OAU: Issues Raised by the Eritrean Side Requiring Clarification

Regarding Badme and Environs
1. On the coordinates of Badme and its location relative to the recognised boundary?
  - The OAU High-Level Delegation addressed the issue of the Administration of Badme. The issue of the coordinates of Badme was not raised. This is a technical matter which could be addressed during the implementation of the Framework Agreement.
2. What is meant by environs? Which areas does it include?
  - Environs refer to the area surrounding Badme Town.
3. According to Ethiopia, "Badme and environs" means "all Ethiopian border territories occupied by Eritrea since May 6, 1998, what is the OAU's views?
  - See paragraph 36 in the Report on the efforts of the OAU High-Level Delegation, presented to the Fourth Ordinary Session of the Central Organ, meeting at Heads of State Level, which states: "the High Level Delegation took note of the position of Prime Minister Meles Zenawi. There was, however, no further discussion on the issue".
4. Has Ethiopia submitted to the OAU the totality of its claims as had been repeatedly requested by Eritrea?
  - Ethiopia has indicated that it will submit its claims when the issues of delimitation, demarcation and, if need be, arbitration are addressed.
Regarding Re-Deployment
1. What is the justification for unilateral Eritrean re-deployment from Badme?
  - The OAU High Level Delegation came to the conclusion that Badme town and its environs were administered by Ethiopia prior to the events of 6-12 May, 1998. Therefore, the troops to be re-deployed are those that occupied the area between 6-12 May 1998.
2. Why re-deployment to positions before May 6? Where precisely are the positions?
  - The incidents between 6-12 May are the fundamental issues that brought the dispute to the attention of the OAU and the International Community. The precise location of these positions are to be identified by Technical Experts during the implementation stages of the Framework Agreement with the cooperation of the two parties.
3. What does "the re-deployment to be extended within the framework of demilitarisation mean? Whose re-deployment is it?"
  - The re-deployment is of Eritrean troops from Badme Town and its environs. This should be immediately followed by the demilitarisation of the entire border, through the re-deployment of the forces of both parties along the entire border, to positions to be determined subsequently, as part of the implementation process of the Framework Agreement.
Regarding Civilian Administration
1. What is the justification for "reinstated civilian administration" if the areas under consideration is Eritrea with an Eritrean population?
  - This is based on the conclusions of the OAU High Level Delegation on the Administration of the areas concerned prior to 6 May, 1998 and not on the population. This position is without prejudice to the final status of the areas concerned which will be determined after the processes of delimitation, demarcation and if need be, arbitration, have been concluded.
2. What is the rationale for setting up an alien administration for a short time when options exist for quick demarcation?
  - The administration referred to is not a new one; it is the one that was there prior to 6 May, 1998. The High Level Delegation is of the view that this measure will contribute towards defusing tension and paving the way for the implementation of the other aspects of the Framework Agreement.
Regarding Investigation
1. What is the purpose of "an investigation on the incidents of July-August 1997 and 6 May 1998 and all incidents in between", if it has no bearing on the settlement of the dispute?
  - The High Level Delegation is of the view that such an investigation has a bearing on a lasting settlement of the dispute. It will provide further clarity on those events, and allow the OAU to appreciate the problem in all its dimensions. In the meantime, the recommendations on re-deployment and demilitarisation are aimed at creating an enabling environment for the processes of delimitation, demarcation and arbitration.
2. Why are not the incidents that occurred on May 6 and that escalated through a series of spiralling clashes until May 12, not seen as one integral act of violation? Moreover, why is May 6, 1998 seen an central? Why not July 1997?
  - See response in 2(b).
Regarding Colonial Treaties
1. Has the OAU ascertained that both sides recognise and respect the colonial boundary between the two countries as defined by the established colonial treaties?
  - This is a fundamental principle of the OAU which all OAU Member States have accepted. This principle is therefore reflected in the proposals submitted by the OAU High Level Delegation to both parties. The OAU takes it that by accepting these proposals and eventually by signing the Framework Agreement which contains this principle, the two Parties would have committed themselves to abide by this principle.
2. If this is the case, can this be affirmed through an agreement between the two Parties?
  - This principle is part and parcel of the Framework Agreement.
3. What is the meaning of the clause "international law applicable to the colonial treaties"?
  - International laws are laws that govern the relations between States. In this particular case, international law would refer to the specific aspects of the international law relevant to the colonial Treaties.
4. What is the precise interpretation of the OAU and UN Charters concerning colonial treaties?
  - As far as the OAU is concerned, it is to be noted that its Charter refers to the principle of territorial integrity of its Member States. This position was further elaborated in the well-known Resolution AHG/Res. 16(1) adopted at the OAU Summit in Cairo in July 1964 which provided in its operative paragraphs as follows:
  - SOLEMNLY REAFFIRMS the strict respect by all Member States of the Organisation for the Principles laid down in paragraph 3 of Article III of the Charter of the Organisation of African Unity;
  - SOLEMNLY DECLARES that all Member States pledge themselves to respect the borders existing on their achievement of national independence.
Regarding Demarcation
1. What is the legal basis for demarcation?
  - The signing of the Framework Agreement by the two parties.
2. What are its modalities, mechanism and time frame?
  - The time-frame is 6 months to be extended as provided for in the Framework Agreement (on the recommendation of the cartographic experts).
  - The modalities and Mechanism to be worked out by the Follow-up Committee in consultation with the Experts.
3. What are the legal arrangements that will render the outcome binding?
  - Same response as in 6(a).
The principle of the Non-Use of Force and Intimidation
1. Has the Committee attempted to ascertain which party has used force as a means of imposing a solution?
  - This will be determined by the investigations to be carried out as part of the comprehensive settlement plan.
2. Has the Committee tried to ascertain which party resorted to force in the July 1997 incident at Adi Murug, the January 1998 incident on the Assab road and the May incidents in Badme?
  - The July 1997 and the May 1998 incidents will be the subject of the proposed investigation. The January 1998 incident is new to the OAU, but could be covered by the investigation as proposed in the Framework Agreement where reference is made to the need to investigate other incidents that may have contributed to the present dispute.
3. What is the position of the Committee regarding the resolution of Ethiopia's Parliament on May 13, 1998 declaring war against Eritrea?
  - The Committee has refrained from making any judgement on Statements by the Governments and institutions in both countries. It has consistently appealed to both parties to exercise restraint and refrain from any actions and decisions which could harm the relations between the two sisterly countries and their peoples.
  - On the rest of the clarifications sought under 7, the Committee considered its role to be one of offering good offices to both Parties and urging them to exercise maximum restraint, as well as to opt for a peaceful settlement of their dispute.
Regarding the Principle of a Peaceful Solution to Disputes
1. Which Party has been routinely rejecting a peaceful solution?
  - Both Parties have consistently expressed to the OAU High-Level Delegation their commitment to a peaceful settlement of the current dispute.
2. Is unconditional cessation of hostilities acceptable to both sides?
  - The OAU High-Level Delegation did not address the issue of unconditional cessation of hostilities. It has taken the issue of cessation of hostilities within the context of the Framework Agreement submitted to both sides. In fact, the cessation of hostilities is contained in the first operative paragraph of the Framework Agreement.
Regarding the Violation of Basic Human Rights of Citizens
1. Has the Committee taken stock of the basic violations committed and property illegally confiscated?
  - See the relevant paragraph in the introductory note handed over to both parties by the Ministerial Committee in Ouagadougou (1-2 August 1998) which stated, inter-alia, "As regards the situation of Eritreans in Ethiopia. ... However, the conditions in which those deportations were carried out, the decision to extend those measures to families of the deported persons and the fate of their properties are a source of deep concern".
2. What will be the role of the OAU in ensuring that these violations are redressed?
  - The OAU, with the cooperation of both parties and with the assistance of the United Nations and other relevant institutions, will help the parties to address all aspects of the dispute, including the humanitarian problems generated by the dispute.
Regarding the Central Organ of the OAU
1. What is the mandate of the Central Organ?
  - See the 1993 Cairo Declaration of the OAU Summit establishing the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution.
2. What can we expect from the forthcoming meeting of the Central Organ?
3. See the Communique adopted by the Central Organ at the end of its deliberations.