Rebels in the Democratic Republic of Congo scored an important victory this week in capturing the town of Kindu, which Laurent Kabila’s government was trying to use as the launch pad for a counter-offensive against the rebels.
But the victory merely underlines why that long-suffering nation cannot afford a military solution to its problems.
What was revealing about the fall of Kindu was the reaction of the population. When the town was seized last year during the war to overthrow the despised Mobutu Sese Seko, most of its citizens stayed to cheer the arrival of the Rwandan army and then rebel leader Kabila’s forces. This time most of them fled.
The Congolese people swiftly lost faith in Kabila’s government. It cannot by any stretch of the imagination be said to represent the people. But neither do the rebels and their foreign backers. The two sides are imposing on Congo what its people thought themselves lucky to have escaped during Mobutu’s downfall – a bloody and divisive war.
This conflict is undoubtedly nastier than the last one. It has become a war of attrition which has effectively led to the carve-up of Congo among its neighbours and other regional powers. The east is under the control of Rwanda and Uganda, with a little help from Burundi along its border. The west is still governed by Kabila, but at the behest of Angola and Zimbabwe. As Kindu proves, the centre is still up for grabs. Unless there is a diplomatic breakthrough, we can expect a lot more blood to be spilled.
The difficulty is in breaking the impasse.
First, Kabila has to go. He is serving no one but a clique in Kinshasa, and another in Zimbabwe which dispatched troops not to prop up a legitimate government in Congo but to protect various business interests of Zimbabwean President Robert Mugabe and his cronies.
Kabila’s racist rhetoric – disturbingly similar to that which contributed to the genocide in Rwanda – led to the mob murders of Congolese citizens who simply looked different. He has shown no particular interest in using his unexpected elevation to power to serve the majority of Congolese. But even if he now felt so inclined, he is entirely beholden to foreign powers with other priorities.
But disposing of Kabila will not solve the wider problem. What is needed is a regional solution which addresses the legitimate security concerns of Angola, Rwanda and Uganda, while building a foundation for a representative and accountable government in Kinshasa.
Easier said than done, but the latter will not come without the former. That must include the expulsion of Unita and Rwandan Hutu extremists from Congolese soil, and the closing of the camps they used to destabilise Congo’s neighbours. If foreign forces must remain, they should be limited to securing borders.
All of which could lay the ground for accountable government in Kinshasa and a stable Congo. But after that it will be in the hands of the Congolese people to make it work.
Ill-judged appointments
This newspaper has been outspoken in its criticism of the judiciary, lambasting it for arrogance in its dealings with the Truth and Reconciliation Commission and questioning the right of Judge Willem de Villiers to summon the president to the witness box like a schoolboy being carpeted by a teacher.
But for all of that we regard the Judicial Services Commission’s decision this week with regard to the judges- presidency in the Cape, Natal and Transvaal as ill-judged. We say that with no disrespect towards the black candidates; the mere fact that they made it to the Bench in the face of massive disadvantages stands as tribute to their achievements. But their lack of preparedness for these particular posts is inescapable.
The commission did, admittedly, appoint the white candidate in the Cape, but even that is coloured by the suspicion that the decision was partisan, born of African National Congress hostility towards the black challenger for siding against them in the Patricia de Lille case. The judges themselves carry much of the responsibility for the Natal fiasco, but even the joy of seeing Judge Brian Galgut and Judge Jan Hugo being hauled across the coals for it cannot obscure the inappropriateness of Judge Vuka Tshabalala’s appointment.
It is, however, the decision in the Transvaal which brings the issue most sharply into focus. The white candidate, Judge John Myburgh, has distinguished himself by his dynamism and courage, independence of mind and determined commitment to the true ideal of affirmative action in building the labour court.
By contrast Judge Bernard Ngoepe’s track record, while worthy, is limited and his naivety with regard to the strengths and weaknesses of individual members of the bench is simply chilling.
The South African judiciary did recover from the ravages of the behaviour of earlyNational Partygovernments in bringing affirmative action to bear on the bench on behalf of Afrikanerdom. But it took decades and was nearly destroyed in the process. Now it is not only the institution which has been put at risk, but the entire concept of the separation of powers. The Judicial Services Commission has done its country no service.