FOR the second year running, Sudan is not taking up the chairmanship of the African Union (AU). A year ago, when the AU summit was actually held in Khartoum, it was decided that because of the continuing Darfur conflict, the honor should be postponed. Denis Sassou-Ngeuso, president of the Republic of Congo, was chosen instead. Now the latest summit in Addis Ababa has given the job to President John Kufuor of Ghana. After unsuccessful protests behind the scenes, the Sudanese government accepted the further postponed AU leadership with as good grace as possible.
Why the Sudanese administration of President Omar Bashir imagined for a minute that it would be appropriate for it to assume the key role in the fragile AU perhaps gives a clue to the way minds are working in Khartoum. Formed in 2001, the 53-member AU does not need a leadership that is embroiled in the very sort of conflict that its founders hoped to end. Indeed, the chairmanship difficulties may persuade members to follow the example of the UN and appoint an executive secretary- general, instead of the existing AU chairman and vice chairman, both low-profile, low-influence jobs.
It is surprising that the Sudanese government imagined that it was in any way in a position to discharge the important responsibilities of guiding the AU through its eighth year. The country has one major rebellion on its hands in Darfur, is in covert conflict with neighboring Chad and has still to conclude a lasting peace with ethnic Beja rebels in the east. Worst of all, the coalition government which includes SPLA leaders from the formerly rebel south, is showing increasing signs of strain as pro-Khartoum militias attack southern communities. The groundbreaking peace that ended almost 50 years of conflict and cost over two million lives is now at risk.
In addition, in Darfur AU troops have been trying to keep the rebels and the Janjaweed militias apart and protect luckless refugees. How did President Bashir suppose he could be an impartial AU chairman when it came to Darfur? Clearly someone in Khartoum believed taking over the AU leadership would be of assistance to the Sudanese government — though precisely how is extremely hard to see. A Sudanese leadership of AU would have achieved nothing except polarizing AU membership. It certainly seems most unlikely that Khartoum gave much consideration to the serious damage that could be done to the AU itself and the whole concept of an organization working to promote peace and economic prosperity for Africa. This extraordinary lack of vision and indeed appropriateness in its dealings with the rest of the world accounts for the feeling that sometimes Sudan is like a great vessel, plowing through stormy seas with absolutely no one on the bridge.
The Nairobi Comprehensive Peace Agreement in January 2005 that brought an end to the civil war with the south was an outstanding piece of statesmanship by President Bashir. Why then does it now seem that such fine judgment and patient statecraft have disappeared from the administration?
