Understanding what is happening in the Congo

George Dash

Enough with the doomsday speculation and fantastic projections. What is happening in the DRC is not a movie which will follow a prepared script. The only prepared script was that drawn up by the Rwandan and Ugandan governments who expected the puppet Kabila to respond to the pull of their strings. Where the script deviated was that the "puppet" was a real human being who exercised his will and reacted  as a human being would. Unpredictably. Uganda and Rwanda believed their own rhetoric and internalized the fulsome praises of the Americans who lauded them as the coming flavour in Africa. So they went along with the script adding a few changes here and there. They would, they foolishly thought, become the power-brokers of the region. But to be a power-broker one must have true power--not the smoke of one's pipe dreams. Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia Mozambique achieved their independence through long bitter guerilla struggles. Kabila struggled ever since Congo independence in 1960 against overwhelming odds and survived. Many of his compatriots -- Mulele, Soumialot and others too numerous to mention were either executed by Mobutu, fell in battle or simply folded their tents and faded away. Kabila persisted and in the revolutionary culture in the Southern Africa region of the last thirty years [ which included the fighters of Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia, Mozambique and South Africa] he swam like a fish. It is therefore only natural that he would petition support and receive it from kindred spirits in Angola, Mozambique and Namibia. This is not a regional war as you seem to be projecting. This is a case of solidarity in response to naked aggression and political opportunism. Have you not noticed that there has been no clamour of other countries lining up on the Rwanda/Uganda side? No other countries will line up behind Kagame and Museveni and unless they realize that they are on their own and pull back they will place their much-vaunted "security interests" in almost irretrievable jeopardy. Comparisons to Israel are too ridiculous to countenance. Your script about the rebels' options and the way the battle should play out is flawed in many respects: [1] The "rebels" are not a genuine indigenous force drawn from the Congolese people, else Kabila and the ADFL would have been swept unceremoniously from power in less time than it takes to write this. Given the disparaging comments made by "military analysts" about the Congo army [the FAC] and the so-called unpopularity of the Kabila government the "rebels" should have walked to Kinshasa with the people cheering and strewing flowers in their path. Instead they meet stiff resistance and a Kinshasa ready to fight and die to resist them. [2] The military tactics of the "rebels" were based on the erroneous assumption that popular uprisings would greet their insurrection. They, and their puppet masters, however, underestimated the level and intensity of Congolese nationalism. For the Banyamulenge at much less than one percent of a population of fifty million to challenge the rest of the country to a fight is flying in the face of disaster. Their logical and sane tactic would have been to support Kabila and encourage him to safeguard their rights. Congolese would have been willing to accommodate them given their role in the liberation from Mobutu. But their miscalculation is the same which will bring disaster on their compatriots in Rwanda. Time and numbers are against them. A minority, no matter their justification and weapons cannot hold a majority in thrall forever. Look to South Africa.The region would be better served if the Rwandan Tutsi and their backers make peace immediately and work out a sensible modus vivendi while they can. Only they would be the losers if they choose any other path. [3] Should the "rebels" [as you project and tacitly encourage in your ["worst-case scenarios"] damage bridges and blow up dams when they inevitably have to retreat, they will leave such a legacy of bitterness and hatred among the population that will guarantee their future destruction.[ No one will blame the Angolans. It was the rebels who were turning off the power and punishing the people of Kinshasa] Blowing up the Inga dam and the Inkisi bridge and closing off the river transport from Kisangani will create untold suffering and as the ADFL has demonstrated they are capable of skillfully exploiting this to their advantage. The "rebels' and by association, the Tutsis will be hated forever in the country. [4] This is not and will not be a SADC vs. Rwanda/Uganda war. No one is beating a path to Rwanda and Uganda to join their side. The OAU supports the government of the Congo and with the military balance of power about to tip catastrophically against the "rebels" it would be a foolish nation that joins a sinking ship. The United States will not intervene directly and cannot be seen to intervene indirectly, After the bombings in Kenya and Tanzania and their reactive bombing of Sudan, the Americans need all the African friends they can get. This will not be a regional war but a police action. Rwanda and Uganda bit off more than they could chew. [5] Forget South Africa-the "regional power". South Africa is a lame duck here. She still has to overcome the legacy of apartheid in the minds of the rest of Africa. Never mind that there is an ostensibly black government in power, Africans still see whites unrepentant and arrogant controlling the economy and civil service. This is why so many diplomatic efforts by the South Africans have been fiascos in the last four years and will continue to be until South Africa Africanizes itself. They must realize that the interests of the African majority are important and move swiftly and decisively to redress 300 years of injustice. Mandela's "can't we all get along " perspective will not cut it. Until then, South Africans and Mandela would do well to shut up or put up. Mandela's lack of support for Kabila has exposed his limitations and placed his nation on the fringes of African politics for a long time to come. We must be realistic and pragmatic in our assessments of the events unfolding in Central Africa in particular and Africa in general. The political dynamic has changed drastically and using the same old criteria and the same fogged glasses to weigh and analyze unfolding events in the Continent will ultimately lead to blind alleys. One must not project one's experiences and fantasies on a constantly evolving situation. Angola, Zimbabwe and Namibia working militarily and politically together are not ganging up on Rwanda and Uganda or defying the SADC. This is political evolution. There is inchoate African cohesion here. Predictably, from this war Congo, Namibia, Zimbabwe and Angola will form a security accord. For their own survival they cannot do otherwise. This will eventually incorporate economic interaction. These are four potentially super-rich countries and such a bloc will suck in the SADC. Thus Mugabe is not being reckless in his actions. The countries that matter have followed his lead. That is the big picture and we would be wise not to misread it. A truly objective analysis would reveal that Rwanda and Uganda are the aggressors here. Through a misguided interpretation of their "security interests" they opted to change things militarily in the Congo when it would have been more prudent to secure ironclad guarantees from Kabila that their security concerns would be addressed, But it would seem, much as you are doing now, they projected worst-case scenarios based on grossly inaccurate intelligence. And as too many have learned before such miscalculation leads only to disaster. George Dash