The noise about the situation in Goma makes it easy to forget the main reason our soldiers are there. It doesn’t matter whether you describe them as “peacekeepers” or as part of a particular bloc of countries.
They are there to protect civilians who live there.
As Reuters has reported, M23 members have been moving through the city taking over its operations. This is not democratic and it is unlikely that its members care about due process for civilians.
For this reason alone there is a strong moral argument for our soldiers to be there.
As we are a democracy that believes in human rights, we must believe in human rights for everyone everywhere, whether they be in Goma or Gaza.
In this case, unfortunately, our soldiers have been placed in harm’s way, and some have paid the ultimate price.
Kagame’s advantages
It is clear that Kagame has certain advantages over Ramaphosa because of the nature of our society which has many groups of people with different interests who are protected by the rule of law.
This means that Ramaphosa cannot act as decisively as Kagame can. And, because Kagame has such tight control of Rwandan society, he can act with resolve.
For example, he obviously has very tight control of his military and can surely hire and fire generals at will.
In South Africa, Ramaphosa has to deal with generals who play golf while soldiers are dying.
No Rwandan general would be that brave.
The SANDF is also unionised (following a Constitutional Court ruling many years ago that soldiers have rights in the workplace), which means that the voices of soldiers are being heard in our public domain. The SA National Defence Union (Sandu) has been giving interviews and offering critiques of government policy, and explaining exactly how under-resourced the SANDF is.
This points to a bigger problem for Ramaphosa, in that he has to contend with a multitude of voices who are critical of his actions, no matter what he does.
It is not just Sandu that is critical of our strategy, there are opposition parties (an urgent debate is scheduled in Parliament on this issue), perhaps some parties in the national coalition, and many other voices.
Public opinion
Rwanda’s foreign minister and government spokespeople have been giving regular interviews to South African media. This essentially allows Kagame to try to win the fight for South African public opinion right in Ramaphosa’s political territory.
As Rwanda is not such an open society, this is a huge advantage for him.
Then there is the fact that Kagame has shown many times that he will do things Ramaphosa will simply not do. While Ramaphosa’s political consciousness was forged during apartheid and the difficulties of township life during that time, Kagame’s was forged in war.
And while Ramaphosa has always used his political skills to find solutions to problems, Kagame has used violence and is prepared to do so again.
He is even prepared to do that in South Africa.
One of his domestic enemies, the former Rwandan spy boss Patrick Karegeya was murdered at The Michelangelo Towers hotel in Sandton in 2014.
For one country to kill a person in another country has often been casus belli (cause for war) in the past. And yet it is unthinkable that Ramaphosa would do something like this in return.
Reporting by the British journalist Michela Wrong has also shown how Rwanda has maintained its reputation among aid agencies while still committing acts of violence.
This also shows a much bigger strategic problem for Ramaphosa. He wants to protect both the lives of civilians in Goma and our soldiers. Kagame just wants to win. His aim is much simpler and thus easier to achieve.
The fact Kagame can use violence in this way, has military superiority in the area and little regard for human life, enables him to change the facts on the ground. This is very similar to what Israel has done in Gaza.
Ramaphosa has none of these advantages and is limited only to words and the use of international public opinion.
Unfortunately, this may not be enough … and Kagame has some cards to play here too.
International support
For many years, Kagame has been strongly supported by international groups and aid agencies, who believe that he has brought peace to a very difficult area. Along with this, he has brought much better living standards. As a result, even someone as experienced in global politics as Tony Blair has supported him staying in office.
While Kagame may have shown more dictatorial tendencies in recent years, this support may be slow to shift.
Also, Kagame has played a role in at least one other part of Africa that may now return the favour.
During the height of what is often called the “Islamist insurgency” in Cabo Delgado in Mozambique a SADC force, including South Africans, was sent to repel armed groups. These militia groups were using violence to take over certain areas and forcing civilians to live under their law.
But in the end, Mozambique had to ask Kagame to send soldiers to that area, where it appears they were more effective.
As a result, Mozambique’s ruling party Frelimo may well feel it owes a debt to Kagame. And, as Zimbabwe’s government is run by people who are blatantly transactional, Ramaphosa may not be able to rely on any kind of moral principle emerging from the SADC bloc.
It should not be forgotten that there is a large amount of trade between South Africa and Rwanda. If Rwanda were democratic in the way that South Africa is, this would allow Ramaphosa to use SA’s bigger economy as a point of leverage. But because Kagame operates as a dictator, he can shrug off any economic cost, while Ramaphosa may not be able to do this.
Ramaphosa’s options
While this suggests that dealing with Rwanda will be difficult for Ramaphosa, he does still have some options.
He could well speak bluntly about the presumed motives for Kagame’s actions and state in a very public forum (such as the United Nations) that Kagame is using M23 to control valuable minerals in the DRC. While this would incense Kagame (who would deny it) it would at least display to the world what this violence is really about.
Also, he could make the case more loudly for the protection of civilians in Goma. This could put Kagame under pressure in some ways.
But it could also, with deft political actions, be used to remind South Africans of what we are supposed to stand for.
If he were to give an impassioned speech to Parliament explaining our soldiers did not die in a foreign land for nothing, that they did so to protect the lives of fellow Africans, that he is committed to protecting everyone everywhere, whether they be in Goma or Gaza, that could well strengthen his position.
Certainly, it could make him look like a strong and principled leader and perhaps make Kagame look more like what he is, a murderous dictator.
While the outcome of this stand-off is uncertain and may be for some time, one thought might well console Ramaphosa.
When his term ends he can look forward to a long and peaceful retirement. Kagame can never retire and his time as leader of Rwanda is unlikely to end peacefully. DM