In a world full of hypocrisy and selfish interest, it is naivete to expect all to rally behind in support of a just and lawful cause. This is more true in international affairs where the players are States who are guided primarily by their own selfish interest.

Unfortunately, this is a fact of life, pure and simple. In this situation, justice and fairness become, more often than not, a mere accidental by-product of power relations played out by these selfish entities called States.

Given this nature of international politics, Ethiopia, I guess, is not (in fact should not be) surprised by the failure of the international community to stand up and call aggression by its name and expose it for what it actually is and take measures to reverse it. To be sure, it is happening for a second time in her history. Of course, we all know that the stance of the international community particularily of the powerful ones would be much different both in substance and in form if, say, Mexico occupied parts of Texas or Argentina occupied the Falklands. In fact, Mexico and Argentina would be dead wrong if they were to expect an invitation for a round of peace talks.

What then is new? Well, failing to blame the culprit is one thing, but blaming the victim is quite another. It is this attitude expressed tacitly by the UN and explicitly by Eritrea that is 'new' these days.

In the wake of the recent summit, the security council of the UN issued a statement saying that " it is holding BOTH countries responsible for the damage to the welfare and rights of their people." But, wait a minute. A question must be asked here. For what action is the UN holding Ethiopia responsible? or Whence that vowing to defend oneself from unprovoked aggression has become an unacceptable conduct deserving of liability? or Is pursuing peace at a cost and in the face of aggression NOT a conduct worthy of praise and emulation? If Ethiopia is held liable for restraining herself from using force while her citizens are langushing under the yoke of occupying army, haven knows what awaits Eritrea, the aggressor.

This unwise statement shows, if any thing, the persistent problem the UN always has in standing up for what is right. The UN should rather be advocating that the participation of a nation in international affairs is not an inherent right, but a privilege which must be earned by proper domestic and international conduct. Had the UN consistently applied this principle it would have no problem figuring out who is to blame and thus would have spared itself of using a double standard. And this would translate into a clear message to the Eritrean leadership that aggression has no reward. In other words, we would be hearing the UN Chief, who recently accused of Iraq committing a flagrant violation of international law for failing to 'cooperate', denouncing in the strongest possible terms Eritrean occupation of Ethiopian territories as this is, a fortiori, a flagrant violation of the said law.

While one must appreciate the efforts albeit minimal in substance of the UN, the OAU, and other nations in trying to find a peaceful solution to the crisis, one still need to ask of the UN and others to stand up for what is right even if they're standing alone. Ethiopia will of course has no alternative except to stand up for what is right regardless of who stands or does not stand with her.

Until such time that the international community resolves to take a clear stand on the issue, it is highly unlikely that the peace train will reach its destination.

As for Eritrean leaders, one can only appeal to their conscience to heed to the sage advice of William Arthur Ward: " It is wise to direct your anger toward problems-not people; to focus your energies on answers- not excuses."