Let us first define a mercenary as "One who sells his or her abilities or name to an undeserving cause." For our purposes here, the 'undeserving cause' is defined as the Eritrean military invasion of Ethiopia, and Eritrea's subsequent nine months of rejecting any and all peace plans. Quite a number of low-level Western intellectuals have been visiting Eritrea during this period, and enlisting in Eritrea's public relations machine.

In a better world, these Western intellectuals would be redundant. We should have our own local African experts who can interpret events to the rest of the world.

But unfortunately, it is not the case, and we must deal with the activities of people such as Dan Connel and Craig Calhoun. The Eritrean regime has recently launched a full-scale media offensive using these mercenaries in order to put the best face on its disaster at Badime.

Mr. Dan Connel, an individual whose entire career is based on his association with the EPLF, has just written an article "Letter from Eritrea" and got it published in 'The Nation'. Granted, 'The Nation' is a fading magazine of the American left-wing with declining standards and a dwindling readership. Still one would expect more editorial control over articles that are submitted to that magazine.

The problems with Mr. Connel's article include:

• completely one-sided perspective
• no acknowledgement of Mr. Connel's financial and professional relationship to the Eritrean Government through his aid agency
• numerous factual errors
• slander against an innocent American public official (Ms Susan Rice)

Here I will discuss the slander against Ms. Susan Rice. This is a curious phenomenon. Several other Eritrea groupies have also targeted her. For example here is Mr. Craig Calhoun (from New York University):

From Ethiopia's Ethnic Cleansing; Craig Calhoun (Dissent / Winter 1999 pp. 47-50) Paragraph 3:
In May 1998, Ethiopian forces killed three senior Eritrean army officers sent to negotiate, apparently because they refused to disarm at the border claimed by Ethiopia. Eritrea then took Badme by military force… Phone calls from President Clinton were apparently instrumental in getting Ethiopia and Eritrea to agree to end their air war. Otherwise, however, U.S. diplomatic interventions were largely incompetent and counterproductive, led by an inexperienced political appointee instead of an experienced diplomat.

Mr. Calhoun says "US diplomatic interventions were largely incompetent" in reference to Susan Rice. Ms. Rice is an articulate and effective African-American diplomat with great poise. She is an inspiration to young African Americans for her achievements and unruffled by silly and baseless attacks on her professional competence.

The US was invited by both Eritrea and Ethiopia to help negotiate a solution. The peace plan put together by Ms. Rice has formed the bedrock of the OAU peace plan. The UN Security Council has vindicated her efforts by describing the OAU peace plan as "fair and balanced."

Now why doesn't Mr. Calhoun trash the name of Anthony Lake? He is the former US National Security Advisor; a 55-year old white male who has been shuttling back and forth between Ethiopia and Eritrea for over five months. The Eritrean dictator has attacked Mr. Lake's efforts and blamed him in exactly the same way he blamed Ms. Rice. Why hasn't Mr. Calhoun described him as "incompetent?" Why the different treatment?

There certainly seem to be underlying reasons for the shameless bashing of Ms Susan Rice even though her work is the basis for the OAU agreement which Eritrea recently claims to have accepted. Mr. Calhoun is encouraged to read the US-Rwanda plan and the OAU plan. After comparing them he should write a letter of apology to Ms. Susan Rice.

Now, let us turn to Dan Connel's version of Rice-bashing. Here is what he wrote:

"The stumbling block--embedded in the original Organization of African Unity peace plan drafted in June 1998 and carried forward in subsequent elaborations by the OAU and the UN with US support--hinged on Ethiopian insistence that Eritrea withdraw from disputed territory prior to mediation. Eritrea objected to this out of fear that a unilateral pullback would open the door to Ethiopian annexation. Yet Ethiopia, whose face had been bloodied in the fighting, could not accede to a pact that did not give it a way to save face. So how did such an unworkable position become an integral part of the "peace plan"? "

"Sources close to the June talks--Eritreans and Americans--say that mediators had nearly reached an agreement that included an Eritrean withdrawal when the Eritreans panicked at hints that Ethiopian "hard-liners" were about to pre-empt the process with an attack that would decimate Eritrea. Despite the dubious military analysis behind this, US Assistant Secretary for African Affairs Susan Rice not only held a hasty press conference with Ethiopian officials in Addis Ababa to announce a breakthrough on terms favorable to Ethiopia but flew to Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, to secure the support of OAU members meeting there, based on the mistaken assumption that Eritrea was about to sign on. The only ones not told were the Eritreans, who learned about the proposal through the media."

The above two paragraphs are pure rubbish. It is a fact that Eritrea invaded territory that was peacefully being administered by Ethiopia. This is a violation of international law. Eritrea must use peaceful means to resolve its territorial claims. This is why Eritrea was required to withdraw. There is nothing "unworkable" about that unless one is a spokesperson for the Eritrean dictator.

Ms Rice held a press conference only after three weeks of intensive shuttle diplomacy. Her press conference (June 3) came one day after Eritrea launched a massive attack to capture Zalanbessa (June 2). Mr. Connel should read the reports from Eritreans boasting of their conquest of Zalanbessa. That was the event that created a heightened sense of urgency.

Eritrea rejected the US-Rwanda plan because the Eritrean dictator declared he was never going to withdraw from Badime. The terms of the plan were not "favourable" to Ethiopia. The US-Rwnada plan had only four points. The only point that Eritrea objected to was the requirement for Eritrean withdrawal from the territories it invaded.

Eritrea, indeed had given the impression that it was about to accept the peace plan, but of course that was simply disinformation. Mr. Connel now seems to have willingly allowed himself to be a conduit for more Eritrean disinformation.

To say that Eritrea was not told about the proposal and its progress is silly. Eritrea knew everything, and Ms. Rice (as well as the vice-president of Rwanda) were shutling back and forth to Asmara almost on a daily basis.

Conclusion:

Despite all the words written by Eritrea's intellectual street-walkers, Eritrea has been defeated and driven out of Badime. Their words are irrelevant. Eritrea is now clinging to the OAU peace plan for survival. This is the same plan that those intellectuals were trashing for nine months.

Ethiopia's Ethnic Cleansing; Craig Calhoun (Dissent / Winter 1999 pp. 47-50)

Paragraph 1:
For five months, the Ethiopian government has been tracking down citizens of Eritrean descent and expelling them by the thousands. This is a peaceful and mild version of ethnic cleansing; so far without the mass murder and rape characteristic of the disintegration of Yugoslavia. It comes in the wake of fighting along the border between the two countries in May and June, and so is fueled by wartime anxieties. But it is nonetheless an effort to purge the population of country on criteria of ethnicity alone.

Response 1: You state "on the criteria of ethnicity alone." As a researcher who has worked in the Horn of Africa before you know for a fact that the criteria is not "ethnic." You yourself state in the following paragraph that the Ethiopian government is dominated by "speakers of Tigrinya like highland Eritreans."

Do you deny that these Tigrinya speakers both belong to the same Tigrean ethnic group? Do you deny that the vast majority of those deported are ethnic-Tigreans? Do you deny that there are more than twice as many Tigreans in Ethiopia's Tigray state than in all of Eritrea?

Do you deny that Eritrean-Afars and Ethiopian-Afars belong to the same Afar ethnic group?
Do you deny that Eritrean-Sahos and Ethiopian -Sahos belong to the same ethnic group?
Do you deny that Eritrean-Kunamas and Ethiopian-Kunamas belong to the same ethnic group?

Do you deny that it is the nationality of the deportees that is at issue and not their ethnicity?

How on earth can you publish a paper with the title "Ethiopia's Ethnic Cleansing" when you know it to be false? It is not simply a matter of mislabeling or differences in interpretation. It is a deliberate falsehood to say that the Eritreans are deported on "criteria of ethnicity alone." It is as if a scientist faked laboratory data in order to come up with more sensational results.

You have done this to assure publication, and obtain a wider audience. It is wrong. It is a breach of your university's code of ethics. Deliberately publishing false information in a scholarly publication is highly unethical.

Paragraph 4:
The Ethiopian government's decision to expel citizens based on their racial or ethnic identities needs to be considered in this light. Like the rest of the war of which it is a part, it cannot be understood simply in terms of international factors or the ostensible instrumental goals it might accomplish; it is a drama played before a complex array of domestic audiences.

Response 4: Now you are using the word "racial." What information do you have that the Ethiopian government is expelling people based on their "racial identities." Who told you that Ethiopians and Eritreans belong to separate races? Please identify these races if you can. Now aren't you embarrassed by these ridiculous statements of yours?

...to be continued if time permits…