South Sudan's fighting not typical of Africa

This is not an article on South Sudan, which is just as well because the conflicts there are almost fractal in their complexity.

The mini-war last weekend between the forces of President Salva Kiir and Vice-President Riek Machar, which killed more than 270 people and saw tanks, artillery and helicopter gunships used in the capital, Juba, is part of a pattern that embraces the whole country.

The four days of heavy fighting began on Friday with a disagreement between the two men's large forces of bodyguards outside State House, where they were meeting, and rapidly escalated. Nobody was surprised, because the peace deal last August, which ended a two-year civil war that killed tens of thousands across the country, was never very secure.

Last weekend was the fifth anniversary of South Sudan's independence from Sudan, but celebrations had been cancelled before the shooting started because the government couldn't afford them.

The real reason for its poverty, however, is war: the country that is now South Sudan has been at war for 42 of the past 60 years. British colonialists included it in what we now call Sudan for administrative convenience, but the dominant population in the much bigger northern part was Muslim and Arabic-speaking, while the south was mostly Christian and culturally, ethnically and linguistically African.

The fighting began a year before Sudan's independence in 1956, with the southerners resisting the Sudanese government's attempts to Islamize and Arabize their part of the new country. That civil war lasted until 1971, and the second (1983-2005) was even longer. By the time South Sudan finally won its independence in 2011, it had long been a fully militarized society.

It didn't take long after independence before the two biggest ethnic groups, the Dinka (led by Kiir) and the Nuer (led by Machar), were at each other's throats. Those are just two of South Sudan's 60 ethnic groups, each with its own language, culture and territory -- and even within the two big ethnic groups, different sub-groups sometimes find themselves on opposite sides of the fighting.

One-fifth of South Sudan's 12 million people are refugees within their country -- the lucky ones in United Nations camps, but many hiding in swamps and badlands from local ethnic militias. Kiir and Machar are both brutal, untrustworthy men, and neither is fully in control of his own generals. And the outside organizations that have poured foreign aid and peacekeeping troops into the country are losing patience.

But South Sudan is not representative of sub-Saharan Africa. Of 48 countries south of the Sahara, only Somalia, Burundi, and South Sudan are currently suffering from large-scale internal violence.

A dozen others have experienced similar upheavals in the past 15 years: sub-Saharan Africa is unique in the diversity of its population, with 200 ethnic groups of more than half a million people and only three with more than 15 million people. But mostly they manage to co-exist fairly peacefully and over time broader national identities are being built over the post-colonial wreckage.

The image of a continent ravaged by war is an optical illusion perpetuated by international media's fixation with violence. For example, during most of 2014-15 headline news out of Europe, as far as the rest of the world was concerned, was the war in Ukraine -- although all of the continent's other 50 countries were at peace.

South Sudan is desperately unfortunate in its history and its leaders, but it is no more typical of Africa than Ukraine is of Europe.

Gwynne Dyer is an independent journalist whose articles are published in 45 countries.