The Congo Crisis - What's Going on in the Congo ?

Lestat wrote:

AfricanDave wrote:

Irish ONUC troops (36 Bn) man a position over the Elizabeth road tunnel during the Congo Crisis, December 1961.
(Image: Irish Defence Forces)

I'm not sure where the Elizabeth road tunnel is but I'm assuming it's in Congo.

I think that should be the Elizabethville road tunnel. Two Irish soldiers dies capturing it in Dec 1961. Below is a picture of a Congo mercenary. He looks more or less the same as the lads in Elizabethville to me.

No doubt the tunnel was in Elizabethville. However, as a quick read of the marvellous book by a Telegraph journo's retracing Stanley's footsteps -'Blood River'- will inform you that the Congo is unique in that it is the grandparents that remember cars, roads, trains, planes, bridges etc whereas the majority of kids only encounter with modernity is through things that go bang in the night. And day too.

Re secession: Katanga was seriously resource rich.

youngdan wrote:

I am a big fan of Griffin and his book on the federal reserve is one I frequently recommend to anyone who wishs to follow the markets.
That aside I read through the material by the lady journalist that was linked. Both tribes were canibals and indeed savages. She has a high opinion of Lamumba.
But why do you disbelieve the account that I linked. It paints a picture of the Soviets aiding Lamumba to set up his communist system. It says Conor Cruise O Brien admitted this to be the case. It prints a letter by Lamumba which makes damning reading indeed. Unless this letter was made up then Lamumba was just another Mugabi.
I no more believe that the UN is ever in the business of helping the natives than I believe in the tooth fairy. This is similiar to my opinion of them http://stiffrightjab.com/2008/06/06/the-un-american-united-nations/
The Americans are looters as revealed by Confessions of an Economic Hitman.
I hope to read up more on this

I don't remember yer one mentioning Lumumba, what did she say? It's not surprising that she thought well of Lumumba, you have to remember that the opinion of Griffin and his friends is in the minority. It's just not generally accepted that he was a Communist, though he certianly had their sympathies and support. Griffin can't seem to explain why Lumuimba isn't normally regarded as a Communist, or why the US and the UN religiously followed the wishes of an evil dictator. And if he was Communist, so what? He was democratically elected.

Griffin paints a very simple picture of black and white, good and evil, which bears no resemblance to everyday life. Lumumba has no redeeming features whatsoever, and Griffin can only goggle at the reverence paid to him. Tshombe then, who makes Jesus look seedy, is ignored despite constantly being nice to everyone and bending over backwards in favour of peace and harmony.

I think the question of what the UN is really up probably deserves a thread of its own in the political theory section. I'd love a short clear explanation from Griffin, yourself and the the fellows at goodrightjab (come on now admit it, that website's a joke. You thought you had me there!).

As to what it was up to in the Congo, it was there to get the Belgian troops out. That's what they were doing in Katanga.

905 wrote:

Griffin can't seem to explain why Lumuimba isn't normally regarded as a Communist, or why the US and the UN religiously followed the wishes of an evil dictator..

The US and the UN didn't religiously follow Lumumba's wishes.

Remember that he threw a wobbler when Hammerskjold refused to allow UN troops to end the Katanga secession. And it was the refusal of the US to jump through hoops for him that sent Lumumba running to the Russians. He wasn't a communist, he was just playing Cold War brinksmanship. And he lost.

youngdan wrote:

I posted a video dealing with this elsewhere some time ago. My understanding is the UN subdued Katanga with great slaughter. That Irish slug who I am waiting to kick the bucket had a big role to play

The man you refer to as a "slug" wrote with great sensitivity about the inherent racism of the Belgian colonists.

youngdan wrote:

The baluba were canibals so maybe they were just hungry. I am away for a few days but what is your opinion of this excerpt from a book that I have not read but may read a few chapters if it is online. http://www.peacekey.com/1-1-a/UN_Web/1_UN_Book/The_Fearful_Master_02.htm

I read it youngdan. I'm sure your aware that the cry of Reds under the Bed! is not enough here to relieve us totally of our senses - even in the US that eventually wore a bit thin.

After a helpful start, this thread is beginning to confuse me again. Are we talking about Conor Cruise O'Brien? What was his role in all this?

I not only read the linked article by the lady journalist but other links off the link. From all the reading it looked that she was on Lamumba's side. Interestingly enough she reported that Frank Carluci was 28 and he befriended(fakely) Lamumba and was instumental in his downfall. He went on to greater things in the Bush dynasty.
I do not know anything about the site good right jab but that particular viewpoint of the UN is one that I believe to be accurate.

Cactus. Did you read the book The Fearful Master and if so what was the gist of it. From the excerpt it would appear to be totally at odds from the reports of the American lady.

Lestat wrote:

905 wrote:

Griffin can't seem to explain why Lumuimba isn't normally regarded as a Communist, or why the US and the UN religiously followed the wishes of an evil dictator..

The US and the UN didn't religiously follow Lumumba's wishes.

Remember that he threw a wobbler when Hammerskjold refused to allow UN troops to end the Katanga secession. And it was the refusal of the US to jump through hoops for him that sent Lumumba running to the Russians. He wasn't a communist, he was just playing Cold War brinksmanship. And he lost.

Well, amazingly, that evaded the rigourous scrutiny of Griffin, which was my point.

youngdan wrote:

I not only read the linked article by the lady journalist but other links off the link. From all the reading it looked that she was on Lamumba's side. Interestingly enough she reported that Frank Carluci was 28 and he befriended(fakely) Lamumba and was instumental in his downfall. He went on to greater things in the Bush dynasty.
I do not know anything about the site good right jab but that particular viewpoint of the UN is one that I believe to be accurate.

She was on everone's side from what I recall. She sympathised with the Baluba while describing their cannibalism, she sympathised with the white Belgians while reporting on their cover-up of the tribal war and she couldn't belive that the Belgian king, whom she had met and thought was lovely, was involved in the shambles that was the setting up of the Congo state.

Good right Jab had a section entitled Liberty Letters, which kind of said it all to me. Who needs substance when you can think up nifty sounding rubbish like that? I'm being mean, the site could be really insightful and informative for all I know.

cactus flower wrote:

After a helpful start, this thread is beginning to confuse me again. Are we talking about Conor Cruise O'Brien? What was his role in all this?

Conor Cruise O'Brien, who was mentioned frequently in the Fearful Master, was the head of the UN in the Ciongo at the time. He was more or less responsible for all the UN did there.

The John Birch Society video is a good reminder that there is not much "neo" about neo-conservatism.

That is why I took a dislike to him. Him saying that colonists were racists does not make him a good guy as implied above because every colonist must have a low opinion of the natives.

Your understanding of the Birch people and the neo-cons must be amiss. The neo cons are globalist internationalists and the birch people are America First people.

youngdan wrote:

Your understanding of the Birch people and the neo-cons must be amiss. The neo cons are globalist internationalists and the birch people are America First people.

Then why were they so worried about Katanga and the Red Peril ?

cactus flower wrote:

youngdan wrote:

Your understanding of the Birch people and the neo-cons must be amiss. The neo cons are globalist internationalists and the birch people are America First people.

Then why were they so worried about Katanga and the Red Peril ?

They're worried about what the sneaky UN might be up to in the US of A. Breaching soveregnty and all that. I've sugested a seperate thread for this issue.

They are concerned about that indeed. They would be questioning why the US State Department allowed the UN to interfere on Lamumba's side who they believed to be tied to the Russians. Their question would be why support the communists when a free Katanga would be much better if we are to believe the East/West rivalry baloney. They believe the State Department to be riddled with Communist globalists and were proved correct with Alger Hiss.
They blame the State Department for allowing Mao to win China and General Marshall in particular. They choose the name after an American officer killed in China called John Birch. They would now question why if North Korea such a threat that Clinton gave them billions of dollars and Bush is doing the same. Why are we talking about invading them while we are feeding them

Maybe the UN of the 1960s wasn't as obsessed with communism as the JBS. Come to think of it, no one could be. The UN went to the Congo because of a breach of sovereignty. Belgium sent troops into what the world community regarded as sovereign teritory, thus violating international law. No need to bring the cold war into it, though God knows it butted in.

So what's going on in the Congo ?

I've been to one of the areas of the DRC where some of the most intensive fighting is happening. Terrible situation the normal local people there were lovely.

Some wee facts about the Democratic Republic of Congo:

Presidential Democratic Republic.

2007 est population 63 million
1997 est population 48 million

Nominal GDP per capita $170

Second largest rain forest in the world

In the East part of the country, part of The Great Rift Valley is prominent and as a result has exposed a wealth of minerals and ores:

Major mineral/ore resources: Cobalt, copper, diamonds, gold, silver, zinc. manganese, tin, uranium, iron ore and coals.

Alot of this mineral wealth in concentrated in the Katanga region which borders on Uganda and Rwanda (and where the fighting is occuring. Big surprise.)

Coltan, and its more lucrative derivative, tantalum, is used in the fabrication of electronic components that are used in computers and mobile telephones, and tantalum is one of the most smuggled minerals in the Katanga region.

(source, unforunately, Wikipedia.)

The fighting in Katanga would be to do with resources but it has as much to do with its proximity to Rwanda and the legacy of the Rwandan genocide. When I was there 3 years ago we were mainly in Ruhengeri in the North Province of Rwanda but crossed to Katanga.

johnfás wrote:

The fighting in Katanga would be to do with resources but it has as much to do with its proximity to Rwanda and the legacy of the Rwandan genocide. When I was there 3 years ago we were mainly in Ruhengeri in the North Province of Rwanda but crossed to Katanga.

The causes are many and complex I'm sure. However, at the end of the day: Money talks and sanity walks.

China is there. I was watching a programme about the road building. People were saying they couldn't get work on it. China has built factories in Africa and well as buying up minerals. As was said already, better than the French, Belgians or British in Africa.

China is everywhere in Africa. I posted extensively on the issue several months ago on politics.ie.

See here for example http://www.politics.ie/foreign-affairs/14471-foreign-aid-worth.html