Addis Abeba — Every February, heads of state and government from across the continent gather under the banner of the African Union in Addis Abeba, a city that symbolizes Africa’s diplomatic heart. The summits produce carefully crafted communiqués, ambitious development themes, and public pledges of unity. Then the leaders return home, and for millions of ordinary Africans, little changes.
The uncomfortable truth is that the annual summit risks becoming less a platform for continental transformation and more a ritual of political reassurance. It allows leaders to appear responsible without ever being made responsible.
Between promise, political hesitation
Since the transformation of the Organization of African Unity into the African Union in 2002, expectations have been high. The new institution promised to break from the OAU’s doctrine of non-interference and instead adopt “non-indifference,” the idea that Africa would no longer remain silent when governments abused power or when conflicts devastated populations. Yet history shows a more complicated reality.
Follow us on WhatsApp | LinkedIn for the latest headlines
During the crisis in Darfur in the mid-2000s, the AU deployed peacekeeping forces that demonstrated genuine commitment but suffered from limited funding, weak enforcement authority, and political hesitation among member states. The mission highlighted a recurring AU challenge: willingness to acknowledge problems but reluctance to confront the governments responsible for them.
A similar pattern emerged during electoral crises across the continent. From disputed elections in Kenya in 2007 to political crises in Zimbabwe and Côte d’Ivoire, the AU often emphasized mediation and dialogue but struggled to enforce consequences for leaders who undermined democratic processes. The gap between aspiration and enforcement became an institutional habit.
AU diplomacy caught in endless cycle of instability
Nowhere illustrates this contradiction more clearly than the Horn of Africa, a region that repeatedly dominates AU discussions yet continues to face recurring instability.
Conflicts involving Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, and South Sudan have regularly featured in summit communiqués over the past two decades. Peace agreements have been endorsed. Mediation panels have been formed. High-level envoys have been appointed. Yet implementation has remained fragile.
The AU played a diplomatic role in supporting peace negotiations during Ethiopia’s recent war in the northern part of the country and endorsed reconciliation efforts afterward. However, the broader regional challenges, including displacement, humanitarian access, and political reconciliation, demonstrate the AU’s ongoing struggle to move from endorsement to enforcement.
Similarly, the AU has long supported stabilization efforts in Somalia, deploying one of its most ambitious peacekeeping missions. While the mission contributed to limiting extremist expansion and strengthening federal institutions, it also revealed structural weaknesses. The AU relied heavily on external funding, limiting its strategic independence and long-term sustainability.
Sudan offers another sobering example. The AU repeatedly facilitated negotiations following political upheavals, yet transitions toward civilian rule have repeatedly collapsed. Each collapse reinforced a familiar cycle: emergency mediation followed by temporary stability, followed by renewed crisis.
Words over deeds
Against this historical background, the annual summit follows a now-familiar pattern. Leaders declare that “peace is urgent,” that “youth are Africa’s future,” and that “regional cooperation is essential.” These statements are often sincere. But sincerity without enforcement produces repetition instead of results.
The credibility of any AU summit must be measured by its outcomes, not by declarations.”
Diplomacy matters. Dialogue matters. Yet diplomacy without consequences gradually loses credibility. When commitments carry no cost for failure, they become ceremonial rather than transformational.
Accountability: Missing ingredient
If the AU summit is to fulfill its founding promise, three simple but transformative reforms are necessary.
1. Speak the Truth Clearly
AU communiqués often rely on diplomatic language such as “deep concern” or “serious challenges.” While this language preserves political relationships, it rarely protects citizens.
Progress requires naming realities directly: who suppresses opposition, who manipulates elections, who fuels armed conflict through proxy forces, and who restricts humanitarian access to vulnerable populations. Silence in the name of unity often protects instability rather than preventing it.
2. Create Public and Measurable Commitments
African citizens rarely know what their governments promised during previous summits because commitments are buried in technical policy frameworks or forgotten after closing ceremonies.
A credible AU must establish publicly accessible performance tracking. Governments should face continental peer review based on measurable targets and transparent reporting. Citizens should be able to ask simple but powerful questions: What did our government promise last year? What was delivered? What failed?
3. Redefine Continental Solidarity
African unity cannot mean equal diplomatic respect regardless of domestic performance. Leaders who violate continental norms should not be able to rehabilitate their international image simply by attending summits and delivering speeches about shared values.
True solidarity requires shared accountability. Without it, unity becomes political protection rather than collective progress.
Promises of safe development, reality of inaction
This year’s summit theme, water and sanitation, reflects one of the continent’s most urgent human development challenges. Access to safe water remains fundamental to public health, education, and economic productivity.
However, water insecurity across parts of Africa is rarely only a technical challenge. In many regions, including fragile areas of the Horn, unsafe water stems from conflict, corruption, collapsed institutions, and mismanaged public investment.
Themes that sound universally moral can unintentionally allow leaders to celebrate commitment while avoiding structural reform. If Africa still requires annual summits to reaffirm that citizens deserve safe drinking water, then governance priorities require serious reassessment.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
What matters most
Ultimately, the credibility of any AU summit must be measured by its outcomes, not by declarations. At the close of each February meeting, certain questions should linger: Which governments were compelled to alter their behavior? Which commitments included enforceable timelines? Which leaders faced consequences for violating continental agreements? Which communities saw measurable improvements in their daily lives?
If the honest answer remains “none,” then the summit has served political convenience rather than advancing the continent’s progress.
Beyond symbolism, toward accountability
The African Union remains one of Africa’s most important institutional achievements. Its existence reflects the continent’s aspiration for collective voice, coordinated development, and shared security.
But history shows that institutional ambition alone cannot deliver peace, democracy, or development. Enforcement mechanisms, political courage, and public accountability remain the missing pillars of continental governance.
Africa does not suffer from a shortage of declarations. It suffers from a shortage of consequences.
Until accountability becomes central to AU gatherings, the summit held in February risks remaining a diplomatic ritual, one that reassures leaders while leaving ordinary Africans waiting for promises to become reality. AS
Editor’s Note: The author of this opinion piece, Gebremichael Negash, can be reached at [email protected]