Talk:First Congo War

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces... African military history task force

photo to go on page when there's a bit more text:

[edit] Accuracy questionned

I must put in doubt the total accuracy of the information on the beginning of this war. That the Anti-Mobutu forces simply gathered up is not true. They were propted and financed to gather by Rwanda and Uganda, who had military, political and financial interests in asserting some level of control at least on the Eastern part of the country, if not the whole country. Many of these rebels had converted to smugling businesses, and such. They had no standing to fight Mobutu, without the APR of Kagame, and the UPDF of Museveni. As mch as the resulting departure of Mobutu was at face value beneficial to the country, the motivations were NOT to liberate the country - it was more of a welcomed side-effect of an opportunistic operation, that sought to use the alleged persecution of the Banyamulenge (who have indeed been dealt pretty raw and painful cards by the Mobutu regime), to justify military presence in The Eastern Congo, by two occupying powers. When they realized it was not going to fly, they engineered a puppet rebellion, made up of a vast majority of Banyamulenge people, and a few old-guard nominal anti-Mobutu resistants, to sell their invasion as a Liberation. A purely politically motivated manufactured rebellion... that just happened to be succesful, as Mobutu's apparatus was already rotten to the core. And so they went ahead, all the way to Kinshasa. The creation turned against its creator, however, when they felt legitimized, and realized the extent of the manipulation (the very official Congolese Armed Forces Chief of Staff was an officer of Rwanda's Army, namely James Kabarebe) - hence, the Second Congo War. Please discuss.

Themalau 14:30, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Themalau, I partially agree. The "financial interests" certainly existed at his early state, but the overwhelming concern was the destabilizing effect of the genocidaire attacks, as described at Great Lakes refugee crisis. The degree to which the rebellion was planned should be clearer here than it is. (It's easier to see at Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo.) While the resource extraction clearly becomes very important soon after the invasion, I don't see a lot of evidence that it was as important as the initial security interests. Certainly the overthrow of Mobutu seems to have been opportunistic after the clearing of the border refugee camps, which perhaps explains why Uganda doesn't enter this story in a big way until after the opening act. I disagree with your lines of causation for the start of the Second Congo War. The heavy foreign influence was delegitimizing to Kabila's government and positioning himself as a fighter against foreign occupation was legitimizing, so the causation is the reverse that you describe. He did not rebel against Uganda and Rwanda because he was legitimate; he gained legitimacy because of his fighting. I'm not as knowledgeable about the financial deals as I should be, but there are hints in what I have read that Kabila aligned with Mobutu, et al, as they had stakes in the eastern mines. Regardless, the current article is clearly inadequate, especially in its description of the formation of the conflict, so your additions would be much appreciated. Cheers, BanyanTree 16:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

A report here states

While these groups undoubtedly threaten the security of Congolese people at the local level, the security arguments put forward by the Rwandan and Ugandan governments are questionable. In particular, the Rwandan army’s activities on the ground have not appeared to be consistent with their posited security concerns. Evidence suggests that, in the Kivus, the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) and RCD have ignored information as to the locations of the Interahamwe. On various occasions, local sources have given evidence of collusion between the RPA/RCD and Interahamwe over the extraction and trading of minerals in eastern DRC

If the Rwandan Army is collaborating with the Interahamwe to loot mineral wealth from Congo, you can be pretty sure Rwanda's claims about wanting to root out Interhamwe are not to be taken at face value.

Didier Gondola, author of "The History of the DRC", has mentioned to me in an email that "Opération Turquoise" needs to be mentioned as one of the causes of the trouble in the East. I'm sure he won't mind if I paste his main points about the Congo War articles here:

This is a great set of articles well researched and very well balanced. Just a few suggestions:

1. If there's room you should mention "Opération Turquoise" imposed by the French to Mobutu. It is important to mention it because it prompted the refugee crisis in eastern Congo.
2. Joseph Kabila was appointed with a unanimous vote from the Congolese Parliament. To make it more understandable to the general audience there's a need to say that the Congolese parliamentaries were, for the most part, handpicked by Laurent Kabila and therefore could only plebiscite his son. Readers need to understand that the choice of Joseph Kabila was disapproved by the majority of Congolese, given that he speaks neither French nor Lingala and may not even be the biological son of Laurent Kabila. The majority of Congolese balked at the fact that once more they were imposed a leader that wouldn't have certainly won had democratic elections been held. I sensed that frustration still lingering during a visit to Kinshasa last summer.
3. Under the heading "Effects" it states that the war "has destroyed the economy of an already poor region." You may need to qualify that the very reason why eastern Congo is the theater of this protracted conflict has to do with the fact that this a rich area (in terms of resources) with a poor economy.
4. I am surprised the botched transitional formula of 1-4 (one president and four vice-presidents) is not covered in the final segments. This is one of the main obstacles to peace and democracy in Congo.

-Xed 19:56, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Hi Xed. Long time, no speak. I note that the linked report you quote from is from 2002, while I am arguing about the primary motivation of the invasion six years earlier. I do not contest that Uganda and Rwanda were primarily interested in resource extraction by the start of the Second Congo War in 1998, but I have not seen evidence that it was their primary motivation in late 1996. We shouldn't assume that motivations detailed late in the conflict would be the same as motivations in the beginning.

I'm pleased that Dr. Gondola was positive overall about the Congo War articles. In response to his bullet points:

1. I have not seen an account that blames the French operation for the refugee crisis. It is clear from the sources I used to start Great Lakes refugee crisis that the Hutu government was coordinating a massive exodus in front of the RPF advance. While I haven't researched Opération Turquoise itself, there was clearly going to be refugee outflow into Zaire and the main role of the French operation was to delay the inevitable. I would need clarification/sources before making making these edits.
2. I have modified the relevant sentence at Second Congo War#Kabila's assassination.
3. Good point Given that Dr. Gondola is describing a contributing factor of the conflict rather than a result, I don't think that is proper section to modify. There is quite a lot of information on resource extraction in Second Congo War and I'm not sure where else it can be mentioned. I occasionally think that a Role of resources in the Second Congo War article would be useful.
4. I'm afraid I have heard of this but have almost zero background knowledge. BTW, our article on Transitional Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is in need of help. I don't suppose we can get Dr. Gondola to come back?  ;)

Regards, BanyanTree 21:15, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The motivations changed, but I still think getting control of Congo's resources was an important part of Rwanda and Ugandas (and L Kabilas) plan at the start of the First War. But you're right that the looting became more intense in the Second. If you look at maps of minerals and maps of the areas that the Rwandan/Ugandan backed forces initially targeted you can see how they intersect. The mineral story is not too well told on Wikipedia at the moment. There's a UN report on it ("several members of the U.N. panel that prepared the report have since received death threats").

Don't know anything about Turquoise, but google turns up a few things. Didier Gondola is wrong about Kabila not speaking French I think, but I have read from diff sources that he was adopted by Kabila. Also that he is half-Tutsi (there was some sort of leak of an internal Belgian document a while ago which said this, it caused some diplomatic tension between the two governments). The French version of the Transitional government article seems more complete. Didier Gondola seems a bit of a busy man, but I have invited him to edit if he has the time. Actual experts writing articles - isn't that a bit radical for Wikipedia? - Xed 01:04, 5 December 2005 (UTC)

Friends, it took me a while to come back here, but I wanted to address some of the things you all said.

1. First of all, I did not say that Kagame, Museveni et al. only wanted Congolese resources. That was not my point at all. In fact, I am quite certain that the main motivation - for Kagame at least - was survival of their regime, and the creation of a buffer zone between the former Rwandan Forces, and interahamwe that were staging small attacks on their territory. The financial/resources motives were very important, but secondary to the "survival and control" aims.
2. The only reason why I have not introduced some of these things, is that I want to make sure to put it in a NPOV way. And speaking of that, Didier Gondola - with all the respect that he well deserves - is doing A LOT of POV in his suggestions, especially about 1+4 for example. Yes, it has been a burden in the efforts towards peace, but it is also the compromise that made the peace-deals work, so it's not a black or white issue.
3. About L. Kabila's legitimacy, maybe it is my english that is a problem. But what I meant was that when Kabila felt he had enough personal, and independent gripo on power, and a clear opportunity to stand on his own, with popular support, he took the actions that would garantee it. So yes rebelling against his masters gave him new legitimacy in the eyes of the people; but it was a liegitimacy that he had been building earlier, and his asking foreign forces to leave simply reinforced that legitimacy.
4. At some point here, and in Second Congo War, we need to address more in depth, the ethnic aspect of these conflicts, and the very contentious - and IMHO not very well/fairly discussed here - issue of the Banyamulenge (actually in the actual Banyamulenge article, I think things are given a more accurate explanation. We also need to look into this new Ivorian importation of "Congolity"...
5. In Great Lakes refugee crisis, it is important to state that the interahamwe et al, were a small minority among the Hutu refugees, that used them to shield themselves. Not every Hutu is a genocidal maniac - which is the general feeling one gets from many of the articles on this era. And the RPF did not invade to end the genocide. At the time the genocide started, the RPF already controled the north of the country (Byumba, Ruhengeri, Muranvia, etc). And they had more than a thousand troops in Kigali itself, headquartered at the Parliament complex. It needs to be clarified. Considering that it is one of the causes of this war, It is relevant don't you think?

Themalau 10:59, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Statements about Lumumba

The article has this "Soviet-backed leaders like Patrice Lumumba, who had been deposed in 1960 with Belgian and CIA assistance." I take two issues with this, although I dont know enough about the topic to edit the article.

1 Is it true that Lumumba really was Soviet-backed? In my research, he had saught the help of the Soviets just as he had western countries, but was on the whole unsuccessful on both fronts. The US perception was that Lumumba was either in league with the Soviets or volunerable to that, but the article makes it sound like he uncertainly was.

2 The deposition of Lumumba, again, in my research, seems to have had relatively little to do with the CIA and almost everything to do with the Belgians, along with the UN. The CIA certainly had plots against him, but none came to pass. Can anybody verify this? -- Yinon 18:27, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

The US certainly thought he was aligned with the Soviets and I have rephrased this bit. The fate of Lumumba is certainly notable, but not entirely relevant to the subject of the article and I have removed mention of it here. What do you think? - BanyanTree 18:50, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a good solution. Indeed the US perception is the thing to note here. Your edits read a bit awkwardly to me, so I reworded them a bit. I hope its a bit clearer this way. Yinon 20:41, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Seems alright. I changed "whom" to "which" to make sure the reader knows that we're adding the clause to US and not Mobutu. I admit that my eyes are beginning to glaze over when I read that sentence now so hopefully that is not horrible. Cheers, BanyanTree 20:51, 29 March 2006 (UTC)