The African Peace and Security Architecture needs a functioning Military Staff Committee
The success and effective implementation of the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) will determine the peace, stability and prosperity of the continent in the coming years. APSA consists of diverse yet harmonious mechanisms for conflict prevention, management and resolution, as well as post-conflict reconstruction and development. The strategy that has the African Union Peace and Security Council (PSC) as its core is indeed one of the great accomplishments witnessed as a result of the OAU-AU transition.
Hallelujah Lulie, Intern, Peace and Security Council Report Program, ISS Addis Ababa Ethiopia
The success and effective implementation of the African Peace and
Security Architecture (APSA) will determine the peace, stability and
prosperity of the continent in the coming years. APSA consists of
diverse yet harmonious mechanisms for conflict prevention, management
and resolution, as well as post-conflict reconstruction and
development. The strategy that has the African Union Peace and Security
Council (PSC) as its core is indeed one of the great accomplishments
witnessed as a result of the OAU-AU transition.
The progress and success in the efforts towards the establishment
of APSA have been mixed. The past years have witnessed the
operationalisation of the Continental Early Warning System (CEWS), the
establishment of the regional brigades which are the foundations for
the African Standby Force (ASF) and the establishment and engagement in
various peace and security issues of the Panel of the Wise (POW). The
Military Staff Committee (MSC) and the Peace Fund also came in to being.
The diverse instruments demonstrate that the architecture is indeed a
comprehensive set of tools to address the security concerns of the
continent by African actors. Its full picture can only be clearly seen -
like a jigsaw puzzle – when all the parts fit into place.
Forming the basis of the security architecture, the PSC of the AU
relies on the availability and quality of information, expertise,
wisdom and power of the various components of APSA. The political
decisions and recommendations by the Council can’t be relevant without a
proper support at the conflict prevention, management and intervention
levels.
The MSC of the AU, which is based on the same structure at the
United Nations is one of the vital mechanisms of the continental
security architecture. The MSC is established under article 13
sub-sections 13.8 to 13.11 of the PSC Protocol to advise and assist the
PSC on issues of military and security requirements for the promotion
and maintenance of peace and security in Africa. According to the
protocol, the MSC shall be composed of senior military officers of the
PSC members. It can also meet at the level of the Chief of Defence
Staff to discuss questions relating to the military and security
requirements and to submit recommendations to the Chairperson of the
Commission on how to enhance Africa`s peace support capacities.
The MSC is mandated to advise and assist the PSC on military and
security issues to ensure that policies and actions in the fields of
conflict prevention, management and resolution are consistent with
sub-regional mechanisms. The role of the MSC also extends to supporting
efforts in early warning, conflict prevention, peacemaking,
peacekeeping and post-conflict peacebuilding. The policy framework for
the establishment of the ASF and the MSC which was adopted on15-16 May
2003 in Addis Ababa also urges the strong working relations between
the Council and the Committee and states that are members of the
Committee should be informed of all PSC meetings at the same time with
the Council members in order to facilitate their own deliberations,
consultations, and provision of advice, prior to meetings of the PSC.
However, such engagements have rarely been translated into action
because of the underperformance of the MSC, mainly emanating from its
understaffing.
The policy framework also states that the MSC should convene as
often as required, prior to all meetings of the PSC at the level of the
Senior Military Officers. They should also attend meetings of the
Council to offer any necessary clarifications and advice when invited to
do so. But this is not happening. The MSC should also convene normally
once a year at the level of the Chiefs of Defence Staff. This seems to
be going well and the last one of such meetings took place on May 2009
in Addis Ababa focusing on the ASF.
In many of the previous MSC meetings the attendance is below fifty
percent as only around seven or eight members of the supposed fifteen
members Committee are usually present. The matter was one of the issues
discussed at the retreat of the PSC in Dakar, Senegal,
on 5 – 6 July 2007. The document which came out at the conclusion of
the retreat in its section on the MSC emphasised that the Council
members, according to the PSC Protocol should ensure that they are
represented in the MSC by a Military Officer - either a Defense Attaché
or a Special Representative within the period of their tenure as PSC
Members. The outcome of the retreat also emphasized that as much as
possible, the PSC should obtain the input of the MSC when considering
issues on pre-deployment or deployment of troops and major military
equipment to field missions in accordance with the provision of the
Protocol. This fell on deaf ears as the issue of staffing the MSC was
again dominating the agenda at the 166th meeting of the PSC on 16
January 2009, in which the PSC has again urged its members to delegate
their appropriate representatives in the MSC.
The MSC was back in mid-November 2009 after a long break, but this
time, too it was back not to consult or advise the PSC, but rather to
be briefed by the Peace Support Operations Division (PSOD) of the AU on
the political strategic conference on Amani Africa. The visibility of
the MSC at the AU in the continental peace and security affairs is at
present not manifest. The working relation between the PSC and the MSC
is not near what it should be and the two-way flow and exchange of
information and expertise is minimal.
The major challenge of the MSC to perform its functions properly and
ensure its support for the PSC is the inadequate representation of
member states of the PSC in the MSC. Amid the continued call of the
Council to member states to take the necessary steps
in order to be represented at the appropriate level in the MSC, a
number of PSC member states are yet to send their delegates to the
committee.
The reason for the understaffing of the PSC may vary from lack of
political will to financial and military personnel constraints of the
Council members. The PSC should strongly and continuously acknowledge
the vital contribution of the MSC for effective peace support missions
and urge its members to be represented properly and consistently in the
activities of the MSC. The council should also work to improve the
relations between the two bodies through informing the MSC about the
Council’s activities and using the military and security expertise of
the Committee. As APSA cannot be productive without the proper
functioning of its sub-components, including the MSC, the Council has
to stress according to article 5(2) h of the PSC protocol in selecting
its members that they have sufficiently staffed and equipped Permanent
Missions at the Headquarters of the Union.
At the end it should be noted with attention that the whole security
architecture is indeed more than the sum of its parts listed above. The
AU, member states of the Union and the international community should
support the operationalisation APSA and its components like the MSC in a
continuous and consistent manner. Support and experience sharing from
the UN MSC could also be an additional boost to the MSC, which at this
point in time, rather resembles a Military Unstaffed Committee.
