The race is on to sign a comprehensive peace settlement in Sudan, writes Gamal Nkrumah Few African countries face a more crucial year ahead than Sudan. After shunning negotiations over a final and comprehensive peace deal in Darfur, the Sudanese government and armed opposition groups have finally resumed talks again. Representatives of the Sudanese government and the two main armed Darfur opposition groups -- the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA) and the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) -- are currently meeting in the Nigerian capital Abuja. The Abuja talks are not generally known for engendering suspense and surprises. Be that as it may, there is a real whiff of excitement in the air these days. Hopes are pinned on the United Nations and the African Union (AU) to get the Sudanese protagonists to reach an agreement. Mounting pressure from AU, the Americans and the Europeans to speed up the peace process have so far failed to break the impasse. Any setback or failure to reach agreement at the Abuja talks will darken hopes for peace in Darfur. It would be wrong to imply that if the internal squabbles and factionalism within the SLA had not erupted earlier in the year, Khartoum would have marched inexorably ahead towards peace with the armed opposition groups of Darfur. Leadership disputes within the SLA were no doubt a complicating factor at the Darfur peace talks in Abuja. The leadership crisis of the SLA took a turn for the worse late last year. There were doubts about who exactly represented the movement in Abuja. At one point the question was whether it could take part without a paramount leader. The UN Security Council demanded on Tuesday that all parties reach political agreement by the end of April. This month's Security Council President Wang Guangya of China, speaking on behalf of members, urged the Sudanese government and armed opposition groups to reach an agreement by 30 April. Top-level AU officials visited Abuja this week to meet the Sudanese government delegate and SLA and JEM representatives. The AU mediators, headed by Congolese President Denis Sassou-Nguesso, current AU chairman, also urged the Sudanese protagonists to meet the UN deadline. A complicating factor, however, is the internal division within the Darfur armed opposition groups, and especially the factional bickering and infighting inside 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. He promptly rejected the renunciation, declaring it null and void. The SLA nominated Khamis Abdullah Abakr until they elect a new leader at a congress to be convened in three months time. The question that dominates discussions over Darfur is the timing of the much-anticipated comprehensive peace settlement, given such factionalism and divisions. Predictions of the signing of a final and comprehensive Darfur peace accord by the end of April seem premature. Some analysts expect the Darfur negotiations to drag on for at least three or four months. "I cannot say there are any tangible results," Ahmed Tugod, chief JEM negotiator in Abuja told reporters in the Nigerian capital. Chief AU mediator Salim Ahmed Salim, however, was more upbeat. He said that the meetings created "right political conditions" to speed up the Sudanese peace process. Indeed, unless the talks flounder altogether -- and there is not the slightest sign of that happening with such intense international pressure -- the Sudanese protagonists will have to iron out at least some of their differences in the weeks ahead. The main points of difference appear to centre around power-sharing and wealth distribution. But how, and at what price will peace be signed? We should be able to learn answers to both these two questions sooner rather than later. Khartoum's calculations are more complicated than its opponents', but the calculations of the Sudanese authorities, too, have been affected by growing international pressure. Khartoum is clinging on to the hope that the rather cumbersome machinery of the cash-strapped AU mediating effort will save the day. But Khartoum has lost the confidence of some of its closest African allies after they voted to opt for a UN take-over of the peace-keeping mission. Arab states, by and large, still rally behind Khartoum. The hosting of the AU and Arab League summits in the Sudanese capital provided the Sudanese authorities with plenty of opportunities for substituting public relations gimmickry for serious policies. Indeed, Khartoum often acts as if there is plenty of time to think up detailed policies relating to decentralisation, democratisation and political reform. Sudan desperately needs to take a fresh look at these critically important issues. The authorities have often been reluctant to establish a genuine multi-party democracy, and that includes decentralisation of power and the empowerment of the marginalised peoples of the east, west and south of the country. Most of Sudan remains dirt poor. The outskirts of the capital and the outlying regions of the sprawling African country -- the continent's largest -- remain starved of attention and development from the centre. It is time that Khartoum starts to listen to the country's demands, and it appears that the Abuja talks are the litmus test by which the government's attitude will be tested.
