Date: Mon, 3 Mar 1997 02:47:42 +0100 (MET)
Subject: M-G: Zaire: Reply to Karl & to Ang - beware of US trap!


Zaire: Reply to Karl & to Ang - beware of US trap!
[Posted 03.03.97]

Here's a reply that really - because of other matters which
I've been giving priority - is long overdue.

FIRST, A REPLY tO KARL C.:

Karl Carlile wrote on 18.02 that he couldn't understand what
I was referring to, when I had only put down, as comments both
on an article of his and on one of Dave Bedgood's, a few
lines and then ended them with: "Down with Mobutu!" "Down
with bullshit talk!" "Support the AFDL in Zaire!". He subject-
lined his posting "ROLFERANTO EXPERTS REQUIRED".

I don't think there are much  job opportunities for such people,
or I hope there aren't, at least. You'd probably have better
prospects if you were to specialize in Karlocarlilese - or some
aspects of it. Not that Karl C. has been all that unclear on other
subjects. But in this case, on the question of Zaire, I did get
somewhat exasperated with him, I must admit.

Why? Because it was all so "up in the blue", Karl; the whole
reasoning proceeded so little from any facts in the case and
was so entirely on a "theoretical" level that it IMO was pretty
useless. And your concusion, if any was to be found, was wrong.

One thing that made your posting, on 17.02, subject: "Re: M-I.
Democratic Congo", rather unreadable was the difficulty of
seeing what were your lines and what were Dave B.'s, since
they *all* started out with ">".

Yours must have been the lines "KARL: Hi Dave!" (I guess!) and
"KARL: The above is the kind of rubbish that is constantly being
presented by many trotskyist sects about the world Dave."

But the rubbish that then followed below that again, whose was
it? Well, no matter, I shall quote a little from it:

>There is no possibility of struggle in central Africa being able
>to break with imperialism to transform what you call "the
>national democratic struggle into a socialist revolution". Both
>objective and subjective conditions are such that this is
>impossible. For one, the economic character of this area is
>so backward that there is absent any objective basis for
>socialism being established there.

So, the poor guys and chicks in Central Africa "cannot do
anything" at all, can they - it's "impossible" for them even to
"break with imperialism" and, it seems, even to understand
the necessity for this, because that region is "too under-
developed", presenting "no objective basis for socialism".

The purest bullshit, in fact.

What we were discussing, back in November 1996, was the
question whether the conflict in Zaire was basically one between
French imperialism and US imperialism, the interests of the
latter then supposedly being represented by the AFDL rebels,
or whether it was basically an anti-imperialist, just struggle on
the part of the AFDL led by Laurent Kabila.

Now the facts, as I pointed at even then, clearly indicate that
the latter was and is the case. This despite its being not all
that easy to ascertain what *are* the facts.

Both you, Karl, and also Ang and some other people as well, I
think, took up the standpoint that there was *no* just struggle
at that moment to support but just, basically, an inter-imperialist
brawl. And so you both still are saying today.

Why are you wrong? This I'll go into in my reply to Ang.

REPLY TO ANG:

At least, Ang, you're still reasoning more materialistically than
Karl C. on this question, and are referring to various - whether
correct or not - pieces of information about the situation given
by various sources.

But you're doing a pretty bad job at evaluating the truthfulness
of these sources and at reaching conclusions from them, Ang,
and furthermore, on that very shaky basis indeed that you
must know is the only one you have at hand to stand on, you're
stating those conclusions with far too great apparent certainty.

I'm referring to your posting, on 18.02 under subject line "Re:
M-G: Re: EASTERN ZAIRE AND THE US". The below is intended as a
criticism of it.

Firts of all, it *is* somewhat difficult to see what pieces of
information one should trust, and even to find relevant such
pieces of information.

It's also the case of course, these days, that the main
imperialists, i.e. in particular the US ones, are relying rather
heavily on the *ventriloquist* method of disseminating
misinformation, in order to direct people off the right track.
That is, they're using various phoney rrrrrevolutionary forces,
muppets of theirs, for this - a "necessary" method since more or
less everybody today knows what awful liars are their "official"
media.

So whom really to trust? Genuinely Marxist-Leninist parties
are practically non-existent. But there are methods of seeing
what information is more reliable, anyway, and what is less.
For instance, the openly reactionary media often will show,
rather clearly, what their masters on the whole want, what
developments they like and what they dislike.

And concerning Zaire, I at least, here in Europe, have access
to a couple of sources which I'd not say are quite reliable but
which one must consider to be rather valuable anyway, since
the two organizations I mean, the Voie Prolétarienne, France,
and the Parti du Travail de Belgique (Belgium), with monthly
respectively weekly "Partisan" and "solidaire", obviously,
because of the colonialist history of these two countries, have
some personal contacts to people from the region of Zaire.

I've already posted some quotes from those sources, in Nov
'96, and separately, I shall soon post one more from a recent
issue of "solidaire", that of 19.02: Excerpts from an interview
with the chairman of the PTB, my namesake Ludo Martens, on
whose standpoint on the struggle in Zaire I more or less agree.

THE "FOREIGN TROOPS" OF THE WASHINGTON PEST ETC

Now you, Ang - in the USA - perhaps have (even) less of reliable
information than do I. But you've seen those earlier postings of
mine. And my first criticism against your 18.02 posting is the
apparently complete lack of suspicion with which you're viewing,
and quoting, "Western diplomats" and even - the *Washington
Bloody Pest*, one of the more infamous slimy murder media of
the US imperialists themselves. (Two other equally important
ones are the New York Slimes and the International Herring
Tribune - quite informative too, in certain respects, and I not
seldom read the latter, which one can get here in Sweden the
same day it's published - but of course, beware, beware...)

Not that the Pest cannot sometimes tell the truth too, of course,
just as is the case with the other US ones I mentioned and with
their European counterparts, and such souces, likewise quite
interesting, as the CNN etc etc. But in this case, concerning
Zaire, one should at least look out very carefully, when it said,
as you quoted:

>"By early this month, Zairian rebels -- reportedly JOINED BY
>TROOPS FROM NEIGHBORING RWANDA AND UGANDA -- had transformed
>their local rebellion into a serious threat to Zaire's
>government and perhaps to its existence as a state. . .

"Foreign troops", huh? Everyone knows that when the
imperialists dislike a popular insurrection, they're liable to
attribute it to "foreign intervention" for propaganda reasons.

So at least, such a statement must be viewed with suspicion -
seemingly quite absent in you posting. What are the facts? It's
obvious that Kabila's rebels have considerable popular support.
They wouldn't really need foreign troops, from those rather poor
neighbouring countries mentioned, in order to achieve their
successes so far.

Do I know for a fact that there are *no* Rwandan, Ugandan
etc troops helping them? Not really. But most facts point to
this thing's being a propaganda hoax.

And for instance, the talk of "foreign troops supporting the
rebels" by the Zairian reactionary government seems to
have little support in reality, when that government finds
itself constrained to advance such ridiculously weak
"evidence" of it, as it did, according to one CNN Net article
on 16.02, headlined "Zairian rebel leader says he will
spare refugee camp - for now" - a typical headline, btw, which
shows how US media are *vilifying* the AFDL, since it was not
really a question of "sparing refugees" or not but of whether
or not to attack those fascist militias in that camp which the
Zairian govt. had armed - one paragraph in the article read:

"Zaire's defence minister, Likulia Bolongo Lingbangi, said in a
statement Sunday [16.02] that Kabila's threat to attack Hutus in
the camp was proof he was being directed by the Tutsi-led
governments of Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda. They have
denied the allegations."

*Such* "proof" points in precisely the opposite direction of that
in which it's "supposed to" point!

In fact it appears that the Zairian govt.'s arming those militias
in the Tingi Tingi camp put the AFDL in a position of having to
deal with that enemy force, for tactical/strategic military reasons.
Another CNN Net article, on 15.02, said i.a.:

"Rebel leader Laurent Kabila said he ordered his forces to avoid
the Tingi Tingi camp, but diplomats in New York said the military
buildup there could alter that plan." (Of course, one must be
cautious about such information too. But this thing seems to fit
in with some other facts.)

THE US AND OTHER IMPERIALIST MEDIA'S OBVIOUS
ATTEMPTS AT VILIFYING THE REBELS

I mentioned one instance of this above. I shall not give any more
here, except for mentioning that old and obvious thing that all
can see: The media's constantly talking about "tutsi" rebels,
though they by no means are "tribally" based. Everyone can
find lots of other examples, I think. It's obvious the US and US-
influenced media (which are *allmost all* the main media) do
*not* like the AFDL at all.

THE ARTICLE THAT DAVE B. BROUGHT, BY THOSE *VERY*
"RRRRRRRREVOLUTIONARY" "COMMUNISTS", THE
"WORKERS' VOICE", DETROIT

Dave B. i.a. brought, on 17.02 under subject "Re: M-I: Democratic
Congo", an article which he said "puts forward a revolutionary
communist analysis of the situation today". And you, Ang,
recommended my "re-reading" "Dave's reply to Louis Godena and
the article he kindly attached to it", so that I would perhaps
finally "accept" that which you called "a difficult reality to
accept, the magnitude of the suffering and hopelessness in this
region of the world today" - meaning, that not only the people in
that region but I and others subscribers to this list too should
just lie down quietly and "realize the impossibility of figthing
those invincible US imperialists and their rrrrrrevolutionary
commmmunissssst muppets".

In reality, the US imperialists and their muppets are just scared
to shit about what's taking place in Zaire today. That's why
they're finding it so necessary to try to cut off the Zairian
rebels from all international support, among other things
precisely by trying to fool people into believing that those rebels are
"their own"
people, that they're some "tool" or other of themselves, the
US imperialists! This *is* a hoax, and all should see it.

Now to that "revolutionary communist analysis".

The "Workers' Voice", Detroit, who the heck are *they*? I at
least have never heard of them before. I know *some* people
precisely in Detroit, the Detroit Peru Support Committee led
by Jay Miles, who's a subscriber to this list. That Committee
states (at least) its adherence to the political line of Marx,
Lenin and Mao Zedong, which of course is a minimum of
requirement for any group or person to deserve being taken
seriously as (perhaps) Marxist. Those other people mentioned
in Detroit, do they have contact with the Detcom? Obviously
not. So my immediate guess concerning them of course was:
Probably *one more* of those *muppets of the US imperialists*.
After all, it's known since pretty long how these guys (the last-
mentioned) operate, isn't it?

Of course, one should hear everybody out and not draw definite
conclusions too quickly. But in this case, the "Workers' Voice"
very clearly indeed shows its *cloven hoof* very clearly on - at
least - two points in the article that you and Dave B. applauded
so loudly, Ang. Let me show you (from Dave's 17.02 posting):

Towards the end of the article, low on p. 5 of my printout of it,
those "rrrrrrevolutionary commmmmunissssts" say, taking up a
seemingly "very radical" position:

>Communists must stand for the defeat of both camps [in eastern
>Zaire] by revolutionary working class means.

Meaning, you should *not* support the AFDL, whose insurrection
in fact is so uncomfortable to the US imperialists. And the article
continues (p. 5 - p. 6 of my printout):

>This does not mean we would abstain from battle. When the
>Hutu militias and Mobutu's army were attacking Tutsi residents
>in Zaire, in an attempt to drive them out of the country, we would
>have fought for the formation of multi-ethnic workers' and poor >peasants'
militias to protect their right to live where they want.

The "Workers' Voice"ists thus are implying that the AFDL is
"not" a *multi-etnic organization*. But all facts show that it *is*.
In the next sentence there is in particular one thing which *all* can
see, I think, is a dastardly *lie*, and which thus exposes the true
caracter of that "Workers' Voice" (my printout p. 6):

>These militias would, in turn, aim their guns at the ADFLCZ
>when they massacre Hutu refugees and try to drive them back
>to Rwanda against their will.

Firstly: Has the AFDL (I'm using the abbreviation in French)
really been massacring Hutu refugees? It seems, in the main:
No. There have been some reports of certain such things,
which I don't think can be discounted entirely either. But it
does appear that these have been isolated incidents for
which some indisciplined people affected by a motive of
revenge have been responsible. In the main, the AFDL
apparenlty has *not* been out to meet out revenge to
civilians. This point is not all that clear, on the basis of the
information I think I have, but it does appear that the "Workers'
Voice" is being at least unfair to the AFDL here.

Secondly - and it's here that that *cloven hoof* I mentioned
above really comes out: *Did* the Hutu refugees go back to
Rwanda "against their will"??

Of course not. Everybody knows that the great majority of them
were *forced* by the fascist militias to *stay* in Zaire for a
long time and that it was only when the AFDL, in October-
November, militarily defeated those militias, that they were
able to return to Rwanda, which quite obviously they very
much *wanted* to do.

Conclusion: This blatant lie of the "Workers' Voice" shows
that that paper by no means is a "revolutionary communist"
one but precisely just one more of those slimy little muppets
of the US imperialists, trying now as best they can to fool
beople into *not* supporting that "uncomfortable" adversary
of their masters', the AFDL in Zaire led by Laurent Kabila.

I really think it was quite naive of you, Angie old girl, not to
have seen this and the other things I've mentioned above -
naive to such a degree, in fact, that I've started wondering if
perhaps it might be something else that's really behind what
you wrote - to be quite honest, I've even come to entertain a
suspicion that you might be one of them Hata Marys, or
whatever they're called - how about that? Well, certain I'm
by no means. Time will show, I think, whether my thinking
here has been of the "exaggeratedly suspicious" kind or not.

Perhaps what to me seems to be such extreme boneheaded-
ness on your part, in the face of some obvious facts, have
to do with your not wanting to anger some bosses or other
of an organization you're in? Sometimes, things work like
that too. Anyway, so far at least, it has been quite interesting
discussing these questions with you , and I hope that you'll not
go away, Ang, on this subject or on any other but continue
writing to this list.

Rolf M.



















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