The Trade-off for Eritrea

Isolationism is a big buzz word when it comes to international relations, as is dependency. When talking about developing countries, it seems as if these two concepts work as mutually exclusive events. If a country does not want to be completely dependent on richer countries for aid and support, then they must close down their borders.

Eritrea is one such country. This year alone, it has rejected over $200 million in food aid and loans. This East African nation has had the same leader since independence in 1993, Isaias Afwerki, who spearheads their isolationist stance.

Afwerki's words are very inspiring, and he talks of making his country "stand on its own two feet." Afwerki, in a LA Times interview, explained his policies by saying:

Self-reliance is perceived as isolationist. But self-reliance is a means, not an end. It's a means of taking you to the bigger market and the biggest markets. How can I do that with handouts?

The results of these policies are mixed. Eritrea provides free education and health care, and it has higher scores on health indicators than most countries. But Afwerki has jailed people opposing him and restricted religion. He has canceled elections twice and has called those he jailed "crooks" and Eritrea's liberal constitution only a "paper."

Eritrea is a perfect example of the trade-offs between isolationism and opened borders. Although Afwerki may be trying to decrease their dependency on foreign aid and hegemonic powers, he is cutting them off from the rest of the world. By leaving no room for opposition or outside influence, he is stifling the country, economically and socially. Eritrea's growth rate is 2% annually, ranked 179 out of 205.

The international community does not help to make a distinction from "self-reliance" and "isolationist" that Afwerki talks about. If a country refuses aid, or neglects to remove tariffs, it is branded "isolationist" or "totalitarian", and their rulers are seen as insane. There are obvious civil rights abuses in Eritrea and countries similar to it (like North Korea), but that does not mean isolationist policies are inherently bad. There also doesn't have to be such a wide discrepancy between the extremes of dependency and isolationist. There can be a middle ground, with some protection and some free trade.

With some amount of protection, countries can develop their own domestic markets and eventually "stand on their own two feet." After this, they can actively participate in the global economy. Third World countries will never break away from the cycle of aid unless they start to develop themselves. As Afwerki says: "You can't keep these people living on handouts because that doesn't change their lives."