Abstract
The aim of this study is to examine the prospects of the African Union (AU)’s doctrine of non-indifference in addressing African conflicts to achieve Pax Africana. The research question that guided this study was: to what extend is the AU’s doctrine of non-indifference playing a role in addressing African conflicts to achieve Pax Africana. The AU doctrine of non-indifference is not only for the quest for Pax Africana, it is an ‘African solution to African security problems’. The AU interventionist stance in maintaining peace, security, and stability in situations of conflict in Africa has seen the Union move away from its old doctrine of non-interference to the new doctrine of non-indifference. This paradigm shift from the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) stems from the OAU’s failure to prevent, manage and resolve the conflicts that affected its member states. This transition mandated the AU with the right to intervene in the domestic affairs of its member states to protect citizens from crimes against humanity, war crimes, and genocide as enshrined in the AU Constitutive Act.
The study finds that the prospects of the AU doctrine of non-indifference to effectively achieve Pax-Africana, which is peace and security understood and defined by the Africans themselves, are positive. However, this requires African agency in employing peace practitioner who understand the roots causes of African conflicts and problems. This will help address the root causes of the problems the continent is facing and hence make peace and security a norm. In the three studied cases, the thesis finds that the AU’s doctrine of non-indifference was to provide humanitarian intervention, stop unconstitutional change in government, curb the spread of terrorism, end post-election violence, end the big man syndrome, and establish constitutional governance.
The study found a number of challenges that weaken the agency during the application of the non-indifference doctrine including the lack of political will on the sides of political leaders and Africans as well. The lack of political will to support the implementation of the AU’s doctrine of non-indifference as they clearly have the political will and acumen to stay in power, shows on the side of political leaders has seen the rise of tyrannical leaders and oppressors of the people they lead. This has made the continent suffer from human rights violations and this leads to intractable conflict and civil wars. The recent case of grave crimes against humanity and genocide can be seen in the ongoing conflict in the Republic of Cameroon and the AU has turned a blind eye on it.
The study also found that there is a lack of institutional preparedness. It was discussed that visionary leadership paves the way for democratic governance and pays particular attentions to matters of state responsiveness and accountability. It puts in place systems that prevent the future recurrence of wars by instituting respect of rule of law, protection of human rights. The study found that most of the leaders who were seen as visionary turn into authoritarian rulers and become the architect of mass atrocities that is been committed on the continent. It was found that the AU’s early warning mechanisms that were put in place to sound early warning signal for preventive measures were inactive in nature. The study also found that there is no proper coordination between human rights institutions and the mainstream organs of the AU.
The influence of the international actors such as the West especially the USA, France, UK, USSR, and China during and after the process of the implementation and operationalisation of the doctrine of non-indifference is an issue that has retarded the Union intention to maintain peace and security on the continent. The lack of resources was identified as another impediment that AU and its peace and security mechanisms are facing to implement the doctrine of non-indifference in conflict affected areas. This hampers the agency from intervening quickly given that it must wait for the donors to release resources, and these donors must dictate the agency in the way their resources must be used. This has therefore made the agency to find solutions that favour the donors and disfavour the citizens. This explains why AU delayed intervention in the 2012 Mali unconstitutional change of government crisis. The refusal of the Union’s member states to contribute to the peace fund saw the AU accept funding from France, EU and other international actors.
The study concluded by recommending that, there is need for the AU to swiftly intervene in the process of dealing with African conflicts but that there is a lack of resources and experts or professionalism in conflict management. There is also need for AU to mobilise resources that will provide the necessary logistics for Peacebuilding in order to attain the quest for Pax Africana. The AU must assume leadership position and ownership in conflict management processes on the continent. It should strive to work in close collaboration, harmonisation, co-operation and co-ordination with sub RECs and RMs. The agency should also strengthen its partnership with international actors such as UN and EU. However, this partnership should be established carefully as not rob the agency the autonomy and ownership in applying the doctrine of non-indifference to achieve Pax-Africana.