Pan African Perspectives and the African Union

The 8th Ordinary Session of the African Union ended in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia on Tuesday. Although the theme of the summit was “Science and Technology in Africa’ it was the political and Peace and Security issues that dominated media attention. This is not unexpected because the summit is the most important political and diplomatic forum for Africa. And since the AU was launched, there have been concerted efforts on the part of Africa’s leaders to make it relevant despite many criticisms and doubts by both Africans and outsiders. One indication of this is the large number of leaders who attend these summits and the increasing openness even on the most controversial issues.

There has also been more formal and informal spaces opened up for engagement by different stake holders in Africa whether African or onternational NGOs and CSOs, business sector, think tanks, etc. Gone are the days when the summit used to be dominated by largely ‘special invitation, ‘special guest’ chosen at the whims and caprices of the bureaucrats of the Union who were generally more disposed to welcoming all kinds of foreigners, but fearful of ‘trouble makers’ from Africa!

Almost anybody who wants to engage with the AU has some access and opportunity to do so. That only a few of our NGOs and CSOs engage, is both a reflection of residual cynicism and also of the donor-driven agendas to which they are captive. On the other hand, the lack of engagement by broader social movements and popular forces is due to continuing perception that the AU is essentially a leaders’ forum and since many of them have gripes against their national leaders they are suspicious of the Pan Africanist credentials of these leaders.

That cynicism, whether amongst CSOs/ NGOs or our Social movements, is tantamount to behaving like the proverbial ostrich. There are many windows for engagement that can only become gates of opportunities if used by Africans to expand the frontiers of democratic governance and accountability of our institutions. They will not change of their own accord but as a result of constructive dialogue, or sometimes confrontational approaches, but remaining engaged all the same.

Often outsiders are quick to grasp the opportunities and significance of our institutions than we are, since we are too consumed by our own alienation from our governments. For instance could it be by accident that all major international NGOs (INGOs) have representation in Addis Ababa, monitoring, engaging and lobbying the AU on all kinds of issues? Increasingly these INGOs are appointing Africans to represent them. But these Africans will mostly be carrying out the self-given mandate of these organizations and their interests. Sometimes they may coincide with ours, but often they do not in a most fundamental sense. Our misery is their career.

The political landscape in Africa is changing and generally for the better even if the challenges of democratization and development continue in many countries. It is a work in progress that should make us focus on the larger pictures and trends instead of the ‘problems’ no matter how overwhelming they may seem.

Would it have been possible in the old OAU for Sudan to have been rejected twice in succession in its claim to assume the chair of the organization? In the old days, the argument would have been that what is happening in Darfur is an ‘internal affair’ on which Sudan’s ‘sovereignty and territorial integrity’ could not be questioned.

But these days those arguments do not hold sway anymore. We may not have collective sovereignty in place but it is no longer a case of “leave my victims to me and I leave yours to you’. We have moved from non-interference to non-indifference. What happens in all African countries is legitimate concern of other African states. A new sense of shame has arrived where bad conduct by leaders and states are frowned at, and public opportunities for rebuke are used instead of the old ‘diplomatic hush- hush’.

In the past Sudan would have threatened to leave the Union. But today, Sudan remains despite the snub. Clearly, Sudan’s rulers judge their interest better served by remaining than by leaving.

The isolation of Sudan on the Darfur issue also demonstrates how Civil Society activism in dialogue with progressive African governments, Union bureaucrats and other concerned Africans can yield positive result. It is not the noise of the US or Britain or their NGOs (who are the ones the BBC, CNN regularly quote) that has made it impossible for Sudan to become Chair of the AU. Instead there is consensus among Africans that a country like Sudan that is so flagrantly and massively abusing the rights of its own people -- orchestrating their mass death -- is just not able to speak in our name. Pressures were not only being exerted by the West: there have also been serious pressures, cajolery, all kinds of carrots and inducements on Sudan, its allies in the Arab League (which announced its contribution for Peace Keeping in Darfur only a few days before the Summit), and filial support from some North African countries in support of Sudan’s claim to the Chair. But the AU still said: NO to Al Bashir. In saying that we are saying: No to Genocide in Darfur!

Even the reluctance by many states to contribute troops to Somalia is not a weakness, but a statement that Africa will no longer act as proxies for the US or any other foreign interests. Ethiopia might wish to be the Americans’ trojan horse, but the rest of the states are not so eager.

* Dr. Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in his personal capacity as a concerned Pan-Africanist.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org