Home | Comment & Analysis    Wednesday 3 October 2007

In defense of the African Union action in Darfur


By Abdul Mohammed

Last Saturday in Haskanita we saw yet another graphic example of how the African Union (AU) is bearing the brunt of the International Communities efforts in Darfur. In the worst incident of its kind since it deployed to Sudan in July 2004 ten African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS) peacekeepers were killed and many others were wounded or have gone missing in a grievous act that has cast a shadow over preparations for the peace negotiations in Libya. Neutral AMIS soldiers and policemen have again paid the ultimate price for the sake of peace in Darfur. But working in Darfur, we are still shocked by the attitude of people and pundits towards the AU. It is routinely demeaned and written off by commentators who should know better.

Like its big sister the United Nations, the AU Peace and Security Council is a repository for the insoluble. If a government is able to solve its own problems it does so, but if it can’t it calls in the AU. As a consequence the AU is left with a caseload that includes Ivory Coast, Somalia and above all, Darfur. The press and politicians alike have been quick to catalogue the errors and missed opportunities they ascribe to AMIS and the AU mediation effort that produced a peace agreement for Darfur but failed to bring complete peace; but the AU is an easy target as it doesn’t employ spin doctors to answer back. The unwritten job description of its Chairperson and its Commissioner for Peace and Security is to take the jibes and carry on with the job, confident that if the work is well done Africa is better for it.

Some of the criticisms ring true, as the AU is indeed an overstretched institution, struggling to build its capacity at the same time as it grapples with some of the continent’s most complicated problems. The most senior staff in the organization frankly admit that the AU has often failed or remained inert when it should have acted, and that its internal procedures are often agonizingly inadequate for the challenges it faces in Darfur.

But the biggest disservice to the AU is the condescension of those who give lip service to supporting the organization but in the same breath label it as second best.

The AU responded to Darfur with its heart and not its head. The Darfur crisis was almost the first issue to come in front of the newly-set up Peace and Security Council. In accordance with the dictum, African responsibility for African problems, the AU assisted with mediating a ceasefire in N’djamena, Chad, in April 2004 and then volunteered to send ceasefire monitors and a protection force. This was a bold and courageous decision. The N’djamena ceasefire agreement is a faulty document—it exists in two contradictory versions, one possessed by the government and the other by the rebels and doesn’t map the positions of the forces—and the mandate given to AMIS is absurdly restricted.

The AU responded with alacrity to Darfur because it knew what was at stake. The future of Africa hinges on finding a resolution to Sudan’s crisis. Sudan is Africa’s largest country, where most of the continent’s problems converge. The Sudanese crisis has the potential to unravel Africa.

Africa didn’t have financial resources but it contributed what it could—people. AMIS’s first year was a success. Levels of violence dropped sharply, humanitarian operations improved and Darfurian people’s confidence that their problem could be solved surged. It was ad hoc and the AU Force Commander routinely went beyond his strict mandate, but it worked.

Who else would have readily taken on mediating a conflict with so many fractured warring parties, none of whom had shown any real goodwill towards the others with most still wanting a military solution in preference to a negotiated peace. But the AU took on the job. In a shorter period of time than for any comparable war, the AU got the parties around a table, talking about a Declaration of Principles for how to resolve the conflict—and then (in July 2005) signing it.

Instead of building on this success, the world’s leaders and opinion makers insidiously implied that the AU was only a second best option—they called for a UN peacekeeping operation to replace AMIS. Without saying it, they were condemning AMIS as not up to the job. The campaign to bring the UN to Darfur has been conducted at the expense of the AU. Without a strong mandate and with very modest infrastructure, the AMIS troops had worked Darfur on their wits, showing a personal commitment far in excess of what we normally see in international peacekeeping operations—only to be told time and again that they weren’t good enough. Darfurians were quick to seize on this vote of no confidence and to treat the African troops with low regard. Little did the Darfurians know that the U.S.-British proposal was not to send NATO Special Forces but instead for African troops to be placed under joint AU/UN command. The reality has never been about where the soldiers came from but about numbers, resources and mandate, but the damage was done—AMIS morale plummeted.

What happened next was alarming. The AMIS force was not built up, but run down. It wasn’t funded. Sometimes the troops weren’t even paid. Some of the troop-contributing countries rotated out their contingents and didn’t replace them—strength is now under the 7,000 mandated. Instead of the AU giving AMIS a new mandate, it spent its time and energy discussing how to wind down and hand over. In effect, AMIS was put under sanctions. Instead of the AU and UN working together as sibling multilateral organizations, they were mired in a fruitless and complicated discussion on a handover. For its own reasons, the Sudan government supported AMIS continuing—simply because it didn’t want the UN—and pundits began to sneer that the AU was siding with Khartoum.

The same happened with the Abuja peace talks that led to the Darfur Peace Agreement. The mediation may have made errors, but the international community—led by the U.S.—was deeply involved and instrumental at all stages, including producing the final document and playing a decisive role during the last stages of the talks. Yet the failure of the DPA to bring peace to Darfur is pinned solely at the door of the AU. Because Khartoum signed while two of the three rebel groups didn’t, many commentators infer that the peace deal was slanted to Khartoum.

The slow drip of condescension and allegation is undermining the AU in tangible ways. It has reduced AMIS to a shadow of its former self and has hobbled the AU in its efforts to deal with the continuing crisis in Darfur. This is not just a crisis for Darfur and Sudan, but a profound and damaging legacy for Africa. Damaging the AU serves only one purpose: giving an alibi for those who wish to pursue war and destruction in Africa or forget the continent altogether.

Darfur is an exceptional crisis demanding an exceptional response. The UN and AU must work together, playing to their respective strengths. The dictum on which the AU is based that Africa should deal with its own problems, must not be buried in the sands of Darfur. The principle of multilateralism must also emerge from Darfur enhanced. Khartoum has the capability to drag both the UN and AU down into the mire that it has created in Darfur—it should rise to the occasion and create the favourable environment in which the AU and UN through the United Nations and African Union Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) can succeed.

The AU is not above criticism. It needs to respond to some very real critiques of its performance on Darfur. But when the history of Darfur is written it will, like King Lear, win the verdict of “more sinned against than sinning.” The AU is a strategic institution for Africa, which embodies the continent’s quest for unity. The people of Darfur don’t want the AU to emerge from the crisis defeated. Darfurians are angry at their predicament and at the AU for failing to solve their problems – but as this weekends terrible events have shown once again, African soldiers have laid down their lives for their fellow Africans. It’s time to stop sniping and support the AU, both for what it has done for Darfur with limited resources, and for what it must be able to do for Africa.

* The author is the Charmin of preparatory committee of Darfour Darfour Dialogue and Consultation. he can be reached at

The views expressed in the 'Comment and Analysis' section are solely the opinions of the writers. The veracity of any claims made are the responsibility of the author not Sudan Tribune.

If you want to submit an opinion piece or an analysis please email it to comment@sudantribune.com

Sudan Tribune reserves the right to edit articles before publication. Please include your full name, relevant personal information and political affiliations.
Comments on the Sudan Tribune website must abide by the following rules. Contravention of these rules will lead to the user losing their Sudan Tribune account with immediate effect.

- No inciting violence
- No inappropriate or offensive language
- No racism, tribalism or sectarianism
- No inappropriate or derogatory remarks
- No deviation from the topic of the article
- No advertising, spamming or links
- No incomprehensible comments

Due to the unprecedented amount of racist and offensive language on the site, Sudan Tribune tries to vet all comments on the site.

There is now also a limit of 400 words per comment. If you want to express yourself in more detail than this allows, please e-mail your comment as an article to comment@sudantribune.com

Kind regards,

The Sudan Tribune editorial team.

Comment on this article

The following ads are provided by Google. SudanTribune has no authority on it.

Sudan Tribune

Promote your Page too

Latest Comments & Analysis

The Sudanese doctors who are growing basil around our country 2020-04-06 17:25:39 By Yasir Arman (1) Lord Kitchener stroked his heavy moustache and felt a little puzzled after restarting his smartphone and playing back the messages on that phone which had not worked since the (...)

COVID-19 Coronavirus: Unity for Survival in Africa 2020-04-06 14:49:16 By Arlene J. Schar and Dr David Leffler As the COVID-19 virus pandemic impacts peoples' lives worldwide, society shuts down in an effort to contain it. People find themselves isolated at home, (...)

Do Not Provoke a Sleeping Dog: Response to Dr Lam Akol 2020-04-04 14:35:55 By: Josephine Joseph Lagu Recently, Dr. Lam Akol Ajawin, leader of the National Democratic Movement, NDM has been at arms with the South Sudan Opposition Alliance (SSOA), making media statements (...)


Latest Press Releases

S. Korea supports UN communities building resilience project in Sudan’s Blue Nile 2019-09-09 09:26:41 UNDP Sudan September 5, 2019 (KHARTOUM) - An agreement was signed on 5th of September between the Korean Ambassador, His Excellency. Lee Ki-Seong and Dr. Selva Ramachandran, Resident (...)

Sudanese lawyers and Human rights defenders back calls for civil rule 2019-04-26 10:22:06 Press statement by 55 Sudanese lawyers and Human rights defenders on Sudan Sit-in and Peaceful Protest Khartoum -24/04/2019 We, the undersigned (55) Sudanese lawyers and human rights defenders, (...)

South Sudan’s Lafon youth condemn killings of civilians by Pari community 2019-04-03 21:54:29 Press Statement on the Fighting between Pari/ Pacidi and Lotuko/Lokiri on 24/3/2019 Release by The Lafon County Youth Union: We, the Lafon County Youth Union hereby condemn the atrocities and (...)


Copyright © 2003-2020 SudanTribune - All rights reserved.