In the past year, whenever one contacted the State Department's Africa Desk to check the views and policies of the Clinton Administration towards the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia and inquired why the Administration was not taking a stronger stand towards the intransigence of the Ethiopian government, the response from the officials was always that "Ethiopia has not rejected the peace plan" and although "Eritrea has accepted all three documents of the OAU-sponsored peace package, Eritrea has not signed them."

Eritrea offered to sign a cease fire including the three OAU documents in Algiers last week and demanded Ethiopia do the same. The latter refused both the cease fire offer and signing the OAU documents it supposedly has "accepted in principle."  And what does the Clinton Administration say in response?  Strangely, the Administration simply called for both sides to "exercise maximum restraint" and to "reaffirm their commitment for peaceful resolution of the conflict" between them.  (See U.S DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Office of the Spokesman, May 5, 2000, STATEMENT BY RICHARD BOUCHER).   Did the Clinton Administration change its position so fundamentally?  The answer is, apparently, yes.  The State Department spokesman James Rubin declared on April 26, 1999: "we believe a cease-fire is the first priority and we do not support any preconditions for immediate cease-fire." (AFP April 26, 1999 20:02 GMT).  Well, what happened this time?   We hear nary a mention of the stated "cease-fire is the first priority" stance!  The indifference of the Clinton Administration to the concerns of the State of Eritrea is both infuriating and saddening to Eritreans, Americans, and others who follow the conflict closely.

The Clinton Administration made a serious mistake by failing to push the Ethiopian regime to take the path of genuine peace in the region. The State Department's statement that it was just disappointed in the breakdown of the talks was a sham.  The OAU and State Department are talking about a so-called "Consolidated Technical Agreements".  Meanwhile, they could not bring themselves to say that Ethiopia has rejected the original "Technical Arrangements (TA)".  For that would mean condemning the Ethiopian regime for its warmongering.  When the U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., Mr. Holbrooke, chaired the U. N. Security Council's Africa Month in January, the agenda included Congo and Sierra Leone among others, but he refused to discuss the largest war in the world which would have embarrassed and exposed the Ethiopian regime.  Talk about an Africa Month!

Since the Clinton Administration has been calling for both sides to sign the two documents, the fair thing to do last week would have been to support Eritrea's stand for a cease fire and its readiness to sign the OAU peace plan.  But the Clinton Administration was back-tracking along with the OAU.

  The Clinton White House doesn't seem to be terribly concerned whether tens of thousands of soldiers die in this conflict as long as the Ethiopian government of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi remains in power.  Clinton and his State Department has been appeasing the Ethiopian regime for far too long now.   Germany, the only Western country that has taken a clear stand against Ethiopia's intransigence in this conflict while Ethiopians die of  hunger and malnutrition, has been ferociously attacked by the Ethiopians.  Ethiopia even recalled its ambassador to Germany.  The Ethiopian regime should not have been allowed to continue its policy of intimidation and war towards Eritrea with impunity.

Now that war has reignited - Ethiopia has launched an offensive on all fronts earlier Friday morning - the Clinton Administration is as responsible as the regime in Ethiopia.    There is no other way to look at this!

____________________________________________________________