Thank you Jacques for a wonderful rebuttal to the disturbing paper by JH and GM. As a Congolese person, i cannot see my people agreeing to such a proposterous idea. Congolese people are proud of their identity as such. To make things worst is the fact that the authors of the paper do not factor in the will of the Congolese people at all, its as if we don't exist. So the powers that be can just come in and curve up our land and divy it up to the neigbhoring countries and we will stand idly by and comply and accept it all as fate. This is not any different from the divying up of the Continent of Africa among the colonies during the colonial era, Africans had no say in the matter because in the eyes of the colonialists, Africans were subhuman. The main premise for their conclusion lies in this sentence in the paper: 'Congo has none of the things that make a nation-state: interconnectedness, a government that is able to exert authority consistently in terriroty beyong the capital, a shared culture that promotes a national unity, or a common language. Instead, Congo has become a collection of peoples, groups, interests, and pillagers who coexist at best.' I would have liked the authors to explore the root of all these things that make a nation-state, that supposively Congo is lacking, and in so doing, their argument would have crumbled. For example, not having a common language, how many African countries have one indegineous common language? Most African countries have many different languages within their boundaries, yet they choose one business language which is taught in school and used to transact business. For Congo that is french, and many people do speak the language. The authors are set in the colonial mindset, and it will serve them best to address honestly how Congo got to be where it is right now before suggesting such preposterous solutions.