African Union is an obstacle to peace in Darfur
By Wasil Ali*
September 16, 2007 — The thin line separating the positions of the African Union (AU) as a regional organization and that of the Sudanese government, a party to the Darfur conflict, has practically eroded last week. Diplomats at the UN speaking on condition of anonymity told Reuters that the AU is objecting to a much needed non-African Union infantry soldiers as part of the hybrid force.
The question becomes why did the AU oppose non-African troops? Is there really an objective reason? The new hybrid force in Darfur needs expertise and efficient units so they perform their duties in such a dangerous place. The UN Security Council resolution speaks about African troops being the first resort if available according to the UN standards.
The Sudanese government has made it clear that it does not want non-African troops in Darfur. In their eyes the Africans are easier to manipulate into taking favorable stances towards them and as such will not expose their wrong doings in Darfur. As a matter of fact we have rarely seen an African official criticize Sudan over the Darfur crisis.
Zambia’s former foreign minister, Mundia Sikatana has been of those few to criticize Sudan. He accused Khartoum last July of complicating the crisis in the Darfur region. The Southern African newspaper correctly described his statements as a “no-no in African politics where brother regimes are criticized at one’s peril.” Sikatana was also the only African official to say that it is near impossible for Africa to supply all the troops needed for the Darfur force. Unfortunately this outspoken and brave diplomat was fired by the Zambian president last August.
Early August the AU chief Alpha Oumar Konare made bold statements at the doorsteps of the Sudanese president’s palace saying that Africa will provide all needed troops for the hybrid force. The remarks were made without consulting with the UN which is paying for the whole operation. They were also contrary to assessments made by military experts and UN peacekeeping officers that Africa will not be able to provide sufficient trained troops for the Darfur force. Yet Konare made himself that day look as if he is receiving instructions from Sudan’s president. Of course Khartoum immediately welcomed his statements for the reasons I outlined above.
Before that the AU has slowed the pace of planning for the operation by demanding the command over the hybrid force. Given the failure of the AU in Darfur and its inability to even disburse the salaries of its forces, it was an unprecedented request. That was also one of Khartoum’s demands; to have the force under AU command but that was not possible if the UN body was going to pay for it. So apparently the AU wants to go around that in order to please the Sudanese government.
This issue of the AU trying to assume full command of the hybrid force was clearly evident in the selection of the Rwandan general Karenzi Karake as deputy commander to the Darfur hybrid force. The confirmation of Karake was made by the AU without consulting with the UN. UN officials behind the scene acknowledge that war crime allegations against Karake have some credibility.
It is not clear if the UN made any attempt to set the boundaries for the AU with regards to the command and control for the hybrid force. Most likely this was not the case, as the UN under the leadership of Ban Ki-Moon has demonstrated extreme weakness on the issue of Darfur by accommodating Khartoum as much as possible.
On the political front the African Union insists on taking ownership of mediation efforts. AU chairman Konare issued a blunt warning by saying that “we will not subcontract our leadership and we will not allow our leadership to be subordinated”. But what Konare fail to mention was that the leadership of the AU on the Darfur crisis has been disastrous to say the least because neither peace nor security was achieved in this troubled region throughout the last four years of the AU so called “leadership”.
Moreover the AU and its chief mediator Salim Ahmed Salim, has been playing a dangerous role by trying to provoke the field commanders in the Darfur rebel movements against their leaders. This risky strategy will do nothing other than bring about more rebel divisions and create sub-leaders who lack grassroots support among Darfurians. Yet again this policy of encouraging dissent within the rebel movements has been adopted by Khartoum. Sudan’s presidential adviser explicitly said that his government “will assist all those [rebel figures] who wish to defect from their movements”.
Then the unfortunate choice of Libya as the venue of peace talks by the AU and supposedly the UN was the idea of Sudan’s president per the newspapers published in Khartoum. UN chief Ban Ki-Moon endorsed this choice despite the fact that it was the Libyan leader Muammar al-Gaddafi who pressed Chad and Sudan into rejecting UN peacekeepers. Gaddafi has been using his financial leverage to promote dissent within the Darfur rebel movements. The motives of the Libyan leader for hosting the peace talks should be examined carefully because his history, both internally and externally, does not favor him for the role of a peace broker.
We also must not forget that the International Criminal Court (ICC) has been trying throughout the last two years to sign a cooperation agreement with the AU with no success. The ICC needed the help of the ICC particularly on the investigation into Darfur war crimes. However the AU lobbied by Sudan, has been rejecting the agreement despite persistent ICC efforts.
I think it is about time that the international community and Darfur advocates realize that the AU and Khartoum are flip sides of the same coin. The AU is acting as a proxy to the Sudanese government to make life more difficult for the people of Darfur by delaying the deployment of peacekeeping force, reducing its efficiency and acting as a biased mediator in looking for a peace accord. We must get past the clichés praising the AU for the work they have done in Darfur. The humanitarian crisis in Darfur cannot be hijacked by a few men at the AU whose only interest is to please one side at the expense of the other.
* The author is a Sudan Tribune journalist, can be reached at [email protected]