The day the African Union came of age

up to the lofty standards set by its predecessor, the Organisation of African Unity that spearheaded the political decolonisation of the continent.
In many parts of Africa what was attained and what subsists to this day is flag independence and the prevalence of indigenous faces in government but the centuries-old structures of colonial plunder remained largely intact which explains why much of Africa is materially poor though the continent itself is obscenely resource-rich.
The reason is that its riches have been siphoned to continue sustaining the affluence of the resource-poor west.
The AU’s brief was thus to spearhead the continent’s economic independence a task that called on African leaders to stand eyeball to eyeball with those who raped and pillaged the continent for centuries.
But always a step ahead with their numerous think-tanks, the westerners knew the best way to safeguard their interests was to get into the AU, and that they did by funding AU organs and programmes, and today 65 percent of the AU budget is bankrolled from the west, with member states accounting for the remaining 35 percent.
This sad state of affairs explains why today, the AU has many institutions that are African in name only.
Organisations like the African Commission for Human and Peoples Rights that has since been made to adopt a minimalist conception of human rights that excludes the economic rights of indigenous people to focus on civil and political liberties, a stance at cross purposes with the role of the AU, are a case in point.
It was probably this belief that they have the AU in their pocket that had westerners pronounce themselves on African affairs as if the AU did not exist.
We have seen them do this in our own country, Zimbabwe, and recently we saw them do it on Libya in the wake of the violent insurrection that rocked the country after demonstrators successfully deposed governments in Tunisia and Egypt.
The United States, Britain and their western allies called on Gaddafi to quit. The West’s kangaroo court, the so-called International Criminal Court, was primed to talk about the possibility of charging Gaddafi with crimes against humanity without even investigating what was going on in Libya where ‘‘protesters” had suddenly woken up in possession of sophisticated weapons and British SAS forces had been detected landing at night.
Nato even had the cheek to discuss the possibility of military intervention or imposing a no fly zone over Libyan airspace as if the AU didn’t exist let alone its powerful, 15-member Peace and Security Council whose mandate is to safeguard the peace and security of member states and to enforce union decisions.
It was thus refreshing to hear that the PSC was convening in Addis Ababa to consider the recommendations of the panel of heads of state and government who were mandated, at the AU Summit in January, to investigate the situation in Cote d’Ivoire and come up with recommendations to be endorsed by the PSC and to bind all parties to the Ivorian crisis.
Also on the agenda was the conflagration in Libya that, hitherto, had been left to westerners to do with as they please.
While I do not agree with the PSC’s decision on Cote d’Ivoire, where France – through Allasane Ouattara – was left to get away with murder, on Libya the AU made me proud to be African.
The AU not only collectively told westerners hands off but also sent a powerful message to the traditional saboteurs that Africa has come of age and would not rubber-stamp western opinion or condone wanton subversion.
Gaddafi, for all the warts he might have, was within his rights to put down a revolt against his government, an armed revolt at that. Which government anywhere in the western hemisphere would just stand-by and watch while armed rebels loot and burn in an attempt to effect regime change?
At international law, the Libyan leader was within his rights to respond to armed rebels with the fire they were using.
Article 51 of the UN Charter’s Chapter VII: Action with Respect to Threats to the Peace, Breaches of the Peace, and Acts of Aggression states: “Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security.
“Measures taken by Members in the exercise of this right of self-defence shall be immediately reported to the Security Council and shall not in any way affect the authority and responsibility of the Security Council under the present Charter to take at any time such action as it deems necessary in order to maintain or restore international peace and security.”
In other words, self-defence is permissible. Moreover, the UN Charter explains under what conditions intervention, violence and coercion (by one state against another) are justified. Article 2(3) and Article 33(1) require peaceful settlement of international disputes.
Article 2(4) prohibits force or its threatened use, including no-fly zones that are acts of war. In addition, Articles 2(3), 2(4), and 33 absolutely prohibit any unilateral or other external threat or use of force not specifically allowed under Article 51 or otherwise authorised by the Security Council.
Under no circumstances, with no exceptions, may one nation, Nato, or other combination of nations intervene against another without specific Security Council authorisation.
Doing so is illegal aggression, a lawless act of war. Washington and Nato have already initiated conflict.
Gaddafi, or any other democrat or despot, legally may respond in self-defence as he’s doing, love him or hate him.
By law, he’s justified.
So why was there all that talk about taking him to The Hague, the West’s later day lynch centre?
Apart from Libya’s massive oil reserves.
The West is itching to get its hands on the country’s vast quantities of natural gas reserves that Europe wants to use as an alternative to Russian gas since Russia always threatens to shut down the gas taps whenever the EU misbehaves.
It would have been a sacrilege to leave the westerners to destabilise and depose Gaddafi, for today it’s him; tomorrow it would be another African leader.
Bravo AU, you have come of age.
[email protected]