The African Union’s diplomatic efforts in Sudan are evidence of the difficulties faced by the continental organization with regard to its autonomy and credibility. But its efforts, despite not solving all the problems, are not completely insignificant.
Every time there is conflict in Africa, the efficacy and utility of the African Union (AU) is called into question. Such criticism is made against the backdrop of resistance to overreaching interventionist policies by global superpowers (think the fairly recent anti-MONUSCO and anti-MINUSMA protests which were against United Nations operations in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Mali respectively)—a policy which both civil society actors and political science researchers say has often been counterproductive to Africa’s development. Africa’s desire for greater autonomy is what led to the creation of the AU in the first place, with a mandate to find ‘African solutions to African problems.’ Many will agree that this mandate is not currently being fulfilled. The conflict in Sudan, tragic but not entirely unexpected, is another case where the African and Sudanese populations in particular would have expected swift action by the AU, starting with the negotiation of a ceasefire between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the paramilitary group Rapid Support Forces (RSF).
However, the ceasefire agreement reached on 24 April 2023, was coordinated by the United States (US) and Saudi Arabia. In the official announcement of the agreement, the US Secretary of State, Antony Blinken, referenced the coordination between the US and regional partners i.e. the AU and the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD) to enforce the permanent cessation of hostilities...
Every year, The Republic publishes the most ambitious writing focused on Africa, from news and analysis to long-form features.
To continue reading this article, Subscribe or Register for a Free Pass.
Already a subscriber? Log in.
