Relatively Historical Event

Relative to every day, the violence is not historical. That’s a “normal” aspect of life in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Today, the country is supposed to hold the first “free” elections in over 40 years. And in spite of the atrocities that happen here every day, the rape and pillaging, the impunity, and on and on, the media have finally decided to give some attention to this, the third largest country in Africa. Is this right?

One candidate, Mobutu’s son, said that his father would win if he was alive because, as he put it, the Congo needs leadership.

Bemba was described as 2-meters tall, 160 kg with his own Boeing 727.

As bizarre, or benign, as this might seem now, it's the aftermath that I fear.

You did it MY WAY (apologies to Frankie Sinatra)

Why does one get into overseas relief and development work? There is an altruistic vein running through some of us. There is also a hedonistic vein, in some of us, having once experienced the excitement of being in another country and culture, exploiting the “aura” of being an American/vazaha, gringo, khawaga, mizungu, whatever, that it is a lot of fun to see the world from a different perspective, and to enjoy from another, as well.

In any case, the point is that once a “development” action has been put in place in some forsaken place in the world, there are consequences on other aspects of day-to-day life in the village. For example, some well-meaning soul sees water-borne diseases causing many deaths in some very remote village next to a wilderness area. Immediate response: deliver healthcare services that will save lives. What is the chain of possible events? Well, people, in their living state, consume resources to survive. If people die, the birth rate may be offset, and the number of people remains stable. If, because of improved access to health services, less people die, then there are more people seeking resources. Most rural-based populations subsist on the natural resources that are at hand. In this example, it would be the wilderness at their proverbial doorstep. All of a sudden, the conservationists are up in arms because the rate of deforestation has increased because need to grow more crops to feed their ever-increasing families. In turn, the deforestation causes sedimentation and degradation of the quality of the water sources, hence an increase in water-borne diseases. So, the government, backed by a Big International Non Governmental Organization (a.k.a., BINGO), restricts the local villagers’ access to the wilderness that has sustained them for centuries. Outcries of social injustice sound, armed militias might come in, depending on what type of resources (timber, gold, etc.) might be found in our wilderness, and we spin forlornly into a crisis situation.

Of course, the “well-intentioned” donor, albeit an individual or a government, would not invest any money unless they feel the identified problem is important enough to merit attention. But how do the different issues take on such different levels of importance depending on who observes? The mid-90’s genocide in Rwanda was “important enough” for the USA to look away… The ongoing an worsening crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo has not drawn much attention from donors.
Some of the factors that earn a given situation a good ranking might include:

Simplicity: if we throw money at it, will it go away?

Reputation: if we don’t throw money, will it damage our image?

International economics: would our resolving this increase / secure our access?

Domestic economics: “what this economy needs is a war”

Whatever the reason, money talks.