Quote of the Day

"Liberalism is an attitude rather than a set of dogmas - an attitude that insists upon questioning all plausible and self-evident propositions, seeking not to reject them but to find out what evidence there is to support them rather than their possible alternatives. "

- Morris Raphael Cohen

Libya vs. DRC - Who to help and why?

Civil War—a fight among the people of a country, for their rights and liberties. It occurs all the time, on a global scale, yet rarely do we notice enough to take charge, and enforce the importance of human rights and democracy. For over the past decade, civilians of the Diplomatic Republic of Congo, have been in the midst of civil wars of which have left the people of the country in a war-torn state. The civilians of the region have been stripped of their rights, and essentially a proper quality of life. Over 5 million people have been killed through rape or just plain murder—although a fair amount of rebel groups have dissipated over time. The country has been left in fear—the amount of refugees are growing, the killings are continueing. [1] Yet on a global scale the issue is widely ignored.In contrast to the state of blood-bath in the Diplomatic Republic of Congo, we are presented with the civilian war within Libya. The current killings in Libya is due to a revolution which is occuring, which is strengthening in intensity, day by day. Looking at both political conflicts, as Canadians, we are left to wonder to which conflict should the majority of our foreign policy commitment go to—Libya or DRC? Furthermore, should the Canadian foreign policy choice be governed through a realist, constructivist or liberal perspective? Through a deeper analysis of the current crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo I will show you the cruciality of foreign aid within the region over that of Libya, through a constructivist's perspective.

The current civil conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, better known as the « African world war », is a global issue that lacks coverage grace to media attention in the region. [2] In turn, much of the world has little awareness of the conflict, and does not take it as seriously as the current uprising of killings in Libya. In spite of this, the civil conflict’s resolution is just as imperative as that of Libya’s however—perhaps even more vital due to the duration of time of the killings taking place. Villages within the country are constantly under the attack of the vicious Congolese Army, who use sexual harassment and rape as a form of weaponry to instill fear within the civilians. [3] It remains unknown how many people have died at the mercy of the oppressive government within the region, however 5 million is the estimated amount of deaths to date. The foundation of the current civil conflict within the country of the Democratic Republic of Congo is derived from the reminents of the 1994 Rwandan Genocide--a humanitarian aid catastrophe leaving nearly a million people to their gruesome deaths. As the genocidal acts within the country came to a close, Hutu warlords and extremists perished into Eastern Congo—then Zaire, to ultimately regain strength as a group, in order to continue to opress the Tutsi people. The Tutsi people however, backed up by Rwanda and Uganda alike regained control of the region soon after. [4] In support of the government, the UN sent military forces to the capital of North Kivu, Goma, to support the Rwandan government amidst this civil conflict. A tyrannic warlord, Gen Nkunda, lead a series of crimes against humanity within Rwanda—whilst hiding within the DRC. Furthermore, UN security officials believed that Nkunda—the hutu warlord, was given support through amunition and other tools whilst fighting amongst the Democratic Liberation Forces of Rwanda—hutu warlords derived from the rwandan genocide prior. [5] Consequently, The Congolese government accused Nkunda of seeking personal interests rather than that of his people through illegal mining. Meanwhile, the drive of the Tutsis in their determination to pursue the murderers of their people, and to protect the power continued. Congolese President Laurent Kabila is currently in the midst of enrolling top hutu warlords into the Congolese army. [6] However, it is yet to occur due to the current brutality of the situation combined with preferential treatment. Ultimately, the current crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo is dire. The people are being swung in the midst of chatic remenents of a genocidal war, with little hope left—thirteen years later.

Eversince 1969 when a military coup occured, Libya has been under the dictatorship of Muammar Gaddafi, a tyranical leader who runs his country however he sees fit. Gaddafi’s time as leader has principally instilled fear within his people, as he has little care for his people’s rights, liberties or ultimately the reprecussions to his actions on a global scale. Through corruption, manipulation and opression did he maintain a forty year reign that was not deserved. His excessive dictatorship left Libyans essentially at their ends, angry with his regime—and with a want for liberal democracy. Although the conflict within Libya has evidently been growing for years, after the successful revolutions of Tunesia and Egypt the people saw the power within themselves to berid their leader. Through peaceful protests, the people were abused by law inforcement, succombed to violence, spurring furthermore outrage. Muammar Gaddafi’s initial response to the protests against his government angered his people further as he refuses to give up his position as the country’s leader. Rather then taking the high road, Gaddafi links those whom oppose him to terrorist organizations, stating that he will kill thosecivilians who do not support him and his ideologies. [7] Furthermore, all forms of digital communication within the country was relinquished to disable citizens from organizing further protests. As well, international journalists were banned from within the country, and were peg to be killed by his own military. In late February the National Transitional Council was created in order to remove Gaddafi from power. The main incentives in the creation of this group was to unite the people together to rebel against the dictator for their rights. Due to the council’s strong standpoint in the Libyan revolution, Gaddafi’s government has been corned into the western side of the state, where as the council held an interim government in the east. Due to the friction between both sides of the country, UN called a no-fly zone over Libya. However, despite a mild ceasefire, Gaddafi continues to oppress the eastern part of his old regime. [8] Overall, the Libyan people are stranded. It's been stated that over 300,000 people have fled the country in the midst of recent terror--over 40,000 being within the past month. [9] Governments abroad, are encouraging Muammar Gaddafi to stop his oppression and to step down from the plate as leader, yet he refuses to listen, even despite the recent death of his son. [10]

"We wish that the Libyan leader pulls out from Libya and cedes power immeditately - for himself and for the future of his country - without causing more bloodshed, tears and destruction."

- Erdogan, Turkish PM

Yet, Gaddafi is overwhelmingly tenacious in regards to his right to rule. This has evidently created civil conflict within the region, similar to that occured in the Democratic Republic of Congo, however with less deaths having taken place over a miniscule time period in comparison.

When analyzing the conflict Canada is in the midst of (having to choose between both conflicts), the situation can be viewed in both idealistic and realist views. Through idealistic views a person will see the situation through either a liberal or somewhat of a constructivist perspective—For first and foremost, from an idealistic perspective, one would perceive Canada’s foreign policy based on moral obligations and values. As Ignatieff would say, the person would view things through “moral imagination”, thus giving canadians a humanitarian viewpoint when making a radical decision between conflicts. This would be a more liberal stand point, the individual seeing the protection of the people important above all else. It’s believed that the natural rights of the people should always be set in motion. Both Libya and the DRC have human rights violated. This, making liberalism a difficult response in regards to Canadian Foreign Policies.Whereas, from a constructivist view, the individual would want to seek the best interests of the country through a realist perspective, however want the best safety-wise of the civilians implicated in the conflicts in DRC and Libyan as well. The policy would require the creation of an “agenda”, a thought out plan that would give the government what it’s interested in, with the end goal of saved civilians. In regards to a realist view, helping the country which would benefit the interests of Canada as a whole is ultimately the thought process at hand. They are uncapable of putting themselves in others shoes, and lack empathy. From this viewpoint, the best conflict for Canada to submit foreign aid into would evidently be DRC. In regards to interests the country is filled with natural resources for Canada to get it’s hands on. Many minerals lie within the region, that could further flourish the Canadian Mineral Industry. Furthermore, the minerals found in the country are used to create electronical equipment, which can in the long run help the canadian economy, seeing as its value is rising. [11]

“Congo's diamonds, gold and coltan, a valuable component of mobile phones found in few other places in the world.”

- Chris McGreal, Africa Journalist Correspondant

The current conflicts in Libya and the DRC can be solved with three solutions in regards to canadian foreign policy—liberalism, constructivism, and realism. Despite strong opposition that could promote liberalism, and realism in regards to what Canada should base it’s foreign policy on, I believe constructivism is the key to the dissolution of these conflicts—in particular the ongoing issue in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The DRC would benefit far more from the help of us Canadians for several reasons. Firstly, with less media coverage, there is less of a likelihood that other countries will have a strong presence within the country. In contrast to Libya, where every country seems to be taking part in the throwdown of Muammar Gadafi. Secondly, the comparison of the death tolls. When looking at Libya, a few thousand people have been killed in a few months. However, the death rate in the DRC conflict has become genocidal, to the point that the country is just about doomed (5 million dead). These people are afraid to leave their homes, they can be raped—or worse, murdered. The reason I believe the best approach to handle this conflict would be constructivism is because the main issue of the DRC conflict is the lack of human rights of the civilians—what better way to restore our name as peacekeepers after Harper just got rid of a bunch of canadian embassies in africa that promoted foreign aid and humanitarian efforts? Furthermore, Canada can potentially get it’s hands on some valuable natural resources, while helping out the people in the end. Through a smooth transition from Afghanistan to the Democratic Republic of Congo in 2011, Canada can look like peacekeepers, and get some rare natural resources out of the deal too. Therefore, through an in depth look at both civil conflicts of Libya and DRC, a constructivism approach to the DRC would best maintain Canada’s role on a global scale while gaining personal resources, with providing humanitarian effort as well.