The "Cut and Run"

It seems that I can't turn on the news or pick up a newspaper lately without learning that, yet again, Joe Republican has accused Joe Democrat of attempting to "cut and run" in Iraq. From what I understand, the argument typically goes something like this -

Dem: we want troops home!
Rep: we can't just leave Iraq the way it is! mission not yet accomplished! you cutter and runner!

The recently reported 2500th death of an American soldier in Iraq no doubt fuels this debate and its incessant media coverage. It is indeed tragic that we have lost so many young people to a war that many of them didn't even want in the first place, and it breaks my heart to think of how many more lives will be lost before we will be able to leave Iraq.
While it is depressing to see new deaths reported every day, of both American citizens and Iraqis, I can't help but protest at the sheer amount of media coverage dedicated to this one specific issue and the political frenzy it has generated. As daunting of a figure as 40,000 deaths in Iraq so far is, (believe me, I am not trying to marginalize these sacrifices), it is even more daunting to me that newspapers could potentially be reporting more than 20,000 deaths in the developing world every single day.

In the Democratic Republic of the Congo alone, it is estimated that 1,000 people die every day from the effects of a war that was officially declared "over" in 2003. In less than one decade, 3.9 million people have died in the DRC according to the International Rescue Committee. Nearly 4 million people - half the population of New York City - gone. Imagine the effects losing that many people would have on the US, not to mention how much media coverage and international attention it would get.
Although a cease-fire has remained in place in the Congo for almost four years, the region is far from stable. Armed militias still wreak havoc on villages, and civilians are often forced to flee their homes, where their fate is sealed by the unforgiving terrain and the impossible climate of the Congolese jungles. If they manage to survive their trek through the jungle, they often die later on of malnutrition or malaria, and other diseases they encounter along the way.
The government troops sent to protect them are difficult to distinguish from the rebels, and are often accused of robbing the villages and raping its citizens. My professor last semester, Michael Schatzberg (who also happens to be one of my personal heroes) described this relationship in a simple question: "if there are two people who are starving, and one of them happens to have some food, and the other one happens to have a gun, who do you think will get to eat?" The UN, in an attempt to curb these effects, has stationed more peacekeepers in the DRC than in any other country, some 17,000 troops, but try to imagine just 17,000 troops patrolling an area the size of almost half of the United States. It's chaos. NGOs and humanitarian organizations do what they can, but in areas without an effective government or any type of infrastructure, it is difficult to implement humanitarian aid.

It's ironic to me that US policymakers are embroiled in debates over "cutting and running" while all of this is going on in the Congo. Many of Africa's poverty problems can be traced back to the cutting and running that occurred by most colonial powers immediately following independence...then cutting and running by the US and Soviets again just 15 years ago at the end of the Cold War. The Congo is a perfect example.
There is plenty of blame to go around for the current abysmal state of Congolese citizens, not the least of which goes to King Leopold II, and Belgium, and of course, the trusty US government. After the first leader of the Congo, Patrice Lumumba, was democratically elected by its citizens, the CIA assisted in his assassination in one of its many irrational strategies arising as an outgrowth of containment. In a blatantly political move to thwart the Soviets' simultaneous struggle for African support in the Cold War, the US helped to appoint President Joseph Mobutu, (aka: Mobutu Sese Seko) who agreed to align himself with the West. Surprise, surprise, Mobutu did not turn out to be the fearless democratic leader the US had portrayed him as. He plundered every bit of wealth he could from the country for his own personal gain until the first Congo Civil War began in 1996 - more than 30 years later. This led right into the Second Congo Civil War in 1998 that the country is still trying, unsuccessfully, to recover from.

Because they had such an important hand in securing Mobutu's rule, the US government was extremely concerned about his corrupt mishandling of the Congo, right? The US would never have appointed such a horrible autocrat and just continued to feed him money to keep him in power...right? Wrong on both counts. Not only did the US help to keep Mobutu in power throughout this 30 year period, completely disregarding the condition of Congolese citizens, but as soon as the end of the Cold War rolled around, the US seemed to forget that Mobutu and the DRC existed. Spreading Western democracy, or more accurately, aborting efforts to spread communism, was no longer the policy du jour, and the Congo no longer held any strategic significance. The US was just not interested anymore. Game over.

Sound like cutting and running to you, too?

So if we are even partially responsible, then where are the debates? Where is Joe Republican, or Joe Democrat for that matter, when it comes to the current state of the Congo?

I will be interested to see whether or not the international community will lend a hand on July 30th when the Congo is scheduled to hold presidential elections. According to a Congolese survey by the UN Regional Integration Network, Joseph Kabila, the current president, is favored to win because "Kabila has the money, so he will win."
There's democracy at work for you.
So far, there are scheduled to be 250 EU troops to monitor the elections. Compare that with the 23,000 monitors sent by various NGOs for the Iraqi elections. Many are skeptical that the elections will even take place. I am inclined to agree with them.
However, if the international community can take one eye off of Iraq for just a moment and perhaps turn it towards the DRC, and maybe (gasp), even attempt to do something to help, prospects could be better...I think it's worth a try.