Brookings: "What is the future of the Sudans?"

On January 24th, 2022, 3 PM, the Brookings presented online a discussion on the present conditions in the Sudans.  Mr. Michael O'Hanlon of Brookings was the moderator and among the participants were Professor Peter Ajak, Michigan University; Nyagoah Pur, Chicago Council on Global Affairs; and Joseph Tucker, United States Institute for Peace.  Be it noted that South Sudan became an independent, landlocked country in 2011; and there has been violence ever since on both sides of the border separating them.

That is, the countries have been embroiled in attempts to establish peace between them; trying one interim council after another to organize themselves each into a stable but interim government, hoping to establish a permanent administration in each that will uphold the doctrine of the rule of law and the democratic process of elections, I understand.  In the Sudan, the amount of order achieved amid occurred among attempted coups, some successful, to topple a reigning administration.  

Take the Sudan.  Presently, the military seem to be controlling the government.  The civilian Hamdok just resigned as Prime Minister this month.  Aljazeera reports, the country is dotted with crowds of protests demanding a civilian government.

There are particular circumstances that demonstrate to my mind the military, already entrenched as the country's leaders aren't going to sacrifice their privileged positions: there's oil in the land; and the military might be permitted to be heads of companies that may benefit from its sale.  The traditional Near-Eastern Countries of Saudi Arabia, etc. as well as Arab countries, are meddling in the affairs of Sudan, perhaps to retain a say in oil distribution from the Sudans.  In any case, nobody, but nobody, of these parties are going to give up their access to controlling the Sudanese largesse.  They are entrenched in there; and the civilian-government backed protesters are set with their hands out to get whatever they can once the military goes from government that would only bring in another crop of entrepreneurs with insider trade information and deal-making propensities in world markets.

In general, nobody's hands--no leader's--is clean in countries drenched with oil fields!

This means that despite the sage comments of the speakers at this discussion, there can be no peace in the Sudans among the thieves that walk the streets of Darfur, where the strife of competitive factions seek to control the Sudanese oil.  Though I concur from my readings and familiarity with the area in the point emphasized among the participants that relatively little has changed since 2011, when South Sudan became an independent state.  As long as there's oil the prize, groups of financial graspers will vie with one another to head the government.

A way out of this situation is for some independent agency, AU or UN, announce another transition government be selected and overseen with extraordinary  powers by an international accounting firm, a credentialed human resources agency and other technocrat institutions.  Its members could not be candidates for the installed government that would conduct elections and appoint a constitutional convention to fashion the new government's laws and establish a system of checks and balances to permit oversight henceforth.  

Anyway, you get the point: change actors; and let those entrepreneurs stay out of government to permit fair dealing in the marketplace.