Towards a functioning Military Staff Committee of the AU
Despite its crucial role in military and security matters, the AU MSC still has several challenges to overcome.
The African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) has been the defining project of the African Union (AU). The architecture, a set of diverse yet harmonious mechanisms for conflict prevention, management and resolution, as well as post-conflict reconstruction and development, has taken up most of the AU’s resources, energy and time in the past decade.
With the AU Peace and Security Council (PSC) at the heart of the project, APSA encompasses a comprehensive set of tools that allow for Africa’s security concerns to be addressed by actors from the continent. Certain elements of the architecture are fully operative. These include mechanisms such as the Continental Early Warning System, some of the regional brigades – which are the foundation of the African Standby Force (ASF) – and the conflict-prevention body, the Panel of the Wise.
Another vital element of the architecture is the AU Military Staff Committee (MSC). Decisions and recommendations made by the Council might lack technical depth and relevance without proper support at the conflict-prevention, management and intervention levels, which is provided by the MSC.
Inspired by the same structure at the United Nations (UN), the AU MSC aims to advise and assist the PSC on issues with military and security requirements. Composed of senior military officers from PSC member countries, the MSC is intended to submit relevant recommendations to the PSC chairperson on how Africa’s peace support capacities can be enhanced. It is also mandated to advise and assist the PSC to ensure that policies and actions in the fields of conflict prevention, management and resolution are consistent with sub-regional mechanisms.
The MSC has gained very little visibility in terms of continental peace and security affairs |
Such engagements have rarely been translated into action, however. This is partly due to the underperformance of the MSC, which is largely linked to understaffing. Thus far, the AU MSC has attained very little visibility in terms of continental peace and security affairs. Its working relation with the PSC is far from what it should be, and the intended exchange of information and expertise is minimal.
The policy framework for the establishment of the ASF and the MSC, which was adopted on 15-16 May 2003 in Addis Ababa, also urges for strong working relations between the Council and the committee. It further requires that the MSC meet prior to all meetings of the PSC at the level of the senior military officers, and stipulates that MSC members should attend meetings of the Council to provide necessary clarifications and advice when invited to do so.
Members of the committee say this is not currently happening, adding that the committee hardly even meets. In the past three years, the committee would sometimes go for over a year and a half without a formal meeting. Some members told ISS Today that when meetings take place after such a long break, they are less likely to meaningfully contribute to the work of the PSC and the AU in general.
Another problem is that, in recent years, most of the meetings focused on the internal working procedures and regulations of the committee, rather than on improving the quality of decisions by the PSC on military issues. It is also reported that in many of the previous MSC meetings, attendance was below 50%.
 There is confusion about the mandate and responsibilities of the MSC |
Following some of these meetings, the MSC called on the PSC to obtain input on issues regarding the pre-deployment or deployment of troops and major military equipment to field missions, as outlined in the PSC Protocol. These calls have been met with little success. When the PSC subsequently deployed an African-led military intervention to Mali, the Council did not request expert advice from the MSC.
Members of the committee complain that they were not given the chance to look at or comment on the concept of the operation. No MSC input was requested or included. The committee is also frustrated by the lack of informal platforms to influence or contribute to the work of the PSC and the Peace Support Operation Division of the AU.
Despite the various documents and procedures, there is still little clarity on how the MSC should function and actively contribute on issues, including visiting AU and other missions on the continent, advising the PSC and examining relevant concept notes of the PSC meetings. There is also confusion about its mandate and responsibilities, and how it relates to and complements the work of the PSC. The draft rules of procedures are yet to be adopted.
Questions are further being raised on the overlap of responsibilities and mandates between the MSC and PSC committees of experts. Some members of the MSC have questioned whether some of these committees are replacing the role of the MSC in advising the PSC.
| Tension between the ambassadors and attachés could be a reason for the poor relations |
The AU MSC was influenced by a similar structure at the UN, yet there hasn’t been a meaningful or consistent relationship between the two committees. Though improving, a classic challenge has been for all members of the PSC to have military attachés on the MSC. Repeated calls are still made to members of the PSC to delegate relevant members of their missions to the MSC. There are also cases where military attachés are not immediately replaced after their departure. Reasons for understaffing vary from a lack of political will to financial and military personnel constraints of the Council members.
Some see the poor relations between the PSC and MSC as a reflection of relations between diplomats/politicians and the military at the national level. They say it could show mistrust, a lack of proper communication and the lack of a clear mandate between governments and the military at the national level. Observers say that the tension between the ambassadors and defence attachés could be one reason for poor working relations between the PSC and the MSC.
It is high time that the PSC seek 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 relations between the two bodies through informing the MSC about its 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 that according to the PSC protocol, members must sufficiently staff and equip their permanent missions at the Headquarters of the Union.
Hallelujah Lulie, Researcher, Conflict Prevention and Risk Analysis Division, ISS Addis Ababa
