PREMIUM | “Its high-time to reexamine the AU’s role in member states’ affairs” – Lidet Tadesse

Lidet Tadesse, associate director for peaceful societies and accountable governance at the European Center for Development Policy Management (ECDPM), talks about the dynamics of AU-EU relations; the complexities of undemocratic power shifts in Africa and the necessity of the continent reexamining AU’s role in the affairs of its member states.

By Adam Alqali

Newspage:  In your pre-summit op-ed you said AU-EU summits tend to be “impressive on verbal commitments” yet “underwhelming in yielding tangible results.” Did the outcome of the sixth AU-EU summit vindicate you?

Lidet Tadesse: That is yet to be seen. Nevertheless, the summit wasn’t as grand as initially anticipated even as some initiatives and pledges were announced. Now the question is: are things going to be different this time around? There is always a gap between the summit’s commitments and their implementation, which has been acknowledged by the African heads of state as one of the key weaknesses of the AU-EU partnership.

Accordingly, this time around, the two sides agreed to institute a monitoring mechanism to keep track of pledges and agreements signed. This will help ascertain which of the commitments have been realized and which were not. So, let’s see if they do eventually monitor progress, yet the fact that they recognized the problem and have suggested ways of overcoming it is something positive.

Newspage: Among others, the outcome of the summit was the EU offering an investment package worth €150bn to Africa. Yet, this still falls short on specific African leaders’ demands to do with cogent issues like waiving of intellectual property rights on Covid-19 vaccines. Does that mean the pre-summit sense of optimism in relation to achieving more equal relations was wrongly placed?

Lidet Tadesse: The equality issue is beyond how much money was pledged or vaccine equity. It is much broader and about the question of forging a partnership of equals – when you are materially different and have a troubling history as well. Even as the future holds great potential, we still need to reconcile with the past. The matter of partnership of equals is largely structural and less about investment packages and the question of vaccine equity.

Regarding the investment package, there are a few questions being raised including the accuracy of the €150bn worth of investment said to be allocated to Africa. Some are not convinced about the figures and are therefore asking if these funds were newly allocated or had already been allocated and were only rebranded and announced at the last summit.

Similarly, while the idea of building infrastructure for vaccine production in Africa is quite positive, African countries were upset that the EU refused to suspend intellectual property rights to allow for vaccine technology transfer to Africa. This undermines or rather compromises the EU’s commitment to enabling African countries to respond to the pandemic.

Newspage: You also argued that the new European Peace Facility (EPF) would make the EU a direct player in Africa’s security dynamics and consequently undermine the AU’s continental role. How big is the threat posed by EPF to Aspiration 4 of AU’s Agenda 2063 i.e a peaceful and secure Africa?

Lidet Tadesse: This is a valid concern; the EPF risks sidelining the AU’s overarching peace and security role on the continent, looking at the context in which the EPF was introduced, part of which is geopolitics and the EU’s reassessment of its security concerns and geopolitical ambitions.

The fact that the EU can now work directly with AU member states or support adhoc coalitions endangers the AU’s role of maintaining peace and security on the continent – even as this doesn’t necessarily mean it will do so. Yet, the fact that the EU can do so poses a significant and tangible risk to the AU, in the context of geopolitics and the EU’s global ambitions.

From an African perspective, whereas the AU’s role as a continental peace and security actor is appreciated by its member states, we can’t completely overlook the fact that some AU member states stand to benefit from the opportunity presented by the EPF. Although the AU is valuable to them, that doesn’t necessarily mean the Union has to always oversee their relationship with the EU and the support they could tap from facilities such as the EPF.

In a way, this reflects one of the inherent tensions between the AU and its member states i.e the differing interest of African states and their collective interest as represented by the AU. Thus, while the AU is the primary coordinator of peace and security on the continent, its member states are more interested in accessing funding, training and arms for maintaining state security and less about how – whether directly from the EU or via the AU.

Newspage: You also said the resurgence of unconstitutional changes of government around Africa had overwhelmed the AU and subsequently eroded the Union’s much acclaimed ‘zero tolerance for unconstitutional governance’. Why do you think the AU is failing to live up to its zero tolerance for unconstitutional power shifts?

Lidet Tadesse: There are two major issues with regards to unconstitutional power shifts in Africa. The first is at the normative level, which calls for serious action around constitutional manipulation, presidential term limits as well as elongation of tenure of incumbents. Because no action is being taken, constitutional amendments have become a tolerable way of extending stays in office for incumbents – without seizing power undemocratically!

The second has to do with how democracy itself is failing citizens of African countries to an extent that people themselves are supporting military takeovers. This has put the AU in a difficult situation because, on the one hand, it has a policy against military takeovers, yet on the other hand, it is presented with situations where citizens, by and large, support these military seizures due to the failure of civilian governments to deliver on security, economic and social development.

So, there has to be serious brainstorming among African leaders on accountable governance so as to bridge the gap between leaders and their citizens by making sure leaders are able to meet the fundamental needs of their citizens. This is because their failure to deliver on these fundamental needs will surely risk military takeovers. So, the AU’s governance agenda needs to address these fundamental challenges.

Newspage: How thin is the line between unconstitutional power shifts and popular uprisings?

Lidet Tadesse: It is left to AU member states, the African people and the AU to decide where and when unconstitutional changes of government and popular uprisings overlap and where one stops and the other begins. This is a critical question which the AU has struggled with and never addressed. It calls for a renewed conversation.

The current spate of unconstitutional changes of government dates back to the Arab Spring. Nevertheless, Africa’s political leadership is yet to discuss it critically and come up with normative frameworks that are up-to-date, fit-for-purpose, and contextual. This is precisely the AU’s dilemma, because you can’t condemn military takeovers when they do have popular support due to the failure of civilian governments.

Newspage: To what extent has external interference in geostrategic regions such as Libya, the Sahel and the Horn of Africa weakened the AU’s peace and security oversight role in Africa? 

Lidet Tadesse: It is definitely undermining the AU’s peace and security role, which the AU itself has recognized. For example, the AU was, at the outset of the Libyan conflict, the lead actor mediating between former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi and the opposing parties; unfortunately, it has now become a mere observer of the peace process in Libya.

I would also like to point to the fact that while African countries have national interests with regards to the safety and security of their citizens, they should not forgo continental ambitions and objectives at play, which are embodied by the AU. So, they have to balance their national interests with the continental interests.

As such, although it is within the sovereign right of AU member states to ask for external assistance in maintaining national security, where the right to exercise that sovereignty stops and such interventions become external interference and internationalization of security crises, one that risk sidelining the AU as the main continental body, has to be determined.

However, we shouldn’t also forget the fact that while, in some contexts, external interference comes by invitation of nation states to address pressing security challenges, in other circumstances, it is the complete breakdown of rule of law and the absence of a coherent government that allows international actors to impose themselves over African countries; be it Libya or any other countries.

Thus, it is high-time we address this puzzle by determining the political mandate, responsibility and resources the member states are willing to provide the AU, in light of changing continental and global dynamics. So much has changed since the AU’s establishment in 2002, hence the need to reexamine if the Union, as it is currently constituted, is fit for its purpose.

Editor’s note: This interview has been edited for length and clarity.