Semi-Daily Journal

What can we do that will help? Picking a faction to win will just make us an accessory to the slaughter they perpetrate in the future. For us to do what was done in Yugoslavia, we would need a coalition of hundreds of thousands of troops, proportionally more than were needed in Yugoslavia becasue the terrain is more difficult and there are more fighting parties to sort out. That might freeze the violence, which would be a humanitarian victory. Even then, it's not clear whose side we would be on in the aftermath. Whoever we side with in all the different disputes that led to the violence might then just go on slaughtering the others. The underlying conflicts will still remain, because there's no clear solution like "give Kosovo some autonomy".

Brad is an economist and sometimes a political commentator (which most citizens are). Neither give him (or most of us) the expertise to say what the heck we should do, if anything, about the Congo.

Even that is too much intervention. What is going on here is clearly very horrible, but horrible things go on every day without anyone regarding it as being our responsibility to "do something", particularly when that something involves setting ourselves up as the rulers of foreign countries we don't understand. Every previous intervention in the region has ended up as a disaster; why do we think another one would be any more sensible?

And yes, I would have applied this logic to Germany in the 1930s and I would have been right ...

"Neither give him (or most of us) the expertise to say what the heck we should do, if anything, about the Congo."

Gee, maybe somebody should have said this to the warbloggers, and the warcheerleaders at CNN and Faux News.

"Neither give him (or most of us) the expertise to say what the heck we should do, if anything, about the Congo."

Gee, maybe somebody should have said this to the warbloggers, and the warcheerleaders at CNN and Faux News.

"... it is not clear what can be done."

This is a big problem in humanitarian crisis situations--lack of information about what's going on, which in turn makes it difficult to intervene effectively. The International Crisis Group's website is a good place to start:
http://www.crisisweb.org

The ICG report on Congo:
http://www.crisisweb.org/projects/showreport.cfm?reportid=979

"What is going on here is clearly very horrible, but horrible things go on every day without anyone regarding it as being our responsibility to 'do something', particularly when that something involves setting ourselves up as the rulers of foreign countries we don't understand. Every previous intervention in the region has ended up as a disaster; why do we think another one would be any more sensible?"

I'm sympathetic to this argument, but I would suggest that some kind of _regional_ intervention would make sense: after all, fleeing refugees would have a direct impact on the stability of Congo's neighbors, so they have a major interest in what's going on in Congo.

That said, France has offered to lead a peacekeeping mission. The US could offer logistical support, for example.

What the Canadians famously did at one point, back when Patrice Lumumba was still alive, was march the pipe band of the 48th Highlanders at full skirl into the middle of some goddam battle. That shut 'em all up, though the fact that the band was backed up by a couple of battalions of very effective light infantry probably helped a little.

I think extreme measures are probably called for now, as then. I propose a massive invasion of up to 250 Proctor and Gamble salesmen, with every accompanying warehouse guarded by a battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry for maybe the first decade. I hear the Turks also have forces of the requisite resolve, competence and enterprise.

That'd show the bastards to try any of that stupid genocide nonsense.

"Gee, maybe somebody should have said this..."

Seems to me it was said, loudly and repeatedly, to little effect.

"...nine national armies and a shifting throng of rebel groups pillaged their country..."

I don't, off hand, even know exactly where in Africa Congo IS. But, as a general rule, a couple of things that "we" can do DO come immediately to mind...

Those "nine nations" (AND their national military "establishments") ALL depend, to varying degrees, upon the cooperation, support and largess of the other 200 (or so) nations of the world, various international organizations, and certain industries and/or businesses--if it became clear to ALL of them that some of these "lifelines" were immediately threatened and ALL of them stood eventually to be severed if they didn't change their behavior, much of the undesirable activity would very likely cease.

Also many, if not all, of those "rebel groups" probably owe their existence to a relativly small group of political parties, privated and/or commercial interests, "covert" foreign "assistance" and/or some combination of the above. All (or most) of those players too, once "exposed", I would think, should sucseptible to similar methods and "reasoning".

If, after applying this "one size fits all remedy" and giving the interested parties sufficient time to disengage, write off their losses, lick their wounds and move on to more "productive" ways of pursuing their interests, it should happen that one or more of the interested parties we've been discussing here weren't "amenable to reason", EVERYONE would know exactly who and where they are AND why they chose not to be "reasonable.

(Then maybe Brad could figure out what to do about the problem ;-)

If only Congo had some even vague or remote interest in threatening Israel or lied on some long planned pipeline route... %-)

"I propose a massive invasion of up to 250 Proctor and Gamble salesmen, with every accompanying warehouse guarded by a battalion of the Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry for maybe the first decade."

Bruce Rolston discusses and dismisses the possibility of Canada sending troops:
http://www.snappingturtle.net/jmc/flit/2003_05_01_archive.html#94943654

"Those 'nine nations' (AND their national military 'establishments') ALL depend, to varying degrees, upon the cooperation, support and largess of the other 200 (or so) nations of the world, various international organizations, and certain industries and/or businesses--if it became clear to ALL of them that some of these 'lifelines' were immediately threatened and ALL of them stood eventually to be severed if they didn't change their behavior, much of the undesirable activity would very likely cease."

With all due respect, I'm not sure you understand the complexity of the situation. The Rwandan army, for example, invaded Congo because the Hutu militias who were responsible for the 1994 genocide had fled to Congo, and the Hutus were launching attacks from across the border. (See Philip Gourevitch's "we are writing to inform you that tomorrow we will be killed with our families".) Rwanda has a vital national interest at stake in Congo; they're not going to stop interfering just because the international community threatens them with sanctions.

There has to be some kind of political solution. There aren't any "one size fits all" solutions that can be applied blindly without knowing anything about what's going on. (Not that I know much. Again, this is where the ICG is useful.)

>If only Congo had some even vague or remote interest in threatening Israel...

Thanks for clarifying this.

I really don't give a damn who shot John OR why, Russil.

And I didn't, AND I don't, recommend merely "threatening" international sanctions--I recommended actually APPLYING international diplomatic, political, military, AND commercial sanctions to ALL the "duelists" (AND their "seconds") who refuse to 'disengage'--until and unless they do.

AND I recommend CREDIBLY threatening to eventually "choke"--ANY of them, who refuse to respond favorably--"to death", if they don't.

P.S.

I'm not, NECESSARILY, opposed international "intervention" and/or "peace-keeping" either, Russil--AFTER the "international community" has prepared the ground AND picked off the easy fruits and/or nuts by CONSCIENTIOUSLY applying the "one size fits all method(s)" I've been describing.

Clearly, there is one thing we can do for the Congo. We can invade Iran. Invading Iran will send a strong message to the bad guys in the Congo.

If that doesn't work, invading Syria should definitely do the trick.

"AND I recommend CREDIBLY threatening to eventually 'choke'--ANY of them, who refuse to respond favorably--'to death', if they don't."

Er, you're proposing that the international community threaten to choke these countries to death, on humanitarian grounds? Huh? (And don't tell me that sanctions would be aimed against the governments, not the people. We saw how well that worked in Iraq.)

It's not a matter of "duelists". We're not talking about individuals, we're talking about _countries_. What's needed is a _political_ solution, i.e. one which reconciles the interests of the different players; otherwise they have no motivation to hold to a peace agreement. And that means you need to know who the players are, and what their vital interests are.

I realize this wouldn't make any sense if we were talking about individuals. But we're not! You can't reason about international politics by analogy! Countries are not individuals! To take a simple example, if an individual is committing a murder, you can stop them; if necessary, you can kill them. You can't kill a _country_.

I'm not necessarily opposed to sanctions, either. I'm opposed to _trying to apply a solution, any solution, without understanding what the hell's going on._ Would you try to do brain surgery without knowing anything about the patient?

One last point about sanctions: if you think it'll be easy for the international community to apply strict sanctions, you really ought to take a look at Mancur Olson's "The Logic of Collective Action." Collective action is very, very hard.

"....you're proposing that the international community threaten to choke these countries to death, on humanitarian grounds? Huh?...We're not talking about individuals, we're talking about _countries_..."

The pronoun "them", Russil, CLEARLY referred to TWO phrases in my original message on this subject: "...Those "nine nations" (AND their national military "establishments")..." AND "...many, if not all, of those 'rebel groups'..."

I know perfectly well too Russil, that we're not "talking about individuals".

The DETAILS of HOW and/or what KIND of sanctions might be most effectively applied to WHICH of the "interested parties" in ANY particular case depend entirely upon the particulars of the given case--in this case, Congo. AND, as I've already said, I'm not familiar with, nor have I been speaking HERE, to ANY particular case.

Isn't WAR a "collective action", Russil?

Every previous intervention in the region has ended up as a disaster; why do we think another one would be any more sensible?

And yes, I would have applied this logic to Germany in the 1930s and I would have been right ...

What a-moral rubbish. I suggest studying history.

"The pronoun 'them', Russil, CLEARLY referred to TWO phrases in my original message on this subject." (Nine nations AND rebel groups.)

Sorry, I think you missed my point. How can you justify choking nine nations to death? Wouldn't that be genocide, which is supposedly what you're trying to prevent?

I repeat, what's needed is a political solution, which means reconciling the interests of the players involved; and to do that, you need to know who the players are and what their interests are.

"Isn't WAR a 'collective action'?"

Yes, of course. And to the extent that the decision to go to war requires achieving consensus (as with the US's attempts to get Security Council approval for war with Iraq), it's not easy. Consensus is difficult because each participant has their own interests.

">If only Congo had some even vague or remote interest in threatening Israel [end of the sensence supressed to distort the meaning of the original post]

Thanks for clarifying this. "

You're welcome, BD. My point couln't be clearer. Your president has made it clear on many occasions: we're not into nation building. End of the story. Brad, you, I, or anybody else can burn their neurones thinking about Congo, we might as well discuss the sex of the angels.

This doesn't mean it's not possible to do something about this (along the lines suggested above by Mike). In a parallel world, one might think that making use of America's mighty diplomacy and/or military to bring a little (real) "moral clarity" to central Africa would actually dollars very well spent on US geopolotical capital (and hence, long-term security.)

But that would imply, somehow, that might comes with responsability, the last message GWB and his advisors want to send to the world. Thank you, good night.

For those who are inclined to intervene, some helpful suggestions were made in The Economist this week in one of their leaders: http://www.economist.com/printedition/displayStory.cfm?Story_ID=1796192

The article, titled "The Poor Man's Curse", focuses on civil war and what rich nations could do about it. Note that, as is typical for The Economist, the author does not suggest that rich nations should do this because they have an obligation to do so but because it is in their interests to do so (just as it is in their interests to fund research into vaccines for diseases like AIDS and Malaria). It is in the interest of rich nations because peaceful, healthy countries make much better markets than do disease- and strife-ridden countries. Whatever the motivation, The Economist makes some interesting suggestions in this article.

My best advice would be to try and persuade the Israelis to declare war on the Congo. That way, every gentile and his dog will demand immediate action. Otherwise, you might has well forget it.

Hey, it's taken sixty years before Belgium's deep complicity in the murder of 30,000 of its own citizens and others has been acknowledged, what do you really expect?

Belgium's complicity in deportation of WW2-era Jews to be investigated

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1054088302363

Sjins,

"If only Congo had some even vague or remote interest in threatening Israel or lied on some long planned pipeline route... %-)"

You have this the wrong way around. If Israel were involved every (especially European) gentile and his dog would demand immediate action, on the basis that the Jews must be at fault. Indeed, the Kurd's greatest misfortune was that their enemy was Saddam and not Israel.

Otherwise forget it. Hey, it's taken sixty years before Belgium's deep complicity in the genocidal murder of 30,000 of its own citizens and others has even been acknowledged. What do you expect, that the gentile should suddenly see the light and become instantly moral?

Belgium's complicity in deportation of WW2-era Jews to be investigated

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost/A/JPArticle/ShowFull&cid=1054088302363

Oh, I took your point all right, Russil.

The thing is, I don't BELIEVE choking any NATIONS to death would ACTUALLY be necessary; though I am prepared to believe, even to concede--if not EXACTLY embrace--the possibility that an "elite" or two might have to be "sacrificed" before the problem is resolved...

AND, believe it or not, I believe I've offered a practical approach to a "political solution" to the problem too.

(I hope this reply is exclamation point AND analogy "free" enough for you ;?)

No oil.

"The thing is, I don't BELIEVE choking any NATIONS to death would ACTUALLY be necessary;"

But if it were necessary, would you do it? (If not, it's an empty threat, and therefore will have no effect on the targets.)

"I believe I've offered a practical approach."

I'm afraid that in order for a policy to be considered practical, you need to have some idea whether it'll be effective or not--if it's not going to have any effect, it's just posturing-- which means knowing something about the players involved and what their reactions will be. Which you've said that you don't.

If you impose sanctions and the fighting doesn't stop, and public opinion doesn't support escalation by sending troops, then what?

>[end of the sensence supressed to distort the meaning of the original post]

The next word was "or", denoting a second, independent notion. There was no distortion. Wonder why you're so anxious to pretend there was. Well, I don't really wonder.

>Your president has made it clear on many occasions: we're not into nation building.

My impression of what US forces are doing in both Afghanistan and Iraq is exactly the opposite, unless the term "nation building" means something other than setting up the basics of civil society
in the wake of toppled authoritarians.

Also, if he is "your" president, why is it "we're" not into nation building?

"Hey, it's taken sixty years before Belgium's deep complicity in the murder of 30,000 of its own citizens and others has been acknowledged, what do you really expect?"

Let me tell it in your face. I feel ZERO.ZERO guilt for that (like most if not all of my fellow countrymen). You see, I was born after WWII and I don't buy into collective guilt anyway. Call me anti-Semite and all the rest, I don't give a S@@t anymore. You and your likeminded have made a (sad) JOKE of an epithet that should have NEVER gone down that way.

"If Israel were involved every (especially European) gentile and his dog would demand immediate action, on the basis that the Jews must be at fault."

And if I am an anti-Semite, so is Shlomo Ben Ami:

Sharon's slow approach to peace By Shlomo Ben Ami. FT.com 05.25.03.
http://news.ft.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=FT.com/StoryFT/FullStory&c=StoryFT&cid=1051390306532&p=1012571727285

But, first of all, what does Belgium, or Jews in general have to do with this???

I was talking about (Sharon's) Israel, a strategic and unconditional ally of the current administration in its war on TERRA. Giving the upper hand to Israel over the Palestinians lead to months of self-righteous cries for regime change in Iraq (let's not enter the arguments, they have nothing to do with it - the FT is currently busy documenting that GWB was lying through his teeth when he said he hadn't made up his mind on going to war or not when he went to the UN). But, half of Congo could die, and nobody would think of lifting a finger.

And at least, in Belgium, we have had Jewish Prime Ministers (and people in Belgium couldn't care less). You get to say a word on this when being a Jew isn't a liability in American politics anymore. Thank you, good night. (And try to live in the present for a change. We're in CE 2003 FYI.)

> being a Jew isn't a liability in American politics...

If Lieberman becomes the Democratic nominee, how many Southern states do you think he'll carry?

I noticed John Cole didn't propose a tax surcharge to pay for this adventure. For him, it's just another reason to defund Medicare.

I propose raising my Medicare taxes, and yours, and raising my income taxes, and yours, to pay for intervention in the Congo. Please do it soon, cause I've got my eye on something expensive that gives me a deduction, too.

Bucky: zip. Except for the fundamentalists, who want to gather all the Jews in one place, for who knows what.

I can scarcely believe it on as well-informed a forum as this, but how come no-one's mentioned the rampant resource looting that's been driving the war for years?

There's been a UN report at

http://129.194.252.80/catfiles/2477.pdf

(NB a PDF, unfortunately, and a pretty big one) out for ages that gives chapter and verse on which Western companies and individuals are looting the hell out of the Congo (hint: it's pretty much dead centre in Africa. Follow a line southwest from the mouth of the Gulf. And it's huge). And no-one seems to have mentioned it here.

More to the point, no-one is acting on it either. Wouldn't that a good first step? The UK, for instance, says that it won't do anything till the UN provides more proof - but refuses to look for the proof behind the accusations itself.
(I should declare an interest here: I've been covering the Congo resource story for a couple of years now, during which time I've spoken to several of the people who drew up the report. I also get regular reports from people on the ground in some of the worst-hit parts of Congo. And everything I hear confirms the report. If anything, it doesn't go far enough.)

So here's a first suggestion. Don't worry about sanctions; just crack down and prosecute the hell out of the companies that are helping prolong a war for purely financial reasons. Once the profit gets taken out of the war, the external support is likely to drop away. Which leaves a much bigger space for international intervention. A lot cheaper than just sending the troops in.

Of course, let's not mention the probable oil reserves in Ituri in the north-east - the very area seeing some of the worst fighting right now. 'Cos that would just be a cheap shot, and we don't do those.

Thoughts?

Funny how a discussion about mass murder in the Congo manages to drift off into arguments about "neocons", Israel and anti-semitism. If one were cynical, one might surmise that for most western commentators, what goes on in Africa isn't really of any interest unless it can be tied in to their political agendas in some way ...

Brad may not have claimed to be any sort of political authority, but he has been free enough with his comments on Iraq and Israel, two situations that are much less grave than the one at issue here. If it is in America and the rest of the world's interest to push for a settlement between the Israelis and the Palestinians, when so few lives have actually been lost in the course of their conflict over the last 3 years, why isn't Congo important? You can't rationalize inaction by saying that Congo has no strategic importance for America - Israel may be regarded as an American ally, but in the big scheme of things, it isn't all that strategically important either.

In fact, one can say with a straight face that the Congo is of far greater importance than what happens in Israel - it is a major source of uranium, and chaos in the Congo would put paid to any hope of keeping "weapons of mass destruction" out of the reach of terrorists. What is more, it is also a perfect breeding ground for new diseases. At least one major epidemic (AIDS) is thought to have its' origins there, Ebola comes from there, and who knows what else might emerge as refugees are scattered around the rest of the continent?

The bottom line is that even for those who lack a conscience, and are unconcerned about what happens to a bunch of darkies in the bush, a refusal to commit resources to pacifying the Congo is short-sighted in the extreme.

There is a solution to the Congolese issue, though it is unlikely to be a popular one in our age - the entire country should be put under a United Nations mandate, and Western troops sent in to put down the strife by force. It may be unfashionable to say this, but one has to accept that some countries are simply in no state to rule themselves. All the blather about "neocolonialism" is but an excuse for inaction on the part of the western world, and a flag of convenience for despots who want a free hand to continue to exploit their subjects. The Congo never should have been given independence in the first place, given how little effort Belgium had put into preparing it for self-government, even by the pathetic standards of colonial rule in Africa.

>Bucky: zip. Except for the fundamentalists, who want to gather all the Jews in one place, for who knows what.

Agree.

Only the bible-thumpers, some of whom I know personally, "love" Lieberman and his co-religionists [like me], but would never ever vote for someone with his left-of-center political/economic bent.

>If one were cynical, one might surmise that for most western commentators, what goes on in Africa isn't really of any interest unless it can be tied in to their political agendas in some way ..

Not true. If one is honest and clear-eyed, one would draw the same conclusion.

Israel is literally a non sequitor here, yet *for some reason* no discussion of US foreign policy can proceed without that country being mentioned.

Ditto the hatred for Bush, despite his $15 BILLION program to fight AIDS, targetted largely in...Africa.

"What if" Russil, "the bottom line" Abiola, IS, as Jeremy just said:

"...just crack down and prosecute the hell out of the companies that are helping prolong a war for purely financial reasons. Once the profit gets taken out of the war, the external support is likely to drop away. Which leaves a much bigger space for international intervention. A lot cheaper than just ["from picking one faction" Brad, and] sending the troops in...."

Now then: Wouldn't THAT be something ;?)

AND wouldn't THAT be in "the [LARGER] international community['s]" 'INTEREST' too?

"You can't rationalize inaction by saying that Congo has no strategic importance for America - Israel may be regarded as an American ally, but in the big scheme of things, it isn't all that strategically important either."

One big reason that the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is important to the US is that it's a huge grievance in the Arab Middle East, which is definitely strategically important, because of its oil and its location.

Is anyone talking about a UN mandate? After decolonization and decades of criticism and self-criticism, I personally don't think the Western powers have the self-confidence or the ruthlessness to rule over Congo. Even if it would be in their long-term interests.

Thanks for posting the report, Jeremy. Its recommendations definitely look worthwhile. But I wouldn't expect "taking the profits out" to be any easier than, say, taking the profits out of the conflict in Colombia (where cocaine revenues are fuelling the conflict).

I think the key is reestablishing a functioning government in the DRC, one that has effective control over the country and is able to crack down on the elite networks (based in Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe, and the DRC government itself). It's just that this looks horribly difficult.

Short-sightedness is the rule in U.S. policy, I think. Foreign policy, determined much more by the current president and less by long-run institutions than most policies, is more short-sighted than most policies that the U.S. Saying that a peaceful Congo is in the U.S.'s long-run rings with a hollow, Cassandra-ish truth. It's a bit like the overworked, overweight man who wakes up every morning thinking, "in the long run, I'd probably feel better if I went to the gym an hour a day."

(WARNING: CYNICISM, RACISM, AND ELITISM AHEAD!)

The thing is, I think that people's reactions to humanitarian disasters is largely determined by the "appropriateness" of the humanitarian disaster to its context.

Can you imagine a situation in which, for example, Japan was engaged in a devestating civil war in which millions of people were being brutally murdered, raped, and looted and the media hardly noticing? I can't, because in Japan, mass violence seems somehow more horrible because it is out of the normal context where we are "accustomed" to humanitarian disasters.

Another thought: unless I'm mistaken, the casualties resulting from the Congo Free State were not much less than the casualties resulting from the European Holocaust of the 1930s-40s. Eleven million people died in the Holocaust, six million of the Jews. I believe estimates are that somewhere between five and ten million died in the Congo Free State. So, is there a Congo Free State memorial or museum in your hometown? Yeah, yeah, part of the reason is that the intended victims of the Holocaust (Jews) live in the U.S. more than the victims of the Congo Free State (Congolese). But beyond that, I think that the genocidal brutality of the Holocaust is more remembered than the brutality of the Congo Free State because there's a sense that massive violations of human rights in the Congo are, if not a pleasant thought, at least part of the natural order of things, whereas massive violations of human rights in Japan or Europe seem to violate the accepted norms.

>I think that the genocidal brutality of the Holocaust is more remembered than the brutality of the Congo Free State because there's a sense that massive violations of human rights in the Congo are, if not a pleasant thought, at least part of the natural order of things...

Also, Jews were near-full participants in European affairs, and were highly accomplished in many fields, including communication/arts. Their slaughter, combined with a large US diaspora, could not go unremarked.

The Congoloese, and other African groups, are mostly un-integrated into First World networks, and are essentially invisible from a ommunications perspective.

Given that gory war footage is often cited as a key ratings booster for 24/7/365 news nets, I wonder why CNN, Fox, MSNBC et al aren't ginning up interest in the African bloodbath.

>I think that the genocidal brutality of the Holocaust is more remembered than the brutality of the Congo Free State because there's a sense that massive violations of human rights in the Congo are, if not a pleasant thought, at least part of the natural order of things...

Also, Jews were near-full participants in European affairs, and were highly accomplished in many fields, including communication/arts. Their slaughter, combined with a large US diaspora, could not go unremarked.

The Congoloese, and other African groups, are mostly un-integrated into First World networks, and are essentially invisible from a ommunications perspective.

Given that gory war footage is often cited as a key ratings booster for 24/7/365 news nets, I wonder why CNN, Fox, MSNBC et al aren't ginning up interest in the African bloodbath.

Perhaps because the word was passed that this wouldn't be appreciated, by those in power?

I can't imagine that anyone at the top of the "power" food chain has the African civil wars centered on their radar screens to the extent that they'd risk suppressing media coverage.

Also, given the political dynamics of CNN on the left and FOX on the right, certainly ONE of them would have an interest in ankle biting here.

BTW, all, sorry for the dupe posts, but I can't seem to figure out what causes them.

I understand Russil's point about the difficulty of "taking the profit out of the war". But these are named companies and individuals, and the team that wrote the report I cited are back in East Africa now hunting up new evidence. In the meantime, the Porter Commission in Uganda has also criticised a number of individuals - though many more were overlooked - with documentary proof. Don't forget that the end customers for the goods we're talking about are legit - a very different proposition from the drugs value chain, which is illicit all the way down the line.

Still, I agree it's a tough course to follow. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't make a start. Profiteers have always been seen as the lowest form of life when war is at hand; at least when it applies to our wars. Why not this one too?

Kudos to Russil too for mentioning the surrounding countries who are also up to their necks in resource looting, as the UN explains. It's a complex web, but the unravelling has already started. We just need to keep pulling on the threads.

Apologies about that deeply ugly mixed metaphor in the final par above. And they pay me to be a writer... Dear oh dear.

"But beyond that, I think that the genocidal brutality of the Holocaust is more remembered than the brutality of the Congo Free State because there's a sense that massive violations of human rights in the Congo are, if not a pleasant thought, at least part of the natural order of things, whereas massive violations of human rights in Japan or Europe seem to violate the accepted norms."

Let me change club on this one. I think it has a lot to do with the way the victims are / have been killed. In Congo, we're talking about a Civil war (heavily helped by foreign powers, but that's not unusual.)

The Holocaust was perpetrated as a voluntary genocide on the basis of religion and with a historically unmached brutality and systematism. One can understand somehow how clan rivalries can over time degenerate into unbridled hathred. The Holocaust strikes the mind by its completely unjustified cruelty towards innocent people whose only crime was to be who they are.

As for Civil Wars, it's easier to accept that someone would want to massacre the family of the guy who raped this man's daughter and killed the guy's mother and wife...

Note for the reading challenged. I as a not-so-young-anymore Belgian don't feel guilt for the Holocaust. But that's not to be confused with lack of emphathy for the victims or even a sense that, whereever applicable and possible, reperations are not in order. I just wished, however, that the West felt the same sense of empathy for darker skin people that lead to one of the few "good" wars ever to be fought...

"The Congo never should have been given independence in the first place, given how little effort Belgium had put into preparing it for self-government, even by the pathetic standards of colonial rule in Africa."

Paradoxically, this non-preparedness was the argument used by those among Belgians who did not want to let go of Congo. Two thoughts for the road:

a. the extractive nature of the Belgian Congo probably has a lot to do with the collapse (or lack of development) of its local institutions. Colonial powers typically educated a local elite to the extent that productive activities in that colony required a local educated elite.

b. I actually lay the blame more on post-colonial Belgium along with the US for the state of Congolese (non-)institutions. Our support for General Mobutu (following up on a Belgium-CIA orchestrated assacination of Congo's only democratically ellected leader, i.e. Lumumba) gave rise to a regime compared to which Hussein's Iraq almost looks like a human rights paradise (yes, I am exagerating.)

And too bad for Congo, as was pointed above, it had the curse of being a source of uranium during the Cold War and its other resources certainly looked too attractive to be left to be managed by anyone else than white men...

Finally, there is less hatred of Belgian colonization in Congo than one might expect. One even often reads about a sense of nostaligia for the colonial period (not to be confused with the period when Congo was King Leopold's private property...) Of course, one has to interpret this nostalgia against the background of the post-colonial history.

With a bit of wishful thinking, I think Congolese people may have appreciated the fact that Belgium ultimately turned against Mobutu (to the furor of some in the US.) Cynically, and sadly enough, I am not sure this helped much the Congolese... Let's hope history does not repeat itself in Irak...

>I just wished, however, that the West felt the same sense of empathy for darker skin people...

In round numbers, Union casualties in the emancipating US civil war equalled the number of slaves that had been imported into the US.

The US political/legal system has enormous formal processes to favor/promote "darker skin people".

The US tax/social welfare sytem is heavily skewed toward income redistribution that, on balance, transfers money up the skin color gradient. A progressive tax system in a nation where "minorities" are often concentrated toward the lower end of the income scale could do nothing else.

Between formal foreign aid and charitable humanitarian assistance, substantial funds flow from the US into Africa.

Once again, the adage holds: A racist is someone winning an argument with a liberal.

Because of my own personal connection with the area (as a child I was at Luluabourg), I have kept an eye open for some of the historical stuff whenever I came across it.

One thing I heard was that Belgium was pressured into an independence rush in the last few years (i.e., an effect of largely US political fashion). It had been pursuing a slow (and probably foot dragging) path that way, but one consequence was the lack of local institutions in place and grown in. The authorities had deliberately prevented municipal autonomy to prevent it being captured de facto by the politically sophisticated, which meant local Belgians. They wanted to head off what was happening right then in Rhodesia and had happened earlier with the Boers in South Africa. (Don't forget, a hundred years ago South Africa had a race blind franchise that allowed blacks to climb into those social classes that had the vote; but the Boers got there in enough strength for capture first.)

Anyway, democratic FORMS, without a proper transition from an equal start, were what prevented blacks in Rhodesia getting democracy as they became sophsticated; the developments of 19th century Europe were not recapitulated as the prizes were already taken. The Belgians avoided this, with the unhapy result that when they were pressed into rapid retreat we got the violence that I myself saw start.

"But our army is not (yet) much good in the rainforest against large numbers of low-tech enemies"

Cite?

I mean, we WON the biggest battle in
VietNam -- the Tet Offensive -- despite
vast numbers of North Vietnamese troops
staging a surprise attack in a tropical
ocean-front nation... that was some
three or four decades ago, besides.

We seemed to do okay in Panama and Grenada
but maybe those don't count as "large
number"s of enemies.

We seem to be doing okay lately in the
Phillipines.

On what basis do we assert that the U.S. military is unready to fight in the tropics?

JP Stijns, my impression was that the millions of casualties resulting from the Congo Free State were not the result of any kind of symmetrical civil war, as the thing about massacreing "the family of the guy who raped this man's daughter and killed the guy's mother and wife," but rather Leopold's agents brutally extracting everything out of Congo that they could, and willingly killing, through murder or starvation, millions of Congolese. Is this story oversimplified? I assume you know more about it than I do, but my impression was that the casualties were a result of the Congo Free State's exploitative policies, not a civil war or rebellion against it.