Background ¦ Your reaction

The Background:

When RDC rebels started their war against Laurent Kabila's government, Rwanda and Uganda rushed in to help them on the grounds that their own security was threatened.

Other African countries like Zimbabwe and Namibia came to Kabila's aid. Now the rebels are split between Wamba dia Wamba's faction and Emile Ilunga's. Uganda supports Wamba dia Wamba and Rwanda supports Ilunga.

The split has led to serious fighting between the factions, and now between Ugandan and Rwandan troops in Kisangani.

Have Uganda and Rwanda got their just deserts for meddling in DR Congo? Will it help Kabila survive? Can meddling in another country's affairs ever be justified?

Background ¦ Your reaction

Your Reaction:

No war is justified, especially civil wars. Due to the unjust torture of innocent civil populations, especially women and children, intervention is needed by global or regional bodies.
A preferred method would be prevention of conflict before they occur, with good intelligence.
Ed Edet, USA (Nigerian)

The need for one country to intervene in the internal affairs of another country in necessary provided their is a man made disaster at hand, like the what took place in Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Ethiopia and a whole lot of other terrible situations around the world, that dangerously affects the lives of humans.
Abel Gatei, USA

One could argue endlessly over this very complex issue, but one clear and true fact has to be confirmed. If a country or an alliance decides to intervene in a conflict, be it a war between sovereign states or a civil war, then humanity and morals are not the reasons for intervention. A country would almost never act upon these reasons alone; there is always an underlying conflict of interest. A country only acts if it sees that its own interests would receive a boost. I can think of no conflict where foreign countries have intervened for purely humanitarian and moral reasons. If you can prove the opposite please let me know by addressing your views on this page.
I would just like to end by commenting on: "Britain has no friends only interests". It was actually France's former president Charles De Gaulle who originally uttered these words, but from a slightly different perspective: "France has no friends only interests".
Christopher Petersen, Sweden

You can not justify foreign military intervention in any country. However, in the name of national interest everybody does it. The only way to stop this kind of intervention is when the international community condemns and takes concrete action. However, when it comes to Africa, I don't have any wishful thinking that the international community and/ or the UN will ever take any concrete action, except expressing their usual lip service.
Tsegay Berhe, USA

I believe foreign military intervention is justified in some rare cases. Such cases must threaten the stability of the region. Sometimes we must fight for peace because without peace we can never flourish. I wonder about the motives behind Ugandan and Rwandan intervention within Congo. The Central African leaders must seek peace for the sake of the people in whose name they govern.
Alex Jones, USA

If there was no intervention, In Kosovo, Haiti, Bosnia, Kuwait and many other places what would happen?
A. Ahmed, Somalia

I completely agree with Asiimwe G, Netherlands. Joining one side of a foreign war is not right as there could be different sides to many stories, but there are reasons where foreign intervention is right and sometimes necessary.
Alan, UK

I think foreign intervention is highly needed in a situation where outsiders invaded their neighbour's territory, as it's happening right now in the democratic republic of Congo. It's an aggression against the sovereignty of the DRC and it must be stopped. I hope that OAU will clearly listen to this.
Abu Bakar Kamara, Malaysia.

The growth of the British Empire was a result of traders seeking the protection of Government from perceived and real threats - stability is good for trade. It was only late in its Imperial life that the British people actually appreciated that it had an empire at all! And upon that realization, the demand to "do good" took over and, because of this, the whole structure eventually collapsed and colonialism/imperialism finally went the way of dinosaurs. It is therefore ironic that there is a call to do it all again ... and for the same basic reason (stability and economic development).
Do we really want to do this again, albeit in another guise? Today's "noble reasons" for intervening are not much different from those of 100-200 years ago ... standards have changed, of course, but it was considered "noble" then, too! But as Palmerston said, Britain does not have friends, only interests. This is a good mantra for the US to learn, and the UK to relearn - do the right thing, but only when one's interests are directly impacted. Otherwise, the goals become fuzzy and "noble" becomes "sordid".
Mark M. Newdick, USA/UK

The history of arms struggle in Africa has shown the inability of most individual African states to resolve their internal differences without external help. If countries like Liberia, Sierra Leone, Rwanda, Lesotho and currently, The Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC)and other Great Lakes of Africa countries were to be left to alone, I wonder whether there would still be lives in those countries today. The activities of ECOMOG in Liberia and Sierra Leone and the Southern African Development Community (SADC)Defence forces led by South Africa and Botswana, lends credence to the above claims.
However, unilateral intervention by foreign countries in obvious internal conflicts in other countries either by supply of arms and ammunitions or logistic supports to rebels against legitimate governments, only exacerbates conflicts rather than resolving them. The conflict in the D.R.C today is a good example.
It is, however, suggested that an African High Command which shall incorporate the existing regional peace keeping forces like the ECOMOG and the SADC Defences forces be established under the auspices of the Organisation of African Unity (OAU) to oversee all conflict resolution measures in the continent as against the current adhoc measures that are employed.
Solomon Orjiwuru, A Nigerian in the USA

Meddling in another country's affairs isn't the real issue here. Why didn't you rather ask are Rwanda and Uganda achieving their declared objectives in Congo? To this question, the answer is of course no. Somehow that infighting reinforces Kabila's position both militarily, and diplomatically. Curiously, he didn't attack while those enemies of him were busy fighting one another! Was it by respect of the Lusaka cease-fire, or rather a demonstration of his weakness? I would suspect the second assumption to be closer to the truth.
Peter M., Belgium

Never, never, never! A lesson learned in Vietnam! Who are we to select one side over another.
Bob Farrell, USA

It's not a yes/no answer, but it depends on the situation. To stop repression of a community (Nato in Kosovo; Failure to intervene in Rwanda is a vivid shame); Removing dictators (Tanzania's help in removing Amin of Uganda in 1979); Bad systems (Frontline states with apartheid in S. Africa); Removing and 'neutralising' invaders (US in Iraq); 'Helping' the weak and vulnerable to colonisation (Britain vs. Argentina); Pacification (Nigeria in W. Africa of which more is needed in Sierra Leone); Intervention in Somalia; (South Africa in Lesotho); Flushing dangerous infiltrators from their launching bases (ADF and Enterahamwe rebels in the DRC against Uganda and Rwanda. Hot pursuit is necessary for some of them who murdered innocent tourists in the Bwindi National Pack.
asiimwe G., Netherlands

When military or social aid is specifically requested by a country, we must help. On the other hand, although we may find that human rights are restricted, we are judging the situation from our point of view and our background, which is not the same as the social & political experiences of the foreign country. For example, look at what's happening to the former USSR now that "independence" has been achieved. Fractions arise, internal wars begin, and 'senseless' killings occur daily, 'senseless' according to us of the so-called FREE WORLD. Indigenous populations must be allowed to evolve slowly, as we all have, & decide on their own when it is time to FIGHT for one's freedom. Imposed freedom isn't FREE. Imposed freedom is an open door to dictatorship. We cannot judge others from our standpoint. We must allow them to evolve, step-by-step, from political childhood, through adolescence, into adulthood. Each must fight for what HE/SHE believes in & not impose his way of life & thinking upon one's neighbours.
Muriel, CANADA

Foreign intervention is unjustfied in anyway. In the first place who gave the interventionists, the right to intervene? What is the basis on which they are intervening? Such actions create more problems rather than find a solution. Look at the ECOMOG troops in Sierra Leone. When are they pulling out and haven't they turned themselves into robbers looting the people in the mining areas? I hate interventionists in any form!
Kweku mamuah, Africa

Of course, such intervention can be, and in this case is, justified. Sadly, mechanisms whereby the international community can act with a hint of legitimacy have been declared redundant (see for example the Nato bombing of Serbia, morally justified or so we are told). Were it not for the ineffectiveness of UN resolutions and the badly misnamed peace-keeping missions, Rwanda would not need to "invade" the DRC. Rwanda, however, more than anyone else has had to realize the hollow promise of international, inter-governmental solidarity. Shouldn't the key question rather be "what should be done to establish the International Criminal Court ASAP?"
Atilla Alpman, currently USA

Foreign Intervention can be justified where there is suffering of innocent civilians eg KOSOVO.
John Lubugumu, UK

So the borders of today's African states may well be arbitrary, as Graham (UK) points out. Many were drawn by European colonial powers at the 1884 Berlin Conference. But how many of today's African governments would seriously contemplate an exchange of territory and population through a negotiated adjustment of those borders, under a bilateral agreement with a neighbouring state for example? I don't see them rushing to make any such changes. On the contrary: they defend those borders jealously.
So don't criticise the European former colonial powers for bad policy decisions made over a century ago when modern, independent African governments show no interest in reversing them. African territorial disputes may have their roots in the colonial past. But it is wrong to blame the former colonial powers if some of today's African governments choose to resolve these issues through war instead of diplomacy.
Henry Case, UK

Except in providing a neutral ground for the warring factions to settle their arguments, or in suggesting peace solutions and options, no other country should interfere in another country's foreign policies or another country's wars. Nato's interference in Kosovo is one recent example of good intentions getting misfired. Nato's intervention has debilitated and destabilised the Balkans for several decades to come.
Viswanath Gurram, Canada

It's obviously no good to see that Uganda and Rwanda can not resolve their differences peacefully, without resorting to crushing in Kisangani. However, this is no sufficient argument to conclude that both countries have no good reasons to seek a favourable and positive change in RCD. A married couple can also sometimes fight over some misunderstandings! What is essential is to reconcile and learn good lessons from that bad experience. Many people prefer to highlight the alleged exploitation of RCD natural resources by its eastern neighbours. But, to be honest, why should they leave it to Kabila and his allies alone? Do they really show more concern about his utterly impoverished nation?
John Buka, Rwanda

If the security of one's country is endangered due to war or civil unrest in a neighbouring country the neighbour has reason to feel threatened and to react.
Neuendorf, Germany

Every country should mind their own business as much as possible. If each country should intervene into the neighbour's territory, whatever the reason, what could be the outcome? After a year of the Rwandan and Ugandan intervention in DR Congo, what is the result? Did they achieve their security goal or did they create more insecurity for the neighbours and themselves? Don't you think that interventionism is a serious precedence to future conflicts? I believe that the time is near when all these interventionist rulers will fall apart, because what goes round always comes round.
Faustin Ntala, DR Congo

I'm ex Zimbabwean and have been living in South Africa for the past 8 years. The government and police forces are a joke and foreign intervention is the only way Africa will get back on track. I was lucky to be able to move to a civilised country.
Julian Reeves, USA

Yes, foreign intervention is needed for the fact it seems that we can't handle ourselves economically, or militarily. When there is instability in a region, everyone is self-centred. There is no sense of unity in the individual countries and the Super Powers would sit back and allow the worst atrocities to occur and do nothing, especially in the continent of Africa.
When asked why the super powers aren't responding to the crisis, you get responses like "it is an eternal problem let them fix it themselves." But if it is a European country, there is an immediate rush to avoid the destruction of human lives and infrastructure. Let's be for real until there is a true agreement for the sales of weapons of great destruction of country signed, or agreed by the international community, there will always be "war." and there will always be the "Movie of the Millennium" for our children to watch "War".
Jimmy Reed, USA

The world is getting smaller. We cannot sit back and watch people murder other people. Humanity and responsibility must go beyond some line on a map. In Africa's case, most of these lines are arbitrary, being drawn by the Europeans in the last century. However, how many generations can one extend a land claim. Virtually the whole planet has belonged to a different tribe, empire or country than it does today. Sometimes we must learn to get on with life.
Graham, UK

Intervention is both justified and warranted, if terrorism is a threat to the security of the nation that intervenes. In Congo, there are terrorist gangs that threaten securities of both Rwanda and Uganda; both countries are justified to be there. The fighting between Uganda and Rwanda in Kisangani is a small misunderstanding that will be resolved easily. Kabila and the terrorists he supports want to exploit the Kisangani affair for propaganda opportunistic reasons.
Ruzindana, Canada

No, foreign intervention is not right. The west, particularly UK and US, has a very gung-ho attitude about meddling in other peoples affairs. We should not have got involved in Kuwait, Bosnia or Kosovo. We should leave Rwanda, Uganda and Congo to sort this out themselves. After all, it was probably our aid money which paid for their arms!
Lorraine Elliott, UK

It is tragic to see that what once was a strong relationship between two countries such as these has now dissolved into a bitter dispute over what? If these two nations want to battle it out then why the hell don't they do it on there own soil? This "invasion" has kept a steep canyon of bitterness, hate and division in the host country.
Because of this intrusion Congo is now a weakened force, and the sense of brotherhood has long since faded. The are crying out for peace, and yet the foreigners are ignoring their pleas. Currently their is no justice or rest in the Congo and the people are now destitute to a future of despair. Children in this region are innocent no longer. Is this what you want for country in the future???
Anna Murphy, Australia

The Civil war in Liberia is a vivid example that foreign intervention can sometimes make a difference. Liberians have long viewed the United States as some one she could look up to in the time of trouble, but that thinking was completely naive. The USA let the Liberian people down when she failed to intervene militarily. That was responsible for the war going on for so long without any means of stoppage. The historical ties which existed between both countries, were more than adequate to intervene.
Christian D. Jackson, U.S.A

Depending on circumstances, of course the answer may be yes or no. For the very specific case of DRC, I think the answer is definitely NO. While the cover-up reason presented by both Rwanda and Uganda to the international community for entering the Congo was their own safety reasons, current fighting in Kisangani, shameful to the parties involved denounce clearly the hidden economical agenda of Rwanda and Uganda (and of course of their financial godfathers).
Finally, while Museveni wanted himself to be a power broker for the Eastern and Central Africa, we now know that Kagame what also to have his share of the Congolese Gold, having failed to capture the diamonds heavens i.e Mbujimai). My appeal to everyone is to raise his/her voice for the violation of human rights being committed by this inadmissible occupation of a sovereign territory.
Wency, England (Eastern DRC by origins)

We in New Sudan believe that intervention in Congo is only justified as Kabila wanted to create another genocide. Kabila does not know to say "Thank you", to the guys who brought him to power. Like Idi Amin in his first days in power, was welcomed by the west, but after the west knew that Amin was a dictator, instead of re-adjusting himself, Amin turned to the Arab terrorist. So is Kabila. Libya and Sudan were trying to use him against his own African brothers who brought him to power.
Sudan, New Sudan

Should you attempt to intervene when a woman is being raped or murdered across the street from you? Even if you do not know her or have no other interest? There can be no question that Zaire/DRC's former president amassed enormous wealth at the expense of the country and its people. Kabila has been no different. Foreign intervention can be justified if it can rescue the people of that nation from such abuse and interference of basic individual human rights
BJ East, Canada

We sit at home in our semi and listen through the thin walls to our neighbours having a good argument. Do we intervene? No, of course we don't! It would not be right to interfere. However, when the argument becomes violent, we might call in the police to intervene and protect the assailants from each other. Similarly in countries; when the fighting starts to spill into neighbouring countries then intervention should occur for the safety of the warring country's inhabitants as well as the neighbouring countries.
John Churchman, UK/Germany

There are internationally agreed upon laws that should always guide intervention. By intervening in Kosovo without UN Security Council approval, US-led Nato dealt another blow at the fragile system of international peace. They (Nato) are dragging us back to lawlessness, where "might is right".
Veli, USA

The Horn of Africa's land and people have faced an extraordinary crisis for the last 5 decades. It is time to forgive and forget the past. If we don't do that among ourselves we will have to face reality - foreign forces to heal and calm our plights and sins that were forced on our innocent people.
N Kafi, Somali Regional State-Ethiopia

History is replete with examples of justified intervention on the side of humanity. Sometimes a country's people are made to endure abusive rule by recalcitrant dictators. Interventions in wars to replace such dictators are soundly justified. The madness of Nazis had to be contained through an international effort. When the behaviour of rogue politicians threatens the peace and stability of whole regions, intervention, albeit of the principled type, will be perfectly in order.
Paul Mavima, USA

Foreign intervention is only justifiable for humanitarian purposes. Can somebody give an example of any humanitarian act performed by either the UPDF or RPA in the Congo? They just stage a fight in order to sabotage immunisation of children.
How do you justify the slaughter of innocent people, pregnant women and small children! It is believed that Rwandan forces are recruiting Congolese youths to carry out acts of genocide before killing them later so that there would be no witnesses to the "mass graves".
Anyone who cares enough about political stability in the Great Lakes, must condemn UPDF/RPA crimes against humanity (turning off Kinshasa water and electricity), acts of genocide (attempts to exterminate the population in Kivu), in much the same way they condemned the genocide against the Tutsis.
No doubt, it might take 40 years as in the case of the Tutsi in Rwanda, but the Congolese people will one day bounce back.
Maniema, USA

In cases such as Sierra Leone, military intervention is not only justified, but it is morally imperative. In the DRC, Kabila has no one to blame but himself. He not only bit the hand(s) that fed him, but he proved that he was no better than the moron he replaced. Given its brutal recent past, Rwanda can be forgiven for being paranoid about the rebels.
Femi Akomolafe, Holland

Is foreign intervention in other country's wars ever justified?

Final Votes:

100% 0%			>		>
			Yes: <% =percentyes %>%		No: <% =percentno %>%