In early 2005, Sudan’s government and rebels from the south officially terminated Africa’s longest-running war, a 21-year civil conflict that the United Nations estimates killed two million and brought misery to countless more.

Both sides signed a permanent cease-fire agreement in Naivasha, Kenya, where peace talks had been going on since September 2004. They agreed to share power and oil profits, most of which come from oil fields in the south.

The international community has already signed up to police the cease-fire. Some 10,000 U.N. peacekeepers could be deployed by August 2005, and the African Union is expected to send another 4,000.

But some analysts say the deal is fraught with problems and there are no guarantees peace will hold. And getting the south back on its feet is likely to take years and billions of dollars in aid.

In the meantime, one of the world’s most overlooked humanitarian emergencies continues to fester, with widespread starvation, staggering mortality rates and more than 5.5 million people displaced from their homes.

What are the terms of the peace agreement?

The agreement gives both sides six months to agree a new constitution and a further six years to implement it. In 2010, southerners will vote in a referendum on their future. Secession from the north at that point, experts say, could provoke another round of violence.

Both sides have agreed to split oil revenues - worth some $5 billion a year - evenly. Leaders in southern Sudan plan to use the oil money to build much-needed infrastructure. They hope to build 10,000 kilometres (6,200 miles) of roads in the next six years alone.

What was the fighting all about?

Khartoum’s countrywide imposition of Sharia - Islamic law - in 1983 was one of the main factors leading to insurrection in the south by groups including the Sudan People's Liberation Army (SPLA).

Often depicted as a conflict between the Arab, Muslim north - where the country’s capital is located - and the black animist or Christian south, war was fuelled by divisions over control of oilfields and political power as well as religious issues.

Does this have any bearing on conflicts in other parts of the country?

The peace agreements touched on disputed areas of the Nuba Mountains, the Southern Blue Nile and Abyei, all in the south, but did not deal with up to 30 armed groups around Sudan whose demands for a share of power and resources are very similar to the SPLA’s.

Other conflicts include revolts by Beja rebels of a Muslim Sufi order in the east and conflict in the Shilluk kingdom of Upper Nile in the south.

The most serious of Sudan's other conflicts is in Darfur, where fighting between black African rebels and government-backed militias of Arab heritage has killed some 200,000 people and displaced almost two million.

The two armed movements in Darfur are the Justice and Equality Movement (JEM) and the Sudan Liberation Army (SLA). Their platforms are hazy, but they call for inclusion in their fair share of power and an end to marginalisation from centralised Khartoum decision-making.

So the fighting in Darfur has nothing to do with the war between north and south?

It's confusing, but most analysts say there is a connection. Belgian-based think tank Crisis Group argues that Khartoum used delays in the north-south peace process to pursue its agenda in Darfur, knowing the international community would be reluctant to complain too loudly for fear of jeopardising the north-south talks.

Crisis Group says the refusal of the government and the SPLA to include anyone else in their negotiations fuelled the uprising by Darfur rebel groups, who felt left out of the carve-up of power and resources.

What’s the humanitarian situation in the south?

Nearly 5.5 million Sudanese were uprooted by conflict at the end of 2003, according to the U.S. Committee of Refugees. Around 600,000 of them were refugees in other countries, with the largest numbers in Uganda, Chad, Ethiopia, Democratic Republic of Congo and Kenya.

War also aggravated a hunger crisis in parts of southern Sudan, with more than 250,000 people dying from war-related famine and illnesses.

The situation has been worsened by Khartoum’s hostility toward international humanitarian aid, which means limited resources and facilities to deal with the potentially destabilising return of millions of people displaced by the war.

For those already there, southern Sudan remains a bleak place to live. Millions have been left desperately impoverished by years of fighting.

Refugees International’s Larry Thompson told AlertNet that a U.N. official had described southern Sudan as the worst place in the word to be born.

“The statistics do not contradict him,” Thompson said. “In education, literacy, and child malnutrition, southern Sudan ranks at the bottom of the world, and is near the bottom in all other social indicators.”