The Mbuti, Okapis, and Thou

Ed Rackley posts the first article of a promised two-part series on John and Therese Hart, conservationists who have lived and worked in remote northeastern Congo since the early 1970s. Their current project is to develop a new national park in eastern DRC, in the rainforest south of Kisangani. Their previous work led to the creation of the Okapi Faunal Reserve in 1993, now a UNESCO World Heritage site.

Rackley's a good writer and this is a lovely piece. Rackley draws out an anology between the Harts and their subjects: "Their relationship to conservation in Congo resembles the ways their friends the Mbuti know the Ituri forest—as an instinctive medium, their most familiar element, even as it resists, threatens and sustains them."

This film of the Harts in the early 1990s shows how their achievement with the Okapi Reserve was the culmination of years of radio tracking and habitat mapping with the Mbuti. It's also a wonderful evocation of their lives together in a mud-walled house, raising three children who seem as fully at home in the forest as their innumerable Mbuti friends. It's hard to imagine a more enchanted childhood.

Thoughts on Kristof Reax

Nicholas Kristof published four op-eds on the DRC recently, to a mix of cheers and boos. Over at Congo Siasa, Jason Stearns wonders why Kristof is such a polarizing figure: "As far as I can tell, many working on advocacy in the US, especially those trying to mobilize grassroots support, are very enthusiastic about Kristof.... On the other hand, most of my colleagues and friends in the field can't seem to stand his simplistic approach towards the issues."

Kristof's first piece (here) details the prevalence of rape in eastern DRC and describes the horrific ordeal of a 9-year-old rape victim named Chance, whose parents were killed in front of her. The second (here) profiles Lisa Shannon, an American who established Run for Congo fundraisers after watching a show on Oprah about the war in Congo. The third (here) lauds the work of Denis Mukwenge, the doctor who runs a hospital in eastern DRC and operates on rape victims and other women who suffer from fistula damage. And the final piece (here) provides recommendations about what can be done to alleviate the suffering of the people and help resolve the conflict. Throughout the series, Kristof insists on the magnitude of the crisis and provides graphic details meant to illuminate what Congolese are enduring: the pregnant women sliced open by machete; the children who bear witness to unimaginable cruelties; and the coinage of words such as "auto-cannibalism" and "rerape." And he complains repeatedly that no humanitarian crisis has generated so little attention or such a pathetic international response: "That’s why I’m here," he says.

So what's not to like? Why should the few of us who care about DRC view Kristof as anything other than an ally with a much-needed megaphone, a well-placed friend in a cause that has been too often overlooked?

Stearns provides part of the answer: Kristof simplifies the war to the point of stereotype. As Stearns shows, it's not all that hard to describe what the fighting is about, but Kristof comes perilously close to resorting to Heart-of-Darkness stereotypes. The militias "rape, mutilate and kill with a savagery that is almost incomprehensible," Kristof says. "This is a pointless war, driven by by warlords, greed for minerals, ethnic tensions and complete impunity." Wronging Rights object that he gives us the names of the children who were raped, against internationally recognized proscriptions (and the Times' own guidelines); Texas in Africa takes issue with his claim that the crisis is under-reported; and a fieldworker in Bukavu objects to the notion that no one but Kristof is paying attention to the crisis: "What self-aggrandizing rubbish" he says.

I've disliked Kristof's Africa reporting for a while, so I'm not necessarily the most objective judge. For years, he has been one of Kagame's most uncritical admirers. (He does offer some muted criticism of Rwanda in this series.) He also gave a remarkably stunted justification a few years ago about his rationale for writing about Darfur rather than the Congo.

There is also the matter of tone. Like a number of other readers, I find it more than a little self-congratulatory. (I can't be the only one who finds it strange that on the very day the first article was published, Kristof That's-Why-I'm-Here-in-Kivu was already hobnobbing with the great and the good in Davos. Or that, according to his speakers' bureau, he charges $30,000 per speech, for an hour during which he offers a "compassionate glimpse" into global poverty and "gives voice to the voiceless.")

One reason I find his writing off-putting is that it's--well, bad. It's lazy and uninteresting. He describes the girl who was raped as having eyes "luminous with fear," and the hills of Kivu as "lovely, lush, and threatening"--which sounds like the tag line for a Joan Didion rewrite of the Sound of Music. The details he provides of the victims' ordeals seem gratuitous as well. They're meant to elicit pity, but they come off as lurid. For every reader who responds to these stories by writing a check, there are probably a hundred others who find in them a confirmation of their belief in the intractability of Africa's problems.

But for all my dislike of Kristof's writing, that's not, in the end, why I found myself objecting so strongly to this latest series. The problem is that there's a gap between what he insists the Congo requires from the world and what he appears to think it requires of him. If the Congo is the catastrophe he says it is, then he ought to respond in a way that's proportional to it. A week's visit, followed by a handful of columns, seems inadequate. The Congo is not a drive-by spectacle.

Kristof, like Hillary Clinton--who visited the region last summer--deserves credit for bringing some attention the problem. They are among the few who have the power to direct global attention to an issue who have actually bothered to pay the Congo any attention at all. But without meaningful action and follow through, these visits risk coming off as well-meaning at best, but at worst as emblematic of the very failures they condemn.

So how about it, Nick? Can we count on you to report regularly on the Congo, to push and prod the world's leaders at Davos and elsewhere, to continue to educate yourself and stay abreast of the issues, to shame your employer into giving this conflict a higher profile, to become, even, something of a bore on the topic? After all, if you don't act like this catastrophe matters--I mean, really, really matters--how can you insist that anyone else should?

Not Yet Time to Eulogize Françafrique

Chris Smith, former chief Africa correspondent for Le Monde, writes about the not-quite demise of Françafrique in the latest London Review of Books. Françafrique is, of course, shorthand for the old boy network linking African and French leaders that ran for several decades under the tutelage of Jacques Foccart, France's minister for African Affairs under de Gaulle and subsequent French governments. It was cozy, patron-client sort of relationship: African leaders could count on France for military protection and support, and in return they gave privileged access to French companies operating in their country, kick backs and campaign contributions to successive French governments, and plush retirement funds to senior French officials.

Smith dates the quasi-death of Françafrique to some time in 1994:

Three events in 1994 adumbrated the end: the (unprecedented) devaluation of the CFA franc and with it the crumbling of the monetary wall around the Franco-African enclave economy; the genocide in Rwanda, which left blood on the hands of Africa’s gendarme (having failed to understand a country outside its historical zone of influence, France had thrown its weight behind ‘Hutu power’); and finally, the state funeral of the Ivorian president, Félix Houphouët-Boigny, the sub-Saharan godfather of Françafrique and an enthusiast of the ‘Franco-African state.’

Yet he's not convinced that the corpse is ready for burial:

Then why not issue the death certificate of Françafrique and turn the page? Because neither successive French presidents – from the Socialist Mitterrand to the post-Gaullist Sarkozy – nor francophone Africa’s heads of state, especially the remnants of the old guard, want to let go. Too much is at stake, namely the political survival of the heads of state and the status of French diplomacy. France remains a last resort for weak regimes under threat in Africa, while francophone Africa is still an echo chamber for France’s international pretensions.

It is a relationship the current president has proven surprisingly unwilling to end, says Smith:

Since he took office, Sarkozy has perpetuated France’s time-honoured tradition of parallel diplomacy in Africa. One set of advisers presides in public over the official business of l’Afrique de jour, while Robert Bourgi, in tandem with the Elysée chief of staff, Claude Guéant, is in charge of l’Afrique de nuit, where the lucrative, personalised politics that Sarkozy denounced during his presidential campaign continue to thrive.

Smith concludes: "For as long as there are footholds in the state apparatus, in France and in Africa, there will be réseaux (networks). To the surprise of many people, Sarkozy has given them a new lease of life."

Quote of the Day

The meek shall inherit the earth, but not the mineral rights

J. Paul Getty

Which of these Stories Is from The Onion?

Here are three stories about the Congo. Try to figure out which one of them is fake:

The first is about the Congo's space program, and features an attempt to launch a rat into orbit.
The second discusses the Congolese government's effort to promote economic growth by arming young men with AK-47s.
The third is a touching evocation of the instinctive generosity of the Congolese people, and shows President Kabila giving a $2.5 million contribution to the Haiti relief effort, despite the agonizing poverty confronting his own citizens. The gesture is only somewhat undercut by the fact that the check is a fake: after all, it's the thought that counts.

Quote of the Day

Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice, at the Holocaust Museum on December 12, 2009, answering a question about her 2006 call for greater sanctions on Sudan:

I spoke in my own personal view as a scholar at the Brookings Institution in September of 2006 that, if the government of Sudan continued to refuse to allow the deployment of the United Nations force or the U.N.-A.U. force, UNAMID, that it ought to face immediate consequences, including the threat of the use of force.

I believed that at the time, and I think that was a bold, but worthy position. We’re in a different place now.

Well, Rice is certainly in a different place. She never gets around to explaining why the Sudan is.

Compare this to what she said when she was first named US ambassador to the UN: "I swore to myself that if I ever faced such a crisis again [such as the Rwandan genocide], I would come down on the side of dramatic action, going down in flames if that was required."

I guess those flames don't look so inviting, from the perspective of someone in power.

Contact Me

I'm David Aronson. You can contact me by filling out this contact form.

Contact Form

Name *

Email *

Subject *

Message *

</p> <p>

  Powered by
  "http://www.emailmeform.com/builder/images/footer-logo.png" />EMF
  target="_blank">Web Forms Builder

"_blank">Report Abuse

The Dream of Something that Would Never Be the Same

Soul Power: Coming soon to a theater near you. (Provided you live near an art-house theater.)



From the press release:

In 1974, the most celebrated American R&B acts of the time came together with the most renowned musical groups in Africa for a 12-hour, three-night long concert held in Kinshasa, Zaire. The dream-child of Hugh Masekela and Stewart Levine, this music festival became a reality when they convinced boxing promoter Don King to combine the event with “The Rumble in the Jungle,” the epic fight between Muhammad Ali and George Foreman, previously chronicled in the Academy Award-winning documentary WHEN WE WERE KINGS.

SOUL POWER is a verité documentary about this legendary music festival (dubbed “Zaire ‘74”), and it depicts the experiences and performances of such musical luminaries as James Brown, BB King, Bill Withers, Celia Cruz, among a host of others. At the peak of their talents and the height of their careers, these artists were inspired by this return to their African roots, as well as the enthusiasm of the Zairian audience, to give the performances of their lives. The concert has achieved mythological significance as the definitive Africa(n)-American musical event of the 20th Century.

Link Dump

Blogging is light this week because of family obligations. Two new very important reports are out. Global Witness has a new report out on "War and the Militarisation of Conflict" and Human Rights Watch has one out on "Sexual Violence and Military Reform." I'll have more comment on them next week.

From Global Witness:

The report details how companies are buying from suppliers who trade in minerals from the warring parties. Many mining areas in eastern DRC are controlled by rebels and the national army, who violently exploit civilians to retain access to valuable minerals, including cassiterite (tin ore), coltan and gold. Cassiterite and coltan are used to make mobile phones, computers and other electronics, among other things.

Global Witness wrote to 200 companies and found that most had no controls in place to stop ‘conflict minerals’ entering their supply chain. It says governments, including the UK and Belgium, are undermining their own development assistance and diplomatic efforts to end the 12-year conflict by failing to crack down on companies based within their borders.

Informed by on-the-ground investigations and interviews in North and South Kivu, the report reveals that despite being on opposing sides, the national Congolese army and rebel groups, in particular the FDLR, regularly cooperate with each other, carving up territory and occasionally sharing the spoils of illegal mining. It warns that the recent integration of another armed group, the CNDP, into the national army will make it easier for the former rebels to get ‘in on the act of exploiting the mines.

From HRW:

The 56-page report, "Soldiers Who Rape, Commanders Who Condone: Sexual Violence and Military Reform in the Democratic Republic of Congo," documents persistent sexual violence by the army, and the limited impact of government and donor efforts to address the problem. The report looks closely at the conduct of the army's 14th brigade as an example of the wider problem of sexual violence by soldiers. The brigade has been implicated in many acts of sexual violence in North and South Kivu provinces, often in the context of massive looting and other attacks on civilians. Despite ample information about the situation, military, political, and judicial authorities have failed to take decisive action to prevent rape.

"We have seen progress in the prosecution of ordinary soldiers for sexual violence," said Juliane Kippenberg, Africa researcher for Human Rights Watch's Children's Rights Division. "But senior army officers continue to be untouched. Their own crimes and their command responsibility for the crimes of their soldiers must be investigated and held to account."

The UN has issued an unenlightening self-justification for continuing Monuc's support for Kimia II, a decision I believe will one day be judged as one of the saddest and most disgraceful in the history of the UN.

Radio Okapi has a good article on the hundred or so judges who were summarily dismissed on Wednesday over allegations of corruption. Some of the judges are apparently upset about the double standard shown to the judiciary, since parliament and the executive are well-known for their corruption. [Somehow, this doesn't seem like the strongest appeal.] The radio station rounds up several other reactions here.

Obama in Ghana

Amid the hosannas, a critique:

At every opportunity, the President emphasized internal African causes for the continent's woes, highlighting especially the need for good governance and ending corruption. So he argued, for example, that "you're not going to get investment without good governance." That's just wrong. For decades most foreign investment in Africa has gone to South Africa first, even under apartheid, and then to such oil-rich nations as Angola and Nigeria. First and foremost, western companies, backed energetically by their embassies, are after Africa's resources--oil, gas and to a lesser extent minerals. These are the very sectors where we find vast corruption, environmental degradation, the vicious exploitation of African labor, and, often enough, Africa's wars....

Of course Obama's obsession about appalling governance is not wrong; I share it completely. Africans have for decades been betrayed by a veritable pageant of monstrous leaders, one more egregious than the other. But another truth is that the United States actively backed almost all of them, and if the US didn't, France did; that's part of the neocolonial record. The west also supplied many of the arms that were used in the appalling internal conflicts that have roiled Africa for so long. Even today, the US, Britain and France continue to remain close to many African leaders whose democratic credentials leave much to be desired....

"Development depends on good governance," Obama lectured Ghana's Parliament. "That is the change that can unlock Africa's potential." With all due respect to the President, this is malarkey. The reality, which surely Obama grasps, is that for centuries, year in and year out, far more of Africa's wealth and resources pour out of the continent to the rich world than the west provides Africa through all sources, from aid to investment to trade. Good governance will not end this perverse truth.

Beyond that, even if every African country was led by a saint, they could do nothing about the severe environmental and economic damage that global warming--for which Africa has no responsibility whatever--is inflicting across the continent. Obama actually mentioned this in his speech, yet ignores it with his obsessive fixation on Africa's sole responsibility for its problems.

Even the most exemplary African leaders could do nothing about the destructive impact on African development of the present worldwide economic crisis, for which Africa has no responsibility whatever.

No African leader has the slightest influence on the drastic increase in food prices that is causing such suffering, including outright starvation, to millions of Africans.

Even a continent of Mandelas couldn't change the massive subsidies that western governments provide to their agribusinesses. When they're in Ghana, the Obamas should do some comparison shopping. They may be taken aback to find that it costs more to buy a locally-bred chicken than a subsidized one that's been shipped frozen all the way from Europe. To this, Obama reassured his Ghanaian hosts, "America can do more to promote trade and investment."

On the other hand, Bill Easterly, the apostle for the view that the best way to help Africa is to do doing nothing at all, loved the speech.