CNN Moderator: Our guest tonight is Chester Crocker, who from 1981 to 1989 served as assistant secretary of state for African affairs. Mr. Crocker led the diplomatic effort which resulted in a 1988 treaty establishing independence for Namibia and the withdrawal of Cuban troops from Angola. Mr. Crocker is a professor of diplomacy at Georgetown University in Washington. He is the author of "High Noon in Southern Africa: Making Peace in a Rough Neighborhood," a chronicle of his peacemaking efforts as Ronald Reagan's "man in Africa." Mr. Crocker joins us tonight from his home in Washington. Let me start by asking, did U.S. efforts in southern Africa during the Cold War help or hinder your bid to bring peace to the region?

Chester Crocker: The region was in a sense a cockpit of Cold War rivalry, but there were also conflicts that were genuine to the region itself. So we were dealing simultaneously with the Cold War dimension, the East-West dimension on the one hand, and the regional dimension on the other hand. So we had two adversaries, one was [the] communist influence and the other was the racist influence of apartheid in South Africa. So the short answer is we were carrying water on both shoulders.

CNN Moderator: What role did the Soviet Union -- and Cuba's Fidel Castro -- play in the region during your peace-brokering?

Chester Crocker: They were a major obstacle for much of the 1980s because they still thought they could find a way to win the war in Angola, which became their Vietnam. By the end of the '80s, the Cubans were looking for an honorable exit, and our diplomacy became their honorable exit. I should just add one point. It was also the honorable exit for the South Africans.

Chat Participant: With the Cold War over, why hasn't the fighting in Angola ended?

Chester Crocker: I think the best answer is that the Cold War diplomacy ended the international conflict in southern Africa, but the civil war dimension inside Angola remains to be resolved. In other words, the Cubans are out, the South Africans are out, and now Angolan brothers have to find each other.

Chat Moderator: Many of the people who led rebel movements in southern Africa 20 years ago are now leaders in the region. How do you think their Cold War experiences affect their policies?

Chester Crocker: Well, the world has changed so much with the end of the Cold War that they are dealing with a whole new world. There are different global standards, global norms. And they have to deal with that new world. We often used to hear that rebel leaders would be anti-American when they got into power. The opposite is the case.

Chat Participant: Did the rough neighborhood around South Africa make it hesitant to dismantle apartheid?

Chester Crocker: The rough neighborhood around South Africa for many years served as an excuse which the apartheid government in South Africa used for not facing up to their domestic problem of sharing power. In a sense, the rough neighborhood delayed the transition inside South Africa, but the interesting and ironic fact is this: Once South Africa had decided to make peace with the neighbors, the domestic reforms and transitions to majority rule came quickly.

Chat Moderator: South Africa appears to be the upcoming regional power. What will its future role be in African and international affairs?

Chester Crocker: The South Africans are still a new government under their majority rule constitution. They are still feeling their way. They would like to play a constructive role, but they have a lot of problems at home.

Chat Participant: What will South Africa look like after President Nelson Mandela leaves office?

Chester Crocker: There's a lot of focus on that question. Mandela has a particular magic and that will disappear in the coming months. I think the ANC government is quite a solid and strong government with many able people in it, and I believe the basic policies that have been established will continue.

Chat Moderator: What's the single biggest challenge facing the U.S. in Africa today?

Chester Crocker: We have become wary of engagement and I think the biggest challenge will be deciding how and when to lead in this post-Cold War era. I'm talking particularly about issues of war and peace and the management of conflict. There are nine or 10 armies fighting over the carcass of the Congo in central Africa. There is conflict continuing in Angola, in Sudan, between Ethiopia and Eritrea. So there's considerable instability in this region and there is a need for American leadership.

Chat Participant: How is the current Ethiopia-Eritrea crisis influenced by the Cold War and past U.S.-Soviet involvement?

Chester Crocker: Of course Eritrea was part of Ethiopia during the Cold War. It broke into an independent state in 1993. The Cold War history of Ethiopia is a very sad history. During much of that period, Ethiopia's government was caught up in a Soviet embrace, which militarized the country and led to huge domestic conflicts and human rights problems.

Chat Participant: Do you think the Russians will become involved in the Eritrea-Ethiopian crisis?

Chester Crocker: I'd say the Russians and the states of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe are already involved as suppliers of arms to both sides in the war between Ethiopia and Eritrea. I do not expect there to be any direct combat role by any of those players; they are simply making money.

Chat Participant: Do you really believe that Africa is in control of its own destiny? I don't believe that the world powers will ever stay completely out of Africa, it's such a rich nation.

Chester Crocker: Well, it's a good point, but certainly in terms of the kind of engagement we saw in earlier decades, that has gone. Today's engagement by the outsiders is much more indirect. It takes the form of trade relationships, the role of the IMF (International Monetary Fund) and the World Bank and pressures for transparent democratic governments. But you do not see the same kind of direct, if you like, heavy-handed external influence that existed in the earlier period.

Chat Moderator: Sounds like you don't give much currency to the Clinton administration's promises of more U.S. involvement in the region.

Chester Crocker: I was pleased the president made that historic trip, and I had high hopes, but in reality, we have paid more attention to Africa's economic potential for increased trade, exports and investments and less attention to the political and military problems that also need to be resolved. I am particularly concerned that the president promised American leadership to avoid the kind of problems that we saw in Rwanda in 1994. And yet we are continuing to see large-scale fighting in much of central Africa.

Chat Participant: The French recently issued a report that essentially blamed post-Somalia paralysis in the U.S. for the genocide in Rwanda. Do you agree?

Chester Crocker: That's overstated. The French are trying to get the monkey off their back when they say that. The French have a lot of questions to answer themselves regarding their role in the Rwandan genocide. Having said that, the U.S. role is not a proud one. We pulled the plug on a small U.N. operation in Rwanda in 1994. We turned our head the other way having been burned in Somalia, and the rest is history.

Chat Participant: What is the American national interest in Africa?

Chester Crocker: The upside is in indeed the economic potential. And the possibility of seeing an expansion of market economies and democratic government. The negative interest that we have in Africa is to avoid conflicts which produce millions of refugees; to avoid failed states, like in Somalia or Sierra Leone, which produced big bills for the taxpayers of wealthy countries. So the bottom line is pay now or pay later.

Chat Participant: How can Africans avoid exploitation by multinational corporations, which can project considerable power of their own?

Chester Crocker: I think that's a question really from the Cold War period. I do not believe that today's modern multinationals from Europe and the U.S. engage in the kind of practices which the questioner is referring to. I also believe African leaders and governments are much better able to negotiate on behalf of their own interests on investment deals than maybe was the case in the past.

Chat Participant: Does the "African renaissance" touted by men such as Thabo Mbeki depend on resolving regional conflicts?

Chester Crocker: My heart is with that questioner. I think that Deputy President Mbeki's renaissance is indeed linked to peace and security. I also believe that economies cannot flourish in conditions of rolling instability across large sections of the continent.

Chat Participant: Has the U.N. played a constructive role in Africa?

Chester Crocker: The U.N. record in Africa is mixed. There have been very successful ambitious peacekeeping operations under U.N. leadership in such places as Mozambique and Namibia. Those have been successful. On the other hand, we have seen the recent collapse of a U.N. monitoring and peacekeeping effort in Angola. And the U.N. was not successful in Rwanda or Somalia.

Chat Moderator: What was -- and is the role of China in Africa?

Chester Crocker: During the Cold War, the Chinese role was one of competition with both the West and the Russians. The Chinese for a time had some major development and foreign aid projects in Africa. That changed in the 1980s, and today the Chinese are less visible perhaps than they used to be. I would describe their role today as primarily economic. And cautious.

Chat Moderator: What impact will the upcoming election in Nigeria have on that country -- and the region?

Chester Crocker: This Nigerian election is a very important watershed. Nigeria has had a succession of largely military regimes. Today, Nigerians have a chance for a real handover of power from soldiers to civilians. It is a delicate operation because the soldiers who have been feeding at the trough for decades are very uneasy. Having said that, I believe Nigerians are ready for change and eager to see a return to legitimate constitutional rule, so I am hopeful.

Chat Participant: Do you believe the U.S. has an obligation to help sad countries such as Congo and Kenya that were used to fight proxy wars during the Cold War?

Chester Crocker: The questioner is making the big assumption that they were being used. Sometimes we were the ones being used and being enticed into local conflicts. But I will add this point. In areas of Africa that we know well and have long historic ties, including the ones mentioned by the questioner, I think we do have an obligation to give our best effort to bring about better conditions. This is not a question of Western guilt. It is more a question of the opportunities that we should be seizing.

Chat Participant: Should we provide military aid, either overt or covert, to pro-democracy groups in African countries?

Chester Crocker: I'd prefer to put it this way. I think we should recognize that the biggest threat to stability and progress in many parts of Africa is the weakening and collapse of states, and we should make it our purpose to help strengthen legitimate constitutional governments. In addition, as the question implies, I think it is important for us to provide support and training and help to the democratic process more broadly. Not just by supporting elections, but by supporting the rule of law, the sanctity of contract for business people, the strengthening of human rights practices, the operation of the free press, and so forth.

Chat Participant: What chance does Somalia have to stabilize?

Chester Crocker: It's a very sad situation. There are some indications of local and grass roots efforts to build peace at the local and regional level. But there is not yet much evidence of a coming together at the national level. Somali society is deeply fragmented and many leaders with guns are pursuing their vested interests.

Chat Participant: Have the international financial institutions helped or hindered African economic development?

Chester Crocker: The international financial institutions have been part of the problem and part of the solution at the same time. Their ideas have shifted as Africa has shifted. I believe essentially that the international institutions represent a source of much-needed discipline and coherence to African economic policies. But that only works if the ideas behind the discipline are good ones.

Chat Participant: What are your opinions on nations such as Gabon and Ivory Coast that have achieved relative stability?

Chester Crocker: There are many many factors that explain the success of a country. Some countries are blessed with a lack of ethnic divisions, a relative absence of ethnic strife. Some countries have wise leaders, and the Ivory Coast has enjoyed for the most part solid leadership. Some countries have reliable friends in the outside world, and both those countries do.

Chat Moderator: Do you think arms proliferation is a major factor in Africa's instability?

Chester Crocker: Arms proliferation is a huge problem in Africa. Governments there tend to be on the weak side and they are easily challenged by small armed groups. We are not talking here about fancy aircraft carriers and main battle tanks. We are talking about AK-47s and mortars. The tragedy is that lots of middlemen are making a living by supplying arms to ambitious insurgent leaders, some of whom deserve to be called warlords, and making a good living doing it.

Chat Participant: Do you think a general African arms embargo is possible?

Chester Crocker: That would be very complicated to organize, because you are denying countries, and there are many of them, 53 sovereign countries in Africa, the right to import arms from the world market. Who would establish the rules? And who would enforce them?

Chat Participant: Has the end of the Cold War made for less dependence on the strategic minerals of Africa, or are they in the same demand as before it ended?

Chester Crocker: There is certainly less concern about those minerals falling into the wrong hands. Cobalt, platinum, chrome, manganese and uranium and the list goes on are the minerals we're talking about. What's changed, though, is that there is no shortage of these materials, and as you know, commodity prices are going down. What has also changed is that there is no "other side."

Chat Participant: The Angola-Namibia peace settlement took over eight years of persistent diplomacy. Do we have that type of strategic vision in our Africa policy today?

Chester Crocker: The answer is NO. We don't seem to think it is an important national priority to take the diplomatic lead in these complex negotiations any more.

Chat Moderator: Mercenaries played a small but significant role in Angola and other African conflicts -- what is their legacy?

Chester Crocker: I'm not sure if the question refers to the Cold War period, or much more recent times? There have been a number of cases in the 1990s of organizations which called themselves private security companies operating as contract agents for governments. The reason? Because the national armies have proven ineffective. There is much debate about the role of these companies. But one thing is clear: they are filling a need at a time when the U.N. is mounting fewer operations in Africa and the great powers are looking the other way.

Chat Participant: What is your prediction on the situation in Africa in five years?

Chester Crocker: I don't expect terribly dramatic change. There are today sources of hope and sources of gloom. There are winners and losers. My hope would be that there will be a few more winners and fewer losers in five years' time. You have to have hope in a region that has so many problems. Some people predict chaos and mayhem throughout the region. I'm not in that school, but I also know that the renaissance has not yet arrived.

Chat Moderator: Chester Crocker, thank you for participating in our live COLD WAR chat.