Libyan rebels throw the AU into a tailspin

A furious AU Commission chief Jean Ping, says NATO will eventually ask AU to clean up the mess it has created by interfering in Libya’s internal affairs while ignoring the continental body. Photo/FILE

The African Union has been behaving like a headless chicken as the 42-year old regime of Libyan strongman Muammar Gaddafi falls.

In the past week or so the 53-nation bloc was a Tower of Babel as members squabbled over adopting a common position on Libya, which under Gaddafi had towered over the organisation in a manner unlikely to be replicated by any other country.

Ahead of the August 26 mini-summit of the 15 heads of state who sit on the Peace and Security Council which is charged with enforcing bloc decisions, it seemed that the key decision would be how to recognise the rebels “fashionably” while saving face after being relegated to the sidelines by the Nato alliance.

A lower-level meeting of the Council had failed to take a common position on the country with only resolving to defer the decision to their heads of state.

“There was clear confusion, and we agreed to forward the issue to our respective leaders,” a South African diplomat present at the August 22 meeting said.

Only three heads of state eventually attended the Council meeting, after which South Africa’s Jacob Zuma said that the AU would not recognise the rebels National Transitional Council as a legitimate government but that individual members were within their sovereign rights to do so.

It was an indicator of the confusion that AU Commission chief Jean Ping, after meeting with Turkish Foreign minister, Ahmet Davutoglu, and holding telephone conversations with UN secretary-general Ban ki-Moon, tersely told journalists that he would not be fielding any questions related to Libya.

The AU’s stance on Libya has only fuelled the relentless criticism that the African Union is an organisation that prefers to bury its head in the sand and only reacts to crises when the initiative has already been seized by other quarters.

Only this week the bloc came in for more sustained criticism over its late reaction to the humanitarian crisis in the Horn of Africa.

In its defence, the African Union blamed the feet dragging on its poor logistical capacity and belatedly organised a poorly-attended pledging conference that raised $351 million.

One bloc, different positions

Since its establishment as the successor to the Organisation of African Union, the AU has been better known for siding with the status quo rather than with people-driven revolts.

That so many African countries had decades-long relations with Gaddafi may have contributed to the situation where individual members recognised the rebels but could not take a clear position once in Addis Ababa.

The OAU and its successor, the AU, radiated pan-Africanism and Arab nationalism priding themselves as defenders of the continent against European imperialism.

Gaddafi supported many countries independence struggles, arming and bankrolling rebel and opposition movements.

This in part explains why the Nato’s offensive rankles them so much.

For South Africa’s ruling African National Congress (ANC), throwing Gaddafi under the train is a difficult decision given his support for the anti-Apartheid struggle.

Bearing this in mind, Mr Zuma and former President Thabo Mbeki groused rather loudly over Nato’s military support for the rebels, adding that a negotiated solution would have saved many lives.

“Those who have the power to bomb other countries have undermined the AU’s efforts and initiatives to handle the situation in Libya,” Mr Zuma said at a press conference at Tuynhuys after a Tuesday meeting with Ghana’s President John Atta Mills.

Indeed, South Africa opposed to the last minute a UN decision to hand over $1.5 billion in frozen Libyan assets to the rebels, only relenting when the National Transitional Council lettering was replaced with the “governing authority” in a resolution.

Zimbabwe and Uganda also received cash and training from the Gaddafi regime during the independence struggle in the 70s.

This largesse has been more evident over the last three decades as many African countries enjoyed Gaddafi’s support, including subsidies to their economies and personal gifts to leaders.

The Libyan government’s continent-wide investment in key and sensitive sectors in many countries such as oil and banking was further testament to his influence in the region.

While Gaddafi’s dogged pursuit for a United States of Africa with him presumably as the head rubbed many leaders the wrong way, his role in raising the profile of the bloc has left many African leaders indebted to him.

This relationship, in addition to the “African Solutions to African Problems” mantra has been the main driving force behind efforts to give Gaddafi a dignified exit.

Since February 2011 the AU issued four strong statements, urging Nato to suspend its bombing campaign as a negotiated solution that locked out Gaddafi from a further term was sought.

Cleaning up their mess

Gaddafi acceded to the proposal, but Nato ignored the AU’s repeated calls, further emboldening the rebels to give short shrift to the idea.

The AU had tasked the Presidents of South Africa, Uganda, Mali, Mauritania and Equatorial Guinea with easing Gaddafi out.

“We know our solution is a lasting solution but they (Nato) do not want to listen to us,” said Mr Ping. At the end of the day they will call us for the dirty job of cleaning up the mess they created,” he bitterly told reporters in May.

But the AU’s bumbling over the Ivorian conflict earlier this year may have weakened its hand in the eyes of the west.

Challenged to take a position on the disputed election, the bloc’s leaders dithered, preferring to dispatch delegation upon delegation to convince the deposed Laurent Gbagbo to cede power.

They were eventually forced to eat humble pie and recognise new leader Alassane Ouattara after the UN and France chased Gbagbo out of office.