Like other parts of Africa, the great lakes region has been shaped by the colonial legacy with communities sharing the same culture living in different countries. The only way African countries can deal with this colonial legacy is through regional integration. Unfortunately, the international community has adopted a wrong approach in dealing with a problem of its own making. With disastrous consequences within countries and the region, the international community has gone against the best practice of regional solutions to global challenges through direct crisis management. However, the direct crisis management by the international community is marked by a poor analysis on the root causes of conflict in DRC and will thus not yield any results.
- The jurisdiction over the Democratic Republic of Congo
The situation in eastern DRC is increasingly analyzed through the prism of Rwanda, the difference in governance of the two countries are worlds apart, as often described by travelers, differences are to be seen just by crossing the border: at the one hand one of the most corrupt country with the worst performance in human development index (DRC). At the other hand one of Africa’s least corrupt country, 12% poverty reduction in five years, on track of all MDGs and a model of post-conflict nation building (Rwanda).
This lack of governance within the DRC is treated like a constant variable by international actors who prefer not to address the complex questions of governance. Instead, they analyze the problems in DRC through the prism of her neighboring countries, especially Rwanda. Unknowingly, this approach equals to an extension of Rwanda’s jurisdiction to the Eastern part of DRC. In other words, international actors deny Congo’s sovereignty by constantly excusing her from her sovereign rights and duties.
Ironically this extension of Rwanda’s jurisdiction is done by the same people accusing Rwanda of interfering within the DRC. Hence the paradoxical call from the international community: ‘Rwanda should play a positive role in solving the conflict within the DRC’, in other words Rwanda should be involved in the DRC. How should Rwanda demonstrate she is not interfering in the DRC by getting involved?
The extension of Rwanda’s sovereignty to DRC is argumentatively backed by an ethnic approach to sovereignty: Since eastern DRC is Rwandophone, whatever happens there is also Rwanda’s responsibility. If transposed to the rest of Africa, this would have disastrous consequences: whatever the people from Mali are doing in Ivory Coast is Mali’s responsibility. Another variation would also be that since the Kenyan Prime Minister is a Luo, whatever the Luos are doing in Uganda is Kenya’s responsibility. We would end in a medieval order with fragmented ethnic leaders, a curious version of ‘divide and rule’ promoted by the same powers that have created national borders where Africans saw fluid regions.
- Transnational resources
The focus of Rwanda is a tree hiding complex issues of internal and regional governance. DRC is home to transnational resources including gas, oil and fisheries. Rwanda shares with the DRC the methane gas of the Lake Kivu, which will be jointly exploited through the Economic Community of the Great Lakes. But Rwanda is frequently being accused of exploiting the minerals in DRC, however it is the only country that has adopted mineral tagging in the region. Rwanda upsurge as mining exporter is explained by a dormant mining sector until recently. Before the 1994 genocide only one company was monopolizing the sector in Rwanda, after the privatization a boom in the three strategic minerals has unfolded (Tin, Tungsten, and Tantalum occurring in the Coltan mineral). Against this background, DRC is currently in dispute with all her neighboring countries over transnational resources as a recent report by the International Crisis Group indicates. The report entitled Black Gold in the Congo: Threat to Stability or Development Opportunity? Countries published in July 2012, accounts of current conflicts between DRC, Angola, Burundi, Tanzania and Uganda over oil reserves. How come the United States member of the NATO and NAFTA and the countries forming the EU are not supporting the ICGLR, when all of these powers avoided the zero-sum game competition among nation-States through regionalism? Is peace the aim in DRC or the promotion of zero-sum game between DRC and her neighbors, especially Rwanda?
The discovery of oil in the hinterland of DRC against the background of Kinshasa’s orientation towards China might explain the aggressive common tone expressed by Western countries. There is a new scramble for Africa and blame-shifting the problem of DRC to Rwanda, a country 80 smaller, seems to be motivated by a desire to rationalize the conflict. As European diplomats often say, there is no counterpart to talk to in the DRC, thus there is no way to influence the DRC, it is a chaos. The only way to influence the DRC is to drag in a rational acting actor by extending its jurisdiction as seen above. Rwanda is being forced as auxiliary of the West to shape things in DRC. Notably, to consider removing Kabila who is giving long-term concessions to the Chinese.
Unfortunately, the West relies on very poor analysis when it comes to DRC, thus the West cannot consider treating the DRC as a new market once well governed. In view of the West, the DRC is good for cheap minerals and humanitarian interventions. It is in this context that the myth of external aggression to the DRC has emerged, although it is obvious that the DRC is a threat to herself without external assistance.
- The futility of external support
In actual fact, the DRC is a country with an administration unable to exercise authority over its territory and people. Looking at all indicators, the sovereign in DRC, its people have resisted its leadership whenever the occasion for a vote of confidence arose. The FARDC is an army that deserts at any operation which indicates the lack of trust in the commander in chief. The last presidential election was not recognized and post-election violence followed the proclamation of the results, the election was even contested by the Catholic Church.
The mainstreamed corruption is also an indication of a lack of faith in national institutions. This has direct consequences on the battlefield. Officers steal the pay of their soldiers and food is scarce. The faits d’armes of the congolese army chiefs are telling: the former army chief Gen. Amisi was supplying arms to rebels, including FDLR, the current one is an experienced bar tender.
In a nutshell FARDC is fighting a mutiny of battle hardened Eastern Congolese in their own stronghold without pay or reliable supply chain. Needless to say that it is a lost battle, especially given the presence of FDLR, M23 fears nothing less than extermination. To make matters worse, the indictments of the ICC do not incentivize any rebel leader to lay down the arms. In view of this situation, it is evident that M23 does not need support to defeat militarily the FARDC.
- The significance of war in Eastern DRC
Given the structural inability of FARDC to fight, Kinshasa has made the choice of a media war against M23 grounded on legitimacy. The idea being that M23 cannot survive without international recognition. This strategy would have been successful, if Kinshasa would have used the media war as a bargaining tool against M23. However, Kinshasa refused to talk to M23. This deadlock motivates in turn M23 to seek for an incontestable status through military means. What currently prevent a large scale war between M23 and mercenaries hired by Kinshasa including FDLR, to replace FADRC, are the regional peace negotiations under the auspices of the international conference on the Great Lakes Region. One can only wonder why the UN and its European powers are so reluctant to support this initiative.
One reason behind the lack of support to a regional solution is that it would prevent former colonial powers like Belgium to free ride on the conflict in Eastern Congo in view of recovering international appeal. With prolonged economic crisis in the West, such an international prestige is needed to convince an increasingly skeptical electorate. Equally, the UN fears a loss of raison d’être, if ICGLR proves to be more useful than the 1 billion USD heavy MONUSCO, whose mandate’s renewal always surprisingly coincidences with renewed fighting in DRC. Indeed, any neutral observer analyzing the M23 crisis and other would find a strange pattern: always before June, when the 1 billion question is going to be asked at the UN Security Council, the MONUSCO finds ways to publish a report blaming Rwanda and insists at asking Kinshasa to implement policies with conflictual ending. With tax free salaries up to 200 000$ car of 75 000 rent of 5000 $ the UN staff on the ground informing the world have no incentive for peace.
In view of the above, the international community and the government in Kinshasa have a stake in prolonged conflict in Eastern DRC. Against conventional wisdom, Rwanda has stubbornly refused to be dragged into this war. Lazy analysts blinded by ethnicity ignore that if Rwanda was really militarily supporting M23, than M23 would be at the doors of Kinshasa. Indeed, Rwanda has never been shy to admit being military involved in Congo.
Neither the UN nor western powers are willing to sacrifice troops by intervening in a guerilla war in the deep forests of the DRC. Only countries in the region would see an intervention as prevention against threats to their national security. However, countries from the region will avoid to be dragged into this conflict on a large scale, since this would make them responsible for a situation only Congolese can address. Thus, war will not solve the real issues at hand, in the words of President Kagame ‘you cannot shoot your way into a solution’.
- Impunity of transnational non state actors
Interestingly, the recent DRC crisis is said to have been provoked by the quest to end impunity. The international Criminal Court sought to exercise its jurisdiction over the DRC by calling for the arrest of Gen. Ntaganda. One can note already here, that one of the enforcement mechanisms of the ICC is to wage a war and freeze aid, in other words terrorizing millions of people who never met Ntaganda. In procedural terms, this pill is administered through the corporate veil of non-state actors such as a Group of Expert report or Human Rights Watch, since it goes against rules and practices of inter-states cooperation. In a very interesting article by Alan Chong posted in the Review of International Studies in October 2002, this reality in foreign policy is being described as ‘plus non-state politics’ or ‘multi-actor reality’. The problem however, is that the new corporate actors in global affairs are neither elected nor held responsible for the mayhem they cause. As Alan Chong rightfully asks, ‘Yet, one wonders what the implications are of displacing the pre-existing foreign policy mandate of states, grounded in domestic systems of legality, however determined as opposed to self-appointed transnational crusaders of conscience’.
Ironically, it is the privilege of the weak to share the ringside seat of the winds of change with the powerful: Non-State Actors are aggressively advancing ‘causes of conscience and normative ideals’ on Africa (NGOs) and on powerful western countries alike (religious hegemony). Like in the old days of the civilization mission by European countries, moralism is invoked to put established principles of international affairs out of order and to impose on other societies an agenda defined in the opaque headquarters of transnational corporations (kandhar or New York). This is not an argument for cultural relativism; rather it is an appeal against cultural imperialism, the root cause of international wars since it denies freedom in the name of morality. In that respect Al Quaeda Inc is not so different from Human Rights Watch and ICC, in the sense that in the name of moral all hell can break lose.
In a globalized world with instant communication, countries cannot leave the power of setting the international agenda, war or peace, to Non-State Actors that never have to bear the burden of governance. As a Rwandan proverb goes, Ingoma ntihora irahaka (power cannot have a private purpose). The solution for a post Westphalian order of nation-states is a world of regions and there is no better place for regionalism than Africa, the continent with European borders imprisoning growth and innovation.
It is obvious that Rwanda can only achieve a free movement of people, goods and capital in her relations with the DRC through peace. Rwanda does not need war to enforce what geography already has provided for. How come then Rwanda is labeled as war monger? It has more to do with the image moral crusaders have created to fund-raise and set their own agenda. This image describes the Great-Lakes region as passive agent at the mercy of Rwanda, the root of all evils. Targeting Rwanda is convenient for lazy analysts who find an organized State they can punch into instead of the complexities of the continent-country that is DRC. While this NGO generated world view might be complaisant to a West with a complex of moral superiority, it does not augur well on the long term. China is at Africa’s door with no other message than trade with a sovereign agenda resilient to partisan interests. It is evident that the West risks losing the continent of growth, by viewing it only as a playground for its non-for-profit but power-hungry moral crusaders. A power which they exercised in the last century without empowering the African citizen they claim to fight for.
Africa is a rising lion 