Introduction
It was 42 years before the end of World War II that Joseph Conrad wrote his infamous novel “Heart of Darkness,” yet today its relevance to the Congo remains starkly the same, as the aegis of colonialism has left a nearly impenetrable footprint. The novel explores the hypocrisy of Belgium’s imperialism as the act of civilizing the African became quite uncivil. The imperial incivility, political factionalization, and decades of authoritarian rule and war have led the United Nations (UN) to enter the Congo, quite like Marlow’s travel up the Congo River. Yet, amidst the chaos of Belgium’s enterprise and the aftermath of World War II, the Congo offers a troubling and difficult case for international relations theory. This paper aims at pondering this case to hopefully shed light into the heart of darkness and give an explanation for ‘the horror’ that Kurtz only realized at his final moment.
Following World War II, it was abundantly clear through international consensus that the urgency for preventive action against another world war required the reorganization and formation of the failed League of Nations system. The former colonial and imperial powers of Europe were decimated and the United States and Russia stood as victors against an impetuous regime. The global order was changing rapidly with the creation of the atomic bomb and the rise of the United States and Russia as superpowers. With a potent collective memory, the post-World War II era ushered in the establishment of international law and human rights doctrines under the auspices of regional and international organizations, in large part as a result of the UN Charter. On April 25, 1945, the Charter of the United Nations (UN) was finalized under the Westphalian principles of sovereignty, territorial integrity, and peace and security amongst nations. The Charter outlined principles for peace and prosperity, collective security, and the fundamental importance of the individual. Consequently, a new global order emerged aimed for deterring future wars and creating a council of peaceful discourse amongst states. It is important to note that this emergence shifted the international system from a Westphalian state-centrism to a UN based idealism that granted the individual sovereignty and autonomy within their respective state, as well as in a newly formed international “community.” Although some basic tenets of the Treaty of Westphalia continued, i.e. state sovereignty and the right to wage war, this UN idealism assumed the common interests of the member states and embarked on massive efforts of international cooperation, conflict resolution and peacekeeping.
Peacekeeping, a direct example of UN ambition and its idealism is not once mentioned in the UN Charter; however, the newly formed UN system began a campaign of peacekeeping throughout the 1950’s to the present day. In the post-Cold War era, it is hard to imagine that such peace and prosperity has continued in this international “community” given the reuse of genocide as a form of war in the 1990’s. Most astounding is the silence in the international media and the ignorance of the global North to the political breakdown of 10 central African states that resulted in a continental war in 1998. At the middle of this conflict lies the ‘heart of darkness’ so pervasive that the very foundations of human civility and decency are challenged.
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has suffered from nearly 70 years of colonial rule and exploitation and several decades of authoritarian dictatorship. Since 1998, an estimated 5.4 – 7.8 million Congolese people have lost their lives due to the conflict, the most since World War II. As expected, the UN Security Council voted to initiate a UN mission to the Congo after passing UN Resolution 1304(2000). The emergence of the United Nations Organization Mission to the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC) has attempted to institutionalize normative democratic principles and subsequent international law within the government and society. MONUC is currently the largest UN mission in the world consisting of nearly 20 thousand military personnel. Dissecting the structural bureaucratic workings of MONUC and other international efforts will provide a basis understanding the current situation on a domestic level.
At the center of most African politics is the arbitrary nature of the state as a result of European colonialism. This arbitration is a cause for much of the violence throughout the continent as most conflicts surrounding the DRC have rebuked state boundaries and repeatedly violated the concept of national sovereignty as granted by international law. This paper aims at describing the flaws in the theory of liberal institutionalism in reference to central Africa. The nation has failed, the state has failed, and therefore the ability of international institutions to build a strong liberal form of government in the DRC is a challenging feat.
There exists a multipolar domestic political system in the DRC, owing to the hundreds of tribal and ethnic affiliations. To assume a national identity and embody a ‘Congolese’ affinity is a first major step to unifying the state. Without this element, the DRC can neither exist as a nation nor act as a state in the international community. This assumption draws on a very Western plain of thought and does not take into account the intransigent nature of African polities, i.e. the complex hierarchical systems of tribal unity that already exists. However, given the norms that persist within the international community ideal, Congolese affinity is an important element in taking control of the government and allocating the resources towards pragmatic means of distribution. Amidst the deep-rooted historical connections and ethnocentrisms in the DRC, this element separates the Congolese from the international community ideal. The development of effective due process of law and jurisprudential discourse in a workable justice system in the DRC relies heavily on a continental acceptance of such norms, but most importantly, a strong willingness of the international community under the resources of the UN and the great powers to bring peace to millions of Congolese, central Africa, and the continent itself.
It is most important for this paper to distinguish between the United Nations and the idea of the international community, as the former stems from the latter. The United Nations is an international organization of nation-states aimed at engaging in meaningful discourse to achieve international peace and security, but also it is a means for states to define their national interests and engage in conflict resolution. The UN is a physical body where international law and human rights manifest. The term ‘international community’ is a concept stemming from and supported by the UN system and its concept assumes the common interests of member states, i.e. states share common goals of international cooperation and peace often through collective measures. However, the term is more difficult to define as international relations scholars debate its very existence. Therefore, what is the international community in reference to the DRC? There are many views on the ‘international community;’ however, this paper will focus on two divergent views to establish a theoretical framework of approach in order to answer the questions, does the international community exist given the example of the DRC? And if so, what is the true state of this international community? The views are as such, one in support and one against the existence of an international community and provide a theoretical framework for this paper:
1. Kofi Annan in his essay titled “Problems Without Passports,” describes the international community as many multicultural and homogeneous states that share a common vision of a better world. There is a realization of the common human struggle and therefore, states seek to work together collectively and through the UN to solve these struggles. No country or person lives in isolation as the interdependence of state economies and the expansion of globalization binds states together. The international community is an entity with an address and a developing conscious. Annan notes that the international community is one that allows half of humanity to exist on $2 or less a day, yet during times of disaster pledges millions in foreign aid. Therefore, the international community according to Annan is an institutional entity with peaceful intentions and a shared vision of cooperation.
In international relations theory, Annan’s essay best fits with liberal institutionalism and constructivism (idealism) as it stresses the importance of institutions in bringing global order, but it also presupposes the inherent interest of states as global peace seekers and not power maximizers in a system of anarchy.
2. Ruth Wedgwood in her essay “Gallant Delusions,” believes the international community is a naive term and a moral hazard as its “diffusion of responsibility excuses countries that have no intention of lending a hand.” As examples, Wedgwood presents Bosnia, Cambodia during the Khmer Rouge regime, and East Timor as the international response often occurred after much bureaucratic delineation and the damage had already promulgated. In essence, the international community is lawless and with no “cannon fire” to its goals for peace and prosperity amongst states. Wedgwood finally argues that it is only states that can protect “a threatened population from genocide,” ethnic militia’s, and cross-border attacks.
In international relations, Wedgwood’s view draws on many different areas of theory as she supports the existence of international institutions, given their abilities to “write treaties,” evaluate human rights abuses and deliver assistance in natural disasters and humanitarian crises; however, Wedgwood also explicitly acknowledges the realities of international power politics. Institutions cannot deliver the hard power needed to bring down genocidaires and authoritarian regimes guilty of crimes against humanity. (Is she a neorealist?) Therefore, the international community does not exist and is an idyllic conceptualization.
Essentially, this paper aims at examining the DRC in terms of humanitarian plight, the current UN mission, MONUC, and the willingness of states in the international system to contribute to the most destructive war since WWII. Based on the evidence of the DRC, what view is most consistent, if any? The political breakdown of central Africa and the continued humanitarian plight and political strife in the DRC offers a troubling but necessary case in international relations as it challenges the efforts of the UN system and the concept of an international community following the end of World War II. The DRC’s colonial experience and post-World War II independence have been tumultuous events that have left millions dead. By examining the aforementioned ideas and their subsequent theories, is the international community a correct term, and where is the DRC in this community? Is this community only limited to the developed states of the global North? This paper aims to examine not only the domestic affairs of the DRC through the actions of MONUC, but also to investigate and understand what truly lies at the heart of darkness, and what can the UN and the supposed international community do about it.
