Mr. David Shinn, the US Ambassador to Ethiopia was recently interviewed by Walta Information Centre (W.I.C). Walta is the propaganda machine of the Wayane clique and as such is not exactly famed for its credibility. This is not surprising since Walta is in the service of a government which has adopted fabrication of lies, slandering and defamation as standard tools of state craft. Walta is the propoganda and mis-information centre of a regime, which does not hesitate to create events that never took place or deny the occurrence of events witnessed by the international media. In view of this Walta would probably not hesitate to ' doctor' the ambassador's responses to its questions if that suits its purpose. Nevertheless, Ambassador Shinn's statements on certain issues are certainly straight forward and not subject to any misinterpretation.

Concerning Eritrea's acceptance of he OAU framework agreement Ambassador Shinn says, "--- I would say that the situation is not 100% clear as to what exactly they have agreed to or think they have agreed to ---". One would think the situation is as clear as it could possibly be. The Eritrean government has agreed to accept the framework agreement and to implement it in its entirety. In view of this, the Ambassador's reservation on Eritrea's acceptance is difficult to understand.

The Ambassador also says that although the Eritreans have accepted the OAU framework agreement, "--- that [ acceptance] has not been fully tested". Mr. Ambassador, you forgot to mention that Eritrea, after duly accepting the framework, has also as a first step disignated a committee to participate in its implementation. Is there, perhaps, another method for 'testing' whether a proposal is fully accepted or not? If so, I am sure everybody would like to know it. In discussing Eritrea's acceptance of the framework agreement, Ambassador Shinn forgot, rather conveniently, too conveniently one would say, to mention the following: that Ethiopia, having accepted the framework agreement before Eritrea, is now coming up with new preconditions that were not contained in the original text.

Finally, Ambassador Shinn was asked on what options there are for ending the conflict. His answer: " Obviously one solution would be, if Eritrea would concur, that it is in the interest of every one, to remove its forces from the remaining territories that are currently occupied by Eritrea. That, I believe would end the conflict. Certainly the government of Ethiopia says that way would end the conflict----. Another way, in a far less desirable way is to continue the military conflict and one side defeats the other."

So here are Ambassador Shinn's options for resolving the conflict stated in clear and unambiguous language! Any number of questions can be raised and any number of conclusions can drawn from Ambassador Shinn's interview:

1. If his statements reflect the official view of the US government then it means the US government endorses Wayane's additional preconditions with respect to the framework agreement. But how could this be because the US government, as a veto wielding member of the the UN's Security Council, has already voted for a resolution calling upon both parties to implement the framework agreement?

2. The Ambassador's second option is a military solution. Is the US State Department with all the scholars, African 'specialists', political analysts and miscellaneous expects at its disposal, so devoid of imagination that, it can come up with only two options and both of them non-starters? In the event that one party to the conflict defeats the other militarily and occupy the contested areas, it is very unlikely that this would result in a permanent solution. The losing side would certainly wait for an opportunity sometime in the future to reclaim what it still considers its territory. So the military option would end up being a typical quick-fix, band-aid solution with no lasting effect, the kind of conflict resolution that the US government appears to be partial to.

3. Again assuming that Ambassador Shinn's pronouncements reflect US policy not yet made public, was he making these statements as some sort of a "Trial ballon" to see the reaction of Eritrea and the international community? Could it also be an officially sanctioned ' leak' by the US State Department?

4. Nowhere in the interview does Ambassador Shinn even hint that his statements are personal views and not official US policy. When an ambassador acredited to a country which is in conflict with its neighbour; makes a statement, any statement, on the conflict everybody assumes, and rightly so that the ambassador is speaking in his official capacity. As a consequence, anybody who came across this interview is very likely to take it as the official US position on the conflict.

To summarize, if Ambassador Shinn's statement are official, then we can legitimately conclude that:

1. The US government finds itself in the untenable position of supporting Ethiopia's new preconditions while at the same urging both parties to implement the Framework Agreement.

2. The US government considers a war to the finish to be a viable option to end the conflict.

If Ambassador Shinn was expressing his own personal views, so be it. We only wish that every time he gives an interview, he makes it quite clear if he is talking as Ambassador David Shinn, US Ambassador acredited to Ethiopia or plain Mr. David Shinn, a private US citizen.

As to the question whether it is an accepted practice for a serving US diplomat to go around spouting statements that would tend to worsen an already bad situation is best left to the US State Department.