Tuesday, July 9, 2002, Durban South Africa. A new landmark date in Africa's postcolonial history. It follows on the path of the now defunct OAU, which was created some 39 years ago when in May 1963, thirty-two independent African States, who had real hopes and aspirations for their continent and countries, came together in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, to launch the Organization of African Unity (OAU).
The new African Union (AU) is composed of 53 nations and has become a reality in a new world that has been rather merciless for the African continent. The goals of the new organization foretell of the mammoth task that awaits the new body. Its task, bluntly, is to bring to front a new era of democratic as well as economic development to the empoverished continent.
"We as Africans have a common and a shared destiny. Together we must redefine this destiny for a better life for all the people of this continent," said Thabo Mbeki, the South African president on Tuesday in a crowded stadium in the beautiful city of Durban.
However, shared destiny and hope may be have become empty words nowadays in a continent ravage by famine, war, poverty, corruption, political dictatorship and disease. In about 40 years of independence for the most part, the continent has almost nothing positive to boast of.
The continent is plying under the AIDS epidemics, which no one seems to have a solution for. Statistics have it that about 70% of the 37 million people with AIDS worldwide live in sub-Saharan Africa, which contains only 11% of the global population. It is also established that one out of every 10 people in Africa are HIV positive. Already, more than 15 million Africans have died from AIDS, 2.2 million of them last year alone, and the numbers are increasing.
On the political front, wars have led to uncontrollable genocides such as the Rwandan disaster which cost the life of more than 500.000 people and triggered the civil wars that continue to cost life in the Great Lakes region. Neither the OAU, nor the international community has been able to put an end to Africa's political nightmares. One wonders how a change of name could succeed where there is no real change of generations.
Economically, Sub-Saharan Africa's massive external debt is the single biggest obstacle to the continent's development. The $300 billion which African countries owe to foreign creditors represents a crippling burden which fundamentally hampers progress in every sector. A burden that was brought into existence by the very leaders and political elites that today are vowing to redress the continent.
But, can they?
Already, the new AU, with its old leaders, made their first old mistake. They refused to recognize the new president of Madagascar businessman Marc Ravalomanana, arguing that he took power via unsconstitutional means. By such a refusal, they apparently were unable to see that perhaps they needed to set the right tone by, on the contrary, condemning the outgoing president Didier Ratsiraka for having tried to steal an election that many observers recognize he did not and could ot win.
For the question that comes to the minds of many Africans today is: How can the same old clique of presidents--some of whom like Eyadema of Togo and Omar Bongo of Gabon, have been im power for more than 35 years--suddenly transform themselves to become the champions of democracy, human rights and good governance, when they themselves ruled their countries with heavy hands. This is to say that the new African Union has its first test in Madagascar and it failed it miserably. Already. Thus proving that an old goat cannot suddenly exchange its old hide for a new one.It remains that it is in a state of hopeful skepticism that Africans have welcome the event. Most Africans prefer to adopt a wait and see attitude. They have seen it all and heard it all. For now, they have to attend to their basic needs for survival as they struggle to make the ends meet in the dark valley of life and sorrow that they have become accustomed to.
