Why EAC's vision of full economic integration remains a pipe dream

Has the clock of time for the East Africa Community (EAC) rolled back to 1977? This is the year when the marriage among the then three member states Kenya, Uganda and Tanzania became irretrievably broken, leading to the dissolution of EAC I.

The factors that led to the collapse of EAC I have been well documented in articles published by the United National Economic Commission for Africa (UNECA) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF).

Sena Eken for the IMF in 1979 and Mtei Basil for UNECA in 1984, highlight the primary reason for this collapse as inequitable distribution of gains, benefits and costs between Kenya on the one hand, and Uganda and Tanzania on the other.

Other factors listed as key to the collapse of EAC I are ideological differences, economic disparities, unequal development, trade imbalance, political differences and lack of strong participation from private sector and civil society. At Country level, Tanzania’s national interest are listed as another key factor that negatively impacted the union among the three member states in the 1970s.

Both studies acknowledge that back in the 1970s, the three East African nations lacked adequate policies to resolve their differences, hence the collapse. First forward 48 years later, the same factors seem to threaten the successor union, EAC II, recreated in 1999 based on a treaty that sought to resolve the problems of the 1970s. This is despite expanding the union to eight member states, that includes Burundi, Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda, South Sudan and Somalia in addition to the original three member states.

While economic literature extensively documents the benefits of regional economic integration, the EAC’s desire for a custom union, common market, monetary union and political federation by all intent and purposes seems to be a pipe dream. Several studies identify disparities in economic development, non-tariff barriers and underdeveloped infrastructure as the primary challenges limiting integration for the EAC presently. 

However, a critical re-look of the evolving diplomatic gaffes among member states, and domestic conflicts within others rewire the union back to similar problems that led to collapse of EAC I. For instance, the expanded member states has recreated significant economic disparities among members that make it impossible to realise any meaningful integration any time soon.

For example, Kenya’s categorisation as a lower-middle-income country has created barriers that make it impossible to negotiate for a region-wide trade agreement with the region’s main trading partners. Further, intra-regional trade for the EAC economic bloc is marred by suspicion, especially from the smaller economies against Kenya’s perceived dominance, despite clear evidence that there are trade reversals in their favour based on recent trade flow data.

Still, there are sustained conflicts among member state groupings. Good cases here includes the handling of the DRC Congo, South Sudan and Sudan internal conflicts; key infrastructure projects that sought to connect the region like the Standard Gauge Railway (SGR); and difference on internal democratic process among individual member states. While these factors may appear independent of each other, they collectively point towards serious ideological and political differences, similar to those that led to collapse of EAC I.

Ultimately, these factors feed into divergent leadership perspectives and vision for the region at the bloc’s top decision making organ, the Summit of Heads of States. For example, imagine the tensions that will be boiling among the eight Heads of State after President Ruto’s recent diplomatic gaffes on trade and regional conflicts? How about President Paul Kagame of Rwanda and Tshisekedi of DRC Congo after so much counter accusations? Or Presidents Samia -Ruto -Museveni axis after Suluhu’s administration has deported, harassed or tortured her neighbours citizens for crossing the border to show solidarity with her detained opponent, Tundu Lissu?

In all fairness, what meaningful business can these men and woman transact together with such deep-seated differences and suspicions? Isn’t it time that the Summit of Heads of States for the EAC met with only a single agenda on the table: a declaration that let everyone go home indefinitely? Why should they pretend to be advancing a common agenda for the region when it is obvious to everyone that each leader seats on that table to advance first and foremost their selfish greed for power, and two, remotely to preserve the status quo back at home?

Who cannot see that the last persons in the minds of these leaders when they seat on that high table are the people of East Africa collectively?

However, it is the emerging cross-border civil society engagements that may open a completely new chapter for the region. Kenya’s veteran activists Martha Karua successfully fought and appeared to defend the rights and freedoms of Kizza Besigye before a Uganda’s Military Court Mashal. In Tanzania’s opposition leader trial this past week, the influx and profiles of Kenyan civil society actors who made effort to show solidarity with Lissu must worry Tanzanian authorities.

It would be the height of strategic and intelligence naivety for the Uganda and Tanzania authorities to assume that the Kenyan civil society delegations invited themselves into their country. Wisdom dictates that there must be a growing generation of civil society actors both in Uganda and Tanzania that sought the help of their more experienced and seasoned counterparts in Kenya.

With hindsight, President Suluhu’s harassment of the Kenyan civil society might have inadvertently planted the seeds of a unified activism for the EAC bloc. This is especially so with explosion of social media that knows no physical boundaries.    

Looking back to the factor of lack of strong private sector and civil society participation in EAC’s integration back in the 1970’s, the region may now be up to a completely new form of resistance. Did we just taste the first form of open cross-border civic activism for the region?

The supposed hacking of the official X account for Tanzania’s police force must serve as a warning indicator to the evolving dynamics of deployment of cyber war to agitate for political reforms and administrative accountability on the part of the political and bureaucratic elites within the economic bloc.

Narrowing specifically to the mistreatment of veteran Kenyan activist Boniface Mwangi and Ugandan Agather Atuhaire, Tanzanian authorities might have overstretched the limits of diplomatic protocols.

The fact that these activists may be a nuisance to the local authorities back at home does not give any other government liberty to harass them in their territories. No President worth his/her salt would let any of his citizens to be manhandled by foreign authorities without any clear criminal activity.

It is a pity that Kenya Kwanza’s sycophantic minions are making insinuations that Kenyans deported or harassed by Tanzanian authorities are is a good thing. This naivety among President Ruto’s kitchen team defies well-established tenets of democracy and diplomatic limits among neighbours. Politically, President Ruto would score some crucial bonga points by strongly protesting the harassment of his citizens across the border.

After all, there still exist a form or semblance of the EAC treaty commitments despite the tensions among the member states.

Overall, it appears the ties that bide the EAC II unity will be tested to their limits. For political and economic observers, tighten your belts for we are up to exciting times for the next foreseeable future.