Twitter
StumbleUpon
Facebook
Delicious
Digg
Newsvine
Google
Yahoo
TechnoratiChilling Echo of the Past
Once again a dreadful conflict is looming in eastern Congo's North Kivu region. We must stop it
The escalating crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo's eastern region of North Kivu is chillingly reminiscent of the war that first erupted there 10 years ago.
Between 1998 and 2002, we witnessed one of the worst conflicts ever recorded. Armed groups in search of political power and economic control over Congo's immense natural resources and backed by the Congolese, Rwandan and Ugandan governments, manipulated tensions and land disputes between ethnic groups to the point where a brutal and bloody war became inevitable.
Hundreds of thousands of people were killed in some of the most horrific ways - many were hacked to death with machetes and hand-axes. Tens of thousands fled their homes in a desperate bid to survive.
Despite various peace agreements signed between 2002 and 2008, eastern Congo has been plagued by ongoing instability and simmering ethnic and political tensions.
Fast-forward 10 years, and once again a dreadful and brutal conflict is looming across the horizon of the verdant mountainous region of North Kivu.
In recent months, armed violence has broken out between rebel armed groups - primarily, but not exclusively, Rwandese General Laurent Nkunda's forces (FDLR) - and government armed forces.
And once again, it has resulted in hundreds of thousands of civilians being caught in the crossfire.
Just last month Amnesty reported how thousands of children are being forced to take up weapons and fight; while women and girls - some as young as six - have been raped or exposed to other forms of sexual abuse.
The people there are struggling to survive in an environment already fractured and brutalised by previous wars - can they really withstand the abuses from another war? Or perhaps the question should be - should they have to?
Now more than ever the international community has to deliver concrete measures to protect these people from further human rights abuses. International pressure must be applied to all parties of the conflict to stop all attacks on the general population.
The UN Security Council has to make eastern Congo their top priority as they meet over the coming weeks and months.
And in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the UN's peacekeeping force already stationed in the country - Monuc - must be given the adequate resources and equipment needed to ensure that they are able to effectively protect civilians, and to disrupt any armed group attacks against local communities. There should also be a clear plan of evacuation in place for the people living in dangerous zones.
Millions of Congolese people have already endured a decade of insecurity, unrest and displacement. The prospect for the next 10 years simply should not be the same as the last.
19 Comments so far
Show AllI am just learning the new Bu$h the inferior terminology. Isn't rape just aggressive sexual technique like waterboarding is aggressive questioning?
After all if we are going to accept potential ends justifying ANY MEANS, the sky is the limit baby.
The DRC does have very high mineral potential for diamonds, gold, copper, cobalt, niobium-tantalum, and likely other metals. However the extreme level of political conflict and violence involved would drive off major mining companies, which are highly risk-averse when it comes to developing and building billion-dollar mines. Several years ago, a number of large companies optimistically signed exploration agreements with the central government in Kinshasa (1600 km away on the opposite side of this large country) and are more than likely now backing out as quickly as they can.
This leaves regional militias and warlords to fight over the profits from relatively small-scale local mining activity which is one of the few available sources of external revenue, much like coca in the Peruvian/Colombian Andes and opium in Afghanistan.
As always, unarmed civilians are the ultimate losers. But given that the DRC's memories of Western "help" include Belgium's brutal colonial rule, the CIA and Belgian-backed assassination of Patrice Lumumba, and long-time American support of Mobuto Sese Seko, they may be a little skeptical about aid from that source. And neighbouring African countries have been about as much help to the eastern DRC as vultures to a wounded animal...
Hmmm...dunno...how much oil in Congo? Can't get much for ivory these days.
Think the ore mineral Coltan.
Coltan is an ore of tantalum, Tantalum is used in Tantalum capacitors, which are necessary by the billions for the miniaturized circuits in the world's cell phones. Most people have heard of "conflict diamonds", well, practically every cell phone can be considered a blood-soaked "conflict cell phone".
[CORRECTION: according to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tantalum the DRC is curently producing only one percnet of the world's tantalum so many cell phones are certainly free of "conflict-content"]. But the fact remains that multinational mining corporations still figure big in the conflict]
The corrupt deals the Congo government make with the big mining multinationals for this mineral wealth rob the nation and leave it, especially the ethnic minorities in the eastern eastern parts, in grinding poverty. So, militias and breakaway military commanders organize and fight back.
As in Haiti, I suspect the UN is siding with the bad guys once again, while they prop up the economic expropriation and injustice that is the root of the conflict.
I wonder who edited that wiki entry. I just read about the Congo and the killing of mountain gorillas as bush meat for the miners. The article implied that most coltran came from the Congo.
Think precious metals and diamonds. Then Congo makes sense.
Think your cellphone.
...
The UN is nothing but a congomeration of dumb-brained leaders in the Western-led countries for the most part and it's run by the same corporate hucksters running Washington. ABOLISH THE UN already ! I hope China and India work towards dismantling the UN as it's nothing more than a waste of taxpayer money. And no, I'm not for continuing the war in Iraq and like Africa, the UN and the US need to BUTT OUT of Iraq and allow the Iraqis to rebuild and repair their country. As a matter of fact, the US and Europe owe the Iraqis for ruining their country these past 2 decades !
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
No, no, and no.
The U.N. doesn't need to be "dismantled", and the U.N. is most certainly not "...run by the same corporate hucksters running Washington".
You're talking about the results of the Security Council's strangle-hold on U.N. Resolutions, especially the "veto-power" of the five permanent members of the Security Council (the four "nuclear states" at the time of the U.N. Charter plus China).
The U.N. should certainly be reorganized, with more power to the General Assembly and removal of Permanent Membership on the Security Council. this doesn't happen because the first thing to occur would be re-votes on all the "vetoed" resolutions of the last 50 years -mostly affecting the U.S. and Israeli Palestine- a huge loss of power for the U.S. and the other permanent members, and the arrest and extradition of several dozen important U.S. figures to the World Court in the Hague.
The U.N. -and its spin-offs- is the most established, and best framework that we have for peaceful International Relations. We should be struggling for its DEMOCRATIZATION, not its ABOLISHMENT.
And BTW the U.N. HAS "butt(ed) out" of Iraq ever since they're Special Envoy got blown-up by "unknown insurgent terrorists". All they do now is provide the B.S. "mandate" for the U.S. presence and some on the ground humanitarian aid. They are not involved in the occupation or "reconstruction".
Who would pay for the UN if the Security Council were abolished? And how would they enforce their mandates?
Agreed. Don't abolish the UN, but I would go further than you and just abolish the Security Council altogether.
That's interesting. I'll check it out. Perhaps I was a bit too extreme on the idea of abolishing the UN. Still, they and the US need to leave Africa alone and let them rebuild the continent the way they see fit.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
What we need to do is keep our money, our troops and our nose out of Africa. Let the UN do it or the Europeans.
How about both the US and the UN leaving Africa alone? The UN is controlled by the same corporate hucksters controlling Washington anyway? Africa did much better without either the US or the UN. Also, the Europeans ruined the African continent just like they ruined the natives in the Americas. I hear that the Europeans are also outsourcing to Russia, China, and India these days just like America. Don't take this too hard but the UN needs to be dismantled as it is no longer the UN it used to be. FDR would have called for its abolition were he alive today.
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
I think your a bit off, man.
See my post below.
Russ Feingold is chair of the Senate Foreign Relations subcommittee on Africa. While from time to time he speaks about Africa (Darfur and Somalia, notably), it is rare to hear anything from the committee and its activities.
What happens to the billion a year in foreign aid we give to Egypt (that "balances" the $3 Billion to Israel) each year? Is it syphoned to ECOWAS and other military adventures to suppress populist movements in Sierra Leone, Congo, Tanzania, Nigeria and Angola?
Americans deserve to know what influence their money is having on these human tragedies.
I'd say it's both the US and UN that are at fault for ruining Africa. We the taxpayers deserve to know the truth. For all that money being stolen from us and sent to countries violating human rights, our public infrastructure loses money to be maintained. As for the UN, they support all these "free trade" shit so they should be executed !
Terrance Mitchell
Redfield, South Dakota
Wait, what?
"Free trade" agreements happen outside of the U.N., they are State-to-State, and take place under the auspices of the WTO, IMF, and World Bank.
That's not to say officials in the U.N. don't "support free-trade", but these agreements have very little to do with the organization as a whole, and certainly are not offspring of the U.N. in any way.