After 50 years, unity is still an African dream
The African Union may be a shadow of the original post-colonial vision. But
its potential to inspire remains
* Ngugi wa Thiong'o
<
http://www.guardian.co.uk/profile/ngugi-wa-thiong-o>
* The Guardian <
http://www.guardian.co.uk/theguardian> , Thursday 23
May 2013
If one were to ask people in the streets of any African capital to name a
union of states that readily comes to mind, they are likely to mention the
United Nations, the United States of America and possibly the European
Union. And the <
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/africanunion> African
Union? Oh yes, yes, I have heard of it, a few might say. And yet the
Organisation of African Unity - as the African Union was called in 1963 when
it was set up in Addis Ababa with 30 signatories - now includes virtually
all the African states, and is <
http://summits.au.int/en/21stsummit/50th>
50 years old come Saturday.
This should mean something, shouldn't it? Africa is a huge continent:
Europe, the US, China and India
<
http://underthebanyan.wordpress.com/2010/10/19/when-maps-lie-africa-gets-sh
ort-changed-again/> can be contained within it. This means that Africa has
the most natural resources - including land for agriculture, and mines for
almost every conceivable mineral. These, including her human resources, have
played a central role in the evolution of capitalism from its mercantile
through its industrial to its current global finance dominance - all to the
advantage of the west and the disadvantage of the people of Africa.
The OAU, and the independence it so ably championed through its liberation
committee, was meant to reverse that historical trend - and find its own
version of the old US anti-colonialist
<
http://history.state.gov/milestones/1801-1829/Monroe> Monroe doctrine and
<
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manifest_destiny> manifest destiny: Africa for
Africans at home and abroad.
It was founded on a dream, its roots in the
<
http://africanhistory.about.com/od/politicalhistory/a/What-Is-Pan-Africanis
m.htm> pan-Africanism of WEB Dubois - an African-American scholar, author of
<
http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2003/feb/22/featuresreviews.guardianreview3
0> Souls of Black Folk, and founding president of the still running
<
http://www.naacp.org/> National Association for the Advancement of Colored
People. He was the most consistent presence in the early Pan-African
Congresses held in the capitals of Europe, including London, Paris and
Brussels. He was also the prime mover in drawing in continental African
participants, such as Kwame Nkrumah and Jomo Kenyatta.
Contributing to the idea, though not as a member of the Pan-African
Congresses, was Marcus Garvey - the Jamaican founder of the
<
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/oct/14/blackhistorymonth-race>
Universal Negro Improvement Association in 1914 that, between the wars,
blossomed into the biggest organised mass movement of black people in
history. His publication, Negro World, was hunted down by a terrified
colonial officialdom, from the French to the British, because of its clarion
call of Africa for Africans.
In its origins, the pan-African idea was Caribbean and black American before
it became continental African. Embodying the Garveyite vision of the unity
of Africans and all people of African descent, pan-Africanism gripped the
imagination of the anti-colonial activists, reaching its pinnacle in the
1945 Manchester-based
<
http://www.blackpast.org/?q=perspectives/pan-african-congresses-1900-1945>
fifth Pan-African Congress that led to many exiles returning home to lead
anti-colonial nationalism. Among these was Kenyatta, who returned to Kenya
only to be imprisoned by the British as the leader of Mau Mau; and Nkrumah,
who led Ghana to independence in 1957, and declared that this independence
was not complete without the rest of the continent. He saw Ghana as the
nucleus of a future political federation of African states strong enough to
safeguard its natural resources, and flex its muscles to project the African
personality in world affairs.
The OAU was a vastly watered down version of that vision. The AU became a
watered version of OAU, reduced to a talking shop rather than a fighting
club. It has become invisible within Africa, and in the world. It cannot
safeguard the continent from the traditional marauders of the west. Has one
ever heard of African-owned corporations in the west? African-owned oil
companies drilling in the west? And yet western-owned corporations
proliferate in the continent.
Has one ever heard of an African army invading Europe or America, or even
stationing its troops and bases in any part of the two regions, or its ships
patrolling European and American waters? The west has troops in nearly all
African countries, with an American-controlled
<
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/jun/14/africom-imperial-agenda
-marches-on> Africa command. When Nato forces planned the invasion of Libya,
they brushed aside the concerns of the AU, which became a helpless
bystander. In short: despite the AU, Africa continues to be the west's
playground.
In a strange way both African and western governments fear a strong, united,
democratic Africa. For the west such unity would mean it could no longer do
whatever it wants with Africa's resources. It would no longer be the sole
determinant of the prices for exports to, and imports from, the continent.
Its oil and mining companies would no longer continue to be the sole,
invisible masters of Africa's vast oil and mineral resources.
For African governments, unity would mean ceding some of their powers to a
federal authority. And to realise even this minimum, they would have to make
sure that the union was a people's union, and not a union of African heads
of state. But I have a feeling that most of these leaders would rather
remain tin gods than have a God who can make tins. The days when Kwame
Nkrumah could link the sovereignty of Ghana to that of the continent - or
Julius Nyerere offer to delay the independence of Tanzania if such a move
would lead to an East African Union - are a distant 50 years ago.
Does that mean the AU is not necessary? It is better to have a skeleton of a
union than no union at all. The skeleton brings memories of a breath of
life, but also dreams of a resurrection. For the sake of the people of
Africa a strong, democratic African Union is needed today as much as it was
50 years ago. Despite its failures and weaknesses, the AU keeps the dream
alive. And as Victor Hugo once put it: there is nothing like a dream to
create the future.
Received on Thu May 23 2013 - 10:57:54 EDT
