Backsliding

     So, Rwanda arrests Laurent Nkunda, a Tutsi wreaking havoc among the Congolese Hutus and anyone foolish enough to be standing near them, but days later the Tutsi militia operating in Congo, a group that broke away from the Congolese Army, announce their re-integration into the military will take some time yet. These are the forces who, for some years, alongside the Rwanda Tutsi militias, have been roaming the Congo hunting the 1994 genocidaires and anyone who tries to stop their murderous rampage.  This has been the deadliest conflict of the last decade, and one which America (Bush and Clinton) have made worse.

     What I was thinking was that Obama stepped into the President a bit more Africa-Aware than the average bear, contacted Kagame (through an intermediary) and told them to pull back, but that forces (the relatively independent-of-Kagame ex-Congolese Army Tutsis) are still on the warpath.  Please don't get me wrong, they didn't *actually* say "And we won't stop till every Hutu this side of the border is dead" but it is certainly clear that they don't want to take anyone's orders, and they live by the gun, so it is hard to imagine anything _but_ further pillaging/expropriation-of-natural-resources-by-force.

     COULD SOMEONE ASK WHERE THESE TRAINED KILLERS ARE ACQUIRING THEIR BREAKFASTS, LUNCHES, DINNERS AND DESSERTS?

Language And Conflict: New Categorization of Problem Types

     Noam Chomsky, to try to point out the error of my ways, pointed to the 1994 Rwandan genocide as an example of a deadly conflict within one language community.  Of course I'd known about this event, and consider it only one among many major events in the last couple decades, but more recent e-mail conversations about Rwanda with Chomsky have led me to an insight I hadn't previously had.

     Some of the problems, and certainly the class Chomsky was thinking about, concern when groups speaking different languages share one country, or government, and fight over power, land or access to resources.  I like to point to the examples of Switzerland and India as possible ways to handle this.

     A different set of problems emerge when you take one (large-enough) language community and divide it up with internationally recognized (sacrosanct) lines.  Examples include, but are not limited to

• Kinyarwanda-Rundi, although small, the part in the Democratic Republic of Congo has been particularly influential.  I made that graphic specifically to show Chomsky what I was talking about, and it was key to helping me get to the understanding I am trying to relay in this post.
• The Taleban, or, more exactly, the Pashtana tribesmen of the Hindu Kush and Koh-e-Sulaiman mountains (Pashtan is singular, Pashtun is the Indian corruption of the word).
• The Sudan (Deby, President of Chad, comes from a tribe which is half in Sudanese Darfur.
• The Kurds
• The Somalis (still without a government, 17 years running).
• Even Ossetia. Divided between Russia and Chechnya

Again, as if you needed any reminding, all of these borders were drawn up by Europeans, who, generally speaking, organized things for their own interests (if you look at the Pashtana map, it looks as if "divide and rule" was their interest).

     Somali, Rwandan, Kurdish, Pashtana and Zaghawa speakers have all, definitely hosted rebel groups on one side of the border to attack and destabilize the government on the other.  In fact, all of them are doing it today.

     Peace out.

Susan Rice

     Her name is popping up in relation, perhaps, to the post of the National Security Advisor under the Obama administration.  I've read her name twice in the last month in relation to Africa.  Is she any good?  Not at all.  Admittedly, in the first event I will relate, she was doing Bill Clinton's bidding.

     Twice in the last decade Kagame (Tutsi) of Rwanda and Museveni of Uganda have invaded the Democratic Republic of Congo because, principally, both Mobutu Sese Seko and then the Rwanda/Ugandan installed Joseph Kabila both "allowed" rebel Hutus, including 1994 genocidaires, to launch attacks into Rwanda.  Rwanda and Uganda couldn't keep their act together, and one faction of anti-Kabila rebels became known as the RCD (you can call them "the Rally"). The Rally has few of their own aims (although, sure, they'd like to take over the Congo), they are a proxy military outfit of the Rwandans.  When Susan Rice was Asst. Sec't of State for African Affairs, she met with the RCD leaders in Kigale, capital of Rwanda.  This is about as big as endorsement of violent, raping, thuggish, thieving, mineral-smuggling rebels (who, admittedly, might also have some legitimate grievances) that can be imagined by one author.

     Later, under her own power, in December, 2001, Susan Rice declared that Osama bin-Laden had been arming and training the Somalia warlords (Gen. Farah Aideed, among others) who attacked and killed some U.S. troops in 1993.  Is there any solid reason, post-9/11, to bring up the eight year old attack and blame al-Qaeda for it?  No public U.S. or U.N. personnel in Somalia at the time ever noted any links to terrorists.  The Somalis themselves deny it completely.  There was a lot of (relatively misplaced) focus on Somalia at the time, and Susan Rice appears to be like on of those bloodthirsty Bushies when she (baselessly? entirely baselessly? seems like it) brands a whole country "terrorist." 

     The book I was reading today, which reminded me of this incident, noted that Somalia is actually a pretty bad "safe haven" for terrorists.

1. There is no one to protect them from kidnappers, either.
2. There are no available western targets anywhere nearby (not one embassy, even).
3. They are foreigners, where there are almost no foreigners, and so would stick out badly.

No, if you are a terrorist, you want a big, multi-ethnic metropolis where you can blend in.  You want an easily corruptible government that will overlook small, non-lethal parts of your operation (as long as none of the locals get hurt, and I make a buck, whats to stop me, says the cop, taking the bribe).  Near perfect anarchy, however, is useless.

Laurent Nkunda

     Do I like this guy? I like his style...

Laurent Nkunda, leader of the rebels inside the Democratic Republic of the Congo, allied with the Tutsis in Rwanda (Rwanda, BRAVE ALLY IN THE COALITION OF THE WILLING!) and seen here wearing what appear to be U.S. military camouflage.

     In case you don't recall. The first Congo war put Laurent Kabila in power, and he was sponsored by, among others, the Tutsi government of Rwanda which was mad at Mobutu because he led Hutu rebels operate from eastern Congo (the Kivu region). When Kabila got in power, however, he didn't put a stop to it, either, so the Rwandans, among others, started the Second Congo War. Kabila died, his son was put in the Presidency, but that didn't change anything. That war only officially ended in 2003, but the fighting continues, and has been the most deadly war since WWII.

     The American international war reporters have shown virtually no interest in it. Few christians or arabs or muslims are involved, plus, the main mineral there is in your cellphone. It does American reporters no good to tell you the truth. There is no money in it. Does anyone want to let me run a newspaper's international reporting?

Sudan?  HELL NO, Congo!

     Most all Democrats and Republicans I hear talk about the tragedy in Sudan.  How bad is it there, compared to other places?  The UN often tries to do the tallies, and they said that 50,000 Sudanese had been killed by the Janjaweed, the militia of the government.  It would be pointless to go into a discussion of the true number of Iraqi civilians killed by Americans in Iraq here.  The Sudanese government said it was more like five thousand, lower than any estimate of Iraqi civilian dead.

     Might there be something worse?  If there is, why don't you know about it? 

     What is going on in the Democratic Republic of Congo is worse, and there are more than a few reasons you don't know. 

     The UN is saying that in DRC 31,000 people were dying per month, and that far more than 3,800,000 people have died in the last eight years, most of which was while Bush has been President!.  Saddam, it might be noted, was killing only a hundred or two Iraqis per year while Bush was in office.

     Of course you care about senseless wastes of humanity.  The American Christian Right, the Arab haters, the francophone nature of DRC, the oil men, and political realities for Washington all prevent you from learning about this.

     Recent (repeat) White House guest, the butcher Kagame of Rwanda, sends troops into Congo to steal and slaughter.  The US Press would rather be a lapdog and play nicey-nice with Bush than point this out when Kagame comes to town.

     The Christian Right uses their radio and television stations to beat their viewers senseless with information about the tragedy in Sudan, and ignore Congo.  The Sudanese government, after all, is not Christian!  Uganda and Rwanda, some of the worst slaughterers in Congo, are.  Sudan also used to beat up Christians in the South, and things are not super yet, by any means, in that oil-rich part of the country.

     Oil men, of course, like oil. Sudan has some.

     And, honestly, of course, it is easier for an English speaking person to go into Sudan and meet with people and talk and find out the rumors.  Sudan was part of Anglo Egypt-Sudan for a long time, while, during Colonial times, Congo was Belgian Congo.  It seems to me that Americans have always had more contact with former British Colonies (see: Iraq) than with the Dutch speaking ones.

     Please help the world get its priorities straight.