The UK And France Talk Tough On The Congo

But, just what the heck can either country do to back up the tough talk?

The UK Foreign Minister and Prime Minister both took a hard rhetorical line regarding the Congo, warning that the world would hold the governments of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda responsible "if something bad happens." PM Brown went on to warn that the Eastern Congo could not become another Rwanda.

David Miliband and his French colleague Bernard Kouchner issued a joint call for a "political settlement" to the crisis. The crisis they were referring to is one of humanitarian relief efforts to the refugees.

Neither Miliband nor Kouchner hinted at direct military involvement in the Congo. This comes as no surprise considering that the French and British public--or at least the politically articulate component of each has long tired of "savage wars of peace," exemplified by Afghanistan and Iraq. There seems to be an equal lack of excitement among all the members of the European Union for a multi-national deployment.

Fortunately for the United States there is no call or us to become involved and we have been quite silent at the Big Show By The Hudson save for voting in the affirmative on the traditional boiler plate Security Council resolutions deploring the violence, demanding an immediate end to hostilities and the need for humanitarian relief instantly if not sooner. Were it not for the upcoming elections as well as the overstretched nature of our military, not to forget the general loss of political will attendant upon seven years of inconclusive wars of our own making, the MSM would be filled with calls for action, and innuendos of racism if no action were forthcoming. Kind of a replay of the breast-beating which came in the wake of the Rwanda genocide of nearly fifteen years ago.

As has been the case before, in Somalia, in Darfur, in Liberia, in Sierra Leone as well as the Congo during the 1998-2003 war(s) the focus of attention has been on the mediagenic refugees and tales of human rights abuses. Since television is a medium which shocks without informing, engages the emotions but not the rational faculties, it is perfectly expectable that the mantra, "if it bleeds, it leads," prevails whenever an African state collapses and hordes of refugees replete with tales of horror take to the trails.

It is not only the visual media that focuses on refugees, but also the international agencies ranging down from the UN and the International Red Cross through an array of non-governmental organisations all itching for a piece of the action and the publicity (and money) which comes with it. At the center of the circus is the horde of refugees which has been a fixture of all African and Mideast conflicts since World War II.

A critical question is why? Why the refugee streams? In particular, why the current refugee crisis?

These questions are legitimate since the visuals of the suffering mobs of displaced persons have become a major driving force of governmental decision making. This can be seen in our own experience with the dynamics of the initial US involvement in Somalia. There were no US strategic interests at stake in the collapsing pseudo-state. There was no objective reason for the US to either deploy troops in support of NGO and UN humanitarian relief operations or to seek to impose a peace by either diplomatic or military means.

There was no reason not to let Somalia crash down the tubes regardless of human cost beyond domestic revulsion at the sights and tales of misery and suffering brought by the emotion heavy, intellect light television reports. Emotion and the political winds it created drove the policy process. This process ultimately brought failure of both a short- and a long-term nature.

The same dynamic is now at work in the most recent installment of the long-running Congo tragedy. The only difference is that it is at work (for the present moment at least) on the emotions and sensibilities of a European audience.

It is important to understand the motivation of the folks in the Congo (and elsewhere) who take to the tracks and trails ending up in the standard issue squalid camp dependent on the aid of foreigners. Of course, the simplest and, in many ways, best and most accurate answer to the question, "Why refugees?" is found in one word. The word is fear.

Fear of what? Fear caused by what specific agency?

In France or Belgium at the outset of World War II, the fear was that of being caught in the crossfire, perhaps reinforced by a fear of the Germans, their behaviour, their propensity for shooting people indiscriminately as had happened twice before in seventy years. The refugee streams were increased and chivvied along by the German air force in order that the movement of Allied forces would be impeded. To this end the Germans enhanced fear with specific attacks on refugee streams.

The mass of German refugees fleeing West to avoid the oncoming Red Army was based on fear of the Soviet sub-humans. Fear of rape. Fear of being done to death at the whim of some Red trooper or political commissar. Fears of having done to them what their troops and para-military forces had done to the Russians and others. Once again the fear was enhanced, not by the oncoming Soviets, but by elements of the collapsing Nazi regime.

In 1948 some refugees from the Israeli War of Independence were generated intentionally by actions of the Israeli armed forces and the political structure behind them. Still others, arguably the majority, were called out by the propaganda mechanisms of the opposing Arab armies whose governments assured the Arabs who hit the road that they would soon return to their homes and farms behind the victorious Islamic forces.

In other wars, those of counterinsurgency, refugees have been intentionally generated by the counterinsurgent side so that the guerrilla fighters would be denied the cover and support provided by the general population. It went that way in Algeria, in Malaya, in Kenya and in South Vietnam. As in the case of the Arabs in 1948 the fear was artificially created so that a specific political or military goal might be achieved.

In the Congo there is and has been all along a legitimate fear on the part of civilians caught between the contenders. More than four, perhaps as many as five million, Congolese perished during the last siege of large scale fighting between 1998 and 2003. The Week of the Very Long Knives in Rwanda looms large in the memory of anyone living near the border between Congo and Rwanda.

A close, non-televised look at what or whom was responsible for the overwhelming majority of the deaths not only during the five years of war ending in 2003 but in the most recent conflict demonstrates that the Congolese national forces have been responsible. Currently, even the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Navi Pillay, lays the burden on the Congo's Army and other security forces.

It is quite true that the troops under the command of Gen Laurent Nkunda have not been blameless. However, in comparison to the Congolese National Run Away, Rape and Kill Force, they have been quite restrained in shooting improperly. Foreign observers can point only at two instances where Nkunda's troops fired on clinics where fugitive members of the Congolese armed forces had sought shelter in the normally non-combatant medical facilities.

Now, according to Reuters, (http://africa.reuters.com/top/news/usnJOE4A108J.html) at least some of the refugees are looking to the Europeans for rescue, protection and relief. To provide the hoped for amelioration of unpleasant conditions might give a European citizen or politician a soft, warm and fuzzy glow and might actually be of material assistance to the protected refugees, it would be counterproductive to the best interests of the Congolese.

The reason for this is simple. To aid and protect refugees is to remove governmental responsibility for the well-being and safety of its own citizens. In the Congo this translates into demonstrating once again that the government is corrupt, self-serving and inept. This in turn would guarantee that the wide-spread disenchantment with the current government would spread.

Holy collapsing state! Well, actually, Wholly collapsing state would be more accurate.

The policy heavy hitters of the UK and France as well as the brigade of diplomats involved, to say nothing of the (un)enlightened self-interests of more than a few members of the African Union cannot accept reality. It is an unpleasant reality to be sure. It is a reality which will be painful in the extreme for those Congolese who live through it. It is, nonetheless, the reality with which all must eventually deal.

Get a grip on it. The Congo is an artifact. It is a mere geographic expression transmogrified into a pseudo-state by outsiders for the benefit of outsiders. No one asked the folks who lived there. Now those folks are voting. Not only with their feet as they flee the Congolese National Runaway, Rape, Plunder and Murder Forces. That's only part of it.

The rest of the voting is by bullet and bomb as the country slips into the disassociation it both deserves and needs.