Emergency session on the Situation in Sudan
Amani Africa
Date | 6 June, 2019
Tomorrow (6 June) the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC) will hold an emergency session on the situation in Sudan. As this was not initially planned in the provisional program of work of the PSC for June, the session was agreed on following an informal consultation that the PSC had on Monday morning 3 June 2019.
It is expected that the Moussa Faki Mahamat, Chairperson of the Commission, who has been tasked to follow the situation in Sudan and brief the PSC, will brief the PSC on the most recent developments. Sierra Leone’s Permanente Representative to the AU, Ambassador Brima Patrick Kapuwa, the PSC Chairperson of the month, will also make an opening remark. As per established PSC practice, the representatives of Sudan, and Ethiopia, as Chair of the regional body the Inter-Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD), are also expected to make statements.
Tomorrow’s session follows the latest developments indicating the deterioration of the situation in Sudan. According to various reports, on 3 June a group from the security forces initiated an operation for dispersing the sit-in camp near the military headquarters that has been the epicentre of the protest movement in the days before and since the removal of the country’s long-time President Omer Hassen al Bashir. The accounts of various reports and media footage show that the security forces used live ammunitions and tear gas. While initial reports put the death toll from the violent crackdown at over 30 people, the most recent
reports indicate that it has reached over 60 people. Hundreds of other people have also reportedly been injured.
There were also reports of hospitals and clinics, where the wounded were receiving emergency treatment, being besieged and attacked. Following this incident, the Sudanese Professionals Association (SPA), coordinating body of the protest movement, announced its suspension of all communication with the TMC and called for sweeping civil disobedience against the military council. The Forces for Declaration of Freedom and Change (FDFC), which represented the protesters and various opposition forces, also called for the end of military rule. The head of the TMC Abdul Fattah Al-Burhan announced plans for holding elections in a period of nine months. He also declared that the agreements reached with the civilian stakeholders have also been scrapped.
There are concerns that these developments affect the negotiations for the formation of a civilian-led transition in at least two ways. First, the events of 3 June and the subsequent
announcement from both sides has brought the negotiation to a halt. Second, these developments have also reversed the progress made in the negotiations. It is to be recalled that the PSC in its communique of the 852nd session noted the progress made including in particular ‘with regard to the agreement reached on duration of the Transition, the Transitional Institutions and the priorities of the transition’. Another issue for the PSC in the light of these difficult set of situations is whether there is a realistic prospect for an agreement to form a
civilian-led transitional authority after the 3 June tragic events and the rescinding of the agreements reached between the TMC and the FDFC. Central to this question is the implication of the language civilian-led transition vis-à-vis the leadership of the sovereign council.
The AUC Chairperson, Moussa Faki Mahamat, has released a statement on 3 June. In the statement, he expressed his strong condemnation of the violence and called for ‘an immediate and transparent investigation in order to hold those all responsible accountable’. The statement further stated the demand that
the Sudanese stakeholders return to the negotiations urgently in order to arrive at an inclusive accord, which paves the way for a civilian-led Transitional Authority.
On 4 June, the UN Security Council held an emergency meeting called by the United
Kingdom and Germany. While the Council members did not agree on an outcome document, many have expressed concern over the violence against protesters. The UK condemning the violent crackdown killing so many protesters called for agreed transfer of power to civilian-led government. Germany on its part, noting that legitimacy cannot come from the barrel of a gun, stressed ‘the urgent need for a return to the negotiation table to bring about an inclusive, civilian-led transitional government.’ It was reported that Russia during the emergency session of the Council insisted that the Council should await the response of the AU.
For members of the PSC, there are at least two issues that the current situation presents. The first of this is whether under the current circumstances the PSC can continue to wait until the end of the two-month period it set at its 846th session before determining the application of the measures envisaged under the Lome Decalration of 2000 after a military seized power. At the heart of this question is if these are not the kind of situations envisaged in the PSC’s affirmation at its 852nd session that ‘it shall, at any time deemed appropriate in view of the prevailing circumstances in the country, take the necessary measures, including imposition of sanctions, in line with article 7(g) of its Protocol’.
The other issue on which PSC members may wish to get Mahamat’s view is what the
prospects are for the parties to return back to the negotiating table to continue from where the negotiations stopped. While Burhan in his Eid celebrations address expressed regret about the civilian casualties and affirmed readiness for negotiations, it remains uncertain if the SPA and FDFC will accept resumption of talks and if the negotiations will be from scratch or continue from where they stopped.
An IGAD meeting at the level of Ambassadors has been called. It is expected that the meeting will deliberate on how to respond to the latest developments and on a plan to dispatch a delegation to Khartoum. While IGAD has clearly been slow to respond, the outcome of this meeting informs the position that the Chair of IGAD will present during tomorrow’s session. From the deliberations of the meeting IGAD aligns its position with that of the AU. It is noteworthy that IGAD does not have similar rules against military takeover of power and the measures envisaged under the Lome Decalration.
The expected outcome of the session is a communique. Depending on whether the PSC decides to apply the Lome Declaration, there are major implications in terms of AU’s zero tolerance position vis à-vis military takeover of power. Even if the PSC decides to apply the measures envisaged in the Lome Declaration by imposing suspension, it would still require, as envisaged in the Declaration, to institute a process to facilitate negotiations towards transfer of power to a civilian-led authority paving the way for restoration of constitutional order in Sudan. Thus, apart from reiterating the statement of the AUC Chairperson of the Commission condemning the violence against unarmed protesters and demanding independent investigation, the PSC may, in terms of resumption of negotiations, additionally consider to affirm the continued validity of the agreements reached thus far and request the AUC Chair to designate a highrepresentative that will, working with the UN Special Envoy, facilitate the resumption of negotiations for the establishment of a civilianled transitional authority.
PSC provisional program of work for June 2019
Amani Africa
Date | June 2019
For the month of June 2019, Sierra Leone will assume the role of chairing the African Union (AU) Peace and Security Council (PSC). Prepared under the leadership of Sierra Leone’s Permanente Representative to the AU Brima Patrick Kapuwa, the provisional program of work of the PSC for the month adopted on 7 May envisages some nine sessions. These includeeight closed sessions and one open session.Two of the closed sessions will focus on two country situations. During the month there is also a planned PSC retreat.
On 4 June, the monthly PSC program of work starts with a session deliberating on two agenda items. The first is the preparation for the African Amnesty month within the context of the AU Master Roadmap to Silence the Guns by the Year 2020 and building momentum for the effective implementation of the Agenda 2063 goals. Among others, this is expected to review the state of continental and regional efforts for effectively addressing illicit movement of Small Arms and Light Weapons (SALW), one of the major drivers of conflict in Africa.
The following day on 5 June the committee of experts will meet to engage in preparatory works for two planned PSC activities. The first preparatory meeting is on PSC retreat that is planned to take place in Rabat, Morocco in the last week of June and is expected to work on the agenda and working documents of the retreat. The other is the preparation for the 13th Annual Joint Consultative Meeting with the UN
Security Council.
On 6 June, the PSC is scheduled to have two agenda items. It will have the first country specific session on the situation in Guinea Bissau. As a major country of concern for West Africa it was initially on the agenda when Nigeria was chairing the PSC, however the session could not be held. Guinea Bissau is brought back on the agenda for June under Sierra Leone. The PSC is expected to receive update on the political stalemate in the country following the March 2019 parliamentary election that prevented the formation of a new government, exacerbating the existing precarious political and socio-economic situation.
The second agenda of the day is a briefing on elections in Africa. This is the periodic briefing that the AU Department of Political Affairs regularly presents to the PSC. It is expected to give update on elections held since the last briefing and on the upcoming elections. On 11 June, the PSC will have its second session on a country situation, focusing on South Sudan. This will focus on the steps being taken and challenges faced in the implementation of the revitalized peace agreement, including where the process for the formation of the national unity government stands.
On 13 June, the PSC will deliberate on three agenda items. First, it will consider the renewal of UNAMID mandate which will end on 30 June. The session is expected to provide clarity on the kind of conditions under which the mandate will be renewed in the context of the contested transition under way following the military coup in Sudan. Subsequently, building on the preparatory work of the committee of
experts undertaken earlier in the month, the PSC willconsider two preparatory activities, namely the preparations for the 13th Annual Joint Consultative Meeting with the UNSC and for the PSC retreat expected to take place in Rabat at the end of the Month.
On 14 June, the PSC is expected to receive and consider the report of the Chairperson of the AU Commission on the implementation of Post-Conflict Reconstruction and Development Policy, including the institutional and operational developments.
The one open session of the month is planned to take place on 20 June to commemorate the African Refugee Day. It is expected to be held under the theme ‘Advancing Refugee Protection in Africa in the Context of Human Rights’. The operationalization of the African Humanitarian deliberations.
On 21 June, the PSC will receive an update on the AU peace support operations doctrine and the monthly briefing on the harmonization of the ACIRIC within ASF.
After the retreat from 24-26 June, the last activity of the month will take place on 28 June on the briefing by the Chairperson of the PSC to the PRC on the activities of the PSC during the
month of June. In addition to these agenda items, the provisional program of the month also envisions in footnotes additional items that may be added in the course of the month. These include the three-week update by the Chairperson of the AU Commission on the situation in Sudan. Additionally, meeting of the Military Staff
Committee may also take place.
Inaugural Consultative Meeting of the Peace and Security Council and Regional Economic Communities (RECs)/Regional Mechanisms (RMs)
Inaugural Consultative Meeting of the Peace and Security Council and Regional Economic Communities (RECs)/Regional Mechanisms (RMs)
Date | 23 May, 2019
Tomorrow (24 May) the African Union (AU) Peace and Security council (PSC) will convene its 852 session on the inaugural consultative meeting of the PSC and the peace and security decision-making organs of Regional Economic Communities/Regional Mechanisms (RECs/RMs).
The session convened in line with Article 16 of the PSC Protocol and the conclusions of the various retreats of the PSC convened over many years on its working methods. As the first consultative meeting being convened 15 years after the coming into effect of the PSC, this session is also a reflection of the institutional reform of the AU, which puts emphasis on enhancing close working relationship and coordination with the policy organs of the RECs/RMs.
The AU Commission is expected to present by way of a report a background document on the Inaugural Meeting of the AU PSC and the Policy Organs of the RECs/RMs for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution on Promotion of Peace, Security and Stability in Africa. Accordingly, the focus is not on the interface between the AU Commission and the secretariats of the RECs/RMs but on the PSC and the policy decision-making organs of the RECs/RMs.
The chairpersons of nine RECs/RMs peace and security policy decision-making organs are expected to participate. These are Chad as Chair of CEN-SAD, Ethiopia as Chair of IGAD, Gabon as Chair of ECCAS and the Peace and Security Council of ECCAS, Madagascar as Chair of COMESA, Namibia as Chair of SADC and SADC Political and Defense Organ, Nigeria as Chair of ECOWAS and the Mediation and Security Community of ECOWAS, Rwanda as Chair of EAC and Tunisia as Chair of UMA. Additionally, invitation has also been extended for all Executive Secretaries of the RECs/RMs to participate in this inaugural consultative meeting.
In terms of defining the outline for coordination between the two levels, there is no lack of adequate legal rules. Article 7(1) (e) of the Protocol enjoins the PSC ‘promote close harmonization, co-ordination and co-operation between Regional Mechanisms and the Union in the promotion and maintenance of peace, security and stability in Africa’. Most importantly, Article 16 of the Protocol articulates the place of RECs/RMs in the Africa Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) and outlines at some length the details of how the PSC together with the Chairperson of the AU Commission shall go about developing policy coordination and close working relationship with RECs/RMs. With nine sub-articles, Article 16 is the longest and most detail of the PSC Protocol articles that define relationships between the PSC and other actors.
While acknowledging the primary role of the PSC, Article 16 affirms that RECs/RMs ‘are part of the overall Security Architecture of the Union’. Its sub-article 1 emphasizes the need for aligning the role of RECs/RMs with the objectives and principles of the AU. It further underscores the need for enduring ‘effective partnership between them and the PSC in the maintenance of peace and security’. Eschewing a one size fits all approach, it envisions that such effective partnership is to be pursued on the basis of ‘the comparative advantage of each and the prevailing circumstances’. Other than requiring alignment of normative objectives and principles, this approach does not consider a rigid and hierarchical relationship between the two levels. Instead it opts for a flexible approach leveraging the comparative advantage of both the PSC and RECs/RMs. Thus, sub-article 2 of Article 16 envisions a consultative decision- making process.
In terms of how the close working relationship and the coordination of policy is to be operationalized, sub-article 6 of Article 16 provides that RECs/RMs ‘shall be invited to participate in the discussion of any question brought before the Peace and Security Council whenever that question is being addressed by a regional mechanism is of special interest to that organization.’ In undertaking conflict prevention, peacemaking and peace building functions, the PSC and RECs/RMs are required under sub-article 3 of Article 16 to fully and continuously inform each other of their activities.
As highlighted in the background document for the meeting, these detailed provisions have been complemented with further provisions elaborated in the conclusions of the various retreats of the PSC on its working methods. Most notable in this regard are the May 2015 Swakopmund and the September 2015 Abuja retreats of the PSC.
There have been two major gaps that have led to the lack of effective coordination between the PSC and RECs/RMs. The first of this was the non-implementation of both the provisions of Article 16 of the PSC Protocol and the relevant conclusions of the PSC Retreats on its Working Methods. This was despite the fact that for at least the past few years the indicative annual program of work of the PSC envisaged the convening of the annual consultative meeting envisaged in Article 16 of the Protocol. The other was the lack of initiative for developing the kind of arrangements and mechanisms established for the PSC – UN Security Council relationship for the operationalization of the provisions Article 16 on policy coordination and close working relationship.
Experience from various conflict situations show that the resultant lack of effective and institutionalized policy coordination between the two levels has produced increasing disaffection on both sides. While tomorrow’s consultative meeting is long overdue, it is key for addressing the growing challenges of policy coherence and coordinated action in responding to conflicts. As the PSC’s role in conflict prevention, management and resolution has become institutionalized and the role of RECs/RMs in this area shows expansion, the instances for policy divergence and dissonance has also increased over the years. Such differences and uncoordinated interventions have been observed in a number of conflict situations. In the past this has been the case with respect to the situations in Cote d’Ivoire, Madagascar, Guinea Bissau, Mali and Central African Republic (CAR). In recent years, this has been evident in the situations in Burundi and South Sudan. In some of these cases, there has been normative disconnect between the two levels. This is particularly notable with respect to situations involving electoral disputes and unconstitutional changes of government.
Apart from the impact of such divergent policy approaches and uncoordinated interventions in fragmenting peace and security decision- making on the continent, they have importantly undermined the effort for the resolution of conflicts, thereby allowing the conflicts to rage on perpetuating the suffering of the affected populations.
It is expected that apart from the foregoing, the background document for the meeting will outline other gaps observed in PSC – RECs/RMs peace and security decision-making processes. These notably include lack of clear criteria for determining the application of the principle of subsidiarity, lack of clarity on the format and mechanics of organization of the consultative meetings, lack of clarity on horizontal coordination among RECs and the role of the PSC in facilitating such horizontal coordination, the challenges arising from trans-regional security threats that don’t fall within the jurisdiction of no one REC/RM, and lack of clarity on decision-making role between the PSC and RECs/RMs on the mandating and deployment of the African Standby Forces.
Another area worth looking into in this context is the need for reviewing whether and how the legal instruments or decisions of policy-making organs of RECs/RMs established provisions recognizing the role of the PSC similar to those found in Article 16 of the PSC Protocol. Such provisions will prove critical not only to give legal basis in RECs/RMs instruments but also to institutionalize mutual recognition and close working relationship between the two levels. Such provisions are also key for institutionalized operationalization of one of the conclusions of the September 2015 Abuja PSC Retreat, which stipulates that ‘RECs/RMs shall extend invitations to the AUC Chairperson and the Chairperson of the PSC in their statutory and other decision-making meetings on peace and security.’
In terms of the operationalization of the principles of subsidiary, complementarity and comparative advantage, the annual consultative meeting may take lessons and best practices from AU-UN partnership on peace and security. This entails that instead of rigid application of principles, they should recognize that both levels have a role to play and engage in joint analysis of the situation and joint formulation of policy options which ensure policy coherence and joint collective action that leverages the role and contribution of each. Other best practice include the joint field visits to conflict situations, thus the PSC and the concerned REC/RM can plan and undertake joint field visits as a means of enhancing collective action and policy coherence.
Taking stock of the forgoing and the experience in PSC and RECs/RMs relationship, the annual consultative meeting can identify the best practices thus far and the remaining challenges. In this regard, one measure that the annual consultative meeting can establish is to consolidate into one coherent and authoritative document the various modalities and frameworks for cooperation articulated in diverse documents. On the basis of such single document that consolidates best practices and articulated additional options for coordination, the PSC and the policy organs of RECs/RMs on peace and security can develop and sign a memorandum of understanding or framework agreement.
It is expected that the outcome of the consultative meeting would take the form of Proposals/Recommendations on Harmonisation and Coordination of Decision Making Processes/Division of Labour between the AU and RECs in the area of peace and security. This is expected to be part of the working documents that will be considered during the inaugural AU-RECs/RMs summit to be held in Niamey, Niger on 4-5 July 2019. The Proposals/Recommendations are to outline agreed interpretation of the principles that govern relationships between the PSC and RECs/RMs peace and security policy organs and the modalities, format and timelines for coherent policy making and operational coordination of interventions.
