The smug tone of this Reuters story from a couple years ago was nauseatingly offensive then and is even more so now. It is infused from beginning to end with the hubris of privileged white folks dictating to "the darkies" what's best for them.
Not that those meddling Americans would ever use that kind of language. Nope, these would be leading edge capacity builders and civil society enablers and all that other bogus shit that front-runs the neo-colonial drive to get once and for all what we missed last time.
The entire neo-colonial enterprise is naked greed dressed up in the "white man's burden." The drive to "help" the po' folks of South Sudan was motivated by nothing other than the humanitarian instincts of those policy wonks. The oil and other resources in that new country they created had absolutely nothing to do with it.
The New York Times has gone from cheer-leading to hand-wringing in its coverage of South Sudan. It's all about the tribalism, don't you know... meanwhile, African news sources tell a different story.
We've said it before and here it is again; Africa needs to be left to Africans. The do-gooders and the prospectors and the fast-buck artists and the policy wonks and the 101 flavours of evangelists and AFRICOM need to find their busy-work somewhere else.