The problems in Sudan are the direct result that it's acceptable to raid cattle, to kidnap children, and to kill each other in raids. If the violence is to stop, the tribes involved must END THESE TRADITIONS, and adopt traditions of free and honest trade, of cooperation, and of peaceful competition. If these tribes were to do that, then their guns will only be used in self defense–no matter how “awash” their society would be in guns–and most of the violence will disappear.

For disarmament to be successful, the dynamics of conflict need to be understood e.g. which communities are in conflict with each other. Disarmament must not open one community up to be exploited (e.g. cattle raiding) by another. Disarmament must be done equitably by an impartial body. Security institutions (police / military) must be in place to provide the protection needed for communities that have been disarmed. The list goes on. Southern Sudan is not in a position to carry out disarmament successfully at this point. It first needs to build its institutions, government and security bodies need to build trust with all communities.

The development-security debate is an interesting one, with few right or wrong answers. It frequently depends on how things are implemented, as to their success or failure. Southern Sudan has opted for a militaristic approach towards disarmament, for several reasons. The civilian institutions are weak and the SPLA are one of the only bodies that are sufficiently strong to exert authority, and so have been used (with negative repercussions). But the government has started to look at other non-military mechanisms: the development of the Bureau for Community Security and Small Arms Control is one body which has been established. But this is Sudan. It will take time to take root.

But overall, disarmament is not a bad thing per se, as the article seems to suggest. It is a necessary measure, without which communities will continue to fight each other, as well as undermine the security institutions which are tasked with providing protection for the communities of Southern Sudan. Heavily armed communities – more heavily armed than the state security providers – are only a recipe for sustainable violence and will run counter to the nation building attempt.

Have you been able to get concrete proof that they have suffered from infertility for generations? Also, the Murle are not the only tribe that abducts children in this area – it happens amonst many groups – Toposa, Didinga, Lou Nuer. I have read resolutions and sat in numerous peace meetings which don't include the Murle, and return of abducted children is always discussed.

Finally, the statement that they now steal children and kill their families seems to be extreme – is there proof of this? Yes, there is cattle raiding and they do abduct children as part of it, as do other groups.

there is no question that some Murle criminals participate in the practice of abducting children, but I wonder if this type of reporting without proof is further spreading and feeding into stereotyping based upon ethnicity. In Southern Sudan when a child is missing, the first assumption is that a Murle has taken them, and until it is proved otherwise, this is accepted as truth. There have been cases where children abducted and blamed on the Murle have later been shown to be other perpatrators.

Sadly, the 21st Century is opening without the lessons learned from the past. Disarmament=Death!

The UN's complete encouragement of disarmament (i.e. DEATH), is a disgusting concept, in and of itself. The UN, itself, should be disbanded, and all those in current power, at the UN, should be tried for murder.