The African Union and Sudan

Entering this week's meeting of the African Union it looked like Africa's most important multi-national body was on a collision course with laughingstock status or worse, but according to today's Mail & Guardian online and New York Times, the continent's heads of state might have dodged the train wreck. Olusegun Obasanjo is scheduled to step down as chairman of the AU, and according to the rotation that the AU follows, Omas Hassan al-Bashir of the Sudan was to take his place. Suffice it to say that this would have been immensely embarrassing to the continent, and would likely have provided a death knell for the AU's global credibility (then again, given the nations that get to sit on the UN's Human Rights Commission, perhaps global credibility is a more elastic concept than I realize).

But it looks like backroom maneuvering and skilled politicking might have saved the day. Africa's leaders have instead established a committee to steer through the morass and recommend Obasanjo's successor. On Monday the Sudan offered to withdraw its bid to head the AU. "We don't want to make any cracks in the union. We don't want to make any divisions," Mustapha Osman Ismail, Sudan's presidential adviser, told reporters even as behind-the-scenes it appeared that Sudan's chairmanship was already a dead issue. "If that means Sudan should withdraw, we will withdraw."

There are several possibilities for what comes next. Obasanjo might be asked to stay on until the succession situation is cleared up. While this would be good for continuity, many African leaders might be wary both to give Nigeria's head of state such an extension and to seem to perpetuate the stereotype of Africans being unable or unwilling to give up power. Names that seem most prominent as contenders for AU chairmanship are President Denis Sassou-Nguesso of Congo Republic (not to be confused with its neighbor across the Congo River, the perpetually chaotic Democratic Republic of the Congo, the former Zaire) and Gabon's Omar Bongo. Representatives from nations representing all of the continent's regions -- Algeria, Botswana (which along with Obasanjo and Nigeria were among the most vocal in opposing al-Bahir as the anointed successor to Obasanjo), Ethiopia, Gabon and Niger -- make up the committee that will hopefully settle this affair.

The question that most of you are probably asking is how things could have come to this. Yours is a reasonable query. The easiest answer is that whatever we think of it, Africans tend to circle the wagons for their own. Pan-Africanism may seem like a chimera to many of us who realize that such an immense continent cannot possibly rally around such an amorphous concept, but Africa tried to unite prescisely because it has been so beleaguered from without, especially in the last 125 years. As a consequence, African heads of state tend to be profoundly protective not only of their own sovereignty but also of the sovereignty of other African nations. This is one of the many problematic legacies of colonialism. Generally, national sovereignty is a good thing. But the question we have to ask, and that African heads of state must be more vigilant in pursuing, is "the sovereignty to do what?" because when sovereignty clashes with fundamental human rights, human rights as laid out, say, in South Africa's wonderful constitution, then it seems that human rights ought to win out over the sovereignty of nations abusing those rights. The rights of Africans, in other words, ought to win out over the rights of rapacious heads of states. Still, it would behoove the rest of the world to understand why Africans are so deeply protective of national sovereignty, because this cherished principle is at the heart of, for example, Mbeki's reticence to challenge Mugabe frontally. I am not here to justify (I certainly could not be more ardent in my opposition both to Sudan heading the AU or Mbeki's quiet diplomacy with regard to Mugabe), but just to explain, and perhaps to make the situation at least a bit more comprehensible. This question of sovereignty versus intervention is another area where the colonial legacy is used, sometimes rightly and sometimes wrongly, but whichever the interpretation, it is something that the outside world needs to take seriously and try to understand.

And let there be no question about it, most Africans are appalled by the idea of Sudan heading up the African Union, which on the whole has performed both admirably and has far surpassed the efficacy and usefulness of the Organization of African unity, its predecessor body. This morning, Zapiro (a subscription might be required -- sorry) shows how South Africa's greatest political cartoonist, and many Africans, feels about the prospect of al-Bahir taking over this prestigious post. The AU's quiet diplomacy, skillful backroom operating, and calm public face are an example of African solutions to African problems and provide another glimmer of hope where too often we see none. Let us hope that this is a portent of things to come. I am rooting for the AU. You should be too.