Washington, DC — Agreement reached during Inter-Congolese Dialogue in Sun City, South Africa, has been rejected by Rwanda, thus continuing to cloud peace prospects in the huge central African nation. Meanwhile, hearings in which the Democratic Republic of the Congo accuses Rwandan troops of committing genocide inside the DRC are about to get underway at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) in The Hague, in the Netherlands. Despite this, insists Patrick Mazimhaka, special envoy of Rwandan President Paul Kagame, peace is not impossible if there is enough pressure. But meanwhile, he says, the withdrawal of troops by other nations engaged in the DRC is more illusion than reality, the Kagame aide says and his country intends to keep troops in the DRC until there is a government in Kinshasa that can assure Rwanda's security. AllAfrica.com's Charles Cobb Jr spoke with Mazimhaka. Excerpts:
What brings you to Washington, D.C., and who have you been talking to?
We came to discuss with the administration and the congress the crisis in the DRC (Democratic Republic of Congo) and how it affects our country in particular. We've seen people in the State Department, the Department of Defense, National Security and we've also talked to a lot of congressmen. The key issues that we are concerned about are the stalled Inter-Congolese dialogue. There is a role that can be played by the American government to influence things and direction.
The other issue we are discussing is the question of the Interahamwe and ex-FAR forces in the Congo. Those are the forces that are largely responsible for the genocide in Rwanda in 1994. They have been on the run in the Congo. They have been fighting against our government inside Rwanda and now in Congo. We had hoped that through this process of the Lusaka Agreement we may be able have them dissuaded from continuing war, disarmed, demobilized and repatriated to Rwanda. None of that has happened.
Who do you believe can talk to them?
Our reading is that the government in Kinshasa, be it Laurent Kabila's government or Joseph Kabila's government has been having it both ways. We are all aware, the international community is aware - the Security Council is not only aware but has done investigations of the negative role that has been played in the region [by the Interahamwe and Ex-Far insurgents], their links with terrorist groups, their human rights abuses in the region and the genocide ideology that they have. But they have also passed resolutions that bar governments from associating with them, from giving them supplies, from arming them but up to now they [the Kabila government] have not used the necessary means at their disposal to enforce these resolutions. I think that it is high time now that the Security Council talk tough to Kinshasa. And the American government, too, should talk tough to Kinshasa.
The International Tribunal [the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) based in Arusha,Tanzania] has indicted some of the leadership of the military organization who are freely moving and organizing their army, mobilizing resources. They are based in Kinshasa, Lubumbashi and other towns. We think the government of Kinshasa should be constrained to work with the International Tribunal to have those people arrested. That is an approach that has been lacking in the whole process.
But, for all practical purposes the government in Kinshasa is just that, the Kinshasa government. What reach does it really have outside of that city, especially with enough capacity to rein in the ex-FAR or Interahamwe?
The government of Kinshasa has direct access and control of over 80 per cent of the ex-FAR and Interahamwe because they are basically integrated within the Congolese army and have places and bases that are used by government forces. So they [the government] has a reach to those forces.
Of the remaining 20 per cent which are in the Kivus - North Kivu, South Kivu - Manyema, and North Katanga, physically, yes, there is no contact with government forces, but the government forces maintain the supply of arms and ammunition to them. And that's very important. Because if we cut off those supplies, then the capacity for these forces to wage war will definitely diminish. So there is something that the government of Kinshasa can do.
What about the Rwandan government troops inside Congo? Do you feel any pressure to pull out? The Bush administration here is opposed to your troop presence there.Are they pressuring you to get out, particularly since Angola, Namibia, Uganda and maybe Zimbabwe seem to have pulled out?
Let me say that the Administration here is definitely caught between two difficult positions. The Administration does understand that it is impossible to pull Rwandan troops out without providing for an alternative to maintain the security that Rwanda has established for itself by fighting off these forces there in the Congo. To get a substitute force is not possible for the American administration to do; the United Nations is not going to do that.And you cannot leave the ex-FAR and Interahamwe in the Congo and then hope that things will sort themselves out. So, on the surface of it, they do understand that we have security concerns that are definitely legitimate. They do also defend the sovereignty of the Congo. When the two are taken together, the tendency is to express a wish that we can resolve the key issue of security so that we can pull our troops out of Congo.
It is true that the countries of Angola, Namibia, Uganda and Zimbabwe have announced - for public consumption - that they have withdrawn their forces out of Congo -
For "public consumption?"
For public consumption!
Namibia didn't have a major role to play in the war. Therefore it didn't leave a gap anywhere. But it has forces where they operate a mining concession, south of Kasai.
Angola said they have pulled out their forces; but forces returned to positions in Kinshasa just before the death of [Laurent] Kabila. And they have forces also in western Congo - west of Kinshasa. They have pulled out some forces but this is deceptive. Angola has the capacity to deploy within half a day, as many forces as they had before if the need arose, because their own bases are just across and along the border from Congo. So their withdrawal of some forces is not significant because they still have them strategically based in Kinshasa and in the West because of their Cabinda [Province] problem.
Zimbabwe have said they have reduced their forces by a couple of battalions but still they have over 12,000 forces in Congo. So that reduction is not meaningful.
Uganda has, from time to time, said they have pulled their troops out of this town or that town. They have said that the Secretary-General of the UN has asked them to bring them back because of the civilian casualties in fighting. So now you don't know whether they are going or they are coming.
Rwanda has pulled troops out of Congo, probably as many as anybody else has done - five battalions out of the twelve. But what does that mean? We don't front that as withdrawing from Congo to please anybody. We took those forces out of Congo because we reduced the area of operation. When we reduced the area of operation we didn't need as big a force because we pulled back 700 kilometers in some places, 600, 300, 200 back in others.
Of course in leaving that kind of territory you don't need as many forces as you had before. And we have also recorded that with the [United Nations] monitoring team, just like the others did. But for some reason, Rwanda's withdrawal of troops is never trumpeted as something that is significant. So, I think the issue of withdrawing forces remains completely tied to the resolution of the conflict as a whole. There will never be a total pull-out until there is a unitary government in Kinshasa which assumes the responsibility.
Is there any reason to think that such a government will come into existence anytime soon?
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
We have been waiting for two years now. When the Inter-Congolese Dialogue stops and starts, stops and starts, I don't think anyone should be surprised by that.And I don't think we should despair; consensus of how to govern the Congo among the Congolese who are active now is essential for the stabilization of their own country and for the region.
The other actors - the international community in particular - must do their best to make the Congolese responsible for their country and for the region. The Congolese need to complete the dialogue and have a government in Kinshasa.
That's been said for a decade. History suggests that outside concern and pressure don't really lead to really secure and stable settlements anywhere in the world. Can you point to any single thing inside Congo that can be used as an argument that Congo is anywhere near a peaceful resolution to this conflict?
Yes.There are enough conditions to make the Congolese really kick themselves into gear. The Congolese keep complaining that their territory is split into three or four fragments, that national territorial integrity is already collapsing. That should kick them into working gear. They are talking about the suffering of their people. That's an internal factor that should kick them into gear.
They complain about the occupation of their territory by foreign forces. That should kick them into working for unity within themselves.
Unfortunately, up to now, it becomes the responsibility to take on the national responsibility of the Congolese. When I move around here talking to people; when I go to Security Council, it looks like the Congolese themselves do not exist, like the Congolese do not have a role to play in addressing the problems of their country. And I believe that in any other country, that would be taken as a very patronizing attitude. In Congo it is not the same. Everybody feels they can be advocates for Congo and the Congolese can just sit back and wait for results. But I think, if they care about their country, they should wake up and do things for themselves.
