Africans must be given a chance to solve the humanitarian crisis in Darfur, writes Ibrahim Nafie The five-nation African summit in Tripoli laid solid foundations for resolving the Darfur crisis. The joint Arab-African vision that this meeting produced was urgently needed to offset the agenda of regional and international powers that are deliberately misrepresenting the crisis as an ethnic conflict between Arabs and Africans. So successful have they been in marketing the spectre of "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" ostensibly perpetrated by Arabs against Africans that the Security Council has already passed two resolutions against Sudan, threatening sanctions and hinting at possible military intervention "to protect the African people of Darfur" if Khartoum fails to meet certain demands. Darfur is, indeed, in the grips of a humanitarian catastrophe. However, it is essentially an economic one, though historical and demographic factors are obviously involved. It is a catastrophe that some see as a golden opportunity to exert pressure on Sudan in order to gain political or economic advantages, while others hope to exploit it as part of a greater scheme to fragment the Arab world. That the Arab League remained conspicuously silent on the issue encouraged them in their bid to distort the nature of the crisis and bring it before the Security Council. The threat of UN sanctions and the question of "humanitarian intervention" in Sudan have sparked heated controversy in Western societies. In the US, moreover, Darfur has become a campaign issue, with Bush and Kerry desperately vying with one another in issuing threats and pledges as they bid to win the African-American vote. For their part, officials in Sudan have attacked the resolutions as unjust and biased while others have vowed to take up arms against any military intervention and defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of their country. I would wager that the powers currently circling Sudan are scheming to lure it on a collision course. They will prod and insult in an attempt to goad Khartoum into behaving in a way that can be construed as defying international legitimacy, thereby justifying military intervention. As if aiding this tactic the insurgents in Darfur are upping their demands. Whereas they were formerly pressing for "a just distribution of wealth" they are now insisting on autonomous government and perhaps secession. UN Security Council resolutions, the absence of an Arab or African initiative and an increasingly charged climate contributed to the deterioration of the situation in Darfur. This is precisely what the international and regional powers that are closing in on Sudan had anticipated as they push their designs for military intervention. Against this backdrop an Arab-African initiative was desperately needed in order to divert the relentless pressure for military action, the last aim of which is to protect the population of Darfur. But for such a joint initiative to be effective it had to both belie the tendentious misconstruction of the Darfur crisis as an ethnic conflict and support the ability of the Sudanese government to work towards a comprehensive resolution to the crisis in as non-threatening and non-confrontational climate as possible. The recent five-nation summit in Tripoli, therefore, was well timed. Attended by Egypt, Sudan, Libya, Chad and Nigeria, it delivered the message that this was an Arab-African initiative in the fullest sense and spirit of the term. It should be stressed, moreover, that the summit was held under the auspices of the African Union, the regional organisation most concerned with the security and stability of Africa and the one that should rightly attempt to resolve disputes and conflicts in the region. Since the African Union has legitimate and prior jurisdiction over the handling of the Darfur crisis the attempt to escalate the issue into a Security Council matter can only be construed as an infringement of the African Union's rights. This should not, however, be taken to imply that there is some kind of inherent contradiction between the work of this regional organisation and that of the UN. On the contrary, the two are complementary. And we have to acknowledge that the slowness of this regional organisation to act was one of the factors that contributed to the internationalisation of the Darfur crisis in the manner certain powers are now using to further their own ends. If anything, the Tripoli summit reflected the desire of the leaders of the five nations to restore the crisis to its proper African framework and to establish the appropriate mechanisms for resolving it. I believe that the closing statement of the summit strongly indicates that the necessary collective African spirit and vision will be brought to this task. Of immediate concern to the participants was to rectify the grossly distorted image of the crisis which, they stated, is a humanitarian tragedy stemming largely from economic factors. On this basis, they appealed to the international community to take urgent measures to alleviate the suffering of the people of Darfur. The participants were also keen to remove any doubts about the willingness of the government of Sudan to cooperate with the international community. Their statement welcomed the steps Khartoum has taken to fulfil its obligations under the agreement it signed with the secretary-general of the UN. The statement further upheld the principle of Sudan's sovereignty, independence and unity, and stressed the importance of non- intervention in Sudan's domestic affairs. Perhaps the most significant achievement of the summit was its creation of a follow- through mechanism for resolving the Darfur crisis, the first meeting of which will be held in Cairo. In addition, the summit has set into motion a negotiating process between Khartoum and the Darfur rebels. The negotiations are scheduled to begin next week in Abuja, and in the interim Libyan president Colonel Qaddafi will be working to establish common ground on which to build mutual understanding. Following the first round of negotiations in the Nigerian capital a report will be submitted to the five presidents detailing outstanding differences between the two parties. Clearly, the five-nation summit in Tripoli marks the beginning of a serious drive to end the Darfur crisis. Meanwhile, it will require the cooperation of all to ensure the success of the process. Above all, it must be borne in mind that military solutions can never serve the interests of those directly involved in the crisis, but will only exacerbate the situation, largely at the expense of the people of Darfur. Instead of contemplating military intervention let us imagine what could be accomplished if the money earmarked for military-related purposes were to be channelled into humanitarian assistance programmes for the people of Darfur. There are currently 350 Nigerian and Rwandan observers on the ground in Darfur; their presence already has cost tens of millions of dollars (which are being borne by the US and Holland). Imagine then the cost of sending some 4000 observers, as some are suggesting. Initial estimates put this at some $200 million. Would these enormous sums not be better spent feeding the hungry, resettling the refugees and improving the standards of living for the people of Darfur as a whole? President Mubarak has said that efforts must focus on promoting dialogue and other peaceful means for reaching a political settlement in Darfur. If such efforts were accompanied by a comprehensive development programme for the province, with the assistance of the world's wealthy powers, we would not only have a successful comprehensive settlement to the crisis but also a template for resolving other complex and seemingly intractable conflicts in Africa.
