CONFLICT-CONGO: US Sees Shift Towards Negotiations

By Jim Lobe Reprint | | Print |

Jim Lobe

WASHINGTON, Jun 12 1999 (IPS) - With the 10-month-old civil war in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) at a virtual standstill and intervening nations tiring of the conflict, US officials believe the chances are good for a negotiated peace.

They are looking toward the next summit of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) in Lusaka this month as an next opportunity for pushing a cease-fire, particularly among the outside powers whose intervention on side or another has fuelled the current conflict.

“After months of diplomatic and military stagnation, several recent developments suggest there has been a shift in thinking within the region – in favour of political and diplomatic action versus overwhelming reliance on armed force,” according to Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Susan Rice.

Testifying before a Senate hearing Tuesday, Rice stressed that many obstacles stood in the way of a settlement.

The most important could be the refusal so far of Congolese President Laurent Kabila to negotiate with the rebel opposition which itself recently split, in part over its willingness to negotiate with Kabila, observers said.

It also was not clear that the SADC nations, who had tried to mediate the conflict from the outset, was the appropriate body to bring about a settlement, the observers added.

Since its outbreak last August, the civil war in Congo- Kinshasha has become the most complicated in modern African history.

Rebels, who in 1997 allied with Kabila to oust former President Mobutu Sese Seko, quickly captured most of the eastern third of the country with the help of Rwandan and Ugandan troops.

They also briefly threatened Kinshasa itself in the western part of the country but were pushed out by Angolan troops who backed Kabila; then Chad, Namibia and Zimbabwe also came to Kabila’s aid with troops and military equipment.

Adding to the mix has been the involvement of other foreign forces, the most important being ex-Rwandan army troops and militia, many of whom participated in the 1994 Rwandan genocide.

Rice charged Tuesday that Kinshasa had “actively armed and trained 10,000-15,000” of these forces to fight on its behalf.

The war also has become entangled with other regional conflicts, according to US officials and independent analysts. Angola’s intervention was triggered primarily by fears about the manoeuvrings of its UNITA insurgurgents which have long depended on rear bases and logistical support in the Congo.

In addition, said Rice, Sudan had used the conflict to provide aid to anti-government rebels in neighbouring Uganda.

At the same time, added Marina Ottaway, an Africa specialist at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Libya has been helping finance the intervention of Zimbabwe, whose president, Robert Mugabe, has mining interests in the Congo.

“The current conflict in the Congo is the widest inter-state war in Africa in modern history and potentially one of the most dangerous conflicts in the world today,” Rice noted.

Yet, recent developments suggest that progress in disentangling the conflict now may be possible.

The Angolan government, while retaining a military presence in the DRC, had been forced to take home most of its forces in order to defend itself against rebel forces in its own country, according to State Department analysts.

In mid-April, Libya, Congo, Uganda, and Chad signed an agreement mediated by Col. Muammar Khadafi, calling for a cease- fire, the deployment of an African peacekeeping force and the withdrawan of Rwandan and Ugandan troops.

Chad subsequently began withdrawing its troops, and Uganda, whose troops are based in the northeast, has generally avoided fighting.

Most important, according to Rice, Rwanda declared a unilateral cease-fire on May 28. Although reports that Rwandan forces had shelled government positions, US analysts said it was not clear whether these actions were taken in response to attacks.

“The fact is that the parties have pretty well fought themselves to a standstill, and the economies of all the neighbours are hurting,” said one US analyst.

In particular, he added, the international financial institutions, such as the World Bank, were putting heavy pressure on Zimbabwe to cease its involvement in the war. “They don’t want to give it money if it’s fighting a war,” he said.

On the other hand, reports of the government’s bombing of Uvira and Bukavu and of the shootdown by rebel forces of Zimbabwean aircraft ten days ago have muddied the picture, as has the split in the main rebel group, the Congolese Rally for Democracy (R CD), over the question of whether to negotiate or seek a military victory.

In her testimony, Rice stressed that all the states involved in the conflict accepted SADC’s mediation, which so far has been led by Zambian President Frederick Chiluba.

Moreover the SADC itself was leery of any outside power, like the United States, “hijacking” peace efforts, she said. As a result, Washington has confined its efforts to supporting the SADC initiative.

Some analysts believe, however, that the SADC may not be the best mediator because two of its members – Namibia and Zimbabwe – have sent troops to fight on behalf of the government and because it has failed to offer a negotiating role to the rebels.

“SADC cannot mediate the conflict because it is a party to the conflict itself,” William Zartman, head of African studies at Johns Hopkins School for Advanced International Studies here, told the Senate committee Tuesday.

Ottaway agreed that SADC’s role may be problematic. Most important, she said, SADC is “not forcing President Kabila to confront the domestic problems of the country.”

Both Zartman and Ottaway stressed that Washington should use its influence not only to bring the internal parties together, but also to broaden participation in peace talks to include other DRC forces.

“The key to managing the regional conflict is the restoration of a state in the Congo,” said Ottaway.

“This will not happen unless Kabila not only negotiates with the insurgents, but also undertakes a process of political consultation with all political parties, regional governors, organisations of civil society, and other significant interest groups to reach an agreement on how the Congo can be put back again – or, if necessary, divided.”