Stephen Asiimwe
24 May 2009
opinion
Kampala — Today, May 25, is the African Liberation Day. I congratulate all Africans on the continent and in the diaspora for celebrating this historical moment.
The day honours the 1963 signing of the charter establishing the Organisation of the African Unity (OAU), now African Union (AU). It pledges solidarity for the liberation of Africa.
The OAU was criticised for not living up to the mandate of uniting Africa and responding to its various challenges. Many of the criticisms were understandable though not all of them were deserved.
The OAU was set up to finish the anti-colonial struggle of the 1960s and also unite Africa. Read Nkrumah's book: Africa Must Unite. It was successful on the liberation of southern Africa from racist settler regimes and former Portuguese colonies of Guinea Bissau, Angola and Mozambique. The organisation mobilised human and material resources across Africa in support of these struggles and also won diplomatic and political support internationally. Its weakness, therefore, should not cloud some of its success.
The charter, signed in 1963, was a compromise between the radical Casablanca states, led by Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Tubman of Liberia and Gamel Abdel Nasser of Egypt, who wanted the immediate political union as opposed to the conservative alliance represented by Monrovia and the group of states who found a credible spokesperson in Mwalimu Julius Kambarege Nyerere of Tanzania.
Although Nyerere was not a conservative, he was opposed to Nkrumah's fast-tracking and urged for a functional unity (economic unity before political). Today, we have the same debate on the United States of Africa.
The division was superfluous because the economic co-operation did not happen due to lack of political will. It would have been a complimentary process of concrete political and economic programmes to advocate a shared vision of unity.
The promised compromise on the charter also included an agreement that the borders inherited from colonialism remain inviolate, which was absurd. The situation on the ground probably dictated that due to interstate conflicts.
Soon after that, the OAU emerged as the most important trade union of "dictators" backed by their personal armies and militia. Consequently, the organisation was unable to sanction any of its members like the late Idi Amin, chairman of the OAU 1975, and Mobutu Seseko of Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo. This was because oppression of the African people by their governments became internal affairs in which dictatorships had "sovereignty".
The international environment of a bitter cold war and the emergence of neo-colonialism also constrained the various groups from achieving total unity. Therefore, what mattered most then was whether regimes were pro-east or pro-west and not their Pan-Africanists credentials. The latter became victims of economic and political conspiracies as evidenced in the fate of Tom Mboya, Patrice Lumumba, Nkrumah, Modibdo Keita, Abdel Nasser, Ben Bella and Sankara.
Today, the African Union, although a lame duck, has managed to contain conflicts on the continent. However, conflicts in Somalia, Darfur and now Madagascar are some of its challenges.
As we celebrate 46 years of OAU, we have reason to look forward to the future with optimism. We pray that the current breed of leaders will continue respecting the African Union constitutive Act - the African Peer Review Mechanism. Our dream for continental unity is on course. I salute all those who strive to make this day a reality.
The writer is a Pan Africanist.
Read comments. Write your own.
Copyright © 2009 New Vision. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). To contact the copyright holder directly for corrections — or for permission to republish or make other authorized use of this material, click here.
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
The problem with this article is that it assumes that all African countries have the same: problems (although we share certain common problems e.g. curroption), amount of mineral resources, man power, or political stability. Therefore, it makes it difficult for me to say that Aid should stop for all the countries in Africa.
The best way is to analyse each country individually. I know of one country I believe should stop receiving Aid and that it Nigeria. Despite any Aid received in the past, the greedy still find a way of benefiting themselves so with or without Aid the people still suffer. Besides, the country is rich in mineral resources, to the extent a former dictator, Abacha, can steal nearly 2 TRILLION DOLLARS (over half of the stimulus amount for the whole of the USA) and that is just Abacha not forgetting what his thugs stole from the Country.
With regards to war torn countries I believe what they need more urgently is military help. They need stability...
Correction I said 1 TRILLION while it is 1 BILLION but it is a lot of money anyway..
Aid as presently constituted should end, it,s not in Africa,s interest. Africa,s vast reserve of stolen funds in western banks should as a matter of urgency be returned to help with the process of national development across Africa,that,ll be more effective than the useless aid being brought in and subsequently repatriated through the back door using their equally useless N.G.O,s. KEEP YOUR AID, RETURN STOLEN FUNDS IN YOUR WATCH.
Ninety-five percent of NGOs in Africa are either EU, American or UN owned. They Channel Aid through their own NGOs. Call them Western GONGOs if you like. Apart from the WTO, IMF imbalance regulations, most of the Aid is characterised by paying huge sum of expertriate fee to their so call directors and field officers, 4x4 cars, exquisite offices or buildings around the capital and provinces and other fat bonuses.So you got to ask yourself, what or who is the Aid funding? I have a friend who always launch tirades on NGOs, he says if he becomes president, he will expel all NGOs in his country. I see reason behind that.
The west and Aid donors are both guilty as the African governments. I agree with Elly Wanda's argurement that the Aid itself is not the problem but the way it is delivered. Peace.
Time to move on is now. Anything as drastic as cutting a cleverly devised sytem of keeping Africa poor and ignorant 'AID' should definitely be cut. We are to trade with the rest of the world as partners, not as recpients of aid. We need to go to a level of partnership,were we batter or trade for goods and services startegically to better our lot. This has been a very annoying reality,that despite Africa's wealth both material and human,we still receive aid!! With regards to leadership, For heavens sake we need to immediately strengthen our resolve to ensure right leaders are elected to office and all this nonsense of short sighted, greedy ,no vision quick fix corrupt individuals who have kept us at the bottom needs to be fixed,harshly!! For God's sake Nigeria you are A SHAME to the rest of us. You should sit in sackcloth for the type of individual you have produced! Is it not better to build great institutions and grand enterprises that lasts for hundreds of generations and benefit the masses than to steal millions for selfish purposes, were has this mediocrity eminated from? The west must also own up and stop receiving stolen money!!!!!!!! Africans let us now challenge our identity and get rid of mediocre minds that are so retarded they make us poor every day! Nation building and enterprising building is now. We have something the world needs, we are not destitute. So Mr.Wanda perhaps a review of your views should be modified. We support balanced partnership not AID!
The main points are these:
Inflows of aid in hard currencies appreciate African currencies to the detriment of exports. Aid money takes brainpower away from the African private sector, that must ultimately generate wealth, occupying clever people in charities and politically-correct bureaucracy. And aid in its old-fashioned form of service delivery allows governments to leave the social sector to foreigners, concentrating their own resources on bribes, military and police to keep themselves in power regardless of their incompetence.
But some forms of aid have moved on, e.g. aid for local advocacy. This is still "neocolonial" interference, but it may produce some good...
Downsizing of the civil services have NOT made corruption endemic in Africa, on the contrary, the problem is excessive states funded by aid money.
See all comments (11).
Active Discussions: Africa Can Be Optimistic About the Future