| |
December
17 , 2007
Casualties in the Scramble for Congo’s
Resources
by
Maurice Carney, Executive Director, FOTC
Carrie Crawford, Chair, FOTC
info@friendsofthecongo.org
Over the past few months a lot of ink has flowed
in mainstream publications about the situation in the Congo.
In almost all of the articles, the underlying reason for the
crisis in the Congo - the scramble for Congo’s spectacular
natural wealth- has been consistently omitted or underplayed.
The front-page article in Thursday, December 13, 2007 New
York Times entitled “After
Clashes, Fear of War on Congo’s Edge” by Lydia
Polgreen is no exception. Not only were there key omissions,
but also, a glaring factual error said volumes about the manner
in which mainstream media covers Congo.
The error claimed that the 2006 Congolese elections “produced
Congo’s first democratically chosen government.”
Why is this inaccuracy so egregious even though to the casual
reader it may seem like a minor oversight? Well, it obfuscates
a narrative that is central in explaining why the crisis exists
in the Congo and continues to date. Contrary to the New York
Times front-page report, Congo’s first democratic elections
occurred in 1960 and led to the formation of the first post-independence
government with Patrice Emery Lumumba as its prime minister.
Within months of Lumumba’s ascendancy to power, the
West, mainly Belgium and the United States, induced their
Congolese puppets to assassinate Patrice Lumumba who believed
that the vast mineral wealth of the Congo should be used to
benefit the Congolese people.1 Belgium
apologized in 2002 for the assassination of Congo’s
first elected leader. However, it was not sufficient to assassinate
Lumumba, the West then installed and sustained one of the
main culprits in Lumumba’s assassination, the brutal
dictator Joseph Desire Mobutu, whom the West maintained in
power for over 30 years. Whenever the Congolese people rose
up to overthrow him, the West led by the United States rushed
in to crush the aspirations of the people.
The current crisis is the latest eruption of the West’s
120-year history of controlling Congo’s enormous natural
wealth at the expense of the Congolese people. Although there
is a UN force in the Congo and the West spent $500 million
to organize elections, they systematically sidelined the democratic
forces in the country while providing Joseph Kabila with unconditional
support.2 The pro-democracy forces called for national
reconciliation and inclusion following the 1996 – 2002
war. They argued for a process that would lead to stability
and justice for the people. However, it became quickly evident
that the primary goal of the West who had never supported
democracy in the Congo was to put in place a “reliable”
person and a legal apparatus that would ratify the looting
of the Congo by multi-national corporations. A 2007 ICG report
states, “the U.S., Canada, South Africa and Belgium
took the lead in seeking to control strategic reserves of
copper, cobalt and other minerals and restrict China’s
access.” 3The same report goes on to say that the focus
on economic interests by Western diplomatic corps who supposedly
was in the Congo to shepherd a democratic process was revealed
with “ the U.S. ambassador’s public celebration
of Phelps-Dodge’s acquisition of the Tenke-Fungurume
concessions in Katanga in August 2005 and the grandiose June
2006 ceremony in Kolwezi marking the reopening of the Kamoto
mine, attended by Belgian, EU, Canadian, French, Angolan and
even UN representatives.”4
The $500 million investment in assuring Kabila’s ascendancy
to power was the beginning of the pay off for the West’s
investment. It is for this reason that many Congolese surmised
that Kabila was summoned to Washington in October 2007 because
he may have strayed from the game plan when he signed a
$5 billion deal with China. Even as Kabila ventured to
Washington, he first had to stop in Phoenix,
Arizona to visit Tim Snider (recently replaced by Richard
Adkerson,) CEO of Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold,
formerly Phelps-Dodge, inheritors of what Global Witness called
the world’s richest copper mine, Tenke Fungurume. Global
Witness also goes on to note that the deal is so odious that
it resulted in Congo owning only 17.5% of its own resources
and being in such position that it may even not get any profits
from the deal.5 Nonetheless, the United States government agency,
Overseas Private Investment Corporation (OPIC) has provided
risk insurance for a $1 billion investment project by Freeport-McMoRan.
If there were any questions as to where the United States
government stood on the review of mining contracts undertaken
by the Congolese government, the risk insurance provided to
Freeport-McMoRan should put all speculation to rest. In part
due to pressure from civil society and international human
rights groups, the Congolese government began reluctantly,
in early 2007, a review of the mining contracts. The review
process is finished but the Congolese government has yet to
publish the results. The world has already got a glimpse of
the significance of decisions made by Congo’s leaders
regarding mining deals in their country. In early November,
a Congolese newspaper published what it claims to be the findings
of the report, which called for renegotiation of the majority
of the contracts and an outright cancellation of others. The
result was the decline, on Exchanges from London to Toronto,
of the stock prices of mining companies with interests in
the Congo. Billions of dollars have been raised on the world
Stock Exchanges to invest in mining operations in the Congo.
As a result of the high stakes in Congo’s resources,
the Congolese people are fighting against enormous odds. The
die is literally being set now for a continued impoverishment
of Congolese for several generations. The odious contracts
will be in place for 30 to 40 years and will be backed by
international law. The World Bank established the Mining and
Forestry guidelines in the Congo as early as 2002. These guidelines
were fixed on a neo-liberal model, which calls for the selling
off of the country’s wealth to private interests. Both
codes facilitated and legalized the fleecing of the Congo.
The World Bank has come under withering critique from groups
like Greenpeace for allowing the Congo rainforest (known as
the second lung of the earth) to be sold off to logging companies.
Greenpeace International, Africa Forest Campaign Co-ordinator,
Stephan van Praet said "These contracts are a shameful
relic of colonial times. Millions of hectares of the Congo
rainforest have been traded away by local communities to the
logging industry for gifts like salt, machetes and crates
of beer while logging companies and their taxes do next to
nothing for local development."6
The Congolese landscape is replete with spectacular modern
day heist backed by international institutions such as the
World Bank and western governments, mainly the United States,
England and Belgium, all at the expense of the tens of thousands
of raped and brutalized Congolese women and millions of corpses.
As humanitarian groups seek resources to care for the sexually
violated and brutalized women and children of the Congo, they
should start with those companies that are lined up to purloin
billions from Congo’s wealth while 80 percent of Congolese
live on less than 30 cents per day. Coexisting with the orgy
of rapes and killing is what one corporate magnate calls a
party. Gerhard Kemp of the Rand Merchant Bank, of Johannesburg,
SA is quoted saying "The Congo is so rich in mineral
wealth, you can't just ignore it. You don't want to be the
last guy at this party."7
We may look at what is taking place in the Congo and cringe
or cover our eyes but the unsightly picture that is often
left out or obfuscated, especially by the mainstream media,
is the significant role of the corporations that provide us
with our cell phones, game consoles, lap tops and other modern
technological devices which benefit from Congo’s woes.
The New York Times, Washington Post, Chicago Tribune, Ms.
Magazine, Huffington Post, and Glamour Magazine, all have
published reports of atrocities in the Congo in recent months
but none get to the crux of the issue and almost all obfuscate
the problem instead of adding clarity that may lead to prescriptions
that will benefit the people of the Congo and result in a
lasting resolution of the crisis. The central issue is only
touched upon tangentially or in passing.
We cannot genuinely weep for the Congo or lament the rapes
and killings, yet remain silent about those profiting from
the atrocities. Corporate pilfering influences everything
that happens in dramatic ways in the Congo. The conflict resulting
in brutal rapes and ghastly killings are inextricably linked
to the looting of the Congo. Noble laureate Wangari Maathai
is instructive in this case when she says, “These wars
when you look at them, they are all about resources and who
is going to control them."8
In the end, not only will the Congolese people have to endure
enormous suffering from the wounds of war and instability
but when things finally settle down, they will come to realize
that not only their women have been brutally violated due
to a climate of impunity but the entire country would have
been raped of its wealth.
By only telling the part of the tragedy and savagery in the
Congo that is consistent with our preconceived notion of the
“savage,” “depraved” African, the
leading media institutions of the west are complicit in one
of the most well documented resource heist of the 20th century
and which persists at the dawn of the 21st century. We can
hear the echoes of Joseph Conrad’s “the horror,
the horror.”
A lot of the blame for the persistent climate of conflict
is often laid on the Hutu militia who fled Rwanda in 1994
pursuant to the genocide in that country. In fact this is
just a part of the story, which does not give a complete picture.
It is instructive to note that, for all intents and purposes,
Rwanda controlled the east of the Congo from 1996 –
2002, a period in which they claimed to be in hot pursuit
of the Hutu genocidaires known as the Interhamwe. However
during that period, Rwanda’s most noted military clash
was with Uganda inside the Congo. The source of the clash
was over who would control vast diamond concessions in Kinsangi
hundreds of miles away from where the dreaded Hutu genocidaires
were situated. Hence, although the Hutu presence in the Congo
is an issue, it falls far short of explaining the source of
the violence and crimes in the Congo.
Rebel leader Laurent Nkunda and his rebel forces, currently
the source of the bulk of the unrest and suffering in the
East of the country and who for all intents and purposes is
a proxy of Rwanda, are using the Hutu argument as a justification
for the havoc they are wreaking on the Congolese people. This
argument was not sustainable when made by Rwanda itself and
is even less convincing when made now by its proxy Nkunda.
Instead of pledging military advisers to Kabila, the United
States has a golden opportunity to play a constructive role,
mainly by placing pressure on Rwanda to stop its support of
Nkunda and disabuse itself of any notion of invading Congo
for a third time. The whole idea of Rwanda “pledging
restraint” is preposterous. The path to peace in the
East of the Congo starts in Kigali.
Key Sources of the Conflict:
1. Clients of the West such as Paul Kagame of Rwanda and Yoweri
Museveni of Uganda who serve as lifelines for rebel groups
in the Congo
2. Congolese elites who serve as sycophants for western interests
while using militia to terrorize the Congolese people
3. Western Governments
4. Multilateral institutions such as the World Bank who set
the legal framework for the looting of the Congo’s wealth
5. Multi-national corporations who are to quick to super-exploit
the Congo all in the name of business and at the expense of
the people
Constructive International Engagement:
1. Pressure Rwanda to stop supporting its rebel proxies in
the Congo
2. Encourage Rwanda to create democratic space for the Hutu
to return
3. Promote reconciliation and justice in the Congo
4. Call for and support the genuine inclusion of the democratic
forces in the Congo
5. Support a democratic process and not just power elites
who are too quick to mortgage the country’s wealth and
the future of the sons and daughters of the Congo to mining
and forestry multi-nationals
Should the global community play a constructive role in the
Congo, the Congolese people will take care of the rest and
produce leaders who represent their interests by bringing
reconciliation, justice and prosperity to this vital country
in the heart of Africa.
Notes:
1. Ludo De Witte’s The Assassination of Lumumba
2. International Crisis Group, Congo Consolidating the Peace,
Africa Report No. 128, July 5, 2007
3. Ibid.
4. Ibid.
5. Global Witness, "Digging in Corruption: Fraud, Abuse
and Exploitation in Katanga's Copper and Cobalt Mines,"
July 2006, p. 36-37
6. http://www.greenpeace.org/international/press/
releases/congo-report
7. Global Witness, "Digging in Corruption: Fraud, Abuse
and Exploitation in Katanga's Copper and Cobalt Mines,"
July 2006, p. 34
8. Interview, Democracy Now with Amy Goodman http://www.democracynow.org/2007/10/1/
unbowed_nobel_peace_laureate_wangari_maathai
|
|
