By UMUTIJIMA JULE
At first I was so amazed that a person whom I used to value as someone
who understands best the mess his native country has been undergoing for the
last 60 years like Vava Tampa of the Save the Congo would under
analyze the Congolese situation this wrong. After reading his analysis in the
British owned newspaper the Guardian, it left many of us asking ourselves
whether Mr. Vava Tamba was truthful to himself or he did it for
the fundraising purpose. As a Congolese of Masisi and a Rwandophone I
never expected to read a shallow analysis from any Congolese who is engaged in
advocacy leave alone a respectable person like Vava Tampa.
Here is why I think
Vava Tampa missed the point either willingly or unwillingly. When I say it is
willingly it might be because the fact that Mr. Vava is living in UK where Mr.
Tony Blair steered such huge influence both politically and economically Mr.
Vava did not want to interfere with his fundraising avenue. If it is not for fundraising
purposes then Mr. Vava a lot to explain to his fellow Congolese especially the
"Combatants Congolais." Here are some of the points Mr. Vava got
absolutely wrong in his analysis published in the Guardian this August 6, 2014:
1.
In his introductory
statement, Mr. Vava started underrating the conflict in DR Congo as the
"the only one in the world which is relatively easy and affordable to
solve." This alone shows lack of deeper understanding of the complexity of
the Congolese conflict in itself. This opening statement draws questions
whether Mr. Vava has sat down and looks at the conflicts in DRC as not just a
simple intercommunity wars over resources such as water, land, fishing,
grazing, and farming issues but a more well thought of imperialistic conflict
that has drawn both regional and international interests which fuel the
conflict in DRC. Mr. Vava deliberately ignores regional players in DRC conflict
such as Rwanda, Burundi, and Uganda who have kept their military force presence
in DRC since 1997. Mr. Vava also does not look at international involvement
like US, UK, Belgium, Canada, and other countries whose big corporations are
involved in illegal mining in DRC. To remind Mr. Vava what is happening in his
country of which he portrays to care so much for I have put the link of those
major profiteering companies here which are under the page called Foreign Corporate Exploitation
at the Friends of the Congo website. This alone will help Mr. Vava understand and
explain to us his own analysis about these companies whose list is published
with Global Witness. It
would be a disaster not only for the DRC but the entire Great Lakes Region if
you have not read or heard of it yet. This would signal to us why the war in
Congo is not yet over. If the DRC war was the easiest conflict to end as you
say it then we won't be talking about 8 million plus lives lost in the last 20
years.
2. I am glad you
mentioned the visit of the then secretary of state Hillary Clinton and the now Secretary of States John Kerry. It would be either to play safe or to politically
carry out a devil advocate if you think that first, Hillary Clinton was in DRC
to end the conflict. If you have been following it up well, a University
Student in Kinshasa asked Hillary about the role of her husband in miseries
that have befallen Congolese people and she got agitated and said that she is
not responsible of her husband’s affairs. Well, if you really want to bring
peace you should start from where the Congolese war started from. It all began
when Bill Clinton, the husband of Hillary Clinton sponsored a war of Congolese
people and later occupied the DRC through Uganda and Rwanda. Therefore, to end
the Congolese should still start from those who waged war against innocent
Congolese people in 1996. It is amazing and astonishing to learn that you
interpreted Hillary's visit to DRC as a peacemaking mission to Kinshasa. If it
were the war would have ended the same day she jetted in Goma. However, that
was the beginning of another insurgent by the name M23. I hope you remember how
it was defeated later you don’t write that President Obama and Madam Clinton
defeated M23.
3. I liked the way you said that "US strategies have been, at best, passive and neither
DRC’s Joseph Kabila nor Rwanda’s Paul Kagame will willingly end this
conflict." You are absolutely right but we have also to remember that US
is as guilty as Paul Kagame. In 1984 US sponsored the Rwandan RPF to invade a
sovereign country Rwanda. These activities were facilitated by the American
organization for refugees. According to an American scholar Howard French in
his article “Kagame’s Hidden War in
Congo," US has been active in all miseries both
Rwandan and Congolese people have been having all these years. To expect them
to resolve this issue is like to call for Arsonists to become firefighters and
intervene to extinguish the fires that have set up themselves.
4. Mr. Vava said in
his article that "Saving the Congo begins with addressing the crisis of
governance and legitimacy in Kinshasa." I do not think that governance and
leadership in DRC is a problem. The problem is how that political system came
to power in DRC. It all began in Rwanda and Uganda and that is where the root
of all Congolese problems lie. Therefore, whoever is genuine to addressing
Congolese leadership and political problems should go back to where all this
mess started. That is in Rwanda. If you remember President Joseph Kabila was
enthroned by Rwanda and Uganda after the death of Kabila senior. By addressing
the issues in Rwanda it would by default solve Congolese problems. If you do
not see how that would happen I would like to give you a simple framework of
how events would happen. By US stopping any military and political support to
Rwanda, this would weak Kagame's regime and put him and his government into a
panic mood. The same would reflect in Uganda where Museveni who is also another
minority would feel threatened by the changes. This scenario would not only
force Mr. Kagame to start negotiating with the Hutu majority on how to better
share power in Rwanda and establish democracy to save not only his own future
but the future of his offspring as well. When this happens, the Hutu rebels who
have made Eastern DRC their home for the last 20 years would eagerly lay their
arms down and call for facilitation in voluntary repatriation exercise. This
would mark the end of all Congolese troubles. Consequently, when Mr. Kabila
sees that the change has started unfolding in the Eastern part of Congo, he
will have no options left but to institute democratic elections and put a
retirement clause in the constitution just to protect his future. That is
the simplest way of ending the Congolese conflict that you might have either
ignored deliberately or you have not thought about it in your analysis. This
would solve the three issues you mentioned in your article of mandating the UN
Brigade because this Brigade will only be needed to oversee the next general
elections to ensure a safer transition from president Kabila to someone else
that Congolese people would choose. There won't be any need for a Congolese
Government of National Unity because Congolese themselves do not have problems
among themselves. If you give them a president of their choice they will be
peaceful. There might not be a need for another International Tribunal Court on
Congo because through the establishment of the Commission of Truth Justice and
Reconciliation (TJRC), Congo will be able to manage their differences and bring
justice to the victims as it has been the case in South Africa, Sierra Leone,
and Liberia. Therefore, this would be more economical and effective.
5. The issue of Flushing
out FDLR is a misplaced energy and a misplaced argument in your analysis. FDLR
has never been a problem to Congolese people as it has been CNDP, MRC, and M23.
In fact many Congolese people, especially those living in Masisi and Rutchuru
have always said that without the presence of FDLR in their communities we
could now be talking about another genocide because Banyamurenge and Kagame’s
intention was to exterminate all Congolese Hutus and Congolese people who do
not support CNDP, MRC, and M23. Whenever massacre was taking place like the one
took place in Kiwanja, FDLR intervened and stopped the massacre. The friendship
and relationship among the people of North Kivu and FDLR have been one of its
kind. We should not forget that communities around where FDLR controls have
intermarried by FDLR families. This is why, despite several efforts to
exterminate FDLR in the region have failed miserably. A good argument about how
to end the presence of FDLR in Eastern DRC would include seeking a lasting
solution to Rwandan problems. US and President Obama understands well that
drones and military might will not solve FDLR problem except radicalizing
Rwandan majorities. President Obama understands that the problem of the great
Lakes Region is Kagame and RPF rule in Rwanda. That is why when President Obama
wanted to end the M23 insurgence he just rang President Kagame, as you
mentioned in your article, and asked him to end any contacts with the group.
This hammered the last nail to the M23's coffin. However, he cannot
end Kabila's and Kagame's regime the same way because there are several people
in his government and his country profiteering in the DRC's chaos. These people
are influential in the Democratic party of President Obama. We can just mention
people like Bill Clinton, Hillary Clinton, Samantha Power who is the US
secretary at UN, Suzanna Rice, the former US secretary at UN, Russ Ferguson,
Tony Blair the former UK Prime Minister, David Cameroon the current UK Prime
Minister, and the famous Televangelist Rick Warren the man of the cross who
manages smuggled coltan in Kigali.
Without taking care of all the
points I have mentioned in this critique article, DR Congo woes and sufferings
are going to continue at least for another 20 years to come. US companies
involved in conflict minerals bring in billions and billions into the ailing
American economy. The friendship of Bill Clinton, Tony Blair, and Kagame is
tied by a partnership in crimes like the one Col. Mohamar Gaddafi had with
Nicolas Sarkozy. Therefore, Bwana Clinton and Blair cannot allow themselves to
let the notorious criminal Kagame to go right now while they are still alive
because it would expose their dirty dealings with Kagame. If you remember well
in 2010 after the publication of the UN Mapping Report on DRC 2010 Bwana Kagame
threatened to expose those who sent Kagame to DRC. The results were to fight
fire by fire where
No comments:
Post a Comment