peacekeepers killed in congo.

[thesightless]

do we

1. leave the place alone and let the rebels do what they want
2. try a diplomatic approach you know its not gonna work, hasnt worked in how many years>
3. special ops?
4. invasion?

i just wanna see what ya all think, :?

we now know that the rebels dont care about resolving the problem, they just killed the group that was there to try and help.

[Yao]

Congo is a collapsed state: the state is just one political/economic actor in the country...

Only way it's gonna work is when the control can be expanded over the whole country again, but there are several rebel groups, of which a few are being helped and funded by the surrounding countries, such as Angola and Rwanda.

Personally I dont think there's going to be any improvement in the next 10 years or so, but we should be working towards that. Question is: where are the best chances...with the 'legitimate' gvt or one of the rebel groups?

[thesightless]

you didnt say what you think the world should do? you just commented on it.

and specail forces i mean a coup through espionage.

[Yao]

No coup is gonna help this one. Congo has to be helped either by measures that are spread out over the next 25 yrs as a minimum, mostly aimed ad restoring control of the gvt. over the rest of the country (ohter than just the capital), or by a total invasion. The latter one would not be supported by aforementioned countries like Angola and Rwanda, since they are obviously profiting from the status quo. I will go into this later.

Still I am in favour of the latter method: it makes clear that no boundaries are to be violated, and could restore some degree of stability in the region within a short time span. It may however prove even more difficult than Iraq.

Gotta go now, will come back to this.

[hoodednight]

Re: peacekeepers killed in congo.

I am not all that familiar with the History of the Dem. Rep of the Congo, but
I have been following the lastest stories in the media. So, if either of you
could fill me in a little, I would be much obliged.

Anyhow, it seems that the Congo is incurring the same fate as all the
other African countries whose ethnic populations were reconstituted in
the wake of European colonization. I guess this entire debate brings to
mind a broader question that has been on my mind for a while...

With the extraordinary size of nation-states and the diverse ethnic /
cultural / religious constituencies residing within, how can government
be affective? When this problem is exacerbated by a civil
war / conflict, how does a society go about reconstituting itself? And,
how should it? Should it strive to wrap boundaries around such a diverse
population? Or should it strive for small boundaries each with its own
sovereignty?

Just some thoughts...

[Yao]

It's too late now, but if I have time I'll try and fill in what I know...Still writing a story on Ivory Coast right now.

[Yao]

Re: peacekeepers killed in congo.

After decolonisation Mobutu Sese Seko governed the Congo form 1965 until 1996/97. During his reign he has not developed the country in any way: he was just sucking it dry. Economically things were actually going pretty well until the prics of copper took a dive in the ?50s, and it deteriorated further in the ?80s and ?90s.
Mobutu relied heavily on Western donors for his income, and did not redirect those finds for the benefit of his country: he just used it all or put it on bank accounts on his own name in Switzerland, and even in the US. He didn?t have any connection with the Congolese people: he took care of himself, as should they in his opinion.
That way, there was no grow or buildup of state institutions in any way, even the Dept of foreign affairs was housed in some shabby small villa!

This meant there was little govt. control in Congo, it was actually pretty much limited to the areas surrounding the capital, Kinshasa. In all the rest of the country, local leaders and warlords could do as they pleased. The only reason Mobutu could stay in power was by using divide-and-rule tactics, and because of his income from foreign sources.

Kagame invaded Congo because he counted on Mobutu to help him fight the extremist Hutu groups that had fled into Congo after the genocides. Mobutu wasn?t inclined to do anything close to that and allowed Hutu militias to disperse into Congo, reinforce themselves there, and continue their attacks on Tutsi people in the border areas. Thus he was a liability to the regional stability, and had to be removed. So Kagame and Museveni of Uganda (he helped Museveni come into power in Uganda) decided Mobutu should go, and started supporting a local smuggler, Kabila. Thanks to Mobutu?s limited influence and military power in his own country, Kabila succeeded in ousting him in just a few weeks and taking over power. The hope was that Kabila would be capable of restoring order in the country, therefore Rwanda and Uganda kapet supporting him financially and military in the beginning.
But Kabila was not planning to co-operate, and started distancing himself from the Tutsi forces that had helped him: he started recruiting Mai-Mai, a tribe who traditionally are at war with Tusti?s as well as Hutu?s, and tried to replace the Tutsi?s in his entourage to free himself from their influence. But he also started making use of the services of Hutu genocidaires: this of course worsened tensions with the Rwandan govt. and may have been one of the prime causes of the decision from Kagame and Museveni to get rid of him, too.

But Kabila had succeeded in convincing Angola to help him, probably by promising them the right of harvesting a lot of natural resources in Congo, and that?s why Rwanda and Uganda didn?t succeed in ousting him. They tried to push the war on, determined to end Kabila?s reign and re-establish stability in the region, but more countries came to the aid of Congo, most probably also seduced by the prospects of being able to extract a lot of natural resources. In the end, it was not about helping Kabila, but profiting form the war.

To cut things short, there was a multitude of levels on which is being fought:

• 1.The struggle in the region to expand geographical and political territory and influence by surrounding countries.
  2. The domestic uprisings of a diversity of groups that fought against Kabila in Congo itself when they saw he was just as bad as Mobutu.
  3. Civil wars being fought on Congolese soil (the battle between Hutu and Tusi in Rwanda and Burundi)
  4. The political aspirations from paramilitay groups such as the Interahamwe (former Hutu militias) and the Mai-Mai in Eastern congo, who were connected with Kabila.

This may explain why it is so hard to find a solution for the ongoing problems in Congo. Even though it is quite calm there now, there are still tensions between Kabila?s regime and Rwanda (which accuses Kabila of supporting the Hutu miltias in the border areas), and between ethnic groups inside Congo itself (the main conflict being that between the Hema and Lendu). Angola has withdrawn, but it Is doubtful it has broken ties with Kabila: in fact, they still have a strong political relationship. This also means Angola (which could potentially be an affective partner in ending the chaos in Congo) is not really co?perative with the UN in finding solutions. To this day, it is profiting from the diamond mines in Congo, and will be reluctant to give up this source of income.

Hope this is a little help, tho it is not nearly descriptive of the full range of problems and interests that lie on the basis of the chaos in Congo. Basically Congo has been turned into a playfield for the surrounding countries to fight their wars and extract natural resources. The same has happened domestically. It?s all fucked up to the max.

[hoodednight]

Re: peacekeepers killed in congo.

Thanks for the info Yao! What is your opinion on the question that
I asked earlier about the trend toward large ethnically diverse
nation-states?

[Yao]

Tough one, especially in the case of Congo.

So far, a growing number of countries have been moving towards a more or less stable notion of 'nationality' amongst their people, but it can't be ignored that ethnicity is in many places still hampering the development of strong nation-states.

I think it is possible, under certain conditions, of which the most important is economical development and stability.

Basically, as long as people have to fight for suvival (and with people I mean ethnic/political/religious groups), there is no place for any political stability: the state is just one actor in the field, and a prize that can be won. If you win it, it will provide income and power. So, this fight for a piece of the political cake will destabilise a country. The best bet to tackle the issue of ethnicity is to take away the need for it: people tend to fall back on their ethnic group in times of need or danger. The safety of the group.
A stable economy sufficient to provide for the inhabitant of a country, takes away that need: but a the same time it needs a political body or government that sees to the needs of all the people in the country, not just one group.

In that case a nation-state could grow, but even in the most democratic countries in Africa you see the influence of ethnicity in politics. We can't turn back time and just erase the borders that were drawn in the Berlin convention in 1884: that would be denying the fact that African societies themselves were constantly changing and moving. By now the borders would be very different from the ones that existed then, not to mention the wars that would be started over control of certain natural resources: claims would mushroom all over the place, it would be chaos.
So, it leaves us with the present borders. And we'll have to deal with them.

Congo is like I said, an empty shell: factually there is no government, and that government is only one player on a large field. IMHO the present govt. is not capable of taking any action to improve circumstances or representing people: Joseph Kabila has already proven he only works for himself, not the country. So...I support the wish form Kagame and Museveni to oust the guy, and he will not be going by himself as long as he can extract money out of his deals with Angola and his other allies.
Kagame and Museveni installed someone of whom they hoped and though he would bring stability into the region. The were wrong, and his son doesn't seem inclined to do any better. Therfore, he must go IMO before anything real can happen in Congo.

As for the general issue of Nation-states, ethnicity and borders: I did advocate a soft version of federalism, with borders drawn along the ethnical lines. It could work, so far it has in Uganda (The Movement), but whereas it takes away the possibility of one ethnic group taking over the government, it also emphasizes the ethnical boundaries, making people conscious of their roots. So I'm still not sure what the best solution is: division, or unification. In the end I think it would be in everybody's best interest to have a solid nation-state, especially in this economically globalising world: the bigger you are, the stronger. But that process still has a long long way to go on the African continent.

[Yao]

Re: peacekeepers killed in congo.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/03/08/congo.dr.disarm.reut/index.html

And this shows why we don't need bloody peacekeepers in Congo, but a real intervention force. Like I've said before: you don't make peace by just standing by and watching. Sometimes you need to punch them both in the face to make them listen to you. I say: authorize the use of force to protect civilians and actively end military activities of all groups that are not government-affiliated.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/africa/03/04/congo.peacekeepers.ap/index.html

[geddon]

Re: peacekeepers killed in congo.

i wish our armed forces were stopping atrocities in Congo rather than dying and killing lots of civilians in Iraq, if the congo had any resources we wanted as badly as oil then we sure as shit would be there too

[Yao]

Re: peacekeepers killed in congo.

There's plenty of resources in Congo, but since Mogadishu the US policy on Africa has been: we're going in there again. Don't know if this is still official policy, but the US is smart for staying the fuck out of there. It's a bees nest, and the UN is fucking things up badly right now: they're getting it right up the ass, and unless they get a mandate that condones the use of violence to actually protect the people over there and end violence, they're going to have to run out of that shithole with the tail between the legs sooner or later.

[thesightless]

Re: peacekeepers killed in congo.




STIL THOUGH, what do you think should be done????

explaining and rationalizing the problem and looking at the world's view of it doesnt solve anything...

what can you do to solve it???

how???when???

[Yao]

Re: peacekeepers killed in congo.

Well...Either we go in full force, or we contain the area and let the conflict worsen until the population stands up and fights or perishes.

Maybe actually the latter would be the best thing here, since political solutions obviously don't work here. Enough has been tried, and nothing has worked. I would only be willing to give the UN a chance if they finally were to intervene instead of keep the peace (How can you send peacekeeprs to a fucking warzone, you need an intervention there to stop the fighting. You need peacekeepers where a (fragile) peace treaty has already been signed). And if the UN doesn't wanne raise a fist...get outta the, lend them fend for themselves.