History books may call it The Kivu Crisis. Or they may call it The Rwanda Crisis, if the authors will still be high on UN delusions. We cannot tell, having no precedent to go by. But, whatever the books call it, will they get the portrayal of what’s happening today in the eastern DRC correct?
The experts of the world are the recorders of our history. Yet they are from the ranks of the powerful who shape the history of this world. Can they dare record what’s happening correctly then? Whatever the name, it’ll be a misnomer. The correct portrayal of these problems would not mention Kivu or Rwanda – or, for that matter, any part of Africa.
For, if the experts portray what’s happening correctly, they must not mention only M23. They must remember to also mention the other collection of blood-thirsty rebels that turned DRC into a playground in their game of death and destruction. And they must mention that the Rwanda they refer to had nothing to do with the country they always ranked among African countries making spectacular socio-economic progress. They must say that the Rwanda they refer to involved only its few wayward nationals who had sought to eliminate their compatriots in 1994, had sought to propagate that endeavour among their progeny and were called FDLR.
Then our experts will cap everything with the fact that the Powerful World sponsored a near-25,000-strong force, gobbling up a yearly near-$1.5bn upkeep, that oversaw the execution of that macabre dance of death and demolition.
If history books are to be true records of what’s happening in DRC, they’ll call it The Conspiracy of the Powerful. But can the powerful of the West, who’ve sworn they live for nothing except to see that we in the third world rise from our primitive ways, turn round to conspire to put a thumb on the throat of our development effort and freedom? When I search my memory for a scenario in history that can vindicate this fear, I can only think of Egypt.
When an obscure soldier sprang up and turned out to be the real power behind the overthrow of kleptocratic King Farouk of Egypt in 1952, Great Britain, which occupied the country then, was riveted to attention. Colonel Gamal Abdel Nasser was an unknown quantity and Britain warily listened to every word he said and watched every action he took. Apart from Britain’s interest in continuing to occupy Egypt and Sudan, though nominally, it and France had monopoly shares in the Suez Canal that was on Egyptian soil.
The canal had been built by Egypt and France but, to rescue its economy that was in shambles under King Farouk, Egypt had sold its shares to Britain. With the Suez Canal, Europe had its hand in the unlimited oil and wealth of Asia. And the varied material, human and land riches of Africa. The Suez Canal was the straw through which Europe sucked Asia and Africa dry.
So, Europe watched Nasser very keenly. And he was beginning to irritate. He started talking about third-world dignity and freedom, pan-Africanism and pan-Arabism and even anti-imperialism. He could dare talk about neutrality. Alright, he talked about not allying himself to the Socialist World. But then he also talked about not allying himself to the Capitalist World. When the world was already getting too small for two powers, Socialist and Capitalist, third-world peoples talked about introducing another body.
When Nasser with other third-world leaders formed the Non-Aligned Movement, battle lines had been drawn and Western Powers had to cut him to size. The chance came when he tried to secure loans from USA and Britain to build the Aswan Dam, to contain the River Nile floods that periodically devastated Egypt. After they’d turned down his request, Nasser nationalised the Suez Canal so that taxes charged on its use could finance the construction of the dam, but was ready to compensate them. Even then, that was the clincher and the West descended on him.
Britain and France hatched a secret conspiracy to invade Egypt in collusion with Israel to seize the canal. In October 1956, Israel crossed into Sinai and raced towards the canal. On the pretext of separating the combatants, Britain and France threatened to cut aid…..sorry…..to launch their own attack. In the end, they attacked and destroyed Egyptian airfields. Nasser responded by sinking some forty ships in the canal and blocking it.
As Britain, France and Israel prepared for an all-out war, the UN and USA were making some ineffective, half-hearted and diversionary noises about withdrawal – and watching out for Russia. Meanwhile, Britain and France were dropping leaflets all over Egypt urging citizens to overthrow the Nasser government – they’d not yet acquired the subtle wisdom of co-opting ‘independent’ expert, media, rights-activist and humanitarian groups in their project.
Fortunately for Egypt, the Suez crisis did not go beyond that. The world was still bipolar and the Capitalist World had the Socialist World to contend with. And thus the triumph of truth and justice: the Suez Canal became Egypt’s.
Situations differ but, still, can Rwanda stand on its own and bend today’s unipolar world towards the truth?
The truth being that, as there has never been anything Tutsi-dominated in Rwanda, Tutsi-domination is non-existent in eastern DRC and has nothing to do with the problems there. And that justice belongs to us all and even those who don’t see its value today will inevitably demand it tomorrow, without waiting for this myth of a Tutsi-dominated prompting. The world is better off enjoying world justice and only collaborating, UN-Great-Lakes, can deliver the innocents of the Congo from their wretchedness.
When history books talk about today’s crisis in eastern DRC, they should remember to quote a small example of the triumph of truth and justice at the UN Security Council arena: Rwanda vs UN, 18th October 2012. The world will be just and willing it otherwise is an effort in futility.
