USA Legality - The Afican Union's Peace and Security Council

STATFOR ^ | July 10, 2002 | STRATFOR Staff

[7o62x39]

My Note: This Editorial explains the creation of the new African Union's Peace & Security Council. It is of current interest with respect to the issue of the legality of USA/UK/Aussie's regime change in Iraq using examples of institutions generally supported by the Left. I recognize that many of us would make the case based solely on US sovereignty, but this alternative line may come in handy too.

I'm interested in Freepers adding to this with a list of African regime changes conducted by intervening African states. Seams to me there have been several recently.

------

African Security Council could bring both peace and conflict

This new security council has the power to make war. Gabon and South Africa appear to have two of the five regional seats on the council locked. Algeria, Egypt and Libya are fighting for the northern Africa seat, while Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania are competing for the East African seat. Nigeria and Senegal will contend for the West African seat. Each nation’s relationship with the US, the European Union and France might greatly influence which country gets selected for the five seats.

Prepared by STRATFOR of Austin, Texas

July 10, 2002

Summary

The new African Union has set up a security council that has the power to intervene militarily in regional conflicts. Competition among countries for the five seats that will chair the council is intense, as they will be able to advance their individual agendas and foster stability -- or even instability -- on the continent. Issues such as military size, threats to other nations and ties with Europe and the United States will all be a factor.

Analysis

African heads of state agreed July 10 to set up a peacekeeping body and a security council as part of the newly formed African Union, which replaces the 39-year-old Organization of African Unity. The 15-member Peace and Security Council, similar to the U.N. Security Council, will have the power to intervene "militarily in any country where crimes against humanity are taking place."

The UNION intends to create a standing army that can respond to crises on the continent and intervene in member-states to prevent genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The council will be empowered to deploy troops to engage in defensive or offensive action in these conflicts.

That power could be a source of both peace and conflict among Africa's stronger nations while military interventions could be exploited by leaders of the security council to advance their own regional and continent-wide agendas. This is why competition is already heating up among Africa's many regional rivals for the five seats that will chair the council. Among the factors that may decide who is selected will be the extent of a candidate's relationship with Europe or especially the United States. This means Washington could gain more influence over military actions in the continent.

The union's 53 member-states will select the 15 members of the security council for two-year terms while the five regional chairs -- representing Eastern, Southern, Northern, Western and Central Africa -- will be elected for three-year terms. So far South Africa and Gabon appear to have the Southern African and Central African seats respectively locked up.

Which countries will take the three remaining seats is still uncertain. Algeria, Egypt and Libya are all vying for the North African seat while Ethiopia, Kenya and Tanzania are competing to represent East Africa. And a rivalry has broken out between Nigeria and Senegal over the seat representing West Africa.

Which nations win these coveted regional seats will likely be determined by several factors. For instance, countries with the best-equipped and most professional militaries are likely to have a greater chance. The five PSC chairs will be expected to contribute the bulk of the peacekeeping forces, provide financing and logistical support and complement smaller nations' militaries with greater technology and equipment.

Another key consideration will be experience and reputation in previous peacekeeping missions. Countries in each region will also be evaluating potential contenders on the likelihood they would pose a threat in the future. Perhaps the most extreme example of this political dynamic will be seen in West Africa between Nigeria and Senegal.

Though it has experience in peacekeeping missions, the Nigerian military's reputation was tarnished during the Liberian civil war due to accusations that the country's troops looted the tiny West African state while acting as leader of a peacekeeping mission called the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group.

Smaller West African states worried about Nigerian domination may choose Senegal as regional chair to act as a counterbalancing force. In other regions such as East Africa, this issue will be less pronounced since countries like Kenya and Tanzania are equal in population and power-projection capabilities.

Perhaps the defining factor will be the contenders' ability to bring in external sources of financing, technology and expertise. This is where relationships with the United States, the European Union and individual European states such as France will make a difference. African countries with close military ties to Washington, such as Kenya and Nigeria, may have a better chance of getting elected as regional security leaders because of the opportunity for technology transfers, military assistance and training with the United States.

Under the auspices of the African Crisis Response Initiative, a Clinton-era program intended to train African militaries for peacekeeping operations, countries like Kenya and Senegal could conceivably become regional proxies for U.S. military concerns over the continent. However, the initiative still does not reflect the full military strategy of the United States, especially in post-Sept. 11 military planning. This is why Washington would also prefer that more powerful U.S. allies like South Africa and Nigeria gain control of continental peacekeeping decisions.

Other African Union members could by swayed by more than just European or U.S. external financial and technological support. For instance Libya wants the North Africa seat and has spent years and millions of dollars bailing out flailing African allies and building relations with states like the Central African Republic and now Zimbabwe. But its pariah status in the international system and especially its troubles with the United States will undercut Tripoli's attractiveness as a regional leader.

Which nations will get the five regional seats and what will be the extent of their decision-making powers remains unclear. However, the potential consequences of a pan-African security body charged with keeping peace on the continent are obvious. From Algeria to South Africa, from Senegal to Kenya, African states are just now learning the subtleties of power projection.