African countries are signatory to memberships of many continental and regional organisations, most of which duplicates of others.
A quick glance at their objectives and/or aims shows unmistakable similarities yet positive results are far in between.
Created by independent African countries on May 25 1963 in Addis Ababa, the Organisation Of African Unity (OAU) was a comforting and appreciated creation to the African leaders who found themselves in power.
They were new kids on the block who had acquired independence for their countries and needed to stand together and to support each other.
In the OAU, they found “strength in numbers” and that was good in that countries freed from colonial administration were able and willing to assist those who were still fighting for their independence.
At its formation, the OAU’s aims were listed as, among others, “to co-ordinate and intensify the co-operation of African states in order to achieve a better life for the people of Africa; to defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of African states”; to eradicate “all forms of colonialism and white minority rule”.
Interestingly, some of their aims are painful to revisit today as they pledged “to ensure that all Africans enjoyed human rights; to raise the living standards of all Africans and to settle arguments and disputes between members ÔÇô not through fighting but rather peaceful and diplomatic negotiation”.
As of 2017 and having given birth to the African Union, Africa does not offer human rights to its citizens; it is still struggling to raise the living standards of its people and disputes within a country are dealt with by using deadly force and conflicts between two African countries fester into military confrontations that affect entire regions.
On its part, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) states its objectives (Article 5) as “to achieve development and economic growth, alleviate poverty, enhance the standard and quality of life of the people of Southern Africa and support the socially disadvantaged through Regional Integration”.
If it sounds rather childish, it is only because it is childish in that the absence of any reference to the security, preservation and sanctity of the life of Africans comes as an afterthought. Supporting “the socially disadvantaged” does not necessarily need regional integration, as such, but needs only that thing called ‘charity’, which I understand begins at home.
SADC goes on to talk about evolving “common political values, systems and institutions”. Then they say to “promote and defend peace and security; promote self-sustaining development on the basis of collective self-reliance, and the inter-dependence of Member States”.
They go on to talk about ‘regional strategies’, the ‘utilization of resources of the region’ and all those things that are far removed from the individual; things that do not put the spotlight on the villager who is the backbone of any regional cooperation.
Regional cooperation starts from the villages of the countries involved.
SADC does not understand how lucky it has been to be established in a region that is war weary.
Do the people of Angola want to hear about armed conflict anymore?
Do the people of Zimbabwe want to hear about armed conflict anymore?
What about the people of Mozambique who are slowly re-living the horrors of internal armed conflicts?
To liberate their countries, some of Southern Africa’s countries staged the fiercest battles in Africa and those battles lasted for years on end, taking with them men, women, the elderly, the infirm and our children.
In Zimbabwe, almost as many black civilians as guerrillas were killed because the white minority government had support not only from South Africa but from Europe and the west.
In spite of their public pronouncements, most of the veterans who fought in Zimbabwe’s war of liberation do not want to ever see an armed conflict in the country again.
Those who saw combat know and understand.
Angola, on the other hand, had a nightmare to independence because after the Portuguese colonialists left, local politicians turned on each other and that war was vicious.
Angola is still coming across unexploded landmines.
Today, we are witnessing another violent flair of internal armed conflict in Mozambique ÔÇô a country that suffered for its own independence then suffered more for the independence of both Zimbabwe and South Africa ÔÇô losing its president in the process.
And these countries know how guerilla warfare sucks villagers into its wars.
Both SADC and the AU have no clue as to what to do about the conflicts in their midst; they always have an affinity to support the sitting dictator or wayward Head of state.
Africa is not a poor continent; it is made poor because it does not own what it has.
Africa is not deficient but only in its leadership.
It strikes me as mighty strange that while all other leaders agree on a punishable transgression, there is always one who pees into the watering well.
On its part, the African Union was just a change of name from the OAU ÔÇô an attempt to camouflage its horrible image while pushing the same old rot.
The AU’s Principles – Article 4 (g) ÔÇô still spouts the old OAU rubbish about “Non-interference by any Member State in the internal affairs of another”.
But in the very next line – Article 4 (h) – the AU states “the right of the Union to intervene in a Member State pursuant to a decision of the Assembly in respect of grave circumstances, namely war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity”.
Just three days ago, the AU voted to exit the International Criminal Court, saying they, as Africans, were being unfairly targeted as opposed to dictators from other continents.
It is a luxury only unique to Africa for one murderer to demand a more severe punishment for another murderer ÔÇô thanks to the AU, which cuddles and protects our dictators.
On the other hand, in its ‘aims and objectives’, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) talks about “accountability, economic and social justice”.
It demands “recognition, promotion and protection of human and peoples’ rights in accordance with the provisions of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights”.
Primarily, ECOWAS wants the “maintenance of regional peace, stability and security through the promotion and strengthening of good neighbourliness”.
But ECOWAS, unlike the AU and SADC, dutifully acts and this is why that simple difference is so important to the oppressed people in independent African countries where they are oppressed more than the colonialists ever did.
Yes, we should compare all continental organizations not only against each other but we should compare them against their efforts, successes and failures.
The African Union is a big disappointment; so is SADC.
ECOWAS is doing the AU’s job and it is doing it better. Whether or not they succeed at all times does not matter.
The point is that, unlike SADC, ECOWAS is always trying and shows a consistency and resolve that leaders and citizens of its region are taking faith in.
The AU, which lacks commitment to its own principles, waits for public opinion; it is led ÔÇô it does not lead.
Africa will survive both the AU and SADC.
