October 10, 2002
IT will appear that the regional dimension to the five year bloody war in the DRC is being sorted out with the total withdrawal of Rwanda and imminent final withdrawal of Uganda and Zimbabwe.
Is peace about to break out in the region? We hope the withdrawals will boost the momentum for peaceful resolution of the outstanding issues and create lasting internal settlement and guarantee security for the whole region. The end of armed intervention by other states may not necessarily lead to an end to armed opposition inside the DRC. There are various rebel groups that were allied to the countries that are now orphaned. While a majority of them may not have military capacity to march on Kinshasa, their spoilers' medals are legion. All of them will try to occupy the vacuum being left by their patrons. The roving band of militias in the two Kivus and Eastern Congo in general are not going to disband immediately. The Mayi Mayi, for instance, have been active, since the 1960s and have shown a capacity to wreak havoc, change allies and reinvent themselves as situation changes. They could provide a template of dishonour for other rebels to copy.
The various armed groups including Interahamwe, former Rwandese Army (ex FAR), elements of the former Zairois army (Ex FAZ) and an assortment of defeated (but not disarmed) Uganda rebel groups including the Allied Democratic Force (ADF) and fighting groups against Burundi are also not going to go under simply because Uganda and Rwanda have withdrawn. They may see that as an opportunity to reorganise. They have all been allied to the DRC government since the war against Kabila Senior by his former Rwandese and Ugandan allies.
Under the Lusaka agreement (which is still the broad framework for the settlement) all of these groups have to be disarmed. While President Kabila may be willing to do so, there are concerns about the capacity of DRC, as a state, to do this. There is also the fact that these groups have been used by the DRC government and it may be difficult to just say: thank you, go home now. The same is true for both Uganda and Rwanda in relation to the various groups or factions that they have spurned over the years.
And this is where the commitment of the international community through the agreed UN Peace keeping forces need to be iron cast. There are also personal alliances built on blood, gold, coal tan and other economic interests on all sides that may subvert the expressed wishes of the states.
The ease with which the states could withdraw should warn us that they can easily go back if they feel the need to do so.
President Kabila Jr appears to be the winner of the politico-diplomatic war, so far, but attention will now be focused on him to deliver on two vital areas that can guarantee lasting peace. His government has to show full commitment to disarming the rebel groups of other countries that he inherited from his father and his allies.
The withdrawal should not be seen as a political veto over the future of the country. The Lusaka accord is very clear on the national components of the conflict: namely national dialogue with all armed and unarmed forces of the DRC that would lead to a transitional government and the formation of a government based on the free will of the people of the DRC.
Kabila Jr has been lucky in many respects. He has shown a remarkable flexibility where his father had been belligerent. His youthfulness has also attracted sympathy and belief by many adversaries that he was more amenable to reason (control) than his father was. But above all, he seems to be getting value for money from his Public Relations consultants in Europe and America who have smoothed his access to Brussels, Paris, London and Washington in a way that his father could not have adapted.
Finally, the strategic interest of the West in the mineral rich country and Angola's capitulation to the same interests mean that the Western powers want peace at all cost in both countries. The pressure for peace from the West is dictated by that interest and also the Post 9/11 dangerous simplification of the world into 'those against and those who support us'. Washington wants all local conflicts quickly resolved so that it can concentrate on the war Against Terrorism and it is pressurising for 'peace' all over the place. But whatever the interests at stake the peoples of the region are war-fatigued. The militarist solution to conflicts have exhausted itself. Apart from very few War enterpreneurs, the war is a tragedy for majority of the peoples. Even most of the states cannot declare any victory, no matter how pyrhic. They face a number of challenges about reintegrating their expanded armies, dealing with crooked commanders who have become warlords but also a worsening HIV/AIDS pandemic consequent to the conflict, dislocations and forced movement.
All these factors have created a space for a wider political settlement both internally and regionally.
However, Burundi remains a big stumbling bloc and due attention has to be paid to it. Assuming the DRC and both Rwanda and Uganda kept their side of the bargain, what will happen to the ex-FAR, some ex-FAZ and other rebel groups? Burundi appears the only country where both objective and subjective factors will welcome them.
If this happens, the elaborate peace accord will unravel and we will be back to square one. All efforts must be directed to resolving the Burundi crisis if the region is to harvest any peace dividend.
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.
