Part II

War and Peace in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo

by Herbert Weiss*

The Second Congo War and Its Consequences
To print Part II of this article, select "Print" from the File menu of your browser.
Print Part I
Print Part III
AS HAS BEEN SHOWN, already during the spring of 1998 it became increasingly clear that the leaders who had been most responsible for putting Kabila into power were dissatisfied with his performance. In a sense, this was a failed condominium; Kabila acted too independently and is reported again and again to have ignored advice given him by his foreign sponsors. There are rumors which suggest that, as early as January 1998, the intelligence chiefs of Angola, Rwanda, and Uganda held discussions regarding the desirability of finding an alternative leader for the DRC. Perhaps this conflict between Kabila and his sponsors was inevitable, since any Congolese president would have sought to legitimize himself with the Congolese public and that would have necessitated distancing himself from foreign, especially militarily present, sponsors.

But it must also be said that Kabila provoked both internal and external opposition which was not inevitable: He could have strengthened his internal position both by applying a more pluralist policy and by acting to retain the support of ADFL founders and supporters. He could have taken care to treat the FAZ soldiers sent to re-education camps in a more humane and dignified fashion (some informants claimed that they were being starved). He could have avoided giving the impression that his intimates from Katanga were being favored over people from other regions. In his relations abroad, he could have avoided offending Uganda by establishing warm ties with Sudan. If it is true that before August 1998 he began to recruit Interahamwe and arm them (there is no doubt that that was done after that date) he could have refrained from provoking Rwanda to the point of an inevitable, total enmity. And there was surely nothing to be gained by antagonizing Western leaders, sometimes in a very personal manner. Yet, all this having been said, it should be remembered that Kabila had for decades been a marginalized guerrilla leader with virtually no experience as a statesman. The role which history handed him was full of opportunity, but it would have been difficult to fill it under any circumstances.

The Start of the Second Congo War

During June and July 1998 a number of events — some verifiable, some only rumored — indicated that relations between Kabila and the Rwandans had not only seriously deteriorated but had reached a boiling point. Some of Kabila’s collaborators are reported to have concluded that a Rwandan officer was about to assassinate Kabila during the Independence Day festivities on June 30. James Kabarehe was personally suspected by Kabila, and his now Katangan guards forced the Chief of Staff to enter the President’s office only after having been bodily searched and disarmed. A few days later, Kabarehe was replaced by Kabila’s brother in law, Celestin Kifwa. In this atmosphere, Tutsi families in Kinshasa began to feel insecure and started to leave. Kabila did a lot of traveling during these crucial days. He visited Namibia and Cuba presumably seeking support given the momentous divorce which was taking place. On July 27, the Rwandan mission of cooperation was ended by the DRC and the Rwandan military was asked to leave immediately. On July 29, they flew back to Kigali. A little over a year earlier they had been received as liberators; now public opinion in Kinshasa vehemently approved of their de facto expulsion.

It is not an exaggeration to say that the next twenty days profoundly changed the history of Africa and launched the continent on what some have called the First African World War. There are at least some similarities with Europe’s eurocentrically named First World War. In both, a series of miscalculations by leaders resulted in untold pain for common people and an irrevocably changed future. The chronologically laid out events which follow briefly summarize these developments:

2 August. The Commander of the ANC’s 10th Brigade — one of the best and largest units in the new army — stationed in Goma, declares the destitution of President Kabila. He is soon joined by the 12th Brigade in Bukavu. Rwandan army units are reported to be crossing the frontier in force. In Kinshasa, a fire fight begins between Congolese Tutsi soldiers who refuse to be disarmed and other FAC, largely Katangan, soldiers. The Tutsi are routed and most are killed although some manage to escape into the bush west of Kinshasa. A pogrom, encouraged by the Kabila regime, is carried out against all Tutsi in Kinshasa and other cities.

4 August. In a spectacular cross-continent airlift, a plane full of Rwandan and Ugandan soldiers (according to some accounts also Congolese) led by James Kabarehe lands at Kitona army base located in the Lower Congo near Cabinda. The base holds some 10–15,000 former FAZ soldiers who are being “re-educated.” Kabarehe and his approximately 150 soldiers manage to mobilize these troops to join the uprising against Kabila. Later, more troops from the east join this enterprise. Within days, they capture a number of towns and most importantly the Inga hydroelectric dam where they are able to cut off electricity supplies to Kinshasa as well as Katanga. In an “off and on” manner, Kinshasa is without electricity and therefore without a flowing water supply. In effect, the capital is threatened both by starvation and militarily. Kabila calls on the city’s population to arm itself and to defend the capital. There is a real response to this call to arms, but it involves many mob killings of suspected infiltrators, Tutsi, mutinous soldiers, and simply unfortunate individuals who find themselves at the wrong place at the wrong time.

20 August. A group of Congolese politicians — for a wide variety of reasons, and coming from very different political backgrounds — unite in Goma to form the political wing of the anti-Kabila movement, the Rassemblement Congolais pour la Democratie (RCD). The range of their political backgrounds is very wide, it stretches from former ADFL members to former Mobutists. Militarily, the Kabila regime seems doomed. Its best military units have joined the “rebellion”, two well prepared former allies have not only invaded from the east but captured the far west of the country. Kinshasa is in dire straights and threatened by advancing troops coming from the lower Congo.

23 August. Angola attacks the Rwanda-Uganda-RCD positions in the Lower Congo from its bases in Cabinda. The anti-Kabila forces are surrounded. Some of their troops reach the outskirts of Kinshasa where they are attacked by the population and massacred. The cross continent maneuver has failed, but in the east there are virtually no pro-Kabila forces and the “rebellion” achieves military control.

26 August. Zimbabwe sends a military expedition to Kinshasa to support the Kabila regime. Later, Namibia and Chad also send troops which take up positions supporting Kabila. Some reports also speak of Sudanese involvement on his side. In sum, a war on Congolese soil has begun which involves, directly or indirectly, a large number of African states, military establishments, militia, and economic interests.

What Did the Rebels Plan and Expect?
It is quite evident that the plan for the destitution of the Kabila regime largely emulated the successful destruction of the Mobutu regime. A military manoeuvre in the Kivus, in the name of a Congolese group intent on reforming an existing regime, would challenge an isolated and unpopular president. Indeed, those who started the Second Congo War must have felt that they were in a far better position than they had been in during the 1996-7 campaign. First, they now had a portion — the best according to several observers — of the DRC’s army on their side. Second, the officers planning this mission had intimate knowledge of the disposition of the rest of the army, since only weeks earlier they held commanding positions in that army. Of course, there was the question of Angola, but it is hard to imagine that the Rwandan/Ugandan/RCD planners imagined that they would confront Angolan military power as an adversary. Again, they probably compared their position to 1996-7 when Angola, somewhat belatedly, joined them in attacking the then Kinshasa regime of President Mobutu. But whatever the exact plans were, what happened did not fit into them and instead of a collapsed Kinshasa regime which was supposed to fall even more rapidly than its predecessor did in 1996–97, a long and costly war resulted.

Comparing the Two Congo Wars

There are striking similarities between the wars:

  1. In both wars Rwanda and Uganda, seeing insurgency movements against their governments using the DRC as a base of operations, helped launch Congolese rebels with the intention of overthrowing the Kinshasa regime.

  2. In both cases, the Kinshasa authorities appealed to the international community, specifically to the Security Council of the UN and the OAU, to condemn this “aggression” but failed to obtain satisfaction.

  3. In both wars, most of the fighting was done by foreign forces.

  4. In both wars, massive violence was imported into a country which since the mid-1960s had generated relatively little violence.

The differences between the wars are, of course, more telling than the similarities:

  1. In the first war, the Kinshasa government was singularly unsuccessful in gaining foreign support, and since its army hardly fought at all, it was rapidly — in eight months — overwhelmed. In the second war, the Kinshasa government was very successful in obtaining foreign military and diplomatic support.

  2. In the first war the effective foreign armies which really fought were Rwanda, Uganda, and Angola. In the second war, these allies split, with Angola supporting Kabila while Uganda and Rwanda attempted to overthrow him. So, in addition to getting military support from Chad, Namibia, Zimbabwe, and probably Sudan, the forces which had been so successful in defeating Mobutu were now divided and a prolonged, unresolved war ensued.

  3. In the first war, the notion that the war was a “revolution” or a “war of liberation,” coupled with generalized antagonism toward Mobutu, resulted in a considerable amount of Congolese and foreign support for the “rebel” forces. In the second war, much of the Congolese population was convinced that they were being invaded by the much disliked Rwandans, Ugandans, and, in some eyes, simply the Tutsi. This resulted in very little popular support for the new “rebels.” There is a paradox here; there were more Congolese fighting on both sides in the second war than in the first! But the first was seen in much of Africa and in the Congo as a “revolution” while the second is generally viewed as an “invasion.” Perceptions count for more than subtle distinctions.

  4. In the first war, Mobutu’s call to arms produced little response and indeed had a hollow, impotent ring. Whatever popular support he still had was lost with the declining fortunes of his regime as his opponents advanced toward Kinshasa. In the second war, Kabila’s call to arms produced a genuine response among the Congolese masses (especially in the cities) and his popularity soared. In this respect the results of public opinion polling in Kinshasa are quite telling. To the question, “What is your opinion of President Kabila as Chief of State?” the following progression is reported:

9/97 12/97
4/98
 7/98 9/98 10/98 11/98 1/99 2/99 4/99
Good 39% 59% 57% 72% 88% 80% 72% 80% 74% 63%
Bad 35% 21% 21% 9% 5% 11% 14% 15% 16% 15%2
No View 26% 20% 22% 19% 7% 9% 14% 5% 10% 21%

It should be noted that during the period of conflict with Rwanda and especially after the beginning of the war, Kabila’s approval rating reached 88 percent at the very moment when his regime was most vulnerable. From having been viewed as something close to a foreign pawn in the spring of 1997 he had become — at least in Kinshasa — a nationalist hero who was defending the nation’s sovereignty. His subsequent decline in approval must be attributed to the sharp decline in the standard of living in Kinshasa during this period as well as his continuing — despite his popularity — refusal to share power with the forces which are still called the non-violent opposition.

But the cutting edge of the difference between the two wars was not Kabila’s popularity and Mobutu’s lack of it. It was the decision of Angola to support Kabila. It is evident that had Angola repeated its actions during the first war, i.e. somewhat belatedly followed Rwanda and Uganda’s lead, the fate of the Kabila regime would have been sealed even if Kabila’s unambiguous ally, President Mugabe of Zimbabwe, had opted to support him militarily. The reason for this is that Kinshasa would, in all likelihood, have fallen before such aid could reach the DRC.

Angola’s decision to, as it were, switch sides has had a determining impact not only on the war, but on the entire political evolution of Central Africa. Thus, one must ask, why did Angola adopt the policy in question? A number of answers have been proposed by astute analysts of the situation. For instance, Colette Braeckman2 suggests that Angola was motivated first by a rejection of “the arrogance of Kigali and Kampala” at daring to capture an area of the DRC which abuts Angola and Angolan interests. She also states that the Angolan reaction was a response to information they had been given that Rwanda and Uganda had been in contact with UNITA. Others have suggested that the Kitona landing was seen as breaching an Angolan sphere of influence and therefore had to be opposed. Yet another argument suggests that old Marxist and revolutionary ties linked Kabila to Dos Santos, Mugabe and Njoma. There is also the obviously correct point put forward by Gerald J. Bender3, that all Angolan actions in the DRC must be seen as linked to the war against UNITA.

What all of these no doubt pertinent arguments do not deal with is what Angola’s position and role would have been had it joined the attack against the Kabila regime. To speculate about this one must recall that the Angolans were widely reported to have been very critical of Kabila during the period between the wars, that their request to place their soldiers on the DRC side of the border, in order to combat UNITA more effectively, had been rejected by Kabila. Finally, there are persistent rumors to the effect that at least some Angolan officials and officers were informed of the impending Kitona landing — thus the great shock on the part of the Ugandans and Rwandans when they were suddenly faced by the Angolan army not as an ally but as an opponent. Accepting the argument that Angolan action in the DRC was dominated by its interest in effectively fighting UNITA, would that goal have been helped or hindered if they had joined the anti-Kabila forces? Subsequent events, at a minimum, suggest that supporting Kabila did not seriously help the fight against UNITA. With some Angolan troops diverted to protect Kabila-controlled areas in the DRC, the Luanda government launched a campaign against UNITA in the winter of 1998 which essentially failed and cost the Angolan army heavy losses. One can conclude that the events in the DRC, if they did have an impact on the balance of power in Angola, strengthened UNITA. Had the 1996-97 alliance been reestablished, the whole of DRC would have fallen under the alliance’s control and Angola might well have been in a better position both to attack UNITA bases in the Congo and to concentrate all its forces against UNITA in Angola.

Then why was the fateful decision to support the Kabila regime made in August 1998? Was it a miscalculation? Or, was there an overriding interest which necessitated the decision which was taken? Assuming the latter, the most plausible reason is the belief that an alliance had been struck between Rwanda and Uganda and UNITA and such a view was supported by both the reported presence of UNITA leaders in Kigali and Kampala and the recruitment of Mobutist generals — long allies of UNITA — and politicians into the anti-Kabila alliance. If that was seen to be true, indeed if it was true, then an alliance with the two former allies could easily be seen as a trap and very much against the Angolan government’s self-interest.

Indeed, a similar assumption seems to have been at the base of Rwanda’s risky decision to intervene in August 1998. It was reported, and apparently believed, that Kabila had made an alliance with the ex-FAR/Interahamwe and was training them. In both cases, the ultimate provocation was cooperation with the insurgency movement trying to overthrow the government in question. In a world in which the notion “the enemy of my enemy is my friend” explains many events, nowhere is that rule more absolute than when it involves insurgency movements. As regards the Angolan government, it probably overcame its reservations about Kabila when it was convinced that its insurgency movement — UNITA — was in contact with Rwanda and Uganda. What those contacts amounted to at that time is an open question.

Evolution of the Second Congo War

The Second Congo War has created an expensive balance of power in Central Africa. Up to now neither side has been able to defeat the other and both are expending huge percentages of their national resources — and that of the DRC — on military budgets. The war involves, to varying degrees of intensity, most of the African continent. This conflict can be analyzed on two levels; international and internal.

The International Effects of the Second Congo War

  1. Whereas the anti-Kabila alliance was restricted to Rwanda, Uganda, and to a lesser extent Burundi, (Ethiopia and Eritrea, which had given some support during the first Congo War, were now preoccupied fighting each other), the support for the Kinshasa government was very wide. Not only did Angola, Zimbabwe, and Namibia send substantial military contingents, but Sudan and Chad, allegedly with Libyan financial support, also participated militarily.

  2. SADC has been divided and to a considerable degree is in crisis because of events in the DRC. Under President Mugabe’s leadership, the DRC’s recent membership was invoked as a reason why other members should come to the defense of the Kinshasa government. However, President Mandela sought compromise and a diplomatic solution to the conflict, and the South African government has given strong support to the process which produced the Lusaka Agreement.

  3. On both sides of the conflict, the foreign countries involved, especially those with military forces in the DRC, have translated their politico-military power into economic advantages. Thus, Rwanda and Uganda exploit the diamond, gold, and rare metal deposits in Eastern DRC; Angola created a joint venture for petroleum extraction in the Lower Congo and is involved in the massive diamond trade in Kasai; and Zimbabwe has gained considerable control over copper and cobalt extraction in Katanga.

  4. While seeking to make the war “pay for itself” with varying degrees of success, all the foreign powers involved are, nonetheless, motivated to seek an advantageous end to the conflict: first, because it does not come anywhere near to fully “paying for itself”; and second, because the governments of these states all face internal oppositions which are, or potentially will be, strengthened by the war. For example, the ex-FAR/Interahamwe have been strengthened by the fact that Kabila has mobilized them to fight the Rwandan government and the RCD. The military losses and negative economic consequences of the war in Zimbabwe have strengthened Mugabe’s internal opposition. Of course, wanting the war to end will not necessarily result in its ending since all the participants seek substantial, ongoing advantages.

  5. This is a very African war. There are no Cold War involvements. Even the much touted and much exaggerated conflict between the Francophones and the Anglo-Saxons (i.e., their African “representatives”) is not involved. If the DRC were to be considered the “French” side and the Rwandans/ Ugandans the “English” side, the line-up of allies does not fit. Zimbabwe and Namibia, both anglophone countries would end up being French, and Rwanda and Burundi, both francophone, would end up being English! Yet, there are persistent perceptions among many Africans that the war is linked to secret strategic plans by non-African powers with nefarious goals. Such views focus especially on the U.S. which is seen as the power behind Rwanda and Uganda, but there is in fact very little evidence for this. The strongest elements supporting this perception are the credits given to Rwanda and Uganda by the international financial institutions and the continuing concern with — and guilt over — the 1994 genocide in Rwanda in the U.S.

  6. The essentially African nature of the conflict has, unfortunately, led to an expansion of the notion, first represented by the Hutu-Tutsi conflict in Rwanda and Burundi, that this is a war between the “Bantu” and the “Hamites” or the “Nilotics”. Whereas there is no logical or scientific basis for such a view, (the terms are linguistic and there are Bantu speaking people who are viewed as Hamites and vice versa), the almost racial attitudes which these terms have aroused is creating a deep ideological chasm among Africans.

Internal Effects of the Second Congo War

The most important impact of the Second Congo War on internal affairs has been the massive loss of independence by all the Congolese political forces and a sharp decline in the standard of living of ordinary people. The forces in question can be described in a very summary fashion as involving the following tendencies:

  1. The official government of the DRC, i.e., Kabila and his immediate collaborators: Militarily and in many ways diplomatically, this force depends on the allies which have fought for its survival and triumph since August 1998. Kabila has also successfully mobilized the support of the Interahamwe/ex-FAR and has re-armed them. In addition, he has created an alliance with the Mai Mai rebels in the Kivus who are quite effective guerrilla fighters against the Rwandan/RCD forces in North and South Kivu.

  2. The non-violent opposition: It is unclear how much support the non-violent opposition retains. It should be noted that Tshisekedi, who is its most prominent leader, called for the retreat of foreign forces (i.e. mainly the Rwandans) at a time when Kabila was still dependent on them. This theme, then as now, echoed public sentiment. But today Kabila appears to have become the more dramatic symbol of the “get the foreign troops out of our country” sentiment. On the other hand, the non-violent opposition has succeeded in representing sentiments in favor of an all-Congolese, democratically arrived-at compromise.The most important institution, among the opposition groups, the UDPS, has a structure which has national extension. Thus, in the context of a national dialogue, it could emerge as a serious challenger and competitor to Kabila. Finally, the ethnic factor involved should not be forgotten. The UDPS is linked to the Kasai Luba and Kabila is linked to the Katangans. The Kasai Luba have a score to settle with the Katangans who expelled them in a massive ethnic cleansing exercise in 1993 from Katanga. Some of the personalities involved in this expulsion are close to Kabila. Perhaps more than other Congolese political or military force, the non-violent opposition has most to gain from the “new political dispensation and national reconciliation arising from the inter-Congolese political negotiations” which the Lusaka Agreement calls for. For that process to be truly neutral and successful a substantial UN presence will probably be absolutely necessary. Thus, this group as well as many NGO’s are the strongest supporters of a dynamic, well organized and led UN mission.

  3. The RCD: It is significant that the RCD was formed after the FAC units in the east and Rwanda and Uganda moved against Kabila. Clearly, what these forces needed — as in 1996 — was a revolutionary movement with credibility among the Congolese and especially among those in the east who were under its control. As was noted earlier, the politicians and intellectuals who came together to form the RCD have extremely different, even opposed, backgrounds. They found it very difficult to gain acceptance by ordinary citizens in the areas they control and even less in the areas the Kabila regime controls. In the Kivus, local militia, the Mai Mai, almost immediately turned against them. In sum, the RCD was unable to shake off the appearance of being a front for the Rwandans and the Ugandans and given the rise of intense inter-communal hatreds, they were often seen as the stooges of the Tutsi. The RCD faced further difficulties; an internal division split the movement into RCD/Goma and RCD/ML (Mouvement de Liberation formerly identified as RCD/ Kisangani) and much acrimony developed between the two wings. In the context of this internal conflict it became evident that Uganda supported the RCD/ML led by Professor Ernest Wamba dia Wamba and Rwanda supported the RCD/Goma led by Dr. Emile Ilunga. This further exposed the degree to which these movements were dependent on their foreign sponsors, even though many of the leaders very genuinely opposed Kabila because they believed he was establishing a dictatorship. Finally, when the Ugandan and Rwandan armies fought against each other in Kisangani — resulting in Congolese civilian casualties and much property destruction — for reasons linked both to economic interests and to the competition between the two wings of the RCD, the Congolese nationalist credentials of both wings were further compromised.

  4. Mouvement pour la Liberation du Congo, MLC: Somewhat after the RCD was formed, a new anti-Kabila movement began which also received Ugandan support. However, the MLC had one serious advantage over the two RCD’s: its leader originated from the northern area in which it was active and its support was largely regionally homogeneous. In effect, it is the only one of the three rebel movements which cannot be linked to any imagined or real Tutsi connection and it has been militarily successful in two ways; in the areas which it has conquered there do not appear to be any indigenous militia fighting it, and, this movement was responsible for the retreat of the Chadian troops which had operated out of Mobutu’s old palace at Gbadolite. The MLC is headed by Jean-Pierre Bemba whose father is one of the richest members of what used to be Mobutu’s inner circle. Today, the father, Bemba Saolona is one of Kabila’s ministers.

All of the militarized, anti-Kabila movements mentioned above signed the Lusaka Agreement. However, neither the non-violent opposition nor the Mai-Mai, nor indeed any of the militia movements, were part of the Lusaka process or agreement.

Political Elites and the National Dialogue
One can wonder which, if any, of the leaders are likely to gain from the anticipated national dialogue which will presumably lead, at some time in the future, to elections. The two RCD’s have failed to create broad grass roots organizations and, as mentioned earlier, they are tainted by their close collaboration with their foreign sponsors. The MLC operates in a sparsely populated area, can potentially be linked to Mobutism, and has, up to now, no grass roots support outside the area it controls — with Ugandan help — militarily. Kabila’s popularity as a nationalist leader who stood up to foreign invasion has certainly risen as previously noted but once peace is re-established his authoritarian methods, his favoring people of Katangan origin, and the sharp decline in standards of living which has occurred in the last year would all place his leadership in some jeopardy.

Today, all the leaders (with the exception of those heading the non-violent opposition) do control the areas of the Congo which they and their foreign supporters have captured militarily and from which they draw substantial benefits. But there is one difference between the areas controlled by Kabila and those controlled by the two RCD’s which should be emphasized; they both have internal oppositions but Kabila’s is non-violent, whereas the two RCD’s face the growing guerrilla attacks and power of the Mai Mai who increasingly cooperate with the Interahamwe. Therefore, while one has to wonder how flexible any of the leaders will be regarding the national dialogue, the RCD’s may have a more pressing need to end the status quo than the Kinshasa regime. This is especially so if the national dialogue is linked to the UN presence and the disarming of militia groups.

Foreign Leaders and the Lusaka Agreement
If the leadership of the internal parties to the Second Congo War may turn out to be less than adequately compromising during the planned-for national dialogue, much the same can be expected from the foreign parties which, today, control different areas of the Congo. As is well known, these areas have become economic resources for these countries which help pay for their military investment and promise, in the future, to become important sources of revenue. The joint ventures between the Kabila regime and commercial interests of Angola and Zimbabwe have, up to now, not covered their military costs nor resulted in repayment of debts incurred by the Kinshasa authorities. Much the same is true for the foreign allies of the anti-Kabila forces. Uganda and Rwanda are the economic beneficiaries of their control over the diamond, gold, and precious metal exports which are mined in the zone they control. If the national dialogue and “new political dispensation” in the DRC which is called for in the Lusaka Agreement were to produce a new regime, it is a question whether the loans and special arrangements would continue to be honored or whether the mineral products of the eastern DRC would continue to flow through Kampala and Kigali.

Lusaka: The Internal Dialogue and the Role of the UN

The Lusaka Agreement places a great responsibility on the shoulders of two bodies: the “neutral facilitator” who will organize the internal dialogue which is supposed to produce a “new political dispensation,” and the UN which in collaboration with the OAU is supposed to apply Chapter 7 of the UN Charter and deploy a peacekeeping force to “ensure implementation” of the Agreement. Both these trajectories have registered some initial success but face tremendous obstacles.

The success regarding the internal dialogue is the apparent agreement by all the parties to appoint the ex-President of Botswana, Quett Masire, as the neutral facilitator. The major problem facing any further steps is the provision that the “participants in the inter-Congolese political negotiations shall enjoy equal status.” It is very doubtful that the Kabila regime will in practical terms really accept this provision, and conversely it is, at present, difficult to imagine that the rebel movements will accept to participate in this process if it, in effect, confirms the legitimacy of the Kinshasa authorities. It is, of course, a positive element that the Agreement explicitly calls for the inclusion of the political opposition (presumably meaning the political parties making up the non-violent opposition) and civil society. But the Mai Mai were neither represented at Lusaka nor are they mentioned as participants in the internal dialogue. This may well cause a serious problem in the Kivus.

The early success of the UN’s involvement is the fact that the Joint Military Commission called for in the Agreement has been created and has started its work. Beyond that, there loom very serious problems both at the Secretariat headquarters in New York and in the DRC. In New York, the problems can be summarized as follows:

    First, financial — after Bosnia, Kosovo, Timor, and Sierra Leone, can the personnel and funds be found to mount what promises to be quite a huge operation in the DRC?

    Second, while the Secretary General has selected a Special Representative for the DRC, the Security Council has only approved very limited terms of reference for the United Nations Organizations Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, MONUC.

    Third, both of these factors are linked to the fear that the Congo Mission will turn out to be a failure and therefore further undermine the UN.

All of these considerations are of course rendered more difficult by the attitude and declarations of the Kabila regime. The DRC Foreign Minister, Yerodia Ndombasi has not only charged the UN with wanting to overthrow Kabila but also with having an assassin among its observers who is supposed to kill him! Moreover, the Kinshasa authorities have placed many obstacles in the path of the first UN observer mission to have arrived in the DRC. While these decisions will probably be ironed out, they reveal an attitude in Kinshasa which is not likely to disappear.

Background to Anti-UN Sentiments
If the UN is to play a major role in resolving the war which has pitted almost ten African states and innumerable militia groups against each other in Central Africa, that participation must be based on a realistic assessment of the willingness of the conflicting parties to make peace and an understanding on how a UN peacekeeping mission will be perceived in the area. The Lusaka Agreement is a framework which allows the parties to establish peace if that is what they want. But to understand the role the UN can play one must look back at its institutional history in the Central African area. If one does not do that, then the distrust expressed by the above cited declarations will not be understood or put into context, and then the relationships the UN will develop will be doomed from the start.

There is an extraordinary — and unfortunate — coincidence in the negative experience which three of the major players in the Central African drama have had with the UN. The most recent and most easily explained is that of the Rwandan Tutsi and their sense of having been abandoned to their genocidal fate by the UN and the major powers. The other two players are the Lumumbists and the Katangans — the two most prominent forces in the Kabila regime — and to explain their antagonism and distrust, one has to return to the 1960’s.

**Herbert F. Weiss is Emeritus Professor of Political Science at the City University of New York and Research Scholar at the Institute of African Studies, Columbla Univorsity. He has been a student of political developments in the Congo since 1959. His study of the independenee struggle, Political Protest in the Congo, won the Herskovits Prize of the Afneen Studics Association (U.S.) and was recently re-published in French under the title Radicalisme Rural et Lutte pour l’Independence au Congo-Zaire. Protessor Weiss has been a consultant of the United Nations, USAID, and various NGOs dealing with the Congo and, more generally, with democratization and elections in Africa. ~ Ed.

American Diplomacy                Vol. V, No. 3                Summer 2000
Copyright © 2000 American Diplomacy Publishers, Durham NC
http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/amdipl_16

 Return to Front PageTOP (Web version)  Continue printing