Date: Mon, 9 Dec 1996 08:50:18 +0100 (MET)
From: rolf.martens-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se (Rolf Martens)
Subject: Re: M-G: Rwanda/Reply to Rolf & La porta ...


Ang,

Some answers to yours of 08.12:

>Rolf,
>
>   The issues raised in your 3 posts regarding the history
>and causes of the current strife in Central Africa are,
>of course, very important to discuss.  It is heartening
>that others want to engage on this topic.
>
>   You believe "that Barry Crawford's and others' assertion
>   that the FPR is essentially a tool of US and other Western
>imperialism is incorrect" and don't agree about its being
>in the main a "Western assault.   On this point, I disagree
>with you.  I think it's already been amply demonstrated,
>so I won't again cite evidence, that the RPF (or FPR)
>received substantial backing from the West, their connection
>with the Zairean rebels notwithstanding.  That connection
>does seem to confuse things but I think you're correct with
>your "case 3, that the imperialists of course are also doing
>their best to subvert the (more) positive forces and try to
>draw them over to their side." 

I didn't and don't pretend to have much knowledge on the
question of "Western" support for the FPR. All things
considered, I've come to the conclusion that the USA etc,
who as Barry C himself writes at first continued to give "aid"
to Habyarimana's regime, only shifted to supporting the
other group when his regime had become "impossible" because
of pressure from the people. Recently, there apparently
was disagreement between the FPR Rwandan government and
those countries which wanted to intervene. I wouldn't
want to applaud that government, only on the basis of
that rather uncertain information that I have. But on
the whole it seems to me to play not a negative role.

>In Zaire there's essentially
>no gov't at all, so wouldn't the imperialists want someone
>to "stabilize" the Country.

Yes of course. That's one thing. The other question is,
do Kabila etc play along?

>Although Kabila has impressive
>credentials, I have yet to see his rebel group make any
>truly radical demands.  In fact, it's to the contrary.  The
>following  is taken from the Mail and Guardian -
>December 6, 1996 by Chris McGreal as posted on
>http://www.afnews.org/ans/central/central.zaire.
>80038793999.html
>"The rebels have assured mining companies - including
>De Beers, which buys most of Zaire's diamonds - that they
>will be free to continue operating in "liberated" territory.  
>But Kabila said the mining firms will be expected to pay
>taxes to the rebel administration."

"Not radical demands" - It's necessary also to see what's
realistic, Ang. Those lines you're quoting here don't
tell enough about the story. Preferable would be for the
government to nationalize everything of course. But would
it then be able to run the mines etc? That question has to
be answered too. Even Lenin's revolutionary Russia / Soviet
Union at one point, approxemately in 1920, let some foreign
companies in, permitted them to a certain extent actually
to exploit some workers too, because that young state
still wasn't able to run the industries in question.
Lenin pointed out (when some people howled at that):
It's a question of "who beats whom?" - will the foreign
companies' operations in the main *favour* the building up
of the country, thus actually strenthening the people's
power, or will they, the capitalists, get the upper hand?

On principle, it's *not* necessarily wrong for Kabila
etc to let the capitalist companies continue to operate.
One has to know: Could the newly founded Congo state
manage the mines etc itself? My *guess* would be "no,
not yet".

A much clearer (likewise also small, though) indication
of the character of Kabila's forces IMO is that "warning"
I wrote about which was put out by the USA on 04.12
against their forming a state of their own. And that
was definitely a positive sign. (Here too, I'd like to
stress again: I cannot be all that certain on this
matter either.)

>Rolf, you believe that the former gov't of Rwanda came
>into power because the colonists "had made a shift in order
>to combat some progressive tendencies and that the former
>gov't of Rwanda - Habyarimana was probably fascist." 

Yes. And it's a negative point concerning Barry C, I
think, that he completely passes over the fact that the
colonialists at that time "played the hutu card" and
thus themselves installed Habyarimana, who according
to him got in as a result of an "uprising".

>Yeah, probably.  I don't claim, and I don't think any
>of the articles I posted claim that either groups were
>saints or sought in any way a true democracy or some such
>for the people.

I don't claim that "saint" stuff either. But there are
two possibilities for a judgement and a standpoint:
Either you must say to both groups: "A plague on both
your houses." Or you come to the conclusion that one
of them is significantly better and thus deserves, in
the main, support. I hold the FPR was/is better than the
old Rwandan government (on the basis of what I've seen
so far). 

>Essentially, from the legacy of
>colonialism emerged two groups fighting over the meager
>spoils from the West or state patronage when their whole
>economy from colonialism is based on one crop and that 
>
>"[t]orn between the two were the Rwandan people --
>the Hutu majority and the Tutsi minority. After
>years of war and 'structural adjustment' had left
>an estimated 85 percent of the population living
>below the poverty line, with a third of all children
>malnourished, many had been driven to the edge and
>were ready to do anything to survive." (from
>http://www.africa2000.com/INDX/Rwanda2.htm)
>
>Additionally, the article by Michel Chossudovsky,
>which I posted to the list on 11/11/96, goes into great
>detail about the nature of the former gov't of Rwanda,
>how they participated in the privatization schemes of
>the IMF & World Bank and how they diverted what little
>funds they did receive for their army, etc., which
>support your conclusions about it.
>
>You then say:
>Wasn't it necessary as seen from the standpoint of the
>people, to bring down the existing gov't of Habyarimana,
>by war?  As far as I can judge today, it was. 
>
>Rolf, sure it was necessary.  But were the RPF the
>saviors, the way out?

OK, Ang, so let's pretend we're both Rwandans, in the
late 1980:s. We've got word that the RPF (FPR) is
planning to overthrow the present government. Should
we join that rebel group or not? For instance, we
could make some more long-term organising - but this
would, for the time being, leave the existing govt.
in power. The answer to the question must depend on
whether we think the RPF *is* significanly better than
Habyarimana, or whether they're approximately equally
bad, isn't that it? It's not necessary to talk about
"saviors" etc. As far as I've been able to see, the
Habyarimana government was *very* bad, with a *racist*
ideology and stemming from forces who had committed
atrocities as far back as in 1958 (as "my" writer JG
reported). So I'd back the RPF (FPR) then, in retrospect.

>Judging from today, who was it
>that caused the current unbelievably massive "refugee
>situation"?    It's clear that "[w}hen in July 1994
>the RPF took power, more than two million Rwandese
>(one quarter of the population) left the country=85The
>RPF had little popular support in Rwanda but its
>superiority was based on better equipment and logistic
>support in Uganda." (from Class Struggle's post).

That's one point I actually forgot to write about in
my last posting and one that does speak against the FPR.
Yes, how could it be that so many found it necessary to
flee? The explanation that some have advanced, that
the fascist militias frightened people into believing
that there would be revenge against all "hutus", does
seem questionable. On the other hand, the refugees
today apparently have been welcomed back - or is this
a hoax?

>If
>you still have any illusions about the RPF, revisit
>the section of Barry Crawford's article concerning
>prisoner suffocation (yes, actual suffocation, as
>45,000 "prisoners" are being held in prisons designed
>to hold 4,500),etc.

I did write that apparently, the FPR had also
committed crimes. I don't think my posting pointed to
my having illusions about that.

>Finally, Rolf, I can't believe you fell for that
>JG load of crap.  It's racist on its face.  Please,
>read it again.
>"Those *simple* peasants in Rwanda have a deep and
>enormous respect for the existing power=85 such
>massacres of whole families are possible when they
>are ordered officially, when the decision comes from
>respected authorities:  the prefects, ..."  I don't
>care how Catholic this, "the most Catholic country
>in Africa" is. 

The "simple" bit *is* condescending, but IMO not
necessarily racist. JG, whose outlook, as the "Partisan"
editors pointed at and as I wrote, contained some
"pious wishes", ie. is bourgeois, tries to explain
what took place.

>After re-reading it, don't you
>agree that Barry Crawford was correct when he wrote:
>"As 'Hutu extremists' are demonised in Western
>accounts, the ordinary population of Rwanda are
>rendered as compliant accomplices of the massacres. 
>'Hate radio' is held to be responsible for the
>ethnic conflict as Rwandans are presumed to be
>fairly mindless people, who do whatever they are
>told as long as the language is bloodthirsty enough." 

I *did* write that I held *this* thing that BC said
was correct and important. But it's also the case
that massacres did take place, similar ones to those
that were perpetrated in ex-Yugoslavia by those
"Serb guerillas" who, BC writes, likewise have been
"demonised". We agree that imperialism ultimately is
responsible. The question is, in Rwanda as in ex-
Yugoslavia: Equally to condemn both sides? Or should
one support one of them as better - without having
illusions about it?

>It was also very interesting reading the posts
>under the subject heading of the sicilian proverb
>"La porta si apre di dentro".  How conscious can
>workers or 'passengers' be when it is so difficult
>to get a concrete picture of what is actually going
>on in the world today.  I resent remarks indicating
>a disappointment in the worker for their lack of
>struggle when the capitalists clearly have every
>resource to obfuscate not only current events
>but their causes and who the enemy really is, not
>to mention the reality of the workers' real power.

Yes, this is precisely a VERY BIG question today,
that of getting an approximately correct picture.
This is also why such a list as this one, and such
discussions as the one we're having right now on
Rwanda/Congo(Zaire), are such potentially important
things. And one should absolutely forget about
the "prestige" of having been right or wrong on
this or that count, and try to find out the truth.


>I have faith that if (or when) a clear picture
>emerges, that successful struggles will ensue. 
>I think Barry Crawford's article dispels some of
>the obfuscation surrounding what's going on in
>Central Africa.  I still have no idea of what's
>going on in Yugoslavia or my "government's" role
>in what is transpiring, other than a feeling
>that the area is being carved up by outsiders
>again.  That even half the population in the
>United States went to the polls and voted on
>election day shows that at least 50 percent of
>the U.S. population doesn't know the whole thing
>is a farce.   In my opinion it's lack of knowledge,
>not lack of will or selfishness that keeps workers
>from struggling.
				Ang

Absolutely. And the reactionaries know that too.
That's why there's such enormous struggle over the
creation of genuinely proletarian parties. The
imperialists know that they *must* prevent the
forming of such parties - otherwise its goodbye
for them. The whole international system today is
so patently absurd, the contradiction bourgeoisie -
proletariat so extremely acute, only this does not
show so much on the surface, in our countries.

Concerning Rwanda/Congo/Zaire, let's see what the
near future will bring concerning our argument. I
still say: The AFDL in Congo (east Zaire), i.e.
Kabila's forces, should be *supported*. (Sending
money to the Rwandan government, as my namesake etc
in the PTB, Belgium, are calling on people to do,
I don't intend to make propaganda for.)

Rolf M.



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