Do Bin Laden's outlandish statements on Darfur, the UN Security Council vote on Sudan and President Al-Bashir's surprise visit to Tehran collectively augur ill or bode well, wonders Gamal Nkrumah Some countries can sail on for long periods without needing a political overhaul. Not so in Sudan. This week, events on the domestic, regional and international scenes put Sudan in the spotlight. Sudanese President Omar Hassan A-Bashir flew to Iran on Monday for talks with his Iranian counterpart Mahmoud Ahmedinejad and other leading Iranian officials. A number of concurrent events, not least the hostility of the United States, have cast both countries in the role of international pariah states. However, both Iran and Sudan have friends and supporters in the international community -- China is an important economic and trade partner of oil-exporting Iran and Sudan, and Russia is a political backer of the two vehemently anti-Western nations. Tehran and Khartoum have plenty in common. Sudan's future now hangs on balance. The United Nations, the US, China and the African Union (AU) hold the reins. NATO, with US blessing, now currently provides air transport for the AU peace-keeping troops in Darfur. The UN Security Council on Tuesday voted in favour of the US bid to sanction four Sudanese nationals accused of gross human rights violations. The UN secuity Council passed a resolution imposing sanctions on the four Sudanese men. The four in question, by no means all government officials, include leaders of the armed opposition groups of Darfur: Gaafar Mohamed Al-Hassan, former commander of the Sudanese air force's western region; Sheikh Moussa Hilal, cheiftan of the Arab Jalul tribe and a notorious Janjaweed commander; Adam Yakoub Shant, an SLA commander who is accused of violating the ceasefire agreement in July 2005; and Gabril Abdul-Karim Badri, a commander of the armed opposition National Movement for Reform and Development, for kidnapping members of the 7,000- strong African Union (AU) peace-keeping mission in Darfur in October 2005. They all face the prospect of a travel ban, the freezing of their bank accounts and possibly trial. Whether officials, tribal chieftans or armed opposition the four were in a position to change the direction of affairs in a crucial corner of the African continent, but they didn't. Instead they fuelled the fires of ethnic and tribal conflict and violence. China and Russia are setting the mood for exonerating Sudanese officials and armed opposition leaders accused of war crimes in Darfur. Washington, on the other hand, is raring for a fight with both Khartoum and Tehran. The Sudanese authorities realise that defeat is always more costly than victory, and therefore were most grateful to the Chinese and Russians for botching Washington's plans at the UN. Still, Sudan is not off the hook just yet; it continues to face a host of complex problems -- both domestic and international. Indeed, just as the year 2005 dawned on the country events were set in motion that would change the course of history and the face of Sudan -- the signing of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) on 9 January 2005, the death of Garang in a plane crash later in the year and the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian and security situation in Sudan's westernmost war-torn province of Darfur. These events have left the country in tatters. So far, 2006 appears to usher in even more trials and tribulations for the long-suffering Sudanese people. In a separate, but no less significant development, Saudi dissident Osama Bin Laden warned that the conflict in Darfur was one between Islam and what he termed the "Zionist-Crusader imperialists". He called on all true believers to rise in defence of Darfur. Both the Sudanese authorities and the main Darfur armed opposition groups dismissed his overtures. The Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) also distanced themselves from Bin Laden's statements. The last thing Khartoum needs, already in the bad books of the US and other Western powers, is Bin Laden's interference in its internal affairs. Any association with him, however fleeting, will only sully its name further. Bin Laden was given refuge in Sudan in the 1990s, but is now highly critical of the Sudanese authorities for "betraying" the Islamic cause and for Sudan's supposedly lax implementation of Sharia laws. Sudan is desperate not to internationalise the Darfur crisis. The representatives of the Sudanese government and the two main armed Darfur opposition groups -- JEM and the SPLA -- are currently meeting in the Nigerian capital Abuja. In the past, the Abuja talks have failed to yield fruit. The question now is whether the Sudanese government and the Darfur armed opposition groups can effectively make good use of political gridlock. This would be a serious gamble, to put it mildly. In other circumstances, the upshot of the stalled talks would be that more time is spent in perfecting political reform, not just for Darfur, but for the entire sprawling country -- by all accounts Africa's largest with 2.5 million square kms. However, if the Sudanese fail to make headway, they will come under intense international pressure to succeed and sign a comprehensive peace plan for Darfur. What are the chances of doing so successfully? The SLA and JEM want to see Darfur as a united province and reject the division of the region into the current three provinces -- West Darfur, with its capital at Geneina; North Darfur with its capital at Al-Fasher; and south Darfur with its capital at Nyala. They believe the Sudanese government is pursuing a divide-and-rule policy to contain the situation in Darfur. There are also several other key SLA demands including a secure vice presidential post for Darfur, in much the same manner as the southern Sudanese have done with the CPA. The government rejects the SLA demand for vice presidency. "We strive to achieve a decentralised system of government based on the right of Sudan's different regions to govern themselves democratically and autonomously as part of the federal system," Mohamed Rabei Omar, representative of the SLA to Egypt, told Al-Ahram Weekly. "Federalism is the ideal mechanism for accommodating all the needs of citizens and regions," he explained. "We are working for equal citizenship rights." Salim Ahmed Salim, the chief AU mediator on Darfur, said the protagonists might reach political agreement by the end of April and meet the 28 April UN deadline for the signing of a comprehensive and lasting peace deal. he said that the AU proposals "constitute a sound basis for a solution to the crisis." A complicating factor, however, remains the internal division within the Darfur armed opposition groups, and especially the factional bickering and infighting within the SLA, the largest of these groups. Last month, SLA leaders renounced Abdul-Wahed Mohamed Al-Nur, the president of the group who had hitherto headed the frequently stalled Abuja talks. Abdul-Wahed, as he is popularly known, is an ethnic Fur -- the largest ethnic group in Darfur. Indeed, the province is named after the people. Abdul-Wahed promptly rejected the renunciation, declaring it null and void. The contending SLA leader Minni Arko Minnawi, an ethnic Zaghawa -- the second largest ethnic group in Darfur -- also has a large following. The SLA nominated Khamis Abdullah Abakr as an interim leader until they convene a deciding congress. JEM is less ridden by factionalism. But it comes under the sway of the Popular Congress Party of Sudan's radical Islamist ideologue Sheikh Hassan Al-Turabi. This is only one indication, amongst many, that the times and circumstances are not particularly propitious.
