African Union_Reading Memo

The United Nations (UN) is a global authority in accordance to setting and watching over international norms in the area of peace and security. It holds the primacy in legitimacy for protection of peace. However, as challenges to security have grown considerably over time, the UN started to have a need for some complemental institutions which could help it to fulfil its role. At this point, regional or sub-regional organizations with observance to the same values accessed such possibility. In terms of Africa, the African Union (AU) is the primary regional body looking over peace and security on this continent. Application of African solutions to African problem is even showing to be beneficial.

            The UN is being criticized for its under-representativeness as the five permanent members of the UN Security Council do not include representatives of Africa, nor South America. This shows us the limits of UN global legitimacy. The feeling of being under-represented in terms of international peace and security management pushed African states to become active by themselves in this area. And as the UN got to know that it does not have sufficient capacities to cope with all of the conflicts and threats to security all over the world by itself, it granted the African regional organizations legitimacy to be active in this area. In fact, the UN (as a global level) and the regional institutions (regional level) are in a co-dependent relationship in the terms of legitimacy. The UN is depended on being perceived as legitimate body by acting in such a way that will be acceptable for most of actors in international arena. On the other hand, regional organizations seek legitimacy in the eyes of the UN by presenting themselves as observing the same norms and values.

For this point, Fisher (2014) explained the concept of so called image-management strategy, which was exceptionally well used by Ugandan Museveni´s regime. Museveni used this approach with a primary goal to maintain his regime. It consisted from creating and pushing three images of the regime towards external actors: 1) Uganda is economically successful role-model for other African countries; 2) Uganda is a guarantor of regional peace and security; 3) Uganda is a Western ally in the war on terror. This Museveni´s strategy was intended to make sure that foreign donors perceive his government in such a way that they will relatively uncritically support his regime and have good relations with each other. The strategy was successful, as the donors let the Museveri´s regime be, even though the same donors were in other cases asking some steps to be taken or cutting donations for other countries which practically did the same missteps as Uganda. Such donors´ approach of increased tolerance was indeed achieved by Uganda through making itself perceived as a valuable part of global security coalition. In the one moment when Uganda felt a decrease of its good international reputation, it acted by supporting intervention in Somalia. This step reinforced the donor images that Uganda created about itself and reassured the international community of its value and importance for international community.

The case of Uganda can make us wonder about whether the approach of international community is rightful as it is. Some could argue that the actions, or rather inactivity and conformity of the Western community/donors, is in such case undermining the system of norms and values that it has created. Was it really better for the donors to say to themselves ´it´s something´ and let Ugandan regime to do what it wants with so little reflection or criticism for its missteps? Or should Western guarantors of global security in similar cases be really critical without considering whether they are controlling and judging on their ally? Think about raising a child. If he does something bad for once, if he disobeys you as the parent, you do not simply reject him. You explain what is wrong, why it is so and you will not let him to do the same mistake again in the future. When raising a child, you need to both compliment him for good actions but also criticize him for the bad ones. Ugandan corruption, human rights abuses or insufficient civilian protection are not matters to be overlooked only because it is otherwise acting generally good (by being a good ally in security maintenance and economically prosper). Good long-term relationships should under no circumstances prevent criticism of country´s bad practices.

Another point from the readings which made me think was the question of legitimacy. Who is legitimate to deploy peace operations and use the force with the purpose of protecting security and civilians? As we know, the global guarantor and primary actor in security issues is the UN. According to the UN Charter, force against a sovereign government can only be used in self-defence or after an approval from the UN Security Council. However, Article 4 of the African Union´s Constitutive Act claims that the AU Peace Security Council has the legitimacy to deploy humanitarian intervention on its own in case of grave circumstances occurring in one of its member states (these circumstances are stated as genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity). Even though the adoption of this measure represents a significant development in civilian protection, it also brings us to questioning the legitimacy concerning deployment of peace operations. This topic only got concluded by stating that this issue of contradiction is noticed but it has not caused any real problems so far because the AU has not activated the Article 4 until today. However, I would say this is an important topic and would be interested in any further opinions and debates around it. How can we conform ourselves with something being ok because it does not bother us/is not urgent so far? The fact that the situation and collision of norms did not happen yet does not mean that we should not pay attention to it. It seems only logical to think about potential solutions and consequences in advance because this way is better than trying to find answers ad hoc in a hurry.