Blood River: The Terrifying Journey Through the World's Most Dangerous Country

Tim Butcher was Africa correspondent for the UK's Daily Telegraph when he decided to follow Stanley's route of 1874-77 down the Congo from central Africa to the Atlantic. Butcher's story is both riveting and depressing. Riveting as he writes well of his travels and is able to punctuate his story with relevant historical outlines of a regions past and with well chosen and revealing interviews (he is a journalist after all) with local individuals. However it is also a depressing tale of a country which, in Butcher's words is not underdeveloped, but is un-developing. It is clear that it's post Stanley colonial period under the Belgians was far from pleasant but even the limited gains of this period have vanished in the post-colonial chaos largely instigated not just by ex colonial powers and African neighbours keen to control the Congo's vast resources, but also by a failure of indigenous leadership which has appeared happier to exploit rather than govern the peoples of the Congo. To me it seemed, to use the parallels of the continent just across the ocean, that the Congo has resources & potential like Brazil, but the self-destructive politics of late 19th century Paraguay. On a personal level Butcher's trip appears a unique event. The Congo no longer has cross country links - by road or river. Cities, towns and settlements survive on their own in isolation, retreating into the bush when trouble comes, as it often has. The United Nations has a tenuous presence, often providing the only sense of order, but even then this appears to be restricted to isolated key towns. Butcher was really only able to travel because of outside agencies such as the UN from whom he hitched lifts on UN ships and aircraft. Although there is a telling remark by one UN official who describes him not as journalist, historian or tourist but as an "adventurer". The real heroes are the (very few) local aid agencies, such as Care International and International Rescue Committee, working in great danger and difficulty and who offer both lodging and transportation to Butcher across the Bush. At times I felt the "adventurer" in the author was unnecessarily endangering the lives (and work) of these people as he strove to accomplish his journey. It is noticeable that little real help was offered by those few Congolese companies and agencies in a position to assist. It is clear that Stanley would still recognise the vast region if he were to return today - that is what ultimately is most depressing to the author, as well as the reader.

The journalist Tim Butcher took to cross Zaire from East to West on the traces of Stanley. To reach the Congo River he had first to travel west, through provinces that have been in a state of near-permanent rebellion for more than 40 years, and where cannibalism remains as real today as it was in the 19th century, when bearer parties refused to take explorers there for fear of being eaten. Even if he made it to the river, he would still have 2500 km of descent before reaching the place where the Congo River spews into the Atlantic. A stretch where there was no more official traffic. It turned out to be a more nerve racking journey he could have ever imagined. One has to know that Zaire was ever more run down economically since the colonial power left the country in the sixties. The whole infrastructure broke down, railway, streets, ferries, shipping, no matter which stage of a journey you choose it will not only be adventurous but also dangerous, because marauding gangs roam the country. What the author accomplishes is daring. His journey does not so much differ from the journeys of the explorers of the 19th century. Butcher has an unbothering style of writing. He is not inclined to exaggerations. He is not in need of that. The events speak for themselves! He underwent the process of understanding the political and economical background which made Zaire to what it is now. Nothing to gloss over. The whites exploited the country but also built it up, that the exploitation could go on. The blacks exploited the country and its people even more. The people have no perspective, their hearts are broken and vulgarizing. The territory that Stanley staked in the name of the Belgian King Leopold witnessed what many regard as the first genocide of the modern era, when millions of Congolese were effectively worked to death trying to meet the colonialists almost insatiable demand for resources. And since independence, foreign powers have toyed with the Congo, stripping its mineral assets and exploiting its strategic position, never mindful of the suffering inflicted on its people. At every stage of its bloody history, outsiders have tended to treat Congolese as somehow sub-human, not worthy of the consideration they would expect for themselves. The author is often meeting eye witnesses of massacres and other atrocities. The safest place for a Congolese is the forest, in which he escapes whenever marauders haunt the village. And Butcher as well finds a liking in the jungles which are so much nicer than the dismal villages and decayed cities. There are also no embarrassing fraternization scenarios or occult orgies as for example Hanlon has it. Butcher is about humanity and reason, about development aid for the Congolese that they find to a humane life. The wars had one major effect in that there were only two ways left for the Congolese to get on with life. Before, there was a system of schools to go to paid for by the state, a transport system so that people c

Tim Butcher is to be saluted for making and recording this extraordinary trip. It was every bit as dangerous as Stanley's, if not more. He faced the same diseases and supply problems as Stanley and his men. While armed enemies haunted Stanley, Mr. Butcher is vulnerable to more powerful weapons and is traveling essentially alone. Descriptions of the former civilization are striking, especially coupled with the author's observations of time going backwards. Mr. Butcher describes hotels, roads, functioning railroads and means of production from the colonial period and their present state of damage and decay. He has a deep sense of history and a keen eye for the present. He helps the reader imagine the plight of those who scramble to stay alive while natural and man made forces hold them back and the extraordinary qualities of those who can somehow maintain. While this book is very good there was not enough of it for me. The author writes of bicycle traders, guides on land and river, UN and missionary workers and government officials, some of whom he spent a lot of time with. He usually described their encounters and something of their history or point of view. I wanted to know more. We don't if they live in huts or houses. Do they, and all locals are men, have a wife (wives) or kids? It is not so much that they speak English or French, but it is how did they became so good at a second language or come into their positions? While Mr. Butcher spoke with female aid workers and missionaries, there is not one interview with an African woman. Aid programs appear to be band aids on huge problems. What do these aid agencies do? From this book, they receive supplies and their staffs live in air conditioned pre-fabs. I don't remember a single description of a clinic or the dispensing of aid. In his discussion of what went wrong, it's clear that the need for the rule of law far transcends the need for democracy. Libertarians should take note of the consequences of a weak government. In these discussions of the African continent, the stability of Botswana and Namibia are not cited. I'm giving this book 5 stars because of the value of the author's actually doing this and putting it down and because it is so readable that I gobbled it up.

The author follows the footsteps of the explorer Henry M. Stanley across the Congo Republic and down the River to the Atlantic. What took Stanley three years, takes Butcher 45 days. That may seem like progress of sorts, but still is a very long time even for overland travel of a few thousand miles. Like Stanley before him, Butcher has to rely on a large number of friendly Africans, and is helped along the way be many capable and conscientious people whom he can offer little as reward. Butcher describes a country which has deteriorated over the forty years since independence. Roads and railways have been reclaimed by the rain forest and rotted in the tropical weather. Schools, hotels, and government buildings are mere ruins of their former splendor. Good food and clean water are always a problem to find. Butcher describes how his mother could tourist through the Congo fifty years ago, traveling on trains, buses, and river steamers, which made their schedules on time and were comfortable and excellent. For decades nobody has traveled overland along the tracks taken by Butcher. Butcher is a good writer, his descriptions are vivid and visible. Towards the end of the book he asks: why? Why has the Congo especially deteriorated so completely since independence? The outsiders in general, the Europeans during the colonial era were only interested in stripping the land of its assets, only in taking the ivory, rubber, copper, timber and other natural materials. Like others before him, Butcher offers some arguments in explanation. Africans have not been able to manage their sovereignty, have not been able to work together in democracy and law. I don't think he has the answer either.