Analysts warn of challenges ahead of AU launch

Analysts on Thursday issued a cautious welcome for the African Union (AU), expected to be launched on 8-10 July in Durban, South Africa.

Speaking to western diplomats gathered at the South African Institute for International Affairs (SAIIA), political observers agreed that although the transformation from the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) into the AU was a promising move, the new organisation faced enormous challenges.

Although relatively upbeat about the launch, applied legal studies expert Prof Shadrack Gutto said: "The most important challenge for African leaders is to make the AU not only coherent but relevant to the African people."

Gutto commended the wording of the AU's mission statement, "A New African Initiative", saying that the ambitious plan outlined in the statement went far beyond anything ever envisaged by the OAU.

"The new institution is more about the present moment. Women and the youth are explicitly mentioned in the mission, which is a reflection of the change in attitudes among leaders. In 1963 these groups were not a priority for the founders of the OAU."

The formation in 1963 of the OAU was the first attempt to make real the vision of a united Africa.

However, with an out-of-date charter, which narrowly defined sovereignty, the pan-African organisation has been widely criticised for its apparent protection of dictators by its so-called principle of non-interference.

Significantly, the AU, unlike its predecessor, will have the political leverage to intervene in member states where there is evidence of serious human rights violations, such as genocide and war crimes.

Senior Africa researcher at SAIIA, Ross Herbert said: "It is one thing to have it down on paper, but the real test is the implementation in practical terms. How much power will leaders have to rope in countries such as Zimbabwe, which seems to have gone off the rails, remains to be seen."

The union will be multi-faceted, with an assembly made up of all the heads of state and an executive council composed of foreign ministers. Included in the union plan are a pan-African parliament, a court of justice and a central bank.

The new resolve to end Africa's conflicts and develop the continent's many moribund economies, was affirmed at a summit in Lusaka last July and leaders were given a year to prepare for the AU launch.

But NGOs and analysts labelled the union as a "waste of money" and "another autocratic nightmare".

"The AU will require a budget much larger than that of the OAU. Leaders will have to be more creative about how they intend to finance such an ambitious project," Gutto added.

As the OAU cedes to the AU, it is owed US $50 million in arrears as less than a third of its members have paid their membership fees.

Central to the success of the AU is the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), an African-designed plan to rebuild the continent. If the plan gets off the ground, the hope is to generate US $64 billion in investment yearly, boosting continent-wide annual economic growth to seven percent.

In return, western countries are asking Africa to make a commitment to democracy and the fight against corruption.

At a summit in Nigeria in March, 21 African states agreed on a communique which proposed eight draft codes of behaviour to be judged by an independent, credible African institute "separate from the political process and structures".

The African Peer Review Mechanism, as it has been dubbed, should make sure "that policies of African countries are based on best current knowledge and practices".

Gutto said: "By setting up the institute and the codes of practice, NEPAD's backers are hoping to head off worries among the western states whose money is needed if NEPAD is to succeed."

When NEPAD was unveiled, in July, Africa had already suffered a decline in prosperity which had seen 34 of the continent's nations ranked among the world's least developed countries, compared with 27 in 1996.

Development aid to Africa fell from US $24.2 billion to US $14.2 billion between 1989 and 1999, while the UN said that foreign investment had been set to fall by 40 percent even before the 11 September attacks on the United States.