1. to welcome the involvement of anyone lending their good offices for peace and to happily extol the virtues of any peace proposal. Every peace proposal--from US Rwanda, to the Framework Agreement, to is Modalities--was "fully accepted" by Ethiopia. Not only did it accept them (without "ifs" and "buts") but it accepted them in a manner to suggest that the proposals were precisely what Ethiopia was looking for. The Ethiopian Prime Minister and Foreign Minister gave condescending lectures to the OAU, to African Diplomats, to the UN that Ethiopia wants nothing more than the implementation of these perfect Africa-based agreements.

2. to go out of your way to paint Eritrea and its government as a rogue nation ruled by a tyrant; a small "impressionable" country with war-like tendencies and inadequate respect for peace, human rights, and-most of all--our continental congress, the OAU. Volumes were written by hired pens to demonize the Eritrean president--including articles not fit for publication in gossip rags. Eritrea would be described as an up-start nation with ambitions far beyond its means and one whose government was populated by embarrassing buffoons.

This is a story of how the Ethiopian strategy--built on a mountain of lies taller than Ras Dashan--came crumbling down.

First, it was the irritating jouranlists. When the BBC reported on November 1, 1998 that "the decision by Eritrea and Yemen to accept the [Hanish] ruling without complaint won praise from the international community, which held it up as model for the resolution of other territorial disputes", Ethiopia was infuriated. This did not go well with the campaign to paint Eritrea as an anti-peace rogue nation. When Eritrea reconciled with Sudan, it was described as an act of desperation. So, new stories had to be fabricated of conflicts with other neighbors now that the two neighbors Ethiopia was presenting as Exhibit 1 and Exhibit 2 in its "Eritrea: The Aggressor" story were making peace.

When the UN called for an arms embargo on both Eritrea and Ethiopia, Ethiopia placed on rewind the only tape it has that shows the empire as a victim of a brutal empire: Italy's occupation of Ethiopia. This event, that happened over 60 years ago, is brought on every occassion that Ethiopia wants to play the wounded justice crusader. Of course the analogy of Fascist Italy with tiny Eritrea -- especially one, that according to Ethiopian propaganda is experiencing economic meltdown--didn't have any buyers at any forum but Ethiopia keeps on trying.

When Amnesty International exonerated Eritrea of any human rights violations and accused Ethiopia of massive human rights violations, the Ethiopian Government was livid. It went on the ballistic attacking Amnesty International, the UN or any reporter who dared to report the truth. Curiously, it spent more energy trying to prove Eritrean guilt than Ethiopian innocence. But the straw that broke the camel's back is the OAU's Technical Arrangement. Despite a 12-month Ethiopian campaign to vilify Eritrea as one who has no respect for the OAU, the continental congress--now under new management--was proposing a plan that was actually fair to both parties. The OAU was actually holding Ethiopia accountable to the language of the agreements it supposedly accepted and ruling out any Campaore-type-resignation-bed conversions.

Well, that did it. In a statement that must come as a shock to the entire international community--including the UN which, through its resolutions, strongly endorsed the OAU Framework Agreement--the Ethiopian Foreign Minister gave up any pretense of even claiming to accept the OAU Framework Agreement. Here is the key sentence: "The Ethiopian Government cannot be expected to tell its people after all that has passed that the restoration of Ethiopian sovereignty is dependent on the decision arrived at by third parties at a future date."

Given Ethiopia's non-stop rant that Eritrea must unconditionally withdraw before any cessation of hostitlites, the Ethiopian Government is within its rights to advocate this unwise choice. But it cannot simultaneously claim that its "bottom line" is consistent with any of the peace proposals that it has accepted "fully":i.e., the proposals put forth by the USA, Rwanda, the OAU and strongly endorsed by the EU and the UN. After all, this is what each one of the proposals that Ethiopia accepted without "ifs and buts" says on how the issue of "sovereignty" should be restored or, in the words of Ethiopia, "Eritrean agression reversed":

1. US Rwanda

   To reduce current tensions, AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE TERRITORIAL CLAIMS OF EITHER PARTY: a small observer mission should be deployed to Badme; Eritrean forces should redeploy from Badme to positions held before May 6, 1998; the previous civilian administration should return; and there should be an investigation into the events of May 6, 1998.

2. 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

3. OAU Modalities

   The redeployment of troops shall commence immediately after the cessation of hostilities. This redeployment shall not, in any way, prejudice the final status of the territories concerned, it being understood that this status will be determined at the end of the border delimitation and demarcation. .

Impressed with the Ethiopian Government's refined rhetoric, the international community has been showering the Ethiopian Government from a seemingly endless well of good will. This has emboldened the Ethiopian Government to demand and get one concession after another from the Eritrean Government. Eritrea, as must be evident to the world, is all out of concessions. Ethiopia's latest request is for Eritrea to renounce any claims over disputed territories and then enter into negotiations to make claims over the same territories it has renounced any claims on. Now, does this make sense to anyone living on this side of schizophrenia?

It is now evident to all but the most feebleminded that, as far as the Ethiopian Government is concerned, violence and war are its preferred mode of solving its conflict with Eritrea. This was the case in 1997, 1998. This is the case in September 1999. It will pursue its dangerous policy even at the risk of exposing Ethiopia--a country to whom it pledged loyalty for the first time in 1990--to diplomatic, economic and political isolation. This is the business of Ethiopians. But the international community should understand that its so-called "quiet diplomacy" has resulted in the death of tens of thousands of young Eritrean and Ethiopian lives and the displacement of hundreds of thousands more. While the responsibility for any new military engagement lies solely with the Ethiopian Government, the international community, which, after all, has strongly endorsed the OAU proposals that provide a peaceful alternative, must strongly support the OAU and its chairman and loudly call on Ethiopia to renounce violence and scrupulously observe the peace proposal..