"Lie, lady, lie, lie 'til the day you die
Lie, lady, lie, lie 'til the day you die
Whatever fantasies you have in your mind
Put'em to words and I will string'em to a line" - Ethiospokesperson slogan

Lest this be misconstrued (as usual), let me say at the outset that I believe that the overwhelming majority of Ethiopians are decent, ethical and peace-loving people. But their governments, especially the current one, are (and I apologize for being so indelicate) pathological liars. The Ethiopian government's lies come in bold and messy sizes, in primary colors, for obvious and mysterious reasons and they have no expiration date.

1. The Big Bold Lie:
   In this assembly line of lies, all the parts of the lie are impressively detailed. The lie answers all the anticipated questions of what, when, where, who and why.

   Example:

   "On February 5, 1999, at 10:45 am, Eritrean fighter planes bombed the town of Adigrat. The intended target was the fuel depot and its surroundings. Today's attack by Eritrea is a flagrant violation of the United States-brokered moratorium on air strikes agreed to by Ethiopia and Eritrea in June of 1998" - Ethiopian Spokesperson, February 5, 1999

   The Unraveling of the Lie:
   Fighter planes are quite noisy and bombs are deadly. If you are a US or EU ambassador, you would really want to know if Eritrea had violated a moratorium it had signed with the US president. You'd say "can we check for ourselves?" You'd have reasons to be suspicious because in January the Ethiopian Foreign Minister had said that the peace deal was "as good as dead" and the Ethiopian Prime Minister had declared that an Ethiopian attack could start "any time." No, said the Ethio Government, it is far too dangerous for you to visit Adigrat. Say you are a reporter who wants to verify this claim. What would you do? You would want to go and see for yourself. Too dangerous, said Ethiopia. Well then, maybe you could call people in Adigrat and ask them if they witnessed anything. That's what reporters did: the people of Adigrat were surprised to learn that they had been bombed; they heard nothing, saw nothing. It's all quiet out here, they said. Then reporters asked the Ethiopian Foreign Minister if he had any information on the bombing that his ministry reported. Sure. Can you tell us, sir, if the bombing inflicted any damage? No. Why not? Because I wasn't there, said the Bombastic One.

   There are two things to do when you are caught in a lie: (1) fess up and admit it as a mistake or (2) compound it by telling more lies. Guess which one is the Ethiopian Government's choice? Ah, the magic of compounding. If you pick the second option, you must continue to remind yourself about the lie. The Ethio Government sometimes forgets about the lies it has told. On February 12, 1999, it issued a statement saying:

   "The Eritrean Government, who refused repeated calls for peace from the OAU and the international community, initiated military hostilities against Ethiopia on February 6, 1999."

   The Government apparently forgot the fib it told about the imaginary February 5 bombing. But wait, it gets worse. In a special report on Adigrat detailing the damages inflicted by the horrible Esssssayassss regime on the quaint little city of Adigrat, the Ethiopian Government issued a 374-word grievance. Nowhere in that report is the alleged bombing that occurred on February 5, 1999.

2. The Messy Lie:
   This is the type of lie that is unexplainable because by telling it, Ethiopia derives no benefit from it.

   Example:
   One example of a messy lie was the trouble the Ethiopian government took to prove that an Eritrean News Agency (ERINA) report stating that Iran had offered to mediate the Eritrea-Ethiopia conflict was false. Ethiopia actually asked the Iranian Government to offer a written denial and then proudly displayed the denial (scanned image of the Iranian letter complete with Iranian logo) on its website. Unfortunately for the Ethiopian Government, the source of ERINA was the Iranian News Agency (IRNA) which did report, in its website (link made available by Visafric), that the Iranian Government had, indeed, offered to mediate.

3. The "It Sounded Good When We Were Writing It" Lie:
   This lie defies laws of logic and cannot be explained away. Ethiopian soldiers massacred at Tsorona? What? There was no war. OK, maybe there was a skirmish. Alright, maybe there was a war, so what? It was all PR Drama staged by Eritreans. What tanks? How do you know they are not Eritrean tanks?

   Example:
   On May 27, 1999, the Ethiopian Government issued a press release that included the following:

   "After suffering heavy losses at the Western front during a military engagement from May 22-24, Eritrean forces once again initiated hostilities from May 25-26 in hopes of capturing strategic posts near the Mereb River. The initiative failed, however, as the Ethiopian defense forces quickly repelled the attacks."

   If Eritrea initiated a war on May 22, 1999 and the war went on uninterrupted on May 22, May 23, May 24, May 25 and May 26, how is it possible that Eritrea reinitiated what it had initiated in the middle of this four day war?

4. The "Help! I am on a high horse and I can't get down" lie:
   This is when the Ethiopian Government--an organization which, at best, has a checkered past and at worst a ruthless one--tries to present itself as the last bastion of human rights, democracy, and decency. The same organization that did not blink as it liquidated rival organizations such as the TLF, EDU, EPRP, OLF and various Somali clans, the same gang that stripped nuns and children their citizenship and cruelly deported them across inhabitable desert, that same government that arrests reporters if they refuse to sing its praises, loudly protests that it cannot accept a peace deal because it would be against its principles, etc and habitually lectures Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch and the UN on how to do their job. Nobody is buying this act; as Congressman Gilman noted, this ballad has no resonance outside Mekele and the captive audience of NGO bottom-feeders and Sheraton hangers-on.

   Example:
   On September 4, 1999, in a long-winded rejection of the OAU's Technical Arrangement for the implementation of the OAU Framework Agreement, the Ethiopian Government spammed another press release stating:

   "The Government of Ethiopia has made a commitment to its people that it will not allow aggression to stand. The promise must be kept. This requires the Ethiopian Government to insist on the removal of all loopholes that might impede the full restoration of the status quo ante."

   Didn't the Ethiopian Government make a promise to the Ethiopian people that their days of starvation and arbitrary arrests and living in fear and wars of conquest are over? Whatever happened to that promise? Did the government promise its people that it will squander their resources into purchasing arms in futile wars of conquest?

5. The "I can't cite the source but take my word for it" Lie:
   This is so blatant and so easy to discredit, I continue to marvel at why the Ethiopian Government continues to do it. Part of the reason is that the Ethiopian intelligentsia is so blinded by its hatred of Essssayas and Shabia, it can't think straight. We've all heard about how the OAU Framework Agreement calls for a "reversal of aggression" or "return to status quo ante" about how the OAU documents are inconsistent with one another. You would think that when quoting documents that are widely available and written, not in Aramaic or Ge'ez but in plain English, the Ethiopian Government would be able to quote chapters and verses of these documents.

   Example:
   On May 18, 1999, the Ethiopian Government issued yet another press release that said, in part,

   "Founded on the principle that aggression cannot and must not be rewarded, the OAU Framework Agreement clearly and unambiguously requires Eritrea to withdraw from all Ethiopian territories it invaded and has occupied since May 1998. If this conflict is to be resolved peacefully, the Eritrean government must stop playing with words and do what is required of it."

   What exactly did the OAU require of Eritrea? Here are the exact words quoted verbatim from the OAU Framework Agreement:

   "In order to create conditions conducive to a comprehensive and lasting settlement of the conflict through the delimitation and demarcation of the border, the armed forces presently in Badme Town and its environs, should be redeployed to the positions they held before 6 May 1998 as a mark of goodwill and consideration for our continental Organization, it being understood that this redeployment will not prejudge the final status of the area concerned, which will be determined at the end of the delimitation and demarcation of the border and, if need be, through an appropriate mechanism of arbitration."

   According to the Framework Agreement (which Ethiopia swears by) Eritrea would withdraw from "Badme Town and Environs" not because it is an aggressor but as a "mark of goodwill" to the OAU. Furthermore, when the Eritrean Government asked (Question 1b) "What is meant by environs? Which areas does it include?" the Delphi at OAU replied, "Environs refer to the area surrounding Badme Town." I am what I am.

   From the above quote, the Ethiopian Government continues to tell the tale that

   1. the OAU condemned Eritrea as the aggressor;
   2. the OAU determined that the disputed territories are all parts of sovereign Ethiopia;
   3. the OAU called on Eritrea to withdraw from every inch of Ethiopian territory;
   4. that the two steps recommended by the OAU prior to the Eritrean withdrawal--the call to commit to "an immediate cessation of hostilities" and to put an end to "any action and any form of expression likely to perpetrate or exacerbate the climate of hostility and tension between them thereby jeopardizing the efforts aimed at finding a peaceful solution to the conflict"--do not apply to Ethiopia and it can go on maligning, defaming, arresting, undermining and deporting Eritreans and confiscating their properties.

   Out of sheer frustration and exhaustion, in July 1999, the OAU recommended in the Modalities (and Eritrea accepted) the implausible re-definition of the environs of Badme to stretch all the way to Burie. Now, again out of sheer frustration, exhaustion and maybe jetlag, the OAU and Anthony Lake are recommending amendments to the Technical Arrangements to make them more palatable to the insatiable appetite of the Ethiopian Government. In subtle and direct ways, the Eritrean Government has made it known that, although it thinks tinkering with the Technical Arrangements is a colossal mistake, it would--in the spirit of compromise--not be opposed to procedural changes.

   If that is the case, why does the Ethiopian Government continue to squirm and huff and puff? Why is it back to its old threats and ultimatums of impending doom and Armageddon? Hint: it has nothing to do with principles or high minded concepts of sovereignty. It has everything to do with the following statement, which is found in the Framework Agreement and solidified in the Technical Arrangements. It was the question asked by Eritrea on the subject of colonial treaties and the governing OAU Resolution on the subject [Res 16 (1): "...that all Member States pledge themselves to respect the Borders existing on their achievement of national independence."

   Eritrean Question:
   Has the OAU ascertained that both sides recognise and respect the colonial boundary between the two countries as defined by the established colonial treaties?

   OAU Answer:
   This is a fundamental principle of the OAU which all OAU Member States have accepted. This principle is therefore reflected in the proposals submitted by the OAU High Level Delegation to both parties. The OAU takes it that by accepting these proposals and eventually by signing the Framework Agreement which contains this principle, the two Parties would have committed themselves to abide by this principle.