Testing Canada's Foreign Policy when faced with the brutality of the Democratic Republic of Congo

I like to think of myself as an informed citizen, yet I was recently placed in a state of shock when faced with a world crisis. No, I am not referring to the earthquake in Haiti, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, or the conflict between Israel and Palestine. Today I am going beyond the media focus, and shining light on one of the world's most devastating secrets, the brutality in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

With a higher death toll than Afghanistan and Iraq combined, I am deeply disturbed that I can not recall hearing about this crisis on the news. In fact, I am embarrassed to say, that I myself had no idea of the extent until my politics teacher brought it to our attention. Since then, I have researched and read numerous articles to attempt at grasping the injustice occurring over the Atlantic Ocean. I have read and read, and can not help but feel a knot in my stomach when realizing the devastating reality. The amount of corruption and violence that has taken place in the state is impossible to grasp. It is estimated that 5 million people have died of the fighting and the outcomes the fighting has caused(illness and hunger). In addition, the abuse and sexual violence the women(young girls) have faced is unheard of in the Western society. I do not mean to bring emotion into politics, but as this blog entry continues, I challenge you to not feel disgusted and empathetic towards the situation. With Canada's reputation as a peacekeeping country, the validity of the human security agenda is tested and evaluated. Congo is a prime example of an extreme violation of human rights, and the manner in which Canada reacts will unveil its true colors. A further examination of Canada's role within Congo will be given to explore the extent to which Canada's foreign policy on human security agenda has been applied or lack there of. Yet, before analyzing and tackling Canada's human security agenda, a background summary is essential in order to truly understanding the brutality the country has/does currently face.

Background Information on the Republic of Congo

The Democratic Republic of Congo has a history filled with violence and corruption. The current conflict is a result of the ongoing conflicts throughout the years including the Rwandan Genocide, First Congo War, Second Congo War and its after math.

The Rwandan Genocide occurred in 1994 and is a direct link to the current crisis in the DRC. This genocide was accountable for the deaths of 800 000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus. By 1996, the war and genocide in neighboring Rwanda had spilled over to the DRC (then Zaire), as the Tutsi rebels took control of Rwanda and waves of refugees fled into Hutu camps in the DR Congo. This was followed by a coalition of Rwandan and Ugandan armies invading Zaire under the cover of a small group of Tutsi militia to fight the Hutu militia, overthrow the government of Mobutu, and ultimately control the mineral resources of Zaire. With the expansion of Alliance des Forces Démocratiques pour la Libération du Congo-Zaïre (AFDL), in May 1997, Mobutu fled the country and Kabila marched into Kinshasa, naming himself president and reverting the name of the country to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, thus ending the Frist Congo War.

The end of the First Congo War set the foundation for the Second Congo War(also referred to as African World War and the Great War of Africa) which took place between 1998 and 2003. Like the names suggests, this was the largest war in modern African history, and furthermore the deadliest conflict worldwide since World War II, killing 5.4 million people.

By June 2003 all foreign armies except those of Rwanda had pulled out of Congo. Much of the conflict was focused on gaining control of substantial natural resources in the country, including diamonds, copper, zinc, and coltan. Despite the signing of peace accords in 2003, fighting continues in the east of the country. In eastern Congo, the prevalence of rape and other sexual violence is described as the worst in the world.

With the persistent chaos, it makes one wonder, where are the armed leaders getting all their funding? Upon doing some research, the answers discovered were quite devastating. Turns out, that many of us North Americans have a closer link to the DRC than expected. The DRC is home to many natural ressources, some of them being minerals vital to the functionning of the ever famous blackberrys, ipods, and popular electronics used today. For example, the Congolese armed groups earn approximately $85 million per year from trade in tin. Tin (produced from cassiterite) is used inside cell phone and all electronic products as a solder on circuit boards. And it does'nt stop there. Tantalum (produced from coltan) is used to store electricity in capacitors in iPods, digital cameras, and cell phones. Sixty-five to eighty percent of the world’s tantalum is used in electronic products. Congolese armed groups earn an estimated $8 million per year from trading in tantalum. Other minerals include tungsten which is produced from wolframite and is used to make cell phones or Blackberrys vibrate. Tungsten is a growing source of income for armed groups in Congo, earning approximately $2 million annually. Also, Gold which is used in jewelry and as a component in electronics. Extremely valuable and easy to smuggle, Congolese armed groups are earning between $44 million to $88 million per year from gold.

These minerals have adopted the nick name of "conflict minerals", and the reason behind which is quite obvious. The corruption within the armed forces is clear, yet businesses selfishly continue to fund these armed forces in order to get materials vital to make their products, continue production which ultimately brings in profit. This dilemma may in fact explain why there is such a silence when dealing with the fragile case of the Democratic Republic of Congo. The facts are non arguable and directly in front us, yet around the world people continue to shy away from the conflict. It may be easy for us as to ignore the crisis as it is not present in our country, yet one must place themselves in the shoes of a Congolese civilian and conclude that things can not continue on the same dark path. As Canadians, we hold high pride for our peacekeeping and morally right motives, yet how exactly has Canada involved itself within the DRC and does their plan of action correspond with their human security agenda?

Canada's Role in the Democratic Republic of Congo

Canada has been active in the DRC for over 30 years, particularly since 1998. The Canadian International Development Agency- CIDA, has planned to focus on two areas of intervention: political and economic governance, and access to primary health care. In 2008-2009,CIDA's disbursements for projects and initiatives in the Democratic Republic of the Congo was worth about $54.23 million. As generous as a contribution this may sound, when compared to Canada's mission in Afghanistan, Canada is estimated to spend about $18.1 billion(approximately $1,500 per Canadian household). More specifically and comparable to the 2008-2009 Congo statistic, Canada spent $1.5 billion on military and $466 million dollars on development aid in 2006 alone. These numbers do not rank any where near each other, which makes one wonder, why is Canada vastly more committed to Afghanistan than it is to the DRC? Is it because Afghanistan is in more need of help? It is needless to say, the state of Afghanistan is disastrous, but Congo's history and current state clearly demonstrate comparable, if not worst circumstances. From a political point of view, one can only begin to dig deeper in order to unveil the true reasons for Canada's commitment/ lack there of in different places around the world.

As mentioned above, the DRC holds many valuable minerals vital for the functioning of many electronics which corporations are dependent of. This may begin to explain Canada's hesitation to take full action in the DRC. This exploits Canada's human security agenda, which values the individual over the state, as Canada proves to have a national security state of mind evident through its course of action. Due to the lack of attention of this current crisis, Canada has proven to be lucky, thus far. Yet, as more individuals begin to realize the true situation, Canada's reputation is put on the line. How will the government reason the violation of human rights occurring in the DRC for the production of a fancy blackberry? It stuns me that they have thus far been successful, yet the days are numbering before the brutality in the DRC finally take the headlines, leaving the entire world in a state of embarrassment and shame.

Limiting Human Security for National Interest: Canada in East Timor

Canada's foreign policy in the 1990s claimed to be centered on the importance of protecting an individual, over the state. The East Timor conflict explores the legitimacy of Canada's foreign policy and how it translates when it is forced into practice. This conflict exposes Canada's true agenda as it struggles to abide by its own self proclaimed foreign policy on human security, while maintaining national interest. Yet, before further analyzing Canada's role in East Timor, it is primarily essential to explore the history and events leading up to the conflict in 1999.

East Timor is the eastern part of the island of Timor, located between South China Sea and the Indian Ocean. While most of the region was controlled by the Dutch, East Timor became a Portuguese colony in the 16th century. Over time, the Dutch colony emerged as the independent Republic of Indonesia while East Timor remained under the control of the Portuguese. After the Portuguese withdrew in 1975, East Timor was annexed by Indonesia and thus began the struggle for independence. This struggle came in the form of famine, disease, and severe fighting as the Indonesian military forces refused to surrender their power.
Then in 1999, due to extreme international pressure, President Habbibie announced to hold a referendum on East Timor independence. The result of the referendum held on August 30 was clear, a majority vote of 78.5% were in favour of independence. Directly after the vote was finalized, Indonesian military became more aggressive than ever, campaigning for violence and extreme terrorism in retaliation. The outcome was devastating. Approximately 1 300 Timorese were killed, and 300 000 were forced into West Timor as refugees. The entire country suffered a violation of human rights. The majority of the country’s infrastructure, including homes, water supply systems, schools, and almost 100% of the country’s electrical grid were completely destroyed. Needless to further explain, the country was left in a state of disaster, desperately seeking external help.

The proximity of Australia (East Timor is 400 miles northwest of Australia), combined with Australia’s foreign policy (similar to Canada’s), made it the front runner to intervene and help the ongoing conflict. From 1999 to June 2009, Australia has provided over $820 million in Official Development Assistance (ODA). Although a generous contribution, Australia knew it would need external help in order to succeed.

Thus explaining how Canada came to be a part of the equation. It is clear that Canada’s involvement is the outcome of two notable reasons. For one, like mentioned above when Australia is directly committed to help East Timor, it is natural for it to call on its alliances around the world for help. Although Canada is located across the world, due to its similarities in government and lifestyle, it shares a political bond with Australia. Hence, when Australia called on Canada for action, Canada had to act in order to show commitment and keep tight political bonds. Secondly, due to its many reports on human rights abuse, this conflict became extremely publicized on the world stage. With the world watching, it was time for the country to take their words and liberal "beliefs" and put them into actions in order to maintain reputation.

In order to clearly assess the validity to Canada’s human security agenda in 1999, a clear assessment of Canada’s involvement must be analyzed. Canada did step up when the UN and Australian led INTERFET (International Force for East Timor) called for help. Yet, at what measures, and was it effective? The prime minister at the time, Chretien promised 600 troops from the Canadian forces[1]. This announcement was immediately attacked by critics who claimed that Canada did not have the ability to follow through with the promise. Yet, what Chretien did not detail was the breakdown of the 600 troops. People assumed the 600 troops were all infantry soldiers, yet this was not the case. The 600 included 250 naval personnel, 100 aircrew, 50 logistical and medical support, and finally only 200 infantry[2]. Australia had the highest contribution with about 5400 troops, and not even they could with stand against the extreme Indonesian forces. As nice of a gesture that 200 infantry soldiers may seem, does it translate as an effective means of helping the conflict in East Timor, or was it merely an effective way to keep national interest while maintaining Canada’s reputation?

An important area to explore is Canada’s involvement with Indonesia. In 1993, Canadian investments in Indonesia totaled approximately $3 billion[3]. By 1998, Canadian investments with Indonesia tripled to $9 billion[4]. Furthermore in 1999, Canada went ahead and exported a total of $21.8 million in substantial military exports, making Indonesia the fourth largest market for such exports that year[5]. The Canadian government could have demonstrated its commitment towards Indonesia by suspending its substantial military exports[6] in 1999. It is such activity which questions the validity of Canada’s true intentions. It is not a crime to put importance on national interest, yet the problem arises when one self categorizes itself as a true believer of human security over the well being of the state.

I am not attempting to put Canada down as a whole. In total there were only 22 countries in the world who contributed to INTERFET. I praise our country for its leadership and concern to promote human values around the world. Yet, I do believe the foreign policy needs a practical adjustment. With so many injustices in the world, it is not realistic to state that Canada will help every case where human rights are being violated with military means. Although in theory, Canada's Foreign Affairs Minister between 1996 and 2001, Lloyd Axworthy, foreign policy centered on preventing the abuse of human rights sounds ideal, it is not possible unless it is supported by a government who is truly committed to it. Let us not make promises we can not keep because even though it may appeal to the public in the short term, it is a set up for failure in the long term.

The conflict in East Timor pushed Canada to not only talk to the talk, but walk the walk. A task, they failed to accomplish. Perhaps the country’s policy was doomed to failure from the start, as its agenda is centered on ideals which naturally do not translate into action.

[1] T.S. Hataley & Kim Richard Nossal, “The Limits of the Human Security Agenda: The Case of Canada’s Response to the Timor Crisis,” Global Change, Peace & Security (Vol. 16, No.1. February 2004), pp 5-17.

[2] Ibid

[3] Ibid

[4] Ibid

[5] Ibid

[6] Ibid

Obama: A True Prince

This past December, President Barrack Obama delivered a speech addressing the entire world at the U.S Military Academy at West Point, in New York. The main issue discussed? The war in Afghanistan. In his speech Obama announced his plans to withdraw from Iraq, and to deploy an additional 30 000 troops to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Obama uses his natural charisma to communicate such a controversial issue with least amount of harm possible. He demonstrates his knowledge of the world's history and the current situation, and informs the public that he has weighed every option carefully. He shows emotion as he sympathizes for the many devastating loses, yet assertiveness when announcing that his decision is the best option when regarding the well being of the entire nation.

Upon studying and thoroughly analyzing Niccolo Machiavelli's The Prince, I could not help but recognize the similarities in technique between the two. The comparison begins with Obama's technique to separate himself with the old regime. Prior to his presidency, it is no secret that Americans were fed up with Bush's administration. Obama noted this and found a mean to use it to his advantage. This translated to the entire basis of Obama's campaign, with his clever slogan "Change, we can believe in"and, "Yes we can." Separating himself from the prior administration was undeniably Obama's best campaign movement, a technique Machiavelli stated in The Prince. According to Machiavelli, there are two ways to gain power. One being by force and ultimate fear, and the other is by creating a clearly defined ‘new regime’, which will ensure that the people respect the new leader and prefer him to his predecessors. This explains Obama's lack of hesitation to criticize Bush's administration and vocalize his differences from the previous president.

The similarities between the two do not stop there. By sending over 30 000 troops, Obama practices the following Machiavellian belief, " A prince never lacks legitimate reasons to break his promise. " Obama justifies breaking his promise by explaining that he must fix the problem the previous administration started. He shows sympathy and emotion (as a means to earn love, another Machiavellian technique), and persuades the public that there are no other options. In addition, as a means to gain love and support from his people, President Barrack Obama shares that he has read letters and visited burrial grounds of many lost soldiers and their families. Obama strives for the public to love him. Again, this can be compared to Machiavelli's words, "A prince should therefore be very careful that nothing escapes his lips which is no replete with the fine qualities...so that to see and head him one would think him the embodiment of mercy, good faith, integrity, humanity, and religion." No matter his decision, the way in which he presents it to the public must earn him the qualities Machiavelli listed above. Reputation is a very important aspect to a well respected and successful prince, a guideline Obama works really hard to maintain. Yet, this tactic of his was a lot easier during his campaign, than during his presidency. With presidency, comes tough decisions, decisions that must be made in the eyes of the public. The troubling aspect is that the public shares many different beliefs, and therefore as president it is essential to find a way to unify all.

Thus, spurs another Machiavellian belief, "Since love and fear can hardly exist together, if we must choose between them, it is far safer to be feared than loved."Since Obama's decision will split the nation in two, and therefore hinder national support, the president has no other options but to instill fear within the public. By Obama explaining the extreme regimes out East, and reminding the public of several terrorist attacks, such as in England and on 9/11, the public is reminded that there is evil abroad, and therefore military involvement is necessary.


Upon following Obama's journey since the beginning of his presidency, it is undeniable that there lay many similarities between himself and the works of Niccolo Machiavelli. Whether the public bought his speech or not, President Barack Obama has proven to be quite the Machiavellian Prince.

Michael Ignatieff: Weighing Human Rights over Sovereingty

Michael Ignatieff, the current leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, has become one of the most controversial figures in Canadian politics. His beliefs regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan followed by his novel, "The Lesser Evil" has resulted in much discussion and debate. Upon doing further research, it becomes quite apparent why his support for the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have resulted in extreme controversy.

The debate over respecting sovereignty on one hand, and standing up for human rights on the other, is the core issue Michael Ignatieff faces. Although a true human rights theorist, Ignatieff supported the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. His reasoning for supporting the war is not similar to Bush's, but rather he justifies it with his belief that defending human rights over shadows a country's right to sovereignty. This questions the extent of morals within politics and the extremes of Realism vs Idealism. Being a liberal interventionist, Ignatieff supports military action on the basis of left leaning ideals, which strive for global defense and human rights. Micael Cotey Morgan's article on Michael Ignatieff states that when a a group of people is in dire need anywhere, we as fellow human beings can not ignore our obligation to help them. I do believe this statement to be true, yet I stress that the manner in which we intervene and help them must be done in a particular fashion. Ignatieff believes that democracy is consistently a good idea. This being said, although in theory, yes, it is a good idea, when invading another country not similar to ours it is not practical to enforce a certain government. By providing education and informing the people of the country of the benefits, the introduction of democracy can be successful, yet by enforcing it unwillingly, people of the country may rebel and this may result in disastrous rebellious behavior such as in Afghanistan.

Ignatieff believes in doing what is fundamentally right, if this translates in intervening other countries around the world to defend human rights, then so be it. Although I am concerned about the well being of people around the world, there are factors that must be measured. For one, when recognizing an injustice in the world, we must weigh and recognize the cultural differences and act accordingly and respectably. Recognizing that all people do not view things from the Western point of view is key. Countries are separated throughout the world and we must respect our differences, yet when an injustice is being done, it is our duty as a peacekeeping country to see past the boundaries that separate us, and help fellow humans around the world. Key word being "help" not take over, and most definitely not attack. We must provide the instruments for countries to regain credibility and practice proper human rights.

Although in theory I do agree with many of Ignatieff's beliefs, I do believe he is taking the easy route for problems that clearly need much more depth for solutions. How can a man who stands so strong for human rights justify war? Ignatieff explains his reasoning with his belief on "the lesser evil." He states that, "when no option is absolutely moral, one can only choose that which is likeliest to minimize harm." In my opinion, such a statement is extremely vague and lacks substance to justify a solution as extreme as war. First of all, this entails weighing all options, an act which is extremely subjective. Next, he states that the option which is likeliest to minimize no harm must be chosen. How can a self proclaimed human rights activist justify invading a country across the world, killing thousands of people in the process, justify his actions by weighing the likeliest of harm? Better yet, how can a human rights activist even justify war in the first place? In my opinion, the "lesser evil" theory does no such justification. Although I am be coming off as an idealist, I find it necessary in order to truly analyze Ignatieff's beliefs, beliefs that I personally have come to not agree with.

Unveiling Harper's True Intentions from a Realist Perspective

Every year, the world's eight most powerful heads of government gather to tackle international crises and issues. The responsibility for hosting the summit rotates through the G8 in the following order: France, United States, United Kingdom, Russia, Germany, Japan, Italy, and Canada. This year, it is Canada's turn to host the summit, which will take place this upcoming June in Muskoka, Ontario. Among the issues Steven Harper wishes to address, he has chosen to focus on maternal and infant mortality in the developing world. Although an important issue, it is needless to say that Steven Harper's choice of focus has shocked many in the international community. Harper has defended his choice by stating, "It is therefore time to mobilize our friends and partners to do something for those who can do little for themselves, to replace grand good intentions with substantive acts of human good will." Yet, before blindly being convinced that Steven Harper is truly acting out of "substantive human good will", one must be skeptical and approach this issue from a realist point of view and determine what Harper may potentially benefit from this announcement.

To help see clearly from a realist point of view, historians such as Hobbes and Machiavelli can be assessed. Hobbes believed that humans are solely self interested and that, “there is no such finis ultimus, utmost aim nor summum bxonum, greatest good". Similarly, Machiavelli believed in appearing of good nature to the people you rule, only to hide true intentions and plans behind closed doors

This may very well be the case with Canada's Prime Minister, Steven Harper.

To unveil Steven Harper's angle on this issue, we must place ourselves in his position and ask, "what could Steven Harper possibly gain by showing ultimate support for maternal and infant mortality in developing countries?"

For one, such a humanitarian act of recognizing such a neglected issue has gained support and respect from many in the international community. The issue of maternal and infant mortality throughout the developing world really is an issue in need of urgent attention. Each year, it is estimated that 500,000 women lose their lives during pregnancy or childbirth. Further, an astonishing 9 million children die before their fifth birthday. Such statistics demonstrate the severity of this situation and its desperate outcry for help. Yet, living in the world we do today, hearing such disturbing statistics are not uncommon. There are many crises happening around the world every day and they are all supported by frightening facts. Why choose the maternal crisis over world hunger and poverty which accounts for half of the world (over 3 billion people) living on less than $2.50 a day, resulting in the deaths of 24 000 children daily. Or perhaps the crisis of HIV/AIDS which 40 million people are living with, leaving 14 million AIDS orphans in Africa and has amounted to 25 million deaths since 1981. Or better yet, the environmental disaster our earth is dealing with which relates to water shortage leaving 1.1 billion people in developing countries inadequate access to water, and 2.6 billion lack basic sanitation. An overwhelming presentation of statistics? Yes, perhaps. Yet the point being, with so many problems and disasters in the world, what is the true reasoning behind Steven Harper's choice of crisis?

One thing is apparent, Steven Harper has not had the best Prime Minister run in Canadian history. Already heading a minority government, Steven Harper is in dire need of gaining the support and respect of his country before the next federal election. More importantly, showing support and seeking help for the maternal and infant crisis will help him gain many votes, especially in the female population.

Another strategic tactic of his is the re introduction of the crisis that has not yet been resolved.Instead of introducing new issues, Harper has concentrated on fulfilling past commitments. He wants to honor the promise the United Nations made in 2000. Yet if this is true, then why not follow on the Kyoto treaty? It has been said and confirmed that solving the maternal and infant death crisis does not require outrageous funds and is fairly simple. Compare this to higher-profile issues such as AIDS or malaria, and Harper has found a way to act out of human good will without paying much of a price. In addition, Harper hopes to build his reputation on the international stage. By committing to past promises, Steven Harper is building his credibility both domestically and internationally, and this tactic of his already seems to be working. Upon his announcement, famous world figures such as Bill Clinton and Bill Gates have praised and recognized Harper's generosity.

Of course, when June comes around maternal and infant mortality will not be the sole issue that will be discussed at the G8 Summit. The Prime Minister admits on http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=3093, that other business will also be discussed such as security, nuclear proliferation and the environment. It can be debated whether the maternal and infant crisis is a mere distraction to gain support and put the population at peace about what the top 8 powerful governments will really be discussing. After all, this is not an occasion for the eight most powerful nations to sit around, drink tea, and discuss soft politics. Not being present in Steven Harper's office, it is hard to conclude his true intentions and reasoning. Yet, approaching this situation from a realist point of view demonstrates that Harper truly is a calculative man with more on the agenda that meets the eye.

*Statistics used in this blog were referenced from http://www.globalissues.org/article/26/poverty-facts-and-stats.

FIFA World Cup 2010 in Souh Africa!

On a brighter, more positive note, South Africa will be holding the 2010 FIFA World Cup. This will be the first time that the tournament has been hosted by an African nation, and the buzz is swirling around with maximum excitement. Such a positive event is extremely beneficial to the well being of the entire continent. Africa has seen its fair share of crisis, thus the fact that South Africa will be holding one the largest sporting events in the world is great news. Between June 11 and July 11, 2010, South Africa will be the center attention of the entire world. This is a great opportunity for South Africa to showcase to the world its capabilites and its culture. There are many benefits to hosting the FIFA world cup. According to consulting firm Grant Thornton, the World Cup will pump around R21.3-billion into South Africa's economy, generating an estimated R12.7-billion in direct spending and creating an estimated 159 000 new jobs. Furthermore, such a sporting event will bring in an estimated three million visitors, which will directly boost up the tourism industry (economy). To witness such a wonderful event take place in Africa is a breath of fresh air. Africa has constantly been in the headlines, yet the headlines are usually regarding negative issues such as poverty, government corruption, HIV/AIDS, etc. Hosting the world cup will directly positively impact not only South Africa, but it will uplift the spitits of all Africans and the world will witness it firsthand. With only a couple months to go, South Africa is focusing on preperations for the games. They are currently working on building and renovating football stadiums. There will be a total of 10 stadiums, 5 are undergoing major renovations for 2010: Soccer City and Ellis Park in Johannesburg, Loftus Versfeld in Pretoria, the Royal Bafokeng stadium in Rustenburg in North West province, and Vodacom Park in Bloemfontein in the Free State, and 5 others are being built:Mbombela in Mpumalanga and in the Nelson Mandela Metro (encompassing Port Elizabeth) in the Eastern Cape. In addition to preparations, South Africa is working on improving public transportation and the safety and secuirty of the country. There is much to be done in time for the games, but one thing is for sure, bringing the FIFA world cup to South Africa will be revoltionary for not only the country but the entire continent's reputation in the world. Let the count down begin!

The Many Faces of South Africa

Africa is a continent dominated by generalizations and stereotypes. It is a shame that the image of such a beautiful land, rich in history and culture has been consumed by poverty and disaster which tragically exist across the continent. The true beauty of South Africa is the diversity that exists within the country. It is a nation of more than 50 million people of diverse origins, cultures, languages, and religious beliefs. With such high diversity rates it is often referred to as the 'rainbow nation'. Of the 45 million South Africans, nearly 31 million are Black, 5 million White, 3 million Coloured(the term "colored" is still used for the people of mixed race descended from slaves brought in from East and Central Africa) and one million Indian. The constitution recognizes eleven official languages, along with eight unofficial languages. Furthermore, the country also has a wide mix of religions that accept the wide array of diverse people living within the country.
Although the diversity in the country should be celebrated, it unfortunately presents many confrontations between races. The history of the confrontation goes back to landing of the Dutch in 1652 and the colonization that occured by the British in 1806. Although this occured hundreds of years ago, the country is presently a representation of the after effects of its history. To date, the country struggles to find a balanced equality between its people. For example, Statistics South Africa reported that in 1995 the average white household earned four times as much as the average black household. Although an older statistic, it repersents the poor and inequal living standard in South Africa. As time moderinizes, it is imagined that over time the statistic would decrease. Yet surprisingly, in 2000 the inequality increased as the average white household was now earning six times more than the average black household. Such a statistic demonstrates the prominent inequality within the races. Although South Africa does possess a wide array of diversity, the country must work on accepting and celebrating human equality. If this is achieved, South Africa will serve as a positive example for the rest of the African countries, leading the way to a hopefully brighter future.