The African Union (AU)/European Union (EU) summit, to be held in Abidjan at the end of November, will be off to a truly busy start. While youth and job creation will be the main focus, other issues—such as the Libyan migrant crisis; the forced, yet bloodless resignation of Robert Mugabe; migration; and good governance—risk overshadowing this crucial two-day event.

Additionally, the future of African youth remains an issue of utmost importance in a continent the population of which is projected to reach 2.5 billion by 2050. Africa is poised to become the most youthful of all continents. The youth are Africa’s greatest wealth—but their potential could become a major source of worry if the development goals are not fully met. Young Africans need education and training so that they can fully access the job market and take control of their own destiny, including through political participation.

The summit must tap into multilateral forms of cooperation other than those available so far. In this context it bears noting that the European Development Fund, a crucial tool for cooperation, is set to lose 15 percent of its budget as a result of Brexit.

In terms of direct investment, while the European Union still provides the lion's share in Africa, China has emerged as a major player. For other areas of the world, finding innovative ways to promote direct investment has become more relevant and pressing than in the past.

While development in Africa remains a social, security, and economic challenge, the potential for partnership with more developed areas, such as the European Union member countries, is real. Several African countries have experienced impressive growth for more than a decade. While the Central African Republic, torn by conflict, is lagging behind, the countries of western and eastern Africa are on the path to prosperity and growth. Illiteracy is on the decline in most countries. Rwanda, Benin and Ghana have succeeded in establishing effective education systems. Cooperation on these fronts has almost disappeared between the EU and the AU. There are very few schools of European missions and few scholarships for students. There is very little interest in the field of vocational training. Yet the future of Africa's youth depends largely on the quality of its education systems.

Governance remains a problem. The elite often reap the benefits of growth to the detriment of the underprivileged, impeding efforts to fight poverty. But one thing is clear: Countries on the right track are those that ensure stability through a coherent and inclusive political system.

Such issues should be considered against the backdrop of the fight against terrorism, notably in the regions under the grip of Boko Haram, as well as other Sahel countries that host a mosaic of terrorist groups: al-Mourabitoun, Ansar Dine, Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and the Islamic State Greater Sahara. All are linked to major networks of trafficking in arms, drugs, and people.

A viable anti–Boko Haram strategy would aim mainly to enable the countries of the region, namely Nigeria, Chad, Cameroon, Niger and Benin, to pool their efforts to fight terrorism under the umbrella of a coalition. The European Union has announced an aid package of 50 million euros. But the funding pledge, made in 2016, has not materialized yet—due of bureaucratic issues, as EU laws require that the funds be distributed equally to ECOWAS member countries. Meanwhile, Chad, which was to devote 5,000 men to coalition operations, and has staged necessary interventions in neighboring countries, is now very reluctant to continue, because it does not have the means for such commitments.

The United States has been discretely intervening in all the regions affected by the scourge of terrorism. In October, the death of three U.S. soldiers in Niger drew attention to the operational presence of American forces, present since the early 2000s. According to reports, there are 1,700 "advisers" providing training and intelligence services, while drones carry out "targeted raids."

France has meanwhile decided to address the threat posed by Boko Haram unilaterally, due to the lack of international support. The group has exploited the vacuum to gain a foothold in the Sahel—particularly in the desert of Niger, an important country and an almost exclusive source of uranium for Areva and the French nuclear industry.

Other actors are present as well. Morocco, which supplies Niger with military equipment, is vigorously engaged the intelligence front. The kingdom also provides, as part of a global strategy, training to Imams at the Mohammed VI Institute, to counter extremism in Africa and in European countries with a sizable Muslim migrant population.

The problem, however, lies in a multinational approach that is on the whole piecemeal. The risk of foreign fighters arriving in Africa from Syria and Iraq is real. There is a need for a consolidation of strategies across the region politically to match the level of intelligence cooperation, which has been more effective.

The other challenge—a hard one to address—is the need for sovereign nation-states to assert their hold on the territories they are meant to control. Libya and Somalia are two poignant examples.

These issues are at the heart of the agenda of the Abidjan Summit and will be the subject of bilateral and multilateral discussions.

The European Union is not monolithic on the African question, for historical reasons, but also because of member states’ immediate interests. If the migration issue is widely shared, counterterrorism and development tend not to generate the same commitment. The policies pursued have not yet proven coherent or effective.

The Summit of Abidjan can serve as a turning point in the relations between the two continents. Old-fashioned, paternalistic relations between European countries and their former African colonies are being relegated to the past. Instead, a win-win partnership is taking shape which can encompass new, pressing issues, such as the environment and migration. A global vision that must prevail in Abidjan to revitalize cooperation.

nationalinterest.org

After long periods of fighting for their independence from colonial empires, some newly-independent African states took on the mantra of neo-colonialism in denying aspiring ethnic groups their own statehood.

Perhaps the most egregious example of an aspirant nation denied its rightful status because of dictates from the African Union and outside powers in Washington, London, Paris, and Berlin is the Republic of Somaliland in the «Horn of Africa». Shortly after achieving independence from Britain in 1960 as the State of Somaliland, the nation formed what would prove to be a dysfunctional union with the Republic of Somalia, what was formerly the colony of Italian Somaliland.

One of Somaliland’s founding statesmen, Mohammed Ibrahim Egal, was not so keen on rushing into a union with Somalia. Egal wanted to wait for six months to firmly establish Somaliland’s government institutions, before rushing into a union with a nation where the predominant business language was Italian, not English, as was the case in Somaliland.

In 1969, the military junta of Mohammed Siad Barre, who hailed from the former Italian Somaliland and governed from the Somali capital of Mogadishu, began a brutal crackdown on the Isaaq people, the majority ethnic group of Somaliland.

In 1990, after Barre’s ouster, the former British Somaliland withdrew from the Somali Republic and declared itself independence once again. Although the State of Somaliland was recognized by some 35 nations during its brief independence from June 26 to July 1, 1960, no state recognized the nation’s restoration of independence in 1960. Not even Somaliland’s former colonial power, the United Kingdom, recognized Somaliland’s independence, even though many of the restored nation’s leaders had close ties to Britain. Upon independence in 1960, Somaliland’s military was composed of the Somaliland Scouts, whose officers were all trained in Britain and were graduates of Britain’s military colleges.

In 1961, the Somaliland officers, concerned that Somaliland was already receiving a raw deal from the union government in Mogadishu, staged an unsuccessful coup. These graduates of Eton and Sandhurst saw their countrymen receiving menial positions in the so-called «union» government in Mogadishu. Following the attempted coup, which sought a restoration of Somaliland’s independence, the Somaliland officers were imprisoned and not set free until 1964, when they were called on the help lead a war against neighboring Ethiopia for control of the Ogaden region. The Ogaden was recognized by the Mogadishu government as «Western Somalia».

In 1967, Egal, the founder of independent Somaliland, became prime minister of the country. The Italian Somaliland-born President, Abdirashid Ali Shermarke, appointed Egal to the post to assuage feelings in Somaliland that their better-trained and educated political leaders were being short-changed for high leadership positions in Mogadishu. The honeymoon between Somalilanders and Somalis did not last long. In 1969, Shermarke was assassinated by one of his bodyguards, suspected of being a loyalist of Barre. What followed was a military coup staged by Barre. Soon, Barre began a war of genocide against the Isaaqs and other smaller groups in Somaliland.

The Somalilanders formed an armed opposition group, the Somali National Movement (SNM), to battle Barre’s forces. In 1988, Barre’s war became more brutal when he bombed the Somaliland capital of Hargeisa, the port city of Berbera, and other towns in the region. The Barre campaign against the Isaaqs became known as the «Hargeisa holocaust». The United Nations concluded that Barre’s perpetration of genocide was «conceived, planned and perpetrated by the Somali Government against the Isaaq people».

In 1990, the SNM freed Somaliland from the Somali occupiers and the Barre junta collapsed the following year. The SNM restored Somaliland’s independence in 1991 and it claimed «successor state» status for the short-lived State of Somaliland. In 1994, Egal, the elder statesman of Somaliland, became Somaliland’s president.

Unlike 1990, however, Somaliland, with a population of 3.5 million, was not recognized by any other nation. To this day, the nation has pleaded before the African Union, the European Union, and the United Nations for recognition. The world has turned its head on the country, which remains a force of stability in an area plagued by civil war, maritime piracy, and terrorism.

What is particularly galling to the Somalilanders is that the African Union has made exceptions to its colonial border policy by recognizing the independence of Eritrea, carved out of Ethiopia, and South Sudan, separated from Sudan. There is a suspicion that the African Union and its puppet masters in Washington, London, and at the UN were more than willing to grant recognition to Eritrea in 1993 and South Sudan in 2011 because of the majority Christian populations of both nations. Somaliland is overwhelmingly Islam.

South Sudan is a particularly egregious example of recognition being extended to what would become a «failed state» wracked by civil war. South Sudan was the pet project of people like Barack Obama’s UN ambassador and National Security Adviser Susan Rice. In the leadup to South Sudan’s independence in 2011, there was not even an agreed name for the country. Before South Sudan» was settled upon, other names considered included the Nile Republic, Nilotia, Cush, and New Sudan. There has never been any question about the name of Somaliland.

South Sudan was created as the result of powerful forces in Washington. Independence for southern Sudan was a goal of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and her acolyte Susan Rice. The splitting of Sudan was also in the interests of Israel, which had yearned for a client state in southern Sudan that apply pressure on the supply of the Nile's headwaters to Egypt and northern Sudan. For Rice, a vitriolic hatred for Khartoum and its majority Arab population, helped the cause of the southern Sudanese. Rice's views on southern Sudan and Khartoum were partly influenced by two Bill Clinton administration counter-terrorism officials, Steven Simon and Daniel Benjamin. Simon and Benjamin were also cozy with the Israel Lobby in Washington.

The African Union has also made exceptions to the dissolving of national unions of its member states. The Senegambia federation of Senegal and Gambia was dissolved in 1989 without resistance from the African Union. The Mali Federation between Senegal and the-then Sudanese Republic (French Sudan, later Mali) came to an end in 1960, after a two-moth existence. The Federation of Arab Republics, consisting of Egypt, Libya, and the non-African country of Syria, was dissolved in 1977. The United Arab Republic of Egypt and Syria ended in 1961. If Eritrea and South Sudan could exit from their «parent» nations and Senegal, Gambia, Libya, and Egypt were permitted to end their political unions, why is Somaliland dealt a different hand?

Some status quo enthusiasts for colonial borders in Africa point out that if Somaliland were granted recognition, it would start a wave of other regions demanding independence. This is a specious argument as seen with international support for Eritrea and South Sudan, both the products of long guerrilla wars for independence. If Somaliland were granted recognition, it would signal to other aspirant nations on the continent that they, too, might have worthy arguments for statehood. That is how Somaliland saw independence for Eritrea and South Sudan. Prior statehood or recognition of autonomy does, in fact, provide a legal basis for the independence of Zanzibar from Tanzania, Barotseland from Zambia, and the Caprivi Strip from Namibia. These aspirant nations saw their future nationhood doomed as the result of a colonial treaty, the Heligoland-Zanzibar Treaty of 1890. Similar colonial treaties across Africa have stymied the sovereignty of countless other peoples. The African Union, which prides itself on rising from the ashes of colonialism, should not embrace it when it is carried out by its member states.

A few important details should be emphasized here. First, this was the first terrorist act in Burkina Faso. Second, French security forces took part in the operation to free the hostages. One US military member was with the French forces at the scene. He «accidentally happened» to be in the country. Third, US servicemen were involved…

A question pops up – why the country surrounded by neighbors where terrorist activities have become routine since a long time ago, had been spared from attacks until this tragedy occurred? Boko Haram group operates in the eastern part of Niger, the gangs of Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb are active in the northern part of Mali, but no terrorist activities had been reported in Burkina Faso till the recent Ouagadougou attack. Why now, why not before? There is one explanation of such an immunity of Burkina Faso to terrorism. And this explanation is that Blaise Compaoré ruled the country for 27 years (1987-2014). As a result of Burkinabe uprising, he resigned on October 31 and fled to Ivory Coast. A few months later one of his associates tried to stage a coup d’état, but failed, making the country plunge further into anarchy. Roch Marc Christian Kaboré won the presidential election in November, 2015. He took office on December 29, 2015 – only a few days ago. Before the inauguration, Burkina Faso’s military court had issued an international arrest warrant for the former President Blaise Compaore on charges of staging a coup d’état in 1987 and the assassination of the country’s revolutionary ex-leader Thomas Sankara. A step in the right direction, no doubt about it.

Roch Marc Christian Kaboré, President of Burkina Faso

Probably, Burkina Faso had been spared from terrorist activities because the government was involved in illegal arms sales to Islamic militants. However, the perpetrators of the recent attack had no relation to Islam – Muslims were their main target. According to recent census (2006) conducted by Government of Burkina Faso, 60.5% of the population adheres to Islam. About a quarter of population are Christians. For many years the country has been ruled by Catholics, including the overthrown President Compaore, Sankara – the leader assassinated by Compaoré, and the new President Kaboré. Somehow Islamists used to easily find a common language with Christian Blaise Compaoré and had a free hand to eliminate «false» Muslims while waving Islamic flags.

The participation of US military in the operation to free hostages kept in the Splendid Hotel is easy to explain. The United States has a base in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, since 2007.

The fact of US military presence currently engaged in actual military operations in 14 sub-Saharan nations is normally kept out of public spotlight.

The list of countries to host US military facilities includes: Burkina Faso, Congo, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, Chad, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Kenya, Mali, Niger, Nigeria, Somalia, South Sudan, and Uganda…

The region boasts vast resources. Burkina Faso is rich in copper, iron ore, manganese, and phosphates and tin. Gold is the main treasure the country possesses. Unlike in the case of other gold producers which have their reserves nearly depleted, Burkina Faso is currently experiencing a dramatic gold mining boom. In 2011 (the time of major political tensions) the production grew by 32 percent. Burkina Faso has become Africa’s 4th biggest producer of gold after South Africa, Mali and Ghana. Gold accounts for about half of the country’s exports.

The new government faces security challenges. The terrorist act occurred just a couple of weeks after the inauguration to remind the President who calls the shots in the country. There is someone who can easily make the country plunge into the quagmire of terror going rampant or curb the terrorist activities. No doubt, this «someone» will not refuse the power he enjoyed in the days of Blaise Compaoré’s tenure. The only thing left is to watch the new President respond to this show of force.

There are African leaders who are adamant in their determination to pursue national interests to the very end, including Nigerian President Muhammadu Buhari and Jacob Zuma, the President of South Africa. But it’s not enough to stand up to the West. Thomas Sankara, former President of Burkina Faso, realized it well. In one of his most famous speeches delivered at the summit of the Organization of African Unity (now the African Union) in Addis Ababa in 1987, Sankara issued a passionate call to reject debt repayments as a form of permanent plundering of African countries. He said, «If Burkina Faso alone were to refuse to pay the debt, I wouldn't be at the next conference».

Back then, the leaders of the Organization of African Unity member-countries laughed and applauded, but failed to take a unanimous decision. In a year, Burkina Faso was represented by Blaise Compaoré, who had physically eliminated Sankara three months after the speech. The current President of Burkina Faso understands well what consequences the absence of unity within the ranks African nations can lead to…

Thomas Sankara, President of Burkina Faso (1983–1987)

The implementation of Agenda 2063 (a far-reaching plan indeed!) was a priority topic. (1) This is a program of general development and economic independence. There may be obstacles on the way, but Africa has achieved a big economic success and that’s an undisputable fact. With all hurdles to overcome (1), Africa is certainly outpacing the European Union. 

There were other events to occur this year related to the summit. It all mirrors a certain trend. The NEPAD summit is worth to be mentioned. The abbreviation stands for the New Partnership for Africa's Development, an African Union strategic framework for pan-African socio-economic progress sometimes called the program of African Renaissance. (3) The initiative was put forward by Tabo Mbeki, former South African President, as a plan for social, economic and cultural regeneration of the continent. No doubt the emergence of the program was one of the reasons President Mbeki was dismissed (outside forces played an important role to make him resign). South Africa is involved in the North-South Corridor – a multi-modal and multi-dimensional infrastructure system that includes road, rail, border posts, bridges, ports, energy and other related infrastructure – which passes through 12 countries. The 12 countries include Tanzania, Congo, Malawi, Zimbabwe, South Africa, Zambia, Botswana, Mozambique, Kenya, Ethiopia, Sudan and Egypt.

The June 10 tripartite summit brought together the Southern African Development Community (SADC), The East African Community (EAC) and the Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA). The parties signed an agreement on trade free zone (TFA). The Tripartite TFA encompassing 26 Member/Partner States from the three organizations with a combined population of 625 million people and a Gross Domestic Product (GDP) of USD 1.2 trillion will account for half of the membership of the African Union and 58% of the continent’s GDP. The agreement is one more step on the way of boosting trade and establishing an economic entity. It took four years to form the COMESA-EAC-SADC Tripartite association. The African Union officially began negotiations on plans to create a continent-wide free trade zone called the new Continental Free Trade Area by 2017. South Africa and 11 other countries signed up for an ambitious proposal of having a single air-transport market on the continent within two years. (4)  Kenya's President Uhuru Kenyatta urged African countries to end their reliance on foreign aid saying the future of the continent cannot be left to outside forces. In a message posted to his Twitter account on June 12, Kenyatta says foreign aid often carries unacceptable conditions and is not a solid basis for prosperity and freedom in Africa. 

Everything’s not that rosy, there are also hitches on the way. Some issues evoke sharp controversy. One of them is the reform of the United Nations. On the one hand, the African Union is unanimous in its desire to make the United Nations Security Council more democratic. In 2005 the AU reached the Ezulwini Consensus (5), a position on international relations and reform of the UN (6). It calls for a more representative and democratic Security Council, in which Africa, like all other world regions, is represented. The AU put forward a demand for two permanent seats and a total of five non-permanent seats with the African Union to select candidates. Allegedly, an agreement was reached on South Africa and Nigeria to become permanent UN Security Council members. But speaking at the summit Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe blasted the two candidates saying Africa would never agree to them getting permanent seats on the UN Security Council. This was because they both voted for UN Security Council Resolution 1973 in 2011, which authorized military action against the regime of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi. According to him, they betrayed the continent which could never trust them. (7)

There is another important issue on the agenda. Since a long time the AU has been unwilling to recognize the governments that came to power through coup, even when a regime was popular and enjoyed political support within the state. Some unconstitutional regimes are subject to collective ostracism while in other cases the AU turns a blind eye on those who evidently come to power as a result of coup. The 2012 coup in Mauritania was quite, but it entailed a wave of indignation to suspend the country’s membership in the Union. In 2010-2011 an internal crisis hit Cote D’Ivoire (Ivory Coast).Alassane Dramme Ouattara, the incumbent «president», came to power with the help of French military. The presidential palace was destroyed. No reaction followed. There are cases of absurd hypocrisy, especially when it comes to the right to re-election. This May the Burundi's constitutional court approved President Pierre Nkurunziza's bid for a third term. The decision provoked a flurry of indignation on the part of African Union though the ruling in no way contradicts the country’s constitution. The African Union openly interferes into the internal affairs of a sovereign state which is its member.

There was a scandal during the event. The International Criminal Court's 2009 quest to arrest Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir on charges of war crimes and genocide took a step closer to reality on June 14 after he arrived at the African Union summit in South Africa. The North Gauteng High Court in Pretoria barred al-Bashir from leaving the country while hearings determine the fate of the ICC arrest warrant. The ICC always closely watches the Sudanese President’s moves when he leaves his country. Local NGOs rushed to court in an effort to have a decision ordering the South African government to arrest the President of Sudan. The court needed just a few hours to hand down the ruling in favor of claimants. It proves the fact that there are instruments to exercise internal leverage upon the country’s government to make it comply with what the global power tells it to do. There was no legal ground for detaining and putting the Sudanese President under arrest. The mantra about the need for South Africa to cooperate with the International Criminal Court is legally groundless. Any young and inexperienced lawyer knows that cooperation and arrest are not the same thing. It’s clear that the judges realized how absurd their ruling was. Even an ordinary person cannot be arrested upon the demand of foreign or international bodies. The case should be studied first before a ruling on extradition or refusal to extradite is handed down. This time in South Africa human rights activists filled TV channels to persuade that it should be done automatically. The judges were confused. Declaring the decision to take the Sudanese President into custody the court said it would submit the legal opinion for the ruling …next week.

The South African government should be given its due. It guaranteed in practice its obligations and respected the immunity of foreign head of state coming to the country upon an invitation to take part in a session of international body. Omar al-Bashir left the country an hour before the ruling was handed down.

All told, the Johannesburg summit showed that there are serious contradictions between the members of the African Union while the West exerts pressure on Africa. No matter that, the AU is moving to economic integration and independence. No doubt, the pressure will grow. It had to fight hard for political independence. Achieving economic independence requires no less effort.

Johannesburg, South Africa

Footnotes:

A month later, on October 10, U.N. Security Council unanimously approved a resolution to help end violence in the Central African Republic. Resolution 2021, sponsored by France, backs the deployment of a new African Union peacekeeping force, known as MISCA (made up of forces from Chad, Gabon, Congo Republic and Cameroon), and demands swift implementation of a political transition leading to fair elections in less than 18 months. Summing it up, the Council underscored the primary duty of authorities in the Central African Republic to protect the population and ensure the unity of the national territory. It demanded that elements of the Seleka coalition and other armed groups immediately lay down their arms, urging them to participate in disarmament, demobilization and reintegration programs. The Council reiterated its condemnation of Seleka’s seizure of power on March 24, as well as the associated violence and looting.

The resolution expresses the Council's readiness to consider «appropriate measures» against those who «undermine peace, stability and security, impede the political transition and fuel violence». It stresses the council's intention to consider options to support the AU force established in July and asks U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon to submit detailed proposals in 30 days, including the possibility of transforming it into a U.N. peacekeeping operation. The document condemns human rights violations by the Seleka former rebel coalition, which seized power last March in a coup, and confirms the Council's condemnation of the seizure of power by the Seleka rebel coalition group and the following devastation of the country's natural heritage noting «poaching and trafficking of wildlife are among the factors that fuel the crisis in CAR».

Aside from that, the new UN document broadens the mandate of the U.N. Integrated Peacebuilding Office in Central African Republic, or BINUCA, promoting peace efforts and political transition, assisting in elections and helping investigate human rights abuses. It would also support the stabilization of the security situation by advising on reforms of the security sector, police and judiciary and the demobilization of combatants. The Council resolution allows BINUCA to go beyond Bangui and provides it with rights observers to investigate and report on human rights violations, including sexual violence against women and children. The document adjusted the mandate of BINUCA in the five key areas: support for implementation of the transition process; support for conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance; support for stabilization of the security situation; promotion and protection of human rights; and coordination of international actors.

This vote provides «a glimmer of hope in a nation where the State has collapsed», CAR’s UN Ambassador Charles Armel Doubane told the Council. Paris has about 400 troops in CAR protecting the airport and French interests. MISCA, which currently counts only 1,400 troops, after full deployment should be 3,600-strong, but new deployments are hindered by the lack of financial and military means. France's U.N. Ambassador Gerard Araud said he expects the council to adopt another resolution in mid-November «deciding effectively the support that we will provide». 

CAR: rich poor state in deep trouble

The landlocked Central African Republic, or CAR, is rich in gold, diamonds and uranium, but decades of instability and the spillover from conflicts in its larger neighbors take their toll. The Central African Republic has endured a long series of coups and rebellions since gaining independence from France in 1960. Recently it has been blighted with insecurity since the toppling of President Francois Bozize by the Seleka rebel coalition on March 24. 

Since seizing power, the rebels have been involved in committing atrocities. Some of the ugly incidences occurring in the country are cases of rapes, proliferation of arms, child soldier recruitment (thousands of children are forcibly recruited into the ranks of armed groups), malnutrition, and huge population displacement. Health centers have been closed, approximately one million children do not go to school and the population is deprived of the most basic services. Some 300,000 people are internally displaced or have fled to neighboring countries, according to the UN. 

There is now a transitional government, headed by Prime Minister Nicolas Tiangaye, entrusted with restoring law and order and paving the way for democratic elections. But armed clashes in the north-east have increased since the beginning of August, and the country is facing a dire humanitarian situation that affects the entire population of some 4.6 million. Christian militias have sprung up to defend communities against Muslims fighting for Seleka, which was officially disbanded by the transitional government.

Russia shares concern, calls for learning lessons of recent past

The CAR situation appears to be an element of the trend, radicals use to their advantage the mistakes of US-led Western foreign policy in and exploit the countries’ internal difficulties to infiltrate and cause chaos making life unbearable for local population. They try to do in Syria, for instance. This is a common threat for all. As Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said in his interview on September 13 «We must be united by common threats and challenges, including the one which you mentioned, the proliferation of extremism following the Syrian crisis, like it happened in Libya when combatants are now present in dozen of countries, in Africa first of all, and Libyan arms are being shipped to those countries to support the extremist movement». He made precise that he meant Mali, Chad and the Central African Republic as the recent examples. Lavrov added, «We must be consistent – either we agree that any terrorism is unacceptable or we will be playing a double-standard game when some son of a bitch is okay because he’s our son of a bitch».

The Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs statement on the CAR situation issued as far back as this January stated, «Moscow is seriously concerned about the activities of the antigovernment coalition of Seleca militant rebels which resulted in deterioration of situation in the Central African Republic (CAR). We are convinced that further escalation of the domestic conflict could have the worst consequences for the CAR and threatens to destabilize the Situation in the Central African subregion».

Speaking at the New York conference devoted to the situation in Central Africa, Michael Margelov, the current Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Federation Council of Russia, special presidential envoy for cooperation with Africa, told RIA-Novosti agency on September 25 that Russia shares concern over the CAR situation. According to him, «It’s a degrading state ruled by Seleka field commanders, international community faces swift militarization and «somalization» of the country». He added that the violence is on the rise along the lines of interreligious strife on the brink of spilling over the national borders and the UN Peacebuilding Commission had a role to play. 

Russia has rich experience in African peacekeeping contributing in the operations in Angola, Chad, and Sierra-Leone. At present, the military formation of the Russian peacekeepers is part of UN international force in Sudan. 

* * *

NATO went beyond the UN resolution 1973 in Libya, ignoring the Russia’s and China’s warnings about the consequences. The NATO’s intervention spurred a domino-like effect across Africa. It affects one nation after another – Somalia, Mali, Kenya, and now – the CAR. African regions are glued together by a delicate balance inherited from the messy colonial legacy. Instability in one African country can cause major instabilities throughout the region. A dangerous chain reaction has been started. The hand of West-inspired Al Qaeda lurks behind Seleka rebellion in Central African Republic… While the CAR has not been known as an al-Qaeda hot spot, the rebel coalition is largely although not exclusively drawn from the Muslim population. As such, it will no doubt be informed by al-Qaeda sensibilities and sympathies that are flourishing in a number of neighboring countries. It all relates to the situation in Syria where the support rendered to anyone against the government boosted the radicalization of opposition. 

Some experts say that even at full strength the AU force would not be large enough to deploy beyond key cities to rural areas where there is also great instability. Others say the situation in CAR is too fragile to permit the deployment of a U.N. peacekeeping force in the foreseeable future. Having been overshadowed by other conflicts such as the Syrian civil war, it still gives rise to concern – the country borders some of the most tumultuous countries on the continent including Congo and Sudan necessitating the international involvement, which could be efficient only if the lessons of the past are learnt.

The summer of 2013 was a hot one for Nigeria, and not just in terms of the weather. On the one hand, the country's populace and government have been subjected to new and increasingly violent attacks from terrorist groups, first and foremost from Boko Haram. On the other hand, Nigeria is experiencing massive pressure from the International Criminal Court, international human rights organizations and the local fifth column. This synchronized attack comes amid the destabilization of a number of neighboring countries…

The Federal Republic of Nigeria is one of the largest countries in Africa. Its population[1] is the largest in Africa and the ninth largest in the world.[2] Nigeria's main extractable resources are oil and natural gas; it also has tin, iron ore, niobium, lead and zinc. Nigeria has the 10th largest oil reserves (around 40 billion barrels) and the 7th largest gas reserves (around 5 trillion cubic meters) in the world. The country is an influential member of OPEC and exports over 2 million barrels of oil a day (14th place in the world).

The history of Nigeria in the context of the international justice system is quite sad and smacks strongly of oil. For example, in 2002 the International Court of the UN handed down a decision on a territorial dispute between Cameroon and Nigeria and ruled that the Bakassi peninsula belongs to Cameroon. This decision was notable in several respects. First, this peninsula, which is very rich in oil reserves, had belonged to Nigeria since the independence of both countries. The decision to take a huge territory from one state and "award" it to another is unprecedented in the postwar history of international law. The International Court was not deterred even by the fact that along with the territory it essentially awarded Cameroon the entire population of the peninsula. Formally, Nigerian citizens were allowed to "freely choose" their citizenship; they could either remain Nigerians or become Cameroonians, and Cameroon was required to grant Cameroonian citizenship to all who wanted it. However, the International Court of the UN is unable to answer the question as to the extent to which all this madness is consistent with international law. Although it has tried. Scarcely having entered the 21st century, the main judicial organ of the United Nations declared that colonial treaties remain in force to this day, and moreover, they take precedence over any other sources of law in Africa! It's difficult to believe, but a fact is a fact: Cameroon's right to claim the Bakassi peninsula was "established" on the basis of a treaty between Britain and Germany! That is, not only was a colonial treaty declared to have precedence; it was a treaty between two colonizing countries![3]

In 2007 Nigeria tried to resolve the crisis in Liberia by granting asylum to its then president, Charles Taylor. Despite the fact that Nigeria had granted Taylor safe conduct, the Special Court for Sierra Leone forced the Nigerian government to extradite Taylor. Nigeria again was the hostage of the international justice system. Nigeria was given to understand that intra-African resolution of crises is unacceptable to the "international community".

In 2000 Nigeria signed the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Most likely, Nigeria was trying to make its participation in the international court work in its favor. In 2005 it lodged a complaint with the ICC and requested an investigation into crimes committed by various rebel and terrorist organizations, first and foremost Boko Haram. How naive!

On July 15, 2013, during Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir's visit to Nigeria, the International Criminal Court ordered the Nigerian government to arrest al-Bashir. Just that, ordered. Although the Court order used the word requests, further the order indicates that if the "request" is not honored, the case – now against Nigeria – will be referred to the UN Security Council. And the local pro-Western fifth column of "human rights activists" has taken an active position and has already filed a suit with the Supreme Court of Nigeria against the country's government, alleging that it has "violated its international obligations".[4]

Here it is important to emphasize that in fact Nigeria has not violated any international obligations. In its order the ICC asserted that if Nigeria is a state party to the Statute of the Court, then it is obligated to execute the order to arrest the president of Sudan.[5] This assertion is slippery from a legal point of view. States parties to the ICC are, in fact, obliged to cooperate with the Court. However, the obligation to cooperate does not mean executing any orders. The International Criminal Court "forgot" to mention that Nigeria is obligated to execute not just any order, but only a lawful order of the Court. The demand to arrest the president of Sudan is a demand to violate the immunity of a head of state, established by the norms of usual international law. And Nigeria has every right not to execute such an order.

Furthermore, one should keep in mind that the legal system of Nigeria does not recognize the automatic application of international treaties. In order for an international treaty to be applied, its provisions must first be implemented in the national law of the country. Despite the fact that Nigeria signed the Statute of the ICC in 2000, it has not yet implemented its provisions in the internal laws of the country. Thus the suit of the local fifth column will most likely be dismissed because of the absence of the laws, although, considering the long-standing traditions of the independence of the Nigerian court, as well as the traditions of Anglo-Saxon common law (which gives judges the possibility to create law independently), various things could happen…

On August 6 ICC chief prosecutor F. Bensouda made a statement regarding the Nigerian government’s request in connection with the activities of terrorist organizations operating in the northern part of the country, especially the notorious Boko Haram (BH). The prosecutor stated that the investigation (which has been in progress for over seven years!) has led to the conclusion that there is a reasonable basis to believe that since July 2009 BH has committed crimes against humanity on the territory of Nigeria and that these actions fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. However, no specific actions against BH are mentioned in the report.[6]

It is interesting that, in addition to the terrorist attacks by BH, the ICC prosecutor is conducting other investigations on Nigeria as well. For example, the prosecutor's report refers to violence in the "oil-rich Niger Delta region", that is, it directly points to the oil-related roots of the violence. The violence there is indeed connected with a conflict regarding control over oil between local paramilitary groups and the government. One of the main groups is the "Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger Delta", which is involved in kidnapping both foreign and Nigerian citizens and attacking oil infrastructure. Now the ICC has been drawn by the scent of oil as well.

However, the main point of the ICC prosecutor's report is paragraph 9, in which the prosecutor sends a clear signal to Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan himself. Paragraph 9 states that within the scope of the "situation in Nigeria", the prosecutor is investigating complaints not only against the groups about which the country's government is complaining, but…against the government itself as well. President Jonathan could himself become a defendant in the International Criminal Court, as during a special military operation against Boko Haram in June 2011, soldiers and police sent by Jonathan allegedly committed international crimes, including extrajudicial killings, torture, pillaging, etc. Thus the ICC has taught yet another lesson (after Uganda and Cote d'Ivoire) to African leaders who want to use their membership in the court to their own advantage.

In connection with this, the government's offer of amnesty to Boko Haram fighters is understandable: instead of decisive force, the government has started backpedaling. And naturally, this immediately led to a new wave of violence. Attacks by Boko Haram are becoming increasingly brutal. Now in addition to Christian churches, the terrorists are attacking schools, that is, children. The goal of BH is to arouse hatred, and extreme hatred at that. And the shift to killing children as a tactic, while monstrous, was predictable. They want to arouse the kind of hatred that will never end. For Nigeria as a state, the arousing of hatred on religious grounds is dangerous, and on national grounds it is fatal.

As early as 2010 the African Union Assembly of Heads of State and Government made a decision not to cooperate with the International Criminal Court with regard to the arrest of Sudanese president al-Bashir. In June 2013 the leaders of the African Union (AU) spoke out more harshly about the policy of the ICC with regard to Africa. For example, Ugandan president Y. Museveni stated that the ICC is "hunting for Africans". This assessment is true: currently all the cases in this court (one hundred percent, no exceptions!) are situations in African countries. Museveni's assessment, albeit in a not very diplomatic form, received the approval of the Assembly of the African Union.

2013 added yet another head of state, Kenyan president Uhuru Keniatta, to the list of those accused by the ICC. The hunt of the International Criminal Court for Africans continues…

The mistakes of previous aggressive actions were taken into consideration while occupying Mali. Today everyone is sure the West is defending Mali’s sovereignty and territorial integrity. Not exactly so, as some facts tell us. In reality it was not in 2011-2012 when the terrorist groups appeared in the north of the country. They had been organizing and conducting activities there for dozens of years. (2) The situation exploded because the Libyan weapons were captured after the Gaddafi’s overthrow. The military materials didn’t get to Mali by themselves; there are facts to prove France was involved in their transfer from Libya. 

The very logic of events in the North of Mali in 2012 proves it is a well-orchestrated performance aimed at preparing the public opinion for “an imperative of military intervention”. That’s how it was arranged that Libyan arms spread around and wound up in the hands of Tuaregs. It incited military actions. But pretty soon the Tuaregs understood they were being used and started to dissociate themselves from the independence they had declared previously. The National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (French: Mouvement National pour la Libération de l'Azawad; MNLA) said the declaration of independence was “an attempt to draw international attention to the plight of the population in the north” and expressed willingness to hold talks. (3) That’s what the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad was attacked for by real perpetrators of the provocation – the Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) and the Islamists of Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa (MUJWA or MUJAO). Ansar Dine said it was ready to join without delay. At the November meeting in Ouagadougou, Burkina Faso, the group said it rejected violence, extremism and terrorism and assumed the responsibility for fighting organized crime across the border. (4) The Ansar Dine’s turn around led to its involvement into fighting. In November combat actions were sparked, the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad fought the opposing Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb and the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa. By the end of November Ansar Dine waged combat actions against the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa forces in the south-western part of Timbuktu. Finally, all these battles made part of the strategy aimed at the destabilization of Mali. All the events described here take place against the background of jihad and terrorist groups coming to the North of Mali to reinforce the armed formations. (5) The Mali’s northern terrorist land has really become international while getting support from all leading terrorist forces in the region, including the well-known Nigerian Boco Harum. 

According to the United Nations Secretary General’s estimations, the capture of the northern part of the country resulted in around half a million refugees and over 200 thousand migrants inside the country. The humanitarian disaster spread to all neighboring countries. That was the goal. All Muslim shrines in Timbuktu and other Sahara’s ancient historical centers were destroyed to strengthen the effect. The actions had no other mission but to “shock” international community and make it realize a military intervention was an “imperative”. That’s the right context for making out what was behind the state coup that took place in Mali in March 2012, a few days before the presidential election President Amadou Toumani Toure was toppled. There seemed to be no logic in staging the coup (they toppled the president who was not a candidate for the next term), but it can be easily explained by the fact that the President and the most probable winners were all opponents of the Western military intervention. 

After the coup, the idea of foreign intervention received a new strong impetus. The new government of Mali asks the United Nations for military assistance and launches a complaint to the International Criminal Court. But the concept of military intervention was still a matter of internal strife between the supporters of the Western “assistance” and inter-African military mission. Probably these two different approaches were the main reason for failure of the attempted coup at the end of April (6) and then for a new military coup that swept away Prime-Minister Modibo Diarra. 

It’s not an occasion that the United Nations Security Council resolutely condemned the then ongoing intervention of Mali’s military and security forces into the activities of Mali’s transitional government. It expressed its readiness to tackle the issue of imposing sanctions against those who breached the constitutional order. Thus, it’s not the Al Qaeda’s leaders but rather the Mali’s military who was threatened with the Security Council sanctions!!! 

At last, the United Nations Security Council’s resolution N 2085 was adopted on December 20, 2012 authorizing the military intervention in the country. (7) The African-led International Support Mission to Mali (AFISMA) was allowed to be deployed. The force is to include Malian (5000 men strong) and international (3300) forces. The concept was worked out by Malian authorities together with “partners” and approved by the African Union and ECOWAS. Now, who are the Malian partners? The USA, France, Germany, Canada, Algeria, Mauritania and Niger. 

At the beginning of January, Al Qaeda forces in the northern part of the country adopted a behavior that ran contrary to logic; they launched an offensive to the South. The city of Kona was captured on January 7. From geographical point of view the city is of critical importance, it is situated at the conditional border between the country’s North and South, so the action actually meant the start of offensive against the territory where the major part of population lives. In case the offensive had any military importance for Al Qaeda, it could have been launched before the resolution 2085, for instance right after a number of coups in Bamako or any other time suitable for the Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb. At that, it is launched right after the ruling on international military operation. The only thing the offensive could be seen as is a provocation of immediate invasion, not anything else. In the evening of January10 Interim Mali President Dionkunda Traore declared total mobilization and the state of emergency. (8) 

On January 11 French forces landed in Mali. Information agencies mention other participants of the operation (Senegal, Niger); still everyone knows who plays the leading part. By the way it became clear on the very day the resolution 2085 was adopted, when the Malian Minister of Foreign Affairs said thank you among other things to all UN Security Council members but expressed special gratitude to France. (9) It should be noted the information on the ECOWAS decision to launch immediate deployment of troops was made public right after the news that the French force was on the way. That is the French started the operation before the physical arrival of African troops. 

The perfectly arranged information campaign highlighting the “international intervention in Mali” has one drawback – there is no reasonable explanation of what is behind the Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb’s actions. Today they talk about the attempts to make the northern part of Mali a long-time base. But Al Qaeda had been doing it for the last dozen of years without attracting attention. In reality the current AQIM’s actions are flagrantly provocative aimed at giving a pretext for foreign intervention. 

Thus, a special operation aimed at recolonization of Africa took place at the beginning of the year. There is a rivalry between three main actors, which are the United States, France and China. China resorts to economic expansion, while the two Western nations rely on military intervention. One should give the devil his due – the mistakes made during the information wars related to the events in Libya and Cote D’Ivoire are corrected in January 2013. The conquest of those countries was explained by “humanitarian” reasons, but the information was presented in a clumsy and unconvincing way. Today the international community is praising the French invasion to free Mali. Apparently a military mission is needed. But the country faces a hard choice: Islamists or French troops. Any way Mali will have to pay a high price for freedom: giving away its sovereignty, enormous mineral resources and the loss of independence for many years. According to the President of France Francois Hollande, the French troops will stay in Mali as long as needed. (10) It’s not in vain the toppled President Amadou Toure used to say Paris is more dangerous than Timbuktu! 

Africa has always been and still is a testing ground for various Western political and military scenarios. (11) Not only African states but Russia as well should attentively follow the way the military intervention is worked out and implemented (successfully so far) while pursuing the declared goal of “guaranteeing freedom from Islamists”. It has special importance taking into consideration the attempts of the West to discredit the power in Russia and encouraging Islamists activities on the territory of the Russian Federation. 

(1) Cameroon v. Nigeria. UN International Court of Justice ruling, October 10, 2002, // International Court of Justice official website: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/94/7453.pdf.

Following the requests from both the Mali government and ECOWAS for foreign military intervention, the United Nations Security Council unanimously passed the resolution 2071 under Chapter VII of the UN Charter (permitting the use of force) submitted by France approving an African-led force to assist Mali in combatting the Islamist militants. The resolution gave 45 days for «detailed and actionable recommendations» for military intervention to be drafted by ECOWAS and the African Union. While authorizing the planning of force and dedicating UN resources for the planning it does not authorize the actual deployment of force. The second resolution is expected to see light before the end of the year after studying the report. Russia voted for the resolution. Its position was stated in detail by Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs special statement on October 15. It says, «Russia is seriously concerned about what is happening in the north of Mali, and generally in the Sahel region, where terrorist activity is becoming more far-reaching and long-term threat for the stability of a large part of the African continent. We approve of the efforts of ECOWAS and Mali with the participation of the UN Secretary General, the regional states and other interested members of the international community of development of the detailed plan of action on restoring of the stability, constitutional order and territorial integrity of the Malian state». Russia has rich experience in African peacekeeping contributing in the operations in Angola, Chad, Sierra-Leone. At present, the military formation of the Russian peacekeepers is part of UN international force in Sudan. 

«There is no alternative», said Jack Christofides, a top official in the United Nations Department of Peacekeeping Operations, which is playing a leading role in planning a possible operation. «For some of these more radical groups’ occupying northern Mali, he added, ‘it’s going to take military force». A week later African leaders met in Bamako, the Mali's capital, to prepare a plan for a military intervention. The meeting saw increasingly belligerent rhetoric as foreign powers agreed on the urgency of military action in the country. "The Malian people rely on us to take determined and efficient action, and we must be up to their hopes and expectations," UN deputy secretary general, Jan Elias Eliasson, said. A team of EU military and civilian experts came to Bamako on October 22. Their mission is to conduct analysis and define what is needed for the operation. On November 19 the European Union’s defense chiefs are to take the decision on the deployment of EU mission in the country the way it is done in Somali at present. 

The French newspaper Le Monde says the operation should be launched before the rainy season in the spring. It is to start with the concentration of forces around Bamako in January next year. By that time Mali’s a three – four battalion strong ground force will become combat ready. With the international support they’ll take over the Tambuktu – Gao region stabilizing the north in March. Air strikes and special operation forces are to play an important role. The idea would be intervention in northern Mali through a series of concerted operations by Malian government troops, an ECOWAS or, possibly, a broader African Union joint contingent and a French-led Western force limited by support role to fill remaining gaps. The US will be responsible for intelligence. The United States has no full-time military presence in Africa but it sends instructors and advisers on specific missions. It also operates unmanned aerial vehicles and has special operations capability. The AFRICOM, the Unified Combatant Command for Africa based in Stuttgart, Germany, is responsible for U.S. military operations and military relations with 53 African nations – an area of responsibility covering all of the continent except Egypt. 

The attack on the U.S. Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, last month that left four Americans dead, including the U.S. ambassador, has given an impetus to increasing American awareness of the terror threat in the Sahel. Other Western powers are increasingly worried about the tumult in Mali too. On October 23 Chancellor Angela Merkel said that Germany would be prepared to take part in a European mission to train and provide logistical support for Malian security forces. European Union members are considering a noncombat training mission to help the interim Malian government.

No doubt France is a leading nation to support the action. It has airpower and hundreds of troops deployed in Senegal, Ivory Coast, Chad and Gabon. Six French citizens are held as hostages in Mali. France and the United Nations insist any invasion of Mali's north must be led by African troops. Many in the West fear that northeast Mali and the arid Sahel could become a new Afghanistan, a no-man's-land where extremists are free to prepare their evil plans. As a former colonial ruler of countries across the region France is a prime target. "This is actually a major threat — to French interests in the region, and to France itself," said Francois Heisbourg, an expert at the Foundation for Strategic Research, a partially state-funded think tank in Paris. "This is like Afghanistan 1996. This is like when Bin Laden found a place that was larger than France in which he could organize training camps, in which he could provide stable preparations for organizing far-flung terror attacks." Jean Felix-Paganon, Paris's special envoy for the Sahel, told on October 22 that France has resumed military cooperation with Mali and send instructors there. A French defense official said on October 22 France plans to move two surveillance drones to western Africa from Afghanistan by year-end. It is reported to have SOF (special operation forces) units in the region around Mali. The country is turning its attention to the Sahel just as it is accelerating its pullout of combat troops from Afghanistan ahead of other NATO allies. 

France is also determined to prevent more kidnappings across Africa where thousands of French expatriates live under the growing threat of terrorism. The French authorities have long been concerned that home-grown Islamic militants could get training abroad, then come back to France to sow terror. At a meeting on the Sahel at the United Nations last month, French President Hollande called for an African-led military intervention in Mali "as quickly as possible." But since then, he has reiterated that France won't provide any ground troops. His government has pledged logistical support, training, and intelligence-gathering to help back up African forces. 

The total estimated strength of intervention force is 7-10 thousand, a goal hard to reach. The ECOWAS is training 3 thousand troops. Its leadership is calling on Algiers, Mauritania, Chad and Nigeria to join. No final decision is taken by the governments of these states. Nigeria, with the largest army in West Africa, is tied up with a fight against its own Islamist radicals. Algeria, the most efficient force in the region, has been so far reluctant to get involved. The governments of Niger, Burkina Faso and Togo have all agreed to contribute. Côte d'Ivoire's President Alassane Ouattara as new Chairman of ECOWSAS is the titular leader of the intervention, but he faces a new insurgency at home from forces loyal to ousted President Laurent Gbagbo. Reports that Gbagbo's forces may be teaming up with dissident Malian fighters and jihadist groups may have increased his determination to intervene. Ghana is preparing for elections on December 7 and Senegal's President Macky Sall says his army is overstretched. Mauritania's military is in crisis, after the purportedly accidental shooting of President Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz.

The operation will not be plain sailing. Harsh geography and weather, the Islamists’ guerrilla tactics are all complicating factors. There are thousands jihadists already on the way to help the brothers in arms from the Western Sahara, Sudan and areas adjacent to the Algiers’ border. It’s going to be a tough fight. An intervention over a desert region the size of France will require formidable logistics and airpower. As the history shows involvement into military conflict often happens involuntarily as the situation creeps according to scenarios nobody can predict. Take the US involvement into the Vietnam war for example. Look at how the US got bogged down in Iraq and Afghanistan to name very few of numerous lessons from history. As Stephen O’Brien, U.K. special representative to the Sahel region of sub-Saharan Africa, said Britain was «in a position where one of the things we could contemplate offering is training of various kinds. At this stage, I’m not going in with a closed mind to rule anything out. We will do our best to play our part. I haven’t ruled anything out».

The situation is caused by NATO disrespect for international law. Going far beyond the UN resolution in Libya, NATO air power was used not to protect civilians, as the document stated it should have done, but to help the opposition forces to topple the Muammar Gaddafi regime. The influx of Tuaregs and then the Muslim fundamentalist groups into Mali followed as a result. We all know the rest of the story. Mali plunged into chaos in March after a military ruler overthrew the president. Ethnic Tuareg rebels and Islamist militants took advantage of the situation to seize the northern portion of the country. Months later, two groups of Islamic fundamentalists with ties to al Qaeda toppled the Tuareg movement. Now they now control two-thirds of northern Mali. So the situation in the Sahel region is a spillover from the intervention in Libya and the following mess. Now it’s time to pay the price. Mali is a lesson to learn. It’s important for NATO nations to draw conclusions from the mistakes of the recent past and stop inciting turmoil in the region, especially going around international law. So far the United Nations resolution stresses ECOWAS and the African Union are the ones to do the fighting unless authorized otherwise. Of course UN members are welcome to provide support. But providing support is a very much different thing from waging real combat. No NATO or European Union operation has been mentioned by the United Nations so far. Going beyond the resolution will destitute the operation of legitimacy. That’s what should be remembered looking back at what happened in much-suffering Libya. 

Foto: RIA Novosti

Let’s remember Hissen Habre was the leader of Chad in 1982-1990. He was toppled by incumbent President Idris Debi. In his time Habre came to power thanks to massive influx of military aid released by the USA: those days the territory of Chad was used as a beachhead for launching operations against Muammar Gaddafi.  Libya was waging war over the Auzu Strip then, so the US supplies were actually destined to boost the Chad’s capability “to fight Gaddafi”.  The aid had stopped before Habre was overthrown. The matter is a few  weeks before being toppled he had signed a peaceful agreement with Gaddafi to transfer the case of the Auzu strip to the competence of UN  International Court of Justice (three years later the Court ruled in favor of Chad)…

After the coup d’etat in December 1990 Hissen Habre escaped to Sudan, then he moved to Cameroon and, finally, he got political asylum in Senegal.  Then the twenty years long saga started. His former political opponents and victims of human rights violations tried to make him responsible for what, allegedly, had been done on his orders.  The leader of the campaign was…Belgium. Formally the proceedings were initiated by a Chadian refugee who later became a Belgian citizen.  Belgium demanded that Senegal would start trial proceedings or extradite Habre. Since then Senegal has adopted a number of new laws to solve the problem, the Constitution was amended making possible to lift the immunity of the former head of state and call off the ban on retroactive application of criminal law.  The International Committee against Torture and the ECOWAS Court of Justice ruled on starting trial proceedings versus Habre. The African Union ruled he was to go to court. But it meant a Senegalese court, not the one held in Belgium. That is the UN International Court of Justice demands that Senegal should extradite Habre to the country that has no legal right to consider the lawsuit. The purpose is to make the state act according to the “universal jurisdiction” – a convention that asserts the right of any state to bring to justice any person, including the one who has committed a crime on the territory of another state or is residing on another state’s soil.
 
At first glance the International Court’s decision is handed down in accordance with the well known Roman maxim  Aut dedere aut judicare – “extradite or prosecute”.  But it’s not exactly the case if you have a closer look. In reality the Court handed down a decision that could be formulated as “try or extradite” that is the summands interchanged the places significantly affecting the “the sum”. Moreover the result is not so much relevant to the case of the former leader of Chad but rather to the cases related to an unspecified number of individuals of any standing in future.  

First, the principle “extradite or prosecute” refers to the legal obligation to prosecute those who commit serious international crimes under legal jurisdiction of another state, normally the one a person is citizen of.  That’s why the word “extradite” goes first and it is obligatory to comply.  The foremost and fundamental international obligation of a state is nothing else but extradition.  The obligation to persecute is alternative – it is exercised in the cases when a decision not to extradite is in force. Meeting the demands put forward by Belgium means the UN International Court has interchanged places of the states’ obligations.  What we have now is the situation when the obligation of a state to prosecute is valid only in the case an extradition is refused. But it changes the whole context of the case. Extradition is regulated by international law.If prosecution is exercised according to the law of a given state than the international law takes the place of the national one! Moreover it’s done without the consent of state itself.

The decision was not a unanimous one. Two judges opposed it. Interesting is the fact that Senegal walked into the same trap that African countries normally fall in. There is no Senegalese judge in the Court, so Senegal had the privilege of choosing a lawyer to represent its interests. The choice was made… French Serge Sur, the one who had found Senegal guilty on a number of charges! This “remarkable” choice looks especially awkward (3)   due to the fact that Senegal is a country that boasts a leading school of international law (2).
 
What is the resume?

First, the UN International Court has changed the obligations of states. Before the international legal obligation of a state was the sphere of international relations (extradition), now it’s the competence of state’s internal policy – criminal law and legal system of this or that country. It is a serious violation of state sovereignty.

Second, the next signal is given, the states no longer have a right to grant political asylum as they deem necessary. “The violators” will be found guilty of breaching international law and punished.
 
Third, Africa is refused the right to consider its cases independently. Before that the African Union had decided that Habre was to face trial only in Africa. Belgium has no whatsoever legal rights to take up the case, but it was given a priority over the joint position of African states.    
Finally, the so called “universal jurisdiction” is given green light. The July 20 precedent lays down a foundation for “punishment” of one state by any other even if the last one has no relation to the case.  Let’s note that one of the reasons for recognizing Senegal guilty according to the complaint launched by Belgium was that the country had not included some legal norms into its national law.  
 
No matter the UN International Court ruling is done under the guise of defending human rights, it actually constitutes another – and a very important – element of foundation for creating a “new” repressive international law. The cynicism of international “human rights activists” has no limits: the killers of former Prime Minister of Congo Patrice Lumumba are still doing well in Belgium. The UN International Court of Justice didn’t deem necessary to ask Brussels if Belgium had an intention to prosecute the international criminals. If the answer is no, then when will the Belgium authorities extradite them to be brought to justice in Congo?    

1) Questions relating to the Obligation to Prosecute or Extradite (Belgium v. Senegal) – Judgment of 20 July 2012, the text of the ruling. The official website of UN International Court of Justice: http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/144/17064.pdf.
2) Those who represented the Senegal’s international law school have been deservedly given such respectful assignments as Vice-President of UN International Court of Justice, Head of International Law Commission, President of International Sports Court and numerous other top international positions.  
3) The Democratic Republic of Congo had stepped on the same rake by selecting Joe Verhoeven, a Belgian, as a judge to represent its interests. He voted for finding Congo guilty on one of the charges while considering the Democratic republic of Congo v. Uganda case (2005).     

An attempt of African states to take the management of their own crisis into their hands is well understood –Africa accounts for over 70% of the UN Security Council agenda. Only three states represent the continent in the Council (South Africa, Togo and Morocco). Morocco’s relation to the continent is limited by geographic factor. No political link unites it with Africa, the country is not a member of neither the African Union, nor the Organization of African Unity (OAU). The African region is the largest continent from point of view of number of states (54) but it has no permanent Security Council representation. 

Jacob Zuma directly called for the UN reform, emphasizing the need to legitimize the Security Council. This is a harsh but just way to put it. The disproportional representation is not the only problem here, it’s a long time since the Security Council has stopped to fulfill its major function – to maintain international peace and security. Though the members are to act in the interests of the whole international community, the picture is quite different in practice. One gets a big surprise once acquainted with the UN Security Council’s agenda. Until now the complaints launched by Libya in 1983, 1984, 1986, 1989, a complaint launched by Sudan even in 1958 as well as other numerous complaints and requests for UN aid launched by African states are on the shelf. (In a mysterious way the UN Security Council reports have stopped to include the list of issues submitted for the Council’s consideration lately, It’s impossible to find the list on the Security Council’s official website. Though it’s not so hard to understand what’s behind it). A question may arise why all these appeals have been pigeonholed? One should refer to the article 12 of the UN Charter that says the General Assembly cannot tackle the issues under the consideration by the Security Council. Thus the full representation body is destitute of a right to make decisions on the issues «under the consideration», even if they’re not really put up for discussion. By the way the reform proposals under consideration at present include the creation of regional security councils. It’s a result of the Security Council’s refusal to be impartial and serve the interests of all members of international community. 

Now at last the African Union decided to raise the question of gradual transfer of the crisis management into its own hands. The Libyan situation and the UN participation in its «management» gave rise to it. Jacob Zuma stressed the fact that a political road map to solve the Libyan crisis was elaborated by the African Union last year. The plan was totally ignored in favor of NATO air strikes. Now the president said directly that the NATO operation in Libya was a preventive strike against the African Union’s initiative. In fact the UN Security Council prevented peaceful settlement in Libya. Going back to the circumstances the UN Security Council’s resolution N 1973 was adopted in, one could see it was put up for vote straight after the resolution N 1970. A question pops up – why all this haste? Especially taking into account the fact that the previous resolution hadn’t been carried out? The matter is – it’s exactly this time the African Union’s peaceful initiative was put forward. The one worked out with active participation of South Africa’s president Jacob Zuma. 

The idea that it was Somalia that gave impetus to the African Union’s decision (headed by South Africa) to start gradual withdrawal from the UN Security Council’s guardianship has solid substantiation. The situation in Somalia is not only a result of a unique special operation to destroy the state (such examples are numerous), but rather a long term destruction of statehood as such leaving no hope for restoration. The reconstruction efforts in Somalia have been in vain for twenty years now. And there are no visible reasons why. More over the causes for instability, that are most typical for African states, are absent there. Like multiethnic population, for instance. Unlike other Black continent states, Somalia is a mono ethnical country, the titular nation – the Somali, makes up almost 90% of the population. True, there is a strongly rooted clan system, but it doesn’t hamper statehood restoration (it was not the division along clan lines that caused the Somalia’s collapse). The collapse of Somalia is a special case of unique methods used and unique results received. It’s not excluded Somalia was a test ground for Libya’s destruction.

Russia extended support to South Africa on many issues with some exclusions. Vitaly Churkin, the Permanent Representative of Russia to the United Nations, said Russia supported African organizations efforts to maintain peace on the continent. But he also stressed the African Union’s endeavors were to be supported by the Security Council’s authority. Actually the words about the authority may have a rather broad meaning. 

The new and old world order made the African continent suffer, perhaps even more than others. Africa has always been an object, not a subject of international law. It still is. A short period (since 1960s) when the situation looked to be turning for better, only emphasizes the fact the many centuries history restarted in the 1990s is still very much a reality. But what started to take place after the existing world order destruction process was launched is intolerable. Africa has become a test ground for all kinds of «international» operations, while a number of victims has no significance. The UN participation in African crises management has been gradually becoming crises maintenance or even fueling. That’s why the aspiration of Africa and the African Union to get rid of such «guardianship» is naturally determined and lawful. The process has just started and its direction is clear to see.