THE AFRICAN UNION [AU]: AN OLD WINE IN NEW BOTTLE
Date Published: 11th September, 2024
Publisher: Information and Communication Ministry, EDUSA
By: Berray Sowe [Fourth year, Final Semester History Major- University of The Gambia and Current Secretary General of the 14th Executive Council of EDUSA]
September, 2024
As observed by the French critic, journalist, and novelist- Alphonse Karr- in 1849 in his journal ‘’Les Guepes’’, ‘’The more things change, the more they stay the same.’’ Whether this avouchment is entirely applied to all phenomena or not, the transformation of the Organisation of African Unity [OAU] into the African Union [AU] in 2002 and its subsequent effects exhibit some elements of Alphonse Karr’s paradox.
Historically, the Organisation of African Unity [OAU], which was formed on the 25th May, 1963 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, emerged as a continental body whose concept was a compromise between the ideologies of the Casablanca group [Radicals] led by Dr Kwame Nkrumah and the Monrovia group [Gradualists] directed by Julius K. Nyerere; it was what emitted from a tug-of-war between Continental Unity as advocated by the Casablanca Group and Individual State Independence as supported by the Monrovia Group.
Premised on seven principles- most of which selfishly safeguarded the sovereignty of each member state- as stipulated in Article 3 of its charter, the Organisation of African Unity aimed at promoting unity among member states [not building continental unity under one government as envisaged by Kwame Nkrumah], eliminate colonialism, and fight against Apartheid.
Institutionally, in order to attain its aims, the OAU established four major organs: the Assembly of Heads of State and Government, the Council of Ministers, The General Secretariat, and the Commission of Mediation, Conciliation, and Arbitration. These organs were charged with separate responsibilities for the smooth running of the continental body.
Successfully, after 39 years of existence, the Organisation was tangibly able to meet its aims of eradicating colonialism on the continent and ending Apartheid in South Africa; to some extent, it was also able to defend territorial sovereignty, settle boundary conflicts as well as establishing a framework for the suspension of military government. On the economic sphere, it registered meagre successes in formulating and harmonising economic policies, promoting continental economic freedom, and collaborating with other world economic institutions. While on the social arena, it tried to promote African culture and heritage, solutions were also offered to the problems of refugees.
On its weaknesses, OAU was faced by political instabilities such as coups and civil wars which enshrouded the African continent since the 1960s, retarding development of all forms. Also, it was encountered with myriad of social and economic problems, keeping the continent and its people in a state of abject poverty.
Necessarily, it was to fill in the gaps of its weaknesses coupled with emerging events within and outside the continent such as the end of the Cold War in 1992; the emancipation of South Africa from Apartheid in 1994; and the changes in international politics, that occasioned the entire refurbishment and transformation of the Organisation of African Unity into the African Union order to accelerate the political and socio-economic integration of the continent; enhance peace, security, and stability as well as social and cultural integration. These were ocularly spelt out in the Lome Constitutive Act of 2000.
Thus, this article x-rays, though not thoroughly, the transformation of the OAU into the AU and how the status-quo in Africa remains the same regardless of the changes in institutional names, organisational nomenclatures, etc., presenting the AU as ‘’Old Wine in new bottle’’ for over two decades now.
Launch on 9th July, 2002 in Durban, South Africa, the African Union, like its predecessor, was a body of garnered pieces of what spilled out from ideological dogfight between Libya, advocating for United State of Africa, and South Africa with Nigeria, calling for advancement of human rights, democracy and good government as well as African Renaissance.
Daniel Ghebremedhin in his thesis ‘’Is the African Union an Exact Replica of the Old OAU?’’, argued that The Organisation of African Unity (OAU) and the African Union (AU) have shared several weaknesses that have impacted their effectiveness in achieving their goals. Here are some paramount similarities in their weaknesses, which make the African Union exist like the old Organisation of African Unity.
Foremost, one of the major weaknesses that the AU shares with its predecessor, the old OAU, is lack of political will among its member states. There has often been a lack of political will among member states to fully commit to the objectives of both organisations. This has resulted in inconsistent participation and support for initiatives aimed at promoting peace, security, and development.
Second, both the AU and the OAU have Limited Enforcement Power; they have struggled with limited authority to enforce decisions and resolutions. The OAU often faced challenges in implementing its policies; similarly, the AU encounters difficulties in enforcing its mandates, particularly in conflict situations.
Going further, on the issue of Non-Interference and Interference Policies, the OAU and AU seem to be the same. The OAU’s principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of member states often obstructed its ability to address human rights abuses and conflicts. While the AU has adopted a more interventionist approach, it still encounters challenges in balancing respect for sovereignty with the need for intervention. The nascent political crises on the continent and AU’s impotency to fully intervene and arrest them are a conspicuous evidence that AU, like its predecessor, is weak in term of interference in the internal affairs of its member states.
In addition, Resource Constraints have been a common weakness that both organisations have faced. Financial and logistical constraints limit their operational capacity. The reliance on external funding has often affected their independence and ability to carry out initiatives effectively.
Moreover, bureaucratic inefficiencies such as slow decision-making process and lack of coordination among member states and institutions are shortcomings that both the OAU and AU have been criticised for.
Furthermore, both the OAU and AU have been characterised by fragmentation of efforts. Both organisations have sometimes struggled with fragmentation in their approaches to regional issues, leading to overlapping mandates and competition with regional organisations, which neutralise their effectiveness.
Still, in the area of conflict resolution mechanisms, while both organisations have frameworks for conflict resolution, they have often been criticised for their inadequacy in addressing ongoing conflicts and crises effectively.
Finally, dependence on external actors has weakened both the OAU and AU as they have relied on external partners for support in peacekeeping and development initiatives; this undermines their autonomy and leads to a lack of ownership of solutions.
Conclusively, while the AU has made significant strides in addressing some of the weaknesses of the OAU, many of the foundational challenges remain, impacting its ability to fulfil its mandates effectively. After twenty two of its transformation from the OAU into the AU, the African Union is yet to present an Africa that is home for the African as anticipated at its eve of transformation in 2002. This has tendered the conclusion that ‘’ The African Union is an Old Wine in New Bottle’’.
Article by: Berray Sowe