Democratic Republic of Congo: briefing by Department

This premium content has been made freely available

International Relations

16 April 2003
Share this page:

Meeting Summary

A summary of this committee meeting is not yet available.

Meeting report

FOREIGN AFFAIRS PORTFOLIO COMMITTEE
16 April 2003
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO: BRIEFING BY DEPARTMENT

Chairperson: Dr. P Jordan

Relevant documents
Powerpoint presentation on the DRC

SUMMARY
The Department briefed the committee on the situation in the DRC following the signing of the peace agreement at the beginning of April. Although the agreement was signed, it was pointed out that there was still a long way to go before the situation would be back to normal. Issues around the four deputy-presidents, the withdrawal of forces and the recent massacres have all caused the situation to be very delicate. The South African government however was very hopeful and committed to see that the peace agreement is successfully executed.

MINUTES
The Chair opened the meeting by saying that they were very proud of South Africa's achievements in the DRC. The situation was not sorted out yet, but they were hopeful.

Mr. K Mamabolo, Deputy Director on Africa, addressed the committee as in the Powerpoint presentation attached. He added that the situation was a very delicate one. President Mbeki had called all the parties together that day as there was fear that the situation was being hijacked. Rwanda was threatening to come back and there was also an incursion by Uganda. The additional difficulty was that many representatives, represented themselves and not their organisations. Some were also lobbying South Africa to be appointed as one of the deputy presidents. Another problem was that many parties were fragmenting and then agreements had to be a sought with these new fragments. A promising development was that President Kabila was convening a meeting with all the parties so that the agreement could be implemented. The South African government was hopeful that and was eager to see the agreement to its final conclusion. If it did not succeed, it would negate the ideas of NEPAD and the AU. One of the setbacks was that many people were concerned about the repercussions of the Iraqi War. It was therefore important that the protocol on the Peace and Security Council of the AU be ratified.

Discussion
Mr. L Zita (ANC) wanted to know what the values and principles were of the parties that were involved in the agreement. He also asked if Wamba Diawamba was still involved.

Mr. Mamabolo replied that it was difficult to say where parties stood and who they were representing. Wamba Diawamba was part of the process. He had his own forces and had signed the agreement.

Mr. C Eglin (DA) wanted to know whether the DRC was governable considering the state that the country was in at the moment. He asked if South Africa was still committed to the reconstruction of the country.

Mr. J Seremane (DA) said that he was impressed by Mr. Mamabolo's passion for the process and wanted to know to what degree there was trust and a common vision among the different parties involved.

Mr. Mamabolo replied that the Mobutu
Sese Seko legacy had destroyed the people even though the country had great potential. There was a loss of trust between the people and it would take time to restore this. President Mbeki however was hopeful.

Mr. O Baphela (ANC) said that the problems in Africa was complex and that the talks was the way to go forward. He was concerned though that there were perception that South Africa was acting as a "big brother". This perception could isolate South Africa. He asked if the Interahambwe were still part of the discussions and whether Uganda had committed itself to a withdrawal. He also wanted to know if all the opposition parties were part of the process or if only the important ones were there.

Mr. Mamabolo replied that the opposition was a problem. There was a limited role however that South Africa could play. The Congolese themselves would have to sort out the vice-president problem. The Rwandese had withdrawn and Uganda had said that does not want to be in as long as its security was guaranteed. Part of the agreement was that some of the Interhambwe would be rounded up and had to face charges of genocide. They were not part of the agreement but were part of the discussions. It was true that South Africa could be seen as a "big brother". South Africa had received appeals from Sierra Leone, Cote d'iVoire and Sudan to act as mediator. South Africa needed to be careful and needed to act within a collective to build trust and confidence.

Mr. B Geldenhuys (NNP) said that it was his experience when he had visited the DRC that there was no infrastructure. No taxes were being paid, education was not taking place and there were no roads. He wanted to know why President Kabila was not at the signing of the agreement and who the deputy president of the unarmed forces would be.

Mr. Mamabolo replied that it was true that there was no infrastructure and no real national government as the country was very divided. He did not know why President Kabila did not come, but he had sent a representative. It was however encouraging that he had arranged for all the parties to get together to implement the agreement. There was no agreement about the deputy president for the unarmed forces. Mr. Chesekedi was seen a possible candidate.

Ms. F Mohammed asked if there was enough UN forces in the DRC and whether the AU and SADC could make difference by using its oversight mechanisms. She also inquired about the NGO sector in the DRC and whether South African NGOs were connected.

Mr. Mamabolo replied that South African NGOs needed to help. There needed to be more co-operation such as the recent conference of women which brought together women from the two countries. It was hoped that the AU and SADC would be able to be able to play an oversight role. There was not enough UN forces as the country was very large. The commitment of the government was therefore crucial.

Mr. A Ainslie (ANC) asked if any of the signatories were involved in the recent massacres and what the nature of the investigation was into these massacres. He also wanted to know whether there were any common issues that caused the fragmentation of parties.

Mr. Mamabolo replied that parties fragmented around different issues. Some of the parties might be involved in the massacres. The investigation, by the UN would determine this.

Mr. A Mokoena (ANC) said that South Africa's role was admirable he was however concerned that the UN's role was very small which was not good for the warring parties.

Mr. Mamabolo replied that the UN was playing a different role in the DRC. UN decisions were made in New York and many countries did not come to discussions and therefore were not sure of its role and mandate.

Mr. L Zita (ANC) asked what support there was for political parties since democracy was the aim of the agreement.

Mr. Mambolo noted that support of this nature was not the concern at the moment.

The Chair thanked Mr. Mamabolo for the presentation. He felt that the committee now had a better understanding of the situation in the DRC.

Audio

No related

Documents

No related documents

Present

  • We don't have attendance info for this committee meeting

Download as PDF

You can download this page as a PDF using your browser's print functionality. Click on the "Print" button below and select the "PDF" option under destinations/printers.

See detailed instructions for your browser here.

Share this page: