By Autor
East AfricanApril 23, 2001
Last Week's UN report on the illegal exploitation of natural resources of the Democratic Republic of Congo by Ugandan and Rwandan troops, is unlikely to lead to sanctions against Uganda but will dent the country's reputation, diplomats say. Although Ugandan authorities denied involvement in plundering Congo's natural resources, only swift action against those named, especially the army officers, will confirm that the plunder was not state-sanctioned.
The report, put together by a panel of experts, noted that the exploitation of natural resources of Congo "is taking place at an alarming rate" and includes a range of resources from diamonds to timber to elephants. It is perpetrated by players who include the armies of at least five African states, Congolese rebels and civilian and foreign businesses. "We were surprised by the scale and the speed of the looting . The Congo conflict created a win-win situation for all belligerents," said the chairman of the panel, Ms Safiatou Ba-N'Daw, a World Bank official.
The report names senior officers of the Uganda People's Defense Forces (UPDF) and powerful businessmen in Rwanda with links to the Rwandan Patriotic Army (RPA) as leaders in illegal trade. Top on the UPDF list is Major General Salim Saleh, younger brother of President Yoweri Museveni and his wife Jovia Akandwanaho. President Museveni's son Muhoozi Kainerugaba is also mentioned. Also on the UPDF list is UPDF Chief of Staff Brig James Kazini, who until July last year was the overall commander of UPDF activities in the DRC. Also mentioned is acting chief of Military Intelligence Lt Colonel Noble Mayombo and presidential advisor on the Congo Col Kahinda Otafire. On the RPA side, the report mentions Brig James Kabareebe as a facilitator for some deals. The report also holds Presidents Paul Kagame of Rwanda and Yoweri Museveni politically responsible.
Besides exposing the atrocities committed by army officials from Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi as well as by the rebel leaders, the report, released on April 16, also raises fundamental questions about the effectiveness of ongoing attempts to end the Congo war. For some time now, there have been recurring allegations that Western powers and multinational companies are fuelling the crisis in order to benefit from the rich mineral resources of the war-torn country.
Is the UN going to crack down on these powerful interests? Is the UN going to expose the evils perpetuated by top world leaders involved in such illegal acts, whether covertly or overtly? If the three governments - Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi - continue to deny their involvement in the plunder of DRC resources, can a UN embargo be enforced? At the moment, Congo has no control over the territory where the exploitation is taking place, and is unable to issue licenses, or regulate or tax it.
To complicate any possible remedy in the form of sanctions, there is a whole set of buyers involved, some of them with powerful international contacts. First are the original buyers who cut deals either with Kigali or Kampala or Bujumbura. Then these buyers become sellers and sell to someone who processes the mineral or timber. Then the mineral or timber processor sells the processed product to a manufacturer who uses it for a finished product. These complex linkages complicate the process of demanding accountability, not to mention the double standards of some Western powers who have condemned the war yet continue to provide support both financially and militarily to the parties to the conflict.
According to sources, foreign corporate organisations are actually the instigators of the war in Congo using soldiers from Uganda, Rwanda and Burundi. For instance, the US has been alleged to be deeply involved in training, arming, financing, and supplying technical and intelligence support to armies in the region. Mercenary groups such as MPRI (USA), Executive Outcomes (South Africa), Sandline (UK) and others are also allegedly being used by the Pentagon to promote their African expeditions, particularly in the Great Lakes region.
Other Western governments have been accused of snubbing a call to condemn Uganda and Rwanda's invasion of Congo while being quick to castigate those countries that came to the rescue of Congo's sovereignty - Zimbabwe, Namibia and Angola. In July 1999, there were reports that the Banque du Commerce du Developpement et d'Industrie in Kigali, Rwanda, Banque National de Paris (BNP), B & L Trading International Ltd of Dublin, Ireland, and Kenrow Inc of Maryland, were involved in a deal to develop Tantalite and other key minerals obtained from the Rwandan occupation zone in Congo.
Of late, the RCD-Goma faction backed by Rwanda has been involved in the exploitation a mineral which is used in cell phones, col-tan. The Ugandan-backed Congolese Liberation Front (CLF) is accused of controlling gold mines in Bafwasende and other areas. RCD-Goma leader Adolphe Onusumba admits: "We raise more or less $200,000 per month from diamonds. Col-tan gives us more: $1 million a month." The CLF denies any such dealings. According to analysts, the countries, illegally occupying Congo are not only profiting from the wealth they are taking out of that country, they are using a portion of that wealth to pay for their illegal occupation.
The challenge the UN faces therefore is how to stop this illegal trade. And there is reason to believe that this is this is not going to be easy. First, the UN has not been able to compel the invading powers to withdraw from Congo despite the provisions in the Lusaka peace accord. More significantly, the UN has failed to stem the outflow of diamonds, gold, timber and col-tan that swelling the coffers of the invading powers and their subordinate Congolese rebel allies.
Just last week, the Rwandan-backed RCD-Goma who still control parts of Kisangani, even though this Congolese city is supposed to be demilitarised, were accused of frustrating the peace effort by refusing to allow peacekeepers to land at an airport on the Easter weekend. They later agreed to allow the UN force to land on April 18.