Congo: The Course of a Secret War

Over the past eight weeks, the UN High Commission for Refugees reports that over 100,000 Congolese civilians have been displaced in the ‘volatile’ province of North Kivu. What many in the West perpetually fail to recognise however, is that the recent outbreak of violence between rebel forces and the Zimbabwe-backed Congolese government is merely the latest chapter in a brutal conflict which has raged for more than a decade and claiming more than 5.4 million lives – the biggest death toll since World War II.

The Second Congo War officially ended in 2003, but the violence is by no means at an end. Unnamed civilians and families not so different from our own continue to suffer as their world is torn apart by war. “We do not know what to do now,” one said. “We run every day, we sleep in the forest; we fear attacks.”

The Kivu conflict – continued violence of the Second Congo War since its official end in 2003 – has been fought between the government military (FARDC) and rebel forces. The rebels fight under the command of Laurent Nkunda of the National Congress for the Defence of the People (CNDP). The UN and the genocidal Hutu power, the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) have also become involved.

The conflict was born directly out of the Second Congo War, after which Nkunda became general in the army of the transitional government before rejecting its authority and retreating with a number of troops into the forest. He claimed this was due to the government’s alliance with the ‘killers’ of the FDLR against which Nkunda fought as a young man. In response to the proposition that often civilians lend support to government troops, Nkunda has suggested that education is the solution, for in truth, the people do not understand what they are fighting for.

It seems that Nkunda’s motives, and those of his rebel force, are not without cause however. Nkunda claims to be struggling on behalf of the innocent civilians who live without the protection of either the national government or the United Nations.

Demands for regional security by the eviction of foreign forces and the disarming of all other Congolese nationals are accompanied by accusations that the United Nations have deliberately overlooked widespread attacks on Tutsi minorities in the region, which he likens to their attitude towards the Rwandan genocide of 1994.

In the international community, Nkunda and his rebels have been accused of a host of human rights violations, including rape, murder, pillaging and the forced recruitment of child soldiers as young as twelve years old: accusations he vehemently denies. Interestingly, in 2006 after an international arrest warrant was issued for him, the UN Mission in the DRC refused to comply, stating that: “Mr Laurent Nkunda does not present a threat to the local population, thus we cannot justify any action against him.”

It is these accusations for which he is renowned, and rightly so, but the man himself appears to be considerably more complex. A Tutsi himself, he moved to Rwanda as an adult to study psychology at university. During the genocide, he joined the Tutsi Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) against the forces of the genocidal Hutu-led government.

During the First Congo War, Nkunda fought against the US-backed dictator Joseph Mobutu. His regime was guilty of countless human rights violations, corruption and political repression. He served as an important ally due to his firm opposition to any left-wing ideology and was entertained at the White House by Presidents Nixon, Regan and Bush, a relationship which cooled after the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Now, according to the UN, Nkunda’s forces presented “the most serious threat to stability” in the area. While on one hand, it has been Nkunda who has persistently called for the Congolese government to return to peace talks, on the other accusations of human rights abuses; human trafficking and child soldiers seem to contradict this man’s supposed principles.

It seems impossible that two entirely contradictory portrayals can be true of one man. Propaganda is at play here: the question remains, on which side? It is, in the end, his ethical conviction, his sincerity which must be determined, for as long as the United Nations remains actively involved, Britain’s connection is clear.

There are those who argue that the Western world has no place in the affairs of Africa. “We have our own problems to solve at home, first,” is the petulant response from those considering house prices, job cuts and general elections as equivalent to genocide, starvation and oppression.

The hypocrisy is almost tangible, for we were happy to accept foreign assistance whenever our own security was under threat; to involve ourselves in Africa when expanding our empire into the heart of the continent, and business owners, bankers and the World Trade Organisation continue with contentment and a certain degree of smug satisfaction to involve themselves economically in Africa. (Interestingly, according to Amnesty International, “The worst fighting sometimes shifts location with the rise and fall of commodity prices.”)

The DRC is, after all, rich in natural resources such as gold, copper and timber, is one of the world’s largest diamond producers, and produces half its supply of the extremely valuable coltan for computer chips and mobile phones. That casts suspicion on any party who sees fit to involve themselves in the nation’s politics, no matter how ‘ideological’ their grounds. Please do bear that in mind next time your phone rings.