The deadliest war in the world
Congo's simmering conflict has killed 4 million
Sunday, May 28, 2006; Posted: 1:01 p.m. EDT (17:01 GMT)
(Time.com) -- Some wars go on killing long after they end.
In Congo, a nation of 63 million people in the heart of Africa, a peace deal signed more than three years ago was supposed to halt a war that drew in belligerents from at least eight different countries, producing a record of human devastation unmatched in recent history.
The International Rescue Committee (IRC) estimates that 3.9 million people have died from war-related causes since the conflict in Congo began in 1998, making it the world's most lethal conflict since World War II.
By conventional measures, that conflict is over. Congo is no longer the playground of foreign armies; the country's first real election in 40 years is scheduled to take place this summer, and international troops have arrived to keep peace.
I had no damn idea, not a clue. To think a war of this magnitude was raging out of control and we never hear about it. Goes to show you whats important in the world. If Beverly Hills burned down tomorrow it would make world headlines. You get my point.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
Hmmmm, burn down Beverly Hills, maybe I do have plans this weekend after all.
yea, sign me up.
been going on a long time. i have a set of vidoes i show my students about the conflict whenever we get to Africa. nightline did a week-long expose on the conflict. it began the week of 9/11, then was repleced by 9/11 footage and reaired a couple weeks later. needless to say it received little attention. completely disgusting, tragic stuff about which most of the world could give 2 craps. primarily between the Hutus and the Tootsies. vestigaes of colonial rule that can't seem to be put to sleep. entire villages slaughtered by machetes. women raped over and over as they use it as a weapon of war. skyrocketing AIDS rate as a result. 100,000s of orphans. really really terrible.
It didn't make headlines because our media outlets exist to make profits. If their large parent corporations have any stake in this part of the world, it is to (a) sell more arms, and (b) to keep people buying the diamonds produced there which financed the war. Second, it would have been dangerous and costly for news organizations to put reporters on the ground there. And third... most Americans don't have strong ties to central Africa, so it would have been more difficult to generate the kind of outrage that would sell more papers.
Also... When the CIA-backed Mobutu was in power, the U.S. supported his repressive regime as part of our anti-Communist foreign policy. Mobutu was not a communist, so we supported him no matter how bad he was. After the Cold War, we withdrew support, since it was no longer useful to prop up a brutal dictator in the name of anti-Communism, and all hell broke loose. So from the point of view of the U.S. government, the whole thing ought to be very embarrassing, and I am sure that they were pleased that it was ignored by the media.
I like non mainstream news articles E, keep um cumin'
Post a Comment