AFRABIA
AND AFRICAN UNION
By
Abdalla Bujra
Lecture delivered at ACARTSOD
Tripoli, Libya
on 24 September 2002
Introduction
When discussing Afro-Arab relations, it is
important to remind ourselves of several significant historical and
contemporary factors which link the two peoples and regions.
Firstly geologically these two regions were one
landmass. The geological rapture and the emergence of the narrow and small Red
Sea, did not completely cut the land mass into two parts. This was completed
by the British and French when they dug the Suez Canal at the end of the 19th
century.
Secondly, on the basis of the above, Western
geographers, scholars and politicians have created an artificial boundary between the African continent and Arabia and
have turned it into a natural boundary
separating the Africans and the Arabs on the same level as the seperation of
Africans from the Europeans or Africans from the Indians. In reality and by
all objective criteria, there is no such natural
boundary separating the two people. This is simply a Eurocentric view of
the two people and of the region as a whole. If Arabia is not part of the
African continent because of the Suez Canal and the Red Sea, how come that
Madagascar is part of the continent when the two are separated by a far larger
sea and longer distance than the seperation of Arabia and Africa by the much
narrower Suez Canal and the Red Sea?
Thirdly, historically, neither the Red Sea nor the
Sahara have separated the two peoples. The Ethiopians and the Yemenis have
been one people and ruled each other for centuries as far back as the
pre-Islamic period. Indeed today, the famous Queen Sheba/Saba, is claimed by
both Yemen and Ethiopia as their ancient Queen. The long and intense relations
across the Red Sea and the Sahara between Africans and Arabs have had deeper
impact on both people than for example the relationship between mainland
Africa and the large island of Madagascar.
Fourthly, and as a consequence of these historical
interactions, there has been real unity – political, economic and cultural
– between a substantial part of the African and Arab people. There was in
the past strong political and cultural unity between Ethiopia and Yemen,
between Oman and Zanzibar, between Egypt and Nubia later Sudan, and more
recently, the Cin-Sad regional economic community which has cut across the
Sahel and Sahara.
Finally, and again as a consequence of the long
historical relationship between the peoples, there are more people who
identify themselves as Arabs living in the African continent than in Arabia
itself and more Arab Governments on the African continent than in the Arab
region.
There are thus no two peoples, who were once in one
continent and now are separated by a narrow, small sea and a man made canal,
who have had such extensive and intensive relations as the Arabs and Africans.
These relations are very extensive – historical, cultural, social and
genealogical, economic and political. More importantly, these relations are
currently intensifying and have become critically important to both people,
especially at the political level.
In this paper I will discuss the framework in which
Afro-Arab relations - past and
contemporary – took place, in what I call the three corridors. I will then argue for the need not only to expand
and deepen cooperation between the Arabs and Africans, but for real solidarity
and eventual unity. This should
take place at the level of the states, organisations, and also at the level of
the people. I will also look at what the formal organisations and institutions
are doing to promote African Arab cooperation and what are the challenges
facing the AU in particular and also the Arab League, in their efforts to
bring about deeper cooperation and solidarity.
Afrabia
The formal terms used by the African Union (AU) the
Arab League (AL) and governments is African and Arab - relations,
cooperation, solidarity etc. The more popular term used in this context is
Afro-Arab. However in a seminal
paper Professor Ali Mazrui (Mazrui, 1992)
coined the term Afrabia – to cover
the two regions of Africa and Arabia. His argument is that (a) the Arabs and
Africans were in one continent before the geological rapture of Africa from
Arabia in which the Red Sea emerged; further this physical rapture of the two
continent was completed only last century with the digging of the Suez Canal;
(b) that despite this physical separation, the extensive relations between the
two people through this long geological and historical period to the present,
has overcome and overtaken the separation created by the narrow Red Sea;(c)
furthermore these long and intensive relations and linkages have created what
he called Afrabia and communities of
Afrabians; (d) this phenomenon is
not unique; the Europeans whose relations with Africa is limited and very
recent have tried to establish what they called EurAfrica
(they also have Eurasia); (e) more
importantly however, Afrabia and Afrabians exist in reality, as a historical,
cultural and genealogical reality.
Mazrui defines Afrabians in the following terms:
-
CULTURAL AFRABIANS: are those whose culture
combines African traditions with the Arabo-Muslim heritage. African
Muslims and native speakers of Swahili and Hausa languages are cultural
Afrabians in this sense.
-
GENEOLOGICAL AFRABIANS: are those who are descended
by blood from both Africa and the Arab World –like the Mazrui family and
the late President Anwar Sadat.
-
IDELOGICAL AFRABIANS: are those who believed in the
unity of Africa and the Arab World without having either a shared ancestry
or shared religion. The late founder–president of Ghana, Kwame Nkurumah,
was an ideological Afrabian. But his children with his Egyptian wife are
genealogical Afrabians.
Afrabia is the product of geography while Afrabians
are the product of the intensive relationship which have taken place between
the Arabs and African in what I call “corridors of interaction”.
There are of course Africans and Arabs who are not Afrabians in
Mazrui’s definition of the term. These are people who have been indoctrinated by direct
colonialism and Western propaganda and as a result have developed hostile
attitudes towards each other. These non-Afrabians – particularly the Arabs
in the oil rich Gulf countries and the African Christianised educated middle
class and ruling political elite, are an important constituency which presents
both an obstacle and a formidable challenge to the AU and AL in their effort
to bring about cooperation and solidarity.
The
Afrabia Corridors
There are three such corridors in which significant
and intensive relations has historically existed between the Arabs and
Africans. These relationship, despite serious interruption by the colonial
powers, have resumed since the 1960s and are intensifying. There are three
corridors whose boundaries are very rough.
-
The Arabia Eastern Africa corridor(including the
Horn of Africa)
-
The Nile River corridor (including Ethiopia and
Uganda)
-
The North Africa Sahel/West African corridor
Relations between the Arabs and Africans which took
place in these corridors can be looked at from the perspective of past
historical processes or contemporary relations and processes. Whether past or
present, these relations can be placed into four categories: -
(i)
Historical political and economic relations – up to the start of
the formal colonization of both the Arab and African regions;
(ii)
Contemporary Inter-State relations. These could be bilateral between
states or under the auspices of the Arab League (AL) and the African
Union(AU).
(iii)
Contemporary Institutional Relations: Through such institutions as African Development Bank, Arab Bank for African Development,
private Banks, Economic Enterprises, Universities, or through formal AL and
AU organisations such as Labour Unions, Telecommunications Unions,
Educationalorganisations etc.
(iv)
People to People relations: historically and contemporarily these
have taken place through migration and settlement, inter-marriages, informal
trade, religious associations and movements, pilgrimage, cultural relations
and aid and charity organisations;
Each of the three corridors had and still has
distinctive characteristics which briefly are as follows: -
(I)
The Arabia Eastern Africa corridor
(a) Relations between Arabs and
Africans in Eastern Africa ware part of a much wider international relations
around the Indian Ocean. Arabs have traded
with and migrated to the Horn of
Africa and the East African Coast since before the Christian era. So have
Africans moved to Arabia. Ethiopians
NNMMand the Yemenis have ruled each for several
centuries during the Pre-Islamic period. Post Islam trade and migration
intensified. Indeed up to the 16th Century the global economy
was based
around the Indian Ocean, with Arabia and Eastern Africa being only part of
the Indian Ocean global market. Other nations such the Persians
(Iranians), Indians, Indonesians and
Chinese were involved in the international trade around the Indian Ocean and
they visited both Arabia and Eastern Africa. Communication and transport was
by sea through sailing dhows.
(b) The Arab’s relation
with the Horn of Horn of Africa was mainly with Eritrea, Somali and also the
Ethiopian highlands. Arab migration, trade and cultural and
political relations extended further south along the East African coast where they established
settlements on islands along the coast – from Mogadishu in Somalia to Sofala in
Mozambique. In Eritrea and Somali, important Arabian communities were
established before and after Islam and which have since
developed into Afrabian communities
– the most obvious being the Somalis. Along the East African coast, the
settlements grew as Swahili communities and developed their own
Afrabian culture. Even the establishment of an Omani Sultanate in Zanzibar
became a Swahili Sultanate independent of Oman.
(c) European powers came into the Indian Ocean and dramatically changed
the nature of the economy and pattern of trade. They colonised most of the
areas of the Indian Ocean. The colonisation of Arabia and Eastern Africa by
the European powers destroyed the then existing relationship between Arabia
and Eastern Africa.
(d) The colonial powers created serious problems in this regions between
Afrabians and Africans and also amongst the Afrabians themselves. Afrabian tensions and conflicts were created in Eritrea,
Somalia, Zanzibar, Tanganyika, Kenya and Mozambique.
(II) The River Nile Corridor
The interaction between the Arabs and Africans was
largely mediated by the Nile River – its exploitation and control; and
secondly by a long – pre-Islamic and post-Islamic migration and settlement
in southern Egypt and Nubia – in what is present day Sudan. This has led to
the creation of an Afrabian country in the Sudan.
The safe, secure and good treatment by the
Ethiopian King of Muslim refugees from Arabia during the Prophet’s time,
strengthened the then existing pre-Islamic political, trading and migratory
links between Arabia (especially the Yemen) and Ethiopia. This relationship
has continued over a long period and has affected the highland Christian
Ethiopian Kingdom; there are now more Muslims in present day Ethiopia than
Christians. Ethiopia may therefore be going through an identity crises – as
is the Sudan.
The colonisation of Egypt, Sudan and Uganda by the
British and the subsequent
linking of these colonies with the rest of East Africa – through Lake
Victoria – not only extended the penetration of Arabo-Islamic culture beyond
the Arab Sudanese communities, but had since created two major conflicts –
over the use and control of the Nile River and over the geographical boundary
of the modern Sudanese state. British rule in the Sudan has created a serious
conflict within modern Sudan between Afrabians and non-Afrabians. This
conflicts in particular has presented a major obstacle to Afro-Arab relations
in general.
(III)
The North Africa Sahel/West Africa corridor
(a)
Historically relations between Arab/Berber North Africa and Africans
below the Sahara desert, were dominated by the difficulties of transportation
across the Sahara desert. However, in spite of the difficulties in
transportation, there was thriving trade links between kingdoms south of the
Sahara and northern kingdoms in Egypt, Libya, Tunisia, Morocco and Mauritania.
Some of the trading links go as far back as the pre-Islamic period –
especially with Egypt. Algeria was left out because of shortage of water
between the south and the populated areas of Algeria;
(b) Relations between North Africa and West Africa were dominated by trade,
especially beginning with 8th Century when West Africa established
strong trade relationship with the Mediterranean countries. By this time Islam
had already began to penetrate in West Africa. But by the 15th and
16th centuries, a new wave of Islamic currents swept the empires
and kingdoms of West Africa. – Mali, Songhai, Kanem-Bornu, Kano and other
places.
(c)
Colonialism cut off the historically established links – trade,
religious and movement of people – between the West Africa and North African
countries. But despite the colonial and missionary ideological attack against
Islam and the Arabs, Islam spread rapidly in both Francophone and Anglophone
parts of West Africa.
contemporary inter-state relations between the
North African and Sahelian States are
much stronger than those which prevail in the other two corridors;
similarly people to people relations between the
northern “Arabs” and the southern Africans, have been less affected by the
colonial heritage(compared to Eastern Africa) and are generally stronger
culturally (through Islam in particular), less conflictual and more
friendly than those of the other two corridors;
there are nevertheless points of tension in several
countries over the role of Muslims and Islam – especially since independence
when Christian Evangelism from the USA and Western anti-Islamic biases and
misinformation had increased. Nigeria, Mauritania, Cot d’Ivoire are some of
the important countries experiencing internal tensions over the role of
Muslims and Islam.
It is important to remind ourselves that throughout
the African continent, whenever there is tension over the role of Islam and
Muslims, or directly over the role of Arabs (e.g. Mauritania, Sudan), these
tensions and open conflicts, directly affect Afro-Arab political relations
(inter-state) and also Afro-Arab relations within the AU and within the AU/AL
institutions. And often such tension and conflict also affect relations in
other fields – economic, social and movement of people. It is also important
to remember that these tensions are continuously exploited by the Western
media and the local medial allied to Western
economic, cultural, religious and political interest.
These are some of the challenges which face both
the AL and the AU in particular.
The Colonial Factor in Afro-Arab Relations
Colonisation of the Arab World and of Africa
occurred roughly at the same time and the British and French were the main
colonial powers in both regions. The colonial powers ruled the two regions in
order to exploit them economically. However in order to carry our such major
undertaking, they inevitably and systematically indoctrinated the people of
the regions to accept an ideological package which masqueraded as
“civilising mission”. The instrument for this ideological indoctrination
were the colonial administration itself, the educational system, the church
and its missionary activities, the media
- both local and international – and the European settler communities
wherever they settled.
The impact of the colonial rule, both immediate and
long term, were
-
to separate the two regions by cutting off all
previously existing linkages and ties;
-
to reorient all the local and regional economies to
export raw materials to the metropolitan countries thus making the economies
both dependant and to delink them from their previous economic ties
which had existed between Arab and African countries,
-
to carry out their “civilising mission” or the
ideological indoctrination, which when unpacked, contained (i) conversion of
people to Christianity, (ii) inculcating Western values – specifically the
racial and cultural superiority of the European race and culture, and (iii)
create differences and hostility amongst the people they rule and between them
and their neighbours. The differences
and hostility created are generally on ethnic, racial and religious grounds.
The separation of the Arabs and Africans was done
at two levels – globally between the two regions, and locally, within
countries. At the global level the colonial powers built a “colonial
wall” from West Africa all the way to the East coast in order to
separate the two regions. And at the country level, separation was carried
through inculcation of hostilities between Arabs and African (in Mauritania,
Sudan and Tanzania) and between African Muslims (Afrabians) and Christianised
Africans (in Nigeria, Ghana, Cote d’Ivoire, Liberia, Sierra Leon, Kenya,
Mozambique etc). In the Sudan for example, the south which was part of the
Sudan political entity, was separated from the north and treated by the
British as if it was part of East Africa. And as a result of the separation
and hostility created between the northern and southern Sudanese, the two
people have been fighting a civil war since the independence of Sudan – a
war which has been depicted by the West as a religious and racial war.
The cutting off of past economic links between Arab
and African countries was carried out ruthlessly since local economies were
changed and made to produce products needed in Europe rather than those needed
internally or by neighbouring countries/markets. Thus the then existing
economic links between North Africa and the Sahel, between Egypt/Sudan and the
south, and between Arabia and the East African coast were all disrupted and
stopped.
Finally, the impact of the “civilising mission”
or ideological indoctrination of both Africans and Arabs, was very severe and
of long term. The creation of hostility between the Arabs and Africans was
carried out intensively and at all levels – especially in countries where
the Muslims or people of Arab descent i.e. Afrabians, were in a minority. The
colonial system worked on three issues – race, religion and slavery. Arabs
were made to believe that they were inferior to the Europeans but superior to
Africans; Islam was depicted as a
savage, backward and violent religion compared to Christianity which the
colonial powers had tried very hard to make it the religion of the middle
classes and political elite in most African countries. Finally the emotive
issue of slavery was systematically blamed on the Arabs who were depicted as
the evil slave traders who bought and sold Africans in a most cruel way.
The propaganda war continues until today – almost
50 years after the formal departure of colonialism. The arrogant and repugnant
way in which the Western media have treated the crucial role of the Leader
Mu’ammar Al Gaddafi in bringing about the AU, and particularly during the
inauguration of the AU in Durban, is part of this ideological war of
separating and creating hostility between
the Arabs and the Africans.
The colonial heritage has affected Afro-Arab
relations very seriously. And unfortunately this heritage has not, in the
past, been recognised by the OAU/AL as a major constraint in their attempt at
bringing about cooperation and solidarity. Facing the issues inherited from
the colonial past, is a major challenge for the AU and AL.
And unless this is done, the chances of serious progress in deepening
cooperation and strong political solidarity, are not good.
Western Driven Global System, and Afro-Arab
Relations
During the Cold War, the process of globalisation
was skewed and the world divided into two political and economic blocks. Both
the West and the East needed friends during this period. They wooed Arab and
African countries and were careful not to antagonise their friends and those
who had remained neutral. However when the cold war ended around 1990, the
global situation changed dramatically. Globalisation – its political,
economic and technological process- were speeded up to encompass the whole
planet. And the global system is now being effectively driven and managed by
Western powers. The reaction to this speeded up globalisation, has been the
formation of major regional economic and political blocks – the EU, NAFTA,
the possibility of Asia expanding ASIEN and now Africa is catching up with the
formation of the AU.
The colonial heritage discussed above, having been
ignored and not addressed seriously by Arabs and Africans, has now been
incorporated into the global system, as part of the globalisation package.
This package has seriously affected both the Arab World and
Africa. The Arab region is suffering from military attack and loss of
territory, while the African region is suffering from economic and political
attack – it has been impoverished and turned into a vast arena of small but
deadly internal conflicts.
The Leader Mu’ammar Al Gaddafi has pointed out
sometime ago, that the main trend under the new global system is towards
larger economic and political groupings. Clearly this global system poses
serious threat to both the Arabs and the Africans.
The Arab region by itself cannot cope or overcome
the challenges it now faces by itself. The same situation of weakness faces
the Africa region. And the natural response to this situation is for the Arab
and African regions to join together, develop extensive cooperation and strong
solidarity in order to face the new global system.
The threat to
both Arabs and Muslims, and ultimately to all Africans – Westernised
and Christianised – is very real and serious. Its theoretical groundwork was
laid down by Samuel Huntington’s famous Clash
of Civilisation theses. At first, people did not take Huntington’s
theses seriously. However, serious observers could clearly see the trends –
especially in the Arab World: the Gulf War, the Cart
Blanch support given to Israel, the military neutralisation of Egypt with
financial support, the categorisation of some Arab countries as supporters of
terrorism and imposing UN sanctions on them. And when September eleven came,
the Western powers led by the Americans, gave themselves powers above
international legality to use military force to do, with impunity, whatever
they want – under the guise of fighting terrorism. And the principal targets
of this new militarism are the Arabs in particular and Muslim in general. And
since the majority of Arabs live in Africa, while the African continent has
more Muslims than Christians, clearly Africa is and will be automatically a
major victim of the war on terrorism and the new American led militarism. And
those countries that have been forced to pass anti-terrorist legislation, will
also be forced to use them more against Muslims than anyone else. And in
countries where there are large or small Muslim populations, the effect will
be to generate hostility, tension and open conflict between Muslims and
Christians. This has happened in the Sudan, is now happening in Nigeria,
Ethiopia, Tanzania and South Africa.
What has the AU done to face these threats?
I have mentioned above that both the AU and the AL
have yet to recognise the threat facing them and if they have, they have not
taken the threat seriously. The record of Afro-Arab cooperation through the
OAU/AL is rather dismal.
The first and so far the only, Arab African summit
took place in Cairo in 1977. This
was at the height of the cold war, during which period both the West and the
East wanted friends amongst the Africans and Arabs. The West had yet to
unleash its military and economic attacks on the Arabs and Africans. And so
the Program of African Arab
Cooperation supported by the Summit, was minimal and its mode of
implementation highly bureaucratic. Furthermore,
the cooperation was skewed, making the Arabs the donors and the Africans the
recipients.
The projects initiated and implemented were mainly
around BADEA – the Arab Bank for African Development. The Bank carried out a
few projects in African countries – with soft loans and grants. Another
activity has been the African Arab Trade Fair. Five such fairs have been held
so far. Also a Business Forum has been initiated – a meeting of Arab And
African businessmen. Two poorly attended Forums have been held. An African
Arab Cultural Institute has been approved
but has yet to be set up. A Preferential Trade Area has been proposed,
but has yet to be discussed. In fact the main Commission set up by the 1977
Summit, did not meet for 11 years. There has also been political solidarity on
the Palestinian question and on the struggle against Apartheid.
Beyond these two issues, political solidarity was mainly at the
declaratory level – of supporting the resolutions passed by the two
organisations – the OAU and the AL. And only recently, have some serious
processes been put in motion with the strong leadership of Mu’ammar Al
Gaddafi. These are the establishment of the CEN-SAD and the process which has
led to the creation and inauguration of the AU. It is hoped that more serious
and effective cooperation and solidarity will be generated from the CEN-SAD.
While the AU has just been inaugurated, facing many problems and challenges.
The Challenges facing the AU
The AU was inaugurated only three months ago. It
has a one year interim period to operationalise its main organs, particularly,
the Commission. Until this has
been done properly and effectively, it is difficult to see how the AU will
operate differently from the OAU.
But the AU is conceived as a different and more
powerful organisation than the OAU. There are three reasons for expecting
better performance from the AU. Firstly perceptible and serious commitment to
the process of extensive co-operation and solidarity is emerging amongst the
political leaders. Secondly there is a clear recognition that the global
environment has changed to the worst and is seriously affecting Africa in
particular – impoverishment, emergence and spread of deadly diseases
and chaotic conflicts; and
although the AU is developing some initiatives to deal with the global system,
there is also a realisation that a strong solidarity with the Arab region on
this issue will improve the chances of success.
Thirdly, the AU is an organisation in which civil society is expected to play
a significant role in its decisions and activities. It is hoped that civil
society will be a stronger advocate of extensive co-operation and deeper
solidarity within the AU and with the Arab region.
If the AU reviews its African Arab co-operation
Programme and record so far, it will come to the conclusion that it was highly
unsatisfactory. A new and more relevant and extensive programme is therefore
urgently needed.
Firstly, given the new global situation which
threatens the very survival of both peoples, what is most needed first and
foremost is strong political solidarity and unity between the Arabs and
Africans on all major political issues created by the new
imperial world order. And this solidarity should go beyond declarations
to real practical support of each other, even if this entails some sacrifices.
Only then can the AU/AAL be taken seriously when they support each other. This
should be number one point of the agenda of both AU and AL. The CEN-SAD
regional community can lead the way in this new spirit of co-operation and
solidarity.
Secondly, economic cooperation through trade and
finance, should be reorganised, and taken off bureaucratic mechanism. It
should be strengthened through initiatives of the private sector and civil
society organisations.
Third, the AU and AL should strongly pressurise
their respective member states to give strong support to people to people
cooperation – through movement of labour, intellectual co-operation and
co-operation in information to respond to Western propaganda. Given the collective industrial, scientific and
skill base and pool of South Africa and Egypt, there is no reason why this
should not be used effectively within Africa and the Arab World instead of
total reliance on Western and donor countries.
These, in my view, are some of the most important
challenge to both the AU and the AL.