African Union Vs UN Peacekeepers

The UN might give up their ineffective peacekeeping in the Congo and let the African Union do the work.

From StategyPage, whose article is cynically called "we want to help ourselves to your stuff"... 
(referring to Zimbabwe's history of plundering the minerals when they were in the force).

if the AU takes over, it could have long term geopolitical effects...maybe toward a lose African confederation similar to that once proposed by Ghadaffi (but unlike his suggestion, not run by white Arabs of the north)...

but this part of the article is about Zimbabwe:

August 21, 2012: The government responded to critics who argue the Zimbabwe should not be allowed to deploy peacekeeping troops in the Congo. 
The government said that Zimbabwean troops contributed to stability when they deployed into the Congo during the Great Congo War. 
Others remember Zimbabwean participation quite differently. 

The Zimbabwean forces reportedly committed many atrocities and plundered Congolese mineral resources. Zimbabwe sent troops to the Congo in 1998 and only withdrew them in 2001. A UN study found evidence that Zimbabwean Army officers and senior members of Zimbabwe’s governing ZANU-PF party made money by selling and smuggling Congolese resources...

At the time Zimbabwe’s dictator, Robert Mugabe, justified sending troops because he contended the Uganda and Rwanda had invaded the Congo. In 2009, the Angolan government stated that SADC’s Standby Brigade was ready to intervene in the Congo, if asked. SADC has 15 members, Malawi, Angola, Congo, The Republic of Congo, South Africa, Namibia, Botswana, Mauritius, Lesotho, Mozambique, Madagascar, Swaziland, Zambia, Zimbabwe, and the Seychelles. (Austin Bay)