African unity is the best protection the leaders of the continent can provide for its many millions in need, writes Curtis Doebbler* Nelson Mandela once said, "I dream of the realisation of the unity of Africa, whereby its leaders combine in their efforts to solve the problems of this continent." If the former South African president was watching the outcome of the recent African Union (AU) Summit of Heads of States and Governments that just ended in Kampala, Uganda he might have had nightmares. Most of Africa's 54 leaders attended the summit. Notable absentees, however, included Egypt's Hosni Mubarak, Sudan's Omar Al-Bashir, and Morocco's King Mohamed VI, the last because Morocco is currently the only major African country not a member of the AU. The theme of the summit, which was held in a closely guarded resort about 30 kilometres outside of Kampala for security reasons, was "Maternal, Infant and Child Health and Development in Africa". Despite the fact that a higher percentage of African women and children die within a year of childbirth than anywhere else in the world, this was not what everyone was talking about. Nor were the encroaching pressures of climate change chief on the minds of African leaders, despite the fact that tens of millions of Africans may perish if the international community continues to do too little to adapt to and mitigate the adverse effects of climate change that will befall Africans during this century. Instead, the agenda of the African summit appeared to be driven by Western concerns, some disguised in colourful African garb so as to make them more palatable to Africans. The summit began with a moment of silence where the gathered statesmen, and very few women, remembered the 76 people killed in two bomb attacks that have been attributed to the Somali Al-Shabab group. Heeding encouragement from Western governments, particularly the United States, African leaders declared a war on terrorism in language reminiscent of the frantic outbursts of US president George W Bush after the incidents in the US on 11 September 2001. The theme of saving the lives of millions of African women and children shifted quickly to one of battling terrorism. Instead of pledging much needed resources to ensuing safe pregnancies and vaccinations for children, African leaders pledged to send their youth into battle against terrorists in Somalia. In the rush to arms no one even hesitated long enough to point out that many of the so-called "Somali terrorists" are actually indigenous people who are fighting, they believe, to keep foreigners out of their lands. The West portrays groups like the Islamic Courts and Al-Shabab as fanatics so it can finance countries like Uganda, Ethiopia, Djibouti and Guinea to send their soldiers to fight against them. But what the West hates most is that these groups challenge economic business for the West. There could be no better indicator of this intention than the fact that the Western interest in Somalia happens to coincide with the upsurge of pirate attacks on the ostensible economic interests of the West and its partners in the Middle East and Africa. While security may well be a central responsibility of a country's government, it seems odd to focus on stopping bombs that kill dozens while diverting attention away from issues of women and children's health that may save millions. Libya's Colonel Muammar Gaddafi ironically emphasised this disconnect in his effort to focus the AU leaders' minds on African unity, flippantly saying of the summit's theme, "Maternity and infants? We are not UNICEF. Those things are UNICEF's job." Indeed, UNICEF is a US controlled UN agency that is led by a former US National Security advisor, Anthony Lake. Despite what appeared to be an odd soiree into geopolitics, the Libyan leader did seem to be trying to speak with a critical and concerned African voice when he offered $90 billion to the AU to work for African unity. The irony of the offer is that African unity is at the core of the AU's mandate, just like world peace is at the core of the UN's mandate or an individual's own welfare is a self-interest. In most cases, cash incentives are not necessary to encourage an organisation to act as it is mandated to, or to an individual to act in a way that benefits them. Perhaps insightfully, the Libyan leader saw this sad irony and decided to put his money behind the words that African leaders had agreed upon when they created the AU. In his characteristically flamboyant style, the African leader made this offer while lodging in the traditional Bedouin tent he pitches when he travels, and with dozens of young and old African tribal leaders who he had invited to accompany him to Kampala. But even with this entourage, other African leaders admitted that negotiations had to go to the 11th hour to get the point about African unity on the summit's agenda under the item "United States of Africa". While the Libyan leader seemed to be a real African voice that was speaking for African unity, there were also questions about how dependent this voice was on Western petro-dollars. Recently, Libya offered in excess of $2 billion to buy the assets of Shell Oil Company in 21 African countries. Some other African leaders did make modest gestures in the direction of weakening Western economic leverage on Africa by calling on African countries to seek greater investment from the East. China is increasingly seen as an African partner due to both its need to secure adequate natural resources for its own development, and the "Chinese approach" to African countries. While Western investors have a history of prescribing terms to African countries as a condition for exploiting their natural resources, Chinese investors ask African countries what they need and have made significant contributions to developing infrastructure in Africa. Nevertheless, replacing Western interests with other substantially non-African interests may merely create a new problem whereby Africans still lack adequate control over their own natural wealth. In 2001 when the Constitutive Act of the AU entered into force, the dream of African unity that was born in 1969 with the creation of the Organisation of African Unity seemed distant. Today, it is a vision fraught by political complexities that still make the realisation of a United States of Africa a lonag-term plan only. Some African leaders are sceptical about yet more "unions" in Africa. Part of their concern may well emanate from pre-colonial Africa. At this time, Africans did not recognise the European invention of the nation- state. Instead, the continent was divided into communities that co-existed with each other, often moving beyond borders and with an extraordinary diversity of cultures, ethnicities, languages and religions. As Africans were forced into the Western model of the state, both internal and external problems were created. Within Africa, peoples who had been part of the same community were separated by borders drawn up by Western governments and imposed on Africans as a condition of their emergence from colonialism. Sudan, for example, whose borders where drawn by the British, is a mix of more than 300 different religious, linguistic and ethnic communities, some of which are represented in other neighbouring countries. Ironically, when the Organisation of African Unity was created in the 1960s, one of its first acts was to recognise the principle of uti posseditis, the principle that borders existing at the time of independence from colonial masters where sacrosanct and would be henceforth recognised without dispute. Since creation, the Organisation of African Unity, and the AU that was formed from it, made varying attempts to unify Africa. At the ninth African summit held in Accra, Ghana in July 2007 discussions were to focus on the theme of "Grand Debate on the Union Government". The US government pre-empted the discussions by recruiting African scholars to argue against African unity on, among other grounds, the fact that Libyan leader Gaddafi was trying to become king of Africa. As if to jest at the insinuation, in 2008 more than 200 African traditional rulers conferred upon him the title "King of Kings of Africa", a title he frequently uses with pride to stress his commitment to African unity. The US and Europe, however, appear to have much larger concerns than a single African state challenging their way of life. Indeed, both are huge per capita resource consumers and need to ensure their supply of resources from Africa, which has the greatest abundance of natural resources in the world. Not only is it in their interest to see any projects for African unity fail, they also actively contribute to this. The commentator Lord Aikins Adusei recently noted in a piece for the African Executive magazine published in June 2010 that while most African leaders drag their feet, "Europe is strategising for the next phase of global politics that will centre on who controls what vital resources and in which area. This underscores why the US is seeking military bases in Africa." As a return to a free Africa of independent communities living without borders seems unlikely in our contemporary world, Africa's best opportunity to ensure its people survive and thrive is likely unity. Being able to speak with one voice will make Africa one of, if not the most powerful political leverage groups in the world. This leverage can be used to extract a fair price for Africa's priceless natural resources and to retain it human resources, the best and brightest of whom today go abroad. If the AU is to contribute to African unity, something that is its primary mandate, it must have the courage to stand up for African interests. This requires first and foremost agreeing to common African points of view by consensus, including what its priorities are. This 15th summit had an agenda that included 19 points, with sub-points accumulating to about 50 items that will have to be considered by African heads of states and government. Only one of these directly concerns African unity. This will need to change. Africans cannot afford to let others discuss their most pressing problems. Issues like the wellbeing of women and children, climate change, development peace and security are too important for Africans to leave to outsiders. Africa has the human and natural resources to resolve many of these problems. Moreover, when Africa needs assistance, this assistance should be given with account being taken of the historical injustices that have been done to the continent and its people by the US and Europe. Particularly the scourges of slavery, discrimination and exploitation should be redressed. African states should not be asking for handouts when they request financial resources from these countries. They should be demanding their share of wealth taking into account the historical injustices done to Africans. The AU should drive this process forward. Instead of focussing on Western driven processes, such as New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), which devours more significant resources than any other African project, the attention of African leaders needs to be focussed on unity. African unity is no longer a choice for Africa; it is what Africa's future depends upon. * The writer is a leading international human rights lawyer.
