OGUNSANWO: No One Looks At Credentials Of Who Becomes AU Chair

Nkurunziza Right In AU Snub
Professor Alaba Cornelius Ogunsanwo is Nigeria’s former ambassador to the Belgium and European Union. Speaking against the backdrop of recent selection of Chad’s President Idriss Deby as the new African Union chairperson during the last 26th AU summit held in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, the teacher of politics and international relations at the Leads City University, Ibadan, explained to KAMAL TAYO OROPO what influences the choice of an AU chair.

From Thomas Boni Yayi to Robert Mugabe and now Idriss Deby, to what extent does the personality of an AU chair affect the perception and effectiveness of the organisation, especially in terms of good governance and democratic norms on the continent?
WE have to always bear in mind that the African Union is not a new baby, but a transformation of the frontrunner, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). As such, what the AU is doing in terms of selection of its chairperson is just following in the footsteps that have long been established in terms of rotation and regardless of the character holding the executive position of a member-state. You will recollect that Emperor Haile Selassie handed over the mantle of leadership of the organisation to Uganda’s Dada Idi Amin; both controversial figures. Interestingly, you will also recall that Idi Amin was the chairman of the body, when Nigeria’s Yakubu Gowon was over-thrown while attending the OAU summit in Kampala.

In essence, if we look at those that have led the organisation since inception, it becomes significantly obvious that the organisation has never taken into account issues of good governance and democratic credentials of the individual Head of State and Government of member-state. They merely gather together and say, ‘it is the time of this region to produce the chairman,’ and so be it.

When it was Nigeria’s turn, the then President Ibrahim Babangida personally provided a lot of facilities to help drive his agenda within the organization. The way and manner each of these chairmen carried out their task of trouble-shooting and all, depends on the resources such a leader can muster at the given time. This is because the organisation would not provide him with the resources needed to run the office. That means that the President of a country that is the chairman of the body brings his own ways of doing things to the organisation. I don’t think anyone sits down anywhere in the AU to determine that ‘because this leader is doing well in his country, let us vote him as the chair for this year.’

There was a time when Ghaddafi was on a state visit to one of Nigeria’s neighbours, Benin. The Libyan leader made snide remark about Nigeria saying, ‘there are some big for nothing African countries no one bothers about. But small Benin is better respected.’ Though, he did not mention Nigeria by name, but the world knew who Ghaddafi was referring to. At that time Ghaddafi had a foreign legion used in intervening in other African countaries and was highly respected within the AU because he provided extra funds, more than the Libya quota, for many of the organisation’s activities.

But there are assumptions that; for example, what morals would Burundi’s President Pierre Nkurunziza, who has threatened to kill any AU troop that steps into his country, bring as the chairman of the organisation? To what extent can the perception of a leader affect the conduct of the AU?

We have to be careful when we make some of these assumptions. The impression here is that Nkurunziza is not popular, but not popular among who? Among European leaders? Among the masses of African people? Within the Burundian population? How is the popularity being accessed? Who is saying what? What African Heads of State sit down, they don’t have to take into consideration what the US President says about somebody in Africa. That is why they could put Mugabe there at the time they did. That is why Moammer Ghaddafi was there at the time he was there.

That is why Idi Amin was there at the time he was there. Mind you, it is not as if the records of these people are not known internationally. Now that Idriss Deby is there, they must have limited themselves to the region and looking at events in Mali. You will recall that despite the ECOWAS going to UN Security Council to secure intervention in Mali, they failed significantly, until Chad was called before significant progress was recorded. The first contingent that went to Mali was Togo, but barely went with a gun…is that seriousness?

So, what I am saying is that if you have trouble spot and this Deby guy has been so tested and showing that he knows how to handle situations like that, that is one of the things you take into consideration when selecting the AU chairman. It’s not just a matter of a Deby from an economically weak Chad, but what he can bring in terms of fixing problems on ground. The point to consider is that the views of the Europeans, Americans or whatever, are largely irrelevant when African Heads of State are trying to determine who becomes the next chairman of the AU. That is the angle that is of interest to them and not the angle of extra-African interests. This is African institution –– period. It is the Africans that should decide who leads them without external interference.

How do you assess the role of the African Union in entrenching good governance and democratic ethos on the continent, especially against the backdrop of tenure elongation-seeking presidents?
Don’t forget that in 2006, Nigeria always wound up in that particular direction of tenure elongations if not for the National Assembly under Ken Nnamani, which scuttled the agenda. President Olusegun Obasanjo would just have changed the constitution and there you have it. There are some things that cannot be decided upon by the African Union. The organisation does not have the capacity to control what is going on in each of its member countries. They can try it a bit in some small Island countries, some of which even go ahead and defy the organisation. In this regard, the sub-regional organisation can be more effective.

For example, the ECOWAS can say, ‘we will not allow you to attend our meetings if you break your constitutional provisions,’ but you can’t do that successfully in the larger continent. For example, if a country’s constitution limits term to two, but the same people of that country now decided to extend the term in a referendum, what can the AU do? African Union is not a super body; it does not have the right to question internal decisions of member countries. There are some countries that have limits, but there are some that do not have any limit. The British Prime Minister can continue leading his country as long as his party continues having the majority and continues to present him.

So, some of these decisions are not about good governance; they have nothing to do with good governance. What is the tradition of the people? What is going on in that country? For instance, in Libya a lot of people are beginning to ask questions about the uprising that killed Ghaddafi. Yes, he stayed there for 40 years, but what has become of the country today? What exactly has replaced him now? Is it the chaos? The ISIL? Who is in charge? At the time when they were trying to remove Ghaddafi, all of these questions did not come up, but good governance. But what is the definition of good governance?

He is right. It is his country and he is the leader of that country. Of course, he is right in saying that he does not want them in his country. If the AU wants to intervene in the internal affairs of Nigeria, you think the Nigerian President would throw open his arms and welcome them, saying please come and handle it for we can not do it alone? You think he will say so? Of course, he will not say so. No self-respecting country will say that willingly. Unless of course, the situation degenerated to that level the President has clearly lost control.

Not that one is playing the devil’s advocate, but some of these issues have to be looked at from the angle of African leaders’ taking decisions about the continent. In reference to Burundi in particular, we have to be conscious that some of these things are engineered from outside. And when these things happen, the media will go there and begin to make a lot of noise, and blowing them out of proportion. If the people are resolute about what they want, they will get what they want. It is as simple and straightforward as that.

The African Union said it was going to send troops to Burundi, but who was going to pay for those troops? The African Union that is donor-dependent? Is it your agenda that you want to follow or the agenda from someone outside who is telling you what to do?

Are you saying President Nkurunziza is right in resisting the AU intervention in Burundi?
HE is right. It is his country and he is the leader of that country. Of course, he is right in saying that he does not want them in his country. If the AU wants to intervene in the internal affairs of Nigeria, you think the Nigerian President would throw open his arms and welcome them, saying please come and handle it for we can not do it alone? You think he will say so? Of course, he will not say so. No self-respecting country will say that willingly. Unless of course, the situation degenerated to that level the President has clearly lost control.

Now, the question is that: do the Burundians believe that they are at that subdued point? No, they don’t. And that is why they are taking the position. I have not been to Burundi and I cannot tell if the President is right or not. But the Burundians are the ones that put him in office. Nigerians did not elect him. African leaders did not put him in office. Burundians are the ones that should be able to say what they want.
But in all this, where do you put the possible re-enactment of the 1994 genocide and consequent humanitarian concerns?

Yes, that is important. But that is a point that would ultimately be determined by the Burundians themselves. When the get to that point, and they could not handle their affairs by themselves again, they would be the ones that would call out for external help; and immediate neighbours are always better positioned to help out in the first step.

Be that as it may, you show me just one country, since 1994, that there has been attempt at tenure elongation and it was external intervention that stopped it. Just show me one success case on the continent. Apart from Burkina Faso, where the UN was on ground with Kofi Anan on the ground at that period in time. And also in that case, the initial pre-emptive mechanism was already on ground. The issues of early warning and leaders going to make presentation ensure that leaders are made accountable for their promises to their people.

You will also recall the case of the Senegal’s Wade, where Obasanjo was sent in to intervene. Of course, Wade insisted he was still going ahead with the election, which he eventually lost. Of course, the wrong emissary was sent in the person of Obasanjo, who himself had tried to introduce something similar in Nigeria and other African leaders are aware of that.

In all, African countries are better position in bringing desired results in their neighbouring countries. They have a bigger role to play. The entire continent as a whole is more remote in terms of what can be done. For example, in the Central African Republic, when the Economic Community for Central African Countries (ECA) were trying to do something; before then, they were deemed to be too slow and the South Africans were asked to come in. And stupidly, they sent their troops. Of course, by the time their soldiers were being killed on a large scale, no one had to tell the South African government to withdraw its troops with ignominy. You have to understand the peculiarity of each situation and place and get people nearest to intervene as brothers; and not as outsiders who are paid.

When you sit down in the African Union and say, ‘this country is not behaving well, let us send troops there,’ those concerned are hearing what you are saying and they will say, ‘to hell, who is not behaving well? Look at this country, look at that country, who are you to say who is behaving well or not? On what basis are you sending troops here? Go and put your own house in order.’ That is what they will tell the organisation. But their immediate neighbour can do something. And that is where the emphasis of the African Union should be; especially a union that has no resources. A union that has to go and beg the European Union in order to maintain even the logistics. You go begging to maintain the peace and all. When you do this, you cannot blame anyone dismissing you as imperialist tool. As if you are doing the bid of other people.

If you want to do something, you must have the resources. If you don’t have the capacity and the resources, then stop making too much noise. The African Union is making too much noise about issues it cannot control. Issues that it does not have the political will and capacity to deal with effectively. It is all about rhetoric.

How can the African Union surmount these challenges?
First and foremost, the political will must be strengthened. When you have to cut a coat, you have to look at both your size and the material available. It is not just a mater of ‘this thing is very fine, I want it,’ but can you afford it? If you cannot afford it, then what else? What other approach is possible? You have to be prepared to eat your humble pie. You talk about development partners, but they are not development partners; they are donors. Somebody who pays the piper dictates the tune.

Africa must sit down at this stage and ventilate on Africa’s peculiar situation and develop the continent, placing emphasis on the lots of the masses and make less noise about democracy. I don’t know how many African countries have democracies. In Nigeria, do we have it? I don’t know.

At union level, you cannot talk about generality. For example, if you say, ‘if you stage a coup, you are suspended.’ No problem. But when similar thing happened in Egypt, what could you do? When General el-Sisi toppled democratically elected Mohammed Morsi, what happened? The General told the AU to go to blazes. AU was the one that had to go back to him that he is now accepted. Of course, he didn’t care. He has staged his coup and there was nothing any African Union can do about it. He cared less when they told him he cannot attend their meetings. If you cannot do anything more than, ‘you cannot attend our meeting,’ you should be careful about other proclamations; especially not with Egypt. If the man had not converted himself into civilian president, there is nothing the AU would have done. If you bite more than you can chew, you will always run into trouble. There are times when the situation and the needs of a particular leader become much more important than what others are saying.

There was a time when Ghaddafi was on a state visit to one of Nigeria’s neighbours, Benin. The Libyan leader made snide remark about Nigeria saying, ‘there are some big for nothing African countries no one bothers about. But small Benin is better respected.’ Though, he did not mention Nigeria by name, but the world knew who Ghaddafi was referring to. At that time Ghaddafi had a foreign legion used in intervening in other African countries and was highly respected within the AU because he provided extra funds, more than the Libya quota, for many of the organisation’s activities.

So, when some of these issues happen, you have to sit down and think things out. Some people have expressed shame that the Headquarters of the African Union, where African leaders meet and discuss African issues, is donated by the Chinese. A few African leaders could have gathered the money, from what have stolen, to put up the edifice, rather than waiting for the Chinese gift. We thank the Chinese, but that is the type of leaders our African people are, in terms of commitment they have to issues relating to the continent.