The African Union is the natural arbiter of conflict in Africa. But it is conspicuously absent in current peace efforts in Sudan. On its stead, the Arab League on Sunday, 7th May, issued a resolution to form an Arab ministerial contact group to address the Sudan conflict.

The resolution was made during the Council’s emergency meeting in Cairo, Egypt. This followed the start of “pre-negotiation” talks in Saudi Arabia between warring factions under joint US-Saudi efforts on May 6.

These commendable efforts raise an important question: where are IGAD and the African Union, the natural arbiters of such conflicts at sub-regional and regional levels? Do outsiders leading peace efforts not undermine Africa’s regional organizations by hijacking their primacy in resolving the same?

Where is the African Union?

The question that arises in light of Arab League and US-Saudi-led efforts to resolve the Sudan conflict is, where is the African Union? Until recently, the AU was very active and highly involved in Sudan peace efforts. It was central to key events in the aftermath of the 2019 revolution that led to the August 2019 transitional agreement. It was also highly involved in the 2020 Juba Agreement with Sudanese armed groups, which brought some level of normalcy.

The AU Peace and Security Council suspended Sudan in October 2021 following a coup that ousted Prime Minister Abdalla Hamdok. This was equally key to reigning upon the warring sides. Furthermore, AU Chairperson, H.E. Moussa Faki Mahamat, has frequently traveled to Sudan in recent years to quicken the country’s return to a civilian-led government and timely elections. Overall, the AU has been leading peace efforts in Sudan.

But in a rather odd turn of events, the AU has scarcely featured in significant peace efforts since the 15th of April 2023 when the warring parties started armed confrontations. The most it has since done was to convene a high-level ministerial meeting of international actors on 20 April 2023, calling for a coordinated international response, and most recently, at the beginning of this month, issue an appeal for a ceasefire.

It is safe to say that presently, the AU is only a spectator, while non-Africans are lead actors in the Sudan conflict. This is a bad idea, regardless of the intentions and notwithstanding the urgency for peace. It is bad for Sudan because it will not yield sustainable peace, as experience has shown. And it is bad in the wider context of resolving conflicts in Africa because it undermines the AU.

African Solutions to African Problems

AU’s Peace & Security Council (PSC) is charged with promoting peace and security on the continent. This is in accordance with Article 52 of the UN Charter which requires the peaceful settlement of local disputes through regional organizations. In line with this, and considering the conflict situations in Africa, AU has prioritized “African solutions to African problems”. The notion, which has previously been dismissed as utopian, was recently, successfully applied in Ethiopia.

So, naturally, one would have expected AU to replicate this African solution to the Sudan conflict. Its success in Ethiopia should have also cleared any doubts regarding its capability. Indeed, any well-meaning international partner would be only too glad to let the AU lead similar peace efforts in Sudan.

In this context, disregarding AU raises suspicions regarding the motives of foreign powers. It justifies the fear that they are fighting for their interests in Sudan. That is the only plausible explanation for disregarding AU’s proven homegrown solution for an experiment with previously failed foreign solutions.

Indeed, the idea of African-grown approaches to tackling the intractable challenges Africa faces stems from the failure of strategies devised outside of Africa to ameliorate the continent’s challenges. This was the recognition that birthed the concept of ‘African Solutions to African Problems’ (ASAP).

Moreover, there is no evidence of an external or foreign solution that has ever resolved a conflict in Africa. At the bare minimum, they only give a respite for the eventual and worse resumption of hostilities. On the other hand, the AU has a much better track record of successful peace efforts in Africa.

African Unions previous successes

In Burundi, in 2000, the AU successfully mediated the conflict between the government of Burundi and the largest rebel group, the CNDD-FDD. This led to the signing of the Arusha Agreement, which ended the civil war that had been ongoing for nearly a decade. In contrast, earlier foreign-led mediation efforts had failed to end the conflict.

The same happened in the early phase of the Libyan conflict in 2011. The AU at some point successfully mediated a ceasefire between the government and rebels. However, the intervention of NATO, which was not sanctioned by the AU, ultimately led to the overthrow of the government and the death of longtime leader Muammar Gaddafi.

Even in Sudan, during the Darfur conflict in 2004, AU deployed a peacekeeping force to the region and mediated negotiations between the government and rebel groups. This led to the signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement in 2006, although implementation of the agreement faced challenges. In contrast, earlier foreign-led mediation efforts had failed to make progress

How Foreign-led mediation undermines African Union

What is happening to AU in the Sudan conflict, is not new. It has happened multiple times before. In DRC, in West Africa, and most notably in Libya during the 2011 uprising, AU was disregarded with dire consequences. Unfortunately, the US-led West has not learned any lessons.  There is now a real likelihood that the Sudan conflict, like that of Libya in 2011, could conflagrate. But more than that, such actions undermine the AU.

By taking over the mediation role, the US and Saudi Arabia undermine the AU’s mandate to promote peace and security on the African continent: The AU was established to promote peace and security on the African continent. The involvement of external actors like the US and Saudi Arabia in Sudan’s mediation process challenges the AU’s mandate and reduces its ability to independently promote peace and security in Africa.

In addition, AU’s efforts to mediate in Sudan may be seen as less important or less effective if external actors like the US and Saudi Arabia take the lead: The involvement of the US and Saudi Arabia in Sudan’s mediation process could undermine the AU’s credibility and reputation as an effective mediator. The AU may be viewed as less important and less effective if external actors are seen as doing most of the work.

Furthermore, foreign mediation by the US and Saudi Arabia may diminish the legitimacy of the AU in the eyes of Sudanese stakeholders and Africans: Foreign mediation may make the AU appear weak and unable to manage conflicts within its member states. This can diminish its legitimacy and credibility, especially if it’s viewed as having no control over the peace process in Sudan.

Moreover, AU may also lose the opportunity to develop its own conflict resolution capacity and expertise. The AU has the mandate to promote peace and security in Africa. If it allows external actors to mediate conflicts, the AU may miss an opportunity to develop its own conflict resolution capacity and expertise. This can make it difficult for the organization to address conflicts within its member states.

Also, US and Saudi Arabia’s involvement in Sudan could further entrench a system of external actors dictating the terms of African conflict resolution, rather than allowing African institutions to take the lead: Allowing external actors to lead peace efforts in Africa, could perpetuate a system where external actors dictate the terms of conflict resolution. This can undermine the sovereignty of African institutions and reduce their ability to address conflicts within their own countries.

What now?

Finally, the AU’s peace and security architecture relies on the collective action of African nations, and its ability to effectively respond to conflicts is weakened when external actors take the lead in mediation efforts. This could have implications for the long-term stability and security of the African continent.

It is imperative to assert African agency in diagnosing, understanding and devising the right mix of locally sensitive strategies to address problems and forge solutions. Asserting African agency on the tortuous path to renaissance and transformation is informed by an understanding that power politics and the primacy of national interest leave little or no room for an external party to facilitate development in African countries.