A s Africans we are always thirsty for good news about all the countries of our continent to assess the progress we are making towards the renewal of Africa. It is therefore always very distressing to hear news that recalls the painful past of violent conflicts, wars, military dictatorships and famines, against which our continent is trying to turn its back.
May 5 seemed to be yet another day of good news for our continent, signalling that we were indeed advancing towards the realisation of the goal of Africa's renaissance.
On this day, Sudan took a step forward towards the restoration of peace in Darfur, as the Government of Sudan and one faction of the Sudan Liberation Movement/Army (SLM/A) signed a peace agreement in Abuja, Nigeria, after a protracted process of negotiations.
We take this opportunity once more to thank Nigerian President Olusegun Obasanjo, the African Union (AU) Mediator, Salim Ahmed Salim, and others who have been involved in the process to assist the Sudanese parties to conclude a comprehensive agreement that would end the costly conflict in Darfur.
We must also salute the Government of Sudan and Minni Arcua Minnawi and his faction of the SLM/A for taking the critical step to sign the negotiated agreement, thus creating the possibility for peace to return to Darfur, the refugees and internally displaced people to return to their homes, and the process of reconstruction and development in Darfur to commence.
It is most unfortunate that another faction of the SLM/A, led by Abdel Wahed Mohammed al-Nur, as well as the second Darfur rebel movement, the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM), decided not to sign the peace agreement. All of us therefore have an obligation to support President Obasanjo, AU Mediator Salim Salim, the AU Commission and others who have worked hard to secure the agreement of the warring parties in Darfur.
The agreement signed by the Government of Sudan and the SLM/A (Minnawi group) includes critically important elements that would have to be addressed in any agreement genuinely intended permanently to end the conflict in Darfur. These are:
These issues parallel the similar issues contained in the Sudan Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) signed in Nairobi, Kenya in January 2005, concluding the similarly protracted negotiations between the Government of Sudan and the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army, then led by the late Dr John Garang de Mabior.
Ever since the CPA was signed, we have been of the view that it provides an appropriate framework for the resolution of the crisis in Darfur. Necessarily, anything agreed about the future of Darfur has to be consistent with the CPA. We are certain that the Sudanese negotiators in Abuja understand this critical reality.
Though the CPA is a product of negotiations between two Sudanese players, the predominantly Arab and Moslem Government of Sudan and the SPLM/A, representing the black and non-Moslem Southern Sudan, it is of central relevance to the whole of Sudan. It creates the basis for the reconstruction and development of the whole of Sudan as a viable, stable and democratic federal state.
Obviously, anything agreed about Darfur cannot and should not result in unravelling the CPA. Rather, it should help to give meaning to the people in Darfur of the provisions contained in the CPA.
These include precisely the same issues contained in the Abuja Agreement on Darfur, such as equitably sharing political power and the country's wealth, and respecting the national, ethnic, linguistic, cultural and religious diversity of Sudan.
In the past we have said that with the conclusion and faithful implementation of the CPA, Sudan could provide our continent with a very important example of what we should do to address the fundamental problems that have resulted in conflict and instability in many African countries.
This is one of the central considerations that the Sudanese negotiators in Abuja must take into account as they negotiate what, for them, might seem to be merely a fight about the future of Darfur.
They must keep to the fore the understanding that what they will decide is of critical importance to Darfur, Sudan and Africa as a whole. This is one of the reasons that the African Union must remain centrally involved in working with the Government of Sudan and the population in Darfur to bring lasting peace to this region of Sudan.
The conflict in Darfur has resulted in strained relations and heightened tension between Sudan and Chad. The latter is now faced with the threat of a civil war. The Government of Chad has openly blamed the Government of Sudan for supporting the armed groups that have engaged in military campaigns to overthrow the Government of Chad.
Similarly, the Government of Sudan has accused elements within the Chadian Government of supporting the rebels in Darfur. The situation is of course complicated by the fact that Sudan and Chad share some ethnic groups, such as the Zaghawa who live both in Sudan and Chad, and move freely across the boundary between these two countries drawn by the colonial powers.
The negative impact of the Darfur conflict on inter-state relations, as between Sudan and Chad, as well as Eritrea to the east, which Sudan accuses of supporting the Darfur rebels, must communicate the strong message to the Sudanese negotiators in Abuja that, truly, the resolution of the Darfur crisis and the overall challenges of Sudan, would make an important contribution to the resolution of Africa's problems.
One of Sudan's eminent sons, Mansour Khalid, a distinguished politician, international diplomat and writer, published a book in 2003, entitled "War and Peace in Sudan: A Tale of Two Countries." The book deals with the long war between the North and the South of Sudan, which ended with the signing of the Sudan CPA.
In his book, Mansour Khalid makes an important observation that the Sudanese negotiators in Abuja should take to heart, as should all of us as Africans, as we work to build stable and democratic diverse African nation states. Khalid wrote:
"In the case of Sudan, the mainspring of war has been iniquitous attempts by one group to gain immoderate advantage over a presumed rival under the pretence of enhancing 'national' acquirements narrowly perceived.
"In this light, Sudan's war may fairly be traced to a sense of perverted nationalism that never cared to keep the mean between two extremes. Invariably, perverted nationalisms are driven by a winner-take-all inclination. On no account do they put up with relinquishing a little; they always hunger for taking all.
"This acquisitiveness invites, as a matter of course, retortion by those who suffer most from its consequences either to reparate injuries or end injustices (real or perceived). Those root causes of conflict, if not identified, recognised and dealt with, inescapably fester and burst."
A just resolution of the conflict in Darfur, and all the other historic tensions that have affected Sudan, must indeed be based on the repudiation of any winner-takes-all approach, which makes it impossible to build the inclusive societies that are the only condition for the achievement of peace, stability and national unity and reconciliation in all African countries.
Everything must be done to expand the reach of the agreement signed in Abuja on 5 May, by ensuring that all Darfurians are persuaded to board the Sudanese peace train. Africa, and not only Darfur, Sudan and Chad, has great need for that piece of good news.
