Washington Times series on Congo and Rape

I don't normally read the Washington Times much but this headline today caught my eye as I was walking to work this morning: "Congo's shame: rape used as a tool of war." The Times (for our international readers, the Times is considered a right-wing newspaper here in Washington and it's not as well regarded as the Washington Post) is running a three day special on DRC--more specifically on rape as a weapon of war. The series is based on six weeks of reporting in the war-torn country.

I've read the first article and it's a pretty good introduction to the problem of rape in DRC. There's also a couple narrated slideshows/videos that you might want to watch/listen to (while the pictures are difficult, the narration/interviews can be rather graphic).

There's not really much to say except move coverage of this is a positive development. I think it's a good thing that a paper like the Washington Times is covering this because I suspect its readers aren't normally exposed to the reality of war in DRC.

War in Congo: Rape, the Secretary of State and Security Sector Reform (Update 2)

Secretary Clinton is on an 11 day, 7 nation trip through Africa this week and next. She started in Kenya and Angola. Today she was in Kinshasa and then Goma and highlighted the continuing use of rape as a weapon in the long-running Congolese conflict. There are a several things to flag and read if you haven't already.

First, the Washington Post has this horrifying piece about the rising rate in rape as a result of the ongoing FARDC offensive against the FDLR (in part the former Rwandan genocidaires). What I found was different about the piece: interviews with rape victims and interviews with soldiers who try to justify/rationalize their behavior. It also describes how nothing happens, even when commanders are notified of these crimes.

The story includes an interview with a soldier explaining that lack of pay, lack of food rations, and being away from home, justify rape (the can of sardines was supposed to be a food ration for several soldiers for more than a week):

"The truth is like this," said one officer, sitting under a shed and sipping a powerful local brew. "What is making soldiers to do these bad things is their treatment by the army. Imagine, one can of sardines?! And you send a soldier away for 10 years?! So, I'm hungry, I'm in need of a wife and I have no money to pay for a prostitute, he said. "If I see a woman walking on the road, and I love her, I will take her. I will help myself."

So, in Goma, Secretary Clinton, reportedly visibly shaken by her conversations with victims, announced $17 million in assistance.

She also reportedly spoke to President Kabila about improving pay, living conditions,and training for the Congolese armed forces. That sounds nice, but let's hope she provided more advice than that. Since Ambassador Rice keeps saying the US is actually going to contributing more than its substantial assessed contributions to UN operations, maybe we can figure out a way to help build capacity for military justice for example, perhaps by training others to do it given our obligations in Afghanistan.

Since we've learned a lot recently about actually paying soldiers, lowering absenteeism rates and increasing professionalism, maybe that's something we could share with the EU and the UN as they work to professionalize the FARDC. One thing is for sure, things aren't going to change in Congo until we figure out ways to make sure the FARDC aren't away from home for too long, and of course are held accountable for raping, looting, and generally behaving like a bunch thugs.

UPDATE 1: More on Clinton's plan to fight rape in DRC:

She announced that the American government would train doctors, supply rape victims with video cameras to document violence, send American military engineers to help build facilities and train Congolese police officers, especially female police officers, to crack down on rapists.

That and the Secretary also mentioned the need to better regulate the conflict-funding mineral trade in the region.

UPDATE 2: Thanks to Vanessa for pointing this out but Texas in Africa (and some people in the comments) makes the following observation about the program:

$17 million is a drop in the bucket compared to what is needed to treat the tens of thousands of victims who need immediate help...That money is nowhere near enough to whip the police force into shape (and they need training on more issues than just gender-based violence), but it will certainly help.

And then a commenter:

Also on the camcorders - don't they contain coltan, and wouldn't distributing large numbers of them simply increase the demand for the mineral "they" say should be curtailed to stop the violence? Or don't they believe that?

Well, obviously, I don't know how many camcorders we're talking about but that strikes me as the deepest of ironies. The minerals are funding the conflict. The soldiers/combatants who are exploiting resources rape women. And then later the women get the camcorders, the very camcorders for which the resources are exploited and...And as Texas in Africa points out, that's money we're not spending on training/properly paying security forces.