African Union: Who Controls It?This entry was posted on November 22, 2012 bySam
B. <
http://natna.wordpress.com/author/natna/> in
Africa<
http://natna.wordpress.com/category/africa/> and
tagged African Union <
http://natna.wordpress.com/tag/african-union/>,
Aid<
http://natna.wordpress.com/tag/aid/>
,AU <
http://natna.wordpress.com/tag/au/>,
Intervention<
http://natna.wordpress.com/tag/intervention/>
.
<
http://natna.wordpress.com/2012/11/22/african-union-who-controls-it/african-dis-union-2/>The
July 2012 Summit approved the 2013 Budget of the African Union totalling
USD277 million with 56% or $155.3 million of this budget slated to be
donated by what are called “Development Partners”. It is basically a
charity. Unfortunately in 2011-2012 the AU “had to operate with little over
half of the required (budgeted) amounts. Due to the global economic
downturn, donors only came up with 42% of what was expected from them. Is
it wise to have the continent so beholden to donors? The state of financing
of the Union also calls into question the commitment to building a strong
and viable institution when the AU functions each year with only 50-60% of
its required finances. This inhibits its capacity to fulfil on its mandate
and assist member states to meet the aspirations of African peoples” write
*Janah Ncube and Achieng Maureen Akena. *For the rest of the article in its
entirety see below.
—————————
*Financing of Africa’s regional integration*
*Janah Ncube and Achieng Maureen Akena*
On Monday 15 October 2012, Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma began her tenure as
the Chairperson of the African Union Commission (AUC). Her election at the
African Union (AU) July 2012 Summit preceded a long drawn and somewhat not
so fluent appointment. Her election ushered in the first female Chairperson
of the African Union Commission (AUC) and its predecessor the Organisation
of African Unity. The election’s controversy unfortunately, overshadowed
other important issues that were discussed and decided upon by this Summit.
Of great concern to us is the funding of the AU which is the key driver of
Africa’s integration and developmental agenda.
The July 2012 Summit also approved the 2013 Budget of the African Union
totalling USD277 million with contributions as follows:
• AU Member States: $122.8 million (44 per cent)
• Development Partners (Donors): $155.3 million (56 per cent)
• Total Budget: $277.1 million
Of the amount that the African governments are contributing, only $5.3
million goes towards programmes of the AU while 96% goes to operational
costs. This amount is actually 1.9% of the total budget. The total
operational cost is covered by the Member States. [1] For the programme’s
budget, the table below illustrates that the cost of programming at the AU
is borne by external donors. [2]
Programme costs for key AU institutions such as the Pan African Parliament
(PAP), the Human Rights Commission (ACHPR), the African Court (AfCHPR),
NEPAD, the Commission on International Law (AUCIL), the Anti-Corruption
Board and the Committee on the Rights and Welfare of Children (ACRWC) are
all being paid for by donors. In fact, there is no allocation at all from
Member States towards costs for the ACRWC which has a mandate to promote
and protect the rights of children in Africa. The newly constructed AU
Offices and Conference Center facility were solely financed by the Chinese
government at USD$200 million and the office building being constructed for
the Peace and Security Council being financed by the Germany government at
26.5 million euro are also worth mentioning here.
HE WHO PAYS THE PIPER CALLS THE TUNE
While it is commendable that the operational costs are wholly covered by AU
member states, it is quite disturbing that the integration and development
agenda for this continent is being paid for by foreign resources. Who then,
is really in charge at the African Union? Who decides what initiatives and
developmental projects are to be embarked on? If our continental
institutions and even our governments themselves obtain a majority of their
funding from external donors, then, who really drives the African agenda?
Who defends Africa’s interests in the global arena where these donors have
great influence? During the AUC elections for the Chairperson,
representatives of member states complained that there was some
manipulation by some foreign governments – with such a picture, this would
not be surprising. If someone is paying most of your bills why act
surprised when they think its up to them to decide what goes on in your
home?
The graph below illustrates how the AU cash inflows have transpired for
2011 and 2012. It had to operate with little over half of the required
(budgeted) amounts. Due to the global economic downturn, donors only came
up with 42% of what was expected from them. Is it wise to have the
continent so beholden to donors?
The state of financing of the Union also calls into question the commitment
to building a strong and viable institution when the AU functions each year
with only 50-60% of its required finances. This inhibits its capacity to
fulfil on its mandate and assist member states to meet the aspirations of
African peoples. If it hurts to spend money on Africa we will continue
undeveloped, poor, weak and beholden to those who toss their crumbs to us
and strip us of our natural resources.
AFRICAN SOLUTIONS TO AFRICAN PROBLEMS?
The AU has to wait on external funding before it can respond with
peacekeeping missions to countries in crisis. 2011 saw several such
situations such as Côte d’Ivoire and Libya. In both situations, the AU was
unable to respond adequately or provide peacekeeping forces, and received
heavy criticism for it, particularly from within the Continent. Even though
there is change of leadership at the AUC, the new Chairperson may not
respond any differently to crises situations if there are no resources to
deploy the African standby force. 2012 has the situations in Mali, Somalia,
Eastern DRC and Guinea Bissau to deal with, the growing insecurity in the
Sahel region as a whole, as well as the persistent scourge of the rebel LRA
forces which are causing displacement across 3 countries in central Africa.
We can not champions our African solutions when we can’t pay for them.
A TREE IS KNOWN BY ITS FRUIT
There is, currently, deep frustration among the citizenry of the continent
who watches their leaders bi-annually fly huge delegations to AU Summits
and bear costs for their government. government officials attend numerous
AU meetings and conferences, and yet there does not seem to be any obvious
results from the AU. The AU not being able to fulfil its mandate hampers
continental integration. It really does seem like the Regional Economic
Communities like ECOWAS, SADC and EAC are more visible, relevant efficient
and independent. One wonders why they would be willing to be subsumed into
a seemingly weaker continental institution. One wonders how African
Citizens are expected to be known and be inspired by an AU whose results
they don’t see.
WHO IS PAYING UP?
Only five (5) countries contribute two thirds of the portion from AU member
states. These are the so called “big five” and only 2 were paid up by
mid-2012. If 5 out of 54 countries contribute 66 per cent and the majority
48 countries contribute 34 per cent what happens when one of these five
countries fails to pay as Libya did in 2011 and 2012? In fact, Gaddafi in
2011 withheld Libya’s contribution to the AU because he was not pleased
with the lack of progress on trajectory to the United States of Africa.
When one of these five countries doesn’t pay up, the AU feels that pinch.
Only 11 (20 per cent) of the 54 Member States had fully paid their
contributions by mid-2012 with 19 countries owing for the current year and
24 (44 per cent) having arrears from previous years. So when our countries
do not pay up, how exactly is the AU supposed to operate? At this same
Summit while reviewing the report of the NEPAD Planning and Coordinating
Agency, the African Heads of States ‘deplored the low level of annual
contributions from Member States for funding the NEPAD Agency operations
with the implied continued reliance on Development Partners which hampers
the Agency’s delivery and infringes on African ownership of the NEPAD
agenda’. Whom exactly were our Heads of States and Governments so strongly
criticising except the countries they lead? Where is the sincerity in this?
If it hurts to spend the money we will not see any development taking
place! How can NEPAD deliver when its not resourced?
Donor funds are not all about hidden agendas (although many times its about
their interest) they are also about international collaboration, faith in a
strong AU (Africa), sense of responsibility towards Africa due to historic
baggage. These are much appreciated but they cannot be our main source for
funding our integration agenda. The current state of funding at the AU
accentuates our concern, that Africa remains accountable to its donors and
not its peoples and makes hollow the commitments to transform the AU into
an institution that is people-centred.
HOW SERIOUS ARE WE ABOUT THE AU?
In a context where member states are failing to contribute to the program
cost, the AU has managed to secure some funding to run these programs,
indeed this is commendable. But does the availability of sources from
donors discourage member states from taking responsibility of their own
initiatives? Is it that we do not take the AU seriously? Could it explain
why since 1963, only 25 treaties out of the 42 adopted at the AU have come
into force. And even those in force, the implementation at the national
level is minimal and unfelt. Our national governments fail to comply with
the African Union’s decisions on integration, development and people’s
rights. The lack of accountability systems monitoring the compliance of
each African state has lead to the slow ratification and implementation of
numerous African Union instruments. In the mean time, the gap between
policies and reality keeps expanding. There are huge inequities between the
urban and rural, rich and poor people; 2 out of every 5 men and women die
of infectious diseases, 1 in 16 women dies at child-birth and 44 out of 54
countries currently import 25 per cent of their food needs and over 300
million people are denied the right to food.
IF YOU HAVE WEALTH, YOUR VOICE IS LISTENED TO
Out-going Chairperson Dr Ping at his last address to the Executive Council
of Ministers in July 2012 pointed out that the AU has little legitimacy in
claiming marginalisation in global politics when it is unable to be self-
sustaining and depends on donors to support its programmes. How legitimate
is the ownership of the AU by member states? As citizens it frustrates us
when we see African solutions and proposals being despised and ignored by
the West; we saw it in Libya for instance and yet it is Africa that pays
the prize when the west intervenes with their solutions for their
interests. We recognize that the crisis in Mali for instance is a
consequence of Libya. Africa’s voice remains weak and a whisper in the
global arena and the AU which was set up to consolidate our voice and
enable us to project Africa based on our synergies depends on the same
international community to do its work.
AFRICA, IT’S TIME TO PUT YOUR MONEY WHERE YOUR MOUTH IS!
Our continent faces increasing numbers of people living in deplorable
conditions, unacceptable levels of underdevelopment after five decades of
independence, high unemployment, high maternal mortality just to mention a
few ills. We need to develop good infrastructure that not only connects our
countries but connects farmers to markets so we can begin to feed ourselves
and not import food when we have large tracts of agricultural land and most
of our people as farmers.
If our governments and heads of states and governments are serious about
tackling poverty, growing our economies and ensuring Africa catches up with
the 21st century why is there no equivalent action in terms of funding for
the AU? If all the time spent in these Summits, the talk, speeches, debates
are not being backed up by money then surely our talk is cheap. Its time
African governments put their money where their mouths are. Africa should
take responsibility of the institutions Africa has created. Don’t just
talk, talk and back that talk with money. A stream cannot rise above its
source. If you expect results, effectiveness and efficiency at the AU,
release the resources!
IT’S TIME TO LOOK INWARDS, AT WHAT AFRICA HAS
Africa has great wealth, oil, gold, diamonds, wood, coltan, water,
agricultural land, gas, precious stones, young people and yet we are so
poor every year we go to bow to the Chinese, the Europeans for more loans.
Its time to clean up our act and re- organise how we utilize and manage our
resources. Our natural wealth should not enrich a few but benefit all.
The first place to start is with dealing with corruption. Since 2000,
Africa is loosing close to USD50 billion annually with a large portion of
this from the extractive industries. The AU-Anti Corruption Board which was
set up to look into such issues is incapacitated and needs member states to
support it and not donor funding. Former President Thabo Mbeki is leading a
High Level Panel looking at the illicit flow of finances from Africa.
Recommendations from this panel need to be implemented.
In 2011 the AU established a High Level Panel on Alternative Financing
which is led by former President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria. The Panel
has made recommendations for possible financing options for the AU, for
example from levies on international travel and imports. This is highly
commendable as the implementation of its recommendations will go a long way
to providing sustainable ‘own’ resources for the AU. Although this does not
absolve our countries from ensuring that we pay for our integration agenda,
its benefits are desperately needed on this continent.
CONCLUSION
Paying for our institutions is about self respect. Africa paying for the AU
will prove our seriousness about making African institutions work for
Africa. The AU exists as a mechanism that helps us drive our collective
development and a better life for African peoples. This better life for all
will remain a dream if the river source is not opening up and pouring its
waters to the streams that water our development. It’s time to take the AU
seriously, its time for Africa to resource its institutions.
END NOTES
1. The total operational budget is US $117.4 million.
2. The overall budget for programmes is US $160.7 million.
* BROUGHT TO YOU BY PAMBAZUKA NEWS
* Janah Ncube _at_JanahNcube is the Executive Director of the Centre for
Citizens’ Participation on the African Union and Achieng Maureen Akena
_at_achiengakena is a Policy Analyst with the Open Society Foundation’s AU
Advocacy Programme. The views expressed in this paper are their own.
Received on Sat Nov 24 2012 - 18:39:45 EST
