| |
Contributions from
the Column
Studies and reports
Ratings agencies
Global Corruption Report
Peace cannot be compelled
"The principle of non-intervention still prevails in Africa"
Afghanistan: no development without government and civil society
Genetically modified food aid for Africa?
Roads to combat hunger
Can research advise politics?
03/2003
|
|
Interview with Stefan Mair
"The principle of non-intervention still prevails in Africa"
The African Union (AU) decided at a summit meeting in the Ethiopian capital, Addis Ababa, at the beginning of February to establish an African Council for Peace and Security modelled on the UN Security Council. We asked Stefan Mair, of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs (SWP), in Berlin, about the step.
Mr Mair, does the AU decision improve the prospects for greater security and peace in Africa?
That the AU now aims to set up a high-level body which will be responsible solely for this sector is certainly progress. The Organisation of African Unity (OAU) had only the assembly of heads of state and government leaders, who found it very difficult to make up their minds to take common action. A Security Council could make that easier. But it will, of course, function under the same restrictive conditions as the OAU: the principle of non-intervention still prevails in Africa.
On the one hand, the ban on intervention will be maintained, and on the other hand African capacities for intervention are to be enhanced. Is that not a central contradiction in African politics?
It is a contradiction – and in fact not only in the sector of peace and security but also in other initiatives such as NEPAD. The African states commit themselves to political and economic reforms, but are unable to agree on imposing sanctions against a member country that ignores the rules.
What must happen to ensure that it does not remain merely a matter of declarations?
I do not believe that one can expect at the supranational level in Africa what is also not the rule in the individual countries. In other words, why should governments that manifest considerable shortcomings in democracy come out seriously at the multilateral level for remedying such deficiencies?
Will enough countries ratify the decision for an African Security Council at all?
It will take quite a time, but in the end it will come to ratification. When it does, however, the first thing that must be done is to decide who will be seconded to the Council. Each of the five African regions has the right to assign three members. These will be elected at regular intervals, although one member may be elected several times – which effectively would mean a 'permanent seat'. In some regions there will be a big free-for-all over who may take this seat.
Are not the African states themselves too deeply involved in the conflicts they are supposed to resolve?
Yes, that is a central problem that could be solved only if there were relatively strong actors in Africa who were prepared to confront conflict countries. There is only a handful of states that could do that – South Africa, Nigeria and perhaps one or two others – but they shrink from the political risk as well as the humanitarian and economic costs associated with it.
Tillmann Elliesen asked the questions.
|
