Countries in East Africa and the Horn will soon be obligated to intervene in trouble-spots like Somali and Darfur, instead of relying on help from the entire continent or the United Nations.

This is expected to become a reality next year after the East African Standby Brigade meets the requirements set by the African Union.

The director of the East African Standby Brigade Co-ordinating Mechanism (EASBCOM) Simon Mulongo, told The EastAfrican that the brigade will complete its field training in November after which it will be certified as fully operational.

Thus, the Brigade — which will involve specially trained troops from 11 member countries — can only undertake peace support operations from early next year.

Mr Mulongo said the priority areas for intervention will depend on three factors: The most deserving conflict situation; the voting by the AU peace and Security Council; and a decision by the regional summit.

The creation of the East African Standby Brigade, to be co-ordinated from Karen in Nairobi, is part of the AU Peace and Security Architecture, which requires the five regions of Africa to develop their own standby brigades.

The East, North, West, Central, and Southern Africa regions are expected to develop their own brigades that will ultimately form an African Standby Force equipped to intervene in conflicts, meaning the continent will no longer have to depend on the United Nations every time a conflict breaks out.

Military commanders from the Horn of Africa and the Great Lakes region met in Nairobi early this month for a one-week conference that analysed conflicts and disasters in the region, and how to respond to them as a region. The generals came from Kenya, Uganda, Somalia, Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Djibouti and Rwanda.

Article 16 of the AU Constitutive Act provides that member states establish regional mechanisms for conflict prevention, and management as part of the overall security architecture of the African Union.

But as the region moves to strengthen its capacity to respond to conflicts before they escalate, the new arrangement will not have it smooth.

One area of concern remains the political dynamics and ideology of member countries which could lead to some not being willing to contribute or accept troops from countries with which they are in dispute or on the basis of religious differences.

However, there is a provision that the standby force can only be deployed at the request of the country in conflict.

In January last year, the Kenya government rejected suggestions of for foreign military intervention, even though the post-election violence had overwhelmed its security forces.

Each member country must set aside a specially trained and well-equipped force within their army units that can be called upon at a moment’s notice to respond to a conflict situation.

According to Mr Mulongo, EASBCOM’s role is to ensure that the brigade has common equipment needed for any peace support operations.

Initially, the East African Brigade was meant to have 13 countries, namely, Tanzania, Kenya, Eritrea, Djibouti, Ethiopia, Somalia, Sudan, Rwanda, Tanzania, Union of the Comoros, Madagascar, Seychelles and Mauritius.

But currently, the East African Standby Brigade will only have 10 active members with Tanzania, Madagascar and Mauritius having joined SADC. Still, Mr Mulongo revealed that Tanzania is considering participating in the group as an observer.

Conflict is considered the leading single internal factor behind socio-economic decline on the continent and the suffering of the civilians.

Recent estimates show that conflicts are costing the continent $8 billion a year in terms of peacekeeping, humanitarian assistance, logistics and loss of property and human life. Between 1995 and 2005, the cost of conflict among the entire continent amounted to a staggering $18 billion.

Chris Ayangafac, senior researcher in the Direct Conflict Prevention Department of the Institute for Security Studies, in Addis Ababa, attributed this high cost to lack of diplomacy and preventive measures in Africa.

He gave an example of the UN, which used only $6 million to stabilise the situation between Cameroon and Nigeria over the Bakassi Peninsula as a result of good diplomacy and preventive measures.

Still, while experts agree that the proposed AU conflict management formula is one of the best on paper, they question whether it will prove applicable to all regions.

To begin with, the AU is beset with the problem of resources, which renders it donor-dependent. Another concern is the AU preoccupation with peacekeeping rather than developing a capacity for peace-enforcement with the mandate to disarm.

The AU lacks human and financial capacity in the face of the multiplicity of conflicts on the continent.

The AU, unlike the UN, does not have the advantage of assessed contributions where the Security Council sets the target for each UN member state after evaluating the cost of intervention.

Security experts maintained that the emphasis in Africa should be on prevention by encouraging situations that make outbreak of conflicts difficult such as observation of human rights and regular democratic elections.

Mr Ayangafac argued that the process of conflict-prevention should start with individual countries, which unfortunately in most cases lack the requisite minimum institutional capacity to maintain democratic rule.