On November 30, 2024, national media outlets conducted an interview with President Isaias Afwerki, discussing timely and important global, regional, and domestic issues. First part of the interview follows.
* * *
* Mr. President: currently, our world is facing numerous crises and conflicts. The situation in Ukraine, the geopolitical rivalry in the South China Sea, and the ongoing conflicts involving Israel, Hamas, Hezbollah, Iran, and the Houthis are resulting in significant loss of life. Additionally, the circumstances in the Horn of Africa are increasingly alarming, with the civil war in Sudan and internal strife in Ethiopia and Somalia raising serious concerns. In this brief interview, we intend to field questions on global and regional issues as well as domestic matters of greater relevance to our people.
We will begin our interview by addressing significant global and regional issues. The first question pertains to the recent Presidential election in the United States, where President Trump has secured a decisive victory, (after an interlude of four years), for another term. With the inauguration of the new Administration, what potential changes or implications might we expect in the current policies of this superpower and the existing global order?
The United States has historically played a significant role in global affairs, and the return of Donald Trump to power should be examined within this broader context. What was the role of the U.S. following the end of World War, and how has its position evolved in the realm of global politics? What impacts has it had on international relations? In the past three decades, particularly in the post-Cold War era, how have various administrations in Washington sought to establish a unipolar world order? What influence have changes in presidential leadership had on this effort? During his first term, what signals did Trump convey regarding U.S. foreign policy? Looking ahead his Presidency after his re-election, what can we anticipate? Will there be changes, and if so, what type of changes might we expect? It is essential to analyze these questions in relation to past and historical policies.
Let us begin with the concept of “Make America Great Again” (MAGA). This slogan has been prominently featured throughout the election, manifesting in various forms, including symbols on apparel, and has been a cornerstone of Trump’s campaign rhetoric. Essentially, MAGA embodies a commitment to restoring America’s preeminent strength and influence on the global stage. This perspective implicitly acknowledges that the United States is no longer the dominant global power it once was. Trump’s support among many Americans reflects a shared sentiment that the U.S. is no longer the unchallenged leader in international affairs.
What are the primary factors contributing to the decline of American power? Why is it essential to restore that power at this juncture? These questions merit thorough examination. Presently, the United States does not wield the same level of influence it did during and immediately after the Cold War. While it is challenging to generalize, there is a prevailing perception among American elites that resonates with these realities.
Following the conclusion of World War II, U.S. administrations played a dominant role in global affairs during a tumultuous period. For nearly 50 years, the world was marked by intense power rivalry known as the Cold War, whose hallmark was the competition between the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact and the U.S.-led NATO Alliance. Ultimately, the Cold War came to an end with the collapse of the Soviet Union.
This outcome was not solely a result of U.S. strength; rather, it stemmed from the policies of Perestroika and other reforms introduced by Mikhail Gorbachev, alongside strategic miscalculations by Soviet leadership. Consequently, this period is often perceived as a victory for leaders such as Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher.
The end of the Cold War fostered a desire for a unipolar world order, which in turn gave rise to the US notion and predilection of “dominating and conquering the world.” This mindset was accompanied by the belief that no power should compete with the United States in terms of economic, military, or technological capabilities. It can be said that the end of the Cold War led to a misguided perception regarding U.S. global standing. The ambition to impose and consolidate a unipolar system and the aspiration to assume a role as the “global leader and enforcer” resulted in significant miscalculations. As a response, the policy of “containment” emerged, aimed at limiting the influence of those perceived as rivals. Over the past three decades, particularly during the Administrations of Bill Clinton and his successors, U.S. foreign policy has been fundamentally shaped by this principle.
Indeed, the ramifications of this philosophy are evident in ongoing conflicts such as the situation in Ukraine; the tensions surrounding Taiwan; as well as in the various other global disputes which have been fuelled by the desire for increased influence and power. For the past 30 years, this policy has been executed through direct interventions or by utilizing proxies or “Anchors”. The consequences can be assessed in greater detail and on a case by case basis.
Initially, Trump introduced the concept of “Make America Great Again” during his first- term so as to restore America’s dominant and unassailable global power; which had diminished in his perception. He identified China and Russia as the principal rivals of the United States, with China being viewed as the foremost competitor. While Trump believed that relations with Russia could be improved to some extent, he regarded China as the primary challenge to U.S. dominance.
The pronounced intention of imposing tariffs – ranging from 10% to 25% – is rooted in the objective of strengthening America’s position and containing China’s expanding global influence. The details can be further elaborated with accurate statistical figures. In any case, the indisputable fact remains that it is China which has constituted the greatest threat to U.S. preeminence; indeed, the principal cause of America’s loss of power relative to China’s ascendance. One may skim through various statistical data and indices on global ranking of nations. But the fact remains that no nation surpasses China, at this point in time, in economic power. Those who contend otherwise must provide persuasive metrics that establish their claims. The United States is not in a position to compete with China on economic grounds.
When it comes to military power, the question does not revolve around the sheer number of nuclear warheads; this is not the sole determinant of superiority. First, it is essential to define what constitutes military power? Globally, what criteria must a nation meet to be considered as a superpower in terms of influence and dominance? In this context, the economy emerges as a primary factor.
While the United States has historically been seen as a military powerhouse, China’s advancements cannot be overlooked. The notion of a unipolar world, predicated on perceived technological, economic, and military superiority, does not align with the current reality. Since the 1990s, China has significantly enhanced its role on the global stage, making substantial strides economically, technologically, and militarily, as well as increasing its influence across Asia, Africa, Europe, and even within the United States.
Compared to the Chinese economy, the U.S. national debt has soared to approximately $32 trillion, with projections suggesting it could rise to $34 trillion or even $36 trillion. This raises critical questions: Why has this debt escalated to such levels? How did the United States arrive at this point? What factors have contributed to the decline of the world’s former leading economy?
Notably, 25% of this debt is owed to China. This situation emerged from a prevalent assumption in the West that regarded itself as “superior” while underestimating China’s capacity for innovation; viewing it primarily as a nation limited to copying or reverse engineering rather than possessing the endowment and capability for original invention. The perception that China’s labor and energy costs were low prompted many companies to relocate factories offshore in order to capitalize on these perceived operational advantages.
Ultimately, economic strength is measured by production capacity. In this regard, China’s industrial output has grown exponentially, positioning it as the world’s leading economy. Furthermore, China operates without the burden of a national debt. The case of Europecan be discussed later. To revert to the main point and in view of the factors spelled out above, it is evident that America is no longer the preeminent economy globally and has diminished in its status as a superpower.
At the onset of the unipolar global system, Russia was viewed as a significant threat due to its vast geography, technological advancements, and military capabilities. However, this perception has evolved, and the current landscape presents a different reality.
To restore the United States to its previous status as the greatest power, it must regain dominance in the global economy. In this context, the U.S. has sought to counter China’s rising influence through increased tariffs and taxes. The objective is to reclaim lost power, which is likely to involve restricting the entry of Chinese products into the U.S. market. This approach is predicated on and emphasizes bolstering domestic production, both in terms of quantity and quality. Furthermore, the declared intention of applying similar measures to imports from Mexico and Canada, including proposed tariffs of up to 25%, illustrates the extent of volatility in the US economy. These strategies highlight the vulnerability of the U.S. economy, which has increasingly transitioned from being a dominant producer to a consumer market. Consequently, the U.S. is pursuing a protectionist policy aimed at limiting foreign products from entering the domestic market. It can be asked, however, whether such measures are feasible.
The current Administrations in Washington, particularly under President Biden, have faced challenges, and the US economic, technological, and diplomatic stature appear to have diminished in global prominence, revealing signs of weakness.
This situation prompts further and related inquiries: Is NATO a reliable alliance? Is the European Union still strong? What are the underlying dynamics of these alliances? Are they still perceived as sources of support for the United States? These issues warrant critical analysis from various perspectives.
It is not surprising that the challenges currently facing the United States can be traced back to policies implemented over the last 35 years. The concept of MAGA represents a reactive response to lost opportunities and deteriorating conditions. To genuinely restore America’s greatness, it is essential to adopt policies that align with this vision. Presently, existing policies primarily focus on “containment”, as illustrated by the current situation in Europe, where the strategy of containing Russia has taken precedence. However, the landscape has evolved, with the emergence of another more powerful country – that is China. Consequently, the central issue shifts on “the containment of China.”
In this respect, strategies for the “containment of China” have included addressing the situation in Taiwan, fostering new alliances, capitalizing on disputes between China and India, and forming partnerships with countries such as Australia, Japan, South Korea, and the Philippines in the South China Sea. The situation in Taiwan is often cited as a rationale for these containment efforts. Nevertheless, the feasibility of these strategies remains questionable.
The dynamics of economic change and growth in Asia, particularly the collective advancements in countries such as Malaysia, Indonesia, and Vietnam, cannot be overlooked. Additionally, North Korea’s technological progress poses a significant concern. The economic resurgence of Japan and South Korea also raises uncertainties for the United States, as these nations have emerged as strategic economic competitors. Consequently, a pressing issue has become what the future portends even to these alliances.
Implementing the MAGA initiative is not a straightforward or easy task; it requires a nuanced understanding of how to navigate these emerging dynamics effectively. The situation in Europe is similarly precarious, raising critical questions about the extent to which the U.S. can rely on its European Allies. Furthermore, NATO’s role in military, technological and economic dimensions must be reassessed. Many European economies have experienced significant depletion, resulting in reduced capacity to make substantial contributions to collective defense. Despite assertions from economic elites, European nations may lack the economic strength needed to support robust commitments.
The European Union is attempting to expand by incorporating former members of the Warsaw Pact, such as Ukraine and Georgia. This raises further questions about the reliability of U.S. alliances with the EU in promoting the MAGA agenda. Trump has suggested that dependence on NATO may not serve America’s interests, especially given that many NATO member states have not met their financial obligations. His approach towards NATO and Europe, along with its potential ramifications, warrants careful examination on a case-by-case basis.
Though it is not a priority, the situation in Latin America remains a significant topic in its own right. For the US, the primary focus, at the moment, is on Asia, followed by developments in Europe. The issues raised by Trump regarding Canada and Mexico can be viewed as its regional concerns. The historical confrontation between the United States and Latin America can be traced back to the Cold War era, particularly during the crises involving Cuba.
The current landscape across much of South America is marked by instability. One of Washington’s major policies has become the restriction in the flow of migrants, primarily through initiatives such as building barriers and seeking collaborative solutions with South American nations. But these approaches fail to address the root causes and potential remedies for migration. The discourse surrounding migration has become heavily laden with emotional considerations.
US much-diminished production capacity has contributed, so to speak, to a superficial and artificial quality of life. It is no longer a matter of what you earn for the work that you do. The notion of America as a “promised land” drives the mass exodus from Latin America, including Mexico. Indeed, many migrants from Latin America find themselves unable to support their families back home through remittances. The political landscape, combined with manipulation of the migration narrative, has further exacerbated the issue, making it a prominent item on the agenda.
Moreover, domestic challenges in the United States are becoming increasingly pronounced, particularly regarding access to healthcare and other essential services. These issues compound the difficulties faced by both migrants and the broader American populace.
What is expected of Trump in such circumstances? What measures could he implement on a global scale across critical sectors – military, technological, political, diplomatic, and, above all, economic? What position might he adopt regarding Europe? What actions could he pursue concerning the ongoing crisis in Ukraine? How will he handle relations with Putin? In which areas might they find opportunities for collaboration? What new proposals can they develop together?
These questions are numerous and complex. Therefore, it is essential to reference historical contexts to analyze whether Trump, following his significant electoral victory, can bring about meaningful change. The challenge of making America great again is substantial. What responses or outcomes might arise from Trump’s efforts to implement the MAGA agenda?
The international landscape is not a “one-player game.” How might other nations react? What position will China take? What is Russia’s trajectory amid its current circumstances? How will Europe respond? Additionally, how will key players in Asia—such as India, Pakistan, South Korea, Japan, and Australia—react? What does the future hold for Latin America?
One has to put all these factors into consideration to have a clear image. Can the attempt to revive the previously unsuccessful unipolar world order succeed after 30 years since its inception? How much support can this concept garner? Were the foundational pillars of the unipolar world system effective, and where are they currently headed? What changes may emerge from these shifts? These pivotal questions necessitate thorough exploration. Trump’s initiatives could potentially come to new developments, but the critical concern is where these efforts will ultimately lead?
Today, there is a widespread demand for a new global order—one that is not dictated by one or two superpowers, but rather an order that is just, fair, and inclusive. A multipolar world system is one possible approach; however, the concept of multipolarity itself requires further clarity. What constitutes this new global order? Various forums are emerging, such as BRICS, alongside numerous initiatives and attempts to reshape international relations. These efforts reflect aspirations for change, yet they also raise questions about whether this new global system can offer a coherent vision and a clear roadmap for the future. Is it truly inclusive and successful?
Given the current global situation, what is the impact of Trump’s re-election? What short-term and long-term changes could he implement? The potential trends cannot be deciphered by throwing a dice or a speculative mind-set. Still, there are indications from his first term that can guide our understanding. Even now, he is providing hints that shed light on his potential approaches. How can he effectively address pressing issues while navigating significant challenges? While it is possible to speculate and envision various scenarios, now is not the time to draw definitive conclusions. Ultimately, what matters is how we prepare to confront all potential outcomes so as to address the challenges effectively.
Africa is often marginalized and overlooked in discussions surrounding global issues. However, it is important to consider our own region and how Trump’s policies might affect it. What potential policies could he implement regarding our region, and what impact might they have? This topic is broad and intricate, leaving many questions unanswered. On our part, any meaningful discussion or analysis requires a comprehensive and detailed perspective to provide a clear understanding of the situation. This is a challenging task, but it is essential for drafting and implementing effective policies. Addressing any issue necessitates a proper framework and a thorough understanding of the underlying dynamics at play. The points raised here serve as indicators that can help tackle major challenges. US Domestic issues, too, warrant in-depth examination.
What has Biden been communicating, and what about Harris? Their discussions have often centered on minor or trivial issues. Were these truly the most pressing topics? Could they not address more significant issues relevant to America and the American people? Is this a challenge they can overcome?
As we consider what Trump might do upon assuming office again, it is essential to approach the situation with critical analysis and caution. This is not a new topic for us. We had indeed undertaken similar exercises and initiatives when Trump took office during his first Presidential term. We explored what the possibilities were and what our policies of engagement should be? We are aware and recognize that we must avoid a self-centered perspective and instead consider the broader context. In the initial years of Trump’s Administration, there was an expectation of a shift in U.S. policy. Unfortunately, that policy remained largely unchanged, and hostilities and sanctions against Eritrea continued without any concrete improvement throughout his term.
Where do we stand at this moment? It is imperative that we conduct a thorough analysis and full appraisal, and be ready engagement by develop appropriate working documents. We cannot simply wait and hope for favorable outcomes.
What is expected of us now? How do we engage in the context of various possible developments and scenarios? We must be fully prepared for these tasks. And as the current year is coming to an end, we can confidently say that we have done our homework and are looking forward to what may unfold.
To be Continued. . .
