Countries in the African Union will open their borders to free trade and movement of goods and services in July 2020.

The open borders, under the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA), was signed last year in May by 54 out of 55 African nations. Under “the agreement establishing the African continental free trade area”, Africa’s 1.2 billion population will be able to buy and sell goods with minimal tariffs and non-tariff barriers.

The AfCFTA is “determined to strengthen our economic relationship and build upon our respective rights and obligations under the Constitutive Act of the African Union of 2,000 the Abuja Treaty and, where applicable, the Marrakesh Agreement Establishing the World Trade Organization of 1994,” the agreement reads.

“Having regard to the aspirations of Agenda 2063 for a continental market with the free movement of persons, capital, goods and services, which are crucial for deepening economic integration, and promoting agricultural development, food security, industrialisation and structural economic transformation.”

In April 2019, the AfCFTA agreement secured the minimal threshold of 22 ratification, legally binding the document.

“We are very proud of how quickly countries have ratified the AfCFTA. This is a source of pride for all of us,” said chairperson of the African Union Commission, Moussa Faki Mahamat.

“For this agreement to be effective, there is a need to open borders to other Africans. This can only be possible by having a peaceful and secure continent. It would be an illusion to talk of trade and development, without peace and security.”

The Pan-Africanist ideal of the AfCFTA agreement is an offspring of the Pan-Africanist dreams of the 1960s, during Africa’s independence from European colonisation. As such, vestiges of past conflicts are present even within this renewed Pan-Africanist fervour.

“Pan-Africanism is an articulation of shared identity,” Dr Julia Gallagher of the Department of Politics and International Studies at the School of Oriental and African Studies, wrote in 2016.

It is “a ‘we-feeling’ rooted in experiences of colonialism and racism and longer-standing shared cultural traits. However, pan-Africanism, already in competition with local ethnic and regional identities, quickly ran up against the growth of state-based nationalism that developed as African countries became independent.”

Last year, under President Buhari, Nigeria closed its borders to all neighbouring countries citing corruption as a major reason for the closures.

“The borders will remain closed until our neighbours control what goes through the borders and comply with the laws,” Hameed Ali, Comptroller General of the Nigeria Customs Service said.

Buhari’s decision to close Nigeria’s borders was not only hypocritical since Nigeria had signed the AfCFTA Agreement, it was also an exemplification of the contesting Pan-Africanist and nationalistic identities that plague the African Union today.

Individual fears of the AfCFTA’s free movement agreement leads to nationalistic self-preservation. Within the context of massive infrastructural inadequacy and widespread governmental corruption, the AU may not be adequately mechanised to monitor free movement. Some politicians have argued that Boko Haram and the Islamic Movement of Nigeria are supported and indoctrinated by Al Queda’s presence in North Africa. Free movement will increase the presence and power of terrorist groups operating in Africa.

The lack of governmental investment in local and national businesses is also a significant stumbling block for the AU. A continental free trade movement will only succeed when there are local business owners within each country. If this barrier can be surmounted, the AfCFTA free trade movement will reduce Africa’s financial dependence on foreign aid and foreign trade.

The African Union has many issues hindering its success. It can only grow if its leaders begin to hold each other accountable to issues of corruption and third-termism, under the combined force of the union.

L'articolo Africa Steps into 2020 with Eyes on Open Borders and Free Trade proviene da InsideOver.

Rwanda, the United Nations Refugee Agency (UNCHR) and the African Union have agreed to evacuate refugees and asylum seekers in Libya. The Memorandum of Understanding was signed last week, in the capital city, Addis Ababa, to set up a transit mechanism for evacuating refugees out of Libya. The UNCHR reported that refugees and asylum seekers will be transferred to Rwanda voluntarily.

Rwanda’s policy, like Uganda’s, allows refugees the right to work, with an aim of “progressively integrating refugees into national systems for health and education”. In 2017, Rwanda hosted about 172,000 refugees, many from recently war-torn Democratic Republic of Congo and politically unstable Burundi.

Despite its horrific past with the Rwandan genocide, the nation has been developing at a very fast pace in recent years. Under President Paul Kagame, the nation has curtailed corruption, revived the economy and maintained political stability. It is one of the cleanest places on earth. It also holds the title for the world’s number one country for women in power. Nevertheless, like Uganda, the country’s humanitarian stance is blighted by an ever-increasingly authoritarian government under President Kagame, who has been accused of human rights violations.

In a statement released last week, the UNCHR said: “The first group of 500 people, predominantly from the Horn of Africa, will be evacuated, including children and youth at risk. After their arrival, UNHCR will continue to pursue solutions for the evacuees.

“Evacuation flights are expected to begin in the coming weeks, and will be carried out in co-operation with Rwandan and Libyan authorities.”

The plight of refugees and asylum seekers will be decided once they arrive in the country. Some refugees will be resettled in third countries while others will be assisted with moving to countries in which they were previously offered asylum. Refugees who can safely return to their home countries will also be assisted with their return, while some will be permitted to remain in Rwanda. The conditions to be met for granting asylum in Rwanda to Libyan refugees is, at yet, unascertained.

Since 2017, the UNCHR has evacuated more than 4,400 refugees and asylum-seekers out of Libya. The Northern African country currently has 5,600 refugees arbitrarily detained in refugee camps. There are also about 800,000 migrants and 50,000 registered refugees and asylum seekers in the country. Refugees in Libya have spoken of the inhumane conditions in which they are held, including a recent airstrike on the Tajoura Detention Centre where 50 refugees and migrants were killed, and another 130 wounded. The UN claimed that both sides of the ongoing Libyan conflict knew the location of the detention centre.

Following the July airstrikes, António Vitorino, Director General of the International Organization for Migration (IOM), and UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi, appealed to the European Union and the African Union to “consider the protection of the human rights of migrants and refugees a core element of its engagement in Libya.”

They asked for countries in the international community to provide more evacuation and resettlement places, and extra resources, to guarantee the safety of refugees and migrants in Libya.

The evacuation of Libyan migrants to Rwanda is another political and humanitarian step towards Pan Africanism. Libya’s ongoing conflict and anti-migrant policies does not protect its refugees and asylum seekers as it should. African nations with better refugee policies, such as Rwanda and Uganda, can better protect refugees, and enable them to integrate into a new African society.

Humanitarian refugee-integration policies enables Africa to take care of its refugees, without returning to the tradition of seeking help from the West. Refugees, permitted to use the resources of their host country, can go on to enrich their host country which in turn enriches Africa. While there are many obstacles to reaching Pan Africanism, such as corruption, international debts, terrorism and conflict, continued intra-continental humanitarian support is one battle won.

L'articolo Refugees in Libyan Detention Centres Evacuated to Rwanda proviene da InsideOver.

Uganda has withdrawn its blanket refugee policy for asylum seekers in the country. Fears that improper vetting of refugees’ identities generated easy access for rebels and criminals to enter the country has led Uganda to revise its open-door refugee policy.

The Minister for Relief, Disaster Preparedness and Refugees, Hillary Onek said on Tuesday: “We have withdrawn the blanket refugee status to people who are coming to our country because of infiltration of wrong elements through [the open-door policy]”

“We realised that a number of criminals found their ways in. Open-door policy doesn’t mean that you open the door for anything, it is only for refugees. If you are not a genuine refugee and you are a criminal, our doors are not open,” Mr Onek explained.

Mr Onek has formerly alleged that neighbouring countries have sent trained security personnel into Uganda, through the open-door refugee policy, to murder or abduct high-profile refugees.

Unlike many African nations, which act as extractive institutions – stealing from its people with minimal investment back into the state – Uganda has chosen a humanitarian approach to the use of its public services. Refugees in Uganda have, in the past, been given land for farming and building homes. This also included free healthcare and education. This is in stark contrast to refugee policies in Kenya and other East African countries where refugees are confined in camps.

Uganda hosts the most refugees in Africa with a population of 1.3 million refugees, citing Pan Africanist sensibilities as its ethos. However, to succeed as an inclusive institution (one that enables large hordes of the population to participate in political and economic systems for the long-term growth of the country) Uganda’s government must also regulate resource-allocation.

The civil war in South Sudan forced 700,000 South Sudanese refugees to seek shelter in Uganda. Violence in other neighbouring countries, such as Burundi, Somalia, and the Democratic Republic of Congo, has increased the influx of refugees arriving in Uganda.

“We don’t have enough food to feed all the refugees, and some are getting half rations of cornmeal and beans,” Apollo Kazungu, a Ugandan commissioner in charge of refugees, voiced in 2017.

“We are very hospitable as a country, and our people are friendly to refugees. But allocating them plots (of land) may not be possible if they continue to arrive daily due to violence. We are now building dormitories for them,” he said.

In present-day Uganda, the situation has deteriorated. A new report published last month by the International Refugee Rights Initiative (IRRI) said that: “While there are overall good relations, tensions between South Sudanese refugees and Ugandan communities around natural resources, livelihoods and land should not be ignored.

“Refugees especially highlighted competition over natural resources,” the report continued, “in particular firewood for cooking and grass for thatching roofs, claiming that the host community restricted their access and at times attacked them.

“Host communities, in turn, complain that refugees did not seek their consent and that environmental degradation is spiralling out of control. While most refugee communities live peacefully together, a cocktail of frustration, unemployment, post-traumatic stress and alcohol abuse have the potential to degenerate, fuelled by ethnic stereotyping and ongoing conflict in South Sudan.”

Speaking at a press conference in July, the Deputy Speaker of Parliament, Jacob Oulanyah, criticised Uganda’s open-door refugee policy.

“The Uganda open-door refugee policy is very ineffective and it has left many of our Ugandans very poor. People are not living their lives like they used to because of the issue of refugees,” he said.

“Since 1967, there has not been any modified law created to deal with refugees and that is a big challenge. Policies have to be revised and better legal frameworks set up.

“These refugees should be settled in camps not settlements with the locals, because they are not citizens of the country, and the camps can be permanent not the occupants.”

While other Ugandan MPs have disagreed with Oulanyah about the open-door refugee policy, there is a consensus that the security and management styles of this policy are ineffective.

The ban on Uganda’s blanket refugee policy is also, according to Mr. Onek, a deterrent to economic migrants from Pakistan who pose as refugees to gain access to the country’s resources.

The MP has been widely criticised for his comments on Pakistani immigrants. He has also been questioned on whether his new anti-blanket policy will contradict Uganda’s open-policy for refugees.

Uganda’s Anti-Humanitarian Politics

Despite its humanitarian stance on refugees, Uganda’s president, former rebel leader, Yoweri Museveni, has been accused of torturing those who democratically oppose his 33-year government.

Ugandan music artist turned MP, Robert Kyagulanyi, claimed he was unlawfully detained and tortured by Ugandan police under the command of President Museveni.

The pop star was also charged with treason after Museveni accused him and other opposition leaders of stoning the president’s convoy during a campaign rally.

L'articolo Uganda’s Open-Door Refugee Policy Causes Security and Economic Risks proviene da InsideOver.

Former US President Ronald Reagan referred to African UN delegates as “monkeys” while on a phone call to President Richard Nixon in 1971, it was revealed last month.

A year before, President Donald Trump had referred to African nations as “shithole” countries. The racist and ultra-capitalist policies of all three presidents has been noted by many. At the root of the global disrespect for Africa is the continent’s economic dependence on the West.

Pan Africanism started with the visionary Marcus Garvey, who dreamed of black Americans returning home to Africa to build an African empire, completely distinct and separate from white societies. Born in the Caribbean, Garvey envisioned an Africa that would prosper politically, socially and economically.

Pan Africanism aims to banish the idea of black inferiority, by uniting African and black nations together with the aim of advancement. While later leaders like Malcolm X. and Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. would win the cultural war over white superiority, the political and economic war on white superiority is still one that later leaders like Fela Kuti and Nelson Mandela would fight. Pan Africanism today is the fight for Africa’s economic and political power on the global stage.

Pan Africanism Today

Africa has the most amount of countries owing money to the International Monetary Fund (IMF). Africa’s debt to the West began when, during the 1960s, it began accepting loans from the IMF and the World Back to fund “massive industrial development projects”.

According to African economic and political analyst Lawrence Freeman, “Western nations, the IMF, World Bank, Paris Club, etc., have ‘looted’ Africa of hundreds of billions of dollars in bloated debt payments and through the manipulation of currencies, and terms of trade.”

Under pressure from the US – an indisputable world power at the time – the IMF and the World Bank offered loans under the condition that poorer countries privatize their economies. Under this forced privatization, poorer countries also had to give free access to their market and their raw materials to Western corporations. Many African nations became financially trapped and encumbered by Western nations.

Although not all African nations are indebted to the IMF, for example Nigeria, China’s infrastructural investment in Sub-Saharan Africa in the last two decades has led to the continent being further indebted to another global power. Nigeria has the highest amount of Chinese debt at $44.65b, followed by Angola at $24.09b.

The US, Europe and China build their economies by financially exploiting Africa. The topic of international loans draws parallels to the topic of segregation in racially-charged America. At the forefront of the movement for black rights in the 1960s, Malcolm X and Martin Luther King Jr. had opposing views on how these causes would be achieved. For Malcolm X., the solution was the complete separation of black societies from white societies. (This was the vision of Garvey who championed all African Americans returning to Africa.) For MLK, the solution was the full integration of blacks and whites into one society.

Globalisation, however, cannot work without integration. A globalised world means that when Africa suffers, the whole world suffers too, albeit in smaller doses. President Trump may rely on racist rhetoric to maintain the support of his ultra right-wing voters, but this has fuelled talks of a possible race war on American soil.

In a recent report, the All-Party Parliamentary Groups (APPG) for Africa revealed that visa applications to the British Home Office are twice as likely to be rejected when made by Africans. Britain’s hostile environment towards Africans is leading to “severe damage to UK-Africa relations across a variety of sectors,” according to British MP, Chi Onwurah.

Britain’s “hostile environment” for immigrants – a policy created by Theresa May, Britain’s Home Secretary at the time – further led to the Brexit vote. Five years later, now Prime Minister, May would begin a “trade mission” to Africa, to boost a post-Brexit trade between Africa and Britain.

A vote for Brexit was a vote for separation, especially separation from immigrants. Despite voting for Brexit, the UK relies heavily on foreigners to keep its economy afloat. Nigeria and Zimbabwe, for example, count towards the top ten non-UK nationalities working in the British NHS.

Across European and American borders, the global migrant crisis continues to be problematic, as Sub-Saharan Africans flee their countries for a better standard of living in the West. Africa is also facing a “brain-drain” problem, as African professionals flee the continent for better prospects in the West. There are more than 21,000 Nigerian medical doctors practising in the US alone, according to a study.

A stronger, unified, Pan Africa will protect African nations from being exploited by global financial powers, creating more stability at home for the African populace. Greater political and economic stability in Africa would equalize power relations between Africa and other global powers, leading to better Afro-global relationships. African migration to the West would also decrease, as Africa builds its continent for itself.

L'articolo Will Pan Africanism Equalise Western Global Power? proviene da InsideOver.