Comments on: A World Playground: Congolese People Sacrificed for International Games and Profits

By: Fred

Fred — Wed, 12 Nov 2008 10:28:56 +0000

Thanks Roxanne,

I also found this review of Maren’s book: http://www.netnomad.com/rieff.html

By: kalidas

kalidas — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 06:36:44 +0000

The “Congo” reminds me of S.A., only more so.
“The spice must flow,” and flow it will..

By: Roxanne Stasyszyn

Roxanne Stasyszyn — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 14:37:08 +0000

I do think that MONUC and NGOs should improve what they do and how they do it. Staying and being ineffectual, I believe, causes more harm. Especially with well-funded and well-armed organizations like MONUC.
Like for most of Africa, if the international community truly wanted countries to develop and stabilize, they would get out. You cannot develop without the element of autonomy. Charity does not grow stability.
Outside of humanitarian relief of natural disaster it is hard to justify the existence of many NGOs and militant groups, like MONUC. Everyone has their own objectives, their own agendas and rarely is the stability, security and happiness of the DRCongo and it’s people the only or true one.
When I interviewed the brigade running MONUC in Goma, for example, the simple question of “why are you here,” received no hesitation but a quick “it is great for training.” Explaining to me that DRCongo presents a perfect opportunity to develop and hone their soldiers skills, as well as provide some, while little, actual combat with rebel groups and even the government army at times, I wrote notes diligently. My pen traced the words, “to protect the people” only twice in the interview and “for the stability of this region” came once – by my further instigation.

May I also suggest Michael Maren’s book. It talks largely about Northern Africa but, unfortunately, the issues are the same.
Thank you Fred, for your comments.

By: Fred

Fred — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 11:50:44 +0000

Thank you for this fresh take on the situation. In particular, Nkunda’s control of Lueshe is highly worthy of close scrutiny. I have 4 comments and a question:

1. It’s not quite correct to lump Chemonics – a profit-making consultancy firm focusing on USAID-funded development projects – with humanitarian NGOs, none of which are perfect but many of which are at least principled. (‘Dupont talks about his experience with Chemonics as a reality check to what humanitarian work really is’).

2. Human Rights Watch has had quite a tricky relationship with the current Rwandan government, which is uncomfortable with their criticism of the lack of democratic space and recently denounced one of their reports as fantasy. HRW has denounced not only Rwandan support for Nkunda but also past and present war crimes committed by Nkunda’s troops.

3. It strikes me as deeply cynical to assume that NGO-implemented development projects fail by design. Of course they and their donors should be more accountable for their longer-term impact, but most of the people who work on them are motivated by the thought that their work makes a difference and painfully aware of their limitations. Some of these observations apply to many individuals within MONUC, as well.

4. As well as international and national power struggles, there are local power struggles. Clearly, these conflicts are mutually reinforcing, and rooted in competition for high-value resources. It is highly convenient for local politicians to blame MONUC for all the problems, but a share of responsibility rests at each level.

Do you conclude that MONUC and the NGOs should improve their performance, or leave?

thanks, I’ll bookmark and return to this page.

Fred

By: Re Runninghorse

Re Runninghorse — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 09:00:03 +0000

“The cause of such damage is usually only one of two things: childbirth in poor conditions, or a traumatic and violent sexual encounter, mainly rape.”

It is not “mainly rape” that causes the damage to the vaginal walls, but rather, what happens AFTER all the gang-raping, imprisonment and forced childbirth of the rapists’ babies. As a final violation of these women, the soldiers – rapists – systematically use a knives, broken soda bottles, jagged sticks to deliberately and violently tear up the women’s reproductive organs for the dual purpose of terrorism and ensuring they will never have any more children. In other words, it is incorrect to say that fustula damage is the result of either sexual encounters of even rape. It is the deliberate mutilation of women’s sex organs with a foreign object.

By: keith harmon snow

keith harmon snow — Mon, 10 Nov 2008 02:53:30 +0000

Hello

ANDY — I looked at your suggested article and I’m afraid I don’t see very much substantive information or analyses that will help understand Congo. Its a bit too obtuse for me.

Michael Kenny — really, one wonders what your purpose is? Are you trying to prove that you can do maths? The Chemonics worker in question is NOT a company spokesman, I assure you. There is nothing naive about Roxanne’s account. Your suggestion is indeed, wrong. This development professional was rather “kind” to Chemonics, in fact.

On the other hand you wrote:

“…and American NGOs seem to be somehow involved in it.”

Seem to be? I recommend Michael Maren’s book THE ROAD TO HELL. If that isn’t enough, read this series KING KONG:
http://www.allthingspass.com/journalism.php?catid=45

Finally, Israel –
http://www.dissidentvoice.org/2008/02/gertlers-bling-bang-torah-gang/

Which reminds me — I need to get PART TWO out there.

blessings
keith

By: Kathy

Kathy — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 23:47:07 +0000

Dear Roxanne,

Regardless of what others think, I feel that you are extremely brave to expose such brutal truths about the living conditions these people continue to overcome each day of their lives. In my opinion, you are not speaking out of turn here. You are simply citing what you’ve observed and heard first hand. I know myself that I am very ignorant to what’s going on in other parts of the world and in reading your article, feel very blessed for the freedom I have in my small corner of the world. If your article reaches even a few 100 people, it may open others’ eyes to the same realization. However, there are some people who just don’t want to learn/hear the truth for whatever reason. These are the ignorant people in the world who care only about themselves and how it may affect them. If it doesn’t affect them directly, they don’t put anymore thought into it. The truth is, it affects us all in some way or another and we should be supporting those of you (like yourself) who seek the truth. Best wishes to you as you discover more truths.

Sincerely,

K. Dawson

By: Roxanne Stasyszyn

Roxanne Stasyszyn — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 16:21:47 +0000

Mr. Kenny,
thank you for your comments, but I must respond to two things. First of all, the information I wrote about all of my sources, including Dupont, was given to me on the record. In no way do I attempt to endanger those people who so courageously and graciously discussed with me their experiences. Dupont, also, does not deserve your criticism. Dupont is a person who has risked his life, as many do, because he believes he can do something to help more people live longer, healthier and happier lives – people that are never generally considered at the tables of big boardrooms and international forums. He soon discovered that even when there are organizations built to help these ignored people, many times the concern is feigned. Many times those people remain ignored. When this happened, unlike the many others who involve themselves like Dupont has, he stepped back. He disjoined himself with those organizations, he risked his livelihood and even his life to speak out so that, again, he could get closer to having his actions really change things for the better. If you do not like the term “whistleblower,” does an international aid worker who cares for those people, instead of his paycheck work better? Better yet, how about a citizen of the world, who gives a shit?
Secondly, naivety has no place in this discussion on any counts. The purpose of this article, and the discussions generated from it is to reduce ignorance; to become aware. If you have more information, please share it. If you are informed, please speak. The only way to understand is by opening our minds to that around us, absorbing it, and then discussing it. The only way we can begin to understand the situation in the DRCongo is to talk about it. So do talk, but keep your words worthwhile.

By: Michael Kenny

Michael Kenny — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 15:25:33 +0000

Is Ms Stasyszyn totally naive? Or does she think her readers are totally naive? Or is she trying to knife “Jean Dupont”? Whatever it is, she certainly hasn’t protected his career! First, she tells us he worked for Chemonics, in Kisangani, for 11 months (why such precision?) in 2003 – 2005 (36 months max.). With so much detail, does she really think that those in the know (and they are the only ones he needs to fear) will not have identified him? As if that wasn’t enough, she tells us he worked on a project to rehabilitate student housing in October (precision!) 2004 (we’re down to 21 months max.!) And there’s more: 137 km (precision!) of railway “rehabilitated” (i.e. an existing line, not a new one) in 2004. There is, in any event, only one railway in Kisangani (the portage line to Ubundu)! And he worked on 26 projects in all (precision!). We have been given eight separate criteria. What are the chances that more than one person fulfils all eight?

There’s a very strange undercurrent to the Congo situation and American NGOs seem to be somehow involved in it. According to French TV, the Israelis are also in the middle of all this. I would guess that “Jean Dupont” is an authorised spokesperson (it could be a woman!) for Chemonics, peddling the company’s official line, not some “whistleblower” that Ms Stasyszyn found through investigative journalism.

By: Andy

Andy — Sun, 09 Nov 2008 00:59:45 +0000

A lengthy article, but to know the root-cause in DR. Congo and elsewhere in the world I propose to read this:
http://www.left.ru/inter/2003/november/salari.html