AFRICANEWS

Zimbabwe/DRCongo

Why we must intervene

Conflict

Right from inception, the involvement of allies in the Congo DR was received with mixed feelings. Some argued that the Congo DR crisis should have been left to the Congolese to resolve while others were, or are still, in favour of intervention. Our staffer Newton Sibanda talked to Zimbabwean High Commissioner to Zambia, Tirivafi John Kangai and now brings out his arguments for the intervention.

Many quarters questioned Zimbabwe's involvement in the Congo DR right from the beginning. They argue that there is no justification, moral or geographical for its involvement. What do you say?

Zimbabwe's military assistance to the Democratic Republic of Congo, in partnership with our allies, should be understood as a Pan-African commitment to peace and stability in the Southern Africa region. That assistance to the legitimate government of President Kabila, which was provided at the request of the DRC government, is in full accordance with Article 51 of the United Nations Charter regarding the rights of states to self-defence, and with the 1997 OAU Harare Summit condemnation of any change of legitimate government by unconstitutional means. It is also fully in line with the resolution of the inter-State Defence and Security Committee adopted at its meeting in Cape Town, South Africa in 1995, where SADC countries agreed to take collective action in case of any attempts to remove legitimate governments by force. When we talk about self-defence, it means you can invite friends to defend your sovereignty. From the very inception of Zimbabwe's involvement in the DRC, we have always sought a negotiated settlement to the conflict in line with the letter and spirit of the UN and OAU charters, as well as the Southern Africa Development Commission Treaty. Although there are hurdles along the way, we believe a negotiated solution is indeed possible and, on the diplomatic front, our governments' efforts are certainly pointed in that direction.

It is also argued that with a declining economy and rising poverty, Zimbabwe can ill-afford the luxury of sending troops to the DRC.

Zimbabwe believes that economic development and progress is possible only in conditions of peace and stability in our region. It is on this basis that, despite Zimbabwe's current economic difficulties, we have made a conscious decision to use some of our limited resources and to invest in regional peace. We took that decision because continued instability is bound to negatively impact on the region's commerce and industry and on its capacity and ability to develop. Yes, we have limited resources but we believe if there is no peace in the region, we can't have development. So we went there to restore peace in the region by ensuring the withdrawal of invading forces.We have limited resources but you should also remember that some frontline countries like Zambia which also had limited resources support our struggle. They sacrificed lives and property. The need for invading forces to withdraw and pave way for the people to choose their leadership under peace and tranquility is very important. We have to sacrifice.

While Zimbabwe is failing to solve the problem of poor salaries for civil servants and halt strikes for improved salaries and conditions of service, is it justified for it to be involved in the DRC where it is alleged to be spending millions of dollars per day and suffering heavy casualties?

I don't have figures of how much Zimbabwe is spending on the troops in the DRC. That is a war situation and certain information has to be withheld. But the amounts are not as high as they are being mentioned by certain media. Those are exaggerations. Zimbabwe is not alone in the intervention and the DRC is footing most of the expenses with the help of friends. As can and does happen in any conflict situation, there have been losses and injuries suffered by both sides to the conflict. The aggressors in the DRC and those who support their aggression have inundated the international community with fabricated statistics of allied losses, killed or captured. The truth is that while the allies have suffered some losses and have had some troops captured, they have inflicted much heavier damage on the rebels and their supporters than they or their backers have been willing to admit.

Some scholars and critics argue that Zimbabwe did not help Kabila to come to power and therefore has no duty to keep him in power.

We are not keeping Kabila in power as such. We are assisting an SADC state which has been invaded. It should be noted that the allied military intervention in the DRC received the full support of all SADC states, not only during the Summit of Non-Aligned countries held in Durban, South Africa, in September 1998, but also, subsequently, at the SADC summit held in Mauritius later the same month. In addition, United Nations security Council Resolution 1234 of 9/4/99, among others, explicitly differentiates between invited and uninvited forces in the DRC conflict. As already mentioned, the allied military presence in the DRC is at the request and invitation of the legitimate government of that country. That is why we are saying that when there is peace , the people of Congo DR can choose their leader. we are not supporting an individual. Zimbabwe, of course in not alone in providing assistance to the DRC. In partnership with our regional allies, Namibia and Angola, we have been able to repel the invading forces from Kinshasa, where life has now returned to near normal. Together with these allies, with the assistance of troops from Chad, and indeed with the understanding and support of some leading members of the international community who acknowledge and condemn the aggression being perpetrated against the sovereignty of the DRC, we continue to hold the line and to block Ugandan and Rwanda-led attempts to further the extent of the aggression against the government and people of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

It is also argued that Kabila was equally a rebel who rose through the barrel of the gun.

Someone would say Kabila's government is not legitimate because it was not elected. But it was recognised by the 1997 Organisation of African Unity summit in Harare and Congo is now a member of the SADC. The OAU took into account that Mobutu's regime was undemocratic, corrupt and a puppet of certain Western forces. That is why the OAU recognised Kabila's government.

It is widely said that Zimbabwe's involvement is based more on Mugabe's personal than national interests; that he has massive investments in the DRC that include diamond mines.

The Zimbabwe government's decision to assist the DRC is inspired by our firm belief that our SADC region should take primary ownership of the peace process in that country, and is not in any way driven or motivated by personal interests as has been alleged in various Western and even certain African media. It is in this regard that President Chiluba of Zambia has played and continues to play a key and leading role towards a regional solution to the DRC crisis. It is not true that President Mugabe has personal interests or investments in the DRC. There are bilateral agreements between the DRC and Zimbabwe. Any business going on is between the two governments. We are trading with the DRC just like any other country.

It is also believed that Zimbabwe's lead in the involvement is based on the war of supremacy between Mugabe and Mandela. Mugabe is said to be worried of being eclipsed as a leading statesman by Mandela.

That is not true. President Mugabe has said before that he is his own man and he is leading the country so that there can be peace and stability in the region.

Zimbabwe's involvement in the DRC is said to have impacted very negatively on the economy. Do you acknowledge that?

To some degree yes, but we again come back to sacrifice for peace and stability, yes we are sacrificing but at the end of the day, there will be peace and stability in the region. So we are investing in peace and stability by sacrificing.

It is also believed that Mugabe's decision to send troops to the DRC is just another way of diverting public attention from worsening problems at home.

No, that is not true. We are working hard to resolve the pressing problems at home, be it the land issue, food security and now the quest for a new home grown Constitution. That process is in full swing. So we are not abandoning domestic issues. I was at home recently and I saw this going on. This information was exaggerated by certain individuals, media circles and some western forces who did not like like our land reforms which are going to benefit the majority and our assistance to the DRC. They exaggerated problems at home.

Is it true that there is widespread discontent among Zimbabweans on the issue of sending troops to the DRC?

There is no widespread discontent. It is just a few opposition parties and individuals. They are in minority. but again, certain media circles tend to highlight the views of the minority for reasons given earlier on.

For how long will the Zimbabwean troops maintain their presence in the DRC considering the cost implications?

Well, we are for peace. There have been recent meetings such as the Comesa one in Nairobi where consultations were made and it seems the majority are for a resolution and a ceasefire. It is only Rwanda which just wants to continue fighting. If only pressure can be put on Rwanda to join others in agreeing to a ceasefire and cessation of hostilities, our troops can pull out. But as long as Rwanda continues fighting and DRC continues asking for our assistance, we will continue fighting the invasion. it is the invasion which must be stopped first. most of the countries including Uganda are now eager to cease hostilities and sign for a ceasefire.

Do you acknowledge that the forces fighting to oust Kabila are not only backed by Rwanda and Uganda, but also by the USA? If so, what do you see as the prospects of ending this conflict in the DRC given the magnitude of the forces at play.

We are aware that rebels, Uganda and Rwanda, are getting support from certain circles. I think this evidenced by the fact that certain Western powers are not condemning the invasion. Others are pointing fingers at the victim, President Kabila and his allies. We are supporting justice and fighting for peace. We are therefore prepared to sacrifice for peace and stability in the region.

Why do you think other countries in the region have elected not to send their troops to the DRC?

We can not speak on behalf of other countries. I am sure they have their own reasons or constraints. But definitely, the invasion is condemned.

Given the above circumstances, don't you think Zimbabwe needs to rethink the justification of its involvement in the DRC?

No, as stated earlier, there are reasons and principles we have given why we are there. And those reasons stand. We are once more sacrificing for peace and stability in the region. We are once more assisting an SADC state in driving away aggressors or invaders and quelling a rebellion. So there can not be any reconsideration on such principles. In fact we are happy that we have been able to avoid a genocide in most of DRC and that we protected lives and property which could have been destroyed, in Kinshasa in particular and other areas in general.

| CONTENTS | AFRICANEWS HOMEPAGE |

AFRICANEWS - Koinonia Media Centre, P.O. Box 8034, Nairobi, Kenya
tel: +254.2.576175 (voice) Fax:- +254.2.577892 (fax-modem)
AFRICANEWS on line is by Koinonia Media Centre