What would a United States of Africa look like?

[TithonusSyndrome]

Non-Europeans who first hear about the EU at a young age can be forgiven if they think that it's some kind of natural or even imminent step towards a United States of Europe, which I don't think anyone anywhere takes credibly and won't for many long decades or even centuries. The lesser-known African Union, however, appears to be openly and credibly discussing the issue of establishing a United States of Africa by 2025 at least since Gaddafi assumed the AU chair in 2009 and possibly much earlier. My first reaction was genuine curiosity, as I assumed that the fact that the notion wasn't laughed immediately out of public discourse meant it was somehow not unrealistic, but it didn't take much digging around to see that this was simply probably the kind of overreaching naked ambition that characterizes the politics of a continent with as many dictators in recent memory that Africa has had.

So the plausibility of a new USA being found wanting, I find myself more interested now in exploring what a new pan-African state would mean for it's people and everyone else in the world. Assuming that a United States of Africa could be managed and leaving aside the current impracticalities, how much better would life become for average Africans, and how would the combined clout of a new state with a billion citizens and half a billion GDP influence the world around them? Who within the new USA would end up winning and losing the initial struggle to assert their influence more noticeably within their new state, and who would lose out and find themselves more marginalized? Would this level of unity and interconnectedness accelerate the development and modernization of Africa in the areas that need it the most? What would the median political character of the country be, and what nations would they be more inclined to develop ties with in their foreign relations?

It's obviously not a simple question and realistically the only sure and sound answer it can get at this point is "who can say", but all the same you can't blame someone for wondering if this would prove to be the break those poor souls on the dark continent have been needing to end centuries of misery.

[CaptainChewbacca]

If it could actually stop internal conflicts, or at least reduce them to political wrangling, that would immediately be a drastic change in quality-of-life. Common regulations, education, and at least enviornmental protocols if not utilities would be a second.

[Tasoth]

I could see the various states of such a union polarizing around specific countries. As my practical knowledge of the various African countries in regards to socio-economic standing is limited, my examples are limited to who these would be. I would say South Africa could be one such as it is, IIRC, one of the more developed nations on the continent. What is the potential of such a government also clustering along religious lines? I know North Africa is Muslim, for the most part, and there are various Christian sects as you head south. I just don't know how wide spread tolerance is for differing religions through the continent.

[Guardsman Bass]

The lesser-known African Union, however, appears to be openly and credibly discussing the issue of establishing a United States of Africa by 2025 at least since Gaddafi assumed the AU chair in 2009 and possibly much earlier. My first reaction was genuine curiosity, as I assumed that the fact that the notion wasn't laughed immediately out of public discourse meant it was somehow not unrealistic, but it didn't take much digging around to see that this was simply probably the kind of overreaching naked ambition that characterizes the politics of a continent with as many dictators in recent memory that Africa has had.

It's mostly Qaddafi, and the other leaders humoring him (he throws money and oil around in Africa, ever since his hopes for a pan-Arab state fell apart).

Assuming that a United States of Africa could be managed and leaving aside the current impracticalities, how much better would life become for average Africans, and how would the combined clout of a new state with a billion citizens and half a billion GDP influence the world around them?

They'd have a much larger internal market, more security (internal if the US-Africa can keep the peace), as well as considerably more resources and clout on the world stage. Think India, maybe, although with a shorter period under unified rule.

[Phantasee]

Would it make sense to assume that all of Africa would unite as a super-state? I would have assumed that there would be at least two, if not more, states composed of present-day African countries. I don't see the Muslim North Africans really getting along with the (Christian and other) people down south, and vice versa. Plus you'd end up with Libya and Egypt and other strong states pulling from up North, plus the Arabs and Europeans influencing things, and the South Africans pulling from the South. That kind of pull from opposite ends wouldn't bode well for the long term unity for a USA, to my mind.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Meh, there are disproportionately powerful regions in every country; CA, NY and TX in the USA, ON, QC and AB in Canada, and so on. The mere existence of cultural and economic differences alone wouldn't be what would sink the USAfrica, it would be the character and the intensity of them.

On the other hand, the recently proposed East African Federation from the nations of Burundi, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and Rwanda seems somewhat more plausible for reasons of scale and cultural similarity alone, but a USAfrica it ain't.

[Phantasee]

I'm not saying they'd sink a USAfrica, I'm saying they'd be obstacles to the formation of a USAfrica. Texas and California weren't that powerful, or as powerful as today, at the time of joining the Union, AFAIK. And Texas already seceded once.

OTOH, if you got a few regional blocs formed, like this East African Federation, you could end up with a bunch of smaller, European Union type groupings, that eventually come together in the distant future (like a possible Canada-USA-Mexico grouping, also in the very distant future).

One thing I see happening with a much greater chance of happening within even our lifetimes is an economic zone like the European Economic Community or NAFTA or ASEAN. Politically, I am sure the African states will remain divided for a good long while, but at least they can cooperate economically to get more development started up. And who knows? IIRC some sort of free trade in steel and coal in Europe is what led to the present-day EU.

[Kane Starkiller]

US had a civil war to determine that federal government is in charge and not the states which relegated the states to more of an administrative unit than a sovereign or quasi sovereign entity. Not to mention that California, like much of US, was acquired/conquered by the federal government and then made into a state and then populated by people which already considered themselves American or were immigrants on their way to become American not Californian.

The thing about EU is that it is formed primarily by French-German alliance with smaller countries then having little choice but to join and UK, the other main power, reluctantly joining but refusing to join the Eurozone and negotiating opt outs for a number of laws.

So in a continent in which there are three major powers two have managed to align their long term interests and form a nucleus of the EU. In Africa there are no such two or three or four countries which are economic and geographic center of Africa like France and Germany. Largest economies, Egypt, South Africa, Nigeria are all on the opposite sides of Africa and don't really have any shared interests.
Libya with its 1% share in African economy would be like Romania with Ceausescu still in power suddenly calling for the creation of a european economic space.
I wouldn't hold my breath.

If they did unite into an actual country we are talking about an economy that is, in purchasing power parity terms, equal to Germany but with a population of a billion.
Would they be able to industrialize is anybodies guess. Many African country have plenty of resources by themselves yet they remain mired in poverty. Also there are no major conflicts in Africa between countries but there are many within countries like Sudan, Nigeria etc. So the first step would be imagining Africa in which inter ethnic or inter tribal violence within countries is eliminated.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

The union would collapse in tribal, sectarian, religious etc. fighting within a week. The union is simply not feasibly stable in the long and short term.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Africans are not really that different from people on any other continent. Europeans used to cut each others' throats and oppress their people just as much as African powers do now, and in some parts of Europe they still would if not for the forcible peacemaking of other Western nations through organizations like NATO. But when it happens in Africa to a bunch of "niggers", nobody intervenes or gives a shit, and the region is allowed to remain mired in conflict. Contrast the NATO action against Milosevic with the utter lack of action against the Rwandan genocide, crisis in Darfur, or any other civil war or oppression you care to name that didn't directly involve Western business interests. A powerful African league with a real military and real enforcement powers could make a huge difference, but it would probably take a lot of political will and backing from rich countries (which would require them to abandon the common notion that Africa will always be a hellhole no matter what anyone tries to do). With political stability and investment in infrastructure, a lot of African nations could turn into the growth stories of the 21st century, like the Asian Tigers were the growth story of the second half of the 20th. When you start from nothing and start modernizing, you can post massive double-digit growth year after year, and the infrastructure you install is brand new and state of the art, and you don't have to rip out the old stuff because there isn't any.

[montypython]

I see regional blocks as a necessary building block first before a continent-wide state can be feasible, if only for easier mobilization of political and economic resources.

[Temujin]

I see regional blocks as a necessary building block first before a continent-wide state can be feasible, if only for easier mobilization of political and economic resources.

The problem is colonialism helped fuck up the basis for a lot of the naturally occurring political blocks by establishing borders across existing tribal territories, which in turn is the cause of a lot of the existing conflict in Africa.

[Saxtonite]

Article related (read this before/its interesting and applicable here)
http://mondediplo.com/2000/09/12africa

[Iosef Cross]

I would say that an unified and strong government in Africa would be a good thing. With the political unification there will be no trade and capital barriers between the African countries. But the new state will need to provide law and order, with is not what the existing governments provide.

However, the formation of a unified African nation is very unlikely. And a strong and civilized country is even more.

[Iosef Cross]

With political stability and investment in infrastructure, a lot of African nations could turn into the growth stories of the 21st century, like the Asian Tigers were the growth story of the second half of the 20th. When you start from nothing and start modernizing, you can post massive double-digit growth year after year, and the infrastructure you install is brand new and state of the art, and you don't have to rip out the old stuff because there isn't any.

Of course, with the necessary institutions: Strong government, provider of law and order, and strongly protected private property rights and contracts, political and monetary stability, An African US will become an superpower.

However, that's unlikely.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Of course it's unlikely, but my point was that part of the reason it's unlikely is because the first world intervenes when bad shit goes down in other parts of the world, but in Africa we just throw up our collective hands and say "there's Africa for you". Inability to change is not endemic to the region or the people who life there, it's the accepting attitudes that are the problem.

[Starglider]

Oin Africa we just throw up our collective hands and say "there's Africa for you".

Any attempt to intervene only causes endless shrill cries of 'imperialism! discrimination!' etc etc from the left. It isn't worth the hassle.

[K. A. Pital]

Oin Africa we just throw up our collective hands and say "there's Africa for you".

Any attempt to intervene only causes endless shrill cries of 'imperialism! discrimination!' etc etc from the left. It isn't worth the hassle.

*shakes head* If Africa's history of interventions wasn't marred by real examples of imperialism, you could say it's baseless skepticism. But you can't just ignore prior history. So such behaviour is natural.

There's a lot of work to be done to change the stereotypes. If the First World powers truly don't want to act in an imperialist fashion any longer, perhaps they should lead the way and show that to everyone. So far I've seen no fucking evidence of anything. All large powers are just huge imperialist machines. End of story.

As for Africa modernizing and suddenly becoming a superpower? People... please, do your economic geography. Their climate alone is a huge natural disadvantage. Plus all the diseases. Plus the religion, the dark-age mentality, the uncontrolled population growth. The South, and Africa in particular, do not have a glorious future which is so easy to grasp. They have to work against their natural disadvantages, historical disadvantages... basically against everything. And almost zero advantages.

A united Africa can be a potent power, but it won't even surpass India (re: diseases, climate, history). That's my opinion.

[TC Pilot]

A viable united Africa would already have had to overcome most of those problems to even exist in the first place. Further, simply saying that "Africa's climate" isn't conducive to a modernized state strikes me as being incredibly generalized, though I can't actually speculate as to its veracity one way or another.

Disease, depending on what you mean, may not be so much of a deal-breaker. Botswana, for instance, has one of the highest HIV rates on the continent, and is still one of the most well-off and stable countries there.

[TithonusSyndrome]

Every continent has troublesome areas that aren't conducive to industrialization, same as they have disproportionately powerful regions. Again, I don't see what makes that a dealbreaker. So Sudan would be largely unusable - so is most of Nevada. If there's a difference, it's not obvious to me.

[Big Orange]

A united Africa can be a potent power, but it won't even surpass India (re: diseases, climate, history). That's my opinion.

That's interesting, because in recent years India has suffered worse malnorishment than Africa, while farming in parts of Africa seem to be nobbled more by mismanagement and tribal nepotism (Zimbabwe) rather than the continent itself. Also Africa's telecommunications is growing dramatically.

[Arthur_Tuxedo]

Also, I can't imagine an African coalition, formed by Africans, with African ideas, but partially funded, equipped, and diplomatically supported by Western nations causing cries of colonialism. If the Western powers tried to come in and ram it down their throats and put Westerners in charge, then there would certainly be (justified) cries of colonialism, but I don't think that's what anyone was talking about.

[Iosef Cross]

Of course it's unlikely, but my point was that part of the reason it's unlikely is because the first world intervenes when bad shit goes down in other parts of the world, but in Africa we just throw up our collective hands and say "there's Africa for you". Inability to change is not endemic to the region or the people who life there, it's the accepting attitudes that are the problem.

I don't think that it is the first world that directly caused the industrialization of Asia and Latin American thought military and financial intervention.

Countries develop when their institutions evolve naturally from the inside out. Not when American GI's try to plant the seeds of American capitalism in Afghanistan.

[Iosef Cross]

As for Africa modernizing and suddenly becoming a superpower? People... please, do your economic geography. Their climate alone is a huge natural disadvantage. Plus all the diseases. Plus the religion, the dark-age mentality, the uncontrolled population growth. The South, and Africa in particular, do not have a glorious future which is so easy to grasp. They have to work against their natural disadvantages, historical disadvantages... basically against everything. And almost zero advantages. A united Africa can be a potent power, but it won't even surpass India (re: diseases, climate, history). That's my opinion.

The population growth is not a big problem, it is gift if well administered. Africa's population is increasing at the moderate rate of 2-2.5% per year. Brazil's population increased at 3% per year between 1945 and 1965, however, GDP increased at 6%, so net per capita income increased at 3%. A increased population growth can reduce the growth of per capita income, however, but that's usually not significant.

The economic potential of a region or country is determined by it's population. Africa has 800 million people, hence, enormous economic potential. If these people reach a moderate level of 15,000 dollars in per capita income, their GDP would be 12 trillion, nearly American in size. And it is not hard to reach this level of GDP per capita.

Only do the following:
1- Protect private property rights (including fighting crime, etc)
2- Protect contracts.
3- Maintain political stability.
4- Maintain institutional stability (do not change the constitution every 4-5 years).
5- Maintain monetary stability (good macroeconomic policy, very important!).
6- Reasonable taxes (not 50% of GDP taxes like Sweden, leave the welfare state for after they become rich enough to support it)

These are the recipes for a good institutional framework. If one can unify most of Africa and implant these institutions, them after about 20-30 years, Africa will be a middle income country, after 40-50 years, will be reaching first world levels of development.

[Iosef Cross]

However, Africa doesn't have the cultural conditions to develop these institutions to the same degree as developed countries have. That's why it is still very poor.