- (May 2003)
The multinational holocaust in Congo.
Four millions people have probably died over the last 6 years in Congo,
while the rest of the world was watching
(read, for example this article).
We invaded Iraq to stop a mad
dictator from using his weapons of mass destruction, but one wonders
if those weapons could have caused four million deaths. Sometimes anarchy
is worses than a weapon of mass destruction.
When, in 1997, Laurent Kabila arrived in Kinshasa
and formally deposed the dictator who had ruled Congo for decades, Mobutu Sese Seko, there
were hopes that Congo would become a model of economic and political progress.
It turned out just the opposite: Congo has become a model of political
anarchy and disintegration. Congo's army controls but a fraction of the
country. The armies of much smaller countries, such as Rwanda and Uganda
(Kabila's previous mentors who are now fighting against him), seem to be far
better organized and equipped. Rwanda and Uganda hold the north eastern part
of the country.
Laurent Kabila was assassinated in January 2001 and his 29-year old son
Joseph succeeded him. Fighting continued.
Rwanda is fighting for the southern province against troops from Angola and
Zimbabwe. Uganda controls northern Congo through Jean-Pierre Bemba, a
businessman who built his own militia.
Rwanda and Uganda share control of Kisangani in the northeast.
(Rwanda is currently ruled by Paul Kagame and
Uganda by his friend and ex comrade Yoweri Museweni).
The Kinshasa government of Kabila, with help from Namibia, Angola and Zimbabwe,
holds the rest (which really means that those three countries are looting
Congo's precious resources).
Uganda backs Ernest Wamba dia Wamba, the original leader of the
rebels. Rwanda backs Emile Ilunga, who ousted Wamba. They are both respected
figures of the democratic opposition. In theory there are now three main
contenders to the throne of Congo: Kabila, Wamba and Ilunga. The first one
appears to be backed by far more countries, but the tiniest country in that
area, Rwanda, has proved over and again to be the most successful in waging
war: it was with the help of Rwanda that Kabila dethroned Mobutu.
This will not change any time soon. First of all, Zaire was a colonial
invention, that still makes no tribal, historical, geographical sense.
Mobutu's failure to unite the country financially and industrially (even
telephone and road links are fragile) made it only more obvious.
By the end of the Mobutu era, Zaire was again a federation of independent
tribes, as it had been before Belgium's occupation (two provinces even
issued their own money).
Second, none of the players are interested in changing the status quo.
Each occupying country has an interest to defend in Zaire and is doing so
successfully: Zimbabwe and Namibia control lucrative copper and diamond mines;
Angola keeps at bay Unita, the ever threatening rebel army;
Rwanda chases Hutu militias still at large in Congo;
etc. No country is losing this war, they are all winning it to
some extent. There is no point in relenting the breakup of Zaire.
In 2003, a transitional government of national reconciliation was created: president Joseph Kabila, Abdoulaye Yerodia Ndombasi for his government, Azarias Ruberwa for the Rwandan-backed RCD-Goma, the largest rebel group, Jean-Pierre Bemba for the Ugandan-backed Congolese Liberation Movement (MLC), the second largest rebel group, and
X
for the Kinshasa political opposition).
In the meantime, though, tribal fighting erupted in the east between
Hemas and Lendus, or, more precisely,
between the Hema militia of Thomas Lubanga and the APC
army of Mbusa Nyamwisi, a splinter faction of
Wamba dia Wamba's RCD/ML (Congolese Rally for Democracy- Liberation Movement),
which is mainly Lendu.
These multiple Congolese wars have killed about four million people in 10
years.
Back to the world news
|