African Union Audit Report: briefing by experts

Meeting report

Audit of the African Union: briefing by Dr Edward Maloka
Dr Edward Maloka, an Advisor for Governance, Public Administration and Conflict Reconstruction in the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD), provided a briefing on the African Union (AU) Audit Report. He started with a background on why the AU was audited.

The report was an input towards strengthening the ongoing movement on the continent towards a Union Government (UG). For the past three years, discussions and debates had been held amongst member states and country leaders concerning the UG. There were three main approaches to the issue of the UG.

The first approach was said to have a UG, however there was a distinction between a UG and a “United States of Africa”. The UG was seen as the transitional stage that came before communism. The UG was the equivalent of socialism while the “United States of Africa” was the equivalent of communism.

The second approach to the issue of the UG stated that it was not feasible to have the UG now, countries needed to use the Regional Economic Communities (RECs) and the Nation States.

The third approach stated that the countries that were ready should be allowed to federate into a union of some sort.

There were a numbers of responses to how one could proceed with the debate. The first response was to set up a number of committees at “head of state level” to investigate the matter further. A high level seminar was set up to discuss this matter. It was at this seminar that a “road map” was established towards a UG. The second response was to set up a technical team to develop this “road map”. The third response was to organise a grand debate on the UG. It was at this debate that it was decided that an audit would be conducted on the AU, as people wanted to know if the AU had the capacity to establish a UG.

The first section of the Audit Report was the contextual and introductory section of the document. This section discussed the Organisation of African Unity (OAU), the assessments and achievements of the OAU and the values that inspired the initiative. The second section gave a detailed assessment of all the organs and institutions in the AU focusing on their financial stability. The third section of the Report comprised of two things. The first part looked at 157 recommendations that were made and the bulk of the recommendations were on the AU Commission. The second part looked at “accelerators” that could be used to reach the goal of having a UG.

Dr Maloka stated that it was important that the Committee, as policy makers, look the Ministers’ report to see what its outcome was and what the assessment of the recommendations were. About 95% of the recommendations were adopted and a small number of documents were adopted with amendments. There were only a few recommendations that were rejected. Recommendations made on the Commission were accepted and referred to the AU Commission for consideration and appropriate action. Recommendations made on the Permanent Representative Council (PRC) were accepted and referred to the PRC for consideration.

The only parts of the Report that was referred to the Committee of Twelve Heads of State were issues with the accelerators and benchmarks, as they were strategic policy issues. The Committee of Twelve Heads of State was recommending that the accelerators be accepted.

The Committee of Twelve Heads of State, after assessing the AU’s Audit Report, determined that there were certain consensus areas. The first consensus area was that countries were working towards a UG. This was no longer a debate, it was an objective, as people wanted to establish a United States of Africa. The second consensus was on the “shared values” in the Union Government Study. Shared values included the common desire to fight poverty, participation in governance, practicing good governance, practicing democracy, transparency in public affairs and respect for human rights. The third consensus was on the “areas of competence”. There was an agreement that there were areas where immediate action could be taken when the UG was formed. The areas of competence included a poverty reduction strategy, free movement of persons, regional and continental infrastructure, research and centres of excellence and international trade negotiations. Another important consensus was that there was a need to build more capacity so that the continent could move towards having a UG and eventually, a United States of Africa.

There was consensus that the UG would happen in three phases. The first phase would be the establishment of the UG. The second phase would be the consolidation of the UG and the third phase would be the establishment of the United States of Africa. The Ministers who were responsible for overlooking the establishment of the UG proposed three options: that the UG could be established in three years per phase, five years per phase or in ten years each for two of the phases and five years for the last phase.

The Committee of Twelve Heads of State then suggested that RECs be implemented, as they were the building blocks of regional integration. Outstanding issues that still needed to be discussed were: when the UG would be established, the sovereignty of the establishment and the domain of competence. 

Dr Maloka suggested that the Committee engage with the rest of Parliament on a sustainable and continual basis on matters that concerned the AU and the UG. The Committee also should engage with the Executive on a continual basis to discuss the AU’s broader agenda. The Committee was to engage with the public on AU issues, especially in light of the recent xenophobic attacks. The next step would be for the Committee to engage with the Executive after the Summit in July.

Audit Report on AU Peace and Security: briefing by Dr Adekeye Adebajo
Dr Adekeye Adebajo, Executive Director: Centre for Conflict Resolution (CCR), stated that he would focus on peace and security aspects. He added that he was impressed that the Chairman opened discussions to civil society, as it was one of the recommendations made in the Report.

In terms of the Audit Report and the peace and security area, there was a recommendation that the AU Peace Fund be increased through the regular budget of the AU so that African states started paying for their own security and did not rely on external funders. There was a recommendation that the AU’s Peace and Security Council engage and interact regularly with the United Nations Security Council so that the AU could know the UN’s thoughts on matters. Another recommendation was that a ten-year capacity building programme that was signed in 2005 be implemented speedily and that the coordination with RECs be made more effective. The fourth recommendation was that a subcommittee be established where the AU Peace and Security Council could discuss certain issues. The final recommendation was that there be interaction between the AU Peace and Security Council, the Pan African Parliament, the African Human Rights Commission and civil society organisations.

Dr Adebajo stated that there were five important themes. The first was the financial and logistical weaknesses of the RECs and the AU. The second theme was the lack of political consensus among the leaders in Africa on collective security norms and principles. The third theme was the role of regional hegemons. The fourth theme was the central role of UN peacekeepers in Africa and fifth theme was the need to establish a division of labour between Africa’s security actors and the UN.

He stated that it was important for African leaders to establish security mechanisms and be prepared to pay for those security institutions. The African Peer Review Mechanism was to be made more effective. Secondly, one had to look at the disparity of the “Apartheid” of peacekeeping where western countries gave $2 billion dollars to Bosnia and gave $150 million towards Africa’s conflict resolutions. It was important that there was not an aristocracy of deaths, where African peacekeepers lives were worth less than that of Western peacekeepers. There was a need for proper division of labour with the UN. The UN had primary responsibility for peace and security everywhere in the world; Africa should not be excluded from its domain. It was important that South Africa and Nigeria, the regional hegemons, play an important role within the UN’s umbrella.               

Discussion
Mr M Ramgobin (ANC) noted that the opponents of African unity exacerbated tribalism. He asked what the real impediments were to African unity and integration and how they could be eliminated. 

Dr Adebajo replied that the real impediments could be categorised as domestic, regional and external impediments. Africa had to make sure at a domestic level that there was democratic governance in place in order to eliminate these impediments. There was also a need for RECs at a regional level, which contributed to genuine regional integration. African countries also had to learn how to engage with other countries in the world so that they would help Africa. He stated that leadership was key when eliminating impediments.

Ms S Rwexana (ANC) said that it seemed as if the economy was still the deciding factor for what was happening on the continent. She wished that the presenters could have touched on how regional borders would be affected by Africom. She noted that there was not an equal contribution to the establishment of lasting peace.

Dr Adebajo answered that the danger of Africom was that Africa was going to be tied to the United States’ War on Terrorism. However, this showed that Africans were standing firm. Many countries had said that they did not want Africom. He thought that the US was listening to what Africa was saying, which was that Africa was united and it spoke with one voice. This would force the US to rethink its strategy. He hoped that policies such as Africom would be reviewed and that Africa would not be used as a battleground.

Ms S Camerer (DA) addressed one of the accelerators that called for the free movement of persons across borders. This accelerator was determined before the xenophobic attacks. The 2010 FIFA World Cup was approaching and the Southern African Development Community’s (SADC) position was that borders were to be opened to allow for the free movement of persons across borders during that period. She asked how realistic this was in light of the recent attacks and what exactly “free movement” meant.

Dr Maloka replied that free movement during the World Cup was realistic. He doubted that most people on the continent wanted to leave their own countries to live in South Africa. Most people preferred living in their own countries. Most people moved because they were looking for employment.   

Mr M Sibande (ANC) was concerned that Africom was threatening the AU’s security. He believed that Africom was imposed on countries in Africa. He wondered how the goals of establishing an African union and free movement of people would be reached. He focused on xenophobic attacks and wondered why, if the attacks were really xenophobic, they were so selective. White Europeans and people from Swaziland, Lesotho and Botswana seemed unaffected. He also wondered how the dream of African unity would be reached when there was an African country, Egypt, that had applied to be part of the European Union.

Mr M Kalako (ANC) noted that there was a class problem in South Africa and that most of the xenophobic attacks occurred in townships. He wanted the guests to comment on the nature of the attacks.

Dr Maloka stated that the nature of the attacks and whether they were xenophobic was a complex issue. The Committee needed to avoid one-dimensional interpretations, as there were a number of factors contributing to the attacks such as class and other socio-economic matters.  

Dr Adebajo added that there was a class element to the xenophobic attacks. It seemed that the media and other intellectual elites played a role in attacks, as they linked crime to foreigners, which created an environment where xenophobic-type behaviour could thrive.

The meeting was adjourned.