Date: Mon, 25 Nov 1996 10:54:25 +0100 (MET)
Subject: Re: M-G: Zaire and conflict


Karl C wrote, on 24.11:

(a few brief comments on this:)

>A KARL CARLILE MESSAGE
>
>KARL: The Great Lakes Region crisis is essentially a product of
>inter-imperialist rivalry between Washington and Paris over the
>resources of Africa.

This IMO cannot be so. There certainly is such rivalry. But
here, no account is taken of the struggle of the peoples,
in the first place, and the matter of the imperialist global
anti-development policy, on the other.
>
>The Hutu peoples are backed by French imperialism while the Tutsi
>people, as represented by the Rwandan government and the Eastern Zaire
>Tutsi rebels, are backed by American imperialism.

In a 1994 article by the Voie Prolétarienne, France, which I posted
to the list some weeks ago, events in Rwanda in 1994 were analysed
as - eventually - the victory over a former fascist government
by some forces who at least in the main represented the majority
of the people. Was this false? I cannot really say that I know it
to be true. One paper, the Militant, quoted by Ang, reported that
there then was a US base in Rwanda. But it seems to me, at least,
that the present Rwandan government is *not* manily a US lackey.

The rebels in Eastern Zaire, would they be backed by US imperialism?
The facts to me seem absolutely to contradict this. The US too
has earlier backed Mobutu. Now the US govt. probably is looking
for a replacement. But hardly in the form of those rebels led
by Kabila, who has been fighting the govt. in Zaire for 30 years
and does not seem likely at all to me to have become a US "client".
There's also, btw, part of an interview with him in today's
local paper here and the whole setup in that article in the
US-friendly paper is full of insinuations against the Zairean
rebels which seem untrue.

If Kabila were US imperialism's man, then why has the US been
quite unwilling to intervene in the first place and to disarm
the hutu fascist militias, in the second place?
>
>The conflict between Tutsi and Hutu is the military and political form
> by which the conflict between Paris and Washington manifests itself
>in the central African region.
>
>The Rwandan Patriotic Front was trained and based in Uganda which is
>backed by Washington while the masses of Rwandan Hutus took up
>residence in Zaire which is backed by Paris. Eastern Zaire provided a
>base in which the Hutu militia and the former Rwandan government
>forces could recover and prepare themselves for a future offensive
>against RPF.
>
>However the RPF and the East Zairian Tutsi formed an alliance and
>challenged the Hutu forces based In Zaire.
>
>If Mobutu's pro-Francophone regime in Zaire  is replaced by a
>pro-Anglophone regime then Washington will in effect have succeeded in
>replacing the French hold over Central Africa. Success here will r
>epresent a significant victory for American imperialism.

France has't had that much of a "hold" over Central Africa. France
is a medium power, a Second-World country. Only US imperialism
has the power to have some more important "hold" in distant
countries.
>
>In short the situation in the Central African region is as follows:
>There are tow imperialist led alliances in conflict with each other.
>On the side is the American led alliance involving the US, Uganda,
>Rwanda and the eastern Zairian rebels. On the other side is the French
>led alliance consisting of France, Zaire, the former Rwandan
>government forces together with the Hutu militia, the Interawa mee.
>
>In this way the Clinton administration will have proved itself a
>very effective when it comes to promoting the imperialist interests
>that it represents.
>
>NOTE: I use the terms Hutu and Tutsu with great reluctance. However I
>have not as of yet found a more accurate pair of labels with which to
>descirbe both parties to the conflict.

The situation is complicated, but certainly, "hutu-tutsi" are *not*
the most relevant terms.

Rolf M.



     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---