Comparative Analysis of the Performance of EU and AU Peacekeeping Missions in Sub-Saharan Africa

Kohnert, Dirk Preprint Comparative Analysis of the Performance of EU and AU Peacekeeping Missions in Sub-Saharan Africa Suggested Citation: Kohnert, Dirk (2023) : Comparative Analysis of the Performance of EU and AU Peacekeeping Missions in Sub-Saharan Africa, Zenodo, Genève, https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.8423274 , https://zenodo.org/records/8423274 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/300915 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ 1 Comparative Analysis of the Performance of EU and AU Peacekeeping Missions in Sub-Saharan Africa Dirk Kohnert 1 An African paradox: Mediating foreign wars while ignoring homegrown turmoils Source: © Heni, addisfortune.news, 20 May 2023 Abstract: Africa is plagued by some of the most brutal and violent conflicts in the world. Peacekeeping missions play a crucial role in maintaining stability and security in conflict-prone regions, particularly in sub-Saharan Africa. Both the European Union (EU) and the African Union (AU) are involved in peacekeeping operations in the region. The AU conducts peacekeeping missions through its Peace and Security Council (PSC) and in line with the African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA). Numerous international partnerships are at the heart of the APSA, but the AU cannot yet stand alone. However, the AU has the advantage over the EU and NATO in that it allows majority voting, making the decision-making process more flexible. The reasons for intervention are often unclear, although they often include both narrow national self-interest and humanitarian intervention. Africa's regional and sub-regional security organisations have often been more concerned with 'enhancing the sovereignty' of nation states than with the responsibility to protect. The AU's operational capacity is limited, it is poorly integrated into civilian-led conflict management efforts, and it has failed to intervene decisively in the continent's current major armed conflicts. The AU's ability to stop conflicts in Africa has produced mixed results at best. So far, the APSA is not an African solution to African problems, but rather a messy series of hybrid, international responses to some of the continent's transnational security challenges. Moreover, the AU has struggled to create a basic institutional memory of its peace operations, let alone systematically distil lessons learned. In addition to the AU, the EU is also involved in interregional cooperation for peace and security in Africa. There is a direct relationship between the EU and the AU in the form of the Joint Africa-EU Strategy. The EU has conducted peacekeeping missions under its Common Security and Defence Policy (CSDP), often in cooperation with other international organisations such as the United Nations. Examples of EU peacekeeping missions in Africa include Mali, the Central African Republic and Somalia. While the EU benefits from greater resources and international partnerships, the AU enjoys regional legitimacy and ownership. However, it is important that the EU and the UN continue to promote 'African solutions to African problems'. However, the European Peace Facility (EPF), established in March 2021, is more likely to be an unsecured weapon on the EU table. It is becoming the EU's main funding instrument for military activities outside the EU. It was first used to support the African Union and Mozambique. But many decisions with potentially serious consequences are being taken hastily. Instead of stabilising situations, the EPF could entrench dictatorships and fuel conflicts, especially when used in Africa. Keywords: AU, APSA, EU, peacekeeping, European Peace Facility, Common Foreign and Security Policy, Françafrique, ECOWAS, coup d'état, governance, sustainable development, post-colonialism, informal sector, ODA, Common Security and Defense Policy, Peace and Security Council, SubSaharan Africa, Mali, Central African Republic, Niger, Somalia Nigeria, Rwanda, African Studies JEL-Code: D31, D62, D72, D74, E26, F22, F35, F51, F52, F53, F54, F55, H12, H56, N47, Z13 1 Dirk Kohnert, associated expert, GIGA-Institute for African Affairs, Hamburg. Draft: 10 October 2023 2 1. Introduction Cartoon 2: Cyril Ramaphosa and other African leaders flatter Putin at the 2023 Russia-Africa Summit Source: © Zapiro, Daily Maverick, 25 July 2023 At the end of July 2023, at the second 2023 Russia-Africa summit in Saint Petersburg, African statesmen made a bold attempt to mediate in the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian War. The African leaders in attendance had presented their peace plan to Putin already a month earlier. It included several steps to diffuse the conflict, notably the Russian withdrawal from Ukraine, the removal of Russian tactical nuclear weapons from Belarus, the suspension of the International Criminal Court arrest warrant against Putin, and the easing of Western sanctions against Russia (DW, 2023). But Africa was deeply divided on the issue. Only 17 of Africa's 54 heads of state attended the summit, compared to 43 at the first summit in 2019, including leaders from Comoros (current chair of the African Union (AU)), Egypt, Senegal, South Africa, Uganda, and Zambia. However, the mission failed, unsurprisingly, not least because of the overriding self-interest of African countries in ending the war and thereby securing Russian supplies of grain, energy and military equipment. It also highlighted the inability not only of African leaders, but of African peacekeeping missions in general, to address conflicts adequately and 'silence the guns' within Africa. Cartoon 3: Diplomatic deference Source: © Brandan Reynolds, Sunday Times, Johannesburg, 30 July 2023 3 At a time of major geopolitical shifts, an international charm offensive was underway to win the support of African leaders who are eager to exploit the situation and reluctant to take sides over Russia's aggression in Ukraine. Moscow, Beijing and Paris were among the major global players taking sides (Reynolds, 2023). However, foreign observers asked: “where is the African delegation to Sudan?!” Because two months earlier, a bitter conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) and the Rapid Support Forces (RSF) had killed thousands and displaced some two million people. Why was a powerful delegation of African leaders jetting off to solve a war in Europe while Sudan was being torn apart (Nzuki, 2023)? It was neither the first nor the only unforgivable failure of the AU in history. The AU's outdated emphasis on non-interference, often used as a pretext, was even more difficult to accept in these circumstances. Sovereignty has too often been invoked to shield member states from taking decisive action against human rights violations, undermining the duty to protect enshrined in the 1986 African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights (Editorial (Addis) Fortune, 2023). In contrast to African peace-keeping endeavours, the UN is said to be better placed to conduct credible and effective peace operations in Africa due to its resources and experience. Since 1960, there have been more than thirty UN peacekeeping missions across Africa, the most of any region. Actually, half of the UN’s dozen peacekeeping missions around the world are in Africa. They are active in Abyei, an area contested by Sudan and South Sudan (UNISFA), in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA), the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUSCO), Mali (MINUSMA, terminated on 30 June 2023), South Sudan (UNMISS), and Western Sahara (MINURSO) (Klobucista & Renwick, 2021). Cartoon 4: The questionable effectiveness of UN peacekeepers … Source: © Damien Glez, toonpool.com, 13 November 2018 As of summer 2021, Bangladesh, Ethiopia, and Rwanda were the top contributors of military and police forces for theses missions. Other African troop providers among the top ten included Egypt, Senegal, Morocco and Chad. The United States, China, and Japan were the top donors to the UN Department of Peace Operations. But the UN cannot always do so quickly, which opens up a theoretical window of opportunity for African institutions to act as rapid first responders. Peacekeepers have come under fire for failing to intervene at critical moments. They have also been accused of committing human rights abuses, including widespread allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation. Unfortunately, the AU has not yet been able to seize this opportunity (Klobucista & Renwick, 2021). 4 Graph 1: Major multilateral peace and security operations in Africa Number of uniformed personnel for UN and non-UN missions Source: © graphic: Will Merrow, Council on Foreign Relations, Klobucista & Renwick, 2021 Graph 2: Peacekeeping funding and personnel come from different countries Top ten contributors of funding and of personnel Source: © graphic: Will Merrow, Council on Foreign Relations, Klobucista & Renwick, 2021 But relations between the UN and the AU were sometimes hampered by considerable conflict, mistrust and tension. This often obstructed the predictability, conduct and effectivity of peace operations. A greater focus on grass-root conditions and bottom-up factors, such as the specific operational and financial challenges posed by the AU's major missions in Darfur, Somalia, Mali and Sudan, and the different organisational cultures and bureaucratic constraints within which both organisations had to operate, could have improved decisionmaking on operational responses and the conduct of peace operations significantly, both in 5 headquarters of Addis Ababa and of New York (Williams & Boutellis, 2014). The same holds for EU peace missions in Africa that, despite its relative superior capacity, responded most often more slowly than the AU, the ECOWAS and other less affluent regional organizations conducting similar peace operations (Hardt, 2009). 2. AU Peacekeeping missions Cartoon 5: African Unity: Are we there already? Source: © John Swanepoel & John Curtis, Deutsche Welle (DW) 2 Africa is plagued by some of the most brutal and violent conflicts in the world. As the nature of warfare changes, so too does the ability of states to provide security and political stability to their citizens (Söderbaum & Tavares, 2011). The relationship between regional and multilateral peacekeeping organisations is changing, but in Africa the former are becoming increasingly important. Compared to the EU and NATO, the AU has the advantage of majority voting. This makes the decision-making process more flexible (Freire & Lopes & Nascimento, 2016). The reasons for intervention are often ambiguous, although they are likely to include both narrow national self-interest and humanitarian ambitions. Africa's regional and sub-regional security organisations are more about 'sovereignty enhancement' than the 'responsibility to protect', enshrined in its human rights constitution (Söderbaum & Tavares, 2011). Moreover, although the phrase ‘African Solutions to African Problems’ sounds very popular, it is neither obvious that ‘Africa’ could nor should solve all the continent’s problems (Møller, 2009). The AU launches peace operations when authorised by its fifteen-member Peace and Security Council. The Council has no permanent members, but is elected by its fifty-five member states. The African Standby Force is an important element of the AU’s peace-keeping 2 The cartoon "Are we there already?" was created by South African artists John Swanepoel and John Curtis, known in their home country as "Dr Jack & Curtis". They won first prize in the 2013 cartoon competition organised by the German Third World Journalists Network. The theme of the global competition: 50 Years of African Unity (1963-2013). (Braun; Maja (2013): Zum 50. Geburtstag: Die Afrikanische Union als Karikatur. Deutsche Welle (DW), 25 May 2013; Image: DWJN). 6 structure. In addition, AMISOM's initial mandate, authorised by the AU Peace and Security Council and the UN Security Council in early 2007, focused on protecting the Transitional Federal Government of Somalia as it took power in the capital (Klobucista & Renwick, 2021). Yet, the scope of the mission changed over time. In recent years, the primary mandate became to facilitate the transfer of security tasks to Somali forces while reducing the threat posed by Al-Shabaab and other Islamist groups. On the other hand, missions of ad hoc initiatives could exist also outside the conventional UN framework. Thus, the G5 Sahel Joint Force, that complemented MINUSMA and comprised forces from Burkina Faso, Chad, Mali, Mauritania and Niger, was mandated to combat terrorism, cross-border crime and human trafficking in the region (Klobucista & Renwick, 2021). African-led peace operations are becoming increasingly important in addressing the continent's security challenges. The African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA), which emerged in the late 1990s, offered a hypothetical but as yet unfunded solution to Africa's security problems. Key reasons for the creation of APSA were the failure of the UN and the international community to intervene in remote conflicts in Africa throughout the 1990s and the reluctance of the Organisation for African Unity (OAU) to interfere in the internal affairs of sovereign nations (Klobucista & Renwick, 2021). Graph 3: Active African-led peace operations, 2023 Source: ACSS, Allen, 2023 Peacekeepers on the ground could have considerable benefits. In principle, they correlate with fewer civilian casualties, and more peacekeepers, particularly more diverse peacekeepers, correlate with both fewer civilian deaths and fewer military deaths. In 2017, for example, the AU and Africa’s eight Regional Economic Communities (RECs) authorized four new African-led peace operations, matching 2017 for the most in any calendar year. The AU and regional actors than oversaw 10 peace operations, comprising more than 70,000 authorized personnel, spread across 17 African countries (Klobucista & Renwick, 2021). Nevertheless, peacekeeping missions in Africa have been criticized for a wide range of problems, including mismanagement, failure to act when civilians are under threat, rights abuses by peacekeepers, financing troubles and failure to intervene at critical moments. For example, in September 2021, some 450 of Gabonese peacekeepers were withdrawn from the 7 Central African Republic (CAR) following allegations of sexual abuse and exploitation of girls. Bangui as well as the UN opened a probe. UN peacekeepers enjoy immunity from prosecution in the countries where they are deployed, leaving it to their home countries to take legal action. This may be one of the reasons why few allegations have led to prosecutions and none resulted in a public conviction, although UN investigations into such allegations have increased in recent years. Last, but not least, the veto power of the Security Council’s permanent members, sometimes delayed or weakened peacekeeping mandates, such as in Western Sudan’s Darfur region (Klobucista & Renwick, 2021). But many of these problems had been due to overly ambitious mandates. For example, it was unrealistic to ask MONUSCO to protect all civilians in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), given the geography and the difficulties of moving through that large terrain. In addition, in the absence of a productive relationship with the local authorities, a sustained effort to protect the civilian population could hardly be expected (Klobucista & Renwick, 2021). Limited operational capabilities have been poorly integrated with civilian-led conflict management efforts. The AU has failed to intervene decisively in Africa's major armed conflicts. In order to fulfil its long-sought role as the primary guarantor of peace and security on the continent, the organisation and its member states need to institutionalise achievements and address shortcomings in the current regional security architecture (Allen, 2023). Graph 4: Growth in African-Led Peace Operations (2000-2023) Source: Allen, 2023; ACSS Data Sources: Williams 2013; SIPRI; Security Council Report; AU; ECOWAS; Fisher and Wilen The African Union Mission in Burundi (AMIB) was the first AU-mandated armed peace operation. AMIB’s deployment was authorised in 2003 before the inauguration of the AU’s Peace and Security Council (Badmus, 2015). AMIB was hailed as a successful mission and recommended as a possible model for future peace operations in Africa. However, despite its relative success, the mission lacked credible political leadership and insufficient troops on the ground. It was unable to fully deliver on its mandate, even though the level of lethal violence was already declining when the mission was deployed (Badmus, 2015). In conclusion, also considering the role of AU’s missions in Somalia and Sudan, APSA offered only a hypothetical but as yet unfunded solution to African security problems. It lacked domestic elite cooperation, local initiative and international political commitment. This underlined the need for factors as the integrity of the lead state and troops for certain peace operations (Cocodia, 2017). In contrast, to date, the UN's resources and experience have made it better placed to conduct credible and effective peace operations in Africa (Badmus, 2015). External funding to the AU and the eight regional economic communities (RECs) over the past 15 years, mostly from the three powerful external actors, the EU, the US and China, has 8 also proved problematic. The AU has been by far the most targeted recipient in the world. Funding has been concentrated on a few favoured RECs (ECOWAS, IGAD and SADC), while other RECs have received little support. Although a few donors provided most of the funding, they differed significantly in terms of priority areas and targeted organisations (Stapel & Söderbaum, 2020). Also, the AU has struggled to create a basic institutional memory of its peace operations, let alone systematically distil lessons from them (Williams, 2016). The AU cannot yet stand alone. So far, the APSA is not an African solution to African problems, but rather a messy set of hybrid, international responses to some of the transnational security challenges facing the continent (Williams, 2016). The African Union is still perceived as a club of African heads of state and governments, with oligarchs who have not been legitimately elected. Although it shares a relatively similar name and structure with the European Union, the historical context of the AU makes it quite different (Chigudu, 2018). 3. EU Peace-keeping missions in SSA Cartoon 6: The European Peace Facility, an unsecured gun on EU’s table Source: © investigate-europe.eu, Fotidiadis & Schmidt, 2022 The effectiveness the African-EU partnership on peace and security and of interregional security cooperation is based on mutual resource dependency, establishes convergence based on intensive interaction, benefits from increased (internal) capabilities drawn from a high coherence within both ROs, and acts within a facilitating conflict setting characterised by high domestic support. Since 2003, the EU led 21 peace-keeping missions in Africa, overwhelmingly focussed on Sub-Saharan Africa (see detailed list Graph 6). The European Peace Facility, an off-budget EU financing instrument created in March 2021, is becoming the EU’s main funding tool for military activities outside of the EU. But many decisions with possibly severe consequences are still taken in a rush (Fotidiadis & Schmidt, 2022). In addition, the facility still lacks parliamentary control; there is no scrutiny by the European Parliament. The Mali war showed the pitfalls of this instrument. Despite evidence of serious abuses by EU-trained soldiers, the EU extended the mandate of the military European Union Training Mission in Mali (EUTM) in March 2020. The mission remained engaged even after a military coup in May 2021. Recent developments after the coup d’états in Mali, Niger and Guinea have exposed the weaknesses of the European External Action 15 As for France, it has increasingly to compete with other global military ‘security’ providers. Not only its rival from colonial times, Great Britain, and the divide between Anglophone and Francophone Africa, but also with Russia and, to a lesser degree, with Turkey. With France being kicked out of the military dictatorships of the West African Sahel its interest in participating in peace missions in SSA may also be waning. France was an important troop contributor. On the other hand, the AU's interest in self-determined military interventions, preferably financed by external donors, is increasing. However, the 2023 Sahel crisis as well as the 2023 war in Sudan showed that both ECOWAS and the AU are finding it difficult to take action against ‘troublemakers’ these days. Finally, given the ever-increasing populism in the EU, it is becoming increasingly unlikely that it will continue to engage in peace missions in Africa in the future as it has done so far, because, for example, not only the Visegrád states are resisting releasing funds for this, given the exceptionally high burden of military spending to support Ukraine. As for the political and economic interests of Paris in its sub-Saharan pré-carré, the shady network of Franceafrique, which had been declared dead on several occasions, is still very much alive. Francophone Africa has been dominated to date by the political, economic and cultural repercussions of France’s colonial rule (Kohnert, 2022). A major instrument to assert France's interests was the upkeep of a common monetary policy and currency, the Franc CFA. Although this has been increasingly resented by African politicians and economists, who wanted to replace it by a West African currency (the ‘Eco’), French interest still prevails, due to the social network of French and African political leaders, the ‘messieurs Afrique’ who benefit from the system. Controversial international discussion concentrates on questions of sovereignty and formal political and economic questions. However, the rules of the informal sector proved to be at least as crucial in structuring the CFA-zone as the institutions and policies of the formal economic sector, including its monetary institutions. For decades, for example, prices of French imports were overpriced, due to protection by tied aid and other political and cultural non-tariff barriers to trade. The cost of this rent-seeking was carried not only by the French Treasury, who guarantees the peg, but by the French and EU taxpayers, who financed budgetary bail-outs and development aid, and last, but not least, by the poorer African member countries and social strata. Although this applies strictly speaking only to the CFA zone, there are strong indicators that things haven't changed much since then for Francophone Africa in general. The repercussions of rent-seeking in Francophone Africa impact up to date negatively on economic performance. For example, growth levels have been significantly lower since two decades compared with Anglophone competitors (Kohnert, 2022; 2022a). 16 References Abdulrahman, A., & Abraham, M. P. (2021). Comparative analysis of African Union (AU) and European Union (EU): Challenges and prospects. International Journal of Peace and Conflict Studies, vol. 3(1), pp. 49-57 Allen, Nate D.F. (2023): African-led peace operations: A crucial tool for peace and security. Washington, D.C.: Africa Center for Strategic Studies, 9 August 2023 Badmus, Isiaka A. (2015): The African Union's role in peacekeeping. Building on lessons learned from security operations. Palgrave Macmillan, 277 p. Barzani, Barzan & Niyaz Barzani (2022): Evaluating the UN peacekeeping operations in Africa: A qualitative analysis of four peacekeeping missions in Africa. International Journal of Legal Research, vol. 2 (4), pp. 1-351 Carvalho, Benjamin de & Ingrid J. Aune (2010): Assessing complex peace operations - Some considerations of methodology and procedure. Oslo: NUPI Working Paper 782, pp. 1-27 Chigudu, Daniel (2018) : In managing peace and security conundrums of African states the African Union grips or drips? A case study of selected countries. African Renaissance, vol. 15, (No. 4), December 2018, pp. 99 – 117 Cocodia, Jude (2017): Peacekeeping and the African Union: Building negative peace. London: Routledge; 236 p. Dell, Gillian (2006) : Anti-corruption conventions in Africa. Berlin : Transparency International (TI), 130 p. DW (2023): African leaders urge Putin to consider Ukraine peace plan. Deutsche Welle (DW), 28 July 2023 (n.a.) Editorial (Addis) Fortune (2023): An African paradox: Mediating foreign wars while ignoring homegrown turmoils. (Addis) Fortune, 20 May 2023, vol. 24 , No. 1203 (n. a., n.p.) Faulkner, Christopher (2022): Undermining democracy and exploiting clients: The Wagner Group’s nefarious activities in Africa. In: Cruickshank, Paul & Kristina Hummel (eds.).: CTC Sentinel. New York: West Point Combating Terrorism Center, vol. 15 (6), pp. 28–37 Forestier, Patrick (2018) : Centrafrique : comment la Russie travaille patiemment à supplanter la France. Le Point Afriqe, 15 December 2018 Fotidiadis, Apostolis & Nico Schmidt (2022): The European Peace Facility, an unsecured gun on EU’s table. Investigate Europe, 29 March 2022 Freire, Maria Raquel & Paula Duarte Lopes & Daniela Nascimento (2016): Responsibility to protect’ and the African Union: Assessing the AU’s capacity to respond to regional complex humanitarian and political emergencies. African Security Review, vol. 25(3), pp. 223-241 Fotidiadis, Apostolis & Nico Schmidt (2022) : The European Peace Facility, an unsecured gun on EU’s table. Investigate Europe, 29 March 2022 Hardt, Heidi (2009): Rapid response or evasive action? Regional organization responses to peace operation demands. European Security, vol. 18(4), pp. 383-415 Ishimwe, Norman (2022): Is the Rwandan army becoming the Wagner of France and Europe? Jambonews, Brussels, 26 August 2022 Johansen, Robert C. (1994): Review of: U. N. peacekeeping: How should we measure success? by Paul F. Diehl. Mershon International Studies Review, vol. 38 (2), pp. 307-31 Kirtov, Viktor (2017) : Homo Europaeus : existe-t-il une culture européenne ? Le Traité de Rome 60 ans après ! 29 March 2017 Klobucista, Claire & Danielle Renwick (2021) : The role of peacekeeping in Africa. New York: Council on Foreign Relations, 5 October 2021 Kohnert, Dirk (2009): New nationalism and development in Africa - review article. Africa Spectrum, vol. 44 (2009) 1: 111-123 Kohnert, Dirk (2022): Francophonie in sub-Saharan Africa: Post-colonial dependence or self-determination? MPRA WP No. 115625 Kohnert, Dirk (2022a): French domination of markets in Francophone Africa: Post-colonialism at its finest? MPRA_paper_112024, SSRN WP 4037625 Kohnert, Dirk (2022b): The impact of Russian presence in Africa. MPRA paper, No. 112564 17 Kohnert, Dirk (2022c): Russia and the rise of Islamic terrorism in Sub-Saharan Africa. SSRN No. 4122565 Kohnert, Dirk (2022d): ‘Enlightened’ West African dictatorships challenged by state capture ? Insights from Benin, Togo and Senegal. MPRA WP, No. 114934 Maposa, Primerose (2021): International organizations in implementing strategies against human rights violations. A comparative analysis of the work of the African Union and the Council of Europe. M.A. thesis, 67 p. Møller, Bjørn (2009): The African Union as a security actor: African solutions to African problems? Crisis States Research Centre working papers series, vol. 2 (57). London School of Economics and Political Science, 28 p. Muzaffar, Chandra (2023) : Niger: A coup against French control and dominance. Counter Currents, Kerala, India, 10 August 2023 Nzuki, Catherine (2023):Africa’s Peace Delegation: A New Chapter for Africa and the Ukraine War. CSIS, 16 June 2023 Oxford Analytica (2021): Mali may use threat of greater Russian influence again. Expert Briefings. 28 September 2021 Oxford Analytica (2023): Russia's Wagner Group emerges into a political role. Expert Briefings, 22 February 2023 Plank, Friedrich (2022): Evaluating the Africa-EU partnership on peace and security: Interregional cooperation in peace operations. Palgrave Macmillan; 303 p. Plank, Friedrich (2022a). Introduction: Evaluating the Africa-EU Partnership on peace and security. In: Friedrich Plank: Evaluating the Africa-EU Partnership on Peace and Security. The European Union in International Affairs. Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. pp 1–20 Plank, Friedrich (2022b): Conclusions: Cross-Case Comparison, Theoretical Reflections, and Policy Recommendations. In: Evaluating the Africa-EU Partnership on Peace and Security. The European Union in International Affairs. London: Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, pp 233–257 Reynolds, Brandan (2023): Diplomatic deference. Sunday Times, Johannesburg, 30 July 2023 Rédactionedcuadroit´(2020) : Le droit international et le droit européen c’est quoi? Livret No. 8, edcuadroit.fr , (n.a.) Rein, Conrad (2015) The EU and peacekeeping in Africa: the case of AMISOM, Global Affairs, vol 1 (2), pp. 193-204 Sens, A.G. (2004). From peace-keeping to peace-building: The United Nations and the challenge of intrastate war. In: Price, R.M., Zacher, M.W. (eds): The United Nations and Global Security. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp. 141–160 Söderbaum, Fredrik & Rodrigo Tavares (eds.) (2011): Regional Organizations in African security, London: Routledge, 160 p. Stapel, S. & F. Söderbaum (2020): Mapping and problematising external funding to the African Union and the regional economic communities. In: Ulf Engel, Frank Mattheis, S. Stapel, F. Söderbaum (eds.): The Finances of Regional Organisations in the Global South: Follow the Money. London: Routledge, pp. 112-125 Stopford, Michael (1996): Peace-keeping or peace-enforcement: Stark choices for grey areas. University of Detroit Mercy Law Review, vol. 73 (3), pp. 497ff Whittington, Sherrill (2002): Peace-keeping operations and gender equality in post-conflict reconstruction. EU-LAC Conference on the “Role of Women in Peace-keeping Operations”, Chile, 4-5 November 2002, pp. 1-14 Williams, Paul D. (2016): Book-review of: The African Union's Role in Peacekeeping: Building on Lessons Learned from Security Operations by Isiaka A. Badmus, New York: Palgrave-Macmillan, 2015. Journal of Modern African Studies, vol. 54 (3), pp. 540-542 Williams, Paul D. & Arthur Boutellis (2014): Partnership peacekeeping: Challenges and opportunities in the United Nations–African Union relationship, African Affairs, vol. 113, Issue 451, April 2014, pp. 254–278 18 Résumé : [Analyse comparative de la performance des missions de maintien de la paix de l'UE et de l'UA en Afrique subsaharienne] – L'Afrique est confrontée à certains des conflits les plus violents et brutaux du monde. Les missions de maintien de la paix jouent un rôle crucial dans la préservation de la stabilité et de la sécurité dans les régions en proie à des conflits, en particulier en Afrique subsaharienne. L'Union européenne (UE) et l'Union africaine (UA) contribuent toutes deux aux efforts de maintien de la paix dans cette région. L'UA dirige des missions de maintien de la paix grâce à son Conseil de paix et de sécurité (CPS) et conformément à l'Architecture africaine de paix et de sécurité (APSA). L'APSA repose sur de nombreux partenariats internationaux, mais l'UA n'a pas encore atteint l'autonomie totale. Cependant, elle bénéficie d'un avantage par rapport à l'UE et à l'OTAN, car elle peut prendre des décisions à la majorité, ce qui rend le processus décisionnel plus flexible. Les raisons de l'intervention sont souvent ambiguës, impliquant souvent à la fois des intérêts nationaux étroits et une dimension humanitaire. Les organisations de sécurité régionales et sous-régionales africaines ont souvent privilégié le « renforcement de la souveraineté » des Étatsnations plutôt que leur responsabilité de protection. De plus, les capacités opérationnelles de l'UA sont limitées, elle est insuffisamment intégrée aux efforts civils de gestion des conflits, et elle n'a pas réussi à intervenir de manière décisive dans les conflits armés les plus graves actuellement en cours sur le continent. En fin de compte, la capacité de l'UA à mettre fin aux conflits en Afrique a produit des résultats mitigés. À ce jour, l'APSA ne constitue pas une solution africaine aux problèmes du continent, mais plutôt une série de réponses internationales hybrides aux défis de sécurité transnationaux auxquels il est confronté. En outre, l'UA a eu du mal à établir une mémoire institutionnelle de base sur ses opérations de maintien de la paix, sans parler de systématiser l'apprentissage qui en découle. En plus de l'UA, l'UE est également engagée dans la coopération interrégionale en matière de paix et de sécurité en Afrique. Il existe un lien direct entre l'UE et l'UA à travers la Stratégie commune Afrique-UE. L'UE a mené des missions de maintien de la paix dans le cadre de sa Politique de sécurité et de défense commune (PSDC), en coopération fréquente avec d'autres organisations internationales telles que les Nations Unies. Parmi les exemples de missions de maintien de la paix de l'UE en Afrique figurent le Mali, la République centrafricaine et la Somalie. Alors que l'UE dispose de ressources plus importantes et de partenariats internationaux, l'UA jouit d'une légitimité et d'une appropriation régionale. Cependant, il est essentiel que l'UE et l'ONU continuent de promouvoir des « solutions africaines aux problèmes africains ». Malheureusement, la Facilité européenne pour la paix (FPE), créée en mars 2021, semble être un instrument potentiellement instable entre les mains de l'UE. Elle est en passe de devenir l'instrument de financement le plus important de l'UE pour les activités militaires en dehors de l'UE. Initialement déployée pour soutenir l'Union africaine et le Mozambique, de nombreuses décisions hâtives aux conséquences potentiellement graves sont prises. Au lieu de stabiliser les situations, l'EPF pourrait renforcer les régimes autoritaires et alimenter les conflits, en particulier s'il est utilisé en Afrique . Zusammenfassung : [Vergleichende Analyse der Performanz von Friedensmissionen der EU und der AU in Subsahara-Afrika] – Afrika wird von einigen der brutalsten und gewalttätigsten Konflikte der Welt heimgesucht. Friedensmissionen spielen eine entscheidende Rolle bei der Aufrechterhaltung von Stabilität und Sicherheit in konfliktgefährdeten Regionen, insbesondere in Afrika südlich der Sahara. Sowohl die Europäische Union (EU) als auch die Afrikanische Union (AU) engagieren sich in friedenserhaltenden Bemühungen in der Region. Die AU führt Friedensmissionen im Rahmen ihres Friedensund Sicherheitsrats (PSC) und im Einklang mit der Afrikanischen Friedensund Sicherheitsarchitektur (APSA) durch. Zahlreiche internationale Partnerschaften sind das Herzstück der APSA, die AU kann jedoch noch nicht allein bestehen. Allerdings hat die AU im Vergleich zu EU und NATO den Vorteil, dass sie Mehrheitsentscheidungen ermöglicht und damit den Entscheidungsprozess flexibler macht. Die Gründe für ein Eingreifen sind oft unklar, obwohl es sich dabei oft sowohl um engstirnige nationale Eigeninteressen als auch um humanitäre Interventionen handelt. Den regionalen und subregionalen Sicherheitsorganisationen Afrikas ging es oft mehr um die ‚Stärkung der Souveränität‘ von Nationalstaaten als um die Schutzverantwortung. Die operativen Fähigkeiten der AU sind begrenzt, sie sind schlecht in zivil geführte Konfliktbewältigungsbemühungen integriert und es ist der AU nicht gelungen, entschieden in die derzeit bedeutendsten bewaffneten Konflikte des Kontinents einzugreifen. Die Fähigkeit der AU, Konflikte in Afrika zu stoppen, hat bestenfalls zu gemischten Ergebnissen geführt. Bislang ist die APSA keine afrikanische Lösung für afrikanische Probleme, sondern eher eine chaotische Reihe hybrider, internationaler Antworten auf einige transnationale Sicherheitsherausforderungen, mit denen der Kontinent konfrontiert ist. Darüber hinaus hatte die AU Mühe, ein grundlegendes institutionelles Gedächtnis über ihre Friedenseinsätze zu schaffen, geschweige denn, die daraus gewonnenen Erkenntnisse systematisch zu destillieren. Neben der AU ist auch die EU in der interregionalen Zusammenarbeit für Frieden und Sicherheit in Afrika engagiert. Zwischen der EU und der AU besteht eine direkte Beziehung in Form der Gemeinsamen Afrika-EU-Strategie. Die EU führte im Rahmen ihrer Gemeinsamen Sicherheitsund Verteidigungspolitik (GSVP) Friedensmissionen durch und arbeitete dabei häufig mit anderen internationalen Organisationen wie den Vereinten Nationen zusammen. Beispiele für EUFriedensmissionen in Afrika sind Mali, die Zentralafrikanische Republik und Somalia. Während die EU von größeren Ressourcen und internationalen Partnerschaften profitiert, verfügt die AU über regionale Legitimität und Eigenverantwortung. Dennoch ist es wichtig, dass die EU und die Vereinten Nationen weiterhin ‚afrikanische Lösungen für afrikanische Probleme‘ fördern. Die im März 2021 eingerichtete Europäische Friedensfazilität (EPF) dürfte jedoch eher eine ungesicherte Waffe auf dem Tisch der EU sein. Sie entwickelt sich zum wichtigsten Finanzierungsinstrument der EU für militärische Aktivitäten außerhalb der EU. Sie wurde als erstes zur Unterstützung der Afrikanischen Union und Mosambiks eingesetzt. Doch viele Entscheidungen mit möglicherweise schwerwiegenden Folgen werden dort überstürzt getroffen. Anstatt Situationen zu stabilisieren, könnte EPF Diktaturen verfestigen und Konflikte schüren, insbesondere wenn sie in Afrika eingesetzt wird.