Let's be realistic
Greart topic, Juikk and one that raises many questions and emotions.
The short answer, I think, is a definite NO. Let's be realistic here. For a United Nations of Africa to have anything more than symbolic value and actually be a force of change for good in our countries, it would not only mean that the member countries have to give up part of their autonomy, but are also prepared to put their money where their mouths are.
Two organisations with similar aspirations serve as very good indicators of the potential pitfalls a UNoA would encounter. They are the AU and SADC. Both are in fact pretty inefficient and ineffectual talkshops - nothing less, nothing more. Riddled with a lack of resources, plannign capacity, authority, legal muscle and authority these two organisations show why a UNoA will remain a pipedream.
The reality - and we know this to be true - is that very few African leaders are prepared to and can think beyond the interests of their own "nation states" - where they exist. And if they are prepared to lead their countries down the path of giving up some autonomy and hand it over to a UNoA to - for example - come up with a binding agricultural policy, they may most probably not have the means to actually implement such policies.
I think it's a noble idea, but little more than that. The money spent on all these fancy annual summits should rather be spent on housing and jobs for the poor. We have enough dramas on our continent, and our leaders should come back down to earth and do some serious work to get our nations ahead, never mind our continent.
Once our nation states are in fact sustainable, stronger, stable and on a path of sustainable development, then maybe the time is right to look at a UNoA.
"Nothing is complete and thus nothing is exempt from criticism." - James Luther Adams:
Bookmarks