By Kofi Akordor
When the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) decided to transform itself into the African Union (AU) questions were raised as to whether it was going to be a mere change of name or a change in direction.
When the baptism which transformed the OAU into the AU came in July, 2002 in Durban in the Republic of South of Africa, many Africans welcomed the birth of the new union, more so, when it made democratisation , good governance and economic development its cardinal objectives.
With the mandate of ridding the continent of the last vestiges of colonialism and dismantling apartheid in South Africa accomplished, many were of the opinion that the new challenges confronting the continent were the consolidation of democracy and the setting of a development agenda to move the continent from its under-development status to a more prosperous one to reflect its abundant natural resources.
There were doubts, however, in the ability of the AU to live up to its objectives, taking into consideration the fact that it had and still has on its roll leaders who were not democratically elected and who have been in power for decades.
One prominent name is that of Colonel Muammar al-Gaddafi, the man who came to power in 1969 through a coup d’état but was instrumental in the transformation process. Others were Hosni Mubarak of Egypt and Omar Bongo of Gabon who are now history and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Paul Biya of Cameroun who are still in the saddle.
With such characters still at the helm of affairs, there were serious doubts about the union’s ability to fulfil its mandate of building a strong democratic system on the continent.
So the immediate challenge was how the AU could phase out the old dictators and supplant them with new democratically elected leaders. Granted that this could not be achieved overnight since the AU was up to overthrowing governments, the benefit of doubt had to be ruled in its favour.
However, what was expected immediately of the AU was strength of power to give Africa a voice in the international community. The continent had remained a pawn in the super-power rivalry for a very long time and it was the wish of many that with the end of the Cold War and the realignment of powers, the continent will have its own voice heard on major international issues, especially those that concern it directly.
Unfortunately events following the transformation proved that the continent was not ready to speak with one voice or act decisively on matters that undermine its democratic principles, if any.
More dangerous was the AU’s continued subservient role in international affairs, especially when it needs to assert its independence and choice of direction.
In August, 2003 West African leaders, under the auspices of ECOWAS, the sub-regional body, brokered a peace deal for Liberia, under which the then President, Mr Charles Taylor, was to vacate the Executive Mansion in Monrovia and take a diplomatic refuge in Nigeria.
Charles Taylor, it must be understood, was not a fugitive, neither was he a criminal but, as a matter of principle and mutual arrangement, was to step aside if that would pave the way for peace in Liberia.
True to expectation, Liberia enjoyed relative peace after 14 years of civil war and created the platform for the establishment of an interim government under Mr Gyuda Bryant. This was followed by a general election in which Mrs Ellen Johnson Sirleaf was declared the winner.
In June, 2003 the UN Special Court on Sierra Leone indicted Charles Taylor for his role in that country’s civil war. On March 17, 2006, President Sirleaf, who benefited most from Charles Taylor’s resignation and going into exile, made a formal request for his extradition, which was granted by the Obasanjo administration on March 25, 2006.
On March 29, 2006, Charles Taylor was arrested while trying to cross the border into Cameroun and flown to Freetown and later handed over to the UN Special Court on Sierra Leone. Charles Taylor is still on trial in The Hague for crimes against humanity among other charges.
That singular betrayal has exposed AU’s weakness and undermined its capacity and ability to handle affairs of the continent and give any form of respectability to a continent that had remained an appendage of foreign powers.
Having been emboldened by the Charles Taylor case, the UN International Criminal Court again indicted Sudanese President, Omar al-Bashir, and issued an international warrant for his arrest. Nobody will praise Charles Taylor for the role he played in the conflicts in both Liberia and Sierra Leone; neither shall any close observer gloss over President al-Bashir’s handling of the Darfur conflict, but should that be the business of foreign powers to stay aloof and only criminalise African leaders.
In January there was a stand-off in Cote d’Ivoire, when incumbent Laurent Gbagbo refused to hand over to Alassane Ouattara, who was declared the winner of the November polls by the international community.
Again both ECOWAS and the AU failed to act decisively, paving the way for foreign powers, led by France, to push aside Gbagbo by use of force.
In March, when internal discontent started to mount in Libya, one would expect the AU to step in and take control of affairs. Again it failed and allowed France and the US to marshal their NATO members to launch an attack on Libya on the pretext of protecting civilian lives.
One would ask: Are those dying every day through the bombardment of Tripoli and other Libyan towns and cities, in the definition of NATO, camels or sheep? NATO and France in particular have succeeded in dismembering Libya because the AU failed to act with authority when it mattered most.
With similar impunity, the ICC has issued an arrest warrant for al-Gaddafi for genocide. Gaddafi and all other dictators on the continent have outlived their usefulness and the earlier the AU is bold to say so and dismantle them the better.
But until we do that, it is not the business of any foreign power to fight its own battles on the continent on the pretext of fighting for the interest of Africans.
The atrocities of the US and its allies in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan cannot be described and if leaders should be punished for bringing untold hardships to many civilians without any justification, the Presidents of US and other NATO countries should all be in The Hague by now.
The choice of Malabo, the capital of Equatorial Guinea, whose dictator, Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, has been ruling since August 1979, as the venue for this year’s AU Summit speaks volumes of the continental body’s inability to pursue its own agenda of democratisation of the continent.
But that should be our choice and the hypocrisy of the western powers should be snubbed. That was why if nothing at all, the call on AU members to disregard the ICC’s arrest warrant for Muammar al-Gaddafi is welcome news.
Some of us agree with AU’s Jean Ping, who told reporters that the ICC is “discriminatory” and only goes after crimes committed in Africa, while ignoring those committed by western powers in Iraq, Afghanistan and Pakistan.
The only way to avoid interference in what is purely regional matters is for the AU and other sub-regional bodies such as the ECOWAS to assert their independence and authority on continental matters.
fokofi@yahoo.co.uk
kofiakordor.blogspot.com
No comments:
Post a Comment