Substantive Implementation Gaps Three Years into the Pretoria Agreement*

I would like to express appreciation to the Pan African Agenda Institute (PAAI) for producing a timely and structured assessment of the implementation status of the Pretoria Agreement. The PAIR report makes an important contribution by distinguishing between the achievement of “negative peace” — the cessation of large-scale hostilities — and the more demanding requirements of “positive peace,” which include constitutional restoration, civilian protection, humanitarian normalization, justice, and sustainable reconciliation (Citation: UPDATED VERSION PAAI Analytical Paper - Three Years into the Pretoria Agreement.pdf).

While the report acknowledges progress in reducing open warfare, its own implementation matrix and survey findings reveal significant structural deficiencies when measured against the core Articles and sub-articles of the Pretoria Agreement. The following reflections are offered in that spirit — grounded in the Agreement’s text and in the report’s documented evidence.

*1. Cessation of Hostilities and Security Normalization*

(Articles 2 and 4)

The report identifies the cessation of large-scale federal–TDF confrontation and the verified disarmament of heavy weapons as major milestones (Citation: UPDATED VERSION PAAI Analytical Paper - Three Years into the Pretoria Agreement.pdf). These developments are significant and should be acknowledged.

However, Article 2 requires a permanent cessation of hostilities, and Article 4 obliges the protection of civilians under international humanitarian law. The continued presence of non-constitutional armed actors in parts of Tigray, as noted in the report, raises concerns about whether security normalization has been fully realized.

Moreover, the durability of cessation must be assessed holistically. If any parallel or splinter armed formations are emerging outside the agreed DDR framework — or if security structures are fragmenting in ways that risk intra-community confrontation — such dynamics would weaken the substantive realization of Article 2. The Agreement was designed to eliminate armed confrontation in all forms, not merely to shift its configuration.

Therefore, while large-scale fighting has ceased, security consolidation remains incomplete.

*2. Restoration of Constitutional Order*

(Article 6)

The PAIR report identifies restoration of constitutional order as one of the least implemented provisions, particularly regarding Western Tigray. Survey respondents overwhelmingly rated progress in this area as negligible.

Article 6 requires restoration of the constitutional status quo ante within Ethiopia’s federal framework. If constitutionally recognized territories remain outside the administrative authority of Tigray’s interim structures, then the central objective of Article 6 remains unmet.

This is not a secondary technical matter; it is foundational. Constitutional normalization is essential for:

Safe return of displaced populations

Re-establishment of civilian administration

Durable security guarantees

Without territorial clarity and constitutional restoration, other implementation pillars remain structurally constrained.

*3. Disarmament, Demobilization, and Reintegration (DDR)*

The report confirms the completion of heavy weapons disarmament and demobilization phases. However, it also documents reintegration deficiencies, inadequate support packages, and exclusion of female ex-combatants.

DDR must operate within a stable and predictable security environment. If territorial disputes remain unresolved and reintegration support is insufficient, the sustainability of DDR outcomes becomes uncertain. DDR cannot be considered fully implemented when:

Reintegration mechanisms lack adequate resources,

Security guarantees are uneven,

And broader constitutional normalization remains pending. Procedural completion alone does not ensure structural stability.

*4. Humanitarian Access and IDP Return

(Article 5)*

Article 5 obliges the parties to ensure unhindered humanitarian access and facilitate safe, voluntary, and dignified return of displaced persons.

The PAIR report documents that between 891,000 and 1.06 million individuals remain internally displaced, with severe food insecurity in IDP sites. Returns to certain areas remain constrained due to unresolved territorial and security conditions.

Given this scale of displacement three years after signature, Article 5 must be considered substantively incomplete. Safe return requires not only the absence of fighting but the restoration of constitutional authority, security guarantees, and service delivery. Until these conditions are met, humanitarian normalization remains partial.

*5. Protection of Civilians*

(Article 4)

The report acknowledges a reduction in mass atrocities but also identifies continued protection gaps and weak monitoring mechanisms. Article 4 requires comprehensive adherence to international humanitarian law and explicit protection commitments. Civilian protection must be universal, geographically consistent, and institutionally enforced. Any armed mobilization, fragmentation, or instability that exposes civilians to renewed insecurity would undermine Article 4’s protective mandate.

*6. Transitional Justice and Accountability*

The PAIR findings indicate widespread public distrust in justice mechanisms, with 77.8% unaware of transitional justice initiatives and 89% expressing limited confidence in implementation. Accountability is not a peripheral element of peacebuilding; it is central to reconciliation and long-term stability. Without credible, transparent, and independent mechanisms, grievances risk persisting beneath the surface of formal peace.

*7. Monitoring and Political Dialogue*

The report highlights limited follow-up meetings and weak institutionalization of oversight mechanisms.

Sustainable implementation requires:

Regular high-level review mechanisms

Transparent reporting

Independent verification

Without consistent monitoring, even initial gains may erode over time.

*Overall Assessment*

Based on the PAIR report’s own evidence and the obligations outlined in the Pretoria Agreement:

Large-scale hostilities have ceased.

Heavy weapon disarmament has occurred.

Federal administrative presence has been re-established in key areas.

*However:*

Constitutional restoration remains incomplete.

Territorial normalization is unresolved.

Massive displacement persists.

Reintegration mechanisms are fragile.

Transitional justice lacks public confidence.

Monitoring mechanisms are weak.

The Agreement has succeeded in halting catastrophic escalation, but its full implementation — as envisioned in its Articles and sub-articles — remains structurally incomplete.

The durability and legitimacy of the Pretoria Agreement will ultimately depend not on procedural benchmarks alone, but on whether constitutional order is fully restored, displaced populations return safely, civilians are protected consistently, and justice mechanisms command public trust.

Three years into the Agreement, the transition from negative peace to positive peace remains unfinished.