Congolese elections and European values

A few days before the Congolese were to choose their new president, I blogged about the candidates. Last week the results of those elections were announced: Joseph Kabila succeeds himself as president of the Congo DR. He is believed to be won with little under half of the votes. However, he is not believed to be so by everyone: Supporters of Étienne Tshisekedi, who came in second, called the elections a fraud. They point toward the 'irregularities' that occurred to support their case. While it is true that not everything about the election process was democracy proper, all by all the result is called credible by the authorized commission.

Belgian police forces restraining Congolese protesters in
Matonge - the Congolese district in Brussels, Belgium.

Kabila was not elected by a majority of the people and in a one-to-one race against Tshisekedi he would surely bite the dust. The incumbent president profited from the divided opposition as I predicted in my previous post. Tshisekedi's followers, and indeed the political leader himself, fail to recognize this. While in the urbanized region of the capital opposition against Kabila is strong, the majority of the nation accepts a second term. Riots in Congo or abroad (we had some trouble with protesters in Matonge, the Congolese neighborhood of Brussels) are ungrounded. I do recognize that the grievances held against the Kabila regime are just, but the election outcome is representative.

What I find a real pity is that Europe didn't send a strong signal when tensions rose. A call to 'sit back and stay calm' can hardly be called a signal, can it? I noticed that the Old Continent is no longer as agile in promoting democratic ideals. Congo is just a single dot in a much broader pattern: values are forced to take a back seat more often than should be good for our conscience. Take for instance a bilateral trade agreement between the EU and Columbia: should we really strike a deal with a regime that doesn't take too kindly to human rights? The same goes for a deal in the making with India; the Indian government refuses to accept any trade agreement that holds a clause on human rights - and the EU is actually considering to drop its standard human rights clause!

It can be expected that this tendency will grow stronger in the future, and this for two reasons: First of all, the playing field for international trade is changing drastically. Countries like India, China and Brazil gain prominence and they are not stupid enough to attach value judgements to their contracts. Also, Russia is joining the WTO soon - this nation isn't exactly a staunch defender of personal freedom either. Holding on to its noble ethics would compromise the competitiveness of the EU. A second cause might be the declining power of the Commission and the Parliament. They have lost some of their grip on foreign policy since the creation of the External Action Service. What the future might hold, I can not say, but for sure fragmented and superficial protest wont bend the forces that shape our world.