Washington, D.C. — Dr. Faida Mitifu, the Democratic Republic of the Congo's Ambassador to the United States is one of six women ambassadors representing African nations. "We're the best men for the job," she once said only half-jokingly. In a wide-ranging interview with allAfrica's Charles Cobb Jr. she discussed the prospects for peace in Congo and U.S. Secretary of State Colin Powell's recent trip to Africa. Exerpts:
Would you comment on reports we have received that the Congo government has charged Rwandan forces of entering Congo to pursue "programmed genocide"? Why would Rwanda, which has been battered so by genocide itself, pursue such a program?
To answer your question we have to go back to the beginning of the war itself - August of 1998 - where Rwandan troops massacred more than a thousand people in the village of Kasika, killing even the chief of that village and his young wife. A year later they went to the village of Makobola where they massacred more than 700. Besides those major massacres, there have been several massacres, especially in the Kivu and North Katanga. So you can understand the psyche of the people of the Congo when Rwandan troops are deployed in the villages in north and south Kivu.
Regular troops or rebels, guerillas backed by Rwanda?
We are not talking about rebels. Rebels are mainly in the urban areas. But when Rwanda decided to pull out its troops from northern Katanga - you have to remember that they announced that they would have a unilateral withdrawal from Congo, 200 kilometers - instead they redeployed troops, and this has been confirmed even by some of the international organizations in the region and the civil society in the area also has reported a massive deployment of Rwandan troops. I'm not talking about RCD (Rassemblement Congolais pour la Democratie or Rally for Democracy).
To what end? Rwandan officials say their involvement in Congo is related to national security concerns that they have on their side of the border. That sounds legitimate.
If they had stayed at the border. Look at the map. How can border security justify the presence of Rwandan troops in the Kassai in the center? How can their security concern justify their presence all the way to Kitona, 1,600 miles away from the border, or down here (pointing to Katanga on a large wall map). Or all the way to Orientale Province. You must be kidding. That's not the way to solve the security issue.
A security issue can be solved by an agreement between the countries in the region. The government of Congo organized, back in April 1998, a conference for the Great Lakes region. And actually, the issue at the time was security in that region - how the countries involved could patrol the region to keep these perpetrators of genocide hidden in the forest from making raids into Rwanda. Who are the persons who sabotaged the conference? It wasthe Presidents of Rwanda and Uganda. They have occupied Congo for the past three years. What have they accomplished? I think Rwanda is still a volcano ready to erupt.
President Museveni [of Uganda] says even though he has withdrawn from the Lusaka Accord he is pulling his troops out and that he is genuinely interested in peace and a settlement. The Rwandan Ambassador here too, insists his country is genuinely committed to peace, to a peaceful settlement.
We have heard that over and over again statements from Museveni, statements from his government. I would like to maybe correct something. They [Uganda] have not pulled out of the Lusaka Accord. They have threatened to pull out of Lusaka after the UN panel report was out. [UN Security Council's Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of the Congo, which charged Uganda, Rwanda, and Burundi with exploitation of Congo's natural resources], but they did change their mind about pulling out of Lusaka. Recently, during the secretary of state's visit in Kampala they have pledged again to withdraw their troops from Congo by June 18. This is not the first time they have promised to do so. I would like to believe that this time they will stick to what they said
As far as Rwanda is concerned, I would like to believe that they are in Congo for their security concerns but unfortunately when you see the map of the Congo and especially when you see the kinds of human rights abuses they have perpetrated against the local population - massive massacres of the population - it's very difficult to believe that those who really want peace and security will behave that way against people who never participated in the genocide in Rwanda. How many [of Congo's] people will pay for the 1994 genocide in Rwanda, which we all deplore? Congo has been victimized twice. Not only has the Congo welcomed the victims of the genocide, Congo was also a dumpster for the perpetrators of the genocide in the eyes of the international community because the UN was present and because other countries - including the United States - were opposed at that time to sending in troops to stop the killing in Rwanda. So must Congo pay for that?
They have been there for three years. If they haven't succeeded yet to catch all those perpetrators of the genocide they should realize by now that occupying Congo is not a solution. We must work together to find a solution, because we don't want those people in the Congo either.
Since you made this reference to the United States, let me ask you. In the wake of Secretary Powell's trip to Africa, what does your government anticipate? Do you see any changes in U.S policy or attitude toward Africa, specifically toward the Congo?
Realistically speaking, U.S. foreign policy is generally the same whether we have a Democratic Administration or a Republican Administration.
Why do you say that?
They are two different parties, but I think their major differences are on national issues because the strategic interests--the economic interests of the United States outside of the United States--remain basically the same. They [Democrats and Republicans] may differ in the approach that they adopt but the bottom line remains the same: The U.S. wants to remain the only superpower in the world - which it is today. So whether you have a democrat or a republican, they agree on that.
There may be nuances in the approach that they adopt. For Africa, in general, I think the Clinton Administration laid the groundwork. The Clinton Administration put Africa on the map when Clinton went to Africa for the first time. What showed on TV here was that Clinton went to Africa and the American public learned that not only was there a continent - the African continent - but also that in Africa there are countries like Senegal, like Ghana, like all those countries that President Clinton visited during his trip to Africa. Clinton did the groundwork for future dealings with Africa. Clinton signed the AGOA trade bill which also laid the groundwork for economic partnership between Africa and the United States. I don't think the Bush Administration is going to ignore that and push through a different policy toward Africa. I think there will be a continuation in that aspect.
But specifically...
Congo? On the Congo issue, I want to believe that the Bush Administration wants to put an end to the Congo conflict that they inherited from the Clinton Administration. I want to believe that they will try to get that out of their way in order to better pursue their policy in Africa, because the peoples' perception of the Republicans towards Africa is generally negative. I want to believe that Secretary of State Powell will work hard to change that perception and that he will continue to give the image of a Bush Administration that cares about Africa, that Africa matters to the United States.
Do you think that's the image that Secretary Powell conveyed on this trip?
I think he tried.
Successfully?
I think he tried; he did the best he could to convey that message. He wasn't dealing with naïve Africans. If you remember the press conference at the University of the Witwatersrand [in South Africa], he had very tough questions--the kind of questions that are on the minds of African people. And I believe that it was very important that he answered those questions.
How did you like those answers?
He did his best. I think he answered them to the best of his knowledge.
Do you think Powell made concrete suggestions to Museveni, pushed Museveni to speed up the pace of Ugandan troop withdrawal, or pushed Museveni to pressure Rwanda?
Before he left for Africa, I wanted to make sure that although the visit was announced as a visit that would be focused on AIDS, that the Congo crisis would be mentioned during the trip. I got assurances from some of [Powell's] close collaborators that Congo would not only be mentioned, but that Congo would be on the agenda when he went to Kampala. When he went to South Africa, he talked about Congo also.
Did you have specific recommendations for the Secretary?
My recommendation was that the United States should make sure that Museveni respects his promise to withdraw troops from Congo. I was encouraged when Museveni announced that his troops would be out by June 18.
As a result of talks with Powell?
I can't tell you. I can just hope.
Will African ambassadors meet with Secretary Powell and have some discussion about his trip with him?
I hope so. We met with him in April, had tea with him. I do hope we have another opportunity to meet with him after this trip.
When you meet as ambassadors with the Secretary of State, are there issues - can we identify the issues - that are clearly "African"? After all, the continent is so politically diverse. What are the issues Africa would like have shaping U.S. policy toward Africa?
There is a consensus on AIDS. Economic development would be another issue that we all agree on, although different countries have different specific economic problems. We want a true partnership with the United States.
What does that mean?
Meaning that it shouldn't just be a rhetorical partnership. It has to be a real partnership. For instance, it is very difficult for Africans to understand that an African president can be in the United States, be in Washington, D.C. without being able to have a chance to greet the President--even if it is not a "working" visit, or an "official" visit; just to get the opportunity for five, ten minutes. You are in somebody else's country. From an African perspective, this is difficult to understand.
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
What do you think it reflects?
I am not sure whether there are rules, protocols, an American protocol that we are not aware of. From an African perspective, we just cannot understand this.
If we can go back to the Congo, the UN number for peacekeepers is three to five thousand; but I think President Kabila said that you would need at least 20,000 peacekeepers. What will 5,000 peacekeepers - if we take the high end - be able to do? Can you have any meaningful peace in Congo with that number?
The 3-5,000 are not peacekeepers. We have observers--people who observe and make sure the ceasefire is holding, that there are no violations of the ceasefire. These observers will be protected by some three or four thousand troops. The UN assumes that this [Congo] is a "war zone" situation, so these observers need to be protected. We haven't even gotten to the phase of "peacekeeping" yet.
Go over those numbers.
When the UN resolution [1291] passed, the recommendation was for a little over 5,000 troops. But these will go to protect the observers - actually 500 observers and around 4,000 or so troops who will protect the observers. They will just observe; they cannot intervene.
I don't understand how this works.
Sending 500 observers is phase one of MONUC [UN Mission in DRC]. Phase two is sending in the UN troops, and their mandate was to protect the observers. It is during phase three that they are supposed to send in "peacekeepers." As troops start withdrawing, the peacekeepers can come in. So even the 3 or 4 thousand troops that are meant to protect the observers can be transformed into part of the peacekeeping force once phase three is implemented.
Should there be sanctions imposed on Uganda and Rwanda by the U.S. or the UN?
We support the recommendation of the UN panel. But what we are asking especially is that there should at least be sanctions on Congo natural resources that are being exported out of Kigali, Entebbe, Kampala and Bujumbura.
