This was my favorite article about the recent summit in Kla. (Be sure to peep the caption under the photo – hehe.)

http://www.monitor.co.ug/artman/publish/news/Questions_as_Gaddafi_skips_AU_summit_93460.shtml

Thanks for your comments that provide an important angle to view the Ugandan invitations. Your argument about the need for Museveni to maintain the truce with Bashir is compelling. Let me say though that I did not mean to suggest that Nigeria or Uganda were part of the vociferous anti-ICC current, but rather these “invitations” might be a way to placate that current and toe the line on the July AU resolution – without violating their obligations as states parties to the ICC. So basically they can have it both ways.

Please keep reading and providing critical responses!

I’m not sure it’s entirely accurate to cast the Ugandan government’s recent invitation to Bashir as an example of “vociferous currents in pan-Africanism” — although there are legitimate intellectual cases to be made against the tenor of the ICC’s approach with regard to Sudan. Rather, it’s important to remember that Museveni has a variety of regional and domestic priorities of his own to consider. Uganda and Sudan have a torrid history of proxy warfare which has done quite a bit of damage to both sides of the border. Given the current truce between Khartoum and Kampala, Museveni no doubt wants to avoid further alienating Bashir — especially given the increased fragility of the Sudanese state, and Khartoum’s sensitivity to Uganda’s past alliances with, and strong material support of, the SPLM. It seems to me that Sudan and Uganda have a delicate bilateral relationship, the substance of which should not be dismissed out of hand as driven entirely (if at all) by ideological concerns.

If (or when) Sudan explodes, the conflict won’t simply stop at the country’s borders. Whether it becomes a regional crisis will depend a great deal on the details of Khartoum’s bilateral relationships with its neighbors.