The reality is that CSOs will continue to play a prominent role in promoting peace and security in Africa. Therefore, it is necessary for the PSC to enhance the ca-pacity and opportunities for CSOs to engage further with the work of the Council.
In particular, the following policy recommendations can contribute towards achieving this objective:
■ CSOs with a demonstrated competence in the fi eld of peace and security that intend to contribute regularly to the work of the PSC should obtain accredita-tion with the PSC. CSOs have to demonstrate that their programme of work is of direct relevance to the objectives and mandate of the PSC.
■ CSOs that obtain accreditation should be granted a consultative status with the PSC. The emphasis will be on a consultative status rather than an observ-er status, which is common in othobserv-er intobserv-er-govobserv-ernmental settings. This will encourage both the PSC and the CSO to recognise a qualitative difference in
both the expectations of the member states of the PSC about CSOs and the CSO responsibility to impact upon the work of the Council positively. CSOs will be expected to be more result-oriented if they obtain a consultative status with the PSC.
■ Where a number of CSOs with similar expertise exists, in for example early warning, peacemaking, or post-confl ict peace building, these CSOs should endeavour to form an informal or formal network through which to interact with the PSC and AU.
■ CSOs that achieve accreditation should be required to sign a memorandum of understanding with the PSC.
■ The PSC should provide CSO guidelines on how to make submissions to the PSC. In particular, three ways can be emphasised: a written submission; an oral presentation; or through an invitation to contribute to the deliberations of the PSC.
CONCLUSION
The PSC is a vital organ for the promotion of peace and security in Africa. In turn, CSOs are crucial agents for achieving this same goal. The AU has clearly adopted a posture of positive engagement with CSOs. However, the current reality within the organisation is that some of the residual attitudes inherited from the AU’s predecessor, the OAU, are still prevalent within the structures of the institution. Consequently, despite the commendable platform for engage-ment that has been established between the PSC and CSOs, these organisations still fi nd it challenging to engage with the structures of the institution of the PSC in a professional and timely manner. To a large extent these challenges refl ect the same challenges that African CSOs experience in engaging and inter-acting with their own governments. In effect, experiences of CSOs in engaging their governments are writ large when they seek to interact with the AU and its institutions. In the medium to long term these basic challenges can be rem-edied, but only if a genuine partnership is forged between CSOs and the PSC.
The Livingstone Formula, which outlines a mechanism for PSC engagement with CSOs, is an important step in the right direction. The AU is still undergo-ing a cultural transformation with regard to its posture and openness to civil society. Similarly, the PSC is on an exponential learning curve when it comes to its exchanges and interaction with CSOs. Ultimately, the convergence between
the objectives of the Council and the role that CSOs can play in assisting to fulfi l these goals suggests that there needs to be a progressive partnership between the PSC and CSOs.
NOTES
1 African Union, Statures of the Economic Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC), Addis Ababa, 2002.
2 African Union, Constitutive Act of the African Union, Preamble, Lome, 2000.
3 M Muchie, A Habib, and V Padayachee, African integration and civil society: the case of the African Union, Transformation: Critical Perspectives on Southern Africa, 61 (2006), 3–24.
4 African Union, Constitutive Act of the African Union, Article 4 (e) and (i).
5 Boutros Boutros-Ghali, An agenda for peace: preventive diplomacy, peacemaking and peacekeeping, New York: United Nations, 1992.
6 United Nations, An agenda for peace, paragraph 20.
7 African Union, Protocol relating to the establishment of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union, adopted by the 1st Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the African Union, 9 July 2002, Durban. Article 2.
8 Ibid., 9.
9 Ibid., Article 20.
10 ibid., Article 8.
11 African Union Peace and Security Council, Conclusions of the Retreat of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union, PSC/PR/2 (LXXXV), Dakar, Senegal, 5–6 July 2007, 8.
12 Ibid., Paragraph 19, 8.
13 African Union Peace and Security Council, Conclusions on a Mechanism for Interaction Between the Peace and Security Council and Civil Society Organizations in the Promotion of Peace and Security and Stability in Africa, Retreat of the PSC, PSC/PR/(CLX), Livingstone, Zambia, 4–5 December 2008.
14 African Union African Citizens Directorate, Report of the African Union – Civil Society Organisations’ Consultation on the Modalities for the Operationalisation of Article 20 of the Peace and Security Council Protocol, Lusaka, Zambia, 27–29 December 2008, 2.
15 Ibid., 2.
16 Ibid., 1.
17 Ibid.
18 African Union Peace and Security Council, Conclusions of the Retreat of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union, PSC/PR/2 (LXXXV), Dakar, Senegal, 5–6 July 2007, 4.
19 AU African Citizens Directorate, Report of the AU-CSO Consultation, 2–3.
20 African Union Peace and Security Council, Conclusions on a Mechanism for Interaction, 3–4.
21 AU African Citizens Directorate, Report of the AU-CSO Consultation, 3.
22 African Union, Constitutive Act, Article 22.