Positive: "United States of Africa"

Britain's American colonies did it. Europe's nations did it. Can Africa's disparate countries form their own political union? Jean Ping, the 67-year-old chairman of the African Union Commission, believes they can, despite the troubled history of African unity. Ping, who left his post as Gabon's foreign minister to take the helm of the pan-African body earlier this year, brings a unique personal history to the job. In the 1930s his Chinese-born father, who sold porcelain along Africa's western coast, missed his boat in Gabon and decided to settle in a small fishing village. He wound up marrying the chief's daughter—who became Ping's mother. Now Ping is charged with bringing unity and order to a continent that has seen little of either in its recent history. He recently spoke with NEWSWEEK's Jason McLure at AU headquarters in Addis Ababa about creating a United States of Africa, bringing peace to the Democratic Republic of Congo and Darfur, and his views of American democracy.

NEWSWEEK: There is a debate in the African Union about how long it will take to create a United States of Africa. Libya's Muammar Qaddafi has pushed for its immediate creation. What's your vision?
Jean Ping: For those who want a quick creation it could be three phases of three years. Gradualists talk about 35 years. I think there is a possibility of compromise. We also have a debate on what type of "United States" we will have: be it a confederation, a federation, or a centralized government.

What is the motivation?
We need bigger markets. Some of our countries are too small and too weak. Africa is a big continent full of raw materials. But this big continent is divided by 165 borders into 53 countries. Even the voice of a larger country like Nigeria or South Africa by itself is inaudible in international negotiations on world trade or climate change. But collectively it's impossible to ignore 53 countries with almost one billion inhabitants.
placeAd2(commercialNode,'bigbox',false,'')

About eastern Congo, the United Nations has said it will send an additional 3,000 peacekeepers, bringing the total troop force to 20,000. Is that enough to halt the bloodshed?
No I don't think so. The U.N. troops are not generally authorized to use force. They are in very bad shape. It is very difficult for them, not only due to their [small] numbers but due to the nature of their mandate, to do what some Congolese and Africans are expecting. That's why civilians are throwing stones at them.

What about the current ceasefire, signed in Nairobi on Nov. 7?
If the ceasefire is not respected, then we should use force. But those who use force will be Africans, like the countries of the Great Lakes or the African Union. The ex-Interhamwe who are there, the [Hutu] genocidaires who moved from Rwanda to eastern Congo, they are considered by Rwanda to be a threat to their security. This problem, the root cause of the conflict, should be solved. I am confident we can solve it. If this problem is solved there are no more reasons for [renegade Tutsi] Gen. Laurent Nkunda to fight, because he says he is fighting to protect the Tutsi of the Congo.

The African Union has voiced concern about the International Criminal Court's genocide indictment of Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir, saying it could prevent Sudan from implementing the 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the North and South. Why?
We in the African Union, we have to fight impunity. But we say that the step taken by the International Criminal Court is not going to help the situation. We have decided to ask the U.N. Security Council to suspend the implementation [of the indictment] for 12 months. The second thing is we have asked the Sudanese government to prosecute those who are responsible for crimes.

How would President Bashir's government be able to prosecute those involved? You can understand why outsiders would be skeptical.
Well I don't want to go into details, but is it a genocide in Darfur? The U.N. Security Council sent a mission there in 2005 and the conclusion of that mission is that there is no genocide. There are crimes against humanity and war crimes. Crimes against humanity and war crimes are very important, but there is no need to use 'genocide' if it is not proven

(the rest of the interview can be found on NewsWeek.com at this link: http://www.newsweek.com/id/171588 )