The death toll from the war in Congo, which began in 1998, is higher than in any other since World War Two with an estimated 4.7 million killed in the last four years alone. The International Rescue Committee (IRC), an aid agency based in New York, reports that the mortality rate in Congo is higher than the UN rates for any other country on the planet.

According to IRC President George Rupp the crisis in Congo is “a humanitarian catastrophe of horrid and shocking proportions. The worst mortality projections in the event of a lengthy war in Iraq, and the death toll from all the recent wars in the Balkans, don’t even come close.” Despite these horrible facts, the crisis has gone largely unnoticed and unreported upon in the West. As David Johnson, the director of IRC operations in eastern Congo has stated: “This is the worst calamity in Africa this century, and one which the world has consistently found reasons to overlook.”

The war in Congo started in August 1998 when an uprising backed by forces of the Ugandan and Rwandan governments (which receive their main support from “coalition of the willing” leaders the US and Britain) was launched in the country’s eastern regions against the government of Laurent Kabila. The Ugandan government claimed it was defending its western borders against rebels based in Rwanda, while the Rwandan forces claimed to be defending itself against Hutu militias on the Congo border. Apparently this border protection required Rwandan forces to occupy the diamond-rich town of Kisangani, 700 miles inside the Congolese border.

The conflict quickly spread as combatants from Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe entered the war ostensibly in support of Kabila’s government. Along the way there has been evidence of involvement by mercenary companies including MPRI of the US, Sandline of Britain and Executive Outcome of South Africa.

There is even speculation that Kabila was assassinated in 2001 because he refused to concede outright control over the enormous mineral deposits, including some of the world’s most significant deposits of gold, diamonds, cobalt, manganese, uranium copper, zinc, and increasingly important, coltan, a key component in cell phones and computers. Kabila also retracted several mining contracts signed with US and European companies. Additionally he refused to pay back the enormous debt to the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and World Bank, which was run up during the Mobutu dictatorship.

Eastern Congo has suffered the worst fighting of the war. Fighting in the region predates the 1998 outbreak of the war as government soldiers battled rebels seeking to overthrow longtime dictator Mobutu Sese Seko in 1996. While government troops committed atrocities in the region the situation drew little international response, a pattern that continues.

WESTERN INTERESTS

Western government responses, including failures to respond, have been motivated by their own interests in the vast mineral resources of eastern Congo. Most of the gold production in Congo comes, not surprisingly, from the northeastern parts of the country.

The main gold exploration ventures in Congo are those of Banro, a Canadian company cited for violations by the Security Council, and the Anglo-American/Barrick joint venture. Banro Resource Corporation, through its 93 percent owned subsidiary, SAKIMA SARL, controls 10 mining permits and 47 mining concessions covering a large portion of eastern Congo. After an agreement with the government of Congo, Banro came to hold 100 percent title to the Twangiza, Kamituga, Lugushwa and Namoya gold deposits.

South Africa’s AngloGold and Barrick Gold of Canada, two of the world’s largest gold producer, joined together on an exploration venture encompassing 57,000 km2 of northeastern Congo in the area along the Ugandan border which has been torn by conflict. Under terms of their agreement, AngloGold and Barrick Gold will each hold a 40 percent interest in the region’s Kilo-Moto property with the remaining 20 percent held by the DRC government. The agreement between the two companies established AngloGold as the manager of the joint venture properties in Congo.

Barrick had succeeded, in 1996, in getting the Gold Office of Kilomoto, the government monopoly of the country’s former dictator, Mobutu Sese Seko, to transfer mining rights over almost all of its 82,000 km2 of land to Barrick. The area holds an estimated 100 tons of gold in reserve. None other than George Bush (senior) was instrumental in winning the Barrick deal.

Of particular importance in understanding imperialist intentions in Congo are the interests of American Mineral Fields International (AMFI). Only a month before the fall of Mobutu in 1997, AMFI signed contracts with Kabila’s rebel alliance for an investment of nearly one billion dollars in copper, cobalt and zinc mines and processing plants in Kolwezi and Kipushi. Ominously the industrial enterprises set up by AMFI are also interested in the contract for the construction of the orbital platform that is destined to replace the Russian station MIR. The space platform is a centrepiece of the proposed National Missile Defence system driven by George W. Bush, and his Vice President Richard Cheney and Secretary of Defence Donald Rumsfeld. The space station cannot be built without many of the rare metals located in eastern Congo.

The UN’s Group of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and other Forms of Wealth in Congo concluded that resource exploitation had led to “an economy of war” in the region. Illegal exploitation of resources has established a predatory network of elites, including army and government leaders and multinational companies. The US government’s intelligence agencies have long worked closely with the corporations seeking to exploit Congo’s vast fortunes.

As one example, First Quantum Minerals, a firm with copper-mining interests, was cited for paying government ministers to obtain mining rights. According to the report, First Quantum offered the government a $100 million (US) down payment in cash payments and shares held in trust for government officials. The payment list included the national security minister, the director of the national intelligence agency and the former minister of the presidency.

The panel concluded that the governments of the countries in which the companies are based should take responsibility for dealing with violators. Among its recommendations, the panel suggested that governments regulate and sanction the 29 companies and 54 individuals involved in “mineral rape” and human rights violations in Congo. This is, of course, entirely futile since the governments have close ties and mutually beneficial relations with the corporations in question.

In fact, the Rwandan and Ugandan forces that have plundered and looted eastern Congo are actually proxies of the US and Britain with most of the extracted riches going to the West. The largest donors to the governments of both Uganda and Rwanda are Britain and the US. The Blair government, which was at the forefront of the assault on Iraq, contributes £30 million per year to Rwanda but has done little to condemn the Rwandan government for their role in the slaughter.

Similarly, while the British government has imposed sanctions on Zimbabwe for violating democratic rights, it continues to carry on what one commentator calls a “love affair with the Ugandan government,” offering political, economic and diplomatic support. This is despite the fact that the Ugandan government has exceeded agreed upon limits to defence spending (African Business, 2003: 22).

As only one example of hypocrisy, in 1999, Britain and the US vetoed Zimbabwe’s annual application to the IMF because of the country’s involvement in the war in Congo. On the same day that Zimbabwe’s application was denied both Uganda and Rwanda , whose forces were much bigger players in Congo, had their applications approved.

Indeed the British government has “long been supportive of Kampala and Kigali’s efforts to ‘control’ rebel forces positioned outside their borders” (African Business, 2003: 22). At the same time the British government well knows that the real motivation behind Uganda and Rwanda’s interests and involvement in Congo is mineral exploitation.

A subtle shift in British relations in East Africa has only been noted since news of the massacres in Ituri province, an area dominated by Ugandan forces, raised some international alarm.

Western governments rewarded the Rwandan government for its efforts in the Congo plunder by doubling aid from $26.1 million in 1997 to $51.5 million in 1999, an increase that greatly expanded the Kigali government’s capacities for waging war.

The World Bank also looked favourably on the policies of the Ugandan and Rwandan governments. Special praise was forthcoming from the Bank for Uganda’s recent economic performance without any accompanying embarrassment over the fact that much of that performance was attributable to illegal exports of gold and diamonds from Congo.