HOME
DV NEWS
SERVICE ARCHIVE SUBMISSIONS/CONTACT ABOUT DV
by
Paul Harris
June
5, 2003
The
world's press is finally starting to notice the terrible strife in the
Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC); the world's governments are still waffling
over what, if anything, they should do about it.
Since
1998, a civil war has been a daily reality for the people of DRC. While
YellowTimes.org was certainly not the first news service to notice what was
occurring, our News From The Front section (NFTF.org) picked up this story in
April and has carried 27 reports since April 9th documenting the ongoing
struggles to secure some sort of lasting peace. Inasmuch as we do not presume
that our efforts have spurred anyone else, it is gratifying to note that the
mainstream press is finally beginning to take note of this disaster.
Unfortunately,
the headlines are gloomy reading. Just in the past week: "Congolese beg
for U.N. protection"; "DR Congo pygmies appeal to U.N.";
"Congo tragedy shows up the U.N."; "Congo death toll: 2,500 per
day"; "Canada missing in action"; "The shaming tragedy of
Africa"; and "There will be no excuses for not knowing" have
appeared in various media around the world.
DRC's
recent history has been one of internal conflict. Much of this arose as the
nation absorbed large numbers of refugees from the fighting in Rwanda and
Burundi in 1994. While the current conflict dates back at least to its
independence from European colonial rule in 1960, DRC also bears the scars of
hundreds of years of inter-tribal animosity and, sometimes, violence.
Although
the area has been populated for about 10,000 years, in the late 19th century it
was colonized by Belgium and became the personal property of King Leopold II.
Its administration was shifted to the Belgian government in 1907 and, in 1960,
it finally achieved independence. Parliamentary elections produced Patrice
Lumumba as the new nation's first president, only to have him die in mysterious
circumstances within the first year. He was tortured and killed by Congo troops
but there are allegations that his death was arranged by the United States
because of his refusal to become a puppet state of either the U.S. or the
Soviets. Within a week of independence, the army mutinied and the province of
Katanga seceded, with the assistance of Belgium and the U.S.
After
the death of Lumumba, a period of instability followed before power was seized
in 1965 by Joseph Mobuto, in a coup d'état said to be with the assistance of
the CIA. He renamed the country Zaire and finally renamed himself Mobuto Sese
Seko wa za Banga, meaning "The all-powerful warrior who, because of his
endurance and inflexible will to win, will go from conquest to conquest leaving
fire in his wake."
Mobutu
ruled for over 30 years. He is said to have turned over and again to policies
and practices that would favor United States government and business interests
over the needs and interests of his people. He also pillaged the country's
treasury. But rebel groups arose to challenge Mobutu's rule and, in 1997, power
was seized by Laurent Kabila, a former Marxist who led the Alliance of
Democratic Forces. During most of Mobutu's rule, the country had been known as
Zaire but, in May 1997, Kabila formally changed its name to Democratic Republic
of the Congo.
On
assumption of power, Kabila inherited a country already involved in massive
tribal infighting, partly arising because of the influx of refugees in 1994.
His rule was quickly challenged by a Rwanda and Uganda backed rebellion in
August 1998. Finally, troops from Zimbabwe, Chad, Angola, Namibia, and Sudan
intervened to support Kabila's government. Even though a cease-fire was reached
in July 1999 between DRC, Zimbabwe, Angola, Uganda, Namibia, Rwanda, and the
Congolese rebels, sporadic fighting continued unabated. Kabila was assassinated
January 16, 2001 and rule of the country fell to his son, Joseph.
Joseph
Kabila was successful in negotiating a withdrawal of the Rwandan forces from
Congo in October 2002 and, early in 2003, all combatant parties finally came to
the table and agreed to cease the fighting. They agreed to set up a government
of national unity as a caretaker until democratic elections can be held in
2005. These will be the first democratic votes cast in this country in over
forty years.
But,
almost from the first movement of Ugandan troops out of DRC on April 24, fierce
ethnic fighting broke out in Bunia, the principal town of mineral-rich Ituri
province. It raged for several weeks with accusations of body mutilation and
dismemberment, cannibalism, and the targeted cooking of pygmies.
For
all the time between 1998 and April 2003, most of the world had no idea
anything untoward was occurring in DRC. Media didn't cover it although, to be
fair, it is a difficult area to cover because it is largely jungle and forest
with only primitive communications and bad roads.
During
the past few weeks, though, editorials have started to appear in many places
online and in many print journals calling attention to the plight of DRC. News
articles are showing up on a sporadic basis on the televisions and radios of
many people around the world. The United Nations has been discussing this
situation for years, although not with much fanfare, and, since at least late
2002, several other nations have expressed some interest in helping out. And
still the Congolese wait.
In
my view, at least part of the reason that not much help has been forthcoming is
that President George Bush is pouting. The main impetus toward getting some
action in DRC on a rapid basis has been coming from France, and Mr. Bush is
highly unlikely to support any call for action from France because he still
holds a grudge over the French rejection of his Iraqi adventure. (It is said
that Bush has instructed his staff to refuse all calls from French president
Jacques Chirac and that when he attends a G8 summit in Evian next month, he
will sleep in Switzerland rather than accept French hospitality.) Mr. Bush also
fails to see that U.S. farm subsidies lead to American export dumping in
Africa, weakening their ability to compete; he can see clearly that similar
subsidies in European countries are bad, but apparently cannot imagine that
U.S. subsidies are as well.
However,
Bush is certainly not the only culprit. The French have talked passionately
about sending aid but it appears they are unwilling to go alone, perhaps a wise
precaution since some of the warring factions in DRC would consider them to be
enemy combatants. But still, they have only talked.
Canada
has declared a willingness to participate, yet it appears that Canada's only
commitment might amount to no more than loaning the U.N. two airplanes. For a
nation that has prided itself on its role as peacekeeper, this is almost an
insult to the intelligence. Prime Minister Jean Chrétien deserves a lot of
credit for efforts made last year to keep Africa on the agenda of the G8
nations' summit and for work to ban and remove landmines; and a previous prime
minister, Brian Mulroney, deserves credit for his efforts to persuade the world
to bully South Africa into abandoning Apartheid. Further, it is inconceivable
that there are any Canadians who are feeling proud of their help to the needy
at this moment. Nos culpos.
Britain
has indicated a willingness to join the French action but as recently as May
26, a Member of Parliament in Britain accused the government of hypocrisy. It
appears that Britain has been the source of much of the weaponry being used by
the fighters in DRC (and other volatile African regions). MP Norman Lamb says
Britain's actions undermine its claim to have an "ethical" foreign
policy, that its claims are a sham. We will all recall that Prime Minister Tony
Blair cited ethical reasons for intervening in Iraq but it appears his ethics
might be somewhat, ahem, flexible. Britain is the world's second largest
exporter of weapons (after the United States) and has clearly profited from the
many years of turmoil in DRC and other African hotspots.
A
story appearing in Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper on May 27 begins:
"Few places on Earth need help more than the Democratic Republic of Congo.
Civilians, including thousands of panicked refugees, are at the mercy of armed,
drugged militias, which appear intent on slaughter. In early May, Oxfam
appealed to the U.N. Security Council to deploy a rapid-reaction,
peace-enforcement effort. U.N. commanders in the present mission have cabled
New York daily, pleading for reinforcements. Sound familiar?" It does
indeed sound familiar, and the gist of this article is a justifiable slap
against Canada's weak-kneed response to this tragedy.
Nicholas
Kristof writing in the New York Times, also on May 27, writes: "In Congo
... 3.3 million people have died because of warfare there in the last five
years ... That's half a Holocaust in a single country. Our children and
grandchildren may fairly ask, 'So, what did you do during the African
holocaust?'" His article describes the failure of much of the African
continent to manage itself but also points fingers at ineffective policy from
the West and misspent financial aid.
A
special report appearing in Britain's The Observer last week noted: "It is
hard to imagine the situation can get any worse -- but it is doing so."
This report, prepared by François Grignon who is Central African Project
Director of the International Crisis Group, highlights the history of ethnic
rivalry but puts the blame for the current violence squarely on the shoulders
of the United Nations, the United Kingdom, and the United States. He points out
that the local U.N. officials in DRC requested troops for the area, with arms,
as early as last summer. This was in anticipation of a power vacuum being
created when Rwandan and Ugandan forces, who had been backing different rebel
groups, withdrew from DRC. Unfortunately, President Bush refused to support
their request for extra troops. Washington did finally give approval in
December, but only on a staged basis; very few of them have arrived to date.
The
U.N. mission in DRC is known as MONUC, and it is a dismal failure, according to
Grignon. Its costs amount to $1.5 million per day but its only mandate is to
carry out ceasefire monitoring and voluntary disarmament. That's a lot of money
for sitting and watching. Grignon says that Britain's policies of giving
unconditional aid to foreign combatants in DRC (Rwanda and Uganda) have simply
provided those nations the means to prolong the fighting in DRC.
Africans
themselves are getting very disillusioned about the value of the U.N. and the
warm wishes of the rest of the world. They know that Chapter 7 of the U.N.
Charter provides for just the kind of military help that is needed, but they
keep wondering if it is ever going to arrive. Africans have become inured to the
indifference of the rest of the world (except for foreign interest in Africa's
fabulous resources) and they would really prefer to find an African solution to
their problems. But even they know that help is going to be needed. This
continent with 12 percent of the world's population has 80 percent of the
world's AIDS victims; it has massive areas of drought and famine currently
affecting about 40 million people; it has many wars and skirmishes occurring
every day throughout multiple countries where several million people have died
in the past 10 years or so.
If
international goodwill means anything, if the Charter of the United Nations
means anything, if the chatter from all the world's leaders about ethics and
humanity means anything, now is the time to step up to the damn plate.
Paul Harris lives in
Canada, and is self-employed as a consultant providing Canadian businesses with
the tools and expertise to successfully reintegrate their sick or injured
employees into the workplace. He has traveled extensively in what we arrogant
North Americans refer to as "the Third World," and he believes that
life is very much like a sewer: what you get out of it depends on what you put
into it. This article first appeared in Yellow Times.org (www.yellowtimes.org). Paul Harris
encourages your comments: pharris@YellowTimes.org.
Thanks to Matthew Riemer at YT.