Bola A. Akinterinwa
Africa is what anyone says it is. For some people, it is a dark continent. Some argue that it is the richest continent on earth. Some see Africa as under-developed while some others believe Africa is developing. For the United Nations, Africa is one of the seven or eight regions of the world. However, African leaders rejected this UN conception of Africa as a region in 1991 with the signing of the Abuja Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community. The Treaty redefined in its Article 1(d) Africa, no more as a continent of one region but as a continent of five regions: West Africa, North Africa, Central Africa, East Africa, and Southern Africa. The cardinal objective of dividing Africa into five regions was to foster and fasttrack continental unity and integration.
Apart from this, by lingua franca, there are four types of Africa: Anglophone, Francophone, Lusophone, and Arabophone, Africa. While Anglophone and Francophone Africa are English and French speaking respectively, Lusophone and Arabophone are Portuguese and Arabic speaking. Linguistic typology has been more of a centrifugal force, dividing Africa and working against a united and integrated Africa. For instance, Morocco, on the basis of being Arabophone, had to adopt the diplomacy of ‘open Chair’’ at the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) in protest against OAU’s decision to recognize and accommodate Polisario (Popular Front for the Liberation of Saguia el-Hamra and Río do Oro) which wanted an end to Moroccan occupation of its territory. Polisario wanted political independence for Western Sahara. Algeria supported the Polisario Front, especially in order to counter Morocco’s regional influence and maintain a strategic buffer on its own border. Morocco wanted and still wants to acquire the Western Sahara by manu military. The OAU is against the replacement of old Spanish colonization with Moroccan colonialism.
Euro-American and Arabophone Undermining
In reaction to the OAU, Morocco took the bad end of the stick and took leave of the OAU for several years (Open Chair diplomacy). It is against this background that the Euro-American and Arabophone diplomacy has been undermining Africa’s development. It is also in this context that Morocco’s renaming of its major 1,055-kilometre Tiznit-Dakhla Highway as President Donald J. Trump Highway in appreciation of Trump’s recognition of Sahara in 2020 should be understood. The highway links Morocco with the West African region. Linking the highway to Donald Trump’s name, because of US support for Morocco’s claim of sovereignty over the Western Sahara, negates the policy stand of the African Union. It undermines Africa’s policy of no more colonization and need for self-determination as wanted by the Sahrawi people of the territory.
More important, it strengthens the ambiguity of Morocco’s geo-political status in Africa. True enough, Morocco is geo-politically located in the northern region of the African continent, but the region of the world to which it now seeks to belong is secure and peaceful but cannot but have the potential of division-seeking with Morocco’s membership. It is on record that Morocco aspired to be a member of the European Communities shortly before the European Communities were transformed into European Union. It is also on record that Morocco also applied to be a Member of the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS).
Morocco applied in July 1987 to become a member of the European Economic Community. Most unfortunately, the European Council rejected Morocco’s application on the grounds that Morocco is geopolitically located in North Africa. Besides, Morocco did not qualify to be called a European State. Put differently, simply because the OAU recognized the Western Sahara, which Morocco wants to have as part of a Greater Morocco, and because of the little or no impact of Morocco’s policy of ‘open chair’ or (la politique de la chaise vide) on the OAU, Morocco sought membership of the European Communities. In 1984, Morocco suspended its membership of the OAU without truly withdrawing its original membership of the organization. It left its official seat vacant. Probably because of the ‘don’t care attitude’ of African leaders all of whom Morocco insulted, Morocco had to look for alternative organization in order to be relevant in regional and international politics.
As Morocco’s quest to be a European State has failed, the next effort was to also seek to be a member of the ECOWAS which belongs geopolitically to the West Africa region of Africa. Morocco did not want to belong to the North Africa region. As the Yoruba proverbial saying has it, if moving forward becomes problematic and one cannot move forward, one must also know how to retrace his or her steps backward. In January 2017, Morocco returned to its seat, this time, in the African Union. The OAU has been transformed into the African Union (AU). On February 24, 2017 Morocco also officially applied to join the ECOWAS. On March 2, 2017 Morocco named an ambassador-designate to the ECOWAS, apparently to strengthen its observer status already approved in 2005 by the ECOWAS Authority of Heads of States and Government. Morocco’s application generated much controversy
The Government of Nigeria, represented by Foreign Minister Geoffrey Onyeama at the National Assembly, supported Morocco’s application, especially considering the coastal pipeline project from Nigeria to Morocco and valued at many billions of US dollar. But contrarily to this governmental position was public opinion. For various considerations, the politico-academic elite in Nigeria was vehemently opposed. First, it was considered that Moroccan membership was meant to challenge Nigeria’s strength and influence in the West Africa region. It was argued that it would reduce Nigeria’s influence as a result of competition in the region. Secondly, it was considered that Morocco had a monarchical system while other Member States of the ECOWAS were Republics. These observations are still valid as of today. Consequently, Morocco’s membership of the ECOWAS was considered an anathema.
Thirdly, during the National Assembly hearing on Morocco’s application for membership of the ECOWAS, I sat in the same row with the then Nigeria’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Geoffrey Onyeama. I watched him with keen interest when arguing in favour of Morocco’s admission. I observed that he was arguing in favour not because of conviction of any goodness in the membership but apparently for reasons of force majeure. It could not be logically deducted from his submissions that he truly believed in the need for Morocco’s membership.
The opposition of the Organised Private Sector and the Nigerian manufacturers was equally strong. The issue of Morocco’s Free Trade Agreement with the European Union was raised. The fear was that Morocco’s membership of the ECOWAS could not but serve as a backdoor route for duty-free European goods to flood the West African market. Competition with local manufacturers, as well as unequal trade integration were also raised. And perhaps most importantly, there were problems of conflict of free movement and Morocco’s role in the development incapacity of the Arab Maghreb Union, and more problematically the fact of EU Border Management which enabled Morocco to serve as an important perimeter-policing partner for Europe as regards trans-Saharan and West African migration.
And true again, I raised several questions to which answers could not be given: if Morocco was hosting the Maghrebin Union or is playing host to North Africa region as headquarters why should Morocco abdicate its regional responsibilities? For several years, Morocco could not host any summit of its regional organization. Why was it so? Was Morocco not being used as an instrument of penetration into the ECOWAS region by the European Union in light of the difficulties raised by the EU-ECOWAS Economic Partnership Agreements (EPA)? Whatever was the situation, the ECOWAS only gave its approval of Morocco’s membership in principle at its 51st Ordinary Summit held in Monrovia, Liberia, on June 5, 2017. Francophone members of the ECOWAS supported Morocco’s membership. This was Africa divided against itself. This division is still much there in Africa of today.
Another self-dividing factor is aiding and abetting foreign military interventions in Africa. Kenya was the country used to facilitate Operation Thunderbolt (Israeli Rescue Force), that is, the Entebbe Raid, which was subsequently called Operation Yonatan. The Operation was launched on 3 July 1976 in reaction to the hijacking of an Air France flight 139 from Tel Aviv to France on 27 June 1976 by the PFLP-EO (Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine – External Operations) and the German Revolution Cells, which diverted the plane to Entebbe International Airport in Uganda. The hijacking had the support of President Idi Amin. This is undermining of Africa by Africans. There is no need repeating how Europe has undermined Africa bearing in mind the very enlightening 1972 publication of Walter Rodney on the matter.
Without any whiff of doubt, every act of terrorism is condemnable. Idi Amin’s support for high-jacking of Air France plane was most condemnable. But most unfortunately is when another African country Kenya would accept to aid and abet an air raid of Entebbe international airport by way of enabling re-fueling of the Israeli attack air force plane. As such European countries cannot be exclusively held responsible for undermining Africa.
Anglophone or Francophone Undermining
The undeniable facts about the undermining of Africa’s development are mind boggling: is it not true that African elite illegally transfer billions of US dollars out of Africa into foreign banks, thereby starving local economies of investment funds? When highly skilled professionals leave Africa for greener pastures, is it the Europeans that should be held responsible? Are Europeans responsible for Africa’s acceptance of very unfavourable signing of extraction agreements that enables self-enrichment to the detriment of national wealth? Is Europe responsible for the low intra-African trade? Why are most African countries first targeting trade with Europe and not with Africa first? Is the reason of all of them being primary producers still sufficient a reason?
Whatever is the case, there are more issues that are currently deepening the development setbacks of Africa. First is the undermining of regionalization efforts. Regionalism policy was encouraged to assist in the conduct and management of international peace and security. The strong belief is that if peace and security and economic vibrancy can be entrenched at the regional level, global peace and security cannot but be attained with greater ease. In the same vein at the African continental level, if there is development at the regional levels of Africa, the whole of Africa cannot but also witness progress.
The challenge arises when regional organisations are undermined. Withdrawal of membership from regional organization is a manifestation of undermining of development. At the level of the ECOWAS, for example, Mauritania was the first country to officially withdraw from the organization on 28 December, 2000. Mauritania gave the required notice of withdrawal in December 1999. With the withdrawal, membership of the organization reduced from 16 to 15. Mauritania remains part of the West Africa region but no longer a member of the ECOWAS region. Mauritania wanted to focus on political and cultural integration on North Africa through the Arab Maghreb Union. Mauritania was also against the ECOWAS agenda for a single customs union and common currency which was considered to be inimical to the economic sovereignty of Mauritania.
Most unfortunately, however, the Arab Maghreb Union, which Mauritania wanted to take advantage of, is finding it difficult to survive. This partly explains why Mauritania, though a founding member of ECOWAS in 1975, was compelled to seek and sign an associate partnership agreement with the ECOWAS in August 2017 in order to cooperate on trade, economic ties, and regional security.
Another round of withdrawal from the ECOWAS was that of the Alliance des Etats du Sahel (AES, meaning Alliance of Sahel States, ASS), which has been transformed into the Confédération des Etats du Sahel (Confederation of Sahel States). The ASS, comprising Burkina Faso, Mali, and Niger, was established in September 2023 by the Charter of Liptako-Gourma initially as a defence pact and security framework. It was designed to provide collective military assistance, not only against the local armed groups and jihadist insurgences linked to Al Qaeda and the ISIL, but also against the ECOWAS threats of use force to compel a return to civilian rule. More importantly, the ASS wanted to put an end to the traditional Western and French hegemonic mainmise over their countries. It was in reaction to the ECOWAS’ threatened military sanctions for unconstitutional changes of government in their countries that the ASS was given birth to on 16 September, 2023.
What is noteworthy about the ASS is that, while it raises questions about ECOWAS disintegration, it also consistent with the provisions of Articles 1(d) and 1(e) of the 1991 Abuja Treaty Establishing the African Economic Community. The ASS is a sub-region of the ECOWAS which is still required for both regional and continental integration. Additionally, Europeans cannot be held responsible for Africa’s governance inadequacies in Africa. Coups d’état in Burkina Faso, Niger, and Mali enjoyed popular support. The coups were in protest against government’s poor governance and policies of pro-Western colonialism to the detriment of the people’s survival. When the ECOWAS Authority came out to threaten more sanctions against the military juntas in the three countries, the peoples of the three countries came out to demonstrate in support of their governments and against the ECOWAS. The unwanted military junta by the ECOWAS are wanted by the people. This was to tell the ECOWAS that whatever sanctions being contemplated against the juntas were nothing more than sanctions against the people.
Another round of withdrawal, but this time part-withdrawal, is the case of Guinea (Conakry). On August 2, 2026, Guinea Conakry announced its withdrawal from the ECOWAS’ planned single currency, the Eco. Guinea (Conakry) wants to retain the Guinean franc ahead of the ECOWAS July 2027 monetary Union. Reasons given include the need to ‘protect national sovereignty and maintain full independent control over domestic monetary policy tools like interest and exchange rates.’ Besides, it is considered that more than 80% of Guinean Conakry’s exports (bauxite, gold, and iron ore, etc.) go to Asian countries, and not to the West African region.
The problematic at this juncture is that the African Union is making strenuous efforts to strengthen intra-African trade which is considered to be only about 10% of Africa’s international trade. In order to address this problem, the African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCFTA) was created by the African Union on January 1. 2001 in order to have a single market for various goods and services across the 54 African countries. Africa has a population of about 1.3 billion people and has a combine GDP of $3.4 trillion. One major objective of the AfCFTA is to remove tariffs on, at least, 90% of goods. If the African Union is to boost trade in Africa, withdrawal from regional efforts cannot be helpful to continental economic progress.
It, therefore, cannot but be wrong to endlessly continue to hold others responsible for problems we consciously create. Admittedly, colonialism created different infrastructures that impede progress of Africa. But for how long will Africans continue to complain but refuse to do what is necessary to overcome the challenges of under-development? What really is the problem of Africa and its people?
And perhaps most disturbingly is the xenophobic saga in South Africa. On the one hand, white South Africans are thinking of possibly carving out an independent white province for themselves. The black South Africans are holding foreigners, particularly Nigerians, responsible for their economic woes. But true, South Africans have nothing to remember about the goodness of the frontline States, including Nigeria, which fought tooth and nail to bring racial segregation to an end in South Africa.
It is first xenophobia, then Afrophobia, and now Nigerianophobia. Is Europe still responsible for this? Europe may be responsible for some African setbacks. What prevents Africa from liberating itself from the shackles of European enslavement? African leaders talk about, and want, African problems to be solved by Africans. Can African problems be solved with politics of sit-tightism in power? Has Africa any democratic future with the increasing coups against constitutions, especially by constitutional review to allow for ‘eternal’ stay in power? There is integration of Heads of States but not of people. Why is it that these problems are still left unattended to by African leaders? Will these problems be investigated by Professor Tunde Adeniran, former Minister of Education and Ambassador to Germany, who is currently researching into Africa’s future? The identified common problem is that most of African countries are primary producers and therefore they have to compete among themselves for international markets. One question to be answered now is this: is it by disintegrating or withdrawing from ECOWAS currency plan that the problem of low intra-Africa trade will be solved? Is it Europe that is again responsible for Africa’s primary productivity? Why is Africa not able to industrialise and export manufactured goods? Why is Africa much dependent on foreign development aid and investments?