Forty years ago, the Congo was the scene of a divisive power struggle on the continent. The country fell apart as its political mosaic degenerated into ethnic violence. Although determined to respond, African leaders, in both colonial and independent states, remained divided on how to move. The ranks of the African nationalists became more divided than ever before.

The crisis consolidated the growing split between Anglophone and Francophone camps, the radicals and the moderates. At the global level, the Congo, with its minerals and geostrategic importance, became the victim of the manoeuvring of the capitalist west and the communist east.

The seizure of power in a military coup by the late President Mobutu in 1966 returned some order to the vast territory. A reign marked by much divisiveness, however, ensured that the Congo hardly became a united nation.

For many, the arrival of the late President Laurent Kabila in 1997 seemed like the dawn of a new era. Dreams of a renaissance were soon stalled as ties between Kabila and his allies turned from warm to sour, to outright hostile, fomenting a highly complex war.

At the urging of the international community, the key belligerents in the current crisis came together in 1999 to sign the Lusaka Agreement that was to pave the way for peace in the Congo. Six months later, after searching for an appropriate personality, they endorsed my appointment as facilitator of the peace process.

The agreement to end the war was signed not only by the government and the two armed opposition groups in place at the time, but also by the governments of Uganda, Rwanda, Zimbabwe, Angola and Namibia that had sent troops into the DRC. Zambia’s President Frederick Chiluba was the mediator and the signing was witnessed by Zambia, the United Nations, the Organisation of African Unity and the Southern African Development Community.

Efforts to get the process going were thwarted, slowing down progress towards an inter-Congolese dialogue. Although there was a ceasefire in place, countless violations persisted from all sides. Meetings to stop the fighting and implement the agreement came to naught. The result was that the conditions stipulated by the UN for a realistic deployment were not met.

There were intensified demands for changes to the Lusaka Agreement, threatening the basis of the peace process, while the DRC remained mired in civil war and a deepening humanitarian crisis. It has been estimated that more than two million people died of war-related causes in the last two years in the Congo. One-third of the population did not have secure access to food.

The Congo again became the centre of acute division, pitting neighbour against neighbour, and relatives against relatives. It was again the victim of external intrigue and exploitation, as foreign interests seized its resources for a pittance.

Yet, the prospect for peace is now much brighter. The rise of Major-General Joseph Kabila to power has inspired hope in the peace process. General Kabila has told the international community that he is amenable to talks. Senior members of his government have also stated that the government had dropped its opposition to myself as facilitator and was willing to co-operate in an attempt to bring peace to the DRC.

The current DRC government has understandably expressed reservations about aspects of the Lusaka Agreement. Some feel that it is principally a ceasefire agreement, with the democratisation process purely an appendix. Others maintain that the agreement gives too much say to foreigners on how the peace process should proceed and how the DRC should ultimately be run. Some believe that the exclusion of civil society and the opposition from the agreement is a weakness. There are others who state that the omission of reparations to the victims of war from the agreement is unacceptable.

However, the agreement does have its strengths. It is still the best arrangement in place. Trying to renegotiate another agreement would be a very time-consuming effort, a luxury the Congo cannot afford.

Equally important is that the agreement is flexible. It allows the signatories to make any amendments they may see fit and thus iron out any discord. Sadly, those who speak against the agreement have not invoked this provision. It is also envisaged that further disagreements could be ironed out through the inter-Congolese dialogue provided for in the agreement. The imperfections can thus be amended by the signatories.

Many suspect that the major problem has not been a poor agreement, but the lack of political will to use what is available to move the peace process ahead. The energies of those involved should not be consumed in finding fault with the agreement, but rather in seeing how it can be used to advance the peace process.

Attempts at outright military victory for any of the parties to the conflict will constitute a formidable and costly undertaking. Even if it was to occur, the victor would face the risk of being bogged down by constant uprisings in parts of the huge country. The Congo would be very difficult to govern.

Something positive can come out of the conflict. A negotiated settlement seems the way ahead for the Congo. The agreement allows the different parties to get together and work out the way forward. This will allow the Congo to sow the seeds of the democratic governance it so badly needs. It will also allow the different parties to emerge with a degree of dignity from the conflict.

With the DRC reconciled, neighbouring states participating in the war can return home to focus on national and regional development. There is thus much to be gained from a negotiated peace and more to be lost through attempts at outright military victory.

One temptation for the warring parties would be to hold out and consolidate their presence in the territories they already hold, thus perpetuating hostilities. Similar conflicts have shown that war can become a way of life, to the point where those engaged in the fighting have forgotten why they started the war. Initial motives are lost as conflict degenerates into crude struggles for the control of diamonds, precious metals and other mineral resources by a powerful élite, who have a vested interest in continued conflict and disorder that would allow them to sustain their patrimonialism.

The war has not only hurt the DRC. It has damaged the image of the subregion, and perhaps that of the entire subcontinent, as a destination for foreign investment. It has helped perpetuate the belief that Africa remains in a state of chaos and is unfit for any middle or long-term investment. It has diverted resources from essential development to non-productive military expenditure. There is also evidence that participation in the war has fomented political unrest in some countries with troops in the DRC.

The plethora of initiatives by different African and international players, all ostensibly aimed at helping to bring an end to the crisis, have further complicated matters. It has resulted in a lack of focus, the dissipation of energy and a waste of precious time. It will be a sad day when efforts to bring peace to the DRC become a cause of further African disunity or simple efforts to gain points on the world stage.

I believe the acceptance of the facilitator by the government of the DRC paves a major way forward for the peace process. It is hoped that others will not scuttle the peace process, and thus prolong the suffering in the DRC and elsewhere.

The Congolese seem to have realised that the violence has been counterproductive and has prevented them from harnessing the wealth of their country for their collective benefit. If the signs coming from both Kinshasa and the east are true, then there is hope that the leaders are becoming more attentive to the people’s call for peace. For now, the Lusaka Agreement is the most viable alternative to prolonged conflict.

The Lusaka Agreement is a critical starting point. There is no guarantee that the belligerents in the DRC conflict would return to the conference table if it is dropped now. The message is clear, the longer we wait, the more difficult it will be to bring peace to the Congo. The need for urgent action can thus not be overemphasised.

KETUMILE MASIRE is the former president of Botswana, and the facilitator of the DRC peace process.