INTRODUCTIONThe formation of the African Union, which has been described as the inevitable historical maturation of the ideas of Pan-Africanism and Pan-African unity that gave rise to the establishment of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) and later The African Union (AU), remains the latest and `greatest' achievements made in the African quest for a continental unity/unification or integration. The African Union was proposed by the Libyan leader Moammar Al Qaddafi as a more effective institution for increasing prosperity in Africa. The AU was formally established in September 2001, in Sirte. The AUs objective is to harmonize the economic and political policies of all African nations in order to improve pan-African welfare, and provide Africans with a solid voice in international affairs. Supporters of the AU believe it will have a stronger charter than the OAU, will be better funded, and will have the "teeth" that the OAU lacked, including the power to create a common African Parliament, a Central Bank, a common African currency and an international Court of Justice. It is hoped that the AU will have the authority and ability to achieve economic and political integration among member states, as well as work towards a common defense, foreign and communications policy: national boundaries will be blurred, armies merged, and a single passport introduced.The AU will replace the OAU, which was established in 1963 to promote unity, solidarity and international cooperation among the newly independent African states. It provided both practical resources and political backing for countries in their struggle against colonialism and helped to mobilize the battle against the apartheid regime in South Africa. However, during the past four decades the OAU has been hindered by internal conflict and self-serving heads of state. According to most critics, the OAU has protected the interests of African heads of state without addressing the real problems. Because of the OAUs tradition of non-interference in the internal affairs of its member states, it has proved of limited use across a continent of constant conflict and widespread government corruption. It has done little to address Africas economies or to combat AIDS and other disease plaguing the continent.While the goal of more effective continental unity is widely shared, there is widespread skepticism whether the new organization will prove more effective than its predecessor. The question however remains: Will the AU succeed where the OAU failed? In other words, will the AU succeed in integrating African economies? AIMS AND OBJECTIVES:This paper intends to:

* Provide answers to these and other questions. It appraises the challenges before the AU in its bid to integrate Africa* Find out whether or not the AU has lived up to its expectations * Determine whether the AU has faired better than its predecessor the (O.A.U) METHODOLOGY:. In order to analyze the main issues that will be identified in this study, this research will be expository, descriptive and also historical in content. This is of utmost importance because it helps to trace the origin of the organization and the reason for his establishment as well as the transition from the Organization of African Unity (OAU) into the African Union (AU). In doing so, this research will mainly be based on secondary sources, such as academic journals, books, UN reports, media and NGO materials and possibly government documents and will be non-empirical in nature.

.LITERATURE REVIEWGenerally, regional integration can be political, economic, social or cultural. According to Haas, E. in his work Titled Beyond the Nation-States: Functionalism and International Organization Regional integration is a process of combining separate economies into larger political communities. To the extent that political and economic forces are inextricably intertwined, any discussion of integration must encompass both economic and political variables. Thus, in this paper, the generic reference to regional integration is employed. Regional integration has, thus, been defined as a process of peacefully creating a larger coherent political system out of previously separate units, each of which voluntarily cedes some part of its sovereignty to a central authority and renounces the use of force for resolving conflict between Members.In the piece The Analysis of International Relations Deutsch, K. and other early theorists have noted that authentic regional integration encompasses the whole system. Thus he argued that in reality, regional integration is a process, in which, seemingly, participating countries inexorably seek, inter alia, economies of scale, increased commercial activities, and uninhibited factor mobility, via institutional integration and policy integration, both of which refer to the growth of collective decision making and the sharing of responsibility for policies.

Babarinde, O.A. in Analyzing the Proposed African Economic Community opined that there are three broad approaches to regional integration. The first school of thought claims that the best path to regional integration is to create a higher supranational authority, to which participating states surrender part of their sovereignty. This perspective, otherwise known as the Federalist Strategy, calls for a federal structure, whereby political power is legally shared between the national and the supranational levels of government. In this case, national governments will have to surrender part of their sovereignty to the newly created supranational institutions.At the other end of the theoretical spectrum is the Functionalist Strategy. Lodge, J. in Transparency and Democratic Legitimacy. Simply put, this approach refers to a mere functional cooperation by participating countries. Conceivably, this road to regional integration does not require member states to part with an iota of their autonomy. It merely entails and encourages inter-governmental cooperation. While the Federalist approach may be avaricious by asking for too much too hurriedly, the Functionalist appears to be evasive and lackadaisical. Hence, a common ground is proposed, which is a hybrid of the aforementioned strategies.

Again Lodge, J. in his work Transparency and Democratic Legitimacy. Claimed that Neo-Functionalist Strategy posits that regional integration can best be achieved via the creation of specialized administrative institutions at the trans-national level, which shall endeavor to demonstrate the relevance and worthiness of regional integration to member states. If they are successful with their modest tasks, the argument goes; the supranational entities would be accorded more competencies by member states. Sovereign states participates in regional integration for various reasons because, they expect tangible benefits, whether political, economic or social. Politically, a country may participate in a regional scheme in order to bolster its military prowess, augment its political stature, and deter or wade off aggression from hostile neighbors. Similarly, countries may integrate so as to achieve economies of scale, optimally allocate scarce resources, and accelerate economic growth or to increase trade. Socially, countries may also participate in regional integration for socioeconomic reasons, either to facilitate factor mobility or to stem the influx of immigrants from less affluent neighboring countries. In any case, participating in regional endeavors can plausibly increase the fortunes of the domestic economy. Theoretically, and in practice, regional integration framework can be further discussed, on the basis of whether they entail the removal of trade barriers or the adoption of common policies.According to Brigid Laffan in the work Integration and Co-operation in Europe, he was of the opinion that most-favored nation, free trade area, and customs union, which involve the elimination of trade barriers, are manifestations of negative integration. Conversely, common markets and economic unions denote positive integration, because they usually require institutional edification and policy coordination. It could, thus, be generalized that the more advanced the level of integration, the greater the incidence of positive integration.The integration of Africa may be a complex process, but the stakes are high, and will ultimately determine the Continents political and economic future. However the basic issues are how any meaningful political and economic integration in Africa can be achieved? This work examines political and economic problem facing the African Union in her quest to integrate the continent which is a clear departure from all previous work done on integration particularly on the African Union.CHAPTER PROPOSALCHAPTER ONE: BACKGROUND TO THE FORMATION OF THE AFRICAN UNION: This chapter established the historical background to the formation of the African Union which has been described as an inevitable historical maturation of the ideas of Pan-Africanism and Pan-African Unity that gave rise to the formation of the Organization of African Unity.CHAPTER TWO: ISSUES OF IN TEGRATIO N I N AFRIC A In discussing the issues of integration, this chapter examines the initial ideological differences and disagreements among the African leaders in the pre -OAU era and the best way of achieving African unity. Also, other issues that served as an impediment to the successful implementation of the ideas of continental integration within the OAU were also highlighted.CHAPTER THREE: AFRICAN UNION AND POLITICAL PROBLEMSThe idea of integration as conceived by African leaders is not in anyway out of place considering the challenges of globalization. The visions are there but practicality remains an illusion. This chapter takes a look at the political challenges the African Union confronts in her quest to integrate the continent.CHAPTER FOUR: AFRICAN UNION AND ECONOMIC PROBLEMS It is a known fact that integration is an inevitable strategy for survival in the global scheme of things. This chapter x-rayed the economic problems ravaging the African Union from becoming relevant or important in the new emerging world order which is geared towards strengthening the base of her economiesCHAPTER FIVE: CONCLUSIONThis research traced the genesis and reasons for the emergence of regional blocs, especially in Africa. The main reason being that Africa wanted to be an active player in the global economy. The discussion also notes that because the OAU failed to facilitate meaningful growth and development in Africa, aside other factors, it metamorphosed into the AU. The study examines the problems the AU will contend with in its efforts to integrate African economies and proffers solutions.

CHAPTER ONE

BACKGROUND TO THE FORMATION OF AFRICAN UNION

IntroductionOne of the major obvious features of the earth is its division into geographical units. Although the world is obviously a world of individuals, human individuals; yet at a very broad level, the world is divided into continents, seven continents: Africa, Antarctica, Asia, Australia, North America, South America and Europe. The African continent in the late nineteenth century contained a vast mosaic of tribal peoples who lived in a varied landscape of desert, rain forest, savannah, mountain, and coastal lands. All these peoples had adapted their social and economic organizations to their environments; and their political systems varied from large empires to tribal groupings under chieftains.

For several centuries, from the eleventh century to the nineteenth century, Africa was the object of Arab and European political incursion and domination. Although such a predatory relationship existed even among groups within the continent, the nineteenth and twentieth-century European imperialism was particularly unique in being colonial - based on a mixture of economic, strategic, cultural, and nationalistic motives.1 European imperialism expressed itself in the partition of the African continent. Apart from the disruption or destruction of many traditional African societies, Europeans in Africa extensively exploited the continent's mineral and agricultural products, often by means of forced labour2.

After several decades, of subjugation, Africa began to move from a continent of colonies to a continent of independent states in the period after the Second World War (1939 - 1945); although the nationalist struggles for independence were often impeded or undercut by the complex mosaic of differing ethnic, linguistic, and religious communities, which made unification difficult.3 With the establishment of modern states in Africa based on artificial national boundaries devised by the European powers, which produced a national consciousness based on European colonial territories, the idea of continental unity became a major issue among the various nationalist leaders .4 This culminated in the founding of the African Union in 2002.Pan-Africanism and Pan-African Ideas

The first step in the formation of the African Union was the Conceptualization of the idea of Pan-Africanism. According to Lawrence O.C. Agubuzu, the African Union has been designed and structured to consolidate and strengthen all steps towards the idea of Pan-Africanism and of continental government undertaken before and since the founding of the OAU in 1963:5 Yet there seems to be diverse opinions, which are sometimes conflicting, on the meaning or definition of `Pan-Africanism'. One of the earliest conceptualization of the term was give in the 1930s by W. E .B. DuBois, the veteran Afro-American Scholar and agitator, who stated that the Pan-African movement. Aimed at an intellectual understanding and cooperation among all groups of African descent in order to bring about "the industrial and spiritual emancipation of the Negro people.6

Also, Rasford Logan viewed the phenomenon in terms of self-government by African countries South of the Sahara, but Anthony Enahoro disagreed and insisted that Pan-Africanism included the economic, social and cultural development of the continent, the avoidance of conflict among African states, the, promotion of African unity and influence in world Affairs .7 In addition, Pan-Africanism, in the opinion of Colin Legum, is essentially a movement of ideas and emotions; at times it achieves a synthesis; at times it remains at the level of antithesis. 8From the above definitions and perceptions, we can deduce that the major component ideas of Pan-Africanism included: Africa as the homeland of Africans and persons of African origin; solidarity among men of African descent, belief in a distinct African personality, rehabilitation of Africa's past; pride in African culture, Africa for Africans in church and state, the hope for a united and glorious future Africa. All these elements or combinations of them form the principal aims of twentieth-century Pan-African associations; they pervade the resolutions of Pan- African meetings held outside and inside the continent since 1900; they permeate the utterances and publications of men like W.E.B. DuBois, Marcus Garvey, George Padmore, Kwame Nkrumab, Julius Nyerere and Stokeley Carmichael.9Thus, with simplification Pan-Africanism can be said to be a political and cultural phenomenon which regards Africa, Africans and African descendants abroad as a unit; it seeks to regenerate and unify Africa and promote a feeling of oneness among the people of the African world; it glorifies the African past and inculcates pride in African values.

It can be deduced, therefore, that the origin of Pan-Africanism or Pan-African ideas is a relatively long one. According to V. B. Thompson, the man who first expressed pan-African sentiments will never be known. Hence it is futile to try, as some writers have attempted, to ascribe the phenomenon to any one man or trace its origin to a particular year. In his words,

Of course the term "pan-African" and its derivative panAfricanism" were not coined at the time the phenomenon which they describe emerged.... Though the words "pan-African" and "pan-Africanism" became popular after the 1900 London congress, their substance had been thought out long before. It is a struggle in which Africans and men of African blood have been engaged since their contact with modern Europe. 10Based on the above assertion, Pan-African thinking originally began in the so-called New World becoming articulate during the century starting from the declaration of American independence (1776).I1 It represented a reaction against the oppression of the black man and the racial doctrines that marked the era of abolitionism. It also found expression in the independent church movement in the New World and Africa as well as in resistance to European colonial ambitions in Africa.l2The above notwithstanding, Sylvester Williams, a West Indian lawyer from Trinidad, is said to be the first to use the term `pan-Africanism' and the first to organize a pan-African congress in 1900.13 This was in London, where he brought together a number of Africans and men of African descent then living in Europe to discuss the question of colonialism and foreign domination of black peoples, racial prejudice and the treatment of Africans in South Africa, the future of Africa and the international standing of the only a three black states existing in the world at the time, namely, Haiti, Ethiopia and Liberia. With the death of Sylvester Williams shortly after the London pan-African congress, Burghardt DuBois, who had introduced the question of independence in the London Congress, took over from where the Late Williams had stopped and succeeded in organizing a series of five Pan-African congresses. This earned him the name `Father of pan-Africanism'.14Moreover, the details of the pan-African congresses as well as the activities of all the pan-African leaders such as DuBois, Marcus Garvey, Felix Houphouet Boigny, Casely Hayford, Bankole Awooner Renner, and many others seem to fall outside the scope of this research work. The main issue here would be how all the pan-African ideas and the activities of pan-African leaders became institutionalized in the Organization of African Unity (OAU).

According to L. O. C. Agubuzu, the end of the Second World War (1939-1945) shifted the focus of the Pan-African movement to Africa, signaling a convergence of interest and objectives between the global Pan-African movement, inspired by Africans in the Diaspora and the emergent modern nationalist movements in several of the colonial African States. 15 Thus, African nationalism, became intricately bound up with the Pan-Africanist movement in the decades (1945-1965) preceding the decolonizationprocess. In Africa. 16Thisperiodalsowitnessedthe articulation of ideas of regional and continental cooperation among African colonies aimed at tapping the economic and political potentials of the continent. The Emergence of the Organization of African Unity (OAU)It was indeed in the context of this broad commitment to the idea of Pan-Africa by African nationalists and political leaders that debate raged within the nationalist movement, long before independence was achieved by most African countries, not about the desirability of an umbrella organization for the collective expression of the aims and objectives of Pan-Africanism - for there was a seeming consensus on this - but about the form which such an organization should assume and the extent and substantive content of its powers and functions. Undoubtedly, the institutionalization process of the .various pan-African ideas was a gradual one; it obviously gained ground in the late 1950s, with the political independence of few African states - particularly Ghana and Guinea. As heads of government of the newly independent states of Ghana and Guinea, Kwame Nkrumah and Sekou Toure respectively announced after a meeting in Accra on 23 November 1958 that they had decided to constitute their two states into a Union, the Ghana-Guinea Union, which, they added was to be the nucleus of a nation of west African states. 17 The significance of the announcement lay in the fact that it was the first time that African leaders of independent African states emerging from different political regimes, and therefore different colonial language areas, came together to make pronounces on the general desire for West African unity.From a sentiment for West African unity, a wider and all-embracing commitment for continental African unity emerged on 1St May 1959, when Kwame Nkrumah and Sekou Toure signed a joint declaration in Conakry by which they expressed their intention to broaden the basis of their Union to make. it the nucleus of a wider `Union of Independent States of Africa' to which member states would surrender portions of their national sovereignty' in the full interest of the African Community. 18In July 1959, a meeting was held in a small Liberian town of Saniquellie between Kwame Nkrumah and William Tubman of Liberia at which they signed the famous "Saniquellie Declaration", in which they agreed to form a loose association to be known as "the Community of Independent African States". At the meeting, they formulated six principles which would guide the operation of the association, third and most important was that,

... Each state and federation; which is a member of the Community, shall maintain its own national identity and constitutional structure. The Community is being formed with a view to achieving unity among independent African States. It is not designed to prejudice the present or future international policies, relation and obligations of the States involved."19Although the "Saniquellie Declaration" was a modification of the earlier declaration signed in May 1959, it however raised certain controversial issues that led to the emergence of blocs among the new African states which represented the two major methods of achieving African unity. 20 These issues, which shall be elaborated in the next chapter, featured in the various bloc-conferences of African heads of states and government between 1960 and 1962.

In spite of this ideological (moderate versus radical) divide, steady progress towards the establishment of a continental organization, embracing independent African states in 1963 - a turning point being the establishment of a., seven-member political committee that year, comprising CongoBrazzaville, Ethiopia.,, Cote d' Ivoire, Liberia, Nigeria, Senegal and the United Arab Republic, to organize a future Summit of African Heads of State and Governments .21 The Committee's work was followed by the Conference of African Foreign Ministers, in Addis Ababa, in May, 1963 and the Summit Conference of African Heads of State and Government a few days later to inaugurate the OAU.

The Charter which was a compromise between the loose association of states favoured by the Monrovia Group and a stronger federation of African states advocated by the Casablanca group, was signed on May 30.22 Of the thirty-two independent African countries, thirty of them endorsed the Charter. So, the founding countries of the OAU were: Algeria, Burundi, Cameroon, Central African Republic, Chad, Congo, Zaire, Benin, Ethiopia, Gabon, Ghana, Guinea, Ivory Coast, Liberia, Libya, Malagasy, Mali, Mauritania, Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Sudan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Uganda, Egypt and Burkina Faso. Morocco and Togo were not represented at the conference although they were later allowed to sign the Charter.

The aims and objectives as set out by Charter establishing the organization are: to promote the unity and solidarity of the African States; to coordinate and intensify efforts to achieve a better life for the peoples of Africa; to defend their sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence; to eradicate all forms of colonialism from Africa; and to promote international cooperation, having due regard to the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. 23The Charter also stipulated seven principles that would guide the interactions/relationships among members: sovereign equality of member states.; non-interference in the internal affairs of states; respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of each state and for the inalienable right to independent existence; peaceful settlement of disputes by negotiation, mediation, conciliation or arbitration; unreserved condemnation, in all its forms, of political assassination as well as subversive activities on the part of neighbouring states or any other state; absolute dedication to the total emancipation of the African territories which were still dependent; and affirmation of a policy of non-alignment with regard to all blocs24The Need for Stronger Union: From OAU to AL

What the OAU Charter provided for was a loose confederation or association of states, whose members undertook to coordinate and harmonize their .general policies through cooperation in the political, diplomatic, economic, communications, health, sanitation, nutritional, scientific and technological spheres as well as cooperation in defense and security. 25 There was no specific mention of political union or even of Pan-Africanism. This was indeed one of the many glaring weaknesses of the Organization. According to Zdenek Cervenka, although the signing of the Charter establishing the OAU was quite an achievement at a time when Africa was sharply split into three rival blocs, the Organization hardly moved at all after fourteen years of its establishment 26.

Thus, it had become evident and accepted as early as 1979, when the Committee on Review of the OAU Charter was establish, that a need existed to amend the continental instrument in order to streamline the Organization to gear it more accurately for the challenges of a changing world.27 In line with Globalization and efforts being made in the advanced countries to establish stronger economic union, African leaders had realized the need for a stronger union in Africa, which would reflect the dynamics and realities of' African and international politics; in order to advance the idea of Pan-Africa. Despite numerous meetings, however, the Charter Review Committee did manage to formulate substantive amendments that culminated in the treaty establishing the African Economic Community (AEC) and the African Union28.

The treaty establishing the African Economic Community was submitted at the 27th Summit of the Organisation of African Unity in Abuja from June 2 - 6, 1991. The African Economic Community, like the European Union, is aimed at economic integration of all the nations of Africa. The aims and objectives of the Community among others, include,

: . . to promoteeconomic,socialandcultural development and integration of African economies in order to increase economic reliance and promote an endogenous and self-sustained development; to promote cooperation in all fields of human endeavour in order to raise the standard of living of its people, and maintain and enhance economic stability, foster close and peaceful relations among Member States and contribute to the progress, development and the economic integration of the African continent; and to coordinate and harmonize policies among existing and future economic communities in order to foster the gradual establishment of the African Economic Community 29Following the ratification of the African Economic Community (AEC) Treaty, the Organisation of African Unity operated on the basis of its Charter and the AEC Treaty and, effective May 1994, it began to be referred to as the OAU/AEC.30 It was against this background that the Fourth Extraordinary Session of the OAU in Sirte, Libya in September 1999, with determined promptings from. the Libyan leader Colonel Muammar Ghaddafi, decided on the establishment of the African Union, in conformity with the .objectives of the OAU Charter and the provisions of the AEC Treaty.

The Sirte Declaration was followed by the Thirty-sixth Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government in Lome, Togo on 11 July 2000 where the Constitutive Act of the African Union was adopted; and it was subsequently lunched at the Thirty-seventh Ordinary Summit of the OAU, in Lusaka, Zambia in July 2001.31 During the same period, the initiative for the establishment of the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NIEPAD) was also establish .32 On July 9, 2002, a day after the closing ceremony of the OAU and its last and Thirty-eighth Summit, the African Union was born.

Among others, the objectives of the Union include:

... to achieve greater unity and solidarity between the African countries and the people of Africa; to defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its member states; to accelerate the political and socio-economic integration of the continent; to promote and defend African common positions and issues of interest to the continent and its peoples; to encourage international cooperation, taking due account of the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; to promote peace, security, and stability on the continent; to promote democratic principles and institutions, popular participation and good governance; to promote andprotecthuman and peoples'rights in accordance with the African Charter or, Human and People's Right and other relevant human rights instruments...33Finally, the launching of the African Union in Durban, South Africa on July 9, 2002 by the First Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the Union was a momentous and seminal event, a major land mark, and indeed a turning point in the evolution of the theory and practice of Pan-Africamsm and African Development. 34 In the words of the Kenyan political economics, Rok Ajulu, the African Union is not simply a continuation of the OAU by another name; rather "...tills is the beginning of a new paradigm of development in Africa. The African Union/New Partnership for Africa's Development is a more thorough-going project aimed at ending poverty and underdevelopment, deepening democracy and economic governance, and more crucially, pioneering a completely new relationship and partnership with the developed world.35It is remarkable, in this respect, that building on almost forty years experience in continental, regional and sub-regional cooperation and integration, Africa began the dawn of the new millennium with a resurgent and re-invigorated enthusiasm and a new paradigm of continental unity and development which situate the birth of the African Union in the wider context that calls for the emergence of a new structure, dynamics and pattern of political economy in a rapidly changing system of global production, trade and interdependence. With it, the necessary conditions that would enable the continent to play its rightful role in the global economy, politics and in international negotiation were established36.Lastly, apart from the expectation those African leaders would now be committed to clean government. and strong economic policies as spelt out in the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), they are also expected to commit themselves to promoting peace, security, and good governance and holding each other accountable for their individual and collective efforts to achieve NEPAD's economic, political, and social objectives37.

ENDNOTES

1. E. A. Ifidon, "Unity without Unification: The Development of Nigeria's "Inside-Out' Approach to African Political Integration, 1937-1963", in International Social Science Review, Volume 83, Numbers l & 2, 2002, pp. 46.

2. R. Goff, W. Moss, J. Terry & J. Upshur, The Twentieth Century - A Brief Global History, 4t` Edition. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1994), pp. 43 - 55.

3. Ibid., pp. 376 - 389.

4. Ifidon, "Unity without Unification: The Development of Nigeria's 'Inside-Out' Approach to African Political Integration, 1937-1963", pp. 46 - 47.

5. L. O. C. Agubuzu, From the OA U to AU.- The Challenges of African Unity and Development in the Twenty-fist Century, NIIA Lecture Series No. 83 (Lagos: Nigeria Institute of International Affairs, 2004), p. 19.

6. The Crisis, (November, 1933), p.247.

7. R. Cox, Pan-Africanism in Practice (London: Oxford University Press, 1981), pp. 1 - 2.

8. C. Legum, Pan-Africanism: A Short Political Guide (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1962), p. 14.

9. Cox, Pan-Africanism in Practice, p. 3.

10 V. B. Thompson, Africa and Unity: The Evolution of Pan-Africanism (London: Longmans, 1964), p. 7.

I1 .A. K. Wodajo, "Pan-Africanism: The Evolution of an Idea", Ethiopia Observer, Vol. VIII, No. 2 (1964), pp. 166 - 167.

12.Ibid.

13.C. O. C. Amate, Inside the OAU - Pan Africanism in Practice (London: Macmillan Publishers, 1986), p. 34.

14.Ibid.

15.Agubuzu, From the OAU to AU.- The Challenges of African Unity and Development in.the Twenty. fist Century, p. 20.

16.Ibid.

17.Amate, Inside the OA U-Pan-Africanism in Practice, p. 40.

18.Ibid.

19.Legum, Pan Africanism: A Short Political Guide, p. 45.

20. See J. L Osagie, "Regional Cooperation and Integration in Africa", in Omu & Otoide (eds.), Themes in International Studies and Diplomacy, p.'183.

21.Agubuzu, From the OA U to AU.- The Challenges ofAfrican Unity and Development in the Twenty-fist Century, pp. 21 - 22.

22.R: Uweuche (ed.), Africa Today4United Kingdom: Africa Books Ltd, 1991), p. 29.

23.Ibid., p. 21.

24. "Charter of the Organization of African Unity (OAU)", Addis Ababa, 1963, Article III.

25.Agubuzu, From the OA U to AU.- The Challenges ofAfrican Unity and Development in the Twenty. fist Century, p. 22.

26.Z. Cervenka, The Unfinished Quest for Unity: Africa and the OAU (New York: African Publishers, 1977), p. 3.

27."Transition from the OAU to the African Union", Department of Foreign Affairs of South Africa, www.dfa.gov.za. Retrieved on

07/04/09. See also Osagie, "Regional Cooperation and Integration in Africa", p. 189

28. "Study on an African Union Government: Towards a United States of Africa", in The Union Government Doc.Assembly/AU, 2(VII)2006, pp. 27 - 30.

29.Uweuche (ed.), Africa Today, p. 39.

30.Agubuzu, From the OA U to AU.- The Challenges of African Unity and Development in the Twenty fist Century, p. 23.

31. "The African Union, NEPAD and Human Rights: The Missing Agenda" Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 26, No. 4, November 2004, p. 54.

32.1bid.

33.News Letter: African Association of Political Science, Vol. 6, No. 1, January - April, 2001, pp. 24 - 28.

34.Agubuzu, From the OAU to AU.- The Challenges ofAfrican Unity and Development in the Twenty-fist Century, p. 13.

35.Quoted in ibid., p. 17.

36.News Letter: African Association of Political Science, pp. 24 - 28. 37.IMFSURVEY, Vol. 31, No. 13, July 18, 2002, pp. 209 - 211.

CHAPTER TWO

ISSUES OF INTEGRATION IN AFRICA

Introduction

According to International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, the term `integration' can be defined as "a process whereby the quality of relations among autonomous social units (kinship groups, [ethnic groups], cities, trade unions, trade associations, political parties etc) change in such a way as to erode the autonomy of each and make it a part of a larger aggregate."1 Narrowing this broad definition to international relations, L. N. Lindbert defined integration in two ways: first as "the process whereby nations forego the desire and ability to conduct foreign and key domestic policies independently of each other, seeking 'instead to make joint_ decisions or to delegate the decision making process to a new central organs"; and secondly as "the process whereby political actors in several distinct settings are personal to shift their expectations and political activities to a new centre."2It can be observed from the above definitions that integration tends to challenge the very foundations of realism (state sovereignty and territorial Integrity), and this has given the term a theoretical status - the theory of `international integration' which refers to "the process by which supranational institutions replace national ones - the gradual shifting upward of sovereignty from state to regional or global structures."3 Such a shift in sovereignty to the supranational level would probably entail some version of federalism in which states or other political units recognize the sovereignty of a central government while retaining certain power for themselves, as in the case of the European Union (EU).

Like most continents and regions, Africa has indeed had its experience of international integration. With the establishment of the Organization of Africa Unity (OAU) in 1963, African states celebrated their first `success' in attempt at continental integration. However, it was not all rosy for African leaders. Thus, in the 38 years history of the Organization of Africa Unity (OAU), the organization had to deal with a number of issues that hindered or slowed, down integration in Africa. These issues were inter-state and intra-state conflicts; racism, colonialism and apartheid in southern Africa; and economic crisis - broadly classified/grouped into political and socio-economic issues.

In discussing the above issues in this chapter, we shall first examine the initial ideological differences and disagreements among the African leaders in the pre-OAU era, on the best way of achieving African unity.The Initial Issue of a Consensus Approach to African UnityThe Organization of African Unity (OAU) was founded at a time when African leaders were experiencing their first taste of independence and were anxious to consolidate their leadership.4` Across the continent they saw the danger posed by the divisions of language, culture and religion, by the economic inequalities, by the controversies over boundaries arbitrarily drawn by the colonial powers. African leaders also realized that after independence regional cooperation would be essential to the utilization of the continent's vast potentialities and the protection and preservation of freedom. It quickly became clear that a high degree of co-operation was necessary among the fledging African States, if the continent was to survive as a viable economic and political entity. It was to achieve this co-operation that the OAU was established.Understandably, there were considerable differences of opinion as to, how African unity would best be attained. Even as far back as the decades preceding the decolonization process in Africa, there were conflicting ideological approaches to regional and continental unity and cooperation within the Pan-African movements5 For example, some pan-Africanist under the aegis of Back-to-Africa Movement thought that Africans in Diaspora should return to Africa and assist in the redemption of the continent by bringing the concept of civilization to the continent. However, the Back-to-Africa Movement -was not a success because of varying opinions of Africans both home and abroad. Thus, long before independence was achieved by most African countries, debate raged within the African nationalists' movement about the form which an umbrella organization - for the expression of the aims and objectives of Pan-Africanism - should assume and the extent and substantive content of its powers and functions6. As one commentator has observed,

In the continental phase of the development of Pan-Africanism in the 1950s and 1960s,...the more Africa became divided into numerous sovereign states, the more conflicting approaches and policies to African Unity came to dominate the African ,international political arena7.

The first and the second Conferences of Independent African States, held respectively in Accra, Ghana in April 1958 and Addis Ababa, in June 1960, as well as the first All African People's Conference, in Accra in December 1958 and the second All African People's Conference in Tunis; Tunisia in January 1960 illustrated the ideological, personality and linguistic (Arab, Anglophone and Francophone)', differences that militated against a consensus on the form of African continental unity. To this must be factored in external manipulation by the Great Powers and the determination by Britain and France to maintain their spheres of influence in their former colonies8.Indeed, between 1958 and 1962, a number of regional African groupings had emerged, notably the Casablanca Group, the Monrovia Group and the Brazzaville Twelve or, as they chose to call themselves, the Union of African and Malagasy States (UAM), to reflect two of the leading approaches to continental unity. On the one hand, there was the so-called Moderate Group, comprising Cote d'Ivoire, Nigeria and most of the Francophone countries, which advocated a gradualist, neo-functionalist approach in the form of a loose association of states, to African unity. On the opposite side was the so-called Radical Group, led by Ghana, Guinea and Mali, which advocated immediate continental political union in the form of a United States of Africa. Several reasons, had been given for the continental division into the above three rival blocs9.

Despite the divisions, there was a sustained desire to unite all the independent African states, and each of the three groups made frequent attempts to end the division - through diplomatic channels, in the lobbies of the UN, and at, various international gatherings attended by delegations from African states. Because governmental policies in Africa are largely determined by, personalities, the compromise agreement was reached by direct talks between Heads of State during their mutual visits in the pre-1963 years, which had been mainly preoccupied with African Unity10 Consequently, Kwame Nlcrumah's call for continental unity was brushed aside, and the African leaders settled for a superficial unity which brought together African Heads of States but not African peoples. This in no way affected the sovereignty of each independent State, and they were left free to pursue policies in which continental priorities were sacrificed to narrow national interests.

This arrangement suited the so-called 'Moderate' Conservative governments in countries such as Ethiopia (as it was then under Emperor Haile Selassie), Nigeria under -Prime Minister Tafawa Balewa, Liberia under President Tubman, and Libya under King Idris; they had commanded a majority in the Organization, and made sure that none of the OAU decisions would conflict with their interests.' 11 The willingness, on the other hand, of the 'Radicals'- such as Kwame Nkrumah of Ghana, Ben Bella of Algeria, Modibo Keita of Mali, Sekou Toure of Guinea, Julius Nyerere of Tanzania and Milton Obote of Uganda - to join. The OAU was based on a hope that they would gradually would be able to convince the others to come their way and shift the Organization to a unity of greater depth and closer co-operation than that offered by the loose provisions of its Charter12. Indeed, the hope of this latter group came to reality with the establishment of the African Union several years after.

With the signing of the Charter of the Organization of African Unity in 1963, African countries demonstrated their desire to do away with `bloc politics' - what Bolaji Akinyemi has called the 'out-fighting' between the pre- OAU Blocs 13 - which dominated their relationship in the early 1960's. Indeed, many African leaders realized that the division within their ranks was dangerous enough; it helped to heighten their jealousies, suspicions and chauvinisms. More important, it gave the Europeans of whatever political persuasion the best opportunity to play one group of Africans against the other.'14` In the words of R. Uwechue, "it is not sufficiently realized that, because of these deep divisions the OAU represented a largely negative agreement - not to move too much to the left nor too far to the right. As a result of this stagnating consensus, the OAU has in the past fourteen years moved hardly at all15.Thus, apart from the above `personal' rivalries for dominant positions among, conflicting African leaders, other socio-economic and political issues drove wedges against the OAU's quest for continental integration. The remaining part of this chapter shall examine these issues.Socio-Economic IssuesAlthough political matters or crises constituted the primary preoccupation of African leaders and states during the OAU years, yet these leaders 'had also shown concern on the question of economic and social development of the continent. It was perhaps due to this concern that the Economic and Social Commission was established as one of the three specialized commissions of the OAU with functions that had to do with the economic and general welfare of the African peoples, such as initiating studies and reports with regards to economic and social issues affecting the destiny of the African peoples16.However, before the establishment of OAU, the imposition of arbitrary state boundaries gave rise to political, social, and economic fragmentation that has continued to impede regional integration - a goal for many Africans since the late colonial era as well as a perceived answer to some of the more troubling legacies of colonial17. A related problem was the prevalence of small internal markets throughout the continent:

Seven countries in sub-Saharan Africa have population under 1 million, and another fourteen have fewer than 5 million people. Even in larger countries low average incomes limit purchasing power and countries are landlocked, creating another need for cooperation. Colonial infrastructure was designed to facilitate external administration and commodity exports, offering scant basis for transactions within or between territories. Disparities in monetary systems and trade regulations also create barriers to commerce. The international marginality of African economies and difficulties attracting outside investment and, trade on favourable terms have additionally spurred efforts

toward integration. 18Again, most of the educational institutions and economic relations of African states were plugged into Western nations; there was very little, if any, economic interdependence that would facilitate the movement toward continental integration.'19Given these challenges, the appeal of regional integration would seem evident. However, unlike political issues, the question of economic and social development was largely left at the bottom rung of the -OAU's priorities, at least up to the late 1970s. According to N. Chazan et al, "economic growth slowed substantially throughout Africa during the course of the 1970s, and by decade's end many countries. were afflicted by declining output, fiscal shortfalls, and -rising debt."20 The first real attention of African leaders and the OAU towards econornic and social matters took place in 1980, when a concrete plan of action towards economic- and social development was drawn for the emancipation of the continent's peoples and states from their fate of economic underdevelopment. This was embodied in the OAU's 1980 Lagos Plan of Action, which manifested Africa's enduring appeal for the idea of "collective self-reliance" as a central part of the continental agenda towards economic emancipation 21As. the then most authoritative official record of Africa's serious attempt to change the depressing economic conditions of the African countries, the elaborate history of the Lagos Plan of Action began in 1979. From February 12th to 16th in 1979, and at the invitation of the Secretary-General of the Organization of African Unity, a symposium on the future development prospects of Africa towards the year 2000 was held in Monrovia, Liberia. Attended by about 40 experts from all parts of Africa and outside, representing the world of economics, science, labour, health, diplomacy and futures research, who took part in a personal capacity, the principal focus of the symposium was as follow: "What type of development should Africa aspire to for the year 2000? and What ways and means should be employed for this purpose?"22Definitely, the symposium constituted a crucial point in the effort in the diagnosis of the causes of African economic tragedies. For instance; it was agreed that in spite of many years of independence, the- problems of underdevelopment and unemployment persist in all African countries with the tenacity of a bad winter. In short, the general diagnosis read like a death sentence as one expert after another narrated his own findings - these ranged from massive infant mortality to violent death in all forms.23 The symposium therefore recommended urgent measures which must be taken by the African states in order to save the present and future generations of Africans from the excruciating agencies occasioned by economic and social development.

Consequently, the Report of the Symposium in Monrovia was discussed at several OAU Ministerial Meetings and in the various capitals in Africa resulting in drafts that were discussed and approved at the meeting of OAU Heads of State and Governments in Lagos between 28th and 29th of April 1980. The draft final Act of Lagos (as the Lagos Plan of Action was called) was the first OAU meeting of Assembly of Heads of State and Government devoted exclusively to economic problems of Afi-ica.24 It focused on the consideration of guidelines and measures for national and collective self-reliance in economic and social development for the establishment of a new international economic order which aimed at the eventual establishment of an African common market and leading to an African Economic Community.

At the Summit, the African leaders confirmed their full adherence to the Plan of Action for the Economic; Social and Cultural Development of Africa; and agreed among other things to strengthen those already existing structures for an eventual establishment of an African Common Market which was considered as a first step towards the creation an African economic community. The Assembly on the same day adopted the draft for the implementation of the Plan of Action and the setting up of an African community:

We reaffirm our commitment to set up by the year 2000, on the basis of a treaty to be concluded, an African Economic Community so as to ensure the economic, social and cultural, integration of our continent, the aim of this community shall be to promote collective, accelerated, self-reliant and self-sustaining development, as well as cooperation among and integration of its Member States in the economic, social and cultural fields 25.The Lagos Plan of Action was the most important achievement of the OAU's Economic and Social Commission until the adoption in 1991 of the Abuja Treaty establishing the African Economic Community (AEC) by the Summit of Heads of State and Government. According to the Treaty, the African Economic Community would use the then existing as well as the yet to be established Regional Economic Communities (RECs) as its building blocks26.

Political Issues

Apart from the above discussed socio-economic issues that obviously heightened continental political differences then, the Organization of African Unity (OAU) was also faced with political issues that invariably affected continental integration. According to L. B. Ekpebu, in the 38-year history of the OAU, the organization had had to deal with a number of. Political issues (alongside the crippling and continuing economic crisis facing - the continent) which centered on interstate and intra-state conflicts as well as the long-drawn battle against racism, colonialism and apartheid in Southern Africa27. However, these political matters or rather -crises constituted the primary preoccupation of the African leaders and states after and since independence, thereby leaving the question of economic and social development at the bottom rung of the organization's priorities28.

One reason why economic matters/issues had been overshadowed by political issues is that political events are usually more compelling and spectacular, while economic. difficulties develop insidiously and are seldom so specific or dramatic. In the words of R. Uwechue;

When are talk if the OAU's inability to achieve a satisfactory degree of economic co-operation among African Countries and of Africa's continued dependence on non-African powers, we console ourselves by blaming the colonial past-and do very little about it. When there is a Pan-African political crisis or war, everybody talks about it and the OAU is asked to resolve the problem. Nobody demands that it should tackle with equal vigour and collective spirit the continent's transports, which are ' in reality no less a danger to Africa's survival.29Thus, it is in these areas of political issues that the concrete achievement of the Organization of African Unity can be assessed, particularly in the area of decolonization and struggle against anti-apartheid struggle in South Africa30.In the first place, Article II (1) of the OAU Charter had provided for the eradication of all forms of colonialism in Africa, and a Liberation Committee was established with the responsibility of liquidating colonialism which was seen as the principal aim of the OAU. With the continental agenda of liberation of the southern -states from colonial and minority rule, the OAU liberation committee was also tasked to channel support to the peoples of southern Africa31 Although more that thirty states had gained independence in the first wave of independence in Africa before the establishment of OAU in 1963, however in the second wave that was generally more violent, the lusophone states of Guinea-Bissau, -Cape Verde, Mozambique, and Angola finally overcame 400 years of colonial domination following the revolution in Portugal in 1974.32Moreover; only Zambia and Malawi had joined the ranks of African self rule by 1965, when the white settlers of Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe) issued their Unilateral Declaration of Independence (UDI). Whereas Malawi opted for a policy of. accommodation with the white power, Tanzania and Zambia became significantly involved with the liberation movements of Zimbabwe, Angola, Mozambique, Namibia, and South Africa33. In fact, the headquarters of the Liberation Committee was placed in Dar es Salam, capital of Tanzania, which was at the time the only independent mainland state in the region.

In 1975, Spain withdrew from the Western Sahara, setting in motion a period of unresolved continental strife over control of the territory. By 1980 the struggle against white rule in Rhodesia was crowned with success: the independence of Zimbabwe brought the British colonial presence in Africa to an end. While Namibia gained independence in 1990, South Africa that was the last and most recalcitrant, remnant of an internal colonial presence in contemporary Africa, completed its transition to a multiracial democracy in the spring of 1994.

If the OAU was so successful in the decolonization of the continent and he elimination of white minority regimes in southern Africa, the same can not categorically and authoritatively- be said about the organization's role in conflict resolution. N.. Chazan et al have noted that OAU's record on crisis management had remained 'uneven34 Similarly, Agubuzu has stated that a major area of under-performance by the OAU, which had earned it the derogatory label of a "toothless bull-dog", was its limited capacity to deal effectively with the problems of conflicts and political instability, bad governance and lack of rule of law, especially the violation of human rights in member states35.A rather striking feature of the OAU's handling of inter-state disputes is that none had ever been dealt with by the Commission of Mediation, Conciliation and Arbitration - the organ created specifically for that purpose in 1964.36 While the Commission was looking for work to do without finding any, the work that it should have been doing was being given to various ad hoc commissions and committees of the OAU member-states to perform. Thus, disputes among the OAU members had been settled through direct negotiations between states, good offices offered by third parties,, ad '/roc committees composed' of Heads of State, and diplomatic negotiations conducted during sessions of the Assembly of Heads of State and-Government37.

By and large, the disputes that were submitted to the ad hoc commissions and committees were over border and territorial claims and allegations of subversion by some of the OAU member-states against other member-states. There were also a few cases of civil wars in which the OAU tried to intervene. Although Paragraph 2 of Article III of the OAU Charter prpvi.ded for non-interference in the internal affairs of member-states, but the OAU invariably had to intervene on the side of the established order, as in the case of the civil wars in Zaire, Nigeria and in Chad38. Thus, it was largely because of the above political issues that the OAU moved with strong determination in the last two decades or so (1980 - 2002) of its existence to promote democracy, good governance and human right39. These later form part of the political orientation of the African Union.In conclusion, the road to African continental integration has not been an easy one, largely because of the socio-economic and political history of Africa during the pre-colonial, colonial and post-colonial period. African peoples have diverse history and were also colonized by different European powers. At independence, the people of Africa inherited a legacy, which was tinted by colonialism.40 Since independence; various efforts have been made aimed at socio-political and economic cooperation and integration. However, while some leaders suited a stronger integration, others preferred a loose one. With time, African leaders were able to arrive at a consensus with the establishment of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) which was a middle way between the strong union and the federalist structure as advocated by the two groups.Since the establishment of the OAU, and through, out its 38-year existence, the Organization was faced with several issues of integration, which this chapter has critically examined. Although the OAU experienced more failures than successes, it remained a focal point for collective initiatives and for conflict management42. As a result of certain lapses in the-OAU Charter, coupled with some fundamental changes that had taken place in the international political system, African leaders moved towards establishing a structure that would enhance the socio-economic and political life of the African people, as well as enhance the status of African states in world affairs43. These efforts culminated in the transition from OAU to AU in 2002.

By the time it gave way to the African Union (AU), the OAU's membership had grown to 53 member-states. Morocco, which had withdrawn its membership in 1987 in protest against the admission of the Saharawi Arab Republic (Western Sahara), was the only African country, which was not a member of the OAU at its transition.44 Although some observers have alleged that the AU is an `old wine in new skin', one thing for sure is that the dream of one of Africa's great leaders and heroes, Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, has finally been realized. In his closing remark at the, Casablanca Conference in 1961, Dr. Nkrumah noted that "the future of Africa lies in a political union - a political union in which the economic, military and cultural activities will be coordinated for the security of our continent45. For U. J. Ogwu, "the African Union is not only new; it is different from the OAU. No doubt it emanated from the OAU, but it is informed by the lessons learnt from the OAU, the increased marginalization of Africa in the post-Cold War world, and the need to overcome the multiple crises confronting Africa through unity, 'integration and development46.

The succeeding chapters shall examine how the `new' African Union has been handling political and socio-economic problems in Africa.

ENDNOTES

1. D. L. Sills (ed.), International Encyclopedia of Social Sciences, Vol. 3 (New York: Collier & Macmillan and the Free Pres, 1968), p. 522. See also E. B. Hass, The Century of Europe (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1958), p. 16.

2. L. N. Lindbert, The Political Dynamics of European Economic Integration (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1963), p. 6.

3. J. S. Goldstein and J. C. Pevehouse, International Relations, Brief Third Edition (New York: Pearson Longman, 2004), p. 250.

4. R. Uwechue, "The OAU - Time for a Change", in Z. Cervenka, The Unfinished Quest for Unity: Africa and the "OA U (New York: African Publishers, 1977), p. ix.

5. L. O. C. Agubuzu, From the OA U to AU.- The Challenges of African Unity and Development in the Twenty-fist Century, NIIA Lecture Series No. 83 (Lagos: Nigeria Institute of International Affairs, 2004), p. 20.

6.Ibid., pp. 20 - 21

7. Quoted in ibid., p. 20.

8. Ibid., p. 21.

9. Cervenka, The Unfinished Quest for Unity: Africa and the OA U, p.1.

10.Ibid.

11. Uwechue, "The OAU - Time for a Change", p. ix.

12.Ibid., pp. ix - x.

13. A. B. Akinyemi, "The O.A.U. and African Identity", Nigerian-Forum (N.I.I.A. Lagos, May 1981), pp. 116 - 119.

14. S. O. Agbi, The Organization of AfricanUnity and African Diplomacy, 1963 -1979 (Ibadan: Impact Publishers, 1986), p. 1.

15. Uwechue, "The OAU - Time for a Change", p. ix.

16. See Article 20 of the `Charter of the Organization of African Unity', Addia Ababa, 1963. This is the equivalent of Article 61 of the United Nations Charter establishing the UN Economic and Social Council (ECOSOC).17 .N. Chazan et al, Politics and Society in Contemporary Africa, 3rd Edition, (Boulder: Lynne Riemler Publishers, 1999), p. 311.

18 .Ibid.

19 .R. Goff et al, The Twentieth Century: A Brief Global History, Fourth Edition (New York: McGraw-Hill Inc., 1994), p. 388.

20. Chazan et al, Politics and Society in Contemporary Africa, p. 325.

21.Ibid., pp. 310 - 311.

22.A. Adedeji, "The Organization of African Unity: Problems and Prospects", a paper presented at the Command and .Staff College, Jaji, Kaduna, March 21, 1986, p. 6.

23.Ibid., p.. 7.

24.lbid., p. 8.

25.Ibid., pp. 8 - 9.

26. Agubuzu, From the 0A U to AU: The Challenges of African Unity and Development in the Twenty-fist Century, p. 28.

27.L. B. Ekpebu, Africa and the International Political System, (Ibadan: Sam Bookman Publishers, 1999), p. 19.

28.Adedeji, "The Organization of African Unity: Problems and Prospects", p. 5.

29.Uwechue, "The OAU - Time for a Change", p. xi.

30.Agbi, The Organization of African Unity and African Diplomacy, p. 3.31. Chazan et al, Politics and Society in Contemporary Africa, p. 394.32.Ibid., p. 6.33.Ibid., p. 395.34.Ibid., p. 14.

3 5. Agubuzu, From the OA U to AU.- The Challenges of African Unity and Development in the Twenty-fist Century, p. 26.

36. Cervenka, The Unfinished Quest for Unity: Africa and the OA U, p.64.

37.Ibid.

3 8. Amate, Inside the OA U - Pan-Africanism in Practice, p. 431.

39.Agubuzu, From the OAU to AU.- The Challenges of African Unity and Development in the Twen'ty-fist Century, pp. 28 - 29.

40 J. 1. Osagie, "Regional Cooperation and Integration in Africa", in F. I. A. Omu & L. E. Otoide (eds.), Themes in International Studies and Diplomacy (Benin City: Mindex Publishing, 2002), pp. 182 - 183.

.4 L Ibid.

42. Chazan et al, Politics and Society in Contemporary Africa, p. 361.

43.Osagie, "Regional Cooperation and Integration in Africa", p. 185.

44.Ibid.

45. Quoted in C. Legum, Pan-Africanism: A Short Political Guide (New York: Frederick A. Praeger, 1965), p. 57.

.46.U. J. Ogwu, "AU and Africa's Development", in Agubuzu, From the OA U to A U.- The Challenges of African Unity and Development in the Twenty-fist Century, p. 8.

CHAPTER THREE

AFRICAN UNION AND POLITICAL PROBLEMSGreater African integration has long been a cherished but elusive goal. Political leaders at official conferences and formal summits have long promoted the idea, although with only limited results on the ground. There is a renewed impetus to establish closer economic and political ties among the continents numerous countries, based on a heightened appreciation of the need for regional integration and a clearer understanding of the past failures.The flame of unity and freedom lit in the sixties has continued to glow, though dimly, to illuminate the path of the transition from the OAU to the African Union (AU). The AU is not a child of an impetuous inspiration but the offspring of a gradual but dedicated progression towards ideals and commitments. The continent has remained in dire need of solutions to its critical problems and it is this very condition that propels the need for change and progress. When, in the 1990s, the notion of a Pan-African Union was born again, it was the liberation of South Africa from apartheid that helped it back to life. Equally, there is the argument that the main influence propelling Africans towards greater economic and political unity is globalization. Faced with a trading system which insists on transnational capital having carte blanche, Africans became increasingly aware that they would have to stand together if they were to defend or advance their own cause. But even as they favoured unity in principle, they could not necessarily agree on how closely united they should be and what forms their unity should take.

Several years ago the OAU Summit had set up a 14-member committee to review its charter. By 1996 when the Yaounde Declaration was issued, the Charter Review Committee had held six sessions and had submitted, on an annual basis, reports to the OAU summit. As Jackie Cilliers notes, not dissimilar to the impasse

within which the UN finds itself, the review of the OAU Charter remained the captive of the competing national interests of a number of member states. 1 However, for a number of important countries, such as South Africa, the initiative towards the establishment of the AU provided a way out of this impasse.

A major problem, indicative of the ideological divide of the 1960s, was the vision of a single federal African states that inspired leaders like Moammar Gaddafi, a vision which many of the states did not share but which they were hesitant of criticizing. The Libyan initiative, it was interpreted, was intended to enable the North African leader to break out of the prolonged diplomatic isolation brought about by its poor relations with the US, the UK and some of the Arab States. Notwithstanding the misgivings, the declaration adopted by the 4th Extra-ordinary Summit of the OAU held in Sirte, Libya, in September 1999 set the fast track to the Constitutive Act of the AU that emerged. In July 2000, African Heads of state met in Lom, Togo for the 36th Ordinary Summit of the OAU. At the end of that Summit they came out with a Draft Treaty for an African Union which would replace the OAU. Incidentally, that came a hundred years after the first-ever Pan-African Conference was held in London.

The OAU Lusaka Summit meeting of July 2001 mandated the Secretary-General to proceed, in consultation with member states, with a process to work out the rules of procedure to launch the key structures within the AU; such as the Assembly of heads of states and government; the Executive Council of Foreign Ministers, the Commission (including its structures, functions and powers), and the Permanent Representatives Committee of Ambassadors. The Lusaka Summit also agreed to incorporate the mechanism for conflict prevention, management and resolution as an organ of the AU. After a review of its structure, procedures and working method in a typically uncertain manner, the first draft text provided for the AU to co-exist with the OAU and AEC rather than serving the purpose of rationalization and consolidation.

The seminal assembly of the African Union held in July 2002 in South Africa closed the shop on the OAU which had been in existence since 1963. Much hope was raised by this development as manifested in the statement of the Nigerian Foreign Minister, Sule Lamido: Arising from the realization in todays world order, we Africans are essentially on our own, the leaders had to re-think. We have to look inwards to try to create a stronger, more effective process of continental interaction, something more integrative, merging our economies, markets, and capacity. We have to bring our potentials so that our partners will be forced to engage us. 2 Such moving statements have not been lacking in Africa but the AU, like OAU, is an inter-governmental organization and the pace of change is therefore still likely to be determined by what cynics refer to as lowest common denominator politics. 3 The Constitutive Act of the AU envisages the establishment of a supranational type of executive body that can promote integration and sustainable human development more effectively than the OAU. The Act has the following bodies as principal organs:

The Assembly of the Union;

The Executive Council;

The Pan-African Parliament;

The Court of Justice;

The Commission;

The Permanent Representatives Committee;

The Special Technical Committees

The Economic, Social and Cultural Council;

The Financial Institutions.

Among the AUs major objectives, as stated in Article 3 of the Act, Are

Active greater unity and solidarity between African countries and the peoples of Africa;

Acceleration of the political and socio-economic integration of the continent;

A common market and economic community, International cooperation, taking dual account of the charter of the UN and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;

A common defence policy for collective security.

Keeping in mind the challenges of globalization and marginalization there was a consensus, even if only for public consumption, that the aim of the Union would be to consolidate the gains made by the OAU in 37 years and to advance from there to chart a new dynamic vision of collective continental action and cohesion for Africa. The big question, however, is, will the re-launch or rebranding of the OAU achieve the desired objectives? Can the AU stop the yawning and the tightening of the stomach muscles that used to accompany the mention of the name of the OAU? 4 Would a United Africa benefit the ordinary people and can African leaders sustain the organization through a corporate agenda?

Critics have been quick to dismiss the Constitutive Act as utopian, while some believe that the treaty does not present a new agenda for Africa, as the whole thing appears to be only a declaration of intention which does not respond to the realities and aspirations of Africans. Although reinforcing stereotypes of backwardness and hopelessness is not conducive to finding solutions to any of Africas problems, old habits die hard. Though the post-Cold War ideological schisms are eroded, the contentious matters stemming from the colonial background, which hamstrung the OAU in several instances, persist. A union that must last cannot be driven by the distrust which prevails in some circles of collective effort in Africa.

AU AND POLITICAL PROBLEMSThe state-centric approach to international affairs leads states to think of sovereignty from an exclusive angle. Many leaders do not share the vision of a single Federal African state. Under the terms of the Constitutive Act of the AU, Article 4 lists 16 principles which contain an ambitious wish list, including, for example, the establishment of a common defence policy and the right of the Union to intervene in a member state pursuant to a decision of the Assembly of the Union in respect of grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity. As Michael Mulikita rightly observes, the Act makes no reference to the UNSC, which is the primary instrument for dealing with the type of emergencies referred to in Article 4(h) of the Act. 5 More worrisome and in the classic manner of state-centric organizations, Article 4(g) effectively nullifies Article 4(h) by affirming non-interference by any member state in the internal affairs of another. Hence, as Mulikita concludes, under the non-interference clause, a regime guilty of the type of gross human rights violations outlined in Article 3 (on the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the promotion and protection of human and peoples rights in accordance with the African Charter on Human and People Rights) and Article 4(h) can legally obstruct Union intervention. This confirms the old habits, the old fears and the old traits since the 1960s. The Act does not provide for the tools or mechanism with which to implement, monitor or advance these lofty ideals. It is recalled that in the OAU Charter, Article 3(2) on non-interference in the internal affairs of member states led to serious drawbacks and had negative implications for the activities of the organization for several decades. In this period, ruthless, corrupt and unaccountable leaders emerged across the continent, without African states or leaders confronting them. Along with other factors, it led OAU to degenerate into what the Kenyan statesman, Oginga Odinga, called a Trade Union of African Heads of State.6In the same vein, Article 30 states that governments that come to power in future through unconstitutional means will not be allowed to participate in the activities of the Union. Jackie Cilliers believes that the Act does not incorporate extensive principles for democratic governance, the definition of unconstitutional changes, or the measures that the AU would take in response to such developments.7 These apparent contradictions, admittedly, provide an example of

the ambivalent attitude of African states towards the sensitive issue of national sovereignty. It strengthens the impression that the AU amounts to merely giving the OAU a fresh coat of paint without the inner structures undergoing any renovations.8 This paper, without lapsing into unprofitable pessimism, notes that the AU project is going to be a much more expensive undertaking than the regular amount of $31 million annual budget of the OAU. Quite clearly, much thought needs to be devoted to how the union will be funded, especially the Pan-African Parliament. The doubts emerge against the background of the fact that by mid 2000, only 17 of the 53 member states of the OAU were up to date in the settlement of their financial obligations to the regular budget.9 The question is how will the additional obligations be met, against the background of the near permanent poor showing of African economies.

Similarly, the overlapping membership of several regional grouping with duplicating mandates and structures leading to inadequate financing of the integration process, poses a serious threat to continental union. Ironically, African leaders refer to their sub-regional efforts regarding security arrangements, but they are not ready openly to chastise their colleagues for undemocratic tendencies in their sub-regions.

Some of the noticeable habits of the African leaders which have not altered dramatically over the decades are obstacles to any genuine union on the continent. These include a penchant for luxury items like expensive official vehicles, presidential jets and the expending of inordinate amounts on running public offices, foreign travel and diplomatic representation which cannot be sustained, instead of engaging in pooling or coordinating representation; military spending in excess of two percent of the GNP (any success achieved in reducing military spending translates into an expansion of public domestic savings); corruption which is widely recognised as a serious obstacle to development; and ethnic and communal conflicts fuelled by elite struggle and the asphyxiating debt gap.

Another major challenge the AU has to contend with in its effort to integrate African economies is the existence of civil strives and conflicts in Africa. In an editorial comment, the African Journal of international Affairs and Development once notes that virtually every country in Africa has either a festering or full blown conflict to deal with.10 Since no war leaves the neighbouring countries untouched, what ordinarily begins as minor dispute over power and resources can quickly engulf an entire region. The result is displacement of people (refugees), reduction in the flow of aid and investments, suspension of development projects etc. All these definitely hinder regional integration.

The lack of sustained political commitment to put in place agreed policies and plans has been one of Africas major shortcoming, and in the context of the African Union, this is an issue that needs to be addressed. In the words of Tom Nevin, the real challenge facing the AU is to get 53 nations all reading from the same page11. Buttresing Amoako and Nevin, Prof. Ndulo said,

The traditional explanation of the failure of integration schemes in Africais that there is a lack of political will in the member countries that is necessary to see integration succeed, expressed in the chronic nonobservance of commitments undertaken within the respective agreements and in the insufficient use of the instruments set up by these agreements.12What the foregoing suggests is that African leaders lacked the will to make integration work. Related to this is the fact that for integration to succeed, some element of national sovereignty must be sacrificed. But, according to Mair and Peters-Berries,

hardly an African state ruler is really prepared to do that. For the transfer of resources and power of decisions to a supranational institution means a dissolving of the mass of patronage with which they can buy loyalty. Hence the well-known pattern: in rhetorical speeches, regional integration is conjured up and sometimes a monetary union is quickly decided upon as the goal. But in practice business is got down to in a much more restrained way.13Also another challenge before the AU is how to incorporate the generality of Africans into integration schemes in the continent. There is enough evidence to support the fact that, apart from all else, regional efforts have failed in Africa because such efforts sidetracked the people. In this wise, the AU itself seems to have fallen into the same pit, as did the OAU, which it replaced. Its Act seems more an instrument for building a coalition of states rather than uniting of people as obvious in the provisions for the Unions structure and decision-making process (Article 5 to 22) .It is only in the case of Economic, Social and Cultural Council that members are to be drawn from outside Governments and bureaucracies of members states. Even then, Articles 22 sub-section 2 emphasize that the functions, powers, composition and organization of the Economic, Social and Cultural Council shall be determined by the Assembly. It should be noted that the Assembly consists of Heads of State and Governments. K.Y. Amoako said;

It is self-evident, that national policies have sustainability, if there is appropriately widespread participation in their formulation and execution. But we have only began to understand, how this dynamics works at the supra-national level. What is safe to say at this stage is that the process of integration has so far largely been in the hands of governments alone.14Regional integration efforts have also not been successful in Africa because gains and drawbacks unavoidably are unequally distributed between member countries, and no satisfactory mechanism for compensation has as yet been devised.31 According to Ernest Harsch,

A major stumbling block to successful regional integration has been the great diversity in African countries sizes, national resources, level of development and connections to global markets. Tiny Benin does not have the same economic interests as its giant oil-rich neighbour, Nigeria. South Africa and Malawi do not experience the costs and benefits of regional trade arrangements in the same way.15Besides, the benefits from integration are only somewhat accruable in the long run whereas its cost has to be met in the short term by members who obviously have more than enough social, political and economic problems to cope with at home. According to Prof. Adedeji: There are states that cant even pay the salaries of their civil servants. How can you expect them to take out of their non-available resources to pay contributions to (regional organizations)?16

Another challenge before the AU is how to make African governments incorporate regional agreements into national policies. The policies of liberalization, privatization and deregulation as well as unsound package of macro-economic policies imposed through structural adjustment conditionality/programme by the IMF and World Bank, which have now been institutionalized within the WTO through rules, agreements and procedures, are biased against African countries on one hand and regional integration efforts on the other hand.17 The programmes, focusing heavily on liberalisation and market mechanisms, are almost exclusively national in scope as they obliged each African

government to negotiate separately with its external financing institutions, without regard to regional considerations.18 Meanwhile, the external financing institutions i.e donors, prefer to fund national programmes rather than regional cooperative projects.19 Prof. Muna Ndulo, Director, Institute for African Development (IAD) concurs on this:

There is the problem of low priority accorded to the implementation of integration programs vis--vis national ones which are very often supported and financed by influential international institutions such as the IMF and the World Bank. For example under the structural adjustment programs in place in most African countries, domestic considerations take precedence over sub-regional integration preoccupations.20Finally, the AU is an ambitious undertaking but despite the change in name, many of the institutions that have been created as part of the OAU and the African Economic Community will continue unchanged for the foreseeable future. However, in spite of these identifiable features, it is necessary to provide clarity on whether the Union is a replacement or a continuation of the OAU and whether the Union aims at both economic and political integration. The overwhelming competition instituted by globalization must be openly noted because globalization in its current form is the biggest threat to African independence, sovereignty and therefore to its development. Globalization is said to be a magnified integration which threatens all.

One could be driven by the optimistic variety of patriotism to believe that the Union can be made to work for the African people at large. However, at a more critical level, if is difficult to believe that adequate space will be made for what is widely referred to as African civil society, especially if that civil society seeks to make use of the aspirations of the AU to offer criticisms of rulers which are illegal to voice at the national level. Many are sceptical that a union designed by the beneficiaries of state power will be allowed to work to any other advantage than that of the dominant political class.

ENDNOTES

1. Jackie Cilliers, Towards the African Union, African Security Review,vol. 10, No., 2, 2001, pp. 115-119.2. Sule Lamido on Nigeria has no Reservation on African Union, ThisDay, (Lagos) April 8, 2001, p. 21.3. Jackie Cilliers, From Acronym to Action: The Seminal Assembly of the African Union in African Security Review, vol. II, No. 1, 2002,p. 97-102.4. See Cameroon Duodu, Give Unity a Chance, News African Magazine, July 29, 2002, pp. 20- 21.5. See Konstanz Mulikita, The UN Security Council and the OAU: Conflict or collaboration, African Security Review, vol. II, No 1, 2002, pp. 29-30.6. Adams Oshiomole, Popular Participation and the African Union, in Adagbo Onoja (ed.), Plying the Foreign Pitch, vol. 2, 2000- 2001, Abuja: Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 2001, pp. 119-120.7. Cilliers, Towards an African Union, op. cit p. 106.

8. Ibid.

9. Ibid.

10. Konstanz Mulikita, The Security Council and the OAU p. 30.11. Tom Nevin, Exit OAU, enter AU. Will the African Union succeed where the OAU failed? African Business, September 2001, p.10.12. Muna Ndulo, African Economic Community and the Promotion of Intra-African Trade African Notes, May 1992.13. Regional integration in Africa: mainly a good idea so far. File://A:/ Development and cooperation. htm14. K.Y Amoako, quoted in Dayo Kawonishe, Metamorphosis of the OAU.,., p.4.15. Ernest Harsch, Making African Integration a Reality African Recovery September, p.13.16. You must first set your house in order African Recovery, September 2002 , p.16.17. This was evident at Libreville, Gabon on 11th January 2000 when the Bretton Woods Agents recognised the failure of Structural Adjustment Programmes in Africa and asked for Africas forgiveness. See Mwalimu George Ngwane, Why We Need An African Union Now (Buea: Kalak Book, 2000), p.6.18. A better environment for integration? African Recovery, September 2002, p.12.19. Ibid.20. Muna Ndulo, African Economic Community

CHAPTER FOUR

AFRICAN UNION AND ECONOMIC PROBLEMS

Integration is no longer a simple question of propriety, it is an inevitable strategy of survival and development. The rhythm of globalization sustained by the tidal wave of economic liberalization and disparities in the share of projects, have made it as emergency for African countries to hold each others hands it they wish to expand, strengthen, and integrate their economic area.

- Salim Ahmed Salim, former OAU Secretary General.

Africa have come to realise that the economic power of nations has become by far the most dominant factor in the relevance and importance of countries in the emerging global order. This is why even the major world powers are continuously striving to widen and strengthen the base of their economic strength, through a conscious effort to expand their economic space and market size. In the case of Africa, a continent which has been marginalized for too long a time in the world economy, integration is no longer a matter of convenience, but an indispensable strategy for survival and development.1

The pace of globalisation, coupled with the sweeping wave of economic liberalization, and with the imbalances in the distribution of the benefits in favor of the strong economies, has increased the urgency for African countries to join hands to expand, fortify, solidify and integrate their economic space, to serve as a platform for take off and effective integration into the global economy. Regional integration therefore at the very least constitutes Africas response to globalisation, and an instrument to reverse the trend towards the marginalisation of the Continent. It cannot be disputed that some advances were made in the quest to foster closer integration in the continent through the structures of the OAU and sundry ad hoc efforts. However, the obstacles confronting African endeavor were quite immense. Africa was being threatened increasingly into marginalisation by its failure to cope with the demands of globalisation. While even stronger economies, with their advanced technological base, were finding it necessary to consolidate their level of economic integration as a means of gaining from the opportunities of this historic phenomenon.2 The people of Africa were confronted with multiple setbacks of incessant conflicts, political instability, and the HIV-AIDS pandemic among other things. Efforts by individual States to resolve these numerous issues are often quashed by gargantuan external debt crisis. Thus, Africa came to realise that the magnitude of the external and internal challenges could be handled only by consolidating continental unity and that the status quo and the nascent structures of integration could not sustain the impending threat. This African response is best studied in the light of the reforms made to the existing integrative organ, that is, the OAU as well as the New Partnership for Africas Development (NEPAD) aimed at bailing Africa from its present despondency.

NEPAD is a merger of the Millennium Partnership for Africas Recovery Programme and the Omega Plan 3. It is a project of the AU aimed at tackling issues such as peace and security, good economic, political and corporate governance, and to make the continent an attractive destination for foreign investment. A NEPAD (2001) positioning document says: The New Partnership for Africas Development is a pledge by African leaders, based on a common vision and a firm and shared conviction, that they have a pressing duty to eradicate poverty and to place their countries, both individually and collectively, on a path of sustainable growth