Rwanda and Nkunda

A commentator asks Britain to cease its one-sided support for Rwanda, whose government is largely perceived to be directly involved with the conflict in East Congo, through its support of rebel warlord Nkunda. This report also claims evidence that Rwanda soldiers are fighting under Nkunda.
This paragraph sums up the falsity of Nkunda's constant reiteration of waging war to protect Tutsis within the Congo.
"The argument that this is about protecting Congo's Tutsi minority is undermined by Nkunda's grab for the region's wealth. Local people have been forced to mine gold, diamonds, casserite and other minerals that abound in Kivu and export them through Kigali, the Rwandan capital. What had begun as an apparently defensive military operation to protect Rwanda and Uganda from genocidal gangs in Congo seemed to be turning into a violent imperialism aimed more at looting the area than bringing peace."

Africa in distress

The Toronto Star has a fine article on Africa, this time detailing the deep problems in DRCongo, Somalia and Sudan's Darfur. The writer gives a good brief overview of each conflict, as well as mentioning other major problems like Zimbabwe. Simple but erroneous assumptions about Africa's crises are that European colonisation and exploitation or African greed and savagery are responsible, but neither is true, by itself. The main reasons are a mix of Western colonial exploitation and political manipulation, which still lingers, local corruption, inefficient economic policies and the weakness of existing local civil and social structures, based in large part on the artificial constructs of most of these nations.

Following the supposed conclusion of the stunning attacks in India's premier city Mumbai, the Toronto Star has this interesting piece written by an Indian commentator. He mentions the large poverty and the significant lawlessness in Indian cities, of which Maximum City by Suketu Mehra touched on in Mumbai, and this underworld's alleged relations with Pakistan.
One important point he makes is how unprepared India was for this despite the amount of time and preparation involved in planning attacks of this order.
While India has captured a few of the attackers, one hopes that it doesn't lead to larger cross-border reparations, not that this is the first significant terrorist attack in India blamed on Pakistan.

While fighting in East Congo heats up with rebel warlord Nkunda's forces gaining territory and forcing increased government reaction, the situation involving another even more notorious warlord in nearby Uganda is worsening as well. Joseph Kony and his LRA have transferred their terror campaign into northern Congo, looting, killing and taking children and women as slaves. Formerly thought to be waning to the point of almost signing a peace agreement with the Ugandan government, the LRA have reemerged and continued into regions of neighboring countries like Congo and Sudan.

A BBC investigation has confirmed that the Russia-Georgia conflict which occurred during the Olympics in August, and which raised fears of a new Cold War, was actually started by Georgian military aggression against South Ossetia. As well, war crimes were committed by Georgian forces on Ossetian civilians. The first part is quite clear to me as I remember seeing it in news reports at that time but for some reason, this fact seemed to be conveniently ignored or overlooked as a bunch of news reports, articles and commentators sounded alarms and cast direct blame on Russia. The above article's writer mentions this:
"At the start of the August conflict, western media reporting was relatively even-handed, but rapidly switched into full-blown cold war revival mode as Russia turned the tables on the US's Georgian client regime and Nato expansion in the region. Clear initial evidence of who started the war and Georgian troops' killing spree in Tskhinvali was buried or even denied in a highly effective PR operation from Tbilisi."

Furthermore, the writer says that the investigation was barely reported in mainstream news which is quite true because I didn't see any articles about it over the weekend.

Our role in the Congo

The Congo crisis continues with renewed fighting and mass civilian displacement in Kivu, as rebel warlord Laurence Nkunda's forces have managed to seize government army bases. Lack of food, sanitary conditions and violence will possibly cause serious casualties, adding on to the worst conflict toll since World War 2.
This conflict, which mostly is in the Eastern parts of the DRCongo, is not merely ethnic or tribal battles, but rather about rival factions, supported by foreign countries as well as the DRC itself fighting over natural resources.
This article from the UK's Independent goes over the current fighting and directly blames the violence on the wider world's appetite for resources found in DRCongo and Rwandan attempts to maintain control over lucrative resource-rich areas.

Congo situation still dire

Serious fighting, displacement, and rapes are again flaring up in the DR Congo as rebel troops under Rebel commander Nkunda, government troops and other militias have clashed repeatedly since August in the eastern parts of the country. The situation worries the UN which released a statement earlier this week (whatever good that may do).
However amidst this grim state of affairs, is a particularly dark humanitarian disaster taking place, specifically sexual violence and rape on women and girls. Canadian journalist Stephanie Nolen writes about this here and here. While rape has declined in the rest of the country, nominally at peace, it has continued, and possible worsened in the East, described as a "weapon of war" by a Congolese social worker in the 2nd article.
The rapes and sexual violence are able to be committed in such high numbers because of the tremendous lawlessness and chaos in that region, including the DRC's border with Rwanda, where there is a mix of ethnic and natural resource competition at play.

The thing about China that some people don't seem to get, especially those in the media or academia, is that much as China's economic and geopolitical progress during this past decade is extremely impressive, so too is the extent of its problems. So while having the world's largest foreign reserves or the most internet-users in the world seem impressive, China also has serious problems that are characteristic of poorer developing countries and often in larger quantity. One such problem is that of child kidnapping and trafficking, which this Toronto Star article describes a sad case.
From the article:
"A 2007 U.S. State Department report said there may be 20,000 victims of human trafficking in China annually. Others claim as many as 70,000 children are kidnapped each year. State media say one of the key factors driving the stolen child market is the deeply rooted Chinese tradition of having a male heir in the family."
Besides children, women are also kidnapped and trafficked for prostitution or for marriage. I'm not saying this is the fault of the government, though their actions mentioned in the Star article are certainly heartless, and it is definitely a main responsibility for them to deal effectively with problems like these. This post is mainly to describe a serious problem, one of many, that China still faces and which precludes it from becoming a real superpower.

This fine article from the WaPost gives a great overview of China's geopolitical status in the world, one which is rarely stated or believed by many in the media. Although my reading of it is a bit belated- the article having been printed this July- this is a minor issue because the main gist of the article is still as relevant and effective now.
Basically the writer states that despite the tremendous frenzy over China from the media, the government, economists and others in society, the country is a long way from becoming a true superpower, especially one like the United States. Although this might be kind of obvious to some, one would never know it based on the amount of attention (hype) given to China such as nonfiction books and media stories proclaiming China to be the next superpower or the next big threat to the US or think-tanks releasing reports saying that China's economy will become the largest sometime by 2020 or 2050 and so on.
He gives 4 main points for his contrary opinion: "dire demographics, an overrated economy, an environment under siege and an ideology that doesn't travel well -- China is more likely to remain the muscle-bound adolescent of the international system than to become the master
of the world."

Using a combination of facts and personal experience, the writer effectively makes his case and states things that usually aren't said or explained in many articles about China, for instance its looming senior population explosion.

So earlier this week, the U.S. Congress failed to pass a federal bailout plan that would provide US$ 700 billion to help the economy cope with the current crisis. There were mixed reactions with many not surprised or glad that most Congressmen and women would reject it, as many of the U.S. public feel revulsion for what seems like a giant and costly bailout of the financial sector or even socialism for the rich, as I saw it described in one article. Others were disappointed because they believe that this bailout is necessary, not only for the Wall Street firms and financial institutions, but for the broader public who have borrowed any kind of loans from banks and such. Whatever the real situation is, there is a strong sentiment that the plan was presented badly and that the general public has a legitimate reason to feel disgust and apprehension over this plan being passed. There is also a lot of effort being made by U.S. federal officials like the President, the Treasury Secretary and the two main presidential candidates to convince the public that the bailout plan is absolutely essential for the nation. I think that this is true but not because the wellbeing of the financial institutions and banks are themselves intrinsically vital for the nation's wellbeing. The second article I linked to above, from Time, claims that the majority of the bailout plan is not going to help common people but financial assets held by the firms themselves. I do think what the writer says is largely true and I don't care much about the financial firms themselves. What I also think though is that these financial assets, much of them virtual garbage, comprise so much of the economy that if these firms go down, they will take America down with them.

This Newsweek article describes the inefficiency of india's PM Manmohan Singh's reign, much of which is not actually attributed to him personally but to party politics and general corruption and incompetence.

Following the wave of infant sickness in China stemming from milk deliberately added with a hazardous chemical, as well as other similar products, there has been a lot of outrage, both domestic and international, over food quality in China. This Toronto Star piece talks about how this crisis is symptomatic of the "Two Chinas" which exist in that nation. This dual state of affairs, in which proud achievements such hosting a great Olympics and developing a space program is contradicted by tremendous problems on the domestic front such as widespread low food and product quality and significant environmental pollution. What makes it worse is the milk crisis has two dimensions, the first being the roles of the milk companies who processed and distributed these contaminated products, and the second being the government cover-up which prevented and then delayed the release of information on the sicknesses.

Royson James of the Toronto Star has a good piece on the sad state of affairs in Haiti, which has suffered from 4 hurricanes this year. Not only is it in a seriously dire situation but it has been largely ignored by media and has not received as much aid as it needs. One of the poorest nations on Earth and so close to 2 of the wealthiest nations in the world- US and Canada. As James describes it poignantly: "the first black republic of the new world, the seat of a slave revolt that would send the pillars of Caribbean and American slavery toppling within 60 years. Maybe it's because France, America and other imperialists have never forgiven the country."
Famed activist, writer and medical doctor Paul Farmer has an article on Haiti's tremendous need for help in Counterpunch.

Here's an interesting piece on globalization by former HK governor Chris Patten (extracted from his new book) in the Guardian which might at first glance probably infuriate some of the good folks I went to school with who persist in seeing globalization as this great Western-led system of dominance.
Rather than bash it, people should understand it better, he says and points to the ironic use of globalisation by anti-globalisation activists to rally and fight it. He does say that in several developed nations like the US and the UK, most respondents in a survey thought globalization had a more negative than positive effect.
He then makes some thoughtful and effective criticisms of world trade but without blaming it on globalization itself as many do. He slams the protectionism of wealthy countries in imposing heavy tariffs on imports or banning them altogether which are hypocritical and exploitative to poor countries, as well as the obscene agricultural subsidies which powers like European nations and Japan grant to their farmers which thus enable them to keep their prices down and even export to poor countries. Of course, some might say that these unfair protectionist measures are main aspects of globalisation itself and which can't be seen as separate.

He also speaks out on the current financial crisis, saying that globalisation isn't to blame but the incompetence and greed of the financial players like banks and so on.

"I remember a banker once trying to explain to me how the mortgage of, say, an unemployed single parent in St Louis could be morphed into a triple-A rated financial investment in London, New York or Paris. Magically, impoverishment became a "special investment vehicle". Try as hard as the banker did to get me to comprehend the beautiful simplicities of the whole process, I remained baffled. It was, I suppose, some sort of relief later on to discover that it was not me who was stupid."

It's a very long article which goes all the way to the bottom but which is well worth the read.

The world is in the midst of the alleged worst economic global crisis (since the 30s with no end in sight, as the powerful USA got caught up with the closure of a venerated brokerage firm and the potential loss of another before being saved by the government. Here's some readings on this crisis:

The bailout of AIG may actually signal more potential financial turbulence up ahead as other larger firms also indulged in the same things it did.
This AsiaTimes article explains why an insurance giant was so affected by the financial crisis.

Whatever the specific financial causes of these events, it's not surprising that a system driven by high lending and borrowing and hence, often unsound loans, would collapse over time. It's smething that's always struck me as unsustainable in the long run, like a "house built on cards" sort of thing.

The world economy has been sputtering a lot this year and Asia's strong economies are showing serious signs of vulnerability. This Newsweek piece asserts "why Asia won't save the world" as Asian economies so dependent on export growth and on the American consumer are beset by inflation and unable to maintain their own growth. Asian powers like Japan, South Korea and Taiwan have all been seriously affected which gives an idea of the extent of economic slowdown, with Japan and Taiwan's governments having to introduce hefty stimulus packages .
One wonders if these problems are indeed confirmation of the error in focusing on economic growth rather than a steady approach addressing domestic social problems which many of these countries especially India and China certainly have a lot of.

Is Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe starting to come to his sense? A power-sharing deal has been agreed upon which will see opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai become Prime Minister, though Mugabe will remain as President. Rightly so, people are skeptical and even worried like opposition leaders and even Tanzania's President. It will be interesting to check back in the near months to see how this joint government holds up.

The recent brief conflict between Russia and Georgia, fought over two disputed Georgian territories proved to be one of the most significant events of the year. Auspiciously, or inauspiciously, starting on the same day as the opening of the Beijing Olympics, this conflict set off a load of alarms all over the world, especially in Europe and the US, over the aggressiveness of Russia and the possibility of a new era of global confrontation with the heir of the West's Cold War foe Soviet Union. Several issues were perceived from the conflict including that of the right of places to secede due to ethnic or cultural differences (Kosovo being a striking example), which brought up inevitable comparisons with Taiwan's situation, Russia as a resurgent foe and possibly wanting to invade other nations namely Ukraine, and the role of the US as global superpower being brought into question, in its inability to directly assist Georgia. The biggest issue has to be that seemingly overnight, the possibility loomed of a new military conflict with a dangerous Russia and the West. Notwithstanding the many civil wars and conflicts happening all over the world and the US troubles in Afghanistan and Iraq, the closeness of the threat of Russian military actions on Europe aka the developed world and the European dependency on Russian oil supplies, shocked the EU.
There's no doubt that Russia delivered a savage retribution to Georgia which was far destructive and brutal than Georgia's initial aggression. In the interest of being a cooperative and moral power it should retreat from Georgian territory and allow for international probe and peacekeeping in the disputed areas. But there is also no question that Georgia was the aggressor, sending tanks and soldiers into the disputed territories and attempting to take control by force. The real question which should be asked is was there any substantial Western or American role in this action or was it solely the Georgian leader's prerogative?
Back in April earlier this year, there were already signs of possibly military action by Georgia which was detected by Russia who warned of retaliation.

A roundup of interesting reading:
Here's the French President warning of a "new Cold War" before an emergency NATO meeting in mid-August.
This piece written as the conflict broke out, claims that the conflict is mainly about Russia's concern and anger over Georgia's NATO yearning. The writer does make a good point about Russia's hypocrisy in crushing separatists in Chechnya while endorsing the rights of South Ossetia to separate.
Foreign affairs expert columnist Gwynne Dyer says a new Cold War might be possible.
This article from Canadian Dimension examines the role of the US as an instigator in the conflict given its support for Georgia's leader Saakashvili and its foreign policy moves.
Commentators such as this one think a Russian move on Ukraine is very plausible.
This Guardian editorial slams Russia for its military action and claims that this is a sign of its weakening.
And finally to get a good overview of the conflict, check the BBC here.

The Toronto Star has a touching story on a survivor of Sierra Leone's vicious civil war now making a new life in Toronto. Mariatu Kamara suffered through a double hand amputation as well as losing a baby from a prior rape, and she recalls these events in a book that was recently released-The Bite of the Mango. As the article points out, her story brings a new perspective to the conflict
because mostly the story has been told about the blood diamonds and former child soldiers, not of
civilian victims like her.

Some light on the Georgia-Russia conflict

The recent Georgia-Russia conflict which stemmed from Georgia's surprise attempt to retake a disputed region and Russia's equally surprisingly swift attack on Georgia has been one of the biggest stories in world news presently. Now coming to a probable close, the conflict raised significant fears and concerns, especially that of a resurgent and powerful Russia acting out against a smaller and weaker neighbor. A lot of the Western media has seemed to overlook the fact that Russia's move into Georgia was instigated by Georgia's bloody offensive to retake the disputed region of South Ossetia and the fact it is Georgia and not Russia who is the aggressor. This piece from the Nation talks about this while trying to provide a clearer understanding of the conflict. The writer admonishes the West for its hypocrisy in failing to recognise or ignoring the situation of South Ossetia especially in light of its aid and support for Kosovo's independence from Serbia.