Argument: The international community cant be relied upon

It is clear that Africa cannot rely on the international community to solve its conflicts. In order to be more independent, what the African Union needs is a standing army, which can intervene whenever there is a crisis.

First of all, when looking at statistics, having dipped in the 1990s the number of conflicts is growing once more, the most recent events of Mali and the Algeria serving as a perfect example(1). “following a year (2010) that signalled hope for a more peaceful development, the number of conflicts increased by nearly 20 percent “(4). This has served to demonstrate Africa’s need for a force to engage in peace keeping and peace making.

Despite the growing need for peacekeeping forces, there is reason to believe that the help coming from the international community will be insufficient. The dysfunctional structure of the UNSC, the body which approves all major international interventions. Russia and China, two countries which have a non interventionist approach on foreign policy, have veto power in this body; which means a lot of possible interventions get vetoed. The examples of Syria and Sudan prove the inability of the international community to intervene in crisis situations(2) (3).

(1) “Jihad in the Sahara”, The Economist, Jan 17th 2013, http://www.economist.com/news/middle-east-and-africa/21569772-no-sooner-had-france-set-about-stopping-jihadists-taking-over-mali

(2) ‘Genocide in Darfur’, United Human Rights Council, 2013, http://www.unitedhumanrights.org/genocide/genocide-in-sudan.htm

(3) Reuters, “Syria Death Toll Tops 115,000, Group Says”, Huffington Post , 1 October 2013, http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/10/01/syria-death-toll_n_4022414.html

(4) ‘The number of armed conflicts increased strongly in 2011’, Uppsala Universitet, 13 July 2013, http://www.uu.se/en/news/news-document/?id=1724&amp;area=2,3,16&amp;typ=pm&amp;na =

Candidate 1: "In a world which has been constantly militarizing for the past century it is very hard to believe that Africa will be capable of building, from scratch, such an army capable of impressing the developed world.

Any AU army will be small; the US has a military budget about 15 times all the African countries combined(1)(2), China’s military budget is growing at a double digit rate and many other countries have vasty superior armies when compared to the best in Africa. An AU force is always going to be severely limited by its low budgets and capabilities. It may win plaudits and influence for its help within Africa but it will have no role beyond the continent as it will never be a force used to project power. Changing a perception that Africa can do nothing on its own is one thing, it is quite another to gain influence outside the continent.

(1) Simmins, Charles, “Defense Spending in Africa Increasing”, Clearance Jobs, September 6, 2013 http://news.clearancejobs.com/2013/09/06/defense-spending-africa-increasing/

(2) ’Military expenditure’, Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, April 2012, http://www.sipri.org/yearbook/2012/04"
Candidate 2: "It would be only beneficial to Africa to take matters into its own hands and not depend on some foreign country to save the day when they are in need. Even though at a diplomatic level, all big western liberal democracies are “committed” to helping Africa, it is clear that this may not always be the case.

The West has become fatigued by the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, as proven by the opposition to a proposed intervention in Syria. Prior to this, the West has failed to intervene efficiently, such as in Rwanda where the response to genocide was too late (1).Moreover the African Union is often much faster to respond to crises in Africa and is the ‘first resort’ while the UN or foreign troops is a last resort. Thus in the Central African Republic AU troops were deployed four months prior to the French intervention. Intervention by western powers will only happen when the crisis is serious, and putting a UN force together can take a long time. This is a very big drawback on the side of the international community and it most often translates into lost lives and increased damages.

(1) Usborne, David, ‘UN pilloried for failure over Rwanda genocide’ Independent, 17 December 1999, http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/un-pilloried-for-failure-over-rwanda-genocide-739072.html"
Candidate 3: "The Security Council will be most unlikely to obstruct a recognised regional security organisation from doing its role. Any veto would be extremely costly for the power that did so as they would incur the ire of most of Africa.

Most of thesituations which the AU will want to intervene in are not of a high enough priority for the international community to devote significant resources to, but which are still big enough to seriously damage African countries. There will be no reason to veto. Moreover, there will be times when the world will be just too ignorant and too slow at some urgent matters which need immediate attention. A well-prepared standing army would have been able to stop the Rwandan genocide.

As a result, even though this policy is not perfect it would help the current situation in Africa improve."
Candidate 4: "In such a situation, past war experience counts for little as every conflict is different.

First of all, African armies on the other hand are familiar with the territory, conditions and people. It is true that Nigeria never sent troops to Iraq, but by battling Boko Haram every single day, it is fair to assume that the strategies and the military techniques used by the army are improving constantly, as they are forced to improve them by the growing threat.

Secondly, The West has been forthcoming when it needs to share military counter insurgency techniques for example of training foreign armies. Through the NATO Training Mission – Afghanistan (1) numerous soldiers have been trained and thus the Afghan security situation dramatically improved. Even if African armies are be under experienced, by participating in joint military exercises with military experts from the western world, they could improve their capabilities quickly

(1) ‘NATO Training Mission – Afghanistan’, International Security Assistance Force, 5 November 2013, http://www.isaf.nato.int/subordinate-commands/nato-training-mission-afghanistan/index.php#Mission"
Candidate 5: "Showing Africa can solve its own problems

Countries desire to have influence among the international community. States gain this influence in all sorts of way; economic wealth, high technology, charismatic leaders, or a military power. Having an AU standing army would help provide Africa with influence; it would show the unity of the continent and its willingness to work together. A lot of influence is about perception and this is something that an AU army can change; Africa will no longer be a continent that cannot act for itself even on its own soil but will instead be taking the burden off more established peacekeeping countries. This is an important gain as influence is gained by being able to bring something to the table. Having an AU force means the AU will always be able to bring resources and capabilities when there is a crisis in Africa. The default position will no longer be to look to the UN, or even to France and the UK for peacekeepers when there is a crisis in Africa but to the AU itself.

But an AU army would have other benefits too as the continent would be a better investment opportunity if there is an army guaranteeing security and ensuring peace. The continent’s economic influence may also therefore expand as a result."
Candidate 6: "African forces will be trusted by Africans

The primary purpose of international organisations is to resolve conflicts between members. In the case of the AU its first stated objective is “achieve greater unity and solidarity between the African countries”. The main threat to this unity as well as peace in the continent is rebel groups and internal conflict. Groups for whom the only goal is wealth or to get into power in their own country.(2)

An AU force’s role would therefore be to defeat these armed groups and to engage in peacekeeping. An AU force is always going to be better at handling these situations due to its legitimacy in Africa. In many African countries, the West is perceived as an imperialist power, due to their colonial past and as a result there is a serious lack of trust between the parties.

An AU force will also be better than any local force as a peacekeeper as it will, like the UN, be seen as being independent while also being African. It would also, like the rebels, be able to cross borders. Such a force would therefore be able to hunt down rebels like the Lords Resistance Army which has so far evaded destruction by moving between Uganda, Southern Sudan, and DR Congo.

(1) The Constitutive Act, African Union, 11 July 2000, http://www.africa-union.org/root/au/AboutAu/Constitutive_Act_en.htm

(2) Gettleman, Jeffrey, “Africa's Forever Wars”, Foreign Policy, April 2010 http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/22/africas_forever_wars"
Candidate 7: "On this point, there are two main reasons why the AU will actually do a poorer job as far as security in concerned.

First of all, there are no assurances that African countries have the necessary expertize or financial capacity of supporting a well trained and always prepared military force. Only one country has a top military, Egypt,(1), and this is largely because African states cannot support big militaries of their own so how would they additionally support an AU force?

On the other side, we have seen the international community engaging successfully in peacekeeping missions, helping local governments defeat rebel groups. There are currently have 15 UN peacekeeping missions(3) in Africa and French troops are helping to stabilise Mali and the CAR(4).

Moreover, the institutional drawbacks that apply to the UNSC unfortunately apply to AU as well. The AU has 53 members and for an intervention to be accepted they would need a two-thirds approval rate. These alleged military interventions might get stuck in the same institutional gridlock as in the status quo. There even are some cases, like Congo, where other states (Rwanda and Uganda) actively supported anti-government Congolese rebel groups(2).

(1) Global Fire Power http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

(2) “DR Congo's M23 rebels: Rwandan support 'falling'”, BBC, 5 July 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-23198141

(3) “UN Peacekeeping”, Better World Campaign, 2013, http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/un-peacekeeping/missions/africa.html

(4) “Sand on their boots”, The Economist, 24 January 2013 http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21570718-french-action-mali-seems-be-workingso-far-sand-their-boots"
Candidate 8: "In many cases, an impartial third party can be more effective. If we look at peace negotiations as an analogy and look at, for example, those between FARC guerillas and the Colombian government they began in Oslo, Norway,(1) not in Colombia or any other South American country. This happens as in order for a conflict to be mediated, you need to have a neutral third party which no party can influence and has no preference. The same can be equally true of peacekeepers.

Due to African membership, the AU is unlikely to be considered impartial putting troops between them African factions. Of course, those African countries are part of the UN too, but due to the sheer number of countries in the UN, it is clear that the influence is much more diminished.

(1) Rueda, Manuel, ‘The Ultimate Guide to Colombia’s Peace Negotiations’, Fusion, 17 October 2012, http://fusion.net/justice/story/colombia-peace-talks-ultimate-guide-farc-guerillas-17955"
Candidate 9: "Action would require UN approval

The AU’s powers will be at odds with those of the UN. While the United Nations accepts and even encourages regional organisations engaging in “pacific settlement of local disputes” the point of an army is to be able to intervene with more than just negotiations. “But no enforcement action shall be taken under regional arrangements or by regional agencies without the authorization of the Security Council” so any potential intervention of the AU in crisis zones will be conditioned by UNSC approval or not.(1)

If it will, it’s very easy to see how the creation of this standing army will be more or less in vain as it will either be prevented from intervening or act as a subsidiary to a better equipped UN force. The AU could choose to ignore the UNSC. However this option is also problematic as it would undermine the legitimacy of the operation and encourage the creation of regional organisations that try to keep the United Nations out of the region.

(1) United Nations, ‘Charter of the United Nations Chapter VIII: Regional Arrangements’, un.org, 1945, https://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter8.shtml"
Candidate 10: "An AU force will be inexperienced

An AU force won’t just be keeping the peace but it may also be involved in defeating rebel forces. One of the most important prerequisites for winning and ending such a conflict is experience.

When it comes to fighting insurgencies there are many countries that have experience fighting insurgencies; the French in Mail, NATO in Afghanistan, the British in Sierra Leone etc. In each of these national armies have gathered experience and learned counter insurgency techniques. This now makes them best able to solve conflicts.

On the other hand, when looking at the military campaigns of the AU or African countries, there has been little success. AMISOM (African Mission in Somalia) has been in place since 2007, yet Al-Shabaab is still in power in many regions including the capital city, Mogadishu, and the ending is nowhere near (1).

As a result, we should choose the ones with the most experience to handle such crisis rather than a newly created and unprepared AU force.

(1) Smith, David, “Al-Shabaab rebuilds forces in Somalia as African Union campaign stalls”, The Guardian, 28 October 2013 http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/oct/28/al-shabaab-somalia-african-union"
Candidate 11: "There is no need for an AU force

Western countries have military systems far more efficient than their African counterparts, so it is clear that their involvement would be much more efficient than any AU-lead intervention. UN has already embarked on a mission to end conflict throughout the world and help the continent reach prosperity. Therefore, it would be much more effective for Africa to concentrate and invest in other issues and let the international community handle security. France’s recent intervention in Mali is a testimony of the western world’s devotion when it comes to African security. The mission‘s ultimate objective is, in President François Hollande’s words, to “restore Mali’s territorial integrity”(1) and an AU army would be no better at doing this.

The first point is obviously costs. The cost of a large effective army is very high, especially equipping it for any eventuality. This is very problematic especially when a lot of African countries have poor economies, extremely high illiteracy rates, bad healthcare and virtually no modern infrastructure. It would be much more cost effective for them to concentrate on handling these issues while using UN peacekeepers to maintain peace. There are currently over 15 UN peacekeeping mission in Africa, and if needed, this number can increase.(2)

(1) “Sand on their boots”, The Economist, Jan 24th 2013 http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21570718-french-action-mali-seems-be-workingso-far-sand-their-boots

(2) “UN Peacekeeping”, Better World Campaign, 2013, http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/un-peacekeeping/missions/africa.html"

On this point, there are two main reasons why the AU will actually do a poorer job as far as security in concerned.

First of all, there are no assurances that African countries have the necessary expertize or financial capacity of supporting a well trained and always prepared military force. Only one country has a top military, Egypt,(1), and this is largely because African states cannot support big militaries of their own so how would they additionally support an AU force?

On the other side, we have seen the international community engaging successfully in peacekeeping missions, helping local governments defeat rebel groups. There are currently have 15 UN peacekeeping missions(3) in Africa and French troops are helping to stabilise Mali and the CAR(4).

Moreover, the institutional drawbacks that apply to the UNSC unfortunately apply to AU as well. The AU has 53 members and for an intervention to be accepted they would need a two-thirds approval rate. These alleged military interventions might get stuck in the same institutional gridlock as in the status quo. There even are some cases, like Congo, where other states (Rwanda and Uganda) actively supported anti-government Congolese rebel groups(2).

(1) Global Fire Power http://www.globalfirepower.com/countries-listing.asp

(2) “DR Congo's M23 rebels: Rwandan support 'falling'”, BBC, 5 July 2013 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-23198141

(3) “UN Peacekeeping”, Better World Campaign, 2013, http://www.betterworldcampaign.org/un-peacekeeping/missions/africa.html

(4) “Sand on their boots”, The Economist, 24 January 2013 http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21570718-french-action-mali-seems-be-workingso-far-sand-their-boots
