Wait, scratch that - Canada is incredibly well off. It is almost absurd how privileged we are in this country, as compared to most of the world. In Canada, we have state-sponsored health care, most of our citizens are employed, and we have incredible natural resources. To put things in perspective, Canada's water consumption was 1,494 cubic metres per capita in 2000. In their homes alone, Canadians used over 300 litres of water per person, per day; only the U.S. consumes more water per person, at 1,682 metres per capita. All of this while two fifths of our world population could be facing severe water shortages by 2025.
In a country of such wealth and abundance, it is only natural that we should share our wealth with the less fortunate - and our foreign aid budget for 2010 was $5 billion (although Harper attempted to freeze it at that level for the next five years - but that's a different blog post). However, there are so many developing nations struggling around the world, that it is sometimes difficult to decide upon the country in which we should particularly invest. Today, I'm going to explore that, taking a specific look at two countries, both of which have struggled for years and could use foreign aid - the DRC and Libya.
If Canada can only adequately resource one foreign policy choice, which conflict should receive the majority of our foreign policy commitment - the DRC or Libya? Should this foreign policy choice be governed by a realist, constructivist, or liberal perspective? In my opinion, if only one country could be chosen, it would be the DRC - and this from a social liberalist perspective.
Firstly, let me give some perspective to the conflicts in each country. The DRC is an African country, and its conflicts can largely be attributed to legacy of colonialism. The former Belgian Congo was left abruptly by its colonists in 1960 after 75 years of control; however, the Congolese people did not have the economic rights or resources to sustain the country at the time.
Patrice Lumumba became head of state, but was overthrown with U.S. and European support after only a few months. He was succeeded by Mobutu Sese Soko, a Cold War ally of Europe and the U.S. All this foreign manipulation was for the abundant resources available in the Congo; instead of having them be used for Congolese sustainment and development, the world's most prosperous nations wanted to get their hands on them.[1]
- William D. Hartung and Bridget Moix, Deadly Legacy: U.S. Arms to Africa and the Congo War, Arms Trade Resource Center, World Policy Institute, January 2000
U.S. policy toward Mobutu was rationalized on the grounds of fighting “communism” and Soviet influence in Africa, but the U.S. was clearly more concerned with securing its own interests in the region than helping foster a stable, secure, and peaceful future for the people of Central Africa. Lying at the center of the continent, Zaire could provide the U.S. with access to important resources, transportation routes, and political favors. Over the years, U.S. rhetoric changed slightly, placing greater emphasis on democratic reform of the regime and increased attention to human rights, but in reality policy continued to focus on promoting narrowly defined U.S. economic and strategic interests.… The U.S. prolonged the rule of Zairian dictator Mobutu Sese Soko by providing more than $300 million in weapons and $100 million in military training. Mobutu used his U.S.-supplied arsenal to repress his own people and plunder his nation’s economy for three decades, until his brutal regime was overthrown by Laurent Kabila’s forces in 1997. When Kabila took power, the Clinton administration quickly offered military support by developing a plan for new training operations with the armed forces.
Corruption, siphoning personal wealth, a plunge in copper prices and resulting debt led to gross economic downturns. Though Mobutu is now dead, he left the legacy of a $12 billion dollar debt in his country, where each family already makes only $110 per capita.
Since this, the DRC has become, in essence, a pawn, with countries such as the U.S. and Russia providing weapons and training to fuel bloody intra-state conflicts. The plunder of gems and minerals by neighbouring countries such as Rwanda and Uganda continues to be an issue, as does extreme violence, particularly in the eastern DRC.[2]
In 2006, Joseph Kabila was elected as president in an election in which roughly two thirds of eligible individuals votes, 58% of whom voted for Kabila. 42% voted for Jean-Pierre Bemba, who was more popular in the east.
Since 1998, it is estimated that 5.4 million people have died - 47% of these deaths were of children, though they only comprise 19% of the population. The majority of the deaths were caused by non-violent causes such as malaria, diarrhea, pneumonia, and malnutrition.[1] An estimated 200,000 women have been raped. Cannibalism has been widely reported, as well as the systematic hunting and murder of the indigenous people, the Mbuti pygmies.[3]
The conflict in Libya has gotten a lot of media attention recently - and rightfully so. It has joined its peers - Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, etc. - in its fight for independence and freedom. Its head of state is Mu'ammar al-Gaddafi, who became the Chairperson of the African Union in February of last year; September brought with it the 40th anniversary of Gaddafi's rule.[4] Libya is a great producer of oil, and its petroleum revenues contribute to over 58% of Libya's GDP. Their significant wealth from the oil industry, when spread amongst a relatively small population, has led to Libya being well off as compared to surrounding nations; over his years of rule, Gaddafi has amassed a considerable personal fortune.[5]
On February 15, 2011, a series of peaceful protests were repressed by Gaddafi's security forces - and thus began the revolution. Within a week, it had spread over the whole country. Gaddafi responded to this with military force, censorship, and the banning of communications - for example, the internet.[6]
Then came armed conflict. The freedom fighters established a coalition - the Transitional National Council - which they based in Benghazi. Recently, the Security Council froze Gaddafi's assets as well as those of ten members of his inner circle, and restricted their travel. In the same resolution, the UNSC recommended that the International Criminal Court look into the actions of Gaddafi's regime, and allegations of human rights violations. But Gaddafi's forces rallied in early March, took several coastal cities, and prepared to attack Benghazi. Another UN resolution permitted member states to enforce a no-fly zone over Libya; in response, Gaddafi ordered a ceasefire, which has not been enforced.
Over the course of this conflict, Gaddafi's forces have shut down water systems and supply lines, forcing hundreds of thousands of Gaddafi's own citizens to go without food or water, putting them in great danger. They have publicly executed activists opposed to their regime. Not only did they put a ban on the internet, but in order to further the isolation of the rebels, Gaddafi has made engaging in political conversations with foreigners a crime punishable by three years in prison. Western languages have been eliminated from the curriculum, and Libya is well known for providing bounties for its critics, including US$1 million for Ashur Shamis, a Libyan-British journalist.[4]
On April 20th, the U.S. announced a $25 million aid package for the Libyan freedom fighters; this included fuel trucks and containers, ambulances, medical equipment, protective vests, binoculars, and non-secure radios. On February 25th, the ICRC launched an emergency appeal for US$6.4 million to meet the urgent needs of Libyan victims of violence and unrest. But still, medical supplies, food, and fuel continue to run dangerously low in Libya.[7]
There are obviously several different ways of approaching this problem. As a self-proclaimed Lockian democracy, Canada holds itself to certain moral standards; is it not our responsibility to provide aid from our own wealth and abundance, when we see our global citizens in such dire need? This is the liberalist perspective: the rights of the individual being consistently protected.
This view has given rise to R2P, or the Responsibility to Protect. R2P changes the very definition of sovereignty. Since the Peace of Westphalia, sovereignty has traditionally been the right of the governance; the people belonged to him. Even in the Nuremberg Trials, widely seen as the first real application of international law, the Nazis were only charged for the crimes they committed outside of their own borders. Since R2P, sovereignty has been redefined - it is now a responsibility. And if a ruler cannot, or refuses to, take care of his own people, other democratic states have a responsibility to undo that regime. This is a good basis for the western intervention we see in Libya today, as well as any intervention in the DRC. Liberalism essentially states that human rights are innate and that everyone deserves them, regardless of age, nationality, gender, or any other reason. The liberalist would enter the DRC with humanitarian objectives, in an effort to provide aid that would improve the quality of life and safety of the Congolese
Another point of view is the realist perspective, which is often opposed to liberalism. It states that human rights are a human construction, and not found naturally. As such, is is not our responsibility to protect human rights, and if other sovereign nations want to abuse the rights of its people, then they have that right. The realist perspective also advocates sovereign nations pursuing their own benefit wherever possible; for example, conflict with another nation for its natural resources would be a realist pursuit. The realist would enter the DRC with foreign relations objectives; to make itself look good, or to increase its own wealth or status, by making themselves seem charitable, forming alliances, or developing trade agreements and getting their hands on resources.
The third approach is constructivist; constructivism is
concerned with the justification of principles of political justice in the face of pluralism.- Peri Roberts, Political Constructivism, Routledge, Taylor and Francis Group, October 2007
It is between the two. For constructivists, human rights are a significant issue, and should be upheld whenever possible, as they do good for people and society - but they are still unnatural, merely a human construction. Going into the DRC, the constructivist would be motivated largely by realist aims; however, while there, they would attempt to improve the human rights status of the DRC, build schools, educate people, and improve the quality of life.
So, when it really comes down to it, Libya or the DRC? And why?
In my opinion, the DRC is in the most need of aid. There are several reasons for this. The first is the success of other northern African revolutions recently. Yes, they were bloody; they were difficult; there's still a lot of work to do. But, largely due to their relative wealth, Libyans tend to be fairly well educated. Their rebellion will continue, and they have received some aid. They will continue to receive aid, even from their own citizens - the Arabian Gulf Oil Company, the second-largest state-owned oil company in Libya, announced its plan to give aid to the anti-Gadaffi forces.[8] Filled with educated young people, resourceful, with natural resources and the basis for a future democracy, Libya will do fine if it continues on its present course.
The DRC, however, is a different story. The people there are suffering from immense human rights violations. While there are human rights being violated in Libya, it is nowhere near the status of the atrocities being committed in the DRC. The violence in the DRC has been occurring for decades, and the problem isn't solely an oppressive regime that can be deposed; as we have seen, the DRC has experienced several regime changes, and has not yet experienced significant social improvement from a human rights standpoint.
What the DRC needs right now is intensive training and a change in the way its society is structured. In 2009, the death toll in the DRC reached 45,000 per month [9] - that is absurd by any standard. Most of these deaths were of children under the age of 5, and most were due to famine, or other curable diseases.[10] The Congolese people do not have to be dying in such massive numbers. Simple medical aid, if widespread and efficient, would tackle a large part of the issue.
The status of women is another huge issue in the DRC. In July 2007, the ICRC expressed its concern over the situation in eastern DRC, specifically in relation to women's rights. Yakin Erturk, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence, stated the following,
Armed groups attack local communities, loot, rape, kidnap women and children, and make them work as sexual slaves.- About Congo, Watoto wa ardhi
These sexist and violent attitudes are a typical result of a war-torn country that has suffered over dozens of years. Humanitarian aid, security, peacekeeping forces, and governmental training - not instating a puppet dictator, but instead facilitating democratic elections and helping to set up a self-run, functioning government - would be of immeasurable help to the Congolese. Canada's aid could do so much more there than it could in Libya, funding an intra-state revolution when the freedom fighters aren't doing nearly as badly.
Canada is an incredibly privileged country, as I have said before. We pride ourselves on being a melting pot, on being compassionate, on being prosperous. And if we are all these things - if we are a Lockian democracy, truly dedicated to upholding human rights in our own country - why do the human rights of others around the world mean so little to us? We should be playing a more active role in the DRC, or else we have no right to call ourselves upholders of rights around the world.
P.S. The title today comes from Steve Colman's Terrorist Threat. Amazingly talented, great poem. Watch it. Peace.
