We write to request the help of your readers. Our project aims to ascertain the state of knowledge on Chinese Diasporas in Africa, focusing both on 'what is' and 'what will be'. We are keen to find out what knowledge exists around economic, social and political aspects of the Chinese diaspora and to determine what, if anything, key international agencies are doing to address this important new area of activity in Africa. We would appreciate you spending a few moments to answer the questions at the link shown below.

Africans in the Diaspora have called on all African Diaspora leaders to support the building a strong Diaspora region that will positively influence the creation of an African government for all African people.

The call, which followed a recent failure by the African Union (AU) leaders to unify Africa under one central government, was made by the convenors of the 2007 Pan Afrikan Movement (PAM) Summit, which is holding in Kingston, Jamaica from July 16-18. The Jamaica summit, according to a statement by the conveners, is expected to have African veteran leaders, scholars, activists, faith leaders, dignitaries, entrepreneurs and students in attendance focusing on Pan African unity in the Diaspora.

Pan Africanism arose as a philosophy to restore the humanity and dignity of the African person and indeed all humans. The concept of dignity and humanity has gone through many iterations from the period of enslavement to the period of colonialism, segregation and Jim Crow, the periods of apartheid and neo-colonialism to the current period of the HIV-AIDS pandemic when corporations have given themselves the right to patent life forms.

At midterm point in the achievement of the Millenium Development Goals by 2015, it seems appropriate to ask why is it that Africa looks set to be a failure, writes Tajudeen Abdul Raheem. The main internal and external obstacles to not achieving the MDGs remain the political will of our leaders and the sincerity of the political leaders of the rich world.

July 7, 2007 marked the halfway point in a journey whose destination and time of arrival was set by 189 heads of state and governments from most countries of the world including all the 53 member states of the African Union. It was a large bus garlanded with hope and lofty aspirations. The leaders invited all the peoples of the world but especially the poor, the marginalised, the sick, mothers and young boys and girls, and the weakest in all states to jump on board with promises that come 2015 the bus will deliver them to a better life and give them more concrete reasons to have faith in leaders, states and society.

They made a solemn declaration: The Millennium Declaration. But they did not stop there because the declaration was transformed into concrete, achievable, measurable; time bound commitments known as Millennium Development Goals (MDGs).

A journey of 15 years which began in 2000 should have reached its midway point by July 2007. Are we halfway to all the targets set in the eight goals?

If we are on target there will be no cause for alarm even though the driver and even some of the passengers may demand more effort to safe more time. There is no harm in arriving early as long as we arrive safely. If we are not in the midway town questions have to be asked why. Did the vehicle have a puncture? Or even worse was it involved in a headlong collision or did it crash? Is the driver ok? Or did any of the passengers fall off or became seriously sick needing emergency attention?

If the bus is still on the road but journeying slowly we have to ask what can be done to make the journey smoother and safer, to catch up for lost time.

The MDGs bus is happily not involved in any serious accident. It is still running across different regions of the world but the roadblocks are more in some places than in others. Even within the same region there are varying speeds because in some parts the drivers seem to dose off whereas in others they are on full alert.

It is in Africa that the bus has been facing many roadblocks. Some of these were deliberately constructed by armed robbers of development (such as inept political leadership, corrupt elite and insensitive government and docile population) while others were artificially created by uncooperative other users of the road (such as rich countries that continue to rob poorer countries through unfair trade and super exploitation of global resources) while some of the obstacles could be the result of what in Hausa is termed ‘gudu ba gyara’ (i.e. ‘speeding without repairs’ or reckless driving).

The general global picture from the recently released UN General-Secretary’s MID term Report shows that Africa is the only continent of the world where the MDGs risk not being met. Unfortunately Africa is the region that needs the MDGs and really more than the MDGs than any other region of the world.

The general picture hides the growing success stories that show that it is not all bad news. There are countries that are doing quite well on a number of the Goals even if they may not meet all of them. Across the continent in education most of the countries have seen huge rises in enrolment into primary schools as a result of debt relief and new prioritisation of the education of our children by many governments.

Uganda for instance, has raised the gear from universal primary education to the secondary level; Kenya is considering same; Malawi has proven that where there is a will there is a way; and even Africa’s notoriously sleeping giant, Nigeria, has reintroduced compulsory universal basic education. On maternal death in child birth, infant mortality and education, Mozambique (returning to peace just in a decade) and Rwanda (that ended genocide only 12 years ago) are making steady progress. Uganda’s pioneering leadership in HIV/ Aids awareness, advocacy, prevention and treatment are catching on in many countries and some of them are actually beginning to do better than Uganda. All these are good news and they show that it can be done and more can be achieved.

Although South Africa is the only African country to have made a promise to achieve the MDGs not in 2015 but by 2014 there are countries (like Botswana, Mauritius, etc.) not thumping their chests who will meet and may surpass them. Given the enormous resources of a country like South Africa it cannot be a congratulatory effort for it to meet the MDGs because it can and should do better. Other resource rich African countries and those with big economies like Nigeria, Kenya, Angola, DRC, Egypt, Libya, should not really be judged by the MDGs because they ought to and should do much better than that. Even the poorer countries like Ethiopia can do better if they set their priority right. IF Ethiopia has resources to occupy another country it can certainly do better at home.

The main internal and external obstacles to not achieving the MDGs remain the political will of our leaders and the sincerity of the political leaders of the rich world.

The covenant on the MDGs was a very simple one. If poor countries deliver on goal 1-7, i.e. hunger, poverty, health, education, governance and rights issues and livelihood, the richer countries will also deliver on Goal 8: improved quality and quantity of aid, debt relief and reform of the unjust global trading system that penalizes the poor and impoverish the poorer countries of the world.

We need to hold our governments accountable for our side of the bargain. But even as we are succeeding in that respect our gains will not translate into sustainable development and social progress if the West and other richer countries of the world do not deliver on their own promise. Mutual accountability of the political leaders of the world to their citizens (who are the passengers on the bus) is what will grease the rusty bolts, service the engine and refuel the MDG Bus at mid term so that it can coast home successfully by 2015.

Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is Deputy Director, Africa, United Nation's Millennium Campaign, based in Nairobi, Kenya.

* Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

The African diaspora needs a voice in the African Union and any future African unity government to reflect the influence it exercises across the world on the continent’s behalf, civil rights leader Rev. Jesse Jackson said.

But while he supported a push for greater African integration, Jackson said issues like the conflict in Sudan"s western Darfur region and the crisis in Zimbabwe must be tackled if unity was to carry moral authority.

African leaders have again squandered yet another opportunity, an historic one, to lead decisively. Instead they have gone for the least common denominator, the line of least resistance, by deciding not to decide. The all-important issue of a Government of the Union that was billed as The Grand Debate at the recently concluded AU summit, has been referred to yet another committee that will report at the next summit in January in Addis Ababa.

We are all familiar with the saying that the best way to kill an idea is to form a committee about it. How many more committees do we need to make this decision?

The so-called debate itself was the result of a study presented to the heads of state that has taken almost two years to complete. All the arguments for and against were contained in the report and the three options were clear. One, immediate formation of a Union government. Two, a gradual process leading to Union Government by consolidation of regional economic communities and economic convergence. And last, the formation of a Union Government that gives political authority to the AU in specified areas, aligns national policies to continental policies, and rationalises the RECS to become affective building blocs for the Union Government.

Wherever one stands on this debate, deciding on these issues is vital to move forward. Too many decisions, agreements, protocols have been made, agreed or signed at the continental level without any implementation at the national level. The suggestion of a Union Government was meant to give an effective legal and political framework to these agreements and a mandatory enforcement mechanism.

Unfortunately, the huge ego, razzmatazz and showmanship of the brother-leader, Muammar Gaddafi, the champion of the accelerated Union-track, has beclouded the real issues feeding the prejudice of all Gadaffi-phobic and Arab phobic and sub-Saharan obscurantists. President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa who is leading the anti-Gaddafi and anti-Union Government charge, liberally exploited these sentiments to actually subvert the debate due to the interests of South African capital and its expansion across this continent without any obligation towards our social commune.

The South African manoeuvre also tapped into the deep-seated alienation of many Africans about our governments, their distrust of political leaders, and cynicism that our leaders don't mean what they say or say what they mean.

Unfortunately, Mbeki's neoliberal agenda was unwittingly aided and abetted by the ambiguity displayed by Nigeria's new President, Umar Musa Yar' Adua. Yar' Adua was obviously not properly briefed by his benefactor and the Nigerian foreign policy elite about a third position championed by former President Obasanjo, and supported by Uganda, Senegal and other leaders in the Heads of State committee set up to look into the issue. They were supposed to report to the Summit but with clear timelines and concrete steps about what will be Union issues, further reforms of the charter, strengthening of representational institutions like the Pan-African Parliament and also taking a decision on the RECS.

But when Yar Adua spoke in his maiden Summit address, he sounded like all he was interested in were the RECs, thereby strengthening the Mbeki supporters.

Obasanjo was too busy trying to get Yar' Adua to Aso Rock to update him on Nigeria's position on African and global matters. The enemies of the Union Government are not just neoliberal governments but also must be some of the bureaucrats in the Union and NEPAD. The old OAU bureaucrats were afraid of the Union and fought its restructuring before and after the extraordinary summit in Shirte in 1999. Now they are fighting to defend the Union they opposed because we now want to reform it further to create a viable institution with political authority.

Many of them are incompetent and got their positions due to political barter and horse-trading and want to maintain them at all costs. But all is not lost yet. At least no one dares to argue against the Union and the Union Government in principle any more. What they are arguing about is when and how.

Therefore, the debate in the next six months in all our countries should shift to the streets, seminar halls, parliaments, county halls and at all levels to challenge our leaders and democratise the discussion so that by the January Summit there is a clear and unambiguous message that we are ready for a Union Government with a clear timetable. South Africa is happy for its businesses to be free to exploit the rest of the continent. Their attitude is like that of Britain towards Europe. However, British reluctance did not stop the Germans and the French and other Europeans to move forward.

Those countries that are willing and ready should begin to take the necessary steps that will make unity concrete for our peoples and not wait until everybody agrees.

* Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in his personal capacity as a concerned Pan-Africanist.

* Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

We are all familiar with the saying that the best way to kill an idea is to form a committee about it. How many more committees do we need to make this decision?

The so-called debate itself was the result of a study presented to the Heads of State that has taken almost two years to complete. All the arguments for and against were contained in the report and the three options were clear. One, immediate formation of a Union government. Two, a gradual process leading to Union Government by consolidation of regional economic communities and economic convergence. And last, the formation of a Union Government that gives political authority to the AU in specified areas, aligns national policies to continental policies, and rationalises the RECS to become affective building blocs for the Union Government.

Wherever one stands on this debate, deciding on these issues is vital to move forward. Too many decisions, agreements, protocols have been made, agreed or signed at the continental level without any implementation at the national level. The suggestion of a Union Government was meant to give an effective legal and political framework to these agreements and a mandatory enforcement mechanism.

Unfortunately, the huge ego, razzmatazz and showmanship of the brother-leader, Muammar Gaddafi, the champion of the accelerated Union-track, has beclouded the real issues feeding the prejudice of all Gadaffi-phobic and Arab phobic and sub-Saharan obscurantists. President Thabo Mbeki of South Africa who is leading the anti-Gaddafi and anti-Union Government charge, liberally exploited these sentiments to actually subvert the debate due to the interests of South African capital and its expansion across this continent without any obligation towards our social commune.

The South African manoeuvre also tapped into the deep-seated alienation of many Africans about our governments, their distrust of political leaders, and cynicism that our leaders don't mean what they say or say what they mean.

Unfortunately, Mbeki's neo- liberal agenda was unwittingly aided and abetted by the ambiguity displayed by Nigeria's new President, Umar Musa Yar' Adua. Yar' Adua was obviously not properly briefed by his benefactor and the Nigerian foreign policy elite about a third position championed by former President Obasanjo, and supported by Uganda, Senegal and other leaders in the Heads of State committee set up to look into the issue. They were supposed to report to the Summit but with clear timelines and concrete steps about what will be Union issues, further reforms of the charter, strengthening of representational institutions like the Pan-African Parliament and also taking a decision on the RECS.

But when Yar Adua spoke in his maiden Summit address, he sounded like all he was interested in were the RECs, thereby strengthening the Mbeki supporters.

Obasanjo was too busy trying to get Yar' Adua to Aso Rock to update him on Nigeria's position on African and global matters. The enemies of the Union Government are not just neo-liberal governments but also must be some of the bureaucrats in the Union and NEPAD. The old OAU bureaucrats were afraid of the Union and fought its restructuring before and after the extraordinary summit in Shirte in 1999. Now they are fighting to defend the Union they opposed because we now want to reform it further to create a viable institution with political authority.

Many of them are incompetent and got their positions due to political barter and horse-trading and want to maintain them at all costs. But all is not lost yet. At least no one dares to argue against the Union and the Union Government in principle any more. What they are arguing about is when and how.

Therefore, the debate in the next six months in all our countries should shift to the streets, seminar halls, parliaments, county halls and at all levels to challenge our leaders and democratise the discussion so that by the January Summit there is a clear and unambiguous message that we are ready for a Union Government with a clear timetable. South Africa is happy for its businesses to be free to exploit the rest of the continent. Their attitude is like that of Britain towards Europe. However, British reluctance did not stop the Germans and the French and other Europeans to move forward.

Those countries that are willing and ready should begin to take the necessary steps that will make unity concrete for our peoples and not wait until everybody agrees.

* Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the Deputy Director for the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in his personal capacity as a concerned Pan-Africanist.

* Please send comments to or comment online at http://www.pambazuka.org/

Madaraka Nyerere, son of former President of Tanzania Julius Nyerere talks to Adam Ma'anit from the New Internationalist magazine for Pambazuka News. In London to relaunch the Arusha Declaration with the Global Women's Strike, the document is the foundation of socialist principles practiced by Nyerere's government. In this interview Madaraka explores the reasons why Nyerere's policies have been demolished by capitalism and the relevance of the his father's work for modern Africa and the women's rights movement. See Global Women's Strike (http://www.globalwomenstrike.net/) for more on the publication of the Arusha Declaration. Music in this podcast is brought to you by Busi Ncube from Zimbabwe and kindly provided by Thulani Promotions (http://www.thulani.net).

Libyan leader Moammar Gadaffi said on Wednesday his plan for a United States of Africa should include creating a two million-strong army to staunch recurrent conflicts that have ravaged many of the continent's nations.

July 1-3 African Heads of state and governments will be assembling in Accra for the 9th ordinary session of the African Union. There is only one item on the agenda: the formation of a government for union of Africa, writes Tajudeen Abdul Raheem.

The official title says this is a Grand Debate on a United States of Africa. This is unfortunate because even those of us enthusiastic about the unity of Africa would wish that the leaders are a bit more creative than just wanting to create another USA. Given what one USA is doing to the world and its previous record it would be a disservice to humanity to want to inflict another USA on the world.

Our values is certainly made of better ethics and love for humanity and affirmation of life with dignity than to be copying the United state of America whose unity is based on genocide against indigenous Indians, slavery of people of African origin and continuing plunder of the rest of the world.

The agenda has pitched leaders against leaders and different sectors of our informed and ill- informed publics against one another. But basically there are two broad positions neither of which disagrees about the need for Africa to unite. So if there is no disagreement about the goal what is the debate about?

Calling it a Grand Debate about USA is a misnomer and misleading characterization that has diverted people's attention from the proposal on the table and invited acrimonious 'debates' about form instead of content.

So delegitimised are many governments on this continent, in spite of the fact that an overwhelming majority are now 'elected' that when Africans hear United States of Africa or an African Union government they run. They instinctively think that what is being said is a transferring of the tyrannical, insensitive anti-people state and government that many of us have experienced and in some cases continue to suffer, even in the guise of democracy, to a continental level. What a disaster that would be! However it is a baseless fear.

Even if the leaders all voted for a Union government in Accra it does not mean that it will be formed immediately and all these states as we know them will disappear and many of the presidents may return as ministers or district commissioners or be consigned to the dust bin where they belong. Were this possible I am not sure many Africans will mourn their passing since quite a number of them already willingly act as agents of imperialism and shop keepers for foreign interests against their peoples anyway!

From the inception of Pan Africanism by Africans in the Diaspora in the latter years of the 19 th century but gaining more prominence and political legitimacy in the first half of the 20th century through the first five Pan African Congresses (1900 -1945, all held outside Africa) and subsequently brought home to Africa (through the All African people's conferences of 1958, and much later the 6th and 7th Pan African Congresses held in Africa in Dar 1974 and 1994, Kampala) the destination has always been total unification of Africa under a common government, common citizenship, a common market, from Cape town to Cairo and full participation for Africans in the Diaspora.

This ambition inspired the anti colonial movement in Africa and got expression in the formation of the OAU. Even though the OAU compromise was to respect the colonially imposed borders they were not meant to be permanent detention centers or garrisons on our way to total liberation and unification. But this is what they became under the multiple pressures of neocolonialism, cold war authoritarianism, militarism and opportunistic elites. The formation of the AU was meant to correct some of the weaknesses of the OAU especially in the areas of state sovereignty that operated as 'sovereignty of dictators that induced official indifference to the suffering of other Africans including Genocide; collective security instead of regime security; people-driven or at least people friendly union instead of a leader-centric OAU; and finally coordination of African responses to global developments and building of African consensus instead of allowing ourselves to be picked up individually to the slaughter house.

But after five years of the AU we have made progress in some areas but ARE STILL STRUGGLING IN MANY AREAS AND THE FULL POSITIVE AND DEMOCRATIC IMPACT OF THE UNUION are still not being felt.

The Grand Debate is therefore about what more needs to be done to accelerate the process of unity which we have all agreed on. It is not a debate about the desirability of a Union government because by signing up to the ideals of Pan Africanism, the OAU and AU all our states already agreed to that goal.

The reason why the Au may not have performed to the highest expectation has to do with the lack of political authority, enforcement powers and adequate resources to discharge its responsibility. IF unity is our goal therefore the leaders have to decide on a few key areas. One, the Study group on Union government for Africa identified 16 strategic areas (including aspects of foreign policy, defense, security, finance, global negotiations, etc) in which the leaders have to agree to cede some powers to the Au to effectively act in our collective interest. There is no point in us having a Union while many states still deal with the world individually. It undermines the AU and undermines the states themselves. Two, for too long the Au has talked about rationalizing regional economic communities but they keep proliferating even if most of them are struggling. Yet they are supposed to be '; the building blocks' of the AU. How many blocs do we need for the foundation? In Banjul they put a moratorium on forming new ones but the existing or limping ones are still too many. The suggestion is to cut them down to the five regions recognized by the AU charter (the Diaspora is Sixth region but has not regional Economic Community). Africa of five main blocks will be better coordinated. Three, many decisions are made at the Au level but there is no proper mechanism for implementation at the local and national level and do not even have enforcement capacities. If there is agreement on the 16 priority areas then the confusion at the national level; can be eliminated and AU decisions become mandatory. Four, the big issue of funding, the overall budget of the AU is not more than 1 billion Dollars annual. It is an insult that 53 states in a continent so rich in human and material resources cannot raise this money and more. Just imagine if JUST 5% of all our national budgets automatically go into the Union budget. That can only come with political authority being given to the union through an accountable government.

Which leads me to my final point about the cynicism of many Africans about the political will and commitment of Africa's current leaders. A genuine worry but these leaders are produced from amongst us therefore we can and should change them where necessary . In addition we need to make sure that the potentially democratic and democratic institutions of the AU like the ECOSOCC and the Pan African Parliament have real power to over see the work of the executive. It means actively taking part in the ECOSOCC at your national level AND ALSO CAMPAIGNING FOR the Pap to be elected on a universal African suffrage and the parliament to have full legislative powers. That way we will become active African citizens instead of the vocal or passive cynics that many are turning to.

* Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the deputy director of the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in his personal capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

In response to the African Union’s invitation to the public to contribute to the ‘Grand Debate' on the formation of a union government for the continent, the Pan African People’s Assembly intends to hold a conference on June 22 at the National Theatre, Accra, where participants will deliberate on the subject matter.

Over 1,400 Pan Africanists across the continent, civil society groups in Ghana and the general public are expected to partake in the grand debate.

It is essential to address the African diaspora’s involvement in the process of continental government. As we descend into the next phase of the African Union’s summits in Ghana, critical analysis of the African diaspora’s meaningful contribution must be integrated from here on, writes Selome Araya.

‘An African, therefore…is one who by accident of history and the reality of geography is wedded to the African continent. A leading advocate of this concept was Kwame Nkrumah’ – Professor Godfrey N. Uzoigwe

The current sea of summits and articles about the proposed ‘United States of Africa’ has raised numerous discussions in regards to its challenges and necessity. While these discussions are imperative, it is also essential to continue to address another key element: the African diaspora’s involvement in the process. As we descend into the next phase of the African Union’s (AU) summits in Ghana, critical analysis of the African diaspora’s meaningful contribution must be integrated from here on.

The African diaspora are people of African descent who live outside continental Africa, having been dispersed around the world through colonialism, the transatlantic slave trade or voluntary migration. The AU has defined the African diaspora as '[consisting] of people of African origin living outside the continent, irrespective of their citizenship and nationality and who are willing to contribute to the development of the continent and the building of the African Union‘.

Though the AU proclaims the importance of the African diaspora’s contribution, the minimal presence of the diaspora in the United States of Africa decision making bodies sparks the question: Is the United States of Africa being proposed only for those living in the African states, or does it extend to those in the diaspora as well? Does this unification really include the contribution of all African people who are willing to participate?

The answer to these questions could potentially be the catalyst to revive the once active plea for Pan-Africanism. More than unifying the 54 states of the African continent, it could serve as the mechanism to facilitate unity and solidarity amongst a people who are dispersed throughout the world, yet still connected by their history, ancestry, and bloodlines.

Though it has been adopted and embraced by African state leaders, the notion of a United Africa has always resonated with Africans in the diaspora. The concept of a ‘United States of Africa’ in fact was originated by Jamaican-born leader and activist Marcus Garvey. He first used the phrase in 1924 to call for the unity of Africans collectively fighting for human rights, resisting racism and exploitation in all parts of the world. Garvey’s teachings helped to shape the Pan-African movement, a movement formed in part with the intent to bridge the diaspora with its homeland. The Pan-African movement was also influenced by a United States-born African, W.E.B. Du Bois.

Professor and author Godfrey N Uziokwe defines Pan-Africanism as ‘a political movement initiated by peoples of African descent in the Americas, and later taken over by continental Africans, which aims to liberate all Africans and people of African descent from the shackles of political, economic, cultural, and intellectual domination’ [2]. Ghanaian president and activist, Kwame Nkrumah, and other leaders from the continent later adopted the Pan-African movement, expanding it to include the decolonisation of the African continent politically. At the first Pan-African Congress to occur in Africa in 1958, Dr Nkrumah acknowledged the extraordinary contribution of people of African origin in the diaspora to Pan-Africanism:

‘... Many of them have made no small contribution to the cause of African freedom. Names which spring immediately to mind in this connection are those of Marcus Garvey, and WEB DuBois. Long before many of us were even conscious of our own degradation, these men fought for African national and racial equality.’

The Pan-African movement solidified the need for global solidarity of people of African descent to defend their human rights. Inspired by the Diasporic Pan African Movement, Nkrumah, Haile Selassie, and others, formed the Organization of African Unity (OAU) in 1963 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. However, though the initial Pan-African movement included Africans in the diaspora, the OAU began to focus more on continental concerns and did not develop a specific role for people of the African diaspora. ‘While the OAU helped speed the independence of African nations, it did not reach out to the African diaspora in a meaningful way.’ This was first seen during the early stages of the OAU, where members of the diaspora were largely absent from the Pan-African meetings.

The OAU transitioned into the AU in 2001, and during this time, ’it began the long-awaited outreach to the African diaspora’ [4]. The AU verbally recognised the diaspora as the ‘6th region of Africa’, adding it to the other five geographical regions on the continent. Article 3 (q) of the AU’s Constitutive Act Amendments states that it shall ‘invite and encourage the full participation of the African diaspora as an important part of our Continent, in the building of the African Union’.

One of these attempts included the creation of the diaspora Initiative within the framework of the OAU, created in 2003 to connect people of spiritual and ancestral kinship to one another through various mechanisms. In 2006, the AU’s 6th Region Education Campaign also partnered with the Western Hemisphere Education Campaign (WHADN) in an initiative to serve as the ‘interface mechanism’ that linked the diaspora with the AU.

However, while the diaspora has been invited to conferences and summits, sometimes to merely ‘observe’, their role in making decisions within the AU appears to still be minimal. The full participation of the diaspora in the development of the United States of Africa has yet to be conceptualised and there is currently no policy to facilitate the involvement of the diaspora in the process. In addition, although the AU’s Constitutive Act states that it will include the diaspora in its processes, there have been no written policy changes. ‘Examination of the Amendment, Article ‘q’ to the Constitutive Act of the African Union reveals, however, that no such ‘significant structural change’ has occurred, stated Professor Maurice Tadadjeu in a recent address to Repatriation News. This is illustrated through the diaspora’s inability to join or take part in an important governmental body in Africa, the Pan-African Parliament (PAP).

The diaspora currently does not take part in any deliberations. The PAP states that it represents all people’s of Africa, yet its objectives focus solely on Africans living on the continent and make no mention of the African diaspora’s inclusion in or benefit from these objectives. Full participation of the diaspora within the AU would mean the diaspora having seats within the PAP. An example of how this could be facilitated is by developing a joint body between the AU and a governmental body in the diaspora. A policy report entitled ‘Building an African Union’ suggests that ‘Existing institutions and organizations in the diaspora should be integrated with the AU. A pan- African parliamentary union between the PAP and the US Congressional Black Caucus (CBC) would be one such Innovation’.

An attempt at including the voice of all African peoples (the diaspora) in the AU’s decision making process was with the creation of the Economic, Social and Cultural Council of the African Union (ECOSOCC) in 2002. The ECOSOCC is to serve as a consultative body and is working to bring together civil society groups, including some from the diaspora, to work with the AU. In regards to the United States of Africa, this body is intended to serve as a consultancy at assembly deliberations.

Diasporic ‘representation’ and decision making within the ECOSOCC, however, doesn’t equate to the diaspora having decision making power within the AU or its United States of Africa government. However, the ECOSOCC claims that this consultative body will play an active role in partnership with African governments to ‘contribute to the principles, policies and programs of the Union’. Dr Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem, General-Secretary of the Pan-African Movement in Kampala Uganda and Co-Director of Justice Africa, however, believes that the diaspora’s role is not quite as active as it appears. He states, ‘Even at the launch of the General Assembly (of the ECOSOCC) the few diaspora persons there were mere observers’.

Mutually beneficial relationship and solidarity

The call for the African diaspora’s full participation in the formation of a United Africa may cause some to wonder, why is the diaspora’s full participation important and who would benefit from such a relationship?

The theme of a proposed global summit in South Africa focusing on the unity of Africa and the diaspora provides an overall response to this inquiry. Entitled ‘Towards the Realization of a United and Integrated Africa and its diaspora’, this summit will aim at producing ‘a shared vision of sustainable development for both the African continent and the millions of people around the world who share an African heritage’. The participants of this summit are calling for a global dialogue regarding regional development and integration, economic co-operation, and historical, socio-cultural and religious commonalities.

There are over 150,000,000 people in the diaspora who not only could play a role in strengthening Africa’s development and attempt at unification, but who could also greatly benefit from a united Africa. In essence, a mutually beneficial relationship would result from the diaspora taking part in the development of a United States of Africa. Revived Pan-African solidarity between Africa and the diaspora would create partnerships needed to address issues of global concern and provide mutual support as both groups are still weaning off the impact that western imperialism had (and still has) on both.

If the diaspora and the African’s living on the continent joined forces with consistent cross-continental relations, support, and inclusion, it could strengthen the entire African presence and power in the world. Empowering Africans both at home and abroad is essential in order to address the inequities and imbalances that continue to bond us by our collective experience of oppression. Through building mutual solidarity, networking, and mobilization, both continental and diasporic Africans would gain strength.

According to the diaspora Initiative within the framework of the AU, the diaspora can be of great benefit to the AU through:

• technical support for programs of the African Union
• public education and sensitization of the wider public in their respective regions
• lobbying
• provision of a domestic political constituency for AU goals and objectives
• advocacy
• fundraising and resource mobilization
• resource support through such measures as creation of Endowments amongst others.

As this initiative reflects, the benefit that Africans in the diaspora could bring to the United States of Africa is multi-layered. Collectively the diaspora possesses an economic power that could greatly assist African economic development initiatives and assist in the continents struggle to break from the shackles of structural adjustment programmes, globalisation, and ‘debts’. The power that the diaspora holds could also knock out the devastating choke-hold that international NGO’s have over continental crises. Due to proportionately more access to resources, there is a wealth of financial, technical and intellectual expertise in the diaspora.

The amount of resources and education that African’s in the diaspora have access to could surely help to strengthen the continental quest at unity, provide support for other concerns affecting Africans on the continent, as well as developing Africa’s human resource capacity. ‘The African diaspora can play a part in enhancing Africa’s role in the world by promoting the development of the continent. A genuine engagement by the AU with the diaspora could enhance Africa’s negotiating and resource mobilization capacity with the international community.’ [2]

However, on the reciprocal end, the AU could also greatly assist in the struggle of African people’s globally. At the Pan-African Congress in 1958, Nkrumah recognised Africa’s unity as being crucial for the human rights of Africans in the diaspora to be respected.

‘Long may the links between Africa and the peoples of African descent continue to hold us together in fraternity. Now that we in Africa are marching towards the complete emancipation of this Continent, our independent status will help in no small measure their efforts to attain full human rights and human dignity as citizens of their country.’ [3]

According to the diaspora Initiative, the AU can offer the diaspora:

• a measure of credible involvement in the policy making processes
• some corresponding level of representation
• symbolic identifications
• requirements of dual or honorary citizenship of some sort
• moral and political support of diaspora initiatives in their respective regions
• preferential treatment in access to African economic undertakings including consultancies, trade preferences and benefits for entrepreneurs, vis a vis non –Africans
• social and political recognition as evident in invitation to Summits and important meetings etc. [9]

The United African governmental body could also show solidarity and provide support for the many injustices being inflicted on people of African descent throughout the diaspora. This includes places like Brazil, the United States of America, Haiti, France and elsewhere, where people of African descent are suffering from human rights violations exponentially by imperialist governments.

Speaking from the experience of an African living in the United States of America, we have repeatedly found ourselves victims of human rights violations and racist oppression by this government since we arrived here. We are not supported, respected, or represented by this government and have been mistreated by the government itself. Examples of this include the continuous unjust murders of African peoples by the state police departments as well as the gross injustices against African people that preceded and followed Hurricane Katrina in 2005. Although there have been governments and leaders in Africa who have fully acknowledged the injustices that are occurring in America and elsewhere, being a part of an African government would strengthen the diaspora’s continual struggle for justice. If Africans in America were a part of the United States of Africa government, they could possibly have a mechanism of support to hold the United States government accountable for the violations they inflict on people of African descent. Africans throughout the diaspora could have a connection to a universal African government that advocates for drastic changes to be made in regards to the global mistreatment of people of African descent. In other words, Africans in the diaspora would have a government that they feel a part of, instead of one they are in constant combat with.

Just One Struggle

Proclamations about the African diaspora’s right to play a crucial role in the development of a United States of Africa also call for an all-inclusive definition of what it means to be African.

Whether you identify as African, Black, being of African origin or descent, African-American, Caribbean, Afro-Latino, New Afrikan, or an African living abroad, one common trait holds true: we are all bound by our origination from and lasting connection to the same land. The African world is bigger than the territory and borders of the continent. It spans the entire globe, and includes our presence on all seven continents. The linguistic, geographic, and cultural differences amongst us cannot negate the reality that we are brothers and sisters. Separated by force, we have clearly been fragmented in a myriad of ways. But beyond the borders and boundaries, throwing away visas and passports, sidestepping our lack of common languages, combating the cowardly European divide and conquer techniques, and underneath any perceived differences, we are yet roots from the same tree.

This attempted disjointing and cultural destabilisation should not be the excuse for not supporting one another’s struggles for emancipation and freedom. In this case, realised Pan-African unity could be our channel to justice on the continent and abroad.

This common ancestry has made our universal struggles and resistance against oppression one in the same. Human rights activist and Pan-Africanist El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm X) stated in his address at the OAU summit in Cairo, Egypt in 1964, ‘We in America (and elsewhere) are your long-lost brothers and sisters, and I am here only to remind you that our problems are your problems’ [10]. He also added, ‘Since the 22 million of us were originally Africans, who are now in America, not by choice but only by a cruel accident in our history, we strongly believe that African problems are our problems and our problems are African problems’10. More than being bonded by our common African descent, Pan-Africanism was born out of this collective bond to resist these ‘powers’ in solidarity, hoping to strengthen our calls for justice and accountability. Shackled by European states and scrambling for civil rights, the only true difference in our struggle is geographic location.

We (African’s globally) are all continuing to endure various forms of oppression and atrocities inflicted on us directly, indirectly, institutionally, economically, and even under the guise of ‘humanitarian assistance’ and development projects. Whether we live in the United States, Europe, the Caribbean, or Africa, African peoples have been subjected to imperialist policies that have undermined our worth, dehumanized our souls and attempted to keep us enslaved under capitalism.

The diaspora Initiative also recognises this common African struggle:

‘Indeed, the activities and challenges of both continental Africans and Africans in diaspora continued to impact upon each other, with history as a common reference point. Those transported across the Atlantic began as second-class citizens in their new abode just as the establishment of the colonial order of the African continent relegated their brothers to the same status on the continent. Hence, the quest for freedom and social emancipation became a shared concern. Africans on both sides of the Atlantic divide felt the impact of vestigial discrimination in the aftermath of the abolition of the Slave Trade and the onset of the twentieth century.’

And so, if Africans in the diaspora are truly embraced as being African and if the African struggles globally are acknowledged as being one in the same, their inclusion in the development of a United States of Africa should be automatic, clearly defined, and truly participatory, and move beyond observer status. While there have been attempts over the last six years to include the diaspora in discussions pertaining to the African Union, a stronger presence in the United States of Africa must be actualised and written policy on the reciprocal relationship must be created.

*Selome Araya holds an MPH in Forced Migration and Health from Columbia University. She works with the Malcolm X Grassroots Movement in New York and is a freelance writer.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

Is it a realistic debate to be having at this time, when the continent is afflicted with so many other problems and challenges? To what extent are the majority of African people aware that this debate is going on? Before we can even begin to grapple with these questions, says Tim Murithi, we need to pose the question: how we have got to the point that we are discussion a Union of Africa Government or the so-called United States of Africa?

It is appropriate to reflect on the debate that has been raging on the prospects for further continental integration and the impending discussions on the Union Government Project. During the 8th Ordinary Session of Assembly of Heads of State and Government of the African Union (AU) in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, from 29 to 30 January 2007, the decision was taken to devote the next meeting of the Assembly to an elaborately titled 'Grand Debate on the Union Government'. From 8 to 9 May 2007, the Executive Council of Ministers of Foreign Affairs met in Durban, South Africa to brainstorm on the state of the Union. The groundwork has therefore been laid for discussions to take place in Accra about the direction that the AU should take.

We could question whether it is indeed appropriate and realistic to be debating a Union Government at this time. Have AU member states mastered the art of rudimentary unification? Do they yet speak with a unified voice and act based on a common purpose? To add to this casserole of doubt the continent is still afflicted by so many other problems and challenges from conflict, to underdevelopment and inadequate public health services. Ultimately, by adding a pinch of scepticism about the genuine political will of AU member states to pool their sovereignty, it seems that the Grand Debate may be no more than a storm in a tea cup, much-ado-about-not-very-much. But perhaps this is a bit dismissive!

Is it indeed a realistic debate to be having at this time, when the continent is afflicted with so many other problems and challenges? To what extent are the majority of African people aware that this debate is going on? If they are not aware, who is having this conversation on their behalf? How can a Union Government Project succeed if it does not have the buy-in and the support of the people of Africa?

But before we can even begin to grapple with these questions we do need to pose the question: how we have got to the point that we are discussion a Union of Africa Government or the so-called United States of Africa? Only by tracing the trajectory of the evolution of the notion of Pan-Africanism can we begin to contextualize the impetus behind the impending 'Grand Debate on the Union Government'.

This paper will assess the origins of Pan-Africanism and discuss the norms that animated this movement. It will then assess how Pan-Africanism was institutionalized in the form of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) and the present day African Union (AU). It will argue that the Grand Debate on the Union Government is only the latest incarnation of an attempt to institutionalise Pan-Africanism. Understanding the reasons why Pan-Africanism gained currency as a movement and liberatory ideology will help us to understand this Grand Debate. The past in this sense is influencing the present and will ultimately inform the future. The paper will assess the role that civil society can play in contributing to the Union Government debate. The paper will also question whether the Union Government of Africa Project will be built on a solid enough foundation to realize the aspirations of Pan-Africanism. It will conclude by assessing the limits of continental integration.

What is Pan-Africanism?

It is often assumed that the process of continental integration begun with an Extra-ordinary Summit of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) convened in Sirte, Libya, in 1999. In fact, the process begun with the Pan-African movement and its demand for greater solidarity among the peoples of Africa. To understand the emergence of the African Union we need to understand the evolution of the Pan-African movement. A review of the objectives and aspirations of Pan-Africanism provides a foundation to critically assess the creation of the AU and its prospects for promoting the principles and norms of peace and development.

Historically Pan-Africanism, the perception by Africans in the diaspora and on the continent that they share common goals, has been expressed in different forms by various actors. There is no single definition of Pan-Africanism and in fact we can say that there are as many ideas about Pan-Africanism as there are thinkers of Pan-Africanism. Rather than being a unified school of thought, Pan-Africanism is more a movement which has as its common underlying theme the struggle for social and political equality and the freedom from economic exploitation and racial discrimination.

It is interesting to note that it is the global dispersal of peoples of African descent that is partly responsible for the emergence of the Pan-African movement. As Hakim Adi and Marika Sherwood, observe in their book Pan-African History: Political Figures from African and the Diaspora Since 1787, ‘Pan-Africanism has taken on different forms at different historical moments and geographical locations’. Adi and Sherwood note that, what underpins these different perspectives on Pan-Africanism is ‘the belief in some form of unity or of common purpose among the peoples of Africa and the African Diaspora.’ One can also detect an emphasis on celebrating ‘Africaness’, resisting the exploitation and oppression of Africans and their kin in the Diaspora as well as a staunch opposition to the ideology of racial superiority in all its overt and covert guises.

Pan-Africanism is an invented notion. It is an invented notion with a purpose. We should therefore pose the question what is the purpose of Pan-Africanism? Essentially, Pan-Africanism is a recognition of the fragmented nature of the existence of African’s, their marginalization and alienation whether in their own continent or in the Diaspora. Pan-Africanism seeks to respond to Africa’s underdevelopment. Africa has been exploited and a culture of dependency on external assistance unfortunately still prevails on the continent. If people become too reliant on getting their support, their nourishment, their safety, from outside sources, then they do not strive find the power within themselves to rely on their own capacities. Pan-Africanism calls upon Africans to drawn from their own strength and capacities and become self-reliant.

Pan-Africanism is a recognition that Africans have been divided among themselves. They are constantly in competition among themselves, deprived of the true ownership of their own resources and inundated by paternalistic external actors with ideas about what it ‘good’. Modern day paternalism is more sophisticated and dresses itself up as a kind and gentle helping hand with benign and benevolent intentions. In reality it seeks to maintain a ‘master-servant’ relationship and does not really want to see the genuine empowerment and independence of thought in Africa.

The net effect of this is to dis-empower Africans from deciding for themselves the best way to deal with the problems and issues they are facing. Pan-Africanism is a recognition that the only way out of this existential, social, political crisis is by promoting greater solidarity amongst Africans. Genuine dialogue and debate in Africa will not always generate consensus, but at least it will be dialogue among Africans about how they might resolve their problems. If ideas are not designed by the African’s, then rarely can they be in the interests of Africans.

Institutionalisation of Pan-Africanism: The OAU

In the twentieth century, the idea of Pan-Africanism took an institutional form. Initially, there were the Pan-African Congress’ which convened in the United Kingdom and the United States of America, under the leadership of activists like the African-American writer and thinker WEB. du Bois; the Trinidadian Henry Sylvester Williams; and inspired often by the ideas of people like the Jamaican-American Marcus Garvey. These ideas were adopted and reformed by continental African leaders in the middle of the twentieth century. Kwame Nkrumah who later became the first president of Ghana, Sekou Toure of Guinea, Leopold Senghor of Senegal, Banar Abdel Nasser of Egypt, Ali Ben Bella of Algeria took the idea of Pan-Africanism to another level on 25 May 1963 when they co-created the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). The principles of the OAU kept the spirit of Pan-Africanism alive. The primary objective of this principle was to continue the tradition of solidarity and cooperation among Africans.

During the era of the OAU the key challenge was colonialism. Since 1885, in what was then known as the 'Scramble for Africa' European colonial powers had colonized African peoples and communities across the entire continent. The Belgians were in the Congo, the British in East, South, West and North Africa. The French in West Africa, Somalia, Algeria and other parts of north Africa. The Italians in Somalia. The Germans, who later lost their colonies following their defeat in the Second World War, had to relinquish Namibia and modern day Tanzania. Africans had successfully fought on the side of the allies in the Second World War and after its conclusion they brought their struggle for independence back home to Africa.

The OAU embraced the principle of Pan-Africanism undertook the challenge of liberating all African countries from the grip of settler colonialism. The main principle that it was trying to promote was to end racial discrimination upon which colonialism with its doctrine of racial superiority was based. In addition, the OAU sought to assert the right of Africans to control their social, economic and political affairs and achieve the freedom necessary to consolidate peace and development. The OAU succeeded in its primary mission, with the help of international actors, in liberating the continent on 27 April 1994, when a new government based on a one-person-one-vote came into being in South Africa under the leadership of Nelson Mandela. The OAU however was not as effective in monitoring and policing the affairs of its own Member States when it came to the issues of violent conflict; political corruption; economic mismanagement; poor governance; lack of human rights; lack of gender equality; and poverty eradication.

The preamble of the OAU Charter of 1963 outlined a commitment by member states collectively establish, maintain and sustain the 'human conditions for peace and security'. However, in parallel, the same OAU Charter contained the provision to 'defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of the member states'. This was later translated into the norm of non-intervention. The key organs of the OAU - the council of ministers and the Assembly of heads of state and government - could only intervene in a conflict situation if they were invited by the parties to a dispute. Many intra-state disputes were viewed, at the time, as internal matters and the exclusive preserve of governments is concerned.

The OAU created a Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution in Cairo, in June 1993. This instrument was ineffective in resolving disputes on the continent. Tragically, the Rwandan genocide which was initiated in April 1994 happened while this mechanism was operational. It was also during this last decade of the twentieth-century that the conflict in Somalia led to the collapse of the state and the violence in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and Sudan led to the death of millions of Africans.

These devastating events illustrated the limitations of the OAU as an institution that could implement the norms and principles that it articulated. Despite the existence of the OAU’s mechanisms for conflict prevention and management, the Rwandan tragedy demonstrated the virtual impotence of the OAU in the face of violent conflict within its member states. The United Nations (UN) did not fare any better as all of its troops, except the Ghanaian contingent, pulled out of the country leaving its people to the fate. Subsequently, both the OAU and the UN issued reports acknowledging their failures. The impetus for the adoption of a new paradigm in the promotion of peace and security in the African continent emerged following the Rwandan tragedy.

Regrettably due to the doctrine of non-intervention, the OAU became a silent observer to the atrocities being committed by some of its member states. Eventually, a culture of impunity and indifference became entrenched in the international relations of African countries during the era of the 'proxy' wars of the Cold War. So in effect the OAU was a toothless talking shop. The OAU was perceived as a club of African Heads of States, most of whom were not legitimately elected representatives of their own citizens but self-appointed dictators and oligarchs. This negative perception informed people’s attitude towards the OAU. It was viewed as an Organization that existed without having a genuine impact on the daily lives of Africans.

The African Union

The African Union came into existence in July 2002, in Durban, South Africa. It was supposed to usher Africa into a new era of continental integration leading to a deeper unity and a resolution of its problems. The evolution of the AU from the Organisation of African Unity was visionary and timely. The OAU had failed to live up to all of its norms and principles. Africa at the time of the demise of the OAU was a continent that was virtually imploding from within due to the pressures of conflict, poverty and underdevelopment and public health crisis like malaria, tuberculosis and HIV/AIDS. The OAU effectively died of a cancer of inefficiency because it basically had not lived up to its original ideals of promoting peace, security and development in Africa. The African Union has emerged as a homegrown initiative to effectively take the destiny of the continent into the hands of the African people. However, there is a long way to go before the AU’s vision and mission is realised.

The AU is composed of 53 member states. It is run by the AU Commission based in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The Chairperson of the Commission is Alpha Oumar Konare. Its top decision making organ is the Assembly of the Heads of State and Government, its executive decision-making organ is the Executive Council of Ministers, who work closely with the Permanent Representatives Committee of Ambassadors in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. The AU has also established range of institutions which will be discussed below.

If we know the ‘purpose’ of Pan-Africanism then the steps to achieve its goals become clearer to understand. It is in this context that we can begin to understand the emergence of the African Union. It would be a mistake to view the African Union as an aberration that just emerged in the last few years. It would be more appropriate to view the AU as only the latest incarnation of the idea of Pan-Africanism. The first phase of the institutionalization of the Pan-Africanism was the Pan-African Congress’ that were held from the end of the nineteenth-century and into the beginning of the twentieth-century. The second phase of the institutionalization of Pan-Africanism was the inauguration of the Organization of African Unity. The third phase of the institutionalization of Pan-Africanism is in effect the creation of the African Union. It will not be the last phase. Subsequent phases and organizations will bring about ever closer political, economic, social and ties among African peoples. African unity is an idea that can be traced back to the nineteenth-century. The African Union is a twenty-first century expression of a nineteenth-century idea. As such it is an imperfect expression, but nevertheless the best expression of Pan-Africanism that can be brought forth at this time.

Towards a Union of Africa?

The agenda to establish a Union Government of Africa or the so-called United States of Africa is well underway. At the core of this debate is the desire to create several ministerial portfolios for the African Union. During the 4th Ordinary Session of the Assembly of Heads of State and Government, from 30 to 31 January 2005, in Abuja, Nigeria, the AU agreed to the proposals made by the Libyan Government to establish ministerial portfolios for the organisation.

Specifically, in the 6th Ordinary Session of the Executive Council of AU Ministers, Libya proposed the establishment of the posts of Minister of Transport and Communications to unify transportation in Member States to be under the competence of the AU which will include airports and main ports of African capital cities, highways, inter-State railways, State-owned airline companies which are to become the basis for a single African airline company. Ultimately, Libya proposed that this should lead to 'the creation of a post of Minister of Transportation and Communications'.

Similarly, Libya also proposed the creation of the post of Minister of Defence to oversee 'a joint policy on defence and security of the Union and provide for the reinforcement of peace, security and stability on the continent'. This Libyan proposal noted that the provisions of the AU Constitutive Act, of 2000, and the AU Protocol on Peace and Security, 0f 2002, have effectively established a 'Joint Defence Framework'. As a logical step in the implementation of the Protocols and establishment of the institutions of the AU the Libyan proposal emphasised the importance of establishing this post to oversee and 'defend the security of Member States against any foreign aggression and to achieve internal security and stability'. In addition,

Libya also proposed the establishment of the post of an African Union Minister of Foreign Affairs. Central to its argument is that AU countries undermine their own influence when its 53 Foreign Ministers, each individually representing their own governments speak simultaneously and occasionally in contradiction with each other. The Libyan proposal notes that this post is necessary in order to expedite 'the Continent’s political, economic and social integration and to reinforce and defend unified African positions on issues of mutual interest' in the international sphere.

In order to respond to these proposals the AU Assembly decided to 'set up a Committee of Heads of State and Government chaired by the President of the Republic of Uganda and composed of Botswana, Chad, Ethiopia, Niger, Senegal and Tunisia' to liaise with the Chairperson of the AU Commission submit a report by the next summit in July 2005. In November 2005, the Committee convened a conference under the theme 'Desirability of a Union Government of Africa'. This meeting included members of the Committee, representatives of the Regional Economic Communities (RECs), technical experts, academics, civil society and Diaspora representatives, as well as the media. The conference came up with three key conclusions including the recognition that the necessity of an AU Government is not in doubt; such a Union must be of the African people and not merely a Union of states and governments; its creation must come about through the principle of gradual incrementalism; and that the role of the RECs should be highlighted as building blocks for the continental framework.

Based on the findings of this conference the Assembly mandated the AU Commission to prepare a consolidated framework document defining the purpose of the Union government, its nature, scope, core values, steps and processes as well as an indicative roadmap for its achievement. The Assembly reaffirmed 'that the ultimate goal of the African Union is full political and economic integration leading to a United States of Africa'. The Assembly further established a Committee of Heads of State and Government to be chaired by President Olusegun Obasanjo, Chairperson of the African Union, and composed of the Heads of State and Government of Algeria, Kenya, Senegal, Gabon, Lesotho and Uganda. More specifically, the Assembly requested the Committee to consider 'the steps that need to be taken for the realization of this objective, the structure, the process, the time frame required for its achievement as well as measures that should be undertaken, in the meantime, to strengthen the ability of the Commission to fulfill its mandate effectively'.

The Chairperson of the Committee of Seven, President Olusegun Obasanjo of Nigeria, submitted a detailed report entitled: A Study on an African Union Government: Towards the United States of Africa, on July 2006, to the 7th Ordinary Session of the AU Assembly in Banjul, Gambia. Some of the key themes emerging from this report highlighted the fact that Africa is over-dependent on the external world particularly with regards to expatriate technicians and technology.

It also noted that Africa has not fully exploited its potential at national, regional and continental levels with reference to trade, education and health sectors. It notes that 'a United Africa would have the unique potential of producing most types of food and agricultural produce throughout the year'. The study also notes that in the context of globalization 'the challenges of overdependence and under-exploitation of its potentials have increased the marginalisation of the continent in world affairs'. The study further outlines the 16 strategic areas that an African Union Government should focus on including continental integration; education, training, skills development, science and technology; energy; environment; external relations; food, agriculture, and water resources; gender and youth; governance and human rights; health; industry and mineral resources; finance; peace and security; social affairs and solidarity; sport and culture; trade and customs union; infrastructure, Information technology and biotechnology.

The study notes that the 'design and functioning of a Union Government as a tool for integration would have far-reaching implications on the existing institutions and programmes of the African Union'. It further assesses the implications of a Union Government on the organs of the AU. The most notable impact would be the 'need to consider allowing a longer tenure (about 3 years for example) for the President of the Assembly' of the AU. The President of the Assembly would also be the unique spokesperson of the Union at world or other special summits. Therefore the study notes that, 'it would be desirable that the function of President be on a full time basis and could be assigned to a Former Head of State or any distinguished African with the necessary background and track record for the job'. Another notable innovation would be that 'under the Union Government, the AU Commission will be entrusted with the implementation of decisions, programmes and projects in the Strategic focus areas, which will constitute the Community Domain'. This notion of issues falling under the Community Domain would assign the Commission with 'the executive authority and responsibility to effectively implement' policies. The study also recognises that 'the logic of using the RECs as building blocks for the eventual deep, continental integration remains valid. The challenge is in aligning, synchronizing and harmonizing the integration efforts of member states, the RECs themselves, and the AU'.

There are also national implications of the establishment of a Union Government. The study notes that it is vital 'to build the necessary constitutency for advancing political integration'. In this regard, some countries have already set up Ministries in charge of integration and other countries should follow suit. The study notes that 'there is also a need to devise appropriate mechanisms for legislative implications at the national level' and 'the direct involvement of the people in promoting the Union Government could also be in the form of national associations or commissions for the United States of Africa'. In terms of financing the Union Government the study discusses the possibility of establishing indirect taxation schemes particularly with regards to an import levy and an insurance tax. A meeting of ECOSOCC in March 2005 proposed 'imposing a five US dollar tax on each air ticket bought for inter-state travels and 10 US Dollars on each ticket for travelers between Africa and other continents'. Ultimately, the study is positive about the prospects for a Union Government and outlines 3 phases for the transition to a Union Government, including:

1. The initial phase – commencing immediately after the decision of the Assembly at the AU summit in July 2007. It will include all the steps and processes that are necessary for the immediate operationalisation of the Union Government.

2. The second phase – will be devoted to making the Union Government fully operational in all its components and to laying the constitutional ground for the United States of Africa.

3. The third phase – will aim at the facilitation of all required structures of the United States of Africa at the levels of states, the regions and the continent.

The study recommends a 3-year period for each phase which will mean that the United States of Africa will be formed by the year 2015. Elections at continental, regional and national levels would be held, paving the way for the official constitution of the United States of Africa.

The study was considered by the Executive Council at its 9th Extraordinary Session held from 17 to 18 November 2006 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia. According to the report of this meeting there was a view that

1) 'all Member States accept the United States of Africa as a common and desirable goal', but differences exist over the modalities and time frame for achieving this goal and the appropriate pace of integration; and

2) there is a common agreement on the need for an audit review of the state of the Union in order to know the areas in which significant improvements have to be made to accelerate the integration process.

The report of the Executive Council was submitted to the AU Assembly in January 2007 which decided to devote the July Summit to a Grand Debate.

The role of civil society in continental integration

It is important to include people and civil society in this Grand Debate. To what extent are the majority of African people aware that this debate is going on? If they are not aware, who is having this conversation on their behalf? How can a Union Government Project succeed if it does not have the by-in and the support of the people of Africa? Can there be an African Union Government without African Citizenship? Where are the African citizens in this debate? More questions than we care to answer. To be fair the AU will convene from 28 to 30 May an all-inclusive continental consultation on the Union Government Project, at its headquarters in Addis Ababa, as part of the preparations towards the Accra meeting.

So civil society will have the opportunity to contribute to this Grand Debate. There is also the issue of the extent to which the AU is consulting with the wider African public on the issue of the Grand Debate. The AU has established a website inviting public contributions on this Grand Debate. However, some civil society activists have argued that an African Union Government is a pipe dream without laying the foundations for genuine African citizenship.

The limits of top-down continental ontegration

Will the establishment of a United States of Africa generate accusations of lack of originality? Some key actors within the AU want to have a US of Africa so that they can rival the power of other global players. There is nothing wrong with such an objective in principle. However, there are limits to a US of Africa. Notably, the USA as it is currently framed is:

1. A top-down approach to continental integration;
2. Governed by the whimsical will of the leaders of African governments;
3. Has a tendency towards un-democratic practices, like lack of consultation;
4. Through its formulation, which largely excluded African civil society, effectively governed by the rule of Heads of State and not the continental rule of law.

The objective behind the US of Africa should not be primary one of increasing the level of global competitiveness of the continent. Rather a primary focus should be on improving the livelihood of African people as a whole. For this to happen further continental integration has to be motivated by the founding principles of Pan-Africanism, namely a commitment to democratic governance, human rights protection and the rule of law. Anti-democratic actors who herald and proclaim the importance of establishing a United States of Africa, should not be allowed to replicate the anti-democratic policies and practices at a continental level.

If Africa is striving for genuine continental integration based on progressive principles, we should perhaps seek to forge a Federal Union of Africa (FUA) rather than a United States of Africa. This will begin to delineate and demarcate and articulate the founding principles of a union of African countries and their societies. A Federal Union of Africa should ideally be at once federal in nature; based on the democratic will of its people; governed through the consent of African people; and governed by the rule of law and the protection of human rights for all African peoples.

Conclusion

In the final analysis, the Grand Debate on the Union Government is indeed welcome. The injunction that the great Pan-Africanist Kwame Nkrumah left us with is still valid: 'Africa must Unite, or disintegrate individually'. Somehow the Grand Debate captures this spirit and could be viewed as only the latest incarnation of an attempt to institutionalise Pan-Africanism. Understanding the motivations between Pan-Africanism will help us to understand this Grand Debate. But it is also appropriate to question whether the Union Government of Africa Project will be built on a solid enough foundation to realise the aspirations of Pan-Africanism and improve the well-being of Africans on the continent and in the Diaspora. The past in this sense is influencing the present, it remains to be seen whether it will ultimately inform the future.

* Dr. Tim Murithi, Senior Researcher, Direct Conflict Prevention Programme, Institute for Security Studies (ISS-Addis Ababa Office). This paper was presented on Africa Day, 25 May 2007, at the Department of Political Studies and International Relations, Addis Ababa University and an Oxfam-AfroFlag Vision Seminar, at Axum Hotel, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

As someone who believes in ‘African solution to African problems’ I should be excited as everyone seem to be about the so called break through between the African Union and the UN on the one hand and the Government of Sudan on the other, on ending the genocidal war in Darfur. But I am not excited at all. I am not excited because we have been down this road several times before.

Khartoum has been taking everyone for a ride for so long that we take every sign of compromise as a breakthrough even if it will lead to yet another road bloc.

Khartoum has perfected the art of talking while continuing to kill its own citizens either directly or indirectly through its Janjaweed militia.

The timing of this latest breakthrough is very significant. An African Union summit is only three weeks away. The UN human Rights Council is sitting in Geneva and the Bush Administration has recently announced a raft of ineffectual sanctions.

Khartoum has played the Pan Africanist card very well, insisting on an ‘African only’ troops which satisfies our Pan Africanist instincts but knowing fully well that logistical, political and other technical challenges may make it ineffectual. It believes that an African force is more amenable to its delay tactics than a force that included other armies and with a UN command. It has exploited the understandable anti–American sentiments across the world and in Africa especially to hoodwink people into believing that any UN involvement will mean a proxy American war in yet another ‘Muslim’ , ‘Arab’ or ‘poor Third world’ country. It needs the shield Africa and the AU in order for it continue to fend off a more effective international involvement. It can also count on other shields in the Arab League and Muslim countries and in diplomacy with other Third world countries.

In proclaiming African solutions Khartoum has been counting on African incapacities as evidenced from the various challenges that the AU Force has been facing since its deployment. It has a very restricted mandate that limits it to ‘protecting civilians’ many of whom it can only reach after the Janjaweed and Khartoum forces have done their worst. Even on occasions when it had had early warning about impending attacks on innocent civilians it had been slow in responding or unable to do so.

The situation has not been helped by many of the rebels who seem to be more interested in their own egos and exaggerated political importance than the suffering of their own people. Their clamor for ‘international’ force (which in their colonial mindset means US or other western intervention) has consistently played into the hands of Khartoum. It helps Khartoum’s image laundering as an African country standing up for African solutions and sovereignty portraying the rebels as ‘agents’ of extra continental powers. The rebels have not learnt from the bitter lessons of the MDC in Zimbabwe whose struggles have been made difficult among many Africans because of the West’s support for them.

Just check your diary and see how many times Khartoum has looked very reasonable before an AU summit and only to return to its belligerency soon after. I am not sure this is not yet another of such deliberate rising of false hopes of a peaceful settlement.

Khartoum has been talking to any body that cares to talk about Darfur. That is why it has been involved concurrently in half a dozen of peace initiatives!

The problem with these talks is that they do not stop Khartoum and its allied killers in Darfur from continuing their violence against the people of Darfur but they hold those involved in the talks in check. You cannot be advocating tougher measures against a government that you are negotiating with. In the face of a fractious and faction –ridden opposition and rebel movements the government become reasonable and many peace brokers become more sympathetic to it as their frustration against the rebels grow.

However there is a wider issue relating to the mandate of the peace keeping force itself on which the Khartoum government has been giving the whole world a merry-go round. AU forces on the ground are not delivering not just for technical and logistical reasons or lack of numbers alone. There is no peace to keep since neither the government Janjaweed and the rebel factions have in practice committed themselves to ceasefire for any length of time.

You can increase the numbers of troops but without enlarging the mandate the butchering of Darfurians will continue. What everyone is now calling a breakthrough has been on the cards right from the start. Even the limited AU mandate envisaged an African leadership but did not exclude collaboration with the UN and contribution of troops from outside Africa. But Khartoum bogged everyone down in logistical issues for several months. Everyone is feeling so guilty at the horrible pictures from Darfur that we become desperate for any sign, no matter how vague that Khartoum is about to relent. Hence we are now supposed to jump that the government of Omar Al Bashir has agreed to a ‘hybrid force’. What is inherently good in a hybrid force? What is so new about it anyway? Any Peace keeping force is by definition ‘hybrid’. The people of Darfur have been under the attack of a hybrid of Sudan’s regular forces and their Janjaweed killers. Africa and the UN must really stand up to Khartoum and say : enough is enough, we will do everything possible to stop you from further killing your own citizens. It is peace making, peace enforcement before talking of peace keeping.

* Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the deputy director of the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in his personal capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

In this article, Zine Magubane explores the complex range of issues raised by Oprah’s philanthropy. Chief among them are the power relations that inform charitable acts; the racial politics and history that structure Oprah’s relationship to her viewers; the images of Africa in contemporary culture and how they help to frame her acts of charity; and the significance of Oprah as a trans-racial, trans-cultural, and trans-national cultural icon.

Dear Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem: What can I add to your well-written article? Not much since you said it all. My heart was full of sadness after reading the article. I wish to congratulate you. Keep it coming!

The triumph of ending political apartheid in South Africa is at the doorstep of the Rt. Honourable Winnie Madikizela-Mandela. When the racist and murderous apartheid regimes in South Africa and Namibia forced many freedom fighters into exile, and/or otherwise silenced them, they could not succeed in getting Winnie Madikizela-Mandela to compromise her principles, even in the face of death threats, bullying and coercion.

The widow of Kwame Nkrumah, Madam Fatiha, passed away last week in Cairo, her home town, where she had been living for most of the years since Nkrumah’s over throw in February 1966.

As to be expected all kinds of tributes have been pouring out from all kinds of corners including people and institutions who have never really cared what became of her and her three children (Gamal, Sekou and Samia) since Nkrumah died. Many of these conspicuous mourners did not even realize that Madam Fatiha was still alive all these years.

The worst of these hypocrites is always government. Those in power have the power, if the will was there to have honoured Madam Fatima, recognized her and provided for her and her family. But shamelessly successive Ghanaian governments, at best pursued a policy of benign neglect or even outright hostility or opportunistic association and gestures towards the family. This is not because Madam Fatiha has lived outside of Ghana because the same treatment was experienced by the oldest of the children,, Dr Francis Nkrumah (the first son of Nkrumah , from his Ghanaian first wife) or Sekou (Fatiha’s second son) who both live in Accra. This shameful conduct included governments and regimes that claim to be political heirs of Nkrumah.

The government of Ghana immediately announced that it will provide a state funeral befitting a former first lady of Ghana (indeed the very first!) but of what benefit is this post humus honour when she was neglected while she was alive? It is part of that African hypocrisy that suddenly transforms a dead person into the friend of everyone around with no body willing to say anything negative about the departed. Some of this is actually due to guilt. We tend to over compensate by making all kinds of commitments and all manner of gestures immediately after the death of someone close or public figures. However the guilt soon subsides and life continues very much as before with the loved ones left behind to pick up the pieces, as they must. Tears of some of the politically correct mourners go dry as soon as the TV cameras are turned off.

The way we treat the family of our national and Pan Africanist heroes cannot inspire commitment and confidence that devotion to Africa meant anything. As with all committed, genuinely committed (not the convenient foot lose opportunists that are so common these days), their families suffer: absent fathers and husbands. The children grow up feeling victimized by ‘struggle’ and after the hero have gone or is no longer in power the family might as well have been dead.

Nkrumah, even his worst critics, will agree, was completely devoted to the cause of liberating Africa. It was not for him building of personal mansions or having secret accounts all over the world. The struggle was everything. Madam Fatiha was much younger than the Osagyefo when he married her in a matrimonial union that typified Nkrumah’s refusal to accept the Saharan divide of Africa. The three children they had together were all toddlers when Nkrumah was overthrown, and they were only young teenagers when Nkrumah passed away in 1972. Fatiha herself was barely in her mid 30s. No husband, no father and no state provisions the family had to survive on good will sometimes of kind strangers who never met Nkrumah but treasured his contribution to our liberation. They could not leave in Ghana but thanks to President Gamal Abdul Nasser (after whom Fatiha’s first son, Gamal Gorkeh, was named) the family had been given a befitting home by the banks of the Nile. That house progressively became damaged due to lack of maintenance support since the family could not afford to maintain such a modest stately building.

The Ghana for which Nkrumah laboured and the Africa he toiled for simply ignored his family.

It is an insult to now be shedding crocodile tears at the passing of his widow. It is an insult to the family to be offering state funeral to a person that was largely ignored in her life by the same state that is now leading the mourning. The same Ghanaian state showed similar hypocrisy when Nkrumah passed way in exile in Conakry and demanded and later brought Nkrumah’s body to Ghana for State reburial! The embalmed body was for many years left to deteriorate in his village of Nkroful before shame and political expediency and influence of Nkrumahists in his administration forced Rawlings to accept a Mausoleum for Nkrumah in central Accra. Even then most of the money came from Gaddafi!

The spirit of Nkrumah continues to wonder and I hope it continues to haunt all the opportunists, ideological parasites and political saprophytes who continue to use Nkrumah’s name in vain. It should shame us into honouring our heroes and heroines both in life and in death especially the widow and children they leave behind. Ask yourself how many more widows like Madam Fatiha are abandoned to penury across Africa? This bitter experience is even making many of our corrupt leaders to believe that whatever the volume of our assets they are looting now is a kind of insurance for their family against an uncertain future.

In this fiftieth year of Ghana’s independence and the inspiration for the independence of the rest of Africa we should assuage Nkrumah’s wondering spirit by doing right by his family, not by state burial to his widow but by Ghana’s government first repaying back all the entitlements die to them by way of gratuity to their father, refurbishing and handing over their family home in Accra and setting up a proper trustee body to look after, maintain and supervise the Nkrumah Musoleum in Accra. Then the rest of us can honour Nkrumah the best way we can. But Ghana has to lead in atoning for these wrongs.

* Tajudeen Abdul-Raheem is the deputy director of the UN Millennium Campaign in Africa, based in Nairobi, Kenya. He writes this article in his personal capacity as a concerned pan-Africanist.

* Please send comments to or comment online at www.pambazuka.org

After a prolonged illness, Fathia Nkrumah, widow of Kwame Nkrumah, died in hospital in Cairo, Egypt

Africa's robust diaspora in Europe will soon have an investment facility to help people make direct investments to better develop their home countries thanks to a new study by the Brussels-based Africa Caribbean Pacific (ACP) Business Climate (BizClim) facility.

The Conference of Rectors, Vice-Chancellors and Presidents of African Universities (COREVIP) is an assembly of the chief executive officers of member institutions or their representatives. The theme for the Conference is: "The African Brain Drain - Managing the Drain: Working with the Diaspora". The conference will take place from 21-25th of October, 2007. The deadline for registration is June 30, 2007.