Johnny Van Hove02 april 2009 – 10:39

Based on a large corpus of journalistic articles from Belgium-based De Standaard and from the American magazine Time, it was shown in the last article (in this series of three) that the story of “ethnic warfare” is one of the major, ceaselessly repeated Congo narratives in mainstream media. The present and second article focuses on the role and depiction of the West in the Congo.

The Humanitarian Guise

In the Congo reports of Time and De Standaard, the ‘West’ appears mainly in its international and humanitarian guise. “International” (T: 54, DS: 91), “MONUC” (T: 47, DS: 69), “peacekeeping” (T:41), “peace forces” (DS: 49), “United Nations” (DS:133), “mission/s” (DS: 42), “observers” (DS: 57), “report/s” (DS:35): these are the keywords through which the role of the West is explained. The West observes, writes reports, sends peace missions and aid goods, and (in the end) attempts to pacify the Congo. As such, the Congo is a place where a perfectly rational and humanitarian operation of the West takes place. Where Western subjects are willing to bear the ‘White Man’s burden’ of peacemaking responsibly. Consequently, De Standaard writes in 2006 that “international pressure and the presence of foreign troops – 17.000 UN Blue Helmets and 2.000 European soldiers – reduce the possibility of accidents in the Congo considerably.” (Jul. 22, my emphasis). It goes without saying that tribal irrationality and ethnic warfare are the subtext of the suggested “accidents” (see also the first article of this series).

Apart from the ongoing parade of “international aid workers”, “international diplomats”, and “international rescue committee[s]” (T: Apr. 25, 1997; May 12, 1997; Jan. 29, 2001), the West also appears as individual nations. Similar to the West’s humanitarian role as an international entity, the different countries are mentioned mostly within diplomatic and peacekeeping contexts. France, for instance, is quoted in De Standaard when it send off a contingent of “soldiers for the EU-stabilizing forces” or in the context of its “intervention forces” (DS: 8 October, 2003; 7 October, 2003).

The former colonial ruler Belgium (which is mentioned frequently, particularly in De Standaard: DS: 133, T: 22) is also almost always referred to in humanitarian or diplomatic environments. In fact, if De Standaard mentions NGOs (61), chances are high that Belgian ones are meant. De Standaard even seems to suggest at times that Belgium’s presence in the Congo equals the presence of NGOs. The Belgian newspaper writes in a recent article, for instance, that “Belgium also has close ties to the Congo. Dozens of NGOs are working there to make the every day living conditions of Congolese a bit more bearable” (Jan. 31, 2009). Basically, this is the central message from the vast majority of Congo articles in both De Standaard and Time: don’t fret, dear readers, all is well, the West in general (and Belgium in particular) is helping the Congo.

Salvaging the West from Its History

It goes without saying that reducing the West’s role in the Congo to a humanitarian and diplomatic operation is a highly one-sided vision. Absent in this story is the West’s well-documented history of colonialism and intervention in the Congo, which is neither addressed properly in De Standaard nor in Time. The keyword “colonialism”, for instance, is hardly mentioned (DS: 9; T: 12). Whereas Time at least hints at the “epic abuses” of Leopold II (Jan. 19, 2001), De Standaard mostly refers to Belgium’s colonial past offhandedly (“our ex-colony”, e.g. 26 June 2001) and mostly within a humanitarian context (as mentioned above).

References to he first democratically elected Congolese premier Patrice Lumumba – the historical embodiment of the West’s interventionism in the Congo – are scarce in both De Standaard (9) and Time(1). Consequently, the assassination of Lumumba and its devastating effects on the course of Congolese history are mentioned rarely too. Whereas Time has the courtesy to link the elimination of Lumumba to some explicit extent to the Western powers (“U.S. plotting to assassinate Patrice Lumumba”, Sep. 1, 1998), De Standaard repeatedly leaves out Western agency altogether. In 2006, the newspaper writes: “Patrice Lumumba became prime minister after he won the ‘elections of the independence’ in 1960. A year later he was killed.” (Jul. 22). “Was killed”: Lumumba’s downright assassination by Western agencies and their Congolese helpers Tschombe and Mobutu (as revealed by Ludo De Witte, amongst others) is reduced to an action without a responsible agent. “Was killed”: by using a passive sentence, De Standaard ignores willingly Belgium’s and America’s role in the Congo and salvages therewith the West from its own bleak history.

Digging in Corruption

Apart from deleting the historical context, neither De Standaard nor Time focus systematically on the West’s current (and well-documented) scramble for the Congo’s natural resources. Although it is true that “gold” (T:12; DS: 20), “diamond/s” (T: 15; DS: 13), and “coltan” (T: 5; DS: 17) were hinted at more frequently in the wake of the 2001 UN “Report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo”, natural resources (and their exploitation) are at best mentioned as an afterthought of the ‘tribal’ warfare journalism. “Who profits from the chaos in Eastern Congo” headlines De Standaard promisingly in 2008 (Feb. 28) and the newspaper answers the question by focusing on the (tribal) atrocities of war and by stating somewhere in the middle of the article that “too many parties profit from an insecure border.” Naturally, “too many parties” refers to the tribal fiends from neighbouring African countries such as Rwanda, rather than their supporters and enablers from the West.

To the 2001 UN report, a list of complicit Western companies was attached (page 46-47). In contrast to Time, De Standaard took the hints of the UN and mentioned the Belgian war accomplices in a handful of short articles. However, the newspaper just mentioned these corporations casually and failed to do some thorough investigative journalism on the issue. Although Belgian-based Sabena Cargo was referred to several times in the UN report as one of the “key companies in this chain of exploitation and continuation of the war” (page 38), De Standaard merely devoted a report of 15 meagre lines on the company (Apr. 17, 2001). Headlined “Sabena denies involvement in plundering Congo”, the article’s central concern is to question the findings of the UN report rather than to discuss Sabena’s complicity critically. By acting this way, one of the major Belgian newspapers could not do to Sabena what the Austrian freelance journalist Klaus Werner would do practically by himself to the German firm H.C. Starck in his essay “Tantalusqualen für Handys“: exposing its complicity in the funding of the warring Congolese parties (see: Schwarzbuch Markenfirmen, page 69-72).

Since the 2001 report of the UN, it is considered a fact that Western nation states and international organisations such as the World Bank (T: 1; DS: 2) and IMF (T: 1; DS: 2) are facilitators of, and accomplices in, the conflict in the Congo (page 37-41). Since the UN report, it is considered a fact that the role of the Western private sector “has been vital” (page 41). But in spite of being considered facts and in spite of being confirmed over and over again (e.g. by the 2006 report “Digging in Corruption” by the NGO Global Witness), neither De Standaard nor Time are willing nor able to frame the war differently than in terms of tribal warfare and Western peacekeeping (see also the first article of this series). Because both focus on the war in the latter way and not, as the UN report 2001 does, as “a huge business venture” (page 42), both media misinterpret the war systematically.

Pacified by recurrent hints at the West’s humanitarian role and scarcely informed of the harm done by their own governments and by Western private companies, Western readers are left with a spotty understanding of the role of the West in the Congo war. A war which is kept going by the plunder of Coltan as much as by the deliveries of weapons. As both phenomena are backed by the West, the latter should feel morally and structurally responsible for the Congo disaster. And this is the story which should be told by both Time and De Standaard. Over and over again.