June 25, 2003
For more than four years, the deadliest fighting since World War II has raged in the vast Central African nation of Congo. More than 3 million people are dead. In some parts of the country, organized society has collapsed, with tribal vengeance giving way to genocide. For those in the war's path, childhood ends abruptly. Parents are butchered in front of their children and militias turn the orphans into killers by their early teens. Neighboring countries are inflaming the conflict, arming rival militias and looting resources.
Sadly, the United Nations has seemed powerless to reverse Congo's deadly disintegration. Before the arrival of a small French-led military force this month, international action has been timid. The new contingent, better equipped and with a stronger U.N. mandate to use force, may now contain the anarchy in one particularly violent area, the northeastern regional capital of Bunia. But the new force has only about 1,400 soldiers and is scheduled to begin pulling out in September. The rest of Congo remains at the mercy of marauding militias.
To expand the Bunia operation nationwide could require a U.N. army as large as 100,000. There is no chance of the Security Council's sending or paying for a force that large. Peace will come to Congo, if it comes at all, only by strengthening diplomatic efforts to bring together the country's main factions in a transitional government. Even that won't have a chance unless the neighboring governments of Rwanda and Uganda order their local proxies to stop fighting.
But while peacekeeping is not the long-term answer for Congo, it is needed in the short term. One immediate issue, to be decided by the Security Council in the next few weeks, is what will replace the French-led contingent after September. A new version of the weak U.N. force that proved unable to protect Bunia before is not an acceptable answer.
The next U.N. peacekeeping mission must have legal authority to use sufficient force to protect civilians. It must be strong enough to prevent anarchy from returning to Bunia. And it must be available to move around the country to enforce compromises negotiated between the rival Congolese factions. The U.N. should also consider sending peacekeepers to the Lake Kivu area near the Rwandan and Ugandan borders. That is where some of the ethnic conflicts that touched off the long Congo conflict still fester. Fears of cross-border raids by militias based in this area continue to drive Rwandan and Ugandan involvement. An effective U.N. force of 10,000 to 20,000 troops, used this way, could encourage an eventual political settlement and ease the plight of civilians.
No American troops are expected to go to Congo, but Washington will pay more than a fourth of the U.N.'s costs. Through its veto power, America will shape the Security Council's ultimate decision. The Bush administration should push for a peacekeeping mission that is militarily adequate and legally empowered to use appropriate force. Washington also needs to lean harder on its Ugandan and Rwandan allies to stop stoking the Congo conflict.
No quick or easy solutions are available. The damage to Congo has simply been too extensive, the killing too vast, the many decades of past misgovernment too destructive. But the world must not abandon the Congolese people. Their agony challenges our humanity.
More Information on Peacekeeping
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.
