From the 1-3 July 2007, African leaders will meet in Accra, Ghana at the 9th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of the African Union. The major agenda item is the proposal and plans for the United States of Africa. Africa’s underdevelopment as manifested in its public health catastrophe is not on the AU summit agenda. This raises the crucial question of the kind of unity African leaders wish to achieve. Significantly the debate about the proposed union has revolved mainly around political issues without commensurate attention to the development issues which were no less important to the founders of the Pan African movement.

It is now six years since Heads of State of African Union member states pledged in Abuja in 2001 to commit at least 15 per cent of national budgets to health. To say it is tragic that in 2007 only two out of fifty three AU member countries (Botswana and Seychelles) have clearly met that pledge does not even begin to describe the situation. It is beyond tragedy.

In these past few weeks, all roads led to the G8 Summit in Germany. In what has become an annual ritual since the turn of the century, international campaigners Bono, Bob Geldof and an impressive assortment of Development and AIDS related organisations led the calls for more aid to Africa, and for Africa not to be forgotten in the clamour over climate change. As usual, selected African leaders turned up with begging bowls and for photo calls. Leading international campaigners have since described the aid pledged by the G8 this month as 'a farce' and 'grossly inadequate'.

We know that many of the more developed countries have played historical roles in under developing Africa. 400 years of industrial scale slavery, in addition to colonialism, ruthless exploitation of Africa’s resources, cynical ‘interventions’ and the debt burden have cost Africa dearly. The ‘foreign’ aid to Africa is a percentage of what has been taken out in human and natural resources, and is but a small step towards repairing the damage done to Africa.

But we also know that African leaders cannot seriously expect other countries to commit to, or meet pledges to ‘save’ Africa when they themselves appear indifferent to Africa’s future. To be going forward with plans for African unity without simultaneously meeting the most fundamental commitment to African development – that of health - is misguided to say the least.

It is comical for us to be calling on the G8 countries to meet the recent Gleneagles pledges when the vast majority of AU member states have not met their own Abuja 2001 pledge. This is not a pledge we can afford to pass unfulfilled. The Africa Public Health Rights Alliance (APHRA) and its '15% Now!' Campaign revealed on Human Rights Day (December 10) 2006 that by crossing continental, sub regional, country, health, disease specific and development information from a wide range of agencies and institutions we computed that an estimated 8,000,000 Africans are dying annually from preventable, treatable and manageable diseases and health conditions – mainly Malaria, TB, HIV, child and maternal mortality. This figure does not include organ related disease (heart, liver, kidney and lung diseases), an assortment of cancers, vaccine preventable diseases and so forth which could very easily add another million – or more. The consistency of these figures over the past six years alone means that Africa has suffered an estimated 48,000,000 preventable deaths since 2001.

By coincidence, the dream of the United States of Africa is planned to be actualised by 2015, the same year the Millennium Development Goals are to be met. If Africa’s health catastrophe continues unabated we could loose another 72,000,000 lives by then. This is the equivalent of whole nations dying out within a year or a decade. Many African countries (such as Botswana, Burundi, Eritrea, Gambia, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Namibia and Swaziland) have populations of between 1-8,00,000. Most of the island countries have populations of less than a million. Even Africa’s most populous countries (DRC, Ethiopia, Kenya, South Africa, Sudan - with the exception of Nigeria at 130,000,000) all have populations of between 30-80,000,000.

It would therefore not be an exaggeration to describe over 120 million preventable deaths between 2001 and 2015 as genocide – by inaction. In this case and for every life lost, government indifference to Public Health is the equivalent of an Interehamwe machete or Nazi gas chamber. If we were set up memorials to the preventable deaths from one year alone, we would need 100 stadiums in Africa with the capacity to each host 80,000 skulls – each a stadium of shameful silence, and a monument to government without responsibility.

Africa Must Unite! But for it to be a meaningful unity it must not be a unity of the dead. It must not be unity as a continental graveyard.

Meeting the 15 per cent pledge will be a significant indication that African leaders care for their countries and are prepared to live up to their primary responsibility of keeping their citizens alive and healthy. No meaningful and sustainable development of Africa can happen without sustainable financing for health care. Indeed the status of public health is the most significant indicator of social and economic development. This is why the Right to Health is the most crucial Right of all – we all have to be alive and well to exercise any other Rights. The dead have no Rights – except perhaps the ‘Right to a decent burial’.

To postpone the meeting of the 15 per cent pledge to the future is to accelerate the death of Africa. We call on the African Union to place the 2001 15 per cent pledge on the July 2007 summit agenda and at the very least to introduce it as urgent business [under item vii, AOB]. We further call on them to make it a major agenda item of the next summit or to call a special summit dedicated to meeting the 15% pledge. This should be preceded by a special summit of Finance and Economic Development Ministers

To further illustrate the full scale of Africa’s health disaster, it is not enough to demonstrate only the unprecedented scale of preventable death. It is also crucial to demonstrate the scale of Africa’s impotence and one example will suffice.

Without health workers, no amount of free medicines can be delivered to citizens, and all ‘foreign’ AID is meaningless. Yet many African governments have no clue how close to death their countries are due to shortage of health workers of all categories.

The DRC with a population of 57 million, roughly equivalent to the populations of UK, France and Italy has only 5,827 doctors compared to the France’s 203,000, Italy’s 241,000 and the UK’s 160,000. But it is not just a case of the most developed countries being able to train more health workers, or to poach from Africa to make up their shortfalls. Cuba with a population of about 11 million has roughly the same population as Malawi, Zambia or Zimbabwe. But Cuba has 66,567 Doctors compared with Malawi’s 266, Zambia’s 1,264 and Zimbabwe’s 2,086. Not surprisingly, Cuba has roughly the same life expectancy (77 years) as the G8 Countries, the Scandinavian and other developed countries while the average life expectancy for African countries compared to it here is 37 to 40 years. The success of Cuba in the areas of health care and education demonstrates it can be done. Despite issues with the Castro government, western countries have visited Cuba to study how they have achieved their health success. To come anywhere near meeting the World Health Organisation recommended health worker’s to patient ratio or meeting the health based MDG’s these African countries compared to Cuba will need to train and retain roughly 59,000 Doctors each in 8 years. The DRC will need to train and retain at least 150,000. The numbers for nurses, pharmacists and most categories of health workers are comparable across board. This should be Africa’s priority.

In other words, there is no alternative to long term in country sustainable financing to rebuild Africa’s Public Health systems including health workers and improved working conditions and remuneration for them, adequately equipped clinics and hospitals, improved sanitation and environmental health, clean drinking water and so forth. Without these Africa may achieve its dream of continental unity, but it will be a fools paradise.

We are for a United Africa. But it must be a unity of the living, and of a healthy African people – able to enjoy full civil, social, economic and political Rights - not a unity of the diseased, dead and dying. Successfully unity can only be based on successful development of which health is the corner stone.

The Africa Public Health Rights Alliance and its 15 per cent Now campaign calls on you to join the undersigned below in signing the petition calling on AU member countries to fulfil their 15 per cent Abuja pledge as the first genuine step towards a healthy United States of Africa.

* Rotimi Sankore is Coordinator, Africa Public Health Rights Alliance and its “15% Now!” Campaign.

Popularise the Union, its time has come
Interview with Bougouma Diagne, Cultural Association for Social and Educational Self-Promotion.

Without free trade and free movement, no need for Africans to unite
Interview with George Adhanja, The Kenya National Council of NGOs

No continental union without peace and security
Interview with Joseph Yav is a senior researcher at the Institute for Security Studies based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

Give room for civil society participation before adoption
Interview with Sanusi Ibraheem, The Intellectual Group, Nigeria

Democratic political leadership: pre-condition for continental union
African Union Monitor
Interview with Arnold Tsunga, Zimbabwe Lawyers for Human Rights

The United States of Africa: The challenges
Demba Moussa Dembele

Demba Moussa Dembele examines the external and internal challenges faced by Africa in the face of globalization and the US led war on terror and asks if the current African leadership is up to building the United States of Africa in the present global environment.

English:
French:
French:

This paper attempts to re-visit the history of African unity and highlight the reasons for the current impetus toward union among Africa’s leadership; explore the implications of the union on Africa’s current inter-governmental organisation, the AU; outline challenges to the union project and set out conditions for its success.

The upcoming mid-year African Union (AU) summit of heads of state and government has as its primary agenda a ‘Grand Debate on the Union Government’. The ideological differences present in the first three decades of Africa’s political independence seem to have been rendered irrelevant due to the current ascendancy of neoliberalism as the only valid ideological basis for economic organisation both within national political-economies as well as globally. But new political distinctions have emerged - in part due to the emergence of the so-called ‘new breed’ of African leaders following the end of apartheid in South Africa and the movements towards political pluralism elsewhere. Such leaders have posited themselves as both able and willing to speak and act on behalf of the rest of Africa - Africa presented as being determined to re-birth itself as encapsulated in the concept of the ‘African renaissance’. Similarly, economic distinctions are now also clear - in part as a result of the economic directions initially pursued post-independence, in part due to variations in both the presence and utilisation of mineral and other natural resources and in part due to governance.

The result is that certain African states are, in effect, positioned as metropoles for the other African peripheries. Such African states, worried about the potential impact of union on their national political-economies, are hesitant about the potential for immediate union. Other African states, seeing nothing but advantages from a union, argue that, given Africa’s diversity, there will never be an ideal time and now is as good a time as any. Others are simply sceptical.

The scepticism is not unwarranted? Has the time come for union? Is Africa’s leadership genuinely ready for what union would entail?

The ‘Grand Debate’ in (fittingly) Accra this June seems set to answer these questions. While idea of the ‘Grand Debate’ may seem incredible given the lack of popular awareness of (let alone informed debates around) the process leading up to it, its potential impact on Africa and African peoples’ is not in question. But the process leading up to it is informed by motivations and rationales that are not as incredible. In fact, an exploration of these motivations and rationales reveal the process leading up to the ‘Grand Debate’ as somewhat inevitable - informed both by history and by the current context of Africa within the global political economy.

This paper thus attempts to re-visit that history and highlight the reasons for the current impetus toward union among Africa’s leadership; explore the implications of the union on Africa’s current intergovernmental organisation, the AU; outline challenges to the union project and set out conditions for its success. In so doing, the paper sets out and critically assesses the study which will inform ‘the Grand Debate,’ and drawing from debates within African civil society (including the African women’s movement) on the experience of the AU to date. It also assesses the financial proposals made by the study from the perspective of theory relating to processes of integration.

It concludes by noting that the time frame given in the study is too short. The low level of public awareness about the study, its recommendations and the upcoming ‘Grand Debate’ are bound to militate against implementation of the recommendations - even if the idea of pan-Africanism is an idea that has long been aspired to. The recommendations will be seen as imposed on African populations from the top-down, rather than arising from a consultative process which all Africans buy into and support. In addition, the financial proposals in particular cannot be achieved (as the study itself notes) within the nine years. Technical questions aside, they hinge on critical pre-conditions for success such as, at best, African citizenship (including African women’s autonomous citizenship rights) or, at least, freedom of movement across the continent - the achievement of either which will be difficult to implement given the varied economic performance of individual African states as well as the persistence of internal conflicts across the region.

This is not, however, to suggest that the study’s recommendations are unfeasible. True, the experience of the AU to date paints a picture of somewhat inconsistent and patchy progress that is more incipient than felt on the ground. But it also points to a significant shift towards meaningful collective action that bodes well for further intensification of the regional integration agenda.

But for the study’s recommendations to be achieved and the clarion call ‘Africa Unite’ to be realised, political will will need to be built up at the highest and lowest levels. Enhanced delivery by the AU as currently constituted is critical. While working towards an aspirational framework within a more reasonable timeframe, the focus should now be on resolving the gap between the AU’s normative framework and institutional and programmatic or project delivery.

* This paper was commissioned by, and reproduced here with the kind permission of, the Africa Governance Monitoring and Advocacy Project (AfriMAP), a project of the Open Society Institute (OSI).

* L. Muthoni Wanyeki is a political scientist based in Nairobi, Kenya.

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

The 9th Assembly of the African Union Heads of States and Governments will convene from 1-3 July 2007 in Accra, Ghana under the theme, ‘The Grand Debate on the Union Government.’ It is significant that the debate takes place nearly two years since the ratification of the African Union Protocol to the Charter of African Women’s Rights, and three years since the adoption of the Solemn Declaration on Gender Equality in Africa, which reaffirms the commitment of African States to advance the agenda of gender equality. Both instruments provide a critical framework to address the rights of women and girls in Africa. To date 21countries have ratified the protocol on Women’s Rights, leaving 32 yet to ratify. The delay in ratification of the protocol by member states of the union undermines the universal achievement of continental standards on women’s rights.

In the proposal of the Union Government lies a long held vision to consolidate African unity, and an affirmation of the quest to unite Africa’s peoples across shared values and rights. Unfortunately, across the continent, the status of women continues to deteriorate under war and conflict, deeply rooted economic inequality, repressive undemocratic regimes, domestic violence and trauma, harmful cultural practices and poverty. In spite of the continental instruments for change, women’s rights remain elusive.

At the heart of the union debate must be a commitment to unite Africa’s people across gender by upholding respect for women’s rights and equality of opportunities for both men and women.
Specifically, the African Heads of States and Government meeting in Accra should show commitment to continental unity by embracing the following:

• Incorporation of gender equality in the values underpinning the Proposal of United States of Africa
• Instituting and making public during the next Summit a performance audit of the Directorates of the African Union Commission in terms of the incorporation of gender concerns (2004-2007)
• Prioritization of the rights and entitlements of refugees and displaced populations, particularly women and girls.
• Prioritization of full citizenship status for women in terms of rights, particularly women who marry across nationalities and lose their rights.
• Guarantee to women the freedom to trade and work across states’ borders. Women small traders manage a high degree of non-formal cross border trade
• Conduct analysis into the gendered implications of macroeconomic policy with respect to the ‘convergence criteria’.
• Enable total factor mobility—the free movement of all factors of production (labour as well as capital)—by addressing questions of African citizenship, including African women’s equal citizenship rights and freedom of movement at the continental level.
• Embedding the principle of gender parity in the election and appointment of persons to the continental institutions.
• Ensuring that the principle of appointing 50% women commissioners at the African Union Commission continues to be honored.
• Increasing the minimum threshold for women MPs elected to the African parliament to at least two per country
• Review all recommendations (in the continental government proposal) in light of deficiencies already noted by the African women’s movement with respect to ensuring the equal representation of African women at the AU’s highest decision-making organs—for instance, the Commission’s Chair could also have a Deputy responsible for gender mainstreaming across her/his ‘Cabinet’ and all Commissioners responsible for programs and projects under the strategic focus areas should ensure that gender implications are taken into account in their elaboration and implementation;
• Publicly censuring countries that have yet to ratify the Protocol on the Rights of African Women.
• Honor their commitment to deliver on the Solemn Declaration on Gender Equality in Africa.
• Demonstrate greater commitment to the normative framework already established by the AU—particularly with respect to the promotion and protection of human rights (including women’s human rights), peace and security.

The debate on the Union Government is timely, but it will only be relevant in as far as it will recognize that the majority of the African people are women and girls; and that to win their confidence African Leaders need to seriously take up their concerns head on.

The United States of Africa is a notion cherished in the minds of Pan-Africanists from the continent to the diaspora. The proposal currently on the table at the African Union is elaborated in the 'Study on an African Union Government Towards the United States of Africa'. Few critics entirely dismiss the principle of regional integration, but across Africa there is huge variance in the vision of a united Africa. As a contribution to a public debate on the proposals for continental government, we publish a special issue of Pambazuka News providing perspectives from a range of activists and intellectuals.

'Divided we are weak; united, Africa could become one of the greatest forces for good in the world. I believe strongly and sincerely that with the deep-rooted wisdom and dignity, the innate respect for human lives, the intense humanity that is our heritage, the African race, united under one federal government, will emerge not as just another world bloc to flaunt its wealth and strength, but as a great power whose greatness is indestructible because it is built not on fear, envy and suspicion, nor won at the expense of others, but founded on hope, trust, friendship and directed to the good of all mankind.' - Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah

The United States of Africa is a notion cherished in the minds of Pan-Africanists from the continent to the diaspora. Coined during the decolonisation period by liberation leaders and activists seeking the unity of Africa through political, economic and social integration, in 2007, the concepts and debates around the United States of Africa are seeing a rebirth at the African Union (AU). In June, a 'Grand Debate on the Union Government' will be the sole focus at the African Union Heads of States Summit. Symbolically held in Accra, Ghana, as the country celebrates its 50th year of independence marked by the ascent to presidency of one of the worlds leading Pan-Africanists, Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah, the grand debate is based on the proposals coordinated by the committee of seven championed by Libya, Uganda and Nigeria.

The proposal currently on the table at the African Union is elaborated in the 'Study on an African Union Government Towards the United States of Africa'[1] . The Proposal underlines the need for common policy standards, harmonised approaches and joint trade, investment and development negotiations while underscoring the values of the rule of law, respect for human rights as well as popular and transparent governance as those that should underpin the Union Government. Proponents of a potential federation consider that regional integration will enable Africa to address the common challenges of political and economic exploitation, food insecurity, internal conflicts, amongst others, by empowering the continent with a united, self-determined voice and negotiation capacity that will wield due influence in the global context.

Few critics entirely dismiss the principle of regional integration but across Africa there is huge variance in the vision of a united Africa. Some claim that, given the failure of African nation building at a state level, as is manifested in a lack of democratic participation, civil wars, lack of development and widespread human rights violations among others, the United States of Africa is a dream that must be pursued, but can never be attained until each state is strengthened. Others still criticise the current proposal as too tempered to create any significant change to the realities for the people of Africa.

The study considers the establishment and implementation of Union Government in three phases, with a fully operational Union Government and the constitutional framework for a United States of Africa established by 2012. The Union Government would be composed of an Executive Council with a President and Vice President appointed by the Assembly for a term of six years and with commissioners appointed by the Executive Council. A legislative parliament would be elected by direct and universal adult suffrage with proportional representation.

While the participation of African peoples is envisaged through the African parliament and Economic, Social and Cultural Council of the African Union (ECOSOCC) consultations, which the proposal enshrines in all Assembly deliberations, the voice of the people most directly affected by potential regional integration have been barely heard, as African policy makers prepare themselves for the Grand Debate. Yet, the rhetoric of the African Union claims the vision of 'an Africa driven by its own citizens' [2].

The strategy for such a people-driven union has yet to be formulated or implemented sufficiently to sincerely suggest that the proposal and debate on a Union Government and United States of Africa are guided by the vision of the people of the continent. The African Union has, since its inception, been didactic, with decisions being made with little consultation. African CSOs and citizens have little access or understanding of the AU and its organs, so have limited opportunity to meaningfully participate. While the ECOSOCC provides a potential avenue for the voice of the people to contribute to AU decision making, the body is yet to be an influential force. The gap between regional policy makers and the people of the continent have serious implications for implementation of decisions and regional accountability.

In order to strengthen civil society and citizen engagement with the African Union and its organs, Fahamu established the AU-Monitor. The AU-Monitor provides relevant, high quality and timely information and analysis that enables meaningful participation of citizens in the debates of the African Union and facilitates civil society advocacy and policy setting. Recognising the potentially inadequate popularisation and engagement of citizenry in the Grand Debate on the Union Government at the Heads of States summit, the AU-Monitor has been soliciting articles, news and analysis by a variety of stakeholders with a range of perspectives.

This publication is a selection of the articles and interviews that have contributed to the on-going debate, which we hope will assist in catalysing the full potential of a people-driven, united Africa.

In this special issue, Tim Murithi provides a historic framework for the institutionalisation of Pan-Africanism. He assesses the role of civil society in contributing to the union government debate. Kwame Akonor asks whether the African Union and its processes of regional integration are simply the same rehashed endeavours that were tried and failed at the Organisation of African Unity, and proposes means of constructively overcoming these challenges.

Demba Moussa Dembele examines the external and internal challenges faced by Africa in the global context and questions whether the current African leadership is capable of building a United States of Africa. Muthoni Wanyeki highlights the reasons for the current impetus toward a union among Africa’s leadership and explores the implications of the union on the AU, outlining the challenges to the union project while setting out conditions for its success. While Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem reflects on the common citizenship anticipated within a federation and underscores the importance of the potential for realised freedom of movement on the continent, Faiza Mohamed explains why a gender perspective is important in analysing the perceived groundbreaking benefits of a federation which ignores the realities faced by African women. She raises the importance of placing women's economic empowerment at the forefront of the actualisation of Africas growth and development.

Addressing some of the questions raised by Abdul-Raheem about 'who is African', Selome Araya talks about the inclusion of the diaspora in the framing of regional integration, defining Africa as a history rather than a geography. Kisira Kokelo, Issa Shivji and Gichinga Ndirangu address the economic and developmental implications of a union government. Shivji draws on the experiences of regional cooperation in East Africa to address some of the potential pitfalls of regional economic and political integration. Eyob Balcha underscores the critical social aspect of integration. Finally, in an important contribution to the debate, Sanou Mbaye presents a concrete plan of action for federal government and calls for self-determined action toward a unified Africa.

'Pan Africanism is the fullest expression of our struggle today and our greatest building base is Africa. We must sensitise the member-states and push them to action. We must press for a public opinion that is pan Africanist at a continental level', Alpha Oumar Konare, Chairman of the African Commission, on the importance of the proposal for a Union Government, January 2007.

[1] To download the study please visit [2] Vision and Mission of the African Union, May 2004.

* Hakima Abbas is Fahamus Policy Analyst for AU-Monitor initiative
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/309/blogs_01_kush.gif An uplifting short piece from the Sudan. Kush reports on a huge animal migration (to rival that of Serengeti) in Southern Sudan:

'Many people have thought that twenty years of war may have devastated the vast animal resource in South Sudan. But lo, and behold: they have survived! See the pictures for yourself.'

Looks like elephants, ostriches, and possibly wilder beasts running free on the plains.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/309/blogs_02_johnakec.gifJohnAkecSouthSudan comments on a recent statement by the new Sudanese ambassador to the US whose response to US sanctions was to threaten to block the export of 'gum arabic' used in the production of coca-cola...

'...asserted that there is no genocide in Darfur, and called Darfur’s armed groups 'terrorists'. He then issued a thin veiled threat that his country could retaliate by blocking the exports of Gum Arabic to the US. Gum Arabic, the Ambassador declared, is indispensable ingredient of Coca-Cola. Washington Post’s Dana Milbank coined the term "Khartoum Karl" to describe the ambassador.'

The surprise is not that Sudan should respond in this way but that the ambassador who is from the South should so easily and willingly parrot the words of the Khartoum regime.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/309/blogs_03_waridaad.gifVoice of Somaliland Diaspora-Ottawa writes on the new Scramble for African oil and the strategic preparations of the US which will become increasingly dependent on African oil.

'The Pentagon is to reorganise its military command structure in response to growing fears that the United States is seriously ill-equipped to fight the war against terrorism in Africa. It is a dramatic move, and an admission that the US must reshape its whole military policy if it is to maintain control of Africa for the duration of what Donald Rumsfeld has called "the long war". Suddenly the world's most neglected continent is assuming an increasing global importance as the international oil industry begins to exploit more and more of the west coast of Africa's abundant reserves.'

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/309/blogs_04_civilexp.gifNo Longer at Ease reports on Ethiopian brutality in the Ogaden region of Western Somalia. Abdulrahman also provides a brief background to the conflict which is one of those that receives little coverage in the press.

'In recent years Ethiopian troops increased their brutality of jailing, torturing and killing young Ogaden men suspected of being ONLF members. Their families have also been punished as well but worst of all is the rape of the rape of women by Ethiopian soldiers...In village after village, people said they had been brutalized by government troops. They described a widespread and longstanding reign of terror, with Ethiopian soldiers gang-raping women, burning down huts and killing civilians at will. It is the same military that the American government helps train and equip — and provides with prized intelligence.'

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/309/blogs_05_ethio.gifEthiopundit comments an article by Christopher Hitchens on the fall of ex-head of the World Bank, Paul Wolfowitz.

'He begins a customary flurry of blows to the heads and necks of assorted pundits (sadly, not all are as committed to truth and justice as we are) whose "eagerness for prurience, the readiness for slander, and the utter want of fact-checking" would have us believe that Paul Wolfowitz and Shaha Riza were financing some sort of "shameless lasciviousness out of the public purse and the begging bowls of the wretched of the earth.'

Hitchens states that it is hardly Riza's fault (no relation to THE RZA mind you) that she was working at a senior position at the World Bank when Wolfowitz, with whom she had a private adult consenting relationship, was appointed to head up the whole thing ALL THE WAY BACK in 2005. He told the Bank up front and the 'ethics committee' at the Bank decided she had to leave. The committtee suggested that any disruption to her career could be made up with a salary increase at her new job.

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/309/blogs_06_filweha.gifFilwehapundit on ceremonial coffee drinking in the Semein Mountains in Ethiopia (a World Heritage site and National Park) which apparently is being discouraged in some local area by priests.

'Sometimes this country is as much amazing to me as it is to a foreigner. The Church banning coffee is unheard of- so far as I know. I do not really know how it works in remote rural places. As far as I know and as it is written elsewhere in the report, coffee-drinking is a ceremonial culture of the society. I guess this should be a local thing.'

http://www.pambazuka.org/images/articles/309/blogs_07_bl.gif

This course, intended for people concerned with social change in Africa, aims to build capacity for advancing rights within development and activist organizations. It will assist researchers, advocates, trainers and programme officers from civil society and state institutions to develop practical approaches to using rights advocacy and development programmes. The application is due by 6 July 2007.

Eyob Balch writes as a young and concerned African who aspires to see the realisation of the dreams of our forefathers. This can also be considered as one of the many suggestions and recommendations that will be forwarded to the AU Commission on its timely engagement of establishing the African Union government.

I am writing this article only as a young and concerned African who aspires to see the realisation of the dreams of our forefathers. This can also be considered as one of the many suggestions and recommendations that will, certainly be forwarded for the AU Commission on its timely engagement of establishing the African Union government.

For the last four and more years, I have been engaged with different activities that have increased my understanding about the current situation of our continent, and the paths that it is embarking on towards its future. I’ve read different books and articles, discussed with different people around me and attended various panels, lectures, conferences and forums both at home and abroad as well as with high level dignitaries/diplomats and with other ordinary African citizens. All the times, I was eager to know the ideas and feelings of these people about the issues of Pan-Africanism and the unity of our continent.

Truly speaking, I myself have gone through different levels of understanding about this particular issue and what I am thinking of at this very moment is very much different from what it has been a couple or more years before. Needless to say, peoples’ perception is also on process of change either to the pessimistic or to the optimistic corner, even to no where. But their might be some basic grounds where we should have, or better to have, common consensus about the process of building the United States of Africa (USA).

I am a youth activist and a sociologist by profession and above all a Pan-Africanist by spirit. And all what I’ll be talking about will be the results of these and other multiple identities that I acquire. I’ve personally and organizationally involved in organizing a public debate on May 25, 2007; marking the African Liberation Day in Addis Ababa. I’ve come across different views and ideas of many Africans on due process with their hopes, fears, concerns and even jokes. But my basic concern is beyond all these. Through the related readings with regard to the topic, I’ve come to know that there are two basic arguments on the establishment of the African Union Government or the USA.

The first bloc, alternative A, insists on the immediate union of African states with one government citizenship, a common foreign minister, a common defense force and a leader or a president of the would be government. And the other, alternative B, is a proposition based on gradual and time proven process of integration through the regional economic communities (RECs) like the COMESA, ECOWAS and SADEC towards the higher level of the union. Moreover, another alternative, more likely alternative C, is cognisant of the fact that gradual transformation is more acceptable but argues that the establishment of the union should be through the existing system of the AU because it has ‘enough’ Acts and procedures to do so.

According to Dr. Tajudeen Abdul- Raheem, General Secretary of the Global Pan African Movement, Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi is leading the first bloc through his project of the USA since 1999. Whereas the second bloc has no recognized leaders but government officials (ministers and ambassadors) of different nations are working on it. Our PM, Meles Zenawi and Thabo Mbeki of South Africa are proponents of the third alternative. In spite of all the fact that I’ve read and heard about this issue, I haven’t had any information about the ideas of ordinary African on this issue. I remember that, when the then OAU was transforming into the AU, the leaders were telling us that from that very moment the level of interaction and engagement which was restricted at heads of states and government officials’ level will be trickled down to people-to-people level. But what I am witnessing at this very moment is that, it is still our political leaders who are deciding on our lives without going through the rational process. As far as I’m concerned, our leaders are once again too busy of establishing another bureaucratic and cumbersome political system which wouldn’t belong to the real African people. They are still doing their best to take forward their corrupted and mismanaged economic system which is full of imperfect markets and inter-competition; and their political system whose basic character is understood in terms of lack of good governance and democracy, breach of human rights and being considered as ‘indigenous colonizer’. What would we come up with finally when these incompetent and imperfect states become united, ‘United Weak States of Africa (UWSA)’!? May be the UWSA will help us to differentiate the other USA from ours.

Finally I want to make two basic suggestions on the entire process. The basic thing is a rights issue. We African citizens have the right to be involved, consulted and be aware of each and every decision to be made on our fate. What would a Cameroonian, a Zambian or an Ethiopian, for that matter, would feel when s/he is told on one blessed morning that he/she is no more a citizen of Cameroon, Zambia or Ethiopia but Africa? We, African people, have the right to get meaningfully involved on every process that concerns us and we should claim our right in every appropriate manner and through all the legitimate channels.

Besides this, I personally argue that neither political nor economic integration is the sole means for the realisation of the union government. I would say, social integration is the most appropriate tool in our context. One may argue that both political and economic integrations are part of the social integration.

But I would once again argue that I’m afraid that they are considered in such a way since there are many non-political (I mean non-state politics) and non-economic activities that have created a greater bond among African people beyond any other means. Like for example, the civic and non-governmental associations and organizations, the trade unions, youth associations, women’s’ associations, the academic institutions (think tanks), traditional and religious institutions and the like should be given a much more emphasis and meaningful role to play in the process. It is in these groups and institutions that we can find real Africans at the grass root level. Just to mention, according to the African Youth Charter, young people are defined with in the age limit of 15 to 35, which is believed to constitute nearly half of the entire population of the continent. And it is this segment of the society on which all the social, economic, political and whatsoever kinds of positive and negative realities of the continent are manifested.

Therefore, on what kind of rational ground that we would accept the decisions of our political leaders to establish the continental government; without incorporating these peoples’ idea. We should first enjoy the real brotherhood and sisterhood in our respective areas, through our cultures, arts and societal values among ourselves in the spirit of being African, which will be a cornerstone for the realization of our dream. It is people-to-people interaction and integration that should be given the greater value in this process, more than the periodic conferencing of the political leaders.

Let me be, humbly, sure that the process of establishing the union government is for the mere benefit of each and every citizen of the continent. Then, why do our leaders fail to materialise the basic feature of ‘democratic governance’, i.e. participation. The AU will be having its heads of states meeting coming July in Accra, Ghana where they will be discussing about one and only one agenda – the African Union Government/ the United States of Africa. But the significant part of this continent’s citizen are not aware of the process let alone forwarding ideas and failed to be heard.

Finally this is the concern of one young African that, our leaders should have a moment to set-back and to revisit their steps and we Africans should demand our rights to decide on our fate by ourselves, of course legitimately, for the realisation of our dream.

* Eyob Balcha, a youth activist in Ethiopia, is currently a graduate student of sociology at the Addis Ababa University. His is also the founding member of Afroflag Youth Vision (AYV), a local civic youth organisation and the programme manager of the organisation.

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

A report "Reflections on Africa's historic and current initiatives for political and economic unity" by the Nigerian Institute of Social and Economic Research (NISER) in Ibadan attempted to analyse objectively the economic and socio political impact of African regional integration.

According to NISER: “The hopes for a New International Economic Order (NIEO) arising from various international socio-economic and political negotiations, particularly after world war II (1939-1945), became largely misplaced in the 1950s through the 1960s, inter alia, due to the lopsided socio-economic development pattern which accompanied such negotiations.

For example, the terms of trade worsened for the world’s primary products producers (mostly African countries), while it improved for the producers of manufactured goods (industrialised countries such as the United States of America and the European countries).

Against this background, the progress of such African primary producers, who incidentally adopted the ‘isolationist’ development approach to their respective national development programmes, as a whole, was (and is still) nowhere comparable to the progress made in the rest of the world; particularly in the industrial European countries - producers of manufactured goods.

The emerging undesirable trends of socio-economic and political developments at both the pre-and post-colonial periods in the countries of these African primary producers made it clear, especially within the first decade of these African countries independence that, the development gap between them and the industrialised countries would continuously widen over time in the absence of any determined effort, on their part, to reverse the dangerous development trend. In recognition of the weaknesses in the isolationist development approach to salvage these African countries from their deplorable development position, about the only realistic option open for adoption was to take appropriate concerted measures capable of strengthening these African countries individually and collectively in order to compete more effectively in the global economy (OAU, 1963).

This initiative came simultaneously with the emergence of well-integrated nations of regional sizes, notably, the United States of America (USA), the former Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) and China.

Probably, the consequential disparity observed between the respective eco-political powers of these large nations and regional groupings and those of the un-integrated ones combined, reinforced the African inspiration into initiating the practical move towards regional and sub-regional economic integration.

Coincidentally, there were instant experiments of this new vogue (economic integration) in Europe and Latin America, prompted largely by the great concern over economic subordination and the consequent socio-political insecurity of their respective regions when faced with the realities of the world giants at their door steps, especially in the 1940s through the 1950s.

Given the positive impacts of regional/sub-regional groupings on the Latin American and European economies, ‘economic integration’ constitutes a vogue as a concrete economic target

for facilitating the attainment of the objectives of “collective self-reliance and self-sustenance” under an economic regional framework. Thus, in Africa, the lessons of experience from these experimentations could hardly have escaped the socio-economic and political elites at independence.

Against this background, regional and sub-regional groupings couched under cooperative approach to economic development, focussed on collective self-reliance, started springing up in Africa as well as the developing continents of the world.

In spite of the numerous regional/sub-regional groupings which sprang up amidst abundant development potentials (human and material resources), the pace and pattern of socio-economic and political development in the African region, particularly since the early 1980s, became susceptible to the conclusion that the direction of economic development cannot possibly guarantee rapid, effective and desirable economic transformation (Edozien and Osagie, 1982: 97-118).

This has culminated in what many analysts on African economic development define as: African countries declining GDP, high stagflation pressures, food crisis and heavy burden of external debts (Phillips, 1989).

In recognition of the foregoing development problems in Africa, the existing regional/subregional groupings have for about two decades of policy reforms in the region, initiated the move to redress the indicators of economic decline. This has therefore created an inspiration for renewed interest in regional integration as a strategy for dealing with the deep-rooted structural problems in the African region.

Based on the “Washington Consensus” of trade liberalisation, stable macroeconomic policy, getting prices right, and minimal government interference within the globalising world, more emphasis tend to be place on the opening up of African economies to international competition to return African countries to a path of sustainable growth.

Incidentally, economic growth mostly in the 1990s weakened due to such exogenous developments as drought and floods in various parts of the continent, declining aid and weakening commodity prices. In this regard, current growth rates in African countries are not enough to arrest Africa’s long-standing economic decline or have much effect on widespread poverty (UNCTAD, 1998).

With marginal results of integrative arrangements in Africa, thus far, the “Washington Consensus” acknowledges that:

(1) policy must reflect the fact that with economic liberalisation, markets may not emerge on their own, and may be sub-optimal if they do;

(2) policy must recognise and address directly structural constraints and institutional limitations if incentives are to be translated into a vigorous supply response through new investment for the expansion and rationalisation of production;

(3) in addition to the traditional challenges, governments now must cope with unprecedented acceleration of technological change and the consequences of globalisation as the new global economy does not benefit all countries equally.

On the basis of the foregoing acknowledgment has been the renewed interest in regional economic integration in Africa as a means of overcoming the constraints in individual countries related to their small size, market limitations and other structural problems.

The NISER report recognizes the changing political and social landscape in Africa. In the 1990s many African countries successfully pursued political and social reforms that resulted in a much transformed political and social landscape. Entrenched democratic and personal freedoms and a socially conscious pursuit of transparency. Most of these initiatives were homegrown mass movements. A new wave of liberation.

NISER reports that: In actual fact, the notion of good governance has assumed a central position in the discussions of Africa’s democratisation process.

Although, corruption and nepotism have played a destructive role in many of the African societies in the past, these issues are currently being attended to by many of the African Governments.

Moreover, policy stability and harmonisation that can lead to rapid development are now being taken into consideration.

In short many African societies have now realised that apart from economic gains from democratisation alongside liberalisation and globalisation, there are increasing political gains that can be achieved toward regional integration in terms of political stability of member states.

Also, regional integration has been seen by many Independent African States as impetus to possible solution to the continent’s deep and prolonged economic and social crisis.

Anaysis of preconditions

The NISER report analyses the prevailing conditions in Africa which may be beneficial to the integration efforst that African countries are currently pursuing.

Major among such preconditions are that:

1. The union must be made up of countries of equal socio-economic importance/status to avoid the fear of possible dominance - in religion, wealth, endowment, size, population etc.

2. The size of each of the members of the union must not be so large as to permit any one of them independently to contemplate an essentially national policy of industrialization as an alternative to regional coordination.

A critical examination of these preconditions shows that they are indeed appropriate and desirable for the African region often defined as a region aspiring for collective socio-economic development in diversity-social, cultural, physical and religious matters.

Conclusion

Recently, regional unity is seen in Africa as a possible solution to the continent’s deep and prolonged economic and social crisis. Also, it is seen as a means of breaking the confines of the nation-state as well as removing the multiple socio-economic barriers and thus, opening the African economies to external competition through trade and exchange competition.

A new Africa is beginning to take shape. Many of the Independent African States have been democratised. Also, a number of them have liberalised their economies. In addition, regional integration as well as globalisation are becoming fast recognised and accepted in many African countries. In actual fact, African societies are becoming more open due to the positive effects of democratisation, economic reforms and globalisation.

Given the fact that the long run prospects for rapid development of African nations lie in their success in achieving political and economic unity among and between themselves, the important question is how African countries can successfully achieve regional unity?

That is, what are the challenges facing the African societies in their attempt at regional integration?

The first assignment for the African nations is to sustain the current impacts of democracy. That is, democratisation - cum- liberalisation on the internal front in terms of continued struggle for individual democratic freedoms and rights should be vigorously pursued.

In addition to this, African nations should form themselves into a single regional trade and exchange co-operation to deal with other multilateral trading blocks such as EU, WTO, etc., rather than the current polarised regional organisations.

In actual fact, forming themselves into a single trading block will enable them not only to speak with one voice but also make them to negotiate with other multilateral trading blocks with unified terms of reference.

Moreover, problems of financing several (polarised) regional trade and economic cooperative groupings such as SADC, COMESA, SACU, EAC, IOC, ECOWAS, WAEMU, UEMOA, IGAD CEAO, etc., will be solved through the formation of a single regional trade and economic cooperation.

Further, forming themselves into one regional block will further reduce armed conflicts in several African countries.

In conclusion, regional integration will be the focus of the world economy for a long time to come. Against this background, Africa’s future initiatives should be developed to further consolidate the gains that have been achieved.

* Kisira Kokelo is a Pan-Africanist blogger from Kenya who is currently residing in the British Virgin Islands. His blog, African Federation Now, features postings on Pan-Africanism and Continental Unity.

Any serious talk of building a United States of Africa must begin with the need to guarantee full citizenship rights to all Africans, and the complimentary freedoms to move, settle, work and participate in the political processes anywhere they may be, argues Tajudeen Abdul Raheem. This is the only thing that would convince us that our leaders are serious.

I want to begin this in a personal way because the issues we are dealing with are not theoretical or rhetorical. They are about our rights and dignity as a people. They are too important for us not to recognise them as validating ‘the personal is political’ dictum made famous by the women’s movement.

I am blessed with two daughters who are growing up in the United Kingdom. They became British citizens at birth, in spite of the fact that their mother and myself were only British residents when they were born. Both girls enjoy all the rights and entitlements of British children in terms of free and compulsory education from nursery through to secondary education and up to university, if they so choose. They are also entitled to prescription free medicine until they are 16. In some sense the sky may be their limit in terms of individual ambitions. Of course, like every other British child, they will have to deal with racial, religious, class and other prejudices as they grow up, and deal with them as and when necessary, especially racial discrimination.

If they had been born in a majority of our countries the fact of being children of residents does not automatically mean that they qualify for the citizenship of the country in which they were born. The circumstances of their birth, which they did not choose, becomes a disadvantage from which they will never be able to escape for all their lives. At the height of the state sponsored Anti Ban Yarwanda (in practice Anti Tutsi) during the Obote 2 regime in Uganda, one of his xenophobic ministers reportedly declared: 'does the fact that a Sheep was born in a Kraal make it a cow?', continuing that 'a Muyarwanda born in Uganda even if he or she dies and is buried in Uganda remains a Muyarwanda'. In this type of mindset and the legal and political regime constructed on it, identity becomes a prison, from which a person will never escape. There is nothing wrong in a Muyarwanda remaining a Muyarwanda all their lives, but if that identity is now used to justify discrimination against the person, marginalise them and deny the right to full participation in the economic, social and political affairs of the country then it is no longer a question of origin but politics and power.

This is the common practice across this continent. In order to disclaim and disempower people, we first deny them their right to citizenship. It is an affirmation of the negative: 'not belonging' or 'not one of us'. Even those to whom we can not deny those rights, because we cannot prove that their parents or grandparents come from another country, we proceed to the second default position: 'settlers' , i.e. not indigenous/ancestrally to that area, even if they are from other parts of the same country. So the same Ugandans will argue that a Muchiga from Kabale born and brought up in Kabarole or Hoima are settlers, because their ancestors do not originate from Toro or Bunyoro.

Nigerians have perfected this type of discrimination by requiring on official forms declaration of STATE OF RESIDENCE and STATE OF ORIGIN. The former may, given the decades, and in some cases, centuries, of internal migration, not reveal the ethnicity of the person, but the latter certainly will. Origin requires stating your ancestry where your parents or grandparents or even great grandparents come from. It means that third generation or more of Igbo, Kalabari, Hausa, Itsekiri and other non Yoruba Nigerians in Lagos may still be regarded as 'foreigners’, just as several generations of Yorubas or Igbos in northern Nigeria will be branded 'non indigenes' with serious implications for their citizenship rights, access to state resources and political participation.

There is no worse time for these denials of rights to come to the fore than during elections. All British residents from the Commonwealth, including temporary residents like students could vote in British elections, yet Africans born and brought up in different African countries, many of them with no knowledge or experience of the other country, can neither vote nor be voted for in many countries of birth. Elections are supposed to be exclusively 'for indigenes' but even among the so called 'indigenes' the right to participate is often limited to voting for those Nigerians called 'sons of the soil' (and they are always 'sons' because patriachy disempowers women in land and other property). So somebody of Igbo ancestry may vote in Lagos, but he or she will face enormous prejudice if he or she decides to stand for public office because, despite being a melting pot of all kinds of peoples including other West Africans and descendants of freed slaves from Brazil, somehow Lagos is still believed to be a Yoruba place, and has to be represented by 'proper Yoruba' . The ridiculous thing about this narrow indigeneity is that an overwhelming majority of the Yorubas who now claim Lagos as theirs were migrants from other parts of the Yoruba inter-land! Similarly if someone of Yoruba or Igbo origin, no matter how distant, decides to become governor or legislator in Kano (another city built out of free flow of peoples from all corners of the Sahel and Nigeria, and also Arabia due to the trans-Saharan trade), he or she will be reminded that he/she does not belong.

In Kenya, where I now reside, there is by far greater excitement, speculation and confidence among Kenyans about the chances of Barrack Obama winning the Democratic nomination and proceeding to becoming the first Black President of the USA than you will find among American voters themselves. All because his late father was a Kenyan. But ask the same Kenyans about the chances of Raila Odinga, a frontrunner for the presidential candidature of the opposition ODM-Kenya, many of them will declare bluntly: no way, he can't make it, he is Luo. But so was Obama's father, therefore Barrack is, by our immutable patriarchal genealogy, a Luo. Why are we enthusiastic about a Luo man becoming the president of the USA, but give no chance to a fellow Luo who wants to be president of Kenya where majority Luo people reside? It is alright in America, but somehow not kosher here in Kenya. If Obama does not get the nomination many Africans will put it down to racism. So what is it when we discriminate against fellow Africans in countries where the bulk of the population are Africans?

Part of the excuses (not explanations, mark you) you get when discussing the Raila presidential ambitions is that he comes from a minority ethnic group and that there was no way the majority Kikuyu will allow it. In the same breath you will be assured that whoever Raila supports may win. So you get this contradictory position of Raila (and Luos) forever playing the role of kingmakers, never to be kings themselves.

A situation whereby whole groups of fellow citizens are reduced to playing second class roles cannot lead to a viable democratic society. If you ask many Nigerians about the chances of someone from the oil-producing Niger Delta becoming president of the country they will give you all kinds of evasive answers. But behind it all is the unwritten law that the presidency of the country belongs to a certain dominant group, almost in perpetuity, despite the fact that these majority groups are parasites on resources that come predominantly from minority areas.

It is only when talking about oil that many Nigerians become very nationalistic, and accuse anyone who asks for sensitivity towards the people, from whose shores the Black Gold flows, of wanting to break up Nigeria. Some Nigerians even argue that the oil producing states already get more than enough share of the oil resources from the central government and challenged them to show what they have done with it.

The wider question is: what have the governments of Nigeria done with the resources of the country? If the leaders hah used the resources for the benefit of the great majority of the citizens, the issue will not have become as politicised and polarised as it has become. Of what value is being a Nigerian to most of the peoples in the Niger Delta who have continued to harvest death and destruction from the oil resources in their areas. It is dodging the question to accuse them of separatism. No country should be a catholic marriage, in which there cannot be the possibility of divorce.

The possibility of divorce does not mean that all marriages will end in one. What will make people voluntarily show their loyalty and commitment to any political community is their level of security, confidence and identification with it as stakeholders who know that the state will be there for them to protect them and defend their interests.

It is the absence of these that has made many of our states illegitimate in the eyes and practice of many Africans. And that is why every little thing threatens these states.

What can be done? We can not run away from the problems of citizenship on this continent anymore. As we discussed during the launch of the Citizenship Rights in Africa Initiative (CRAI) in Kampala recently, millions of Africans are today victims of the arbitrary denial of citizenship and consequent statelessness.

A situation in which Africans with non-African citizenship can feel more secure and exercise full rights of political participation in their adopted countries than in many of our countries has to be reversed immediately.

To return to the case of my daughters, the prejudices and discrimination they will face In many African countries may not just be because their parents were residents, or settlers. The fact of both of their parents coming from different countries will not be a bonus, but another disadvantage. They may not have automatic right to their mother's citizenship. In fact in some countries their mum may not take them to her home country without their father's 'permission' because the father 'owns' the children!

Many African women married to other Africans from different countries suffer discrimination both ways: punished for not marrying wisely! At home they will foreignise them, and in the country of their husbands, they remain foreigners. Show me any country in Africa where a Sonia Ghandi could be leading even a minor political party, no matter who her husband may have been.

The first thing we need to do is to reconcile our states to the diversity of our peoples by giving African citizenship to all Africans wherever they may be.

I know that a number of questions will be posed, the principal one being 'who is an African?' A simple answer will be any citizen of any African country no matter how that citizenship was acquired including ancestry, indigeneity, settlement, marriage, naturalisation and any other legally recognised means. Another question will be 'where does the African diaspora come in?' They will qualify under ancestry but also voluntary naturalisation.

Some countries have adjusted to granting dual or multiple citizenship, but only for remittance purposes in most cases. Because of the growing role that remittances from Africans abroad play in holding families and communities together, many countries now recognise the right of their citizens to have other citizenship, therefore abandoning the previous ‘either’ ‘or’ exclusion. But even here, there is a catch: dual citizenship is often assumed to be one of African citizenship and a European or north American one. For someone like me who was born Nigerian and have had a Ugandan passport for more than ten years, there were always suspicions among immigration and security officials. Somehow it is alright for an African to hold Western passports but deemed 'odd' to be a dual African citizen. This further goes to prove that we continue to treat ourselves as foreigners.

The granting of African citizenship will not automatically solve all the problems of ethnicity, racism, exclusionism and intolerance. What it will set is a new and more inclusive legal and political framework for us to deal with these problems as equal members of a shared political community without anyone of us feeling superior or inferior, or at the mercy of other citizens. It will be like being members of the same family. No matter how much you may dislike your brother or sister, cousin or uncle, when it comes to family affairs you all have equal right of participation. There is an African saying that no matter how close a friend may be, the day we want to worship our ancestors he or she has to excuse himself or herself.

Whatever problems there may be, we can then resolve them among ourselves. And if we cannot, we will learn to understand and manage them without the threat of opponents being foreignised and declared stateless.

Any serious talk of building a United States of Africa that does not begin from this fundamental reconfiguration of our legal and political status within such a state will be doomed from the start. The continuing challenges to regional and continental integration for the past 50 years since independence from colonialism largely stem from the anomaly of seeking to unite our artificial states while keeping our peoples apart.

In West Africa, which has had free movement for three decades, it is still common to find citizens of other West African countries 'deported' and routinely harassed and victims of extortions by various security, intelligence and immigration officials at various border points and inside West African countries.

The problem is not with the right to move freely but the lack of political will to take further complementary steps to make regional citizenship real for the peoples of the region. These will include faster progress on regional liberalisation and harmonisation of trade, financial and commercial transactions within the region. In spite of free movement market traders, the famous West African market women, who keep their families, communities and the whole region going through their micro enterprises are still subjected to all kinds of extortion at border points in a way that criminalises intra-regional trade. Instead of saluting and encouraging these 'cross border' traders as the Pan Africanist entrepreneurs that they are, we criminalise them as 'smugglers' and euphemistically call their exchanges 'informal sector' , 'second sector' or 'parallel market'.

Yet the truth is that the majority of our peoples survive directly or indirectly in these sectors. Any Pan Africanist economist who is not allowing theory to confuse him or her can easily see that this is the real African economy. It is the state sector that needs to give way to the real thing and find ways of collecting the taxes that are currently going into private pockets at our various corruption extortion posts called borders.

The East Africa Community in its steady march towards the creation of a federation seem to be unlearning some of its own previous effort and learning well from the challenges in the ECOWAS region. It is merging freedom of movement with complimentary whittling down of barriers to trade, finance and commerce and removing all kinds of unnecessary bureaucratic bottle necks. For instance, a visa for non community citizens and residents to one of the countries is now valid for re-entry from all the three countries and very soon Rwanda and Burundi too. It also has a legislative Assembly and regional court that are potentially more powerful than what is available in the ECOWAS and also the Pan African Parliament.

If the leaders of Africa want to be taken seriously and silence the cynicism that has continued to dominate any discussion about the African Union, they need to demonstrate they have the required political will and are ready to use them to deliver a truly people-driven union.

One major area that will affect everybody immediately and transform people's perception is guaranteeing full citizenship rights to all Africans with its complimentary freedom to move, settle, work and participate in the political processes anywhere they may be. This will mean that we cease to require dehumanising visa regimes that make it almost impossible to travel legally across the continent. Pan African trade will no longer be criminalised as 'smuggling'.

It means the Pan African Parliament should be given full legislative powers and its elections can be held on a Pan African adult suffrage. Pan African Affairs will no longer be in Foreign Affairs but become part of the domestic political contestations. Africans will no longer be undesirable 'aliens' across Africa. The humiliation of beings 'others' in Europe and treated as 'others' at home will be ended. And we can all arrive at border posts with pride at the welcoming notices proclaiming 'Africans this way' and 'Others...this way'!

This will put African people at the centre of the 'Grand Debate', instead of them being cynical observers, as many are at the moment, or, worse still, completely unconcerned.

*Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the deputy director of the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He is also General Secretary of the Global Pan African Movement, based in Kampala, Uganda. He writes this article in his personal capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.

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

While the futuristic idea of an African superstate is a necessary and desirable alternative to the contemporary reality of an Africa of states, the political union of African states can only come to fruition if the lessons of the OAU’s failures are fully mastered. The AU will continue in the foreseeable future to be an important vehicle for addressing the continent’s numerous projects, argues Kwame Akonor. But the AU cannot empower and develop Africa, nor guarantee Africa’s collective security or provide a common platform for Africa’s collective diplomacy, if the AU remains the way it is today.

'A bunch of broomsticks is not as easily broken as a single stick' – African proverb.

As the African Union (AU) enters its fifth year of existence, it is rather fitting that it has devoted its annual summit to be a 'Grand Debate on the Union Government'. Since its inception on 9 July 2002, at Durban, South Africa, there have been conflicting perspectives on the AU’s role in Africa’s development. Africa’s political elite, and supporters of the AU, generally argue that the new institution would enhance the economic, political and social integration and development of African people. A great deal of Africa’s civil society however are not so optimistic: they perceive the AU as a mere continuation of the Organization of African Unity (OAU) under a different name.

This essay argues that while the futuristic idea of an African superstate is a necessary and desirable alternative to the contemporary reality of an Africa of states, the political union of African states can only come to fruition if the lessons of OAU’s failures are fully mastered.

At the heart of the OAU’s failings was not so much a structural as an ideological shortcoming. The OAU lacked a cohesive ideology that could provide the proper situational interpretation of the African context. Ideologies not only rationalise and explain the reasons for a given situation; they also provide strategies toward future goals. (Zartman, 1966, p. 38). What the OAU lacked then was an ideology capable of rationalising and explaining Africa’s balkanisation, dependency and underdevelopment, and an ideology capable of providing strategies that would guarantee and enhance Africa’s power, prestige and progress in the postcolonial era.

Which ideology is capable of filling this vacuum? Pan-Africanism! Ofuatey-Kodjoe (1986) defines Pan-Africanism as an ideology with a cognitive component that recognises all African peoples, both in Africa and the diaspora, as being of one folk or nation, as a result of a shared cultural identity, a shared historical experience, and an indivisible future destiny (p. 391). And he goes on to argue, that the most fundamental goal of Pan-Africanism is the commitment to the collective empowerment of African peoples, wherever they are (p. 391). Thus, it must be quickly added that calling oneself Pan-Africanist does not make one so, and being of African descent does not automatically make a person a Pan-Africanist. Indeed, most of the OAU founders of yesteryear, and the AU founders of today, label themselves Pan-Africanist, without any appreciably clarity and commitment to the ideology of Pan-Africanism.

By rejecting the brand of Pan-Africanism advocated by the Casablanca group, the OAU at its birth, consciously or not, gave its blessings to the colonial political and economic formation - together with its ideological and cultural systems. Indeed, the final curse of African independence, and the OAU’s ascendancy, was that it solidified the balkanisation and dependency inherited from colonialism. The problem was compounded when the Casablanca group rather than opting out of the OAU decided to remain in it, perhaps for fear of isolation. Ghana’s Nkrumah, a staunch advocate of the Casablanca thinking, on arrival from the OAU’s inaugural summit even remarked triumphantly that 'the political unification of the African continent, my lifelong dream, is finally here'. (cited in Rooney, 1988, p. 223).

But of course, this was not the case; his Pan African ideal of a continental African government had been soundly rejected. And it also did not help much that none of the 22 countries, newly independent since the OAU’s founding, refused to join. Some newly independent countries joined the OAU merely for geographic reasons, well aware of the organisation’s impotence. Eritrea, OAU’s last but one newest member, when joining the OAU in 1993 declared: 'we are joining the OAU not because of your achievement, but because you are our African brothers (Afeworki 1993). According to Eritrea’s Issaias Afeworki, membership of the OAU was 'not spiritually gratifying or politically challenging [because] the OAU has become a nominal organization that has failed to deliver on its pronounced goals and objectives'. (Afeworki 1993). Nevermind that the OAU had failed to support Eritrea’s bloody 30-year struggle for independence (the continent’s longest civil war) from Ethiopia, incidentally the seat of the OAU headquarters.

Not surprisingly, the OAU became a geographical entity with no geopolitical weight. It forged a unity that further deepened the political marginalisation, economic dependence, and cultural doubt of the continent; the very antithesis of Pan-Africanism. The lesson here is that a union cannot be effective without ideological uniformity or unity of purpose. For while it is necessary for all Africa and Africans to unite, there is no point to this project if the result is a united Africa with divergent and confusing perspectives on the goals of unity, or a united Africa where consensus on a shared African worldview is elusive.

From a Pan-Africanist perspective therefore, it is better to have a united, empowered and independent Africa, comprising some African states, rather than to have a united, but weak and dependent Africa, comprising of all African states.

The old patterns persist

Unfortunately, like the OAU before it, an overwhelming majority of the AU’s founding members, eschew any genuine commitment and seriousness to the Pan-African ideal of an empowered African superstate that would increase the capacity of Africans to take direct control of their destinies. The preference for the status quo was made apparent during the Sirte Summit in September 1999, when African leaders, once again, retreated from the continental government thesis. While Libya’s Qathafi (1999) argued passionately for a transformative entity, in the form of a confederation of African states, as a ‘historical solution’ to the continent’s numerous problems, an overwhelming number of his fellow African leaders remained deeply skeptical about his vision of a ‘United States of Africa’.

Qathafi’s plea that African leaders 'give up a little bit of their sovereignty in the interests of the whole of Africa' was not even entertained as a realisable goal (Pompey 2000; Rosine 1999). The leaders of Egypt, Kenya and Uganda spoke for many when they said publicly that the idea of an African superstate was premature (Kipkoech 1999; Rosine 1999). Granted, Qathafi’s Arabic persuasion may predispose him to use non-African cultural perspectives, rather than an African centred paradigm, as a basis for defining a better world vision. Be that as it may, his call for an African superstate, like that of the Casablanca bloc of the 1960s, is a central pan-africanist strategy to achieving collective power in the contemporary international system.

Needless to say, the AU that was created has limited authority and coercive powers capable of changing the behavior of member states. Furthermore, since its ideological underpinnings does not promise the eventual collective acquisition of power, the AU cannot be expected to significantly transform the lives of Africans for the better. When we consider the AU’s current efforts in the areas of security, economics, and politics, it becomes obvious, but not surprising, that these are contrary to the fundamental goal of Pan-Africanism.

In the area of security and the preservation of peace, the formation of a single African High Command is considered central to the fundamental Pan-Africanist objective of collective empowerment. First, it is logical from a Pan-Africanist perspective to have one army to manage conflicts on the continent and to maximise the power of Africa, relative to other actors, in the international system. Africa has a combined 3,500,000 men and women in its armed forces, a number that any power bloc would be forced to reckon with. Secondly, an African High Command would help to reduce the military expenditures of individual African countries and divert such expenditures to much needed social services. Taken together, African countries spend in excess of US$20 billion annually on the military. A significant reduction in such spending would result if Africa had an efficient joint force and a central command. However, Muammar Al Qathafi’s call, since 1975, for abolishing national armies to create a single African army has been constantly rebuffed by his counterparts. The last time his idea was rebuffed was at the AU’s extraordinary summit in March 2004.

At this summit, a watered down version of Qathafi’s single army proposal, based on the maintenance of each African state's independence and sovereignty, was created instead. The creation of the African Standby Force (as this force is known) represents a marked departure from the OAU days. However there are numerous problems with its structures, important amongst these are: the lack of mechanisms to counter unilateral action of strong member countries; the non-veto power decision making structure; and the selection and inclusion of conflict prone countries as force members. Egyptian Foreign Minister, Ahmed Maher, later told reporters after the AU Summit that delegates rejected the Qathafi’s proposal because 'Africa is not ready yet for this [single African army] idea' (quoted in Pitman 2004).

Regarding economics, the strategies and programs pursued by the AU and its member states indicate continued reliance on international capital and the uncoordinated development of individual national economies. No real attempt has been made to achieve continental African economic unity despite the obvious economic wisdom of such an approach. The observation by Green and Seidman (1968), almost four decades ago, is still true today:

'Africa as a whole could provide markets able to support large-scale efficient industrial complexes; no single African state nor existing sub-regional economic union can do so. African states cannot establish large-scale productive complexes stimulating demand throughout the economy as poles of rapid economic growth because their markets are far too small. Instead the separate tiny economies willy-nilly plan on lines leading to the dead ends of excessive dependence on raw material exports and small scale inefficient ‘national factories’ at high costs per unit of output. Inevitably, therefore, they fail to reduce substantially their basic dependence on foreign markets, complex manufactures and capital.' (Green and Seidman, 1968, p. 22)

It should be noted that the specific economic policies pursued by the majority of African states are determined largely by the International Monetary Fund and other international financial institutions (IFIs), who demand explicit commitments from governments to implement remedial policies that the IFIs deem essential to the continued disbursement of loans. The impact of these structural adjustment conditionalities, while mostly negative, compromises the economic autonomy of African countries.

The AU’s economic blueprint, the New Partnership for Africa’s Development (NEPAD 2001) does not veer off the path traveled by the individual African member states: it too sees international capital and the separate development of national economies as a panacea. NEPAD has serious flaws, too many to list here (for a concise critique, see Taylor and Nel 2002).

From a Pan-Africanist viewpoint however, NEPAD’s biggest failing is that it does not sufficiently recognise African peoples as partners for, and of, development. As it stands now, NEPAD is an appeal to the goodwill and benevolence of the industrialised countries for aid and investment. Even so, NEPAD is an elite driven process that provides no means for mobilising the African masses for real development. The AU’s interest in securing international capital and maintaining neo-colonial relationship with the West, (rather than pursuing genuine inter-African cooperation), led the authors of NEPAD to consult first with the G8 industrialised countries, before African governments had had a chance to discuss it amongst themselves and with their own people. There is even talk of constructing a tunnel linking Africa with Europe.

Senegalese President Abdoulaye Wade (2002), one of the authors and spokesperson for NEPAD has said: 'NEPAD plans to construct a tunnel linking Africa to Europe under the Mediterranean Sea from the northern tip of Algeria through to Gibraltar.'

What about a much needed railroad or highway linking the continent, from Algiers to Antananarivo? The fact that NEPAD was conceived by a small group of African leaders, without any input from the masses, coupled with the rush to the G8 (G8 2002) for the programe's endorsement, made several AU leaders question the wisdom of the entire enterprise. One such critic was Gambia’s president, Yahya Jammeh, who said: 'People are sick and tired of African beggars. Nobody will ever develop your country for you. I am not criticising NEPAD, but the way it was conceived to be dependent on begging' (Lokongo 2002, p. 18).

Needless to say, NEPAD, as presently constituted, has the potential of dividing, not unifying, Africa: The G8, on which the AU relies for the programme's major funding, has already made it clear that it would only help African countries 'whose performance reflects the NEPAD commitments' (G8 2002). Western nations can thus pick and choose which AU member states are deserving of assistance, and those that are not. The overall effect would not be a stronger Africa. At best, it would reward individual African countries for good behaviour. Thus one cannot expect NEPAD to transform Africa from its disarticulated, dependent and underdeveloped status.

When it comes to politics, it has been established that the AU’s founding majority has no desire for a supranational political entity that would lead to a full and complete African unity. Africa today therefore does not have one state to represent it or a single voice to articulate its concerns in the international system; hence no power. Also, the political map of African remains a sacred cow despite the fact that Africa’s 165 demarcated borders (the world’s most fragmented region) have in of themselves become the basis of many African conflicts. Unfortunately, Article 4(b) of the AU Constitutive Act, like Article 3(3) of the OAU charter before it, affirms these colonial demarcations.

The AU should amend the principle of inviolability of the colonial borders and negotiate new boundaries that have more meaning for Africans. It must be borne in mind that the carving up of Africa in 1884 was not meant to unify, but rather to divide the continent. These are by no means easy political choices, but African leaders have to confront them before any real chance of optimising Africa’s power can be realised.

Politically, it seems what binds the AU is a professed commitment to democracy and good governance. Even on this score, the AU’s efforts so far have, at best, been confused. This is because the AU has no established criteria on what constitutes ‘good governance’ or ‘democracy’, beyond the minimalist procedural requisites of free and fair elections.

At its inaugural launch in July 2001, the AU barred Madagascar from the new organisation and refused to recognise Ravalomanana as Madagascar’s new president, citing the contentious nature of the elections and the unorthodox way Mr. Ravalomanana consolidated his 'victory'. The AU maintained that it would admit Madagascar only if fresh presidential elections were held. That the AU showed resolve early, on a key principle on which it was founded is noteworthy. But it appears, in this particular case, that the resolve shown was not carefully thought through. Madagascar’s Supreme Court ruling that Ravalomanana’s victory and government were legitimate, coupled with dissent among AU members on the issue, should have given the AU pause and deep reflection on its decision.

Not long after AU’s decision, several African countries (Senegal, Burkina Faso, Mauritius, Libya and the Comoros islands) broke ranks with the AU and endorsed Ravalomanana’s government – so much for Africa speaking with a single voice! The AU did a face saving U-turn and recognised Ravalomanana the following year, a move which no doubt has cost AU some credibility, especially since no new presidential elections were held.

In any case, on the democracy question, the AU does not have much credibility to begin with: African leaders do not easily give up the reins of power, and represent some of the world’s longest-serving presidents. The following sample proves the point: Gabon's Omar Bongo Ondimba has been at the helm of his nation for 40 years. Libya has been under Muammar Al Qathafi for 38 years. Angola’s Jose Eduardo dos Santos has 28 years under his belt. Zimbabwe’s Robert Mugabe has been in power for 27 years.

If the AU were serious about democratic values and good governance, membership of that body should not have been automatic, but rather, granted on merit or a set of political criteria. For example, the basic membership prerequisites of the European Union (after which the AU is modelled) has three basic thematic criteria - political, economic and institutional - also known as the Copenhagen Criteria), where the political criteria directs the applicant country to achieve stability of its institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities.

What the AU needs now is clear and consistent guidelines on what it considers to be the consent of the governed and enforcement mechanisms to ensure strict compliance. Ideally, the democratic principles advocated must be compatible with the values and practices of the African society.

More than Pan-Africanism

Aside from the lack of, and/or commitment to, a transformative and empowering ideology based on Pan-Africanism, the OAU did not flourish, due to operational failures caused by a lack of popular legitimacy, administrative bottlenecks and financial stress. I will only discuss here the issue of popular legitimacy.

A major hurdle to the OAU’s efficacy was that it was a state-centric elite political organisation that did little to involve the average African in its operations and decision making. Consequently, it had a flag and an anthem that no one saluted or recognised, and an Africa Day that was hardly celebrated.

As indicated, the AU promises citizen involvement and participation. Especially the Pan African Parliament (PAP) holds promise of broadly representing the African citizenry. Though in its first five years of existence, the Pan African Parliament is to have advisory and consultative powers only. A lot more can be done to make it an effective body by 2007, when it assumes legislative functions.

First, the PAP representation should be broadened with respect to gender, the African diaspora constituency and cross-national party coalitions. The seat currently allocated to women members in the PAP now stands at 20 per cent. This can be said to be a good beginning, however, there is room for improvement as this 20 per cent quota is 10 per cent less than that which the Fourth UN Conference on Women urged as minimum for women parliamentarians. While it is true that representation of women in African national parliaments is scarce, it is not unreasonable to increase their quota, especially if we consider the fact that African women hold the keys to Africa’s overall development.

Next, is the issue of diaspora representation. Following a proposal by the Senegalese government that diaspora Africans be considered the 'Sixth Region' of Africa, the AU has been working on the institutional development of the African diaspora in organs. This is a move in the right direction, toward the pan-africanist goal of an empowered African collective at the global level.

The challenge the AU faces is to clearly define the criteria for membership of the African diaspora, its rights, duties and privileges. The African diaspora constituency must be accorded real and tangible (and not merely symbolic) membership. Their representation in the PAP will signal that the AU is serious in its efforts to integrate the continent and the diaspora.

A final area where PAP representation can be made more inclusive is to provide mechanisms that allow the development of continent-wide political groupings, as opposed to national parties now envisaged for the PAP. Should this occur, the PAP members could form coalitions along ideological and tactical directions such as workers, pan-Africanists, liberals, socialists, conservatives etc.

Conclusion

The AU will continue, in the foreseeable future, to be an important vehicle for addressing the continent’s numerous projects. But the AU cannot empower and develop Africa, nor guarantee Africa’s collective security, nor provide a common platform for Africa’s collective diplomacy if the AU remains the way it is today: bereft of a genuine commitment to Pan-Africanism and an empowered African superstate.

Moving beyond this status quo would require, amongst other things, leaders who share a pan-Africanist commitment, and who are willing to engage the African citizenry in a search for solutions that preserves Africa’s independence and dignity: strategies which reflect Africa’s image and interests. As we have seen, much work must be done before the dream of the collective empowerment of all African peoples comes true; until then, the dream of African unity remains only a mirage.

(See for full list of references)

*Dr. Kwame Akonor is director of the African Development Institute (ADI), a New York based think tank that advocates self-reliant and endogenous development policies for Africa. He is also Assistant Professor of International Relations at Seton Hall University, and acting Chair of the Africana Studies Department. The full text of 'Stuffing Old Wine in New Bottles: The Case of the Africa Union' will be published in Africa in the 21st Century: Toward a New Future edited by Ama Mazama (Routledge 2007).
* Please send comments to [email protected] or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

I shall start with Annwen's contribution (which, by the way could also go to Tutu's successor's comments on the G8).

Thank you for all of these contributions they have encouraged and inspired me to write a few things which, I hope, can to this sort of live parliament of the people. It could also be a Shir or a Mbongi or a baraza or a plaver. In a sense, as we keep trying to say affirm who we are, one of our difficulties is that, now and then we keep (often unconsciously) borrowing from the very definitions which have come about through the very processes we are denouncing and condemning. Africa's 'discovery'/'definitions/anthropologisation/' of Africa has created, over time, a multiple battle front.

For the sake of simplicity, let us keep it at two: one against the enemy from outside and the other against the enemy from within. The 'discoverers' have kept destroying from without and from within. Their logic is quite coherent: destruction is only destruction if it is carried out by the Africans. Discovery is only discovery is it is done by the inaugural 'discoverers'. And with this kind of mindset other things are pushed through, such as the Enlightenment which, in terms of Africa, should be refered to as the darkest period of humanity (see Louis Sala-Molins' Les misères des Lumières, among others).

Nothingness shall only become something through the charitable works of reconstruction (Here we should revisit the US historical period referred to as The Reconstruction and see what it meant for the black population following the so-called abolition in 1865, itself the launching pad for the Prison Industrial Complex - see Angela Davies' Are Prisons Obsolete?

Charity and solidarity Out of capitalist destruction/reconstruction/destruction/reconstruction huge profits have been made and continue to be made. Tax laws allow charitable giving which are tax deductible and so, the richest foundations can be found in the countries which have been pushing suicidal, genocidal capitalism to its current limits of globalized destruction/discovery.

In Africa one of the most revered values is solidarity. There is a huge difference between solidarity and charity. Thanks to exchanges with Prof. Ernest Wamba dia Wamba, here are some of them: charity means, by definition submission and silence, contrary to solidarity which means, by definition equality and togertheness. Charity as an outcome of massive accumulation of wealth cannot but reproduce poverty.

One of the reasons why the G8 and their associates can only talk about poverty and its elimination and not do anything about its elimination comes from this every contradiction: the system in place has made them collectively rich, and any attempt to 'fix' it to help the poor would/could spell disaster for their own future. That is how they see it, but just like the whites under apartheid could not help but think as whites and not as blacks, they used their own logic to block the end of a system which was emprisoning them as well.

The mindset which has been built around charity has been devastating for those who have always adhered to the principles of solidarity.

Solidarity history versus the laundering of African history. This brings me to the piece by Wazir which I liked very much, but then, Wazir, I have to ask (I am assuming you are sitting in front of me) why did you leave Haiti out, with regard to the process of healing toward togertheness of all of the Wretched of the Earth. Cuba (which you mention) did in the 20th century what the Africans in Saint Domingue did in the 19th century. For the accumulators of dictatorial wealth, such trespassing ( i.e. doing the improbable, the impossible, the forbidden) must always be punished severely, individually and collectively. I am sure you noticed the pomp which surrounded the 2007 bi-centenary of abolition of the slave trade in London in March. That kind of celebration was principally aimed at showing off the high moral ground of the accumulators after they have consolidated and laundered their gains into an unassailable financial and economic system.

By now they have consolidated the mindset of this anonymous financial and economic system where no one and everybody is responsible, so to speak. This unassaiblable system has spawned ancillory structures like a so-called justice system which is deemed superior to anything which could be the alternative.

Thank you Robtel for your piece. I would add this. It is true that Gachacha originated in the world where solidarity dominated, but the resort by a state structure to Gachacha contains dangers and problems which should not be minimize. I also agree that TRC's are fundamentally flawed and should be replaced by processes which borrow from the spirit of healing solidarity so well described in Ayi Kwei Armah's novel Healers.

Thank you for your patience.

Nigeria's anti-graft agency has given 15 ex-governors wanted for corruption until the end of Friday to turn themselves in or face arrest. Five of the former governors have already been quizzed by the Economic and Financial Crimes Commission (EFCC), an official has told the BBC.

Niger’s government along with two United Nations agencies have called on donors and NGOs to restart assistance for education in Niger following a corruption scandal last year which led to the freezing of most funds. “[We] call on all development partners to pool their resources to improve access to quality education in Niger,” Niger’s ministry of education said in a joint statement with the World Food Programme and the UN Children’s Agency (UNICEF).

The Zimbabwe government's plan to change the Constitution ahead of 2008 elections undermines efforts to broker an end to political turmoil in the African nation, the country's main opposition leader has said. President Robert Mugabe's government has proposed a Bill that would pave the way for joint presidential and parliamentary polls next year and amend the rules for electing a new president should the post become vacant before an election.

Former United Nations chief Kofi Annan took the helm on Thursday of an alliance of African government and business leaders seeking to reverse a decline in the continent's agricultural output. Sub-Saharan African food production was declining year-on-year as a third of the continent's population suffers from hunger, Annan told reporters at the World Economic Forum on Africa in Cape Town.

Various civil society groups in Nigeria have raised the need to look critically at available infrastructure in the African continent before a consensus is reached on the formation of an African Union Government or a United States of Africa.

This was raised at a recent one-day roundtable organised by ActionAid, Nigeria in Abuja. Participants at the roundtable, who were drawn from the civil society organisations, media, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, the Labour Movement, the academia, ECOWAS, the private sector and other stakeholders, noted that the United States of Africa is a desirable vision.

Ghanaian civil society groups have proposed the setting up of a legislating African Parliament directly elected by universal suffrage based on proportional representation as one of the means of establishing and consolidating United States of Africa.

The convener of Ghana- African Union Civil Society Coalition, Emmanuel Akwetey, on behalf of the coalition, also proposed the expansion of the Executive Council of the African Union to include chairpersons of the ministerial conferences.

Experts from the 53-member African Union met in Addis Ababa Monday to work on precisely marking out Africa’s borders by 2012, officials said. “The time has come to properly and accurately delineate borders in Africa,” the bloc’s Peace and Security Council (PSC) Commissioner Said Djinnit told AFP. “A precise and proper demarcation of the borders will be the cement of integration in Africa.” African borders drawn by colonialists often split ethnic groups between countries, as well as sparking conflict over access to resources and other feuds. The two-day talks were to be followed by a ministerial meeting on Thursday.