U.N. Weighs Odds for Success in Congo

As U.N. Security Council envoys arrived in Africa on Thursday to assess prospects for deploying peacekeepers in the Democratic Republic of Congo, analysts expressed doubt about the success of such a force in the wake of an attack this week against U.N. troops elsewhere on the continent.

Reservations about the willingness of the belligerents in Congo to settle their many-sided war, the small size of the prospective peacekeeping force and its mandate to avoid combat could undermine the operation, the observers said.

Their skepticism was reinforced earlier this week by the abduction and slaying of peacekeepers enforcing a shaky 10-month-old peace agreement in the West African nation of Sierra Leone.

At least four Kenyan soldiers, members of what is poised to become the world’s largest peacekeeping operation, were killed in clashes with supporters of the Revolutionary United Front, or RUF, in a dispute about disarmament. At least 69 peacekeepers, including civilians, were taken hostage.

In addition, the world body reported that 23 Indian soldiers were surrounded Thursday by RUF troops in eastern Sierra Leone.

Specialists in conflict management and resolution warned that peacekeepers could face the same risks in Congo, given the hands-off mandate and the small size of the United Nations force slated for duty: 500 observers and 5,000 troops. The Congo force, which U.N. officials said could be deployed by late summer, would be able to do little more than report cease-fire violations and ensure the security of observers, they said.

With such a restrictive brief, the experts warned, the U.N. mission probably would not succeed in ending the Congo war, which at various times has involved at least seven African nations.

“There’s no problem-solving or conflict-resolving effort,” said I. William Zartman, director of African studies at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore. “If military [peacekeeping] forces are just there to do a cease-fire, the parties after a while are going to realize that they’re not getting anywhere and . . . [will] continue the conflict.”

The U.N. fact-finders, led by U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Richard Holbrooke, met with Congolese officials in the capital, Kinshasa, on Thursday and signed an agreement designed to ensure the safety and free movement of peacekeepers.

Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia are backing the government of Congolese President Laurent Kabila and are pitted against rebel factions supported by Rwanda and Uganda. The proposed peacekeeping force would monitor the cease-fire and the withdrawal of foreign combatants, terms that were brokered in Lusaka, Zambia, last summer. The truce has been violated on numerous occasions, casting doubt on the commitment of the warring sides to end the crisis.

“There is a peace to keep from time to time, but it’s not a wholehearted peace that is going toward a solution,” Zartman said.

Holbrooke, who is leading the six-day fact-finding mission to Congo and four other nations, has stressed the need for the peacekeeping force to prevent further destabilization on the continent.

Critics agree but argue that the proposed U.N. peacekeeping force of 5,500 members is too small to have an impact on such a vast country, which at more than 900,000 square miles is roughly 1 1/2 times the size of Alaska.

“It is a bit ridiculous, in particular bearing in mind the constant and regular violations of the 1999 Lusaka cease-fire and peace accord,” said Hermann Hanekom, current affairs consultant at the Africa Institute in Pretoria, South Africa.

In comparison, the U.N. force in Sierra Leone, which numbers 8,700, patrols a nation of 27,700 square miles and is scheduled to reach its full strength of 11,000 members by July. The peacekeepers--mostly Nigerians, Kenyans and Indians--have clashed several times in recent months with RUF troops loyal to former rebel leader Foday Sankoh.

Some U.N. officials believe that the recent clashes may have been a calculated attempt by Sankoh to hijack the peace agreement that he and his followers have never fully accepted. Critics say the rebels’ aim has always been the acquisition of power, not a compromise resolution.

The United Nations “should not have assumed that the situation in Sierra Leone had stabilized, and that Sankoh and RUF would be playing ball,” Hanekom said.

The desire to control Sierra Leone’s diamond wealth has provided a convenient excuse to continue the fighting. The same can be said for Congo. Holbrooke recently noted that the country’s abundance of natural minerals has drawn the attention of nations long at odds with the U.S.--including Libya, Iran, Cuba, Sudan and North Korea--which he said are seeking a foothold for weapons sales and terrorist activities. The booty has fueled the belligerents’ reluctance to halt the bloodshed in Congo, analysts said.

“It’s become a typical resource war,” said Willie Breytenbach, a professor of political science and conflict resolution and management at South Africa’s University of Stellenbosch. “It’s all about who’s got access to the minerals. It’s got to do with diamonds, gold and land.”

Analysts also place the blame for failing to forge a lasting peace on the shoulders of the Congolese president.

“The effort toward a true national dialogue, one involving all the parties . . . has been continuously sabotaged by Mr. Kabila’s government,” Johns Hopkins’ Zartman said.

“If there is to be true peace, it will not come from foreign intervention or foreign peacekeepers--whether they are United Nations or not. It should start with democratization and national dialogue,” Breytenbach said.

If the peacekeepers are deployed in Congo, they will face many challenges. The war is being waged across dense swaths of jungle, where the communications infrastructure is weak. Because their mandate is to remain neutral and avoid combat, peacekeepers could easily become the focus of attacks.

“There are many bandit groups who roam around and do their mischief under one of the conflicting groups,” Hanekom said. “Who’s going to control them? They are all armed. The place is proliferated with arms.”

Added Breytenbach: “The peacekeepers will be shot at simply because the cease-fire is consistently being violated. [They] will have to keep peace without getting involved in the fighting. That’s the dilemma.”