With Launch of AU Passport, Africa Is Now Borderless
venturesafrica.com
venturesafrica.com
https://www.border.gov.au/Busi/Trav/APEC
Which also grants visa-free travel to APEC economies, but only if you can fulfill a huge list of mostly arbitrary conditions that de facto make it impossible to apply for unless you're sitting in the C-suite of a listed company, have someone to do the paperwork for you and travel a lot.
Likewise, the US and Canada have joined on a provisional basis and since they are not providing visa-free access to other APEC countries, holders of US and Canada issued BTCs don't receive any visa-waiver benefits.
Don't discount the program just because your country is an outlier in its (lack of) participation.
And my strong suspicion is that the AU passport will end up the same: otherwise, if anybody could truly use it to go anywhere, everybody would use it to GTFO from Somalia, Eritrea, the Congo, CAR etc.
http://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2016/07/20/48664059...
For example:
> Currently, intra-African trade is at 11 percent — the lowest level of intra-
> continental trading in the world. (Asia is way above 40 percent.) And the
> future of African economies depends more on increasing trade among Africans
> than making deals with China.* * *
You are either:
* the Chief Executive Officer (CEO), Chief Financial Officer (CFO) or regional or country head of a registered business entity
* an owner or director of a registered business entity
* a Board member of a registered business entity
* the CEO or CFO of an Australian-based business peak body
* an employee of a registered business entity nominated by the CEO, CFO, regional head, owner or director of the organisation.
* a senior government official – contact us for the eligibility requirements before you apply.
Current requirements in NZ look to be:
> The APEC Business Travel Card is available to New Zealand business people engaged in trade and investment activities, who:
> * are nationals of New Zealand and hold a New Zealand passport
> * travel frequently to conduct trade and investment activities in participating APEC countries
> * have not been convicted of a criminal offence, or deported from, or asked to leave, or been refused entry, or otherwise excluded entry from any country.
Well worth it.
(edit: formatting)
The APEC card granted to US citizens doesn't allow for visa-free entry like most other countries do though. It basically just gives you access to faster immigration lanes.
https://www.cbp.gov/travel/trusted-traveler-programs/us-apec...
"Although, the passport is currently exclusive to government heads and diplomats, it is here to stay, even though it will take a while before it circulates among non-dignitaries."
So well see if it ever goes beyond diplomats.
---
Since the western media almost never reports anything on Africa, does anybody know how the AU is progressing?
Are they pushing for a EU like model? What are it's goals and principles, and are they actually making progress? (Links welcome)
This article in Smithsonian [1] says that the goal is to have it be available to ordinary citizens by 2020. It's not clear how this will work for Africa's 26 million refugees.
[1] http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/common-africa-passp...
> Nkosazana Dlamini Zuma says that the body has agreed “to create the conditions for member states to issue the passport to their citizens, within their national policies, as and when they are ready.”
In the article that the Smithsonian refers to:
> That's only two years away, and lately the AU has been citing 2020 as the new start date for visa-free African travel.
So far it's "they have cited 2020" which is quite a bit different from an actual statement that says that the goal is 2020 (I've yet to find that one). I've also not been able to find anything around members of the AU having committed to such or any date.
Considering that in the speech mentioned in the article that was submitted they say "as and when they are ready." I would be surprised this would happen this quickly. It would be awesome if it did though.
At least here in Kenya, I'm not going to hold my breath for the AU passport...
I suspect this is not appreciated by many in and around the system because there was a whole industry that sprang up around the process (people to stand in lines for you, make the application, etc.) and now it's less likely that a bribe will be offered ;)
But yes, new tech might help with the actual issuing/processing time. In the past, getting a new passport was a matter of a few weeks[1], but they installed various processes to supposedly enhance security. This is not unfounded, as there has been a lot of counterfeiting going on with IDs and passports, e.g. for elections, immigration (mostly from Somalia), or foreign workers. But as long as better/more efficient systems are in place, I doubt their effectiveness.
[1] Even though corruption is rampant in Kenya, it isn't too bad if you're steadfastly refusing to pay bribes.
Slow progress, but progressing none the less. Seems to be poorly funded so their latest idea is to put an AU tax on all imports.
The whole thing seems to lack direction beyond a vague desire to prove that Africa can be united like the "big boys" i.e. EU.
The passport thing will take off I think. It'll take a while & cause serious security issues but I think they'll do it.
>Are they pushing for a EU like model?
They're copying some things, but don't seem to be doing the whole Brussels centralised power thing.
But, on the whole, the AU is still an embarrassing dictator's club whose primary purpose is to run flak for violent undemocratic regimes and solicit foreign aid.
The vast majority of african heads of state are either outright dictators or president's of ethnically majoritarian effectively one-party states with election irregularities and numerous human rights violations.
Besides Botswana, South Africa, Ghana and one or two others, the rest of the continent exists in a state of totally irregular politics with governments that show little interest in civil or human rights: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index
I would much prefer to see a Africa-wide organization made up out of democratic African nations and the democratic opposition within the rest of the countries, something like the early days of the ANC, although with less of a communist influence.
When homogeneous its almost as if you have to look for some artificial differences (nit picking) to avoid admitting your similarities... "oh, no... we are not like them... we are different", and then subscribe to a union for the greater good (like an EU). And probably after getting a lot of unicorn concessions.
I see the India model as being what Africa might end up getting. Many Indian states have their own distinct language, and often culture (food, etc). However India has a common currency. The easy part for India was that the states were defacto 'inherited into the union' at independence. For Africa it is going to be a 'subscribe into the economic union' with a lot of nationalistic arguments that are going to come into play.
I am hoping a group of mostly stable countries band together and make it happen first. My founders list would be Namibia, Botswana, Angola, Zambia, Malawi, Mozambique, Tanzania, and Kenya. A nice list stretching from the Atlantic to the Indian Ocean. These are moderate names, not often in the news and stable for the most part. If South Africa would join that would be a big win... but I am hoping one of the smaller countries takes leadership initially.
I'm guessing you're pulling this list mostly on the basis on geographical proximity and "these haven't been in the news", as opposed to examples of African success. Angola definitely shouldn't be on that list (it's basically a kleptocratic petrostate à la Algeria), and Kenya is eyebrow-worthy.
In general, the best-run states of Africa are geographically dispersed. The island nations of Cape Verde, Seychelles, and Mauritius; Botswana and Namibia; Tunisia and Morocco; maybe Gabon and Ghana will generally top all of the various lists of economically successful, well-run, well-developed, democratically free. Rwanda would be on the list were it not for being fairly autocratic--most notably, it's a very rare example of an autocratic country that's fairly free of corruption. South Africa is notable for pretty much backsliding on all of these metrics, despite starting from a relatively high position.
The AU is split up into multiple blocs, each supposedly working towards eventual unity. The East African bloc (Kenya, Tanzania, Rwanda, Burundi, and Uganda) has generally been the furthest along, and the South African bloc (in particular, Namibia, Botswana, South Africa, Swaziland, and Lesotho) the second. It should be noted, though, that actual adherence to the currently-enacted treaties can be rather thin on the ground.
India was never a "country" before the Brits, it was just a geographic region with some commonalities. Various empires have covered large swathes of India, but there wasn't any common identity. By being lumped into a single country by the British, India got this identity.
India has many problems but "regionalism" isn't one of them. It exists and causes issues every now and then, but not too much.
However, India has had a catalyst here as you mention. The first was having little choice in forming this union[1], and the second was the "common enemy" of the British bonding otherwise-distinct groups of people together.
Ironically, the country most Indians hate the most is Pakistan, despite it having been part of the "common identity" and having the same catalysts. Part of this is deliberate divide-and-conquer (divide-and-cripple, really, this was done after the country was conquered; during the independence process) by the British, part of it is simple religious hatred. Though India has a much nicer relationship with, say, Afghanistan (but some of the reasons for that involve Pakistan ... so it's nuanced).
So if India had never been a single nation and had to form an AU- or EU-like union, its quite possible that the relations between various regions would have been much more strained -- India-Pakistan relations are an example of how it could have gone. This is all speculation and Africa is very different anyway, so I'm not quite sure if this will be a problem there. I'm optimistic.
[1]: Though many leaders from the revolutionary movement have a hand in avoiding the fragmentation of some parts of India, which was on the table. But the common "Indian" identity existed before independence, due to being part of the same colony.
Don't think so. Things are much more resilient that side in the sense that working around things that don't work is just another normal day.
It was very notable that almost all people I spoke with were very passionate about the idea of a strong and united Africa. Having talked to some EU people there are a lot more bureaucrats and I get the feeling for some politicians it's the wasteland/failure if they get moved to an EU role instead of a national one. In the AU I got a very strong feeling that everyone was very happy to be there (and thought they could change things) and it was probably seen as more important than a role in the own government.
Unfortunately that's the state of about 10 years ago. It's also notable that the difference between AU and surrounding country (there's also a UN complex in Addis which is similar to the AU) is rather strong. There's two amazing hotels in Addis (Sharaton and Hilton) and most of the city is fairly poor. The contrast is stark to say the least.
The article also mentions a consultant from McKinsey...one of the things that I found very bothersome was that you basically had to work through consultants or local contacts to get anything done. I have met some rather shady characters and the big consultancies have carved out a nice little niche of "exclusive access".
Free movement of people is good thing if backed by free trade and lack of welfare else it will be bad people trying to live off other people's hard work.
This is untrue. Perhaps you should be more selective with your new sources. Read "The Economist", there is great and regularly reporting on Africa every week. The BBC also has great coverage of African current events. Lastly CNN also has the "Inside Africa" program, available on the web as well.
The ECOWAS model is much better.
Norway and Switzerland are part of Schengen, but not EU.
Britain is part of the EU (for 1-2 years at least), but not part of Schengen.
(Schengen is only about passport-less travel within the zone)
Not requiring a Visa a big timesaver though, but that's already the case amongst many countries.
Though I'd say you can have a single market without much of the current EU-bureaucracy. They currently legislate about (and meddle in) a ton of things which aren't tied to a single market for labour, goods and services.
Having common legislation makes it easier to trade though. If you are (for example) a UK company, you can trade with 27 other countries under a common set of rules, reducing costs and increasing certainty. However, without this, the UK government must either a) bilaterally agree trade deals with these 27 countries, or b) else join EEA, with all the costs of EU membership and none of the benefits.
I definitely agree with your point about the legislation going too far though. Eurocrats in Brussels dreaming up nonsense that basically no EU citizens want, even those from "core" or strongly pro-EU countries. The phrase "an ever-closer union" is dangerous and unnecessary.
- Require qualified majority (>= 75%) for EU parliament decisions. That should reduce the stream of leglislation coming from the EU.
- Introduce a judicial review with the purpose (and power) to veto any law which doesn't make sense as EU-wide regulation. Sort of like a constitutional court. For example, the parliament recently voted on EU-wide parental leave rules. Completely pointless to decide on an EU-level.
- Remove the entire Common Agricultural Policy (CAP), basically just a ton of farm-subsidies. Many European countries had a healthy farming sector without subsidies before joining the union. This is ~45% of the budget btw.
- Don't move the parliament to Strasburg every now and then. Not a huge cost but should be abolished on principles.
Normalization and standardization is also relevant to the single market as it reduces the barriers for trade between EU members. Legislation on classification on produce for example, makes it easier for consumers to buy large amount of produce from anywhere in the EU.
Requiring a qualified majority is ridiculous. There is no parliament anywhere in the world that works this way unless it's making constitutional changes.
There are courts on a EU level and they can strike down laws. This has happened with data retention, safe harbor and there is a possibility of it happening again with privacy shield. Automatic judicial review is also rather pointless when it comes to the majority of laws, expensive and would add to the bureaucracy you argue against generally.
That you think EU-wide parental leave policies are pointless to decide on an EU-level, doesn't necessarily make them illegal. So I doubt that the courts would help you there. They also aren't pointless because they obviously make it easier for employees to move between countries, this reduces barriers and improves free trade on the labour market, it also ensures that the freedom to work everywhere in the EU is actually meaningful. I'm sure there are more reasons for that legislation, beyond these obvious ones, if you look at the details.
The farm subsidies are a grotesque and massive fuck up and they need to be removed. I completely agree with you on that one. Though I'm afraid dismantling this is like dismantling a bomb and might very well produce quite a mess in the short term, if done wrong. It nevertheless should be done though.
I agree that this moving around should stop. It's a waste of money and maybe even more importantly a waste of time.
In theory the USA is built on a model of competing states or a laboratory of ideas where you can attract people from other places to your state. I like that idea a lot but I feel like it's been hollowed out over the years. The bureaucratic monster seems to be pretty huge at the federal level as well so I'd say that's just a given if you try to keep members somewhat together.
Hope not, they will start killing each others very immediately. Every wondered why some borders are straight lines?
[1] http://www.catsg.org/cheetah/07_map-centre/7_1_entire-range/...
Give Africans a chance to catch up...
http://m.mgafrica.com/article/2015-01-09-africas-real-border...
I'm Romanian. Ask a Romanian what he'd think about straightening the border around Timisoara, thus giving it to Hungary. Many of those people would die rather than letting it happen. Those borders represent family possessions, cherished childhood memories, remnants of stories past that bond together people on either side of the border, etc.
Normal, i.e. organic borders, are messy and rarely straight.
OK, the guy was obviously referring to Europe, but just did a bad job of it.
tl;dr, straight lines on maps are drawn for the convenience of the map maker, not as a representation of culture on the ground. Africa may be better off ignoring straight lines drawn by colonialists.
As such, she's free to talk up ideas that sound great in The Economist (conservative macro-economics, zealous climate change action, consumer protection, gay rights, health laws) but never have to convince a single member of the electorate about their merits. Issues are somewhere between "don't care" and "when hell freezes over" in the electorate's mind.
This particular issue is on the extreme end of frozen hell. Poor South Africans perceive foreigners as criminals and/or a direct threat to their livelihoods, and the tension regularly boils over into violence. There's plenty of room for nuance: the violence is extreme but it is a fact that we have an appalling history of (and in some cases ongoing) exploitation, including hiring seasonal foreign workers (illegally) for lower wages than locals.
Regardless, nothing like the EU freedom of movement is ever going to happen.
Republicans in the US are more likely to support Obama immigration reforms for Mexicans than South Africans would vote for millions of Congolese, Zimbabweans, Nigerians, Malawians, Sudanese migrants/refugees to be allowed to hold jobs here.
It's just enough lip-service from the ANC to continue convincing the international community that they are in some way continuing Mandela's legacy.
> South Africans would vote
I would vote to allow it - if such a vote ever occurred. I think the example would be more similar to "Trump providing gratis working visas to Mexicans." The race rhetoric is one of the primary tools of the ANC[1][2], eliminating xenophobia[3] works against that. It is in the ANCs best interests to avoid properly implementing the AU passport if they want their regime to remain in power.
[1]: http://www.timeslive.co.za/politics/2016/07/14/Zuma-%E2%80%9... [2]: http://www.news24.com/elections/news/da-is-the-offspring-of-... [3]: http://www.aljazeera.com/blogs/africa/2015/04/south-africa-x...
Currently very few African countries offer visa on arrival or electronic visas for other African countries' citizens.
While it's not the same as the EU's version of a borderless union, it's a great step forward.
Upvoter here. I upvoted because:
- I had no idea such a thing as an Afican Union existed. It seemed like a big thing so it's good to know about this (though the comment thread gave me a reality check and explained why I hadn't heard from it yet)
- From the article, it did seem like any African person can now move freely to other African countries. I hadn't thought about it explicitly, but I guess that subconsciously, I expected it to be living and working too, since that's how I know it (as a European). Turns out that I should have read the whole article instead of the first few paragraphs.
- I read below the picture: "Idriss ... kissed his passport when he received it. ... 'I feel deeply and proudly like a true son of Africa after receiving this" which is of course what a political leader would say, but it still sounds nice and makes me feel good about the progress of welfare and happiness in the world.
After reading the comment thread, I got quite the reality check (as mentioned), but I'd still upvote. African citizens are planned to get this passport too from 2020 onwards I read, which is nice to read and good to know. I know very little about Africa because the news hardly ever mentions it (aside from "hunger percentage X changed"), which is bad. It's good to learn more.
Wow! Just wow!
In 2016 somebody with upvoter privileges on HN does not know that AU exists?
HN is a great resources, but the downside is for some people, it's the only resource, so if something is not posted here, it didn't happen.
The thing is, I see no big advantage in knowing there has been another shooting somewhere. Enough of that and I'd have enough hindsight bias not to want to be in crowds anymore. Knowing this doesn't make me feel good or improve my life in any way.
Of course it's important to know in general what's going on (e.g. brexit), but I'll hear that from enough people around me. (In fact I hear every shooting anyway from people around me, I just don't learn every single detail unless I choose something is worth looking up.)
As for the African Union specifically though, I'm pretty sure I would have heard it mentioned in passing if it was a really important things. From what I read in comments here, it doesn't do much anyway, and from yearly reports from e.g. the Gates Foundation I would have heard about it if the AU played a big role.
Your comment leans towards a personal attack so I guess that's why you were downvoted, but that's not entirely fair: you do make a fair point and I don't actually take it personally.
We typically don't refer to a country like Australia by its country code, so AU does not automatically conjure up Australia.
It certainly seems symbolic, and I imagine it will at least bring some level of greater simplicity to diplomats/dignitaries.
That picture of the guy kissing the passport? I bet that wouldn't be happening if it were a meaningless non-milestone.
Somehow I doubt that that individual has any trouble obtaining whatever documentation is necessary to travel on official business. Short of some sort of political-spat between countries, all approvals for diplomats is probably rubber-stamped as soon as the details are confirmed/verified.
These are blockers because they create friction for small business that wants to expand into other African countries.
1. http://www.money-transfers.co.za/south-africa-exchange-contr...
"One of the primary goals of the agenda is to guarantee integration and political unity in Africa and this passport will aid the body achieve that goal."
Yet Paul Kagame has been President of Rwanda now for 16 years!!!
Oh and this borderless AU is only available to the "ruling class." So African politics as usual. Nobody believes this nonsense. This is pure spin.
If they really wanted to address jobs they would need to address the fact that their countries are increasingly selling their natural resources and labor to the Chinese. I was shocked when I saw Chinese laborers in coolies building roads in Ethiopia and a foreman barking at them in Mandarin. This is not an uncommon site in Kenya and the DRC either.
How do you think the Chinese manage to get access to every natural resource?
Just bribe a leader and you're home free.
But don't forget that we moved practically all our manufacturing industry to China, so that problem is not unique to Africa.
The real problem is that when a "strongman" appears in an African country and tries to set things right, he's automatically a threat to former colonial powers, so we get rid of him.
The French have ben doing it before we came on the scene, so getting rid of African strongmen is not our invention.
I am not sure what you mean by "Africa is a complex problem", there is no singularity there. Africa is also not "a problem." I am not even sure I know what that means.
The Chinese aren't bribing anyone, they are actually building much-needed infrastructure. These are real tangible things they are delivering The problem is they are doing it in exchange for access to the natural resources in those countries, the extent of which is often not well understood.
You saying "we moved our manufacturing" leads me to believe that you are American. This is not the same as whats going on in sub-Saharan Africa with infrastructure projects at all. American companies reap significantly higher profit margins by manufacturing in China. In a sense America has "completed its industrialization" and is now largely a service economy. much of Africa is considered a "developing economy", those natural resources and the wealth that they could generate should benefit the African not the Chinese.
Kagame is not a "strongman"(I dislike that US media term.) He's been in power way too long for sure but he is not a military thug which is the general connotation of that term. A lot of good has actually happened for Rwanda under his leadership and compared to neighboring Burundi things run pretty well there. Kagame is not a puppet of any former colonial power nor is Kabilia for that matter.
That's probably because you've not been there. I could write a whole piece on the complexity of the place, but that's too much work for me right now.
But consider the problem faced by citizens of a country called Nigeria. That's one of the top oil-producing countries in the world. Yet as I write this, most have no electricity and the price of refined crude products does not make sense. It's a lot worse, but chew on that.
> The Chinese aren't bribing anyone
Really! So the Chinese showed up one day and started building roads and bridges and exporting any natural resources they can lay their paws on without negotiating any contract with officials there. It's during that "negotiating" that stuff happens.
Please provide evidence of Chinese bribery then? Where is your citation?
If they were bribing officials they wouldn't be building infrastructure, they would simply exchange cash for natural resources and that is not what's happening. The Chinese have laborers, boots on the ground working 14 hour days, undertaking large scale infrastructure projects.
Muammar Gaddafi was of that strong, nationalistic military type who was very good for his country, that is, until we decided he was too much of an impediment to our interests.
But the average dictator just exploits their population to enrich themselves and sets the country's development back substantially. (That being said, I don't think the US should be getting involved at all. Establishing good governance is Africans' own responsibility.)
> Just bribe a leader and you're home free
Heh, far from it. See this documentary about Chinese operations in the Congo, for example:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0C4_88ub_M
Getting anything done in Africa is a pain in the ass, and it goes far beyond just bribing the right people.
But it's all part of that complexity of doing business there.
So I want to create a reminded for Jan 1st, 2063 in my Google Calendar to "check if Africa has reached these goals". Unfortunately Calendar won't let me save events past year 2050 :-(