Dear Your Excellency Dr. Susan E. Rice
Assistant Secretary of State and
Head of the Bureau of African Affairs

Before going to the main part of my message I want to pose some questions that you may consider before reading my message. Has being a leader of small country stopped militarist and arrogant leaders from attempting to annex other countries or parts of other countries? What has stopped Milosovich and Sadam from daring not only from evicting people or annexing another country but also from attempting to fight NATO or the super power US despite the humiliating destruction they brought to their countries and peoples?

Dear Dr Susan, it seems that nothing stops arrogant and militarist leaders to think beyond the capabilities of their countries and peoples. Over-ambitious thinking is not bad, the problem is when such thinking is evil, devastating, and finally humiliating.

In the case of the Ethio-Eritrean crisis, the world failed to believe that a leadership similar to that of Milosovich or Sadam existed in Eritrea because it is common sense to think that the leadership of a small and young country, Eritrea, which is only 7-8 years old would not dare to invade a bigger neighbour like Ethiopia especially given that the latter voluntarily decided to give freedom to the latter before few years.

Let me come to my main message. I learnt from the media that your Department is reconsidering debt relief as a means to influence Ethiopia to stop the border dispute with Eritrea. I do not challenge the intention as far as peace is the objective but I challenge it as a non-discriminative means.

More than any one, you and the Bureau of African Affairs of the US State Department you are heading recognise that Eritrea occupied the disputed lands since May 1998 although these areas were under Ethiopian administration since 1991 (the independence of Eritrea). You and the diplomats of the US who were directly involved in the US/Rwanda peace process know this very well. Further, the OAU (through its ad-hoc Committee of Ambassadors established by the OAU High Level Delegation to identify causes of the conflict and search for solutions) reported that the disputed areas were under Ethiopian administration before their forceful occupation on the date above. As a result both the US/Rwanda and the OAU peace proposals requested Eritrea's 'goodwill' to withdraw its forces from Badme and its environs.

The fact that Ethiopia administered the areas was revealed from three sources:

• Documents of Ethiopian parliamentary elections made in the areas
  
• Ethiopian held Referendum documents (as Eritreans were allowed to vote in Ethiopia for their independence) and
  
• Correspondences made by the Ethiopian administration ruling over the areas.

Despite the US/Rwanda and the OAU peace initiatives and despite Ethiopia's patience for about 10 months to give peace a chance, Eritrea refused to withdraw from the areas to the extent of swearing by its leader President Isayas Afewerki that "leaving Badme is tantamount the unrisng Sun." As a result Ethiopia, in February 1999, after being patient for 10 months, was forced to engage itself in a war it never wanted and managed to recapture the district of Badme that lies in the north-western border of Ethiopia. However, there were and still are other areas of land occupied by the forceful occupation of Eritrea in the middle and eastern sides of their common border.

After facing the humiliating defeat in Badme, Eritrea declared to have accepted the OAU peace proposal. Hearing this declaration by Eritrea, the Ethiopian Prime Minister promptly responded to by stating Ethiopian stand that if Eritrea is honest about the peace deal, then Ethiopia is willing to cease-fire even if Eritrea does not withdraw from the remaining areas immediately as far as Eritrea can give assurance to Ethiopia that it will withdraw its forces from the occupied areas. This was meant to create trust so that a peaceful negotiation might be started.

However the Eritrean leadership demanded that:

• Ethiopia should withdraw from Badme because they have, on their part, fulfilled the OAU's peace plan requirement by "withdrawing" from Badme, and
  
• Ethiopia should simultaneously withdraw from the remaining areas and Eritrea would not be the first to withdraw.

However, not only is it ridiculous for Eritrea to argue that its forced removal from Badme represents compliance with the OAU's Peace Proposal, but it is equally absurd for them to assert that having been evicted from Badme they can continue to occupy other Ethiopian territories by force. In fact, the only reason they claimed to accept the agreement was because they were forced out of Badme. Thus, despite its rhetoric, the Eritrean government has consistently rejected the terms of the OAU plan. Eritrea obviously never had any intention of accepting the agreement, nor does it currently have any intention of sincerely abiding by it. Otherwise, it should have not taken them 10 months to "study" a peace proposal which they accepted exactly one day after facing a defeat in the battle field.

Now let me conclude again by asking questions. Should Ethiopia be required to withdraw from its own lands, or to be modest, from areas it administered before their forceful occupation by Eritrea? Was or Is the US requested to cease-fire and negotiate with Sadam or Milosovich before they unfold their aggression or mass deportation? Was it possible for the UK to negotiate on the Falklands without the withdrawal of the Argentinean forces although it was not even willing to do so? Is it not enough for Ethiopia to be willing for demarcation and negotiation after Eritrean withdrawal although there is not slight doubt that the lands belonged to Ethiopia or at least it admitted the lands? Is your Department tired to read documents and consult diplomats and identify and condemn the real aggressor if not support the victim of aggression? Is it rational to hold poverty as a hostage and impose a policy not only in an undiscriminating way but also in way that that rewards the aggressor and further penalises the victim of aggression?

If you believe in God (I do) or at least in common morality and rational thinking, please give priority to principles and the truth; not merely to money or "US interests" in the Horn or elsewhere. in my opinion principles, the truth, and common interests usually go and should be allowed to go side by side.