As the Rwandan government accuses Cyril Ramaphosa of lying and South Africa tries to understand why its troops keep dying in eastern DRC, there’s more heat than light around what seems to be a losing battle for both Ramaphosa and the SANDF.
Of course, parties on all sides continue to insist that it’s all very simple.
According to Ramaphosa, the SANDF is in the DRC to support a multinational peacekeeping force tasked with keeping M23 rebels at bay near Goma — the same M23 the UN accuses Rwanda of arming and funding.
For his part, Rwandan President Paul Kagame is adamant that the foreign military contingent are in the DRC not as peacekeepers but as allies of the Forces Democratiques de Liberation du Rwanda (FDLR), a militia linked to the Hutu murder squads that carried out the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.
As for backing M23, well, according to Kagame they are an entirely unaffiliated Congolese rebel group, and if they happen to be fighting the enemies of Rwanda, then that’s just a happy coincidence.
I understand the frustrations with Ramaphosa, but I would warn against a rush towards proclaiming heroes and villains, especially in one of the world’s murkiest wars.
Supporters of both men have been echoing their dogmatism, but partisanship hasn’t necessarily followed national lines: in South Africa, where Ramaphosa is deeply unpopular and where Rwanda is held up by many as a shining example of what a state can be (who needs a free press or term limits anyway?), comments under online news reports reveal considerable support for Kagame, or at least a willingness to assume the worst of Ramaphosa.
I understand the frustrations with Ramaphosa, but I would warn against a rush towards proclaiming heroes and villains, especially in one of the world’s murkiest wars.
Rather, it might be wiser to consider the few things we do know.
The first is that the current crisis in Goma was caused neither by Kagame or Ramaphosa but by the DRC’s long-standing reluctance or even refusal to see the Banyamulenge in the eastern part of the country — people who speak the language of Rwanda and who have close ties to the Tutsis — as part of the DRC.
Having been cut adrift by Kinshasa in a part of the DRC still haunted by many of the Hutu génocidaires who fled west out of Rwanda after the 1994 massacres, it was perhaps inevitable that many would seek the protection of, and support, a group like M23.
Second, it seems that neither side is being entirely honest about M23. Certainly, Kagame’s denials are futile: there is mounting evidence that M23 is supported by Rwanda. But whether they are rebels or something else is vague: one might argue that, instead of funding an insurrection against Kinshasa, Kagame is using M23 to create a buffer between Rwanda and any group that might want to try a repeat of the 1994 horror.
Whether you believe that argument will depend on your opinion of Kagame or other leaders who suppress dissent to the extent that he does: it goes without saying that it serves Kagame very well to have the permanent threat of appalling violence hovering out in the jungle to the west, whether that threat is real, greatly exaggerated or fabricated. Nothing gives presidents more power than an enemy at the gate, and a shooting war right on Kagame’s doorstep is political gold for a man highly skilled in all the tricks of a practised autocrat.
Finally, and perhaps most importantly, is to acknowledge how little we know. Politicians and their supporters keep talking sovereignty, freedom and security, but I don’t think it’s overly cynical to point out the vast mineral wealth of the region being fought over, to remind ourselves that whenever there is plunder up for grabs, the line between the interest of nation-states and the interests of rich, dangerous men can become extremely blurred.
We can’t know — and perhaps never will — whether or to what extent the various players are invested in eastern DRC, but Rwandan spokesperson Yolande Makolo was not telling the whole truth when she told 702 on Thursday that “no-one wants war”.
We are no longer children who believe the old nationalist fairy-tale that war is a sort of natural disaster, like a disease or a drought, that overcomes nations. Almost always, war is somebody’s business plan, and we must assume that there are many, many people who definitely want this war, whether they are arms dealers supplying both sides, or tech giants who’ll keep getting minerals for their phones and tablets and electric cars at bargain basement prices thanks to an endless supply of desperate, easily exploited labourers.
They say there are no winners in a war. That’s not true. There are no poor winners in a war. For the rich and connected, well, it’s a very different story indeed.
Would you like to comment on this article?
Sign up (it's quick and free) or sign in now.
Please read our Comment Policy before commenting.