EDITORIAL
Congo: The forsaken heart of darkness

"Never again," the world swore after the dreadful 1994 genocide in Rwanda in which an estimated 800,000 ethnic Tutsis and moderate Hutus were massacred.

In reality, the killing never stopped.

It migrated across the border, into a country known then as Zaire, now as the Democratic Republic of the Congo. And disappeared, very nearly, from the world's radar screen.

Then it got much worse.

In what has become known as "Africa's World War," the Rwandan army pursued the Hutu genocidaires across the border. Aided by Ugandan troops and tribal allies, it overthrew the Zairian government far to the west.

Later the new Congolese government, backed by forces from Namibia, Angola and Zimbabwe, sought to expel the Rwandans, who left, reinvaded in 1998 and are threatening to do so again.

Deadly mix

These armies have allied with a bewildering range of rebel groups, many themselves ethnic Hutus or Tutsis. The result in the eastern Congo, where diamonds and other minerals offer a compelling complication, is a deadly witches' brew. When the various armed factions aren't fighting among themselves, they have fallen upon the civilian populations in the looting, rape and destruction of villages.

During a vengeful period of years whose atrocities may never be fully documented, the Tutsi rebels, allied with the Rwandan army, massacred tens of thousands of Hutus — soldiers and civilians, Rwandan and Congolese. The Congolese Hutus in turn responded (with the help of other Congolese ethnic militias) by slaughtering Congolese Tutsis.

All are guilty

There is no hero/villain dichotomy here; all parties are guilty of wholesale violations of local agreements and international conventions.

This horrific and complex war has been simply too much for a poverty-stricken population. The collapse of social services, especially public health, has resulted in the world's most deadly conflict since World War II, according to extensive research by the International Rescue Committee.

"The killing of civilians was widespread and indiscriminate," says the IRC, "and a large proportion of the civilian population was subjected to the practice of 'total war': beatings, theft and destruction of property, civil repression and forced recruitment" as well as "massive population displacements."

The vast majority of deaths are due to illnesses such as fever and malaria, diarrhea, respiratory infections and malnutrition which — were it not for the war — would be easily preventable and treatable. Children, needless to say, are disproportionally affected.

Millions lost

Between August 1998 and the end of April 2004, the IRC has calculated, 3.8 million people have died in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as a consequence of this war.

This death toll, says the IRC, "far exceeds those of other recent crises, including Bosnia (estimated 250,000 dead), Rwanda (800,000), Kosovo (12,000) and Darfur in Sudan (70,000)." The war in eastern Congo is killing 31,000 a month on average — 1,000 people a day.

The great Congo River, winding timelessly by these scenes of abject horror, seems, as Joseph Conrad put it in 1902, "to lead into the heart of an immense darkness."

The response to all this, as you may have guessed, is inadequate. Even though the conflict is rooted in a genocide that disgraced the international community and the United Nations, salvaging this region doesn't seem to be a priority.

Outside pressure

This perplexing situation begs for U.N. negotiating leverage, or for donor nations to use withholding of aid to pressure all sides to reach a peace. A robust troop presence is needed to disarm the militias and protect villagers. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan has requested 23,900 troops. So far, he's received 16,700. Poorly equipped and trained, they stood by as rebel forces occupied the town of Bukavu in May.

It's not clear if the international community (particularly the United States) is still blinded by its guilt and sympathy for the Tutsis of Rwanda, if it can't deal with complexity, or if it just doesn't want to deal with Africa. If Congo was the worst, most overlooked humanitarian crisis in the world before the Indian Ocean tsunami diverted our attention and resources, what will it be now?