Some more equal than others in AU council

GCIS The 26th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of

African Heads of State and Government of the African Union Summit underway in the Nelson
Mandela Plenary in Addis Ababa. Picture: Kopano Tlape/GCIS
South Africa and Nigeria seem to want to wield disproportionate power in African affairs, writes
Peter Fabricius.
We complain about certain powers having permanent seats on the UN Security Council and now we
have certain powers in Africa trying to do the same.
This was a rather wry, wise and seasoned regional diplomat speaking in the corridors of the AU
summit in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, this week.
He was talking about this weeks elections at the summit for the 15 members of the AU Peace and
Security Council. (AU PSC)

It was an unusual election for a few reasons. One was

that all 15 seats on the council became vacant at the
same time for the first time in the AU PSCs 12-year
history.
The more significant thing about the election was it was
the most hotly contested one so far. The council
reserves four seats for West Africa, two for North Africa
and three each for Central, East and Southern Africa.
Usually each of these five regions divvy up the seats on a rotational basis beforehand and the
elections are a mere formality.
But this time there was a genuine contest in some regions especially East Africa and also intense
horse-trading within regions.
As the authoritative Peace and Security Council Report of the Institute for Security Studies has
noted, the elections were fiercely contested because the council is becoming increasingly important

in Africa, as a result of the many conflicts it has to deal with.

Last month, for example, the council flexed its muscles in an extraordinary way by making an
unprecedented decision to send a peacekeeping force to curb the growing violence in Burundi
whether or not Burundi wanted such a force (which it doesnt). The AU summit has been struggling
to digest that rather indigestible decision.
And so South Africa, which had already been on the council since 2014, but which had indicated it
might stand down this year, decided instead to bid for re-election. It was successful but not quite as
much as it had hoped, apparently. It had wanted a three-year seat but only got a two-year seat.
The seasoned regional diplomat, like many others, believes Pretoria decided to remain on the council
because Nigeria was going to. Nigeria has been on the council without interruption since it was
founded and this week was re-elected to a three-year term.
Nigeria and South Africa, Africas largest and second-largest economies respectively, have emerged
as rivals for supremacy on the continent.
It is clear Nigeria intends to become a de facto permanent member of the AU PSC. South Africa, it
seems, now harbours the same ambition.
This is where the seasoned diplomats wry observation above, kicks in. As he remarked, South Africa
and most other African countries for that matter complains about the disproportionate power which
the P5 five permanent members of the UN Security Council, the US, China, Russia, UK and France
wield in world affairs.
But now South Africa and Nigeria also seem to want to wield disproportionate power in African
affairs. Of course, the AU PSC, even with de facto permanent members, would not be as
unrepresentative as the UN council.
Each African region would still be represented on the AU PSC, whereas we know the UN Security
Council basically represents just the victors of World War II, excluding vast regions of the globe,
including Africa. And no member of the AU PSC, however permanent and powerful, has the veto
which is what gives the P5 their ultimate power.
Nonetheless, a permanent presence on the AU PSC does confer disproportionate power. The
diplomat noted when the protocol to establish the AU PSC was being debated in 2002, South Africa
wanted the AU PSC to have five permanent seats. Smaller countries indignantly shot down the
proposal, insisting on the equality among nations which is supposed to be a basic principle of the AU
(and indeed the UN).
It is also true though that the Southern African region, despite such reservations, did in the end
choose South Africa to represent it on the council. (along with Botswana and Zambia)
The reason is South Africa has much more clout than other regional countries. The formal criteria
for membership of the AU PSC do implicitly favour stronger countries. They stipulate members
should have the means to fulfil their duties, including a large enough presence at the AU in Addis
Ababa and the UN in New York, to conduct peace diplomacy and the heft to contribute financially,
militarily and otherwise to peacekeeping operations.
Might not be quite right but its getting there, slowly but surely.

And so, as it evolves, the AU PSC is converging in its

character, with the UN Security Council.
All states are equal, as they say, but some are more
equal than others.
The Sunday Independent
* Use IOLs Facebook and Twitter pages to comment on
our stories. See links below.
IOL on Twitter
IOL News on Facebook
Get our free IOL newsletters - subscribe here...
http://classic.iol.co.za/some-more-equal-than-others-in-au-council-1.1977804