Obama Administration Official Provides Insights on U.S. Congo Policy
Last week (Monday, February 11, 2013) at the Brookings Institution, outgoing Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs, Johnnie Carson, presented an outline of the Obama Administration's policy position on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). The purpose of Ambassador Carson's presentation-  titled "Finding a Lasting Solution to Instability in the Democratic Republic of the Congo-" was twofold: discussing why efforts should be redoubled to bring stability to the Congo and laying out a framework for "moving forward." He outlined four main reasons for action: 1. The moral imperative to respond; 2. The consequences of Congolese instability for U.S. National Interest; 3. The fiscal and financial imperatives calling for attention to the situation; 4. The contention that failure in bringing stability to DRC is not an option for the world. Ambassador Carson asserted in clear terms  "that the international community has a moral imperative to act more effectively in the D.R.C. to break this cycle of death and suffering and to address the other consequences of this violence" He laid out the Administration's strategy for action and moving forward, which includes:
1. Implementation of the UN Framework Agreement (PDF) - to be signed on Sunday, February 24th
2. Establishment of a comprehensive and inclusive peace process around the UN Framework Agreement (PDF) led by a UN Special Envoy
3. Restructuring of the United Nations Stabilization Mission in the Congo (MONUSCO) including the integration of a regional intervention brigade
4.Enactment of Governance and security sector reform in the DRC

Ambassador Carson called for greater attention to and response to the crisis in the DRC. However, it appears that the administration continues to operate on the notion that "quiet diplomacy" is the best way forward when it comes to holding its allies Rwanda and Uganda accountable for their role in destabilizing the Congo.

The most telling and poignant point in Ambassador Carson's remarks came, not in his presentation of the Obama Administration's four pronged approach, but in the question and answer session. The first question posed to Ambassador Carson asked for his input on the matter of Congo's neighbor, Rwanda, and its persistent destabilization of the DRC:

"You spoke about the actions that have been taken, sanctions against five members of the leaders of the M23, five members of FARDC that we supported, actions taken. You mentioned as well the concern that the M23 was supported by external forces, and the report of the UN panel and your own testimony last December indicate that Rwanda had provided that kind of support. Why haven't we pressed for any of those individuals - individual soldiers - officers of Rwandan military to be sanctioned?"

Ambassador Carson gave an unsatisfactory response that betrayed the claims in his presentation, asserting that the actions the U.S. has taken to date-cutting of $200,000 in military aid and a phone call to Paul Kagame from President Barack Obama-"have been appropriate for the time." This response pinpoints the failure of U.S. policy, in particular, as well as other nations and institutions in the international community: reluctance to fully hold to account Congo's neighbors who have played a direct role in the deaths of millions of Congolese, the pilfering of the country's resources and the perpetuation of the conflict through repeated invasions and the sponsoring of proxy militia. Evidence of this reluctance has manifested itself in the persistent inaction and burying of the UN Mapping Exercise Report, which documents serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law carried out mainly by U.S. allies Rwanda and Uganda in the DRC from 1993 to 2003. The Mapping Exercise report is unequivocal in its identification of the destabilizing roles by outside support, going further to argue that "the apparent systematic and widespread attacks described in this report reveal a number of inculpatory elements that, if proven before a competent court, could be characterised as crimes of genocide." The report is referring, in this section, to the Rwandan army.

Other than to argue for greater attention and higher priority in the US foreign policy portfolio, Ambassador Carson did not clearly lay out how U.S. Congo policy will substantially change from the past 16 years. Unless accompanied by a break with current policy, greater attention will not bring increased peace or security to the DRC.  The current policies have their roots in the Clinton Administration's Entebbe Principles of unfettered support for the so-called "new breed of African leaders," a political approach that has been disastrous for the people of the Congo and the Great Lakes Region of Africa.  It is the entire policy position that must change, not degrees of attention to the same modes of approach.

Key omissions from Ambassador Carson's presentation are calls for adequate measure of accountability and justice as outlined by 220 Congolese organizations. One would not know from listening to Ambassador Carson that a substantial portion of the North Kivu province is still under occupation by the Rwanda-backed M23 militia.

A number of local Congolese news papers have been consumed with Ambassador Carson's statements about Yugoslavia and Sudan:
"Clearly, a sophisticated and internationally backed solution is the only way forward. We were able to achieve such a solution to end the conflict in the former Yugoslavia through the Dayton Accords. We were able to end Africa's longest running civil war, the conflict in Sudan, through the Comprehensive Peace Agreement that was negotiated by the IGAD states and supported by the United States, Norway, and Great Britain. [A similarly energetic and international effort is now required for the D.R.C.] "

The local papers believe that Ambassador Carson was signaling that greater U.S. involvement in the DRC peace process would doom the DRC to the fate of both the former Sudan and Yugoslavia and result in the break-up of the country. 

Although Congolese must be vigilant about any attempt to balkanize the DRC, the local newspapers may have read too far into that part of Ambassador Carson's statements. He mentioned the DRC in the context of Yugoslavia and Sudan not necessarily to laud the specific outcomes in both countries, but to emphasize the priority and profile both countries received from the U.S. to push for a peace process. President Obama has been clear and unequivocal about the territorial integrity of the DRC and, in a follow-up blog to his speech on February 21, 2013, Ambassador Carson noted that his four-point prescription is meant to "protect the territorial integrity of the DRC."

Though the U.S. government claims it wants to uphold the territorial integrity of the DRC, its current policies do not bode well for doing so. The four point plan articulated by Ambassador Carson  gives a pass to U.S. allies Rwanda and Uganda who pose the greatest threat to the territorial integrity of the DRC. Key shifts on the part of the U.S. in regard to its policies in the region should include:

1. Stronger steps in holding Rwanda and Uganda accountable - withholding of further military aid, placing both the Rwandan government and its high-level officials named in the UN reports on the sanctions list, and investigating whether the Leahy Amendment has been violated in U.S. training of Rwandan troops.

2. Just as the U.S. is demanding democratic reform in the DRC, it should also demand democratic reform in both Rwanda and Uganda. The authoritarian nature of both regimes has been a significant component in their destructive role in the DRC over the past sixteen years. Not only have both governments militarized political space inside their countries, they have also exported this militarization to the DRC to the detriment of the Congolese civilian population.

3. Support must be given to democratic institutions and the democratic process in the DRC. Ambassador Carson's public opinion on the DRC elections was ill advised. When asked about the 2011 elections he answered: "my own impression, as someone who looks the situation, is that even if we had had a fair accounting throughout this process, I think President Kabila probably would have still had won." This is pure speculation.  His point was to dismiss the need for a "fair accounting" of the 2011 elections, which is troubling; the concern of U.S. officials in his position should always be to ensure the electoral processes are transparent, fair, and just. The U.S. must play a constructive role in supporting democratic processes in DRC.  With the help of U.S. policies, democracy in the DRC has been repeatedly sacrificed in the name of security; history shows that such approaches lead to the current situation, in which there is neither democracy nor security.

In his July 2009 Ghana speech, President Obama publicly recognized the need for a new approach and a clean break from Clinton era practices; he said that the U.S. must support strong institutions in Africa, "not strongmen." This is a clear vision for changes in foreign policy approaches that has yet to be made a reality.

On February 16, 1992, Congolese Christians responded to a call by the Catholic Church to protest peacefully and demand the reopening of the Sovereign National Conference (Conference National Souveraine - CNS in French). The conference was a democratic forum composed of delegates who represented all layers of the society in the Congo (Zaire at the time) from members of civil society, political parties, the military, the diaspora, as well as the president himself (Mobutu Se Seko). This conference was tasked with interrogating the country’s history and finding a way to deal with the multidimensional national crisis (political, economic, social, cultural, and moral) that the country was facing in 1990.

On January 19, 1992, then-Mobutu-appointed prime minister Nguza Karl-I-Bond announced the suspension of the Sovereign National Conference on radio and television. This decision to suspend the CNS angered many Congolese who had high hopes that this democratic process would help the country extricate itself from dictatorial rule. The Catholic Church, which at the time distanced itself from Mobutu's regime and became more vocal about Mobutu's human rights abuse, made a call to all Christians and civil society groups for a massive demonstration to reopen the Sovereign National Conference. Thousands of marchers from all backgrounds converged on the Tata Raphaël stadium. Police and soldiers opened fire on the marchers before they could reach their destination, killing more than forty people. This incident, which caused international outcry as news began to enter the western world, forced the government to reinstate the CNS in April 1991 and served as a pivotal point in Congo's struggle toward democratization.

In his book "The History of the Congo," Dr Didier Gondola revisits this important date and give us the reason why Christians in the Congo took to the streets. He says: "In early 1992, Mobutu decided to disband the Sovereign National Conference (Conference Nationale Souveraine - CNS), an assembly whose main task was to create a new constitution and organize democratic elections. In response to this decision, strong opposition mounted among Kinshasa's independent churches. On February 16, 1992, thousands of church members took their grievances to the streets of the capital in what was dubbed by its organizers as the "March of Hope" (Marche de l'Espoir). Marchers held banners demanding the reopening of the CNS, and they chanted songs against violence and dictatorship. The peaceful march ended in a bloodbath when the army intervened and gunned down dozens of demonstrators. The March of Hope has since been held up as a major turning point in the relations between the church and state. It was also an event that precipitated the end of Mobutu's regime."

Today, the Catholic Church, Civil Society and the political opposition have been prevented from marching to commemorate this day in the march toward democracy and social change in the Congo. The Kabila regime has prohibited any marches from being organized. The rationale given by the state is that they are prohibiting gatherings for security reasons. On February 16, 2012, the Kabila regime violently suppressed marches organized on that day to demand the truthful results of the November 2011 elections, which were appropriated by the Kabila regime.

Church leaders along with the non-violent pro-democracy forces have settled for participating in masses and have encouraged their followers to observe the day by going to church. Today serves as yet another indication of the lack of legitimacy of the Kabila regime and its fear of an open democratic society. Kabila has issued a call for a national dialogue but if today is any example, such a dialogue should it occur, will hardly be open, democratic or fruitful.

Today I am addressing the youth, the young men and women of the Republic of the Congo.

In speaking to them, I am addressing these words to future generations because the future of our beloved country belongs to them.

We are fighting our enemies in order to prepare a better and happier life for our youth.

If we had been egoists, if we had thought only about ourselves we would not have made the innumerable sacrifices we are making.

I am aware that our country can completely liberate herself from the chains of colonialism politically, economically and spiritually only at the price of a relentless and sometimes dangerous struggle. Together with the youth of the country, we have waged this struggle against foreign rule, against mercantile exploitation, against injustice and pressure.

Young people who have been inactive and exploited for a long time have now become aware of their role of standard-bearer of the peaceful revolution.

The young people of the Congo have fought on our side in towns, villages and in the bush. Many of our young men have been struck down by the bullets of the colonialists. Many of them left their parents and friends in order to fight heroically for the cause of freedom. The resistance that the young people offered the aggressors in Leopoldville on January 4 and in Stanleyville on October 30, 1959, deserves every praise.

With deep emotion I bow in memory of these courageous patriots, these fighters for African freedom.

The time is not far distant when large numbers of young men and women were driven out of schools by their white teachers and instructors on the suspicion of having nationalist ideas. Many brilliantly gifted young people turned down the opportunity to receive a higher education for the simple reason that they no longer wished to be indoctrinated by the colonialists, who wanted to turn our young men and women into eternal servants of the colonial regime.

During the heroic struggle of the Congolese nationalists, the young people, even those who were still sitting at school desks, resolutely opposed all new forms of colonialism, whether political, social, spiritual or religious.

Their only dream was national liberation. Their sole aim was immediate independence. Their only resolve was to wage an implacable struggle against the puppets and emissaries of the colonialists.

Thanks to the general mobilisation of all the democratic youth of the Congo, the Congolese nationalists won independence for the nation. We received this independence at the price of a grim struggle, at the price of all sorts of privations, at the price of tears and blood.

After independence was solemnly proclaimed on June 30, 1960, the colonialists and their black emissaries started a barbarous war in the young Republic of the Congo. They began this perfidious aggression because the nationalist Government now in power did not want them to continue exploiting our country as they did prior to June 30, the historic day when the people of our country said Adieu to the Belgian colonialists.

Not having any support whatever, particularly among the working class, who have had their fill of colonial exploitation, the colonialists and their henchmen now want to force certain sections of the youth to serve them in order to be able to propagandise the revival of colonialism. That is why a certain part of the youth, luckily not a very numerous part, have plunged into national defeatism.

Happily, the vast majority of the young people saw through this last attempt of the imperialists, who are turning into account the dissatisfaction of some malcontents, of those who failed in the elections because they did not have the confidence of the people.

This nationalist youth recently held demonstrations in various towns in the Republic to show their absolute and total opposition to imperialist intrigues.

Young people, I salute you, and congratulate you on your civic and patriotic spirit. Young people, specially for you I have created a Ministry for Youth Affairs and Sports under the Central Government. It is your Ministry. It is at your disposal. Many of you, without any discrimination, will be called upon to direct this Ministry, its different services and activities.

Today, in the free and independent Congo we must not have a Bangala, National Unity Party, Association of Bakongo, Mukongo, Batetela or Lokele youth but a united, Congolese, nationalist, democratic youth. This youth will serve the social and economic revolution of our great and beloved country.

You must energetically combat tribalism, which is a poison, a social scourge that is the country's misfortune today. You must combat all the separatist manoeuvres, which some of the preachers of the policy of division are trying to pass off to young and inexperienced people under the name of federalism, federation or confederation.

In reality, young people, these names are only a new vocabulary brought by the imperialists to divide us in order the better and more conveniently to exploit us. Your entire future will be threatened if you do not oppose these manoeuvres, this new, disguised colonisation.

You must be proud that you belong to a great nation, a great country, a mighty power. This power, which the imperialists envy today, is embodied in national unity. This unity must be the heritage that you, in your turn, shall leave to your children.

The Government will soon send 300 young people to study in the U.S.A., 150 in the Soviet Union and 20 in Guinea, not to mention other countries.

The Congo is no longer a national reservation, a national park, a zoo which we could not leave. Tomorrow you shall go everywhere to study, to learn a speciality, and to get to know the world. Workers, working people will have an equal share in these study missions.

You shall go everywhere, to all the parts of the world. These contacts with the outside world, this direct confrontation with the reality of life will make you experienced people, whom the free and independent Congo needs today.

You will go there not as representatives of Association of Bakongo, National Unity Party, Congo National Movement or African Regroupment Centre youth. You will be Congolese citizens, simply Congolese. And by your behaviour, devotion, intelligence and political maturity you must be a credit to your Congolese motherland.

Young people, the Congo belongs to you. The national Government, the people's Government will do everything in its power to prevent the Congo from being torn away from you.

Long live the Republic of the Congo!

Long live the people's, democratic youth!

Source: Patrice Lumumba: Fighter for Africa’s Freedom, Moscow, Progress Publishers, 1961, pp 33-36.
Written: by Patrice Lumumba;
Transcribed: by Thomas Schmidt.

Click here to learn more about Lumumba!

January 4th is a seminal day in Congo’s history, which serves as a national holiday. On January 4, 1959, ordinary Congolese stood in defiance of Belgian colonialism demanding independence. Congolese in Kinshasa unleashed a spontaneous uprising out of frustration with the repressive Belgian colonial regime. In his seminal work "Congo: From Leopold to Kabila," Dr Georges Nzongola Ntalaja said the march on January 4, 1959 "sounded the death knell of Belgian Colonialism in the Congo." The unifying chant of the marchers was "Indépendance Immediate" or "Independence Now" in English. The uprising represented the radicalization of the struggle for independence. It frightened not only the Belgian authorities but also the Congolese elites know as évolués.

Nine days later on January 13, 1959 both the King of Belgium and the Belgium government announced that in due time Belgium would grant Congo full independence. In the conscience of the nation, the day represents the historic point of departure for the independence of the Congo from Belgian colonialism.

The courageous stance by that generation of Congolese served as a key catalyst for Congo’s independence in 1960. Since the 1960s Congolese have celebrated and commemorated that generation’s actions and named the day “la journée des martyrs de l’indépendance,” or in English, independence Martyrs Day. Without a doubt, Congolese of that era made enormous sacrifices for freedom and independence. This begs the question – what sacrifices are the Congolese youth of today willing to make for the future of the sons and daughters of the Congo?

Join the global movement in support of a peaceful and just Congo!

On Monday, December 31, 2012, the Youth For A New Society will organize a peace concert in Kisangani, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) in support of their fellow countrymen and women in eastern Congo who have been victimized by a war of aggression.

The Concert will be free to the public. It will mobilize the local population to turn out and support their fellow citizens in Goma and the areas still under occupation by the Rwanda-backed M23 militia. Performers will include Big Joe Loway, Shogy, Tata Bakali, Boudha, N.A.T, Tolekiste, Altesse, DJ Patch, Dankis, Legion S and Esthetika Musika. Youth organizer Laddy Senga says "We are demanding peace in the east and the country as a whole."

Concert Banner in Kisangani, DRC

Why Kisangani? Due to the fact that Kisangani has been a victim of many wars and massacres, it has been given the name, the City of Martyrs. Rwanda and Uganda fought each other on Congolese soil over Congo's natural resources in a Six-Day War in Kisangani in 2000 that killed hundreds of civilians and injured scores. The Youth For A New Society produced a documentary of the voices of the victims of the Six-Day War who are still demanding justice.

Youth For A New Society Presents Free Concert and Festival in Support of Peace in the Congo, December 31, 2012

Congolese youth are adamant about bringing an end to the sixteen-year war of aggression against the Congolese people. They are appealing to national and international leaders for accountability, justice and an end to the impunity that has resulted in tremendous loss of life and suffering in the heart of Africa.

The peace concert was made possible by the generous contributions of Congolese civil society organizations, local Congolese and supporters in the Congolese Diaspora. Click here to support the work of Congolese youth organizing for change in the Congo.

We invite women to join Million Women Rise and Common Cause UK (Platform for Congolese Women in UK)  at a  peaceful women's vigil at the Edith Cavell Statue, opposite the door of the National Portrait Gallery, St.Martin’s Place, near Trafalgar Square. London WC2 on Friday 21st December 2012.

The vigil is to remember all the women and children who have been murdered and affected at the hands of Multinational Corporations sponsored militarism /male violence in the DRCongo. Congolese women are opposing and denouncing the Balkanisation of the DRCongo.

We will be there from 6pm till 8.30pm. Hope to see you there.

Please feel free to pass this information to women who may be interested in attending and distribute the attached flyer to the public.


Thank you for your time

In Sisterhood and Solidarity

Sabrina Qureshi, Germaine Odia and Marie-Claire Faray
on behalf of Million Women Rise and COMMON CAUSE UK

Click here to learn more about the current crisis

THE WHITE HOUSE

Office of the Press Secretary

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

December 18, 2012

Readout of the President’s Call with President Kagame

President Obama spoke today with President Kagame to discuss the situation in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).  President Obama underscored that any support to the rebel group M23 is inconsistent with Rwanda’s desire for stability and peace. President Obama emphasized to President Kagame the importance of permanently ending all support to armed groups in the DRC, abiding by the recent commitments he made in Kampala along with Presidents Kabila and Museveni, and reaching a transparent and credible political agreement that includes an end to impunity for M23 commanders and others who have committed serious human rights abuses.

President Obama expressed his belief that from this crisis should emerge a political agreement that addresses the underlying regional security, economic, and governance issues while upholding the DRC’s sovereignty and territorial integrity and noted that he had also delivered this message to President Kabila.  President Obama and President Kagame also discussed the longstanding governance problems in the DRC.  President Obama welcomed President Kagame’s commitment to moving forward in finding a peaceful solution for eastern DRC.

The Congo and Why Obama Should not Appoint Susan Rice Secretary of State
By S.N. Sangmpam
Syracuse University

[This essay was completed two days before Susan Rice withdrew her presumptive nomination as Secretary of State.  Despite the withdrawal, Obama is likely to pursue the Clinton policy that Rice advocates.  The argument of the essay remains valid]

One item that has dominated American politics after President Obama’s reelection is the opposition by Republican Senators John McCain and Lindsey Graham to Susan Rice, the US Ambassador to the UN, as Obama’s presumptive nominee for Secretary of State.  They oppose her on the ground that she misled the public about the attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi, Libya, that killed four American diplomats.  The senators’ claim that the administration deliberately misled the public does not square with the evidence.  The claim, it turns out, is mere partisan politics wrangling.  Yet, there are more important reasons why Rice should not be appointed Secretary of State.  And this has to do, not with Benghazi, but with the Congo.  To shed light on the issue, a few words about Obama’s election and re-election are in order.            

Predictions about presidential elections are a staple of American politics.  Most of them are based on polling and survey analyses that often rely on long-term trends of voting behavior.  Only a few are actually accurate.  There is another way of accurately predicting the outcome of an election.  It does not need sophisticated survey analyses.  Let me call it “the character index” predictor.  I have used it twice now, first in 2007 and then in 2011 to predict an Obama victory in presidential elections.  I have been accurate both times.  In 2007, I made the prediction in my class well before the Iowa Caucus, at a time when no one gave Obama a chance (see Huffington Post, November 24, 2008).  In 2011, it was again in the same class, when Obama was on the defensive under relentless attacks from the Tea Party and its reactionary allies in the midst of debates about health care, public debt, and the fallout from the government’s bailout of the 2007 recession-bankrupted industries.  An obviously distraught student asked me about Obama’s chances of re-election in the face of the opposition’s onslaught.  I told the student to write down that Obama would be re-elected in 2012. 

I predicted this even though I was personally disappointed by Obama’s performance as president.  I was not alone in my disappointment.  In the 2008 Huffington Post piece I had invited all Americans to support the Obama presidency because it had the chances of being a truly transformational political regime.  Most Obama’s core supporters expected no less.  It is not, however, what we got.  The result was that, at the apex of the Tea Party movement, when Obama actually needed a stimulus from his supporters, their enthusiasm waned.  What was called the “enthusiasm gap in the Obama camp” was actually real.   The dwindling support for a second term for Obama was not strictly because of the unemployment rate that remained high--most people understood that the economic downturn was mostly due to the Bush policies that led to the recession.  The feeling that Obama had “sold out” is what caused the dwindling support.   Most Obama’s supporters voted for him in the 2008 primaries as a transformational figure against Clinton only to get Clinton in the end.  The Obama White House and administration during the first term was pretty much a replica of the Clinton administration in personnel and policies.  In many ways, it is this waning support for Obama that emboldened the Romney camp to believe that they could win in the general elections of 2012.  Romney and the Republicans had a point.  Many Obama’s supporters could have very well voted for Romney had it not been for the fact that he represented the worst kind of alternative on many fronts.

Despite the disappointment, my 2011 prediction for an Obama re-election was based on his character index predictor, which was far superior to that of any Republican candidate who would face him in the 2012 general elections.  Obama, to the chagrin of the former governor of New Hampshire, John Sununu, and Donald Trump, is the most intelligent president of the last 65 years, the most credible of the presidents for the last 32 years, and the most committed to the social cohesiveness of the American people regardless of their race and origins.  This character index gave him the edge over the alternative that Romney represented.

The Obama character index applies to the outside world as well.  Indeed, no other US candidate for the presidency-- except perhaps Kennedy in 1960—has ever generated as much interest in the whole world as did Obama during his two campaigns and subsequent electoral victories.  On both occasions, the majority of world opinion favored Obama over his opponents.  Everything being equal, Obama’s high appeal stems from his multiple heritages, the very attribute that makes him appealing to his American compatriots.  The world, perhaps vaguely and diffusely, also sees Obama as a leader who passes the single major test of being credibly committed to the many groups and heritages to which he belongs; he is committed to the US because of his birth and citizenship and to the betterment of the rest of the world because of his Kenyan (and Indonesian) roots.  Obama’s Kenyan roots are a metaphor for better relations between the superpower and the rest of the world, especially the non-Western world. 

Both in the US and abroad, Obama’s character index has, thus, served him well.  But it may not, and will not, help Obama’s legacy as a potential great president—and not simply as the president with the best campaign organization that won two elections—if he allows this character index to once again be buried under the Clinton weight during his second term.  I recently received a survey from the Obama campaign soliciting inputs to the policy direction that Obama should take during his second mandate.  So here is my input.  One way for Obama to not be buried under the Clinton weight in foreign policy is to not appoint Susan Rice as Secretary of State.  The case of the Congo particularly militates against the nomination.  Not because Obama owes any special allegiance to Africa or the Congo.  He is an American President first and foremost, and he can appoint anyone he deems to serve well national interests.  Rather, because the US does not only have national interests.  It has superpower interests as well that impose broader obligations.  And it is in the Congo that the Clinton policies have had their most deleterious effects at the expense of US superpower interests. 

The point I want to make hereafter is that Susan Rice was an architect of the Clinton policies toward Rwanda after the 1994 genocide.  These policies have been deeply detrimental to the Congo.  They are likely to further weaken the Congo under her tutelage.  Appointing her as Secretary of State not only perpetuates the ill effects of the Clinton policies, but also aggrandizes the Clintons at the expense of the world’s expectations of Obama’s presidential grandeur.   But Rwanda is not the sole culprit.  The Congo shares blame.  I will first shed light on Congo’s own responsibility. 

The Congo—called “democratic republic” by a cruel irony of history—is today a social swamp.  A paradox of massive proportion: a huge and naturally endowed country with a depressingly impoverished population.  The signposts for the swamp are unmistakable. There are unending wars since 1997, with millions killed.  Congolese have experienced egregious human rights violations by their government whose secret services and death squads arrest, torture, and assassinate without any fear or retribution.  They witnessed  massive electoral fraud in the 2011 presidential and legislative elections. And then there is the nauseating economic and financial thievery, which involves the illicit plundering of the country’s mineral resources, embezzlements, and open corruption.  Government officials, from the presidency down to the lowest clerk, are all corruptors, corrupt, and corruptible.  They have allies in the thievery:  foreign nationals and would be moneymakers. UN contingents are not spared either, since the lure of mineral wealth is irresistible.  The culmination of all this is the misery index of the populations that endure hellish social conditions in almost all aspects of life.  These include endemic joblessness, food shortage and malnutrition, dilapidated and nonexistent health and transportation infrastructure, the mushrooming of charlatans in the form of “churches” and “pastors,”  swelling ranks of refugees and illegal aliens throughout the world, and, more criminal perhaps, the total regression of the educational system despite the profusion of schools and “universities” that don’t educate.  No surprise, then, that out of 168 countries surveyed, the Congo ranks last in the UN Human Development Index Report.   

The Congo shares some of the structural causes of this situation with other developing countries.  However, for the more recent period, the causes of the Congo’s escalating misery are internal.  They are linked to the clientelist nature of the three political regimes that have succeeded to each other in the Congo since 1965, from Mobutu to the two Kabilas.  A network of clientelism is constituted in which the president, his kin and tribesmen, and selected closest allies are patrons. Their clients are officials, ministers, military officers, “professors,” selected musicians, and national and foreign businessmen.  The material survival of the clients depends almost entirely on the patrons, who tightly control all major economic and political resources.  The clientelist relationship is based on reciprocity.  The patrons provide the clients with financial, economic, and other resources, including appointments to offices and the license to steal and plunder without fear of legal repression.  The clients, in turn, provide the patrons with political support in the form of the repression of the masses, mindless propaganda for the regime, and electoral fraud.  This internal network of clientelism is supported by foreign powers, which provide economic, military, and other resources to the patrons and the regime in return for the advancement of their strategic interests for some and the plunder of natural resources for others. The cast of characters of foreign powers varies depending on the regime.  But it has perennially consisted of Belgium, France, the US, and marginally Canada.  China and India joined the network under Joseph Kabila.  The network of clientelism was founded and perfected by Mobutu, inherited and tweaked by Laurent Kabila, and expanded by Joseph Kabila.  It explains the high level of plunder, embezzlement, and diversion of the wealth of the country, the obscene enrichment of the patrons and clients alike at the expense of the populace, incompetence at all state levels as illustrated by the nightmarish depletion of public services, human rights violations, and the political inertia and demobilization of the populace. 

To alleviate their misery, the peoples of the Congo must internally dismantle the clientelist network that governs them.   However, such a task is made more difficult by an external factor:  the deep involvement of Uganda, Burundi, and especially Rwanda in Congo’s affairs.  The reasons for Rwanda’s invasions of the Congo are Rwanda’s need for land space for its overpopulation and the 1994 ethnic genocide that killed scores of mostly ethnic Tutsi (thousands of Hutu were also massacred both during the genocide and in the ensuing retaliation by the Tutsi).  The success of the invasions is due to the clientelist nature of the political regimes in the Congo itself and the support Rwanda receives from foreign powers.  Both under Mobutu and the two Kabilas, clientelism has made state institutions, including the army, inept.  As a result, the Congolese government has been incapable of preventing the invasions or of dislodging Rwanda’s army and armed groups from its territory.   On the other hand, foreign support for Kagame’s Rwanda has helped the regime finance its military adventures and to avoid ostracism in international institutions and forums.

Rwanda’s territorial ambitions and the genocide have had four deadly consequences for the Congo.  First, they caused Rwanda and other countries in the region, notably Uganda, to help Laurent Kabila to militarily overthrow Mobutu in 1997.  Second, when Rwanda’s hidden territorial ambitions in the Congo clashed with Laurent Kabila’s incompetent nationalism, the result was Rwanda’s new invasion and the attendant war between the Congo and Rwanda, in which almost all countries in the region were involved from 1998 to 2003.  Millions of deaths and displacements of the populations were outcomes.  One of the results of this conflict was the assassination of Laurent Kabila—almost unanimously suspected to be ordered by Rwanda.  Third, under Joseph Kabila, who replaced the assassinated Laurent Kabila in rather mysterious ways in 2001, Rwanda has financed and militarily supported ethnic Tutsi-led movements ((CNDP and M-23) that have waged a proxy war in Kivu.  It has done so under the guise of securing the Tutsi “minority” in the province and combating the 1994 genocidaires who fled to the Congo.  The movements are made of Tutsi soldiers who had served either in the Rwandan army or as part of the Rwanda-supplied crack force that overthrew Mobutu.  They were integrated into the Congo’s army following negotiations in 2003 only to desert later to defend their ethnic parochial interests.  Fourth, Rwanda has benefited from Joseph Kabila’s clientelist incompetence and/or complicity because of his suspected Tutsi lineage.  This complicity and the military pressure exerted by Rwanda’s proxy movements has allowed Rwanda to extract deep concessions from the Congo, including the appointment of ethnic Tutsi to leadership positions in the army, the police, secret services, and the government.  The more wars waged (such as the recent takeover of Goma), the more concessions extracted via negotiations.   This “infiltration” has allowed Rwanda (and Uganda) to make use of the clientelist network of the Kabila regime to its advantage.  The spoils include the plunder of resources of the Congo (coltan, gold, diamond, etc…), the sharing of the plunder with foreign companies and predators, who accede to the Congo minerals through Rwanda, and the progressive consolidation of land rights by CNDP and M-23 in their “liberated territories.”     

So although Rwanda may not be the main cause of the Congo’s misery, it bears a major responsibility for the recent times.   What, then, makes Rwanda “strong” vis-à-vis the Congo?  This brings me back to Clinton policies and Susan Rice as the presumptive Secretary of State.  The foundation of US policies toward Rwanda is the guilt felt by President Bill Clinton over his failure to protect the Tutsi against genocide in 1994 even though the US, France and the UN were aware of the impending massacres.  As in the case of Germany in relation to Israel, the guilt shaped policies, and Rice played a crucial role in the process, first in the Clinton White House’s African Affairs section of the National Security Council and then as Assistant Secretary for African Affairs in the State Department.  In fact, like Clinton, Rice had openly expressed her guilt about their failure and vowed to come on the side of the victims next time.  Guilt-driven policies have continued during the Obama administration thanks to Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State.  Their central tenet is to “pamper” Rwanda and to let it have its way. 

This tenet explains why Kagame’s direct involvement in triggering the genocide by shooting down the plane of the then Hutu president Habyarimana is ignored even though credible research, French services, and Kagame’s own former righthand man and ambassador to Washington tell us so; why Kagame’s own retaliatory anti-Hutu genocide deep in the Congo is ignored; why the US supplied weapons to the Kagame regime to wage war against Laurent Kabila in the 1998 with horrific consequences for the populations of Kivu; why Kagame’s autocratic and Tutsi-bent rule is praised and Kagame’s Rwanda is viewed as an “emerging” country on which the US relies for the supply of soldiers that serve in US-sponsored military operations in Africa; why there is a flow of investments and aid to Rwanda and why the Clinton Foundation has championed education and health investments in Rwanda, involving business interests not unconnected to Rwanda’s proximity and access to Congo’s minerals.  This policy of pampering sheds light on why Rwanda’s sponsorship of CNDP and M-23 and their violence and depredation in the Congo have gone unpunished.  Not only Rwanda supports M-23, but Rwanda’s regular army directed the military attacks for the occupation of Goma.  UN’s own observers tell us so.  As US Ambassador at the UN, Rice has maintained this policy of pampering Rwanda.  It is no surprise that, even in the face of all these contraventions against international law, Rwanda has been allowed to serve as one of the revolving members of the UN Security Council.  The policies contribute to the misery of the Congo populations.   This is ironic because,  as senator, Obama sponsored the “Democratic Republic of the Congo Relief, Security, and Democracy Promotion Act of 2006” that withholds assistance to a foreign country that destabilizes the Congo.

US reliance on Rwanda is ephemeral; it is not sustainable in the long run.  Rwanda is not Israel.  If the Congo is maintained in the chaotic situation it is in, the chaos will eventually extend to Rwanda and its neighbors.  Perpetual war is likely to prevail between the two countries.  It is not a given that the Congo will always be, in the middle and long terms, militarily weaker than Rwanda.  An increasingly radicalized cohort of Congolese in the Congo and abroad, especially in Europe, rightly believes that the complicity between the Kabila regime and the Kagame regime, facilitated by US and British foreign policies toward Rwanda, causes the misery of the Congo.  Their tone is dangerously one of a violent revenge against a specific tribal group, the Tutsis.  The Obama administration must avoid this violent ethnic incitement and its unforeseen and unpredictable outcomes.  US long-term national and superpower interests are at stake. 

Ambassador Rice is deeply partial to Rwanda because of her involvement in the crafting of the Clinton policies toward Rwanda and the Congo.  She is blinded by her policy commitments and guilt.  She will not be able to prevent the escalating ethnic hatred.  On the contrary, her biased policies will inflame it.  Rice’s pro- Rwanda policies against the backdrop of Rwanda’s territorial ambitions are likely to reinforce the Congolese suspicion that the US seeks to “balkanize” the Congo in favor of Rwanda. There is a point of reference for this: Walter Kansteiner, Rice’s successor at the state department under the Bush administration, and Herman Cohen, who preceded her, had proposed the breakup of the Congo as a solution to the Congo-Rwanda conflict.  Obama should find another candidate for the post of the Secretary of State.  The calculus may be to avoid defeat for the democrats in the senate race in Massachusetts and to not nominate Senator John Kerry for the position. If this is the case, then I suggest that Obama nominate Zbigniew Brzezinski, the former national security adviser to Jimmy Carter.  Although aging, he will bring his great intellect and toughness to the position.  Under his tutelage, Rwanda will be made accountable for its actions.  This will allow the peoples of the Congo to attend to the internal task of dismantling their clientelist regime.  

Emancipation from the Clinton foreign policy reasserts the primacy of Obama’s character index and increases his chances of being a great president.  It allows him to live up to his calling as the metaphor for better relations between the superpower and non-Western countries. 

Contact: SNSANGM@SYR.EDU

The Extraordinary Summit of the Heads of State and Government of the Southern African Development Community (SADC) was held in Dar es Salaam, United Republic of Tanzania from 7 - 8 December 2012.

On Democratic Republic of Congo, Summit:

(i) reaffirmed the indivisibility and respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Democratic Republic of Congo;

(ii) expressed deep concern regarding the deteriorating security and humanitarian situation in eastern DRC due to the prevailing situation;

(iii) strongly condemned the M23 and all its attacks on the civilian population, United Nations Peacekeepers and humanitarian actors, as well as its abuses of human rights, including summary executions, sexual and gender based violence;

(iv) affirmed that SADC, as a block will deploy the SADC Standby Force in the Eastern DRC under the auspices of the Neutral International Force (NIF)

(v) welcomed the decision of the ICGLR to mandate the United Republic of Tanzania to appoint a Force Commander for the NIF to be deployed in the Eastern DRC;

(vi) mandated the SADC Interstate Politics and Diplomacy Committee (ISPDC) and the SADC Secretariat to work together with the ICGLR to engage the African Union Peace and the United Nations Security Council for support to the deployment and sustenance;

(vi) urged UN to change MONUSCO mandate to the United Nations Chapter VII;

(vii) commended the United Republic of Tanzania and the Republic of South Africa for pledging one battalion and logistics support for the NIF respectively; and

(viii) commended the DRC for contributing funds for the deployment of the NIF.

Summit was attended by the following Heads of State and Government and or their representatives:
DRC: H.E. President Joseph Kabila Kabange
Lesotho: Rt. Hon. Prime Minister Thomas Motsoahae Thabane
Mozambique: H.E. President Armando Emilio Guebuza
Namibia: H.E. President Hifikepunye Pohamba
South Africa: H.E. President Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma
United Republic: H.E. President Jakaya Mrisho Kikwete of Tanzania
Angola: H.E. Manuel Domingos Vicente - Vice President
Malawi: Rt. Hon. Khumbo Kachali, Vice President
Seychelles: H.E. Danny Faure, Vice President
Zambia: Hon. Dr. Guy Scotts, Vice President
Swaziland: Rt. Hon. Barnabas Sibusiso Dlamini, Prime Minister
Botswana: Hon. Phandu Skelemani, Minister for Foreign Affairs
Zimbabwe: Hon. Simbarashe S. Mumbengengwi, Minister of Foreign Affairs
Mauritius: H.E. Mohammed Ismael Dossa, High Commissioner to South Africa

Summit was also attended by His Excellency Yoweri Museveni, the President of Uganda and the Chairperson of the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR); and His Excellency Joaquim Alberto Chissano, former President of the Republic of Mozambique, and SADC Mediator on the political conflict in Madagascar.

Click here for more information on the current Congo crisis!

Communiqué du Conseil de paix et de sécurité de l’Union africaine (UA) en sa 346ème réunion

ADDIS ABEBA, Ethiopie, 11 décembre 2012/African Press Organization (APO)/ – Le Conseil de paix et de sécurité de l’Union africaine (UA), en sa 346ème réunion tenue le 10 décembre 2012, a adopté la décision suivante sur la situation à l’est de la République démocratique du Congo (RDC)

Le Conseil,

1. Prend note de la communication du Représentant spécial de la Présidente de la Commission pour la Région des Grands Lacs sur l’évolution de la situation à l’Est de la RDC et la mise en œuvre des dispositions pertinentes du communiqué PSC/PR/COMM(CCCXLIII) de la 343ème réunion du Conseil tenue le 26 novembre 2012. Le Conseil prend également note des communications faites par les représentants de la RDC, de l’Ouganda pays qui assure la présidence de la Conférence internationale sur la Région des Grands Lacs (CIRGL), du Rwanda, du Mozambique, qui assure la présidence de la Communauté de Développement de l’Afrique australe (SADC), de l’Union européenne (UE) et des Nations unies (NU), ainsi que par les représentants des États membres de l’UA siégeant au Conseil de sécurité des Nations unies (CSNU) et de membres permanents du CSNU;

2. Réaffirme l’attachement de l’UA à l’unité, à l’intégrité territoriale et à la souveraineté de la RDC, ainsi que son rejet absolu du recours à la rébellion armée pour faire valoir des revendications politiques. À cet égard, le Conseil condamne le M23 pour avoir relancé la rébellion armée à l’Est de la RDC, provoquant une grave crise humanitaire et menaçant de déstabiliser l’ensemble de la région;

3. Note avec satisfaction les avancées enregistrées dans la mise en œuvre de la Déclaration adoptée par le 5ème Sommet extraordinaire de la CIRGL, tenue à Kampala, le 24 novembre 2012, notamment le retrait du M23 de localités qu’il avait occupées après la rupture du cessez-le-feu du 15 novembre 2012, y compris Goma, ayant à l’esprit que ce groupe armé ne s’est pas encore totalement conformé à l’exigence du retrait de ses forces à une distance de 20 km de Goma, le retour de l’administration et de la police congolaises dans la ville, ainsi que le lancement, à Kampala, le 9 décembre 2012, du dialogue direct entre le Gouvernement de la RDC et le M23. Le Conseil exhorte les parties congolaises à négocier de bonne foi et à apporter toute la coopération requise à la facilitation;

4. Félicite le Président en exercice de la CIRGL pour ses efforts et sa persévérance, et l’encourage à poursuivre l’action engagée, y compris la mise en place des arrangements sécuritaires prévus par les Déclarations pertinentes de la CIRGL, y compris celle du 24 novembre 2012, notamment l’activation du Mécanisme conjoint de vérification élargi (MCVE) et le déploiement de la Force internationale neutre (FIN). Le Conseil réitère son soutien au déploiement envisagé de la FIN, tel qu’exprimé dans ses décisions pertinentes antérieures, et en appelle aux États membres et à la communauté internationale dans son ensemble pour qu’ils apportent le soutien nécessaire aux efforts déployés à cette fin. Le Conseil se félicite de la décision du Gouvernement de la RDC de contribuer un montant de 20 millions de dollars pour faciliter l’opérationnalisation rapide de la FIN;

5. Se félicite des efforts que déploie la SADC en vue d’œuvrer au règlement de la crise à l’Est de la RDC. À cet égard, le Conseil note les décisions prises par le Sommet extraordinaire des chefs d’État et de Gouvernement de la SADC, tenu à Dar-es-Salaam, le 8 décembre 2012, en particulier le déploiement de la Force en attente de la SADC à l’Est de la RDC dans le cadre de la FIN;

6. Se réjouit de la visite que le Représentant spécial de la Présidente de la Commission a effectuée en RDC et au Rwanda, en vue d’évaluer la situation et de mieux déterminer les modalités d’une implication plus grande de l’UA dans la gestion de la crise actuelle. Le Conseil demande à la Commission de prendre, en tant que de besoin, toute initiative nécessaire en appui aux efforts régionaux;

7. Prie la Commission de prendre les dispositions nécessaires pour faciliter la tenue, sous l’égide de l’UA, de consultations impliquant la Communauté économique des États de l’Afrique centrale (CEEAC), la CIRGL et la SADC, ainsi que l’UE, les Nations unies et d’autres partenaires bilatéraux, pour faciliter la mobilisation du soutien requis en vue de la mise en place et du déploiement de la FIN et de l’opérationnalisation intégrale du MCVE, à la lumière du Concept d’opérations (CONOPS) élaboré par la CIRGL, des décisions prises par la SADC à Dar-es-Salaam et de la nécessaire articulation et synergie entre les arrangements sécuritaires envisagés et la Mission des Nations unies pour la Stabilisation du Congo (MONUSCO);

8. Prie la Commission d’appuyer le dialogue entre le Gouvernement de la RDC et le M23, en coopération étroite avec la présidence de la CIRGL;

9. Rappelle ses décisions antérieures relatives à la tendance persistante de violences dirigées à l’encontre des civils, en général, et des femmes, en particulier. À cet égard, le Conseil condamne dans les termes les plus fermes le recours continu à la violence sexuelle comme moyen de conduite de la guerre à l’Est de la RDC. Le Conseil exige des auteurs de ces actes haineux qu’ils y mettent un terme. Le Conseil souligne que les auteurs de ces crimes doivent répondre de leurs actes. Le Conseil demande à la Commission africaine des Droits de l’Homme et des Peuples de se saisir sans délai de cette situation et de lui soumettre un rapport au plus tard le 15 février 2013;

10. Se déclare à nouveau profondément préoccupé par la grave situation humanitaire induite par la relance de la rébellion armée à l’Est de la RDC, et lance un appel en vue de la fourniture d’une assistance humanitaire qui soit à la hauteur des défis rencontrés sur le terrain;

11. Exprime sa disponibilité à examiner, dans les délais les plus rapprochés, le CONOPS préparé dans le cadre de la CIRGL et, à cette fin, demande à la Commission de lui présenter un rapport contenant ses recommandations, à la lumière des consultations envisagées avec toutes les parties concernées, ainsi que des résultats des négociations en cours à Kampala entre le Gouvernement de la RDC et le M23;

12. Décide d’entreprendre aussi rapidement que possible une mission sur le terrain, en RDC, y compris dans la partie Est du pays, ainsi qu’ailleurs dans la région, aux fins d’évaluer la situation, d’insister auprès de tous les acteurs concernés sur la nécessité de mettre un terme rapide à la crise actuelle et de faciliter l’adoption, par le Conseil, de décisions additionnelles sur cette question;

13. Décide de rester activement saisi de la situation.