Wednesday, January 23, 2008

45,000 Die Each Month in Congo- But What Do We Care?



A UN report released this week says that 45,000 people die each month in the Democratic Republic of Congo due to the lingering effects of a war that was supposed to have ended five years ago. It's the most devastating loss of life due to war since WWII. Most of the dead are non-combatants, civilians caught up in the conflict. Half of these who account for the dead are children. But what do we care...

"Congo's monthly death rate of 2.2 deaths for each 1,000 people — essentially unchanged from the last survey in 2004 — is nearly 60% higher than the average for sub-Saharan Africa, according to the study by IRC and Australia's Burnet Institute, which researches epidemiological disease."


The causes of death? Mostly disease and malnutrition--the aftershocks of a forgotten war, woefully ignored by both Clinton and Bush White Houses, that claimed some 4 million lives. Altogether, in the near decade long conflict that has now settled into a simmering status quo of sporadic violence in lawless regions, the death toll is thought to stand at 5.4 million lives. There are more UN peacekeepers in the Congo, a massive country in sheer size, than anywhere else in the world. But the resources needed to make them effective, on say a scale as done in Afghanistan or Iraq, is non-existent. So the beaten down giant of a fractured nation lurches from one conflict to the next, with the civilian populace caught in the middle, enduring mass displacement, starvation and disease.

Since before there was such a thing as a "blog," I wrote numerous news articles on the war dating back to at least 1998. I watched as what should have been the victorious overthrow of the Western backed dictator Mobutu Sesse Soku turned into chaos and then an utter nightmare, with its seeds ominously linked to the 1994 Rwandan Genocide. I noticed how the mainstream news media failed to focus on the conflict, even as it thretaened to turn into a full continental power struggle, drawing in several nations, with even Libya and South Africa on the brink of joining the melee. When Ted Koppel's Nightline did decide to cover the story, he actually apologised, for not having done it sooner. Some three years after the war had begun, a major American news agency had finally dedicated a weeklong series to the devastating war in Congo. It was so little, so late, but still many were thankful. Unfortunately, that first episode aired on Sept. 10th, 2001. The events of the following Tuesday made certain the woes of the Congo would be buried and forgotten again, as American lives and the Mideast became all consuming.

The war in Congo in fact would end, ironically enough, when the many countries and factions found their sources of Western weapons drying up with the coming "War on Terror." They negotiated their own peace, but left the country in utter shambles. Imagine if after WWII, there had been no Marshall Plan, and the many Axis fighters had splintered into factions that could rape, pillage and plunder at will. Imagine if all the sides in the Yugoslavian conflict had been armed, and left to their own destructive devices. Imagine a broken and fractured Iraq, where every leader with a gun wants his own fiefdom, but a hundred times worse. That only begins to sum up the modern day problems in Congo.

And yet, I haven't seen anyone declare a "War on Poverty" for the Congo. I haven't seen massive debt relief for the DRC accumulated under Mobutu, in the same way Iraq's debt accrued under Saddam Hussein was forgiven. There's little talk of the DRC on the nightly news, or by pundits of the conservative or so-called "liberal" media. People who march against war in US cities aren't marching much for peace in the Congo. Aren't many actors and actresses wearing END CONGO WAR! buttons. There's no major peace plan launched in Annapolis to solve Congo's crises, which in a decade have taken infinitely more lives than over sixty years of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. And I haven't heard a single question put to any presidential candidate in either party regarding what ideas they might have to bring some resolution to the Congo's lengthy and disastrous conflict. It's amazing to think that over 5 million human lives could be snuffed out due to war, and hardly seem to make a ripple or sound in this increasingly connected and globalised world I keep hearing about.

Every once in a while the DRC makes it back into the headlines, when there's something so graphic and horrendous it titilates the Western pornographic gaze--be it tales of cannibalism or mass rape in Eastern Congo--and fulfills our racial fascination with "Darkest Africa." But unlike Darfur, for some reason, the Congo never stays long in the press. And as much as I at times grit my teeth at the "Save Africa" ONE crusaders who cry "poor Africa" without ever seeming to see our own neoliberal, weapons sales, post-colonial role in varied crises, a little attention and focus on the DRC might be a good thing. So every once in a while, when something like this report comes out, I type out a blog as a reminder to myself and others.

Because I figure some of us have to care...

More on the Congo:

Africa Action- DRC

Democracy for Congo

Congo: Plunder and Submission

The War on Women

Do Something!

Friends of the Congo

Congo Global Action Network

Standing With Our Sisters- Benefit for Rape Survivors of Eastern Congo

Panzi Hospital of Bukavu

50 Years is Enough

V-Day


Read More...

Friday, January 11, 2008

Debating Barack Obama



As I oft find necessary to say in preface, I do not endorse Barack Obama--nor do I campaign against him. The same goes for his main rival (at least in the way the newsmedia has spun it), Hillary Clinton. Both of them are way too centrist, too tied to corporations and too tied to militarist foreign policy strategies for my taste. Certainly they are different and apart from the Republicans; just not far enough for me to jump on the bandwagon. While I do not openly back any candidate, I'd probably find closer political company among John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich. Sadly, their anti-corporate platforms have naturally won them the ire of the corporate run media, and both candidates (Edwards and Kucinich) are marginalized in journalistic political discourse. In the end of course, the pragmatic side of me will support whomever the Democratic presidential nominee ends up becoming, because all of their imperfections are preferable to the nutter freak show going on at the GOP. But while getting my pragmatic vote, any Democrat to win the White House can expect to catch hell and criticism from me--cuz that's how it's supposed to be.

That being said, on the Jan. 9th edition of Democracy NOW! host Amy Goodman had on two black progressives, scholar/writer Michael Eric Dyson and journalist Glen Ford (Black Agenda Report), to discuss their opposing viewpoints on Barack Obama. It was a refreshing debate that dared to feature two normally like-minded black figures debating the merits of Obama, his strengths and short-comings. The debate itself was not a slam-dunk for either, as they both made valid points. With my personal political leanings, I would probably score it 60% to 40% in favor of Glen Ford--whose criticisms, while not taking away from Dyson's pragmatic observations, still are hard to dispute.

But why not see for yourself and make up your own minds.

Part 1 of the debate above.

Part 2 is below:

Read More...

Thursday, January 10, 2008

Eating Their Collective Feet- News Pundits & Obama



DOH!

So Barack Obama narrowly lost the New Hampshire primary. While I endorse neither Hillary Clinton, or Obama for that matter, there was a bit of glee in watching those returns come in Tuesday night. The political punditry of the mainstream corporate news, who had gone into an Obama-gush fest just days earlier, was left sputtering and trying to explain how all their prophetic predictions of Obama's inevitable rise and Hillary's coming doom could have been so WRONG. Their humiliation alone was worth the outcome of the primary. While they have been puzzling for days now what could have gone wrong, here's a suggestion to add to the mix of likely numerous factors.

All that crowing over Obama's Iowa win may have backfired. The media's herd mentality in declaring the end of Hillary Clinton (eagerly writing her obituary while she was still very much alive), and endorsing Obama as the abstract "change" candidate, may have turned numerous New Hampshire voters off. Perhaps the lily white constituents, reaching down to some good ol' fashioned American racism, didn't like that the media made a white woman cry over a black male candidate. Or maybe it's as simple as no one likes to be told for whom they should vote. When the media were glorifying Hillary Clinton it eventually led to declining poll numbers. Their unabashed endorsement of Obama may have done the same for him.

The good news? American voters may have finally grown weary of arrogant media pundits who think it's their right, privilege and duty to annoint candidates and control the dynamics of a political race. Whatever the case, what Obama's narrow loss in Iowa showed was that the race for president is still fluid, still open and won't be decided by the whims of obviously over-paid corporate news media celebrities.

Some articles below on the debacle of the media and New Hampshire primary

Read More...

Friday, January 4, 2008

Obama's Big Score



A day since his big win at the Iowa Caucus, and it seems many people have caught Obama fever. The media, long fascinated with him, have now turned him into their darling--for the time being at least. Pundits gush on about how he represents change, and how his win now has caused an earthquake in politics. On the conservative right and the progressive left, there is glee at seeing the well-oiled Clinton machine sputter and break down in the face of the Obama victory. And of course, the theme of "history in the making" and "race" are endless in their veracity and variety. Many black people I know who were at most lukewarm towards Obama are declaring they just might vote for him--as if the elections are just around the corner. My own two cents on the Obama win, how it happened and what it might mean--or might not mean.

*In full disclosure, I am neither for nor against Barack Obama. While I haven't chosen any candidate as my own, I tend to fall in much more strongly behind John Edwards and Dennis Kucinich, whose anti-corporate, anti-war and anti-poverty stances resonate closer to my own.

Read More...