This article critically examines the recent diplomatic success concerning the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), highlighting the marginalization of the African Union (AU) in a process central to the continent’s security.
Here’s a breakdown of the key points:
The Diplomatic Success and it’s Underlying Issues:
The “Doha Declaration”: While presented as a diplomatic success,the article questions the motivations behind it and points to the AU’s absence in its design and facilitation.
AU’s Absence: Despite the declaration referencing AU principles like sovereignty and territorial integrity,the continental association was not involved in the process. This suggests the AU was relegated to a role of later legitimization or passive observation.
Qatar‘s Ascendancy and the AU’s Weakness:
Shift from Angola to Qatar: The facilitation mandate, initially held by Angola, visibly shifted to Qatar. This is attributed to Qatar’s agility, resources, and perceived neutrality, which the article suggests African actors struggle to embody.
AU’s Inability to Mobilize: The AU’s weakness is explained by its inability to mobilize the necessary political and logistical means,and a lack of collective will to pressure key actors like Rwanda and Uganda,who are also AU members.
The “Outsourced” Process and the Erosion of African Diplomacy:
Decline in African Leadership: The choice of Doha as the negotiation venue symbolizes a decline in African leadership on an African crisis.
Delegitimizing African Diplomacy: By accepting an “outsourced” process,the article argues that the very idea of “African solutions to African problems” is delegitimized,exposing a gap between rhetoric and reality.
External Stakeholders and their Agendas:
Qatar’s Influence Strategy: Qatar’s mediation is part of a deliberate strategy to enhance its global mediator status, build its soft power, and secure strategic economic interests in Central Africa, particularly in critical minerals. US Involvement: The “alignment with the Washington Agreement” signifies US involvement. The US aims to stabilize the region to counter Chinese and Russian influence and secure its access to critical minerals. Washington is seen as subcontracting mediation to an ally to minimize its direct exposure.
Regional Actors’ Interests: rwanda and Uganda are playing a complex role, potentially accepting withdrawal in exchange for security guarantees or diplomatic rehabilitation. Angola seeks to prevent Congolese instability from spilling over its borders.
conclusion: The AU’s Marginalization and its Consequences:
Absent in Dynamics, Present in Texts: The AU was present in the declaration’s wording but absent in the actual diplomatic dynamics.
Exogenous Impetus, Extra-Continental Progress: The process was driven externally and progressed outside the continent.
Questioning AU’s Capacity: This marginalization raises serious questions about the AU’s capacity to anticipate and lead in major crises, offer structured mediation with adequate resources, and establish a respected diplomatic framework.* Risk of Weakened Legitimacy: If this trend continues, it risks permanently weakening the AU’s legitimacy.
In essence, the article argues that while a diplomatic agreement has been reached, it comes at the cost of the African Union’s agency and leadership, exposing its structural weaknesses and the complex web of external interests at play in African crises.
