Sovereignty Cannot Be Borrowed

For generations, African nations fought to remove colonial flags from their capitals.

They fought for the right to govern themselves, write their own laws, and determine their own futures.

Yet political independence is only one form of freedom.

The harder question is this:

Can a nation truly be sovereign if its economy depends on foreign lenders?

It is a question that few governments are willing to ask.

One African nation, however, chose a different path.

Eritrea.

Since joining the International Monetary Fund (IMF) in 1994, Eritrea has never taken an IMF loan. It remains one of only a handful of African countries to have avoided IMF borrowing altogether.

Whether one views that decision as wise or misguided, it represents a fundamentally different philosophy of nationhood.

───

Debt Comes With Conditions

No loan is free.

Individuals understand this instinctively.

When you borrow money, you accept obligations.

For nations, those obligations can be far more significant.

IMF lending programs are often accompanied by policy requirements. Governments may be asked to restructure public spending, adjust exchange rates, reform tax systems, privatize state enterprises, or implement other economic changes. Supporters argue these reforms help stabilize economies. Critics argue they can reduce a nation's ability to chart its own economic course.

That debate has existed for decades.

But regardless of where one stands, one fact remains:

Debt creates influence.

And influence shapes decisions.

───

Eritrea Chose Self-Reliance

Rather than relying on IMF financing, Eritrea has consistently emphasized self-reliance as a cornerstone of its national policy.

That decision has not come without costs.

The country has faced sanctions, isolation, limited foreign investment, infrastructure challenges, and significant economic hardship.

Choosing independence does not guarantee prosperity.

Sometimes it requires sacrifice.

But from the Eritrean government's perspective, those sacrifices have been viewed as preferable to becoming financially dependent on institutions outside the country.

That choice has made Eritrea one of the few African nations to avoid IMF borrowing entirely.

───

Independence Has More Than One Meaning

Most people think of sovereignty in military or political terms.

A country has its own borders.

Its own flag.

Its own government.

Its own constitution.

But economic sovereignty is equally important.

If a nation cannot make major economic decisions without considering the expectations of creditors, is its independence fully its own?

Some would answer yes.

Others would answer no.

The question deserves honest discussion.

───

The Cost of Saying "No"

It is easy to accept assistance.

It is much harder to reject it.

Choosing self-financing often means slower development, tighter budgets, and difficult compromises.

It demands patience from both leaders and citizens.

For Eritrea, that has meant accepting years of criticism while maintaining a commitment to avoiding IMF debt.

Whether history ultimately judges that strategy as successful remains an open question.

But it is undeniably a rare one.

───

A Different Vision of Sovereignty

At Red Sea Round Table, we believe sovereignty extends beyond borders and elections.

It includes the ability of a nation to determine its own economic future without relying on institutions whose financial assistance may come with policy conditions.

That does not mean every country should reject international lending.

Nor does it mean every IMF program is harmful.

But it does raise a question worth asking:

If freedom was worth fighting for politically, should economic independence be treated any differently?

Eritrea's path is not simply an economic policy.

It is a statement that sovereignty cannot merely be declared.

It must be protected.

Sometimes, that protection begins with the willingness to stand on your own feet—even when standing alone is the harder path.