I take issue with this paragraph. First of all which African countries did which European country unite and when we talk about intervention in Africa (North and Sub-Saharan), well there has been plenty of foreign intervention and meddling mostly from the West and it's very well documented. And the African Union should be handling African affairs not NATO (poinltess saying UN) which was apparently set up to counter the so called (now extinct) Soviet threat from Eastern Europe. Would you want the AU intervening in the former Yugoslavia? For example the AU has been trying to resolve the Libyan issue but NATO (read US, UK and France) won't allow it, they want to be in charge.

As for investment into Africa? The Chinese say Ni hao!

Nato never prevented the AU from negotiating in Libya the AU's proposal had Gaddafi staying in Libya and in some sort of power. The rebels have said they will accept nothing short of Gaddafi stepping down and leaving the country, Nato had nothing to do with the rebel council turning down the AU's pruposed peace deal.

Ummm the UN forces include soldiers from all kinds of nations and races. Nato just happens to be the force in Afghanistan. But even in the Libyan air offensive right now their are many nations involved in the operation who are not Nato. Also in many african conflict zones where the UN currently is have members from all over the world.

Though I must agree China and Russia and some of Eastern Europe don't contribute enough forces to UN operations. However Russian peace keepers are in operations across the world as well. Its extremely niave to think Nato is the only force fighting for the UN. Sure Nato countries contribute a shit load but they definatly don't dictate what the UN does.

As for foreign meddling if you mean influence than your right France is very influential in Africa. But for the most part many european and western countries are avoiding directly meddaling. I will bring up Ivory Coast as an example, the Western troops stationed their did not intervene until the last minute when they were called into action by the United Nations. THose countries weren't trying to influence the war or medal in the coasts affairs they only intervened once the whole world agreed to do so.

As for the AU I do support the AU going in. But I don't think African countries should be left to shoulder all of the burden alone. Example Somalia, the AU has been their for ages and even right now while the Government is having some success the United Nations could intervene and do alot better. Instead the UN is afraid to enter Somalia after their last attempt. Similiar cases in North Africa all over where the UN leaves it to the AU. But the AU on its own cannot stabalize and restore Africa to its former glory.

Also when I mentioned united African countries. I was refering to individual countries not the entire continent. Countries under British control were united and co-operating. Where countries under French control also did. Now that the European countries are all allies I think that the whole continent would be thriving and doing much better had they remained colonial.

However I think democracy and such needed to happen. I think in South Africa's place had apartied not happened and the British Government instead slowly transitioned the country into native hands it would be a far more prosperous country. Same goes for Zimbabwe and others!