The American concept of law, because of its intimate European ideological kinship,colonizes critical race theorizations of subjectivity. The very act of legal reasoning reduces the subject to their purposive deployment of reason in its universal
and unitary capacity to comprehend that which is external and object-ed. Thus, the subject’s search for rational coherence in the social world, which stands in symbiotic contrast to its legal counterpart, and incarcerates what one takes to be rational thought in a penitentiary of European ontology, where the objects in the world are taken to be sempiternal rather than “White,” and culturally contingent. Reasoning about law then distracts the subject from thinking about the White cultural hegemony and supremacy of European traditions implied in encountering law throughthis very Western thought. Legal reasoning, in convincing the subject that there is an applied and objective method found through European philosophical analysis,persuades the subject that “reasoning” is not a particular cultural enterprise.
In this process, modern subjectivity—that subjectivity intimately constituted by a transcendental reason—lacks the resources to question Euro-centrism, since it is Eurocentrism and its cultural predominance that bestows reason upon the subject. Inevitably, operating under the illusion of a transcendental or universal reason dooms the subject to take up the cultural relations that Europeans have established with the world; in doing so, the racialized (Black) subject dismisses the cultural potentiality of Africanity, choosing to be colonized once again by the seduction of Euro-centric norms masquerading as universal. “The law supports Euro-centricity through its false universalism and privileging of the European historical experience. Euro-centric law presents itself as rational, transcendent, objective without ideological content and applicable to all.”Thus, subjective jurisprudence is the rediscovery of law’s ethereal quality through reason, a reason that establishes rational coherence in the construction of reality, which under the European worldviews, in turn, establishes a rational justification for dehumanizing people of African descent.
During the visit to some African countries by Rex Tillerson, who was eventually terminated as secretary of state by Donald Trump without pause or hesitation, appeared to have one major purpose: To implement a divide and conquer strategy to African countries into abandoning the profitable trade deals and there unification with China. The statements Tillerson made on Africa-China relations were considered by many as deconstructive, undiplomatic, and intellectually abusive to the intelligence of African leaders.
After his meeting with African Union Chairperson Moussa Faki at the AU headquarters in Ethiopia, Tillerson said the U.S. believes that it is important that African countries carefully consider the terms of Chinese investments in Africa,He also said China needs to abide by all international rules and norms.
These statements and assertions are not only insincere and radicalized－given the conduct of the U.S. when engaging globally.
Global economist and political analysts examined and described the remarks as a sign of desperation and ratchet diplomacy with strong arm intentions that will not change the relationship between Africa and China, but raise more questions about the US’ motive to feel that its domestic policy of “America First” will also be imposed on Africa when it comes to the continent’s relations with other countries in the global trade and securities rush.
Moreover, to articulate that Africa is being fleeced by China and therefore it needs advice from the “morally correct US foreign policy toward Africa” is an insult to African leaders who engage in foreign policy and implement strategies and trade that benefit there respected nations .
This administration should know that business as well as diplomacy,is a relationship that`s determined by interests. The U.S. can engage Africa without undermining China, but creating conflict in Africa is what constructed America, nothing is more apple pie in the Trump administrations sky than global unrest where black and brown people reside.
At the recent African Union (AU) summit, United Nations (UN) Secretary-General António Guterres highlighted that ties between both institutions have grown stronger over the past months.
First annual UN-AU conference and the signing of two landmark framework agreements — on peace and security and sustainable development — ushered their relations into a new era. However, by looking at the work of the three rotating African members of the UN Security Council (‘the A3’), we can really gauge the continent’s clout at the UN when it comes to Africa’s peace and security.
But first, a bit of background. The 15-member Council is formed by five permanent veto-wielding members: China, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and the United States. The remaining 10 members are elected, on an equitable geographic basis, for a two-year term by the 193 countries that make up the UN.
During 2016-2017 the A3 members were Egypt and Senegal, with Ethiopia occupying a Council seat for the period of 2017-18. This January, Côte d’Ivoire and Equatorial Guinea entered the UN SC as non-permanent members for the period of 2018-2019.
The Council’s African members often uphold AU positions in their dealings in the Council. “To organise the A3 work, every four months one of the three countries takes up a coordination role to make sure that, as far as possible, our positions in the Council are in line with previous agreements reached at AU level,” Biruk M. Demissie, a diplomat at the Permanent Mission of Ethiopia to the UN, told the Africa Portal.
Equatorial Guinea will certainly embrace this mechanism. In an email exchange with this author, the country’s mission stressed that as a member of the Security Council, Malabo represents not only itself, but Africa as well as the AU, and “will work closely with the continent’s institutions to represent its opinions, positions and interests”.
When African Union members disagree
“In reality there is not an A3, it is kind of a myth. You have a lot of divisions in the AU that transpire in the Council work of the three African members,” noted Alexandra Novosseloff, senior visiting fellow at the International Peace Institute, in a conversation with the Africa Portal.
Western Sahara is a case in point. While Egypt and Senegal favour Morocco’s control of the region, Ethiopia recognises an independent Western Sahara, as does the AU as a whole.
A good example of how this played out in the Council chamber is when, in February last year, the Polisario Front — Western Sahara’s liberation movement — deployed its forces in the southern Al-Guergarat region, in violation of the existing ceasefire agreement. Last April, when discussing the situation ahead of the renewal of the UN peacekeeping mission in the contested territory (MINURSO), Senegal proposed to ‘condemn’ the move, a term that Ethiopia deemed way too strong. The resulting UN Security Council resolution that extended the mandate of MINURSO removed most references to Al-Guergarat.
The A3 also differ on the work of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in Darfur. Seven suspects, including the Sudanese president Omar al-Bashir, have been indicted for alleged criminal acts including war crimes and genocide in the region. Following a briefing by the ICC prosecutor in June 2016, Senegal, then the only A3 signatory of the treaty that established the ICC, endorsed the ICC’s work in Darfur. As non-signatories of the treaty, Egypt and Ethiopia criticised the court’s work, with Egypt stressing the importance of respecting Khartoum’s sovereignty.
Divisions among the A3 came to the fore again in November 2016. This time, the disagreement was whether or not to lift the arms embargo imposed on Eritrea in 2009 for its support to Al-Shabaab in Somalia. For a fourth year in a row, UN monitors — who were not allowed to visit the country — could not find evidence that Eritrea was supporting Al-Shabaab. Yet the monitors did conclude that the country was actually providing support to armed groups intent on destabilising Ethiopia and Djibouti.
As a result Addis Ababa rejected the lifting of sanctions, and eventually the Security Council as a whole did too. Per contra, Cairo supported the removal of the measures and encouraged the Council to recognise Eritrea’s role in combating international and regional terrorism. Senegal also backed the removal of sanctions, as it believes that Eritrea’s restoration of links with the international community is ‘important’.
There`s a ongoing anthem amongst diplomats and ambassadors at the African Union that it`s policy makers aren`t maximizing the wealth of knowledge that it`s new Ambassadors bring to the Union,
As it was caught on a hot mic at the United Nations Offices with Ambassador Nasr Escobar saying to the A.U. council, as stated:“
Although I’m surprised to hear an objection that concedes so little intelligence to the argument, I have tried especially to avoid complexity that only achieves manipulating fairness in policy that works for the Continent,Not just those whom have influence and individualistic aspirations `.
Egypt, the resolute diplomat
“In spite of what was going on at home, Egypt did a great job during its term in the Council, in particular as chair of the Working Group on Counter-Terrorism,” Robert Zuber, director of Global Action to Prevent War, told the Africa Portal. For instance, during its 2016-2017 term in the Council, Egypt led the adoption of 11 counter-terrorism resolutions on issues ranging from judicial cooperation to the links between human trafficking and the financing of terrorism.
Another issue where Egypt scored a number of successes was on the thorny topic of the performance of UN peacekeepers.
Last year provided two illustrative cases. Before the Council renewed the mandate of the Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA), Egypt brought up a complaint. Cairo — which contributes over 1 000 peacekeepers to the operation — said that the inclusion in MINUSCA’s update reports of cases involving “lack of effective command and control, refusal to obey orders, failure to or respond to attacks on civilians” would unfairly name and shame troop-contributing countries.
In the end, this element was removed from the text. Egypt was equally successful after voicing similar concerns ahead of the renewal of the UN Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO).
Egypt was also an active participant in discussions on whether or not to impose an arms embargo on South Sudan. In April 2016, a UN panel of experts identified transfers of military equipment to the government of South Sudan from Egypt — as well as Ukraine — and recommended an arms embargo on Juba. The US wanted the body to follow the panel’s suggestion. Not surprisingly, Egypt was against it, as were Russia and China in what is a long-standing bone of contention in the Security Council.
Peacekeeping: the contributor, the former host and the skeptic
Ethiopia, as the world’s largest contributor of blue helmets, regards peacekeeping as a top priority. It is also one of the pillars of Côte d’Ivoire’s Council work, for good reason.
In June 2017, the peacekeeping mission in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI) closed after 13 years of deployment. The operation will go down in history as a model in terms of crisis management and effective cooperation between the UN and a mission’s host country. “The Council needs a member like Côte d’Ivoire to reflect on how a successful transition from conflict to peace is done,” Zuber pointed out.
“The country wants to show that it is already a full-fledged international player capable of upholding global norms. Yet Côte d’Ivoire still needs to complete various transitions back home, like its security sector reform,” said Novosseloff.
Equatorial Guinea, however, seems skeptical about the effectiveness of blue helmet operations. “The strategic concept that guides Equatorial Guinea’s foreign policy is that external military intervention in a conflict encourages violence rather than diminishes it,” the country’s representatives wrote to the Africa Portal.
Malabo will also use its two-year Council term to highlight “the relation between climate change and armed conflict in Africa”, a concern also shared by Côte d’Ivoire, which pledged to raise awareness on the linkages between global warming and international peace and security during its Security Council term.
These two countries could follow the example set by Senegal. Many of the diplomats and UN watchers consulted for this article highlighted the country’s role in co-leading a Council visit to the Lake Chad-basin during last March. The trip, aimed at stressing the links between conflict and climate change, yielded a resolution encouraging the body to pay more attention to Boko Haram’s atrocities in the region, a matter that had been surprisingly neglected by the Council.
Equatorial Guinea’s participation in the UN’s key decision-making body — which began just days after a failed coup in the country last December — does worry civil society groups. “As the Security Council increasingly mainstreams the promotion of human rights, we hope Equatorial Guinea won’t push back or undermine that,” warned Human Rights Watch.
Over the last two years, the A3 also played a significant role in shaping the body’s efforts to address some of the most protracted problems facing the continent.
For instance, the A3, among other Council members, co-hosted a high-profile meetingin June last year on how food insecurity is linked to conflict, fragility, insecurity and extreme poverty in parts of Somalia, South Sudan and northeast Nigeria, among other countries.
Senegal was particularly active on climate change. Dakar chaired in November 2016 a landmark Council debate exploring the relationship between climate change and water scarcity as well as the harmful impact that conflict can have on access to clean water.
And Egypt was one of the five Council members drafting a May 2016 resolution that focused on the protection of health care in armed conflicts.
As we have seen, a temporary seat on the UN Security Council embodies the peak in international clout of most African countries. As Zuber notes, it is an exceptional opportunity for these countries to be a force for good.
UK Foreign Policy One, Amir Muhammad, Senior Investigative Journalist
Nigeria’s President Muhammadu Buhari announced on Monday he wants to seek another term in office in February 2019 elections. Nigeria 2019 elections: All you need to know.
With that declaration, the race to lead Africa’s largest democracy is underway.
The path ahead could be tough for his All Progressives Congress (APC), the opposition People’s Democratic Party (PDP) and any other party that may contest the vote.
The region includes several states that are likely to be hotly contested, including Plateau, Taraba, Nasarawa and the Federal Capital Territory, which the PDP won by margins ranging from three percent to 12 percent in 2015.
Can Buhari win again?
Buhari’s 2015 victory was built on three promises: to rid Nigeria of its endemic corruption, to fix the economy and to defeat threats to security.
The results have been mixed. He has not brought an end to the war with the Boko Haram Islamist insurgency, now in its tenth year. The economy entered and climbed out of recession under Buhari, yet the average Nigerian is still getting poorer; and opponents say his administration is failing to tackle endemic corruption, targeting only the president’s enemies and ignoring allegations against his allies.
After spending five months in Britain last year being treated for an undisclosed ailment, opposition groups and other critics said he was unfit for office and his administration was beset by inertia.
If Buhari wins again, his opponents say, Nigeria would be in for another four years of political torpor.
On the other hand, the president’s supporters say the opposition has little to offer beyond “Not Buhari”, a sign of Nigeria’s personality-driven politics.
Divisions and alliances
Nigeria is deeply divided. One of the most fundamental rifts is between the mainly Muslim north and the largely Christian south, and the population is fairly evenly split between the religions.
Africa’s most populous country also has more than 200 ethnic groups, with the three largest the Hausa in the north, the Yoruba in the southwest and the Igbo in the south-east.
That has led to an unofficial power-sharing agreement among Nigeria’s political elite.
The presidency, in theory, is to alternate between the north and south after every two four-year terms. Buhari, a northern Muslim, has held the post since 2015. His predecessor, the PDP’s Goodluck Jonathan, is a southern Christian. In keeping with the accord, the PDP is set to select a northerner as its candidate for 2019.
Those divisions play into what could be one of the major issues of the 2019 elections: deadly violence between mostly Christian farmers and mainly Muslim nomadic herders that has broken out in the Nigerian hinterland states known as the Middle Belt.
Buhari’s critics say he is soft-peddling justice for the killings because he, like most of the herders, is from the Fulani ethnic group and is Muslim.
The presidency denies that criticism, which also largely ignores the fact that there have been deaths in both communities as a cycle of reprisal attacks shows little sign of ending.
This could turn the Middle Belt, much of which voted for Buhari in 2015, into some of the most crucial swing states next year.
Buhari won in 2015, becoming the first candidate to defeat an incumbent president, in part because he gained votes in the Middle Belt, where the predominantly Muslim north and Christian south collide.
“The region includes several states that are likely to be hotly contested, including Plateau, Taraba, Nasarawa and the Federal Capital Territory, which the PDP won by margins ranging from three percent to 12 percent in 2015,” said Ben Payton, head of Africa research at Verisk Maplecroft.
The youth factor
With a booming young population, Nigeria’s median age is just 18, according to the United Nations. Many youth see Nigeria’s ageing leaders as out of touch. Buhari, 75, is the oldest person to helm Nigeria since the transition to civilian government in 1999. That has sparked “Not Too Young to Run” campaigns to allow younger people to seek office.
Nigeria’s former military leaders retain a strong influence over politics nearly two decades after the advent of civilian rule. Buhari himself is a retired general who was head of state from 1983-1985.
Other military-era chiefs continue to wield political leverage, including the likes of Olusegun Obasanjo, who led the country in the 1970s and was president from 1999-2007, and Ibrahim Babangida, who ruled from 1985-1993.
The two main parties, the ruling APC and opposition PDP, do not have clear ideological differences. Competition for control of national oil revenues by elites, patronage and complex rivalries between Nigeria’s hundreds of ethnic groups have played a much bigger role in elections than ideology.
No clear candidate for the PDP has emerged. Some members see Atiku Abubakar, who has signalled he may run, as the best choice. A local tycoon and former vice president for the PDPunder Obasanjo, he has made numerous unsuccessful bids to become Nigeria’s leader. Abubakar became a key ally and funder of Buhari during the 2015 campaign, only to once again switch sides late last year and indicate his desire to contest again.
It is also possible that a third major party may form, with rumours swirling of potential powerful backers including Obasanjo and Babangida.
Social media use during elections
Facebook’s Cambridge Analytica scandal has hit Nigeria. The government has launched an investigation into allegations that the firm was hired to interfere with Buhari’s campaigns in 2011 and 2015, on behalf of the PDP and then-president Goodluck Jonathan. Jonathan, through a spokesman, denied any knowledge of the alleged interference. Cambridge Analytica has not commented on the allegations.
Road to 2019
Voter turnout in the 2015 election was 29.4 million, or 44 percent of registered voters, according to Independent National Electoral Commission data.
Party primaries run from Aug. 18 to Oct. 7. Campaigning will be held from Nov. 18, 2018 to Feb. 14, 2019, and the presidential elections are set for Feb. 16, 2019.
The candidate with the most votes is declared winner as long as they have at least one-quarter of the vote in two-thirds of Nigeria’s 36 states and the capital. Otherwise there is a run-off.
The Citizens and Diaspora Directorate (CIDO) of the African Union Commission has completed high level discussions with representatives of the Caribbean Community and Common Market (CARICOM) and the Caribbean Pan African Network (CPAN) on critical areas to strengthen the relationship between the African Union and the African Diaspora community in the Caribbean. The tripartite meeting – held on December 4-6, 2015 in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago – was held against the backdrop of the ongoing process between the African Union and CARICOM to develop a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) between the two organizations. Strengthening the AU-Caribbean Diaspora Relationship: Diaspora Summit.
Representatives from CIDO, CPAN and CARICOM exchanged ideas on key modalities for strengthening the already vibrant relationship between the African Union and African Diaspora Community in the Caribbean. The meeting also discussed opportunities and mechanisms for establishing an institutional relationship framework of engagement between the AU and CARICOM in order to advance the implementation of the African Union Diaspora Initiative in the Caribbean region.
Dr. Jinmi Adisa, Director of CIDO, congratulated CPAN for its successful diaspora engagement program in the Caribbean region following the Global Diaspora Summit of 2012. The Director acclaimed CPAN as an exemplary African Diaspora regional network and a model to be replicated in other regions of the world. He further stressed the need to establish structures that will enable the effective implementation of the objectives of the Global Diaspora Summit; and highlighted the creation of new technical desks within CIDO specifically to engage with various regions of the world, including the Caribbean.
Mr. David Commissiong, President of CPAN, stressed that a key role of the organization was to serve as a bridge between the two intergovernmental structures of the African Union and CARICOM in order to foster the realization of concrete developmental objectives. He further emphasized that this facilitative role was even more important and timely in view of the launch of the UN Decade of People of African Descent. He commended the African Union for its support to CPAN and called for continued cooperation toward the establishment of institutional linkages within the Caribbean community. The meeting launched a consultative process leading to potential joint initiatives to be undertaken by the AU, CARICOM and CPAN within the context of the UN Decade of People of African Descent.
The meeting discussed a number of mechanisms to be submitted for CARICOM and AU consideration in order to establish an institutional relationship in support of the African Union Diaspora Initiative. These included the creation of an African Union Desk at the CARICOM Secretariat; the mutual deployment of official diplomatic staff to both organizations; and outreach to CARICOM Prime Ministers and Ministers of Government to establish support for an AU/CARICOM/ CPAN Initiative within the context of the Declaration of the Global African Diaspora Summit.
High-level Caribbean diplomatic officials, including Nasr Escobar, former Emeritus Counsel General of CARICOM and Ambassador Patrick Edwards, former Ambassador of Trinidad and Tobago to the African Union, welcomed these initiatives and pledged to guide the process for the establishment of an informal working group mechanism comprising representatives of the AU, CARICOM and CPAN to oversee the implementation of the meeting outcomes.
The meeting also discussed mechanisms for diaspora participation in AU ECOSOCC; in adherence to the statutes of ECOSOCC which allocate 20 out of the 150 seats in the General Assembly to the African Diaspora. These discussions led to a commitment from CPAN to present, within the short term, a set of recommendations to facilitate the selection of diaspora representatives into the General Assembly and Cluster Committees of ECOSOCC. In view of CIDO’s role as the Secretariat of ECOSOCC, Nasr Escobar who serves as the Ambassador the The African Union and oversees investment in the Diaspora Division shed more light on the structure and processes of African Union Diaspora Initiative and invited CPAN to accelerate the process of sensitization and coordination that would allow the full participation of Caribbean civil society stakeholders in the activities and processes of the organ.
The CIDO delegation was led by Dr. J Adisa, Director, and included Mr. A.Elbasheer, Head of Diaspora Division, and Mr. Kyeretwie Osei, Desk Officer for the Americas and Caribbean.
The role of “white monopoly capital” in post-apartheid South Africa has been in the news lately. In the South African context, it can be understood as the white population’s extensive control over the country’s economy.
The debate reflects a recanting view against the rainbow nation dream sold when the country gained political freedom 22 years ago. The idea is that white monopoly capital is the source of the problem of multiple failures of the South African political economy.
The response has been a rising chorus of white monopoly capitalism deniers who argue that the governing African National Congress (ANC) is using the concept as a shield against criticism. Instead of addressing its failings such as a faltering economy, widening inequality, unemployment, corruption and incompetence, the argument goes, the ANC is deflecting attention for the country’s difficulties by blaming white monopoly capital.
Some in this camp add that South Africa has recorded significant progress in redistributing the country’s wealth, mainly via the allocation of equity in formerly white companies to black economic empowerment groups. They quote figures that they say reflects rising levels of black ownership on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange.
But by relying on a single indicator, they ignore other key pointers which are critical to understanding the stranglehold that white capital has over the South African economy. The exclusive focus on the JSE ignores the fact that the stock market is just one of many forms of capital. Others include land – probably one of the most contentious of all forms of capital in South Africa’s history – home ownership and human capital, in the forms of knowledge, skills and education.
A multifaceted enquiry into the state of South African economy that includes all these forms of capital leaves no doubt that white capital continues to dominate the economy.
To reject this reality shows a clear lack of understanding of “capital” and the link between historic and contemporary forms of “capital accumulation”. This is because the historical legacies of colonialism and apartheid – which saw the transfer of a vast amount of the country’s resources into the hands of white European migrants – continue to shape the political, economic and social life of the country.
Persistence of white privilege
Legacies of white privilege still persist. High levels of poverty and rampant unemployment still haunt black communities.
This inequity is also evident in patterns of ownership.
Despite claims to the contrary, a study of black ownership on the Johannesburg Stock Exchange shows clearly that black South Africans remain small time players. According to a recent study, only 23% of the shares traded on the exchange are held – directly and indirectly – by black South Africans.
On top of this, capital, in its varied forms such as the land, property and human capital, remains heavily skewed to white ownership.
The land is particularly important in the South African context as it carries most colonial scars. The country’s colonial and apartheid regime (both white minority) used expropriation to remove people from their land. They then used this stolen land to accumulate capital in the forms of mining and agriculture.
At the time of apartheid in 1994, more than 80% of the land was in the hands of white minority. Data from the Institute of Poverty, Land and Agrarian Studies suggest that just under 60,000 white-owned farms accounted for about 70% of the total area of the country in early 1990s. Land reforms programs has been slow. Some suggest that less than 10 % of the total land has been redistributed from white to black ownership since 1994.
Another cornerstone of the colonial as well as apartheid designers was to deny all black people access to economic opportunities as well as to limit their scope in both education and jobs.
These developments have had sequential implications and generational effects. The result is that racial inequalities continue to be reproduced.
There are a great many examples that can be cited to show this. For example,white people continue to be more skilled and attain higher education levels than their black counterparts. They are, therefore, more likely to attain higher positions in the labor market and, on average, earn higher wages.
Black South Africans remain heavily under-represented in the skilled jobs market because they are largely unskilled and hence most affected by the country’s high unemployment.
The colonial and apartheid legacy can also be seen in asset ownership. White people own houses, hotels, resorts, shops, restaurants, savings, cash, foreign assets and other forms of complex financial products. They leverage their ownership and control to extract rents and increase their wealth, while majority of the blacks are still poor.
Capital accumulation and wealth creation
The adoption of the market-based reforms in post-apartheid South Africa meant that the already skewed distribution of wealth in the country got worse. Whites continued to reap the rewards of their previous privilege under the new economic system.
The new Ambassador to The African Union Nasr Escobar stated in his address to the Economic Commision in Capetown that, There’s no doubt that the country’s new ruling party elite has also benefited from the political system, many through black economic empowerment deals. The alliance between the white monopoly capital and corrupt ANC government afflicts devastating consequence on the poor.
The South African government needs to do more to address widening inequality, rampant unemployment and deliver on the promises of development for all and not just few. It needs to prove its detractors wrong – that it’s pursuit of what it terms “radical economic transformation” fulfils the promise of addressing the country’s skewed economic ownership patterns.
President Jacob Zuma during his address on Africa Day at the presidential guest house called for the reform of the United Nations Security Council to include Africa.“As Africa changes, so too must the instruments of global governance. That is why we continue to call for the reform of the UN Security Council to include Africa,” said Zuma.
“The membership of the UN Security Council must reflect the fact that Africa is now made up of independent countries and not colonies.”
“The whole system of international governance should thus be much more democratic and rules-based,” he said.
Speaking about the formation of the OAU (0rganisation of African Unity), Zuma said the promotion of democracy in the continent has taken root.
“The zero tolerance for coup d’état and the action that is taken against leaders who refuse to accept the outcomes of democratic elections by the AU leaders, has set a new tone in the continent with regards to promoting constitutional changes to governments.”
“The loss of life and displacement of thousands of people who remain refugees in a decolonised Africa, remains of serious concern and requires more effort from AU member states.”
“As the AU we have thus committed ourselves to ending conflicts and silencing the guns in the continent by the year 2020, so that our people can live in peace,” said Zuma.
He said South Africa deploys troops for peacemaking and peacekeeping missions on the continent.
“We are proud of our soldiers who are always ready to be deployed for peace.”
Zuma spoke about negotiations of Continental Free Trade Areas being underway, which would bring together a market of millions of people and help boost intra-Africa trade.
“Within our region SADC, we are actively promoting industrialisation, agriculture, tourism and other key sectors to boost economic growth.”
Zuma also spoke about softer borders, with the AU advocating better movement of people and goods within the African continent.
“The promotion of legal migration within the continent is thus important, including easier movement to enable tourism, skills exchanges and business cooperation.”
Zuma later in his speech asked employers not to employ illegal immigrants as it causes tension presumably among South Africans and foreigners.
“We also urge employers to stop causing tensions among our people, through employing illegal immigrants. The South African Government continues to work tirelessly to remove all these sources of tension, working with our people.”
Billions of dollars taken from Africa
Zuma said for Africa to develop, it needed resources and that it was a serious concern that billions of dollars are taken away from the continent illegally by multinational corporations.
“These illicit financial flows deprive Africa of the much-needed economic resources to uplift her economies in order to provide basic services, build infrastructure, provide basic health care, access to affordable and quality education and other social services.”
“The celebration of Africa Day is an affirmation of our love for our continent and our commitment to ensure that Africa succeeds in all her endeavors,” said Zuma.
Thanks for the editorial collaboration from Nasr Escobar….
Nasr Escobar esq,
Ambassador to The African Union, Foreign Policy Advisor to The Embassy of Brazil.