The 'term' United States of Africa has been one key term towards integrating Africa as one national entity. The founding fathers of the continent supported this ideal but were divided as to how to go about this quest with two camps arising being the Radical approach lead by Ghana's first independence leader Kwame Nkrumah (1909-1972) and the gradualist approach which opted more for a gradual path towards total integration. The radical approach argued for the continent to be integrated into a single entity, to chart its path and make its mark on the world stage in the same vein as the superpowers of the time. This was the 1960s where two superpowers dominated the international arena, that is the United States and the Soviet Union. Everybody else could be seen as a 'minion' of these two powers with a more non-aligned movement arguing to be in between which I find 'unreal' as it appeared in my view to side with the communist corner. In my opinion only a few countries were really non-aligned and that would be Josip Tito's Yugoslavia. In the African continent no nation was really "non-aligned" despite many being part of this movement as they either were pro-capitalist or pro-communist. The correct term I would use would be pro-United States or pro-Soviet Union as most African states applied capitalist or communist norms to the level of their chosen side. A key example is the Democratic Republic of Congo's Mobutu Sese Seko (1930-1997) who, although was supported by the United States as he was seen as anti-communist, that support ended there as Mobutu ruled with an iron fist and looted billions of dollars from his country, leaving it poor and underdeveloped with its effects being felt to this day with his 'only' positive attribute being able to keep the country 'stable' than his successors after him.
To get back to the point, these two schools came together and formed the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), the predecessor of the African Union, regarding African integration when this organisation was formed in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia in 1963. The Gradualist Approach opted for a sub-regional specific form of integration, which gained traction with the formation of the African economic community formed in the 1991 to facilitate regional integration between Member States of the AU through Regional Economic Communities (RECs) during the second phase of regionalism with regions such as the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and the East African Community (EAC) being seen as pieces of a large jigsaw puzzle towards full integration. Where we are today is anyone's guess with each region progressing on one aspect but falling short on important areas. The formation of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) has been seen as an ambitious aim towards greater integration on the continent. There have been several attempts at making this a reality radically in the past with the one standing out the most coming from the late Libyan ruler Muammar Gaddafi.
The United States of Africa according to Gaddafi
Gaddafi clearly steered this ideal and played an important role in the formation of the OAU's successor the AU (formed in 2002) which was discussed during the the fourth Extraordinary Session of the OAU Assembly of African Heads of State and Government held at Sirte in Libya, in his own country in 1999. Like him or not but Gaddafi, along with Nigeria's President Olusegun Obasanjo and South African President Thabo Mbeki played a key role in this formation and he came up with really good points such as a single passport for Africans to move freely around the continent when he became the chairman of the AU in 2009 which was the time when the 'United States of Africa' concept really 'took off'. I admit it's a lot more complicated than that and while this looked like a good gesture among several points he stated, there appeared to be just as many red flags.
Gaddafi's United States of Africa: 'Ambitious, delusional or something totally different'
Gaddafi always did something with what he could get out of it. He never took the charge towards giving leadership towards this ideal without putting himself as a candidate. Remember Gaddafi had a 'unlimited' wallet to 'buy' allies on the continent towards his views due to Libya's huge deposits of oil which likely boosted his ego as his regime received billions of dollars worth of oil revenue making him probably one of the richest people on earth with some claiming it to be as high as US$ 200 billion.
This was further exacerbated by the fact that Gaddafi had been in power for 40 years and ruled with an iron fist and would have probably did so should he have become leader of the United States of Africa given the fact that he was already interfering in many African states. It is not surprising that some African states were opposed to this and this included Botswana's then Vice President Mompati Merafhe who criticised this federation following the 2009 AU Summit and stated that “The chair (Gaddafi) has no respect for established procedures and processes of the African Union and this may be motivated by his burning desire to coerce everyone into the premature establishment of an African Union government,”. Gaddafi himself despite the success he had attained for his country before the Arab Spring in 2011 which made Libya Africa's richest country with Libyans enjoying a high standard of living, he was no democrat and this explains his demise and a history of authoritarian rule that once placed his country as a state sponsor of terrorism. This was probably on many African leaders minds and it does not end there, there is more to this story regarding Gaddafi's new found interest.
The Arab League and Gaddafi
Libya is located in North Africa which is predominantly Arab and a union to support its interests was formed called the Arab League. Gaddafi often made a scene at Arab League conferences with one public spat involving King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia and himself. It is claimed that when Gaddafi failed to exert his influence over the Arab League he then shifted goal posts to focus on the AU with more vigour of which Libya is a member and had greater influence.
Back to the United States of Africa
The addition of Gaddafi's perspective is key to understanding this concept, hence this is why I deliberately focused on it extensively to show the positives as well as the negatives surrounding this concept. Gaddafi is not by any means the only player, the whole continent is involved in this concepts success but how are they fairing.
Existential Crisis
It appears the concept for a United States of Africa is in an existential crisis even before being formed due largely to lack of continental cohesion. This cohesion is limited to the once yearly conference in Addis Ababa where all African leaders say wonderful things regarding Pan-Africanism and continental integration. Once they are back home national development becomes their main focus. This is expected as running a country on it's own is complex. The European Union (EU) sheds light into this with some of it's own member states criticizing what they see as overreaching powers of the EU threatening national sovereignty with Hungary and Poland being examples and at least one total withdrawal from the Union being the United Kingdom (UK) with ramifications for the EU. These are future prospects the a proposed United States of Africa will face and perhaps total integration is not only unrealistic given the current political, social and economic climate of its member states but practically impossible (at least in today's circumstances). African countries are notoriously nationalistic in nature and will give up very little of their sovereignty even if it's for the greater good.
A key example is the number of African countries requiring Visa's from many fellow African compatriots. This beggars belief as some countries outside of the continent have no Visa restrictions or less restrictions to entry. One then wonders what they talk about at the AU's headquarters in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia during the annual conference which will be 59 years this year. More than enough time in my opinion to have a more sound integration policy.
This came to light when one of Africa's richest men, Aliko Dangote of Nigeria argued that he needed 38 Visa's to travel within the continent. Ironically a milestone was set by the AU member states in 2013 to end this by 2018 but very little has been done on this front to date, a time consuming 9 years later. This highlights the view of a supranational entity being created on the continent unrealistic and at least for the time being a pipe dream unless member states change their small nationalistic view to a continental one. I believe this is the piece of the puzzle that will change the course of Africa from its current quagmire today, with the right leadership of course which still needs to be addressed with more younger leaders being needed in Africa, to attain greater unity and real pan-Africanism that is not just limited to just grand speeches, working papers, etc. The argument for more younger leaders is important as the average age of an African leader is an unbelievable 62 years old and is home to some of the world's oldest leaders. Paul Biya of Cameroon (whom I discussed in one of my blog posts) will be 89 years this year. Several other previous leaders even ruled into their 90's and include Kamuzu Banda of Malawi and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, all of whom ruled for decades. This explains the lack of innovation and reformist attitudes within the AU. To get this done all member states must be of one mind and aim to get their citizens on board as well with the AU itself accepting reform and not been seeing as protecting the status quo which many believe it is doing. The recent chaos in the pan-African parliament put yet another spotlight on the AU's divisions and disorganisation and lack of reformation which in the organisation as a whole is long overdue.
No comments:
Post a Comment