LONDON, 3 September 2007 — Eight months have passed since the surprisingly peaceful Congolese election and the country has dropped out of the headlines. Has the UN really pacified this country that has been continuously in a state of unrest since the Belgian colonizers fled in 1960, turning the country over to a government led by the notorious Patrice Lumumba?
Perhaps yes, although to be wise, given the history of this the most turbulent of all African countries, we should say, let’s wait and see. Nevertheless, as some voices are being raised to suggest that the UN could take on the whirlwind of Iraq, it is encouraging to know that its largest peacekeeping operation ever is meeting with some measure of success.
It also raises the interesting question why does this second UN intervention in the Congo appear to be more successful than the first, back in 1960 when, fearful of the US and the Soviet Union competing to gain a foothold in Africa, the UN’s secretary— general, Dag Hammarskjold, pushed for UN intervention, as the country’s post— independence civil war appeared to spin totally out of control? The UN did pacify the country to some degree but it left with its tail between its legs, handing the country over to 32 years of decadent rule by the wicked, dictator Mobutu.
One important reason for the UN’s present success is, since 2002, its partnership with the European Union. Altogether 18 European nations participated including Turkey. The UN presence for once was also adequately funded, with the US a major contributor. Not least, unlike the last time, it had a unanimous Security Council mandate behind it, involving Chapter 7 of the UN Charter, which bestows the right to use military force.
The European effort was critical in pacifying Bunia and Bukavu, areas plagued by rebel armies and multiple atrocities. There are still areas of instability in particular in the Kivus where there have been regular clashes between the UN forces and the remnants of the Interahamwe who fled from Rwanda to the Congo after leading the massacres of the Tutsi in 1994. Even this week this still restless corner of the Congo flared anew as the Interahamwe battled a dissident Congolese army and there was discussion about Congolese and Rwandan government troops joining the fray.
The results of this UN-EU activism are impressive. Most of the country is quiet. The number of displaced persons is down by over a million. The economy has started to grow. The mining sector is recovering well. Hyperinflation has been tamed and the exchange rate has remained stable. Mobile phone masts have been installed even where the roads have all but disappeared. Foreign investment is returning. The International Monetary Fund describes the country’s progress as “remarkable”.
The November general election was a critical turning point. The BBC’s Africa correspondent, Mark Doyle, described the successful vote with its high turnout as an unexpected “miracle”. The UN had done a workmanlike job in helping write an electoral law and drawing up procedural plans for polling and aiding registration. European troops entered the capital, with a larger support contingent on standby in nearby Gabon and Chad. A battalion of reserves was held at the ready in France.
Nevertheless, when the results was announced giving the election to the incumbent dictator, Joseph Kabila, fighting broke out in Kinshasa. A large number of the foreign diplomatic corps was trapped in the cellar of his opponent, Jean Pierre Bemba, when forces aligned with Kabila attacked his house whilst a meeting was in process. They were rescued by an EU force. The fact that the EU had appeared to strike against Kabila’s troops bolstered the legitimacy of the mission.
All in all this has not been an easy nor an inexpensive operation nor one that has always run smoothly, as the serious allegations of rape made against some UN contingents attest. The UN operation has cost $1 billion a year to run and the total aid bill is over $10 billion. The poll itself cost the international community half a billion dollars. However, this is much less than what has been spent in Iraq and Afghanistan and, as far as one can judge at the present, the results are more favorable. Indeed, one can plausibly argue that before the Western intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan the Congo was the country of the three in the greater mess, with the most violence.
