Global News : Passport : Ricks : Drezner : Walt : Rothkopf : Lynch
The Cable : The AfPak Blog : Net Effect : Shadow Govt. : Madam Secretary : The Call
Strategic ethnocentrism
Howard W. French has written a fascinating and disturbing review essay in the latest New York Review of Books. It is an assessment of three recent books on the cataclysmic war that has been taking place in Central Africa, and here's the passage that reached out and grabbed me:
The protracted and inconclusive conflict that followed has become what Gérard Prunier, in the title of his sprawling book, calls "Africa's World War," a catastrophic decade of violence that has led to a staggering 5.4 million deaths, far more than any war anywhere since World War II. It also has resulted in one of the largest -- and least followed -- UN interventions in the world, involving nearly 20,000 UN soldiers from over forty countries.
I was aware of this conflict, of course, but as I read French's essay, I realized that I knew very little about its origins, evolution, or the prospects for ending it. I'm a full-time professional in the field of international relations and security studies, and I teach an undergraduate course on "the origins of modern wars" here at Harvard. I go to seminars on various international relations topics almost every week. And yet I knew next-to-nothing about the greatest international bloodletting of my lifetime. Readers of this blog know that I'm usually wary about outsiders meddling in situations they don't understand and that don't involve vital interests, but that's no excuse for being ignorant about a cataclysm of this magnitude.
I could offer up various reasons for this lapse -- I've never studied African politics, the conflict hasn't been high on the U.S. foreign policy agenda, Western media haven't given a lot of play, I've been working on other topics, etc. -- but frankly, none of those reasons are very convincing. Mea culpa.
I suspect I'm not alone in my ignorance either, and French's essay suggests that U.S. officials who were engaged in this conflict (including current U.N. Ambassador Susan Rice) didn't have a firm grasp of what was going on either. There's probably some "strategic ethnocentrism" going on here too: Western elites pay a lot more attention when people like them are being killed in large numbers, and look the other way when the victims are impoverished Africans.
As for me, I have some reading to do, starting with the three books discussed in French's essay (Gerard Prunier, Africa's World War; René Lemarchand, The Dynamics of Violence in Central Africa, and Thomas Turner, The Congo Wars.)
And it's time to make some changes to my course syllabus, too.
ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP/Getty Images
Advertisement
FOREIGN POLICY is published by the Slate Group,
a division of Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC.
All contents ©2009 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive, LLC. All rights reserved.
“The pessimist complains about the wind; the optimist expects it to change; the realist adjusts the sails.”
Stephen M. Walt is the Robert and Renée Belfer Professor of International Relations at Harvard University.
Daily Reads
Affiliations
Recent Writings
"strategic ethnocentrism"
"strategic ethnocentrism"
So that is the new euphemism for racism?
Maybe get some attention if
Maybe get some attention if someone could find a way to blame the Jews for it?
another way:
the "israeli zionists/racists/settlers/extremists" could stop killing people so the media will bring to attention other conflicts.
no one blames "the jews". please stop ur anti-semitic racism.
Another reason is that they
Another reason is that they don't have much oil or send bombs our way. I have found however that practically speaking it is impossible to find good resources on the myriad of different ethnic, religious, and political groups that are in these nations; despite the fact that these actors are in many ways far more important than the nation-states. Take Somalia as a case study, going through both mass media like the New York Times and more specialized resources like Columbia International I'm still unable to learn the most minute details on the ethnic groups there.
startup costs are high
Another reason for our ignorance is that the situation is incredibly complex for a novice. Too many actors have been fighting each other for a very long time. The places, names are all unfamiliar, making it difficult to follow the narratives. I have tried to read Lemarchand and Trunier but it required too much attention and going back and forth between the text and maps etc. What is more, since my background on African history is weak, I have to believe the authors' conclusions. I cannot gauge whether their narratives are biased or missing important perspectives. As a result I felt I was not really benefiting much from these books and put them down. No one can know about everything and I will stick to topics/eras where I have some basic understanding.
Prunier
On this point, Prunier's book is apparently controversial for its sourcing and interpretation of events. For a fairly scathing review at Small Wars Journal see
http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/2009/01/book-review-africas-world-war/
Then again, does one poor review a controversy make? Might be more out there.
We all have to start somewhere
kerimcan, if you've read Lemarchand and Trunier then you can at least say that you know more than I do. I'm completely ignorant on this subject. Though that's not going to stop me from starting to inform myself. After all, experts were novices once too.
A Forgotten War
From a human point of view, this is the most significant war since World War 2. Its history will be written and re-written, from the Genocide through the fall of Mobutu to the conflict that drags on still. It is still very contested, with the initial narrative of the Tutsis/RPF as "Africa's Israelis" gradually ceding to a more balanced and nuanced perspective.
The reason for its being ignored...
is because it is impossible to easily impose a moral narrative on the Congo war, as it is essentially a free-for-all fratricide. Whereas an issue such as the Israeli-Palestinian dispute is so popular because it is irresistibly easy to impose one's moral narrative on the conflict (from either side).
Adam Curtis makes this point well:-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xW3XeT7qavo
Its good you brought this to our attention
Thanks.
My brothers keeper
Probably we are so busy,and when asked obout our brother we retord "am I my brothers keeper" and sometimes we are not so sure if this people are humanbeing at all.
I still find them with blood,red flesh and white bone... what a pity.
Suddenly ignorance leaves Mr. Walt with no opinion?
Mr. Walt pleads ignorance of Africa's genocides and wars so hazards no opinion. However beyond knowing the names of some of the various players in the Middle East and Central Asia he has never demonstrated any knowledge of the Middle East and Central Asia yet routinely opines on both implying an expertise he clearly lacks.
i disagree
he has demonstrated to me. his job is further demonstration. add the fact that he is a contributor. this is more than what you have.
please shut up.
I won't shut up
...and if he has 'demonstrated' to you then it truly is the blind leading the blind. Idiot!
please reread what you wrote
he has demonstrated to many people, not just me. so your point is: we are all "blind"?
and your proof is: " ... "
i say shut up because you talk but its worthless talk without any logic or proof.
While the Congo Burns....
Professor Walt is not the only one surprised by the carnage in Central Africa over the past twenty years. Given the almost complete lack of media coverage and analysis in the United States it's not surprising. What is surprising is that Rwanda's President Kagame gets kudos from people like Phillip Gourevitch and the NY Times Stephen Kinzer even though his bloody hands are all over the rape and pillage of the Eastern Congo. Money and power rule the roost in places like the Congo, not ideas. The West created the conditions for the carnage and now has walked away from it...better there isn't much coverage if only to spare people like Bill Clinton, Susan Rice, et. al. the 'shame' of their inaction and ineptitude. Can any one tell me why Susan Rice is still employed in a policy position? She should be doing penance at a Carmelite nunnery.
I've heard of it, and the
I've heard of it, and the scale of it, but knew few details other than that several of Zaire's neighbors were making power plays on its territory and resources.
My attitude to it all is a bit of a fatalistic shrug. What do you expect? Zaire/Congo is a very weak and large area, almost like the Holy Roman Empire in historical Europe. It's surrounded by opportunistic and feuding neighbors, some with real grievances (for all of Prunier's defenses, let us not forget that the RPF replaced a genocidal regime that was seeking to kill off an entire ethnic group with a "merely" dictatorial one that keeps the peace and has decent economic growth - and many of the Hutus in Zaire/Congo were involved), some without.
Please, let's be real. No one
Please, let's be real. No one cares about Third World problems. We are so busy chasing jobs and spouses, that we just don't have time. Congo/Shmongo/Bongo...do Black Americans even care? Can you like walk up to an African-American and say "hey, what's going on in the Congo?" and yet, Obama claims he is a "Son of Africa". Just shows you the lunacy of it all.
Let Africa take care of Africa - that's what it was scrambling for since the 50s.
Wow what an incoherent
Wow what an incoherent comment