The AU and Human Rights in Africa

Nadia Ahmadou (ISS Today)-The African Union (AU), in contrast to its predecessor the Organization of African Unity (OAU), has declared its commitment to reigning in member states that appear to flaunt human rights and governance. This position is supported by the Constitutive Act initiated in 2000 in Durban in Article 4, Principle (h), which provides for military interventions in member states in response to humanitarian concerns and for the purpose of the protection of civilians.

The same protocol also binds member states to respect democratic principles, human rights, the rule of law and to exercise good governance. Significantly, the protocols mandate the AU with an institutional and moral right to intervene in the internal affairs of member states without their consent, especially in situations where populations are at grave risk. Viewed differently, member states have partly subordinated sovereignty to the continental body for the purpose of advancing human rights in the region.Concrete evidence of this assertion has emerged with the recent comment by the AU Commissioner for Peace and Security, Ambassador Said Djinnit, who made it clear that African states have moved from the concept of non-interference to that of non-indifference and will as such not remain indifferent to the tragedy of African citizens.

The human rights situation in Zimbabwe provides an opportunity to evaluate the AU’s commitment to the promotion of human security on the continent. This particularly so since the report of the AU Commission’s fact-finding mission in June 2002 which provided evidence of human rights violations occurring in the country. The recent debacle over the attendance of Zimbabwe at the EU-AU Summit again brought the dismal record of the Southern African state into the spotlight.

The West has accused President Mugabe of violating the fundamental human rights of the citizens of Zimbabwe. As a result the summit, which aims to develop a joint strategy for both short and long-term goals of poverty alleviation and economic development in Africa, had not been held since 2000 due to disputes over the issue of Mugabe’s attendance of the summit. Some European Union (EU) states, led by Britain, pushed for his exclusion from the conference. On the other side of the fence the Southern African Development Community (SADC) threatened to boycott the conference in the event that he was not invited. SADC threatened a collective boycott of the summit in support of Zimbabwe, which rejects the allegations made against it.

The evidence against Zimbabwe is overwhelming. For example, the government instituted Operation Murambatsvina, which demolished illegal housing and businesses and subsequently displaced and destroyed the livelihoods of over 700, 000 persons. According to a UN-Habitat report many of the displaced lost access to education, treatment for HIV/AIDS and other medical care, and most lost their livelihoods. Recently, according to the Zimbabwe Human Rights Forum, human rights violations in Zimbabwe have steadily increased, with more than 5,300 recorded cases of human rights abuses during the first six months of 2007. These include 328 instances of torture, 481 assaults, 802 cases of illegal arrests and detention, 1937 recorded violations against freedom of expression and movement, and 935 cases of politically related abuses by government authorities.

The EU-AU summit stand-off was ended by the hosts and rotating presidency, Portugal, issuing an invitation to President Mugabe against the threatened boycott by the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown. The EU, as it addressed challenges of human rights and governance for Africa made it clear that, although the state of human rights and democracy in Zimbabwe was damaging to the image of the continent and further partnerships with the EU, not to hold the meeting would be even more detrimental to millennium development goals. As the first African president to speak at the summit, President Mbeki gave a detailed speech on human rights and governance on the continent, stating that Africa was doing its utmost to address these. The latter assertion implied that African leaders are attending to the Zimbabwean crisis. The summit ended with dissatisfaction on the part of African representatives and little change being made to development partnerships with the West. One can only wonder whether the human rights problems on the continent, with Zimbabwe and Darfur being at the forefront of such concerns, were a contributing factor to this disappointing end.

Importantly, several AU officials have made similar statements to President Mbeki’s, with the AU President Alpha Oumarou Konare emphasizing that the apparent support of Zimbabwe’s attendance at the conference must not be interpreted as support for President Mugabe but is in fact resistance against the unequal partnership in the relationship between the EU and AU. Considering these comments by President Konare and that of the Peace and Security Commissioner, Ambassador Djinnit, we can see that the AU is well intentioned in its commitments to human rights issues and is prepared to distance itself from the unconditional position of non-interference that used to characterize the OAU era. However, these remain only statements. No effective action has yet been taken towards the Zimbabwean government. It is safe to say that the AU human rights regime remains under-developed and ineffective.

If the AU is to match its statements with action, there must be a consolidated and coherent institutional approach to the standards regarding human rights, as contained within its Constitutive Act. The AU needs to holistically and decisively engage with the question of how it can make a significant difference for the security of civilians.

Although the well-intentioned statements of senior AU officials agree with the majority of African citizens in supporting a change in attitude and the turning over a new leaf on human rights and security for African peoples against repressive states, this is not sufficient. If action is not taken to resolve human rights crises in places like Zimbabwe, the AU stands to lose even more credibility amongst ordinary people.

<< Back to main