LONDON (AlertNet) - Now that the international community has cried genocide in Sudan’s Darfur region, a fledgling pan-African body has been thrust into the spotlight as the best bet to broker peace and stop the killings.

For the first time, the African Union is taking a lead role in trying to quell violence in its own backyard. The United States, Europe and the United Nations are all backing an expanded A.U. peacekeeping mission charged with disarming Khartoum-backed militias that have killed tens of thousands of civilians and displaced more than a million.

The A.U.’s unprecedented involvement in Darfur is seen as a chance for it to prove its mettle. From the A.U.’s perspective, the continent as a whole has an interest in ending the crisis -- Africa can ill-afford to be seen as consistently unstable, unruly and unresponsive if it hopes to turn a corner and pull itself out of poverty and underdevelopment.

What exactly is the African Union?

In 1999, a body known as the Organisation of African States (OAU) voted to establish a new pan-African institution, the African Union, modeled loosely on the European Union. Whereas the OAU, created in 1963, was concerned with liberating Africa from colonisation, the A.U.’s focus is on facilitating economic and political integration on the continent.

The A.U. is committed to promoting peace and democracy, protecting human rights and ensuring good governance and the rule of law. Unlike the OAU, which did not interfere in the internal affairs of its member states, the A.U. has the right to intervene in cases relating to democratic principles, human rights and good governance, promotion of social justice and gender equality.

Moreover, it is tackling Africa’s enduring poverty levels and underdevelopment.

Sounds good, but how’s it going to do all that?

The A.U.’s has an ambitious plan, an economic blueprint, called the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), designed to reduce poverty by redefining Africa’s relationship with the developed world.

The plan offers donors and investors a deal: In exchange for increased aid and foreign direct investment (FDI), African states volunteer to commit themselves to good political and economic governance and to be monitored by other African countries. So far, 23 of Africa’s 54 countries have signed up. Notably, Zimbabwe and Libya have not.

The catch is that success of the plan -- increased aid and investment -- hinges on peace and stability on the continent.

Why is Darfur such a test for the A.U.?

In the past, aid has been slashed in countries that do not follow “good governance” policies, and investors have literally been scared off by the political and economic instability in Africa.

Conflicts are the biggest deterrent. They usually involve more than one country and have spillover effects, like the situation in Darfur, which create a “neighbourhood effect” that can be impossible to overcome. Even stable countries with steady, if low, levels of FDI, like South Africa, can suffer from the neighbourhood effect.

In fact, Africa’s general reputation for instability has created a continent-wide neighbourhood effect. In 2001, the year NEPAD was launched, FDI in Africa represented just less than one percent of the global total. Figures for 2003 are not yet available, but in 2002 FDI to Africa accounted for 2.3 percent.

So what’s the A.U. doing in Darfur?

Under the auspices of its current chairman, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, the A.U. has convened talks that include representatives of all parties involved in Darfur, including the Sudanese government, the two rebel groups, Chad, Eritrea and Libya.

Negotiations, which were taking place in the Nigerian capital of Abuja, collapsed in mid-September 2004, but the A.U. remains the mediator and will support future talks.

About 150 A.U. observers are monitoring a ceasefire agreement signed in April between the Sudanese government and the two rebel groups. With help from the Netherlands, which holds the rotating six-month presidency of the EU, the A.U. has also deployed some 300 Rwandan and Nigerian peacekeepers to Darfur called the Protection Force.

It is considering sending a larger contingent, of 3,000, to protect civilians and disarm the janjaweed militias blamed for attacks on civilians, as called for at the A.U.’s Peace and Security Council meeting in July, but Khartoum has openly resisted expansion of the mandate to include civilian protection.

That puts Sudan directly at odds with the international community, which is pressing for a bolstered African peacekeeping mission. Talk of more A.U. troops follows declarations of genocide from both the United States and Europe that oblige them to act under the 1947 Genocide Convention.

A.U. monitors are keeping track of violations they find in Darfur. So far, they have confirmed 20 violations, which were committed by both rebels and janjaweed. The monitors are investigating more reports of attacks on refugee camps and villages.

What’s at stake for the A.U.?

In the best case scenario, the A.U. will prove that it is serious about promoting peace. Darfur offers the A.U. a clear opportunity. If it continues to press for peace in Darfur, it will demonstrate its potential as an honest broker in other, future conflicts as well as its commitment to conflict resolution, which is one of the unofficial prerequisites for FDI.

If it succeeds in sending more troops to Darfur, with a mandate to protect civilians and disarm the janjaweed, the A.U. could play a crucial role in ending the conflict and saving thousands of lives.

If it fails, it may well come to be seen as yet another weak and ineffective body like the old OAU.