By crude, perhaps I'm being too modest in trying to explain his declaration that African-Americans couldn't possibly have the edge to help solve the central Africa conflict problem if they mostly hold similar "Western" lofty ideas of an interventionist and ideological solution. Or his dismissal of Africa as a key player in world trade when the statistics show the continent as a blip compared to its potential to supply the hungry industrialising East with raw materials. And his succinct response to the multinational corporation influence question, explaining that the multinationals value a stable and benign business environment as opposed to small /medium sized companies who "loot" at the lowest bidder, break national and international laws and hide in the Caymans, Virgin Islands or wherever else the proverbial white collar looters hide their booty. His deep experience in the intrigues of conflict politics make up for his feather ruffling abilities.
You are probably wondering where the hell I am going with this. After all, we are talking about the Congo right? Yes and No. The conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo, according to Prunier, from the fall of Mobutu Seseseko in 1996 until the Sun City Peace Treaty of 2002 was not just an anecdotal war that managed to kill millions of people in 6 years, it was a mega medley of wars within wars, a mishmash of proxy wars involving neighbouring nations. The biggest war that has ever been forgotten.
I lost track on which country was supporting which Congolese rebel or governmental group. All I remember from the talk is that Angola and Zambia had interests in Congo whilst undermining South African interests: Undermining being the operative word - the mines of Katanga! Angola provided troops and hardware to the government whilst Rwanda were funding rebel groups in the Eastern part, with Uganda fuming in the background without upsetting Rwanda (who helped Obote get toppled by Museveni).
By the way, since we are in gossip mode, the cold war had a role here. Apparently Nyerere of Tanzania a well known Marxist was only happy to help in finding a replacement for Mobutu (another son of the CIA), but to appease all the compromise was a political incompetent called Laurent Kabila but so neutral in allegiance that what happened was that a ragtag cabinet of barmen, PhDs and former ambassadors daughters was formed. The ministry of finance consisted of a dishing around of wads of cash. Government ceased to exist and proxy control was the game. Oh and Sudan got stuck in as they didn't want Uganda using Congo as a staging area for supporting the SPLA. And Chad as Prunier puts it, a typical French client state, was in its suspended animation stuporferic tendency to shift along the lines of the leading sponsor was prodded by Libya to get into the conflict sending troops with only desert warfare experience into the jungle.
What about Genocide? Prunier uses the client state analogy again to describe Rwanda. It seems that the French were happy to have post-colonial client states, meaning enjoying the patronage of these countries for certain strategic decisions (quite dissimilar to former British colonies who have tried to wrestle away all influence) but they underestimated Rwanda. Apparently les Francais would have been expecting a go ahead from Habyarimana to launch an inter-tribal conflict and it was only after months of muted silence after the genocide did the rest of the world realise that post-colonial client state stereotypes don't always work. Where was globo-cop? US of A? UN? Kagame is only right in saying that France could have had an influence to limit the genocide or stop it, but he was wrong in saying that it was complicit (Thats my opinion as a side comment). At the moment he is harbouring Laurent Nkunda, a Tutsi rebel from Eastern Congo wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity (crimes against his own people!) who seems to have suddenly become Rwandan and in exile in the comfortable Milles Collines. Who you are fighting for depends on what uniform you put on that morning, as the saying goes.
But the question that was on people's minds at the event was not whose fault it is. Rather who can stop it. Prunier talked about a reorganisation going on in Africa where some nations are showing promise with stronger civic society, well scrutinised politicians under waning corruption, disciplined armies, serious economic policies etc etc, with the true solutions only coming from the continent. He cited comparisons with the brutality of the European 30 years war in the 17th century that ended with treaties and fixed borders preventing destabilisation of nations until the 1st world war but I felt that argument was weak as today conflicts are different in nature and influences are different. Globalisation, militarisation i.e. sophisticated arms trading, economic Diasporas not to mention the post-colonial stigma that hangs on everyone's heads. I don't buy the Africa's problems solved by Africa only line. It's like flood victims in Mozambique saying global warming is China's fault. Though the solutions need to be originated by Africans and supported by those abroad who care, not those who think it makes business sense. Let me jog your memory: Iraq!
These are not just my counter arguments. They are also the concerns of a very vocal member of the audience, Leah Chishungi amongst others. When I spoke to her I thought she hated Pruniers guts but she explained that she respects his candid talk but chastises his impersonal outlook. She is a human rights campaigner focusing on violence against women and children. Only after reading some blogs later on did I find out that she is a Rwanda Genocide survivor.
(See some blogs on her:
http://www.everythingisabenefit.org/
http://en.wordpress.com/tag/leah-chishugi/)
