Source:
De Waal, Alex. "The Price of South Sudan's Independence." Current History: A 
     Journal of Contemporary World Affairs, vol. 114, no. 772, May 2015, pp. 
     194-96. 

Author Credentials: Alex de Waal is the Executive Director of the World Peace Foundation and a Research Professor at The Fletcher School and is considered one of the foremost experts on Sudan and the Horn of Africa. His scholarship and practice has probed many responses, in and out of Africa. He received a D.Phil. from Oxford for a thesis he made about the Darfur famine in Sudan. He was also a fellow at the Global Equity Initiative at Harvard and Program Director at the Social Science Research Council. These titles are among others that he gained while researching and helping with Africa. He also worked on several human rights organizations focused on the Horn of Africa and Sudan as well as HIV/AIDS, poverty, and governance in Africa. 

Summary: When South Sudan gained independence in 2011 they hoped that as their own independent sovereign nation, they wouldn't face the same problems they had while still a part of Sudan such as religious discrimination and being robbed of their natural resources. However, these problems have only only followed them. When South Sudan gained independence and had money to spend, much of it went to the military and the rest basically was given to corruption due to the lack of good infrastructure. Their issue was really money, not an ethnic conflict as many thought, but they had neither a steady revenue of skillful management, which put them in trouble. Eventually, leaders opposed to the ruler of South Sudan, Salva Kirr, combined forces so their factions could attempt overrule him and the corrupt government, but both sides were still cautious as to avoid civil war. Despite these efforts, with attacks that broke out among other existing conflicts, the political dispute took on military and ethnic conflicts that grew and put South Sudan's statehood in pieces. While outside forces attempted to mediate, the violence within escalated which caused other African countries to get involved on one side or the other. African leaders eventually came up with an agreement for the leaders of both sides of the civil war to temporarily sign but fighting and corruption is still nowhere near an end in South Sudan. 

Analysis: He is a reliable and qualified source because of the high esteem he is held in in regard to his focuses on Africa. The author has a fairly objective perspective in presenting the facts but also includes specific positives or negatives depending on what region or event he is talking about which allows him to get specific points across to the reader . He adequately distinguishes between facts and opinions by mostly describing the facts of the topic but also includes some of the more biased opinions of particular groups and their reactions to ongoing events in their societies.