Ebola is a reminder of why the world should pay attention to Congo


Ebola is a reminder of why the world should pay attention to Congo

WHEN CONGOLESE blood is spilled by machete-wielding militiamen, outsiders barely notice. Was the death toll from the Democratic Republic of Congo’s civil war 800,000 or 5m? No one kept an accurate tally. By contrast, when blood spills out of Congolese Ebola victims, the world pays attention. The World Health Organisation says that 1,707 people have so far died in Congo’s current Ebola outbreak. On July 17th it declared it a global health emergency.

It is obvious why an infectious and often fatal virus concerns everyone. Unchecked, it might spread into neighbouring Uganda, Rwanda, South Sudan and beyond. More cases have been reported in the bustling border city of Goma. The world is right to take this epidemic seriously, and to pour resources into fighting it. However, it should also spare a thought for the other kind of bloodshed in Congo—not least because it makes tackling Ebola much harder. Men with guns have taken to burning down Ebola clinics and killing health workers (see article). Local bigwigs are thought to be behind some of the attacks, perhaps to drive away the NGOs that made it too hard to embezzle aid dollars. In the two Congolese provinces worst-hit by Ebola, dozens of armed groups, some with foreign backing, are fighting the state, looting minerals and preying on civilians.

This is not just a local problem, so it matters how outsiders deal with Congo’s new government. The good news is that, after 18 years of larcenous tyranny under Joseph Kabila, Congo has a different president. The bad news is that Félix Tshisekedi did not really win the election that was held in December. Rather, he won the vote count, after a rumoured backroom deal with Mr Kabila. It is now unclear who is in charge. Mr Kabila controls the national assembly and the army. Mr Tshisekedi has executive powers that may grow with time. So far, he seems considerably less awful than his predecessor. He has released political prisoners, allowed free speech and is eager to win budget support from the IMF. Several outside powers, such as America and the World Bank, think he represents a chance of change for the better. Others are working with him because they have no choice: Ebola will not wait until Congo is a democracy.

The most urgent task is to identify those who have been infected, treat them and vaccinate the people with whom they have come in contact. A big push now will cost less, and save more lives, than a weaker effort that lets the epidemic grow. Neighbouring countries should resist the temptation to ban travellers from Congo—many would simply sneak across borders, making it harder to monitor infections. Fighting Ebola will require some actual fighting, too. The UN peacekeeping force in Congo, which normally sticks to defending civilians, is helping the Congolese army push rebel groups that threaten aid workers out of the Ebola zone. It is right to do so. And the $1bn a year that donors spend on blue helmets in Congo is a bargain compared with other conflicts. It should not be reduced.

In the long run, Congo needs better, cleaner government. If Mr Tshisekedi is sincere about reform, there are several things he could start doing now. His predecessor hardly built anything—Congo has whole cities without grid power. Mr Tshisekedi should work with private investors to build roads and generate electricity, without which Congo cannot properly exploit its mineral wealth, let alone move beyond it. More important, he should end the impunity that has let warlords kill and politicians steal. Some of the fatter fish should be put behind bars. To curb the smaller fry, the government should simplify the impossible tangle of rules and inspections that lets corrupt officials bully businesses into paying bribes to be left alone. Until it is easier to do business in Congo, the country will stay poor and unstable.

Most donors do not want to reward a stolen election. But no one wants to see the collapse of a state seven times the size of Germany at the heart of Africa, either. It is too early to say whether Mr Tshisekedi’s regime will be as corrupt as its predecessors, but it might not be. Mr Kabila’s baleful influence may wane. Despots who seek to remain in charge by bequeathing their office to a puppet sometimes succeed (think of Vladimir Putin). But sometimes they fail, as in Angola, where the appalling dos Santos clan has been swept aside. Donors should offer Congo lots of technical help. And if the new regime proves serious about cleaning up its act—a big if—they should back it with cash, too.


Source link