Abstract:
The Darfur crisis persists to the present day despite the African Union’s (AU) intervention. This mini-dissertation analyses the failure of the AU’s mediation in Darfur from 2004 to 2006. It uses a decolonial lens to investigate: how and why deadline diplomacy guided the mediation efforts by the AU, how the AU addressed the colonial legacy of Darfur during the mediation, and the consequences of the absence of multi-track diplomacy in Darfur. The key findings are that the AU had initially followed a classic integrative approach to their mediation at the beginning of the negotiations, but was coerced by their external donors to use deadline diplomacy in April 2006, to conclude the talks (known as the Abuja peace process) and settle the crisis with the signing of an agreement. This reduced the mediation process to the signing of a document that has never been implemented. The AU’s understanding of the colonial underpinnings of the conflict was limited. The AU mainly focused on settling the current conflict on the ground, which was propagated as being ethnically-charged by the Sudanese government and the international community. This created an arbitrary understanding of the complexities of Darfurian society. The AU only utilised track 1 diplomacy and did not utilise the other tracks of the multi-track system, which created a distance between the negotiations at the table and the realities and interests of the local population on the ground. The AU’s mediation in Darfur is characterised by the prioritising of the signing of the Darfur Peace Agreement and a disconnect between the interests of the Darfurian people and the interests of the parties involved in the negotiations. It may be concluded that the lack of financial capacity of the AU, the reliance on external funding, and the use of the same problem-solving mediation method employed by the West weakens the implementation of any solutions that are proposed, by Africans for Africans. It is recommended that the mediation process in Darfur needs to be more inclusive. Civil society, women’s groups, religious leaders, NGOs, and politicians outside of the Darfurian government (the opposition) should be included in the mediation process as their participation would not only increase the legitimacy of the mediation process but would also ensure that the official mediation team are well-informed about the concerns of the affected local population.
