On this very day that tens of thousands of Eritreans around the world called for peace (about 4000 in my neck of the woods, Washington, DC) OAU Secretary General Salim Ahmed Salim had "expressed optimism over ongoing mediation efforts by the organisation and US mediators" (PANA, February 29, 2000). If these words were words of another official they would have given us hope, but coming from Mr. Salim has made this soul suspicious. Mr. Salim's expressed optimism could only mean one thing: the mediators are thinking of amending the Technical Arrangements to suit the interest of the minority government in Ethiopia.

As a "Woyane-skeptic" of a long standing, my gut feeling is that if there ever is going to be any peace package endorsed by Meles and the TPLF, it means that there will be a booby trap somewhere. We have to look hard enough and there usually will be one, clumsily put together. We all know how the last booby trap blew in our faces May 6, 1998. It doesn't take a genius to figure out the Woyane agenda. It is there, written all over their history, for that matter, all over the history of all the past rulers of Tigray: Michael Sihul, Kasa Mircha, Alula Engda ....

We will be convinced there is something to chew on and be optimistic about, if we see any evidence that the Ethiopians no longer equate "status quo ante" with "Ethiopian sovereignty." So far we have seen and heard none. If we have missed anything, Mr. Salim should show us. Last time we heard Salome was saying it was "unthinkable". As far as the Ethiopian government was concerned "administration" and "sovereignty" meant one and the same thing. As long as this is the case, we can't say we can have a peace deal and there is no reason to be optimistic about. Forget it Mr. Salim; we all remember what you had told the Washington Post, a year, short two days, ago (March 2, 1999). You told us then that you had no doubt that the Ethiopians will accept the OAU peace plan that Eritrea had just announced it accepted. It has been a year since then. You hadn't uttered a word until now, why should we take your words now?

Some might want to ask, "If Meles & Co accept demarcation on the basis of colonial borders, would it not be sufficient enough to sign on the dotted line?" I say, not necessarily. If we were talking about the original Technical Arrangements, I would reluctantly say yes. Now that it looks we might be confronted with an "amended" instrument that was put together by the mediators and Meles, without Eritrea's input, I am very skeptical. Remember that Eritrea accepted the Technical Arrangements with the understanding that they were un-amendable, now if there is a talk to amend them, I say we should have the right to suggest amendments that reflect our interest as well. This is only fair.

Remember this; the mediators are pressed for time. They have to wrap this thing up before Clinton goes out of office and Bouteflika's chairmanship expires. Meles and Co know this, and they will try their best to look reasonable. They may even appear to agree to the core principle of demarcation on the basis of colonial borders. On the surface this is fine. But if they are "allowed" to amend the Technical Arrangements, through the insertion of a language or phrase to define which borders fall under this definition, then forget it. We are back to square one.

On the other hand, if the latest "amendments" are purely going to be cosmetic, to give the Ethiopian government a way out of the hole it has dug itself into, then we should be magnanimous, if nothing else at least for the sake of peace. But we have to remember we are dealing with a very untrustworthy group for whom everything is tactical. They could very well be thinking that they could agree to the core principle as long as they know they can tie Eritrea in knots on procedural matters; they have done it in the past year, and there is nothing that will prevent them from doing the same in the future, in which case war is not avoided, but simply postponed. Is this something to be optimistic about?