Yesterday, Gary Farber, Matt Yglesias, and I all wrote about the Congo and the wholesale slaughter that is taking place, and Gary today re-states the challenge Nick Kristoff issued yesterday:
Have you blogged on the issue today? Written a politician to ask that the US (or your government) get the UN to act, and contribute troops and logistics? Called a talk radio show? Done anything at all?
Have you? I see that Jonah Goldberg has mentioned the issue his piece for Townhall. As bloggers and average citizens, we won’t decide the actual policy. But by writing about it, talking to our friends, and doing the simple things Gary has suggested, we can keep the issue alive, and slowly but surely it will bubble to the top of the public conscience. And then, maybe, hopefully, our government will do something about it. Members of the mainstream media may not read me, but they are reading someone I am linked to- I can guarantee that. They are reading someone you are linked to. Keep the issue alive. Write about it. It really is that simple.
Matthew
Jonah Goldberg (dare I start calling him J. Go for short?) has long been a proponent of basically re-colonizing Africa for the purposes of setting up stable political and legal regimes, which would then be reintroduced into the community of nations. It’s a bit kooky, but it’s a far less horrific notion than the reality of the “sovereignty shield” that many leaders like Mugabe hide behind.
Dean
No, no, no.
Given what we saw was the preferred approach, enunciated in December-March past, the proper course of events is as follows:
1. Introduction of inspectors, who are to be given plenty of time (at least a year) to determine exactly what is going on, and what measures might have to be taken. These should follow, ideally, over a decade of other inspections.
2. Emplacement of “smart sanctions” on the warring parties, to discourage their activities, without excessively or undue burdening of the civilian population.
3. A clear need for obtaining French, German, and Russian acquiescence, if the US is to lead, or better yet, allowing these nations to lead.
4. Obtaining local support (in this case, from all of Congo’s neighbors) for any UN action, lest it be judged to either be colonialist or unilateral.
5. Consultation with the global popular opinion, perhaps even a global referendum, before any action can be undertaken. ANSWER, global pacifist groups, religious leaders, anarchist groups, etc., should all have a firm hand in shaping the outcome. So should anti-globalists like Naomi Klein and auteurs such as Barbara Kingsolver and intellectuals like Edward Said.
6. Of course, if the PNAC, oil companies, resource companies in general, or any other major capitalist entity ever even mentioned Congo, then the US should absent itself from participating in any such action, since it would presumably benefit excessively.
7. Of course, if we finally DO decide to go in, Congo should be treated, not as a war, but as a police activity. Therefore, we should ask local leaders’ cooperation in the detaining and arrest of any suspected of war crimes, and should work through the UN and INTERPOL to effect the arrest of said persons. Use of military force, especially in large numbers, like, say, a battalion or above, is hardly necessary, especially since no one has yet asked the locals to arrest the people in question.
I hope that we follow this process to the letter regarding Congo, since so many seem to feel that NOT following this has produced the fiasco in Iraq and Afghanistan.
JKC
John- even though we probably disagree about practically everything politically, I want to thank you for keeping this issue alive. Some things transcend political ideologies. This is one of them.
JKC
As for you, Dean, you might want to think about upping your medication. No-one of any import on the left objected to intervening in Afghanistan: many on the left and right are, I suspect, a bit disappointed about reconstruction is going.
As for Africa, as bad as SH was (or is, since he’s gone into the same rabbit hole as OBL) some of the press reports getting out about the killing in the Congo makes him sound like a Sunday School teacher in comparison.
Dean
JKC:
First, there were plenty of folks who argued that we should consider Afghanistan a police action, NOT a military situation, and certainly not a war. Not that many of the politicians, although Barbara Lee, last I checked, is STILL a Representative.
Second, my comparison is with Iraq, and not with Afghanistan. Hence, the suggestions for inspectors and the like. After all, how do we KNOW what’s going on? Why the rush? Why W-A-R and not sanctions? Why the apparent willingness on your part to go kill people who might well be innocent? Aren’t you risking the “chickenhawk” label?
Third, why should the killings in Africa make any difference? I mean, it is the LEFT, not the Right, that is arguing that no matter how bad Saddam was, since we went in for WMD reasons, failure to find WMD means that Dubya lied, Blair lied, and we should be thinking impeachement. If stopping the killing wasn’t good reason for stopping Saddam, exactly why is it good reason for stopping the folks in Africa?
In fact, most of the arguments against going to war over Iraq—lack of UNSC Resolutions (Chapter VI authorizations, not VII would-be-nice resolutions, thank you), lack of clear and present danger to the US, possible natural resource benefits, American domination (a la PNAC), lack of links to terrorist organizations (especially al-Qaeda, and especially especially 9-11), other failings of American nation-building, would ALL seem to apply here.
Why the difference? Do YOU now trust the Admin to nation-build in Congo, JKC? Do YOU think that Congo had something to do w/ 9-11, JKC? Do YOU think that Congo has links to al-Qaeda? If the Admin couldn’t do Afghanistan and Iraq, if it was going to be a diversion from the War On Terror to go after Iraq, WHAT is your justification for going to Congo??
Perhaps it’s YOUR meds, the ones that facilitate consistency and logical thinking, that are missing?
John Cole
Calm down everyone- JKC is not a troll and argues in good faith.
JKC
Thanks John- but the meds comment was a cheap shot and dumb on my part.
Dean- my objection to Iraq was that by focussing our energies on SH, we missed the real target- the SOB’s who flew airplanes into the Twin Towers and the Pentagon. I should think the events in Riyadh last week at least partially vindicate that claim.
As for Bush, I’m not ready to say he lied. But the Iraq/al-Qaeda link was always tenuous at best, and the WMD argument isn’t looking much better. We had such great intel… where’d all that stuff go? We told UNMOVIC they didn’t need to waste any more time on inspections- we knew where the stuff was. So why haven’t we found it?
Enough about this, though. I don’t want to hijack this thread. There’s an interesting question in all of this for liberal and conservative alike: what do you do when a state is obviously not functioning, to the detriment of its people?