Congo Continues To Suffer
Diplomatic efforts are under way to end the crisis in Congo, the BBC reported Friday, but thus far without positive results. Many observers fear that the civil war in Congo may spill over into neighboring Rwanda, which was the scene of a massive genocide in 1994.
Rebel leader Gen. Laurent Nkunda has agreed to a ceasefire in the east of Congo, but his troops are advancing towards the city of Goma nonetheless. He also warned that if U.N. peacekeepers do not succeed in protecting the ceasefire agreement, he will order his troops to start fighting again.
Many rapes and killings were reported in Goma, while aide does not reach those who need it.
Although Nkunda says his aim is to protect his fellow Tutsis, some experts believe him to be a tool of Rwandan businessmen who want to own Congo’s mines. They succeeded in taking them years ago, and now want them back.
There are currently 17,000 UN troops in Congo, but they have thus far proved unwilling and unable to prevent the rebellious general from advancing.
The UN and EU, meanwhile, have implied they may sent (more) troops to the region, and UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has sent two UN envoys to the country in order to lead negotiations and bring the two warring parties together.
As PoliGazette reported yesterday, the true problem is the West’s willingness to deal with every single horrific leader in Africa, as long as we do not have to pay too much for imports. If the West would stop buying the products of slavery, oppression, ethnic cleansing and even genocide, these practices would be far less common in these parts of Africa than they are today.
This website uses IntenseDebate comments, but they are not currently loaded because either your browser doesn't support JavaScript, or they didn't load fast enough.
Comments are closed.
PoliGazette Comments Policy
PoliGazette encourages comments from all viewpoints, especially those that disagree.
Comments submitted must, however, adhere to the following standards. Comments that violate
these standards may be edited or deleted without notice at the sole discretion of the editors.
Commenters who repeatedly or egregiously violate these standards or who attempt to argue
publicly with editors regarding the comments policy may be banned from commenting further.
(1) Comments should address the substantive content of the post. Comments that repeatedly
or blatantly misrepresent the content of the post or of others' comments are not welcome. Comments that
respond to something other than which the contributor or commenter may have said are irrelevant and should
not be posted.
(2) Comments should avoid vulgarity as well as racial, ethnic, religious, or sexual bigotry.
(3) Comments should not personally attack the character, personal integrity, or professional
reputation of any PoliGazette contributor or of other commenters.
(4) Comments should reflect the contributions of the commenters themselves and should not
include extensive cut-and-paste reproductions of others' words except insofar as necessary to supplement
the commenter's own arguments. Link spam, trackback spam, and propaganda spam will be instantly deleted.
(5) Public figures are considered open to all substantive criticism of their policies and statements.
Comments that present objectively false factual information about public figures (i.e. "Obama is a Muslim") or
that attack public figures by attacking their families are not welcome. Comments that merely repeat
slogans for or against a candidate without engaging in substantive comment are not welcome.
Questions or challenges to these policies or their application should be directed to the editors
by email only.
