Before you write me off completely for asking such a question let me explain
The African Union (AU) describes itself as A NEW EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE UNION FOR FOR AN NEW AFRICA. That is all very well but what does it really mean.
This conversation started on Twitter with my buddy Jimmy after he posted this article. We agreed that Africa would benefit from having an organisation such as the G8/G20 as recommended by the author of the article. I suggested that perhaps the AU would take on such a role.
We then wondered what the Mandate of the AU is and whether in fact it has more clout than its predecessor the Organisation of the African Union (OAU) to take on such a role!
One of the African leaders that is keen on the idea of an African Union with clout is Gaddafi and the Libyan Students Union here in the UK is leading the Agenda of Diaspora involvement in the new AU. The Agenda is wide ranging and during last Saturday’s (26th June 2010) conference a resolution was passed to formalise the African Union Diaspora arm.
There was a lot of excitement on the day as to the possibilities of such an organisations and the main point of discussion was around the quality of life for Africans in Europe. A question was asked whether it is possible for Africans to have a dignified life in Europe and if not is it best to return home.
An even more important question is what would the AU do to facilitate the diaspora who opted to return to Africa? Are there jobs for the African diaspora to return to? What about human rights? Does the AU guarantee human rights? Does it have enough clout to bring those that abuse human rights to task?
The next AU meeting is Kampala Uganda on 19th July 2010 and there is trouble brewing from this as far as I can work out. This is centered on the outstanding arrest warrant for the Sudanese leader who is wanted by the International Criminal Court for the troubles in Darfur. Would a United States of Africa sign up to International courts that allowed for the arrest of fellow African Presidents or would it protect its own?
The question that I and I suspect some of you reading this is why hasn’t the AU done anything about Somalia, Darfur, Zimbabwe or the millions that end up on the beaches in Spain
I read a journal the other day where the author was calling for a single currency and political system in Africa under the AU and please forgive me for thinking that whilst we still have DR Congo, Darfur etc such a Union is only but a desire and if this BBC article is to be believed trouble is already brewing over the recently formed East African Community.
I don’t mean to be a pessimist and would love to see an organised Africa Union, with clout to negotiate trade terms with the West, manage its own affairs without reliance on outside forces etc. I however can’t help but wonder if the the right structures and processes are in place for such a Union.
Some amongst us believe that this will happen but the diaspora need to take the lead!
So what do you think?
About idahorner
We should consider human rights abuses and lack of respect for black Africans. The treatment of our nationals with mutual respect, understanding, care and tolerance is paramount. We need to consider a common language to facilitate better communication. We have a long way to go.
I would agree with all of that. There is an awful lot of work to do before we can consider a union of any sort
I would suggest an effective African Union peace keeping force that would take over from shambolic United Nations' forces. Then African Union must be given power to overrule countries that violets people's rights – similar to what EU does. I am aware that we have an African parliament but what does it do? If citizens are abused by their own government where do they go? Seeking asylum in Europe will not develop Africa.
There was a conference in Kampala late last year that passed a resolution to protect Internally Displaced Persons (IDPs) yet only 26 of 53 countries have signed so far. There are estimated 26 thousand IDPs across Africa. Majority of these are from Sudan, Somalia, Chad and DRC yet these countries have not signed the resolution. This means that they are not answerable to it. Why are they still allowed to members of AU? Look at how tough it is for a country to join EU – AU cannot copy EU but we can learn from it. You take positives form negative.
Likewise, South American countries are emerging quicker from the recession because of the corporation – Venezuela, Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Bolivia and Peru have all come together for the benefit of the people and it's paying off. Africa needs to work together if it is to succeed. All those landlocked countries can not survive without their coastal neighbours.
Finally, Somaliland has just become the only second country that an opposition leader has won elections (Ghana is another country) and they have managed that peacefully. Yet it is still not recognised as a country? Maybe it's because it is not setting itself an African example where only the ruling party wins and presidents can rule for decades?
Welcome to the discussion Jimmy. You raise an interesting point that the AU must be given power to over rule countries that abuse human rights. My question is by whom? Who holds this power and why would they be willing to give it away?
See when we had the old systems of Chiefdoms it was clear who had the power or was in charge and generally folk respected that. the current systems tend to work in favour of those with guns. You may have a President who is afraid of his army because they may throw him out with their guns as I fer is the case in Madagascar.
There is also the issue of balances and checks, without anyone in charge it means that countries that do not sing up to resolutions such as that concerning the IDPs it is a free for all. Check and balances would mean that countries that do not sign up for human rights resolutions can be expelled. But this takes us back to the original discussion we had, what is the point of the AU. What are the benefits of being part of it or rather what benefits does it bring its members? I suspect these are ill defined and as such countries can flaunt the rules!
For these to change for the best it truly is up to us!
Hi Ida, good points made. Who polices the policeman?
This was the idea behind the African Parliament – similar to European parliament. African parliament exists. I don't know it's mandate, what it stands for and who finances it. It meets only twice a year – it's based in South Africa.
The issue of checks and balance is with individual countries, built proper democratic institutions and level the political playing field. This will take time given that most countries have only one dominating political party – that's one of the reasons that ruling parties hardly lose elections in Africa. The lack of opposition influences corruption.
This is where ordinary citizens need to stand up against abusive governments – and we have many of these cases.
Welcome to the discussion Jimmy. You raise an interesting point that the AU must be given power to over rule countries that abuse human rights. My question is by whom? Who holds this power and why would they be willing to give it away?
See when we had the old systems of Chiefdoms it was clear who had the power or was in charge and generally folk respected that. the current systems tend to work in favour of those with guns. You may have a President who is afraid of his army because they may throw him out with their guns as I fer is the case in Madagascar.
There is also the issue of balances and checks, without anyone in charge it means that countries that do not sing up to resolutions such as that concerning the IDPs it is a free for all. Check and balances would mean that countries that do not sign up for human rights resolutions can be expelled. But this takes us back to the original discussion we had, what is the point of the AU. What are the benefits of being part of it or rather what benefits does it bring its members? I suspect these are ill defined and as such countries can flaunt the rules!
For these to change for the best it truly is up to us!
Hi Ida, good points made. Who polices the policeman?
This was the idea behind the African Parliament – similar to European parliament. African parliament exists. I don't know it's mandate, what it stands for and who finances it. It meets only twice a year – it's based in South Africa.
The issue of checks and balance is with individual countries, built proper democratic institutions and level the political playing field. This will take time given that most countries have only one dominating political party – that's one of the reasons that ruling parties hardly lose elections in Africa. The lack of opposition influences corruption.
This is where ordinary citizens need to stand up against abusive governments – and we have many of these cases.
I dont c it except wasting the resources
I do agree with you, African Union reminds me of one those Gentlemen's clubs!