Congo Warlord gets New York Times Stooge

The UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations has just approved another 3000 troops for MONUC, the contingent that is desperately trying to restore some semblance of order to the blood-slicked provinces of North and East Congo. This will bring the contingent up to about 20 000 soldiers, the largest in the world, although there are concerns that the reinforcements will not be deployed quickly enough. 

For those for whom African crises seem to blend into one another (most of us), this particular crisis springs from the sudden desire General Laurent Nkunda had to seize power in the country. He therefore started a rebellion that has to date killed thousands and forced a quarter of a million people to pack up their nonexistent shit and leave after their houses have been burned down or requisitioned by armed men ('displaced').

The news is, though, that the New York Times has printed an article by Jeffrey Gettleman about Nkunda and his rebels. This article asks if the rebels will be able to effictively administer the country, and remarks worriedly that they seem more comfortable 'in boots than in suits'. The whole article has a mildly comical spin to it, painting out the Congolese rapist-murderer-cum-rebels as bumbling ineffectual administrators, 'breathing a sigh of relief' after delivering their first uncertain speech to a crowd of 'displaced' civilians. You can't blame them, poor things, they're more used to forcing children to rape their sisters before forcing them to join their armed forces than they are giving high-falutin' political speeches.

Jeffrey Gettleman needs to remember, before writing an article about the comedy potential of a soldiers trying to do politics, that the crisis in the Congo is the most urgent and tragic one in the world, at present. If Laurent Nkunda had any legitimate political or democratic claim to the power-sharing talks he's demanding (which he doesn't), it would have been obviated by his blatant and consistent use of extortion, mass murder, gang rape, and gross violations of children's noncombatant status. Writing an article like Jeffrey Gettleman's article accomplishes two things. It gives Nkunda's rebellion an undue air of legitimacy by prompting speculation as to how they will rule (and the article itself inexplicably implies that Nkunda's rebels might be better for the people than the incumbent government), and it trivialises the entire affair. 

There is no reason to even consider legitimising Nkunda or his rebellion. Africa, and especially the DRC, desperately needs some sort of institutional stability, a solid framework in which political goals can be obtained. No one, especially no one at the NY Times, should be normalising this situation. A BBC report today told of a 17 year-old mother whose 3 year-old daughter had been gang raped. Maybe Jeffrey Gettleman would like to tell us the punch line in this story.