19 September 2002. The Ivorian dream, which was nurtured by the late President Felix Houphouet-Boigny, was shattered. On that day, rebellious members of the Ivorian army decided to mutiny in protest against the Government's plans to demobilize 700 soldiers. Since then, Côte d'Ivoire, which has been a remarkable rock of economic and political stability in a very unstable West African region, has been torn apart. Rebel soldiers hold the northern part of the country while the Government of President Laurent Gbagbo holds sway in the south.

By the end of 2002, attempts by the 15-nation regional grouping, the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) to mediate in the former French colony had proved fruitless. There were plans to send in an ECOWAS peacekeeping force, but that too was fraught with all sorts of political complications. Nigeria, the West African superpower, said it would not contribute troops to the force having had its fingers badly burned during similar military expeditions in Liberia and Sierra Leone in the 1990s.

The longer the impasse between the Government and the various rebel factions is allowed to go on, the less likely it is that the conflict will come to a swift end. Experience in Sierra Leone and Liberia has shown just that. To complicate matters further, some of the ex-rebel fighters in Sierra Leone and Liberia have already moved on to the new theatre of war in West Africa, which is awash with small arms.

The Ivorian soldiers may have used demobilization as the pretext for their action. But the problem is even more deep-seated than that. The famed political and economic success of Côte d'Ivoire attracted Africans from neighbouring countries. This has meant that out of a population of 16 million, 6.4 million are foreign Africans. These will be greatly affected by Côte d'Ivoire's current conflict, sparked off partly by a perceived lack of development in the north and by the presence of foreign Africans in the country.

It will be very difficult for the region to cope with the movement of such a large mass of people. In early December, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees, Ruud Lubbers, urged neighbouring countries not to close their borders on refugees. Given the volatility of West Africa, and the presence of so many armed men roaming the region, it is understandable that countries such as Liberia are worried. The conflict in Côte d'Ivoire, for many African leaders, has come at the wrong time. In July - in Durban, South Africa - amid great fanfare and with renewed hope for Africa, the continent's leaders launched the African Union (AU) to replace the 39-year-old Addis Ababa-based Organization of African Unity. The AU is meant to take Africa to a different level of development. It is meant to be stronger than the OAU, which many African leaders thought had served its purpose: that of ridding Africa of colonialism and apartheid.

Indeed, the launch of the AU was full of symbolism - the more so because it was born in South Africa, so recently liberated from white rule. The OAU may have been seen at times to be rather ineffective, but for many Africans - especially South Africans - it was synonymous with the liberation of the continent.

The AU is a departure from the past arrangement. Unlike the OAU, the AU is stressing compliance with the decisions of the new organization. Significantly, sovereignty, upon which the OAU placed great store, is no longer sacrosanct. The AU has the mandate to intervene in a member country if it steps out of line. Added to this is the African Peer Review Mechanism, which has been established for leaders to police themselves.

But this was not put into much use in 2002. For instance, Zimbabwe, which undoubtedly presents a case for both AU intervention and a censure of President Robert Mugabe, has contrived to escape both. Indeed, in 2002 President Mugabe was re-elected for another six years amid much controversy.

Mugabe has been able to persuade African leaders that his crusade against an unfair land-distribution system is a just cause. He has also painted the British Government under Prime Minister Tony Blair as neo-colonialist, something that many African leaders can relate to. For this reason, African Commonwealth leaders resisted the British-led call for tough measures against Zimbabwe in March 2002.

As long as Mugabe continues to play the neo-colonialist card, it will be difficult for African leaders to act against him. He has been a wily politician and he knows that the land issue is an over-simplification. In the midst of the land debate, the political violence visited upon opponents of Mugabe's Zimbabwe African National Union (ZANU) party and the poor handling of the economy by the Government have not been making the headlines. The chaotic nature of political and economic life in Zimbabwe has been compounded by famine, which is affecting hundreds of thousands of Zimbabweans.

Another country that has faced chaos is Nigeria, where President Olusegun Obasanjo was on the defensive for most of the year. He has had to contend with political and religious problems that are threatening to tear the country apart. The main problem - that of Islamic fundamentalism - is coming from the north, where a number of states in the region have adopted Sharia law. 

Women found guilty of adultery have been sentenced to death by stoning. Although none of the sentences has been carried out the threat itself has created a huge outcry inside and outside Nigeria. The Miss World Beauty Pageant, which should have taken place in Nigeria in December, was hastily moved to London. It followed rioting in northern Nigeria that left 250 people dead and thousands homeless after a local journalist wrote that the Prophet Muhammad would have approved of the contest.

The problem with northern Nigerian Islamic fundamentalism is that it has strong political undertones. After all, there are many southern Nigerian Muslims and the question many non-Nigerian Muslims have been asking is why have the southern Muslims not taken to rioting. This is the crux of the matter. It is quite clear that northern Nigerians, who have held political power at the centre for so long - through military dictators - are not happy to have lost this control to the south. Therefore, they are determined to undermine the administration of a southern president whenever the opportunity arises. Obasanjo himself has not helped matters by taking a rather ambivalent stance on the issue of Sharia. The scene is, therefore, now set for bitter National Assembly and presidential elections in 2003, when Obasanjo himself is expected to face a stiff challenge from a northern or northern-backed candidate.

In Sierra Leone, after nine years of civil war, parliamentary and presidential elections were held in May 2002 and consolidated power for President Tejan Kabbah and his ruling Sierra Leone People's Party. But the country is still dependent on 17,000 UN peacekeepers for stability and countries such as Britain for economic support.

Given all this, it is the AU that will eventually have to justify its existence by ensuring that it meets the aims and aspirations of Africans, some of whose countries have had to contend with conflict and economic difficulties in 2002. By mid-2003, at the next AU Heads of State Summit in Maputo, Mozambique, the Commission currently running the Union should unravel with the appointment of 10 Commissioners - half of whom must be women.