|See AUF Defense Policy
Segregated African Stand-By Force is Bad Strategy
How to Establish the African Union Army
The best way to proceed is for the Assembly or the Pan African Parliament to designate all African armies as constituting the All-Union army (and have them swear an oath of allegiance to the AU), publish a common military doctrine (that emphasizes pan Africanism and respect for human rights by troops), publish common military manuals, and then begin a multi-phase process of integrating the troops and command structures, while reducing the overall size of the integrated army.
The command and control structure should be as follows:
The ultimate command authority over the army should be the political leadership of the AU (National Command), below that should be the African Chiefs of Defense Staff (Strategic Command), below that should be senior and general officers in charge of specific operational tasks or departments of the AU military establishment (Operational Command), and at the bottom should be tactical and junior officers, in charge of tactical units (Tactical Command).
The national command should only consist of elected officials, naturally, working jointly of course. That means that members of the PAP, the Assembly, and the Commission together make up the national command.
The African Chiefs of Defense Staff should be all of the military chiefs of staff of the AU states, as well as general and senior officers appointed by the Commission and by the Pan African Parliament.
Integrating the militaries is the correct way to proceed. Suggestions by Commission officials and Ghadaffi to scrap all armies and build a new one, or to have a standby rapid reaction force, are ill advised. Standby forces will only be sustainable, ideologically and economically, if they are part of an integrated Pan African army. Scrapping or disbanding armies outright is an invitation for mutinies and coups.
Moreover, standby forces of all kinds already exist within the various armies. The All-African rapid reaction forces do not work well because of the incoherent Pan African command structure (soon to become more convuluted by the formation of a Security Council to do the work of a PAP committee), lack integrated logistics, and can only serve as a short-term substitute for an integrated Pan African army. The redundancy of the US sponsored ACRF (African Crisis Response Force) should serve as a lesson.
Without an integrated army, the non-aggression pact and the security council (both of which are superfluous and unecessary efforts), will be worse than useless. If the army is integrated there is no need for a non-aggression pact. Moreover, the Union Act already prohibits acts of aggression. It is a waste of resources to pursue another treaty. If the name Security Council is so attractive to our leaders that they must have a body by that name, then I suggest they give the name to the National Command or the Strategic Command as explained above.