African solutions to African problems: Truth or utopia

Despite IGAD (the Intergovernmental Authority on Development) intervention to bring about peace in South Sudan, the youngest African State has remained unstable. In another East African country, Burundi, African Union (AU) has tried to mediate peace and find lasting solution to the ongoing crisis but a deadlock remains. This is despite the establishment of AU in replacement of OAU (Organization of African Unity) being driven by a new mantra: African solutions to African problems. What went wrong with AU and its regional communities to address these prevailing continental challenges? In face of persistent insecurity in South Sudan and failure to address human rights violations and killings in Burundi, international political actors are questioning AU’s determination and capability to implement its policies and find sustainable solutions to continental problems. Some questions have continued to dominate this debate: Is there unity and political will among AU member states to address continental problems? Are there endogenous and exogenous causes undermining AU efforts? Are some initiatives efficient and appropriate to usher peace and sustainable development on the continent? These are some, among many questions, to ponder over and come up with conclusion if the continental leadership is ready to offer long-term solutions and to move forward Africans to stability and sustainable development. In 1960s, Africa had one major preoccupation: fighting colonialism to acquire self-rule and unity. This struggle led to the establishment of OAU on 25th May in 1963 in Addis Ababa by 32 African States that had achieved independence at that time. Further 21 members joined gradually, reaching a total of 53 at the time of its replacement by AU in 2002. With secession of South Sudan in 2011, AU is counting 54 member states. What pushed African leaders to embrace the new Agenda? With continuous violent conflicts on the continent, culminated by the Genocide against the Tutsi in Rwanda in 1994, and failure of OAU to intervene and stop humanitarian disasters, African leaders felt the need to adopt new measures and policies with a common slogan: “African Solutions to African Problems”. Furthermore the historical doctrine of State-sovereignty and non-interference within OAU has built obstacles to justice and fueled killings by a number of African military regimes. Therefore, a new perspective of “Non-indifference and Responsibility to protect” in 2000s has been perceived as rescue to vulnerable Africans, victims of political and ethnic conflicts. It is now around 15 years that Africans are trying to implement continental policies and new agenda. Nevertheless, AU and its regional communities have failed to silence the guns and promote durable peace. Thus, intervention and stopping unnecessary killings of citizens remains a receding mirage. In South Sudan, the August 2015 fragile peace agreement between SPLM led by President Salva Kiir and SPLM-IO led by his former Vice-President Riek Machar initiated by IGAD aborted in July 2016. According to the UN, eruption of fighting in July killed more than 300 people. Around 50,000 people have been killed in the civil war since 2013. Currently, the country is counting 1,697,000 IDPs (Internally Displaced Persons) while 850,619 registered as refugees in neighboring countries. One out of four children under age of five in that country is malnourished. Between 15,000 and 16,000 children have been recruited as child soldiers; in a total population of 12.3 million, 3.9 million are at risk of starvation, 4.7 million of people are in need of emergency health care. With the above horrifying situation in South Sudan, has IGAD found solutions for the root causes of disagreement in South Sudan? After signing the peace agreement and pushing Machar to return to Juba and enjoy the vice-presidency post, has IGAD brought efficient measures to peace building in South Sudan? Negotiating peace is one thing and sustaining it is another. Many political analysts give two explanations to the crisis in South Sudan since 2013. The first explains it as an ethnic struggle between the two largest ethnic groups in the country, the Dinka and the Nuer, the first led by President Salva Kiir, and the later by his deputy, Riek Machar. The second explanation sees it as a power struggle between individuals in the SPLM/A leadership. Hence, a change in IGAD’s approach and a new political leadership in South Sudan constitute the exit plan out of the conflict. With this perception, the IGAD approach is inadequate and inappropriate to the South Sudan crisis. The current development in South Sudan is that what IGAD failed to implement is the concern of the international community to deploy a UN-mandated regional force in Juba. After months of refusal and hesitation to endorse deployment of foreign forces by the government, recently, the Deputy Information Minister Akol Paul Kordit said that the “cabinet has resolved unanimously to allow the deployment of the regional protection force anytime from now”. Rwanda and Ethiopia are likely to contribute infantry troops to the new force. Another dilemma to bring about peace is observed in the current Burundi crisis. Hundreds of people died and are still dying because of interpretation (or misinterpretation) of the country’s laws: Constitution and Arusha Peace Agreement in Burundi. The crisis was sparked by President Nkurunziza’s 2015 decision to seek for third term. The situation triggered protests and an attempted coup, followed by a brutal crackdown that has fuelled a cycle of violence in which more than one thousand people have died. More than 300,000 people have fled to neighboring countries and estimated 100,000 people are internally displaced. What is the answer of AU vis-à-vis the Burundi crisis? The PSC (Peace and Security Council) one of organs of AU has recommended the deployment of 5,000-strong African Prevention and Protection Mission in Burundi (MAPROBU). Nevertheless, in January 2016, African leaders failed to endorse the PSC recommendation due to internal divisions within AU. This situation exposed the gap between AU member states leaders and AU organs such as AUC (AU Commission) and the PSC. Moreover, it shows that independence and freedom of the AUC and PSC in decision-making remains undermined by Member States leaders. The failure of AU and its regional communities is mainly subject of endogenous causes. However, exogenous influences from the so-called international community is also fuelling ingredients to divisions among African leaders and weakening unity and cohesion to find appropriate solutions to African problems. In order to implement its new agenda, AU needs to overcome its internal divisions, fix the so far incoherent responses to African problems. The Author is a conflict-Resolution Researcher in the Great Lakes Region.

Opinions

African solutions to African problems: Truth or utopia