[allAfrica.com] [celtel.com] Reconsider Military Adventurism Financial Gazette (Harare) EDITORIAL June 3, 2004 Posted to the web June 3, 2004 Harare OUR lead story last week warned that Zimbabwe, which played such a key role in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) war, risked being written out of the script, ahead of the imminent reconstruction of Africa's potentially biggest economy. Our conclusion was informed by the fact that the United Nations, undertaking a regional tour to consult with those considered key to the Congo crisis, seemed, to all intents and purposes, to belittle the role played by Zimbabwe in that country. All the countries the world body considered key to the crisis were part of its peacekeeping chief Jean-Marie Guehenno's itinerary. These included those countries that were backing the groups fighting against the Kinshasa government - Uganda and Burundi. Surprisingly, South Africa, revered more for its perceived economic clout than for its political and military influence, was also part of the itinerary. And yet it had refused to commit its troops at the height of insurgency in the DRC. Even more surprising was that Zimbabwe was conspicuous by its absence from the itinerary. The country sent its troops, according to the authorities, to the DRC at the request of that country's government. Opinion is still split over whether Zimbabwe should have sent its troops to the DRC where, except for a few influential politicians, it is not even enjoying the crumbs falling from the Congo cake. Was it justifiable? Was it necessary? These are the questions uppermost in people's minds. Be that as it may, the threadbare reasons advanced by the UN for leaving Zimbabwe out of the itinerary for the regional tour were, as would be expected, far from convincing. Nothing more than this underlines the fact that Zimbabwe, which the West claims has one of the most despotic governments in the world, is increasingly being ostracised. And it is those countries that accuse President Robert Mugabe's government of a huge democratic deficit and that also opposed Zimbabwe's intervention in the Congo that must have influenced the UN decision. This should serve as a wake-up call to those of Zimbabwean politicians with blinkered self-interest who had not yet smelt the coffee - the international isolation is not imaginary but real! It is important to note that outside the framework of the UN peacekeeping initiatives, Zimbabwe has since independence participated in two major regional conflicts - in Mozambique in the 1980s and then the DRC in 1998. The economy emerged bruised from these conflicts. Both wars played their part in weighing down the fragile economy. The real cost in terms of the human lives lost and the finance burden will forever remain a subject of conjecture because it is part of many areas of Zimbabwean public life that the government would rather remained opaque and hostile to scrutiny. The argument here, though, is about the merits, or lack thereof, of the country's participation in these internal conflicts. In other words, does military adventurism pay, especially for a small enfeebled economy? Participation in such wars has always provoked heated but sterile debate because of growing concern over whether the country has economically benefited from this military adventurism. Unfortunately, the answer is an emphatic no. Sadly, Zimbabwe always misses out on the financial gold rush sweeping through these countries in the aftermath of the bruising wars. It happened in Mozambique, when the more aggressive South African companies rushed into that country whose relative stability is in no small measure attributable to Zimbabwe's intervention. And we are about to have a replay in the DRC. From an economic point of view, there has been precious little in the way of good news coming from the country's participation in these wars. At best there has been razor-thin trade volumes between Zimbabwe and these countries. The Congolese or Mozambicans can never really repay us for the role we played in their country, just like we will not be able to make up for the priceless sacrifice Mozambicans made for us during the war of liberation. But we should take advantage of our role in ending hostilities in these countries for the benefit of our economy. Pragmatism dictates that there should be no free lunch in the world, which explains why the Americans who went to Iraqi on the pretext of restoring democratic values, despite the abhorrent behaviour of some of their disgraced soldiers, are demanding that a big chunk of the reconstruction of Iraq should be accounted for by the Americans. Even though the self-appointed international policeman does not seem to have a definite plan for the reconstruction of the rubble that is now Iraq, from which a lair of Islamic militants have emerged, the Americans are making guaranteed business for their corporate citizens conditional for funding the reconstruction of a country they have destroyed. Without extolling violations of territorial integrity and the sheer horror the citizens have had to go through in the face of the destruction of whole countries like Iraq, couldn't we take a leaf from the American book?   =============================================================================   Copyright © 2004 Financial Gazette. All rights reserved. Distributed by AllAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com). =============================================================================