 |
|
| Author |
 Topic  |
|
jambo
3300 Posts |
 Posted - 05 Jul 2006 : 21:23:13
|
| njucks when you wrote on bantaba, the au was already in full swing. It was a done deal. If gambia did not host it, very successfully another country would. You are right The summit is pre planned event what is not certain is the country. I think they are pushing for it to go back to addis for the next presidential one. summit happens all the time but this was full presidential shinding, the agenda is written by the ministers who deal with matters of the day. darfur, congo, ivory coast, harbier were important issues. poverty can be dealt with at a country level. Issues will always happen how it is resolved is the issue, not which contry hosts the au. |
 |
|
|
Janyanfara
Tanzania
1350 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2006 : 15:22:30
|
Hey,
If things are taken on its surface according to you people,then AU should have solved one problem after another.
Q.When was the AU formed?
Q.Was the Gambian the first country to host AU since it was formed?
Q.How many issues has the AU met over and resoulved since its inception?
Has the idea of not recognising countries who removed democractically elected governments through coups been ever implimented?
How effective has the AU ever been with tackling:
corruption,tyrany,ethnic fighting,refugee problems,coups,poverty, you name it.
My brothers if we as Africans did not write,speach aloud,
When are our problems be addressed?
Any country that host the AU as far as I know,citizens of that country and other member countries always write in papers,speach on international TV programmes about their views on what the organisation should do to tackle African's growing problems.
Why should ours be different?
I remember the one I attend for an international body in Bamako,the papers were full about people's views different different ideas.
Sometimes I wounder this small African country[full of wounderful people]Will have in her midst negative thinking individuals who would not want any other view but theirs alone.I very well believed in freedom of speach and thats my way of life but we need each other's views as a nation and a continent.
If Africa's Banjul summit had already been fore-discussed by foreign ministers,then what had they decided b4 the summit? Was it only to try Habre in Senegal?Because thats was the only thing achieved so far.
Even though I agree with my brother jambo,
what we wanted our African leaders to understand was that they go to AU meetings to speak in our names and what ever discussions agreed, benefits or affects each and every African directly or indirectly.
They need to listen to our views.For a captain of a ship cannot take the ship across sea alone without the aid of the crew on board.They need to understand that despite our different views,we are all on board the ship and can only collectively sail across the rough sea if we exchange ideas.
Africa's success lies directly at the hands of her childreen and without listenining to ideas from all corners of the continent,we cannot succeed.If these leaders decide all on their own as always done,then we will always be where we are: no progress,no achievement.
Sad isn't it?
peace
Janyanfara |
|
|
|
jambo
3300 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2006 : 18:06:17
|
janyanfara, it is very sad, but that is politics. I think for me it was seeing the local people enjoy the ceremony and getting a chance to be part of a historical event.
but all the discussions that were on the agenda nothing was resolved.
I can give you a run down of the agenda, but there was some serious deadlocked discussions and no amount of AU meetings, forums, conferences what ever will get over the fact that some heads of states are too stupid to help their neighbours.
Think on this, when was the last time there was an international crisis in Africa that the locals had not predicated would happen. they just don't listen.
talking about papers, i could only get the observor, not the point or forayya.
|
|
|
|
kondorong
Gambia
4380 Posts |
Posted - 06 Jul 2006 : 18:35:22
|
quote:
Originally posted by jambo
janyanfara, it is very sad, but that is politics. I think for me it was seeing the local people enjoy the ceremony and getting a chance to be part of a historical event.
but all the discussions that were on the agenda nothing was resolved.
I can give you a run down of the agenda, but there was some serious deadlocked discussions and no amount of AU meetings, forums, conferences what ever will get over the fact that some heads of states are too stupid to help their neighbours.
Think on this, when was the last time there was an international crisis in Africa that the locals had not predicated would happen. they just don't listen.
talking about papers, i could only get the observor, not the point or forayya.
So does it mean that the other papers were not alowed to distribute copies to the visisting dignitaries. May thats was why independent had to be silenced before the AU Summit to avoid spilling the beans. WHO KNOWS? |
|
|
|
jambo
3300 Posts |
Posted - 07 Jul 2006 : 15:23:02
|
Probably, but the press were heavily censored anyway. I spoke to someone who had attended the last heads of state summit that there was only half the amount of international press their. The international press came because gambia is safe. but many were denied access, especially local gambian journalists. Senegelese press had a field day they could print what they wanted in their home media.
|
|
|
|
Topic |
|
|
|
| Bantaba in Cyberspace |
© 2005-2024 Nijii |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
