Africa: No to Sudan as AU chair

Press Release

Decision on AU Presidency must take into account the vital role of the AU as mediator
and guarantor of protection for the people of Darfur

20th January 2006 (Khartoum): “The Darfur peace process will be jeopardized if African leaders elect a President for the African Union (AU) who is a party to the conflict,” Alioune Tine, Secretary General of the Senegalese non-governmental organisaiton (NGO) RADDHO and member of the Darfur Consortium, a coalition of over forty African based NGOs, said today in Khartoum as the AU summit got underway. “It creates a clear conflict of interest”.

Speaking today in Khartoum Mr Tine urged: “In a continent riven by conflict we need an AU President who can play an incontestably legitimate leadership role in dealing with the challenges of war in Africa. The people of Darfur in particular need an AU President capable of taking a strong and independent stand on behalf of peace.”

Mr Tine pointed out that there was a danger that passing the AU Presidency to Sudan at this critical time could undermine efforts to bring an end to the conflict. “The AU has been the leading mediator in the crisis in Darfur on behalf of the international community, not only at the level of political negotiation, but also through sending troops to Darfur to monitor the ceasefire and provide a measure of protections to civilians through the African Union Mission in Sudan (AMIS)). It must be permitted to continue in that role.”

In particular, he said, the hard work which AMIS had done in creating pockets of security for the people of Darfur should not be undermined. “There have been credible allegations from the AU mission side that Sudanese troops and military vehicles as well as those of allied Janjaweed militiamen have been disguised as AU peacekeepers during offensive operations. If Sudan is seen to be leading the AU effort as President this may erode even further the fragile confidence which exists in the AMIS mission among the Darfur population---and at a time when security and humanitarian access are ever more under fire.”

“The President of the AU must be in a position to play a strong and independent mediation role in dealing with conflicts on the continent,” Mr Tine said. “Escalating tensions between Sudan and Chad – and indeed Ethiopia and Eritrea --- mean that it would not be practical to have these States lead the AU’s peace making efforts at this critical time.” Mr Tine pointed out that the spokesperson for Sudan’s Foreign Minister had today himself welcomed the work of the AU in helping to mediate discussions between Chad and Sudan. The continuing independence, authority and credibility of the African Union institutions are essential to this work.

Saying that the Inter-Sudanese Peace Talks on Darfur were at a very delicate point, Mr Tine also warned that the non-State parties to the talks may consider the AU role comprised if the AU Presidency passes to Sudan as one of the belligerent parties to the conflict. He added that the Consortium had written to African leaders to express these concerns. ENDS

Contact: 091 1352 777 or 091 2360590

PUBLIC STATEMENT
FROM THE PAN AFRICAN MOVEMENT

OMAR AL BASHIR SHOULD NOT HEAD THE AFRICAN UNION

As African Heads of State and government gather in Khartoum for the ordinary Summit of the African Union the serious issues before the Assembly is being sidetracked by the possible assumption of the
Chairmanship of the organisation by General Omar Al Bashir, President of Sudan.

Even the choice of Khartoum as a venue for the Summit was not without criticism. The Pan African Movement understood the criticisms but felt that the convention of rotating the Summit between different member
countries should be observed. Sudan remains a member of the organisation and cannot be prevented from enjoying the privileges of membership including hosting a Summit.

However there is another convention of the old OAU retained by the new African Union, which needs to be reformed. It is customary that the host country for an ordinary normal Summit chairs the organisation for the
year. However since 2004 the organisation has introduced two summits every year, one being a mid term summit and the second a full summit. The mid term summit is usually in January and the full summit in July. Therefore what is being held in Khartoum is a mid term Summit.

Considering the numerous concerns about the government of Sudan and its treatment of its citizens it will send a wrong signal to the whole world particularly Afro pessimists if that government is seen to be
rewarded both diplomatically and politically by other governments in Africa with the priviledge of heading the AU and thereby becoming spokesperson for Africa. Even friends of Africa will be dismayed at this
development. But more than that African people who have been hopefully backing our leaders since the inauguration of the new African union despite cynicisms will feel betrayed that a government so disdainful of the democratic rights of its own citizens is allowed to head the African Union.

The convention should be broken. It will not be the first time that this has happened even in the short life of the African Union. The current Chairperson, President Olushegun Obasanjo of Nigeria has been chairing the AU for more than a year. Libya did not assume the chairmanship of the AU when the Summit was held there in July last year. There is no reason why Khartoum should do the same this time. This will mean extending the Chairmanship of President Obasanjo by another 6 months but the gains and the unnecessary controversies that can be avoided far outweigh Khartoum’s ruffled diplomatic and political feathers.

It will send a clear message to other leaders that Africa has moved away from the dubious principle of ‘non interference in internal affairs of member states’ to NON INDIFFERENCE to the sufferings of Africans wherever they may be. The government of Sudan is a subject of possible indictment before the International Criminal Court. It is accused of war crimes including crimes against humanity in Darfur. It is accused of fomenting war in neighbouring Chad. The AU has deployed a Peace Keeping force in the country. How can Sudan be expected to chair the AU while it is
fighting its own peoples? There are all kinds of protests and documented violations of the rights of its citizens across the country.

It cannot be a worthy chair for the AU that champions a pro people Union, Peer review, democracy, openness and transparency. If Al Bashir assumes the chairmanship of the AU it will give credence to claims by critics of the organisation that the AU is merely a change of nomenclature without any difference from the old OAU, which was widely derided as a Trade Union of Leaders without any care for the citizens of Africa.