Congo DRC, History repeating itself

I just read a piece on the BBC and was actually more interested in the comments around the article than the article/debate item itself.

Can Congo be saved from crisis?
More than 3,000 extra UN peacekeepers are needed in the eastern DR Congo to protect civilians there. Will this help the crisis?The head of UN peacekeeping, Alain Le Roy, said current peacekeeper numbers were not enough to protect civilians from violence perpetrated by rebel groups and the Congolese army. There are 9,000 UN peacekeepers in the region, out of 17,000 nationwide.The latest crisis began in August when rebels advanced towards Goma, which is now ringed with refugee camps. What can be done to stabilise eastern DR Congo? Are you satisfied with the performance of the UN peacekeepers? Are you in DR Congo or Rwanda? Read the story


The news reporting itself is the same as it always has been. There are no new angles to find in a story that has gone on for almost 50 years or is there? Somehow the basic facts of what is behind the story somehow always get lost. Maybe because it would hit too close to home for comfort??
I personally do not really believe an increment of 3,000 soldiers on top of 9,000 would do even a slight difference when there is about 1.5 Million people who are running away from their homes. I would believe that those 12,000 or so soldiers would be trampled to death if the hoard of people fleeing actually were set in motion, even if they had no bad intentions. During the Rwanda Genocide UN had even more soldiers in Rwanda and they could do nothing when the violence started.

There are so many angles on should EU, US, Nato, UN help the people in Congo DRC with the current crisis. Some people say, give the various tribes their own land so they can live in peace. Other say they (the Congolese) dont want us (Europeans) help anyway so lets just not care. They did after all throw the Belgians out in the 60s. Let them solve it themselves. The range of comments basically goes from a full scale intervention by an army to get all arms out of the hands of the population/ rebels/ freedomfighters/ tribes to simply just leave it be and see what happens, after all it is their problem?




”It is easy to turn the responsibility over to others or, perhaps, to seek explanations in some kind of laws of history. It is less easy to look for the reasons within ourselves or in a field where we, all of us, carry major responsibility. However, such a search is necessary, because finally it is only within ourselves and in such fields that we can hope, by our own actions, to make a valid contribution to a turn of the trend of events.”
– From speech by Dag Hammarskjöld at the University of Cambridge, 5 June 1958 (Falkman 2005, p. 193).

I sometimes wonder what the best approach would be, but no matter how its done there will be a lot of people that suffer. People that are affected yet they have no part whatsoever in what is going on around them. Pure victims to a situation they can not get themselves out of.

Its easy to say ”Let them solve it themselves as we are no party to it and they dont want our help.” But that aint the truth in any circumstance...

Unfortunately the First world countries ARE the problem.

Congo is one of the richest countries in the world when it comes to natural resources. But in most cases the population never see a cent of anything that is mined, neither will they ever.
Rwanda is the biggest exporter of Coltan which is used in batteries and capacitors for Ipod's, Laptops, mobiles and so forth. Yet they actually dont have that material in Rwanda?! It is stolen from Congo. The Road to the Horizon has an article on this called "Did your laptop cause the war in Congo?"
There is Oil in Eastern Congo which has not yet even been explored. This does however not mean that no one is trying. There are large copper mines and other mines galore in the country. The land itself is so fertile that if you eat an orange and spit the seeds out, the seed will grow in a few weeks. Both problems as that mean people might be in the way of the treasures that lie benieth.
To say that we should leave the Congo alone to solve their own problems means that you first have to remove the greed for the resources in the country, by all other countries. I have worked in the region between 1997 -2001 and keep following up on what is going on even though I dont work there anymore.

Already then I saw a lot of strange things going on.

- Unmarked US planes flying in military "advisors" and "material" via Uganda
-”Advisors” from South Africa
-”Advisors” from Russia
-”Advisors” from France
-”Advisors” from China
-”Advisors” from India

Ugandan military commanders flying in with foreign business partners?

This was already happening in 1998 when a plane with the brother of the current Army boss of Uganda, crashed and died while on a gold trading mission in Congo. Well the current aint so current as he was charged and convicted of a large fraud with Army funds... I just found out now when reading up again on the story.

The list seems endless.It is not that these ”advisors” necessarily had any plans to try help the population in Eastern Congo, it was rather that they were trying to negociate contracts for mining that would see the full potential once there was finally peace in the area?, or is it? Maybe it is actually better that there is continous instability in the area so that companies supported by some rich countries can loot the treasures without paying decently for any of the resources being taken out? Afterall, people that are fleeing and starving will not see or care about the looting of the resources, will they?! Can it be that cynical? I actually think it is as all the non- mainstream information when looked at keep pointing glaringly in that direction.

There is ban on buying Elephant husks, war Diamonds.. But that was only because the general public discovered the looting?!

The problem that the people in Congo are facing is thus not their own. It is actually a problem that to the most extent is created and kept alive by the rich countries around the world. To stop sending aid to the area can only happen once the same governments get fully transparent about their real motives for being in the country in the first place. In the 50s and 60s it was easier for a few countries to loot the resources. The African states around Congo had so many internal problems they did not have to many stakes in Congo. However since the last 20 years even the surrounding countries in Africa want to claim their part of the Congo wealth.
While sending aid and advisors there is also Arms dealers like what was shown in ”Lord of War”. While the movie is intended as good entertainment the fact is it is actually very close to the truth. Arms dealers sanctioned by various countries governments. Ofcourse they cant be seen as doing this kind of trade so it happens behind the scenes. All disguised while the countries officially is helping the poor African country and takes the positive credits for the donations and loans given.

Congo is a particularly interesting country for historical reasons.

• Belgian colonization.


• The Congo war with UN involvement in the 50-60s while trying to obtain freedom.


• Killing of the UN Secretary General under mysterious circumstances.


• The obscure ways of the rich powers putting Patrice Lumumba in power only to be assasinated and replaced by Mobutu. Mobutu a very cruel but smart dictator. Himself part of a puzzle not created necessarily by the Congolese but rather by the rich countries exploiting Congo.
  
  

All this is part of various schemes of accessing the rich natural resources in Congo by parties among developped world countries, sometimes through proxy countries in Africa itself. It has absolutely nothing to do with actually trying to help the population. It might sound cynical but in this case the rich powers are extremely cynical. In some countries it is simply called "Foreign Policy". That the policy is then created to actually help companies exploit countries in the best possible way for the market back home is not very visible but not less cynical.

It is however very easy to see what is actually happening. 3 words sums it all up. 3 words which was also put in a movie many years ago.

"Follow the money" Classical words in the movie about the Watergate scandal. These days it though seems like the media for the most part is more interested in being in the hands of the powers that rule rather than being critical at looking at the full scope of the news they create.

In many cases the Dictators and corrupt governments in the poor countries are blamed for not being able to build up their standards. But who can blame them when they are shown the full potential by their counterparts who simply apply their "foreign policy" and encourage corruption through advisors and companies. It seems easier to teach someone how to become corrupt than to teach someone to build a proper functioning country where the citizens can thrive. The intrest is definetely on the former as it gives quicker gains for the lucky few.