Militarization CPTnet Reflection by Cliff Kindy, 12 February, 2009 February 9, the Washington Post quoted Admiral Mike Mullen, chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, from a speech he gave at Princeton University: “US foreign policy is too militarized.” He went on to explain that roles in the past cared for by the Sate Department and Department of Agriculture had been taken over by military personnel. He said this inhibits the military by weakening the focus and diluting the mandate of the military. Interesting theory, so let's see where it goes here in the DRC. Militarization and the resultant immobilizing fear have locked society into a closed room here in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo during the last fifteen years. The “success” of militarism has expanded its reach and discouraged any alternative. Political affairs, nationally and locally, have been controlled by armies and militias. Schools have been raided by groups like Ugandan rebel leader Joseph Kony and even by the DRC military, so education of young boys and girls has been for the battlefield. Militias have taken over the operation of what had, at times, been national and international mines. The extracted wealth finances their fighting and doesn't go to the local population or shareholders Even family life has been shaped by this militarization. The nurturing and caring roles attributed to the family are upended by a plague of rapes. The role of the mother has been ripped from her. Fighting between armed groups has created fear-forced mass migrations so family stability that usually provides security for raising children is no more. Diplomacy has happened at the point of a gun as different tribes are massacred or land ownership is decided with a weapon. No more have negotiation and dialogue served as the modes of political interaction. Sending troops across the border from Uganda and Rwanda to achieve international economic and political objectives has become the modus operandus. In the midst of the fear engendered by Militarization each one of us chooses where to risk. Friday the UNDP chief was a realist - “We can't be encouraging IDPs to return home when the fighting might erupt again.” Yet, she was the one who, after she had told CPT that Walikale was unsafe and the UN had pulled out all personnel, said “CPT should go to Walikale; no one else is working on mining issues. I will check with Civil Affairs to see if you can take the helicopter that flies out each week.” There are those with whom CPT is meeting presently who are clear that this is just a pause in the ongoing violence. The militias still control the game in town. It is not safe for IDPs to return home. Yet there are IDPs choosing on their own to return home. The IDP camps are safe. There international NGOs provide water, food, medical care and counseling for those who choose to be there because of the surrounding violence. Yet we also have stories from IDPs of the rape they incurred while living in the camp. We hear of armed actors recruiting and training their forces in and near the camps. In Uganda the camps are becoming stable communities from which people don't want to leave. It is a safe womb. It appears that IDP camps and NGO aid could become a way of life here in the DRC. It does provide steady employment for UN and NGO personnel. But if no one takes the risk to leave and return home from the IDP camps, no one will discover that the war is over. It is only the ones who keep saying “No!” in the center of the Gulag who discover that it collapses. Only those who risk the meetings in the catacombs will participate in the fall of the Roman Empire. Only those who dare to push against apartheid when it appears its strongest will see it fall. Only those IDPs who dare to choose the risk of danger at home over the risk of danger in the camp will joyfully discover that everything is new. Each of us is cautious and yet, at the same time willing to risk. Here at the Salesian compound there was a robbery four weeks ago. Cliff chose to open his door at the scream of surprise. He ended up standing, well, it really was lying prone, in solidarity with the Salesians, but didn't transform any violence. Ro saw the uniformed figure confronting one of the Salesians with a gun and selected to pray diligently for the situation. Jane heard the guns beating on her door and fled to the locked bathroom. It was when the robbers couldn't break down that door that they must have decided the person in there had a phone and was calling the police. They fled. Jane is the star! So we each choose whether to invest in security or risk. And each investment has its own unknown outcome. At various times we each make different choices. We are each encouraged by a word from another, maybe even from the other who chooses caution at that moment. I must ask, “For an institution such as CPT, where should we invest our risks?” CPTers locked down the Iraq CPT project in the fall of 2004. Yet on the heels of that the team opened a space and went to Karbala in the face of countervailing counsel from nearly everyone and did a training for a Muslim Peacemaker Team. Institutions tend toward caution. I have been very cautious this year because I am the team coordinator. But how will things change unless groups like CPT are ready to risk? If CPT isn't willing to take chances, who will be? If CPT can't model another way of thinking and being, should CPT send teams to such situations? BUT, things can change. Placing all these earlier shared functions onto just the military has weakened what had been a single focus – fighting. Having to be miner and politician means an officer's attention is diverted from a primary goal. Then things fall apart. There is space for civil society to reassert its own role. There is an opening for the church to take back control of decisions the military had taken for itself. There is room for fear to stimulate creativity rather than to immobilize the individual. This restructuring is presently taking place in eastern Congo. Women are healing each other. A renovated political structure is reassuming control from military figures. Foreign affairs are being conducted through negotiation rather than at gun point. Some displaced families are returning home to work abandoned fields and repair homes in disarray. Mining companies like Mining Processing Congo have purchased large equipment and have immediate plans to return to their mining concessions. Some skepticism is still at large, but the future has turned away from crass militarization and immobilizing fear!