Tough questions for the AU

The strong opposition of the AU to the UN sending 9,000 troops to monitor the implementation of the recently signed Sudan Peace Accord signed on January 9 between the government of Sudan and SPLA is mind-boggling. According to the AU, there is no "need for peacekeeping where people have agreed mut ally to cease hostilities."

It appears the AU has not read the comprehensive peace agreement that calls for the presence of a U.N. peace mission.  The presence of this international force is to supervise and monitor the disengagement of forces, as well as to monitor compliance with the terms of the peace accord.

It is surprising that the AU representatives to the peace negotiations in Kenya never paid attention to this clause, as the organization's leadership is not aware of it.  This raises disturbing questions about an organization that has laid claim to the primary responsibilities of maintaining and promoting peace, security and stability on the continent.

Since the AU has failed to fully deploy its forces to Darfur, why should it be jittery when the UN is asked to deploy in Southern Sudan? Isn't it obvious that monitors are required to ensure peace accords are implemented? How does the AU expect the Sudan peace agreement to be implemented without international monitors, in view of the fact that it is incapable of monitoring the humanitarian agreement in Darfur?

The performance of the AU so far in Darfur has left a lot to be desired. It should explain how it has spent the $200 million so far donated for its mission in Darfur instead of trying to block the UN deployment in South Sudan.