Tuesday, December 18, 2012

US Treasury imposes sanctions against 2 Congo rebel leaders behind fighting in country's east

The U.S. Treasury Department is imposing sanctions against two leaders of Congo's M23 rebel group.
In a designation made public Tuesday, the U.S. government accuses Baudoin Ngaruye and Innocent Kaina of using child soldiers.
Ngaruye also was cited for targeting children through "killing, maiming, and sexual violence."
The move comes just weeks after a United Nations Security Council sanctions committee added the two men to its consolidated travel ban and asset freeze list.
Both men are leaders of the M23 rebels, who allegedly are supported by Rwanda, and whose rebellion earlier this year prompted hundreds of thousands to flee their homes in eastern Congo.
Any assets they have within U.S. jurisdiction now will be frozen, and Americans will be prohibited from doing business with them.


Obama Discusses Crisis In Congo With Kagame

Obama Discusses Crisis In Congo With Kagame


WASHINGTON (AP) — President Barack Obama is warning Rwandan President Paul Kagame (keh-GAH'-may) that any support for rebels is what he calls "inconsistent with Rwanda's desire for stability and peace." The U.S. president is pressing for an end of support to armed groups in Congo.
The White House says Obama spoke Tuesday with Kagame to discuss the security and humanitarian crises in eastern Congo, where the M23 rebel group is operating.
A recent U.N. report accuses the Rwandan government of backing the rebels, a charge that Kagame's government has denied.
The White House says Obama stressed to Kagame the importance of "permanently ending all support to armed groups" in Congo and ending exemption from punishment for M23 commanders and others who have committed human rights abuses.

Monday, December 17, 2012

Situation in Kivu provinces of eastern DR Congo remains ‘tense and fragile’ – UN spokesperson

 


Armed group of M23 make their withdrawal from the city of Goma, DRC. Photo: MONUSCO/Sylvain Liechti

 
17 December 2012 – The situation on the ground in the Kivus – two provinces in the eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) which have experienced violent clashes and civilian displacement involving armed groups over recent months – remains “tense and fragile,” a United Nations spokesperson said today.Speaking to the UN News Centre, the spokesperson for the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO), Kieran Dwyer, also said that ‘blue helmets’ from the UN Organization Stabilization Mission in the DRC (MONUSCO) have received reports of fighters with the 23 March Movement (M23) armed group around the city of Goma, the capital of North Kivu province.“Over the weekend, MONUSCO stepped up ground patrols and air reconnaissance flights in response to these reports,” Mr. Dwyer said.“While many of the reports could not be confirmed, MONUSCO was able to confirm the presence of M23 elements in several locations in North Kivu, including near Rwindi, Kibati and in the Masisi area near Moja,” he added. The spokesperson noted that such movements are “in breach of Security Council resolution 2076” and that MONUSCO’s peacekeepers continue with their frequent patrols in and around Goma.Adopted by the Council in late November, resolution 2076 demanded the immediate withdrawal of the M23 from Goma and the cessation of any further advances, in addition to calling for a clarification of reports of external support provided to the group and stating its readiness to act on the basis of information received, amongst other points.The armed group – made up of former national army troops who mutinied in April and named after a 23 March 2009 peace agreement that they reportedly say has not been implemented – occupied Goma on 19 November, after an advance that included clashes with the DRC armed forces, known by the French acronym FARDC, which received support from MONUSCO.The advance displaced more than 130,000 people in and around Goma, and sent another 47,000 fleeing to neighbouring South Kivu province. Many of those uprooted from their homes are currently living either with host families, or in camps and spontaneous sites, or in public buildings.Amidst widespread condemnation and calls for their withdrawal, the M23 fighters pulled out – while monitored by MONUSCO peacekeepers – from the city of one million after 11 days, in accordance with requirements laid out by the regional intergovernmental group known as the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region (ICGLR).MONUSCO has 6,700 and 4,000 troops in the provinces of North and South Kivu, respectively, including, in some places, behind the M23 lines. North Kivu alone is four times the size of Belgium.

Congo’s Agony

 
The African territory that includes Uganda, Rwanda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has been in a virtual state of war since 1995. The wars in eastern Congo have caused the deaths of millions of Congolese, who have paid the price for living in a very rich and unmanaged country with failing or nonexistent civil institutions. These wars, centered mainly in eastern Congo (North and South Kivu and Maniema) have involved nine African nations and directly affected the lives of 50 million Congolese.
Between August 1998 and April 2004, some 3.8 million people died violent deaths in the DRC. Since 2004 this number has almost tripled. Many of these deaths were due to starvation or disease resulting from the war as well as from summary executions and capture by irregular marauding bands. Millions more were internally displaced or sought asylum in neighboring countries. Rape was endemic; insecurity was the rule and impunity the response.
Initially, these wars and the rapes, murders and pillaging associated with them derived from the efforts of Uganda and Rwanda to profit from the valuable mineral resources of eastern Congo. However, no matter how valuable the pillage of coltan, diamonds and other mineral ores might be (these industries are huge and involve thousands of conscripted artisanal miners), their value cannot compare to the potential for oil and gas wealth.
OIL AND GAS DISCOVERIES
In 2009, Heritage Oil discovered oil in Uganda. The oil and gas industries in East and Central Africa have been the world’s most important area of exploration in the last nine years. Africa has the world’s most frequent and substantial new findings of oil and gas. A joint report by the African Development Bank, the African Union and the African Development Fund observed oil reserves in Africa grew by more than 25 percent and gas by more than 100 percent since the late 1980s.
In May 2012, Kenya announced its second profitable oil discovery in two months, a large oil deposit in the remote northern Turkana region. Kenya has become the latest country to join the great African oil boom, following recent discoveries in Uganda and the DRC. The East African Community now forming can count on a better energy future with the Kenyan discovery, in addition to the substantial reserves in Uganda and the gas discovered in Tanzania. South Sudan, with its large oil reserves, has applied for membership in the East African Community. There are also large oil and gas fields in Somalia.
Unfortunately, the good fortune that smiled on Eastern and Central Africa has only brought war and destruction in its wake. The Uganda finds in the Albert Graven were located in the seabed of Lake Albert. The border between Uganda and the DRC runs down the middle of the lake. Uganda wants all the oil and has been funding the various insurgencies to control it; skirmishes have taken place between the two national armies and the border is heavily patrolled.
Extensive oil and gas reserves have also been found beneath Lake Tanganyika, which shares a border with the DRC, Tanzania, Zambia, and Burundi. Tanzania has largely avoided any role in the conflict and has collaborated with the DRC in extracting oil and gas. Nonetheless it has a stake in the conflict.
Perhaps the most contentious and conflicted result of oil and gas finds in the region has been Vanoil of Canada’s success in finding oil beneath Lake Kivu on the Rwanda-DRC border. Lake Kivu is a unique gas-bearing lake in the western leg of the African Rift Valleys, making it a small but very interesting component of the Great Lakes of Africa. Vanoil holds exclusive exploration rights to the 627-square-mile oil and gas concession in the East Kivu Graben, which straddles Rwanda and the DRC and is the southern extension of the Albertine Graben in Uganda where major oil discoveries have been made by Tullow Oil and Heritage Oil.
In March 2007, the governments of the DRC and Rwanda met with the assembled lake experts and developers at Gisenyi on the northern shore of Lake Kivu to commence an initiative to define the rules and regulations of safe and environmentally sound exploitation of Lake Kivu’s gas reserves. Without strict adherence to these rules, the whole lake could explode. These regulations were necessary to define the safest means of degassing the lake, but also to share that definition and the resources equitably between the countries involved. The Management Prescriptions for the development of Lake Kivu now form the basis of regulations on the lake and the guide by which the bilateral authority being formed will control the development of the lake’s resources. Rwanda seeks to alter this by taking control of the other side of the lake. It has recently taken over Goma through its surrogates in the M23 movement and plans to exploit the oil reserves with Vanoil and to seek a competent gas partner for the buried methane.
IMPUNITY RULES
Why do Rwanda and Uganda, whose armies invaded the DRC in 1998 to remove Laurent Kabila from power and were soundly defeated in battle by the DRC, the Zimbabweans, Angolans and Namibians, now feel that they can renew their struggle to conquer the mineral wealth of the DRC with such impunity? After a brief lapse they began to support surrogate armies in the DRC with weapons, training and communications. This was particularly true of the Banyamulenge (the Tutsi who lived in eastern Congo and were part of Kagame’s Tutsi diaspora). They continued to rape and pillage and compelled the artisanal miners of the Kivus to work for their marauding bands, producing coltan and diamonds. This exploitation of the DRC and its human and mineral wealth continued even when peace agreements like the Lusaka Accords, which supposedly ended the war, were signed.
Instead of warring armies, eastern Congo became controlled by warlords and militias whose exploitation took the form of pillage, rape and murder. Most of these groups have affinities with either the Rwandan or Ugandan governments, which handle the physical trade in the wealth that is exported. The Rwandans have been backing “rebel” military warlords like Laurent Nkunda or Bosco Ntanganda. These provide a fig leaf for Rwanda’s continuing rape of the Congo. Others do the same for Uganda. They operate with impunity. The people most responsible for the continuing atrocities are protected.
Theoretically, the United Nations has had teams of peacekeepers in the DRC as the United Nations Organization Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO). Its track record is not impressive. Two of the built-in reasons for their lack of success were (1) relying at the beginning on the French military, which encamped at Ituri and refused to leave the city because the rebels killed two French officers on the first outing; and (2) relying on Rwandan troops to coordinate the fight against the rebels they are covertly supporting in the name of MONUSCO. This scheme offers limited hope for the Congolese. In fact, many peacekeepers of the MONUSCO were engaged in rape, murder and pillaging. Some have been prosecuted and sent home. Their presence in the DRC adds to the fears of the population, as their actions are often indistinguishable from those of the marauding bands they are supposed to control.
The world seems to be in a state of paralysis in dealing with the daily violation of almost every human right the world community pretends it believes in. It was pushed to the back of the U.N. and African Union’s agendas for years. It has only resurfaced because the M23 rebels have announced that they are going to take over the entire DRC; that is, to restart the 1998 war. That is a different question.
THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES
The reason this catalogue of horrors has continued unabated for the last six years is that the governments of Uganda and Rwanda are covered by the aegis of U.S. military initiatives in East and Central Africa. They provide, at great expense to the U.S. taxpayer and at a high level of reward to the Museveni and Kagame clans, the troops for the U.S. surrogate army. Their soldiers fight for the United States in Somalia, Afghanistan and elsewhere in the Horn of Africa. The United States gives them arms, equipment, training, air support, cash and immunity for their gross violations of human rights of their neighbors. The U.S. AFRICOM command relies on Uganda and Rwanda to carry out its missions in East and Central Africa. The U.N. ambassador, Susan Rice, who became the United States’ main supporter of the anti-Kabila alliance when she was assistant secretary of state for Africa, now defends the two with a passion at the U.N.
The United States has been at war in Africa since the 1950s — in Angola, the DRC, Somalia, the Sudan, Ethiopia, Somalia, Morocco, Libya and Djibouti, to name but a few countries. In most cases the United States has financed, armed and supervised indigenous forces. In its support of the anti-MPLA forces in Angola, it sent arms and equipment to the UNITA opposition. In the DRC, Larry Devlin of the CIA was an unofficial minister of Mobutu’s government; the United States ran its own air force in the Congo. U.S. airmen supported the South African forces in Kwando, Fort Doppies and Encana bases in the Caprivi region of Namibia. At these bases one could also find soldiers from southern Rhodesia and German, French, Portuguese and other
NATO troops.
One of the largest of these bases was at Wheelus Field, just east of Tripoli, Libya. During the Korean War, Wheelus was used by the U.S. Strategic Air Command (SAC), later becoming a primary training ground for NATO forces. Wheelus became a vital link in SAC war plans for use as a bomber, tanker refuelling and recon-fighter base. The United States left in 1970. Another giant base was Kagnew Field in Asmara, Eritrea, home to the U.S. Army’s 4th Detachment of the Second Signal Service Battalion. Kagnew Station became home for more than 5,000 U.S. citizens during the 1960s. Kagnew Station operated until April 29, 1977.
Today the U.S. battle in North Africa is with Al Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM), which combines drug and diamond smuggling with terrorist acts. This battle has required a lot of troops on the ground as advisers and trainers, as well as teams of DEA agents across West Africa. The United States is preparing to sustain and support the soldiers who will seek to remove the Muslim fundamentalist extremists in Mali.
According to a U.S. Congressional Research Service Study published in November 2010, Washington has dispatched anywhere between hundreds and several thousand combat troops and dozens of fighter planes and warships to buttress client dictatorships or to unseat adversarial regimes in dozens of countries, almost on a yearly basis. The record shows that U.S. armed forces intervened in Africa 47 times prior to the current endeavor.
Between the mid-1950s and the end of the 1970s, only four overt military operations were recorded, though large-scale proxy and clandestine military operations were pervasive. Under Reagan and the first Bush (1980–91), military intervention accelerated to eight overt operations, not counting the large-scale clandestine “special forces” and proxy wars in southern Africa. Under the Clinton regime, militarized intervention in Africa took off. Between 1992 and 2000, the United States conducted 17 armed incursions, including a large-scale invasion of Somalia and military backing for the Rwandan regime.
Clinton intervened in Liberia, Gabon, Congo and Sierra Leone to prop up troubled regimes. He bombed the Sudan and dispatched military personnel to Kenya and Ethiopia to back proxy clients assaulting Somalia. Under George W. Bush, 15 military interventions took place, mainly in Central and East Africa.
Most of the U.S. African outreach is disproportionally built on military links to client military chiefs. The Pentagon has military ties with 53 African countries (including Libya prior to the current attack). Washington’s efforts to militarize Africa and turn its armies into proxy mercenaries protecting property and fighting terrorists were accelerated after 9/11. The Bush administration announced in 2002 that Africa was a “strategic priority in fighting terrorism.” Henceforth, U.S. foreign policy strategists, with the backing of both liberal and neoconservative members of Congress, moved to centralize and coordinate a military policy on a continent-wide basis, forming the African Command (AFRICOM). The latter organizes African armies, euphemistically called “cooperative partnerships,” to conduct neocolonial wars based on bilateral agreements as well as “multilateral” links with the Organization of African Unity.
A typical building block is the annual Operation Flintlock exercises, in which U.S., African and European military forces combine to engage in a series of multinational military exercises designed to foster and develop international security cooperation in North and West Africa. The latest exercises were part of the Trans-Sahara Counter-
Terrorism Partnership (TSCTP) and included 600 U.S. Marines and Special Forces, units from France and Britain and smaller European contingents from Germany, Spain and the Netherlands. African countries with military representation included Mali, Algeria, Burkina Faso, Niger, Mauritania,Nigeria, Chad, Senegal, Tunisia and Morocco.
MUSEVENI AND KAGAME
In Central Africa one of the key actors in the relations between Uganda and the rest of the world and a good indicator of the role of President Yoweri Museveni is his brother, General Salim Saleh. Salim Saleh is a money launderer, drug dealer, resource thief, plunderer and advisor to the President of Uganda on military matters. Formerly, he was the Ugandan minister of state for microfinance. Before that, he was a high-ranking military official. He has been implicated by the U.N. Security Council for plundering natural resources in the DRC.
The U.S. government was fully aware of Museveni’s participation in these crimes, just as it was aware of the barbaric practices of its favorite African despot, Paul Kagame of Rwanda, whose proxy armies have killed thousands of civilians in the DRC. However, their armies are needed by AFRICOM, and so it is unlikely that these two will face major problems unless they actually do try to take over the DRC.
THE DRC’S WEAKNESSES
The root of many of the DRC’s difficulties lies with the fact that its current leader, President Joseph Kabila, is weak, vacillating and bereft of the support of a united nation. Unlike his father, President Laurent-Désiré Kabila, who commanded the loyalty of much of the DRC, Joseph is seen as aloof, manipulative and without a set of core beliefs. That weakness has alienated many in the national army. The army needs discipline, a purpose and the materials to engage with its enemies. The Kabila government has not been able to supply these, so the country is vulnerable. The citizens of the DRC have suffered grievously for many years, following a brief period of hope after independence. Their future looks no better.
The countries that supported the DRC in its last war against the Ugandan and Rwandan invaders may well intervene again. This would be a disaster for regional African politics. If the United States can bring itself to actually do something positive to restrain its military surrogates in Uganda and Rwanda and indicate that they are not immune to prosecution for crimes against humanity, then perhaps there is a chance to establish peace in eastern DRC. Without a stern contingency being imposed by the United States in the region, the lure of a fast buck to be made in the oil and gas businesses will circumvent any humanitarian impulse by Museveni and Kagame. Washington’s current policy of wringing its hands and saying nothing is a disgrace to the values it constantly professes for the continent.

Sunday, December 16, 2012

DR Congo leader says defence top priority

KINSHASA (AFP) - Democratic Republic of Congo President Joseph Kabila on Saturday vowed that defence would be a top priority for his government after the recent brief rebel takeover of a key city in the country's volatile east.
"From now on, our priority will be defending the homeland," Kabila told parliament in his annual address to the nation.
"Defence, nothing but defence, with a dissuasive, apolitical and professional army.
"I call on our youth to massively enlist," he said, adding that "any new attempt at aggression will be suicidal."
Kabila also accused neighbouring Rwanda of backing the push by the M23 rebels, echoing accusations by the United Nations that Rwanda has denied.
"An unjust war has been imposed on us one more time. Everything has already been said about this war of aggression by Rwanda," he said to whistles and cheers from lawmakers.
He also called for a change in the mandate of UN peacekeepers in the country, saying their performance in the crisis was "mixed".
The M23 rebellion, launched earlier this year by army mutineers largely from the ethnic Tutsi community, conquered large swathes of the mineral-rich eastern DR Congo, including its main city of Goma on November 20, before withdrawing following a regional diplomatic initiative.
Their lightening advance had raised fears of a wider war and a major humanitarian crisis in the region, the cradle of two back-to-back wars that shook the area from 1996 to 2003.
The M23 rebels and government delegates are currently locked in negotiations in Uganda trying to hammer out an agenda for peace talks.
Uganda has also been accused by the UN of backing the rebels. Like Rwanda, it denies the charges.

The World’s Worst War

The World’s Worst War

Phil Moore/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
A member of the Congolese M23 rebel group slept in the back of a truck as the rebels waited to withdraw on Dec. 1 from Goma, in eastern Congo.
LAST month, as I was driving down a backbreaking road between Goma, a provincial capital in the Democratic Republic of Congo, and Kibumba, a little market town about 20 miles away, I came upon the body of a Congolese soldier. He was on his back, half hidden in the bushes, his legs crumpled beneath him, his fly-covered face looking up at the sun.
Phil Moore/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images
Internally displaced Congolese lined up early this month for food aid in a camp about six miles west of Goma.

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.
The strangest thing was, four years ago, almost to the day, I saw a corpse of a Congolese soldier in that exact same spot. He had been killed and left to rot just as his comrade would be four years later, in the vain attempt to stop a rebel force from marching down the road from Kibumba to Goma. The circumstances were nearly identical: a group of Tutsi-led rebels, widely believed to be backed by Rwanda, eviscerating a feckless, alcoholic government army that didn’t even bother to scoop up its dead.
Sadly, this is what I’ve come to expect from Congo: a doomed sense of déjà vu. I’ve crisscrossed this continent-size country from east to west, in puddle jumpers, jeeps and leaky canoes. I’ve sat down with the accidental president, Joseph Kabila, a former taxi driver who suddenly found himself in power at age 29 after his father was shot in the head. I’ve tracked down a warlord who lived on top of a mountain, in an old Belgian farmhouse that smelled like wet wool, and militia commanders who marched into battle as naked as the day they were born and slicked with oil — to protect themselves from bullets, of course. And each time I come back, no matter where I go, I meet a whole new set of thoroughly traumatized people.
Some are impossible to forget, like Anna Mburano, an 80-year-old woman who was gang-raped a few years ago and screamed out to the teenage assailants on top of her: “Grandsons! Get off me!”
Congo has become a never-ending nightmare, one of the bloodiest conflicts since World War II, with more than five million dead. It seems incomprehensible that the biggest country in sub-Saharan Africa and on paper one of the richest, teeming with copper, diamonds and gold, vast farmlands of spectacular fertility and enough hydropower to light up the continent, is now one of the poorest, most hopeless nations on earth. Unfortunately, there are no promising solutions within grasp, or even within sight.
I didn’t always feel this way. During my first trip, in July 2006, Congo was brimming with optimism. It was about to hold its first truly democratic elections, and the streets of the capital, Kinshasa, were festooned with campaign banners and pulsating with liquid Lingala music that seemed to automatically sway people’s hips as they waited in line to vote. There was this electricity in the air in a city that usually doesn’t have much electricity. In poor, downtrodden countries accustomed to sordid rule, there is something incredibly empowering about the simple act of scratching an X next to the candidate of your choice and having a reasonable hope that your vote will be counted. That’s how the Congolese felt.
But the euphoria didn’t last — for me or the country. The election returned Mr. Kabila to power and nothing changed. I came back less than a year later and hired a dugout canoe to take me up the mighty Congo River, where I saw 100-foot-tall stalks of bamboo and spiders the size of baseballs. In the middle of the country, I came to appreciate how shambolic the state of Congo’s infrastructure really is. Rusty barges that used to ply the river now lie on the riverbanks with weeds shooting up through their ribs. The national railway, which used to haul away all the coffee and cotton and bananas that this country produces, is all but shuttered.
I met a pair of soldiers who had chained a chimpanzee to a corroded railway tie, leaving the animal in a pile of its own feces, staring up at us with rheumy eyes as the soldiers howled with laughter. Congo is estimated to possess $24 trillion of mineral resources. Its soil is so productive that a trip through the countryside, past all the banana, orange, papaya, guava and mango trees virtually scraping the windshield, is like driving through a fruit salad. But without any functioning infrastructure, all this agricultural potential is moot. “How will you get anything to the market?” one local official asked me. “There’s only so much you can carry on your head.”
Later in 2007, I returned to write about a rape epidemic. In eastern Congo, which is savaged by dozens of armed groups, many of them scrambling for a piece of Congo’s delicious mineral pie, it is as if the real battlefields are women’s bodies.
Out here, hundreds of thousands of women have been systematically assaulted in recent years, leading the United Nations to call Congo “the rape capital of the world.” Many of these rapes have been marked by a level of brutality that is shocking even by the twisted standards of a place rived by civil war and haunted by warlords and drugged-up child soldiers. What’s the strategic purpose of putting an AK-47 assault rifle inside a woman and pulling the trigger? Or cutting out a woman’s fetus and making her friends eat it?
THE government’s response has been a shrug. Not long after writing that rape story I sat down with Mr. Kabila at a hillside villa. He drove himself to the interview and stepped out in jeans and a leather jacket. He didn’t come across as arrogant, heartless or power hungry. No, he just seemed tired and overwhelmed. “We don’t have time on our hands,” he sighed.
We spoke shortly after the last round of violence in Goma, the capital of North Kivu Province and probably the most important city in eastern Congo. Back in 2008, just as now, it appeared that Rwanda was sending troops across the border. It’s complicated and a bit unimaginable how one of Africa’s smallest and poorest countries, Rwanda, could steer events inside giant Congo.
But for years Tutsi-led Rwanda has tried to carve out a zone of influence in eastern Congo, using ethnic Tutsi militias and Tutsi businessmen inside Congo to do its bidding. Rwanda has a very disciplined, patriotic army that punches above its weight — the Israel of Africa. It was Rwanda’s invasion in 1996 that sent Congo into a tailspin it has yet to recover from.
For years, the United States and Rwanda’s other Western friends turned a blind eye to this meddling. Again, like Israel, Rwanda has succeeded in leveraging the guilt that other countries feel for not intervening in its genocide — in which almost a million people were killed when Hutu militias targeted Tutsis in 1994 — to blunt criticism of itself. But recently the United States and Britain have been presented with such a mountain of allegations about how Rwanda funneled arms into Congo and even directed the recent capture of Goma that they had no choice but to change tack. So the Western powers recently slashed aid to Rwanda because of Congo, sending a simple but forceful message: Get out.
But it’s unfair to blame Rwanda for all of Congo’s ills. Congo’s core is so mushy and rotten from decades of titanic misrule that this country has become a dumping ground for armed groups from all over the place that exploit its porous borders and feed off its ambient chaos. In 2009, I traveled to Congo’s northeast corner, where you can see beautiful aged mansions from the Belgian days beginning their slow, inexorable slide toward the jungle floor. This area, now totally cut off, without cellphone service or functioning roads, has become a refuge for the Lord’s Resistance Army, a psychopathic rebel group originally from Uganda led by Joseph Kony. Nearly every year, its fighters club to death hundreds of people as they raid villages and kidnap children. Again, the Congolese Army, whose soldiers often don’t get paid because of corruption, was nowhere to be found when the rebels stormed in.
There are few places in Congo today that are rebellion-free. Take the northwest corner, where I found myself in 2010 writing about a witch-doctor/insurgent leader who gave his troops a special emollient to rub on their chests and backs to make bullets bounce off them. “It’s hard to kill these guys,” one Congolese Army commander told me, with a completely straight face. “You have to shoot them from the side.”
By the time elections rolled around again last year, the Congolese were fed up with Mr. Kabila. Just like Congo’s last strongman, Mobutu Sese Seko, the dictator who ruled what was then Zaire for more than 30 years and robbed this country blind, Mr. Kabila and Co. have steadily siphoned government coffers to buy villas around the world and fancy cars while Congolese children with protruding bellybuttons rub their stomachs alongside the road as aid organizations drive past. But Mr. Kabila had no intention of leaving. Instead, election observers said, he rigged the vote. My most dominant memory from this period — and one of the most frightening things I’ve ever witnessed — was watching a mob of furious voters attack a poll worker, slugging him in the face until he toppled to the ground and then stomping on his rib cage until I’m sure he died.
Working in Africa, I can’t tell you how many times I’ve heard, “It’s all colonialism’s fault.” Clearly, that’s often a dodge, but maybe in Congo the legacy of misrule is too big to overcome. It began in the late 19th century when King Leopold II of Belgium virtually enslaved the population to extract as much ivory and rubber as possible. The next generation of colonists wasn’t much better, whipping the Congolese with strips of hippo hide and making no effort to build up a professional class before they abruptly disappeared in 1960, turning over the keys to a country the size of Western Europe to a handful of college graduates, with rebellions breaking out almost from Day 1. And then came Mr. Mobutu, friend of America and utter disaster for the Congolese.
Congo could learn from Somalia, of all places. There, after two decades of civil war, the green shoots of a functioning government are finally sprouting, a result of grass-roots empowerment, a motivated business community and the steely resolve of African peacekeepers willing to absorb hundreds of casualties — which the United Nations mission in Congo has shown time and again that it is unwilling to do, despite having nearly 20,000 peacekeepers. Those peacekeepers sat riveted in their seats in their armored personnel carriers as the rebels marched into Goma on Nov. 20. Western powers pressured the rebels to leave, and they did less than two weeks later, but only after cleaning out the central bank and all the ammunition dumps and assassinating some enemies.
The rebels are now threatening to come back, and if they do, the government will surely throw in a few poor, underpaid souls to defend the town along that blood-soaked axis from Kibumba to Goma.
And we all know what we’ll find in the bushes the day after.
Jeffrey Gettleman is the East Africa bureau chief for The New York Times.

Saturday, December 15, 2012

Is Canada giving Rwanda a free pass in Congo?

Is Canada giving Rwanda a free pass in Congo? iPolitics Insight
Yves Engler is the author of a number of books on Canadian foreign policy, including The Ugly Canadian: Stephen Harper’s foreign policy. Dubbed “Canada’s version of Noam Chomsky” (Georgia Straight), “one of the most important voices on the Canadian Left today” (Briarpatch), “in the mould of I.F. Stone” (Globe and Mail), “ever-insightful” (rabble.ca) and a “Leftist gadfly” (Ottawa Citizen), Yves Engler’s six books have been praised by Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein, William Blum, Rick Salutin and many others.

 

 

 





How is Canadian foreign policy made? Which countries are we friendly towards and why? Which do we work against and why? What should be the primary purpose of Canadian foreign policy and aid?
As the author of five books on Canadian foreign policy I know the answers to these questions can be controversial and complex. A short essay is certainly inadequate — but a short story about Canada’s relationship with one of the poorest countries in the world might help answer these questions.
According to the CIA, the Democratic Republic of the Congo has the planet’s lowest (228th in the world) per capita GDP. Coincidently (perhaps), this same country, Africa’s largest by landmass, may possess more mineral wealth ($24 trillion by one calculation) than any other.
So, what sort of relationship does Canada, home to the most mining companies in the world, have with the Congo?
Since April 2012, Rwanda has reasserted its military control over a large chunk of the Congo. Rwandan troops and the M23 militia group it sponsors recently captured Goma, a city of a million people in the mineral-rich eastern part of the country.
While Rwanda’s proxies have now withdrawn to the outskirts of Goma, top officials in the city and province have been removed in place of individuals more sympathetic to Kigali (the capital of Rwanda). In one of a number of insightful reports the Globe and Mail’s Geoffrey York notes “a (new) layer of administrators, informers, police and other operatives (have been put in place) who will bolster M23’s economic power in the city — including their grip on the trade in ‘blood minerals’.”
Rwanda’s actions in the Congo have led already to significant suffering. About 650,000 people have been displaced from their homes over the past seven months and there have been many reports of looting, rapes and assassinations. In the days after Goma was captured the Red Cross said it picked up 62 bodies from the city’s streets.
An ally of Washington and London, Paul Kagame’s Rwanda government has repeatedly invaded the Congo over the past 16 years. In the worst instance, a 1998 Rwandan (and Ugandan) invasion sparked a multi-country war that lasted five years and caused millions of deaths. Peer-reviewed studies by the International Rescue Committee found that up to 5.4 million people were killed as a result of the conflict.
An October 2010 UN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights report on the Congo from 1993 to 2003 charged Rwandan troops with engaging in mass killings “that might be classified as crimes of genocide.”
Ottawa has been decidedly ambivalent towards the recent Rwandan-sponsored war. Over the past six months Foreign Affairs has published four press releases on the matter but only one sentence mentions Rwanda, despite the UN reporting that Rwandan troops are once again involved and that the country’s defence minister commands the entire operation. That sentence reads: “We are extremely concerned by continuing allegations of Rwandan support of M23 and urge the immediate cessation of any form of assistance.”
There is more in the four press releases that criticizes the relatively powerless Congolese government. In fact, one release is little more than an attack on the government in Kinshasa. In a statement about “the increasing instability in the eastern part of the Democratic Republic of Congo” Foreign Affairs urges “the Congo to ensure the protection of human rights is central in their daily deliberations.” With no mention of Rwanda or the M23 it goes on to state: “The rapidly rising number of displaced persons and refugees is a troubling trend and needs to be addressed immediately.”
Over the past year the Conservative government has produced more statements and comments critical of Congolese president Joseph Kabila than of the M23. “Canada Concerned by Post-election Situation in Democratic Republic of Congo” and “Minister of State Valcourt Encourages Reforms in Democratic Republic of Congo” — the titles of two of the statements. During an October trip to the Francophonie summit in Kinshasa, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his staff repeatedly complained about the Kabila government’s human rights record. After meeting representatives of the political opposition Harper described the “complete unacceptability of failures in the electoral process and the abuse of human rights that are taking place in this country.”
While there are major question marks surrounding the legitimacy of the December 2011 Congolese poll in which Kabila was re-elected, it was certainly as free and fair as the most recent Rwandan election. But when Kagame “won” re-election in August 2010 the Conservatives’ release noted that “Canada commends the people of Rwanda on participating in their country’s presidential election …” The harshest criticism in the statement was that Canada was “concerned” about violence, “intimidation of political opposition” and “restrictions on the media.”
While Rwanda is in Ottawa’s good books the Conservatives are generally hostile towards the Kabila government. Kabila angered Western countries when he signed a $6 billion resource-infrastructure deal with China in 2008. The Conservatives are concerned also about the government’s move to regain control over the country’s natural resources, including the $3 billion in Canadian mining investment in the Congo.
During the recent Francophonie summit in Kinshasa Harper called on Kabila to improve the country’s business climate, “especially in the natural resources sector.” At the G8 in June 2010 the Conservatives inserted an entire declaration into the final communiqué criticizing Kinshasa’s treatment of foreign investors because Congo revoked a mining concession held by Vancouver-based First Quantum.
Months earlier, Ottawa began to obstruct international efforts to reschedule the country’s foreign debt, which was mostly accrued during more than three decades of Joseph Mobutu’s dictatorship and the subsequent war. Canadian officials “have a problem with what’s happened with a Canadian company,” Congolese Information Minister Lambert Mende said, referring to the government’s move to revoke a mining concession that First Quantum acquired during the 1998-2003 war.
“The Canadian government wants to use the Paris Club (of debtor nations) in order to resolve a particular problem,” explained Mende. “This is unacceptable.”
But the Conservatives did not stop with trying to obstruct the Congo’s debt forgiveness. They also took the issue to other international forums. The Financial Post reported that “Harper will raise the case of Vancouver-based First Quantum Minerals Ltd. with representatives from the World Bank, the International Monetary Fund and other governments that do business in the DRC.”
Just the Conservatives looking after “Canadian interests”, one could argue.
And this pro-corporate meddling in the Congo is nothing new. It’s certainly not the first time Canada has worked against the Congo’s population, which remains impoverished despite almost a century and a half of foreigners “developing” the country’s resources.
In the early 1890s Halifax native William Stairs led a 1,950-man mission to conquer the resource-rich Katanga region of the Congo on behalf of Belgium’s King Leopold II. The Royal Military College in Kingston maintains a plaque devoted to Stairs’ work even though he was notoriously racist and barbarous. Some 10 million Congolese were killed under Leopold’s rule.
Canada also played an important role in the UN mission to the Congo that facilitated the murder of independence leader Patrice Lumumba in 1961. Apparently a Canadian officer handed Lumumba over to the CIA and Belgium operatives, who would later dispose of the prime minister.
We ask again: How is Canadian foreign policy made? Which countries are we friendly towards and why? Which do we work against and why? What should be the primary purpose of Canadian foreign policy and aid?
 

Letters: U.S.-funded violence in Congo

Letters: U.S.-funded violence in Congo

 
Tens of thousands of residents flee the rebel-held town of Sake as the fighting intensifies
dCongolese flee with their belongings to avoid fighting between rebels and government troops last month. (Dai Kurokawa / EPA)
 
Re "Congo rebels thrive on fear and chaos," Dec. 11
The article about the situation in Congo reveals the alarming truth about Rwanda's exploitation of eastern Congo's natural resources and the unspeakable
sexual violence being committed against Congo's women. The Times was right to focus on the weak, corrupt and wholly ineffective Congolese government and on neighboring Rwanda and Uganda as the primary perpetrators in eastern Congo.
What is not mentioned is the contributing role that the United States has played in the region. We have poured billions of dollars into Rwanda since its 1994 genocide, have helped to make Rwanda the darling of the West and have led the chorus touting Rwanda as the poster child for the new, post-conflict Africa.
In essence, the United States has purged its guilt for standing idly by during the Rwandan genocide by enabling Rwandan-controlled militias to carry out another genocide in Congo — on our dime and under our watch.
Janice Kamenir-Reznik
Encino
The writer is co-founder and president of Jewish World Watch.
ALSO:
Letters: The Republicans' small tent
Letters: When should government get involved?
Postscript: What the Bible doesn't say about gays

Friday, December 14, 2012

Rwandan army denies troops held in DRC

Kigali – The Rwandan army on Wednesday denied that 20 of its troops had been arrested on Democratic Republic of Congo territory ahead of a rebel takeover of the important Congolese city of Goma.




“It is a false allegation,” said Rwandan army spokesperson Joseph Nzabamwita.
Nzabamwita said if Rwandan troops had been arrested, they would have been presented to regional officials in Goma who help control the Rwanda-DRC border.
Kinshasa and the UN have accused Kigali of supporting the M23 rebel movement that last month seized the strategic city, and last week a panel of UN experts said Rwanda and Uganda helped the rebels in the offensive.
Rwanda and Uganda deny the allegations.
On Tuesday, DRC government spokesperson Lambert Mende claimed that 20 Rwandan soldiers had been arrested along with 18 presumed Congolese rebels from the M23 fighting group.
M23 rebels swiftly conquered large swathes of the mineral-rich region and briefly took over the main hub of Goma before withdrawing following a diplomatic initiative to pull the region back from the brink of all-out war. – Nampa-Sapa

An Anglo-American guilt in Rwanda

An Anglo-American guilt in Rwanda

Failure to intervene in 1994’s horror means the US and UK have refused to rein-in Kagame’s excesses in Congo
  • By Chris McGreal
  • Published: 00:00 December 15, 2012
 


  • Image Credit: AP
  • Congolese M23 fighters detain a man they suspect to be a Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda rebel returning from an incursion into Rwanda on Tuesday.

The US is allowing one tragic foreign policy failure to compound another. Eighteen years ago, president Bill Clinton watched passively as the Hutu extremist regime in Rwanda oversaw the murder of hundreds of thousands of Tutsis. His administration refused even to utter the word “genocide” for fear it would oblige the US to intervene.
Clinton was not alone. One of the leaders of the Tutsi rebels fighting the genocidal regime told me at the time that during his attempts to persuade the UK government to intervene at the UN, he concluded that British officials regarded the Tutsi victims as little more than ants. The French spent their time trying to get the UN to authorise action that would have propped up the Hutu extremist leadership because they feared the alternative would diminish Paris’s influence in central Africa.
The aftermath was a searing experience for Clinton, his Africa gurus and national security advisers — one of whom is now the US Ambassador to the UN, Susan Rice — that has continued to shape American policy towards Rwanda. When the fighting ended, the true cost of western inaction was laid bare at the mass graves. The scale of the killing was mind-boggling. I saw it first-hand — a church in the small town of Kibuye, where 11,000 were murdered in a single day and 10,000 more were killed the following day at a football stadium.
So it was only natural that, driven by a large dose of guilt, the US, Britain and other western countries — although, tellingly, not France — should throw their backing behind the man who put an end to the genocide and promised to build a new Rwanda: Paul Kagame. Nearly two decades later, though, guilt over the genocide has led the West to stand by while another crime is committed — this time, by Kagame and his forces in neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo, where they are directly and indirectly responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands, some say millions.
Finally, Britain and Europe are waking up to this, following a comprehensive UN investigation, charting Rwanda’s role in creating and arming a Congolese rebel group, M23, led by a man wanted by the International Criminal Court on war crimes charges. However, the US still hesitates to tell Kagame that one crime does not justify another.
The Rwandan leader inherited an incredibly difficult situation in 1994. As a Tutsi, he was viewed with suspicion by the Hutu majority, which feared retribution. Kagame had not only to rebuild the country, but to bring the guilty to justice, with meagre resources, while promoting reconciliation and ridding his country of officially sanctioned anti-Tutsi hatred. He has done better than what might have been expected, given the obstacles he faced. Early on, Kagame also had to contend with the Hutu extremist forces, which fled into what was then neighbouring Zaire and continued to threaten Rwanda.
Washington and London were unflinching in their support when, in 1996, Rwanda invaded Zaire to clear the sprawling UN refugee camps that housed the genocidal forces running murderous cross-border raids and threatening to kick start a new genocide. That invasion was justified, but support for Kagame should have been tempered by the actions of his army, which hunted down and massacred Hutus who failed to return to Rwanda.
Many of them could be regarded as a legitimate enemy. But many were not, including the thousands of women and children slaughtered by the Rwandan military and its proxies. This was also the start of the mass rape by armed groups that has since plagued eastern Congo.
The Rwandan military, with its allies from Uganda and Burundi, then turned to the extremely lucrative plunder of Congo’s valuable minerals. That was the point at which the US and Britain should have taken a stand. Instead, they turned a blind eye.
The West’s policy ought to have been guided by guilt over the original genocide. It was right to support Rwanda’s reconstruction. However, that tiny country’s future and the stability of central Africa have not been served by Washington and London’s years of unquestioning support of Kagame on the grounds that he has a good record on reconstruction and development (in expanding rural health care, getting children into school and building programmes to help small-scale family farmers), while all but ignoring what he is doing across Rwanda’s western border.
The Americans and the British have more recently been prepared to chide Kagame privately for closing down political space, which means no effective opposition has been allowed to develop to challenge his lengthy rule. Opponents have been jailed on the spurious grounds of spreading genocide ideology and dissenters have been driven into exile.
However, on Rwanda’s involvement in Congo, there has been virtual silence.
Who knows how many have died there? Some studies put it in the millions, but various forces allied to the Rwandans have been responsible for years of murder, mass rape and forms of ethnic cleansing. This is tragic in its own right, but it is also not good for Rwanda’s future because it is contributing to the very instability it says it intervened in Congo to prevent.
After 15 years of invasions, insurgencies and trauma, a generation is emerging in eastern Congo that blames Rwanda for its suffering. And when those Congolese talk about Rwandans in this context, they often mean Tutsis.
Kagame has influential friends. Bill Clinton continues to defend him, describing Kagame as “one of the greatest leaders of our time” and Rwanda as “the best-run nation in Africa”. It’s hard to imagine that view does not have some influence on his wife, the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. Similarly, America’s Rwanda policy is also strongly influenced by Susan Rice, who has spoken of her deep regret at her part in American inaction during the genocide.
Kagame also has a strong supporter in Tony Blair, who runs a foundation in Rwanda, which places officials in the president’s policy unit, the prime minister’s office and the cabinet secretariat. Two years ago, I had asked Blair about Kagame. The former British prime minister called the Rwandan President a “visionary leader” and a friend. He said allowances had to be made for the consequences of the genocide and suggested Kagame’s economic record outweighed other concerns. “I’m a believer in and a supporter of Paul Kagame. I don’t ignore all those criticisms, having said that. But I do think you’ve got to recognise that Rwanda is an immensely special case because of the genocide. Secondly, you can’t argue with the fact that Rwanda has gone on a remarkable path of development. Every time I visit Kigali and the surrounding areas, you can just see the changes being made in the country.”
However, a sound economic policy hardly justifies the years of abuses in Congo.
Rwanda has legitimate concerns about who and what is across its border. The remnants of the Hutu extremist forces are still there, twisting a new generation with a genocidal ideology dressed up as a liberation struggle. The Congolese government has not proved able, or particularly willing, to assert its authority over the region. However, Kagame, for all his denials about intervention in Congo, is contributing to that instability and the continued suffering of large numbers of Congolese, while jeopardising his own country’s future.
Tellingly, last week, a US intelligence portrait of how the world may look in 2030 says that Rwanda is at a high risk of becoming a failed state by then. Even Britain — the most stalwart of allies to Kagame from the days when Blair’s international development secretary, Clare Short, was a cheerleader for the Rwandan president — has decided to take a step back by withholding aid.
Last week, a coalition of campaign groups and thinktanks wrote to Barack Obama, accusing him of a failed policy over Rwanda and calling on the president to withhold non-humanitarian aid and impose sanctions against Kagame’s defence minister and other Rwandan officials with ties to Congo rebels. The letter is signed by 15 organisations, including George Soros’s Open Society Foundations, Global Witness, Freedom House and the Africa Faith and Justice Network. Human Rights Watch has made a similar call following its own detailed investigation of crimes against humanity committed by Rwandan-allied forces in Congo.
The Obama administration should heed the call. Kagame’s legitimacy comes less from highly-manipulated elections than from the recognition he gets at home and abroad as the man who stopped the genocide. Washington should now tell him that no longer gives him a free hand in Congo.
— Guardian News & Media Ltd

Rwanda nziza


Hommage à Juvénal Habyarimana

Mobutu, Roi Du Zaire 2 Le Maitre Du Jeu

Mineral Conflict in Congo Highlights Need For Peace


1x1.trans Mineral Conflict in Congo Highlights Need For Peace
Credit: AP / Chattanooga Times Free Press
Over the past few months, the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has been in the spotlight because an armed rebel group, M23, took control of the regional capital of Goma. It is the latest reminder of the instability in a region that will become more important in the years to come.
The DRC is one of the richest countries in the world in terms of natural resources but his classified has the poorest country in the world by the International Monetary Fund. Congo mining resources are estimated to be worth $24 trillion and include the biggest gold reserves in the world, five percent of the world’s copper, fifty percent of the world’s cobalt, diamonds, oil, tar, and uranium.
However, it’s because ofits immense reserves of mineral used in tech industries that Congo’s strategic importance for the world will rise in the coming years. Congo possesses an estimated eighty percent of the world’s supply of coltan which, refined as tantalum, is a vital component of computers, personal electronics, and mobile phones. The significance of this mineral can be illustrated by the fact that a shortage of coltan led to an abrupt halt in the sales of the popular Sony Playstation 2.
The current situation is a vicious cycle. Precious minerals, especially gold, are smuggled to neighboring countries such as Rwanda, Uganda, and Angola. Then, the minerals are sold to the rest of the world and used to fund armed groups in the region. This allows these groups to control many mines and trading chains, especially in the east. Foreign companies are reluctant to invest in the country and, as a result, most of the mining industry is left underdeveloped.
In recent years, efforts beyond a simple military operation have been made in order to help solve the region’s mineral conflicts. A system of tracking the origin of minerals has been advocated for through United Nations resolutions. The Obama administration responded by insisting that the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act include a section requiring companies to disclose if goods such as mobile phones or aviation contain minerals coming from the Congo region.
However, despite the good intentions behind these type of laws, a fine line needs to be drawn between the need to diminish multinationals’ indirect funding of war lords and the negative effect of increasing the underground mineral business if the rules become too binding.
To be really efficient in the long term, these actions will require better cooperation between the Congo, multinationals, consumer countries, and international organizations such as the UN, the IMF, and the World Bank. If all the players do not decide that it is in everybody’s interest to have a peaceful Congo, the situation will continue to deteriorate.
Last week, the IMF decided to interrupt a loan payment of $561 million because the Congolese government failed to provide sufficient information on how a mining contract involving the sell of a public company to a company based in the Virgin Islands would benefit the Congolese population. It is a reminder that peace is a long way from happening.

Hellish scenes of mob killings and cannibalism in DR Congo

14/12/2012 / DR CONGO

Hellish scenes of mob killings and cannibalism in DR Congo

Residents stare at the scene on the early morning on December 3. Screen capture from a video filmed by Saidi Abasi Madjij, editor-in-chief of Hope Channel, a Goma-based television station.
Recent fighting between government forces and rebel groups has dramatically destabilised the Democratic Republic of Congo. During the night between December 2 and 3, a barbaric scene unfolded in the capital Goma, in North Kivu province.
Five men were attacked and killed by a mob in the middle of the night in the city’s northern Majengo neighbourhood. A FRANCE 24 Observer who works for a local radio station was at the scene the following morning and saw burnt corpses. FRANCE 24 journalists have viewed footage filmed that morning showing people crowding around the corpses and a young girl biting off a piece of burnt human flesh. The video was too shocking to publish here.
The North Kivu province is located in eastern DR Congo. Bordering Rwanda and Uganda, this resource-rich zone has long been plagued by fighting amongst various armed groups. Between November 20 and December 1, rebels from a group called M23 were in control of Goma, after having captured it from Congolese government troops. Following negotiations, the rebels pulled back a few kilometres from the city. The vicious mob attack took place the day after their departure.

“A mere suspicion can send things spiralling out of control”

Charly Kasereka is a Goma-based journalist who works for a local radio station.
The men were hanged because a group of bikers accused them of killing another biker. I got some footage filmed that night [December 2] from a friend of mine who lives in the area. It shows a convoy of bikers riding with a hearse. That’s when things started.
Video showing the convoy of bikers. Filmed by our Observer Charly Kasereka.
My friend told me the bikers spent a good few hours looking for the people they thought were guilty of murdering one of their friends. They found the suspects in the middle of the night. From then on, things got nasty. Local residents set cars on fire, and then five men accused of the murder were attacked by a mob. I got there at 6:10 a.m. The bodies were burnt at 5 a.m., according to the witnesses I talked to.
Local residents at the scene, early on the morning of December 3. Video courtesy of Hope Channel.
Right by the bodies, people were walking around with bottles of alcohol in their hands [another witness reports some present were on drugs]. When we got there, a young girl asked us: “Do you want me to show you what we do with criminals who come here?” Another girl insisted: “Yes, go on, show them!”, and, egged on by the group of people around her, the first girl bit into a piece of burnt human flesh. [FRANCE 24 journalists have seen footage showing this scene, but have decided not to publish it due to its highly disturbing nature.]
We had already heard, as we made our way to the scene, that people had been eating these corpses. When we got there, people could speak of nothing else - the fact that angry residents had eaten pieces of dead bodies during the night [FRANCE 24 does not have footage from that night, but we do have footage that shows decapitated dead bodies]. And it’s not the first time this has happened after a mob killing.
“Residents told us they don’t believe the justice system works”
People are really panicking in Goma, particularly since more than a thousand prisoners escaped from the central jail in nearby Munzenze when the town was taken over by the M23 rebels.
Munzenze prison. Photo by our Observer Charly Kasereka.
The residents told us they don’t believe the justice system works. They feel they’re the ones who have to deal with suspected criminals, otherwise nothing will stop them. The number of crimes, particularly attacks in homes, has increased a lot recently. The residents don’t see any other choice but to take justice into their own hands. In less than two weeks, I’ve recorded nine cases whereby rapists have been killed by mobs. A mere suspicion can send things spiralling out of control. [According to the journalist Maria Malagardis, who was in Goma and who works for the French newspaper ‘Libération’, a traditional chief from the Majengo neighbourhood told her that amongst the victims of the December 2 killing was someone “innocent who found themselves in the wrong place at the wrong time”].
Footage showing the girl biting into the burnt piece of flesh was broadcast on two local television channels in Goma: NishapiTV and Hope Channel. People were extremely shocked footage of such nature – with nothing blurred – was shown without warning the audience first.
In the last few days, the local governor has spoken numerous times on the radio to try to calm people down. He wanted to remind residents they cannot take justice into their own hands. But people aren’t listening to him.

16 Years of U.S. Genocide in Congo

16 Years of U.S. Genocide in Congo

53
50 5
238
Le Nord, la gare et le ticket du Congolais
The U.S. tells the world it can’t figure out how six million people died in the Democratic Republic of Congo – while Washington writes the checks and arms the perpetrators to the teeth. Like Mafia Dons pretending to be honest businessmen, successive U.S. administrations subsidize and direct the worst genocide since World War Two.
The United States has financed and given overall direction to the worst genocide since World War Two, in the Democratic Republic of Congo. Since 1996, Washington has drenched Congo’s eastern provinces in the blood of over six million people. The governments of Rwanda and Uganda, the direct perpetrators of this holocaust, are in every sense of the word agents of U.S. foreign policy, who operate with impunity under the imperial umbrella.
A growing number of voices now charge that the Obama administration, like the Bush and Clinton administrations before it, has “protected” Rwanda and Uganda in their de facto annexation of eastern Congo and its mineral riches. But the actual relationship is more like that between a Mafia Godfather and his murderous henchmen. For 16 years, Uganda and Rwanda have done the bidding of their paymasters and arms suppliers, the American and British governments.If the Nuremburg rules of international justice were in force today, the highest officials in London and Washington would face death by hanging for their monstrous crimes – and only later would Presidents Kagame of Rwanda and Museveni of Uganda take their walk with the executioner.
When Congolese women and children screamed in agony, United Nations Ambassador Susan Rice said, literally, that the U.S. should “look the other way” – knowing full well that a people were being annihilated. She is no different than the high Nazi officials who were hanged for waging aggressive war and the slaughter of millions, almost 70 years ago.
“If the Nuremburg rules of international justice were in force today, the highest officials in London and Washington would face death by hanging for their monstrous crimes.”
And now, after 16 years of unspeakable carnage, the world’s greatest military power, equipped with the most sophisticated means of information gathering ever devised, whose soldiers train and equip the Rwandans and Ugandans who are responsible for tens of thousands of murders a month, claims to have only the most limited knowledge of how six million people wound up dead – half of them children below the age of five.
During hearings this week at the House Subcommittee on Africa, Johnnie Carson, an avuncular Black man who’s filling Susan Rice’s old shoes as assistant secretary of State for African Affairs, performed his own sickening dance of death, admitting that the so-called M23 “rebels” that have been rampaging through eastern Congo “would not be the threat” they are today “without external support.” But Carson would still not say directly that Rwanda is the real power behind M23, and he tried to absolve the government of Uganda of complicity. Steve Hege, who coordinated the UN Group of Experts whose report Susan Rice tried to suppress, testified that “Rwanda, in fact, orchestrated the creation of M23,” and that “senior Ugandan officials” were deeply involved in M23’s operations.
Johnnie Carson and Susan Rice are not motivated to lie by loyalty to African military strongmen. They are loyal to U.S. government policies that they have both played a role in formulating. Just because Susan Rice qualifies as a person of the lowest human order imaginable – an accomplice to genocide – does not make her a rogue element. Far from it: she is a “good German” soldier, following her commander-in-chief’s orders, oblivious to the agony of dying Africans, whose lives don’t count for anything in America, anyway – including, it appears in much of Black America, where Rice is applauded as yet another Black face in a very high place.
BAR executive editor Glen Ford can be contacted at Glen.Ford@BlackAgendaReport.com.