War in the Congo

[mke]

I post this article, because I find that this conflict is incredibly under-mediatised and under-reacted to in the international community.

3 million people have died in the last 4 years!

The country came out from under Mobutu, only to fall into this situation, and very little has been done about it.

The most obvious flaw in this article is that it does not mention indigenous peace efforts in any detail. A government is currently being set up as the result of talks held between the various warring factions. I don't know if that initiative will be successful, but I find it odd (euphemism) to talk about central African problems, without mentioning what the people themselves are doing about it. Especially as few in the international community seem concerned.

Anyway, here's the article, from the NYT:



Congo War Toll Soars as U.N. Pleads for Aid
By SOMINI SENGUPTA


BUNIA, Congo, May 26 — They call the machete a weapon of mass destruction here.

Its ghastly wreckage can be found inside what passes for this town's only functioning hospital. On a thin foam mattress lies a wide-eyed old man who has survived an attempted decapitation. Nearby, a mother with black moons around her eyes nurses two wounded children back to health and mourns for another two, freshly killed.

It is estimated that more than three million people have died in Congo's four-year war as a dizzying array of rival rebel armies and their patrons from nine neighboring countries have fought over Congo's enormous spoils. Gold, diamonds and coltan — a mineral used in cellphones — are among the precious loot in this northeastern province called Ituri, and peace deals so far have done nothing to stanch the bloodletting. The latest massacre took place over several days this month, as militias belonging to rival Hema and Lendu tribes battled for control here in Ituri's largest town.

Today, the death toll stands at 350. Most have been buried in unmarked graves since their remains offered few details about who they were, let alone which of the warring ethnic groups they belonged to. As many as 17,000 people are huddled inside the tent cities that have sprung up in a United Nations compound, at the airport and in the heart of town.

An eerie calm hangs over Bunia. There is no telling when the next round of carnage will unfold, or whether the United Nations Security Council will send troops to bring order. The secretary general, Kofi Annan, has appealed to member countries to send soldiers for a multinational force here.

By the standards and logic of war in Congo, the Bunia massacre was neither unexpected nor extraordinary. The only thing that distinguished this one was that it happened before the eyes of United Nations peacekeepers who had warned of its risks.

The grim facts that led to the carnage here were no mystery to anyone, certainly not to the members of the Security Council who sent in the peacekeepers. Troops from Uganda were pulling out of Ituri under a multinational peace deal. Rival warlords were at one another's throats. Indeed, there was no peace to keep in Congo's northeast, certainly not by a paltry force of some 300 blue-helmeted Uruguayan soldiers who were deployed with orders to guard United Nations property and to escort aid workers.

Bunia turned out to be a peacekeeping mission from hell.

When the fighting broke out between rival Hema and Lendu forces, child soldiers taunted the blue helmets, first with insults, then mortars, then by tossing a body over the fence into the United Nations compound. Townspeople grew so terrified that they tried to climb over a barbed wire fence to get to the safety of the compound. A stray bullet landed in the tent city that emerged spontaneously on the grounds, and a woman napping on a foam mattress was killed instantly.

"I ask for a lot of troops, but troops haven't arrived," said an embattled Col. Daniel Vollot, the sector commander of the United Nations forces in Bunia. "Ituri is a military operation. We have not the means to carry on that mission. People say you are not able to provide security. We don't have the strength for that."

Then came the worst. A little over a week ago, the bodies of two unarmed United Nations military observers were found about 40 miles north of here. The two men, natives of Jordan and Malawi, had been assigned to gather information on armed groups operating in Ituri. Their bodies left no doubt that they had been mercilessly murdered; one had been disemboweled.

Since then, all military observers in Ituri have been pulled back to Bunia. They now gingerly patrol its streets, facing the scowls of armed children, some of whom look to be no more than 10 years old, who parade around Bunia in oversize double-breasted suits and combat fatigues, twirling bright green hand grenades in their tiny palms, as though they were shiny new toys.



If nothing else, the Bunia massacre has revealed, with graphic and embarrassing detail, the impotence of the international reaction to the horrors that have befallen Congo, United Nations officials, aid workers and rights advocates say.

Most of the war's three million-plus fatalities have been attributed to starvation and disease among people in small villages who have been routed or have fled in terror from their homes and are forced to fight for survival in the forests. The Security Council has authorized 8,700 soldiers for the United Nations mission in Congo to monitor peace in the country, which is about a fourth the size of the United States.

"It's an abysmal response by the United Nations," said Anneke Van Woudenberg, a senior researcher with Human Rights Watch in London. "If the United Nations is serious about peacekeeping, the protection of civilians, if they are going to prevent mass killings, this is a critical test."

Last week, prompted by Mr. Annan's appeal, military teams were sent to assess the prospect of deploying a combat-ready multinational force in Bunia. Britons, Canadians and South Africans have expressed interest in pitching in, while the United States, though unlikely to send troops, has indicated its support for such a multinational force.

The only long-lasting solution for peace in Congo, American officials here say, is to persuade outsiders, namely Uganda and Rwanda in the east, to stop arming proxy fighters and to support a peace deal recently negotiated between warring factions. That peace deal is currently bogged down over differences in how to construct a national military.

It is unlikely, however, that any permanent peace can be forged without restoring a measure of order here in Ituri. The blood bath in Bunia has made that plain, said the United Nations undersecretary general for peacekeeping operations, Jean-Marie Guehenno, during a visit to this town on Sunday. "There is an immediate challenge: to convince the international community to deploy troops," he said in an interview here. "It is a sort of wild violence that can still be contained."

Persuading United Nations member countries to send their men and women to Central Africa is only part of the challenge. The logistics of any such operation are daunting. It is impossible to drive to Bunia. Its airport is decrepit and potholed, making it extremely difficult to actually bring a thousand troops here.

The tangle of colonial history and ethnic rivalries in the Congo conflict means, moreover, that any such force must be seen as impartial. The Rwandans, for instance, still smarting from what they see as French complicity in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, are unlikely to accept a French-led initiative.

Also, as aid workers here point out, sending a force to secure Bunia, effectively a Hema-controlled town, would be to ignore the ethnic Lendu, who have been forced to flee. By some estimates, 50,000 of them are now encamped south of here; no aid groups can reach them because it is unsafe.

[Monte Smith]

Expect the media to talk somewhat more about this, now that lurid accounts of cannibalism are coming out--one side or the other eating their opponents.

Put the Congo side by side with Sierre Leone and the rebel Indonesian province of Aceh as conflict zones you won't be hearing alot about from the media or from Western governments or the UN. Pity, then, that Subsaharan Africa lacks a regional power willing or capable of doing anything about instability in the area.

[shrugs]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
Expect the media to talk somewhat more about this, now that lurid accounts of cannibalism are coming out--one side or the other eating their opponents.

The cannibalism has been out in the open for a long time.

[Monte Smith]

I don't know how long it has been out there, Shrugs, but the mass media just started picking up on it last week. This morning was the first time I heard reference to it on the radio.

[MRS]

Yeah it's actually been well documented amongst the Hema faction for some time now.

[shrugs]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
I don't know how long it has been out there, Shrugs, but the mass media just started picking up on it last week. This morning was the first time I heard reference to it on the radio.

Maybe your ass is congested with your head because it has been in the news for a long time.

[Monte Smith]

Could be, Shrugs. But as I say, it has just hit the mass media this week. Ass congested with my head or no, that is a fact. The internet, TV, radio--silent before, awake to it now. Will that mean anything practically, I doubt it. I doubt to that the shame and handwringing over Rwanda will lead to any vigorous international intervention this time. Could be wrong, though. Certainly there is not material American interest at stake here, so we won't be invading.

[jesus marion joseph]

I was flipping through the channels this weekend, and on one of the C-Span channels I watched Prez. Clinton doing a Q&A session somewhere (looked like maybe a college classroom) so I stopped to watch. For a few minutes I actually enjoyed getting some insight into what was going on "behind the scenes" during Kosovo, etc, but then someone asked him about Rwanda and why the US didn't do something sooner, and he went into a finger-pointing exercise and concluded by saying that "that Rwanda thing still bothers me". He then went on to basically blame all of the world's evils on those who opposed him during his presidency, so I changed the channel.

I dunno what that has to do with cannibalism in the Congo, but there you go.


BTW, Bill looks like he's dropped quite a few lbs. since he left office.

[shrugs]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
The internet, TV, radio--silent before, awake to it now. Will that mean anything practically, I doubt it.

Fox fucking news, your favorite?



U.N.: Congolese Rebels Practicing Cannibalism







Wednesday, January 08, 2003

NAIROBI, Kenya — U.N. investigators have found credible evidence that Congolese rebel troops have killed and eaten pygmies in northeastern Congo, U.N. officials said Wednesday.





During the past week, U.N. human rights investigators have been probing reports of cannibalism in Congo's northeastern Ituri province.

Forces of the rebel Congolese Liberation Movement, or MLC, and its allied Congolese Rally for Democracy-National, RCD-N, are accused of killing and eating pygmies living in dense tropical forests.

"The U.N. is taking these accusations very seriously and has sent a team of six officials to investigate the accusations and other human rights abuses in the region," said Manodje Mounoubai, spokesman for the U.N. mission in Congo.

Speaking by telephone from the Congolese capital, Kinshasa, Mounoubai said he preferred to wait until the investigators had left the area before providing further information.

However, other U.N. officials, speaking on condition of anonymity, said investigators have established that the charges are credible.

The two rebel factions often hire Pygmies to hunt food for them in the forests as they concentrate on fighting to oust the rival rebel Congolese Rally for Democracy-Liberation, or RCD-ML, from mineral-rich areas of Ituri province, a U.N. official familiar with the probe said.

If the expert hunters return empty-handed, rebel troops kill and eat them, the official said.

Sudi Alimasi, an official with the rival RCD-ML, said the group began receiving reports of cannibalism more than a week ago from people displaced by fighting.

"We hear reports of MLC and RCD-N commanders feeding on sexual organs of Pygmies, apparently believing this would give them strength," Alimasi said by telephone from Kinshasa. "We also have reports of Pygmies being forced to feed on cooked remains of their colleagues."

Nearly all foreign troops involved in the war in Congo that broke out in August 1998 have withdrawn, but fighting has intensified among the country's main rebel factions, splinter groups and tribal fighters after the pullout in the east.

[Tanager]

Shrugs is absolutely right - there has been extensive coverage of this since at least the beginning of the year. In addition to Fox, it's been covered by the BBC and several big US papers.

[Monte Smith]

OK, point taken. But I tell you what, the lurid "Pygmies cry for UN intervention to prevent cannibalism" headlines have been going like gangbusters since last week, and that sells. I think that kind of attention is going to drive this story to better reception. The fact that it was page one of the NYT, per mke's initial post, and not A12 speaks to that. But lets be honest. Disaster in Africa? Never been a major concern to anyone, including African governments.

And Shrugs, Fox is very good (I loved the virtual roll-in to Baghdad thru Greg Kelly's camera lens) but its not my favorite. The NYT and FT are my favorites, my two dailys.

[Chris A]

I think mke is right, there has been very little coverage of this, especially considering the gravity of it.

US "news" outlets are too busy with the Peterson case, the latest Bush regime WTE (Wishful Thinking Economics), and the bungled Rumsfeld/Franks attempts at winning the peace. Mind you,except for the Peterson case, these are worthwhile stories, but you can bet that we'd be seeing a lot more ofthis if the Congolese were eating Scandinavians.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by Chris A
We'd be seeing a lot more ofthis if the Congolese were eating Scandinavians.

Not in the American press, we wouldn't. Now if it was Congolese eating celebrities....

[lynn]

Well this country is way too busy stomping out it's enemies of mass distruction to give a flying fig about this. Now if there is some way to halt the export of coltan, we'd be in there in a flash to protect the intrest of our cellphone loving population.

The carnage in the Congo and Central Africa has been on the radar for a long time, specifically the sale of illegal diamonds and coltan to industrial nations (the ones Monte call "modern") to fund the wars. It has been covered extensively in academic forums but that certainly leaves out most of our elected officials and most assuredly our beloved commander and thief who leads this country under his flame of freedom and justice for all in the world.

Most tragic is the training use of children as killers. But then, I think most "modern" nations are waiting for the populations of these countries to exterminate themselves so they can go in and take the spoils. First it was aids now its this.

[Monte Smith]

Originally posted by lynn

First it was aids now its this.

Do you mean to float the usual AIDS conspiracy theory?

[patricia]

This wholesale killing in the Congo has been going on, unabated for about nine years now. About three MILLION people have been hacked to death. Of course, Africa has no oil, but they do have diamonds, which have been used to fund the carnage. The term "blood diamonds" has been used to describe the diamonds which are being used as currency. They are considered to be tainted, by those who want the flow of them to stop.
This has actually been a boon to Yellowknife, NWT, where diamonds [with a tiny etched polar bear to distinguish them] are being mined and marketed. It's not stopping the "blood diamonds", but it has brought the plight of these forgotten dead to a certain amount of interest and concern, at least here in Canada.
If humanitarianism were truly the motive for invading Iraq, then there is just as much reason to do something, perhaps not invade, but SOMETHING. There is little real concern, beyond rhetoric, for the child soldiers, the obscene killings, or for the stability of that region. Of course, there is no oil.

[lynn]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by lynn

First it was aids now its this.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Response from Monte

Do you mean to float the usual AIDS conspiracy theory?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Counter response from lynn

What is the matter with you? - It is exactly the same "this doesn't involve us" attitude that has deprived these people of needed assistance to combat the aids epidemic. A sad illustration of "modern brotherhood", cash up front.

[Monte Smith]

OK, Lynn, just making sure you weren't buying in to the "Western governments engineered AIDS to kill the black man" thing. Didn't think you were that far gone.

[Tom Storer]

Originally posted by Monte Smith
Disaster in Africa? Never been a major concern to anyone, including African governments

Sad but true. Well, except that it has obviously been a major concern to those starving, being massacred, having to flee, etc. etc.

At least the Congo coverage hasn't trotted out the old "yaaawn, these savage tribes have been massacring each other for eons, a pity but what can you do?" line, as was done for Rwanda.

[FredC]

The sad fact is that stopping that party is not going to be done by some small token UN "military" force.
Any serious military effort is going to cost more in money and lives than Europeans or North Americans are willing to pay.
It would not only be a blood bath, but stopping the fun would last only as long as a heavily armed force stayed in place.

Example, Mogadishu: some of the US' best, Rangers and Delta, had their hands full surviving, let alone establishing any peace.

Look what is starting in Iraq now: armed guerrilla resistance, even while large, heavily armed US forces are still there.

In the African countries with tribe and clan feuds, with goodies like diamonds adding to the incentives, on terrain which is difficult for large mechanized forces, the price is too high to exert outside control.
It sounds brutal, but letting them fight it out is both realistic and most practical. We had best get the Israeli-Palestinian warring stopped first.

[mke]

Originally posted by patricia
Of course, Africa has no oil
(...)
There is little real concern, beyond rhetoric, for the child soldiers... Of course, there is no oil.

There are oil reserves in Nigeria, Libya and Algeria, as well as off-shore reserves belonging to Congo-Brazzaville, which are tied up with Elf and the French government.

The first study on child soldiers was produced about a year ago by a research institute in Brussels.

As for the cost of intervention, rather than the US sending in troops, which may well be technically impossible, why not help troops from, say, Nigeria or other parts of Africa take care of the regional conflict? It would probably be far less expensive than the Afghanistan/Iraq/who's next? series of wars.

[Tom Storer]

Originally posted by mke
As for the cost of intervention, rather than the US sending in troops, which may well be technically impossible, why not help troops from, say, Nigeria or other parts of Africa take care of the regional conflict? It would probably be far less expensive than the Afghanistan/Iraq/who's next? series of wars.

No country is going to use its resources in such a way for humanitarian reasons alone, and the US has no clear benefits to gain. Also, there's no simple, inspiring narrative it can relate to US voters to persuade them to support it. Who are the good guys? Nigeria? A hard sell! When there aren't important resources, national security to protect, or a political agenda, I fear no one is going to get involved merely to stop massive chaos and death for millions.

[mke]

Surely it has been amply demonstrated that pretty much anyone can be made into a good or bad guy, as necessary.

There is of course, little to gain, as sub-Saharan Africa has completely dropped off the geo-political map.

[patricia]

So, the bottom line is "What's in it for us?"

Using that reasoning, the likelihood of anyone intervening is so remote, that I would say it's not going to happen.

So, the killing will continue and we will stand by saying, at most, "Ain't it awful?"

This is probably a perfect example of the fact that mere humanitarian concerns will never support any international outrage and people's lives are always low on the list of concerns, below the drive for expansion of control of resources.