The Burundi summit of East African heads of state held late in 2011 instructed the East African Community secretariat to issue new guidelines as a basis for further discussions on economic integration and political federation. Prior to the summit many meetings were held at the community headquarters in Arusha, Tanzania and in national capitals to review progress and challenges and forge a common front on the way forward.
The decision to issue new guidelines has therefore provided an opportunity to rethink the entire project by revisiting its history, purpose, benefits and challenges along the way. The idea for closer union goes back to 1899 when Harry Johnston, commissioner to Uganda, visualized unifying Uganda and Kenya under British protection. Lord Delamare and Cecil Rhodes also entertained the idea of unifying white-settler communities in Eastern and Central Africa. From 1905 white settlers held meetings regularly in this regard.
The idea of union gathered momentum after Tanganyika came under British sphere after WWI. East African governors, colonial secretaries such as Churchill, Amery and Lyttleton as well as commissioners including Ormsby-Gore and Young were active participants.
Under colonial secretary Amery the push for federation gathered speed. A number of investigations were initiated. Investigations undertaken under the leadership of Ormsby-Gore and Young and by the Joint Committee of both houses of parliament drew the same conclusion that political federation was premature in part because of political difficulties and unwillingness of colonial governments to depart from their separate territorial development programs.
As an interim measure they recommended closer economic cooperation. Thus, the idea of political federation was shelved at the start of the 1930s. As WWII drew to a close, the idea was revived this time to be developed indirectly. Colonial Secretary Oliver Stanley instructed the governor of Kenya Sir Phillip Mitchell to set up an East African Authority to deal with common problems. The East African High Commission was created in 1948. It acted apolitically because it was feared in East Africa that its main motive was to prepare for a federation.
In 1953 an ill-timed remark by Colonial Secretary Oliver Lyttleton that an East African federation was possible sparked vigorous debate and its rejection particularly in Uganda. In 1958 the Pan-African Freedom Movement of East and Central Africa (PAFMECA) concluded that an East African federation before independence was unacceptable. Federation before independence was seen as an imperialist plan to maintain control over these territories.
Meanwhile Julius Nyerere developed an interest in the idea of a federation for East Africa. He conducted investigations and concluded it was good for the dignity of African personality. He declared willingness to delay Tanganyika independence until Uganda and Kenya were ready so the three could form a federation. Nyerere emphasized however that the federation must be designed, directed and owned by the peoples of East Africa themselves. With Nyerere’s persuasion, PAFMECA added federation to its original agenda of political liberation.
Nyerere wanted federation to take place at the time of self-government for two reasons. First, if it occurred before self-government it would not be a true expression of the will of the African people. Second, if it was proposed after independence the independent states might refuse to give up the advantages of sovereignty. Nyerere did not succeed in advancing Uganda and Kenya dates for self-government.
The idea of EA federation remained alive and was energized at the summit that created the Organization of African Unity in 1963. The three East African heads of state met in Nairobi and adopted a Federation Declaration on June 5, 1963 committing the three governments to formalize the federation in the same year. Because Uganda was not ready, the federation could not be realized as envisaged and the project was shelved.
To keep hope alive, the three governments embarked on creating the East African Economic Community which came into force in 1967. Sadly because of unequal gains from trade (with Kenya gaining disproportionately), personal and ideological differences, the East African Community collapsed in 1977.
In 1991 the East African states resolved to revive the East African cooperation in trade, monetary and financial matters and in part to minimize political tensions between Kenya and Uganda. Burundi and Rwanda joined the community later on thus bringing together five countries with many differences in history, culture, demography, resource endowment, politics and economy.
Following his election in 1996 Museveni instructed that commercial interests would enjoy higher priority over political diplomacy, implying that in East Africa economic integration would supersede political federation. The minister of foreign affairs echoed the president’s instruction to promote commercial diplomacy to attract investments to Uganda. Thus in East Africa issues of economic integration like reduction of trade barriers and harmonization of fiscal and monetary policies occupied center stage.
Uganda changed priorities, stressing political federation over economic integration. On April 1997 Museveni announced “My mission is to see that Eritrea, Ethiopia, Sudan, Uganda, Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, and Zaire [DRC] become federal states under one nation”(EIR Special Report 1997). Since then Uganda has championed fast tracking the federation ahead of economic integration, reversing what is considered the proper order of integration and federation.
While economic integration and political federation are essential and should be supported, the implementation should be handled with utmost care to optimize benefits and minimize losses. Stressing political federation over economic integration has rekindled old debates.
It should be recalled that political federation was rejected during the colonial days because of fear that Kenya with a large white population would dominate the others. Economic integration was also suspected that it would benefit Kenya and pave the way for federation. Thus before independence very little was achieved.
The creation of East African federation championed by Julius Nyerere ended up in failure as well because Uganda raised serious objections and the cabinet could not endorse the idea. Instead the East African economic community was launched in 1967 to pave the way for eventual establishment of a political union.
As noted above, the community collapsed after ten years in 1977 for political, economic, ideological and personal differences. In the economic field, Kenya dominated the other two states and has continued to do so under the revived community. The admission of Rwanda and Burundi with different historical background has complicated negotiations. The push by Uganda for political federation ahead of economic integration has raised eyebrows regarding Uganda’s real motive.
Kenya’s expressed interest in competition has generated fear that it will dominate the community because it is most industrialized with skilled workers and landless people. Kenya is believed to be interested in product and labor markets and access to land for its landless people. Uganda is interested in political federation. The two states are therefore likely to accommodate each other at the expense of Ugandans and the other three members.
With Kenya as chairman of the community in 2012 and Uganda’s determination to push for federation now that the elections are over, there is heightened fear in Uganda that the NRM government will go ahead and conclude an agreement with Kenya leaving the others out to join later if they wish. Ugandans have not been involved in these discussions and a referendum is not the way to proceed with such a complex subject in an authoritarian country where voting is conducted at gun point.
Ugandans are particularly afraid that with free movement of people and livestock, Uganda will lose land ownership to massive immigrants and livestock from Kenya, Rwanda, Burundi and Eastern DRC whose people will filter through the western Uganda border or through Rwanda. Uganda’s industries will be outcompeted by cheaper and better quality products from Kenya and skilled jobs in Uganda will go to Kenyans. Reports indicate discomfort in Burundi over trade that has caused domestic industries to experience difficulties because they cannot compete. And the language barrier has constrained Burundian ability to negotiate good deals.
In its National Recovery Plan (NRP), United Democratic Ugandans (UDU) has addressed these thorny integration and federation issues and suggested the way forward. It is believed that economic integration should precede political federation. Negotiations should not be rushed to meet a deadline agreed upon in advance. Negotiations should be gradual, incremental and properly sequenced with full participation of the people. Institutions and infrastructures should be put in place first and measures to iron out differences established. Solving problems as they arise may be unwise judging by what has happened in the process of privatizing Uganda’s public enterprises.
While drawing up new guidelines, the community secretariat should draw lessons from the problems that have been experienced so far and draw lessons from the EU and NAFTA. Standards in economic and political areas should be established and met first. The existing wide economic, political and ideological as well as personality differences will definitely hinder progress if not attended to sooner than later. Above all opposition groups and experienced individuals as well as populations as a whole should participate in the negotiations to achieve acceptable outcomes with a long lasting span.