The peace treaty signed this week in South Africa between the governments of the Democratic Republic of Congo and Rwanda represents a triumph for quiet and persistent diplomacy by the South Africans. Nevertheless, the accord is unlikely to be the end of the conflict, but hopefully it marks the beginning of the end. Under the deal, Rwanda will withdraw its troops from the Congo in return for a promise by the Congo’s President Joseph Kabila that he will crack down on the Hutu militias who fled Rwanda. Their continued existence in the eastern part of the Congo poses a constant threat, not only to the security of Rwanda, but also to the stability of Congolese rule in a large part of its own territory.
That the two governments have buried their bitter differences and reached this agreement is commendable. However, there are certain harsh realities that are likely to delay the implementation of the agreement, possibly for some time.
The biggest problem is that the Hutu militias are well-entrenched in their forest camps. The Rwandan Army’s invasion of their neighbor was an attempt to seek out and destroy them. To a large extent the mission failed, in part because of obstruction by the Congolese authorities, but also because of the sheer difficulty of operating against what are effectively guerrilla armies in such difficult territory. The Congolese government faces an arguably tougher task than the Rwandans in breaking the power of the Hutu militias. Its war-weary armed forces are less well-equipped and disciplined than those of Rwanda and probably have little stomach for what many Congolese officers may regard as a sideshow.
Nevertheless, the extreme difficulty of implementing the treaty should not be allowed to detract from the importance of the treaty itself. What the South Africans have again achieved is the resolution of a violent confrontation by negotiation. It is due to their leadership that Africa is at last beginning to head for the negotiating table rather than the trenches.
Cynics might try to argue that agreements that are not quickly implemented are worthless. Not so long ago, Zimbabwe agreed to end its own troop presence in the Congo. Yet Zimbabwean troops remain on Congolese soil, in part because of the plundering of Congolese mineral wealth that is being undertaken by senior Zimbabwean leaders. There is little merit in such cynicism. Agreements that snip away at seemingly unravelable knots such as the multinational conflict in the DRC take time and patience to broker. Once they have been achieved, no less time and patience is required to put them into effect. The peacemakers are dealing with a continent where the gun has always been preferred over negotiation.
South Africa showed the rest of the sub-Saharan Africa that violence and retribution are not the way to heal deep and long-standing wrongs. Only talking and compromise can lay the foundations for peace and prosperity, and even the South Africans themselves would admit that their own rainbow revolution has many hurdles ahead. Perhaps, however, the way in which South Africans are playing such a significant role in helping others strive toward peace is, in fact, reinforcing the reconciliation and transformation process in their own country.
