News

Is the mainstream press ignoring the Congo because there is no ‘Islamic threat’?

By 22

I’ve returned recently from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the world’s poorest country, where fighting is flaring up again. More than 5 million people have already died since the Second Congo War started in 1998, making it one of the greatest humanitarian disasters anywhere since the end of World War 2.

My report in The Nation covers a number of subjects, including how a huge international mining company and a small group of Congolese officials may have cheated the Congolese people out of as much as $5.5 billion.

One big question; why is the mainstream Western press paying so little attention, as contrasted with, say, Syria or, in past years, Darfur? Jason Stearns, whose Dancing in the Glory of Monsters is a brilliant and comprehensive history of the Congo’s recent past, pointed out, “The New York Times, one of the few American newspapers with extensive foreign coverage, gave Darfur nearly four times the coverage it gave the Congo in 2006, when Congolese were dying of war-related causes at nearly ten times the rate of those in Darfur.”

Of course traditional Western racism and indifference to Africa plays a role. But I wonder if there’s not another, very 21st century explanation; the Congo, unlike Darfur, has no Islamic threat, whether real or invented. Possible proof of this theory is the two big recent Times stories (July 18 and 19) about the rise of jihadism in the northern part of the west African country of Mali; the first article was the paper’s front-page lead.

The Times stories on Mali are excellent. But why can’t they send at least one of their reporters to the Congo, which is no harder to get to? Does a group of Congolese have to proclaim an Islamic jihad to get a little more coverage?

Related Posts

22 Comments
Most Voted
Newest Oldest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

This is all about money. American companies profited and US officials benefited from the looting of Congo’s natural resources which is the backdrop for this genocide of 5 million blacks before our eyes?

0
0

James North, it is like you are channeling me. We agree completely. I consider the greater Congo war to be WWIII (Rwanda was part of the greater Congo war.)

The UN and African Union sent many peacekeepers (occupation armies using leftist lingo.) Many of them were hurt or died. The UN troops was reliant on close air support to avoid getting overrun. After that bad experience the UN and Africa seem to want to forget about the Congo. It is deeply sad and wrong.

Les, grow up. No one benefits from genocide in the Congo.

0
0
View Replies (4)

“traditional Western racism and indifference to Africa plays a role.” Substitute the “whole world including other Africans” for “Western”. No one seems to give a damn. It is wrong.

0
0

Very little changes. From 2009:

Though rising awareness of the violent malaise surrounding conflict minerals has led to some self-censorship by electronic companies and mineral processing plants, there remains a vibrant market for tantalum, especially in Eastern European and Asian technology industries. In 2002, the United Nations named 85 corporations (http://tinyurl.com/yce4l75) that were not in compliance with the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises in their mining related activities in DR Congo. According to the OECD, the guidelines pertain to “disclosure of information, anti-corruption, environmental protection, respect for core labour standards, protection of human rights and taxation.” The brutal exploitation of mining labourers by rebel and government forces in DR Congo clearly prohibits companies from dealing in the minerals obtained through such illegitimate means.

Despite these ethical guidelines and amidst rampant violence and human rights abuses, in the late 1990s and early 2000s, governments in need of minerals like cobalt and coltan encouraged corporations “to invest in and facilitate production of the needed materials,” according to a report by Dena Montague and Frida Berrigan published by the Arms Trade Resource Centre. During heightened violence, American Mineral Fields (AMF) brokered a $1 billion deal with President Kabila in 1997 allowing staggering access to DR Congo’s many mineral resources. In 1999, Citibank provided a $5 million loan to SONEX, the financial wing of the Rwandan insurgency group RCD. Other corporations and financial institutions in various industries, such as technology, mining, oil, and gas, engaged in similar activities whereby they obtained direct rights to conflict resources and financed or encouraged the exploitation of resources to increase cheap global supplies, often at the detrimental expense of Congolese workers.

Though general trends have suggested a lessening of foreign investments and corporate involvement in the war-driven industries of the DR Congo, a 21 June 2009 report published by Global Witness concluded that many American, European, and Asian companies continue to import conflict minerals. According to the report, Afrimex, based in the UK; Trademet, based in Belgium; and THAISARCO, based in Bangkok, all obtain minerals directly from the DRC. Global Witness corresponded with 200 companies and reported that the majority have no preventative measures in place to ensure that conflict minerals are not integrated into their supply chains. Even those companies that obtain their supply from legitimate exporters often indirectly finance the conflict. According to Patrick Alley, Director of Global Witness, “It is not good enough for companies to say they buy only from licensed exporters, when they know full well that their middlemen buy from armed groups. The failure of governments to hold companies to account, of Burundi and Rwanda to restrict the trade across their borders, and of donors and diplomats to address explicitly the role of the mineral trade, have all contributed to the continuation of a conflict that has killed millions and displaced many more.”

http://www.theinternational.org/articles/89-blood-minerals-continue-to-finance

0
0
View Replies (2)

I think U.S. reporting generally reflects the agenda/propaganda of the U.S. government. Not only is the war in the Congo one of the worst bloodbaths of our time, but it has gone on for decades without eliciting much international outcry.

0
0