The New York Times reports that the situation in Congo, which had been looking tentatively more stable for a few years, is heading back down the drain as a result of conflict between the central government and forces loyal to Laurent Nkunda. Looking for background, I went to the International Crisis Group's website, where there most recent Congo report was this from October recommending, among other things, that "[t]he international community should encourage Kabila to suspend his military offensive and launch a comprehensive peace initiative for North Kivu, aimed first at de-escalating the conflict and improving the general security environment in the province, then addressing the core issues related to restoration of state authority such as regulation of the exploitation of natural resources, return of refugees and a transitional justice process facilitating community reconciliation."
It didn't happen. Instead, the offensive went forward, and now according to the Times's Lydia Polgreen "General Nkunda’s forces routed army troops in towns they had taken just days before and threatened to take Sake as well." I can't really add anything to the reporting I read, just think it's sometimes worth trying to raise the profile of these stories that tend not to get much play in the U.S.
| 
Heads in the Sand
"I can't really add anything to the reporting I read, just think it's sometimes worth trying to raise the profile of these stories that tend not to get much play in the U.S."
Why? So you can support a U.S. military intervention and later do a 180 and oppose it when it gets messy? Post-colonial sub-Saharan Africa has long been mostly a series of hell-holes. The Congo story won't get a lot of attention because it's a dog-bites-man story.
Posted by Fred | December 13, 2007 9:27 AM