After rejecting the world's call for a ceasefire and waging a massive war, the OAU which "strongly deplore[d] that its appeal for an immediate end of the fighting has not yet been heeded" was left with no choice but to drop its requirement for cessation of hostilities and re-arrange the sequence of the peace proposal so that redeployment of troops came before cessation of hostilities. Specifically, the six-point OAU Communiqu of May 24, 2000 called on:
"I Eritrea to announce immediately its decision to carry out this redeployment in conformity with Paragraph of the Modalities and to implement it immediatelyIand in the same spirit, the OAU requests Ethiopia to announce immediately after Eritrea, its decision to redeploy its forces according to Paragraph 2 of the Modalities, it being understood that this redeployment must concern all the positions taken since 6 February 1999 and which was not under Ethiopian control before 6 May 1998."
Barely a week after this communiqu, the Ethiopian Prime Minister who loves to slather the OAU with all sorts of empty praises while ceaselessly undermining its work, was telling Addis-based diplomats that he would like to honor his end of the bargain if only this, but only that, hence this. If Ethiopia is allowed to seek modifications on a key element of a clear document, what assurances are there that it won't request modifications on the other point of the communique, namely:
"I each of the two Parties committed itself to resolve the territorial dispute on the basis of the relevant colonial Treaties and the applicable International Law, through delimitation and demarcation with the assistance of the Cartographic Unit of the United Nations and, if necessary, through arbitration."
The above paragraph is Eritrea's only bottom line. On everything else, Eritrea has shown flexibility in the interest of peace and speeding up the peace process. What Meles is trying to do is to shift the definition of "disputed territories" from Badme to Shambko and Shilalo, and from Zalambesa to Senafe. If Meles, who was too eager to march to Eritrea is placing all sorts of obstacles to withdrawing, the OAU and the UN must find a way for him to do so by providing his mighty retreating army an escort to protect them from our devastated and decimated army. However, our experience with both agencies is that this process may drag out for months while Meles consolidates his positions in undisputed Eritrean territory. Eritrea can choose to speed up his withdrawal either militarily (which I believe it still can) or diplomatically. I prefer the diplomatic method--placement of an observor group in a demilitarized zone--because the Ethiopian Government has demonstrated that every time it loses in the military front, it attacks civilian targets: Hrgigo power plant, Asab water reservoir, looting of Barentu and demolishing hotels and administrative buildings. Moreover, the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Eritreans threatens to make Eritrea into Ethiopia: another African nation full of destitute beggars.
But with respect to demarcating the border on the basis of colonial treaties and applicable international law" Eritrea should show ZERO flexibility. No closed-door meetings, no scratch-my-back, I'll-scratch-yours deals. Nothing. Because we've lost too many lives to settle for a messy deal. Because we want to see the day when meles will have to explain why he destroy the lives of tens of thousands of people for a piece of land that he knew was not his.
Saleh