Visit our Women's Corner for more information and how you can get involved!

View brief excerpt from Lynn Nottage's "Ruined"

Congressional Hearing on Congo & Sudan

Date: Wednesday, May 13, 2009 2:30 PM

The joint subcommittee hearing on gender-based violence will take place at 2:30 p.m. on Wednesday, May 13 in the Dirksen Senate Building, room 419. U.S. legislators will hear testimony about violence against women (particularly rape) in conflict zones, using Sudan and the DRC as case studies. The range of panelists will include: women from the DRC and Sudan, including Chouchou Namegabe Nabintu (journalist, DRC); experts on the issue of gender violence; and government witnesses including Ambassador-at-Large for Global Women’s Issues at the U.S. Department of State, The Honorable Melanne Verveer.

Following the hearing, there will be a public reception in the Russell Senate Office Building, Hearing Room 332. Speakers will include: Lynn Nottage (winner of the 2009 Pulitzer Prize for her play Ruined and an ESB Institute/Goodman Fellow); Ron Haviv and Marcus Bleasdale (award-winning photojournalists whose work is part of Congo/Women); and Senator Boxer. Actor Quincy Tyler Bernstine will perform a monologue from her role in Lynn Nottage’s Ruined.

Click here to tell Congress to pass The International Violence Against Women Act (I-VAWA)

Find out more about women in the Congo.

Women of "Ruined" to speak in Washington, DC

The case FOR the Congo
A response to There is No Congo, by Jeffrey Herbst and Greg Mills, posted March 2009, Web Exclusive, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2009/03/17/there_is_no_congo
by Ali M. Malau

Foreign Policy magazine recently published a rather disturbing article on the Congo (There is No Congo, posted March 2009, Web Exclusive, http://www.foreignpolicy.com), by Jeffrey Herbst of Miami University of Ohio, and Greg Mills who directs the Johannesburg-based Brenthurst Foundation. The article makes a case against Congo as a unified entity. As a Congolese citizen, I could not disagree more with their arguments, and I believe they warrant an appropriate rebuttal. Their article is a perfect illustration of the flawed approach with which much of the so-called international community, and some scholars on Africa, have analyzed the situation in the Congo since its nominal independence in 1960, and frankly, part of the reason why they never get it right. It is often not due to inaccurate facts, or lack of knowledge on the region, but more due to inadequate prisms molded in the inside-think of Western-world-centric academia. In my view, and to illustrate some of the points I am rebutting, the article boils down to the following citations:

There is one general sense in this article that is right: the Congo has been a disappointment. With the vast swathes of fauna, flora, mineral, agricultural, hydroelectric, and human resources it inherited at its independence, one would expect the Congo today to rival if not exceed such rising powers as South Africa, Brazil, India, China, Korea, Singapore, Saudi Arabia or the UAE. Instead, as the article justly points out, the level of deliquescence in Congo today is almost unprecedented; not acknowledging that reality would be intellectually dubious.

Nevertheless, what is equally dubious, is the misdiagnosis of the root causes of the current situation. The authors of this article repeatedly, and I believe questionably, confuse causes and consequences, to support and justify a desire, long-held in certain circles, for the balkanization of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The authors point out the weakness of the Congolese central state in governing the vast country, without fully and honestly addressing the international geo-strategic reasons why that reality came to be. The authors point out the various secessions and minor uprisings during the past 40+ years to justify their diagnosis of the Congo. Yet they fail to shine a light on the multiple foreign state and corporate backers that participated in those early attempts at derailing the Congo. The authors claim that " the Congolese government's inability to control its territory has resulted in one of the world's longest and most violent wars", without actually addressing the reasons why the government was - and still is - not able to control its territory in the first place.
My contention is quite simple. The current conflict(s) in the Congo, the deliquescence of the state, the lack of infrastructures and "interconnectedness", are not merely unforeseen, pathological consequences of bad colonial and/or cold war policy gone awry. The current situation is a direct, calculated, and progressively manufactured result of a long-standing operation by Western nations to maintain a weak state in this vast mineral rich swath of land in the heart of Africa and perpetuate the systematic plunder of Congo's resources by various foreign interests, and their proxies in the local elite. 

Seems far-fetched? Let us consider that, until proven otherwise, the Congo is a sovereign country, recognized as such by International law, the United Nations, and, in theory, every country on the planet. Yet despite that, over the past five decades, these very countries, (including supposed champions of the rule of law like The United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Belgium, France and South Africa), have allowed their mining companies (like Banro, Freeport-McMoran, Anglo American, DeBeers, and others) to enter into odious contracts with corrupt elements of the leadership in Kinshasa, and worse, with murderous warlords, and near-genocidal militias, unhindered, and unpunished. Furthermore, several of these very countries and their corporations have provided the military, logistical and ideological support to the secessionist regimes in the 60's and 70's, Rwanda, Uganda, Angola, their proxy militias AND/OR their rival militias, thus destabilizing and creating a de facto partition of the country, and further guaranteeing maximized profits through cheap/slave/child labor under warlords. That is not happenstance, but cold, calculated, predatory business planning. In fact, one only has to examine the history of the ties between the Oppenheimer mining magnate family of South Africa - which founded, and finances, the Brenthurst foundation that one of the authors of  There is No Congo, Greg Mills, leads - and the various regimes and rebellions we have seen in the Congo, to understand how integral these foreign corporate and state interests are to the conduct of ANY business in the Congo.

I contend that it is not so much that there is No Congo; nor is it that the Congo as a country is not possible. I contend that since 1959, it was deemed too much of a potential threat to several world and regional powers, and to the coffers of their corporate acolytes, to allow the rise of a strong, large, potential Brazil-type power, in the heart of Africa. And we can see why. Let us consider the Congo today. Despite being one of the poorest, badly-managed countries in the world, by virtue of its position and of its potential, the country is poised - should there be a great deal of change in leadership - to be a major guarantor of the development of a truly functional African continent, and African Union.  As Herbst and Mills themselves justly point out, "the country is the region's vortex ".  Former South African President, Thabo Mbeki notes “There cannot be a new Africa without a new Congo.” President Barack Obama himself rightly notes “If Africa is to achieve its promise resolving the problem in the Congo will be critical.”

Over the years, despite all the adversity the Congo faces, and despite the desires they secretly harbor to see the Congo disintegrate to begin annexing its pieces, its neighbors in the region were forced to recognize its central and crucial position for the advent of further economic development for the entire continent. As a result, despite currently being, admittedly, an economic drag on all of them, the countries of Southern, Central, and Eastern Africa have all secured some form of regional economic/political supranational alliance with the Congo, whether through SADC, CEPGL, CEEAC or COMESA (all groups that constitute regional clusters in the building of the larger African Union).
There lies the issue for this country. Left to its own devices, a big, strong, unified Congo would be a powerful engine for the development, and the industrialization of the entire continent. Herbst and Mills, I believe justly state that "economically, the various outlying parts of Congo are better integrated with their neighbors than with the rest of the country." But that is not in Congo's disfavor. Whether in terms of its abundant precious and strategic minerals, the tremendous amount of renewable energy that could be generated by the Inga dam project on the Congo river, the natural gas in Lake Kivu or the geo-thermal potential of the volcanic mountains in the east, the second lung of our planet that is its rainforest, or the extraordinary - and exhaustively demonstrated - resilience of its people, the Congo has everything to be the central pillar around which Africa rises. Should the people of the Congo find a way to build the infrastructure to interconnect its outlying parts, the country would instantly become the key piece in regional development. That prospect has always unsettled many, whose interests might not be as well served should there be a strong government, a functioning army and police, and rule of law.

Herbst and Mills claim that "the very concept of a Congolese state has outlived its usefulness." When was it ever truly - and democratically - implemented, I ask? When, since 1885, have the affairs of the Congo ever truly been left to the Congolese people? See, I contend that the Congo has, intentionally, never even been given a fighting chance to live up to its potential. Its challenge since 1885 has been both an internal and external one. Under colonial rule, the people were voluntarily under-educated, and the infrastructure built was limited to basic transportation needs for minerals, and the comfort of colons. Under Mobutu, the regime, backed by Western powers, ruled with an iron fist, promoted corruption, allowed the deliquescence of the already meager infrastructure and mining industry, and progressively engineered a weakening of the state apparatus, the army and the police, in order to strengthen and impose Mobutu's personal rule, and better protect the mechanisms of the systematic plundering of the country's resources. The Congo today is the result of a systematic, documented, and fully reversible process of manufactured under-development, with roots in colonial and neo-colonial policies, but more importantly, in greed. Fomenting and perpetuating misery, turmoil, tribalism, destructive autocratic rule, and angling for the "Somalization" of the Congo, was more profitable to key greedy domestic elites and foreign groups, and more dependable for key foreign powers, than actually allowing this country to build the infrastructure it needed - and still needs - to succeed.
That is a far more accurate prism to consider the events that have befallen the Congo over the decades. It explains the secession of Katanga, the mineral rich southern province, only 7 days after independence in 1960, with the help of Belgium, the very colonial power the people of the entire country had just successfully sought to get rid of. It also explains the assassination of the first democratically elected Prime Minister, Patrice E. Lumumba, with, at the very least, the tacit backing of Belgium and the United States. It explains, for instance, the documented contacts between the Oppenheimer family of South Africa and Albert Kalonji Mulopwe, the "Emperor" of the secessionist South-Kasai, Moise Tshombe, leader of the Katanga secession, and rebel groups of more recent years. Finally, and most tragically, it explains how the Congo's neighbors - Rwanda, Uganda, and to some degree Angola, their proxy militias, their rival militias, and corrupt elements of the so-called leadership of the Congo and their militias, have been not only allowed by the international community, but backed and supported primarily by the United States and Britain:

• to systematically destroy, ransack and plunder an entire country, unhindered and unpunished;
• to brutally rape and sexually terrorize tens of thousands of women in front of their sons, fathers and husbands, unhindered and unpunished;
• to turn children into soldiers, unhindered and unpunished;
• and to cause the death of nearly 6 million people - a scale for another century - to this day, seamlessly, unhindered and unpunished.

All the above has been accomplished in blatant violation of every principle of International Law, and every principle of human decency, and in full view of the inadequately-led, inadequately-sized, ineffective, inept, overhyped, overpriced and overpaid so-called "largest United Nations peacekeeping force" (MONUC), and with logistical support from Western powers, and recently, the dreaded AFRICOM of the United States. Herbst and Mills argue that "the international community does not have the will or the resources to construct a functional Congo"? It seems more accurate to say that over the years, the international community has been - more or less intentionally - actively, and systematically undermining a functional Congo. It is for this reason that Antonio Guterres, High-commissioner of the UNCHR reminded us in his interview with the Financial Times, in January 2008, that we must not forget that “the international community has systematically looted the Congo” and that is a far different and, in my opinion, far more easily remediable problem.

The ultimate solution to the Congolese situation lies in investing on a key element that Herbst and Mills discount too quickly, and wrongly so: the Congolese people, its sense of citizenship, and its resilience. Through all the humiliations of colonialism and dictatorships, the scheming, the gaming, the profiteering, the raping, the oppression, the daily humiliations of poverty, the hunger, the injustice, the corruption, the tribalism and the morbid reality of living in a needlessly war-torn country, the Congolese people have emerged as quite the resilient people, AND quite the cohesive people; at least as cohesive as can be expected for any multi-cultural people, whether in the Congo, in South Africa, or in the United States. Congo may yet have "none of the things that make a nation-state", but I contend that you would be hard-pressed to find a Congolese citizen, rural or urban, who does not identify with the Congolese nation, and the "boundaries that the king of Belgium helped establish in 1885 ".

Yes, the lack of infrastructures makes the task to establish and solidify the regal functions of a strong, centralized state on the entire territory, unusually daunting. But the Congo is not the first, and will certainly not be the last, multi-cultural nation, that has to, in its formative years, struggle with translating their sense of national identity into stable, and accepted state institutions. It may be hard, but the argument that it is not worth thriving for, fighting for, and supporting, is simply untenable; especially coming from two scholars from the two countries in the world - the United States and South Africa - that symbolize the most (and I admire them for that) the possibility of overcoming tremendous and varying odds to build united and strong countries, that combine multi-cultural peoples, and effective, democratic states. Maybe the Congolese can learn from them, and Brazil, and India, and establish a strong, but truly federal state. When the Congo's affairs are left to the Congolese people, the possibilities are endless.

Now, that is definitely not to say it will be a cakewalk. The Congo we envision, thrive and advocate for is possible, but it will entail a great deal of work and investment from the Congolese people. Those in the “learned class” – economists, agronomists, engineers, teachers, doctors, etc - that have managed to maintain their integrity by not partaking in the plunder of the Congo, will have to outgrow this sense of cynicism, hopelessness and apathy that has seeped into their consciousness due to years of despair and lack of prospects for change, and roll-up their sleeves. The Congolese will need to revitalize the education sector, so as to ensure that the coming generations have access to the knowledge they need to continue the task of rebuilding their country. They will also need to organize education/training initiatives for urban and rural adults, in various fields, among which – and most importantly – sustainable agriculture, construction, urbanization, sanitation, and salubrity. They will need to reinforce notions of civics, citizenship, human rights, civil and civic rights, law and order, and respect for women, which years of oppression and mis-education, of Leopoldism, colonialism, Mobutism and other -isms have caused to somewhat crumble away in the general consciousness. Finally, on a national level, they will need to seek worthy partners to do all the above, and also begin the work of reconnecting the Congo to the main grids of modern technology, starting with the electrification of the country, through the rehabilitation and completion of the Inga hydroelectric complex. The task is not complex for the Congolese people; it is simply tedious. The prescriptions we put forth imply a laborious, time-consuming but necessary grassroots work, that needs to start yesterday, but is absolutely achievable. And given a true opportunity, I believe the Congolese people are up to the task.

So, instead of giving up on the Congo, and dismissing it as an irredeemable failure, I say let the Congo and its people truly amaze you. Give the Congo a fighting chance. It is quite simple, really. Intel, Nokia, Dell, T-Mobile, IBM, Banro, Freeport-McMoran, Anglo American, Chevron, Tullow and all the other companies identified in the Financial Times and United Nations Reports from 2001 – 2003, that romp through Congo for coltan, cassiterite, tin cobalt, gold, diamonds, oil, etc, should cease and desist from buying minerals illegally from warlords, from neighboring countries that have looted our resources, or through odious or illegal contracts. By all means, invest in Congo, but be deliberate and intentional about doing it through the proper channels. Stop financing and arming warlords. All people of goodwill should discourage the Congo's neighbors from meddling in its affairs and support and finance education and healthcare institutions. Support local institutions, and help the civil society hold the central government, the provincial governments and the security forces truly accountable.

And finally this time, this time, help the Congolese ensure that they conduct truly free, fair, transparent and democratic elections in 2011. The International Crisis Group's 2007 report "Congo: Consolidating the Peace", shows quite clearly that the last time around, the International community was more concerned about access to lucrative mining contracts as opposed to a democratic process that would reflect the interests of the people. Let us all thrive to prevent a repetition of that. The Congolese have an imperfect constitution, with imperfect prescriptions, and imperfect institutions, but they are all theirs to perfect. Let the Congolese people choose its own leaders, and manage its own territory. Give them the chance they have never had: to demonstrate their capacity to be a viable nation, and establish for themselves a state that helps their country live up to its full potential. Is that really a concept that has outlived its usefulness? I dare think not.

Ali Malau is a adviser to The Friends of the Congo (FOTC), a 501 (c) 3 tax-exempt advocacy organization based in Washington, DC.

The FOTC was established at the behest of Congolese human rights and grassroots institutions in 2004, to work together to bring about peaceful and lasting change in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Ali Malau can be contacted at ali@friendsofthecongo.org

Bibliography

Congo and Climate Change - An Overview
By Rebekah Delling

Above the cacophony of, elephants, gorillas and the other 6,000 animal species living in peaceful pandemonium, a louder and more destructive sound is dominating the rainforest. It’s the sound of ax against wood coupling with the crack of falling timber. In the Congo River basin, an area once designated the “Heart of Darkness” by Joseph Conrad, a battle is being fought over natural resources and nature is the losing party.

However, nature won’t be the only loser in the war for resources. Besides the obvious damage un-checked logging does to the 60 million people, 10,000 plants species and 6,000 animal species depending upon the forest for survival, there exists the global threat of climate change.
Clear-cutting the Congo River basin rainforest, the second largest continuous rainforest after the Amazon, will have a direct and disastrous effect on global warming. This effect, according to the United Nations Climate Panel, will include more flooding, heat waves, droughts and continually rising oceans.

Read entire article and find out more about Congo's significance to the world's climate>>

Brooklyn born Playwright Lynn Nottage became only the second African American woman to win a Pullitzer Prize for drama for her play "Ruined." The play depicts the struggles and triumphs of Congolese women who are trapped in a resource war in the heart of Africa.

Nottage proves that the Congo drama is a world story that is universal and deserves the focus and attention of the global community.

Read more about Lynn's prize...

Ruined at the Manhattan Theatre Club

LA Times Interview!

Bloomberg article on Lynn Nottage

Lynn Nottage Dramatises the Congo conflict: The Economist

The Carter Center says that the people of the Congo will realize few benefits from the two-year mining review process with companies mining billions of dollars of gold, copper, cobalt, diamonds, and other minerals.

The Carter Center has drawn the following preliminary conclusions about the outcome of the process:

* Unwieldy: A major problem with the contracts was the vast array of divergent obligations that would be difficult to oversee and enforce even with a sophisticated regulatory apparatus, which the DRC lacks. That situation remains unchanged.
* Illusory: Most investors agreed to increased one-time, upfront payments; however, informed observers report that the payments are contingent and unlikely to be required under current economic conditions.
* Ephemeral: With the possible exception of conditions on debt financing for mining joint-ventures, there are no clear long-term benefits from the review. In the meantime, companies may still take advantage of weak provisions in many agreements to divert profits away from the investor company or to avoid paying taxes on real profits.

Read the entire statement from the Carter Center>>

To my beautiful sisters in the Congo: I write to you today to send you my love, my deep wishes for your peace and happiness, for the prosperity of your suffering country, and all of its people, animals and vegetation.

It’s mineral deposits, it’s diamonds and its gold. Its magical coltan. May all be blessed and may all be kept safe and secure from rapists and robbers, murderers and mischief makers of all description. May all sociopathic warlords and dictators, with their incomprehensible and endless greed, be escorted to the border. It is the women of the world who will have to put an end to war, inviting those men who truly value us, and Life, to join our crusade.

The “Holy Land” we must retake is the whole of Africa. It is the forests, the rivers, the soil. Like our Liberian sisters who stopped the war in their country, and like Wangari Maathai who planted trees all over Kenya, we must use our wisdom and intuition to stop all the forces that are destroying us. We can do this if we stand together as women, allowing neither religion nor cultural practices to come between us.

Yes, it is women rising who will save the world, if it is to be saved. We are the ones we have been waiting for.
Alice Walker

Join the International Women's Day Vigil!
Learn more about women in the Congo!

When rebel leader Laurent Nkunda launched his offensive against the people of the Congo in the Fall of 2008, one of his demands was that the Congolese government renegotiates its $9 billion deal with the Chinese. We reasoned on these pages that the root of Nkunda's demand had two possible sources: 1. He was trying to curry favor with the West because he knew the West was against the deal or 2. He was in fact being backed by the West via Rwanda to send a message to President Kabila that he needs to get back on the plantation for he had strayed too far in signing such a far-reaching deal with the Chinese.

Now that President Kabila has been apparently chastened (he has allowed Rwandan troops on Congolese soil due to Western pressure, mainly the US), we learn via the Financial Times that the West has ratcheted up its pressure for Congo to renegotiate its deal with the Chinese. Led by the Paris Club, International Monetary Fund and World Bank, the West is unleashing its multi-lateral institutions on the people of the Congo.

One would have to have his/her head in the sand not to see the geo-strategic game being played out on the backs of the Congolese people. Nearly six-million dead, hundreds of thousands of women systematically raped as a weapon of war, and crushing poverty are not sufficient for the vampires sucking the blood of the people of Congo. People of conscience and good will throughout the globe must come to the side of the Congolese people as they weather the onslaught from an international cabal crushing them like grapes. We can no longer be silent in the face of such depredation. Break the Silence and take action now>>>

Americans and others in the West often ask what does the conflict in Congo have to do with us? Well, our governments continue to finance, train and arm destructive forces in Congo. Both the New York Times and Washington Post have reported US backing of military operations by Rwanda and Uganda, the United States staunchest allies in Central Africa. Both governments are responsible for gross human rights abuses, crimes against humanity and according to the United Nations maybe even genocide. In addition, both governments and their business elites have systematically looted the Congo.

Let your governments know that the militarization of the Congo in particular and Africa in general is not the answer and certainly NOT the change the people of Africa is looking for from a new U.S. Administration. Take Action Now>>

Congolese would have to be insane if they believe that the aggressor nations of Rwanda and Uganda are now agents of peace. The game has not changed, the recent developments reflect the latest attempt of Europe and America to control Congo's wealth via its pre-eminent proxy forces (Rwanda & Uganda) in Central Africa. We cannot overstate the fact that Congo's president Joseph Kabila was with Rwanda and Uganda in their 1996 invasion of the Congo. Jospeh Kabila was under the tutelage and guidance of James Kabarebe, the current aide-de camp of Paul Kagame. Hence, he is fulfilling is role as expected by the West.

The Sarkozy and Cohen Plans and most recently the Museveni proposal are all a part of the persistent effort to balkanize the Congo and place large swaths of Congo's wealth in the hands of America and British allies Rwanda and Uganda ostensibly to benefit Western corporate interests. Both Paul Kagame of Rwanda and Yoweri Museveni of Uganda are firmly ensconced in the Corporate and Military complexes of America and Britain. The fact of the matter is that Rwanda and Uganda can no more relinquish its foothold in Eastern Congo than America can relinquish its foothold in Central Africa through its proxies Rwanda and Uganda. Unfortunately, its the people of the Congo who bear the brunt of the suffering of US foreign policy.

The key is for friends of the Congo on the outside of the country to continue to expose the underlying forces that produce the war, rapes and biblical scale suffering of the people of Congo. In addition, external friends of Congo need to step up its support of Congolese grassroots institutions and keep the pressure on the West's proxies in Central Africa in spite of the attempts of western intellectuals and humanitarian institutions to muddy the waters by pushing a genocide narrative and industry.

The Congolese people are obviously resolute in keeping their country in tact and securing their wealth. This will require the establishment of strong Congolese institutions to defend the interests of the people. The optimum way to be in solidarity with the people of the Congo is to provide support to Congolese institutions working to defend the interests of the people.

Take action now in solidarity with the people of the Congo.