Africa warned against letting its leadership to Sudan

By Thalif Deen

Nov 25, 2005 (UNITED NATIONS) — Sudan, which has been lambasted for human rights violations and genocide in the beleaguered province of Darfur, is expected to be elected chair of the 53-member African Union (AU) next year following a summit meeting of African heads of state in the Sudanese capital of Khartoum in late January.

A Rwandan soldier belonging to the AU Force patrols a section of the Abu Shouk camp for displaced people on the outskirts of El-Fasher, Sudan. (AFP) .

The possibility of Sudan leading the AU, the largest gathering of African states, has evoked strong protests from human rights organisations and African activist groups in the United States.

“The African Union has shown important leadership on the crisis in Darfur — brokering the initial ceasefire between the government and the rebels, hosting ongoing peace talks, and deploying up to 7,000 troops to the region,” Ann-Louise Colgan of the Washington-based Africa Action told IPS.

But the next AU Summit is scheduled to be held in Sudan in January and the world is now watching to see whether the Sudanese government, accused of authoring the human rights abuses in Darfur, will be elected to chair the AU next year, she added.

“This is a matter for the African Union member states. But it is to be hoped that African governments will choose not to ignore the ongoing crimes being perpetrated in Darfur, even as they may wish to acknowledge the progress toward North-South peace in Sudan in the past year,” Colgan said.

She pointed out that it is important the international community also not lose its focus on the crisis in Darfur, and not continue to hide behind the AU and abdicate the broader responsibility to take action to protect the civilians of Darfur, the victims of crimes against humanity.

According to U.N. figures, more than 180,000 people have died and over two million people have been robbed and burnt out of their homes in Darfur since 2003. The attacks and killings have been attributed to the government-backed Janjaweed militias.

Asked whether Sudan should be the head of the AU under these circumstances, U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan diplomatically side-stepped the question by telling a reporter: “That is for the African Union to decide, my dear friend.”

Dr. Kwame Akonor, director of the African Development Institute, focused his criticism on the AU for its role in the ongoing Darfur crisis.

“Thus far, the AU’s leadership on the Sudan question leaves much to be desired,” he told IPS.

Earlier, it mistakenly declared that the killings in the Darfur region did not amount to genocide, though all documented evidence pointed to a systematic campaign to physically destroy particular groups of people, he said.

“Just last month, the AU allowed Sudan to chair its Peace and Security Council meeting in Ethiopia, muting any discussions of that country’s grave and constant human rights violations. Now, the collective AU body brazenly wants to take a resolution condemning the well-documented atrocities in that region off the table,” Akonor said.

“Does the AU want to be viewed as a protector or accomplice on this issue?” he asked.

“The AU needs to get tough on any African government complicit in war crimes and crimes against humanity such as the Sudanese regime. The AU’s legitimacy and moral authority will be irreparably damaged if it assigns special privileges to Sudan,” he added.

He also warned that the AU should avoid going down the same ill-fated path as its predecessor, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), “which in 1975 awarded the Ugandan dictator, Idi Amin, the OAU’s chairmanship, despite his abominable human rights record.”

Last week, the AU also collectively stood by Sudan, helping to adopt a “no-action” motion on a U.N. resolution aimed at condemning the Sudanese government for human rights violations.

The no-action motion, which was sponsored by the current AU chair Nigeria, was adopted by 84 votes in favour and 79 against, with 12 abstentions. As a result, Sudan was spared condemnation by the General Assembly’s Third Committee.

In defence of the action, Nigeria told delegates that any condemnation of Sudan would endanger the ongoing peace talks.

Yvonne Terlingen, Amnesty International’s representative at the United Nations, said her organisation “deeply regrets that a ‘no-action motion’ on the draft resolution on Sudan was adopted, thereby preventing the Third Committee from considering how to address one of the most serious human rights situations facing the international community today”.

In a statement released here, she said that “grave and widespread human rights violations continue in Sudan and sweeping impunity applies to government officials”.

Last week, Annan warned of a further deterioration of the situation in the Darfur region, highlighting increased violence against civilian populations, especially affecting children, and observed significant violations of international human rights and humanitarian law.

The strongest criticism of the impending AU decision on Sudan came from Human Rights Watch.

“By allowing Khartoum to host its summit in January, the African Union would tarnish its credibility and condone the Sudanese government’s complicity in crimes against humanity in Darfur,” HRW said in a letter to African heads of state last week.

The AU has played an important role in Darfur, sending a ceasefire-monitoring force, the AU Mission in Sudan (AMIS), which now numbers almost 7,000 personnel and includes civilian protection among its tasks.

HRW said the AU has also taken the lead in mediating between the Sudanese government and two Darfur rebel groups. A seventh round of peace negotiations is scheduled to resume in the Nigerian capital Abuja later this month, with Sudan’s international donors pushing for a peace settlement before the end of the year.

“The African Union’s efforts in Darfur have been met with constant obstruction by a government that refuses to change its abusive policies,” said Peter Takirambudde, Africa director at Human Rights Watch.

The AU “should not reward the sponsors of crimes against humanity with the honour of hosting the AU summit or ascending to its presidency”, he added, pointing out that Sudanese President Omar El Bashir is apparently one of the candidates for the African Union presidency, which this year will rotate to East Africa.

Although Sudan is also scheduled to host the AU summit, the two are no longer linked, he said. Previously, Sudan had been slated to host the AU summit in July and take over the presidency at that time.

But the AU changed the venue to Libya due to concern over the Sudanese government’s continuing human rights abuses and ceasefire violations in Darfur. Since then, Nigeria has continued to hold the AU presidency. Under the AU’s new procedure, the president will be elected by the member countries at the Khartoum summit on Jan. 23-24.

“How can the AU be seen as a credible mediator in Darfur if one of the warring parties hosts it’s summit and becomes the head of the organisation as well?” asked Takirambudde. “It’s not too late for the AU to hold its summit elsewhere, or for African leaders to encourage a better candidate to run for the presidency.”

He also said that the government-backed Janjaweed militias continue to operate with impunity from prosecution — despite demands from the U.N. Security Council and the AU Peace and Security Council that the Sudanese government disarm these groups.

(IPS)