|
FEBRUARY 1999 CONGO COVER STORY |
'Kabila cannot be allowed to win a military victory'The head of Congo's rebel government, Professor Ernest Wamba dia Wamba recently granted New African an exclusive interview. Here are excerpts:On the involvement of Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia on the side of Kabila, he said: "Angola says it intervened because it was a SADC [Southern African Development Cooperation] decision to do so, that there is an understanding in SADC that no member-state's president should be overthrown by force. But that is only a front. In fact Zimbabwe intervened before getting SADC's approval. To us, the real reasons are: "For Angola, we must recognise that it has a 2,000-km border with Congo. When the rebellion started from Goma, Angola apparently felt threatened. Remember also that Angola was part of the coalition of regional states that overthrew Mobutu, so Angola felt that it should have been associated with our rebellion much earlier, to do the same to overthrow Kabila. They still claim they were not contacted. Of course they were, but after [the rebellion had started]. "For Zimbabwe, it is basically a mercantilist intervention. Zimbabwe has sold arms and miltiary uniforms to Kabila worth US$200m, there are other interests too. The commander of the Zimbabwe Armed Forces himself has interests in selling foodstuff and maize to Congo, he has even created a transport company that ships those goods, it is basically big market type of interest. There are also some Zimbabwean ministers involved in this. And there is Mugabe's nephew who has some mining business with the Congo. So for Zimbabwe, all the claims of pursuing SADC principles, are just rubbish. "For Namiba, it just joined in on the basis of Mugabe pressurising it, in fact Namibia's participation is not a major one in terms of troops and resources." On ending the war, he said: "Well, we have one position only - and it is that the basic internal problem which Kabila denies, is a political problem. And it cannot be solved militarily, it can be solved through political means and negotiation. "But if Kabila thinks he can just fight and get a military victory, we are going to fight on. Kabila cannot be allowed to win a military victory because it will aggravate the political problems that led to the war. "If he wins, there is going to be tremendous revenge, there is going to be an aggravation of dictatorial tendencies, there is going to be repression of dissidents at a very high level, and it is going to be accepted that genocide is a factor to remain in power. "So on that basis, he cannot be allowed to win a military victory. We are interested in winning a political victory. If it comes through negotiations, so be it, we will go to negotiations. We are trying to force Kabila to come to negotiations. It is unfortunate that they are escalating the war by bringing in more troops. But we think we can stand up to the Zimbabweans and fight to the end." On the rebels diplomatic offensive, he said: "We have sent delegations to the US and Western Europe, particularly France and Belgium, to explain our position. Though they are not directly supportive, they are not condemning us either. So in a way we can say those governments do understand what we are doing, and do say Kabila is not worth supporting." On what is different between him/the rebel government on one hand, and Kabila and Mobutu on the other hand, he said: "Really when we look at things more critically, we the people make the dictators. So in our Movement we have three main priniciples: openness - which means politics of inclusion rather than exclusion; collective leadership which means unless consultations take place, no one person should be in a position to decide; and representation not only in terms of regions but in terms of gender - women and men - and especially oppressed minorities. So if a leader emerges from this system - whether myself or somebody else - he will fundamentally be different from Mobutu and Kabila who believe in solitary exercise of power." On the refusal of Kabila and his Allies to accord the rebels recognition and negotiate directly with them, he said: "Basically we have to look at it globally. Rebellions in Africa are due to the fact that there is an increasing gap between the leaders and the people, to the extent that leaders just pay attention to the interests of leaders rather than to the interests of the people. "It is on this basis that they are failing to recognise the basic problem in the Congo as being about finding a solution to the democratisation process, and not a problem of keeping a leader in power. "If African leaders can, as a point of departure, start from the basis of the interests of the people being supreme, they will realise that the problem is not about saving Kabila but about promoting democratisation in the Congo. So, at the global level I am not surprised that we don't have official recognition because this has been the history of Africa. "We can also look at it in terms of experience on the continent. The Ecowas troops went into Liberia to prevent the rebellion of Charles Taylor from succeeding. Seven years of destruction of Liberia, they ended up crowning Charles Taylor. Again it is because they didn't take into account the interests of the people of Liberia but only the interest of the leader that had to be kept in power. "So if they don't want to recognise us at this point, they will end up as they did in Liberia. Kabila now understands that he is confronting a rebellion inside the country and not just a matter of an external invasion." Copyright © IC Publications Limited 1999. 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. |