LETTER FROM WASHINGTON
This past fall I spent seven weeks in the Democratic Republic of Congo. That’s the former Zaire – the country Mobutu Sese Seko ran into the ground during his 32 years of capricious, despotic rule. It is also the country that, earlier, was left almost totally unprepared for independence by its Belgian colonizers.
Today, the Congo is one of a number of countries that, as the years go by, get not better but worse. Its population is exhausted after four years of civil war and foreign occupation, its productive sector is in ruins, and its per capita income falls below US$100 (Jamaica’s is well over US$2,000). This large country of more than 50 million people is a true basket case.
The good news is that recent agreements are giving the Congo hope. The Rwandans, Ugandans and other foreign troops have pulled out, and the various Congolese rebel forces signed an accord with the government in December to stop fighting and form a transitional government that is supposed to prepare for elections.
The Congolese people’s struggle to live a peaceful existence is far from over, however. Some fighting continues in the east, and the internal agreement risks falling apart if the armed groups involved don’t get the ministries, state-owned companies, and other prizes they want in the new transitional government.
In fact, it is those armed groups that hold most of the cards. The other players, civil society and the political parties, who would have the final say in a real democracy, have little power in the Congo.
One important question, therefore, is whether a Congolese government will emerge under which the power of the people with the guns will diminish (through the demobilization of some fighters and the assimilation of others into one, properly-run national army) and the civilian groups’ influence grow stronger.
I don’t know the answer. It will not help that, after centuries of forced subservience, whether to colonizers, neighboring armies, or home-grown strongmen, many Congolese have a distinct inferiority complex about their ability to run their own society without outside help. It is normal to hear intelligent, engaged Congolese declare that, unless the United Nations or the United States forces the country’s leadership to behave honestly and democratically, it will not happen. They have so little faith in their own leaders that they want the West’s involvement in their future in a way that is unrealistic to expect and that would not be good for anyone in the long run.
At the same time, there is an important role for other countries in the Congo’s affairs. The United States; several European nations, including Belgium; and South Africa under President Thabo Mbeki have been influential in the progress toward peace made so far. Both publicly and behind the scenes, they have let the warring parties know that the international community expects them to settle their differences, and the various protagonists have often paid attention. Once the boundaries of rebel-held areas melt away and the Congo again becomes one nation, these same countries will be in a position to re-start the kind of development assistance the Congo so desperately needs.
What is especially perverse about the Congo’s abject state is that it is a country rich in resources – diamonds and copper, for starters. Its population is hardworking, and, except for some pockets of ethnic hatred in the east, not aggressive or violent. (From what I saw, the murder rate in Kinshasa, a city with over twice as many people as Jamaica, is far less than that of the societies that you and I are a part of.) The country’s troubles, in other words, are mostly man-made.
One thing is sure. The Congolese people in no way deserve the suffering inflicted on them. Let us hope that these unlucky men and women start to get the governance they have a right, in today’s world, to expect.