Ethiopia's Questions to the OAU's Technical Arrangements
                            September 5, 1999

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

2.1The Modalities in paragraph 4 provide that the redeployment 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 6 May 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 Bad
me and its environs was administered by Ethiopia before 6 May 1998 in less
than two weeks.

In my discussion 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?

2.2The 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 s
tep in the peace process. However, the Technical Arrangements deal only
withcessation of hostilities. Why was the change made? What is the scope
of cessation of hostilities under the Technical Arrangements?

2.3On 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

3.1Article 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?

3.2Paragraph 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 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?

3.3It is provided under article 9 (b) 2 that the Peace-keeping Mission "as
necessary" will establish grievance resolution mechanisms 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 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 envisages 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 governments?

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

· Ethiopian property taken by the Eritrean Government at the ports of Assab
and Massawa.

· destruction of public infrastructures like schools, clinics, public
administration buildings, religious and cultural objects and private property
of all kinds in the areas occupied by Eritrea since 6 May 1998.

· disappearances and killings of civilians in the occupied territories of
Ethiopia and etc.

5.Peace-Keeping Mission

5.1This is not provided for in the Framework Agreement or Modalities.

Rather, the two basic documents envisage Military Observer Mission. What
is the reason for this departure from the Framework Agreement and
Modalities?

Will the "Peace-keeping Mission" be composed of military and other experts
to observe and verify the implementation of the agreements or will it be made
up of troops to keep the peace between Ethiopia and Eritrea? What will be
the size and duration of this mission?

What is the mandate of this Mission? Is it going to be verification and
observation or does it go beyond that?

5.2Article 2(c) of the Technical Arrangements provides that the parties will
guarantee the free movement of the Peace-keeping Mission and its supplies
as required through and between the territories of the Parties.

Will there be prior notification to the parties before the Mission's travels?

5.3Under article 8(b) of the Technical Arrangements the Peace-keeping
Mission performs the function of Observing and Assisting in the restoration
by the parties of the civilian administration including police and militia.

Is the assistance to be rendered upon request by the parties?

6.Delimitation and Demarcation

Article 11 of the Technical Arrangements provides for the delimitation of the
boundary segment by segment. It is further provided that disputes over
delimitation will be submitted to arbitration. Will the disputes also be
submitted to arbitration segment by segment? Will the parties have the right
to submit their case and vidence to the Cartographic Unit and the Boundary
Commission?

7.Demilitarisation (Annex III)

The Peace-keeping Mission is envisaged to "approve the demilitarisation
plans". What will it be deciding or approving? Is it going to do it in
consultation with the parties? What criteria will it use in approving the
demilitarisation plans? What is meant by the term "original positions" in
paragraph 3 of Annex III?

8.Consultations on the establishment and operation of various bodies

The Technical Arrangements provides for the establishment of various bodies
for the implementation of the Framework Agreement and Modalities. These
are:

1. The Neutral Commission,

2. The Follow-up Commission comprising the Political Follow-up
Commission and the Military Co-ordination Commission,

3. The Verification Mission (Peace-keeping Mission),

4. The independent impartial body to carry out investigation into the origins
of the conflict,

5. The Boundary Commission,

6. The arbitration mechanism for the settlement of humanitarian issues and t
he
socio-economic consequences of the conflict.

Will there be consultations with the parties on the establishment of the above
bodies? What will the scope of the consultations be? Once established will
these bodies carry out their duties through full consultation with the parti
es? What will the scope of such consultations be?

9.Investigation into the incidents of 6 May 1998 as well as those of
July/August 1997 (article 10)

Article 10 of the Technical Arrangements provides for the establishment of an
independent impartial body to determine the origins of the conflict between
Ethiopia and Eritrea.

What will be the scope of the determination by this body? Will the mandate
of this body be limited to factual determination?

Clarifications of the Organisation of African Unity in Response to the

Questions Raised by Ethiopia Relating to the Technical Arrangements

I. INTRODUCTION

A. By letter of His Excellency Mr. Meles Zenawi, Prime Minister,
addressed, on 13 August 1999, to His Excellency Mr. Abdelaziz Bouteflika,
President of the People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, current Chairman
of the Organization of African Unity, the Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia requested a series of clarifications regarding the "Technical
Arrangements for the Implementation of the OAU Framework Agreement
and its Modalities".

B. In this respect, it is to be recalled that the communiqué made public
on 11 August 1999 by the current Chairman and the Secretary General of the
OAU indicated that, "taking into account the fact that any interpretation of
the Framework Agreement, the Modalities and the Technical Arrangements falls
within the exclusive competence of the OAU and considering that this request
for clarification is made in a constructive spirit, the Personal Envoy assured
the Ethiopian Party that the clarifications sought on the Technical
Arrangements, once formally submitted, will be given a speedy reply in line
with the Framework Agreement and the Modalities for its implementation".

C. It is to be recalled that the drafting of the Technical Arrangements was
made in response to clear requests by the two parties to the Personal Envoy
during his meetings with them between the 22nd and the 25th of July 1999.
This was intended to provide the practical measures necessary for the
Implementation of the Framework Agreement and of the Modalities
endorsed by the 35th ordinary session of the Assembly of Heads of State
and Government of the OAU, strongly supported by the UN Security
Council and accepted as they are by the Parties.

D. Finally, and as recorded in the 4th paragraph of the preamble to the
document containing the Technical Arrangements, the Parties have accepted
that "any interpretation of the OAU Framework Agreement and the
Modalities is the sole responsibility of the OAU and its current Chairman".


E. It is in this spirit that the present clarifications are submitted, at
its request, to the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia.
As in the preparation of the Technical Arrangements and as welcomed by the
two Parties, preparation of these clarifications was conducted by experts
from the OAU, in co-operation with experts from the UN and the United
States of America.

II. CLARIFICATIONS

A- COLONIAL TREATIES AND APPLICABLE INTERNATIONAL
LAW

Two questions have been raised on this issue.

A.1. The first concerns the omission of any reference to "colonial treaties
and applicable international law" in paragraph 5 of the preamble to the
Technical Arrangements, while the preamble to the Framework Agreement
does so.

A.1.1. In this regard, it is useful to underline that the preamble to the
Framework Agreement sets forth both a principle and an approach.

A.1.2. The principle set forth is that of the "respect for the borders existing
at independence, as stated in Resolution AHG/Res 16(I) adopted by the
OAU Summit in Cairo in 1964".

A.1.3. The approach set forth is that of the "determination of those borders
on the basis of pertinent colonial treaties and applicable international law,
making use, to that end, of technical means to demarcate the borders and, in
the case of controversy, resort to the appropriate mechanism of arbitration".

A.1.4. The Technical Arrangements, which must be read as a whole, do not
depart from the contents of the Framework Agreement on this issue.

A.1.5. The specific basis for delimitation and demarcation of the border,
as contained also in the "Framework" and "Modalities", are set out in
paragraphs 11,12 and 13 of the Technical Arrangements.

A.1.6. The third sub-paragraph of paragraph 11 clearly states that "the
delimitation and demarcation process will be done on the basis of pertinent
colonial treaties and applicable international law".

A.2. The second requested clarification on this issue goes to whether "this
omission has any implications for delimitation and demarcation of the
boundary".

A.2.1. The preceding clarification confirms that it does not.

B. CESSATION OF HOSTILITIES AND REDEPLOYMENT

B.1. The comments leading to the first question compare (a) the mission of
the Committee of Ambassadors sent in 1998 by the OAU High Level
Delegation to (b) the mission of the Neutral Commission provided for in
paragraph 3 of the Technical Arrangements.

B.1.1. The missions of these two bodies are different in important respects.
The Committee of Ambassadors conducted discussions with the political
authorities of the two Parties in their respective capitals. On the other hand,
the purpose of the Neutral Commission, as stated in paragraph 3 of the
Technical Arrangements, is to facilitate the full implementation of paragraph 5
of the Modalities with a view to returning to positions held prior to 6 May
1998. To do so, the Neutral Commission is mandated to determine what
those positions were. In conducting its work, the Commission will,
necessarily, visit the field, while utilising whatever information it deems
relevant and while consulting with the Parties. It is essential that this
determination be made as swiftly as possible in order to enable the rapid,
subsequent redeployment of forces, in accordance with paragraph 8 of the
Technical Arrangements. The Additional steps necessary to execute
redeployment by the Parties, especially the redeployment of observers, must
proceed concurrently with the work of the Neutral Commission in order to
enable the swiftest possible redeployment and restoration of civilian
administration.

B.1.2. As a practical matter, the safety of the members of the Commission
as they visit an area currently a military frontline can only be assured in
the context of the cessation of hostilities called for in paragraph 2 of the
Technical Arrangements.

B.1.3. The establishment of the Neutral Commission and the execution of its
mandate are an integral part of the implementation process as agreed and
requested by the Parties.

B.1.4. In any event, the Framework Agreement, which remains the
reference for the settlement process (supplemented by the Modalities),
specifies under paragraph 1 that "the two Parties commit themselves to an
immediate cessation of hostilities".

B.1.5. Similarly, the Modalities specify under paragraph 3 that "the two
Parties agree to put an end to all military activities and to all forms of
expression likely to sustain and exacerbate the climate of hostility and thus
compromise the implementation of the Framework Agreement". On their
acceptance of the Modalities, the two Parties thus committed themselves to
this provision.

B.1.6. 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.

B.2. The second question raised on this issue asks whether redeployment of
the Eritrean troops 50 days after D-day is not contrary to paragraph 4 of the
Modalities, which provides for immediate commencement of redeployment
following cessation of hostilities.

B.2.1. The answer is a practical one. Paragraph 4 of the Framework
Agreement specifies that "this redeployment be supervised by a group of
military observers, which will be deployed by the OAU with the support of
the United Nations". A period of time between the cessation of hostilities and
the actual start of redeployment will be required. Furthermore, time must be
allowed for the work of the Neutral Commission.

B.2.2. Qualified experts from the OAU and the UN have determined that a
period of 50 days following signing will be required for the work of the
Neutral Commission and deployment of military observers. The evaluation of
this period of time must remain the prerogative of the OAU and UN, which
will be determined, in consultation, of course, with the Parties.

B.2.3. It is clearly understood that acceptance of the cessation of hostilities
by the Parties is an indivisible part of their acceptance of the complete
Technical Arrangements, including specifically paragraph 8.

B.3. The next question on this issue concerns the absence of reference in the
Technical Arrangements to a formal cease-fire (as referred to in paragraph 7
of the Modalities).

B.3.1. This is also an issue of practicality. A formal cease-fire is not
required for the successful implementation of the process laid out in the
Technical Arrangements, since each Party will be bound by the conditions
specified in paragraph 2 of the Arrangements.

B.3.2. The confidence of the Parties in this cessation of hostilities should be
reinforced by the fact that the OAU and the UN are the guarantors of the
scrupulous implementation of all the provisions of the OAU Framework
Agreement, the Modalities for the implementation of the Framework
Agreement and the Technical Arrangements.

B.4. The next questions on this issue are related to the scope of the
cessation of hostilities and to any differences in the terms used to describe
cessation of hostilities in the various OAU documents, some of which are
more specific than others.

B.4.1. All of the terms used are consistent with common definitions of
"cessation of hostilities" and with established practices in missions conducted
by the OAU and under Chapter VI of the UN Charter.

B.4.2. As with other issues, the Technical Arrangements, in paragraph 2,
provide the greatest detail on the scope of a cessation of hostilities. Of
course, this provision of the Technical Arrangements does not negate the
provisions of the Framework Agreement and the Modalities for its
implementation. Taken together, all these provisions are consistent with the
"normal cessation of hostilities" mentioned in the question, neither adding
nor detracting from it.

C. RESTORATION OF CIVILIAN ADMINISTRATION

C.1. The first aspect of the clarification requested under this chapter is
related to the prohibition of deportations from areas where civilian
administration is restored. The exact question is about the extent to which
this corresponds with the sovereign right of a State to take measures to remove
any national security threat to the Nation.

C.1.1. The answer to this question is clear : a reading of the Framework
Agreement, the Modalities and the Technical Arrangements shows that the
three documents as a whole (constituting the settlement plan) are not meant
in any way to question the sovereignty and the authority of either of the two
Parties over the whole of its territory, it being mutually understood that the
redeployment shall not prejudice the final status of the territories concern
ed, which will be determined at the end of the border delimitation and
demarcation process.

C.1.2. While not questioning the sovereign rights of either Party, it should
be noted that, beyond the issue of defusing tension and building confidence
addressed under paragraph 1 of the Framework Agreement, acceptance of
the Framework Agreement ties the two Parties to humanitarian commitments
specified under paragraph 8/a, which states that "the two Parties commit
themselves to put an end to measures directed against civilian population and
refrain from any action which can cause further hardship and suffering to each
other's nationals".

C.1.3. The specific provision in paragraph 9 (a-2.1) of the Technical
Arrangements, which is the subject of this question, is clearly limited in s
cope to areas where the civilian administration of each Party had been restored.

C.1.4. The ban on the displacement or deportation of the civilian population
of one Party by the other Party in these areas is therefore meant as a general
principle connected with the humanitarian commitments by each Party in
accordance with the provisions of the Framework Agreement. It is a
principle whose sovereign acceptance by each Party does not require the
questioning of its national authority. Moreover, "prohibition on displacement
and deportations of civilian populations" is not intended to preclude the
expulsion, subject to due process, of individuals determined to pose a
specific threat to national security. It is expected that such expulsion, if
any, would be conducted in a transparent fashion.

C.2. The second aspect of the clarifications requested on this issue relates
to the questions concerning the militia.

C.2.1. The first question raised concerns the meaning of "prohibitions of
display of weapons by the militia". In this connection, the clarifications are as
follows:

C.2.1.1. The phrase "prohibitions of display of weapons" clearly allows that
the militia will go back to the areas where the civil administration has been
restored (and of which it is part) with its usual armament.

C.2.1.2. Prohibitions of the display of weapons are applicable to the militias
of the two Parties in populated areas where civilian administration has been
restored. This provision is therefore limited in space. This measure is set forth
bearing in mind:

a- the commitment of the two Parties to defuse tension and to build
confidence (paragraph 1 of the Framework Agreement); and

b- the fact that in accordance with paragraph 4 of the Framework
Agreement (supplemented by paragraph 9-b1 of the Technical
Arrangements) the peacekeeping mission may assist the police force, when it
is requested and in the appropriate form, in the areas where civilian
administration has been restored.

C.2.1.3. Without disregarding the specific mission assigned to the militia
of the two countries of contributing to maintenance of law and order, it should
be noted that in the climate of confidence necessary for the implementation
of a specific agreement on the settlement of an armed conflict and with an
international presence deployed to observe it with the mutual consent of the
two parties, it is not accepted international practice in such circumstances
that individuals may brandish weapons in a manner that could intimidate the
population.

C.2.1.4. The spirit of this provision is to make clear that the respective
governments are allowed to undertake normal, administrative functions,
including law enforcement, but that - for the sake of smooth implementation
of the Agreement - disruptive problems are to be prevented on both sides of
the border. It represents a contribution to the peaceful implementation of t
he agreement, made by each of the two parties without prejudice to the
attributes of each State concerned or to its own administration.

C.2.1.5. It is important to note that paragraph 9 of the Technical
Arrangements provides clear assurances for the security of the local
population.

C.3. A second question is about whether the militia will assume missions of
law implementation in the rest of Ethiopia.

C.3.1. In response, it remains understood that the implementation of the
settlement plan under international observers does not question the rules and
principles applied by each of the two Parties in law enforcement. This
therefore applies also to the traditional functions of the militia in the light of the
provisions of article 4 of the Framework Agreement and of the provisions of
paragraph 9 of the Technical Arrangements.

C.3.2. The Parties may wish to provide militia members performing police
functions, under the control, authority and discipline of the police, with
appropriate training on the sensitivity and importance of the situation and
with instruction on their responsibilities.

C.4. A third question is about whether in this instance the militia could b
ear weapons.

C.4.1. The answers given immediately above address this question.

C.5. The following points respond to the questions about the peacekeeping
mission and its relationship to the local liaison and grievance resolution
mechanisms.

C.5.1. Regaring the local liaison and grievance resolution mechanisms,
including ensuring the local population access to those mechanisms
(paragraph 9 b-2), this arrangement reflects the letter and spirit of:

a- Paragraph 4 of the framework agreement which states that "… the group
of military observers will also assist the reinstated civilian administration, in
the maintenance of law and order, during the interim period.",

b- paragraph 8.a through 8.c of the Framework Agreement, which set forth
the humanitarian commitments of the two parties; and

c- paragraph 6 of the Modalities, which states that "the group of military
observers will carry out any other duties that are entrusted to it, in conformity
with the relevant provisions of the Framework Agreement".

C.5.2. Thus, the possible institution of these communication channels open
to the local populations in the Technical Arrangements is pursuant to the
contents of paragraph 6 of the Modalities.

C.5.3. A decision to establish such mechanisms could be made, as
necessary, by the peacekeeping mission only in a consultation with the Parties
as is normally the case.

C.5.4. To the specific question on the mandate for these mechanisms, the
answer is clear. Their mandate will be to observe and verify the
implementation of the agreements and report their findings to the competent
bodies, as well as to the peacekeeping mission. They will not have a mandate
to take decisions or enforce them. It is equally clear that the local
administration of each of the two Parties will keep full responsibility for
maintaining order and implementing law.

D-HUMANITARIAN ISSUES - ARBITRATION

D.1. Regarding the question of knowing whether individuals can have a
direct access to the mechanism of arbitration or whether it is up to their
respective Governments to plead their case, the necessary clarifications
are as follows:

D.1.1. As specified under paragraph 8-b of the Framework Agreement and
14 of the Technical Arrangements, the resolution of the humanitarian issues
and of the socio-economic consequences of the conflict is first of all the
direct responsibility of the two Parties (and therefore of the two governments
which commit themselves to address it).

D.1.2. In case of a failed negotiation or mediation in that respect, the two
Parties commit themselves to agreeing to an appropriate mechanism of
arbitration (paragraph 14 of the Technical Arrangements).

D.1.3. The same paragraph 14 allows that, in case the two Parties are
unable to agree on a mechanism or arbitration, the Secretary General of the
UN, in consultation with the Secretary General of the OAU, (and both
Parties as appropriate), will institute an appropriate arbitration mechanism.
The method of work of this body will be determined in the course of this
process and in accordance with customary international practice.

D.2. Regarding the issues that may be referred to the arbitration mechanism,
and without prejudice at this stage to the issues that can be raised by any
Party, it is important to specify that:

D.2.1. The scope for this is set out in most general terms under paragraph
8-b of the Framework Agreement and under paragraph 14 of the Technical
Arrangements.

D.2.2. The process of negotiation or mediation allowed for under paragraph
14 of the Technical Arrangements does not put any additional limitation to
what has been stated above.

E-PEACEKEEPING MISSION

E.1. The following clarifications address questions about the term
"Peacekeeping mission".

E.1.1. The participation of the UN, in addition to the OAU, in observing
and verifying the implementation of the settlement plan is provided for in the
Framework Agreement, especially in paragraph 4.

E.1.2. The preparation for such co-operation with the UN was evident in a
visit by the OAU General Secretariat, from 12 to 14 April 1999, on the
invitation of the UN Peacekeeping Department (as referred to in paragraphs
70 and 71 of report of the Secretary General on the efforts of the OAU High
Level Delegation (CM/2100/LXX).

E.1.3. This collaboration is also indicated under paragraph 6 of the
Modalities.

E.1.4. The OAU remains at the centre of the process. The OAU holds the
main political responsibility of implementing the settleme