Providing key insights into current affairs, President Isaias Afwerki sat down with national media outlets on July 19, 2025. The wide-ranging first part interview delved into timely global and regional issues. Excerpts of the first part of Saturday’s interview follow.
* * *
Mr. President, thank you for giving us this opportunity. We begin this interview at a critical time, following the 2025 Independence Day celebrations, during which you emphasized the importance of approaching the nation-building process with clarity, relevance, and strategic focus. You also touched on the significance of maintaining attention and commitment, particularly with respect to internal affairs. Given the sensitive developments unfolding both within our region and beyond, we have structured this interview to address global, regional, and national dimensions in sequence.
For nearly six decades, both the EPLF and the Government of Eritrea have consistently championed the cause of a just, peaceful, and inclusive international order where all nations and peoples are treated equally and with dignity. Yet today, the world bears witness to grave consequences of a global system dominated by coercion, marginalization, and power politics. In light of recent and deeply troubling international developments – particularly those occurring in our region – how do you assess the current trajectory of global affairs?
President: The topic can certainly be narrowed or expanded in accordance with one’s prism and how it is framed.
As we know, the unipolar global order emerged at the end of the Cold War, which spanned almost fifty years until the early 1990s. Over those decades, numerous developments unfolded, ultimately heralding the emergence of a new world order. This was supposedly based on the dominance of a single camp in the aftermath of the Cold War; the end, so to speak, of the rivalry between the Soviet Union and the US-led Western block; with the eventual disintegration and weakening of the Soviet Union. This notion was avidly promoted across various domains: ideologically, in the media through propaganda, and in diplomatic and political narratives.
The historical ramifications of these phases to all the peoples of the world cannot be underrated. How do we relate the wider dynamics of the two world camps to our own history? Indeed, when World War II ended, the people of Eritrea should have gained their independence as was the case with other colonized peoples. But geopolitical considerations enunciated by Foster Dallas and his ilk prevailed to shape and determine the course of events in total disregard of the rights of the Eritrean people. There were similar decisions that affected other countries and peoples too. The problems that are besetting the Middle East in this period can be traced back to those decisions.
Naturally, all nations crave for peace. All peoples want to develop their resources, to live in mutually beneficial partnerships. This is a universal demand. But the ideologies and politics of the Cold War were antithetical to these rights. And in very broad terms, the two blocs represented different ideological perspectives and interests.
We, in Eritrea, were not passive spectators. We lived through it. We paid the price. We endured the violence, the hardship, and the sacrifices required to defend our rights, our freedom, and our sovereignty.
For us, the Cold War era was an everyday reality. And then, by what may appear to be a historical coincidence, the Cold War came to an end in the early 1990s just as Eritrea achieved its independence after fifty years of struggle. But this coincidence did not erase the ideological memories and legacies that still persist and shape how the world functions today. The fundamental demands of justice, peace, equality, and the rule of law remained unchanged. And so, when we entered a post-Cold War era that coincided with our independence, we began asking: what could this new world order portend? What ideologies would it espouse?
There were expectations for the emergence of a better international governance structure. But the collapse of the Soviet Union sent a wrong signal and bred misguided policies. The fragmentation of the Soviet Union was not the result of US-led Western triumph. It was largely caused by internal crises within the Soviet system. New reformist ideas came forth, Perestroika, for example. The ensuing internal contradictions caused the Soviet Union to fall apart. This historical reality has led to a range of dynamics that continue to shape the world today.
What followed, in the aftermath of the Cold War, was a growing sense of triumphalism in the US and EU-led NATO bloc whose hallmark was the dominant narrative of the inevitable prevalence of a unipolar world order. But this notion was based on a fundamental miscalculation. The post-Cold War dynamics was not the outcome of, or testament to, the inherent strength or legitimacy of the Western bloc. Nevertheless, the attitudes born from that sense of victory have dictated global policy for the past thirty years. But did these policies and strategies deliver as expected?
The answer is no. Because these policies did not represent the ideals of justice, freedom, progress, and the independence of peoples. In fact, if we examine what has unfolded across different regions of the world, we see the consequences of this misguided approach.
Unbridled dominance in a unipolar global order is predicated on unchallenged expansion of one’s spheres of influence. It requires the ability to exploit and extract the resources of other nations systematically. But in practice, it is organized plunder. It is domination. It means exerting control against the will of peoples and nations. It means expanding influence not through mutual respect, but through coercion. This was manifested in various regions: across the Middle East, Africa, Asia, Latin America, even within Europe itself, and North America. This ostensible expansion of influence has in fact been purely a drive for control. This was the logic that came to define the unipolar order.
Now, if we examine these trends in the context of our region, what have we witnessed over the past 30 years after our hard-won independence? It is possible to examine these years in greater detail. More importantly, we must view this period not in isolation, but in relation to the 50 years of struggle that preceded it. We lived through and learned hard lessons during the bipolar Cold War era. We emerged with certain strength, with clarity and experience that focused on rebuilding and developing. Then came the ideology of the unipolar global architecture, accompanied by new forms of political and ideological pressure, new strategies of containment and interference. What wounds did this period inflict on us? What obstacles did it place in our path? These are not abstract questions.
Over the past 30 years, viewed alongside our own regional context, the global landscape has been marked by increasing instability; by upheavals, violence, and a renewed scramble for influence, particularly in strategic regions. Instead of replacing the old ideologies of the Cold War, these developments intensified them. If we analyze the policies of successive US administrations – from Clinton to Bush, Obama, and beyond – what patterns emerged? We can also look at European policies and their alignment with this so-called unipolar vision. What role did NATO play in this period? How did it evolve? What was the role of the European Union, and how did its ambitions take shape?
And what happened in Asia? How did new powers emerge? How did China rise to its current position? All of these dynamics and global changes can be understood in the context of the flawed assumptions that defined the unipolar order. The dream of uncontested power has resulted in 30 years of loss and escalating crises. This loss stems from a failure to create the conditions for a truly new and viable world order after the Cold War.
Looking now at the shifts taking place within the US administration and other Western powers, it’s fair to say that we are on the cusp of a global transition. The unipolar global order is beginning to unravel. How should we interpret this unfolding moment? It must be understood in depth and with much clarity.
If we focus on the main protagonists over the past 30 years – on those who attempted to enforce unipolarity – we find significant internal flaws. Indeed, the Western bloc, led by the United States, has shown considerable weaknesses. Is NATO still relevant? One could argue that it exists, but what impact does it actually have? What legacy have its policies left in different parts of the world? What about the European Union? Yes, it continues to exist institutionally. But again: on what terms? Has it upheld the ideals it once claimed would underpin the unipolar world order?
These questions underscore the current state of flux. We are witnessing a global transition – a reality that we must read and analyse very carefully.
If we look at the US, as the preeminent power within the unipolar order, what have its policies yielded over the past three decades including in the current period?
The new Trump Administration has now shaken up and overhauled many of the core assumptions of previous US foreign and economic policies. While we could examine each topic in specific detail, what is perhaps more relevant is to gauge whether the very foundations needed to build a coherent and enduring unipolar system have materialized. The short answer is, they have not. Indeed, the new approach enunciated by President Trump under the mantra of “Make America Great Again” corroborates this very fact. The indications are that the policies of maintaining unrivalled global economic supremacy by controlling and exploiting the world’s resources have not materialized.
If we consider economic data, the United States is not the undisputed global leader. The imposition of tariffs and the mounting national debt are symptomatic of a weakening position. In terms of industrial growth, access to global resources, and economic influence, the US no longer holds first place. Even in the realm of technology, often touted as America’s greatest strength, the claim to being unmatched is no longer valid. The technological supremacy of the United States is being increasingly contested. As for military power, what is the actual strength of the West today, even before factoring in the capabilities of rising powers like China and Russia?
The crisis in Ukraine better accentuates this reality. A close, detailed analysis of the military developments in Ukraine reveals the true face of global alignments and the unresolved ideological legacies of the Cold War. The very ideology that underpinned the unipolar order – one of dominance, technological superiority, and military primacy – has shaped the conflict in Ukraine. The rivalry of Cold War ended with the disintegration of the Soviet Union, but Russia has continued to be perceived as a strategic threat to Western dominance. As a result, the concept of “containment” was created and put into practice. The West’s aim has been to ensure that no rival – the Soviet Union then, and Russia now – could match it in military, economic, or technological terms. The crisis in Ukraine stems from this very doctrine and is a direct consequence of those long-standing policies. One can debate the status of Crimea, or the legal boundaries of sovereign territories, but at its core, Ukraine has become the battlefield of competing ideologies.
If it is claimed that Ukraine is fighting Russia alone, the question arises: by what means? Where is the money coming from, not just billions, but trillions? Who is actually financing this war? These are clearly not Ukrainian resources. Whose weapons are on the battlefield and whose military technologies are, day by day, continuing to be deployed and tested? Far from a merely local or regional conflict, this is a confrontation between NATO, or the broader US-led West, and Russia. In response, Russia is forging its own alliances, recalibrating its strategies, and asserting its position in this global struggle.
So, if we take Ukraine as one case study of the general global situation, we begin to see the cracks in the post- Cold War ideology. Continuously, policies are shifting under the guise of diplomacy, peace talks, or signing of ceasefire agreements, all of which are but carried out as instruments of public relations messaging. The deeper reality is one of structural failure as the policies designed to enforce unipolar dominance have not succeeded, and are increasingly unenforceable.
Take NATO, for instance. Why has the United States been covering 80% of NATO’s budget? The losses to the US economy, to its global standing, and to its technological power are extensive. Elon Musk came along and he was entrusted with the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). The objective was to review US expenditure policy so as reduce the burden on the national budget. This is just one manifestation of the deeper weaknesses. As a result, NATO countries are expected to raise their defence budgets to 4%, 5%, or even 6%. Why? Because the responsibility the US has been shouldering alone cannot continue indefinitely.
Can NATO countries sustain these obligations? They can issue declarations promising to allocate 5% of their gross domestic product, but beyond those declarations, do they even have the capacity to finance the war in Ukraine? If weapons are to be supplied, they are expected to purchase them from the US for delivery to Ukraine. All these details merit deeper analysis, supported by concrete data. In the event, these facts underscore the trajectory of the transitional period set in motion.
Let us revert now to the other major actors besides the US. What is China’s position? What were the perspectives on China by key US policy architects? The original postulate was to “contain Russia first”. But this policy did not only fail to weaken Russia but it provided an opportunity to China. As it happened, China has grown stronger economically, militarily, technologically, as well as in terms of influence. Globally speaking, it can even be said that China holds a leading position.
The US is now mulling, in the face of a weakened Europe, various policy options that attempt to recalibrate its global standing, beyond the regions of Latin America, Africa, and Asia. In this context, what is the role of China? It is maintaining a low profile but is fully aligned with Russia. North Korea is also in the mix, but what exactly is it doing, and what can it implement? As for China, its choices in this context are clear. For anyone observing, whether from a distance or up close, the challenge that China poses to the US is significant; considering China’s financial ties to, and huge debt owed by the US, its economic presence across the world, its military capacity, as well as its technological advancement.
The emerging policy within the US administrations – also contemplated by key policy pundits – revolves on focussing on China as the primary threat. In this scenario, Russia is considered as the second major threat. So how do you “contain” China in a discreet manner without much publicity? And how do you handle Russia in the context of this new policy approach? How do you formulate a calibrated approach to both countries?
There are those in the current US Administration who seem to ponder the possibility of neutralizing Russia by cultivating close alliance with it so as to confront China? But others argue for tackling both threats simultaneously. There are countless power centres and lobbyists who are pushing for these distinct policy options.
Another critical dimension that we need to consider is the triangulation between the US, China, and Russia. In the first place, all are members of the Security Council and enjoy considerable global influence. A close look at the global map reveals the respective power balance at play in terms of economic, military and technological influence. From the foregoing, it is indeed clear that the balance of power is shifting.
The pressing question now is: are actions being taken to accelerate this transition?
We may be witnessing the final hour of this Western-led experiment. The hope to make up for lost opportunities or achieve long-held ambitions through a unipolar world order is no longer feasible. It was always unrealistic. The consequences and dangers, especially to the very architects of that order, are now becoming increasingly visible. The bigger issue now is finding a replacement. The old order cannot continue. Nor has it delivered on the global aspirations of justice, development, peace, or stability for the world’s peoples.
But where are we heading now? Are we truly capable of building a new world order? There seems to be a great deal of public relations activities: BRICS Summits, High-Level Meetings, diplomatic overtures. etc. These PR moments are multiplying. But beyond the headlines, we must ask: Is there a clear and coherent roadmap for a new world order?
To begin with, we must understand that the idea of a new world order, in all its dimensions, must rest on principles that categorically reject economic exploitation and coercion. Such an order should be grounded on mutual cooperation, voluntary solidarity, respect for international law, and, above all, the sovereignty and independence of States. Yet, what we often encounter today are grand headlines and high-sounding declarations. We see summits held in various parts of the world, attended by so-called influential States and leaders. But when we look beneath the surface, much of it is merely public relations. It is not underpinned by any real substance or strategic roadmap. This is, unfortunately, the current pattern of conduct among many of the global powers.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Now, when we shift focus from these dominant players to the smaller/weaker nations, particularly those in Africa, Latin America, and large parts of Asia, we find that these regions which possess the bulk of the world’s natural resources remain marginalized. Ironically, it is precisely their wealth in natural resources that has made them attractive for powerful actors. Never as equal partners, only as zones of exploitation.
If we were to evaluate the actions and policies of each of the major players towards these continents, we would find little in the way of a clear, coordinated roadmap toward a just global order. There may be ideas or isolated policies that hint at a future world order, policies that might evolve over time, but is there a genuine guiding framework? These and similar questions must arise from beyond the public relations spectacle. Change will take time. But these key questions must be addressed and implemented.
At the very least, what is the current condition of the marginalized continents and peoples? If we examine them one by one, the challenge becomes quite clear. Instead of focusing only on the big actors or continental politics, what messages do we give to Africans, for instance? What should we do collectively in concrete terms in order to sensitize the African peoples that a new world order is coming and Africa is part of it?
The critical question now is not what the major powers – the US, Europe, Russia and China – are doing. But rather, what we are doing.
This transitional stage may take time. The development of the details that will shape a new world order may unfold gradually, but it demands everyone’s participation. Above all, we cannot say that the awareness and strength of the marginalized continents and peoples have today reached a level to make them effective actors. In this sense, we cannot ascertain that a transformation is underway where these actors are in a position to truly participate in the process in a sustainably and meaningfully way. As of now, things remain blurred. The transition is unclear because there is no comprehensive framework or shared strategic vision to guide it. But one thing is certain: the global order as it exists now is not sustainable.
That said, this is not about the ideology of a few philosophers or think tanks. This is about the fundamental desires of the world’s peoples: the desire to live in peace; the desire to live free from plunder and domination; the desire to cooperate, complement, and coexist with others. These are not radical or new demands. They are natural. They are not subject to ideological preferences. As long as there is violence, as long as the rule of law is breached, as long as looting persists, opposing such an order is not the sole prerogative of one or two peoples. It is the collective desire of all peoples, and it exists as a driving force. But if we are to move toward a genuine transformation that reflects these aspirations, then that transformation must be real, practical, and inclusive. We cannot speak of change and simply leave it to future generations. We must take ownership of this process today.
This is not a theoretical issue for us in Eritrea. Our people have endured a long liberation struggle. We have lived through decades of shifting global dynamics. We know the terrain. We know the forces at play. And we know that we cannot afford to remain passive or disconnected from the global discourse. Therefore, while we focus on our national priorities, we must also forge strong collaborations–with like-minded nations, within Africa, and within our immediate region. The challenge is not only global but also regional and local. And the solutions must be built step-by-step, anchored in real experience, and commitment.
That is where the details lie.
This, then, is how the transition stage can be described.