Sharing my presentation on “Shrinking Civic Space in Africa”, given at a seminar on the “Challenges of the Rule of Law in Africa” hosted by International IDEA in Pretoria, South Africa 12-13 April 2016.
You can read it here: https://issuu.com/assogbavi/docs/shrinking_civic_space_-_desire_asso/1
Dear Friends: I am re-posting this blog from last year. You may also want to read my blog on the issues on the agenda of the upcoming 26th AU Summit (24 -31 Jan 2016): https://assodesire.wordpress.com/2016/01/07/hot-issues-on-the-au-summit-agenda/
The African Union Summit in 10 Questions
The African Union Ordinary Summit is the gathering of all key policy organs of the African union. Two ordinary Summits are held every year and each Summit consists of three 2-day meetings that always take place in the same sequence. Usually, there are 1 or 2 days breaks between these meetings. The Permanent Representatives Committee (all ambassadors representing their countries to the AU) meets first, followed by the Executive Council (Ministers of Foreign Affairs) and then the Assembly of Heads of State and Government.
When are the AU Summits Organized?
As a rule, the January Summit takes place at the AU headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The June – July Summit is held in a different Member State each year. The AU can also convene extraordinary Summits at the request of the Chairperson or a Member State with approval by a two-thirds majority of the Member States.
Who Participates in the AU Summit?
The AU Summit gathers up to 4,000 delegates, observers and media from the 54 African Countries, AU organs, partners countries, UN Agencies, other International Organizations and NGOs
How to Obtain Accreditation to the AU Summit?
Accreditation to a summit is a separate process from obtaining observer status with the AU. It is not necessary to have observer status to be accredited to a summit. Accreditation starts three months before a summit. If the summit is taking place elsewhere than Addis Ababa, the host government will usually establish a separate website with protocol information and application forms. This information is normally also posted on the AU website. There are different types of accreditations:
Delegate – Governments of Member States
Observer – NGOs, non-African governments, UN agencies
Staff – Host government, AU Commission and other AU organs
Media – national and international press
Special Guest
Security etc.
Civil society organisations wishing to obtain accreditation to a summit should request accreditation from CIDO (CIDO@africa-union.org) at least 3 months in advance of the Summit. Other AU Directorates and Departments may also forward the names of selected partner organisations to be accredited as observers. The Office of the Chairperson of the AU Commission, where CIDO is located, draws up the final invitation list. Two types of badges are required for the summits. One is a security badge bearing your photograph. The other type (conference badge) indicates the meetings which you can attend. Normally only 2 of the later are given per organization. The Security badge allows access to all open area where you can meet delegates for interactions.
What does Observer Status Mean at the AU Summit?
Observer status at a summit does not give speaking rights, or even the right to attend more than the opening and closing ceremonies of the Executive Council and Assembly sessions but productive lobbying and advocacy can be done in the corridors of the meeting venues and at the parallel side meetings. However, the AU Commission mentions on the invitation letters that observers can be authorized to participate in working sessions of the Council dealing with agenda items of which the AU Commission considers that they are concern.
The PRC and Executive Council meetings may be more productive to engage than the Assembly of Heads of State meetings.
How Decisions are taken at the AU Summit?
Decisions of the African Union Executive Council and Assembly are normally the result of work done months before each summit by the Commission and other organs, and in decision-making processes within individual member states. The majority of proposals presented to the Assembly have already been largely agreed before they are tabled at a summit. Documents adopted by the Assembly usually start life as a policy proposal from one of the AU Commission’s departments, from another AU organ or from a Member State. These proposals are debated in an experts’ meeting, whose members are nominated by Member States, and then in a meeting called for the relevant Ministers from Member States to approve or amend the experts’ proposals. With the exception of decisions with implications for the budget which are then considered by the PRC, the final documents from the ministerial meeting will go directly to the Executive Council and/or Assembly for adoption.
A group composed of 15 AU member states, supported by the AU Commission, form the Drafting Committee. On the basis of the various reports and recommendations from policy organs and AU members and the AU Commission, the drafting committee prepares decisions for the Executive Council and Assembly normally prior to the Summit. This draft is of course deeply debated and can be widely differ from the actual decision adopted. Reaching consensus, which is the preferred method of the AU, is not always easy; as some Member States attempt to influence the process in order to safeguard their national interests.
Are there any influencing opportunities at the AU Summit for Non State Actors?
Normally, there is very little room to catalyse deep policy changes at the Summit level only. Engagement must start from the birth of the process described above. However influence may happen on current or on-going issues or issues on which countries have failed to reach strong consensus during the process. The AU Summit presents also important opportunities for networking for further engagements and for media work to raise and draw policy makers’ attention on important and current issues. It is also a unique opportunity for organizations, donors and other personalities operating on a wide range of issues from the whole continent and elsewhere to be at the same place at the same time. Non-State actors can hold policy influencing side events during the AU Summit and have their delegates present at the AU Commission, UNECA and in various hotels where official delegates stay. A number of pre-summit consultations are held by CSOs including women groups. ECOSOCC and CIDO are also supposed to hold a CSOs pre-summit event but this has not been consistent in recent years.
What is the criteria for CSOs Accreditation at the Summit?
Access to AU meetings is not automatic. It is based on rules and procedures of the AU. Due to space constraint, the AU Commission makes choices based on the timing of application, role envisaged in the Summit, activities related to the themes of the Summit, history of association and institutional relation with the AU etc. So, not all applicants are accredited. Over the last few years, the number of CSOs invited has been increasing.
Which Other Meetings are Held during the Summit?
Other AU organs also hold official side meetings during summits, such as:
– The Peace and Security Council
– The African Peer Review Forum/Mechanism
– The NEPAD Heads of State and Government Implementation
– Sub – Committee etc.
How is Media Work Organized at the AU Summit?
The AU Commission always set up a high-tech press centre offering 24-hour internet facilities, daily press briefings, and press kits. NGOs can also request to use briefing rooms of the Commission to hold their press events. The Department of Information and Communication of the Commission helps to invite the Medias to all press events held at the Commission. Press events are an excellent way to reach policy makers during the Summit.
26th Ordinary Summit of Heads of State of the African Union
Addis Ababa, 24th – 31st January 2016
This update – 7th January 2016
Background
The year 2016 has been declared by the Assembly of the African Union as the “African Year of Human Rights with Specific focus on Women’s Rights”. Both bi-annual Summits of the AU will be organised around this theme. According to the AU, the theme is premised on the realisation that 2016 marks watershed in the continent’s efforts to promote and protect human rights, also taking stock of the gains that have been made over the years by continental human rights bodies. It marks the 35th Anniversary since the adoption African Charter on Human and People’s rights; 29th Anniversary of the operationalization of the African Union Commission on Human Rights, 13 years of the adoption of the Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights on the Rights of Women in Africa (Maputo Protocol) and the 10th Anniversary of the operationalization of the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights.
African leaders have endorsed human rights in national, regional, continental and international instruments. However, the effective implementation of key AU Human rights and governance instruments, including the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, the African Charter on Election and Democracy and Good Governance by the majority of member states is still lacking. Upholding of human and women’s rights remains an indispensable pillar for good governance, viable democratic society and sustainable development.
There is enough indication across the continent that the most violent conflicts are a result of violations of human rights or perpetration of injustice. The holding of elections, have also failed to address governance deficits.
The AU’ 2016 theme therefore provides an opportunity for African leaders and citizens to assess the implementation of instruments, operationalization of the African Governance Architecture and other mechanisms, as well as the involvement of civil society.
The Chairmanship of the Union
From Mugabe to Idriss Deby?- The controversial tenure of President Robert Mugabe as AU Chairperson will end in January, with a possibility of his successor being the Chadian Idriss Deby , (Central Africa) according to rumours about a consensus within the region.
Elections of the AUC – The term of office of the current African Union Commission (AUC) is ending and new elections are scheduled for the June/July 2016 Summit. It is not clear yet if the current AUC Chairperson, Dr. Dlamini Zuma, will be seeking re-election. Some rumours are indicating that she will not. However, current Deputy Chairperson, and two other commissioners second mandate ends and are not eligible for re-elections, while the remaining six commissioners can still contest. The other burning issue about this election is the necessary review of the rules of procedures of the policy organs in order to avoid the complications observed 4 years ago during the election of the Chairperson. The upcoming summit creates avenue for political bargaining of the elections.
It is however very important that the leadership of the AU Commission is chosen on the basis of competency and experience if we want to see effectiveness in the realisation of its mandate.
Burundi Conflict – The on-going conflict in Burundi will surely be heavily discussed formally and informally at the highest level during the Summit especially given the decision of the Peace and Security Council to authorise the deployment of troops to protect civilians in Burundi; a decision that the Government of Burundi has challenged and rejected. Would the Assembly of the Union use the article 4h of the AU Constitutive Act and decide a deployment of troops without the consent of Burundi? Would Burundian army fight AU troops in Burundi while at the same time Burundian’s troop are fighting on AU side to maintain peace in other African conflict affected countries? Or would the heads of state decide to give a chance to a re-energized mediation first and/or would they try to find a different/consensus solution that ensure the protection of innocent civilians? What role for the UN in this? The UNSC is yet to formally endorse the PSC decision. It is not clear why this has been delayed until now…
The other element will be the expected full report of the African Commission on Human and People’s Rights following their “investigation” in Burundi. Would this report be published or hidden?
Overhaul of the Peace and Security Council (PSC) – Major change in the composition of the PSC is expected as the mandate of all current 15 members expires. This is the 2nd time in the life of the PSC that both the two and three year terms at ending at the same time.
Non-State Actors/Observers’ Space: The good news is that the African Union Commission has issued invitations to observers including CSOs, non-African countries and inter-governmental organizations. Civil Society organizations are planning also to host a People’s Summit, a Citizens’ Continental Conference prior to the Summit to discuss issues on the agenda and formulate recommendations to delegations. (Contact: info@ccpau.org).
Understanding the African Union – Annual Training: Oxfam International Liaison Office to the African Union and the Directorate of Information and Communication of the African Union Commission will host their usual joint annual training for citizens and media practitioners titled “Understanding and Engaging the African Union”: http://au.int/en/newsevents/19540/pre-summit-aucoxfam-workshop-%E2%80%9Cunderstanding-african-union%E2%80%9D-structures-and-decision (Contact: addisababa@oxfaminternational.org)
Working Methods of the Union: In accordance to previous decisions to improve working methods of the Union, the Agenda of the Assembly will likely be simplified and time for speeches likely be reduced.
The theme of the year will be symbolically launched during the January Summit and deeply discussed during the June/July Summit. However, a number of related activities will be organised throughout the year with the AU planning to launch and conduct publications, dialogue forums and a continental conference on human rights in Africa which is expected to adopt a 10 year Action Plan on the promotion and protection of human rights on the continent to be submitted to the January 2017 Summit for adoption.
The January 2016 Summit is expected to discuss various other issues. The Summit will be, as usual organised in 3 steps:
– The Permanent Representatives Committee, PRC (Ambassadors): 21-23 January
– The Executive Council (Ministers of Foreign Affairs): 27-28 January
– The Assembly of the AU (Heads of State and Government) 30-31 January
A number of other parallel/side meetings will also normally be held by states and non-state actors. See an unofficial calendar here: http://issuu.com/assogbavi/docs/unofficial_calendar_of_au_summit_ev
What else will be discussed in the Summit?
Beside the official launch of the theme of the Summit “African Year of Human Rights with specific focus on Women’s Right”, no major decision is expected to be taken on this issue. The following other issues are expected to be discussed:
Alternative Source of Financing the African Union: The Assembly decided during its 25th ordinary session in south Africa to implement its decision (assembly/AU/Dec.561(XXIV) on alternative sources of funding where member states enhances ownership of the budget of the union by financing 100% of operating budget, 75% of programs and 25% of peace and security budget effective January 2016 to be phased incrementally over a five year period. A follow up discussion may happen during this summit on the level of implementation and agreement on the scale of assessment to implement the financing from member states.
I would be really surprised if this decision is implemented any time soon by AU member states with the current situation. Currently more than 70% of the overall budget of the AU is paid by external partners and the collection of the 30% or less from the 54 members of the Union is a real challenge. In 2015 for example less that 60% of the assessed contribution of the year has been paid. More than 30 member states are currently indebted to the African Union with the current scale of assessment, let alone an increased scale…
Peace and Security: The Summit will review the state of peace and security on the continent and will adopt an omnibus decision on each situation. Hotspots include Burundi, South Sudan, Sudan, DRC, Somalia, CAR, Western Sahara and Mali. It is also expected that terrorism including the situations in Nigeria and Kenya will come up.
Implementation of AU Decisions: An independent study has shown a few years ago that less than 10% of the decisions taken by the African Union are fully implemented. This situation is even getting worse and is seriously affecting the credibility of the African Union. The summit would have to take this issue seriously. The AU Commission will prepare a report on the current situation to be discussed by the Summit.
International Criminal Court: During the July 2015 Summit in South Africa, the Assembly directed the AUC Commission to ensure that the AU is added as An amicus curiae (friend of the Court) to on-going cases of African Leaders at the ICC. The Assembly is expected to hear progress on implementation of previous decisions on ICC and adopt a declaration on the same.
Common African Position on the World Humanitarian Summit: The Assembly is expected to adopt the common position of the African Union on Humanitarian Effectiveness to be submitted to the World Humanitarian Summit (WHS) scheduled for Istanbul, Turkey in May 2016. The Common position was developed through a consultative process in all five regions of the African Union and is aimed at ensuring that Africa’s participation in the WSH is both united and effective.
Illicit Financial Flow and exploitation of mineral resources of Africa: Illicit outflow from Africa are estimated for about $ 50-60 billion per year. This represents about 1 billion leaving the continent every week mainly through extractive industries, tax evasion and trade mispricing. This issue should be definitely linked the financing for the development of the continent which will bring solution to the numerous other problems that we are facing.
Migration : The 2016 January summit, is expected to deliberate on migration within the continent and will further discuss the issue of freedom of movement of persons and services, as well as the need to have one Africa passport – envisioning ‘Schengen Approach’ and development of a Protocol on Free Movement of Persons. Migration has been making its way gradually towards the top of the continental and international affairs agenda. During the recent European Union (EU) – Africa Summit in Valletta in November 2015 the AU and EU identified five priority areas for future cooperation. While Africa stressed more on the need to address the root causes of mobility, the European Union concentrated on issues around returning, readmission and reintegration.
African Union Agenda 2063: Agenda 2063 has been adopted at the African Union Summit by African Heads of State and Government as the Continent’s new long-term vision for the next 50 years. An ambitious 10-years implementation plan has been adopted in South Africa in July including an Integrated High Speed Train Network, the Continental Free Trade Area, the African Passport and Free Movement of people, Unification of African Air Space, the Grand Inga Dam Project etc. The Implementation of the 10-years plan will be discussed in the summit. Also report is expected from member states with respect to domestication of the Agenda 2063.
The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2015 annual report for this blog.
Here’s an excerpt:
A New York City subway train holds 1,200 people. This blog was viewed about 4,100 times in 2015. If it were a NYC subway train, it would take about 3 trips to carry that many people.
Public Debate
Fridays of the AU Commission
Toward Climate Justice for Africa
Opening Remarks by
Desire Assogbavi, Head of Oxfam Liaison Office to the African Union
African Union Commission, Friday 6 November 2015
Excellencies, Ladies and Gentlemen,
All protocols observed.
Thank you for joining this public debate co-hosted by the African Union Commission and Oxfam’s Liaison Office to the African Union.
The climate is changing – and you would agree with me that this year has been the hottest on record!
For some of us this means less quality food, less choice, and higher prices.
For nearly a billion people, already living in poverty, it means more hunger, more disease etc…
The changing climate is putting our families and the things we love at risk – our homes, our land, and our food. Unpredictable weather is becoming the norm – destroying harvests, pushing food prices up and food quality down. In the world’s poorest countries, women, often most responsible for feeding their families, are being hit hardest by the impacts of climate change.
Next month, COP21 to be held in Paris, also known as the 2015 Paris Climate Conference, will, for the first time, in over 20 years of UN negotiations, aim to achieve a legally binding and universal agreement on climate, with the objective to keeping the global warming at least below 2°C. The new climate change treaty, if adopted will replace the Kyoto Protocol.
In Paris, our leaders will be making decisions that will affect us all – but especially those, whose lives and livelihoods are most at risk.
What will those decisions be?
We need an agreement to help Africa cope with the impacts of climate change. We need billions of dollars to help those already being hit by extreme weather – in order to save lives and livelihoods…
Today, we are meeting to provide input to those who will be seated at the table in Paris in a few weeks.
There will be governments, intergovernmental organisations, UN agencies, and civil society in these meetings. …
Is it reasonable to think that we can agree on a legally binding treaty on climate?
As one of the world’s most vulnerable continents to climate change, Africa must strategically be engaged in this process.
Today we will hear the latest on Africa’s negotiation position. We’ll also hear about Africa’s competing priorities.
We know that a number of African countries, including Ethiopia, are already stepping up the mark with visionary plans, to develop economies powered by clean energy…
For Oxfam, our Key issues in the Paris deal are going to be the following:
1 – Whether there will be sufficient cuts in emissions to slow global warming
2 – Will rich countries provide funding to help the developing world cope with the legacy of 150 years of huge economic progress based on fossil fuels?
3 – Can each country pay into a fund for the damages caused by climate change?
At the last negotiation meeting before Paris, in Bonn Germany in October, we started to see signals that countries have started to assume climate leadership – pledging the transformation of their economies. This made the news in China and the USA.
Ladies and Gentlemen, these are some of the questions on the table for our discussion today. Let’s hear from our panellists and then I look forward to a robust debate.
All suggestions and comments will hopefully, be noted and published as a Bulletin for AU member states to refer to before Paris.
I would like to thank you in advance all for your contributions.
UN Financing for Development meeting – Private Sector Side Event – 13th July 2015
Key Note by Desire Assogbavi
Head of Oxfam Liaison Office to the African Union
First, on behalf of the Addis Ababa CSO Coordinating Group and the Women Working Group, I would like to welcome you to this event today.
Can Private Sector Really Deliver Financing for Sustainable Development? — Every word in this question must count!!!!
It is a timely event as we await the political momentum to agree on the way forward for financing for development.
We need billions, even trillions to achieve Sustainable Development …..
Governments across the world are increasingly looking at ways to work with the private sector to meet their development financing needs. — Not a bad idea as such —
The risk, however is that, this finance is not additional, and importantly, not targeted at reducing poverty, or improving equality. It may be simply a poor substitute for plugging the gap in public finance. That is what we want to avoid !!!!
Friends, We must not let the volume of the figures overwhelm us. Sufficient finance is available globally. It just needs to be allocated fairly, alongside systemic international change in policy areas that affect public and private finance, such as taxation, aid, trade, debt and climate change.
The challenge, in terms of the private sector as a whole is to direct its business models through greater transparency, accountability and rules with sustainable development.
My key concern is that, there is little evidence to back this shift to private finance. To date, we have not seen sustainable development outcomes resulting from public private partnerships. ……. Without this evidence, there’s no guarantee that using public finance to get private investors to improve people’s lives and support the sustainable development agenda actually works.
Unfortunately Addis has not created that opportunity to gain political agreement on a comprehensive set of clearly defined criteria, principles and standards that would govern the private sector’s contribution towards lasting and sustainable development outcomes.
Without this, there is a danger that too many examples of “leveraging” or “blending” do not deliver sustainable development impacts; —– do not really leverage additional money over and above that, which the private sector could have provided anyway; —– do not align with government and community needs; —– and in some cases do harm to people, and not encouraging business and investors to walk the extra mile towards better impacts.
The issue of the role of the private sector in development is also complex and I wanted to lay the scene out before you, so that we can approach this in the panel discussion today. I see essentially 3 interconnected domains:
The first is related to the business model and the need to redirect the dominant way of doing business to ensure its adherence to human rights and social, political and environmental imperatives.
Wealth and job creation too often, come at a cost to people and planet, and this cost is borne by the most marginalised communities and individuals.
There are plenty of business practises that are perfectly legal while being inconsistent with human rights, and are socially and environmentally un–sustainable.
In terms of the wider accountability we still do not have binding human rights treaties to protect communities and people against abuses by corporates.
Voluntary rules are not enough and are not compatible with sustainable development principles and human rights frameworks. It has been disappointing to see that in Geneva recently, we saw the same governments that are pushing the agenda on increased private finance for development, blocking any movement on adopting a legally binding instrument for business and human rights.
Secondly, there has been an increase in the private provision of public services and investments. It is important to acknowledge the difference with the first as here, the private sector enters the public domain either because it provides public services (i.e. education or health) or because it receives public resources for public investments (i.e. infrastructure).
This is where blended finance and PPPs materialize. Here it would be important that safeguards, criteria and post assessments be of a high quality in order to ensure the best use of public resources, protect the nature of the public services and the state’s responsibility as duty bearer, and promote and enhance public goods.
The existing evidence shows that PPPs have mixed development impacts. In some cases, PPP projects have not been successful, leaving lasting impacts in both developed and developing
An example of where this type of activity has had a detrimental effect is the case of the Queen Mamohato hospital in Lesotho, where now more than half the country’s entire health budget (51%) is being spent on payments to the private consortium that built and runs a hospital in the capital.
We also know what can go wrong when leveraging private finance fails to respect human rights and the environment.
Recently, several reports have been published that document the negative impacts on communities and the environment in many developing countries resulting from lack of oversight and poorly applied due diligence by the World Bank’s lending arm.
Lastly on the private sector engagement in public policy:, In many cases, we are concerned with what we see as an emerging corporate capture of the public space.
For instance, there is currently heavy corporate lobbying against public country-by-country tax and profit reporting in many countries, despite the public being keen to end tax dodging.
Just to reiterate: rules to protect workers or the natural environment are poorly applied. We therefore need legally binding sustainable development principles that all governments should apply to all projects where public and private finance is combined to ensure social and environmental justice and, we need governments to develop binding rules based on the UN Business and Human Rights Guiding Principles.
I thank you for your attention.
By Désiré Assogbavi
It is universally accepted that human rights are indivisible and interdependent. It is not enough that rights are recognized in national law or policy rhetoric: there should be mechanisms for their full exercise by citizens with no discrimination. But how shall we deal with access to rights in fragile states?
A fragile state has a government is not able to deliver core functions to the majority of its populations. This is true for a wide range of situations, but usually involves a combination of weak administrative capacity and territorial reach, lack of state control over the use of violence, and the lack of accountability to populations, particularly poor and marginalized people. A state is fragile when it is unable to provide for the security and development of a majority of its citizens. A decade ago, most countries in fragile situations were low-income; today, a good number of them are middle-income countries.
The majority of citizens in highly fragile states are known to be poor, experience repeated violence, and suffer economic exclusion and inequality. Is fragility ever an excuse for a lack of respect for human rights, then?
Despite all principles supporting human rights, the reality is that in conflict and post-conflict situations, or other contexts of fragility, there is a breach of individual rights and personal security. In most cases, this includes the violation of a number of other rights due to weak state institutions and state’s inability (but also lack of political will) to meet the basic needs of the population.
Which rights must be met and which should be met, and when and by whom?
The very first step should be the observance of the core principles of human rights: equality, non-discrimination, participation, empowerment, and accountability. Inclusivity and non-discrimination, as well as transparency, are particularly helpful in reducing the tensions and frustration of rights holders, even when state institutions are not able to provide all the rights they are due. This is particularly true when various constituencies including civil society are given the chance to participate in the realization of rights and to promote the inclusive design and organization of democratic institutions such as electoral processes, so as to ensure and facilitate the involvement and participation of socially and economically marginalized and vulnerable groups. Such reform should include measures to support the ability of such groups to exercise their freedoms of association, assembly, and expression.
Prioritization and sequencing?
The International Bill of Human Rights – including the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – indicates a series of rights. But there is no guidance as to which comes first, especially today, when we are strongly convinced of the interdependency of those rights.
Some rights cannot be derogated
Some rights cannot be derogated: Article 4 (2) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights sets out those groups of rights which can never be restricted or derogated. These include the rights to be free from arbitrary deprivation of life; torture and other ill-treatment; slavery, retroactive penalty, and the violation of freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. Article 4 provides for the derogation of other rights during periods of national emergency, under strictly limited circumstances.
In certain situations of the state’s incapacity or even total failure, it may not be possible to restore all services and meet all needs immediately. We are then forced to prioritize and determine which rights must be met first and which are to be realized over a certain timeframe. This is the concept of the progressive realization of rights.
The Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights allows for the progressive realisation of those rights over time, subject to some limitations (mentioned above). Some economic rights must be met at all times, however, including basic requirements for food and shelter.
Whose responsibility?
Unless we get to a situation of the total inexistence of a government, the state has the responsibility to respect the fundamental rights of citizens regardless of the situation. Fundamental rights are not favors given by the state or the government; they are duty, and those in power must account for this duty.
Fragile states may not have the institutional means to meet all of their rights obligations in a particular period, but it has become common to see other actors taking over some of the duties of the state in terms of meeting basic rights. This seems to be the only way to deal with the situation, and there is still room for improvement.
Different UN bodies have the duty to ensure the protection of rights, depending on the situation. These include the Security Council, with or without the consent of national authorities, the General Assembly, ECOSOC, etc. This protection is normally provided through various forms of intervention within the framework of “peace missions”: Human Rights Rapporteurs, ad hoc Commissions of Inquiry, etc. The UN can also send a mission to assume administrative authority in the state (Côte d’Ivoire, Kosovo, East Timor). But political and ideological interests should have a diminishing influence on any of the solutions, and only a better configuration of the UN Security Council can allow this to happen.
Responsibility of other actors?
Civil Society/NGOs: Because of their flexibility and ability to rapidly respond to crises (less bureaucratic, less driven by politics and interests, ability to mobilize resources) coupled with their experience as well as professional staff, NGOs are playing a growing role in the realization of rights in all situations, especially in fragile contexts. They must be encouraged and empowered to continue playing that role in the post-2015 era. The current shrinking of their space, especially in Africa, must be strongly combatted by all means national, regional and international.
The watchdog role of CSOs in monitoring public and private actors should be of great interest, as it can catalyze accountability for the respect or implementation of human rights, particularly in the context of fragility. It must be strongly supported by all stakeholders.
What about business? The UN Guiding Principles require business, as specialized organs of society performing specialized functions, to comply with all applicable laws, including international laws, and to respect human rights. This applies regardless of a state’s ability and/or willingness to fulfill its own human rights obligations. But when businesses have become part of the problem, then something must be done to change their accountability as we enter the post-2015 zone. Multinationals occur in an number of fragile contexts, and have been seen taking advantage of these areas in a variety of ways, mostly in conflict zones, as catalyzers or perpetuators of the fragility of the state. Their actions have included deal making with arms groups and governments in the Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic, South Sudan, and others.
Every year, fifty billion US dollars disappear from Africa through illicit financial flows. At least 70% of these outflows are from extractive industries, some of them in fragile states where national budgets do not meet basic economic rights. Countries like the United States have taken interesting steps to tackle this issue, but we need global coordinated action.
About the Author
Desire Assogbavi is a Lawyer from Togo and currently the Resident Representative of Oxfam International to the African Union in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. He was formally a Commissioner at the National Human Rights Commission and the National Inter-Ministerial Commission on International Humanitarian Law of Togo
The views expressed in the article are entirely those of the author and are not necessarily the views of his organization.
The year 2015 has been declared by the Assembly of the African Union as the “Year of Women Empowerment and Development towards Africa’s Agenda 2063”. As it has become the practice the theme of the year will be discussed in depth during the mid-year summit, after the symbolic launch of the theme at in January. Women Empowerment and Development towards Africa’s Agenda 2063 will be widely discussed in Johannesburg during a presidential interactive panel discussion – after a presentation on the theme by the Women & Gender Directorate of the African Union Commission. The debate is expected to be open and a decision or a special declaration is expected to be adopted.
The Summit will be, as usual organized in 3 steps:
1/ The Permanent Representatives Committee, PRC (Ambassadors): 7 – 8 June in Pretoria (O.R. Tambo Building)
2/ The Executive Council, EC (Ministers of Foreign Affairs): 10 – 12 June in Johannesburg (Sandton Conf Centre)
3/ The Assembly of the AU (Heads of State and Government) 14 – 15 June in Johannesburg (Sandton Conf Centre)
A number of other parallel/side meetings will also normally be held.
Hot Topics of the Summit
According to information gathered from reliable sources in Addis, the Assembly of Heads of State will hold a closed door debate even before the official opening ceremony of the Summit on 14th June. Discussions will include:
Migration, Continental integration including Free Movements, Xenophobia, Governance, Elections problems in Africa, Streamlining of AU Summit method of work and procedures.
A Ministerial Retreat will also be held on 9 – 10 June in Jo’burg and the Peace and Security Council is expected to meet at Heads of State level on 13 June.
Beside the debates and an eventual decision/declaration on the main them of the Summit “Women Empowerment and Development towards Africa’s Agenda 2063”, the following issues are likely to dominate Summit discussions:
Africa Integration with focus on free movement of people and goods (As part of the 10 years implementation plan of the Agenda 2063)
Governance: with Focus on the African Governance Architecture and Elections (As a response to the deficit of democracy and governance in a number of countries)
Illicit Financial Flows: (A follow up on Tabo Mbeki’s report and recommendations)
10 Year Implementation Plan of the Agenda 2063 (see Jan 2015 decisions and documents)
Alternative sources of financing for the African Union (see Jan 2015 decisions and documents)
Conflict, Peace and Security situation in Africa
Climate Change and the Paris Conference: Report by President Abdel Fattah Sissi, Egypt
Issues related to recent developments in the continent: Migration, Xenophobia in South Africa, Counter-Terrorism, and Mediterranean Migration etc.
Structural Reform of the AU Commission etc.
***************
If you want to receive my regular updates, comments and analysis on these issues during the Summit follow my blog: assodesire.wordpress.com or and follow me on Twitter @assodesire
Assodesire 