13 Sep 2004: Statement: African Commitments to Conflict Prevention and Peace Making
AFRICAN COMMITMENTS TO CONFLICT PREVENTION AND PEACEMAKING:
A REVIEW OF EIGHT NEPAD COUNTRIES
Â
(A study done by Kwesi Aning, Prosper Addo, Emma Birikorang and Emmanuel
Sowatey of the African Security Dialogue and Research)
Press Release, 13 September 2004 : Pretoria
As part of the African Human Security Initiative (AHSI), the African
Security Dialogue and Research (ASDR) conduc ted a study assessing the
performance of eight key African countries in relation to commitments
they made at OAU/AU Heads of State and Government level regarding: 1)
early warning; 2) prohibition on the use of force; 3) preventing and
combating mercenarism and 4) peace-making and peace-building. The countries
reviewed have all acceded to the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM).
These are: Algeria, Ethiopia, Ghana, Kenya, Nigeria, Senegal, South
Africa and Uganda. The purpose of the study was to examine the compliance
of these countries with the commitments that their leaders have made
as well as to establish the nexus between the level of the compliance
and the promotion of human security in Africa.
With regard to peace-making and peace-keeping, the study found that
stable states show more political will towards peace-making and peace-building
than unstable ones. However, African countries lack the financial resources
needed for sustaining peace after the cessation of hostilities. This
has resulted in a vicious cycle of conflicts with grave humanitarian
consequences.
Regarding the prohibition on the use of force, the review revealed
that there is some fuzziness regarding what can be termed the use of
force and the practical meaning of the concept of self-defense. This
largely arises from the difference in the interpretation of the two concepts.
This notwithstanding, Algeria, Ghana, Kenya and South Africa have,
to a large degree, complied with the commitment not to use of force in
their external relations. The implementation of the same commitment has
proven to be a challenge for Ethiopia, Uganda , and Nigeria.
The study reveals that, as far as early warning is concerned, there
are often problems relating to national intelligence and the gathering
of early warning indicators. This poses serious challenges to efforts
by civil society organisations to contribute to early warning and conflict
prevention. Intelligence and national security apparatus are perceived
by most African leaders as the most reliable conflict prevention structures, ipso
facto leaving very little room for CSOs to make a contribution in
that regard.
In relation to mercenarism, the review found that the change in international
attitudes and the increasing evidence of the privatization and outsourcing
of state security responsibilities requires changes in the international
and regional approaches to deal with these new developments.
On the whole, a significant gap seems to exist between the commitments
made by African leaders, as they appear on paper, and the implantation
of the commitments in practice. It is also clear from the study that
the capacity of civil society in Africa needs to be enhanced if it is
to play a pivotal role in strengthening and sustaining democracy, good
governance, rule of law and human security in general. This is critical
if the objectives of the AU and NEPAD are to be realised.
For more information, please
contact Prince Mashele at the Institute for Security Studies, Tel (+27
12) 346 9500, e-mail [email protected] or
visit www.africanreview.org
Issued by the AHSI Secretariat (Institute for Security Studies)
Pretoria , 13 September
2004
