Rwanda is threatening the rotten Congolese state. Open conflict has replaced the chaos of Kinshasan rule. True peace requires a competent state; I will not shed crocodile tears if Kagame brings it
Great piece Peter! “What does support democracy in the Congo even mean?” Is a fantastic question. While I would normally aim to support democratic governments abroad, like in Taiwans case, you pointed out perfectly that you cannot have democracy without rule of law, which in and of itself requires order.
The East Asians Tiger economies are all NOW very successful democratic states, but 40 years they were shepherded by dictatorships. Why should we expect, or even coerce, African countries to be any different?
If, by violating UN recognized boarders in the eastern Congo, Rwanda is able to bring stability, governance, and prosperity to the region - then why shouldn’t we support it? Should imaginary lines on map be valued more than human prosperity?
Yet in philippines or indonesia the rule of law is not yet as good as taiwan for instance after the end of dictatorships. On the other hand, I know about one of its formula which is "invest more on education" does not always means throw more money to the problem.
Very enjoyable and information- dense. Thanks for this.
African countries need to be let alone to find their own angle of repose and form or dissolve as they will. But this will mean millions of deaths through famine and plague and wars fought with spears and machetes. It would also mean immigrant waves in the tens of millions and the frank Africanization of Europe. I doubt future generations would find any of that tolerable and I expect the wealthier and yes supremacist nations (we all know who they are) to actively manage Africa's transition from r-selected hunter-gatherer societies to K-selected civilization. I think the USA with its insane obsession with ideology (the "freedom" in your hierarchy of values) crowds out a lot of creative problem-solving.
Finally, Kagame is a peacemaker and capable ruler but I'd probably look capable with $1B in foreign aid a year too, and I'm not sure countries should put all their eggs in the basket of one nuclear family. Kagame is 67 years old.
> It would be like if during the middle of Gilgamesh, an industrial superpower had shown up, destroyed or discredited any semblance of the old society root and stem—from religion to traditional power hierarchies—then ruled tyrannically while insisting on their moral and biological superiority.
You previously noted that this region endured slave raids by Arabized and Islamized Zanzibaris. King Leopold justified his costly Congo venture on humanitarian grounds, claiming Belgians would be better caretakers than the Arabs. The Arabs also asserted their 'moral and biological superiority,' so without European intervention, perhaps a Sudan-like situation would have emerged. Is the primary distinction here, then, just the power disparity between industrial and pre-industrial societies?
I think the major difference between 19th century colonialism(especially in Africa) and prior ~imperialism~ was the Industrial Revolution and its fruits.
Every society in history has proclaimed their superiority but usually this isn’t associated with god like powers. Obviously the Arabs in Sudan were more powerful than the Blacks but they were operating inside of similar pre modern paradigm. The Euros at the turn of the 20th century were unimaginably more powerful.
In Andrew Robert’s “Napoleon: A Life” he talks about how the Egyptian nobility thought the academics Napoleon brought with him were, shitty, magicians. That was 80 years before the scramble for Africa and the Arabs in Egypt were an advanced society.
What this meant was that a tiny number of white euros were basically able to rule by convincing the locals they were superior and then demonstrating it in ways an early Iron Age or late Stone Age society couldn’t model. In king Leopolds ghosts it talks about how the Belgians went village to village getting them to “join” the free state. Often they did this, literally, by doing magic tricks like electrocuting people.
In sum you had a race of very different looking and different behaving “magicians” show up and then insist you are basically scum only to rule you for 100 years. This has left deep wounds imo.
I disagree with the "African problems require African solutions" vibe at the end. The badly configured borders of Africa were created by Europeans and are maintained by them today. Europeans created this problem and they have the greatest responsibility to solve it by changing the borders today.
But if someone else, like America, wants to solve the problem then that's okay too.
But the problem *is* that the borders are wrong and other solutions are just papering over the cracks.
I really don't like the idea of just letting Kagame take over Kivu, he is certainly a dictator and I'm a strong supporter of the idea that democracy is better than dictatorship.
Europe should unfuck Africa, especially central Africa. That they (or the US) probably wont doesn't mean it should not even be talked about. That's self-defeating.
As the US ends its long infatuation with liberalism with a turn towards quasi-fascism (e.g. seeking anschluss with Canada) then it would be logically consistent for the US to support Kagame annexing Kivu, that is true.
Europe is still strongly holding to liberalism at the moment which means putting up with any amount of suffering in Kivu that honouring already existing borders requires.
Those are the three choices. That the best one doesn't have a state backer does not mean it should be off the table. People who do live in developed democratic countries *can* vote and impose their views on their own governments. But if writers never talk about it because "it's too unrealistic" or something like that then of course it'll never happen.
I appreciate you reading my essay and sharing your thoughts. How would Europe “unfuck” Africa’s borders? Given the Kishasha regime for obvious reasons doesn’t want them changed and will resist.
Should Europe invade? Or just unilaterally change them to reflect a better system and just proclaim it so?
Step one: create a detailed survey of the demography and geography of the region (probably no need to do much original research, most of the data will already exist).
Step two: draw lines on the map that make the most sense for long term stability and trust maximisation. There is not one variable here, typically there are three main ones (geographic obstacles, language, religion) but others exist too. There will be messiness as well (consider the India-Pakistan split). Perfection is an impossible goal, people will die.
Step three: at least attempt diplomacy (even though this will surely fail it's necessary to make things easier in the long run).
Step four: invade to force conformance to the new lines on the map. Stick around long enough for it to take hold.
Why this will work when US invasions don't: to borrow physics language, you'll be attempting to force institutions in the region into their lowest energy, most stable, state. There will be a well advertised end goal right from the start, everyone will know what the entire plan and strategy is right from day one, no uncertainty. Plenty of locals will take the side of the Europeans, especially as time goes on. European militaries are vastly stronger than Central African ones.
Step five: sit back and wait for the economies of the region to take off, more money will be made from having new customers to sell to than the invasion will have cost.
Bottom line: military force makes this happen. Success depends on really good planning before the first shot is fired. Maybe diplomacy could do it too, but I doubt it, and it would take forever.
Libya would make a great first target since it's already de facto very close to where it should be.
I've read literally thousands of pages about Rwanda and Congo over the years (though mostly in college, now a very long time ago) and found it to be a wonderful refresher and introduction to recommend to others.
Great piece Peter! “What does support democracy in the Congo even mean?” Is a fantastic question. While I would normally aim to support democratic governments abroad, like in Taiwans case, you pointed out perfectly that you cannot have democracy without rule of law, which in and of itself requires order.
The East Asians Tiger economies are all NOW very successful democratic states, but 40 years they were shepherded by dictatorships. Why should we expect, or even coerce, African countries to be any different?
If, by violating UN recognized boarders in the eastern Congo, Rwanda is able to bring stability, governance, and prosperity to the region - then why shouldn’t we support it? Should imaginary lines on map be valued more than human prosperity?
Thanks Brendon. Totally agree!
Yet in philippines or indonesia the rule of law is not yet as good as taiwan for instance after the end of dictatorships. On the other hand, I know about one of its formula which is "invest more on education" does not always means throw more money to the problem.
Saying this as an Indonesian
Very enjoyable and information- dense. Thanks for this.
African countries need to be let alone to find their own angle of repose and form or dissolve as they will. But this will mean millions of deaths through famine and plague and wars fought with spears and machetes. It would also mean immigrant waves in the tens of millions and the frank Africanization of Europe. I doubt future generations would find any of that tolerable and I expect the wealthier and yes supremacist nations (we all know who they are) to actively manage Africa's transition from r-selected hunter-gatherer societies to K-selected civilization. I think the USA with its insane obsession with ideology (the "freedom" in your hierarchy of values) crowds out a lot of creative problem-solving.
Finally, Kagame is a peacemaker and capable ruler but I'd probably look capable with $1B in foreign aid a year too, and I'm not sure countries should put all their eggs in the basket of one nuclear family. Kagame is 67 years old.
Thanks for reading!
> It would be like if during the middle of Gilgamesh, an industrial superpower had shown up, destroyed or discredited any semblance of the old society root and stem—from religion to traditional power hierarchies—then ruled tyrannically while insisting on their moral and biological superiority.
You previously noted that this region endured slave raids by Arabized and Islamized Zanzibaris. King Leopold justified his costly Congo venture on humanitarian grounds, claiming Belgians would be better caretakers than the Arabs. The Arabs also asserted their 'moral and biological superiority,' so without European intervention, perhaps a Sudan-like situation would have emerged. Is the primary distinction here, then, just the power disparity between industrial and pre-industrial societies?
I think the major difference between 19th century colonialism(especially in Africa) and prior ~imperialism~ was the Industrial Revolution and its fruits.
Every society in history has proclaimed their superiority but usually this isn’t associated with god like powers. Obviously the Arabs in Sudan were more powerful than the Blacks but they were operating inside of similar pre modern paradigm. The Euros at the turn of the 20th century were unimaginably more powerful.
In Andrew Robert’s “Napoleon: A Life” he talks about how the Egyptian nobility thought the academics Napoleon brought with him were, shitty, magicians. That was 80 years before the scramble for Africa and the Arabs in Egypt were an advanced society.
What this meant was that a tiny number of white euros were basically able to rule by convincing the locals they were superior and then demonstrating it in ways an early Iron Age or late Stone Age society couldn’t model. In king Leopolds ghosts it talks about how the Belgians went village to village getting them to “join” the free state. Often they did this, literally, by doing magic tricks like electrocuting people.
In sum you had a race of very different looking and different behaving “magicians” show up and then insist you are basically scum only to rule you for 100 years. This has left deep wounds imo.
Also, unlike the previous raiding parties, they built a more permanent presence.
About to leave on a hike. I will write up a full answer later. But yes I think the power differential is a big part of the difference.
I disagree with the "African problems require African solutions" vibe at the end. The badly configured borders of Africa were created by Europeans and are maintained by them today. Europeans created this problem and they have the greatest responsibility to solve it by changing the borders today.
But if someone else, like America, wants to solve the problem then that's okay too.
But the problem *is* that the borders are wrong and other solutions are just papering over the cracks.
I really don't like the idea of just letting Kagame take over Kivu, he is certainly a dictator and I'm a strong supporter of the idea that democracy is better than dictatorship.
Europe should unfuck Africa, especially central Africa. That they (or the US) probably wont doesn't mean it should not even be talked about. That's self-defeating.
As the US ends its long infatuation with liberalism with a turn towards quasi-fascism (e.g. seeking anschluss with Canada) then it would be logically consistent for the US to support Kagame annexing Kivu, that is true.
Europe is still strongly holding to liberalism at the moment which means putting up with any amount of suffering in Kivu that honouring already existing borders requires.
Those are the three choices. That the best one doesn't have a state backer does not mean it should be off the table. People who do live in developed democratic countries *can* vote and impose their views on their own governments. But if writers never talk about it because "it's too unrealistic" or something like that then of course it'll never happen.
I appreciate you reading my essay and sharing your thoughts. How would Europe “unfuck” Africa’s borders? Given the Kishasha regime for obvious reasons doesn’t want them changed and will resist.
Should Europe invade? Or just unilaterally change them to reflect a better system and just proclaim it so?
Firstly I apologise for my extremely late reply.
Step one: create a detailed survey of the demography and geography of the region (probably no need to do much original research, most of the data will already exist).
Step two: draw lines on the map that make the most sense for long term stability and trust maximisation. There is not one variable here, typically there are three main ones (geographic obstacles, language, religion) but others exist too. There will be messiness as well (consider the India-Pakistan split). Perfection is an impossible goal, people will die.
Step three: at least attempt diplomacy (even though this will surely fail it's necessary to make things easier in the long run).
Step four: invade to force conformance to the new lines on the map. Stick around long enough for it to take hold.
Why this will work when US invasions don't: to borrow physics language, you'll be attempting to force institutions in the region into their lowest energy, most stable, state. There will be a well advertised end goal right from the start, everyone will know what the entire plan and strategy is right from day one, no uncertainty. Plenty of locals will take the side of the Europeans, especially as time goes on. European militaries are vastly stronger than Central African ones.
Step five: sit back and wait for the economies of the region to take off, more money will be made from having new customers to sell to than the invasion will have cost.
Bottom line: military force makes this happen. Success depends on really good planning before the first shot is fired. Maybe diplomacy could do it too, but I doubt it, and it would take forever.
Libya would make a great first target since it's already de facto very close to where it should be.
Wow fantastic read!
Thanks man! It means a lot to me you read it and commented :)
Amazing summary
Thanks!! I really appreciate you reading and commenting :)
Thank you for this wonderful post!
Thank you for reading!
I've read literally thousands of pages about Rwanda and Congo over the years (though mostly in college, now a very long time ago) and found it to be a wonderful refresher and introduction to recommend to others.
Agreed, this was a clear and concise primer on the region and its recent history!