[allAfrica.com] [celtel.com] AU's Historic Sanction On Sudan Daily Champion (Lagos) COLUMN January 30, 2006 Posted to the web January 30, 2006 By Tunji Adegboyega Lagos For the first time in its about 43 years' existence, whether as Organisation of African Union (OAU) or as African Union (AU), the continental body shunned protocol in the election of its chairman at its last summit that took place in the Sudan last week. Traditionally, the host of the summit is elected as chairman of the 53-member organisation for a year tenure. Quite naturally, therefore, Sudanese leader, President Omar Hassan Ahmed al-Bashir, should have stepped in as the body's new chairman when Nigeria's President Olusegun Obasanjo stepped down at that summit. As a matter of fact, there was pressure on Obasanjo to extend his tenure to 2007 just to ensure that the Sudanese leader did not emerge as chairman of the continental body. Obasanjo occupied that office for about two years against the yearly tenure stipulated because of the problems and politics of getting a replacement since there was a groundswell of opposition to Sudan's leadership. Indeed, the Sudanese leader was the sole contender for the post until the sudden appearance of his neighbour, Congo Republic's President Dennis Sassou Nguesso, who must have been encouraged to come to show interest, in the bid to stop al-Bashir from taking over. President al-Bashir had to be persuaded to step down, in view of the opposition to his candidacy. This was a face-saving devise for him to allow him put his human rights record in order before next year's summit, when Nguesso would be vacating the office. To have done otherwise would have amounted to an avoidable implosion of the continental body. The main grouse of those opposed to Sudan's leadership has to do with its human rights record, especially as it concerns the crisis in the Darfur region of the country. The Sudanese government is believed to be fuelling the crisis, despite global efforts at bringing it to an end. Not even the country's neighbours were comfortable with al-Bashir's leadership. They feared that he could export the Darfur crisis to their countries if he was given the mandate to lead the AU. Chad, which led other Central African countries, insisted that the chairmanship of al-Bashir would spell doom for them (the neighbours). "This attempt at destabilization knowingly orchestrated by Sudan aims to export the Darfur crisis in the sub-region where the first victims would be Chad, and the Central African Republic", President Idris Deby of Chad told the about 30 African leaders at the summit. That is not all. Many other countries outside of the continent were also not comfortable having the Sudanese leader as the AU chairman for the same reason, and understandably too. The Darfur crisis has gulped a lot of resources of many countries that have been helping either to ameliorate the suffering of hapless civilians caught in the cross-fire or in the provision of food and other basic needs in aid to them. Of particular mention to the opposition of Sudan heading the continental body is the United States that registered its displeasure at such in unmistakable terms. Even the rebels that have engaged the government forces in the war over the years had threatened that if al-Bashir was elected the AU chairman, they would pull out of on-going talks sponsored by the body, aimed at resolving the crisis. So, from all fronts, al-Bashir appeared to have no support base. It therefore would have been unwise for the summit to be blinded by protocol in the face of this widespread opposition. Without doubt, Sudan has known no peace since the outbreak of the crisis. The war has been described as the worst in terms of the humanitarian crisis that has attended it. It has pitched Sudanese forces and militias against rebels in battles that had driven thousands of refugees into neighbouring states, especially Chad causing security and economic dislocations in the fragile economy. One could therefore understand the fear of the Chadian president about al-Bashir's chairmanship of the African Union. That the Sudanese leader could not secure the support of his neighbours, especially those in the Central African Economic and Monetary Union (CEMAC), including Chad, Cameroun, Central African Republic, Congo Republic, Gabon and Equatorial Guinea, was instructive. Nobody wanted a bully for a boss. The chairmanship of an organisation is as qualitative or otherwise as the leader wants it to be. The AU chairmanship is a boss of some sort. Everybody seemed concerned that if given the AU chairmanship despite this abysmal human right record, Sudan would not only worsen the problem in the region, it would also be a signal to other leaders in the continent to take pleasure in fomenting trouble and encouraging insurrection in their countries. For the African Union therefore, this decision is commendable. It was another right step that the summit of African leaders has taken in recent times. To underscore its seriousness, the crisis in the western flank of Sudan has attracted the deployment of about 7, 000 AU peacekeepers to the region, to help maintain a tenuous peace between the Sudanese rebels and the government forces. Indeed, the decision could not have been otherwise given that there was nothing to proof that the Sudanese government was capable of turning a new leaf. Just as the government was trying to convince the African leaders present at the summit on its interest in the chairmanship despite its human right record, its security forces, according to agency reports, were rough-handling some human rights activists that had gathered at the sidelines of the summit penultimate Sunday. The human rights groups had been enraged with the country's bid for the AU chairmanship. The clashes occurred only a few hours after the Sudanese government had signed up to an AU peer review mechanism, to reinforce good governance on the continent. That Sudan, a founding member of the Organisation of African Unity, AU's precursor, could be so sanctioned showed that the AU meant business in its bid to enthrone good governance on the continent. It also showed that the body is sensitive to public and global opinion. It is sad that al-Bashir brought such treatment to his country because Sudan holds some potentials that the continent could benefit from. Its unique geographical location could make it a good link between Africa and the Arab world, which also comes with some benefits to both sides. If there is anything that Africa needs now, it is development and this cannot be achieved in an atmosphere devoid of peace. With many parts of the continent at war, not necessarily with other countries, but with themselves, growth and development would remain elusive. In addition, limited resources that should naturally be spent on the provision of infrastructure is spent on arms and ammunition. This should be checked and one way to do this is to ensure that those who delight in fomenting trouble to profit therefrom are denied basic privileges as had been done to Sudan. Although the continental body last year demonstrated some capacity to champion the cause of peace, unity and development, there is still room for improvement. Today, Sudan has been sanctioned. One can only hope that this sort of punishment would be meted out to anyone that breaches any of the AU's rules with regard to peer review. The rules should be no respecter of anyone. Both small and big countries, rich or poor should be sanctioned whenever the need arises. This is one way to ensure that the peer review mechanism achieves its set objectives in the overall interest of the peoples of the continent.   ===============================================================================  Copyright © 2006 Daily Champion. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). ===============================================================================