Skip to main content
Support
Blog post

The South Sudan Conflict: Where is the AU’s Commitment to Action?

Getachew Zeru Gebrekidan
8826657534_118c53ba94_k

Photo Courtesy of the U.S. Department of State via Flickr.

In 2000 there was a historic switch from the 'non-interference' approach of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) to the 'non-indifference' approach of the African Union (AU) in regards to how the regional organization dealt with intra-Africa conflict. The African governments adopted the Constitutive Act of the African Union to incorporate the right of intervention, after learning from the lessons and failures of the OAU in the past, which witnessed gross and massive human rights violations in Africa. Examples of these include the atrocities of Idi Amin in Uganda and Bokassa in the Central African Republic in the 1970s and the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. Following this decision, the AU has taken an interventionist and active stance with regards to situations in Burundi, Darfur, Somalia, Comoros, Kenya, and Zimbabwe, and is actively involved in supporting other peace operations around the continent.

Since the outbreak of the recent conflict in South Sudan, which resulted in sporadic human right violations, the AU has not lived up to expectations set by the Constitutive Act. Article 4(h) of the AU Constitutive Act affirms the right of the African Union to intervene in a member state, pursuant to a decision of the Assembly, in the case of grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity. However, this article has yet to be put into practice. The AU has not yet shown any commitment to come to a swift decision to address the conflict in South Sudan.

In addition, Article 4(j) of the AU Constitutive Act declares the right of member states to request intervention from the AU in order to restore peace and security. Similar to Article 4(h), Article 7, item (e), of the Protocol on the AU Peace and Security Council states that a member state can submit a recommendation to the Assembly of Heads of States to intervene in a member state in the case of grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide, and crimes against humanity, as defined in relevant international conventions. However, despite attempts by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) to facilitate dialogue between the warring parties, neither member states nor the AU Peace and Security Council have been able to use the envisaged articles to foster a lasting peace in South Sudan that is based on accountability and reconciliation.

Several reports, including one from the United Nations, affirmed that violations of international human rights and humanitarian law have been committed by both parties in the South Sudanese conflict. These include ethnic-based extrajudicial killings, enforced disappearances, arbitrary arrests and detention, and the recruitment of child soldiers, alongside instances of rape and other acts of sexual violence. There have been attacks on hospitals, churches, mosques, and United Nations bases. So far, the war has resulted in tens of thousands of deaths and the destruction of entire towns. Furthermore, the UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) report documents that so far, approximately 1.5 million people have been internally displaced, while more than 700,000 refugees have fled to Ethiopia, Kenya, Sudan, and Uganda. Despite the fact that the peace process continues to drag on and the fighting on the ground continues, the AU commitment to active intervention is yet to be seen.

One example of the AU neglecting to abide by its commitments includes the failure to release the AU Commission of Inquiry on South Sudan (AUCISS) report. The AUCISS, which is chaired by former Nigerian president Olusegun Obasanjo, started its official work in March 2014. Its major objective was to investigate gross human rights violations, war crimes, and crimes against humanity committed since fighting broke out between the two South Sudanese warring parties on December 15, 2013. The report was also mandated to recommend the best ways to maximize accountability, reconciliation, and healing among South Sudan's disparate communities. The commission of inquiry was welcomed by the IGAD mediation team. The findings of the inquiry were to be presented to the African Union's Peace and Security Council in late January, but this has been postponed indefinitely, more controversially, it may have been shelved entirely.

However, the key issue is that the AU postponement of the release of findings of the inquiry commission has undermined the goal of the peace process undertaken by IGAD, as the situation is getting complicated because of member countries' unwillingness to take workable measures against targeted individuals in South Sudan such as top rebel, political, and military elites. The UN Security Council, the United States, Britain, Norway, Amnesty International, the Enough Project, Human Rights Watch, and numerous South Sudanese and other international NGOs have urged the AU to publicly release the inquiry's findings. However, IGAD and the AU have turned a deaf ear to these requests fearing that the findings might threaten the peace process undertaken by IGAD. Thus, the AUPSC's decision not to publish the AUCISS report casts doubt on the prospects for justice and accountability in South Sudan. It also raises questions as to whether the AU and IGAD are genuinely committed to ending the conflict in South Sudan.

The US recognizes that the situation in South Sudan is one of the gravest in the world. President Obama signed Executive Order Number 13664 to address the ongoing crisis in South Sudan, stating that the raging civil war poses a threat to US national security and foreign policy. Similarly, a report by the UN mission in South Sudan (UNMISS) shows that the brutality and intensity of the conflict are increasing. Indeed, the UN Human Rights Council has decided to send monitors to the country, amid allegations of horrific abuses, including soldiers allegedly gang raping young girls and burning them alive.

To reiterate, the shift from non-interference to non-indifference with the establishment of peace and security architecture in the AU is a positive move towards enabling Africans to resolve African problems. However, the effectiveness of this shift depends on the commitment of African states to act in a timely manner when aiming to free Africa from the scourges of its intractable conflicts, such as the one which the South Sudanese face today.

About the Author

Getachew Zeru Gebrekidan

Getachew Zeru Gebrekidan

Former Southern Voices Network Scholar;
Lecturer, Institute for Peace and Security Studies, Addis Ababa University
Read More

Africa Program

The Africa Program works to address the most critical issues facing Africa and US-Africa relations, build mutually beneficial US-Africa relations, and enhance knowledge and understanding about Africa in the United States. The Program achieves its mission through in-depth research and analyses, public discussion, working groups, and briefings that bring together policymakers, practitioners, and subject matter experts to analyze and offer practical options for tackling key challenges in Africa and in US-Africa relations.    Read more