Haile Menkerios, head of the United Nations (UN) office to the African Union (AU), speaks to the PSC Report about the ‘division of labour’ between the UN and the AU when it comes to peacekeeping.
He also addresses the issue of UN funding for AU peacekeeping missions and whether the two institutions see eye to eye on the issues of human rights and robust peace enforcement.
Who is responsible for peace and security and fighting terrorism in Africa, the UN or the AU?
The UN Security Council (UNSC) has the primary responsibility for global peace and security, but at the same time the regional organisations and countries also do have the authority and definitely the responsibility to address threats within their region. This is particularly when it comes to any intervention on the basis of Chapter 8 of the UN Charter.
How pro-active is the AU in this regard?
There has been a proliferation of threats to international peace and security in Africa and the continent has been actively engaged in trying to solve them, to the point of establishing a Peace and Security Council (PSC) at the AU. It engages in every threat to peace and security in Africa and it is only when there is a decision or a need to intervene militarily that it has to get the endorsement of the UNSC. The AU, as well as the RECs (regional economic communities), has been getting engaged in situations where peace enforcement is needed, in other words, intervention when there is violent confrontation. The UN has generally intervened when there is peace to keep.
Both the AU and the UN are involved in mediation, but African countries, because they are more affected by these conflicts directly, are then more prepared to intervene and stop wars. They are next door and therefore the consequences of violent conflict influences every aspect – economic, political and social – of their situation. The UN intervenes with political means.
How strong is the AU–UN partnership?
There has been growing recognition both in the AU and in the UNSC that it would be very difficult for either one of them to address the threats and challenges of peace and security alone. Therefore there has been the realisation of the need for collaboration and for partnership.
This partnership has been developing more or less ad hoc. When a threat or an issue becomes paramount then we address it. We ask, what is the AU PSC’s thinking on it? What is the UN’s thinking on it? Then we try to find a means to address it.
Now, with time, I think we’ve reached a level where both recognise their interdependency. There is a need to systematise this partnership and make it more strategic. Perhaps move to a partnership, a division of labour where Africa is prepared to intervene at the earlier stages of conflict when there is no peace to keep and for the UN to sort of take over when it is necessary with a much broader multi-faceted intervention.
This has been happening in Mali and the Central African Republic?
Yes, in reality this has developed as a matter of course and this division of labour has been the pattern lately, with the AU starting and then the UN taking over. So you can say, whereas there is no question about who is primarily responsible [for peace and security] – the primacy still rests with the UNSC – all African countries are members of the UN also and in practice there has been more delegation, more recognition that African countries’ taking action is very positive. They are contributing to international peace.
The AU would like to access UN-assessed contributions to fund its peacekeeping operations. This issue of predictable funding was discussed at the UN General Assembly in September 2015. Is there a final decision? Is this now going to happen?
It is still under discussion. First of all, in principle it is agreed that collaboration between the two [UN and AU] is needed. What form this collaboration should take is an issue not yet finalised.
Number two is financing. How can we utilise the relative advantages that both organisations have? Africa is ready to intervene, but it doesn’t have the resources. The rest of the world has the resources but troop contributors are not ready to send people to fight wars in Africa. Therefore there is an interdependent relationship.
So support to finance has generally come from voluntary contributions and some in the form of assessed contributions. For example in Somalia, there are some contributions [to the African Mission in Somalia] from assessed contributions and some still from bilateral contributions. But there is now an attempt to see how we can formalise this, particularly when Africa came up with the decision that it would raise 100% of the funds necessary for the management of the AU and its work, 75% of projects and 25% of peacekeeping.
I think this has encouraged others also to then consider that the UNSC could pay the 75% [needed for peacekeeping] from assessed contributions. But then it would require that the AU would spend it and engage in peace enforcement and peacekeeping on the same bases and principles that the UN does. It would be required to adhere to the same stringent control mechanisms as well and this is being discussed.
What are the timelines or deadlines for this?
The secretary general has said that in pursuing the proposal of the High Level Panel on Peace Operations (the Hippo report) it was decided that the AU and UN, at secretariat level, would sign a new framework for cooperation. That would then define the relationship, which has already been part of the draft that my office has prepared along with the Peace and Security Department of the AU. We have agreed on these principles and it is a question now of trying to expand on these principles to be UN-wide and AU-wide. In his report to the General Assembly, he said that he would like to see such a framework signed within the coming year. Once that is done, it will be the basis for everything, including financing.
Does it contain institutional changes?
Well, it is a framework. It is not a programme. A framework for cooperation. Once we agree on the framework there will be a plan of action on how to implement it.
People say the UN doesn’t want to fund the AU’s Multinational Joint Task Force against Boko Haram because of the fear that the force might not adhere to the UN’s requirements on respect for human rights, etc. How do you get around that?
The question is not just that alone. Yes, it is an issue, but I think once the framework is there you can agree on the basis for intervention – for human rights, accountability, and all that. Once that framework is established it becomes easier to establish a common basis for engagement.
The AU has a misconception that the UN – and the UNSC – doesn’t want to get involved in fighting terrorism. It does and it has been supportive of countries that are fighting against terrorism.
It’s just that the UNSC has not yet decided to get engaged in peace enforcement and this is peace enforcement. So when others are getting engaged in peace enforcement, it would like to see it on the same standards and principles that the UN stands for – that there would be no support for those who abuse human rights in any way and also accountability.
Has this been the problem with cooperation between the UN and the Congolese forces in the Democratic Republic of the Congo?
That is one problem. There should be consistency when it comes to international law. If people had committed international crimes, crimes against humanity, war crimes, genocide, etc., then they have to be brought to justice.
When countries don’t want to do that or if the AU doesn’t want to enforce it on the same level then the partnership becomes selective. And it is those kinds of principles that we would have to agree on before there could be smooth support to Africa’s engagement. There is growing recognition in the UN that you can’t stick to this old idea of peacekeeping when there is no peace to keep. There is increasing realities on the ground that even if 60% or 75% of a conflict is resolved, most wars don’t simply end, because these wars are not being fought between two nations, not between two organisations but between a multiplicity of actors. Therefore you can’t say ‘we have to wait until there is 100% peace’. If there is 80% you have to keep it. What happens with the 20%? How do you assist? I think there is increasing recognition in the UN as well to assist countries and governments to establish durable peace.
Your office in Addis Ababa has been strengthened. What is your role?
Our role is not to do everything that has to be done for partnership with the AU. It is a facilitator of dialogue. To facilitate and enhance the relationship and not necessarily getting engaged with the AU to implement what has been decided. The [entire] UN office represents the peace and security architecture of the whole UN, which includes the Department of Political Affairs, the Department of Peacekeeping Operations and the Department of Field Support.
So whatever actual work has to be done, is done by these departments. This is a liaison office that actually proposes and studies the AU and then proposes that this is how the AU sees it and then gets New York’s positions and views. And [it] builds this relationship, including the relationship between the two councils.
Are the UNSC members in agreement on this strategy?
We represent the secretary general, not the UNSC, but the secretary general works with the UNSC. There is growing recognition in the UNSC as a whole that on the threats to international peace in Africa they cannot do it without the collaboration of the AU.