Africa Segment: SA demands Rwanda withdraw its defence forces in eastern DRC

This is a Power 98.7 Podcast. Now, we're talking. Subscribe to Power 98.7 Podcasts in iTunes, wherever you get your podcasts. There's more on power987.co.zade.

All right, just gone 23 minutes to eight o'clock here on power business and around this time we get into our Africa segments. So thank you for staying tuned with us. And as I mentioned, so South Africa has called then for a wonder to withdraw its defense forces from Eastern Democratic Republic of Congo amid escalating violence in the region. Now this comes after nine South African peacekeepers are still lies in the conflict for the highlighting the risks faced by peacekeepers.

peacekeeping missions rather in volatile environments. Now, as tensions rise in diplomatic ties between Rwanda and the DRC are severed, the international community watches closely questioning the role of foreign intervention and the effectiveness of peace processes. For joining us for this conversation, I'm joined this evening by Dr. Weston Silajo, International Relations Scholar at VITS University. Dr. Weston, a very good evening and welcome to the program. Good evening. Thank you so much for the invite.

I guess, you know, Dr. Weston then, just in terms of the context of what's going on, talk just in about the main reasons behind Rwanda's involvement in the DRC, and how is this contributed to the ongoing conflict? Thank you. First and foremost, this conflict can be traced back to the post genocide in 1994 in Rwanda, whereby

after Kagame and were this strategic front party, storming Kigali and succeeding in taking over power while the previous regime disintegrated and its members dispersed, there was a group that was made up of Hutu militia that was accused of perpetuating genocide. So when Kagame and RPL

Soldiers took over power. This militia read across the border into DRC. And post-94, one, and academia has always been worried of these remnants of the interhabma. That's what they were calling it. Who they suspect have always harbored the ambition of crossing the border again into wonder and taking over power.

So, Kadate Azul has argued that he's interested in what's happening in Easter DRC because it poses a trade to the stability of one there. And therefore, he has got a right to even dispatch one of these soldiers into Congo in pursuit of those elements, the suspects to have a, you know,

in its instincts of mobilizing and taking power in Kigali. So that has always been the defense, even as numerous UN reports accuse Kigali of encroachment on the territorial integrity of Congo. Secondly, Kigali has always argued that it has got

people in Congo, people of Tutsi ancestry, who are in eastern Congo, citizens of Congo, but who have always been perceived to be foreigners, who should go back to Rwanda. So Kigalia has always put it that it will be a responsibility to protect the citizens of Tutsi extraction.

who are, as it were, members of the way the Tutsi community in Rwanda and Durundi. And therefore, the argument is always not to destabilize Congo, but they are in Congo to safeguard its own security, to secure life and property of people of Tutsi as in a group who are resident in Eastern Congo, and to preempt.

the possibility of remnants of Genosy Daz who are still lacking in the neighborhood so that they do not mobilize, organize, and launch an attack against Rwanda.

All right, Dr. Weston then looking then at the developments over the weekend. Talk to us about how significant is South Africa's call then for Rwanda to withdraw its forces and what impact could this sort of have then on the diplomatic dynamics in the region? I think South Africa is within international law. It's within the provisions of the United Nations Charter.

that any country that dispatches its soldiers, security apparatus, the enemy military into another country uninvited is in violation of international law, is in violation of that country's territorial integrity. And therefore,

a responsible member of the international community should not engage in those kinds of activities. So even without invoking these provisions, South Africa is embedded in those provisions for calling the Rwandan government to withdraw its security forces from Congo. Secondly, South Africa believes in the peaceful resolution of conflicts across the continent.

So they don't see how the presence of one of these soldiers on Congolese soil will advance the cause of peace and stability in Eastern Congo and in the wider Great Lakes region as a world. So on one hand, they have these five soldiers in Congo, South Africa, as part of the peacekeeping mission. On the other hand, they are also alive to the fact that

For a long-standing, sustainable solution to this problem, a diplomatic approach is the only viable way out. So it's significant. It's not about an indication that there's a diplomatic fallout between South African Congo, but it's the right thing to do to call Rwanda to withdraw its forces

from Congo, and it's not only South Africa that has made this call. Even the United Nations have made this call and other members of the international community who are following these developments closely.

And turning our focus then to the peacekeepers on the ground, those who are actually involved in this conflict. South Africa, as part then of the UN peacekeeping mission, has lost nine peacekeepers in this conflict. We heard those reports over the weekend. How do you think then the international community should address the risks faced by peacekeepers in volatile regions? Well, it's almost risky.

to dispatch boots on the ground in volatile regions in trouble sports. Chances are always high that some of the members of those contingents will lose their lives because trouble sports simply means the combatants who are armed and they are ready to use those arms or in most cases we have active hostilities.

One way of the international community tends to enhance the security of these troops is to spell out their mandate clearly, that one of which is that they have demanded the right to use force when they come and attack, or to use force when they create a buffer zone between warring parties. But as we know, that's usually late.

Because they should also be pleased to keep. Before you dispatch these keepers onto the ground in a trouble spot, they must be pleased to keep. If there's no peace to keep, deploying the UN forces, it affects the amount to deploying combatants on the ground. And they become targets, as it's happened in Eastern Congo. That M25 forces targeted this

these keeping troops both under the UN umbrella as well as under the Southern African Development Community umbrella. But the idea is that we don't reach here, that the conflicts do not escalate to a point where so does are required to be on the ground. If we could preempt the escalation of a conflict to these

tribal level through diplomatic channels, that would be the best way out. But as of now, as far as the DRC conflict is concerned, it's too late. The troops are on the ground. They are casualties. And the latest reports are that in 2016, I was taking over Goma.

And in that context, Dr. West, and then we know there's been sort of criticism of South Africa's involvement, given the budget cuts that are facing the army. Should South Africa reconsider its participation in peacekeeping missions, in high-risk zones? Talk to us about why or why not? Well, South Africa cannot help it, because Pretoria, as one of the consequences of countries in Africa,

and in a global South, can not sit pretty and watch as conflicts unfold on the African continent. Because Pretoria has always had you for functioning, unified Africa, peaceful Africa, for prosperity, for development, and for modernization of economies across the continent. So it will be a contradiction in terms

for Pretoria to recast itself as one of the leading countries on the continent and one of the salient voices of the global south to be disinterested in conflicts on the African continent. So they called for South Africa not to be involved in this conflict, not to despite

troops into this tribal sports, not to participate militarily and diplomatically in finding lasting solutions to this conflict, or to cut budgets, as far as defense force is concerned, cannot fly. It's what a responsible member of the international community has to do, participating in peacekeeping mission, participating in finding

lasting enduring resolutions to conflict not only in their sub-region, but also in this case on the African continent and beyond, and not to rely on the usual suspects, the Americans, the French, the Belgians, and many other global actors, because they have tried in the past as in the case of Congo and still the conflict continues unabated.

I guess in Dr. West and then where to from here? From here, we were not likely to see peace in this part of the continent anytime soon because the conflict in Congo has got deep roots. That's got deep deep roots. The UN has been in Congo since the 1960s. They were there during the Katanga

and that remain in place ever since. They have been there since the collapse of the Mobutu Saseco regime in the late 1990s, since what has been dubbed as the first world war that's factored many African countries from the southern African region and the Great Lakes region, two days. And now we've got the static mission there,

But still, the lot of the Congolese people has not improved. They have not seen this, they have not seen tranquility, they cannot go about their business and more less things. So, and as Rwanda continues suffering suspicion about remnants of

Those who committed atrocities remain before that they are hiding in Eastern Congo. They are also not going to let go of their involvement in Eastern Congo. And I guess Dr. Weston, we're going to have to leave it there. We've run out of time, but we really appreciate your insights this evening.

Thank you so much.