{"id":1023,"date":"2013-05-22T19:12:05","date_gmt":"2013-05-22T19:12:05","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/solomonappiah.wordpress.com\/?p=1023"},"modified":"2022-04-11T23:43:50","modified_gmt":"2022-04-11T23:43:50","slug":"50th-anniversary-oauau-evolution-of-peace-security-via-regional-arrangements","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sunesishq.com\/notes\/50th-anniversary-oauau-evolution-of-peace-security-via-regional-arrangements\/","title":{"rendered":"50th Anniversary OAU\/AU: Evolution of Peace and Security"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"Print\"<\/a><\/p>\n

On 25 May 2013, Africa celebrated the 50th anniversary of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU). This organization was established in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on May 25 1963 by representatives of 32 nations. Unfortunately many Africans are illiterate when it comes to comprehending the OAU, it successes, failures etc and those of its successor, the AU. Much blood, sweat and tears has gone into realising this pan-African vision of a united regional body for Africa. The challenge \u00a0with history is those who are ignorant of it are most susceptible to repeating its mistakes. Those who understand it have a better footing because they can always replicate successes but avoid the trappings of the past.<\/span><\/p>\n

Africa today according to the World Bank and the IMF (See previous posts) hosts some of the fastest growing economies in the globe having maintained a solid expansion for the past 10 years right through the recent global recession. This is partly due to a stable atmosphere within which businesses thrive vis-a-vis the Africa of yesterday which was covered with coup d’\u00e9tats in every corner making the continent unfavourable for investments of any kind, foreign or domestic. The reason for the reduction of these senseless conflicts and promotion of regional economies owes in large part to the work of the OAU and its successor the African Union (AU). What follows in this LONG blog entry is an attempt to educate any willing reader about the history, setbacks and achievements<\/span> of the OAU\/AU.\u00a0<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

Introduction <\/span><\/h1>\n

The African Union (AU) is the regional organization primarily responsible for providing peace and security on the world’s second largest and second most populous continent which is home to a population of about 1.033 billion people (2011 estimate) living in 57 countries. The AU is made up of 54 Member States. To get a more holistic view of peace and security management on the continent, the first half of this paper will consider the genesis and historical development of regionalism in Africa. In doing so, the blog will consider the security mechanisms that preceded the AU. The second half of the blog will consider the AU and its chief organ for maintaining peace and security namely the Peace and Security Council (PSC) and its African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA). Though peace and security encompasses broad issues relating to food, health, shelter, conflicts etc, this paper will focus on the mechanisms for managing peace and security issues. <\/span><\/p>\n

The beginnings of Regionalism in Africa <\/span><\/h2>\n

[youtube http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=b2903pxjYrc]<\/span><\/p>\n

Watch the video from 2:12.<\/span><\/p>\n

On March 6 1957, the former British colony known as the Gold Coast gained Independence and changed its name to Ghana. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. who was present on this occasion recalls Ghana’s first black Prime Minister Dr. Kwame Nkrumah walking into Parliament with his ministers dressed in the prison garbs they had worn for months to deliver a speech (King Jr, 1957<\/a>). After having addressed Parliament, Osagyefo Dr. Kwame Nkrumah addressed the crowds waiting outside with his famous Independence speech<\/a> in which he made a statement which contained the seed of regionalism in Africa<\/span>. He said, “The independence of Ghana is meaningless unless it is linked up to the total liberation of Africa<\/span><\/strong>” (Nkrumah, 1957). In a sense, this statement has not yet fully been fulfilled. In pursuit of the total freedom of Africa, Dr. Nkrumah believed that African nations had to come together to form a political, economic and cultural union giving them the needed leverage to topple the remaining hegemony of colonialism on the continent. Other African leaders shared this Pan-African dream but differed with Dr. Nkrumah as to the nature and approach of attaining the union (Yoh, 2008). <\/span><\/p>\n

Division among African states <\/span><\/h2>\n

Conservative states such as Nigeria, C\u00f4te d’Ivoire, Ethiopia and francophone Africa preferred a gradualist, functionalist approach to African unity whereas Radicals like Nkrumah’s Ghana, Guinea, Mali and Libya wanted an immediate unity. The former preferred an economic union whereas the latter a political union that encompassed culture and economy (Yoh, 2008). <\/span><\/p>\n

Brazzaville versus Casablanca groupings <\/span><\/h2>\n

In December 1960, 12 leaders from francophone Africa gathered in Congo, Brazzaville to form a regional alliance that would safeguard their interests. These became known as the Brazzaville group. At the end of this meeting they founded the African and Madagasy Union (AMU). This regional arrangement cast its collective support in favor of Mauritania’s aspirations of applying for United Nations membership. This was contrary to Morocco’s national<\/span> policy which claimed that Mauritania was part of Morocco. Needless to say, this new regional arrangement did not sit well with the King of Morocco so he joined forces with the group of states that held and opposing view to the conservatives\u2014the radicals. He was instrumental in hosting a conference for the radicals in Casablanca in January 1961. Those who gathered at this conference became known as the Casablanca group and they included Ghana, Guinea, Mali, Morocco, Algeria, Egypt and Libya. At the end of the conference, the Casablanca group produced a document called the African Charter in which they called for an African political, economic and cultural union, that is, a United States of Africa. Additionally, they asked for the formation of a Joint African High Command Committee to manage the continent’s security issues as part of this union (Yoh, 2008). The Brazzaville and Casablanca groups remained at odds with each other and this reflected in their policy directions. In the Congo crisis for instance, the Brazzaville group supported the conservative President Joseph Kassavubu whiles the Casablanca group supported his nationalistic Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba. The continent was split between these two factions. In May 1961, the Ivorian, Senegalese, and Liberian Presidents convened a conference inviting both groups to find an amicable solution to the problem posed by African unity but the radicals refused to attend. At this conference some of the motives behind the conservative stance of some members of the Brazzaville group were brought to the fore. A number of francophone countries still had strong ties to France and some had signed defense agreements with their former colonial master. Nigeria found itself in the same situation with Britain. Owing to some of these reasons, the conservatives felt they could not afford such radical moves as were being proposed by the Casablanca group (Yoh, 2008). <\/span><\/p>\n

Bridging the divide <\/span><\/h2>\n

Not wanting the differences between the two groups to stifle the Pan-African dream of a united Africa, Emperor Haile Selassie intervened as a mediator of sorts. His government through diplomacy managed to convince both groups to attend a conference hosted by Ethiopia in May 1963 in Addis Ababa. At this gathering, both camps presented their positions. Though not arrived at easily, eventually a compromise was arrived at which marked the founding of the first all-African regional organization\u2014the Organization of African Unity (OAU) (Yoh, 2008). <\/span><\/p>\n

Organization of African Unity (OAU) and security <\/span><\/h1>\n

\"STR\/AFP\/Getty<\/a><\/p>\n

STR\/AFP\/Getty Images) AFP\/Getty Images:\u00a0Reproduction of a file photo dated 25 May 1963 shows the Ethiopian Emperor Haile Selassie (C) and Ghana’s founder and first President Kwame Nkrumah (L) during the formation of the Organization of African Unity in Addis Ababa.<\/p>\n

The Organisation of African Unity (OAU) was established in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, on May 25 1963 by representatives of 32 nations. The OAU Charter in its preamble explains that it was established amongst other things to “safeguard and consolidate the hard-won independence as well as the sovereignty and territorial integrity of our states, and to fight against neo-colonialism in all its forms” (p.1). The OAU structure was made up of 4 organs, the fourth being the organ responsible for ensuring peace and security. The organs were: <\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. \n
    the Assembly of Heads of State and Governments <\/span><\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  2. \n
    the Council of Ministers <\/span><\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  3. \n
    the General Secretariat <\/span><\/div>\n<\/li>\n
  4. \n
    the Commission of Mediation, Conciliation, and Arbitration <\/span><\/div>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The commission was tasked was responsible for coordinating peace and security policies but sadly the Commission was unsuccessful because of challenges posed by Member States who narrowly interpreted the principle of sovereignty and non-interference (African Union, 2003). An additional reason for the failure of this organ was the fact that its lacked teeth to bite, that is , its inability to sanction Member States for undesirable behaviour. To cope with the ineffectiveness of the Commission, the OAU set up Ad-Hoc Committees of wise men to handle specific security challenges (Ibok, 2000). <\/span><\/p>\n

    Later on, the formation of regional economic communities (RECs) like the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) helped the OAU in managing security on the continent through a decentralised system. Because the RECs understood the culture and terrain of their regions better than external actors, the RECs were better suited to manage peace and security challenges within their regions. ECOWAS for instance did well in bringing peace to Liberia, Sierra Leone and Guinea through the use of the Economic Community of West African States Monitoring Group (ECOMOG) which drew forces from Ghana, Guinea, Sierra Leone, The Gambia, Liberia, Mali, Burkina Faso, Niger etc (Khobe, 2004). In 1990 the OAU reached a milestone for peace and security management on the continent when the ineffective Commission was replaced with the Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution which was more proactive in that it sought to quell conflict before it started unlike the Commission which was more reactionary waiting for a conflict to flare up before attempting to mitigate it through mediation, conciliation, and arbitration (Yoh, 2008). <\/span><\/p>\n

    OAU Mechanism for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution <\/span><\/h3>\n

    The adoption of this mechanism facilitated increased cooperation with international actors such as the United Nations (UN) in matters relating to peacemaking and peacekeeping. In section 25 of the Cairo declaration of this mechanism, the OAU elaborated on the nature of cooperation with the UN as including financial, logistical and military support for Conflict Prevention, Management and Resolution on the continent as stipulated in the provisions of the UN Charter on the role of regional organizations in the maintenance of international peace and security found in Chapter VIII. Furthermore the mechanism empowered the Secretary General to deploy fact finding missions and special envoys into troubled spots to gather necessary information for needed for constructive deliberations (Yoh, 2008). This led to the development of an Early Warning System to help the OAU detect potential challenges before they became full blown crises. In 1992 a Conflict Management Centre (CMC) was set up to operationalize the mechanism. The CMC was effective in addressing conflicts in Angola, Burundi, the Central African Republic, Comoros, Liberia, Democratic republic of Congo, Guinea-Bissau, Rwanda, Somalia and Sierra Leone; as well as the Ethiopia-Eritrea border dispute and conflict. Peacekeeping wise, the Mechanism enabled peacekeeping missions and operations in Rwanda (NMOG); Burundi (OMIB); Comoros (OMIC); DRC (JMC) and Ethiopia-Eritrea (OLMEE) (African Union, 2003). <\/span><\/p>\n

    In addition to the CMC, the OAU established other security arrangements to aid the operationalizing of the mechanism such as field operation units. This in addition to what is known as the African Standby Forces was the military component in the CMC’s conflict resolution structural framework. More will be said on this in the section on the Africa Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) of the AU. <\/span><\/p>\n

    Challenges faced by the OAU <\/span><\/h2>\n

    Right from its inception the OAU was fraught with many challenges ensuing from the history of the continent. Ethnic differences and territorial border conflicts were rife as a result of colonially inherited artificial borders. At this same time, the cold war was raging and superpowers were busy vying for allegiance from UN Member States, many of which belonged to the OAU. This further polarised the member states on ideological lines. In addition, racial discrimination between the Arab North and black sub Saharan countries persisted. The Belgian execution of Patrice Lumumba in 1961 (Hollington, 2007) and the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) assisted overthrow of President Nkrumah in 1966 (Gebe, 2008) did little to help the infant regional organization. When the new unconstitutional government of Ghana attended their first OAU meeting, they were initially condemned and not recognized as legitimate by some of the other Member States but the USA and the international community put pressure on the OAU to accept them hence setting a very deadly precedence (Boafo-Arthur, 2008). Till today, the continent struggles with coup d’\u00e9tats, the most recent being those of Mali and Guinea-Bissau in 2012. <\/span><\/p>\n

    Achievement <\/span><\/h2>\n

    To gauge the achievement of the OAU, it must be judged against the backdrop of its objectives of which the chief was to rid Africa of all forms of colonialism including apartheid (African Union, 2012). By the time the OAU became defunct, it had managed to achieve this goal. Beginning with 32 nations at its inception, an additional 21 states had been added by the time it was ready to metamorphose into the African Union. This was the crowning success of the OAU (Ibok, 2000). The OAU was instrumental in solving a number of territorial disputes. It started the process of creating regional economic communities (RECs) which became the building blocs of its successor, the AU. Due in part to the work of the OAU, countries who had in the past protracted seasons of civil war such as Angola, Mozambique, Sierra Leone, Liberia and Rwanda are all at peace now (Hoeffler, 2008). <\/span><\/p>\n

    Transition from OAU to AU <\/span><\/h1>\n

    [youtube http:\/\/www.youtube.com\/watch?v=FozisS3LHcI]<\/p>\n

    The post-cold war era was one that promoted values such as democracy, good governance and transparency. The OAU Member States were not especially known for upholding these values but amidst international pressure to reform, the OAU felt the need to transform itself to better reflect the aforementioned values. Other reasons for reform were economically induced. During this period Africa was experiencing very difficult economic crisis hence the Structural Adjustment Programs (SAPs) and Economic Recovery Programs (ERPs) that were proliferated in Africa in the early 80s to mitigate these challenges. These did not help. By 1980 OAU Member States had come to a conclusion that Africa’s challenges could only be addressed by Africans and that overdependence on former colonial powers and the Bretton Woods system of monetary management was contributory to the woes of the continent. To find a remedy, African leaders convened in Lagos and came up with the Lagos Plan of Action for the Economic Development of Africa. This implementation of this plan was slated for the period between 1980\u20132000 (Lagos Plan of Action, 1980). This plan was a comprehensive road map of development for the continent. Initially, African leaders disagreed as to the approach to attaining an African Union. Some states proposed a gradualist approach whiles others preferred an immediate integration into a United States of Africa\u2014similar to the post-independence arguments between the Casablanca and Brazzaville groups that merged into the OAU. After much deliberation, African leaders in Lagos settled on a gradualist approach to the attainment of an Africa Union where the RECs would serve as the building blocs of the conceived Union (Adejo, 2001). The Plan of Action under section 2B(1a) declared that for the period of the 1980s, African nations would strengthen existing Regional Economic Communities (RECs) and establish others in other regions of Africa (Lagos Plan of Action, 1980). There are 8 main RECs namely: <\/span><\/p>\n