While Sudan was snubbed at the African Union summit, African leaders still put diplomatic niceties before hard-edged political progress, writes Gamal Nkrumah Hubris, hypocrisy and vanity are all too human vices that are quite often on display at African Union (AU) summits. These imperfections came into full play in Khartoum on Monday. The Sixth Ordinary Session of the 53-member nation AU summit opened in the Sudanese capital amid much fanfare, pomp and ceremony. South African President Thabo Mbeki and his Zimbabwean counterpart Robert Mugabe were in attendance. And Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi wowed his audiences as always. President Hosni Mubarak did not attend the Khartoum summit but dispatched Foreign Minister Ahmed Abul- Gheit instead to represent Egypt at the summit. However, beneath the festivities, there has been much barely-contained controversy, tension, and even open hostility. Chadian President Idris Deby, who has announced that his country is in a "state of belligerent hostility" with Sudan, boycotted the AU summit. International human rights groups have also expressed outrage that the summit is taking place in Khartoum. "The AU's efforts in Darfur have been met with constant obstruction by a government that refuses to change its abusive policies," Peter Takirambubudde, the Africa director of the New York-based Human Rights Watch, said on the eve of the summit. "The AU should not reward sponsors of crimes against humanity with the honour of hosting the AU summit or ascending to its presidency," he added in a strongly worded statement. Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir had hoped to assume the rotating presidency of the AU for 2006. Indeed, the issue of the controversial Sudanese president's bid to head the AU has rung alarm bells in many African capitals and taken up far too much time at the deliberations of heads of state and government in Khartoum. On Sunday and Monday, AU Commission Chief Alpha Oumar Konare, ex-president of Mali, together with leaders of a number of African countries, urged Al-Bashir to withdraw his bid. As a face-saving mechanism, Congolese President Denis Sassou- Nguessou was selected as the new chair of the AU with, as many had earlier anticipated, Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo asked to stay on as head of the pan-African body -- a position he has held since 2004. Sudan, meanwhile, seems increasingly unsure of itself, almost desperate to prove its worth. It was given a second chance to head the pan-African body in 2007. Controversy over the AU presidency brought into sharp focus the main weakness of the pan- African organisation: namely, African leaders are loath to criticise each other openly. The Sudanese government could quite literally get away with murder because other African leaders are reluctant to bring it to book. The trouble with living on the never-never is that the problems eventually mount up. The Organisation of African Unity (OAU), forerunner of the AU, was caught up in similar problems. The parallel has not gone unnoticed. In the end, Sudanese authorities gave in to peer pressure: "we don't want to make any cracks. If that means Sudan should withdraw, we will," former Sudanese foreign minister and current special presidential adviser Mustafa Osman Ismail said before it was announced that Obasanjo will remain AU head. Veteran politician and a southerner Lam Akol has now taken over this all-important ministerial portfolio. President Al-Bashir is expected to stamp his authority on key issues, while leaving core policy-making to Akol and others. The AU summit in Khartoum also marks the anniversary celebrations of Sudan's independence from Britain in 1956. So what lessons can Africans glean from 50 years of Sudanese autonomy? In more ways than one, Sudan's turbulent post-independence history stands as a warning to other African states. Many in Africa are waiting to see if and how the Sudanese peace process unfolds. The new Sudanese government of national unity has so far run affairs of state without any major glitches. Ties with Washington are decidedly warmer. Yet Darfur continues to loom as a major international issue. The government's immediate foreign policy priority since taking office has been to find solutions to problems with neighbouring countries. Many African leaders believe that Khartoum should pay for gross human rights abuses itself. This is a view full of ironies, for many of Sudan's detractors are in no position to point accusing fingers at Khartoum given that their own human rights record is scarcely better. Sassou- Nguessou's own record is reprehensible. If the biggest failing of the AU remains its reluctance to interfere constructively in the affairs of member states, it also fails in setting an agenda for economic growth and development. Africa badly needs to regain momentum. While politics topped the agenda in Khartoum -- even if discussions were woefully diplomatic amid a context of alarming humanitarian and political developments -- economics is as important to Africa's immediate and long-term future. Plans should not be made in the name of gains that are imperceptible to everyone but a handful of the continent's policy-makers. The continent has the poorest prospects among developing regions advancing towards developed world status. Democracy and political stability are not enough, if even achievable. Africa needs to grow faster. Judged in a wider context, African summits seem politically irrational and often end up as useless talking shops. Again in Khartoum Africa faces a painful dilemma: while the continent debates the future shape and direction of the AU, many of its leaders desperately try to hold on to the old ways of doing business. Consensus and compromise are the buzzwords of African foreign policy at this time of change in the continent, but what do consensus and compromise mean in practice? In more ways than one, Africa is in need of a makeover. Sudan is a prime example. Sudan's turbulent post-independence history stands as a warning to other African states. The Sudan People's Liberation Army, once one of Africa's longest-running secessionist movements, now shares power with Al-Bashir's National Congress Party. Peace, it is hoped, will bring a wave of Western investors who will build factories, banks and offices. Civil war ruined southern Sudan's economy. In five years time the southern Sudanese will decide in a referendum whether to become independent or not. Southerners might indeed come out in favour of independence. Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa was among those who addressed the opening session of the summit, stressing that at no other point in history was Arab-African solidarity more urgently needed. Some African countries insist on greater political distance from Arab nations precisely because of the policies of countries like Sudan. The continent is in danger of reverting to division and difference: Arab and Black African worlds existing uncomfortably side-by-side. There is little doubt that facing up to such eventualities will necessitate more than handshakes and warm words about consensus and compromise. Most of Africa's stabs at unity have been frivolous, with others simply crackpot. But the basic notion has always remained present. At the Khartoum summit, Gaddafi again called in vain for more genuine African unity. The AU has in vain tried to ape the relative success of the European Union. People in Africa are yearning for change. This determination to throw off constraints comes at a delicate moment. Under-average growth for most of the past decades ushered in economic ruin and civil wars. In sum, the AU summit in Khartoum was in many ways reminiscent of past summits. Nonetheless, there were some departures. The Sudanese president wants more than power; he seeks recognition by his peers. Sudanese authorities tolerated a modicum of activism by opposition groups. But in many other respects, the regime is profoundly undemocratic. As in all of Africa, life in Sudan should be much better than it is. Five decades of independence produced few if any dividends. But there is still melancholic nostalgia for the sense of unfulfilled promise on the eve of independence. Perhaps this will push the engine of progress. The alternative is war and wanton destruction, southern Sudanese style. That is a bleak prospect.
