The Organization of African Unity (OAU) to African Union (AU) the Journey So Far
CHAPTER ONE
OBJECTIVES OF STUDY
The African Union was formed to cater for the needs and aspiration of member states amongst the various set objectives
*Achieve greater unity and solidarity between the African countries and the other people of Africa
*Defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its member states
*Accelerate the political and socio- economic integration of the continent
*Promote and defend African common position on issues of interest to the continent and its people
*Encourage international cooperation, taking due account of the charter of the United Nation and the check of human rights.
*Work with relevant international partners in the eradication of preventable diseases and the promotion of good health on the continent
*To promote democratic principle and institutional popular participation and good governance and also protect human and people’s right in accordance with African charter on human and people right and other relevant human rights instrument.
*Establish the necessary conditions which enable the continent to play its rightful role in the global economy and international negotiations.
*Promote sustainable development at the economic, social and cultural level as well as the integration of African economies
*Promote cooperation in all fields of human activity to raise the living standard of African people
*Promote peace, security, and stability on the continent.
The wish of the founders of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) was largely informed by the desire of Pan-Africanist who believed that it is the only full political unity that will end the Pan-African struggle. Apart from the of lack of a common culture and language that divides African states there is more fundamental problem of lack of effective leadership in the search for unity.
CHAPTER TWO
THE HISTORICAL ORIGIN OF THE ORGANISATION OF AFRICA UNITY.
The Pan-African movement and the search for continental unity has its roots in the 1800s,and now has a new start with the inauguration of the African union in July 2002.1 The struggle against racism and colonialism and then to protect the fragile sovereignty of new states were succeeded by the search for national development, regional cooperative and an African Economic Community .Can the new Africa Union now working to get into operation, improve on this record despite the impact of globalization and structural adjustment.
A prefecture observer who is well informed about the Organization of African Unity(OAU)and rulers attended the inaugural meeting of the African union(AU) in Durban in July 2002 compared the laundering of the two organizations as follows. “The OAU was founded in an era of militancy and confident optimism. African believed that having achieved sovereign independence, the world was at their feet, the leaders of that era, including Nkrumah ,Nasser, Nyerere, Sekou Toure and others, had acquired the status of giants and visionaries. By contrast, the launch of the AU was sober and muted, with little incendiary rhetoric or passion. Critics can point to the weakness of the AU institutions and their inherited arrears. But much of the summit was businesslike and realistic. “African has leaned much.” According to Mohammed, 2 what accounted for the difference between the two events is the brief answer that African countries are worse of economically today than when OAU began in 1963 and admired in internal conflicts of various intensity. Most African leaders can hardly claim to have policies therefore of the destinies of their countries. Africans now understand that the main sources of their problem are Africa position in their asymmetrical and powerful global system.3 However; many believe that if the AU succeeds, it may ameliorate the enormous difficulties Africa is facing. Hence the businesslike approach and the anxious but muted optimism.
The founding of the OAU was the culmination of a long struggle by the Pan-African movement, which goes back to the 19th century. The movement was essentially outside the continent, driven by black intellectuals of African descent in the Diasporas-in the US, the Caribbean and Europe. At first, the movement was essentially a protest of black people against their exploitation, against racism, and for the dignity and uplifting of the black people. The leaders were middle-class intellectuals in the USA and the Caribbean, such as W.E.B, Du Bios (African-American) and Padmore (Caribbean).4
The first Pan-African conference was held in London in 1900, followed by others in Paris and New York. The most significant meeting and the Pinnacle of the movement was the fifth Pan-African Congress in 1945 in Manchester, England. It was different from previous meetings in three fundamental ways. A large number of activists attended over 200 persons from the USA, Europe and Africa. For the first time, leading African nationalist took active and prominent parts, Such as Kenyatta and Nkrumah, who was secretary of the congress (W.E.B. Du Bios was its chairman).
CHAPTER THREE
FROM ORGANIZATION OF AFRICAN UNITY TO AFRICAN UNION
AN OVERVIEW OF NIGERIAN’S FOREIGN POLICY
The nexus between Nigeria’s policy on Africa and Nigeria’s development policy is thin. Nigeria’s honest brokerage of crises and conflicts in Africa, her good neighborly attitude to and relationship with African States and most importantly, Nigeria’s declared and de facto commitment to the development of Africa, as epitomized in her policy of Afro-centrism is legendary. Although, not well appreciated by the larger international community and even some African States who see Nigeria from an overbearing posture. If the international community had objectively appreciated Nigeria’s contributions to the political emancipation and development of Africa, it has not really come to grips with its burden and implications at the domestic level. The international community is yet to understand that Nigeria’s contribution to the political emancipation and development of Africa has been more of a sacrifice and burden-sharing in the spirit of African solidarity.
Indeed, Nigeria sees the AU as a new instrument for economic emancipation and political integration in Africa and therefore considers how to use her foreign policy to promote and sustain the African Union, especially in terms of how to build African capacity and how to respond to the challenges of globalization and attain the aims and objectives of the AU. Additionally, Nigeria’s assistance has generally been without strings and has, more often than not, also been offered, rather than requested for, on humanitarian basis. However, this policy posture does not seem to have been internationally well appreciated.
For instance, several countries, including some African States and for political reasons, have raised a contradiction between Nigeria’s quest for a permanent seat on the UN Security Council, on the one hand, and Nigeria’s high level of indebtedness and Inability to put her domestic situation in order, on the other. In other words, how can Nigeria fund the maintenance of regional or international peace and security operations with her level of financial insolvency and much dependence on the developed world for assistance?
CHAPTER FOUR
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION
SUMMARY
From the above analysis, there is no disputing the fact that Nigeria is unreservedly committed to the development of Africa. Nigeria’s commitment has been expressed in various forms: provision of technical assistance; grant of concessionary oil prices to African State; the ECOWAS, not just by promptly paying Nigeria’s assessed dues and assuming responsibility for about one-third of the ECOWAS budget, but, at times, also accepting to pay the salaries of the ECOWAS staff; granting soft loans to needy African States; active engagement in conflict resolution and peace-building in Africa; ensuring that all Nigerian diplomats accredited to the AU actively participate in the activities and development of the AU; proactive assistance in the elaboration and codification of AU principles, rules of procedure and acts; popularizing the AU aim high support for conferences and workshops on AU activities; and perhaps more importantly, through the personal involvement of Nigerian leaders, especially, President Olusegun Obasanjo.
As much as Nigeria’s unwavering commitment is noteworthy and commendable, it may not be sufficient in the long run if other countries do not also show the same commitment. Besides, it may be difficult to fast track the development of the Union for a number of obvious factors.
First, Africans and the academic communities, in particular, hardly pay close attention to OAU and AU agreements that are in force. For instance, what is the conceptual definition of a region, and a sub-region in the context of the OAU and the AU? As clearly provided in Article 1(d) and 1(e) of the 1991, Abuja Treaty Establishing The African Economic Community, there are five regions in Africa: West, North, East, Central and Southern, as distinct from the UN definition which sees the whole of Africa as a region. The AEC Treaty also provides that a sub-region is constituted in any of the regions when there is an association of, at least, two countries in each of the five regions of Africa. A sub-region can also be constituted by more than one region. For instance, Nigeria and her immediate neighbours naturally constitute a sub-region, membership of which is drawn from the West and Central African regions.
The problem in this regard is that, even though the Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community is a major component and instrument of the AU and has even entered into force, virtually everyone still refers to the five different regions as a sub-region. Rather than promote the African conception of a region, confusion is created when some government and scholars refer to them as sub-regions and some others call them regions. There is the need for the AU to be consistent and for scholars, as well as media practitioners to educate the general public on this development.
Secondly, there is the problem of non-sustaining membership of the Union. Some countries adopt the policy of ‘open chair’. Some African leaders, for various reasons, do not attend regularly OAU/AU Summits but are delighted to attend when the sharing of cake and positions are to be discussed. In fact, some countries do not settle their assessed dues to the AU but want to host AU meetings. This is unnecessarily taking other committed members for granted. It is also a contradiction that is not helpful to ‘fast tracking’ of the AU. The Union should be taken more seriously and should be a Union of sustaining members.
Thirdly, there is a related problem of funding and donor dependency at the African and extra-African levels. At the African level, the Chairman of the AU Commission, Professor Alphar Oumar Konare, has come up with a new vision and mission, meant to put the Union at a greater pedestal but which also implied increased funding. The issue of how to pay, in terms of principles of financial burden sharing, is now raised. What percentage of the GDP should be allocated for the purposes of the AU? Some countries want the UN approach of ‘weighted’ and ‘capacity to pay’ principles. Some countries raised the burden of their domestic problems and have even asked that their arrearages be written off. Some countries even rightly requested for the application of the principle of sovereign equality.
The truth is that, when it comes to payments, the issue of insolvency and incapacity to pay as a result of domestic problems is often raised. When it comes to the issue of sharing office positions, the principle of sovereign equality is not raised. A Union like the AU, cannot survive on the basis of a deliberate policy of double standard. All countries have teething problems. Payment of assessed dues to any supranational Union or organisation must be a deliberate choice and of priority. It is necessary for all AU member States to define when the rule of sovereign equality applies and when it does not. It is also not in the interest of the AU in the long run, to allow non-paying members to participate in the activities of the Union.
Fourthly, the African Union, as it is today, still largely remains a government-to-government business. The majorities of the African people are still alienated and are completely ignorant about the essence of the Union and the roles expected of them. In fact, as provided in Article 17(1) of the Constitutive Act of the AU, “in order to ensure the full participation of African peoples in the development and economic integration of the continent, a Pan-African Parliament shall be established.” Thus, the parliament is designed to be a catalyst in the development processes.
When will the Parliament of representatives elected on the basis of universal suffrage actually take off? To what extent are the people of Africa educated on this? Are there political parties with transnational character in Africa? Although Article 17(2) provides that the composition of the Parliament will be defined in an additional Protocol to the Constitutive Act, are African politicians and people bearing their minds on this?
The African people need to be more educated on this. The AU needs to be more popularized and better understood. Consequently, there has to be a general public enlightenment, introduction of African Union Studies in all secondary schools in Africa, as well as, organization of regular conferences and seminars on every development initiative of the AU. These conferences are to be organised in member States by the various academic communities. The African Union should a priori be built on the basis of a bottom-up approach and not top-bottom. It is by so doing that the people of Africa can play active parts in the development of the Union and the continent. The AU will then be owned by the people and the people will have a legitimate basis to support the AU Assembly in all its undertakings.
Before concluding, it was shown in the above analyses that Nigeria’s commitment to the development of Africa is as a result of a deliberate choice that it is altruistic in objective, that it is a burden for all Nigerians by implication and choice that this is done in the long term interest of the African Union by design. As also indicated above, Nigeria’s Human Developing Index (HDI) was poor by the time the country was showing concerns for other African countries. In fact, Nigeria’s HDI ranking in 2003 was 152nd position out of 175 countries ranked in the world. Smaller countries like the Cape Verde, Sao Tome and Principe, etc. which Nigeria decided to assist, are in better positions. Nigeria’s decision to help develop Africa, using her human and material resources cannot therefore be as a result of Nigeria’s riches or socio-economic and political contradictions but a resultant factor of a deliberate policy of African solidarity, good neighborliness and altruism.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, in the pursuit of AU goals and objectives, cooperation and solidarity should not be unidirectional or based on ‘give and take’ only. It must also be based on ‘take and give’. This is the correct interpretation of the meaning of cooperation. Every Member State of the AU should pay its assessed due as at when due and should be promptly sanctioned when such payments are delayed.
Nigeria’s commitment to the AU is unwavering but it has to be also unreservedly complemented by other countries if the AU is to be put on a fast track of development. Nigeria’s foreign policy has also played a central role in Africa’s respective efforts at regional integration and the formation of the AU largely on the basis of her commitment and support for multilateralism and collective self-reliance among African states. Having gone through the objectives, structure and constitutional provisions of the African Union, it is clear without any doubt that the new-organization displays greater structural differentiation and focus, especially with respect to development issues, than the OAU. The AU is still officially in a state of institutional development, yet the expectations are high and the challenges of integration and development that it faces are indeed daunting. These challenges, which are adequately captured in the objectives of the A U as stated in its Constitutive Act, are numerous; indeed more than what has been discussed, and touch upon the very crux of the development process.
In assessing the ability of the AU to face these challenges, the reiteration of a familiar truism has to be made. This is to the effect that the strength and institutional viability of international organizations are reflections of the collective strength of their member states. African states are, generally speaking, weak states; indeed, the weakest grouping of states in the international state system. In this respect Nigeria’s continued support for the AU, its principles and developmental pursuits remain critical for African regional integration.
In realistic terms, therefore, the ability of the AU to face Africa’s integration and development challenges will first of all hinge upon the willingness of African states to empower it with the kind of supranational authority which its Constitutive Act prescribes. This will have to be coupled with the much needed financial wherewithal that will give it the necessary credibility and effectiveness to pursue its stated objectives. If in the short to medium term, African states have the ability to develop and strengthen the institutional capacity of the AU, the organization should thereafter lay emphasis upon self-reliance and endogenous efforts as paths to lasting development. In this respect, continental hegemons like Nigeria have very critical roles to play.
REFERENCES
- Maitre Abdoulaye Wade, “Francophone and Anglophone Divide Approach to Sub-regional Security and Development in the Next Decade”, being text of lecture delivered at the inauguration ceremony of the 13th Regular Course of the National War College of Nigeria, held at the College Auditorium. See details in New Sofa (Abuja, Directorate of Army, Public), 6th issue, 2004, pp.94-96.
- UNDP, Africa: Human Development Report, 2003.
- Bola A. Akinterinwa, ed.,Nigeria’s National Interests in a Globalizing World: Further Reflections on Constructive and Beneficial Concentricism (Ibadan: Vantage Publishers, 2005), forthcoming.
- See text of his lecture entitled, “NEPAD Team 9: Relations Between India and Africa”, delivered on Friday, 10 September 2004 at the invitation of the Indian Council of World Affairs in New Delhi, India.
- The Africa Nuclear-weapon-free Zone Treaty (Pelindaba Treaty). For details of this treaty, see Oluyemi Adeniji, The Treaty of Pelindaba on the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone (Geneva: United Nations Institute for Disarmament Research (UNIDIR), 2002), 348 pp; The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production, and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and their Destruction; and the Bamako Convention on the Ban of the Import into Africa and the Control of Trans-boundary Movement and Management of Hazardous wastes within Africa.
- Brownson Dede, “The Evolution of the African Union”, in The African Union and the Challenges of Cooperation and Integration: Proceedings of the National Seminar (Ibadan: Spectrum Books Limited, ©Federal Ministry of Cooperation and Integration in Africa, 2002), p.8.
