Left Flank

The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) proves why a vast nation hosting the largest United Nations peacekeeping force is a boon to all but its own people.

The war that raged in the Democratic Republic of Congo, mostly in the east of the country, between 1998 and 2003, claimed millions of lives and sucked in plundering armies from Rwanda, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia. The scale of the misery caused by that conflict—and the importance of Congo's massive mineral wealth—explains the anxiety among ordinary Congolese, diplomats, aid workers and others, following the advance this week of a Tutsi rebel army towards the town of Goma in eastern Congo. If Congo falls apart again, the humanitarian cost would be enormous.

The United States and the European Union have sent senior diplomats to the region. The UN Security Council has held a special session to discuss the situation. That show of concern has seemed enough to halt, perhaps only briefly, the advance of the Tutsi rebels. Their commander, Laurent Nkunda, has declared a ceasefire and promised a «humanitarian corridor» to allow the passage of food and other aid to displaced people.

That offers some comfort to the tens of thousands of Congolese on the run, thirsty and hungry, caught between Mr Nkunda's forces and the demoralised and ill-disciplined Congolese government troops. Some were heading for Goma, others for the Virunga National Park. By some estimates, there are now 1m people displaced in the green hills and diminishing forests of North Kivu, a region in the east.

So, who profits by this situation:

1. Hutus, or Tutsis, depending upon who wins;
2. DRC president, Joseph Kabila, whom, so says Nkunda, supports the Hutu-led Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR), or Rwandan president, Paul Kagame, a Tutsi, whom everyone says could conquer DRC with Nkunda's and his Rwandan army;
3. France, which wants to use the crisis, to send 1,000 soldiers, and thereby prove the value of an EU defense force, or Germany, which opposes both;
4. MONUC, the 17,000-strong, yet overworked UN peacekeeping force which needs to demonstrate it has a purpose.

How about breaking the failed vortex of DRC into manageable sovereignties upon which its peoples can actually depend?

Powered by ScribeFire.

The consistent chest-thumping, conveniently nostalgic security meme fixating on «cold war» dominating the question of dealing with Russia in the wake of its «August war» with Georgia annoys me to no end. After a period in 1991-2001 when both Democrats and Republicans bungled devising a post-Cold War security policy, and then a diet-busting feeding frenzy from 9/11 to now, Russia is not a signal for permanent war.

After offering how much Russian corporations and its military lost in its August war, Anders Aslund argues for a post-Cold War economic attack on Moscow.

First, the EU should adopt a common energy policy, imposing the rules of the energy charter - such as transparency, equal investment rights and third-party access to pipelines - on Russia. A united EU has bargaining power as all Russian pipelines outside the former Soviet Union go to Europe.

Second, the European Commission should force Gazprom to unbundle production and transportation to break up its monopolies. Why does the EC pursue antitrust suits against Microsoft but not Gazprom? It would have to divest its pipeline network outside Russia's borders, abandon blatant price discrimination and end its planned construction of the Nord Stream and South Stream gas pipelines.

Third, the west should investigate Russian top officials and their trading companies for money-laundering.

Fourth, Russia's big state companies habitually woo politicians in other countries. Gerhard Schröder, the former German chancellor, is just Gazprom's most prominent catch. Western ethical rules for contacts with Russian state companies need to be tightened and the EU should establish American rules for the disclosure of income anybody earns from lobbying. Unethical behaviour is best fought with increased transparency.

Finally, if western intelligence agencies possess evidence of any corruption by Mr Putin or his cronies they should publish it. Nothing would undermine him more in Russian eyes than verified facts about corruption. Russia and its leaders are quite vulnerable, but to be effective the west needs to unite.

Well, screw that. Washington would have none of that, unless it's in the lead - and that means war.

Powered by ScribeFire.

Washington should be wary of a family quarrel.

«The Eastern Europeans totally saw this [Russian resurgence] coming,» says former US ambassador to Romania, James Rosapepe. «In Romania the attitude was, we have to get into NATO before Russian power returns.»

German officials and many European NATO officials argue that it is simply unrealistic to provoke Russia by allowing its immediate neighbors into the alliance. They say Russia's actions in Georgia vindicates this point. Berlin takes a very careful and consistent position on the importance of understanding Moscow, one Western diplomat points out.

Yet Polish officials are quick to point out that Germany was the most powerful and insistent voice throughout the 1990s for getting Poland into NATO - as a way to create a buffer zone between Germany and Russia. Now that Poland is in NATO, Germany has changed its tune, they say, showing indifference to Poland's own interests in a similar buffer zone. They argue it is in Germany's commercial interest to advocate balanced restraint and sensitivity to Moscow.

Along with the non-Russian provinces of Ukraine and the Baltic trio, as well as the Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, and Romanians, eastern Europe hardly includes the sort of dependable, responsible friends the US wants to have as allies. It's more like a gaggle of goslings waiting for a meal. Without Germany, Washington doesn't need such fair weather buddies feeding an addiction for bad strategy.