UN Peacekeepers Actually Fight

Standard UN peacekeeping procedure in the Congo normally involves sitting idle while massacres take place. But peacekeepers were actually in combat on Saturday. Were they engaged in some sort of peacekeeping operation? No, they were defending their base against an attack by "about 50 men armed with AK47 rifles and locally made weapons" from the "tribal Mai-Mai militia." The UN forces tried to avoid fighting, firing "repeated warning shots," but ended up having to kill eight of the attackers and wound two others.

The moral of this story is that if you are a member of some murderous gang in the Congo, stick to raping and massacring helpless civilians. That way the UN peacekeeping forces can sit tight in their bases, and find some excuse for not intervening. But if you actually attack their bases, even UN troops will fight back.

Re-Rape in the Congo

The Congo continues to cement its reputation as one of the worst hellholes on earth, as well as serving as a prime exhibit for the uselessness of UN peacekeepers. According to the BBC, an area that suffered mass rapes at the hands of rebels back in July and August now has to put up with rapes from the government forces sent to secure the area.

the UN special representative heard directly from locals on her visit last week and said UN peacekeepers in the area had also told her of rapes, killings and lootings perpetrated recently by government soldiers.

The UN peacekeepers who stood by helplessly while 300 women and 50 children were raped in the summer, are now doing nothing but reporting still more rapes. The UN representative made a couple of comments illustrating that she might be out of touch with reality.

She urged the DRC government to investigate the new attacks and "swiftly hold any perpetrators to account".

Yeah, good luck with that.

"The possibility that the same communities that were brutalised in July and August are now also suffering exactions at the hands of the FARDC troops is unimaginable and unacceptable,"

Unfortunately, it's not at all unimaginable. When you have a situation where rape is endemic, and employed as a standard tactic by all sides, it's actually likely that there are going to be instances where women are raped by one side and then raped again by the other. And what's unacceptable are troops that are supposed to be keeping the peace doing nothing to intervene even in major atrocities such as mass rape.

The Congo War

Nicholas Kristof has an article in today's New York Times called, "The Grotesque Vocabulary in Congo." The title refers to two terms used to describe things that happen in the seemingly endless war.

“autocannibalism,” ... describes what happens when a militia here in eastern Congo’s endless war cuts flesh from living victims and forces them to eat it. ... Another is “re-rape.” The need for that term arose because doctors were seeing women and girls raped, re-raped and re-raped again, here in the world capital of murder, rape, mutilation.

This is what real war crimes look like, as opposed to ridiculous charges over whether the treatment of some terrorist constituted torture. Kristof thinks the U.S. needs to do something about the Congo War -- as if it is somehow a U.S. problem.

isn’t it time for the U.S. to lead a major, global diplomatic push for peace?

No, it most definitely isn't. One, because it isn't in the U.S. interest. Two, because we are not currently in a good position to do anything about it. And three, because a "push for peace" in Congo would be useless. Let's consider Kirstof's four point plan:

1. Pressure on Rwanda to stop funding its pet Tutsi militia in Congo. Good luck with that. Even if successful, that wouldn't stop the conflict.

2. An international regime to monitor mineral exports from Congo so that warlords do not monetize their militias by exporting minerals through Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi. Oh please. Anything with the word "international" in it is not going to work effectively.  Corruption in Africa is endemic. There have already been similar attempts to restrict imports and exports. 

3. A major push to demobilize Rwandan Hutu fighters and return as many as possible to civilian life in Rwanda or settlements in Congo or Burundi. That should be coupled with a crackdown on leaders in Congo and those who direct action from Europe and the United States. Would that help if it were possible to accomplish? Maybe a little. But the conflict in Congo would continue.

4. A drive to professionalize the Congolese Army and end the impunity for murder, torture and rape, starting with the arrest of Jean Bosco Ntaganda on his warrant for war crimes. Completely unrealistic. "Professionalizing" the Congolese Army is far easier said than done -- ask the people training the Afghan army -- and aid directed to that purpose is almost certain to be misused. And arresting an individual for war crimes is pointless and nothing more than a drop in the bucket.

Rather than a "push for peace,"a more likely solution for stabilizing the Congo involves far greater violence and mass killing, where groups like the Lords Resistance Army are destroyed, their leaders killed, their followers slaughtered in great numbers, and the remainder terrorized into submission. As long as there are multiple factions, strong enough to fight and kill their enemies, but too weak to effectively control the country, the war is probably going to continue. Getting the U.S. more involved in the Congo is a terrible idea. In Afghanistan we already face a similar situation on a somewhat smaller scale. And there is no end in sight to that conflict. The last thing we need is a massive nation building project in Africa -- because that's what it would take, another war directed by the U.S., involving more and more U.S. troops, and an incalculable amount of money and other aid. 

UN Peacekeeping Forces Still a Bad Joke in Congo

The latest report from Congo, this time the eastern region, says that over 1,000 people have been killed since January, 7,000 women & girls have been raped, ,6000 homes burned down, and over 900,000 people "displaced." According to the article, a UN peacekeeping force has backed government operations in the region, targeting Hutu militiamen from Rwanda who are targeting civilians. But what is the government actually doing?

Congolese government soldiers also have targeted civilians through killings and widespread rape, looting, forced labor, and arbitrary arrests, the report said.

So the UN is supporting one side, even though that side is little better than the alternative. How is this in any way a "peacekeeping" operation?

Naturally the UN refused to comment. But the article notes that it has previously used the excuse that it just doesn't have enough troops. It will never have enough troops, let alone enough effective troops, to successfully intervene in a multi-faceted civil war. So what is it actually doing there? Why support the corrupt Congolese government and give them cover for slaughtering and otherwise abusing civilians?

No, Really?

From Reuters, "U.N. rights chief sees possible war crimes in Congo." War crimes, in the Congo? No way! The Congo is an atrocity-ridden hellhole, yet the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights has to hedge her words. As the report shows, it's hard to keep track of all the horrors since they are committed both by government forces and various rebel groups. Here's the U.N. chief:  

judicial response to the abuses had been "wholly insufficient" and called for "concrete and immediate action to hold perpetrators accountable, particularly since sexual violence continues to take place on a daily basis".

I'm sure the same government carrying out rapes and massacres is going to be really worried about prosecuting them.

The Congo situation is a prime example of the impotence of the U.N., as if we needed another one. According to the report, one massacre occurred two miles away from a U.N. peacekeeping mission. Naturally the troops there had excuses for doing nothing: they didn't know about it, and they couldn't have helped if they had. Which leads one to ask, what good are they? Even using the term "peacekeeping" in regard to the Congo is nothing more than a joke.

Department of Really Bad Ideas

The U.S. military is already tied down in two long-term nation-building projects, and has numerous other smaller commitments. But Michael O'Hanlon of the Brookings Institution thinks we should send troops to the Congo.

If the situation is to improve, we need to do the one thing that is required above all others -- strengthen security, especially in eastern Congo. And by now we should have learned the hard way that there is only one way to do so -- by leading through example, with the deployment of at least modest numbers of American troops, to spark a broader strengthening of the current U.N. mission.

Even O'Hanlon recognizes that his own idea sounds crazy, given our current situation, so he proposes that we create a new military formation, a "peace operations division." This would be comprised of hastily-trained volunteers to be sent on peace-keeping missions. Sounds great, huh? Where do I sign up?

The Congo is one of the biggest basket cases on earth. The UN peacekeeping mission is often part of the problem, with corrupt, underpaid, poorly-trained "peacekeepers" contributing to the general hellish state of the country. Even if we weren't wrapped up with Iraq and Afghanistan, getting involved in Congo's mess would be a terrible idea. Its problems will not be solved by peacekeeping efforts -- if they are ever solved at all. They'll be solved by even greater killing & violence. The only thing that will stabilize such a situation is a central government powerful and efficient enough to exterminate the various armed gangs and rebels and impose order -- or in the absence of that central power -- local forces able to pacify & defend their own regions -- at the individual village level if necessary. Humanitarian aid, refugee camps, evacuating villages, working with a corrupt and ineffective government, foreign "peacekeepers," and all the other things currently being done -- which O'Hanlon foolishly wants the U.S. to jump into -- are the equivalent of putting a dirty, bacteria-laden band-aid on a sucking chest wound.

The U.S. Military in Uganda

According to a report in the New York Times

The American military helped plan and pay for a recent attack on a notorious Ugandan rebel group, but the offensive went awry, scattering fighters who carried out a wave of massacres as they fled, killing as many as 900 civilians.

The operation was aimed at the Lord's Resistance Army, and the U.S. provided the Ugandan's with "satellite phones, intelligence and $1 million in fuel." The U.S. has been training Ugandan troops for years, but has never had this level of reported involvement in actual operations.

This action raises all sorts of questions. Leaving aside the fact that the planned offensive was horribly bungled, I have to wonder, is this really a wise use of our resources? What makes Uganda worthy of U.S. support and training in the first place? The Lord's Resistance Army is by all accounts a vicious group that perpetrates atrocities on a regular basis. But atrocities are common on all sides in African warfare. Is the LRA an enemy of the U.S.? Why is it necessary for the U.S. military to take an active role attempting to suppress it? Why do we want to be involved in the horrific mess that is the Congo civil war? I'm not an isolationist, but I'm not sure there are solid answers to all these questions.