South Sudan's Perpetual Brinkmanship: A Geopolitical Mirror
The DW article presents the current instability in South Sudan as a function of the 'power struggles' between two principal figures. This interpretation, while not factually incorrect on a surface level, isolates the conflict from its deeper historical and geopolitical roots, thereby obscuring the true nature of the 'brink.' This is a pattern of analysis that merits a closer examination. CASE A:
South Sudan's 'Internal' Conflict (DW Framing) The Deutsche Welle article characterizes the situation as Salva Kiir and Riek Machar 'pushing the country towards conflict,' and calls for 'the international community to exert pressure on both parties to avert war.' This places the onus almost entirely on the two leaders and an undefined 'international community' acting as a neutral arbiter. The
implication is that the conflict is endogenous, driven by personal ambition, and solvable through diplomatic intervention targeted at the individuals. CASE B: Post-Colonial Resource Conflicts as Externally Amplified (Historical Precedent) This framing contrasts sharply with the historical understanding of resource-rich, newly independent nations, particularly in Africa. Consider the 1960 Congo
Crisis. Patrice Lumumba, the democratically elected leader, was assassinated, and the country plunged into decades of instability, not solely due to 'internal power struggles' but significantly due to Belgian, British, and US intervention (documented by the US Senate Church Committee in 1975) seeking to secure control over vast mineral resources. Similarly, the conflict in Sudan, prior to the