Attorney Giovanni Di Stefano proposes a neutral African venue for negotiations between Washington and Tehran and a possible monitoring mission under the auspices of the United Nations. “Africa can offer what is increasingly rare today: a diplomatic space outside the main opposing blocs”
The African Union as a possible protagonist in a new season of international diplomacy. This is the proposal at the heart of the analysis by attorney Giovanni Di Stefano, who identifies the continental African organization as a possible actor capable of providing a neutral venue for the search for an agreement between the United States and Iran and, at a later stage, contributing to the monitoring of any agreement with the support of the United Nations.
According to Giovanni Di Stefano, the confrontation between Washington and Tehran can no longer be regarded as an issue confined to the two countries. The effects of military tensions, economic pressure, possible disruptions to maritime trade and the risk of an expansion of the conflict affect energy markets, food security, inflation and political stability well beyond the Middle East.
It is precisely from this consideration that attorney Di Stefano’s proposal emerges: to identify a mediator outside the traditional alliance systems, capable of bringing the parties to the same table without forcing them to turn negotiations into a test of strength.
Giovanni Di Stefano’s proposal
The idea put forward by Giovanni Di Stefano calls for the African Union to offer a venue for a structured peace conference between the United States and Iran. If an agreement were reached, the AU could also contribute, with the consent of the parties and within a United Nations mandate, to an international observation and monitoring presence.
“It is not – according to the perspective outlined by Di Stefano – a matter of military intervention by Africa or the imposition of conditions.” The central point would instead be to create an impartial negotiating table at which both sides could negotiate without being forced to appear defeated or subordinate to their adversary.
For attorney Giovanni Di Stefano, the proposal is neither fanciful nor legally impossible. The African Union has a Peace and Security Council, a Panel of the Wise, mediation structures and early-warning mechanisms, and has gained experience in supporting international peace operations.
An actor outside the main blocs
One of the elements on which Giovanni Di Stefano places particular emphasis concerns the African Union’s position in relation to the main international blocs.
Many potential mediators in the confrontation between the United States and Iran are perceived as directly or indirectly linked to one of the parties. NATO countries are viewed in Tehran as close to Washington, while Russia and China have strategic relations with Iran and are regarded with suspicion by the United States.
The African Union has a different structure. Its 55 member states do not constitute a single military alliance and maintain relations with the United States, Iran, the European Union, China, Russia and the Arab world.
For Di Stefano, this plurality could represent a diplomatic asset. Impartiality, the attorney argues, should not be attributed to a single African government, but to a mediation panel representing the continent’s different geographical areas and political perspectives.
African experience as an element of mediation
In Giovanni Di Stefano’s analysis, significant importance is also attached to Africa’s experience with conflicts, external interventions, proxy wars, sanctions and competition among major powers.
This experience, according to the attorney, could encourage African diplomacy to place at the center of negotiations not only military and geopolitical balances, but also the protection of civilians, access to medicines, the situation of displaced populations, infrastructure security and freedom of navigation.
Africa also directly suffers the economic consequences of international crises. Rising energy, transportation, insurance and fertilizer costs can have a major impact on African state budgets and living conditions.
This is why, in Giovanni Di Stefano’s approach, Africa should not be considered a mere external observer, but an actor directly interested in international stability.
A venue that allows negotiations without humiliation
For attorney Giovanni Di Stefano, one of the most delicate obstacles to any negotiations concerns governments’ need to avoid creating the image of capitulation.
A conference sponsored by the African Union, in Addis Ababa or another African capital agreed upon by the parties, could provide the political distance necessary for Washington and Tehran to participate in negotiations without having to present them as a concession to their adversary.
Di Stefano’s proposal also includes the possibility of launching confidential preliminary contacts, technical working groups and indirect negotiations, in which mediators could gradually convey proposals between the delegations.
The AU already has the institutions
Attorney Giovanni Di Stefano also stresses that the African Union would not have to build a diplomatic system from scratch.
The Peace and Security Council could authorize a high-level contact group. The Chairperson of the AU Commission could appoint a special envoy supported by former heads of state, diplomats, military experts, nuclear specialists and international lawyers.
The negotiations could initially focus on de-escalation, the protection of civilian navigation, the security of energy infrastructure, the cessation of attacks against nuclear facilities and populated areas, humanitarian access and prisoner exchanges.
Another chapter would concern the verification of possible commitments regarding missiles, drones and military forces, the resumption of nuclear inspections and possible sanctions relief conditional upon independent verification.
An African monitoring mission
It is precisely on the issue of monitoring that Giovanni Di Stefano’s proposal takes on an operational dimension.
If the United States and Iran were to reach an agreement, a mission composed predominantly of African personnel and accepted by both parties could contribute to verifying compliance with the commitments.
The attorney nevertheless makes clear the legal limits of such an operation. The African Union could not unilaterally deploy peacekeeping forces on the territory of a sovereign state. The consent of the states concerned, a defined mandate and, for any coercive powers, authorization from the United Nations Security Council would be required.
The first realistically viable option, according to Di Stefano, would therefore be an observation and verification mission, potentially unarmed or equipped only with light weapons, tasked with monitoring the ceasefire, verifying possible violations and reporting to the AU and the United Nations.
A model that could also be applied to the war between Russia and Ukraine
The analysis by attorney Giovanni Di Stefano then broadens its focus to the war between Russia and Ukraine.
This is a situation with different legal and political characteristics, particularly regarding issues of sovereignty, territorial integrity and Ukraine’s internationally recognized borders.
For this very reason, Di Stefano observes, any African initiative should be carefully limited and could not amount to imposing territorial concessions on Ukraine.
In June 2023, some African leaders had already undertaken a diplomatic mission to Kyiv and St. Petersburg. For Giovanni Di Stefano, that experience demonstrates that there is room for African involvement, but also highlights the need for a more structured initiative formally supported by the African Union.
From humanitarian issues to a possible ceasefire
According to attorney Giovanni Di Stefano’s proposal, the AU could begin with issues on which concrete results are more realistically achievable: prisoner exchanges, the return of children, the security of nuclear facilities, grain exports, the recovery of the dead and the protection of civilian infrastructure.
African participation could also provide a channel of communication between governments that maintain relations with both Moscow and Kyiv and that do not belong to NATO.
Again, for Di Stefano, the goal would not be to replace international institutions, but to create an additional diplomatic space.
The roadmap proposed by Di Stefano
Attorney Giovanni Di Stefano therefore identifies a possible operational sequence.
The first step would be a mandate from the African Union’s Peace and Security Council, defining the legal principles and objectives of the initiative.
This would be followed by the establishment of a geographically balanced mediation panel composed of former political leaders, diplomats, lawyers and technical experts.
The third stage would concern the choice of venue, with Addis Ababa as one possible option, for confidential preliminary talks followed by a formal conference.
The first possible agreement should focus on reducing tensions, protecting civilians, establishing communication channels and adopting mutually verifiable measures.
Finally, only in the presence of consent, a legal mandate, adequate resources and clearly defined rules of engagement, could the AU and the United Nations establish an international observation and monitoring mission.
“Africa should not merely be the place where other people’s problems are solved”
This, ultimately, is the central political and diplomatic point of Giovanni Di Stefano’s analysis.
The attorney argues that the African Union could formally propose an extraordinary peace initiative consisting of a high-level mediation panel, a permanent negotiating secretariat and a preliminary plan for an African monitoring mission supported by the United Nations.
The objective would not be to align Africa with Washington or Tehran, nor to transform the AU into an anti-Western or pro-Iranian platform. On the contrary, the credibility of the initiative would depend on the ability to apply the same principles to all parties.
For Giovanni Di Stefano, the decisive element would therefore be the construction of diplomacy based on the neutrality of the negotiating venue, the protection of civilians, respect for international law and concrete verification of agreements.
The AU cannot impose its mediation on the United States, Iran, Russia or Ukraine. It cannot replace major military powers and cannot deploy peacekeeping forces without consent, resources and a precise legal basis.
It can, however, according to attorney Giovanni Di Stefano’s perspective, offer a diplomatic platform outside the main opposing blocs.
“Too often, the world has regarded Africa merely as a place where international problems are solved,” is the concluding reflection of the analysis. “It is time to recognize it as a continent capable of contributing to the solution of global problems.”
The proposal by Giovanni Di Stefano therefore starts from a precise conviction: peace does not necessarily emerge among friends, but can emerge when a credible third party succeeds in creating a space where enemies can continue to talk to one another before there is nothing left to save.
