|
|
Chadian Crisis Deepen Fault Lines
within African Union
With more than 1000 people massacred in Kenya
over elections dispute, news
filtering in from Chad in the last few weeks is
depressing. While the
crisis in Kenya appears to be simmering down, more than
a million people
have been forced to leave their normal place of abode in
Chad. There have
been exchanges of gunfire between the government forces
and rebels as the
latter are poised to remove the incumbent president.
By Thompson Ayodele
The situation in Chad evokes images of African countries
that had similar
poor political and economic profiles-Liberia, Chad,
Kenya, Sudan, Somalia
to name a few. What appears to be responsible for this
plethora of crises
has been a constant struggle for political power for
groups that had been
excluded from the spoils of economic progress and
fraudulent electoral
processes.
In the last four decades, Chad has remained a highly
unstable country. The
crisis began shortly after independence. The political
control of the
country went to the southerners causing a revolt of the
northern Chadian
tribes against the south in 1966. This started a cycle
of civil conflicts,
which, after a period of uneasy peace between 1990 and
2004, has blown up
again. In 2006 a peace deal was signed but it only
lasted for two months.
Shortly after, a massacre took place in the eastern
Chadian village of
Djawara with over 100 civilians either shot or hacked to
death by Sudanese
Janjaweed militia and local Chadian rebels.
Chad is one of the poorest in the world. Over 80% of
Chad’s population
relies on subsistence farming and livestock raising for
its livelihood.
Last year, the government committed itself to spending
70% of its budget
on development needs such as increase in access to
healthcare delivery and
education. However none of this materialized. The
Chadian government is
widely seen by many Chadians as corrupt and has not been
selfless as
promised to alter the present rate of poverty.
Unfortunately, the recent
crisis has left a deluge of refugees with 20,000 in
Cameroon, 3,500 in
Nigeria with severe humanitarian consequences.
The discovery of oil has not altered positively the
lives of the people.
Oil proceeds have been grossly mismanaged and promises
have not been
fulfilled.
The failure of the World Bank backed Chad-Cameroon oil
pipeline project
valued at $3.7 billion to reduce poverty has helped the
rebels to build
the much-needed support. The worsening economic
situation has enabled the
rebels to get more sympathizers. The discovery of oil
also provides a real
opportunity for the rebels to wrestle control of
government mainly to lay
hand on oil-related revenue. Rebels are largely fighting
for the control
of oil revenue.
With the exception of China Oil Company that signed an
exploration
agreement worth $30million, Chad has not fared better in
terms of direct
foreign investments. The World Bank has recently frozen
$100 million oil
royalties after parliament in N’Djamena voted to amend
Petroleum Revenue
Management contrary to earlier agreement. Prior to 2005,
foreign
investment in the oil sector alone was put at 30%. This
plummeted to 8.0%
in the subsequent years. One possible explanation for
this is that
investors are wary of the prevailing situation in Chad.
The ultimate
victims, of course, are millions of Chadians.
It is quite possible that interference by France in the
internal politics
of Chad could be responsible for renewed hostilities.
However, the actual
cause of the crisis is attributed to the internal
opposition to President
Idriss Deby. With a new democratic constitution
introduced in 1996 which
produced Deby as president, he has in turn been caught
up in an executive
inertia. The constitution has been amended paving the
way for him to be
elected for the third term. Again he has positioned his
son as his likely
successor. Another election is due later this year. A
rigged outcome would
of course be what President Deby wants.
The events unfolding in Kenya and Chad are test cases
for the African
Union over its relevance in the 21st century. While the
African Union does
inform the whole world about its efforts or steps being
taken to end
crises in parts of the continent, most often such
efforts have failed to
cut ice. Condemning the likes of Deby and Kibaki would
be tantamount to
condemning many leaders who cherish longevity on the
throne.
On a number of occasions, the AU continues to display
its inability to
proffer solution to crises within Africa. It continues
to treat with
kid-gloves those whose actions are responsible for
crises. For instance,
at the just concluded AU meeting, president Kibaki
actions in Kenya were
not condemned in absolute terms for the killings in
Kenya. Instead, it was
a wine-sipping moment.
It is crystal clear the crisis in Chad can only be
resolved through
constitutionalism, the rule of law and not through the
battlefield. To
make this happen, the whole process would have to be
spearheaded by the
African Union. It must take a pro-active role in
resolving most of the
crises on the continent. Failure to do so would portray
African Union as a
body that is always prepared to shirk one of its primary
responsibilities-
protecting ordinary African citizens from plunder.
Mr. Ayodele is the Executive Director of Initiative
for Public Policy
Analysis, a Lagos based think-tank.
|
