Question Submitted by Ethiopia to the OAU for the Clarification of the Technical Arrangements for the Implemetation of the OAU Framework Agreement and its Modalities.


1. Colonial treaties and applicable international law

The Framework Agreement makes reference to pertinent colonial treaties and applicable international law in addition to resolution AH G/Res. 16(I) adopted by the OAU Summit at Cairo in 1964. However, paragraph 5 of the preamble to the Technical Arrangements makes reference only to the Cairo Resolution. What is the reason for this omission of "colonial treaties and applicable international law"? Does this omission have any implications for delimitation and demarcation of the boundary?


2. Cessation of hostilities and redeployment

2.1 The Modalities in paragraph 4 provide that the deployment of troops shall "commence immediately after the cessation of hostilities". In this connection, in my letter of July 29, 1999 to Your Excellency I had suggested that the OAU establish a team of verifiers through consultation with the parties. The team would then collect evidence and undertake consultations with them in order to arrive at an agreed list of areas from which redeployment is to take place on the basis of paragraphs 1 and 2 of the Modalities.

In my discussions with your Special Envoy I had indicated that verification of lines of redeployment can take place before cessation of hostilities. In fact, the process followed by the Committee of Ambassadors of the OAU High Level Delegation to determine who administered Badme and its environs before May 6, 1998 can easily be followed. It will be recalled that the Committee visited both capitals, heard from both sides, collected evidence including from relevant third parties and arrived at the conclusion that Badme and its environs was administered by Ethiopia before May 6, 1998 in less than two weeks.

In my discussions with your Special Envoy I had also suggested that if the verifiers need to go to the area, full security guarantee can be obtained from both parties. Why was the option I put forth not preferred? Instead, under Annex IV to the Technical Arrangements redeployment of Eritrean troops will commence 50 days after D-day. Is this not contrary to paragraph 4 of the Modalities which provides for "immediate" commencement of redeployment following cessation of hostilities?

2.2 The Modalities for the implementation of the Framework Agreement treats 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, the Technical Arrangements deal only with cessation of hostilities. Why was the change made? What is the scope of cessation of hostilities under the Technical Arrangements?

2.3 On usage of important terms, the Technical Arrangements 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?


3. Restoration of Civilian Administration

3.1 Article 9 (a) (2.1) provides for the prohibition of deportation from the areas where civilian administration has been restored. How does this square with the sovereign right of a state to take measures to remove any national security threat to the nation?

3.2 Paragraph 8(b) of the Technical Arrangements provides for the restoration by Ethiopia of the civilian administration including police and militia within 7 days. This is a clear recognition that police and militia are an integral part of the civilian administration as it is in the case in the rest of Ethiopia. However, the Technical Arrangements provide under article 9(a) 2.3. for the prohibition of display of weapons by militia. What does " prohibition of display of weapons" mean? Will the militia have law enforcement functions as in the rest of Ethiopia? If so as in the past will they be allowed to bear arms?

3.3 It is provided under article 9(b) 2 that the Peace-keeping Mission "as necessary" will establish grievance resolution mechanism to which the local population will have access. Is this not contrary to the Framework Agreement and Modalities in which such mechanisms are nowhere mentioned? What is the reason for introducing it here? Who is going to decide when it is necessary to establish such mechanism? The parties or the "Peace-keeping Mission"? If it is the latter would this not go beyond the mandate envisaged for the Observer Mission in the Framework Agreement? Will the mandate of the mechanism be to observe and verify the implementation of the agreements and report its findings to the competent bodies or will it have the mandate to take decisions and enforce them? If so would this not be in contravention of the sovereignty of Ethiopia?


4. Humanitarian issues-arbitration

Article 14 of the Technical Arrangements envisage arbitration on humanitarian issues and issues concerning the socio-economic consequences of the dispute if the Parties fail to settle it through bilateral negotiations or mediation. Will individuals have direct access to the arbitration mechanism or will their cases be espoused by their respective government?

Will the mechanism have the mandate to handle and decide cases concerning: