Ministerial session on the nexus between peace, security and development
Amani Africa
Date | 27 September, 2019
Tomorrow (27 September 2019) the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) is scheduled to hold a ministerial session devoted to the theme “Nexus between peace, security and development: towards a pact of collective responsibility”. To be chaired and opened with a statement by Mr. Nasser Bourita, Minister of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of the Kingdom of Morocco and Chair of the PSC for the month of September, the session is expected to receive a briefing from the AU Commission Chairperson, Mr. Moussa Faki Mahamat.
Apart from the members of the PSC and the Commissioner for Peace and Security, Smail Chergui and Commissioners for Social Affairs and Political affairs, it is also envisaged that Egypt, as the Chair of the AU, will participate.
This theme was included in the provisional program of work of the PSC for September on the initiation of Morocco as Chair of the PSC for the month. After the draft concept note was initiated, it was circulated to the Committee of Experts for their inputs and adoption before it was submitted to the PSC to guide the drafting and review of the communique of the session.
The session draws on relevant instruments in which the interface between peace and security and development has been specified. Accordingly, reference is made to the preamble of the AU Constitutive Act acknowledging the need to promote peace, security and stability as a prerequisite for the implementation of our development and integration agenda. More directly, specific reference is made to the relevant provisions of the PSC Protocol notably Article 3(a) and Article 4(d) with the later specifying the interdependence between socio‐economic development and the security of peoples and States as one of the principles that guide the work of the PSC.
Beyond examining the nexus between peace and security and development, the session also puts a spotlight on the security‐heavy character of AU’s peace and security initiatives. It means that inadequate attention is paid to the development dimension. In foregrounding the development dimension of conflicts, the session emphasizes the need for paying attention in AU’s peace and security interventions to the socio‐economic factors that propel and fuel conflicts and instability. Reference is also made to how the socio‐economic dimension intersects with lack of good governance, weakness of state institutions, organized crime and environmental degradation in compounding insecurity.
The session also highlights how the absence of socio‐economic development undermines peace processes at times leading to the relapse of post‐conflict countries back to conflict. This underscores the critical importance of post‐conflict reconstruction and development interventions paying particular attention to social, economic and political inclusion of conflict affected and vulnerable groups and the creation of spaces for socio‐economic opportunities.
The concept note states that ‘social and economic discontent, combined with general access to media and social network, give rise to higher expectations which governments cannot satisfy, and make a source of tension that cannot be neglected’. Indeed, as the emergence in recent years of protests and riots as the dominant forms of crisis events in Africa shows, poorly distributed wealth and lack of sufficient jobs, opportunities and freedoms, particularly for a large youth population, can also increase the risk of instability.
It would be of interest for the members of the PSC to further assess how best to pursue this theme of the nexus between peace and security and development within the framework of the mandate of the PSC. At one level, this pertains to the question of how the issues that this theme raises can be integrated into the conflict prevention, management, resolution and post‐conflict reconstruction tools and interventions of the AU including with respect to specific country or regional conflict situations. It is expected that some countries notably Kenya may make reference to global initiatives such as most notably the 2030 Sustainable Development Agenda.
Additionally, another practical consideration for pursuing this theme relates to developing approaches for both tapping into the role of development actors including businesses and mobilizing the use of development interventions to leverage peace processes. This obviously necessitates not only identifying the role of AU institutions particularly the specialized agencies and partner entities such as the African Development Bank and the UN Economic Community for Africa as well as the UN Peace Building Commission for whom development is their core mandate but also articulating the strategies for activating and strategically deploying their role.
Also of interest for PSC members is the aspect of the theme referring to ‘a pact of collective responsibility’. While two of the objectives of the session identified in the concept note involve defining ‘an institutional framework with a view to establishing a Pact for Collective Responsibility, based on the principle of interdependence as well as shared responsibility and establishing ‘a roadmap for the implementation of the Collective Responsibility Pact,’ it is not immediately apparent what the pact for collective responsibility refers to and entails. The general thrust of the session however suggests the need for processes in which the role of actors with development mandate is fully mobilized and the development dimension is integrated in peace and security analysis and policy interventions. It is possible to anchor such collective pact on the the AU Post‐Conflict Reconstruction Development (PCRD) Policy Framework by establishing partnerships including based on the example of the 2008 United Nations‐World Bank Partnership Framework for Crisis and Post‐Crisis Situations.
Based on the concept note, a draft communique was prepared for review by the PSC ahead of the ministerial session. On 16 September, the PSC reviewed the draft communique and provided inputs for updating the draft. Member states highlighted the need for enriching and tightening the communique. In this regard, attention is drawn to the importance of building on existing engagements and strategies of the AU, particularly those not substantially referenced such as the relevant aspects of the AU Master Roadmap on Silencing the Guns by 2020 and Agenda 2063.
If the initial draft of the communique is anything to go by, the specific items expected to feature in the communique have been identified. One such item concerns the systematic integration of the development dimension in AU initiatives and tools as well as in the division of responsibilities at AU and RECs/RMs. The other is the harmonization and coordination with AU specialised agencies particularly those with a mandate on development such as the AU Development Agency/NEPAD. In terms of how to take the theme of the session forward, the PSC is expected to request the Chairperson of the AU Commission to present a document on ‘a multidimensional approach reflecting the nexus between peace, security and development.’
It is envisaged that prior to the ministerial meeting, the PSC, meeting at the level of Ambassadors at the AU Observer Mission to the UN, will undertake further review of the draft communique.
Apart from those identified in the draft communique and further developed in the various review sessions on the communique, the PSC may consider to also look into the additional questions this theme raises in terms of how best to pursue it within the framework of the mandate of the PSC. This notably includes the identification of the mechanisms for integrating the development dimension in all the peace and security tools and interventions of the AU beyond the early warning system as envisaged in Article 12(4). The communique could also envisage the identification of the role of the development institutions of the AU and its partner organizations as well as their systematic and targeted deployment across the conflict continuum. Given its direct relevance for this theme, it is of particular importance for the communique to make reference to and draw on AU PCRD Policy Framework. Reference could also be made to Agenda 2063 and the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development as well as various UN initiatives notably the Peace Building Commission and UN Security Council Resolution 2282(2016).
Briefing on Sustainable financing of African Peace & Security Agenda under the UN Charter
Amani Africa
Date | 19 September, 2019
Tomorrow (19 September 2019) the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) is scheduled to hold a session to consider the draft UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution initiated in August 2019 on sustainable financing for African Peace and Security Agenda in the context of Chapter VIII of the UN Charter. It is expected that the Committee of Experts, a subsidiary body of the PSC, is expected to present the outcome of its review of the draft resolution to the Council.
In December 2018, the African three non‐permanent members of the UNSC (the A3) presented a draft resolution on financing of African Peace and Security Agenda for vote by the UNSC. The draft resolution initiated by Cote d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea & Ethiopia had gone through rigorous negotiation process with other members of the United Nations (UN) Security Council (SC). After negotiations were concluded, the draft was put in blue on 8 December by Cote d’Ivoire, the President of the UNSC for December 2018, on the request the A3 and voting was initially scheduled for 10 December.
In a press release of 14 December 2018, the PSC underlining that ‘the tabling of this resolution represents a watershed moment and an expression of the international community’s commitment to strengthening the global peace and security architecture and its capacity to address today’s complex security challenges’, endorsed it as ‘timely and balanced’. Following an apparent indication by the US to veto the draft if the vote went ahead as planned, the 10 December vote was postponed for a week after France requested to engage the US further to avoid the veto and bring the US to the consensus.
In the meantime, the A3 continued mobilizing support for the resolution. Following a briefing by the A3 on 18 December and taking into account the 14 December press release of the AU PSC, the African Group in New York after deliberation on the draft decided to put its full weight behind the A3 efforts and called on all members of the group to co‐sponsor the draft resolution. Beyond the Africa group, the draft also received support from other members of the UN with a total of 87 UN member states co‐sponsoring it.
The postponement of the 10 December vote and the engagement with the US did not yield the kind of compromise that the A3 deemed to be consistent with the core fundamentals of the draft resolution. Accordingly, a vote on the draft resolution was scheduled for 19 December. However, unofficial communications received from the AU advised that every effort be made to avoid the veto. In the meantime, a compromise text by France started to circulate. The result was that the A3 postponed the vote once again to 21 December. Two complicating factors also surfaced. First, an informal message from the AU advising to accept the so‐called compromise text emerged. It was followed by a note verbal from the AU Commission Chairperson holding that ‘the best course of action is to build on the compromise proposals in the past few days,’ hence opting for the compromise text by France instead of the original A3 draft. Second, the cohesion of the A3 suffered a blow when Cote d’Ivore requested the UN Secretariat to put the so‐called compromise proposal in blue for a vote.
In an email it sent out to the UN members co‐sponsored the original A3 text, the Office of the Permanente Representative of Ethiopia raised serious reservations on the ‘compromise text’. It observed that ‘the new text introduced significant amendments and new languages in its operative paragraphs (see OP9, OP16, OP 17, OP 18, OP 19, OP 26, OP 28 and OP 30) which is fundamentally different from the original A3 text’. It also pointed out that ‘[m]ost of the members of the Security Council had no knowledge of the new resolution. Neither did it pass through any negotiation process nor did it also go through the silence procedure’.
Following a meeting on 21 December at the level of Permanent Representatives, the A3 once again decided to postpone the vote on the draft resolution pending a clear guidance from the AUPSC, which mandated the A3 to champion the common African position on the financing issue. The Africa Group also met in an emergency session and endorsed the A3 decision. The report of the Africa Group meeting was communicated to the AUC.
On 24 December 2018, the PSC discussed the matter under ‘any other business’ and requested the AU Commission to submit to it a report. Although the report was planned to be presented to the Council in early 2019, this did not happen. Yet, at the level of the AU, the call on the UNSC for adopting the resolution has continued. In February 2019 the AU High Representative on Silencing the Guns by 2020 urged the ‘Security Council to respond positively to the African Union’s long‐standing and legitimate calls for the funding of African peace support operations through United Nations assessed contributions.’
In New York, another effort for following up the process for securing a resolution has been initiated under South Africa, which joined the A3 in January 2019 taking over from Ethiopia. After consultations with A3 members including Ethiopia, the two drafts that were put in blue in December 2018 were withdrawn. In August 2019, South Africa in consultation with the A3 introduced a new draft. While negotiations on this text has started, the draft was also submitted to the PSC for its guidance in anticipation of a consensus being achieved on this draft for its potential consideration for vote under South Africa’s presidency in October 2019.
It was against the background of the foregoing that tomorrow’s agenda was put in the program of work of the PSC for September. It was not for the first time that the PSC would discuss this tomorrow. On Monday 16 September, the PSC also discussed this agenda after receiving a briefing from the troika of the PSC (the previous, the current, and incoming chairs of the PSC) on their videoconference meeting that they had with the A3 the previous week. After the meeting, the PSC tasked the Committee of Experts to review the two draft resolutions that the A3 proposed in December 2018 and the latest one from August 2019 in order to make proposal to the PSC on the next steps.
The August 2019 draft reflected recent developments since the December 2018 Draft. For example, draft preambular paragraph 17 welcomed ‘the joint Declaration of the Secretary‐General of the United Nations and the Chairperson of the African Union Commission of 6th December 2018’ and preambular paragraph 19 and 20 welcoming work undertaken by the UN Secretariat and the AU in developing and adopting relevant compliance standards. In terms of the operative paragraphs, the August 2019 draft no longer contains the text from the compromise draft postponing the adoption of a framework resolution for another time. Yet, despite keeping the key paragraph ‘deciding in principle that United Nations assessed contributions can be provided, with decisions to be taken on a case‐by‐case basis … to support future African Union‐led peace support operations’, the August 2019 draft has carried much of the new text that was introduced in the compromise draft that France proposed and the A3 and the Africa Group rejected.
The Committee of Experts reviewed the two drafts during their 17th meeting held on 17 September. There is strong view in the PSC that the position of the PSC of 14 December 2018 endorsing the A3 draft needs to be maintained. In this respect, there are concerns that the August 2019 draft with the text from the compromise draft including that which reduced the role of the AU ‘to operational details’ would seriously undermine the mandate of the PSC as provided for in the PSC Protocol. In their report to the PSC tomorrow, the Committee of Experts would also highlight other aspects of the draft that are deemed to mark major departure from the December 2018 draft including the language ‘utilized’, the reporting arrangements and the formulation of the reference to AU’s decision committing to raise 25% of funds for peace and security.
It is therefore expected that the Committee of Experts would advise that the draft resolution should not be submitted to the UNSC for adoption in October 2019. The Committee is also expected to propose that further negotiations are held on the draft focusing on those aspects of the draft resolution that are feared to curtail the mandate of the PSC provided for in its Protocol and seriously limit the scope of flexibility and strategic level political role of the AU in general.
In terms of taking this process forward, there is a need for ensuring that the momentum is not lost. Central to keeping the momentum that has been achieved thus far is engaging the US not only with a view to avoid its use of veto but also importantly achieve, based on further negotiations on the draft, a new more balanced formulation. In this respect, consideration should be given to recalibrate the approach utilized thus far. There is in particular a need for elevating the engagement of the US administration not only at the level of the US Delegation in New York but also at the level of Congress, the State Department and the White House. The opportunity that the UN General Assembly (UNGA) presents for engaging the US administration particularly at most senior levels of the State Department and the White House by the AU PSC ministers and Heads of State and Government including South Africa’s President, as the incoming president of the UNSC leading on the negotiation in the UNSC on the draft resolution, is worth exploring. Similarly, as part of the preparation for the 13th Annual Consultative Meeting of the PSC and the UNSC scheduled for October, consideration should be given to engage, including based on proposed text jointly formulated by the AU Commission and the UN Office to the AU (UNOAU), the permanent five members of the UNSC in general and the US in particular for avoiding a stalemate in the negotiation process.
While no formal outcome is expected from tomorrow’s meeting, depending on the depth of the deliberations and the guidance that the PSC may wish to give on next steps, it may adopt a communique. Such a communique could envisage that the matter is discussed with the A3 both on the side‐lines of the UNGA and during the upcoming visit of the Committee of Experts to New York to discuss preparations for the Annual Consultative Meeting. In the light of the existence of major concerns over the current draft, it could also urge for further negotiations in the interest of keeping the momentum of the process with a more sustained and elevated engagement. It could also task as part of the negotiation process proposed texts for bridging the gap and achieving a more balanced draft are initiated in consultation with the A3.
Briefing on Sustainable financing of African Peace & Security Agenda under the UN Charter
Amani Africa
Date | 19 September, 2019
Tomorrow (19 September 2019) the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) is scheduled to hold a session to consider the draft UN Security Council (UNSC) resolution initiated in August 2019 on sustainable financing for African Peace and Security Agenda in the context of Chapter VIII of the UN Charter. It is expected that the Committee of Experts, a subsidiary body of the PSC, is expected to present the outcome of its review of the draft resolution to the Council.
In December 2018, the African three non‐permanent members of the UNSC (the A3) presented a draft resolution on financing of African Peace and Security Agenda for vote by the UNSC. The draft resolution initiated by Cote d’Ivoire, Equatorial Guinea & Ethiopia had gone through rigorous negotiation process with other members of the United Nations (UN) Security Council (SC). After negotiations were concluded, the draft was put in blue on 8 December by Cote d’Ivoire, the President of the UNSC for December 2018, on the request the A3 and voting was initially scheduled for 10 December.
In a press release of 14 December 2018, the PSC underlining that ‘the tabling of this resolution represents a watershed moment and an expression of the international community’s commitment to strengthening the global peace and security architecture and its capacity to address today’s complex security challenges’, endorsed it as ‘timely and balanced’. Following an apparent indication by the US to veto the draft if the vote went ahead as planned, the 10 December vote was postponed for a week after France requested to engage the US further to avoid the veto and bring the US to the consensus.
In the meantime, the A3 continued mobilizing support for the resolution. Following a briefing by the A3 on 18 December and taking into account the 14 December press release of the AU PSC, the African Group in New York after deliberation on the draft decided to put its full weight behind the A3 efforts and called on all members of the group to co‐sponsor the draft resolution. Beyond the Africa group, the draft also received support from other members of the UN with a total of 87 UN member states co‐sponsoring it.
The postponement of the 10 December vote and the engagement with the US did not yield the kind of compromise that the A3 deemed to be consistent with the core fundamentals of the draft resolution. Accordingly, a vote on the draft resolution was scheduled for 19 December. However, unofficial communications received from the AU advised that every effort be made to avoid the veto. In the meantime, a compromise text by France started to circulate. The result was that the A3 postponed the vote once again to 21 December. Two complicating factors also surfaced. First, an informal message from the AU advising to accept the so‐called compromise text emerged. It was followed by a note verbal from the AU Commission Chairperson holding that ‘the best course of action is to build on the compromise proposals in the past few days,’ hence opting for the compromise text by France instead of the original A3 draft. Second, the cohesion of the A3 suffered a blow when Cote d’Ivore requested the UN Secretariat to put the so‐called compromise proposal in blue for a vote.
In an email it sent out to the UN members co‐sponsored the original A3 text, the Office of the Permanente Representative of Ethiopia raised serious reservations on the ‘compromise text’. It observed that ‘the new text introduced significant amendments and new languages in its operative paragraphs (see OP9, OP16, OP 17, OP 18, OP 19, OP 26, OP 28 and OP 30) which is fundamentally different from the original A3 text’. It also pointed out that ‘[m]ost of the members of the Security Council had no knowledge of the new resolution. Neither did it pass through any negotiation process nor did it also go through the silence procedure’.
Following a meeting on 21 December at the level of Permanent Representatives, the A3 once again decided to postpone the vote on the draft resolution pending a clear guidance from the AUPSC, which mandated the A3 to champion the common African position on the financing issue. The Africa Group also met in an emergency session and endorsed the A3 decision. The report of the Africa Group meeting was communicated to the AUC.
On 24 December 2018, the PSC discussed the matter under ‘any other business’ and requested the AU Commission to submit to it a report. Although the report was planned to be presented to the Council in early 2019, this did not happen. Yet, at the level of the AU, the call on the UNSC for adopting the resolution has continued. In February 2019 the AU High Representative on Silencing the Guns by 2020 urged the ‘Security Council to respond positively to the African Union’s long‐standing and legitimate calls for the funding of African peace support operations through United Nations assessed contributions.’
In New York, another effort for following up the process for securing a resolution has been initiated under South Africa, which joined the A3 in January 2019 taking over from Ethiopia. After consultations with A3 members including Ethiopia, the two drafts that were put in blue in December 2018 were withdrawn. In August 2019, South Africa in consultation with the A3 introduced a new draft. While negotiations on this text has started, the draft was also submitted to the PSC for its guidance in anticipation of a consensus being achieved on this draft for its potential consideration for vote under South Africa’s presidency in October 2019.
It was against the background of the foregoing that tomorrow’s agenda was put in the program of work of the PSC for September. It was not for the first time that the PSC would discuss this tomorrow. On Monday 16 September, the PSC also discussed this agenda after receiving a briefing from the troika of the PSC (the previous, the current, and incoming chairs of the PSC) on their videoconference meeting that they had with the A3 the previous week. After the meeting, the PSC tasked the Committee of Experts to review the two draft resolutions that the A3 proposed in December 2018 and the latest one from August 2019 in order to make proposal to the PSC on the next steps.
The August 2019 draft reflected recent developments since the December 2018 Draft. For example, draft preambular paragraph 17 welcomed ‘the joint Declaration of the Secretary‐General of the United Nations and the Chairperson of the African Union Commission of 6th December 2018’ and preambular paragraph 19 and 20 welcoming work undertaken by the UN Secretariat and the AU in developing and adopting relevant compliance standards. In terms of the operative paragraphs, the August 2019 draft no longer contains the text from the compromise draft postponing the adoption of a framework resolution for another time. Yet, despite keeping the key paragraph ‘deciding in principle that United Nations assessed contributions can be provided, with decisions to be taken on a case‐by‐case basis … to support future African Union‐led peace support operations’, the August 2019 draft has carried much of the new text that was introduced in the compromise draft that France proposed and the A3 and the Africa Group rejected.
The Committee of Experts reviewed the two drafts during their 17th meeting held on 17 September. There is strong view in the PSC that the position of the PSC of 14 December 2018 endorsing the A3 draft needs to be maintained. In this respect, there are concerns that the August 2019 draft with the text from the compromise draft including that which reduced the role of the AU ‘to operational details’ would seriously undermine the mandate of the PSC as provided for in the PSC Protocol. In their report to the PSC tomorrow, the Committee of Experts would also highlight other aspects of the draft that are deemed to mark major departure from the December 2018 draft including the language ‘utilized’, the reporting arrangements and the formulation of the reference to AU’s decision committing to raise 25% of funds for peace and security.
It is therefore expected that the Committee of Experts would advise that the draft resolution should not be submitted to the UNSC for adoption in October 2019. The Committee is also expected to propose that further negotiations are held on the draft focusing on those aspects of the draft resolution that are feared to curtail the mandate of the PSC provided for in its Protocol and seriously limit the scope of flexibility and strategic level political role of the AU in general.
In terms of taking this process forward, there is a need for ensuring that the momentum is not lost. Central to keeping the momentum that has been achieved thus far is engaging the US not only with a view to avoid its use of veto but also importantly achieve, based on further negotiations on the draft, a new more balanced formulation. In this respect, consideration should be given to recalibrate the approach utilized thus far. There is in particular a need for elevating the engagement of the US administration not only at the level of the US Delegation in New York but also at the level of Congress, the State Department and the White House. The opportunity that the UN General Assembly (UNGA) presents for engaging the US administration particularly at most senior levels of the State Department and the White House by the AU PSC ministers and Heads of State and Government including South Africa’s President, as the incoming president of the UNSC leading on the negotiation in the UNSC on the draft resolution, is worth exploring. Similarly, as part of the preparation for the 13th Annual Consultative Meeting of the PSC and the UNSC scheduled for October, consideration should be given to engage, including based on proposed text jointly formulated by the AU Commission and the UN Office to the AU (UNOAU), the permanent five members of the UNSC in general and the US in particular for avoiding a stalemate in the negotiation process.
While no formal outcome is expected from tomorrow’s meeting, depending on the depth of the deliberations and the guidance that the PSC may wish to give on next steps, it may adopt a communique. Such a communique could envisage that the matter is discussed with the A3 both on the side‐lines of the UNGA and during the upcoming visit of the Committee of Experts to New York to discuss preparations for the Annual Consultative Meeting. In the light of the existence of major concerns over the current draft, it could also urge for further negotiations in the interest of keeping the momentum of the process with a more sustained and elevated engagement. It could also task as part of the negotiation process proposed texts for bridging the gap and achieving a more balanced draft are initiated in consultation with the A3.
Consideration and adoption of the conclusions of the Cairo Retreat of the PSC
Amani Africa
Date | 16 September, 2019
Tomorrow (16 September) the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) is expected to hold a session at 10am for the consideration and adoption of the conclusions of the Cairo Retreat of the PSC.
Previously, this agenda was included in the provisional program of works of the PSC for the months of February and April 2019. Tomorrow’s session could bring to a close this postponement in the adoption of the Cairo Retreat conclusions. The Secretariat of the PSC is expected to present the conclusions of the retreat.
It is to be recalled that the Cairo Retreat was held from 29 to 31 October 2018. The retreat was held in pursuit of the decision of the AU Assembly on the Reform of the AU, particularly the dimension of the reform that concerned the PSC. In this respect, the Assembly directed that ‘the Peace and Security Council (PSC) should be reformed to ensure that it meets the ambition foreseen in its Protocol, by strengthening its working methods and its role in conflict prevention and crisis management’. It was as a follow up of its meeting of 25 April 2018 during which the PSC deliberated on the issue of the reform that the PSC convened the Cairo retreat. During the April 2018 meeting, the PSC concluded that the specific details of the PSC reform are to be drawn from the conclusions of the various retreats of the PSC on its working methods held between 2007 to 2017 and the PSC related chapters of the APSA study that the PSD conducted – ‘Study on the Implementation of the African Peace and Security Architecture from 2002 to 2018’.
The draft conclusions drawn up based on the various presentations and the extensive deliberations during the retreat have four parts. The first part is the introduction highlighting brief background of the retreat and summarizing the inputs that served as basis for the deliberations. During the retreat in Cairo the PSC received presentations on ‘a) African Peace and Security Architecture, b) the African Governance Architecture, c) consolidation and enhancement of the working methods of the Peace and Security Council: Rationalization and streamlining, and d) reform of the PSC within the context of the implementation of the AU Assembly decision 635 (Assembly/AU/Dec.635 (XXVIII) on the AU Institutional Reforms’.
The second part of the conclusions present the ‘Achievements of the Peace and Security Council’ since its operationalization in 2004. In this regard, apart from noting its operationalization as well-organized and better prepared AU Organ, in terms of implementation of its mandate the PSC highlighted, among its achievements, the ‘deployment of the various peace support operations and missions in some areas of the Continent affected by conflicts… AMISOM, AMIS, AFISMA, MISCA, LRA, MNJTF,G5 Sahel’ and ‘Seizure and consideration of important thematic issues of relevance to the promotion of peace, security, and stability, as well as development, in Africa.’ In terms of organization of its work, the conclusions highlighted ‘[e]laboration of detailed and predictable provisional monthly programmes of work and the Indicative Annual Programme of Work of the PSC’, ‘[s]treamlining and strengthening the role and work of the African members of the UN Security Council’ and Mobilizing within the AU system for a predictable and sustainable budget for the activities of the PSC and its subsidiary bodies.’
The third part covers ‘[r]ecommendations on enhancing the effectiveness of the Peace and Security Council’. It is this part of the conclusions that identified the areas for the reform of the PSC. At a general level, it is important to note that the retreat ‘stressed the continued relevance of the PSC Protocol to address the evolving challenges and threats to peace and security in the Continent’ and rightly ‘agreed that there is no need to review the PSC Protocol, but to focus on strengthening the PSC in the areas of conflict prevention and crisis management, as well as enhancing its working methods’.
In terms of conflict prevention, the retreat conclusions identified thirteen (13) areas. The major areas for action include ‘[s]trengthening coordination between the PSC and all the supporting APSA and AGA pillars’, ‘[e]stablishing a trigger mechanism and indicators to facilitate the role of the PSC in assessing whether a given situation calls for an early action by the PSC. In this context, the Commission should elaborate the mechanism and indicators for consideration by the PSC. (within the context of operationalization of the CEWS)’ and the ‘need for regular meetings/briefings between the PSC and the Chairperson of the AU Commission and the Commissioner for Peace and Security on peace and security matters in Africa, in line with Article 10 of the PSC Protocol.’
On crisis management, eight (8) areas have been identified. Of these the ones that are of particular significance include, ‘full operationalization of the ASF and its Rapid Deployment Capability, ‘[a]ccelerating the establishment of the institutional and regulatory infrastructure of the AU Peace Fund’, and ‘[e]mpowering the PSC for it to be able to institute individual punitive measures against peace spoiler/obstructionist to realization/restoration of peace in conflict situations’ (i.e. to impose sanctions).
The conclusions identified 15 areas for improvement on its working methods. The major areas worth noting include the ‘imperative for PSC Members to deploy the adequate capacity in terms of Human Resources and equipment, to ensure full and effective participation in the work of the PSC’, ‘[i]mperative for provision for all necessary information on a given conflict/crisis to enable the PSC to take informed decision. To this effect, the PSC agreed to accord itself adequate time to discuss issues on its agenda’, the ‘[n]eed to mainstream voting in the decision-making of the PSC, where and when issues under consideration so necessitate,’ and to ensure that the ‘national interest of the Chairperson of the PSC of the month’ does not ‘interfere or undermine the collective work of the PSC’.
While some of the areas identified in the conclusions have been taken over by developments since the retreat most notably the convening of the PSC meeting with the RECs/RMs policy organs to discuss and agree on modalities for coordination of peace efforts and the elaboration of a manual on PSC working methods based on the outcome documents of the 10 retreats the PSC held since 2007, it would be of interest for PSC members how other aspects of the conclusions particularly those relating to conflict prevention and crisis management would be followed up. From the areas of reform on working methods identified during the Cairo retreat, those requiring further follow up include the decision-making approach of the PSC particularly the introduction of voting, the adoption of a framework for a sanctions regime and modalities for coordination between the PSC and UN Security Council (UNSC) including the African three non-permanent members of the UNSC (A3).
It is not expected that there would be a formal outcome document by way of a communique or press statement. The adoption of the conclusions of the retreat may however lead to the incorporation into the Manual on the Working Methods of the PSC that was finalized and adopted at the Rabat retreat of the PSC held on 24-26 June 2019.
Interaction between the Peace and Security Council and the African Union Commission
Amani Africa
Date | 16 September, 2019
Tomorrow (16 September) the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) is expected to hold an interaction with the AU Commission at 3pm. The Chairperson of the AU Commission, Commissioner for Peace and Security, the Commissioner for Political Affairs and the Commissioner for Rural Economy and Agriculture are expected to participate in the interactive discussion.
The various departments of the Commission have reported and briefed the Council in their respective areas of expertise. Tomorrow’s session aims at assessing the current methods of engagement and based on that to identify ways of enhancing and systematizing the relationship to ensure a more coordinated and regular collaboration between the PSC and AUC.
The issues expected to be discussed during tomorrow’s session include the level of effective execution by the AUC of its roles vis‐à‐vis the peace and security agenda of the AU and review of existing methods of interaction between the PSC and the AUC. In discussing these different issues, consideration is given to the various roles of the AUC.
The AUC as the secretariat of the Union has the responsibility of providing operational support to the PSC. In this respect, the roles of the AUC include preparing reports, briefing notes, other working documents of the PSC and keeping summary records of the meetings of the PSC, to enable the PSC and its subsidiary bodies to perform their functions effectively. Similarly, the PSC protocol recognizes the wide range of roles and responsibilities of the AUC under the leadership of the AUC Chairperson in terms of conflict prevention, agenda setting, and following up on the implementation of the PSC decisions.
In line with the roles and responsibilities identified in article 7 and 10 of the PSC protocol, it would be of interest for the PSC to hear the Chairperson in providing an assessment on how the Commission has discharged its responsibilities in these set standards and in providing operational support for the PSC’s mandate. Consideration is also to be had on strengthening the level and quality as well as predictability of interaction in all phases of conflict from prevention, management and post‐conflict reconstruction as appropriate through the AUC Chairperson, Commissioners, the AUC Departments or the special envoys or representatives of the AUC Chairperson.
Another area for discussion during tomorrow’s session is the role of the various departments of the AUC. In its retreat held in Swakopmund in 2015 the PSC highlighted the need to work closely with a number of actors in order to maintain peace and security in line African Peace and Security Architecture. Towards enhancing conflict prevention, the PSC stressed the need for the department of Political Affairs to ‘attend all PSC meetings and provide regular briefings including those focusing on early warning aspects to the PSC’. Similarly, the Council called on the AUC to ‘intensify its efforts in the area of PCRD, including submission of a report as decided by the Council, on the status of the AU PCRD architecture’. The Council has also tasked the Commission to regularly report on the operationalization of both African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) and African Governance Architecture (AGA).
Given the complementarity of the Departments of Peace and Security (PSD) and Political Affairs (DPA) and the decision within the framework of the reform of the AU to merge the two departments in 2021, tomorrow’s session is also expected to discuss the measures being taken towards smooth process of consolidating the two departments and managing the PSC’s interaction with both departments. The two departments may provide an update on the plans for the merger of the two departments and where the merger process stands.
Tomorrow’s session may also delve into addressing technical and operational issues. Although the various departments provide reports and briefing upon the request of the PSC, the interaction may also be critical in ensuring that the engagements are not ad‐hoc or reactive. In this regard, an issue for discussion is reviewing the working arrangements in terms of the relationship between the PSC and the AUC. These include the role of the AUC in terms of the drafting of the outcome documents of the PSC, in following up with the decisions of the PSC including timely delivery of briefings requested to be delivered within a set time frame, provision of updates on PSC decisions and the predictability in the timely submissions of the reports of the AUC Chairperson. Also significant is the availability of an effectively functioning process for sharing early warning analysis with the PSC and provision of updates on outcomes of PSC sessions requiring follow up.
In this context the PSC and the Commission may wish to agree on preparing calendar of activities on delivery of time specific briefings, updates on previous decisions and on submission of reports of the AUC Chairperson that could feature in the monthly work plan in addition to the other agenda items proposed by the rotating chairs. This will also be a critical step in ensuring the continuity of proper follow up of decisions and to prevent interruption when monthly chairs rotate. This exercise may enable the monthly chairs of the PSC to build on decisions and deliberation from previous month and contribute to their implementation and predictable working practice of the PSC.
The interaction will also offer the Council to map the in‐house capacity in the Commission and ways to adequately make use of the expertise and knowledge of staff in the Commission to ensure informed decision‐making process. This will also essential in addressing siloes and foster inter‐departmental coordination, information sharing and complementarity. It will also enable the PSC and Commission to utilize existing capacity and resources.
In addition to the responsibilities of the departments, the role of AU offices located in various African member states may also be discussed. The PSC may also stress the critical role of its Secretariat. The PSC Secretariat has a wide role in not only following up on the decisions of the Council but also in arranging the meetings of the PSC, preparing the working documents, and keeping records of PSC meetings. By tapping into the vast expertise in the Commission and various offices of the AU, the Secretariat also helps in enabling the PSC to receive the technical inputs that boost the decision‐making process. The Secretariat is in key position in bridging the information sharing and coordination mechanism between the Council with departments in the Commission including those participating in tomorrow’s session.
In this regard and recognizing the expanding role and responsibilities of its Secretariat, the PSC may wish to propose ways of enhancing its capacity. The secretariat has been coordinating the activities of the Council and the operationalization of the ambitious mandate of the Council with limited capacity.
The expected outcome is a communiqué. The PSC may commend the Commission for its efforts in supporting the mandate of the Council. It may call on the Commission to support continuous collaboration through reporting and regular briefing by departments. It may identify calendar of activities that will ensure predictable interaction, bring continuity in the work of the PSC and foster cooperative and more institutionalized interaction with the Commission. It may also highlight on the need to enhance the capacity of its secretariat. In the light of the impending merger of the PSD and DPA, the PSC could request the AUC to present to it a report on the plan and timelines for the merger. It is also expected to decide on having a regular interactive session with the Commission to follow up on tomorrow’s session and institutionalize the assessment of the working relationship between the two.