The long awaited release of the new US policy on Sudan outlines several key points that lay the framework for lasting peace there. With a focus on a comprehensive approach to Sudan, the US administration recognizes the importance that peace in Darfur, the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and border safety play in establishing and maintaining stability for the people of Sudan. It is refreshing to see a US strategy that takes a holistic approach, recognizing the commitment made to all Sudanese people and the strength of US leadership in the international community.

It is estimated that almost every civilian household in Juba, south Sudan, holds at least one gun.  Just a few years after the resolution of decades of civil war in south Sudan, it is clear that civilians still feel unprotected by the state and find it necessary to take the responsibility of protection upon themselves. Just a few months ago, I learned of a similar situation with residents in Karamoja, Uganda who were reluctant to disarm because they felt weapons were their only form of protection.  I also remember feeling the same type of concern in the Central African Republic, when I encountered villagers who had created ‘self-defense units” in order to ward off bandits. These are all clear examples of the extreme gaps in the day-to-day safety civilians feel.

Earlier this week a decision from The Hague determined the boundary between north and south Sudan around the town of Abyei. This particular decision stems from an agreement signed last year, but it marks a part of the peace process occuring in Sudan. Benchmark goals like an election in April of next year and a referendum in 2011 are part of the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) – a document that marked the end of 21 years of war.

On Tuesday the Obama administration convened an international conference to seek renewed commitment to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement (CPA) between north and south Sudan. The next day I attended a meeting where representatives of northern and southern Sudan gave their perspectives on the outcomes of the conference. It was supposed to be a time for showing the world how much agreement there was between the parties. Yet, in this short meeting, the parties were unable to conceal their disagreements and significant distrust of each other.