Are you ready for a new Campaign in the Congo?

[brakedwell]

More Sabre Rattling from Nu Labour. :ugh::ugh::ugh:

BBC NEWS | Politics | UK troops 'may be sent to Congo' (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7703765.stm)

[Logistics Loader]

Yet more "OVERSTRETCH" !!!!

(caps for effect)

[Door Slider]

Even if the army could rustle up a handfull of troops where would the rotary and AT support come from!!!

[Culio]

Maybe they could ask the people of Congo to help them :E

[Molemot]

The words "Belgian" and "Congo" come irresistably to mind....not one of our past affairs, and there are enough of those already, going to pot...

[Truckkie]

£42 Million a year in aid to the DR Congo:mad:

Better used for the NHS I say - leave them to it - we don't, and cannot afford, to get involved again.

[PPRuNeUser0211]

Now if I'm not entirely mistaken, is there not a well publicised exercise going on down somewhere in the african continent? rapid re-role... go!

[Fg Off Max Stout]

Trukkie, I agree entirely. The UK is bankrupt and charity begins at home. Look at the state of the NHS, Armed Forces, education etc. However, meanwhile, the UK sends millions in aid to India, an Asian superpower that is sending spacecraft to the moon (something that the UK space program never came close to). Perhaps they should now be sending us aid!

If the Labour Government is so keen and ready for an African jaunt, I have to wonder why we never took a stand in Zimbabwe until the terrifying cricket sanctions of this year. Sending troops in several years ago would have been the right thing to do as 'our own' were being butchered by a standard-African-issue genocidal racist dictator who was busy destroying a once prosperous country. So why is NuLab now appearing enthusiatic to get involved on the Dark Continent and leap to the defence of people with whom we share no cultural or historic links? Would it be cynical to think that the skin colour of the victims is more palatable to the leadership of our country than it was in Rhode... sorry, Zim.

[StopStart]

Despite the early departure of the Pprune outrage bus I for one would be more than happy to be involved in an op that perhaps prevented another Rwandan-esque massacre/human tragedy. Talk of overstretch and suchlike is irrelevant and pathetic. UK Plc could easily generate the forces for a short term op like this and i would happily lose another Christmas if it meant another one million people got excused being massacred.

I can't believe you bellends even work for the uk military.

[brakedwell]

StopStart

Short term ops like this nearly always turn into long term ops like the other two!

[Fg Off Max Stout]

Thanks for the acclaim StopStart. I felt like a little rant and was quite satisfied with that one, concisely managing to encompass a number of unrelated subjects in a single eruption.

However, my serious point is that if the UK can deploy in this case then it is unforgiveable that they turned a blind eye 500 miles further south for many years. Family friends with British passports were murdered and many more were driven out and lost everything. If we have to pick our battles, let's choose very carefully. That is all.

[Thelma Viaduct]

A just reason for war, no that'll never do. :=

[PICKS135]

even SWMBO who to be honest only hears me ranting about overstretch asked where the **ck does Brown think he'll get the troops from for this jaunt ?

I know we have cadets lets send them :ugh::ugh::ugh:

[brakedwell]

. . . . and where are the funds to pay for another imprudent military adventure going to come from?

[Two's in]

that perhaps prevented another Rwandan-esque massacre/human tragedy

Don't forget that through a masterstroke of spineless UK international policy combined with the usual UN corruption, 5 Airborne Brigade deployed to Rwanda in 1994 to help count the mutilated bodies and watch the Hutus and Tutsis kill a few thousands more of each other. The French actively supported the Hutus, who instigated the genocide, and the US chose to ignore it completely, so the UN sent body counters.

Nothing has changed in 14 years, the genocide has moved West a few hundred miles to another country, but the West are as powerless as ever to help because of the massive corruption and complacency at every political level.

Deploying a few hundred UK Undertakers would be more effective than sending Professional Soldiers to witness more tribal bloodletting.

[minigundiplomat]

Agree with Stop/Start to a degree, something should be done. However, Belgium contibutes very little militarily to the EU, and the Congo is their former stomping ground.
All for military intervention, but their are many nations with troops doing nothing at the moment. Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Greece, Italy and others are happy to slumber peacefully under the NATO blanket, but are slow to contribute (Standfast the German deployment to ensure the airfield at Kabul is safe for parties and beercalls).

[Grabbers]

Sod it,

It's freezing here at the moment. I'll go, leaving the trouble and wife to finish the decorating and I'll be back in time for Christmas with a nice tan and a line in original ethnic gifts.

As long as NATO or the UN don't get their gums into it and Commanders can command on the ground as required then we have a fighting chance.

Still, at least Gordy has called for an end to the violence. That'll help.:ugh:

[r supwoods]

Have they got any oil?

[Monty77]

Stopstart.

You are a tw"t, a bellend, and bottom-feeding ****** of the lower order.

That's it for now. You're not Russell Brand or Jonathan Ross?

[Sentry Agitator]

I would have thought that this sort of situation was exactly what the NRF was supposed to deal with. It would also give our NATO brethren the chance to show their mettle.

I'm with those who would like to avoid the mass murder of the innocent by the way. BUT - I also wonder where the resources would come from if it were to be UK PLC only again.

SA

[In Tor Wot]

NRF might be an option, however, which bits of it do we hold at the moment?

In addition according to NATO they don't do stuff south of the Tropic of Cancer . . . . here (http://www.nato.int/docu/basictxt/treaty.htm)

Notwithstanding StopStart's admirable sentiment, I'm not sure anyone other than NuLabour have any interest in sending troops into another African inter-tribal war. Unless of course you're trying to show what a fine example of a 'world leader' you are . . . . . . :hmm:

[Sven Sixtoo]

Isn't the political dimension precisely that we weren't the former Colonial Power, therefore we might be accepted as not entirely self-interested.

Which is exactly why Zimbabwe is off-limits to us.

Sven

[cazatou]

I know that I am getting a little long in the tooth BUT can someone please explain to me what there was in Post #9 by StopStart that elicited the reply at Post #19 by Monty 77?

[Sven Sixtoo]

You do have a valid question - a man volunteering for a military action to stop genocide seems to me to be in order?

Sven

[Ronald Reagan]

As a British voter and tax payer I say no to sending you guys in. We are currently fighting 2 wars with an army a little over 100,000 strong! We have about 20 boats in the Navy and 200 combat planes in the RAF! Plus the country is in economic ruin! Lets not get into something new unless there is considerable support from other nations.
Maybe they would have been better off had we made all Africa part of the British Empire forever and created real law and order for the population there!
Instead many of them moved to the UK and now fight their own tribal/gang wars on UK streets! Best use the army to sort them out first! Once a few have been put in front of a wall and shot the others won't be as keen to stab people!

[Grabbers]

Ron Reagan

Genius. Where do you stand on bigotry and hatred?

[Ronald Reagan]

I don't know. Maybe your right! It just seems every few years yet something else flares up in somewhere in Africa. We try the softly, softly approach and it fails or buys us a bit of time! Maybe this time we need to hit the bad guys hard! I have nothing against any innocent people anywhere. But with an Army of 100,000 men and we are already in 2 wars can we afford to get involved? We have a shrinking Army, Navy and Airforce already!
With regards the UK I believe in the death penalty thats all;)

[taxydual]

The BBC report

BBC NEWS | World | Africa | UK calls for urgent aid for Congo (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/7704237.stm)

Quote
The UN has more than 17,000 peacekeeping troops in DR Congo - the largest UN force in the world
Unquote

What do the 17,000 do?

[taxydual]

I may have part answered my own question from the above post.

A bit of research uncovers this (admittedly a couple years old)

The budget for MONUC

monuc.org: Budget ::: 26/06/2006 (http://www.monuc.org/News.aspx?newsID=11533&menuOpened=About%20MONUC)

Those figures are in US Dollars (not Dollars and Cents)

[Riskman]

What do the 17,000 do? What would you do with 17000 troops and an area 10 times larger than Afghanistan to cover?:ugh:

[VinRouge]

You could argue now us arrogant, good for nothing whites have been kicked out of Africa this is not our problem...

Indeed, I would very much like to witness a native African pick up a gun for the purpose of helping a fellow human being that is someone other than them self.

If the snot eating cyclops wants us in Africa, I suggest he pull us out of Afghanistan and Iraq first.

[thunderbird7]

If anybody believes we would intervene for purely humanitarian reasons, then just look at all the mineral resources available in the Congo. Stabilising the country would be in the interest of all the miniing conglomerates and whichever government organised it would surely benefit. However, it is a mammoth task in a country with no national infrastructure ie; not even roads connecting the major towns.

Hope Milly stays there :D - I bet the warlords are really scared of him.

[Solid Rust Twotter]

Ahhh, fresh meat. Bring it on.

I'm told you Pomgolians taste like chicken....:E

[cazatou]

I was almost tempted to remove AIDU from my IGNORE list just to see what pearls of wisdom and humanitarian concern he had contributed to the thread.

Upon reflection I decided that to do so would be a total waste of 2 minutes of my life.

Was I right or wrong?

[The Gorilla]

Stop Start.

If you want to spend another Christmas away, you can do it providing you don't spend a penny of my taxes.

And I did LXX famine relief in Somali in 93 for four months.. before you start.

We need to put our own problems at home right first and every time we go into an area to "help" we end up with hundreds of thousands of that countries population living in England!

On benefits or running dodgy taxis!

So not in my name ok??

:ugh:

[Avitor]

If there's mileage in it for Brown and nu lab during the dying months of his administration, you can start packing your kit bags.

Just hope he sticks to form and hands out a few £millions of 'our' money, we can well afford it! :bored:

[Beeayeate]

But we've no longer got the PR.9s to find the refugees!



:E

[Door Slider]

We dont need the PR9, just follow the sky news, bbc news crews etc etc

[StopStart]

:8
Whilst my initial post may have been a bit OTT I was, in my defence, a little "worse for wear". :ouch:

That said, I still stand by my assertion that we of the "developed" countries have something of a duty to help those that cannot help themselves. The vast majority of Africa is run by corrupt or incompetent folk who line their own pockets at the expense of feeding their people. Other than by direct military action or focussed sanctions there's generally neither the political will or popular support to sort those places out. Look at the disaster that is Zimbabwe. I personally don't think those sort of places deserve max effort from UK Plc over and above our own domestic issues.

At the other end of the scale we have situations like Rwanda and Dafur. Incomprehensible numbers of people slaughtered in staggeringly short periods of time. We in the West can stand in mute horror at the industrial slaughter of The Holocaust of Nazi Germany, hunt down those involved and commemorate the dead. Similarly with the mass graves of Bosnia. The authors of both these inhuman acts are however base amateurs when compared with the ruthless efficiency of the Hutu militias et al in Rwanda - the thick end of 1 million people in just under 100 days; that's gotta take some beating. I won't claim to be a scholar of the Rwandan Genocide however I have studied the subject at some length and believe I know what I'm talking about. Words fail me when I try and describe my distaste for the vacuous, spineless Western officials and governments that prevaricated and vacilated whilst up to ten thousand people a day were ruthlessly and efficiently slaughtered.

That was 14 years ago and how quickly people forget. If you genuinely believe that it's easier to sit back and watch from afar, tutting at those "frightful africans" chopping each other up again then so be it. I'm not a righteous do-gooder and in fact consider myself to be just to the right of Genghis Kahn in my political views, but I do still believe that we as civilised, right-thinking people have a duty to help those that cannot help themselves. Yes we're involved in two medium-scale ops and yes we're overstretched. It is my personal opinion, however, that the UK military could make a real difference to the lives of millions of people with only a relatively brief period of additional strain. There are also plenty of NATO countries with no taste for combat ops in Afghanistan etc that could pile in and be "a force for good" there.

Still, perhaps I'm a fantasist and we should in fact reserve our efforts for things like making sure the Olympic Games a great success.

I've always wondered if this had been a church in a western country and those bodies had been a different colour would we have been quicker to react?

http://religiousfreaks.com/UserFiles/Image/rwanda.church.jpg

Not accusing anyone of racism, just asking the question...


The Gorilla - you and the rest of the country's Daily Mail readership are entitled to your opinions and if I were to be involved in an operation that prevented another genocide I would happily refrain doing it "in your name".

Monty77 - genius post, good effort. Any luck getting the crayon off your monitor screen yet?

[ROSUN]

No oil, but plenty of this ...


http://tbn0.google.com/images?q=tbn:KzAr1hI2NSYm9M:http://picnic.ciao.com/uk/1710518.jpg (http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://picnic.ciao.com/uk/1710518.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.ciao.co.uk/Libby_s_Um_Bongo__Review_5527286&h=300&w=400&sz=28&hl=en&start=1&usg=__N5TtP34LTIdvNwGZGhjACZ3iUDI=&tbnid=KzAr1hI2NSYm9M:&tbnh=93&tbnw=124&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dum%2Bbongo%26gbv%3D2%26hl%3Den)

[Avitor]

:8
Whilst my initial post may have been a bit OTT I was, in my defence, a little "worse for wear". :ouch:

That said, I still stand by my assertion that we of the "developed" countries have something of a duty to help those that cannot help themselves. The vast majority of Africa is run by corrupt or incompetent folk who line their own pockets at the expense of feeding their people. Other than by direct military action or focussed sanctions there's generally neither the political will or popular support to sort those places out. Look at the disaster that is Zimbabwe. I personally don't think those sort of places deserve max effort from UK Plc over and above our own domestic issues.

At the other end of the scale we have situations like Rwanda and Dafur. Incomprehensible numbers of people slaughtered in staggeringly short periods of time. We in the West can stand in mute horror at the industrial slaughter of The Holocaust of Nazi Germany, hunt down those involved and commemorate the dead. Similarly with the mass graves of Bosnia. The authors of both these inhuman acts are however base amateurs when compared with the ruthless efficiency of the Hutu militias et al in Rwanda - the thick end of 1 million people in just under 100 days; that's gotta take some beating. I won't claim to be a scholar of the Rwandan Genocide however I have studied the subject at some length and believe I know what I'm talking about. Words fail me when I try and describe my distaste for the vacuous, spineless Western officials and governments that prevaricated and vacilated whilst up to ten thousand people a day were ruthlessly and efficiently slaughtered.

That was 14 years ago and how quickly people forget. If you genuinely believe that it's easier to sit back and watch from afar, tutting at those "frightful africans" chopping each other up again then so be it. I'm not a righteous do-gooder and in fact consider myself to be just to the right of Genghis Kahn in my political views, but I do still believe that we as civilised, right-thinking people have a duty to help those that cannot help themselves. Yes we're involved in two medium-scale ops and yes we're overstretched. It is my personal opinion, however, that the UK military could make a real difference to the lives of millions of people with only a relatively brief period of additional strain. There are also plenty of NATO countries with no taste for combat ops in Afghanistan etc that could pile in and be "a force for good" there.

Still, perhaps I'm a fantasist and we should in fact reserve our efforts for things like making sure the Olympic Games a great success.

I've always wondered if this had been a church in a western country and those bodies had been a different colour would we have been quicker to react?

http://religiousfreaks.com/UserFiles/Image/rwanda.church.jpg

Not accusing anyone of racism, just asking the question...


The Gorilla - you and the rest of the country's Daily Mail readership are entitled to your opinions and if I were to be involved in an operation that prevented another genocide I would happily refrain doing it "in your name".

Monty77 - genius post, good effort. Any luck getting the crayon off your monitor screen yet?

Jolly good. :bored:

[hudjunkie]

Stop Start, well said that man. I have to be honest and say that Moron77s post did miff me, but I just couldnt be ar$ed to reply to the biffer. However your eloquent and heart felt response has moved me to take a stand and put fingers to keyboard for once. Gorilla get back in your box, we at the coalface will take the strain. You can sit back with your fat feet up, tut tutting saying not in my name :mad:. Stop Start with you all the way, which is probably more likely than you realise....:D

[glad rag]

I'm with post 43, go do something REALLY worthwhile but write your own ROE's first.

[The Gorilla]

Your opinion your entitled to it, no need to personal though. I am a Times reader now I am a suit! But when you are there please don't bitch about a lack of kit! We only have limited funds for defence and no one really gives a toss. Some people think the BBC have dredged this up to deflect interest away from the Ross fiasco!

If Afrika be so important how come we haven't sorted out the small problem of Zimbabwewe yet?

Sometimes you guys in the military are your own worst enemies!!

:ok:

[KeepItTidy]

Well if they send me to Congo I at least want some up to date jabs first or is that too much to ask.

Hotels , Rates and a cheap Bar would be good as well :ok:

As long as them 3 things are in place the British military could take on anyone :ok:

[StopStart]

TG - the reference to the Daily Mail was merely driven by your rather Little Britain-esque comments about "all that lot comin' over ere, stealing our jobs and sponging off our benefits!" I personally hold rather firm beliefs on unbridled immigration and the ease with which the unscrupulous can take advantage of our lily-livered welfare state but I don't believe that's an excuse for a trip off the moral high ground to stick our heads in the sand at the beach.

What I don't like in your original post, and I'm 99.99% certain you didn't mean it, is the inference that by us saving some poor sod and his family from being butchered with machetes we run the risk of said fella then rocking up at Dover a week later to blag a house and benefits. Slightly dodgy ground morally? To save a possible few quid on the welfare state we'd rather look the other way whilst the machetes are unsheathed? Apologies to Mr Eddie Izzard but "Cake or death?" "Er, death please. No wait! Cake!" No brainer, surely?

If Afrika be so important how come we haven't sorted out the small problem of Zimbabwewe yet? I'm not suggesting we sort out all the ills of the world. The systematic destruction of an economy by a fruitcake despot, whilst generating much human tragedy, is a world away from state radio telling everyone to pop next door and kill their neighbours kids oh and while they're at it who's up for massacaring the local girl's school? Refreshments and transport provided.

Sometimes you guys in the military are your own worst enemies!!
Yeah, that conscience will be the death of me....

[StopStart]

However, my serious point is that if the UK can deploy in this case then it is unforgiveable that they turned a blind eye 500 miles further south for many years. Family friends with British passports were murdered and many more were driven out and lost everything. If we have to pick our battles, let's choose very carefully. That is all.

Fg Off Max Stout, your earlier comments deserve a response but this is, I believe, a matter of scale. I don't believe one can say we should ignore a genocide because we didn't react to an series of murders, no matter how tragic. 20 white deaths vs 900,000 black ones? That's one hell of an exchange rate. Whilst the murder of anyone, regardless of passport colour, is to be abhorred approximately 1200 UK passport holders were murdered here in the UK last year. Should we bomb London?

Additionally and as alluded to by others, there is the problem at the ease with which a UK intervention could turn pear-shaped very quickly with the "former-colonial-power" card being played against us. There's no way any op down there would be a short term one so you're correct - we need to pick our battles very carefully. I don't know what the answer to Zimbabwe's ills are off the top of my head but I just don't think we can use that as an excuse to do nothing elsewhere....

[Trojan1981]

StopStart,

You obviously have a lot of time on your hands at the moment!
Good posts though:ok:

Words fail me when I try and describe my distaste for the vacuous, spineless Western officials and governments that prevaricated and vacilated whilst up to ten thousand people a day were ruthlessly and efficiently slaughtered.

The leaders of western nations will only intervene in a conflict if it suits their economic interests. Most ordinary people are horrifed when told about the horrible retribution meated out to the people of East Timor after the '99 independence vote. They find it hard to belive, however, that the TNI were supported by the government, military and arms manufacturers of The UK/USA/Australia from before the '75 invasion. Then the Oz govt had the gall to take the moral high ground in '99.

Suck eggs, I know;
There is a disconnect between the sentiment of the general populace and the prerogative of government. Government will rarely, if ever act simply in the interests of humanity. This is a big part of why I left the military and discourage others from joining.

[Fareastdriver]

I agree with stopstart in a way but the Congo is not a British problem, it is a mainland European problem because the Belgians ran it before, not the Brits.

Zimbabwe is a different kettle of fish. As an ex-Rhodesian who has known friends of all colours murdered I know that they need all the help they can get but military action is not the answer. The situation, however you dress it up, is not the same.

In all African countries plus a lot more in the Far East, Central and South America a considerable amount of the country's wealth ends up in foreign bank accounts or property and Zimbabwe is no exception. Should the West take on Zimbabwe then it would be the first of a long list.

Nigeria has been a major oil exporter for decades yet the vast majority of its population are on the breadline, the same for Venezuela and Indonesia. Advanced Middle Eastern coutries are entirely dependant on what the leader decides to hand out. Democracy and accountability as we know it are non-existent.

The United Kingdom has been fortunate in that the various tribes have been seperated by national borders with the unfortunate exception of Northern Ireland. Europe has been dissected and re-assembled for centuries and its history is full of massacres of people in the wrong place at the wrong time. National boundaries in Africa were imposed by the colonialists and cut across innumerable tribal boundaries. It is too easy for a corrupt government to pass the blame for their shortcomings onto another tribe within their jurisdiction.

You can send as many peacekeepers and spent as much money as you like for years and when it stops you can pat yourself on the back. But unless you change the way the countries are run then as soon as you walk out it will start all over again.

[2port]

Stoppers

Have you been doing reading and writing courses, there are words there that never used to be in your vocabulary.
Good posts though, but having been to both The Congo and DR Congo I think it will take a lot more than 17000 peacekeepers and a herc load of rat packs to sort out the mess.
I'd go again though, given the chance.

2P

[Pontius Navigator]

A problem with European peace makers is that they can be seen as invaders by both sides.

UN intervention OTOH can mean that African nations can provided peace keepers with the developed nations footing the bill. For the UN to intervene there must be recognised genocide. In Rwanda there was a political will by the US, amongst others, to deny that there was genocide thus stopping UN intervention.

I don't know Africa to any great extent but I can read a map. The DRC would comfortably cover the whole of the western European peninsular, ie south west of the Polish border and including all the blue bits. Just how many troops and how much air support would be need just to sustain the troops?

From the CIA World Facts Book there were 66 million peoples with a median age of 16. There is only 6 cu m of water per head per year.

I know we could say it is impossible so we should not waste resources and lives or that whatever we can do would only be a sticking plaster.

Let us assume that European and UN troops are used. How many would be needed, how would you depoly them?

[CirrusF]

Well I'm with StopStart on this. There is a UN peace-keeping mandate to uphold peace in Congo. If the existing UN force (made up mainly from poorly equipped and trained African Union troops) is inadequate for the job, then if we want to maintain our permanent place on the UN Security Council, and our generally good worldwide reputation, then we should be at the forefront of reinforcements.

If Afrika be so important how come we haven't sorted out the small problem of Zimbabwewe yet?

Because there is no UN mandate to do so. Whilst I am sure Britain and probably France would support a UN mandate to intervene, China would almost certainly veto, and US would also probably veto. There is virtually no chance of getting a UN mandate to intervene.

[Epimetheus]

Just to reinforce PN's post, when the EU launched its 4000-strong op into Chad/Central African Republic last year, the UN made it clear that follow-on forces in one region would have to have black, and not white, faces. The African Union is keen to be seen patrolling its own back yard, without white intervention on the ground. Capabilities, effect etc are a whole different debate though...

[Fareastdriver]

Because there is no UN mandate to do so

You wouldn't get one either, irrespective of what China or the US thiink. It's not the UN's job to forcibly invade a country because its leadership have steamrollered it into bankruptcy even though there is political violence as part of it. An example I can think of is the Solomon Islands where the SI government appealed for foreign assistance to retake control of the country. The Australians and New Zealanders did, and they are still there.

[Avitor]

It's all academic isn't it! Nice to read the views of those in the frame but, as always, they will do as they are told. :=

..unless things have changed! Have they? :confused:

[StopStart]

Trojan1981 - The leaders of western nations will only intervene in a conflict if it suits their economic interests
Never was a truer word spoken :( however I think failure to act yet again would actually play against them politically, with or without there being any tangible economic return. Repeated failure to act over any of the myriad tragadies that together make Africa what it is does, I suspect, have a cumulative effect on the populace of, say, the UK. That can then be used as a political weapon by the opposition etc with which to beat the Government. I rather cynically agree that no Government will ever go out of it's way to do anything on a purely humanitarian/philanthropic basis; there is always at least one eye on the polls (obviously) and perhaps another on their own, personal standing and job security. With that in mind, perhaps the fear that doing nothing may harm the standing of the Government in the eyes of the electorate may prompt them into action. Who knows.

I think my original grumbling was directed at those on here, supposedly in the military, who seemed unable to see past the end of their own noses. Perhaps not everyone in the military shares my view that there's to more military life than just "blowin' **** up" and that we, as a force, have more to offer than just our gridsquare redecoration and landscaping services.

2port - it will take a lot more than 17000 peacekeepers and a herc load of rat packs to sort out the mess
You're not wrong fella :) but how much do the various factions involved in all the lunacy there count on us thinking it all too hard? They're not the 3rd Shock Army and could be fairly easily disabused of their militaristic notions with a few well placed PGMs and a demonstration of political and military willpower that this time we weren't going to simply be the ones sweeping up the dance floor after the party was over.

PN - this isn't about wading into the DRC as a whole as it is indeed an enormous place. The "troubles" (rubbish word) causing the current issues relate to a relatively small area around Goma, bordering Rwanda. Indeed the problems of today can be traced directly back to the fallout of the 1994 Rwandan genocide & subsequent routing of the Hutu army and their Interahamwe chums. I'm no strategist but, as stated above, a demonstration of intent backed perhaps limited military action against the belligerents might make them think twice. I suspect those with the most to gain there are relying on the West to vacillate as they have done in the past, leaving them to get on with their plans.

The UN cannot be seen to getting involved with the internal politics of countries unless mandated to. They won't get mandated to unless in very specific cases, one of which is genocide. This was how the US in particular wormed their way out of allowing the UN mandate in Rwanda to be expanded beyond treaty monitoring. The first few minutes of this clip (http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=68XlAMy0k-s) show the infamous State Department press conference where they squirmed out of using the word "genocide" to avoid having to get involved. If the west are prepared to go to that degree of semantic sleight of hand to avoid involvement then the UN will never get anywhere. That said, don't get me started on the UN... :zzz:

It's all very well for the UN to want to see black faces manning their African ops rather than white ones but concerns for the sensibilities of the locals shouldn't outweight operational need and/or expediency. This isn't to denigrate the African Forces, indeed the Sierra Leonean forces, for example, in UNAMIR in 94 were regarded as being very capable, reliable troops. They just didn't have the kit. We in the west can easily force multiply existing DRC MONUC forces with a just a little rotary/airlift/CAS if white faces are the ground are just too bitter a pill to swallow.

It's all academic isn't it! Nice to read the views of those in the frame but, as always, they will do as they are told.

Yup, it certainly is just all academic! As is pretty much everything posted on the pages of Pprune. The military will indeed just crack on and do what it's told.
That doesn't mean though that a few of us aren't to allowed to think that some of what we're asked to do is bollocks and that some of what we're not asked to do isn't :ok:

[Truckkie]

Didn't the mighty US of A come a cropper trying to sort out a similar problem in Somolia? Being 'peacekeepers' in the middle of a civil war alongside ineffective UN troops?

There has to be a concerted effort from all the UN parties - I would suggest that european troops would be seen as invaders and would probably make the situation worse and maybe unite the warring factions.

I don't think we can get involved in a purely 'humanitarian' role in this part of the world - life is cheap and I for one don't want any pictures of 'Black Hawk Down' style incidents with British troops.

The UN is a toothless tiger - it's up to the AU to sort out their own backyard. We neither have the will or the resources to contemplate becoming involved in the Congo.

[taxydual]

Only a thought. I know it's a total non-starter, God only know's why I'm writing this, but....

How about this for a solution.

Re-write the borders of African countries on a Tribal basis rather than an enforced colonial/geographical base.


Let the tribes sort it out.

[Pontius Navigator]

PN - this isn't about wading into the DRC as a whole as it is indeed an enormous place. The "troubles" (rubbish word) causing the current issues relate to a relatively small area around Goma, bordering Rwanda. Indeed the problems of today can be traced directly back to the fallout of the 1994 Rwandan genocide & subsequent routing of the Hutu army and their Interahamwe chums.

The UN cannot be seen to getting involved with the internal politics of countries unless mandated to. They won't get mandated to unless in very specific cases, one of which is genocide. This was how the US in particular wormed their way out of allowing the UN mandate in Rwanda to be expanded beyond treaty monitoring.

My OU course made that point and even used an audio clip from Bill Clinton expressing his regret at not taking action when he could.

We in the west can easily force multiply existing DRC MONUC forces with a just a little rotary/airlift/CAS if white faces are the ground are just too bitter a pill to swallow.

The crucial word here is west and the use of helicopters from those countries not committed elsewhere.

[angelorange]

For those interested in the Congo pre Rwandan genocide have a read of King Leopold's Ghost by Adam Hochschild (SBN-13/EAN: 9780618001903; ISBN-10: 0618001905) and now a documentary film: King Leopold's Ghost (http://www.kingleopoldsghost.com:)

"n the 1880s, as the European powers were carving up Africa, King Leopold II of Belgium seized for himself the vast and mostly unexplored territory surrounding the Congo River. Carrying out a genocidal plundering of the Congo, he looted its rubber, brutalized its people, and ultimately slashed its population by ten million--all the while shrewdly cultivating his reputation as a great humanitarian. Heroic efforts to expose these crimes eventually led to the first great human rights movement of the twentieth century, in which everyone from Mark Twain to the Archbishop of Canterbury participated. King Leopold's Ghost is the haunting account of a megalomaniac of monstrous proportions, a man as cunning, charming, and cruel as any of the great Shakespearean villains. It is also the deeply moving portrait of those who fought Leopold: a brave handful of missionaries, travelers, and young idealists who went to Africa for work or adventure and unexpectedly found themselves witnesses to a holocaust. Adam Hochschild brings this largely untold story alive with the wit and skill of a Barbara Tuchman. Like her, he knows that history often provides a far richer cast of characters than any novelist could invent. Chief among them is Edmund Morel, a young British shipping agent who went on to lead the international crusade against Leopold. Another hero of this tale, the Irish patriot Roger Casement, ended his life on a London gallows. Two courageous black Americans, George Washington Williams and William Sheppard, risked much to bring evidence of the Congo atrocities to the outside world. Sailing into the middle of the story was a young Congo River steamboat officer named Joseph Conrad. And looming above them all, the duplicitous billionaire King Leopold II. With great power and compassion, King Leopold's Ghost will brand the tragedy of the Congo--too long forgotten--onto the conscience of the West."

[Mr-AEO]

StopStart,

Rather late in the day to pitch in, but felt I had to say that I fully agree with your posts. This whole situation is on an unimaginably large scale and if things get ugly, there could be a genocide like the world has never seen. The prevarication and willy waving that the so called 'developed countries' are now engaging in sounds like echoes of the Rwandan genocide. To be honest, the UK sending a handful of troops, or some equipment is hardly going to make a difference, but it may well make the politico's sleep as night, and subdue some people into believing they can have a Happy Christmas whilst their country does good. I refer back again to the Rwandan genocide when the UK sent out clapped out Bedford trucks as a method of disposal, and then claimed to be 'helping', it was only in the R.O.P that the dismal US, UK and French efforts were shown for what they were.

If people are in doubt as to the provenance of any improved future UN mandate then read Romeo Dallaire's book called 'Shake Hands with the Devil' (http:////www.amazon.co.uk/Shake-Hands-Devil-Failure-Humanity/dp/0099478935), but be warned as it is harrowing. The poor sod has tried to take his own life several times since returning from Rwanda as the Head of the UN Peackeeping mission.

[StopStart]

I don't mean to bang on but......:eek:

Trukkie
Didn't the mighty US of A come a cropper trying to sort out a similar problem in Somolia? Being 'peacekeepers' in the middle of a civil war alongside ineffective UN troops?
Similar? No. A cropper? Yes. Peacekeepers? No. The UN mission (UNOSOM I think) was more about peacemaking and nation building. The US, operating mainly outwith the UN structure, set about hunting down one bloke (Aideid) which ultimately led to the so-called Battle of Mogadishu we all know from the films. It was a fear of similar images of dead US troops being dragged through the streets (along with broader, geopolitical issues) that led the US to dig their heels in over Rwanda. Both Clinton and Albright now acknowledge they were wrong - having seen both apologise on film, it goes way beyond trite political contrition.

I would suggest that european troops would be seen as invaders and would probably make the situation worse and maybe unite the warring factions.

That's a little simplistic and, given the likelihood of the factions ever uniting, very unlikely. European troops could be talked up into "white devils" by the various random generals etc but they're not preaching to a very large audience and certainly not on a national scale. You are correct to state that the UN is by and large a toothless tiger but it is worth noting that we in the west generally keep it that way. It has been suggested that keeping the UN force at low levels in Rwanda actually in some ways contributed to the subsequent violence. Those involved assumed, correctly, that the UN had neither the stomach nor the resources to stop what they had planned. How right they were.

PN -
The crucial word here is west and the use of helicopters from those countries not committed elsewhere.
And there are a lot of them not committed elsewhere. Overstretch here doesn't mean the same in Europe, Australia, NZ, Asia etc etc Perhaps "west" was the wrong word. How about "developed nations"?

Angelorange - thanks for the link, just ordered it off Amazon :)

Mr AEO, you're correct that is indeed a very good yet harrowing book. The poor sod was well and truly hung out to dry by the petty-minded bureaucracy and ineptitude of the UN.
I'd also recommend Linda Malvern's book A People Betrayed (http://www.amazon.co.uk/People-Betrayed-Role-Rwandas-Genocide/dp/1856498301/ref=sr_1_7?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225753130&sr=8-7) (the paperback's a bit cheaper mind... :uhoh: )

[West Coast]

Should we bomb London?

If you guys promise to burn down Washington again, we'll take out Downing Street for you.

As to Somalia, my travel agent the US Marines sent me there for an extended holiday. The mission started out simply as a humanitarian one then mission creep eeked in to the lexicon and we stretched further and entered the civil war.
The beginning stages were quite successful as the famine was in large part man made via feudal turf wars. A technical blocking a bridge stopping food shipments because a "tax" wasn't paid is no match for a Cobra gun ship. Then some genius in the UN (and the one in the White House as well) decided that nation building was the word of the day. We all know how it went from there.

I don't know if it's the right thing for your lot to head to Africa, for you to decide. What I do take a degree of exception is to some posters who view a UN mandate as the legitimation of a mission. As if moral clarity is somehow crystallized and the path forward clear via UN vote. Not advocating war by fiat, but the moral authority to act exists because of the circumstances of the particular mission and not via political decree.

[StopStart]

Whilst no particular fan of the UN personally, the blue beret and/or mandate does offer an element (thin veneer?) of legality to the act of pitching up in someone's garden, possibly uninvited, to sort his problems out. It's easier to turn a nation against a single "invader" than it might be to do so against "the world".

but the moral authority to act exists because of the circumstances of the particular mission and not via political decree.

The morality or otherwise of a mission depends entirely on where you stand politically/ethnically. The Hutus of Rwanda believed they had the moral right to massace the Tutsis in revenge for past injustices. Had they brought that viewpoint to the UN debating chambers I suspect they wouldn't have got a look in.

No mission will go ahead without political decree, no matter how moral it may be. An arse-covering politician will get as much backing as he can for his mission to maintain a legitimacy on the world stage. Running it by the UN is a handy way of doing that. Whilst they never specifically received a mandate to invade Iraq, George Bush et al didn't half spend a lot of time trying to get one...

The UN is an imperfect, monolithic, bureaucratic organisation that hoovers up money and churns out little effect in return. Notwithstanding that it does provide a global forum for nations to debate issues and provide a legitimacy to operations (humanitarian or otherwise) that might otherwise provoke further conflict where people only sought to bring peace and relief.

It's a different matter I guess if you consider yourself to hold the moral authority without discussion and are militarily powerful enough not require any legitimacy to act wherever you see fit.....

[West Coast]

No mission will go ahead without political decree, no matter how moral it may be.

Well, yes and no. My heartburn lies with the UN. One must only look to the Balkans in the past 18 years or so to see the UN has abdicated it's global responsibilities to regional entities such as NATO.

It's easier to turn a nation against a single "invader" than it might be to do so against "the world".

I understand the point you're trying to make, but the devil is in the details. Nations with polar opposite foreign policy goals in the UNSC are going to at a minimum barter their votes and at worst are going to veto anything they find counter to their goals. Think back to the physical absence of the Soviet ambassador during the vote over sending UN troops to Korea. Had the USSR not been boycotting the meetings, the UN resolution to provide military assistance to South Korea likely wouldn't have been approved.
I'll leave the morality of the war for others to argue, but only by the absence of one voting member of the UNSC did the will of the majority prevail.

[Fareastdriver]

Carrying out a genocidal plundering of the Congo, he looted its rubber, brutalized its people,

Yoy can't believe all you read.. Rubber is natural only to the Amazon basin. It wasn't until 1876 that the first seeds were smuggled/exported out of Brazil to London. First plantations were in Ceylon and then Malaya but it took a decade or so before the they became established. From then on Belgian Congo rubber would have been a colonial import.

[BEagle]

A technical blocking a bridge stopping food shipments because a "tax" wasn't paid is no match for a Cobra gun ship.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

That is, regrettably, the only real way of dealing with such corrupt, feuding 'people' intent on taking their primitive tribal issues into the 21st century. Any 'Aid' will just go straight into a corrupt official's pocket and any food will merely end up being sold by profiteers.

By the way, was the Technical persuaded to move before the Cobra needed to make its point more obviously?

Why is NuLabor so keen on interfering in the Congo when they've done the square root of f**k all about Zimbabwe?

[Pontius Navigator]

UN has abdicated it's global responsibilities to regional entities such as NATO..

No this is more likely a political-military reality.

Few countries possess peacemaking forces that can project power - Russia, China, NATO. Others such as India and South America might be able to provide regional peacemaking.

Many African countries might also be able to provide regional peacemaking powers but more likely used as peacekeepers.

I think many of you are indeed arguing that intervention by a small number of well-equipped developed country peacemakers can have a great effect.

This must be well managed as some peacemaking countries do not field peacekeeping forces.

[mr ripley]

Dr Congo has probably the largest source of untapped minerals in the world. The mineral of choice is Coltan, which most people have not heard of but try googling it. I am sure we are all using it in one form or another.

Other stuff: Gold, Diamonds, Oil, Copper, Cobalt.

Instability in DR Congo allows the countries around to nick the stuff with or without the help of locally sponsored groups.

MONUC varies in ability, Bangladesh, India, Uraguay have all been involved.

In 2003 the EU started an Op as the Uraguay troops were not coming out of barracks and were allowing some pretty nasty things to happen on their patch.

Countries involved in the Op were on the ground France (Marines and SF), Belgians (Medical), Sweden (SF) plus a few minor players. UK (Engineers)
In the air France (Mirage F1CR, Atlantique, Puma, Gazelle, C130, C160), South Africa (Puma), Canada (C130), Brazil (C130), Belgium (C130), UK (C130). And the French also used Mirage 2000 and AAR from Chad.

At the time it worked, sorted out the area and handed over to some more robust MONUC troops.

I would like to think it could be done again and personally would support involvement.

[ORAC]

The Times: Miliband admits UK may send troops to bolster UN peacekeepers in Congo

David Miliband, the Foreign Secretary, admitted today that Britain may have to send troops to bolster the UN peacekeeping force in violence-torn Congo.

Mr Miliband's remark came as the Congolese Government rejected a rebel demand for negotiations, a demand backed by a direct threat to extend the conflict.............

After an emergency mission to the region this weekend, Mr Miliband and his French counterpart Bernard Kouchner are to brief EU colleagues at informal talks in Marseilles later today.

After pouring cold water yesterday on the suggestion that already stretched British troops could be caught up in a new overseas entanglement, Mr Miliband today conceded that such a move was possible. “We have not ruled anything out. It is possible,” he told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme........

[Sunk at Narvik]

Lets hope Miliband thinks it through and the lessons of Bosnia are applied.

I applaud the instincts of the interventionists here but have serious misgivings about any UK involvement. The Congo is massive, "peacekeeping" is not the game, the UN is proven a busted flush, NATO can't even commit to Afghanistan and no UN mandate will allow the use of force to defeat one or other of the sides.

The only solution is recolonisation by a power with the manpower and political will to do it. Looking around I can't see any likely candidates.

I'm afraid that letting this run to a bloody conclusion may be the wisest move in the long run..."give war a chance" as someone once said. In the meantime turn off your TV's.

I'd be very happy to be proven wrong, but on the record from the early 90's onwards, I'm not hopefull.

[StopStart]

West Coast - the UN does become a bartering market of votes at times but surely a system that tries to accord some agreement between nations must be better than one that does nothing at all? The example you quote of Korea reveals some of the intricacies faced by the UN as the world entered the Cold War. Did the USSR absentee themselves so as not to reveal their hand in supporting the North Koreans? (albeit to a limited extent) Was the war itself a civil war and thus outside the scope of the UN charter that the USA et al wanted to act under? One could argue the relative merits or otherwise of the UN until one was blue in the face but I think that goes beyond the scope of the situation originally under discussion here. I still believe that the UN or a mandate from them lends a "legality" to wading into a country to help those that cannot help themselves and face death or privation through the criminal acts of others.

Fareastdriver - whilst I'm sitting here being a self-proclaimed expert in absolutely bloody everything :} I'm pretty sure that rubber is indigenous to the Congo region albeit a different type to that of the Amazon (seeds of which which, as you say, were exported to London and thence to Ceylon and Malaya).

BEags - you are correct in your assertion that military force must be applied in a determined and effective way if it is to have any effect. That way any intervention must have robust RoEs that give the troops the right and means to prevent and protect the innocent from a good ole fashioned African slaughtering. The section of Belgian troops stopped in Rwanda by militias were advised by their UN command structures not to resist and hand over their weapons as no one was sure of the legality of their position (despite being under fire from said militias for some time). That made it much easier to stick em in a room and machine gun them. Similarly UN observers had to do just that as locals were hacked to pieces outside their compounds. Any involvement in the Congo today must be backed by robust RoEs that prevent such lunacy being repeated.
with such corrupt, feuding 'people' intent on taking their primitive tribal issues into the 21st century
Er, Northern Ireland?

I think the topic of Zimbabwe has been discussed at some length and I still believe it's a totally different set of conditions.

PN - more often than not being equipped to peacemake is the required standard to subsequently peacekeep. As mr ripley points out, the op in 2003 to bolster MONUC brought a successful resolution at the time. The well equipped peacemakers then cleared off returning the generally poorly equipped peacekeepers and 5 years later we face the same problem.

Sunk at Narvik -
I'm afraid that letting this run to a bloody conclusion may be the wisest move in the long run..."give war a chance" as someone once said

Wisest move? For whom? You and your Christmas at home? The government and their preference to spunking billions on witless bankers and Olympic sporting venues? I suppose it eliminates the problem of having to clothe and feed all these bothersome folk in the future.. Any chance we could add the feckless, lazy and worthless folk we have here at home in the UK to that list?

In the meantime turn off your TV's

Worked last time eh?

http://executions.justsick****.com/wp-content/gallery/rwanda-genocide-massacre/rwanda_massacre10.jpg

As Confucious say:
To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Editor's Note: Apologies for my repeated insistence in banging on with this subject. Normal service will be resumed soon

[Sunk at Narvik]

Stop,

I don't disagree with you at all. We have one million fit healthy young people "not in education, employment or training" (NEET's) here in the UK currently in the welfare trap. Then we have another dreadful African genocide which requires substantially more than a regiment or two to achieve a lasting long term solution.

However, there is no will to join up the dots and do whats neccesary...to many "ism's" to overcome.

Forget the UN, its a complete waste of time, yet there is no appetite at all for painting bits of Africa pink again, even though thats probably the only thing that will save lives in the long term.

But what I wouldn't want to see is yet more of our soldiers lives being lost (or worse, remember what happened to the Belgian peacekeepers in Rwanda?) and another intervention that drags on year after year with people rapidly forgetting why they went there in the first place. It'd be Northern Ireland on massive grotesque scale. You can't just drop in for a month and be home for Christmas, you need to stay there and govern for two or three generations and even then...look at Kenya.

[OFBSLF]

The leaders of western nations will only intervene in a conflict if it suits their economic interests

We don't have enough blood and treasure to fight injustice across the world. It always surprises me how so many people vehemently oppose military intervention in situations where we have vital economic and strategic interests, and then turn around and just as vehemently argue in favor of intervening in civil wars where we have no economic or strategic interests.

[2port]

Referring back to my "it will take more than 17,000 etc etc"....

A geographical perspective:

Iraq is just under 200,000 sq miles in area.

Iran approx 600,000.

The good DR Congo is nearly 1 million sq miles - almost impossible to police I would wager.

2P

[West Coast]

I still believe that the UN or a mandate from them lends a "legality" to wading into a country to help those that cannot help themselves

Let me approach this from another direction. Yes, a UN mandate does add legitimacy. An absence of one however doesn't reduce moral imperative. The UN may not come to a consensus on a given crisis because of politics, but the continued suffering/famine/genocide has a compelling mandate in of itself.

[mr ripley]

DR Congo may be big

The good DR Congo is nearly 1 million sq miles - almost impossible to police I would wager.

But we are talking about localised violence. Goma is a problem due to the proximity to Rwanda. But what happens there does not effect so much Bunia, which is close to Uganda or Kisingani which is miles away or Kinshasa which is close to the other Congo.

It would not be wise to assume an Iraq or Afghanistan. Nationhood as alluded to before is secondary to tribalism (and now I am shooting myself in the foot as there are some similarities with Iraq and Afghanistan) however the borders are more fluid and there is much more intervention around the perifery than people realise.

SS, I do feel strongly about this like I think you do. I have seen the evidence of some appalling crimes in DR Congo. All the thugs respect force. In 2003 there was a lot of action that took place that taught the drugged up AK47 totting twats that they could not bully the innocent. With a proper mandate and appropriate ROE an aggressive intervention good do wonders.

IMHO

[StopStart]

Don't go me wrong folks, as I've said a couple of times I have a lot of issues with the UN but I would still maintain that they have their uses in situations where those intervening could be perceived as aggressors/invaders. A prime example would be Zimbabwe - the Brits rocking up there, on their own, to sort things out would not work "presentationally" and would create infinitely more problems than they set out to solve. That would truly become the neverending op....

West Coast, I'm in complete agreement with your point however there are only a few countries that are powerful enough to militarily impose a solution on a country on their own. You are correct when you say that the UN does not impart a moral authority - that rests with you and I.

2port, indeed it is but the current problems are confined to a relatively small border area. There is no intent/requirement to police the entire DRC, merely one to suppress rebel forces and bring relief to the refugees in the area.

The issues at stake here are the prevention of the starvation/genocide/call-it-what-you-will of a large number of innocent folk. This isn't about nation building, imposition of democracy, pillaging of mineral wealth, securing strategic advantage, toppling dictators or any other guns-blazing type ideas. "All" I'm advocating is a limited and focussed relief op with robust enough RoEs to ensure that incoming troops don't end up becoming the victims. If that op requires a couple of GRs to lob LGBs through some rogue general's bedroom window then so be it. It won't require, however, that we run up our flag over the rubble of it.

OBSLF - you are quite right, we don't have enough resources to police the ills of the whole world but should that mean we shouldn't do anything at all anywhere? If we consider ourselves to be a right-minded, developed nation then do we not have a moral obligation to something, no matter how small? I can't afford to build a £6M swimming pool at Headley Court. Does that mean that I shouldn't bother donating a tenner towards it?

On one hand some people will argue that history shows us why we shouldn't get involved whilst my personal opinion is that history shows why we must get involved and also provides the lessons such that we don't repeat the mistakes of the past.

[OFBSLF]

OBSLF - you are quite right, we don't have enough resources to police the ills of the whole world but should that mean we shouldn't do anything at all anywhere?
And how do we decide which to get involved in? Darfur? Congo? Uganda? Zimbabwe? Sri Lanka? Kashmir? Colombia?

Why should we go into the Congo and not Darfur? Why should we go into Zimbabwe and not Sri Lanka?

Undoubtedly, there are at least 10x as many conflicts ongoing across the world. There are conflicts in all of those countries with the resulting terrible suffering. The UK and the US are already overwhelmed with their current commitments in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere. The US economy is circling the drain. Our deficit spending is catching up to us.

Yes, there is terrible suffering in the Congo. It would be very difficult to stop. It would require a large number of troops (that we don't have) at the end of a long and difficult (read: expensive) supply line. Neither the UK nor the US can afford to intervene. Neither the US nor the UK have strategic or environmental interests at stake.

If we have learned one thing over the past 7 years, it is that there are limits to our power. If we are going to intervene militarily, we need to go in hard and fast, with overwhelming power. Doling out 5,000 troops here and 10,000 troops there for open-ended engagements in un-ending civil wars is the height of folly.

[Warmtoast]

I thought I'd add my two-pennyworth, having been there in 1961.


As a member of 99 Squadron I and my crew were on one of the three Britannia’s sent to Accra to fly the Accra / Luluabourg (now Kananga) / Leopoldville (now Kinshasa) / Accra shuttle in January 1961, the purpose being to return to Ghana troops who’d mutinied against their seconded British officers.

My logbook shows I flew the Accra — Luluabourg (Kananga) — Accra shuttle some three times — on 26th, 27th and 29th January 1961.

Background
The independent Republic of the Congo [formerly the Belgian Congo] was declared on 30th June 1960. Five days later on 5th July 1960, the army (the Force Publique) near Léopoldville mutinied against its white officers and attacked numerous European targets. Armed bands of mutineers roamed the capital looting and terrorizing the white population. This caused the flight of thousands of European refugees to Brazzaville (in the French Congo) and north to Stanleyville. The credibility of the new government was ruined as it proved unable to control its own armed forces with the result that the republic’s administration and economy collapsed leaving the whole country in a state of anarchy.
To add to the woes of the new republic there were violent inter-tribal clashes between the Baluba and Lulua tribes based around Luluabourg (Kananga) and Tshikapa in the diamond-rich Kasai-Occidental province in the south of the Congo. There was no love lost between the Baluba who were economically dominant over the indigenous and more numerous Luluas.
Belgium’s colonial history in the Congo is widely acknowledged to have been one of the cruellest and most vicious of all the colonial powers and its exploitation of their colonial subjects is probably unparalleled in colonial history. So understandably, with injustices and scores to settle, not only with their former officers, but with the colonial rulers and administrators and their families still present in the country, the indigenous Congolese troops and various tribal factions embarked on a spree of pillage, plunder, rape and murder. Things were not made easier by the genocidal rivalries between the various tribes and the declared independence on 11th July 1960 of the copper and uranium-rich province of Katanga in the southeast under the leadership of Moise Tshombe.
With the new republic in a state of anarchy, Prime Minister Patrice Lumumba asked the United Nations for help and as a result on the 14th July 1960, the UN Security Council authorised the deployment of UN-led military forces to help restore order. Among the peacekeeping troops sent to help keep the peace and quell the rioting and bloodshed was a contingent of Ghanaian troops led by British seconded officers who were deployed to Tshikapa south-west of Luluabourg (Kananga).
Sadly the Ghanaian troops as part of the UN Peacekeeping Force decided that they too would join in the general anarchy and joined the Congolese army in looting and plundering the villas of the former Belgian colonists still resident in what remained of the former Belgian Congo. When the UK officers seconded to the Ghanaian peacekeeping contingent in the Congo remonstrated with the troops under their command about this unacceptable behaviour, members of 3rd Battalion, the Ghana Regiment; objected to interference with what they considered perfectly acceptable [in their eyes] behaviour against the former colonial oppressors of the Belgian Congo and they too mutinied.
This mutinous behaviour by the Ghanaian contingent, theoretically in the Congo to keep the peace, was unacceptable to the United Nations (whilst in the Congo the Ghanaian troops were ipso-facto United Nations troops NOT Ghanaian) and the UN ordered that they were to be returned home to Ghana as soon as possible. Kwame Nkrumah, Ghana’s president was very unhappy with this and blamed the British seconded officers for his troop’s misbehaviour whilst in the Congo.
Although the Ghanaian troops arrived in the Republic of the Congo with kitbags, when they came back with us they were drawn up on the tarmac at Luluabourg with all the luggage accruements of well-heeled Europeans with smart suitcases, vanity cases, portable typewriters etc. and on one occasion they even expected us to load into the aircraft a number of very large, expensive and desirable radiograms, which we had to refuse because:

We knew they’d been looted and
We didn’t have space in the hold!General Sir Henry Alexander
I was on one of the last flights out of Luluabourg on 29th January and we brought out General Sir Henry Alexander, the head of the Ghana Defence Force, who Prime Minister Kwame Nkrumah bizarrely blamed for his troops misbehaviour. Various research papers refer to the sacking of Gen Alexander as Head of the Ghana Defence Force together with his seconded UK officers because of a dispute with Kwame Nkrumah about who actually controlled the Ghana Defence Force; but others read more into the Ghanaian’s misbehaviour in the Congo as being the catalyst on which to hang a case for the recall and dismissal of all the seconded UK officers from the Force.

Statistics
I made three trips in three different aircraft during the shuttle, and papers in the National Archives at Kew record that during the evacuation of the Ghanaian UN Peacekeeping Force from the Congo back to Accra in January 1961, some 12-plus Britannia shuttle flights took place between Accra, Luluabourg and return, in the process carrying some 1,370 Pax and 35,000lbs of freight.

In Retrospect
At the time of these trips to the Congo I’d been in the service for ten years and it caused me to think back to my first posting abroad in 1951 5 FTS at RAF Thornhill in Gwelo, Rhodesia (Zimbabwe) and to recall that the local travel agent in Gwelo was in the habit of arranging holidays to the then Belgian Congo and advertised these trips in “BUKA” the RAF Thornhill station magazine (I still have copies of BUKA which make for fascinating reading after 57-years). At the time the excellent European-run railways of Southern and Central Africa offered a cheap and reliable method of travel and getting to the Congo was relatively simple, albeit very time-consuming. From Gwelo the journey was south to Bulawayo, then north up to the Victoria Falls where one crossed into Northern Rhodesia (Zambia) continuing north via Lusaka and Ndola. At Ndola one joined the comfortable Belgian Congo railways Wagons-Lit train which then travelled to Elizabethville and then wended its way west to Luluabourg. Hotels in the Congo then were European-run and reputably clean and comfortable.
In the early 1950’s the attraction of a trip to the Congo was its uniqueness, as not many British in those days could have boasted of a journey to the Congo, what one did when there was not stated, although the travel agent’s publicity claimed it was possible to stay in continental-style hotels and visit pygmies in the jungle and watch hippos in the river. I didn’t do one of these trips but knew friends and colleagues who did and the returned exhilarated to have made such a journey.

“Blood River” by Tim Butcher.
I have read the recent book “Blood River” by Daily Telegraph correspondent Tim Butcher where he recreates and re-traces the route followed by H. M. Stanley’s famous 19th-century expedition along the Congo River. Extract here: Dangerous journey - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/arts/main.jhtml?xml=/arts/2007/05/26/smcongo26.xml&page=1)

Comments
What is so strange and daunting about the Congo in the 21st -century is that history there appears to have ground to a halt and has started juddering backwards. Pol Pot tried to achieve the same thing in Cambodia, whilst Robert Mugabe is doing his spirited octogenarian best in Zimbabwe, but in the DR Congo, the process of “undeveloping” has been going on for decades. The results are surreal. As Butcher comments in his book — parents struggle to explain to wide-eyed children what cars and motorbikes used to look and sound like, travelling the country’s 111,000km of roads. Today, Butcher reckons, there is all of 1,000km of road left. From west to east is further than London to Moscow.
He discovers grass-grown railway stations where the station master still comes to work each day, puts on his ancient red and blue cap, sits in his chair and waits. No train has passed through for six years. He meets a man in the heart of the jungle, pushing, in the exhausting heat, a bicycle laden with 80 litres of palm oil. He is on a 600km round trip to sell it. The journey might take two months and make him $30, if he survives.
In even the biggest towns there are no newspapers, radio or television, no land lines or internet access. Nobody knows anything. Butcher’s map dates from 1961. Leprosy and malaria are back and flourishing, along with the new kid on the block, Aids. Rebel soldiers wear dark glasses, but use bows and arrows believing they have magical properties. Congo is hugely rich in mineral resources (the Hiroshima and Nagasaki uranium was Congolese), but this only compounds its agonies. Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi, Zimbabwe, Chad, Angola and Namibia have all fought to grab their share — so much for pan-African solidarity.

Finally
The quintessential question about Africa that has been mulled over and discussed by academics, intellectuals and observers ever since the colonial powers withdrew is: “Why are Africans so bad at running Africa?” — There just doesn’t seem to be a logical or sensible answer.


Some photos from my album.

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/Jan1961-Luluabourg-GhanaTroops1.jpg

3rd Battalion Ghana Regiment – Jan 1961

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/Jan1961-Luluabourg2Medium.jpg

Luluabourg – Ghanaian Troops - Cases for loading – Jan 1961

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/Jan1961-LuluabourgGeneralAlexander1.jpg

General Sir Henry Alexander — January 1961

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/BankNote.jpg

A pretty worthless 10-Frank Belgian Congo Bank note (still in my collection).

http://i145.photobucket.com/albums/r231/thawes/TimesreportofDisturbences.jpg

As reported in the press.

[StopStart]

OBSLF - My question still stands though, hard decision or just not bother making one at all? The world is riven with conflict and human suffering but I'm afraid I find the viewpoint that there's just too much of it to bother doing anything, no matter how small, about it a bit callous and isolationist. I suppose we could go the whole hog - DfID's foreign aid budget is about £6 billion a year, why bother with that? £6bn spent at home would build a lot of schools and clinics here. Surely £6bn is a drop in the ocean compared to £248bn owed by the world's 47 poorest nations? Why bother? So they might kill another 900,000 Africans? There's another 880 million sub-saharan africans kicking around so it's just 0.001% of the total; probably won't be missed. No point bothering trying to stop that then really.

The examples of strife torn countries you quote cover the whole gamut of worldly ills - humanitarian disaster, civil war, rebellion, insurrection, fruitcakery and simple criminality. Yes people are dying everywhere but the politics, size of forces involved and sheer unfeasibilty make intervention by UK/NATO/the boy scouts nigh on impossible. That is just a harsh reality of life.

A decision to get involved in a humanitarian/interventionist op must be based primarily on what you can actually offer and what, if any, benefit your action will have, ideally without getting all your blokes killed in the process. There is also the political "what's in it for me" factor. No one is suggesting we send a brigade or a division into the Congo with an Iraq style crack-on-and-give-us-a-bell-in-a-year-or-two type plan. I'm certainly not advocating invading the place and driving Challengers up the palace steps, but instead just putting enough forces in place to avoid what history has shown us is probably going to happen again. Perhaps helping to avert a humanitarian disaster also makes the Govt look good? Raises their standing on the world stage and diverts eyes away from unpopular ops elsewhere?

I don't hold these views because I feel we need to assuage some great national guilt nor do I think we should get involved so we can be righteous crusaders, Robin Hooding it through Africa, freeing the poor from oppression. I agree we have problems at home that need sorting but without being some sort of dreadful socialist I find it difficult to equate some dole sponging loser fretting about their 52" plasma telly and if there'll be enough left over for micro-chips for the 10 kids, with some poor african peasant fretting about him and his family getting their heads cut off. I'm just a simple, career military bloke who has spent the last 15 odd years trash hauling to all manner of war zones and disasters. I regularly marvel at the huge amounts of cash, men and materiel we tip into generally fruitless endeavours and often wonder if perhaps we directed a small percentage of our efforts elsewhere could we actually make a real difference to people's lives rather than just bombing their vegetable patches?

[BEagle]

Sorry Stoppers, but the simple fact is that most of Africa has gone down the pan since they were granted independence.
http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a341/nw969/Internet/zxzxz.jpg

Greed, corruption and tribal hatred have taken over. It's very non-PC to mention the c-word (colonialism), but you only have to read the post immediately preceding yours to get the true picture regarding daily life before and after independence. Zimbabwe was once a wealthy country, it is now ruined. South Africa? Well, "They've f*cked up Paradise" was one of the more polite comments I heard - from someone who now has armed guards keeping thieves out of his house if he ever goes away.....

Short of invading the place, imposing colonial rule and locking up corrupt officials, any hand-wringing well-intentioned UN intervention will be a total waste of time and effort in the ex-Belgian Congo. Genocide will continue, as will corruption, because re-colonising such African states will never happen.

As for African attitudes, I recall the account a school friend (who lived in Malawi, one of the more successful emergent states) in 1966. His family employed various locals, one of whom was the 'House Boy'. They paid him absolute peanuts, so I asked why they didn't pay him a better wage, given that he was such a loyal, hard working chap.

"Because he'd be killed" was the answer. "If the word got out that he was paid more than any other House Boy, another would kill him and then apply for his job."

Fortunately my direct experience of sub-Saharan Africa extends only to Senegal, Sierra Leone and Botswana; these are decades if not centuries ahead of places such as the ex-Belgian Congo. A few UN statements, offers of aid and 'peacekeeping' troops will have absolutely no effect.

Sad, but unfortunately true.

As for the dole scounger, I agree. The UK disease of living off credit and debt has to be stopped - credit card bills, for example, should be paid off by the end of the following month unless the debtor has an agreement in place. That's what happens in places like Germany; I recently had to pay £2500 to buy an airline ticket and yet my minimum credit card payment needed at the end of the month for a bill of over £5000 was only £25 - this astonished my German colleagues. I always budget for this, but your dole scrounger will scrape up £25 and keep paying interest payments on the balance, yet will probably never pay off the balance. Ready access to credit MUST stop - those jackals of white collar crime who make a living off the ignorance and misfortune of others should be ashamed of themselves. How often have you received junk mail offering yet another credit card, for example?

[cazatou]

Just This Once

40 years ago, perhaps even 30 years ago, the UK and other Western Nations could have intervened under a UN mandate. Today, I doubt that the requisite UN mandate authorising the use of military force to control the situation would be forthcoming. The most one could expect is a UN sponsored force to provide a firm base from which evacuation could could be organised and protected.

What role British Military Forces could carry out would be extremely limited given the current level of Operations - and would, I feel, require the mobilisation (if only in part) of the remaining non committed Army Reserve Forces. Moreover the Air Transport Force (some of which is 40 years old) is already heavily committed; thus deployment and resupply by air would require the hire (or mobilisation) of Civilian Air Transport. Unlikely with a General Election starting to loom over the horizon.

We do not need another ill - equipped, under resourced, spur of the moment "Operation" designed to show off a Certain Person's "Statesmanship" prior to the announcement of a General Election.

[cazatou]

JTO

I agree, but WE do not make the decisions as to where British Forces are deployed.

That is done, at the moment, by the "Man from Kirkaldy". Forgive me if I assume that any such decision would be based on Electoral- rather than Humanitarian - considerations; particularly with a Bye-Election pending in the Constituency next to his.

[Fareastdriver]

Beagle’s post really sums it up. My father was an instructor at RAF Heany, near Bulawayo from 1951-1953. I lived there and went to school there. In 1957 my father emigrated back there when he retired and I joined them. I was called up for my National Service (six months training followed by three years weekend camp once a month) and went back to Heany, now called Llewellan Barracks.. There were three hangers there which were used by the Rhodesian Ministry of Agriculture to store maize. The project was to have a seven year reserve in stock in case of a series of droughts. When I left in 1960 to join the RAF they had built it up to two years. When Rhodesia became Zimbabwe there was five years reserve.

Within a year it had all been exported, privately.

A friend of mine bought 5,000 hectares of bush and turned it into a ranch. I helped him to clear the land. A Caterpillar D6 and 100yds of anchor chain. Wrap the chain around the biggest tree, pull it taught, then drive around in a big circle tearing up all the scrub and termite hills. By then the tree was nine parts worn through so you just nudged it over with the blade. He built a 200yard dam for year round water, ranch house and forty two family chalets for his workers. On top of that was a school with two teachers all for free. He spent Rh₤8,000 importing two Brahmin bulls from the USA to cross with the Afrikaner Longhorn and he built up a herd of 1,200. Every year the local African farmers would bring their mangy animals round where a vet would impregnate them with semen from the Brahmins to improve their stock.

He was murdered by the so-called veterans. The ranch has now gone back to the bush.

I went back there a couple of years ago. I expected it to be a shambles but it surpassed that. Beggars were virtually unknown when I was there before but now the country was full of them, crippled. Not from land mines or wounds but deliberate shattering of limbs. I looked at a petrol station price sign and I thought at the exchange rate then it wasn’t too bad. The sign showed the price when they last sold petrol, two years before. At Victoria Falls (the wife wanted to see it) the hotel was packed for a ‘local government conference’ and it took a very short time to ascertain that everybody involved was on a gigantic freebe. There was no petrol in Vic Falls, even the police had to drive across to Zambia the refuel their vehicles. On all flights, domestic or international, you have to pay a departure tax in $s, €s or ₤s. It goes into a white bag, thence to Mugabe.

She who has to be obeyed wanted to go on the Blue Train so we went to Pretoria. In my previous youth in Rhodesia I worked for the Netherlands Bank of South Africa and I spent six months as a courier. Having forecast five outsiders on the Bulawayo tote I had a 1959 Galaxy with twin 4 barrel carbs and all the trimmings. I used to drive all over South Africa with documents and the odd bars of bullion. Quite a lot sometimes, but not too much otherwise the SA customs would notice the rear springs compressed a bit. Petrol was 1/9 a gallon and they paid me a shilling a mile so a trip to Durban and back was about ₤90 profit, three times my salary. When the wife and I arrived in Pretoria I went to an old suburb where some friends lived in typical Dutch gabled bungalows. You could not see the houses any more. They were surrounded by high walls with razor wire and signs stating that the property was protected by some security company and they would be there in five minutes. I knew a restaurant owner from my previous time so I decided we would have dinner there. The hotel would not let us out of the door until they had arranged a REPUTABLE taxi. The same when we left the restaurant. On the Blue Train we got held up on the outskirts of Johannesburg. The suburban carriages beside us had a big sign either side of the doors. IF THIS CARRIAGE IS EMPTY GO TO ANOTHER ONE.

In Cape Town it is relatively secure so we could do the Table Mountain trick. The taxi’s meter was all smashed up. I asked the driver why. “I was robbed and they smashed the meter trying to get money out of it.” I rented a car to drive along the coast to Durban and thence to Jo’burg. There was a very emphatic warning from the car hire people when they knew I was dropping it off at Jo’burg. I was told that within 200 kms I was to lock the doors and windows and not stop for anything until you reach your hotel, not even a police car. This was in reference to the blue light gangs who rob and rape anybody unfortunate enough to stop for them.

The Cape Province scenery had changed little apart from the roads were better. We stopped for the night at a place call Wilderness, popular with Rhodesians as a seaside holiday resort. It hadn’t changed. The restaurants were full of whites eating and the blacks were in the kitchen washing up. The beach used to have high fences segregating the beach between whites, coloured and blacks. The fences had gone but the posts were still there, so were the whites, coloured and blacks in the same old places. The next day was the only time I can recall being really frightened. I was driving through the Transkei in the gathering dusk with a fuel gauge slowly going down to zero. When a filling station came into view with all the lights on it was like the gates of heaven.

The hotel in Jo’burg was like a prison camp. We stopped at the gate, twelve foot high with razor wire like the fence. The gatekeeper came up to the car followed by a guard with a sub machine gun who job was to look after the gatekeeper. When he was satisfied the gate rolled back like something from Star Wars. The same getting out, the only way was a plastic card from reception as proof that you stayed there.

A rape every six minutes, a murder every fifteen, statistics inconceivable fifty years ago. Unless something changes drastically it will only get worst.

[chappie]

i have to say that the concern regarding overstretch runs through many facets if we are to go and help the people of congo, but this environment will be far from benign. therefore if we are going to help, and it's not my ability or right to say whether we should or shouldn't, are we going to use what little left we have lying around to send there. For example would this be an operational mission or would it be a routine mission? if it's operational we surely don't have enough AT platforms to send out let alone send the ones designated for routine deployment only? this is not posted to harp on about the foam issue with hercs but to highlight that as has happened situations occur internationally very quickly and if all that is left are the unprotected ac to use, then you guys will not be protected. this really is of grave concern to people.

[OFBSLF]

StopStart:

Once again, you are completely avoiding the issue. Yes, terrible things are happening in the Congo. And in Darfur. And Somalia. Zimbabwe, etc., etc.

We don't have enough blood and treasure to stop them all. When you look at the military in the US and UK, you'll see that the cupboard is bare.

The Congo is a huge country. Pacifying it would require large numbers of occupying troops, who would be vulnerable to guerrilla style attacks. Many of our high-tech advantages (night vision, UAVs, satellites, etc.) don't work as well in the jungle as they do in the desert. This would be an open-ended commitment -- we would be occupying the country for decades to come.

There will not be a military solution to the strife in the Congo. It must be a political solution. 100,000 western troops in the country isn't going to result in the emergence of a competent, honest, and peaceful government. It would still be a corrupt, violent !@#!@hole. Only now they would be blaming all of their ills on the white imperialists.

Given the imperial history in Africa, it is safe to say that we would wear out our welcome rather quickly.

[CirrusF]

OBSLF - My question still stands though, hard decision or just not bother making one at all? The world is riven with conflict and human suffering but I'm afraid I find the viewpoint that there's just too much of it to bother doing anything, no matter how small, about it a bit callous and isolationist. I suppose we could go the whole hog - DfID's foreign aid budget is about £6 billion a year, why bother with that? £6bn spent at home would build a lot of schools and clinics here. Surely £6bn is a drop in the ocean compared to £248bn owed by the world's 47 poorest nations? Why bother? So they might kill another 900,000 Africans? There's another 880 million sub-saharan africans kicking around so it's just 0.001% of the total; probably won't be missed. No point bothering trying to stop that then really.



A significant cause of third world poverty (and our own immigration issues) is our (ie US and EU) protectionism of our agricultural industry. We artificially lower the cost of home-produced food, and thereby penalise foodstuffs from the developing world. We are committed to "globalisation" where it suits us, but refuse to consider globalisation where it does not suit us - eg by lowering barriers to food imports.

Corruption is another substantial impediment to development, particularly in Africa. We are probably to blame for that too, as we introduced consumerism and materialism to Africa rather than investing in their institutions and educational system. If you examine the social structures of virtually any African tribe or community, you will find them exemplary in their social code, until we turned up a few centuries ago and ruined them.

Despite the travesties that we (and the other European colonial powers) vested upon our colonies, it did not stop us from expecting them to fight for us in two world wars.

So I think that we are very much more in debt to them, than they are to us.

[StopStart]

OBSLF - re-read my posts fella, you're completely failing to grasp what I'm advocating. I know we can't solve them ALL and I'm not even beginning to suggest that. To avoid repeating myself for the third or fourth time just re-read what I've already said and then compare it to what you've just said. 100,000 troops? No. Occupation? No. It is actually possible to provide relief from suffering without turning large areas of desert into glass or jungle into charcoal. :ugh:

Chappie - noted. Aircraft, in limited numbers, would be available and would be suitably equipped for said mission. Deficiencies would indeed be of grave concern but none more so than to the folk like me that would be flying it.

BEags, caz, Fareastdriver - I fully accept that Sub-saharan Africa is an utter disaster and that the Africans, or at least those that put themselves in power, are generally corrupt morons who should've been drowned at birth. I myself come from a colonial farming family (Keen-ya don'cha know. King's African Rifles baaaaa!) and we have plenty of tales of how, when left to their own devices, the africans have managed to completely screw up perfectly good farms, road, sewerage, water, train and even administrative systems. The reasons for that are manifold but the former colonial powers must bear a fair proportion of the blame for the subsequent disasters of independence. I personally believe that a form of re-colonisation is the only way to get a lot of these places sorted out. But as BEags says, mention that in public and the Thought Police snipers will pick you off in no time. It will never happen anyway and so a lot of these places will continue to spiral down into ever deeper pits of lawlessness, corruption, poverty and death. What's the answer? No idea. And if I did I wouldn't be sitting here arguing aimlessly about it on the internet!

I've only ever advocated a sticking plaster approach to the current problems of the DRC. I think too many of you are looking far beyond the humanitarian, tactical (if you like) level. Drill down through the global, strategic layers to that tactical level to get to where I see us/someone acting in a limited role. Limited but effective. And if that small effect dissuades someone from chopping up someone else then job done. Drag yourselves away from talk of colonialisation, invasion, mineral wealth, thousands of troops etc etc if you can and at least consider that perhaps a small number of suitably equipped troops can intervene and successfully deter widespread slaughter. As said, I'm not a fantasist or a human rights campaigner and no matter how fervent my "passion" for the subject I still retain the objectivity to be able to see what is possible militarily and what isn't. I'm not suggesting we magic an army out of thin air or liberate a fleet of aircraft from our collective backsides. I know all too well how stretched we are but I also believe there is flex in the sytem for what would be required. But I think it's probably time to change the record and give it a rest! :D

If at a lose end, try reading some, one or any of these books on your next det/route/whatever and you'll see these aren't stories of savage from mud hut A chopping up savage from mud hut B. These are stories of the doctor coming home to his suburban house, parking his car in the drive, wondering what's for dinner and what's on TV tonight only discover that his wife and kids are lying around said TV disembowelled and beheaded. Rock and roll. Try one of them and you might perhaps see where I'm coming from, why I appear to be slightly "off the deep end" and why I believe that if the events of 1994 are allowed to be repeated then we in the so called "civilised" west countries are no better than those carrying the machetes.

Conspiracy to Murder (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Conspiracy-Murder-Genocide-Linda-Melvern/dp/1844675424/ref=sr_11_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1225801675&sr=11-1)
A People Betrayed: The Role of the West in Rwanda's Genocide (http://www.amazon.co.uk/People-Betrayed-Role-Rwandas-Genocide/dp/185649831X/ref=pd_sim_b_1)
We Wish to Inform You That Tomorrow We Will Be Killed with Our Families (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Wish-Inform-Tomorrow-Killed-Families/dp/0330371215/ref=pd_sim_b_3)
Shake Hands with the Devil: The Failure of Humanity in Rwanda (http://www.amazon.co.uk/Shake-Hands-Devil-Failure-Humanity/dp/0099478935/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1225916366&sr=1-1)

[The Gorilla]

Stoppers,

I agree with your sentiments and your good intentions, but we are not responsible for all of the worlds ills. To put even a token force in would result in British deaths for a pointless cause and even more hours on frames we will never be able to afford to replace.

We are in the G8 heading towards third world status ourselves. Soon we will see much of what is going on far away happening in Eurasia. We need to save our over stretched resources for the future!

:(

[dead_pan]

DRC has been a festering basket case for many years now - was only a matter of time before it did a Rwanda.

Personally, I believe there are much more clear-cut reasons to intervene here than in Iraq and Afghanistan. Can't quite see us going it alone though like we did in Sierra Leone (is there any talk of a UN operation?).

[OFBSLF]

OBSLF - I know we can't solve them ALL and I'm not even beginning to suggest that.
You are suggesting that we solve this one. Why this one and not that one? Yes, the Congo is a tragedy. So is Darfur. So is Somalia. So is Colombia. So is Sri Lanka. So is Zimbabwe. We can not solve them all, so how are we going to choose between them?

You have provided no compelling reason that this one is more important than the others. Furthermore, we can not afford the two wars we are already in, and yet you are suggesting that we jump into a third. That is the height of folly.

To avoid repeating myself for the third or fourth time just re-read what I've already said and then compare it to what you've just said.

I have. There is nothing there other than your emotional response to this tragic situation. No logic at all.

100,000 troops? No. How many troops then? The Congo is a huge country. A few hundred troops in Kinshasa isn't going to stop the insurgency.

Occupation? No.That is the practical effect of sending in thousands of armed troops. You can call it "peace-keeping." You can call it "peace-making." You can use whatever weasel-word, politico-speak you want to put a happy face on it, but it would still, in the end, be an occupation. Our occupying soldiers would then be targeted by the insurgents.

Furthermore, putting in a bunch of western troops would not solve the underlying causes of the strife: tribal differences, poverty, brutality, corruption, etc. After a decade of intervention, and spending billions of dollars and the lives of many soldiers, those problems would still remain.

It is actually possible to provide relief from suffering without turning large areas of desert into glass or jungle into charcoal.Nice straw-man argument. I never said that nor implied it, as you well know.

[icarus sun]

Part of the congo problem lies with its neighbours. Both Rwanda and Uganda have a hand in the east congo. Their cronies are stealing and destroying the whole area. Rwanda needs more room,it is one of the most highly populated countries. It sees a nearby congo empty by comparison, so it is trying to move in. It is using its allies in congo to destabilise the region so it can go in and restore peace never to leave. Be aware that the presidents of uganda,rwanda, and the troublemaker in east congo are all friends. This is not like the tutsi/hutu genocide on rwanda. These three people are conspiring to annex part of east congo without the west interfering. They may well get away with it.

[Monty77]

Stopstart:

I've only ever advocated a sticking plaster approach to the current problems of the DRC. I think too many of you are looking far beyond the humanitarian, tactical (if you like) level. Drill down through the global, strategic layers to that tactical level to get to where I see us/someone acting in a limited role. Limited but effective. And if that small effect dissuades someone from chopping up someone else then job done. Drag yourselves away from talk of colonialisation, invasion, mineral wealth, thousands of troops etc etc if you can and at least consider that perhaps a small number of suitably equipped troops can intervene and successfully deter widespread slaughter. As said, I'm not a fantasist or a human rights campaigner and no matter how fervent my "passion" for the subject I still retain the objectivity to be able to see what is possible militarily and what isn't. I'm not suggesting we magic an army out of thin air or liberate a fleet of aircraft from our collective backsides.

You are talking bollocks.

F*ck off to the voodoo site. Or Don't. Nobody cares.

You'd go down quite well over at arrse.

See Ya!:O

[Data-Lynx]

Some may be missing one essential point: if this gets worse, we will go back - again. Thankfully it will not be me this time but I feel very strongly about the youngsters who may be nominated. UK Joint Forces have conducted NEOs of UK Entitled Personnel (UKEP) from Kinshasa and Brazzaville plus Lebanon, Asmara, Freetown etc and there are a multitude that were planned but not conducted yet such as Zimbabwe. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/africa/article2274453.ece)

One-quarter the size of the U.S, the DRC is bordered by the Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, the Sudan, Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, Tanzania, Zambia, Angola, and the Atlantic Ocean. Under a nasty piece of work called Mobutu Sese Seko, it was called Zaire. May I offer a quote from Ian Taylor's Conflict in Central Africa: Clandestine Networks & Regional/Global Configurations (http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/intrel/media/Taylor_conflict_in_Centra_Africa.pdf)?

It was the West’s manoeuvring that put Mobutu in power in 1965. After five years of turbulent independence, the Congo was thrown into crisis by the secession of mineral-rich Katanga. Outside forces, through either direct interventions or their subalterns, quickly rushed to defend their protégé Mobutu time and again from the uprisings of his own people. For instance, in 1977 and 1978, the country’s main opposition movement, the Congolese National Liberation Front (FLNC) (Front de la Libération Nationale Congolaise), operating from Angola, instigated two major invasions into Shaba (formerly Katanga) Province. Both affairs brought in outsiders to prop up Mobutu: from Morocco in 1977 and from France in 1978. ‘Classic colonialism is a relic but its absence does not mean that there are no ‘colonial’ interests to safeguard’ (Omari, 2001:253).

The careful cultivation of Mobutu as a ‘friend of the free world’ (http://www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/~/media/assets/www.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/foi/amin/amin13%20pdf.ashx), with its concomitant nod-and-wink to the construction of a highly personalised and kleptocratic regime is well known. The propping up of Mobutu’s decrepit regime by the West was a major crime against the Congolese people – but something which has been largely forgotten back in the metropoles. Mobutu’s downfall in May 1997 sprang from his failure to realise that whilst he had been useful during the cold war as an alibi for all sorts of intrigues within the continent in the name of fighting communism, after the collapse of the regimes in Eastern Europe, his extravagance and arrogance could no longer be tacitly ignored.

What is intriguing for any understanding of the political economy of contemporary Central Africa is the way that outside forces have maintained a steady grip on the post-Mobutu regimes. Indeed, outside involvement has further stimulated a set of regional structures, embedded in conflict, that now criss-cross Central Africa. Working hand-in-hand with global networks of extraction, local ‘big men’ have blatantly advertised the economic motivations underlying their participation [in conflict]. Intervening states have sought a direct share in Congo’s revenues from the extraction of mineral and other resources (Weinstein, 2000:17). These networks of violence and accumulation have built up a series of inter-linking connections in collaboration with extra-African forces that have constructed a set of transnational networks centred in Kinshasa and extending outwardly to Geneva, Brussels, Lisbon, Paris, Washington and elsewhere.

Responsibility for the insert in para 2 is mine, not the author. While no statement of a mission for UK Forces appears to have been agreed, perhaps exposure of international interests in the DRC may do more.

[OFBSLF]

Drag yourselves away from talk of colonialisation, invasion, mineral wealth, thousands of troops etc etc if you can and at least consider that perhaps a small number of suitably equipped troops can intervene and successfully deter widespread slaughter.How? And for how long? As described above the DRC is 1/4 the size of the US. Where are you going to station that "small number of suitably equipped troops" to deter widespread violence in a nation that large? And how long are you willing to sustain them there?

The insurgency isn't going to simply dissolve because we put in 500 soldiers. They'll simply attack where we aren't or wait until we get tired of the cost (in blood and gold). Given the lack of patience in the West, they won't have to wait long.

[Data-Lynx]

At the risk of dusting off the ISTAR threads, there is one other capability that will be missing from another African Op. In the last gasps of its life, the Canberra PR9 developed a most impressive capacity for tracking across huge swathes of the dark continent.
When threatened by their countrymen, the locals in towns and villages decamped into the bush. On some occasions, having settled into rough order humanitarian camps, they also suddenly moved out. In submissions to ministers, we had to admit that we could not find thousands of these Internally Displaced People (IDP).

As you are unlikely to shift satellites to cover a humanitarian crisis in Africa, I wonder how we would do it now?

[garp]

Agree with Stop/Start to a degree, something should be done. However, Belgium contibutes very little militarily to the EU, and the Congo is their former stomping ground.
All for military intervention, but their are many nations with troops doing nothing at the moment. Belgium, Germany, Hungary, Greece, Italy and others are happy to slumber peacefully under the NATO blanket, but are slow to contribute (Standfast the German deployment to ensure the airfield at Kabul is safe for parties and beercalls).

A bit unfair, an effort is made. Amongst others 4 F16's are now deployed in Afghanistan since last summer. Don't forget that our total population is less than that of London, just to put things in perspective. OTOH I think we, as in Belgium, have the moral obligation to intervene. Little to no doubt about that in my mind.