the special issue of Pambazuka News on the

Preface – Towards a Continental Government?
Hakima Abbas
Hakima Abbas is Policy Analyst for the AU-Monitor initiative of Fahamu, a panAfrican social justice organization.
“Divided we are weak; united, Africa could become one of the greatest forces for good in the
world. I believe strongly and sincerely that with the deep-rooted wisdom and dignity, the innate
respect for human lives, the intense humanity that is our heritage, the African race, united under
one federal government, will emerge not as just another world bloc to flaunt its wealth and
strength, but as a Great Power whose greatness is indestructible because it is built not on fear,
envy and suspicion, nor won at the expense of others, but founded on hope, trust, friendship and
directed to the good of all mankind.” Dr. Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah
The United States of Africa is a notion cherished in the minds of Pan-Africanists from the
Continent to the Diaspora. Coined during the decolonisation period by liberation leaders and
activists seeking the unity of Africa through political, economic and social integration, in 2007,
the concepts and debates around the United States of Africa are seeing a rebirth at the African
Union (AU). In June, a “Grand Debate on the Union Government” will be the sole focus at the
African Union Heads of States Summit. Symbolically held in Accra, Ghana, as the country
celebrates its fiftieth year of independence marked by the ascent to presidency of one of the
world’s leading Pan-Africanists, Dr. Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah, the grand debate is based on
the proposals coordinated by the Committee of seven championed by Libya, Uganda and
Nigeria.
The proposal currently on the table at the African Union is elaborated in the “Study on an
African Union Government Towards the United States of Africa”1. The Proposal underlines the
need for common policy standards, harmonised approaches and joint trade, investment and
development negotiations while underscoring the values of the rule of law, respect for human
rights as well as popular and transparent governance as those that should underpin the Union
Government. Proponents of a potential federation consider that regional integration will enable
Africa to address the common challenges of political and economic exploitation, food insecurity,
internal conflicts, amongst others, by empowering the Continent with a united, self-determined
voice and negotiation capacity that will wield due influence in the global context. Few critics
entirely dismiss the principle of regional integration but across Africa there is huge variance in
the vision of a united Africa. Some claim that, given the failure of African nation building on a
State level, as is manifested in a lack of democratic participation, civil wars, lack of development
and widespread human rights violations, among others, the United States of Africa is a dream
that must be pursued, but can never be attained until each State is strengthened. Others still
criticize the current proposal as too tempered to create any significant change to the realities for
the people of Africa.
The study considers the establishment and implementation of the Union Government in three
phases, with a fully operational Union Government and the constitutional framework for a
United States of Africa established by 2012. The Union Government would be composed of an
Executive Council with a President and Vice President appointed by the Assembly for a term of
six years and with Commissioners appointed by the Executive Council. A legislative parliament
would be elected by direct and universal adult suffrage with proportional representation.
While the participation of African peoples is envisaged through the African parliament and
Economic, Social and Cultural Council of the African Union (ECOSOCC) consultations that the
1
To download the study please visit www.africa-union.org/report.htm
1
proposal enshrines in all Assembly deliberations, the voice of the people most directly affected
by potential regional integration have little been heard as African policy makers prepare
themselves for the Grand Debate. Yet, the rhetoric of the African Union claims the vision of
“an Africa driven by its own citizens”2. The strategy for such a people-driven Union has yet to
be formulated or implemented to sincerely suggest that the proposal and debate on a Union
Government and United States of Africa are guided by the vision of the people of the Continent.
The African Union has, since its inception, been more so didactic with decisions being made with
little consultation. African CSOs and citizens have little access or understanding of the AU and
its organs and so limited opportunity to meaningfully participate. While ECOSOCC provides a
potential avenue for the voice of the people to contribute to AU decision-making, the body is yet
to be an influential force. The gap between regional policy makers and the people of the
Continent have serious implications for implementation of decisions and regional accountability.
In order to strengthen civil society and citizen engagement with the African Union and its
organs, Fahamu established the AU-Monitor. The AU-Monitor provides relevant, high quality
and timely information and analysis that enables meaningful participation of citizens in the
debates of the African Union and facilitates civil society advocacy and policy setting.
Recognising the potentially inadequate popularisation and engagement of citizenry in the Grand
Debate on the Union Government at the Heads of States summit, the AU-Monitor has been
soliciting articles, news and analysis by a variety of stakeholders with ranging perspectives. This
publication is a selection of the articles and interviews that have contributed to the on-going
debate and which we hope will assist in catalysing the full potential of a people-driven, united
Africa.
In this special issue, Dr. Tim Murithi provides a historic framework for the institutionalisation of
Pan-Africanism and assesses the role civil society will play in contributing to the Union
Government debate. Dr. Kwame Akonor questions whether the African Union and its
processes regional integration are not merely the same re-hashed endeavors tried and failed at the
Organisation of African Unity and proposes means of constructively overcoming these
challenges.
Demba Moussa Dembele examines the external and internal challenges faced by Africa in the
global context and questions whether the current African leadership is up to building the United
States of Africa. Further, Muthoni Wanyeki highlights the reasons for the current impetus
toward a union among Africa’s leadership and explores the implications of the union on the AU,
outlining the challenges to the union project while setting out conditions for its success. While
Dr. Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem reflects on the common citizenship anticipated within a federation
and underscores the importance of the potential for realised freedom of movement on the
Continent, Faiza Mohamed explains why a gender perspective is important in analysing the
perceived groundbreaking benefits of a federation which ignores the realities faced by African
women. She raises the importance of placing women’s economic empowerment at the forefront
of the actualization of Africa’s growth and development.
Addressing some of the questions raised by Dr. Abdul-Raheem about “who is African”, Selome
Araya talks about the inclusion of the Diaspora in the framing of regional integration and defines
Africa as a history rather than a geography. Dr. Issa Shivji, Kisira Kokelo and Gichinga Ndirangu
address the economic and developmental implications of a Union Government. As Dr. Shivji
draws on the experiences of regional cooperation in East Africa to address some of the potential
pitfalls of regional economic and political integration, Eyob Balcha underscores the critical social
aspect of integration focusing on youth as the potential catalysts for a united Africa.
2
Vision and Mission of the African Union, May 2004.
2
Finally, in an important contribution to the debate, Sanou Mbaye presents a concrete plan of
action for federal government and calls for self-determined action toward a unified Africa. The
article by Sanou Mbaye is printed here in French while the articles by Dr. Issa Shivji and Demba
Moussa Dembele are available in both French and English. To view or download further copies
of these articles please visit www.aumonitor.org.
“Pan Africanism is the fullest expression of our struggle today and our
greatest building base is Africa. We must sensitize the member-states and
push them to action. We must press for a public opinion that is pan Africanist
at a continental level” Alpha Oumar Konare, Chairman of the African
Commission, on the importance of the proposal for a Union Government,
January 2007.
3
Stuffing Old Wine In New Bottles?
Dr. Kwame Akonor
Dr. Kwame Akonor is director of the African Development Institute (ADI), a New
York based think tank that advocates self reliant and endogenous development policies
for Africa. He is also Assistant Professor of International Relations at Seton Hall
University, and acting Chair of the Africana Studies Department. The full text of
“Stuffing Old Wine in New Bottles: The Case of the Africa Union” will be published in
“Africa in the 21st Century: Toward a New Future” (Mazama, Ama, editor),
Routledge, 2007.
“A bunch of broomsticks is not easily broken as a single stick” – African proverb
As the African Union (AU) enters its fifth year of existence, it is rather fitting that it has devoted
its annual summit to be a “Grand Debate on the Union Government.” Since its inception on July
9, 2002, at Durban, South Africa, there have been conflicting perspectives on the AU’s role in
Africa’s development. Africa’s political elite, and supporters of the AU, generally argue that the
new institution would enhance the economic, political and social integration and development of
African people. A great deal of Africa’s civil society however are not so optimistic: they perceive
the AU as a mere continuation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) under a different
name.
This essay argues that while the futuristic idea of an African superstate is a necessary and desirable
alternative to the contemporary reality of an Africa of States, the political union of African states
can only come to fruition if the lessons of OAU’s failures are fully mastered. At the heart of the
OAU’s failings was not so much a structural shortcoming than it was ideological. The OAU
lacked a cohesive ideology that could provide the proper situational interpretation of the African
context. Ideologies not only rationalize and explain the reasons for ones present situation; they
also provide strategies toward future goals. (Zartman, 1966, p.38). What the OAU lacked then
was an ideology capable of rationalizing and explaining Africa’s balkanization, dependency and
underdevelopment, and an ideology capable of providing strategies that would guarantee and
enhance Africa’s power, prestige and progress in the post colonial era. Which ideology is capable
of filling this vacuum? Pan-Africanism! Ofuatey-Kodjoe (1986) defines Pan-Africanism as an
ideology with a cognitive component that recognizes all African peoples, both in Africa and the
Diaspora, as being of one folk or nation, as a result of a shared cultural identity, a shared
historical experience, and an indivisible future destiny (p.391). And he goes on to argue, that the
most fundamental goal of Pan-Africanism is the commitment to the collective empowerment of
African peoples wherever they are (p.391). Thus, it must be quickly added that calling oneself
Pan-Africanist does not make one so, and being of African descent does not automatically make
one a Pan-Africanist. Indeed, most of the OAU founders of yesteryear, and the AU founders of
today, label themselves Pan-Africanist, without any appreciably clarity and commitment to the
ideology of Pan-Africanism. By rejecting the brand of Pan-Africanism advocated by the
Casablanca group, the OAU at its birth, consciously or not, gave its blessings to the colonial
political and economic formation -together with its ideological and cultural systems. Indeed, the
final curse of African independence, and the OAU’s ascendancy, was that it solidified the
balkanization and dependence inherited from colonialism. The problem was compounded when
the Casablanca group rather than opting out of the OAU decided to remain in it, perhaps for fear
of isolation. Ghana’s Nkrumah, a staunch advocate of the Casablanca thinking, on arrival from
the OAU’s inaugural summit even remarked triumphantly that “the political unification of the
African continent, my lifelong dream, is finally here.” (cited in Rooney, 1988, p.223). But of
course, this was not the case; his Pan African ideal of a continental African government had been
soundly rejected. And it also did not help much that none of the 22 newly independent countries
4
since the OAU’s founding refused to join. 3 Some newly independent countries joined the OAU
merely for geographic reasons, well aware of the organization’s impotence. Eritrea, OAU’s last
but one newest member, when joining the OAU in 1993 declared: “we are joining the OAU not
because of your achievement, but because you are our African brothers.” (Afeworki, 1993).
According to Eritrea’s Issaias Afeworki, membership of the OAU was “not spiritually gratifying
or politically challenging [because] the OAU has become a nominal organization that has failed
to deliver on its pronounced goals and objectives.” (Afeworki,1993). (Never mind that the OAU
had failed to support Eritrea’s bloody 30-year struggle for independence [the continent’s longest
civil war!] from Ethiopia, incidentally the seat of the OAU headquarters.)
Not surprisingly, the OAU became a geographical entity with no geopolitical weight. It forged a
unity that further deepened the political marginalization, economic dependence, and cultural
doubt of the continent; the very antithesis of Pan-Africanism. The lesson here is that a union
cannot be effective without ideological uniformity or unity of purpose. For while it is necessary
for all Africa and Africans to unite, there is no point to this project if the result is a united Africa
with divergent and confusing perspectives on the goals of unity, or a united Africa where
consensus on a shared African worldview is elusive. From a Pan-Africanist perspective therefore,
it is better to have a united, empowered and independent Africa, comprising some African States,
rather than to have a united, but weak and dependent Africa, comprising of all African states.
The old patterns persist
Unfortunately, like the OAU before it, an overwhelming majority of AU’s founding members,
eschew any genuine commitment and seriousness to the Pan-African ideal of an empowered
African superstate that would increase the capacity of Africans to take direct control of their
destinies. The preference for the status quo was made apparent during the Sirte Summit in
September 1999 when African leaders, once again, retreated from the continental government
thesis. While Libya’s Qathafi (1999) argued passionately for a transformative entity, in the form
of a confederation of African states, as a ‘historical solution’ to the continent’s numerous
problems, an overwhelming number of his fellow African leaders remained deeply skeptical
about his ‘United States of Africa’ vision. Qathafi’s plea that African leaders “give up a little bit
of their sovereignty in the interests of the whole of Africa” was not even entertained as a
realizable goal (Pompey, 2000; Rosine, 1999).The leaders of Egypt, Kenya and Uganda spoke for
many when they said publicly that the idea of an African superstate was premature (Kipkoech,
1999; Rosine, 1999). Granted, Qathafi’s Arabic persuasion may predispose him to use non
African cultural perspectives, rather than an African centered paradigm, as a basis for defining a
better world vision. Be that as it may, his call for an African superstate, like that of the
Casablanca bloc of the 1960’s, is a central pan-africanist strategy to achieving collective power in
the contemporary international system. Needless to say, the AU that was created has limited
authority and coercive powers capable of changing the behavior of member states. Furthermore,
since its ideological underpinnings does not promise the eventual collective acquisition of power,
the AU cannot be expected to significantly transform the lives of Africans for the better. When
we take a look at the AU’s current efforts in the areas of security, economics, and politics, it
becomes obvious, but not surprising, that they are contrary to the fundamental goal of PanAfricanism.
The only country to resign from the OAU was Morocco in November 1984 to protest the
OAU’s admission of the SADR which claims the independence of its southern provinces
retrieved by Morocco in 1975 under a tripartite agreement with Spain, the former colonial power.
In July 2001, Morocco again declined to join the AU for the same reason.
3
5
In the area of security and the preservation of peace, the formation of a single African High
Command is considered central to the fundamental Pan-Africanist objective of collective
empowerment. First, it is logical from a Pan-Africanist perspective to have one army to manage
conflicts on the continent and to maximize the power of Africa, relative to other actors, in the
international system. Africa has a combined 3.5 million men and women in its armed forces, a
number that any power bloc would be forced to reckon with. Second, an African High
Command would help to reduce the military expenditures of individual African countries and
divert such expenditures to much needed social services. Taken together, African countries spend
in excess of $20 billion annually on the military. A significant reduction in such spending would
result if Africa had an efficient joint force and a central command. However, Muammar Al
Qathafi’s call, since 1975, for abolishing national armies to create a single African army has been
constantly rebuffed by his counterparts. The last time his idea was rebuffed was at the AU’s
extraordinary Summit in March 2004. At this summit, a watered down version of Qathafi’s single
army proposal, based on the maintenance of each African state's independence and sovereignty,
was created instead. The creation of the African Standby Force (as this force is known)
represents a marked departure from the OAU days, however there are numerous problems with
its structures. Important amongst these problems are, the lack of mechanisms to counter
unilateral action of strong member countries; the non veto power decision-making structure; and
the selection and inclusion of conflict prone countries as force members. Egyptian Foreign
Minister, Ahmed Maher, later told reporters after the AU Summit that delegates rejected the
Qathafi’s proposal because “Africa is not ready yet for this [single African army] idea.” (Quoted
in Pitman, T. (2004)).
Regarding economics, the strategies and programs pursued by the AU and its member states
indicate continued reliance on international capital and the uncoordinated development of
individual national economies. No real attempt has been made to achieve continental African
economic unity despite the obvious economic wisdom of such an approach. The observation by
Green and Seidman (1968), almost four decades ago, is still true today:
“Africa as a whole could provide markets able to support large-scale efficient
industrial complexes; no single African state nor existing sub-regional
economic union can do so. African states cannot establish large-scale
productive complexes stimulating demand throughout the economy as poles
of rapid economic growth because their markets are far too small. Instead the
separate tiny economies willy-nilly plan on lines leading to the dead ends of
excessive dependence on raw material exports and small scale inefficient
‘national factories’ at high costs per unit of output. Inevitably, therefore, they
fail to reduce substantially their basic dependence on foreign markets,
complex manufactures and capital.” (Green and Seidman, 1968, p.22)
It should be noted that the specific economic policies pursued by the majority of African states
are determined largely by the International Monetary Fund and other International Financial
Institutions (IFIs), who demand explicit commitments from governments to implement remedial
policies that they (IFIs) deem essential to the continued disbursement of loans. The impact of
these structural adjustment conditionalities, while mostly negative, compromises the economic
autonomy of African countries.
The AU’s economic blueprint, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD, 2001)
does not veer off the path traveled by the individual African member states: it too sees
international capital and the separate development of national economies as a panacea. NEPAD
has serious flaws, too many to list here (For a concise critique, see Taylor and Nel, 2002). From
6
a Pan-Africanist viewpoint though, NEPAD’s biggest failing is that it does not sufficiently
recognize African peoples as partners for, and of, development. As it stands now, NEPAD is an
appeal to the goodwill and benevolence of the industrialized countries for aid and investment.
Even so, NEPAD is an elite driven process that provides no means for mobilizing the African
masses for real development. The AU’s interest in securing international capital and maintaining
neo-colonial relationship with the West, (rather than pursuing genuine inter-African
cooperation), led the authors of NEPAD to consult first with the Group of Eight industrialized
countries, before African governments had had a chance to discuss it amongst themselves and
with their own people. There is even talk of constructing a tunnel linking Africa with Europe.
Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade (2002), one of the authors and spokesperson for NEPAD,
said: “NEPAD plans to construct a tunnel linking Africa to Europe under the Mediterranean Sea
from the northern tip of Algeria through to Gibraltar.” What about a much needed railroad or
highway linking the continent, from Algiers to Antananarivo? The fact that NEPAD was
conceived by a small group of African leaders, without any input from the masses, coupled with
the rush to the G8 (G8, 2002) for the programs endorsement made several AU leaders question
the wisdom of the entire enterprise. One such critic was Gambia’s president, Yahya Jammeh,
who said: “People are sick and tired of African beggars. Nobody will ever develop your country
for you. I am not criticizing NEPAD, but the way it was conceived to be dependent on begging”
(Lokongo, 2002, p.18). Needless to say, NEPAD, as presently constituted, have the potential of
dividing, not unifying, Africa: The G8, on which the AU relies for the programs major funding,
has already made it clear that it would only help African countries “whose performance reflects the
NEPAD commitments”(G8, 2002). Western nations can thus pick and choose which AU
member states are deserving of assistance, and those that are not. The overall effect would not be
a stronger Africa. At best, it would reward individual African countries for good behavior. Thus
one cannot expect NEPAD to transform Africa from its disarticulated, dependent and
underdeveloped status.
When it comes to politics, it has been established that the AU’s founding majority have no
desire for a supranational political entity that would lead to a full and complete African unity.
Africa today therefore does not have one state to represent it or a single voice to articulate its
concerns in the international system; hence no power. Also, the political map of African remains
a sacred cow despite the fact that Africa’s 165 demarcated borders (the world’s most fragmented
region) have in of themselves become the basis of many African conflicts. Unfortunately Article
4(b) of the AU Constitutive Act, like Article 3(3) of the OAU charter before it, affirms these
colonial demarcations. The AU should amend the principle of inviolability of these colonial
borders and negotiate new boundaries that have more meaning for Africans. It must be borne in
mind that the carving up of Africa in 1884 was not meant to unify but rather to divide the
continent. These are by no means easy political choices but African leaders have to confront
them before any real chance of optimizing Africa’s power can be realized.
Politically, it seems what binds the AU is a professed commitment to democracy and good
governance. Even on this score, the AU’s efforts so far have, at best, been confused. This is
because the AU has no established criteria on what constitutes ‘good governance’ or
‘democracy’ beyond the minimalist procedural requisites of free and fair elections. At its
inaugural launch in July 2001, the AU barred Madagascar from the new organization and
refused to recognize Ravalomanana as Madagascar’s new president, citing the contentious
nature of the elections and the unorthodox way Mr. Ravalomanana consolidated his “victory.”
The AU maintained that it would admit Madagascar only if fresh presidential elections were
held. That the AU showed resolve early, on a key principle on which it was founded is
noteworthy, but it appears, in this particular case, that the resolve shown was not carefully
thought through. Madagascar’s Supreme Court ruling that Ravalomanana’s victory and
government were legitimate, coupled with dissent among AU members on the issue, should
have given the AU pause and deep reflection on its decision. Not long after AU’s decision,
7
several African countries (Senegal, Burkina Faso, Mauritius, Libya and the Comoros islands)
broke ranks with the AU and endorsed Ravalomanana’s government – so much for Africa
speaking with a single voice! The AU did a face saving U-turn and recognized Ravalomanana
the following year, a move which no doubt has cost AU to lose some credibility, especially since
no new presidential elections were held.
In any case, the AU does not have much credibility on the democracy question to begin with:
African leaders do not easily give up the reins of power, and has some of the world’s longestserving Presidents. The following sample makes the case: Gabon's Omar Bongo Ondimba has
been at the helm of his nation for 40 years. Libya has been under Muammar Al Qathafi for 38
years. Angola’s Jose Eduardo dos Santos has 28 years under his belt. Zimbabwe’s Robert
Mugabe has been in power for 27 years. If the AU were serious about democratic values and
good governance, membership to that body should not have been automatic, but rather granted
on merit or a set of political criteria. For example, the basic membership prerequisites of the
European Union (after which the AU is modeled) has three basic thematic criteria (political,
economic and institutional, also known as the Copenhagen Criteria), where the political criteria
directs the applicant country to achieve stability of its institutions guaranteeing democracy, the
rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. What the AU needs now
is clear and consistent guidelines on what it considers to be the consent of the governed and
enforcement mechanisms to ensure strict compliance. Ideally, the democratic principles
advocated must be compatible with the values and practices of the African society.
More than Pan-Africanism
Aside from the lack of, and/or commitment to, a transformative and empowering ideology based
on Pan-Africanism, the OAU did not flourish due to operational failures caused by a lack of
popular legitimacy, administrative bottlenecks, and financial stress. I will only discuss (due to
space limitations) the issue of popular legitimacy.
A major hurdle to the OAU’s efficacy was that it was a state centric elite political organization
that did little to involve the average African in its operations and decision making. Consequently,
it had a flag and an anthem that no one saluted or recognized, and an Africa Day that was hardly
celebrated. As indicated, the AU promises citizen involvement and participation, and especially
the Pan African Parliament (PAP), holds promise of broadly representing the African citizenry.
Though in its first five years of existence the Pan African Parliament is to have advisory and
consultative powers only, a lot more can be done to make it an effective body by 2007, when it
assumes legislative functions. First, the PAP representation should be broadened with respect to
gender, the African Diaspora constituency and cross-national party coalitions. The seat currently
allocated to women members in the PAP now stands at 20%. This can be said to be a good
beginning, however, there is room for improvement as this 20% quota is 10% less than that
which the Fourth UN Conference on Women urged as minimum for women parliamentarians.
While it is true that representation of women in African national parliaments is scarce, it is not
unreasonable to increase their quota, especially if we consider the fact that African women hold
the keys to Africa’s overall development. Next, is the issue of the Diaspora representation.
Following a proposal by the Senegal government that Diaspora Africans be considered the “Sixth
Region” of Africa, the AU has been working on the institutional development of the African
Diaspora into its organs. This is a move in the right direction toward the pan-africanist goal of an
empowered African collective at the global level.4 The challenge the AU faces is to clearly define
the criteria for membership of the African Diaspora, its rights, duties and privileges. The African
The AU’s First Conference of Intellectuals of Africa and the Diaspora held in Dakar, Senegal
on 6 – 9 October 2004 is an important step in this regard. In the future, non intellectuals must be
given a role as well.
4
8
Diaspora constituency must be accorded real and tangible (and not merely symbolic)
membership. Their representation in the PAP will signal that the AU is serious in its efforts to
integrate the continent and the diaspora. A final area where PAP representation can be made
more inclusive is to provide mechanisms that allow the development of continent-wide political
groupings, as opposed to national parties now envisaged for the PAP. Should this occur, the PAP
members could form coalitions along ideological and tactical directions such as Workers, PanAfricanists, Liberals, Socialists, Conservatives, etc.
Conclusion
The AU will continue, in the foreseeable future, to be an important vehicle for addressing the
continent’s numerous projects. But the AU cannot empower and develop Africa nor guarantee
Africa’s collective security and provide a common platform for Africa’s collective diplomacy if
the AU remains the way it is today: bereft of a genuine commitment to Pan-Africanism and an
empowered African superstate. Moving beyond this status quo would require, amongst other
things, leaders who share a pan Africanist commitment, and who are willing to engage the
African citizenry in a search for solutions that preserves Africa’s independence and dignity;
strategies which reflect Africa’s image and interests. As we have seen, much work has to be done
before the dream of the collective empowerment of all African peoples comes true; till then the
dream of African unity only remains a mirage.
REFERENCES
Afeworki, I. (1993). OAU Summit Opens to Criticism from Newest Member Eritrea. Agence
France Presse – English, June 28, 1993.
Akonor, K. (2002). Africa’s Development. New York Times, June 26 2002. pp. A22.
Amate, C.O.C. (1986). Inside the OAU: Pan-Africanism in Practice, Basingstoke: Macmillan.
Amoo, S. (1993). Role of the OAU: Past, Present and Future. In D. Smock (ed.), Making War and
Waging Peace: Foreign Intervention in Africa, Washington, DC: United States Institute of Peace Press.
Asante, M. K. (1988) Afrocentricity. Trenton: Africa World Press.
Davies, D. (2003). Jammeh: 'Why I Oppose NEPAD.' West Africa No.4364:14 February 24, 2003
Fabienne, P. (2002). African leaders downgrade Kadhafi plan for United States of Africa.” Agence
France Presse – English, July 12, 2000
G-8 (2002). G-8 Africa Action Plan. Document from the G-8 Summit in Kananaskis, Canada, June
26-27. Also available online at http://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/11515.htm
Green, R.H. & Seidman, A. (1968). Unity or Poverty? The Economics of PanAfricanism...
Harmondsworth: African Penguin Library.
Hinich, M. J. and Munger, M. C. (1994). Ideology and the Theory of Political Choice. Ann Arbor, MI:
The University of Michigan Press.
Kipkoech, T. (1999). African Political Union Is Premature. The Nation (Nairobi). September 13,
1999. Also online at: http://www.nationaudio.com/News/DailyNation/130999/
9
Lokongo, B. (2002). Jammeh: 'NEPAD Will Never Work'. New African, September 2002: 18-19
Mbuyinga, E. (1982) Pan Africanism or neo-colonialism?: the bankruptcy of the O.A.U.; translated by
Michael Pallis. London : Zed Press; Westport, Conn
Mazrui, Ali A.(1967) Towards a Pax Africana: A study of Ideology and Ambition Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Mbeki, T. (2003). Mbeki: African Union is the Mother, NEPAD is Her Baby. New African
No.415:44-45 February 2003.
Mbeki, T. (2002). Speech at the launch of the African Union. Durban: South Africa. July 9.
http://www.au2002.gov.za/docs/speeches/mbek087a.htm
Naldi, G. J. (2000). The Organization of African Unity: an Analysis of Its role. New York:
Mansell.
NEPAD. (2001). The New Partnership for Africa's Development. October. Also available online at:
http://www.nepad.org
Nantambu, K. (1998). Pan-Africanism Versus Pan-African Nationalism: An Afrocentric Analysis.
Journal of Black Studies, Vol. 28, No. 5. pp. 561-574.
Nkrumah, K. (1970). Africa Must Unite. New York: International Publishers.
OAU. (2000). Constitutive Act of the African Union. July 2000.
OAU. (1999). Sirte Declaration .Fourth Extraordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of State and
Government.
Sirte,
Libya.
Also
available
online:
http://www.au2002.gov.za/docs/key_oau/sirte.htm
OAU (1991) Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community, June 3rd 1991, Abuja, Nigeria
Ofuatey-Kodjoe, W. (1986) (ed). Pan-Africanism: New Directions in Strategy. Lanham, University
Press of America
Pitman, T. (2004), Gadhafi Calls For Unity At Start Of African Union Summit. The Associated
Press, February 27, 2004
Qathafi, M. (1999). Qadhafi tells OAU foreign ministers of ‘United States of Africa’ vision. BBC
Summary of World Broadcasts, September 09, 1999.
Rooney, D. (1988). Kwame Nkrumah, the Political Kingdom in the Third World. New York. St. Martin's
Press.
Rosine Ngangoue Nana (1999). “Little Support for the Proposed United States of Africa.” IPSInter Press Service/Global Information Network, September 10, 1999
Tadadjeu, M. (2001). L'argent fera defaut, Le Messager, Juillet 18, pp. 8.
Taylor, I; and P. Nel (2002). Getting the rhetoric right’, getting the strategy wrong: "New Africa",
globalization and the confines of elite reformism, Third World Quarterly, 21, 1.
10
Wade, A. (2002). NEPAD Plans to Build
http://allafrica.com/stories/200207150175.html
Tunnel
to
Europe.
July
15,
2002,
Zartman W. (1966), National Interest and Ideology. In V. Mckay (ed), African Diplomacy: Studies in
the Determinants of Foreign Policy. London, Pall Mall Press
11
The Grand Debate: A Common Citizenship Will Convince Us That Our Political
Leaders Are Now Serious
Tajudeen Abdul Raheem
Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the deputy director of the UN Millennium Campaign in
Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He is also General Secretary of the Global Pan
African Movement, based in Kampala, Uganda. He writes this article in his personal
capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.
I want to begin this in a personal way because the issues we are dealing with are not theoretical or
rhetorical. They are about our rights and dignity as a people. They are too important for us not to
recognize them as validating ‘the personal is political’ dictum made famous by the Women’s
movement.
I am blessed with two daughters who are growing up in the United Kingdom. They became
British citizens at birth in spite of the fact that their mother and myself were only British
residents when they were born. Both girls enjoy all the rights and entitlements of British
Children in terms of free and compulsory education from Nursery through to secondary
education and up to university if they choose. They are also entitled to prescription free medicine
till they are 16. In some sense the sky may be their limit in terms of individual ambitions. Of
course, like every other British child, they will have to deal with racial, religious, class and other
prejudices as they grow up and deal with them as and when necessary especially racial
discrimination.
If they had been born in a majority of our countries the fact of being children of residents will
automatically mean that they do not qualify for the citizenship of the country in which they were
born. The circumstances of their birth which they did not choose becomes a disadvantage from
which they will never be able to escape for all their lives. At the height of the state sponsored
Anti Ban Yarwanda (in practice Anti Tutsi) during the Obote 2 regime in Uganda one of his
xenophobic ministers reportedly declared: "does the fact that a Sheep was born in a Kraal make it
a cow?" continuing that “a Muyarwanda born in Uganda even if he or she dies and is buried in
Uganda remains a Muyarwanda"! In this type of mindset and the legal and political regime
constructed on it, identity becomes a prison from which a person will never escape. There is
nothing wrong in a Muyarwanda remaining a Muyarwanda all their lives but if that identity is now
used to justify discrimination against the person, marginalize them and deny the right to full
participation in the economic, social and political affairs of the country then it is no longer a
question of origin but politics and power.
This is the common practice across this continent. In order to disclaim and disempower people,
we first deny them their right to citizenship. It is an affirmation of the negative: 'not belonging' or
'not one of us'. Even those we can not deny those rights to because we cannot prove that their
parents or grand parents come from another country we proceed to the second default position:
'settlers', ie not Indigenous /ancestrally to that area even if they are from other parts of the
same country. So the same Ugandans will argue that a Muchiga from Kabale born and brought
up in Kabarole or Hoima are settlers because their ancestors do not originate from Toro or
Bunyoro.
Nigerians have perfected this type of discrimination by requiring on official forms for one to
declare STATE OF RESIDENCE and STATE OF ORIGIN. The former may, given the
decades, and in some cases centuries, of internal migration, not reveal the ethnicity of the person
but the latter certainly will. Origin requires stating your ancestry where your parents or grand
parents or even great grand parents come from. It means that third generation or more of Igbo,
Kalabari , Hausa, Itsekiri and other non Yoruba Nigerians in Lagos may still be regarded as
12
'foreigners’ just as several generations of Yorubas or Igbos in northern Nigeria will be branded
'non indigenes' with serious implications for their citizenship rights , access to state resources and
political participation.
There is no worse time for these denials of rights to come to the fore than during elections. All
British residents from the Commonwealth including temporary residents like students could vote
in British elections yet Africans born and brought up in other African countries, many of them
with no knowledge or experience of another country, can neither vote nor be voted for in many
countries. Elections are supposed to be exclusively 'for indigenes' but even among the so called
'indigenes' the right to participate is often limited to voting for those Nigerians called 'sons of the
soil' (and they are always 'sons' because patriachy disempowers women in Land and other
property). So somebody of Igbo ancestry may vote in Lagos but he or she will face enormous
prejudice if he or she decides to stand for public office because, despite being a melting pot of all
kinds of peoples including other West Africans and descendants of freed slaves from Brazil,
somehow Lagos is still believed to be a Yoruba place and has to be represented by 'proper
Yoruba' . But the ridiculous thing about this narrow indigeneity is that an overwhelming majority
of the Yorubas who now claim Lagos as theirs were migrants from other parts of the Yoruba
inter-land! Similarly if someone of Yoruba or Igbo origin, no matter how distant, decides to
become Governor or Legislator in Kano (another city built out of free flow of peoples from all
corners of the Sahel and Nigeria and also Arabia due to the Trans Saharan Trade) he or she will
be reminded that he/she does not belong.
In Kenya where I now reside there is by far greater excitement, speculation and confidence
among Kenyans about the chances of Barrack Obama winning the Democratic nomination and
proceeding to becoming the first Black President of the USA than you will find among American
voters themselves. All because his late father was a Kenyan. But ask the same Kenyans about
the chances of Raila Odinga, a front runner for the presidential candidature of the opposition
ODM-Kenya, many of them will declare bluntly: no way he can't make it, he is Luo. But so was
Obama's father therefore Barrack is by our immutable patriarchal genealogy a Luo. Why are we
enthusiastic about a Luo man becoming the president of the USA but give no chance to a fellow
Luo who wants to be president of Kenya where majority Luo people reside? It’s alright in
America but somehow not kosher here in Kenya. If Obama does not get the nomination many
Africans will put it down to racism. So what is it when we discriminate against fellow Africans in
countries where the bulk of the population are Africans?
Part of the excuses (not explanations mark you) one gets discussing the Raila presidential
ambitions is that he comes from a minority Ethnic group and that there was no way the majority
Kikuyu will allow it. In the same breath you will be assured that whoever Raila supports may win.
So you get this contradictory position of Raila (and Luos) forever playing the role of Kingmakers
but never to be kings themselves.
A situation whereby whole groups of fellow citizens are reduced to playing second class roles
cannot lead to a viable democratic society. If you ask many Nigerians about the chances of
someone from the oil-producing Niger Delta becoming president of the country they will give
you all kinds of evasive answers but behind it all is the unwritten law that the presidency of the
country belongs to certain dominant group, almost in perpetuity despite the fact that these
majority groups are parasites on resources that come predominantly from minority areas. It is
only when talking about oil that many Nigerians become very nationalistic and accuse anyone
who asks for sensitivity towards the people from whose shores the Black Gold flows, of wanting
to break up Nigeria. Some Nigerians even argue that the oil producing states already get more
than enough share of the oil resources from the Central government and challenged them to
show what they have done with it. The wider question is what the Governments of Nigeria have
done with the resources of the country. If the leaders have used the resources for the benefit of
13
the great majority of the citizens the issue will not have become as politicized and polarized as it
has become. Of what value is being a Nigerian to most of the peoples in the Niger Delta who
have continued to harvest death and destruction from the oil resources in their areas. It is
dodging the question to accuse them of separatism. No country should be a catholic marriage in
which there cannot be the possibility of divorce.
The possibility of divorce does not mean that all marriages will end in one. What will make
people to voluntarily show their loyalty and commitment to any political community is their level
of security, confidence and identification with it as stakeholders who know that the state will be
there for them to protect them and defend their interests.
It is the absence of these that has made many of our states illegitimate in the eyes and practice of
many Africans. And that is why every little thing threatens these states.
What can be done?
We cannot run away from the problems of citizenship on this continent anymore. As we
discussed during the launch of the Citizenship Rights in Africa Initiative (CRAI) in Kampala
recently, millions of Africans are today victims of arbitrary denial of citizenship and consequent
statelessness.
A situation in which Africans with non African citizenship can feel more secure and exercise full
rights of political participation in their adopted countries than in many of our countries has to be
reversed and reversed immediately.
To get back to the case of my daughters that I started with the prejudices and discrimination they
will face In many African countries may not just be because their parents were residents, or
settlers. The fact of both of their parents coming from different countries will not be a bonus but
another disadvantage. They may not have automatic right to their mother's citizenship. In fact in
some countries their mum may not take them to her home country without their father's
'permission' because the father 'owns' the children!
Many African women married to other Africans from different countries suffer discrimination
both ways: punished for not marrying wisely! At home they will foreignise them and in the
country of their husbands they remain foreigners. Show me any country in Africa where a Sonia
Ghandi could be leading even a minor political party no matter who her husband may have been?
The first thing we need to do is to reconcile our states to the diversity of our peoples by giving
African citizenship to all Africans wherever they may be.
I know that a number of questions will be posed. The principal one being “who is an African?”
A simple answer will be any citizen of any African country no matter how that citizenship was
acquired including ancestry, indigeneity, settlement, marriage, naturalization and any other legally
recognized means. Another question will be “where does the African Diaspora come in?” They
will qualify under ancestry but also voluntary naturalization.
Some countries have adjusted to granting dual or multiple citizenship but only for remittance
purposes in most cases. Because of the growing role that remittances from Africans abroad play
in holding families and communities together, many countries now recognize the right of their
citizens to have other citizenship therefore abandoning the previous ‘either’ ‘or’ exclusion. But
even here there is a catch: dual citizenship is often assumed to be one of an African citizenship
and a European or north American one. For someone like me who was born Nigerian and have
had a Ugandan passport for more than 10 years, there were always suspicions among
14
immigration and security officials. Somehow it is alright for an African to hold western passports
but deemed 'odd' to be a dual African citizen. It further goes to prove how we continue to treat
ourselves as foreigners.
The granting of African citizenship will not automatically solve all the problems of ethnicity,
racism, exclusionism and intolerance. What it will set is a new and more inclusive legal and
political framework for us to deal with these problems as equal members of a shared political
community without any one of us feeling superior or inferior or at the mercy of other citizens. It
will be like being members of the same family. No matter how much you may dislike your
brother or sister, cousin or uncle, when it comes to family affairs you all have equal right of
participation. There is an African saying that no matter how close a friend may be the day we
want to worship our ancestors he or she has to excuse himself or herself.
Whatever problems there may be we can then resolve them among ourselves, and if we cannot,
we will learn to understand and manage them without the threat of opponents being foreignised
and declared stateless.
Any serious talk of building a United States of Africa that does not begin from this fundamental
reconfiguration of our legal and political status within such a state will be doomed from the start.
The continuing challenges to regional and continental integration for the past 50 years since
independence from colonialism largely stem from the anomaly of seeking to unite our artificial
states while keeping our peoples apart.
In West Africa, which has had free movement for three decades, it is still common to find
citizens of other West African countries 'deported' and routinely harassed and victims of
extortions by various security, intelligence and immigration officials at various border points and
inside west African countries.
The problem is not with the right to move freely but the lack of political will to take further
complementary steps to make regional citizenship real for the peoples of the region. These will
include faster progress on regional liberalisation and harmonisation of trade, financial and
commercial transactions within the region. In spite of free movement market traders, the famous
West African Market Women, who keep their families, communities and the whole region going
through their micro enterprises are still subjected to all kinds of extortion at border points in a
way that criminalizes intra regional trade. Instead of saluting and encouraging these 'cross border'
traders as the Pan Africanist entrepreneurs that they are, we criminalize them as 'smugglers' and
euphemistically call their exchanges 'informal sector' , 'second sector' or 'parallel market'. Yet the
truth is that the majority of our peoples survive directly or indirectly on these sectors. Any Pan
Africanist economist who is not allowing theory to confuse him or her can easily see that that is
the real African economy. It is the state sector that needs to give way to the real thing and find
ways of collecting the taxes that are currently going into private pockets at our various corruption
extortion posts called borders!
The East Africa Community in its steady march towards the creation of a federation seem to be
unlearning some of its own previous effort and learning well from the challenges in the
ECOWAS region. It is merging freedom of movement with complimentary whittling down of
barriers to trade, finance and commerce and removing all kinds of unnecessary bureaucratic
bottle necks. For instance, a visa for non Community citizens and residents to one of the
countries is now valid for reentry from all the three countries and very soon Rwanda and
Burundi too. It also has a legislative Assembly and regional court that are potentially more
powerful than what is available in the ECOWAS and also the Pan African Parliament.
15
If the leaders of Africa want to be taken seriously and silence the cynicism that has continued to
dominate any discussion about the African Union they need to demonstrate they have the
required political will and are ready to use them to deliver a truly people-driven Union.
One major area that will affect everybody immediately and transform people's perception is
guaranteeing full citizenship rights to all Africans with its complimentary freedom to move,
settle, work and participate in the political processes anywhere they may be. This will mean that
we cease to require dehumanizing visa regimes that make it almost impossible to travel legally
across the continent. Pan African trade will no longer be criminalized as 'smuggling'. It means the
Pan African Parliament should be given full legislative powers and its elections can be held on a
Pan African adult suffrage. Pan African Affairs will no longer be in Foreign Affairs but become
part of the domestic political contestations. Africans will no longer be undesirable 'aliens' across
Africa. The humiliation of beings 'others' in Europe and treated as 'others' at home will be ended.
And we can all arrive at border posts with pride at the welcoming notices proclaiming 'Africans
this way' and 'Others...this way'!
This will put African people at the centre of the 'Grand Debate' instead of them being cynical
observers, as many are at the moment, or, worse still, completely unconcerned.
16
From Pan-Africanism to the Union of Africa
Dr. Tim Murithi
Dr. Tim Murithi, Senior Researcher, Direct Conflict Prevention Programme, Institute for
Security Studies (ISS-Addis Ababa Office). This paper was presented on Africa Day, 25
May 2007, at the Department of Political Studies and International Relations, Addis Ababa
University and an Oxfam-AfroFlag Vision Seminar, at Axum Hotel, Addis Ababa,
Ethiopia.
Introduction
It is appropriate to reflect on the debate that has been raging on the prospects for further
continental integration and the impending discussions on the Union Government Project.
During the 8th Ordinary Session of Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African
Union (AU) in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from 29 to 30 January 2007, the decision was taken to
devote the next meeting of the Assembly to an elaborately titled “Grand Debate on the Union
Government”.5 From 8 to 9 May 2007, the Executive Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs
met in Durban, South Africa to brainstorm on the state of the Union. The groundwork has
therefore been laid for discussions to take place in Accra about the direction that the AU should
take.
We could question whether it is indeed appropriate and realistic to be debating a Union
Government at this time. Have AU member states mastered the art of rudimentary unification?
Do they yet speak with a unified voice and act based on a common purpose? To add to this
casserole of doubt the continent is still afflicted by so many other problems and challenges from
conflict, to underdevelopment and inadequate public health services. Ultimately, by adding a
pinch of skepticism about the genuine political will of AU member states to pool their
sovereignty, it seems that the Grand Debate may be no more than a storm in a tea cup, muchado-about-not-very-much. But perhaps this is a bit dismissive!
Is it indeed a realistic debate to be having at this time, when the continent is afflicted with so
many other problems and challenges? To what extent are the majority of African people aware
that this debate is going on? If they are not aware, who is having this conversation on their
behalf? How can a Union Government Project succeed if it does not have the by-in and the
support of the people of Africa?
But before we can even begin to grapple with these questions we do need to pose the question:
how we have got to the point that we are discussion a Union of Africa Government or the socalled United States of Africa? Only by tracing the trajectory of the evolution of the notion of
Pan-Africanism can be begin to contextualize the impetus behind the impending “Grand Debate
on the Union Government”.
This paper will assess the origins of Pan-Africanism and discuss the norms that animated this
movement. It will then assess how Pan-Africanism was institutionalized in the form of the
Organisation of African Unity (OAU) and the present day African Union (AU). It will argue that
the Grand Debate on the Union Government is only the latest incarnation of an attempt to
institutionalise Pan-Africanism. Understanding the reasons why Pan-Africanism gained currency
as a movement and liberatory ideology will help us to understand this Grand Debate. The past in
this sense is influencing the present and will ultimately inform the future. The paper will assess
the role that civil society can play in contributing to the Union Government debate. The paper
8th Ordinary Session of Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union
(AU) in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from 29 to 30 January 2007
5
17
will also question whether the Union Government of Africa Project will be built on a solid
enough foundation to realize the aspirations of Pan-Africanism. It will conclude by assessing the
limits of continental integration.
What is Pan-Africanism?
It is often assumed that the process of continental integration begun with an Extra-ordinary
Summit of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) convened in Sirte, Libya, in 1999. In fact,
the process begun with the Pan-African movement and its demand for greater solidarity among
the peoples of Africa. To understand the emergence of the African Union we need to understand
the evolution of the Pan-African movement. A review of the objectives and aspirations of PanAfricanism provides a foundation to critically assess the creation of the AU and its prospects for
promoting the principles and norms of peace and development.
Historically Pan-Africanism, the perception by Africans in the diaspora and on the continent that
they share common goals, has been expressed in different forms by various actors. There is no
single definition of Pan-Africanism and in fact we can say that there are as many ideas about PanAfricanism as there are thinkers of Pan-Africanism. Rather than being a unified school of
thought, Pan-Africanism is more a movement which has as its common underlying theme the
struggle for social and political equality and the freedom from economic exploitation and racial
discrimination.
It is interesting to note that it is the global dispersal of peoples of African descent that is partly
responsible for the emergence of the Pan-African movement. As Hakim Adi and Marika
Sherwood, observe in their book Pan-African History: Political Figures from African and the Diaspora
Since 1787, ‘Pan-Africanism has taken on different forms at different historical moments and
geographical locations’.6 Adi and Sherwood note that, what underpins these different
perspectives on Pan-Africanism is ‘the belief in some form of unity or of common purpose
among the peoples of Africa and the African Diaspora.’ One can also detect an emphasis on
celebrating ‘Africaness’, resisting the exploitation and oppression of Africans and their kin in the
Diaspora as well as a staunch opposition to the ideology of racial superiority in all its overt and
covert guises.
Pan-Africanism is an invented notion.7 It is an invented notion with a purpose. We should
therefore pose the question what is the purpose of Pan-Africanism? Essentially, Pan-Africanism is
a recognition of the fragmented nature of the existence of African’s, their marginalization and
alienation whether in their own continent or in the Diaspora. Pan-Africanism seeks to respond to
Africa’s underdevelopment. Africa has been exploited and a culture of dependency on external
assistance unfortunately still prevails on the continent. If people become too reliant on getting
their support, their nourishment, their safety, from outside sources, then they do not strive find
the power within themselves to rely on their own capacities. Pan-Africanism calls upon Africans
to drawn from their own strength and capacities and become self-reliant.
Pan-Africanism is a recognition that Africans have been divided among themselves. They are
constantly in competition among themselves, deprived of the true ownership of their own
resources and inundated by paternalistic external actors with ideas about what it ‘good’. Modern
day paternalism is more sophisticated and dresses itself up as a kind and gentle helping hand with
benign and benevolent intentions. In reality it seeks to maintain a ‘master-servant’ relationship
Hakim Adi and Marika Sherwood, Pan-African History: Political Figures from African and the Disapora
Since 1787, London: Routledge, 2003, p.vii.
7 Timothy Murithi, The African Union: Pan-Africanism, Peacebuilding and Development, (Aldershot,
England: Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 2005).
6
18
and does not really want to see the genuine empowerment and independence of thought in
Africa. The net effect of this is to dis-empower Africans from deciding for themselves the best
way to deal with the problems and issues they are facing. Pan-Africanism is a recognition that the
only way out of this existential, social, political crisis is by promoting greater solidarity amongst
Africans. Genuine dialogue and debate in Africa will not always generate consensus, but at least it
will be dialogue among Africans about how they might resolve their problems. If ideas are not
designed by the Africans, then rarely can they be in the interests of Africans.
The Institutionalisation of Pan-Africanism: The Organisation of African Unity (OAU)
In the twentieth century, the idea of Pan-Africanism took an institutional form. Initially, there
were the Pan-African Congress’ which convened in the United Kingdom and the United States
of America, under the leadership of activists like the African-American writer and thinker
W.E.B. du Bois; the Trinidadian Henry Sylvester Williams; and inspired often by the ideas of
people like the Jamaican-American Marcus Garvey. These ideas were adopted and reformed by
continental African leaders in the middle of the twentieth century. Kwame Nkrumah who later
became the first president of Ghana, Sekou Toure of Guinea, Leopold Senghor of Senegal,
Banar Abdel Nasser of Egypt, Ali Ben Bella of Algeria took the idea of Pan-Africanism to
another level on 25 May 1963 when they co-created the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). 8
The principles of the OAU kept the spirit of Pan-Africanism alive. The primary objective of this
principle was to continue the tradition of solidarity and cooperation among Africans.
During the era of the OAU the key challenge was colonialism. Since 1885, in what was then
known as the “Scramble for Africa” European colonial powers had colonized African peoples
and communities across the entire continent. The Belgians were in the Congo, the British in
East, South, West and North Africa. The French in West Africa, Somalia, Algeria and other parts
of North Africa. The Italians in Somalia. The Germans, who later lost their colonies following
their defeat in the Second World War, had to relinquish Namibia and modern day Tanzania.
Africans had successfully fought on the side of the allies in the Second World War and after its
conclusion they brought their struggle for independence back home to Africa.
The OAU embraced the principle of Pan-Africanism undertook the challenge of liberating all
African countries from the grip of settler colonialism. The main principle that it was trying to
promote was to end racial discrimination upon which colonialism with its doctrine of racial
superiority was based. In addition, the OAU sought to assert the right of Africans to control
their social, economic and political affairs and achieve the freedom necessary to consolidate
peace and development. The OAU succeeded in its primary mission, with the help of
international actors, in liberating the continent on 27 April 1994, when a new government based
on a one-person-one-vote came into being in South Africa under the leadership of Nelson
Mandela. The OAU however was not as effective in monitoring and policing the affairs of its
own Member States when it came to the issues of violent conflict; political corruption; economic
mismanagement; poor governance; lack of human rights; lack of gender equality; and poverty
eradication.
The preamble of the OAU Charter of 1963 outlined a commitment by member states
collectively establish, maintain and sustain the “human conditions for peace and security”.9
However, in parallel, the same OAU Charter contained the provision to “defend the sovereignty,
Organisation of African Unity, Charter of the Organisation of African Unity, (Addis Ababa: OAU,
1963).
9 Solomon Gomes, “The Peacemaking and Mediation Role of the OAU and AU: What
Prospects?”, Paper submitted to the Centre for Conflict Resolution (CCR) policy seminar,
Building an African Union (AU) for the 21st Century, Cape Town, South Africa, 20-22 August 2005.
8
19
territorial integrity and independence of the member states”. 10 This was later translated into the
norm of non-intervention. The key organs of the OAU - the council of ministers and the
Assembly of heads of state and government - could only intervene in a conflict situation if they
were invited by the parties to a dispute. Many intra-state disputes were viewed, at the time, as
internal matters and the exclusive preserve of governments is concerned.
The OAU created a Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution in Cairo,
in June 1993. This instrument was ineffective in resolving disputes on the continent. Tragically,
the Rwandan genocide, which was initiated in April 1994, happened while this mechanism was
operational. It was also during this last decade of the twentieth-century that the conflict in
Somalia led to the collapse of the state and the violence in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Sudan led to the death of millions of Africans.
These devastating events illustrated the limitations of the OAU as an institution that could
implement the norms and principles that it articulated. Despite the existence of the OAU’s
mechanisms for conflict prevention and management, the Rwandan tragedy demonstrated the
virtual impotence of the OAU in the face of violent conflict within its member states. The
United Nations (UN) did not fare any better as all of its troops, except the Ghanaian contingent,
pulled out of the country leaving its people to the fate. Subsequently, both the OAU and the UN
issued reports acknowledging their failures.11 The impetus for the adoption of a new paradigm in
the promotion of peace and security in the African continent emerged following the Rwandan
tragedy.
Regrettably due to the doctrine of non-intervention, the OAU became a silent observer to the
atrocities being committed by some of its member states. Eventually, a culture of impunity and
indifference became entrenched in the international relations of African countries during the era
of the “proxy” wars of the Cold War. So in effect the OAU was a toothless talking shop. The
OAU was perceived as a club of African Heads of States, most of whom were not legitimately
elected representatives of their own citizens but self-appointed dictators and oligarchs. This
negative perception informed people’s attitude towards the OAU. It was viewed as an
Organization that existed without having a genuine impact on the daily lives of Africans.
The Institutionalisation of Pan-Africanism: The African Union (AU)
The African Union came into existence in July 2002, in Durban, South Africa. It was supposed to
usher Africa into a new era of continental integration leading to a deeper unity and a resolution
of its problems. The evolution of the AU from the Organisation of African Unity was visionary
and timely. The OAU had failed to live up to all of its norms and principles. Africa at the time of
the demise of the OAU was a continent that was virtually imploding from within due to the
pressures of conflict, poverty and underdevelopment and public health crisis like malaria,
tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS. The OAU effectively died of a cancer of inefficiency because it
basically had not lived up to its original ideals of promoting peace, security and development in
Africa. The African Union has emerged as a homegrown initiative to effectively take the destiny
of the continent into the hands of the African people. However, there is a long way to go before
the AU’s vision and mission is realised.
Organisation of African Unity, Charter of the Organisation of African Unity, (Addis Ababa: OAU,
1963).
11 Organisation of African Unity, Rwanda: The Preventable Genocide, A Report by an International
Panel of Eminent Personalities, Addis Ababa: Organisation of African Unity, 2000; and United
Nations, Report of the Independent Inquiry into the Actions of the United Nations during the
1994 genocide in Rwanda, New York: United Nations, 1999.
10
20
The AU is composed of 53 member states. It is run by the AU Commission based in Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia. The Chairperson of the Commission is Alpha Oumar Konare. Its top decision
making organ is the Assembly of the Heads of State and Government, its executive decisionmaking organ is the Executive Council of Ministers, who work closely with the Permanent
Representatives Committee of Ambassadors in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The AU has also
established range of institutions which will be discussed below.
If we know the ‘purpose’ of Pan-Africanism then the steps to achieve its goals become clearer to
understand. It is in this context that we can begin to understand the emergence of the African
Union. It would be a mistake to view the African Union as an aberration that just emerged in the
last few years. It would be more appropriate to view the AU as only the latest incarnation of the
idea of Pan-Africanism. The first phase of the institutionalization of the Pan-Africanism was the
Pan-African Congress’ that were held from the end of the nineteenth-century and into the
beginning of the twentieth-century. The second phase of the institutionalization of PanAfricanism was the inauguration of the Organization of African Unity. The third phase of the
institutionalization of Pan-Africanism is in effect the creation of the African Union. It will not be
the last phase. Subsequent phases and organizations will bring about ever closer political,
economic, social and ties among African peoples. African unity is an idea that can be traced back
to the nineteenth-century. The African Union is a twenty-first century expression of a
nineteenth-century idea. As such it is an imperfect expression, but nevertheless the best
expression of Pan-Africanism that can be brought forth at this time.
Towards a Union of Africa?
The agenda to establish a Union Government of Africa or the so-called United States of Africa
(USA) is well underway. At the core of this debate is the desire to create several ministerial
portfolios for the African Union. During the 4th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of
State and Government, from 30 to 31 January 2005, in Abuja, Nigeria, the AU agreed to the
proposals made by the Libyan Government to establish ministerial portfolios for the
organisation. Specifically, in the 6th Ordinary Session of the Executive Council of AU Ministers,
Libya proposed the establishment of the posts of Minister of Transport and Communications to
unify transportation in Member States to be under the competence of the AU which will include
airports and main ports of African capital cities, highways, inter-State railways, State-owned
airline companies which are to become the basis for a single African airline company.12
Ultimately, Libya proposed that this should lead to “the creation of a post of Minister of
Transportation and Communications”.13 Similarly, Libya also proposed the creation of the post
of Minister of Defence to oversee “a joint policy on defence and security of the Union and
provide for the reinforcement of peace, security and stability on the continent”. 14 This Libyan
proposal noted that the provisions of the AU Constitutive Act, of 2000, and the AU Protocol on
Peace and Security, 0f 2002, have effectively established a “Joint Defence Framework”.15 As a
logical step in the implementation of the Protocols and establishment of the institutions of the
AU the Libyan proposal emphasised the importance of establishing this post to oversee and
“defend the security of Member States against any foreign aggression and to achieve internal
African Union, Establishment of a Post of Minister of Transport and Communications (Item Proposed by
the Great Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Executive Council 6th Ordinary Session, EX.CL/165(VI) Add.5,
Abuja, Nigeria, 24-28 January 2005, p. 1.
13 African Union, Establishment of a Post of Minister of Transport and Communications, p.1.
14 African Union, Establishment of a Post of Minister of Defence (Item Proposed by the Great Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya), Executive Council 6th Ordinary Session, EX.CL/165(VI) Add.6, Abuja, Nigeria, 2428 January 2005, p. 1.
15 African Union, Establishment of a Post of Minister of Defence, p.1.
12
21
security and stability”.16 In addition, Libya also proposed the establishment of the post of an
African Union Minister of Foreign Affairs. Central to its argument is that AU countries
undermine their own influence when its 53 Foreign Ministers, each individually representing their
own governments speak simultaneously and occasionally in contradiction with each other. The
Libyan proposal notes that this post is necessary in order to expedite “the Continent’s political,
economic and social integration and to reinforce and defend unified African positions on issues
of mutual interest” in the international sphere.17
In order to respond to these proposals the AU Assembly decided to “set up a Committee of
Heads of State and Government chaired by the President of the Republic of Uganda and
composed of Botswana, Chad, Ethiopia, Niger, Senegal and Tunisia” to liaise with the
Chairperson of the AU Commission submit a report by the next summit in July 2005.18 In
November 2005, the Committee convened a conference under the theme “Desirability of a
Union Government of Africa”. This meeting included members of the Committee,
representatives of the Regional Economic Communities (RECs), technical experts, academics,
civil society and Diaspora representatives, as well as the media. The conference came up with
three key conclusions including the recognition that the necessity of an AU Government is not in
doubt; such a Union must be of the African people and not merely a Union of states and
governments; its creation must come about through the principle of gradual incrementalism; and
that the role of the RECs should be highlighted as building blocks for the continental framework.
Based on the findings of this conference the Assembly mandated the AU Commission to prepare
a consolidated framework document defining the purpose of the Union government, its nature,
scope, core values, steps and processes as well as an indicative roadmap for its achievement. The
Assembly reaffirmed “that the ultimate goal of the African Union is full political and economic
integration leading to a United States of Africa”. 19 The Assembly further established a Committee
of Heads of State and Government to be chaired by President Olusegun Obasanjo, Chairperson
of the African Union, and composed of the Heads of State and Government of Algeria, Kenya,
Senegal, Gabon, Lesotho and Uganda. More specifically, the Assembly requested the Committee
to consider “the steps that need to be taken for the realization of this objective, the structure, the
process, the time frame required for its achievement as well as measures that should be
undertaken, in the meantime, to strengthen the ability of the Commission to fulfill its mandate
effectively”.20
The Chairperson of the Committee of Seven, President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria,
submitted a detailed report entitled: A Study on an African Union Government: Towards the United
States of Africa, on July 2006, to the 7th Ordinary Session of the AU Assembly in Banjul, Gambia. 21
Some of the key themes emerging from this report highlighted the fact that Africa is overdependent on the external world particularly with regards to expatriate technicians and
technology. It also noted that Africa has not fully exploited its potential at national, regional and
African Union, Establishment of a Post of Minister of Defence, p.1.
African Union, Establishment of a Post of Minister of AU Minister of Foreign Affairs (Item Proposed by
the Great Libyan Arab Jamahiriya), Executive Council 6th Ordinary Session, EX.CL/165(VI) Add.7,
Abuja, Nigeria, 24-28 January 2005, p. 1.
18 African Union, Decisions and Declarations, Assembly of the African Union, 4th Ordinary Session,
Assemby/AU/Dec.69(IV), Assembly/AU/5 (IV) Add.1-5, Abuja, Nigeria, 30-31 January 2005.
19 African Union, Decision on the Report of the Committee of Seven Heads of State and Government Chaired
by the President of the Republic of Uganda on the Proposals of the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab
Jamahiriya, Assembly/AU/Dec.90(V), 5th Ordinary Session, Sirte, Libya, 4-5 July 2005.
20 African Union, Decision on the Report of the Committee of Seven Heads of State and Government, 5 th
Ordinary Session, paragraph 5.
21 African Union, Study on an African Union Government: Towards the United States of Africa, Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia, July 2006.
16
17
22
continental levels with reference to trade, education and health sectors. It notes that “a United
Africa would have the unique potential of producing most types of food and agricultural produce
throughout the year”.22 The study also notes that in the context of globalization “the challenges
of overdependence and under-exploitation of its potentials have increased the marginalisation of
the continent in world affairs”.23 The study further outlines the 16 strategic areas that an African
Union Government should focus on including continental integration; education, training, skills
development, science and technology; energy; environment; external relations; food, agriculture,
and water resources; gender and youth; governance and human rights; health; industry and
mineral resources; finance; peace and security; social affairs and solidarity; sport and culture;
trade and customs union; infrastructure, Information technology and biotechnology. 24
The study notes that the “design and functioning of a Union Government as a tool for
integration would have far-reaching implications on the existing institutions and programmes of
the African Union”.25 It further assesses the implications of a Union Government on the organs
of the AU. The most notable impact would be the “need to consider allowing a longer tenure
(about 3 years for example) for the President of the Assembly” of the AU. The President of the
Assembly would also be the unique spokesperson of the Union at world or other special
summits. Therefore the study notes that, “it would be desirable that the function of President be
on a full time basis and could be assigned to a Former Head of State or any distinguished African
with the necessary background and track record for the job”.26 Another notable innovation
would be that “under the Union Government, the AU Commission will be entrusted with the
implementation of decisions, programmes and projects in the Strategic focus areas, which will
constitute the Community Domain”.27 This notion of issues falling under the Community Domain
would assign the Commission with “the executive authority and responsibility to effectively
implement” policies. The study also recognises that “the logic of using the RECs as building
blocks for the eventual deep, continental integration remains valid. The challenge is in aligning,
synchronizing and harmonizing the integration efforts of member states, the RECs themselves,
and the AU”.28
There are also national implications of the establishment of a Union Government. The study
notes that it is vital “to build the necessary constitutency for advancing political integration”. 29 In
this regard, some countries have already set up Ministries in charge of integration and other
countries should follow suit. The study notes that “there is also a need to devise appropriate
mechanisms for legislative implications at the national level” and “the direct involvement of the
people in promoting the Union Government could also be in the form of national associations
or commissions for the United States of Africa”. 30 In terms of financing the Union Government
the study discusses the possibility of establishing indirect taxation schemes particularly with
regards to an import levy and an insurance tax. A meeting of ECOSOCC in March 2005
proposed “imposing a five US dollar tax on each air ticket bought for inter-state travels and 10
US Dollars on each ticket for travelers between Africa and other continents”. 31 Ultimately, the
study is positive about the prospects for a Union Government and outlines 3 phases for the
transition to a Union Government, including:
African Union, Study on an African Union Government: Towards the United States of Africa, p.7.
African Union, Study on an African Union Government: Towards the United States of Africa, p.8.
24 African Union, Study on an African Union Government: Towards the United States of Africa, pp.8-13.
25 African Union, Study on an African Union Government: Towards the United States of Africa, p.14.
26 African Union, Study on an African Union Government: Towards the United States of Africa, p.14.
27 African Union, Study on an African Union Government: Towards the United States of Africa, p.15.
28 African Union, Study on an African Union Government: Towards the United States of Africa, p.28.
29 African Union, Study on an African Union Government: Towards the United States of Africa, p.30.
30 African Union, Study on an African Union Government: Towards the United States of Africa, p.30.
31 African Union, Study on an African Union Government: Towards the United States of Africa, p.31.
22
23
23
1. The initial phase – commencing immediately after the decision of the Assembly at the AU
summit in July 2007. It will include all the steps and processes that are necessary for the
immediate operationalisation of the Union Government.
2. The second phase – will be devoted to making the Union Government fully operational in
all its components and to laying the constitutional ground for the United States of
Africa.
3. The third phase – will aim at the facilitation of all required structures of the United States
of Africa at the levels of states, the regions and the continent. 32
The study recommends a 3-year period for each phase which will mean that the United States of
Africa will be formed by the year 2015. Elections at continental, regional and national levels
would be held, paving the way for the official constitution of the United States of Africa.
The study was considered by the Executive Council at its 9th Extraordinary Session held from 17
to 18 November 2006 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. According to the report of this meeting there
was a view that
1) “all Member States accept the United States of Africa as a common and desirable goal, but
differences exist over the modalities and time frame for achieving this goal and the appropriate
pace of integration, and
2) there is a common agreement on the need for an audit review of the state of the Union in
order to know the areas in which significant improvements have to be made to accelerate the
integration process.
The report of the Executive Council was submitted to the AU Assembly in January 2007 which
decided to devote the July Summit to a Grand Debate.
The Role of Civil Society in Continental Integration
It is important to include people and civil society in this Grand Debate. To what extent are the
majority of African people aware that this debate is going on? If they are not aware, who is
having this conversation on their behalf? How can a Union Government Project succeed if it
does not have the by-in and the support of the people of Africa? Can there be an African Union
Government without African Citizenship? Where are the African citizens in this debate? More
questions than we care to answer. To be fair the AU will convene from 28 to 30 May an allinclusive continental consultation on the Union Government Project, at its headquarters in Addis
Ababa, as part of the preparations towards the Accra meeting. So civil society will have the
opportunity to contribute to this Grand Debate. There is also the issue of the extent to which the
AU is consulting with the wider African public on the issue of the Grand Debate. The AU has
established a website inviting public contributions on this Grand Debate. However, some civil
society activists have argued that an African Union Government is a pipe dream without laying
the foundations for genuine African citizenship.
The Limits of Top-Down Continental Integration
Will the establishment of a United States of Africa (USA) generate accusations of lack of
originality? Some key actors within the AU want to have a US of Africa so that they can rival the
power of other global players. There is nothing wrong with such an objective in principle.
However, there are limits to a US of Africa. Notably, the USA as it is currently framed is:
32
African Union, Study on an African Union Government: Towards the United States of Africa, p.32.
24
1.
2.
3.
4.
a top-down approach to continental integration;
governed by the whimsical will of the leaders of African governments;
has a tendency towards un-democratic practices, like lack of consultation;
through its formulation, which largely excluded African civil society, effectively governed
by the rule of Heads of State and not the continental rule of law.
The objective behind the US of Africa should not be primary one of increasing the level of global
competitiveness of the continent. Rather a primary focus should be on improving the livelihood
of African people as a whole. For this to happen further continental integration has to be
motivated by the founding principles of Pan-Africanism, namely a commitment to democratic
governance, human rights protection and the rule of law. Anti-democratic actors who herald and
proclaim the importance of establishing a United States of Africa, should not be allowed to
replicate the anti-democratic policies and practices at a continental level.
If Africa is striving for genuine continental integration based on progressive principles, we
should perhaps seek to forge a Federal Union of Africa (FUA) rather than a United States of
Africa. This will begin to delineate and demarcate and articulate the founding principles of a
union of African countries and their societies. A Federal Union of Africa should ideally be:
1.
2.
3.
4.
at once federal in nature;
based on the democratic will of its people;
governed through the consent of African people;
governed by the rule of law and the protection of human rights for all African peoples.
Conclusion
In the final analysis, the Grand Debate on the Union Government is indeed welcome. The
injunction that the great Pan-Africanist Kwame Nkrumah left us with is still valid: “Africa must
Unite, or disintegrate individually”. Somehow the Grand Debate captures this spirit and could be
viewed as only the latest incarnation of an attempt to institutionalise Pan-Africanism.
Understanding the motivations between Pan-Africanism will help us to understand this Grand
Debate. But it is also appropriate to question whether the Union Government of Africa Project
will be built on a solid enough foundation to realise the aspirations of Pan-Africanism and
improve the well-being of Africans on the continent and in the Diaspora. The past in this sense
is influencing the present, it remains to be seen whether it will ultimately inform the future.
25
Continental Government from the Perspective of Women
Faiza Jama Mohamed
Faiza Jama Mohamed is the Africa Regional Director of Equality Now and convener
of the Solidarity for African Women’s Rights (SOAWR) Coalition.
Barely two weeks from the time of writing, African Heads of State and Government will be
meeting for their 10th ordinary summit in Accra for a grand debate on the prospects of creating a
government of African States. In the build up to this historic debate, civil society organizations
have been vigorously consulting and busy in awakening public interest in the matter with a view
to maximizing the African public’s participation in the discussion about the added value of
having one government for Africa. Sadly, time has been short and African leaders are moving
ahead with their debate without greater input from the African peoples that they represent. This
brief article is an attempt to bring some of the concerns African women would like their African
leaders to consider in their strive for a United African States (UAS).
One of the advantages of a UAS that has been highlighted a lot is the free movement of peoples
and goods throughout the continent. While dismantling of artificial boundaries created by
colonial powers long ago would be a great welcome to the peoples of Africa, and especially those
who were hindered from freely connecting with their relatives living in the other side of the
border, women in the Upper Volta region of Ghana who are held bondage under the traditional
practice of Trokosi share no joy in this potential euphoria over free movement in the continent.
For those who don’t know of this practice, trokosi in the Ewe language means “slaves of the
gods”. What this tradition entails is that families who have commited crimes have to give away
their virgin daughters to priests so that the gods will be pleased and forgive them of their crimes.
There are two categories of trokosi – those who can be released after serving a specified number
of years (usually 3-5 years) and those who are committed for life. If a girl dies or if the priest
tires of her, her family has to replace her. For serious crimes, families give up generations of girls
in perpetual atonement. In accordance with the tradition, a trokosi who is released can never be
married because she is married for life to the god. Many released trokosi hence remain in
concubinage to the priest for the rest of their lives and when he dies his trokosi are passed on to
his successor. Women and girls who are victims of this practice know of no freedom of their
minds and bodies let alone freedom to travel in their villages. For them, free movement in Africa
as championed for in the continental government proposal will bring no comfort. Though
Ghana has passed a law in 1998 criminalizing the trokosi practice, hundreds of girls and women
are believed to be still held in several shrines. It is ironic that discussion on African unity is being
discussed in Ghana where women and girls are being held as slaves for life! The African leaders
should include seriously looking into and abolishing practices such as trokosi that enslave women
and girls and infringe on their dignity and well-being.
Another advantageous point highlighted in the continental proposal is how Africa will be in a
stronger position in trade agreements with non-Africans; and how this will bring greater benefits
to the peoples of Africa. By and large women remain the majority that till Africa’s productive
lands and thus are responsible for produces that feed Africa and beyond. Alas they remain the
poorest with no control over the lands they till and the crops they harvest. For the African
peoples to prosper it is necessary that African leaders take the logical action to get rid of all the
customary practices that continue to limit women’s potentials to inherit and own land. As they
deliberate on serious discussion on ways to realize the United African States they also need to
recognize the need to have a roadmap for placing women’s economic empowerment in the front
for actualization of Africa’s growth and development.
26
In July 2003, our African leaders adopted the Protocol on the rights of women which aims to
address the many injustices that African women suffer from, including the two discussed above,
and which reduce their potentials to effectively contribute to the development and wellbeing of
the African population. Four years later, only 21 countries (39%) out of the 53 member states of
the African Union have ratified it. The majority of the member states are lagging behind in their
commitment to women to enjoy the rights recognized in the Protocol. This Protocol stands for
the minimum standard of rights that African women would accept and so in their Accra
deliberations the African leaders need not only to reaffirm their commitment to uphold the rights
provided in the Protocol but to also declare that it will be the premise from which African
women’s rights will be advanced. For them to win the confidence of African women that they
can undertake and deliver on huge projects like a continental government, they must first come
out with a plan for the implementation of the articles of the Protocol throughout the continent in
not more than one year period. A United African States will be possible if you have Africa’s
women with you!
27
The African Diaspora in the United States of Africa
Selome Araya
Selome Araya holds an MPH in Forced Migration and Health from Columbia
University. She works with the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement in New York and
is a freelance writer.
“An African, therefore…is one who by accident of history and the reality of geography is
wedded to the African continent. A leading advocate of this concept was Kwame Nkrumah” –
Professor Godfrey N. Uzoigwe33
The current sea of summits and articles about the proposed “United States of Africa” has raised
numerous discussions in regards to its challenges and necessity. While these discussions are
imperative, it is also essential to continue to address another key element: The African Diaspora’s
involvement in the process. As we descend on the next phase of the African Union’s (AU)
summits in Ghana, critical analysis of the African Diaspora’s meaningful contribution must be
integrated from here forward.
The African Diaspora are people of African descent who live outside continental Africa, having
been dispersed around the world through colonialism, the transatlantic slave trade or voluntary
migration. The AU has defined the African Diaspora as "[consisting] of people of African origin
living outside the continent, irrespective of their citizenship and nationality and who are willing
to contribute to the development of the continent and the building of the African Union. 34"
Though the AU proclaims the importance of the African Diaspora’s contribution, the minimal
presence of the Diaspora in the United States of Africa decision-making bodies sparks the
question: Is the United States of Africa being proposed only for those living in the African states
or does it extend to those in the Diaspora as well? Does this unification really include the
contribution of all African people who are willing to participate?
The answer to these questions could potentially be the catalyst to revive the once active plea for
Pan-Africanism. More than unifying the fifty-four states of the African continent, it could serve
as the mechanism to facilitate unity and solidarity amongst a people who are dispersed
throughout the world, yet still connected by their history, ancestry, and bloodlines.
Though it has been adopted and embraced by African state leaders, the notion of a United Africa
has always resonated with Africans in the Diaspora. The concept of a “United States of Africa”
in fact was originated by Jamaican-born leader and activist Marcus Garvey. He first used the
phrase in 1924 to call for the unity of Africans collectively fighting for human rights, resisting
racism and exploitation in all parts of the world. Garvey’s teachings helped to shape the PanAfrican movement, a movement formed in part with the intent to bridge the Diaspora with its
homeland. The Pan-African movement was also influenced by a United States-born African,
W.E.B. Du Bois.
Professor and author Godfrey N. Uziokwe defines Pan-Africanism as “a political movement
initiated by peoples of African descent in the Americas, and later taken over by continental
Africans, which aims to liberate all Africans and people of African descent from the shackles of
33
Uzoigwe, G.N. “Pan-Africanism in World Politics”. Mississippi State University
Murithi, T and Ndigna-Muvumba, A. “Building an African Union for the 21st Century”- Policy
Seminar Report. The Center for Conflict Resolution, Cape Town, South Africa, 2005
34
28
political, economic, cultural, and intellectual domination”1. Ghanaian president and activist Dr.
Kwame Nkrumah and other leaders from the continent later adopted the Pan-African
movement, expanding it to include the decolonization of the African continent politically. At the
first Pan-African Congress to occur in Africa in 1958, Dr. Nkrumah acknowledged the
extraordinary contribution of people of African origin in the Diaspora to Pan-Africanism: "...
Many of them have made no small contribution to the cause of African freedom. Names which
spring immediately to mind in this connection are those of Marcus Garvey, and W.E.B. DuBois.
Long before many of us were even conscious of our own degradation, these men fought for
African national and racial equality”35.
The Pan-African movement solidified the need for global solidarity of people of African descent
to defend their human rights. Inspired by the Diasporic Pan African Movement, Dr. Nkrumah,
Haile Selassie, and others, formed The Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1963 in Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia. However, though the initial Pan-African movement included Africans in the
Diaspora, the OAU began to focus more on continental concerns and did not develop a specific
role for people of the African Diaspora. “While the OAU helped speed the independence of
African nations, it did not reach out to the African Diaspora in a meaningful way”36. This was
first seen during the early stages of the OAU, where members of the Diaspora were largely
absent from the Pan-African meetings.
The OAU transitioned into the AU in 2001, and during this time, “it began the long-awaited
outreach to the African Diaspora”4. The AU verbally recognized the Diaspora as the “6th region
of Africa”, adding it to the other 5 geographical regions on the continent. Article 3 (q) of the
AU’s Constitutive Act Amendments states that it shall "invite and encourage the full
participation of the African Diaspora as an important part of our Continent, in the building of
the African Union”37. One of these attempts included the creation of the Diaspora Initiative
within the framework of the OAU, created in 2003 to connect people of spiritual and ancestral
kinship to one another through various mechanisms. In 2006, the AU’s 6th Region Education
Campaign also partnered with the Western Hemisphere Education Campaign (WHADN) in an
initiative to serve as the "interface mechanism" that linked the Diaspora with the AU.
However, while the Diaspora has been invited to conferences and summits, sometimes to merely
“observe”, their role in making decisions within the AU appears to still be minimal. The full
participation of the Diaspora in the development of the United States of Africa has yet to be
conceptualized and there is currently no policy to facilitate the involvement of the Diaspora in
the process. In addition, although the AU’s Constitutive Act states that it will include the
Diaspora in its processes, there have been no written policy changes. “Examination of the
Amendment, Article "q" to the Constitutive Act of the African Union reveals, however, that no
such "significant structural change" has occurred, stated Professor Maurice Tadadjeu in a recent
Nkrumah, K. Portion of a speech given at the First All-African People's Conference. Accra,
Ghana 1958
35
General Report. “1st Africa Union Western Hemisphere Diaspora Forum”. Washington, D.C.
USA, December 17 -19, 2002, http://www.africaunion.org/Special_Programs/CSSDCA/cssdca-firstau-forum.pdf
36
“Protocol on Amendments to the Constitutive Act of the African Union”, http://www.africaunion.org/root/au/Documents/Treaties/Text/Protocol%20on%20Amendments%20to%20the
%20Constitutive%20Act.pdf. 2003
37
29
address to Repatriation News38. This is illustrated through the Diaspora’s inability to join or take
part in an important governmental body in Africa, the Pan-African Parliament (PAP). The
Diaspora currently does not take part in any deliberations. The PAP states that it represents all
people’s of Africa, yet its objectives focus solely on Africans living on the continent and make no
mention of the African Diaspora’s inclusion in or benefit from these objectives. Full participation
of the Diaspora within the AU would mean the Diaspora having seats within the PAP. An
example of how this could be facilitated is by developing a joint body between the AU and a
governmental body in the Diaspora. A policy report entitled “Building an African Union”
suggests that “Existing institutions and organizations in the Diaspora should be integrated with
the AU. A pan- African parliamentary union between the PAP and the US Congressional Black
Caucus (CBC) would be one such Innovation2”.
An attempt at including the voice of all African peoples (the Diaspora) in the AU’s decisionmaking process was with the creation of the Economic, Social and Cultural Council of the
African Union (ECOSOCC) in 2002. The ECOSOCC is to serve as a consultative body and is
working to bring together civil society groups, including some from the Diaspora, to work with
the AU. In regards to the United States of Africa, this body is intended to serve as a consultancy
at assembly deliberations. Diasporic “representation” and decision-making within the
ECOSOCC, however, doesn’t equate to the Diaspora having decision-making power within the
AU or its United States of Africa government. However, the ECOSOCC claims that this
consultative body will play an active role in partnership with African governments to “contribute
to the principles, policies and programs of the Union”. Dr. Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem, GeneralSecretary of the Pan-African Movement in Kampala Uganda and Co-Director of Justice Africa,
however, believes that the Diaspora’s role is not quite as active as it appears. He states, “Even at
the launch of the General Assembly (of the ECOSOCC) the few Diaspora persons there were
mere observers39.”
Mutually Beneficial Relationship and Solidarity
The call for the African Diaspora’s full participation in the formation of a United Africa may
cause some to wonder, why is the Diaspora’s full participation important and who would benefit
from such a relationship?
The theme of a proposed global summit in South Africa focusing on the unity of Africa and the
Diaspora provides an overall response to this inquiry. Entitled "Towards the Realization of a
United and Integrated Africa and its Diaspora", this summit will aim at producing "a shared
vision of sustainable development for both the African continent and the millions of people
around the world who share an African heritage”40. The participants of this summit are calling
for a global dialogue regarding regional development and integration, economic co-operation,
and historical, socio-cultural and religious commonalities.
Tadadjeu, M. Report to the African Diaspora RE: AU 6th Region & ECOSOCC Elections.
Repatriation News, http://www.rastaites.com/repatriationnews/28repatriation.htm
38
Tajudeen, A R. “Potential conflict of interest in Nobel Laureate's appointment to AU”.
Pambazuka News, http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/panafrican/27619-tajudeen, April
2005
40 Dlamini-Zuma, N. “SA Moves To ‘Rekindle Flames Of African Solidarity”. Pambazuka News,
AU Monitor.
http://www.pambazuka.org/aumonitor/index.php/AUMONITOR/comments/sa_moves_to_r
ekindle_flames_of_african_solidarity_says_dlamini_zuma/, May 2007
39
30
There are over 150 million people in the Diaspora who not only could play a role in
strengthening Africa’s development and attempt at unification, but who could also greatly benefit
from a united Africa. In essence, a mutually beneficial relationship would result from the
Diaspora taking part in the development of a United States of Africa. Revived Pan-African
solidarity between Africa and the Diaspora would create partnerships needed to address issues of
global concern and provide mutual support as both groups are still weaning off the impact that
western imperialism had (and still has) on both. If the Diaspora and the African’s living on the
continent joined forces with consistent cross-continental relations, support, and inclusion, it
could strengthen the entire African presence and power in the world. Empowering Africans both
at home and abroad is essential in order to address the inequities and imbalances that continue to
bond us by our collective experience of oppression. Through building mutual solidarity,
networking, and mobilization, both continental and Diasporic Africans would gain strength.
According to the Diaspora Initiative within the framework of the AU, the Diaspora can be of
great benefit to the AU through:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Technical support for programs of the African Union
Public education and sensitization of the wider public in their respective regions
Lobbying
Provision of a domestic political constituency for AU goals and objectives
Advocacy
Fund raising and resource mobilization
Resource support through such measures as creation of Endowments amongst others41
As this initiative reflects, the benefit that Africans in the Diaspora could bring to the United
States of Africa is multi-layered. Collectively the Diaspora possesses an economic power that
could greatly assist African economic development initiatives and assist in the continents struggle
to break from the shackles of structural adjustment programs, globalization, and “debts”. The
power that the Diaspora holds could also knock out the devastating chokehold that international
NGO’s have over continental crises. Due to proportionately more access to resources, there is a
wealth of financial, technical and intellectual expertise in the Diaspora. The amount of resources
and education that African’s in the Diaspora have access to could surely help to strengthen the
continental quest at unity, provide support for other concerns affecting Africans on the
continent, as well as developing Africa’s human resource capacity. “The African Diaspora can
play a part in enhancing Africa’s role in the world by promoting the development of the
continent. A genuine engagement by the AU with the Diaspora could enhance Africa’s
negotiating and resource mobilization capacity with the international community”2.
However, on the reciprocal end, the AU could also greatly assist in the struggle of African
people’s globally. At the Pan-African Congress in 1958, Dr. Nkrumah recognized Africa’s unity
as being crucial for the human rights of Africans in the Diaspora to be respected.
“Long may the links between Africa and the peoples of African descent continue to hold us
together in fraternity. Now that we in Africa are marching towards the complete emancipation of
this Continent, our independent status will help in no small measure their efforts to attain full
human rights and human dignity as citizens of their country3."
According to the Diaspora Initiative, the AU can offer the Diaspora:
AU Executive Council. “The Development of the Diaspora Initiative within the Framework of
the OAU/AU”. South Africa, May 2003
41
31
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
A measure of credible involvement in the policy making processes
Some corresponding level of representation
Symbolic identifications
Requirements of dual or honorary citizenship of some sort
Moral and political support of Diaspora initiatives in their respective regions
Preferential treatment in access to African economic undertakings including consultancies,
trade preferences and benefits for entrepreneurs, vis a vis non –Africans
Social and political recognition as evident in invitation to Summits and important meetings
etc.9
The United African governmental body could also show solidarity and provide support for the
many injustices being inflicted on people of African descent throughout the Diaspora. This
includes places like Brazil, the United States of America, Haiti, France and elsewhere, where
people of African descent are suffering from human rights violations exponentially by imperialist
governments.
Speaking from the experience of an African living in the United States of America, we have
repeatedly found ourselves victims of human rights violations and racist oppression by this
government since we arrived here. We are not supported, respected, or represented by this
government and have been mistreated by the government itself. Examples of this include the
continuous unjust murders of African peoples by the state police departments as well as the gross
injustices against African people that preceded and followed Hurricane Katrina in 2005.
Although there have been governments and leaders in Africa who have fully acknowledged the
injustices that are occurring in America and elsewhere, being a part of an African government
would strengthen the Diaspora’s continual struggle for justice. If Africans in America were a part
of the United States of Africa government, they could possibly have a mechanism of support to
hold the United States government accountable for the violations they inflict on people of
African descent. Africans throughout the Diaspora could have a connection to a universal
African government that advocates for drastic changes to be made in regards to the global
mistreatment of people of African descent. In other words, Africans in the Diaspora would have
a government that they feel a part of, instead of one they are in constant combat with.
Just One Struggle
Proclamations about the African Diaspora’s right to play a crucial role in the development of a
United States of Africa also call for an all-inclusive definition of what it means to be African.
Whether you identify as African, Black, being of African origin or descent, African-American,
Caribbean, Afro-Latino, New Afrikan, or an African living abroad, one common trait holds true:
we are all bound by our origination from and lasting connection to the same land. The African
world is bigger than the territory and borders of the continent. It spans the entire globe, and
includes our presence on all seven continents. The linguistic, geographic, and cultural differences
amongst us can’t negate the reality that we are brothers and sisters. Separated by force, we’ve
clearly been fragmented in a myriad of ways. But beyond the borders and boundaries, throwing
away visas and passports, sidestepping our lack of common languages, combating the cowardly
European divide and conquer techniques, and underneath any perceived differences, we are yet
roots from the same tree. This attempted disjointing and cultural destabilization should not be
the excuse for not supporting one another’s struggles for emancipation and freedom. In this case,
realized Pan-African unity could be our channel to justice on the continent and abroad.
32
This common ancestry has made our universal struggles and resistance against oppression one in
the same. Human rights activist and Pan-Africanist El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm X) stated
in his address at the OAU summit in Cairo, Egypt in 1964, “We in America (and elsewhere) are
your long-lost brothers and sisters, and I am here only to remind you that our problems are your
problems”10. He also added, “Since the 22 million of us were originally Africans, who are now in
America, not by choice but only by a cruel accident in our history, we strongly believe that
African problems are our problems and our problems are African problems”10. More than being
bonded by our common African descent, Pan-Africanism was born out of this collective bond to
resist these “powers” in solidarity, hoping to strengthen our calls for justice and accountability.
Shackled by European states and scrambling for civil rights, the only true difference in our
struggle is geographic location.
We (African’s globally) are all continuing to endure various forms of oppression and atrocities
inflicted on us directly, indirectly, institutionally, economically, and even under the guise of
“humanitarian assistance” and development projects. Whether we live in the United States,
Europe, the Caribbean, or Africa, African peoples have been subjected to imperialist policies that
have undermined our worth, dehumanized our souls and attempted to keep us enslaved under
capitalism.
The Diaspora Initiative also recognizes this common African struggle: “Indeed, the activities and
challenges of both continental Africans and Africans in Diaspora continued to impact upon each
other, with history as a common reference point. Those transported across the Atlantic began as
second-class citizens in their new abode just as the establishment of the colonial order of the
African continent relegated their brothers to the same status on the continent. Hence, the quest
for freedom and social emancipation became a shared concern. Africans on both sides of the
Atlantic divide felt the impact of vestigial discrimination in the aftermath of the abolition of the
Slave Trade and the onset of the twentieth century.9”
And so, if Africans in the Diaspora are truly embraced as being African and if the African
struggles globally are acknowledged as being one in the same, their inclusion in the development
of a United States of Africa should be automatic, clearly defined, and truly participatory, and
move beyond observer status. While there have been attempts over the last six years to include
the Diaspora in discussions pertaining to the African Union, a stronger presence in the United
States of Africa must be actualized and written policy on the reciprocal relationship must be
created.
Africa unite!
References
1. Uzoigwe, G.N. “Pan-Africanism in World Politics”. Mississippi State University
2. Murithi, T and Ndigna-Muvumba, A. “Building an African Union for the 21st Century”- Policy
Seminar Report. The Center for Conflict Resolution, Cape Town, South Africa, 2005
X, Malcolm. Portion of a speech at OAU summit in Cairo, Egypt 1964.
http://www.oopau.org/2.html OAU speech 1964
10
33
3. Nkrumah, K. Portion of a speech given at the First All-African People's Conference. Accra,
Ghana 1958
4. General Report. “1st African Union Western Hemisphere Diaspora Forum”. Washington,
D.C.
USA,
December
17
-19,
2002,
http://www.africaunion.org/Special_Programs/CSSDCA/cssdca-firstau-forum.pdf
5. “Protocol on Amendments to the Constitutive Act of the African Union”, http://www.africaunion.org/root/au/Documents/Treaties/Text/Protocol%20on%20Amendments%20to%20the
%20Constitutive%20Act.pdf. 2003
6. Tadadjeu, M. Report to the African Diaspora RE: AU 6th Region & ECOSOCC Elections.
Repatriation News, http://www.rastaites.com/repatriationnews/28repatriation.htm
7. Tajudeen, A R. “Potential conflict of interest in Nobel Laureate's appointment to AU”.
Pambazuka News, http://www.pambazuka.org/en/category/panafrican/27619-tajudeen, April
2005
8. Dlamini-Zuma, N. “SA Moves To ‘Rekindle Flames Of African Solidarity”. Pambazuka News,
AU Monitor.
http://www.pambazuka.org/aumonitor/index.php/AUMONITOR/comments/sa_moves_to_r
ekindle_flames_of_african_solidarity_says_dlamini_zuma/, May 2007
9. AU Executive Council. “The Development of the Diaspora Initiative within the Framework of
the OAU/AU”. South Africa, May 2003
10. X, Malcolm. Portion of a speech at OAU summit in Cairo, Egypt 1964.
http://www.oopau.org/2.html OAU speech 1964
34
The Economics of African Federation
Kisira Kokelo
Kisira Kokelo is a Pan-Africanist blogger from Kenya who is currently residing in the
British
Virgin
Islands.
His
blog,
African
Federation
Now,
http://africanfederationnow.blogspot.com features postings on Pan-Africanism and
Continental Unity.
A report "Reflections on Africa's historic and current initiatives for political and economic unity"
by the Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research (NISER) in Ibadan attempted to
analyse objectively the economic and socio political impact of African regional integration.
According to NISER: “The hopes for a New International Economic Order (NIEO) arising
from various international socio-economic and political negotiations, particularly after world war
II (1939-1945), became largely misplaced in the 1950s through the 1960s, inter alia, due to the
lopsided socio-economic development pattern which accompanied such negotiations.”
For example, the terms of trade worsened for the world’s primary products producers (mostly
African countries), while it improved for the producers of manufactured goods (industrialised
countries such as the United States of America and the European countries).
Against this background, the progress of such African primary producers, who incidentally
adopted the ‘isolationist’ development approach to their respective national development
programmes, as a whole, was (and is still) nowhere comparable to the progress made in the rest
of the world; particularly in the industrial European countries - producers of manufactured
goods.
The emerging undesirable trends of socio-economic and political developments at both the preand post-colonial periods in the countries of these African primary producers made it clear,
especially within the first decade of these African countries independence that, the development
gap between them and the industrialised countries would continuously widen over time in the
absence of any determined effort, on their part, to reverse the dangerous development trend. In
recognition of the weaknesses in the isolationist development approach to salvage these African
countries from their deplorable development position, about the only realistic option open for
adoption was to take appropriate concerted measures capable of strengthening these African
countries individually and collectively in order to compete more effectively in the global economy
(OAU, 1963).
This initiative came simultaneously with the emergence of well-integrated nations of regional
sizes, notably, the United States of America (USA), the former Union of Soviet Socialist
Republics (USSR) and China.
Probably, the consequential disparity observed between the respective eco-political powers of
these large nations and regional groupings and those of the un-integrated ones combined,
reinforced the African inspiration into initiating the practical move towards regional and subregional economic integration.
Coincidentally, there were instant experiments of this new vogue (economic integration) in
Europe and Latin America, prompted largely by the great concern over economic subordination
and the consequent socio-political insecurity of their respective regions when faced with the
realities of the world giants at their door steps, especially in the 1940s through the 1950s.
35
Given the positive impacts of regional/sub-regional groupings on the Latin American and
European economies, ‘economic integration’ constitutes a vogue as a concrete economic target
for facilitating the attainment of the objectives of “collective self-reliance and self-sustenance”
under an economic regional framework. Thus, in Africa, the lessons of experience from these
experimentations could hardly have escaped the socio-economic and political elites at
independence.
Against this background, regional and sub-regional groupings couched under cooperative
approach to economic development, focussed on collective self-reliance, started springing up in
Africa as well as the developing continents of the world.
In spite of the numerous regional/sub-regional groupings which sprang up amidst abundant
development potentials (human and material resources), the pace and pattern of socio-economic
and political development in the African region, particularly since the early 1980s, became
susceptible to the conclusion that the direction of economic development cannot possibly
guarantee rapid, effective and desirable economic transformation (Edozien and Osagie, 1982: 97118).
This has culminated in what many analysts on African economic development define as: African
countries declining GDP, high stagflation pressures, food crisis and heavy burden of external
debts (Phillips, 1989).
In recognition of the foregoing development problems in Africa, the existing
regional/subregional groupings have for about two decades of policy reforms in the region,
initiated the move to redress the indicators of economic decline. This has therefore created an
inspiration for renewed interest in regional integration as a strategy for dealing with the deeprooted structural problems in the African region.
Based on the “Washington Consensus” of trade liberalisation, stable macroeconomic policy,
getting prices right, and minimal government interference within the globalising world, more
emphasis tend to be place on the opening up of African economies to international competition
to return African countries to a path of sustainable growth.
Incidentally, economic growth mostly in the 1990s weakened due to such exogenous
developments as drought and floods in various parts of the continent, declining aid and
weakening commodity prices. In this regard, current growth rates in African countries are not
enough to arrest Africa’s long-standing economic decline or have much effect on widespread
poverty (UNCTAD, 1998).
With marginal results of integrative arrangements in Africa, thus far, the “Washington
Consensus” acknowledges that:
(1) policy must reflect the fact that with economic liberalisation, markets may not emerge on
their own, and may be sub-optimal if they do;
(2) policy must recognise and address directly structural constraints and institutional limitations if
incentives are to be translated into a vigorous supply response through new investment for the
expansion and rationalisation of production;
(3) in addition to the traditional challenges, governments now must cope with unprecedented
acceleration of technological change and the consequences of globalisation as the new global
economy does not benefit all countries equally.
36
On the basis of the foregoing acknowledgment has been the renewed interest in regional
economic integration in Africa as a means of overcoming the constraints in individual countries
related to their small size, market limitations and other structural problems.
The NISER report recognizes the changing political and social landscape in Africa. In the 1990s
many African countries successfully pursued political and social reforms that resulted in a much
transformed political and social landscape. Entrenched democratic and personal freedoms and a
socially conscious pursuit of transparency. Most of these initiatives were homegrown mass
movements. A new wave of liberation.
NISER reports that: In actual fact, the notion of good governance has assumed a central position
in the discussions of Africa’s democratisation process.
Although, corruption and nepotism have played a destructive role in many of the African
societies in the past, these issues are currently being attended to by many of the African
Governments.
Moreover, policy stability and harmonisation that can lead to rapid development are now being
taken into consideration.
In short many African societies have now realised that apart from economic gains from
democratisation alongside liberalisation and globalisation, there are increasing political gains that
can be achieved toward regional integration in terms of political stability of member states.
Also, regional integration has been seen by many Independent African States as impetus to
possible solution to the continent’s deep and prolonged economic and social crisis.
Anaysis of preconditions
The NISER report analyses the prevailing conditions in Africa which may be beneficial to the
integration efforst that African countries are currently pursuing.
Major among such preconditions are that:
1. The union must be made up of countries of equal socio-economic importance/status to avoid
the fear of possible dominance - in religion, wealth, endowment, size, population etc.
2. The size of each of the members of the union must not be so large as to permit any one of
them independently to contemplate an essentially national policy of industrialization as an
alternative to regional coordination.
A critical examination of these preconditions shows that they are indeed appropriate and
desirable for the African region often defined as a region aspiring for collective socio-economic
development in diversity-social, cultural, physical and religious matters.
Conclusion
Recently, regional unity is seen in Africa as a possible solution to the continent’s deep and
prolonged economic and social crisis. Also, it is seen as a means of breaking the confines of the
nation-state as well as removing the multiple socio-economic barriers and thus, opening the
African economies to external competition through trade and exchange competition.
37
A new Africa is beginning to take shape. Many of the Independent African States have been
democratised. Also, a number of them have liberalised their economies. In addition, regional
integration as well as globalisation are becoming fast recognised and accepted in many African
countries. In actual fact, African societies are becoming more open due to the positive effects of
democratisation, economic reforms and globalisation.
Given the fact that the long run prospects for rapid development of African nations lie in their
success in achieving political and economic unity among and between themselves, the important
question is how African countries can successfully achieve regional unity?
That is, what are the challenges facing the African societies in their attempt at regional
integration?
The first assignment for the African nations is to sustain the current impacts of democracy. That
is, democratisation - cum- liberalisation on the internal front in terms of continued struggle for
individual democratic freedoms and rights should be vigorously pursued.
In addition to this, African nations should form themselves into a single regional trade and
exchange co-operation to deal with other multilateral trading blocks such as EU, WTO, etc.,
rather than the current polarised regional organisations.
In actual fact, forming themselves into a single trading block will enable them not only to speak
with one voice but also make them to negotiate with other multilateral trading blocks with
unified terms of reference.
Moreover, problems of financing several (polarised) regional trade and economic cooperative
groupings such as SADC, COMESA, SACU, EAC, IOC, ECOWAS, WAEMU, UEMOA,
IGAD CEAO, etc., will be solved through the formation of a single regional trade and economic
cooperation.
Further, forming themselves into one regional block will further reduce armed conflicts in several
African countries.
In conclusion, regional integration will be the focus of the world economy for a long time to
come. Against this background, Africa’s future initiatives should be developed to further
consolidate the gains that have been achieved.
38
The United States of Africa: The challenges
Demba Moussa Dembele
Demba Moussa Dembele is Director, African Forum on Alternatives based in Dakar.
“Africa must unite or perish!” Kwame Nkrumah
This year marks the 50th anniversary of the independence of Ghana, the first sub-Saharan
African country to break from the dreadful colonial yoke. It was under the leadership of
President Kwame Nkrumah, enlightened, visionary and Pan Africanist leader, who devoted time
and energy to liberating other African countries. Nkrumah fought tirelessly for the unity of
African countries into a single African Federal State. He was convinced that the newly
independent countries needed to unite to liberate other African countries and lay the ground for
their economic emancipation. He understood that a divided Africa would still remain under
domination and be an easy prey for global capitalism.
It is in part for his vision and far-sightedness that the Anglo-American imperialism co-opted
Ghanaian felons to stage a coup that toppled Nkrumah and sent him into exile until his death.
But Nkrumah’s vision and dream did not die with him. Quite the contrary: they remained very
much alive throughout the years. As Africa got deeper into crisis, as its external dependence
worsened, bordering on the threat of re-colonization, Nkrumah was largely vindicated while the
proponents of ‘balkanization’ were completely discredited.
An illustration of this is the foundation of the African Union (AU) in 2001 and the decision of
the Heads of State and Government to move toward the United States of Africa by the year
2015. This is a fitting tribute to the memory of President Nkrumah!
But the road to realizing this dream faces great hurdles, both externally and internally. In
particular, the current world system, characterized by an increasing militarization of neoliberal
globalization, presents overwhelming challenges for the African continent.
A) The challenge of globalization
The decision comes at a time when corporate-led globalization has entailed very high costs for
the African continent, as a result of the acceleration of trade and financial liberalization and
privatization of national assets to the benefit of multinational corporations. Trade liberalization,
combined with western countries’ disguised or open protectionism and subsidies, resulted in the
deterioration of sub-Saharan Africa’s terms of trade. Trade liberalization alone has cost the
region more than $270 billion over a 20-year period, according to Christian Aid (2005). An
illustration of these costs is Ghana, which lost an estimated $10 billion. According to Christian
Aid, it is as if the entire country had stopped working for 18 months! Capital flight, fuelled by
trade and financial liberalization, has reached alarming proportions, estimated at more than half
of the continent’s illegitimate external debt, according to the Commission for Africa (2005).
The privatization of State-owned enterprises and public services has resulted in a massive
transfer of the national patrimony to foreign hands, precisely to western multinational
corporations. This, combined with the illegitimate and unbearable external debt, has deepened
external domination and increased the transfer of wealth from Africa to western countries and
multilateral institutions, as acknowledged by the Commission for Africa (2005), put together by
the British Prime Minister, Tony Blair. And members of the Commission had reliable sources to
back up their claim, since Britain is one of the main beneficiaries of this transfer of wealth.
Quoting a study published in 2006 by Christian Aid, Archbishop Ndungane (2006) indicated that:
39
'Britain took away far more money from sub-Saharan Africa than it gave in aid and debt relief last
year, despite pledges to help the region. In all, it took away £27 billion from Africa. In the 12
months since an annual Group of Eight (G8) summit in Scotland last July, the British economy
gained a net profit of more than £11 billion ($20.3 billion) from the region. The charity
calculated that almost £17 billion flowed from Britain to sub-Saharan Africa in the past year,
including donations, remittances from salaries earned by Africans in Britain and foreign direct
investments. At the same time, more than £27 billion went in the opposite direction, thanks to
debt repayments, profits made by British companies in Africa and imports of British goods and
capital flight.'
This is just one example of the financial hemorrhage hurting Africa. This is compounded by the
‘brain drain’, which has deprived Africa of thousands of highly trained workers in all fields. The
World Health Organization (2006) says that more than 25% of doctors trained in Africa work
abroad in developed countries. About 30,000 highly skilled Africans leave the continent each year
for the United States and Europe. Still according to Archbishop Ndungane (2006), in the US
alone
'African immigrants are the highest educated class in the range of all immigrants…there are over
640,000 African professionals in the US, over 360,000 of them hold PhDs, 120,000 of them
(from Nigeria, Ghana, Sudan and Uganda) are medical doctors. The rest are professionals in
various fields – from the head of research for US Space Agency, NASA, to the highest paid
material science professors. ...'
B) The challenge of the US 'War on Terror'
The challenge posed by neoliberal policies to Africa will be aggravated by the militarization of
globalization, with the doctrine of ‘pre-emptive strike’ adopted by the Bush Administration. One
of the tragic illustrations of this doctrine is the illegal aggression and occupation of Iraq with the
numerous crimes against Humanity committed by the occupying forces the world has been
witnessing since the invasion. Another illustration of that doctrine is the threat of war against
other sovereign countries, such as Iran, North Korea or Syria.
These aggressions and threats are part of what the US imperialism calls 'war on terror'. The Bush
Administration is attempting to draw African countries into that strategy, which poses an even
greater threat to Africa’s security and development. Since 2002, the US government has put
together a special program, named “PanSahel”, whose stated objective is to train the armed
forces of the countries involved to enable them to track down groups supposed to be linked to
Al Qaeda.
The recent announcement of the creation of a US military command for Africa - Africa
Command (AfriCom) - is a major step toward expanding and strengthening the US military
presence in Africa through more aggressive policies to enlist support from African countries for
its 'war on terror'. According to George W. Bush, 'the new command will strengthen our security
cooperation with Africa and create new opportunities to bolster the capabilities of our partners in
Africa.”
In reality, the objectives of the Africa Command are to be found in the US drive for global
dominance and its growing appetite for Africa’s oil. US imperialism seeks to protect oil supply
routes and American multinational corporations involved in oil and mineral extraction. In fact,
several studies have forecast that the United States may depend for up to 25% of its needs on
crude oil from Africa over the next decade or so. One clear sign of this trend is that several US
oil companies are investing billions of dollars in oil-producing countries, notably in the Gulf of
Guinea region. Thus, oil is one the main driving forces behind the US activism on the continent.
40
It has nothing to do with Africa’s ‘security’. On the contrary, this is likely to increase the
insecurity of the continent!
Therefore, the US strategy aims to secure strategic positions in Africa by using the threat of
“terrorism” to gain military facilities and bases to protect its interests. The countries which accept
to cooperate with the US may become more and more dependent on the US and inevitably on
NATO for their “security”. They will be forced to provide military bases or facilities for US
forces and serve as a canon fodder in the US ‘war on terror’, as Ethiopia has done in Somalia.
The US strategy will sow more divisions among African countries and undermine the goal of
African Unity.
C) Internal challenges
To the challenges posed by the global context described above one should add the internal
challenges facing African countries.
As indicated above, the neoliberal policies imposed by the IMF and World Bank and the violence
of corporate-led globalization have further weakened Africa. The principal characteristic of the
continent is its weakness and divisions, despite the foundation of the African Union and the
adoption of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD). The divisions are
ideological and political. Neo-colonial ties are still strong with former colonial powers. There are
still many foreign military bases and facilities on the continent. Several countries still depend on
western countries for their “security”. France is intervening in the Central African Republic in an
attempt to help the government push back attacks by rebel groups.
A similar operation took place a few months ago to help the Chadian government repel a rebel
attack that threatened some parts of the capital. These countries are home to foreign military
bases and have signed defense agreements with their ‘protectors’. These military bases are also
used to launch criminal aggressions against other African countries, as the United States did
when it launched air strikes against innocent civilians in Somalia from their air base in Djibouti!
France is using its military bases in West Africa – Senegal and Togo- to destabilize Cote d’Ivoire.
These examples underscore the vulnerability of the continent and the fragile nature of many
States, some of which have all but collapsed, in large part as a result of structural adjustment
policies. Africa’s vulnerability is also reflected in the widespread poverty affecting its population,
in the deterioration of the health and educational systems and in the inability of many States to
provide basic social services for their citizens. Poverty is the result of policies imposed by the
IMF and World Bank, using the pretext of the illegitimate debt with the complicity of African
governments. This has aggravated economic, financial, political dependence on western countries
and multilateral institutions. Food dependency has dramatically increased. According to the FAO
and other UN agencies, more than 43 million Africans suffer from hunger, which kills more
people than HIV/AIDS, malaria and tuberculosis combined! As a result, Africa spends billions
of dollars in food imports, paid for by credits and ‘aid’ from western countries and multilateral
institutions.
The external dependency and the extreme vulnerability of the continent are also reflected in the
surrender of economic policies to the World Bank and western “experts” by many countries.
II) Can Africa overcome these challenges?
In view of these formidable challenges, building the United States of Africa may seem an
impossible task, a Promethean undertaking. Indeed, one should be skeptical about the ability and
41
willingness of current African leadership to build a genuine African unity. Because not only are
the odds overwhelming but also past experience does not show any sign of optimism. Therefore,
if African leaders are really serious about achieving this noble objective, they need to make tough
and courageous decisions.
A) Need for political will
The document on the United States of Africa, published by the African Union (2006) claims: 'it
should be realized that what unites Africans far surpasses what divides them as a people' (page 8).
Yet, this did not translate into a political will to overcome their divisions and move toward
strengthening African unity. Therefore, what African leaders need first and foremost is the
political will to make the tough decisions and the courage and determination to implement them.
In reality, the decision to establish the United States of Africa is the latest in a long series of
decisions and agreements, most of which were never implemented. Some of the agreements on
regional integration are more than 30 years old, but they are still lagging behind for lack of
genuine will to implement them. The slow pace of integration and lack of solidarity is a reflection
of the unwillingness of many African leaders to place the fundamental interests of the continent
above national or even personal interests in order to move decisively toward genuine unity and
cooperation.
The lack of political will is better illustrated by the fate of key documents adopted over several
decades and that should have strengthened African unity and laid the foundations for the United
States of Africa. Think of the Lagos Plan of Action (LPA), adopted in 1980 and which was
quickly forgotten in favor of the IMF and World Bank-imposed structural adjustment programs
(SAPs). Think of the African Alternative Framework, which was among the first documents to
level a devastating critique of SAPs in 1989. Think of the Arusha Charter for Popular
Participation in Development and Social Transformation, adopted in 1990 and which contains a
blueprint for citizen participation in the design and implementation of public policies within a
democratic and participatory decision-making process. Think of the 1991 Abuja Treaty, for the
creation of the African Economic Community. This list is not exhaustive. Yet, when some
African leaders proposed NEPAD in 2001, it made a scant mention of these documents. Instead,
it attempted to rehabilitate failed and discredited neoliberal policies.
B) Freeing the African mind
The political will has an ideological dimension, which is the need for African leaders to free their
minds and understand once for all that they must take responsibility for their own development.
No country or group of countries, no international institution, no amount of external ‘aid’ will
ever ‘develop’ Africa. Likewise, no foreign country, no matter how powerful, will ever guarantee
the ‘security’ of African countries. It is therefore illusory to assume that the United States, France
or Britain will provide ‘security’ for Africa! Quite the contrary: these countries’ interest is to see a
weak, divided and defenseless Africa. African countries must take responsibility for their own
collective security! In this regard, African governments must close down all foreign military bases
and scrap all defense agreements signed with former colonial powers and US imperialism.
Furthermore, African governments must end their allegiance to neo-colonial institutions, such as
‘Francophonie’, Commonwealth and so forth.
C) An enlightened leadership
For these dramatic changes to take place, Africa needs an enlightened and visionary leadership,
who would listen to the voices of the people. This also means promoting leaders who are
accountable to their own citizens, not to outside powers or institutions, as is the case in many
countries. Furthermore, Africa needs leaders who can define an agenda consistent with Africa’s
42
interests, not let someone else do it in their place. In other terms, African leaders must no more
accept that others speak or define policies in their place for their continent. A case in point is the
US “war on terror”. As indicated earlier, some countries are supporting the US agenda. But
fighting ‘terrorism’ is not a priority for Africa. The continent has other priorities, which have
nothing to do with terrorism.
D) Involve the African people
So far, African leaders seem to have forgotten the African people in the conception and
implementation of their agreements. To overcome the challenges outlined above, African leaders
must understand that they must move from a union of States to a union of peoples. This means
that the success of the United States of Africa depends on putting African the people at the
center of the project. The popular participation in decision-making and implementation of public
policies, as called for by the Arusha Charter, is a critical factor in building a genuine and strong
Union. This seems to be understood by the document published by the African Union (2006),
which says that 'the Union Government must be a Union of the African people and not merely a
Union of States and Governments' (page 4).
This seems to be just a lip service paid to the idea of popular participation, because so far, there
are no concrete steps to make it a reality. Despite the establishment of some institutions, like the
Economic, Social and Cultural Council (ECOSOCC), the people have no say in the decisions of
the Union. To achieve a genuine Union of the African people, the first step should be to allow a
free movement of people –on the continent and in the Diaspora- throughout the continent. It is
unthinkable to build the United States of Africa by keeping the current borders in place and
limiting the free flow of African citizens across the continent. The building of the Union must be
rooted in the mobilization of the African masses across the artificial borders set by former
colonial powers in order to divide and weaken the African people.
III) Conclusion
The paper has reviewed the challenges facing Africa in its attempt to build the United States of
Africa. External factors, such as the high costs of neoliberal globalization and the US ‘War on
Terror’, are likely to hamper African efforts at unity and independence. These external factors
take advantage of Africa’s internal weaknesses and tend to aggravate them.
But does the current African leadership have the capacity and will to overcome the internal and
external challenges in the process of building the United States of Africa? It is doubtful. Most of
current African ‘leaders’ take their orders from western capitals and have surrendered their
policies to the IMF, the World Bank and the World Trade Organization. In the words of the late
Professor Joseph Ki-Zerbo (1995), these are ' "leaders" with frightened minds' who can only
'imitate” their western masters. How can anyone trust such ‘leaders’, some of whom contemplate
providing military bases to the United States in the name of fighting 'terrorism'?
The building of the United States of Africa requires a new leadership with the political will to
follow through their commitments. This means promoting a new type of leadership in Africa,
imbued with the ideals of Pan Africanism, genuinely dedicated to the unity, independence and
sovereignty of the continent and to promoting the welfare of their citizens. It is a visionary
leadership, like Nkrumah and others of his generation. A leadership who refuses Africa’s
enslavement and will never accept that others speak or define policies for Africa.
So, building the United Sates of Africa requires a different kind of leadership with decolonized
minds, who are willing to stand up to foreign domination, who would listen to their own citizens
and promote policies aimed at recovering Africa’s sovereignty over its resources and policies. In
43
other words, the success of such undertaking requires a leadership imbued with the values and
ideals of Pan Africanism and genuinely committed to the unity, independence and sovereignty of
Africa.
References
African Union (2006). A Study on an African Union Government. Towards the United States of
Africa. Addis Ababa
Christian Aid (2005). The economics of failure. The costs of ‘free’ trade for poor countries.
London
Commission for Africa (2005). Our Common Interest. London (March)
Ki-Zerbo, Joseph (1995), Which Way Africa? Reflections on Basil Davidson’s The Black Man’s
Burden.
Ndungane, Njongonkulu, “A CALL TO LEADERSHIP: The role of Africans in the
Development Agenda”. Harold Wolpe Memorial Lecture (30 November 2006), Howard College
Campus, University of KwaZulu-Natal
New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD)
44
Les Etats-Unis d’Afrique : Les Défis
Demba Moussa Dembele
Demba Moussa Dembele est Directeur du Forum Africain des Alternatives qui est basé à
Dakar.
'L’Afrique doit s’unir ou périr!' Kwame Nkrumah
Cette année marque le 50ème anniversaire de l’indépendance du Ghana, le premier pays de
l’Afrique sub-saharienne à briser le joug terrible du colonialisme. Il était sous la direction du
Président Kwame Nkrumah, dirigeant éclairé, visionnaire et panafricaniste, qui a sacrifié son
temps et son énergie pour la libération des autres pays africains. Nkrumah a lutté sans relâche
pour l’unité des pays africains au profit d’un seul Etat Fédéral Africain. Il était convaincu que les
pays fraîchement indépendants avaient besoin de s’unir pour libérer les autres pays africains et
jeter les bases de leur émancipation économique. Il comprenait qu’une Afrique divisée resterait
toujours sous la domination et serait une proie facile au capitalisme mondial.
C’est en partie à cause de sa vision et de son aptitude de voir loin quel’ impérialisme angloaméricain a coopté des criminels ghanéens afin qu’ils simulent un coup qui a fait chuter Nkrumah
et l’a envoyé en exil jusqu’à sa mort. Mais la vision et le rêve de Nkrumah ne sont pas morts avec
lui. Tout au contraire: ils sont restés très vivants tout au long des années. Au fur et à mesure que
l’Afrique s’enfonçait dans la crise, comme sa dépendance de l’extérieur s’empirait, allant au bord
de la menace d’être re-colonisée, Nkrumah fut largement revendiqué tandis que les adeptes de la
« balkanisation » étaient complètement discrédités.
Une illustration de ceci est la fondation de l’Union Africaine (UA) en 2001 et la décision des
Chefs d’Etats et de Gouvernements d’avancer vers les Etats-Unis d’Afrique d’ici l’an 2015. Il
s’agit ici d’honorer comme il faut la mémoire du Président Nkrumah!
Mais la route de concrétiser ce rêve fait face à de grands obstacles, aussi bien externes
qu’internes. En particulier, le système mondial actuel, caractérisé par une militarisation croissante
de la mondialisation néo-libérale, présente des défis écrasants pour le continent africain.
A) Le défi de mondialisation
La décision intervient au moment où la mondialisation dirigée par des entreprises a entraîné des
coûts très élevés pour le continent africain, à la suite de l’accélération de la libéralisation
commerciale et financière et de la privatisation des biens nationaux au profit des sociétés
multinationales. La libéralisation commerciale, combinée avec le protectionnisme et les
subventions à peine voilés ou ouverts des pays occidentaux, a eu pour conséquence la
détérioration des termes de l’échange en Afrique sub-saharienne. La libéralisation commerciale a
à elle seule coûté à la région plus de 270 milliards de dollars EU sur une période de 20 ans, selon
Christian Aid (2005).
Une illustration de ces coûts concerne le Ghana, qui a perdu un montant qu’on estime à 10
milliards de dollars EU. Selon Christian Aid, c’est comme si l’ensemble du pays avait cessé de
travailler pendant 18 mois! La fuite des capitaux, attisée par la libéralisation commerciale et
financière, a atteint des proportions alarmantes, que l’on estime à plus de la moitié de la dette
extérieure illégitime, selon la Commission pour l’Afrique (2005).
La privatisation des entreprises Etatiques et des services publics a eu pour résultats le transfert
énorme du patrimoine national dans les mains des étrangers, précisément dans les mains des
sociétés multinationales occidentales. Combiné avec la dette extérieure illégitime et insupportable,
45
ceci a approfondi la domination extérieure et augmenté le transfert de l’Afrique des richesses vers
les pays et les institutions multilatérales occidentaux, comme l’a reconnu la Commission pour
l’Afrique (2005)qu’a rassemblée le Premier Ministre britannique, Tony Blair. Et les membres de la
Commission disposaient de sources crédibles pour appuyer leur déclaration, puisque la Bretagne
est l’un des principaux bénéficiaires de ce transfert de richesses. Citant une étude publiée en 2006
par Christian Aid, l’Archevêque Ndungane (2006) a indiqué que:
« La Bretagne a emporté de loin plus d’argent de l’Afrique sub-saharienne qu’elle n’a accordé
sous forme d’aide et de relèvement de dette l’année dernière, malgré les promesses d’aider la
région. En tout, elle a pris de l’Afrique 27 milliards de livres sterling. En 12 mois depuis le
sommet annuel du Groupe des Huit (G8)en Ecosse en juillet dernier, l’économie britannique a
gagné un profit net de plus de 11 milliards de livres sterling (20,3 milliards de dollars EU) de la
région. La charité a fait le calcul selon lequel environ 17 milliards de livres sterling ont coulé de la
Bretagne vers l’Afrique sub-saharienne au cours de l’année dernière, y compris les dons, les
transferts de salaires gagnés par des Africains en Bretagne et les investissements directs étrangers.
En même temps, plus de 27 milliards de livres sterling sont partis dans le sens inverse, grâce aux
paiements de la dette, aux bénéfices réalisés par des compagnies britanniques en Afrique et aux
importations des biens britanniques et la fuite des capitaux. »
Ceci constitue juste un exemple de l’hémorragie financière dont souffre l’Afrique. Ceci est rendu
complexe par la « fuite des cerveaux », qui a privé l’Afrique de milliers de travailleurs hautement
qualifiés dans tous les domaines. L’Organisation Mondiale de la Santé (2006) indique que plus de
25% de médecins formés en Afrique travaillent à l’étranger dans les pays développés. A peu près
30.000 Africains hautement doués quittent le continent chaque année pour les Etats-Unis et
l’Europe. Toujours selon l’Archevêque Ndungane (2006), pour ne fût-ce que les Etats-Unis,
« Les immigrants africains constituent la classe la plus éduquée parmi les catégories de tous les
immigrants…il y a plus de 640.000 professionnels africains aux Etats-Unis, plus de 360.000
d’entre eux sont détenteurs de doctorats, 120.000 d’entre eux (en provenance du Nigeria, du
Ghana, du Soudan et de l’Ouganda) sont des docteurs en médecine. Le reste sont des
professionnels dans divers domaines – qui vont du chef de recherche pour l’Agence Spatiale des
Etats-Unis, la NASA, aux professeurs de science matérielle les mieux payés. ...'
B) Le défi de la « guerre » des Etats-Unis « contre le Terrorisme »
Le défi posé par les politiques néo-libérales pour l’Afrique seront aggravés par la militarisation de
la mondialisation, avec la doctrine de « frappe préventive » adoptée par l’administration Bush.
L’une des illustrations tragiques de cette doctrine est l’agression et l’occupation illégales de l’Irak
avec les nombreux cas de crimes contre l’humanité commis par les forces de l’occupation que le
monde a observés depuis l’invasion. Une autre illustration de cette doctrine est la menace de
guerre contre d’autres pays souverains tels que l’Iran, la Corée du Nord ou la Syrie.
Ces agressions et menaces font partie de ce que l’impérialisme américain appelle « guerre contre
le terrorisme ». L’administration Bush est en train d’essayer d’attirer les pays africains vers cette
stratégie, ce qui pose une menace même plus grande pour la sécurité et le développement de
l’Afrique. Depuis 2002, le gouvernement américain a rassemblé un programme spécial appelé «
PanSahel » dont l’objectif déclaré est de former les forces armées des pays qui sont impliqués en
vue de leur permettre de mettre la main sur les groupes supposés avoir des liens avec Al Qaeda.
Le communiqué récent de la création d’un commandement militaire américain pour l’Afrique –
dénommé « Africa Command (AfriCom) » – est un pas majeur vers l’expansion et le
renforcement de la présence militaire américaine en Afrique à travers des politiques plus
agressives pour enregistrer le soutien de la part des pays africains dans sa « guerre contre le
46
terrorisme ». Selon George W. Bush, « le nouveau commandement va renforcer notre
coopération en matière de sécurité avec l’Afrique et créer de nouvelles opportunités de revigorer
les capacités de nos partenaires en Afrique ».
En réalité, les objectifs de l’Africa Command sont à trouver dans l’ambition américaine de
domination mondiale et dans l’appétit croissant des Etats-Unis pour le pétrole africain.
L’impérialisme américain cherche à protéger les routes de livraison de pétrole et les sociétés
multinationales américaines impliquées dans l’extraction du pétrole et des minerais. En fait,
plusieurs études ont annoncé par anticipation que les Etats-Unis pourraient dépendre de
l’Afrique pour jusqu’à 25% de leurs besoins en pétrole brut pendant la prochaine décennie ou à
peu près. Un signe clair de cette tendance est que plusieurs compagnies pétrolières américaines
sont en train d’investir des milliards de dollars dans les pays producteurs de pétrole, notamment
dans la région du Golfe de Guinée. Ainsi, le pétrole constitue l’une des forces principales
dominantes derrière l’activisme des Etats-Unis sur le continent. Cela n’a rein à voir avec la «
sécurité » de l’Afrique. Au contraire, ceci est susceptible d’augmenter l’insécurité sur le continent!
Ainsi, la stratégie américaine vise à sauvegarder les positions stratégiques des Etats-Unis en
Afrique en se servant de la menace du « terrorisme » en vue de gagner les facilités militaires et les
bases pour protéger leurs intérêts. Les pays qui acceptent de coopérer avec les Etats-Unis
pourraient devenir de plus en plus dépendants des Etats-Unis et inévitablement de l’OTAN pour
ce qui est de leur « sécurité ». Ils seront forcés de donner des bases militaires ou des facilités aux
forces américaines et servir de chair à canon dans la « guerre » des Etats-Unis « contre le
terrorisme » comme l’Ethiopie l’a fait en Somalie. La stratégie américaine va semer davantage de
divisions parmi les pays africains et porter préjudice à l’objectif de l’Unité Africaine.
C) Défis internes
L’on devrait ajouter aux défis posés par le contexte mondial décrit ci-haut les défis internes
auxquels les pays africains font face.
Comme indiqué plus haut, les politiques néo-libérales imposées par le FMI et la Banque
Mondiale et par la violence de la mondialisation dirigée par des sociétés ont davantage affaibli
l’Afrique. La caractéristique principale du continent est sa faiblesse et ses divisions, en dépit de la
fondation de l’Union Africaine et l’adoption du Nouveau Partenariat pour le Développement de
l’Afrique (NEPAD). Les divisions sont idéologiques et politiques. Les liens néo-coloniaux avec
les anciennes puissance coloniales sont toujours forts. Il y a toujours beaucoup de bases et
facilités militaires étrangères sur le continent. Plusieurs pays dépendent toujours des pays
occidentaux pour ce qui est de leur « sécurité ». La France est en train d’intervenir en République
Centre Africaine dans une tentative d’aider le gouvernement à repousser les attaques menées par
des groupes rebelles.
Une opération semblable a eu lieu il y a quelques mois pour aider le gouvernement tchadien à
repousser une attaque de rebelles qui menaçait certaines parties de la capitale. Ces pays abritent
des bases militaires étrangères et ils ont signé des accords de défense avec leurs « protecteurs ».
Ces bases militaires sont aussi utilisées pour lancer des agressions criminelles contre d’autres pays
africains, comme les Etats-Unis l’ont fait lorsqu’ils ont lancé des attaques aériennes contre des
villageois innocents en Somalie à partir de leurs bases aériennes en Djibouti! La France est en
train de se servir de ses bases militaires en Afrique de l’Ouest – le Sénégal et le Togo- pour
déstabiliser la Côte d’Ivoire.
Ces exemples font ressortir la vulnérabilité du continent et la nature fragile de beaucoup d’Etats,
dont certains n’ont fait que chuter, en grande partie comme conséquence des politiques
47
d’ajustement structurels. La vulnérabilité de l’Afrique se reflète également dans la pauvreté
répandue qui affecte sa population, dans la détérioration des systèmes sanitaires et éducationnels
et l’incapacité de beaucoup d’Etats à fournir à leurs citoyens les services sociaux élémentaires. La
pauvreté est le résultat des politiques imposées par le FMI et la Banque Mondiale, en se servant
du prétexte de la dette illégitime avec la complicité des gouvernements africains.
Ceci a été aggravé par la dépendance économique, financière, politique des pays et des
institutions multilatérales occidentaux. Le dépendance alimentaire a augmenté de façon
dramatique. Selon la FAO et d’autres agences onusiènes, plus de 43 millions d’ Africains
souffrent de la faim, qui tue plus de personnes que le VIH /SIDA, le paludisme et la tuberculose
tous ensemble! Comme résultat, l’Afrique dépense des milliards de dollars sur les importations de
nourriture, qui sont payés par les crédits et l’ « aide » de la part des pays et institutions
multilatérales occidentaux.
La dépendance extérieure et la vulnérabilité extrême du continent se reflètent également dans la
soumission aux politiques économiques de la Banque Mondiale et à des « experts » occidentaux
pour beaucoup de pays.
II) L’Afrique peut-elle surmonter ces défis?
Au vu de ces défis redoutables, la construction des Etats-Unis d’Afrique pourrait sembler être
une tâche impossible, une entreprise prométhéenne. En effet, on devrait être sceptique à propos
de l’habileté et de la volonté des dirigeants africains à construire une véritable unité africaine.
Parce que non seulement les obstacles sont accablants mais aussi l’expérience du passé ne montre
aucun signe d’optimisme. Ainsi, si les dirigeants africains sont vraiment sérieux en ce qui
concerne la réalisation de ce noble objectif, ils doivent prendre des décisions sévères et
courageuses.
A) Nécessité de volonté politique
Le document sur les Etats–Unis d’Afrique, publié par l’Union Africaine (2006) prétend: « l’on
devrait se rendre compte du fait que ce qui unit les Africains dépasse de loin ce qui les divise en
tant que gens » (page 8). Pourtant, ceci ne fut pas traduit en une volonté politique de surmonter
leurs divisions et d’avancer vers le renforcement de l’unité africaine. Ainsi, ce dont les dirigeants
africains ont besoin d’abord et avant tout est la volonté politique de prendre les décisions sévères
et le courage et la détermination de les mettre en oeuvre.
En réalité, la décision de créer les Etats-Unis d’Afrique est la toute dernière d’une longue série de
décisions et d’accords, la plupart de ces derniers n’ayant jamais été mis en oeuvre. Certains de ces
accords sur l’intégration régionale datent de plus de 30 ans, mais ils traînent toujours derrière à
cause du manque de réelle volonté de les mettre en oeuvre. La lenteur de l’intégration et le
manque de solidarité sont une réflexion de l’absence de volonté chez beaucoup de dirigeants
africains de placer en avant les intérêts fondamentaux du continent au-dessus des intérêts
nationaux ou même des intérêts personnels afin d’avancer de manière décisive vers une véritable
unité et une véritable coopération.
Le manque de volonté politique s’illustre mieux par le sort des documents –clés adoptés tout au
long de plusieurs décennies et qui auraient renforcé l’unité africaine et jeté les bases des EtatsUnis d’Afrique. Pensez au Plan d’Action de Lagos(PAL) adopté en 1980 et qui fut rapidement
oublié en faveur des programmes d’ajustement structurel imposés par le FMI et la Banque
Mondiale (PAS). Pensez au Cadre Alternatif Africain, qui était parmi les premiers documents qui
ont parlé franchement en faisant une forte critique des PAS en 1989.
48
Pensez à la Charte d’Arusha pour la Participation Populaire au Développement et à la
Transformation Sociale, adoptée en 1990 et qui contient un plan pour la participation des
citoyens dans la conception et dans la mise en œuvre des politiques publiques au sein d’un
processus démocratique et participatif de prise de décisions. Pensez au Traité d’Abuja de 1991,
pour la création de la Communauté Economique Africaine. Cette liste n’est pas exhaustive.
Pourtant, lorsque certains dirigeants africains ont proposé le NEPAD en 2001, il fit à peine
mention de ces documents. Par contre, il a tenté de réhabiliter les politiques néo-libérales qui ont
échoué et qui sont discréditées.
B) Libération de l’esprit africain.
La volonté politique a une dimension idéologique, qui consiste en la nécessité chez les dirigeants
africains de libérer leurs esprits et de comprendre une fois pour toutes qu’ils doivent assumer la
responsabilité de leur propre développement. Aucun pays ni groupe de pays, aucune institution
internationale, aucun volume d’« aide » extérieure ne vont jamais « développer » l’Afrique. De la
même manière, aucun pays étranger, peu importe sa puissance, ne va jamais garantir la « sécurité »
des pays africains.
Il est par conséquent illusoire de supposer que les Etats-Unis, la France ou la Bretagne vont
fournir la « sécurité » à l’Afrique! Juste au contraire: les intérêts de ces pays résident dans une
Afrique faible, divisée et sans moyens de se défendre. Les pays africains doivent prendre la
responsabilité de leur propre sécurité collective! A cet égard, les gouvernements africains doivent
fermer toutes les bases militaires étrangères et mettre au rebut tous les accords convenus en
matière de défense signés avec le anciennes puissances coloniales et l’impérialisme américain. En
outre, les gouvernements africains doivent mettre fin à leur obéissance aux institutions néocoloniales, telles que la « Francophonie », le Commonwealth etc.
C) Une direction éclairée
Pour que ces changements dramatiques aient lieu, l’Afrique a besoin d’une direction composée de
dirigeants éclairés et visionnaires, qui prêtent l’oreille aux voix des gens. Ceci signifie aussi la
promotion de dirigeants qui sont responsables devant leurs propres citoyens, et non aux
puissances et institutions extérieures, comme c’est le cas dans beaucoup de pays. Bien plus,
l’Afrique a besoin de dirigeants qui peuvent définir un programme consistant avec des intérêts de
l’Afrique, et non laisser quelqu’un d’autre le faire à leur place.
En d’autres termes, les dirigeants africains doivent cesser d’accepter que les autres parlent pour le
continent ou définissent ses politiques en leur place. Un exemple à ce sujet est la « guerre » des
Etats-Unis « contre le terrorisme». Comme indiqué ci-haut, certains pays soutiennent le
programme américain. Mais combattre le « terrorisme » ne constitue pas une priorité pour
l’Afrique. Le continent a d’autres priorités qui n’ont rien à faire avec le terrorisme.
D) Implication des Africains
Jusqu’à présent, les dirigeants africains semblent avoir oublié les Africains dans la conception et
la mise en œuvre de leurs engagements. Pour surmonter les défis repris ci-haut, les dirigeants
africains doivent comprendre qu’il faut qu’ils abandonnent l’idée de l’Union des Etats en faveur
de celle de l’Union des peuples. Ceci signifie que le succès des Etats-Unis d’Afrique dépend du
fait de placer au centre du projet les gens de l’Afrique. La participation populaire à la prise de
décisions et à la mise en oeuvre des politiques publiques, comme défendu par la Charte d’Arusha,
est un facteur critique dans la construction d’une Union véritable et forte. Ceci semble être
compris par le document publié par l’Union Africaine(2006), qui indique que « le Gouvernement
49
de l’Union doit être une Union des Africains et pas uniquement une Union des Etats et des
Gouvernements » (page 4).
Ceci semble être juste une prétention face à l’idée de participation populaire, parce que jusqu’à
présent, il n’y a pas de pas concrets pour en faire une réalité. Malgré la création de certaines
institutions, comme le Conseil Economique, Social et Culturel (ECOSOCC), les gens n’ont
aucun mot à dire dans la prise des décisions de l’Union. Afin de réaliser une Union véritable des
Africains, le premier pas devrait être de permettre une circulation libre des gens –sur le continent
et dans la Diaspora- à travers le continent. Il est impensable de construire les Etats-Unis
d’Afrique en laissant en place les frontières actuelles et en limitant la libre circulation des citoyens
africains à travers le continent. La Construction de l’Union doit être enracinée dans la
mobilisation des masses africaines à travers les frontières artificielles mises en place par les
anciennes puissances coloniales en vue de diviser et affaiblir les gens de l’Afrique.
III) Conclusion
Le présent article a passé en revue les défis auxquels l’Afrique fait face dans sa tentative de
construire les Etats-Unis d’Afrique. Des facteurs externes, tels que les coûts élevés de la
mondialisation néo-libérale et la « guerre » des Etats-Unis « contre le terrorisme », sont
susceptibles de bloquer les efforts africains pour l’unité et l’indépendance. Ces facteurs externes
profitent des faiblesses internes de l’Afrique et tendent à les aggraver.
Mais est-ce que les dirigeants africains actuels ont la capacité et la volonté de surmonter les défis
internes et externes dans le processus de construction des Etats-Unis d’Afrique? C’est douteux.
La plupart des « dirigeants » africains actuels reçoivent leurs ordres à partir des capitales
occidentales et ils se sont rendu devant les politiques du FMI, de la Banque Mondiale et de
l’Organisation Mondiale du Commerce. Selon les termes du feu Professeur Joseph Ki-Zerbo
(1995), ces derniers sont des « dirigeants » avec des esprits effrayés qui ne peuvent qu’ imiter leurs
maîtres occidentaux. Comment quelqu’un peut-il faire confiance en de tels « dirigeants », dont
certains envisagent de donner des bases militaires aux Etats-Unis sous le prétexte de combattre le
« terrorisme »?
La construction des Etats-Unis d’Afrique exige une nouvelle direction ayant la volonté politique
de faire le suivi de ses engagements. Ceci signifie promouvoir un nouveau type de direction en
Afrique, imbue des idéaux du panafricanisme, véritablement dévouée pour l’unité, l’indépendance
et la souveraineté du continent et pour la promotion du bien-être de ses citoyens. Il s’agit de
dirigeants visionnaires, à l’instar de Nkrumah et des autres de sa génération. Une direction qui
refuse que l’Afrique soit réduite en esclavage et qui n’acceptera jamais que les autres parlent au
nom de l’Afrique ou qu’ils définissent les politiques pour l’Afrique.
Ainsi, la construction des Etats-Unis d’Afrique requiert une sorte de dirigeants différents dont les
esprits sont décolonisés, qui ont la volonté de se dresser contre la domination étrangère, qui
prêtent oreille à leurs propres citoyens et promeuvent des politiques visant le recouvrement de la
souveraineté de l’Afrique pour ce qui est de ses ressources et politiques. En d’autres termes, le
succès d’unetelle entreprise exige une direction imbue des valeurs et des idéaux du
panafricanisme et véritablement engagée pour l’unité, l’indépendance et la souveraineté de
l’Afrique.
Références
Union Africaine (2006). Etude sur le Gouvernement de l’Union Africaine. Vers les Etats-Unis
d’Afrique. Addis-Abeba
50
Christian Aid (2005). The economics of failure. The costs of ‘free’ trade for poor countries.
Londres (soit, en français, L’économie de l’échec. Les coûts du commerce « libéral »pour les pays
pauvres)
Commission pour l’Afrique (2005). Notre Intérêt Commun. Londres (Mars)
Ki-Zerbo, Joseph (1995), Which Way Africa? Reflections on Basil Davidson’s The Black Man’s
Burden.
Ndungane, Njongonkulu, “A CALL TO LEADERSHIP: The role of Africans in the
Development Agenda”. (soit, en français, “UN APPEL A LA DIRECTION: Le rôle des
Africains dans le Programme de Développement”). Cours de mémoire de Harold Wolpe (30
novembre 2006), Howard College Campus, Université du KwaZulu-Natal
Nouveau Partenariat pour le Développement de l’Afrique (NEPAD)
51
The Essential Building Blocks of the Pan-African Vision
Dr. Issa Shivji
Issa G. Shivji was, until his recent retirement, Professor of Law at the University of Dar
es Salaam where he has been teaching since 1970. He has authored over a dozen books
and numerous articles. His books include Class Struggles in Tanzania (1976), The
Concept of Human Rights in Africa (1989) and Not Yet Democracy: Reforming Land
Tenure in Tanzania (1998).
The African Union has set the stage for a critical debate on pan-African unity. This has deep
resonance with the nationalist struggles that ushered in Africa’s independence. At that time, the
defining theme and rallying cry of the nationalists - from Nkrumah, Nyerere, Banda to Babu was pan-Africanism. African nationalism by definition, they argued, could not be anything other
than pan-Africanism.
The current pan-Africa debate presents an opportune moment for the continent to confront
some of the key challenges facing it, among which is imperialism. African nationalism was born
in the struggle against imperialism. It could only be sustained as long as it remained antiimperialist.
Today, few of our countries can claim to be truly independent. We have no power to make the
most basic of our own decisions. Our sovereignty is sold to the highest bidder. Our foreign
policy is aligned with the super-power. Our laws - ‘made in the IMF’ - are thrust on our
parliamentarians. The multinationals wring out of us outrageous concessions in agreements,
which are ‘top secret’, even from the elected representatives of the people.
The current quest for pan-African unity must acknowledge the threat, and not shy away from the
challenge posed by imperialism. As globalisation, an even more vicious form of imperialism,
engulfs us we need to return to the roots of our independence: the great post-war nationalist
movement which resulted in the independence of more than 50 African countries.
Today, as we sink deep into the uncharted seas of globalisation, and let the shylocks and sharks
of the global market devour our resources and dictate our policies, our societies are being torn
asunder along various parochial fault lines of ethnicity, race, region and clan. If ever there were a
time to rekindle the dream and vision of pan-Africanism, then that time is now.
Even as Africa trails its focus on pan-African unity, one sees reason for hope and promise in
continuing efforts towards regional integration. There are deep historical underpinnings behind
the quest towards regional unity. Pan-Africanist visionaries such as Nkrumah and Nyerere
foresaw the dangers of becoming independent alone.
Mwalimu was for instance prepared to delay the independence of Tanganyika if the four East
African countries (Kenya, Uganda, Tanganyika and Zanzibar) could do it as a federal unit. The
ongoing efforts towards regional integration must therefore be weighed in the context of panAfricanism.
In East Africa, the heads of state have already decided to revive the East African Co-operation
and a treaty has already been agreed. Consultations have now been initiated seeking the people's
views on the creation of an East African federation.
The East African Community, the predecessor of the East African Co-operation, collapsed in the
1970s under the strain of state differences and bitter rivalry among vested interests.
52
This time round, one hopes that the lessons have been learnt and that the mistakes of the past
will not be repeated. The objective must be to place cooperation on a firmer foundation by
adopting better and durable approaches to the issue of unity.
As Africa moves towards consolidating pan-African unity, there are lessons that can be drawn
both from past experience and present initiative towards consolidating regional cooperation in
East Africa.
The old cooperation was characterised by two major thrusts. On the economic plane, it was trade
centred. While on the political plane, it was state driven. Its overall approach was economic
rather than political.
A useful lesson to the pan-African vision is that economic unity needs to be based on a
complementarity of structures. Countries can only cooperate when the issue of economic unity is
approached politically. For instance, a common approach to fixing the prices of agricultural
exports or repayment of debts can be a genuine basis for cooperation. This requires political
decisions.
In the case of East Africa, the structures of production in the three countries were competitive
rather than complimentary. Being export oriented economies, the three entities exported almost
similar agricultural crops. They competed in wooing the same investors to invest in importsubstitution industrialisation. The three countries were thus rivals in the international market
rather than cooperators, which rendered their unity fragile.
The pan-Africa enterprise can draw three vital lessons from the East African experience. First,
the approach should be explicitly political. Second, on the economic plane, the foundation of
unity should be at the level of production – capital and labour; rather than trade. Thirdly, on the
political level, it should be people-centred rather than state-oriented.
Another region where forging genuine cooperation can greatly support the pan-Africa vision is in
the Great Lakes region. Within a larger political grouping, it is perhaps easier and more feasible
to control civil wars which have spilled over into border wars between countries in this region. A
project resulting in peace in this region would dramatically boost genuine pan-Africanism and
bring the dream of African unity closer.
Pan-Africa unity can provide space for increased interaction especially in areas such as human
resource development to benefit countries in need. Countries in re-orientation such as Rwanda
for instance could benefit from the talent pool available in other countries in much the same way
as happened in the 1960s when Nigeria sent many of its magistrates to support Tanzania’s
judiciary.
The same could be applied in higher education. Rwanda is in the process of rebuilding its
university. UK universities are fast bidding for donor funds to send their teams of experts,
advisors, professors and so on. Such opportunities should be consciously used to create practical
ways of cooperation rather than being left to be manipulated by big powers. Such cooperation
and assistance among ourselves would be mutually beneficial and in the interest of the ideal of
African unity.
Cooperation at every level – regional or continental – must provide an enabling framework for
the involvement of civil society and other stakeholders. The rationale is simple. Cooperation at
all these levels is too important to be left to heads of state alone. The immediate area heads of
state identify for cooperation is defence and security, mostly their own of course.
53
Left to their devices, states can break unity either owing to pressure from international powers or
narrow visions of local vested interests. Africa’s people must therefore not leave the pursuit of
pan-African unity to their states and politicians. Only when Africa’s people are united can panAfrican unity be sustained. They must widen their horizons to take into account new conditions
and possibilities.
While, indeed, we must have sufficient will and sentiment to promote African unity, we must at
the same time be prudent to protect and enhance our national interests. However, both these –
pan-Africanism and nationalism – should be placed in the larger interests of the majority, and not
succumb to narrow factional motives, or the greed of groups and classes. The interest of the
large majority – the popular classes – should be the litmus test.
African unity as an expression of pan-Africanism is not only a desirable vision for Africa at this
stage of our development, but a necessity. It is a necessity because left on our own, we are likely
to become - and are increasingly becoming - pawns on the geopolitical and military chessboard of
the imperial powers, under the hegemony of the most militarised and ruthless superpower in the
history of mankind.
54
Les Edifices Fondamentaux de la Vision Panafricaine
Dr. Issa Shivji
Issa G. Shivji était, jusqu’à sa retraite récemment, Professeur de Droit à l’Université de
Dar es Salaam où il a enseigné depuis 1970. Il est auteur de plus d’une douzaine de livres
et de nombreux articles.
Issa Shivji poursuit le débat sur la création des « Etats-Unis d’Afrique ». S’inspirant de
l’expérience du passé et des initiatives actuelles de coopération régionale en Afrique de l’Est, il
suggère que l’accent économique devrait être placé au niveau de la production – le capital et la
main d’œuvre, plutôt que sur le commerce. Politiquement, elle devrait être centrée sur les gens
plutôt qu’orientée vers l’Etat.
L’Union Africaine s’apprête à un débat critique sur l’unité panafricaine. Ceci se rapproche
profondément des lutes nationalistes qui ont produit l’indépendance de l’Afrique. A l’époque, le
thème de définition et le cri de ralliement des nationalistes – de Nkrumah, Nyerere, Banda
jusqu’à Babu – était le panafricanisme. Le nationalisme africain par définition, soutenaient-ils, ne
pouvait être autre chose que le panafricanisme.
L’actuel débat sur le panafricanisme présente une moment propice pour que le continent affronte
certains des défis clés auxquels il fait face, parmi lesquels figure l’impérialisme. Le nationalisme
africain est né au milieu de la lutte contre l’impérialisme. Il ne pouvait durer qu’aussi longtemps
qu’il resterait anti-impérialiste.
Aujourd’hui, un petit nombre de nos pays peuvent prétendre être vraiment indépendant. Nous
n’avons pas le pouvoir de prendre les plus élémentaires de nos propres décisions. Notre
souveraineté est vendue au plus offrant. Notre politique extérieure est alignée sur la super
puissance. Nos lois – fabriquées au sein du FMI – sont imposées sur nos parlementaires. Les
sociétés multinationales tordent chez nous des concessions atroces dans des accords, qui sont des
‘top secrets’, même pour les représentants élus par les gens.
L’actuelle recherche d’unité panafricaine doit reconnaître la menace, et non pas craindre le défi
pose par l’impérialisme. Au moment où la mondialisation, une forme même plus vicieuse
d’impérialisme, nous engouffre, nous devons retourner aux racines de nos indépendance: le grand
mouvement nationaliste post-guerre qui a mené à l’indépendance de plus de 50 pays africains..
Aujourd’hui, alors que nous nous enfonçons davantage dans des contextes inexplorés de la
mondialisation, et que nous laissons les usuriers et les requins du marché mondial dévorer nos
ressources tout en nous dictant nos politiques, nos sociétés sont en train d’être mises en pièces
sur base de diverses divergences insignifiantes d’ethnie, de race, de région et de clan. Si jamais il y
a eu une époque où il faut raviver le rêve et la vision de panafricanisme, alors c’est bien
maintenant.
Même pendant que l’Afrique place lentement son accent sur l’unité panafricaine, on voit une
raison d’espérer et des promesses dans les efforts qui se poursuivent vers l’intégration régionale.
Il y de sérieuses bases historiques derrière la quête d’unité régionale. Les visionnaires
panafricanistes tels que Nkrumah et Nyerere ont anticipé et vu les dangers de devenir
indépendant seul.
Mwalimu par exemple était prêt à retarder l’indépendance du Tanganyika si les quatre pas de
l’Afrique de l’Est (Kenya, Ouganda, Tanganyika et Zanzibar) pouvaient le faire en tant qu’une
unité fédérale. Les efforts en cours vers l’intégration régionale doivent donc être pesés dans le
cadre du panafricanisme.
55
En Afrique de l’Est, les chefs d’Etats ont déjà décidé de re dynamiser la Coopération EstAfricaine et un traité a été déjà conclu. Des consultations ont été désormais initiées pour la
recherche des avis des gens sur la création d’une fédération Est- Africaine.
La Communauté de l’Afrique de l’Est, qui a précédé à la Coopération Est-Africaine, s’est
écroulée dans les années 1970 sous les difficultés dues aux différences entre les Etats et une
rivalité acerbe en ce qui concerne leurs intérêts matériels.
Cette fois-ci, on espère que les leçons ont été apprises et que les erreurs du passé ne vont pas se
répéter. L’objectif doit être de placer la coopération sur une base plus solide en adoptant des
approches meilleures et durables à la question de l’unité.
Au moment où l’Afrique marche vers la consolidation de l’unité panafricaine, il y a des leçons qui
peuvent être tirées aussi bien des expériences passées que des initiatives actuelles vers la
consolidation de la coopération régionale en Afrique de l’Est.
L’ancienne coopération était caractérisée par deux grands moteurs. Sur le plan économique, elle
était centrée sur le commerce. Tandis que sur le plan politique, c’était l’Etat qui se trouvait au
centre. Son approche générale était économique plutôt que politique.
Une leçon utile à la vision panafricaine est que l’unité économique doit être basée sur la
complémentarité des structures. Les pays ne peuvent coopérer que quand la question d’unité
économique est traitée sous une approche politique. Par exemple, une approche commune en ce
qui concerne la fixation des prix des exportations agricoles ou le remboursement des dettes peut
être une base réelle de coopération. Ceci exige des décisions politiques.
Dans le cas de l’Afrique de l’Est, les structures de production dans les trois pays étaient en
compétition au lieu d’être complémentaires. Etant des économies orientées vers l’exportation, les
trois entités exportaient Presque les mêmes cultures agricoles. Elles faisaient la compétition en
courtisant les mêmes investisseurs. Les trois pays étaient donc en rivalité au marché international
au lieu d’être en coopération, ce qui rendait leur unité fragile.
L’entreprise panafricaine peut tirer trois leçons vitales de l’expérience de l’Afrique de l’Est.
Premièrement, l’approche devrait être explicitement politique. Deuxièmement, sur le plan
économique, la fondation de l’unité devrait se situer au niveau de la production – le capital et la
main d’œuvre; plutôt que le commerce. Troisièmement, sur le plan politique, elle doit être centré
sur les gens plutôt qu’orientée vers l’Etat.
Une autre région où la création d’une véritable coopération peut grandement soutenir la vision
panafricaine est la région des Grands Lacs. Au sein d’un plus grand regroupement politique, il est
peut-être plus facile et plus faisable de contrôler les guerres civiles qui ont débordé et devenues
des guerres frontalières entre les pays de cette région. Un projet qui aboutirait à la paix dans cette
région relancerait de façon dramatique le véritable panafricanisme rendrait plus proche la
réalisation du rêve de l’unité africaine.
L’unité panafricaine peut fournir un espace pour l’interaction accrue spécialement dans les
domaines tels que le développement des ressources humaines au profit des pays qui en ont
besoin. Les pays en phase de réorientation tel que le Rwanda par exemple pourraient profiter des
réserves de talents se trouvant dans d’autres pays exactement comme cela s’est passé dans les
années 1960 lorsque le Nigeria a envoyé beaucoup de ses magistrats pour soutenir le secteur
judiciaire de la Tanzanie.
56
La même chose pourrait s’appliquer au niveau de l’enseignement supérieur. Le Rwanda est dans
le processus de reconstruire son université. Des universités britanniques sont rapidement en train
de s’offrir pour les fonds des bailleurs en vue d’envoyer leurs équipes d’experts, des conseillers,
professeurs etc. De telles opportunités devraient être consciencieusement utilisées pour créer des
voies pratiques de coopération au lieu de s’adonner à la manipulation par de grandes puissances.
Une telle coopération et l’assistance entre nous-mêmes seraient mutuellement bénéfiques et dans
l’intérêt de l’idéal d’unité africaine.
La coopération à chaque niveau – régional ou continental – doit procurer un cadre propice
d’implication de la société civile et des autres intervenants. Le raisonnement est simple. La
coopération à tous ces niveaux est trop importante pour être laissée aux seuls chefs d’Etats. Le
domaine direct que les chefs d’Etats identifient pour la coopération c’est la défense et la sécurité,
surtout leur propre sécurité bien sûr.
Si on les laisse s’occuper comme bon leur semble, les Etats peuvent briser l’unité soit suite à la
pression de la part des puissances internationales ou à des visions étroites suscitées par des
intérêts matériels locaux. Les Africains doivent par conséquent ne pas abandonner la poursuite
de l’unité panafricaine à leurs Etats et aux politiciens. C’est seulement lorsque les Africains seront
unis que l’unité panafricaine peut être durable. Ils doivent élargir leurs horizons afin de tenir
compte des nouvelles conditions et possibilités.
Alors qu’effectivement nous devons avoir la volonté suffisante et le sentiment de promouvoir
l’unité africaine, nous devons en même temps être prudents en vue de protéger et renforcer nos
intérêts nationaux. Cependant, ces deux éléments – le panafricanisme et le nationalisme –
devraient être places dans des intérêts plus vastes de la majorité, et non succomber aux motifs
étroits de certaines factions, ou à la cupidité des groupes et des classes. L’intérêt de la grande
majorité – les classes populaires – devraient être test décisif.
L’unité africaine en tant qu’expression du panafricanisme est non seulement une vision
souhaitable pour l’Afrique à ce stade de notre développement, mais une nécessité. C’est une
nécessité parce que si nous sommes laissés à nous-mêmes, nous risquons de devenir – et nous
devenons de plus en plus – des pions sur l’échiquier des puissances géopolitiques et militaires,
sous l’hégémonie de la puissance la plus militarisée et la plus impitoyable de l’histoire de
l’humanité.
57
Pan African unity: Can Africa match the bid?
Gichinga Ndirangu
Gichinga Ndirangu is a policy consultant with over ten years experience on trade, policy and
media advocacy. He is a lawyer by training and has worked as a practising journalist for
the regional weekly newspaper The EastAfrican. He previously headed ActionAid’s global
trade team and has just finished a tour of duty in South Africa where he worked for
Oxfam International as the Southern Africa Trade Advisor. He currently works as a
policy consultant.
At the upcoming African Union summit in Accra, Ghana, a proposal seeking to establish a
continental union government will be debated. Accra is a symbolic, if not significant host for this
debate. It was here that Ghana’s founding father, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, first pitched for Pan
African unity in his famous exhortation that Ghana’s independence counted for less unless, and
until, the entire continent was liberated. It was Nkrumah’s view that in the absence of forging a
common united front, Africa would remain shackled to neo-colonialism.
It was the period preceding the re-launch of the African Union in 2002 which witnessed renewed
debate on Pan African unity. Libyan strongman, Muammar Gaddafi, then an intractable
opponent of western imperialism, challenged African leaders to unite across common purpose
and chart their destiny unshackled by the West. Gaddafi rooted for increased trade amongst
Africans, the creation of common continental institutions including a federal government and the
free flow of persons across borders. At its relaunch in Durban, the African Union took the sails
out of Libya, reaffirming its commitment to the Pan African vision without unveiling a specific
roadmap. The leadership of some of the continent’s key leaders – South Africa’s Thabo Mbeki,
Nigeria’s Olusegun Obasanjo, Algeria’s Bouteflika and Senegal’s Sane Wade – initiated instead
the New Partnership for African Development (NEPAD), which was seen as an attempt to
develop a policy framework towards a unified vision on Africa’s development and bolster, in
part, Pan Africanism. NEPAD’s vision was, however, restricted, being more intent on resource
mobilization than on its vision for Africa’s social and political cohesion. Conversely, this year’s
proposal for a union government revisits the attempts to consolidate Pan African political, social
and economic integration and establishes important benchmarks in laying out a renewed vision
for continental unity.
The hope, though not assured, across Africa, is that this year’s debate will move the pan-African
vision of Nkrumah beyond its fifty-year stagnation. There is no doubt that this is a debate whose
time has come, not least because the union government proposal finally reaffirms the quest for
uniting Africa’s people across a common thread of shared values and joint purpose. Within the
debate, there are many critical voices that claim to welcome the idea of African unity but caution
that the hour for Pan African federalism has yet to come. In addition, Afro-pessimists within the
ranks of the African Union are driven by the zeal to consolidate national sovereignty and regional
hegemony rather than an outright rejection of the Pan African vision.
While hopes are high, consensus on this proposal will take time and effort given the disparity in
positions as well as the high demands that will be placed upon each State to realize a union
government. The AU proposal wants the union government created as a transitional arrangement
preceding full political integration under the banner of the ‘United States of Africa’. This
transitional arrangement implies that realizing the actual Pan Africa vision calls for more work,
consultation and buy-in. Even then, the transitional vision is bold in its intent and envisions the
establishment of parliamentary and judicial systems, common continental financial institutions
and standardized monetary policies and procedures, among others. It is these preliminary
propositions that Africa’s leaders will be called upon to give thought and focus to at the June
summit in Accra.
58
After many years of internecine conflict within and between states, the need to harness Africa’s
potential around a unity of purpose is a necessary and overarching imperative. At the heart of it,
the proposal for a union government must be directed towards Africa’s transformation through
creative and well-thought out strategies that advance integration and not the isolation or
balkanization of any country or region.
The proposal should be used to catalyze developmental policies and programmes that are peoplecentred and rooted in the finest of African traditions, culture and values. The ideal of a peoplecentered and united Africa is one that must be welcome and advanced. It is also a prerequisite in
an increasingly globalized world that has demonstrated the value in consolidating shared interests
that drive policy formulation and implementation.
Not limited to political union, the proposal for a union government will also delve into the
concepts and realities of potential economic integration. Colonialism bequeathed on most
African states economic inequality and social inequity which have stifled the integration of
Africa’s economies to the world market. Intra-African trade has been constrained by weak policy
and institutional support at national and regional levels and internal structural limitations, which
have narrowed the scope of exploiting the continent’s economic opportunities to the fullest
extent. While economic integration has been a key but elusive priority for Africa’s leadership
since the onset of political independence, what has been lacking is the handiwork to take this
goal beyond the realm of conjecture and optimism. In 1963, the Organisation of African Unity
unveiled a proposal to establish a continental African common market that was expected to
coalesce into a Pan-Africa community straddling the economic, social and political spheres. Both
the Lagos Plan of Action and the 1991 Abuja Treaty that established the African Economic
Community (AEC) spoke to the need for such an African economic union. While this level of
ambition has not matured to its full intent, the African Union has continued to look upon the
various Regional Economic Communities (RECs) as essential building blocs in the quest for
continental economic union.
Yet within the current arrangement, there is growing concern that Africa is spreading herself thin
and wide in negotiating multiple trade arrangements, which stand to undermine her own
development priorities. The common view is that there is limited scope to fully harness the
potential of regional integration granted that new concessions are being exerted by Africa’s
trading partners.
The African Union views deepening regional economic integration as an important pillar in
Africa’s structural transformation. Given the complexity of regional integration in Africa, there is
widespread concern that the undue emphasis on trade liberalisation in the ongoing negotiations
with the European Union (EU) and other trading power houses could scuttle rather than
consolidate economic integration.
The truth is that trade and trade liberalisation are not an end in themselves but a means to help
the continent respond to its development challenges. The ongoing trade negotiations between
African countries and the EU have shown the complexity of consolidating economic ties
amongst African countries which are already pressured into negotiating with the EU under new
configurations outside their natural and traditional economic groupings. The regions currently
negotiating with the EU have been severely disrupted by overlapping membership to different
negotiating configurations. As a result, there is a risk of countries undertaking trade
commitments with the EU to the detriment of their traditional trading partners with whom they
may have different agreements at the regional level.
In today’s new global economic dispensation, there are few alternatives to economic integration
as a strategy in promoting sustainable socio-economic development. It is obvious that only by
59
closing ranks within the framework of continental level initiatives like the African Economic
Community and the African Union can Africa avoid further marginalization.
The union proposal acknowledges that African governments have made determined efforts
towards consolidating regional economic blocs with the active support of the AU. But the history
of consolidating continental unity is limited by many factors including the lack of political will,
limited awareness among a large segment of Africa’s population and increased dependence on
external assistance.
The African Union must, therefore, work towards providing an appropriate framework, which
strengthens partnership between national governments, peoples’ representatives, civil society and
other stakeholders towards promoting the continent’s economic and social development.
A union government will, on the one hand, secure the continent’s interests while, on the other,
assert its due role in global affairs and build on the continent’s collective capacity to influence
world affairs from a position of unity and strength. But, the current proposal could halt in its
tracks if debate is merely confined to the hallowed halls of the African Union without active buyin from Africa’s people. Since 2002, the AU has renewed momentum towards more effective and
accountable governance structures. The next frontier in consolidating continental unity must
involve making concerted efforts at the national level to develop institutions and processes that
will advance the desired new continental architecture and which are rooted in peoples’ popular
participation. The debate must include the voices and perspectives of a wide range of Africa’s
people through the involvement of key institutions such as national and regional parliaments,
civil society organizations and the media. This participation will broaden and deepen the debate
that is, ultimately, about the people of Africa.
60
Plan d’Action pour un Etat Fédéral Africain
Sanou Mbaye
Sanou Mbaye est un économiste et chroniqueur Sénégalais. Pour plus d’information sur
l’auteur, veuillez visiter http://sanou.mbaye.free.fr.
Au lendemain de la seconde guerre mondiale, deux écoles de pensées dominaient les débats chez
les militants des indépendances africaines. Il y avait, d’un côté, les «modérés», alliés des
occidentaux, qui étaient partisans du maintien des frontières artificielles héritées du colonialisme,
et de l’autre, les «progressistes» qui militaient pour des indépendances devant conduire à la mise
sur pied d’un gouvernement continental devant présider aux destinées des Etats-Unis d’Afrique.
Les premiers l’ayant remporté sur les seconds, l’Afrique s’est ipso facto dotée d’un
environnement économique impropre au développement, comme cela s’est vérifié depuis les
indépendances.
En effet, pris individuellement, les pays concernés, à l’exception d’une petite minorité, n’étaient
pas viables économiquement, ce qui explique que l’Occident ait pu perpétuer sa mainmise
exclusive sur l’Afrique sub-saharienne, en dépit des longues luttes entreprises pour mettre fin au
colonialisme et à l'apartheid. Même indépendants, les pays de la région sont demeurés otages des
occidentaux à travers une combinaison d’accords qui se sont révélés spécieux à l’application et
des artifices de tous ordres (restrictions d’accès à leurs marchés, manipulations politiques,
interventions militaires, interdiction de lever des fonds sur les marchés financiers internationaux,
accoutumance à l’ « aide » d’où accumulation gigantesque de dettes relatives à des projets et
programmes qui n’étaient ni économiquement viables, ni financièrement justifiés.
Parallèlement et par le bais de leurs agences d’exécution que sont les institutions de Bretton
Woods (FMI & Banque mondiale), les occidentaux n’ont eu de cesse d’élaborer des stratégies de
développement inadaptées en direction de l’Afrique sub-saharienne, et qui ont fait l’objet de ce
qu’il est convenu d’appeler le «Consensus de Washington».
Celui-ci se définit par :
• la minimalisation du rôle des gouvernements dans l’élaboration des politiques de
développement et la vente des actifs publics au secteur privé;
• la libéralisation du commerce et celle du marché des capitaux, i.e., la levée des barrières
douanières et des contrôles des mouvements de capitaux ;
• la dérégulation de toutes les entraves à la conduite des affaires, i.e., réduction des dépenses
publiques et augmentions des taxes et taux d’intérêts.
A cet égard et paradoxalement, il est particulièrement navrant de constater que les pays
occidentaux sont ceux-là mêmes qui ont battu en brèche les principes dictés par le «Consensus de
Washington», en prônant et en imposant aux autres un libéralisme économique tous azimuts. En
effet, ils bafouent les règles du commerce mondial en subventionnant massivement leurs
exportations et en recourant au protectionnisme pour barrer l’entrée sur leurs territoires des
exportations en provenance des pays pauvres. Aussi, l’ouverture et la libéralisation des marchés
africains sans réciprocité ont-elles conduit à la faillite les agriculteurs et les entrepreneurs
africains. Les privatisations quant à elles, ont été, dans la plupart des cas, synonymes de
liquidations pures et simples. Cela fut notamment le cas dans les pays de la zone franc où la
dévaluation de 100 pour cent du franc CFA en janvier 1994 avait réduit à la portion congrue le
prix d'achat des actifs publics des Etats concernés (1). Sur le plan financier, les occidentaux sont
les tenants de la politique du déficit budgétaire, de la réduction des taxes et des taux d’intérêts.
L’Afrique peut, cependant, se donner les moyens de mettre fin à l’exploitation institutionnalisée à
laquelle elle est ainsi soumise depuis des temps immémoriaux. Pour cela, il lui faut:
61
• s’engager résolument dans un processus révolutionnaire de renouveau identitaire et idéologique;
• adopter une conception révisée de l’exercice du pouvoir ;
• formuler une nouvelle stratégie de développement;
• impliquer la société civile et résoudre les litiges en suspens, comme ceux relatifs à la dette.
Renouveau identitaire et idéologique
Des siècles d’esclavage et de colonialisme ont fortement et durablement affecté l’identité des
Noirs. A cet égard, le cas de Simón Bolívar, le libérateur et l’unificateur des pays d’Amérique
latine, est assez révélateur: il est, en effet, représenté sous les traits d’un blanc, alors qu’il était,
comme on le sait, notoirement métissé. Témoins également ces brésiliens qui, exilés aux EtatsUnis, subissent le traumatisme de leur vie lorsqu’ils se voient assimilés aux Noirs. Le phénomène
de la décoloration de la peau pratiquée en Afrique est aussi très révélateur d’un complexe forgé
par l’histoire ainsi que l’est la propension des élites à se considérer comme étant des
francophones, des anglophones ou des lusophones.
De même, l’antagonisme entre les Noirs d’Afrique subsaharienne et les ressortissants d’Afrique
du Nord demeure toujours une réalité. Il est la résultante d’un séparatisme voulu et d’un racisme
affiché à l’égard du Sud. Les exemples foisonnent qui illustrent cette situation. En déclarant que
l’Egypte était une république arabe, le président Gamal Abdel Nasser falsifiait délibérément
l’histoire, en effaçant 3.000 ans d’une culture incontestablement liée à l’Afrique noire. Encore
plus significatif : les Egyptiens ont refusé que les Américains produisent un film sur la vie
d’Anouar el- Sadate, sous prétexte que l’acteur choisi pour interpréter le rôle du président était
Noir.
C’est aussi le lieu de rappeler qu’en quittant l’OUA en 1984, le Maroc aspirait rien moins qu’à
devenir membre de l’Union européenne.
La classe dirigeante soudanaise, descendante d’esclaves arabes, n’hésite pas, avec la caution de la
Ligue arabe, à commettre les atrocités que l’on sait à l’encontre de millions de concitoyens noirs
au Darfour.
De même, lorsque le dirigeant libyen Kadhafi, déçu par le panarabisme qu’il prônait, s’est érigé en
champion du panafricanisme, ses compatriotes ne se sont pas faits faute de chasser de leur pays
les immigrants noirs.
Enfin et pour clore ces tristes évocations, la Mauritanie a quitté la Communauté économique des
États d’Afrique de l’Ouest pour rallier l’Union du Maghreb Arabe (UMA).
Comme on le voit, le problème de l’identité risque de constituer l’obstacle majeur à la réalisation
d’un Etat fédéral. Il faut donc, pour conjurer ce mal pernicieux, revisiter l’idéologie du
panafricanisme qui devra être le vecteur de l’identification et de l’unification du continent. Cette
idéologie devra notamment définir un programme d’éducation des masses devant conduire à
l’émergence d’une culture d’autosuffisance, de renaissance culturelle, d’une transformation
radicale des mentalités et d’un recouvrement de la dignité et du respect des Noirs. C’est à cette
condition que les Noirs assumeront pleinement et fièrement leur négritude et la revendiqueront
au lieu de la rejeter.
Une conception révisée de l’exercice du pouvoir
Parmi les autres maux qui gangrènent nos sociétés, une conception viciée de l’exercice du
pouvoir n’est pas le moindre. Sur ce point, il semble que les seuls « termes de référence » de la
62
grande majorité des dirigeants africains, outre l’incompétence, soient l’enrichissement personnel
au détriment des intérêts de leurs administrés, le népotisme, la corruption, la gabegie et la
courtisanerie pour ne citer que ces turpitudes.
Toutefois, ces temps de grande détresse et d’injustices sociales à très grande échelle devraient
constituer un terreau favorable à l’émergence de grands visionnaires et meneurs d’hommes qui, à
l’instar de Simon Bolivar, Martin Luther King Jr., Georges Padmore, W.E.B. Dubois, Kwame
Nkrumah et Cheikh Anta Diop ont refusé l’ordre établi et l’ont combattu au nom de la justice et
de l’équité. De tels hommes auraient à tache de privilégier une politique de régionalisation devant
mener, par touches successives, à la constitution d’une fédération des Etats d’Afrique noire, seule
garante de leur indépendance et de leur capacité à peser sur les affaires du monde.
Une nouvelle stratégie de développement
Les africains se doivent d’élaborer leurs propres stratégies de développement.
Cela nécessite :
• une volonté réelle d’intégration économique et politique. Une priorité absolue doit être donnée
à la création d’une zone de libre-échange et d’un marché commun pour faire du commerce intrarégional le premier levier de croissance économique pour le développement de la région. Les pays
d’une même région dont les échanges internes sont supérieurs aux échanges externes disposent
d’économies plus performantes. C’est le cas des pays d’Europe, d’Asie et de plus en plus
d’Amérique latine, particulièrement au sein du Mercosur (2), contrairement aux pays du MoyenOrient et de l’Afrique où les échanges externes sont disproportionnellement plus importants que
leurs échanges internes (cf. graphique en Annexe);
• une re-nationalisation des actifs publics bradés au secteur privé et une réglementation des
investissements étrangers qui doivent être au service exclusif des économies et non des
spéculateurs ;
• l’adoption de la même stratégie de développement à laquelle ont eu recours tous les pays
avancés. Selon une étude publiée en 2003 durant toute la phase préliminaire de leur
développement, les Etats-Unis, les Etats membres de l'Union Européenne et les pays d'Asie de
l'Est ont tous réglementé les investissements étrangers pour garder le contrôle de leurs actifs
stratégiques, et mis en place des systèmes de contrôle des mouvements des capitaux. Les
partenariats avec les entreprises étrangères ont été élaborés pour favoriser les transferts de
technologies et la formation afin d’ajouter de la valeur à la production locale et créer au bénéfice
des producteurs locaux les conditions requises pour faire face à la concurrence. Ils ont mis en
place des politiques de subventions et de soutien pour les secteurs clefs de l’éducation, de la
santé, de la production vivrière, de l’industrie, de l’habitat et de la recherche scientifique (3) ;
• un appui au commerce régional, à l’exportation et aux petites et moyennes entreprises pour
créer une classe moyenne locale, vecteur essentiel de tout processus de développement;
• une allocation massive de crédits à bon marché aux opérateurs du secteur informel pour les
faire passer de l’informel au formel ;
• une politique d’industrialisation basée sur la durabilité et la justice sociale. Dans cette optique, la
politique énergétique au niveau régional est d’une importance cruciale. L’Afrique noire est riche
en énergie hydraulique. Ses réserves estimées à des milliers de milliards de kilowatts-heure
représentent environ la moitié des réserves mondiales.
63
Le Congo, second fleuve du monde en terme de débit (30 000 à 60 000 mètres cubes par
seconde) détient à lui seul plus de 600 milliards de kilowatts-heure de réserve annuelle.
La Sanaga au Cameroun et l’Ogooué au Gabon en possèdent la moitié. Les pertes importantes
qui étaient liées au transport de l’électricité sur un réseau de courant alternatif sont désormais
maîtrisées grâce aux percées technologiques réalisées en matière de courant continu à haute
tension, moyennant quoi les pertes dues à l’acheminement de l’électricité sur de longues distances
ne représentent plus que de 3% tous les 1000 kilomètres.
Les problèmes liés au transport de l’électricité étant techniquement résolus, l’exploitation de
l’énergie hydro-électrique du seul fleuve Congo avec l’aménagement des barrages d’Inga et de
Kisangani pourrait suffire à satisfaire les besoins en électricité du continent noir pour un
programme d’industrialisation rationnelle devant conduire à un processus de développement
respectueux de l’environnement.
Mieux encore, quelle que soit l’ampleur des ressources hydro-électriques que recèle l’Afrique, elle
semble négligeable comparée à celle qu’offre l’énergie solaire. Le soleil déverse sur la terre tous
les ans l’équivalent de 1,5 millions de barils d’énergie pétrolière au kilomètre-carré. Grâce à une
technologie appelée «Energie solaire concentrée», deux scientifiques allemands, les docteurs
Gerhard Knies et Franz Trieb, ont calculé qu’il suffirait de concentrer l’énergie solaire sur une
superficie équivalente à 0,5% des déserts chauds, en l’occurrence celui du Sahara pour couvrir les
besoins du monde en énergie sans compter les bénéfices additionnels que représenterait la
possibilité de freiner l’avancée du désert et de fournir de l’eau dessalée à ces régions désertiques.
Mobilisation de ressources internes et externes
Comme déjà évoqué, les pays africains, empêchés de lever des fonds sur les marchés financiers
internationaux n’ont eu d’autre choix que de sous-traiter leur développement auprès des pays
occidentaux et des institutions de Bretton Woods, avec les résultats désastreux que l’on connaît.
On en veut pour preuve le pourcentage de leurs populations qui vivent dans la pauvreté. Il s’est
accru de 41,6 pour cent en 1981 à 46,9 pour cent en 2001 passant de 164 millions à 316 millions
d’âmes (4).
L’on constate que ce rapport de force jusqu’ici favorable aux occidentaux est maintenant en train
d’être mis à mal par l’entrée tonitruante de la Chine dans l’arène africaine. La stratégie chinoise de
pénétration du marché africain s’appuie sur deux piliers : la non-ingérence dans les affaires
intérieures des Etats et une action tous azimuts dans les domaines clés : politique, diplomatie,
investissements, accords commerciaux, énergie, aide, annulation de la dette, assistance militaire,
santé, éducation et tourisme.
Ainsi, en l’espace d’une décennie, la Chine a modifié l'équilibre des forces en Afrique, menaçant
du coup la première place détenue par la France en tant que principal partenaire économique et
commercial du continent, et reléguant les USA et le Royaume-Uni respectivement à la troisième
et quatrième place.
Il faut dire qu’une histoire commune de résistance à l’occupation étrangère et une complicité
historique durant les périodes de lutte de libération ont donné un contour différent à la
coopération entre les pays d’Afrique subsaharienne et la Chine. Celle-ci est basée, non sur une
exploitation institutionnalisée comme c’est le cas avec les pays occidentaux, mais sur un respect
mutuel. Dans ses rapports avec l’Afrique, la Chine poursuit trois objectifs: sécuriser son
approvisionnement en pétrole et en ressources minières, amoindrir l'influence de Taiwan (six des
26 pays qui entretiennent des relations diplomatiques avec Taiwan sont africains) et accroître son
influence sur la scène internationale.
64
Pour ce faire, elle a investi des milliards de dollars en Afrique dans les secteurs du pétrole, des
mines, des transports, de l'électricité et des télécommunications, ainsi que dans différentes
infrastructures.
Les données concernant les échanges commerciaux traduisent également l’influence croissante de
la Chine en Afrique. Les échanges sino-africains ont approché les 40 milliards de dollars en 2005
et ont été de l’ordre de 60 milliards de dollars en 2006. Les échanges commerciaux et les
investissements chinois ont favorisé la croissance économique du continent qui a atteint le taux
record de 5,2% en 2005.
A ce sujet, si les dirigeants Chinois ont bien défini les termes de leur coopération avec l’Afrique, il
n’en est pas de même des Africains. En effet, quelque 46 chefs d'Etat africains se sont réunis
avec les dirigeants chinois à Pékin en Novembre 2006 lors du Forum de coopération ChineAfrique. On peut regretter que pour discuter d’échanges commerciaux et d’investissements, les
responsables africains ne se soient pas présentés sous le front uni de l’Union africaine, mais en
ordre dispersé comme ce fut le cas, chacun ne se préoccupant que de ses propres intérêts. Une
stratégie d’union aurait permis aux africains d’exiger de la Chine, en contrepartie des
innombrables bénéfices qu’elle tire de sa coopération avec l’Afrique, un appui politique,
diplomatique et économique pour une intégration devant mener, à terme, à une fédération des
pays de la région.
Cependant, les investissements conséquents de la Chine en Afrique ne doivent pas être
considérés autrement que comme un appoint qui ne doit pas empêcher les pays africains de
mobiliser leurs ressources internes pour financer leur unité. Pour ce faire, ils doivent
impérativement s’approprier leurs ressources. Selon le département américain de l'Energie, au
cours de cette décennie, les importations américaines de pétrole d'Afrique atteindront 770
millions de barils/an pour des revenus estimés à plus de 600 milliards de dollars.
A cette manne, il faut ajouter les recettes d’exportation provenant des autres acheteurs du pétrole
africain et celles engrangées à partir des autres transactions relatives à d’autres matières premières
telles que le cobalt, le nickel et le cuivre dont les cours ne cessent de grimper. Il est probable que
cette embellie ait un caractère durable en raison de la forte demande provenant du Japon, de la
Chine et de l’Inde, mais aussi des incertitudes qui pèsent sur le Moyen Orient.
D’où l’intérêt de la mise sur pied d’une confédération panafricaine pour la gestion des matières
premières, un cartel dont le pétrole constituerait la principale composante. La Chine, sous réserve
d’un contrat d’approvisionnement sans limite pour toutes les ressources du continent africain
dont elle aura besoin et à des prix garantis d’avance sur une longue période, aurait tout intérêt à
être partie prenante d’un tel projet.
Rôle de la société civile
Le désir d'une union politique, économique et monétaire des peuples d'Afrique est né au 19ème
siècle aux Etats-Unis, au sein des membres de la diaspora noire. Il est à l’origine du mouvement
panafricain. Il s'est à ce point ancré dans la conscience collective que tous les dirigeants du
continent l'ont placé, par conviction ou par opportunisme, en tête de leur agenda politique. Il est,
de fait, la parade appropriée aux humiliations subies depuis des lustres. Malheureusement, les
résultats enregistrés jusqu'ici dans la voie de l'unité ne sont pas encore à la hauteur des espoirs
suscités par le projet.
La cause en est qu’une réelle union africaine n’est pas dans l’intérêt des dirigeants africains. Leurs
pouvoirs sont issus de la fragmentation du continent et l’on ne peut attendre qu’ils renoncent à
65
leurs positions au profit des masses. Le processus devra être initié conjointement par les peuples,
la diaspora, et les institutions idoines de la société civile.
L’on se souvient en effet, que l’union d’États la plus pérenne de l’histoire, celle des Etats-Unis, a
été mise sur pied par les militants politiques, et non par les chefs des États de l’union. Le rôle
mobilisateur des différents mouvements qui composent la société civile (associations
professionnelles, syndicats, ONG, intellectuels, étudiants, mouvements de jeunesse, etc.) et leur
implication dans la formulation des politiques et des stratégies est indispensable au processus
devant conduire à la création d’une fédération des états d’Afrique noire.
Il serait indiqué, à cet égard, de mettre sur pied des «Clubs d'Union Panafricaine» tant au niveau
du continent que dans les diasporas africaines. Ils seraient reliés, non seulement entre eux, mais
aussi avec les organisations sous-régionales et le siège de l'Union Africaine grâce à un usage
intensif de l’Internet et ils favoriseraient ainsi la naissance d’un esprit et d’une identité
communautaires.
Résolution des litiges en suspens
C’est Alexander Nahum Sack, ancien ministre de Nicolas II et professeur de droit à Paris, qui en
1927 a formulé la doctrine de la dette odieuse, qui postule ce qui suit : «si un pouvoir despotique
contracte une dette non pas pour les besoins et dans les intérêts de l’Etat, mais pour fortifier son
régime despotique, pour réprimer la population qui le combat, etc., cette dette est odieuse pour la
population de l’Etat entier. Cette dette n’est pas obligatoire pour la nation ; c’est une dette de
régime, dette personnelle du pouvoir qui l’a contractée. Par conséquent elle tombe avec la chute
de ce pouvoir».
Partant de ce principe et s’agissant de la dette africaine, un audit et un avis juridique doivent être
réclamés auprès de cabinets internationaux sur les montants réels et le bien-fondé des dettes
contractées auprès du FMI et de la Banque mondiale. La question serait inscrite à l'ordre du jour
de l'Assemblée générale des Nations Unies pour obtenir, dans un premier temps, le gel des
remboursements pendant le déroulement des procédures d'arbitrage.
L’octroi de crédits obéit à des règles internationales. Les institutions financières qui les
outrepassent doivent assumer leurs responsabilités. Ainsi, le refus d’honorer des dettes qui
n’étaient ni économiquement justifiées ni financièrement viables serait conforme à la logique
économique et à la loi internationale.
Il faut rappeler à ce propos deux précédents historiques et jurisprudentiels:
1. en 2001, l’Argentine s’est déclarée en état d’incapacité de payer le service et l’amortissement de
100 milliards de dollars de dettes et a refusé de mettre en place les recettes de sortie de crise
imposées par le FMI (augmentation des taux d’intérêt et des prix des services publics, austérité
budgétaire et maintien destructeur de l’ancrage du peso argentin au dollar). Mieux, en 2003,
l’Argentine a bravé tous les interdits en refusant tout bonnement d’honorer ses dettes vis-à-vis du
FMI. Une sortie massive de capitaux en guise de représailles par les bailleurs de fonds aggrava la
crise que connaissait déjà le pays. Mais, le président argentin, Nestor Kirchner, pur produit de
l’aile gauche du parti péroniste, tint bon. Le FMI finit par céder. L’argentine n’eut à payer que
vingt cinq cents pour chaque dollar dû. Elle parvint ainsi, non seulement à redresser rapidement
son économie mais à lui imprimer une vigueur nouvelle.
2. à la fin du 19ème siècle, suite à la guerre hispano-américaine qui a débouché sur la saisie de l’île
de Cuba par les Etats-Unis, ces derniers ont cru devoir s’affranchir des dettes alors dues par Cuba
66
à l’Espagne, au motif que celles-ci, loin d’avoir été contractées dans l’intérêt du peuple cubain,
n’ont, en réalité, servi qu’à financer son oppression par le gouvernement colonial espagnol.
Conclusion
L’Afrique ne peut continuer à laisser l’Occident piller de façon éhontée et quasi gratuitement ses
ressources, fomenter chez elle des troubles et s’en prévaloir pour justifier le déploiement de
forces militaires propres à perpétuer, en toute impunité, une politique d’occupation pratiquée
depuis des siècles.
Les pays du continent doivent donc s’affranchir du diktat des marchés pour rejoindre le camp de
la résistance aux tenants du capitalisme sauvage qu’est la mondialisation, au nombre desquels
figurent au premier rang les Etats-Unis.
C’est seulement au sein de l’Union Africaine, que les pays d’Afrique, groupés et solidaires au sein
de leurs propres groupements sous-régionaux, peuvent relever le défi en privilégiant, cela a été
dit, une politique de régionalisation devant mener à l’unification du continent et à la naissance
d’une fédération des Etats subsahariens.
67
Social Integration as a Means…
Eyob Balcha
Eyob Balcha, a youth activist in Ethiopia, is currently a graduate student of sociology at the
Addis Ababa University. His is also the founding member of Afroflag Youth Vision
(AYV), a local civic youth organization and the programme manager of the organization.
I am writing this article only as a young and concerned African who aspires to see the realization
of the dreams of our fore fathers. This can also be considered as one of the many suggestions
and recommendations that will, certainly be forwarded for the AU Commission on its timely
engagement of establishing the African Union Government.
For the last four and more years, I’ve been engaged with different activities that have increased
my understanding about the current situation of our continent, and the paths that it is embarking
on towards its future. I’ve read different books and articles, discussed with different people
around me and attended various panels, lectures, conferences and forums both at home and
abroad as well as with high level dignitaries/diplomats and with other ordinary African citizens.
All the times, I was eager to know the ideas and feelings of these people about the issues of PanAfricanism and the unity of our continent. Truly speaking, I myself have gone through different
levels of understanding about this particular issue and what I am thinking of at this very moment
is very much different from what it has been a couple or more years before. Needless to say,
peoples’ perception is also on process of change either to the pessimistic or to the optimistic
corner, even to nowhere. But there might be some basic grounds where we should have, or
better to have, common consensus about the process of building the United States of Africa
(USA).
I’m a youth activist and a sociologist by profession and above all a Pan-Africanist by spirit. And
all what I’ll be talking about will be the results of these and other multiple identities that I
acquire. I’ve personally and organizationally involved in organizing a public debate on May 25,
2007; marking the African Liberation Day in Addis Ababa. I’ve come across different views and
ideas of many Africans on due process with their hopes, fears, concerns and even jokes. But my
basic concern is beyond all these. Through the related readings with regard to the topic, I’ve
come to know that there are two basic arguments on the establishment of the African Union
Government or the USA. The first bloc, alternative A, insists on the immediate union of African
states with one government citizenship, a common foreign minister, a common defense force
and a leader or a president of the would be government. And the other, alternative B, is a
proposition based on gradual and time proven process of integration through the regional
economic communities (RECs) like the COMESA, ECOWAS and SADEC towards the higher
level of the union. Moreover, another alternative, more likely alternative C, is cognizant of the fact
that gradual transformation is more acceptable but argues that the establishment of the union
should be through the existing system of the AU because it has ‘enough’ Acts and procedures to
do so.
According to Dr. Tajudeen Abdul- Raheem, General Secretary of the Global Pan African
Movement, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is leading the first bloc through his project of the
USA since 1999. Whereas the second bloc has no recognized leaders but government officials
(ministers and ambassadors) of different nations are working on it. Our PM, Meles Zenawi and
Thabo Mbeki of South Africa are proponents of the third alternative. In spite of all the fact that
I’ve read and heard about this issue, I haven’t had any information about the ideas of ordinary
African on this issue. I remember that, when the then OAU was transforming into the AU, the
leaders were telling us that from that very moment the level of interaction and engagement which
was restricted at heads of states and government officials’ level will be trickled down to peopleto-people level. But what I am witnessing at this very moment is that, it is still our political
68
leaders who are deciding on our lives without going through the rational process. As far as I’m
concerned, our leaders are once again too busy of establishing another bureaucratic and
cumbersome political system which wouldn’t belong to the real African people. They are still
doing their best to take forward their corrupted and mismanaged economic system which is full
of imperfect markets and inter-competition; and their political system whose basic character is
understood in terms of lack of good governance and democracy, breach of human rights and
being considered as ‘indigenous colonizer’. What would we come up with finally when these
incompetent and imperfect states become united, ‘U nite d Wea k Sta tes of Af ric a ( UW SA)’!?
May be the UWSA will help us to differentiate the other USA from ours.
Finally I want to make two basic suggestions on the entire process. The basic thing is a right
issue. We African citizens have the right to be involved, consulted and be aware of each and
every decision to be made on our fate. What would a Cameroonian, a Zambian or an Ethiopian,
for that matter, would feel when he/she is told on one blessed morning that he/she is no more a
citizen of Cameroon, Zambia or Ethiopia but Africa? We, African people have the right to get
meaningfully involved on every process that concerns us and we should claim our right in every
appropriate manner and through all the legitimate channels.
Besides this, I personally argue that neither political nor economic integration is the sole means
for the realization of the union government. I would say, social integration is the most
appropriate tool in our context. One may argue that both political and economic integrations are
part of the social integration. But I would once again argue that I’m afraid that they are
considered in such a way since there are many non-political (I mean non-state politics) and noneconomic activities that have created a greater bond among African people beyond any other
means. Like for example, the civic and non-governmental associations and organizations, the
trade unions, youth associations, women’s’ associations, the academic institutions (think tanks),
traditional and religious institutions and the like should be given a much more emphasis and
meaningful role to play in the process. It is in these groups and institutions that we can find real
Africans at the grass root level. Just to mention, according to the African Youth Charter, young
people are defined with in the age limit of 15 to 35, which is believed to constitute nearly half of
the entire population of the continent. And it is this segment of the society on which all the
social, economic, political and whatsoever kinds of positive and negative realities of the continent
are manifested. Therefore, on what kind of rational ground that we would accept the decisions of
our political leaders to establish the continental government; without incorporating these
peoples’ idea. We should first enjoy the real brotherhood and sisterhood in our respective areas,
through our cultures, arts and societal values among ourselves in the spirit of being African,
which will be a cornerstone for the realization of our dream. It is people-to-people interaction
and integration that should be given the greater value in this process, more than the periodic
conferencing of the political leaders.
Let me be, humbly, sure that the process of establishing the union government is for the mere
benefit of each and every citizen of the continent. Then, why do our leaders fail to materialize the
basic feature of ‘democratic governance’, i.e. participation. The AU will be having its heads of
states meeting coming July in Accra, Ghana where they will be discussing about one and only one
agenda – the African Union Government/ the United States of Africa. But the significant part of
this continent’s citizen are not aware of the process let alone forwarding ideas and failed to be
heard.
Finally this is the concern of one young African that, our leaders should have a moment to setback and to revisit their steps and we Africans should demand our rights to decide on our fate by
ourselves, of course legitimately, for the realization of our dream.
AFRICA UNITE!!
69
‘Africa Unite!’
L. Muthoni Wanyeki
L. Muthoni Wanyeki is a political scientist based in Nairobi, Kenya. This paper was
commissioned by, and reproduced here with the kind permission of, the Africa Governance
Monitoring and Advocacy Project (AfriMAP), a project of the Open Society Institute (OSI).
Africa unite…because we are moving right out of Babylon42…
The ultimate objective is to achieve, through political, economic, social and cultural
integration, a strong multi-racial and multi-ethnic united Africa, based on the principles of
justice, peace, solidarity and the judicious exploitation of its human and natural resources. 43
1.
Executive summary
The upcoming mid-year African Union (AU) summit of heads of state and government has as its
primary agenda a ‘Grand Debate on the Union Government.’
The ideological differences present in the first three decades of Africa’s political independence
seem to have been rendered irrelevant due to the current ascendancy of neo-liberalism as the
only valid ideological basis for economic organisation both within national political-economies as
well as globally. But new political distinctions have emerged—in part due to the emergence of
the so-called ‘new breed’ of African leaders following the end of apartheid in South Africa and
the movements towards political pluralism elsewhere. Such leaders have posited themselves as
both able and willing to speak and act on behalf of the rest of Africa—Africa presented as being
determined to re-birth itself as encapsulated in the concept of the ‘African renaissance’. Similarly,
economic distinctions are now also clear—in part as a result of the economic directions initially
pursued post-independence, in part due to variations in both the presence and utilisation of
mineral and other natural resources and in part due to governance. The result is that certain
African states are, in effect, positioned as metropoles for the other African peripheries. Such
African states, worried about the potential impact of union on their national political economies,
are hesitant about the potential for immediate union. Other African states, seeing nothing but
advantages from a union, argue that, given Africa’s diversity, there will never be an ideal time and
now is as good a time as any. Still others are simply sceptical.
The scepticism is not unwarranted? Has the time come for union? Is Africa’s leadership
genuinely ready for what union would entail?
The ‘Grand Debate’ in (fittingly) Accra this June seems set to answer these questions. While idea
of the ‘Grand Debate’ may seem incredible given the lack of popular awareness of (let alone
informed debates around) the process leading up to it, its potential impact on Africa and African
peoples’ is not in question. But the process leading up to it is informed by motivations and
rationales that are not as incredible. In fact, an exploration of these motivations and rationales
reveal the process leading up to the ‘Grand Debate’ as somewhat inevitable—informed both by
history and by the current context of Africa within the global political-economy.
This paper thus attempts to re-visit that history and highlight the reasons for the current impetus
toward union among Africa’s leadership; explore the implications of the union on Africa’s
Marley, Robert Nestor.
(2006). Study on an African Union (AU) Government towards the United States of Africa
(USA). Addis Ababa: the AU, page 35.
42
43
70
current intergovernmental organisation, the AU; outline challenges to the union project and set
out conditions for its success. In so doing, the paper sets out and critically assesses the study
which will inform ‘the Grand Debate,’ and drawing from debates within African civil society
(including the African women’s movement) on the experience of the AU to date. It also assesses
the financial proposals made by the study from the perspective of theory relating to processes of
integration.
It concludes by noting that the time frame given in the study is too short. The low level of public
awareness about the study, its recommendations and the upcoming ‘Grand Debate’ are bound to
militate against implementation of the recommendations—even if the idea of pan-Africanism is
an idea that has long been aspired to. The recommendations will be seen as imposed on African
populations from the top-down, rather than arising from a consultative process which all
Africans buy into and support. In addition, the financial proposals in particular cannot be
achieved (as the study itself notes) within the nine years. Technical questions aside, they hinge on
critical pre-conditions for success such as, at best, African citizenship (including African women’s
autonomous citizenship rights) or, at least, freedom of movement across the continent—the
achievement of either which will be difficult to implement given the varied economic
performance of individual African states as well as the persistence of internal conflicts across the
region.
This is not, however, to suggest that the study’s recommendations are unfeasible. True, the
experience of the AU to date paints a picture of somewhat inconsistent and patchy progress that
is more incipient than felt on the ground. But it also points to a significant shift towards
meaningful collective action that bodes well for further intensification of the regional integration
agenda.
But for the study’s recommendations to be achieved and the clarion call ‘Africa Unite’ to be
realised, political will will need to be built up at the highest and lowest levels. Enhanced delivery
by the AU as currently constituted is critical. While working towards an aspirational framework
within a more reasonable timeframe, the focus should now be on resolving the gap between the
AU’s normative framework and institutional and programmatic/project delivery.
2. Introduction
The upcoming mid-year African Union (AU) summit of heads of state and government has as its
primary agenda a ‘Grand Debate on the Union Government.’
The debate comes half a century after the achievement of political independence from colonial
rule of Ghana, whose founding head of state, Kwame Nkrumah, championed the cause of panAfrican unity. From the perspective of those who believe in pan-Africanism, the debate is
coming 50 years too late. But it is clear that the tensions that existed during Nkrumah’s time as to
the proposition still persist, albeit for different motivations.
True, the so-called ‘Addis Ababa/Casablanca’ and ‘Monrovia’ groups no longer exist—the latter
of which advocated a re-visiting of the borders drawn up as a result of the so-called ‘scramble for
Africa’ and the Berlin Conference and an immediate union of the continent. The former,
however, urged continental collaboration and cooperation by the autonomous states established
by those borders. Certainly, the ideological differences present in the first three decades of
Africa’s political independence seem to have been rendered irrelevant due to the current
ascendancy of neo-liberalism as the only valid ideological basis for economic organisation both
within national political-economies as well as globally. But new political distinctions have
emerged—in part due to the emergence of the so-called ‘new breed’ of African leaders following
the end of apartheid in South Africa and the movements towards political pluralism elsewhere.
71
Such leaders have posited themselves as both able and willing to speak and act on behalf of the
rest of Africa—Africa presented as being determined to re-birth itself as encapsulated in the
concept of the ‘African renaissance’. Similarly, economic distinctions are now also clear—in part
as a result of the economic directions initially pursued post-independence, in part due to
variations in both the presence and utilisation of mineral and other natural resources and in part
due to governance.
The result is that certain African states are, in effect, positioned as metropoles for the other
African peripheries. Such African states, worried about the potential impact of union on their
national political-economies, are as hesitant about the potential for immediate union as was the
so-called ‘Addis Ababa/Casablanca’ group of Nkrumah’s time. Other African states, seeing
nothing but advantages from a union, argue that, given Africa’s diversity, there will never be an
ideal time and now is as good a time as any. Still others are simply sceptical.
The scepticism is not unwarranted? Has the time come for union? Is Africa’s leadership
genuinely ready for what union would entail?
The ‘Grand Debate’ in (fittingly) Accra this June seems set to answer these questions. While
there has been a shameful paucity of African media coverage of the process leading to the ‘Grand
Debate,’ it is certainly not as ill-conceived and spontaneous as that coverage would imply. It
arises from the work of two committees of African heads of state and government convened
under the AU, in part due to pressures from Libya, who determined that the necessity of union
was no longer in doubt. The committees, however, noted that any union must be based on
African peoples’ informed agreement on common values and interests and occur in an
incremental and multilayered manner—with actions at the national level to resolve what were
termed ‘internal contradictions’, using the Regional Economic Communities (RECs) as building
blocks and deepening the institutions of the current AU. The committees further noted that any
union must be based on adherence. 44
To elaborate on the recommendations of the committees, the AU Commission developed the
‘Study on an AU Government: Towards the United States of Africa (USA)’. This study was first
tabled at the AU summit of June/July 2006 in Banjul. Discussions and decisions on it were
deferred to the AU summit of January 2007 in Addis Ababa. At that time, it was decided it
should be the primary focus of the mid-year AU summit in Accra—hence the ‘Grand Debate,’
currently in preparation by the AU’s Executive Council of African Ministers of Foreign Affairs
meeting in May 2007. All these decisions were made at the level of Heads of State (informed by
input from the usual summit process) with little reference to national legislatures or public
consultation.
While idea of the ‘Grand Debate’ may seem incredible given the lack of popular awareness of (let
alone informed debates around) the process leading up to it, its potential impact on Africa and
African peoples’ is not in question. But the process leading up to it is informed by motivations
and rationales that are not as incredible. In fact, an exploration of these motivations and
rationales reveal the process leading up to the ‘Grand Debate’ as somewhat inevitable—informed
both by history and by the current context of Africa within the global political-economy.
This paper thus attempts to re-visit that history and highlight the reasons for the current impetus
toward union among Africa’s leadership; explore the implications of the union on Africa’s
current intergovernmental organisation, the AU; outline challenges to the union project and set
out conditions for its success. In so doing, the paper sets out and critically assesses the study and
draws from the debates within African civil society (including the African women’s movement)
44
Background.
72
on the experience of the AU to date. It also assesses, in particular, the financial proposals made
by the study from the perspective of theory relating to processes of integration.
3. Some history
Pan-Africanism as an ideology was birthed by the struggles for both African independence from
colonialism and an end to the systemic racial discrimination engendered by the enslavement of
African peoples in the Diaspora of the Americas and the Caribbean. Extolling pride in African
ancestry and seeking to valorise African cultures and traditions, Pan-Africanism as an ideology
could be (and was) critiqued as being essentialist in nature and potentially discriminatory against
women. Questions of defining ‘Africans’ given the presence of both older ‘settler’ communities
dating back to the colonial period and newer immigrant communities remain contested today.
Similarly, questions persist as to the interpretation of culture and culture and tradition (and who
holds the onus for such interpretation) as well as the need to understand culture and tradition in
non-static ways.
That said, however, pan-Africanism had many adherents and critical supporters on the continent
as well as in its Diaspora—African academics, artists and, importantly, political activists of
Africa’s first independence generation. These political activists also professed a variety of other
ideologies, infusing pan-Africanist ideals into ‘liberation’ platforms. ‘Liberation’ was necessarily
understood as being both political and economic. Pan-Africanist political leaders of Africa’s
independence generation thus stressed the need for political independence including unity and
collective action as well as for economic self-reliance and self-sufficiency.
These political and economic imperatives never truly died away, despite the seeming resolution
of them in the 1963 formation of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU)—a compromise
between the ‘Addis Ababa/Casablanca’ and ‘Monrovia’ groups, enabling African cooperation at
the highest levels without a full continental union in the form of political federation and regional
integration. The OAU’s liberation committee can be credited with its work towards political
independence across the continent through the 1960s and 1970s as well as its work to end
apartheid through to the 1990s. Over time, the OAU’s membership grew from 35 members to
53.
By the 1990s, the political imperative that underlay the founding of the OAU appeared to be
achieved at the national level, but new political challenges emerged. The fall of the Berlin Wall
and the end of the so-called Cold War gave new impetus and enabled international support for
the movements for political pluralism across the continent. The genocide in Rwanda posed
difficult questions for the OAU regarding its role with respect to internal conflict, particularly
when accompanied by grave or widespread human rights violations. The OAU’s African
Commission on Human and People’s Rights—the regional human rights mechanism—restrategised on how to exploit its mandate to the maximum extent possible in similar situations. 45
The questioning of previous rigid notions of state sovereignty and non-interference had begun.
It is this questioning that enabled the formation of the AU through the adoption of the
Constitutive Act establishing the AU in 2002 in Maputo. Under the Constitutive Act, the AU
differs significantly from its predecessor, the OAU. It highlights human rights, including gender
equality and makes clear that state sovereignty and non-interference shall not apply in situations
of grave or widespread human rights violations. Relevant institutions envisaged as needing
creating and/or upgrading included the proposed African Court of Justice (the now merged
African Court of Human Rights and Justice) as well as the Peace and Security Council (PSC). It
See, for example, the report from the meeting of the African Commission on Human and
Peoples’ Rights on responding to human rights emergencies convened in collaboration with the
International Commission of Jurists (ICJ)-Kenya and Interights in Nairobi, Kenya in 1996.
45
73
also presents itself as being a union of African peoples, rather than African leaders, and allows
for popular participation in the AU through institutions such as the Economic, Social and
Cultural Council (ECOSOCC) and the Pan-African Parliament (PAP).
Meanwhile, in the wake of the structural adjustment programmes (SAPs) imposed on Africa’s
dependent political-economies in the 1980s, the OAU had begun to question how best to
address Africa’s economic imperative. Alongside the ‘democratisation’ process spawned by the
movements for political pluralism, the economic liberalisation and privatisation process had
begun. But, for the first time, Africa’s so-called ‘new breed’ of leadership seemed prepared to
attribute Africa’s slide down the economic map not only to decreasing overseas development
assistance (ODA) and related debt, limited foreign direct investment (FDI) except for resourceextraction and unfair terms of trade. ‘Governance’ was also put on the table. The foundation
document of the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) was thus based on an
‘exchange’—Africa was to address ‘governance’ and, in return, the Group of Eight (G8)—and
the development financing states of the Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) in general–was to move on development financing in all relevant arenas.
Thus the incorporation into the NEPAD of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM)—
essentially a state governance monitoring and evaluation tool to be acceded to voluntarily for
assessment by peers from other states. Despite initial (and somewhat persistent) contention as to
the NEPAD’s relationship to the emerging AU, the NEPAD was eventually adopted as the
development programme of the AU.
A summary of critical moments in the process outlined above can be found in the box entitled
‘Timeline’ below:
Timeline
1957
1963
1980
1981
1990
1990
1991
1995
1998
2000
2000
2000
2002
2003
2003
2003
2007
2006
Ghanaian independence
Formation of the OAU
Lagos Platform for Action (LPA) and the Final Act of Lagos (FAL)
African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights
Abuja Treaty establishing the African Economic Community (AEC)
Charter on Popular Participation in Development and Transformation
Kampala Conference on Security, Stability, Development and Cooperation in Africa
(CSSDCA)
Relaunching Africa’s Economic and Social Development: The Cairo Agenda for Action
Protocol to the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights on the Establishment of
an African Court on Human and Peoples' Rights
OAU Declaration on Unconstitutional Changes of Government
Solemn Declaration on the CSSDCA
Constitutive Act of the AU
NEPAD
AU Convention on Preventing and Combating Corruption
Memorandum of Understanding on the APRM
Protocol to the African Charter on the Rights of Women in Africa
African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance
Grand Debate on Union Government
Looking through at the timeline, several observations can be made. First, through the process,
questions of political integration seemingly settled by the formation of the OAU were finally revisited in new ways with the formation of the AU. However, institutional provisions necessary
for both political and economic integration included in the Constitutive Act had, in fact, been
74
anticipated in several documents adopted by the OAU. Primary among these was the Abuja
Treaty establishing the AEC. . The Abuja Treaty not only set a timeline for the economic
integration—to take place in six stages over 34 years—building on the RECs and envisaging an
African Central Bank (ACB). It also anticipated the institutions enabling popular participation in
the union through the ECOSOCC and the PAP.
Second, intensified consensus-building on norms on which to base political and economic
integration were also set following the adoption of the Abuja Treaty. While the African Charter
was notable for its inclusion of collective (‘peoples’) rights in line not only with purportedly
African ‘values’ but also with the right of all African peoples to self-determination, it is only
following the adoption of the Abuja Treaty that these norms were elaborated on to reflect
changes in Africa’s political-economic landscape such as the emergence of autonomous civil
society as well as the new focus on democracy, governance, human rights (including women’s
human rights) and participation (including women’s participation). It is this process of
consensus-building regarding norms that, to a large extent, enabled the definition of common
values and common interests at the heart of the study to be debated in Accra.
4. The Study on an AU Government: towards the United States of Africa
4.1 The proposal
The study thus does not come out of the blue. It is informed both by the changed context in
which Africa finds itself and by steady progress (at least at the declarative and normative levels)
towards political and economic integration deemed necessary to address that changed context.
The study itself, while concise, is quite clear as to how this progress has informed the study—
referencing back to many of the agreements made from the 1990s on. It briefly sets out the
background and then moves on to set out: a framework for an AU government (including shared
values and common interests, strategic focus areas to be agreed upon as ‘community domain’ and
implications for the current institutions of the AU); and, finally, a roadmap towards achieving an
AU government and, ultimately, a USA (a new acronym would, obviously, be appreciated).
Framework for an AU government46
Sha red v alues an d co mmo n i nte res t
All African states are to be members of the AU government. Interestingly, associate membership
is also anticipated from non-African states, depending on demographics. This is to accommodate
participation by Africans in the Diaspora. Provisions relating to the Diaspora are actually found
throughout the study—harking back to the ideals and proponents of pan-Africanism at its
inception. It is important to note, however, that these provisions are now less idealistic than
pragmatic, relating as they do to recognition of the new African Diaspora—economic and
professional emigrants to the overdeveloped north whose remittances are increasingly recognised
as being valuable to national African political-economies.
The section on shared values and common interests is of particular interest, articulating as it does
a rationale for enhanced political and economic integration that is both internally and externally
driven.47 Derived from the OAU Declaration on Unconstitutional Changes of Government, the
CSSDCA, the Constitutive Act and the NEPAD, the shared values are seen as arising from
Africa’s historical legacy as well as from current realities. They include supposedly cultural and
traditional values (such as pride in African ancestry, humanness, protection of the weak,
communalism and solidarity) as well as human rights as recognised in international law,
participation, rule of law and transparency. They also make a fleeting reference to ‘indigenous’
46
47
Chapter 2.
Chapter 2.1.
75
knowledge and the need for synchronicity with ‘modern’ knowledge systems, although this is not
elaborated on. What is important, however, is the acknowledgement of synchronicity with
respect to cultural and traditional values and human rights—which are not, as has been typical,
placed in opposition to one another. As this oppositional tension most frequently finds
expression at the national level with respect to African women’s citizenship and equality, the
need for the shared values to explicitly include gender equality should be evident. These shared
values are aspects of the study’s content that could be described as ‘internally-driven,’ from
within Africa itself.
Africa’s common interests, on the other hand, are clearly spelt out as being externally driven,
resulting from the challenge of dependence on the overdeveloped north. Referenced to the LPA,
the Cairo Agenda for Economic and Social Development and NEPAD, the study highlights
features of this dependence as including food insecurity, export-led growth (exports here being
primary commodities and raw materials), ODA and debt as well as negative terms of trade. It
posits economic integration as a solution to this dependence, by creating a competitive market in
which returns for investment can be realised, and by enabling the pooling required to generate
energy and move to greater processing of primary commodities and raw materials. It also stresses
the fact that political integration would create collective capacity for engagement in global
governance institutions, thus giving Africa a voice and contributing to human dignity and
progress in Africa.
St rat egic foc us are as
The strategic focus areas defined by the study are to become ‘community domain’—that is, areas
over which state sovereignty will be ceded (at least partially) to the AU government for common
action.48 Referenced back to the LPA, the Abuja Treaty, the CSSDCA, the Constitutive Act and
the NEPAD, they are 16 in number as follows:
•
continental integration;
•
education, training, skill development, science and technology;
•
energy (including hydro, solar and other renewable forms of power);
•
environment;
•
external relations (including the Diaspora);
•
food, agriculture and water resources;
•
gender and youth (with a focus on child labour, especially in the military);
•
governance and human rights;
•
health;
•
industry and mining;
•
money and finance;
•
peace and security;
•
social affairs and solidarity;
•
sport and culture (referenced to the 1987 African Language Action Plan and including
the Diaspora);
•
trade and custom union (with the objective of ultimately enabling the free movement of
persons within the continent);
•
infrastructure, information and communication technologies (ICT) and biotechnologies.
Again, several observations can be made as to the areas defined. First, while it is obviously
necessary to have an area focused on continental integration to monitor and evaluate the
progress towards political and economic integration, it is hard to imagine how the area focused
on external relations would work. True, the habit has developed of African consensus building at
the expert and ministerial levels of most sectors around which global negotiations take place. But
48
Chapter 2.2.
76
diplomacy and foreign affairs as such are the sectors still most firmly in the grip of national
executives. Decision-making on these issues remains the most opaque and untransparent, rarely
being subjected even to parliamentary debate—except occasionally around consequences of
foreign policy decisions on national citizens. In addition, the reference to the Diaspora here is
not elaborated on.
Second, the area focused on gender and youth is thin on substance. It is, in effect, too general to
be clear what is intended under it—as is the area on social affairs and solidarity. Other areas such
as those on industry and mining and infrastructure, ICT and biotechnologies are specifically
referenced to the programmes and projects planned under the first United Nations (UN)
Industrial Decade for Africa and the UN Transport and Communication Decades for Africa
respectively. Specific aspirations with respect to these too generally defined strategic areas of
focus as well as programmes and projects intended to be achieved under them should be spelt
out. In addition, the gendered implications of all strategic focus areas needs to be highlighted,
again in both aspirational as well as programmatic and project senses.
Third, some areas—such as those on governance and human rights and peace and security—are
clear about deepening institutions and processes already underway and/or envisaged through the
AU such as the proposed African Court of Justice and Human Rights and the African Stand-By
Force (ASF)—intended to be Africa’s permanent peace-keeping army. One area, that on money
and finance, using the RECs as building blocks, has to do with evolving such institutions—the
African Investment Bank (AIB), the African Monetary Fund (AMF) and the African Central
Bank (ACB) and catalysing such processes—from a customs and tax union to a monetary union.
In this sense, the strategic focus areas are based on a somewhat unwieldy mixture of pure
aspirations, programmes and projects that have been only strategically planned, and institutions
that are only partially underway. The process of establishing ‘community domain’ would probably
have better prospects if it were, at least initially, based on collective programmes and projects
that are already being implemented that require collective oversight of a kind not already
exercised for common programmes and projects under the NEPAD or possible through
emergent institutions.
That said, however, in the long-term, the strategic focus areas would probably inevitably be
expressed in an aspirational sense—although these aspirations would need to be clear and
evident enough to be able to fill them in substantively. By aspirations here are meant the shared
values and common interests to be achieved through a union—perhaps based on achieving the
promotion and substantive protection of norms already agreed to by African states under
relevant regional and international law and policy, whether ‘hard’ or ‘soft’ in nature. As already
alluded to above, these norms should explicitly include norms with respect to gender equality.
4.2 Institutional and programmatic implications
Institutional and programmatic implications of movement to an AU government are then spelt
out for the Constitutive Act as well as for the AU institutions and specialised mechanisms. 49
They essentially have to do with amending the Constitutive Act as needed; enabling the
Commission to exercise executive authority; ensuring the PAP’s representativity and enabling its
legislative and oversight authority; enabling the African Court’s judicial and dispute-resolution
authority; and catalysing the inception of the AU’s financial institutions. The need for both the
ECOSOCC and the PAP to genuinely guarantee popular participation is also noted.
49
Chapter 2.3.
77
The Constitutive Act
With respect to amendments to the Constitutive Act, the study recommends revisions to
determine the AU government’s mandate through a ‘giving over’ of state sovereignty. This would
essentially define the strategic focus areas as ‘community domain’. Provisions to include the
proposed financial institutions would also have to be included in these amendments.
Non-financial institutions
The current ultimate decision-making body of the AU, the Assembly of Heads of State and
Government would be revised so as to allow for a longer tenure for the President and, given its
new demands, for the Presidency to be held by a former rather than a sitting Head of State or
Government. The Executive Council would be re-designed to include national Ministers relevant
to the strategic focus areas as well as national Ministers of Foreign Affairs. Meanwhile, the
Permanent Representatives’ Council (PRC) of Ambassadors to the AU sitting in Addis Ababa
would have its mandate revert to preparations for the Executive Council only.
The biggest change, as mentioned above, would be for the Commission. The Commissioners
would become, in effect, more of a functional ‘cabinet’ leading ministries, rather than its current
construction as a secretariat to the AU without policy-making functions. It would therefore be
responsible for development and implementation of the strategic focus areas defined as part of
the ‘community domain.’ The study thus recommends a stronger Chair for the Commission, with
seven-year tenure and responsibility for hiring her/his Deputy and Commissioners according to
the strategic focus areas—rather than having them appointed for him by the Assembly, as is
currently the case.
As a result, the study also recommends the transformation of the NEPAD Secretariat in Cape
Town into, in the interim, an AU office outside of Addis Ababa, the seat of the AU, and
alignment of its current plans of action, programmes and projects with the strategic focus areas.
It is also suggested that it share responsibility for implementation of programmes and projects
under the strategic focus areas.
The review of the Protocol establishing the PAP, which was already envisaged after five years, is
recommended as a matter of urgency. Suggested changes to the PAP include not only giving it
the already anticipated legislative role, but also establishing direct elections to it on the basis of
proportional representation and clearer links to national and sub-regional parliaments, rather than
indirect elections from among existing national parliamentarians. An oversight role with respect
to the Commission is also proposed.
The recommendations regarding the PAP, together with those requiring mandatory consultations
with the ECOSOCC on affairs of the Commission, are also intended to enhance popular
participation by Africans in the AU government.
That said, however, neither the PAP itself nor African civil society seem to believe the
recommendations have gone far enough in promoting popular participation. The PAP has noted
that not enough attention has been paid by the study to ensuring separation of powers and
checks and balances between what will ultimately be the executive, legislative and judicial arms of
the union. It also notes the need for capacity and resources, both financial and human to be able
to play its anticipated role.50 African civil society, on the other hand, remains adamant about the
need for wider popular engagement with the study before the ‘Grand Debate’ through debates in
(2007) (Draft) Report by the Pan-African Parliament (PAP): proposal on the Union
Government of Africa (UGA). Cape Town: PAP.
50
78
national parliaments and national consultations as well as the development of consultation
mechanisms at all stages of the decision-making process on progress towards the AU
government. Civil society groups also call for a demonstration of more than lip service to the
vision of a united Africa by the immediate lifting of all visas for Africans travelling within
Africa.51
In addition, none of the study’s recommendations refer to deficiencies already noted by the
African women’s movement with respect to ensuring the equal representation of African women
at the AU’s highest decision-making organs. To its credit, in response, the AU has, in the Solemn
Declaration on Gender Equality of 2002, adopted the principle of gender parity in its institutions
and specialised mechanisms, and implemented it to a greater extent than national Executives and
legislatures. To ensure a continuation of this trend, specific recommendations should be made to
address these deficiencies with respect to all institutions and specialised mechanisms to be
transformed. The Commission’s Chair should also have a Deputy responsible for gender
mainstreaming across her/his ‘Cabinet.’ If the Commissioners are to implement programmes and
projects under the strategic focus areas then, as mentioned above, those should also be reviewed
to ensure that gender implications are taken into account in their elaboration.
Financial institutions
It is in respect of the financial institutions that the recommendations made are most profound.
While the recommendations made are anticipated in and derived from the Abuja Treaty and the
Constitutive Act, it is clear that they will be the most difficult to implement and, given the
experience of even more established RECs, such as the Economic Community of West African
States (ECOWAS), the Southern African Development Cooperation (SADC), and the East
African Community (EAC), the most likely to require more than the time allocated in the study’s
roadmap of nine years.
Based on ‘convergence criteria’ for the eventual union of capital and money markets across the
region set out by the African Association of Central Banks (AACB) as well as guidelines
proposed by the Common Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA), the study proposes:
•
first, progress from the West African Monetary and Economic Union, the Central
African Economic and Monetary Union and the Common Monetary Area of Southern Africa as
well as the economic and monetary unions proposed under COMESA and ECOWAS to
common monetary policy and full integration of capital and monetary markets;
•
second, establishment not only of the African Central Bank (ACB) but also of an African
Monetary Fund (AMF) to regulate monetary policy and an African Investment Bank beyond the
current African Development Bank (ADB) to ensure financing for programmes and projects of
the AU government (for example, continental infrastructure projects);
•
third, financing for the AU government to come not only from assessed contributions as
is the case currently, but also from indirect taxes in the form of either import levies or airline
ticket taxes on flights within and in/out of Africa (an earlier proposal on insurance taxes has
been dropped).
The study notes that this move will have to be based on ‘convergence criteria’, overseen by
regional monetary authorities and built up from the establishment of ‘optimum currency areas’ in
the first instance and the achievement of total factor mobility in the second instance. It thus
anticipates that the ACB will require seven to ten years with limited functions before being able
(2007) Submission from civil society organisations (CSOs) to the PAP on the Proposal for
Continental Government.
51
79
to ensure the move to a common market and monetary union with a common currency (to be
called the ‘Afric’).
Generally, economic integration occurs in four stages. First is the establishment of a free trade
area, distinguished by with the removal of barriers to the trade of specified goods and services
within the free trade area. Second is the establishment of a common market, enabling the
mobility of all factors of production inside the common market. Third is the establishment of a
customs union with common external customs and excise taxes. And fourth is the establishment
of a monetary union with a common currency.
The experience of the more well-established RECs to date show that the first stage is (relatively)
painless to implement—although countries with less competitive local producers and
manufacturers may initially resist the entry of goods and services from countries with more
competitive producers and manufacturers. The second, third and fourth stages are, however,
much more difficult to achieve.
With respect to enabling full factor mobility—the free movement of all factors of production
(capital as well as labour)—resistance to migration, both economic and forced, is increasing
rather decreasing across the continent, partly in response to the large refugee outflows still all too
common in Africa. Even where economic migration is permitted in limited circumstances, it has
been faced with xenophobic backlash (of the kind now witnessed in South Africa against
professional as well as non-professional Africans).
As concerns common customs and exise tax in respect of externally produced goods and
services, most African states would be loath to make concessions on what remains an important
revenue stream in the larger common interest (at least in the short-term, even if the long-term
benefits may be clear). In addition, the collapse of the World Trade Organisation (WTO)’s socalled development round has sparked an increase in bilaterally negotiated trade agreements.
Although Africa is technically holding to a common position, resolving continental variations
across all sectors covered by these bilateral trade agreements will be difficult in practice in the
future.
With respect to the fourth state, it is true that the current aims of monetary policy across the
continent are largely undifferentiated among states. However, the gap between aims and
achievements is still highly differentiated—particularly given the internal conflict in some states
(or regions within states). Unsurprisingly therefore, the proposed ‘convergence criteria’ imply that
succession to the partnership will necessarily be on a staggered basis. This fact, together with the
requirement regarding total factor mobility—the free movement of all factors of production
(labour as well as capital) mean that even the slightly extended timeline here of up to ten years
may be unrealistic. Unless a real impetus is given to questions of African citizenship, these
recommendations seem likely to stall for some time to come.
Finally, while the aims of monetary policy at the national level are now largely uncontested
among African states, they have been contested by the African women’s movement, particularly
within African states where gender budgeting is taking place. The view that macroeconomic
policy (fiscal and monetary policy) is gender neutral has been shown to be untrue. The analysis
done in this respect should be taken into account in the ‘convergence criteria.’
The RECs
The RECs are intended to be the building blocks for the AU government and the USA. The AU
currently recognised eight RECs as follows:
80
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
the Arab Magreb Union (AMU);
the Community of Sahel-Saharan States (CEN-SAD);
the East African Community (EAC);
the Economic Community of Central African States (ECCAS);
the ECOWAS;
the COMESA;
the Intergovernmental Authority on Development (IGAD); and
the Southern African Development Cooperation (SADC).
As the study notes, all eight RECs have economic integration as their end goal, with only the
EAC additionally aspiring to political integration under a federation. Although their progress
towards that end goal can only be assessed as mixed, the study also notes that those making
progress appear to be doing to on the basis of internal political stability, the end (or lack) of interstate rivalry, capacity at the national level and, in the case of the EAC, a common language,
Kiswahili.
The question that obviously arises (although it remains only implicit in the study) is whether
these conditions are present on a continental scale (they do not) and, if not, how to bring them
into being. The AU as currently constituted will necessarily have to do more to assist in the
resolution of internal conflicts in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), Somalia,
Darfur in the Sudan, and Zimbabwe. In addition, questions of capacity at the national level will
have to be addressed in African states just emerging from internal conflict—Cote d’Ivoire,
Liberia, Sierra Leone, southern Sudan and so on.
In addition, the study notes that progress being made is internal-looking in each REC. Initiatives
are not referenced to the AU and there is no roadmap with respect to the AU within any of the
RECs. The inevitable result is that many of the RECs have duplicated the AU’s institutions and
mechanisms and are tending to engage more with the NEPAD on common programmes and
projects under the NEPAD plans of action (on agriculture, environment and ICTs, for example).
Although this could be beneficial in the medium- to long-term, it can only be so if the missing
roadmaps to the AU are developed as a matter of urgency—and if NEPAD is aligned to the AU
as suggested above.
What is needed is intensified efforts at harmonisation and rationalisation of the RECs. The study
proposes that this be done through the prompt adoption of proposed amendments to the 1998
Protocol on Relations between the African Economic Community (AEC) and the RECs to allow
for liaison mechanisms between the AU and the RECs, joint resource mobilisation and, in
particular, joint work with the AU’s Peace and Security Council (PSC). This would be supported
by recommendations proposed at the national level—the institution of Ministers for Regional
Integration where they do not exist, links with the PAP and links with the sub-regional and
national members of the ECOSOCC.
It is important, however, to note that even with respect to the RECs where progress is being
made, questions of popular participation remain contentious. The EAC, for example, recently
deployed teams to each of the three east African members to assess public opinion on the EAC.
While their final report is not yet out, media coverage of the team’s public hearings and sittings
revealed that knowledge of the EAC integration process is low and demands for higher levels of
public engagement and participation were repeatedly made. Given that there has been far greater
media coverage of the EAC within the sub-region than of the AU, that should signal the vital
importance of acting on the recommendations of African civil society noted above.
81
5. The road ahead
The study concludes with a tentative roadmap towards the AU government and the USA.52 The
roadmap is in three stages over nine years with the first stage focused on establishing the AU
government, the second stage on operationalising the AU government and the third and final
stage on establishing the USA.
As already noted above, this time frame is clearly too short. On the one hand, the low level of
public awareness about the study, its recommendations and the upcoming ‘Grand Debate’ are
bound to militate against implementation of the recommendations—even if the idea of panAfricanism is an idea that has long been aspired to. The recommendations will be seen as
imposed on African populations from the top-down, rather than arising from a consultative
process which all Africans buy into and support. On the other hand, the financial proposals in
particular cannot be achieved (as the study itself notes) within the nine years. Technical questions
aside, they also hinge on critical pre-conditions for success such as, at best, African citizenship
(including African women’s autonomous citizenship rights) or, at least, freedom of movement
across the continent—the achievement of either which will be difficult to implement given the
varied economic performance of individual African states as well as the persistence of internal
conflicts across the region. This is a fact that has already been noted by some African leaders—as
evidenced in the debate about the existence or otherwise of an ‘ideal’ time for union.
This is not to suggest that the study’s recommendations are unfeasible. African civil society, for
instance, has in responses to the upcoming ‘Grand Debate’ noted that these pre-conditions, in
fact, lie at the heart of their expectations from a union. 53 At the top of the list of these
expectations lie the following:
•
having one voice for Africa as a whole;
•
enhanced freedoms and rights for African peoples, including peace, security and stability
and the right to freedom of movement across the continent;
•
‘equalising’ Africa and achieving economic emancipation, through increased capacity for
local production, exports and foreign exchange earnings leading to poverty reduction;
•
capitalising on what unites ‘us’ (the ‘us’ being undefined but assumed to be understood)
through achieving coherence and enabling ‘best practice’ and information exchange across the
continent.
The AU’s progress, in its current manifestation, could be taken as a measure of how realistic
those expectations are.
With respect to having one voice, the AU’s emergence has certainly aided Africa’s participation
in global governance fora such as the United Nations through strengthening the Africa Group’s
positions. It has also, while unfortunately embroiled in unnecessary grandstanding asserting its
mandate to fulfil roles hitherto carried out by the UN Economic Commission for Africa (ECA),
built on the common position building instituted by the ECA as regards the WTO.
With respect to human rights, it is true that the African Commission has played a more useful
role in recent years than at its inception. Taking its response to the latest situation of grave or
widespread human rights in Darfur, the Sudan as an example, it is clear that its report into human
rights violations in Darfur, the Sudan was instrumental in shifting the AU’s initial position on the
Chapter 3.
Kebede, Saloman (2007) “People’s Voices in the Grand Debate: CSO and citizen interviews on
the proposal for a union government,” AU Monitor. Oxford: Fahamu,
www.pambazuka.org/aumonitor.
52
53
82
matter, eventually enabling the entry of the African Mission to the Sudan (AMIS). But, arguably,
prevarication on the matter should not have arisen at all. And AMIS’ initial lack of an appropriate
protection mandate and its persistent lack of resources has meant its efficacy remains in question.
It is also true that the relatively speedy adoption and ratification of the Protocol to the African
Charter on the Rights of Women in Africa signalled a new determination by the AU member
states to move on questions of gender equality. But the lack of implementation on the ground—
through domestication of the Protocol where required—signals continued propensity by the
AU’s member states to do the right thing at the regional level but continue with business as usual
at the national level. The same conclusion could arguably be drawn with respect to
recommendations made to the AU member states who have completed their governance
assessments under the APRM.
Finally, with respect to ‘equalising’ Africa and achieving economic emancipation, it is true that
the Africa/G8 engagement under the NEPAD did contribute to the debt cancellation deals for
13 of Africa’s poorest countries in 2005/6. It contributed to new commitments to higher levels
of ODA for Africa, even if these have yet to fully materialise. And it contributed to increased
planning for programmes and projects of continental importance, even if financing for these
programmes and projects has yet to be found.
These examples are only illustrative and not quantifiable with respect to the AU’s achievements
towards African civil society’s expectations. They paint a picture of somewhat inconsistent and
patchy progress that is more incipient than felt on the ground. But they also point to a significant
shift towards meaningful collective action that bodes well for further intensification of the
regional integration agenda.
But African civil society has also stressed that meeting these expectations will not be easy. Apart
from the current lack of public awareness and support already noted above, while decrying socalled ‘afro-pessimism’, it is itself if not cynical at least sceptical about the African leaders at
whose behest this study was done. In assessing the progress of the AU with respect to resolving
the remaining internal conflicts in the region, it has noted the lack of consistent and progressive
political will to address still too rigid understandings of state sovereignty.
To conclude, for the study’s recommendations to be achieved and the clarion call ‘Africa Unite’
to be realised, political will will need to be built up at the highest and lowest levels. This will
require focused, targeted communications and consultative work at the national level. And
enhanced delivery by the AU as currently constituted. While working towards an aspirational
framework within a more reasonable timeframe, the focus should now be on resolving the gap
between the AU’s new normative framework and institutional and programmatic/project
delivery already experienced.
83
Annexe 1: recommendations on the study and beyond
The proposal
Framework for an AU government
Sha red v alues an d co mmo n i nte res t
• Explicitly include gender equality and women’s human rights as shared values;
• Elaborate on the reference to ‘indigenous’ knowledge and the need for synchronicity with
‘modern’ knowledge systems;
Strategic focus areas
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
For the longer-term, express the strategic focus areas in a more aspirational sense—by
aspirations here are meant the shared values and common interests to be achieved through a
union—such as the promotion and substantive protection of norms already agreed to by
African states under relevant regional and international law and policy, whether ‘hard’ or
‘soft’ in nature, explicitly including norms with respect to gender equality;
In the shorter-term, review the process of establishing ‘community domain’ so as to focus, at
least initially, on collective programmes and projects already being implemented that require
collective oversight of a kind not already exercised for common programmes and projects
under the NEPAD or possible through emergent and yet-to-be evolved AU institutions;
Highlight the gendered implications of all strategic focus areas in both aspirational as well as
programmatic and/or project senses;
Elaborate on the strategic focus area dealing with external relations, focusing on how it
would relate to diplomacy and foreign affairs at the national level;
More clearly state the aspirations for the two strategic focus areas dealing with on industry
and mining and infrastructure, ICT and biotechnologies;
Further develop the two strategic focus areas focused on gender and youth and social affairs
and solidarity, specifying what it intended under them as a matter of ‘community domain’;
Include institutional-strengthening measures for the strategic focus areas involving emergent
or yet-to be evolved AU institutions such as those on governance and human rights, peace
and security and money and finance;
Institutional and programmatic implications
Non-financial institutions
•
•
•
•
•
Pay more attention to ensuring separation of powers and checks and balances between what
will ultimately be the executive, legislative and judicial arms of the union;
Address the need for capacity and resources, both financial and human;
Review all recommendations in light of deficiencies already noted by the African women’s
movement with respect to ensuring the equal representation of African women at the AU’s
highest decision-making organs—for instance, the Commission’s Chair could also have a
Deputy responsible for gender mainstreaming across her/his ‘Cabinet’ and all
Commissioners responsible for programmes and projects under the strategic focus areas
should ensure that gender implications are taken into account in their elaboration and
implementation;
Review all recommendations in light of their potential to promote popular participation
(including by women);
Put in place mechanisms to enable wider popular engagement with the study through
debates in national parliaments and national consultations as well as the development of
consultation mechanisms at all stages of the decision-making process on progress towards
the AU government;
84
Financial institutions
•
•
•
Conduct analysis into the gendered implications of macroeconomic policy with respect to
the ‘convergence criteria’;
Enable total factor mobility—the free movement of all factors of production (labour as well
as capital)—by addressing questions of African citizenship, including African women’s equal
citizenship rights and freedom of movement at the continental level;
Demonstrate political will by immediately lifting all visa requirements for Africans travelling
within Africa;
The RECs
•
•
•
•
Assess the conditions for successful sub-regional integration—internal political stability, the
end (or lack) of inter-state rivalry, capacity at the national level and a common language—on
a continental scale and put in place measures to achieve them where they are lacking;
Intensify efforts at harmonisation and rationalisation of the RECs, referencing such
intensification explicitly to the AU through adoption of amendments to the 1998 Protocol
on Relations between the African Economic Community (AEC) and the RECs;
Address repeated calls for progress popular participation in the integration processes at the
sub-regional level;
Facilitate better media coverage of the same;
The road ahead
•
•
•
•
Demonstrate greater commitment to the normative framework already established by the
AU, particularly with respect to the promotion and protection of human rights (including
women’s human rights), peace and security;
Demonstrate, in particularly, consistent and progressive political will to address still too rigid
understandings of state sovereignty in respect of matters of human rights, peace and security;
Adopt a longer time frame to build up political will at all levels, particularly in respect of the
financial recommendations;
Enhance delivery by the AU and the NEPAD on programmes and projects already
underway.
Bibliography
(2007) (Draft) Report by the Pan-African Parliament (PAP): proposal on the Union Government
of Africa (UGA). Cape Town: PAP.
(2006). Study on an African Union (AU) Government towards the United States of Africa (USA).
Addis Ababa: the AU, page 35.
(2007) “Submission from civil society organisations (CSOs) to the PAP on the proposal for
continental government.”
Kebede, Saloman (2007) “People’s Voices in the Grand Debate: CSO and citizen interviews on
the proposal for a union government,” AU Monitor. Oxford: Fahamu,
www.pambazuka.org/aumonitor.
85
Peoples’ Voices in the Grand Debate: CSO and Citizen Interviews on the Proposal for a
Union Government
Saloman Kebede interviewed several African civil society leaders and citizens about the “Grand
Debate on the Union Government”. The interviews were conducted by the Pan Africa
Programme of Oxfam in the corridors of a civil society meeting organized by UN-CONGO and
FEMNET in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, in the week of the 13th March 2007. Emily Mghanga of
Oxfam’s Pan Africa Programme edited these interviews, which were originally published in the
AU-Monitor and can be found at www.aumonitor.org
Without Peace and Security, No Continental Union
Interview with Joseph Yav
Joseph Yav is a Senior Researcher for the Institute for Security Studies based in Addis
Ababa, Ethiopia. He works with a network of African research institutes in support of the
African peace and security agenda.
Saloman Kebede: What form of Continental government does Africa need?
Joseph Yav: Africa needs a continental government that depends on the people of Africa not
only on their Heads of States. Africa must forge its own direction, learning from the experiences
of the United States of America and the European Union.
Saloman Kebede: Why is the continental Union important to African citizens especially the poor
and the marginalized?
Joseph Yav: Human emancipation and freedoms must be the focus of any Union.
Saloman Kebede: How could integration be successful?
Joseph Yav: The focus must be based on a clear assessment of the progress of the AU over the
Organisation of African Unity. How have we overcome poverty and conflict? What new ideas,
opportunities and challenges are there for the African Union in the future? How can we push all
the national and regional mechanisms? This would create a clear strategy for change.
Saloman Kebede: What one policy would your organization propose to be adopted in the
continental organization?
Joseph Yav: The Institute for Security Studies works mainly for a stable and peaceful Africa. We
would want to see a clear focus in the area of peace and security because if there is no peace,
there is no security. By security, I mean not only the security of states but human security as well.
Saloman Kebede: What milestones would you like to see achieved within the first two years?
Joseph Yav: Our Head of States and governments should focus first on the integration of people.
Second, we should question the current structures - the positive and the negatives. Finally, assess
all the forms of integration federation and others.
Saloman Kebede: What meaningful decisions would make this process people driven, rights
based and publicly accountable to African citizens?
86
Joseph Yav: There is an urgent need to consult civil society. Our leaders must depart from the
experience of the OAU. Otherwise it will end up as a club of Head of States. We must change
the idea of the Union as a club of Heads of States to an idea that is championed by the people of
Africa. Heads of States have the right to make decisions, but the focus must be on people. Civil
society has the right to also engage and contribute to this debate.
Saloman Kebede: Do you think the timing is right?
Joseph Yav: Yes and no. No, it is coming too late in Africa’s history. Former President of Ghana,
Kwame Nkrumah and others championed this idea 40 years ago. Secondly, this idea was reproposed by the Heads of States as far back as 1999 in Sirte, Libya. Yes, if the idea is driven by
African peoples, the time for a Union is now!
Democratic Political Leadership Is A Pre-Condition For Continental Union
Interview with Arnold Tsunga
Arnold Tsunga works with Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights. Arnold Tsunga is a lawyer based
in Harare Zimbabwe and working on human rights law in Zimbabwe.
Saloman Kebede: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current proposal for Continental
Government?
Arnold Tsunga: The recommendations in the Study for Continental Government are not
currently binding. Our leaders will end up doing what favours their governments as opposed to
what would be of benefit to Africa as a whole. This weakens the proposal. The appalling state of
leadership is a great misfortune in Africa and has victimized citizens through the violation of
human rights in Ethiopia, Zimbabwe and Rwanda and elsewhere. The strength of this proposal
shall lie in its ability to uphold the status of human rights in Africa and address situations in
particular countries where democracy has been abused.
Saloman Kebede: Should it be adopted in Accra in July 2007, what would you like to see the
African Union Commission achieve within the first phase (2007-2009)?
Arnold Tsunga: Enable Africa to meet the Millennium Development Goals. As the African
Union is still a growing institution, civil society organizations can assist to ensure good political
leadership and the governance that will guarantee that Africa meets the MDGs.
Saloman Kebede: And why would this form of continental union be important to African
citizens, particularly the poor and marginalized?
Arnold Tsunga: It is important for Africa to have a unified focus and accountability as a
continent.
Saloman Kebede: How could states and non-states ensure that continental union efforts are
transparent, participatory and driven by an appreciation of political and economic rights?
Arnold Tsunga: The effective involvement of grassroots communities is central to its success.
We must consider the power of civil society actors, the power of human right defenders and the
power of political activists on the ground. We must take into account what they say and try to
implement.
87
Saloman Kebede: What obstacles must the AU overcome for the continental union to be
successful?
Arnold Tsunga: The AU should do away with the culture of a leadership uniting against its own
people. They, instead, must empower the people to facilitate development.
Saloman Kebede: In what policy area, would you like to see greater convergence and unity across
Africa and why?
Arnold Tsunga: Economic integration.
A Fine Idea, Lets Prioritise Peace, Women’s Rights And Health!
Interview with Roselynn Musa
Roselynn Musa is a Nigerian based in Kenya working with African Women’s Development and
Communications Network, FEMNET
Saloman Kebede: Why is continental integration important to African Citizens?
Roselynn Musa: In unity lies strength! Continental Union will allow greater coordination and
mobilization of our resources, which is fundamental for growth and development in Africa. It
also gives better opportunities for economy of scale.
Saloman Kebede: Should it be adopted in Accra in July 2007, what would you like to see the
African Union Commission achieve within the first phase (2007-2009)?
Roselynn Musa: The most pressing needs in Africa are the issues of peace and security as well as
HIV/AIDS and malaria. Women and children are the most affected. It is crucial that they focus
on the economic empowerment of women as a way of addressing most of our societal ills. Let
the AU commission set priorities in these areas.
Saloman Kebede: How could states and non-states ensure that continental union efforts are
transparent, participatory and driven by an appreciation of political and economic rights?
Roselynn Musa: The AU-NEPAD peer review mechanism is an important tool for transparency
if implemented as planned. We need to put our own house in order so as to be able to hold
others accountable. We should practice what we preach.
Saloman Kebede: What obstacle must the AU overcome for the continental union to be
successful?
Roselynn Musa: Conflict and human insecurity. If there is no peace, it is difficult to unite either
individually or continentally. A positive way to start could be to address those issues that have
been generating conflict in our continent.
Saloman Kebede: In what policy area, would you like to see greater convergence and unity across
Africa and why?
Roselynn Musa: Peace and security, but also health and women’s economic empowerment.
88
Continental Union Is Viable, But Only With Commitment And Practice
Interview with Pastor Peters Omoragbon
Pastor Peters Omoragbon is the Executive Director of Nurses Across Borders
Saloman Kebede: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current proposal?
Pastor Peters Omoragbon: It is a workable proposal. A United States of Africa will mean Africa
standing together with one voice, strength and unity. However, let us not have the United States
of Africa in name only but in practice as well.
Saloman Kebede: Should it be adopted in Accra in July 2007, what would you like to see the
African Union Commission achieve within the first phase (2007-2009)?
Pastor Peters Omoragbon: I would like to see all the structures and regulations set up and all
heads of states fully committed to this process.
Saloman Kebede: And why would this form of continental union be important to African
citizens, particularly the poor and marginalized?
Pastor Peters Omoragbon: It is an attempt to bring us together despite the existence of diverse
backgrounds across the continent. There will be greater unity when we capitalize on what unites
us other than our differences. It will allow us to eliminate the mind-set that other countries are
better or lesser than others. All African countries will stand with one voice!
Saloman Kebede: How could states and non-states ensure that continental union efforts are
transparent, participatory and driven by an appreciation of political and economic rights?
Pastor Peters Omoragbon: That is the work of the civil society. We need to monitor and keep
the governments accountable to this and other commitments.
Saloman Kebede: What obstacles must the AU overcome for the continental union to be
successful?
Pastor Peters Omoragbon: There is the need to put an end to internal conflicts within memberstates. We also need to overcome bad policies that do not make decisions in the interests of
marginalized people in every African country.
Give Room for Civil Society Participation Before Adoption
Interview with Sanusi Ibraheem
Sanusi Ibraheem is the Ag. Executive Director, The Intellectual Group based in Ogbomoso, Nigeria
and working on issues around youth development.
Saloman Kebede: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current proposal?
Sanusi Ibraheem: The strength of the proposal is the fact that Africans will for the first time be
uniting, very similar to the European Union. There will be free movement across the continent.
Weakness- I hope we will not have weak institutional structures right from the start. That may
give room for some lapses, which at the end of the day become too cumbersome. For instance
we may be discussing things on the ground that we cannot accommodate.
89
Saloman Kebede: Should it be adopted in Accra in July 2007, what would you like to see the
African Union Commission achieve within the first phase (2007-2009)?
Sanusi Ibraheem: Give room for Civil Society participation in the process before the final
adoption. If the reason the government is uniting structures is for the unity of the people of
Africa, then the civil society most especially young people should be involved in the process. I
hope that the first phase will be able to achieve the resolution of various crises in Africa
especially, Sudan, Somalia/Ethiopia, Zimbabwe, Congo etc. If we are able to solve these crises,
we will have taken the first and most important steps to economic emancipation.
Saloman Kebede: And why would this form of continental union be important to African
citizens, particularly the poor and marginalized?
Sanusi Ibraheem: When we adopt freedom of movement, for instance, we benefit from free
information exchange and best practices that could be learnt more easily and replicated in various
other individual states. This will help us understand that, we are one and not northern African,
western African, central African or southern African. The peer review mechanism is a good
system to improve on a government weakness. A Continental Union will bring coherency and
stability in our countries which is good for our economies and will consequently increase export,
and impart more on local production and increase foreign exchange flows into Africa and
ultimately will contribute to reducing the number of poor people living in Africa.
Saloman Kebede: How could states and non-states ensure that continental union efforts are
transparent, participatory and driven by an appreciation of political and economic rights?
Sanusi Ibraheem: Civil society organizations should be involved and consultations carried out
widely across all segments of society. Each State should be encouraged to carry out sensitization
workshops on the Union Government Proposal and ensure that all segments of the society buys
into it. This will bring a sense of ownership to all Africans and will see that it’s a collective
responsibility. While involving all segments of the society in the process encourages the “buy in”
needed to drive the process, it will also offer checks and balances on the other hand.
Saloman Kebede: What obstacles must the AU overcome for the continental union to be
successful?
Sanusi Ibraheem: Let us do away with the afro-pessimistic attitude in our midst. Many of us
strongly doubt the possibility of such a structure working out. Secondly, the intra-region crises
should be curtailed if the process must succeed. With the right attitude and a safe environment to
operate, there is no limit to Africa’s progress.
Saloman Kebede: In what policy area, would you like to see greater convergence and unity across
Africa and why?
Sanusi Ibraheem: The economy. The strength of the economy is vital in the provision of basic
needs to our people. We also need to change the political face, particularly in leadership and
policy making.
90
Interview with Cardinal Uwishaka
Cardinal Uwishaka is a Rwandan national based in Pretoria, South Africa, and working for
CIVICUS: World Alliance for Citizen Participation.
Saloman Kebede: What form of Continental government does Africa need?
Cardinal Uwishaka: Africa needs a union that creates a real platform for continental collaboration
beyond governments. This collaboration should involve civil society organisations, businesses,
and all sorts and forms of grassroots movements and associations. The collaboration should
advance Africa’s sense of mutual interest and provide a platform for all Africans to contribute to
their dream of a peaceful and prosperous continent. The AU must move beyond the framework
of representative democracy towards mechanisms to ensure that participatory forms of
democracy inform all its decision-making processes and influence its ways of working. We need
an AU government structure where the voice of the African citizen is heard and acted upon. The
union government should address needs of its people and not only those of its leaders as was the
case with the old structures of the OAU that was primarily a club that served African leaders
sometimes to the detriment of its people. The AU must master the will to act on issues of
interest of all African citizens. We hope for a new momentum in realizing the vision of a
continental government that can act, achieve and develop clear priorities that all Africans can
identify with and support their realisation.
Saloman Kebede: Why is the Continental Union important to African citizens especially the poor
and the marginalized?
Cardinal Uwishaka: With the movement towards globalization, it’s about time that African
leaders realized the need for unity. Africa cannot achieve sustainable development, peace and
security unless it is united in its development agenda. Africa must recognize its diversity and the
treasure of its resources; our past history of slavery, colonialism, war, corruption and bad
leadership demands a new sense of responsibility from our leaders. Africa has been exploited for
long and must now get together and create meaningful and just opportunities for trade and
exploitation of its resources. A united Africa will establish a strong platform to address common
challenges such as international trade, other forms and mechanisms that influence international
redistribution of resources and demand everyone’s equitable level of responsibility in addressing
common challenges such as the effects of the changing environment, good governance within
multilateral institutions and maintaining global peace.
Saloman Kebede: What strategic areas of focus do you propose for the integration to be
successful?
Cardinal Uwishaka: Our focus should be on respect for human rights, good governance as well as
peace and security across the continent. These are absolute prerequisites for sustainable
development. We should also have a clear road map to address challenges of economic
integration, fight all forms of oppression and exploitation and bring sanity in the way power is
accessed and exercised by our leaders at all levels.
Saloman Kebede: What obstacles must the AU overcome for the continental body to be
successful?
91
Cardinal Uwishaka: The AU has to remember that Africa has a colonial history. We are divided
in terms of race, language and political ideologies of our leaderships. The challenge to our leaders
is to ensure that we overcome these differences and find a common denominator that unites us
and helps us to achieve prosperity using resources that Africa has been abundantly endowed
with.
Interview with Traore Wodjo Fini
Traore Wodjo Fini, Chair Person of the Club Union Africaine de Côte D’Ivoire, is based in Ivory
Coast and working on issues of democracy, human rights, peace culture, electoral process, youth, women’s
rights and African unity.
Saloman Kebede: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current proposal?
Traore Wodjo Fini: We had already decided to build Africa and bring African Unity far back in
the 1960s. The future of Africa is our business. We are here to build a stronger civil society and
political party that will respect human rights and promote democracy.
Saloman Kebede: Should it be adopted in Accra in July 2007, what would you like to see the
African Union Commission achieve within the first phase (2007-2009)?
Traore Wodjo Fini: Africa as a whole suffers from economic, social and political crisis. Heads of
state should ensure that democracy continues in each country. They must also finish establishing
ECOSOCC in order to give a good voice for civil society in the process of building a strong
African Union. We request the president of the Commission to include leaders of civil society
organisations in Africa in the international observation of elections in the countries of Africa.
Saloman Kebede: And why would this form of continental union be important to African
citizens & particular the poor and marginalized?
Traore Wodjo Fini: It will not be a unity of heads of state only but for all citizens, because the
civil society has the power to facilitate a continental union. United, we can fight against poverty
and against abuse of human rights and resources of our continent. Professor Cheikh Anta Diop,
leader of Pan-Africanism and Africa culture said "only the African Federal State is viable”. In
addition, Doctor Kwameh N’krumah affirmed that Africa must link itself or perish. The African
citizens want to be free from poverty and have leaders who will be accountable to this popular
decision.
Saloman Kebede: How could states and non-states ensure that continental union efforts are
transparent, participatory and driven by an appreciation of political and economic rights?
Traore Wodjo Fini: Governments are obligated to be democratic and transparent in utilizing
resources for development and respect for human rights. Civil society organisations, on the other
hand, should be at the forefront in educating citizens on their rights and advocating for the right
policies for Africa.
Saloman Kebede: What obstacles must the AU overcome for the continental union to be
successful?
Traore Wodjo Fini: The heads of states have been unable to address challenges in education,
poverty and human rights. This should be their business. Civil society must advocate for change
of policies in the AU and democratization. The African Union must overcome the challenge of
92
transparent and credible elections on the continent. The AU must have respect for human rights,
courageously fight against poverty to avoid the escape of intellectual Africans to other continents
and promote leadership for the African women. Besides all this, the AU should facilitate
provision of education programmes/curriculum on Panafricanism and African culture in schools,
colleges and universities to safeguard the history of the continent.
Saloman Kebede: In what policy area, would you like to see greater convergence and unity across
Africa and why?
Traore Wodjo Fini: Democratization. We call for a visionary leadership that is not corrupt but is
obligated to protect its citizens. In addition, we need to have a stronger civil society, stronger
women leaders and journalists who can speak freely and inform our society. We need a young
generation of people who are well educated to help move Africa forward. The agricultural and
economic policy of the continent must be re-examined to go towards a single currency and a real
mechanization of our means of production that is still a challenge in this continent.
It’s Too Early For A Continental Government
Interview with Amir Ahmed Mangheli
Amir Ahmed Mangheli works with the Somaliland National Disability Forum
Saloman Kebede: What would be the implications of the continental integration taking into
account the present situation?
Amir Ahmed Mangheli: We must first acknowledge that African leaders have differing opinions.
For instance, Gaddafi’s enthusiasm for continental unity in the early stages of creating the AU
was not warmly shared by his counterparts, neither were other African countries keen on
supporting Nigeria’s bid to join the security council. These are important challenges. The Union
proposal should not assume that there are insensitivities of how far individualized countries are
willing to go in sharing out their resources for the benefit of other countries. There is need for
sensitization and broad-based consultation at country level to ensure full support for the Union
proposal.
Saloman Kebede: What milestones would you like to see achieved within the 1st phase of two
years?
Amir Ahmed Mangheli: The AU commission should design a program that breaks down the
barriers of colonial boundaries. This may take some time, but it is important. They should also
agree on free trade across these territories.
Saloman Kebede: What meaningful decisions should the head of states take to make this process
people driven, rights based and publicly accountable to African citizens?
Amir Ahmed Mangheli: The current Heads of States should give room for other potential leaders
across the continents who have really taken interest in the African Union. We should not have a
standing president take leadership of the continental Government. There is also a need to stop
oppressing the rights of people and guarantee accountability at all levels of office.
Saloman Kebede: Do you think the timing is right?
93
Amir Ahmed Mangheli: There is always a road map for everything. The OAU came after sixty
years of colonialism and then forty years later, we have had African Union, which has not stayed
for a long time. Now the Heads of States want one, unified African state. With the weaknesses in
the regional economic communities, can we pull the Continental Government together without a
collective vision of the African Union? We need about ten years so that we can achieve this.
Popularise The Union, It’s Time Has Come
Interview with Bougouma Diagne
Bougouma Diagne represents the Cultural Association For Social & Educational Self Promotion in
Senegal
Saloman Kebede: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current proposal?
Bougouma Diagne: The current essence of the proposal is that if we unite, we become stronger
and will realise the same objectives and goals. A weak point to note is that many African
countries are dependant and in-directly controlled by stronger economies in Asia, North America
and Europe.
Saloman Kebede: Should it be adopted in Accra in July 2007, what would you like to see the
African Union Commission achieve within the first phase (2007-2009)?
Bougouma Diagne: The African Union Commission should first popularize that decision across
the continent in order to involve all citizens in the process.
Saloman Kebede: Why would this form of continental union be important to African citizens &
particular the poor and marginalized?
Bougouma Diagne: The AU Commission has to create ways of African citizens to participate. It
is most acceptable to have organs that ignore or unaccountable to public opinion.
Saloman Kebede: How could states and non-states ensure that continental union efforts are
transparent, participatory and driven by an appreciation of political and economic rights?
Bougouma Diagne: The main objective should be to implement the AU charter and particularly
sections that safeguard the rights of people. This will ensure citizen involvement in the AU
agenda. That way we can be sure that people will have an interest in continental union.
Saloman Kebede: What obstacles must the AU overcome for the continental union to be
successful?
Bougouma Diagne: The AU has to take cultural diversity into consideration and plan so that we
are all accommodated. This will bring harmony and acceptance from all citizens in the continent.
Saloman Kebede: In what policy area, would you like to see greater convergence and unity across
Africa and why?
Bougouma Diagne: Education is the main problem in Africa, because an illiterate society is
undermined in many ways.
94
Beyond the Presidential Project to a Public Mandate
Interview with Andiwo Obondoh, Christian Childrens Fund.
Andiwo Obondoh is the Regional Advisor for Christian Children’s Fund (CCF) Africa, based in
South Africa.
Emily Mghanga: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the Proposal for Union Government?
Andiwo Obondoh: Though the AU has worked well since the dissolution of the OAU, I don’t
think African people are ready for a United States of Africa now. It’s an ambitious endeavor that
has not been well debated by the people of Africa. What would be the structure? Does US of
Africa mean political federation, economic cooperation or socio-economic cooperation? The
term United States of Africa suggests an “American -style structure” where African states would
be federated to an overall structure. How would we provide the structures for its leadership? I
would prefer the AU structure as it is crafted now. We can then work towards improving the
gaps and weaknesses. We need to improve the effectiveness of the current AU.
Emily Mghanga: What milestones would you like to see achieved within the first two years if the
proposal is adopted in June?
Andiwo Obondoh: The proposal timeframe of establishing a Union Government within two
years sounds rushed. Most African people are unaware that their Governments are talking about
Union Government. It seems driven by political leaders for purposes of more political power
within the region. I am opposed to this being adopted in July. Our leaders have not exhausted
adequate consultations with people all over Africa. As a civil society actor I have not heard word
about establishing a Union Government in 2007 up to until now. This tells me Union
Government proposal is a club of sorts, which is bound to fail. We need to have a popularly
driven process that Africans can say “yes, we are mature enough and ready for this level of
integration”. Otherwise, we’ll have an integration that is not supported by the people it is
supposed to serve. Let the leaders in July draw up a program for further consultation and debate
to further popularize the proposal.
Emily Mghanga: But in your opinion, what kind of continental Union does Africa need?
Andiwo Obondoh: I am not opposed to continental Government if this what African citizens
want, but merely renaming the structure to a United States of Africa would not add much value.
We need to improve the AU structures to effectively deliver its current agenda. We need to look
at the policies, capacities and resources available to deliver on AU commitments. We seem to be
aping American people style of Government by naming it United States of Africa. We need
something more original and more African. We could, however, adopt best practices from
around the world but these should be grounded in African ideologies to enable an African unity
process.
Emily Mghanga: How could the continental Union be important to African citizens especially the
poor and the marginalized?
Andiwo Obondoh: One, we need a United Africa so that Africans can learn from each other by
looking inward and adopting best practices from their continent to facilitate growth and
development. Secondly, the several Commissions within the AU have potential to generate new
knowledge to support economic and social policies and plans of national Governments. Both
actions would lead to peer review and mentorship among states. It could help Africa establish
higher levels of good governance and observance of rule of law and thus, encourage
95
accountability. For instance, Kenya established free primary education in 2002. Since then, more
than 10 countries in Africa have since declared FPE. This is meaningful unity of purpose.
Emily Mghanga: How could states and non-state actors ensure that Continental Union efforts are
transparent, participatory, and driven by an appreciation of political and economic rights?
Andiwo Obondoh: To attain any form of unity, the AU needs to address itself to communities
and their issues of security, cross-country relations and foreign policy across countries. There is
need to focus on how AU in its current form can help national Governments strengthen policies,
plans and programs within the social sector and deliver on water, health, education, food security
and HIV/ AIDS. How can AU also strengthen governance structures at national and local level
specifically the environment, human rights, public accountability, and rule of law? In the area of
transport and communications, can the AU learn from South Africa and Senegal’s
telecommunication advancements to support other African countries that are still in the 19th
century to leap to the 21st century. The AU must also establish an effective monitoring system
that monitors and peer reviews the performance of Governments in these core areas.
There must be deliberate, structured involvement of civil society and local people in establishing
a Union Government. Civil societies and communities must have the capacity to hold their
Governments accountable to the Union Government. We all must be able to effectively question
and interrogate actions and outcomes of Government programmes and plans.
Emily Mghanga: What obstacles must the AU overcome for the continental Union to be
successful?
Andiwo Obondoh: AU must immediately address all conflicts plaguing the continent. We cannot
be proud of the level of conflicts 50 to 20 years after our independence. It must mitigate all
disagreements that cause conflicts in countries and between states. It must also address the
efficiency and effectiveness of how Governments use public resources and be bold enough to
monitor and influence national outcomes against benchmarks on democracy and good
governance. Enforcement and implementation of existing policies and proposals is key to
whether we choose to retain AU or become US of Africa.
Emily Mghanga: In what policy area would you like to see greater convergence and unity across
Africa and why?
Andiwo Obondoh: In two areas namely: governance and rule of law and the social sectors.
We Can Unite, If We All Agree
Joint Interview With Ihsan Abdalla And Halima Mohammed
Ihsan Abdalla and Halima Mohammed represent the International Muslim Women Union.
Saloman Kebede: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current proposal?
Ihsan Abdalla: We have diverse backgrounds and so our understanding and opinions will be
different. This is a weakness, but if we can agree on the principles and the basics, we can still
come up with the best proposal for a continental Government. Even among NGOs and
different civil society organizations, we do not have unified objectives today. That is why we
need a continental Government to be established so that we are united. I hope to see a Union
Government that will make a real difference in accountability and transparency.
Saloman Kebede: Should it be adopted in Accra in July 2007, what would you like to see the
African Union Commission achieve within the first phase (2007-2009)?
96
Ihsan Abdalla: As an African nation, we look forward to see the African Union become like the
United Nations. We hope that these objectives are realized. If we succeed in establishing a
continental body, then we will succeed in having the same objective as the United Nations.
Saloman Kebede: And why would this form of continental Union be important to African
citizens & particular the poor and marginalized?
Ihsan Abdalla: One of the objectives of the MGDs is eradicating poverty and this is one of the
basic needs of the African citizen. Other needs include health service and education. We need to
move forward to implement the MDGs and we will succeed in supporting the continent.
Saloman Kebede: How could states and non-states ensure that continental Union efforts are
transparent, participatory and driven by an appreciation of political and economic rights?
Halima Mohammed: If the national welfare of every country is the highest priority for both the
NGOs and Governments then, there will be transparency. If the Government and civil society
organizations meet on this goal, then a continental Union shall serve and be a good umbrella for
all.
Saloman Kebede: In what policy area, would you like to see greater convergence and unity across
Africa and why?
Halima Mohammed: The MDGs suggest these main areas, which are education, health, poverty
eradication, human rights and conflict eradication. I hope this Union will see the light of day and
be successful in solving the problems in Africa. Africans have the capacity to solve their
problems.
Without Free Trade And Free Movement, No Need For Africans To Unite
Interview with George Adhanja
George Adhanja is from The Kenya National Council of NGOs
Saloman Kebede: What are the strengths and weaknesses of the current proposal?
George Adhanja: If the heads of states continue to meet and work together in one spirit then this
strengthens the proposal. However, the relationship that still exists between countries across this
continent is challenged by dishonesty and mistrust. This may weaken this proposal and in the
end, hamper the success of a Continental Union.
Saloman Kebede: Should it be adopted in Accra in July 2007, what would you like to see
the African Union Commission achieve within the first phase (2007-2009)?
George Adhanja: The AU Commission should bring an end to civil wars in Africa.
Saloman Kebede: And why would this form of continental Union be important to African
citizens & particular the poor and marginalized?
George Adhanja: African citizens will enjoy free movement and free trade across the continent
that will be of great benefit to the poor and marginalized in particular. We need to see a unity
that will uphold and respect citizen rights.
97
Saloman Kebede: How could states and non-states ensure that continental Union efforts are
transparent, participatory and driven by an appreciation of political and economic rights?
George Adhanja: Let the member states become the engine that will run the continental
Government devoid of western influence. The only way we will move forward in a Union
Government, is by focusing entirely in doing what is right for the African people.
Saloman Kebede: What obstacles must the AU overcome for the continental Union to be
successful?
George Adhanja: We must be financially independent in order to be self –reliant and stop
depending on the west.
Saloman Kebede: In what policy area, would you like to see greater convergence and unity across
Africa and why?
George Adhanja: I strongly would advocate for free trade and free movement. Without these,
there is no need for Africans to unite.
Saloman Kebede: Do you have anything that you would like to add?
George Adhanja: Yes. Let us have a Union that respects civil society. It is fundamental for the
civil society to be given more room to engage without discrimination as seen in some countries.
Open the Borders, Let Africans Challenge HIV/AIDS Together!
Interview with Jacob Wasai Nanjakululu
Wasai J. Nanjakululu is a Kenyan based in Nairobi, working on HIV/Aids policy at the Agency for
Cooperation in Research and Development (ACORD)
Saloman Kebede: What form of Continental government does Africa need?
Wasai J. Nanjakululu: We recognize that we were given artificial states through colonialism.
Breaking these states overnight is a daunting task. We should instead build these states to become
federal states of Africa in order to end up with a federal government of Africa. This kind of
government should then identify historical links that countries share and create regional states
like the East African Federation. This may help in dealing with internal conflicts.
Saloman Kebede: Why is the Continental Union important to African citizens especially the poor
and the marginalized?
Wasai J. Nanjakululu: If the continental union’s importance is based purely on political
recognition, then what good shall come out of it? It must guarantee freedom of movement and
free markets that work for Africa. This will also provide an enabling environment to mount a
continent-wide HIV&AIDS response. By making Africa one huge market we could jointly
procure ARVs and establish pharmaceutical factories on the continent. This would ease the
prices of these essential life saving drugs.
Saloman Kebede: What strategic areas of focus do you propose for the integration to be
successful?
98
Wasai J. Nanjakululu: One, we need to break open state borders. Two, let the citizens be well
informed and involved in policy making at the country level in order to allow people to engage
democratically in governance, in wealth creation and distribution. In this way, when we propose
the issue of African unity then the masses do not see the leaders as having hidden motives.
Three, we have to come up with a good economic policy for African unity. Finally, let us be on
the lookout for reactionary processes at country level and be prepared to deal with them.
Saloman Kebede: What obstacles must the AU overcome for the continental union to be
successful?
Wasai J. Nanjakululu: I believe that you only see obstacles when you take your eyes off the goals.
We also need to come to a place where we can allow others to lead but not allow those countries
who are stronger to dictate to other states. The AU has to embrace the culture of empowering its
people and preserve the historical links that unite us.
Saloman Kebede: What one policy would your organization propose to be adopted in the
continental integration?
Wasai J. Nanjakululu: All governments seem to recognize the role of the civil society in
development. I would like all Pan African organizations to be registered within the AU and given
legal mandate to operate in all the countries in Africa. We need to avoid instances as those in
Eritrea where ACORD was kicked out or where some CSOs are being proscribed from
Zimbabwe for taking a stand. Then we shall be able to engage across the continent and create
overwhelming support and ownership for Continental Union Government from the masses.
Saloman Kebede: What milestones would you like to see achieved within the first phase i.e. the
first two years?
Wasai J. Nanjakululu: I work with a Pan African organization that works to build and strengthen
African social movement. We are present in 18 countries in Africa. By opening up borders, we
will cut costs on visa and interconnection of flights. Open the borders, let people, goods and
services move. I am sure that can be done at a click of a finger from our Heads of States.
Saloman Kebede: What meaningful decisions should the head of states make so that this process
is people driven, rights based and publicly accountable to African citizens?
Wasai J. Nanjakululu: They should open up the debate in the media to popularize the proposal
and involve the civil society and national parliaments.
99