|
African integration can’t skip its five powerhouses
2007-05-18 08:59:37
By Mwondoshah Mfanga
During the fast-tracking exercise of the East African federation, there are many issues that have arisen, but at least two are of more significance than the rest.
One is the emergency of people who feel that achievement of an East African political federation is possible in the not so distant future.
This group believes that it is possible, perhaps to clinch the suggested political federation even without necessarily having to pass through the common market and economic union stages first.
This style is possible, and true examples cannot be drawn from far away. Tanganyika and Zanzibar offer such example, whereby the two countries united together politically and are gradually forging economic relations.
The other group of people is that which does not want to venture into any kind of federation until when the existing problems in each individual Eastern African countries are resolved.
This group, first talks of the political problems which exist in Uganda, where there is factionalism in the north with the Lords Resistance Army and the often clashes of the Karamoja with their neighbours.
The Buganda problem vis a vis the rest of society and the country`s oft involvement in home raids in the Congo is another fertile conflict area.
With Kenya, besides the often crashes with Somalia, those who advocate this group have it that tribal politics that at times erupt among some people and threaten to tear apart the society is the main problem.
Rwanda and Burundi are known for their inherent tribal clashes often resulting into unending skirmishes and out-fluxes of refugees to other countries.
As for Tanzania, whose leadership boasts the exising peace and stability in its land, still this group finds that there exist some problems.
It says Tanzanians fear that once there is federation and much of the land is not in private hands, there is a possibility for `foreigners` to `grab` it in the course of which conflicts might arise.
This group, therefore, advocates that if the federation is to come, then it should be after all these problems have been settled out in each state.
Whether time will be with East Africans until when all these problems are solved for the federation to be welcome, that remains a matter of concern to any regional integrationist.
But whether one is either in the first group or in the second one, for anybody who seriously wants regional integration in the African sense of the word, then such a process cannot skip four or five countries.
One is the Democratic Republic of the Congo which is the third in Africa in terms of size and first in terms of economic resources.
DRC which marked 10 years yesterday since Mobutu`s kleptocratic regime collapsed, has a population of about 60 million, but with massive unexploited resources ranging from diamonds to cobalt, gold to forests.
The other country is Sudan; Africa’s biggest, with many economic resources including oil and with a sizable skilled knowledge population.
The demerit about this country is the never ending political conflicts which exist simply because of the peculiarity of Sudan, but could be fizzled out in federated Africa.
South Africa is Africa`s powerhouse in terms of industrial development and technologically skilled population.
With its population standing at over 40 million and its relatively pronounced international posture, South Africa is a force to reckon with in the continent and can, therefore, help the continent look for viable integration solutions.
Lastly is Nigeria, which is the political and economic hub of West Africa.
With a population of about 140 million people and oil riches, its market size could be even bigger than that of the proposed East African federation.
The Southern African Development community, which embraces 14 countries at the moment, could thus be placed above the rest of all forms of regional integration in the continent because besides having a good number of states it embraces at least two of the three countries that are key for any meaningful African integration.
In SADC there is South Africa and the DRC, but the presence of Tanzania, Angola and Namibia, which are very resourceful countries, makes the body a relatively well meaningful integration than the rest.
There is the West African Economic Community, but has only Nigeria as a key country, which largely comes in at the market and not at the resource level.
There is much bickering that has been going on about the Common Market for East and Southern Africa (COMESA) that the integration is the biggest in terms of number of members and market size. This is neither here nor there.
It is true that COMESA is largest in terms of the number of members and market size, but that cannot justify the economic potentials of this loosely formed organisation, which has more to do with trade than realistic regional integration process.
Those who take the talk out and try to force the world to accept what they say about this or that in regard to this regional body, have a way in which they gain from the on-going processes.
Who knows that the COMESA was not coined to counteract SADC—which developed from efforts of the then frontline states?
It should be remembered that when the frontline states were in the process of liberating southern Africa in the sixties and seventies, the then US President Ronald Reagan came with a strategy called constructive engagement.
The late Mwalimu Nyerere, writing in a foreword of a book said Reagan`s strategy on Southern Africa was nothing but destructive engagement.
Could it be that some of the regional forms of integration taking place in Africa are nothing but acts of destructive engagement?
East Africans should be aware that while there are authentic efforts and intentions to forge a political federation then there is no reason for any dilly-dallying.
For what are considered to be problems existing in these countries that could possibly pose a threat to political federation they are not as preponderate as the real problems existing outside these countries—of exploitation by other countries and lost opportunities.
In fact some of the problems, like those found in Uganda, DRC, Rwanda and Burundi were caused and continue to be perpetrated by the outside world.
We should also not forget that with unity (federation), some of these problems that exist in individual countries could easily find solutions instead of a place in federated states.
That being the case, then there is no point why African states should be slow all the way in forging small regional entities while there is a possibility for forming bigger economic and political blocs in Africa now.
|
