congo politics

perhaps because it happens to be the one i have been following, i have wondered why the african country of congo has made far fewer headlines than darfur in sudan. both are embroiled in mass murder. as little as i know about congo, i know a lot less about sudan. i do know that congo has natural resources that the first world is very interested in: there was an excellent article in the NYT magazine about coltan mining in the congo which vividly illustrated the degree to which commodity-based living, such as yours and mine, floats on a raft on a river of blood. coltan contains tantalum, a substance used in cell phones.

i don't know the science of it, but i do know that in august 2001, a spike in coltan prices was leading to wild west-style shanty towns complete with conditions it would be an understatement to call "unsanitary," murder, sex for sale, HIV, etc., etc. blaine harden's article of august 12 2001 is excellent (that's the NYT mag one).

congo is also home to gold and diamonds, and the most brutal murders and rapes, perpetrated by officials and military personel, that i personally have ever read of, and i've read some pretty brutal news stories.

so, why does darfur get all the attention? i think because it makes more sense: it's one group against another, whereas in congo it's total chaos, in excess of the succinctness that the 6th-grade reading level used by major news organs allows. also, because, like the taliban that brutalized women for decades without international admonishment, the most tragic victims of the congo's situation are women. women-specific problems in underdeveloped countries are usually ignored by the rest of the world.

bryan mealer has another excellent article, in the "folio" section of harper's magazine in april 2006.