Congo-Kinshasa: Conflict in the Kivus - the Start of Africa's Second World
War?
By Zach Warner, 9 August 2012
Fighting in the DRC will lead to much human suffering, but it seems unlikely
to escalate into full-blown, interstate conflict.
If we're to believe recent official statements and high-level media
appearances, there is barely a single country interested in anything other
than peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
President Paul Kagame of Rwanda dubiously claimed that no-one has worked
harder to end conflict in the DRC than Rwanda, while the Ugandan government
has charged headlong into the role of peace negotiator. Suspicious of
neighbours' meddling, the DRC's donors have mustered as much hand wringing
as has been seen in a decade.
Yet, as always, the politics is complex and multi-layered, and the reality
is a far cry from a rosy world of responsible states working as one to
eliminate pernicious insurgencies.
Earlier this year, a new rebellion calling itself M23 joined the growing
group of rebel factions operating in or near North and South Kivu, two
eastern Congolese provinces. With M23's strong ties to Rwandan-backed
elements in FARDC, the DRC's military forces, battles lines were immediately
drawn between Kinshasa and Kigali. Since then a blizzard of accusations and
denials has dominated central African diplomacy.
Fortunately, however, this does not mean full-blown, interstate conflict
akin to the Second Congolese War - or 'Africa's World War' - from 1998 to
2003 is about to break out. This is because, simply put, it is unclear there
is much incentive for further external actors to involve themselves in the
conflict. Rather, it appears likely that international indifference will
lead to the conflict's stagnation. There is no doubt much human suffering to
come, but not from another continental conflagration.
Rising in the East
Rwanda, the DRC's neighbour and regional military hegemon, is committed to
stirring up trouble to serve its strategic interests. Despite President
Kagame's recent appearance on the BBC to deny supporting the M23 insurgency,
there is overwhelming evidence that the Rwandan state is aiding and
supplying the rebels. The United Nations Group of Experts has found
Rwandan-supplied weapons, intercepted official communications, spoken with
witnesses, interviewed some 80 deserters from the rebellion (31 of them
Rwandan), and talked to active M23 and other military leaders.
Worryingly, this evidence indicates that Rwanda has helped position the M23
into overlapping alliances with other 'negative forces' such as the Raia
Mutomboki alongside an array of political and military hangers-on such the
Forces for the Defence of the Congo (FDC) and Nduma Defence of Congo (NDC).
Perhaps most surprisingly, the Group of Experts found evidence that the
Rwandan government remobilised ex-members of the Democratic Forces for the
Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) - alleged genocidaires and sworn enemies of the
Rwandan state - to join the rebellion.
Against such claims, the Rwandan government has called the report "biased
and devoid of integrity". The content of their denials, however, are thin.
'Counter-evidence' consists mainly of statements and official minutes of
meetings, all stage-managed by political and military brass. Meanwhile, the
government dismisses accusations the Permanent Secretary of the Ministry of
Defence provided M23 with logistical and financial support by claiming he is
simply too busy to trouble himself with helping the rebels. By way of
contrast, the UN document verifies each finding with five independent
sources and although there is every likelihood it contains inaccuracies, the
weight of the evidence undoubtedly favours the Group of Experts; Rwanda's
backing is central to M23's slow march to Goma.
Self-containment
However, although thousands of civilians are already suffering from these
developments, there are good reasons to believe that the fighting will not
escalate into another continental conflict. For one, the structural factors
that did much to bring the war in the 1990s - state decay in DRC (then
Zaire), the end of Cold War zones of influence, and the rising tide of
democratisation - no longer obtain.
Moreover, when Kagame's new government first interloped in the region in
late 1995 (much as it does today), there were millions of Rwandan refugees
waiting as genocidaires re-armed in the camps. Now such a security threat is
non-existent.
Unlike in 1995, this year's significant scaling-up of Rwanda's involvement
in the DRC is most likely motivated by a heterogeneous mix of interests. The
government does have genuine security concerns about various rebel groups,
but it also wants to expand control of North and South Kivu's resource
wealth and pursue regional ambitions with the prospect of a broader zone of
influence, among other factors.
Satisfying these interests only requires enlarging the Rwandan protectorate
in the eastern provinces, with the most ambitious of goals ending at
Kivutian secession from the DRC. But even this would not require a change of
government in Kinshasa; if the rebels take Goma (as they are currently
threatening to do), it is entirely possible Kagame will quit while ahead.
Having won the space to let its security forces roam free, collect revenues
from the mineral trade, and project its influence beyond its borders, Rwanda
may choose to avoid the diplomatic problems associated with forcing regime
transition in a sovereign state.
After all, it was precisely this over-reach that scuppered Rwandan ambition
between 1999 and 2003. Already responsible for President Mobutu's demise,
Rwanda reinvaded the DRC to install a favoured candidate in Kinshasa only to
see Angola and Zimbabwe rush to the country's defence. The offensive
stalled, the war dragged on, immeasurable global goodwill faded, and left to
fester were many of the same problems that continue to trouble the Kagame
administration today. Shrewd strategists in Kigali are unlikely to make the
same mistake again.
Neither help nor hindrance
This logic crumbles if the DRC's neighbours line up behind Rwanda to help
topple Joseph Kabila's government and partake in the benefits. However, this
is unlikely. Whereas several governments used the war in the 1990s as an
excuse to battle their regional nemeses, most of these proxy wars have
ended. Sudan is too busy with its own internal conflicts, for example, while
Angola's security interests in the Congo died in 2002 with Jonas Savimbi,
the former leader of the infamous National Union for the Total Independence
of Angola. In short, few countries today have security threats that can be
ameliorated by taking part in renewed conflict in the DRC.
Some of these dynamics are evident in the DRC's failure to round up support
at meetings of the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region, a
regional body representing 11 countries. Earlier the group deployed former
Tanzanian president Benjamin Mkapa and former Nigerian president Olusegun
Obasanjo as Special Envoys to investigate the gathering storm of Congolese
insurgencies. But efforts to convince member states to contribute troops to
a monitoring force or provide rhetorical support against Rwanda have fallen
on deaf ears. No-one wants to touch the conflict.
Uganda may be one exception: the Allied Democratic Forces - a rebel group
opposed to the Ugandan government - continues to pester President Yoweri
Museveni. And, having recently patched things up with Kagame, the two
presidents could collaborate on the M23 to mutual benefit - as they have
with the multiple rebellions they co-sponsored in the 1990s. However, the
ADF more closely resembles an annoyance than a threat to Museveni, and his
troop commitment already extends to conflicts in Somalia, South Sudan, and
elsewhere. Adding to this overstretch are Uganda's new oil sites to which
Museveni has assigned extensive military protection. And even should he wish
to deploy troops to the DRC, Uganda is facing a generalised budgetary
crisis, exacerbated by recent human disasters.
A common narrative sees Museveni involving Uganda to get a hand in the
Congolese honeypot, paying for such a foray with the DRC's plentiful natural
resources. Yet when Uganda and others (notably Zimbabwe) lusted for riches
in 1999, the minerals were ripe for the plucking and more easily
re-exportable onto world markets; now they are a hot-button issue for donor
agencies and already for the most part inaccessible, captured in Rwanda's
tight grip over Kivutian trade. Threatening donor funds and incurring
Kagame's wrath trump the remote possibility of resource wealth.
Sideshows in New York
Ironically, much recent attention has the conflict has focussed on states
which happen to have the least influence on the ground: Western donors.
Humanitarian and diplomatic communities are attempting to up the stakes of
Rwandan meddling, but these efforts fall far short of impinging on Kigali's
plans.
There seems little that the West can do to pour cold water on the affair.
Donors focus on peace-building, striking temporary pacts among competing
warlords. These efforts in the Kivus often actually give rise to a weaker
Congolese army and more insurgencies for it to fight. Additionally, as
Séverine Autesserre argues, elite negotiations even at their best do little
to resolve the thousands of localised conflicts that fuel the broader war.
Another option presents itself in financial sanctions. Germany, the
Netherlands, the UK, and the US have all recently interrupted aid flows on
which Kagame's government is utterly dependent. However, while such
decisions are a major symbol of changing attitudes, donors are still firmly
behind the Kagame administration, clinging to its image as a successful, if
heavy-handed, reformer. The American cuts represent less than one-tenth of
1% of the roughly $250 million given to Rwanda annually. Such a loss is
unlikely to slow the march of the M23.
Even if American reticence evaporated, however, and the West decided to move
decisively against Rwanda, Chinese and Russian influence would likely block
any attempt to punish Kigali through the UN Security Council (beyond issuing
vague warnings). Meanwhile, despite the use of UN gunships against the M23
rebels, the DRC is getting nowhere in its attempt to expand the mandate of
MONUSCO, the UN's regional peace-keeping mission. Its cost is already an
exponential $1.4 billion per annum, and even if Kinshasa could convince the
UN to go through the long and complicated process of a mandate change, few
countries would readily maintain their troop presence on the more dangerous
frontlines.
Finally, unilateral action from a Western power is nearly unthinkable. All
that remain are stern words and the most innocuous of sanctions.
The silver lining?
Despite its best efforts - and the 17,000-strong MONUSCO notwithstanding -
the international community will remain mostly out of the Kivutian equation.
It is possible that one of Kabila's neighbours sees an opportunity in the
conflict, but such a course is ultimately unlikely. And while Rwanda has the
potential to change all this by pressing forward to capture Kinshasa, there
seems little reason to do so, given Kigali's strategic interests.
It seems likely that the fighting will continue for some time yet while the
rest of the regional actors remain on the outside looking in. Leftovers from
Africa's World War continue to motivate power politics in the Great Lakes,
but it is unlikely that they are about to bring a sequel. Kigali's fortunes
may rise, but Kinshasa is not about to fall.
Zach Warner holds an MPhil in Development Studies from the University of
Cambridge. He has worked as a research analyst at Bowdoin College, working
with Professor Olufemi Vaughan on a project titled 'Religion and State
Formation in West Africa, 1800-2000'. He will begin a PhD in Political
Science at the University of Wisconsin-Madison later this year. Follow him
on twitter _at_zachwarner11.
------------[ Sent via the dehai-wn mailing list by dehai.org]--------------
Received on Thu Aug 09 2012 - 17:58:28 EDT
