African Union

The idea of a politically united Africa, Pan-Africanism, has been around for over a hundred years. While the pan-african movement has been involved in anti-slavery and anti-colonial struggles and the fight against Apartheid South Africa, there has never been any significant movement towards a political unification. However, recent historical events, quite unexpectedly, may provide an impetus in this direction.

During colonial times, there was a common goal in Africa of trying to gain liberation from European masters. Even while such successes were being achieved, however, division was also being created by the alignment of various countries with either the Soviets or Americans during the cold war. Each side would provide aid and assistance to certain countries, in return for their governments siding with either the Eastern or Western blocs, in other words becoming client states.

Such formal arrangements have largely disappeared since the end of the cold war, theoretically allowing for greater African independence and making unity more feasible. However, while there is no longer a dual-polar world, a new situation has been developing where African countries are being courted by both the US and China and are generally responding by being more favourable to one side or the other. Unlike during the cold war, these are no longer exclusive arrangements, it is more like "client state light".

The US has obvious economic interests in the region, with many countries having very rich resource deposits. This includes oil, diamonds, gold, uranium, and other specialized metals. The US and other Western companies have been very active in African countries with these resources. Often the US, or the IMF or World Bank, will provide substantial aid to these countries in return for the permission to develop and extract these resources. These funds rarely go to the people in these countries, while they still have to bear the consequences which often include increased pollution, local conflict, corruption and labour abuses. Accordingly, this has become known as the "African Resource Curse". Statistics show that countries with these resources have lower GDP and less general development that those without.

During the past ten years, China has dramatically increased trade with Africa, for similar reasons. A recent report says that China's trade with Africa has increased by ten times since 2000. China is taking a somewhat different approach from the West. They have been building infrastructure, roads and other facilities these countries are lacking. This is not just infrastructure needed to transport the resources, but real development these countries need such as hospitals and schools. Often, to avoid corruption, Chinese companies and employees will build these facilities themselves, then hand them over after completion, ensuring the funds go to the right place. Usually this aid is provided with "no strings" as opposed to most Western aid. They are taking a sort of "kinder, gentler" approach, though with similar goals as the West.

What is clear is that both China and the West have a vast demand for resources, especially energy. The US is the largest per capita consumer in the world, and China is the fastest growing industrial nation in the world. A recent radio broadcast said that fully half of all the world's construction is currently happening in China. Despite this, however, this is unlike colonialism, since there are no military occupations, and there is not the same level of aggressive insistence on partisanship there was during the cold war. The intense ideological debates are also largely gone.

There is, however, one issue and common concern today that is uniting Africans beyond these short term economic and trade interests: Climate Change. A symbolic demonstration of this new unity was displayed in recent days, when all African delegates walked out of UN climate change meetings in Barcelona. Their main concern is that Africa will suffer disproportionally from the effects of global warming, and the tentative carbon reduction targets being discussed prior to Copenhagen are far short of the mark. This is likely a fair criticism, as a new study shows the dramatic targets scientists believe are now necessary to avert catastrophic consequences.

While this is likely purely a symbolic move, I believe it signals a recognition by most African countries that their interests, and their future, are separate and independent from the West or the East. Like under colonialism, they are beginning to realize this is a struggle for not just freedom or independence, but for survival itself. There are many competing interests among African nations, and even armed conflicts, but African history shows that these differences can be set aside in the case of a greater threat (or a greater enemy). There is also a large distinction in many African countries between what the leadership wants and what the people want.

I predict that unless there are dramatic concessions by Western countries in regard to carbon emissions and a strong legally binding agreement in Copenhagen, this trend will increase. Populist or nationalist leaders will be more likely to be elected in Africa, and revolutions will become more likely in more authoritarian countries. This will create the possibility of greater African unity and purpose, and lay the groundwork for at least the potential of a political African Union.