What is going on between Kabila and the West?

april 1998

In my view, we should not look at the dispute between Kabila on one side, France, Belgium and USA (triad) on the other side as a new conflict. It is a fight about "who should control the Congo"? This is a century old fight that Kabila has inherited. First, it was Lumumba and now Kabila. If it were not Kabila, it would be any Congolese leader who tries to run the Congo from within. Fundamentally, this is a fight about the Congolese sovereignty on one side and the triad's determination to control the Congo's minerals on the other side.

What is different about this fight this time is that USA and its allies can no longer hide behind the communism threats. Belgium cannot come in the Congo under pretext of fighting slavery anymore. France, after its failure to keep Mobutu in the power has been overexposed. She claims that she has now a new African policy. However, she is still exerting its power indirectly through UN and she is shamelessly exploiting the conflicts in the Great Lakes area. In the Congo we say: "I was bit by a snake; now I am afraid of lizards' heads."

What is this fight about?

First, it is about the attitude and the arrogance of the western powers, and more specifically, the comportment of USA, France and Belgium in the Congo. These three countries never accepted the idea that the Congo is a sovereign nation. They have always denied the Congolese the right to auto-determination. To make their point, they have intervened militarily in the Congo jointly or separately more than once. When they could not intervene directly they did it via a third party such as UN forces in 1960's, Moroccans during Shaba conflicts and now with Mai-Mai today.

France, Belgium and USA believe that it is their "god given rights" to "control the Congo". France is still holding to its African hegemony. Belgium is a former colonial power that has not noticed the change in the Congolese leadership. The USA is a hegemonistic imperial power that does not tolerate nationalistic action in the Congo. All three countries mix humanitarian actions and economic self-interests. These self-appointed "guardians" are convinced that they know what is good for the Congo.

They do have a hidden agenda that they publicly dub "aiding the Congo". They act as if without them the Congo will cease to exist. Because of this attitude, for over 100 years these countries have been involved in internal affairs of the Congo. Be it the creation of "CFS" in 1885, the enslavement of Congolese during "Red Rubber Era", the assassination of Lumumba, the Katanga secession, UN resolutions and wars against democracy in 1960's, the imposition of Mobutu or the resolution of AFDL disputes with the Mobutu's Clan. These countries were involved and were the main actors and still believe that they should have the right to interfere in the Congolese politics anytime they so chose. Case in point, Belgium can bring in weapons and hide them in her Embassy without anyone asking a question. France can hide criminal generals and give them safe exit any time. USA can, in a sovereign country, advise the generals not to defend a city. These are diplomatically acceptable comportment in their thinking. After all, who is in charge in the Congo?

In the Second Republic, every development plan had to be sanctioned by France, USA or Belgium directly or via IMF and the World Bank. Every premier minister in the Mobutu's government had to be approved in Paris, Washington or Brussels. In many cases, these countries used to decide who should be a minister of foreign affairs or the governor of the Central Bank of the Congo (BCC). They still want things to be that way. This is what the west understands by "partnership". The West was accustomed to always dictate what kind of leadership the Congo should have and what kind of economic system the Congolese should implement. The problem here is that Kabila does not allow them. He seeks his advises in Africa and not want to follow the script. There is the foundation of accusations of "human right violations", "dictatorship" and "non-compliance with UN resolutions". This may be true but this not what the fight is about. Just read on.

All of the above is what I call "the old problem". This is the problem of the Congolese sovereignty. The Congolese has been fighting about his sovereignty since I can remember. Kabila's problem is to try to act independently of these "old allies". They want to be "consulted" in every facet of Congolese life. Kabila, by being uncompromising has picked a fight [our fight] that might give him a dark eye if he is not fast on his feet. He must learn how to talk, jab and move left and right because he is fighting the bullies. His opponents have all the means and can throw some deadly punches.

It seems to me that in this fight Kabila needs all the help he can get since he is an underdog. So far, he has been getting it neither from the internal opposition nor from the Congolese Diaspora. Kabila is not warmly received by the triad. He has not visited none of the three countries. This is an indication that things are not smooth between the triad and Kabila. The break-up between Kinshasa and the "triad" was highlighted by the President Clinton's visit to Africa. Kinshasa was not on his itinerary.

Why is Kabila disliked by the West? My view is that "human rights violation" and "lack of democracy" are just smoke-screens. This does not mean the Kabila's government has not violated some human rights. I am simply saying that the triad is taking advantage of the weakness of most African countries and making it look like the Congo is unique. Can you name one single country in Africa or Middle East that can have a clean bill on "human rights"? In USA, FRANCE and Belgium, is democracy really functioning? Ask Basques in France, Wallons in Belgium and African Americans in USA. They will give you a different picture. Democracy is a process not a product that can be packed and delivered to Congo. It evolves and it must be homegrown.

As for the war of the triad against Kabila, we probably will not know the real reasons. But, let me ask you this, do you think that if Kabila released all political prisoners, allowed political activities, and permitted UN investigators to do as they please, the West will be pleased? I think not.

If Kabila restored "democracy", "freedom of press", "free market" and did all of the above, will Western powers help the Congo? I think not. Do you really think Paris, Brussels and Washington are genuinely interested in all of the above. I think not.

Is Kabila anti-democracy? This remains to be seen when promised elections are held next year. But is it about democracy? I think not. If the Belgium was interested in democracy, it would have stood by Lumumba's government which was democratically elected. Instead, she undermined Lumumba's authority and prevented him from governing the country. If the France loved democracy, she would be in Algeria fighting with Islamists who had won democratic elections and now are labeled "terrorists". If USA supported democracy, Mobutu would not have lasted more than five years in the power. So, it is not about democracy. It is a question of western cultural, economic and democratic values and practices that are being imposed upon the Congo with heavy economic penalties for non-compliance.

Is it about "free market". No, the West has lost that argument because Kabila is a "free marketeer". As far as free market is concerned, the Congo is the only place on earth that I know where "free market" is fully implemented. In the Congo 70% of the economy is in the hands of foreigners. In banking, out of 12 banks, 10 are foreign owned. In construction, major construction companies are foreign controlled with ownership varying between 80 and 90%. Most of government construction contracts are awarded to foreign contractors. Mining, wholesale and retail business, real estate and manufacturing are controlled by foreign interests. The Congo eats 60% of imported food, uses 80% of imported oil, and 90% of tools, machinery and raw materials are imported. Do you think, French, Belgians and Americans would tolerate such domination in their own countries? I think not. So, Kabila has not practiced "protectionism" that we find in USA, France and Belgium

So, the whole thing is about controlling the Congo. The Congo is being besieged. To do it, the West has mobilized Internet, news media, UN and its agencies (IMF and WB). Pretty soon you will see churches and trade unions jumping on the band-wagon. Western media are now leading the fight. As you can see all kinds of intimidations are not spared. There are talks of "coup d'etat", "assassination plots", "pending DSP attacks", "marches in streets of Kinshasa", "world court for crimes against humanity" and one newspaper even suggested that "Congo be expelled from UN". There were talks in Washington about expelling the Congo from IMF and World Bank for "non-payment" of due interests on the foreign debt. All of the above is meant to intimidate the present Congolese leadership. I still remember one former US State Department stating: "Kabila will not get a penny if he does not behave. We have UN, IMF, and WB". This was back in May 1997.

What all these mean is that the Congo is again under attack. Kabila is not envisioning things when he says that he is being attacked. The saddest part of the above account is that [1] the diaspora is being manipulated, [2] Kabila may be forced to take defensive measures with predictable negative results; namely: a complete loss of a bit of individual and political freedom that the Congolese enjoy today, and possible the loss of an opportunity for smooth peaceful political reforms in the Congo.

So, what does the West want from Kabila?

What the West wants is the control of what is in the sub-soil of the Congo and it wants a politician who can "guaranty" the access to this wealth. Forget all talks about human rights and democracy. I can point to a couple dozen countries were human rights violations are worse but the West continues doing business as if nothing is happening. What the West wants is the control of the Congo and it wants to designate a politician who would not be responsive to his people. This is how the West sees democracy in the Congo.

What the West wants is to have the rights to come in and pay politicians and journalists, finance political parties and trade unions, establish ONG's that are not accountable to people or local authorities. The ONG's that are financially dependent on western donors. What the West wants is the right to buy elections so that it can put "its officers" in the key positions to serve its interests. This is the western idea of "free elections".

What the West wants is for Kabila to introduce "a liberal investment code" that will guaranty western corporations speedy "capital recovery" by giving them fat equipment and machine depreciation, free custom duties, 100% transfer of corporate profits, zero tax on revenue and salaries of "expatriates". This is called "free enterprise".

What the West wants is for Kabila to accept to pay $14 billions dollars that Mobutu contracted for Congolese generations yet to be born. The above amount is to be paid to western banks and governments ($1.5 billion to US government]. This is twice the total foreign aid that US is to give to the whole African Continent for the fiscal year 1998-1999. Think about that! In a sense, if Congo paid its debt, US can use that money to "aid" the whole continent for two years to come. This year, there was a plan for the Congo to pay $42 million dollars in interests as a "debt service". Meanwhile, the so-called "friends of Congo" or "ex-friends of Mobutu" have "promised" to "aid" the Congo with its development plan. Watch out! The word "aid" does not have the same meaning that you and I presume. It means to invest in the Congo in order to make more "profits". In this endeavor, USA proudly and "generously" promised $10 million dollars with more to come if "Kabila behaved". The whole Europe agreed to "contribute" $26 millions per year for the Kabila's triennal plan. Their condition is that Kabila stopped flirting with Iran, Libya, North Korean and China. We are back to "Cold-War" era. Why is it ok for the triad to trade with the very countries they tell the Congo not to? Well, what a deceptive trick! Kabila did not buy it. He vetoed his finance minister and the governor of BCC who went to Washington to negotiate with the IMF and WB.

What is all this about? The aims are hidden. Check the numbers. The Congo's world trade is with Europe, that is, over 70% of the Congo's exports and imports are tied to Europe (44% with Belgium]. The Congolese billions of dollars in mining sales transit by Belgium. Think about what one 100 million dollars can make in overnight investment? Sabena Airline is doing well on Kinshasa-Brussels route. Memling Hotel and Intercontinental hotels are doing extremely well. They charge $4 for a soda and over $200 per night in a country where the average monthly salary is $4 dollars. The triad wants to keep things that way. By the way, a simple arithmetic will show that if this year the Congo paid $42 million in back interests, it will pay $6 million more than all its "friends" ($42-10-26=6). Like Mobutu, I will ask, "who is aiding who?".

Is the above account the kind of "democracy" and "human rights" worth fighting for? Where is fairness? Will the Congolese be better off if Kabila "behaved"? I think not. Mobutu was pro-West yet things remained worse for the people of the Congo. Where was the "western concern" when Tshisekedi, Oleghankoy, Kapita, Bwakiem and their followers were clubbed, jailed, tortured and banished in the inter-land? After 103 years of systematic pillage of the Congo, the West is now hiding behind "human rights" and "free elections". What about the rights to food, education, health and descent housing? Does Kabila prevent the West from sending massive economic aid to starving villagers? I think not.

Kabila is learning how to be a president. He needs advises and patience. If after two years, he does not show any progress toward the nation building then people of the Congo can remove him by any means. The fight between West and Kabila is about sovereignty and fairness in international relations. But why is he fighting alone without the support of the Congolese Diaspora? Is it apathy, skepticism, ethnicism, ignorance or malediction?

My answer is that the diaspora, with a few exceptions, lacks information or is ill informed. Look at the source of its information, RFI, BBC, VOA, Le Soir, Le Monde, New York Times, Washington Post, AP, AFP, and Reuters. What the Diaspora forgets is that these are political weapons of the West. We forget that these news agencies have "owners", "editorial boards", "chief editors" and predictable economic doctrines. We forget that reporters are human beings who carry with them cultural and political views. We forget that news agencies are profit-oriented entreprises that operate in an environment of competition and sensationalism. We forget that journalists love anecdotes that the readership prefers. The proof of this statement is in the editorials and letters to the editors I have been reading lately on internet sites. Why haven't these sources report anything positive about the Congo? There was one report that confirmed that three politicians now in prison in the Congo were executed. There was another report about Minister Bizima being poisoned. What about the Central African Action Network advocating "a conditional aid to Congo" or "a small aid via ONG's"?

I suggest that US implements a policy advocated by President Clinton during his trip to Africa. France should implement its non-militaristic policy toward Africa and get out of Great Lakes. The Belgium should become decisive and stop wavering. The Congo is the one place in the world where what is said in Belgium counts. Where else can Belgians have the privilege and prestige they enjoy in the Congo?

Let us not make Kabila's government irrelevant for peace sake. The Congo can be plunged in a worse chaos if there is no strong authority. The political reforms in the Congo is a Congolese business. Let Congolese people handle it in their own way.

The role that USA, France and Belgium should play in the present Congo is to undo the wrongs of the past and to facilitate the dialogue between Congolese power contenders. The West should not undermine the authority of Kabila's government by trying to give "economic aid to ONG's". Congo needs massive economic aid to ensure peace. ONG's are not equipped nor do they have organization structures to handle the present Congolese infrastructural problems. The Mobutists had their chance. They blew it. Some politicians who served in the Mobutu's empire can be rehabilitated. The smart ones are those who realized that they were misled and kept quiet while Kabila is trying his strategy. If he failed then the Congolese, by democratic means, will remove him from the power. Another civil war will profit nobody. Those who have pillaged the Congo and those who have bloody hands must know that the people's justice will catch them. Next time, it may not be Kabila to save their skins.

Professor Badi Mulumba, bkamu@aol.com, April 23, 1998