I was reading about the Coup that has just taken place in Niger. The first question that comes to my mind is, what exactly did the AU do that would have detered the then president, President Mamadou Tandja, from suspending the constitution in other that he could have a third term. I believe if neccassary actions were taking to stop him then, there would have been no need for this coup and consequently a setback in Niger's politics.

Let no one assume we have seen the last yet, this might lead to a refugee crisis that would affect its neighbouring states.

Basically my question is what does the AU do?

Ghadaffi is one of the most celebrated leaders in the AU committee and apparently "speaks for Africa", so what on earth do you expect? I am all for building a stronger ECOWAS that can have relevance to the member countries. The AU is an organisation that seemed to have risen to fill some vacuum of pan african sentiment, quite ironic given the contrast between Subsaharan and northern Africa, and given the history of trans-saharan slavery. Or has the concept of Pan Africanism has been revised?

I would think AU is useless with respect to the coup.

@Skyblue

In other words are you trying to point out, that not only that the AU is in-effective but also there is no reason for it, since there could never be a common ground for the northern Africans and the sub-Saharan Africa?

Ikomi:

@Skyblue

In other words are you trying to point out, that not only that the AU is in-effective but also there is no reason for it, since there could never be a common ground for the northern Africans and the sub-Saharan Africa?

The AU has proved to itself to be ineffective. Congo, Dafur, Zimbabwe, Somalia, Niger, etc. The simple truth is North Africa and Subsaharan Africa are different. I never said there could never be a common ground, I am just saying the sentiment on which the union is presently built on is weak, cheap, and fictional. If the union was built on an industrialised and economically strong Africa that can compete with the rest of the world and deal with its problems, fine. I just find the current foundation of Pan Africanism most laughable and even insulting to the very idea. Hearing Ghadaffi speak about Pan Africanism is such an irony and an insult, considering that most of Africa seems to have ignored the obvious ethnic cleansing of the indeginous black ethnic groups that was going on in Dafur. Didn't some African leaders even protest the international warrant for the arrest of the president of Sudan? So what kind of twisted "pan africanist brotherhood" is that?

Unless the non indeginous arab pupulation are willing to actually start treating the sub saharan populace like real brothers, that word should not be used. The actions differ from the pronouncement and show such declarations to be cheap, fictional, and only used to drum up support in the continent. Ghadaffi should shut up and stop proclaiming to speak for Africa. Does he even respect the continent? I am much more interested in ECOWAS than in the AU, and believe such a bond should be strengthened to become not just a regional, but a global powerhouse. If the members are serious (most especially Nigeria), such a vision is very realisable.

What an analysis, you actually gave reasons why the AU can not function properly which I agree with 100%, except on economic grounds. The best answer would definately be regional organization like ECOWAS.

But you see we would have problems with that as well, when nations like Nigeria can not find its feet, or how would Paul Biya the president of Cameroun who has been around for over 30 yrs, tell Tandja he is not acting right.

Sky Blue honestly Africa has a preety long way to go.

Lastly you really impresed me with the analysis, listen you know that Igbo lessons you always wanted, can we start tonight?