Sorry to bother you with this story. Last week, I posted a two-part article on Africa Confidential's deplorable record with regards to its reporting on Eritrean matters. My primary target was Patrick Gilkes and Africa Confidential's latest (Nov 12, 1999) issue. If you recall, Africa Confidential has reported on battles that are supposed to have taken place in June 18, 1999 in which it claims about 30,000 soldiers, mostly Eritreans, died. What I didn't do was to compare Patrick's report with what the Shlu was reporting back then. I had implicitly assumed (it is a cardinal sin to do that) that Patrick was relying on the Weyanes. It now appears that he probably was not, that he might have significantly doctored the whole thing. I looked into all the June news releases of the Ethiopian Office of the Spokesperson. Following are some inconsistencies between what Africa Confidential reports and what the Weyanes had said:
The fighting that took place from June 14-17 was a continuation of the offensive that Issaias's army first initiated on June 9. In total, 24,450 enemy soldiers have been put out of action during the past nine days.
The Eritrean army initiated an offensive in the vicinity of the Mereb River once again today. This most recent attack comes after a one-week lull in hostilities. During the last round of fighting, which took place from June 9-17, over 24,450 Eritrean soldiers were put out of action.
The last and largest attack lasted six days in late June; Eritrea made some ground but failed again. The first assault by Eritrea’s 271 Corps, commanded by General Teklai Habteselassie, came at 10:00 AM on 18 June and surprised the Ethiopian forces.What is going on? AC is clearly reporting about a six-day battle that started on June 18, 1999, a period which coincides with the "one-week lull in hostilities," reported by the Weyanes. Both Africa Confidential and the Weyanes are agreed that a large number of Eritreans died. But Africa Confidential has embellished its version with Hollywood-type special effects such as military formations, precise timings and nick-names. According to the Weyanes, the June battles occurred in the period 9-17 June, 1999, and significantly, this was reported on June 18, 1999. But for some reason, Africa Confidential prefers the week of 18-23 June, 1999. Even a modified version of Einstien's theories of relativity will not be able to explain such dramatic shifts in time.Conventionally, Eritrea began with a rocket and artillery barrage, followed by infantry. The 271 Corps (one mechanised and three infantry divisions) was supported by the similar-sized 381 Corps (General Umar Hassan Teweel) and 161 Corps of three infantry divisions (General Felipos Woldeyohanness, demoted after February’s failure but reinstated), plus elements from 2001 Corps (General Gabregziabher Gebremaryam "Wacho"), 491 corps (General Haile Samuel "China") and 525 Commando Division: a total of one commando, eleven infantry and two mechanised divisions. Ethiopian forces commanded by General Samora Yunis, included the 21st, 22nd and 23rd divisions and were quickly reinforced, reaching a total of seven.
And the plot, as they say, thickens. Here is AC's assertions about casualties:
In June, Eritrean losses were very heavy: against fixed and heavily defended positions, the first and second divisions of 291 and 381 Corps were devastated, as was 525 Commando, used several times as a strike force. Both sides had lost 70,000 men before the June fighting; they have since lost at least 30,000 more, of which most were Eritrean.Do you notice anything? General Teklai's Corps, which AC tells us started the assault at precisely 10:00 AM on June 18, 1999, is numbered 271. But it is Corps 291, a unit that is not mentioned anywhere else in AC's report, that has suffered heavily. Is this a typo? Or the chicanery of a mediocre propagandist? If it is a typo, then AC is in effect claiming that Eritrea suffered significant losses (two divisions of Corps 271) in the period 18-23 of June, 1999. The problem with this is that it is news to the Weyanes. If it is not a typo, then it is lousy propaganda. I remember an article that Patrick Gilkes once wrote in the Ethiopian Review on effective propaganda. His advice to the Ethiopians who were throwing around wild stories was, "For propaganda to be effective, it must have significant elements of truth to it." In other words, the optimum mix is around 70% truth, 30% lies. Although he didn't explicitly spell it out for them, Pat Gilkes' advice to Ethiopians was that stories which claimed that not only was Eritrea exporting coffee but that it had become the 10'th largest coffee exporter of the world was not effective propaganda. It was not even propaganda. Pat Gilkes must be getting senile to forget his own lessons.
I think we have here a clear and unambiguous fabrication, unless the Eritrean Government is AC's source. I have to discount that. There is the possibility that a battle did take place on June 18 but the Weyanes did not report it because they suffered heavy losses. Whatever the case, my suspicion that the pin-pointing of the onset of the battle at precisely 10:00 AM was only special effects was probably right. I may owe the Weyanes an apology, for I honestly thought they were Africa Confidential's source. I am, of course, discounting stupidity on their part, and as we have repeatedly found out, doing that is very hazardous to your health. These are, after all, the same folks who thought that using humans to clear mine-fields is good military strategy. The very same people who were going to swim in the azure waters of the Red Sea within days of launching an offensive on the Zalambessa front.
Some of you may feel that this is overkill, that we know these people are liars, and that we should leave matters at that. But I think we should build a case against Africa Confidential. I admit that I am way out of my league here but I would like to hear from the experts if there is a journalism ethics forum in the UK or anywhere else where we can lodge complaints? I feel like there are enough grounds for a complaint and that these people should be confronted in front of their peers.
warsay