|
The African Union: The right copy pasted at the wrong location
By: A/Rahman Sayed 3rd February 2007
Computer users are familiar with the editing tools of Copy and Paste. It is simply a convenient means for copying an item and placing it in a new location. Here, I would like to use the copy/paste productivity functionality as an analogy to explain the condition of the African Union today.
When the African Union was formed to replace the old Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in 2001, I was invited to discuss the occasion on two live TV shows organized by the ANN (Arab News Network) and Almustaqella TV networks. There I upset some of my Libyan viewers when I noted that the birth of the AU was nothing more than a PR (Public Relations) exercise for the self-appointed leaders of the continent, including that of Libya, who seemed to have assumed the fatherhood of the renewed organisation. Those who criticised me back then were echoing the official statement of the African regimes, while the opposition from Libya and others were in agreement with my assertion. What was my assertion then?
The AU was indeed the right Copy of the EU (European Union), but was pasted in the wrong location. I recall explaining that even though the EU agenda was to unite the whole Europe, it did not embrace all the European countries overnight. The EU went through a calculated and well researched phases of development that started from being a European Coal and Steel Community in 1951, composed of few European countries: (FDR) Germany, France, Italy and the Benelux countries into becoming what it is today: a European Union of 27 Democratic European countries. Each of the 27 countries had to go through internal economic, political and social reforms before being embraced as a full member of the club.
In addition to the 27 countries there are still more European countries on the waiting list for "accession" once they meet the EU criteria for membership*.
On the mentioned TV Shows I went on arguing that if the African Union was to see the success achieved by the EU, it should have started with countries with acceptable standard of democratic governance, respect for human and group rights etc. Such countries, however small in number within our African continent, could have then been used as role models for others to follow. The AU would have also become an instrument for real change rather than an annual gathering of African leaders that include the good, the bad and possibly the criminal.
In both of the TV shows I further argued and questioned how a country like Libya, which has been ruled by one man for over thirty years, qualified to be the host for the re-birth of the AU that was expected to promote good governance, democracy and human rights?!! The very principles that have been abused by the host leader and others of his likes (including our Issayas Afeworki) since their coming to power in undemocratic manners.
Unlike Europe, Africa is also too large as a continent, too under-developed and less interlinked by sea, air and roads to become a real union beyond becoming a "solidarity" club at best. The populist leaders of the 1960s and 1970s may have dreamed and envisioned African union, but failed to unite their own individual countries within the borders inherited from European colonialism. After Independence, most of the African countries soon became embroiled in "civil" wars based on ethnic, secessionist and other types of violent political movements.
Although African violent political clashes were often referred to as civil wars waged between rebels or secessionist movements and their governments, it is useful to clarify here that the cases of Eritrea, Western Sahara Republic and Namibia were unique. The peoples of these three countries had to face their giant neighbours who occupied and annexed them after the departure of their European colonisers as in the case of Eritrea by Emperor Haile Sellassie's Ethiopia and Western Sahara by King Hassen II of Morocco and his so-called Green March of invading settlers, in addition to Namibia's occupation by South Africa under the Apartheid Regime. The struggles of the peoples of the three countries were therefore not a civil or a secessionist war, but a struggle for repulsing invasion and reinstating their rights to self-determination and freedom from occupation. In the case of Eritrea and Western Sahara Republic, African countries within the OAU were divided, some considering the issue as internal affair, hence civil war, while others recognised them as legitimate cases of self-determination. With the Eritrean people achieving their liberation by force in 1991 and consolidating their independence through a UN supervised referendum in 1993, the Western Sahara case remains one of the un-resolved problems of the past century awaiting genuine solution acceptable to the warring parties and their allies both within Africa and outside.
The OAU failed to unite African countries that were divided by the division of the North i.e. Eastern and Western Blocs during the Cold War (which was really a very hot war in many parts of Africa including in Angola and the Horn of Africa). Many African countries are still economically, culturally and politically more linked to their former colonial masters than to their fellow African countries. In some cases, this means traveling from a Francophone African country to a neighbouring Anglophone African country would be to fly via Paris and London back to the destination.
The AU does not present any unique opportunity to redress the failures of the OAU, apart from theoretically showing more interest in democracy, human rights and good governance; issues that were never touched by the OAU for being "domestic affairs". The problem is the AU is still composed of the very same countries and leaders who are undemocratic with very bad human rights record. The AU can only realise its mission of improving the conditions of its membership and Africa at large, if it is downsized to be composed only of the few countries with credible democratic governance and respect for human and people's rights. In other words, if it can copy and paste not only the European Charter and institutional structures, but also the European criteria for membership and phases of development and integration processes. In the meantime, regional institutions such as IGADD (Inter-Governmental Authority on Drought and Development) and COMESA (Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa) may have to be encouraged to push for gradual improvements at the local level, thereby laying the foundation for a real and effective African Union free from the despots’ influence and control.
May Peace and Justice prevail in Africa!
Bohashem@Arkokabay.com
* In my opinion, Turkey and Russia’s EU membership would be too controversial. Russia is too large for the EU and its borders extend all the way to the other end of the globe bordering Japan and Alaska. Turkey is a Muslim country with most parts of its territory and people falling in Western Asia or the Near East. Moreover, the current EU club members have already proven that they are in favour of Orthodox Greek proper and Greek Cypriots, who are traditional foes of Turkey. The only time the EU would take Turkish membership application serious is if the so-called guards of Ataturk’s Secularism realize that their country’s strategic interests are best served by staying within the natural home of Turkiyet: Western and Central Asia. Wa Allah A3lam! |
||
|
The views expressed in articles published on Arkokabay.com are those of the authors alone. They do not necessarily represent the views or opinions of Arakokabay.com or its Editorial Board |
ما ينشر من مقالات في موقع عركوكباي.كوم يعبر عن رأي صاحبه ولا يعبر بالضرورة عن رأي الموقع والقائمين عليه. |
|
|
Send mail to Arkokabay with questions, comments, opinions and/or articles |
||
|
2007-02-03 12:22 :Copyright © 2005 Last modified |
||