I bet you didn't know this.....
jlew24asu
Posts: 10,118
I admit it, I didnt. I am amazed at what goes on in Africa.
45,000 people dying a month in Congo
AKAR, Senegal - Some 45,000 people die each month in Congo as the world's deadliest humanitarian crisis has failed to improve despite five years of relative peace in the Central African nation, according to a report released Tuesday.
An estimated 5.4 million Congolese died between 1998 and April 2007 because of conflict, most from the rampant disease and food shortages stemming from fighting, the report said.
The study found that life is still alarmingly precarious for Congolese despite the end of the 1998-2002 conflict that pulled in armies from half a dozen surrounding countries, and the country's first free and fair elections in more than four decades in 2006.
"When war ended in Congo there was the same level of dysfunction without the violence," said Les Roberts, a Columbia University professor who helped conduct the first surveys in Congo with the International Rescue Committee.
The study was conducted by the IRC and Australia's Burnet Institute, which researches epidemiological disease.
Congo's monthly death rate of 2.2 deaths for each 1,000 people — essentially unchanged from the last survey in 2004 — is nearly 60 percent higher than the average for sub-Saharan Africa, according to report.
The vast majority of deaths were from nonviolent causes, such as malaria, diarrhea, pneumonia or malnutrition, the report said. Outbreaks of easily treatable diseases like measles and whooping cough have been a major killer of children in Congo, a nation the size of Western Europe.
The group The figures cast a shadow over ongoing negotiations for a peace deal between warlords and the government in Congo's long-volatile east.
The country's hilly eastern region, long the source of turmoil in the country of 66 million and still plagued by fighting, was one of the few to post a decrease in its death rate compared with the previous survey.
Richard Brennan, one of the study's lead authors, said he believed the reduction was related to a beefing-up of U.N. forces in the region and increased funding by humanitarian agencies working to stem the threatening public health disaster. The fighting has forced some 800,000 people to flee their homes in the last year.
On Monday, the government and representatives from armed groups active in eastern Congo had said that they had agreed in principle to the deal to end decades of conflict and expected to sign the document by late Tuesday.
But the plan faltered during discussions over last-minute amendments that dragged on into Tuesday evening.
"The consultations will continue because there have been disagreements concerning amendments to the text," said Sekimonyo Wamagangu, a spokesman for the conference. He said the groups hoped to find a compromise Wednesday.
According to a draft agreement made available to reporters, a cease-fire would take effect in eastern Congo immediately upon signing.
The draft also provides for a U.N.-monitored buffer zone between various armed groups and government forces, the logistics of which would be worked out by a technical committee to be established.
The militia fighters also would be given amnesty from prosecution for insurgency or acts of war, but not for war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Even if the deal is signed, and held to, the statistics point to a tough road ahead.
"It's going to require years of engagement from the Congolese people, the Congolese government and the international community," to reduce deaths, Brennan said.
45,000 people dying a month in Congo
AKAR, Senegal - Some 45,000 people die each month in Congo as the world's deadliest humanitarian crisis has failed to improve despite five years of relative peace in the Central African nation, according to a report released Tuesday.
An estimated 5.4 million Congolese died between 1998 and April 2007 because of conflict, most from the rampant disease and food shortages stemming from fighting, the report said.
The study found that life is still alarmingly precarious for Congolese despite the end of the 1998-2002 conflict that pulled in armies from half a dozen surrounding countries, and the country's first free and fair elections in more than four decades in 2006.
"When war ended in Congo there was the same level of dysfunction without the violence," said Les Roberts, a Columbia University professor who helped conduct the first surveys in Congo with the International Rescue Committee.
The study was conducted by the IRC and Australia's Burnet Institute, which researches epidemiological disease.
Congo's monthly death rate of 2.2 deaths for each 1,000 people — essentially unchanged from the last survey in 2004 — is nearly 60 percent higher than the average for sub-Saharan Africa, according to report.
The vast majority of deaths were from nonviolent causes, such as malaria, diarrhea, pneumonia or malnutrition, the report said. Outbreaks of easily treatable diseases like measles and whooping cough have been a major killer of children in Congo, a nation the size of Western Europe.
The group The figures cast a shadow over ongoing negotiations for a peace deal between warlords and the government in Congo's long-volatile east.
The country's hilly eastern region, long the source of turmoil in the country of 66 million and still plagued by fighting, was one of the few to post a decrease in its death rate compared with the previous survey.
Richard Brennan, one of the study's lead authors, said he believed the reduction was related to a beefing-up of U.N. forces in the region and increased funding by humanitarian agencies working to stem the threatening public health disaster. The fighting has forced some 800,000 people to flee their homes in the last year.
On Monday, the government and representatives from armed groups active in eastern Congo had said that they had agreed in principle to the deal to end decades of conflict and expected to sign the document by late Tuesday.
But the plan faltered during discussions over last-minute amendments that dragged on into Tuesday evening.
"The consultations will continue because there have been disagreements concerning amendments to the text," said Sekimonyo Wamagangu, a spokesman for the conference. He said the groups hoped to find a compromise Wednesday.
According to a draft agreement made available to reporters, a cease-fire would take effect in eastern Congo immediately upon signing.
The draft also provides for a U.N.-monitored buffer zone between various armed groups and government forces, the logistics of which would be worked out by a technical committee to be established.
The militia fighters also would be given amnesty from prosecution for insurgency or acts of war, but not for war crimes or crimes against humanity.
Even if the deal is signed, and held to, the statistics point to a tough road ahead.
"It's going to require years of engagement from the Congolese people, the Congolese government and the international community," to reduce deaths, Brennan said.
Post edited by Unknown User on
0
Comments
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
not surprised you would try to marginalize the article.
...
There's a lot of shit going on in other places. And the solutions are not easy. In Central Africa... there is nothing at stake for America, Europe or anywhere else. That is why no one does anything. Which is why so much evil is allowed to go unchecked.
Hail, Hail!!!
i wish you were wrong.
you make it sound like its america's fault for allowing it to happen. shouldn't "evil" be to blame?
and I think the area does have natural resources.....lumber, diamonds, even oil in some parts.
They are responsible for taking away some of Congo's forests.
http://www.corpwatch.org/article.php?id=14744
America is now representing the world bank?
No. I'm not saying it's America's fault. Although a lot of the weapons that are over there have 'Made In U.S.A.' stamped on them. We supported them through the latter part of the Cold War in order to 'Keep Communist Influences' out. The worst thing you can do to a poor nation is to funnel weapons into their hands... give them food and tools, instead. This is my biggest beef with our foriegn policy... we do things with our best interests in mind, not theirs. In hindsight, that's an easy call to make. But, our hands are not entirely clean in this one, either. We need to accept the responsibility of our involvement and learn the lessons from those failures instead of repeating them over and over again (ref. our current policy regarding Pakistan).
I'm saying that good people (in the U.S., Europe, The Middle East and Asia) are doing nothing... basically, because we all find greater problems to deal with. The abscense of good people allows bad people to run amok.
I wish we could all band together and fix this thing... but, everyone is looking out for their own best interests. In my opinion, that is the problem.
Hail, Hail!!!
I agree our hands are not completely clean in the matter. but its ultimately up to the people in those countries to right the wrong.
Who's marginalizing. It's a legitimate question.
We all know war takes form as a resource to fight over. Is US intervention viable there from a monetary perspective?
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I agree. If the Congo and their neighboring nations ask for assistance... I think we need to answer. But, we can't just turn our aid over to their corrupt, greedy leaders. We need to figure out a way to get the aid to the people.
That's a tough problem with no easy solutions.
Hail, Hail!!!
why does that matter?
by all means, where do you get this 90% number from?
Because nothing going to be done about it unless there's a prize at the end.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
so its america's responsibility to fix this. why?
Yeah, I'm confused. So the people that were so against us "fixing" Iraq would now like us to go "fix" the Congo?
It kind of sounds like you're damned if you do and damned if you don't.
for the least they could possibly do
I can think of 1 time since world war 2 that is a true case of humanitarian intervention, the North Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia to stop Pol Pot and his massacre. There are a few others, maybe one more example but the US never was in any capacity at any time after WWII involved in any sort of humanitarian intervention.
They can start anytime, and maybe the Congo would be a good place to do so.
You can give aid. You can give food. You can apply sanctions. We do it all the time.
But sometimes, that isn't enough. Sometimes, there are bad men killing people, and the only way to stop them is to kill them. It's a simple view of the world, for sure, but it's also a realistic one.
So ... I'm all for sending food and aid. I hope it happens. But I won't be surprised when food and aid fails to solve the problem. And then what?
for the least they could possibly do
Precisely. If anyone is still in the dark on what really happened in Iraq.
watch...
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=6182969183854471645&q=No+End+In+Sight&total=748&start=10&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=3
then get back to me..
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Because nothing is going to be done about it unless there's a prize at the end.
I thought I typed that already..
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
http://inthepresenttense.blogspot.com/
The way I understand it is that Africa is full of resources (in Congo too) but europe, and indirectly america as well, has fucked so much with africa in the past 500 years that current government try to stay as far as possible away from anything that can be compared to meddling over there.
However, Africa has (among plenty of other stuff) : diamonds, oil and uranium. And Africa also has unnatural borders and many different ethnies. So major corporation in oil (total and their role in rwanda), uranium (see arcelor with nigeria) and diamonds use the unstability to harvest ressources easily. China does basically the same (darfur?).
And it seems most occidental governments do not want to say anything, because of their ties with the corporations or because they still feel guilty with the colonisation and slavery and all of that or because they simply have no right to do so and do not want to use it.
naděje umírá poslední
The Congo's growing petroleum sector is by far the country's major revenue earner.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_the_Republic_of_the_Congo
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.
Interesting how some (read: shills) assume the US is doing nothing, when in fact it's well documented the CIA routinely infiltrates many aspects of foreign government, and the outcome is not necessarily of a helping nature...wink wink
If the middle east was dry on oil, Iraq would in fact be the Congo... or the next largest resource.
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
I'll ask again. why is it America's responsibility to fix this?
so its be proven that the congo (and other central african countries) are full of natural resources. prizes as you say.
by your logic, we are ready to invade, kill all civilians, and take the recources for ourselves.
are we doing this after we invade Iran?
in other news, it quite sad that so many people are dying over there.
Yes it is sad that people are dying over there but it would a good idea to find out why they are dying.
The economy has polarized to the point where the wealthiest 10% now own 85% of the nation’s wealth. Never before have the bottom 90% been so highly indebted, so dependent on the wealthy.