analysis of the first congo war

Various methodologies have been used to conceptualize the problem of global conflicts by constructing superordinate frames with the goal of offering a critical study of the causes and consequences of wars. Researchers are able to interrogate the crux of the dispute by analyzing the roles of each stakeholder in the squabble using multiple structural theories. To achieve a wider and more in-depth view of a dispute, one must look into the explanatory influence of the paradigms conceptualized from it. For instance, the First Congo War war does not have a unified theory, but rather it is knotted with complexity considering the conflicting accounts from both the Rwandese and the Congolese (Herța, 2014). Therefore, the complex nature of the conflict has resorted to some quarters filtering information through biased narratives that fail to capture the issue holistically. A feminist and constructive paradigm fits in as an appropriate approach to conceptualize the conflict as a whole though it does not offer objectivity in its entirety.

The First Congo War which is boarded between the Zaire and the Rwandese took place around the year 1996 through to 1997. The cause of the war has been attributed to various causes with some quarters apportioning blame to the spilleffects of the Rwandan genocide of 1994 (Daley, 2005). The Tutsi-led affront in Rwanda led to the influx of Hutu refugees in the neighboring Zaire also known as Congo. However, the refugees could soon restructure and militarize themselves to form retaliation fronts. In fact, according to Daley (2005), refugees became war resources. On the other hand, the Banyamulenge who also resided in the same eastern Congo side were dissatisfied with Mobutu’s regime which prompted a rebellion in 1996. Both the Hutu refugees and the Banyamulenge dissidents seemed to have a commonality, and they coalesced to form a significant threat. That was the starting point for the war as each of two regimes, the Zaire, and the Rwandese blamed each other for supporting their rivals.

Feminism carries with it major topical issues in international relations where conflicts are involved. However, it was not until recently that war and feminism seemingly stopped sounding likean archaic combination (Kronsell & Svedberg, 2011). Indeed, recently, the feminist international relations have raised the bar on the issue of gender and the militarization in war-torn areas. Nonetheless, critical elucidation and analyses of international conflicts have led to the realization that war, albeit, unfortunately, is a social institution. The conceptualization of feminism in previous discourses pertaining conflict had been selfishly confined to the issue of women as war victims. The capacity of women as beneficiaries of war through career advancement or other ways in which they could have gained from conflicts are minimal (Sjoberg, 2009).The bottom line is that feminism has been outside the scope of war as the idea belligerent women warriors have been apparently delusional. Feminist politics have been devoid of offensive violence, and the critical analysis of a conflict through the paradigm would be viable so if it assumes the victim approach. Therefore, the feminist approach is not expendable in the determination of the most sought-after answers in international conflicts.

The problem of war and conflict has been socially institutionalized with the diversification of activities involved. Conflicts are often criminalized, and in that sense, the perpetrators and supposed protectors have leverage through the victimization of certain people (Sjoberg, 2009). The First Congo War, for instance, being a patriarchal militarization, automatically renders the majority of the female victims. Nonetheless, that narrative would be subsumed in the fundamental conflict narrative of the hero versus villain and victim versus helper. Following such a narrative in examining the war in Congo would automatically arouse a form of unconscious bias wherein the analyst will resort in seeking the wrong people vis-à-vis the right ones from the conflict. Consequently, this constructionism would apparently lead to delusional conclusions which will bea mere distortion of the reality of the conflict. The emergent issue in such a discourse is the dawning reality that the analyst will be taking sides, may be through a political lens which instead of deciphering the complexity of the war will only lead to the fortification of a moral gloom. It is via this paradigm that the Hutu were seen as the victims due to their refugee status and the Tutsi as the villains albeit paradoxically since both periodically interchanged roles through a charm offensive.

The hero-villain dichotomy superficially contradicts the underlying complexity of the Congo War. In fact, the pervasiveness of the Congo war led to the development of a constructivist version that sought to make obvious sense out of the complex mirage. For instance, some analysts have used barbaric theses and subtly racist approaches in seeking the root of the conflict. For example, according to Dunn (2013), the western analysis was deeply shambolic considering that it was characterized by racism coalesced with illogical assumptions that sought to exemplify the conflict as rooted in tribalism and irrational African barbarism. However, this is mildly a temptation for the researchers to give a quick answer to the rather complex issue for convenience purposes. But by avoiding the bias propagated through the narratives, the Congo War is rendered comprehensible. A feminist paradigm seeks to offer an objective analysis of the conflict though it is tough in its entirety.

The Congo War needs to be critiqued objectively if valid answers which are beyond reproach are to emerge. However, this apparently seems to be a complex challenge considering that the researcher since observation cannot be objective. Similarly, the Congo War took place within a particular context through which an analyst would seek to develop his thesis. As such, the clear point is that in critiquing the conflict objectivity cannot be explored in its entirety. The deduction pursued will culminate into a conclusion depending on the subject derivative. That means, it is impossible to come up with a purely objective analysis and conclusion thereto. Conversely, that does not imply that the research would be futile. According to Coleman (2004), a frame-driven analysis would demystify the complexities and replete the contradictions rooted in the Congo War. This is particularly the case since the paradigm will offer insights that will help identify the key variables and structural variables behind the conflict. It would be a deductive way through which the analyst has the opportunity to switch lenses and at the same time maintaining consistency. The theory appreciates the possibility of conceptualizing the conflict robustly and exhaustively seeking optimal objectivity. Thus, the purposeful change of perspectives in the analysis of the Congo War is a viable critique tool that will help join the connections between the dynamics that were characteristic of the conflict.



















References

Coleman, P. T. (2003). Characteristics of protracted, intractable conflict: Toward the development of a metaframework-I. Peace and Conflict: Journal of peace psychology, 9(1), 1.

Daley, P. (2005). Stephen John Stedman and Fred Tanner (eds), Refugee Manipulation: War, Politics, and the Abuse of Humanitarianism. Africa, 75(3), 452-454.

Dunn, K. (2003). Imagining the Congo: The international relations of identity. Springer.

Herța, L. M. (2014). Intra-State Violence in DR Congo and Human Security–Perspectives from International Relations. Human Security Perspectives, 10(1), 186-218.

Kronsell, A., & Svedberg, E. (Eds.). (2011). Making gender, making war: violence, military and peacekeeping practices (Vol. 6). Routledge.

Sjoberg, L. (Ed.). (2009). Gender and international security: feminist perspectives. Routledge.