The second request for clarification on the technical arrangements was on cessation of hostilities. The Ethiopian government asked:

In my [Meles] discussion with your Special Envoy I had indicated that the verification of lines of redeployment can take place before cessation of hostilities... I had also suggested that if the verifiers need to go to the area, full security can be obtained from both parties. Why was the option I put forth not preferred?

The shorter version of the OAU response is:

In any event, the Framework Agreement... specifies under paragraph 1 that "the two Parties commit themselves to an immediate cessation of hostilities". Similarly, the Modalities specify under paragraph 3 that "the two Parties agree to put an end to all military ... On their acceptance of the Modalities, the two Parties thus committed themselves to this provision. Thus, the cessation of hostilities committed to by both Parties on their respective acceptance of the Framework Agreement and the Modalities must come into force with the commencement of the implementation process.

The eye-catching observation from the above question is why cessation of hostilities is seen as something venomous to Ethiopia. After all, the intent of all these questions and clarifications is to implement a lasting peace, which in essence is a permanent cessation of hostilities.

The above question, in addition to the Ethiopian government's arrogance of why their option was not preferred, demonstrates that they have been getting their way in the past. Ethiopia needs to recognize that the new management at the OAU is not Burger King, and Ethiopians can't always get their way.

An inquiring mind may also want to know, how it is possible to get "full security", without cessation of hostilities? The best way to obtain full security is through cessation of hostilities.

The question continues with the following:

The Modalities for the implementation of the Framework Agreement reads cessation of hostilities and cease-fire in paragraphs 4 and 7 respectively, the latter providing for a cease fire agreement as the final step in the peace process. However, technical arrangements deal only with the cessation of hostilities. Why was that change made? What is the scope of the cession of hostilities under the Technical Arrangement?

On usage of important terms, the Technical Arrangement in article 2 use different terms like "cessation of all military activities," "cessation of any other action", "cessation of all armed air and land attacks" and cessation of hostilities" (Annex IV). Does this add or detract from a normal cessation of hostilities? Why is there no uniform usage of terms?

In short, the OAU response was "taken together, all these provisions are consistent with the 'normal cessation of hostilities' mentioned in the question, neither adding nor detracting from it."

The above question is an indication of mastering ScheClintology - a course only provided by President Clinton and OJ Simpson DNA expert Scheck. The intent is not to get answers, but to misuse terms beyond recognition and confuse the audience. The DNA testimony given by OJ Simpson lawyers was much simpler to understand than the above "question".

The word from the mediators is that we may hear a response (acceptance or rejection) within the next few days. I hope Ethiopia got an unequivocal directive from the clarifications and they will accept the proposal. If not, we should expect additional questions such as, what is meant by "Eritrea is a sovereign nation"? When the modalities refer to Ethiopia, is it inclusive of Eritrea? And so on.