As Khartoum prepares to host the Arab League summit, participants must not sweep the Darfur crisis under the rug, writes Gamal Nkrumah Sudan's hosting of the African Union (AU) summit was not exactly a resounding success. Khartoum even failed to secure the presidency of the pan-African body, a position traditionally bestowed on the host nation. And, more recently, the AU accepted a United Nations Security Council recommendation that it take over the peacekeeping role in the war-torn region of Darfur. The deployment of UN troops to replace the 7,000-strong AU force currently deployed in Darfur has become a bone of contention, first between the United States and Sudan, then the UN and Khartoum, and now the AU and Sudan. The AU mandate expires on 31 March, when the UN is scheduled to take over. Indeed the fierce debate over who should command and oversee the mission threatened to derail the Darfur peace talks in Abuja, which are taking place under the auspices of the AU. Sudan's failure to fully acknowledge its past is more than a case of post-colonial twitching in its peripheral regions. It is also part and parcel of the country's shift from highly centralised, authoritarian rule to a more decentralised, pluralistic, liberal democracy. Sudan still has a long way to go, but the writing is on the wall: Sudan is in a state of flux. To start with, many African countries were reluctant to offend Khartoum -- a reluctance which the West condemned as a grave error. Predictably enough, in the end, the Western agenda prevailed. However, Sudan has tried hard to get the AU to take a position independent of Washington's stance. But whatever the economics involved, wriggling free from the tutelage of Washington is always a tricky business. Last week the AU told Sudanese officials that the UN would deploy peacekeeping troops in Darfur even without the consent of the Sudanese government. The Sudanese government does not want to be seen as sitting on the sidelines. "Sudan's stand is to reject those forces even when the period of six months has elapsed," said Sudanese Vice President Ali Othman Mohamed Taha. The AU argues that there may be a case for giving the Sudanese government the benefit of the doubt. The Sudanese government's "key condition" was that the armed opposition groups in Darfur agree to a peace deal first, before the fateful deployment of UN troops. At this juncture most eyes are on Washington. On the Darfur issue, both the AU and the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan concur. "Clearly, if an accord is signed in Abuja, it will be in everyone's interests," Annan said. "The situation in Darfur is deteriorating. We must do everything to help the displaced people and those in need of assistance. I know the Sudanese government didn't respond warmly to the question, but the UN force is going to work very closely with the AU." Perhaps, the Sudanese authorities have a point. It is a sovereign nation, after all, but it is hard to take seriously the argument that this is a reason for giving up on the quest for lasting peace in Darfur. The present US policy on Sudan is unlikely to bring the Sudanese government to its knees, but it could easily saddle the Sudanese authorities with a failed government of national unity. In other words, it could precipitate the splitting of Sudan to at least two states -- north and south. Sudan officially wants the AU to have an independent stance, rather than appearing to behave like sitting ducks. But both Sudan and the armed opposition groups of Darfur must get their act together if peace is to prevail, let alone any prospect of again exploring ways of resolving the conflict between them. The Abuja talks must not be allowed to remain stalled for long. The Sudanese authorities, for one, should fashion a fresh commitment to further, deeper political liberalisation and reform. However difficult such a development might seem, multi-party politics are really the only way forward for Sudan. And the foundations for such a system have already been laid. For the Sudanese government and the
