Opinions

More unrest in the Congo, thanks to America

In print | February 12, 2009

Back in November, I wrote about the ongoing bloodshed in the Democratic Republic of Congo. If you’re one of the people who read it, you may recall that I proposed the relevant parties in the multifaceted conflict put forth more commitment and enforcement. This, I believed, would help them make progress towards a resolution.

Imagine my reaction, then, when I found that everything I had ever hoped for in the Congo had been completely torn apart. Parties that should have had no involvement in the conflict put forth half-assed plans, which resulted in the exacerbation of crisis in the Congo.

Last week, an American-aided Ugandan force stormed into a national park in Congo, where the Lord’s Resistance Army, a rebel group, had been hiding out.

Why anybody thought this would end up happily is beyond me. But clearly somebody did, because the Uganda-led operation aimed to crush the recalcitrant group, which had refused to sign a peace treaty with the government. Unfortunately, the rebels managed to elude their would-be captors and wound up killing more than 900 Congolese civilians as they fled.

Let me just add for reminder’s sake that the Congo is already a war-torn country devastated by various ethnic militias and inept execution by international aid agencies. The 5.4 million people killed is the highest death toll for a war since World War II. Forget pouring salt into the wound; Congo’s wounds have wounds.

Adding to my incredulity was the fact that this whole affair was a last-minute measure designed by the outgoing Bush administration. The Ugandan operation was a U.S.-backed initiative; the Ugandan government had asked the American embassy for help to crush the Lord’s Resistance Army, and the Bush administration signed off on it in November.

In other words, the Bush administration took one last dump on the world before getting off the throne. So if you imagined my reaction to all of this to be something close to the theme of “Burn After Reading” — “What the fuck?” — then you would be right.

According to The New York Times, America attempted to help Uganda by assigning them a host of advisors and analysts (part of the new Africa Command), as well as technology, intelligence and $1 million worth of fuel. The extent to which human rights was considered in the planning of the invasion is unclear. Nor did anyone in the front office question the necessity or wisdom of such an attack in hard economic times, especially in so volatile a region.

To be truthful, the Dungu region where the conflict took place was not actually as volatile as the rest of Congo’s east. In fact, it had virtually been untouched by the military conflicts between Rwandan interests and Congolese ethnic interests and government interests. And this may well have remained true if not for the decision to bring in yet another factor into the equation. Enter Uganda, exit tranquility.

That is not to say that the blame lies solely at Uganda’s feet. The rape and murder of civilians in the region were the work of the fleeing rebels, after all. But reading the blissfully ignorant Ugandan military spokesman’s take on the catastrophe was quite illuminating: “There was no way to prevent these massacres.” What about not picking up weapons and firing into an area full of civilians?

Of course, compiling a list of people to blame is all too easy. The onus is on an American brain trust that did not feel compelled to assist the United Nations in achieving peace in Congo, but then decided that it would be a wonderful idea to support a plan that involved introducing more violence to the Congo. The onus is on a European Union and an African Union that seems intent on negotiating with everyone except for the leaders — rebel and not — who have any importance at all. The onus is on a United Nations that grows more irrelevant by the day.

But the blame game is a tired and fruitless exercise. Resolution in the Congo is not going to be achieved by pointing fingers. What does need to happen, though, is a concerted effort by all of the aforementioned powers to bring rebel leaders and government leaders to one table. Both sides have committed atrocities and it makes no sense for any outside power to intervene militarily.

During the Cold War, the West militarily backed several leaders in certain areas to combat Communism. Some of these leaders turned out to be dictators. It is all too clear that, decades later, nobody has learned anything. Foreign intervention never ends well, least of all when there is war involved. Obviously, the forces involved in the Congolese conflict have shown themselves incapable of reaching a lasting peace, so international powers are needed in this case. Nevertheless, foreign powers should keep in mind that any plan that requires a gun is probably an unwise one.

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