AU

The vision of AU and NEPAD in Conflict Management

DriesVelt — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 01:07:29 -0600

The vision of the AU is based on a united and strong Africa and on the need to build a partnership between governments and all segments of civil society in order to strengthen solidarity and cohesion among the peoples of Africa. As a continental organisation, it focuses on the promotion of peace, security and stability on the continent as a prerequisite for the implementation of the development and integration agenda. African leaders should therefore be held accountable by the people of Africa to deal vigorously and effectively with conflict resolution and the implementation of good governance principles. (Venter 2005, 139).

The current priorities for NEPAD are to eradicate these causes through the prevention of conflict, resolving it where it occurs, managing it when it is still in a stage of being resolved and to reconstructing society once the conflict has been resolved, removing all obstacles towards the revival of Africa. Intrastate and interstate political violence continue to form a critical mass of conflict that affects the every day life of the peoples of Africa. Long-running African conflicts such as those in the Sudan and Somalia, as well as in Sierra Leone, the DRC and Burundi, remain deep-rooted. There is therefore little sign that AU and NEPAD policies on conflict resolution have beneficiated sub-Saharan Africa to date. The gap between political policy development and policy implementation remains substantial (Venter &
Rohan-Irwin, 2005).

Herbst and Mills (2005) posed the question whether regional integration through NEPAD and the AU and its sub-regional bodies is possible or desirable among diverse countries. Seeing the problem from the perspective of unstable states, they reply that before integration of African states with one another is attempted, some internally unstable countries need to pull themselves together. With this proposition, the scholars draw the attention to the question of peace and stability as a prerequisite for success. Several factors are inhibiting the efforts of the AU and NEPAD, especially conditions in post-colonial states. Afro-pessimists have published ample material on the causes of instability and conflict in Africa; extensive content analysis of reliable literature revealed that inadequate governance, scarcity of resources, human rights abuses and lack of skills to implement plans currently impede human security and development in Africa. The socio-economic decay in terms of health, education, and food production is also a matter of concern. Environmental realities such as floods and droughts contribute to these conditions.
Added to that is the mostly negative role of armed groups that act beyond the control of the state, with resultant threatening coups and the proliferation of small arms and land mines. Moreover, reaction to global influences is a matter of concern: some countries have become havens and targets for international terrorism, diamond smugglers, mercenaries, and international crime syndicates. (Velthuizen 2005, 7).

This work is (c)opyright to Dr Dries Velthuizen African Wisdom site and is used with permission.

KM for Conflict & Change Management

African Peer Review Mechanism

DriesVelt — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 01:53:11 -0600

The Inaugural Summit of the AU of July 2003, in Durban, South Africa, endorsed the NEPAD progress report and initial action plan and encouraged member states to adopt the NEPAD Declaration on Democracy, Political, Economic, and Corporate Governance, and accede to the APRM. After years of difficulties and African pessimism, some leaders thought that it was time to act rather than wait for others to come and solve their problems. They realised that there was a need to create an atmosphere conducive to development and to create conditions that would encourage the private sector to invest in African economies.

The first step in the APRM process of self-assessment, agreed to by the Heads of States and Government, was to assist member countries to determine the strengths and weaknesses inherent in some states that would result in a plan of action for each country and support from peers and institutions to assist in overcoming the different challenges facing these states. In contrast with past assessments carried out on African countries, the APRM is voluntary. Countries are not obliged to accede.

The MoU details the process and outlines the obligations that need to be fulfilled. For the peer review a national commission is created, in which the media, parliament, including opposition Members of Parliament, NGOs, human rights groups, the youth, gender groups, and business participate. This commission carries out a self-assessment, evaluates the weaknesses and strengths of the country, and formulates a plan of action. The commission’s report is presented to the APRM Panel of Eminent Persons, appointed to oversee the process and ensure its credibility by acting independently. The panel reviews the report in consultation with experts appointed to verify the information in the report. A mission (comprising at least 10 persons specialising in the different areas of APRM) meets with the different stakeholders to scrutinise the report and to find out if there is consensus on its contents, and if there is the necessary willingness to participate in the APRM. The report of the experts is then presented to the relevant government, which decides on steps to be taken to implement the recommendations. From this stage, the report is presented to the Forum of Participating Countries of the APRM who scrutinises the report with the government concerned and determines the needs of the country, including technical support. If there is resistance from the government to take measures to rectify identified problems, the forum exerts peer pressure, by peaceful dialogue, to persuade the government to take up the issues raised and move forward. The spirit of the whole process is a peaceful and non-violent resolution to take up the challenge of NEPAD.

A review takes between six and nine months and depends on the availability of data and the resources of the particular country to conduct the process of data collection, to be reviewed and assessed by independent experts of the African Development Bank, Economic Commission for Africa, Association of Central Banks and civil society. All these efforts will be merged to get the most current and accurate data. The important aspect of the process is its participatory nature. The citizens are part of it and the country's report will be made public after it has been presented to the forum for citizens to check the process and the progress of implementation. Political maturity of the civil society will help make the process a success. Rwanda has been among the first African countries to pioneer the implementation of the APRM. Apart from revealing shortcomings such as lack of adequate capacity in the APRM/ NEPAD secretariat, inadequate fluency in the coordination structures, constraints of time and resources, the standards of objectivity as the ultimate test of the credibility of the whole APRM process were challenged by the Republic of Rwanda. It was suggested that it is in the interest of everyone that the process meets stringent standards of objectivity. It was suggested that it is possible for a country to carry out an objective self-assessment, and in the case of Rwanda every effort was made to make the process as objective as possible. It is also for this reason that an external review is a key component of the APRM and a counter weight or verification mechanism. Rwanda suggested that some additional measures should be put in place to make the exercise more objective. Given the recent history of Rwanda, it seemed as if some external reviewers did not have adequate knowledge of the country and based their views on preconceived ideas and inaccurate information about the country found in different media. There is a need to base reviews on clear objective criteria or score matrix. This would certainly make the exercise more predictable, empirical and scientific. It was also suggested that a minimum requirement for objectivity should be that the final report has to be subjected to a process of moderation before it is tabled before the Heads of State. In addition to the challenges outlined above, there were other problems e.g. language impediments, especially in the rural areas where the questionnaire had to be translated in order to obtain the views of the population. (Republic of Rwanda 2006).

In November 2006, Sudanese billionaire Mo Ibrahim launched the Ibrahim Index for African Governance, a new ranking of sub-Saharan African nations developed in conjunction with the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University. The rule of law and security will weigh most in the index, ahead of human development, economic development, democracy, transparency and empowerment of civil society. Professor Robert Rotberg, director of the programme on intrastate conflict and conflict resolution at the Kennedy School, under whose direction the index was developed, argues that every indicator is made possible by human and state security. The index will be used to measure and benchmark good governance in Africa on a country-by-country basis. Ibrahim insisted that the index would not duplicate the APRM. He argues that the APRM is subjective, as its outcomes are measured by focus groups, public opinion and sentiment.

Rotberg adds that the APRM is not a 'strong instrument' and that in some places the entire process has been taken over by governments. Rotberg said the index would be measurable and not based on what governments say. He disagreed with the concerns of some analysts that the programme is focused on individuals, pointing out that 'leaders make a difference and big leaders make a big difference'. Rotberg said that the Ibrahim index would have a 'diagnostic effect', prompting states to ask themselves how they can improve where there are shortcomings. He said the index would compare and rank countries. Addressing concerns that the Ibrahim Index could be seen as patronising, Rotberg argued that the index is globally applicable and not drawn up according to Western standards but standards that can be used in Africa. He said the index is meant to be neutral and context free and without political bias. (Zvomuya 2006)

Evaluation of the APRM against the conceptual framework shows that valuable KM practices are embedded in the APRM, which can assist with the performance of post-colonial states in carrying out their continental commitments and any organisation involved in trans-national business. The first aspect is that several role players are afforded the opportunity to gather information and to find synergy in insights, continuously learning from one another. Secondly, African society interacts in various ways as equal partners to add value to the gathered information with minimum pressure from the global environment. Furthermore, the countries involved are given ample opportunity to reject interaction if it is found to be exploitative, demanding or controlling while countries accept a measure of pressure if that pressure is found to be supportive of not only the national interests but in the interest of continental initiatives. The report of the review also serves as a good example of a knowledge product with holistic perspectives suitable for decisions and actions.

However, the researcher has been alerted to the potential of exclusion of normative knowledge claims, especially knowledge situated in the periphery of state structures because of language and capacity limitations. Especially the exclusion of the traditional claims of the IKS because of lack of capacity to access oral data is clearly a challenge. This specific factor distracts value from the APRM report and probably omits important knowledge that could have alerted everybody concerned of potential sources of conflict, especially in remote areas beyond effective state control. Whether alternative instruments such as the Ibrahim Index and several others used by research institutions will overcome these limitations, to enjoy the same legitimacy and acceptability as an APRM, which was created by Africans for Africa, is still subject to evaluation.

Whatever instrument is used to get an objective and holistic view of Africa and its challenges, the control of Africans over the gathering, processing, dissemination, and use of the knowledge is imperative. Moreover, it will have to include measuring of progress about the redressing of imbalances within African society, the quest for emancipation from domination of and convergence with the developed world and more weight on human security than state security, measuring not only the performance of political leaders but also the leadership of traditional and civil society.

This work is (c)opyright to Dr Dries Velthuizen African Wisdom site and is used with permission.

Fireside Chat

KMAfrica.com - African Renaissance and desired outcomes for Africa

DriesVelt — Sun, 28 Jun 2009 00:40:00 -0600

The African Renaissance is about developing Africans and Africa. It is a call for the rebirth renewal, reinvention and repositioning of Africans and Africa in a globalizing world. Furthermore, it is a call to Africans to relearn and rediscover who they are and where they are in a global scheme of things. It is a vision bigger than the African Union, NEPAD and many other initiatives by individuals, communities, governments and multilateral organisations. It is not an effort to emulate 'world class' standards set by others but to set world standards to be followed by others. The African Renaissance is seen as the rebirth of the continent after centuries of suppression, correcting negative images. Rebirth must be through rediscovery of Africa's past, reversing the downfall into chaos. It is about planning for the future based on a new knowledge framework accommodating the ideas and philosophies that created the great empires of Ghana, Monomotapa, Songhai and Mali. (Gutto 2005).

Formal Objectives

The OAU Charter, accepted in Addis Ababa on 25 May 1963, stipulates that the Organization have the following purposes:

To promote the unity and solidarity of the African States;
To coordinate and intensify their cooperation and efforts to achieve a better life for the peoples of Africa;
To defend their sovereignty, their territorial integrity and independence;
To eradicate all forms of colonialism from Africa; and
To promote international cooperation, with regard to the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article XIX of the Charter established the Commission of Mediation, Conciliation and Arbitration for member states to settle all disputes among themselves by peaceful means

The AU superseded the OAU when the Constitutive Act of the African Union of 11 July 2000, was accepted in Lomé, Togo. According to the 'Act' the objectives of the AU is to:

achieve greater unity and solidarity between the African counties and the peoples of Africa;
defend the sovereignty, territorial integrity and independence of its Member States;
accelerate the political and socio-economic integration of the continent;
promote and defend African common positions on issues of interest to the continent and its peoples;
encourage international cooperation, taking due account of the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights;
promote peace, security, and stability on the continent;
promote democratic principles and institutions, popular participation and good governance;
promote and protect human and peoples' rights in accordance with the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights and other relevant human rights instruments;
establish the necessary conditions which enable the continent to play its rightful role in the global economy and in international negotiations;
promote sustainable development at the economic, social and cultural levels as well as the integration of African economies;
promote cooperation in all fields of human activity to raise the living standards of African peoples;
coordinate and harmonize policies between existing and future Regional Economic Communities for the gradual attainment of the objectives of the Union;
advance the development of the continent by promoting research in all fields, in particular in science and technology;
work with relevant international partners in the eradication of preventable diseases and the promotion of good health on the continent

One of the core objectives of the African Union (AU) is the promotion of peace, security, and stability on the Continent, as spelt out in Article 3 (f) of the AU Constitutive Act. To strengthen the AU’s capacity in the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts, Member States adopted, in July 2002, in Durban, South Africa, the Protocol Relating to the Establishment of the Peace and Security Council (PSC), which entered into force in December 2003. The Protocol, in article 2 (1), defines the PSC as 'a collective security and early-warning arrangement to facilitate timely and efficient response to conflict and crisis situations in Africa'.

This work is (c)opyright to Dr Dries Velthuizen African Wisdom site and is used with permission.

Fireside Chat