Bashir’s Sudan: a test to the credibility of the AU
Article
Comments (6)
email Email
print Print
pdfSave
separation
increase
decrease
separation
separation
facebook
myspace
twitter
buzzyahoo
By Luka Biong Deng
June 25, 2013 - As Africa celebrates this year the 50th anniversary of
the formation of the Organization of African Union (OAU) and almost a
little more than a decade since the formation of the African Union
(AU), Africans will ask themselves to what level the AU and its
institutions have succeeded or put the continent on track of their
main goal of promoting at least a peaceful Africa. In particular the
commitment to achieve the goal of an Africa without conflict and to
clear the continent of wars, civil disturbances, human rights
violations and humanitarian disasters through African solutions to
African problems may need close scrutiny and reflection.
The recent debate about ICC by the AU heads of state and government on
the 50th anniversary of OAU/AU tainted the image of the continent and
cast doubt about AU’s commitment to clear the continent of human
rights violations. As argued very well by Sudd Institute that the
allegation that ICC unfairly targets Africans is not only incorrect
but made mockery of the lives of Africans that were shattered at the
behest of some of these leaders who applauded the motion to condemn
the ICC. One would not imagine how African leaders could describe that
Bashir has been unfairly targeted by ICC and how would people of
Darfur feel about the organization that would make them proud of being
Africans and African Union.
Although people may differ on semantic of whether what happened in
Darfur is genocide or not, but most African leaders would agree that
what happened in Darfur by all standards could be described as gross
human rights abuses or crimes against humanity. Besides the lack of
recognition of what happened in Darfur as war crimes or crimes against
humanity, the AU within the provisions of its Constituent Act did not
act in Darfur, particularly Article 4 (h) that allows it to intervene
in a member state in respect of grave circumstances such as war
crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. The AUPSC has even
failed to recommend to the AU Assembly as per its mandate provided for
in Article 7 (e) of the Protocol of its establishment any intervention
in Sudan in respect of grave circumstances in Darfur. The AU has
instead ordered all its member states not to cooperate with the ICC in
apprehending and surrendering the Sudanese President to the Court.
With the invasion of Abyei by the Government of Sudan that resulted in
displacement of about 150,000 thousands with massive human rights
abuses that resulted in exceptionally high level of the post-trauma
stress disorder illness and gross human rights atrocities committed by
Bashir in Nuba Mountains, the AUPSC could not investigate such
atrocities nor recommend any intervention to the AU Assembly as
required by the Protocol of its establishment. Even with more than one
million are being denied humanitarian assistance in the war affected
areas of Nuba Mountains and Blue Nile and despite the tripartite
humanitarian access agreement between AU, UN and the Arab League, the
AUSC is unable to support and facilitate humanitarian actions in these
areas a per its power provided in Article 7 (p) of its protocol.
When the two countries were virtually in situation of war over the
contested area of Panthou (Hegilig), the AUPSC boldly adopted in April
2012 a roadmap to put the two countries on the track of peace and to
put to an end the endless negotiations over the post-secession issues.
The AU Roadmap provides a framework within a time-bound of three
months for resolving holistically all the pending issues between the
two states. In case the two countries failed to agree on any of the
post-secession issues, the AUHIP was mandated to provide to the AUPSC
final and binding proposals on all outstanding issues.
Since the launching of the AU Roadmap in April 2012, the two countries
concluded on 27th September 2012 nine (9) agreements on all
post-secession issues except the final status of Abyei and the claimed
and disputed areas. It took almost six months for the two countries to
agree on 12th March 2013 on the implementation matrix for the nine
agreements. As the two countries started the implementation of these
nine agreements, Bashir in erratic way decided on 8th June 2013 to
unilaterally terminate the nine agreements in a public rally in
Khartoum. This decision did not only foil the AU Roadmap but also
thwarted the AU slogan of “African solutions for African problems”.
On the remaining issues of the AU Roadmap, particularly the final
status of Abyei, the AUHIP came up on 21st September 2012 with a
proposal on the final status of Abyei when the parties failed to
agree. The AUPSC meetings at the level of permanent representatives,
ministers of foreign affairs and heads of state and government all
accepted the AUHIP proposal on the final status of Abyei as
representing a fair, equitable and workable solution to the issue of
Abyei. Despite the consistent outright rejection of Bashir to the
African solution to the final status of Abyei, the AUPSC is unable to
endorse the AUHIP proposal as final and binding to the Parties as per
its commitments in the Roadmap.
This trajectory of inaction and failure of the AU to implement its own
commitments and solutions pose a real doubt about the credibility of
its institutions after 50 years of existence. The slogan raised by the
AU to ensure African security by strengthening African Peace and
Security and Governance Architectures to ensure African solutions to
African problems remains an elusive goal. For Africa to claim the
Millennium and achieve Pan African Development Goals, the AU must be
bold in taking decisions in disciplining its members which are in
aberration with the Pan African agenda. Sudan under Bashir is a real
test to the credibility of the AU. It is to be seen whether the AU
will continue with inaction towards Bashir’s Sudan or will AU make
history by taking bolder and comprehensive approach to the conflicts
in Sudan and to bring Bashir to face justice before the aggrieved
people of Sudan take laws into their hands.
The author is a Fellow at Harvard Kennedy School and he was the South
Sudanese government co-chair of Abyei Joint Oversight Committee . he
can be reached at [email protected] . This article is also
published by the New Nation Newspaper.
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"South Sudan Info - The Kob" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/SouthSudanKob/CAJb14oprPJw%2BH_vroqeP8dh0SLfD2oVyeuXLZMUGNK5XYXWPQA%40mail.gmail.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
