Opinions

Resolution in the Congo difficult to achieve

In print | November 13, 2008

Last week saw the passing of one of science fiction’s most prolific writers, Michael Crichton, the author of “Jurassic Park.” The award-winning Crichton gained popularity for his adventurous storytelling, often cautioning against the perils of scientific experimentation.

In “Congo,” for example, his protagonists pursue diamonds, aided by an intelligent gorilla, while being stalked by foreign corporations, in addition to murderous gorillas. Yet even with Crichton’s vivid imagining of death in the forests of Congo, it is sadly possible to find a more alarming vision of the region: right now, in real life, in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Since 2004, there has been armed conflict between the military of the Democratic Republic of Congo (FARDC) and the insurgent force led by Laurent Nkunda of the National Congress for the Defense of the People (CNDP) in the Kivu region of Congo. This battle, however, finds its roots much further back than 2004.

In 1994, the Rwandan genocide of ethnic Tutsis by the Hutu militia was halted by rebel Tutsi. Fleeing Rwanda, millions of Hutu refugees poured into North and South Kivu, and promptly began massacring the local Tutsi minority with the aid of Congolese Hutu.

Throughout the rest of the ’90s the nation endured the First Congo War and the beginning of the Second Congo War. Hutu militia continued raping and killing Tutsis, while foreign political intrigue rendered the government mistrusted and ineffectual.

Out of this chaos arrived Nkunda and the CNDP, who claimed to represent the protection of the Tutsi minority. Meanwhile, accusations abound that the government supported Hutu violence against Tutsi.

In July 2003, a peace was brokered, and by 2006 the United Nations Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MUNOC) had facilitated the first democratic elections in the country. At this point Nkunda had already re-ignited violence, claiming that the Tutsi minority was bound to lose in any election anyway, and the bloodbath has proceeded onwards to this very moment.

All told, 5.4 million people have been killed in the DRC since August 1998, making it the deadliest conflict since World War II. And the world has watched idly, something which must change immediately.

Sure, the perpetually inept United Nations has offered MUNOC and 17,000 peacekeeping forces — the largest such force in the world — to the region. And if there was a clear-cut side to support in the name of peace, perhaps these forces would be effective.

But in a situation where MUNOC has accused the government of war crimes and the rebel opposition is at the same time the most frequent provoker of warfare, what can the UN do? In 2007, they attempted to quell Nkunda’s authority by integrating him into the FARDC, which worked beautifully in Nkunda’s favor as three brigades of troops were added to his power.

Nkunda, to some, might be seen as a sympathetic figure. He is, after all, apparently protecting the minority Tutsi against the wrath of the Hutu. At the same time, he has repeatedly violated ceasefires and peace agreements, most notably the November 2007 agreement which disarmed Rwandan Hutu militiamen as well as ending Rwandan government support for Nkunda.

Most troublesome of all is that he is clearly the one calling the shots, as evidenced by his recent statement on Oct. 30 that he would take the eastern region of Goma if no ceasefire was realized — a statement magnified in ridiculousness when you realize that his forces instigated the violence.
Yet even though Nkunda obviously holds the position of power in the DRC at the moment, this week’s summit meeting between UN official and African leaders did not include him. Why? “This was a meeting of leaders,” Tanzania’s president said. Nkunda had not even been invited. If you think about it carefully, this is sort of like how the Allies didn’t invite Germany into the constructing of the Treaty of Versailles. Which most definitely did not end well.

It’s this type of thickheadedness displayed by the international community that led to the senseless murder of 5.4 million people. Both the USA and the African Union stepped away from the November 2007 peace agreement expecting MUNOC to enforce all its terms effectively, knowing that this 17,000-strong force has been in Congo for nearly a decade now with nothing but blood to show for it.
Both the EU and the UN declared the 2006 democratic elections to be a success for Congo, even as Nkunda’s forces rampaged around killing non-Tutsis. As long as these summit meetings exclude key figures and display no substance whatsoever, the Congolese government and the Congolese rebels will continue to disregard petty mandates and continue the business of killing as usual.

I don’t pretend to fully understand the intricacies of ethnic conflict in a nation I have never been to. However, I also don’t understand why the worst instance of bloodshed since Hitler invaded Poland receives such scarce attention, both in the media and in the eyes of international powers.

With a little more enforcement and commitment from relevant parties, fruitful steps could actually be taken towards the resolution of conflict.

To paraphrase our next president, the road toward resolution will be long. The climb will be steep. But when the real world facts are more horrifying than Michael Crichton’s fiction, it’s high time something was done to take the first step on this long road.

James is a first-year. He can be reached at jmao4@swarthmore.edu.