LISTSERV - GAMBIA-L Archives - LISTSERV.ICORS.ORG

JANUARY 2000
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

BAFFOUR'S BEEFS
Why Africa must unite
"From the experience of the last 40 years, it is clear that nobody is going to save Africa but Africans themselves. And the earlier we pulled our resources together as a continent in a union on the lines of the European Union, the better" - Baffour Ankomah, in a speech to the recent PADA (Organisation for Peace and Appropriate Development for the Horn of Africa) conference in Amsterdam.
Before I come to my speech, may I say how much I have missed this column. I have been running around like a headless chicken in the past few months, so much that I have not been able to put finger to computer. With a new millennium upon us, I hope to find more time to keep this column (now entering its 13th year) going. So, please forgive me if you thought I had disappeared without saying goodbye.

The theme of this month's New African is African unity; it is in this context that I want to share my (very own private) thoughts on the matter, as enunciated in my PADA speech, with you. Your feedback is most welcome.

My topic was: "Is the OAU simply a talking shop? Do Africans need the OAU?" This is the gist of what I said:

"A talking shop" has negative vibes. Yet even in our age of the internet, a talking shop is not a bad thing after all. "It's good to talk", says a British Telecom advert. If the OAU didn't exist, we would still have needed a forum at which to talk.

Yes, it is true that the OAU could do better. But even in its current state of a mere talking shop (which we all know it is), it is still better than nothing. Even when they are talking, look at how many trouble-spots we have in Africa today? Can you imagine if they were not talking at all?

So, then, do Africans need the OAU, this talking shop?

Forty-one years ago, in 1958, the Treaty of Rome was signed which gave birth to the European Union. We have all seen what that Union has done to Europe.

The last major war fought by Europeans against Europeans ended some 54 years ago. Even then they called it World War II.

Though the French and the British are still quarrelling about whose beef is good enough for the dinner table, in general the European Union has hugely succeeded in bringing peace, co-operation, brotherhood, prosperity, and a voice to Europe. The richer nations of northern Europe have looked after their poorer cousins of the south. No wonder Greece doesn't want Turkey to join in. The fewer the merrier.

Borders have come down in Europe. Free movement of EU citizens is assured. There is a common agricultural policy. There is a common currency. There is a common European bank. There is even a common European army (NATO, never mind the Americans are there, they are Europeans after all).

Having got all these eggs in one basket safely delivered by the European Union, Europe now has the stability and peace of mind to enhance the quality of life of its people. Now Europeans can afford to sleep comfortably in their beds, knowing that war cannot easily break out in Europe as it used to do before the EU was born.

With its already strong, individual economies and national institutions, does Europe need a union to become even stronger? If the answer is yes, why doesn't Africa need the OAU, which, with patience, may one day deliver an African union on the lines of the European Union?

"We cannot ignore the teachings of history", Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana once said. I ask: Where will the African union come from without evolving from the OAU? Even the European Union did not start in its current form. It evolved from a Common Market which itself evolved from a European Coal and Steel Commission formed in 1951. Africa will have to start somewhere.

The mere mention of Nkrumah brings to mind why the OAU is simply a talking shop. It is because the union that Nkrumah so passionately articulated in that historic speech on 24 May 1963 in Addis Ababa, at the founding of the OAU; that union was reduced to a Charter and a toothless organisation the very next day (see p18-31 of this issue).

Any time I think about the lost opportunity, and the role Europe and America played in getting African leaders to reject the union idea, I ask myself: "If unity is good for Europe (as proved by the European Union), and America (as proved by the United States of America), why did Europe and America destroy the African union idea?"

Writing on this matter in his autobiography Sowing the Mustard Seed, published in 1997, President Museveni of Uganda said: "...There is now evidence to show that the frustration of these ventures [Nkrumah's dream of uniting the whole of Africa, and the Zanzibari Revolution] had the backing of American and British imperialism."

Why in heaven did they do that?, I ask.

Before we get emotional, please let's look at what Nkrumah was pleading with Africa to do:
1. A union government of African states;
2. A common economic and industrial programme for Africa;
3. An African common market;
4. A common African currency;
5. An African monetary zone;
6. An African central bank;
7. A continental communications system;
8. A common foreign policy and diplomacy;
9. A common system of defence;
10. A common African citizenship;
11. A common African army with an African high command.

Ladies and Gentlemen, isn't this what the Europeans and Americans have done? So why did the same people "frustrate" the African union idea, as Museveni says?

From the experience of the last 40 years, it is clear that nobody is going to save Africa but Africans themselves. And the earlier we pulled our resources together as a continent in a union on the lines of the European Union, the better. And now is the time!