Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Pastimes : Kosovo -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: John Lacelle who wrote (16485)	5/2/2000 4:42:00 AM
From: GUSTAVE JAEGER	Respond to of 17770

U.S. embassies bombings: the big background-picture..... African and American Connivance in Congo-Zaire Fran‡ois Ngolet Abstract: Kabila's power takeover has been interpreted by political analysts as orchestrated by African countries fighting rebel groups using the Zairian territory as a basis for action. This regime change has also been presented as a victory of the United States over France for the control of the central African region. This article will demonstrate that this powershift was a combination of African countries, intervention on the ground and the action of the US diplomacy in the international scene. The African engagement is even stronger in the second Congolese civil war, but has not eliminated the US influence. This influence can still be felt behind the scenes through its strategic allies and has increased since the bombing of the two embassies in Kenya and Tanzania. Introduction Kabila's arrival to power has been a source of intense intellectual speculation. Many analysts have interpreted this event as a demonstration of strength by African states in the post-Cold War period (Leymarie 1997). Indeed, a coalition of African countries in concert decided to topple one of the most corrupt and brutal dictatorships in central Africa. This new tendency of African leaders to resolve Africa's own problem has been widely celebrated by political analysts and is seen as the affirmation of a "new independence" by African nations (Askins and Collins 1997). Basil Davidson, one of the most acclaimed analysts of African affairs saw Kabila's power conquest as "a chance for Africa" (Davidson 1997). Davidson's argument is that Kabila represents a symbol of what Africa can do for itself, meaning its capacity to get its own house in order before facing challenges in the international scene. The former President of Tanzania, Julius Nyerere came in support of this African thesis when he confessed to French journalists that from the beginning to the end, the transfer of power in [End Page 65] Congo-Zaire has solely been an African matter, and in this process westerners have been completely powerless (Bassir 1997). This African thesis is sharply contradicted by other observers who see Kabila's take-over as a victory of the United States over France (Leymarie 1998b; Braeckman 1997a; Asteris 1998). For many analysts, the victory of the Alliance of Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Congo-Zaire (ADFL) would not have been possible without overwhelming American support of the rebels. French diplomats frustrated by this American intrusion in the Congo openly accused the US of working to dismantle the French influence in central Africa in general (Leymarie 1998b). The contenders of this thesis argue that the US victory was made easier because of France's defense of the despised regime of Mobutu and its participation in slowing the democratization process (Leymarie 1996). This opinion is backed by American activists who have voiced their concern over seeing "neo-colonialism made in USA" taking place in the Congo. This neo-colonialism is seen as a culmination of a long stated ambition of American foreign policy, whose ultimate goal is to dismantle the monopoly of former colonial powers in Africa (IG 1997; Leymarie 1996; Leymarie 1992; Wauthier 1994). The objective of this article is to reconcile these two views by illustrating that Kabila's victory in 1997 was not solely an African enterprise nor only the result of an American-orchestrated policy, but a combination of both. The military presence on the ground of neighboring Congolese states and the efficiency of the American diplomacy on the international scene worked well together to topple 23 years of Mobutu regime. But even though African heads of state and the United States agreed on the objective, the two parties seemed to have been following different interests in the Congo. By fighting the Mobutu regime, Rwanda, Uganda, and Angola were simply attempting to stabilize their borders by denying opposition groups in these countries the use of the Congo to destabilize their respective regimes. On the other hand, the US supported the rebellion to extend its influence in central Africa, to exploit natural resources, filling the Congolese soil while containing Islamic fundamentalism in east Africa (Willame 1998). But this strengthening of both the African and American presence in the Congo is forcing former colonial powers to withdraw from their zones of influence and allowing the redesigning of a new geopolitical map in which African and American interests will be predominant. [snip] jhupress.jhu.edu