When the founding fathers of the defunct Organization of African Unity (OAU) blazed a trail on May 25, 1963 in the conceptualizing, conceiving and the eventually birthing an umbrella body for all of the continent, the reception was well serenaded and celebrated across the length and breadth of this mystical geography.
Many thought the Black World was finally ready to join the rest of world in the race for self realization and liberation.
Purveyors of the idea themselves were veterans of the struggle for self determination in their various countries.
Prior to this landmark political move, these freedom fighters were already enjoying cult-like reputation around the world.
Key founding figures in this movement, and those who championed the concept included Kwame Nkrumah (Ghana), Gamal Abdel Nasser (Egypt), Hailie Selassie (Ethiopia), Julius Nyerere (Tanganyika, now Tanzania), and Ahmed Sekou Toure (Guinea Conakry).
With the primary goal of uniting the various countries in the region, the genesis of the OAU was auspiciously fractious.
At birth, there emerged two factions – the Casablanca Group and the Monrovia Group.
The former opted for a more radical approach which entailed an immediate and an unconditional unification of the continent into one monolith of a single country (patterned after the United States) which was personally propounded by Nkrumah, a product of the American system.
The latter led by Senegalese President, Leopold Sedar Senghor demurred. This group preferred a gradual approach to unity.
But, the sagacity of the sage of his time, Emperor Hailie Selassie prevailed on the both sides to reconcile their differences in the interest of the laudable goal of coming together as a cohesive force.
The inaugural summit was consequently held in Addis Ababa in the spring of the year, 1963.
Though the summit was held in an atmosphere of camaraderie, it was obvious that the OAU has had an eventful birth. And a rocky start.
Analysts still believe that the birth of the OAU had become yet another flashpoint in the Cold War between countries of the Western world and the Eastern Bloc led by the disbanded Soviet Union.
As was to become the standard practice during this period (and it still is), both blocs (especially the West) set out to destabilize the idea of a united Africa.
The so-called colonial powers who still exercised undue influences over their former colonies (long after they were granted independence), were not ready to give up this major source of their economic sustenance.
Led by the usual suspects, France, the United Kingdom, Belgium, and practically, the rest of Europe, with the tacit support of the United States, they set out with the alleged financing of a blitz of military coups across the continent.
This clandestine plot was ostensibly aimed at dislodging the leadership of countries in the radical Casablanca group – Togo, Ghana, Mali, Guinea, Egypt, among the others.
And in countries where the neocolonialists could not outrightly effect a change of government, they resorted to fomenting inter-ethnic tensions and violence.
A retired European diplomat once told me that the major post colonial policy and strategy of the colonialists in Africa was primarily designed to “get the Africans fighting among themselves while the Europeans create a safe corridor for themselves to mine and cart away the precious and badly needed natural resources with little or no tariffs paid.
“All the Europeans did was merely pay protection fees in foreign currencies to the different feuding groups”.
The hotbed of this unorthodox policy was the endemically mineral-rich Congo Basin otherwise known as the Great Lakes region.
While all these were going on, the OAU was lying prostrate. Its poorly equipped peacekeeping operations alongside the United Nations forces were lame duck.
The warring factions were conspicuously aware of the capacity of the hamstrung forces of both the UN and of course, the OAU.
On the other hand, Western military and intelligence agencies were remotely tele-guiding events in the increasingly complex situation.
The Western press was not too far behind in the web of intrigue, propaganda and subterfuge that was ripping the heart out of the beleaguered continent.
At the OAU headquarters in Addis Ababa, the organization’s operations had been reduced to that of planning of the yearly jamboree for African heads of government and officials, along with their mistresses.
The AU had become a veritable joke.
In a long overdue face-saving move, OAU member states adopted the Constitutive Act of the African Union in the year 2000 which was completed two years later.
On July 9, 2002, the OAU formally transitioned into the African Union (AU) in Durban, South Africa.
The transition was initiated by the Sirte Declaration which was driven by the need to refocus the continental body from decolonization to economic integration, sustainable development and active intervention in conflicts, and the addressing of 21st Century challenges.
However, a change in name hardly translated to a change in terms of the impact of the AU on the overall wellbeing of the peoples and countries of the continent.
Although most of Africa had largely civilian governments in place in 2002, the meddlesomeness of the West was still evident.
Efforts by subsequent Chairpersons (a position that is rotational) of the AU to strengthen the capacity of the organization in addressing the challenges facing the continent were ineffective.
Worthy of note were the yeoman’s efforts of Rwanda’s Paul Kagame who during his tenure as AU chairperson did a lot to sensitize member states about the need to conduct more trade and to do business with one another.
Kagame alongside his colleagues accelerated the adoption of the African Continental Free Trade Area (AFCFTA) agreement.
He was pivotal in pushing for the agreement from its negotiation to implementation.
But since then, the agreement has literally suffered the same fate as other initiatives in the history of the organization.
To some of us, observers, it comes as no surprise at all.
What went wrong? Your guess is as good as mine.
In any case, the devil is often in the details. Need I say more?
Lately, the call for the reevaluation of the essence of the establishment of the continental body is incrementally gaining full-throated momentum.
Last week, it was President William Ruto of Kenya who threw down the gauntlet.
“I can tell you.. AU, as it is today, is not fit to provide leadership that this continent needs going into the future.
“My colleagues gave me the assignment to work on the reform of the African Union institutions and organs to make them fit for purpose for a time such as this”, he told an international audience in the seaside resort of Mombasa.
A random survey showed a preponderance of Africans who agree both in spirit and as a matter of fact, that they have lost confidence in the AU.
The AU’s ability to address the challenges of the continent today is being vigorously questioned. And verdict is: AU needs to go.
Most instructive is the sham job done by the immediate past chairperson of the African Union Commission (AUC), Ambassador Moussa Faki of Chad.
A career diplomat, Faki is said to have been compromised as a civil servant who has been serially accused of being a stooge of the French. How much truth is that statement depends on who you ask.
Personally, I remember him vividly in the face off episode between the one-time AU ambassador to the United States, Dr. Arikana Chiyedzo Chihombori-Quao who was fired from the position in Washington DC, and the AU headquarters in Addis.
The obviously vocal Ambassador Chihombori-Quao was accused of administrative malfeasance. But, those familiar with the situation dispute AU’s official position on the matter.
Independently, my findings suggest a clash of personalities.
A medical practitioner, Arikana is unforgivingly opinionated, and not a particularly good fit for the AU job, especially within the circumstances in which she found herself in DC.
As AU ambassador, she did not spare the French and her Africa policy, and the highly troubling practices of France in her former colonies.
Since her firing, Ambassador Quao has almost attained the status of a folk heroine among many Africans, along with the likes of Kenya’s Professor Patrick Loch Otieno Lumumba and others in the same genre.
In conclusion, I strongly recommend that the AU be scrapped.
And instead of a new body, I suggest that four subregional bodies representing the four corners of the continent should replace the AU.
Like as is with the World soccer Cup championship, representatives from the four bodies would meet every two or four years to discuss and compare notes. That’s my suggestion.
As presently positioned, the AU has become a failed organization, a waste of valuable and scarce resources, the AU is now a poor representation of Africa to the rest of the world.
It has become a burdensome and outdated machine that is incapable of delivering on the demands of a continent that is in a hurry to catch up with the rest of the world.
Bottom line is that: the AU has got to go! Period.
