Wednesday, July 4, 2007

The idea of the US of Africa is not al-Ghattafi’s

By Madibeng Kgwete: Posted on 04 July 2007

There are two problematic issues emanating from the media’s coverage of the recent African Union summit, which took place in Accra, Ghana, from 01 to 03 July 2007.

Firstly, there is a generally false notion doing the rounds regarding the idea of the United States of Africa. It is widely reported that African leaders have “rejected Libyan leader Muammar al-Ghattafi’s proposal for the formation of a union government for the African continent”.

The idea of the United States of Africa is not al-Ghattafi’s. As the online encyclopaedia, Wikipedia, correctly puts it: “The phrase ‘United States of Africa’, was mentioned first by Marcus Gavey in his poem 'Hail, United States of Africa' in 1924”.

“Garvey's ideas”, according to Wikipedia’s correct version of events, “deeply influenced the birth of the Pan-Africanist movement which culminated in 1945 with the Fifth Pan-African Congress in Manchester, England, attended by W.E.B. Du Bois, Patrice Lumumba, George Padmore, Jomo Kenyatta and Kwame Nkrumah”.

It is therefore incorrect to keep saying that the idea of the US of Africa is “al-Ghattafi’s”. Ironically, even Wikipedia contradicts itself by saying: “The latest meeting of the African Union, which began on July 1, 2007 [in Accra], was called with a purpose of discussing Gaddafi's idea [own emphasis] of a federation of African states”.

The second problematic issue is the notion that, by disagreeing on al-Ghattafi’s push for the urgent formation of the union government, African leaders have effectively “rejected” the idea. That is not accurate, as the resolutions of the summit suggest.

Amongst other things, the Accra summit resolved to “rationalise and strengthen the Regional Economic Communities, and harmonise their activities”, “conduct immediately, an Audit of the Executive Council”, “establish a ministerial Committee to examine the contents of the Union Government concept and its relations with national governments”, etc.

No comments: