Sudan's dilemma was highlighted at an otherwise humdrum Arab-African summit, writes Gamal Nkrumah You can gauge the significance of Africa to Arab nations by the frequency of Arab- African summits. The first Arab-African Summit took place in 1977 in Cairo. The second Arab-African Summit convened on Sunday in the Libyan seaside Saharan city of Sirte, the hometown of Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi, proved to be a time for frank talk. Africa has promising economic potential and many an African country has a dynamic economy. And yet these days Africa is also increasingly a source of anxiety to Arab countries. Summits are not meant to be talking shops. They should allow for frank speaking and getting to the heart of the matter. But alas, Arab-African summits are a synonym for double talk and evasiveness. This stark fact has been clear since the question of Sudan's sovereignty and territorial integrity has come to the fore of Arab-African interaction. Hitherto, Arabs have been far too complacent about the political future of Sudan. It would be a gamble to try at this stage to save Sudan from disintegration. Yet the Arab and African leaders assembled in Sirte pledged to revive talks between northern and southern Sudanese politicians. There is always the threat that the southern Sudanese might walk away in a huff. It is presumed that the ruling National Congress Party of Sudanese President Omar Hassan Al-Bashir is the representative of the northern Sudanese. But, that is not necessarily so. Northern Sudanese opposition forces have been systematically marginalised and sidelined from talks between northern and southern Sudanese politicians. The peripheralised northern opposition groups would have a huge weight in determining the political future of Sudan. The Sudan People's Liberation Movement (SPLM) supposedly represents the southern Sudanese people. In reality it purports to represent all the marginalised peoples of Sudan, northerners and southerners, westerners and easterners. Note that the party is deliberately called the "Sudan People's" and not the "Southern Sudan People's" Liberation Movement. The founder of the SPLM John Garang was a Pan- Africanist who was insistent on the unity and territorial integrity of Sudan. However, Garang believed that the only way to ensure the unity of Sudan was to foster a democratic, secular nation. He aspired to create what he called a "New Sudan". Garang's vision was sadly lost as it became increasingly clear after his untimely death in a plane crash in 2005 that the NCP was determined to preserve the "Old Sudan" that Garang abhorred. It was a Sudan ruled by an Arabised clique that adopted a militant Islamist ideology and enforced Islamic Sharia law on non-Muslims. The NCP also projected the Arab identity of Sudan when the country was and remains a multi-ethnic, multi-cultural and multi- religious nation straddling the Arab- African divide. The NCP's call for unity was not an offer that could be made in good faith. Relations between northerners and southerners continue deteriorating. The referendum scheduled for January 2011 and stipulated by the Comprehensive Peace Agreement signed between the Sudanese government dominated by the NCP on the one hand, and the SPLM, on the other hand, was widely hailed as the solution to the country's long-standing problems and political impasse. The southerners were given a choice either to reject or accept secession and the creation of an independent state in the southern third of the country. Arabs and northern Sudanese saw this as a threat and a pretext for the oil-rich south to secede. President Al-Bashir this week warned that if foreign forces, a euphemism for Western powers, interfere in the referendum results then the northerners will engage in a jihad to defend the territorial integrity of Sudan. The SPLM leader Salva Kiir declared that he personally prefers to vote for the secession of southern Sudan. It is in this context that the statement by the Libyan leader that the break-up of Sudan will create similar situations in other African countries prone to balkanisation setting off what observers term a domino effect. Most African leaders gathered in Sirte agreed with Gaddafi that the break-up of Sudan would be an ominous event. However, they also sympathised with the SPLM leadership that in order for Sudan to remain a viable, united political entity it must institute a truly democratic system of government and accept multi-party political pluralism. Most Arab leaders would no doubt argue that now is not the time to deal with these intricate contradictions and hypocrisies. In the face of all this evidence, Arab and African leaders would simply be irresponsible to press ahead with a new economic and political partnership between Arabs and Africans without ironing out these grave differences in political perceptions. Arab-African partnership remains the ideal, but it must be based on mutual consent and a true meeting of minds. Otherwise, true Arab-African partnership may be many years off.
