FRED AJA AGWU is an international relations expert with the Nigeria Institute of International Affairs (NIIA) Lagos. He employs his in-depth understanding of power politics in this encounter with Senior Correspondent DANIEL KANU. Dr. Agwu takes a critical look at the type of leadership Muammar Gaddafi, the present Chairman of the African Union (AU) will provide.

Excerpts:

Muammar Gaddafi is now the new African Union (AU) chairman. What is your take on him as the new helmsman?

Muammar Gaddafi is a puzzle! He is a puzzle to the extent that today one hardly understands his philosophy in relation to Africa. Ever since Gaddafi came to power, he has been approaching the African problem from the Arab point of view. He has never approached the African problem from the Africanist perspective. His ambition has always been with the identification of his 'Arabisation' project.

This is because Ghadaffi has allegedly masterminded most of the conflicts especially within the Mano River and other parts of sub-Sahara Africa; even if not principally, but to a large extent. Being a mastermind of that type of conflict is a continuation of a design, territorial design as well as ideological design for sub-Sahara Africa.

Even in recent times, there is a move between Gaddafi and the West, such that we no longer see the Gaddafi who was maintaining an independent position vis-a-vis the position of the West.

Ever since the United States of America under President George Bush invaded Iraq and removed Saddam Hussein, it was like the man was frightened and intimidated. Perhaps, he started being afraid that what happened to Iraq's Saddam Hussein could happen to him, so he began to develop a greater inclination towards the West: from his co-operation in the prosecution and payment of compensation for those who were victims of the airline that was bombed over Lockerbie, that is the Lockerbie bombing.

I am saying this to suggest that Gaddafi being the chairman of the AU is not something to celebrate. It is not something to be enthusiastic about because Gaddafi doesn't generate any hope for Africa in terms of African nationalism. His African nationalism is tainted by 'Arabism.' So, to that extent, I don't think it is a big deal. It is not something to cheer about or celebrate; it's not something that will engender hope in terms of African regeneration.

Gaddafi has been known to have a radical stance on issues like the creation of the United States of Africa. Do you see this project as realistic?

You see, the so-called United States of Africa is still part of the design of Gaddafi for a territorial space - not in the literal sense. Everybody knows that it will be difficult to have a United States of Africa.

Let's begin from the democratic point of view. Africa is put asunder by conflicts over political succession, poverty and identity politics. Now, Gaddafi, since he came to power has not done anything to democratise his country.

Gaddafi, since he engineered the transformation of OAU to AU, has never done anything remarkably different from his previous effort to see that the divisions in Africa - ethnic divisions, the religious divisions and cleavages - are closed or even narrowed. Take Dafur, for instance. He is one of the trans-Saharan leaders that have frustrated the capacity for the international community, beginning from the African Union to implement the responsibility to protecting Dafur. For him, genocide does not exist in Dafur. For him, no war crime has been committed against humanity.

He is one of those who are into frequent denials of the obvious in Dafur. So, the question is: is it now possible for trans-Sahara African leadership, which Gaddafi is an influential member, to make a difference in resolving many of this divisions that have afflicted Africa? I don't think that the whole idea of the United States of Africa will be possible under his vision.

It is not something that is realistic at the moment, because the continent is still far from modern political temperaments and socio-economic development, which are some of the necessary conditions for unity - either politically or economically.

Gaddafi has also been traced to be an agent of terrorism. What does the picture create?

Well, his co-operation with the West in the prosecution of the masterminds of the Lockerbie bombing and his co-operation with the West in the compensation of the families of those who lost their lives in the bombing, all this suggests that, perhaps, he is retreating from his involvement in terrorist activities. But when you look at the alleged roles he played in the sponsoring of people like Charles Taylor, in the training of the rebels that put the Mano River basin asunder, some of his recent actions is like he is averse now to his former terrorist position. But we are still unsure whether he will not turn back from his present anti-terror stance.

Obviously, he doesn't have a good image in terms of his involvement in some terrorist activities whether in bombing of the discotheque in Germany, the Lockerbie issue or in the sponsoring of terror. As a matter of fact, some Al-Queda operatives confessed that they have links or terrorists cells in North Africa, which Libya is one of them. But the issue is that they can have terrorist cells somewhere without the complicity of the territorial states. So the issue of terrorism has created a bad image for Ghadaffi. But his co-operation with the West in respect to Lockerbie bombing has tended to a little burnish his image, but not completely because there are still suspicions that he has some surreptitious links with a lot of terrorist organizations. Not just terrorism in form of the Al-Queda operatives but sponsoring insurgencies, rebel activities in parts of Africa.

Given Gaddafi's antecedents, what do you see to be the trust or focus of his leadership?

Gaddafi is a divisive figure because of his extreme positions on a lot of issues, so that is one of the greatest impediments that his leadership of the AU will suffer. To the extent that he is not seen as a unifier, to the extent that he is not seen as impartial arbiter, to the extent that he is a partisan crusader of certain views that he believes in, oblivious of the realities or circumstances surrounding the implementation of such issues, his leadership of the AU will just come and go like that of other African heads of state that have headed the organisation. I am not seeing any remarkable progress. As a matter of fact he has headed the AU before, I think he headed it when it transformed from the OAU to the AU. So nothing was achieved. The leopard can never change its colour, until he is seen to be thinking genuinely as an African, not as an Arab-African, it will be difficult for that great unity to be achieved - whether with him as Chairman of the AU or with any other African leader - that division will always be there.

Can we say that AU still remains an important platform for African nations when in reality many see the organisation as a toothless bulldog?

The AU is very important for Africa. If there is going to be a serious regeneration of the Africa nation, it must be from the platform of a continental organisation. Even if it is not the AU, even if the AU collapses today, there must be another organisation because the world can not do without international organisations, even if it is a toothless bulldog it has to be there and there are certain roles, limited roles that the organisation is still playing at the moment. Even though it has not acquired a full capacity to handle crisis, or to stop crisis, but at least it is a voice that sometimes mediate and even if there is no other thing it brings a moral influence to bear on issues. I think it is very important that the AU continues to exist. I am sure there is nothing that will make it crumble to a point of extinction without a replacement. It will not even be to the interest of the West or those external parties that are manipulating Africa to see the end or the demise of the AU because the AU is still the primary organisation, the immediate organisation that will first make attempt to resolve African problems.

This is because regionalism is an essential strand in the world today. Every regional organisation has a greater or intimate understanding of its own distinct challenges. So, at the worst, the western countries or external powers will arm or come to beef up the capacity to deal with any problem they consider a threat. Mind you that ever since the Somali situation, when American soldiers were killed and some of them had their bodies dragged in the streets of Mogadishu, the U.S. has been feeling reluctant to commit troops to Africa. In most African countries, what they now do is to arm the AU forces to do the fighting while they donate the money. So, if there is no AU they will be forced to bring in their own soldiers to come and die on the continent, which I am not sure they will ever want to do. So, the AU is there, even if it is there to be manipulated, to be used. And even if it is there to be continually castrated and made ineffective, it will be there and it has to be there.

Some critics also believe that Africa has not been uniting their strength to maintain regional peace and security?

Yes, for some of the reasons I have earlier mentioned, we have so much resource, human and material, on the continent but it is unfortunate that the unity does not exist. This unity issue is not a congenital thing; it is not an inherent thing. It is something that is orchestrated from the outside. I mean the disunity is not an inherent thing; it is something that is imposed on Africa from the outside.

Remember, immediately after independence of many African states, when the OAU was being contemplated, the divisions were there between the Monrovia Group and the Casablanca Group. This division was along the lines of imperialist differences. There was a group that was espousing a very radical view on unification, I think the Casablanca Group. But the Monrovian Group was talking about unity in diversity, what eventually culminated in the OAU, not a united state. Even in Europe, you can see that there have been disintegration of states and yet Europe is a more advanced continent in terms of politics, economics and socio-cultural engineering.

We have seen the disintegration of Czechoslovakia; we have seen Kosovo becoming independent from Serbia. So, there are certain prevalence that force macro-nationalism, some of them are economic, some are cultural, some are pure nationalist sentiments - people who want to achieve self-determination and that's why we have more intra-state conflicts than inter-state conflict.

It's not as if I am painting a very gloomy picture or I am not optimistic that there will be unity, that will be possible with time, but that time is in the distant future. And for it to be possible, the laying of the foundation must begin today so that this divisions, the disunity will be narrowed or completely eliminated for anybody to begin to contemplate that kind of capacity to come together; capacity to pool resources together, to pull the strength of the continent together and be able to achieve something meaningful in terms of Africa's regeneration or renaissance of African unity.

What should African leaders be doing to over come this manipulation?

There has to be continuous effort at political engineering, socio-economic engineering. The whole idea of the African Union is a good idea as I have said, it has to be there, but they should use the platform to work towards transcending the petty and primordial sentiments that have made it difficult for that cohesion to be achieved overtime. Europe is working on its own, but it started from the economic and you can see how difficult it has been for Europe to unite talk less African continent where there are divisions, dependencies, etc. You don't have independent political entities in the proper sense of the word. Many African countries are still dependent on their former colonial masters. In order words, neocolonialism and imperialism are still very much alive on the continent, but it will be important for African countries to elect leaders who are nationalistic enough, these are the type of leaders that will challenge the status quo - the perpetuation of the subjugation of the continent - and insist that African countries should relate on equal basis with the West and other external parties and be able to deal with their own problems with the current framework; and to be assisted by the West without conditions that will ensure or perpetuate the continued subjugation of the continent.

What is the place of Nigeria in the African Union at present?

Well, Nigeria - both in the defunct OAU and in today's AU - is just a member, not quite as influential as it sometimes takes, because Nigerian diplomacy has not been well harnessed. It is not being strategically used over the years by successive regimes. The country's potentials are enormous but, because governance is weak, it has not been possible to make the best use of this potentials and that is why Nigeria hasn't been able to take its proper place as being an influential member. You remember sometimes in the United Nations, it has always been difficult for Nigeria to rally some African countries behind it when there is issue that Africa needs a position, and there have been confrontations sometimes between Nigeria and even smaller African countries. Remember when Nigeria and Niger Republic contested over the Security Council seat in the 70's and you remember that when the issue of the enlargement of the UN Security Council was tabled and the Secretary-General set up a high level panel to examine it, and the panel came out with a report stating the preferred pattern of inclusion in the new Security Council along regional line. It has been difficult for Nigeria, especially since the emergence of post-apartheid South Africa, to exercise the kind of influence that will make it possible for it to get what it wants.

At a point Nigeria was routing for membership without the veto, but some African countries led by trans-Saharan African countries, particularly Libya and Egypt, were insisting on inclusion in the Security Council with the veto. So, it wasn't possible. One would have expected that Nigeria being such a significant African country would use its weight to get others to toe its line or arrive at a compromise. In most cases Nigeria does not achieve such feat. It is not as if Nigeria will be winning all the time but,, at least, something proportional to its perception as a regional power.

Even in the African Development Bank, it has not been possible for Nigeria to take its position. Recently, there was election into the International Criminal Court, Nigeria lost and couldn't elect its own judge. I wasn't surprised because as I said Nigerian diplomacy is in disarray. Nigeria is a signatory to the laws that established the court yet, Nigeria went ahead to sign a bilateral treaty with the United States of America, a treaty of non-surrender of any American citizen to that court. So, it creates a conflicting obligation. You are a signatory to a treaty that established a court and on the other hand you went and assumed a bilateral responsibility not to implement the terms of that treaty. So, its something that puts our diplomacy into disarray; something that makes it difficult for observers to understand the way we do things. In that kind of situation, you find it difficult to have the capacity, morally, to take a position and have that position respected. In recent times, there have been other contradictions in the conduct of Nigerian diplomacy. Even when you come within the country, you find dissentions, the most is not made of the abundant human and material resources. We politicise everything. That is why the country has not been able to wield the kind of powers it ought to. The powers are there, but they are dormant. Rather, substandard materials are being sent out most of the time on political considerations and they don't represent the country very well. So, it is difficult for Nigeria to come out and take its proper place in the comity of nations, with that kind of situation existing.