Africa’s step to be a continent of peace

With its decision to intervene militarily in South Sudan’s conflict, the African Union shows it may yet live up to its goal of creating a continent of peace by 2020.

AP Photo
African Union-backed soldiers patrol in the Somali capital, Mogadishu, July 17.

For a continent with so many wars, Africa certainly has big ambitions about peace. Its one uniting body, the 54-nation African Union, has set a goal to end all conflicts by 2020. This week, the AU took a step toward ending one potentially explosive conflict by agreeing to send troops to South Sudan.

That new nation, created only in 2011, recently saw a flare-up of violence between forces of President Salva Kiir and Vice President Riek Machar, who are archrivals but who have also often cooperated. At least 300 people were killed, including two Chinese soldiers serving in a United Nations peacekeeping unit.

UN peacekeeping operations are not equipped to bring about peace in countries, only to keep the peace. The AU, on the other hand, has adopted a principle of “nonindifference” in those situations in Africa that might result in genocide, crimes against humanity, or war crimes.

Africans do not want a repeat of the kind of genocide that occurred in Rwanda in the mid-1990s. That slaughter has altered international diplomacy in favor of military intervention in countries where mass violence might occur, where there’s “a responsibility to protect.”

Nearly three-quarters of all UN peacekeepers, however, are now in Africa. The AU is struggling to improve its performance to take care of conflicts, especially before they escalate. A report this week by the World Peace Foundation about the AU peace missions recommended that the AU “ensure that it has the capacity and the will to discharge its responsibilities as that first and leading respondent” to a conflict.

The AU has a decent track record of its forces helping keep peace in Somalia and the Central African Republic. Now, if it can get cooperation from the UN and South Sudan leaders, Africa may become a continent of peace, not war.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.