Christopher Farai Charamba Correspondent
“Africa is a paradox which illustrates and highlights neo-colonialism. Her earth is rich, yet the products that come from above and below the soil continue to enrich, not Africans predominantly, but groups and individuals who operate to Africa’s impoverishment”.

These are the words of Ghana’s first president Kwame Nkrumah.

Ghana was Africa’s first independent country in 1957.

At the time, the country had a GDP similar to that of South Korea, both developing nations.

Today South Korea is a developed country yet Ghana is still classified as developing.

That however, is a conversation for a different occasion, but lends credence to the words of Nkrumah that products from Africa enrich those who are not African.

In his 1970 book, “Class Struggle in Africa”, Nkrumah wrote, “Africa is one continent, one people, and one nation”.

While it is well known that the continent of Africa consists of 54 countries, with over a billion people from different ethnic and tribal backgrounds, who speak some 2000 languages, Africa is certainly not homogenous.

The point that Nkrumah was making however, was one for Pan-Africanism.

It was the realisation that for Africa to succeed and prosper in the post-colonial period there would be a need for Africans to view themselves as one, to collaborate and integrate as a means for developing the continent.

With this in mind, the Organisation of African Unity had been established seven years earlier on May 25, 1963.

Its primary aims were to co-ordinate and intensify the co-operation of African states in order to achieve a better life for the people of Africa; to defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of African states; as well as a dedication to the eradication of all forms of colonialism and white minority rule.

Thirty-two African countries were signatory to the OAU Charter in 1963 and among them existed two camps.

The Casablanca bloc which was led by Kwame Nkrumah who believed in a federation of African states, integrating the continent under the institution of the OAU.

The other group was Monrovian bloc led by Leopold Senghor of Senegal, who were of the opinion that African unity should be achieved through economic cooperation rather than going the federation route.

Fifty-three years later it is not clear which of the blocs won.

No longer the OAU, now the African Union, the continental institution still suffers from the same problems that plagued it at its inception.

In fact, it is quite ironic that it carries Union/Unity in its name when in 53 years of existence they have failed to achieve this.

The question one asks is why?

Why has the AU failed to achieve a united and integrated continent in over half a century?

One answer to this delay is that a number of countries were not independent.

Namibia only gained her independence in 1990 and the apartheid regime in South Africa was in power until 1994 when the first democratic elections were held.

So the first 30 years of the OAU’s existence were in pursuit of an independent Africa.

Once this was achieved the focus turned to achieving greater unity and solidarity between the African countries and Africans.

In 2001, the continental body established itself as the AU which was then officially launched in 2002.

One of the key objectives of the AU was accelerating the political and social-economic integration of the continent.

Some of the other objectives include promoting peace, security, and stability on the continent; promoting democratic principles and institutions, popular participation and good governance and promoting co-operation in all fields of human activity to raise the living standards of African peoples.

An objective observer would say that by and large the AU has failed to achieve a number of its objectives.

Crises across the continent in Nigeria, Somalia, Burundi, Kenya, Egypt, Tunisia and Libya among other, over the years, give testimony to this. In fact, some commentators have gone as far as describing it as a toothless bulldog.

A key shortcoming of the African Union is a by-product of one of its objectives, “to defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its member states.”

While this was a necessary measure following from the colonial period, it has also hindered the drive for integration.

For a federation of African states to be attained states would be required to relinquish some of their sovereignty to the continental institution.

A major flaw of the African Union is that it has no means of enforcing any of its resolutions or programmes on its member states.

The minimum requirement for membership is for a country to be African, aside of course from, Morocco which must first recognise the independence of Western Sahara.

There is no real incentive for African states to comply with the African Union.

There are no repercussions if they do not and African states do not have any real financial commitment to the institution.

At the 27th AU Summit in Rwanda that ended on Monday, the draft 2017 budget of the institution was tabled as $781 million, where $569 million was expected from foreign donors while 54 African countries will only pay $212 million, roughly $4 million per country.

This has long been the case for the African Union where foreign donors have to foot the majority of the institution’s bill. The 54 members could not even raise $200 million for the construction of the AU Headquarters in Addis Ababa, which was then built by the Chinese government.

One then wonders how far the AU is going to defend the sovereignty and independence of its Member States. This is objective is in fact another disappointment if one is to consider that 14 African countries, to this day, pay colonial tax to France and do not have their own central banks.

The optional nature of membership of the AU has slowed down development, peace and security and integration on the continent. Every so often the AU will launch an initiative that in theory should spur on many of its major objectives however the lack of participation from member states results in little progress.

The latest initiative coming out of the AU and launched in Kigali is that of the African passport. This move is in line with the AU’s Agenda 2063 which seeks “an integrated continent, politically united, based on the ideals of Pan-Africanism and the vision of Africa’s Renaissance.”

In theory, a holder of this passport should be able to travel across the continent and not need a visa.

First of all, one wonders why the 54 member states would need a continental passport to do this, rather than just scrapping visas requirements for all Africans.

That said, only two passports were issued at the Summit, one to Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame and the other to Chad President Idriss Deby who is the Chairperson of the AU. It is hoped that the passport will be available to ordinary Africans by 2018.

While this would be a major boost for trade and continental integration, the AU Commission Chairperson Dr NkosazanaDlamini-Zuma stated when the AU passport was available states could roll it out “within their national policies, as and when they are ready.”

This means that there is no pressure on African states to comply. Should their national policies require visas then even with a continental passport one would be required to get visa.

If the response to the African passport is anything like the response to the African Peer Review Mechanism, a voluntary self-assessment tool designed to promote more effective governance on the continent, then African citizens should not expect to hold the continental travel document anytime soon.

You Might Also Like

Comments

Take our Survey

We value your opinion! Take a moment to complete our survey