Sky Blue: Depends. For the most part I would say yes, let countries handle their issues themselves because I believe in respecting sovereignty. When the mass population is under threath by their leaders then I think indirect intervention might be justified. On the other hand, Africa is not Europe and most countries in sub Saharan Africa are simply colonial constructs. I believe such issue needs to be taken into consideration because as a result of how such nations came to be, ideals such as unity and nationhood are not inherent, as a result it is sometimes difficult to get a unified or clear voice or even a consensus from such a populace as to what they actually want. As a result I believe in the pan africanist ideal but only to a certain degree. I am all for a stronger ECOWAS but don't care much for the AU and believe in African bodies like ECOWAS disciplining governments of member states when the situation calls for it (e.g Ivory Coast) as a means of settling disputes. West Africans are different from East or South Africans.

Mr knowitall.:
As it stands, African nations need the helps of global bodies such as European Union (EU) and United Nations (UN) to

resolved conflicts. Most African nations do not have the funds or resource, to fight and suppress violent rebels and

insurgents that are well armed and well funded. Moreover, if you look back at the history of Africa, you will see that

manner issues and disagreements tends to lead to genocide. Africa is not capable of handling it's own disputes and

conflicts because of poverty, illiteracy, unreliable government, corruption, bad infrastructure, and lack of innovation

and technology.

andrewza:

And sometimes outside bodies will hinder or even aid in rebellions.

2 cases are open to us.

ONE CAR. In CAR france controlled the airport and prevented SA from flying in reinforcements, it claimed that it would make the airport a target for the rebels. There is strong evidence that Chad a strong ally of france aided the rebels. If there were no french interference SA could have flown in there battalion to CAR instead of uganda.

Malil, the rebellion only occurred because of the fall in libya flooded the are with lots of military grade tech and weapons, libya only fell because NATO over step their mandate of implementing a no fly zone and insteaded provided rebels with close air support. Thus NATO caused malil.

Mr knowitall.:


Sorry but these are not strong cases to prove your point....you can actually count these cases as mistakes.....and

secondly you havent proved that African nations can handled conflicts on their own...

Mr knowitall.:
^^^^I touched on two key points...resources and funds....its one thing to send military to fight rebels..but its another

to be able to continue fighting and suppressing them...and after the war....they will need funds to rebuild the

nation.....Now given the amount of continuous conflict in Africa...don't you think that African nations would deplete their

funds if the EU OR UN don't help them?

andrewza:

Has i said we should not turn down forghine help to african efforts

Mr knowitall.:


so we agree that African nations are not capable of handling conflicts by them selves right now?

andrewza:

depends on the crisis

lagerwhenindoubt:

Please elaborate.. crisis.. like Boko Haram?

andrewza:

depends on the crisis

Mr knowitall.:


I disagree...i think they should intervene in almost all conflicts...and as early as possible...to minimize cost, lost of

life, and damage to properties.