposes for technical and practical reasons. It is the right of any country to look for possibilities to find resources and to rely on a peaceful nuclear energy. Is there a belief that a given state would use nuclear weapons? I can say that this would not happen and it is not realistic. Israel may have nuclear weapons, Iran has a peaceful nuclear program and Arab states -- including Egypt and Gulf states -- want to have nuclear programs, and they cooperate with European states on these programs. The talk about the possibility to use nuclear technology for political and military objectives is a deliberate propaganda which aims to instil fear and heighten tension in the region and to divert attention from the main issues. This is a secondary issue. If there are nuclear dangers and problems why they cannot be solved within the region, among the countries which feel the danger and the concerned party, if Iran has such intentions? They can be solved with other means without resorting to propagating this idea and creating a political problem by instilling fear about Shiite invasion of the region from the Gulf to the Maghreb? How can one believe this? The behavior of some individuals or parties in spreading a specific ideology or religion is unacceptable because it creates instability and incites sedition.

 

"Murtada then asked about relations with Iran: "There is no difference in one religion, there is no difference between Shiites and Sunnis, so why talk about differences? Since you touched on the issue of Iran, let us deal with relations between Tehran and Asmara. What is the nature of these relations? We began to hear that there are Iranian missiles in Eritrea, there are members of the Iranian Revolution Guards in Eritrea, there are Iranian (military) bases in Eritrea?

 

"Afewerki said: "This is a paradox! Some would wonder whether this is a joke or true! How come they say the conflict in the region is between Israel and Iran? According to Israel, the main danger in the region is Iran. How is it possible for both Israel and Iran to have military bases in Eritrea? How can anybody believe this paradox? These are all fabrications. They speak about things that cannot be believed by anybody. I believe that relations between Iran and Eritrea are relatively new. In my opinion relations between the two countries are constructive. However, to speak about these relations as being part of the Iranian danger in the region is a paradox, as I said, based on Israeli-Iranian cooperation for influence in this region through Eritrea. I can tell you that this is part of a strategy and a propaganda to serve this strategy and to incite sedition through fear about a danger coming from somewhere in the region!

 

"Murtada asked: "Your excellency, there is talk that Iranian missiles are probably transferred through Eritrea or Sudan to Palestinians! Also in the beginning Eritrea was mentioned in the issue of the so-called Hezbollah cell in Egypt! What can you say about all of this?

 

"Afewerki replied: "This kind of talk has been circulating for more than a year. Arms from Iran or the Comoro Islands, for instance, through the Red Sea, to Eritrea, from Eritrea to Sudan and from Sudan to Egypt and then through Rafah to the Gaza Strip! How can the Sudanese or Egyptian governments allow weapons to go through their countries? How can Iran send weapons to Gaza through all these territories? In addition, the paradox is that Egypt, with its political stance, strongly opposes the use of its territories as a transit! How did Egypt allow weapons to go through its territory? These are fabrications which aim to tarnish the image and to incite sedition among states by giving the impression that Iran is penetrating the region. That Iran is working to destabilize countries of the region!." 

 

(Description of Source: Tehran Al-Alam Television in Arabic -- IRIB`s 24-hour Arabic news channel, targetting a pan-Arab audience)