Eritrea Celebrates — but Its President Is Somewhere Else

I. A Preface of Reluctance and Recognition

For more than two decades, I avoided President Isaias Afwerki’s speeches. They were predictable, monotonous, and devoid of substance — exercises in tedium that tested the limits of my patience. His demeanor, too, has always unsettled me: the way he talks, the way he walks, the way he carries himself. He embodies much of what has gone wrong in Eritrea—a ruler who hardened his heart, burdened his people, and made the land groan beneath the weight of his reign (Bible). When a ruler ages without humility, his rule hardens into oppression (Quran).

There are people within the regime I would have gladly met, shared a drink with, or debated over a meal. Isaias is not one of them. I am genuinely grateful I never had the misfortune of shaking his hand.

This year, however, I read his Independence Day address—thanks to the English translation posted on Shabait. It confirmed everything I have long believed. What follows is not merely a critique of a speech but an examination of what it reveals about Eritrea’s political decay and the worldview of the man who has presided over it.

II. A Speech About Everything Except Eritrea

Eritrea marked its 35th independence anniversary—a moment that should have invited national reflection, gratitude, and sober assessment. Instead, Isaias delivered a 4,800‑word address in which barely one eighth acknowledged the occasion. More than half drifted into a rambling meditation on U.S. politics, Donald Trump, global debt, Venezuela, Iran, and the supposed unraveling of the international order.

It was, in essence, a speech about everything except Eritrea.

Anniversaries are mirrors. They reveal not only where a nation stands but also where its leaders believe themselves to be. This year’s address exposed a president increasingly detached from the lived realities of our people and absorbed in a grand geopolitical narrative that has little bearing on Eritrea’s urgent needs.

III. The Hollow Ritual of Celebration

Of the nearly five thousand words delivered in Asmera, only 620 — roughly 12 percent — were dedicated to the independence anniversary itself. These were the familiar refrains: the valor of the martyrs (true to the adage ሓበሻን ደርሆን ምስ ሞቱ ይኸብሩ), the resilience of the people, and the sanctity of sovereignty. Ceremonial, interchangeable, and devoid of introspection.

The rest fell into two categories:

• about 32 percent touched on Eritrea in vague, repetitive terms
• a full 55 percent had nothing to do with Eritrea at all

Isaias is correct that Independence Day is a measure of national trajectory. But he is profoundly wrong to frame it through “the additional sacrifices made in the last 35 years to confront persistent hostilities and subterfuges.” Those “sacrifices” were not imposed on Eritrea — they were manufactured by his own misguided policies, military adventurism, and unnecessary regional interventions stretching from Ethiopia to Sudan, South Sudan, Somalia, and even the Congo.

Even the UN and U.S. sanctions imposed on Eritrea were direct consequences of these reckless choices. They had nothing — absolutely nothing — to do with Eritrea’s urgent and long‑delayed need for nation‑building, institutional development, and economic reconstruction.

Every diversion of resources, every diplomatic crisis, and every episode of self‑inflicted isolation was a choice—his choice—and Eritrea has paid the price in lost decades, lost opportunities, and lost generations.

IV. A Nation Abandoned by Its Leadership

The task of national development should have been the government’s sole preoccupation. Instead, Eritrea was dragged into conflicts that had nothing to do with its national interest. Isaias and his small circle of enablers — men who have ruled the country by fiat and fear — are responsible for every dimension of the national malaise our people endure today.

The economic stagnation, the institutional vacuum, the mass exodus of youth, the suffocation of civic life, and the erosion of national confidence are not accidents of history. They are the direct consequences of decisions made by a leadership that has consistently placed its own survival above the well‑being of the nation.

When Isaias says, “We must reflect on where we stood yesterday, where we stand today, and what the future will hold,” he is right—and the record is damning. His 35‑year tenure makes him one of the most inept, incompetent, and delusional autocrats in modern African history. A 35‑year rule by a single man should be unacceptable to any Eritrean, even if that leader were competent or benevolent. To endure such unbroken, unaccountable power under a leader whose record is catastrophic is an indictment not of the people, but of the system he built to suppress them.

Most of us know this truth because we have lived it for decades. This year’s speech made the disconnect undeniable. And if further proof were needed, the fact that more than ten percent of the population has fled—voting with their feet—reveals just how unbearable and hopeless life has become. No people abandon their homeland in such numbers unless the state has failed them at the most fundamental level. A few days ago, I spoke with a pro‑Isaias Eritrean who, without prompting, admitted that he is doing everything he can to get his own nephews out of the country because, as he put it, “You and I both know there is no future for young people in Eritrea.” His private admission exposes what many regime supporters will never say publicly: even those who defend the system understand, deep down, that it has nothing to offer the next generation.

V. Avoidance Masquerading as Analysis

Instead of addressing…

• the indefinite national service and the endless wars it has fueled
• the mass exodus of youth and unprecedented incarcerations
• the economic stagnation and Eritrea’s deepening isolation
• the absence of institutions, constitutional governance, and rule of law
• the suffocation of civic life and pervasive human rights violations

The president chose to analyze the internal contradictions of American power.

This is not leadership. It is avoidance — a deliberate refusal to confront the crises he created and the suffering he continues to impose on the nation.

VI. The World According to Isaias

The speech is more than a political address; it is a psychological document. It reveals the architecture of Isaias Afwerki’s worldview—how he interprets power, history, and the forces shaping the international system.

Two themes dominate.

1. A Fragmented, Outdated Understanding of Global Order

Isaias follows global events, but his understanding is fragmented, selective, and unmoored from institutional realities. He sees:

• events, not systems
• personalities, not institutions
• decline, not adaptation
• conspiracies, not complexity

His worldview is stuck in the ideological frameworks of the 1960s and 1970s—a liberation-era lens applied to a 21st-century world.

2. A Personalized, Psychological Interpretation of Global Politics

More than half the speech is devoted to the United States — not as a complex system of institutions, but as a single actor whose fate hinges on the will of one man. Donald Trump is treated as a world-historical force capable of reshaping global destiny.

This mirrors how Isaias governs Eritrea: through personal networks, not institutions; through informal channels, not formal structures.

It also explains his hostility to democracy and his hope that Trump — a man known for indulging strongmen — might reshape the global order in ways that validate his own authoritarian instincts. Isaias sees himself as one of a select few “statesmen,” cursed only by the misfortune of ruling a poor and underdeveloped country. What he fails to grasp is that the American system does not bend to the will of any single leader. Whether Democrats regain control of the Senate or the House, or the Republican Party makes the Grand Old Party great again, the structural checks of the U.S. political system will constrain Trump’s power after the coming midterm elections, leaving him a weakened and largely ineffective president. In other words, the very outcome Isaias is betting on—a United States remade in the image of strongmen—is the least likely scenario in a constitutional republic designed to limit precisely that kind of overreach. Trump, like all his predecessors in their second term, will find himself governing as a lame duck—constrained by time, politics, and the structural limits of the office.

But this self‑image collapses under scrutiny. Isaias is not in the league of Lee Kuan Yew, Ólafur Ragnar Grímsson, Seretse Khama, or José Mujica — leaders who combined moral authority with institutional vision. He belongs instead to the lineage of mediocre and ruthless autocrats: Pol Pot, Francisco Solano López, Francisco Macías Nguema, and Enver Hoxha—men defined by paranoia, isolation, and the systematic destruction of their societies.

VII. A Nation Held Hostage by One Man’s Obsessions

Isaias’s fixation on the United States is not strategic; it is psychological. He externalizes Eritrea’s challenges, framing them as consequences of global injustice rather than domestic governance. This allows him to argue—implicitly—that Eritrea’s stagnation is not a failure of leadership but a symptom of global turbulence.

It is a convenient narrative. It is also a dangerous one.

VIII. The Consequences for Eritrea

The implications are stark:

1. Eritrea is not preparing for transition. There is no sign of institutional strengthening or political opening.
2. Domestic reform is unlikely. If global forces are blamed for national failures, reform becomes unnecessary.
3. Foreign policy will remain personality‑driven. Diplomacy will continue to depend on personal relationships, not institutions.
4. Eritrea will remain outside regional structures. His distrust of institutions is ideological, not tactical.

Meanwhile, Eritrea has lost more than 10 percent of its population — particularly its youth. No nation can survive such hemorrhaging.

IX. The Consequences for U.S.–Eritrea Relations

I have long argued for U.S.–Eritrea re‑engagement and the lifting of sanctions. But I have always questioned whether a regime that prioritizes its own survival over national interest would reciprocate.

This year’s speech answers that question.

There was no mention of reopening embassies, addressing sanctions, engaging on human rights, reconciliation among Eritreans, implementation of the ratified constitution, or establishing institutional channels. Instead, Isaias offered a lecture on American decline—without distinguishing between absolute and relative power, a basic analytical distinction any serious observer must grasp.

The truth is simple: no country or region comes close to competing with the United States across the full spectrum of power — military, economic, technological, financial, diplomatic, and cultural — in the foreseeable future. Powers are like great trees: they take a long time to grow, and an even longer time to fall. To pretend otherwise is not analysis; it is bluster. And bluster has long been the currency of his politics. History shows that the United States, like all great powers before it, will one day decline—but certainly not in Isaias’ lifetime.

X. The Silence That Speaks Loudest

The tragedy of this year’s Independence Day address lies not in what was said, but in what was left unsaid.

A nation that has endured hardship, sacrifice, and extraordinary resilience deserved honest reflection and forward‑looking leadership. Instead, it received a speech about the anxieties of a distant superpower—and even that critique was misguided. For all its imperfections, the United States has been, by any historical measure, the power that has contributed the most good to the world and to humanity. I say this not as an outsider looking in but as someone who is as proudly American as I am Eritrean—a dual identity that sharpens, rather than blurs, my understanding of global power and national responsibility.

Eritrea’s 35th anniversary should have been an affirmation of national purpose. It became, instead, a reminder of how far the country’s leadership has drifted from the people it claims to represent.

If there is any shred of patriotism left in Isaias, he must focus on power transition. He has nothing left to offer. The most meaningful contribution he can make now is to step aside and allow Eritrea the chance to breathe, rebuild, and reclaim its future. In the words of Scripture, “Better a poor but wise youth than an old but foolish king who no longer knows how to take warning.” And as the Qur’an affirms, “God does not change the condition of a people until they change what is within themselves.”

We, Eritreans, must now change our condition — not in sentiment but in action — and take our country back. The time has come to envision an Eritrea without Isaias and without the regime that has suffocated its promise for three decades.

To contact the author: weriz@yahoo.com