Another Rwanda is Building

[Seeker]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/3042983.stm

the deaths and cannibalism continue to occur. The UN force there seems to be impotent.

Maybe the Congo should start spreading rumours they have weapons of mass destruction...?

All in all it seems the stupid twittering about 'never again' is going to seem increasingly hypocritical as yet another country kills what will be millions of it's own citizens.

At least no one will be able to complain that this 'snuck up' on the world, or that it wasn't preventable.

Heck, the article speaks about the future and worsening, but I thought enough had died there already?

"United Nations officials in Bunia (Rwanda, 1994) warn of the possibility of genocide if a large contingent of experienced peacekeepers is not brought in swiftly"

[DinoDoc]

Re: Another Rwanda is Building

Originally posted by Seeker
The UN force there seems to be impotent.

What else is new?

[Gangerolf]

that's just because there aren't enough of them

[TheStinger]

well if the security council declare genocide evreryone is obliged to help, of course getting genocide declared is difficult. Clinton vetoed the use of the word in relation to Rwanda.

[Seeker]

"There have also been reports of cannibalism, and witnesses have reported seeing fighters in Bunia with human organs draped on their weapons, AP said."

yuck

"The European Union said on Monday it was considering a UN request to send peacekeeping troops.

France has been asked to lead this force and provide a battalion with up to 1,000 troops. But it insists that other nations join the force and the deployment be for a limited period."

double yuck. whoop-dee-forkin doo a thousand doofs in a territory the size of northern Ontario. Plus it sounds like they will not risk their lambs on anything, it smacks of tokenism and rules of engagement that will make a Rwanda (i.e. a few hundred virtually unarmed UN surrounded by vicious militias, with UN telefaxes coming in daily demanding that soldiers not interfere in ongoing massacres).

[DinoDoc]

It's in Africa. No one cares anyway.

[Winston]

I say let the Belgians handle it.

Then accuse them of war crimes in Washington afterwards.

[Spiffor]

The problem lies to much extent with the surrounding countries. There is (was?) an international war happening in DR Congo, and many local factions have been bought by foreign countries like Uganda and Rwanda. These countries have armed these factions (and maybe continue to do so), while these factions use them for their own genocidial agenda.

A solution could only be brought by having the neighbouring countries stopping to arm these factions, and to have an international peacekeeping force that makes sure the weapons are destroyed.

A significant food programme would help preventing the plundering at that point.

Unfortunately, to set up such a campaign, political will is required. Most of the French efforts in Africa right now focus on Ivory Coast, so France will refuse to pay the price alone.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by Seeker
"There have also been reports of cannibalism, and witnesses have reported seeing fighters in Bunia with human organs draped on their weapons, AP said."

yuck

"The European Union said on Monday it was considering a UN request to send peacekeeping troops.

France has been asked to lead this force and provide a battalion with up to 1,000 troops. But it insists that other nations join the force and the deployment be for a limited period."

double yuck. whoop-dee-forkin doo a thousand doofs in a territory the size of northern Ontario. Plus it sounds like they will not risk their lambs on anything, it smacks of tokenism and rules of engagement that will make a Rwanda (i.e. a few hundred virtually unarmed UN surrounded by vicious militias, with UN telefaxes coming in daily demanding that soldiers not interfere in ongoing massacres).

Isn't tokenism the French and UN way??

[GePap]

Yes, and the US won;t go unless there is oil to be had! (aren't dumb ass steryotypes wonderfull!)

But sadly, DD is right, the West doesn't care about Western or Sub Sahara Africa.

[PLATO]

Originally posted by GePap
Yes, and the US won;t go unless there is oil to be had! (aren't dumb ass steryotypes wonderfull!)

But sadly, DD is right, the West doesn't care about Western or Sub Sahara Africa.

Oil??...Oil??... In Rwanda???

**Dials GWB on phone--"George, Do you want to play with the 4th ID for awhile?? Oh, and by the way Get Cheney to call Haliburton!" **

Yes dumbass stereotypes are wonderful!!!

...but sometimes true.

[Spiffor]

There is oil in DR Congo, but I think it's located in the stable area of the country, near Kinshasa. There is no need to ge to war for it, as long as the surroundings of Kinshasa are stable enough.

[PLATO]

Spiffor, wasn't there heavy fighting in Kinshasa just a couple of years ago. I seem to remember something about a revolution??

[Spiffor]

Yes, Laurent-Désiré Kabila had ousted the old kleptocrat Mobutu to install his own dictatorship. Laurent-Désiré died in 2001 and his son took over, with a reformist agenda. The Kinshasa region and a significant chunk of DR Congo is under his control. But most of the country is in a neighbour-sponsored chaos, especially in the East.

[PLATO]

Okay, I remember now. I didn't realize that Kabila had died however. I thought that his original power base was in the eastern part of the country though. Seems I remember him advancing from that direction and many of the army groups defecting to him on his way. Does his son not enjoy this same power base and if not, where does his power base come from?