 |
| Congo, by Miko-M |
"What is this about?" you're most likely wondering. "Where is he going with this?"
Look to the left...
Does this look to be a picture of harmony? Justice? Peace? Cacauphonous would be the best word to bescribe it, I believe. Cacophonous not only as a painting, not only as a piece of art, but as a reality. The painting depicts the current standing of a very real conflict going on right now in DRC (Democratic Republic of the Congo). A war, the likes of which has had a massive death toll; a toll higher than that of Afghanistan and Iraq combined - nearly five meillion, even though many were not caused by direct violence (i.e: Malaria, cholera and other such diseases) but are resultant of it nonetheless. Up to four thousand families
Now, the real question here, as it relates to Canada, is: If Canada can only adequately resource one foreign policy choice, which conflict should receive the majority of our foreign policy commitment — the DRC or Libya?
First, a bit of back-story...
Libya
DRC
Now, as it relates to the DRC and their current situation, the painting says it all from a fairly factual point of view - the corruption, the violence, children made to fend for themselves and fight in a war that was the brainchild of people of their parents generation.. The National Congress for The Defense of the People (CNDP) ranks amongst the worst as it relates to war-time atrocities committed; using their government-certified legitimately as national soldiers (as a result of an earlier alliance between the two) to justify their actions.
“6000 fighters were drawn from the Tutsi population of Eastern Congo. Since then, the former rebels have been nominally absorbed into the Congolese army, although most are still dangerously loyal to their own commanders.” Geoffry York, “The Bleak Calculus of Congo’s War Without End,” The Globe and Mail, (27 March, 2010).
But what now of Canada's involvement?
"[T]he Canadian Forces mission in Afghanistan is ending, and they argue that the UN has improved the oversight of peacekeeping. But while many Canadians see UN-led peacekeeping operations as part of their identity, many Canadian soldiers view them as a past they’d rather not revisit." If Canada's Military is itching for a fight, It Won't Be in the Congo,Ottawa— From Thursday's Globe and Mail, Published,
Canada's involvement has been minimal, and media attention; only omnipresent. That is not to say that it has not been represented in the media at all, but rather it has not received the attention that an event of such magnitude deserves (a conflict spanning more than a decade), as is customary, it seems, when it comes to many African social issues.
And although we Canadians, as a whole, seem to revel in our reputation as peace-keepers, there has been speculation as to the legitimacy of our pulling away from that image. As allies to the U.S in Afghanistan -a mission which as J.L Granatstien put it, involves killing and being killed - a change in pace to the extent of oh, peacekeeping maybe, might be just the thing to once again reinforce that image.
"Should Canada involve itself in this horrifying mess? There seems no doubt that Canadians continue to believe that Canada is uniquely gifted in peacekeeping. Lester Pearson's Nobel Peace Prize, the 60-year-long record of service in UN missions, and the popular sense that doing good is what the Canadian Forces should be doing all make UN service hugely popular. And with the Canadian Forces now set to pull out of Afghanistan by 2011 – an unpopular commitment (even though UN-authorized) because it involves killing and being killed and supporting the United States – what better way to re-establish our national bona fides than by taking over a UN peacekeeping force." Defining Canada's Role in the Congo, J.L. Granatstien, From Wednesday's Globe and Mail, Published
Which is why [more] Canadian involvement in the Congo is indeed absolutely necessary. From a constructivist point of view, because of the inane disregard for human rights (and on such a massive scale, no less), outside intervention seems to be the only method with which change might be brought about. Especially with a history of corruption as extensive as that of the Congo. Which is to say, things aren't going to change with a flick of the wrist from the Congolese government. They need help.
"The National Congress for The Defense of the People (CNDP) ranks amongst the worst as it relates to war-time atrocities committed; using their government-certified legitimately as national soldiers (as a result of an earlier alliance between the two) to justify their actions." Geoffry York, “The Bleak Calculus of Congo’s War Without End,” The Globe and Mail, (27 March, 2010).
"Government funding has made the Canadian Forces capable again, so why not use them for peace in a nation that is bleeding to death?" Defining Canada's Role in the Congo, J.L. Granatstien, From Wednesday's Globe and Mail, Published
Now, when you step back for a moment and look at how the conflict plays on the world stage, however, we may actually be fueling this war over the vast resources of the DRC.
Watchdog groups such as Global Witness say that the demand for cassiterite and other so-called "conflict minerals," is fueling war, crime, and human rights abuses in this part of the world. Just like we have "blood diamonds," people are now talking about "blood cell phones." Blood Cell Phones Fuel War, Crime, And Human Rights Abuses, Clark Boyd, July 30th, 2010
And since there are very few other sources from which ti mine this particular ore, the likes of which is used in the creation of tin, a key soldering component in the making of cell-phone circuits, and the mines from which they are taken (the origin mine) is very hard to trace, there may be no such thing as a "conflict-free cell phone."
From the perspective of a human rights enthusiast, the choice in regards to the aforementioned question seems clear.
My links are being stupid. Will fix later.
No comments:
Post a Comment