From: Adam Rose <Adam-AT-pmel.com>
Subject: M-I: Zaire : was RE: Cuba, Zaire and inter-imperialist rivalry
Date: Fri, 14 Feb 1997 08:05:46 -0000




>
>Louis P writes: 
>This also has some bearing on events taking place in Zaire. Is it legitimate 
>to view inter-imperialist rivalries as key to the conflict between France and
>Mobutu on one side and US imperialism and the anti-Mobutu forces on the 
>other?
>
>I don't think we can really know what US imperialism's goals are 
>ultimately in a situation like this. The belief that Kabila is some kind of 
>puppet on a string who the US is using to carve out a sphere of influence in 
>Eastern Zaire does not give sufficient weight to the genuinely liberatory 
>aspects of the anti-Mobutu struggle. Workers and intellectuals have been 
>struggling for an end to Mobutu's dictatorship for some years now and 
>whatever criticisms one may have of Kabila--as Guevara did--there is no 
>question that the advances of his army have acted to strengthen the popular 
>and democratic forces.
>
>[Adam Rose]  Sure, Kabila is not a puppet on a string, in that sense. He
>has his own interests and concerns which contradict with his backers from
>time to time. I'm also sure that the military defeats of the Zairean army in 
>the East will give confidence to workers and intellectuals to take Mobutu
>on. But I really don't think it's on to compare Kabila and Mandela. Kabila
>is slightly less corrupt and slightly less brutal than Mobutu, slightly less
>triballist than the inter ahamwe ( if that's how you spell it ). There's no
>liberation struggle going on at all, IMO. The real forces for democracy
>and socialism may gain strength from the regime's problems, but I don't
>think Kabila is part of this. It's not as if he was fighting the Belgians,
>in which case the argument would be different.
>
>Nor do I see the whole crisis in terms of a battle between France and 
>the US. France hasn't got that upset about it all, has it ? A crisis
>broke out, mainly because of the past legacy of Imperialism, and France
>and the US have slightly differing interests and therefore slightly different
>Imperialist solutions. Ultimately, the US would much prefer France to
>be the regional policeman in West Africa. There are no vital interests at
>stake as there are in the Gulf. It was only because France discredited itself
>so much by supporting the old Rwandan regime that the US was forced to
>step in. I don't think the US wants anything to do with it - it's not as if
>it
>was somewhere of strategic importance like Somalia. It's just that the
>instability threatened to spread to Zaire, Uganda, etc and France had
>cocked it up, so the US had no choice.
>
>My judgement ( perhaps feeling is more accurate ) is based on the nature
>of the actual forces he leads. 
> 
>Louis:
>By the same token, we should 
>not judge Kabila simply on the basis of who he accepts arms and financial 
>aid from. We have to get deeper into the class dynamics of his movement 
>and unfortunately we don't have much information beyond what we read in 
>the bourgeois press.
>
>[Adam Rose]  One point we need to remember is that since the US backs
>the people that back him, the reporting is actually biased in his favour
>and not against him . . . anyway, as for information, I'll have to read that
>ISJ article - I've an idea Charlie Kimber from Bookmarks actually
>wrote it . . . !
>
>Adam
>
>Adam Rose
>SWP
>Manchester
>Britain.
>
>


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