The United States of Africa was a concept that was first championed by Jamaican political activist Marcus Garvey in the early 1920s.
Decades later, the concept became the late Muammar
Gaddafi’s brainchild. It was an ambitious idea that was praised in
public but, behind closed doors, ridiculed. Nevertheless, at the time of
its conceptualisation, it was the most advanced form of regional
integration and laid the groundwork for the Organisation of African
Unity (OAU) that became the African Union (AU).
Summit that trumped all summits
From May 24-27, all of Africa’s who’s who and has
been were in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia to commemorate the golden jubilee of
the OAU and AU. This “jamboree,” as a former OAU assistant secretary
general labelled it, was a summit that trumped all summits.
The importance of such a convening was
demonstrated by the presence of President Dilma Roussef of Brazil as
well as United States Secretary of State John Kerry, who was arriving on
the heels of the recently announced Africa trip by President Barack
Obama.
At the AU headquarters, there were many posters on
the theme of “Africa Rising” to signify that 2013 is the year Africa
takes ownership of its future.
“Our time is now,” a Tanzanian diplomat told me
when I asked her about the mood at the summit. “We have a real
opportunity to seize the moment and transform our countries for the
better.” This optimism was felt throughout the summit, but there was
nevertheless an obvious clash between the symbolism and the reality.
The juxtaposition of “Africa Rising” and the AU
headquarters, a gift by the Chinese, seemed to say that Africa was
indeed rising, but not on its own terms.
Show me the money
One aspect that directly affects the relevance and
sustainability of the AU is the issue of funding. Between 2007 and
2012, the percentage contribution of member states to the programme
budget of the AU and its organs went down from 27 per cent to 4.8 per
cent.
During the same period, external funding rose from
73 per cent to 95.2 per cent. This over-reliance on external funding is
an existential threat to the AU.
At the summit, former president of Nigeria
Olusegun Obasanjo, as chairperson of the High-Level Panel on Alternative
Sources for Funding for the AU, presented a comprehensive report during
a closed session that directly addressed this issue.
The recommendations of the report included a $2
hospitality levy per tourist stay in hotels and a $10 travel levy on
flight tickets originating from Africa and going to destinations
outside; or coming to Africa from outside Africa.
The expected revenues are $650 million per year
via the tax on air tickets and $113 million a year from the levy on
hotel accommodations for a total of $763 million per year.
This sounds good in theory, but implementation
will be a challenge. A delegate who was in the session expressed
frustration at how some of the island countries responded to the
suggestions in Obasanjo’s report: “We were talking in circles,” he said.
Sadly, one can say the same for many other discussions at the AU.
Just a talking shop?
One of the most common criticisms of the AU is that it is just a venue for presidents to get together to hear themselves talk.
Former EAC secretary-general Juma Mwapachu, when I
asked him about the AU in the context of comparing it with the African
Development Bank (AfDB), said, “The AU is really the definer of Africa’s
political and economic development vision.
But the AU does not have resources to invest, and I
think therein lies its primary challenge — it increasingly risks being
seen primarily as a talking shop.”
I had an interesting exchange with a former OAU
official who said, “One of the things you have to know about the AU is
that people talk a lot. There is a big gap between public positions of
principles and assertions of sovereignty, dignity and their ability to
deliver. So you talk a lot but do very little.”
I pressed him on this and asked whether things got
done during the OAU period? The official responded, “Yes, I believe
things were much better back then; we had our differences, but things
got done. Right now, we just have a jamboree.”
Which brings us back to the AfDB. Fairly or
unfairly, these two institutions are constantly compared to see which of
the two does more for Africa. It was hard not to take note of the close
overlap between the key meetings of each institution.
The OAU/AU was celebrating its jubilee, while the
AfDB was having its annual meeting, only a few days apart. By Sunday
morning, it was clear that all the heavy hitters who were at the AU
meeting were either on their way or already in Marrakesh, Morocco, where
the AfDB meeting was being held.
An African voice
The primary difference between the OAU and AU is
that the OAU’s sole purpose was to liberate African countries from
colonialism and thereafter unite against apartheid South Africa. As a
result, member states of the OAU had a unified African voice.
It seemed easier to align over issues such as
apartheid and colonialism, but that unity has faded since the
establishment of the AU in 2001.
I asked a Tanzanian diplomat whether African
countries were less united or more united under the AU. She paused, and
answered, “We are united in the sense that we all want infrastructure
development and we all understand the resource issues facing the
continent. The problem is implementation.”
It is hard to say, truly, whether the continent is
more united but it is quite telling that many of the conflicts that
plagued the OAU are still very much alive today, from Congo to Somalia
and Ethiopia-Eritrea in the Horn of Africa, as well as the never-ending
stalemate in Western Sahara.
And the AU appears unable to articulate an African
position on the most pressing challenges facing the continent and
beyond. What is the position on climate change and global warming? What
is the African position on Syria?
The disunity and contradictions of the AU were on
display in Libya during the 2011 conflict. The inability to unite with
respect to Libya deepened significant fissures within the institution.
“Libya was a fiasco,” former OAU secretary-general Dr Salim A. Salim
told me.
“In Libya, the AU capacity to deal with a crisis of that
magnitude was limited. Second, the people who were supposed to project
an African position let us down,” namely South Africa and Nigeria who
voted in favour of UN Security Council Resolution 1973 that approved a
no-fly zone over Libya, authorising all necessary measures to protect
civilians.
The Libya debacle triggered blame games within the
AU that ultimately led to divisions between the Anglophone and
Francophone countries and the ouster of Jean Ping, former chairperson of
the Commission.
African solutions to African problems
The Libya case was just another example of how having “African solutions to African problems” is a lot easier said than done.
Divisions over how to address various conflicts
continue. If the mood in Addis was one of jubilation, the mood on
Twitter and other social media outlets was one of disappointment. A
diplomat at the summit expressed this disappointment, saying, “There is a
serious lack of humanity on the continent.”
How can the AU transform itself and start solving
important African problems? I asked this of Abdullahi Boru, a Horn of
Africa specialist, and he said, “The AU needs to move away from being a
club that defends its own.”
Does this mean the AU has to think big and bold?
Mr Boru answered, “It needs to be ahead of the curve by providing
cutting-edge solutions to the new problems that were not around half a
century ago when the OAU was formed.”
The AU in 50 years
So, will we care about the AU in 50 years or will
future generations learn about it in classrooms as just another doomed
attempt to achieve the elusive United States of Africa? It’s hard to
say, especially with the rise of regional blocs like the EAC. There
seems to be a feeling that the increase in importance of regional blocs
will be at the expense of the AU.
Mr Boru agreed, saying, “The regional outfits will
make the AU somewhat irrelevant.” I asked Dr Salim whether regional
outfits would supplant the AU and he said, “That has always been a
debatable point. I have always taken the position that the stronger the
regional economic groups, the better for the continental organisation.”
Economic integration
Clearly, if the AU wants to be still relevant in
another 50 years’ time, there has to be a degree of convergence between
it and the regional economic blocs. The two areas on which there seems
to be strong agreement across the board are infrastructural development
and regional economic integration.
“There are a lot of points of convergence,” Dr
Salim told me while we were in Addis. “We are all basically trying to
make ourselves relevant and individually you can’t make yourselves
relevant.”
I spoke with an Ethiopian development specialist
about the AU’s relevance in the future. “I believe the AU is absolutely
an important institution for the continent,” he said, making the point
that the AU is similar to institutions like the UN and European Union,
and as a result suffers the same problems, “but that doesn’t mean we
will be better off without it.”
Maybe we get what we deserve? The specialist told
me, “If the institution is perceived as being indecisive, ineffective
and corrupt, perhaps that’s an accurate reflection of many of our
countries and leaders across the continent.”
So, instead of venting our frustrations at the AU, perhaps we should pause and realise we are just looking in the mirror?
Ahmed Salim is a programme manager with the Society for International Development. He is based in Dar es Salaam.
Source: the east african newspaper.
Source: the east african newspaper.
