Open Session on Celebration of Amnesty Month
Amani Africa
Date | 05, September 2019
Tomorrow (5 September) the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) is scheduled to hold an open session to commemorate the celebration of amnesty month. The discussion is expected to focus on the progress made on the implementation of the AU Master Roadmap on silencing the guns by 2020 mainly the challenges and perspectives, with a focus on the Security Sector Reform (SSR) in Africa.
The Department of Peace and Security (PSD), particularly the representative of the Director of PSD and Acting Head of the Division on Defence and Security are expected to deliver briefing to the PSC. Also expected to make a statement is the Head of the UN Office to the AU. The Institute for Security
Studies is expected to present as well. Tomorrow’s session is taking place in line with the 2017 Assembly decision Assembly/AU/Dec.
645(XXIX), which after deliberating on the Inaugural Report of the PSC on the Implementation of the AU Master Roadmap on Practical Steps for Silencing the Guns in Africa by the Year 2020,
declared the month of September each year, up to 2020, as “Africa Amnesty Month” for the surrender and collection of illegally owned weapons/arms. It is expected that tomorrow’s session will address three inter-related thematic issues. The first relates to Security Sector Reform/Governance (SSR/G). The second is the commemoration of the Amnesty Month. The last is the implementation of the AU Roadmap on Silencing the Guns by 2020. In the presentation from the Head of the Defence and Security Division. particular attention is expected to be given to SSR including the AU SSR program and the AU SSR Policy framework.
Tomorrow’s session follows the inaugural meeting of the AU steering committee on security sector reform, held from 3 September 2019 in Addis Ababa.
The Silencing the Guns Roadmap recognizes the challenges around SSR policies. The Roadmap calls on the need to promote ownership of national SSR Programs in member states and the need to stipulate clear obligations and timelines on SSR in peace agreement including putting in place adequate
follow up mechanisms.
For PSC members it would be of interest to identify the challenges relating to SSR in Africa. One set of issues expected to be highlighted is the sensitivities of member states and wrong perceptions that SSR concerns only post-conflict situations. Studies also show that another challenge in SSR relate to civilian possession and use of small arms and weapons. The recent report by the AUC and Small Arms Survey ‘Weapons Compass: Mapping Illicit Small Arms Flows in Africa’ has noted that civilian actors including individuals, private businesses and nonstate armed groups hold almost 80% of small arms on the continent. Among the civilian held firearms only around 10% has been registered.
This is also an indication that security regimes in various African countries have been characterised by a range of non-state actors, including private security companies, local militias, guerrilla armies, community self-policing groups and others. With the lack or weakening monopoly use of force by the state particularly in countries affected by violence leads to the emergence of reliance by individuals and communities on self-organized security provision. While a locally driven SSR is key in designing a
tailored approach, account should be had to the transnational nature of insecurities. This also requires enhanced coordination among the security institutions of neighbouring countries including through the Regional Economic Communities/Mechanisms and the AU SSR processes.
Tomorrow’s session may also highlight that SSR is not solely a security matter and may call on for a comprehensive approach to reform encompassing state-society relationship. Therefore, its effective implementation may require the concerted efforts and cooperation among wide range of institutions in the government structure and the public at large. There is also the challenge of effective formulation and proper implementation of SSR provisions in peace agreements. As the experiences of South Sudan and the Central African Republic show, this is one of the major sources of disruption of peace processes. In the light of the return of countries to conflict after signing of peace agreements, there is also interest in post-conflict reconstruction and development. Hence the PSC and participants may reflect on how to sustain peace including through enhanced consideration of the SSR dimension of peace and post-conflict processes.
In terms of the amnesty month, the recent report on small arms and light weapons referred to above highlighted the need for focusing on private possession and use of small arms and light weapons. In this regard the 860th meeting of the PSC stressed ‘the need for improved measures to regulate nonstate actor possession of small arms and light weapons, in order to prevent the diversion or misuse
of weapons and encourages Member States to implement initiatives that are in line with the Africa Amnesty Month’.
However, there is a need for national level measures including the boosting of state-based provision of security services for encouraging the surrender of weapons in the hands of non-state actors and reporting on how and whether member states are observing the Amnesty month. Central to this is the need for finding ways of establishing or restoring the capacity particularly of states lacking effective provision of security to all their populations. This is directly linked to security sector governance as a measure of conflict prevention.
With respect to the AU Roadmap on Silencing the Guns, tomorrow’s session affords an opportunity for taking stock of where implementation of the Roadmap stands and the progress made towards achieving its ambitious objectives. Also important is the lessons to be learned from the process of elaboration and implementation of the Roadmap, including in terms of identification of areas of intervention and effective implementation of relevant measures. With 2020 only months away, it would be of particular interest to PSC members to discuss what will happen post-2020.
The expected outcome of the session is a press statement. The Council may highlight that the prospects for sustainable peace and stability are ensured by the extent to which SSR is anchored on the state of security broadly defined, instead of a narrow focus on certain security institutions. The PSC may reiterate its previous decisions for Member States and RECs/Regional Mechanisms to submit reports to Council, through the AUC, on the actions taken in implementing the Africa Amnesty Month, to feed in its report to the upcoming Assembly. With respect to the Roadmap on Silencing the Guns by 2020, the PSC could request the AU Commission to provide it with a comprehensive report reviewing implementation of the Roadmap and proposing on how the agenda on silencing the guns by 2020 will be followed up post-2020.
Kenya-Somalia maritime boundary dispute
Amani Africa
Date | 03 September, 2019
Today (3 September) at 3pm the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) will hold a session on the maritime boundary dispute between Kenya and Somalia. This session is a follow up to the earlier 871st session of the PSC. It was put on the agenda following a request from Kenya for this matter to be considered by the PSC.
While Kenya and Somalia have been debating the delimitation of their maritime boundaries since 2009, in recent years the tension over the boundary dispute shows signs of boiling over. Following the signing in 2009 of a ‘Memorandum of Understanding between the Government of the Republic of Kenya and the Transitional Federal Government of the Somali Republic to grant to each other No-Objection in respect of submissions on the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf’, Somalia and Kenya made a submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), whose role is to make recommendations to coastal States on matters related to the establishment of the outer limits of their continental shelf (as per the MoU both within and beyond) 200 nautical miles. As provided for in the MoU, the CLCS’s process is limited to the delineation of the continental shelf and is to be without prejudice to the delimitation of the maritime boundary between the two parties.
It was agreed in the MoU that the delimitation of their maritime boundaries, in the areas under dispute to be ‘on the basis of international law.’ While the CLCS process for the delimitation of the continental shelf was underway, in 2014, Somalia instituted proceedings against Kenya at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) requesting the latter to determine, on the basis of international law, the complete course of the single maritime boundary dividing all the maritime areas appertaining to Somalia and to Kenya in the Indian Ocean, including the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.
The proceeding before the ICJ has gone through various stages. Following the institution of the proceeding, the ICJ received submissions from both Kenya and Somalia. Pursuant to the procedures of the ICJ, Kenya made submissions raising objections to the jurisdiction of the ICJ and to the admissibility of Somalia’s application before ICJ in October 2015. The ICJ as per its procedures received the observations of Somalia on Kenya’s objections in February 2016. In September 2016, the ICJ as per established practice held public hearings on Kenya’s preliminary objections. Following review of the written submissions as well as those in the public hearings, the ICJ delivered its judgment on Kenya’s preliminary objection in February 2017. With Kenya’s objections rejected by the ICJ, the proceeding moved to the next stage involving consideration of the submissions of the two states on the merits of the case. During the remaining period of 2017 and in 2018, ICJ received counter memorial from Kenya. After granting the submission of a reply by Somalia and a rejoinder by Kenya, the ICJ has proceeded to receive to receive the reply by Somalia to Kenya’s counter memorial and Kenya’s rejoinder to Somalia’s reply.
Currently, the proceeding is at a stage for conducting public hearings. To this end, the ICJ has set the period between 9 and 13 September for holding public hearings on the merits of the case.
Kenya objected to the proceedings before the ICJ. It was of the opinion that the 2009 MoU, which the ICJ considered to be a treaty binding under international law, required the two countries to negotiate delimitation of the disputed boundary, and to do so only after completion of CLCS review of the submissions that the two states made on the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. It was also Kenya’s view that the MoU has set the method of negotiation for delimitation of the disputed boundary.
As the ICJ proceedings continue unabated and efforts for settling the matter out of the ICJ process failing, tensions have been mounting between Kenya and Somalia. The tension boiled over particularly after reports that Somalia plans to auction for oil exploration blocks in the disputed area during an event held in London in early February 2019. In response, Kenya recalled its ambassador to Somalia, Lukas Tumbo, and summoned his Somali counterpart in Kenya, Mohamoud Nur, demanding a withdrawal of the maps that were displayed in London. Various developments including disputes over the treatment of Somalia officials in Kenya and air travel between the two countries have in the ensuing months have further exacerbated the tension. There are legitimate concerns that the situation also endangers the peace process in Somalia, particularly AMISOM for which Kenya is a major contributor. These concerns also relate to the impact this mounting tension would have over Kenya’s role as the major host of Somalia refugees.
As noted above, the PSC considered the issue for the first time at its 871th session held on 22 August 2019. While Kenya presented a briefing statement during that session, Somalia declined to attend the session sending instead a note verbal indicating that the matter was pending before ICJ. While invitations have been extended to it, it was not clear if Somalia would participate in today’s session.
A major sticking point relates to the possibility of settling the matter out of court. If efforts made thus far including intervention by Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed are anything to go by, it seems unlikely that the ICJ proceeding will stop. It also remains unclear there is a way for the PSC to stop the ICJ process at this point in time other than through the agreement of the two states (Of course the PSC can appeal to the ICJ to the sensitivities of the situation for peace and security and speed up the process).
Yet in the light of the escalating situation, the PSC has a role to play. As pointed out in the AU’s User Guide on African Border Dispute Settlement pointed out, ‘[b]oundary disputes are not only of concern for the States that directly contest the boundary; they can affect the stability of the international system as a whole. Accordingly, the system of international dispute settlement provides a role for regional and international organisations – such as the African Union and the United Nations – to facilitate boundary dispute resolution.’ Within this context, it is possible and even necessary that the PSC, parallel to the ICJ, initiates measures to de-escalate the tension between the two countries and ensure that it would not lead to conflicts. Perhaps part of the effort is to find ways of mitigating the fall out that may arise from the eventual outcome of the ICJ process.
At the time of going to press, it remained unclear the form that the outcome of the session would take. If there would be an official outcome, it is sure to be a communique. It is expected that the PSC will urge the two countries from taking actions that would exacerbate the crisis. It is also possible for the PSC to urge the two states to avail themselves for a mediation process that the AU and the regional organization the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) could facilitate.
PSC Session on Kenya-Somalia maritime boundary dispute
Amani Africa
Date | 3 September, 2019
Today (3 September) at 3pm the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) will hold a session on the maritime boundary dispute between Kenya and Somalia. This session is a follow up to the earlier 871st session of the PSC.
It was put on the agenda following a request from Kenya for this matter to be considered by the PSC. While Kenya and Somalia have been debating the delimitation of their maritime boundaries since 2009, in recent years the tension over the boundary dispute shows signs of boiling over.
Following the signing in 2009 of a ‘Memorandum of Understanding between the
Government of the Republic of Kenya and the Transitional Federal Government of the Somali Republic to grant to each other No-Objection in respect of submissions on the Outer Limits of the Continental Shelf beyond 200 Nautical Miles to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf’, Somalia and Kenya made a
submission to the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf (CLCS), whose role is to make recommendations to coastal States on matters related to the establishment of the outer limits of their continental shelf (as per the MoU both within and beyond) 200 nautical miles. As provided for in the MoU, the CLCS’s process is limited to the delineation of the continental shelf and is to be without prejudice to the delimitation of the maritime boundary between the two parties.
It was agreed in the MoU that the delimitation of their maritime boundaries, in the areas under dispute to be ‘on the basis of international law.’ While the CLCS process for the delimitation of the continental shelf was underway, in 2014, Somalia instituted proceedings against Kenya at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) requesting the latter to determine, on the basis of international law, the complete course of the single maritime boundary dividing all the maritime areas appertaining to Somalia and to Kenya in the Indian Ocean, including the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles.
The proceeding before the ICJ has gone through various stages. Following the institution of the proceeding, the ICJ received submissions from both Kenya and Somalia. Pursuant to the procedures of the ICJ, Kenya made submissions raising objections to the jurisdiction of the ICJ and to the admissibility of Somalia’s application before ICJ in October 2015. The ICJ as per its procedures received the observations of Somalia on Kenya’s objections in February 2016. In September 2016, the ICJ as per established practice held public hearings on Kenya’s preliminary objections. Following review of the written submissions as well as those in the public hearings, the ICJ delivered its judgment on Kenya’s preliminary objection in February 2017. With Kenya’s objections rejected by the ICJ, the proceeding moved to the next stage
involving consideration of the submissions of the two states on the merits of the case. During
the remaining period of 2017 and in 2018, ICJ received counter memorial from Kenya. After granting the submission of a reply by Somalia and a rejoinder by Kenya, the ICJ has proceeded to receive to receive the reply by Somalia to Kenya’s counter memorial and Kenya’s rejoinder to Somalia’s reply.
TCurrently, the proceeding is at a stage for conducting public hearings. To this end, the ICJ has set the period between 9 and 13 September for holding public hearings on the merits of the
case. Kenya objected to the proceedings before the ICJ. It was of the opinion that the 2009 MoU, which the ICJ considered to be a treaty binding under international law, required the two countries to negotiate delimitation of the disputed boundary, and to do so only after completion of CLCS review of the submissions that the two states made on the delineation of the outer limits of the continental shelf beyond 200 nautical miles. It was also Kenya’s view that the MoU has set the method of negotiation for delimitation of the disputed boundary.
TAs the ICJ proceedings continue unabated and efforts for settling the matter out of the ICJ process failing, tensions have been mounting between Kenya and Somalia. The tension boiled over particularly after reports that Somalia plans to auction for oil exploration blocks in the disputed area during an event held in London in early February 2019. In response, Kenya recalled its ambassador to Somalia, Lukas Tumbo, and summoned his Somali counterpart in Kenya, Mohamoud Nur, demanding a withdrawal of the maps that were displayed in London. Various developments including disputes over the treatment of Somalia officials in Kenya and air travel between the two countries have in the ensuing months have further exacerbated the tension. There are
legitimate concerns that the situation also endangers the peace process in Somalia, particularly AMISOM for which Kenya is a major contributor. These concerns also relate to the impact this mounting tension would have over Kenya’s role as the major host of Somalia refugees.
TAs noted above, the PSC considered the issue for the first time at its 871th session held on 22 August 2019. While Kenya presented a briefing statement during that session, Somalia declined to attend the session sending instead a note verbal indicating that the matter was pending before ICJ. While invitations have been extended to it, it was not clear if Somalia would participate in today’s session.
TA major sticking point relates to the possibility of settling the matter out of court. If efforts made thus far including intervention by Ethiopia’s Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed are anything to go by, it seems unlikely that the ICJ proceeding will stop. It also remains unclear there is a way for the PSC to stop the ICJ process at this point in time other than through the agreement of the two states (Of course the
PSC can appeal to the ICJ to the sensitivities of the situation for peace and security and speed
up the process).
TYet in the light of the escalating situation, the PSC has a role to play. As pointed out in the AU’s User Guide on African Border Dispute Settlement pointed out, ‘[b]oundary disputes are not only of concern for the States that directly contest the boundary; they can affect the stability of the international system as a whole. Accordingly, the system of international dispute settlement provides a role for regional and international organisations – such as the African Union and the United Nations – to facilitate boundary dispute resolution.’ Within this context, it is possible and even necessary that the PSC, parallel to the ICJ, initiates measures to de-escalate the tension between the two countries and ensure that it would not lead to conflicts. Perhaps part of the effort is to find ways of mitigating the fall out that may arise from the eventual outcome of the ICJ process.
TAt the time of going to press, it remained unclear the form that the outcome of the session would take. If there would be an official outcome, it is sure to be a communique. It is expected that the PSC will urge the two countries from taking actions that would exacerbate the crisis. It is also possible for the PSC to urge the two states to avail themselves for a mediation process that the AU and the regional organization the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) could facilitate.
Provisional program of work for the month of September 2019
Amani Africa
Date | September 2019
Morocco assumes the role of the monthly chairpersonship of the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) for the month of September. The provisional program of work includes some seven meetings, which includes two open sessions, one country specific session and a ministerial meeting on the margins of the UN General Assembly.
On 3 September the PSC is expected to hold its first session of the month and it will consider three agenda items. First, the PSC is expected to interact with the AU Commission particularly the Departments of Peace and Security and of Political Affairs. Second is the initial preparatory meeting for the PSC ministerial session on the margins of the 74th UN General Assembly in New York. Third, the PSC is also expected to adopt its program of work for the month of October.
The first open session of the month is scheduled to take place on 5 September. Convened as part of commemorating the annual Amnesty month, the open session is expected to discuss the ‘Progress
made on the implementation of the AU Master Roadmap on Silencing the Guns by 2020: challenges and perspectives, with a particular focus on the Security Sector Reform (SSR) in Africa.’
The second open session of the month is expected to be held on 10 September. It is expected to focus on climate change and its impact on island states in Africa. On the same day, the PSC is expected to hold a preparatory meeting for both the annual joint AU PSC and EU Political and Security Committee meeting and AUPSC and UN Security Council meeting.
On 12 September, the PSC will consider two agenda items. In the first part of the session it is expected to receive an update on the situation in the Central African Republic with the particular focus on transitional justice. In the second agenda, the Council is scheduled to receive a briefing on mediation and prevention of conflicts in Africa.
The following day on 13 September the PSC is expected to have a session with three agenda items. First it will consider the return of foreign terrorist fighters and the threat to peace and security in Africa. Following this, it is expected to consider the report of the AUC Chairperson on the harmonization of the ACIRC within the ASF. And lastly it will have a review of the preparation for the ministerial meeting of the PSC expected to take place on the margins of the UNGA.
The 74th session of the UNGA is expected to take place from 17-29 September and on the 25 September the PSC will hold a ministerial meeting on the ‘Interdependence between peace, security and development: towards a pact of collective responsibility’.
The last session of the month will be held on 30 September. The agenda of the session is the fight against the recruitment of children in armed groups in Africa.
In addition to these agenda items, the provisional program of the month also envisions in footnotes a videoconference of the PSC Troika with the Chair of the Security Council in preparation for the annual consultative meeting between the PSC and the UNSC. Moreover, meetings of the committee of experts and military staff committee are also expected to take place in the course of the month.
