Chapter 1: Introduction, Background and Methodology of the Study
1.8. Research methodology and methods
Qualitative research methods were employed in this study. De Vos et al (2005: 269) identify five strategies of inquiry that can be used when this type of research is carried out: biography, phenomenology, grounded theory, ethnography and case study. The last was chosen for this
18 particular study. According to Cresswell (see De Vos et al 2005: 269), a case study can be regarded as an exploration or in-depth analysis of a bounded system. De Vos et al indicate that the case may represent a process, activity, event programme or individuals.
The case study strategy of enquiry was chosen because it allows for a comparative analysis of cases, which is necessary for the examination of PSC activity since the organ‟s inception. This method enables one to determine whether the PSC will stand the test of time. According to De Vos et al (2005: 272), a study may be called a collective case study whenever multiple cases are chosen. Therefore, since this study uses more than one case, it falls within the category of collective case study.
This study looks at two cases, Burundi and Sudan. The decision to choose these cases was motivated by several factors. Firstly, both countries have faced protracted internal conflict situations. Secondly, these cases were among the first to top the PSC‟s agenda after its activation. Thirdly, in both cases the PSC worked with other players (e.g. the UN or other foreign powers) in trying to solve conflict situations. While these reasons may be equally applicable to a choice of other conflict cases in Africa (such as the Democratic Republic of Congo, Uganda, Chad, or Central Africa Republic), it is critical to note that the cases of Burundi and Sudan have been chosen for their distinctive characteristics.
The Burundi case was selected because it is an example of the AU‟s first full peace support operation. It also illustrates the benefit of cooperation among key role-players. Burundi‟s conflict prompted substantial cooperation between regional leaders who worked to resolve it.
19 When the PSC intervened, it oversaw the process without tampering with the mediation efforts of those already involved in the resolution of the conflict. The PSC also oversaw the smooth transition of the African Mission in Burundi (AMIB) to the United Nations Operation in Burundi (ONUB).
Like Burundi‟s, Sudan‟s case sheds light on the AU‟s developing capacity to respond both politically and militarily to internal conflicts, particularly through the African Mission in Sudan (AMIS). Sudan presents a unique case in that it has both the United Nations Mission in Sudan (UNMIS) and AMIS (especially in the Darfur case) operating simultaneously. UNMIS operates in the southern parts of Sudan while AMIS was deployed in the western Darfur region.
Moreover, though there has been a call by the PSC for the UN to take over from AMIS due to financial constraints, the Sudanese government was vehemently opposed to that call. Some members of the Arab League, including Libya and Egypt, supported the position of the Sudanese government. The PSC and the UNSC continued to wrestle with the matter until December 2007 when a compromise was reached resulting in the joint venture between the AU and the UN. The low level of cooperation displayed by the government of Sudan regarding the Darfur case, has, arguable, tested the ability of the PSC to tackle critical challenges.
This study uses multiple data-collection methods: interviews, and the review of official documents (statutory or non-statutory), existing literature and archival records. In pursuit of the necessary empirical data, a series of interviews were conducted with relevant individuals and institutions. The major determinant of the sample selection was the subject of peace and security. In this connection, diplomats, as well as experts and researchers who deal with peace
20 and security-related matters were targeted and identified as subjects for the study. Interviewees2 were divided into two categories: official and unofficial. For official positions and statements, the following were interviewed: members of the PSC (Algeria, Angola, Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Chad, Ethiopia, Gabon, Nigeria, Rwanda, Swaziland, Tunisia, and Zambia); the UNSC Permanent Five (China, France Russia, the UK, and the USA); members of the AU Commission;
the Representative of the Committee of Intelligence and Security Services of Africa (CISSA);
the Representative of the EU Delegation; the UN Liaison Office to the AU; a representative of Italy (the 2009 Chair of the G8); and representatives of Sudan and Burundi (to illustrate the selected case studies). In addition, other interviews were conducted with scholars and experts from research institutes and non-governmental organisations (NGOs): the Institute for Security Studies (ISS), OXFAM International, and the Centre for Policy Research and Dialogue (CPRD).
All interviews took place in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia from August 2008 to December 2009.
Whereas 40 individuals were approached, only 38 individuals complied; thus bringing the number of formal respondents to 38.
2 Please see Appendix B for a comprehensive list of the Interviewees
21 The breakdown of the interviewees is as follows:
Table 1.1: Interviews per category
Members of
Institutions
Number of individuals Category
PSC Members 13 Government officials
UNSC Permanent Members
5 Government officials
G8 1 Institutional representative
UN Liaison Office 1 Institutional representative
EU Delegation 1 Institutional representative
AU Commission 11 Experts and Institutional
representatives
CISSA 1 Institutional representative
Research Institutes 5 Scholars and experts
It is critical to highlight that thirteen of fifteen PSC members availed themselves and were interviewed for this study. Observed challenges like short-staff and AU‟s meetings made it impossible to interview representatives of Uganda and Mali. This is not to suggest that the representatives were unwilling to cooperate, but to state that they were seriously constrained.
They were only available in early 2010; unfortunately the researcher‟s interview schedule had expired, and January and February are the months that are reserved for the AU annual summits.
Therefore, it became extremely challenging to juggle between the summit and interviews.
All the interviews were recorded except with Russia, China and Angola. Permission before recording was sought prior to the commencement of any interview.
22 Relevant policy declarations made by the AU leaders were examined. The AU Constitutive Act and the PSC protocol for instance, were scrutinised. The declarations and promises of key international players (beginning with the UN, the G8, the US and the OECD) were also closely studied, specifically in relation to issues around the stability of the continent. Lastly, extensive secondary literature - drawn from the academic world, civil society and AU and UN sources - were analysed.
The cut-off date for the study was March 2010.