: mysql_result() expects parameter 2 to be long, string given in /var/www/vhosts/rcnetwork.net/httpdocs/Country.php
on line 19
Results 1 - 10 of Headlines for South Africa
South Africa Headlines
Friday, April 25th, 2003
: RCN Administrator
PRETORIA (Reuters) - A South African court sentenced anti-apartheid heroine Winnie Madikizela-Mandela to five years in jail with one year suspended on Friday, a day after she was convicted on dozens off counts of fraud and theft.
The prosecution had said a jail sentence was appropriate for Madikizela-Mandela, 66, and her co-accused, broker Addy Moolman, but said the court should take her age into consideration.
Tuesday, February 18th, 2003
: RCN Administrator
"It’s a tragedy what is happening, what Bush is doing. All Bush wants is Iraqi oil. There is no doubt that the U.S. is behaving badly. Why are they not seeking to confiscate weapons of mass destruction from their ally Israel? This is just an excuse to get Iraq’s oil.
We have not had world wars in 57 years, and it is because of the United Nations. We should condemn both [British Prime Minister Tony] Blair and Bush and let them know in no uncertain terms that what they are doing is wrong. Other international countries like France and Russia must influence the United Nations to condemn what he [Bush] is doing.
Bush is now undermining the United Nations. He is acting outside it, not withstanding the fact that the United Nations was the idea of President Roosevelt and Winston Churchill. Both Bush, as well as Tony Blair, are undermining an idea which was sponsored by their predecessors. They do not care. Is it because the secretary-general of the United Nations [Ghanaian Kofi Annan] is now a black man? [APPLAUSE] They never did that when secretary-generals were white.
What is the lesson of them acting outside the United Nations? Are they saying any country which believes that they will not be able to get the support of the countries with a veto [in the United Nations] are entitled to go outside the United Nations and to ignore it? Or are they saying we, the United States, are the only superpower in the world now, [so] we can act as we like? Are they saying this is a lesson we should follow or are they saying ’we are special, what we do should not be done by anybody [else]?’
If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. [APPLAUSE] They don’t care for human beings. Fifty-seven years ago, when Japan was retreating on all fronts, they decided to drop the atom bomb in Hiroshima and Nagasaki; killed a lot of innocent people, who are still suffering the effects of those bombs.
Those bombs were not aimed against the Japanese, they were aimed against the Soviet Union to say, ’look, this is the power that we have. If you dare oppose what we do, this is what is going to happen to you’. Because they are so arrogant, they decided to kill innocent people in Japan, who are still suffering from that.
Who are they, now, to pretend that they are the policemen of the world? [APPLAUSE] To want to decide for the people in Iraq what they should do with their government and with their leadership?
If this is done by the United Nations, if the United Nations says that ’Saddam Hussein is not carrying out the resolutions of the United Nations, therefore we the United Nations are going to take action,’ I will support that without reservation. [APPLAUSE]
What I am condemning is that one power, with a president who has no foresight, who cannot think properly, [LAUGHTER] is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust. I am happy that the people of the world - especially those of the United States of America - are standing up and opposing their own president.
I hope that that opposition will one day make him understand that he has made the greatest mistake of his life in trying to bring about carnage and to police the world, without any authority of the international body. It is something we have to condemn without reservation.
I only hope that the people of the United States will make Bush aware that he has made a big mistake to want to surpass the global body, the United Nations, whose ideals are to bring peace and eradicate wars.
The people of the U.S. should use their democracy to get rid of him. It is best for the U.S. to use the ballot box and demonstrations to draw attention to the issue. [LOUD AND SUSTAINED APPLAUSE]
And the women at this forum are there to look into these things, to be bold with their leadership and to condemn what is wrong.
And finally, we have of course the question of globalisation in this country. As [the former South African High Commissioner to the United Kingdom and current CEO of South African Tourism (SATOUR)] Cheryl Carolus has said, somebody who is saying he or she is not going to accept globalisation, is like saying I do not recognise winter, I am not going to put on clothing for winter!
She has put it very well, because what happens today in northern Europe has got an effect on our region the same day. Globalisation is already there, whether we like it or not.
And of course globalisation at the present moment favours the rich and the mighty. We have to fight that. It must favour all human beings, whether in Europe or in Africa. And I’m sure this is the task of this forum to make sure that such irregularities are rectified.
Thank you very much."
Thursday, February 6th, 2003
: RCN Administrator
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa - Former South African President Nelson Mandela said Wednesday U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell (news - web sites)’s presentation to the United Nations (news - web sites) undermined the U.N.’s own efforts to determine whether Iraq was concealing weapons of mass destruction.
Speaking before Powell’s speech to the world body, Mandela said chief UN weapons inspectors Hans Blix and Mohamed El Baradei were the only ones with the authority to determine whether Iraq was complying with U.N. resolutions.
"We are going to listen to them and to them alone. We are not going to listen to the United States of America. They are not telling us how they got that information," Mandela told reporters.
Mandela has repeatedly criticized the United States and Britain, saying they were ignoring the will of the United Nations and pursuing their own belligerent policies against Iraq.
Last week, the Nobel Peace laureate lashed U.S. President George W. Bush (news - web sites), calling him arrogant and shortsighted and saying he wanted a war to get his hands on Iraqi oil.
"One power with a president who has no foresight and cannot think properly is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust," Mandela said last week.
On Wednesday, he said he did not regret those comments.
"I’m not changing a word, not even a comma, of what I said, because I said so because I believe it," he told reporters.
Ignoring the United Nations when it does not do what you want "is to introduce chaos into international affairs," he said.
"What I am condemning is that two countries should go out of the United Nations and have their own separate program, should actually undermine the United Nations," he said.
Mandela, who has also demanded that Iraq comply more actively with the weapons inspectors, said he had tried unsuccessfully to call Iraqi President Saddam Hussein (news - web sites).
He dismissed the suggestion he would go to Iraq to talk to Saddam personally, saying he would only go if he received approval from the United Nations.
"I won’t go on my own just because I’m invited by Iraq," he said.
Sunday, February 2nd, 2003
: RCN Administrator
JOHANNESBURG, South Africa (Jan. 30) - Former President Nelson Mandela called President Bush arrogant and shortsighted and implied that he was racist for ignoring the United Nations in his zeal to attack Iraq.
In a speech Thursday, Mandela urged the people of the United States to join massive protests against Bush. Mandela called on world leaders, especially those with vetoes in the U.N. Security Council, to oppose him. "One power with a president who has no foresight and cannot think properly, is now wanting to plunge the world into a holocaust," Mandela told the International Women’s Forum.
Mandela also criticized Iraq for not cooperating fully with the weapons inspectors and said South Africa would support any action against Iraq that was supported by the United Nations.
White House spokesman Ari Fleischer responded to Mandela’s criticism by pointing to a letter by eight European leaders reiterating their support of Bush. "The president expresses his gratitude to the many leaders of Europe who obviously feel differently" than Mandela, Fleischer said. "He understands there are going to be people who are more comfortable doing nothing about a growing menace that could turn into a holocaust."
A Nobel Peace Prize winner, Mandela has repeatedly condemned U.S. behavior toward Iraq in recent months and demanded Bush respect the authority of the United Nations. His comments Thursday, though, were far more critical and his attack on Bush far more personal than in the past.
"Why is the United States behaving so arrogantly?" he asked. "All that (Bush) wants is Iraqi oil," he said.
He accused Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair of undermining the United Nations and U.N. Secretary-General Kofi Annan, who is from Ghana. "Is it because the secretary-general of the United Nations is now a black man? They never did that when secretary-generals were white," he said. Mandela said the United Nations was the main reason there has been no World War III and it should make the decisions on how to deal with Iraq.
He said that the United States, which callously dropped atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, has no moral authority to police the world. "If there is a country that has committed unspeakable atrocities in the world, it is the United States of America. They don’t care for human beings," he said.
"Who are they now to pretend that they are the policemen of the world, the ones that should decide for the people of Iraq what should be done with their government and their leadership?" he said. He said Bush was "trying to bring about carnage" and appealed to the American people to vote him out of office and demonstrate against his policies.
He also condemned Blair for his strong support of the United States. "He is the foreign minister of the United States. He is no longer prime minister of Britain," he said.
Saturday, February 1st, 2003
: RCN Administrator
The State of the Union address had an ironic twist the expected declaration of war against Iraq gave place to an unprecedented declaration of war against the global AIDS pandemic.
President Bush turned a new page in world history when the greatest nation on earth stooped down to lend a helping hand to earth’s poorest of the poor in the face of an overwhelming and palpably genocidal disease by proposing $15 billion funding.
Not even the traditional nay Sayers of everything the US does in relation to foreign policy and Africa had any ill to say about this positive development which quite frankly would have exceeded expectations but for the simple fact that there were no great expectations anyway.
Except for former President Mandela of South Africa. The acclaimed hero of the anti-apartheid struggle turned international Statesman within 48 hours of Bush’s pronouncement - while we were still recovering from the mind-numbing good news - unleashed a barrage of attacks on the US President’s Iraq policy.
Mandela’s remarks were as uncharitable as they were misguided. To call a US leader who had just proclaimed the greatest financial initiative towards Africa ever "arrogant" and without "foresight" was totally un-African and inconsistent with the graciousness and gratitude that the African people culturally and historically are renowned for.
While the same African civility and respect for elders precludes one from characterizing the world’s most famous former political prisoner’s comments as puerile petulance, the best face one can put on this incredible gaffe is that the revered gentleman is finally succumbing to senility.
A bold attempt must now be made to excuse Mandela’s unconscionable words and one is tempted for the first and probably only time in my life to agree with the late Nigerian Dictator General Abacha who in response to criticism from Mandela characterized him as having lost touch with reality due to his 27-year stint in prison. Mandela and the brutal tyrant subsequently mended fences on the platform of African solidarity and then influenced President Clinton to make unfortunate remarks accepting the candidacy of the isolated dictator in a dubious democratization process during Clinton’s first visit to Africa in 1998.
On a serious note though, while it may not be fair to write Mr. Mandela off on account of his historic prison stay (even though I as a detainee in Abacha’s prison myself will admit to a bit of disorientation after just a few months), the real issue is how he can have lost touch of the real issue at the heart of the State of the Union address as it relates to his people in Africa.
Unwittingly Mandela who also earned praise by ruling for just one term breaking a tradition of sit-tight strongmen like Mugabe of Zimbabwe and Eyadema of Togo to name a few, seems to have shown himself to still be a part of that clique whose hallmark is being totally out of tune with the true needs and priorities of Africa’s peoples.
Africa’s leaders by and large have proven to have this in common an utter inability to identify or identify with the aspirations of that continent’s people. Why else would Mugabe insist on ruling when the economy is in tatters and Zimbabwe faces global isolation or Mbeki engage in semantic quibble as to the antecedents of AIDS when South Africans are dying in droves?
That Mandela failed to see the significance of the AIDS funding for Africa while harping on Iraq shows that Africa’s elder statesman missed what 30 million infected Africans and countless others affected in their wake are dying to say "AIDS is our priority not Iraq."
In fairness, Mr. Mandela must style himself as an international figure thus his willingness to sacrifice the priorities of his own people for a fashionable Bush-bashing diatribe at the leader of the free world. But Africa has precious few Statesmen of global reach hence Mr. Mandela can not afford to squander his and our collective voice on the alter of a populist-leaning soapbox.
This is not the first time Mandela has snubbed the US in recent times. As President during the Clinton era, he insisted on visiting Libya inspite of US protestations saying he would not forget his "friends," harking back to the days of apartheid when Libya, Nigeria and other African nations played a pivotal role in supporting the liberation effort.
This point is not lost on Mandela who internalized the double standards of the western leaders while in prison and is now venting the pent up perceptions of years past thus explaining his sympathy for the rogue nations who supported the fight against apartheid and his hostility against the "civilized" nations who didn’t.
The challenge before the US now is to show sincerity and consistency in its foreign policy. President Bush has blazed the trail by debunking the notion that the US is more preoccupied with increasing American male libido (with Viagra) than decreasing humanity’s near nemesis (with Anti-retroviral drugs).
Mandela should take the next step of recognizing Bush’s bold move towards shedding the image of insensitivity and racism on Africa surpassed our wildest expectations. If genuine giant strides will be taken in US-Africa relations, it must begin with just such a gesture.
Mandela must come to the realization as some of us new generation Africans do that we just won a colossal ally in the war against AIDS in Africa. He must abandon the fetid shadow-boxing of his successor Mbeki questioning if AIDS is caused by HIV or not which to quote an African proverb is "chasing rodents while your hut is on fire."
If he apologises, we will be willing to accept that his speech was penned before the State of the Union. If not, at the risk of drawing the ire of those who think Africa’s leaders can do no wrong, he must be told that his views are not representative of younger Africans like myself who have lost relatives to the scourge. Instead he may have just become a representative of what is wrong with Africa’s leaders out of tune with their continent and out of step with the rest of the world.
The War that was declared on January 28th was on AIDS in Africa not Iraq. Mr. Mandela should pick his battles carefully or risk joining the ranks of Africa’s dinosaur rulers.
EMMANUEL (The writer is an African trade, investment and development consultant based in Washington DC. USA. E-mail Reliefmision@aol.com)
Thursday, October 3rd, 2002
: RCN Administrator
Namibian Foreign Minister Hidipo Hamutenya warned Oct. 3 that the government might begin expropriating white-owned farmland for redistribution to landless blacks. One hundred ninety-two farms owned by absentee landlords are likely to be the first targeted.
Namibia’s leaders have moved the land reform program slowly to avoid spooking foreign investors. By invoking the threat of land seizures, the government may hope to gain an advantage in current purchasing negotiations with white farmers. But this plan could backfire, scaring off the few foreign investors the country attracts and triggering a financial crisis.
Southern Africa is still reeling from the devastating economic effects of similar land seizures in Zimbabwe, where President Robert Mugabe has turned the state into a veritable conflict zone and has used militias to raid white-owned farms. The chaos has resulted in a near-immediate halt to foreign investment in that country.
Since it is southern Africa’s second-largest economy and one of its key food producers, Zimbabwe’s decline has damaged the entire region’s economic outlook and tainted every country’s chances of attracting foreign investment. A similar seizure program in Namibia would accelerate this decline and leave countries like South Africa -- which relies on foreign investment to prop up its troubled economy -- spiraling toward financial collapse.
The Namibian government’s seizure threat may be aimed at pressuring white farm owners to sell more of their land under the government’s current "willing-buyer, willing-seller" policy. White farmers hold about 30 million hectares (75 million acres) of land in Namibia, compared with 2.2 million hectares (5.4 million acres) owned by black farmers, South African news agency News 24 reported. Hamutenya says that Namibia designates $1.9 million annually to purchase white-owned farms, but he claims this is not enough.
Last year only 20 such farms of the 171 the government was offered were actually bought. Hamutenya complained that the government did not have the funding necessary to meet the farmers’ selling prices and called on Europe to help finance the purchase of the white-owned farms. In discussing the possible land seizures, he added that the Namibian Constitution allows for the expropriation of private assets for the public good and in turn provides compensation for the seized assets.
But going through with such a plan could devastate the country’s economy. Approximately 47 percent of the labor force is engaged in agriculture, which accounts for 12 percent of GDP. As in Zimbabwe, seizures could halt short-term agricultural cultivation and production and send unemployment soaring.
The government may just be floating the idea of asset seizure to light a fire under the white farmers. It may hope that its hard-line stance will scare the farmers into backing down on their current price demands. However, other regional players, including both governments and investors, will be watching the domestic negotiations.
Tuesday, September 17th, 2002
: RCN Administrator
Air forces from the Southern African Development Community (SADC) -- whose 14 members include Angola, Mozambique, South Africa, Namibia, Botswana and Zimbabwe -- will hold joint training exercises in Zambia in July or August of next year. The exercises will focus on disaster relief and will include command and control and logistical cooperation, South African daily News24 reported Sept. 16
Eleven of the SADC countries will attend the exercises, but few have modern air forces and it’s likely most will simply observe or work closely with South Africa, which maintains a modernized and up-to-date air force. Although Angola and Zimbabwe also have large air forces, their own internal conflicts have strained these resources.
Even the host nation is unlikely to be flying many planes. According to sources in Africa, the Zambian air force has been largely grounded due to a lack of parts and a high rate of HIV/AIDS among pilots.
Thus, South Africa’s air force likely will dominate the exercises, and Pretoria may exploit the opportunity to demonstrate its military superiority to the regional states and move to expand its role as regional security guarantor.
The South African air force recently reported to Parliament that it has 88 mission-ready aircraft and 27 mission-ready helicopters. In the 2001-2002 fiscal year, the air force plans to provide its pilots with 35,549 flying hours, 57 percent of which will be used for force preparation and the remaining 43 percent going toward force deployment, according to Periscope online military database.
A key goal of the exercises planned for next year will be the facilitation of greater interoperability between the air forces that actually fly planes and host nation Zambia. Cooperation over airspace management, aviation safety, logistics and training will give the visiting air forces experience working with Zambia, as well as give Zambian air traffic controllers experience working with visiting pilots.
Since South Africa is likely to be the only air force of any size participating in the exercises, it will gain the lion’s share of knowledge about Zambia. In the future this will be invaluable should another conflict engulf southern Africa. Zambia is centrally located, surrounded by Angola, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Zimbabwe and Tanzania and is home to many refugees from the wars in the DRC and Angola.
Future conflicts in the region also may send refugees fleeing into Zambia, and this in turn could make it a recruiting ground for rebels who would then try to filter back across the borders into their home countries. By controlling Zambian air space, South Africa can monitor these activities as well as the countermeasures taken by the governments that such rebels would hope to overthrow.
Thursday, August 29th, 2002
: RCN Administrator
Britain appears to be preparing for a possible military intervention in Zimbabwe, with Defense Ministry officials recently telling U.K. papers that contingency plans are being finalized for road- and air evacuations for an estimated 20,000 British citizens, mostly white farmers. The reports come amid rising tensions in the country following President Robert Mugabe’s Aug. 8 order that thousands of white farmers leave their lands to allow for redistribution to landless blacks.
Elite British Special Air Services, now engaged in military exercises in South Africa, already have conducted reconnaissance along the South Africa-Zimbabwe border in anticipation of an evacuation, the Daily Telegraph newspaper reported Aug. 30. But such a plan would require the cooperation and support of the government in Harare, and that is not assured.
Moreover, the scale and scope of the operation -- along with heightened violence such as the recent bombing of an independent radio station -- raises the possibility of firefights between British forces and Zimbabwean security forces. Such a confrontation could quickly transform the evacuation into a full-scale British military intervention, which also would create problems in South Africa from where the British troops will be operating.
Mugabe has used the country’s white farmers -- most of whom have ignored his repeated eviction orders despite attacks by Mugabe-backed militias -- as scapegoats for Zimbabwe’s economic troubles and as geopolitical hostages to prevent total isolation from the international community. Mugabe may want the farmers off the land, but having them completely removed from the country will leave him with few levers for dealing with Western entities like the European Union and the United States, which have imposed sanctions on his regime and have blamed its policies for leaving half the population facing starvation.
Even if the government in Zimbabwe did not interfere in Britain’s evacuation plans, such an operation would still be daunting. According to the Telegraph report, military personnel could fly British citizens from the Harare airport or take them by road to South Africa. But either route would be dangerous. Moreover, white farmers are scattered all over the country, and even getting them to rendezvous points would be a major undertaking. The logistics of transporting several thousand people to safety would be nightmarish, and the bigger the operation, the greater chance for trouble -- including violent confrontation.
STRATFOR sources in Zimbabwe say mobs of militants already have begun harassing local whites, in what is likely to turn into the latest round of violent clashes between the government-sanctioned "war veterans" and white farmers. The presence of British SAS troops inside Zimbabwe could further enflame the conflict, leading to fights with militants.
Military planners in Britain will need to account for all possible scenarios and their outcomes. A key question, for instance, will be how should the government respond if things start to go bad and firefights break out between the British military and Zimbabwean forces, either militants or the regular military? If several thousand British citizens are still in the country when fighting starts, their lives will be in immediate danger.
This would mean that the British military will not have the option of disengagement but may need to take the next logical step: a full military intervention to oust Mugabe. Such a move, which would be labeled by the Mugabe government as a colonial invasion, would need the direct support of South Africa and at least the tacit acceptance of other regimes in the region.
South Africa has also suffered from Mugabe’s land redistribution program, with its currency, the rand, dropping drastically at least in part because of the land seizures next door. But both South Africa’s ruling African National Congress (ANC) and Mugabe’s ruling Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front (ZANU-PF) began as liberation movements that fought against white colonial rule.
Both of these governments also like to blame colonialism and Western intervention for the region’s political and economic woes. And the issue of land redistribution has been debated openly in countries like South Africa and Namibia, where whites still control the vast majority of the rich, arable land.
Yet the fears of wreaking the type of economic havoc now evident in Zimbabwe and scaring off foreign investors have limited these countries’ political calls for seizing white-owned farms. South Africa has been especially careful to tiptoe around the land issue, promising reform but moving at a snail’s pace.
As white farmers in South Africa are already key targets of organized violence, with hundreds of farmers murdered since the end of apartheid, Pretoria is reluctant to play on the issue. Moreover, the ANC’s political popularity gives it plenty of political breathing space, unlike Mugabe’s ZANU-PF, which has come under pressure in the last few years from a well-organized, well-funded and black opposition -- the Movement for Democratic Change.
A British intervention in Zimbabwe will raise the specter of colonial rule in southern Africa only a few decades after that rule ended. British troops are now conducting weeks-long exercises in South Africa, which the Defense Ministry has denied have any connection to the situation in neighboring Zimbabwe. However, it’s likely that the troops on the ground think differently. They are looking at the field of options and seeing an extremely difficult and likely protracted campaign that could redefine Britain’s relations with southern Africa.
Thursday, July 25th, 2002
: RCN Administrator
A South African has been convicted of raping a nine-month-old baby girl in a case that highlighted the country’s horrific levels of child abuse. David Potse, 23, who was found guilty after evidence from the baby’s 17-year-old mother, is now awaiting sentence. The baby had to undergo reconstructive surgery after she was raped near Upington, 250 miles southwest of Johannesburg. More than 21,000 child rapes were reported in 2000, although the real number is said to be much higher.
Wednesday, July 17th, 2002
: RCN Administrator
Delegates from the warring Democratic Republic of the Congo and Rwanda restarted talks July 18 in South Africa to end the DRC’s 4-year-old war. Rwanda invaded the country in 1998 and currently has 20,000 to 30,000 troops deployed in eastern DRC.
Both the United States and South Africa have stepped up their efforts to resolve the conflict. This most recent meeting is the second in as many weeks, and, though many sticking points remain, it may herald a deal between Kigali and Kinshasa.
Both sides are now negotiating from a position of relative strength. Rwanda recently won a victory in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, which ruled that it could not command Kigali to withdraw its troops. However, Kinshasa also is well positioned for talks due to its relationship with the United States and the substantive debt relief it now enjoys.
The meeting in Pretoria, South Africa, will focus on the creation of a security zone between Rwanda and the DRC. Rwandan troops -- in alliance with the Rally for Congolese Democracy rebels -- entered the DRC in 1998 to topple the government in Kinshasa. Kigali justified the invasion by saying Kinshasa was supporting DRC-based Hutu Interahamwe rebels who were launching guerrilla raids into Rwanda.
Four years later the war has stalled out, and now regional and international powers are pushing for its resolution. Most important, the United States has become a chief ally of Kinshasa and is trying to advance peace talks while developing closer ties with the mineral-rich country. Mark Bellamy, U.S. assistant secretary of state for African affairs, met with DRC Foreign Minister Leonard She Okitundu in Kinshasa in mid-July and announced Washington’s intention to help "accelerate the peace process," the U.N. Integrated Regional Information Network reported July 15.
Kinshasa also recently won the endorsement of the World Bank for cancellation of 80 percent of its external debt. World Bank President James Wolfensohn, whose lending institution is influenced heavily by the United States, spent three days in Kinshasa before flying to Rwanda, The Associated Press reported July 14. Washington’s political support and economic relief will help the Congolese government advance peace talks and simultaneously give Kigali greater reason to cooperate.
Even so, several areas of contention remain. Most important, Kigali has refused to pull its troops out of eastern DRC. Its motives go back to the mid-1990s, when Rwanda’s ethnic Hutus massacred an estimated 800,000 of the country’s ethnic Tutsis. Many Hutus later fled to the DRC and remain a threat to the Tutsi government now in power in Rwanda.
Kigala wants the buffer zone drawn within the DRC, Radio France Internationale reports, while Kinshasa wants U.N. troops to patrol a security cordon along the border with Rwanda. There are almost 4,000 U.N. forces deployed in the DRC as part of a peacekeeping mission.
For the moment, neither side will give. Even so, a solution is not impossible. A buffer zone set up close to the border region and patrolled by U.N. troops is the most likely scenario, perhaps with Rwanda deploying its forces along its side of the line.