What Gadaffi didn’t say – so much for Africa Unity
E. Ablorh-Odjidja

Gadaffi may be clamoring for unity by causing fracture first? He traveled thousands of miles through the desert to attend the 9th Session of the Summit of the Head of States of African nations in Accra, Ghana, yet missed the first day of the summit because of differences he had with the procedure.

Talk about an approach akin to collecting water in a pot by first blowing a hole in it and Gadaffi has it! Now let’s provide another hole in the same pot by creating a term limit at both continental and state levels for African rulers as the precondition for a continental government.

Any prospective state with rulers without term limit should not be eligible to join the union.

That problem aside, the Africa unity concept is a good one. Gaddafi is supporting a good cause. But as the foremost and most vocal messenger for unity, his long despotic rule in Libya sets a bad example for the continent.

Gadaffi persona is highly attractive for the general populace in many parts of Africa. Note the receptions his 100 car convoy got on his way to the Accra summit and you will understand how critical his stance on the issue of unity is. At every stop he never failed to deliver his message on the ease and worth of a continental government for Africa.

Curiously, Gadaffi has not been very vocal about Darfur. The last time he spoke on the issue, he echoed the Sudanese government’s position. It was all about the West wanting Sudan’s oil, he said!

The rebels in the Darfur region, Gadaffi continued in a statement to Al Jazerra, are the ones seeking “to implicate the world in this issue.” By “implicate”, we would assume that he meant that the sole wish of the Darfur rebels was to secure oil for the West! Nothing else mattered for them.

Sudanese President, Omar El-Bashir, immediately after arriving for the summit, slammed “media reports of the crises in Darfur, as a vile propaganda, to prepare the grounds for the US and other external forces to take over its oil resources.”

Oil is the argument killer these days. Everything that is wrong with the world today is oil. Even when we happen to be raping our neighbor’s wife, it will invariably be the fault of oil and the West! Therefore, Darfur would have nothing to do with Arab Sudanese killing Sudanese Africans!

No wonder President Kufuor, at the opening of the summit had this to say to his fellow leaders to bring levity to the discussions. “We have the unique opportunity to elaborate clear-cut modalities and signposts on how to achieve our collective objective of the Union Government......”

With characters like Gadaffi and Mugabe pushing for continental government now, one has to wonder whether President Kufuor was a bit apprehensive about a foreboding prospect facing the continent when he made his statement. But the thought of this alone should not kill the prospect for unity.  It should spur sober leaders on to bring home the continental government sooner, rather than wait till leadership devolved to the likes of Gadaffi and company.

With Gaddafi’s flair for drama, and penchant for unusual policies, he is more likely to gain the support of the youth, who without doubt are eager for unity and are also the future of Africa.

Already, Gadaffi is the rock star of African politics; one who can orchestrate his way past recognized structures of charity and politics; he is also the unremitting philanthropist for insurgents of the maximum kind and a heavy attraction for the gullible.

Years ago, on a jaunt through Southern Africa, Gadaffi went through cities and towns spraying buckets of money at the poor who had lined the streets to see him. He was popular than ever. But who would not be attracted by this kind of windfall of African unity? Libyan petrol dollars flying freely in the streets of Tanzania!

However, Gadaffi’s antics are all not just bravado. There is method to his madness, just as there is one for his buddy Mugabe who became famous for using a legitimate land issue to hang on to power in Zimbabwe.

Gadaffi’s trek by land, through a hostile desert, though highly symbolic, was just that. It was more of a safety issue for him than to drive home the good point of African unity. For who would know which vehicle within the convoy of the 100 he occupied? And even if you did at the point of his departure, he could change his seating arrangement several times before journey’s end.

Unlike the trek by road, traveling by air was more perilous. He would have been a sitting target all the way to Accra. His flight would be monitored from beginning to end. A single missile, in a manner reminiscent of the U.S attempt on his tent some two decades ago, could kill him.

And as for his talk about using the trip to break down boundaries, it was all part of the Gadaffi persona. Everyone, with the possible exception of the village idiot, knows that African borders are highly porous. Those illiterate guides who have been helping illegals to cross the desert to Europe to seek greener pastures could map out all the safe routes in the Sahara at a single sitting without the aid of a GPS.

Gaddafi, when it comes to African politics , has a political sense akin to the GPS. The imbroglio surrounding Sudan and Darfur to his thinking is not a safe one. He wouldn’t want to offend his fellow African Arabs. So in the matter of Darfur versus Sudan, Gaddafi has stood with Sudan in spite of his calls for Africa unity.

Unfortunately for Gadaffi, the test for the true pan-Africanist in the 21st century lies with support for Darfur just as it was in the 60s for the Congo. The true pan-Africanist cannot help but reminisce about the brave efforts of Nkrumah and the Ghanaian soldiers in the Congo then. Certainly, Gadaffi has a better chance to succeed with his army in Darfur than Nkrumah had for the Congo.But first, would Gadaffi acknowledge that there is genocide in Darfur?

E. Ablorh-Odjidja, Washington, D.C. Ghanadot, July 2, 2007