Seizing sovereignty in Africa

By Kojo Bedu-Addo
Senior Analyst, Control Risks Group

The African Union says it will intervene in the event of human rights violations

Recent conflicts in Sudan, Liberia and Ivory Coast have ignited discussion about foreign intervention in failing states.

Humanitarian intervention is intended to help ordinary citizens who bear the brunt of the violence and economic hardship in such situations.

However, the concept remains contentious, raising important questions about when a state's sovereignty should be over-ruled.

The new African Union's security council has acknowledged that intervention is a likely scenario.

The AU's charter explicitly overturns the old respect for national sovereignty.

Political renaissance

These new guiding principles send a strong signal to member states that they risk losing their sovereignty to the regional body in the event of poor governance and gross failure to protect civilian life.

If food shortages and political violence grew worse in Zimbabwe, at what stage would the AU choose to act? Have Your Say

The 1994 genocide in Rwanda provided the tragic, but compelling argument for this radical concept to gain acceptance.

The charter raises important questions: It's not clear whether in the claimed political renaissance, African leaders will abandon the traditional refusal to even criticise their peers, let alone intervene in their internal affairs.

It is also questionable whether the AU's members would agree on intervention, and how long it would take.

It is unclear at what stage intervention would become acceptable.

For instance, if food shortages and political violence grew worse in Zimbabwe, when would the AU act?

A second issue surrounds the practicalities of intervention.

Events in Somalia reduced the willingness of the US to intervene in situations that are of no direct strategic interest.

But the war on terrorism and the links between terrorism and failed states have changed these calculations.

Military muscle

A number of recent successful interventions have been carried out by a single state with the backing of the international community.

For example, Australia intervened in East Timor and Solomon Islands; the British-led intervention in Sierra Leone; and the French led the operation in eastern DR Congo.

Liberia's former leader was forced into exile in Nigeria

These cases underline continued reliance on the West for the required military muscle.

But Africa has shown that it can act alone: a South African operation provides security for politicians in Burundi.

The West African regional body, Ecowas, has played a key role in peace processes in Liberia, Sierra Leone and Ivory Coast.

There have been renewed discussions on the formation of a standing African army, an idea first pioneered by Ghana's independence leader and pan-Africanist Kwame Nkrumah.

However, at present there is heavy reliance on Nigeria and South Africa.

If they were unwilling to act, it is hard to see how intervention could proceed.