SJS2: The Price of South Sudan's Independence

Source: Waal, Alex De. "The Price of South Sudan's Indepence." Current History: Africa 114. 772            (2015): 194-96. Print. 
Author credentials: Alex De Waal is a researcher and writer on African issues. He also is the director of the World Peace Foundation at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts.
Summary: When South Sudan finally gained independence July 9th, 2011, the people hoped for a better life in their new sovereign country. They hoped they would not have to go through racial and religious discrimination anymore, or be robbed of their bountiful resources. It seems though that 4 years later the Sudanese government still is constituted by a clump of privileged ethnic groups that exploit or exclude other groups. It seemed that South Sudan's semblance was quickly being shattered. The capital Juba seemed just as bad as the capital in Sudan, Khartoum. Meaning all the wealth and power seemed to only be in Juba. A leader of an armed group and the president of South Sudan was a man named Kiir. He payed off many people in South Sudan to work his way up and provided a lot of money to the militia. This institutionalized a government of violence. Provincial commanders fought for power leaving many people dead. Soon Kiir could not pay off people anymore and he had to let his Vice President, Rick Machar, go. Machar was an ethnic Nuer, and he announced he was running for president. Those who were loyal to Kiir went to Juba and killed many Nuers. The IGAD (Intergovernmental Authority on Development) was appointed as a mediator in South Sudan. Their plan was to make Machar and Kiir stop fighting and form a national unity, but the two leaders did not trust eachother. While South Sudan was basically at war with itself, many other countries came in and attacked. This made South Sudan have to focus on itself, so Kiir amd Machar signed a unity contract. Though the contract made them one, the fighting in the country does not seem it will end soon.

Analysis: The author's argument is basically that even though South Sudan left Sudan to become less corrupt, it is just as corrupt. This article provides many examples of evidence that thoroughly support South Sudan's state. As stated in the summary, South Sudan's government seems to be at war with itself, and is unethical. With all the evidence, the author's argument is a strong one. Throughout the article there seems to be all facts, and no biased opinions. This makes the author a more reliable source. Also, the fact the article came from Current History, makes it more reliable as well.