Throughout my life, I’ve observed a persistent pattern in Western commentary and among regional actors — Ethiopia foremost among them — of dismissing Eritrea as inconsequential: a nation perpetually “on the brink of collapse,” if not outright extinction. This narrative is recycled by successive administrations with remarkable consistency, as though repetition alone could substitute for evidence. What is most striking is the contradiction embedded in this rhetoric. The same commentators who portray Eritrea as a nation ripe for effortless subjugation preside, administration after administration, over an Ethiopia left more diminished than the one they inherited. The question this invites is unavoidable: if Eritrea is truly of no consequence, why does it command such disproportionate and enduring attention from those who claim to view it as weak? The answer, I’d argue, lies buried beneath the propaganda itself. Eritrea’s significance is not only militarily or potentially economical in the conventional sense, but symbolic — it stands as a case study in sovereignty unbought. Its refusal to be coerced, courted, or absorbed into the patronage networks of external powers sets it apart from Ethiopia and most global south countries, whose recurring instability reflects, in my view, the costs of dependency on Western and Gulf patrons — including the UAE and Israel — in exchange for regional access, leverage, and control.

Interesting how Macron can criticize and threatening free speech, but she newly reflects Pres. of Brazil — Lula says the same thing, he’s a commie. 🤣

F— NO to LANA for UN Secretary-General.

The reduction of liability is baked into the business model of many American companies that provide produce to consumers. Our health while consuming these products are never taken into account.