Briefing on the agreement for lasting peace through permanent cessation of hostilities in Ethiopia
Briefing on the agreement for lasting peace through permanent cessation of hostilities in Ethiopia
Date | 9 November 2022
Tomorrow (9 November), the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) will convene its 1120th session to receive a briefing on the Agreement for Lasting Peace Through Permanent Cessation of Hostilities Between the Government of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the Tigray People’s Liberation Front (TPLF). This will be the second agenda item that Council will consider during its 1120th session.
Opening remarks is expected from the Permanent Representative of Namibia to the AU and Chairperson of the PSC for the month of November, Emilia Ndinealo Mkusa, followed by a statement from AU Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security (PAPS), Bankole Adeoye. Former President of Nigeria and AU High Representative for the Horn of Africa, Olusegun Obasanjo, will brief the Council on the recently signed agreement between government and TPLF. The representatives of Ethiopia, the Secretariat of the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) are also expected to deliver statements as concerned state and relevant regional mechanism, respectively.
The last time that Council convened a session on Ethiopia was during its 1115th session that took place on 21 October, just few days before the start of the AU-led peace talks to end the conflict in the Tigray region of Ethiopia in Pretoria, Republic of South Africa. In that session, while welcoming the initiation of the AU-led peace talks slated for 24 October, Council laid down its expectation for ‘an immediate, comprehensive and unconditional ceasefire and the resumption of humanitarian services’. It also welcomed the newly constituted High-Level Panel of eminent Africans by the Chairperson of the AU Commission, composed of Olusegun Obasanjo, AU High Representative for the Horn of Africa, Uhuru Kenyatta, former President of Kenya, and Phumzile Mlambo-Ngcuka, former Deputy President of the Republic of South Africa and Panel of the Wise Member.
Tomorrow’s session, which comes in the context of Council’s request form its last session for the AU Commission to provide regular updates on the situation in Ethiopia, presents members of the Council the opportunity to receive updates on the peace process. In this respect, a key development to be highlighted in the session will be the cessation of hostilities agreement (COHA) signed between the parties. The two parties were able to strike the deal after 10 days of intensive negotiation, which started on 25 October under the auspice of the AU and with the participation of IGAD, UN, and US in observer capacity.
The PSC is expected to welcome the signing of the agreement with a sigh of relief. It constitutes an embodiment of the hope that the talks would lead to a cessation of hostilities agreement and the concomitant expectation for it to bring the two-year conflict to an end. In so many ways, this agreement also represents marked improvements from the truce that only lasted for less than half a year. As such, main aspect of tomorrow’s briefing is expected to be on the main elements of the COHA, progress made thus far in its implementation, and issues that may require the attention of the Council. The first important element of the COHA is the agreement to an ‘immediate and permanent Cessation of Hostilities’, which include the cessation of ‘overt and covert acts of violence’ and all forms of hostile propaganda, rhetoric, and hate speech. The cessation of hostilities constitutes the first critical step that clears the deck for taking actions on the rest of the commitments entered by the two parties in the agreement. Indications over the last five days after the agreement are that it is largely holding.
The second important element is the agreement to a comprehensive disarmament, demobilisation, and reintegration (DDR) program for TPLF combatants pursuant to article 6 of the COHA. The agreement further outlines steps that need to be followed by the two parties to translate the DDR program into action. Accordingly, they have agreed to establish an ‘open channel of communication between senior commanders of both sides’ within 24 hours, and then to convene a follow-up meeting of senior commanders within 5 days from the signing of the agreement to ‘discuss and work out detailed modalities for disarmament for the TPLF combatants, taking into account the security situation on the ground’. The implementation of this part of the agreement is again fully on course with the establishment of hotline by the parties within 24 hours of the signing of the agreement. This was followed by the convening of the ‘Senior Commanders’ Meeting’ on 7 November in Nairobi, Kenya under AU’s Panel facilitation. On the Nairobi meeting, the expected outcome is to agree on the ‘modalities for silencing the guns, humanitarian access, and the restoration of services in the Tigray region’, according to AU’s 7 November press release. Once modalities are agreed, the two sides are therefore expected to start embarking on the delicate matter of the disarmament process.
Once the two sides agreed on the modalities for disarmament, the disarmament activities are envisaged to commence prioritizing the heavy armaments of TPLF combatants. The disarmament of heavy weapons is set to happen within a 10-days timeframe (with a possibility of extension) after the conclusion of the meetings of senior commanders while the overall disarmament of the TPLF combatants will be completed within 30 days from the signing of the COHA, which means before 3 December. It is worth noting that, the demobilization and reintegration part of the program is to take place taking into account the framework of the FDRE constitution and considering ‘Tigray region’s law-and-order needs’.
The third element of COHA is what may be considered to be the item with immediate dividends for people caught up in the crossfire. This is the agreement to expedite humanitarian aid and restore essential services in Tigray that has been under blockade since withdrawal of Ethiopian National Defence Force (ENDF) in June 2021. While the signing of the agreement on its own brings a respite for affected people, the immediate implementation of this commitment would be even more important for millions of civilians in a desperate condition due to the blockade and the disruption of services.
The COHA also provides for detailed terms on restoration of constitutional order and federal authority in Tigray. The specifics of how this would happen are stipulated in articles 3, 7, 9, and 10 of the agreement, covering the entry into and seizure by federal forces of Mekelle and other parts of Tigray and establishment of inclusive interim administration until elections are held in the region. Additionally, it also envisages the launch of a comprehensive national transitional justice system to ensure accountability for widespread human rights and humanitarian law violations and heal wounds through the ascertainment of truth, reconciliation, and redress of victims. Of course, it remains to be seen how this would be pursued in relation to pre-existing processes such as the dialogue process.
Unlike the failed truce, apart from the stipulation of negotiated terms, the COHA has a monitoring, verification, and compliance mechanism. As stipulated under article 11, the parties agreed to establish a Joint Committee comprising a representative from each party, a representative from IGAD and chaired by the high-level panel. The Joint Commission will be assisted by a team of African Experts with the mandate to monitor the implementation of the permanent cessation of hostilities as agreed under article 3 of the COHA. AU, through the high-level panel, will appoint the team comprising not more than 10 for a duration of six months after their deployment with a possibility of extension upon agreement with the parties to the agreement. In case of instances of violation of cessation of hostilities, the team of experts will inform the concerned party to immediately rectify violations. If no rectification measure is taken within 24 hours, the AU, through the high-level panel, will convene the Joint Committee to resolve the problem. However, the agreement does not inform next steps if the Joint Committee could not resolve the issue. The other concern is whether the Joint Committee would be able to effectively discharge its mandate with this small size of team of experts.
It has been only few days since the singing of the COHA. If the early signs are anything to go by, the implementation of the agreement is off to a good start. While the COHA is not without challenges on the ground, encouraging signs include the fact that the TPLF negotiation team stayed in Addis Ababa after the conclusion of the talks for the COHA in Pretoria. The convening of the military leaders of the two parties in Kenya in accordance with the terms in COHA is a further encouraging sign that the COHA is holding. Indeed, both of these are also indicative of the commitment that the parties are demonstrating to implement the agreement. Sustaining the momentum requires speedy follow up of the delivery of humanitarian assistance and the resumption of services. It is also important to guard against what the leader of the Ethiopian Federal Government’s negotiation team, Redwan Hussein, called disgruntled actors from either side of the two parties or third parties who don’t have interest in peace. Obviously, the future of the COHA and the peace it promises also depend on how various issues such as withdrawal of Eritrean forces and delicate aspects of the COHA are dealt with during implementation and in subsequent talks.
The expected outcome of tomorrow’s session is either press statement or a communique. Council is expected to warmly welcome the signing of the COHA and commend the AU high-level panel for the successful effort in facilitating the Peace talks. It may also commend both the federal government of Ethiopia and TPLF for the commitment to the peace talks and the conclusion of the agreement. It is expected that the PSC may call on the parties to show the same resolve for the implementation of the agreement as they did for negotiating the terms of the agreement during the talks. It may also call on all AU member states and partners to extend their full support for the peace process and help the parties in their efforts to the follow up to the COHA. The Council may express its gratitude to the government and people of South Africa and Kenya for hosting the AU-led peace talks and the Senior Commanders’ Meeting, respectively. Council may also commend other partners particularly IGAD, UN, and the US for their support towards the peace process and may encourage them to continue supporting the implementation phase of the agreement. It may also request the Commission to accompany the implementation of the agreement.
Engagement between the PSC and the AU Commission on International Law (AUCIL) on international law and cyberspace
Engagement between the PSC and the AU Commission on International Law (AUCIL) on international law and cyberspace
Date | 9 November 2022
Tomorrow (9 November), the African Union Peace and Security Council (PSC) will convene its 1120th session to engage with the AU Commission on International Law (AUCIL) and discuss the issue of international law and cyberspace.
Permanent Representative of Namibia to the AU and Chairperson of the PSC for the month of November, Emilia Ndinealo Mkusa, is expected to make opening remarks, followed by a statement from AU Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security (PAPS), Bankole Adeoye. Guy Fleury Ntwari, the AU Legal Counsel, will make a presentation touching on the role of international law in the advancement of peace and security and the importance of the role of the AU in shaping international law rules governing peace and security in cyberspace. The PSC also expects presentations on the thematic focus of the session from Hajer Gueldich, Chairperson of AUCIL, and Mohamed Helal, Special Rapporteur on Cyberspace and International Law and a member of the AUCIL.
Tomorrow’s session, during which the PSC will interact for the first time with the AUCIL in relation to its mandate, is expected to provide an opportunity for the PSC and the AUCIL to harness their respective mandate for the articulation of an African position on the formulation of international law rules governing cyberspace with a particular focus on the making of international law rules and peace and security in the cyberspace. The AUCIL is an 11 members independent advisory organ established in 2009 in line with article 5(2) of the AU Constitutive Act. As envisaged under article 4 of AUCIL Statute, the Commission is envisaged to undertake activities related to codification and progressive development of international law in Africa, with particular attention to the laws of the AU; propose draft framework agreements and model regulations; assist in the revision of existing treaties and identify areas in which new treaties are required; conduct studies on legal matters of interest to the AU and its Member States; encourage the teaching, study, publication and dissemination of literature on international law, specifically the laws of the AU.
The nature of the mandate of the AUCIL is such that it can also advise the AU and contribute to the crafting of African positions on the development of international law rules for the governing of global matters that affect peace and security in Africa. Tomorrow’s session falls within this category of the mandate and work of the AUCIL.
The technological advance particularly in information and communication technologies (ICT) is a double-edged sword, offering both benefits and risks. Despite the enormous benefits that ICTs continue to produce in the social, economic, political spheres, State and non-state actors are increasingly using the cyberspace to carry out cyber-attacks on critical national infrastructure and democratic institutions, steal and launder money, illegally transfer funds, propagate hate speech, and incite violence. A worrying trend has been also emerging in the continent with the increasing use of the cyber space by terrorist groups who often exploit the platform for radicalization, lure recruits into their ranks, mobilize fundings and logistics, as well as train individuals, incite and stage violent attacks. Furthermore, it has been used to influence domestic political outcomes that would destabilize governments of another state.
The PSC has addressed itself to the issue of cyber security and the need for addressing the deficit in the rules regulating cyberspace in earlier sessions. In this context, PSC’s 627th session of September 2016 noted that ‘cybersecurity concerns are broader than national security and that they can become a planetary emergency with the potential of amplifying the traditional security threats that include terrorism and violent extremism’. In the absence of regulation, the cyberspace therefore poses a serious risk to the national, regional, and international peace and stability. The 627th session recognized ‘a safe and secure cyber space’ as a ‘necessary condition for reaping the benefits of the digital transformation of Africa and for ensuring the positive impact of ICTs on human and economic development throughout the continent’. Furthermore, Council, in the same session, stressed the importance of ‘regional and global frameworks for promoting security and stability in the cyberspace’.
The AU has taken steps in developing framework to govern the cyber space at a continental level with the adoption of the African Union Convention on Cyber Security and Personal Data Protection (Malabo Convention), but such kind of tailor-made frameworks for regulating cyberspace at a global level are still missing. Yet, efforts are underway to clarify and develop a normative architecture for cyberspace. Such effort of developing normative architecture is happening within the UN with the establishment of two working groups with the mandate to study how international law applies to states’ operations in cyberspace. The two groups are: UN Group of Governmental Experts (UN GGE) and an Open-Ended Working Group (OEWG). While the GGE is comprised of approximately 25 states, the OEWG is envisaged to be more inclusive, accepting participation of any interested state. Round of talks under these separate and independent processes indeed reveal consensus on variety of norms of general behavior in cyberspace including the applicability of international law in cyberspace, but the issue of how international law applies in this space remains contested. Some countries are of the view that there is no need for new rules regulating cyber activities. Others favor agreed non-binding norms that complement existing international law, while others have questioned whether existing international law as it stands is capable of regulating states’ cyber interactions hence call for the development of new rules.
There is also contention over the application of some of the core principles and rules of international law such as sovereignty, intervention, state responsibility, legal response options to malicious cyber activity, as well as the rules governing the use of force (jus ad bellum) and international humanitarian law (jus in bello) within the context of cyberspace. On sovereignty, one of the controversial issues remains the question of whether cyber operations affecting networks in another state’s territory would amount to a violation of state’s sovereignty. Regarding intervention, while there could be common understanding that the principle of non-intervention applies to state conduct in cyberspace within the context of the fulfillment of two conditions that the action constitutes coercive interference and falls into the domaine réservé of a state. Yet, there is no clarity on the threshold of the coercion element as well as which specific acts falls within the domaine réservé of a State. For instance, it is not clear whether cyber operations to manipulate electoral results of another state could constitute as a breach to the international obligation of non-intervention. Again, on the prohibition of use of force, there is unclarity on which specific cyber operations could constitute the use of force (armed attack) against another state and therefore trigger the right to self-defence. On due diligence, while states are under obligation not to allow knowingly their territory to be used for acts contrary to the rights of other states under international law, there is a need for clarifying how far this obligation applies in the cyberspace. With respect to state responsibility, the main confusion concerns the technical aspect of the application of the attribution standard to cyberspace given the anonymity, interconnectedness, transboundary nature, and the use of proxies in cyberattacks. On legitimate response to cyber attacks, while there seems to be agreement among some states about the availability of at least three options (retorsion, countermeasures, and the plea of necessity), there is unclarity on whether collective countermeasures are permitted, whether there is a duty of prior notification of the response options, and whether states are allowed to take non-cyber-based countermeasures for cyberattacks. The other uncertainty is on the extent of the application of human rights and international humanitarian law (IHL) to cyberspace.
Despite the growing importance of the cyberspace to the life of individuals, communities and societies on the continent and the grave threat that cyber attacks pose to the peace and stability of Africa, the discourse on the making of the international law rules for governing peace and security in the cyberspace is dominated by the global north. In this respect, countries such as Germany, Canada, Sweden, Australia, Estonia, France, the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, and the United States have released their comprehensive positions on the application of international law in cyberspace. There should be similar efforts from the continent of Africa in developing and publishing its views and perspectives on how international law applies to cyberspace so that African voices are taken onboard in the ongoing effort towards developing rules of international law governing cyberspace in general and peace and security in cyberspace in particular. Tomorrow’s PSC engagement with the AUCIL therefore comes within this framework of developing African common position on the issue.
The expected outcome from tomorrow’s engagement is a communique. Among others, Council may express its concern over acts of violence in the cyber security, which constitute serious threats to national, regional, and international peace and security. While highlighting the need to harness the potentially of information and communication technologies for enhancing democratic governance and socio-economic advancement, Council may also reiterate its concern over their increasing use by state and non-state actors of cyberspace for malicious activities, including the spread of misinformation and disinformation, propagation of hate, cyber attacks on critical infrastructure, manipulation of elections, and incite violence. It may encourage all Member States, which have not yet done so, to expedite the signature and ratification of the Malabo Convention. The PSC may welcome the engagement with the AUCIL on the issue of international law and peace and security in the cyberspace. Cognizant of the role that Africa should play in the development of rules of international law in the area of cyberspace, Council may emphasize the importance of having Africa’s common position on the application of international law to cyberspace. In this respect, it may request the Commission, together with the AUCIL, to prepare the common position and submit for its consideration within a specified timeframe. While preparing the common position, Council may direct the Commission to engage Member States with the view to getting their respective national perspectives on the issue of the application of international law in cyberspace and their positions on contested issues.
Ministerial meeting on the situation in Mozambique and Operations of SAMIM
Ministerial meeting on the situation in Mozambique and Operations of SAMIM
Date | 7 November 2022
Tomorrow (7 November), the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) will convene its 1119th session on the situation in Mozambique and operations of the Southern African Development Community Mission in Mozambique (SAMIM). Indicating the high political weight Namibia attached to the agenda, the session is to be convened at ministerial level.
Opening remarks is expected from Netumbo Nandi-Ndaitwah, Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of International Relations and Cooperation of the Republic of Namibia and Chairperson of the PSC for November followed by a statement from Bankole Adeoye, AU Commissioner for Political Affairs, Peace and Security (PAPS). SAMIM Force Commander is scheduled to make presentation. Veronica Nataniel Macamo, Minister of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of Mozambique as the concerned state, and Christophe Lutundula Apala Pen’Apala, Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) as the Chair of the Southern African Development Community (SADC), as well as the representative of the SADC Secretariat are expected to make statements. The Representative of the European Union (EU) may also deliver statement.
Southern Africa region had been less affected by terrorism and violent extremism compared to other regions until the advent of Islamist insurgents known as Ahl al-Sunnah wa al Jamma’ah (ASWJ) in Mozambique’s gas-rich province of Cabo Delgado. Since its first attack launched on 5 October 2017 in Mocimboa da Praia, the group has become a major security threat not only to Mozambique but also to the wider region. Amid the uptick of violence unleashed by this group, on 23 June 2021, the extraordinary SADC summit approved deployment of SAMIM as a regional response to support Mozambique to combat terrorism and act of violent extremism under Scenario 6 of the African Standby Force. When its deployment commenced on 15 July 2021, SAMIM is envisaged to be made up of 2,916 soldiers including two special forces squadron, 4 military helicopters, two surface patrol ships, 1 submarine and 1 maritime surveillance aircraft and support personnel. Troop contributing countries include Angola, Botswana, Lesotho, South Africa, Tanzania and Zimbabwe. Just ahead of SAMIM’s deployment, earlier on 9 July 2021, Rwanda also deployed 1,000 troops to assist Mozambique in its fight against terrorism.
SAMIM’s deployment was initially for three months, but its mandate was renewed in October 2021, January, July and most recently in August 2022. The latest mandate renewal, during the 42nd SADC summit held on 17 August, extended SAMIM’s mandate for one year while ‘de-escalating the intervention from scenario 6 to scenario 5 and subsequently scenario 4’. This signals the intention to expand SAMIM’s orientation to include and focus on peacebuilding activities. SADC has already initiated a Peacebuilding Support to Mozambique with the financial support from Early Response Mechanism (ERM). At the national level, it is to be recalled that the government of Mozambique unveiled the Reconstruction Plan for Cabo Delgado (PRCD) in September last year.
Tomorrow’s session will be the second time that Council considers SAMIM since its deployment in July last year. It was during its 1062nd session in January 2022 that Council discussed SAMIM for the first-time focusing on the financial and logistical support to the mission. Apart from endorsing the mission, it is to be recalled that the 1062nd session took important decisions, including to provide SADC with required equipment from the Continental Logistics Base (CLB) in Douala, Cameroon, and deliver ‘substantial additional equipment’ from the second batch of military aid being donated by China to the AU.
Among others, tomorrow’s session will focus on assessing progress made towards the implementation of these decisions. On the logistical support, as highlighted in the PSC’s briefing note, the first batch of equipment from the CLB was airlifted to Mozambique in July 2022. Angola and Zambia have availed airlift capability for the shipment of the remaining equipment. However, no progress has been made in the shipment of equipment from the second batch, which is expected to be donated by China and shipped directly to Mozambique as agreed during the 1062nd PSC session. On the financial support, the major update will be EU’s financial support of around EUR 2 million and EUR 15 million under the Early Response Mechanism (ERM) and European Peace Facility (EPF), respectively. 70 percent of the 2 million funding has already been disbursed to SADC while the remaining amount is expected to be received soon. The 15 million funding seems to be also in the pipeline following the Commission’s endorsement of the amount.
The security situation in Cabo Delgado and progress in the implementation of SAMIM’s mandate is expected to be the other focus of the session. The presentation by SAMIM’s Force Commander is likely to focus on these issues. Sixteen months of military intervention by SAMIM, alongside Rwandan forces and Mozambique Defence Armed Forces (FADM), has considerably degraded the capabilities of the terrorist groups, restoring calm to some parts of Cabo Delgado and creating conducive conditions for the return of displaced people in some localities. Despite the major setback that terrorist groups have suffered, they also proved to be adaptable. According to the data provided by African Centre for the Study and Research on Terrorism (ACSRT), in the first quarter of 2022 (1 January-31 March 2022), northern Mozambique witnessed a ‘leap in violence spilling rapidly into Cabo Delgado’, registering 55 terrorist attacks and 186 resultant deaths. The same source recorded a slight decline in the second quarter (1 April-30 June) with 45 terrorist attacks and 110 resultant deaths. While central and northern districts of Cabo Delgado province have continued to experience violence, terrorists have further advanced into Cabo Delgado’s southern districts of Ancuabe and Chiure. They have also crossed Cabo Delgado province southward into the neighbouring province of Nampula in June for the first time since the onset of the insurgency in 2017. On how this situation aggravates the humanitarian situation, the UN Refugee Agency reported that ‘displacement figures have increased by 20 per cent to 946,508 in the first half of this year.’
Tomorrow’s session is also an opportunity to deliberate on some of the challenges that SAMIM is facing and discuss the way forward. In this regard, the first and most obvious one is the resource challenge. So far, SADC uses its own resources to sustain the deployment, which the regional bloc praised this experience during its January extraordinary summit as ‘a unique precedent on the African continent’. While the reliance over its own funding is indeed a reflection of the resoluteness of the regional bloc and its member states to resolve the crisis within their jurisdiction, the nature of the challenge is such that financing SAMIM is not something that SADC alone can bear. While EU’s announcement of EUR 15 million funding to SAMIM in September to provide its military component with camp fortifications and storage containers, medical equipment, vehicles, and boats, as well as technological devices goes some way in addressing the financial challenge, SAMIM requires further support not only for logistics but also for the sustenance of the troops as well.
The second challenge is lack of strong coordination among the different forces operating in the same theatre of operation. In this regard, AU’s ACSRT observed that ‘the fact that insurgent groups appear to enjoy apparent freedom of movement within Northern Mozambique reflects a poor level of strategic coordination between the deployed international forces that are each responsible for their own operational areas.’ There is accordingly a need for working with the host country to ensure that the forces operate complementarily and with smooth coordination as a matter of strategic necessity.
The third is the absence of an effective cooperation and coordination mechanism between the AU and SADC regarding the mission. SADC does not seem to be keen to involve AU in the operation of the mission, which perhaps emanates from the regional bloc’s perception that the mission remains exclusively a regional matter. This is despite the expectation that the deployment of African Standby Force should happen within the context of a closer AU-RECs partnership, as highlighted in the first PSC-RECs/RMs annual consultative meeting. It was also within that expectation that PSC during its 1062nd meeting requested the Commission and SADC Secretariat to ‘provide regular updates to the Council on the progress in the implementation of SAMIM’s mandate…’ However, as pointed out in the briefing note prepared for the session, ‘information sharing and enhanced cooperation and coordination between the AU and SADC are still limited’.
The expected outcome of tomorrow’s session is a communique. The PSC may commend SAMIM for degrading the capabilities of the terrorist groups while expressing concerns over the continued attacks in Cabo Delgado and the expansion of the threat to the neighbouring province of Nampula. Council may endorse the communique of the 42nd ordinary summit of SADC that extended the mandate of SAMIM. Cognizant of the need to address the structural causes of the scourge in northern Mozambique for a lasting peace and stability in the region, Council may emphasize the importance of adopting a comprehensive strategy that combines both military and non-military measures. In this regard, it may welcome the transition of SAMIM from Scenario 6 to Scenario 5 as envisaged in the communique adopted at the 12 April 2022 extraordinary summit of the Organ Troika of SADC Summit. It may also commend the peacebuilding efforts of SADC as well as the government of Mozambique for the recovery and rehabilitation of the affected areas. Council may encourage the government to effectively utilize the AU Post Conflict Reconstruction and Development Centre in Cairo. Regarding the financial constraints of the mission, Council may call up on the EU to expedite the release of the 15 million financial supports to SAMIM. It may also make similar call up on China to expedite the shipment of the pledged equipment directly to Mozambique to partly address the logistical challenge of the mission. In relation of coordination, Council may once again request the Commission and SADC Secretariat to provide regular updates to the Council on progress in the implementation of SAMIM’s mandate; and may further request both to explore and operationalize an agreed modality to enhance cooperation and coordination between the two sides.
