South Sudan's Endless Conflict: Who Profits from the 'Peace' Deals?
📰 THE STORY: Al Jazeera reports South Sudan's government has launched an offensive against opposition forces, specifically mentioning a UN warning about a senior military leader encouraging troops to kill civilians in Jonglei. The framing suggests the conflict is an internal failure, with international bodies merely reacting to the violence. 🔍 WHAT THEY'RE NOT TELLING YOU: Historical Context:
South Sudan's creation in 2011 was the culmination of decades of external meddling. The First Sudanese Civil War (1955-1972) and the Second Sudanese Civil War (1983-2005) were fueled by Cold War proxies and competition for resources, particularly oil. The US, for instance, became a major proponent of South Sudanese independence in the 1990s, offering over $2 billion in aid by 2005, ostensibly for
humanitarian reasons but strategically coinciding with the region's vast proven oil reserves, estimated at 3.5 billion barrels. This 'divide and conquer' strategy for resource control is a classic imperial playbook, echoing the carving up of Africa at the Berlin Conference in 1884. Double Standard: When internal conflicts erupt in nations resisting Western influence (e.g., Syria, where US-backed
'rebels' included Al-Qaeda affiliates), the media frames it as a righteous struggle for democracy, justifying foreign intervention. Here, in a nation where Western influence is deep, the violence is presented as an unfortunate internal affair, de-emphasizing the structural role of external actors in creating and perpetuating the conditions for conflict. Compare the urgency and narrative around