UN peacekeepers review Congo strategy
The UN has just extended the mandate of the UN peacekeeping forces in the Congo for another 5 months as opposed to the more usual year term. This echoes the Obama decision on Afghanistan, where he had to review the current progress and understand that the strategy being pursued was flawed. The UN is not making progress in the Congo as desired, and needs to change its approach.
The Congo is often referred to by African correspondents as the forgotten war, which given its scale is surprising. Since 1998, 5.4 million people have died as a result of violence in the Congo. This is more deaths than from any other conflict other than World War II. A report by the International Rescue Committee (IRC) said “Congo’s loss is equivalent to the entire population of Denmark or the state of Colorado …”
Congo is a country riddled with tribal quarrels, a long history of violence, and with little to no reliable infrastructure. It has a turbulent colonial and independent history. There are no arms or munitions factories in the Congo, but the country is awash with arms. Congo is also rich in natural resources that some countries are eager to develop no matter the cost. The Congo is an example of the tragedy of the struggles of Africa. The UN is certainly rethinking its approach
The extension, diplomats say, will give the United Nations time to prepare a plan to reconfigure the mandate of the force, known as MONUC, to focus more on training the army of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and protecting civilians.
A resolution unanimously approved by the 15-nation council extended the deployment of approximately 20,000 uniformed personnel, the biggest U.N. force in the world, until May 2010. But diplomats say it will be prolonged again after that.
They say the Security Council is under pressure from Congo President Joseph Kabila to come up with an exit strategy for MONUC ahead of the 50th anniversary of Congo's independence from its former colonial master Belgium on June 30, 2010.
But the resolution said much needed to be done before a drawdown of MONUC could be considered “without triggering a relapse into instability.” U.N. experts and human rights groups have alleged serious abuses by the Congolese army as well as rebel groups in eastern Congo.
Some of the issues in the Congo are home grown, but they are definitely aided and abetted by foreign players. The Congo is also an example of how the trade of arms for resources is fueling Africa’s self-destructive spiral. For example, China’s trade with Africa has grown into a staggering US $50 Billion per annum business.
The weapon of the African insurgency is the classic Soviet bloc AK-47. The weapon is cheap to produce, has ammunition that is in plentiful supply and is relatively easy to use. AK-47’s can be bought in the Congo for less than US $100 per unit. The “56? suffix stamped on most of the available weapons’ serial numbers is the telling identifier denoting the weapon is ‘Made in China’. Chinese weapons are cheaper than Russia, Ukraine or other Eastern European manufactured weapons. China does not directly infringe the UN sanctions that prohibit arms sales to the Congo. Weapons come into Congo via proxy importers but the “56? identifies their origin, despite any efforts to mask the route of entry.
In Africa, the provisioning of arms is often a precursor to reciprocal trade agreements. The Congo is rich in gold and iron deposits. In fact, the largest iron mine in the Congo is now owned and operated by a major Chinese company whose other main line of business is weapons manufacturer.
It may be coincidental, but if history is a teacher, probably not. It may also be coincidental that last year the Chinese premier made a ‘goodwill’ visit to the seven African nations where both conflict and Chinese trade deals are flourishing. While the UN scrambles to realign its strategy and purpose, China apparently knows exactly how to influence the outcomes in the Congo
