[MaxShimba]

Would a United States of Africa work?

Do you think African leaders should agree to speed up the economic and political integration of their continent to pursue the goal of a United States of Africa?

'Pop star and activist Bono Vox in 2008 while in Japan has called for the creation of a United States of Africa, saying that a "pan-continental identity would serve as a catalyst for resolving its conflicts".'

Is this the time for U S of Africa?

[Ab-Titchaz]

Would a United States of Africa work?

Do you think African leaders should agree to speed up the economic and political integration of their continent to pursue the goal of a United States of Africa?

'Pop star and activist Bono Vox in 2008 while in Japan has called for the creation of a United States of Africa, saying that a "pan-continental identity would serve as a catalyst for resolving its conflicts".'

Is this the time for U S of Africa?

Mkuu.

kem tafakari.

...Muungano na Zenj una kasheshe.

...Muungano wa EAC bado kuna shauku na dukuduku maana papa wengi majini.

....Algeria na Misri ndo kwanza hakieleweki kisingizio leo hii eti ni zile fujo za mechi za soccer kati yao, Sudan.

...Morrocco kuna ishu ya Polisario.

...Hapo mitaa ya Kati yaani hapaeleweki maana kuna tetesi eti kuna makabila flani yanataka kuanzisha himaya.

...Somalia nako nilikua nimeulizia?...mwisho kulikua na serikali ilikua lini vile?

...Kwa juu hapo naye Al Bashir anasakanywa kwa mauaji ya watu Darfur na pia watu wa kusini chini ya SPLM wanaeza kuamua kivyao vyao.

..Eritrea nao vp mambo huko na ndugu zetu wa Djibouti sijui?..Kaanchi kadogo lakini fujo tele.

...kule Madagscar nasikia eti 'd-jei' alichukua uongozi?Kaazi kweli kweli.

...Hahaha karibu nimsahau Nguli wa Zimbabwe...vp nako kule? Nasikia uchumi unatumiwa kuwashia kuni eti?

Bado unataka niendeleze kochokocho za ndoto ya hii kitu?

Now tell me how do you merge this scenario into one?

[Companero]

Mpaka Bono aseme? Mbona Nkrumah alishasema! Na Nyerere akasisitiza!

African unity: Feeling with Nkrumah, thinking with Nyerere

RECLAIMING AFRICA’S WIND OF CHANGE

The times have indeed changed. What was known as the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) is now called the African Union (AU). It is just a matter of time before we see a United States of Africa (‘USA’) in our lifetime. At least that is what Pan-Africanists envision.

Any change tends to be characterised by both discontinuity and continuity. Discontinuity of what was/is meant to be changed. Continuity of the vision associated with a mission of bringing that change.

It is such continuity that this article seeks to address. Why? Simply because the terms of the debate on how to unite African states has not changed significantly since Osagyefo Kwame Nkrumah and Mwalimu Julius Nyerere locked horns on the matter in the early 1960s.

REPOSITIONING NKRUMAH – NYERERE’S DEBATE ON UNITING AFRICA

The thoughts and sentiments of these two great Pan-Africanists on how to achieve African Unity still divide us today. There are those who side with Nkrumah. Others side with Nyerere. Yet some of us are caught somewhere in between.

Note, for instance, the position advanced by Ebou Faye in Dr Kwame Nkrumah: Remembering Africa’s Most Influential and Greatest in the 21st Century. Therein he claims that it was Nyerere who frustrated Nkrumah when he ‘cunningly pushed through a resolution which urged the OAU to accept the colonial borders as permanent, recognised frontiers of the OAU member states.’ Nyerere indeed admitted in 1992 and 1997 that he was responsible for moving that resolution which was carried by a simple majority at the 1964 OAU Summit in Cairo with two reservations: Morocco and Somalia.

This move, Faye further asserts, ‘was in collaboration with Emperor Haile Selassie, who one year earlier had annexed Eritrea’ and that ‘though Nyerere claimed that the intention was to minimise border conflicts in Africa,’ the ‘underlying motive of the resolution was to frustrate Nkrumah and his Pan-Africanist ideals.’ These ideals called for a speedy continental unity as early as 1965.

For the likes of Faye the choice was and is as clear as crystal: Nkrumah’s speedy way toward a United States of Africa, rather than Nyerere’s gradual way toward African Unity. And to the Fayes, Nyerere was ‘the architect of the OAU status quo’ because he ‘cunningly pushed through’ that resolution which allegedly made OAU cease ‘to be an instrument of the Pan-African revolutionary change.’

As such, they contend, even ‘the liberation of the remaining colonies was conceived in the context of maintaining this status quo’ and that the OAU became its ‘apologist’. The situation became worse, they further contend, to the extent that in 1972 Nyerere himself publicly admitted that ‘the OAU had become no more than a ‘trade union of Africa’s heads of state.’

Then there is another relatively less polarised position advanced by the Mwalimu Nyerere Professor in Pan-African Studies at the University of Dar-es-Salaam, Issa Shivji, in his Bill Dudley memorial lecture on ‘Pan-Africanism or Imperialism? Unity and Struggle towards a New Democratic Africa’ on 17 July 2005. Shivji sides with Nkrumah’s position yet bails out Nyerere’s supposedly recanted position. After quoting in full Nyerere’s speech at the 40th independence anniversary of Ghana in 1997, Shivji concludes that in that quote ‘Nyerere is no doubt vindicating Nkrumah’s position’ and asks rhetorically if thus Nyerere ‘is also critiquing his own position of step by step, any unity?’

Ironically, that same quote – coupled with what Nyerere went on say prior to his untimely death in 1999 – proves that he never abandoned his own pragmatic position of step by step continental unity. In fact it shows how impractical Nkrumah’s position was vis-à-vis Nyerere’s practical approach. To get the context, lets revisit this quotable quote of Nyerere’s that Shivji was referring to.

As ‘the greatest crusader for African Unity’, generously notes Nyerere, Nkrumah ‘wanted the Accra summit of 1965 to establish a Union Government for the whole independent Africa’. But, he admits, they failed. ‘The one main reason’, Nyerere further notes, ‘is that Kwame, like all great believers, underestimated the degree of suspicion and animosity which his crusading passion had created among a substantial number of his fellow heads of states.’

The major reason, however, confesses Nyerere, is that already too many of them ‘had a vested interest in keeping Africa divided.’ He then echoes his 1960s prophetic warning on the necessity of establishing an ‘East African Federation’ prior to independence by reiterating why Nkrumah encountered such resistance.

Such opposition, affirms Nyerere, naturally happens because once ‘you multiply national anthems, national flags and national passports, seats at the United Nations, and individuals entitled to 21 guns salute, not to speak of a host of ministers, prime ministers, and envoys, you would have a whole army of powerful people with vested interests in keeping Africa balkanised.’

Tellingly, Nyerere reminisced how in that summit he heard ‘one head of state express with relief that he was happy to be returning home to his country still head of state.’ Even though he was not sure if this leader was serious or joking – although Nkrumah ‘was very serious and the fear of a number of’ leaders ‘to lose’ their ‘status was palpable’ – Nyerere thus reiterates his then pragmatic scepticism:

‘But I never believed that the 1965 Accra summit would have established a union government for Africa. When I say that we failed, that is not what I mean, for that clearly was an unrealistic objective for a single summit. What I mean is that we did not even discuss a mechanism for pursuing the objective of a politically united Africa. We had a liberation committee already. We should have at least had a unity committee or undertaken to establish one. We did not. And after Kwame Nkrumah was removed from the African political scene nobody took up the challenge again.’

Contrary to what some Pan-Africanist revisionists would want us to believe, Nyerere was solidly consistent in his pragmatic position. While it is correct to argue, as Shivji does in his Bill Dudley lecture, that Nkrumah had much earlier held the gradualist position but was quick to learn from experience and switch to a fast-track position, it is equally correct to argue that Nyerere had also earlier held a fast-track position in the context of regionalisation but was quick to learn from experience and switch to gradualism.

In his 1960s call for an East African Federation prior to the independence of Tanganyika, Kenya, Uganda and Zanzibar, Nyerere ridiculed what he referred as the camps of the ‘bados’, that is, those who were saying ‘bado kidogo’ as in ‘we are almost ready but not yet so lets wait a bit’ to federate. He even asserted that this was the same argument that imperialists used to delay our uhuru.

Therein Nyerere used case studies of Somaliland/Somalia, India/Pakistan, Nigeria, Canada and USA among others to prove it was relatively easier to federate prior to independence, paying homage to what he hailed as ‘the most brilliant and far-sighted sons of Africa’, that is, Nkrumah and Ahmed Sekou Toure, for managing a then exception to that rule by uniting Ghana and Guinea after they became independent.

This is the Nyerere who was ready to delay the independence of Tanganyika so as to fast-track the East African Federation. ‘The balkanisation of Africa,’ he insisted, ‘is a source of weakness to our continent’ and that the ‘forces of imperialism and neo-imperialism will find their own strength in this basic weakness of our continent.’ Thus he saw that golden chance of removing the balkanisation of East Africa as a chance to undo part of the harm of continental balkanisation and as a step toward continental unity.

Barring conspiracy theories about being a stooge of Anglo-American Imperialism, it is this experience that made Nyerere lock horns with Nkrumah on the feasibility of fast-tracking unity. Out of this experience there is no way, unless conspiracy theories hold water, that Nyerere displayed what Shivji’s (200 ‘Pan-Africanism or Pragmatism: Lesson of Tanganyika-Zanzibar Union’ refers to as ‘his limited appreciation of Nkrumah’s analysis of imperialism as a world system in which Africans could stand tall only as a politically united continent’ when he thus responded to his criticism at the 1964 OAU Summit:

‘To rule out a step by step progress towards African Unity is to hope that the Almighty will one day say, ‘Let there be unity in Africa’, and there shall be unity; or pray for a conqueror, but even a conqueror will have to proceed step by step. To say that the step was invented by the imperialists is to reach the limits of absurdity. I have heard the imperialists blamed for many things, but not for the limitations of mankind. They are not God!’

Indeed Nyerere lacked the economic sophistication of Nkrumah, but that by no means means that he did not then have a deep sense of the neo-colonial dynamics of imperialism. To prove that, one only has to reread his writings prior to the 1960s, such as his 1958 pamphlet on ‘National Property’ to see how he apprehensively foresaw, and tried to avert, the ongoing neo-colonisation of land tenure in Tanzania.

REVISITING THE DILEMMA OF THE PAN-AFRICANIST

What then made Nyerere ‘oppose’ Nkrumah? The answer, I think, lies buried in Bill Sutherland and Matt Meyer’s 1992 interview with Nyerere on ‘Mwalimu, Tanzania, and the Meaning of Freedom’ and in Ikaweba Bunting’s (199 ‘The Heart of Africa. Interview with Julius Nyerere on Anti-Colonialism’:

In the case of the former interview, Nyerere thus reminisced:

‘My differences with Kwame were that Kwame thought there was somehow a shortcut, and I was saying that there was no shortcut. This is what we have inherited, and we’ll have to proceed within the limitations that that inheritance has imposed upon us. Kwame thought that somehow you could say, “Let there be a United States of Africa” and it would happen. I kept saying “Kwame, it’s a slow process.” He had tremendous contempt for a large number of the leaders of Africa and I said, “Fine, but they are there. What are you going to do with them? They don’t believe as you do – as you and I do – in the need for the unity of Africa. BUT WHAT DO YOU DO? THEY ARE THERE AND WE HAVE TO PROCEED ALONG WITH EVERYBODY!” And I said to him in so many words that we’re not going to have an African Napoleon, who is going to conquer the continent and put it under one flag. It is not possible. At the OAU Conference in 1963, I was actually trying to defend Kwame. I was the last to speak and Kwame had said this [OAU] charter has not gone far enough because he thought he would leave Addis with a United States of Africa. I told him that this was absurd; that it can’t happen. This is what we have been able to achieve. No builder, after putting the foundation down, complains that the building is not yet finished. You have to go on building and building until you finish, but he was impatient because he saw the stupidity of others.

In the case of the latter interview, Nyerere thus recollected:

‘Kwame Nkrumah and I were committed to the idea of unity. African leaders and heads of state did not take Kwame seriously. However, I did. I did not believe in these small little nations. Still today I do not believe in them. I tell our people to look at the European Union, at these people who ruled us who are now uniting. Kwame and I met in 1963 and discussed African Unity. We differed on how to achieve a United States of Africa. But we both agreed on a United States of Africa as necessary. Kwame went to Lincoln University, a black college in the US. He perceived things from the perspective of US history, where the 13 colonies that revolted against the British formed a union. That is what he thought the OAU should do. I tried to get East Africa to unite before independence. When we failed in this I was wary about Kwame's continental approach. We corresponded profusely on this. Kwame said my idea of ‘regionalisation’ was only balkanisation on a larger scale. Later African historians will have to study our correspondence on this issue of uniting Africa. Africans who studied in the US like Nkrumah and [Nigerian independence leader] Azikiwe were more aware of the diaspora and the global African community than those of us who studied in Britain. They were therefore aware of a wider Pan-Africanism. Theirs was the aggressive Pan-Africanism of W.E.B. Du Bois and Marcus Garvey. The colonialists were against this and frightened of it.

Such was a context in which Nyerere clashed with Nkrumah. In his own words, ‘it was when we were very close to a federation of East African states and Kwame was completely opposed to the idea.’ His, then, was the most practical solution given the fact that organic movements of the people, such as the Pan-African Movement for East and Central Africa (PAFMECA), had made strides toward regionalisation whilst the preamble of the OAU Charter that stated ‘we the heads of state’ rather than ‘we the people’ was ironically creating a bureaucratic Pan-Africanist political project. Later on these groupings would have come together naturally to form bigger units and, ultimately, a greater African unity. This is a position that Nyerere consistently held, as his ‘Reflections’ during his 75th Birthday celebration in 1997 thus attest:

‘The small countries in Africa must move towards either unity or cooperation, unity of Africa…if we can’t move towards bigger nation states, at least let’s move toward greater cooperation. This is beginning to happen. And the new leadership in Africa should encourage it… southern Africa has a tremendous opportunity… because of South Africa… but you need leadership, because if you get proper leadership there, within the next ten fifteen years that region is going to be the ASEAN (Association of Southeast Asian Nations) of Africa… West Africa. Another bloc is developing there, but that depends very much on Nigeria… The leadership will have to come from Nigeria…’

It is people’s loyalties to these regional blocs as well as nations that pose what Nyerere referred to in 1966 as ‘The Dilemma of the Pan-Africanist’. ‘On the one hand’, he noted, ‘is the fact that Pan-Africanism demands an African consciousness and African loyalty; on the other hand is the fact that each Pan-Africanist must also concern himself with the freedom and development of one of the nations of Africa.’

It is not surprising, then, that the latest Afrobarometer Survey conducted in 2008 showed that the majority of Tanzanians do not support the political and military unification of East Africa even though they are supportive of its economic integration. Interestingly, the majority of Tanzanians also told the presidential committee that collected public views in 2007 on fast-tracking the proposed East African political federation that they were in favour of a gradual approach. Once again most citizens are on the side of Nyerere’s pragmatism. One can easily guess what they would say to a proposed United States of Africa.

CONCLUSION: RETHINKING PAN-AFRICAN NATIONALISM

My heart is with Nkrumah. I still get moved when I read his electrifying ‘Address to the conference of African heads of state and government’ on 24 May 1963 in Addis Ababa. But it is as unrealistic now, especially with Colonel Muamar Gaddafi at the helm of the AU, as it was then when Emperor Haile Selassie was the head of OAU. As such, my mind is with Nyerere. His pragmatic way is still valid today.

Thus to me the question is not Pan-Africanism or pragmatism? Rather, it is wither pragmatic Pan-African patriotism? To that end, I will feel with Nkrumah, yet I shall think with Nyerere.

Yes, Africa must unite, albeit, pragmatically!

[Nyani Ngabu]

Hakuna lolote kwenye hili zaidi ya njozi

[Companero]

Hakuna lolote kwenye hili zaidi ya njozi

Kila kitu kinaanza na Njozi. EU ni njozi. USSR ilikuwa njozi. Hata USAmerica ilikuwa ni njozi.

[Nyani Ngabu]

Kila kitu kinaanza na Njozi. EU ni njozi. USSR ilikuwa njozi. Hata USAmerica ilikuwa ni njozi.

Sawa...lakini vingine hubakia kuwa njozi tu...

[MwanaFalsafa1]

Would a United States of Africa work?

Do you think African leaders should agree to speed up the economic and political integration of their continent to pursue the goal of a United States of Africa?

Europe has been moving forward asimilar thing for over fifty years now. There started with the European Community up until the current European Union. They started integration of little things up until now when there integrating big institutions(Like currency etc). Even with the economic stability and relative peace of Europe, they are still not one country yet.

Now take a look at Africa. People don't speak the same languages from region to region, our economy is in a bad shape, there are border disputes almost everywhere, our infrastructure is poor, selfish and corrupt leaders.. All those things make it hard for Africa to be one giant country but there is one important question that we don't seem to ask ourselves. Do we as Africans consider ourselves African's first then our individual countries second? If we unite are we going to do what's best for Africa or what's best for our individual nations? Becoming the United States of Africa requires more than just erasing colonial borders and coming together and one government. There must be a sense of "utaifa" which is not there at the moment.

[COLOR=red] 'Pop star and activist Bono Vox in 2008 while in Japan has called for the creation of a United States of Africa, saying that a "pan-continental identity would serve as a catalyst for resolving its conflicts".'

Is this the time for U S of Africa?

How can a Western pop star actually know what's best for Africa? He's heart might be in the right place (I doubt) but are we going to take Bono's word as motivation to unite? He is merely giving an opinion which he can't possibly back up with facts and realities from the ground. He says it will be a catalyst for solving problems but he doesn't say how. If being one nation is the answer to conflicts then we wouldn't have civil wars now would we? And what about the other problems we have? It will be embarrassing for us with all the talent and minds we have for as to do something based on the words of a foreign pop star.


A United States of Africa is a good dream but it is impractical and illogical. There will be a power struggle which will just create more problems.How do we stop corrupt dictators from having an even larger market to exploit (going from individual countries to now raking the resources of the whole continent. How do we form a government which will be representative of it's citizens? There will be people in rural areas who don't even know that they are now citizens of Africa and not Tanzania, Nigeria etc. There will be a language barrier. What language will people from Tanzania use to communicate with people from Sudan? What will be the official language? With the poor infrastructure one would hardly be able to go around his new country. Questions after questions which I doubt will have any practical answers.

[Tumain]

Nafikiri ni possible lakini must be stpe by step; model iwe hii ya EAC with one languange kiswahili uniting people..then tuwaingize kongo, malawi na sudan...it might be there 100 years to come...

[Companero]

Sawa...lakini vingine hubakia kuwa njozi tu...

Hiyo sentensi haina hakika - its a fallacy, ask Bluray to prove that for you!

[MwanaFalsafa1]

Kila kitu kinaanza na Njozi. EU ni njozi. USSR ilikuwa njozi. Hata USAmerica ilikuwa ni njozi.

E.U. bado ni njozi because it is not yet one united country even after fifty years of trying to unite it. They are close but not there yet. Now compare the facts in Europe and the facts in Africa. Let's be realistic a little bit.

I don't think giving the USSR serves your point well. First of all most of the soviets states were forced into joining the USSR. Do you want African nations to be forced to join the union? Second of all the USSR collapsed. So you are giving an example of a failure to try and justify what you think will be a success.

The Unites States started of with thirteen colonies. There is no way you can start a United States of Africa with just thirteen of it's more than fifty nations. The people in the United States who were initially united were basically the same people of the same race with a similar history and background who had the same language, same religion and the same culture. Can you say that about Africa and all it's diversity? And after they united they started what was called "Manifest destination" which means they set out to expand in areas which had little population in the first place and if they found indigenous tribes they killed them off. They also conquered some land by te barrel of a gun example Texas which was a part of mexico.

So you should know Africa is a different place in a different time from all of your above examples.

[Nyani Ngabu]

Hiyo sentensi haina hakika - its a fallacy, ask Bluray to prove that for you!

Haya tubinuke sarakasi za semantics sasa. Unasema "sentensi haina hakika" halafu unaiita "fallacy". Amua moja.

Pili, hadi Afrika itakapoungana, hilo wazo litabaki ni sawa na njozi tu. Kwa hiyo, kwa mtaji huo, bado niko sahihi. Tokea hilo wazo lizaliwe, limekuwa njozi tu. Unabisha?

[Companero]

Haya tubinuke sarakasi za semantics sasa. Unasema "sentensi haina hakika" halafu unaiita "fallacy". Amua moja.

Pili, hadi Afrika itakapoungana, hilo wazo litabaki ni sawa na njozi tu. Kwa hiyo, kwa mtaji huo, bado niko sahihi. Tokea hilo wazo lizaliwe, limekuwa njozi tu. Unabisha?

Naposema haina 'hakika' namaanisha si ya kweli i.e. it is fallacious. Njozi (Vision) ni uono wa mbali. Huwezi kusema njozi inabakia au imebakia njozi tu kwa kuwa hujaishi mpaka wakati wa hiyo 'mbali' itakapotokea. Kuna njozi zinachukua mpaka miaka 100 kutimia na kwa sasa ukomo wa maisha (life expectancy) ya Mitanzania ni chini ya nusu karne hivyo Jitanzania haliwezi kusema kwa hakika kuwa njozi ya Umoja wa Afrika imebakia njozi tu!

[MaxShimba]

Mkuu.

kem tafakari.

...Muungano na Zenj una kasheshe.

...Muungano wa EAC bado kuna shauku na dukuduku maana papa wengi majini.

....Algeria na Misri ndo kwanza hakieleweki kisingizio leo hii eti ni zile fujo za mechi za soccer kati yao, Sudan.

...Morrocco kuna ishu ya Polisario.

...Hapo mitaa ya Kati yaani hapaeleweki maana kuna tetesi eti kuna makabila flani yanataka kuanzisha himaya.

...Somalia nako nilikua nimeulizia?...mwisho kulikua na serikali ilikua lini vile?

...Kwa juu hapo naye Al Bashir anasakanywa kwa mauaji ya watu Darfur na pia watu wa kusini chini ya SPLM wanaeza kuamua kivyao vyao.

..Eritrea nao vp mambo huko na ndugu zetu wa Djibouti sijui?..Kaanchi kadogo lakini fujo tele.

...kule Madagscar nasikia eti 'd-jei' alichukua uongozi?Kaazi kweli kweli.

...Hahaha karibu nimsahau Nguli wa Zimbabwe...vp nako kule? Nasikia uchumi unatumiwa kuwashia kuni eti?

Bado unataka niendeleze kochokocho za ndoto ya hii kitu?

Now tell me how do you merge this scenario into one?

Mkuu naona umeamuwa kuweka ukweli wazi, anyway, hivi uwoga unakuja kwasababu tulishindwa ule Muungano wa Kwanza wa East Afrika au ni kuogopa kujaribu ngwe ya pili ya EA halafu baadae US of Africa?

Tuna watu wenye alimu kubwa, tuna ardhi safi sana, tuna maziwa na mito kibao. Sasa, tatizo lipo wapi mkuu?

[MaxShimba]

Kila kitu kinaanza na Njozi. EU ni njozi. USSR ilikuwa njozi. Hata USAmerica ilikuwa ni njozi.

I think you are very correct Mkuu. Hata mtoto huwa anaanza kujaribu kutembea, halafu baadae huwa anatembea, sasa kama tukiogopa, kujaribu tu kutembea, hivi, kweli tutaweza kutembea?

EU inaendela, US of America, inaendela, nafikiri hii ni mifano tosha ya kutuhamasisha.

[MaxShimba]

Europe has been moving forward asimilar thing for over fifty years now. There started with the European Community up until the current European Union. They started integration of little things up until now when there integrating big institutions(Like currency etc). Even with the economic stability and relative peace of Europe, they are still not one country yet.

Now take a look at Africa. People don't speak the same languages from region to region, our economy is in a bad shape, there are border disputes almost everywhere, our infrastructure is poor, selfish and corrupt leaders.. All those things make it hard for Africa to be one giant country but there is one important question that we don't seem to ask ourselves. Do we as Africans consider ourselves African's first then our individual countries second? If we unite are we going to do what's best for Africa or what's best for our individual nations? Becoming the United States of Africa requires more than just erasing colonial borders and coming together and one government. There must be a sense of "utaifa" which is not there at the moment.



How can a Western pop star actually know what's best for Africa? He's heart might be in the right place (I doubt) but are we going to take Bono's word as motivation to unite? He is merely giving an opinion which he can't possibly back up with facts and realities from the ground. He says it will be a catalyst for solving problems but he doesn't say how. If being one nation is the answer to conflicts then we wouldn't have civil wars now would we? And what about the other problems we have? It will be embarrassing for us with all the talent and minds we have for as to do something based on the words of a foreign pop star.


A United States of Africa is a good dream but it is impractical and illogical. There will be a power struggle which will just create more problems.How do we stop corrupt dictators from having an even larger market to exploit (going from individual countries to now raking the resources of the whole continent. How do we form a government which will be representative of it's citizens? There will be people in rural areas who don't even know that they are now citizens of Africa and not Tanzania, Nigeria etc. There will be a language barrier. What language will people from Tanzania use to communicate with people from Sudan? What will be the official language? With the poor infrastructure one would hardly be able to go around his new country. Questions after questions which I doubt will have any practical answers.

Mkuu, Bono Vox anasaidia sana Uganda, na huwa anakwenda zaidi ya mara moja kwa mwaka Uganda kuendeleza misaada yake.

Sasa, huyu Mkuu wa U2, nafikiri ameona kitu fulani ndio maana akatoa huo wito. Well, he might be correct and very correct. Kwasabau, mpaka hii leo, Africa ni bara lililo zidi utegemeza ingawa tuna kila kitu, kuanzia, elimu, ardhi, watu, mali asili, madini, oil, bahari, mito, etc etc etc.

Au labda, tuangalie, tatizo linaanzia wapi. Labda ni uongozi mbovu ambao viongozi wetu wanao, ingawa ni sisi wenyewe tumewachaguwa. Au, labda ni sisi Wananchi wa Africa!

[MaxShimba]

Nafikiri ni possible lakini must be stpe by step; model iwe hii ya EAC with one languange kiswahili uniting people..then tuwaingize kongo, malawi na sudan...it might be there 100 years to come...

Mkuu, well, I am with you. I believe it is possible. Ingawa miaka mkuu, umeweka mingi sana.

[MwanaFalsafa1]

Mkuu, Bono Vox anasaidia sana Uganda, na huwa anakwenda zaidi ya mara moja kwa mwaka Uganda kuendeleza misaada yake.

Sasa, huyu Mkuu wa U2, nafikiri ameona kitu fulani ndio maana akatoa huo wito. Well, he might be correct and very correct. Kwasabau, mpaka hii leo, Africa ni bara lililo zidi utegemeza ingawa tuna kila kitu, kuanzia, elimu, ardhi, watu, mali asili, madini, oil, bahari, mito, etc etc etc.

Au labda, tuangalie, tatizo linaanzia wapi. Labda ni uongozi mbovu ambao viongozi wetu wanao, ingawa ni sisi wenyewe tumewachaguwa. Au, labda ni sisi Wananchi wa Africa!

Mkuu kuna nchi nyingi sana zimeendelea bila kuungana. Mifano iko mingi. Muungano wa Afrika siyo suluhisho. Let's be for real mkuu wangu do you really think a Unites States of Africa is the answer to our problems? Who are going to govern that government? The same corrupt leaders that govern the individual states now. na Bono kutembelea Uganda kila mwaka does not constitute him knowing our problems and the solutions to them.I don't think he is qualified enough for us to take his words for more than just merely a suggestion from a pop star.

[Juma Contena]

I think you are very correct Mkuu. Hata mtoto huwa anaanza kujaribu kutembea, halafu baadae huwa anatembea, sasa kama tukiogopa, kujaribu tu kutembea, hivi, kweli tutaweza kutembea?

EU inaendela, US of America, inaendela, nafikiri hii ni mifano tosha ya kutuhamasisha.

mh, mtoto ni mtoto na anastage zake kama ulivyo zisema, lakini kitendo cha kuwaambia watoto wafunge ndoa ni kwamba unataka kuwapa tabu ya maisha tu.

Hivyo tusi-compare community zingine ambazo zipo well developed and know exactly what they're put themselves in, na sisi.

Viongozi wetu hawajui hata nini maana ya true democracy wala to guide their own nations. leo tena ukawape complicated policies za continent. Nchi ambazo zipo under developed zitakua disadvanted in terms of kunyonywa, lets wait like that guiness advert say good things comes to those who wait for.

After all hata huo muungano wa EAC aukuanza kwa pupa kama hawa jamaa wanavyotaka it took them a long time to get to where they are today.

[Ndahani]

Mara nyingine tunapenda kushindwa hata kabla hatujaanza, ndio bahati mbaya yetu.

[MwanaFalsafa1]

I think you are very correct Mkuu. Hata mtoto huwa anaanza kujaribu kutembea, halafu baadae huwa anatembea, sasa kama tukiogopa, kujaribu tu kutembea, hivi, kweli tutaweza kutembea?

EU inaendela, US of America, inaendela, nafikiri hii ni mifano tosha ya kutuhamasisha.

You couldn't have said it better. Mtoto ana jaribu kutembea kwanza lakini mtoto huyu (EAC) ana jaribu kukimbia wakati hata kutembea hajajua bado. End result is mtoto atadondoka vibaya na kuumia.