REPLY TO THE FINAL REPORT (DOCUMENT S/2002/1146)
OF THE PANEL OF EXPERTS ON THE ILLEGAL EXPLOITATION OF NATURAL
RESOURCES AND OTHER FORMS OF WEALTH OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF
CONGO
October 23, 2002
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION
II. THE SECURITY CONCERNS OF RWANDA IN THE DRC
III. CRIMINAL GROUPS
IV. ILLEGAL MINING AND TRADE IN MINERALS
V. REQUISITION OF PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR WAR EFFORT
VI. POST-WITHDRAWAL ECONOMIC
CONTROL MECHANISMS
VII. REPLACEMENT OF CONGOLESE CURRENCY WITH
RWANDAN FRANC
VIII. ALLEGATIONS RELATING TO
A CONTINUING MILITARY PRESENCE
IX. INVOLUNTARY REPARTRIATION
OF CONGOLESE REFUGEES
X. USE OF FORCED LABOUR
XI. UNDERMINING THE ECONOMY OF DRC
XII. CONCLUSION
ACRONYMS
RPA: Rwandese Patriotic Army
RCD - GOMA: Rassemblement Congolais pour la
Démocratie
ANC:Armée Nationale Congolaise
DRC: Democratic Republic of Congo
MONUC: United Nations Organization Mission in
the DRC
ex- FAR:ex-Forces Armées Rwandaise
I. INTRODUCTION
The Panel of Experts on the Illegal
Exploitation of Natural Resources and other forms of Wealth of the
Democratic Republic of Congo has released its final report.
This final test report became necessary because
the previous ones were entirely discredited. The panel had been
tasked to review and update the previous reports, and produce a
more sound and researched analysis.
However, it is clear that, the report also
lacks credibility and would ordinarily not even merit a response.
Nonetheless, because of the gravity of allegations contained in
the report, however outrageous they may be, the Government of
Rwanda wishes to put its response to the allegations contained in
the report on record.
The report is biased, subjective and not based
on credible evidence. Its authors make wild and generalised
allegations about the existence of criminal groups linked to
national armies but does not, at least in the case Rwanda,
identify the individuals who comprise the groups. The report does
not make any attempt to clarify which country's laws have been
violated and what crimes these individuals have committed.
The authors of the report allege that they are
in possession of much documentary evidence but they do not make
this evidence public. The victims of the report's defamatory
statements are deprived of the benefit of having this so called
evidence subjected to public scrutiny. The report's authors say
they had access to reliable witnesses but have not indicated who
these sources were, choosing to cite one ex-Interahamwe militiaman
whom any reasonable person would ordinarily dismiss as partial and
discredited. The report says the RPA has widespread mining
interests in the DRC but fails to name the location of even one
such mine.
The Government of Rwanda denies in the
strongest terms possible the preposterous and malicious allegation
that the presence of its troops in the DRC was in any way
motivated by a desire to exploit that country's resources. The
Government of Rwanda denies the deplorable allegations that any of
its institutions or public officers, whether civilian or military,
has in any way exploited the natural resources of the DRC or
benefited from Rwanda's presence in that country. On the contrary,
the presence of Rwanda's troops in the DRC has been a financial
burden and a sacrifice for the people of Rwanda.
The Government of Rwanda is shocked by the
outrageous contents of this report. The report contains
innumerable false and alarming allegations and makes conclusions
which are not supported by any evidence. It also makes adverse
recommendations for which there is no factual basis and whose
objectives are questionable.
II. THE SECURITY CONCERNS OF
RWANDA IN THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO
The report makes the shallow and cynical
assertion that the causes of war in the Democratic Republic of
Congo are the desire by various groups to control minerals, farm
produce, land and even tax revenues (para 12). The authors of the
report make the senseless argument that the real long-term purpose
of the military presence of Rwanda in the DRC was 'to secure
property'(para 65) and asserts, against the weight of all
available evidence and the UN Security Council's own assessment;
that Rwanda does not face any threat from the DRC; that Rwanda's
security concerns are a figment of imagination and that her
presence in the DRC was solely motivated by economic gain; that
with minor exceptions, the objective of military activities of
Rwanda in the DRC was to secure access to mining sites or to
ensure the supply of captive labour (para 93); that the rationale
for Rwanda's presence in the DRC was to increase the number of
Rwandans in the eastern DRC and to encourage those settled there
to act in unison to support Rwanda's economic control (para 69).
The report's assertion that Rwanda does not
face any security threats from the DRC is outrageous and
constitutes a continuation of the conspiracy to negate the 1994
genocide and protect the genocidaires, Interahamwe, the Ex- FAR
and their supporters. The authors of the report certainly know
that this absurd assertion is inconsistent with widely
acknowledged facts, given that the chairman of this panel was the
chairman of the United Nations Commission of Inquiry on the Sale,
Supply and Shipment of Arms and related material in the Great
Lakes Region of Africa.
The dangers posed to Rwanda by these groups
have been confirmed by the above mentioned Commission of Inquiry
on the sale, supply and shipment of arms and related material in
the Great Lakes region of Central Africa .
The United Nations Security Council has passed
a resolution on the activities of these groups in the DRC. The
resolution provides that the Security Council:
"Condemns the continuing activity of
and support to all armed groups, including the Ex-Rwandese Armed
Forces, Interahamwe, and others in the Democratic Republic of
Congo. "
The threats to Rwanda's security date back to
1994. After killing more than a million Rwandans, the genocidal
forces fled to the then Zaire. The ex-FAR began regrouping upon
arrival in the refugee camps. The Interahamwe and other militia
were remobilised and commenced military training. New combatants
were recruited from residents of all the refugee camps.
Human Rights Watch documented the activities of
these armed groups. In May 1995, the Human Rights Watch "Arms
Project" produced a report which gave details of these groups.
The report states:
"A year after the genocide, the
perpetrators of the Rwandan genocide have rebuilt their military
structure, largely in Zaire, and are rearming themselves in
preparation for a violent return to Rwanda. Waging a campaign of
terror and destabilisation against the new government in Kigali,
they have vowed, in the words of one official of the former
government, Col. Theoneste Bagosora, to "wage a war that
will be long and full of dead people until the minority Tutsi
are finished and completely out of the country". Several
members of the international community& have aided and
abetted this effort through a combination of direct shipments of
arms, facilitating such shipments from other sources, and
providing other forms of military assistance, including training...
Acting with impunity, these forces rule over the refugee
population through intimidation and terror, effectively
preventing the return of refugees to their homes in Rwanda,
while inducting new recruits into the former Rwanda Armed Forces
(FAR) and militias. Emboldened by the military assistance,
including arms, they openly declared their intention to return
to Rwanda and, in the words of one ex-FAR Commander, Col.
Musonera, " to kill all Tutsi who prevent us from returning".
Currently, the ex-FAR has an estimated troop strength of 50,000
men over a dozen camps and has brought the militia more tightly
under its control."
The presence and activities of these groups, so
close to Rwanda's borders, represented a very serious threat to
Rwanda's survival. The Government of Rwanda protested on several
occasions to the international community, pleading that the
militarisation of the camps be brought to an end, but to no avail.
At the end of 1996, Rwanda was compelled to move in to close the
camps, liberate the refugee hostages and repatriate them to
Rwanda.
The armed groups, which had been operating from
the camps did not, for the most part, return to Rwanda with the
rest of the refugees. Together with a minority of civilian
non-combatants, they moved further into the DRC, some even going
as far as the Central African Republic, Congo Brazzaville and
Angola.
The aforementioned groups, in collaboration
with some of the refugees who had been repatriated to Rwanda in
1996 and 1997, launched a new insurgency against Rwanda in 1997
and 1998 . However, the Government of Rwanda was able to put an
end to this rebellion and the remnants of these insurgents moved
back into the DRC.
These insurgent groups have never been disarmed,
and neither have they abandoned their plans to wage war against
Rwanda. At some point during their stay in the DRC, they were able
to secure an agreement for assistance from President Kabila's
government. The Government of the DRC clandestinely started
remobilising these combatants, retraining them and arming them to
wage war against Rwanda once more. The Government of Rwanda raised
these issues with the Government of the DRC on numerous occasions
in 1997 and 1998, but the Government of the DRC paid no heed and
continued with the process of preparing these groups to resume war
against Rwanda.
The outbreak of conflict in the DRC in August
1998 offered these armed groups a golden opportunity to further
their plans to invade Rwanda and continue genocide. The
Interahamwe and Ex- FAR now make up the backbone of the army of
the DRC government. The Government of Rwanda has credible
intelligence, which it has communicated to the Third Party under
the Pretoria Agreement, that the Ex-Far and Interahamwe in the DRC
government army number 40.000-50.000. They have been armed and
supplied with weapons. They fight on behalf of the DRC government
with the promise that they will be assisted to fight Rwanda if and
when the current conflict is resolved in favour of President
Kabila's government. Since 1998, the RPA has been engaged in daily
battles with these genocidal forces as illustrated by the over
6.000 captives who can bear testimony.
Armed Rwandese militia groups have been
involved for some time in other diverse conflicts in the region,
particularly in Congo Brazzaville, Angola, Burundi, Sudan and the
Central African Republic
The existence and active operations of these
armed groups represent an extremely grave challenge to the
maintenance of peace and security in Rwanda and the Great Lakes
region.
The United Nations Commission on Human Rights
has in the past underscored the threat posed to Rwanda's security
by armed groups operating from the DRC. One of its resolutions on
Rwanda has expressly provided that the Commission on Human Rights:
Article 14
(a) Takes note with concern the report of the
International Commission of Inquiry on the sale, supply and
shipment of arms and related material in the Great Lakes region
of Central Africa;
Article 15
Condemns the illegal sale and distribution of
arms and all other forms of assistance to former members of the
Rwandan Armed Forces, Interahamwe and other insurgent groups
that have a negative impact on human rights and undermine peace
and stability in Rwanda and the region. "
The Government of the DRC by signing the Lusaka
and Pretoria Agreements, conceded that these groups exist and
undertook to identify, intern, disarm and repatriate them. MONUC
has confirmed their presence.
Lastly, the UN Security Council has on numerous
occasions acknowledged the dangers which the presence of armed
groups in the DRC pose to Rwanda's stability .
A report of the so-called experts which, calls
into question the dangers posed to Rwanda's security by these
groups can only be an illustration of the sheer incompetence or
deliberate conspiracy of the authors.
III. CRIMINAL GROUPS
The report alleges that there are criminal
groups linked to the armies of Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe and the
Government of the DRC which have benefited from the micro
conflicts in the DRC; that the groups have built a self financing
war economy centered on mineral exploitation; that these groups
will not disband voluntarily even as the foreign military forces
continue their withdrawals ( para 12).
The Government of Rwanda categorically denies
that its armed forces which have been based in the DRC have had
any links whatsoever with any criminal groups. The Government of
Rwanda also denies that any criminal groups have operated in areas
in which the RPA was based. The report, apart from making general
allegations about the existence of these criminal groups in areas
under the control of the RPA, has not furnished any details of
members of the alleged criminal groups. The Government of Rwanda
challenges the authors of the report to give specific particulars
of the identity of these criminal groups, their membership, the
nature of their crimes and clear evidence of linkage to the RPA.
IV. ILLEGAL MINING AND TRADE
IN MINERALS
The report alleges that real long-term purpose
of the military presence of Rwanda in the DRC was 'to secure
property'(para 65); that the RPA has been involved in large scale
mining activities in areas of Eastern DRC which have been under
its control; that there are RPA mining detaches whose
responsibility was to manage mining activities( para 15); that
there are RPA units specialising in mining operations which remain
in place and active in the DRC, though they have ceased to wear
uniforms and intend to continue the mining activities under a
commercial guise ( para 15); that there are RCD forces under the
command of RPA officers which are used to attack self help groups
who obstruct their commercial operations, to eliminate specific
enemies and to provide security around gold, coltan and diamond
rich areas ( para 16).
The Government of Rwanda categorically denies
the malicious imputation that its decision in sending Rwandan
troops to the Congo was motivated by economic considerations.
Neither the RPA as an institution nor any of its members ever
engaged in mining activities during the period it was based in the
DRC. Consequently, the RPA units which the report says specialise
in mining activities do not exist. No members of the RPA remain in
the DRC to continue mining activities as alleged or for any other
purpose.
The content of the report is aimed at
distorting the mission of the RPA. The RPA is not some form of
quasi-commercial firm as the panel would have the world believe.
The allegation that the RPA has a commercial wing named "Congo
Desk" is nothing but a fabrication intended to portray the
RPA negatively and thus down play its role in securing Rwanda.
This is illustrated by the fact that the previous report (para 127
S/2001/357) the "Congo Desk" was referred to as a
department of external relations yet the current report calls it a
commercial wing of the RPA. In particular, the report is aimed at
misleading the whole world that the primary objective of Rwanda's
military presence was economic exploitation and that security
considerations were non-existent. The RPA went into the DRC
because the genocidal forces operating from DRC territory that
threatened Rwanda's vital security interests. By sending its
troops into the Congo, Rwanda has been able to enjoy unparalleled
peace and security, a fact that even our detractors and foes can
hardly deny.
V. REQUISITION OF PRIVATE
PROPERTY FOR WAR EFFORT
The report alleges that the RPA has
requisitioned or looted private property for its military
campaigns (paras 90 and 92); that RPA forces have attacked and
burnt villages to seize coltan mined by some Hutu groups or
villages ( para 93);
The RPA has not requisitioned private property
for the war effort as alleged in the report. The allegations that
RPA forces have attacked and destroyed villages in order to steal
minerals belonging to the population are false. On the contrary,
the RPA has worked tirelessly to protect the population,
irrespective of their ethnic belonging from marauding militia such
as the Mai Mai and other armed groups including the Ex- FAR and
Interahamwe. The RPA is widely acknowledged to be a very
disciplined military force. Indeed, its success over the years is
owed to its exemplary discipline. The report's portrayal of the
RPA as a criminal and bandit force and the allegation that it has
targeted Hutu communities in the DRC to deprive them of their
property is untrue and reflects the panel's prejudice and attempts
to incite ethnic hatred.
VI. POST- WITHDRAWAL ECONOMIC
CONTROL MECHANISMS
The report alleges that in an attempt to retain
economic control of areas of the DRC after the withdrawal of its
troops, the Government of Rwanda, like Zimbabwe and Uganda, has
adopted strategies for maintaining the mechanisms for revenue
generation, many of which involve criminal activities (para 13);
that Rwanda has replaced Congolese directors of parastatal
companies with businessmen from Kigali to ensure continuing
revenue from water, power and transportation facilities (para 15).
The appointment of management of public
enterprises in the DRC is the sole responsibility of the Congolese.
That these Congolese are not the ones favoured by the so-called
group of experts cannot be blamed on Rwanda. Rwanda does not
entertain any designs to exercise economic control on any portion
of the territory of the DRC. The allegation that after its
withdrawal, Rwanda has left behind mechanisms for generating
revenue is utter falsehood. Rwanda does not have any control over
the appointment of management of public enterprises in the DRC. No
Rwandans have been appointed to replace Congolese managers as
heads of public enterprises. The Government of Rwanda challenges
the authors of the report to name even a single Rwandan
businessman who has been appointed to such positions and the
public enterprises whose Congolese heads have been replaced by
Rwandese.
VII. REPLACEMENT OF LOCAL
CONGOLESE CURRENCY WITH THE RWANDAN FRANC
The report alleges that Rwanda has replaced the
local currency with the Rwanda Franc in areas formerly under the
control of its troops (para 15);
Rwanda has not replaced the Congolese currency
with its currency in areas of eastern DRC where the RPA was based.
What is true, however, is that the Rwandan Franc and currencies of
some other neighbouring countries are acceptable as payment in
business transactions throughout eastern DRC, but more
particularly in border areas. The panel did not make any
ground-breaking discovery in finding out that the currency of
Rwanda is used in some areas of the DRC. The use of the Rwandan
Franc in areas of the DRC adjacent to Rwanda is historical and did
not start when the RPA went to the DRC. The use of these foreign
currencies in border areas is determined by market forces, as
Congolese businessmen and the population at large need the Rwandan
currency to facilitate the purchase of goods from Rwanda. The use
of Rwandan currency also helps avoid the risk of devaluation of
the Congolese currency. In any event the use of Rwandan currency
should not be interpreted as a form of exploitation of the DRC.
The United States Dollar for example is widely used across the
whole of the DRC. The panel has not interpreted this as an
indication that the United States is exploiting the Congo. The
authors of the report ought to explain how the use of Rwandan
currency constitutes economic exploitation and the use of the US
dollar does not.
VIII. ALLEGATIONS RELATING
TO A CONTINUING MILITARY PRESENCE OF THE RPA IN THE DRC.
The report makes false and unfounded
allegations that the withdrawal of Rwandan troops from the DRC has
only been partial (para 16); there are RPA units which specialise
in mining operations which remain in place and active in the DRC,
though they have ceased to wear uniforms and intend to continue
the mining activities under a commercial guise (para 15); that the
RPA has recently undertaken an operation to obtain a large number
of Congolese passports so as to give an appropriate identity to
RPA who continue to be stationed at strategically important sites
in the in the DRC (para 15); that the RCD-Goma has re-organised
its army, the ANC, to accommodate large numbers of RPA and that a
significant number of RPA will be integrated into the ANC (Para
16); that most of the ANC forces still have RPA leadership.
The report's allegations that Rwanda left or
has subsequently returned any of its soldiers in the DRC is
completely false. Rwanda withdrew all its troops from the DRC. The
withdrawal of Rwandan troops was conducted in broad daylight, in
the presence and under the supervision of the Third Party (which
includes the United Nations Secretary General) as well as
representatives of the DRC Government. The total number of troops
who were withdrawn from the DRC was 23, 400. The withdrawal was
voluntary, in as much as the Government of the DRC had not yet
fulfilled its obligations under the Pretoria Agreement to identify,
disarm and repatriate ex-Far and Interahamwe present on its
territory. Rwanda withdrew its troops from the DRC voluntarily
before it was legally obliged to. There would have been no point
hiding the presence of Rwandan troops in the DRC, had their
continued presence there been considered necessary. No Rwandan
troops have been integrated into the RCD-Goma forces as alleged in
the report of the panel. The Government of Rwanda challenges the
panel to identify by name members of the RPA who have stayed over
in the DRC or been integrated into the ANC.
The withdrawal of the RPA from the DRC was
carried out in the presence and under the supervision of MONUC.
MONUC, the UN agency which is permanently on the ground in the DRC,
has certified that Rwanda has withdrawn all its forces from the
DRC. On the other hand, the members of the panel which compiled
this report completed their investigations more than four months
ago. They did not return to the Great Lakes Region to continue
investigations after Rwanda started its withdrawal from the DRC.
In the circumstances the contradiction between MONUC and the panel
as to whether or not Rwanda has completely withdrawn from the DRC
can only be an indication of the panel's obvious bias against
Rwanda. It is also an indication of the fact that the panel has
been manipulated by some interests hostile to Rwanda.
The withdrawal of the RPA from the DRC was a
victory that caught Rwanda's critics and foes by surprise. This is
precisely why the enemies of Rwanda want to make the world believe
that Rwandan soldiers are still in the DRC disguised in civilian
clothes as businessmen. The malicious allegations that the RPA
still has some presence in the Congo are politically motivated,
designed to discredit Rwanda's stand that its army was in the DRC
on account of genuine and legitimate security concerns. These
allegations are also intended to undermine the on-going peace
process in the Great Lakes Region
IX. INVOLUNTARY REPARTRIATION
OF CONGOLESE REFUGEES
The report alleges that Rwandan officials have
repatriated to North Kivu hundreds of Tutsi refugees in Rwanda,
allegedly as part of a new tactic for maintaining Rwanda's
presence in the DRC.
The Government of Rwanda denies that any
Congolese refugees have been repatriated to the DRC against their
will. The repatriation of Congolese refugees from Rwanda was a
result of the success of the RPA in the promotion of inter-ethnic
harmony and the pacification of areas of eastern DRC where the RPA
was operating. The return of the Congolese refugees of Rwandan
ethnicity to the DRC was initiated by other Congolese communities
who invited and encouraged them to return and mobilised the
necessary resources to finance the repatriation. The refugees who
have returned to the DRC departed of their own free will. Those
refugees who did not wish to return to the DRC are free to stay in
Rwanda.
Naturally, the Government of Rwanda has not
objected to the return of refugees who wish to go back to Congo.
Congo is their motherland. Some extremist Congolese would wish to
deny these ethnic Rwandese of their citizenship and advocate for
their stay in Rwanda. These refugees came to Rwanda fleeing the
Interahamwe and ex-Far. The Interahamwe, ex-Far and Congolese
extremists should not, under any circumstances, be permitted to
succeed in displacing these Congolese citizens permanently and
rendering them stateless.
X. USE OF FORCED LABOUR
The report alleges that a variety of forced
labour regimes have been found at sites which have allegedly been
managed by the so-called RPA mining detaches, some for coltan
collection, some for transport, others for domestic services. The
report says that there are many accounts reporting widespread use
of prisoners imported from Rwanda who work as indentured labour
(para 76). The report further alleges that in areas which have
been under the control of the RPA, children have become
instruments of war, forced to work in the mines and conscripted
into the armed forces (para 94); that with minor exceptions, the
objective of military activities of Rwanda in the DRC was to
secure access to mining sites or to ensure the supply of captive
labour (para 93);.
The allegation that the RPA has transported
prisoners to the DRC to work in the mines is not only baseless and
unfounded, but malicious. All detention centres of Rwanda are open
to the International Committee of the Red Cross. The ICRC visits
and registers each of these prisoners each month. Prisoners can
only be removed from prisoners on the written authority of a
prosecutor. It would be impossible to remove any prisoners from
these detention centres without the knowledge of the ICRC.
Prisoners are visited by members of their families several times
every week. In the circumstances, the disappearance of prisoners
from Rwanda's prisons could never be kept a secret. The report's
allegations that RPA imported prisoners to work in the mines in
the DRC is an insult to both the people of Rwanda and members of
the international community at large. The report's attempt to
portray Rwanda as a lawless country where prisoners can secretly
be taken out of prison and taken to work as forced labourers in
another country is very absurd. The Government of Rwanda
challenges the authors of the report to identify by name a single
prisoner who has been taken from a detention centre to work in the
mines in the DRC.
Similarly, the Government of Rwanda denies that
its army has forced children or indeed any other people to work in
any mines against their will.
XI. UNDERMINING THE ECONOMY OF
DRC
The report alleges that the RPA has schemed to
seize control of the economy of Kisangani and other areas of
eastern DRC selling consumer items at attractive prices and that
this has led to the collapse of local industry, such as the
textile factory and palm oil production (paras 86, 87).
The Government of Rwanda denies that the RPA is
involved in the supply of consumer goods to the population of
eastern DRC. The supply of consumer goods is done by private
businessmen, most of whom are Congolese. The supply of such goods
is also open to all businesspeople.
In any event, the suggestion that the supply of
consumer goods to the community at reasonable prices is a bad
thing to do is outrageous. Consumers would be the best judges as
to what is in their best interest as far as the choice of goods on
which they wish to spend their money is concerned.
The allegation that Rwanda is scheming to
destroy Congo's economy is ridiculous since the economy of the DRC
collapsed long before Rwanda went into the Congo. The social
problems and economic collapse of the DRC have not been of
Rwanda's making. The exploitation and plunder of the resources of
the DRC begun more than a century ago when King Leopold acquired
the Congo as his personal estate, continued throughout the period
of colonization and the long reign of Mobutu and has reached its
zenith during the Kabilas's presidency. The report's attempt to
blame Rwanda for Congo's current economic ills is an interesting
and dramatic turn of events whereby the very societies which have
long plundered the Congo and nurtured the successive dictators who
facilitated the plunder are turning around to blame innocent
Rwanda.
XII CONCLUSION
The report of the previous panel was a
collection of many false and baseless allegations. The Government
of Rwanda responded to those specific allegations (paragraphs 33,
37, 38, 55, 58, 60, 61, 64, 68 76, 77, 83, 84, 110 - 114, 196 -
197 to name a few) and takes note that the current panel has not
dared repeat any of the specific allegations to which the
Government of Rwanda drew attention.
It is most unfortunate that the panel which
compiled the current report did not learn from the mistakes of its
predecessors and has failed to address the shortcomings which led
to the rejection of the previous report.
The Government of Rwanda would like to point
out the following fundamental shortcomings of the report.
1. The report is a result of an
unprofessional, prejudiced process of investigation
As already indicated in the introduction to
this rebuttal, the report is biased, poorly researched and
displays grossly unprofessional conduct on the part of its authors.
Nothing illustrates better the lack of objectivity and prejudice
on the part of the members of the panel than the report's views on
the nature of the security threats posed to Rwanda by the presence
of Interahamwe and the Ex-FAR in the DRC. The report's findings
disregard well-known facts about the presence and activities of
the Ex-Far and Interahamwe in the DRC.
The Rwandan army had to go into the DRC because
the international community abdicated its responsibility not only
to prevent or stop the 1994 genocide but also to disarm the
Interahamwe and Ex-FAR and protect the people of Rwanda from their
continued attacks. That the so-called experts should have the
audacity to shamelessly suggest that the presence of Rwanda in the
DRC was motivated by material considerations is not only an
unforgivable insult to the memory of victims of the 1994 Rwanda
genocide and subsequent violence at the hands of the Ex-FAR but
would appear to be a conspiracy to cover up the continuing failure
of the international community to address the problems created by
the presence in the DRC of the genocidal forces.
Many other issues in respect of which the
panel's findings and conclusions have fallen far short of
standards of a panel established by the Security Council have been
pointed out in this rebuttal to the report.
2. The report deliberately ignores the
history and gives a distorted picture of the dynamics of trade
links in the Great Lakes Region
There are trade exchanges between eastern DRC
and many other countries, including Rwanda. As the report itself
acknowledges, this trade benefits the people of Congo as much as
it benefits the foreign businesspeople who do trade in the DRC.
Trade between Rwanda and Congo has been going on from time
immemorial and the economic life of the Eastern DRC cannot be
expected to be shut down because the central government does not
control the area.
3. The report fails to recognise the
background to and implications of the rebellion in Eastern DRC.
Rwanda acknowledges that there is open and
transparent trade between Rwanda and some areas under the control
of the RCD. The war in the DRC has now been going on for four
years. The RCD is for all intents and purposes the authority of
government in eastern DRC. It is recognized as such by the Lusaka
Peace Agreement to which the Government of Congo is a party.
States and even the United Nations deal with and recognize it. The
rebel administration is responsible for governing this territory.
They maintain security, provide social services, levy tax and
regulate trade much as any Government anywhere else does. The
notion that all business going on in rebel controlled areas in
accordance with the laws in force in that area is illegal does not
make any sense. Neither would the cessation of economic activities
between the eastern DRC and the rest of the world have been in the
interest of the population.
4. The authors of the report have a flawed
understanding of 'legitimacy' and 'illegality' as legal concepts.
In fulfilling its mandate to prepare a report
on the 'Illegal Exploitation of the Natural Resources and other
forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of Congo Government of
Rwanda', the panel should first and foremost have addressed the
issue as to which business transactions are legal and which are
illegal.
What constitutes legal and illegal exploitation
of natural resources is a legal matter. The report disregards the
applicable treaties and conventions and does not make any attempt
to explain the legal basis for categorising business carried out
in eastern DRC as illegal.
5. The report fails to take into account the
provisions of bilateral and multilateral treaties to which both
Rwanda and the DRC are parties
Trade between Rwanda and the DRC is permitted
by the laws of, and bilateral and multilateral agreements, between
our respective countries.
In light of the above facts, it is
inconceivable that a panel established by the United Nations
Security Council could seriously argue that Rwanda does not face
any threats to her security from the DRC. As the insurgency of
1997 and 1998 showed, these groups have the capacity to wreak
havoc and instability in Rwanda and the entire region.
6. The report promotes the ideology of
genocide.
One of the most positive results of the
deployment of the RPA in the DRC has been the restoration of
ethnic harmony and the pacification of areas of eastern DRC where
inter-ethnic violence was previously the order of the day. The
authors of the report deliberately covered- up this positive
development and instead sought to highlight and emphasise the
potential for ethnic divisions.
The most shocking aspect of the report is the
attempt by the panel to create the Hutu/ Tutsi dichotomy and to
incite the Banyarwanda population not only in Rwanda but also in
the Great Lakes Region to violence. The allegation of abandonment
of Hutu members of the RPA in the DRC (para 16); of coercion and
violence against Congolese Hutu (para 67) and deportation to DRC
and enslavement of Rwandan Hutu (para 93) can only be intended to
incite Hutus to violence against Tutsis. The Government of Rwanda
condemns the use of a UN panel or of the UN itself to be a
conveyor of incitement to ethnic, racial or religious violence
whatever the excuse.
The Government of Rwanda requests the UN
Secretary General to seek an appropriate explanation from the
members of the panel and to take the necessary measures to avert
any adverse consequences that might result from the irresponsible
report of the members of the panel.
In view of the fundamental shortcomings of the
report enumerated above, the Government of Rwanda is of the
opinion that the report is not worthy of the serious consideration
of an organ such as the Security Council. The acceptance of such a
prejudiced and grossly unprofessional report by the Security
Council would no doubt tarnish the Security Council's image.
The Government of Rwanda recommends that the
Security Council rejects the report in its entirety.
