The veteran French expert on central Africa Gerard Prunier has an excellent piece on Open Democracy today that pulls together a lot of the essential political background to the tragically re-ignited fighting in eastern D.R. Congo.
Prunier notes in particular the extremely belligerent and damaging role the RPF government in Rwanda has played in DRC for many years, including the on-again-off-again support it has given to the leader of the current big armed rebellion in eastern DRC, Gen. Laurent Nkunda.
At the end of his article, Prunier writes:
- Why do we see such zigzagging on Nkunda’s part? Mostly because there is not a single coherent policy in Kigali to either support or disown him. It depends on the fluctuation of the political atmosphere there… Since the well-organised electoral “victories” of the RPF [in Rwanda]… there is no Hutu opposition worth the name. Just mentioning such a term is labeled “divisionism” and can get you twenty years in jail. So the political game is played among Tutsi. And the Tutsi do not agree on how to deal with the Congo in general and with Laurent Nkunda in particular.
Some, like President Kagame himself, want to put the past behind them, develop Rwanda along extremely modernistic lines and turn the country into the Singapore of Africa. But others do not believe in such a possibility and still see the Congo as a mineral mother-lode waiting to be exploited; they include some of Kagame’s closest associates such as the semi-exiled ambassador Kayumba Nyamwasa and army chief-of-staff James Kabarebe…
The outcome of the United States presidential election on 4 November 2008 is an encouragement for the latter group. After all, it was the Africanists around Bill Clinton (who are now Barack Obama’s men and women) who supported the Kigali invasion of the DR Congo while it was Republican secretary of state Colin Powell who brought it to a halt in 2001. Have the Democrats changed their views on the region or do they still believe in the fiction that Rwanda only intervenes in the Congo in order to keep the ugly génocidaires at bay? In any case the situation in the DRC is now more serious than it has been at any point since the signature of the 2002 peace agreement.
But does it actually mean the situation has returned to that of 1998, and the DR Congo is about to explode into another civil war? Probably not. Why? Because there are several fundamental differences:
* Rwanda, even if it is involved, is involved at a marginal and contradictory level .
* in 1998, pro-Kigali elements controlled large segments of the Forces Armées Congolaises (FAC), the then Congolese national army. The initial onslaught was carried out through an internal rebellion of the armed forces. Not so today. Nkunda controls only an army of unofficial militiamen
* in 1998 the regime of Laurent-Désiré Kabila was very weak, hardly legitimate and did not have any serious international support. Today his son Joseph Kabila is strongly supported by the internal community after overseeing a flawed but clearly democratic election
* the Congolese economy was at the time in complete disarray while today it is only in poor shape, with possibilities of picking up
* President Kagame could count on the almost unlimited sympathy of the world which felt guilty for its neglect during the genocide. Not so today. His moral credibility has been seriously damaged by the horrors his troops committed in the DR Congo during 1998-2002 and his political standing is increasingly being questioned, both by legal action going back to the genocide period (reflected in the French indictment and Frankfurt arrest) and by his electoral “triumphs” (which are a throwback to the worst days of fake African political unanimity)
* the diplomatic context, reflected in the current visit to the region of the United Nations envoy (and Nigeria’s former president) Olusegun Obasanjo, is more favourable to negotiation
* In 1998 there was no United Nations peacekeeping force in eastern DR Congo. If the international community decides to straighten out its act, Monuc could make the difference.
I am glad to see that even such a seasoned old pro as Prunier thinks there is some hope that MONUC might make a real difference to the situation in Congo. I certainly hope so. But I largely share the misgivings he expresses about the pro-RPF sympathies of those who seem likely to emerge as important figures in the next US administration.
Another very significant aspect of the present fighting in DRC is the fact that– as I had forgotten, but Prunier reminded me– Laurent Nkunda is an indicted war criminal, having been indicted by the DRC government for a 2002 incident in Kisangani in which more than 160 persons were summarily executed. (Prunier wrote, mistakenly, that Nkunda had been indicted by the ICC. But it is Nkunda’s chief of staff, Bosco Ntaganda, who has been indicted by the ICC.)
To a certain extent, then, the situation in eastern DRC might well mirror that in northern Uganda, where the issuing and pursuit of criminal indictments against leaders of insurgent forces makes the conclusion of a working peace agreement that much harder– if not, actually, impossible so long as the indictments are outstanding.
I could note, too, that the northern Uganda situation is very closely linked to that in eastern DRC, since the bulk of Joseph Kony’s Ugandan-insurgent force, the LRA, is currently holed up in the rain forests of northeastern DRC, just a few hundred kilometres north of the spot where Nkunda is creating his current havoc.
Bottom line on all the many conflicts roiling the central-Afircan interior these days: the governments and peoples involved and the powerful nations of the world all need to get together on a stabilization and socio-economic reconstruction plan for all these countries that aims at saving and improving the lives of their peoples, including through the provision of effective and accountable mechanisms to ensure public security, ending all the outstanding (and often inter-linked) conflicts in a “fair enough” way, and extensive investment in DDR activities.
Memo to the incoming Obama-ites: There is NO military “solution” to any of these conflicts! Don’t even think that supporting the continued militarization of central African societies will bring anything other than continued atrocities and carnage.
H,
It is great to see the DRC crisis receive some attention here at JWN. The International Crisis Group has echoed sentiments similar to your own regarding the need for an intensive political situation to end this conflict. I have posted the link here
http://www.crisisgroup.org/home/index.cfm?id=5771&l=1
Senator Feingold issued a statement today lamenting the disaster in Somalia and the failure of the Bush Administration to constructively intervene in this crisis (Senator Feingold is really amazing). Here is his statement-I hope JWN readers find this info of use:
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/statements/08/11/20081115.htm
Also, H and JWN readers, are you all aware of the exemplary work of the Womens Commission for Refugee Women and Children? They are quite active in these catastrophic spaces of violence and upheaval. Surely they deserve all of our support; in particular their “get beyond firewood” campaign is of high utility to the people suffering amidst these disaster zones-
http://www.womenscommission.org/
Lets hope readers can and will give generously!
Kevin, thanks for these great links and your continuing concern for these conflict-wracked areas of our globe.
Helena,
I am flattered that you would reply to me, specifically. Its an honor as always. How can we live in the priviledge north, and not do more? We can all complain, whine about lobbies, etc. and let the world and precious human life, spaces of everyday lifeworlds be destroyed, while we take and postulate?! I am very Bourdieu in this way.
I am always inspired by your courage and sharp analysis Helena.
Helena, here is a question for you: How might the people of the DRC, in particular the women obtain some type reparations for their lost livlihoods, etc.? It seems that this would be a great place to start in supporting these women to restore their lives and those of their families.
While not to perpetuate a stereotype about the “peace-loving woman”, I found this BBC photographic essay to be quite moving-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/7730357.stm
H, and JWN:
Of course comparative analyses are always highly revealing and thus of value; the regional interventions (in some ways as international interventions) in the DRC and Zimbabwe cases are of use to explore, for their impact in resolving these crises and for their limitations. As such,
says a white man here, but how can we outsiders help support a revival of the ever progressive African Charter of Peoples Rights and Freedoms? Incredibly progressive, how H, can restoration/reperation and justice be facilitated around the Charter? It seems to me that African institutions, particularly the AU, could play a very significant role in centering the African Charter within the discourse and practices of both conflict resolution and reperations. I think I will write the USIP with this idea (I am going to suggest HC as a speaker). H, any thoughts?
Really, who would NOT want to be governed by the African Peoples Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
H, and JWN:
Of course comparative analyses are always highly revealing and thus of value; the regional interventions (in some ways as international interventions) in the DRC and Zimbabwe cases are of use to explore, for their impact in resolving these crises and for their limitations. As such,
says a white man here, but how can we outsiders help support a revival of the ever progressive African Charter of Peoples Rights and Freedoms? Incredibly progressive, how H, can restoration/reperation and justice be facilitated around the Charter? It seems to me that African institutions, particularly the AU, could play a very significant role in centering the African Charter within the discourse and practices of both conflict resolution and reperations. I think I will write the USIP with this idea (I am going to suggest HC as a speaker). H, any thoughts?
Really, who would NOT want to be governed by the African Peoples Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Really, who would NOT want to be governed by the African Peoples Charter of Rights and Freedoms?
Point of pedantry: it’s the African Charter of Human and Peoples’ Rights.
As to your rhetorical question: well, given that the preamble calls for the elimination of Zionism, I might not be entirely comfortable living under it. I also have more substantive reservations about article 17(3), which governments have sometimes cited (hypocritically) in perpetuating discrimination against women, as well as the citizens’ duties listed in article 29 which privilege state authority and community solidarity over individual rights. Leaving aside those nitpicks, though, yes, it’s a fine charter.
The answer to your non-rhetorical question is that the Charter will not be meaningful unless it is made enforceable, either by being incorporated into the domestic law of African countries or through an ECHR-style international court that is accessible to individuals. The first has occurred in a few countries – Nigeria, for instance, by legislation in 1983 – and people in those countries can at least in theory invoke the Charter’s protections. Of course, practical problems remain due to widespread corruption, limited judicial resources and difficulty of access to the courts. There are also unresolved legal issues as to whether the Charter has constitutional status or whether it is simply another law (in which case the national constitution would take precedence when conflicts occur).
The second option, enforcing the Charter on a continent-wide scale, unfortunately doesn’t appear to be in the works. There is an AU-sponsored court of human and peoples’ rights, but it’s closed to individuals: only governments may seek opinions from it. There is also a human rights commission accessible to individuals, but it may step in only after they have exhausted their remedies at the national level (which often takes years) and its can issue advisory opinions only. Most of the commission’s rulings to date have concerned jurisdictional issues rather than substantive human rights. With very limited exceptions – mostly in the field of commercial law – African governments are unwilling to allow their citizens access to an authoritative supra-national tribunal. Changing that would require a mass movement, and at present, African civil society has higher priorities than regional integration.
On the topic of the main post, I’m very disturbed by the latest violence. Although the DRC as a whole is more stable than under Kabila pére, the Ituri and Kivu regions are still very fragile. Nkunda has been a major obstacle to ending warlord rule in the east and getting humanitarian aid to the region, and outside support at any level will only make him more intractable. Also, movement of refugees could create a cascade effect that destabilizes neighboring provinces.
With that said, I tend to agree that a return to full-blown civil war is unlikely. From what I can gather (and I haven’t been following this nearly as close as I should), Rwanda is reasonably happy with the current Congolese government and doesn’t want regime change in the nation as a whole. It also, as you say, suffered both material and political losses during the last civil war and isn’t in a position to intervene as massively, especially since it would have to do so alone.
Agreed, of course, about the disutility of indictments (although that goes equally for Kagame) and of military solutions to regional conflicts.
Jonathan, where in the Banjul declaration preamble is Zionism discussed? This charter is about Africa, my friend. I have copied the link from the University of Minnesota Human Rights Library-
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/z1afchar.htm
In the second line of the paragraph that begins with “conscious of their duty.” But as I said above, it’s basically a rhetorical flourish that doesn’t affect the Charter’s substantive merit.
as I said above
I see I didn’t say that above. Well, I meant to.
My only real quarrels are with articles 17(3) and 29, the former for institutionalizing social conservatism and the latter as ideological support for authoritarian government. Both are no doubt artifacts of a particular time.
Ah, yes…I see the reference. Yes, indeed Zionism in the “spirit” of so-called Third World liberation movements is nearly universally equated with colonialism. OF course we all know how fierce a debate could ensue over this issue…so let us not diverge from the content of the charter in toto. I agree article 13 enshrines a traditionalist take on culture and social organization-perhaps also articulated as a reactionary stance on perceptions of cultural imperialism?
Most importantly, what are folks in Africa thinking about this Charter?
I agree article 13 enshrines a traditionalist take on culture and social organization-perhaps also articulated as a reactionary stance on perceptions of cultural imperialism?
Very likely so. And as we both know, opposition to cultural imperialism is a two-edged sword: it exists and is a real concern, but it’s also provides a convenient excuse for retrograde governments to dismiss concepts like feminism or democracy. When I see something like article 17(3) defining traditional morality as a basic human right and a paramount state mission, I think of the countries in Africa (and elsewhere) that treat married women as minors until this century, deny them equal inheritance, enforce various forms of censorship, etc.
Concern about cultural imperialism is very legitimate but, when overdone and used opportunistically, it can stifle voices for change within the culture. Cultures are dynamic things and not all change is corruption or imperialism. I don’t like to see human rights instruments come down on the side of stasis.
Most importantly, what are folks in Africa thinking about this Charter?
Again, I’ve been very out of touch lately, but I don’t recall seeing much mention of it at all. I don’t think it’s very meaningful to most people because there’s no real way to enforce it. Sometimes, a civil society group or human rights lawyer will cite the Charter in support of a policy prescription or legal argument, but practical democracy and progressive change can be achieved more easily by reform to national laws and constitutions.
As above, I think the Charter is generally a good instrument but that the first step needs to be creating the legal infrastructure to make it meaningful.
Personally I am very keen to see the AU develop its own war crimes tribunal; however this remains highly unlikely until continent-wide leadership embraces such an approach. While I hold no romantic views about Morgan Tsvanigirai, it would not be a stretch to view his movement’s struggle for ascendancy in Zimbabwe as emblematic of the type of leadership revolution needed across the continent, to end the rule of what George Ayittey calls the “vulture” governments of Africa. Certainly if the AU could move to institutionalize the charter and enforce the rights and responsibilities encoded, Mugabe would certainly be on the A list for a good long sentence in jail. Perhaps Robben Island Prison could be converted for such purposes? How is that for a powerful symbol of hope?
I have contacted someone at USIP suggesting a roundtable on the Charter, and its utility-hopefully if such an event is organized, a productive session might yield some innovations toward its implementation.
HREF=”http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081024.wongwen1024/BNStory/International/?pageRequested=all”>THE MAKING OF A MONSTER
Jonathan Edelstein
I agree with your take with term “cultural imperialism” but I have question for you if you could answered for us:
While the booming in communications video and audio made the world as village people from around the globe can see and adapted other cultures so fast which one of major tool helping “cultural imperialism” what we saw in Iraq the opposite that “imperialism power” bring with here the ugly and very restricted cultural to Iraq Iraqi had forgot for decade and generations and it was from the history. we saw women rights taken of we saw Madrasa we saw the rise of culture of what it called sectarians leaded by Mullah some how supported by “imperialism power”.
Is that amazing with what you wrote above and why that happen.
Why in Iraq “cultural imperialism” went backword not forward like what you stated?
Senator Feingold has announced legislation for a cease-fire in the DRC, explicitly stating that no military solution can resolve this horrendous crisis. Perhaps concerned citizens at JWN will urge their Senator’s support. Here is the text of his announcement (Senator Feingold is Chair of the US Senate Sub-Committee on Africa)
http://feingold.senate.gov/~feingold/releases/08/11/20081119.html
The NY Times has an excellent piece on the situation in the DRC-
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/19/world/africa/19congo.html?th&emc=th
The making of a monster
I do not know whether this field is still active, however, I do hope readers find this elucidating piece on what I call “living through” the everyday of a fractious and contentious DRC-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/dec/07/congo