The public hearings of the Subcommittee on Africa, Committee on International Relations, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, DC
September 28, 1999
September 28, 1999
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished members of the Subcommittee on Africa. It is a pleasure to testify this afternoon before this Subcommittee for the first time. We hope that this is not the last time to testify on behalf of the Congolese people before this Subcommittee.
The Democratic Republic of Congo (DROC) is populated by about 50 millions people and borders nine other countries. Because of its mineral, agricultural, and water resources potential, the country has the potential to stabilize economically and politically many of its neighbors and improve lives of its citizens and those of its neighbors. Any economical or political instability of the Democratic Republic of Congo might create an attractive setting for groups with aims that could directly threaten U.S. interests. Because of its geographic location, the Democratic Republic of Congo played a strategic role in the fight against communist expansion in Africa during the Cold War. Furthermore, any instability has its repercussion not only on its neighbors but also on the entire continent of Africa. The current crisis is a classical case of the potential threat not only to the stability of the country but also to that of the entire continent of Africa, especially when its neighbors or other African countries attempt to interfere with the political system or the democratic process in the Congo.
The Congolese International Union
We are here today before you as representatives of the Congolese International Union. This union was born through the democratic process of free elections held by more than 30 groups of political parties, non-governmental organizations and other interest groups that gathered in Newark, New Jersey from September 18-19, 1999 in response to a conference organized by the Reformed Congolese National Convention (CONACO-Rénovée) and sponsored by Rutgers University's Center for Global Change and Governance. The union represents a broad spectrum of political views from which some support and others are against the current government. In the best interest of the Congolese people, the conference participants agreed to form a union according to the Pact of Newark. This union symbolizes the Congolese aspirations for national unity, territorial integrity, peace and stability, democracy and development. The union is mandated to promote, support, and defend the legitimate interests of Congolese people around the world. This union is an independent body, which operates independently from the Congolese government. Therefore, we, here, assert the independence of our testimony regardless of the possibility of some commonality with the government's view or position. During the Newark conference, among other issues we discussed national unity, causes of the Congolese crisis, territorial integrity, peace and stability, democracy, respect of human rights as well as the Lusaka Accord.
Honorable members of the Subcommittee on Africa, we Congolese
people believe that democracy, freedom, stability, and development
cannot and will not be achieved in Congo with one ethnic minority
gunning down the majority, neither can it be achieved by ignoring
the rights of minorities. Democracy, peace, stability, and
development cannot and will not be achieved in the Congo if the
country stays a playground for the will of its neighbors, which can
invade it at the touch of the button to achieve their goals.
Democracy, peace, stability, and development cannot and will not
be achieved in the Congo if the country remains a playground for
the ambition of its neighbors who can decide to attack or prevent
democratic changes or development of the country any time they
want. This is exactly the situation in our country.
Before we proceed further with the Lusaka Accord, we would like
to talk about the DROC's invaders.
Who are the people from Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi?
Honorable members of the Subcommittee on Africa, Congo's invaders are nothing else but a group of international liars. Isn't true that the Rwandese Ambassador to the US stood last year and testified in front of this Subcommittee denying their presence on the Congolese soil? After being confronted with fact, the Rwandese government admitted to have lied to the international community by admitting their presence in Congo. Isn't true that the invaders have lied to the US in that they had a magic plan to topple the current Congolese government in a matter of days? Where are we now? Isn't it more than a year since the war started? Isn't true that the US asked Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi not to threaten Mbuji-Mayi, the diamond capital in Congo, for attack? Haven't they piled up more forces around Mbuji-Mayi where an attack is reported imminent if not under the way already?
If those invaders lied and manipulated the international community before about the Congo crisis, it is common sense to expect further lies from them about the same crisis including what they included in the Lusaka Accord. We hope you will agree with us that if a US official stood in front of this committee and lied the same way, he will be put in jail and lose his job for perjury.
What do the invaders stand for?
They stand for militarism or military politics, violence, ethnic self-serving interest and ethnic mutual exclusion or extermination. The sad cycles of genocide and counter-genocide since the 1960's that have occurred between two ethnic groups who hate each other and shocked the world are well known. We Congolese people believe in peace and stability for democracy. We have been fighting for it for many years. We saw that dream at our door. We were hopeful until Rwanda interfered to topple the former regime that the Congolese dream for democracy was shattered. With the current regime, Congolese were trying to figure out how to revive the dream for democracy. Unfortunately, for the second time in a row, Rwanda shattered the same dream the same way. We can understand why this is happening. Governments in Rwanda, Burundi, Uganda took power by force, and have since dragged their feet in the process of implementing democratic reforms. Therefore, it is not in the best interest of those countries to see democracy take place in Congo because they don't want the USA to put pressure on them for democratization of their respective countries.
The culture of the invaders is another important aspect that has been overlooked by the USA and the rest of the international community. However, we Congolese believe it to be the fundamental factor at the heart of this crisis, because it deals directly with the mentality of people involved in all major crises. The rebels mostly Tutsis have attempted to justify themselves by invoking their conflicts in the Masisi region with their neighbors as reason for invasion. Ethnic clashes have often happened in Africa and Congolese people have faced intolerance all over the country.
Honorable members of the Subcommittee on Africa, it is important to remind you that there are only two ethnic groups (Hutus and Tutsis; the Twa are not included because they are a very small number) in Rwanda and Burundi, whereas Congo is home to 450 ethnic groups. Despite this diversity, killing or genocide mentality is not part of the Congolese people's culture. We are peaceful and very hospitable people. The proof of this is that any time there is hatred killings in Rwanda, Burundi, or Uganda against one of the two ethnic groups involved, that group has always been welcomed in Congo for its survival. The same ethnic group, for which Rwanda claimed to have invaded Congo for protection had been represented at every level of the Congolese leadership during the past regime, they fought against. They were represented at the level of management in the public as well private sector. We had presidents of colleges or universities, professors and business people. Students were represented from kindergarten to colleges or universities. We have been voting with the same people for years and we are not aware of anyone who has been prevented from voting because he was Rwandese. This ethnic group although in minority was spread all over the country freely because the Congolese people accepted them as part of their society. How can then today the international community accept lies after lies from the Rwandan government to justify the invasion for protection of people who have been thriving so well in Congo just because they are spread over these two countries?
We have also ethnic groups such as Lunda and Tshokwe spread over Angola, and Lamba and Bemba over Zambia just to name a few. However, no ethnic group has ever made use of external forces for its protection. No neighboring country in Africa has ever invaded another country to protect an ethnic group on the basis that the group is spread in both countries. This has been possible only with Rwanda where hatred-killing mentality is part of the culture. What precedent has Rwanda set if all neighboring countries with overlapping ethnic groups decide to invade each other in case of internal conflict? Can the USA or the UN stand for such practices? Why then reward peoples whose mentality is based on ethnic mutual exclusion? We don't want the Congolese people to borrow their mentality. We don't want Rwandese troops on our soil.
In Congo, we have fought for democracy and tried to get rid of Mobutu for over 30 years. Despite the diversity of ethnic groups and the fact that some non-Tutsi ethnic groups have been severely victimized, until now, there has been not a single group which has attempted to take power in the name of its ethnicity background. Congolese people recognize how dangerous that can be. We do believe in and need democracy where the best are elected. We need neither guns nor ethnicity to run the country. This ethnic self-serving attitude is the main cause of genocide and hatred, because it is based on ethnic mutual exclusion, which is now being spread into Congo. There are only two ethnic groups in Rwanda and Burundi. If Tutsis currently in power failed to bring democracy and stability there, which magic the international community will use to convince Congolese people that by taking up guns, Tutsis will stabilize and bring democracy in Congo? This is not a matter of discrimination. It doesn't either require scientific knowledge. It is a matter of principle and common sense.
When President Kabila took power, Rwandese, Burundese, and Ugandan troops took charge of security in Congo including the protection of their borders with Congo. They failed to protect those borders. If so, why then today Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi are manipulating the USA and the international community telling them that they are in Congo to secure their borders? Honorable members of the Subcommittee on Africa, let us tell you that these three countries can invade the Congo any time they want, but still will not solve their problems because they don't get it. They don't get it because Congo is neither their problem nor their solution, Their problem is their culture and their mentality based on their ethnic mutual exclusion. Unless they break the cycle of violence in their own countries by ethnic mutual acceptance of their presence, they will always blame outsiders. We don't need their violence and ethnic mutual exclusion mentality to spread over Congo. So, we need them out of the Congo now.
We are convinced that external forces, which have invaded Congo for their own interests, critically threaten Congolese interests and we think that the American people and Government have been given distorted views about the Congolese crisis. This might explain why the US Government has yet to forcefully respond to the suffering of Congolese people, who have always been allies to the American people. When President Bush stood in front of the American people and told them that Iraq invasion of Kuwait would not stand, behold, the invasion did not stand. Well, one might argue that the US Government acted based on national security interest when it provided the leadership to mobilize a coalition that stood up to Iraq. However, President Clinton also provided a leadership to respond to Kosovo crisis and his response was based on humanitarian grounds, President Clinton forcefully told the American people that Milosovitch could not proceed to ethnic cleansing and destruction of cultural records without calling forth an appropriate response from the international community. This is what is going on in now in Congo. However, we are still waiting for the US outrage.
It is with broken heart that we remind this noble assembly that Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi have repeatedly lied to the international community including the American people about the presence of their armies on Congolese territory. When they acknowledged their invasion, occupation, administration of Congo as a colony, plundering Congolese resources, the international community commended their act in the name of peace and could not hold them accountable for their lies. When, the armies of Rwanda and Uganda turned on each other in Kisangani and fought for control of Congolese resources and destroyed vaccine for Congolese children and killed innocent Congolese, the international community turned a blind eye and never condemned in no uncertain term such criminal acts. The international community never strongly condemned the violation of international norms of human rights, international conventions, in particular the charts of the UN and OAU by Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi. It is as though the international community had a short memory of Rwandese, Ugandan, and Burundese lies. It is also plausible to argue that the failure of the international community to prevent the Rwandese genocide of 1994 has generated a sense of guilt that compelled the international community to turn a blind eye not only to their lies but also to their counter-genocide of Hutu in 1996-97, enormous abuses of human rights, invasion, plundering of Congolese riches, killings of Congolese intellectuals and opponents in the Kivu province, attempts to partition Congo, and other crimes. The leaders of these countries should be held accountable in an international court of law and we believe that the Arusha jurisdiction should be broadened to combat impunity that perpetuates the cycle of violence in Central Africa.
Your honorable assembly, we have the sad impression that peace in Congo has become hostage of disagreement between the Congolese government and the international community. We want to remind you that men die while institutions or countries don't usually perish. It would be a grave mistake if the international community uses its dislike or disagreement against the current Congolese government or Mr. Kabila, the one who was once hailed new breed of leader, to jeopardize the peace process, to turn a blind eye to the profound suffering of the Congolese people and the true causes of the Congolese crisis. We are here to call upon the international community to objectively and with open mind seek peace for Congo because it would be a serious mistake and an international scandal when targeting only the leader of the country by issuing a verdict that causes enormous suffering to Congolese people as is the Lusaka Accord. We are here to ask the American people through the US Congress to review the situation in the DR Congo in particular and the central African region in general. We say review because as is this honorable assembly, we are aware that several reports have been written with respect to the crisis in the DR Congo and in the Great Lakes region. And indeed, scores of organizations and countries have surpassed themselves trying to bring an end to the on going conflict in this region. Unfortunately, the crisis is still there, and living conditions for those who have so far escaped the death are deteriorating daily. Millions of lives are still threatened. Children go missing, teenagers are enrolled in the army, and girls and mothers are raped. Congo is in a state of daily and permanent basic human rights abuse.
The DROC's crisis has generated an incredible amount of analysis. Specialists have given their findings on the origin and the consequences of the Congolese crisis, Several reports have mentioned among other things, the dictatorial type of governance by the current regime, the presence in Congo of armed rebels from the defunct Rwanda regime who constitute a threat to the stability of Rwanda, the Ugandan Rebels operating from the DROC and so on.
While all these reasons are cause of concern and have in fact contributed to the current crisis in the DROC, there are, to our opinion and knowledge, serious consequences outweighing the causes of the crisis. The conflict may not come to an end if the main causes are not addressed for all solutions will be based on wrong diagnosis.
This armed conflict did not start on August 2, 1998 when Rwanda and Uganda, the two mentors of the Kabila regime turned their coats against him. The war in the region did not either start with the 1994 genocide that took place in Rwanda. Causes of the war and the current crisis in the DR Congo are of a different origin. The causes of the conflicts in the regions are related to the culture of violence and militarism, ethnic killing mentalities, ethnic self-serving interest that have set the stage for ethnic rivalries and ethnic mutual exclusion or extermination that is in itself the heart of genocide between Hutus and Tutsis. Unless these issues are clearly dealt with, ethnic mutual mass killing between these two rival groups will not end in the region; mass migration of refugees from these countries to Congo will not end, and the blaming of outsiders by these two ethnic groups will not end.
The search for peace between Hutus and Tutsis has to start at home in Rwanda and Burundi. It has to start with ethnic and national reconciliation and unity in Rwanda and Burundi, and not in Congo. The DR Congo has nothing to do with their culture or mentality. If they keep distracting themselves and the world by using the DR Congo as an escape goat to manipulate the international community, all it will do is to serve their personal and ethnic group interests. It will do no good to their national stability. In fact, it may set a stage for killing of epic proportion in the future. We are neighbors to both Hutus and Tutais, and we know better their culture than anyone else. If the world keeps losing sight and focuses attention only on the 1994 genocide, the consequences of such mistakes are far reaching. We would like to remind you that the 1994 genocide in Rwanda was triggered by the invasion of the Rwandan Patriotic Front supported by Ugandan army. The 1994 genocide is also considered as a logical consequence of the culture of impunity in the Great Lakes region and that of the 1972 genocide of Hutus by Tutsis. The 1996-1997 counter-genocide of Hutus was the consequence of the 1994 genocide of Tutu. Unless the international community understands that each genocide of one ethnic group prepares the genocide for the other ethnic group, investing in the Lusaka Accord is a waste of time.
We are here to ask the American government to review with us the Lusaka Accord that we consider as a recipe for humanitarian disaster of epic proportion and even renewed genocide the international community would not want to face again in Central Africa. This Accord is also a recipe for an attractive setting for groups with aims that could directly threaten U.S. interests. We the Congolese people are convinced that democracy is the only way to go. We fully understand that ethnic manipulated actions are worst than any sort of dictatorship, especially in Congo where we have 450 ethnic groups, That is the reason why, despite the lack of democracy and human right violations in Congo, the popularity of President Kabila has not been affected.
The Lusaka Accord is for the moment the most likely way to go for possible end of the crisis. However, since it is based on analyses and assumptions that do not take into account the real causes of the crisis, it poses more problems than it is likely to answer them. Therefore, we Congolese people of different political views strongly oppose this accord in its current form for the reasons below:
o Problem 1: No obvious condemnation of Rwanda, Uganda, and Burundi for having invaded the PR Congo
The Lusaka Accord offers no hope for the Congolese people because it failed to consider the critical element of the current crisis, which is the illegitimate invasion of the DR Congo by its neighbors. The DR Congo has always opened the door to both Hutus and Tutsis anytime they run into trouble in their own countries. Their invasion is illegitimate, despicable, and stands in flagrant violation of both the UN and OAU charters, which recognize the territorial integrity and sovereignty of the DR Congo. It ought to be strongly condemned in a clear, precise, and unambiguous language. The aggression by countries that are members of the Organization of African Unity constitutes a serious threat to Peace and Security in Central Africa in general and in the Great Lakes region in particular. The violation of Congo's sovereignty, territorial integrity including the gross violation of the Congolese fundamental rights by invaders should bring an uproar in the international community, especially the Security Council, whose responsibility is to maintain peace and international security. In its current form, the Lusaka Accord has done nothing but to legitimize terrorist behavior of states which may have a strong army at a given point in time.
o Problem 2: No immediate withdrawal of invading troops
The Lusaka Accord made another critical mistake of legitimizing the invaders stay in the DR Congo. Since Rwandese, Burundese, and Ugandan troops invaded the DR Congo, they have been abusing the Congolese people in the occupied territories. They kill innocent Congolese civilians, they rape women, they destroy economic infrastructure of the country, they destroy civilian and cultural records of the Congolese citizens, and they impose new settlements and exploit illegally the Congolese national resources. Their presence is a major hindrance for the Congolese democracy. Their criminal presence denies the rights to Congolese people for self-determination, self-governance, and the pursuit of happiness and development of their own potentials as they see it fit. This is in flagrant violation and total disregard of the international norms and laws. If two weeks were enough for Serb troops to pull out of Kosovo, why not the same or lesser time for Rwandese, Burundese, and Ugandan troops to pull out of the DR Congo? These troops are aggressors and ought to leave the DR Congo immediately.
o Problem 3: Holding on to positions
There is no need for a special training or a scientific knowledge to figure out the destructive nature of the Lusaka Accord. Common sense alone is enough to realize such fact. It makes no sense that troops, which are illegally on a foreign soil for their internal affairs based on their culture, should be allowed to keep their positions for several months. This is nothing else but a legitimization and rewarding of terrorist behaviors. In addition, what it does is to pave the way for the partitioning of the DR Congo, which in the end has no effect to ending internal problems in Rwanda, Burundi and Uganda, if not exasperated.
o Problem 4: Military supplies
In its current form, there is no better way of viewing this accord other than the intent to victimize the Congolese people. By being on the ground, we all know that the military is receiving all the needed supplies. How much sense does it make if the intent of this accord is to allow the invaders a legal way to re-supply their weaponry for further attacks?
o Problem 5: Lack of association of the non-armed opposition to the table
The tendency to reduce all credible politics to armed politics is prevalent in Central Africa. Politics must be de-militarized in Congo. The non-armed opposition groups make up the largest segment of the population. If indeed lasting peace in the region is the intent of this accord, it makes no sense to have omitted the most influential segment of the society in the region. The unarmed opposition, especially the democratic sector within it, is the key to de-militarizing Congolese politics when it is included. As long as the non-armed opposition group is not part of this accord, the Lusaka Accord is doomed to failure.
o Problem 6: Disarmament of the Mal-Mai resistant group
Invaders have been talking much about the disarmament of armed groups including the Mai-Mai resistance movement. The Mai-Mai resistance movement was not born to fight Rwanda. They have been fighting Mobutu for many years. However, if today these militants and Congolese patriots turned their guns against Rwanda, the reason is simple. Rwandese troops have been systematically killing their clan leaders, family members, raping their daughters, taking civilian prisoners into Rwanda and destroying cultural and civilian records. They took their land and imposed new settlements of people newly from Rwanda. Because the Congolese government and the international community failed to neither protect them nor cry for outrage, they decided to take guns against the invading forces. We Congolese people oppose any attempt to disarm these true patriots fighting for themselves- and their country. We acknowledge that they are part of our Congolese society, and are not Rwandese rebels. Indeed, unlike the so-called RCD rebels, the Mai-Mai are true Congolese patriots. The Lusaka Accord tactically failed to distinguish between disarming armed Rwandese rebels and Congolese armed groups legitimately defending themselves.
Implications of the Lusaka Accord
In its current form, the Lusaka Accord has several implications:
1, It guarantees the instability in the region for many years to come because of the mistrust it is creating
2. It prepares for another genocide, as real causes of the crisis are not addressed. The causes have to be dealt with from the inside Rwanda, Burundi, and Uganda and not from outside of their own borders or countries,
3. It either kills or delays the democratization process and development in the region
4. It legitimizes the culture of violence, militarism, ethnic mutual exclusion or extermination in the region rather than preventing it.
5. It sets the stage for partition of not only the DR Congo, but also many other African countries in the future.
6. It legitimizes an invasion as long as there is an emotional or sympathetic reason.
7. It legitimizes all human rights abuses and other kinds of abuses associated with the invasion.
Conclusions and recommendations
The real causes of the current crisis have a far-reaching impact on the outcome of the Lusaka Accord. In its current form, this Accord failed miserably to address the true causes of the crisis, which are deeply rooted in Rwanda, Burundi, and Uganda. As long as Rwanda, Burundi, and Uganda continue to play on the emotional part of the USA and the international community as related to the 1994 genocide, the crisis in the Great Lakes region is far from over, and many of its real implications will not be accounted for.
Because the Lusaka Accord failed to take into account the interests of the majority of the Congolese people, and the generous hospitality they showed toward Hutus and Tutsis for many years until now, it is bound to fail. Therefore, we recommend the following:
1. The USA has to take a more active role to stabilize the region.
2. The money from international institutions should either be allowed
to both parties involved in the crisis or prevented in all fairness.
3. The US Congress should send a delegation to the region to
investigate abuses on the ground.
4. The withdrawal of all uninvited troops ought to be immediate with
a strong signal from the international community warning the
invaders not to repeat their mistakes. The removal of foreign troops
from the Congolese soil is and shall remain the first precondition to
internal reform.
5. There ought to be a strong denunciation and cry of outrage for
the invasion of the DR Congo.
6. The US Congress should hold accountable the invaders for their
lies, manipulations, and deceptions throughout the crisis.
7. The US should give the Congolese people a chance for
democracy by ordering an immediate withdrawal of the invaders
from the Congolese soil.
8. The US Congress should request that the Arusha jurisdiction
should be broadened to cover all crimes committed in Congo in
order to combat impunity that perpetuates the cycle of violence in
Central Africa.
9. The US Congress should strongly discourage the continued
reliance on a mainly military option by the military regimes in
Rwanda and Burundi, which will invariably result in more bloodshed
of innocent lives. The US Congress should firmly initiate a
conference for national unity and reconciliation for Burundi,
Uganda, and Rwanda.
10. We strongly recommend to the international community to not
allow verdict or judgement of the crisis on the sole basis of whether
they support or not the current government in the DR Congo. For,
we humans pass but nations and institutions remain. President
Kabila is just one person in millions. The nation should not be
destroyed on the basis of personal feelings by invaders against the
Congolese President. We believe that democracy is the best way of
change of government without bloodshed of innocent people.
Furthermore, foreign invasion cannot give the Congolese people
democracy as a turnkey project.