Horrors of the Congo conflict must not be ignored

Putting an end to the appalling humanitarian disaster in Zimbabwe which has been unfolding in a slow-motion sort of way for a number of years has clearly been beyond the capability of the global community, even when things have reached the current quite astonishing degree of disintegration of virtually the entire economy and almost all social services.  But pointing out all the atrocities is one thing, finding a viable solution is infinitely more difficult.

The same could be said to apply to the continuing violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo. 
Jim Terrie, writing at The Interpreter blog last month, called it “deja vous all over again,” but can’t offer much more than “the international community needs to reassess its options, as much of the last eight years has done little to move the DRC forward.” 

Giles Foden on The Age website suggests further outside military intervention is needed, while noting the massive level of rapes currently happening alongside the killing. As he says, “all sides in this many-phased conflict, which has claimed more than 5 million lives in the past decade, have been engaged in extraction of Congo’s rich mineral deposits.” 

The issue of who gets access to the wealth of the “rich mineral deposits” has

been a cause of bloodshed in the region right back to the 1960s, following Belgium’s messy exit from its former colony. These riches are one reason why regional collaborations to end the conflict have so far failed; another is the historical effects of the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

Which does make me wonder how this crucial issue of who gets control of the minerals can be adequately resolved by any of the options put forward to date, which understandably have been mostly about short-term military containment of the violence.

Howard Cohen, a former US Ambassador in Africa and Assistant Secretary of State for Africa during the Administration of George Bush Snr, has argued in the New York Times that opening up trade in the region is a key part of the answer and has a suggestion for Barack Obama:

Having controlled the Kivu provinces for 12 years, Rwanda will not relinquish access to resources that constitute a significant percentage of its gross national product. At the same time, Congo’s government is within its rights to take control of the resources there for the benefit of the Congolese people. This economic conflict must be taken into account.

This provides an opportunity for the incoming Obama administration. Acts of war and military occupation aside, there is a natural economic synergy between eastern Congo and the nations of East Africa, including Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania and Uganda. The normal flow of trade from eastern Congo is to Indian Ocean ports rather than the Atlantic Ocean, which is more than a thousand miles away.

After his inauguration, Barack Obama should appoint a special negotiator who would propose a framework for an economic common market encompassing Congo, Rwanda, Burundi, Kenya, Tanzania and Uganda. This agreement would allow the free movement of people and trade. It would give Rwandan businesses continued access to Congolese minerals and forests. The products made from those raw materials would continue to be exported through Rwanda. The big change would be the payment of royalties and taxes to the Congolese government. For most Rwandan businesses, those payments would be offset by increased revenues.

In addition, the free movement of people would empty the refugee camps and would allow the densely populated countries of Rwanda and Burundi to supply needed labor to Congo and Tanzania. If such a common market could be negotiated, Rwanda and Congo would no longer need to finance and arm militias to wage war over the natural resources in Congo’s eastern provinces. Without government backing, the fighting groups would either dissolve on their own or be integrated into legitimate armed forces.

I know it’s good to look for ways redefine intractable problems as “opportunities”, and more open trade is certainly better than more open killing and raping.  However, I’d be surprised if incoming President Obama chose to embrace this situation as an “opportunity”.  Calling this proposal “ambitious” doesn’t even start to come close to describing how hard this would be to achieve.  “Wildly implausible” is probably closer to the mark.

But as all the articles I’ve linked to above starkly outline, the situation there is unspeakable – even more so than Zimbabwe and its own way even more intractable.  It cannot just be ignored and people need to keep urging for a solution to be found, however hard it is.