This week's G8 summit in Japan marks 6 years since the group of the world's top industrial nations adopted a comprehensive action plan to support initiatives to spur the development of Africa. The G8 Africa Action Plan adopted at a summit in Kananaskis, Canada, in 2002 was seen as the biggest boost to Africa's own home-grown development initiative, the New Partnership for Africa's Development, NEPAD. The G8 Plan pledges to help Africa tackle the main obstacles to its development -- from promoting peace and security, to boosting trade and implementing debt relief to expanding education, health facilities and fighting HIV/AIDS.

As a followup to the Action Plan, the G8 at its 2005 summit in Scotland agreed to double aid by 2010 to $50 billion, half of which would go to Africa. But as G8 leaders prepared  for this year's summit in Japan, the Africa Progress Panel set up to monitor implementation of the 2005 commitments issued a gloomy report last month. It said under current spending the G8 would fall $40 billion short of its target. Other aid agency officials accused the G8 of backtracking on its pledges to Africa.

But some analysts argue that agreements reached at the 2005 summit were just a part of the G8 Africa Action Plan which offers a far more comprehensive framework for dealing with the continent's problems. Britain under Prime Minister Tony Blair played a leading role in placing Africa's problems at the top of the G8 agenda. The UK progress report details London's implementation of the G8 Action Plan including its role as lead international partner in Sierra Leone after helping to end civil war in the former colony in 2002. US President George W. Bush has won praise in Africa for commiting more of the administrations's resources to Africa's war against HIV/AIDS.

But overall, has the G8 kept faith with Africa in the implementation of the Africa Action Plan? How have the decisions of the G8 helped your country or your personal life? Has NEPAD shown enough capacity to keep the G8 focused on its pledges? Is the G8 likely to switch its focus from Africa to more pressing global issues like soaring oil prices and the threat of inflation and recession in its own member countries? Have your say.

Can President Robert Mugabe be trusted to implement the resolution of the African Union summit calling for dialogue and a government of national unity to end Zimbabwe's long-running crisis? According to Mugabe's camp, he can. "The AU resolution is in conformity to what President Mugabe said at his inauguration, when he said we are prepared to talk in order to resolve our problems," his Information Minister Sikhanyiso Ndlovu told Reuters a day after the AU passed the resolution on July 1.

While opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai and his Movement for Demoratic Change (MDC) say they have kept the door open for negotiations, he says conditions are not yet right for talks. The MDC also makes clear its objective is a transitional arrangement leading to fresh elections rather than a unity government.  The crisis could conceivably be stuck on that difference.

The summit followed Mugabe's controversial re-election in a run-off poll in which he was the sole candidate. Tsvangirai defeated Mugabe in the first round but pulled out of the run-off amid violence and intimidation directed at the MDC and blamed on Mugabe's camp. The AU resolution expressed concern about the violence.

The AU resolution clearly calls for a Government of National Unity (GNU) as opposed to demands by the MDC and Western governments for a Transitional Government. Political analyst Cheryl Hendricks of Pretoria-based Institute for Security Studies makes a strong case for transitional government in Zimbabwe given the highly polarised situation in the country.

"We primarily have two polarised parties each asserting their legitimate right to rule without the prospect of settling the dispute amicably through elections in the near future," Hendricks wrote in a paper posted on the ISS website on July 2. "The prospects of unity, given these conditions, are highly unlikley and a cobbled together GNU will be unstable."

Here are further points to consider in relation to the AU's resolution:

•  The resolution upholds the mediation effort of the regional bloc SADC led by South African President Thabo Mbeki. The SADC formally appointed Mbeki to this role in March 2007 but he has been mediating in the Zimbabwe crisis since the country's  disputed 2002 presidential election. Mbeki has been widely condemned for his policy of quiet diplomacy with Mugabe.
• The resolution calls on the SADC to "establish a mechanism on the ground in order to seize the momentum for a negotiated solution" but it is not entirely clear what form this would take. In the case of the post-election mayhem in Kenya last December and January, the AU brought in former UN chief Kofi Annan to lead a high-powered mediation effort on the spot.
• The AU intervened more robustly in the Indian Ocean state of Comoros when it sent a military force to back the local army to expel renegade former gendarme Mohamed Bacar who seized power in 2001 and clung on after an illegal election last year. 
• The AU has been cool to planned further sanctions by Western governments against Zimbabwe. Many analysts believe Zimbabwe's economic meltdown, blamed on Mugabe, and the threat of further sanctions are the most potent means to bring down his government.
• Mbeki has openly dismissed a call by the European Union that Tsvangirai should head any transitional government, and has not disguised his dislike for solutions to the Zimbabwe crisis hatched from outside the region.

Given all the above, is the Zimbabwe crisis indeeed back to square one after the AU summit? Or has the summit produced a framework more conducive to negotiations between Mugabe and his opponents?

<b>LATEST ANALYSIS: Rebuff to Mugabe is watershed for African Union</b>

It would be out of character for the African Union (AU) to order any tough sanctions against Zimbabwe's strongman President Robert Mugabe at its summit in Egypt on Monday. But has his swearing-in on Sunday for a new five-year term after a widely condemned election further narrowed the AU's latitude for action? Mugabe defied international calls to cancel a presidential election run-off and negotiate with opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai who defeated Mugabe in the first-round ballot on March 29 but fell short of an outright majority. Mugabe was the only candidate in the second round after Tsvangirai and his Movement for Democratic change pulled out because of widely reported government-backed violence and intimidation.

Mugabe was heading for the AU summit after Zimbabwe's electoral commission declared him the winner as expected. He was immediately inaugurated in Harare, extending his 28-year rule. This could force the AU to deal with him as the legitimate head of state of Zimbabwe, in the face of calls from the likes of South Africa's Bishop Desmond Tutu for the pan-African body not to recognise his election.  A defiant Mugabe vowed to confront his critics at the summit. The wily Mugabe invited Tsvangirai to the inauguration ceremony and pledged at the event to talk to the opposition to solve the country's political crisis. Tsvangirai rejected the invitation.

Political analysts said Mugabe was attending the AU summit from a position of strength and with an appearance of willingness to negotiate with Tsvangirai, a long-standing demand of the AU.

"If the AU does not recognise his presidency Mugabe simply retuns to Harare and goes on with his life," analyst John Makumbe told Johannesburg's City Press. "Life for Zimbabweans remains the same, if not worse. So the AU has to make a difficult choice: going for Mugabe or going with Mugabe."

The pan-African organisation had for years used a sacred principle of non-interference to justify inaction against rogue leadership on the continent. Many African leaders have been reluctant to condemn Mugabe, who has enjoyed the status of an African liberation hero. But all that is changing, with Kenyan Prime Minister Raila Odinga leading a growing number of African voices critical of Mugabe.

So do you expect the AU to take any tough stand against Mugabe? Or has Mugabe out-foxed the AU? What form of international intervention is possible in Zimbabwe? Is Mugabe sincere about his declared intention to reach out to the opposition?

Opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai's decision to abandon a controversial run-off ballot against Zimbabwe's strongman President Robert Mugabe would surprise few. Western governments and aid agencies have for weeks voiced the same accusations of violence and intimidation against the Mugabe camp which Tsvangirai cited in concluding that a run-off election stood no chance of being free or fair.

Hours before Tsvangirai's decision, his Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) reported that its rally in the capital Harare had been broken up by pro-Mugabe youth militia, something Mugabe's ruling ZANU-PF party denied.

Tsvangirai had appeared to be in a dominant position to win a run-off poll after defeating Mugabe in the first round -- but only if the vote was going to be fair. Agreeing to participate in the run-off was indeed a gamble the opposition leader took in the face of contrary arguments by even some of his supporters who felt it was naive to expect a fair vote in a terrain dominated by Mugabe and his associates.

What happens now after Tsvangirai's decision to pull out of the June 27 second round ballot? How will African governments and the international community react? What should they do? What options are left for Tsvangirai and his MDC? Could there still be negotiations, and if so should these still be brokered by South African President Thabo Mbeki? What does all this mean for the people of Zimbabwe? Will this reinforce Mugabe's position in power or hasten his demise? Have your say.

After a month of withholdingZimbabwe's presidential poll results, electoral authorities on May 2 announced what was widely known to be the real outcome: President Robert Mugabe had lost the vote. The announcement gave opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai 47.9 percent of the vote but said he faces a runoff after failing to gain enough votes for an outright majority. Tsvangirai's Movement for Democratic Change denounced the result as scandalous and maintained its stand that it had won more than 50 percent of the vote and that Mugabe's 28-year rule was over.

The MDC faces a huge dilemma. If it boycotts a runoff poll, it would hand victory to Mugabe by default. But in the view of the MDC, human rights groups and Western governments, no fair or credible runoff poll can be held in Zimbabwe under a current climate of violence and intimidation they say is orchestrated by Mugabe's ruling ZANU-PF. The MDC and Mugabe's critics at home and abroad have also condemned the unprecedented delay in announcing the presidential result as part of the government's grand plan to rig the vote in favour of Mugabe.

New York-based Human Rights Watch said in a statement: "The ruling party's bloody crackdown on the opposition makes a free and fair runoff vote a tragic joke. The violence must stop and an impartial process be put in place before any new vote is held."

Mugabe was quick to declare his willingness to go for a runoff. The MDC said there were issues it needed to consider before deciding on whether or not to participate. Should Tsvangirai accept a runoff to avoid handing victory to Mugabe? Should there be international intervention in Zimbabwe to avert wider bloodshed and if so what form should this take? Have your say.

It took six weeks of intense negotiation to end Kenya's post-election mayhem and another six weeks of haggling over a new power-sharing cabinet. The 41-member cabinet has now been sworn in, with President Mwai Kibaki sharing portfolios with opposition leader Raila Odinga's Orange Democratic Movement. Kibaki's disputed re-election after Kenya's Dec. 27 poll triggered the country's worst post-independence crisis that killed more than 1,200 people and uprooted more than 300,000.

The African Union moved swiftly to end the turmoil in Kenya, sending former U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan to mediate. He was back in Kenya on April 17 when the new cabinet was sworn in. Does the formation of the power-sharing cabinet mark a triumph for African diplomacy? Are there any lessons here for the post-election crisis in Zimbabwe? Has Kenya now turned the corner after the traumatic ethnic killings that battered its image as a comparatively stable African democracy and economy? What should be the priorities of the new cabinet? What measures need to be taken to resettle  displaced people, notably in the Rift Valley, and give them assurances of future security? What constitutional changes does Kenya need to ensure enduring peace and stability? Have your say.

Implementation of Kenya's peace accord brokered by former U.N. Secretary General Kofi Annan in February to end post-election bloodshed has hit a logjam over power sharing. The accord provided for power sharing based on a political party's relative strength in parliament. President Mwai Kibaki's Party of National Unity (PNU) and opposition leader Raila Odinga's Orange Democratic Movement (ODM) both said in the first week of April that they had agreed on how to share 40 ministerial positions. But bickering started immediately. Both sides have traded accusations: the ODM said Kibaki's side had reneged on a promise to cede key ministerial positions while the PNU accused the ODM of undermining negotiations with "new preconditions and ultimatums" in the 11th hour.

At issue is also the extent of Kibaki's executive authority under the National Accord and Reconciliation Act 2008, signed by both sides after post-election turmoil killed at least 1,200 people and uprooted some 300,000 from their homes.

NEXT MOVE

Kibaki has called on the opposition to engage "constructively" and said he is ready and willing to conclude formation of the coalition cabinet at the earliest possible opportunity. Odinga has suspended participation in the power-sharing talks until there was "clarity" on the oustanding issues. But he insists he is committed to a speedy implementation of the accord. 

Protests flared again over the deadlock, and many Kenyans who endured six weeks of mayhem after the disputed December 27 elections fear for the worse. The Kenyan shilling, the strongest barometer of confidence, slumped further against the the dollar on April 8, trading at 62.85/63.05. That compared with the highest level this year of 61.75/85 on April 4 after Kibaki and Odinga said they were ready to announce the new cabinet.

The accord states that the coalition can be broken if parliament is dissolved, or if the parties agree to it in writing, or if one party withdraws. Is Kenya now in danger of sliding towards longer uncertainty? Is renewed unrest inevitable? What is the way out of this impasse? Have your say.

Why are we still waiting for Zimbabwe's election results? If you believe the opposition and President Robert Mugabe's Western foes then it is because there is rigging afoot.

Certainly votes emerged more quickly after past elections. And in a normal ballot you would expect the emergence of results over time to follow some sort of bell curve -- first a few, then a rush that builds to a crescendo before dropping back. From Zimbabwe it has been much more an irregular drip. Could it be that the electoral commission just can't work any more quickly and the conspiracy theories and rumours flying around are rubbish?

The delay certainly raises questions, but it is less clear why a delay would be needed to rig the vote.

African rulers have not always shied from just declaring the results they want and leaving it at that for another term. Why would President Mugabe need to do it differently? Might it be to encourage Zimbabweans to believe the process was fair? The delay doesn't seem to be having that effect whether there is rigging or not. If the idea is to let Zimbabweans get tired of the whole process and used to the idea nothing will change? Possibly, but not many pundits had expected the opposition to be declared victors in the first place whereas the trickle of neck-and-neck results may only raise hopes among the opposition. In Kenya, the delayed vote count also fuelled suspicions. As that election showed, when people think they really might have won fairly, it only makes them angrier when they don't.

Are Zimbabwe's rulers playing for time? Or what if the electoral commission's explanation is right -- that it's just more complicated this time with so many elections taking place on the same day? Have your say.
 

Some 500 Sudanese soldiers were among a special African Union force that backed the Comoros government in its lightning operation to retake control of its rebel island of Anjouan. About 1,350 AU troops from Tanzania and Sudan arrived in the Indian Ocean Island archipelago on March 24, the eve of the operation by Comoran government commandos. The government said it seized full control of Anjouan after a seaborne assault backed by the AU. The operation was intended to topple Anjouan's local leader, French-trained former gendarme Mohamed Bacar who clung to power in an illegal election last year and commaded a militia of several hundreds.

The Sudanese government has been internationally comdemned for alleged atrocities by its forces and pro-government militia in its western Darfur Province where an estimated 200,000 have died and 2.5 million forced to flee their homes since 2003. And given Sudan's resistance to the deployment of an international force to protect the mostly non-Arab population of Darfur, what is your view on the inclusion of Sudanese soldiers in the AU force sent to Comoros? Have your say.

Zimbabweans queued before dawn to vote in the most crucial election since independence in 1980, many of them desperate to end the misery of economic collapse under veteran President Robert Mugabe. Zimbabweans are suffering from the world's highest inflation of over 100,000 percent a year and shortages of everything from food to fuel. 

The 84-year-old Mugabe faced a strong challenge from his former finance minister Simba Makoni, who stood as an independent candidate, and opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai of the Movement for Democratic Change. Do you think the prolonged economic crisis was a critical factor in how Zimbabweans voted, or would Mugabe's power and influence ensure he hangs on at the helm? Have your say.