A new beginning for Africa, or a return to the
past?
Abdelwahab El-Affendi
It was very ironic that at the start of Africa’s new political union on July 9, the
20,000 people gathered in a sports stadium in Durban, South Africa, to celebrate the
inauguration of the new African Union (AU) reserved their most enthusiastic adulation not
for the continent’s most revered statesman, Nelson Mandela, nor for his successor as
South African president, Thabo Mbeki, but for Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi.
The crowd listened respectfully to Mbeki’s somber speech, calling on Africa to rise
to the challenge of transforming itself into a democratic continent and bring it back from
its marginalized status to a central global actor, but it did not elicit great enthusiasm.
By contrast, Gadhafi’s unscheduled remarks, consisting mainly of slogans affirming
Africa’s independence, received a rapturous response.
Does this bode ill for Africa’s new pet project, which now replaces the 39-year-old
Organization of African Unity (OAU) as the main continental inter-state body? After all,
the idea became a reality mainly due to the Libyan leader’s aggressive campaigning.
Disenchanted with the lukewarm response to his repeated calls for Arab unity over the 30
years since he came to power in Libya, Gadhafi was at the same time heartened by the
strong African support he received in his clash with the United States and its allies. He
duly declared himself disillusioned with the Arabs and all in favor of African solidarity.
A special OAU summit he hosted in Sirte in September 1999, just before the 30th
anniversary of the Libyan revolution, adopted a declaration calling for the creation of an
African union modelled on the European Union (EU). It was also Libyan pressure and
financial inducements which convinced most African countries to ratify the AU treaty,
accounting for the breakneck speed with which the new union became a reality with the
adoption of its Constitutive Act at the Lome summit in Togo in June 2000.
At a second extraordinary summit in Sirte in March 2001, all African states unanimously
declared the creation of the 53-nation AU.
Yet, the idea of an African union was as old as the anti-colonial struggle. Most African
anti-colonial movements adopted names such as the African Union (including the current
ruling party in South Africa, the African National Union, and its rival, the Pan-African
Union).
Leading post-colonial order figures, such as Ghana’s Kwame Nkrumah, were as keen as
Gadhafi is today to have instant and comprehensive African unity. More conservative
leaders, such as Jomo Kenyatta of Kenya and Emperor Haile Selassie of Ethiopia, resisted
the move. In the end, and due to the influence of “moderates” such as
Egypt’s Gamal Abdel Nasser, the compromise of the OAU came into existence in 1963.
In deference to the conservatives, it accepted colonial boundaries as sacrosanct and
discouraged interference in internal affairs of member states but otherwise encouraged
cooperation.
It is interesting that the new drive for pan-African unity has been spearheaded by the
more “moderate,” mainly pro-Western leaders on the continent. Under pressure
from donors and international organizations, and in line with the new post-Cold War
orthodoxy, these leaders have been critical of the old core principle of the OAU, which
insisted on the inviolability of state sovereignty, as obsolete and counterproductive.
It can no longer be permissible for dictatorial governments and incompetent and corrupt
rulers to hide behind the cloak of sovereignty and drive their countries to the brink of
collapse and beyond. Africa must bear collective responsibility for its people, and it is
the rights of people, not those of governments, that should be paramount. This is
especially so since misrule and abuses are responsible for Africa’s current plight,
including the continent’s global marginalization and its reputation abroad as the
world’s “black hole.”
In line with this thinking, several initiatives were undertaken, beginning with regional
powers’ direct interference in the affairs of their neighbors, usually under the
cover of sub-regional groups.
Nigeria started the process in the late 1980s by leading a regional intervention force
into Liberia and later into Sierra Leone. Uganda adopted the more conventional procedure
of unilateral intervention in Rwanda and Zaire (Democratic Republic of Congo), but was
given tacit international and regional support in its adventures. The countries of East
Africa combined both procedures by resorting to old-style meddling (including support for
insurgents) as well as regional peacemaking in Sudan and Somalia.
In 1991, the current Nigerian president, Olusegun Obasanjo, who was active as
Africa’s premier elder statesman, started what he called the Conference for Security,
Stability, Development and Cooperation in Africa. The idea was to set up an
intercontinental body to promote the values of democracy and regional cooperation and to
help end civil conflicts and fight corruption. The idea immediately faced resistance from
the OAU secretariat, which saw in it the prospect of a rival body, and from many rulers
among the old guard, who resented the idea of intervention in their internal affairs.
However, developments in the intervening years, including Obasanjo’s re-election as
Nigerian president in 1999, the many political changes in Africa and intensifying
international pressure, paved the way for the success of the Libyan initiative.
A number of related initiatives have been launched at the same time. The Common Market of
Eastern and Southern Africa, launched in 1981 and the New Partnership for Africa’s
Development (NEPAD), again were led by South Africa. These initiatives focus on economic
cooperation, but NEPAD also puts a premium on good governance and international
cooperation. In addition, a number of sub-regional organizations have also sprung up to
promote cooperation at the regional levels.
But is this going to be a genuine move toward African integration, or just another wild
dream?
There are a number of indications that Africa has changed. The launch of the AU from South
Africa is quite significant. It was South Africa that united the continent in the past
through the joint struggle against apartheid. Post-apartheid South Africa, as the most
developed and most democratic African country, is also taking a leading role in forging
the new Africa and bringing it together.
However, there is still much of the old Africa in evidence. Instability, civil wars and
dictatorial rule is still rife. The ambition of an EU-style organization is rather
questionable, given the wide divergence between the two sets of circumstances. African
economies are too underdeveloped and too similar to opt for quick integration. What is
more, some earlier experiments in integration, such as the East African Community and the
integration between Ethiopia and Eritrea, actually contributed to conflict.
Africa could certainly benefit from greater integration and the removal of trade barriers.
It is badly in need of a collective commitment to good governance and democratic reforms.
But the big question is whether the right way to go about this is to pursue reform in each
country, or to pin the hopes on a regional body.
One thing is sure; the EU did not create the industrialized democratic states of Europe
they created it. We will have to wait and see whether the AU will make progress in
promoting democracy in at least one country (Zimbabwe has already been mentioned as a
challenge) or promote peace in another (here the challenges are numerous). It might be a
long wait. Abdelwahab El-Affendi is a senior
research fellow at the Center for the Study of Democracy, University of Westminster. He
wrote this commentary for The Daily Star
Copyright © The Daily Star |
