supranational integration versus intergovernmental structure: the european union vs. the african...
TRANSCRIPT
INSTITUTE FOR CULTURAL DIPLOMACY BERLIN, GERMANY 2014
Supranational Integration Versus Intergovernmental Structure: The European Union vs. the African Union
Abdeslam Badre, PhD
ABSTRACT
The thesis of this essay provokes a statement holding that the AU, compared the EU, has so far failed in its endeavor to develop an “integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa, driven by its own citizens and representing a dynamic force in global arena”. The reason behind this partial failure is accounted for in terms the level of intergovernmental and supranational arrangements characterizing both the EU and AU. To support this claim, the paper suggests a comparative analysis of the functional mechanisms of each of the Unions, by discussing the variables of Intergovernmentalism and supranationalism, as distinguishing features between the two Unions. Three sections constitute the body of the essay: 1) a brief presentation of three key concepts: i) intergovernmentalism, ii) supranationalism, and iii) regional integration; 2) the historical contexts within which each of the Unions was created; and 3) a comparative analysis.
2
I. Introduction
The rise of global capitalism, the spreading ideological extremism embodied in neo-‐
Nazism in the West and fundamentalism in the East, the unfathomable global environmental
threats as well as the scarcity of natural resources, the urging needs for maintaining human
rights and individual liberties, on the one hand, and the speedy telecommunicational and
technological progress, the emergence of non-‐state actors as influential borderless entities,
along with the increasing interconnectedness of the world, on the other hand, are all conflicting
offspring of globalization that has undermined national borders and challenged the notion of
national sovereignty, pushing individual sate to fiercely seek innovative routes for safeguarding
their interests and powers. Such global transformations and power dynamics have triggered
necessities to build intergovernmental coalitions that would grant more leverage in the global
arena; thus, paving the way to the formulation of international and intergovernmental
organizations and supranational unions, under the label of regional integration, as a counter-‐
reaction to any potential spatial-‐temporal processes of changes unfolded by globalization.
Since the end of World War II and the breakdown of the bipolar world order, there have
emerged many international and intergovernmental organizations aiming at developing
stronger political community-‐building and competitive economic models that would preserve
the cultural autonomy of individual states across the globe. Notable examples of these
international organizations and regional groupings include the United Nations (UN), the World
Trade Organization (WTO), and the European Union (EU) which often serves as a source of
inspiration for those who hanker for integration, as was the case of the African Union (AU),
among many others. While some of these entities have only concerned themselves with trade
relations, such as the North American Free Trade Area (NAFTA); others have focused on
economic and political integration, as exemplified by the European Union (EU) and the African
Union (AU).
Due to their highly significant historical contexts as well as their roles in the present
international relations’ stage, both the European Union (EU) and African Union (AU) will be the
touchstone of the present paper. The latter advocates the claim that a supranational union or
3
regionalism in today’s globalized world is no more a choice but a necessary step individual
states have to take if willing to protect their national interests and maintain their name on the
geopolitical map; yet, an affiliation into a supranational model may not yield satisfactory results,
if the latter does not function within strong institutions, harmonized and democratic system,
and sound operational mechanisms.
On this basis, I argue, in this paper, that the AU, if compared to the EU, has so far failed
in its endeavor to develop an “integrated, prosperous and peaceful Africa, driven by its own
citizens and representing a dynamic force in global arena1”. The reason behind this partial
failure, in my opinion, can be explained in light of the level of intergovernmental and
supranational arrangements characterizing both the EU and AU. In other words, the AU is a
merely deformed imitation whose structure might resemble the EU’s but its operational
method remains an intergovernmental structure which is handicapped by the lack of
supranationalism approach to decision making upon which the EU has been founded, and is
being governed and expended.
In this regards, the paper is composed of three sections. The first section will be devoted
to a brief presentation of three key concepts that are central in this paper, namely: i)
Intergovernmentalism; ii) supranationalism; and iii) regional integration. The second section will
go over the historical contexts within which each of the unions was created. Accordingly, two
historical landmarks will be called upon: the cold war, in the case of the EU; and independence
in the case of AU. The third section sets a comparative analysis of the functional mechanisms of
each of the unions, by discussing the variables of intergovernmentalism and supranationalism,
as distinguishing features between the two Unions.
II. Key Concept Definition
II.1. Intergovernmentalism
Intergovernmentalism could be defined as simply as a method of international decision
1 -‐ Vision of the African Union as stated in the Vision and Mission of the African Union. Available at African Union web portal at: http://www.au.int/en/about/vision. Consulted on April 20th, 2014; at 23:57.
4
making in which state governments play prominent roles 2 . The term is often used
interchangeably with intergovernmental organization and it might refer to different types of
international organizations, such as the United Nations3 (UN, 1945), the North Atlantic Treaty
Organization4 (NATO, 1949), the European Union5 (EU, 1993), the Organization of Petroleum
Exporting Countries6 (OPEC, 1960), the African Development Bank7 (ADB, 1963) and the World
Trade Organization8 (WTO, 1995), among many. I would like to embark on two definitions,
relevant to the fields of political sciences: one is theoretical; and the second is operational. On
the one hand, it refers to the theory of Stanley Hoffman’s proposition of the theory of
integration. On the other hand, it refers to the idea that integration is a possible process only
when states and/or national governments are treated as the primary factor in the process
(Teodor Moga: 2009)9. According to Harvard Law School (HLS), the term intergovernmental
organization (IGO) refers to “an entity created by treaty, involving two or more nations, to
work in good faith, on issues of common interest10.”
This definition implies two crucial points. First, the legality and legitimacy of any
potential intergovernmental organization are established only within the framework of a treaty;
otherwise, the presence of an IGO will not retain any legal status. An example of this situation,
according to HLS, is the previously known G8; now G711, which is a group of seven nations that
have annual economic and political summits, but none of these nations are abided by
enforceable agreements among themselves. The absence of a treaty might devalue the IGO of
any enforcing mechanisms, and turn it into a mere club, as was clearly stated by the Russian
foreign minister, Sergei Lavrov Lavrov, right after expelling Russia from the G8, he said: "the G8
is an informal club. No one hands out membership cards and no one can be kicked out of
2 -‐ “Intergovernmentalism” as defined by Princeton University. Consulted on March 12th 2014. Available at: http://www.princeton.edu/~achaney/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Intergovernmentalism.html 3 -‐ See “UN at a glance”, at: http://www.un.org/en/aboutun/index.shtml 4 -‐ See “History of the NATO” at: www.nato.int 5 -‐ See “European Union” at: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Union 6 -‐ See “ OPEC Brief History” at: http://www.opec.org/opec_web/en/about_us/24.htm 7 -‐ See “About ADB” at: http://www.afdb.org/en/about-‐us/ 8 -‐ See “What is the WRO” at: http://www.wto.org/english/thewto_e/whatis_e/whatis_e.htm 9 -‐ Teodor Lucian Moga (2009). “The Contribution of the Neofunctionalist and Intergovernmentalist Theories to the Evolution of the European Integration Process.” Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences. Retrieved 02 April 2014. 10 -‐ “Intergovernmental organization” (IGO), Harvard Law School (HLS). Consulted on March 17th 2014. Available at: http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/careers/opia/public-‐interest-‐law/public-‐international/interngovernmental-‐organizations.html 11 -‐ Since its creation in 1973, The Group of Eight (G8) has been a forum for the governments of a group of eight leading industrialized countries. However, as a result of its involvement in the 2014 Ukrainian crisis of Crimea, Russia was excluded from the forum by the other members on March 24th, 2014. Accordingly, the group now comprises seven nations and will continue to meet as the G7.
5
it.12" A statement as such is what convinces many practitioners in advocating the idea that IGOs
that are formed by treaties are more powerful than a mere grouping of nations because they
are subject to international law and have the ability to enter into legal enforcement.
The second point has to do with the purpose of IGO. According to the definition
provided above, the collaborating entity should include at least two nations willing to work in
good faith by establishing operating mechanisms and synergies to work more successfully
together for common interest in areas such as: politics, economics, social affairs, security, and
environments, or all of these. In other words, there must be a common ground as well as
shared interests and challenges among the partnering states for a regional integration to take
place. In today’s globalized and interdependent nations, and since the creation of the UN and
NATO, the role of intergovernmentalism has become a vertebral method in international
decision-‐making and global governance thanks to its legal ability to make rules and exercise
power among member states while recognizing both the significance of institutionalisation in
international politics and the impact of domestic politics upon governmental preferences.
II.2. European Supranationalism
The term "supranational" is sometimes used in a loose, undefined sense; in other
contexts, sometimes as a substitute for international, transnational or global structure. In the
case of Europe, “ supranationalism” is a method of decision-‐making in a multi-‐national political
community where sovereignty/power is moved from the hands of individual nations to a
broader majority government of member states13. The notion of “supranational democracy”
was first initiated by one of the European pioneers behind the idea of the European Union,
Robert Schuman, previous French foreign minister, during his speeches at the United Nations14
at the signing of the Council's Statutes and at a series of other speeches across Europe15. The
term was then adopted and first occurred in the Paris Treaty16 on April 18th, 1951. The term
12 -‐ The WIRE: “After Kicking Out Russia, the G8 Is Now The G7”. Abby Ohlheiser, March 24th 2014. Retrieved on March 24th 2014. Available at: 13 -‐ Kiljunen, Kimmo (2004). The European Constitution in the Making. Center for European Policy Studies. P.p. 21–26 14 -‐ Robert Schuman. September 28th, 1948. A Speech at the United Nations General Assembly, 3rd Session: “Germany and the European Community.” Consulted April 12th, 2014. Available at: http://www.schuman.info/UN4849.htm 15 -‐ Robert Schuman. May 16th, 1949. A speech at Strasbourg: Extracted from “The Coming Century of Supranational Communities.” Consulted April 12th, 2014. Available at: http://www.schuman.info/Strasbourg549.htm 16 -‐ See “Treaty establishing the European Coal and Steel Community, ECSC Treaty”, at: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_ecsc_en.htm
6
came to allocate new meaning to democracy and legitimacy, by defining the relationship
between the Highest Authority, represented by the European Commission (EC) and the other
institutions of the EU.
Since its emergence in the vocabulary of the world politics and international relations,
the debate over the concept of supranationalism has often called upon the concept of
sovereignty, among others. Because decisions in some supranational states are taken by votes,
it is possible for a member-‐state to be forced by the other member-‐states to implement a
decision; but unlike the federal supra-‐states, member states retain nominal sovereignty, and
any member-‐state can reclaim its sovereignty by withdrawing from the supranational
arrangement. In theorizing the concept of supranationalism, Joseph Weiler (1981)
differentiates between decisional and normative supranationalism: while the first relates to the
institutional framework and decision-‐making processes by which the Union policies and
measures are, in the first place, initiated, debated and formulated, then promulgated, and
finally executed; the second deals with the relationships and hierarchy which exist between EU
policies and legal measures on the one hand, and competing policies and legal measures of the
Member States on the other17. The establishment of this theory helps in a way to understand
why the European Union is said to be the only entity which provides for international popular
elections, going beyond the level of political integration normally afforded by international
treaty.
II.3. Regional Integration
John McCormick (1999) defines regional integration as “the process by which two or
more nation-‐states agree to co-‐operate and work closely together to achieve peace, stability
and wealth18.” This cooperation could take different shapes, and be focused on one or more
areas of expertise, managed, monitored and executed by representative bodies of member-‐
states’ coordinators, all of which are exhaustively described in a written agreement. Initially, a
regional integration agreement might be confined to a single area of cooperation, such as
17 -‐ Weiler, H.H. Joseph. “The Community System: the Dual Character of Supranationalism” (1981) Y.E.L. pp. 267-‐280. 18 -‐ John McCormick. The European Union: Politics and Policies. Westview Press: Boulder Colorado, 1999.
7
economic or political integration; then, it might be expanded to include not only other areas of
collaboration but also other partners (nation-‐states). For instance, if two or more nation-‐states
agree to engage into a complete economic integration, they indulge in a process of trade-‐
barriers removal, which includes removal of tariffs, quotas, and border restrictions; thus, fusing
into a single market with a customs union, meaning common external tariff on goods from
other countries. The highest level of economic integration would be an adoption of a common
currency, with monetary policy regulated by a single central bank.
Yet, reaching this highest level of economic integration between collaborating states
entails the development of standardized policies in certain societal institutions -‐ such as
employment regulations, health case system, which paves the way for political integration.
Similar to economic integration, the culmination of political integration takes shape when the
partnering states agree to share not only foreign polices but also integrate their armies. John
McCormick argues that when two or more cooperating countries reach highest levels of
economic and political integration, they in effect form “a new country.” According to this
analysis, integration between nation states, be it in the economic, political sphere or both, may
have different level of cooperation. John McCormick scales up integration’s levels from (0)
representing “no integration” and (10) representing “complete integration” between two or
more countries.
To date, the European Union is considered to be the best model of regional integration,
being an economic and political union operating through a system of supranational
independent establishment and intergovernmental negotiated decisions by the 28 member
sates. Indeed, the EU has reached this level of integration by embarking, on the one hand, on a
single market agreement manifested in the total removal of trade barriers, the creation of a
monetary union (1999), allowing free movement of goods, services, capital within the Euro-‐
zone19, as well as people within the Schengen Area20. On the other hand, the EU political
integration has been enacted by the development of seven institutions21: namely, i) the
19 -‐ “Countries, language, currencies.” Interinstitutional style guide. The EU Publications Office. Retrieved April 12th 2014. Available at: http://www.ecb.europa.eu/euro/intro/html/map.en.html 20 -‐ The Schengen Area. December 12th, 2008. European Commission. Retrieved on April 13th, 2014. Available at: http://biblio.ucv.ro/bib_web/bib_pdf/EU_books/0056.pdf 21 -‐ Based on Schuman declaration, most EU institutions were created with the establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community
8
European Commission as the executive branch of the Union (EC), ii) the Council of the European
Union (CEU), iii) the Council of Europe (CE), iv) the European Parliament (EP), v) the Court of
Justice of the European Union, vi) the European Central Bank, and vii) the Courts of Auditors.
Partially similar to but significantly different from the regional integration of Europe, the African
Union is a continental intergovernmental union which includes 54 countries except Morocco22.
A further description and comparative analysis of both the EU and AU will be provided in the
coming section. An important question that floats on the surface relates to the historical
contexts that paved the way for these regional integrations.
III. A Brief Historical Context of EU and AU
III.1. EU: From the Cold War to the Resurrection of Europe
Literature about the formation of the European Union speaks of the British Prime
Minister Winston Churchill23, along with other prominent figures like Robert Schuman and Jean
Monnet24, as the founding father who called for the creation of the United States of Europe in
his famous speech to the Academic Youth25, held at the University of Zurich in 1946. Following
this speech, the so-‐called “Benelux custom union” came to the forth when three of the early
European community (Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands) signed the union treaty26 in
March 1947, the same year in which the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade27 (GATT) was
established. To help European countries recover economically from the scars of WWII, the back
then Secretary of State, General George Marshall, announced the Marshall Plan28 to form the
(ECSC) in the 1950s. According to the Maastricht Treaty, also known as the Treaty on the European Union (TEU), which was signed by the members of the European community on February 7th, 1992, in the Netherland, the EU seven institutions are listed in the following order: 1) the European Parliament, 2) the Council of Europe, 3) the Council of the European Union, 4) the European Commission, 5) the Court of Justice of the European Union, 6) the European Central Bank, 7) the Courts of Auditors. Retrieved on March 25th, 2014, Available at: http://eur-‐lex.europa.eu 22 -‐ Due to its opposition to the membership of the Polisario Front as representative of the separatist movements in the Moroccan Western Sahara, Morocco withdrew its membership from the African Union. However, Morocco has a special status within the AU and benefits from the services available to all AU states from the institutions of the AU, such as the African Development Bank. 23 -‐ Winston Churchill: Calling for a United States of Europe. (1940-‐1955). Consulted on, March 16th 2014. Available at: http://europa.eu/about-‐eu/eu-‐history/founding-‐fathers/pdf/winston_churchill_en.pdf 24 -‐ See Robert Schuman. May 16th, 1949. A speech at Strasbourg: Extracted from “The Coming Century of Supranational Communities.” Consulted April 12th, 2014. Available at: http://www.schuman.info/Strasbourg549.htm 25 -‐ Ibid. 26 -‐ See “Historical events in the European integration process 1945-‐2009.” Consulted on, March 16th 2014. Available at: http://www.cvce.eu/collections/unit-‐content/-‐/unit/en/02bb76df-‐d066-‐4c08-‐a58a-‐d4686a3e68ff/02d476c7-‐815d-‐4d85-‐8f88-‐9a2f0e559bb4/Resources#79027a01-‐7de5-‐4618-‐962c-‐5c9c1c41f5a2_en&overlay 27 -‐ See General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1947). Consulted on, March 16th 2014. Available at: http://www.gatt.org 28 -‐ See The Marshall Plan (1947). onsulted on, March 16th 2014. Available at: http://www.marshallfoundation.org/TheMarshallPlan.htm
9
Organization for European Economic Recovery Cooperation29 (OEEC). Meanwhile, the Eastern
Communist bloc had already seeded its ideology that would split Europe into two rivalry blocs,
rejecting the Marshall plan, and imposing the blockade of Berlin30, splitting Germany into West
and East in June 1948, entering thus into the long and nerve racking forty-‐year Cold War.
However, with the creation of the Council of Europe31 and signing of the NATO treaty in
1949, and the Schuman plan to form a European Coal and Steel Community (ECSC), the
European integration was gaining ground. This was manifested in the Treaty of Paris, which
sealed the deal in March 1951, with France, Italy, and the Benelux countries and West Germany
which hoped to gain some recognition in Europe and become an economic partner. As part of a
desire for France to have access to German coal and steel, while ensuring that Germany did not
gain further influence in Europe, French Foreign Minister, Robert Schuman, designed the ECSC
under a common High Authority of Franco-‐German coal and steel production. Another event
that gave the idea of a united Europe an institutional dimension was the establishment of the
European Parliament32 in 1952. The turning point, though, was the signing of the Treaty of
Rome 33 in March 1957, establishing the European Economic Community (EEC) and the
European Atomic Energy Community34 (Euratom), leading to the foundation for the Common
Market.
Indeed the foundation of the common market was a touchstone in the history of today’s
EU single market, because it paved the way for a series of treaties and agreements that lead, on
the one hand, to the inclusion of new member states, and to expansion of the union’s activities.
Within the framework of the Common Market35, the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), along
with the European Monetary Agreement36 (EMA) were established and entered into force in
29 -‐ Ibid. 30 -‐ See: “Berlin blockade and airlift,” at Encyclopadia Britannica. Consulted on March 20th 2014. Available at: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/62154/Berlin-‐blockade-‐and-‐airlift 31 -‐ See: “Council of Europe: 60 years of history”. Consulted on March 20th 2014. Available at: http://www.coe.int/60years/ 32 -‐ See: “The History of the EU: 1952”. Consulted on March 20th 2014. Available at: http://europa.eu/about-‐eu/eu-‐history/1945-‐1959/1952/index_en.htm 33 -‐ See: “Establishing the European Economic Community Treaty”. Consulted on March 21st 2014. Available at: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_eec_en.htm 34 -‐ See: “European Atomic Energy Community.” Consulted on March 21st 2014. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/energy/nuclear/euratom/euratom_en.htm 35 -‐ See: “ European Common Market,” Consulted on March 21st 2014. Available at: http://www.europedia.moussis.eu/books/Book_2/3/6/index.tkl?all=1&pos=62 36 -‐ See: “European Monetary Agreement (Paris, 5 August 1955).” Consulted on March 21st 2014. Available at: http://www.cvce.eu/obj/european_monetary_agreement_paris_5_august_1955-‐en-‐58d18d59-‐c3b0-‐4bdc-‐9756-‐d23dd322382d.html
10
1958. One year later, a progressive abolition of customs and quotas was introduced, motivating
accordingly Austria, Denmark, Norway, Portugal, Sweden, Switzerland, and the United Kingdom
to establish a European Free Trade Association 37 (EFTA) in 1959, which resulted to fast
economic growth of the EEC in the 1960s. By then, the Union had already started considering
the abolishment all remaining trade barriers between nation-‐states and forming an internal
market; hence, the Single European Act38 was signed in Luxembourg, in February 1986.
This goal was actualized thanks to the Treaty of Maastricht on the European Union (TEU)
in 1992, integrating all the institutions of the ECC under one entity: the EU. It also changed the
EEC to European Community (EC), and expanded the mandate of the EC to the political sphere.
Later on, other treaties for clarifying the structure of the EU or further expansion of the Union‘s
activities were followed, including the Amsterdam, the Nice, and the Lisbon treaties. The year
2002 witnessed the unification of the EU currency, the Euro, governing a market with the free
movement of goods, services, people, and money. The economic prosperity of the EU has
encouraged other countries to apply for membership. The wave of enlargement in the 1990s
and 2000s allowed European countries from almost all regions—North, South, East, and
Center—to join the EU expanding the union from six member states during its infancy stage, to
fifteen states in 1995, and 28 by 201339.
III.2. AU: From Pan-‐Africanism to the African Union
The African Union project has been so much inspired by and aspired for the EU
democratic model that is based on State-‐relations based on peace and stability, affluence and
freedom for generations to come; and a functional economic integration as a tool to advance
peace and to promote eventual political union (Ludger Kühnhardt, 2009). In deed, with almost
the same ambition of the British Prime Minister Winston Churchill of the United States of
Europe with harmonized and powerful structures, the idea of African Union too was inspired by
visionary African figures, and had gone through different stages of maturity. However, unlike
37 -‐ See: “European Free Trade Association (EFTA) in 1959.” Consulted on March 21st 2014. Available at: http://en.euabc.com/word/431 38 -‐ See: “Single European Act 1986.” Consulted on March 21st 2014. Available at: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_singleact_en.htm 39 -‐ Croatia was the 28th state that joined the EU on July 1st 2013. See: “Enlargement” at: http://ec.europa.eu
11
the EU, which was based on the determination to protect Europe from the threats of its
internal ills, namely communism and Nazism, the project of the African Union was introduced
to reclaim the history, cultural identity, and preserve the natural resources from the Western
domination and put an end to colonialism40. This idea In this regards, Sougrynoma Sore41 (2010)
highlights three main turning points in the history of the African Union establishment: 1) the
sprit of Pan-‐Africanism (1957); 2) institutionalization of Pan-‐Africanism in Africa (1974); and 3)
the creation of the African Union (1999).
W. E. B. DuBois, in this regard, is considered to be the founding father of the idea of
Pan-‐Africanism or Pan-‐African movement, which sought to fight against the Western
domination of Africa, and to restore dignity, self-‐determination, and unity within Africa and its
Diaspora42. W. E. B. DuBois perceived of the movement to be rooted in shared racial, historical,
and economic bonds, committed to gaining economic and political self-‐rule for the colonized,
and symbolized in a worldwide union of people of color43. Pan-‐ Africanism was materialized
through three main stages of institutionalization. First, there was the Pan-‐African Congress
convened on the African continent in 1974 and hosted by the late President Mwalimu Julius
Nyerere in Dar-‐Es-‐Salaam, Tanzania, representing an early concrete effort toward mobilizing
Africa and its Diaspora44. The objectives of the Congress included the addressing of African
unity, African independence, support of the liberation of southern African people and the
establishment of a permanent Secretariat of the Pan African Congress, with six areas of focus:
agriculture, health and nutrition, research in science and technology, communications, political
cooperation, and support for the Liberation Movements in Africa45.
The second phase involved the creation of the Organization of African Unity46 which was
suggested in different state gatherings and summits, believing that the only way for Africa to
develop, prosper, and forever overthrow the colonizers was to form a united Africa. The Late
40 -‐ Sore, Sougrynoma Z. (2010) "Establishing Regional Integration: The African Union and the European Union," Macalester International: Vol. 25, Article 13. Consulted on March 1st 2014 Available at: http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/macintl/vol25/iss1/13 41 -‐ Ibid. Pp. 13. 42 -‐ George Akeya Agbango (1998). Issues and Trends in Contemporary African Politics: Stability, Development, and Democratization. Peter Lang 43 -‐ Ibid. Pp.67 44 -‐ Joseph S. Nye Jr (1965). Pan-‐Africanism and East African integration. Harvard University Press 45 -‐ Sylvia Hill. “From the Sixth Pan-‐African Congress to the Free South Africa Movement.” Consulted on March 3rd 2014, Available at: http://www.noeasyvictories.org/select/08_hill.php 46 -‐ See: “History of African Union.” Consulted on March 3rd 2014. Available at: http://www.un.org/popin/oau/oauhome.htm
12
Ghanaian President, Kwame Nkrumah47, was one of the prominent advocates of this idea.
However, given the fluctuating events of power struggle and state of ambivalence that the
newly independent African countries were undergoing in the 1950s and 1960s in the continents,
along with the assassination of the first Togolese president48, Sylvianus Olympio, in 1963
rendered Nkrumah’s ambition for the Organization of African Unity of little resonance, as many
African leaders then feared for their lives. Adding to that the tragedies of bloodiest resistance
to independence of some African states. Hence, the OAU looked more as a threat to the
sovereignty for those newly independent states. To create a middle ground and keep the OAU
project on the table, a charter of the OAU was signed in May 1963, in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia,
prohibiting the OAU from interfering in internal state matters.
The third turning point in the history of Africa was the establishment of the African
Union which came as an alternative to the failing project of OAU to deliver its highlighted
promises due to its limited ability to address the challenges of the continent. In addition, the
desire of some prominent African leaders to revive the spirit of African Unity contributed to the
materialization of the AU. Following these forces, African states called for the creation of the
African Union49 (AU) at an extraordinary summit in Libya, in September 1999, under the
leadership of President Muammar Al-‐Gaddafi. The Constitutive Act50 of the AU was signed at
the Lomé Summit in Togo, in July 2000, which led to the dissolvent of the OAU in July 2002, to
be supplanted by the AU. The political climate in which the AU was born greatly contributed to
the creation of the organization, underlining three African figures who became then the leading
figures behind the AU, namely: Muammar Gaddafi (Libya), Thabo Mbeki (South Africa), and
Olusegun Obasanjo (Nigeria)51.
Although the establishment of the AU shifted the priorities from the states to the
people, the violations of human rights and massacres that occurred under the rule of new
African dictators spoke louder than the spirit of the African Union, due to the European East-‐
47 -‐Backed by the back then Tanzanian President Nyerere and Egyptian President Gamal Abdel Nasser, Kwame Nkrumah, being the first sub-‐Saharan African countries to accede to independence in 1957, had significant leverage in continental politics. 48 -‐ Witte, Wright, et al. (2001). The Assassination of Lumumba. London: Verso 49 -‐ See: “About AU” at the African Union Website: www.au.int 50 -‐ Ibid. 51 -‐ Schoeman, Maxi (2003). The African Union after the Durban 2002 Summit. Centre of African Studies. University of Copenhagen
13
West ideological struggles. In other words, the years of the capitalism-‐socialism divide, the
fierce competition between the U.S.S.R. and the capitalist Western nations induced both blocs
to scramble for allies worldwide including Africa52. There, the ultimate goal of the West was to
ensure that there were no forms of socialist order. In return, the Western powers turned a
blind eye to the violations of human rights that occurred under the rule of dictators that were
their allies. Such was the case in the Congo when populist and revolutionary Prime Minister
Patrice Lumumba was assassinated by his successor, Mobutu Sese Seko, under the approving
eye of the West, particularly Belgium53.
The 1980 Lagos Plan of Action for the Development54 of Africa and the 1991 treaty to
establish the African Economic Community proposed the creation of Regional Economic
Communities (RECs) as one of the key objectives to the achievement of the African greater
continental integration. The 1991 plan set a timetable for regional and then continental
integration to follow. Currently, there are eight RECs recognized by the AU, each established
under a separate regional treaty. Today, the African Union doubly as big as Europe’s, with 850
million people living in the 53 African Union member states, with the exception of Morocco,
which withdrew its membership in 1984 following the Union’s acceptance of the so-‐called
“Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic” membership; whereas, EU constitutes of 28 member
states (2013), with 483 million population. Both AU and EU share some apparent similarities of
the institutional set-‐up, for they have assembly of heads of states of the member-‐countries,
executive councils where ministers meet, a commission, a parliament, or an advisory council,
which unites various social groups. But there are substantial differences in the institutional
structures, a point to be discussed in the coming section.
IV. EU’s Supranationalism Vs. AU’s Intergovernmentalism
The underlying difference between the EU and AU resides in their institutional
structures. While the AU is characterized by solely an intergovernmental arrangement, the EU’s
52 -‐ Murithi, Timothy (2005) .The African Union: Pan-‐Africanism, Peace building and Development. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing 53 -‐ Bustin, Edouard (2001). The Assassination of Lumumba by Ludo de Witte; Ann Wright; Renée Fenby. The International Journal of African Historical Studies Vol. 34, No. 1 (2001), pp. 177-‐185. Boston University African Studies Center 54 -‐ ORGANIZARION OF AFRICAN UNIT: Lagos plan of action for the economic development of Africa 1980-‐2000. OAU: Addis Ababa Ethiopia. Consulted on March 23rd 2014. Available at: http://www.tni.org/sites/www.tni.org/archives/africa-‐docs/lagosplan.pdf
14
structure has followed careful and progressive intergovernmental as well as supranational
approaches. Unlike the African Union that counted its 53 members already from start, or the
OAU of 1963, which organized all independent African states at that time, there were only six
countries to start the process of European integration in 1951, when establishing the European
Coal and Steel Community. Thereby, on a very limited field, the states transferred sovereignty
to a supranational body. Also when enlarging this scheme to a European Economic Community
in 1957, there were still only these six countries participating. Successive rounds of
enlargement have increased the number of members to 28 by now. But it has been a gradual
process from small to increasing numbers of members, while others are still waiting to join.
This strategy of progressive adoption of supranational approach to decision making
could be traced back to the enactment of the Treaty of Maastricht 1992. The latter states that
the European Union consists of a supranational “pillars 1” which contains the fields were
integration has gone furthest, and the intergovernmental 55 “pillars 2”. Accordingly, the
governments of the member states can make decisions only unanimously. The European Court
of Justice, though it has interfered heavily into national affairs of numerous cases, has no say,
and the role of parliament and commission ranges from “very limited” to “non-‐existing”56. By
contrast, in the Internal Market policy fields, the European Union resembles a federal state; and
the sum of community law under the acquis communautaire57 gives immediate rights to the EU
citizens; they can go to court in case these rights become infringed. That means that the EU
laws have the quality of federal law.
Furthermore, the supranational structure has grown almost constantly covering a wide
range of fields such as monetary policy, foreign policy, migration policy, social policy, health
care, or gender relations. For instance, under the Economic and Monetary Union, the EMU
monetary policy has become a supranational now, proving a sustainable monetary stability, the
abolition of exchange-‐rate volatility and, perhaps most importantly, very low long-‐term interest
rates58. In the case of supranational social policy, the treaty provisions on free labor market
55 -‐ See: “Treaty of Maastricht 1992.” Available at: http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/institutional_affairs/treaties/treaties_maastricht_en.htm 56 -‐ Ibid. 57 -‐ Acquis Communautaire, refers to the sum of community law, containing some 90,000 pages. 58 -‐ Wolfgang Zank (2007). A Comparative European View on African Integration – Why it has been much more difficult in Africa than in Europe.
15
mobility and non-‐discrimination, in combination with the rulings of the Court of Justice, have
strengthened the position of women considerably59. Finally, the EU has been a unified actor for
long on fields such as international trade or development aid. More recently, the EU could
agree on the principles of several common policies such as the European Neighborhood Policy,
or a Strategy for Africa. Currently, the EU is in a process of “hardening” as a foreign political
actor. These horizontal and vertical synergies among the various institutions of the EU member
countries reveal that the increasing level of supranationalism has put the members states in a
growing coherence, proving that finding a common solution is possible, if not a necessary,
endeavor faced to globalization. This compacted cooperation of the EU is exactly what is
missing in the case of the African Union.
Conversely, all these supranational characteristics are inexistent in the African Union.
The latter is an intergovernmental-‐oriented grouping whose member countries retain their full
legal sovereignty. The parliament of the AU is purely advisory and has no competences to make
laws for the continent or make any decisions which bind the member states, leaving no field of
politics wherein states have explicitly transferred national sovereignty to an AU level. Wolfgang
Zank (2007) decrees that the African Union replicates many characteristics of the United
Nations. In both cases, heads of governments or delegations meet and discuss. They all have
declared their firm intention to respect Human Rights. A Security Council can legitimately
impose sanctions60, armed intervention included, against member states in case of grave
violations of basic principles. But principles are formulated in rather general terms. In both
cases general assemblies and security councils may pass resolutions, but they cannot pass
legislation which binds the member states, and which the citizens could use in court. Both the
UN and the AU are useful intergovernmental formations. But their efficiency and their ability to
impose their principles are very restricted.
The rationale for European integration was the idea of reconciliation based on a
gradually emerging common rule of law, (Ludger Kühnhardt, 2009). The rationale for African
integration could be the formative idea of continental stability through socioeconomic progress Working Paper No. 4. Center for Comparative Integration Studies: Aalborg University, Denmark 59 -‐ Wolfgang Zank (2007). A Comparative European View on African Integration – Why it has been much more difficult in Africa than in Europe. Working Paper No. 4. Center for Comparative Integration Studies: Aalborg University, Denmark 60 -‐ Ibid. P.p. 21.
16
based on a gradually emerging regionalized common rule of law. One fundamental lesson may
be learned from the European integration experience: The formative idea that can carry the
rationale for regional integration for decades must be of a political and strategic nature,
encompassing many aspects of public life and influencing several social and political dimensions.
The limits of past state-‐centered policies need to be transformed by the opportunities of
integration-‐oriented policies. They must be result-‐ driven and open to the world in order to link
Africa with the age of globalization. Furthermore, it is high time that African leaders actualized
the Pan-‐African core principle of putting the sate at the service of its citizens. This goal could be
actualize through a formative and yet goal oriented strategy, as put forward by Kühnhardt
(2008):
“Africa has ample room to identify win-‐win-‐constellations originating in deep and real region-‐building. Infrastructure measures and basic need provisions, optimizing human resources and migration potential, generating employment and sustainable growth, prioritizing education and closing the digital divide, preserving the human habitat and providing work conditions in line with human dignity”
V. Conclusion
The EU and AU could be further compared in terms of other variables that have not
been mentioned in this paper, given the limited scope of the paper as well as the time
constraints faced up with. Still, it would be mistaken not to see the progress that the
establishment of the AU has already meant. After all, having institutionalized forms for dialogue
and negotiation is very useful. And having a Commission with the explicit mandate to think on
common African initiatives can have real effects. For instance, the AU countries have been able
to formulate a common position on the reform of the United Nations. Last but not least, the
efforts of both the EU and AU at integration have faced substantial obstacles. But in the African
case, the obstacles have been much more difficult to surmount than in Europe. Still there is
along way awaiting for the AU to arrive to the point where the EU is standing today. Walking
this long itinerary does not only need time, it calls for a global revision of the institutional
structure of Union as well its operational methods, because currently Egypt and Morocco are
among the many African countries that are not happy with the working methods of the AU. At
17
this time the AU
Bibliography
1. Bustin, Edouard (2001). “The Assassination of Lumumba by Ludo de Witte.” The International Journal of African Historical Studies Vol. 34, No. 1. Massachusetts: Boston University African Studies Center. Pp. 177-‐185
2. George Akeya Agbango (1998). Issues and Trends in Contemporary African Politics: Stability, Development, and Democratization. Peter Lang.
3. John McCormick (1999). The European Union: Politics and Policies. Westview Press:
Boulder Colorado.
4. Kiljunen, Kimmo (2004). The European Constitution in the Making. Center for European Policy Studies, pp. 21–26.
5. Kühnhardt, Ludger (2009). Crises in European Integration: Challenges and Responses.
New York: Oxford
6. Kühnhardt, Ludger (2014). Africa Consensus: New Interests, Initiatives and Partners, Washington D.C./Baltimore: The Woodrow Wilson Center Press. Johns Hopkins University Press
7. Murithi, Timothy (2005). The African Union: Pan-‐Africanism, Peace building and
Development. Hampshire, UK: Ashgate Publishing.
8. Schoeman, Maxi (2003). The African Union after the Durban 2002 Summit. Centre of African Studies. University of Copenhagen.
9. Weiler, H. Joseph (1981). “The Community System: the Dual Character of
Supranationalism” Y.E.L. pp. 267-‐280.
10. Witte, Wright, et al. (2001). The Assassination of Lumumba. London: Verso.
11. Zank, Wolfgang (2007). A Comparative European View on African Integration – Why it has been much more difficult in Africa than in Europe. Working Paper No. 4. Center for Comparative Integration Studies: Aalborg University, Denmark.
18
Webibliography
1. Ludger Kühnhardt (2008). “African Regional Integration and the Role of the European
Union,” discussion paper. Bonn, Germany: Center for European Integration Studies. Pp. 01-‐42. Consulted on June 14th 2014. Available online at: http://www.zei.uni-‐bonn.de/dateien/discussion-‐paper/dp_c184_kuehnhardt.pdf
2. Marshall, George C. (1947) “The Marshall Plan,” The Marshall Foundation. Consulted on,
March 16th 2014. Available at: http://www.marshallfoundation.org/TheMarshallPlan.htm
3. Moga, Teodor Lucian (2009). “The Contribution of the Neofunctionalist and
Intergovernmentalist Theories to the Evolution of the European Integration Process.” Journal of Alternative Perspectives in the Social Sciences. Retrieved 02 April 2014. Available at: http://www.japss.org/upload/14._Mogaarticle.pdf
4. Robert Schuman. (May 16th, 1949). “The Coming Century of Supranational
Communities,” a speech at Strasbourg. Consulted April 12th, 2014. Available at: http://www.schuman.info/Strasbourg549.htm
5. Robert Schuman (September 28th, 1948). “Germany and the European Community.” The
United Nations General Assembly, 3rd Session. Consulted April 12th, 2014. Available at: http://www.schuman.info/UN4849.htm
6. Sore, Sougrynoma Z. (2010) "Establishing Regional Integration: The African Union and
the European Union," Macalester International: Vol. 25, Article 13. Consulted on March 1st 2014 Available at: http://digitalcommons.macalester.edu/macintl/vol25/iss1/13
7. Sylvia Hill. “From the Sixth Pan-‐African Congress to the Free South Africa Movement.”
Consulted on March 3rd 2014, Available at: http://www.noeasyvictories.org/select/08_hill.php
8. Winston Churchill (1955). “Calling for a United States of Europe.” Consulted on, March 16th 2014. Available at: http://europa.eu/about-‐eu/eu-‐history/founding-‐fathers/pdf/winston_churchill_en.pdf
9. Encyclopedia Britannica. “Berlin Blockade and Airlift.” Consulted on March 20th 2014.
Available at: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/62154/Berlin-‐blockade-‐and-‐airlift
10. “Intergovernmental organization” (IGO), Harvard Law School (HLS). Consulted on March
17th 2014. Available at: http://www.law.harvard.edu/current/careers/opia/public-‐interest-‐law/public-‐international/interngovernmental-‐organizations.html
19
11. “The History of the EU: 1952”. Consulted on March 20th 2014. Available at:
http://europa.eu/about-‐eu/eu-‐history/1945-‐1959/1952/index_en.htm