Congo Massacre - Page 3

DanS · April 27, 2003, 21:23

Your guess is as good as mine. The literacy rate is a full 25 percentage points higher than Egypt's, for instance. 20 percentage points higher than Iraq's.

Giancarlo · April 27, 2003, 21:25

77% is quite a high literacy rate for an African country... the country's economy is contracting. But there are reforms being begun by Joseph Kabila. I think Kabila shows promise.

Ted Striker · April 27, 2003, 21:27

I think we should send the 4th ID in there and whoop some ass.

Oh and molly keeps posting lengthy articles which don't really say that much.

DanS · April 27, 2003, 21:28

1995 estimate. Pre-Kabila.

Spiffor · April 27, 2003, 21:29

I have lost touch for years with DROC. Is Kabila still in charge, or has he been killed and replaced by some Elf-puppet ?

Giancarlo · April 27, 2003, 21:29

Ted, Joseph Kabila is aligned with the west... he is enacting reforms.. he isn't like his father, the late Laurent Kabila, who was assassinated.

1995.. was Mobutu Sese Seko still in power?

Spiffor · April 27, 2003, 21:31

Quote:

Originally posted by Fez
1995.. was Mobutu Sese Seko still in power?

I think so. Mobutu was ousted by Kabila some time after the Rwandan genocide (which happened in 1994 IIRC)

DanS · April 27, 2003, 21:31

Same with me, Spiff. Stopped following after Laurent Kabila took Mobutu down. Joseph Kabila, Laurent's son, is now in charge, at least in Kinshsasa.

Kontiki · April 27, 2003, 21:33

You don't need much infrastructure to have decent literacy levels. And even the worst, most corrupt dictators can throw enough money into education such that people can learn to read and write. It hardly means the country is bristling with people that have PhDs......

Giancarlo · April 27, 2003, 21:33

At this time the Congolese Government headed by Joseph Kabila controls 40-60% of the country. I put it in the higher 60% range now, as Kabila's troops have been given the upper hand as Uganda, Burundi and Rwanda pull back support. Uganda has been reluctant but has folded and started pull outs of their troops.

DanS · April 27, 2003, 21:43

You don't need much infrastructure to have decent literacy levels.

The important point here is what it should bring about. A population with high literacy rates should be more easily administered centrally in a country the size of Congo.

But instead it appears to be mostly a mish-mash of various types of sh!tholiness.

Giancarlo · April 27, 2003, 21:44

I think 77% is a statistical misrepresentation of the reality.

Spiffor · April 27, 2003, 21:52

Well, I've just read this article (in French), and even though I am too lazy to translate it, here is a short summary of the situation as it was in 2001 :

- Laurent Kabila took power in 1997 after a successful rebellion against Mobutu. He was supported by Angola, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Uganda and indirectly by the US. Each of his supporters wanted to access the mineral riches of Eastern Congo.
- Laurent Kabila was 'ungrateful' to his former allies, and soon was too independant of the countries that supported him. The start of the war, in Aug. 1998 by Rwanda and Uganda. Both countries didn't expect the mess would last that long.
- Zimbabwe enters the war to protect his friend Kabila, and opposes Rwanda-Uganda, on the Congolese battleground.
- Laurent Kabila was killed the 16 January 2001, and replaced the following day by his adoptive son, Joseph Kabila, who begun to implement a capitalist economy in the areas under his control.
- Rwanda and Uganda both were competing for the control of eastern provinces. Such provinces were basically annexed and put under control of Rwandan or Ugandan companies, or sponsored companies. Zimbabwe also uses its corporations extensively in areas that are under its control.

- in 2001, with the rise to power of Joseph Kabila and his diplomatic skills, there was a hope for peace...

Oh, and for the "joke" part : the UN had 5400 observers on this huge territory in 2001. There were talks about reducing this corps to 3000 observers. The UN thought about putting these observers on the internal frontlines, i.e confirming the country's division.

Edit : ah yes, I forgot to tell that Kabila's original rebels now are divided in 3 factions, each of them being a puppet of some foreign country.

Kontiki · April 27, 2003, 21:56

Quote:

Originally posted by DanS
You don't need much infrastructure to have decent literacy levels.

The important point here is what it should bring about. A population with high literacy rates should be more easily administered centrally in a country the size of Congo.

Not necessarily. You're right that it would certainly make it easier than if, say, only 20% were literate, absent any other factors. But the reality is that there are many other mitigating factors (chief among them being different political/power interests both inside and outside the country).

Fez may be right and the number may be overstated, but I don't think that having a 77% literacy level (which is what, a fourth grade education?) should be necessarily idicative of anything else.

Dr Strangelove · April 27, 2003, 23:03

Much of the problem is that tribal population distribution doesn't necessarily follow national borderlines. There are many Tutsi and Hutu living in the Congo. After the Rwanda rebellion some of the Hutu rebels hid out in the Congo. The Tutsi armies of Rwanda and Burundi entered the Congo to try and root them out. Their incursion triggered anti-Tutsi violence in the Congo not only by native Congolese Hutu, but by other Congolese tribes as well. Since then the Tutsi dominated governments of Rwanda and Burundi have felt the need to interlope in the eastern provinces of the Congo to protect their own people and their tribal kinsmen in the Congo.

Mentioning the trans-national distribution of tribes in Africa will of cours spur some to criticize the legacy of the colonial occupation of Africa. It should be pointed out that the Europeans weren't to blame for this problem in every part of Africa. IIRC at the time that Europeans made their mad scramble for African colonies in the 1880s and 1890s Rwanda and Burundi were Tutsi kingdoms that had established their dominance of their respective territories by virtue of their alliance with the Sultanate of Zanaibar. The Sultan supplied guns to the Tutsi kings and the Tutsi supplied ivory bearers, usually Hutu slaves, to the Sultans. The Hutu were already living under the domination of the Tutsi when the Germans swallowed up the area. The Hutu and Tutsi living in the areas that became part of Belgian Congo weren't included because those areas weren't part of the two Tutsi kingdoms.

Lord Merciless · April 27, 2003, 23:09

Spiffor, can you post a map?

Giancarlo · April 27, 2003, 23:39

Democratic Republic of the Congo:

Lord Merciless · April 27, 2003, 23:54

It would be nice if the map shows who controls what.

But it sounds like fun situation in Congo.

Imran Siddiqui · April 28, 2003, 00:09

Well the reason no one goes into Congo is because what are you going to do? Just about every one of Congo's neighbors have invaded the country in the last 10 years. I mean, are you really going to take on all of Central Africa? It'd be a total mess. Vietnam would look good by comparison.

Giancarlo · April 28, 2003, 00:10

Imran is right. You also gotta realize that even Kabila's own troops are battle hardened... they would put up one hell of a fight.