Doubts about the African Union Continue to Reappear

 Since the Organization of African Unity (OAU) became the African Union (AU) in 2002, it has reorganized the operations of the continental intergovernmental organization and embarked on new programming in various areas. However, every few years, some observers lodge complaints that the AU is not moving fast enough in creating a unitary African market or government or that its members are not operating in the interests of African or other people worldwide. 

Perhaps this latest round of criticism is because the AU is now 20 years old this year without showing the progress many thought they would see by now, or maybe it’s because many of the African members of the United Nations refused to condemn the Russian invasion of Ukraine.  Whatever the reason this time, it’s a phenomenon that keeps reappearing.

The OAU was accused of being a group of leaders of whom many wanted to be president-for-life.  While there is truth in the entitlement many liberation leaders felt about maintaining power (and some now apparently still hold such a view) and also in the failure to curb military coups in its early days, the OAU provided a venue for African governments to discuss common problems, even if they didn’t always devise successful solutions to them.

The AU was seen as a more methodical, businesslike means of safeguarding the rights of African people and facilitating the development of African countries.  In addition to the Assembly of Heads of State and Government, there are the Executive Council, the Permanent Representatives Committee (PRC), Specialised Technical Committees (STCs), the Peace and Security Council and the African Union Commission. The AU structure statutorily provides for the participation of African citizens and civil society through the Pan-African Parliament and the Economic, Social & Cultural Council (ECOSOCC).

 In addition, judicial and legal matters, as well as human rights issues, are handled by the African Commission on Human and Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR), the African Court on Human and Peoples’ Rights (AfCHPR), the AU Commission on International Law (AUCIL), the AU Advisory Board on Corruption (AUABC) and the African Committee of Experts on the Rights and Welfare of the Child (ACERWC). The AU also is working towards the establishment of continental financial institutions, namely the African Central Bank, the African Investment Bank and the African Monetary Fund.  The Regional Economic Communities (RECs) and the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM) are also key bodies that that constitute the structure of the African Union.

 For whatever reason, much of this structure is unknown to most outside observers of the AU as are any accomplishments they have achieved.  The AU Commission, the RECs and the APRM are mostly what people outside the system recognize, and their record frankly has not inspired the level of confidence anticipated, although the difficulty of organizing through different legal systems, monetary systems and languages, as well as the differential in the size of countries and their economies, is highly underestimated as obstacles to achieving the end goal of a common market and continental government.

 When the colonies in American started to transform themselves into one government, there were various safeguards established to prevent the larger states from dominating the smaller ones.  Our Senate was created to give all states – large or small – an equal say on issues such as nominations for high office and treaties.  Despite that, we still have issues in which the larger cities would like to dominate national election results, which is why the Electoral College was created to give small states a chance to contribute to the national process in a more equitable way so that populations in the large urban centers don’t choose the president by virtue of their population density.

I point all this out because the AU is going through an effort to make sure all countries have an equitable share in the management of what is envisioned to become a common market and eventually a continental government, no matter the size of their population or their economy.  It wasn’t easy for the new United States, and it isn’t easy for the African Union.  Two examples demonstrate this difficulty.

The APRM was established in 2003 as “a tool for sharing experiences, reinforcing best practices, identifying deficiencies, and assessing capacity-building needs to foster policies, standards and practices that lead to political stability, high economic growth, sustainable development and accelerated sub-regional and continental economic integration.”  These were lofty goals that gave hope of African nations reforming themselves without being prodded by international sanctions, but many member states declined to participate in such monitoring, evidently seeing it as an infringement on their sovereignty. It should have been anticipated that this would not be a smooth process, since there is no universally-accepted definition of the terms of reference.

This program was part of a larger effort – the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD) – that also stirred hope for major positive changes in African countries.  When NEPAD was established in 2001, largely through the efforts of South African President Thabo Mbeki and Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade, it was seen as a mechanism for African nations to solve their own problems and move away from “the begging bowl” of foreign aid requests. The program has three stated long-term objectives: to eradicate poverty; to place African countries, both individually and collectively, on a path of sustainable growth and development and to ensure Africa's full integration and active participation in the world economy. 

NEPAD is managing the implementation of the Agenda 2063 project – the continent’s “blueprint and master plan for transforming Africa into the global powerhouse of the future.” This strategic framework aims to deliver on its goal for inclusive and sustainable development as “a concrete manifestation of the pan-African drive for unity, self-determination, freedom, progress and collective prosperity pursued under Pan-Africanism and African Renaissance.”

Like many of the AU’s efforts, it is well-intentioned and demonstrates that a great deal of thought has gone into its implementation, but such projects take time to come to fruition, and there are many who just don’t have the patience to see such projects through to their conclusion or lack any genuine understanding of the level of difficulty in AU efforts to achieve all its goals.  I once attended a meeting at the AU Mission office in Washington where a group of old-line Africa activists were berating the AU ambassador at the time for her organization not just declaring the United States of Africa immediately.  None of them seemed to have any idea of the difficulties in achieving this goal nor were they interested in hearing from her about it.

Some Africanists simply refuse to acknowledge any obstacles to the end goal.  Needless to say, this is an unrealistic position that thankfully AU officials have ignored.  Unfortunately, though, refusing to give credence to such unrealistic positions on the African Common Market and the United States of Africa, while at the same time failing to do sufficient outreach to explain progress that has been and is being made, only serves to allow the critics to seem more reasonable than they actually are to the many uninformed people who share the dream of a united Africa.

Neither the European Union nor any other multinational organization was created overnight.  The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) has experienced serious disunity over the years, but has been galvanized into action by the Russian invasion of Ukraine and Russian threats against it. The various differences between nations and people make such efforts difficult. 

Look at the efforts to establish the African Continental Free Trade Area.  Even though the benefits of creating a single continental market of more than 1.2 billion (mostly young) people, and a combined GDP of more than $3.4 trillion are strikingly clear to anyone,  its architects have had difficulty in getting first signatories to the agreement and then ratifiers. 

It isn’t so much that there is disagreement about the goal, but the means to achieve it hit countries differently, depending on the size and sophistication of their economies.  For example, what works easily for South Africa wouldn’t for Lesotho.  Business people in the various African countries have adapted over the years to the post-colonial situation in their countries, and they’ve found ways to make money under skewed circumstances.  Changing to what many say is a better financial situation just isn’t accepted easily.  These business people evidently believe that if the system isn’t broken, don’t try to fix it.

Slowly but surely, the AU is making progress towards its end goal, but no one should imagine that this is an easy task that can be achieved by some decree from AU headquarters.  As the AU had confirmed with the APRM, it is an organization consisting of individual sovereign nations that decide what they think is best for their own countries and not what is in the interest of a united Africa.  Most of these countries have people comprising a multitude of ethnicities vying for safety through power that think of themselves first as members of their ethnic group as opposed to being a national citizen of their country.

If African governments are still grappling with such issues internally, how could anyone reasonably think these governments would all simply fall in line with a continental plan?