Talks on security expose faultlines in AU-EU relationship
Differing views on the Russia-Ukraine war and a lack of common African positions could test the partnership.
The African Union Peace and Security Council (AU PSC) and European Union Political and Security Committee (EU PSC) held their joint informal retreat and consultative meeting on 2 and 3 May 2023. The session, in Brussels, was the pair’s 14th consultation and the sixth time the two have met for an informal retreat. The meetings provided an opportunity for the unions to review mutual concerns and enhance cooperation on peace and security in Africa.
This year’s events, a year after the last EU-AU summit, were set against the backdrop of major fractures in the global multilateral environment. They allowed for reflection on common positions on the reform of global multilateralism, the international finance architecture and the global energy crisis, while deepening cooperation to address challenges.
Topics included peace support operations, the global implications of ongoing geopolitical events, border security and vulnerabilities in Lake Chad Basin countries. Significant attention was given to political transitions and upcoming electoral processes in the Sahel, and to the need for cooperation in addressing the underlying factors fuelling recurring tensions in the region.
Also on the agenda were advancing the Nairobi and Luanda processes currently underway to stabilise the Democratic Republic of Congo and the broader region. The Horn was discussed, with focus on peacebuilding and reconciliation in Ethiopia, cooperation for an effective drawdown of the AU Transitional Mission in Somalia and Sudan’s political and humanitarian crises.
The PSC’s mandate doesn’t extend beyond Africa, so its representatives couldn’t pronounce on the Ukraine crisis
While there is convergence on certain issues of joint interests, there is also divergence on matters such as the Ukraine crisis. For the second time, a divergence of positions between the two partners on some issues prevented the release of a public communiqué and once again tested the relationship between the two organisations.
Although substantive discussions are more important than the absence of a communiqué, the latter signifies growing cracks in the AU-EU partnership. Notwithstanding this, several aspects of the PSC-to-PSC meeting are worth noting to identify ways to enhance the relationship.
Agenda-setting issues
Despite preparatory meetings and consultations between representatives of the two organisations, which generated the Brussels agenda, not all pressing continental issues were listed. Peace and security concerns in North Africa (Tunisia and Libya) and the Southern African region (Mozambique), for example, were not reflected. While not all issues will be discussed at such meetings, omitting crucial realities on the agenda of Africa’s policymakers raises questions about the extent to which the partners agree on or mutually prioritise such matters.
Sources interviewed by the PSC Report point to an additional challenge in the articulation of issues tabled. Some believe that certain issues tabled were not necessarily convincingly articulated during discussions. This was the case with financing of peace support operations. This points directly to the partners’ uneven capacities and raises doubts about the strategy guiding preparations and the ability of African delegations to build consensus on important matters before meetings with major partners.
This is particularly important where there is an obvious lack of a continental common position on a thorny international issue. Agenda setting requires prior consolidation of intraregional positions and the ironing out of joint strategy to guarantee at least minimal success during engagements or representation.
Challenge of building consensus
While some diplomats maintain that there was African consensus on numerous major topics, particularly the Russia-Ukraine war, others argue that there was no homogeneity of positions among member states.
Lack of convergence on the Ukraine crisis has introduced a diplomatic thorn into the EU-AU partnership
Ukraine remains a top concern for Africa’s European partners, but its impact extends beyond Europe. In Africa, it has significantly affected food and energy prices, with huge implications for state stability and security. Although these are acknowledged, there is a lack of clarity on the continent’s position even as European partners continue to push for such a position. Continental leaders have shied away from ‘meddling’, with reasons varying from state to state.
Difficulty articulating a clear continental position has often affected African representation (A3) at the United Nations (UN) and sometimes hampers the UN Security Council’s ability to take its cue on peace and security in Africa from the group.
The lack of convergence on the Ukraine crisis is a new diplomatic thorn in the EU-AU partnership. This is due in part to the AU’s non-alignment stance, member states’ disparate positions on the crisis and differences in both organisations’ approaches to it.
And because the AU PSC does not have a mandate to discuss issues that extend beyond Africa, African representatives could not pronounce on the matter despite their European counterparts desperately needing Africa’s alignment with its positioning. In turn, without clear direction at the highest level of continental decision-making, it is difficult for African ambassadors to speak out on the subject.
Given the implications for Africa’s peace and security and its relationship with Europe, some argue that the continent must clarify its position and/or encourage open-minded discussions among heads of state and government. This would provide leadership for African diplomatic representatives in Brussels, New York and Beijing and help the AU pursue a more active global role.
It is in the EU’s interest to scale up its engagement with the AU through informal meetings to enhance mutual understanding about African and European positions. Europe should clarify its expectations of the AU to help elevate the partnership from one focused on African problems to a mutually beneficial collaboration.
Apprehension about financing
Despite progress and timely discussions on financing peace support operations in Africa, some African diplomats are apprehensive about the impact of the Ukraine crisis on European funding opportunities for Africa.
Without an outcome document, it’s unclear whether financing and Africa’s access to UN-assessed contributions were discussed
Prior to recent concerns, the EU Council decision of 22 March 2021 replaced the African Peace Facility (APF) with the global-facing European Peace Facility (EPF) to prevent conflicts, build peace and strengthen international security. The decision allows the EU to bypass the AU and directly fund a broad range of continental peace support operations, including those not authorised by the PSC. By doing so, the EU breaks the norm of channelling funds through the AU – a move that could certainly dent AU-EU relations in the long term.
The AU’s initial lack of input into this process raised concerns that Africa’s envelope of funding had been compromised. The EU PSC is the decision-making body for the EPF and the meeting presented an opportunity to open dialogue on funding questions. But without an outcome document, it’s unclear whether financing was discussed and what the EU’s position is on Africa’s access to UN-assessed contributions. The meeting was thus a missed opportunity for both PSCs to find common ground on the transition of the APF into the EPF, especially in the war context.
While funding is an important dimension of the partnership, both organisations should consider transitioning away from their heavily finance-based relationship. This would allay concerns that agendas are driven by EU political priorities and that funding cuts or diversions are politically motivated. It would give AU member states much-needed impetus to sustainably fund their programmes and peace operations while addressing the partnership’s asymmetric power relations.
Quest for symmetry
With a year to go before the next PSC-to-PSC meeting, the AU PSC has time to consider enhancing its partnership with the EU and strengthening its positions on the many issues on its policy agenda. This could yield mutually beneficial outcomes for both continents and guarantee greater peace and security dividends for Africa.
It is positive that in the lead-up to the Brussels meeting, the AU PSC formally engaged with African ambassadors in Brussels. Regular exchanges of this nature will enable officials and diplomats in Addis Ababa to tap into the extensive experience of their peers in Europe. It will also enhance the AU PSC's ability to navigate the complex waters of EU external action.
Image: © Christophe Licoppe/European Union
