Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2008-01-17-Speech-4-182"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20080117.20.4-182"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Madam President, European states brought tribes together in colonies in Africa that did not have good relations with each other, and divided other tribes by drawing boundaries right through the middle of their lands. The Democratic Republic of Congo, an enormous territory with a multitude of racial groups, was not given the opportunity to grow into independence by gradually building up self-rule during the Belgian colonisation before 1960. There was no preparation for decolonisation: it suddenly became inevitable after England and France had granted independence to their smaller neighbouring colonies at the end of the 1950s, partly as a consequence of the wars of liberation in Morocco, Tunisia, Algeria and Kenya.
Since then the Congo has been a permanent war zone. The early years were dominated by the conflict between Kasavubu from the west, Lumumba from the north-east and Tshombe in the south-east. They each represented different ideologies and interests but, more importantly, they were popular with limited sections of the Congolese population.
The harsh military dictatorship of the profiteer Mobutu kept the country united for years in apparent peace, but the differences were never bridged. The most recent elections also failed to produce unity or good cooperation. The country remains a conflict zone with flexible borders, where, just as in the 1960s, it is about the demarcation of ethnic territories and control of mining areas. Foreign companies have benefited from this. The conflict now seems to be about which group among this multitude of tribal groups will dominate the others. As things are now, the future of the Congo seems to be without prospects.
The atrocities to which the resolution refers, including the general lawlessness and frequent rape of women are all connected with this chaos. The 2006 law against sexual violence will not solve that problem, as long as the conflict continues and there are so many people without a permanent place to live.
The resolution rightly makes reference to the role of government representatives, peace forces, aid organisations; their people should do everything they can to prevent such atrocities without becoming drawn into them themselves. Recognition of rape, forced pregnancy, sexual exploitation and other forms of sexual violence as war crimes by the European Union and the United Nations is a prerequisite, but removing the breeding ground for this violence will have to happen on the ground."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples