Weblog nr 11
January 30, 2006
The African Union Summit meeting this week in Khartoum has brought Sudan less reason for satisfaction than its leadership expected. The choice of the venue had a reason. Sudan is since fifty years a sovereign and independent nation-state. It was the first African country gaining its independence in the struggle against the colonial powers. This Summit could have been a major opportunity for the African nations to reflect upon their history after decolonization and to look forward. That opportunity was missed. In the speeches reference was made to an African Renaissance, but it was not defined. Is there such a Renaissance? Or should African nations strive towards it? Would this imply more than a focus on culture and education - the main theme of the Summit - or would it require political change, governance reform, peace, democracy, poverty reduction, an inclusive approach towards minorities in society?
Where is the decolonization dividend? There is such a dividend, undoubtedly, though not in those countries that fell back into violent domestic conflicts after having gained independence. In other countries the question is legitimate who has benefited most of that dividend. Was it the elite, clinging to positions? Were it the leaders, jockeying for power, ready to fight each other? Was it the new middle class, enjoying privileges and keeping these for them selves, excluding the masses? To which extent have the poor people in the slums of the cities and the farmers in the rural areas seen an improvement in there daily life in the half century following decolonization? It is a legitimate question at the occasion of a Summit dedicated to a reflection on the victory fifty years ago. Without posing such questions, let alone trying to address them, talk about an African Renaissance becomes a little hollow.
Such questions are particular relevant for Sudan. Its history of the last fifty years is tragic. Too many internal disputes, too many military coups, too much violence, too much war, too much inequality and deprivation, too many violations of human rights. Much conflict may be inevitable in the start up of a new nation state, but what happened in Sudan went beyond this. It may have been understandable in a state with boundaries drawn by the colonial powers and with a multitude of different tribes and ethnicities on its territory - many of which could have been nations themselves - but in Sudan hardly any effort had been made to unite on the basis of constitutional principles of equity and justice. The exhibition set up in the Presidential Palace to inform the guests of the African Unity about the history of Sudan made us painfully aware of the chances missed.
Darfur offers the last example. For many others in Africa this is a bridge too far. In many African nations similar violent civil wars have been fought. However, half a century after decolonization many of these belong to the past. So we hope. However, in Darfur that perspective is absent. Many Africans despise in particular what they perceive as racial discrimination. They see the terror and the killings in Darfur as a war of Arabs against Africans. In Khartoum this is being denied, time and again. It is true that the conflict has many dimensions - ecological, resources, tribal, historic, political or economic - but undoubtedly the Arab attitude towards Africans has played an important role. In the corridors of the Summit African participants made a comparison with Apartheid. If there is any concept not in harmony with an African Renaissance, it is Apartheid.
Photo: Paula Souverijn-Eisenberg (c)
It meant that Sudan had no chance to get the Presidency of the African Union. The government had lobbied for the Presidency. This seemed logical, because it is customary, though not a rule, that the host of a Summit would hold the Presidency until the next Summit. However, many African countries had already sent signals that they would not favor Sudan in this position. I had reasons to believe that the signals had been understood and that Sudan would not insist. Anyway, that was the message from a high level given to me before I left Khartoum to address the Security Council in New York. However, upon my return I found out that the Sudanese authorities had changed their mind. They had continued to lobby for President Beshir and did so until the Summit itself and also during the deliberations. It became the most important subject during the Summit, overshadowing all other issues.
A decision to make Sudan the President would have made it impossible for the African Union to continue as an impartial mediator of the peace talks in Abuja. Also the credibility of the African Union peace force in Darfur, as an independent monitor of cease fire violations and as a deterrent of militia and Janjaweed attacks against the population, would be lost. The Darfur rebel movements would no longer accept the African Union in those roles. So, the decision to award another country - Congo Brazzaville - with the Presidency was inevitable and wise.
Those in Khartoum who persisted in the candidacy have done the President a disservice. It was a lost case from the very beginning and Sudan lost the prestige which it had gained by hosting the Summit. In terms of substance this Summit, which could have become a landmark, was a non-event. It will not be noted in the Annals of the African Union. Contrary to the intentions of the Sudanese government the Darfur conflict became a prominent theme. African countries made clear that President Beshir would not be elected as President of the African Union because of Darfur. The compromise was that Sudan would get an opportunity next year, on the condition of peace in Darfur.
One could say that willy-nilly the campaigners did the people of Sudan a service. Assuming that next year the government of Sudan will campaign again and that it does not wish to risk another defeat, it may change its policy and stop the militia, while negotiating more seriously in Abuja. If so, this Summit will yet turn out having made a contribution to peace in Darfur.
Where is the decolonization dividend? There is such a dividend, undoubtedly, though not in those countries that fell back into violent domestic conflicts after having gained independence. In other countries the question is legitimate who has benefited most of that dividend. Was it the elite, clinging to positions? Were it the leaders, jockeying for power, ready to fight each other? Was it the new middle class, enjoying privileges and keeping these for them selves, excluding the masses? To which extent have the poor people in the slums of the cities and the farmers in the rural areas seen an improvement in there daily life in the half century following decolonization? It is a legitimate question at the occasion of a Summit dedicated to a reflection on the victory fifty years ago. Without posing such questions, let alone trying to address them, talk about an African Renaissance becomes a little hollow.
Such questions are particular relevant for Sudan. Its history of the last fifty years is tragic. Too many internal disputes, too many military coups, too much violence, too much war, too much inequality and deprivation, too many violations of human rights. Much conflict may be inevitable in the start up of a new nation state, but what happened in Sudan went beyond this. It may have been understandable in a state with boundaries drawn by the colonial powers and with a multitude of different tribes and ethnicities on its territory - many of which could have been nations themselves - but in Sudan hardly any effort had been made to unite on the basis of constitutional principles of equity and justice. The exhibition set up in the Presidential Palace to inform the guests of the African Unity about the history of Sudan made us painfully aware of the chances missed.
Darfur offers the last example. For many others in Africa this is a bridge too far. In many African nations similar violent civil wars have been fought. However, half a century after decolonization many of these belong to the past. So we hope. However, in Darfur that perspective is absent. Many Africans despise in particular what they perceive as racial discrimination. They see the terror and the killings in Darfur as a war of Arabs against Africans. In Khartoum this is being denied, time and again. It is true that the conflict has many dimensions - ecological, resources, tribal, historic, political or economic - but undoubtedly the Arab attitude towards Africans has played an important role. In the corridors of the Summit African participants made a comparison with Apartheid. If there is any concept not in harmony with an African Renaissance, it is Apartheid.
AMIS troops on parade in Geneina
Photo: Paula Souverijn-Eisenberg (c)
It meant that Sudan had no chance to get the Presidency of the African Union. The government had lobbied for the Presidency. This seemed logical, because it is customary, though not a rule, that the host of a Summit would hold the Presidency until the next Summit. However, many African countries had already sent signals that they would not favor Sudan in this position. I had reasons to believe that the signals had been understood and that Sudan would not insist. Anyway, that was the message from a high level given to me before I left Khartoum to address the Security Council in New York. However, upon my return I found out that the Sudanese authorities had changed their mind. They had continued to lobby for President Beshir and did so until the Summit itself and also during the deliberations. It became the most important subject during the Summit, overshadowing all other issues.
A decision to make Sudan the President would have made it impossible for the African Union to continue as an impartial mediator of the peace talks in Abuja. Also the credibility of the African Union peace force in Darfur, as an independent monitor of cease fire violations and as a deterrent of militia and Janjaweed attacks against the population, would be lost. The Darfur rebel movements would no longer accept the African Union in those roles. So, the decision to award another country - Congo Brazzaville - with the Presidency was inevitable and wise.
Those in Khartoum who persisted in the candidacy have done the President a disservice. It was a lost case from the very beginning and Sudan lost the prestige which it had gained by hosting the Summit. In terms of substance this Summit, which could have become a landmark, was a non-event. It will not be noted in the Annals of the African Union. Contrary to the intentions of the Sudanese government the Darfur conflict became a prominent theme. African countries made clear that President Beshir would not be elected as President of the African Union because of Darfur. The compromise was that Sudan would get an opportunity next year, on the condition of peace in Darfur.
One could say that willy-nilly the campaigners did the people of Sudan a service. Assuming that next year the government of Sudan will campaign again and that it does not wish to risk another defeat, it may change its policy and stop the militia, while negotiating more seriously in Abuja. If so, this Summit will yet turn out having made a contribution to peace in Darfur.