Al-Bashir didn't drop into a black hole during his trans-Eurasian odyssey. Instead, he affirmed Iran and China are unmistakable sources of stability to a Sudan in throes of change, expounds Gamal Nkrumah It was no coincidence that Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir was obliged to stop over in Tehran on his way to Beijing this week. Rumour had it that he was hijacked over the Hindu Kush or the Himalayas, a victim of terror by his American nemesis. There was much speculation in the Sudanese and international media about why Al-Bashir's flight to the Chinese capital was "diverted" to the Iranian capital. "Sudan's Al-Bashir goes missing on way to China," read an incongruous news item in Britain's The Telegraph. When critics impugn Al-Bashir's credentials they merely parade their own unacquaintedness with Sudanese affairs. Al-Bashir has a huge following in northern Sudan. The Sudanese president insists that he does represent the Islamist constituency in Sudan. In this he is correct, of course, and hardly alone. His political strength is likely to greaten rather than weaken with the official declaration of the independence of South Sudan on 9 July. So why did Al-Bashir stop over in Tehran? There was some symmetry, too, to the incident, as it was no random event. Iran and Sudan are militantly Islamist, Khartoum Sunni and Tehran Shia, and as such pariah nations as far as the West is concerned. Iran was hosting the "International Conference of the Global Campaign against Terrorism". Al-Bashir took the opportunity to discuss the "Islamic awakening" in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Tunisia and Yemen, not to mention Sudan. He had separate private talks with Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. The Tehran anti-terrorism conference was a golden opportunity for Al-Bashir to rub shoulders with three of the top six recipients of US aid in fiscal year 2010 �ê" Pakistan's President Asif Ali Zardari, and his Afghan and Iraqi counterparts Hamid Karzai and Jalal Talabani. Al-Bashir told participants that Western sympathisers were behind the move to split Sudan, and he had a sympathetic ear. Perhaps the eminent journalist from the Telegraph who "lost" Al-Bashir had lost his invitation, which Tehran extended to one and all, including the mother of all terrorism and its British side-kick �ê" what delegates discretely referred to as "the international hegemonic powers". The question that has come to dominate political discourse in Darfur at the moment is the import and application of the so-called Doha Peace Document signed in Qatar by the Sudanese government and some of the Darfur armed opposition groups. "We are now at the final stages of the negotiations," conceded the Sudanese president garrulously. "We regard the Doha Peace Agreement as final and any party that rejects signing this document, we as the government of Sudan will not recognise or negotiate with it," he threatened ominously. "We regard [those who do not sign] as outlaw groups and we will deal with them on this basis," Al-Bashir said in no uncertain terms. The Doha Peace Agreement is tricky to pull off. The most powerful armed opposition group in Darfur, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) has so far rejected the deal and refuses to adhere to the Doha peace document. JEM spokesperson Gibril Adam Bilal welcomed United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon's sympathetic statements concerning the armed opposition groups in Darfur. Gibril declared that Ban Ki-Moon's position was "identical" to JEM's, a stance that infuriated Al-Bashir. Back in Beijing, Al-Bashir was busy soliciting support both morally and military from his Chinese hosts. Little was left to chance in the diplomatic choreography as both sides, but especially the Sudanese, faced up to the rawness of the dependency of Khartoum on Beijing for diplomatic backing on the world stage. It was the Chinese who set the tone. China's special envoy for Africa and former envoy to Sudan's conflict-ridden Darfur Liu Guijin was careful to spotlight Beijing's posturing as Khartoum's chief champion in the international arena. Chinese President Hu Jintao has become Sudan's most powerful patron in international forums. Al-Bashir, in turn, acknowledged the debt Sudan owes China during his four-day visit to the Asian economic powerhouse. Yet the Chinese were careful not to alienate Al-Bashir's adversaries and especially the ruling Sudan People's Liberation Movement in South Sudan. Grudgingly the Sudanese president told his hosts that their peacemaking efforts were highly appreciated. China had "done a lot of work to persuade the north to implement the peace agreement and referendum," an old Africa hand said in Beijing on the eve of Al-Bashir's historic visit. His Chinese hosts were, after all, giving the red carpet treatment to an African potentate who in 2010 was charged by the International Criminal Court (ICC) with committing crimes against humanity. The ICC promptly issued an arrest warrant against Al-Bashir which is no doubt why Western pundits smirked about losing him over Iran. According to Sudan's independent English language publication The Sudan Tribune, the Sudanese president was concerned that his presidential jet would be intercepted by unfriendly agents since his flight path would have taken him over Pakistan and Afghanistan, two countries whose air spaces are patrolled by NATO and the United States. Thereafter, the unravelling of this comic-book scenario falls curiously flat, as if China is unsure whether to develop its ideas concerning Sudan through trade or political drama. NATO and the US could easily have hijacked Al-Bashir's presidential jet and force it to head westwards and land in the Netherlands instead of China. Such an affront on Sudanese sovereignty would have caused a furore and outraged the Chinese. The motives of the key players in the international arena have come into question. Foul play is widely anticipated by the warring parties in Sudan. "The United Nations has become a largely irrelevant, if not positively destructive institution, and the just-released UN report on the atrocities in Darfur, Sudan, proves the point," warned American author Linda Chavez �ê" no relation to the Venezuelan president. The UN has been signalling its desire to take a tougher line on atrocities in Darfur committed by the Sudanese army against innocent civilians. The UN has also vociferously condemned human rights violations in Sudan and especially the forced evacuation of villagers from their homes in Abyei, South Kordofan and Darfur. An estimated 30,000 Dinka Ngok, for instance, have been forcibly rendered homeless by the Sudanese authorities, warn human rights groups in Sudan. "We are making our best efforts to prevent such things," Ban Ki-Moon stressed. However, there is much criticism of the UN's handling of the matter and its reluctance or inability to bring the perpetrators of genocide and other crimes against humanity to book. Human rights groups have sounded the alarm bells for what they see as the systemic disregard and disinterest of the Sudanese government in observing the Geneva Convention and human rights laws. Such matters, they complain, are not to be taken lightly. "The secretary-general and his interlocutors reviewed the outcome of the All Darfur Stakeholders' Conference [ADSC]. The secretary-general welcomed it as the basis for reaching a permanent ceasefire and inclusive peace settlement, and sustainable peace and stability in Darfur," read a statement issued by Ban Ki-Moon's office. Still, human rights organisations �ê" Sudanese and international �ê" have expressed their grave doubts over the UN's determination to implement its values-based approach to controversial subjects such as Sudan's human rights record. The UN's prevarication and lack of clout has, human rights groups allege, given succour to repressive governments such as Sudan's. "This issue has been brought to the attention of officials of the government of Sudan, who have indicated that they will create conditions for internally displaced persons to return," presumably to their homes, announced Ban Ki-Moon recently. The UN secretary-general elected for a five-year second term described the situation in Abyei, in particular, as "unacceptable". Such empty pronouncements are tantamount to the absurd. The UN has done the easy bit in articulating the broad principle of defending the defenceless in places such as Abyei, Blue Nile, Darfur and Kordofan. But to make the policy work will require a degree of muscular prowess that the UN evidently lacks. And while Ban Ki-Moon welcomed the Doha document for peace in Darfur as a "positive step in the right direction", he paid special tribute to Burkina Faso Foreign Minister Djibril Bassole who brokered the peace process in Doha for the past two years for his "painstaking efforts and perseverance during the past two and a half years". In a trip laden with symbolism the Sudanese leader paid tribute to the Chinese in Beijing after a brief stopover in Tehran, another of Khartoum's key allies. The cat and mouse, hide and seek game highlighted Al-Bashir's conflict of interests with the West and sealed his friendship with both China and Iran. The irony is that Al-Bashir's quest for retracing the ancients' footsteps along the tried and tested Silk Road was conjured up against the backdrop of intensifying political and social tensions in the outlying regions of Sudan such as Abyei, Darfur and Kordofan. Al-Bashir's eastern excursion marked a departure point for a new Sudan unencumbered by the weight of history amassed from the two rival halves of Sudan, one Christian and animist and the other Islamist. The country will be split in two in a matter of days. Amid all the symbolism and underlying political posturing, Al-Bashir's was no conventional tour of the Middle and Far East.
