The African continent has long been known to lay emphasis on issues like infrastructure, information and communication, agriculture, poverty eradication, health and education and good governance that entails both political and economical aspects. In order to implement the above policies and representation on the international front, some African countries met and the New Partnership for African development NEPAD was born. NEPAD has a dual obligation to oversee the implementation of policies both in Africa and maintain relations with the overseas developed countries (Fourie & Vickers, 2002).
However, under the check of the African Peer Review Mechanism (APRM), it is argued that NEPAD has failed in implementing of policy. One of the main rhetoric compositions of its constitution is the 57 page of its manifesto that is hard to address all issues. Similarly, it has no outlined sets of actions for the African people to work on and has disregarded the involvement of the civil societies in its plan to an extent that its documents were availed to the civil society through the internet(Fourie & Vickers, 2002).
The issue of AIDS has also been negated completely despite its weight in Africa. Democracy, politics, economics and the APRM have only been adopted by 12 out of the 53 AU member states. The issue of fair trade only stated but not holistically considered as per international terms of trade. The partnership has also adopted strategic other than sovereign trade and thus Africa's reinvention has taken the path of exoteric economic order. This is opposed to reestablishing the current African order where many argue that embracing globalization is set to derail the continent further (Fourie & Vickers, 2002).
From these turbulent and confused manner of policy affection, NEPAD is therefore regarded as a regional body that is on its way to maturity and needs to reload its focus on negotiation amongst its member states. NEPAD has also failed to address the issue of agriculture that embodies the backbone of the economic status of African states. Its promise for a positive economic growth for the whole of Africa is also seemingly an empty one as countries like Libya and South Africa engage in a continuous battle for a supposed ownership of NEPAD. Failure to act or put plans for actions has led to the belief that it is effective only on paper and insufficient at implementation level (Fourie & Vickers, 2002).
In conclusion all levels of dispensation as portrayed by NEPAD do not hold water and are bound to fail in challenging and the global stature that is instrumental in compelling Africa towards marginalization (Fourie & Vickers, 2002).