No oil, No U.S. intervention.
This week UN security council members face a stark choice: deploy a robust intervention force to protect tens of thousands of civilians in the Democratic Republic of Congo's Ituri region, or let the UN's underpowered Monuc force muddle along and withdraw if fighting escalates. Thousands of lives are threatened by gun battles and machete-wielding militias, as well as by disease and hunger.
It may be the clearest choice facing the council since it ordered General Romeo Dallaire to withdraw the UN force from Rwanda once the genocidaires had started mass killings in April 1994: nearly a million lives were lost in 100 days.
Much depends on Ituri. As diplomats debated the Congo crisis in New York last week, at least another 120 people were killed as militias fought for territory and resources. Now it is the worst area of the worst war in the world: some 50,000 people have been killed and 500,000 chased from their homes in the past four years, according to Human Rights Watch.
This latest crisis has been brewing since last year when Uganda, the regional kingmaker, withdrew 4,000 troops from eastern Congo. Uganda's commanding officers have acted like proconsuls, controlling trade and dispensing favours. Most damaging has been their support for local militias.
The main fault line is between the majority Lendu and the richer minority Hema. At war since 1999, the Hema were initially favoured by Uganda, so the Lendu militia saw Uganda's exit this month as a chance to regain power. And they did for a few days, until a Hema militia retaliated: it now controls Bunia, the capital of Ituri. Uganda created a dangerous balance of forces and its regional rivalries with Rwanda have brought in another kingmaker. Politicians from the Kinshasa government also see a chance to score points in Ituri against the Ugandan and Rwandan rebel godfathers, and have been running their own guns and fighters into the region.
For three decades Mobutu Sese Seko battled to keep a lid on Congo's rebellious provinces while his western backers indulged his empire-building with dollars. Those taps dried up a decade ago, leaving Congo with $14bn (£8.5bn) of corrupt loans to repay, while its current president, Joseph Kabila, struggles to resurrect a state of sorts.
Driving the conflict are Ituri's natural riches. Apart from the region's farmland and valuable cross-border trade, Ituri is the gateway to the Kilo Moto gold field, the world's biggest, where exploration rights are claimed by Canada's Barrick Gold, among others. And interest is rising in Ituri's oil reserves in the Lake Albert basin, where Heritage Oil, part-owned by British entrepreneur Tony Buckingham, signed a licensing deal last year.
Security council members must quickly deploy a rapid-reaction force in Ituri, where professional soldiers could face down the militias. A new force would bolster the UN's 700-strong force currently in Ituri which, despite some conspicuous acts of bravery, is unable to stop looting, let alone armed clashes.
The security council mandated Monuc "to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence" in Congo when it proposed its expansion from 5,500 to 8,700 troops last December. (Even now, it has a mere 3,800 troops due to a lack of contributors.) But when human rights organisations and local civic groups such as Justice Plus pointed to the looming catastrophe in Ituri in January, Monuc had just eight soldiers there.
"Monuc has neither the mandate, troops nor equipment to enforce peace and protect civilians effectively," the UK development agency Oxfam said. France's offer to send a force is a start. If this was deployed with British and Canadian soldiers, as is under discussion, and perhaps South Africans, lives could be saved.
Against expectations, the warring factions in Congo have negotiated a shaky structure of peace agreements. What is missing is a muscular enforcement and verification capacity. Moving the centre of UN operations eastwards to Congo's war zones would help too. As would deploying teams of peacekeepers and disarmament specialists in Ituri and Kivu - where 98% of Congo's fighting takes place - and establishing an effective eastern border control unit. The UN's most obvious partner would be the European Union.
Riven over the Iraq war, the EU should put its diplomatic backbone and its military hardware into such a plan. It should tackle those who profit from arms shipments to the Congo war and the looting of resources there: three UN panels have investigated this trade but European governments, including Britain, have failed to take serious action. Success in Congo might prompt the EU's own post-war recovery.
This week UN security council members face a stark choice: deploy a robust intervention force to protect tens of thousands of civilians in the Democratic Republic of Congo's Ituri region, or let the UN's underpowered Monuc force muddle along and withdraw if fighting escalates. Thousands of lives are threatened by gun battles and machete-wielding militias, as well as by disease and hunger.
It may be the clearest choice facing the council since it ordered General Romeo Dallaire to withdraw the UN force from Rwanda once the genocidaires had started mass killings in April 1994: nearly a million lives were lost in 100 days.
Much depends on Ituri. As diplomats debated the Congo crisis in New York last week, at least another 120 people were killed as militias fought for territory and resources. Now it is the worst area of the worst war in the world: some 50,000 people have been killed and 500,000 chased from their homes in the past four years, according to Human Rights Watch.
This latest crisis has been brewing since last year when Uganda, the regional kingmaker, withdrew 4,000 troops from eastern Congo. Uganda's commanding officers have acted like proconsuls, controlling trade and dispensing favours. Most damaging has been their support for local militias.
The main fault line is between the majority Lendu and the richer minority Hema. At war since 1999, the Hema were initially favoured by Uganda, so the Lendu militia saw Uganda's exit this month as a chance to regain power. And they did for a few days, until a Hema militia retaliated: it now controls Bunia, the capital of Ituri. Uganda created a dangerous balance of forces and its regional rivalries with Rwanda have brought in another kingmaker. Politicians from the Kinshasa government also see a chance to score points in Ituri against the Ugandan and Rwandan rebel godfathers, and have been running their own guns and fighters into the region.
For three decades Mobutu Sese Seko battled to keep a lid on Congo's rebellious provinces while his western backers indulged his empire-building with dollars. Those taps dried up a decade ago, leaving Congo with $14bn (£8.5bn) of corrupt loans to repay, while its current president, Joseph Kabila, struggles to resurrect a state of sorts.
Driving the conflict are Ituri's natural riches. Apart from the region's farmland and valuable cross-border trade, Ituri is the gateway to the Kilo Moto gold field, the world's biggest, where exploration rights are claimed by Canada's Barrick Gold, among others. And interest is rising in Ituri's oil reserves in the Lake Albert basin, where Heritage Oil, part-owned by British entrepreneur Tony Buckingham, signed a licensing deal last year.
Security council members must quickly deploy a rapid-reaction force in Ituri, where professional soldiers could face down the militias. A new force would bolster the UN's 700-strong force currently in Ituri which, despite some conspicuous acts of bravery, is unable to stop looting, let alone armed clashes.
The security council mandated Monuc "to protect civilians under imminent threat of physical violence" in Congo when it proposed its expansion from 5,500 to 8,700 troops last December. (Even now, it has a mere 3,800 troops due to a lack of contributors.) But when human rights organisations and local civic groups such as Justice Plus pointed to the looming catastrophe in Ituri in January, Monuc had just eight soldiers there.
"Monuc has neither the mandate, troops nor equipment to enforce peace and protect civilians effectively," the UK development agency Oxfam said. France's offer to send a force is a start. If this was deployed with British and Canadian soldiers, as is under discussion, and perhaps South Africans, lives could be saved.
Against expectations, the warring factions in Congo have negotiated a shaky structure of peace agreements. What is missing is a muscular enforcement and verification capacity. Moving the centre of UN operations eastwards to Congo's war zones would help too. As would deploying teams of peacekeepers and disarmament specialists in Ituri and Kivu - where 98% of Congo's fighting takes place - and establishing an effective eastern border control unit. The UN's most obvious partner would be the European Union.
Riven over the Iraq war, the EU should put its diplomatic backbone and its military hardware into such a plan. It should tackle those who profit from arms shipments to the Congo war and the looting of resources there: three UN panels have investigated this trade but European governments, including Britain, have failed to take serious action. Success in Congo might prompt the EU's own post-war recovery.
