Ben Affleck makes his fourth visit to African Congo


Ben Affleck in eastern Congo, 11/19/08

Ben Affleck has already chronicled the dire conditions in the war-torn African Congo region with a documentary and an appearance on Nightline. He’s made three treks to the Republic of Congo, hoping to raise awareness of the ongoing atrocities brought on by civil war, including violence against women and children. One of the most prevalent forms of violence there is rape – in fact, 2 out of 3 women in the Congo are rape victims. Most of these women never seek medical help or report their rapists. Now, Ben is returning to the region, hoping to raise more awareness and to urge people to donate money or resources to humanitarian organizations servicing the Congo.

“I’m not an expert in international affairs or diplomacy, but it doesn’t take that to see the tremendous suffering here,” he told The Associated Press on Thursday in Goma, the regional capital. “It’s not something that we as human beings can, in good conscience, ignore.”

Years of sporadic violence in eastern Congo intensified in August, when fighting heated up between the army and fighters loyal to rebel leader Laurent Nkunda.

Some fear the current crisis could once again draw in neighboring countries. Congo’s devastating 1998-2002 war split the vast nation into rival fiefdoms and involved half a dozen African armies.

“I’m really glad that more people are paying more attention to (Congo) now but I’m really saddened that it’s taken this uptick in violence to make that happen,” Affleck said.

“The primary reason I am here is to urge people to give money to the NGOs and charities doing hard work in eastern Congo on meager funds,” he said. “And if people out there have an existing relationship with a charity, to urge that charity to get involved in eastern Congo. To let people know, ‘Don’t just read the horror stories in the newspapers and turn off.'”

Affleck said he first became interested in Congo a few years ago, when Hollywood’s attentions began to focus another African crisis, Darfur. After doing more research on Africa, he was shocked to learn about Congo’s four-year war, during which an estimated 5 million people died.

“I thought a lot of people are advocating on Darfur. I’d just be a very small log on a big fire. I started getting interested in Congo and I thought, this is a place where I can have a really big impact,” he said.

[From Huffington Post]

My daughter’s best friend, who is 13, and her family had to return to the Congo last year to help ailing family members. they own a plantation in the Congo and several family members have AIDS. Their land is constantly being attacked and set on fire and they’ve lost most of their livestock, but they haven’t been hurt yet. There are often many months that go by before we get word from her, and we always fear the worst. Some of the stories my daughter’s friend has told us are truly chilling. If I had the celebrity status of someone like Ben Affleck, or Brangelina, etc., I would probably be doing the same thing – using that status to raise awareness of situations like this.

For those who will inevitably slam Ben for having the audacity to raise awareness of an atrocity outside of the US borders, keep in mind that Ben is a co-founder of an annual charity poker event along with Don Cheadle and Adam Sandler which benefits U.S, organizations such as The United Way and the American Red Cross. He’s also hosted charity benefits for elementary schools and colleges in the Boston area and in the hometown of wife Jennifer Garner.

Ben Affleck is shown picking up daughter Violet from school on Nov. 10. He looks less than thrilled that photographers feel the need to immortalize this everyday activity. Photo credit: Bauergriffin.

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

12 Responses to “Ben Affleck makes his fourth visit to African Congo”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. Baholicious says:

    Rape is used as a tool of war in that the majority of soldiers who commit these rapes are HIV positive. It’s biological warfare because the raping is deliberate and intended to infect the women of enemy groups. That’s why these rapes are also extremely brutal – to facilitate transmission of the virus.

  2. daisyfly says:

    Biological holocaust… that is what this pretty much amounts to. Kudos for Ben not being some narcissistic, self-involved celebrity airhead and actually giving a damn about the world he’s bringing children into.

  3. Cici says:

    Baholicious – it’s true what you say but they also attack the women to attack the VERY FOUNDATION of family and society. To ravage the woman is to tear apart her entire family, as she is then shunned by the husband, et. al, and the family is torn apart. A village without any family ties is weakened and easily taken over by rebel troops.

    It’s really a sickening situation and I’m so glad Ben is doing this. As someone pointed out – Ben is involved in a LOT – and I think he’s always had it in him to be the type of person he is today. He’s had a bad rap in the past, but who among us hasn’t gotten off track once or twice in our entire lives. I hope he goes into politics one day.

  4. Celebitchy says:

    I don’t understand why the US hasn’t sent troops over there – or didn’t do it years ago. I mean I do understand – Iraq, Afghanistan, but the situation there was so dire and the US just stood by and didn’t do a damn thing. It is astounding that this type of thing still happens in the world with all the resources and technology we have to stop it. It’s not like people don’t know about it.

    Also can I please ask you to not discuss the particulars of war. This is important to talk about but the details are very disturbing to me and to some other people. I heard things in an earlier thread that I would not imagine in my worse nightmares. I’m not talking about what’s being discussed here now, just please no details. It is haunting and although it should be so that we know what is going on and do something about it, there are details that people would rather not hear.

  5. Mairead says:

    I applaud Ben for this – the situation in DRC is deteriorating badly of late. There had been a reduction in the process of systematic rape earlier this year, and some awareness programmes had taken place within Congo with brave women telling their stories and help break the taboo and get a groundswell of support for peace.

    In the past the abuse of women and children was an effect of the war – a mix of adrenaline and a desire to take immediate punishment on “the enemy”. But especially since the Balkan war in the 90s we’re seeing it more and more as a systematic tool of war, particularly for the reasons CiCi says, although the spread of AIDS is doubtless a significant side-effect.

    Further reading for those not familiar with this aspect of the war:

    http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/world/2008/1119/1227026414044.html

    http://www.oxfamamerica.org/whatwedo/emergencies/congo/news-publications/in-congo-women-face-sexual-violence-and-its-legacy-of-shame-and-hardship

  6. Mairead says:

    CB – my first comment is in moderation. I hope that I’ve not overstepped your request – feel free to edit what you wish. I have included two links which explain this aspect of the war.

    As to why there’s no US intervention… Well. The West did damn all in 1994 in Rwanda, and some aspects of that tribal genocide are being played out here again. So it’s par for the course.

    We all know why the Bush administration started meddling in Iraq, so I’m not going to go there.

    Afghanistan is a different matter. There’s a greater history of getting involved there, as it was the physical battlegrounds of the Cold War. The US and USSR couldn’t fight each other directly, but they could do it by proxy in Afghanistan – one under the banner of protecting its, to use a Stalinist term, “sphere of influence”, and the other on behalf of those who wished to push back the “Red Menace” – including as we all know Osama bin Laden.

    Despite some military strikes during the Clinton administration, the cause of which I can’t remember (although i do remember one dyed-in-the-wool Republican insisting to me that it was just to deflect attention from the Ken Starr investigation), Iraq and Afghanistan were basically left get on with it under punitive sanctions and some spying.

    The impetus to strike Afghanistan only came about after Sept. 11 to avenge that attack – nothing more nothing less. Human-rights abuses and destruction of UNESCO sites were trotted out as an added justification, but considering the international community didn’t give a rats @rse about women being executed in football stadiums before games in front of thousands of baying men on the 10th of September, chances are that they weren’t much more moved by it on the 12th.

    I know that my last paragraph may come across as being cynical or anti-American, but that’s not the case at all, I am writing out events as dispassionately as I can the way I remember them.

  7. rbsesq says:

    CB – Africa doesn’t have any resources that the US is interested in. That’s the sad truth of it. And the American people might be appalled when they read about the atrocities that are committed, but if it doesn’t affect the amount they pay for gas,etc., they’ll quickly forget about it because it doesn’t really affect them.

  8. Mairead says:

    rbsesq, that’s not 100% accurate, Africa has some huge resorces, both in oil in Nigeria (although that’s being exploited by Royal Dutch Shell) and especially in minerals. Once upon a time a number of countries were even amazing agricultural nations (Egypt before the Aswan dam, Zimbabwe before Mugabe’s senility). But as there are old colonial interests still at play in some areas, perhaps American interest is being kept out because of that?

    Besides, America doesn’t have the stomach for a war on its own, and in the case of Africa won’t get any help from the Western world to try and exploit resources as it would mean going back into a tinderbox the old colonials were thrown out of not 50 years ago.

    Plus, perhaps there’s money to be made in confusion despite everything; a warlord only interested in securing his powerbase might be more open to selling off his country’s mineral assets for a pittance when he’s being distracted by civil strife?

  9. Bex says:

    PS: MSat, hope your daughter’s friend and her family are doing well, and thanking you for writing about the situation – it’s the 2nd time I’ve seen something about Affleck’s work in DR Congo on CB, and it’s awesome that you guys are covering it and bringing more coverage – thank you!

  10. Aspen says:

    I absolutely agree with Mairead about that last paragraph (the one you fear people on my side of the aisle might fault you for).

    I was INCENSED that it took some terrorists from Afghanistan bombing the U.S. to make us step in and do something about the Taliban. They beat their women in the street and stone little girls and forbade them to work or go to school….or beg from those who DID have a means of supporting themselves. The suicide rates were through the roof, and NO ONE was helping them. No one.

    My husband is U.S. Marine, and I have a very different perspective on a lot of what we’re doing in the Middle East than the most vocal members of this site.

    Now that we are positioned where we are…the action in Afghanistan and the pressure there is being stepped up. There is a huge shift going on in focus.

    There are a lot of political reasons that we’re not involved with some of the world’s situations. The primary one in most cases is that we have not been invited to be there…by anyone. Iraq and Afghanistan are not the reasons we’re not participating. The reasons are politics and diplomacy…not that the military is “busy.”

  11. Rosebudd says:

    Thank you everyone for a bit of update and education. Good for Ben and I wish him and his family good blessings.

  12. RAN says:

    Good guy – have always liked him and have only doubted his integrity when he was being controlled by JLo.