Open letter to
Mr.
Ban Ki Moon,
Secretary General of the United Nations,
January
14, 2013
Your
Excellency, the Secretary General of the United Nations,
We,
writers, artists, researchers and university professors, who are following the
developments of the situation in Eastern Congo, have hereby decided to directly
address you regarding an issue on which depend the security and well-being of
millions of men and women, as well as the stability of the entire Great Lakes
region and, on a larger scale, the entire African continent.
Above
all, we wish to draw your attention to what we consider to be a partial and
simplistic interpretation of the current situation in this part of the African
continent. Such an interpretation is reflected in some reports by international
experts based on a “single-issue” approach, which sacrifices the complexity of
a phenomenon in order to provide a superficial explanation. For reasons that
worry us and that have pushed us into action, the principal investigator Steve
Hege and his team, all of whom you have appointed, have chosen to focus their
criticisms on the M23, while dangerously forgetting or remaining silent on
other extremely harmful rebel movements in operation since 1994. This
single-minded interpretation is destined to be counterproductive in the absence
of a holistic vision of the Congolese situation in all its complexity and with
all its political, economic and sociocultural ramifications. We do not
understand why these investigators have chosen to ignore the existence of the
armed groups––in particular, and significantly, the FDLR –– that are
responsible for the bloody chaos unfolding in Eastern Congo. We also urge you
to seriously consider, in contrast to your predecessors up until 1994, the
disturbing signs of possible extension of violence in the region and, equally
disturbing, the public incitement to hatred and the massacre of
Kinyarwanda-speaking Congolese.
Your
Excellency,
We
do appreciate the United Nations’ commitment to stability of the Congo
expressed through its several missions. There is no doubt that the operations
of the United Nations are a great help to the defenseless Congolese people.
Nevertheless, we think that treating the effects of political events, instead
of addressing their real causes, will remain ineffective. It is time that these
people—victims of ruthless colonial exploitation, of Western, Chinese and South
African companies, as well as of disastrous and dictatorial regimes from the
independence of the Congo until today—are able to benefit from the rights of
citizens that can only be guaranteed by a state worthy of its name.
Indeed,
if the Congo––a country as vast as Western Europe and with seemingly endless
natural resources –– is today with neither an army nor a functional government,
that is not the fault of Rwanda, a nation still deeply traumatized by one of
the worst genocides of the twentieth century, and still facing the major threat
posed by genocidaires determined to “finish the work” they began in April 1994.
It is our conviction that if the Congo, which should have been a heavyweight in
Africa, is instead the continent’s weak point, it is because the country never
took stock of its distinctly devastating colonial and neocolonial experience.
It is imperative for this great people to contemplate a key moment of their
history, the murder of Patrice Lumumba, for which they never cease to atone
because it paved the way to power for Mobutu Sese Seko. And everyone knows the
greed with which Mobutu brought his country to its knees for 32 long years, and
this with the complicity of foreign powers that then abandoned the battered country
to its collapse.
Your
Excellency,
We
recognize the importance of a firm position on the M23 and a responsible
warning to all countries bordering the Congo, including Rwanda, to abstain from
assisting this new rebellion that risks inciting the region once again and
plunging the population into horrific suffering.
This notwithstanding, we have difficulty
accepting the selective reasoning of those who deflect attention away from the
much larger problem caused by several older and more active criminal groups in
the conflict––groups which have repeatedly resorted to open mass violence. In
our opinion, this silence is testimony of a deliberate choice to mislead
international opinion. This is why we find it important to recall the several
rebel groups operating in South Kivu, North Kivu, and Maniema. In their recent
report, Oxfam and 41 local non-governmental
organizations have drawn up an exhaustive list of these groups,
which include
ADF: Alliance des Forces
Démocratiques;
APCLS: Alliance des
Patriotes pour un Congo Libre et Souverain;
FRPI: Force des Résistances
Patriotiques en Ituri;
FDLR: Forces Démocratiques
pour la Libération du Rwanda;
LRA:
Lord’s Resistance Army;
M23:
March 23 Movement;
Nyatura:
a Hutu rebellion;
Sheka:
a Nyange rebellion;
Mayi-Mayi
Yakutumba: a Bembe rebellion against Banyamulenge Community;
Raïa
Mutomboki: a Rega and Tembo rebellion against FDLR;
UPCP: Union des Patriotes
Congolais pour la Paix;
(Source:
Oxfam International. “Commodities of war: Communities speak out on the
true cost of conflict in Eastern DRC.” OXFAM briefing paper,
November 2012. p. 22)
A summary of the report states that in addition to
the warring violence committed by governmental soldiers and the aforementioned
armed groups against the Congolese population, “evidence gathered recently by
Oxfam in a survey of more than 1,300 people in the provinces of North Kivu,
South Kivu and Province Orientale shows that government soldiers and civilian
authorities, including the local police, and armed rebel groups are vying for
control over local communities to extort money and goods from them.” It is
important to emphasize that, perhaps besides the M23, all of the armed
groups operating in the three Kivu regions are hostile to Rwanda and to
Kinyarwanda-speaking Congolese. They also constitute a threat to the stability
of the Congo. Furthermore, some of these rebellions are threatening other
countries in the region. This is notably the case with the FNL (Front National
de Libération), a Burundian rebellion active in the Rusizi plain and with other
two Ugandan groups, the LRA and the ADF, who target in particular the Kampala
regime.
None
of these significant facts are mentioned in these highly disputed reports that
have added fuel to the fire. In so doing, the reports have distanced themselves
from any concerted efforts at finding a solution. They have discouraged the
dialogue initiated by African countries of the Great Lakes region and fed the
mistrust between Eastern Congolese communities and between the Congo and
Rwanda. This shallow interpretation, relayed by the international and local
Congolese press as well as by human rights organizations, could itself generate
fresh violence.
It
is difficult for a rational mind to wrap itself around the idea that the
destiny of millions of human beings can at this point be dependent on an expert
who, as talented as he may be, is not free from the influence of his own
interests, and even from his ideological preconceptions. It is very
clear that in this particular case, the UN apparatus has been used to settle
scores with the Rwandan government. It is surprising and unacceptable that the
UN has entrusted an investigative mission to someone who, at the end of the
day, has always shown himself to be very “understanding” of the Forces
démocratiques pour la liberation du Rwanda (FDLR). This rebel
movement, comprised of remnants of the army and Interahamwe militia who
committed the genocide against the Tutsi of Rwanda in 1994, was boosted by new
recruits in the Congolese regions that it has occupied for several years. That
movement continues to commit well-documented atrocities in the region with
impunity, and to finance its military operations it illegally exploits the
area’s minerals. It then resells them on the international market and it would
be interesting to know who its clients are.
Your
Excellency,
Did the UN know at the time of Steve Hege’s
appointment that he was the author of “Understanding the FDLR in DR
Congo”, a text in which he sets out to give respectability to this
genocidal organization that he presents as a group of refugees with legitimate
claims? Disturbed and saddened by several attempts at cooperation between the
governments of both Congo and of Rwanda, he admits fearing that this process
would marginalize the FDLR whom, he writes, “feels greatly betrayed by the
Congolese.”
He
expressed these sentiments when President Obama, still a senator, was writing a
letter of protest to the then US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice, on the
sexual violence perpetrated against Congolese women. Allow us to cite the
following passage from the letter: “The perpetrators — including disgruntled
government soldiers, homegrown militia groups, and former Hutu militiamen who
fled into Congo’s forests after participating in the 1994 Rwandan genocide —
have sustained their armed conflicts by exploiting the country’s natural
resources, raiding villages and committing violent atrocities.”
This
is how President Obama expressed his indignation against the genocidaires who
had escaped into the Congo.
But
that is not all.
Through
the aforementioned project, these two men have indicated publicly and in
writing their desire to commercialize the minerals of Eastern Congo.
It is thus shocking that the UN appointed one of them as the referee in a
crisis that is strongly intertwined with mining in the same region. Worst of
all, we no longer know whether to be shocked by such obvious and scandalous
conflicts of interest, or whether to judge those interests as perfectly
coherent within a political system based on plundering the Congo that,
unfortunately, dates way back in time. To gain a hold of the market, Hege and
Stearns state with condescension that “[local Congolese institutions] remain
significantly weak and easily susceptible to political manipulation, conflict
of interests, corruption, and most importantly intimidation from armed actors
and military units themselves.” The contempt for the Congolese people whom
these two men claim to defend is as evident as their desire to substitute
themselves as the authority in the Congolese nation. The least that we can say
is that the conditions were not ideal for the creation of an objective report.
It is thus absolutely impossible for us to understand the decision of the
Security Council to endorse the conclusions of the Group of Experts without
debate or prior verification.
As
researchers, we question the impartiality and rigor of an approach that focuses
broadly and vaguely on only some of the parties in the conflict, namely the
Congolese government and on the dissidents of the Rwandan Government.
We
are not surprised to note that this report, like previous ones, has been the
subject of a very convenient “leak” designed to spread in the media and in the
international opinion the following message: “the monstrous M23 is a creation
of Rwanda.” With all due respect, we do not see what support, real or imagined,
Rwanda can offer to such a movement to treat the root causes of the current
state of affairs. M23 emerged in Congo after MONUSCO and armed groups were
already there. This means that M23 is less the cause and more simply a
consequence of a multifaceted regional crisis. Some choose to ignore this
reality because they find it more convenient to judge these mutineers than to
discuss the problems known to everyone, problems which are poisoning Congolese
society and which include widespread corruption. Hege’s reports, as well as the
media coverage they have enjoyed, encourage us to forget the foreign mining
companies that have literally helped themselves to the Congo. We dare to
recommend that you expeditiously initiate an investigation of this pillage.
This is what the world, Africa, and the Congolese people in particular, expect
from you.
Your
Excellency,
In
our opinion, the United Nations was wrong to think that removing M23 and that
suspending developmental aid to Rwanda––a country praised for the rigorous,
healthy and transparent management of its national budget––will suffice in
bringing about peace in Eastern Congo. Similarly, experience has shown the
limits of the military solution embodied in MONUSCO’s support of Congolese
governmental forces. On the ground, such an option results primarily in
sustaining the war that it is pretending to end. It was in this way that over
the course of the capture of Goma, M23 came in possession of four tons of
weapons that at any time thereafter could be found in the hands of different
rebel groups.
We
believe that the best way to contribute to peace and security in the Great
Lakes region will consist of, among other factors
-Discouraging
all Rwandan aid to the M23, with the intention of allowing Congolese
communities to enter into a dialogue about the problems facing their nation;
-Discouraging
all association of the Congo with the FDLR and all support of the Congolese
government to armed groups that currently operate on its territory;
-Tackling
all groups and ideologies that breed a destructive environment;
-Considering
the security claims of Rwanda as legitimate;
-Ceaselessly
promoting any dialogue between the governments of the Congo and of Rwanda;
-Promoting
a frank and respectful exchange between the Rwandan and Congolese intellectual,
moral, and spiritual leaders, so that they initiate and encourage fruitful ways
in which the communities can “live together”;
-Initiating
solutions that integrate the different aspects of the crisis in Eastern Congo;
-Revisiting
the obscure accords between the Congolese government and mining companies
operating in its territory;
-Demanding
healthy management of resources by the Congolese state;
-
Investigating the clientelism and criminal self-enrichment by the current
Congolese elite, in order to jump start healthy governance in the DRC today;
-Privileging
the voice of the dialogue initiated by the Great Lakes conference over the
voice of warmongers who threaten to plunge the Great Lakes region into a great
African war with incalculable consequences;
-Protecting
marginalized communities whose desperation makes them ready to enlist in
endless rebellions;
-Defending
the integrity of the Congolese borders, to conform to the current wishes of the
Congolese people who care for their nation’s unity and the destiny of the
community in its ethnic composition;
-Tying
the notion of the integrity of the borders to the rights of communities owning
land to live peacefully and in full security as Congolese citizens with full
rights;
-Improving
the recruitment methods of UN investigators whose reports have such a great
influence on the course of events. It is highly desirable to ensure that they
are committed to following transparent procedures in order to lessen the risk
or suspicion of bias on their part.
Your
Excellency the Secretary General,
What
is immediately needed is an unwavering defense by the United Nations of the
principle of the integrity of Congo’s borders. However, such a defense is
destined to fail if it overlooks the discrimination towards
Kinyarwanda-speaking Congolese citizens, landowners with the inalienable right
to live in Congolese territory where they have been for generations over
centuries. In order to fully understand the vulnerability of a community that
has been marginalized and defined in the current Congolese imagination as the
source of all the country’s problems, one must go back to the origins of the
problem when at the Berlin Conference Rwandan territories became Congolese, or
later in the 1930s when Kinyarwanda-speaking populations were moved to the
Congo from Rwanda. Not long ago, more precisely during the 80s, these
second-class citizens, deprived of their civil rights, were voters but were not
eligible for office. Over the course of the same period, during “Operation
Grass,” Tutsi students were beaten and expelled from universities in Zaire. To
ensure that the rest of the people aware of what was happening, a document was
circulated during this time that bore the revealing title: “Long live the
Zairian nation and death to the usurpers of our nationhood.” This text called
for “wiping out everywhere and in their entirety these snakes (Tutsi students)
who want to bite us.” One decade later, at the beginning of the 1990s, the
Congolese Tutsi were all banned from participating in the “National Sovereign
Conference” still under the pretext that they were not “Zairian.” The fall of
Mobutu gave way to a hope for better tomorrows, thanks to the united struggle
against the dictator, only to later heighten hostility towards
Kinyarwanda-speaking Congolese. From one crime to another, we have now arrived
at what we must see as a fervent and relatively widespread desire to finish
once and for all what some call “the Tutsi question.” In some circles, people
ignoring the lessons of history imagine that to improve the living conditions
of the rest of the population, all that is required is to wipe out the
Kinyarwanda-speaking population in the Congo.
Your
Excellency,
We believe that a less biased and less
superficial analysis of the situation in Kivu is urgent and necessary for any
sustainable solution. We cannot emphasize enough the fact that the exclusive
focus on the M23 and Rwanda is suspect and encourages the deadly discourse of
the increasingly bold extremists who no longer hesitate to call for the
extermination of the Tutsi in social media. The governor of North Kivu, Julien
Paluku, several members of the Congolese government, a certain local Congolese
press, several clergymen like Bishop Elisée and some musicians such as Boketsu
1er explicitly
or insidiously incite hatred against the Tutsi populations of the Congo. It is
time that you, in contrast to your predecessor in 1994, take stock of the
dangers facing defenseless civil populations whose only wrongdoing is being who
they are. A large part of the population, incited by Hege’s accusations and by
a section of the press, is today ready to launch into murderous action.
Military alliances between the Congolese army and genocidal militia are another
sign that should not fool anyone, above all you whose particular responsibility
is the preservation of world peace.
Your
Excellency the Secretary General,
We
ask the United Nations to do all in its power so that the absurd war of Eastern
Congo may be at last replaced by sustainable peace. Right now, this peace is a
pipe dream, and through this letter we have sought to express to you in what
conditions this dream can, in our opinion, become a reality.
To
preserve the chances of this peace in the near future, we, writers, artists,
university professors, and researchers from diverse backgrounds, denounce the
mutiny of the M23. We equally denounce all aid, no matter where it comes from,
to this armed movement. But we also feel that it is our duty to call for the
international community to treat more seriously and rigorously the question of
the presence of heavily armed genocidaires on Congolese soil, a grave source of
worry for Rwanda. We equally and firmly condemn the attempt by the Congolese
government to heavily militarize the Kivu region.
Your
Excellency the Secretary General,
We
urge you to fulfill your responsibility in light of the threats to which we
have sought to draw your attention. This is a concern not only for the destiny
of the populations and their need for security in the countries of the Great
Lakes; it is a concern for the credibility of the United Nations and for the
honor of humanity.
In
the hope that 2013 will be the year of dialogue and peace for all people on
earth, we humbly request your Excellency to accept our sincerest regards.
Signatories:
Boubacar
Boris Diop, Senegal, Novelist, political essayist and teacher, Université
Gaston Berger, Saint-Louis- Senegal
Godefroid
Kä Mana, RDCongo, Philosopher, Political Analyst and Theologian,
Professor, Université évangélique du Cameroun, Institut catholique de
Goma-RDCongo
Jean-Pierre
Karegeye, Rwanda, Director, Interdisciplinary Genocide Studies Center,
Assistant Professor, Macalester College, Minnesota-USA
Margee
Ensign, USA, President, American University of Nigeria
Koulsy
Lamko, Chad, Novelist and playwright, Director of la Casa Hankili Africa,
Centro Historico in Mexico
Wandia
Njoya, Kenya, Assistant Professor, Daystar
University, Nairobi-Kenya
Aminata
Dramane Traoré, Mali, Writer, Sociologist, former minister of Culture
Susan
Allen, USA, Professor, Emory University, Atlanta
Jean-Claude Djereke, Côte d’Ivoire,
Centre de Recherches Pluridisciplinaires sur les Communautés d’Afrique Noire et
des Diasporas, Ottawa, Canada
Jean-François
Dupaquier, France, Writer, Journalist
Erik Ehn,
USA, Director, Writing for Performance, Brown University
Mireille Fanon
Mendes-France, France, Chairperson, Frantz Fanon Foundation
Gerise Herndon,
USA, Professor, Director of Gender Studies, Nebraska Wesleyan University
Timothy
Horner, USA, Associate Professor, Center for Peace and Justice Education,
Villanova University
Jean-Baptiste
Kakoma, RDCongo, Physician, Professor, Former Dean of the Faculty of
Medecine, Former Rector of the University of Lubumbashi in RDCongo, Director of
the School of Public Health, National University of Rwanda
Aloys
Mahwa, Rwanda, Researcher, Interdisciplinary Genocide Studies Center,
Kigali-Rwanda
Yolande
Mukagasana, Rwanda, Writer, Genocide survivor, 2002 Peace Golden Dove
Award, 2003 UNESCO Prize for Peace Education.
Timothée Ngakoutou,
Chad-France, Professor, former Rector of the University of Chad, former
Head of the Regional Office of Unesco in Africa, in Dakar,
Former Head of the Democracy and Governance section at UNESCO in Paris.
Moukoko Priso, Cameroon, Professor,
Université évangélique du Cameroon
François Wokouache, Cameroon, Filmmaker, Director of KEMIT
