Dear sir,

I must say uncharacteristically the BBC has disappointed me over its coverage of the war between Eritrea and Ethiopia (Battle in the Horn Stories). Sir you say the BBC is not responsible for the contents of external internet sites (my italics). I do not get it. Do you mean articles contributed by the so called ''analysts '' like Patrick Gilkes do not reflect on the BBC's reputation as a world class public media? If your answer to this question is yes, then we are talking here not about the BBC that we know of, but rather about one of the mediocre amateurish press gangs. Because for many people and particularly for your long time listeners like myself, the BBC is held in the highest possible esteem and respect. We think of it as the standard bearer of truthful and fair professional journalism. But alas bit by bit this outstanding quality of providing reliable, verifiable and balanced information that the BBC is known for, is being eroded in front of the eyes of your loyal listeners. Sir I refer to the article by your contributor Mr. Patrick Gilkes. It seems to me you have only one ''expert'' on the sub-region and unfortunately he CAN see only with one eye and he is more of a spokes person for one of the parties- uncharacteristic for an Englishman! or is he?). God knows how many predictions he has made with regard to this conflict and every time events turned out to be just the opposite. I am not blaming him for his wild predictions. That, he is entitled to. I only want to bring to the attention of your listeners of his shameless bias and unethical pecuniary motivated journalism. As one of his major premises, Mr Gilkes asserts with impunity that Eritrea has been a war monger country partly to avoid domestic problems and hence has been responsible for all the "wars" with all its neighbours. This assertion is exactly a carbon copy of the Weyane (the minority Ethiopian Government) propaganda machine. Now let me, for the sake of your esteemed listeners, walk you through the "wars" Eritrea is alleged to have gone on with its neighbours. I shall also touch upon some of his fallacious assertions as regards the origin of this war.

The war between Yemen and Eritrea: Author: Patrick Gilkes

Nothing can be more sinister than to assert and designate the border incident between Yemen and Eritrea as a full-fledged war. The ill intentions that your contributor harbours against Eritrea is well known to us all who follow his ''expert analysis'' on BBC radio or the BBC world t.v. broadcast. Any decent human being with average intelligence would not dare categorise that particular incident as war between two countries. But to bring this incident now as a backdrop to the current conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia has one and only one objective and that is to portray Eritrea and its people as the bad guys in this whole episode. Does the BBC find this one sided and fallacious analysis fair? I hope not. But what happens during the news hour interviews is that the so called ''experts'' in the like of Mr. Gilkes are allowed to misinform the listener at large and get away with it. This in my opinion should be unacceptable for the BBC.There must be a provision for counteracting this one sided view so that a balance is achieved. Mr. Gilkes knows (or does he?) exactly the origin of that conflict. First of all to state that there was war between Yemen and Eritrea is utterly a naked lie to say the least. Yes there was a border clash between the two countries, which began when Yemen unilaterally occupied a group of islands which both countries had territorial claims inspite of Eritrea's plea to settle the matter by peaceful and legal means. And yes to the disappointment of those who had sinister expectations as regards the outcome of this incident, the conflict was resolved legally and amicably thanks to Eritrea's insistence on the peaceful resolution of the matter and Yemen's acceptance of the civilised conduct of conflict resolution. Sir while this is the fact that can also be verified by any interested party, your ''analyst'' travels '000 of miles out of his way to portray Eritrea and its people as the guilty party. The fact that Mr. Gilkes conspicuously fails to mention that this border incident was settled through the judication of the International Court of Justice on Eritrea's request would fit with his objective of defamation. Because it is a testimony to the civilised manner, which Eritrea believes interstate relations, should be conducted through. Sir the intentions of Mr. Gilkes are well known to all Eritreans who have followed his bashing of Eritrea. But whether gilkes or jokes Eritrea will prevail.

The war Between Sudan and Eritrea. (Author: Patrick Gilkes)

Sir please bear with me. I find it difficult to put my case using decent words, because the points I try to respond to are so fictitious and malicious that I just could not choose the correct words. In any event what your contributor states with regard to the Eritrea-Sudan relationship is not true. What is true is that there has never ever been a border clash between Eritrean and Sudanese forces let alone an engagement of war. Mr. Gilkes, in bright daylight, lies and generates a fictitious war (and although this is not in keeping with tradition of the English gentility, I dare to say HE INTENTIONALLY and CONSCIOUSLY LIES) that Eritrea had gone into war with the Sudan. In this connection I can only say this. Eritreans and the Eritrean Government are grateful to the people of the Sudan for the kind hospitality that they provided to the people of Eritrea during their 30 year war of independence. Yes I hasten to add that there have been some differences and the relations between the two sisterly countries have not been as one would expect them to be for quite a time and Mr. Gilkes knows exactly why. However not uncharacteristically he deliberately chooses not to mention the fact that the rogue Weyane regime also has had its differences and strained relation with the Sudan only to beg for normalisation when its conflict with Eritrea began. But then what can one expect from a person who does propagandistic journalism for a contract.

The Relation between Djibouti and Eritrea:

It is indeed very sad to note the extent to which journalism has fallen to the gutter. To assert that Eritrea was responsible for the strained relation between the two countries is not only an insult to the intelligence of your listeners, but is also a malicious and criminal act. This is nothing less than an outright theft or daytime robbery. Sir, this is not an opinion or a point of view on a subject matter. This is a deliberate act to misinform, delude and inculcate hatred and animosity in the minds of innocent children. To tell the growing generation of Djibouti that Eritrea is unfriendly country is by any stretch of imagination a sinister act with sinister motives on the part of the "expert" and I might add a serious lapse and negligence of responsibility on the part of the BBC. Mr Gilkes knows well who was responsible and why.

On the President of Eritrea:

To imply that the President cherishes war so that young Eritreans can appreciate and emulate the sacrifices paid by their predecessors is to say the least humanity in its ugliest form. If any thing perhaps the President may have been a bit optimistic about the intentions of the Weyane clique and may have possibly inadvertently contributed to the promotion of the hidden destructive objectives of the rogue Weyane regime in persecuting the war of aggression against Eritrea. Of course Mr. Gilkes would not make mention of the wisdom, vision and of the repeated plea (see 1997 correspondence letters regarding the events leading to this war) of the President of Eritrea to the prime minister of Ethiopia to address the incursions by the Weyane into Eritrean territories that were repeatedly taking place along the border. This to Mr. Gilkes is an anathema. A liar hates truth and runs away from facts. So does Mr. Gilkes

Economic dimension of the war:

Mr. Gilkes also asserts that this conflict has little to do with territory but with the conflict of the economic interests of the countries. His analysis goes like this. Because Eritrea has virtually no resources, it has to import cheap labour from Tigray to produce export goods. On the other hand Tigray wanted to develop its own industrial base, which Eritrea saw, a threat to its economic power and therefore had something to do about it. This was seen by the Weyane as a serious threat to Tigray's fantastic economic development. This economic competition puts these two economic giants at odd with each other and both are infuriated and the best solution they look for is to go to war. What a splendid genius analysis! By the way this is precisely the same war propaganda propagated by the Weyane radio station in Mekele to incite the people of Tigray to rise against Eritrea. Moreover Mr. Gilkes says Eritrea was left free of debt. In this instance I am helpless. What debt is he talking about? I do not understand. If this conflict of economic interest is a cause for this war, as the Weyane and Mr. Gilkes would have us believe, then there are two possibilities. Either they do not understand elementary economics or they held the general public in contempt. Sir, this war has everything to do with territorial ambitions of the Weyane regime. One would require more than a pinch of salt to believe Mr. Gilkes that these two poor countries would solve their economic problems by going to war. What is at stake in this war is the territorial integrity and the sovereignty of Eritrea on one hand and the desire of the Weyane regime to expand on the other. Nothing more nothing less. To suggest otherwise is really infantile and an insult to common sense.

Nationalist fervour:

Mr. Gilkes unashamedly implies the President of Eritrea is executing this war to divert internal economic, political and developmental problems. Well what can I say? I can only suggest that any person interested on the economic problems in Eritrea has only to read the reports of the international organisations such as the UNDP, FAO etc. What I cannot understand about Mr. Gilkes head is its audacity to make such conclusions to the complete disregard of our decent intelligence. Would it appear reasonable to any decent mother and father in Eritrea that after 30 years of war and having lost their best sons and daughters and having lived the worst of their lives, they would be better off economically if they now send their children to die in the war? I say this is even racist. Not by coincidence Mr. Gilkes is mute about the reasons why this war is important for the Weyane. Sir for Eritreans this war is about being or not being a free decent people living in peace and harmony in a sovereign country. Forget all the garbage that the diplomatic community and ill informed naive media puts out. In simple and plain English, this war is about defending sovereignty on one hand and aggression on the other.

Border: A Geographer's Nightmare:

Just look at the title. In order to portray to the outside world that the international boundary between Eritrea and Ethiopia is beyond the comprehension of the average listener, Mr. Gilkes depicts an apocalyptic scene and tries to give the impression that this problem is just insurmountable. His aim is obvious. To put aside the internationally accepted norms and standards of border conflict resolution and bring in new self created ones. There are too many fallacies in his assertions and I have no space to respond to all of them. Simply put, his assertion that the border between Eritrea and Ethiopia is a geographer's nightmare is in simple English not true. If anything this border is unique in that it has been delineated within a framework of signed treaties (the treaties of 1900, 1902 and1908). On the basis of those treaties, between 1941 and 1952 Eritrea was put under British military administration with the same astronomical co-ordinates as the international boundary between Eritrea and Ethiopia. When the UN in 1952 made a determination that Eritrea be federated with Ethiopia for 10 years subject to a popular plebiscite in 1962, it did so with the same astronomical co-ordinates. Again when Ethiopia unilaterally abrogated the federation and forcibly annexed Eritrea, (which triggered the war of independence) it did so with the same boundary contour lines. But despite this state of affairs the internationally recognised colonial boundary between Eritrea and Ethiopia, remained fixed and permanent as ever before to this day. All subsequent Ethiopian cartographic publications both within and without consistently show the same astronomical co-ordinates. To say that the straight line boundary between Eritrea and Ethiopia is imaginary is a mockery of the fundamental principles of cartography. Isn't it true that all lines drawn on the globe be they navigational or boundary are by definition imaginary? Are not all international boundaries imaginary lines? What does our "analyst" want to imply? Why should the boundary between Eritrea and Ethiopia be mentioned as a special case of imaginary line? . Mr. Gilkes lies with impunity that the boundary between Eritrea and Ethiopia disappeared during the time Eritrea was occupied by Ethiopia while at the same time the Eritreans were fighting a war for their independence. What one can understand from the so called "analysis" in the like of Mr. Gilkes is nothing more than a mere repetition of the daily output of radio Weyane in Mekele. For a person of average intelligence, the use of astronomical co-ordinates as the basis of border delineation is more firm and scientific than the use of place names or natural objects which can be subject to all sorts of interpretations by any party for that matter. Alas our "analyst" could not even imagine this possibility! Sir, before I rest my case allow me to make one general observation. This has to do with all western journalists and the so called anonymous diplomats and experts. It seems to me that any one who is able to write or speak in elementary English can become an expert over night. It is amazing to note the extent to which wild and unbecoming personal opinions fill newspaper columns and websites. We know intentions and wishes of some of the heads of diplomatic missions who hide behind their anonymous comments. What I cannot understand is why the BBC has to jump into the same bandwagon and use the same phrases and vocabulary in describing this war. For instance what is humiliation? Is defending your country in the best possible manner a humiliation? If the Eritrean armed forces are able, as they did gallantly, to secure Eritrea's independence and sovereignty in the manner they did, then so be it. Why can't we talk over substance instead of who occupied which border village or town? Why can't we say this war is destructive, anti development and should be condemned? The other day I even read that a number diplomats in Ethiopia would like to see the war end at Eritrea's expense so that resources could be diverted to development activities! What a splendid intellectual suggestion. But the same diplomats would suggest that the conflict in Northern Ireland be resolved by peaceful means. They wouldn't say let the protestants or the Catholics be defeated so that there will be peace in Northern Ireland. If this is not racism then what is? I would have thought a world class information institution such as the BBC, would deplore the loss of so many lives in so unnecessary war and a war that could and eventually would be solved in a civilised manner. The world awaits yearning for men of conscience and morality.