Challenges to African Unity: briefing by South African Institute of International Affairs

Meeting report

Mr Tim Hughes (Head: Governance of Africa’s Resources Programme, SAIIA) briefed the Committee on the challenges to African unity. He listed ten challenges: conceptual differences, geography, infrastructure, sovereignty, “variable geometry”, regional economic communities (RECs), conflict and rivalry, institutional building, contending values and vision and the challenge of globalisation to African unity. Mr Hughes proceeded to comment on each of these challenges.

He pointed out that the conceptual definition and premise of African Unity had not yet been probably defined as there was no clear mindset nor any proper debate held on this issue by the various African governments, non-governmental organisations and other stakeholders. He noted that a key component was missing from the debate on the conceptual definition, as governments had not yet consulted their citizens through polls, surveys or referendums on their understanding of African unity. The Africa of today, under the African Union and Nepad in particular, was orientated towards good governance, socio-economic upward mobility, development and democracy. This was in stark contrast to the Organisation of African Unity that was formed as an organisation that was in nature, anti-colonialism, imperialism and exploitation.

Geographically, Africa had 53 countries, each with diverse ethnicities, religions, races and cultures with five different time zones. Many of the African states are relatively small in comparison with other African countries. These states, regardless of size, have historically grouped themselves into regions based on language, colonial ties and production patterns. Several of the North African countries such as Libya and Tunisa had begun to search for new trading and commercial interests with European countries, situated alongside the Mediterranean Sea as the needs of the different countries drew different agreements according to regionalism.

With the exception of South Africa, the majority of the African continent lacked basic infrastructure. The slow rollout of energy (electricity) to Africans had resulted in Africa lagging far behind the rest of the world in the delivery of energy (electricity) to the African masses. Aviation on the African continent was also a cause for concern as many airlines did not offer direct flights to African destinations and major cities in Africa. This problem coupled with an inadequate transport system did not bode well for African unity.

Mr Hughes noted that the establishment of the European Union had not gone without sovereignty problems, which were eventually addressed. The same principle would not be able to be applied to Africa as it meant that African governments had to be willing to cede authority over many key policy directives. How much authority were these states willing to yield and over what? It was imperative that pan-African institutions acquire and exercise executive and decision-making powers, as was the case with the EU.

The current political environment in Africa was not yet ready for this as many countries did not have the same vision or ideas enshrined in their constitutions. Many countries in Africa were deemed as highly centralised states, which might not be ready to cede authority to pan-African institutions dealing with defence, socio-economic issues and climate change as examples.

At present, African states ceded little power and authority to regional economic communities which was an indication of their indecisiveness on ceding powers to any structures related to African unity.

Africa was a continent with vast contrasts. Many African states were at different levels of political, economic and developmental inequality, hence the need for a measure of variable geometry.

Common understanding around formal unity as well as a common currency needed to be addressed as well as the extent of help that would be offered to those countries not meeting the criteria for these institutions.

Mr Hughes noted that the African continent had been marred by civil strife and conflict. Longstanding and sporadic bouts of strife between states and rebel movements and states had had a detrimental effect on countries. Millions of people had been killed and displaced by this violence over the access to minerals and other resources, religion and ethnicity. Current war torn areas like Sudan and DRC were a cause for concern. It was imperative for these states to find solutions to their problems and to move away from the notion of regionalism to make African unity a reality

There had been a significant rise in diplomatic tensions between African states as well. The recent criticism by President Wade (drafter of the Omega Plan) of the mediation efforts of President Mbeki (drafter of the Millennium Africa Recovery Plan) in Zimbabwe was one such example. The only way to curb these conflict scenarios was for African states to implement an integrated early warning system that would see the rapid mobilisation of regional brigades to squash any attempt by non-democratic entities.

In relation to the challenge of institutional building, Mr Hughes stated that many signatories to the Africa Union had not yet paid their membership fees to the Pan-African Parliament. It was important for these countries to pay their membership fees. South Africa had been the only country so far to pay their membership fees in full.

This situation did not bode well, considering that funding still had to be found to finance the institutions that would be created, such as a central bank. The situation was even bleaker if the rate of capacity had to be assessed in Africa. There would have to be a concerted effort made in investing in capacity building, coupled with a clear consensus on the mandate of these institutions.

Mr Hughes stated that that there had been no shared or common understanding on the models of governance in Africa pertaining to transparency, good governance, free and fair elections, freedom of the press and the separation of powers.

The African Peer Review Mechanism did not help much to address the issues of good governance as many African states had not yet signed up for review, with others ignoring the outcome of their reviews. This had led to a situation where recalcitrant states like Zimbabwe were constantly defying the very principles on which the African Union was founded, without condemnation or consequences from this body.

The final challenge to African unity was that of globalisation. Globalisation has had a differentiated impact on Africa, with a rich country like South Africa being at the forefront of telecommunications and poor countries like Mozambique and Chad lagging far behind.

This impact coupled with the role of Brazil, Russia, India and China in Africa, needed to be carefully assessed as Africa was no longer in charge of its own destiny anymore. Rapid investments by these BRIC countries as well as from the West had seen a remarkable power shift in Africa. This was due to African countries looking towards the BRIC countries for investment as the Bretton Woods institutions had too many conditions attached to loans and grants.

Discussion
The Chairperson said that the debate around an “African unity government” was an ongoing debate and that the question needed to be asked whether South Africa needed this or whether it was a politically correct gesture.

He said that anchor African states should take responsibility to underwrite the project and to woo other states to did the same. South Africa could not afford to keep on underwriting African Union ventures and that factors such as demographics, geography, culture and language should be taken into consideration.

Mr M Ramgobin (ANC) said that the facts presented by Mr Hughes were well known and that SAIIA should have had a more global approach to the analysis done. He added that the Union of South Africa that had come into being in 1910 was preceded by war with the Native Policy uniting the rival factions. He noted that it was premature to condemn African unity. The European continent also had the precursor of war. He stressed that Africa was under seize from powerful nations who were exploiting and threatening the sovereignty of African states.

He continued that China was considered as one of these states and it would be imperative to establish the role and influence China has in the debate on African Unity, as well as the underlining reason why Muammar Ghaddafi had been such a vigorous proponent of such an idea as African unity.

He stressed that superpowers should not come to Africa to exploit its resources without any capacity and skills training nor skills transfer for locals, as was and still was the case with Chinese involvement in Sudan and Angola.

Mr Ramgobin said that there were many ethnicities in Africa and in some cases these ethnic groups had called for a state within a state such as Biafra in Nigeria and the Afrikaners living in the white enclave of Orania in South Africa.

He added that the quest for ultimate survival would force people to get together in order to survive. There needed to be a review of what the qualitative nature of the impediments to an “African government” was and he condemned the xenophobic violence that had erupted in South African townships.

Mr Hughes replied that the usage of the word ‘Xenophobia” was overrated, misused and abused and that South Africa was not a xenophobic country as its economy was built on migrant labour from neighbouring states. He said that people should be careful when they use terms such as xenophobia as it could become a bigger problem then it already was.

He added that China was clear on what their objectives were in relation to Africa, but the problem was with Africa who had no clarity on Chinese involvement on the continent. This was yet another indication of the communication disjuncture there was on the continent.

In relation to Muammar Ghaddafi’s role in the ‘African unity and African government” debate, Mr Hughes noted that Ghaddafi did have a political agenda as it was well-known that Libya had been using ‘economic diplomacy” in Zimbabwe as well as other African states.

Mr J Seremane (DA) stated that it was pertinent for the relevant role-players to do introspection on all the issues affecting Africa in an adverse and advantageous manner. There was a need to assess the role that tribalism, xenophobia, ethnicity, religion and religious fundamentalism and evangelism played in conflict situations in Africa as the fundamental question had to be asked what Africa was trying to achieve.

Mr Seremane said that the exploitation of child soldiers in African conflict coupled with the propaganda used by these military forces had to be addressed as it may be a big stumbling block to African unity.

He noted that African traditional cultural practices had to be taken into account as well, as these practices might be in contradiction to what African unity aimed to achieve. Parliamentarians from across Africa had to engage in debate in order to capitalize on support for the idea of African unity.

Mr Hughes replied that when most African countries became independent they had to contend with underdevelopment and sudden conflicts. He did not believe that tribalism could be said to be a catalyst for conflict as countries like Ghana with many tribal groups had had relative stability.

He added that that there had not been sufficient interrogation and inspection done on the idea of an “African unity government” and that many African parliaments seemed to be disengaged as well as civil society.

In relation to the problem of child soldiers in Africa, Mr Hughes said that not enough was being done to address the problem of child soldiers and human trafficking.

Ms S Camerer (DA) said that the idea of an “African” government was a welcomed one, but asked what the bottom-line for Africa unity would be and whether there was a bottom-line.

Mr Hughes replied that the bottom-line for Africa was to become a commercial and trading bloc itself and to build and create the infrastructure for an integrated market system. There was a need for Africa to create, develop and implement policy directives geared towards assisting governments when dealing with conflict and to exercise more collective decisions on its resources.

Prof B Turok (ANC) said that the notion of African unity was idealistic whereas unity and integration in Europe was realistic as EU leaders found common ground on a shared vision. It was important for the relevant role-players in Africa to be more realistic and to expedite the debate on this issue.

Prof Turok noted that there had been a fair degree of informal regional integrating in Africa and that government ought to restructure their institutions as they tend to get in the way of regional integration.

He added that the European Union had been exercising a lot of pressure on African countries to accept the economic partnership agreements (EPAs), with South Africa calling on the EU to review these agreements as they still favoured the EU. There had been a call by parliamentarians from the Pan-African Parliament for Africa to be more self-sufficient and to stop being dependent on Europe. He noted that the telecommunication infrastructure was not that bad and that African governments had to rapidly implement policies to better telecommunication infrastructure in Africa.

According to Prof Turok the role of intellectuals in the African unity debate was pivotal as intellectuals had always played an important part in the political discourse of Latin America. There had been a no commitment from African intellectuals to engage in dialogue on African unity. African intellectuals tended to view the Pan-African Parliament (PAP) with pessimism and had not yet taught their students on Africa’s commitment to renewal. Clarity was needed on why African intellectuals did not play a proactive role in the debate on African unity and why there was such a disengagement and distrust of African leaders.

Mr Hughes replied that intellectuals had a role to play in this debate and that Prof Turok was right in his assertion as intellectuals use universities as springboards for their careers overseas. Although Africans now had access to telecommunications, it did not mean that they had access to other resources.

Mr Seremane said that numerous grass root activists displayed absolute contempt for intellectualism and said there needed to be clarity on how this tension would be addressed in light of the notion of African unity

Mr D Sithole (ANC) said that informal integration had been around for a long time. He mentioned that several Swazi children cross the South African border everyday to play soccer in South Africa. It was political barriers that impeded on integration and there needed to be clarity on how this unity would affect the existence of African states as they were today.

Ms F Hajaig (ANC) said that the proponents of the idea of an “ African government” had been presumptuous in terms of the time framework for this idea as it took 60 years for the European Union to get where it was today in terms of institutional and capacity building. She did stress that Africans should not be despondent as there had been the birth of the conceptual definition in some aspects of the idea. It was important for trade laws and the different judicial systems to be harmonised and to have the determination and political will to cede some sovereignty to such a structure and to make African leaders understand what this all meant.

Ms Hajaig stated that it was heart warming to see parliamentarians designated by their respective parliaments to PAP engaging with each other as it seemed that they had been afraid to do so. She agreed with Mr Hughes on the lack of monetary support for the African Union from African states and noted that it was crucial that these countries make their contributions as funding was required to make this idea a reality.

Ms Hajaig said that there had not been enough communication about NEPAD and that South Africans had not yet been adequately informed about NEPAD and its purpose.

She said that Africa’s resources were not controlled by Africans anymore and that Africa was seeing the birth of a new form colonialism, via the “back door”. Africa was still suffering due to unequal trade “partnerships” with the EU and other Western countries still subsidising their farmers.

Mr Sithole said that it was saddening to see how small countries like Swaziland and Lesotho who for years benefited from the South African Customs Union turned their backs on South Africa when it came to signing free trade agreements with the EU. The South African economy had been gambled with and that South Africa should not be scared to act in a hegemonic manner. In addition, he noted that Zimbabwe’s problems did not start when Mugabe invaded white-owned farms. The problems started much earlier and that Zimbabwe was systematically set-up by Western powers to fail.

Concluding Remarks by Mr T Hughes and the Chairperson
Mr Hughes said that unity was a process and that insiders to this debate should place the issue in perspective to better facilitate an integrated approach and debate.

Mr Sithole asked Mr Hughes to provide the Committee with a study on China’s involvement in Africa.

Mr Hughes noted that he would send the relevant information.

The meeting was adjourned.