The International Criminal Court has ordered the release of former Congolese vice president Jean-Pierre Bemba until the start of his war crimes trial. He faces charges of commanding a militia that committed murder, rape and pillage in the Central African Republic.
Bemba will not actually be released until September, as the court says it must now determine the conditions of his release, including which country he will stay in.
In a ruling published Friday, judges said Bemba's right to freedom outweighed the risk he might flee, obstruct court proceedings, or commit war crimes while released.
Bemba was arrested in May 2008 in Belgium and transferred to the court in The Hague, Netherlands, in July. No date has been set for his trial.
Friday, August 14, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Secretary Of State Clinton in Goma, DR Congo
Clinton demands end to sexual violence in Congo
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer Matthew Lee, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 23 mins ago
GOMA, Congo – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton toured an African refugee camp Tuesday crowded with victims of violence and malnutrition, pledging $17 million in American aid to help stem the tide of rampant sexual abuse that has staggered war-ravaged eastern Congo.
Clinton's voice cracked with emotion as she described an epidemic of rapes that has convulsed the Congo over 10 years of internecine conflict. "We say to the world that those who attack civilian populations using systematic rape are guilty of crimes against humanity," she said.
Clinton toured Magunga Camp, a dust-choked warren of tents and tin-lined huts in eastern Congo that is home to 18,000 men, women and children. Most were uprooted from their villages by the on-again, off-again conflict between Democratic Republic of Congo troops and rebel forces that killed more than 5 million people since 1998.
"We believe there should be no impunity for the sexual and gender-based violence committed by so many — that there must be arrests and prosecutions and punishment," she said during a press conference with Congolese Foreign Minister Alexis Thambwe Mwamba in the eastern city of Goma.
At least $10 million of the $17 million pledged by Clinton will be used to train doctors to treat victims of brutal sexual attacks. Some of the funds will also be aimed at preventing abuse.
She met with several residents of the camp, who told her that they are suffering from malnutrition, malaria, tuberculosis and diarrhea. The residents told Clinton that women and young girls and boys are often victimized by rape when they leave the camp to go into a nearby forest to gather wood for cooking.
One camp official said a young boy had been raped on Monday.
"We really want to return home, that's why we are asking America to help stop the fighting," Chantale Mapendo, who lives in the camp, told Clinton.
"That's why I'm here," Clinton replied. "I want you to be able to go home."
Clinton appeared visibly moved when she was shown a four-year-old child, held in his mother's arms, who was suffering from extreme malnutrition. Belly distended, eyes hollow, the skeletal boy weighed less than 15 pounds.
"We're proud to help you," Clinton said.
Picking her way through a path littered with volcanic rock, Clinton said she "wanted to see for myself what was happening here."
Clinton flew to came to Goma, the regional capital of war-pocked of the eastern Congo, aboard a U.N. plane over the objections of some top aides who worried about her security and logistics for the visit. Clinton is the first U.S. secretary of state to visit the city, according to the State Department historian's office.
The United Nations has recorded at least 200,000 cases of sexual violence against women and girls in the region since conflict erupted in 1996, something Clinton deplored as "one of mankind's greatest atrocities" before she arrived.
The figures, Clinton told a group university students in the Congolese capital of Kinshasa on Monday, are "astonishing and horrible." She urged the youth of Congo to mount nationwide protests against such abuses and said she would push the government hard on the issue.
Clinton said Tuesday that the people of eastern Congo were still suffering from a "reign of violence" at the hands of rebel groups and the national army, which in January launched a U.N.-backed campaign to pacify the region.
Rights groups have called for a suspension of the operation, which has displaced some 800,000 people from their homes and left hundreds of civilians dead.
Clinton said the U.S. is "very concerned about the civilian casualties, both deaths and rapes and other injuries, from the military action."
But she also said the U.S. supported efforts to eliminate the threat from insurgents and said the U.S. wants the Congolese military professionalized to prevent abuses from the government.
Earlier in the day, Clinton delivered a strong message to Congolese President Joseph Kabila when they met in a tent at a compound in Goma, on the shore of Lake Kivu. Goma is the epicenter of an epidemic of gang rapes and other sexual crimes amid continuing fighting between the army and rebel groups.
After meeting with Kabila, Clinton said impunity for the perpetrators "runs counter to peace and stability for the Congolese people."
She said the U.S. will send a team of legal and financial and other technical experts to come up with specific recommendations for overcoming Congo's problems with corruption. She said Kabila had accepted that offer.
"We do support the efforts to end the militias and the violence they have visited so terribly on the people of the eastern Congo," Clinton said. But she added: "We believe that a disciplined, paid army is a more effective fighting force. We believe that more can be done to protect civilians while you are trying to kill and capture insurgents."
Although fighting has eased since a 2003 peace deal, the army and rebel groups, fighting over eastern Congo's vast mineral wealth, are still attacking villages, killing civilians and committing brutal atrocities.
Members of Kabila's armed forces are accused of taking part in the brutality, including gang rapes that have led to unwanted pregnancies, serious injuries and death to tens of thousands of women and girls.
Earlier this month, a leading human rights group demanded that Congo crack down on sexual violence often perpetrated by military generals and other top officers. It cited U.N. data showing that 7,703 cases of sexual violence by soldiers were reported last year.
Human Rights Watch said the Congolese authorities have failed to prevent the attacks and called on the U.N. Security Council to take tough steps, including travel bans, against individuals or governments that commit or condone sexual violence in Congo and elsewhere.
Monday, August 10, 2009
Secretary Of State Clinton in DR Congo
Clinton visits Congo on Africa tour
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer Matthew Lee, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 21 mins ago
KINSHASA, Congo – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton promoted democracy in the war-devastated country of Congo on Monday and drew attention to an epidemic of sexual assaults in its violence-torn east.
While in the Congolese capital, Clinton will visit a hospital founded by former NBA star Dikembe Mutumbo, a native of Congo, and will hold a town hall meeting.
On Tuesday, she plans to go to Goma where she will meet victims of horrific rapes and other sexual crimes committed by the military and rebel groups, many of which are fighting over the region's vast mineral wealth.
Clinton said in Kenya last week that she insisted on visiting Goma despite her staff's security concerns "to speak out against the unspeakable violence against women and girls in eastern Congo. It is the worst example of man's inhumanity to women and women are being used in conflicts."
On Monday, she told reporters traveling with her that she also wants to look at ways "to prevent the mining from basically funding a lot of these militias that are keeping the fighting going with all the attendant human rights abuses."
The United Nations has recorded at least 200,000 cases of sexual violence in eastern Congo since conflict erupted in 1996, at its height drawing in a half dozen of the country's neighbors, each greedy for a share of the region's rich mineral resources.
A 2003 peace deal reduced the fighting but both the army and rebel groups continue to attack villages and kill civilians.
More than 5 million have been killed and hundreds of thousands left homeless over the past decade, with brutalities commonplace in rural communities, including gang rapes, that have led to unwanted pregnancies, serious injuries and death to tens of thousands of women and girls.
Earlier this month a leading human rights group demanded that Congo crack down on rampant sexual violence perpetrated by military generals and other top officers.
Citing U.N. data that show 7,703 cases of sexual violence by the army reported last year, Human Rights Watch said the Congolese authorities have failed to prevent the attacks, most of which were on adolescent girls.
The group called on the U.N. Security Council to take "tough measures," including travel bans, and other sanctions against individuals or governments that commit or condone sexual violence in Congo and elsewhere.
On Friday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called for global action to stop government forces and armed groups from using sexual violence "like a grenade or a gun" to pursue their goals, including in Congo, Chad, Sudan, Burundi, Liberia and Sierra Leone.
Clinton's Congo stop is the latest in an 11-day journey through Africa to promote development and good governance and underscore the Obama administration's commitment to the world's poorest continent.
She arrived in Congo from Angola, South Africa and Kenya. She will also visit Nigeria, Liberia and Cape Verde.
By MATTHEW LEE, Associated Press Writer Matthew Lee, Associated Press Writer 1 hr 21 mins ago
KINSHASA, Congo – U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton promoted democracy in the war-devastated country of Congo on Monday and drew attention to an epidemic of sexual assaults in its violence-torn east.
While in the Congolese capital, Clinton will visit a hospital founded by former NBA star Dikembe Mutumbo, a native of Congo, and will hold a town hall meeting.
On Tuesday, she plans to go to Goma where she will meet victims of horrific rapes and other sexual crimes committed by the military and rebel groups, many of which are fighting over the region's vast mineral wealth.
Clinton said in Kenya last week that she insisted on visiting Goma despite her staff's security concerns "to speak out against the unspeakable violence against women and girls in eastern Congo. It is the worst example of man's inhumanity to women and women are being used in conflicts."
On Monday, she told reporters traveling with her that she also wants to look at ways "to prevent the mining from basically funding a lot of these militias that are keeping the fighting going with all the attendant human rights abuses."
The United Nations has recorded at least 200,000 cases of sexual violence in eastern Congo since conflict erupted in 1996, at its height drawing in a half dozen of the country's neighbors, each greedy for a share of the region's rich mineral resources.
A 2003 peace deal reduced the fighting but both the army and rebel groups continue to attack villages and kill civilians.
More than 5 million have been killed and hundreds of thousands left homeless over the past decade, with brutalities commonplace in rural communities, including gang rapes, that have led to unwanted pregnancies, serious injuries and death to tens of thousands of women and girls.
Earlier this month a leading human rights group demanded that Congo crack down on rampant sexual violence perpetrated by military generals and other top officers.
Citing U.N. data that show 7,703 cases of sexual violence by the army reported last year, Human Rights Watch said the Congolese authorities have failed to prevent the attacks, most of which were on adolescent girls.
The group called on the U.N. Security Council to take "tough measures," including travel bans, and other sanctions against individuals or governments that commit or condone sexual violence in Congo and elsewhere.
On Friday, U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon called for global action to stop government forces and armed groups from using sexual violence "like a grenade or a gun" to pursue their goals, including in Congo, Chad, Sudan, Burundi, Liberia and Sierra Leone.
Clinton's Congo stop is the latest in an 11-day journey through Africa to promote development and good governance and underscore the Obama administration's commitment to the world's poorest continent.
She arrived in Congo from Angola, South Africa and Kenya. She will also visit Nigeria, Liberia and Cape Verde.
Tuesday, August 4, 2009
Congo Should Be Africa's Brazil
Congo-Kinshasa: We Should Be Africa's Brazil
Ali M. Malau14 May 2009
Email|Print|Comment(1)
Share:
It's true that Congo is a disappointment, says Ali M. Malau, responding to There is No Congo, an article which advocates carving up the country described as 'a collection of peoples, groups, interests, and pillagers who coexist at best'.
But that's no reason to write off its potential to succeed as a nation-state of a country that should rival rising powers like South Africa and Brazil with its wealth of natural and human resources. Malau argues that Congo's failure is the result of a Western campaign to weaken it in order to 'perpetuate the systematic plunder of Congo's resources' by foreign interests. Since 1885, says Malau, the affairs of the Congo have never truly been left to the Congolese people. With a great deal of work and investment from its people, Malau believes Congo could still become a 'powerful engine for the development, and the industrialisation of the entire continent'.
Foreign Policy magazine recently published a rather disturbing article, There is No Congo, by Jeffrey Herbst of Miami University of Ohio, and Greg Mills who directs the Johannesburg-based Brenthurst Foundation. The article makes a case against Congo as a unified entity. As a Congolese citizen, I could not disagree more with their arguments, and I believe they warrant an appropriate rebuttal.
Their article is a perfect illustration of the flawed approach with which much of the so-called international community, and some scholars on Africa, have analysed the situation in the Congo since its nominal independence in 1960, and frankly, part of the reason why they never get it right. It is often not due to inaccurate facts, or lack of knowledge on the region, but more due to inadequate prisms moulded in the inside-think of Western-world-centric academia.
In my view, and to illustrate some of the points I am rebutting, the article boils down to the following citations:
' ... And indeed, for centuries, this is precisely what Congo's colonial occupiers, its neighbours, and even some of its people have done: Eaten away at Congo's vast mineral wealth with little concern for the coherency of the country left behind. Congo has none of the things that make a nation-state: Interconnectedness, a government that is able to exert authority consistently in territory beyond the capital, a shared culture that promotes national unity, or a common language. Instead, Congo has become a collection of peoples, groups, interests, and pillagers who coexist at best.
'The very concept of a Congolese state has outlived its usefulness. For an international community that has far too long made wishful thinking the enemy of pragmatism, acting on reality rather than diplomatic theory would be a good start.'
There is one general sense in this article that is right: The Congo has been a disappointment. With the vast swathes of fauna, flora, mineral, agricultural, hydroelectric, and human resources it inherited at its independence, one would expect the Congo today to rival, if not exceed, such rising powers as South Africa, Brazil, India, China, Korea, Singapore, Saudi Arabia or the UAE. Instead, as the article justly points out, the level of deliquescence in Congo today is almost unprecedented; not acknowledging that reality would be intellectually dubious.
Nevertheless, what is equally dubious, is the misdiagnosis of the root causes of the current situation. The authors of this article repeatedly, and I believe questionably, confuse causes and consequences, to support and justify a desire, long-held in certain circles, for the balkanisation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The authors point out the weakness of the Congolese central state in governing the vast country, without fully and honestly addressing the international geo-strategic reasons why that reality came to be. The authors point out the various secessions and minor uprisings during the past 40+ years to justify their diagnosis of the Congo. Yet they fail to shine a light on the multiple foreign state and corporate backers that participated in those early attempts at derailing the Congo. The authors claim that 'the Congolese government's inability to control its territory has resulted in one of the world's longest and most violent wars', without actually addressing the reasons why the government was - and still is - not able to control its territory in the first place.
My contention is quite simple. The current conflict(s) in the Congo, the deliquescence of the state, the lack of infrastructures and 'interconnectedness', are not merely unforeseen, pathological consequences of bad colonial and/or cold war policy gone awry. The current situation is a direct, calculated, and progressively manufactured result of a long-standing operation by Western nations to maintain a weak state in this vast mineral rich swath of land in the heart of Africa and perpetuate the systematic plunder of Congo's resources by various foreign interests, and their proxies in the local elite.
Seems far-fetched? Let us consider that, until proven otherwise, the Congo is a sovereign country, recognised as such by international law, the United Nations, and, in theory, every country on the planet. Yet despite that, over the past five decades, these very countries, (including supposed champions of the rule of law like the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Belgium, France and South Africa), have allowed their mining companies (like Banro, Freeport-McMoran, Anglo American, DeBeers, and others) to enter into odious contracts with corrupt elements of the leadership in Kinshasa, and worse, with murderous warlords, and near-genocidal militias, unhindered, and unpunished. Furthermore, several of these very countries and their corporations have provided the military, logistical and ideological support to the secessionist regimes in the 60s and 70s, Rwanda, Uganda, Angola, their proxy militias AND/OR their rival militias, thus destabilising and creating a de facto partition of the country, and further guaranteeing maximised profits through cheap/slave/child labour under warlords. That is not happenstance, but cold, calculated, predatory business planning. In fact, one only has to examine the history of the ties between the Oppenheimer mining magnate family of South Africa - which founded, and finances, the Brenthurst foundation that one of the authors of There is No Congo, Greg Mills, leads - and the various regimes and rebellions we have seen in the Congo, to understand how integral these foreign corporate and state interests are to the conduct of ANY business in the Congo.
I contend that it is not so much that there is no Congo; nor is it that the Congo as a country is not possible. I contend that since 1959, it was deemed too much of a potential threat to several world and regional powers, and to the coffers of their corporate acolytes, to allow the rise of a strong, large, potential Brazil-type power, in the heart of Africa. And we can see why. Let us consider the Congo today. Despite being one of the poorest, most badly-managed countries in the world, by virtue of its position and of its potential, the country is poised - should there be a great deal of change in leadership - to be a major guarantor of the development of a truly functional African continent, and African Union. As Herbst and Mills themselves justly point out, 'the country is the region's vortex'. Former South African President, Thabo Mbeki notes 'There cannot be a new Africa without a new Congo'. President Barack Obama himself rightly notes 'If Africa is to achieve its promise, resolving the problem in the Congo will be critical'.
Over the years, despite all the adversity the Congo faces, and despite the desires they secretly harbour to see the Congo disintegrate to begin annexing its pieces, its neighbours in the region were forced to recognise its central and crucial position for the advent of further economic development for the entire continent. As a result, despite currently being, admittedly, an economic drag on all of them, the countries of Southern, Central, and Eastern Africa have all secured some form of regional economic/political supranational alliance with the Congo, whether through SADC, CEPGL, CEEAC or COMESA (all groups that constitute regional clusters in the building of the larger African Union).
Relevant Links
Central Africa
Congo-Kinshasa
Sustainable Development
Peacekeeping
Conflict
There lies the issue for this country. Left to its own devices, a big, strong, unified Congo would be a powerful engine for the development, and the industrialisation of the entire continent. Herbst and Mills, I believe justly state that 'economically, the various outlying parts of Congo are better integrated with their neighbours than with the rest of the country'. But that is not in Congo's disfavour. Whether in terms of its abundant precious and strategic minerals, the tremendous amount of renewable energy that could be generated by the Inga dam project on the Congo river, the natural gas in Lake Kivu or the geo-thermal potential of the volcanic mountains in the east, the second lung of our planet that is its rainforest, or the extraordinary - and exhaustively demonstrated - resilience of its people, the Congo has everything to be the central pillar around which Africa rises. Should the people of the Congo find a way to build the infrastructure to interconnect its outlying parts, the country would instantly become the key piece in regional development. That prospect has always unsettled many, whose interests might not be as well served should there be a strong government, a functioning army and police, and rule of law.
Ali M. Malau14 May 2009
Email|Print|Comment(1)
Share:
It's true that Congo is a disappointment, says Ali M. Malau, responding to There is No Congo, an article which advocates carving up the country described as 'a collection of peoples, groups, interests, and pillagers who coexist at best'.
But that's no reason to write off its potential to succeed as a nation-state of a country that should rival rising powers like South Africa and Brazil with its wealth of natural and human resources. Malau argues that Congo's failure is the result of a Western campaign to weaken it in order to 'perpetuate the systematic plunder of Congo's resources' by foreign interests. Since 1885, says Malau, the affairs of the Congo have never truly been left to the Congolese people. With a great deal of work and investment from its people, Malau believes Congo could still become a 'powerful engine for the development, and the industrialisation of the entire continent'.
Foreign Policy magazine recently published a rather disturbing article, There is No Congo, by Jeffrey Herbst of Miami University of Ohio, and Greg Mills who directs the Johannesburg-based Brenthurst Foundation. The article makes a case against Congo as a unified entity. As a Congolese citizen, I could not disagree more with their arguments, and I believe they warrant an appropriate rebuttal.
Their article is a perfect illustration of the flawed approach with which much of the so-called international community, and some scholars on Africa, have analysed the situation in the Congo since its nominal independence in 1960, and frankly, part of the reason why they never get it right. It is often not due to inaccurate facts, or lack of knowledge on the region, but more due to inadequate prisms moulded in the inside-think of Western-world-centric academia.
In my view, and to illustrate some of the points I am rebutting, the article boils down to the following citations:
' ... And indeed, for centuries, this is precisely what Congo's colonial occupiers, its neighbours, and even some of its people have done: Eaten away at Congo's vast mineral wealth with little concern for the coherency of the country left behind. Congo has none of the things that make a nation-state: Interconnectedness, a government that is able to exert authority consistently in territory beyond the capital, a shared culture that promotes national unity, or a common language. Instead, Congo has become a collection of peoples, groups, interests, and pillagers who coexist at best.
'The very concept of a Congolese state has outlived its usefulness. For an international community that has far too long made wishful thinking the enemy of pragmatism, acting on reality rather than diplomatic theory would be a good start.'
There is one general sense in this article that is right: The Congo has been a disappointment. With the vast swathes of fauna, flora, mineral, agricultural, hydroelectric, and human resources it inherited at its independence, one would expect the Congo today to rival, if not exceed, such rising powers as South Africa, Brazil, India, China, Korea, Singapore, Saudi Arabia or the UAE. Instead, as the article justly points out, the level of deliquescence in Congo today is almost unprecedented; not acknowledging that reality would be intellectually dubious.
Nevertheless, what is equally dubious, is the misdiagnosis of the root causes of the current situation. The authors of this article repeatedly, and I believe questionably, confuse causes and consequences, to support and justify a desire, long-held in certain circles, for the balkanisation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The authors point out the weakness of the Congolese central state in governing the vast country, without fully and honestly addressing the international geo-strategic reasons why that reality came to be. The authors point out the various secessions and minor uprisings during the past 40+ years to justify their diagnosis of the Congo. Yet they fail to shine a light on the multiple foreign state and corporate backers that participated in those early attempts at derailing the Congo. The authors claim that 'the Congolese government's inability to control its territory has resulted in one of the world's longest and most violent wars', without actually addressing the reasons why the government was - and still is - not able to control its territory in the first place.
My contention is quite simple. The current conflict(s) in the Congo, the deliquescence of the state, the lack of infrastructures and 'interconnectedness', are not merely unforeseen, pathological consequences of bad colonial and/or cold war policy gone awry. The current situation is a direct, calculated, and progressively manufactured result of a long-standing operation by Western nations to maintain a weak state in this vast mineral rich swath of land in the heart of Africa and perpetuate the systematic plunder of Congo's resources by various foreign interests, and their proxies in the local elite.
Seems far-fetched? Let us consider that, until proven otherwise, the Congo is a sovereign country, recognised as such by international law, the United Nations, and, in theory, every country on the planet. Yet despite that, over the past five decades, these very countries, (including supposed champions of the rule of law like the United States, Canada, Australia, the United Kingdom, Belgium, France and South Africa), have allowed their mining companies (like Banro, Freeport-McMoran, Anglo American, DeBeers, and others) to enter into odious contracts with corrupt elements of the leadership in Kinshasa, and worse, with murderous warlords, and near-genocidal militias, unhindered, and unpunished. Furthermore, several of these very countries and their corporations have provided the military, logistical and ideological support to the secessionist regimes in the 60s and 70s, Rwanda, Uganda, Angola, their proxy militias AND/OR their rival militias, thus destabilising and creating a de facto partition of the country, and further guaranteeing maximised profits through cheap/slave/child labour under warlords. That is not happenstance, but cold, calculated, predatory business planning. In fact, one only has to examine the history of the ties between the Oppenheimer mining magnate family of South Africa - which founded, and finances, the Brenthurst foundation that one of the authors of There is No Congo, Greg Mills, leads - and the various regimes and rebellions we have seen in the Congo, to understand how integral these foreign corporate and state interests are to the conduct of ANY business in the Congo.
I contend that it is not so much that there is no Congo; nor is it that the Congo as a country is not possible. I contend that since 1959, it was deemed too much of a potential threat to several world and regional powers, and to the coffers of their corporate acolytes, to allow the rise of a strong, large, potential Brazil-type power, in the heart of Africa. And we can see why. Let us consider the Congo today. Despite being one of the poorest, most badly-managed countries in the world, by virtue of its position and of its potential, the country is poised - should there be a great deal of change in leadership - to be a major guarantor of the development of a truly functional African continent, and African Union. As Herbst and Mills themselves justly point out, 'the country is the region's vortex'. Former South African President, Thabo Mbeki notes 'There cannot be a new Africa without a new Congo'. President Barack Obama himself rightly notes 'If Africa is to achieve its promise, resolving the problem in the Congo will be critical'.
Over the years, despite all the adversity the Congo faces, and despite the desires they secretly harbour to see the Congo disintegrate to begin annexing its pieces, its neighbours in the region were forced to recognise its central and crucial position for the advent of further economic development for the entire continent. As a result, despite currently being, admittedly, an economic drag on all of them, the countries of Southern, Central, and Eastern Africa have all secured some form of regional economic/political supranational alliance with the Congo, whether through SADC, CEPGL, CEEAC or COMESA (all groups that constitute regional clusters in the building of the larger African Union).
Relevant Links
Central Africa
Congo-Kinshasa
Sustainable Development
Peacekeeping
Conflict
There lies the issue for this country. Left to its own devices, a big, strong, unified Congo would be a powerful engine for the development, and the industrialisation of the entire continent. Herbst and Mills, I believe justly state that 'economically, the various outlying parts of Congo are better integrated with their neighbours than with the rest of the country'. But that is not in Congo's disfavour. Whether in terms of its abundant precious and strategic minerals, the tremendous amount of renewable energy that could be generated by the Inga dam project on the Congo river, the natural gas in Lake Kivu or the geo-thermal potential of the volcanic mountains in the east, the second lung of our planet that is its rainforest, or the extraordinary - and exhaustively demonstrated - resilience of its people, the Congo has everything to be the central pillar around which Africa rises. Should the people of the Congo find a way to build the infrastructure to interconnect its outlying parts, the country would instantly become the key piece in regional development. That prospect has always unsettled many, whose interests might not be as well served should there be a strong government, a functioning army and police, and rule of law.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
