15 November 2008
interview
Kampala — RWANDA'S Ambassador to Uganda, Iganatius Karegesa Kamali, has denied accusations by the Congo that his country is backing Gen. Laurent Nkunda, a warlord operating in Eastern Congo. Henry Mukasa interviewed him and below are the excerpts.
What do you have to say about accusations that Rwanda has a hand in the escalation of the fighting between rebel leader Gen. Laurent Nkunda's CNDP and the Congo government?
Since fighting has resumed in Congo, because it has never stopped, people are saying (or think) we are responsible for what is happening. But our position is this issue is purely Congolese. I think Nkunda or CNDP have got political issues to sort out with the Congolese government. Instead of his government listening to him, it has chosen to sort it out militarily.
In taking this option, it is using the support of the Democratic Liberation Forces of Rwanda (FDLR) and the Interahamwe, who have been causing chaos. So now it's a purely military issue, but remains a Congolese matter. Nkunda is fighting his government, which in response is using FDLR against him. What is foreign about it is that FDLR members are not Congolese but Rwandese who committed genocide in Rwanda.
But your government is accused of backing Nkunda?
We are not siding with him. Our concern is the presence of Interahamwe in Congo. They are armed, trained and are mobilising to cause trouble in Rwanda. If we are asked to do anything, we would ask: "What should be done to the Interahamwe?" not Nkunda. Then he (Nkunda) may come in at a regional level, in that context. But if Congo thinks there is something we can do, they should specify it. We are ready to come in and help as neighbours.
How then, should Congo handle the Interahamwe?
The Interahamwe committed genocide in Rwanda in 1994 and fled to Congo in an organised military format. They are in big numbers and are armed. We want them disarmed or disbanded so that they don't continue to cause us trouble. Besides, we are also ready to welcome them back in Rwanda and integrate them in society. Those who want to join the army would be given the opportunity.
However, I must point out that those found guilty of having participated in the genocide will face justice.
But doesn't the mere mention that they committed genocide discourage their return to Rwanda and even cast doubts on the possibility of a warm reception?
If they cannot come to Rwanda, we are asking Congo to find a solution. We know they committed genocide. If they don't want to accept this, naturally they may not, but it should not be the reason for Congo to keep them and they cause trouble to Rwanda.
They should keep them somewhere else, disarmed and not in a military formation.
Don't you think your response justifies the accusations that Rwanda is backing Nkunda?
Things are really clear. There is no cause for suspicion. Everyone knows Interahamwe exists in Congo. They are armed and kill people. And they are ready to cause trouble in Rwanda. So when we request that they are disarmed; what suspicion should be there?
You said Nkunda has political reasons for fighting. Could you mention some of them?
I really don't know. That's why we have always said these are issues between Congolese. We don't know what Nkunda is fighting for. But all we know he is fighting for political reasons. Maybe, what I have heard him say that might concern us is that he is fighting his government and its being supported by the Interahamwe, who are also targeting the Tutsi community that Gen. Nkunda is a member of. Thus when he says he is protecting his Tutsi people, at least that one I have heard him say.
So you are suggesting a peaceful settlement as a way forward?
I think so. If someone has reasons he is fighting for and the one he is fighting is there, there are only two options: sort it out militarily or choose peace talks. But if you asked me as an independent person, I would say, "why do you choose to fight?" Talk and listen to what someone is fighting for.
President Paul Kagame has accused the United Nations of not doing enough to end the crisis in the DRC.
Yeah! This is true. The UN has been in Congo with a huge force of 17,000 troops. They have been there for long, well facilitated, with arms and money. They even a have clear mandate to disarm elements of the Iinterahamwe. But for all this time, they have not done much. This is the blame that has been levelled against them.
How has the regional arrangement of Tripartite Plus helped offer a solution to this nagging problem?
In itself as a framework, there is much that can be done. Unfortunately, like any other efforts, the resolutions of the Tripartite Plus and agreements concluded have not been implemented.
Who is to blame?
Much of the blame should go to the people who are hosting the negative groups and this is Congo. If agreements are concluded and specify what action should be taken, then the action is not taken not because those who have proposed it have failed, but rather someone who is hosting the armed groups doesn't co-operate; then he is to blame.
Congo is a vast country where armed groups have found a safe haven. Do you hold any sympathy for the government?
I wouldn't say sympathy. Maybe they are concerns about the size and proliferation of those groups; the fact that they are emerging or still in a war situation. But then, the answer to this is Tripartite Plus, with the UN support and other proposals that are in a number of agreements that we have concluded. Rwanda has even offered to jointly disarm negative elements with Congo. At a given stage we offered troops purely under the Congolese army command to help them disarm these fellows.
The size is a concern and the factors are many but the will has been lacking. If they had said it themselves that our problem is size and other factors, and accepted the contribution of neighbours, that would be done. Contribution is forthcoming but execution of what people propose is what has not come forth.
Some think the problem of Congo is resources and not the lack of them...
I don't know the reason why groups in Congo are fighting. It's a fact that Congo has got resources. I don't know whether the reasons they are fighting are resources or political. The presence of resources could be the reason for persistence people being able to survive there. That would be how they survive and not why they are fighting.
Does Rwanda have any proposals to the regional leaders, Africa Union and the UN?
Our proposals wouldn't be new. We have a number of agreements that we have concluded but were not executed. They had a number of proposals which included disarmament and demobilisation of the negative groups.
The proposals I would give you today would not be new. Everything would be shrouded in the wish that the agreements that were concluded in Goma, Lusaka and Nairobi be implemented.
What is the gist of the agreements?
They identified the problem of the presence of armed groups and recommended they be disarmed either jointly or singly by Congo. The involvement of MONUC was also recommended.
So it's all about disarming, how to do it and who should do it. Primarily it should be carried out by Congo. And secondly, it should be the UN which has a big presence there; and the third option is neighbours to co-operate. That has to be a joint effort. But all of them have not been executed and all players know.
What do you think of the arrest of Rose Kabuye, Rwanda's Director General of State Protocol in Germany?
It is unfair. Kabuye has a diplomatic status and, therefore, diplomatic immunity. For a country to pounce on her erodes her immunity and violates the Vienna Convention on diplomatic and consular relations. First, she should have been treated with courtesy and dignity by the German authorities, as it is required by the diplomatic decorum. She shouldn't have been arrested because she has that status. Secondly, she was on official duty, preparing for a business trip of the president of Rwanda. Aware that she was there officially and you arrest her, really, that was not good. It should not have been done.The other issue is about the reasons why she was arrested. There's an international arrest warrant issued by a judge in France. This indictment has been contested by the government of Rwanda, a number of European Union countries and all members of the African Union. It has been contested as a controversial arrest warrant. So basing on it to arrest an official of Rwanda is a violation of universal jurisdiction. What is hurting, is that authors of the 1994 genocide continue to enjoy freedom and protection in European capitals, including Germany and France, even as they pursue their evil plans from European soil. This is why we have been protesting and we demand that she is released unconditionally.
Be the first to Write a Comment!
AllAfrica aggregates and indexes content from over 125 African news organizations, plus more than 200 other sources, who are responsible for their own reporting and views. Articles and commentaries that identify allAfrica.com as the publisher are produced or commissioned by AllAfrica.
