More specifically, I recently read some remarkably poor analysis from Chatham House on Sudan and its future. While I will spare readers my negative review of this poorly reasoned report, one thought begs mention; the difference in leadership exhibited between the northern junta and the Government of Southern Sudan.
I'll sum it up in how each side deals with a similar situation; tribal conflict, community tensions and open warfare (open warfare in Sudan, dear readers, is simply community tensions that have been incubated).
First, the regime in Khartoum has a boilerplate response: send in the troops, bomb civilians and generally break things and hurt people. Oh, and resist outsiders trying to help protect innocents when the "solution" gets too savage.
Conversely, the Government of Southern Sudan, though certainly not perfect, takes a different approach to the same problem: send in the President to mediate, encourage resolution and bring the facts to the people.
I'd have to say, this is a stark contrast that is often overlooked by the professional "analysts."
Certainly worthy of another post, but the Government of Southern Sudan has completed a (long-overdue, perhaps) security policy. A worthy and telling quote that is nub of the document's purpose, and the governments' security and governing mission;
“The Government of Southern Sudan exists for the ultimate purpose of ensuring the security and sovereignty of the people of Southern Sudan …Though we have limited resources, we will seek to minimize risk while focusing our efforts on those activities that are most vital to securing our interests,”Bravo.