When world leaders meet in Washington to tackle the global financial crisis, Africa will be represented only by South Africa.

African officials meeting in Tunis this week to discuss the impact of the crisis argued that the continent needed better representation, given the effects that the turmoil is having in Africa as well as the continent’s growing financial importance. The complaint could apply equally to other developing countries.

The global crisis has come just as many African economies were turning a corner, buoyed by improvements in governance, technological change, debt relief, higher prices for their exports as well as inflows of funds from Asia and from Western investors seeking higher yields.

Many African countries have spent decades gearing economic policies to attract more private capital and dispel a reputation as unreliable investment destinations.

But turmoil on world markets has cut the supply of money as the world’s biggest banks shift funds from new projects to shoring up balance sheets, leaving African governments wondering how their infrastructure will get built.

African officials were dismayed not to have a bigger voice at the summit in Washington.

“Africa … was not associated even slightly with the preparation when it’s a question of deciding the future of the world to which this continent belongs, in fact and by right,” said Jean Ping, head of the African Union’s executive Commission.

Sudan’s President Omar Hassan al-Bashir was in a jubilant mood when he announced to crowds of supporters that he was declaring a ceasefire in Darfur.

From his body language, you might have thought he had already ended the crisis and achieved his goal of avoiding a possible indictment by the International Criminal Court for alleged war crimes in Darfur.

In the build-up to his speech, supporters surged to the front of the crowd waving sticks and punching the air with their fists to show their support for the army officer who came to power in Sudan in a coup in 1989. There was almost a party atmosphere.

Tanzania’s foreign minister Bernard Kamillius Membe was greeted with cheers as he announced that Sudan had shown that African countries could look after their own crises.

“The International Criminal Court is an irrelevance,” said the Tanzanian minister. “You are masters of your own destiny. Africa does not need outsiders to resolve its conflicts.”

But after the celebrations were over, serious questions remained as to what impact the ceasefire and other new measures would have on the festering Darfur conflict and the ICC prosecutor’s hope of putting Bashir on trial.

Diplomats quickly spotted loopholes in the text of Bashir’s speech.

Bashir promised an “unconditional” ceasefire in Darfur – but in the same sentence added that it would come into force “provided an effective monitoring mechanism be put into action and observed by all involved parties.”

That amounted to “a pretty big caveat” given the difficulty of establishing ceasefire mechanisms in Darfur in the past, one diplomat told me, speaking on condition of anonymity.

Analysts also questioned why Bashir had not announced any freeing of political prisoners from Darfur, another of the recommendations of the government-backed forum that came up with the proposal to call a ceasefire.

Even some officials appeared sceptical.

“Peace in Darfur will not come until the two sides sit down together and agree the issue,” said one, who declined to be named.

Past ceasefires in Darfur have come and gone bringing little change for the estimated 2.5 million Darfuris driven from their homes by more than five years of fighting.

Will this one be any different, particularly since Darfur rebel groups have said they will continue to fight and have dismissed Bashir’s ceasefire as a public relations sham? What difference could it make in a region increasingly at the prey of bandits? Could it be enough to convince sceptical Western countries to agree to postpone any indictment of Bashir?

The new U.S. command for Africa began independent operations on Wednesday, after being carved out of three other Pentagon units previously responsible for the continent. President George W. Bush originally wanted Africom to be based in Africa, and Liberia has offered to host it. But the plan met with considerable hostility on the continent, especially from big powers South Africa and Nigeria and oil giants Algeria and Libya. Many ordinary Africans were also cynical, believing Africom would be a cover for Washington to counter growing Chinese influence and control vital oil supplies from West Africa — expected to provide 25 percent of U.S. needs by 2015.

The hostility forced Washington to rethink its plans and Africom, expected to reach its full complement of 1,300 by the end of next year, began work from Stuttgart, home of the existing European command, although officials clearly expect to open a base in Africa sometime in the future. It also pushed U.S. officials to emphasise that there was no hidden agenda, that Africom would not threaten the sovereignty of any nations and that a base would not be built in Africa without the full agreement of potential host nations. They also said half of Africom’s leadership would be composed of civilian agencies including the State Department. Africom’s stated aim is to help African countries face everything from natural disasters to terrorism and its targets will including drug trafficking, arms smuggling and the kind of piracy now plaguing the waters off Somalia. Experts say U.S. forces have been cooperating quietly for years with African armies, particularly in the Horn of Africa and the Sahel where rebel and al Qaeda-affiliated groups operate. They say Africom got a bad press initially because it was associated with heavy-handed U.S. policy in Somalia and as part of the U.S.-led ”War on Terror”, but now Pentagon officials are treading more carefully, realising how sensitive Africans are about suggestions Washington is trying to dominate.

Do you believe U.S. assurances about Africom or is it the thin end of the wedge, a precursor to a boosted American military presence on the continent that could attract rather than deter terrorist attacks and infringe on the sovereignty and independence of African nations?

Transparency International’s annual corruption report card is out and there is little surprise that many African countries are well towards the bottom of the Corruption Perceptions Index.

Somalia is at 180 out of 180. Six of the 10 worst offenders are African states. The best placed African country, Botswana, is at 36 (up from 38 last year).

There are some bright spots in Africa. Nigeria jumped 26 places higher to 121 on the list - not bad for a country that ranked bottom in 2000. Mauritius rose 12 places to 41.

Lest anyone celebrate too soon in Africa’s most populous nation, however, Transparency International added a warning.

“Nigeria’s reputation as seriously committed to transparency and accountability, is dependent on the resolve of political leaders to back anti-corruption pledges with concrete action, including ensuring the independence of anti-corruption agencies,” it said.

The sacking late last year of the head of Nigeria’s corruption fighting body, who had won praise for tough action at home and abroad, has raised doubts over the commitment of the administration elected last year.

Transparency International also pointed to some countries where the picture appears to have grown worse - among them continental giant South Africa, Senegal and Uganda.

How well do you think African countries are doing in the fight against corruption? Who should be doing more? Is it a battle that can be won?

Zimbabwe’s ruling ZANU-PF and the opposition MDC are holding talks in Pretoria aimed at thrashing out a power-sharing deal to end the country’s political crisis.

President Robert Mugabe, MDC leader Morgan Tsvangirai and a smaller MDC faction signed a framework for the talks in South Africa on Monday — a deal that South African leader Thabo Mbeki said committed Zimbabwe’s political rivals to an intense timetable.

But will Mugabe and Tsvangirai’s first handshake in a decade be enough to set aside the rivalries and distrust between the two men in the wake of Zimbabwe’s disputed elections over three months ago and the June 27 run-off which Mugabe won as the sole candidate?

Mugabe has said the agreement was to “chart a new way of political interaction” while Tsvangirai said not finding a solution is not an option.

Will two weeks of talks be enough for the rival parties to settle their differences and work out a way to set up a government of national unity, promoted by the African Union and Southern African Development Community as a solution to the crisis?

Although Zimbabwe got all the headlines, the official theme of the African Union summit in the Egyptian resort of Sharm el-Sheikh was water.
That made it all the more surprising for thirsty delegates that there was none for them to drink.
Journalists covering the summit had other complaints.
Usually, these meetings are a glorious chance for reporters to grab quotes from normally elusive heads of state as they glide through the plush halls, flanked by aides and bodyguards.
But the Egyptians had other ideas at this summit. Maybe it was a sign of the sensitivity of the discussions, with Zimbabwe’s election crisis overshadowing all other topics. Or perhaps it was an indication of the immensely tight security around Egyptian President Hosni Mubarak — who escaped an assassination attempt at an African summit in Ethiopia in 1995.
Local security officials banned reporters from entering areas even two halls away from where the leaders were meeting.
A few news crews still got through, but some scuffled with President Robert Mugabe’s security men late on Sunday — the 84-year-old leader was himself knocked about. After that, security became even tighter, with journalists confined only to a smoky, overcrowded press centre.
Reporters like me and Reuters colleagues Opheera McDoom and Cynthia Johnston were banned from going to interview leaders even after their aides came to escort us to see them.
At least one official was advised not to enter the press room — to avoid provoking a crush. Egyptian security said they couldn’t guarantee the safety of officials.
Meanwhile, journalists were barricaded in one end of the building, with no food provided apart from two coffee breaks during the 12-hour days. Those offerings were devoured in seconds by a ravenous pack, depriving those who weren’t quick enough for even a dry piece of cake.
AU officials griped about the lack of hospitality too.
“This is the worst summit ever,” said one experienced AU official.

President Robert Mugabe’s re-election has sparked cries of outrage from Zimbabwean bloggers and demands for international intervention.

Mugabe’s victory in Friday’s one-candidate poll was condemned in the West and by all three African monitoring groups who said the vote was deeply flawed.

“Now we wait for the Old Man (Mugabe) to swear himself in to a power that he does not have. We wait for him to claim a throne that he stole one-dark-night-that-is-our-country. We wait for real international pressure and solidarity to force a transition,” Zimbabwean protest poet Samm Farai Monro, better known as Comrade Fatso, wrote.

Official results of the June 27 election, from which opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai withdrew a few days before the poll, showed Mugabe, 84, received 85.51 percent of the vote.

Many bloggers said the figure was rigged.

“They are cooked results and unfortunately or fortunately rather, they are not valid to the world and around us,” wrote one blogger who called himself Nice-Shona-Guy on www.newzimbabwe.com

Zimbabwe’s crisis has ruined a once prosperous country, saddling it with the world’s worst hyper-inflation and straining neighbouring nations, especially South Africa, with a flood of millions of economic refugees.

Inflation is officially 165,000 percent but analysts it is is closer to nine million percent.

One blogger linked the election results to inflation.

“Somehow, despite mass intimidation, gross violence, increasing poverty, murders, and hyper-inflation, Robert Mugabe’s popularity accelerated faster than our inflation figures — which is quite something”.

The majority of bloggers were against Mugabe although some of those posting comments questioned what right other African states had to criticise him.

“How can the African Union punish Mugabe they are guilty of worse things in their countries,” said Jon.

Human rights groups, monitors and witnesses have accused pro-Mugabe militias of forcing people to vote in some areas with beatings and intimidation.

The MDC said a state-backed campaign of violence had killed at least 90 of its supporters and injured thousands.

Bloggers also had tough words for South African President Thabo Mbeki, whose mediation attempts in Zimbabwe have so far failed.

“Zimbabweans let’s react by sending money to Zimbabwe for our relatives to move over to South Africa then Mbeki should realise his stupidity. Congratulations to (the) Mbeki and Mugabe marriage,” said Negondo on www.newzimbabwe.com

More than 60 people, including Zimbabweans, died last month in wave of brutal xenophobic attacks on African immigrants which shocked South Africa.

Some three million Zimbabweans have already fled to neighbouring South Africa to escape the economic collapse of their once-prosperous country.

Tsvangirai also came under fire for pulling out of the run-off.

“You (Tsvangirai) are slowly letting the people of Zimbabwe down. It seems you are desperate to be the one in office and the one to rule the people. You should not be the one under pressure, that is for Mugabe. But you are falling into his trap and playing his game,” a blogger who called himself Chinja commented.

Despite a crisis that has reduced many Zimbabweans to poverty, their sense of humour continued to show on blogs.

Bev Clark wrote that in the context of frequent water and electricity cuts and spiralling hyper-inflation which has led to a worthless currency, there are some things not to say to a Zimbabwean woman.

They are: “Can I run you a nice hot bath?”, “You look like a million dollars” and “Would you like a candlelit dinner tonight?”

A loaf of bread now costs 6 billion Zimbabwe dollars.

Rich countries look set to fall roughly $40 billion short of the amount they had pledged to give to Africa by 2010. So says a report released on Monday by the panel set up to monitor commitments made amid much fanfare at the Group of Eight summit in 2005.

The panel said G8 countries were not keeping their promises at the very moment rising food prices threaten to increase hunger and child mortality. The report also calls for a rethink of trade policies to help African countries and urges rich nations to spend more on renewable energy sources there.

But how important is aid for Africa?

Africa’s economies have been growing at their fastest in decades — the International Monetary Fund estimates African growth at well over 6 percent in 2007 and expects similar this year.

Not so long ago, net private capital flows to Africa were negligible or even negative.

But investment has soared, with China leading a rush to develop sources of raw materials. Globally, investors have been looking at Africa more seriously in the hope of potentially higher returns than in more developed markets that now face uncertainty.

Emergency aid has certainly helped to save lives during wars, famines and natural disasters, but has aid helped Africa overall? Has it held it back? Does Africa need aid now?

Have your say.

Win or not in November, U.S. Senator Barack Obama has already become a hero to Africans.

He is a household name, putting a smile on everybody’s lips and spreading pride across the continent.

Now millions of Africans hope this son of a Kenyan father can turn his nomination to the Democratic presidential candidacy into a place in the White House.

But if he wins, is Barack Obama an answer to Africa’s problems? 

Would an Obama-led USA prioritise issues of poverty, AIDS and trade in Africa? Or would bigger global conundrums like Iraq, the Middle East and the West’s response to the rise of China take precedence as before?

Here are some views from around the continent.

So what tangible benefits would a black U.S. president bring to Africa? And what does Africa have to offer Obama? Have your say.

By reaching the gates of Khartoum, Darfur rebels have dealt one of the heaviest blows to Sudan’s traditionally Arab ruling elite since independence in 1956.

Early on Sunday, it looked as though government assertions that the army had beaten back the initial assault were true, but what is the attack going to mean for Africa’s biggest country and the way it is run?

The peace deal with south Sudanese rebels in 2005 made clear Khartoum could no longer afford to rule by force over a mostly black African region where Christians and animists predominate.

Now rebels from Muslim, but largely non-Arab, Darfur have shown the ability of groups who feel neglected in the rest of Sudan to take the battle to Khartoum.
Will there be retaliation in Darfur? Sudan has oil money to buy weapons, but if the war could be won militarily then why has that not happened already?

Will it be a fight to the death between leaders in Sudan and Chad, who accuse each other - by many accounts fairly — of backing each other’s rebels? Or will they have to find a real accommodation?

Could the rebel assault in the longer term push Sudan and the fractious Darfur rebel factions into real peace talks?

And if that happened, would it lead to a more durable Sudan or towards the breakup of a state whose borders were drawn by British imperialists?

What do you think?