madmark.myfastforum.org

Mark · Site Admin Joined: 13 Nov 2007 Posts: 1052

Candidates Silent On Resource War In Congo

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/geo...ates-silent-on-reso_b_129267.html

Excerpt:

Musavuli told OffTheBus that the Obama campaign "wants to understand the root cause of the conflict and learn more about illegal exploitation of the resources." The Obama campaign also said it wants the United States to enter the international criminal court system.

The McCain campaign, "spoke more about Darfur and nothing about the Congo," Musavuli reports. "When asked questions about the Congo, they did not answer it directly."

"Genocide" is the driving word behind the "popularity" of the slaughter in Sudan. There are also seemingly clear cut "good guys" and bad guys, and the Arabs wear the metaphorical black hats in Darfur. Still, half a million people have died in Darfur vs. 6 million in the last ten years in DRC. Add to that number 15-25 million Congolese deaths during the rule of Belgian King Leopold, and the numbers defy imagination.

But pundits are unapologetic about perpetuating the silence surrounding DRC. In June of 2007, Nickolas Kristoff wrote an op-ed which explained why he would not focus on DRC.

"My answer has been that Darfur is a case of genocide, while Congo is a tragedy of war and poverty. And now that I'm here in Congo, I think that's exactly right. It's terrible to see kids dying here in eastern Congo of malaria, malnutrition and simple ailments like diarrhea. But there is still a big difference. Congo is essentially a tale of chaos and poverty and civil war. Militias slaughter each other, but it's not about an ethnic group in the government using its military force to kill other groups. And that is what Darfur has been about: An Arab government in Khartoum arming Arab militias to kill members of black African tribes," Kristoff wrote.

American media has not aggressively investigated the vast oil reserves under Sudan and its connection to lack of political will in this conflict. Leopold killed 25 million Africans in DRC because of greed. Are the deaths of 25 million any less than the deaths of 4 million because "greed' does not equate with "genocide" in the international lexicon? Or are the numbers just too big for rational minds to grasp without inducing an intellectual insanity?

Why should the American public care?

According to a GAO report: "In fiscal years 2006 and 2007, respectively, USDA, DOD, HHS, DOL, State, Treasury, and USAID allocated a total of about $217.9 million and $181.5 million for the DRC. About 70 percent of the funds supported humanitarian and social development objectives, and about 30 percent of the funds supported economic and natural resources, governance, and security objectives."