The postponement of the Darfur peace agreement deadline raises more questions than answers, writes Gamal Nkrumah Preparing for peace is often painful. The deadline for the termination of the Darfur peace talks in the Nigerian capital Abuja brokered by the African Union (AU) were twice postponed for 48 hours. The Darfur peace process looked like a dark hour with no dawn. The armed opposition groups of Darfur refused point blank to accept the deal, objecting vehemently to the AU's bias in favour of the government. The Sudanese government, for its part, indicated its reluctant agreement to the deal. But even after it is struck, any deal may fall apart during wrangling over official appointments and ministerial positions. Implementation is often a long and tortuous process, too. That would not matter if the armed opposition groups had a coherent alternative to the AU's 85-page draft peace agreement, but they don't. Indeed, for all the smooth words of the Sudanese government, there is obviously a reluctance on Khartoum's part to realise that the mood of the country might be fast changing. Sudanese opposition papers are becoming more openly critical of the government. And the Sudanese authorities are allowing opposition groups more say. The 9 January 2005 Comprehensive Peace Agreement between the Sudanese government and the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA) stipulates that the Sudanese authorities guarantee greater democracy and human rights. For their part, the armed opposition groups of Darfur argue that the Sudanese authorities pay lip service to democracy and human rights. Other opposition groups in the east of the country also say that their rights are infringed upon. Groups like the Beja Congress have taken up arms against the Sudanese government forces in the east. They, like the armed opposition groups of Darfur, warn that they are being politically marginalised. Indeed, one of the stumbling blocks is the demand by the Darfur armed opposition groups for more ministerial positions and the post of vice-president -- a demand that the Sudanese government declines to accept. Indeed, this insensitivity to the shifting temper of the Sudanese people is worrying. Sudan was designated atop a list of "failed states index". This distinction by the US-based Fund for Peace think-tank, however dubious, nevertheless further puts Sudan in the spotlight. It also draws attention to the fact that the Darfur armed opposition groups are, after all, negotiating with the most "failed state" in the world. Failed or not, the peace talks must continue until a settlement is secured. The situation in Abuja was considered serious enough to prompt Washington to dispatch Deputy Secretary of State for African Affairs Robert Zoellick to Abuja in an 11-hour bid to help facilitate the clinching of a deal on Darfur between the Sudanese government and armed Darfur opposition groups. Moreover, US President George W Bush called his Sudanese counterpart Omar Hassan Al-Beshir to speed up the peace talks. The UN envoy to Sudan Jan Pronk who is currently in Abuja warned that in light of the fast deteriorating humanitarian situation in Darfur, the fight for peace in the war-torn western Sudanese province assumes even greater importance. The UN High Commission for Human Rights' Louise Arbour, on a six-day visit to Sudan including a lightning tour of Darfur on Monday, indicated that peace was a priority if the human rights situation is to improve in Darfur. Violence and conflict were the main causes of gross human rights violations in the war-torn province, Arbour argued. However, neither the Sudanese government nor the armed opposition groups are entirely happy with the AU's draft deal. The deal, much to the Sudanese government's chagrin, stipulates $300 million immediate transfer to Darfur and a $200 million annual transfer thereafter. While the Sudanese government protests that the sum is exorbitant, the armed opposition groups say that it is not enough. Still, this is one of the issues that could be resolved amicably. Others are far more complex. Perhaps the most pressing problem is the integration of armed opposition forces into the Sudanese army. The armed opposition groups do not want to lay down their arms and warn against the incorporation of the Janjaweed militia groups, widely accused of committing the worst human rights atrocities, into the Sudanese army. The Janjaweed must be brought to book, they argue. The Darfur groups say that the Janjaweed already closely collaborate with the Sudanese authorities but they cannot accept their official integration into the Sudanese army. Sudan continues to be the focus of much attention among American political circles. In an unprecedented development in Washington, five US Congressmen were arrested in front of the Sudanese Embassy during a protest against the continued human rights violations, atrocities and deteriorating humanitarian situation in Darfur. And in an even more curious precedent, Bush himself expressed sympathy and solidarity with the protesting congressmen. The main armed opposition groups are the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and they both are very much against the government, which for its part is trying to enlist the support of foreign powers in its struggle with Washington. China, which has emerged as a strong political supporter of Khartoum, is an important economic and trade partner for oil-exporting Sudan, and it has invested heavily in the Sudanese oil-extraction industry. Chinese political influence in the country, however, is not seen as imposing as that of the US -- the superpower that has increasingly come to play a hegemonic role in Sudanese politics. Indeed, so key is Washington's role that it has evidently become the deciding factor in the peace process.
