Foreign Affairs on the Congo and the Great Lakes Region: briefing by the Deputy Minister

Meeting report

INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS ADHOC COMMITTEE
23 June 2004
FOREIGN AFFAIRS ON THE CONGO AND THE GREAT LAKES REGION: BRIEFING BY THE DEPUTY MINISTER

Acting Chairperson: Mr D Sithole (ANC)

Documents handed out
(none)

SUMMARY
The Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs presented the Committee with a detailed update on the situation in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and the Great Lakes Region. The presentation focused on the historical development of the conflict with special attention paid to the underlying social and political factors that influenced this complex region. The current upsurge in fighting and the massing of Congolese and Rwanda troops on the shared border also received attention with special emphasis on the diplomatic peace initiatives to prevent an escalation of hostilities.

The Committee Members asked a varied range of questions, including who continued to supply combatants with arms, the prospects for a negotiated peace settlement, refunding of SA military expenses and whether SA would review its troop contingent following a United Nations request for more troops.

MINUTES

Presentation by the Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mr A Pahad, Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs said the vast numbers of troops massing on the border separating Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) were of great concern to South Africa. He quoted the United Nations Secretary General Mr Kofi Annan as saying '….there was a very strong possibility of renewed full scale war that could plunge the entire region into chaos'. There was no simplistic solution to the problem experienced in the region. Patrice Lumumba, the nation's first democratically elected president in the 1960's rose to prominence during the height of the Cold War. Unfortunately as a result of the threat he posed to super power interests in the region he was soon assassinated, and Mobutu Seseseko ascended to power. His reign was widely known as one of the most corrupt in recent history, but also served as the basis for much Cold War inspired interference in neighbouring African states.

The Interehamwe was now known to have originated mostly as innocent people kept in military camps against their wishes and used in the various campaigns to assume power in Rwanda.

Mobuto revoked the Banyamulenge's citizenship resulting in the subsequent upraising against his regime. The Banyamulenge hail from the same ethnic origin as the populations in Rwanda, and formed part of the famed Rwandan kingdom that existed in the area. These peoples were separated through colonial border formations, when the Banyamulenge found themselves in the Belgian Congo. However a strong sense of ethnic affinity still prevailed amongst the peoples in both Rwanda and DRC.

Despite then South African President Nelson Mandela's attempts at mediation, the Banyamulenge revolt soon resulted in 5 other African states namely Namibia, Zimbabwe, Angola, Rwanda and Tanzania getting embroiled in the war. South Africa attempted to initiate multi party talks including all countries involved and all Congolese stakeholders. Rwanda especially played a major part in Laurent Kabila's ascension to power in Congo but soon afterwards their relationship went sour and conflict ensued between the two countries.

The conflict in the DRC was arguably one of the greatest humanitarian catastrophes in modern history, conservatively an estimated 3 million people had died in the conflict. The Inter-Congolese Dialogue and the July and August 1999 talks in Lusaka led to agreements on a transitional administration, transitional constitution, power sharing arrangements, and a host of other peace initiatives. As a result of the ethnic make up of the DRC it was considered critically important to integrate the various armed factions within the countries into one national army. However, because of the ongoing conflict in the country these measures had largely proven fruitless as even the appointment of a Peace Facilitator took at least six months to complete.

The first meeting arranged by the Facilitator was scheduled to last 45 days, but eventually collapsed after only 5 days. The reasons for the collapse of the meeting were largely attributable to disagreements over representivity and representation at the meeting.

In April 2003 an inter-Congolese plenary was held in Sun City, South Africa, where all stakeholders in the conflict were represented. The meeting resulted in the drafting of an Interim Constitution and progress on a vast range of other issues. Unfortunately due to paralysis in governance especially in the provinces and the inability of police to stem the lawlessness in the country, again little progress was achieved towards implementing the agreements.

In September 2003, the new heads of the armed forces were appointed but in reality there had been little integration of the various armed factions until the present day. President Mbeki attempted to initiate talks with all parties including the US, France and Belgium aimed at finding a way forward for the peace process.
Shortly after the South African initiative, the United Nations embarked on a similar peace initiative, which did not meet with much success either. South Africa had recently discussed reopening this avenue with the United Nations, and hopefully it could bear more fruit in future. There were still too many armed factions operating within the DRC and these were proving a difficult gap to bridge.

In April 2004, President Joseph Kabila released a roadmap with very clear timeframes to bring the country to a peace settlement, including a constitutional referendum by February 2005 followed by Parliamentary and Presidential elections soon thereafter.

In May 2004, fighting erupted between the RCD Goma, who did not want to be integrated in the central army, and Government troops in the Bukavu region. The RCD Goma claimed that genocide, looting, rape and general human rights violations had taken place against the Banyamulenge, their ethnic kin. They also stated that they were not opposed to the transitional government but only to the local military leaders.
Mr Pahad said although there was evidence of rapes and killing it did not constitute genocide and could not justify the RCD Goma's actions. There were currently daily reports of massive troop movement in the Bukavu area.

South Africa, although not a United Nations Security Council member, maintained close contact with all developments through the Security Council. The Security Council recently released a statement urging all parties to honour commitments and agreements previously entered into, as well as urging an all inclusive peace agreement. South Africa was pleased with this stance as some parties were attempting to isolate the RCD Goma group. The United Nations statement also warned against any group attempting to assume power by armed force, a principle which the African Union (AU) and the Southern African Development Community (SADC) had previously firmly emphasised. Deputy Minister Pahad said there was no place for illegitimate occupation of power in Africa and this would be vehemently opposed by SADC.

South Africa played an instrumental part in the peace process and with its forces under United Nations MONUC command had earned the respect of all parties in the region including the civilian population. It was regrettable that many media outlets did not accurately report the deaths of 2 South African soldiers when their vehicle overturned.

President Kabila had accused Rwanda of supporting the rebel insurgency in Bukavu, and reinforced troops on the nearby Rwandan border. Civilians outraged by the insurgency and its consequences resorted to attacks on the United Nations who they blamed for not preventing the escalation of conflict in the area. Mr Pahad said there was no evidence of Rwandan involvement but they had in the past reserved the right to enter the DRC to protect their borders against rebel militias located within the DRC. South Africa maintained that there could be no military solution to the problems in the area, but that only a political solution would permanently resolve these conflicts.

MONUC had recently said it needed to increase the number of troops in the area, but he was not sure whether South Africa could accommodate any such requests. However, it was fundamentally important to support the transitional government in the DRC as there had never been a government that was in control of the entire territory. It was also vital that all the ethnic groups including the Tutsis were fully integrated into the country.

On 27 & 28 March 2004 there was an attempted coup in the DRC and another on 11 June 2004, the latter was extremely worrisome as it involved a member of the Presidential Guard within President Kabila's administration. South Africa's Minister of Safety and Security visited the nation in an attempt to learn more about the coup but information appeared to be extremely difficult to obtain. If South Africa, France Belgium and the US worked together the affects of this setback could be limited and the peace process restored. The collapse of the DRC into war would have devastating consequences for the entire continent and should be avoided.

Discussion
Ms M Magazi (ANC) asked what happened to the many prominent government officials who participated in the genocide, and what was known about the French involvement in this conflict.

Mr Pahad said many of those responsible for the genocide in Rwanda had been arrested and handed over to the Genocide Tribunal in Rwanda. Unfortunately some were still at large and he speculated that some of these found refuge in the many military camps in the DRC. The objective was to free the civilians from these camps and repatriate or settle them in the DRC, because this would deprive the militia and fugitives from hiding amongst legitimate refugees.

Mr R Davies (ANC) said he was informed that provinces held proportionately much greater power than the central authorities in the DRC and asked whether this was not the cause of much of the conflict in the DRC.

Mr Pahad said the DRC was a tragedy for Africa especially because it had the potential to be an incredibly wealthy nation and could be the engine of regeneration for many in the region. The DRC was a huge and very inaccessible country that lacked national structures resulting in most areas developing regional and ethnic loyalties to the detriment of national integration.

Mr D Gibson (DA) said the international community should assist South Africa in shouldering the financial burden of its involvement in the region. He asked whether South Africa was considering an increase in its troop contingent in the DRC.

Mr Pahad said the South African troops were under the United Nations mandate and therefore could not be increased or withdrawn unilaterally. As a United Nations mandated operation the international community would assist but he was not sure to what extent. Often in these matters deployment came first and then burden sharing and financial assistance was clarified later.

Mr P Mulder (FFP) said the DRC is a huge ethnically diverse country. He asked whether federalism or readjusting borders had been considered as possible solutions to the country's problem. Power sharing arrangements were usually helpful only for transitional periods because thereafter many of the latent challenges regarding diversity resurfaced.

Mr Pahad said most of Africa's borders were the result of arbitrary European decisions and therefore had an artificial nature. However Africa had resolved to maintain these borders as any revision would be disastrous for the continent. Many of the current problems could potentially be resolved through the integration of African states.

Ms F Mohammed (ANC) asked whether the role of women enjoyed sufficient attention in the DRC.

Mr Pahad said women played an integral part at the Sun City discussions and should continue to do so throughout the peace process; however it should be acknowledged that they had no national structures and were often marginalised after the Sun City discussions.

Ms F Hagaig (ANC) asked for information on the current status of disarming the various armed factions and which countries, if any, still maintained a military presence in the DRC.

Mr Pahad said disarmament was not being affected fast enough as some groups were still reluctant to surrender their weapons. There were so many non-statutory armed groupings in the area and Africa as a whole, and this made disarmament a very complicated process. The United Nations statement named five countries who they said were involved in the conflict, South Africa could only assume that the United Nations had the necessary substantiation to make this claim.

Mr L Joubert (IFP) asked whether South Africa was not being refunded for its military contribution in the area because of the poor standard of its military equipment.

Mr Pahad said he had no information suggesting an inferior standard of South Africa military equipment. All information he received indicated that South Africa's role and contribution was greatly appreciated by all stakeholders, including the French government who had just recently reaffirmed this appreciation.

Mr M Sibande (ANC) asked how the origins of arms supplied to the combatants could be verified.

Mr Pahad said it was difficult to say who was still supplying weapons to the belligerent parties, because of the vast quantities of arms and armed factions in the region.

Ms M Maunye (ANC) asked whether Zimbabwe and Namibia still had troops in the DRC.

Mr Pahad said Namibia and Zimbabwe had withdrawn their troops from the DRC, but Uganda and Angola still maintained a presence.

Mr Sithole asked what leverage South Africa had over Rwanda to influence its decision-making.

Mr Pahad said President Mbeki was in near-daily communication with Presidents Kagame and Kabila to convince them of the undesirability of an escalation in conflict. This was not a matter of leverage but rather encouraging open communication. President Obasanjo of Nigeria would be hosting both Presidents Kagame and Kabila in the near future with a similar objective.

There were 5 countries with direct interests in the ongoing crisis in the DRC, and every practical approach to encourage a negotiated settlement should be exhausted to avoid further conflict in the area. If the 5 nations in question had been brought around the negotiating table at the very onset of this conflict as South Africa wanted, much bloodshed could have been avoided.

Namibia and the other SADC countries that participated in the DRC war acted in their individual capacities and did not reflect any SADC decision. Parliament as all other institutions should encourage all stakeholders to continue the ongoing peace process as there was no other viable alternative.

The meeting was adjourned.