The most confused people right now must work for the US State Department.

When, in June 1998, Ethiopia escalated the then border skirmish by bombing Asmara in June of 1998 and imposing an embargo, the State Department came to the rescue of Ethiopia. Its only outrage was that Ethiopia had not given the US enough lead-time to evacuate;

When, in June 1998, Ethiopia began deporting thousands of Eritreans and Ethiopians of Eritrean ancestry, the world was outraged. Human rights organizations were outraged. But not the US State Department, which issued the most mealy-mouthed statement;

When, in February 1999, Ethiopia broke the air-raid moratorium that was brokered by the President of the United States himself, the State Department had nothing to say;

When, by September 1999, the world knew that Ethiopia had rejected the third part of the three-part OAU Technical Arrangement, Mr. Anthony Lake came to Ethiopia's rescue: oh no, said the Lake, Ethiopia didn't reject the documents. He had heard "authoritatively" that Ethiopia had not rejected the Technical Arrangements, he told a Boston newspaper.

Then the wily Ethiopian leaders (who asked for and got a document that is not subject to amendment) told Mr. Lake, well, we know the Technical Arrangements are not acceptable to us and we would like to have a "dialogue and consultation" with you. Well, must have thought the Lake, if I am going to be consulting you, it probably would not be helpful for me to inform Eritrea of the substance of the consultations, right? Sort of like a lawyer- client relationship whose communication is privileged and not subject to subpoena. So, between August 1999 to March 2000, he consulted and dialogued with Ethiopia, all the while keeping Eritrea in the dark. Meanwhile, Ethiopia re-armed, re-trained and re-wrote the Technical Arrangements.

When, in March 2000, Eritrea was first alerted that there is a New Technical Arrangement that also goes by the name of "non-paper" and it asked, "whatever happened to the original Technical Arrangement? Does this mean that Ethiopia rejected the original Technical Arrangements?" he said, that's not important. Come to Algiers and we will talk all about it.

When, in April 2000, Eritrea went to Algiers and said, "since Ethiopia, by amending a document we were told is not amendable, has set the calendar back to July 1999, and, who knows, it may reverse it back to June 1999 or October 1998, we would like to ensure that the two OAU documents, the Framework Agreement and the Modalities, be signed by both parties", a stumped Ms. Rice called Mr. Lake who characterized Eritrea's request as a "pre-condition" thereby giving Ethiopia more opportunities to gut the Framework Agreement and its Modalities;

When, in May 5, 2000, the talks broke down and Ethiopia unleashed its long-promised dogs of war, the State Department that used to "strongly" call for "unconditional" ceasefire decided that Ethiopia needed at least 72 hours to have a quickie "mop up" operation. Ethiopia's Gratitude?

The Ethiopian Prime Minister directed Ethiopians to have a spontaneous, heart-felt demonstration against the UN but particularly against the US and Great Britain for giving them insufficient time to have a quickie war. They mob carried signs including "Ethiopia is Not Monica". Whether the mob is saying Ethiopians are, unlike Monica, thin or whether they are making a derogatory reference to Clinton's sexual appetite, the journalists did not explain. How could they? They were too busy seeking shelter from the mob. After causing the riot, the Ethiopian Government brought on the police to control the unruly mob. If Ethiopia's approach to the famine is an indication, Ethiopia will now seek credit for controlling the mob it incited.

As for the war, it is, as most wars are, unnecessary. As for Ethiopia's current war, suffice to say that its architects have a name for their current aggression against Eritrea. If the Ethiopians fail, as they did in March 1999 in their assault in Tsorona, it will be Operation No Name and Patrick Gilkes won't include it in his BBC reports and Paul Henze won't remember it. If they succeed, it won't be "Operation Occupy Adi Berbere" or "Operation Mail Lam". If the goal is Zalambesa, it is, according to the Technical Arrangements, something they could have gotten back in October 1999 (D + 50) without any bloodshed and, thus, totally tragic. If their goal is Eritrea's subjugation, and the mission is "Operation Remove Isaias", it is an absurd misreading of Eritrea and its iron will.

Once again, Ethiopia's goals are either tragic or absurd. No wonder the State Department is confused.

Saleh