Africa: Gabon Minister Says AU Rules May Need to Be More Flexible

10 August 2002
allAfrica.com
interview By Ofeibea Quist-Arcton

Durban, South Africa — Gabon was one of the most senior member states of the now defunct Organisation of African Unity (OAU), which was replaced by the African Union (AU) in early July, after 30 years as the continent's mouthpiece. The veteran Gabonese leader, Omar Bongo - who attended the inaugural summit of the AU in Durban, South Africa and spoke for central Africa during the launch -- has been in power for more than 35 years.

Though there had long been considerable criticism of the ineffective nature of the OAU, many African leaders lined up at its final summit to heap praise on the organisation which helped to end colonialism and apartheid throughout the continent.

AllAfrica.com’s Ofeibea Quist-Arcton caught up with the Gabonese foreign minister, Jean Ping, after the summit to hear his views on the transition from the Organisation of African Unity to the African Union - and what the future might herald for Africa.

The African leaders, have buried the OAU and given it a state funeral, as well as witnessing the birth of the African Union. You personally have been minister in the Gabonese government now for many years, so what do you think of the AU at this historic moment and what is the view of Gabon on the new Union?

Of course, we want to pay tribute to the OAU and the founding fathers because, as you know, the OAU succeeded in putting into implementation the main objectives of the organisation: decolonisation and the fight against apartheid. Well, the continent is now free and, as you will notice, the last days of the OAU were marked in the last country to become 'independent’ I mean 'free’.

So the Durban summit is a symbolic reunion?

Yes, symbolic. So we have to pay tribute to the OAU and what has been achieved by the OAU. At the same time, we have to celebrate the birth, the launch of the African Union, because it has the objectives of unity. We are living in the world of globalisation, of regional groups, you know, of integration. You have a united Europe, you have even the United States, with Canada and Mexico together, in Nafta, you have the Latin American countries in Mercosur, Asia at the same time with Asean. So, the African nations who started a long time ago these ideas of union, of regional groups - with Kwame Nkrumah - are a little bit late. We started before the others, but we lost time.

Africa got left behind?

So now it is time to create this Union in order for the African voice to be heard, because some of our countries - the majority of our countries - are too small to be listened to by themselves. So, collectively we can be more powerful than individually. So the challenge is to make this unity, to let Africa become integrated, to have a larger market, to be listened to with our collective voice, to integrate in a good way the globalisation - many of these objectives.

But how united is Africa as it faces the rest of the world, as it faces this ‘global village’ you describe? The African Union now exists, but how united are African countries within that union?

Well I think that the problem is not to say that we are united. The problem is to say that we are facing the same challenges. We have to find common solutions to our common problems. Individually, it’s almost impossible. Collectively, it is possible. It is very difficult to be integrated positively with 153 borders, with customs, difficulties of integration. We need - as others are doing - the image of Europe. But also, as I’ve said, the image of America. With FTAA [Free Trade Zone of the Americas] They are going to have a free common market from Alaska to Argentina all the way to Tierra del Fuego - one zone. I think the negotiations took place last year in Canada.

They have contradictions also there in Latin America, in North America, they also have many problems. But why should Africans be left behind in this multi-polar world of globalisation?

Well, surely Africa sometimes gets left behind because it’s busy fighting wars, or trying to resolve conflicts, instead of jumping onto the global bandwagon. Now, one of the main differences between the Organisation of African Unity and the African Union is that the OAU didn’t have any right of intervention in the internal affairs of a given country but in the African Union, you have this right - the right of intervention.

Do you think it’s going to really make any difference?

It has already worked. Take the case of Madagascar. Ten years ago, it was non-intervention in the internal affairs of a country. So, none of the African countries would have taken a position on Madagascar, because this would have been considered as its 'internal affair’.

Today, you see the position of the AU central organ on Madagascar.

But does the AU position take into consideration the reality of what is happening in Madagascar? The OAU said we do not recognise either the government of Didier Ratsiraka or that of Marc Ravalomanana. France has recognised Ravalomanana. Before Paris, the United States recognised him. So some ask why is Africa swimming against the tide and dragging its heels. Ratsiraka has left Madagascar, what is Africa waiting for to recognise Ravalomanana?

Let me give you an example. You know the case of Comoro? There was a coup. Effective power was with the president at that time.

But is Madagascar a coup? Surely, it was a disputed presidential election?

No, no, no, Madame. The rule of the OAU said that if you reached power anti-constitutionally, anti-constitutionally...

But Madagascar peace talks were held in Dakar in April, an agreement was signed by the OAU, the African presidents and the two rival belligerents in Madagascar. The accord told Ratsiraka and Ravalomanana to go back home and to have a recount of the vote and, if the Higher Constitutional Court then decided that one man was the winner after the vote recount, then he was the winner.

Listen, in the case of Gabon, we don’t recognise governments, we recognise countries. So we don’t have any problem to work with the government who is there. We have no problem. I am explaining not the position of Gabon, but the position of the central organ of the AU. Is this position right or wrong? It is up to you to judge. I am not defending the position of the central organ, I am just explaining what the central organ has decided.

But shouldn’t the AU become a bit more flexible, so that it can resolve problems rather than complicate situations and conflicts?

I think so. I really do believe that this principle should be more flexible in order to help a process and not complicate this process. I do agree. The only thing is, do not take two different measures for different two countries, you know, be consistent. They have said, well I don’t recognise a coup in Comoro, but you recognise a coup in Pakistan. Do you understand? A coup is a coup.

I am taking the example because you are talking about superpowers. They decide because they are superpowers. So they can decide that we don’t recognise Comoro because it was a military coup. But we recognise Pakistan which is also a military coup. It is their right, because they are superpowers.

But in Africa, can we act in the same way? I don’t know. Probably there is a possibility of making all these principles more flexible, probably.

Peer review is another new AU mechanism, under Nepad. The fact that fellow African leaders are meant to monitor and assess how their counterparts are doing, whether they are undemocratic, anti-democratic, repressive of their people, peer review is something new. How does the Gabonese president Omar Bongo, for example, feel about that? He has been in power for 30 plus years, he was one of the veterans of the OAU and is one of the longest-serving leaders in Africa. Now younger men, or women if they become presidents, can say ‘but President Bongo what you’re doing over there in Gabon isn’t a good thing’. How would he react?

Let me tell you that a democracy is a democracy. The principle of democracy is that the people should decide. If the people want somebody to be re-elected, what is your problem? What is somebody who should be considered as longer or shorter? Is it the eight years of the [maximum] United States [presidential term]? Is it the 14 years of Mrs Thatcher in Great Britain? Is it the almost 40 years in the Scandinavian system? What is considered a normal way?

But my question is, do you think peer review is a good thing, the fact that other leaders are now going to be able to say 'watch out, what you’re doing in your country is not good’?

There are principles, there are principles. The principle is democracy and democracy is what the people want, you know. If the people want you to remain for six months, that is the will of the people. If the population want you to remain for 10 years, or 14 years or 20 years, it’s the problem of the population.

That’s why I’m asking you what is considered a normal term. Is it the eight years of the United States, is it the 14 years reached by Mrs Thatcher, is it the 14 years of President Mitterrand, is it the 40 years in the Scandinavian system before? What is normal? Who will decide the normal term? It is the population of the country, nobody else.

And the peers coming to review, if you are elected democratically, if the people want you - or if they don’t want you - if you are manipulating or not, that is the problem for the peers. It is not for them to decide whether presidents stay on for eight years or four years or 70 years. Who gives you the right to decide in the place of the population?

But they will have the right to say, you are not governing properly, your people are complaining that you are not democratic, for example, do you think that is a good idea, because it is something new for Africa?

I think that is the problem we are facing. The real problem is, do we have the right to intervene in the internal affairs of a given country? If you say yes, the peers should review, then why don’t you complain about the decision made by the central AU organ? What do we complain? The central organ is an African organ. It is not a European organ, and with principles. These principles could be bad, could be too strong, then we might review them. Maybe there is a necessity to review them.

So should I take it that Gabon is for, or against peer review within the African Union?

It is a decision which has been taken by members, including Gabon, you understand. And what we are doing now, we are members of the central organ, we are reviewing the situation. Well, I do believe that there is a need, certainly, in cases like Madagascar for more flexibility for considering particular situations. I agree with that. The only thing I think should not be done is to have two ways, which is inconsistent. Shall we work according to principle or to sentiment?

Tagged:
Copyright © 2002 allAfrica.com. 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 publishes around 600 reports a day from more than 100 news organizations and over 500 other institutions and individuals, representing a diversity of positions on every topic. We publish news and views ranging from vigorous opponents of governments to government publications and spokespersons. Publishers named above each report are responsible for their own content, which AllAfrica does not have the legal right to edit or correct.

Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica. To address comments or complaints, please Contact us.