Selam Nerayo
Series May 10, 2000 was completed June 13, 2000
With the above as a background, I can't help but tremble with astonishment by the way Tony Lake is handling American diplomacy in the mediation of the Ethio-Eritrean war. The most amazing thing is, American diplomacy is known for its "in your face" approach. As an example, we have President Truman firmly checking Stalinism to a standstill particularly in the Berlin blockade of 1948. Eisenhower unmistakably told the Israelis to get out from Sinai after they conquered it in the 1956 war with Egypt. The same was with Kennedy in the Cuban missile crises where he forced Khrushchev to remove Russian missiles from Cuba and a decade ago George Bush on Kuwait who forced Saddam Hussein to run for his life.
To our sad dismay, in the mediation of the Ethio-Eritrean war, the Clintonites are practicing not the time honored American Diplomacy, but the old game of Hitler and Neville Chamberlain that dismembered Czechoslovakia and, YES SADLY, that eventually led to the Second World War and never-mind the death and destruction of 60 million innocent people worldwide including the use of Science (the application Zyklon-B -hydrogen cyanide at Auschwitz for example) to kill an entire race just because they happened to identify with the Judaic religious identity.
Going back to the time of Hitler and to the British diplomacy dispensation of that era under Prime Minster Chamberlain, one is astounded by the similarity with that of President Clinton and his special envoy, Tony Lake's, mediation on the Ethio-Eritrean war, which, as was in Chamberlain's approach, is glittering with its unethical amber, one sided, irresolute, and if I have to speak bluntly as my eyes water, one that leads to more death and mayhem rather than to the road of peace. Thus as Chamberlain pampered Hitler tirelessly, the whole approach of the Clintonites, to say it with heavy heart, seems to be "GEARED UP TO APPEASE THE AGGRESSIVE WOYANE CLIQUE REGARDLESS OF THE COST TO THE STATE OF ERITREA." It is as if the stew of Clinton and Chamberlain's diplomacy came out from the same pot including the actors.
In the case of Germany: We have Hitler with his jaundiced view representing everything he despised: Slavic inferiors, Czechoslovakia's commitment to democracy with its live and let live multicultural attitude, and an industrial hub and strong competitor to the German economy. To Hitler, the Czechs were thorns in the eye thus, as he told to his thuggish circle, Goering, Keitle, Ribbentrop, Neurath, and others, he said,
"it is my unshakable will that Czechoslovakia shall be wiped off the map!" (See William Shirer, page 365)
In the case of Ethiopia: the Woyane clique and Prime Mister Meles at the head of the table are constantly threatening to wipe out the State of Eritrea from the face of the Earth with all "the might they currently have at their disposal." (See Meles' speech given on the silver anniversary of the founding of the Woyane). As in Hitler's Czechoslovakia, to the Woyane, Eritrea is considered as one of the "devil's reincarnation" whose economy and polity should be destroyed if ever the dream of creating "Greater Tigray" is to be realized.
So then the aim of this paper is to understand the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia due to Hitler's forceful application of power and the British and French diplomatic crime in it as the Munich agreement certainly was. And last, how this Czechoslovakian tragedy applies to the Woyane threat over the State of Eritrea and the American diplomatic whish-washyness that is turning fast into Chamberlainism helter-skelter. The first part will address the Hitler/Czechoslovakian issue and the second part will address the Ethio-Eritrean issue.
To accomplish this dreadful expansion to the East in grand scale, Hitler needed to test the World. The first unlawful act he did was inside Germany and that was the dehumanization of German Jews in which the first step was taking away their right to work under the German economy. With this came the abrogation of the treaty of Versailles. This was followed with the 1935 Nuremberg laws that took away the citizenship of any person who doesn't fit the Aryan definition. Thereafter Hitler systematical cleared Germany by deporting every Jew in the block in similar manner the Woyanes did to Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin.
When Hitler realized that he could get away with what ever he did to every minority who were under the umbrella of the Third Reich without any condemnation from the rest of the World, he was even more reinvigorated to continue his demonic brutality. The first group to taste Hitler's killing machine were the so called the Rhineland Bastards, children of German mothers and African soldiers who were cannon fodders of the French Army during the First World War, thus as a consequence of the war, were part and parcel of the French army occupation of the Rhineland. To this day, no body knows what Hitler did to those innocents Children. The Gestapo picked them up in 1937 for mass sterilization and thereafter they vanished without trace. Still the World didn't say a word. (For detail of what Hitler thought about Blacks, Jews, and Slavs; see Hitler and His Woyane Imitators, http://www.primenet.com/~ephrem2/eritreanoau/hitlerwoyane.html available at Dehai's web page.) The failure of the Western Governments, particularly Great Britain and the United Sates and France, to send a strong protest against all the above CRIMES against humanity emboldened Hitler to do a further mischief and went on to occupy demilitarized Rhineland by force while the French were watching to their utter heartache. Then in February 1938, Hitler invited Chancellor Kurt Von Schuschnigg of Austria to Obsersarsalberg and as Robert Leckie reported (see page 69),
"Schuschnigg was treated like captive, bullied mercilessly, made to fear for his life, and forced to sign a document tantamount to the surrender of his country sovereignty to Germany. Immediately after the bulling of Chancellor Schuschnigg, German troops streamed over the border to Austria and headed to Vienna for the complete occupation of Hitler's former homeland with absolutely no resistance coming from the Austrians. With Austria firmly in Hitler's fist, the Austrian people voted almost 100 percent for Anschluss (Annexation)."
Before the ink of Austrian humiliation dried, Hitler immediately stepped in into his next project i.e. the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia.
(As an addendum, remembering the fate of Austria under Hitler, although, I must say, it is a waste of time to remind the ELF-RC's self-appointed leaders about past historical truth and the inference of it to our days' geopolitics. I nevertheless can't help but wonder whether the ELF-RC nincompoops realize that, should the Woyane, God forbid, ever achieve the cursed goal of winning their aggressive war against Eritrea, they too will inevitably face the same fate Chancellor Kurt Von Schuschnigg and his Government faced in 1938 from Hitler and his Nazis. Just to give a little warning, which nonetheless is timely and very important!)
Before we go on to see how Hitler managed to accomplish the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in such a short time, it is important to address what type of State Czechoslovakia was and how, for better or worse, the Czechoslovakian society was organized.
Czechoslovakia was born in October 1918, at the end of First World War when the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed which it was a part of. It was basically a multicultural State with the Czech and the Slovaks as the majority but with substantial German, Hungarian, Poles, and Ruthenian minorities among them. Be that as it may, even with all the problems a heterogeneous population creates,
"Czechoslovakia was a well governed, progressive state; its people were hard-working and proud of their national heritage. Moreover, in Thomas Masaryk and Edward Benes, the two architects of the young republic, the Czech people possessed Statesmen of the highest caliber with their farsighted administration. Sadly they happened to lack one very important ingredient of an able Statesmanship i.e. The commonsense to know when diplomacy works and when it doesn't. In their case they were too over-confident on the their belief that diplomacy could solve everything in the sun which in the end was to become a fatal flaw and one of the reasons in the undoing of the Czech Nation."Cherishing few illusions about Germany, the Czech Government had entered into a series of pacts and alliances, notably with France (1924) and Russia (1935), in the hope of deterring future German aggression. Czechoslovakia was also a member of the League of Nations and had been the chief catalyst in the establishment of the little Ententes. Unlike the Western powers, who were eager to appease Hitler, the Czech were always at loggerhead with Nazi policy in Europe which angered Hitler a great deal." (See Klaus Fischer, page 423).
In the end, when the hour of the Czechoslovakian need arrived as was expected, the two treaties the Government of Czechoslovakia signed with France and the Soviet Union were found not even worthy of the paper the treaties' content was put on.
As in Meles' Ethiopia, the other sore point that Hitler found abominable was the strength and resiliency of the Czech industry such as Skoda Metal works, whose
"manufacturing capability ranged from machine tools of the very high quality - generally equivalent to that of Western Europe including Germany - and a superb competitor in the World Market. Czech-made machinery and armaments from hand weapons to cannons had an excellent reputation in export markets. In addition to heavy and medium industry, the Czech lands also had an important light industrial compliment. Ample water power had fostered a textile industry in the early nineteenth century, which among them was the Bat'a shoe factory one of Europe's largest and its products among the best." (See Garrison Walters, page 190)
There were also some catastrophic policy mistakes the Czechoslovakian leaders made between the time they formed a full-fledged Nation, in 1919, and the beginning of 1938 when Hitler swallowed Austria. As historian Joseph Korbel pointed out,
"for many years, the Czechoslovakia people were led to believe that their country's national life was sheltered by an optimal system of security while in truth the leaders admittedly chose to ignore the tenuous circumstance prevailing in Europe in the inter-war years. They trusted the method of collective security although that system of defense, by late 1930th, was almost out of fashion with the big boys of Europe thanks to the rise of Fascism and Nazism. And far worse, they put their faith in the Republic's alliance with France and the Soviet Union hence the fatal flaw, I mentioned above, of believing that diplomacy can solve everything and anything in the Sun. They erroneously expected to receive, should circumstance demand it, a demonstration of solidarity in defenses of democracy from Western Nations particularly Great Britain and France. The question is, in their entire search for security, where was the development of faith in themselves, and almost forgetting that such faith would certainly be a decisive significance in an hour of national trail."Furthermore, as the system of alliance dissolved in the chemistry of the events of the day, what was left to the Czechoslovakian people so that psychologically they might be able to face the enemy in unison? What were the nut & bolts the Czechoslovakian leaders failed to put in place as the Hitler cloud of invasion started to gather over the sky of Czechoslovakia? The answers to both questions are, during the critical months preceding Munich; their leaders had made only perfunctory remarks about national self-reliance and the country Military strength. No psychological preparation had been even explored should the eventuality of facing the enemy alone ever arise. Even in the last days, when it became clear that France was desperately determined to extricate herself from her treaty obligation, the Government concealed the real situations from the Czechoslovakian people [in a similar manner Eritrea leaders concealed the Woyane's sneak attack of Adi Murug from the Eritrean public]. And so, as we shall see in the next few pages, when the Czechoslovakian people faced the hour of test that determined their existence as a Nation, enthusiasm and the needed determination to face the enemy squarely were in fruitless conflict with utter depression and despair." (See Joseph Korbel, page 126 - 127)
So then, for Hitler, all the above Czechoslovakian leadership negligence as well as economic vitality of the Czech people was a welcome scenario that gave him additional incentives to march to his ultimate goal: that of conquering Russia. And Czechoslovakia being on the way of achieving an "IMPERIUM SINE FINE" (EMPIRE WITHOUT LIMITS), its removal as a living entity was not only when it should be done but also how fast it should be done.
The inescapably sad and, day-by-day, commencing to be a predestined problem was,
"many Western Statesmen increasingly viewed Czechoslovakia as a political liability, a sort of indiscretion against geography. In fact, with all sorts of confusion reigning abundantly over Czechoslovakia that summer of 1938, the centrifugal forces within the new state became so weak that not only the Germans but also the Slovaks, Poles, and the Hungarians minorities within the Czech State demanded increasing autonomy within the new federation, lending credence to Hitler's assertion that Czechoslovakia was a historical mistake. Czechoslovakia thus appeared to be a doomed nation, torn by centrifugal forces within, menaced by predatory powers without and increasingly abandoned by its own friends." (See K Fischer, page 424)
Perhaps it is worthwhile to recount who the most important British politicians were that readily handed Czechoslovakia to Hitler.
CHAMBERLAIN AND THE 1938 BRITISH DIPLOMACY OVER CZECHOSLOVAKIA:
Chamberlain, as Robert Leckie pointed out with slashing verbal salvo of a drilling historian, was
"one of those rich men's sons who go into politics looking for something to do. With his long, lanky figure clad in statesman black, his protruding teeth and the scraggly gray mustache, and the rolled black umbrella that he grimly grasped everywhere he went as though he were wielding Excalibur, he might be taken for the epitome of the determined futility. He had risen to the top of the Conservative Party chiefly by quiet intrigue and loyal if undistinguished service. Chamberlain believed himself to be the master of foreign policy, conversant not only with the problems of the Europe but also those of the world. His overweening self-confidence suggested to him that he could solve them, and this he fancied himself the great peacemaker destined to be honored and revered by posterity. This decent, well-meaning but self-deluded man also had one enormous defect: HE TRUSTED PEOPLE AND BELIEVED WHAT THEY SAID. IN DEALING WITH AN ACCOMPLISHED LIAR LIKE HITLER, THIS WAS FATAL FLAW." (Emphasis mine, See R Leckie, page 69)
Chamberlain's whole approach to the Czechoslovakian problem stands from the fear that in the event Hitler pursued war to achieve his goal, the British Empire will be forced to enter the war on the side of France and by default on the side of Czechoslovakians since the Czech had a standing alliance with France, signed right after the ceremony of Versailles and the creation of the Czechoslovak State. For Chamberlain, remembering the calamity British troops suffered at the battles of Verdun and Somme in the First World War, his motivation over Czechoslovakia
"came from his assessment that his hard-pressed British-Empire that has yet to recover from the wounds of First World War, would only stand to lose more in the event of an armed conflict. Hardly is it necessary to fight a war from any ethical concern for the rights of a far away people. No wonder Hitler understood Chamberlain as sclerotic and corrupt and maintained that his real interest was in profiting from the British armament industry. Hitler also referred to other British diplomats as little worms." (See Fritz Redlich, page 142)
Regardless of the ample contempt Hitler harbored against British and French politicians, there were plenty of APPEASERS within the rank of both governments and among them were "Sir John Simon, Sir Samuel Hoare, and chief among them, Lord Halifax at the foreign office. Similarly, the French APPEASERS included Edouard Daladier, the French premier, and George Bonnet his foreign minister." (See Fischer, page 429)
And no, the immorality that Neville Chamberlain brought against the innocent people of Czechoslovakia doesn't stop with him. It also goes with his conscious decision of appointing known APPEASERS to very important places. In this case, one can not pass without mentioning Chamberlain's appointment of Lord Runciman as chief mediator between the government of Czechoslovakia headed by President Benes and the Sudeten Germans headed by a local Sudeten Gang, but all the same, Hitler's appointed Nazi, Konrad Henlein. In his zeal to defame the legitimate government of Czechoslovakia and so to make happy the Nazi thugs, Lord Runciman referred Czechoslovakia within few days after his arrival in Prague as
"this accursed country whose proposal covered with bolt holes and qualifications."
This from a man that Lord Halifax introduced to the rest of the World as "an impartial person of outstanding and repute." (See Eugene Davidson, 220)
As if Lord Runciman's enmity to the Czechoslovakian people wasn't enough, Chamberlain also appointed Sir Neville Henderson as British Ambassador to Germany which M. Shirer told us that "his skill as a professional diplomat to the APPEASMENT of Hitler was first class and applied them to the utmost of his ability." "There is doubt" added Shirer, "that he was egged on by Lord Halifax and the British Foreign Office, Henderson, a suave, debonair diplomat, HAD LITTLE SYMPATHY WITH THE CZECH, AS ALL WHO KNEW HIM IN BERLIN WERE AWARE." (Emphasis mine, see Shirer page 364)
So then, is it any wonder that Hitler ended up gobbling Czechoslovakia without shooting a single bullet because the so called allies and guarantors of peace completely abrogated the sanctity of International Law as Chamberlain at the head of table, Halifax at the Foreign Office, Runciman bullying the Czech in Prague, and Henderson messenger of the ever escalating demand of Hitler, were completely overwhelmed by Hitler's tactic and bullying. This heinous act of political crime by the British political leaders was to become England at its worst, a shame of its past, and regrettably that brought more death to the British themselves as Hitler, within a couple years after he gobbled up Czechoslovakia, sent his air armada over the skies of London and Coventry during the battle of Britain.
And therefore, as Hitler was ranting day in day out about the suffering of the Sudeten Germans under the Czechoslovak Government and with the leaders of the Sudeten Germans pushing the envelop full of absolutely insatiable demands for separation, which one of the demands was to form "a State within a State," the stage was set for Hitler's invasion and the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia.
On 21 April 1938, ten days after the fictitious plebiscite in Austria, Hitler gave secret orders to General Keitel, Chief of the general staff, to prepare for the invasion of Czechoslovakia under the code name "Green." As Fritz Redlich pointed out,
"from the very beginning, Hitler's goal was not only the unification of the Germans of the Sudetenland with the German Reich, but the destruction of an independent Czechoslovakia as the World knew it. In his general directive, Hitler stated that such an invasion must not occur out of the blue but must follow a political incident and provocations (See page 141) deliberately instigated by the local Germans."
In other words, what Hitler said in today's Woyane language was simply telling his Gestapo to prepare a conducive environment that allow "the necessity of creating Adi Murug and Badme like incidents" that give legitimacy for the upcoming war over Czechoslovakia. Here are the four main points that Hitler stressed to his fellow Nazis, in both Germany and Czechoslovakia, to be implemented as quickly as possible.
PROPOGANDA WARFARE: On this corner, Hitler said that
"On the one hand, the German government must intimidate the Czech government mercilessly by means of threats and wear down their power of resistance. On the other hand, the German propaganda must give the different Czech national minorities indications as to how they can support the German Military operation and influence the neutrals into the Reich favor."
In other words, like the present day Woyane clique who constantly talk about Eritrea as the Aggressor State ruled by a dictator. Hitler too was talking, repeatedly and vociferously, about the criminal and terrorist Czech government of President Benes, day in and day out. Among other things, he said, "IT WAS HIS UNALTERNABLE DECISION TO SMASH CZECHOSLOVAKIA BY MILITARY ACTION IN THE NEAR FUTURE." (Emphasis on original; see, William Shirer, pages 362 and 365)
ECONOMIC WARFARE:
"It has the task of employing all the available economic resources of the Reich in order to hasten the final collapse of the Czech economy. Germany should strangle the Czech economy by every means available with full intention of creating unemployment that instigates chaos in that fractious society. In the course of the military operation, it is important to help and increase the total economic war effort by rapidly collecting information about important factories of Czechoslovakia and deal with them accordingly thus making them useful to further Nazi political intentions and deliberations." (See W. Shirer, page 362)
Here too, the Hitler plan has much similarity with that of the Woyane, which among the many sabotages includes, the moving out of their import/export commerce from the Assab port entry to the of Djibouti port. Their refusal to accept the "Nakfa" as a viable currency, the closing of the common border to traditional commerce between the two peoples long before the May incident. The instruction to their invading militia, as it was envisioned in the pre-May 1998, what to take for their personal possession and what to leave to the Tigray Government once they conquered Eritrea including its Jewell city, Asmara. All these Woyane sabotage against the Eritrean economy was deliberately done to weaken the State of Eritrea just as Hitler did to Czechoslovakia.
POLITICAL DEMANDS: Hitler's instructions, as revealed in a Foreign Office memorandum, were that
"Every impossible demands should be made by the Sudeten Germans (in Czechoslovakia) Party, which are absolutely unacceptable to the Czech government." Henlein, the chief Gestapo in Czechoslovakia and leader of the local German Party, himself, summarized the Fuehrer's views by saying: "We must always demand so much that we can never be satisfied." (See W. Shirer, page 362.)
And sure enough that, in the end, was exactly what Hitler & CO did. What was simple demand for autonomy in March 1938, by May; it was turned into insistent demand for Self-determination. By July Hitler boosted the ante and made it official that he is for out right secession by plebiscite. And by September, it was for the complete incorporation of all the areas that German minorities reside including the right of the German army to immediately walk over and occupy ever inch of it. In Woyane language, this is what they mean when they talk about the so-called "status-quo-ante" without ever giving a definitive map that show where the locations of Pre-May 1998 positions are.
INISTIGATION OF OTHER CZECH MINORITIES: To make it seem his demands over Czechoslovakia was universally shared by other neighboring countries, Hitler instructed German Ambassadors in both Warsaw and Budapest to harangue their respected host countries reminding them that they should demand tirelessly for the autonomy of their respected nationalities within Czechoslovakia. To that end, as William Shirer reported,
"on August 23, 1938, Hitler entertained the Regent of Hungary, Admiral Horthy, and members of the Hungarian government aboard the liner PATRIA in Kiel Bay where they happen to be present during the German naval maneuvers show. 'If they wanted to get in on the Czech feast,' Hitler told the Hungarians assertively, 'they must hurry.' 'He who wants to sit on the table,' Hitler told the Hungarians, 'must at least help in the kitchen." (See W Shirer, page 377)
Similar harangue was also expressly done on the Polish government by the German Ambassador, Von Moltke, in Warsaw, which in the end he reported to Berlin that
"not only would Poland decline to help Czechoslovakia by not allowing Russia to send troops and planes through or over her territory, but colonel Jozef Beck, the Polish Foreign Minister, was casting covetous eyes on a slice of Czech Territory, the Teschen area where it was mostly inhabited by Polish minorities." (See W. Shirer, page 377)
This message from Poland was a nice music to Hitler's ear as he was desperately trying to make Czechoslovakia look as helpless and ungovernable entities. Sadly the Polish Government hardly realized they too would become a victim of the horrendous proportion within a year for dictators, in the end, are not satisfied with one ill-gotten property. Again this Hitler's instigation of other minorities to rebel was in similar line with that of the Woyane clique who constantly talk about the right of the Afars, Kunamas, and even Akeleguzay in their wild hope to instigate discord among Eritreans.
Now compare Hitler's four points plan to gobble up Czechoslovakia with that of the Woyane clique's agenda over Eritrea, do Hitler's plan sounds familiar and the answer is of course YES!
In all the Hitlerian bellicoseness against Czechoslovakia, the one country that uniquely empowered to stop the tragedy that had followed was Great Britain. Hitler knew that was he to declare war against Britain that will inevitable bring America on the British side that for him was a bad omen. He didn't want to face such danger in light of the decisive American intervention in 1917, in the First World War, that badly went for Germany and the final defeat in that Great War. But then, as William Shirer pointed out, Hitler correctly guessed that the British aristocracy that were then governing Britain would never sacrifice their Empire for the sake of Czechoslovakia. "For some time now," said Shirer, "Hitler had felt himself reinforced in his judgment that Prime Minster Neville Chamberlain would offer the Czech as sacrificial lamb rather than going to war and that, in such case, France would not fulfill her treaty obligation to Prague. Such damaging view was reported by London correspondents of the New York newspapers about a supposedly an 'off-the-record lunch-on talk' at Lady Astor by Chamberlain," which actually was deliberately leaked by the Foreign Office. "The British Prime Minister," the American correspondents reported,
"had said that neither Britain nor France nor probably Russia would come to the aid of Czechoslovakia in the case of a German attack, that the Czech State could not exist in its present form and that Britain favored, in the interest of peace, turning over the Sudetenland area of Czechoslovakia to Germany." (See Shirer, page 375 -376)
With the above mentality of the British governing body, Hitler came to the conclusion that the United States would not be interested to actively ingratiate on the side of Czechoslovakia by herself alone. There was also another American point that was in favor of Hitler. In the late 1930s, the forces of those who strongly advocated a noninterventionist policy was so strong, the Roosevelt administration was paralyzed with inaction until the very eve the Japanese attacked Pearl Harbor on Dec 7, 1941. The isolationists culminated their pacifism by introducing the "Ludlow Amendment, in the House of Representatives where it proposed "a constitutional amendment making any declaration of war by the Government of the United States subject to a popular referendum." (See Robert Leckie, page 71) France too sent many nearly open diplomatic letters to President Benes that she was not ready to go to war against Germany on such issue of Sudeten cessation.
All the same, the treaty the Czech had with Russia also faced a sever test. The treaty stipulates that Russia will go to war on the side of Czechoslovakia but only if France decided to join Czechoslovakia. And thus as Stalin watched Chamberlain and Prime Minister Daladier of France outmatched by Hitler's pomposity to the degree that they were ready to hand over any part of Czechoslovakia to the Germans, he too headed for a friendly relation with Hitler that eventually flowered to the Hitler/Stalin pact that divided Poland between the two diametrically opposite dictators. By the end of June 1938, "Count Von der Schulenburg, the German ambassador to Russia was advising Berlin that the Soviet Union was 'hardly likely to march in the defense of a bourgeois State," i.e. Czechoslovakia. By August 3, Ribbentrop, the German Foreign Mister, was informing the major German Diplomatic missions abroad that 'there was little fear of intervention over Czechoslovakia by Britain, France or Russia. (See W. Shirer, page 376)
And so, the stage was set for Hitler's dismemberment of the legitimate Government of Czechoslovakia: The land and the people.
As Czechoslovakia was put under sever pressure from without, each demanding for his own self-interest, the forces from within started to show a sign of wear and tear. For France and Britain, they were absolutely determined not to go to war against Germany for the sake of Czechoslovakia. Hungary and Poland were also threatening to take military action unless their respective minorities that were hitherto law-abiding citizen of Czechoslovakia achieve self-determination. Even the Slovaks, although racially and linguistically closely related to the Czech, wanted some measure of autonomy. "To be sure," said Shirer,
"compared to the minorities in most other countries even in the West, even in America, those in Czechoslovakia were not badly off. They enjoyed not only full democratic and civil rights - including the right to vote - but to a certain extent were given their own schools and allowed to maintain their own cultural institution. Leaders of the minority political parties often served as ministers in the central government." (See W. Shirer, page 358 -359)
The irony of it all was the fact that the Sudeten Germans that Hitler talked so much about were never historically part of Greater Germany but that of Austro-Hungarian Empire. Hitler Coup-des-grace was the fact that he, as a leader of the German Reich, originated from Austria and since Austria as of January 1938 was part of Germany, by extension, the Sudeten Germans were also part of Germany so the theory went.
By May 1938, the British and French government through their Ambassadors informed the Czech Government that for peace to be preserved, the Czechoslovakian Government need to give in to the utmost limit, meaning self determination. In other words what was up to this point assumed as a "demand for autonomy for the Sudeten Germans, was now automatically transformed to "self-determination." By May 20, the German pressure and confrontation developed critically. By June 1, Chamberlain had spoken off the record but then leaked to the Times of London which, within two days,
"was published for every body to see that drastically and publicly undermined the Czech position and urged the Czech Government to grant 'self-determination to the country's minorities even if it should mean their secession from Czechoslovakia. For the first time it had suggested plebiscites as means of determining what the Sudeten and other minorities desired. Within few days, the German Ambassador informed Hitler that the Times editorial was in fact, root and branch, Chamberlain's point of view." (See Shirer, page 376)
This new view of Chamberlain proved to Hitler that pressure and pomposity pays and he was determined to increase the ante at every possible opportunity.
By September, the confrontation arrived at critical boiling point. Again as usual the British government made the appeasement of Hitler even more glittering through the editorial of the Times and poor Czechoslovakia was put under extensive and mortal pressure. Here is what the Times said in September 7:
"It might be worthwhile for the Czech Government to consider whether they should exclude altogether the project, which as founded favor in some quarters, of making Czechoslovakia a more homogeneous State by the secession of that fringe of alien population who are contiguous to the nation with which they are united by race. The advantage to Czechoslovakia of becoming a homogenous State might conceivably outweigh the obvious disadvantage of losing the Sudeten German district of the borderland." (See W Shirer, page 382)
The above tongue-in-chick Times editorial forever undermined the Czech State. Out of the feeling of helplessness generated by the abandonment of the Western powers that the Czech felt as solid friends, particularly the British and French, the Czech general public started to think not in terms of the interest of the unitary nation but in terms of "what is the biggest advantage for me." The Times editorial effect was even more drastic over the Czech military. What was up to then a cohesive force with superior technology, by September 1938, every soldier started to suspect every one as interest of individual minorities started to get ahead of the interest of the Nation. The economy, by then, was so undermined by Hitler's sabotage; it started to show a visible crack.
At one point, President Benes felt so desperate that he
"realized that he has to take decisive steps to save the peace and to that end, he convoked the Sudeten leaders to Hradschen palace and told them to write out their full demands. Whatever they were he would accept them. 'My God' exclaimed the deputy Sudeten leader, Karl Frank, the next day, 'they have given us everything we asked.' But that was the last thing the Sudeten politicians and their bosses in Berlin wanted. Henlein, the chief Sudeten negotiator, on instruction from Germany, broke off all negotiations with the Czech Government. A shabby excuse about alleged Czech police excesses was given."
Since, from the very beginning, the plan of Hitler was patently formulated to dismember Czechoslovakia through and through, the break off of the Sudeten negotiation was merely the rule than the exception.
Using this break of negotiation as an excuse, on September 10, Herman Goering, Hitler's Chief of the Luftwaffe, made a more threatening and straightforward bellicose speech at the Nuremberg Nazi Party Rally. Goering said,
"A trifling piece of Europe is making life unbearable for mankind. The Czech, the vile race of dwarfs without any culture - nobody even knows where they came from - are oppressing a civilized race [meaning the Sudeten Germans], and behind them, together with Moscow, there can be seen the everlasting face of the Jewish fiend (See John Toland, page 498).
On the 12th of September Hitler, too, gave a speech to that same Rally and he was even more venomous toward Czechoslovakia than Goering was.
Hitler and Goering oratorical condemnation of injustice hurled over the Czech government inspired scenes of protest among the Sudeten Germans, which resulted into an ugly confrontation with the Czech police.
"Tens of thousands of Sudeten Germans jammed every town and city where they happen to reside and marched waving a sea of swastika flags and shouting, 'We want self-determination.'" (See J. Toland, 499)
This inevitably resulted a confrontation with Czech police and bloody disorder ensued with many demonstrators shot to death. Aroused by their leader Konrad Henlein's call for freedom, the Sudeten Germans went on strike and refused to pay taxes. The Government of Czechoslovakia declared Martial law. Hitler on his part made it plane his outright desire to settle the issue Militarily instead of by proxy negotiation. "At that point," as historian John Toland related, "London and Paris panicked." This event was followed by the Chamberlain - Daladier consultation where there upon, Chamberlain decided to go to Germany to directly negotiate with Hitler.
Hitler agreed to meet Chamberlain at Berchtesgaden and once the date of the meeting became official, Czech government leaders at once understood the end was coming fast. "Prague newspapers headlined, Extra! Extra! Read how the mighty head of the British Empire goes begging to Hitler." "Mussolini too sneered that this act on the British Prime Minister was the Liquidation of the English prestige." (See J. Toland, page 500) For his part, "Hitler felt fairly certain that Chamberlain visit was a further assurance that, as he had believed all along, Britain and France would not intervene on behalf of Czechoslovakia." (See Shirer, page 385.
Hitler dominated the meeting from A to Z by throwing his usual long harangue about the supposedly evil hand of the Czechoslovakian government and how they are oppressing the cultured Germans. At one point Hitler poured so much torrent of words that Chamberlain asked him to stop so that he might have a chance to understand what he was talking about. Still Hitler continued with his "I shall not put up with this any longer." "I shall settle the question in one way or another." "I shall take matters into my own hands." Chamberlain was left to ask, "If I have understood you correctly, you are determined to proceed against Czechoslovakia. If that is so, why do you let me come to Berchtesgaden?" "This trip was a waste of time and under the circumstances, it was best to return to England at ones, 'anything else seems pointless." (See J, Toland, page 501) All this bravado from Hitler side was really to intimidate the British Prime Minister hence to make him go as far as Hitler wants him to compromise, since by then, Hitler understood that Chamberlain is in mortal fear of him igniting another World War.
Once Hitler felt that Chamberlain was in so much fear about igniting a Second World War, he then sprung up his point of discussion. Hitler backed down from his bravado of "I will march to Czechoslovakia the next morning" and calmly asked Chamberlain, "If, in considering the Sudeten question, you are prepared to recognize the principle of the right of peoples to self-determination, then we can continue the discussion in order to see how the principle can be applied in practice." (See J. Toland, page 501 and Shirer page 386)
According Dr, Schmidt, Hitler's translator, Chamberlain answered "HE COULD STATE PERSONALLY THAT HE RECOGNIZED THE PRINCIPLE OF THE DETACHMENT OF THE STUDETEN AREAS--- HE WISHED TO RETURN TO ENGLAND TO REPORT TO THE GOVERNMENT AND SECURE THEIR APPROVAL OF HIS PERSONAL ATTITUDE." (Emphasis on original, see W. Shirer, 386)
Hitler already knew that Chamberlain had no problem with his proposal. In fact Chamberlain's special envoy Lord Runciman in Prague has already told the leader of the Sudeten Germans, Henlein, "the basis of further negotiations could only be the achievement of the union with Germany."(See W, Shirer, page 386.) Henlien promptly passed Lord Runciman remark to his boss, Hitler. Witness now the difference of words, whereas Hitler was talking about "self-determination," Lord Runciman told the Sudeten Germans what in effect should be translated to: "Just stay the course and eventually you will have your UNION with the German fatherland." When all this was going on, the British Government never consulted the Czech government. It was all surrender and sellout behind the back of the Czech Government.
And thus Chamberlain returned to England but before he agreed to meet Hitler, again in Germany at Godesberg. Before he left, Chamberlain indicated unmistakably as stated above that his proposal will receive a listening ear from the Western Powers. Chamberlain left Berchtesgaden abundantly pleased with his talk with Hitler. "I had established a certain confidence, which my aim," he wrote his sister, "and on my side, in spite of the hardness and ruthlessness I thought I saw in his face, I got the impression that here was a man who could be relied upon when he has given his word." (See J, Toland, 502) Chamberlain naivet was to be exposed in a matter of few weeks as Hitler continued increasing the ante at any opportunity he could find.
In order, not only to soften but also to melt Chamberlain's diplomatic resolve even more deeply, Hitler had also played another trick. Here is how Hitler managed to frighten Chamberlain out of his wits.
"The Germans allowed the noted American aviator, Charles Lindbergh, to inspect an armada of German aircrafts and the entire make up of the Luftwaffe i.e. the German Air Force. Lindbergh, after the visit, wrote an ominous report that relates about an overwhelming German air power that England could not possibly match. Lindbergh passed his report to Ambassador Joseph Kennedy, the father of the late President Kennedy, and the Ambassador in turn passed the report straight to Chamberlain." (See J Toland, page 502)
Chamberlain was just as impressed as the American Ambassador was and thus one of the reason why Chamberlain and England continued appeasing Hitler.
This Lindbergh report was a time-honored game World Nations play to confuse and weaken the resolve of an enemy. And in a similar fashion to the Lindbergh report, we now can see this game of military propaganda adroitly played by the Woyane clique via the Unite Sates Central Command and on to the pages of the Indian Ocean Letter (more on this later). As the ancient Chinese war-theory master, Sun Tszu, said more than two millennia ago, "the best winner is the one who wins a war with out a fight." Thus in war, hype has its own place and the Lindbergh report was used to weaken the allied resolve to defend Czechoslovakia although the report itself was based on a meager data, false premises, and way overblown German bravado. As the event of the battle of Britain was to prove, it turned out that Hitler's Luftwaffe was no more prepared than the Royal Air Force particularly with the judicious use of its hitherto unknown technology, the "RADAR," which the Germans didn't have, hence why Sir Winston Churchill paid a homage to the Royal Air Force with the following immortal accolade: "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few."
Even more ominous than the Lindbergh report, Hitler kept up pressure on all the other participants to dismember Czechoslovakia. Helein, his henchman in Czechoslovakia, was ordered to keep up the disturbance and clashes with the Czech police constant and merciless. In order to increase the clash into ominous terms, Hitler sent well-organized Nazi infiltrators to help Helein spread the hatred against the Czech countrywide. The entire German army was made to be ready at the border of Czechoslovakia. In the meantime, the Germans also kept a constant pressure on the Hungarian and Polish governments to increase their demands. "Even the Slovaks were brought in to stir up the brew. On September 20, Henlein urged them to formulate their demands for autonomy more sharply." (See W. Shirer, page 387) On the same day that Helein was urging the Slovaks to go beyond autonomy, Hitler received the Hungarian Foreign Minister and gave him a window dressing for hesitancy shown in Budapest. According to Shirer, here is how the German Foreign Office memorandum recorded how the meeting went.
"First of all, the Fuehrer reproached the Hungarian gentlemen for the undecided attitude of Hungary. He, the Fuehrer, was determined to settle the Czech question even at the risk of igniting a world war--- He was convinced [however] that neither England nor France would intervene. It was Hungary's last opportunity to join in. If she did not, he was not in position to put in a word for Hungarian minorities' interest in his on going meeting with the Western Countries' representatives. In his opinion, the best thing would be to destroy Czechoslovakia. Thus he presented two demands to the Hungarians: (1) that Hungary should make an immediate demand for a plebiscite in the territories which she claimed and (2) that she should not guarantee any proposed new frontiers for Czechoslovakia." (See W. Shirer, page 387 - 388)
As France and England wavered, Hitler pressured the Polish and the Hungarian governments with crescendo of negative posturing. These two countries that hitherto had no opinion about Czechoslovakia now took note about the situation and On September 21, the Polish government demanded a plebiscite in the Teschen district, where there was a large Polish minorities and moved troops to the frontier of the area. The next day, Hungary did the same. Czechoslovakia basically was put on the pressure cooker for the break up, bit by bit.
Meanwhile upon his return to England, Chamberlain put more pressure on his government Ministers, the French, and ever more so President Benes of Czechoslovakia for the acceptance of Hitler demands. Most of Chamberlain Misters accepted Hitler proposal without questioning. The French too went with Hitler's proposal. Then came the pressure cooker against the Czech Government. Lord Halifax, the British Foreign secretary, sent President Benes "an ultimatum to accept the proposal without reserve and without further delay failing which His Majesty's Government will take no further interest in the fate of your country." (See J. Toland page 504.)
This ultimatum was followed by the visit of the British and French special envoys' (Sir Basil Newton and Victor Lacroix respectively) to Czechoslovakia where, upon hearing Hitler's demand, President Benes collapsed as if he was hit with a club and burst into tears. Shaken, the betrayed Benes promised to give a final reply as soon as possible.
The next day, Benes told the Western powers and his people with the following communiqu that deeply shamed Western Governments to this day: Here is what he said---
"We relied upon the help that our friends might have given us; but when the question of reducing us by force arose, it became evident that the European crises was taking on too serious a character. Our friends therefore advised us to buy freedom and peace by our sacrifice, and this in proportion to their own inability to help us--- The President of the Republic and our government had no other choice, for we found ourselves alone." (See J Toland 504.)
And so far, Hitler won by proxy. The Czech already suspected that this acceptance for self-determination would never satisfy Hitler. As for the British and French Prime Misters, little did they know that this "self-determination acceptance by President Beses would NOT be acceptable to Hitler." Chamberlain would be rudely surprised in his next meeting with Hitler at Godesberg WHEN HE FOUND OUT THAT THE DICTATOR HAS ALREADY CHANGED HIS GEAR AND IT WAS SET FOR THE HIGHEST END. In the meantime, Chamberlain was so elated for receiving Czechoslovakia's unconditional and humiliating capitulation that he most certainly felt would be acceptable to Hitler. After arriving at Godesbergh for his second meeting with Hitler, he was so chummy with the dictator to the extent that it was as if telling him, "Haven't I worked splendidly during these five days?" To Chamberlain's sadness, the dictator has another idea. (Related by Dr Schmidt, Hitler's translator; See J Toland, page 505)
At the Godesbergh meeting, Chamberlain was buoyantly ecstatic for he thought that by virtue of making Hitler's "self-determination" acceptable to the French and to the Benes government of Czechoslovakia, things will go smoothly and in his mind, all that was left was the seal of Hitler. Well within minutes, he would be rudely awakened for the dictator had other plans. After telling Hitler what had been acceptable to all the Parties and how the self-determination of the Sudeten Germans would be accomplished, which was what Hitler demanded at Berchtesgaden in his first meeting with Chamberlain. Chamberlain waited with obvious satisfaction to see Hitler's reaction.
Then came the bombshell!
"Do I understand that the British, the French, and the Czech governments have agreed to the transfer of the Sudetenland from Czechoslovakia to Germany?" Hitler asked.
"Yes," replied the British Prime Minister, smilingly.
"I am terribly sorry," Hitler said, "but after the events of the last few days, this plan is no longer of any use." Hitler, like a common blackmailer, was upping his demands at the very moment they were being accepted by all the other parties. (See W. Shirer, page 392)
Upon hearing Hitler's obstinate change of mind for the worse, Chamberlain had felt so furious and bolted upright. He indignantly exclaimed that he could not understand the change of attitude in the light of what he brought "answered the very demands the Fuehrer had made at Berchtesgaden." Chamberlain demanded to know why the sadden change!
For the first time, Hitler revealed that his desire was for "all the land that was currently occupied by German minorities should be evacuated by all Czechoslovakians be it a farmer or a soldier and the German Army should be allowed to step in all the evacuated places. In other words, what Hitler demanded was 'an immediate occupation of the Sudetenland by German troops with the frontier to be determined later by plebiscite.'" (See J Toland, page 506)
This new Hitler's demand interpreted in today's language of the Woyane was more or less like the mantra of Woyane's "Status-quo-ante." The strange thing was, as Badme was never part of Tigray, the Sudetenland was never part of Germany since the 12th century. (See Historical Encyclopedia of World War II, page 337). Still by virtue of finding some folks talking the German language in that part of the Czechoslovakian territory, Hitler demanded his "status-quo-ante" to be implemented immediately and unconditionally.
As if the above was not enough, Hitler also said, "he could not go into agreement before the interest of the Polish and Hungarian minorities is addressed." Hitler knew very well he had absolutely not a cent of interest on the welfare of the Polish and Hungarian minorities. But as an added pressure to his plan to destroy Czechoslovakia, he found them a useful tool to stir the brew of hatred against the Czech people.
In a typical glib that is currently repeated by the Woyane over Eritrea, Hitler went on denouncing Czechoslovakia as artificial State "whose existence in the present form threatened the peace of Europe." To Hitler, "Czechoslovakia was like a man who committed an injustice and thus had no right to complain when his misdeeds were righted. Czechoslovakia was a completely artificial construction created for political reasons, and he went on to recite the wrongs that were done not only on the German minorities but on the Hungarians as well as the Polish minorities who would no longer tolerate being part of the Czech State. 'It was a State without history or tradition or conditions of existence,' he said. In twenty years since their creation after the conclusion of the First World War, the Czech had been unable to win the sympathy of the component nations. Although he was speaking for the Germans, it was his duty to say that the demands of the other minorities had his full sympathy and attention." (See Eugene Davidson, page 230)
Chamberlain was so shocked to the bottom of his naval by Hitler's answer and he related it this way after he returned to England:
"When I was at Godesbergh, I had only expected to discuss quietly with Hitler the proposal that I had brought with me; and it was a profound shock to me when I was told that these proposals were not acceptable." (See W. Shirer, Page 393)
Chamberlain was angry about the change of demand and yet so cautious not to break the negotiation and urged Hitler to settle the matter on the most humanly way. He then asked Hitler
"What new proposal could he have so they could reach into agreement?" Hitler provided a memorandum, which, in any way one looks at it, was so senseless, and earthshaking even the most pro-German British diplomat, Sir Neville Henderson, described it as "EIN DICTAT - the ultimatum." (Emphasis on original; see J, Toland, page 507)
The Diktat "called for the withdrawal of all Czech armed forces, including the police, etc., by October 1, from the large areas indicated on a map with red shading. A plebiscite was to determine the future of the further areas shaded by green and to be supervised by the International Commission. All Military and Industrial installation in the evacuated territories were to be left intact. All commercial and transport materials, especially the rolling stock of the railway system, were to be handed over to the Germans undamaged. 'Finally, no foodstuffs, goods, cattle, raw material, etc, are to be removed.' The hundreds of thousands of Czech in the Sudetenland were not to be allowed to take with them even their household goods or the family cow." (See W. Shirer, page 395 and E. Davidson, page 235)
The map that Hitler made out was purely his own making.
All this evil deeds of Hitler such as map making and shading them with red and green colors and the forced evacuation of Czech farmers without their household goods and cattle was repeated by the Woyane sixty years later. And no-wonder why the Woyane, out of all countries, desired the German help in making an illegal map of Tigray that incorporates Badme and its surroundings and other Eritrean land. (For the destructive Woyane robbery of Eritrean Framers that started to intensify in 1996, in the Badme area, see Alemseged Tesfai article part-II posted in Dehai, (http://www.primenet.com/~ephrem2/eritreanoau/alemsghed.html)
The amazing thing was, Chamberlain still believed on Hitler that the two of them could solve the problem peacefully. According to Dr. Schmidt, Hitler's translator, here is how Chamberlain bid farewell to the Fuehrer.
"Chamberlain said he had the feeling that the relationship of confidence had grown up between himself and the Fuehrer as a result of the conversation of the last few days--- He did not cease to hope that the present difficult crises would be overcome and then he would be glad to discuss other problems still outstanding with the Fuehrer in the same spirit. Hitler thanked Chamberlain for his words and told him that he had similar hopes. As he had already stated several times, the Czech problem was the last territorial demand which he had to make in Europe." (See W Shirer, page 395)
This promise of Hitler was a pure lie. He said the same thing about the Rhineland and then went on to gobble up Austria. He said the same thing about Austria and then headed on to dismember Czechoslovakia. This tactic was a typical behavior of the dictator. The sad thing was Chamberlain believed him and thus he willingly became a postal carrier of his orders.
Chamberlain returned to England and as usual he went on putting more pressure on the unlucky Czechoslovakians. London and Paris remained deaf to Prague's appeal and delivered to President Benes an ultimatum to accept the new proposal. Still using polite diplomatic terms, Prague rejected the proposal claiming to the fact that "it was drawn up without previous consultation with the representatives of the Czechoslovakian government." Then "London and Paris sent a new ultimatum requesting President Benes to withdraw his government's reply. As Josef Korbel recounted about it "the British sent a sharp note which included a veiled threat that should Benes' refuse, the British government 'must, of course, be free to take any action---- appropriate to meet the situation----' With equal force, the French note similarly stated bluntly, "Should the Czechoslovakian government be unable to accept immediately the Franco-British proposals and reject them, and should war result from the situation thus created, Czechoslovakia will be held responsible and France will not join in such a war." (See Josef Korbel, page 133) The cat and mouse game between the so-called allies continued.
While the British and the French were putting pressure on the Czechoslovakia government day and night, Hitler in the mean time kept up his own pressure, among other things, telling British diplomats that
"on October 1, he would have Czechoslovakia where he wants her to be. And if France and England decided to strike, let them. He didn't care a pfenning."
But this was no all; the fury of the afternoon with the British diplomats was carried over that evening in his speech at the Sportpalast (Sport Palace). According to John Toland, rarely if ever had Hitler spoken with such abundance of venom. His principal target (as in today's Woyane propagandist do to President Isaias) was President Benes. Hitler said,
"It is not so much a question of Czechoslovakia, it is a question of Herr Benes! It was he who was set on destroying the German minority; it was he who was putting his nation at the service of the Bolsheviks. He now holds the decision in his hand. Peace or War! Either he will accept (that is the Diktat he handed to Chamberlain) this offer and at last give Germans their freedom or we will take this freedom for ourselves!"
Hitler concluded by saying "Germany have now people vastly different from that of 1918! We are determined! Let Herr Benes choose!" (See Toland, see page 511)
The obvious lie about this speech was that Czechoslovakia was never under the Bolsheviks. If any thing, the Treaty that the Czech signed with the Soviet Union was already null-and-void by the sheer fact that it can only be enforced if France goes to war on the side of Czechoslovakia. In this case, France has already reneged her obligation and for this reason Stalin has already made it plane that he was not coming. Thus Hitler's Bolshevik thesis over Czechoslovakia was complete nonsense.
Nevertheless the effect that Hitler desired from this speech was already achieved. Chamberlain again panicked which can visibly be seen on his speech broadcasted on September 28:
"How horrible, fantastic, incredible it is that we should be digging trenches--- here because of a quarrel in a faraway country between people of whom we know nothing!" (See J Toland, page 512 and Shirer, page 403)
This speech estimated by any yardstick measurement translates into none other than "I gave up, Hitler you could do whatever you like with them, the Czechoslovakians." Up to this point, Hitler was trying his best that nothing from his part would make the French and the British come to the side of Czechoslovakia in the event of a war. As Chamberlain was agonizing for not receiving the acceptance of Hitler's demand (the Diktat) from the Czech government and as Hitler's deadline for acceptance passed, it appeared that war was inevitable between Germany and Czechoslovakia. Then at the last minute, Hitler sprung his last trick. He wrote to Chamberlain that he should continue his effort to "bring the government in Prague to reason at the very last hour." To the despairing Chamberlain, this was interpreted as God sent message for he felt that the two positions of both governments could be narrowed and went on to write to Hitler that they meet again. Only this time, Chamberlain added the Prime Minster of France, Mussolini, and representatives of the Czechoslovakian government. Hitler agreed to the idea of having another meeting but he was completely opposed to the presence of the Czech' government representatives. The meeting was set to take place in Munich. As for Hitler's opposition to the presence of the Czech government representatives, both France and England went along and the meeting that decided the Czech fate went on without any input from the Czech government.
Chamberlain sent a message to President Benes informing him officially about the meeting at Munich. "I shall have the interest of Czechoslovakia at heart." He added, "I go there fully in mind---- [to Munich] with the intention of trying to find accommodation between the positions of the German and the Czechoslovakian governments." President Benes immediately replied by saying,
"I beg you Mr. Chamberlain very earnestly for help because it is our real desire to contribute to peace. I beg therefore that nothing may be done in Munich without Czechoslovakia being present heard." (See J, Toland, page 516 and M. Shirer, page 414)
Regardless of the pleas from the Czech government, Hitler was adamant not to see the face of the Czech Government Officials. Since Hitler was in control of the meeting, what ever he said went according to his evil wish.
As was expected, the Munich meeting went on without the presence of the representatives of the Czechoslovakian government. In no time, the Germans dominated the meeting and the trick they played was (a) First they passed their agenda to Mussolini, that was actually written by Hitler flunkies, Goering, Neurath, and Weizsaeker with permission from Hitler and (b) they went on making Mussolini the commander of the whole proceeding. The mockery of the mockery was Mussolini presented the German meeting agenda as his own. Mussolini was later to boast by saying
"All eyes were on me, not on Mr. Daladier or Mr. Chamberlain. It was an occasion worthy of the Caesars." (See J. Toland page 518)
The Munich meeting from the very beginning was never for securing equitable and just peace between Germany and Czechoslovakia. Rather it was more so to hand over Czechoslovakia to Hitler and the coronation of Hitler's bullying tactic. As Goering told to an American psychologist,
"The whole thing was a cut-and-dried affair. Neither Chamberlain nor Daladier was the least bit interested in sacrificing or risking their lot to save Czechoslovakia and the fate of Czechoslovakia was sealed within three hours. Then they argued about the word 'guarantee' for hours. Chamberlain kept hedging. Daladier hardly paid any attention; he just sat there with a kind of bored expression. All he did was node approval from time to time. Not the slightest objection to anything. I was simply amazed at how easily the thing was managed by Hitler. After all, they knew that Skoda, etc., had munitions plant in the Sudetenland and Czechoslovakia would be at our mercy---- When Hitler suggested that certain armaments which were across the Sudeten border should be brought into the Sudeten territory as soon as we take it over, I thought there would be an explosion from Chamberlain and Daladier. But no-not a peep. We got everything we wanted; just like that (He snapped his finger)" {See J Toland, page 519)
Chamberlain knew that Hitler won over Czechoslovakia without a fight. To disguise his defeat in the hand of Hitler, he devised a face saving formula that will enable him to uphold the prestige of the British Empire. Separate from the Munich agreement on Czechoslovakia, he managed to convince Hitler to sign a memorandum of understanding that "the two governments should never go to war but both be resolved to solve their difference by consultation." To this Hitler quickly signed the memorandum of understanding, which he knew he would break it in the near future at his pleasure. But for the deluded British Prime Minister, he was elated for securing the signature of Hitler. Chamberlain sold Czechoslovakia down to the filth tube of Nazidom and yet on his arrival in England, Chamberlain declared by saying, "My good friends, this is the second time in our history that there has come back from Germany to Downing Street peace with honor. I believe it is peace in our time." The Times in its editorial roared with such ululation and declared "no conqueror returning from victory on the battlefield has come adored with noble laurels." Of course Winston Churchill spoke the truth. The fact that what England gained from Hitler was not noble laurels but 'unmitigated defeat." (See W. Shirer, page 420)
In reality Mussolini who ridiculed particularly Britain mercilessly summed up Hitler's contempt. "In a country," said Mussolini, "where animals are adored to the point of making cemeteries and hospitals and houses for them, and legacies are bequeathed to parrots, you can be sure that decadence has set in. Besides, other reasons apart, it is also a consequence of the composition of the British people. Four million surplus women. Four million women sexually unsatisfied, artificially creating a host of problems in order to excite or appease their senses. Not being able to embrace one man, they embrace Humanity."
And sure enough, in a matter of a year and half, Britain tasted Hitler's ruthless contempt when he sent his armada of bombers over London and Coventry where they destroyed thousands of homes and killed equally thousands of innocent Britons. The "Battle of Britain" as is now called revealed Chamberlain shameful policies forever into eternity. As for all the other Chamberlain clique particularly Lord Halifax, Sir Neville Henderson, Sir Horace Wilson, and the most audacious pro-German, Lord Runciman, all these personalities are recorded in history not as honestly brokering Statesmen but as contemporaries of the devil.
Particularly Lord Runciman, Britain was served with vial taints of misconception thanks to this man and as a special envoy of Chamberlain in his mediation between the Czechoslovakian government and the Sudeten Germans, he acted with one sided opinion, racist to the core, and views full of anti-Czechoslovakian dogmas. It was this Lord no less than Chamberlain who gave Hitler his clue that he can get away with what ever he damn pleases and not to mention the earnestness and enthusiasm he showed in revealing to Hitler's satisfaction the fact that the Western powers were not committed to defend Czechoslovakia as the signed treaties prescribed. As Shirer pointed out
"Lord Runciman, in his zeal to appease the Germans, went further than Hitler early enough that he advocated transferring the predominantly Sudeten territories to Germany without bothering about plebiscite. He strongly recommended the stifling of all criticisms of Germany in Czechoslovakia 'by parties or persons' through legal measure. He demanded that Czechoslovakia even though deprived of her mountain barrier and fortifications - and thus left helpless - should nevertheless 'so remodel her foreign relations so as to give assurance to her neighbors that she will in no circumstance attack them or enter into any aggressive action against them arising from obligation to other State." (See W. Shirer, page 388)
In other words
"what Lord Runciman advocated to what the Czechoslovakian government should be was to adopt whole hosts of requirements such as abolishing political liberties, suppress free speech and co-ordinate the press under a totalitarian regime, relinquish her ties with France and the Soviet Union, give up her responsibility as a grown up member of the League of Nations, accept in return a guarantee by the peaceful powers who ever they might be, and enter the German economic system." (See R. Seton Watson, page 362)
The hypocrisy and double standard of Lord Runciman was, he deliberately forgot that it was Hitler who meticulously planed to dismember Czechoslovakia not the other way round. It was the Hungarians and the Polish governments, at the instigation of Hitler, who demanded a piece of Czechoslovakian territory and hardly the other way round. It was Czechoslovakia who was undermined from inside as Hitler and his cronies constantly promoted racial difference viciously. Thus Lord Runciman was not only cruel and dishonest, but he was one of the preeminent British aristocracies who unabashedly gave the Nazi dictator the green light to march over Czechoslovakia as he wishes.
Furthermore, Lord Runciman perfectly availed himself and happily so to be the tool of Chamberlain nihilistic policy that engendered the later to be even more incoherent, wishy-washy, patently weak, and a perfect dancer to the tune of Hitler. As a result of all this miscalculations that produced the infamous Munich agreement, the Second World War was born. The irony of Chamberlain was that he thought he was saving the British Empire by selling Czechoslovakia to appease Hitler and thus avoid the Second Great War. To Chamberlain's great horror, the opposite happened and as a result of Munich, Second World War came, and the effect of the War was the terminal break up of the British Empire. Chamberlain ignominiously sowed a wind and he harvested a destructive whirlwind.
The cruel effect of the Munich gathering was, at that very moment that Chamberlain came to Munich, the Senior German Generals had already planned to overthrow the Nazi Government and put Hitler under house arrest. The excuse they were waiting was for Chamberlain to reject the Godesbergh "Diktat" and as a result for Hitler to declare "WAR" over Czechoslovakia. Non of the German Officers including the Senior ones such as chief of Staff Hadler, General Beck, and Field Marshall Witzlben taught that Chamberlain would come running to Munich much-less to capitulate to Hitler's wishes in such a humiliating fashion. As a result of Munich, the German generals never brought their "coup-detat" to fruition. They had to wait until July 1944, which even then it was done half-heartedly.
And so, the final stage of the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia came in October 1, 1938. The German Army went to occupy all the lands that Hitler demanded in his Godesbergh "Diktat." At the conclusion of the Munich meeting, although Hitler dictated that no Czechoslovakian government representative was to be present in the area, the Czech's Ambassador to Germany, Dr. Mastny and Dr. Masrik from the Prague Foreign office braved it and came to the adjacent building where the meeting was held. At the conclusion of the meeting, the two Czech diplomats were told the bad news and were frankly reminded by the British to follow the points of agreement without any ifs and buts and they should evacuate their population within few days no later than October 10 leaving every property, every wealth, and everything that supports civilization as man knows it fully in tact. "If not," said Frank A. Gwatkin, one of Chamberlain's honchos, "you would have to settle your affair with the Germans absolutely alone." Similarly, the Czech diplomats didn't faire better when they consulted the French. When they protested heatedly to Alxis Leger, one of Prime Minister Daladier's right hand-man at the Munich meeting, he firmly told them that the matter is closed and as such, no answer (acceptance or negation) was necessary from the Czechoslovakian Government. Britain and France regarded the plan as already accepted by the Czech Government." (See W. Shirer, page 417 - 418, also See Seton Watson (now Lord Dacre), Page 368)
As William Shirer noted "the Czechoslovakians were sternly instructed to leave the area pointed out in Hitler colored map (the Red and the Green) without any existing installations having been destroyed, and the Czechoslovakian Government will be held responsible for carrying out the evacuation without any damage to said installation. All evacuating families be it farmers or small size shop owners (thousands of them whose ancestries goes back literally to the middle ages) were sternly told to leave without their household goods and family cows in the exact format Hitler spelled out in his Godesbergh 'Diktat.' The International commission that was expected to supervise the plebiscite on all the lands where German residencies was less than 50 percent was never formed. Instead, a hastily formed commission represented by the Ambassadors to Germany, that of England, Italy, and France as go between and the Czechoslovakian Ambassador and the German foreign office represented by Von Weizsaecker as interlocutors did the Hitler's bid. As expected every dispute over additional territory, every inch of Czechoslovakian piece of real state, Hitler so desired to have, was settled in favor of the Germans. Agreement of each additional territory was attained more than once under the threat of Hitler and the OKW (The German Armed Forces General Staff) to resort to armed force."(See W. Shirer, page 421)
One example of this cruel treatment of transferring land when even the majority of the people who reside on it were Czech was unbearable demonstrated in fixing the Fifth Zone. Disregarding the principle of ceding only districts with over 50% of Germans as it was spelled out in the Munich agreement, in Northern Moravia that contains 254 Czech communes, with 221,000 Czech and 14,500 Germans were handed over to Germany and so was Southern Monrovia's 38 villages, with54, 000 Czech and 16,500 Germans were awarded to Hitler. More monstrous still, on November 22, it transpired that Germany was to receive a Sixth Zone never even mentioned at Munich which contained 70 more villages, with at least 60,000 more Czech. The main railway connecting Prague with Brno, and both cities with the industrial center of Moravska Ostrava and with Slovakia, were cut at nine places in all, thus securing to Germany a strategic and economic stranglehold over what remains of Czechoslovakia. (See Seton Watson, Page 369)
Both Poland and Hungary were also guilty of injustice against the Czechoslovakian people. Just as the Germans took a big chunk of Czechoslovakia, they too threatened a military action against a defenseless Nation thus acquired their own unjust slice. In the case of Poland, she militarily occupied an area where there were only 77,000 Poles, 20,000 Germans but 132,000 Czech. It included the Key railway junction of Bohumin (Oderberg) and the greater part of the coalmines and industries of Ostrava and Karvinna. Thousands of Czech were expelled with quite unnecessary cruelty, and the Czech schools were at once closed. By this action, the ruling clique of Poland, not merely satisfied by the principles on which their own claims rested, displayed peculiar perfidy towards a sister-nation in her bitter hour and a degree of short-sightedness which all too soon was to be dearly paid when Hitler ordered his army to march over Poland in September 1939. Hungary too got here own slice with 7,500 square miles and a population of 770,000 of whom 272,000 were Czechoslovakians. (See Seton Watson, page 370) Like Father like Son, this land of the Magyars also replicated the cruelty of Hitler and booted out thousands of Czechoslovakians with only the dress they wore.
And so, with one sweep, Czechoslovakia lost over 35% of her primer land, and
"with this area lay all the vast Czech fortifications which hitherto had formed the most formidable defensive line in Europe, the French Maginot line excepted. But that was not all; Czechoslovakia's entire system of rail, road, telephone and telegraph was disrupted. According to German figures, Czechoslovakia, all in all, lost 86% of its chemical industry, 80% of cement, 80% of its textile, 70% of its iron and steel, 70% of its electric power, and 40% Timber. A prosperous industrial nation was split up and bankrupted with one week." (See W. Shirer, page 422)
As Goering explained above, Germany gained a huge wealth overnight. The most fascinating aspect of Chamberlain statesmanship was his manipulation in order to be seen principled and consequently he raised the issue of proper compensation to the Czech farmers who were forced to leave without their cattle, such that Chamberlain rhetorically asked, "Does this mean that the farmers will be expelled but that their cattle will be retained?" Hitler exploded! Hitler explained comically that
"the Czech were entitled to NO indemnification because Sudeten Germans had paid more in taxes in proportion to their numbers than had the Czech. Better still, Czech property had been inherited from the Austro-Hungarian monarchy, which was the fruit of German money." (See Eugene Davidson, page 231).
Then Hitler cut Chamberlain to pieces by roaring "Our time is too valuable to be wasted on such trivialities!" The thoroughly intimidated Prime Minister immediately dropped the matter altogether. (See Shirer, page 416) I must not pass without reminding readers that Hitler was lying as usual up to his neck. To begin with, the Czech and the Slovak societies existed as early as the conclusion of the first millennium, long before the Habsburg kings came as occupying power in 1526 in about the same time Turkey occupied parts of Eritrea. As any occupying entities, it was the Austro-Hungarian Empire that benefited from the rich earth of the Czech and the Slovaks, coal being one example. Therefore, Hitler's claim as usual was simply senseless as amply demonstrated by Seton Watson's book, which is very informative on the Czechoslovakian history of early settlement.
The sad thing was, on the eve of the coming of the German occupying Army, the Government and the people of Czechoslovakia were deeply divided, partly because they surely assumed that the Western Powers would respect the treaties they signed. Disturbingly, when they rudely found out that the Western powers had in fact sold them down the tube of Nazi Germany, much of what was left of the Czech society ended up in full flight of confusion. Some like President Benes advised for full retreat to save elements of the Government and the people for another day instead of being destroyed from all sides. Others argued for a fight to the death preferring martyrdom than slavery under Hitler. President Benes agonizingly exclaimed,
"This is the end! It is betrayal and it will avenge itself. It is incredible. The Western Powers think they save themselves from war or revolution at our expense. They are wrong." (See J. Korbel, page 137)
A bitter debate followed. President Benes argued that "since England and France made it plane they were not coming and the nation stood alone and encircled from all sides. This would mean the suicidal of the Nation, and the nation must live." To This, Klement Gottwald, the secretary general of the Communist Party of Czechoslovakia, shot back "Mr. President, I don't agree with you. Barefoot Ethiopians, without armies, defended themselves even if eventually they lost to Fascist Italy and we yield! Then Monsignor Stasek challenged the President by saying, "What ideals will you now presenting to the Nation?" (See J. Korbel, page 140)
In spite of all these challenges and many times more, President Benes stuck to the plan the monstrous Munich agreement prescribed. Before the German Army finished its occupation, President Benes resigned on October 5 "on the insistence of Hitler and when it became evident that his life was in danger, he flew out to England and from there to the United States. Moreover, the truncated and now defenseless country was forced by Berlin to install a pro-German Government of obvious Fascist tendencies." It was clear that from now on the Czechoslovakia nation existed at the mercy of the Leader of the Third Reich.
Was it any wonder then General Jodl, one of Hitler's cheerleading Generals, joyfully wrote by saying:
"Czechoslovakia as power is out--- The genius of the Fuehrer and his determination not to shun even a World War have again won the victory without using force. The hope remains that the incredulous Germans, the weak, and the doubtful people have been converted, and will remain that way." (See W. Shirer, page 422)
To all those European appeasers who thought that the Munich agreement was the last of Hitler's acquisition of part of Czechoslovakian territory, they grimly learned to their shocking dismay that this was not to be true. In a matter of six months after the Munich agreement was signed, Hitler again marched for the final kill. As his usual method, Hitler political
"move was to induce some disgruntled and ambitious Slovak politicians, through threat and persuasion, to secede from what was left of the old Czechoslovakia and establish an independent Slovakian State and thereafter officially request that Germany become their protector."
With such plan of further dismemberment of Czechoslovakia in hand, the German government immediately declared that the agreement in Munich with the respect to the new Czechoslovakian boundaries were not valid anymore, giving Hitler a flimsy excuse to threaten a flimsy invasion of the unhappy Czech republic. He ordered the Czech president, Emil Hacha, to report to him in Berlin in March 14, 1939. Upon arriving Hacha has to wait five hours to meet Hitler who subsequently, Hitler showered the timid Hacha and his subservient foreign minister, Frantisek Chvalkovski, with such bully abuse, telling them that the World would not give a damn about the fate of the Czech State. Unable to stomach Hitler's crescendo of tirade, Hacha fainted and was promptly treated by Dr. Morell, Hitler's standby doctor. Once he recovered, Hocha was forced to sign "a request of German protectorate." Hitler also ordered Hacha to immediately telephone his government in Prague and tell them not to resist the German invading army. On March 15, 1939, German troops marched into the center of Prague just in time to form a guard of honor and a protective screen for Hitler when he entered the city on their heels to savor his new acquired territory. (See Fritz Redlich, page 145)
Every semblance of independence gone and with the disappearance of freedom, good old Czechoslovakia ceased to exist, at least for a while.
The Czechoslovakians had to suffer Nazism for more than 6 years, until April 1945, when the Russian army of Field Marshal Ivan Konev penetrated the Eastern flank of Czechoslovakia while at the same time American troops under General George Patton liberated a good part Western Czechoslovakia. The sad thing was, the Czechoslovakians were passed from Nazi tyranny to Communist tyranny and had to wait for more than 45 years until the collapse of Soviet communism, in 1989, to smell the true face of liberation.
So then what can an Eritrean learn from the tragic story of Czechoslovakia? Are there diplomatic points, for better or worse, that we as Eritreans can readily learn and avoid in our dealing with the Woyane imposed quagmire? In my humble opinion, there are plenty to learn from the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia. Let's just move on.
THE ERITREAN PREDICAMENT
Eritrea, as was Czechoslovakia of the 1930s, had similar history of
brutality perpetrated by foreigners, occupation, and colonialism from a
variety of oppressors. Like Czechoslovakia that achieved its independence
after the conclusion of "First World War," Eritrea too achieved its
independence after hard-fought war, a brutal thirty years passage to
freedom. Unfortunately just like the Hungarians, the Germans, the Poles,
and the Austrian before they themselves became victims of Hitler, didn't
accept the existence of free and democratic Czechoslovakia, Eritrea's
neighbors too, deep down, never accepted the existence of free Eritrea
much less to see her economy bloom and her people prosper. That was why at
the beginning of the May 1998 war with Ethiopia, Eritrea's Neighbors were
ready to get the piece of the Eritrean pie surely believing that she would
be a single morning walk over for the Ethiopian Army. When that dream of
Eritrea being conquered by the Ethiopian army miserably failed to
materialize, Yemen settled her problem peacefully. The Sudanese leader
finally found out his problem was in fact generated from within; his very
own brother - Turabi, and it never was from Eritrea. The Djiboutians too
finally grasped the mendacious nature of Woyane propaganda and
consequently resumed friendly relations with Eritrea.
All the above conundrum leaves us only with Eritrea's neighbor to the south. Ethiopia, like the Nazi Germany of yesteryear, is the chief instigator of the present dilemma of the Ethio-Eritrean war. And like Nazi Germany's upper crust society who believed in their Aryan racial superiority, the Abyssinian ruling class too immensely believes in their superiority of the Kebra-Negest maxim. They passionately preach about its sacredness endlessly and links it to King Solomon-Queen Sheba line, a history, which they fiercely believe, is as unlike any thing that exists in the whole of Africa, so they say.
Finally, like Hitler & CO who arrogantly believed that regardless of who owns the land of the Eastern European Nations and which they ferociously felt they are entitled to have a piece of it or as Hitler called it a living space (Lebensraum) particularly in the Russian Caucasus. In similar fashion, successive Abyssinian rulers have always coveted an outlet to the sea; hence marching eastward to the Red Sea is always considered as pertinent necessary component to the existence of the Ethiopian nation. There are many countries in this world of ours, although land locked, who happily live amidst of prosperity (Switzerland and Botswana for example). And in the age of high technology such idea of a "must have outlet to the sea" is rather extraneous. Sadly and contrary to the norm of modern economic logic that is thoroughly dependent on the wealth of accumulated knowledge of citizens of a given country; to the Abyssinian intellectuals as well as the current rulers of Ethiopia that manifestly hold "the march to sea" like a religious mantra, any deviation from such holy endeavor of acquiring outlet to sea is unthinkable.
And indeed, as an axiomatic point of view, the upper echelon of Ethiopian society always openly expresses the march to sea. Just to give one example, in a recent meeting in Addis Ababa Hilton, one of the Ethiopian nobility, Dejach Zewde Ghebresellassie who is a descendant of both Emperor Yohannes and Emperor Menelik's lines, openly advocated that
"PEACE CAN BE ACHIEVED IN THE HORN OF AFRICA WHEN THE PORT OF ASSAB IS RETRUNED TO ITS RIGHTFUL OWNER - ETHIOPIA. THERE CAN NEVER BE PEACE IN THE AREA WITHOUT ETHIOPIA HAVING ASSAB."
The Ethiopian mass media (the like of Addis Reporter & the Tribune) have also frankly demanded that Assab and its environs should be returned to Ethiopia.
Since free Eritrea is a hindrance towards the achievement of Ethiopia's intended regional hegemony, the idea of bringing Eritrea under control of Ethiopia was the principal aim of successive Ethiopia War Lords and the Woyane are part and parcel of that game. In fact, Woyane grudging recognition of Eritrea's independence was tactical rather than from the bottom of the heart as can be gleaned from Meles' interview with Paul Henze.
"In an interview he gave to Paul Henze, in 1990, Meles Zenawi, the current Prime Minster and the then head of the TPLF, expressed his feelings about post-independence Eritrea. He told him, first, that he did not expect Eritrea unity to hold, once the Dergue was expelled from Eritrea. The principal reason he gave for this opinion was that he earnestly believed Eritrea was religiously a divided nation and as such he expected to see internal conflict to arise once the enemy had gone. Second, he also expressed his unreserved preference to see, not an independent Eritrea, but one linked to Ethiopia in a federal arrangement. Melese's raison_detat about the necessity of Eritrean federalism was this: 'We look at this from the viewpoint of the interest of Tigray, first, and then Ethiopia as whole. We know that Tigray needs access to the sea and the only way is through Eritrea--- There are many Tigreans in Eritrea--- They don't want to be treated as foreigners there---- They have the same history. We are worried about Eritrea because we are not sure that difference among different groups can be kept under control." (See article by Alemseged Tesfai, Part-I http://www.primenet.com/~ephrem2/eritreanoau/alemsghed.html.)
It was this mentality that finally crystallized into war that started in May 1998. All this border talk is in fact a sideshow. Ironically, Eritrea, on the other hand, was immeasurably too cooperative not to antagonize Ethiopians of all walks of life. It allowed the two Eritrean ports to avail to Ethiopian import /export goods to pass free of duty. Even the management and workers of the Port of Assab were sensibly made to be mixed (Ethiopians as well as Eritreans). Furthermore Eritrea was willing to use the Ethiopian currency to make easier for the two peoples to live in each other's place and to exchange goods and services as they wish. Eritrea allowed Ethiopian Air Line not only to use the Asmara airport freely as if it is one of its own but also allowed it to use those lines that were allotted to Eritrea by the International Civil Aviation. President Isaias went further assuring the Ethiopians and telling them among other things that since the history of the two brotherly States are so strong, it cannot be undone by the ill-will of any given leader. In his interview with the Voice of America on the eve of Eritrean independence, President Isaias declared that Borders are going to be "meaningless."
All the above magnanimity was considered as weakness thus from day one, the upper echelon of Ethiopian society, constantly and bitterly complained about Eritreans taking advantage of the Ethiopian wealth and this complaining went on, day in day out, until the very eve of the war. Once the war started, this entire fabricated lie about Eritreans stealing Ethiopian wealth was used as a camouflage to steal the property and bank account of thousands of honest and hard working Eritreans in broad day light as World organizations, be it the OAU, the UN, and the European Union, were attentively watching without uttering even a single word of protest.
Moreover in planning this war, beside the absolutely erroneous belief of Meles & CO's about Eritrea being religiously hopelessly divided, there were several other crucial factors the present Ethiopian ruling class misinterpreted as a given Eritrean societal structural weakness.
FIRST,
The government of Eritrea completely ignored the vehement denunciation by the Ankober plutocracy and their Mekele and Tembien extension cords against anything Eritrean, you name it, the leaders, the people, the economy, Eritrean history and culture, on and on. Eritrean leaders' wisdom not to pay attention to this type of propaganda was based on the presumed hope and favor of economic integration and mutually beneficial development. Eritreans, public as well as in private capable personalities, were so much asleep throughout the 7 years before the start of the current war to the extent that when the Ethiopian mass media were pouring many incomprehensible lies, I never saw even one academic who came to the defense of Eritrea with the sole exception of Professor Jordan Ghebremedihn who tried his best (see his article in the Ethiopian Review) to answer Eritrea's critics. The end result of this attention deficit and sad Rip Vanwinkle's sleep, as far as the Woyane was concerned, was interpreted as one more sign of Eritreans inability to express ourselves hence Woyane expectation to dominate the World Mass Media (once the war started), which as a matter of fact, they did achieve that even if it was short lived. All this regrettable Eritrean society and government complacency vis-a-vis Woyane and their supporters preparedness was neatly summed up by a French paper, "Liberation," July 7, 1998, where it said,
"the two countries (Eritrea and Ethiopia) have taken different strategic approaches towards the media and military. Addis Ababa beats war drums, makes noisy declarations, and proudly advertises the number of enemy deaths. On the other hand, the government of Asmara, the capital of Eritrea, believes that 'this is not an issue to brag about', handles its communication with parsimony, and even avoids the 'word war'." (Quoted in Sal Younis article posted in Dehai, 4/30/99)
And because of this Eritrean negligence, the World almost believed Woyane's false propaganda that Eritrea was the "Aggressor Party."
SECOND, Eritrean leaders showed so much desire to integrate the Eritrean economy with Ethiopia almost to the degree and form of the European Union and even hoping other East African countries would join them as the economy of the two sisterly countries grow. The Ethiopians on the other hand interpreted this genuine desire of mutual development as proof to what they have been preaching all along that "Eritrea economically can not stand on its own." As Professor Tekie Fessahatzion explained it in his consecutive articles (An Economist's Lament) that appeared in Dehai, the Woyane adroitly and systematically sabotaged the venture of economic integration. This unholy sabotage eventually convinced Eritrean Officials to think for themselves hence the creation of the Eritrea currency, the Nakfa. Even then, the minor financial defense Eritrean Officials undertook was at best half hearted. And nothing exemplifies more than the misguided notions of Eritrean government Officers expectation of the Woyane clique to happily exchange the billions of Ethiopian Birr (Ethiopian dollars) that was accumulated in Eritrean banks since the liberation of Eritrea with Eritrean goods and services. Another issue that was overlooked was the fact that Eritrean government Officials complete failure to warn Eritrean citizens who live in Ethiopia to do something about their hard-earned wealth before the Woyane had the opportunity to grab and hold every single cent of it. All these missteps were interpreted by Woyane's Eritrea-haters as one more example of Eritrean softness on any future challenges. Even at this hour, President Isaias said that,
"it is his wish the economies of both Eritrea and Ethiopia enter a process of integration."(See President Isaias' interview with Washingtonpost.com online interview; 4/7/2000)
Ah! The innocent Eritrean heart never fails to amaze me!
THIRD, Eritrean approach to solving any difference between the two governments in fact was as if the two countries were one and the same. President Isaias' approach was to pick up the phone and mostly say, "Brother Meles don't do this, pleases--- please--- or as the old adage of saying goes, 'We know what to say but we chose not to say it,'" which in any way you look at it is thoroughly unfathomable and alien to the politics and language of the diplomatic World. One clear example of this simplistic view was typically demonstrated in the Adi-Murug incident where Ethiopian troops crossed the border of Eritrea at will and brought incalculable damage to Eritrean villagers. In light of all the Woyane Cadres' past abuse of Eritrean farmers that went on in the Badme area throughout 1996 (again refer to Alemseged Tesfai's articles in Dehai), the government of Eritrea should have brought the incident of Adi Murug to the attention of International Organizations. Instead President Isaias approached the grave matter with no more than "writing a letter to Prime Minister Meles and again it was please--- pleases." Nothing typifies this please, please business more than the second paragraph of Isaias' first letter to Meles as translated by Alemseghed Tesfai. (http://www.primenet.com/~ephrem2/eritreanoau/alemsghed.html)
President Isaias said:
"It cannot be said that the border between our two countries is demarcated clearly although it is known traditionally. And we had not given the issue much attention in view of our present and future ties. Moreover, I do not believe that this will be a cause of much concern and controversy even in the future."
And what was Meles' answer to Isaias' low level and open door approach. Again as translated by Alemseghed Tesfai, Meles said,
"We did not imagine that what happened in Bada could create problems. This is because the areas our comrades are controlling were not controversial before and we believe that prior consultation was only necessary for disputed areas."
Although covered with diplomatic language, Meles' answer shows how hardheaded and uncompromising the Woyane clique could be. Whereas Isaias was going by demonstration of goodwill, heartfelt presence of neighborly brotherhood, and the use of traditional interpretation to the extent of admitting that the area is not clearly demarcated. To the contrary, Meles, on the other hand, was point blank and left no room for further negotiated interpretation and peaceful settlement as his choice of words shows and how he arranged the phrases to make his points. This early belligerence of Meles & CO can be seen clearly in the second sentence above i.e. "The areas our comrades are controlling were not controversial." And then the home run phrase: "We believe that prior consultation was only necessary for disputed areas." In other words what Meles said about the incident of Adi Murug was "we own the place indisputably and we could do as we damn pleases."
The tragedy was, the Government of Eritrea chose to overlook this early warning of Woyane bellicoseness and consequently the outside world knew about the incident non-whatsoever. At a later date, when the government of Eritrea tried to bring the Woyane incursion to Adi Murug, the World political Agencies decided not hear a word of it and as a domino effect, it also arose no impact in the World mass media.
Even the sending of the private letter was done very, very secretively. When it was revealed after the start of the Woyane instigated war, it was too late to have any impact to counter the Woyane propaganda of the so-called "Eritrean aggression." To Eritrea's catastrophe, this low level diplomatic approach of President Isaias to the incursion of Adi Murug was readily interpreted as "Eritrean diplomatic inability to bring her case even to the regional level (the OAU) much less to the International level."
FOURTH, The government of Eritrea's desire to demarcate the border by assigning a local committee formed from those who live in the area was another bad judgment done by Eritrean leaders. As usual this low-level approach was also interpreted as Eritrean leaders' lack of expertise in geopolitical manipulation.
FIFTH AND FINAL, Eritrean leaders mysteriously failed to cultivate friendly nations that will help Eritrea in her needy hour, neither in the government to government level nor on the individual level with such people in high places and opinion makers. Eritrean leaders' approach was "so long we do our job honorably, live cleanly without any corruption, and manage the welfare of the people to the utmost possibility, they so believed in their infinite wisdom, recognition and friendship will come by itself." Sadly the World doesn't work that way and the Woyane exploited this to the hilt to their advantage.
One clear example of the importance of cultivating and having a Godfather was recently demonstrated by President Abdelrahman Wahid of Indonesia. From the very day he came to power, many people in and outside of Indonesia thought President Wahid to be a mere stopgap measure until the next big General appears on the scene. And in light of his only religious education, they took him for-granted that he will fall from power within a year. That created uncertainty in the Indonesian economy and foreign investors stayed away in droves. Then in the best traditional workout of Oriental dealing with the West, President Wahid sent his diplomats in search of Godfather and wolla! The next thing the World saw was, President Wahid calling a World size press conference and on his side was Henry Kissinger. President Wahid happily expressed how committed he is to the issue of democracy and repeated all the required buzzwords that satisfied the Western ear. Kissinger on his part said he liked what he sees on President Wahid." By that simple act of "I will scratch your back and you too scratch my back," President Wahid got the required Western perception of a winner in Indonesian politics and Kissinger usually likes the limelight of being called a force of stability. And therefore it was a win-win for both of them. Within a month, the desired effect was achieved. The Indonesian currency and economy stabilized; the tourists and investors started to return; and the big Military Boys, outclassed by X-nonentity religious student, dutifully were sent back to their Barracks as it happened to Chief of General Staff, General Warrantto. Now it doesn't mean that President Wahid turned, all of sudden, to a true blue Democrat nor did Henry Kissinger believed what he saw 100 percent, it only means both acted in their best self interest, each to the interest of his beloved country. In short, when it comes to politics and economic stability, Western perception has its own unique value.
To their beneficial credit, the Woyane clique exploited this time-honored art of connection making where they cultivated friends left and right, particularly in the United Sates, long before they ever came to power including Meles' baptism by X-CIA handlers like Paul Henze (more on this later). And it was not only with the likes of Paul Henze and all that CIA connection that gave the Woyane undisputed advantage to be seen as the only viable force capable to rule Ethiopia. The Gayle Smiths at the National Security and the Susan Rice and David Shins at the State Department, all these connections gave the Woyane an inside track in the early days of the negotiation. Meles even went further by arranging a breakfast meeting between him and pro-Greater-Ethiopia American Academics and NGO biggies, which Professor Harold Marcus was the meeting note taker and where a summary of the meeting was posted at deja.com. Again, as a result of and thanks to all these connections, American policy makers found the keeping of Meles in power and in Menelik's Palace as a supreme importance and the center of their Ethiopian policy. Alas it was these friends, regardless to the national interest of the United Sates, who pushed the adoption of the National Security Memorandum that advocated the return of Eritrea Armed Forces to pre-May 1998. Eventually, it was this memorandum that was translated into US - Rwanda peace proposal. Unlike the Woyane who had the inside track, Eritrean foreign policy makers had no luxury of knowing what was afoot against them and which was why the United States leading policy makers for Africa and the government of Eritrea's leaders had so much difficulties understanding each other at the start of the negotiation for peaceful settlement. The Woyane took full advantage of this confusion and rancor and for a while, it even seemed possible passing a resolution of condemnation of Eritrea in the United Nation. Such is the power and importance of connection making.
Sadly Eritrean leaders never bothered to make any connection as they never entertained that there could be bad days ahead. To the opposite, Eritrean leaders behaved aloof and uninterested in the World arena and that gave a wrong image and wrong perception. When they are not, they were called dictators. When they persuaded the foreign NGOs to stop their charities in order to avoid a creation of cultural complacency, laziness, and the corruption of hard work ethics in the Eritrean population; they were summarily called control freaks. When they protected the interest of the general public by not allowing every whim and practice of small time Taiwanese goods peddler and every-would-be import/export merchant; they were called all kind of names including anti-free-market commies. All this criticism about the Government of Eritrea, in my mind, was absolutely unfair. Be that as it may, in fairness to the critics, the government of Eritrea is partially to blame for none of the Officers beginning from Isaias down the line were practitioners of good salesmanship and shrewd diplomacy. In fact, if it were not for the solid unity of the Eritrean people, Eritrea would have been in far more trouble than what is now.
All the above five points were what the Woyane counted them as Eritrea's societal structural weakness, although their true nature was one of natural and honest missteps of a government that is on the learning process, they nevertheless became reasons for the Woyane to do their illegal and unwarranted aggression over Eritrea. The Woyane truly believed they could crush Eritrea and achieve the "THE AGE-OLD DREAM AQUIRING AN OUTLET TO THE SEA" in a mere two weeks where the Amhara failed to do in 30 years. And so the stage was set for the tragedy that started in the May 1998's encounter.
Besides the calculated instigation of the Adi Murug incident; the abuse and killing of Eritrean farmers by Woyane cadres in the Badme area; the Woyane incomprehensible demand that Eritreans pay the cross border trade with American dollars; the Casus-beli for this war came in with the Woyane ambush and killing of Eritrea Military Officers. As I said elsewhere, Woyane abuse against Eritrean farmers in the Badme area was unremitting and finally it came to a head-on clash sometime in April 1998. This was a well-camouflaged trap to bring the war to the open, which up to this time, was hidden from the outside World.
It all started with the usual abuse of Eritrea farmers in Badme and at that time, 6 Officers of the Eritrean army went to investigate the area where the farmers were abused and dehumanized. On their way, Woyane cadres ambushed them and killed all of them. The government of Eritrea initially peacefully demanded that the killers brought to justice. That was all it was asked from the Eritrean side. The Woyane answered with a lot of excuses and finally said: "They will address the matter at their own convenient time." The Woyane knew such type of answer would push the Eritreans to address the issue with Military confrontation. Since that was exactly what they wanted to see, they didn't even bother to reinforce their border. They simply and haply waited to see the reaction of the Eritreans. After exhausting every possible pleas for reason and finally realized that the Woyane wouldn't compromise, the Eritrea defense forces reacted and pushed the Woyane and kicked them out from the disputed area.
That was it! The Woyane plan to re-ignite the war between what was assumed to be two sisterly States succeeded. The march to the RED SEA was joyously received as radio Tigray with monotonous voice hyperactively proclaimed: "Our lunch in Asmara and our dinner in Massawa." While the Eritrean Government was begging for calm and reason, Ethiopia howled and yelled with every available war drums and in no time, the Government of Ethiopia went on to pass a declaration of war in their rubberstamp parliament. And then presto! Ethiopian diplomats went all over the World claiming they were invaded, out of the blue, by an aggressive dictatorial State from the North. President Isaias, the personage who earnestly saved the Woyane clique from being thoroughly being annihilated by the Mengistu Army at the battle of Shire-Inda-Sellassie and who happily put them in power and in Menelik's Palace was suddenly compared to Hitler and his rule was made to be seen synonymous with "rule by a murderer."
Leaders of the Government of Eritrea from President Isaias downward were absolutely stunned at the tragic and inexplicable turn of the event as the majority of Eritreans were. None of them thought that it would turnout that way. And regardless of Ethiopian bellicoseness, Eritrean leaders were still hopeful that reason and commonsense, at the end of the day, would prevail to the extent of telling the Eritrean public to calm-down and avoid at all cost replicating the Woyane propaganda of war drums. At that point, Ms Gayle Smith and Ms Susan Rice came-out with the so-called US-Rwanda peace proposal with such laser-speed and indeed had convinced the Eritrean Government to withdraw to the pre-May 1998. The Eritrean Government was ready to comply. Sadly, once the Woyane learned that Eritrea was ready to compromise, they decided to take a drastic action to keep the "WAR" alive or else the dream to march to the RED SEA will become null-and-void. The drastic action came in the form of bombing the city of Asmara. The bombing of Asmara assured the Woyane that the war will continue and Ms Rice's proposal was forever sabotaged by the Woyane bombing of Asmara where 30 innocent people were killed and wounded. (For Woyane sabotage to Ms Rice proposal, one of the best article is that of Sal Yonuis, "TPLF : Kingmakers & Peace Breakers." Posted in Dehai.)
As a smoke screen, Meles' demand, overtly, is the return of all the land that was occupied by the defense forces of Eritrea since May 1998, hence the fulfillment of the so-called "status-quo-ante." But as was the case with Hitler, the Woyane dream is anchored on the never ending wish of Abyssinian mindset to achieve an outlet to sea and on the way to swallow the state of Eritrea as fulfillment of the dream to create Greater Tigray. In similar manner like the Nazis where they were so convinced by their Aryan race superiority, the Woyane, too, have shown inordinate racial superiority against anybody who doesn't fit their image. How else can one explain their Bantustan based administration, the so-called "Kellil, which is based on race/ethnicity. How else can one explain that 90% of the heads of the Government departments and 95% of the Officers of the Armed forces could possibly come from one tribe i.e. the Tigrean Woyanes who are only 6% of the 60 million Ethiopians. Yes indeed, how else can any one explain that a tiny minority was able to snatch lands that belong to the Gondar and Wollo, make it part of Tigray, WHOLE SALE, and without losing a single hair of the eye, and then create a map of that province that showed 50% increase in size more so than what was allocated in the traditional Ethiopian map. On this Woyane created map, a legal Eritrean land is also incorporated wantonly without the slightest fear to the mores of International Law. As in Hitler's Anschluss (annexation) of the Rhineland, Austria, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and on to the East. The Woyane, too, are geared up to dominate anybody and everybody in the Horn of Africa. All this talk of "STATUS-QUO-ANTE" IS MERELY A DRESS REHERSAL OF THINGS TO COME IN THE FUTURE. For the Woyane, the abuse of International Law, which they wantonly exercise, hardly mean anything because they are so convinced about their superior GEN and of the Manifest Destiny to rule every piece of land in their surrounding at any price, which they are habitually and deliberately indoctrinated from early age.
The Woyanes, as everybody knows them in their surrounding and to say it mildly but honestly, behaves and religiously acts like a "Creosote Bush," a tall desert plant that drips poisons oil, which in the end kills off all vegetation that tries to grow anywhere near it." And I don't say this lightly knowing full well that every Ethiopian Organization that tried to work with this evil group ended up mercilessly brutalized and eventually unceremoniously killed as it happened to organizations such as the EPRP, EDU, TLF, EPDM, OLF, ELF, Sagim, EDM, All Amhara Peoples Organization, Western Somalia Abo, and individuals like "Assefa Maru, unrelenting advocate of freedom of association and individual rights, shot in cold blood by security forces in May, 1997; Alebachow Goji beaten and tortured to death while in police custody in July 1994; and Mustafa Idris who mysteriously disappeared in 1994," all these names are listed in George Ayittey's book, "Africa in Chaos," displayed in the dedication page. The few lucky remaining usually end up dispersed throughout the world or in some cases, opposition members are gunned down in the streets of a Foreign city as it happened recently to a member of the "Southern Peoples Democratic Coalition (SEPDC) who was killed in Kenya by agents of Woyane. The moment one tries to work with this evil group, they immediately start to work feverishly to undermine him or her, and before one becomes aware of their evil deeds, they spread their bush poison like the devilish Creosote, and which inevitably suffocates the innocent collaborator to death. This is what they did to all the above named Organizations. The last holdover organization they fervently tried to extinguish is the EPLF that is now running the Government of Eritrea. They tried it in the 1980s and when they found out that their poison, back then, was not as strong as they would like it to be, they were all smile and sweet until of course the May 1998 surprise. This to them, however, was never a surprise and in fact, they planned it. It was only a surprise to the rest of the World and particularly to the recklessly overconfident Government of Eritrea. (For SEPDC members killing, see Gezae Hagos, Dehai, Mar. 27, 2000)
And never forget, the culture to mislead and to hoodwink everybody in the sun who tries to get closer to them runs in their blood. Foot-dragging, betrayal, conspiracy against unsuspecting others, and never-ending sweet talk until one is blinded by their friendly smile, this is the Woyane character, this devilish behavior run throughout the history of Tigrean feudal lords. And if you think the color change of a Chameleon depending on the surrounding is nature's wonderful creation. Pufff!! And what is a Chameleon in comparison to Woyane but a minor biological player. For the Woyane, changing color to match their purpose is an integral part of their work and they do it adroitly. I mean, who could have pulled it off but the Woyane with such finesse that one can talk (via BBC radio) about the holiness and the unshakable belief on Enver Hoxha (The Albanian Communist Party leader) Marxism and then before the ink dried, on the next month, Meles & Co run to Washington for the baptism and conversion to "FREE MARKET" with full immersion into the CIA's holy water, with Paul Henze (a veteran CIA) as a godfather and in attendance. Later Meles was taken around Washington, again Paul Henze as a guide and host, introduced to some Public Officials and was given copies of the American Constitution, a box full of it, to be taken to his followers. The whole act of baptism was flawlessly performed and Washington officials thought they found a friend in Meles, a winning politico that serves American interest. They still think that to be the truth, particularly the Gayle Smiths, the Anthony Lakes, and the Susan Rices. "We have a historic relation with Ethiopia that cannot be compromised on moment of notice," said David Shin. And the always trust worthy, Paul Henze, the baptizer according to the scripture of the CIA, is currently serving as unswerving Liqe-Muquas for the survival of Meles and Woyane. Sure-enough, we can see the payoff of the baptism right in front of our eyes the fact that America pays for food (just recently 400,000 tons of food) to help the 8 million hungry Ethiopians and what do the Woyane do with their money? They bought another 2 squadron of Mig-25 bombers and 4 SU-25 tank attack aircrafts. America has yet to say a word about this whole immorality of buying Mig-25s and SU-25 while millions are threatened by famine.
As I said above, the Tigrean past and history is full of murders and atrocities and plenty of it was done over the Tigreans themselves. Betrayal has been part and parcel of Tigrean leaders motto. Who in the world can forget Ras Kassa Mercha (a.k.a. Emperor Yohannes) treachery over Emperor Tewedros, where Kassa led Tewdros' enemies, the forces of the British General, Lord Napier, all the way to Towedros' seat of power, Meqdella.
In a similar fashion, Ras Mengesha, the son of Emperor Yohannes tried to betray Emperor Menelik and to that end, he sent endless letters to the Italian Governor of Eritrea, Fernando Martini, all of them asking for guns and ammunition that will help him to remove Tigray from the domination of Emperor Menelik and the Amhara. At one point he even promised to make Tigray avail to the Italians. Finally Governor Martini became so fed-up about Mengesha's endless request for help and according Chris Prouty:
"Mengesha kept up an avalanche of correspondence with Governor Martini to the extent that Martini called Mengesha a 'Letter Maniac.'"--CHRIS PROUTY, "Empress Taytu and Menelik II, p. 214
This correspondence with the Italians brought a head-on clash between the forces of Mengesha and Menelik's honcho, Ras Mekonnen, the father of Emperor Haile Selassie. Mengesha blinked and asked Governor Martini to mediate between him and the forces of Ras Mekonnen and Menelik. Upon the completion of the mediation, Menelik forgave him and Mengesha submitted to the forces of Ras Mekonnen, which he readily, passed him to Menelik. Once Mengesha was safely out of Tigray and with Menelik in Addis Ababa, Menelik in no time reneged his promise (typical Abyssinian behavior) and Mengesha was sent to Ankober for hard jail and under chain, day and night, where he died in that cold Ankober prison after 7 years.
You would think this would be the end of it. But no! Ras Seyoum Mengesha, Grandson of Emperor Yohannes in his own right had also tried to betray his country and to that end, he corresponded with the Italians, the British in Cairo, the Patriarchate of Alexandria, which all of it failed to materialize. When Mussolini conquered Ethiopia, he was one of the prominent Nobles who happily lived under the Italian flag. His last act of betrayal was to come with the British occupation of Eritrea.
According to historian Anthony Mockler, (page 374)
"the day after the British took over control of Asmara, Ras Seyum rode into the city and presented himself to General Platt and the new DCPO for Eritrea and Tigray, Kennedy-Cooke. He offered his services to fight the Italians and asked, inevitably, for money and arms. Platt discouraged him on the grounds that there was a risk of clashes between Ras Seyum's men and his own. Not that in the event Ras Seyum took the least notice of Platt's formal or informal wishes, for he had many thousand Italian rifles and already 7,000 men at his order. But there was one point that the British particularly noticed. Ras Seyum stressed again and again the alliance of his grandfather, then the future Emperor Yohannes, with the British at the time of Lord Napier's expedition against Mekdella and Emperor Tewedros."
-- ANTHONY MOCKLER, "Haile Sellassie's War : The Italian Ethiopian Campaign."p. 374
"It seemed," added Anthony Mokler, "once again, as if Ras Seyum repetition of his Grandfather, Ras Kassa's (a.k.a. Emperor Yohannes), attitude and reaction might decide Haile Sellassie's fate." (See page 375)
Ras Seyoum's treachery was never forgiven by Haile Selassie and the Showa Nobility and once Haile Selassie consolidated his power, although not as draconian measure as what Menelik did to his father, Ras Mengesha; Ras Seyoum was given a title in name only as Governor of Tigray but he was under house-arrest in Addis Ababa for the rest of his life and was never allowed to leave Addis Ababa to visit his Tigray Governorate.
Let us also remember that Dejach Kassa was a nephew of Ras Araya Demtsu. That makes his son, Dejach Debeb Arraya, to be a close relative of Dejach Kassa. In this case, an innocent outsider would think that Dejach Debebe Araya and Dejach Kassa to work like hand and glove for the sake of national interest when Ethiopia was threatened by outside forces as it happened during the Sudanese Mahdi era. Well folks, I am sorry to inform you, that national interest or blood relation had no value in the Abyssinian leaders mindset, particularly among Tigrean warlords. One cares about himself, first and foremost, and if another Ethiopian happens to be in-trouble, the devil is assumed to take care the fate of him or her. No amount of blood relationship could change this fact.
One clear example of the meaninglessness of blood relation that can be seen in the annals of Tigray was the act of treachery that was done by Dejach Debeb Araya to Emperor Yohannes, namely, as Emperor Yohannes was bleeding to death in the battle of Mettema fighting the Mahdi forces, not only Dejach Debeb Aaraya didn't go to Mettema but betrayed Yohannes by occupying Adwa, the then current seat of the Emperor. To consolidate his power, Debeb went on writing to foreign colonialists like the Italian Governor of Eritrea, General Baldissera. Among other things, Debeb said to Baldissera the following:
"The king only gave me a title (Dajazmach) but I was not convinced he was my friend, I went to be a ruler I have now half of Ethiopia in my hands. You and I should help each other to our victory. I ask you no arms and no money but your friendship."
Similarly, Debeb also wrote a letter, on Dec. 23, 1888, to the British Resident of Eden by saying:
"I am no way in accord with the Negus (meaning Emperor Yowhanes) . I am of Royal birth. If, with the help of Jesus Christ, I secure your goodwill, I shall have no more troubles. I have given my heart to you. Love me. I love you. It is you who have put King John (Meaning Yohannes) upon the Ethiopian throne, consequently, after Jesus Christ, I look to you for support." (For the above two paragraphs, see Haggai Erlich, HAGGAI ERLICH, "Ras Alula and the Scramble for Africa." page 131 to 134)
Yohannes died at Mettema and the Kingdom, in spite of all the conspiracy of Debeb passed to Menelik of Showa who is even more Mendelai (poisonous snake) and a shifty desert fox than the Tigrean lords ever imagined knowing about. Menelik, a man who excels in classic connivery, for once the Tigreans faced the very best Machiavellian Southern Abyssinia has to offer and they were intrigued and manipulated individually to the hilt. Thus they ended up killing each other as Ras Hagos and Ras Alula did, where both of them died from each other's bullets. The result of all that Tigrean leaders' cultural dubiousness was to land them for 100 years under Showan strict hegemony.
All the same, as far as the Tigrean leaders are concerned, when it comes to betrayal, Royal blood in ones vein was never a panacea for upholding desirable patriotism. As they are always consumed by their insatiable dream of grabbing and holding to power, the Tigrean rulers like the Amhara lords, throughout history, have never shown any sympathy to the suffering of the average Ethiopian. Not even the fate of the thousands of Ethiopian soldiers under Ras Kassa and Ras Mulugeta who were dying like flies from the effect of Italian Nerve gas at Emba Alagie would persuade the Tigrean leaders from betraying their people and their Nation. What we can take as an example at that instant moment was the behavior of Dejach Haile Selassie Gugsa, great-grandson of Emperor Menelik via his daughter, Empress Zewditu, and also great-grandson of Emperor Yohannes, via his son, Ras Araya Sellassie. You would think that this royal blue blood cares about the suffering of his people. Not a chance, the moment the Tigrean Nobility saw the Italian forces of General De Bono were winning in their fight against the forces of Emperor Haile Selassie, he and his forces crossed the Italian line near Adi Grat and presented themselves to General Santini which in-turn introduced Gugsa to his commander, General De Bono. General De Bono saw a good propaganda opportunity in the defection of Haile Selassie Gugsa and immediately introduced him to an American Associated Press Correspondent. Haile Selassie Gugsa told the American that he had an army of fifteen thousand men at his disposal, including eight thousand who were still at Mekale but would be arriving soon to join him. More question and answer followed:
"Do you intend to fight on the side of the Italians?" the American asked through an interpreter.
"At the first opportunity," Haile Selassie Gugsa said.
"Will your men fight with you?"
"They will," he quickly answered.
"Why did you come over to the Italian side?" "Because I have always been friendly to Italy. I want to see the development and modernization of my province."
(See Thomas M. Coffey, "Lion by the Tail", page 181 to 182)
All the treacheries recounted above were never isolated events. To the contrary, it was and still is the behavior and modus-vivendi, to say it mildly, of past and present Tigray. The few episodes I tried to recount here merely represent the tip of the iceberg and as any one can see, it was only from the line of Emperor Yohannes. There were also plenty of treacheries that came from the line of the house of Sibagadis of Agame, followers of Ras Alula and the lineage of Ras Michael Sihul of Tembien, the house of Wagshum Gobezie (a.k.a. Emperor Teckle Giorgis) of Lasta, Wagshum Buru and Ras Araya Demtsu of Inderta, the list goes on and on. It is this Tigrean leaders' historical culture of treachery, duplicity, deceitfulness, and revenge that constantly fuel the Woyane who are now ruling Ethiopia. It is for this historical reason that the Woyane can break International law at will and without any fear of consequence. And here in lies the reason why they broke many recent agreements flagrantly. To wit, here is a list compiled by Warsay Eritrawi with minor addition from mine:
All the above dubiousness is the legacy of murderous leaders of Tigray and as such what they are doing to Eritrea currently, to speak truthfully and personally, do not surprise me. They learn from early age to always be on guard and to kill when the opportunity arises. The idea that they could possibly enter into peaceful resolution of war, in my humble opinion, is merely a pipe dream. Only if their position is weakened as it happened to them after the battle of Shire-Enda-Selassie in the late 1980s would they enter into serious negotiation. To expect them otherwise when they in fact feel very secure militarily is to go against the mores of their culture.
Now a lot of International politicians said, "how could war between Ethiopia and Eritrea happen out of the blue. Meles and Isaias were not only friends but relatives." "They have common language and culture; how could that be; we don't understand?"
The reality is, Meles acted in synch with the treacherous culture of his Tigrean predecessors. And Isaias too acted with that never ending naivete of his Eritrean forefathers i.e. only acting after the Abyssinian Javelin pierced the right Auricle of Eritrea, which for the most part, such act of defense is too late to be of any meaning to the people of Eritrea. One would expect Isaias to watch carefully where Meles & Co were heading in the last seven years. But no, to Isaias & Co, the fateful historical lesson of Eritreans death in the hand of Abyssinian Warlords such as that of Rasi Wolde Michael, Lorezo Tazaz, General Tedla Ogbit, Azimach Berhe Gebrekidan, General Aman Andom, Degiyat Hargot Abbay, and many more was ancient history that can not be repeated. It was felt "this new Eritrea is led by new breed of men (a la Ghirma Asmorom) and hence Eritrea has nothing to fear from them Tigreans." Even after all the death and destruction of this war and Eritrea was held hostage for almost two years; Eritrean leaders are still optimistic that this problem could be solved through peaceful means. If what Isaias told to the American Peace corps is true, he is even willing to withdraw the EDF from their position without the necessary declaration of "CEASEFIRE." A very risky position a head of State ever entertained and one that was totally unheard off in any history of war throughout the World. It is this understanding of the ever-present optimism of Eritreans versus the realization of the carefully cultivated Tigrean leaders' treachery that forced Anthony Lake & Co to demand concession after concession from Eritrea and non-from the Tigreans. So then before we go on to the conclusion let see the motive of the Americans.
CLINTON AND THE AMERICAN DIPLOMACY VIS--VIS THE ETHIO-ERITREAN WAR
Up front, I must say President Clinton have shown more desire to correct
the contemptuous view American Foreign Policy Pharisees had shown for
years over Sub-Saharan Africa. Toward this end, he did his best to correct
the past and needless to mention his visit to five or six African
countries, which certainly is a measure of his decency. Prior to his
visit, only Jimmy Carter has done it to Liberia and merely for few hours,
from the Airport to Downtown Monrovia and back to the Airport. In the case
of Clinton, not only did he hold Policy meeting with the so called New
African Leaders at Entebbe, Clinton also visited Slave Depot where
Africans were herded to board Slave Ships like cattle and on to be sold to
the Plantations of the Americas. Although, if we have to give it strict
historical interpretation about Slavery, the United States is no more
guilty than say Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, and other Western
Countries, still President Clinton took the issue of Slavery as his own
past and openly apologized to Africans, which in essence shows about his
deeply held sane and upright morality to identify with the weak and
downtrodden, and more so about his upbringing and his humble origin.
If one has to speculate then, it is this decency to do well that brought Mr. Clinton to mediate the Ethio-Eritrean War. The question is, can we honestly say Clinton is prepared to do what is necessary to see to it that the "NECESSARY CARROT AND STICK ARE PROPERLY APPLIED." Here I am happy to say President Clinton has applied the proper carrot and a very generous one I should say in the minimal terms. Yet, I am sorry to say that one is hard pressed to see Clinton's proper application of the Stick.
There are couple reasons why this is so which leads me to contemplate that his personal belief and the way he reacts to adversity can be gleaned from the STOIC PHILOSOPHY OF THE ROMANS whose Greek origination started with Zeno at about 300 BC. One of the central practitioner of this Philosophy was the Roman Emperor, Marcus Auralius, whose reminiscence was recorded in a book titled "Meditation."
Mr. Clinton, as a connoisseurs and buff of history is reputed "making midnight calls to famous historians (Example to Doris Kearns Goodwin, LBJ and FDR biographer)" when he sees something that needs clarification. He is also well versed in the history of the Roman Empire particularly that of Marcus Auralius' "Meditation," which in the following couple paragraphs, I would like to say few words and how President Clinton uses the influence of that Philosophy to his day-to-day decisions making process.
At the heart of the Stoic philosophy as expounded by Marcus Auralius is the fragile nature of man's fate on the universe the fact that "'our existence upon this earth is only a fleetingly short and transitory affair and at best, a brief visit to an alien land.' 'At least while we are engaged upon this journey,' reminds us Marcus Auralius, 'we can rise above the squalid material things that encumber us from becoming good and honorable and thus the need to behave as responsible, decently and cooperatively as we can to our fellow travelers.'" (See Michael Grant, page 92)
Repeatedly, Marcus Aurelius admonishes us to "Constantly regard this universe as one living being having one substance and one soul; observe how all things have reference to one perception, the perception of this one living being, and observe how all things act with one movement, how all things are the cooperating causes of all things which exist. Observe, too, the spinning of the thread and contexture of the web." (Aurelius, page 33, Mary Ellen Sondograss, Cliff Notes on Roman Classics, page 314)
With the above understanding of our fate as back ground, Marcus Auralius reminded us "that all men and women have an equal share of this earthly divine spark, such that, they are, in the last resort, brothers and sisters, members of and of the same community. 'Men exist for each other,' as Auralius expressed it: 'Then either improve them or put up with them." (See Michael Grant, page 92)
For Marcus Auralius, the utmost experience in life is
"to have inside oneself a strong disposition to do good, and to give to others readily, to cherish good hopes, and to believe that one is loved, as of necessity, by fellow friends " (Cliffs Notes on Roman Classics, page 313)
The key Auraliusian phrases to the understanding of President Clinton are the ideas of saying that one has to "either improve them (in this case adversaries) or put up with them," and the belief that "one must have inside oneself a strong disposition to do good, and to give to others readily." This phrases pretty much sums it up about the execution of his political activities, be it his identification with the poor and voiceless Americans, to the extent of going to their ancestral homeland and then openly apologizing about past misdeeds (in this case slavery) while at the same time he unabashedly become a true-blue Republican (contrary to his campaign promise) and then announced to the whole world that his administration is ending welfare as "history knew it." Republicans passionately despised his tactics because he stole their favorite issue and diehard Liberal Democrats were very angry with him because he betrayed them on the very issue they protected for the last thirty years. For Mr. Clinton, however, what he did was merely the Aureliusian adaptation and he saw no contradiction in doing so.
Mr. Clinton also has a well-known habit of backing off when challenged. One example we can discuss here is the way he handled the nomination of Governor William Weld of Massachusetts as an Ambassador to Mexico. Governor Weld, a Bostonian Brahmin and Rhodes scholar, was exceedingly qualified for that position. The one major hurdle the Senate Foreign relation committee found on Governor Weld was, as Governor, he favored the legalization of marijuana for medical use and also supported Gays and Lesbians to live as they wish, which didn't go well with the conservative, Senator Jesse Helms of North Carolina, Chairman of the Foreign Relation committee. Governor Weld tried his best to get approval from the Foreign Relation committee to the extent of proving his interest on the ambassadorship to Mexico by resigning his current job as Governor of Massachusetts. Still, the Foreign Relation committee was not impressed and rejected him. Now, compare Governor Weld quandary with Justice Clarence Thomas appointment to the United States Supreme Court. Justice Thomas would have never made it to the Supreme Court had it not for the Bush administration where they provided him a spirited defense of his integrity that deflected effectively all the torrential accusations that came from the Democrats. By comparison, Governor Weld never received such kind of forceful defense and thus his nomination was rejected.
Here, what we have witnessed abut Mr. Clinton vis--vis Governor Weld is pretty much in line with the Auraliusian idea of practice that unambiguously said "Men exist for each other,' as Auralius expressed it: 'Then either improve them or put up with them." At the time of the Senate hearing of Governor Weld's nomination, he was virtually endorsed by all the major Newspapers in the land, the New York Times and the Washington Post, among others. The Los Angles Times went further than most as to suggest to Mr. Clinton to "play the hard ball and immediately call the bluff of Senator Helms." In spite of the deafening roar in defense of Governor Weld, the White House never challenged the Foreign Relation Committee, which brings me to say that they, instead, approached it with the perfect Aureliusian manner, namely, as Aurelius expressed it:
"Say to yourself in the morning: I shall meet people who are interfering, ungracious, insolent, full of guile, deceitful and antisocial; they have all become like that because they have no understanding of good and evil. But I who have contemplated the essential beauty of good and the essential ugliness of evil, who know that the nature of the wrongdoer is of one kin with mine - not indeed of the same blood or seed but sharing the same mind, the same portion of the divine - I can not be harmed by any one of them and no one can involve me in shame. I cannot feel anger against him who is of my kin, nor hate him. We were born to labor together, like the feet, the hands, the eyes, and the rows of upper and lower teeth. To work against one another is therefore contrary to nature, and to be angry against a man or turn one's back on him is to work against him." (M. Aurelius, page 11)
With the understanding of the above homilies, President Clinton next nominated not as luminary as Governor Weld, but one whose past is acceptable to the Foreign Relation Committee. With that approach, the hearing of the next appointee went on smoothly, which in essence was the practice of Aurelius i.e. "either improve them or put up with them."
Such approach to governing may not be stellar but perfectly acceptable to a democratic society where winning can never be in the manner of "a winner take all" and even remotely to become the reason for the lose of once cherished head. Sadly, I must say, President Clinton seems to forget that such approach can never succeed if applied over a society that have no voice in the daily governing of their lot and led by a narrow minded clique like those who are now ruling the state of Ethiopia. For the Ethiopian rulers of today, the Woyane, it is either win all or never. Their political horizon does not allow them to make movements even a mere ten percent let alone an equidistant approach, as genuine International diplomacy requires. In short, simply and bluntly said, the word compromise is not in their vocabulary. And if President Clinton thinks that he can persuade the Woyane by merely practicing the Aurelius prospect of mutual benefit instead of the time honored "firm diplomacy" of his predecessors, the end result, regardless of his decency and honorable goodwill, is going to be another Chamberlain failure followed by more war and destruction and needless to mention the Czechoslovakian style fragmentation the Woyane dreams of and would like to see over Eritrea. No amount of concession from the Eritrean Government is going to satisfy them. Thus simply said, "Clinton adaptation of Marcus Aurelius's philosophy will never work in the mediation of the Ethio/Eritrean war."
The other problem that is compounding the Ethio-Eritrean war for the worse is the Tony Lake approach to Diplomacy. I must openly say that Mr. Lake, like his boss, may have good intentions to see the peaceful solution of the Ethio-Eritrean war. And yet, unlike his boss, he is the product of the old school with full-fledged Euro-centric point of view particularly that of the Cold War panorama. A first rate scholar with all the proper credentials of Harvard undergrad, two years at Cambridge University, and last, with doctorate from the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs at Princeton University, Mr. Lake's training and his service with private and public institutions dealt exclusively and primarily with issues of the cold war era be it negotiating with the old Soviet Union or dealing with Chairman Mao flunkeys. Thus what can be definitely said is that Dr. Lake personal interest has always been with prestigious issues of the cold war and less to do with Africa.
To give credit where credit is due, he has worked on the illegality of the old Rhodesia of Ian Smith when he was at the Carnegie Endowment as is also true on the recent Rwanda and Burundi tragedy. Add to all these, his gutsy reaction to the illegality of President Nixon's invasion of Cambodia where Mr. Lake honorably resigned from his post as a National Security staff in the Nixon White house under Henry Kissinger. Thus on the personal level, Mr. Lake perhaps is approachable and a decent fellow even though I am sorry to say that since then, Dr. Lake's temperament has changed drastically and not to my liking.
The problem is, can anyone honestly say the mind that was trained to handle Soviet era policies is fit to mediate and persuade the WOYANE mindset that is far worse than the "Hatfield and McCoy" of American history. Can a personality that was trained to negotiate in give and take atmosphere effectively assert his position to the mentality of the Abyssinian fundamentalism of the "Kibra Negest" which at heart is Byzantium from head to toe? And should we forget the "id and ego" of the Abyssinians where it is neatly capsuled by the phrase "Yal-Teretere; TemeneTere - always guard yourself with suspicion against anybody and everybody or else you will inevitably you will be uprooted." All these negative mindset of the Abyssinian Warlords forces this writer to believe that Dr. Lake, as a diplomat with Euro-centric view, may not be the right person to swim effectively on such Ethiopian lakes full of deadly crocodiles who earnestly believe the right way to solve a problem is through the barrel of the gun instead of a give and take in a table discussion. This is why he is currently seen running to Asmara to fetch concessions after concessions while the Woyane clique has yet to give him even one concession.
Furthermore, one also is forced to look into "on the job training of Dr. lake" particularly with the Carnegie-Endowment where at one point, that Institution was ruled with iron fist by none-other than John Foster Dulles as Chairman of the Endowment. Mr. Dulles, a man who walks and talks with the philosophy of "America First" in his mind and sad to say, a man who sold Eritrea and Eritreans to Ethiopian slavery in the late 1940s by openly declaring:
"From the point of view of justice, the opinions of the Eritrean people must receive consideration. Nevertheless the strategic interest of the United States in the Red Sea basin and considerations of security and World peace makes it necessary that the country has to be linked with our allay Ethiopia."
Such on job training calibrated with the temperament and culture of such Institution gives neither assurance nor a good night sleep to this Eritrean for Dr. Lake, as young researcher, grew up drinking that same holy water of John Foster Dulles where the interest of "America First" is paramount. Nowadays it is not openly expressed as John Foster Dulles did but in a roundabout way, it is still there, and the hymn is "the Government of Meles Zenawi should be saved at all cost." Is it any wonder then that Dr. Lake acted with superficiality and condescending attitude in negotiating with the Eritrean Government Officials particularly his attempt, in his last visit to Asmara, to talk to different Government Ministers in order to create a discord among the different Ministries thereby weaken the firm stand of the Eritrean people. In other words, the use of the old idea of "divide and rule".
In addition to all the above, during President Carter's era, when Brezhnev and Castro made the Horn of Africa their play ground, Dr. lake, as a director of the State Department policy planning, had considerable opportunity to innovate and perhaps to even call a spade a spade and help the freedom fighters of Eritrea. As ever, the State Department decided to stick with the murderous Mengistu even when the killing squads of that dictator were roaming every Ethiopian hamlet and were killing hundreds of thousands Ethiopians and leaving their bodies in the street as warning to others. One would expect that Dr. Lake & Co to come out with a policy paper that condemns Mengistu. And yet, the State Department never addressed the issue forcefully. For the last 50 years, the thought of American policy makers is always centered on the immoral idea that "what went on in Ethiopia is Ethiopia's business so long American interest is kept apace.
Considering that the United Sates' Policy has always favored Ethiopia; bearing in mind that Ethiopia still has solid connections and friends in both the State Department and the National Security Council; and in light of the lucrative contracts that American companies are enjoying in Ethiopia such as the billion dollar agreement that Ethiopia recently signed with an American Company to extract "GAS" in the Awash valley area; all this considerations precludes Dr. Lake to be an honest broker. Relating to this point, one is forced to bring Dr. Lake's comment he made at a breakfast meeting with Journalists in Beijing, on July 10, 1996. Said Dr. Lake,
"In the end, governments trust each other when they understand that they are acting on the basis of their interests, and not through protestations of friendship or good feeling."
In other words regardless how relentlessly Eritrean Government Officials protested to him for not serving Justice unambiguously in his dealing with the minority Government of Ethiopia, Dr. Lake & Co will always act on the basis of the National Interest of the United Sates. That was what John Foster Dulles said more than 50 years ago concerning Eritrea and Dr. Lake is merely repeating that same mantra (although in broader scope) in the Beijing breakfast meeting with the Journalists. And so long Eritrea's offer to the American interest is not in par with that of Ethiopia or Eritrea remains not having friends in high places that actively advocate the interests of Eritrea, this writer have no reason to be optimistic about the justice of American foreign policy in the Horn of Africa. (For Dr. Lake commentary in his breakfast meeting with the Journalist, see "Foreign Policy Backgrounder", July 11, 1996)
The most amazing thing is the similarity of Chamberlain /Lord Runciman approach in their dealing with Germany and Czechoslovakia and that of President Clinton and Dr. Lake approach in their mediation on the Ethio-Eritrean war. In advance, I must say President Clinton is far more morally superior than Chamberlain and yet I am still shocked that he didn't say a word when the "air-strike moratorium" he brokered between Ethiopia and Eritrea was deliberately broken by the Government of Ethiopia where they sent their bombers to destroy classrooms of elementary school children in Adi Keyih where more than 15 students died and wounded. In view of this sorrowful standoffishness added to his Aurelius Philosophy, is it any wonder then that the peace process floundered beyond recognition as the Ethiopian Government backpedaled again and again.
The government of Eritrea compromised and accepted every bit of American request and after the OAU Algiers meeting, the US policy makers were so euphoric about their success believing that Eritrea was the main problem and thus once Eritrea accepted the Algiers proposal, American policy makers assumed that implementing it was a peace of cake. One can see this euphoria from the briefing by Susan Rice and Gayle Smith on July 15, 1999. Ms Rice said that the American negotiators covered a lot of ground and had substantial and very helpful deliberations with both Ethiopian and Eritreans. In short here is what she said:
"On Ethiopia and Eritrea, the OAU high level delegation, which has been the entity of the OAU that has been working on the Ethiopia-Eritrea conflict for the last year, presented to the two parties a document called 'Modalities for the Implementation of the OAU Framework Agreement,' which was meant to bring greater specificity to how the framework itself, which both sides had nominally accepted, might now be brought into force and implemented. It was notable that the two sides' initial response to this document was constructive and a positive one, and now we will be working very closely with the OAU to try to follow up as quickly as possible with the aim of trying to formalize an agreement to these document then, of course, move towards a cessation of hostilities and more detailed talks on implementation." Concluded Ms Rice, "Obviously, we are a long way still from a formal agreement, but I think we have reason to be encouraged at this development and we will continue our more-than-a-year effort to try to help bring this dispute to a successful conclusion and a peaceful conclusion." (See "USIS Weekly Special Report, July 22, 1999)
All this hopeful talk by Ms Rice and others was done without having the full understanding of the Byzantine nature of the Ethiopian mindset that revels in senseless obstinacy, inexplicable intractability, and willfulness of the first order. To bluntly say it, this mindset is nothing less than the "Agew Libu zeteN, Simintun asqemTo andun aChaweteN (roughly translated - The Agew whose hearts are nine, he hid eight of them and only showed me one of them). Never forget, the Agewian culture, to this day, pretty much dominates the mindset of the Abyssinians. And no wonder the negotiation floundered so quickly to the extent it can now be called dead for all practical purposes. All this obstinacy of repeated demand of "status-quo-ante" was rather to cover up Woyane's bigger plan "the march to Red Sea."
President Clinton, true to the Aureliusian wisdom of habitual adaptation, was absolutely uninvolved throughout the Ethio-Eritrean war. Last January, when the Woyane showed their true color with their antic demand of the "Status-Quo-Ante." This was the hour if there was any in this tragic negotiation that required the true grit of statesmanship and Mr. Clinton should have forcefully intervened to bring the parties closer. Sadly the President of the United States chose to do nothing and left everything to the misguided whim of Dr. Lake.
In any negotiation, the commitment of the "BROKER" to see it through is paramount and one, which is the cardinal rule of the game. In the Camp David negotiation, President Carter faced uncompromising rhetoric from Prime Minister Menachem Begin. But Carter to his credit, once he saw the negotiation was going nowhere; he chose to standup for truth and called a spade a spade. According to historian Benny Morris here is how Carter handled it.
"Responding about the Israeli troop withdrawal, Prime Minister Begin responded that 'he could not go against the wish of Israeli people.' Carter shot back by saying most Israeli were willing to withdraw from Sinai and 'substantial portion' of the West Bank as well. In stating this position, Carter argued, he represented the Israeli people more accurately than Begin. The two men then chewed over and over the same points, and finally Carter forcefully accused Begin of being willing to forgo peace 'just to keep a few illegal settlers on the Egyptian land' in a 'heated and unpleasant' discussion."(See Benny Morris, page 468)
It was this commitment to justice and to stand up and be counted when necessary that brought the Camp David negotiation to a successful conclusion.
The most puzzling aspect of American negotiators was and still is their never-ending desire to portray the Woyane as reasonable people where one could do business with full trustworthy response from their end. In his interview with the Boston Globe, Dr. Lake confidently announced to the whole world that "the Woyane were going to give their decision one way or the other." "This week," he said, "with full air of confidence expecting a positive response as if the Woyane are your average innocents whose circumscribed World stretches between Work, Church, and Ben &Jerry outlet." And indeed the Woyane made their point of view known the following week, which was negative. To this spiteful response, one expects a forceful reaction from Dr. Lake. But no, as if nothing happened, Dr. Lake continued with his usual game making the Woyane look sensible while the opposite was the truth. Throughout the fall of 1999 up to last February 2000, for every negative answer the Woyane adored him with, Dr. Lake went on demanding and garnering concession after concessions from the Government of Eritrea without achieving even a single change of alphabet from the Woyane Government in the exact format Chamberlain and Lord Runciman did to Czechoslovakia. Yes! In a similar manner that Hitler dictated Chamberlain every time they met to the extent of not allowing the Czechoslovakian Government Officers to be present and voice their view at the Munich meeting that decided their fate; Dr. Lake too allowed the Woyane to dictate whatever they wish to the extent of demanding that only will they accept "OBSERVER" and not "PEACEKEEPER," and only "AFRICAN" and not "FROM OTHER CORNERS OF THE WORLD."
The Woyane demanded this point to be included in any future agreement with three purposes in mind.
The most infuriating nature of American diplomatic approach to bring peace to the Ethio-Eritrean war was demonstrated in glaring terms that American negotiators, in truth, were never evenhanded as many of us perceived them and expected them to be. This shocking duplicity came to the fore when the peace process failed last February, thanks to Woyane's never-ending obduracy and then the Sate Department, via spokesman James Ruben, released a statement that reminded the World that the two nations didn't accept the peace proposal. The hard fact that doesn't need any microscopic political analysis is; "it was only Ethiopia that negated the peace proposal by demanding that all the disputed areas be recognized, in advance, as undisputed territory of Ethiopia and that was the meaning of the 'status-quo-ante' in any way or shape one looks at it." Eritrea has accepted every single component of the proposal the American Government put forward in their own handwriting and yet the very fact the Department of State chose to include Eritrea in the same footing with Ethiopia as a 'PEACE REJECTER' shows that American Policy Makers are not honest brokers.
As if all the concessions Eritrea made so far is not enough, Dr. Lake & Co are now maneuvering to soften the Eritrean resolve by leaking Woyane military strength, which incidentally mimics Chamberlain tactic where he used to spread his sneaky but, all to often, vicious views via the London Times that mortally became a bane to the Government of Czechoslovakia but a boon to Hitler's nihilistic agenda. It was those calamitous Chamberlain's views in the Times editorial that gave Hitler not only to change and escalate his demand, day by day, but to strengthen the resolve of the German Military General Staff that regardless what happened in 1st World War, on this one they can get away with their demands. "All that was needed," said Hitler, "was to have a solid faith in the philosophy of Nazism." The more Chamberlain leaked his view to the editors of the London Times, the more Hitler scaled up the ante; from autonomy to self -determination by plebiscite; from self-determination by plebiscite to outright annexation and invasion of every land where the German minorities happened to live. And when Chamberlain and Daladier thought the implementation of the Munich agreement was the last wish of Hitler, the Dictator ended up gobbling the whole Czechoslovakia within six month after Munich.
In our day, we see similar tactic being used by friends of Ethiopia by aimlessly spreading "a deliberate Woyane falsehood" elevated as top secret info and then passed to the United States "Central Command" and "Central Command" in return leaking it to an obscure tabloid known as "The Indian Ocean Newsletter." At one point, we are even told how the town of Senafe will be conquered by the 20th mechanized division; how the 23rd Infantry division would turn to the Northwest to protect the penetration of the 23rd division; how the flaming 13th division will protect the Southern flunk; and lastly how the 11th Infantry Division will seize the disputed town of Zala-Ambessa. My problem with this hullabaloo is not with the Woyane for I know them they are pathological liars; my problem is with the United Sates Central Command. Do they really think that they can bend the will of the Eritrean people by dispersing such helter-skelter? In Megistu's "OPERATION RED STAR" that was put together by Russian Military planners and participated by Russian and Cuban pilots, Yemeni tank gunners; East German security and technical personnel; with more 250,000 troops, more 200 tanks, more than 80 Mig 21s and 23s; all this power was never able to bend the will of no more than 25,000 Eritrean freedom fighters. That same Eritrea human will is now facing the Ethiopians of today with far better armaments. Sad to say, the United Sates Central Command never took into consideration this Eritrea human will but was willing to be used as conduit of Woyane falsehood. What a shame!
The question is, how was it possible for "Central Command" to leak such news? Wasn't it always the tradition that all military matters foreign or domestic are handled by the spokesperson of the Department of Defense? Even though manning that part of the World falls under the military jurisdiction of Central Command, Command branches, as a matter of principle, always refer all military matters to the Pentagon. Even one of the biggest Command theater, the United Forces in the European arena, didn't have such kind of luxury. The rule of the land always says that the military is subordinate to the civilian control. In this case, Central Command seems to have the wink of the eye from the civilians. Otherwise why did both the State Department and the National Security fail to scrutinize Central Command for its deliberate effort to undermine the negotiation? In my humble opinion, it is highly unlikely that Central Command will do such thing without the knowledge and blessing of civilian departments.
What it boils down to is that, it is highly unlikely "Central Command" would leak that information without the knowledge and the blessing of their superiors at the Pentagon and I have no doubt in my mind that the Pentagon got its marching order from the collective wisdom of the State Department and the National Security purposely done with the deliberate intention to undermine the collective will of the Eritrea people in the hope to gain further concessions.
Traditionally opinion-making info of foreign governments is usually leaked either to the New York Times or to the Washington Post for maximum impact and some times to other lesser mortals such as the Los Angels Times or the Boston Globe. In this case, The Indian Ocean Newsletter was chosen, because it is believed that Leaders of both Ethiopia and Eritrea read that Tabloid where as it was perhaps taken for granted that the two major American papers may not be available in both Asmara and Addis Ababa. If I have to further speculate, President Isaias, incorrectly I must say, is considered by American diplomats as the naturally more militaristic than say Prime Minister Meles. Therefore it was assumed that the news will have more impact in President Isaias' decision making process should the bad omen of Woyane military preparedness comes to the Indian Ocean Newsletter via the Central Command. Consequently, I should say that it was a well calculated manipulation American diplomats undertook now that the "Technical Arrangement" that Tony Lakes & Co heralded as a final product written with such attention to detail and yes; laser bonded and sealed to the last micron, is miraculously opened for the Woyane to do, ones more, their ever present treacherous dissections. In short, as far as the info in the "Indian Ocean Newsletter" is concerned, it posits the Chamberlain tactic through the London Times editorial in the making of its destructive opinion influencing.
The question then is, what does Eritrea need to do to avert another disaster i.e. Munich style? There are at least four components in this negotiation that Eritrean diplomats need to address to keep the honor and national boundary intact which, in conclusion, brings me to say that either the issues are paid the deserved and needed attention immediately or the negotiations will go nowhere.
It has been said, "Nations has no permanent friends but permanent interests." And in this case, Dr. Lake's travel to Eritrea to seek concessions endlessly with out an iota of concession to show from the other side is understandable if not morally acceptable. And why not, as I mentioned in the proceeding pages, Dr. Lake spoke unmistakably that, "In the end, government trust each other when they understand that they are acting on the basis of their interests, and not through protestations of friendship or good feeling."
In saying so, Dr. Lake is not alone. He was merely asserting by paraphrasing what has always been a traditional cornerstone of American diplomacy. And as such, this very mental thinking goes back 200 years in the Nation's history of the United State. In his book titled "DIPLOMACY," Henry Kissinger related that America favored democratic governments wherever possible, but abjured any action to vindicate its preference. John Quincy Adams, then Secretary of State, summed up the attitude in 1821: "Wherever the standard of freedom and independence has been or shall be unfurled. There will be [American] heart, her benedictions and her prayers be. But she goes NOT abroad, in search of monsters to destroy. She is a well wisher to the freedom and independence of all. SHE IS A CHAMPION AND VINDICATOR ONLY OF HER OWN" SELF INTEREST. (Emphasis mines, see Kissinger, page 34 -35)
Thus it is possible to say with certainty that the age-old style of American diplomacy, as a matter of national interest, was strictly based on the "UTILITARIAN" point of view. Wherever there is a solid American interest particularly the commercial kind, America flexes her muscle as was amply demonstrated in the liberation of the Kingdom of Kuwaiti. Beyond that, anything that goes is pure manipulation and hoopla. Before Nixon and Kissinger played the China card adroitly, American policy makers, in and out of Government, were honking their horn with full blast repeatedly and menacingly saying; "SHOULD THE COMMIES EVER MANAGE TO GRAB ONE INCH OF SOUTH VIETNAMIES LAND, THAT WOULD BE THE END OF THE WORLD." In other words, the old "DOMINO" theory you know! Unfounded fears that President Lyndon Johnson, in August 1964, used to ramrod through Congress "the Tonkin Gulf" resolution that became the bases of escalating the Vietnam War. And based on that logic, My dear America went on to scarify more 58,000 young American lives.
Then came Henry Kissinger's midnight travel to china in the early 70th. Kissinger's trip was to exploit the fissures that was developing between the Soviet Union and Communist China particularly after the clash of the two Communist titans, in early March 1969, on an inhabited Island of the Ussuri River that marks the border between the two countries. Add to this tension the seismic shock that jolted Chairman Mao and his flunkies when, in August 20, 1968, the Warsaw Pact Forces invaded and subdued the independent thinking regime of Alexander Dubcek's reformist Government in Czechoslovakia portending as an excuse "The Brezhnev Doctrine" where the Soviet Union took it as matter of right to intervene in any Communist country whose policies (as in Dubcek's Czechoslovakia) deviate from its own standards. Chairman Mao and his cronies were so afraid of the development of this "doctrine" that added up mightily to the already long simmering ideological rift between the two Communist behemoths. The rift immediately started after Khurshchev denounced Stalin's terror openly in his keynote speech to the 20th party congress of the CPSU, in 1956, which engendered Mao to call the Soviet Union as "revisionist" State. At that point, Mao was looking for a countervailing power to the Soviet Union. Kissinger, the historian and first class diplomatic intriguer, saw the opportunity as means to extract America from its quagmire of the Vietnam War. And so started the midnight travel to China.
A well-crafted diplomatic manipulation I might say on Kissinger's part. "Unthinkable," said Third World leaders like our own Isaias Afeworki, as the EPLF "HOSANNA" to the greatness of the Chairman went on unabated all the way to the mid-1980th even after the Chairman's death in 1976, believing that Chairman Mao was so pure, so trustworthy, and so revolutionary that he wouldn't allow himself to hobnob with Capitalist warmongers. But as event was to testify, Chairman Mao was in fact not the kind of revolutionary the Third World innocents believed to be, but a practitioner of heartfelt "Utilitarian" geopolitics augmented with the nightly need of sexual orgies with young girls clinically selected from the country-side as the strict exegeses of "the Han Dynasty Kamasutra manual" required (*), which in the end was revealed to the rest of the World in the memoir of the Chairman's private Doctor, Dr. Li Zhisui (See page 356 - 358). Furthermore, in one of the flashing moments of his tete-a-tete with Nixon & Henry Kissinger, Chairman Mao haply surprised his American guests by professing that he liked Rightwing Conservative more than Leftwing Westerners. "I like Ted Heath and I feel comparatively happy when personalities like him come to power," was one of the cackling of Chairman Mao in expressing his admiration of Western Conservatives like Prime Minster Ted Heath [of Great Britain]. Mao also included an honorable mention of organizations like the French Gualists and the Christian Democrats in West Germany. (See William Burr, page 61)
*
["The only real criticism of such behavior in China, and that not voiced till long after his death, was over Mao's hypocrisy: in a country where illicit sex was grounds for sending an ordinary citizen to a labor camp, the Chairman could, and did, fill his bed with as many young women as he wished. Mao's bodyguard said it plainly and better - 'He had power and it was his right to do' as he damn pleases with them girls." (See Philip Short, 474 - 475) "The young ladies were all the offspring of impoverished peasants, from families who owed their lives to the Communist Party, for whom Mao was their Messiah and Savior." (See Dr. Li Zhisui 356 -358). The title of the "Han Dynasty Kamasutra manual" that Chairman Mao made a required reading for every lady who visited his bedchamber is titled "The Secret Methods of the Plain Girl." Both Philip Short and Dr. Li has something to say why Chairman Mao made this book a required reading and it is helpful to visit Mr. Short and Dr. Li in order to see the extreme moral insincerity and sanctimoniousness of the Chairman whom many of us, in Eritrea, were led to believe as the "Holy Man of the Holiest."]
Any way back to Henry Kissinger. After his repeated midnight travel to China that very few Americans Knew, Kissinger built his confidence in the personality Mao which in the end became to mean that China surprisingly had no design over other East Asian countries. Then and there, Nixon started to sing "Peace with Honor and Asian boys should fight Asian War" that sent a signal unmistakably that America after all may not be as committed to the South Vietnamese Government as it once was. And then came the bombshell, "Nixon announced to the Nation via television by saying 'I went to go China,' which put many diehard American conservative to complete numb." After Kissinger's midnight visit turned to open visit to China by President Nixon; the Nixon who in the 1950th threatened China repeatedly with Nuclear annihilation over the issue of Quemoy and Mastu Islands; the Nixon whose first election to Congress was based on his undying invectives against Democrats about "who lost China" when Chairman Mao ascended to power. And so as it must, the diplomatic tempo between the United Sates and China was set for a full-fledged political horse-trading that blissfully flowered into "I scratch your back and you too scratch my back" business with each attaching self-interest as a central point. (About Nixon's nuclear threat to China, see Marilyn Young, page 266)
Once the "one China policy that excludes the Republic of China in Taiwan from the UN" gained acceptance by America with the signing of the Shanghai Communiqu that climaxed the Nixon trip. As a quid-pro-quo, America too managed to create a gulf between the Soviet Union and China in one geopolitical corner and between China and North Vietnam on the other, where the later eventually blossomed into full-scale border war. China, from the Kissinger's visit onward, decreased the military aid she was giving to North Vietnam. This was demonstrated when "Chairman Mao adamantly refused to cooperate with the Soviet 'revisionist' even in supporting their Vietnamese Comrades. Among other things, he denied the Russians the use of Chinese airfields as well as the right to fly supplies to North Vietnam over Chinese air space, telling the Kremlin leaders by saying, 'Frankly speaking, we do not trust you.'" And no, this was not all, in a bid to discourage the North Vietnamese slyly on behalf of Nixon and Kissinger, Chairman Mao also pointed out to the Hanoi leaders the similarity of their objectives and his dream of conquering Taiwan. But then cautioned them by saying, "just as China could not take over the Island, so the North Vietnamese were not strong enough to gain control of the South." Lest the North Vietnamese leaders forget, the Chairman concluded with his ever present gleeful aphorism: 'Where the broom can not reach,' said the cranky Chairman, 'the dust is not swept away." (See Stanley Karnow, page 637 - 638) With the Chairman's duplicity displayed in full view for every body to see, it became clearly understood that American commercial interest in South East Asia was no longer in danger. Then and there, America withdrew her troops from South Vietnam one by one.
Imagine now this was the America that early on, in the 1960th, via President Johnson, exuberantly praised "President Deim" of South Vietnam as the "Winston Churchill of Asia" and no less to others that followed him promising them that the United States will back them militarily as well as economically until the last communist rebel is either killed or safely in prison. When in subsequent years, the South Vietnamese nation "UTILITARIAN" value to America was circumvented by Kissinger and Nixon's visit to China, the South Vietnams existence as a separate, free, and equal to the Communist North, in American eyes, visibly became immaterial in less than two years. (About Johnson's praise to the Vietnamese leader, see Stanley Karnow, page 240)
Now that China, thanks to the cooperation of Chairman Mao, is safely transformed into a nonbelligerent State, if not one hundred percent friendly position, in as far as America's political and commercial interest in South East Asia is concerned; the settlement of the Vietnam War by willing and dealing with Communist North Vietnam became bearable with the full assumption that South Vietnam, in the end, as the political scheme of Kissinger back then indicated, will be scarified with little commercial cost to America. All the blood the South Vietnamese shed believing in America, as bulwark of freedom, was in the bitter end found to be a mere chimera and flight of fancy.
America certainly has the right to look, first and foremost, on what is best to her self-interest. What is at issue is the immoral way Henry Kissinger negotiated with communist North Vietnam in ending the war. In all the years that Henry Kissinger negotiated with Le Duc Tho, his North Vietnamese counterpart, secretly in the outskirts of Paris, "at no time did Kissinger presented Saigon's approval as necessary precondition." (Ex. see Marilyn Young, page 273) He just went on negotiating with the North on the full presumption that whatever America could get from the North, the South Vietnams should and were expected to sign the deal. The Southerners were not supposed to ask questions that matters to them as Kissinger constantly kept them in the dark. As a result of this Kissinger's tactic, the South Vietnams leaders were never consulted even a single time until the very end when they were required to put their signature on the final deal. Even then, the main reason Kissinger went to South Vietnam seeking their signature was because Nixon was so afraid of the backlash from rightwing zealots of the Republican Party, which they would have readily accused him for "SELLING OUT A FRIENDLY STATE TO COMMUNIST NORTH" without their knowledge.
Interesting enough, at one point before the final deal was closed, members of Kissinger's team, particularly John Negroponte and his aids, protested certain language modalities presented by Le Duc Tho, and scrutinized the text, word by word, even looking for subtle difference between the English and the Vietnamese versions. Kissinger exasperatedly stormed at them: " 'You don't understand,' he shouted. 'I went to meet their terms; I went to reach an agreement; I want to end this war before the reelection (Nixon's). It can end and it will be done.'" "Turning to John Negroponte, Kissinger added, 'What do you went us to do? Stay [in Vietnam] forever?'" (See Stanley Karnow, page 248) Kissinger took it for granted that Hanoi would cheat; but then so would the United States. (See Marilyn Young, page 273)
All along, Kissinger assuredly felt that he could afford to dismiss the South Vietnams entirely. The South Vietnams bitterly resented Kissinger's attitude. Said one Official: "It was so obvious that it was humiliating to us - even a child wouldn't believe him. Too obvious lies do not make you angry, but humiliate you." (See Marilyn Young, page 272) The concessions in every step of the over all peace negotiation to end the war was so one-sided (in favor of North Vietnam) that John Negroponte put it this way: "We bombed the North Vietnamese into accepting our concessions;" this ruefully remembering the endless American bombing of North Vietnam that went on for years. In the end, no matter how strong and bitterly the South Vietnams complained, President Nixon, bluntly "told them that either they sign the peace deal or America will sign it without you." Being always dependent on America for Military and economic help, the South Vietnamese had no choice but to accept the so-called peace deal as negotiated by Kissinger and Le Duc Tho. The sad thing was, from the very beginning, it was understood that the North Vietnamese will at some point in the future take full advantage of the loopholes Kissinger knowingly and willingly handed to them in silver platter and which is why an American commentator, Arnold Isaacs, poignantly and yet dismissively called it as "THIS FAREWELL GIFT OF DESTRUCTION." (Emphasis was mine, see Marilyn Young, page 279) And sure enough as Arnold Isaacs forecasted, the existence of South Vietnam came to humiliating end within two years after the signing of the peace deal.
What then is the Moral lesson an Eritrean could learn from? What are the bottom-line corollaries that one should pay attention to the negotiating tactic of American diplomats?
Since the primer Foreign Policy value of America is based mainly on "UTILITARIANISM," as John Quincy Adams, unabashedly expressed them in 1812; American policy makers in the Horn will remain pro-Ethiopia, so long the perception remains that America, rightly or wrongly, benefits more from Ethiopia than from tiny Eritrea. When Chamberlain sold Czechoslovakia to Hitler's occupation and slavery, it was because he perceived that the British Empire has more durability in years to come but only if and when Germany is at peace with the rest of Europe. Likewise Kissinger didn't hesitate to sell the South Vietnamese to the dustbin of history after it became apparent that American political and commercial interest would not be affected even if the North Vietnamese were to grab by force the whole South Vietnam which in essence the Kissinger peace brokerage was the repeat of Chamberlain's highway of deception. You may say it was immoral and unfair. Yes but who said life has to be fair. Thus it must be said, whether one agrees or disagrees, Kissinger's actions were based, first and foremost, to benefit the American self-interest, i.e. "regardless of the cost consequence of human suffering to friends and allies."
Likewise Dr. Lake's behavior of negotiation so far witnessed in the Horn was basically and principally is following the Kissinger maxim. Should Eritrea believe that Dr. Lake or any other PERSON from that group has acted as honest brokers thus far and would they continue to do so in the future, my answer is, only a foolish person would say yes. The important thing is for Eritrea to be vigilant and be ready for all eventualities. Folks I would hate to delve into unnecessary rhetoric and yet I can't help but recall what a cousin of President Thieu of South Vietnam advised his relative upon his return from studying in the United States. Said he, "The Americans are businessmen," he warned Thieu. "They will sell you out if you can no longer assure them a profit." (See Stanley Karnow, page 631) This is another way of paraphrasing what the Chairman of General Motors said in the 1950th. "The business of America is business, hence what is good for General Motors is good for America," said the General Motor's Chairman. Essentially this is what America is all about. Eritreans should not expect Dr. Lake & Co to act differently and as it has been said in many occasions, "IN AMERICA, THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH." Everything that matters to America has a cost-benefit analysis attached to it whether Eritreans likes it or not.
What is important for Eritrean diplomats is "TO MAKE IT EXCEEDINGLY CLEAR THAT WITHOUT THE SATISFACTION OF ERITREA'S NATIONAL INTEREST, THERE COULD BE NO DURABLE PEACE IN THE ENTIRE HORN OF AFRICA." Eritrean diplomats should earnestly inform American Journalists about the dubiousness of American policy and "PROVIDE THEM THE COSTLY LOSE TO AMERICAN SELF-INTERES SHOULD THEY CONTINUE TO SUPPORT WOYANE" with emphasis to all the money America is spending to feed the Ethiopian hungry while the Woyane are spending so much money to buy Mig Jet Fighters. Eritrean diplomats should make it clear to American Diplomats that continual support to the evil Woyane will in the end augur the dismemberment of Ethiopia. American Diplomats should be told unfailingly whether they went to see the disappearance of all the 10 Billion dollars loan Ethiopia have accumulated like the disappearance of American investment of Czarist Russian times since with the dismemberment of Ethiopia and the declaration of Greater Tigray, no body is going to take responsibility. Again Dr. Lake & Co should be presented with every historical data of Human suffering due to hunger mitigated from the unfailing neglect of successive Ethiopian leaders:
Finally, Dr. Lake & Co should be reminded openly how they would like to be remembered by History in light of their on going and never ending demand for concession from the government of Eritrea that mimics Chamberlain's tortured road to Munich. He should let us know if that is how he wanted to be remembered!
In any past game of diplomatic negotiation, American diplomats are well known in taking advantage particularly keeping others in the dark that they think they can spoil their Agenda. They even do it to high level Officials of the United Sates Government.
One example we can learn something worthwhile is about what Nixon and Kissinger did to their own colleagues at the State Department and the Defense Department. Nixon and Kissinger (then as National Security advisor to the President), two extremely suspicious personalities and by virtue of their suspiciousness, they didn't won't others to know when, on February 21, 1970, Henry Kissinger started negotiating with Le Duc Tho, politburo member of the Vietnams Communist Party. There was already another official negotiation going on in the center of Paris, one that started by President Johnson. Still, fearful that the official negotiation may go on endlessly and with the domestic politics in turmoil with all the daily demonstrations by University students throughout the United States, Nixon was afraid that he may not be reelected for second term; hence the need for secret negotiation with North Vietnam.
As Stanley Karnow pointed out "it seems peculiar in retrospect that Kissinger and Le Duc Tho should have resorted to clandestine talks on the outskirts of Paris while a formal peace conference was being held in the center of the city. But both Kissinger and Le Duc Tho shared an obsession for secrecy, and they both saw practical advantage in the covert approach. From Kissinger's viewpoint, the surreptitious discussion enhanced his flexibility towards give and take with Le Duc Tho, and also provides a necessary shield from conservative critics at home and the South Vietnamese government, which was targeted by Kissinger as sacrificial lamb in order to bring the war to an end. This way, Kissinger could bypass the Washington Bureaucracy he detested even to the extent of cutting out Secretary of State William Rogers and Defense Secretary Melvin Laird, who were only informed of the secret conversation with Le Duc Tho a year after it had started."(See Sanley Karnow page 623 - 624)
Imagine now how awful Official Washington must have felt when the Nation's Chief Diplomat, the Secretary of State, whose official duty is to supervise any negotiation the United Sates may undertake with foreign entities and the Secretary of Defense who represented the very men and women who were bleeding in Vietnam at that point to uphold the honor of the Nation were deliberately kept in the dark by Nixon and Kissinger. Thus when the two gentle men were discarded as unworthy to share what was going in the outskirts of Paris, this pretty much tells it all why Eritrea was kept in the dark while Dr. Lake & Co were secretly meeting the Woyane. In other words, keeping in the dark is pretty much part and parcel of Official Washington's diplomatic game.
A second example we can learn from is the contact Ronald Reagan initiated with Imam Khomeini, the one that history knows as "ARMS FOR HOSTAGE DEAL'" that started in August 30, 1985 and in due time flourished to such coziness to the extent that Reagan sent chocolate cake to Imam Khomeini. It also included Reagan, via Zionist Israel the Imam so much abhored, sending Hawk Missile that Iran badly needed in their war with Iraq and Imam Khomeini delivering American hostages such us Benjamin Weir by directly ordering his proxies in Beirut. The "arms-for-hostage" deal was so secretive that no body knew in Washington except very few people in the circle of Ronald Reagan. The World and the United States Congress only learned its existence when the Beirut weekly, As Shiraa, came out with the news, which in the end became for many high Government officials in the Reagan administration to get persecuted in the court of justice for their illegal adventure, and some went to jail. The career of many Reagan administration Officials was ruined including the principal actors in this deal, former National Security adviser for the Reagan administration, Robert Mcfarlane, who was the principal carrier of the chocolate cake and Oliver North, who also was then with the National Security council. (For the chocolate story, see Sandra Mackey, page 326 - 327)
A third example that we can learn from is a deception that happened in the Clinton Administration and here, the principal actor was Dr. Lake himself. This one was again dealing with the Iranians and the Clinton administration secret policy of tacit approval for illegal Iranian arms shipments to Bosnia. New York Times columnist, William Safire, summarized the affaire by pointing out what Dr. Lake's part was in it. "Returning on Air Force one from Richard Nixon's funeral," said Safire, "Deputy Secretary of State Strobe Talbot told National Security Advisor, Tony Lake, that Croatia had asked for approval to smuggle Iranian arms to Bosnia - thereby breaking the embargo agreed to by the United States and its allies. This was a deniable double-cross, kept secret from the oversight committees of Congress: Give the Croats a green light, and never mind the influence Iran would gain in Europe." Sufire went on to say that "Lake circumvented the Defense Department and the CIA by going into the president's cabin and getting Clinton's personal approval to instruct our Ambassador to pretend he had no instruction. This put the President in the position of telling the public that we could not break the embargo for fear of endangering the lives of our British and French allies - while encouraging a third party to endanger their lives - not to mention encouraging that same Iranian third party to endanger the lives of American service men in Bosnia." (Se for example article by William Jasper, New American, January 20, 1997.)
All the above accusation came from right wing Americans who succeeded in derailing Dr. Lake appointment to head the CIA. Although many of what Mr. Jasper said about Dr. Lake in that article was rather shallow and senseless inflammatory, in the Bosnia case however, Dr. Lake himself "admitted of the wrong doing and apologized about the presidential decision to wink diplomatically in 1994 when Croatia allowed Iranian arms to be shipped through its territory to Bosnia." In the end Dr. Lake didn't get the appointment to the CIA he so coveted because of Bosnia and other mistakes.
As the three examples above - that of Nixon & Kissinger, Ronald Reagan & Bob Mcfarlane, Clinton & Tony Lake - show; the National Security Council has a history of deception and as matter of keeping once sanity, one has to constantly watch this organization. It should also be remembered the fact that the same organization, at some point in time, had some of the dedicated Eritrea haters like Paul Henze as the Horn of Africa experts (In the Carter Administration under Zbigniew Brzezinski). And now we have Gail Smith stirring the stew to the extent that she and her likes in the State Department managed to equate Eritrea and Ethiopia in the same level. As a result, spokesman James Ruben told the rest of the World by asserting that "both Eritrea and Ethiopian did not accept the peace proposal of the OAU and that they should work for peace." Incredulous is not a word enough to explain the disgracefulness of this statement for "Eritrea has accepted long time ago that very proposal US Diplomats penned it in the middle of the night and forwarded it to Algiers in the name of the OAU." Again what came out from Mr. Ruben mouth was an affirmation of that old jaded belief that said "American interest in the Horn of Africa is better served by no one but good old Ethiopia."
Historically too, the National Security Council has a big hand in bringing Eritrea to be under Haile Sellassie's Ethiopia by badly denigrating her society which amounts to dehumanization. Every word of it was so purposely designated to make Eritrea society look as indecisive and incoherent that did not deserve to be free. In 1949, the National Security Council Advised the White House "to prevent any potentially hostile power from obtaining a hold in the Middle East, the Mediterranean area, or Africa." As Harold Marcus pointed out "this policy also precluded independence for Eritrea, inevitably a 'weak State--- exposed to Soviet aggression or infiltration."(See Harold Marcus page 83) And therefore to close this thread on "how American diplomats take advantage when they deemed it possible," Eritrea diplomats should always be on guard in light of all the above examples I brought for our contention. If Kissinger could do it to Secretary of State, William Rogers, not letting him know what he was up to with Le Duc Tho, in the outskirts of Paris; then in the National Security moral judgment, it is even more easier and acceptable to ignore Eritrea to the extent of not allowing Eritrea negotiators to see the last Woyane's fourteen page diatribe against the "Technical arrangement."
One expects many in the Eritrean government and some of them by virtue of living in the United States for many years, to be able to know the working methodology of American Policy makers. And yet we have witnessed a bit of amateurishness in the Eritrea policy makers. I personally am mystified to see Eritrean diplomats complain about being kept in the dark. "We were kept in the dark! So chaffed Tesfai Ghermazion. Gee Tesfish! Did you honostly were expecting Dr. Lake to dial to Asmara and let you know--- "Well Brother Tesfish--- just talked to them damn Woyanes and that evil Meles is still demanding about the status-quo-ante--- " If this is what you were expecting, I must say it is NOT going to happen. Dr. Lake is there first and foremost to keep straight the American interest in the Horn of Africa. And letting know Eritrea about his talk with the Woyane is the least of his worries. Furthermore, If indeed the Eritrea government was kept in the dark--- Why then wait until the very end when the negotiation collapsed! Why not let the World know in time.
In the Greek mythology, Proteus, the sea God is usually pictured as an old man who herded the sea creatures. He had the ability to foretell the future and also the ability to change shapes at will. If anyone wanted information, he had to sneak up on Proteus, seize him, and then hold him through all the changes in shape he undertook -- whether into a lion, a monstrous snake, even a dancing fire. If a man in whose grasp Proteus was held maintained his grip steadily and boldly, Proteus would turn back into his natural shape and give the desired information.
I am not expecting Eritrea diplomats to be that man and challenge every Proteus who shows up in our gate, but then I would be lying if I say Eritrea Foreign Policy makers were fully alert in the last seven years. It is for us to be always on guard and be ready in advance in knowing what lie ahead that challenges our very existence. Or else we will be the permanent candidates whose allotment in life is to be "kept in the dark." That mach we need to understand to survive as part and parcel of world Nations.
To begin-with, if an enemy have no desire to meet his antagonist, then, no matter how hard the brokers tried, the upshot is, the negotiation can never succeeded and even if the negotiation succeeds, the peace-deal will never have the durability and longevity required for the adversaries to heal their wounds. For any peace deal to have durability, the two parties should have a convinced heart and a changed mind so as to be able to forget the past. That said, I don't think the Woyanes are anywhere in the mood to see the success of this negotiation, as their exceedingly obtrusive and cynical temperament requires them not to be flexible. They are mired, so to speak bluntly, in their ill-conceived and pompous Abyssinian history. They are hostages to their Abyssinian past and if one is hostage to the past, what hope is there for a peaceful change other than through violence.
In 1949 a similar negotiation by proxy was made between the newly founded State of Israel and several Arab States. The one I am about to bring up here was between Egypt and Israel brokered by Dr. Ralph Bunche, a Black American, brilliant and humane, whose achievement would later win him the Nobel Peace Prize. The place of the meeting was held in the Island of Rhodes in the Mediterranean. Unlike Dr. Lake, Dr. Bunche was much more committed and a colorful diplomat with flair to drama to meet a particular occasion when the going get tuff. In addition to the fact that the two delegates don't want to see each other much less to sit together face to face, at first the negotiation was tiresome but in the end, realizing no good could come out unless they negotiated in closer proximity, Dr. Bunche managed to bring the two delegations to his suite. Still, no matter how hard he tried, "the two parties made it a habit of rejecting each-other's counterproposals with nerve-racking stubbornness." At one point, when he could not bring their offer closer and to the contrary were so far apart and so exasperating after many fruitless days of negotiation, Dr. Bunch have had it and decided to make a dramatic assertion to let them know he meant it business.
As Israeli Historian, Tom Segev, recounted, "Dr. Bunche invited the delegations of both countries to his suite" and where anyone to fail to show up, he promised to let the world know whose delegation is for peace and who is not. Once both delegations were "gathered in his suite, he showed them ceramic plates which he specially ordered in a local factory, with the inscription that said, "'Armistice Talk, Rhodes, 1949.'" Then with deep voice of a Baptist Church sermon inherited from his African-American roots, he roared as if he was on a mission to save Daniel from the lion's den, which in truth he was. "If you come to an agreement," he said, "you'll each receive such a plate as a souvenir. If you don't ---- I will smash them in your heads," to which the Chief delegate of the Israelis, Walter Eitan, later after that meeting telegraphed home saying, "it was a most extraordinary occasion." With this type of colorful assertion, Dr. Bunche finally managed to convince the two intransigent delegations to sign the armistice deal. (On this corner, see T. Segeve, page 6 -7)
Sadly the peace that Dr. Bunch brokered never worked even with the implementation of Internationally recognized demarcation lines. It took thirty years and three big wars with countless terrorism and counter-terrorism to finally realize for the two States that war is never a solution to everything and that there is no alternative to peace.
Well Folks, call me a cynic, a nay-sayer, and use the verbal salvo that you may be able to gather from Shakespeare's rich vaults. The truth is the Woyane will never sign the peace deal that so many of us dream about. It simply is not in their agenda. They came to existence through the means of an intrigue, violence, and the barrel of the gun and they can only go out through the same means. No amount of political gene-splicing is going to work with this cursed group. That much we need to understand.
In many occasions, Eritrea Foreign Policy makers put out contradictory statements. For example, while the statement that came out from the government spokesperson demands "cease-fire before troop withdrawal," to the contrary, President Isaias, said "the sequence however it may be implemented is "IMMATERIAL." Such contradiction is not only bad politics but also exceedingly confusing as it also sends wrong signals to the peace brokers. Because the very word "immaterial," implies that Eritrea is so desperate and consequently it is possible to extract more concessions from her side. The more the Government of Eritrea carelessly put loose statements like that, the more the Dr. Lakes will run to Asmara for further concessions. The government of Eritrea simply can't afford to make such mistakes and need to stop passing this type of helter-skelter.
As a matter of interest, I must say, in reading of all previous wars between sovereign Nations (the Middle East, Indo/Pakistan, Vietnam/America, the Korea and their sponsors, Marocco/Algeria, Britain/Argentina, Argentina/Chile, Vietnam/China, and so on so forth), I never came across a reading material that said "troop withdrawal was done before cease-fire." Never! In fact the reverse is the truth. The rule of winding down a war is to "declare cease-fire first and then troop withdrawal." So why is Eritrea forced to become a guinea pig of untested idea? For me, this is very hard to swallow as I clearly see its immense impracticality.
Furthermore, for God's sake, President Isaias, once and for all, must clean up his language. The word "Bullshit" is absolutely unfit to be used by a Leader of a country that so desperately needs friends. The President should understand that leaders of foreign countries could not and would not take him seriously if he continues to talk such rough and unlettered language language, as it is also not good for his image.
Finally, in the last paragraph of the story about the demise of the Czech State under the cruel boots of Hitler, William Shirer related that "Prime Minister Chamberlain, grasping his much-publicized umbrella, had come to Munich and forced the Czech to submit to all his demands and thereby had deprived Hitler the Military conquest. It was evident from the record that such were Hitler's tortuous thoughts after Munich. 'It was clear to me from the first moment,' Hitler later confided to his generals, 'that I could not be satisfied with the Sudeten-German territory. That was a partial solution. A few days after Munich, the German dictator set in motion plans to achieve a total solution,'" i.e. the total destruction of Czechoslovakia and ONWARD to the East: Poland, Russia, and every land of Eastern Europe.
Likewise, Dr. Lake has been forcing the Government of Eritrea to make concessions after concessions with nothing to show from the other side. And the Government of Eritrea was dutifully obliging to every wish of the American diplomats fleetingly hoping they may be able to persuade the Woyane to come to their sense and hence accept the peace deal. Sadly all the good-will gestures Eritrea made in the name of achieving peace became to naught. Simply put, this is because, it is not in the nature of dictators to abide by the rule of give and take, where a negotiation of a convinced heart requires. The truth is making unlimited concession to dictators usually open their appetite even more wider. Dictators only compromise when a real threat comes to their very existence. Then and only then do they compromise.
In the case of the Woyane, I am certain the war is good for them. By invoking Ethiopia patriotism, they can now freely milk Ethiopia to the dry bone in the name of "EVERYTHING TO THE WAR FRONT." And make no mistake, their plan is simple. Execute Plan-A and if that fails then fall back to "B" and again, if Plan-B fails, then fall back to Plan-C which, a la Cashmir, continue the permanent enmity between the two peoples.