Publications

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

VII. INTERNATIONAL RESPONSE

Uganda has suffered little international censure for having sent its troops into a neighboring country, and faced little recognition of the grave abuses its forces in either the first Congo war, or the current conflict committed while there. After the start of the second war, major international actors focused on ending combat between rival governments' troops and largely ignored the local conflicts and suffering aggravated by the presence of those troops. Symbolic of this international posture was the 1999 Lusaka Accord that was energetically promoted by important arbiters from outside the region. Crafted to meet the needs of the major governmental parties, it provided that combatants from armed opposition groups suspected of genocide or other crimes against humanity should be delivered to the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda or to national courts for prosecution, but it made no provision for accountability for grave abuses committed by troops of Uganda the other six governments involved in the conflict.

Parties to the conflict generally ignored the agreement for more than a year and a half, responding hardly at all to diplomatic initiatives like the three days of discussion at the U.N. Security Council in January 2000 and numerous diplomatic missions to the region. But they finally began to move towards implementation in February 2001, following the death of Laurent Kabila and the installation of his son Joseph Kabila as the Congolese president. All of the major parties except Rwanda met to reaffirm their commitment to the accord on February 15 and at the end of the month, Uganda and Rwanda began pulling their troops back from their most advanced positions. There was no expectation, however, that their withdrawal would immediately end conflict in the communities which they had helped to tear asunder. In Bunia, where community leaders had helped stop ethnic killings in late January, and in Butembo, where one hundred thousand residents turned out to demonstrate for peace, there was widespread commitment to halting the violence. But implementing the Bunia accord and executing the resolutions of the Butembo conference will require both the reestablishment of a civilian administration and the creation of a state of law.

The United Nations

    The Security Council
    Content in its early resolutions to call merely for the withdrawal of unnamed foreign troops present on Congolese soil, the Security Council became far more critical after Uganda and Rwanda in June 2000 battled at Kisangani for the third time in less than a year, killing and wounding hundreds of civilians and damaging thousands of houses, dozens of schools, and other public buildings. In its resolutions 1304 (2000) and 1332 (2000) the Security Council demanded that Rwanda and Uganda withdraw their forces from Congolese territory and declared that they should make reparations for the loss of life and property in Kisangani. Both governments appeared unmoved by the chorus of international condemnations, including two statements from the U.N. Secretary-General during the peak of the June 2000 fighting. They failed to assume responsibility for their callous disregard for civilian lives and other violations of the Geneva Conventions. The Security Council and the international community have yet to take any meaningful steps to hold them accountable for their conduct in Kisangani or elsewhere in Congo.

    In November 1999, the Security Council established the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of Congo (MONUC) to monitor observance of the Lusaka agreement. Although the refusal of the parties to actually end the combat hindered deployment of the force, the Security Council extended its mandate on December 14, 2000 and strengthened its responsibilities for protecting human rights. By early 2001, MONUC had posted 201 officers and military observers in Congo, including at the headquarters of the rebel movements in Bunia, Gbadolite, and Goma, with others in surrounding countries.

Military observers and human rights monitors attached to MONUC rarely acted effectively to limit local conflicts. But one case of intervention by Ambassador Kamel Morjane, the Secretary-General's Special Representative and head of MONUC, showed that even civilians attached to the force could help interrupt the cycle of violence. In September 2000, Ambassador Morjane flew into Bunia and convinced the commander of the Usalama Battalion to leave the MONUC compound where he had taken refuge, thus avoiding likely further conflict. Civilians charged with child protection and humanitarian coordination have also contributed to increasing awareness of the plight of civilians among decision-makers at the U.N. and in U.N. member states.

    Capitalizing on the impetus given to the peace process by the installation of the new Congo president, the secretary-general on February 12, 2001 asked the Security Council for a smaller force than previously mandated but one which would be deployed more rapidly. The Security Council cut the number of troops by more than half from 5,537 to 2,300 and limited their role to protecting 550 U.N. military observers. In accord with the international emphasis on promoting military disengagement, the force was to monitor the cease-fire and troop withdrawal from the front lines and would not be charged with protecting civilians.175 The secretary-general cautioned that the force will guard U.N. facilities, supplies, and equipment, but "[t]hey will not be able to extract other United Nations personnel at risk, or accompany humanitarian convoys, nor will they be able to extend protection to the local population."176

By excluding any prospect of protecting civilians, and cutting down the numbers, the Security Council made it impossible for MONUC to play a more significant role in the many local conflicts which have resulted in widespread loss of life and displacement of populations. In Bunia, for example, the mere presence of MONUC observers and human rights monitors could help dissuade leaders who might otherwise launch ethnic violence. The absence of MONUC protection leaves ordinary people prey to instigators of ethnic violence and subject to their own collective fears.

In resolution 1341 of February 22, 2001, the Security Council expressed concern about the violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in Congo, condemned the massacres and atrocities, and reminded all parties-including occupying forces-that they were obliged to protect the civilian population. But it failed to call for accountability for abuses as part of any credible reconciliation process.177 At the end of February, additional MONUC troops began deploying, as called for at the February 15 meeting of parties to the accord.

The U.N. Commission on Human Rights
Roberto Garretón, the special rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the DRC, issued a statement on January 26 condemning the January 19 massacres in Bunia, and called on Uganda and the Front for the Liberation of Congo (FLC) to instruct their troops to provide protection for civilians in areas they control and to investigate the killings in order to bring their perpetrators to justice.178 As this report went to print, the special rapporteur had received the approval of both the government and the RCD to visit the country in mid-March. He was planning to focus his visit on the human rights situation in areas held by Uganda and Rwanda in eastern Congo and to present his findings at the forthcoming meeting of the Commission on Human Rights in Geneva.

The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights
Delegates from the Field Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights investigated the January 19 massacres in late January and found that more than 200 persons had been killed and many others wounded during the killings that day.179

Mary Robinson, the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, visited the DRC in early October 2000 to underscore her concern at the grave violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in the country, particularly in eastern Congo. While in Goma, she also met with representatives of rights and civil society groups from different areas in eastern Congo, including from Orientale province.180 In talks with Congolese government and the RCD-Goma, she asked for the end of a number of human rights violations by the government and the rebels, but is not known to have addressed the issues of Ugandan army abuses in the northeast.

United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF)
For several years UNICEF and the U.N. special representative of the secretary-general for children and armed conflict, Olara Otunnu, have worked to end abductions of children by rebel groups. Carol Bellamy, executive director of UNICEF, and Otunnu briefed a Security Council meeting on children and armed conflict in late July 2000. At the same meeting, a representative from Uganda described the plight of children abducted by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA) and then used in a terror campaign against their own people. But the plight of Congolese children trained by Uganda and Rwanda for their respective Congolese rebel allies and deployed in combat zones received little mention during the debate.181

Only after child protection officers attached to MONUC and UNICEF reported in early December 2000 that Congolese children had been sent from Bunia to Kampala for military training did the Security Council react. In a December 14 resolution the Security Council demanded the demobilization, disarmament, return, and rehabilitation of all such children. By mid-February 2001 joint advocacy by MONUC, UNICEF, and other organizations pushed Uganda to grant U.N. and other agencies full access to the Hema children sent to Uganda for military training. These agencies assumed responsibility for assuring the welfare of the 163 minors in the group, three of them girls, a task which must be accomplished while also keeping them from joining in any future ethnic conflict in their home region. As yet, none of the U.N. agencies has undertaken to trace the hundreds of Lendu children who left Nyaleke camp in Beni after receiving military training and to ensure that they are not remobilized and deployed to combat zones.182

International Financial Institutions
Highly regarded for having promoted substantial economic recovery after years of decline, Uganda continued to enjoy considerable assistance from international donors despite its military activities and human rights abuses in Congo. Bilateral and multilateral donors, including the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund (IMF), provided assistance without taking effective steps to ensure that this support would not have the unintended consequence of making it possible for Uganda to transfer additional resources to pay for an abusive war.

In a new policy stated in its operational manual, the World Bank acknowledges that war destroys and destabilizes the normal socioeconomic activity that it is seeking to promote and that the commitment of public resources to military expenditures hampers economic development.183 Yet the Bank made no link between its economic support to the Ugandan government and increased Ugandan military expenditures for a war in Congo where its troops have committed many and grave abuses. Moreover, in May 2000, the World Bank and the IMF announced new debt relief for Uganda amounting to $1.3 billion under the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries (HPIC) initiative.184 These institutions are prohibited from giving any support to military activities and in the strict sense they do not. But funds within any governmental system are fungible, that is, assistance in one area-say, alleviation of poverty-frees up money, which can be devoted to another purpose, such as the purchase of arms. International financial institutions are only now beginning to come to terms with the complex relationship between aid delivered for one purpose and expenditures for another. Unless they craft effective ways of dealing with this problem, they may find their assistance contributing to the very military activities which hamper the reduction of poverty and the economic development they seek to promote.

European Union

    Like the World Bank, the European Commission in June 1999 expressed concern over the deleterious effect of military spending on economic development. In a message to the European Union (E.U.) Council of Ministers and Parliament the commission cautioned that donors must seek to ensure that development funds not be misused for military purposes. But like the Bank, the E.U. did not observe this caution in giving assistance to Uganda.

In political dialogue with Uganda and through missions to the region by its envoy, Aldo Ajello, the E.U. stressed the importance of implementing the Lusaka Accord. It indicated its readiness to help by providing assistance for resettling the displaced, facilitating reconciliation, and beginning rehabilitation of the economy. 185 The E.U. also repeatedly stressed the importance of avoiding human rights abuses in the Congo conflict. But it failed to require either compliance with the Lusaka agreement or an end to abuses by Ugandan troops as conditions for further assistance.

The European Commission assists Uganda in the context of its five-year National Indicative Programs (NIP) for the period 1996 to 2001, providing a total of some 210 million Euros for projects improving roads, education, health, agriculture, human rights, and decentralization. Even though the clashes between Ugandan and Rwandan troops at Kisangani provoked condemnation by the E.U., it did not link continued support for its structural adjustment programs to ending clashes so costly in civilian lives.

    Like the U.N. Security Council the European Parliament missed an opportunity to raise concern about child soldiers recruited and trained by Ugandan forces in Congo. In July 2000 the parliament condemned the Lord's Resistance Army for abducting children and incorporating them in its ranks and went so far as to ask E.U. companies to refrain from making oil investments in Sudan because of Sudanese support for that abusive rebel group. But it said nothing about Ugandan involvement in recruiting and training Congolese children for its rebel allies.186

By early 2001, the E.U. was ready to take a stronger position concerning the Ugandan presence in the Congo and abuses related to it. The E.U. presidency issued a strongly worded statement on February 1, 2001 expressing concern about the resurgence of ethnic violence between the Hema and the Lendu in the region of Bunia. For the first time, the E.U. identified the role of Uganda in exacerbating violence and noted that "the continued military presence of the Ugandan army in this part of the DRC...hampers the efforts to re-establish peace there."187 Recalling its position requiring the withdrawal of foreign forces from the DRC, the E.U. nevertheless held Ugandan authorities responsible for upholding the respect of human rights in areas under their control and called on them to do their utmost to end the massacres. The statement also called on Uganda to use its influence on Congolese rebel movements in the area to pursue the same objective.188

In a second statement on February 27, 2001 the E.U. General Affairs Council welcomed U.N. Security Council resolution 1341 and underlined the importance of "disarming armed groups that operate in or from the territory of the DRC." The council "expressed its deep concern at the continuing serious human rights violations in the DRC and noted the latest report of the U.N. Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the DRC." The council went on to remind "the governments concerned of their responsibility and accountability for upholding the respect for human rights by their own armed forces as well as by the armed forces under their de facto control." The council also voiced its "dismay at the continued recruitment and use of child soldiers in the conflict" and urged all parties to end this practice immediately. It welcomed the request of the U.N. Security Council in its resolution 1341 "to mandate the special representative for children and armed conflicts to pursue this objective on a priority basis." The council stated that the E.U. would "consider appropriate measures which could be imposed" if the parties to the conflict did not honor their commitments under the Lusaka agreement and revelant U.N. Security Council resolutions."189

    Not only did the E.U. continue providing assistance to Uganda throughout this conflict, it failed to act effectively to prevent arms from reaching Ugandan forces and others in the Great Lakes region. A June 1999 presidential statement called on E.U. members to adhere strictly to the E.U. Code of Conduct on Arms Exports which stipulates that members should not authorize arms exports that might "aggravate existing tensions or armed conflicts in the country of final destination" or risk fueling human rights abuses. The Great Lakes region qualified for a strict implementation of the code of conduct and thus a suspension of any arms transfers from E.U. members to the region. At a May 2000 meeting, E.U. foreign ministers failed to agree on such a measure, some member states arguing that any such embargo would always be violated. But by January 22-23, 2001, the E.U. General Affairs Council had decided to ask relevant E.U. bodies to facilitate early recommendations on "a possible embargo and its modalities to stem the flow of arms fuelling and protracting the conflict in the DRC and the Great Lakes region."

The United States
The latest outbreak of violence in Ugandan-held areas in eastern Congo coincided with the transition to the new administration of President George W. Bush in the United States. The Bush administration inherited an Africa policy based on the apparently sound premises of upholding regional stability and preventing renewed genocide and mass killings in Central Africa. U.S. decision makers, however, have for far too long used simplistic approaches in applying these principles to realities that are inherently complex. Typical of this was the narrow equation of preventing genocide with neutralizing the former Rwandan Armed Forces (ex-FAR) and Interahamwe militia, who executed the 1994 Rwandan genocide and remained at large in eastern Congo.190 Although disarming, demobilizing, and, where appropriate, prosecuting these combatants remains a collective responsibility for the world community, stability in the region also requires accountability from both Ugandan and Rwandan forces for abuses committed in Congo and inside their own countries.191

As the Clinton administration drew to a close, it was increasingly clear that the "new leaders" policy which it once championed had lost credibility as the leaders once thought to be beacons of hope were more and more identified with serious human rights abuses. In August 2000 a U.S. government team led by Ambassador-at-Large for War Crimes Issues David Scheffer collected information in Kinshasa, Kisangani, Goma and Butembo that pointed to violations of international humanitarian law by armed groups supported by the RCD government, Congolese rebel movements, and Ugandan and Rwandan troops.192

Uganda has long benefited from substantial U.S. support, not just because of its apparent success in promoting order and economic development, but also because it offered assistance in curbing the power of the Sudan, regarded by the U.S. as a major threat to stability in northeastern Africa. In the fiscal year 2000, the U.S. delivered some $58 million in development assistance and food aid to Uganda, and approximately $50 million was requested for 2001.

Before the second Congo war, Ugandan soldiers received training under the International Military Education Training (IMET); the Joint Combined Exchange Training (JCET), which provides training for U.S. special forces through interaction with foreign forces; and the African Crisis Response Initiative (ACRI), a program to train and equip African forces to enhance their capacities for peacekeeping and responding to humanitarian crises. Uganda also received non-lethal military equipment as part of the frontline states initiative, a special assistance package for Uganda, Ethiopia, and Eritrea aimed at containing the government of the Sudan.

Once Ugandan soldiers went to fight in Congo in 1998, however, their participation in the ACRI program was suspended. That year Uganda still received some $3.85 million in military equipment under the frontline states initiative, but the year after that program was suspended. Following the Ugandan battles with Rwandan troops in Kisangani, the U.S. ended most remaining training under the IMET program, although it has planned for limited resumption of that program in 2001. The U.S. condemned the fighting at Kisangani more because the parties violated the Lusaka agreement than because they had violated international humanitarian law by failing to minimize civilian casualties.

U.S. military did provide some training to Ugandans even after the Kisangani battles, doing so under programs funded by the Joint Chiefs of Staff and directed by the Commander in Chief of the Central Command (CINC) with responsibility for the horn of Africa. These programs are not subject to Congressional scrutiny, as are most U.S. military training programs. In June 2000 Uganda participated in "Natural Fire," a bi-annual exercise for training in disaster relief and humanitarian assistance, which was held in Kenya.193 At the request of the State Department and because of Ugandan involvement in Congo, only staff officers and technical experts were invited, rather than a full unit as would otherwise have been the case. In July and August 2000, Ugandan military participated in "Golden Spear," an annual seminar for senior civilian and military leaders focusing on mechanisms for regional cooperation.194

Throughout the crisis in the Congo, the U.S. has relied on "quiet diplomacy" to raise concerns about human rights with the Ugandan government. Although U.S. officials maintain that they have criticized Ugandan conduct in the DRC, including in meetings with President Museveni, they have shunned any negative comment that might embarrass the Ugandan government. In so doing, they have missed numerous opportunities to underline concerns about human rights abuses and to insist on accountability for them. U.S. silence in the face of human rights abuses in the Ugandan-dominated part of the Congo contributed to the perception that the U.S. was biased in favor of Uganda.

In addition to official channels for advocacy, the U.S. has informal ties with Ugandan soldiers who received military training in the U.S. The commander of the Ugandan forces in Congo, for example, Brig. Gen. Edward Katumba Wamala, spent the year prior to his appointment in a training course at the U.S. Army War College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania. It is not known if U.S. officials have tried to encourage Gen. Wamala to limit human rights abuses among his troops, although the U.S. State Department did confirm that the U.S. embassy in Kampala has occasional contact with him.195

175 United Nations, Security Council, "Sixth report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo," S/2001/128, February 12, 2001.

176 Ibid., paragraph 77.

177 United Nations, Security Council, resolution 1341, February 22, 2001.

178 U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, "Special Rapporteur on Situation of Human Rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo condemns recent massacres in the east of the country," January 26, 2001.

179 Ibid., "Sixth report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo."

180 U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, "High Commissioner for Human Rights concludes visit to Democratic Republic of the Congo," October 4, 2000.

181 U.N. Security Council, "Security Council holds debate on children and armed conflict,"4176th meeting, July 26, 2000, posted at: http://wwww.reliefweb.int/w/rwb.nsf/

182 See chapter IV above.

183 The World Bank, "Development cooperation and conflict," the World Bank Operational Manual and Operational Policies, (January 2001), op 2.30.

184 "World Bank and IMF support additional debt relief for Uganda amounting to $1.3 billion," News Release No. 2000/327/s, May 2, 2000.

185 European Union, "Declaration of the Presidency on behalf of the European Union on implementation of the Lusaka Agreement," European Union, Brussels, 22 September 2000, 11240/00 (press 311), P 130/00.

186 European Parliament, "Human Rights: Child soldiers in Uganda, European Parliament Resolution on the abduction of children by the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA),"

187 European Union, "Declaration of the Presidency on behalf of the European Union on the Hema - Lendu conflict in north-eastern DRC," Brussels, February 1, 2001, 5693/01 (Press 32), P 019/01.

188 Ibid.

189 "The Council discussed the developments in the Democratic Republic of Congo," press release 6506/01: 2331st Council meeting - General Affairs, "Brussels, February 26-27, 2001.

190 See, for example, the testimony of Richard Holbrooke, then U.S. ambassador to the U.N., before the House Subcommittee on Africa of the International Relations Committee, February 15, 2000.

191 Human Rights Watch, "What Kabila is hiding: Civilian Killings and Impunity in Congo," a Human Rights Watch Short Report, Vol. 9, No. 5 (A), October 1997. See also: "Report of the Secretary-General's Investigative Team charged with investigating serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law in the Democratic Republic of Congo," S/1998/581, June 29, 1998.

192 Department of State statement, August 29, 2000.

193 Human Rights Watch interview with Commander Pat Jackson, East Africa Desk Officer, Office of African Affairs, Department of Defense, February 28, 2001.

194 Human Rights Watch interview with Lt. Col. Terence Tidler, U.S. Central Command, Macdill Air Force Base, Florida, March 1, 2001.

195 Human Rights Watch interview with Howell Howard, Uganda Desk Officer, U.S. Department of State, March 2, 2001.

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page