The New Partnership for Africa’s Development (Nepad) is claiming much attention as the African Union prepares to celebrate its first anniversary in less than two months. The relationship between the two is generating some thorny questions, observers say.
Nepad is the blueprint for Africa’s economic revival and expresses most of the continent’s aspirations. But does the will exist among AU leaders to ensure that Nepad achieves its goals?
And is it time to celebrate the AU? Has it truly ushered in a new era, or is it perpetuating problems of bureau-cracy and unwillingness to change reminiscent of the former Organisation of African Unity (OAU)?
In theory, the will and capacity to implement Nepad exists in the AU but in practice a lot will have to be done, says Rhodes University’s Professor Rock Ajulu.
“It is an obvious question whether Africa can reinvent itself to drive such an ambitious project as Nepad. The capacity is not there yet, but it is because both Nepad and the AU are at embryonic stage,” Ajulu says. “We will have to wait and see but so far only South Africa and its President, Thabo Mbeki, stand out with the right policies, governance structures and openness to lead Nepad.”
The precise relations between Nepad and the AU are subject to some “confusion”, says Centre for Policy Studies director Dr Chris Landsberg. “Certainly among donor nations there has been a perception that Nepad enjoys greater attention than the AU. It will be important for African leaders to clarify whether Nepad is a programme of the AU, because there has been a tendency to play the AU against Nepad.”
But Dr Eddie Maloka, executive director of the African Institute of South Africa, offers a different perspective: Nepad has managed to get its own image registered internationally, he says. “I am glad there is now a convergence of Nepad and AU. But many Africa countries still have to work on popularising Nepad. Some countries lack the capacity to meet commitments they make at conferences, and that remains a challenge for the AU.”
The AU aims to break away from a past in which corrupt African regimes supported each other and refused to account to anyone, including their constituencies, by banishing opposition and arresting and sometimes killing political opponents.
Important objectives include promoting sustainable economic development, integrating African economies, enhancing peace, security and stability on the continent, and promoting democratic principles and institutions, popular participation and good governance.
A Peace and Security Council will be established as a standing decision-making organ for the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts. To under- line the importance of the AU, the council will be supported by a Panel of the Wise, an Early Warning System, an African Standby Force and a Special Fund.
The Panel of the Wise will be composed of five highly respected African personalities who have made outstanding contributions to the causes of peace, security and development on the continent. They will advise the Peace and Security Council on all issues pertaining to peace in Africa.
The Early Warning System will analyse developments within the continent and recommend the best course of action. Member states will take steps to establish standby contingents for participation in peace-support missions decided on by the Peace and Security Council, or intervention authorised by the Assembly. A Peace Fund will be established to provide the necessary financial resources for peace and support missions.
But progress has been slow. Since last year only 12 countries have ratified the protocol establishing the Pan-African Parliament. Ratifications from another 15 countries are still needed.
The Peace and Security Council Protocol has been signed by only four countries, but foreign affairs officials say that, at the next AU meeting in Mozambique in July, the protocol could be ratified.
Another drawback is that many states have not paid their dues. The total arrears in contributions is $44-million.
But, overall, unpaid dues are only the smallest of the AU’s problems, Landsberg says. “There are many African leaders who much prefer the status quo and are uncomfortable with the new norms and values. Just because the AU has been launched does not mean it will be taken seriously.
“My assessment of the AU is that the past year or so has been spent restructuring from the OAU to the AU. They have been sorting out policy, mechanisms, new rules and principles. Clearly the next year will have to be spent on implementation and operationalisation. But the biggest achievement has been the break with the past for new values and norms. There is a greater clarity on what the new rules are.”
Ross Herbert of the South African Institute of International Affairs agrees that philosophically a new mindset has been introduced but many heads of states are still uncomfortable with a political review of their countries’ governance. “There is a resolve to intervene in other countries where conflict has been stirred up. I am impressed by the constructive focus on solving conflicts and the assertion that state sovereignty is no longer absolute.
“The downside is that the AU is now more complex and vastly more expensive than the continent has the ability to manage. It took about $37-million a year to run the OAU, but the AU with 18 institutions and a more aggressive peacekeeping unit will cost between $100-million and $120-million a year to run.”