Africa has the largest number of member states of the United Nations (UN) (54, 28%). The African UN geopolitical region is also unique in that its states are located within one continent as traditionally defined. There are 21 African countries (38%) in the Commonwealth of Nations. Africa, the continent, has a population of 1.3 billion people, and a land mass of 30.4 million kmsq; the US fits into Africa more than 3x; the UK fits into Africa more than 120x; the USA, China, India, Europe, and Japan combined fit comfortably. Yet, Africa has the weakest international voice, which YPUK contends arose not because of underdevelopment but because the rest of the world perceive Africans, and by extension the Black man, as inherently weak people. YPUK contends that Africa is weak because its leaders lack the skill of assertiveness in particular over two important matters.
There is the inability of Africa’s leaders to assert disapproval for the Transatlantic Slavery and demand apology and reparation for it from the European perpetrators. Africa’s leaders are content for the Transatlantic Slavery to be confined to the dustbin of history. Yet, the Transatlantic Slavery has no parallel in the history of mankind in its deliberate barbarity and depravity. The Commonwealth and the UN have rightly condemned it as genocide and crime against humanity. There is no time limit for reparation for such a crime so Africa’s leaders have no excuse to not act.
As a practical solution, YPUK would advise the AU, for the purposes of reparation, to treat the Transatlantic Slavery as two distinct and separate issues; namely, crime against humanity and genocide on African soil (the African Holocaust) and crime against humanity and genocide on the soil of the Americas. YPUK would advise that the AU confined itself strictly to the African Holocaust and leave the other to the descendants of slaves that the European perpetrators forcibly took to the Americas. YPUK would suggest that the AU at its next general assembly passed a resolution formally demanding apology and reparation for the African Holocaust directed at the principal slaving nations of UK, Belgium, France, Portugal and Spain. YPUK would suggest that the AU demand as reparation, a type of Marshall Plan directed at infrastructure development particularly a Marine Economy, where the African coast has deep sea, and a Climate Economy, at appropriate locations for solar farms and wind turbines.
YPUK would advise the AU to recognise in that same resolution that the European perpetrators inflicted the African Holocaust at several locations. YPUK would suggest that the AU therefore included in the reparation resolution, support for whatever any location of the African Holocaust might seek in reparation. The Yorubaland, for example, was a location of the African Holocaust. Up to 5 million Yoruba lost their lives in the genocide (the Yoruba Holocaust) that the Europeans inflicted on land and at sea. The Yoruba could demand a homeland in reparation. Just as the Jewish Holocaust was compensated with the State of Israel, the Yoruba Holocaust could be compensated with a Yoruba Homeland. Fortunately, there is no legal impediment to creating a Yoruba Homeland because the UK in 1888 recognised the Yorubaland as a state in its own right with international character, and the UK signed and ratified a treaty of trade and friendship with that Yoruba state. YPUK would assert that the 1888 Britain-Yorubaland Treaty has legal force available to be effectuated in 2024 and beyond. YPUK would like to remind the bashful that the UK government, according to Lord Lugard, the amalgamator of Nigeria, took £6 million out of the Yorubaland to use in servicing the Imperial War Debt; the interest and sinking fund on this money reached the sum of £13 million (£20 billion in today’s money) apparently spread over 36 years, which meant that the Yoruba without their knowledge were paying for the British adventure in World War I at least up to the 1950s.
Africa’s leaders unwaveringly join ongoing commemoration of the Jewish Holocaust. Commemoration of the Jewish Holocaust makes the Jews a strong people in the eyes of the world. Conversely, lack of commemoration of the African Holocaust makes the Black man weak in the eyes of the world. This situation of ‘forgive and forget’, if that is what it is, is no longer tenable as it is damaging to the image of the Black man. Until the European perpetrators apologise and compensate for the Transatlantic Slavery, the world will always regard the Black man as an inferior being.
There is also the inability of Africa’s leaders to assert disapproval for the 1885 General Act of the Berlin Conference on West Africa signed by UK, France, Germany, Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Spain, US, Italy, Netherlands, Portugal, Russia, Sweden-Norway, and Turkey (Ottoman Empire). Instead, Africa’s leaders desperately cling to artificial country boundaries bequeathed to them by their European colonialists. Black Africa currently has no natural countries only the contraptions and constructs invented by the Europeans after the 1885 Berlin Conference. Until they became intoxicated with power, Africa’s leaders did indeed recognise the need to redraw country maps.
The All Africa People’s Conference (Accra 10-13 December 1958):
‘a) denounces artificial frontiers drawn by imperialist powers to divide peoples of Africa, particularly those which cut across ethnic groups and divide people of the same stock ; b) calls for the abolition or adjustment of such frontiers at an early date; c) calls upon the independent states of Africa to support a permanent solution to this problem founded upon the true wishes of the people.’
In this 1958 resolution, the African leaders sought to apply the legal principle of uti possidetis (‘have what you have had’), which implied restoration of frontiers that existed before the loss of independence to colonisation. Indeed, this principle was embodied in Article 20.1 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights (African Charter), which provides:
‘All peoples shall have the right to existence. They shall have the unquestionable and inalienable right to self-determination. They shall freely determine their political status and shall pursue their economic and social development according to the policy they have freely chosen’.
Sadly, the AU has failed to abide by this legal authority provided by its own Charter. In 1992, for example, Gerard Moke, President of the Katangese People’s Congress, asked the African Commission, on the grounds of the Article 20.1, to recognise the independence of Katanga (the Katangese v Zaire case). The African Commission declined, instead deciding wrongly that it was bound to uphold the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Zaire, which was an OAU member and signatory to the African Charter. The African Commission was wrong because Article 20.1 of the African Charter has an exhaustive character and no other conditions could be imported into it. ‘Peoples’ is the only requirement for granting the Article 20.1 rights. Sovereignty and territorial integrity of the ‘mother’ country are not requirements. Territorial integrity is a principle of international law that entitled every sovereign state to defend its borders against another state. It does not derogate in any way from Article 20.1 of the African Charter, which is strictly an internal matter. Indeed, the role of the ‘mother’ country in self-determination has been very clearly coded in the International Law of Self-determination (UNGA Resolution 2625), that is,
1. ‘…to promote…realization of the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples…’
2. ‘…to render assistance to the United Nations in carrying out the responsibilities entrusted to it by the Charter regarding the implementation of the principle…’
3. ‘…to promote universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms…’
4. ‘…to refrain from any forcible action which deprives peoples…of their right to self-determination and freedom and independence…’
As a practical solution, YPUK would suggest that the AU at its next general assembly passed a second resolution, related to the first outlined above, conceding that there were member states in which the component parts were incompatible, committing henceforth to use the AU Act mechanism of ‘Admission to Membership’ to decide claims under Article 20.1 of the African Charter.
Article 29 of the AU Act provides that:
‘1. Any African State may, at any time after the entry into force of this Act, notify the Chairman of the Commission of its intention to accede to this Act and to be admitted as a member of the Union.
2. The Chairman of the Commission shall, upon receipt of such notification, transmit copies thereof to all Member States. Admission shall be decided by a simple majority of the Member States.’
What constitutes a ‘State’ is not defined in the Act . YPUK would suggest that the AU defined a ‘state’ in this context as a well demarcated territory in which was domiciled an indigenous population. A ‘simple majority’ is the only requirement for membership of the AU. An applicant would be admitted if it convinced a majority of member states that it ought to be admitted. That is all. Admission is political not legal. Statehood amounts to collective recognition by those states that voted in favour. Article 29 has an exhaustive character such that no other conditions could be imported into it.
YPUK would remind the bashful that as recently as the 1990s, the Soviet Union replaced itself with 19 monoethnic republics, Yugoslavia replaced itself with 6 monoethnic republics, whilst Czechoslovakia replaced itself with 2. In other words, 3 European ‘mother’ countries replaced themselves with 23 European ‘daughter’ countries. The newly created European republics are doing much better than when they were parts of the ‘mother’ countries. There is a lesson there for Africa’s leaders.
Africa will never be great or strong until its leaders attend to the twin matters of reparation for the Transatlantic Slavery and re-drawing of the country boundaries bequeathed by the Europeans.