By Salil Tripathi
With rebel forces closing in on Goma, residents fleeing homes, refugees their camps, the Congolese army their posts, and charities like Oxfam and ActionAid shutting their operations, Eastern DRC looks set for a return to high-intensity conflict of the sort that has characterized the region for over a decade now. The country already has the largest UN peacekeeping presence, but that has not spared the region. Some 100,000 to 200,000 people have left their homes in recent weeks and nearly two million have been displaced since last year. The Red Cross has already termed the situation a humanitarian disaster.
Kinshasa has accused Rwanda of supporting the rebels: while it is difficult to begin assign blame at this stage, U.S. officials believe that Rwandan authorities have done little to prevent the rebels from using their territory to launch attacks inside the DRC.
That should stop, to reduce tensions. The Congolese have suffered enormously, as have Rwandans in the past, and international reluctance to commit troops - particularly after global misgivings over the very idea of military interventions following the war in Iraq - does not inspire confidence that an amicable solution might be found. But protection of civilians is the primary responsibility of states and rebel forces during armed conflict, and irrespective of political persuasions or ethnic loyalties, warring parties must not breach that international standards. This means providing more resources for
relief: even though, clearly, the exodus from UN-administered camps and seasoned NGOs stopping operations does not bode well.
The tragedy is that the rebels have shifting alliances and what prompts a particular attack varies depending on whom you ask. Ethnic rivalries dating back to the 1994 conflict do matter, but so does the way the country administers its resources.
Beyond the immediate, the DRC must change the way it awards contracts for precious mineral resources. According to some reports, rebel forces are unhappy over the granting of exclusive mineral rights worth $9 billion to Chinese companies. The Lutundula commission of 2005 had expressed grave concerns over the manner in which concessions were awarded, and it was reasonable to expect future awards would be transparent, but nothing is reasonable in this context.
This is not to suggest that the rebels come with squeaky-clean reputations, or that all fault for opaqueness lies with the state alone. But given the abundance of minerals in the country, and given the predatory forays into the country made by its neighbors and external powers, the state must clean up its act and ensure greater transparency. Failure to do so would provide more triggers, more causes, and more sparks, to keep the fires burning.
Comments (0)
