AU suffering from birth pangs

Last week, the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) gave birth to the African Union (AU), with the inaugural meeting of the AU leaders held in King's Park, Durban, South Africa.

The event marked the birth of a new group modelled on the European Union, which proposes to create an African peace and security council, an African parliament, a common court of justice, a central bank and, eventually, a single currency.

The AU will be presided over by a council comprising heads of states and is expected to have wider powers than its predecessor, including the right to intervene in wars and crises.

The following is the review of the Arab press' discussion of this event and its implications on the future development of the continent and the region.

While the establishment of the African Union evoked joy among the African leaders, it did not meet with the same enthusiasm among the devastated African population, writes Othman Meirghani in Asharq Al Awsat (UK-based).

Indeed, only the people know the real dimension of the misery they endure, and the magnitude of the disaster devastating their countries since independence. They are aware that institutions cannot resolve any problem with the spread of administrative corruption and the absence of basic human rights, adds Meirghani.

Numerous leaders participating in the inaugural ceremony are considered responsible for the failure and inefficiency of the OAU.

In fact, these institutions derive their strength from that of their members, and this organisation, through its 39 years of existence, has witnessed nothing but wars, famine, disease and political instability.

All these factors together have made the African continent the poorest and the most vulnerable among all continents and its people among the most under-developed on this planet, says Meirghani.

It is true that the announcement of the Union coincided with the creation of the New Partnership for Africa's Development (NEPAD), an initiative focusing on boosting African economic growth, which was supported by the G8 leaders during their last summit in Canada.

It is also true that a common peace-keeping force and a central bank are among the organs of the new Union. However, all these elements cannot help without a real change in the way of thinking of the African leaders.

Indeed, what can the new Union do in the absence of democracy, transparency and respect for human rights, questions Meirghani.

The Africans can achieve stability and economic development only if they abandon the mentality of war and coup d'etat, concludes Meirghani.

But Shamlan Al Issa writes in Al Seyassah (Kuwait) that the reaching of an agreement between the African states seems a difficult task. In fact, just as members finished signing the agreement, a conflict emerged between Libya and South Africa regarding the mechanisms to be adopted and the development strategies.

Libya wants to establish a united army in addition to a common currency and a unified policy, while South Africa believes that these steps need to be achieved gradually.

Furthermore, South Africa insists on the need for diversity and plurality within the African Union instead of total conformity, adds Al Issa.

Moreover, the South African leadership counts on the support of Western countries to help them achieve the economic development of the African continent.

Indeed, the African Union requires at least $50 billion to meet its development ambitions. Such an amount cannot be provided by the African states.

That is why they need the financial aid from the European Union, something that the Europeans are disposed to offer if democracy and political pluralism are adopted by the African states. The European Union, which has contributed more than $2 billion in the past, needs to see real change in the African continent before offering any fresh support, says Al Issa.

Indeed, reforms cannot be undertaken in the absence of democracy. Therefore, it seems easier to establish an African Union rather than a democratic institutional system in Africa, concludes Al Issa.

The creation of the Union can be considered a political event, writes Adel Saad in Al Watan (Oman). However, objectively speaking, the organisation still lacks the basic elements for success. First, there is the presumed similarity with the European Union.

The two organisms differ enormously in their nature and their development. In fact, the EU is the culmination of a historic process started in 1950 with the Rome Agreement and followed by the creation of a European Common Market, the Maastricht Agreement and, finally, the creation of a common European currency.

The African Union, on the other hand, has emerged from an organisation that failed to fulfil its commitments. The African leaders will be disillusioned if they compare their organisation to the EU, says Saad.

Secondly, each African state has its own domestic problems which differ in nature and magnitude from that of its neighbours. Under such circumstances, the African countries are more likely to prioritise their national issues over those of their continent. Apart from this, there is the extreme diversity between them regarding external debts and economic resources, adds Saad.

Thirdly, African unity is still fragile, so how can we expect the unity of the whole continent when it is almost impossible to achieve it within a country because of the duality between the different ethnics groups, asks Saad.

Stating these facts does not mean that the African dream cannot be achieved. But the African leaders should be realistic and aware of the difficulties they could face, in order to realise the hopes of 700 million Africans, concludes Saad.

Along the same lines, the African states should carefully study the experience of the OAU to find out its defects and plus points so as to avoid repeating the same mistakes, writes Ragheed Al Soleh in Al Khaleej (UAE).

It would be pointless to exchange one institution with another if it is to repeat the same experience. On the contrary, it would have been more appropriate to re-organise the former institution instead of creating a new one, adds Al Soleh.

Furthermore, the comparison with the EU is unsuitable because the differences between the two are greater than the similarities. Indeed, the EU had seven countries at its creation while the AU comprised 53 states.

It is certainly easier to start with a smaller number of member-states. Another point to remember is the diversity of political systems and varying economic development levels among the African states. In contrast, the EU constitutes a homogenous gathering, says Al Soleh.

In order to prosper, the AU should establish solid relations with the neighbouring regional economic blocs. Indeed, the globalisation of the world's economy necessitates such groupings, adds Al Soleh.

Africans and Arabs obtained their independence thanks to their solidarity and collaboration. The extension of this cooperation is the main guarantor of their mutual success.

Together they can form a new regional organisation that can facilitate the economic, political and social