Published: November 11, 2008
Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/blog/2008/nov/11/congo-unitednations
"What can the UN do in Congo?
The UN faces an almost impossible task in Congo - as it did in the past
Human Rights Watch has called on the UN to send 3,000 more troops to eastern Congo to protect civilians caught up in the fighting between forces led by Laurent Nkunda, the renegade Tutsi general, and government troops.
The UN already has 17,000 peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo – the world's largest UN peacekeeping force. It sounds a lot but it is thinly-stretched in a country the size of western Europe.
The UN's reluctance to send in more troops is understandable. Its troops do not have much peace to keep and they have been sucked into the fighting, sending helicopter gunships to fight on the side of the government against Nkunda, who once again has threatened to take over the whole country. Civilians have turned against the UN, stoning UN offices because they are frustrated by the inability of peacekeepers to protect them from the fighting.
The UN does not have a happy history in the country. The UN's first mission in Congo, from 1960 to 1964, was a disaster, Tim Butcher declares in his fine book Blood River, an account of his recreation of Stanley's expedition on the Congo river. Peacekeepers, then as now, were drawn into the conflict, fighting against white mercenaries and Congolese rebels backed by Belgium.
At its peak strength, the UN deployed almost 20,000 troops in Congo, lost more peacekeepers in combat there than on any other peacekeeping mission before or since. The mission also cost the life of the UN secretary-general, Dag Hammarkjold, who was killed in a plane crash in 1961 on his way to Ndola in what is now Zambia where talks were to be held in a bid to bring about the cessation of hostilities.
The present UN force has been plagued by complaints common with any UN mission: lack of adequate equipment or a clear chain of command. Substitute Darfur – where helicopters are lacking – for Congo and the complaints sound depressingly familiar.
The UN secretary, Ban Ki-moon, has said he will travel to the region to press for an end to the catastrophic conflict. The world will wish him well, but Nkunda seems in truculent mood and in no hurry to end the fighting that has strengthened his position against a weak central government.
The UN has little choice but to continue with its thankless task and Ban's best hope seems to be to persuade the big powers to lean on Congo and Rwanda into ensuring that existing peace agreements are upheld.
In the meantime, Human Rights Watch believes more UN peacekeepers are needed urgently on the ground to prevent further civilian deaths.
"Progress on the political front has not been matched by progress to meet the urgent need to protect civilians now at risk," said Anneke Van Woudenberg, a senior researcher on the Congo for Human Rights Watch. "Negotiations offer promise of a solution in the Congo in the long run, but civilians need protection now from the killing and raping."
Response:
History repeats itself. The UN has a history of failing to provide peace in the Congo. This might be their chance to redeem themselves, protect the millions of displaced civilians, and provide the necessary peace, yet they do not seem to be doing so. Throughout the different articles I have analyzed, I have always questioned the role of the UN. I have been focusing heavily on the affected civilian population, especially because they are the most affected. I was questioning UN involvement, and their effectiveness, however, after reading this article, I now realize the task is harder than it seems. The UN is attempting to fix the conflict, however I do not believe they are carrying the correct approach. Even though 20,000 troops does seem like a huge number, it really is not when compared to the size of the entire country as a whole. As was mentioned in the article, the Congo is almost the size of Western Europe, which means the number of troops should be increased.
Even though it is their job to end this conflict and encourage negotiations between the two sides, I think their primary focus should be to protect the thousands of innocent people who are being raped, murdered, and kidnapped in a daily basis. African insurgents seem to posses incredibly violent and harsh war tactics, and I believe this is one of the reasons why the UN is seldom successful in achieving their job properly in this area, because protecting the affected population prevents them from working to solve the conflict itself.