Investigation of the DR Congo, Part Two

Canada is like the sweet child in your kindergarten class who shares their lunches because they want to. They play with everyone and know the answers to the teacher's questions, and aren't worried about losing marbles or getting invited to all the birthday parties, because being nice to others is what matters most. We Canadians have long prided ourselves on valuing morals and ethics above money and security. We try and run our country by the Human Security Agenda (HSA), ensuring that the safety of the individual is put above the safety of the state. We love this idea - in theory. In practice, however... well, it doesn't always work out. (Just ask East Timor.)

The situation in the DR Congo is one that demands that we decide where our loyalties lie: with the individual, or with the state. If the former, then we will work to protect the Congolese from the rebel groups who are committing atrocious acts against humanity. If the latter, we will work for corporations, the Canadian economy and our investments in the Congo's natural resources. So, where do Canada's allegiances lie in 'Africa's World War'?



Canada currently has twelve soldiers in the DRC. Apparently, our position is not to create task forces or head missions, but mostly just to support missions already in place by other organizations or countries. CIDA's page concerning the DRC states that we provide the DRC with "significant support in the form of humanitarian assistance, through non-governmental organizations and United Nations agencies." We support freedom and equality and blah, blah, blah, but nothing too concrete. This is all brushing over the fact that we are the largest non-African investor in the DRC's mining industry. This indicates to me that we are operating on security policies, with economic stability in mind, and not the fact that countless lives are lost in mines under the control of rebels.

Luckily, just as my hope for Canada sticking to the HSA begins to wane, there is talk of Canada heading a 20,000 soldier UN mission in the DRC. Although there are many different perspectives on whether or not this is a good idea, this at least a step in the direction of the HSA-oriented mandate we so often promote and so often find hard to follow through on. And so, while we have not given enough support to say we are backing the individual and not the state so far, we are certainly moving in the right direction. Canada may not be succesfully operating under the HSA, but we are certainly trying to. Well.... we are trying to try.

The Bleeding Elephant in the Room - Investigation of the DR Congo, Part One

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) is a country located on the Western coast of Africa, surrounded by many countries including Rwanda, Uganda and the Congo. It is a country involved in decades long conflict, most of which can be traced to the end of the Rwandan genocide, when many Hutu rebels responsible for acts of genocide fled to the DRC - then called Zaire and ruled by Joseph Mobutu, a former army chief. Rwanda invaded Zaire to exterminate the rebel leaders in 1997, and this incited Congolese anti-Mobutu rebels - with the help of external sources, primarily Uganda and Rwanda - to up-rise and replace Mobutu with Laurent Kabila (for whom support was not unanimous) and rename Zaire the DRC. Before long, troops were in, rebel groups were formed, and war was raging. Since then, Laurent Kabila was assassinated, to be replaced with his son, Joseph Kabila, who was later elected democratically in 2006. Joseph signed peace accords with Uganda and Rwanda in 2001, and when they pulled out, the UN peacekeeping mission (MONUC) went in. However, a year later, troops were back inside the DRC.



The conflict in the DR Congo is further incited by the wealth of resources the country holds. Everyone is fighting to gain control of some of it, and many North American consumers endorse the bloody harvest of minerals and wealth daily without knowing it. The biggest example of this is the mining of coltan, which is used in cellphones, iPods, laptops, DVD players and almost all of our other consumer electronics. The DR Congo is a major supplier of this mineral world wide, and although the government of the DRC claim to control 80% of the mines, most of them are clearly in the control of rebel groups with guns. Those that are not are being run by the Congolese army, who - although officially opposing the rebel groups and their practices - tax workers illegally and in many ways mimic the rebel groups.

This conflict, the struggle for wealth between armies and rebels, has caused as many as 5 million civilian deaths. Congolese are displaced every day, forced into refugee camps that the government is currently trying to close as they attempt to get foreign troops off their soil. Citizens are raped, abused, robbed and ignored by most of the world. The conflict is consistently on the "Top Ten Humanitarian Crises" list from Docters Without Borders, and is rising to the attention of the international community once more.

This leads us to enquire, what is Canada's position in the DRC?

Can Canadian Foreign Policy Walk the Walk?

The Human Security Agenda (HSA) has attempted to re-focus foreign policies on human safety rather than the safety of the state. A pioneer of the HSA was Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister between 1996 and 2001, Lloyd Axworthy. He did his best to make sure our foreign policies were centered on preventing the abuse of human rights, but unfortunately crises such as the East Timor conflict in 1999 showed everyone that while Canadians can sure talk the talk, we can't always walk the walk.

East Timor (ET) was in 1999 trying to declare Independence from Indonesia, and the UN held a vote throughout ET to choose between 'special autonomy' within Indonesia (which would give ET its own government and would allow it to preside over all matters save those reserved for the Government of Indonesia) and full Independence. 78.5% of voters chose Independence, and riots subsequently broke out, led by the Indonesian military and Timorese pro-Indonesia groups.

The international community began to organize itself to step in. Canada was very slow in making a decision regarding it's contribution, then in assembling it's forces, and finally in deploying those troops to ET. This was all despite Axworthy's lengthy campaign against the Indonesian regime and promotion of the HSA, both of which would logically lead to swift and effective action in preventing the abuse of human rights in ET.

This indicates that the HSA, while ethically sound, is in fact too broad an ideal upon which to base an effective Canadian Foreign Policy. Even though it should have incited action from Canada, the government showed itself too reluctant to risk Canadian lives and equipment for the benefit of the Timorese. In addition to this, Canada had relatively strong economic ties to Indonesia at the time which would have been risked by opposing the Indonesian regime in ET; this indicates that they were still thinking of state security over human security.

The HSA needs to be narrower and more specific in order to implement practical policies; to stay true to the HSA the state also needs to be prepared to give aid in situations without a delay such as the one seen in the ET conflict.

All in all, it seems the HSA will never be sufficient reasoning for the Canadian government to adhere to its promises of protection, or strong enough to provide a foundation for effective policies... because we will always want to protect our own before taking a risk for others.

Ignatieff Ignites the Mind

Canadian politicians never seem to have controversial views, make controversial moves, or stick to their guns when challenged with a real-life situation. This is why Michael Ignatieff stands out. Not only does Ignatieff have many strong opinions, but he has defended them time and time again, and stuck to them in light of tough conflicts like the US invasion of Iraq and the conflict in Afghanistan.

Ignatieff’s core beliefs include cosmopolitanism (an ideology in which everyone – stranger and fellow citizen – is linked together and made equal by a shared moral being), a firm belief in democracy and human rights, and the willingness to intervene – although as a last resort – to protect these ideals.


Cosmopolitanism is, in my opinion, a perfect way to describe the commitment that human beings owe to each other. We are all equal, whether born in a village in Lesotho or in a mansion in LA, and thus must not curb human rights and civil justice at those within our national borders. If we only feel a responsibility to those within our country we are being indifferent to the plight of others, and thus setting ourselves up for warfare; if we keep it within our civilization, we risk a clash of civilizations.



I believe that democracy and human rights, two things that Ignatieff stresses above all else, are the two most important components of a society. Human rights all us to be true to ourselves and live freely, and democracy allows us to exercise those rights to the good of the majority.

The last of Ignatieff’s main ideals – that intervention is sometimes necessary to defend human rights – I also agree with. It ties in to cosmopolitanism, because if we must defend our rights and the rights of others, our responsibility to our fellow human beings means we must intervene if their rights are being infringed upon. Intervention is a last resort and is not undertaken arbitrarily – especially as it inevitably involves destruction and, more often than not, death – but in situations such as genocide it is the lesser evil. If we say we only owe our aid to those who contribute to our national security, we are in essence sitting back and allowing people to be persecuted. However, Ignatieff makes the good point that we must be careful not to do too much damage to the rights of the opposition, or we go against what we are fighting for.

I believe that Ignatieff promotes true and just beliefs. Not only this, but he has shown the public how we must be able to adapt our beliefs to real situations and conflicts as the need arises. Cosmopolitanism, the importance of democracy and human rights, and the willingness to intervene on behalf of them, are – in my opinion – very worthy beliefs with which to govern one’s life.

Machiavelli's New Face

In light of recent developments made in healthcare in the USA, it seems that Obama has been reinstated to his position of 'world-changing leader'. People once again believe in him, and think that he represents the new world, in which we are accepting of others, peace-oriented and modern thinking. However, Obama's views reflect those of a man who penned his thoughts more than 450 years ago: Machiavelli. Obama delivered a speech almost four months ago to the West Point Military Academy, announcing his decision to send thirty-thousand more troops into the conflict in Afghanistan. This speech indicated his accordance with a few Machiavellian beliefs, such as the fact that a leader must know how to be other than good when necessary, and that princes should always be on their guard and prepared for war.

Machiavelli's expresses many radical views in his article, "The Prince," such as that it is better to be feared than loved, that a leader must appear upright but be ready to adapt to situations, and that leaders must be sneaky so the public doesn't think badly of you. He stresses the stability of a state, and of the people's view of their leader.

Obama's speech began by emphasizing that the USA has been wronged by the Taliban and repeating the damage done to America by them. He reiterated the tragedies of civilian deaths in Afghanistan and Pakistan. This reinforced his position as 'the good guy,' and made sure the public viewed Obama and themselves in the same category - the victims. This was tested when he announced that more troops were to be deployed, going against his 'good guy' reputation, and showing that he could adapt appropriately to situations.

Most importantly, Obama's speech indicated that he knew what was at stake when sending off more troops, but it was the lesser evil. "... I am convinced that our security is at stake in Afghanistan and Pakistan," he said.

All of this evidence points towards the fact that Obama - while a modern leader who is making a great deal of change in the world - still reflects the centuries old beliefs of Machiavelli. In the face of change, even the best of us sometimes revert to what's been proven before.

Afghans Are Doing It For Themselves

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/03/22/afghanistan-un-kandahar.html

President Karzai of Afghanistan recently met with leaders of a Taliban-linked insurgent group in order to negotiate with them. This is not random - meetings of this sort have grown increasingly popular, even though foreign troops are currently trying desperately to counter the insurgency. This may indicate that the Afghan people are losing hope in their international allies... or perhaps that they have decided problems can be handled more efficiently by talking to terrorists rather than shooting them.

The insurgent delegation brought to the meeting a 15-point peace plan, which included steps such as the withdrawal of all foreign troops between July 2010 and January 2011, which is a year earlier than US President Obama said he would begin withdrawal from Afghanistan. (Although Karzai will probably be okay with this.) Another step is the removal of Karzai's government in December, to be replaced with a shura (interim government) until elections are held within the year. A third step is the writing of a new constitution; Afghanistan's current constitution was approved in January of 2004, when Karzai was himself head of an interim government.

This meeting could be the beginning of the end of the Afghan War. If negotiations are successful and Karzai reaches an agreement with this group, many more such agreements could be made with terrorist-linked groups, and peace could be attainable.

Worth noting is the last sentence in the CBC article concerning this meeting, noting the death of two 'service members' of NATO. Why is this relevant to this article? I believe it is to spark the thought that many readers seemed already to share: should peace be established, it would seem that Afghanistan is in the same position as they were eight years ago, only with hundreds of foreign soldiers' deaths on their hands.

Harper - For Real

I am an idealist. I believe the world would work better if everyone just got along. However, I am not running a country. There are issues in the world that would beat down any optimist or idealist, and one of them is the maternal and infant mortality rate in developing countries.

It is estimated that more than 500 000 mothers die in childbirth each year, and maternal mortality rates are dangerously high in places like Afghanistan. Further statistics are horrifying, and we in North American have no concept of the dangers of childbirth without the proper health-care facilities. Now that PM Harper has decided to make this one of the items on the G8 agenda, the question of why he has done so has been raised.

Harper is emphasizing keeping promises made in the past rather than trying to make new ones. It is being said that the problem of deaths from childbirth can be drastically reduced with little financial demand, as the solution is simple: provide adequate health-care facilities to mothers and infants.

While this sounds like a simple solution, Canada has been known to shy away from financial commitments in the past. Perhaps the best example is the failure to meet our commitment to donate 0.7% of our GDP to foreign aid, which would include setting up adequate health-care in developing countries.

The implication that Harper is a realist means he did not bring this issue up because he believed a solution must finally be presented, or because he felt he should take on the responsibility of using his power to draw attention to those who need help. If he is a realist, he is diving into this issue for reasons not pertaining to simple good will. Why, then, is he doing it?

Perhaps he wants to divert attention from Canada’s own shoddy promise-keeping. It would distract the international community from the fact that we are in the same position as everyone else, and need to shape up. While everyone is worrying about honouring their own commitments, the fact that the G8 host country is also worried will slip by.

Perhaps he knows that as much as Canada may want to spearhead this operation, there is no way we could do it alone. No country could solve this problem alone, just as no country can solve world hunger alone, or provide the world with clean drinking water. Canada, as aforementioned, cannot even part with 0.7% of its GDP each year. How would we improve global health-care on our own?

If Harper was an idealist he would be doing this out of the goodness of his heart – but he is a realist, and he knows that Canada can merely narrow the direction of the project and still receive credit for it, even if, in the final picture, we play only a mediocre part. He also knows that Canada cannot commit to anything new right now, as we recover from an economic crisis. This is why he has brought up the subject of maternal mortality rates, and this is why Canada will receive perhaps undue credit while it works away at old promises that have been left unfulfilled for far too long.