Global Policy Forum

By Cynthia Scharf

With the world's gaze still fixed on Iraq, a far more deadly war rages on in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Weekly death tolls in the DRC are greater than the total number of civilian casualties in "Operation Iraqi Freedom." More than three million civilians have perished here in less than five years, making Congo the world's deadliest conflict of the last half century. Despite such suffering, Congo, unlike Iraq, receives virtually no media attention. Congo's catastrophic war does not appear in America's strategic line of sight; its millions of victims receive barely more than a backward glance from an international community transfixed by the war on terrorism.

It is time to readjust our gaze, and to take a hard look at the calamity in Congo, where warfare has derailed prospects for peace, stability and prosperity throughout the whole of Central Africa. Congo's entrenched violence, despite numerous peace accords and an on-site UN presence (known by its French acronym, MONUC), raises serious questions about the role of the international community in addressing the threat posed by failed states not only in Africa, but the world over.

Since the war began in 1998, more than a half-dozen African armies and numerous rebel proxy groups have fought in Congo in ever-shifting alliances, shamelessly plundering the country's mineral wealth to fill their own coffers. At once a civil war and an international conflict played out within its borders, the war in Congo is a complex affair with lethal humanitarian consequences. Nowhere in the world, save perhaps for Somalia and South Sudan, is the gap between humanitarian needs and available resources so wide--and so deadly.

The present conflict in Congo has its roots in the 1994 Rwandan genocide, which the international community failed to prevent despite clear advance warning given to the UN Security Council. The long-term consequences of that failure, which resulted in the murder of up to 800,000 Rwandans, are being played out today in Congo. Four years after the genocide, Rwanda invaded DRC in pursuit of thousands of fugitive Hutu-power genocidaires who posed a threat to its security. Uganda, Angola, Zimbabwe, and Namibia followed suit with their own agendas, turning Congo into the battleground for a vicious continental war. Had the international community acted swiftly and forcefully to halt the Rwandan genocide, one can imagine a far different scenario today in Congo and throughout the Great Lakes region as a whole. The lesson here is clear: Forceful and timely international intervention to protect civilian lives under threat can help stop a cycle of violence from spinning out of control, and thus prevent the kind of devastating long-term consequences we see in DRC today. Regrettably, the UN mission in Congo (MONUC) has yet to heed this lesson.

Sent to DRC in 1999 to monitor a mythical cease-fire, MONUC has spent the last four years repatriating some 200 Rwandan Hutu genocidaires. What the UN has systematically failed to do, however, in Congo--as in Bosnia before it--is to protect the lives of civilians threatened by imminent violence. And yet this is precisely the peacemaking role that most people around the world--certainly most Congolese as well as most Bosnians--expect of the UN. Time and again, however, the UN has failed to deliver this most vital peacekeeping function.

Recent events are a case in point. Earlier this month, hundreds of Congolese civilians were slaughtered in an ethnic-inspired massacre in the northeastern region of Ituri, long known to be the war's epicenter. Where was MONUC during what one UN official called "the worst single atrocity since the start of the war"? Thousands of miles away in central Congo, far from the crucible of the conflict. Out of a total MONUC force of 5,500 personnel, a grand total of eight troops (unarmed at that) were then in Ituri, where civilians are most at risk and the UN's presence is most needed. "This is absolutely unbelievable, especially when we know that a few troops at the right time in the right place do have a deterrent effect," said Veronique Aubert, an Amnesty International researcher who recently visited the area.

So what exactly is MONUC doing in Congo if not saving the lives of those who desperately need protection? Many on the ground ask the same question. "MONUC are not providing safety or security for the civilian population, nor are they enforcing any cease-fire, so what exactly is their point is unclear," said Geoff Prescott, CEO of Merlin, a British-based NGO that is one of the largest international medical relief groups working in Congo. "At best they are ineffective, at worst they are a conscience salve providing an excuse to keep DRC off the international agenda." Which brings us to the heart of the matter. MONUC represents the international community's will--or lack thereof--in Congo. Thus far it has received more in the way of lip service than resources. MONUC is a paper tiger because key UN Security Council members--namely the U.S.--perceive no strategic interest in Congo and thus evince no desire to invest the political and financial capital needed to create an effective UN presence.

To be fair, MONUC currently has nowhere near the manpower needed for the task. The country's sheer size--Congo is bigger than Germany, France, Poland, Ukraine and Belarus combined, with virtually no infrastructure--means it could take some 100,000 well-trained, well-equipped troops to serve as an effective protection and peacekeeping force. By comparison, it took 17,500 UN troops to enforce the peace in Sierra Leone, a country 1/32 the size of DRC. In the meantime, MONUC troops should be stationed in Ituri and northeastern Congo where fighting is most severe. UN forces should fulfill their Chapter VII UN mandate and take proactive measures to protect the civilian population when faced with imminent threats of violence. Western governments, meanwhile, should dramatically bolster the amount of humanitarian assistance earmarked for Congo, while slashing foreign aid that helps finance the governments of Rwanda and Uganda, two key protagonists with vested interests in prolonging the conflict.

For the Congolese, history has shown that foreign intervention brings repeated catastrophe, be it Belgium's brutal colonization, American client dictators like Mobutu Seko Sese and his thirty year kleptocracy, or today's rapacious African neighbors. It's time to get it right--this time through a robust multilateral intervention, one that does not cynically exploit Congo's gaping power vacuum for unilateral economic or ideological gains.

Ending the slaughter in Congo is first and foremost a task for Africa's own leaders, a responsibility South Africa thus far has shouldered with commendable diligence. But Congo's chaos is so pervasive, its death toll so shockingly high, that the United Nations must play a role if it is to retain legitimacy as a 21st century peacemaking institution. Pointing out the UN's weaknesses in Congo is not an argument for pulling out. To the contrary. Instead of scuttling MONUC, both its mandate and manpower must be seriously strengthened so it can do the job that only the UN will--and can--do.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.