The Relevance of the African Union at 50
On May 24, 1963 in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, at the founding meeting of the Organization of African Unity (OAU), the fathers of the African independence movement gathered to craft a blue-print of continental unity, a tangible representation of the philosophy of Pan-Africanism.
Kwame Nkrumah proclaimed “we must unite now or perish… the masses of the people of Africa are crying for unity.”
Despite these fierce words, half a century later, after decades of border disputes, conflict and flawed leadership across the continent, we are left wondering: is the AU still relevant today?
The original agenda for the OAU included proposals to create a common African financial market, an African currency, an African monetary zone and an African central bank. To date, none of these goals have been accomplished.
Today, as government and state representatives begin to gather in Addis Ababa, where it all began 50 years ago, it is time to re-examine the AU’s commitment to its lofty goals and reflect on how it might continue to stay true to its mission.
The theme of this year’s summit is “Pan-Africanism and African Renaissance”, a fitting title meant to gently remind nations of the ideals of Pan-Africanism that ungird the organization and renew a commitment to these principles.
In recent years, the eight main regional organizations such as the Arab Maghreb Union (AMU), Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa (COMESA), East African Community (EAC) and Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) have enjoyed increasing levels of influence and made inroads towards political and economic regional integration. However, does the emphasis on the regional networks compromise the AU’s focus if they work independently rather than inter-dependently?
Although these regional organizations can harness political power, their small scale would be eclipsed by a continent-wide partnership facilitated by the AU. Rather than focusing at the regional level, we need large-scale collaboration. Only when the AU puts some teeth in its initiatives will African nations be able to harness their political power on an international stage that often minimizes their interests. A renewed commitment to partnership will also aid in improving the levels of intra-regional trade, which lags far behind other regions of the world such as the ASEAN and EU nations.
Nevertheless, despite these critiques of a lack of cohesion, the AU has done commendable work in the area of peacekeeping by playing pivotal roles in conflict settings like Somalia and Sudan.
To move towards increased cooperation capable of spurring peace and development, the AU must develop a cogent, common ideological framework that allows for discussions based on a coherent moral foundation. In order to expedite this process, nations must work draft action plans that emphasize standards of behavior to which they must hold one another accountable. Otherwise, crafting a sustainable 2063 vision will be impossible.
The Irony Behind Kenya’s Elections
At 50 years old, Kenya is a young country. But it is a nation that has been groomed as the precocious child of East Africa. For decades, Western nations like the United States saw Kenya as a bulwark of stability in the oft-turbulent region.
The 2007 election shattered that picture. Back then, multiparty elections had just been introduced to the country’s political system. That change, in combination with voting along ethnic lines and an institutionalized culture of corruption, led to a disputed electoral race between the incumbent, Mwai Kibaki, and Raila Odinga, formerly of the Orange Democratic Movement (ODM). After Kibaki allegedly manipulated the election results, disgruntled Odinga supporters took to the streets with their grievances. Those initial protests were followed by ethnic violence, primarily between members of the Luo, Kikuyu and Kalenjin tribes — and the resultant deaths of thousands, not to mention massive internal displacement. With this background of violence and tribalism, Western audiences waited with bated breath to see if last month’s Kenyan elections would have a similarly bloody outcome.
As far as we can tell, it has not. Soon after the 2007 election violence, top diplomats from across the globe — including then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, then-United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan and then-East African Community Secretary-General Juma Mwapachu — arrived in Kenya to help organize negotiations for a transitional government. In 2010, the nation adopted a new constitution which including provisions for a more decentralised political system, the creation of a second chamber of parliament and a land commission to settle past and present land disputes. These political steps forward and the International Criminal Court’s decision to indict the “Ocampo Six” appeased international observers and looked like symbols of Kenya’s commitment to justice. Although technological glitches with the electronic voting systems led Odinga to contest the results of the election, Kenya’s Supreme Court has upheld Kenyatta as the rightful victor. Notwithstanding small bouts of violence in Kiberia and Kisumu, the election has gone smoothly.
Except for one tiny detail: the group of people to be tried by the ICC for their involvement in the post-election violence of 2007 includes current President-elect Uhuru Kenyatta, who was just sworn in yesterday, and his running mate, William Ruto. In an ironic twist, despite their current political alliance, the two are accused of organizing attacks on each other’s ethnic groups following the 2007 election. In spite of the fact that Kenyatta’s legal woes were well-known to the Kenyan and international communities at the time of the election, the situation did not seem to faze this year’s voters — Kenyatta won 50.07% of the vote.
Many African nations have long looked at the ICC with an air of disdain, arguing that the court unjustly stigmatizes Africans. For the ICC, the Kenyan case is the ultimate prize. No longer will the court be relegated to simply prosecuting war criminals. With the trials of the Ocampo Six, the ICC stands to acquire a significant amount of legitimacy.
That is, if Kenyans will let them.
In 2010, the Kenyan parliament voted to withdraw Kenya from the Rome Statute, the treaty establishing the ICC. Key witnesses dropped out of trials. Since then, Kenyatta’s case has become the first case to be tried by the ICC without the accused in custody. And back home, Kenyatta’s ICC trial seems to have only helped him politically, as millions of Kenyans are willing to stand up in support of his claims of innocence.
Although countries like the United States and the United Kingdom have issued vague warnings about the political consequences of electing a candidate like Kenyatta, most major Western democracies have congratulated President-elect Kenyatta on his victory. A precarious game of chess is being played in order to balance Western interests in Kenya with the desire to support the ICC’s mission. Yet in the acknowledgment that Kenya is a vital key power player in the war on terror and the congratulations being issued to Kenyatta, the West may implicitly acknowledge that it needs Kenya no matter its moral qualms — and Kenya, as a developing country, still needs the West.
The Case for an African Pope
Originally published by Yale Daily News Weekend Edition on February 17, 2013
Even as Western churches close their doors in the face of rising budget concerns, fewer men join the priesthood and we see more empty pews, Christianity continues to thrive in regions like Latin America and Africa.
Latin Americans and Africans make up over half of the global population of Catholics in the world today. The African brand of Christianity, in particular, appears to attract many because of the syncretism of African culture and dynamism of church services. In populations seeking answers to phenomena like poverty, war and disease, Christianity is an attractive prospect. In a 2011 visit to Benin, Pope Benedict XVI referred to Africa as “an immense spiritual ‘lung’ for a humanity that appears to be in a crisis of faith and hope.” In the eyes of the most recent pope, Africa is the new frontier of Christianity — the place that will renew global faith.
So considering that perception and Pope Benedict’s recent announcement of his retirement, the time appears ripe for a sub-Saharan African pope. (The call for an African pope is a bit of a misnomer, as three popes from the earlier days of the church were of Berber origin). Long gone are the days of Eurocentric Catholicism. Nowadays, the church also must cope with the growing waves of evangelism as well as continual interaction with other major religions like Islam. A pope from sub-Saharan Africa might be adept at conquering these new challenges.
The rapid growth of Catholicism in Africa suggests that Ghana’s Cardinal Peter Turkson and Nigeria’s Cardinal Francis Arinze may be top contenders when the papal conclave, the meeting of the College of Cardinals, convenes at the end of the month to elect the new pontiff.
Still, despite the calls for an African pope from the developing world, some church scholars claim that the possibility may be unlikely considering the distribution of cardinals is heavily concentrated in Europe. The 118 cardinals who will choose the new pope are also in running for the position. And, considering the global outlook of the papacy, nationality may not figure high in the conclave decision. With Pope Benedict’s resignation, the first in over 600 years, linked to age, the new pope will need to be healthy and young enough to fulfill his papacy. Thus, age may outweigh other considerations like nationality in determining succession.
However, bearing in mind the cloud of secrecy that shrouds the conclave, we may never know the exact factors that lead to the ultimate decision. All we can be certain about is that the new pope must be prepared to battle the issues facing the Catholic Church in the modern era.
The Balance Sheet: Foreign Policy in the 2012 Election
Like his predecessor’s administration, the Obama administration has been indelibly marked by its role in Middle Eastern politics. From highs like the assassination of Osama bin Laden and the successful intervention in Libya to lows like accusations of fumbling the response to the protests in Tahir Spring and widely criticized drone attacks in Pakistan, the priorities of this administration in its approach to the war of terror are clear - a combination of rigid stances and flexing of military muscle. 21st century American politics has come to mean fighting fear mongering with only more fear mongering and violence.
While Obama has attempted to distance himself from Bush on most issues, he has shared a remarkable amount of policy continuity with “W”. Early attempts in his term to distance himself from the Bush Doctrine of preemptive action and aggressive use of American military and economic power largely failed. Guantanamo Bay continues to remain open and efforts to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and other 9/11 terrorists in civilian court were eventually thwarted. While Obama has admittedly made positive contributions to the worldwide perception of America, he has not made substantial inroads in the Middle East where American policies continue to be reviled by the vast majority of citizens.
I say this all not to critique Obama harshly, but rather to put things in perspective. College campuses, especially campuses like Yale in liberal strongholds like Connecticut, tend to be overwhelmingly Democratic. While the criticisms of our opponent are often apt, we tend to overlook the flaws of our own candidate.
Despite the critiques that can be made regarding various aspects of the Obama administration’s foreign policy, a number of positives might tip the balance sheet for most voters who place foreign policy at the top of their list of priorities for the election. According to a July 2012 Gallup poll, 42% of voters list “dealing with terrorism and international threats” as a priority in this election, thus it is an issue that any presidential candidate must be well-versed in. Given increasing globalization and the presence of multilateral organizations, Obama’s personal and academic background make him an ideal leader. Moreover, his natural sensitivity to foreign relations have been augmented by the extensive skills of Vice President Biden, former chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, who accrued foreign policy experience during her time as First Lady and as a junior senator. With Clinton poised to retire after this term, Senator John Kerry, the current Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee as well as a frequent envoy to countries in the Middle East and Africa.
In comparison with these foreign policy heavyweights, the Romney campaign seems to be severely lacking. Aside from his experience as a Mormon missionary in France in the late 1960s and interactions with foreign investors through Bain Capital, Romney’s foreign policy expertise can only be described as virtually nonexistent. His absence of diplomatic skills was painfully obvious during his summertrips to London for the Olympic Games and to Israel. In London, his series of gaffes was the subject of derision from pundits and politicians from both sides of the pond. After Romney told NBC News that “a few things that were disconcerting”, British Prime Minister David Cameron responded tersely saying: “Of course it’s easier if you hold an Olympic Games in the middle of nowhere.” Romney continued his string of faux pas in Israel when seemed to insinuate that Israel was more economically successful than Palestine due to cultural differences.
Romney’s foreign policy stances betray a fundamental misunderstanding of the dynamics of power in a 21st century world. His approach to international affairs is not only isolationist and antiquated, but encourages the “might is right” approach to foreign policy that incited worldwide hatred and scorn during the Bush era.
The informed citizen must be cognizant of the fallacies of both candidates. While holding Obama accountable for failed promises and diplomatic failings, we also must accord him respect for steering us through four years without a domestic terror attack. Simultaneously, we must be wary of a candidate who reaches back for the days of an America that overuses its military and economic might.
It is time for both candidates to openly acknowledge that America occupies a different place in the world than it did over 60 years ago. With Mitt Romney painting Russia as America’s biggest threat, we appear to be grapsing at straws to return to a world that is gone. World War II and the Cold War left us as the de-facto guiding light of peace, democracy and diplomacy. However, as political and economic unions form worldwide and emerging economies gain leverage in the marketplace, we have slipped from being the dominant leader to being a powerful voice among many.
And that position is not inherently bad. In fact, it could serve as an encouragement for increased trade with the US in a time where we see more countries increasingly shifting towards business with China because of wide availability of capital as well as the perception that the Chinese treat their dignitaries as equals.
Instead of trying - and often failing - to manipulate the world to meet our own ends, perhaps it is time to take a new approach by capitalizing on America’s strengths and working on our weaknesses. While new technology is constantly being developed on American soil, we face a serious uphill battle to remain at the cutting edge if our educational system continues to remain sub-par and American students struggle to compete with talented schoolchildren in other nations. We need to develop new strategies instead of living in the valley of nostalgia. We need to accept decline and learn how to manipulate it to land on our feet.
It is time for campaigns and debate moderators to more openly address the reality of the world we live in and develop appropriate military and diplomatic strategies to address this new era. However, despite its shortcomings on the foreign policy front, the Obama campaign is better equipped to handle this challenge.
Seeing the Light: Solar Energy and Morocco
From Saudi Arabia’s recent $109 billion dollar investment in solar energy to Denmark’s Our Future Energy project to the recent flight of Solar Impulse, interest in renewable energy has skyrocketed in the last year.
As energy prices continue to climb in response to climate change and the recovering global economy, major energy consuming and producing nations are beginning to see the value in investing in renewable sources of energy.
Previous attempts to revamp our global attitude to energy have floated around for the past decade or so. Although nuclear energy was poised to lead the way towards zero emissions, increased safety concerns following Japan’s Fukushima catastrophe stymied plans to construct more reactors across the world. Because of this shift, global attention has returned to older, more reliable renewable stand-bys such as wind and solar power. However, it is the latter method of capturing energy that has been the center of great policy leaps in the last few months.
On June 6, Solar Impulse, an intercontinental solar-powered flight, completed its 1,554-mile journey from Switzerland to Morocco. With its successful run, the project has raised international interest in the versatility of solar energy. While the historic flight may spark the imagination, its sponsor is perhaps even more interesting.
In addition to marking our generation’s scientific ingenuity, Solar Impulse was also a public relations move meant to highlight the launch of construction of the Moroccan Agency for Solar Energy’s new 500-megawatt solar power plant in Ouarzazate, an area in the southern part of the country.
Morocco plans to use its most plentiful resource - sunlight - to produce over 2,000 megawatts of renewable energy by 2015. Production levels would almost amount to 40% of the country’s current total energy usage. Although the project is expected to be expensive at over $1.25 billion, the Moroccan government has found eager funding sources among institutions such as the World Bank, African Development Bank and German-based consortium Dii.
Despite the widely welcomed shift to renewable energy, there have been some who have expressed concerns about the impact of this shift on the Moroccan people. As the government invests gigantic sums of money in its solar projects, it has already been forced to cut subsidies for oil, resulting in a recent 15 - 20% increase in fuel prices, a burdensome jump for the average Moroccan citizen.
A large portion of the Ouarzazate plant is meant to produce energy for Morocco’s energy-hungry European neighbors to north via trade agreements with Spain. Moroccans, therefore, will not see a large percentage of this energy used in their own country.
While the Moroccan government has stated that it intends to subsidize the cost of the solar-produced energy, which is expected to be as much as twice the price of other energy sources, ongoing monitoring is needed to insure that these plans take effect. Increased efforts should also be made to ensure that the all segments of the Moroccan population have access to energy as many rural villages, particularly in parts of the country bordering the disputed region of Western Sahara, lack access to electricity. The temptation to capitalize on the European market and ignore its citizens may be too great, however the stipulations attached to the World Bank loans used for the Ouarzazate plant may encourage the Moroccan government to remain true to its plan.
The energy generated by the Ouarzazate plant has the potential to greatly reduce the global dependence on oil, which will only grow as the world’s population increases. Discussions about similar initiatives have taken place in other parts of sunny North Africa and the Middle East including Tunisia, Algeria, Egypt and Jordan.
On top of solar energy projects in the Middle East and North Africa, many European nations such as Denmark have considered increasing their usage of wind power by relying on deep-sea turbines. Despite recent positive shifts in policy, the future can only tell if these alternative energy sources will meet our global demand and wean us away from dependence on largely OPEC-produced oil.