Un constat au sujet de l'UDPS. |
 |
Bruno Lokose |
|
|
Pourquoi tous les representants de l'UDPS a
travers le monde sont des baluba? Je ne sais pas si je me trompe mais c'est un constat que
je viens de faire.
Si mon constat est correct, je comprends alors pourquoi tous semblent plus bouger par
appartenance a la tribue du guide eclaire, le messie Tshisekedi plutot que par ideologie
politique.
Pour une fois dans l'histoire du pays, on voit un parti d'opposition qui crie sur le toit
qu'il lutte pour le peuple et en meme temps sacrificie ce peuple quand il est en danger.
L'UDPS fait la honte des congolais. Ce parti merite d'etre dissous a cause de son
anti-nationalisme. Meme si on ne soutient pas
Kabila (ce qui est mon cas) mais on ne doit pas permettre aux etrangers de tuer nos freres
et soeurs simplement parce qu'on n'est pas au pouvoir. Tshisekedi est en train de signer
sa mort politique en acceptant des communiques de presse qu'un certain aventurier qui se
dit representant de l'UDPS Benelux publie sans cesse pour faire plaisir aux occidentaux et
aux rebelles et non au peuple congolais.
Meme les etrangers comprennent mieux que ces aventuriers de l'UDPS ce qui se passe au
congo. C'est dommage que ce soi-disant docteur Tshipamba est incapable de reflexion mais
veut parler au nom d'un parti qui a pourtant une histoire louable. Lisez ici une lettre
envoyee a l'editeur de NCN bien inspire. Nous souffrons a cause des politicailleurs
charlantans comme le "Dr" François Tshipamba Mpuila et Mutombo Kabundji(tous
deux baluba, bien sur: c'est cela le vrai UDPS).
What drives conflict in Central Africa?
By Deirdre Griswold
This article is published with the permission of Workers World Service. For more
information contact, Workers World, 55 W. 17 St., NY, NY 10011
Wars are raging throughout Africa. The largest area of confrontation is Congo and the
countries on its borders: Angola, Rwanda and Uganda. What is driving these conflicts?
It is impossible to find the truth in the Western capitalist media. Every article, every
television commentary, focuses only on the results, not the causes.
We are shown suffering and devastation almost too horrible to contemplate. But left out is
the enormous pressure being exerted on Africa by the huge transnational imperialist banks
and corporations and the government bodies that front for them. The implied racist message
is that Africa can't govern itself.
Take this quote from a substantial article in the Jan. 12 New York Times entitled
"Congo's Struggle May Unleash Broad Strife to Redraw Africa":
"Wars between nations, largely absent since Africans became independent starting in
the 1960s, may become more common. As troubling, many experts say, the national boundary
lines that have defined African countries for a century, and lent some stability, may
slowly come apart. ...
"Congo is particularly divisible, experts say, because those foreign [African] troops
tread on land rich in gold, diamonds, copper, cobalt, oil and timber. Each outside nation
has interests in Congo--security, financial or both. So some Africa watchers say that a
second or more subdued scramble for Congo, this time involving not European colonists but
its own neighbors, is also helping pull the nation apart."
What a convenient revelation! This time the Europeans are not involved, claim the unnamed
"experts." The recarving is all being done by other Africans.
But the exploitation and plunder of Africa by Britain, France, Portugal and Belgium didn't
end with decolonization, as the Times writers should know well. And they don't even ask if
U.S. imperialism, which has supplanted the European colonialists as the major exploiting
power in so much of the developing world, has a stake in these wars.
The article identifies six countries--Uganda, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia and
Chad--as "outside nations" whose troops are fighting in Congo.
CONTRAS AND TALIBAN
In this day and age, shouldn't the writers for the Times know full well that one of the
main strategies of the imperialists is to let other forces do their fighting for them?
Wasn't that the meaning of the "Vietnamization" of the war in Southeast Asia?
Wasn't that how the Contras became a force in Nicaragua? Isn't that how the Taliban were
able to oust a progressive government in Afghanistan and install one of the most
reactionary regimes in the world?
For many years, the U.S. government claimed to have no direct role in these struggles. The
full extent of its military involvement and the billions of dollars spent on
counterrevolution came out only much later.
The history of imperialist plunder of Africa is too infamous to be belittled by any honest
writer. And not only the European colonial powers have been involved.
In the century now drawing to a close, the U.S. government and the banks and corporations
it represents have played an increasingly pivotal role as the major imperialist power in
Africa, with Britain as their main partner in crime.
The U.S. Central Intelligence Agency maneuvered the assassination of Patrice Lumumba, the
Congo's first president, in 1960. It was behind the overthrow of Ghana's Marx ist leader,
Kwame Nkrumah. It took the entity known as UNITA and molded it into a powerful army trying
to defeat the popular revolutionary government in Angola. In all these cases, it found
agents to do its dirty work so that its own hands could be concealed. All of this has been
well documented.
Why can't the media here even ask the question: Is the same process happening right now in
Africa?
AGGRESSIVE U.S. EXPANSION
There is a new world situation ushered in by the collapse of the Soviet Union. The U.S.
imperialist policy makers see immense opportunities to expand their global power. With no
rival coming anywhere near them in economic or military might, they think they can ride
roughshod over whatever measure of national sovereignty the African masses have been able
to attain.
After World War II many heroic national liberation movements began to render colonialism
unworkable. They received support and sustenance from the bloc of socialist countries,
which was nowhere near as wealthy as the imperialists but did provide assistance.
It was no golden age. Many movements were set back. And the eventual split between the
Soviet Union and China had a grave impact, helping to fracture many African liberation
movements.
But taken as a whole, it was a time when the imperialists had to accept some measure of
independence in many African countries, including a degree of state control over natural
resources and vital areas of the infrastructure like banking, railroads, telephones and so
on. They feared that unless they struck a compromise with the bourgeois elements, they
could lose everything in a revolutionary upheaval of the masses.
Even those military and political leaders who came to power with Western backing, like
General Mobutu in the Congo, benefited from this arrangement by keeping a larger share of
the national wealth than the imperialists really wanted to concede.
During this period, a strong Pan-African movement sought to unite all the African
countries.
While the imperialists fought among themselves for the biggest share of the loot--the
Congo was a prime example, with the U.S., France and Belgium all backing different
factions in the 1960s--they were united in trying to crush any truly popular and
revolutionary development.
`STRUCTURAL ADJUSTMENT' AND U.S.-BACKED INSURGENCIES
Over the past decade, "structural adjustment" programs forced on Africa by the
International Monetary Fund and World Bank have stripped many countries of whatever
control they still exercised over their economies. Under the catchword
"privatization," they have had to surrender ownership of mines, industries,
communications and finance.
Today, the rivalry among the imperialists has sharpened greatly. The push to recarve
Africa is coming most aggressively from the Anglo-U.S. alliance, at the expense first and
foremost of the African people. French imperialism is being pushed back, losing control in
areas where it has maintained neocolonial relations.
In Rwanda, for example, where French was the official language and the currency was
convertible to the franc, the takeover by an insurgent force in 1994 has led to its
realignment into the English-speaking bloc.
While the U.S. hand is not always visible, it is widely acknowledged that Washington has
provided important backing to the present regimes in Uganda and Rwanda, including military
support. They, in turn, have invaded Congo twice-- first to overthrow the dictator Mobutu,
and now in a war against the more progressive government of Laurent Kabila, who had been
their ally in the first struggle.
Kabila has tried to strengthen the national economy, making contracts with neighboring
African countries like Zimba bwe, Angola and Tanzania to develop Congo's mineral wealth.
This angered a number of imperialist mining companies, which lost contracts they thought
were in the bag.
But now Rwandan and Ugandan troops are occupying the eastern third of the country, where
Congo's great mineral wealth is concentrated. They seem to have abundant weapons and
access to the most up-to-date satellite communications technology. And they are making
their own contracts with imperialist corporations.
Angola, which has itself been at war with the U.S.-backed UNITA army for many years, at
immense human cost, answered Kabila's call for help when Congo was invaded last summer. So
did Zimbabwe, Namibia and Chad.
But new offensives by UNITA--which the U.S. claims it no longer bankrolls--have forced
Angola to bring home almost all its troops in recent weeks. Clearly, UNITA is once again
on the CIA payroll--if it ever was dropped.
In the imperialist world order, some countries--indeed, whole continents--are seen by the
ruling capitalists as existing for no other purpose than to provide cheap raw materials
and labor.
This has been nowhere more apparent than in the attitude of the European and U.S. ruling
classes toward Africa. No amount of sighing over human rights or attending endless
conferences promising minimal aid for economic development can drown out the imperialists'
real interest in Africa.
They are scrambling over each other to grab Africa's riches for their global industrial
machine. In the process, they will create, take advantage of and envenom antagonisms among
different cultures, religions and regions.
This is the main driving force behind the African wars.
Bruno Lokose |
|
