|
|
Africa News afrol News
|
|
|
Africa News afrol News
|
|
afrol.com, 28 September - This week, the issue of the Zimbabwean involvement in Congo Kinshasa (DRC) was discussed in Parliament. Several speakers protested against what they see as an unconstitutional move by the president. On 20 September, Tendai Biti (MDC opposition), moved a motion on the forces in the DRC. He objected to how much of Zimbabwe's activities in the DRC have been kept a secret from Zimbabweans, and argued that the troops' presence there is not even necessarily constitutional. He moved, therefore, the establishment of a committee to inquire into the legality of the actions, and the cost of Zimbabwe's activities there. He suggested that such a committee should also look at a timeline for the withdrawal of troops from the DRC. Even more controversially, he recommended the establishment of a Freedom of Information Act "obliging full government disclosure on matters of national interest." Biti argued that the President's sending troops to the DRC without Parliamentary consultation or approval was in violation of the Constitution, and was more fitting monarchial prerogatives than presidential responsibilities. Even though, in the Constitution, the President has the power to declare war, at the end of the day, it is Parliament which pays the bills, and which must account to the public for its expenditure. In the case of the DRC, Parliament was never consulted over the involvement and, citing the Official Secrets Act, efforts by MPs and the public to uncover more details about the role of Zimbabwean troops in the DRC, have been in vain. Biti argued that there was no Constitutional, legal or moral basis for the troops to be in the DRC, especially given that Kabila's own legitimacy as a ruler in the DRC is questionable. He gained power through military means, and was never elected, and so there is no argument that Zimbabwe has the obligation to protect a fellow sovereign state, and support it against threat of civil war. Beyond the issue that the forces should not even be there to begin with, Biti argued that the way relevant facts have been kept from Zimbabweans is unconscionable. "To the extent that those troops are there on taxpayers money, surely the government has an obligation to disclose such information (such as how many soldiers have been killed or captured), particularly since such information does not affect the integrity of the actual military operations on a day to day level. We are not asking them to disclose how many land mines they have set in Kasai, but on such important matters as loss of life and prisoners, there is an obligation for them to disclose and disclose fully because we are talking of innocent families... The same obligation applies with regards to the financial costs and financial implications of our adventure in the Congo." Even in terms of information which was open to Parliament and the public, for example the Lusaka Accord of July, 1999, Biti argued that, more than a year after the agreement had been signed, the relevant actors had not even begun to act on their obligations. Biti demonstrated that the role of Zimbabwean troops in the DRC is not to protect sovereign interests of the DRC, or sovereign interests of Zimbabwe, but instead to protect the financial interests of a few Zimbabwean elite. As long ago as 1996, he argued, the Zimbabwean government had been supporting Kabila, even while Mobutu was still in power in then-Zaïre. Through a long series of complicated business connections, the Zimbabwean interest in the DRC is financially, not morally or legally, motivated. He also used this to demonstrate the need for disclosure of information. Paul Temba Nyathi (MP Gwanda North) also contributed eloquently to the debate. He stressed that the presence of the Zimbabwean military in the DRC was "indefensible." He said "We on this side of the House do not prescribe to, devalue the values but we believe very strongly that an adventure such as that of the DRC which has messed up our foreign policies, made more enemies for us than friends, is not worth it in terms of human lives." He pushed the House to acknowledge that the spending in the DRC was unacceptable, especially given the desperate economic situation of this country. "How do we go to bed with clean conscience when we spend $6 billion on defense when Mr Stamps' hospitals have no syringes, no aspirins, it is sin and yet we spend $6 billion on the DRC and pretend in this House
that we are driven by a decency or by patriotic feelings. There is nothing patriotic about placing our people in an invidious position where poverty stinks... The DRC is a costly mistake for this country, it is a mistake that should not have been made in the first place, it is a foreign policy blunder, it is a fiscal irresponsibility and we should be able in this House to say so. What is the way forward? There is a simple way forward, there is
nothing wrong with any decent human being standing up and saying, "I made a mistake" and withdrawing our troops yesterday... The level of corruption that is associated with our participation in the DRC, in a country that is already reeling under very heavy corruption is not worth it. Let us pull out of that one area and reduce the level of corruption. It is corrupting our people, it is destroying the souls of some of the best Zimbabweans that we
have... There is death in Congo, there is penury that follows that involvement there and all kinds of negative things. What we should be doing now is setting a very clear cut time table of withdrawal... We need to come together and find a formula from withdrawing our defence forces in the DRC. The sooner we do that the better."
|
