NEWS ON CONGO 006: More "tact" by the aggressors [Posted: 06.09.98] 1. INVADERS OF THE DR CONGO NOW USING NEW LANGUAGE The "New Vision" website, based at the capital of Uganda, one of the countries which are still flagrantly invading the DR Congo, expressed it very well, on 1 September, describing events at Matadi, the key harbour city in the west for the supplying of Kinshasa: The "New Vision's" headline was: "Matadi Retreat Tactical" [Anybody heard this term, "tactical retreat", before? It's ac- tually a good-old-good one, originally used by Nazi propaganda minister Goebbels in the last years of WW II: "The troops of the Reich have made a tactical retreat", "an elastic shortening of the front towards the rear", etc, etc: all to avoid the word "defeat".] The news story started out: "September 1, 1998 By Emmy Allio in Goma Kampala - Congolese rebels" [as everyone knows by now, not only the aggressors themselves but all mass media in the imperialist countries are referring to the invading troops in the DR Congo as "the rebels" - RM] "said yesterday that they have tactfully" [!] "withdrawn from the port town of Matadi to avoid opening another front against Angolan troops...." A *tactful* withdrawal - that's a new one, actually "improving on" Goebbels. Even if it was just the result of a misprint, the term, I think all must agree, is quite suitable. 2. ENFORCED "TACT" As all know, in the first two-three weeks of August, the govern- ments of Uganda and Rwanda did not act "tactfully" at all. En- couraged and spurred on, likewise quite tactlessly, above all by US imperialism and supported also by Mobutuists in the RD Congo, who were not reconciled to their 1996-97 defeat, they invaded the country in the east and, even more threatening, in the west, descending by an airlift on the base Kitona and conquering Mata- di and the vital Inga dam, the current from which they brutally cut. Their story then, repeated by all the internationally most influential mass media, was that they "would take Kinshasa with- in a few days". The invaders exploited the fact that the DR Congo in its only 15 months of existence, under strong pressure from international imperialism too, had not been able to build up much of a new army of its own. Many army units were still to a large extent controlled by pro-Rwanda and pro-Mobutu elements. Therefore there was great need for that assistance from friendly neigh- bouring countries which started arriving from Zimbabwe and An- gola around 18 August and which, together also with the support of the people of Kinshasa, ensured the recent defeat of the in- vasion - or its "tactical" or "tactful" "retreat" - in the wes- tern DR Congo. 3. MORE "TACT" BY THE US IMPERIALISTS The reverses suffered by that aggression of which it clearly is the main instigator also has caused the US government to act somewhat more "tactfully" than earlier. It was clear from the very beginning how much US imperialism resented the new AFDL government led by Laurent Kabila in the Congo, since that government has strived to bring the country out of the conditions of international exploitation. But fearing protests "at home", the would-be re-colonizers in this case have not dared intervene openly themselves, relying in- stead on behind-the-scene manipulations and on the Ugandan and Rwandan regimes as proxies. When the aggression started, the US government, for appearances' sake, publicly "admonished" Rwanda for sending troops into the DR Congo. But at the same time, for instance, one US official in Kinshasa stated that "They [Rwanda] are trying to get right [!] what they did last time" (according to International Herald Tribune, 10.08.98) - as if that state had a "right" to invade. That same weeek, the US embassy at Kinshasa was closed down and evacuated, something which had not occurred before, during any of the conflicts in Congo/Zaire in preceding years and decades. This clearly was a move aimed at creating an impression that the capital of Congo was about to fall. It was followed by the evacuation from Kinshasa of many European etc foreigners. On 13.08 too, it was announced that two (unnamed) US warships with some 1,500 troops aboard were being dispatched "to protect the evacuation of US citizens" and would arrive in the waters off Congo ten days later. The next week, when things had already started to look worse for the (direct) aggressors, there was talk of 3,200 US troops, in this manoeuvre of openly-imperialist pressure. But after the total defeat of the invasion in the west, nothing more has been heard of these warships or troops. Presumably, they have been "tactfully" withdrawn. 4. MORE "TACT" BY NELSON MANDELA The government of South Africa, it must be pointed out, played a very dirty role in the first stages of this aggression. This the strongest country by far in the region did *not* in any way oppose the invasion of the DR Congo when it seemed successful. On the contrary, its president, Nelson Mandela, was even repor- ted to have said that "they [the invaders] and we speak the same language" [!]. And as soon as Zimbabwe and Angola started giving the DR Congo important military support against the aggression, South Africa came forward - only then - with a "cease-fire" proposal, with proposals for "all foreign troops to leave the Congo" - making no distinction between aggressor troops and those invited by the Congolese government - and even a "transition plan" by which that government was to be "replaced". Clearly, South Africa too was acting precisely as a muppet of international imperialism, of US imperialism in particular. But now, in connection with the summit meeting of several states in the region in Durban last Thursday, 03.09, Nelson Mandela made an about-turn on this, "tactfully" not only recognizing the government of the DR Congo as legitimate but also now - "to the astonishment of the South African press", an imperialist news agency said most disapprovingly - supporting the just ac- tion of Angola, Zimbawbe and Namibia to help the Congo against the aggression. This made for unity on this of the SADC, the co-operation organization of 14 states in southern Africa. What caused Nelson Mandela's - of course quite welcome - about- turn? He said he had been convinced on the matter after discus- sions with Namibia's president Sam Nujoma. In reality, it prob- ably was the pressure of the people of South Africa, as well as that of other peoples in the region, which caused this. Though his "tactful" support certainly is a positive thing, Nel- son Mandela is not the most reliable of allies to the Congolese people, as his recent record shows. The same, because of *their* respective records, must be said about Fidel Castro of Cuba and Yassir Arafat of Palestine, both of whom at the recent summit of the Non-Aligned States expressed their support for the just struggle of the DR Congo. In conection with that summit, there was also talk of a confe- rence on a possible cease-fire in the Congo which would begin tomorrow Monday, 07.09. The government of the DR Congo has de- clared that a prerequisite for such an agreement is that the Rwandan and Ugandan aggressor troops withdraw. This in my opin- ion is a just and fair standpoint which should be supported. 5. THE "NEWSPEAK" BY UGANDA'S "NEW VISION" OBVIOUSLY IS NO COINCIDENCE, CONSIDERING THE CHARACTER OF THE PRESENT REGIME IN UGANDA In an Internet posting on 29.08 in which he squarely condemned the aggression perpetrated by the present rulers of his country, Ugandan ex-president Godfrey Lukongwa Binaisa wrote i.a. (see also "NEWS 003", where this important statement was reproduced): "The government of President Museveni has emerged as a powerful neo-colonial regime whose militarism has destabilized the whole region of East and Central Africa. The only parallel in history to Museveni's militarism is Hitler's Germany...." I who am writing this know little about Uganda, but the chairman of our DR Congo Committee here in Sweden, Bony Ndjov-a-Shamalo, has told me and others that this assessment by Mr. Binaisa is quite accurate. (Contact address of the committee, see below.) In a later statement likewise posted on the Internet, on 03.09, the US magazine Black Star News wrote i.a.: 'In an April editorial, we questioned the dubious assertion by President Clinton, during his Africa trip, that the U.S. was now dealing with "New African Leaders," exemplified by Yoweri K. Mu- seveni, Uganda's ruler. We have consistently insisted, from the very first issue in October 1997, that any dictator who is above the law and beholden to foreign backers and media, cannot quali- fy as a "new" breed leader...' 'Disturbingly, Museveni is also a racist...' 'Last year, The Shariat (Vol. II No.15, April 15-21), a Ugandan weekly newspaper quoted him saying: "As Hitler did to bring Germany together, we should also do it here. Hitler was a smart guy, but I think he went a bit too far by wanting to conquer the world." Of course there was no mention of any gas chambers...' 'All of Africa, and Uganda in particular, deserves to be go- verned by freely-elected leaders who are beholden to their citi- zenry, not to an outside power like the United States. So, may we suggest a bold new foreign policy for the state department? Africa for the Africans.' This criticism of course is quite correct. But naturally too, the US State Department by no means will show *that* degree of "tactfulness" which the Black Star News suggests. 6. STILL THE SAME COMPLETE LACK OF "TACT" BY ALL THE MASS MEDIA OF NORTH AMERICA AND EUROPE From the very beginning, all the internationally most influen- tial mass media have called the armed conflict in the DR Congo not an aggression, which as all facts show that it is in essen- ce, but a "rebellion". The invading troops have constantly been referred to as "the rebels", and this continues, in all the "rich" countries, still today. For this, it hasn't mattered one bit that the governments of Uganda and Rwanda have openly admitted having troops in the DR Congo, nor even that that country's authority have presented to the international media a considerable number of prisoners belonging, as they themselves have stated, to the Ugandan and Rwandan armies. Why this continued complete lack of "tact", this complete dis- regard of the truth on the part of *all* these media forces? This has to do with the fact that the imperialist exploitation of the peoples of the third world is *a cornerstone of that entire social system which exists in the world today*. The people and the government of the DR Congo are striving to get rid of that exploitation as far as that country is concerned, and that is why, in the view of those totally corrupt media, that crime against it which continues today should be portrayed as an "internal affair" instead of that international plot and flagrant aggression which it in reality is. The peoples of the world, on the contrary, should distrust and expose these media lies, and, in their own interests, should support the just defence struggle of the DR Congo. - RM ________________________________________________________________ "NEWS ON CONGO" postings bring statements by the Congo National Association in Sweden and the DR Congo Committee in Sweden and also reproduce information and analysis from other sources. For French-readers we recommend the sites Agence Congolaise de Presse, ACP: (temporarily closed from 16.08.98 on) and Congonline (Belgium-based, brings info from various sources): . Contact addresses: Congo National Association Box 5343 SE - 102 45 Stockholm Sweden Tel: +46 - 8 - 471 96 26 (chairman) +46 - 8 - 84 57 18 (facility) Fax: +46 - 8 - 751 26 06 DR Congo Committee (Chairman: Bony Ndjov-a-Shamalo) Box 17513 SE - 200 10 Malmoe Sweden Tel: +46 - 40 - 12 48 32 E-mail: congocomse@hotmail.com