Nation Building

[seal]

Currently, as a member of a US military and diplomatic community, I live in a failing third-world African country. I'm often find myself at odds with the international community on the proper way to reform this nation. So I was curious, and selfishly hoping to steal your arguments as my own, what your thoughts were on how to build a country.

Here's what you have:

A. The Pros

1. The largest United Nations military mission in the world.
2. The first legitimate democratically elected government in 40 years.
3. A country of vast natural resources: Cobalt, copper, cadmium, petroleum, industrial and gem diamonds, gold, silver, zinc, manganese, tin, germanium, uranium, radium, bauxite, iron ore, coal, timber, and the hydroelectric potential to satisfy the needs of Sub-Saharan Africa.
4. Massive labor pool.

B. The Cons

1. A systematic corrupt and inefficient governmental bureaucracy.
2. Limited infrastructure (500 kms of paved road for an area the size of Western Europe...the paved road that you do have are falling apart).
3. A predatory military and police force (the only professional military force is a rebel group, trained and advised by another country, that is being integrated into the national armed forces as we speak), that is rarely paid.
4. A culture of panhandling, from the lowest street urchin to the highest elected official.
5. Tribalism
6. A currently poor commodities market, that eliminates most of the revenue from Pro Point 3.
7. No sense of nationalism, as the state was created fraudelently by European powers in the 19th Century.
8. Many different criminal organizations, that like to disguise themselves as political rebels.

The conventional wisdom of the international community says that Security Sector Reform is the key. If the country creates a professional military and police force, the democratically elected government can solidify its sovereignty, and in a secure atmosphere, can move on to other social reforms. Currently, this is primarily done through bilateral agreements with one foreign nation and the state to train these security forces, on top of relatively insignificant foreign aid donations (especially compared to the Chinese).

My contention is that this foreign aid would be better spent doing a national census, and creating an effective tax administration. From there, taking the public investment and monies from foreign donors, one should invest heavily in infrastructure improvements. As goods are able to move to the market, the economy improves, and you garner the support of the people. At this point, you have eliminated the political reasons of the supposed rebel groups, and have the political capital to overhaul the security forces (fire 'em all, start anew), creating a leaner, but more efficient force. A force that can be invested in by foreign nations, without the worry of corruption, as is currently the case.

I find myself often laughed at various functions when presenting my plan for reform. There's little I can do to change the fact that I am but the most minor of cogs in foreign policy, and invariably the least educated and experienced. When I state, the other eventuality is bloody, genocidal break-up of this nation into various minor states, I'm a doom-mongerer.

My questions are:

1.) Am I wrong?
2.) If I'm right, what better argument can I present?
3.) Is there a diffrent way that I'm missing?

[gojira]

If you really wanna establish a functioning country, first you need to get rid of criminal contracts. Such as external companies investing there and gaining unfair contracts (exploitation of the natives) and monopolies over a certain ressource for decades. And I mean in particular the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. If you dig a bit into the topic, you will see how these institutions enslave the populaces, and trap those economies for decades in a debt trap which they hardly ever can escape.

Interestless credit would be an important key (not an expert at this though, but aforementioned instituions I often read very negative stuff about).


Thats whats shoots through my head at the moment.

[seal]

If you really wanna establish a functioning country, first you need to get rid of criminal contracts. Such as external companies investing there and gaining unfair contracts

I hear what you are saying, and I have a tendency myself towards disliking multinational corporations, but most of the truly unfair contracts go to family and friends of the political elite, not from overseas.

in particular the World bank and the International Monetary Fund. If you dig a bit into the topic, you will see how these institutions enslave the populaces, and trap those economies for decades in a debt trap which they hardly ever can escape.

Two years ago, I probably would have agreed with you. However, in my experience the World Bank and the IMF bend over backwards to help nations. Currently, this nation has very little in treasury. The figure of less that a couple of days of export costs is currently being tossed around, though how accurate that is, I don't know. The IMF, along with other international and regional organizations, is negotiating an aid grant that would add to the revenue, despite being burned the last time around, with it's demands of economic transparency. At this point, I have very few bad things to say about international monetary agencies. I have, however, been convinced that foreign aid should be tied to specific political, social, and economic reforms before the money is handed over.

[IrishHitman]

Currently, as a member of a US military and diplomatic community, I live in a failing third-world African country. I'm often find myself at odds with the international community on the proper way to reform this nation. So I was curious, and selfishly hoping to steal your arguments as my own, what your thoughts were on how to build a country.

Here's what you have:

A. The Pros

1. The largest United Nations military mission in the world.
2. The first legitimate democratically elected government in 40 years.
3. A country of vast natural resources: Cobalt, copper, cadmium, petroleum, industrial and gem diamonds, gold, silver, zinc, manganese, tin, germanium, uranium, radium, bauxite, iron ore, coal, timber, and the hydroelectric potential to satisfy the needs of Sub-Saharan Africa.
4. Massive labor pool.

B. The Cons

1. A systematic corrupt and inefficient governmental bureaucracy.
2. Limited infrastructure (500 kms of paved road for an area the size of Western Europe...the paved road that you do have are falling apart).
3. A predatory military and police force (the only professional military force is a rebel group, trained and advised by another country, that is being integrated into the national armed forces as we speak), that is rarely paid.
4. A culture of panhandling, from the lowest street urchin to the highest elected official.
5. Tribalism
6. A currently poor commodities market, that eliminates most of the revenue from Pro Point 3.
7. No sense of nationalism, as the state was created fraudelently by European powers in the 19th Century.
8. Many different criminal organizations, that like to disguise themselves as political rebels.

The conventional wisdom of the international community says that Security Sector Reform is the key. If the country creates a professional military and police force, the democratically elected government can solidify its sovereignty, and in a secure atmosphere, can move on to other social reforms. Currently, this is primarily done through bilateral agreements with one foreign nation and the state to train these security forces, on top of relatively insignificant foreign aid donations (especially compared to the Chinese).

My contention is that this foreign aid would be better spent doing a national census, and creating an effective tax administration. From there, taking the public investment and monies from foreign donors, one should invest heavily in infrastructure improvements. As goods are able to move to the market, the economy improves, and you garner the support of the people. At this point, you have eliminated the political reasons of the supposed rebel groups, and have the political capital to overhaul the security forces (fire 'em all, start anew), creating a leaner, but more efficient force. A force that can be invested in by foreign nations, without the worry of corruption, as is currently the case.

I find myself often laughed at various functions when presenting my plan for reform. There's little I can do to change the fact that I am but the most minor of cogs in foreign policy, and invariably the least educated and experienced. When I state, the other eventuality is bloody, genocidal break-up of this nation into various minor states, I'm a doom-mongerer.

My questions are:

1.) Am I wrong?
2.) If I'm right, what better argument can I present?
3.) Is there a diffrent way that I'm missing?

1.
No, military force by another nation does not create a nation in a stable way as a general guideline (there are exceptions, Czechoslovakia in the 30s as a result of WWI, but that's a little more complicated).

2.
Military and police powers can be easily abused, and taken over by dictators. If you strengthen their military, and the country goes undemocratic, you will have entrenched them in their position.

Creation of a federal system based on tribal areas, with a house of parliament with powersharing in effect. If the country is unicameral, this house would become a new upper house. If the country is bicameral, this house would replace the upper house.

Ideally, tribally and religiously based parties would be banned in favour of party lines being drawn on a political/economic ideology basis.

I would suggest the hiring of a mercenary force paid by the UN to defeat the rebels. (Yes, I know that's taboo, but bear with me).
Executive Outcomes had great success in defeating rebels in Sierra Leone, and at half the cost of the UN peacekeeping force that came in later. It is also credited with rescuing Angola from some undemocratic rebels, if memory serves. With profit as an incentive in stabilising the region, Western countries will perk up their ears. These forces would also train the new military force you referred to, and conduct missions with them later on. A mercenary force is not influenced by regional or international politics, as long as the cash keeps coming in. Such objectivity would be key in winning a war of the type you are talking about.

I do not mean give it to Blackwater, mind.

"Know thine enemy" is the best motto a socialist like me can have, more socialists need to see how to exploit capitalism for its positive ends...

[we4kf00l]

This may be a very dumb suggestion, but doesn't it all start with education ? So that people themselves can determine what is best for their country ? If the people dont want the change (especially tribal cultures) bad enough, help will do no good

[IrishHitman]

This may be a very dumb suggestion, but doesn't it all start with education ? So that people themselves can determine what is best for their country ? If the people dont want the change (especially tribal cultures) bad enough, help will do no good

Education would be segregated by geography, unless you bussed various tribes' kids into the same schools. That would have to happen later for stability, but as a direct tactic, it would take too long and would be sabotaged by rebel efforts.

[seal]

This may be a very dumb suggestion, but doesn't it all start with education ? So that people themselves can determine what is best for their country ? If the people dont want the change (especially tribal cultures) bad enough, help will do no good

Not at all dumb a suggestion. In fact I should have included this in my "Con" section. There is no free primary education for children in the country, and the majority do not attend as they simply cannot afford it. One of the few success stories I have seen here was a kid I hired to clean the house. He was a shegue, or a street kid, shining shoes near the embassy. I hired him for three dollars an hour to wash dishes, etc. Instead of blowing the money, he got his high school equivalency degree, and is currently working a computer programming degree.

When I discussed the situation of primary schooling at a function with the Minister of Education, he just smiled and walked away. The country is, in my opinion, bankrupting the future of their nation.

1.
No, military force by another nation does not create a nation in a stable way as a general guideline (there are exceptions, Czechoslovakia in the 30s as a result of WWI, but that's a little more complicated).

2.
Military and police powers can be easily abused, and taken over by dictators. If you strengthen their military, and the country goes undemocratic, you will have entrenched them in their position.

Creation of a federal system based on tribal areas, with a house of parliament with powersharing in effect. If the country is unicameral, this house would become a new upper house. If the country is bicameral, this house would replace the upper house.

Ideally, tribally and religiously based parties would be banned in favour of party lines being drawn on a political/economic ideology basis.

Tribalism is killing the nation, but their tradition of corruption within the government gives me little hope in a change of governmental institution. Although, reform of the judicial system into an independant body may provide some relief.

I would suggest the hiring of a mercenary force paid by the UN to defeat the rebels. (Yes, I know that's taboo, but bear with me).
Executive Outcomes had great success in defeating rebels in Sierra Leone, and at half the cost of the UN peacekeeping force that came in later. It is also credited with rescuing Angola from some undemocratic rebels, if memory serves. With profit as an incentive in stabilising the region, Western countries will perk up their ears. These forces would also train the new military force you referred to, and conduct missions with them later on. A mercenary force is not influenced by regional or international politics, as long as the cash keeps coming in. Such objectivity would be key in winning a war of the type you are talking about.

That's an interesting suggestion, and probably would have been not only feasible, but also successful ten years ago. However, I don't see UN peacekeepers working alongside mercenaries in offensive military operations. I actually discussed this idea with UN and other military folks today at work, and they generally agreed with that it may have helped before UN operations began, but now it's not politically possible. Hell of an idea, though.

[IrishHitman]

Tribalism is killing the nation, but their tradition of corruption within the government gives me little hope in a change of governmental institution. Although, reform of the judicial system into an independant body may provide some relief.

That's an interesting suggestion, and probably would have been not only feasible, but also successful ten years ago. However, I don't see UN peacekeepers working alongside mercenaries in offensive military operations. I actually discussed this idea with UN and other military folks today at work, and they generally agreed with that it may have helped before UN operations began, but now it's not politically possible. Hell of an idea, though.

UN monitors can help halt corruption. Introduce a carrot-and-stick policy, with rewards for whistleblowing that leads to arrests, and heavy penalties for those that are arrested or do not report it. Penalties being excessive prison sentences of 20 years and upwards.

The Judiciary should be in international hands until the country has stabilised.

Not politically possible?
From a Congolese point of view or an international point of view?
Where there's a will, there's a way, and money provides a massive will...

As for UN troops being unable to work with the mercenaries, the UN troops would take a purely defensive role, as their mandate would undoubtedly assure. The mercenaries would take a purely offensive role, and would be escorted by UN combat monitors to insure no crimes are perpetrated by the mercs. The UN would provide the anvil, while the mercs would provide the hammer.

[Farnan]

seal what you says makes excellent sense. Where there are jobs, fighting decreases. Where the road ends, the rebels begin. Infrastructure will also allow the Federal government's authority to naturally extend and bind the people together. The US's vast infrastructure changes has enabled the almost complete destruction of regionalism...

However security needs to be worked on too.

You say tribalism is killing the nation, but can it perhaps be used to help build the nation?

Create perhaps a council of tribal leaders who will serve as an advisory board to the President/Prime Minister. Divide the nation into a federal system around tribal lines. I think Ghana does this successfully.

[Denny Crane!]

Foreign aid into infrastructure is usually wasted surely? In such a corrupt society I am not sure just how effective pouring money in would be and whether or not it would be siphoned into other things much like palestinian aid and Yasser Arafat.

Business and wealth creation will lead to solutions of every other problem but that isn't possible while there is so much residual violence in the region, so while your ideas are sound about infrastructure and business is it viable in the climate over there?

Other than that I'm hopelessly inadequate to debate this so I'll leave it there.

[IrishHitman]

Foreign aid into infrastructure is usually wasted surely? In such a corrupt society I am not sure just how effective pouring money in would be and whether or not it would be siphoned into other things much like palestinian aid and Yasser Arafat.

Business and wealth creation will lead to solutions of every other problem but that isn't possible while there is so much residual violence in the region, so while your ideas are sound about infrastructure and business is it viable in the climate over there?

Other than that I'm hopelessly inadequate to debate this so I'll leave it there.

Instead of handing the native government the cash, offer infrastructure contracts to Western companies on the condition that they hire native workers to carry out the work. Obviously, this would happen AFTER the rebels are defeated or weakened severely.

[motiv-8]

My contention is that this foreign aid would be better spent doing a national census, and creating an effective tax administration. From there, taking the public investment and monies from foreign donors, one should invest heavily in infrastructure improvements.

The alarming part of this came from your description of the lack of infrastucture and the rampant corruption in the country. Without an effective infrastructure and a clear means of ensuring taxes are going to be collected and used fairly and efficiently, what would be the point? Plus, what incentive do individuals who owe allegiance to their tribe or neighborhood have to pay taxes to what they see as a faraway and useless central government? I think there are lessons to be taken from Iraq here, and I don't just mean from 2003-present, but from as early as 1917. I don't think anything else can get done until the country is secure and not under military threat both from within and without. One thing I am certain of, is that whenever that time comes and work can actually get done, it absolutely requires the full participation of the people themselves in making and initiating reforms. That's the real democracy involved in state-building, not just having elections and hoping for the best. This has been accomplished successfully in Bosnia and Brazil.

[Denny Crane!]

I suspect that it isn't an issue in this country but its worth bearing in mind the damage that NGO's can do as well as foreign aid. One good example is when a Royal Society member made damning accusations against those who push traditional methods of farming and oppose larger farms and push propaganda on unwitting natives against scientific methods/products and new farming practices.

Seal aside from commodities and heavy industry is there agriculture in this country? If so to what degree and what level is it at.

[IrishHitman]

I suspect that it isn't an issue in this country but its worth bearing in mind the damage that NGO's can do as well as foreign aid. One good example is when a Royal Society member made damning accusations against those who push traditional methods of farming and oppose larger farms and push propaganda on unwitting natives against scientific methods/products and new farming practices.

Seal aside from commodities and heavy industry is there agriculture in this country? If so to what degree and what level is it at.

It's the DR of Congo.

He said the country has the largest UN peacekeeping force currently deployed. That is the DR of Congo if memory serves.

[seal]

seal what you says makes excellent sense. Where there are jobs, fighting decreases. Where the road ends, the rebels begin. Infrastructure will also allow the Federal government's authority to naturally extend and bind the people together. The US's vast infrastructure changes has enabled the almost complete destruction of regionalism..

However security needs to be worked on too.

You say tribalism is killing the nation, but can it perhaps be used to help build the nation?

Create perhaps a council of tribal leaders who will serve as an advisory board to the President/Prime Minister. Divide the nation into a federal system around tribal lines. I think Ghana does this successfully.

The infrastructure improvements was one of the key points that I was trying to make to my fellow ex-pats. With roads, you would have a means for force projection outside of the reliance of the UN. However, a former Minister of Defense once said "Why would we build roads? That would just cause the rebels to get to the capital quicker."

I do like the idea of a tribal advisory board. I'll think I'll spread that around. It's populist, gives the impression of tribal influence in the government, and it may even actually influence said government.

UN monitors can help halt corruption. Introduce a carrot-and-stick policy, with rewards for whistleblowing that leads to arrests, and heavy penalties for those that are arrested or do not report it. Penalties being excessive prison sentences of 20 years and upwards.

The Judiciary should be in international hands until the country has stabilised.

Not politically possible?
From a Congolese point of view or an international point of view?
Where there's a will, there's a way, and money provides a massive will...

As for UN troops being unable to work with the mercenaries, the UN troops would take a purely defensive role, as their mandate would undoubtedly assure. The mercenaries would take a purely offensive role, and would be escorted by UN combat monitors to insure no crimes are perpetrated by the mercs. The UN would provide the anvil, while the mercs would provide the hammer.

I have been promoting the carrot-stick philosophy since I have been here. Of course, I take a more Bismarckian approach to foreign policy that is generally deemed acceptable by current Western standards. My first question is always "What does my country get?" followed by "How will this help the people?" However, foreign aid does not buy influence in Kinshasa since the Mobutu era.

It's difficult to hand over judiciary responsibility to the international community, as it seen as a core part of a nation's sovereignty.

Since the cat's out of bag, then you should be aware of the unprecedented (and frankly, shocking) joint DRC-Rwandan military operation against the FDLR. This has crushed the raison d'etre of the CNDP, by far and away the most competent military force in the Kivus. Their leader, Laurent Nkunda, is under house arrest in Rwanda awaiting extradition to Kinshasa. This, along with the joint DRC-Ugandan military operations against the LRA, makes a mercenary force currently useless. When those operations cease to be, perhaps.

The idea of joint UN-mercenary force is without precedent. I think it would have a hard time passing the scrutiny of the Security Council. The DRC government could do it seperately, but then they endanger security assistance from nations on the Security Counci, particularily China.

Foreign aid into infrastructure is usually wasted surely? In such a corrupt society I am not sure just how effective pouring money in would be and whether or not it would be siphoned into other things much like palestinian aid and Yasser Arafat.

Business and wealth creation will lead to solutions of every other problem but that isn't possible while there is so much residual violence in the region, so while your ideas are sound about infrastructure and business is it viable in the climate over there?

Other than that I'm hopelessly inadequate to debate this so I'll leave it there.

There is money to be made, no doubt. However, the cash flow typically flows out of the country, to the detriment of the people.

Instead of handing the native government the cash, offer infrastructure contracts to Western companies on the condition that they hire native workers to carry out the work. Obviously, this would happen AFTER the rebels are defeated or weakened severely.

IrishHitman, despite you being a dirty socialist, we think along the same lines often. Who knows, perhaps when it comes to third world nations, I got a socialist streak myself.

My idea actually went further. I proposed that after a three year time frame, the foreign contractor would agree to train a five percent of the local force in managerial techniques, and another two percent of the local force in formal engineering. resulting in a minimum bachelor's degree.

The alarming part of this came from your description of the lack of infrastucture and the rampant corruption in the country. Without an effective infrastructure and a clear means of ensuring taxes are going to be collected and used fairly and efficiently, what would be the point? Plus, what incentive do individuals who owe allegiance to their tribe or neighborhood have to pay taxes to what they see as a faraway and useless central government? I think there are lessons to be taken from Iraq here, and I don't just mean from 2003-present, but from as early as 1917. I don't think anything else can get done until the country is secure and not under military threat both from within and without. One thing I am certain of, is that whenever that time comes and work can actually get done, it absolutely requires the full participation of the people themselves in making and initiating reforms. That's the real democracy involved in state-building, not just having elections and hoping for the best. This has been accomplished successfully in Bosnia and Brazil.

Excellent points. I suppose it would be a political imperative to show the people physical improvements. Roads go a long way to show that. Involving the people is central to my point of census and tax. If initially administered from an outside source, this would lead to a perception that the people have now invested in their government. Currently, their is no formal tax code. Outside administration, in theory, should limit corruption.

I suspect that it isn't an issue in this country but its worth bearing in mind the damage that NGO's can do as well as foreign aid. One good example is when a Royal Society member made damning accusations against those who push traditional methods of farming and oppose larger farms and push propaganda on unwitting natives against scientific methods/products and new farming practices.

Seal aside from commodities and heavy industry is there agriculture in this country? If so to what degree and what level is it at.

Honestly, it amazes me that this country isn't an agricultural powerhouse. Anything could grow here, and two harvest a year would certainly be reasonable. Growing up in an agricultural community in the US, the potential for massively profitable commericial farming is unlike anything I've ever seen. What restricts it is the lack of roads. You simply can't get the goods to a market. Let me put it this way, if there were roads, I would invest my entire savings into an agri-business venture.

Do keep in mind that most NGOs are funded by Western government through contracts. Their faults ultimately lie with the governments that funded them. I recommend "The Trouble with Africa: Why Foreign Aid isn't Working" by Robert Calderisi.

I wanted to let all of you know that all the good ideas, I actually do bring up with anybody that will listen to me. Keep in mind, my position on the totem pole is at the bottom, but who knows where a flair of genius comes from? That's the amazing part of the combined intellect of the people.

Thanks!

[IrishHitman]

It's difficult to hand over judiciary responsibility to the international community, as it seen as a core part of a nation's sovereignty.

Since the cat's out of bag, then you should be aware of the unprecedented (and frankly, shocking) joint DRC-Rwandan military operation against the FDLR. This has crushed the raison d'etre of the CNDP, by far and away the most competent military force in the Kivus. Their leader, Laurent Nkunda, is under house arrest in Rwanda awaiting extradition to Kinshasa. This, along with the joint DRC-Ugandan military operations against the LRA, makes a mercenary force currently useless. When those operations cease to be, perhaps.

The idea of joint UN-mercenary force is without precedent. I think it would have a hard time passing the scrutiny of the Security Council. The DRC government could do it seperately, but then they endanger security assistance from nations on the Security Counci, particularily China.

IrishHitman, despite you being a dirty socialist, we think along the same lines often. Who knows, perhaps when it comes to third world nations, I got a socialist streak myself.

My idea actually went further. I proposed that after a three year time frame, the foreign contractor would agree to train a five percent of the local force in managerial techniques, and another two percent of the local force in formal engineering. resulting in a minimum bachelor's degree.

Excellent points. I suppose it would be a political imperative to show the people physical improvements. Roads go a long way to show that. Involving the people is central to my point of census and tax. If initially administered from an outside source, this would lead to a perception that the people have now invested in their government. Currently, their is no formal tax code. Outside administration, in theory, should limit corruption.

Honestly, it amazes me that this country isn't an agricultural powerhouse. Anything could grow here, and two harvest a year would certainly be reasonable. Growing up in an agricultural community in the US, the potential for massively profitable commericial farming is unlike anything I've ever seen. What restricts it is the lack of roads. You simply can't get the goods to a market. Let me put it this way, if there were roads, I would invest my entire savings into an agri-business venture.

I wanted to let all of you know that all the good ideas, I actually do bring up with anybody that will listen to me. Keep in mind, my position on the totem pole is at the bottom, but who knows where a flair of genius comes from? That's the amazing part of the combined intellect of the people.

Thanks!

The Judiciary would follow DRC law, there would just be foreign judges paid by the UN. If corruption is the main problem, then this is the quickest and most effective solution while long term measures are put in place.

I am indeed aware of the joint DRC-Rwanda operation.
It surprised me considerably, given the situation before the announcement.

If the Rebels are being beaten by the combined efforts of the DRC and Rwanda, then how are they a problem for the long term? Unless they're not comprehensively beaten, that is. I haven't seen anything about it in a while though, the West is generally ignoring it at present due to the recession, although I occasionally see human interest stories about it on Al Jazzera English.

The fact the idea of a joint UN-mercenary force is unprecedented is a positive thing in my opinion. The majority of UN peacekeeping operations have been lengthy and very slow to work, but achieve better nation-state building results. The mercenaries are best for removing the rebels quickly, but are completely uninvolved in state building. Together, you get both advantages with the only disadvantage being China whinging about it. Given their home problems, I'm not sure they'd raise a stink resulting in a veto at present. I may be wrong on that though, I am not as savvy on China's increasing role in Africa as I should be.

I like the training clause. I feel sheepish for not thinking of it myself

The DRC won't be an agricultural exporting powerhouse as the EU has pretty much a protectionist policy with regard to agriculture, the US has a far more developed agribusiness sector, and the rest of Africa is too poor to buy DRC food anyway. They would have to find markets like China or India, which may not be willing to buy if the West is the one developing the DRC, more China than India on that point though.

[seal]

The Judiciary would follow DRC law, there would just be foreign judges paid by the UN. If corruption is the main problem, then this is the quickest and most effective solution while long term measures are put in place.

The problem is that I just simply don't see the Kabila Administration ever agreeing to that.

I am indeed aware of the joint DRC-Rwanda operation.
It surprised me considerably, given the situation before the announcement.

If the Rebels are being beaten by the combined efforts of the DRC and Rwanda, then how are they a problem for the long term? Unless they're not comprehensively beaten, that is. I haven't seen anything about it in a while though, the West is generally ignoring it at present due to the recession, although I occasionally see human interest stories about it on Al Jazzera English.

The current FDLR tactic is to avoid direct confrontation, retreating into the interior, knowing full well that the current operation is only conducted under temporary agreement. It must be said that there is no formal diplomatic ties between the DRC and Rwanda. The Rwandan Defense Forces are certainly pursuing the FDLR aggressively, but they are operating under a strict timeframe. Anything past that will undermine Kabila's authority.

The fact the idea of a joint UN-mercenary force is unprecedented is a positive thing in my opinion. The majority of UN peacekeeping operations have been lengthy and very slow to work, but achieve better nation-state building results. The mercenaries are best for removing the rebels quickly, but are completely uninvolved in state building.

It certainly may be a positive thing, and with my experience in the Baltics, the UN is clearly hindered by it's policy of defensive operations. However, the political realities are that the UN peacekeepers will not work along side mercenary forces, despite that sense that it might make. Along as there are soldiers from other regional powers in country, it doesn't make sense for the government to pursue additional costs.

The DRC won't be an agricultural exporting powerhouse as the EU has pretty much a protectionist policy with regard to agriculture, the US has a far more developed agribusiness sector, and the rest of Africa is too poor to buy DRC food anyway. They would have to find markets like China or India, which may not be willing to buy if the West is the one developing the DRC, more China than India on that point though.

Good point. Good thing I didn't throw my life savings away.

[Farnan]

The infrastructure improvements was one of the key points that I was trying to make to my fellow ex-pats. With roads, you would have a means for force projection outside of the reliance of the UN. However, a former Minister of Defense once said "Why would we build roads? That would just cause the rebels to get to the capital quicker."

Well you do this...

When building the roads you remove any overhead cover, this will make it so any rebel force moving along the road will be vulnerable to attack from the air.

And then, you put sections of the road under the responsibility of the tribe whose land it passes through and give them the job of: 1) making sure nothing prevents view of the road from the sky and 2) alert the government of any rebel or bandit activity along the road. In exchange they will receive a sum of cash from the government.

This will do three things:

1) Make sure the road isn't used badly.
2) Inject money in the local economy
3) Give the tribes involved a reason to support the government. Buy their loyalty.

I do like the idea of a tribal advisory board. I'll think I'll spread that around. It's populist, gives the impression of tribal influence in the government, and it may even actually influence said government.
!

Yea, we have to know that they may not have a Western style of democracy, but can still have democracy. These tribal leaders will have a place no matter what. By creating this council or board it will show the tribal leaders they are respected and give them a stake in the government's survival.

[seal]

[quote=Farnan;4490012]Well you do this...

When building the roads you remove any overhead cover, this will make it so any rebel force moving along the road will be vulnerable to attack from the air.

And then, you put sections of the road under the responsibility of the tribe whose land it passes through and give them the job of: 1) making sure nothing prevents view of the road from the sky and 2) alert the government of any rebel or bandit activity along the road. In exchange they will receive a sum of cash from the government.

This will do three things:

1) Make sure the road isn't used badly.
2) Inject money in the local economy
3) Give the tribes involved a reason to support the government. Buy their loyalty.[quote]

First, there is no such thing as an air threat in the country. unless they are invaded by a foreign power. With the UN there, that makes it unlikely.

Perhaps taking it a step further by letting the tribal chief decide who works on that section of road may work. The Belgians did that to great effect during the colonial days. My only fear is that it will reinforce the authority of tribal chiefs. In my opinion, the goal is to eventually destroy the tribal mentality. Although never formally stated, they are the chief reason for instability in the nation. Keep in mind, I'm not even really convinced that the nation should exist at all.

[Farnan]

First, there is no such thing as an air threat in the country. unless they are invaded by a foreign power. With the UN there, that makes it unlikely.

Sell the government 3-4 F5s, they're good enough to stop any rebel movement along the road in its steps.

Perhaps taking it a step further by letting the tribal chief decide who works on that section of road may work. The Belgians did that to great effect during the colonial days. My only fear is that it will reinforce the authority of tribal chiefs. In my opinion, the goal is to eventually destroy the tribal mentality. Although never formally stated, they are the chief reason for instability in the nation. Keep in mind, I'm not even really convinced that the nation should exist at all.

First you must create the country, then you can work on the tribal mentality. It may never officially change, but you can't work on it till you have a functional government.

You can't qualify till you zero your rifle.