Global Policy Forum

By Francois Grignon*

The latest piece in Observer Worldview's regular monthly series on under-reported conflicts around the world, in association with the International Crisis Group. The world may soon come to know the names of Hema and Lendu as we now know Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda - because we stood by, failing to act until it was too late.

The eastern Congolese province of Ituri has already been consumed by violence. 50,000 deaths have occurred there since 1999. Three million are dead as a result of the war across all of the Democratic Republic of Congo. It is hard to imagine the situation can get any worse - but it is doing so. As global attention turns to the need to intervene, time to prevent an apocalyptic genocide is fast running out.

Despite the presence of a UN monitoring mission and a national peace plan, Ituri has already suffered from repeated acts of genocide. Machete murders, horrific mutilation, rape, and terrified people fleeing their homes - these are again happening for the sake of absolute power in central Africa. And despite the lessons of Rwanda, indifference and bad management remain the hallmarks of international intervention in the region. If swift and decisive action is not taken in Ituri, the world may soon come to know the names of Hema and Lendu as we now know Hutu and Tutsi in Rwanda - because we stood by, failing to act until it was too late.

Unlike in Rwanda, no State machinery will plan the extermination of the Hema minority in Ituri. The State has long collapsed, but precisely because of the vacuum left by three decades of Mobutuism and the conflict, greedy local warlords, Hema and Lendu, have turned against one another committing acts of genocide which now threatens to escalate into a new apocalypse.

Under Belgian colonial rule the minority Hema were favoured and their privileges continued under the dictatorship of Mobutu Sese Seko. When Mobuto's departure saw the state collapse in 1998, the Hema used their influence to grab land and control of Ituri's gold mines. Congo's subsequent descent into full-scale continental war meant that the Hema and Lendu found willing partners among the foreign troops on their soil. Ugandan army officers started arming Hema militias in return for a share of Ituri's gold and resources. In retaliation, the Lendu formed militias, also got Ugandan help, and began attacking Hema communities. Rwanda is now backing the strongest Hema militia - the UPC (Union of Congolese Patriots).

This tangle of ethnic rivalry, colonial history and cross-border interference is behind the latest violence in Ituri. Without resolution of all these factors, peace in Congo will never be sustained.

Behind the headlines, the Congo is struggling to implement a peace plan. Next month a transitional government is due to be installed in Kinshasa. But the ongoing fighting in the east, the failure of MONUC to disarm the rebel factions, and persistent military interference by Rwanda and Uganda are putting the peace process at risk. Uganda is officially withdrawing its troops - but both Kampala and Kigali covertly arm the militias.

The United States, the United Kingdom, and the United Nations also have to share the blame for the severity of the crisis in Ituri. The Bush Administration's refusal to support MONUC's request for extra troops last year delayed deployments in Ituri for months. When Washington finally did give approval for an extra 3,000 MONUC soldiers back in December, it insisted that the deployment be split into two and conditioned to additional reports from the Secretary General - ensuring it takes far too long for any boots to hit the ground where they are most urgently needed.

MONUC itself is a dismal failure. Although it costs $1.5million a day, it is hamstrung by a minimalist mandate (to carry out ceasefire monitoring and voluntary disarmament) and inadequate troop numbers (5,700 compared to 45,000 in tiny Kosovo at the peak of NATO's deployment in 1999). But MONUC has also appeared far more concerned about looking after the safety of its own staff and troops than protecting the Congolese civilians it is supposed to be helping.

In terms of its major objective - the disarmament and repatriation of rebel forces - it has achieved almost nothing. Only a few hundred Rwandan rebel fighters have been sent home - out of the 15-20,000 that are on DRC territory. And just last week, 700 MONUC soldiers stood by as Hema UPC forces, backed by Rwanda, took over Bunia, the capital of Ituri. More than 100,000 Lendu fled - stories of atrocities are now beginning to emerge. There is little sign that a recently declared truce between the Hema and Lendu militias is holding.

MONUC urgently needs more troops and a tougher mandate, but it also needs to lift its game if it is to have any effect on stopping the warring factions.

Britain's policies, especially its unconditional aid programs to Rwanda and Uganda, also should be reconsidered. The UK has tried to resolve the hostility between Rwanda and Uganda through diplomatic means. The presidents of Rwanda and Uganda have been brought together in London three times in the past two years, but these meetings seem to have been little more than photo opportunities over cups of tea. The two countries, once allies, use the DRC as a proxy battleground. What is also clear is that a degree of instability in the DRC suits them. It means their army officers can continue to extract gold, timber and other natural resources with impunity. The presidents usually leave London vowing to behave, but most importantly, with their aid packages intact. Kigali's and Kampala's desire to maintain access to eastern Congo and their sponsorship of rebel groups have fuelled violence in the region. British aid should not be seen to endorse their behaviour.

A strategy for intervention is emerging - but not fast enough. The United Nations Security Council held an urgent meeting in New York on 12 May to support calls for an emergency international force, made up of a 'coalition of the willing'. France has indicated it is willing to send troops, but only if others join it. South Africa has given its support to the mission and France says it would accept Pretoria's command as a confidence-building measure. Britain is also being asked to contribute and is seriously considering the request.

All this is very welcome, but there will have to be movement in days or weeks, not months, to make a difference. The troops will also have to be fully empowered with a Chapter VII mandate to use force, and most importantly must arrive in adequate numbers. At least a brigade, around 3000 soldiers, is required. And Rwanda and Uganda have to be made to stay out of Ituri for good.

It has been almost two weeks since the 12 May Security Council meeting, and there is still no final decision on sending troops. But on the ground in Ituri, the UN compound is surrounded by thousands of terrified civilians seeking protection, tens of thousands have fled across the border to Uganda, stories of mutilation, murder and atrocity are emerging in the media.

There is no excuse for not knowing this time. The warning bells have been rung again and again. We cannot stand by once again as a potential genocide unfolds.

About the Author: Dr Francois Grignon is Central Africa Project Director of the International Crisis Group.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This page contains copyrighted material the use of which has not been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Global Policy Forum distributes this material without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included information for research and educational purposes. We believe this constitutes a fair use of any such copyrighted material as provided for in 17 U.S.C íŸ 107. If you wish to use copyrighted material from this site for purposes of your own that go beyond fair use, you must obtain permission from the copyright owner.