On a mission to enhance PSC field trips
Despite commendable efforts, the Peace and Security Council still grapples with factors limiting the effectiveness of its country trips.
In September, the African Union (AU) PSC conducted a field mission in the Central African Republic (CAR). Its first objective was to assess CAR’s political and security situation and the second to launch Africa Amnesty Month, which encourages civilian disarmament.
Joining PSC members was Ambassador General Antonio Santos, the Special Representative of the Chairperson of the AU Commission for CAR and head of the AU liaison office in that country. The delegation met with more than 200 stakeholders, including government officials, the diplomatic community and civil society organisations.
This Bangui mission continued a two-decade practice that has allowed the Council to collect firsthand information through direct engagements with crucial actors to better respond to peace and security challenges.
Field missions are also a vital monitoring tool that help the PSC grasp situations to address and tailor its responses to countries’ internal dynamics. Hence, the missions’ aims to prevent, mediate and resolve conflicts depending on the context.
Since 2004, the PSC has conducted 43 missions across 20 countries, totalling more than 130 days
Similarly, they have been seized as opportunities to assist member states affected by natural disasters and other issues.However, despite the centrality of field missions to the PSC’s work and the strides it has made over the last two decades, hindrances considerably hamper its efforts and minimise the impacts of the engagements.
Taking stock
Since its inception in 2004, the PSC has conducted 43 field missions across 20 countries in the AU’s five regions, totalling more than 130 days. These have been follow-up and fact-finding missions, focusing on conflict management and crisis response over prevention.
Visits have included two joint missions with the European Union Peace and Security Council to Mali (2015) and the Central African Republic (2018) and one by the Military Staff Committee to Somalia in 2023.
The eastern region received the most attention, accounting for 45% of missions or 22 visits (see chart 1). South Sudan, Somalia and Sudan dominated, with South Sudan and Sudan being the most visited not only in the region but continentally, at eight missions each.
Next was the central region, where Chad leads the six countries visited, accounting for 26.5% of missions. The western region was third, at 22%, although visits were distributed across eight countries. Southern Africa was the least-visited region, accounting for 6%, with two missions to two countries respectively.
The disparity was due to repeated visits to selected countries in regions such as East Africa, which suggests a crisis requiring the Council’s continued intervention.
|
Chart 1: Number of field visits per region
 Source: AU PSC Secretariat |
|In the east, country-specific missions addressed issues such as peace support operations (PSOs), counter-terrorism and conflict resolution processes and mechanisms. These included the AU Transition Mission in Somalia and the October 2024 fact-finding visit to Port Sudan amid the ongoing conflict. South Sudan saw five visits from 2016 to June 2024 primarily to monitor the implementation of the Agreement on the Resolution of Conflict in South Sudan.
In Central Africa, the focus has been on counter-terrorism and PSOs and has included the Multinational Joint Task Force. Lake Chad Basin was visited and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo was active in the east of that country. Gabon and Chad stood out for missions focused on unconstitutional changes of government.
Southern Africa’s two missions dealt primarily with electoral governance issues in Lesotho and counter-terrorism and PSOs in Mozambique, centering on the SADC Mission in Mozambique. This demonstrates that field visits are driven by crisis, with the regions with the most pressing issues having been visited the most.
|
Chart 2: Number of field visits by country
 Source: AU PSC Secretariat |
Notably, the PSC has been most active in Central Africa, which accounted for 66% of visits despite fewer states having been visited.
This was due partly to the number of countries in the region compared to that in other parts of the continent. It also points to missions’ restricted access to affected member states and attention to one crisis over another.
As depicted in Chart 3, 22 discussions centred on elections and governance issues, 21 each on conflict resolution and PSOs and 17 on counter-terrorism. These are in keeping with the prevailing peace and security trends in the regions.
For example, multiple visits to Somalia align with the needs associated with the succession of the AU Mission on Somalia to the AU Transition Mission in Somalia and the need for continental action against insecurity.
|
Chart 3: Themes discussed during AU field missions
 Source: AU PSC Secretariat |
The challenges
Data suggests that the PSC has conducted an average of two field missions a year. Given the situation on the continent, more than two burning issues should have merited visits in any year.
Even though the PSC has other means of handling conflicts that might have been fully used, visible and active field trips could contribute considerably to building confidence and enhancing awareness among African citizens.
Policy actors interviewed by PSC Report, however, suggest obstacles to more frequent field visits. The first is the influence on the agenda of the PSC’s monthly chairs, which put forward their priorities to the Council’s 15 members.
Some chairs avoid tabling crises considered sensitive to regional interests, which implies that the need for field visits to such countries does not come up. Although PSC members generally have a say on the monthly agenda, only occasionally do country cases other than those proposed by the incoming chair make it to the list.
Secondly, even when field missions are tabled and executed, chairs and other PSC members preserve their interests by being careful about the content and language of the report.
Beyond the letter of the reports, toning down outcomes constitutes a significant challenge to PSC missions’ effectiveness. Issues are often not captured with the severity they warrant.
Missions are seldom welcomed, especially if hosts perceive a matter to be too internal or sensitive
The third concern is limited or lack of cooperation from host governments. Some sources informed PSC Report that AU political missions are seldom welcomed, especially when the hosts perceive situations being monitored too internal and/or sensitive. For instance, AU representatives were denied access without justification to engage Malian authorities on post-coup transition issues.
Enhancing missions
The PSC could consider permanent regional monitoring and observation missions with broad mandates and adequate equipment, at least in the most critical situations, instead of relying constantly on sporadic missions. Given the Council’s difficulties in undertaking more missions with the current approach, this arrangement could have a twofold advantage.
It will bring the AU closer to the crises and crucial actors while fostering consistent engagement with protagonists and regional bodies to address emerging issues. The Council could also use independent technical experts to collect data in line with the United Nations Security Council sanctions model.
Even though some member states have opposed being discussed and eventually visited, the PSC should not shy away from examining issues it deems paramount to continental peace and security.
The premise is not to paint member states in a bad light but to offer the support needed from continental structures. This needs to be workshopped at the AU Assembly to facilitate member states’ understanding of the PSC’s motivation for engagement.
