HE Anne Namakau Mutelo, Ambassador of Namibia to Ethiopia and Permanent Representative to the African Union (AU) and the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA), speaks about her role as rotating Peace and Security Council (PSC) chairperson for March 2015 and about the recent field visit by the PSC to Mali.
You headed the PSC field mission to Mali together with the European Union Political and Security Committee (EUPSC) on 11–13 February this year. Do you think such field visits advance the role of the PSC? How?
The joint mission to Mali was very successful. I had the privilege of heading it. It was the first of its kind and it was very important for the visibility of the AU PSC to be seen in conflict areas. We usually sit comfortably in Addis conference rooms but we don’t really understand what we are talking about. Our visit was not limited to the capital Bamako. We went to the north, to Gao.
The major purpose of the field mission was to see what was happening in the north. Though we stayed in the military barracks we were still able to meet with different stakeholders, including the governor of Gao, the mayor of Gao, and representatives of women and youth organisations and religious organisations. In Bamako we also met the various role payers. We had a meeting with the prime minister [Modibo Keita], parliamentarians and opposition leaders, as well as with representatives of civil society organisations.
We usually sit comfortably in Addis conference rooms but we don’t really understand what we are talking about
The trip coincided with talks in Algeria and some of the opposition members complained they were not invited to these talks. We were clear in communicating that the AU will not tolerate spoilers [to the current peace process] and that we need to continue talking. The PSC has faith in the Algiers process.
What did you observe about the challenges facing Mali? And what more can the AU do to help Mali address those challenges?
Whatever challenges they have, and there are many, the conflict is not of their own making. As you know these problems emanate from what happened to former leader Muammar Gaddafi and Libya. The military elements that formed part of the Gaddafi army were chased out of Libya and returned to their countries. When they returned, they had only weapons with them and the only training they had was military. That is why there is a lot of instability, not only in Mali but also in the bigger Sahel region. One should not overlook the involvement of external forces in the conflict. We must look at all these dimensions to understand the crisis.
One of the challenges raised by the stakeholders during the field mission was the issue of coordination
One of the challenges raised by the stakeholders during the field mission was the issue of coordination. In Mali we have the United Nations Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in Mali (MINUSMA), we have the African-led International Support Mission to Mali, which is more political, and we also have the French forces and two EU missions. We received complaints about the lack of coordination between these various missions. I reported this and other observations and concerns we gathered from our engagements to the chairperson of the AU Commission.
One of the things we learnt from the discussions we had with the youth groups is that young people are joining the terrorist groups because of the high level of youth unemployment. There is a need for projects that create job opportunities.
What is the importance of the joint field mission for the AU–EU relationship?
It is very important because it shows that we are working together. It is important we continue partnering in the area of peace and security. However, I was telling my African delegation that the AU should not always wait for joint missions and start initiating and undertaking its own missions. We should not come from behind. We should initiate. I continue to urge for the institutionalisation of such field missions in the work of the PSC.
How are agendas of the PSC set? Why are some situations such as the tense electoral contest in Nigeria not on the agenda?
The agenda of the PSC is decided by the chairperson of the month. The AU Commission and other members of the PSC also contribute to the formulation of the monthly agenda of the PSC.
If something happens to Nigeria it will trickle down to the whole of Africa
My position on the role of the PSC in preventative action has been not to fight the fire after it has started. This tendency to act after crises have erupted has limited the focus on conflict prevention and early action. We need to enhance the existing early warning mechanisms at the AU. We have the Panel of the Wise and the PSC, we have the commissioners and the Union; all of these need to pay greater attention to prevention work.
Recently we succeeded in convincing Burundi to brief the PSC on the political situation in the country. The briefing offered an opportunity for the PSC to hear the government’s perspective on the situation, as much of the information thus far has been from the media and the civil society reports. We adopted a communiqué to help Burundi go to elections well prepared and in a stable political environment.
After learning about a planned trip by the head of Political Affairs we also proposed that future trips must be comprehensive and include members of the PSC, Political Affairs and the Panel of the Wise, as we all are working for the same cause. Coordination and consultation are very important.
Nigeria is a very important country. If something happens to Nigeria it will trickle down to the whole of Africa. I approached Nigeria requesting a Burundi-type briefing, but we were unable to hold it.
What about the planned PSC field mission to South Sudan?
The PSC field mission to South Sudan was on our agenda the whole of 2014, but it has never materialised. The challenge we are facing with the proposed PSC field mission to South Sudan is the fact that IGAD [the Intergovernmental Authority on Development], which is leading the peace process, didn’t want the PSC. Now they found out they cannot do it by themselves and that the PSC could help; South Sudan is back on the agenda of the PSC. This may facilitate the field visit.
The PSC is not as visible as it should be. People in the refugee camps who are suffering from instability and conflict don’t even know there is a PSC. The PSC ambassadors are the ones who interact with ministers and heads of state on peace and security issues. If we are not informed about the situation on the ground we can’t help in the making of informed decisions.
What is your impression of the effectiveness of the PSC? What more needs to be done to enhance the PSC’s effectiveness?
The PSC celebrated its 10th anniversary just last year. We are learning from the mistakes of the past and are trying to make the Council more effective. Now we have started good coordination with the United Nations Security Council [UNSC], following the Libyan crisis of 2011. During the crisis, African members of the UNSC voted for Resolution 1973 that declared a no-fly zone over Libya.
We are examining why Africa can’t solve its own problems. Since there is always three African non-permanent members of the UNSC, the A3, we have come up with a mechanism wherein whatever we do here in Addis Ababa is conveyed to them in New York, to help them own the process and mobilise support for the position taken by the PSC. It is a process of consultation. Whatever we discuss at the PSC we discuss with the A3 and other African members of the UN, as well as with partners.
What needs to improve in the relationship between the PSC and the AU Commission?
We are examining why Africa can’t solve its own problems
At the moment it is working well. The PSC is independent. It makes its own agenda for the month and meets regularly to respond timely. It is acting as an autonomous policy organ. The Permanent Representatives Committee does not have a secretariat like the PSC. The PSC is better in that respect. It is very important that the Political Affairs Department and the Peace and Security Department work together. We get briefings from Political Affairs. However, the coordination and working relation between the two organs needs to be enhanced. You cannot separate the two departments. This is an area that requires improvement.
How do you see the role of the chair of the PSC affecting the functioning of the Council?
The chairmanship is very powerful. The chair decides on the agenda. All the issues during Namibia’s chairmanship were issues that are close to our heart. The issue of Western Sahara, an issue that was considered as a UN issue, is on the agenda and was discussed. We also consult members of the Council about urgent issues. Matters from the previous month that deserve follow-up also feature on the agenda. We also consult with the commissioner of with peace and security and the chairperson of the Commission to get their views.
On 9 March 2015 you convened a PSC open session on women and children in armed conflict. What are the challenges in protecting women in armed conflict?
There are many. The first is the fact that peacekeepers are mostly men. Peacekeeping missions are male oriented. They are just learning now how to involve women. I visited AMISOM [the African Mission for Somalia] and I was amazed by the problems raised by the women peacekeepers, because the specific needs of women peacekeepers are not taken into account in the planning and procurement processes. Procurement and facilities should consider women. We also need women’s leadership in post-conflict and reconstruction processes. We need more women in the peacekeeping business.
The article was first published by The Institute for Security Studies ( http://www.issafrica.org) and is republished with permission granted to www.oasesnews.com
