Authoritarian regimes maintain various tools to control their population; chief among them being propaganda. A common trick is for their state media to speak with two tongues�one for domestic and another for international consumption. But, in the information age, this trick continues to be challenged. This is one such example. 

Eritrea�s president, Isaias Afwerki gave a two-hour interview to his state media in a local language, Tigrigna. To say he was unhinged again is an understatement: rude, cantankerous, weaving massive conspiracy theories, and blatantly anti-American, the interview was designed for domestic consumption.  When it came time to translate and provide the interview to the English-reading public, the government website, Shabait.com, went through considerable effort to sanitize it: editing, modifying the words and, in one case, completely altering a question to provide a completely opposite meaning of what was intended. http://www.shabait.com/staging/publish/article_004211.html 

In part 3 of the interview, the one that deals with Isaias Afwerki�s interpretation of the elections in Ethiopia and why, in his view, the election was rigged directly by the US State Department, the CIA and other un-named foreigners, Shabait mistranslates a question as follows:

The USA made a statement saying that Eritrea is the cause of the crisis witnessed in Ethiopia, what is the motive behind issuing such statement?

In fact, the question that was asked by the reporter was the exact opposite:

It is said that Eritrea issued a statement accusing the foreign affairs office of the United States [State Department] of being the cause of the chaos in Ethiopia. Can you explain to us the background or other reasons why Eritrea issued the statement? 

We begin right there, with the right question and the un-sanitized version of Mr. Isaias Afwerki�s answers.  We have attempted to translate the interview almost verbatim. It is riches of embarrassments, ill-fitting a head of state: President Jimmy Carter is referred to as �the man called President Carter�; the American Secretary of State may have been referred to as �Mrs. Condollisa [sic] Rice� in the sanitized version of Shabait, but Mr. Isaias Afwerki actually refers to her as �Condoleezza, the one who is their foreign secretary.� Texts that appear in red indicate that there has been no translation: the word or phrase was uttered in English.  Minor words have been inserted in brackets for ease of reading.

Excerpt of the Interview

It is said that Eritrea issued a statement accusing the foreign affairs office of the United States of being the cause of the chaos in Ethiopia. Can you explain to us the background or other reasons why Eritrea issued the statement?

Yes. Now you cannot see the statement in isolation. To us especially, in the way we see things, you always have to be able to see the segments or the pieces inside the bigger picture. This maybe because it came on the scene at that time, but one of the big reasons that led the Weyane [Ethiopian Government] to err was the interference of America.

Maybe you can add the English as an attachment, others may also be found as accessories. But primarily the government that made the Weyane err is the American government. Not only the current administration, but even administrations before it. How could it err? We can finally also talk about the interference of the State Department. This may be linked with [prior] actions; however, if we are to see the big picture, the biggest mistake is the outlook of America.

Historically, [maybe going back to the period] after World War II, Somalia, Eritrea, Libya, were Italian colonies and when they gained independence, why wasn�t Eritrea granted independence? Why did the American interference come about? This was due to the existence of the situation of the Cold War after World War II.   In order to serve the American strategic interest, Ethiopia was chosen as the regional power; the Eritrean people became the victim. After that, we saw the development that followed. We may skip this as a historical mistake. Maybe since Condoleezza, the one who is their foreign secretary, has said �we have made many mistakes in the last sixty years.� On one occasion she said, �We were supporting unbeneficial regimes.� But she didn�t elaborate further.  But if we go back and see it, I consider it one of the mistakes committed in history. It took time but it was solved in 1991.

On the new strategy [of the USA] issued in late 2000, I say, what influenced America�s policies, what made the American government make a mistake,  is a big problem that, to date, not many talk about. Because, when the cold war ended, there came upon the American philosophers an illusion that cannot be realized. Maybe in the end of the eighties, we can say it started in the nineties, when we brought about our independence. With the advent of our independence what were witnessed as changes in our surrounding, maybe is related with the era.

The strategy that was issued in 2000, the strategy of American security, if you read the paper, it is possible to observe what the wrong outlook is based on. [This is] what it is: since the cold war has ended, since our competitor, the Soviet Union has collapsed, America should be able to become a power that no one would able to compete against for the coming fifty years, or for the most part of the 21^st century. There shouldn�t be a rival power to America. Any power. Primarily, military power. Therefore, America�s domination of the entire world should continue.

To me this seems a very, very dangerous path of policy. Maybe it is because [I am] reading it wrong; the end of the cold war in the nineties and situations that followed may have contributed to the mistake.  But this was brewing for ten years and, in ten years, it developed and this strategy was issued. Maybe it is possible for us to say that this is huge and at the moment it doesn�t concern us but we should be able to see the big picture and understand the thinking of the policy-makers of America.

Especially if we come to Africa, the paper mentions that American interests are to succeed via clients. Meaning, dividing Africa into three or four sub-zones, and creating regional powers within those sub- zones and to administer the others through the regional powers. Meaning, in West Africa through Nigeria; in Southern Africa through South Africa; and here in East Africa either through Kenya or Ethiopia.  It is very dangerous. In contrast, what we have been saying is: there is no shame [for America] to protect American interest. And there is no shame in the [American] government working to advance its own interest. Specially a country that has a global influence; a big country with big history and big resources. After the end of the cold war, it is expected of it to contribute hugely or contribute constructively to global security.

But to start off by stating that there should not be another power except me is very dangerous. Further, to think of administering Africa, the whole continent, through and via making the regional powers stronger; [to state] I will administer my interest through them, [is] a dangerous thinking. It is not new; maybe it had also popped up after World War II.  If one asks, �how does it affect us?� it [the answer] is what we have seen yesterday. To make either Weyane or the Kenyan system to be the regional power of our zone, it is no exaggeration if we said that it [the Ethiopian government] has become America�s baby. In igniting the war, in steering the problem, and the various complications, what we have seen throughout the past seven years, and what the American role was, didn�t come abruptly: it is a result of this convoluted thinking.

Weyane�s �I can serve you, I can serve you plates, I can wash your feet� may have helped. But the policy that was initiated from there [USA] is very dangerous and harmful and it has greatly contributed to the complication of this conflict. We have passed through that; we paid what we had to pay. We became sacrificial lamb, we witnessed many difficulties.  No need to say much about what happened following the year of 1998: every body knows what America did to take care of this system [Ethiopia]. And it has been explained [by the Eritrean government] on different occasions.

The most recent case is when the Weyane system was falling into a very dire situation, and it went into the intensive care of America. Maybe England was running errands and embellishing here and there, and maybe others were jockeying about, but the main actor was America. What was the benefit of trying to save this system by putting it inside an intensive care unit? Before the advent of the elections, we have talked about this issue repeatedly. It is wrong. This is not beneficial to the Ethiopian people. It doesn�t help the stability of the surrounding [Horn of Africa]. We are not looking at this from the prism of the border problem. [We said] We are looking further into the future and understand the future problems that will be created because of what you are doing. They did not lend us their ear.

At any rate, it [the issue] of buying the [election] ticket came about.  If the Weyane is to buy a ticket for [the next] five years, it has to have a co-buyer. The main co-buyers of the ticket, one could say, were the representatives of the State Department. We have seen how the elections went.

Talks of democracy, er, so-called free and fair elections and the drum-beating was huge. But in the Ethiopian election of yesterday, the truth was shown. We cannot say we discovered or learned a new thing about the nature of double standards; but it was confirmed yesterday. Everybody knows about the interference of America, the English and others in the elections to bring about a Weyane win. And the Ethiopian people know it very well. The tricks in the counting of the ballot boxes were not the work of the Weyane alone. With all the interference from the outside, with all the tricks of the Weyane, the man called President Carter came strutting and before the outcome was known� when we see this kind of talk, what can you call these matters?

In the end, the elections were concluded. The extent to which not only members of the American embassy in Addis Ababa, but also those that arrived from Washington claiming to be delegated by the government, the problems and interferences they committed to have the problems solved for the Weyane or for the benefit of the Weyane, warrants amazement.

The opposition was victorious; it was known that they were victorious. But the opposition was told, �You don�t have guns; you don�t have troops; you don�t have security institutions.  You cannot assume power, therefore, go and stay only as an appendix.  Tomorrow morning, you try your luck in the elections that will be held after five years.� That could be said and that is what they were told. They pushed and shoved and carried others. It was not Weyane doing this work. It was the State Department authorities with other CIA authorities using many different covers and claiming to be Ethiopians who were working there and running this. This should have been answered with an emphatic �wrong!� but when the powerful screams or talks, the others cannot be heard, regardless of the trumpets they blow.

Trickery was employed; we have all seen it. Repeatedly and repeatedly. American authorities, especially State Department authorities-- be it in Washington or through other governments and clients who are in Europe, or through their clients inside Addis Ababa�[all] in order to kill and choke the power of the opposition.  And, in the end, the efforts to save the Weyane were not hidden and it is not a secret. At the time, yes.  

What tricked the opposition, what threatened the opposition was the interference of the State Department.  We issued a statement stating that. This statement, as I have stated previously, should not be seen in isolation of the bigger picture; it should be seen within the bigger picture. This is one big mistake in the strategic policies of America not only here in our zone but we also see it in other zones. This direction towards hegemony, control and need to manage and administer zones through clients, this thought of America has created big problems in our history.  It is also creating problems for us now, and we say it should be corrected. Perhaps when seen in relation to what was heralded in Ethiopia just yesterday, by pointing to that evidence alone, I don�t think it is difficult to comprehend the extent of this dangerous interference. 

This email address is being protected from spam bots, you need Javascript enabled to view it