Neo Simutanyi and Owen Sichone argue that Zambia's Ambassador to Libya, Mbita Chitala was fired for calling on African leaders to consider the immediate establishment of an AU government as opposed to the gradualist approach favored by the Zambian government.

On 31st January 2008 President Levy Mwanawasa dismissed Zambia's ambassador to Libya Mbita Chitala for having written an article entitled "The Federal Union of African States Must be Established Now" published by The Tripoli Post. The article written in a private and personal capacity is alleged to have caused 'untold embarrassment' to President Mwanawasa as it contradicted Zambia's position on the African Union (AU) government. It was further alleged that Chitala's article effectively undermined the candidature of Ambassador Inonge Lewanika who was vying for the post of Chairperson of the AU Commission.

On 7th February, 2008 Foreign Affairs minister Kabinga Pande said that the Zambian government was not opposed to the establishment of a United African States of Africa, but advocated a 'gradual and incremental approach' as opposed to the immediate establishment of an AU government. Further, Pande described Chitala's article as having been 'ill-informed, blatantly mischievous and very undiplomatic'.

It is important to look at Mbita Chitala's ideas on their own merit. People should not be cowed into silence by the fear of being dismissed from their positions by politicians. While it is understandable that President Mwanawasa has the right to hire and fire those he appoints, every human being has the right to think and express their views freely and there is no doubt as to which is the more important human right. It is surprising that Chitala is being forsaken even by some of his close friends who have distanced themselves from him. Some over-zealous ones, such as MMD spokesperson Benny Tetamashimba, have even called for his expulsion from the party. Is that how to treat our free and independent thinkers?

Chitala was fired for calling on African leaders to consider the immediate establishment of an AU government. But there was nothing dramatically new in his argument, it was first made by Kwame Nkrumah and other Pan Africanists long before Africans attained their independence. However, Chitala's article had an angry sense of urgency which many Africans frustrated by the inertia and lack of progress on the continent must be feeling. Indeed when one looks at the crises in Chad, Sudan, Kenya, Somalia and Zimbabwe and reads the critical audit of the AU by Professor Adebayo Adedeji's independent audit review panel one cannot help but feel that African leaders do not take the lives of their fellow citizens seriously enough.

It appears that President Mwanawasa did not accept that Chitala was writing in his own personal capacity and did not hesitate to sack him just as he did with former foreign minister Vernon Mwaanga and former Vice President Nevers Mumba for embarrassing him over foreign policy matters. Since the days of President Kenneth Kaunda, Zambian presidents have jealously monopolized foreign policy matters for fear of provoking hostility from neighbours, foreign powers and to protect their image abroad. It is not surprising therefore that no minister of foreign affairs has ever been allowed to become an authority in international relations, let alone an influential voice. It should be recalled that just before his dismissal Zambia was celebrating Chitala's successful mobilization of over $400 million of direct Libyan investment, in agriculture, tourism and manufacturing. We wonder what is more important to President Mwanawasa, obtaining direct foreign investment from Libya to serve the interest of Zambians or pleasing other heads of state. We are not sure whether Chitala's dismissal enhanced Inonge's chances of election or undermined them. Given the low number of votes Zambia received, it would appear that the country lacks sufficient clout to lobby support across the continent. What is clear is that President Mwanawasa demonstrated that he lacks the spine to defend individual rights of his citizens when they express personal opinions on intellectual issues and can easily be swayed by external forces.

Whatever Chitala's errors in diplomacy, we must not throw away the Pan-African baby with the ceremonial bathwater and we must not let the desire for African unity be championed only by Libyan President Muammar Gaddafi, who now appears to be reverting to Arab nationalism in his frustration with Africa. The issue of an African Union Government was agreed in principle at the July 2007 AU Accra Conference. What now divides African states is the speed of the implementation of this idea. At least seven countries, including Libya, Senegal, Liberia, Ghana, Ethiopia and Chad advocate for the immediate establishment of the AU Government. While the rest of African states led by South Africa, Nigeria and Kenya are for a gradual or snails pace approach. But what is wrong with the immediate establishment of African Union government by those who are ready and willing?

Why should African leaders be content with producing oil for America, copper for China and flowers for Europe? Why is it so difficult to imagine that Zambia might import oil from Angola instead of Kuwait or that Zambian copper can be used to make cables, pipes and sheets for the rest of Africa? African people are tired of being asked to produce visas each time they visit relatives across the colonial border. Does anyone seriously believe countries such as Nigeria can compete against India and China on their own?

Attempting to achieve economic integration before political unity is unsustainable and unworkable because the battle against neocolonialism is above all a political one. Whenever African states form a common market, European powers will always sponsor a competing development community causing duplication of effort and bureaucratic rivalries which do no serve the interests the African people. As it is, the continent is grouped into a myriad of regional economic communities with overlapping memberships and, in some cases, conflicting agendas. It is clear that the limited progress on economic integration in all but a handful of countries reveals the gulf between rhetoric and reality espoused by African leaders. We do not wholly agree with Chitala's proposition when he states in his article that the reasons for some countries, such as South Africa's opposition to political integration was based on the false assumption that they would 'on they their own develop to be sub- imperialist powers.' South Africa, for example, has not succumbed to European pressure on the war against Iraq and regime change in Zimbabwe. But it is true that instead of Africa having one permanent seat in the UN Security Council, we now have Nigeria, Egypt, South Africa and others wanting to be the special ones.

The call for the immediate establishment of the AU Government needs to be supported by all those who want to see African advancement. The argument for a 'gradual and incremental approach' only masks the real reasons for the opposition to the AU Government, which is the desire for personal glory and fame using the excuse of national sovereignty. It cannot be denied that an Africa divided will always play second fiddle, to Europe, America, India and China. Political unity is the only guarantee to Africa's economic success and this will require a political decision.

African leaders' self-interest and narrow nationalism and tribalism has largely been responsible for poverty, hunger and violence in many parts of the continent. We do not agree with Foreign Affairs minister Kabinga Pande's argument that African states, including Zambia, should first 'consult and popularize the concept'. This is an excuse meant to buy time as African leaders are not known to consult their people on any important matter, let alone foreign affairs.

The dismissal and public humiliation of Mbita Chitala despite his efforts to woo direct foreign investment to Zambia demonstrates a lack of appreciation of free and independent thinkers. Having expressed a personal opinion, Chitala did not deserve to be sacked in that manner for simply expressing an intellectual opinion on a matter of continental interest. His views did not affect the country to which he was accredited neither did they undermine Zambia's national interest.

In a democracy one should be free to argue one's case in a logical manner by using intellectual means of persuasion. To dismiss a public official for expressing a personal opinion condemns our public servants to silence and sycophancy and is an affront on the right to think and freedom of conscience. African leaders will need to develop a better appreciation of free and critical thinkers for the good of democracy.

*Neo Simutanyi is based at the Institute of Economic and Social Research, University of Zambia.
**Owen Sichone is Senior Lecturer in the Department of Social Anthropology at the University of Cape Town.
***Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org