|
AU summit: Why Gaddafi, Mugabe proposal merits attention
2007-07-03 09:29:08
By Ani Jozeni
Pressure is building in two directions as heads of state and government in the 53-nation African Union meet in Accra for its annual summit.
Unlike in the past where a number of African and global issues would be put on the table to find a common denominator, or rather a pulse that the African heart was also beating in world issues, this time there is progress that is supposed to be made.
The idea of forming the African Union was to get past the old routine resolutions without changing anything on the ground as to both Africa`s place in the world, and its capacity to get over with localized crises all across the continent. Its ability to take hold of situations has been jittery or scant.
Before the summit formally convened in the Ghanaian capital, unavoidably because this is the 50th year of the first independence realized in the continent, there was a much-discussed resolution reached between Libyan leader Col. Muammar Gaddafi and Zimbabwe President Robert Mugabe.
The two veteran revolutionaries urged that the summit reach a resolution for constituting at least in a preliminary way, an effective government for the AU member states as a whole, an idea that brought about howls of protest especially from West Africa.
They can partially be excused since Col. Gaddafi has been linked with unsavoury militia in virtually every part of the continent, to look that benign.
There was at least one weakness in the manner in which protest was being raised about the issue, in that it limited its objections to policies of Col. Gaddafi firstly, and secondly, appeared to project that this manner of doing things will be enhanced if such union government is reached, if partially.
Both these elements have their faults, since the chaos that exists in many tribally-ruled countries in Africa – or where the tribes are just islands speaking the same language and presumably the same denominations as in Comoros or Zanzibar opens up a vacuum.
They say in scientific cultures that `nature hates a vacuum,` and thus it isn’t surprising that Col. Gaddafi has often sought to fill vacuums.
Two types of power vacuums have existed and which the maverick Libyan leader has wished to fill, and in many cases whom he was trying to replace, namely a foreign-power related vacuum, or of ability to constitute effective local alliances.
When the French have found themselves too stretched to extend resources in say Chad or Central Africa, the Libyan leader has boosted resources available to rebels so that French power is replaced by extending lines of kindred political parties the way some people said a ‘Bahima Empire` was coming up in Central Africa.
It wasn`t quite the case, but the feeling of a power vacuum had enabled President Museveni to fill up part of the same.
Since Tanzanians are among the pointed critics of federation ideas, both in East Africa and apparently in the African Union Parliament where our own dear Getrude Mongella has presided for several years, it is well worth helpful to see if we have been filling no vacuums as well.
We indeed have, for instance in Zanzibar in 1964 where we took a large bit, somewhat chocking but a masterly played card, as we became the most visible example of Pan-Africanism at work.
We were much less successful with the intervention in Uganda, as what came out of it wasn’t cast in the same mold as the late Dr Milton Obote`s first government, but nevertheless a figure we had learnt to hate went out.
We weren`t very much involved in the fighting that removed an ailing Marshal Mobutu, as the Congolese media still refer in a rather fond manner to the old champion of `l`authenticite` or the cultural revolution.
But certainly `the man from the east` Laurent-Desire Kabila came from Tanzania, so when we start pulling the feet about federation and in a more relaxed sense, African Union government, is it because we don`t wish to stabilize the gains achieved against dictators and coup makers, or rather we wish to put up a dictatorship, or have some ideas about coups?
Can we be as Pan-Africanist as we used to be, and seek what is best for a war-ridden continent, and object to African Union?
Examining the situation all over Africa, the proximity of total state power within reach of a few dominant tribes has galvanized action for the four or five decades of independence, for instance Nigeria discovering oil in 1965 or just around that time, and two years later it is rent asunder in civil war.
Angola first had to come out of civil war fuelled by diamonds, and spent several more years enmeshed in corruption following calming down of fighting in the oil enclave of Cabinda, and rising oil prices beefing up the treasury.
Getting over the natural resource curse has proved impossible for most African countries, and here the Union will be in question if oil is discovered in Zanzibar shores.
Where there have been cases of electoral foul play for instance repeatedly in Zanzibar, and for Gawd’s sake nearly total incapability to organize fair polls in Nigeria as opposed to Kenya where Mungiki-like local militia clear ethnic groups tied to opposition parties and then the polls are transparent enough nothing can be done.
This sort of vote cheating, where the disgruntled party has the resources, can easily lead to intense disturbances, like the militant wing of the Civic United Front banging the door of a national governing council insisting they `get out of muafaka.`The point: ``Yusuf Makamba has put it squarely, the ruling party`s just playing with us; bring this matter into our hands.``
What is required in most African political systems is a higher judicial level where foul play could be recognized and remedies taken, and that would open up new found habits of playing electoral games democratically, for a decision by an African Court of Appeal could be effected by an African Union armed forces.
|
