This past week’s African Union (AU) Summit in Khartoum, Sudan, saw high drama as the country’s President, Omar El-Bashir was nominated for Presidency of the pan-African body. This sparked controversy and divisions on the African continent, threatening to tear the AU apart, but diplomacy and mature government won the day, with Congo-Brazzaville assuming the chair as a compromise candidate. Civil society organisations (CSOs) were instrumental in lobbying against the nomination of Sudan, which was surrounded by questions of human rights abuses. Human rights groups argued that choosing Bashir was unacceptable in light of the current situation in Darfur.

Bashir, a general who seized power in a coup, has been accused of leading a government that carries out attacks in Darfur and supports and arms the militia groups that terrorize the region. An international criminal court is carrying out an investigation into governmental officials and their involvement in the Darfur crisis. CSOs believe that by appointing Bashir, Africa’s credibility and that of the AU would be threatened. The ability to negotiate an end to the Darfur and other conflicts would also be hampered. “The Darfur peace process will be jeopardized if African leaders elect a President for the African Union (AU) who is a party to the conflict,” Alioune Tine, Secretary General of the Senegalese non-governmental organisation (NGO) RADDHO and member of the Darfur Consortium, a coalition of over forty African based NGOs, said in Khartoum as the AU summit got underway. “It creates a clear conflict of interest.”

Sudan’s officials argued that they had been working hard to bring peace to the region, and that they had made progress on a number of fronts. Lam Akol, Sudan’s Foreign Minister, asked: “Which country in Africa does not have internal problems?” Information Minister Zahawi Ibrahim Malik, when asked if the country pulled out of the AU race because of the allegations of human rights abuses, reported that: “Some quarters hostile to Sudan prevented it from getting the chairmanship.”

But in large part due to a flurry of emails between civil society organisations from around the African continent, who were united in protesting against Sudan’s nomination, civil society organisations and human rights groups were successful in their campaign to prevent Sudan gaining the chairmanship. African leaders and CSOs alike feared that the debate might create a distraction as they attempted to solve problems faced by the continent. The issue also threatened to divide governments. African governments were split over their support of Sudan. North Africa and East Africa initially backed Sudan's candidacy. West and central Africa refused to support Sudan, although Chad was the only country to openly condemn their bid. Southern Africa was split with president Levi Mwanawasa of Zambia and Festus Mogae of Botswana said to be supporting West and Central African positions.

The decision to hold the AU Summit in Sudan was not seen without contention, and the fears of CSOs were realised when both local and foreign activists and EU, UN and government officials were detained, harassed and arrested at an open civil society forum. Laptops and documents were retained. Forum members met to promote support for and engagement with the key objectives and institutions of the African Union. “This was a serious interference with the rights of freedom of expression and information and a severe violation of the Sudan Interim Constitution,” said Salih Mahmoud, a member of the National Assembly (the Interim Parliament) who was among those detained.

Leaders reached a compromise by agreeing that the Republic of Congo would take over the African Union Presidency. Officials said that Sudan would then take over in 2007. "It's not a question of what Congo Brazzaville brings to the table, the important thing is what it doesn't bring; human rights violations, genocide allegations and obstruction of AU peacemaking, all the things that Sudan represents," said Peter Kagwanja, analyst at the International Crisis Group. "It's an indication that the AU system is working, that the system is conscious of if its vision." However, Congo’s history is not without turbulence and violence. Despite the introduction of multiparty politics in the 1990s, the President of Congo, Sassou-Nguesso, himself seized power in a 1997 coup. However, the country’s record is still deemed better than that of Sudan.

Still, the power of governmental diplomacy and civil society lobbying came at a crucial time in the history of the AU. The Pan African Movement issued a statement saying: “It will send a clear message to other leaders that Africa has moved away from the dubious principle of non interference in internal affairs of member states’ to non indifference to the sufferings of Africans wherever they may be.” After the demise of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in 2002, the AU is trying to distance itself from that body, which was accused of being a toothless dictator’s club. The decision to withhold Sudan from leading the new organisation is thus an important step in building up its credibility.

* Karoline Kemp is a Commonwealth of Learning Young Professional Intern, currently working for Fahamu.

* Please send comments to [email protected]

* For more information, visit http://www.pambazuka.org/aumonitor/