A Reservist's View

There were huge doubts about the German government's decision at the beginning of last year to send a deployment of German troops to Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). It was a country where nearly 4 million people had died in the civil war since 1997, a conflict that had raged until the warring sides called an armistice in 2002.

The unsteady peace made it possible for the first free elections in 40 years to take place in 2006 and the 780 soldiers of the EUFOR force, sent under a mandate from the European Union, would be in the capital Kinshasa to ensure stability during the voting.

Despite this ceasefire and these steps towards democracy, there were risks. There was sporadic fighting across the country, political tensions which threatened to spill out onto the streets and the disturbing problem of child soldiers. Nevertheless, the EU mandate and the German deployment was approved and continued even when the situation in Congo deteriorated further as the European soldiers arrived.

The conditions for the soldiers on the ground in Congo was given little consideration when the application for the German deployment was agreed on; this seems to be the case in most foreign deployments these days with the soldiers considered little more than a buffer force between warring factions by the politicians making the decisions. However, the armed forces were consulted about the situation and therefore it was assumed that all aspects of the mission had been discussed and made clear.

Unacceptable and volatile conditions

The defense commissioner for the German lower house of parliament -- the Bundestag -- even described the living conditions of European soldiers in the Congo as "unacceptable" before the German application was made. The troops lived together for months in the narrowest of tents which soon went moldy in the rainy season, where the air humidity was 90 percent and temperatures were as high as 40 degrees Celsius (104 degrees F). The monsoon caused floods and made the latrine pits overflow. There were also defective showers and at times scarcely enough drinking water for the contingent.

Being separated from their loved ones also brought many problems for the troops. The workload in Kinshasa was more than expected with fighting breaking out between rival factions causing strain on those caught in the conflict and those waiting at home for news. The uncertainty and worry put strain on marriages and families and brought many to the breaking point.

Experienced soldiers who had seen action in Afghanistan and the Balkans had been confronted with conditions like this before, but for the less experienced troops the reality of the misery, decay and the results of a long and brutal civil war made very deep impressions on them. For many it was not an easy situation.

A tinderbox threatening to ignite

Far from just monitoring elections in the midst of a fragile ceasefire, the Europeans found themselves dealing with riots and battles between DRC troops and the forces of presidential candidate Jean-Pierre Bemba.

As the election neared, Bemba's bodyguards and armed fighters became increasingly nervous and when government soldiers attacked the candidate's residence, there was a real chance that the civil war could reignite. Dozens died as a result, and European forces found themselves caught in the middle. However, if they had not been there, it would have been a lot worse.

The situation in Kinshasa became like a tinderbox. Seemingly innocuous incidents could become inflammatory in seconds. Soldiers keeping the peace would regularly and suddenly find themselves facing a hostile crowd intent on rioting or criminal gangs moving through the capital.

In these cases, the EUFOR troops had to make split-second decisions to avoid escalation. Was a stone thrown towards them the beginning of an attack or the action of a high-spirited youngster? An overreaction from just one soldier could have had catastrophic effects, but a show of weakness or passivity also could have led to severe consequences.

To make the right decisions in such a volatile environment requires a high degree of professionalism and judgment. The soldiers making these types of decisions were in their early twenties and often making them alone.

EUFOR prevented a return to war

In the end, it was widely accepted that the decision to station United Nations forces in Kinshasa, the political center of the country, to provide stability was a successful one. While the deployment was initially viewed with much skepticism, it eventually gained support and sympathy. In general, the deployment of the EUFOR troops was seen as a success and that their presence, particularly during the August riots, was a decisive factor in the prevention of a return to civil war.

Every soldier at some point questions whether his or her deployment is worth the risk it may put on their life. The mainly positive reaction of the Congolese people by the end of the deployment convinced many that they had done a good and worthwhile job.

However, by the end, it also became clear that the deployment of troops in Congo could not solve the country's problems. A society that works with the government to create peace and stability is established only in parts. Old conflicts continue and they can only be solved by the Congolese people themselves.

Simon Wunder is a reserve officer in the Bundeswehr and a doctoral candidate in Aachen. He was deployed with the Operative Information regiment in Kinshasa and presents his personal view in this article. (nda)