America’s president-elect needs to remake the case for humanitarian intervention abroad

Protecting the vulnerable
What Congo means for Obama

Nov 13th 2008
From The Economist print edition
America’s president-elect needs to remake the case for humanitarian intervention abroad

Reuters

IN AMERICA this has been a week for the drawing up of lists—lists of the virtues of Barack Obama, lists of big names for his administration, lists of big tasks for his bulging in-tray. But in Congo this week a million hungry and terrified refugees are in desperate need of food and protection (see article). The two things are connected, in a way that may surprise, and dismay, Mr Obama’s admirers. If he is to prove worthy of the near-universal exaltation with which his election has been greeted, he has to prepare America and the world for the possibility of further American military interventions overseas.

This is not to say that it is America that has to provide the 3,000 extra peacekeeping troops the United Nations has asked for in Congo. The French have troops available, and America is in no mood for new entanglements. With an overstretched army and an economy on life support, most Americans reckon this is a time to rebuild at home, not embark on new adventures in far-flung places. Most foreigners probably agree. In their eyes, George Bush’s wars were a disaster, if not a crime. They think that whatever Mr Obama says about winning in Afghanistan, he was elected to practise war no more.

A lovely sentiment. The trouble is that history does not take a holiday just because America needs a breather. Mr Obama will sooner or later face a question that has plagued all recent presidents. Forget about wars launched in the name of defeating terrorism, stopping nuclear proliferation or pursuing some other direct American interest. What should the world’s strongest and (still) richest country do when famine or conflict strike places whose own governments will not or cannot help, where America has no direct interest, but where averting a humanitarian disaster may require military intervention?

The answers of previous presidents have depended on temperament and circumstance. George Bush senior sent marines to feed Somalia. Bill Clinton used force to stop the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo but not in Rwanda, where Hutus killed close to 800,000 Tutsis. The junior Bush decided against intervention in Darfur, even though his own administration called the ethnic cleansing there a genocide and the killing goes on.

It remains to be seen where Mr Obama’s temperament will lead, but it is easy to see how circumstances might dull any appetite for intervention. It is not just that America is stretched thin; the Bush years have also damaged the intellectual case for intervention. America did not invade Afghanistan and Iraq out of altruism, but those wars have shown how hard it is to rebuild broken countries. Congo itself is an example; even with the UN’s biggest peacekeeping operation it is still in danger. For several years The Economist has repeated like a stuck gramophone needle a call for intervention in Darfur, but we acknowledge the law of unintended consequences. In all such cases, the use of force should be the very last resort.

And yet a strong moral case remains for forceful outside intervention in desperate cases. Would the world still do nothing if it had a second chance to avert genocide in Rwanda? And the practical case is stronger than the failures suggest. From the Balkans to Liberia to Sierra Leone to Kosovo, armed intervention has, on balance, helped to end or forestall catastrophes. Though imperfect, the UN operation in Congo has helped to end a war that killed millions: it should be reinforced immediately, preferably by troops from Europe, not local ones. Too often in Congo, neighbours promising help stay to plunder.
Two jobs for a new president

As for Mr Obama, he has a chance to restore America’s moral leadership. That is not something he should do by scouring the world in search of new monsters to slay. Nor, though, can a war-weary America turn its back on people threatened by ethnic cleansing or genocide. Since 2005 the UN has accepted a responsibility to protect people in such cases, so this is not a burden for America alone. But since the UN has no army, and no other countries have the military resources America boasts, there may be times when only the superpower can move soldiers swiftly where they are needed.

Should that call come, Mr Obama will need the courage to respond, notwithstanding Americans’ fatigue. In extremis, if the danger is great and veto-wielding members of the Security Council block the way, he and others might have to act without the Security Council’s blessing, as NATO did in Kosovo. Far better would be an early effort by Mr Obama to reach agreement on the rules to apply and forces to earmark so that the UN can actually exercise its collective responsibility to protect. That will be hard, but Mr Bush was actively hostile to such work. How fitting if the next president made possible a genuinely global response to the next Rwanda, Congo or Darfur.

http://www.economist.com/...d=12601948

I believe most Americans firmly oppose humanitarian interventions when there are no American interests at stake.

Tremolina said:

XxAxX said:

Tremolina said:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27682399/

KILIMANYOKA, Congo - The road that leads into rebel-controlled Congo begins with a makeshift roadblock made from the corpses of two government soldiers strewn across the dark volcanic earth.

The pair on Wednesday blocked the main two-lane track running north from the regional capital, Goma — one with a bullet in his forehead and a frozen fist grasping the air above.

The scene was meant as a warning to government troops just a few hundred yards down the road whom the rebels had battled the night before. And for the few fearful civilians trickling past the frontline, it was clear message that Congo's savage war is not easing amid fears it could draw in Angola and others in the region.

"We don't want any more of it," said 18-year-old John Biamungu, who pushed a wooden bicycle past the corpse-strewn checkpoint as rebels stood in a clutch of trees on both sides staring silently.

Thousands displaced by violence
Years of sporadic violence in eastern Congo intensified in August, and fighting between the army and fighters loyal to rebel leader Laurent Nkunda has displaced at least 250,000 people since then — despite the presence of the largest U.N. peacekeeping force in the world.
On Wednesday, Angola's Deputy Foreign Minister Georges Chicoty said Angola was prepared to send troops to Congo, fueling fears the conflict could engulf the region.

It was not clear whether the soldiers would be intended to serve a peacekeeping role or back Congolese troops, as they did during a ruinous 1998-2002 war that drew in more than half a dozen African nations.

Associated Press reporters have already seen Portuguese-speaking soldiers wearing green berets with pins in the shape of Angola appearing to guard a road alongside Congolese soldiers. But Angola has denied their presence.
The overt entry of Angolans into the conflict could draw in Rwanda, which Congo has already accused of sending troops to support Nkunda.

Rwanda battled highly trained Angolan troops during the 1998-2002 war, which tore Congo into rival fiefdoms. Rebels backed by Uganda and Rwanda seized vast swaths of territory rich in coffee, gold and tin in the east, while Angola and Zimbabwe, sent tanks and fighter planes to back Congo's government in exchange for access to lucrative diamond and copper mines to the south and west.

Eastern Congo unstable since 1994
Eastern Congo has been unstable since millions of refugees spilled across the border from Rwanda's 1994 genocide, which saw more than 500,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus slaughtered.

Many of the Hutu extremists who orchestrated the mass killings have remained in Congo, prompting Tutsi-led Rwanda to invade the mineral-rich nation twice. Nkunda, who quit Congo's army in 2004, has taken up the cause. He claims he is fighting to protect Tutsis, who like Hutus are a minority and one of an estimated 200 ethnic groups in Congo.

The bodies blocking the maroon-tinged road at Kilimanyoka Wednesday were dressed in olive green military uniforms. Each wore the blue armbands of the army. Both were barefoot, their boots apparently removed by rebels.

A white four-wheel drive belonging to a humanitarian aid group slowed down and wound off the road around them. Civilians covered their mouths as they passed in silence, aghast at the scene. Rebels standing in trees on both sides of the road stared coldly at approaching journalists and the few civilians who passed by.

'The army attacked'
Asked how the army troops came to be placed in the road, one rebel wearing an olive green poncho grinned.

"The army attacked," he said, looking out at the bodies and a light rain drizzled from a dark sky. "This is what happens when the army attacks."
He refused to give his name because his commander was not present.

After walking a few hundred yards south through an empty no-mans land that separates the two sides, Biamungu stopped and spoke to a reporter.
"The rebels said to us, 'What are you looking at?' Biamungu recounted. "We didn't say anything. We kept moving. Honestly, we are afraid."

Exhausted Congolese soldiers sat leisurely by the road, apparently unworried rebels were so close. It was a bizarre mix, neither war nor peace.
"When we get orders to attack, we will," said Congolese army Capt. Alex Kazadi, as a couple soldiers cooked stews in the fields behind him, the steam from boiling water evaporating into the chilly air. "This has gone on too long."

Rebels much more disciplined
The rebels, however, are far more disciplined on the battlefield than Congo's ill-trained army, which was forced into a humiliating retreat in late October as Nkunda's forces advanced toward Goma and suddenly halted.

Both sides blamed each other for starting Tuesday's clash.
Asked if he had lost any troops in the gunbattle, Kazadi shrugged. "It's normal to lose men in a war," he said.

A few miles to the south at Kibati, thousands of people lined up to get survival kits being handed out from five white International Committee of the Red Cross trucks. The kits contained buckets, blankets, soap, hoes and cooking utensils, said Abdallah Togola, an ICRC official in Kibati.

Togola said the area was reaching its capacity to handle refugees.
"All the schools and churches are full," he said, adding that local families have taken in about six people each.

Families rush in search of safety
Tuesday's fighting, which lasted nearly an hour, sent some families rushing for what they hoped was the safety of refugee camps. Others ran into the bush.
Biamungu said he'd slept with his mother and two siblings in the open under a banana field, fearing the camp could be targeted. It wasn't.

Many are to afraid to return to villages to the north seized by rebels in the last few weeks. Biamungu said he fled the village of Rugari months earlier. He risked going back Wednesday to bring back a sack of sweet potatoes and illegal charcoal he hoped to sell in Kibati for $10.

U.N. peacekeeping spokesman Col. Jean-Paul Dietrich urged both sides to show restraint.
"It's not acceptable that in the proximity of 75,000 people (in Kibati), they cannot cease hostilities for a few days," Dietrich said. "We are working hard to separate them. They have to be responsible actors."

XxAxX said:

Tremolina said:

Gary Brecher, the War Nerd, had a great article about Nkunda in the recent eXile, though I just checked it and the eXile's account has been suspended.

I managed to find some blogger who cut and pasted it:

http://jjcdaddy.wordpress...ast-congo/

Well worth the read.

Just because something is sold as "humanitarian" doesn;t mean we are backing the right people.

2the9s said:

Gary Brecher, the War Nerd, had a great article about Nkunda in the recent eXile, though I just checked it and the eXile's account has been suspended.

I managed to find some blogger who cut and pasted it:

http://jjcdaddy.wordpress...ast-congo/

Well worth the read.

Just because something is sold as "humanitarian" doesn;t mean we are backing the right people.

XxAxX said:

While the world wrings its hands over the fate of an estimated quarter million people caught up in the roiling conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, it seems likely that little will actually be done about the long-running African civil war. The best bet for stopping the violence, the United Nations' 17,000-strong multilateral peacekeeping force, known as MONUC, is spread thin and considered ineffective; it will take months to increase its presence in the country. The European Union is reluctant to deploy a crack force, and southern African leaders have committed only to sending in a "technical team." The world's response, in the words of Henri Boshoff, a military expert for the Institute for Security Studies in Pretoria, is likely to be "too little too late."

Since last month, rebels under the command of Laurent Nkunda, a Tutsi and former Congolese General, have been at war with government forces. The rebels, ethnic Tutsis, were once a part of the national army, but they turned on the government in 2004, after accusing it of supporting a Hutu militia. Since then, Nkunda's followers have battled the Congolese army and its allies. Now they've overrun the villages and towns around Goma, a town in eastern Congo, and 250,000 people have been displaced and more than 100 civilians killed in the past month. Looting, rape and the recruitment of child soldiers, once vilified, have returned.

Despite widespread agreement in the international community that something must be done—a summit on Nov. 7 attended by U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon urged an immediate ceasefire and political settlement—precious little action has been taken. Military analysts believe the best hope for a cessation of violence would come from a European Union battle group—an elite, well-equipped force of roughly 1,500 soldiers. "That would be a short-term solution while MONUC's capacity is built and its mandate reconsidered," military analyst Boshoff says. But the chances of a European response are slight, largely because of opposition from Britain. Already embroiled in Afghanistan and Iraq, the U.K. is reluctant to get involved in what could be a protracted civil conflict.

But even if the EU sends a Battle Group, it will be only a temporary fix until the United Nations can bolster its ineffectual MONUC force. On Tuesday, the U.N. Under-Secretary General for peacekeeping, Alain Le Roy, told reporters that he had requested an additional 3,000 troops and police from the Security Council. "No decision has been taken yet by the council, but I think the mood is evolving into reinforcing the troops," he said. Even if Le Roy's request is granted, the United Nations, in its usual way, will take its time in dispatching the reinforcements. The Security Council won't vote on the issue until a new report on MONUC is released next week, and even then it could take weeks to pass a resolution. Le Roy said it will take at least two months for troop reinforcements to arrive. In the meantime, he is redeploying existing troops throughout eastern Congo, especially around the hotspot area near Goma.

The regional response, too, has been slow in coming and feckless. The 14-country Southern African Development Community (SADC) is sending a technical team to Congo to investigate, and based on its report it will decide whether or not to send troops. On Sunday, leaders have agreed to provide peacekeepers to eastern Congo if needed. The SADC is concerned about the possibility of conflict engulfing the region. "The security situation in DRC is affecting peace and stability in the SADC," said executive secretary-general Tomaz Salomão. But Boshoff believes that, even if they're willing to act, "SADC doesn't have the capacity to immediately deploy the kind of well-trained EU-style battle group that is needed."

With near-term military action looking extraordinarily unlikely, that leaves diplomacy. But the DRC's government has rejected calls to talk with rebel-leader Nkunda; Congo's ambassador to the United Nations, Atoki Ileka, has called him "a killer" worthy of war-crimes prosecution. Nkunda recently told the BBC that his Tutsi rebels were abiding by a ceasefire declared on Oct. 30, but threatened to topple the government if negotiations don't begin soon—although it's unlikely that his small force could do more than control the eastern reaches of the Congo

The worry is that Congolese fighting will spill over into neighboring countries. Indeed, geopolitical machinations have already come into play. The DRC's government has accused Rwanda of supporting Nkunda (which it denies), and has called on Angola for help. Yesterday, Angolan Deputy Foreign Minister Georges Chicoty told a national radio program that his country would send troops to the Congo, overseen by the European Union and SADC. But given their close ties to the DRC government, Angolan troops could serve as a provocation to Nkunda, who has warned that while he will welcome impartial African peacekeepers, he will attack forces that align themselves with government troops. What is abundantly clear is that without effective action, the conflict in eastern Congo will continue to wreak havoc on this vast, underdeveloped, mineral-rich but poverty-stricken country. Boshoff fears more internal refugees and, if Goma falls to Nkunda's rebels, possibly countrywide riots and retaliation against Tutsis. At its worst, that could mean a Rwandan-style genocide.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/168954

SUPRMAN said:

2the9s said:

Gary Brecher, the War Nerd, had a great article about Nkunda in the recent eXile, though I just checked it and the eXile's account has been suspended.

I managed to find some blogger who cut and pasted it:

http://jjcdaddy.wordpress...ast-congo/

Well worth the read.

Just because something is sold as "humanitarian" doesn;t mean we are backing the right people.

XxAxX said:

XxAxX said:

SUPRMAN said:

SUPRMAN said:

. . done discussing colonialism are the relative sins of the fathers that is

check this, out! they got food through to the civilians.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27719331/

KIWANJA, Congo - Thousands of hungry and homeless lined up for food Friday deep in rebel-held territory in eastern Congo as the United Nations began its first large-scale delivery in the area since fighting broke out in late October.

More than 100 tons of food were going to 50,000 civilians in the area north of the provincial capital of Goma over the next four days, U.N. World Food spokesman Marcus Prior said.

This part of eastern Congo has served as a breadbasket to the region, its verdant hills and valleys made especially fertile by dark, rich volcanic soil. But many of the refugees say it's too dangerous to return to their fields.

"They told me I had to pay them if I wanted to take my food," said Musi Batai, an elderly man who said pro-government militiamen had occupied his fields near Kiwanja, rich in beans and corn. The men chased him away at gunpoint and said they were going to sell his food, Batai said at a Catholic church where WFP was handing out food.

Fighting between the army and fighters loyal to rebel leader Laurent Nkunda has displaced at least 250,000 people despite the presence of the largest U.N. peacekeeping force in the world, with some 17,000 troops.

At a stadium in Rutshuru where a second U.N. distribution was taking place, thousands gathered around neat stacks of corn meal and beans lined on a green field. The bags are meant to last a family 15 days.

"There is plenty of food, but I can't go back to my farm," said 29-year-old Ibrahim Masumbuku, who was waiting in line for rations. "There is no security anywhere."

Meanwhile, the U.N. refugee agency plans to move tens of thousands of refugees from two camps in Kibati to a new site 9 miles west next week because the area is just miles from the tense front line.

Aid groups have expressed concern about rape and other violence in the government-controlled camps.

Lucrative minerals
There are fears the country could slide back into a ruinous war such as the 1998-2002 one that drew in more than half a dozen African nations and tore Congo into rival fiefdoms.

Rebels backed by Uganda and Rwanda seized vast territory rich in coffee, gold and tin in the east. Angola and Zimbabwe sent tanks and fighter planes to back Congo's government in exchange for access to lucrative diamond and copper mines to the south and west.

Eastern Congo has been unstable since millions of refugees spilled across the border from Rwanda's 1994 genocide, which saw more than 500,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus slaughtered.

Many of the Hutu extremists who orchestrated the mass killings have remained in Congo, prompting Tutsi-led Rwanda to invade the mineral-rich nation twice.

Nkunda, who quit Congo's army in 2004, claims he is fighting to protect Tutsis, who like Hutus are a minority and one of an estimated 200 ethnic groups in Congo.

On Thursday, British Prime Minister Gordon Brown said he will support a U.N. plan to send 3,000 more troops to Congo, but he said the force must have better leadership and equipment.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27719331/

XxAxX said:

SUPRMAN said:

I think you are the one equating slavery and colonialism with the current situation across the countries of the continent.
I didn't say the continents problems were caused by Europeans or other whites.
I am pointing out that the artificial division of tribal lands has been disruptive and contentious. It has made it much harder to forge meaningful national identities with or without reducing tribal influence.

okay. i have no desire to engage in yet another race-fight-thread. i think we both recognize that this subject is complex. we both have valid points.

[b]maybe we should agree to disagree on whether or not america should be blamed for not solving the problems of civil war in africa.[/b]

i'm done.

SUPRMAN said:

XxAxX said:

okay. i have no desire to engage in yet another race-fight-thread. i think we both recognize that this subject is complex. we both have valid points.

[b]maybe we should agree to disagree on whether or not america should be blamed for not solving the problems of civil war in africa.[/b]

i'm done.

The subject isn't about blaming America for solving Africa's problems. It's about making the case FOR American intervention in Africa.

Regardless of the causes (which can be another thread) what should U.S. policy be is the subject here.

XxAxX said:[quote]

SUPRMAN said:

yes i know.

read back through this thread.

i responded to Tremolina who said:

I believe most Americans firmly oppose humanitarian interventions when there are no American interests at stake.

you stepped into an exchange between me and Tremolina, which was already addressing something slightly different from the topic. see?
[Edited 11/14/08 14:47pm]

SUPRMAN said:

XxAxX said:

you stepped into an exchange between me and Tremolina, which was already addressing something slightly different from the topic. see?
[Edited 11/14/08 14:47pm]

Yes I see but your statement that we should agree to disagree on whether or not America should be blamed for not solving the problems of the civil war in Africa
was what I was attempting to correct.
I was not blaming America for anything, I don't think anyone was.
It isn't a blame game but can we forge a unified policy rather than intervening in Bosnia but not Rwanda, Kosovo but not Congo.

XxAxX said:

SUPRMAN said:

Yes I see but your statement that we should agree to disagree on whether or not America should be blamed for not solving the problems of the civil war in Africa
was what I was attempting to correct.
I was not blaming America for anything, I don't think anyone was.
It isn't a blame game but can we forge a unified policy rather than intervening in Bosnia but not Rwanda, Kosovo but not Congo.

it would be nice if we could do that but once again, we cannot accomplish this assistance/intervention without the cooperation of the people there.

and..... we are full circle

SUPRMAN said:

XxAxX said:

it would be nice if we could do that but once again, we cannot accomplish this assistance/intervention without the cooperation of the people there.

and..... we are full circle

I would , yeah, we are, argue that we can do the assistance/intervention without the initial cooperation of the people but the world would hate us.
You go in kick ass, anyone give you trouble, off with their head.
Let them know we are not here to play nice. Impose order and then back off into nation building.
That's the Machiavellian method, but as I said, we would have to withstand tremendous world pressure and criticism would be lasting but we would succeed.
But does the world really want to see us go into Darfur and wipe out the janjaweed until they get the message? That could be 10,000 or more lives in the first month. But there would be not problem afterward in getting in humanitarian aid.
The initial ruthlessness would be shocking but but just as the ruthlessness would trump ideology, it would hopefully do so with the population. If their ideology get them killed, oh well.

But the U.S. and the world are not ready for that kind of bloodshed to accomplish such goals. And collateral retaliation for such a campaign in a Muslim nation may be just as painful for us.

XxAxX said:

SUPRMAN said:

I would , yeah, we are, argue that we can do the assistance/intervention without the initial cooperation of the people but the world would hate us.
You go in kick ass, anyone give you trouble, off with their head.
Let them know we are not here to play nice. Impose order and then back off into nation building.
That's the Machiavellian method, but as I said, we would have to withstand tremendous world pressure and criticism would be lasting but we would succeed.
But does the world really want to see us go into Darfur and wipe out the janjaweed until they get the message? That could be 10,000 or more lives in the first month. But there would be not problem afterward in getting in humanitarian aid.
The initial ruthlessness would be shocking but but just as the ruthlessness would trump ideology, it would hopefully do so with the population. If their ideology get them killed, oh well.

But the U.S. and the world are not ready for that kind of bloodshed to accomplish such goals. And collateral retaliation for such a campaign in a Muslim nation may be just as painful for us.

machiavelli, genghis khan... they were successful dudes and i agree a kind of shotgun approach would be one way to accomplish the goal of 'forcing' peace on people. i don't know if it's even possible to force peace on people through violent means?

it doesn't seem to be working for us in iraq, or afghanistan. our efforts to quash the violent terrorists has resulted in an equal and opposite reaction. al queda has more followers now than before the US decided to preemptively invade iraq. and, the international community thinks we suck.

so how do we lead by peaceful example? shine a light to guide others?? like that guy who led people on a joyful happy path. whatsis face, jesus? and whatever happened to him? someone nailed him to a cross.

there just seem to be so many humanitarian crises around the world that it's almost hopeless. man's inhumanity to man and all that, been happening since the dawn of time after all, back to when we were bashing each other over the head with rocks and stealing food.

maybe humanity will need to resort to genetic or pharmaceutical alteration of our basic body chemistry to filter out whatever physical need it is we seem to have for violence. or is violence a learned behavior?

or maybe could we spray the 'rebels' with some kind of mind-altering substance that would whack them out of their violent pattern into happyland? and if we did, what kind of monsters would we be then?

but i agree with the topic of this thread, hopefully someone will do something about what's happening in the congo. it's breaking my heart to hear the stories about women and children being forced to live in fear of horrendous injuries while their men are being shot dead or run off their lands.

pisses me off that a bunch of armed thugs are able to do that to people. makes me want to arm the civilians and even the score, but that too, would be considered 'intervention' of an unsavory sort by a foreign party.

anyway, i really hope obama will prove to have the kind of appeal that crosses cultural divides. he is an incredible human being. maybe his voice will unify folks, and he will be able to lead through inspiration.

SUPRMAN said:

XxAxX said:

you stepped into an exchange between me and Tremolina, which was already addressing something slightly different from the topic. see?
[Edited 11/14/08 14:47pm]

Yes I see but your statement that we should agree to disagree on whether or not America should be blamed for not solving the problems of the civil war in Africa
was what I was attempting to correct.
I was not blaming America for anything, I don't think anyone was.
It isn't a blame game but can we forge a unified policy rather than intervening in Bosnia but not Rwanda, Kosovo but not Congo.

Besides, the US isn't exactly credible when it says its intervening in order to stop war crimes when the US won't even go after its own war criminals.

i think americans would in fact support intervention in the congo. but gosh, the UN has, so far, not exactly been met with success or welcoming, open arms.

XxAxX said: