The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) recently joined the East African Community. It couldn’t have made a noisier and more dramatic entry, accompanied as it was by renewed rebel fighting in the east of the country, threats of genocide against a section of its population, violent demonstration against the UN peace-keeping force, and loud howls of accusations against a neighbour. The lot. Which sent EAC leaders scrambling to sort out the perennial insecurity in the house of the new member.
The Congolese are now formally part of East Africa. But they have really always been part of the region, particularly on the cultural scene where they gave us wonderful music and been a huge presence and influence.
They were amiable, if happy-go-lucky, fellows and charmed East Africans with their manner. They were admired for their sharp sense of style and set the trend in fashion and hairdressing. Even Mobutu’s swagger was admired despite his other, not-so-likeable side.
That was the beautiful, even romantic, side we saw.
But those who know them well, saw a less flattering side – of excesses.
All the nice, charming qualities were diluted by a sense of braggadocio and bravado. They will brag about the enormous size and wealth of their country even when all they have to their name is one thread-bare shirt. They appear to be always spoiling for a fight and so will roll up their sleeves and promise anyone a bloody nose only to cut and run when a real fight happens.
Maybe that is also only a popular perception. Now we are seeing another, ugly, side to Congolese character: excitable, easily manipulated, unrestrained and given to extreme violence.
Scenes of mobs throwing stones at MONUSCO troops, breaking into their compounds and looting whatever they could get their hands on – solar panels, mattresses, drawers pulled out of cupboards, police and soldiers looking on or taking part – confirm this ugly side.
They were allegedly protesting MONUSCO’s inability or unwillingness to protect civilians against attacks by rebels, by which they really mean M23, although they have suffered more from other armed groups such as the genocidal and terrorist FDLR and various Mai Mai outfits.
Was the anger justified? Probably yes, but only partially. MONUSCO has been on ground for two decades, is a hugely expensive operation, and yet there is nothing to show for their presence. They are even reported to have joined in the general lawlessness of the area and looting, and allied with the armed groups.
More anger should have been directed at the Congolese state for being absent, abandoning the people to the mercy of rogues and brigands, and self-serving civil society organisations.
The irony is that the violence was largely incited by senior officials of the absent state.
Was the violence understandable? No. There are better and more effective means of expressing discontent. Collective insanity is not one of them. Nor is hiding behind the anonymity of a faceless, unaccountable mob.
The anti-MONUSCO violent protests were not isolated incidents. They are part of a pattern. They came after, and are in many ways connected with, similar acts against Kinyarwanda=speaking Congolese in various parts of the country.
So, what was the purpose of the violent denunciation of the UN peace-keepers? It may be a government ploy.
First, to intimidate the international community to lean heavily on Rwanda to stop its alleged backing of the M23 rebels. Or to scare it into giving MONUSCO a more robust mandate which, in their prayer, could then be used against M23. Or, failing that, to push them into leaving so that they can do whatever they want to the Kinyarwanda-speaking Congolese without the prying eyes of foreigners.
It is also part of what is now a well-known trait of the Congolese, especially their government: playing victim, blaming everything on outsiders, never taking responsibility for their own failures. And so Kinyarwanda-speaking Congolese are to blame for the insecurity in the region. Rwanda is responsible for the absence of government there. And now, it is MONUSCO.
We in this region are now used to this. You would have thought that the rest of the world is. But no. They still listen and fall for the helpless victim narrative.
But just as they blame the outside for all their ills, they also look to it for salvation. Which is another way of confessing incompetence.
And so in the present instance they have been crying to the Americans to come to their aid. And sure enough US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken will soon be visiting the country and neighbouring Rwanda. This is perhaps what the Congolese want to hear him say: "stop crying baby; I’ll punish whoever is doing this to you”.
Whether he will do that we wait to see. He might actually do something different. Admonish them, for instance, for being cry-babies when they are such grown up adults, and then ask them to style up. That alone might still soothe them – at least for a while.
American involvement in DRC goes back a long time. They supported Mobutu all the time he was in power despite his many shortcomings. The contest was, of course, different. It was during the cold war and the overriding aim was to keep the Soviet Union off Zaire’s famed natural resources and prevent them from gaining a foothold on the continent.
The situation today should be different, but it is not. Russia is reasserting itself and increasing its presence in Africa much to the annoyance of Washington. Worse, China has been quietly gaining ground. Another contest is taking place.
The Secretary of State’s visit, therefore, might be more than simply answering the call of an ally in self-inflicted distress, but have a geopolitical dimension as well. We should not be surprised if Washington is soft on the Congolese authorities.
Similarly, however, we should not expect it to be too severe on DRC’s perceived enemies. He might still lull the cry-baby to calm and quiet. That does not mean that he has to follow their accusing finger and do their wish. Expect some disappointment.
The views expressed in this article are of the writer.