As several, including this author, were voicing their outrage at the ineffectiveness of the organization called the OAU, some people of reason were telling them to hold off their condemnations. But why should they? Why should the OAU be allowed to continue mediating when it has neglected its duty?

Read this:

"UNITED NATIONS, March 15 (Reuters) - The UN Security Council is asking the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) to clarify its Horn of Africa peace proposals so that Ethiopia and Eritrea will not use varying interpretations as an excuse for fighting, diplomats said on Monday."

Does any one think the OAU doesn't know of this responsibility? You bet it does. But why is it quite? Did it loose the document? Or are the French and English versions (the two official languages of the organization) have differing meanings? Thanks to Walta (Woyane Information Center) and Salome, every secret document that the OAU faxed to Asmara and Addis Abeba is now on the internet and people can see the English version of the documents. Every document.

Then why is the OAU quite? Could it be it is waiting for directives from the Ethiopian Foreign Ministry? It looks like Secretary General Salim A. Salim speaks when Seyoum, Ethiopia's Foreign Minister, tells him to do so and shuts up when he tell him to shut up? If this was not the case, we would expect the OAU not to wait even a minute to explain its own proposal. The two countries are trying different readings of the same text; shouldn't OAU officials speak up so that the world could hear them?

Again What could the real reason be? Here is my own take. The political analysts will give a better picture later.

For the moment let's see who the members of the HLD (HIGH LEVEL DELEGATION) are. They are Burkina Faso (former Upper Volta), Zimbabwe (former Northern Rhodesia) and Djibouti (Former French Somaliland).

We have nothing for or against the Burkinabe Chairman, Campore. We know nothing about him. The only ignorant pictures many of us have on Burkina Faso are the pictures we used to see of Captain Thomas Sankara along side Jerry Rawlings of Ghana. We also know that Campore replaced Sankara in a coup.

As for the other two, Zimbabwe and Djibouti, many of us know a lot. To put it blatently, they shouldn't have been in the HLD. Zimbabwe's choice was because it was the last chair of the OAU and Djibouti was chair of IGAD (Inter Government Agency for Development; IGAD has as members: Djibouti, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Kenya, Somalia, and the Sudan). Nonetheles we should have seen it coming. We didn't and we are paying for it.

Let me elaborate.

In the late 80s when the EPLF was talking peace with the Derg under the mediation of former US president Jimmy Carter, the first meeting was held in Atlanta. After the first meeting Carter asked both Eritrea and Ethiopia to give him an African co-chair and a venue other than Atlanta.

The list of countries running for the venue were: Egypt, Zimbabwe, Kenya, Sudan, Tanzania, or North Yemen.

Eritrea's earlier understanding was that the second round of talks were going to be held in Cairo and Ethiopia had agreed to that. Why Egypt? It had the chairmanship of the OAU at the time.

As usual the Ethiopians changed their mind and objected to Cairo as a venue and Mubarek as a chair. Instead they suggested, guess who, Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, the same man who is now a member of the OAU's HLD and the meeting to be held in Harare, the capital of Zimbabwe.

Eritrea said "no!". Why?

Eritrea knew very well the link that existed between Addis and Harare. It was obvious.

Ethiopia's Help to Mugabe
In the late 70s, after the Derg came to power and when the people of Zimbabwe were in a neck to neck battle against Ian Smith's UDI (Unilateral Declaration of Independence) and his white minority rule, at a time when ZAPU (Joshoua Nkomo's Zimbabwe African People's Union) and ZANU (Robert Mugabe's Zimbabwe African National Union) and their armies were fighting for independence and against each other, Ethiopia had given ZANU and its armed wing ZANLA a critical help. ZANLA fighters were getting military training in Ethiopia. Do you think Robert Mugabe would have been a neutral mediator, or Harare a safe place for Alamin Momhammed Said the leader of the EPLF's delegation to sleep in 1990? No! Absolutely not. That was why Eritrea objected.

The choice of Mubarek to be a co-chair with Carter would have been an ideal one. But threre were three facts going against him: he was an Arab, an allay of the US and the OAU chairman. Knowing Ethiopia's consistent anti-Arab attitude, the first one is obvious. The second one was because Ethiopia was a Communist and an allay of Imperialist US was a no no. That was an irony though. One of the co-chairs, Carter, was himself a leader of Imperialist US. No logic there, but what logic does Ethiopia know any way.

The third factor was a serious factor. It was a diplomatic factor. The OAU, unlike today, when indirectly is supporting Ethiopia, a country that is changing colonial maps, had a stand that didn't want changes in "the map of Africa". As a result it was against Eritrea's struggle for independence. It has to be noted that the Eritrean struggle for independence was not to change the Map of Africa but to rectify the illegal change that changed the map of Africa when Ethiopia annexed Eritrea. Mubarek, who was a chair of the OAU, could not be a mediator.

The OAU's Bias Against Eritrea
I think Edmond Keller of UCLA had summed up the OAU's intention even today. Here is an excerept of his interview with NPR's Talk of the Nation, Feb. 23, 1999, with Ray Suarez,

SUAREZ: Well, I know that the Organization of African Unity has proposed a settlement, but the OAU--this is one subject on which they don't really have the highest credibility: borders. They basically...
Dr. KELLER: Absolutely.
SUAREZ: ...said, You can't rewrite them...'
Dr. KELLER: That's right.
SUAREZ: ...for the entire existence of the OAU.'
Dr. KELLER: That's exactly right. But that doesn't really apply in this particular case, because the OAU had to accept the reality of an independent Eritrea, which it didn't want to accept to begin with. And I think there's a tendency in the OAU among the member states to look upon Eritrea as an exception that they don't want to repeat, and, in fact, if they could undo the situation and, you know, have Eritrea become a part of Ethiopia, I think a lot of members of the OAU would like to see that happen, too, because that would mean that the other borders of--the colonial borders of the states that we now know would not be challenged--like right now, it seems that in several parts of Africa, we see that the whole notion of state sovereignty and the inviolability of borders is up for grabs. Most recently in Sudan, I understand that there could very well be a partition of Sudan. And if that happens, then you have, I would venture to say, an escalation invented national identities, which demand self-determination and, you know, the chaos that comes along with that.

By the way, we can not call the OAU proposal good because Eritrea and Ethiopia accepted it. It was bad yesterday, it is bad today and it will be bad tomorrow. Leaving every short coming of that proposal aside, first as long as the OAU's headquarters remains in Addis and Eritrea has no equal access to it, no OAU proposal could be fair. On top of this, the OAU, an organization that has kept quite when the ugly uprooting and deporting of over 53, 000 Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin was happening under its own eyes, makes the OAU morally bankrupt and gives it no moral authority to mediate this border dispute. I myself wouldn't trust it with the outcome of the peace deal that comes by way of the OAU.

These ARE not the main reasons for my objection but they are reasons enough to disqualify as the OAU as a mediator.

Zimbabwe Host of Mengistu, the Ethiopian Dictator
Then came May 1991, the man Eritrea objected as a mediator, Robert Mugabe welcomed the butcher of Finfinie (Addis Ababa), Mengistu. Despite all the requests to hand him back for trial Mugabe still refuses to deport the man that had send tens of thousands of Ethiopians and Eritreans to their death. Mengistu is enjoying his stay in the wealthy highland suburbs of Harare. How in the world did Eritrea accept Mugabe who is in constant company of Mengistu to serve as a neutral member of the HLD? I have no idea. It should have said no to begin with. It is hard to prove, but I have no doubt that Mengistu might have given Mugabe several calls on how to proceed with the proposal. Unless one is naive, there is every reason to suspect that a man (Mugabe) would seek advice from his friend (Mengistu). In any case, in my personal opinion, Zimabwe and Robert Mugabe can not serve as neutral members of the OAU HLD.

Djibouti: Far from being Neutral
Then there is Djibouti. Of all the nations in the whole world that want the war to continue, even more than the countries that are selling weapons, Djibouti tops the list. If there is a country that has seen the windows of heaven open and blessings pour down because of this war it has to be Djibouti. I might not know politics and I might not know Economics as well, but I am certain of one fact, war between Eritrea and Ethiopia means a blessing for Djibouti. If the other neighbors the Sudan and Kenya have got any blessing from this war it is by serving, as usual, as welcoming hosts to refugees of the war. God will surely bless them for that welcoming spirit. Long live the peoples of the Sudan and Kenya. Many of us who have passed through these two countries know what I am talking about. As for Djibouti its incom has grown ten fold because of the fight and seeing Ethiopia and Eritrea continue this war is in its best interest.

Djibouti is an arrogant country that doesn't understand "no". It wants to continue serving as a member of the HLD even after Eritreans told it "no we don't want you". It is to be remembered that

• Djibouti had broken diplomatic ties with Eritrea.
• Djibouti, contrary to IGAD's charter, had denied the Secretary General of IGAD, Tekeste Ghebray, from doing his for the simple reason that he was of an Eritrean.
• Djibouti had signed a defense pact with Ethiopia and it is an open secret that Djibouti has allowed Ethiopian troops to enter its territory so as to attack Eritrea from there.
• It is also an open secret that Djibouti has allowed Ethiopia to have a navy in Djiboutian waters.

Thus it is because there are Djibouti and Zimbabwe, IMO, that the OAU has shied away from speaking about the clarification of its own Frame Work. I think every body should know now why Eritrea insisted for a written clarification on the Frame Work.

Eritrea long ago had Suspected Ethiopia's Intentions
It was also, IMO, for this very reason that the Eritrean president was telling the Ouagadougou meeting for the agreement to have a language that doesn't lead to more confusion later.

I think if Eritreans are denied any other credit, they should be given credit for being the sole people in the whole world that know the ins and outs of Ethiopian mentality. If the Ethiopians, but particularly the Tigreans boast of knowing Eritreans, Eritreans too know of Ethiopian dream very well. They know what Ethiopia means when it says YES and they know well what Ethiopia means when Ethiopia says NO.

Not only through the 50+ years of struggle, but through centuries of Interaction, Eritreans know well how Ethiopians behave. If there are those who get fooled it is only those who forget history. Mind you if Alula, didn't fear the wrath of Mariam Axum and God when he reneged his promise to Rasi Woldemichael, how in the world can Eritreans trust the Woyanes who time and again have shown Eritrea that they are people who can not honor their words? Should they be trusted with the OAU Frame work? Absolutely not!

Melles, we are told, has the habit of crying when he talks to diplomats so as to convince them that "Mighty Ethiopia" is the victim of Eritrea's aggression. Naive fools from the west might not understand his true intention; as for Eritreans, they know him very well. In fact, let alone for Eritreans who lived in Ethiopia and Ethiopians of Eritrean origin, even Eritreans who didn't set foot in Ethiopia know Ethiopian intentions very well.

Again why is the OAU mute about its interpretation when in fact the Security Council "saw no confusion over the OAU agreement"? It is obvious the OAU doesn't want to go contrary to Ethiopia's wish.

Salim A Salim: Ethiopia's man in the OAU
Finally the man Salim. I personally don't know much about Salim's background. However, I remember as a kid cheering for him with my schoolmates when he was running for the UN Secretary General's Office. As an African we wanted him to be in the shoes of the Uthants, and Kurt Waldaheim's. Unfortunately, we said, he failed.

Those of us who lived in East Africa and had known some more about the region and had had close friends and schoolmates from the area, as a son of Tanzania, land of the humble Mwalimu (teacher) Julius Nyrere, and particularly Zanzibar (home of the great journalist the late Abdulrahman Babu), we had high hopes for him when he took office of Secretary General. We were hoping that he would be a catalyst for change . A catalyst to reform the "useless" OAU. To our disappointment, whether the waters of Gaferssa, the corrupting environment of Addis Ababa or the man himself from his genes ,we are observing him sell his soul to the services of the Woyane. Please read his latest statement as quoted by the Washington Post, "Truce Urged in East Africa Peace Broker Appeals to Eritrea, Ethiopia", March 2, 1999

"As far as I am concerned they [Ethiopians] have no other ambition and I have no reason to doubt; their only objective was to return land occupied by Eritrea"

It is also to be remembered that it was Salim, that for the first time of the OAU's history, allowed a non African diplomat, to address a delegation of OAU Heads of State and Government. The person was Susan Rice, the US-Rwanda poisonous plan pusher.

In any case we will be waiting what he will tell Kofi Annan. But mark my words, he will be reading from a script that Ethiopians wrote for him. I have no doubt Salim will never boldly say what the Agreement clearly says. Let's just wait.