50 signatures reached
To: African Union, The European Union, The United Nations, The United States of America.
A Call for the Relocation of the African Union Headquarters.
The African Union (AU) was created as the embodiment of Pan-African unity, solidarity, and self-determination. It was intended to be a beacon of cooperation, peace, and progress for a continent with extraordinary diversity and potential. Yet today, the very location of its headquarters undermines these ideals.
1. Ethiopia’s Instability Threatens the AU’s Credibility
Over the past decade, Ethiopia has been the epicenter of violent internal conflicts and humanitarian crises that have reverberated across the Horn of Africa. The Tigray conflict (2020–2022), which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced millions, was marked by war crimes and atrocities documented by the UN and human rights organizations. Ongoing ethnic violence in Oromia, Amhara, and other regions has left Ethiopia in a near-permanent state of emergency.
1. Ethiopia’s Instability Threatens the AU’s Credibility
Over the past decade, Ethiopia has been the epicenter of violent internal conflicts and humanitarian crises that have reverberated across the Horn of Africa. The Tigray conflict (2020–2022), which claimed hundreds of thousands of lives and displaced millions, was marked by war crimes and atrocities documented by the UN and human rights organizations. Ongoing ethnic violence in Oromia, Amhara, and other regions has left Ethiopia in a near-permanent state of emergency.
Housing the AU in a country repeatedly engulfed in civil strife raises an unavoidable question: How can the AU credibly promote peace and stability while its own host state struggles to provide these basic conditions?
2. A Colonial Legacy at Odds with Pan-African Principles
Ethiopia is often celebrated for its resistance to European colonization, but its own imperial history mirrors colonial domination. Under Emperor Menelik II and later Haile Selassie, Ethiopia expanded through conquest and annexation—subjugating and forcibly assimilating neighboring peoples and territories. The annexation of Eritrea in 1962, recognized as a violation of international law, sparked a 30-year war for independence. For many Africans, Ethiopia’s imperial posture contradicts the AU’s foundational principle of “respect for borders and peoples as inherited at independence.” Abiy’s statements about Red Sea access and talk that reads as “reclaiming Assab” are not harmless nationalist posturing. In the Horn of Africa — where historical grievances, recent wars, and fragile state institutions intersect — such rhetoric is dangerous: it risks military escalation, humanitarian disaster, economic disruption, and the further weakening of African multilateral norms designed to prevent exactly this scenario. Given the documented history of Ethiopian expansionism under multiple regimes, the depth of Eritrean sensitivity, and the AU’s explicit rules, the responsible path is quiet diplomacy, legal negotiation, and creative commercial solutions — not threats.
2. A Colonial Legacy at Odds with Pan-African Principles
Ethiopia is often celebrated for its resistance to European colonization, but its own imperial history mirrors colonial domination. Under Emperor Menelik II and later Haile Selassie, Ethiopia expanded through conquest and annexation—subjugating and forcibly assimilating neighboring peoples and territories. The annexation of Eritrea in 1962, recognized as a violation of international law, sparked a 30-year war for independence. For many Africans, Ethiopia’s imperial posture contradicts the AU’s foundational principle of “respect for borders and peoples as inherited at independence.” Abiy’s statements about Red Sea access and talk that reads as “reclaiming Assab” are not harmless nationalist posturing. In the Horn of Africa — where historical grievances, recent wars, and fragile state institutions intersect — such rhetoric is dangerous: it risks military escalation, humanitarian disaster, economic disruption, and the further weakening of African multilateral norms designed to prevent exactly this scenario. Given the documented history of Ethiopian expansionism under multiple regimes, the depth of Eritrean sensitivity, and the AU’s explicit rules, the responsible path is quiet diplomacy, legal negotiation, and creative commercial solutions — not threats.
- Even if no one in Addis Ababa has formally announced a cross-border invasion plan, rhetoric that frames a neighbour’s territory as something “to be corrected” or “reclaimed” lowers the threshold for coercive action: it normalizes options that include unilateral seizure, pressure campaigns, proxy forces, or mobilization — all of which are destabilizing in a region that still carries unresolved injustices from past wars. Journalists and analysts have warned that tensions are rising to the point where a clash — not just diplomatic spat — is plausible.
Continuing to house the AU in Addis Ababa inadvertently validates a state whose historical actions toward its neighbors reflect the very colonialism the AU was meant to reject.
3. Antagonistic Diplomacy and Regional Discord
Ethiopia’s recent disputes with Sudan (Al-Fashaga border conflict), Egypt and Sudan (Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam), and its adversarial rhetoric toward Eritrea and Somalia illustrate a pattern of hostility rather than cooperation. The AU cannot thrive as a forum for dialogue and trust when its host nation actively fuels regional tensions.
4. Practical Risks for Diplomacy and Security
The AU headquarters has been subject to security concerns, including revelations in 2018 that the building’s servers were compromised by foreign actors. Addis Ababa’s volatile political climate and recurring protests pose logistical and safety risks for African diplomats and staff. A neutral, politically stable host city—such as Kigali, Accra, Gaborone, or Pretoria—would better protect AU operations and ensure its independence from local upheavals.
3. Antagonistic Diplomacy and Regional Discord
Ethiopia’s recent disputes with Sudan (Al-Fashaga border conflict), Egypt and Sudan (Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam), and its adversarial rhetoric toward Eritrea and Somalia illustrate a pattern of hostility rather than cooperation. The AU cannot thrive as a forum for dialogue and trust when its host nation actively fuels regional tensions.
4. Practical Risks for Diplomacy and Security
The AU headquarters has been subject to security concerns, including revelations in 2018 that the building’s servers were compromised by foreign actors. Addis Ababa’s volatile political climate and recurring protests pose logistical and safety risks for African diplomats and staff. A neutral, politically stable host city—such as Kigali, Accra, Gaborone, or Pretoria—would better protect AU operations and ensure its independence from local upheavals.
Why is this important?
Our Call to Action
We call upon the African Union Commission, the Assembly of Heads of State and Government, and all Africans who believe in genuine Pan-Africanism to:
- Launch an independent review of the AU’s headquarters location with input from member states, civil society, and security experts.
- Select a new host city that reflects African values of unity, peace, and sovereignty, free from ongoing civil conflict or historical domination of other African peoples.
- Reaffirm the AU’s founding mission: to stand against all forms of oppression—colonial or internal—and to promote genuine solidarity among African nations.
This is not a rejection of Ethiopia’s people, whose cultures and histories are an integral part of Africa’s fabric. Rather, it is a call for the AU to align its symbolism and operations with its principles. Africa deserves a headquarters in a place where peace, inclusivity, and mutual respect are more than words—they are lived realities.
The time has come to relocate the African Union to a city that embodies the Africa we aspire to build: stable, forward-looking, and truly united.