BY MEGAN ARNEY

Just days after announcing they would launch a large-scale military intervention in central Africa, Washington, Ottawa, Paris, and other imperialist powers had to begin scaling back their plans. With the halt of fighting in the region and the return of refugees from Zaire to Rwanda, the pretext for United Nations intervention under the guise of "humanitarian aid," has been undercut. Rwandan foreign minister Anastase Gasana said November 19 that any moves to send foreign troops into his country would be regarded as a hostile act.

On November 12, Ottawa proposed it lead a force of between 10,000 and 15,000 troops from about a dozen countries to intervene in eastern Zaire under the flag of the United Nations. One day later, Washington endorsed the intervention and President William Clinton announced initial approval for sending up to 4,000 U.S. troops. On November 15, the UN Security Council voted unanimously to sanction the force through March 31, authorizing troops to use "all necessary means" to defend themselves.

That same day, rebel forces in Zaire who are opposed to the regime of President Mobuto Sese Seko overran a refugee camp in Goma, routing the thugs who ran the camp, who are backed by the Zairian army. The camps of Rwandan refugees on Zaire's eastern border were under the military control of the Interahamwe vigilante militias and former officers of the Hutu-dominated Rwandan army, who were heavily involved in the 1994 massacres of 500,000 people in Rwanda. When the opportunity came, refugees left for Rwanda by the hundreds of thousands. An estimated half million people had walked back across the border to their villages as of November 19.

In this context, U.S. officials announced they would have to "reassess" the intervention. On November 19, the Pentagon announced it would send 200 U.S. troops to Rwanda and 600 more to neighboring countries, with the largest concentration of U.S. troops - about 500 - in Uganda. In preparation, some 30 cargo planes have been moved to Europe. Clinton still prepared to send troops
"I think we have to be prepared for the prospect that we will still have some presence there," said Clinton.

State Department spokesman Nicholas Burns added, "We are preparing for an intervention force and we would be naive and sadly mistaken were we to arrest all our efforts now because of preliminary good news." All preparations for deployment - such as the movement of water supply equipment and transport aircraft to jumping-off points in Europe - would go ahead while the reassessment takes place, administration officials said. U.S. defense secretary William Perry said November 17 that "2,000 people and dozens of airplanes" had been put on standby for possible intervention.

Two days later, Perry said that while U.S. forces are now preparing a smaller operation, the effort may still have to be expanded.

The French government issued a statement saying it believed that an international force was still required to help with the logistics of a rescue operation. As the dominant imperialist power in the region, Paris had backed the brutal 20-year reign of former Rwandan president Juvénal Habyarimana, who was killed in 1994.

Sylvana Foa, a spokesperson for UN secretary general Boutros Boutros-Ghali, said that UN officials also believe the force should proceed. "The situation [in Zaire] is very, very volatile," said Foa.

Canadian officials still hope to intervene in central Africa as well. In an interview with CBC Radio of Canada, Raymond Chretien, the UN special envoy to Rwanda who is in Kigali, told reporters that the Canadian government is proceeding with its intervention force. "With the changing circumstances of the refugees, we may scale down the size of the military mission."

Chretien added that he was having "great difficulty" in Kigali in convincing Rwandan government officials to accept the intervention force. "I have to continually remind them that Canada does not have a history of having colonies. That it [the intervention] is not a political operation which we are mounting."

While Rwandan officials say the big majority of refugees have returned, those governments pushing to intervene insist hundreds of thousands remain in Zaire. Rwandan gov't objects to intervention
When U.S. and Canadian troops initially landed in Rwanda, they were met by government officials and told there is no longer any need for military intervention. Some 34 Canadian soldiers arrived in Kigali on November 17, but were restricted by Rwandan authorities. Three days earlier an advance team of 43 U.S. soldiers landed in Kigali.

Rwandan officials have strongly objected to the idea of a UN intervention force. Gasana refused point blank to cooperate with an incoming force, according to the Financial Times of London. "The whole mission has become null and void," Gasana told reporters November 19.

Gasana made it clear that the Rwandan government would regard as a hostile act the sending of any troops as part of the Canadian-led force, and would not allow them to use its airport. The announcement in the capital city of Kigali came just two days before a scheduled meeting in Stuttgart, Germany, of government officials planning the intervention.

Rwandan officials also say the force would do nothing to bring justice to thousands of Hutu supporters of the former regime who participated in the 1994 massacre. When the current government took power, those forces provoked the exodus of Rwandans to Zaire, saying Hutu residents were in danger of retribution. The Rwandan government also opposes the international force because it will included French units. Paris has pushed from the beginning to intervene in the situation, to bolster its role in the region.

Tensions have heightened between Washington and Paris lately over former colonies in Africa. In early October, former U.S. secretary of state Warren Christopher visited several African countries touting a plan for a regional "peace force" that the U.S. military would dominate.

Meanwhile, Laurent Kabila, a leader of the rebel forces in eastern Zaire, said November 15 that he would not allow U.S. troops to seize Goma's airport. "Why should they occupy the airport?" he asked. Kabila later added, "I don't think the international community has any reason to come here."

The South African government, which earlier had hesitantly backed the intervention, now has withdrawn its proposed participation.

South Africa has offered technical support but no troops. South African vice president Thabo Mbeki said November 15 that his country was not prepared to send troops "to fight a war."

Cuban president Fidel Castro, speaking at the U.N.-sponsored World Food Summit in Rome November 16, denounced the hypocritical "humanitarian" pretext. "What are we going to do to prevent the starvation of 1 million people every month in the rest of the world?" he said.  
 
 
Front page (for this issue) | Home | Text-version home