Washington, DC — African politicians, technocrats, business people, NGOs and leading members of civil society are preparing for a key meeting in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, at the start of March. They will gather there to discuss what many see as Africa's only chance at a viable future - the introduction of a pan-continental economic plan, Nepad, perhaps supported by the G8 countries and the transition from the Organisation of African Unity - seen by many as a 'Presidents club' - to a newly-democratic African Union. With the pressures of globalisation mounting, many argue, if Africa does not seize the chance to reform its institutions and create an integrated economic union, poverty and underdevelopment will become permanent fixtures on the continent. We asked Ibrahim Wani, Academic Dean with the Africa Center for Strategic Studies in Washington, DC, for his view.
Are we on the verge of a great leap forward by Africa?
Let me say first, that I am just speaking for myself. Reactions to the proposals and the developments of the last several months has been twofold. On the positive side people have said, "Isn't this wonderful. It is a recommitment, a reaffirmation of something that started way back in the 50s - from the Nkrumahs and others - that was the primary issue of debate among African leaders. They differed on which direction they wanted to go but that was the essence: For Africa we needed cooperation. Africa could survive only if it was working together. And so on.
But the history has not been good.You have a lot of problems, but three key ones: first, lack of commitment. Most observers of the Organization of African Unity and trends toward integration have talked about this a lot, that African leaders have not shown a common commitment towards those goals.
The second is that almost every African country has been struggling with its own internal problems, whether it is consolidating the state, or economic problems or basic human rights. It is very difficult to look towards integration when you are disintegrating at the local level.
The third has been the problem of money. If you look at the OAU, even today, although I may be being a little less than generous, the organization is practically broke. And the primary reason is that members have not been funding the Organization of African Unity.
So the key question here is, "What's different?" "What's new?" in the year 2002?
Certainly I think there is a better resolve and that African countries themselves have come to terms with a lot of their own challenges. The global problem of the Cold War has certainly been left behind and I think Africans are going through a lot of introspection, asking themselves what's wrong and what they need to do.
I think in many ways there is a very genuine desire to work together. I am skeptical, however, whether the way they are going about it is right.
Why?
A number of reasons. First of all I don't think it was very well-deliberated. The Lusaka Agreement (at the OAU July 2001) and all of the others take a 'top-down' approach. It just doesn't work like that.It's okay as a political statement but it has left us with so many unresolved issues. If you talk to the new secretary-general of the African Union, Amara Essy, he jokingly talks about his impossible task of transforming the OAU into the African Union. And what he realizes is that in the space of a year it is absolutely unrealistic to be able to accomplish those goals. Of course as a good diplomat he will never say that publicly. But I think this is what people recognize: The problems are phenomenal.
Look at how long it took the European Union to get where it is today - from the 1950s. It started with a dream. and they tenaciously worked at it progressively. I think if there is any one lesson we can learn from the European Union experience it's that unions of this nature evolve from a lot of common interests. People have to acknowledge, have to recognize that there is some benefit from the Union.You don't do it as a normative, theoretical thing. I think that is one of the key problems. The reality is oversold.
I think they are going to confront the reality very quickly. Unfortunately what may happen then is that people may begin to say, "Oh, that was a bad idea," when in fact, I think the idea itself is not bad. The question is, how do you get there?
Are the African leaders who are discussing this, at least starting at the right place?
In some ways, yes. They are at the right starting place in the sense that they are debating it in tandem. But there is a two-part problem. The first part of the problem is that I don't think the common understanding is deep enough.
Look at the process that happened in Lusaka, with Libya leading and putting the African Union on the agenda. I understand that as soon as the meeting ended you had all kinds of delegations out there wondering, "What is it that we just agreed on?"
Then, very quickly, we get to see that there are a hundred different ideas, which is really a very fundamental problem. When you get down to the details, I really do not think that we have any level of common understanding.
The second part of the problem is something that I think is being remedied by the African Development Forum (ADF) process. I just got an invitation to go to Addis for the ADF. The reason they are doing this is because they have come to the realization that the African Union, African integration, is not a project for heads of state. It's a project for the people of Africa. And therefore you need to bring in a wider voice, a much, much larger constituency to deliberate the idea. I think it's a good thing that they recognize this but it's the kind of thing that should have started a whole lot earlier.
Would you elaborate on what you mean when you say it's not a project for heads of state, it's a project for the people of Africa? That could mean anything. A grassroots convention? A gathering of nongovernmental technocrats?
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
The debate is too narrow. You have only a handful of people. Obasanjo, Thabo Mbeki, Wade, Bouteflika, coming up with ideas within their own countries. Do they even have their cabinets behind them? Some people even argue that those documents are not even drawn up internally. So that's one side of the problem.
The process has to involve a whole range of actors. Grassroots? perhaps not. But opinion-makers. People in the media, in the academic world, in non-governmental organizations, civil society, even people within government. There has to be a certain sense of ownership and an understanding of where we are going.
Is the ADF meeting a sign that governmental leaders are moving in that direction?
I wouldn't quite go that far. It is a beginning. It is a recognition. But is this a genuine desire to broaden the scope of this debate? Well, one will have to wait and see. My sense is that they are just checking a box, because you are 'supposed' to do this. So what they've done is to say "Oops, we forgot about the civil society people. We forgot about the academicians and people are telling us that there has never been any debate about this, so why don't we get these folks to come here a couple of days before the Council of Ministers meets."
The way the conference is arranged its a 5 or 6-day process. The academics, NGO people and others with opinions on some of these things come and debate. They possibly come up with some common positions and then we're supposed to interact with the heads of state. I think it's pro forma. [ADF3]
