Talk:African Economic Community
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
stalled non-pillar blocs
I wonder if we should remove MRU, LGA, COI, CEPGL... they are alreay made obsolete by other blocs. Maybe only IGAD and UMA have some means to be included (because of AEC-relations)? Alinor 13:13, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
- Mh, I'd keep them for reference somewhere, but maybe not in the main table. —Nightstallion (?) 13:32, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
Dates of membership/joining add some dynamism to the table... All blocs except COMESA have full date info. For COMESA I can find only joining dates of the most recent states (and leaving dates of some/all that leaved?/ states). I can't even find list of COMESA founding members (if they are found the remaining will be few and easier to find). Also missing are OAU joining dates/founding list. AU is different organisation, but it is a dirrect successor; also all 53 members will get "2002" if we stick to AU - and Morocco will not get "withdraw date" - so I suggest sticking to OAU dates. Alinor 00:07, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Map of overlapping pillars in AEC
Let's see if we can make something out of this.
- Currently it shows the overlapping between ECOWAS, ECCAS, EAC, SADC, COMESA, IGAD.
- Only full members are covered. Candidates/Applicants are not distinguished (eg. Seychells is colored as COMESA only, not as SADC/COMESA overlapped).
- yellow: SADC
- darkgreen: ECCAS
- brightgreen: COMESA
- darkred: ECOWAS
- red: IGAD
- lightblue: SADC/EAC
- blue: EAC/COMESA/IGAD
- moot green: SADC/COMESA
- pink: ECCAS/COMESA
- darkpink: ECCAS/COMESA/SADC
- orange: IGAD/COMESA
- (some combinations like IGAD/EAC are missing, because all such cases have EAC, so it is covered as EAC/COMESA/IGAD)
- Non-pillar blocs are not depicted due to lack of enough colors
- SACU, UEMOA, CEMAC - maybe unneeded because all their members are inside other blocs (unlike Agadir and UMA wich have "exclusive" members)
- Of course it would be better to use some special effects/stripes/etc. and to use only six main colors (for the pillars) and combinations of them.
Alinor 01:00, 2 January 2006 (UTC)
Much of this article is unreadable, and that includes the table. What does the "Common" placed in several cells of the table mean? What the hell does "The African Union provides greater powers to govern African economies. " mean? Why the hell do we list blocs that aren't members of the AEC as if they are relevant, in either the table or other sections? Just in order to make this a busy, confused, unreadable mess?
I'm taking a knife to this article and will be hacking it to pieces and constructing it all over again. As it stands now IMO it's downright shameful to wikipedia. Aris Katsaris 19:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I can answer the question regarding "common" and would highly recommend to leave it in place or at least leave the information in place: It's meant to express the fact that a number of regional organizations are subgroupings of one another, and are planning to merge in the future. SACU will merge with SADC, CEMAC with ECCAS, WAMZ and UEMOA will ultimately merge into an all-ECOWAS currency union. —Nightstallion (?) 20:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- I still can't understand what the dates under "common" mean. If "common" refers to a future event taking place, why are all those dates in the past? For god's sake, if this is supposed to be "information", then it's way too well-encrypted for me to even begin to understand. The people that added it there -- couldn't they take a step back from what they wrote and seen that it's utterly indecipherable to those that don't already know what it means? Aris Katsaris 21:19, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
- About the dates and the common field - Nightstallion is right; Also I agree that maybe it should be explained (maybe in a footnote) what "common" means. About the phrase "The African Union provides greater powers to govern African economies." - I think that I taked it from the Economics-part of the African Union article.
- About the removals: UMA and Agadir are NOT irrelevant, even if they are not pillars. UMA is PROPOSED pillar and Agadir is a very functional agreement (attractive to its members, because it ensures preferential cumulation of origin in regards to the EU import rules). So LGA, COI, MRU and the rest maybe are irrelevant and making the table less readable, but UMA and Agadir should be left inside. Also I think that it would not hurt if we leave the irrelevant blocs as comment only (hidden from view, but included in source).
- in the stages progress table - I don't see how two more columns are making it that bad. And again UMA and Agadir are not totaly irrelevant.
- the list of blocs - I think that it doesn't hurt to list the irrelevant blocs here (in the list, not the table) and also you have removed some VERY-relevant blocs, that are sub-groups of the pillars. Alinor 08:50, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
- This is probably the worst article I've come across. It's badly written, incoherent and violates many Wikipedia guidelines. It requires a fundamental overhaul from the ground up. Ocanica —Preceding undated comment added 02:54, 29 May 2009 (UTC).
Identity of pillars
- AMU/UMA (The Arab Maghreb Union);
- ECCAS/CEEAC (Economic Community of Central African States);
- COMESA (Common Market of Eastern and Southern Africa);
- SADC (Southern African Development Community); and
- ECOWAS (Economic Community of West African States)
I've not been able to find a reference to either IGAD or EAC being pillars of the AEC. Given the above three references that I cite, I will now alter the article to list the above 5 blocs as pillars of the AEC. Aris Katsaris 14:35, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
This article is a mess and outdated. Someone who knows more about this should seriously step up and fix this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cheddar2012 (talk • contribs) 23:17, 18 May 2011 (UTC)