reedonne: Regional level:
West africa can have a NATO style military union(just like ecomog) run by West africa security council.
West africa can have a trade union which will be responsible for linking african state with each other, encoraging inter-state trade etc.
West africa can also have an organization that will take care of political problem and secession.

National level:
We can make re-organization of border if possible to allow largest ethnic groups like Hausa,fulani,yoruba,wolof and igbo have their distinct states. Other ethnic group can then merge to build their own state.
Ideal state population should be about 50million people.
Then multi-ethnic states should use parliamentary system(with a strong emphasis on sharing of power.)
Multi ethnic states should be organized like the spanish autonomous community and self determination should be out of the constitution. (Spain is unitary state with great amount of devolution(more devolve than our Nigeria). Each community have a deal with the national goverment over the amount of power they want to have. Eg a community may have power over security while another doesnt.(like the north which dislike state police while the south is in support)).
The autonomous community should be created along ethnic lines and any community can split from its autonomous community if they get 60% vote in a general referendum.

Omarbah:
Isn't it what we are talking about though? Uniting Africans under a state that will control foreign policy, currency and army. How is NATO+EU different from that? Why do people like Nigel Farage are opposed to the EU, it's possible they believe the true design is a federal Europe. That's what their goal is.

Omarbah: And what do you propose meanwhile, that Africans, with ECOWAS economy not being the size of France to just remain in their ethnic states because it is more cohesive. Those would be overrun in no time. No African ethnic state can compete globally. Name me one if you can.

Omarbah: And why couldn't foreign forces invade us when we had our multiethnic empires/states?

Omarbah: Seriously though, every ethnic group will be diluted to such an extend that it would be foolish for a politician to play on those lines. Just like how during the independence movement, the Rassemblement Democratique Africain had no tribalism in it. Everybody was "African" that's it. You couldn't talk ethnicity because you had no incentive to do so. What defined the leaders was their ideas, their sense of leadership and devotion to the African cause.
I will tell you another thing. Francophone Africa had two zones, west and equatorial. The Afrique Occidentale Francaise (French West Africa) had all of the current french speaking states with a federal capital in Dakar. De Gaulle, the french president, in order to destroy that union proposes a new constitution that had to be ratified by referendum. Sekou toure, the president of Guinea along with some others asked that the Unions remain the same and to be recognized by the constitution. De Gaulle refused, a gave the states the "option to take independence alone or to unite with another whenever it wanted to take its independence". Guineans saw through the scheme, it was just another readjustment of their colonial policy. We opted for the NO and took independence, all of the other states still have their currency run by France. But what happened is that France was able to destroy that strong union that could have produced beautiful things for us. There was no tribalism back then, we could have used our larger economy to create a bigger tax base, use public debt to finance infrastructure projects. But instead we ended up with small states that couldn't do anything for themselves. We are still POOR. At the time, it was one currency, commercial zone, open borders, railroads connecting the capitals. Now everyone is in his little corner, calling himself a state, when they can't even finance their goddamn budget. How many of such states will pop if we go along ethnic lines?

Omarbah: Between Africans selling millions and few Arabs and Europeans being caught in the trade is different my friend. No matter how you look at it, Africans lost this trade. Instead of using that labor to grow our economy. Well the others did that with the people they took from Africa.
And the evidence is there, just look at the Caribbean or go to the USA, you will see it clearly.

Both Thornton and Fage contend that while African political elite may have ultimately benefited from the slave trade, their decision to participate may have been influenced more by what they could lose by not participating. In Fage's article "Slavery and the Slave Trade in the Context of West African History," he notes that for West Africans "... there were really few effective means of mobilizing labour for the economic and political needs of the state" without the slave trade.

If one were to read more works by Fage, Thornton, and Rodney (mentioned by another author of this page in the same section) he would learn that their focus is not to place blame on African elites for Europeans taking their fellow citizens away, but rather to illuminate the pressures and benefits that would have convinced a leader to join or rejoin the slave trade.

reedonne:

China was ethnically one: yes, but they can be clasify into many sub groups. Example are: zhang, han,hui, manchu, miao etc
It is very easy to divide any group whether homogenous or not. Just give weapon to greedy people and they will help you destroy their people.
Even in pre colonial times, africa tribal city state attack another city-state of the same tribe. An example is the Ibadan and the Ekiti parapo war.

kingston277:
EU/NATO isn't a state, though. It is a political organization that serves the interest of the various states of the continent that are affliated with it. I don't understand how you can confuse the two. Europe is just fine as it is with the EU it does not need a conferderation to destroy any remnants of Ethnic exclusive cultures and stability. A hand full of peripheral politicians aren't going to make that federation happen.

kingston277:
The time it would take to name the number of mono-ethnic nations would be time consuming, I'm sure you've heard of the success of Botswana as well as other world wide mono-ethnic nations. Face it, a mono-ethnic country is the safest route.

kingston277:
Did foreign forces invade our single-ethnic states, then?
And please read what happened to Songhai and Bornu as well. Multiethnic can only work with cohesion, that didn't last long enough for those two kingdoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Songhai_Empire
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bornu_Empire#Decline_and_Fall

kingston277:
Where did you get the information to generalize that most states didn't place restrictions on the slave trading? And grow our economy? Why do you think states like Benin place restrictions in the first place? You think they were satisfied with letting their production levels fall because of whiteman?

kingston277:
To maintain the high production. No-one knows how high their production was prior to 19th century but we know the slave trade was a huge threat to (non-slave trading) industries. The rulers needed to look for new ways to combat potential decline in production so they restricted slave trading. Whats the issue again?

Walter Rodney:
The above changeover from gold mining to slave raiding took place within a period of a few years between 1700 and 1710, when the Gold Coast (modern Ghana) came to supply about five thousand to six thousand captives per year. By the end of the eighteenth century, a much smaller number of captives were exported from the Gold Coast, but the damage had already been done. It is worth noting the Europeans sought out different parts of West and Central Africa at different times to play the role of major suppliers of slaves to the Americas. This meant that virtually every section of the long western coastline between the Senegal and Cunene rivers had at least a few years experience of intensive trade in slaves with all its consequences. Besides, in the history of eastern Nigeria, the Congo, northern Angola and Dahomey, there were periods extending over decades, when exports remained at an average of many thousands per year. Most of those areas were also relatively highly developed within the African context. They were leading forces inside Africa, whose energies would otherwise have gone towards their own self-improvement and the betterment of the continent as a whole.

Walter Rodney:
However, on the whole, the process by which captives were obtained on African soil was not trade at all. It was through warfare, trickery, banditry and kidnapping. When one tries to measure the effect of European slave trading on the African continent, it is essential to realize that one is measuring the effect of social violence, rather than trade in any normal sense of the word.

pleep:
Your message is irellevant.

Igbo, yoruba and and hausa can be classified into subgroups. Do u know how many millions of groups there would be if you divided africa like that?

The reason china is powerful is because, despite having many subgroups, they are united into one language and one culture and all see themselves as hans chinese. Nigeria, on the other hand, has groups that speak different languages and have different cultures

pleep:
Your message is irellevant.

Igbo, yoruba and and hausa can be classified into subgroups. Do u know how many millions of groups there would be if you divided africa like that?

The reason china is powerful is because, despite having many subgroups, they are united into one language and one culture and all see themselves as hans chinese. Nigeria, on the other hand, has groups that speak different languages and have different cultures

pleep: Reading through the long drawn out debate between kingston and omarbah it is clear that kingston has a better grasp of the situation. Omarbah your viewpoints are very unrealistic overly idealistic.

This is my take on the situation.

Democratic multi-ethnic states do not work and never will work, the natural state of human progress is the strong consuming the weak and then incorporating them into larger states. At the time of the Romans Europe was divided into hundreds of thousand distinct ethnic groups, each with separate languages and customs. Germany alone was inhabited by the saxones, venedii, gepidi, burgondionii, bla bla bla and they each spoke a different language, had a different culture and hated each other. After hundreds of years of warfare they ended up as one people with one language.

Africa at the other hand was brought into modern times in its dark age, and the natural progression of history was halted via colonization and artificial borders. Now we are stuck in this archaic state with thousands of pointless ethnic groups, languages and nationalities in 2014 and it is a massive barrier to progress.

chulla12:

Not gonna lie...that map literally grosses me out lol.

reedonne:
No they are united by the powerful communist party. Whenever we are competeting with each other we will always find a new division line.
I have giving you an example: Osun state governorship election. Osun is a yoruba state with 100% of its population being yoruba. During our election, a candidate who is an ijesha yoruba won in ijesha towns while another candidate who is an Ife yoruba won in ife towns. What do you call this. FYI I am a yoruba and I dont understand the language of some yoruba sub-group eg ikare.

pleep: Agreed my brother, same here.

pleep: You guys keep finding ways to miss the point. China is 91% Hans chineses... its not the communist party that keeps them united. They were united 2000 years ago nigga!

What would it matter if the ife voted for the ife candidate when the ijesha made up 91% of the population? It is the natural flow of progress, the strong ethnic groups consume the weak ones, and either the weak join them, or end up marginalized and oppressed like the Uygers and Tibetans.

Watch how the hans chinese unify their nation for the first time in 500 B.C

chulla12:

Coastal West Africa seems to have the most ethnic diversity out of all the regions. Seriously, eek at this map!

On the other end, the Sahelian/Maghreb region seem to have more consolidated ethnic affiliations. Something to do with the wave of Islamic Jihads over the region in past centuries? Or is this just as a result of a sparse population of people over a desert-type land-mass?

I also see that the North African groups become more splintered as we go further up north...towards the Mediterranean.

pleep: This is the same thing that happened in Germany, England, the Arab states, Japan etc etc etc. This natural process was Halted in africa because of colonization and artificial borders.

and as a result we are left with thousands of pointless states and ethnic groups instead of strong unified nations. Its a bad situation, but the best solution would be to abolish these artificial borders and let natural ethnic states form again.

reedonne:
I dont think you understand my point. Both Ife and Ijesha population is less than 30% of our total population.
It is not that we are not united, the fact is that our politicians are exploiting our sub-class for political game. But in china, the people does not have power to elect their ruler, so they cannot exploit it. I have also gave somalia as a example.

pleep:

Well i certainly agree with you if you are saying that the democratic system of government is not effective for Africa. But we have tried totalitarianism and it didn't work either.

You want a strong government? Well Congo, Equatorial Guinea, swaziland and many other countries have had the opportunity to create progressive totalitarian governments but they failed. Because of the human element and because of excessive ethnic diversity. Will the igbo support a dictator who is fulani? Will the hausa support a yoruba dictator? no. The reason chinese communism was so successful is because the country is 91% the same ethnicity and were already unified.

pleep:

Well i certainly agree with you if you are saying that the democratic system of government is not effective for Africa. But we have tried totalitarianism and it didn't work either.

You want a strong government? Well Congo, Equatorial Guinea, swaziland and many other countries have had the opportunity to create progressive totalitarian governments but they failed. Because of the human element and because of excessive ethnic diversity. Will the igbo support a dictator who is fulani? Will the hausa support a yoruba dictator? no. The reason chinese communism was so successful is because the country is 91% the same ethnicity and were already unified.

Omarbah:
Did you forget the part where I mentioned how Nigel Farage is opposed to the EU because he believes its true goal is a federal Europe? For now the EU is an organization but make no mistake, its goal is in building a continental state.

Omarbah: Bostwana isn't a monoethnic state. Thank you for bringing them up by the way, they are a good example of how a political system that ensure participation by everyone can built a cohesive society. Here is an extract from wikipedia.

"The advisory House of Chiefs represents the eight principal subgroups of the Botswana people, and four other members are elected by the subchiefs of four of the districts. A draft of any National Assembly bill of tribal concern must be referred to the House of Chiefs for advisory opinion. Chiefs and other leaders preside over customary, traditional courts, though all persons have the right to request that their case be considered under the formal British-based legal system."

Omarbah: I have addressed the issue of the decline of these empires, particularly the Songhai empire. It did decline because the central authority at some point was unable to destroy trouble makers and it ended up in civil war. Deploying troops faster was a hassle we do not have now.Even the Moroccans that destroyed the empires couldn't rule such a vast state. It eventually split into dozens of kingdoms that were all weak and that's when things started getting really bad for Africans.

Omarbah: But did you read the Economy part? How beautiful was that.

Omarbah: Even in monoethnic kingdoms there will still be conflicts, the Sokoto Caliphate exploited the differences among the Yoruba didn't it? Once you turn down to ethnic state then, tribes or clans become the new thing. Somalis are one ethnic group, look at their state?

Omarbah: My point: what is most important is a political system that allows everyone to participate.

Omarbah: And earlier you said this...

The domestic economy was largely focused on agriculture and crafts produced for local consumption. Until the development of palm oil, very little agricultural or craft goods were traded outside of the kingdom. Markets served a key role in the kingdom and were organized around a rotating cycle of four days with a different market each day (the market type for the day was religiously sanctioned).[10] Agriculture work was largely decentralized and done by most families. However, with the expansion of the kingdom and the importance of the slave trade, agricultural plantations begun to be a common agricultural method in the kingdom. Craft work was largely dominated by a formal guild system.[14]

Herskovits recounts a complex tax system in the kingdom where officials from the king, the tokpe, would gather data from each village regarding their harvest and then the king would set a tax based upon the level of production and number of villagers in the village. In addition, the kings own land and production were taxed.[10] With the significant road construction undertaken by the kingdom, toll booths were also established which would collect yearly taxes by people based on the good they carried, their occupation, and sometimes fines for public nuisance before allowing them to pass.

Omarbah: Walter Rodney would disagree with the Historians to quoted. I would like to clarify a one thing. Condemning slavery is not intended to make Africans guilty. After all the vast majority of Africans were not involved in the trade, and there were some opposed to it.
Going back to Rodney, here is quote from his book "How Europe Underdeveloped Africa"


Basically here is what he is saying in this part of the book. Instead of gold mining, part of the African elite turned to slave trading because it was more profitable for them. The Europeans gave them in exchange "guns, ammunition, cloth, cooking utensils and alcoholic beverages". Not withstanding the fact that this cheap junk competed with the local economy, but also that African elite that willingly participated in the trade did not foresee the long term consequence for their economy.
Here is another quote from Rodney that corroborates what I stated earlier. The small states were just too weak to ensure stability just like how Liberia and Sierra Leone are unable to do it today. An epidemic is threatening the existence of Liberia. Break Liberia into Kru, Khran, Mandingo states and you'll have nothing, maybe states the size of a neighborhood of Lagos.

Benin profited from its close ties with the Portuguese and exploited the firearms bought from them to tighten its hold on the lower Niger area. Two factors checked the spread of Portuguese influence and the continued expansion of Benin, however. First, Portugal stopped buying pepper because of the availability of other spices in the Indian Ocean region. Second, Benin placed an embargo on the export of slaves, thereby isolating itself from the growth of what was to become the major export from the Nigerian coast for 300 years. Benin continued to capture slaves and to employ them in its domestic economy, but the Edo state remained unique among Nigerian polities in refusing to participate in the transatlantic trade. In the long run, Benin remained relatively isolated from the major changes along the Nigerian coast.

While the slave trade did destroy many societies in the near-coastal areas, further
inland some Africans gained from the trade. Small states began to take shape while others
prospered. The Yoruba Kingdom grew in size and strength during the eighteenth century.
A new empire, the Asanti empire, rose in central and coastal Ghana. By the nineteenth
century, a number of West African societies along the Niger Delta were producing their own
palm oil instead of slaves. They had their own plantations, but they did not have industrial
production. However, their efforts were dampened by European colonialism.

kingston277:
Evidence? All it does is unite Europe economically and politically, not physically.

kingston277:
Those are tribes/clans, not ethnic groups. There close knit before colonialism and operated in a similar society they have today.

kingston277:
Where did you get the information to generalize that most states didn't place restrictions on the slave trading? And grow our economy? Why do you think states like Benin place restrictions in the first place? You think they were satisfied with letting their production levels fall because of whiteman?


[quote author= kingston277]
To maintain the high production. No-one knows how high their production was prior to 19th century but we know the slave trade was a huge threat to (non-slave trading) industries. The rulers needed to look for new ways to combat potential decline in production so they restricted slave trading. Whats the issue again?

kingston277:
While the slave trade did destroy many societies in the near-coastal areas, further
inland some Africans gained from the trade. Small states began to take shape while others
prospered. The Yoruba Kingdom grew in size and strength during the eighteenth century.
A new empire, the Asanti empire, rose in central and coastal Ghana. By the nineteenth
century, a number of West African societies along the Niger Delta were producing their own
palm oil instead of slaves. They had their own plantations, but they did not have industrial
production. However, their efforts were dampened by European colonialism.

Omarbah:




who said they were ethnic groups? Somalia is one ethnic group and even better, one religion but with their clans, look at what is happening. Didn't the Yoruba kingdom face a rebellion that was exploited by Sokoto and yet it was tribes fighting each other. What makes Botswana stable is not their ethnic or tribal makeup but their political system which ensures participation of every tribe regardless of the size. How much direct participation do the kings, obas, emirs of Nigeria have in the policies of the country?

pleep:


Botswana is 79% of the Tswana ethnic group. This is one of the best example of the progressive nature of single ethnic states/states that are dominated by a single ethnic group.

As for Somalia, without foreign influence, they would have consolidated by now. A leader would have led his clan in the conquest of all the other ones, but because of outside factors and the changing nature of warfare this is not happening. In modern times Somalia civil war looks silly but when you compare it the history of any other large ethnic group, the Germans, Chinese, Italians it was the exact same situation until one faction conquered the others through war and consolidated the nation.

The only difference is that Africa was forced to endure her growing pains now, while other nations did it 100+ years ago.

Omarbah:

Here is a speech of Margaret Thatcher about the EU.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVt_1ByddUQ.
At 1:30 she says the President of the EU commission made a statement at a press conference that he wanted the EU parliament to be the democratic body of the community and the commission to be the executive bod and the council of ministers to be the senate.
There you have it, that's the goal of the EU. And by "physically' what do you mean? Isn't economical and political union a physical one? The EU will become a Confederation and it will have a stronger government body at the top, once all of the major differences between Europeans are sorted out.

Opposition[edit]
The European Union does not include every nation in Europe and there is no consensus among the existing national governments towards becoming even a Confederation. There is also significant internal opposition to the concept in many member states.

The term United States of Europe, as a direct comparison with the United States of America, would imply that the existing nations of Europe would be reduced to a status equivalent to that of a US state, losing their national sovereignty in the process and becoming constituent parts of a European federation. Just as the United States of America has evolved from a confederation (under the 1777 Articles of Confederation) into a federation, the term the United States of Europe might also be used to describe a potential confederation of independent states. Those who oppose and criticise forming a federation or confederation of European states may be termed Eurosceptics; however it should be noted that opposition to the creation of a European federation does not equate with opposition to the European Union or the process of European integration.

Omarbah:

who said they were ethnic groups? Somalia is one ethnic group and even better, one religion but with their clans, look at what is happening. Didn't the Yoruba kingdom face a rebellion that was exploited by Sokoto and yet it was tribes fighting each other.

Omarbah:
What makes Botswana stable is not their ethnic or tribal makeup but their political system which ensures participation of every tribe regardless of the size.

Omarbah:
How much direct participation do the kings, obas, emirs of Nigeria have in the policies of the country?

Omarbah:
Nobody denies the fact that there are many Europeans, politicians and people alike that hate the EU and I have made note of those differences. But that still doesn't prevent those wanting a stronger Europe to push forward. They have a lot issues to deal with. But the goal of the EU commission is to built a strong union(confederation) to protect their interests . Now my point is ,if Europeans despite their strengths are moving in that direction (bumpy ride) why us Africans, at least West Africans aren't when Ecowas economy does not match that of France alone.

kingston277:

My source states some of the opposition to a unified Europe are members of the EU, so how can the EU collectively push for a unified Europe if they are not in agreement internally?
ECOWAS should have no other job than to provide what the EU is currently providing Europe currently.

Omarbah:

Beyond the economic and political zone(one market , one diplomacy) we should also have one military, at least one Navy and a regional police/paramilitary force to deal with groups such as Boko Haram that operate on multiple countries.

The panel also recommended that the AU gives special attention to the financing of its peace support operations. The most significant constraint on AU peace operations, and its ability to respond rapidly to unfolding crises, is the inability of the AU member states to fund their own operations. The AU cannot make its own independent decisions regarding the mandate, scope, size and duration of its peace operations, as long as it is dependent on external partners to cover the cost of its peace operations.

AmunRaOlodumare:

What you're talking about already exist for the African Union it's called the African Stand-by Force (ASF). It's supposed to be fully operational by end-2015 but will probably be delayed. From my own observation, for this ASF to be an effective and a rapidly deployed peacekeeping force in time of emergency, it has to be properly funded so that all the military equipments and personal are instantly ready for action. With enough funding coming from member countries, all the air force, equipments and personal will be ready instantly after the decision by the AU to intervene rapidly in an urgent security matter.

Here's a recent news article that I just quickly googled about it (I didn't read it completely yet, since I already know about the African Stand-by Force).

http://www.isn.ethz.ch/Digital-Library/Articles/Detail/?id=184350

The article, which I read after writing the above like me also mentions the need for proper funding from AU member states so it is efficient and independent.

Omarbah:

I know about this force, actually a Guinean General is heading it. But not to sound pessimistic, counting a member states to fund this force is futile. It will be kept weak so that the range of action of the AU is diminished. As long as the AU or ECOWAS keeps counting on contribution from member states, we won't have real progress with them. They will remain empty shells. Look at the EBOLA crisis, the US has to send troops to Liberia to end the crisis, who knows why they are actually there but at this point speaking against it will just make one look stupid.
I fully support this task force but as far as funding , the AU should be creative enough to find her own and not just count on member states.

AmunRaOlodumare:

That's ridiculous, your "proposition" leads to nothing but the status quo. If you lean on "creative funding", whatever that means, nothing will be done either.
Funding from the African Union member states is the only way to fund the ASF and any African Union projects. That much is obvious. This is where the "creativity" must show. Maybe create a 0.5% export or import taxes, or a 5% travel taxes on plane tickets to fund the ASF.

Omarbah:

Whether it is through taxes, special economic zones, financing interstate railroads/highways and then collect tolls or whatever other means but