First Drafts - The Prospect magazine blog

8 Responses

1. William Timberman says:

   November 20, 2008 at 7:38 pm

   One wonders if somewhere in this mess, there might not be an upside. Perhaps at least some of what we are seeing is a larger and faster transfer of the West’s capital to Africa — capital amassed by China in return for its contribution of cheap consumer goods and even cheaper credit to the political stability of the West — than the West itself has hitherto permitted via conduits like the IMF, or direct foreign aid?

   To be sure, the bulk of it may be going to the elites of failed states, who are likely to spend more of it on imported arms and luxury goods for themselves than on internal development, but hasn’t that always been the case with aid from the West? And, given the sheer magnitude of the capital injection, might it not be more likely to spread beyond the capital cities and ruling elites than it has done in the past.

   Mind you, I’m not actually asserting anything of the kind, but I am curious what the author of this article would make of such an analysis, unschooled as it is.
2. Richard Foster says:

   November 26, 2008 at 6:05 pm

   I have had the great pleasure of reading Tim Butcher’s book on his travels in the Congo and have been following the situation there closely in recent weeks because of his evocative description of this country’s ever failing state. I can see what Mr. Timberman is saying in his comments above, but I have to argue that if he reads the book (the only contemporary account of life in DRC) then he would take back all he says here and instead ask why this money from china is not being used to create a more prosperous country in the long term.

   Any educated leader would look at DRC and immediately see the economic potential of its resources and beauty and fight tooth and nail to bring it kicking and screaming into the 21st Century and create an African Superpower able to trade minerals the way OPEC countries trade oil.

   The only question here has to be, Why is there not more coverage of the plight of the Congoloese and how can we instigate a greater level of understanding of their situation?

   What can we do to help aside from donating to charities under the DEF umbrella, which I’m sure we’ve all already done?

   Can we raise the awareness of DRC and make any difference to the way our government approaches International talks about its future?
3. Richard Foster says:

   November 26, 2008 at 6:06 pm

   Sorry, DEC - not DEF
4. anderson says:

   November 27, 2008 at 5:48 pm

   Tim,

   Saying that the west turns a “blind eye” to the Rwanda-Nkunda arms connection is almost absurd in the implication of innocence. Whence, pray tell, do you imagine Rwanda gets its weapons? You are correct to say that Rwanda is the Israel of central Africa, certainly in the sense that, like Israel, the United States pro-actively keeps Rwanda (and by extension, Nkunda) heavily armed and well trained. When DRC and Congo announced the finalized agreement in January of 2008 — now standing at $9 billion — George Bush came out short afterward and promised millions in military aid and training to Rwanda.
5. Laura says:

   November 27, 2008 at 7:50 pm

   Tim Butcher gets some of it right, but some of it very, very wrong in his analysis. It’s inaccurate to say that this is mainly a resource war and that ethnic tensions in the region don’t matter. The conflict is driven by access to resources, by Rwanda’s greed, by Kinshasa’s incompetence, AND by longstanding tensions over land and citizenship rights in the Kivus that predate the civil and international wars of the 1990’s. To disregard any of these dimensions - as do the diplomats, the peacekeepers, and most of the activists - results in non-comprehensive peace deals that fall apart quickly, over and over and over again. There will not be peace in the eastern Congo until someone makes a final decision over whether Kinyarwanda-speakers there are citizens, and until some court has the capacity to sort out the mess of the land claims issue.

   The vast majority of Congolese who live in the east aren’t focused on whether China is getting a cut of the investments. They dislike the Chinese, but only because they bring in their own people to work rather than letting their investments provide jobs for locals. Most eastern Congolese would be perfectly content to let China do what it wants if material life were to improve significantly, meaning that roads and the railway would be reconstructed, and that they would be able to plant their farms and harvest in peace.

   By the way, Butcher’s book is far from being “the only contemporary account of life in the DRC.”
6. JohannessAndLihua says:

   December 2, 2008 at 5:25 am

   it is true that the chinese now do starting all sorts of investment. but europe and america does as well scomes to deals with these countrys more ‘queit’; they know there is a strong public pressure, yep not so offensive more secretly. china is a bit like the elefant in a glass store in a moment.

   There is no direct or factor for China be the main reason… It’s always easy to just blame Chinese for some complicated problems…
7. Gino Van de Walle says:

   December 7, 2008 at 7:54 pm

   When will the politians of the world finally stop talking and start taking some serious action in order to make an end to this cruelty? It’s also time for a change in that region!
   http://ginovandewalle.com/the-worlds-need-to-help-eastern-congo-now-this-cruelty-must-stop/
8. lorenzo says:

   December 15, 2008 at 8:10 am

   in my opinion europe and usa should stop interfering with african affairs. just let them find their way, it will be difficult but they may become adults at the end. and once adults they could eventually face china and (you forget) india without our help. the question is: is africa ready? i doubt it is not and that’s not beacuse of the King Leopold.