He also failed to control the fighters who continued attacks on Rwanda and Uganda. So in August, those two nations sent troops to back a second rebel group, the Congolese Rally for Democracy, again dominated by Tutsis, but this time to unseat Kabila. In turn, Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia and Chad all sent in troops to back him, angrily citing the noninvasion principle. The stage was set for a war unlike any other in Africa. Only last week Salim Ahmed Salim, the secretary general of the Organization of African Unity, reaffirmed the group's strong opposition to outside intervention, condemning Uganda and Rwanda by drawing a comparison with another Congo neighbor that has steered clear of the conflict.
All bets are off at the moment.
Many experts argue that the war in Congo is essentially a stalemate, with each side unable to dislodge the other. Some fear that Congo's neighbors simply want to carve up the nation and annex territory outright. Rwanda, for example, could then have an enclave of land populated by Tutsis as a way to prevent a genocide like the one in 1994. Other experts believe that Rwanda and Uganda could establish a military protectorate, just as Israeli troops and their militia allies have occupied part of southern Lebanon. Many of the nations who are taking sides in this war have financial stakes, according to Johan Peleman, director of the International Peace Information Service in Belgium, which studies financial incentives behind conflicts.