African Politics

[OriginalWheelman]

I'm getting more and more interesd in this as time goes on. I reading this article,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7864604.stm

and I noticed this,

On Sunday, the summit debated a Libyan-backed proposal to set up a single government - the United States of Africa.

In a compromise, the summit agreed to transform the African Union Commission, which oversees the body, into an AU Authority that would have a broader mandate, Mr Kikwete said.

"In principle, we said the ultimate is the United States of Africa. How we proceed to that ultimate - there are building blocks," Mr Kikwete said.

...

Col Gaddafi has previously outlined his vision for African unity.

He wants a single African military force, a single currency and a single passport for Africans to move within the continent

What also Interested me was this,

some African leaders believe the Libyan leader is too erratic to be AU chairman.

Before he arrived at the summit, he circulated a letter saying he was coming as the king of the traditional kings of Africa and he wanted to be seated as the king of kings, our correspondent says.

Last August, a meeting of more than 200 African kings and traditional rulers bestowed the title "king of kings" on the Libyan leader.

Talking points:What could some of the implications of this be if the African Union became the United States of Africa?Is Muammar Gaddafi a good choice to lead? Is he too powerful as head of the AU and KoK?

[Cold_Zero]

The entire continent of Africa is way too diverse to be consolidated into one sovereign country. There are radical differences between Sub Saharan Africa and Saharan Africa. I don't see this happening.

[audtatious]

It happened here. Look at the west coast and the northeast coast vs. middle and southern states

[smockers83]

America is radically diverse as well.

The problem I see with a single African country is that politics in Africa is corrupt on such a level, it's probably not even comprehensible to us. Leaders there have taken very prosperous countries and turned them into some of the poorest nations in the world. They won't give up their power because they're sitting well while their nation gets sucked into a black hole.

If they could oust the corrupt people and start anew, then we could be talking something great that the world hasn't seen, well, since China in terms of its economy. And we could see something great that this world probably hasn't seen in thousands of years in terms of its health and people.

[OriginalWheelman]

The entire continent of Africa is way too diverse to be consolidated into one sovereign country. There are radical differences between Sub Saharan Africa and Saharan Africa. I don't see this happening.

It happened here. Look at the west coast and the northeast coast vs. middle and southern states

Again, citing the US as example, it is much harder to stay together than to get together. I think if Gaddafi can convince the rulers it is in their best interest to unify, it very may well happen. How long it would last, however is a very different story.

If Africa were to unify into one state, what would their military look like? Would they have a force large enough to take on the US / China?

*EDIT* Looks like they're taking another day to try to make stuff happen.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7868828.stm


Modified by OriginalWheelman at 6:11 AM 2/4/2009

[Cold_Zero]

It happened here. Look at the west coast and the northeast coast vs. middle and southern states

It happened here.. Matt, I think the example is a weak (comparing the founding and formation of the US to a potential US of Africa), since we are talking about an entire Continent (Africa) and last time I checked, neither the United States, Canada and Mexico has abdicated their entire sovereignty to the idea of a North American country. Sure we have Military, Trade and other treaties, but we are still 3 different sovereign countries with 3 separate militaries, governments, economies and police forces...

Also, some comparisons:The United States was formed over time and with gradual expansion and migrations. Africa not only has been formed over a longer period of time, but has survived colonialism and now independence. Now we expect them (each country) to give up their sovereignty and national identies?

The United States had a lot less geographical diversity to overcome. Africa spans both ends of the spectrum geographically, from tropical rain forest in the west to deserts in the north and south and mountains in the north, west and south.

The United States only had 2-3 colonial influences to shake off in its history. Africa has the influence of 7 (major) colonial powers and is still dealing with the affects, especially in Western Africa.

Africans speak 22 indigenous languages and a handful of Semitic and Indo European languages. The United States only had to deal with a handful of Western Indo European languages.

The entire continent of Africa has 900 million people, the US only 300 million. When the United States was founded and being formed (a better example), the population around 4 million people.

I think these factors pose some real issues with the entire continent of Africa forming a United States of Africa, in the sense of one country.

[HashiriyaS14]

^^I couldn't say it any better than this.

Africa is wildly diverse in regards to race, language, religion, socioeconomic development, etc. It is also a massive geographical area that is poorly linked by information and transportation infrastructure.

Maybe a Northern African consolidation might happen as the nations are essentially all Islamic and are better developed than the African average. I actually think that a North African "AU" would be a good thing for the United States and the world at large, and certainly for that region.

[smockers83]

To form an African nation you would also have to get rid of the African warlords by quickly developing a strong, well-trained military because they will resist.

Most African nations have French as a national language along with local languages.

Creating such a nation would be a lot harder than it was to create the US for sure as you already have people who very diverse, whereas in the US, the people weren't all that diverse in the beginning. But a unified Africa with competent leaders who aren't corrupt could benefit the continent and the world together. I don't see it happening until corrupt leaders are removed from power with open economic borders which would lead to a large influx of foreign investment in infrastructure. 100 years if they got serious about it now.

[LongBeachCoupe]

^^I couldn't say it any better than this.

Africa is wildly diverse in regards to race, language, religion, socioeconomic development, etc. It is also a massive geographical area that is poorly linked by information and transportation infrastructure.

Maybe a Northern African consolidation might happen as the nations are essentially all Islamic and are better developed than the African average. I actually think that a North African "AU" would be a good thing for the United States and the world at large, and certainly for that region.

Many of the areas lack infrastructure of any kind, theres no way that you can get this thing off the ground IMO... and if you tried, half the people wouldnt be informed anyways!

[smockers83]

That's pretty ignorant to say.

Every industrialized nation used to be poorly linked by infrastructure. If you bring good infrastructure, you bring commerce, which causes the economy to grow, which allows people to go to school. In my view it's only the beginning of something that just needs incentive to get started.

I bet you that a lot more than half of Americans aren't informed about infrastructure around the country. I know NYC has a subway system and Chicago has an elevated system, not sure if they have a subway system as well. I don't even know if LA has any sort of system besides buses or many other cities for that matter. I bet you don't know if Detroit has a system or not.

[LongBeachCoupe]

I hear you saying "you bring"...Are you saying that we should take it upon ourselves to do this

I may not know if theres subways in Detroit, but theres a power grid here and a tech. infrastructure that allows me to find the information.. They have an "Elevated" train system.

Im not saying it cant/shouldnt be done, thats not my call to make (its theirs!)

What I am saying is that theres a crapload of things that need to get done, way before this would be able to work well.

[smockers83]

I hear you saying "you bring"...Are you saying that we should take it upon ourselves to do this

No, I'm just saying in general. If "one brings", how about that? The British brought and introduced infrastructure to many parts of the world during its imperial days. Someone has to do it as they don't have the technology or capacity to do so.

Im not saying it cant/shouldnt be done, thats not my call to make (its theirs!)

That's a lot different from...

theres no way that you can get this thing off the ground

...because you just said it can't be done.