LONDON (AlertNet) - On the face of it, the August 2004 massacre of 160 Congolese Tutsis at a refugee camp in western Burundi was a local tragedy. The slaughter took place in Gatumba, about 16 km (10 miles) from Burundi’s capital, Bujumbura. Hutu rebels opposed to Burundi’s multi-ethnic government claimed responsibility.

Yet almost before the bodies were buried, the international community was talking about the possibility of a major new conflict in central Africa. Sabre-rattling could be heard from Burundi, Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo.

What’s it all about?

Some U.N. officials say they think the Burundian Hutu rebels known as the Forces for National Liberation (FNL) were not acting alone. They say the massacre could have been a joint operation including Congolese Mai Mai traditional militias and extremist Rwandan Hutu fighters.

An alternative version -- used by the FNL to justify its actions -- is that Gatumba camp was being used as a base for Rwandan-backed Congolese Tutsis to prepare for new strikes on Congo.

Okay, but what’s the connection between Burundi, Rwanda and Congo?

All three countries are recovering from horrific wars. Let's start with Rwanda. About 800,000 people were slaughtered there in just 100 days in 1994.

The victims were predominantly ethnic Tutsis, although many moderate Hutus who opposed the government-orchestrated carnage were also killed. The massacres stopped when the Tutsi-led Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF), headed by Paul Kagame, seized control of the country. Kagame is now president.

And Burundi and Congo?

They both have transition governments that share power between different ethnic and political groups as part of peace deals to end bloody wars. The big fear is that more people could drop out of these shaky governments and destabilise the whole region.

What were the wars about?

Ethnic differences explain part, but not all of the animosities in these wars. In both Burundi and Rwanda, there have been power struggles between Hutus and the Tutsi minority. Another minority tribe -- the Twa, perjoratively called "pygmies" -- also suffer massive discrimination.

Prior to independence, colonialists privileged the Tutsis -- who are a minority in both Burundi and Rwanda -- and exaggerated ethnic differences. In reality, there has been extensive intermarriage between Hutus and Tutsis. People from both tribes have crossed borders fleeing massacres at various times.

German colonial rulers merged Burundi and Rwanda into a single country called Rwanda-Urundi in 1899. Belgium took over after World War One, separated the countries and merged Burundi with Congo, which later became Zaire. Tutsis lost their dominance of Rwanda after independence in 1962.

Who's got the upper hand in Burundi?

Tutsis have controlled government most of the time since independence, also in 1962. The civil war started in 1993, when elements in the Tutsi-dominated army refused to accept a Hutu president who won the country's first free elections.

A power-sharing government giving Hutus the presidency and 60 percent of the national assembly was inaugurated in late 2001. A ceasefire has more or less held since 2003, when the main rebel army, the Forces for the Defence of Democracy (FDD), joined the government.

One rebel group, the Hutu extremist FNL, continued to fight, and it is this group that claimed responsibility for the August massacre.

Are there Hutus and Tutsis in Congo too?

Some groups are related to Hutus and Tutsis. The Banyamulenge are Congolese Tutsis from Congo's South Kivu province, who are perceived to be of Rwandan origin, although their ancestors migrated more than 100 years a ago. Since independence in 1960, Congo's rulers have not shied from stirring up anti-Tutsi feelings to distract from their own failings. The government is due to consider a new draft law on nationality, which may or may not include Tutsis.

The Hema in eastern Congo are pastoralists who identify with the Tutsis, while the mainly agriculturalist Lendu now think of themselves as related to the Hutus.

These allegiances are heavily influenced by interference from neighbouring countries backing one armed group or another. For example, communities that suffer rights abuses from Rwandan-backed militia are more receptive to anti-Tutsi propaganda, whether or not the perpetrators were in fact Tutsis or Rwandan.

Congo also has many other tribes, such as the Luba, the Kongo and the Anamongo.

So does that mean these wars are all about ethnic hatred?

No, not entirely. Communities often support groups they see as being in some way like themselves, but there are numerous exceptions. For example, the Mai Mai militias have sometimes backed the Interhamwe -- extremist Rwandan Hutu militias -- and at other times opposed them.

In some cases, Congolese Tutsis have been responsible for major human rights abuses of other Congolese Tutsis to suppress local opposition to interference from Rwanda.

Tribal animosities are clearly a significant factor, but have been stirred up to mobilise support for various militias and justify continued fighting over valuable natural resources in eastern Congo.

What resources are these?

Diamonds, gold, coltan and cassiterite, to start with. Coltan is a mineral used in mobile phones, computer games and even stealth bombers. Cassiterite is an ore used to make tin.

Why is Rwanda so involved in Congo?

Thousands of former members of the Interhamwe -- Hutu militias responsible for the carnage in Rwanda in 1994 -- crossed the border into Congo, and Kagame used this to justify a Rwandan occupation of eastern Congo from 1996 to 2002. The Interhamwe now include other Rwandans opposed to Kagame who have joined in more recently.

The Rwandan incursions into Congo to attack former génocidaires coincided with a rebel movement against longstanding corrupt Zairean dictator Joseph Mobutu. Some analysts argue that Rwanda installed rebel leader Laurent Kabila in power in Congo in 1997, while others say the RPF just helped.

Not everyone was happy with Kabila taking power, and Congo's civil war at its height drew in six armies from neighbouring countries – Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda, Zimbabwe, Angola, Namibia. More than three million people died, mainly through starvation and disease, according to the International Rescue Committee.

How did it end?

Kabila was assassinated by former allies in 2001 and his son, Joseph Kabila, presided over a transition to peace. The current government is a delicate power-sharing balance among different factions, all of them former rebels.

Why is it so delicate?

All parties to the peace agreement are supposed to have joined a new integrated army, but the danger is that some ex-rebels might see Rwanda's continued backing of militias in the east and think they have more to gain from staying out of government and plundering the region's plentiful natural resources.

The array of armed groups in the east is baffling and constantly changing. Rwanda backs several predominantly Tutsi groups. Uganda has also backed various sides.

But haven’t neighbouring countries withdrawn from eastern Congo?

This is part of the problem. The power vacuum after Rwandan troops withdrew in 2002 led to renewed fighting as different groups fought for control over areas formerly under Rwandan sway. According to Belgian think tank International Crisis Group (ICG), Rwanda did not actually keep out of the area, and since at least 2003 has still been backing some of the militias.

Rwanda is also almost certainly profiting from mineral deposits in eastern Congo, although the government says it is simply protecting Tutsi communities and safeguarding its own stability.

If Rwanda has interfered so much, why isn’t there more international criticism?

Some people find it difficult to lay blame on Kagame after the country suffered so much in 1994, and Rwanda still gets a lot of foreign aid to help it recover from the genocide. People don’t want to think that victims can also be perpetrators.

In the case of the recent Burundi massacre, what Tutsis and many outsiders fear is that if the three groups – Burundian Hutus, Congolese Mai Mai and Rwandan Interhamwe -- joined up to take part in massacre, it could signal a wider, broadly anti-Tutsi alliance.

However, an investigation by Human Rights Watch found there was anecdotal evidence of anti-Congolese soldiers passing through Gatumba -- which is a mile (1.6 km) from the border -- but the vast majority of victims were women and children, and interviews with survivors showed there was little or no foreign involvement in leading or carrying out the attack.

Human Rights Watch says the ghosts of 1994 sometimes stop people from seeing clearly, and that raising the spectre of genocide perpetuates the cycle of violence, since it decreases the chances of Rwanda and other countries disbanding and disarming their militias.

The continued presence of so many armed groups in eastern Congo could tip the region over the edge into another serious conflict. Several analysts say the town of Goma could be the next major trouble spot.

What could stop this happening?

Most analysts say disarmament is crucial, and the U.N. mission is probably essential to disarmament. The U.N. Mission for Congo (MONUC) only has 10,800 troops, although it may get more. Another problem is that MONUC only supports voluntary disarmament, and the Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda (FDLR) -- as the Interhamwe prefer to be known -- is not going to give up its guns willingly.

ICG says Rwanda should make some kind of overtures to include exiled Hutus in the new Rwanda, and to disarm its proxies in eastern Congo. It also says the Congolese government needs to disarm other militias around the country. And MONUC needs to gain the strength to disarm the FDLR.

A lot of aid workers accuse MONUC of being unwilling to get involved in any meaningful military action. It certainly looked weak in June 2004 when it initially prevented a pro-Congolese government general, Mbuza Mabe, from entering the eastern town of Bukavu in June 2004, but then allowed Rwandan-backed General Laurent Nkunda to take over the town.

Human Rights Watch says the Congolese Tutsis killed at Gatumba had fled across the border to escape reprisals for this violent takeover.

ICG suggests that since MONUC's mandate is to increase stability of the transitional government and newly integrated army, it perhaps had a greater responsibility to Mabe's pro-government Congolese Armed Forces (FARDC).

Is that all?

The other big factor for stable peace seems to be the need to show strength and ethnic inclusiveness. The Congolese and Burundian transitional governments, and the U.N. forces in Congo, need to look like internationally respected forces worth supporting. If Rwanda and other neighbouring countries keep interfering, they undermine this image.

ICG analysts argue that Congo needs to show respect for its Tutsi population so they don't have grievances that ideologues can build on. And that Rwanda needs to include Hutus in positions of power or it risks perpetuating stereotyped resentment of Tutsis. Responsible people in all three countries need to stop using ethnic differences as a cover for grabbing resources.

Where can I read more?

Here's the Human Rights Watch report from September 2004

And ICG has produced analyses of Congo in July and August 2004 and of Burundi in July 2004

Here's an Economist article called "The Tutsis: The 'Jews' of Africa"