NEWS ON CONGO 012: Congo brands aggression at UN [Posted: 21.09.98] Below is the statement by Ambassador André Kapanga, of the Permanent Mission of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the United Nations (New York), on 10 September, concerning the still ongoing aggression against his country. It's quoted from the website of Agence Congolaise de Presse (ACP) at . ORGANISATION DES NATIONS UNIES MISSION DE LA REPUBLIQUE DEMOCRATIQUE DU CONGO Great Lakes Policy Forum Washington D.C. September 10, 1998 *Rwandan and Ugandan Aggression Against the Democratic Republic of the Congo* by Ambassador André Kapanga Permanent Mission of the Democratic Republic of the Congo United Nations (New York) Good morning. I first want to thank the Great Lakes Policy Forum for their in- vitation to speak with you today on the current situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo. On August 13, I wrote to the Security Council of the United Na- tions and made three requests: *that they open an inquiry into the present aggression against the Congo *that Rwanda and Uganda be condemned in conformity with the dispositions of the UN and OAU charters, and *that the United Nations and the OAU use all means at their disposal to compel the withdrawal of Rwandan and Ugandan troops from Congolese territory. Though the Rwandan and Ugandan governments have characterized the hostilities in my country as a "rebellion" that is internal to the Congo, no serious observer of the situation would deny the role of Rwanda and Uganda as aggressors. Even Mrs. Emma Bonino, European Commissioner for Humanitarian Affairs, and no friend of my government, has loudly protested this "outright invasion" by Rwanda. In a welcome acknowledgement of the real facts on the ground, President Nelson Mandela declared this past week that my govern- ment was within its rights to call for military help from its allies to protect itself from foreign aggression. I believe that an honest discussion of this latest phase of Cen- tral Africa's chronic crisis must start by acknowledging this fact. Unfortunately, it is a fact that is obscured, not only by American press coverage, but also by the official statements of the US State Department. For instance, an August 26 statement by Deputy Spokesman James Foley names Angola, Zimbabwe and Namibia, but not Rwanda and Uganda, as countries whose involvement is escalating the con- flict. In the same release, he calls on "all parties to the con- flict to cease actions aimed at depriving innocent civilian po- pulations of food, water and electricity," as if it were Pre- sident Kabila and his allies, rather than Ugandan troops, who had laid mines around the Inga Dam. This lopsided view of the hostilities, coupled with frequent af- firmations of the right of Congo's neighbors to secure their borders, conveys the strong impression that Rwanda and Uganda acted with at least the tacit complicity of the United States. Since it is beyond doubt that Rwanda and Uganda have violated Congolese sovereignty, the only serious question for discussion by the international community and the Congolese people, is whether they were justified in doing so. The governments of Rwanda and Uganda have advanced many reasons to justify an invasion they say did not happen. I believe that these justifications do not withstand thoughtful scrutiny. In conformity with the evolving doctrines of state sovereignty embraced by the OAU, my government recognizes the right of hu- manitarian intervention by the international community. But the present aggression of Rwanda and Uganda advances no humanitarian goal. It will not pacify the border region, as they claim. It has already cost many lives, and has drawn the entire region in- to the conflict. It has racheted up existing ethnic hatreds. It has caused wanton destruction to precious infrastructure, and dealt a blow to economic development that will affect hundreds of millions of non-combatants. The Congo has been criticized as a source of instability in the region. It is true that the eastern portion of the country has been an arena of armed conflict for decades. The corruption and decay of the Mobutuist state virtually ensured that Zairian ter- ritory would serve as a haven to guerrilla groups opposing neighboring regimes. But let us not forget that Congolese citizens have been forced to pay a high price for conflicts internal to Uganda and Rwanda. The Tanzanian backed campaign to bring Museveni's National Re- sistance Army to power, and the war between the Rwandan Patrio- tic Front and the genocidal Habyriamana regime have brought de- stabilization and suffering to our people as well. My government is fully aware of the challenges it faces in bringing order to this region, and of the ways it has been un- able to fully meet those challenges. But it must be acknowledged that the persistence of insurgencies also reflects the incom- plete success of the governments of Rwanda and Uganda in winning the confidence of all their people, and consolidating their in- stitutions of governance to the point where everyone buys in, without fear of marginalization or annihilation. I do not mean to minimize the difficulties of doing this: in- deed, this is a challenge faced by my own government. Nor do I mean to deny that some insurgencies have placed themselves beyond the pale of legitimacy through their terroristic, nihi- listic -- indeed, genocidal -- actions. Nevertheless, Rwanda and Uganda cannot hope to solve these in- ternal problems by aggression against the Congolese people. The diversion of scarce economic resources to armed aggression can only make things worse. Second, I would like to raise for consideration whether the se- curity problems on the eastern border of Congo are indeed ame- nable to a military solution. The US State Department has declared that "Countering genocide is in the national security interest of Rwanda and other coun- tries in the region." The failure of my government to prevent Interahamwe, ex-FAR and ADF elements, along with their allies among ex-FAZ, from attacking Rwanda and Uganda are invoked as justification for the invasion. There are two highly problematic aspects to this justification which must be considered: First, to the extent that my government had any capability of carrying out this pacification, it resided in its national army, the FAC, which in the eastern provinces was largely integrated by Banyamulenge troops, and commanded by Tutsi -- indeed, Rwan- dan Tutsi -- officers. The Chief of Staff of the FAC until one month before the rebel- lion was a Rwandan Tutsi, and he had a free hand to deploy our forces to prevent Interahamwe from attacking Rwanda. The civil administration of the region was also dominated by Congolese Tutsi, for instance, the governor of North Kivu, as well has his chief information officer, and the Vice-Governor of South Kivu. Thus, the military might of the nation, such as it was, was available to serve the security priorities of the Rwandan go- vernment. Indeed, subsequent events have confirmed that these officers and troops owed their primary allegiance to Rwanda. If the Rwandans failed to subdue the Interahamwe when they were still at least nominally serving in our national army, why do they think they will be more successful now, when they are per- ceived as foreign invaders and have aroused the hostility of the Congolese population? Rwanda apparently discovered that it is not that easy to pacify the border region. For one thing, the Hutu/Tutsi conflict is not the only one afflicting the area. Decades of brutal dictator- ship, grinding poverty, and wars that have displaced millions of people have created a volatile mix of inter-communal tensions, which have been augmented and immeasurably complicated by the arrival of the ex-FAR and Interahamwe in 1994. It may be that it is simply not possible to launch "surgical strikes" against suspected genocidiaires without widespread col- lateral damage. In recognition of this, my government convened a summit on peace, security and development in the Great Lakes Re- gion last May, in an attempt to initiate a peaceful solution to the eastern conflict. It is well-known that the governments of Rwanda and Uganda boy- cotted this conference, at the urging of some Western powers. This brings us to the second problematic aspect of the aggres- sors' justification for their violation of Congo's sovereignty. It is doubtful that the military strategists of Rwanda and Ugan- da seriously thought that their forces could subdue a nation of 45 million, even if they guessed wrong about the willingness of Congo's southern neighbors to enter the conflict on the govern- ment side. Their real goal seems to be the temporary seizure of a "buffer zone" along the border. What is to take place in this "buffer zone?" Has the international community given any consideration to what the Armée Patriotique Rwandaise will do to those it con- siders its enemies within this zone? My government has just endured a year of international scrutiny and criticism for crimes against humanity allegedly committed by troops under the command of the very same officers who are now in control of a 475 mile swath of Congo. This area contains not only Hutu genocidiaires, but also local Congolese populations who have been caught up in the ethnic polarization that is the result of the catastrophic influx of refugees. I find it extremely troubling that the desire of Rwanda and Uganda for a "buffer zone" is regarded sympathetically by the international community. Reports of massacres and reprisals against civilians are already filtering out of the areas under their occupation. Why is the international community not raising the alarm about a possible counter-genocide in the "buffer zone?" I have said that the Rwandan invasion has reached up the level of ethnic hatred in the region. While loudly decrying the in- crease in anti-Tutsi sentiment among the Congolese population, and condemning my government for allegedly fomenting it, the Rwandan government has taken no responsibility for its own role in the rise of this hatred. The Congo has been invaded by Rwandan Tutsi; this fact alone is enough to generate Congolese hostility toward Rwandan Tutsi, just as the bombing of Pearl Harbor generated American hostility toward American citizens of Japanese descent. It is an unfortunate fact of life in any national sector, and especially so in Central Africa, where ethnic tensions are al- ready at the boiling point. My government has summoned the po- pulation to resist armed invaders, who, it should be recognized, came not only in columns of regular soldiers but also as guer- rillas who infiltrated the city of Kinshasa and attempted to rally people to the rebellion. My government has never, I repeat, never urged its citizens to harm helpless civilians, and, in spite of the fact that it had narrowly survived a coup attempt by its former Tutsi allies, has invited the International Committee of the Red Cross and other humanitarian organizations to help it guarantee the correct treatment of Congolese Tutsi, as well as Ugandan and Rwandan citizens. It should also be pointed out that the invasion is not supported by all Tutsi citizens of the Congo. In the past month, the so- called rebels and their Rwandan and Ugandan sponsors have high- jacked three commercial airplanes, murdered missionaries, looted offices and warehouses of UNICEF, deprived 5 million Kinshasa residents of electricity and water, and tried to starve them by seizing the port city of Matadi. It is difficult to understand how these adventuristic -- if not terroristic -- acts can advance the stability and security of the region. The aggression cannot be justified on any terms -- political, military or humanitarian. My government urgently desires a cease-fire, and welcomes the assistance of its neighbors in SADC in negotiating peace. At the same time we must reject plans such as the 10-point Pretoria agreement which would allow the aggressors to keep an army of occupation on Congolese soil. The withdrawal of Rwandan and Ugandan forces who have brought more bloodshed and misery to the Congolese people without -- it must be said -- bringing any corresponding benefit to the Ugan- dan and Rwandan people, must be the precondition of any lasting peace. Thank you. ________________________________________________________________ "NEWS ON CONGO" postings bring statements by the Congo National Association in Sweden and the DR Congo Committee in Sweden and also reproduce information and analysis from other sources. For French-readers we recommend the sites Agence Congolaise de Presse, ACP: (temporarily closed from 16.08.98 on - but now, 12.09 etc, open again), Congonline (Belgium-based, brings info from various sources): , and also the sites and . Contact addresses: Congo National Association Box 5343 SE - 102 45 Stockholm Sweden Tel: +46 - 8 - 471 96 26 (chairman) +46 - 8 - 84 57 18 (facility) Fax: +46 - 8 - 751 26 06 DR Congo Committee (Chairman: Bony Ndjov-a-Shamalo) Box 17513 SE - 200 10 Malmoe Sweden Tel: +46 - 40 - 12 48 32 E-mail: congocomse@hotmail.com