Presentation on theme: "Supranational Institutions’ Role in Sudan Comparative Politics 130-002H November 30, 2006 Cristen Oehrig, Ben Walker, Mike Minnick."— Presentation transcript:
Supranational Institutions’ Role in Sudan Comparative Politics H November 30, 2006 Cristen Oehrig, Ben Walker, Mike Minnick
Pan-Africanism Desire for united Africa –Unity is top priority according to African Union charter Reaction against colonialism Europeans treated Africans as homogenous –Did not respect tribes, but divided up Africa on their terms Grew after colonialism, despite colonialism being the originating factor –Preservation of independence –Poor economies created desire to “catch up” and to foster trade within African, rather than to the former colonial mother country Overlap between Arab nationalism and Pan-Africanism –Leaders such as Qaddafi, Nasser –Arabs leading a movement of Africans creates hostilities Culture of obedience –Africans become accustomed to subservience to Arabs, polarizes continent as “with” or “against” Arabs
AU prior to and in Burundi Up until intervention in Burundi OAU/AU used almost exclusively for economics AU emphasis on sovereignty –Listed second on AU mission statement, whereas human rights listed fifth Analysis of Sudan compared to Burundi: Same problems Opposite of Vietnam’s effect on US –Desire for the AU to prove itself as a full-fledged supranational institution –Hopes of redeeming itself for Burundi debacle –Causes the African Union to take the initiative in Sudan African Union peacekeeping troops in Burundi
AU in Darfur Currently Protection of cease-fire Weak mandate Monitoring teams Helplessness among troops Sudanese government support of AU mission Logistics from UN Money from Arab League Lack of knowledge among Darfurians Suggestions Get Out! Or the second best option: Elimination of cease-fire facade Strong mandate Independent teams Clearly state what is needed from each of the other supranational institutions Better publicity
Arab League What’s their agenda? –Arab nationalism links them with Sudanese current power structure –Wants more time for Sudan to handle problem on its own –Currently giving money to AU mission Analysis: –Trying to help Sudanese government out of self interest Interest in maintaining a member-state, especially one that is unfavorable to the west as a part of the “clash of civilizations” –Simultaneously attempting to appear impartial, helpful Not giving money directly to Sudan
What is their role in Darfur? In 2005, NATO agrees to AU’s request for assistance –The African Union had previously petitioned NATO for help in the Darfur conflict, particularly with manpower and tactical planning issues. Provides airlifts for AU –NATO is used to transport African Union troops and civilian police in and out of the conflict zone. Training the officer corps –The AU troops are an inexperienced military group. NATO has been training officers to more effectively use intelligence, plan more strategically, and to use force efficiently.
What are they doing differently? In previous cases, such as Bosnia, NATO provided air strikes and no-fly zones to help deter the violence. In Kosovo, NATO launched a corps of ground troops to stabilize the situation between the Serbs and the Albanians, and to work as peacekeepers. Accomplished three missions during the civil strife in Macedonia. They collected arms, worked on a peace agreement and remaining to monitor the newly instated government.
What SHOULD they do? Suggestions include: –Ground troops These could possibly come from the newly operational NATO Response Force, which is a fast acted group of thousands of troops organized to deter aggression and create lasting peace. –No-fly zone, enforced by NATO aircraft Particularly since there have been many violent air strikes by the Sudanese government which have killed many civilians. –Supplements to the AU force such as manpower and helicopters –Tactical and strategic planning This is something that needs NATO’s assistance in enforcement. Planning and follow through are both greatly needed in Darfur. “We applaud NATO's commitment to the ongoing crisis in Darfur but we also believe that this successful military alliance, strengthened by the warrant of Security Council legitimacy, could do much more to bring a halt to Darfur's horrific humanitarian crisis”
Possibilities for why this is not happening Troops already in Afghanistan –NATO has already committed 32,000 to the situation in Afghanistan, as is called for by Article 5 in the North Atlantic Treaty. UN has not officially declared a genocide –NATO works within the framework of the UN Charter. Without the UN condoning major military intervention, NATO will not commit to any resolute involvement. NATO was chartered only with the expectation of providing services and securities to signatories. –Sudan, let alone any African nation, is not party to the North Atlantic Treaty. Although efforts have been made, post-Cold War, for NATO to be more involved internationally, it still serves a fundamental purpose for the Euro- Atlantic community. Involvement in all other interventions, such as Darfur, are voluntary. “ The AU remains in the driving seat for solving the conflict in Darfur ”
Bibliography (2004, August 9). Arab League Backs Sudan on Darfur. BBC News, Retrieved November 29, 2006, from (2006, March 16). Arab League: Give Sudan Time. Al Jazeera, Retrieved November 29, 2006, from Albright, Madeline et. al. (2005). NATO to Darfur. International Herald Tribune. Retrieved November 8, 2006 from (October 4, 2006). The Situation in the Darfur Region of Sudan. Retrieved November 27, 2006, from Garage, Festus (2004). The African Mission in Burundi. Eldis, Retrieved November 27, 2006, from B Steidle, personal communication, April 21, 2005 S Chin and J Morgenstein, personal communication, October 5, 2005 NATO's assistance to the African Union for Darfur. (2006). Retrieved November 25, 2006 from Transcript of the Speeches Held at the European Union Welcoming Ceremony on 31 March, (2003). Retrieved November 27, 2006 from March_2003.html.