South Africa and Rwanda are face to face about Dr. Congo’s war

The diplomatic relations already tense from South Africa and Rwanda have worsened after President Cyril Ramaphosa accused the M23 rebel group backed by Rwanda of Matching Peacekeepers South African in the east of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

As the rebels won the advantage on the battlefield, capturing most rubber, the largest city in the east, South Africa fired a diplomatic save, warning that more attacks against their troops would be considered a “declaration of war”.

The president of Rwanda, Paul Kagame, replied, accusing South Africa of being part of a “belligerent force” involved in “offensive combat operations” to help the Congolese government “fight against their own people.”

A total of 13 South African soldiers have been killed in the fight since last week, since the rebels advanced to rubber, an important shopping center on the border with Rwanda.

Last year, seven other South Africans were killed in the east of Dr. Congo, which makes it one of the most mortal tragedies related to the country’s fight in recent times.

South Africa and Rwanda have had a difficult relationship.

In 2014, South Africa expelled Three Rwanda diplomats after an attack against the house of a Rwanda dissident in Johannesburg.

The Kagame government responded by expelling six South African envoys.

The tensions apparently decreased after Ramaphosa’s visit to Rwanda last year for commemorations to commemorate the 30th anniversary of the genocide in which around 800,000 people were killed.

But they have exploded again, after the death of the South Africans who were deployed in the east of the Congo in December 2023 as part of a regional peacekeeping force sent by the Southern African Development Community (SADC)

South African soldiers constitute most of the force, known by the acronym Samidrc, which had the mission of repelling armed groups such as M23 and bringing peace to the region rich in minerals after decades of disturbances.

The last diplomatic consumption began with a shared publication on Ramaphosa page.

In him, the president confirmed that he had spoken with Kagame about the growing conflict and that both leaders had agreed “about the urgent need for a high fire and the resumption of peace conversations from all parties in the conflict.”

Ramaphosa also insisted, in a later statement, that the presence of South African troops in DR Congo was not a “declaration of war against any country or state”, an apparent reference to Rwanda.

However, the Minister of Defense of South Africa, Angie Mutshekga, had a slightly different opinion, telling journalists: “There have been no hostilities among us, it is only that when they shot over our heads, the president warned them (that) If you are going to shoot, let’s take that as a declaration of war. “

But Ramaphosa went further in x, To say that the peace forces were killed in attacks by the M23 and, he added promptly, “Militia of the Rwanda Defense Force (RDF)”.

This enraged Kagame, who said that the statements made by South African officials, including Ramaphosa, contained lies and distortion.

“Rwanda’s defense force is an army, not a militia.” Kagame responded in X.

“President Ramaphosa has never given a ‘warning’ of any kind, unless it is delivered in his local language that I do not understand. He requested support to ensure that the South African force has adequate electricity, food and water, which to help communicate.

“President Ramaphosa confirmed that M23 did not kill the soldiers of South Africa, (the conglés army) Fardc,” Kagame said.

He added that the regional peace forces, which included troops from Tanzania and Malawi, were a “belligerent force” that worked alongside “genocid armed groups” that were heading to Rwanda and had no “place in this situation.”

Kagame closed his long statement by saying that South Africa was not in “any position to assume the role of a pacifier or mediator” and that if the country wanted a confrontation, Rwanda “would deal with the matter in that context any day.”

Kagame’s comments clearly suggested that he want South Africa to go back to DR Congo, where his military participation dates back to the end of the 1990s.

First he joined the UN Maintenance Mission of the Peace of the UN, Monusco, after the end of the Apartheid racist system in 1994.

At that time, the South Africa Army had just been considered a “highly effective apartheid war force” to a “peace -in -time force” that remained to deal with reduced funds and a “lack of political direction “, Thomas Mandrup, a associated professor at the University of Stellenbosch in the country, told the BBC.

While South Africa has said that his participation in Dr Congo was guided by his need to “contribute to the stability” of a member of a SADC member, Dean Wingerin defense analyst said that the country’s economic interests also influenced his decision .

“The RDC is a great commercial partner with (USA) because the Eastern RDC is very rich in minerals. We import many minerals … From the RD so that South Africa has an interest in a Pacific drc,” he told the BBC.

Although Monusco’s mission has been largely on the maintenance of peace, the growing tensions in the region led to the establishment of the Force Intervention Brigade in 2013 to “actively commit” to the many armed groups in the east of the Congo.

This intervention was initially successful in repelling the M23, the most prominent rebel group.

This was partly due to the deployment of the attack aircraft of South Africa, Rooivalk, which had a “devastating effect” in the M23 in a short space of time, according to Mr. Wingrin.

The rebel group then melted effectively and was subsequently expelled from the East of Dr Congo, until its recent return that has seen it capture much of the region.

However, the South Africa Army has not been in any position, this time, to frustrate the progress of the rebel group, since it has lost its aerial power.

“Unfortunately, South Africa’s budget has continued to decrease over the years. The Air Force could not afford to keep the roooives,” Wingrin said.

“We are missing that vital air cover that it would have been so useful a few days ago, but it’s too late,” he said.

Mandrup expressed a similar opinion, saying that South Africa deployed its troops in 2023, ignoring the warnings that “it has not obtained the necessary abilities, the defense force is in ruins and that it faces an opponent much better than in 2013”.

He added that it was difficult for South Africa to bring back his troops at this point because “the forces are locked and trapped in two bases.”

“They cannot leave, get Aircover reinforcements (O). They can’t even hurt,” he said.

Ramaphosa seemed to agree, saying in a recent statement that the situation in the region was “tense, volatile and unpredictable.”

Despite this, any decision to get South African troops from Dr. Congo finally meets SADC since Samidrc was deployed by the regional block of 16 members.

There are reports that SADC is ready to make this decision at a summit that will take place on Friday.

For Winingrin, it was necessary for the South African government to make a “serious introspection” about its military participation in Dr. Congo.

“Is it something that they want to boost at all costs and what is valid for South Africa to have sons and daughters who die so far?” asked.

Then, the president of South Africa seems to have a difficult decision: to keep his soldiers in Dr. Congo and risk more deaths, or the shame of taking them out, presumably after negotiating a safe passage for them with Rwanda.