Pusch Commey, reports from Durban, on the good, the bad and the shananagians at the recent 13th International Aids Conference held in that city.

A lot has been written about DRCongo, a country ravaged by two years of what the Western media call “the first African world war,” in which Zimbabwe, Namibia and Angola have supported President Laurent Kabila against rebel forces backed by Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi and elements of Angola’s Unita rebel movement.

For the people of Congo, this war is an aggression against their country by a Rwandan-Ugandan-Burundian coalition, logistically supported and financed by some Western powers and with the complicity of the so-called “rebels” whom the people deride as puppets and stooges.

The Congo war is linked to the 1994 Rwanda genocide in which hundreds of thousands of Hutus sought refuge in the Congo. President Mobutu was then in power and authorised the settlement of the Hutus in refugee camps in eastern Congo — a country which has always served as terre d’accueil for both Rwandan Tutsis and Hutus every time they fled the perennial ethnic clashes in their country.

The settlement of the Hutus offered the UN an opportunity to sort out those who committed the Rwandan genocide. But the UN failed to do so, just as it did during the actual genocide itself. Instead the UN pulled out its troops.

The American connection

Today, America has military bases throughout Rwanda, and top American marine officers are involved in intense training of the Rwandan military elite. The US has also offered substantial military supplies to Kigali.

Like Uganda, Rwanda is now America’s special “protegé”. The presidents of Uganda and Rwanda are of Hima-Tutsi descent whose dream is to establish a Hima-Tutsi empire in the Great Lakes Region (with an Anglo-Saxon tacit approval), which implies that the Bantus would have to be exterminated to a great extent to allow the Hima-Tutsis to dominate.

The US secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, is reported to have said that “Rwanda is to the US what the pupil is to the eye”. This is despite the fact that Rwanda has not had democratic elections for the last six years. Rwanda also enjoys great support from Britain in its effort to join the Commonwealth and the East African Community. There is also no real democracy in Uganda but President Museveni’s regime is supported by Western countries.

Kabila v Mobutu

In 1996, Kabila, a long-time opponent of Mobutu, led a rebellion to overthrow Mobutu, taking advantage of the geo-political changes in the region.

Insiders say Kabila contacted Uganda and Rwanda, and in principle signed an agreement with them in a little town called Lemera near Lake Tanganyika. Uganda and Rwanda agreed to back the rebellion militarily, and also facilitate the transfer of arms to Kabila across their borders.

In return, Kabila would guarantee security along the common borders. This meant stopping the remnants of the Rwandan Armed Forces, the Interahamwe Hutu militia and other rebels attacking Rwanda and Uganda from bases in eastern Congo. It was a matter of mutual interests.

Kabila’s troops were trained and directed by top Rwandan and Ugandan commandos who often fought at their side, including Lt-Col James Kabarehe, a Rwandan and top war strategist who was later appointed interim chief of staff of the Congolese army by Kabila.

Kabila later admitted: “There were about 2,000 to 3,000 Rwandan military experts with us when we arrived in Kinshasa, but we had 47,000 Congolese combatants. It was the Congolese people who were determined to liberate themselves.”

During the push for Kinshasa, the Rwandans and Ugandans started to impose themselves on Kabila. According to him: “Kagame [the Rwandan president] presented us with other Congolese groups opposed to Mobutu and asked us to include them in a political alliance to overthrow Mobutu. But these phantom opposition groups were not Congolese at all. They were Tutsi refugees from Rwanda.

“There was another movement imposed by Museveni on us which had no military structure at all, but which we had to assimilate in our overall liberation movement. It was a necessary condition if we were going to have any Rwandan and Ugandan military backing at all.”

Kabila made these revelations in an interview with Jeune Afrique Economie published in May last year. With his hands tied, Kabila had to form an alliance with all these movements and little groupings, which he named Alliance des Forces Démocratiques pour la Liberation du Congo (AFDL).

The dividends that Rwanda and Uganda expected from their involvement in the Congo were numerous. Apart from security on the common border and economic rewards, Uganda and Rwanda also wanted Kabila to quickly and unconditionally recognise the nationality of Congolese Tutsis of Rwandan origin.

Angola also helped Kabila because it wanted to dislodge Unita rebels from their bases in southwest Congo. Unlike Uganda and Rwanda, Angola did not make inflated claims at all.

Big brother Rwanda

In the end, Rwanda overplayed its hand by trying to run Congo by remote control, using its officers who occupied top positions in the Congolese army as well as Tutsi political figures in Kabila’s inner circle.

Kabila felt he was being held hostage, and to ensure his security, he began to rely more and more on his political friends from the diaspora as well as his own ethnic group, the Baluba from Katanga and Kassai — people such as Mwenze Kongolo, Ga‘tan Kakudji and Aubert Mukendi.

The Tutsis began to look at these people as rivals and denounced what they called “Kabila’s nepotism”. As a fightback, the Baluba put pressure on Kabila to get rid of “the [Tutsi] foreigners”.

Caught between the two demands, Kabila did neither. Nor did he hurry to recognise the Congolese nationality of Tutsis of Rwandan origin. He felt the decision should be left to the constitutional assembly that was about to be set up.

He also suspended the activities of political parties for two years (there are as many as 500 political parties in the Congo, operating at random without a proper agenda for the society).

He next dissolved the AFDL, calling it an “obsolete and heterogeneous group of people with different personal interests”. The people of Congo, although critical of his “entourage”, backed him and gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Toujours Belgium

But from September 1997 onwards, Kabila was subjected to a negative campaign in Belgium, the former colonial master, after Congolese security forces seized a cargo of arms at N’Djili airport in Kinshasa. It was transited from Lumumbashi (Katanga) where it was reportedly kept in the Belgian consulate.

The Belgian troops stationed there allegedly wanted to use the arms to help evacuate their nationals in case Kabila did not win the war against Mobutu and the country subsequently plunged into chaos. Congolese TV filmed the arms seizure, giving Kabila’s officials the excuse to accuse Belgium of being a “terrorist state”.

Then, Rwanda and Uganda, disappointed by what they called an “unpredictable and uncontrollable” Kabila, joined in and openly accused him of backing the Interahamwe which still launched attacks into Rwanda from its bases in eastern Congo. To Uganda and Rwanda, Kabila was “not doing enough to honour his part of the deal”.

“We put him there, we have the right to remove him,” Museveni declared.

America, long suspected of having used Uganda and Rwanda as a front to get rid of an “intransigent” Mobutu, joined in the Kabila bashing and branded him a “loose canon that had to be restrained”.

But, as Collette Braeckman of the Belgian daily Le Soir, wrote in her book, L’Enjeu Congolais — l’Afrique Centrale apr`es Mobutu, the “sudden animosity against Kabila could only be explained by the fact that his nationalist stance collided with or frustrated their economic interests in the Congo... Kabila opposed all forms of investments that did not represent the interests of the people of Congo,” Braeckman added.

In fact, Kabila publicly denounced the diamond, gold and timber concession deals involving top Ugandan army officers in north-eastern Congo, one of whom was Museveni’s half brother.

Kabila’s own regime, without a proper national army at the time, was also threatened by die-hard Mobutuists, especially the notorious former Division Speciale Presidentielle (DSP), intent on revenge and stationed just across the Congo River in Brazzaville where they fled after the fall of Kinshasa.

Meanwhile, the people of Kinshasa and Kivu began to despise the Rwandan soldiers who occupied luxurious villas left behind by the Mobutuists and behaving like masters in a country that was not theirs. Rwanda interpreted this popular feeling as an anti-Tutsi campaign fomented by Kabila.

So, since May 1998 not only have Kinshasa’s relations with its neighbours deteriorated, but America and some of its Western allies have abandoned the regime they helped install in Kinshasa. They imposed a kind of “undeclared embargo” against Kabila. All the development projects were suspended, official visits were cancelled, and American banks blocked all the projects they were either financing or going to finance.

Back to the trenches

Rwanda and Uganda who had helped Kabila win power not only snubbed a regional conference he organised on “peace in the Great Lakes region”, but also boycotted the first anniversary of Kabila’s victory over Mobutu. Instead, they prepared a putsch against him which was foiled by his security forces.

Kabila then announced he had ended the “military cooperation” with Rwanda and Uganda, and thanked them for their “assistance” (they were paid in foreign currency) and begged them to withdraw their troops with immediate effect. Ironically, he also thanked the Congolese people for having borne with their presence for a long time. But did he consider the deal done?

The northern and eastern parts of Congo are a vast region. On 2 August 1998, the “former friends” (Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi) assembled disgruntled former soldiers of the Zairean Armed Forces and the Banyamulenge (Congolese Tutsis of Rwandan origin) and attacked Kabila from Kivu.

They occupied Goma, Bukavu and Uvira. Sixteen days into the offensive, the “rebels” created a movement called Rassemblement Congolais pour la Démocratie (RCD). Their justification for the rebellion was that Kabila was as dictatorial as Mobutu and had sided with Hutu genocidaires and Ugandan rebels operating from Congo.

As if responding to the accusations, Kabila told Jeune Afrique Economie: “When we came to power, we said that we would organise general elections in two years’ time. We launched the consultation process and the establishment of a constitutional assembly, but all these processes were stopped by this war of aggression.

“In the same way, we launched a three-year reconstruction programme which the same war of aggression blocked. Nevertheless, the beginnings were very encouraging. There was such a popular enthusiasm because the government began to respond to people’s aspirations and expectations. In fact, despite the burden of war, the people of Congo have kept their morale high. They are not ready to let themselves be humiliated. Victory is therefore on our side.”

Rebel territories

Everywhere in the territories they control, the rebels face a crisis of identity and are perceived by their countrymen as “traitors and puppets of foreign interests”. They are nicknamed “collabos” (shorthand for collaborators with the enemy).

Who is a Congolese after all? Someone you can give money and comfort to, and he will easily sell his country, even for crumbs. Mobutu did it, the rebels are doing it, and some fellows in Kabila’s entourage are also doing it, lining their pockets. However, Kabila has never hesitated to sack, or imprison, his own ministers if found guilty of corruption or mismanagement.

In contrast, the rebellion has proved that it lacks a common ideology. It is just made up of individuals pursuing their own interests, be it power or wealth. Its other characteristic is that all the political, financial and military decisions are taken not by Congolese but their masters in Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi and elsewhere. In March while I was there, Rwanda controlled all custom duties in rebel-held areas.

The “alliances of convenience” between the various rebel factions and their foreign sponsors are already creating problems. On 17 May last year, the main rebel movement, the RCD, split into two. Prof Ernest Wamba dia Wamba, the RCD leader, was replaced by Dr Emile Ilunga. Wamba, backed by Uganda, then formed the RCD/Mouvement de Liberation with headquarters in Kisangani (later moved to Bunyia).

Ilunga’s faction of the RCD is based in Goma and enjoy the backing of Rwanda.

Uganda is also behind another rebel movement, the MLC (Movement de Liberation Congolaise), led by Jean-Pierre Bemba, the son of the wealthy businessman, Bemba Saolona, who is ironically Kabila’s economic minister (see Francois Misser’s story on p24).

Not having genuine political, economic, and social policies that can appeal to the Congolese people, the various rebel factions have transformed themselves into Mafia-style structures (or simply the relays of international ones) whose major aims are the control and exploitation of Congo’s natural and mineral resources, and the tightening up of their stronghold on the territories they control in order to safeguard those economic interests.

For example, on 15 June last year, Wamba’s RCD/ML signed a $16m loan deal with the First International Bank of Grenada whose owner is a wanted man in America. The loan is repayable over five years (with interest) by the “Congolese government” (in case Wamba becomes president). Jean-Pierre Bemba, leader of the MLC faction, reacted by warning Wamba that he was “jeopardising” the national sovereignty of Congo.

The quarrels over leadership, conflict of interests, infighting, corruption, etc, have weakened the rebellion, which, to many observers, will no longer make it to Kinshasa, at least militarily, and overthrow Kabila — which was their main objective.

The hidden agenda

Since Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi depend on IMF/World Bank loans and handouts to supplement their national budgets, one wonders how and where they have managed to sustain the war for almost two years now. Uganda’s Museveni appeared to answer this question during the UN Special Session on the Congo war held in New York on 24-26 January this year. He lambasted international donors for “interfering with Uganda’s military spending”.

Addressing the Private Sector Foundation, Museveni said unrealistic conditions set by donors have had an adverse effect on military operations “in war zones”.

“They tell us to spend a very small percentage of GDP on the army; and to please them, I sometimes say we shall try. But I have again told them that when people are killed, it is not them who are asked why. It is me. Donors should not interfere with our budget for the army. You see, where I could use three battalions, I find myself using one because of their terms,” Museveni said.

Unlike Zimbabwe whose intervention in the Congo, it is claimed, has destroyed its economy, no such thing is said about Uganda’s economy. In fact, Museveni boasted in New York that the Congo war had not negatively affected his economy.

Yet the French daily, La Liberation, revealed on 25 January this year that 55% of Uganda’s military budget is financed by money coming in as “development aid” from abroad.

At the UN Special Session on the Congo war, the US secretary of state, Madeleine Albright, said: “The international community, including the US, can and does condemn the violation of Congo’s territorial integrity by foreign troops, but we cannot compel those countries that have aggressed the Congo to withdraw their troops, nor can we conduct an inter-Congolese dialogue.”

Her statement was totally in contradiction with what Susan Rice, the US special assistant for Africa, had said in London at the 40th anniversary of the Africa Confidential newsletter: “The US does bear and has responsibility to end home-grown conflicts in Africa,” Rice said.

Of course, the US can compel Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi to pull out of Congo. It has the power and moral authority to do so, but it won’t do it because Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi best articulate American interests in Central Africa in return for various favours such as military training, arms supplies and loan deals with the IMF/World Bank.

President Rawlings of Ghana, who started the “no-party democracy” which Museveni later borrowed, said (in The Times, London, 18 April 2000):

“We were in the process of building a better style democracy for this country [Ghana]. We were working at it, but they cut it off. They said: ‘If you don’t do it our way [ie, go multi-party], no more assistance’. There was nothing we could do. There were foreign loans and road and electricity coming from the loans.”

How then have America, Britain, IMF, World Bank and the other assorted “lovers of democracy” in the West not stopped Museveni’s “no-party democracy” train as they stopped Rawlings’, but rather given Museveni so much money to sustain an anti-democratic state which has twice invaded Congo, and still has troops there?

Again, Britain, America and their allies have blocked donor aid to Liberia and are talking threateningly about “ousting” President Charles Taylor for “supporting” the RUF rebels in Sierra Leone. Why is it different for Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi regarding their support for the Congolese rebels?

No wonder Mary Robinson, the UN high commissioner for human rights, promised to order an inquiry after 15 women were buried alive by Rwandan troops in Mwenga, east of Congo, and did nothing. Yet Peter Hain, the British Foreign Office minister for Africa, dared to say at Africa Confidential’s 40th anniversary ceremony in London: “We cannot have double standards in Africa. A peaceful and economically prosperous Africa is good for us all.”

How hollow!

While in New York for the UN Special Session, Kabila also accused South Africa of hypocrisy, saying Pretoria was arming Rwanda and Uganda-backed rebels in Congo, and also supporting Congolese opposition leaders such as Etienne Tshisekedi who is based in South Africa.

Museveni has admitted having bought guns from South Africa but only for use in policing. The former South African president, Nelson Mandela, who was also in New York, denied the allegations.

But South Africa’s double game was eventually denounced by Col Jean Bosco Ndayikengurukiye, leader of the Hutu rebel movement in Burundi, who decided to stay away from the Burundi peace talks, chaired by Mandela. According to him, his group has evidence that Mandela’s government supplied arms to Burundi despite a regional embargo banning such supplies.

But Mandela’s successor, Thabo Mbeki, is said to have admitted that he was ill advised on Congo. Perhaps as an atonement, Mbeki has, in a spectacular change of policy, committed (together with Nigeria) almost the entire troops needed by the UN for its proposed peacekeeping effort in the Congo.

Suffering yet resisting

The Congolese people are strongly opposed to the invasion, occupation, exploitation and the threatened partition of their country, and so have put up a strong resistance against Rwanda, Uganda, Burundi and their rebel friends.

If the aggressors are not progressing as swiftly as they did in the beginning, it is because they are blocked at every front — not only by Kabila’s troops and their Angolan, Namibian and Zimbabwean allies, but also by a popular resistance mounted by the masses.

The Mayi-Mayi warriors in Kivu, loyal to the Kabila government, have taken the resistance into the very heart of rebel-controlled territories. The rebels control only the main cities, towns and road junctions, but they dare not go deep inside the rainforest because they know the fate that awaits them.

The people’s resistance has been met with fierce repression by the rebels and their mentors. Whole villages are burned down, people are intimidated and humiliated every day. Some are detained, others are buried alive or simply shot on the slightest suspicion of supporting the Mayi-Mayi or government forces.

Women are raped sometimes in the presence of their own husbands or families. Ethnic clashes are often fomented by the same troops, the recent case being between the Hima and the Lendu in Oriental province, masterminded by Ugandans who clearly sided with the pastoral Hima. More than 11,000 people died in that clash.

The most atrocious incident occurred between 15 and 22 November last year in Mwenga district where 15 women, suspected of supporting the Mayi Mayi, were buried alive by the Rwandan soldiers, after their bodies were smeared with hot pepper. Mary Robinson, the UN high commissioner for human rights, promised an investigation, but it never came.

On 30 June this year, Amnesty International issued a statement in London “appealing” to Museveni (of Uganda) and Paul Kagame (of Rwanda) “to end the atrocities by their troops in northeastern Congo.”

Amnesty said: “Ugandan troops are reported to be involved in killings and other abuses against members of the Lendu ethnic group in Kibali-Ituri province, and more than 500 unarmed civilians have been killed by Ugandan and Rwandan troops fighting in Kisanagi between 5-10 June [this year].”

Amnesty urged the UN to urgently send human rights monitors to investigate the killings by Ugandan troops and their rebel RCD/ML allies.

In an earlier report released in London on 31 May this year, Amnesty had said “as many as 7,000 civilians have been killed in Kibali-Ituri during the second half of 1999 [in a] deliberate and calculated campaign by Ugandan and Hima armed groups to drive the Lendu from their homes in areas rich in gold and commercial wood.”

Although the US secretary of state, Madeleine Albright says “Rwanda is to the US what the pupil is to the eye,” can one genocide be condemned (1994) and another condoned (under Rwanda’s “Manpower Operation 2000”)?

The BBC reporter, Nick Gordon, after intense investigation into the matter and upon returning from the Great Lakes Region, revealed that 1,500 Rwandan Hutus and captured Congolese were burned alive in the Rwandan district of Bugesera, curiously near a military camp occupied by the Americans.

“It is impossible to say that the Americans in that base can neither hear the cries of distress of the victims, nor get to know what is happening,” Gordon said.

Under the same “Manpower Operation”, a group of Rwandan commandos, surrounded a church on the night of 29/30 November last year in Kala (north of Katanga), set it on fire and burned 31 people alive. They repeated the barbaric act in Kasala and Ngoya, killing 30 more people on New Year’s day.

Congo is suffering and bleeding. But for how long can it continue? This is why the National Consultation conference held in March called for a review of the Lusaka Peace Accord.

All said and done, it is the Congolese people who will have to solve their own problems and forge their own destiny, keeping in mind the words of Patrice Lumumba, the country’s hero, to his wife while in captivity before his assassination in 1961:

“Do not weep for me, my dear wife. I know that my country, which is suffering so much will know how to defend its independence and its liberty.”

Copyright © IC Publications Limited 2001. All rights reserved. No part of this site may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means or used for any business purpose without the written consent of the publisher. Whilst every effort has been made to ensure that the information contained herein is as accurate as possible, the publisher cannot accept responsibility for any consequences arising from its use.

Back to the top
Contents