Global Policy Forum

US Changing Course?

Print

By John Kaniu

African Perspective
March 10, 2001

There are several developments on the war in the Democratic Republic of Congo. One of them is the reported pullout of some troops from Uganda and Rwanda from their positions inside the country. The other is the reported consideration being pondered by the U.S. authorities on siding with the Angolan government on the conflict. The Third one is the active involvement by the French government, a move that is sure to increase tensions between Paris on the one hand and London and Washington on the other.


The Ugandan and Rwandan governments have faced criticism from even their allies for their activities in Congo. The two countries have clashed several times in the Kisangani area and this has put them on the spotlight. Kisangani is the third largest Congolese city and lies in the areas occupied by rebels.

Many people have questioned their motivation in their occupation of another sovereign country. The UN has urged them to withdraw from there but due the backing the two countries enjoy from London and Washington, they have continued the occupation. Although the so-called donor countries have also made calls for them to withdraw its notable that the two continue to be in very good books with the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank. It is only the French government that has opposed the approval of loans to Uganda. Paris voted against the move to cancel some section of the Ugandan debt because of the Congo involvement.

American interests

The U.S. government under Bush has a very strong Oil sector lobby and with lots of interests in the Angolan oil and especially on new oilfield finds there. Reports now say it is likely that the new administration will likely support Angola in propping a regime in Kinshasa. In addition, U. S. officials are not too happy that Uganda and Rwanda were not able to establish a stable situation in the region by outright defeat of the government in Kinshasa. As well the two governments seem to have their own aims different from what London and Washington want. London and Washington want the establishment of a stable client government in Congo that opens the region for investments. The Rwandan and Ugandan occupations seem only to increase instability while army officials and backers loot the mineral wealth.

Washington officials hope support for Angola is pragmatic and will in the long run make Zimbabwe withdraw its troops from Congo. U.S. officials want president Mugabe of Zimbabwe isolated and removed from power. As well they see Angola as becoming more assertive as it deals more blows to UNITA rebels. Although America supports Savimbi silently, and his officials met Bush officials recently, they do not think UNITA has any capability of threatening the regime in Luanda.

But the American strategy is complicated by other factors. One, the French government is getting actively involved in the issue. France has met the Congolese leader, Joseph Kabila and recently held talks with Mugabe. Mugabe has about 11,000 troops in the Congo. Rwanda has 30,000. Angola has a sizable number there too.

As well, London remains committed to using regional governments to help advance western interests in Africa. The U.K government remains the strongest backer of Rwanda and Uganda. It sees this strategy as the only one likely to succeed and do so by further removing its competitor, France, from the equation. U.K. has used a similar strategy in Sierra Leone. There, it has utilized armies from Nigeria and Ghana to advance its own interests.

Anglo-French conflict

The competition between the two European powers date back from the earlier times of colonialism but recent events show they are still fighting to control African resources through controlling various African regimes. So far things have worked well for London after the French-backed regime was toppled in Rwanda in 1994 by Ugandan- supported rebels. The Rwandan government has been instrumental in trying to remove the Congolese government, with approval from London. Thus London heavily criticized the recent meeting between Mugabe and the French president.

British papers accuse Mugabe and allies of looting the Congo and abusing human rights in Zimbabwe but really the sticking point has been the presence of Zimbabwean troops in Congo. They complicate the aims of the British government.

A recent article in London's Financial Times says: "Aides to Mr Chirac said they were aware of the controversy in Britain over Mr Mugabe's visit to France and his meetings with Belgian leaders in Brussels on Monday. But they said it was important to talk to all parties in the Great Lakes conflict and Mr Mugabe's presence in Paris did not imply any endorsement of the country's internal politics.

Mr Chirac has already met Joseph Kabila, who took over the leadership of Congo when his father, Laurent, was assassinated in January. Mr Kabila has hinted he is anxious to soften his stance on how to resolve the conflict which has seen troops from Angola, Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe occupy chunks of Congo in pursuit of their own ambitions.

France was behind the United Nations resolution 1341 which called for the withdrawal of foreign armies from Congo. Of those foreign armies, Zimbabwean troops remain among the most deeply embedded.

The British papers expresses hope that the meeting may not mean much and concluded that: "African diplomats familiar with the complexities of Congo on Tuesday doubted how much influence Mr Chirac might exercise over Mr Mugabe. They also pointed out that Lionel Jospin, Socialist premier, had not met the Zimbabwean leader. In the past he has been reluctant to link his government with African despots and refused to meet Omar Bongo of Gabon when he was received by Mr Chirac.

For his part, Mr Mugabe appeared to have deliberately courted French and Belgian leaders - linked to their former francophone colonies - to rub home his distaste for Britain on this occasion."

Pointing to the Anglo-French rivalry, the article said: "Last month, at the Anglo-French summit in Cahors, diplomats from the two countries sought to strengthen their co-operation specifically in resolving problems in the Great Lakes. The aim was to take advantage of their respective knowledge and contacts in their former colonies and eventually pool resources. But at one stage Mr Chirac is understood to have told Tony Blair, the British prime minister, bluntly that the two countries could not agree on how to proceed over the Great Lakes. Yesterday's meeting appeared to confirm this. Andrew Parker adds from London: Francis Maude, foreign affairs spokesman for the opposition Conservative party in the UK, attacked Mr Chirac.

"Regardless of what the French intended by the meeting, it will give succour to Mugabe's bloodthirsty regime," he said.

Mr Maude also attacked Robin Cook, UK foreign secretary, and claimed the UK government had not taken tough action against Mr Mugabe.

While condemning Mugabe the Financial Times reporter had good things to say about Uganda and Rwanda. He portrayed them as victims by saying: "Uganda has withdrawn battalions from the country but continues to face threats from rebels operating from its western borders. If Yoweri Museveni, the president, wins next week's elections, he may feel more able to combat internal criticism of his presence in Congo.

Although Rwanda has pulled back, it maintains as many as 30,000 soldiers in the country, and it continues to fight against the perpetrators of the 1994 genocide in the Kivu provinces - crucial to its security concerns."


More Information on the DRC
More Information on the Dark Side of Natural Ressources

 

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C § 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.