CONTENTS | ANB-BIA HOMEPAGE | WEEKLY NEWS
|
Africa |
INTERNAT. ORGAN.
What kind of «Union» can be expected for an Africa torn apart
by internal
and sub-regional conflicts, by xenophobia, racism
and the heavy burden
of a foreign debt which is getting completely out of control?
From a simple Declaration of Intent made in September 1999 at Syrte, Libya, the «African Union» saw the light of day at Lome, Togo, on 12 July 2000. The aspirations of panafricanists such as Kwame Nkrumah, Marcus Garvey, George Padmore, William Dubois, Cheikh Anta Diop, which for a long time sustained the expectations of many Africans, finally became a reality. Many Africans think that in this era of globalisation, a unity grounded on solid foundations is necessary for a continent which has ample human and economic resources.
Keeping in mind what is already contained in the Organisation of African Unity (OAU)’s founding principles, the African Union’s constitutive act hallows, among all member-states, the basic principles of equality, sovereignty and interdependence, peaceful coexistence and respect for democratic principles. However, in a deeper, wider and more reassuring way than the OAU can ever hope to achieve, the African Union has a Conference made up of Heads of State, an Executive Council comprising member-states’ Foreign Affairs Ministers, a Panafrican Parliament, a Court of Justice, an Executive Commission, a Committee of Permanent Representatives, specialised technical committees, an Economic, Social and Cultural Council and financial institutions such as the Africa Central Investment Bank and the Africa Monetary Fund. Thus, if the Act is ratified by two-thirds of the members, Lome has decided that the OAU will disappear in March 2001.
Reticence and errors
No matter how noble the idea – and there is no question here of pessimism but rather pragmatism – this project, initiated by Libya’s President Gadaffi, needs to be examined very closely. Many difficulties line the pathway leading to its realisation, considering the different opinions, criticisms and hesitations raised.
Those of South Africa’s President Thabo Mbeki who qualifies the project as «imprudent», surely makes sense and should be listened to. But, at the same time, personal ambition cannot be entirely ruled out. Some say that Mbeki is hell-bent on ensuring that all countries belonging to the Southern African Development Community (SADC), should fall under South Africa’s mantle. An Angolan diplomat puts it sarcastically: «South Africa’s leader wants to create a Pretoria-Lagos-Algiers axis. That’s why he sees the African Union as secondary. Mbeki could, then, eventually put himself forward as representing the whole of Africa — equal to the major powers — whenever he goes to discuss Africa’s foreign debt reduction, and other matters such as those relating to AIDS. Mbeki gives the impression of being a leader who needs Africa in order to be heard better on the international scene». The fact remains — African Heads of State should not use the African Union to further their own personal ambitions. Some people also say that President Gadaffi has a hidden agenda to realise his old dream: to extend Islam to the whole of Africa.
As for Senegal’s President Abdoulaye Wade, he said that African Heads of State haven’t always been prudent: «Whenever one speaks of African unity, it’s first and foremost a matter of guaranteeing the possibility of freely crossing borders from one country to another. If that’s not possible, don’t talk about unity! Then comes communications — radio, telephone etc. After that — health. Every country must have the same health policy».
African Heads of State seem to forget that the idea of the African Union is their own brainchild — it doesn’t necessarily reflect the mind of the ordinary citizen. It’s not the Heads of State who are going to bring about real African unity, but the people themselves. That’s why it would have been better to have proceeded in stages. How? Each government ought to organise aw-areness campaigns to explain the meaning and aims of the accession document and its objectives. This would hopefully get people in every country, talking and discussing. Every national parliament would then approve the document taking into consideration their peoples’ aspirations. The various texts would be put together, and a summary would form the final document leading up to the Treaty of Accession. The Treaty would finally be ratified in individual countries by referendum.
But such has not been the case and that’s serious! If the accession process had been done this way, the African Union would have been established, with the assurance that the people understand what it’s all about.
Look at what’s presently taking place in most African countries? Xenophobia (i.e. an unreasonable fear of foreigners or strangers) has reached worrying levels, just as racism has. Recent events in Libya, with clashes between Libyans and nationals from some sub-Saharan countries, are facts which ought to challenge the whole of Africa. Many other examples exist elsewhere in Africa. In all African countries, foreigners are given pejorative names by the local inhabitants: In Côte d’Ivoire, Guineans are called the «Diallo»; in Congo-Brazzaville and Congo RDC, people from Togo and Benin are the «Popo», and Senegalese, Malians and Guineans are the «Longari.» In Senegal, nationals from the Central African Republic are called the «Niaks»; in Côte d’Ivoire, the Mossi are considered to be a «specialised workforce in the service of Ivorians», and Ghanaian women go by the name of «toutous». And just look what happens in the two Congos. Brazzaville (Congo-Brazzaville) and Kinshasa (Congo RDC) are only separated by a river. Yet the inhabitants of these two cities in no way consider themselves to be «pals», in spite of the efforts of musicians from both countries, who in their songs, appeal for neighbourly «togetherness». The twinning policy of the two capitals initiated by the authorities of both countries, is only just beginning to bear fruit. So where are we then as regards free passage «without let or hindrance» from one country to another, which Senegal’s President Wade would like to see?
Pragmatism
Charles Josselin is France’s Minister for Cooperation. He says: We ought not to pass judgement on what Africans choose. On the contrary, we ought to be listening to our African friends and, if they ask us, offer our support. All I want to say is, that the experience we have when trying to build a unified Europe, has taught us that we need a large dose of pragmatism. Ideal structures are difficult to set up and one has to proceed in stages. If this project of African Union allows Africans to dialogue better among themselves, and also to relate better to the rest of the world, then — «long live African Union!» Surely food for thought. Josselin’s statement calls for political maturity and hence for pragmatism.
In this respect, one might well ask: «What political maturity have the African heads of State acquired in order to unite Africa. They’re not even able to establish national unity in their own countries or set up democratic regimes? How can a continent which is constantly prone to internal and sub-regional conflicts, unite at the same time? Why didn’t Congo RDC, Angola and Côte d’Ivoire take part in the Lome Summit? Isn’t it because they’re in a conflict situation? How can one speak of African unity when there is no prior unity in each country?
Sierra Leone, Liberia, Sudan, Ethiopia, Eritrea, Angola, Niger, Congo RDC, even Congo-Brazzaville and many other countries experiencing internal conflicts, need to be at peace before becoming part of the «United States of Africa.» This is an absolute «must». Africa’s peace process, however, has to include the setting up of democratic regimes and good governance, and a reduction in the continent’s foreign debt situation. Also, there must be an end to useless spending, such as military expenditure, for this impedes development programmes.
The African Union’s economic stability will only come about if member-nations have stable economies. Let’s take the example of oil. In a number of African countries, the overall supervision of the petroleum sector, is frequently the exclusive business of a special ministry linked to the presidency of the republic. The petroleum companies operating in these countries help to keep the presidential «slush funds, topped up». This is just one example which shows bad management of public funds in Africa. Defects must be overcome if there’s to be any hope of the African Union becoming an economic organisation, capable of competing with other great world economic entities.
ENGLISH CONTENTS | ANB-BIA HOMEPAGE | WEEKLY NEWS
PeaceLink 2000 - Reproduction authorised, with usual acknowledgement