 |
| Dining And Wining African Summits |
| |
| Posted on: 2007-Jul-07 Daily Guide |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
Let me be a bit verbose, - a really disappointing, disheartening, disarming, dismaying and downright disgusting type of a communiqué was what finally issued from the conference room of the African Union (AU) Summit which was held from last Sunday to Tuesday, three solid days!
Before this summit of 52 African nations (Morocco did not attend), there were high expectations of most believers in Pan-Africanism, especially those fervently committed to the political union of African states, that this time, our heads of state would graciously clinch a realistic deal that would set off the establishment of an African union government.
Most people were upbeat about this, in view of the pre-summit much-publicised agenda pointing to an expected consensus on the formulation of a union government.
But things went almost the opposite way: the political union idea has now fizzled out to play a second fiddle to economic integration; that is to say, the final agreement of the AU summit puts more premium on economic union of the five regional groupings, than a political union which was previously envisaged.
The Daily Graphic reports that the AU summit ended “with a communiqué to rationalize and strengthen the Regional Economic Communities (RECs) and harmonise their activities as a first step towards the economic and eventual political integration of the continent.”
This is indeed a sad twist of general expectations, a kind of quixotry that makes nonsense of Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah’s wise saying: “seek ye first the political kingdom, and other things shall be added unto it”.
What is to be noted is that the originator of the political union of African states, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, the politician par excellence of Africa, knew the positive ramifications of what he was insisting upon, and had the unmistakable perception that Africa’s economic, cultural and diplomatic strength lies in political unionization first.
Dr. Nkrumah knew Economics, and his acute analysis of its details and ambience in correlation with those of politics, gave him the convincing creed that it is only political integration that can speed up the economic merger of the continent.
I agree to Dr. Nkrumah’s conviction that it is only a political authority that can put into place economic agencies and institutions that can prop it up.
Whilst past and present world history is replete with many instances where political union of small communities, and nations has been the societal norm, one wonders if proponents of the theory of “economic integration first” can give a single instance where economic union has led to political union.
The citing of the current European Union (EU) makes a poor showing in the whole argument, and becomes even more naïve in view of the fact that it is not yet a political uni; and any consideration of its future political integration could be a far-fetched and farcical exercise,
It is to be borne in mind that Europeans are very clever, shrewd, forward-looking and cunning; and were thus able to read in between the lines that the decolonization process that began around the mid-1950s were going to end up in the political unification of the African continent by which Africa was mostly going to control its vast, rich natural resources that would make it an economic and political giant.
In order not to find themselves at a disadvantageous position as far as easy exploitation of Africa’s cheap natural resources are concerned, the Europeans quickly formulated a hotchpotch of an European Economic Community which later graduated into a more refined group, known as European Union.
Certainly, the secret rationale behind this Union was to set up an economic model which they knew the Africans would imitate and thus have their fearsome upcoming political union preempted and stalled so to be at a perpetual standstill at the ‘economic union’ level.
Is there any wonder then that just as the European Economic Community (EEC) has ‘upgraded’ itself into European Union (as if it is arriving at a political union), the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) has also made a facsimile move to African Unity (AU) as if it is heading towards a political union. Isn’t it an imitation?
Ofcourse, it will be a miracle if the European Union will ever consider taking concrete steps to form a political union?
Can it be possible for Great Britain with its respected monarchical democracy to surrender its sovereignty to a political European Union? Indications that the European Union will be at a standstill at its ‘economic status’ for a long time are obvious.
Under the circumstance where some African heads of state are slavishly glued to European models, is there any possibility that these African imitators will ever strut out of their Europeanism’ now, and espouse themselves to the ideals of African political union?
It is most unfortunate that the summit communiqué should stress upon the necessity for the five African regional blocs to primarily head towards the formation of an “African common market” in order “to accelerate the economic and, where possible, political integration”.
The ironic implication here is that where not “possible,” political integration should not be accelerated because, deductively, it is of secondary importance.
This is a great pity because the essence of the “African unity” slogan is political integration which should lead to the fusion of all economic, cultural, educational and social substructures.
Indeed, these substructures are traditionally subordinate to a political system; after all, I am yet to know which economic integration in the world has led to a political union.
That indeed would amount to putting the cart before the horse! And this is exactly what the summit communiqué means to portray, which is very odd indeed.
Whilst the communiqué insists on the necessity for auditing of AU Commission, the Executive Council and the AU`s relevant agencies (which is of little significance to the union issue at stake). there is only a mere simplistic and hazy reference to the union government idea.
Is it not absurd the communiqué’s request for an establishment of a ministerial committee “to examine the identification of the contents of the union governments and the impact of the establishment of member states”?
Look at the pitiable circumlocution or round-about wording of this recommendation: “examine the identification of the contents…”.
What identification? And what contents? What does that mean? Why did the communiqué refrain from saying: “examine the requisite structures and drafted constitution of the union government?” Why was the AU summit afraid to say this simple realistic thing?
And isn’t it ridiculous asking the ministerial committee to examine the impact of the union government on the sovereignty of the member states. Examine its impact for what?
Is it that all member states which will lose part of their sovereignty will be given some money as compensation? Isn’t that a puerile recommendation – so naïve, so funny? Why should precious time be wasted on sovereignty issues?
In the formation of the United Kingdom and the United States of America, what committees made any pre-examination of sovereignty issues?
The obvious result of a union government formation is the loss of part of a member state’s sovereignty.
And this is what gradualists are afraid of, the fact that each one’s “Mr. President” will no more be called “Mr. President’ but “Mr. Governor” which will be unpalatable to their self-centered and narcissistic charisma!
If for 44 good years African heads of states have been meeting to discuss the union government idea every year, only uttering lofty ideations about it, and only graduating this African organization from OAU to AU (African Union) and perhaps to GAU (Gradual African Union) in 2050, then one is inclined to call such conferences as “Dining and Wining African Summits” and nothing else! (Expect more on this later).
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
| |
| |
|
| |
| |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Bookmark with: