I would like to say that these traditional conflict resolution mechanisms are extremely robust. My colleague knows far more than I do as he's a geographer, but I am in Darfur and I have seen it with my own eyes. It is not only in Darfur, but elsewhere.
I wanted to jump in to say something about the way forward. Underlying all of this—conflict resolution at the grassroots and the multilateralism—is something that is very important and the ultimate objective. I have to be cautious about saying this, but the ultimate objective is a civilian democracy.
In the context, globally, where there is disillusionment with democracy, particularly in that region but also in the west, it's interesting to see that both warring parties are, in their rhetoric, talking about a democratic transition. I know it's hard to believe, but that represents their desperate attempt to get legitimacy because they know domestically that this is ultimately what the Sudanese people want. Also, it's good, at least for the time being, that this is agreed upon by the Quad, the majority of which are not democratic countries.
That becomes a very important aspect of the way forward.
What role can Canada play? I can't give too much advice except to say that what is being talked about is the rule of law, federalism and constitutionalism. Those are the beginnings of what many Sudanese.... Even now, at least in rhetoric and discourse, the regional actors, who are not pro-democracy as such, are actually signing on the dotted line for a transition towards a civilian democracy. I think that's important.