Your summary of the situation is perhaps a bit too narrow. But you are right, it is one of the major criticisms we hear. We are not taking into account the ability of the groups that are there. As a result, we believe—quite rightly in some ways, but wrongly in this particular instance—that we know everything and we think that the local groups must learn from us. That was the way of thinking in the 1960s.
When I was on site, they were very blunt and essentially told me: “You come here with your money. We were here when the problems started. You just come to carry out projects, and, when they are finished, you leave, but we are left with the problems.” Although it might be harder for us and we have to invest more time in analyzing the situation, we have to use the full potential of the groups that are there.
Also—and I will close with this—the issue has been completely depoliticized. A foreign country like Canada can do that. Michaëlle Jean did so when she went to the Congo, and Canada should continue to do so. It is known that commanders, senior individuals who were formerly members of militias and who were accused of committing rapes on a large scale and got away with it, are still in senior positions. It was suggested that the Department of Foreign Affairs make this public. Coming from Canada, this gesture would be accepted by the people. It might be just symbolic, but it might also be a wake-up call that enough is enough.
Canada has strongly criticized the Congo and has taken a stand by exercising its veto to prevent the Paris Club from eliminating the debt of the Congo supposedly to improve the business climate. That created a scandal in the Congo, but Canada did it, and the scandal passed. So Canada can take an equally strong stand on human rights.