The Economist’s War on Eritrea: Truth Denied, Propaganda Served

by @Dahlakib

The Economist’s War on Eritrea: Truth Denied, Propaganda Served

When it comes to Eritrea, The Economist never disappoints in its predictability. Each article follows the same tired formula: portray Eritrea as a failed state, mock its struggles, and erase the historical context of who actually caused its problems. What the magazine publishes is not journalism—it is propaganda crafted to protect old colonial narratives and smear those who resist them.

In its latest piece, The Economist cynically admits that Eritrea was once an “industrial country.” What it fails to mention is who dismantled that industry. During the federation period, the UK deliberately stripped Eritrea of its thriving factories and plants. Entire industries, textiles, ceramics, glass production, breweries, and even automotive assembly were dismantled, sold, or shipped abroad. Later, Haile Selassie’s regime, acting as a loyal puppet, continued the process by centralizing industry into Ethiopia and draining Eritrea of its resources and workforce.

This was not economic mismanagement. It was economic warfare. Eritrea’s industrial strength proved it could stand independently, and that was unacceptable to colonial powers. Yet The Economist hides this story because it undermines the narrative of Eritrea as inherently “backward.”

The magazine ridicules Eritrea for importing “everything, even soap.” But it deliberately omits the reason why. For decades, Eritrea has been one of the most sanctioned nations on earth punished with restrictions imposed illegally and unilaterally by the so-called “industrial countries.” Western sanctions were crafted to cripple Eritrea’s financial system. International banks have been implicitly blackmailed into avoiding Eritrea for fear of U.S. secondary sanctions, and institutions dominated by Washington, such as the IMF and World Bank, are not encouraged to extend favorable loans. For example it is recent memory, how as Wikileaks revealed, when a German banking consortium moved to finance Eritrea’s mining sector, Berlin was pressured to pull back. The German government had extended a $146 million credit guarantee for the Bisha mining project, but under U.S. pressure, it froze support, hoping it will “paralyze the project” altogether. This was not economic mismanagement; it was economic warfare by design, a deliberate attempt to strangle Eritrea into poverty and isolation. Yet, outlets such as The Economist cynically repackage the consequences of this orchestrated strangulation as if they were nothing more than Eritrea’s own “failures.”

Eritrea’s history is one of survival against constant external aggression. Ethiopia, backed for decades by Western powers, waged wars designed to crush Eritrea’s independence. Eritrea stood alone, fought alone, and prevailed alone. But The Economist ignores this resilience because it contradicts its preferred picture of Eritrea as weak and isolated.

Even Washington has admitted its role. Former U.S. President Barack Obama publicly declared that his administration was “helping women and children flee Eritrea to safety in refugee camps.” In reality, this meant fueling mass migration into Ethiopia, Eritrea’s hostile neighbor, while NGOs, Obama’s so-called “friends and allies,” facilitated the process.

This was not humanitarianism. It was soft warfare: draining Eritrea of its youth, fabricating a refugee crisis, and weaponizing it to delegitimize Eritrea internationally. Yet The Economist has never acknowledged this reality, because it does not serve its agenda.

What makes The Economist’s hypocrisy glaring is its selective reporting. Even the magazine has occasionally admitted Ethiopia’s role as an expansionist power destabilizing the Horn of Africa. Yet it drops this truth immediately, shifting its venom back to Eritrea, a nation that has never invaded or occupied others.

This is not balance. This is bias. By downplaying Ethiopia’s aggression and scapegoating Eritrea, The Economist reveals its true role: to defend the aggressor while vilifying the victim.

At its core, Eritrea has not failed but it has resisted. For three decades, it has withstood sanctions, isolation, wars, and smear campaigns. It has refused to surrender its sovereignty in exchange for debt or aid dependency. That is what infuriates The Economist most: Eritrea’s refusal to play the game of dependency.

The real story is not that Eritrea imports soap. The real story is that despite every tool of pressure, military, economic, and propaganda, Eritrea still stands. And it stands independently, with dignity.

Conclusion

The Economist pretends to inform, but in reality, it conceals. It hides the dismantling of Eritrea’s industries, ignores decades of sanctions, covers up Western proxy wars, and silences U.S. admissions of sabotage. Instead, it offers readers a caricature of Eritrea designed to reinforce colonial thinking.

Eritrea’s truth is inconvenient to The Economist. Because while the magazine survives on Western taxpayers and corporate sponsors, Eritrea survives on its own resilience. And that resilience is the one story The Economist cannot tolerate.