Almost Unnoticed: UN Is About To Fight Its 1st War In Africa

African economies are rising
steadily, but in the Democratic
Republic of Congo life for many is
as bad as ever. Armed men rape
and plunder with impunity. Rebel
groups terrorise vast stretches of
land rich in minerals and
agricultural potential.
Millions have died as a result. And for
years the outside world has done
little more than shrug. Its main
effort-a 14-year-old UN
peacekeeping mission-has failed to
end "Africa's world war", which
started as an ethnic conflict sparked
by the genocide next door in
Rwanda before descending into
murderous anarchy farther afield.
Now things are changing. The
Rwandan government backed
Congolese rebels until recently but,
shamed by their cruelty and by
international outrage, it has
abandoned them.
That presents an opportunity too
good to waste, so the UN Security
Council is trying a new tack (see
article), deploying 3,000 troops to
fight at least some of the rebels.
Soldiers from South Africa, Tanzania
and Malawi wearing UN insignia will
take on the irregulars who sow
mayhem in Congo's east.
This is the first time that the UN will
send its own troops into battle. In
the past the Security Council has
authorised the use of "all necessary
force" but has delegated the fighting
to posses from willing nations.
In the Korean war the Americans
were in command. In Afghanistan
and Libya NATO took charge. In
Congo, however, the UN itself will be
responsible for artillery fire,
helicopter gunships-and the
inevitable casualties. Should the UN
really be doing this?
The starting point ought to be
extreme caution. Getting "blue
helmets" to knock out one side in a
civil war in the name of the rest of
the world could taint the entire
machinery of global peacekeeping.
The UN's neutrality is a valued asset.
Risking it can be justified only as a
last resort and when a mission
enjoys broad international approval.
Congo fits that description. No
powerful nation has been prepared
to take the job on independently; not
even those keen to intervene in the
bloody quagmire of Syria are
tempted to send troops to Congo,
no matter how prolonged and
grotesque its people's nightmare
may be.
Mindful of this, the Security Council
authorised the new force
unanimously-a high bar to clear. This
was not a sneaky power grab by an
unaccountable bureaucracy or a
warmongering few. Approval
followed months of patient and
sincere diplomacy. Even normally
reluctant powers like China and
Russia voted yes.
Making it work The risks in Congo are
considerable. The terrain is tricky and
local allies are unreliable. The 3,000
UN enforcers are not especially
cohesive or powerful and some may
have ulterior motives, including the
defence of business interests.
That could damage the UN's
reputation and undermine its
mission. Furthermore, Congo suffers
from far more than violence. Political
institutions are dilapidated,
corruption is rife, poverty is
widespread and ethnic tensions run
deep. No armed force can fix all that.
Peace alone will still leave most
Congolese in misery.
Nonetheless, the new UN initiative
deserves wide support. All previous
efforts to end the bloodshed have
failed.
The recent history of war-torn African
countries like Sierra Leone shows
that peace brought about by foreign
troops can boost political reforms
and generate prosperity. Liberal
interventionism is an unfashionable
creed; in poor, benighted Congo, it is
still worth trying.