The Congo In Crisis

By David Ball

The conflict in the Eastern Congo has been the deadliest war since World War 2, with over 5 million killed. What has been a 25-year-old conflict might be reaching another boiling point, in which could reshape the DRC and the lives of millions for years to come. The recent capture of Goma and Bukavu has led to 7,000 deaths, over 940,000 people displaced, and hundreds of human rights abuses, such as: rape, abduction, child soldier recruitment, and claims of ethnic cleansing. While this is currently occurring, the international world and the United States are largely apathetic to the crisis and the millions of people it has and will affect.

The main rebel group in Eastern Congo, named the M23, takes its name from the March 23, 2009 agreement between the Congolese government and the CNDP militia—a peace treaty whose implementation many former CNDP fighters, predominantly Congolese Tutsis, later found unsatisfactory. Frustrated by the treaty’s failure to fully integrate them into the national military and broader society, these fighters rebelled, giving rise to the M23 movement in 2012. M23 has direct ties to Rwanda’s Tutsi-led government, which has provided direct military assistance, including recruitment and logistical aid to the rebels.

Beyond ethnic and political grievances, economic motives play a significant role in Rwanda’s support for the rebels. North and South Kivu, where M23 operates, is rich in minerals, including diamonds and cobalt. The DRC is the world’s largest cobalt producer and the fourth-largest diamond producer, and has an estimated $24 trillion in mineral deposits under its soil. By backing M23, Rwanda can control these resources, and exploit the Congo’s vast untapped wealth.

The conflict between M23, Rwanda, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo is far from new. M23 first came into prominence in 2012, when it invaded Goma with backing from Rwanda. The subsequent fallout from the invasion unleashed a wave of human rights abuses, including sexual violence, arbitrary arrests, and executions. However, with support from the UN, the Congolese army, and international strong-arming, the M23 was eventually forced to retreat, and Rwanda agreed to stop funding its operations.

This time, however, the situation is different. Not only is M23 stronger, with increased backing from Rwanda, but the UN and the Congolese government have struggled to push back the advancing rebels. On February 17, the M23 captured Bukavu, the capital of South Kivu province, home to over 800,000 people. The continued instability and territorial expansion of M23 forces have already displaced an estimated 1.65 million people in the region, and over 800 thousand children are out of school due to the conflict.

While the conflict has escalated, there is still an opportunity for a solution. Many European nations including the UK are in talks to plan sanctions against Rwanda,in order to pressure Kagame to pull back his military and logistical support. While this helped resolve the conflict in 2012, Kagame will be harder to convince this time around. Rwanda has increasingly relied on China for foreign assistance, and the cessation of USAID programs in the region has cut off the economic pressure that the U.S. can put to curb Rwanda's support for M23. On February 22nd, the UN Security Council demanded that Rwanda withdraw all its troops from eastern Congo, as proposed by France. While this is certainly a step forward, the UN’s credibility in the region is mediocre at best. Its peacekeeping efforts have been largely controversial, facing domestic opposition - even at the point that the Congo’s president - Tshisekedi asked the organization to withdraw from the Congo in 2023. Additionally, it has been unable to operate in areas occupied by M23 forces, severely limiting its effectiveness.

It is clear that there needs to be a new approach to curb the rapidly deteriorating situation in the Eastern Congo. The U.S. should cut military aid to programs that support M23, and sanction Rwandan military members who are directly imbedded with the rebels and others who commit war crimes, as they did in 2012. Ugandan forces have also been embedded in Eastern Congo since 2021, to help fight jihadist rebel groups. If Uganda decides to take advantage of the chaos, there could be a repeat of the Second Congo War, which caused the deaths of between 3-5 million and the displacement of millions more. To stop the conflict from expanding, the U.S. should leverage its diplomatic prestige to bring Congo, Rwanda, and Uganda to the negotiating table. This conflict should also be more publicized, both in academic circles and online. Rwanda uses sports to advertise itself. By spreading the word about brands such as Arsenal, Bayern, and PSG supporting Rwanda, we can put pressure on Kagame to resolve the conflict.

While this issue may seem distant, its consequences affect the livelihoods of millions of people. In March of 2023, Human Rights Watch released a report stating that “A 46-year-old mother of six, who fled Mushaki in Masisi territory on February 25…  said [that] … four of them raped me. As they were raping me, one said: ‘We’ve come from Rwanda to destroy you.’”

60 years ago, the first president of the DRC, Patrice Lumumba wrote his last letter to his wife, before his assassination. He stated “We are not alone. Africa, Asia, and the free and liberated peoples in every corner of the globe will ever remain at the side of the millions of Congolese who will not abandon the struggle until the day when there will be no more colonizers and no more of their mercenaries in our country.”

WHAT THE 2024 ELECTION TAUGHT US ABOUT THE FUTURE OF FOREIGN ELECTION INTERFERENCE

By: Jacob Rabin

November 13, 2024

The 2016 and 2020 elections proved that foreign actors had both the capacity and the desire to meddle in American elections. The 2024 election season showed us that not only has foreign interest in US elections remained high, but that these actors have devised new methods to interfere. Americans must be cognizant of these efforts, as it is likely they will continue to ramp up and evolve.

Following the 2016 election, a 448 page investigation by Special Counsel Robert Mueller determined that “The Russian government interfered in the 2016 presidential election in sweeping and systematic fashion.” Interference included cyber hacks of the Democratic National Committee, a systematic social media campaign, and even links between the Trump campaign and Russia.

In 2020, the National Intelligence Council determined that in addition to attempted election interference inside the United States, President Putin authorized “operations aimed at denigrating President Biden’s candidacy and the Democratic Party, supporting former President Trump, undermining public confidence in the electoral process, and exacerbating sociopolitical divisions in the US.” Meanwhile, it was determined that Iran “carried out a multi-pronged covert influence campaign intended to undercut former President Trump’s reelection prospects” as well as “undermine public confidence in the electoral process and US institutions, and sow division and exacerbate societal tensions in the US”

In 2024, however, we saw a revamped playbook, including much of the old and some new. Like before, the interference started months in advance of November 5th.

In September, the Department of Justice unveiled an indictment revealing that Russia funded right-wing “influencers” to spread Russian propaganda. The indictment says that the influencers were unknowingly duped, but their followings totaled millions.

Microsoft released a report in August detailing their analysis of Chinese, Russian, and Iranian efforts to target our elections, including fake websites about polarizing issues, impersonation of activist groups, and fake accounts and videos, all designed to sow doubt and divide the United States.

It could take just moments of scrolling on social media to see the effects of Artificial Intelligence and “bots” online. This X thread by an open source intelligence researcher named Elise Thomas reveals a plethora of bots, all posting in support of Donald Trump. A Clemson University research report determined that there was “An army of political propaganda accounts powered by artificial intelligence” posing “as real people on X to argue in favor of Republican candidates and causes.”

On an otherwise smooth Election Day, bomb threats that U.S. officials linked to Russia disrupted voting in multiple swing states. The Arizona Attorney General stated that two thirds of Arizona’s counties received threats. The Georgia Secretary of State reported that the state received over 60 threats, many to primarily Democratic voting counties. The FBI published a statement on Election Day stating that they were aware of the threats and that election integrity is “among the FBI’s highest priorities.”

Ultimately, this interference is not only aimed at disrupting and influencing American elections. It also seeks to undermine the confidence of the American public in our complex election system. So far, it has done just that. In conjunction with Donald Trump’s baseless lies, this misinformation has led only 65% of voters to believe the 2020 election was free and fair. Just 30% of Republicans said the same. These same numbers were 72% and 87% in 2004.

Ultimately all of these examples over the last 8 or more years tell the story of a monumental issue: American elections are at risk. 

We can only expect interference to continue and worsen. At the end of the day, intelligence agencies and social media networks can only do so much to limit what gets through. 

As American citizens, we must be diligent. We must spend our time learning, reading, and understanding what is going on and what is at stake. We cannot blindly believe anything on the internet–we must return to an age of critical thinking to protect ourselves and our future. Otherwise, there is no telling where things will spiral in the future.

Nuclear Deterrence in a New Age: A Story of South Korea

By: David Ball

November 19th, 2024

U.S. foreign policy stands at a precipice in shaping its nuclear doctrine for the 21st century. Instability has driven some countries to consider the atomic bomb, while others race to expand their nuclear arsenals. By the end of the decade, China is estimated to have over 1,000 operational nuclear warheads. Meanwhile, other states are scrambling to safeguard themselves against nuclear threats and global instability, as once-strong alliances and long standing commitments are showing signs of faltering.

In 2026, the last nuclear doctrine limiting atomic weapon production between the US and Russia will expire, and it is unlikely to be reinstated. Following the fear of a Ukrainian counterattack in October 2022, the White House was briefed that there were conversations about Russia deploying nuclear weapons in Ukraine. These instances signify a change in nuclear deterrence. 

It is increasingly clear that the U.S. is confronting a multipolar world in terms of nuclear strategy. As NATO faces unprecedented tests and global instability worsens, a new arms race is emerging. To address its changing nuclear position, the U.S. must focus on renewed assurances of diplomacy with its allies. 

South Korea, one of the United States' key allies, stands at the forefront of this nuclear change. In recent months, its primary geopolitical adversary, North Korea, has recently begun rapidly expanding its nuclear capabilities and has been escalating the rhetoric around using nuclear options. The nuclear question has been a topic of intense debate in South Korea since the 1970s, when the US first announced that they would be moving troops away from the peninsula, but this moment comes at a more tumultuous time. 

Not only does North Korea have operational nuclear weapons, but heightened tensions between North and South Korea, uncertainty surrounding the strength of the U.S.-ROK alliance, and North Korea’s closer ties with Russia have created a volatile geopolitical landscape. Notably, 70% of South Koreans believe that its government should develop its own nuclear weapon capability. It is clear that these developments illuminate the need for increased diplomacy to protect our allies and uphold global nuclear nonproliferation efforts. 

This increasing weariness of the ROK’s favorability to develop a nuclear weapon has not gone unnoticed. In July of this year, the Biden administration signed a bilateral agreement with the ROK on a joint nuclear deterrence guideline. While the specifics of this agreement remain classified, it was indicated that it would involve the commitment of U.S. nuclear weapons on assignment in South Korea, which allows for the U.S. to respond to a threat quickly, but without having to change its nuclear stance. While this represents a step toward an increased engagement in diplomacy, gaps remain. Defense officials, academics and other influential policymakers within South Korea are both doubtful that the guideline will survive into the coming years, and are stressing the importance of building a more concrete relationship from this guideline.

By implementing and improving on the guidelines signed in its nuclear doctrine, South Korea can be a critical example of how to strengthen the U.S. nuclear umbrella without resorting to nuclear weapons testing. A detailed implementation roadmap that includes regular military exercises and bolstered diplomatic and military ties between South Korea and the United States could help promote deterrence and peace through strength, and reassure U.S. allies internationally of its nuclear umbrella.

Military nuclear exercises have already been held in South Korea, meaning that regular exercises can be possible, as the infrastructure and diplomatic cooperation already exist. Not only would this deter the DPRK, it would also help illustrate the commitment the U.S. has to its other allies that are threatened by the nuclear question, boosting nuclear proliferation and stability for all.