AU peace plan for Libya: does it mean anything?

Colonel Gaddafi's acceptance of the African Union's peace plan has focused attention on the AU. Specifically, is it a trustworthy mediator in a conflict involving the toppling of one its founding members and biggest bankrollers?

WHAT IS THE AU?A continental body, much like the EU, which consists of 53 African member states (every African country excluding Morocco). It was conceived by Gaddafi in his hometown Sirte to replace the outdated Organisation of African Unity (OAU). It aims to create, "an integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa, driven by its own citizens and representing a dynamic force in the global arena".

Its current chairman is Teodoro Obiang, the president of Equatorial Guinea and famous as the dictator Simon Mann and others tried to overthrow in 2004. Rumour has it that Obiang has a taste for eating the brains and testicles of his opponents. He was not invited to Tripoli.

WHAT IS THE AU PROPOSING?Four things:
1) An immediate ceasefire, including Nato's air strikes;
2) Safe passageway for humanitarian aid to be delivered throughout the country;
3) Protection for foreign nationals;
4) The opening of dialogue between the rebels and Gaddafi's government.

In a statement, the AU said the plan was aimed at creating "an inclusive transition period" during which "political reforms necessary for the elimination of the causes of the current crisis" could be brought in.

Crucially, they have made any mention of Gaddafi stepping down in the peace plan, which may be a deal-breaker for the rebels.

HOW HAS THE PLAN BEEN RECEIVED?Gaddafi seems pretty happy with it. It was him, not the rebels, that the AU delegation first visited with the plan. He appeared today alongside Ramtane Lamara, the AU's commissioner for peace and security, to state that he was accepting the deal.

The rebel forces and transitional council in Benghazi, however, have not been so keen. Rebel spokesman Mustafa Gheriani told Reuters that whilst the proposal would be considered, "the Libyan people have made it very clear that Gaddafi must step down". The British-based representative for the transitional council also insisted that any deal which kept Gaddafi or his sons in power would be rejected.

The international community has also remained wary. Nato spokesperson Oana Lungescu said, "We welcome all contributions to the broad international effort aimed at stopping the violence against the civilian population in Libya." Nonetheless, air strikes are said to be continuing for the moment.

The British Foreign Office continued to state that it would, "judge the Libyan regime by its actions and not its words", a reference to Gaddafi's previously false promises of a ceasefire.

IS THE AU AN APPROPRIATE BROKER FOR PEACE?Opinion is divided.

Alex Vines, head of the Africa programme at Chatham House, told The First Post that, "the AU has a long distinguished record at mediation. This is the continental body for these issues, and Gaddafi probably feels more comfortable with them given that he has invested heavily in them."

Others are more critical of the AU'S conflict resolution record. The BBC's Will Ross points out: "It has often been accused of standing up for the incumbents and is criticised as being a club which serves the interests of the continent's presidents more than the people. The situation is muddied by money. Col Gaddafi has bankrolled the AU for years and he has bought friends in Africa."

It is said that 75 per cent of the AU's budget comes from about five countries, one of whom is Libya.

Writing in Canada's National Post, Peter Goodspeed pointed to the AU's massive failings in terms of its lack of action in Zimbabwe and Darfur. "It says absolutely nothing about Libya’s real problem, which is Col. Gaddafi," he writes. "The African Union has only reinforced its reputation as a club that regularly serves the interests of Africa’s autocrats."

The high-profile involvement of South African president Jacob Zuma, who is known as having a close relationship with Gaddafi, has worried some. Alex Viner, however, believes this is misplaced: "South Africa does believe in mediation, it's part of its history since the Apartheid. I wouldn't suggest anything partisan at the moment."

WHO WOULD BENEFIT FROM THE PLAN?Gaddafi, of course, would have the perfect opportunity to regain control of eastern Libya during the lull of a ceasefire. Any promises of dialogue could easily be manipulated to his own advantage, and it's very unlikely he would suddenly acknowledge the demands of the rebels.

The rebels would almost certainly benefit if they could get Gaddafi out of power as part of the deal. This is not a war they will win easily in the near future, and with the international community wavering over long or even medium-term involvement, this could be their chance to affect change without further fighting.

The international community, specifically those countries contributing to Nato's intervention, would be overjoyed if this could work. A dialogue-based regional effort would provide an easy and practical exit-strategy that allied forces were beginning to think was out of sight.

WHO WOULD LOSE?As it stands, the rebels - which would explain the latest reports that talks with the AU delegation (minus Zuma) have broken down. Without a promise that Gaddafi and his sons would resign completely from the political sphere in Libya, rebels have little reason to trust that he would bring in the reforms for which they have been fighting for nearly two months. ·