Global Policy Forum

By Finbarr O'Reilly

A pact between Congo and Rwanda strikes at the heart of Africa's biggest war but analysts query whether international backing will be enough to make the deal hold and end a bloody free-for-all over Congo's riches.

Signed in South Africa on Tuesday, the accord is designed to defuse the most bitter enmity in the many-sided war, which has dragged in six foreign armies. It aims to pull out Rwanda's troops in return for Congo's pledge to round up, disarm and send home Rwandan Hutu militia blamed for Rwanda's 1994 genocide. The presence of the so-called "genocidaires" in the Democratic Republic of Congo is the reason invoked by Rwanda to justify its military presence there to help Congolese rebels.

"This touches the core of the issue...security for Rwanda and security for Congo by preventing the overthrow of the Congolese president by Rwandan troops," said Fabienne Hara of the International Crisis Group (ICG) think-tank in Brussels.

Many, including the disarmament chief of the U.N. force, say the deal's three-to-four month timetable is too short. U.N. observers estimate 8,000 to 12,000 Hutu militiamen still roam the lawless forests of eastern Congo and about 5,000 former Rwandan soldiers have been absorbed into Kinshasa's army.

"I don't know how they're going to disarm the Interahamwe, but they may have to fight them and I don't see a solution in that," said Mizele Nyimi, a film-maker in Kinshasa.

Congo's President Joseph Kabila told Reuters on Tuesday he would consider using military force against the hardline Hutu "Interahamwe" militias, who have vowed to resist disarmament. But until now the Interahamwe have formed the backbone of pro-government operations in parts of eastern Congo. And Rwanda's President Paul Kagame is also demanding the withdrawal of Zimbabwean and Angolan troops on whom Kabila has relied for security in government-controlled areas. Analysts also say tiny Rwanda may find plundering the riches of its huge neighbour more rewarding than making peace.

"The big question is will they withdraw," said ICG's Hara. "Frankly I don't think so. Rwanda has too many interests in the DRC (Congo). Political, military, economic interests. There are at least 30,000-35,000 troops there, and they keep bringing troops in."

The Rwandan government has put the number of its troops in Congo at about 10 percent of that figure.

DON'T WRITE OFF THE REBELS

Others say that even if Rwanda withdraws its troops, peace could still prove elusive given that the deal does not include Rwandan-backed Rally for Congolese Democracy (RCD) rebels -- and complicates the axis forged in April between Kinshasa and Ugandan-backed rebel leader Jean-Pierre Bemba. Although the RCD faces rising discontent in areas it controls and depends heavily for military strength on Kigali some said it should not be written off if Rwanda pulls out.

"People forget that there are legitimate grievances within Congo that have to be resolved, Rwanda and Uganda were just external elements that exploited the internal situation," said Andrew Mwenda of the independent Monitor newspaper in Uganda.

Among Kinshasa's backers, Namibia has withdrawn most of its soldiers. Kinshasa regards forces from Zimbabwe and Angola as guests who will go as soon as the latest peace accord is seen to be operating successfully it feels they are no longer needed. Crucially, the deal has backing from the U.N., United States and regional heavyweight South Africa, whose president, Thabo Mbeki, will review progress monthly with Kabila and Kagame.

"The acceptance of South Africa by Kabila is a very big step, he has always seen South Africa as the enemy and supporter of Kagame," Hara said.

TO DIE FOR KINSHASA?

But international backing is not likely to translate into military support to a peacekeeping force in the near future. U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan's appeals for 1,500 more staff for the 4,200-strong Congo force met little enthusiasm, and many countries are reluctant to risk troops there.

"I don't see how the deal will work unless more is added to it down the line," Nyimi said. "Maybe international troops will have to come here, but so far everyone is saying they won't, and even MONUC (U.N. mission in Congo) doesn't have as many people as it's supposed to."

South Africa said last week it was ready to commit troops to ensure peace in Congo, but the suggestion met opposition.

"We suggest the government think very carefully before committing a whole battalion to the DRC. Their safety would be at risk. We don't want our soldiers coming home in body bags," South African daily the Citizen said in an editorial.

Sceptics -- and there are plenty of them -- say they saw it all before when the warring parties got together in the Zambian capital Lusaka in 1999 to formulate a peace process including the withdrawal of foreign forces from Congo. While accepted as a framework for future negotiations, that process failed to bring peace. If anything, looting of Congo's minerals by the foreign armies operating there intensified. Even so, most agree the deal between Congo and Rwanda has the makings of a breakthrough and if upheld, may mark a turning point in the war.

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 íŸ 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.