Maravi

(TALKZIMBABWE) Resurgence of Pan-African Unity

Resurgence of Pan-African Unity
Garikai Chengu -- Opinion
Sun, 15 Mar 2009 23:03:00 +0000

THREE very significant events that occurred in recent weeks at continental, regional and national levels, have simultaneously served to promote African interests, through a renewed sense of pan-African unity, as well as frustrate the external forces which sought to undermine both these interests and African solidarity.

These events include the African Union’s reaction to the indictment of President Al-Bashir of Sudan, the swearing in of the inclusive Government and the recent conciliatory tone and actions across the political landscape, respectively.

Geostrategic Interests and Black Gold

At continental level, the recent unity of purpose shown by the African Union’s rebuffing of President Al-Bashir’s indictment is of great significance.

As cries of “Out of Iraq—Into Darfur” spread beyond the confines of anti-war rallies and sweep across the U.S., various groups cry “Save Darfur” and one cannot help but wonder who is driving this ‘movement’ and what intervention they hope to see?

It is repeatedly said that the international community has a ‘responsibility to protect’ and a moral responsibility to prevent ‘genocide.’

On the face of it this may appear noble, but as one peels away the slogans and platitudes and focuses on precisely what ‘intervention’ is being called for and by whom, a far more sinister picture emerges, which unfortunately is common across the continent.

Sudan’s immense size as Africa’s largest nation, its strategic location on the Red Sea and the fact that it shares borders with seven nations makes it very important to the U.S.

The nation also has the fourth largest deposits of natural gas in the world, third largest deposits of copper and is second to none for deposits of high-purity uranium. Crucially, Sudan’s vast land is also believed to be home to oil reserves comparable to those of Saudi Arabia.

However, similar to Zimbabwe and unlike Saudi Arabia, the government has managed to stay largely independent of Britain and the U.S.

This inability to exert control over Sudan’s vast oil and mineral wealth has unsurprisingly resulted in both Britain and the U.S. prescribing a dose of ‘smart’ and ‘targeted’ sanctions on the already ailing and impoverished nation, so as to hinder its ability to development its oil capabilities and foment the citizenry’s dissatisfaction with the government.

However, much to Washington’s chagrin President Al-Bashir has ‘looked East’ and sought assistance from Russia and China to develop its exploration and processing technologies and capabilities.

Previously, British colonial policy, would have dealt with such defiance and non-compliance via divide-and-conquer tactics and keeping its colonies underdeveloped and isolated so as to plunder their resources.

However, since the collapse of the British colonial empire this policy has been altered, refined and perpetuated by U.S. imperialism which has sought to sabotage the economic independence of countries led by non-complaint nationalist governments as they try to emerge from colonial underdevelopment.

The U.S.’s arsenal is comprised of three economic weapons, including sanctions which are neither as ‘smart’ nor indeed as ‘targeted’ as they purport.

Secondly, the IMF, which is largely under US control, calls for “structural adjustment”. The debt which results from structural adjustment is an efficient tool because it ensures access to raw materials in African countries on the cheapest possible terms. Similarly, the spending cuts on health, education and infrastructure, which structural adjustment require, effectively mean that a government voluntarily lowers the standard of living of its people, without the aforementioned first weapon or subsequent third, ever having to be used.

The third economic weapon has been utilised in Sudan for over twenty years, and initially involved the provision of support to a separatist rebel movement in the south, where most of the oil is situated. The bloody and protracted civil which ensued served its purpose by undermining the government’s resources and international standing. No sooner than the guns fell silent did the US’ attention turn to funding and training the Sudan Liberation Movement and Justice and Equality Movement rebels through its African allies.

African Criminal Court

In light of this flagrant infringement of a nation’s sovereignty, the US’ refusal to sign up to the ICC is made all the more egregious, by its fear that the court might be used by opponents of the United States to pursue ‘politically-motivated cases’ and that it would ‘dilute American sovereignty in criminal justice’. Paradoxically, the new U.S. ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice, says that justice must be done on all ICC warrants.

The court has received over 1,700 complaints about alleged crimes in at least 139 countries and yet the only cases before the ICC pertain to Africa: Uganda, Democratic Republic of Congo, Central African Republic and Darfur. Similarly, all thirteen of the indictments have been handed down to Africans.

For a justice system which exhibited callous hand-wringing towards the Boers in South Africa; Germans in Namibia and Belgians in Congo surely it is precluded from championing justice in Africa.

This exposition of the court’s selective justice directed at Africans has rather encouragingly led to the African Union’s adoption of a unified stance in defiance to the indictment of President Al-Bashir. The AU Commissioner for Peace and Security, has pulled no punches in his criticism of the court by emphasising that it ‘’was established in order to point the finger of accusation against Africa while ignoring what is happening in Iraq, Palestine and Afghanistan.’’

It is high time that the slogan ‘African solutions to African problems’ is put into practice and all African signatories to the discredited ICC should withdraw from the court and establish an African Criminal Court. Then, and only then, can Africans claim to be exercising their right to self determination, by not only writing their own laws and executing them but also interpreting them.

This internalisation of an African problem has been a growing and heartening trend on the continent and the newly appointed envoy, former President Mbeki, drafted in to intercede between the ICC and Sudan, has been instrumental in successfully internalising a crisis closer to home.

All diplomacy is quiet, if it is not quiet then it is not diplomacy

At regional level, the second significant event in recent weeks to underscore the benefits of internalising diplomatic resolution of disputes and presenting a unified front to external pressures is the swearing in of the inclusive government.

Events on February 11th where the culmination of Mr. Mbeki’s so called quiet diplomacy and South Africa's principled stance at the UN Security Council which allowed Sadc the platform to provide a unified front against external pressures.

These pressures embarked on a vicious character assassination of Mr Mbeki, and sought to divide Sadc by labelling some of its members as ‘pro democracy’ and others as ‘appeasers’. However, similar to aforesaid events at continental level, SADC remained steadfast and did not allow external forces to influence or divide it and in doing so has defended our right to self-determination.

As a result, on September 15th 2008 South Africa's policy of non-interference in Zimbabwe's affairs and Mr. Mbeki's policy of quiet diplomacy spoke.

Ever since the Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was unveiled, certain sections within it have sparked a cacophonous chorus of calls for Sadc to ‘intervene,’ which have peaked but remain largely unabated to this day.

In understanding why certain sections of the MoU would invoke such a pointed reaction it is important to note that like Sudan, Zimbabwe is of great geostrategic importance to the US and the UK, not least because of its abundant natural resources but also reforms in 2001, which alone may not pose ‘a continuing threat to the foreign policy of the United States’ but when viewed in a regional context are clearly significant to British and US interests.

Supposing Britain, the IMF and the World Bank where supportive of the recent agrarian reforms and bountiful crops could be found on new commercial farms from Mutorashanga to Mvuma, then the ‘threat’ would have been that every landless black from Maputo to Mmabatho would be demanding their fair share. This would have posed a massive geopolitical threat to British interests and hence the ensuing wrath of indiscriminate sanctions which have succeeded in preventing such a region wide revolt by the landless, with ruthless efficiency.

A United National

At national level, this ‘threat’ has materialised via the swearing in of the inclusive government and as such, the ‘wait and see’ approach, which amounts to a concealed continuation of hostile policy towards Harare, has been buttressed by a series of wide ranging hurdles that the government must surpass for aid and assistance from Britain.

Despite these seemingly noble conditions that Whitehall has put on its financial assistance, the reticence towards supporting a government which represents the entire citizenry and contains within its founding document the denunciation of illegal coercive measures and the repudiation of a return to the pre 2001 status quo ante, can scarcely be concealed.

As such, the private and western media have chimed in by referring to the inclusive government in all manner of ways ranging from a ‘shotgun wedding of inconvenience’ to ‘Harare’s false dawn.’

Despite this tacit vote of no confidence and concerted media onslaught, the conciliatory rhetoric matched with recent actions by all parties has done a great deal to promote much needed and coveted national unity.

So much so that just as occurred at continental and regional level, all parties have called for the lifting of ‘restrictive measures,’ designed to divide people and one western nation has broke ranks and pledged aid.

Events of recent weeks at national, regional and continental levels are as encouraging as they are instructive, and highlight the merits of the recent tentative resurgence of Pan-African unity and internalisation of diplomatic resolution of disputes in order to promote African interests over western interests, which so often are at irreconcilable odds.

_______________

Garikai Chengu is an African and African American Research Institute Fellow, Harvard University. He can be contacted via chengu@fas.harvard.edu The views expressed herein are those of Mr. Chengu and do not necessary express those of the institute.

Labels: NEOCOLONIALISM, PANAFRICANISM

posted by MrK @ 7:17 PM