The previous week at the Brookings Institution U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Johnnie Carson presented an outline of the Obama administration’s policy position on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), signaling U.S. position in advance of the signing of the agreement.

Kambale Musavuli, spokesperson from Friends of Congo, offers a thoughtful analysis of U.S. foreign policy toward the Congo, articulated by Carson, and the limitations of the UN-brokered peace agreement. We agree that key omissions from the U.S. and U.N.’s approach to Congo peace are adequate measures of accountability and justice. Read statement by Kambale.

In front of the White House, Congolese and their friends called for peace in the Congo, NOW!

At the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on the Conflict in Eastern Congo congressional representatives were asking why so little accountability for Rwandan officials named in the United Nations report for supporting the M23 militia.

We agree with Friends of the Congo that “despite the abundance of evidence demonstrating Rwanda’s involvement and command of the M23 militia, the response from the international community remains tepid and inadequate.

“Peace talks, resolutions, reports, summits and Congressional hearings may be held, however, stability will be unattainable if the illicit networks and militia backed by Rwanda and Uganda are not dismantled. The lack of political will at the international level to hold accountable the key leaders responsible for the instability and suffering in the region (particularly Paul Kagame of Rwanda, Yoweri Museveni of Uganda and Joseph Kabila of DRC) has helped to perpetuate the conflict in eastern Congo.”

In a previous post we criticized US Ambassador to the UN Susan Rice for her callousness toward the Congo and unwillingness to hold Rwandan officials accountable for backing the M23. Still, we ask, given all of the evidence why isn’t she speaking out? We have the same questions for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and President Obama.

There is talk of appointing special envoys to the region from the U.S. and U.N. but what is needed are calls for accountability.

It is the opinion of our group that not only is Rice unfit to be Secretary of State but because she also has had a hand in a disastrous U.S. policy toward Central Africa the president would do well to replace her as the U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations.

Why should Rice be replaced? Let’s start with the current situation in the Congo. While it becomes increasingly clear to the French and the British that Rwanda should be held accountable for backing the M23 militia, Rice continues to both delay and water down any proclamations.

In his Foreign Policy blog, Column Lynch explained: “Since last summer, the United States has used its influence at the United Nations to delay the publication of a report denouncing Rwanda’s support for the M23, to buy time for a Security Council resolution condemning foreign support for the rebellion, and opposing any direct references to Rwanda in U.N statements and resolutions on the crisis.”

What’s even more disturbing is a callous remark Lynch attributed to Rice when she was recently pressed by France’s U.N. ambassador, Gerard Araud, to “apply greater political pressure on the M23′s chief sponsor, Rwanda, a close American ally, that stands accused by a U.N. panel of sponsoring, arming, and commanding the insurgent M23 forces. The French argued that threats of sanctions were needed urgently to pressure Kigali to halt its support for the M23 and prevent them from gobbling up more Congolese territory.”

Lynch reported that “Rice pushed back, reasoning that any move to sanction Rwandan leader Paul Kagame would backfire, and it would be better to work with him to find a long-term solution to the region’s troubles than punish him. “Gerard, it’s eastern Congo. If it were not the M23 killing people it would be some other armed groups,” she said, according to one of three U.N.-based sources who detailed the exchange.”

Her chilling remark is reminiscent of another widely reported comment attributed to Rice in 1996. As recently relayed by author and Central Africa expert Jason Stearns: “When Rwandan troops were carrying out vicious revenge massacres against Hutu refugees who fled into the Congolese jungles, killing thousands, Rice, then senior director of African affairs at the National Security Council said in a private conversation reported by French academic Gerard Pruniers and confirmed by New York Times journalist Howard French: “Museveni {of Uganda] and Kagame agree that the basic problem in the Great Lakes is the danger of a resurgence of genocide and they know how to deal with that. The only thing we [ie., the United States] have to do is look the other way.”

While acknowledging that Rice is “bright, ambitious, and extremely hard-working,” Stearns concludes, “…In her reluctance to criticize the Rwandan’s government’s involvement in the Congo, she has also demonstrated critical lapses in judgment. Senators would do better to scrutinize this history, rather than focusing on the Benghazi attacks.”

There is another troubling aspect of Rice’s unwillingness to apply pressure to Rwanda for its destructive role in the Congo. While Rice, a multimillionaire, has been criticized by the Left for six-figure investments in the company behind a controversial oil pipeline, what hasn’t been scrutinized are her investments in mining giant Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Inc., which operates a copper mine in the DRC. How can she be an effective peacemaker in the region when she has an economic interest?

If anything good can come out of the highly politicized conversation about Rice as a possible secretary of state it might be the exposure of a failed U.S. foreign policy in Central Africa that has contributed to the millions of deaths and massive violence that have occurred in the country since the mid-90s. Aljazeera recently unpacked the U.S. role in the conflict in a broadcast, which refreshingly presented a Congolese point of view.

Ambassador Rice’s replacement as UN ambassador would signal a new, more productive posture toward peace in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Central Africa.

]]> http://congopeace.org/?feed=rss2&p=354 0 http://congopeace.org/?p=351 http://congopeace.org/?p=351#comments Wed, 28 Nov 2012 12:12:28 +0000 admin http://congopeace.org/?p=351 Continue reading →]]> Last week while the media was fixed on Gaza, the Rwanda-backed militia known as M23 took over Goma, the most important city in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo. This latest surge of violence, which started months ago, has resulted in hundreds of thousands of Congolese fleeing for their lives.

Since the mid-nineties, the Congo has been emeshed in conflict that has resulted in 3 to 5 million deaths and tens of thousands of rapes. In addition to weak, corrupt governance in the Congo, Rwandan and Ugandan back militias have been a big part of the problem. In fact, the United Nations issued a report last week claiming that the Government of Rwanda is providing direct military support to the M23 rebels. Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame denies backing M23.

Susan Rice, the U.S. ambassador to the UN, has not taken a strong stand against Rwanda and has delayed or watered down UN proclamations critical of Rwanda. Perhaps she is responding to the White House’s directives.

Rwanda and Uganda, U.S. allies in the region, have been supporting rebels in Congo for more than a decade destabilizing the country. The U.S. has looked the other way while these militias have killed millions of Congolese and raped tens of thousands with complete impunity. It’s time for the U.S. to exert more pressure on Rwanda and Uganda to quit meddling in the region, while helping the Congo to establish a more disciplined military.

Clearly, it looks like a major resurgence in the violence that has already taken more than 5 million lives.

This should come as no surprise to U.S. officials who have monitored the situation closely. Last August a group of 11 members of Congress sent a letter to Rwanda’s President Paul Kagame to express their “deep concern” about the recent and growing conflict. They cited U.N. reports and other sources, including impartial eyewitnesses to conclude that they were “absolutely convinced” that Rwanda is involved in supporting the unrest in the Kivus. They were calling Kagame to work things out with the DRC government to end “the enormous human suffering” and displacement of Congolese that is taking place.

With this escalation of violence, it should be clear to all that Kagame has ignored the pleas of these members of Congress and has in fact given his proxy militia even more free reign to destabilize the Kivus.

We urge everyone to contact the members of Congress who wrote this letter to Kagame and ask them to escalate the situation not only in Congress but with President Obama and Susan Rice, U.S. ambassador to the U.N.

The U.S. should cut off all aid to Rwanda until this situation is resolved. Here is the letter from the 11 members of Congress.

Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times commented: “Dr. Mukwege presumably was targeted because of a strong speech he gave at the United Nations last month, denouncing mass rape in Congo and the impunity for it. President Kabila [Congo's president] has long been angry at Dr. Mukwege, and the UN speech can’t have helped. Meanwhile, Dr. Mukwege has also offended Rwanda with his denunciations of Rwanda’s role in the slaughter and rape in eastern Congo.”

The world would do well to listen to what the good doctor has to say about the attack, the murder of the security guard who defended him, and what it says about the ongoing violence that goes unchallenged in Eastern Congo: Dr. Mukwege Fights Back.

The conflict in the Congo will be on center stage in the UN General Assembly today, Sept. 27, with Ban Ki-moon hosting a meeting between Congolese President Joseph Kabila, Rwandan President Paul Kagame, and other world leaders.
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/ban-ki-moon-s-chance-ignite-peace-congo

Members of Congress are getting a more complete picture of Rwanda’s destructive role in the conflict.
http://foreignaffairs.house.gov/hearings/view/?1476

The mainstream press is also catching on:

Financial Times:Rwanda’s proxy forces muddy Congo conflict
http://www.globalpost.com/dispatches/globalpost-blogs/commentary/ban-ki-moon-s-chance-ignite-peace-congo

President Clinton, a long-time friend of Rwanda President Paul Kagame, told CNN that “he blew it here” and that outside intervention by the U.S. and its allies could have saved a third of the people who died in the genocide. He talked about Rwanda’s  economic success story, their “good roads” and “good farms” and the overall cleanliness of the country. No questions were asked Clinton about Rwanda’s well-documented profiteering off of Congo’s conflict minerals.

CNN reporters also focused on mountain gorillas that “end up in the crossfires” of the Eastern Congo conflict.  While gorillas are marvelous animals and need to be protected with all endangered species, we were astounded that CNN reporter Erin Burnett asked no questions about Rwanda’s role in the Eastern Congo. She didn’t mention the latest wave of tens of thousands of Congolese refugees fleeing the violence. She asked no questions about evidence that Rwanda is providing support to Congolese rebel groups that are stirring up the violence.

Rwanda’s disruptive role in mineral rich Eastern Congo is no secret. Take a look at The Atlantic article The U.S. Ally That Brings Violence to the Congo and Gets Away With It. And for more depth, consider the many reports by United Nations researchers and human rights organizations. And now it looks like the U.S. State Department is finally beginning to put some pressure on Rwanda in regards to the Congo. Here is an excerpt from a recent statement:

“In light of information that Rwanda is supporting armed groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), the Department of State has decided it can no longer provide Foreign Military Financing (FMF) appropriated in the current fiscal year to Rwanda, considering a restriction imposed by the 2012 appropriation act.

“As a result, we will not obligate $200,000 in Fiscal Year 2012 FMF funds that were intended to support a Rwandan academy for non-commissioned officers.  These funds will be reallocated for programming in another country.

“We will continue to provide assistance to Rwanda to enhance its capacity to support peacekeeping missions.

“The Department continues to assess whether other steps should be taken in response to Rwanda’s actions with respect to the DRC.

“The United States government is deeply concerned about the evidence that Rwanda is implicated in the provision of support to Congolese rebel groups, including M23.” Read entire statement on Jason’s Stearn’s blog.

CNN, in their Rwanda reporting, obviously didn’t do their homework. They are apparently more concerned about telling a feel good story with an international celebrity than getting to the roots of the ongoing violence in the region. As for Clinton, you would think that a former U.S. president, husband of the current secretary of state, and global philanthropist would assume some role in bringing peace to neighboring Congo. After all, the Democratic Republic of Congo has seen more than five million deaths since the violence in Rwanda spilled over into their country.

Groups like Human Rights Watch and the United Nations Group of Experts continue to present a much more troubling view of Rwanda. This counter narrative testifies not only of an oppressive regime in Kigali, but one that has greatly contributed to the violence in neighboring Democratic Republic of Congo that has taken some six million lives. Reports from these groups also indicate the secret flow through Rwanda of minerals from the Congo enabled by Rwandan backed militias.

The UN Mapping report (see our previous blog) suggested Kagame’s mostly Tutsi army attempted a counter-genocide in the mid-1990s in parts of Congo. The report accuses the Rwandan Army of purposefully massacring Hutu refugees in the Congo. The Rwandan government received an advance copy of the report and discredited it.

And now, according to a June 23 Reuters report, a new United Nations report on the Congo has omitted reference to findings that high-ranking Rwandan officials are backing an army mutiny in Congo’s volatile east led by Gen. Bosco Ntaganda and his newly formed “M-23″ militia.

Diplomats have accused the United States of seeking to delay publication of the findings by the U.N. Group of Experts to give neighboring Rwanda time to formulate a response.

Philippe Bolopion, UN director of Human Rights Watch, told the Guardian: “The US government’s reluctance to allow the publication of the UN group of experts’ findings of Rwandan military support for Bosco Ntaganda’s rebels is counterproductive.

“Stifling information will only hinder attempts to put an end to the atrocities committed by ICC (international criminal court) war crimes suspect Ntaganda and other abusive commanders who have joined his mutiny.”

He added: “The US and other security council members should be doing everything they can to expose violations of UN sanctions and the arms embargo, including by Rwanda, and not attempt to cover them up.”

A report from Human Rights Watch released last month documented evidence of Rwandan support to the break-away militia, stating that Rwandan military officials have been arming and supporting the mutiny of Ntaganda. The militia leader is wanted for war crimes by the International Criminal Court (ICC) for recruiting and using child soldiers.

These new reports claim that Rwandan military officials have allowed Ntaganda to enter Rwanda and supplied him with new recruits, weapons, and ammunition.

Field research conducted by Human Rights Watch in the region in May 2012 revealed “that Rwandan army officials have provided weapons, ammunition, and an estimated 200 to 300 recruits to support Ntaganda’s mutiny in Rutshuru territory, eastern Congo. The recruits include civilians forcibly recruited in Musanze and Rubavu districts in Rwanda, some of whom were children under 18. Witnesses said that some recruits were summarily executed on the orders of Ntaganda’s forces when they tried to escape.”

As has been his response in the past toward UN and human rights reports, Rwanda’s President Kagame shrugs off any responsibility toward fueling the violence in the Eastern Congo, placing all of the blame on the Congolese.

There is some urgency for the U.S. to get it right on the Congo.

The eastern provinces of North and South Kivu have witnessed increased fighting between government troops and renegade fighters following Ntaganda’ mutiny in April. The fighting has displaced more than 200,000 people, including many who have fled to neighboring Rwanda and Uganda, according to the UN News Service.

Congo Peace urges U.S. citizens to contact their elected officials to voice dismay at any suppression of information at the United Nations about Rwanda’s role in perpetuating the conflict in the Congo. Understood that not much progress can be made in the Congo until there is better leadership in the country. In the meantime though, the U.S. could at least at least play a role in ending the extreme violence the Congo has seen since 1994 by holding its ally Rwanda accountable.

The law, patterned after Section 1502 of the federal Dodd-Frank conflict minerals legislation, may not be garnering that much enthusiasm because Sec. 1502 itself is on the ropes.

A House of Representatives hearing scheduled for today, May 10, may be the beginning of the end for the law, as industry forces and their allies seem to be uniting against it. Note the title of the hearing today in The International Monetary Policy and Trade Subcommittee of The House Financial Services Committee: “The Costs and Consequences of Dodd- Frank Section 1502: Impacts on America and the Congo”

This doesn’t bode well for Section 1502 or the new Maryland law.

Congo Peace supported the passage of the Maryland law and enforcement of Section 1502. Here’s why: Conflict mineral laws at least create a public dialogue on how the riches of the Congo are extracted and call for accountability up and down the supply chain. How else will American consumers see the connection between their electronics products and the violence surrounding their extraction in the Congo?