AU summit highlights pan-African weaknesses

The decision by the African Union (AU) to shift its bi-annual Summit from Lilongwe, Malawi to Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in response to Malawi’s refusal to allow the participation of Sudanese Head of State Omar al-Bashir has thrown into sharp relief the potential conflict between African regionalism and international mechanisms to promote and protect rule of law, justice, and respect for human rights. Bashir is the first Head of State to be charged by the International Criminal Court (ICC) and faces arrest warrants for genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity.

The situation is highly complex. On the one hand, rule of law, justice, and human rights are at the core of the AU’s Constitutive Act (2000), as well as ground-breaking standards such as the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance (2007) and the African Charter on Human and People’s Rights (1981).

However, the extent to which AU members adhere to these laudable norms and standards in practice varies widely. On the Bashir question, Malawi has broken ranks with the official AU line, which is not to honour the ICC warrant. While some observers view this latest episode as yet another indication of the AU’s inability to practice what it preaches and what its member countries have signed up to, others argue that the problem lies with the ICC itself.

As it celebrates its tenth anniversary, there is a persistent refrain from the ICC’s critics that by focusing almost exclusively on pursuing and prosecuting Africans, the Court has shown itself to be complicit in an international conspiracy – led by Western nations some of whom have refused to sign the Rome Statute that established the ICC. With the exception of a handful of African states, Malawi being the latest, the AU community has consistently opposed the ICC.

Most recently, Kenya (with two presidential candidates facing ICC allegations of crimes against humanity) has sought to lobby for the ICC to be set aside in favour of regional alternatives – notably the Arusha-based African Court of Justice and Human Rights, and the East African Court of Justice. Neither of these bodies however has yet demonstrated an appetite to sanction offenders.

The decision to move the AU summit has sparked considerable debate. As Edge Kanyongolo argues in the July 1 edition of Malawi Today: “When African political leaders turn on their own citizens and subject them to oppression, violence and plunder, what should be the response of the genuine pan-Africanist? Surely, it cannot be to jump to the defence of those leaders in the name of pan-Africanism.” Malawian opposition leader, Friday Jumbe, is just as unequivocal, stating: "We cannot be forced to host a summit on the condition that al-Bashir, who everybody knows is hunted by the international community, should come to Malawi.”

Beyond Malawi, other civil society actors have seized on the controversy to step up demands for increased accountability from their governments on this front, including in Kenya, South Africa Uganda and Zambia.

It is unlikely that the ICC debate will be resolved overnight. That said, and as further episodes of the story unfold, African and non-African states alike will be forced to confront the apparent contradictions between their rhetorical support for rule of law, good governance and human rights on the one hand, and what happens in the day-to-day realpolitik of international relations on the other.

The African Union should not abandon its promise to fight impunity. Unless indicted war criminals are held to account, regardless of their rank, others tempted to emulate them will not be deterred, and African people will suffer.