Soldiers may fight wars, but it is politicians who not only start them, the politicians getting around a table and talking also finish them. In a dirty and nasty war which has cost over 35,000 people's lives, the only real way to come out with a solution to the annual cycle of fighting is to discuss it.

At its onset in 1963, the OAU was a vehicle for pan-African solidarity at a time of liberation struggle. Its successor, the AU, is part of the international peacebuilding system. It has made a significant contribution to peace in Africa.

Arriving at a peaceful settlement will take some time and will require a great deal of honesty as well as transparency. But the short answer is yes, this time it is different and there is reason to be hopeful for peace.

The French military intervention in Mali since mid-January and much of the official discussion of Mali in the UN and among Western governments seem to have been driven by a quite narrow and short-term view of the issues the country faces. As in anything, if the problem is mis-diagnosed, the solution will probably mis-fire.

Last week Abdullah Ocalan, the imprisoned leader of the Kurdistan Workers' Party or PKK, called for a ceasefire with the Turkish state. The announcement garnered widespread international coverage largely because the announcement was made to coincide with the Persian/Kurdish New Year and not long after the government announced it was in direct talks with Ocalan himself. But will this lead to a meaningful lasting peace?

The thing that struck many of us most at the time, and still does ten years on, is how this historic global antiwar movement rubbished completely the lie that humanity is divided along national, ethnic, religious, gender, or any other line.

The authorities in Burma should drop charges against activists who participated in peaceful protests against government policies.