While the truce in Sudan between Khartoum and the south sounds good, I think it’s just a sham, not really more valuable than the Paris Accords for South Vietnam. It should be obvious that the Khartoum government didn’t agree to it because of any reform or change of heart - the situation in Darfur indicates that murder, pillage and ethnic cleansing are still the official policies of that government.
How can one put trust in a piece of paper with such a government? I can’t see this as other than a hudna which gives the Khartoum regime the ability to concentrate on the western front. Once that’s finished then I expect a renewed war in the south. Why not? It’s not like that regime has paid any price for the war other than the ability of the south to resist.
I’d like to give President Bush credit for this (as some others have), but I don’t see it as worthy of any more credit than the Carter/Clinton treaty with North Korea in 1995. Or the restoration of Aristide in Haiti. Or, as noted, the Paris accords that “ended” the war in Vietnam.