The custodians of Ethiopia’s traditionalist and conservative state for the past 15 years, the Revolutionary Democrats, have a very cunning relationship with their western friends.

Often described by their chief priest, Meles Zenawi, as “development partners”, these countries would love to see his party succeed in governing Ethiopia for they believe it is the only viable state they can work with in the most troubled and turbulent region of the Horn of Africa, according to those in the gossip corridor.

That the United States strongly holds the view that Ethiopia is its strategic ally in the fight against terrorism is no debate by those in the gossip corridor. It was publicly pronounced in the power corridors of the US Senate last week by none other than Donald Yamamoto (“Don” to those close to him), deputy assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs.

It does not mean that they are happy with everything the Ethiopian government does: for one Mr. Yamamoto told the Senate that he sees the trial of CUD leaders, civil society activists and journalists a major challenge to his tenure as America’s ambassador to Ethiopia in the coming years. He must have been well informed from Addis Abeba’s diplomatic army to have held a sceptical view of how the trial has been handled so far, disclosed diplomatic gossip.

According to gossip, both American and European diplomats have submitted a joint but highly confidential report on the observation of the trial last Ethiopian year to the government last week. The 10-page report was a damning document to the government, claims gossip.

At least four observers affiliated to the US. State Department and the European Commission were deployed to follow the impartiality and integrity of the trial from December 2005 to June 2006. They have now a conclusion that Yamamoto says is troubling and concerns his country a great deal.

The report submitted to the government, according to gossip in the diplomatic circles, is harsh on the public prosecution claming that there was “ serious misconduct” on the part of the prosecution such as being unprepared and late for an average of 45 minutes to an hour, as well as a persistent refusal to produce copies of evidence. It also produced, frequently, new evidence that was not produced during presentation.

Although modest, the report did not spare the conduct of the court from criticism either, said gossip. According to gossip, this report claims that the court had failed to observe “what would be the most basic evidentiary procedures for trial”. It also gives the court the benefit of the doubt for defending its creditability.

Those who observed the trial suggest that the creditability of the court and the its fairness of  in general hinges on whether the defence will be given as much latitude as western observers said was given to the prosecution, said gossip.