However, a little dispassionate reflection on this issue would be in order. Putting aside, for the moment, the Eritro-Ethiopian conflict let us ask the question: How does the West react to armed conflicts in Africa in general? What considerations determine the West's response to Africa's conflicts? As any other conflict, that between Eritrea and Ethiopia does have its own characteristics which differentiate it from others; nevertheless there seems to be a clear pattern in the West's attitude towards Africa's never ending wars. This attitude is guided by some firmly held beliefs and practices, which are simultaneously paternalistic and exploitative.

The West wants to control the vast natural resources of the African continent. To do this with a free hand, they need to have political leverage on the governments of the countries whose resources they intend to exploit. The exploitation is sweetened by generous financial aid or budget subsidy, as the case maybe. A situation of dependency is created. Any course of action taken by an African country, if it could possibly lead to a lower level of dependency is not welcome. An independent course would reduce leverage, which would in turn create an obstacle to unhindered exploitation of resources.

While exploiting the African continent the West always expresses its desire to see the continent achieve a satisfactory level of growth and development. Through various mechanisms, both bilateral and multilateral the West makes available enormous sums of money for African development. Evidently, the West would like to see African countries develop economically - but only up to a point . As long as the West maintains control over Africa's resources and the Africans remain dependent upon the West's alms for their very survival, development is permitted to proceed at a crawling pace.

Any meaningful development which would enable the African countries to have a say in how their resources are disposed off or to attain true development is not encouraged.

Apart from some individuals, some members of the academic community and some NGOs, there is little persuasive evidence that the West sincerely wants African countries to achieve genuine development leading to self-sufficiency. Otherwise, they wouldn't tolerate such obstacles to development as Mobutu or quietly watch Ethiopia divert development funds to purchase arms. Neither would they shut their eyes when Ethiopia invaded Eritrea or the armed forces of Rwanda and Uganda went deep into the sovereign territory of the Republic of Congo. Having occupied Congolese territory the two invading armies engaged themselves in combat and in the ensuing melee caused the death of hundreds of Congolese civilians. Still no meaningful steps were taken by the Western powers.

If the Westerners wish to keep Africa dependent on their largesse and therefore pliable, they have succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. These days receiving aid has became such an accepted practice, that the recipients have started to regard aid not as a temporary measure to tide them over but as an entitlement without which they wont be able to run their state. This dependency syndrome has already become part of the political culture of many African countries and one wonders whether they will ever be able to free themselves from it.

That the west does not want Africans to be truly self- sufficient is neatly expressed by Henry, a character in Thomas Keneally's novel 'To Asmara'. The place is somewhere in E.P.L.F controlled territory during the years of struggle. Henry is suspected of being some sort of spy for the Ethiopians. During a questioning by an EPLF official, Henry quietly states

"--------------if you (EPLF) guys succeed you'll be an embarrassment to Africa. Who wants a set-up like yours? There aren't many governments in this continent that do. There aren't many governments in Europe. Colored folks who can look after themselves? It isn't viable . It upsets the world picture. So what is the story? The story is you guys will fall on your (expletive deleted) swards because you have this crazy idea that the world will allow you to be perfect"

In cases of conflict it is common to hear of appeals made to the 'international community' the response of the 'international community' etc. This 'international community' may theoretically be composed of all the nations of the world. But in practice only a few of them have the power or the wish to influence events. They prefer to use their clout only when their economic or strategic interests are threatened. Sometimes, one feels, perhaps the 'international community' does not exist. The Economist (May 13-19-2000) in its book review of W. Shawncross' 'Deliver us from Evil' asserts that the international community is 'impotent' without the active participation of the US. Then the book review goes on to doubt the very existence of the international community' It takes the author to task for "being all too ready to talk of the international community as though such an entity existed. It does not". It does exist but maybe not as a clearly defined body but as a nebulous being which reacts only when it feels itself in danger.

This ill-defined international community's response to African conflicts is governed by self-interest, or lack thereof. This truth is clearly shown by what happened during the Rwanda genocide. According to the Economist's book review Romeo Dellaire, commander of the UN forces in Rwanda informed his superiors that a genocide was in the making. As a permanent member of the UN Security Council the US government was also informed. However,

"----the Clinton administration did not dare to describe it [the Rwandan holocaust] as a 'genocide' because if they did, they would be required, in accordance with the 1949 genocide convention, to take action".

To resolve armed conflicts in Africa, arbitration, cease-fire, Security Council resolutions etc. are often tried. There are, however, those in the West who advocate an intirely different approach. During the Rwandan genocide an article appeared in one of the leading French periodicals as well as in some other Western publication, which suggested a novel approach towards the resolution of armed conflicts in Africa. Its proponents maintain that armed conflicts like the Tutsi-Hutu feud are tribal wars similar to those that have been going on since time immemorial all over Africa. Such conflicts used to take place at a time when no significant external intervention was possible. There were no regional or international organizations requiring adherence to their treaties and charters; and no powerful allies or foes capable of tipping the balance in favour of one or the other of the belligerents. Under these circumstances, the combatants either exhausted themselves into a virtual standstill or one party secured an uncontested dominance over the other and the vanquished had no choice but to submit to the victor.

This approach to conflict resolution, with all its sinister racist undertones can not, for obvious reasons, be declared as an official policy by any Western country. Nevertheless, the West's stance in the face of the death of hundreds of thousands in the Hutu-Tutsi and the Eritro-Ethiopian conflict seems to indicate at least its partial and tacit acceptance.

For any country to use, overtly or not this 'let-them-exhaust-themselves' approach it must be supremely indifferent to the loss of thousands of African lives. As somebody on Capital Hill told photographer Cheryl Hatch (Live-on-Line , July 13, 2000) with regards to the invasion of Eritrea by Ethiopia: "it is two poor countries in Africa killing each other. We don't  care". On the face of it, this is a rather heartless statement. On second thought, why should the West bother about, for instance, a large number of Ethiopian casualties when the Ethiopian government is not losing sleep over the slaughter of its own nationals?

In the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia the latest weapons including fighter-bombers were fully employed. In Rwanda the genocide was conducted with brutal efficiency using ordinary guns but mostly using spears, pangas as well as inplements designed for agricultural purposes and not for mayhem. But for all intents and purposes, to the West, the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia is just another African tribal war using the latest weapons instead of bows and arrows.

In discussing the Eritrea case there is one thing that one must always keep in mind, namely, that with the exception of very few, the birth of an independent Eritrea was neither expected nor welcome. The average African did not view the Eritrean struggle as part and parcel of the continent's anti-colonial struggle like the one in Angola, or Mozambique. In these countries the motive of the struggle was straight forward: to get rid of 'white' colonialism and colonialism came only in one 'color', white. Any people like the Eritreans, who sought independence from a 'black' African state can not according to the prevailing view, form part of the continent wide anti-colonial struggle.

Specially when the black nation the Eritreans were rebelling against was no other than Ethiopia- the only black nation that repulsed white colonialism, whose leader, Emperor Haile Sellassie, is revered by all, is the seat of the OAU and ECA etc. Besides, the emergence of an independent Eritrea would encourage and legitimize 'secessionist' movements in other African countries and inevitably lead to the 'Balkanization' of the continent. It is therefore not surprising that there was a marked difference in the degree of welcome accorded to the emergence of Eritrea and, say Zimbabwe or Angola.

The thirty-years war of liberation was certainly the longest and the most destructive in the history of Africa. During the continent's anti-colonial struggle the OAU played an admirable role in assisting all the liberation movements in Africa except the one in Eritrea. It gave the fronts full political support and helped them in the acquisition of arms. Its political support often extended to more than one movement in a single country. For instance, it recognized both the ANC and the PAC in South Africa. But the Eritrean question was studiously ignored by the OAU. To the OAU and its members the Eritrean 'problem' was like a bad dream that one wishes would just fade away. But a peoples liberation war doesn't simply vanish because certain parties do not approve of it.

After independence the rapid economic development achieved by Eritrea won it admiration of all. Eritreans became noted for their hard work, dedication and integrity. Some recommended Eritrea as a 'model' for the rest of Africa. But gradually Eritrea's way of doing things somewhat did not go well with certain powers and donors. What was even more incomprehensible to some was to see a resource poor little country like Eritrea showing reluctance to accept aid while richer third world countries would stoop to any level to get a few crumbs.

Eritrea also elected to chart its own development strategy anchored on self-sufficiency. If Eritrea successfully followed this course, it would set a bad example for the rest of Africa. Development of self-sufficiency on the part of African states would certainly cause the Western powers to lose the considerable influence and leverage they exercise over these countries. After all many states manage to meet their civil service pay roll only thanks to the generosity of their colonial masters or to the IMF and are therefore well advised to toe the line. If this self-reliance concept catches on, many African nations would cease to be perpetually beholden to the West. And that just won't do.

After independence Eritrea was flooded with individuals, NGOs , UN officials and miscellaneous other entities ready to find out as to how they could help this newly independent country. Many of these visitors had either lived in or visited other developing countries. They had their own views, perceptions and expectations with regards to the behavior of the recipient towards the donor. As donors they were accustomed to playing the leading role in the conceptualization, preparation and execution of projects. It was the donor who was supposed to know what was good for the receiver. It was the donor who paid the fiddler; so it had the right to call the tune!

The Eritrean view was that development activities of any nature should 'belong' to the recipient country; they should address what the country, and not what the donor identifies as priority. This and similar other views on economic development earned it the admiration of some and in general the resentment of the international donor establishment. This was contrary to what the donors expected to be the attitude of a poor country that has just attained independence and inherited a devastated socio-economic infrastructure as a result of 30 years of war . Donors and potential donors did not take kindly to this unusual stand on the part of Eritrea. However, the ensuing resentment was perhaps partly due, not to Eritrea's novel stand, but to the manner in which this stand was explained and the steps taken to put it in to practice

As already stated, Eritreans came to be known for their dedication, industriousness and corruption-free manner in which they were developing their country. The downside was that we also came to be characterized, by friend and foe, as 'ill- advised', 'refractory', and 'abrasive'. Someone, using a seldom used word even labeled us as 'stroppy ', which means, among others , 'difficult' to deal with. We were even referred to as he 'bulldozer people', implying, one would suppose, that we lack finesse, diplomatic skills, charm or tact that are necessary in dealing with people. In brief, the image we have managed to project of Eritrea is not totally capable of attracting us support when such support is sorely needed. This image may not create us outright enemies, but it would certainly increase the number of those who would be indifferent to our plight

Our view of the 'international community' and our concept of justice was and still is some thing which leaves much to be desired. We have a tendency to look at the world through 'rose- colored' glasses. We seem to believe that the 'international community' is always on the alert to make sure that all international laws and even unwritten codes of civilized behavior are strictly observed. And that swift retribution falls upon those who dare to violate these rules. Unfortunately such entity which plays the role of a guardian angel does not exist. The big powers that would conceivably play this role prefer to look after their economic or strategic interests rather than bother about the welfare of a small country like Eritrea .

If no man is an island unto himself, as the saying goes, then neither is a nation, metaphorically speaking, an island unto itself. It has no alternative to being a member of the world community. And as such it has to be able to play the survival game according to the rules of such a game. These rules, whether they are written or not. and irrespective of who set them in the first place have to be respected, however reluctantly, if a state is to survive. In order to assure their very existence small nations and in particular those who are likely to be coveted by their neighbors, must do everything within their power to meet this end. They should make powerful friends, failing which they should not make powerful enemies. These are cardinal rules for survival. They are violated with impunity only if the violator has powerful patrons or if the state's opponent has powerful enemies.

Up to the present moment, the Wayanes have managed to break every rule in the book. They have confiscated and deported Eritreans with out due process of the law and broken in to the Eritrean Embassy. They have also transgressed some rules which are so basic, one doubts if any body has bothered to spell them out in international treaties or conventions. Such rules would include the prohibition of 'deliberately and with malice aforethought' separating a suckling from its mother 'deprivation of all means of livelihood and social services to foreigners legally residing' in the country and to preventing them from leaving the country; 'placing pregnant women about to deliver on a bus headed for a difficult journey' etc. The Wayanes have done all these and got away with it. So much for articles in international conventions and codes of civilized behavior.

Now, we may ask the question: Why was the reaction of the international community so muted in the face of the Wayanes barbarism and the plight of the Eritrean people? First off, our expectation of what the so-called 'international community' is capable of doing in the event of a conflict was unrealistic, Simply put, the 'international community' does not react with alacrity every time there is a turmoil in Africa. Unless, of course, some big powers strategic or economic interests are directly threatened, as the case of Iraq invading oil-rich Kuwait.

Our situation was farther aggravated by our lack of an effective PR. Our PR, such as it was, has failed, by and large, to present a favorable image of ourselves and our country. Having scrupulously observed all the requirements of regional and international treaties and conventions including the unwritten ones, we have failed to take certain steps, which would have advanced our cause. However, taking such steps would have offended our sense of decency, truth, self-respect and our sense of justice. Unlike the Wayanes we avoided mendacity, duplicity and treachery. We sincerely believed that truth and justice will eventually prevail. Perhaps they will. However, until they do, a lot of damage will have been done.

If we are to survive as a people and a nation we have to take measures, no matter how repugnant we find them, if they would contribute to our survival. If assistance is offered, we should not scrutinize the pedigree, religious affiliation, political stand or the motive of those making the offer as long as it would help our cause. After all politics is the art of the possible.

This is a critical moment in our history. We are not engaged in a war of liberation. We are involved in an armed conflict, and our very existence is on the line. We should therefore be prepared to do anything, and everything that would assure the continued existence of Eritrea as a truly independent country. We should be able to make a rational choice in identifying our present priorities. At the moment, our number one priority is to strengthen our unity. Political and administrative reforms can surely be addressed when we are assured of our continued existence, since one cannot enjoy these reforms if one does not have a place to enjoy them in. Whatever steps we take, or refrain from taking to ensure our survival will be fully justified. As the old saying has it, all is fair in love and war.

Eyasu Hadgu
Asmara.