January 30, 2015
Why Don’t We Care About Congo’s Dead?
Posted on May 15, 2014
Is it true that atrocities in Africa garner little international attention because the victims are black?
The recent kidnapping of hundreds of Nigerian girls has generated empathy and outrage worldwide, undermining such a claim. The international shame and guilt over Rwanda’s genocide, despite coming too late, also proves that global concern for African lives is not negligible. Indeed the news media often cover stories like the hunt for Joseph Kony and his exploitation of child soldiers in Uganda, the killings in Darfur, Sudan, or the armed attack on a mall in Nairobi, Kenya.
But what happens when millions of Africans die in a conflict in which some of the world’s most desired natural resources are at stake? Very little, it turns out. The massacres that have taken place in the Democratic Republic of the Congo have surpassed genocidal proportions but rarely spur the outrage they deserve in the media or public.
Square, Site wide
Maurice Carney, the co-founder and executive director of Friends of the Congo, in an interview on Uprising, told me, “Congo has been at the center of the unfolding of the drama ... as it relates to the geostrategic pursuit to control the riches of the African continent.” He thinks the media fail to adequately cover Congo’s conflict because “if you look at Darfur, the bogeymen were the Arabs, the Muslims and the Chinese. In Congo, the bogeyman is the West. From the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, to the imposition of Mobutu on the Congolese people, to the backing of the invasion of the Congo by Rwanda and Uganda, the West is complicit.” In fact, Carney said, “The United States has been on the wrong side of history [in the Congo] from day one.”
Congo has never really been allowed to control its own destiny, save for the brief leadership of the visionary Lumumba in 1960. But Lumumba’s tenure and life were cut horribly short with the help of the CIA just months after he was democratically elected, only to be replaced by a Western backed dictator, Mobutu, who remained in power with U.S. backing for three decades. Even then, the stakes centered around Congo’s mineral wealth.
Today U.S. policy in Congo is part of its continent-wide AFRICOM project, which the military says works “in concert with interagency and international partners, builds defense capabilities, responds to crisis, and deters and defeats transnational threats in order to advance U.S. national interests and promote regional security, stability, and prosperity.” Carney told me that the project’s real goal is for the U.S. “to protect its strategic interests [in order to] compete with the Chinese” for Africa’s resources.
U.S. policy on Congo also includes propping up Presidents Paul Kagame of Rwanda and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda. With respect to Kagame especially, despite the fact that several multinational bodies like the International Criminal Court have warned the Rwandan president that he could face prosecution for crimes in the Congo, “the U.S. has run diplomatic and political interference to protect its allies,” according to Carney, as this report maintains.
Rwanda and Uganda invaded the Congo on two separate occasions in 1996 and 1998, and fought one another on Congolese soil in 2000. But the vast majority of the millions who have died in Congo were either killed outright in armed clashes instigated by foreign-backed militias, or were driven out of their villages and died of starvation and disease after being displaced into the forests.
Hundreds of thousands of women and girls have been raped as a systematic tool of mass shame to break the will of entire villages. “Militia groups terrorize villages, particularly the women,” Carney said. He hesitated, adding, “I can’t even say they ‘rape’ the women. They will inflict a form of sexual terrorism on the women, destroy their reproductive systems, humiliate them by raping them in front of their husbands and their children, or even force the children to rape their mother.” Such unspeakable horror has led entire villages to be physically and psychologically destroyed and displaced. The invading militias then have easier access to the mineral resources such as gold, coltan or tin under the land where the villagers once lived.
Meanwhile, Congo’s government under the leadership of President Joseph Kabila is too weak to defend itself and to adequately rule the more than 70 million strong population. According to Carney, Kabila’s government “lacks legitimacy among its people.” Because of that, different groups, even from outside Congo, simply enter the land and claim precious minerals. Congo’s borders are porous, even leading to serious questions of who exactly are defined as citizens.
Coltan, one of Congo’s most sought-after minerals, is used in the making of tantalum capacitors, which are ubiquitous in today’s electronic devices. Gold, tin and tungsten are also traded by armed militias for profit. Carney paraphrased Museveni, who likened Congo to a “banana plantation,” meaning that “everybody goes in and grabs what they want.”
1 2 NEXT PAGE >>>
Previous item: Is Journalism Losing Its Nerve?
Next item: Climate Worries Insurers and Military
New and Improved Comments