Does the African Union deserve to exist?

Does the African Union deserve to exist? We'll find out this week.

The AU has two leaders. The chairman of the AU and the chairman of the Commission. The two people presently holding those offices are Nigerian president Olesegun Obasanjo and former Malian president Alpha Oumar Konaré. The difference between the two posts are much like the differences between a president and prime minister in a parliamentary system. The chairman of the AU is more like a figure head, someone who is the international face of the organization and who occasionally gets involved in continental mediation; he is always a current head of state. The chairman of the Commission is more involved in running day-to-day operations of the organization.

The AU was formed a few years ago to replace the Organization of African Unity. The OAU was often derided as a talking shop for dictators, whose guiding principle was the protection of autocrats rather than the protection of citizens. The AU was supposed to be different.

In fact, the Constitutive Act of the Union, a sort of constitution if you will, laid out the organization's objectives very clearly. Most notably:

to encourage international cooperation, taking due account of the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights

to promote peace, security, and stability on the continent

and to promote and protect human and peoples' rights in accordance with the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and other relevant human rights instruments.

Therefore, the chairman of the AU should come from a country which generally respects these founding principles. If someone runs a country in gross violation of these principles, he should be allowed to be the public face of Africa to the world.

These self-evident statements will be sorely tested this week at the AU's summit in Khartoum, Sudan, a summit which will reveal the organization's credibility on, seriousness about and committment to human rights.

The only candidate to chair the organization is Sudan. The Sudanese regime is committing genocide in the western region of Darfur. This alone should exclude it from any leadership position of any body of the African Union.

Sudan is also accused of sponsoring rebels in neighboring Chad. The part of Chad which also houses some 200,000 refugees from Darfur who fled the genocide.

Does executing genocide take "due account" of the UN Charter and Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Does sponsoring rebels in neighboring countries "promote peace, security and stability"?

The international perception of Africa is generally one of a place plagued by instability and violence. If AU member states voluntarily choose to elect a genocidal regime as its public face to the world, then does it really expect that perception to change? Is this how the organization is trying to fulfil Thabo Mbeki's prediction of an 'African renaissance'?

Post-colonial Africa has consistently been blighted by a failure of leadership. The African Union was supposed to be different. Rejecting Sudan's candicacy is a chance for Africa's heads of state to prove that it's serious about human rights and stability, not just in words but in deeds. Here's a chance to demonstrate that the AU deserves to exist.

Update: The Sudanese junta has reportedly offered to withdraw its candidacy for the AU's chairmanship.