Crisis in Chad: A test case for African Union
Thompson Ayodele

With more than 1000 people massacred in Kenya over elections dispute, news filtering in from Chad in the last few weeks is really 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. Once
again the situation in Chad evokes images of African countries that had
similar poor political and economic profiles-Liberia, 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 by 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 countries in the world. Over 80 per cent of
Chad’s population relies on subsistence farming and livestock raising for
its livelihood. Last year, the government committed itself to spending 70
per cent of its budget on development needs such as increase in access to
healthcare delivery and education.
 
However none of this materialised. 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
sympathisers. 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 per cent.
 
This plummeted to 8.0 per cent 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, Chad and elsewhere in the continent 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, Kibaki and Mugabe 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
solutions 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’s 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, a
strong respect for property rights and not through the battlefield.
 
To make this happen, the whole process would have to be driven 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 the African Union
as a body that is always prepared to shirk one of its primary
responsibilities- protecting ordinary African citizens from plunder.
 
*Mr. Ayodele (thompson@ippanigeria.org) is the Executive Diresctor of
Initiative for Public Policy Analysis, a Lagos based think-tank.
 
 

...More