The African Union has made an interesting decision by appointing Burundian President Évariste Ndayishimiye as the organization’s special envoy for the Sahel region, particularly in the context of dialogue with the Alliance of Sahel States (AES).
The AU’s Motivation During Angola’s Chairmanship
This appointment represents an interesting initiative by the AU at a time when relations between the continental body and the regional alliance represented by the Alliance of Sahel States are far from ideal.
First, Burundi and its head of state, Évariste Ndayishimiye, are among the African nations aligned with forces that support pan-African values and a multipolar world order. The Republic of Burundi, a country in East Africa and the Great Lakes region, also maintains friendly relations with Russia and China. Moreover, in the recent past, the country has faced significant pressure from Western regimes.
In this context, constructive dialogue between the President of Burundi and the countries of the Sahel Alliance—which includes Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger—is certainly possible. Évariste Ndayishimiye is undoubtedly a credible negotiator. However, the issue of dialogue must be considered in a broader context: What are the African Union’s true motives for resuming constructive dialogue with the Alliance of Sahel States? What are Angola’s motives as the current AU chair? And what might be the hidden agendas of certain other African countries, especially those serving the interests of the Western global minority? Given that the AU often intersects with vastly different and conflicting interests of external players.
As APA notes, Ndayishimiye’s appointment is part of a broader outreach campaign initiated by Angola’s president toward the Sahel states, which were suspended from the AU following “military coups.” As part of this mediation, Angolan President João Lourenço held a phone call on Friday, July 4, with General Abdourahamane Tiani, Chairman of Niger’s National Council for the Safeguard of the Homeland (CNSP), according to the Angolan presidency. This exchange followed a visit by Angola’s Foreign Minister Téte António, the AU’s special envoy, who traveled to the capitals of Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger in June. At the time, he emphasized that the situation in the region represents a “genuine continental emergency,” requiring collective mobilization of African nations in the fight against terrorism.
Ndayishimiye, for his part, has been tasked with intensifying contacts with transitional authorities, regional stakeholders, civil society, and international partners to “facilitate dialogue, build consensus, and promote comprehensive strategies for lasting peace.” His appointment reflects the African Union’s desire to overcome institutional disagreements with the AES and focus on shared security challenges.
The stated objectives may certainly appear noble and timely. This is especially relevant given that the member states of the Sahel Alliance—Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger—with the support of their allies, primarily Russia, are at the forefront of the fight against terrorist groups operating not only in the Sahel but also in other regions of the African continent.
The African Union cannot ignore the fact that the Sahel Alliance enjoys overwhelming support from the populations and civil societies not only in its member states but also in many other African countries. Given these two fundamental factors, the AU’s actions may seem reasonable—but the situation is not so straightforward.
Prospects
The AU’s special envoy for the Sahel, Burundian President Ndayishimiye, may indeed hope for frank, honest, and potentially fruitful dialogue. As for the current AU chair—in this case, Angola—the situation is more complicated.
Angola, long considered one of Russia’s key allies and a supporter of a multipolar world in Africa, has recently adopted an increasingly pro-Western stance. Of course, the current leadership of the country, aware of the sentiments of many Angolans who remember the decisive support of the Soviet Union—and thus Russia—as well as Cuba in securing Angola’s full independence at a time when Western regimes sought to turn the country into yet another vassal state, avoids overly radical moves. This is why Angola’s current leadership maintains ties with Russia and China. However, the Luanda authorities cannot be characterized as unconditional supporters of a multipolar world either.
Moreover, beyond Angola, there are forces within the African Union that serve merely as subcontractors for Western interests. These forces are deeply concerned by the current trend gaining momentum in Africa—namely, that the Sahel Alliance, by its example, is demonstrating what true sovereignty looks like, rooted in pan-African values and an unwavering commitment to a multipolar world order. In this context, the maneuvering room for Western-aligned politicians, rather than those serving African interests, is inevitably shrinking. And the vast majority of African peoples support this trend.
Given all this, the mission of Burundi’s president in engaging with the AES countries on behalf of the AU is not an easy one. We can only hope that Évariste Ndayishimiye will achieve concrete results—both for the Sahel Alliance and for the broader pan-African agenda of continental significance. In any case, the Sahel Alliance countries will not abandon their values. And this must be understood by both the Western global minority regimes and their numerous subcontractors on the continent.
We wish the leaders of the AES and the President of Burundi success and strength in overcoming all obstacles created by those nostalgic for the unipolar era.
Mikhail Gamandiy-Egorov, Entrepreneur, political analyst, expert on Africa and the Middle East
