Ero (2013) suggests that the goal should not be to find African solutions but to achieve better coordinated responses to specific conflicts, and ensure the better practice of conflict prevention. She argues that the AU and its member states are not short of ideas, whether appropriate or not.
Her point on achieving better coordination is a sound one. Again, her view has shown that the AU does not lack ideas but how to put it into workable and successful practice or actions. The workability is what requires a home grown solution which does not prevent copying of what others have done and giving it an indigenous character to achieve success and long term objectives of the AU in democracy, human rights and rule of law.
Agu and Okeke (2013) are of the suggestion that for the African Union to be thoroughly effective in conflict resolution it must be able to make its member states comply with AU‘s decisions and the AU has to critically develop the resolve to solve problems. The paper adds that AU has the build-in ability to become an effective player in conflicts in Africa but faces challenges that can only be overcome with extensive external support.
We can concur with Agu and Okeke that AU has the build-in ability to become an effective player in African conflicts. However, they contradict this opinion with their succeeding submission that only extensive external support can overcome AU‘s challenges in the matter. We disagree with this second submission on the ground that external support cannot lay a solid foundation for enduring conflict resolution system in Africa considering the imperial resolve by these external ―supporters‖ to satisfy their national interest in the course of such supports. Their foreign policy objectives seek power in order to first satisfy their national interests. Any external support to AU is secondary to the primary interest of the donor and in most cases their primary foreign policy interests or the underlying motives behind the supports are detrimental to the interests of the recipients of the supports.
Oguonu and Ezeibe (2014) suggest that the AU should appropriate over 70% of her annual budget to a special fund for swift response to conflict emergencies.
In as much as we accept the importance of appropriating fund adequate for swift response to urgent crisis situations, more attention should be given to programmes that will prevent such crisis. As such, if the AU appropriates 70%
of her annual budget for conflict emergencies, what goes to such programmes
and other efforts aimed at entrenching democracy, respect for human right and rule of law in the continent.
Sesay and Omotosho (2012) advocate that the alternative way would be predicated on sustainable local funding, ownership and above all, do-ability, affordability and sustainability if it is to be successful. The above views are supportive of African solution for African problems. Local funding and ownership of the entire response package by Africa are necessary to make it home grown, workable and culture friendly.
Chipaike (2012) recommends that African leaders should not hold their people at ransom by monopolising political space as this creates room for world powers that thrive on creating chaos in the hope of gaining scores in the new scramble for African resources. His recommendation is a warning to those who still think that dictatorship or monopoly of power in Africa is still a fashionable adventure.
It is a reminder that political oppression in Africa offers the opportunity for western powers to intervene selfishly.
Murithi (2009) states that the AU will need to seriously orient the political leadership of the continent and take decisive and necessary actions without which the challenges of ensuring successful peace operations will not be met.
Yes, a leadership that is capable of bringing African states to speak with one voice and act accordingly.
Ogwu (2008) is of the view that the AU will first face challenges relating to economy, trade, transportation, communication and low physical and social infrastructural development in Africa. Yes, this is true but it is important to note
that conflicts in Africa do not only prevent such developmental possibilities but in addition destroy the existing ones.
Laporte and Mackie (2013) emphasise that AU needs real leadership, effective institutions and internal integration and co-ordination for it to function properly.
They fail to tell us how these suggestions should be achieved.
Mugabe (2010) contends that with unity among states in Africa, the west cannot interfere at will. His suggestion is wonderful but he should have stated how this unity would be achieved and join hands with like minds to achieve it since he has been a long time player in AU.
Feldman (2008) avers that there must be a strong military force for conflicts in Africa to be resolved otherwise they remain unresolved.The same absence of how to apply suggestion is the case here. Feldman should have explained further to include how to apply his suggestions.