The African Union (AU), formerly known as the Organization of African Unity (OAU), is a continental body that brings together independent African states. As of 2026, the AU has existed for more than seventy years. It is therefore almost as old as the wave of modern African independence itself.
Its foundational objectives include, but are not limited to, promoting unity and solidarity among African states, defending their sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence, and supporting the peaceful settlement of disputes through negotiation, mediation, conciliation or arbitration. The organization also condemns political assassinations and subversive activities in all their forms, whether carried out by neighboring states or other actors.
The primary goal of the AU has historically been to defend the rights and interests of Africans both on the continent and in the diaspora. The idea of African unity served as a strategic tool to mobilize solidarity against political domination and exploitation during the colonial era.
In 1963, the OAU was established in response to calls by African diaspora scholars, intellectuals and political activists who championed the idea of continental unity. Among the most influential proponents were Marcus Mosiah Garvey, Kwame Nkrumah and W. E. B. Du Bois, among others.
Legally, the AU emerged within the framework of Article 52 of the Charter of the United Nations, which allows the formation of regional organizations. Before its creation, Africa was divided between two major ideological blocs that eventually merged to form a single continental body representing Africans both at home and abroad.
The first chairperson of the OAU was Haile Selassie of Ethiopia, while Kwame Nkrumah played a key intellectual and political role in promoting African unity.
In mid-May 1963, Selassie convened a high-level meeting of about thirty African heads of state. The goal was to dissolve the existing rival blocs and pave the way for the creation of the OAU. Bringing together these competing groups proved difficult because of their deep political and ideological differences.
One bloc, known as the Casablanca Group, included more radical states such as Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Algeria, Egypt and Morocco. The opposing Monrovia Group consisted of more conservative states including Ivory Coast, Dahomey, Upper Volta, Senegal, Gabon, Chad, Nigeria, Liberia and Ethiopia.
In 2002, the OAU was transformed into the AU, a reform widely associated with initiatives promoted during the presidency of Thabo Mbeki.
Ideology
The AU adopted Pan-Africanism as its guiding ideology. However, there is no single universally accepted definition of Pan-Africanism. Sierra Leonean author Edward Wilmot Blyden described it as a political and cultural concept that regards Africa, Africans and people of African descent abroad as a single community bound by a shared destiny. At its core, Pan-Africanism seeks the economic, social and political advancement of people of African descent.
In the book The African Union at 20, scholar Stephen Okhonmina outlines four main tenets of Pan-Africanism.
The first is the political unity of Africa. On this basis, some leaders such as the late Muammar Gaddafi advocated the creation of a “United States of Africa” before his death in 2011.
The second tenet is equality among African peoples regardless of their national identities. The third is racial solidarity among Africans, while the fourth is cooperation, particularly through economic integration among member states.
In its seventy years of existence, the AU and its predecessor have recorded several achievements. One notable political milestone was the organization’s recognition and support for the independence of South Sudan in 2011, despite the earlier Cairo Resolution of 1964, which discouraged the breakup of African states.
Nevertheless, significant challenges continue to undermine Pan-Africanism. One of the most prominent is the tension between continental unity and national interests. When Pan-African ideals clash with national priorities, the latter often prevail. Other obstacles include financial dependence on external partners and persistent ideological differences among member states—divisions that date back to the organization’s founding.
The “Toothless Bulldog”
Despite some achievements, many Pan-African scholars and historians argue that the AU has fallen short of the expectations of African citizens. Critics have sometimes described it as a “toothless bulldog that barks but cannot bite.”
One historical example often cited is the crisis in Angola in 1975. When Portugal abruptly withdrew from its colony, the mineral-rich country was left without a functioning central government. This created intense rivalry among three liberation movements: the Popular Movement for the Liberation of Angola (MPLA), the National Front for the Liberation of Angola (FNLA) and the National Union for the Total Independence of Angola (UNITA).
During this crisis, OAU member states initially proposed forming a national unity government comprising the three groups to guide the country toward independence. However, several member states later abandoned the plan and instead backed different factions based on their own national interests.
According to scholar Michael Ediagbonya, despite the OAU’s endorsement of a unity government, some African states openly supported rival factions. For example, Zaire backed UNITA, while Senegal and Zambia supported the FNLA. The OAU was unable to stop them.
Nigeria later supported the MPLA government led by Agostinho Neto. Foreign powers soon joined the conflict: apartheid-era South Africa backed the FNLA, while the United States and United Kingdom supported UNITA, and the Soviet Union and Cuba supported the MPLA.
During the Angolan conflict, the OAU appeared largely powerless. It was during this period that critics began referring to the organization as a “toothless bulldog.”
A Parallel in South Sudan?
Some observers argue that a similar situation is unfolding in South Sudan today.
On Sept. 12, 2018, South Sudanese political parties signed the Revitalized Peace Agreement, brokered by the Intergovernmental Authority on Development and supported by the AU and the international community. The deal eventually led to the formation of the Revitalized Transitional Government of National Unity (R-TGoNU).
The agreement was intended to guide the country toward reconciliation, justice, constitutional reform, a national census and democratic elections. However, many key provisions have not been fully implemented.
On March 26, 2025, opposition leader Riek Machar, one of the main signatories to the agreement, was placed under detention in Juba and later brought before a special court before the establishment of the hybrid court stipulated in the peace agreement.
The political situation has since deteriorated, with reports of renewed violence and displacement in several areas including Ayod and Abiemnhom counties.
In March 2025, the AU and IGAD sent former Kenyan prime minister Raila Odinga as a special envoy to mediate between President Salva Kiir and Machar. However, Odinga was reportedly denied access to Machar in Juba.
He later traveled to Kampala to meet Yoweri Museveni of Uganda in an effort to advance the mediation, but the effort produced no breakthrough.
Later, the chairperson of the African Union Commission, Mahmoud Ali Youssouf, dispatched the AU Panel of the Wise to engage the parties and encourage the resumption of the peace process. Despite extensive consultations, the panel was unable to achieve a decisive breakthrough.
During the 39th AU Summit in February 2026, African leaders discussed the South Sudan crisis and called for Machar’s release so that he could participate in an inclusive political dialogue. Since then, however, critics say the AU has remained largely silent.
This silence has raised questions about whether the AU is once again acting like a “toothless bulldog.”
Violence has continued in parts of the country, including recent attacks reported in Ayod, Abiemnhom and Akobo counties in Jonglei state.
Non-Indifference vs. Reality
The transformation from the OAU to the AU introduced important policy shifts. Under the OAU, the principle of non-interference prevented the organization from intervening in the internal affairs of member states.
The AU replaced this with the doctrine of “non-indifference.” Article 4(h) of the Constitutive Act of the AU allows intervention in cases of genocide, war crimes or serious human rights violations. On this basis, the AU created the African Standby Force, which has been deployed in conflict-affected countries such as Somalia.
Yet critics argue that the South Sudan crisis shows a gap between principle and practice.
Reports have alleged that some African states have taken sides in the conflict. Uganda, for instance, has been accused of deploying troops in support of the government of Salva Kiir. Such actions, critics say, undermine regional mediation efforts and risk violating the arms embargo imposed by the United Nations Security Council in July 2018.
If regional actors continue to support opposing sides in the conflict, it becomes difficult for the AU to present itself as a neutral arbiter.
The Angolan crisis of 1975 demonstrated how national interests among African states can weaken continental institutions. Some analysts argue that a similar dynamic is now unfolding in South Sudan.
The writer, Dak Buoth Riek Gaak, is a lawyer and criminologist. He previously served as a delegate to the High-Level Mediation for South Sudan, also known as the Tumaini Peace Initiative, where he represented the South Sudan People’s Movement (SSPM) as national chairperson of the Constitutional and Legal Affairs Committee. He can be reached for comments at: eligodakb@yahoo.com
The views expressed in ‘opinion’ articles published by Radio Tamazuj are solely those of the writer. The veracity of any claims made is the responsibility of the author, not Radio Tamazuj.