Why the African Union’s mediation effort in Tigray is a non-starter

Bold steps to preserve the unity, stability and respect for the constitutional order of the country; which is legitimate for all states.

The AU’s impartiality can be questioned further given its role in the recent elections in Ethiopia. It was one of the few non-Ethiopian institutions to observe the general elections held in June 2021. The election was held at a time when leaders of the key opposition parties were in prison and the country was caught in civil wars in several corners. In many places the ruling party ran without a single competitor.

The conduct of the election was condemned by numerous political parties, including five considered close to the ruling party of Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed.

Yet Olusegun Obasanjo, head of the AU observer mission, declared that the election had been held in a credible way.

The AU’s choice of the chief observer as chief mediator raises even more questions about its partiality in mediation process. The problem begins with the willingness of the AU to legitimise the June elections and its choice of the very same individual who championed this decision to be the candidate for mediating the conflict.

This is more than a question of mere partiality. It affirms the legitimacy of a political process brought about by a combination of transactional strategies. It indicates that the mediator will be willing to countenance, such strategies of political management in the future.

But there’s an even greater reason why the AU can’t be seen as playing a credible role in the Ethiopian conflict. The AU has failed to act based on the foundational principles contained in the constituent act of the union. It is never heard of condemning the war crimes and crimes against humanity committed in the war in Tigray.

The Tigray question

Given events in the Tigray region, the AU should not have embarked on a mediation process without first negotiating a declaration of principles as a prelude to talks for full political settlement. A good example of this approach is the 1996 prelude to the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement for Sudan.

It appears from this oversight that the AU wants to accept that Abiy has a “legitimate” government that cannot be subject to ‘unconstitutional’ change – as stipulated in the constitutive act of the AU. Ethiopia can then lay down the terms on which it can talk to “rebels”, on an individual basis.

In addition, a negotiated settlement begins with each accepting the need to talk to the other. It is also essential to agree on transitional arrangements up until a complete political settlement is reached.

But currently the two governments don’t recognise one another.

The Regional National Government of Tigray has demanded that the existing constitution of the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia be the principle on which a negotiated settlement is based. For the people and government of Tigray, full accountability and guarantee of non-recurrence of such crimes is an essential agenda item.

A mediation that fails to consider these fundamental issues in defining the nature of the conflict will be a non-starter.

Source: The Conversation Media Group Ltd