Argument: 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 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: "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 3: "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 4: "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 5: "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 6: "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"

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
