AFP
1 November 2008
Rwanda-backed rebels in eastern Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) are laying siege to 100 civilians, 150 Indian peacekeepers and half of the Uruguayan peacekeeping force attempting to secure the area, Uruguay Defense Minister Jose Bayardi said.
The rebels troops led by ethnic Tutsi warlord Laurent Nkunda "are backed by tanks" and "artillery" from Rwanda, according to Uruguayan military commander Jorge Rosales, who is overseeing the peacekeeping troops. (emphasis mine-WNJ Editor)
Over the last two days the rebels have laid siege to some 300 Uruguayan and 150 Indian peacekeepers, and some 100 UN staff, NGO personnel and local civilians at a UN base in Rutshuru, near Goma, the regional capital in the eastern province of Nord-Kivu.
The rebels also currently surround the city.
The Uruguayan contingent of the UN mission in the country (MONUC) have been under siege "without drinking water for 48 hours," said Bayardi at a press conference at the Command of Peacekeeping Operations in Montevideo.
"Yesterday there was a contact with Nkunda and the water was restored, but the blockade remains and (those inside) are rationing food," he said.
Rosales said it was "not easy to identify rebel forces," but indicated that there is "high probability that troops from Rwanda are operating in the area."
The rebels have also recently attacked camps for people displaced by the conflict, UN officials reported.
"These (rebel) troops are backed by tanks, something that General Nkunda had not had until now," said Rosales.
Uruguayan peacekeeping troops have been attacked with "artillery fire," and, Rosales said, "Nkunda has also not had artillery" until now.
Some 629 Uruguayan peacekeepers are in Goma, along with 700 peacekeepers from India.
Rebel forces are within two kilometers (1.6 miles) from the UN peacekeepers, eight kilometers north of Goma, said Montevideo.
The peacekeeping forces are in the DRC working secure the area and protect civilians, as well as United Nations personnel and facilities.
01 November, 2008
Hartmann Declines to Enter Plea
Institute for War and Peace Reporting
By Simon Jennings in The Hague (TU No 575, 31-Oct-08)
Florence Hartmann, the prosecution's former spokeswoman, found herself in the dock at the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal this week charged with contempt of court.
However, Hartmann – who worked for the court’s ex-chief prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, from 1999-2006 – will now wait until the court’s registry has decided if she is entitled to legal support before entering her plea.
“She has not been identified as indigent, financially speaking, and therefore may not be able to call on me as her counsel. That’s why she has decided not to plead today,” Hartmann’s French lawyer, William Bourdon, told the court. “There is no particular urgency in this case.”
Although presiding judge Carmel Agius said that he did not see the connection between the registrar’s decision on legal aid and the defendant entering a plea on the charges against her, he, nevertheless, granted the delay.
Under tribunal rules, a defendant has 30 days from an initial appearance to formally enter a plea, although it does not appear that Hartmann will need this long.
“I suppose the matter will be resolved well within the 30 days. It’s not in our interest for the case to go on forever,” said Hartmann.
Hartmann is charged with revealing elements of confidential decisions made by appeal judges in the trial of former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic at the Hague tribunal.
Milosevic, who went on trial in The Hague in 2002 for war crimes in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo, died in his cell in March 2006, before proceedings were complete.
According to the order issued by the trial chamber in place of an indictment on August 27, Hartmann is responsible for “knowingly and willfully disclosing information in knowing violation of an order of [judges]”.
The court order states that the disclosures were made in Hartmann’s 2007 book Paix and Chatiment (Peace and Punishment), and in her article, Vital Genocide Documents Concealed, which was published on the Bosnian Institute website on January 21, 2008. Hartmann allegedly revealed the contents of two confidential decisions – made by appeals judges on September 20, 2005 and April 6, 2006 – while at the same time referring to the fact that they were confidential.
Hartmann was charged almost a year after Paix and Chatiment was released in September 2007. The book was translated into Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian some months later.
If convicted, she could face a fine of up to 100,000 euro or a maximum prison sentence of seven years.
In an interview with IWPR just after the charges were announced, Hartmann stated that she would contest the allegations, explaining that what she had published was in the public interest.
Bourdon hinted further this week that this argument would be part of Hartmann’s defence.
“The case against Miss Hartmann raises issues of principle – is [about] the duty of information, freedom of expression – and this touches the need for the public opinion to know how international justice operates and works,” he told Judge Agius.
At the start of the hearing on October 27, Hartmann sat in the dock of the court where she used to work. Bourdon asked Judge Agius to allow her to sit closer to him – on the benches usually reserved for lawyers – on the grounds that she was not charged with crimes against international humanitarian law, unlike most other defendants at the court.
“She should not be there in a place that is usually occupied by those alleged to have committed very serious crimes,” said Bourdon, claiming Hartmann was “only charged with some kind of intellectual offence”.
Although he granted Bourdon’s request, Judge Agius warned the accused of the seriousness of the charges against her.
“I suggest you do not, even for a second, underestimate the gravity of the crime of contempt,” he said.
Bourdon also requested that Hartmann not be photographed by the press in the courtroom, claiming that any such photograph “unduly stigmatises” her.
“If she were to be photographed in court, she would be part of a very restricted club – merely individuals who are prosecuted for crimes against humanity. It is not necessary for her to join this club,” submitted Bourdon.
However, Judge Agius rejected his request.
.
“Such a remedy would have to include also the banning of audio-visual proceedings which is something I am definitely not prepared to do and there has not been one single case [at the tribunal] where that has happened,” said Judge Agius.
While no firm date was set for the trial this week, it looks set to take place in January next year.
Hartmann will appear in court again for a pre-trial hearing on November 14.
By Simon Jennings in The Hague (TU No 575, 31-Oct-08)
Florence Hartmann, the prosecution's former spokeswoman, found herself in the dock at the Yugoslav war crimes tribunal this week charged with contempt of court.
However, Hartmann – who worked for the court’s ex-chief prosecutor, Carla Del Ponte, from 1999-2006 – will now wait until the court’s registry has decided if she is entitled to legal support before entering her plea.
“She has not been identified as indigent, financially speaking, and therefore may not be able to call on me as her counsel. That’s why she has decided not to plead today,” Hartmann’s French lawyer, William Bourdon, told the court. “There is no particular urgency in this case.”
Although presiding judge Carmel Agius said that he did not see the connection between the registrar’s decision on legal aid and the defendant entering a plea on the charges against her, he, nevertheless, granted the delay.
Under tribunal rules, a defendant has 30 days from an initial appearance to formally enter a plea, although it does not appear that Hartmann will need this long.
“I suppose the matter will be resolved well within the 30 days. It’s not in our interest for the case to go on forever,” said Hartmann.
Hartmann is charged with revealing elements of confidential decisions made by appeal judges in the trial of former Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic at the Hague tribunal.
Milosevic, who went on trial in The Hague in 2002 for war crimes in Bosnia, Croatia and Kosovo, died in his cell in March 2006, before proceedings were complete.
According to the order issued by the trial chamber in place of an indictment on August 27, Hartmann is responsible for “knowingly and willfully disclosing information in knowing violation of an order of [judges]”.
The court order states that the disclosures were made in Hartmann’s 2007 book Paix and Chatiment (Peace and Punishment), and in her article, Vital Genocide Documents Concealed, which was published on the Bosnian Institute website on January 21, 2008. Hartmann allegedly revealed the contents of two confidential decisions – made by appeals judges on September 20, 2005 and April 6, 2006 – while at the same time referring to the fact that they were confidential.
Hartmann was charged almost a year after Paix and Chatiment was released in September 2007. The book was translated into Bosnian, Serbian and Croatian some months later.
If convicted, she could face a fine of up to 100,000 euro or a maximum prison sentence of seven years.
In an interview with IWPR just after the charges were announced, Hartmann stated that she would contest the allegations, explaining that what she had published was in the public interest.
Bourdon hinted further this week that this argument would be part of Hartmann’s defence.
“The case against Miss Hartmann raises issues of principle – is [about] the duty of information, freedom of expression – and this touches the need for the public opinion to know how international justice operates and works,” he told Judge Agius.
At the start of the hearing on October 27, Hartmann sat in the dock of the court where she used to work. Bourdon asked Judge Agius to allow her to sit closer to him – on the benches usually reserved for lawyers – on the grounds that she was not charged with crimes against international humanitarian law, unlike most other defendants at the court.
“She should not be there in a place that is usually occupied by those alleged to have committed very serious crimes,” said Bourdon, claiming Hartmann was “only charged with some kind of intellectual offence”.
Although he granted Bourdon’s request, Judge Agius warned the accused of the seriousness of the charges against her.
“I suggest you do not, even for a second, underestimate the gravity of the crime of contempt,” he said.
Bourdon also requested that Hartmann not be photographed by the press in the courtroom, claiming that any such photograph “unduly stigmatises” her.
“If she were to be photographed in court, she would be part of a very restricted club – merely individuals who are prosecuted for crimes against humanity. It is not necessary for her to join this club,” submitted Bourdon.
However, Judge Agius rejected his request.
.
“Such a remedy would have to include also the banning of audio-visual proceedings which is something I am definitely not prepared to do and there has not been one single case [at the tribunal] where that has happened,” said Judge Agius.
While no firm date was set for the trial this week, it looks set to take place in January next year.
Hartmann will appear in court again for a pre-trial hearing on November 14.
Warring Party.
By Horst Teubert
Germanforeignpolicy.com
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/56197
28 October 2008
In spite of the escalating war in the Congo, Berlin is intensifying its support for one of the warring parties. For several weeks already, militias have been launching bloody attacks all over eastern Congo, causing hundreds of thousands to flee the region. The militia's leader, a notorious war criminal, is a partisan of Rwanda's government and the Rwandan army is poised to intervene on his behalf. After having negotiated military aid to Rwanda last April, the German government is stepping up its cooperation with the Kigali government. New finances have recently been allocated - only a few days after Rwanda's partisan in the Congo announced a putsch. These rebellions are prolonging a war that, on a world scale, has been the bloodiest in the past decades, with Germany having abetted the same party from the very beginning: its former colony Rwanda. Rwanda has been seeking control over the resource rich eastern Congo. This must be seen in the context of the strategic premises of the German-US Africa policy, envisaging close cooperation with Kigali.
1,500 Casualties per Day
The war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been escalating anew since last August, hitting particularly the eastern part of the country, where the bloodiest war, worldwide, since 1945 was launched in the mid '90s. According to recent estimates, since 1998 the war and its subsequent humanitarian crisis in the Congo have cost the lives of more than five and a half million people. Aid organizations estimate an average of 1,500 casualties per day, even before this new conflict began. The eastern part of the country is particularly hit, especially the Kivu provinces and Ituri (see our map).[1] The current armed conflict is concentrated mainly in North Kivu.
Resources
Since the mid 1990s, Rwanda has been inextricably linked to the war in the North Kivu province. North Kivu is exceptionally rich in natural resources, while neighboring Rwanda is lacking. For more than ten years, the Kigali government has been seeking to attain influence over the natural resources of North Kivu, either through illegal mining and commerce or through occupation. German businessmen and government agencies have repeatedly been involved in the Rwandan expansionist drive (german-foreign-policy.com reported [2]). This is illustrated by the German government's intensive support to Paul Kagame, the former rebel leader, who came to power in Kigali in 1994. The former German colony Rwanda has again become one of Germany's closest cooperation partners in Africa.[3]
Strategic Cooperation
Military policy is one of the fields of cooperation between Berlin and Kigali. Last spring, both governments had been discussing the military intervention in Darfur, where more than 3,000 Rwandan soldiers are stationed and where Germany has a mandate for logistical support, such as air transport. In Darfur, Rwandan soldiers have assumed tasks in accordance with German and Washington's plans, receiving punctual aid - for example through air transport - from the German and US Armies. In return, last April Defense Minister Franz-Josef Jung promised Rwandan President Paul Kagame negotiations on direct military aid.[4] Military cooperation with Rwanda is an important aspect of Berlin and Washington's common Africa strategy - aimed at securing the transatlantic predominance in Central and Eastern Africa.[5]
War Criminals
Cooperation with the Rwandan military will not be without consequences. Members of Kigali's government, as well as its army leadership are being accused of serious war crimes. These accusations refer to crimes committed during the Rwandan civil war and its murderous escalation in 1994, as well as to brutalities committed during Rwanda's two invasions of the Congo and in the subsequent years. For example: Karenzi Karake, the Rwandan general, who, with Western support, has been appointed deputy commander of the UN/AU troops in Darfur (UNAMID), as well as other members of the Rwandan military have been indicted in Spain on charges of war crimes.[6]
Warning
The Rwandan Army, Berlin's cooperation partner, is obviously preparing to intervene again in the Congo. At the beginning of October, following the latest outbreak of armed conflict, Rwandan troops were deployed along the border to the Congo's North Kivu province - according to officials - out of fear of an immanent invasion from the Congo. But this official justification is not credible. In any case, there are no reports of Congolese preparations for an attack. But recent photos show soldiers in Rwandan uniforms on Congolese territory. According to the Congolese government, Rwandan troops participated in attacks in October launched by militias in North Kivu.[7] These sorts of operations are known from the past. "We do not want to see the Congo plunged back into the conflict which spilled over and involved its neighbors," warned the head of the UN Congo mission (MONUC) a few weeks ago.[8]
Support
While the UN warns, the German government intensifies its support for Kigali. At the beginning of October, simultaneous with the Rwandan army's preparation for deployment at the Congolese border, the German Minister for Environmental Affairs and Renewable Energy, Sigmar Gabriel, was visiting Rwanda and promising to attract German-European businessmen to come and invest in the country.[9] And on October 16 - reports of Rwandan attacks on Congolese territory were already widely known - Kigali's press announced a new deal: Rwanda and Germany had just signed an agreement, by which Germany promised Kigali 16,5 million Euros per year in "development funds", of which 10 million are earmarked for blanket budget support rather than for projects.[10] Kigali is celebrating this as its promotion through the German government and a big success.
Advance
The militias that, according to the Congolese government, are being supported by Rwandan troops, are units under the command of the notorious warlord Laurent Nkunda. Nkunda, who, already back during the civil war 1990 - 1994, had been a loyal partisan of the current Rwandan president Kagame, has been fighting for years against the Congolese army in North Kivu (german-foreign-policy.com reported [11]). He has been accused of serious war crimes. His troops' massacres of civilians have recently been documented.[12] Nkunda is even recruiting his troops in Rwanda. He is financing his war with Congolese natural resources that he his sells to industrial countries via Kigali.[13] He has announced his intention to overthrow the government in Kinshasa and has already captured the first detachments of the Congolese regular army. About 200,000 people are fleeing the region. Presently Nkunda is advancing towards Goma, the capital of the North Kivu province.
Mediator
If Nkunda succeeds in allying his militias with the armed gangs in other provinces, the war could escalate throughout the country. Nkunda's military chief is a former member of the militia in Ituri, an area bordering North Kivu, where conflicts have also broken out.[14] Nkunda, who is posing as the leader of a nationwide rebellion, is a partisan of Germany's close ally, Rwanda, which is receiving an increasing amount of aid from Berlin. And the German position has been noticed locally. One of Nkunda's spokespersons recently proposed to call upon the German government to be a mediator.[15] It is clear that Germany will do nothing to the disadvantage of the Rwandan warring party and its proxies in the Congo.
[1] IRC Study Shows Congo's Neglected Crisis Leaves 5.4 Million Dead; www.theirc.org 22.01.2008
[2] see also War Resources (I), Kriegsressourcen (II), War Resources (III) and Interview mit Dr. Helmut Strizek
[3] see also Focal Partnership and Partners In War
[4] see also State Visit and Transatlantic Front
[5] see also Mit Rebellen gegen Khartum, Transatlantic Front and Establishing a State
[6] see also Haftbefehle and State Visit
[7] Appell an UNO: Kongo fordert Abzug von Ruandas Armee; RIA Nowosti 10.10.2008
[8] Kongos Krieger auf irakischen Abwegen; taz 07.10.2008
[9] Rwanda: German Minister Vows to Woo European Investors; The New Times 02.10.2008
[10] Rwanda: Rwanda, Germany Sign Financial Cooperation Pact; The New Times 16.10.2008
[11] see also They Are Ready, Haftbefehle and The Lueshe Mine
[12] Congo-Kinshasa: Congolese General 'Summarily' Executing Civilians; Rwanda News Agency 21.07.2008
[13] see also Im Kriegsgebiet and War financing
[14] Kongos mörderisches Muster; Süddeutsche Zeitung 13.10.2008
[15] Massenflucht im Kongo; Frankfurter Rundschau 17.10.2008
Germanforeignpolicy.com
http://www.german-foreign-policy.com/en/fulltext/56197
28 October 2008
In spite of the escalating war in the Congo, Berlin is intensifying its support for one of the warring parties. For several weeks already, militias have been launching bloody attacks all over eastern Congo, causing hundreds of thousands to flee the region. The militia's leader, a notorious war criminal, is a partisan of Rwanda's government and the Rwandan army is poised to intervene on his behalf. After having negotiated military aid to Rwanda last April, the German government is stepping up its cooperation with the Kigali government. New finances have recently been allocated - only a few days after Rwanda's partisan in the Congo announced a putsch. These rebellions are prolonging a war that, on a world scale, has been the bloodiest in the past decades, with Germany having abetted the same party from the very beginning: its former colony Rwanda. Rwanda has been seeking control over the resource rich eastern Congo. This must be seen in the context of the strategic premises of the German-US Africa policy, envisaging close cooperation with Kigali.
1,500 Casualties per Day
The war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo has been escalating anew since last August, hitting particularly the eastern part of the country, where the bloodiest war, worldwide, since 1945 was launched in the mid '90s. According to recent estimates, since 1998 the war and its subsequent humanitarian crisis in the Congo have cost the lives of more than five and a half million people. Aid organizations estimate an average of 1,500 casualties per day, even before this new conflict began. The eastern part of the country is particularly hit, especially the Kivu provinces and Ituri (see our map).[1] The current armed conflict is concentrated mainly in North Kivu.
Resources
Since the mid 1990s, Rwanda has been inextricably linked to the war in the North Kivu province. North Kivu is exceptionally rich in natural resources, while neighboring Rwanda is lacking. For more than ten years, the Kigali government has been seeking to attain influence over the natural resources of North Kivu, either through illegal mining and commerce or through occupation. German businessmen and government agencies have repeatedly been involved in the Rwandan expansionist drive (german-foreign-policy.com reported [2]). This is illustrated by the German government's intensive support to Paul Kagame, the former rebel leader, who came to power in Kigali in 1994. The former German colony Rwanda has again become one of Germany's closest cooperation partners in Africa.[3]
Strategic Cooperation
Military policy is one of the fields of cooperation between Berlin and Kigali. Last spring, both governments had been discussing the military intervention in Darfur, where more than 3,000 Rwandan soldiers are stationed and where Germany has a mandate for logistical support, such as air transport. In Darfur, Rwandan soldiers have assumed tasks in accordance with German and Washington's plans, receiving punctual aid - for example through air transport - from the German and US Armies. In return, last April Defense Minister Franz-Josef Jung promised Rwandan President Paul Kagame negotiations on direct military aid.[4] Military cooperation with Rwanda is an important aspect of Berlin and Washington's common Africa strategy - aimed at securing the transatlantic predominance in Central and Eastern Africa.[5]
War Criminals
Cooperation with the Rwandan military will not be without consequences. Members of Kigali's government, as well as its army leadership are being accused of serious war crimes. These accusations refer to crimes committed during the Rwandan civil war and its murderous escalation in 1994, as well as to brutalities committed during Rwanda's two invasions of the Congo and in the subsequent years. For example: Karenzi Karake, the Rwandan general, who, with Western support, has been appointed deputy commander of the UN/AU troops in Darfur (UNAMID), as well as other members of the Rwandan military have been indicted in Spain on charges of war crimes.[6]
Warning
The Rwandan Army, Berlin's cooperation partner, is obviously preparing to intervene again in the Congo. At the beginning of October, following the latest outbreak of armed conflict, Rwandan troops were deployed along the border to the Congo's North Kivu province - according to officials - out of fear of an immanent invasion from the Congo. But this official justification is not credible. In any case, there are no reports of Congolese preparations for an attack. But recent photos show soldiers in Rwandan uniforms on Congolese territory. According to the Congolese government, Rwandan troops participated in attacks in October launched by militias in North Kivu.[7] These sorts of operations are known from the past. "We do not want to see the Congo plunged back into the conflict which spilled over and involved its neighbors," warned the head of the UN Congo mission (MONUC) a few weeks ago.[8]
Support
While the UN warns, the German government intensifies its support for Kigali. At the beginning of October, simultaneous with the Rwandan army's preparation for deployment at the Congolese border, the German Minister for Environmental Affairs and Renewable Energy, Sigmar Gabriel, was visiting Rwanda and promising to attract German-European businessmen to come and invest in the country.[9] And on October 16 - reports of Rwandan attacks on Congolese territory were already widely known - Kigali's press announced a new deal: Rwanda and Germany had just signed an agreement, by which Germany promised Kigali 16,5 million Euros per year in "development funds", of which 10 million are earmarked for blanket budget support rather than for projects.[10] Kigali is celebrating this as its promotion through the German government and a big success.
Advance
The militias that, according to the Congolese government, are being supported by Rwandan troops, are units under the command of the notorious warlord Laurent Nkunda. Nkunda, who, already back during the civil war 1990 - 1994, had been a loyal partisan of the current Rwandan president Kagame, has been fighting for years against the Congolese army in North Kivu (german-foreign-policy.com reported [11]). He has been accused of serious war crimes. His troops' massacres of civilians have recently been documented.[12] Nkunda is even recruiting his troops in Rwanda. He is financing his war with Congolese natural resources that he his sells to industrial countries via Kigali.[13] He has announced his intention to overthrow the government in Kinshasa and has already captured the first detachments of the Congolese regular army. About 200,000 people are fleeing the region. Presently Nkunda is advancing towards Goma, the capital of the North Kivu province.
Mediator
If Nkunda succeeds in allying his militias with the armed gangs in other provinces, the war could escalate throughout the country. Nkunda's military chief is a former member of the militia in Ituri, an area bordering North Kivu, where conflicts have also broken out.[14] Nkunda, who is posing as the leader of a nationwide rebellion, is a partisan of Germany's close ally, Rwanda, which is receiving an increasing amount of aid from Berlin. And the German position has been noticed locally. One of Nkunda's spokespersons recently proposed to call upon the German government to be a mediator.[15] It is clear that Germany will do nothing to the disadvantage of the Rwandan warring party and its proxies in the Congo.
[1] IRC Study Shows Congo's Neglected Crisis Leaves 5.4 Million Dead; www.theirc.org 22.01.2008
[2] see also War Resources (I), Kriegsressourcen (II), War Resources (III) and Interview mit Dr. Helmut Strizek
[3] see also Focal Partnership and Partners In War
[4] see also State Visit and Transatlantic Front
[5] see also Mit Rebellen gegen Khartum, Transatlantic Front and Establishing a State
[6] see also Haftbefehle and State Visit
[7] Appell an UNO: Kongo fordert Abzug von Ruandas Armee; RIA Nowosti 10.10.2008
[8] Kongos Krieger auf irakischen Abwegen; taz 07.10.2008
[9] Rwanda: German Minister Vows to Woo European Investors; The New Times 02.10.2008
[10] Rwanda: Rwanda, Germany Sign Financial Cooperation Pact; The New Times 16.10.2008
[11] see also They Are Ready, Haftbefehle and The Lueshe Mine
[12] Congo-Kinshasa: Congolese General 'Summarily' Executing Civilians; Rwanda News Agency 21.07.2008
[13] see also Im Kriegsgebiet and War financing
[14] Kongos mörderisches Muster; Süddeutsche Zeitung 13.10.2008
[15] Massenflucht im Kongo; Frankfurter Rundschau 17.10.2008
COMMONWEALTH TOP JUDGES VISIT ICTR.
Hirondelle News Agency
29 October 2008
About 40 chief justices and senior judiciary members from about ten Commonwealth countries Wednesday visited the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) to get first hand information on the operations of the UN Court and how they can draw lessons and apply the Tribunal’s jurisprudence to their respective domestic justice system.
Commonwealth members are former British colonies. Rwanda has applied to join the Commonwealth though it was a Belgian and German colony.
The top-level judiciary officials are in Arusha for a four-day biennial meeting of the Commonwealth Judicial Education Institute (CJEI), whose governing committee’s president is Sir Dennis Byron from Saint Kitts and Nevis, who also is current President of the ICTR.
“This is an opportunity to present to the participants a good understanding of the ICTR jurisprudence and to enable them to draw lessons from that jurisprudence and see how they can apply to their respective domestic areas of work,” Roland Amoussouga, Spokesman of ICTR, told Hirondelle Agency.
The judges attended court proceedings of “Military II” trial.
The members of the judiciary are drawn from Australia, Canada, Mauritius, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, Uganda and Zambia.
The CJEI was founded as an independent Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) in 1998 and is located in Halifax, Canada.
The Institute has been established to provide support and linkage among existing Commonwealth judicial education bodies; encourage the sharing of information and resources; encourage the establishment of new national and regional judicial education in the Commonwealth; develop programmes and teaching tools for the use of all; and to deliver judicial education programmes.
29 October 2008
About 40 chief justices and senior judiciary members from about ten Commonwealth countries Wednesday visited the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) to get first hand information on the operations of the UN Court and how they can draw lessons and apply the Tribunal’s jurisprudence to their respective domestic justice system.
Commonwealth members are former British colonies. Rwanda has applied to join the Commonwealth though it was a Belgian and German colony.
The top-level judiciary officials are in Arusha for a four-day biennial meeting of the Commonwealth Judicial Education Institute (CJEI), whose governing committee’s president is Sir Dennis Byron from Saint Kitts and Nevis, who also is current President of the ICTR.
“This is an opportunity to present to the participants a good understanding of the ICTR jurisprudence and to enable them to draw lessons from that jurisprudence and see how they can apply to their respective domestic areas of work,” Roland Amoussouga, Spokesman of ICTR, told Hirondelle Agency.
The judges attended court proceedings of “Military II” trial.
The members of the judiciary are drawn from Australia, Canada, Mauritius, Nigeria, Pakistan, Rwanda, South Africa, Swaziland, Tanzania, Uganda, United Kingdom, Uganda and Zambia.
The CJEI was founded as an independent Non-Governmental Organisation (NGO) in 1998 and is located in Halifax, Canada.
The Institute has been established to provide support and linkage among existing Commonwealth judicial education bodies; encourage the sharing of information and resources; encourage the establishment of new national and regional judicial education in the Commonwealth; develop programmes and teaching tools for the use of all; and to deliver judicial education programmes.
FORMER ICTY SPOKESPERSON IN DOCK FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT.
Original reporting by Hirondelle News Agency
28 October 2008
Florence Hartmann, former spokesperson of Carla del Ponte, appeared for the first time Monday before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) accused of two charges of contempt to the Tribunal.
Hartmann has asked for an additional time before saying if she pleads guilty or not.
The presiding Judge Carmel Agius, however, chided her request: “I am sure you will dispute the charges”, he repeated twice.
At the beginning of the hearing, her lawyer, Frenchman William Bourdon, used each detail of the proceedings to carry the case on its facts.
Being opposed to any photography of the defendant in the courtroom, Bourdon drove the nail. “She is not being prosecuted for violations to humanitarian international law, she is not at large, she is free.” And of his client, the lawyer does not want that this popular image, of defendants in The Hague in their box, be circulated. “This very reserve club is that of those who are prosecuted, accused of having offended humanity”. Hartmann, according to her lawyer, is prosecuted for “an intellectual infraction”.
Before the hearing, the lawyer had considered that the infraction was constituted because his client does not call into question the decisions but only refers to them. For Bourdon, “the legal actions against Mrs. Hartmann pose very important problems of principle (…) The duty to inform, the freedom of expression and the right of the public to know the operations of international justice”.
The ICTY may not come out a winner of this legal adventure because the two decisions which the existence was made public, in particular in Hartmann’s book, Peace and Punishment (Paix et Châtiment), show the complete absence of transparency of both ad hoc tribunals, the ICTY and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).
The Appeals Chamber had decided twice, within the framework of the Milosevic case, in favour of the confidentiality of evidence given by Belgrade. However, this evidence could have had an impact on another case, heard before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which settles disagreements between countries. Bosnia-Herzegovina accused Serbia of genocide. Sarajevo had vainly requested on several occasions that the Tribunal give this evidence to it, in the objective to give it to the ICJ. In 2007, Bosnia came out a loser in the case and Serbia was harshly chastised for not doing enough to prevent the massacre.
The trial should proceed at the beginning of 2009. She risks up to seven years in prison and 100 000 Euros in fines if convicted.
28 October 2008
Florence Hartmann, former spokesperson of Carla del Ponte, appeared for the first time Monday before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) accused of two charges of contempt to the Tribunal.
Hartmann has asked for an additional time before saying if she pleads guilty or not.
The presiding Judge Carmel Agius, however, chided her request: “I am sure you will dispute the charges”, he repeated twice.
At the beginning of the hearing, her lawyer, Frenchman William Bourdon, used each detail of the proceedings to carry the case on its facts.
Being opposed to any photography of the defendant in the courtroom, Bourdon drove the nail. “She is not being prosecuted for violations to humanitarian international law, she is not at large, she is free.” And of his client, the lawyer does not want that this popular image, of defendants in The Hague in their box, be circulated. “This very reserve club is that of those who are prosecuted, accused of having offended humanity”. Hartmann, according to her lawyer, is prosecuted for “an intellectual infraction”.
Before the hearing, the lawyer had considered that the infraction was constituted because his client does not call into question the decisions but only refers to them. For Bourdon, “the legal actions against Mrs. Hartmann pose very important problems of principle (…) The duty to inform, the freedom of expression and the right of the public to know the operations of international justice”.
The ICTY may not come out a winner of this legal adventure because the two decisions which the existence was made public, in particular in Hartmann’s book, Peace and Punishment (Paix et Châtiment), show the complete absence of transparency of both ad hoc tribunals, the ICTY and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR).
The Appeals Chamber had decided twice, within the framework of the Milosevic case, in favour of the confidentiality of evidence given by Belgrade. However, this evidence could have had an impact on another case, heard before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), which settles disagreements between countries. Bosnia-Herzegovina accused Serbia of genocide. Sarajevo had vainly requested on several occasions that the Tribunal give this evidence to it, in the objective to give it to the ICJ. In 2007, Bosnia came out a loser in the case and Serbia was harshly chastised for not doing enough to prevent the massacre.
The trial should proceed at the beginning of 2009. She risks up to seven years in prison and 100 000 Euros in fines if convicted.
Congo Crisis Update.
For those who have contacted me waiting for an update, please direct any inquiries regarding the ongoing Congo crisis to my e-mail address: BarouD@hush.com
Specific questions are preferred for reason of time constraints, but I will do my best to answer as much as I can with a proper level of detail. I apologize for any inconvenience. Thank you for your understanding.
Specific questions are preferred for reason of time constraints, but I will do my best to answer as much as I can with a proper level of detail. I apologize for any inconvenience. Thank you for your understanding.
French Appeals Court Rejects Extradition of National to Kigali.
Hirondelle News Agency
29 October 2008
The Appeals Court of Toulouse (Haute-Garonne, France) has rejected extradition request of a Rwandan national, Marcel Bivugabagabo, where he is wanted for his alleged participation in the 1994 genocide.
Bivugabagabo, a former Lieutenant Colonel of the Rwandan army, arrested in January in Toulouse by virtue of an international arrest warrant issued by the Rwanda, was on the list of the 93 people most wanted by Rwanda for crimes of genocide. During the genocide, he had commanded military operations in Ruhengeri sector, northern Rwanda.
Arrested in France, he was released on 16 July by the Investigation Division of Appeals Court of Pau, seized by the Final Court of Appeal after the cancellation of a decision of the Appeal Court of Toulouse rejecting his release request. Before rendering a decision on the merits of the case, the Investigation Division of Appeal Court of Toulouse had asked Rwanda on 22 May to furnish it with necessary documents.
In addition, the Investigation Division of Appeals Court of Lyon was expected to come soon with a decision over extradition request of another Rwandan national wanted by Rwanda, Claver Kamana.
On 9 July, Appeals Court cancelled a favourable opinion to his extradition delivered in April by the Appeals Court of Chambery in Savoy.
Arrested in Annecy on 26 February by virtue of an international arrest warrant of Rwandan legal authorities, Mr. Kamana was released on 29 July.
29 October 2008
The Appeals Court of Toulouse (Haute-Garonne, France) has rejected extradition request of a Rwandan national, Marcel Bivugabagabo, where he is wanted for his alleged participation in the 1994 genocide.
Bivugabagabo, a former Lieutenant Colonel of the Rwandan army, arrested in January in Toulouse by virtue of an international arrest warrant issued by the Rwanda, was on the list of the 93 people most wanted by Rwanda for crimes of genocide. During the genocide, he had commanded military operations in Ruhengeri sector, northern Rwanda.
Arrested in France, he was released on 16 July by the Investigation Division of Appeals Court of Pau, seized by the Final Court of Appeal after the cancellation of a decision of the Appeal Court of Toulouse rejecting his release request. Before rendering a decision on the merits of the case, the Investigation Division of Appeal Court of Toulouse had asked Rwanda on 22 May to furnish it with necessary documents.
In addition, the Investigation Division of Appeals Court of Lyon was expected to come soon with a decision over extradition request of another Rwandan national wanted by Rwanda, Claver Kamana.
On 9 July, Appeals Court cancelled a favourable opinion to his extradition delivered in April by the Appeals Court of Chambery in Savoy.
Arrested in Annecy on 26 February by virtue of an international arrest warrant of Rwandan legal authorities, Mr. Kamana was released on 29 July.
Butare Trial - Protected Witness Confesses to Have Lied Before UN Court.
Hirondelle News Agency
29 October 2008
A protected prosecution witness who had testified some four years ago in a joint trial of six genocide suspects popularly known as 'Butare Trial', Wednesday shocked the UN Courtroom when he confessed that he had lied during his testimony.
"I gave false testimony and I have highly regretted since then," said prosecution witness code-named "QA" as everybody in the courtroom heard in complete disbelief, at least for the prosecution side. However, he did not elaborate what motivated him to lie before the UN Court.
The witness gave evidence before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) on March 18, 22 and 23, 2004.
"I promise, this time I will speak the truth but previously I told lies," insisted QA before the three-bench judges led by William Sekule of Tanzania. The rest of the hearing was in closed session.
The Chamber in its ruling dated 28 October, 2008, granted a motions filed by two accused-- Joseph Kanyabashi, former Mayor of Ngoma commune and Sylvain Nsabimana, former Governor-- who wanted to cross examine witness QA on additional topics as they had suspected that he had lied before the court.
The witness made the confession shortly before the Lead Counsel for Kanyabashi, Michel Marchand from Canada took the floor to re-examine him
According to the Statute of ICTR, telling lies under solemn declaration was an offence and was punishable. It was not yet clear what action was considered by the Chamber against QA for his false testimony.
In the trial of Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, former Minister for Education, a protected prosecution witness dubbed "GAA" was sentenced to nine months imprisonment last December for contempt of court after being found guilty of giving false evidence under solemn declaration. In the past, the defence has lamented that witnesses were 'coached' to lie by Rwandan authorities. Rwandan officials deny the claim.
29 October 2008
A protected prosecution witness who had testified some four years ago in a joint trial of six genocide suspects popularly known as 'Butare Trial', Wednesday shocked the UN Courtroom when he confessed that he had lied during his testimony.
"I gave false testimony and I have highly regretted since then," said prosecution witness code-named "QA" as everybody in the courtroom heard in complete disbelief, at least for the prosecution side. However, he did not elaborate what motivated him to lie before the UN Court.
The witness gave evidence before the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) on March 18, 22 and 23, 2004.
"I promise, this time I will speak the truth but previously I told lies," insisted QA before the three-bench judges led by William Sekule of Tanzania. The rest of the hearing was in closed session.
The Chamber in its ruling dated 28 October, 2008, granted a motions filed by two accused-- Joseph Kanyabashi, former Mayor of Ngoma commune and Sylvain Nsabimana, former Governor-- who wanted to cross examine witness QA on additional topics as they had suspected that he had lied before the court.
The witness made the confession shortly before the Lead Counsel for Kanyabashi, Michel Marchand from Canada took the floor to re-examine him
According to the Statute of ICTR, telling lies under solemn declaration was an offence and was punishable. It was not yet clear what action was considered by the Chamber against QA for his false testimony.
In the trial of Jean de Dieu Kamuhanda, former Minister for Education, a protected prosecution witness dubbed "GAA" was sentenced to nine months imprisonment last December for contempt of court after being found guilty of giving false evidence under solemn declaration. In the past, the defence has lamented that witnesses were 'coached' to lie by Rwandan authorities. Rwandan officials deny the claim.
30 October, 2008
IOC speeds up works on oil pipeline project to Nepal.
Nepal News
25 September 2008
Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) has speeded up works on its pipeline project to connect Nepal, which is expected to reduce oil transportation cost here by as much as 60 %.
The efforts were intensified, after the visit of Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, for confidence-building measure.
"IOC will invest in setting up the pipeline. The plans are at a preliminary stage," S.V. Narasimhan, IOC director of finance is being quoted.
On completion of the project, Nepali truckers will pick up petroleum products from Raxual in Bihar state, which is 29 km away from NOC's main depots at Amalekhganj.
25 September 2008
Indian Oil Corporation (IOC) has speeded up works on its pipeline project to connect Nepal, which is expected to reduce oil transportation cost here by as much as 60 %.
The efforts were intensified, after the visit of Prime Minister Pushpa Kamal Dahal, for confidence-building measure.
"IOC will invest in setting up the pipeline. The plans are at a preliminary stage," S.V. Narasimhan, IOC director of finance is being quoted.
On completion of the project, Nepali truckers will pick up petroleum products from Raxual in Bihar state, which is 29 km away from NOC's main depots at Amalekhganj.
ANALYSIS: PROSECUTOR MUST BALANCE HIS EVIDENCE.
Hirondelle News Agency
27 October 2008
The sanction handed down to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for having violated the rights of Augustin Ndindiliyimana, former chief of staff of the Rwandan gendarmerie during the genocide, is an important moment in the history of international courts.
This sanction was handed down on 22 September in the “Military II” case. The prosecutor was sanctioned for his “negligence” in the execution of his obligation to communicate evidence of the case. The judges, moreover, authorized the defence to recall witnesses.
Already on 13 June, the International Criminal Court (ICC), for the same reasons, cancelled the proceedings against Thomas Lubanga and the Appeal Chamber has certified the decision.
The judges were clear by reminding the prosecutors that the statutes of international criminal law obligate them to communicate to the defence information which they hold including those which could affect the guilt of the defendant.
The international judges considered that the defendant had suffered a prejudice in the preparation of his defence, explained to the Hirondelle Agency Mr. Lurquin, a lawyer for Ndindiliyimana who is one of the accused in the “Military II” case.
Indeed, the presentation of evidence is off-limits for his client. However, the prosecutor has held secret since 2002 certain defence elements which could have an exculpatory value. “The accused in this case was deprived of the opportunity of using the exculpatory material to test the credibility of the prosecution witnesses”, deplored the judges.
The standpoint of the international judges is “courageous”, considers to Lurquin. It is “about a new conception of the role of the prosecutor”. The lawyer has worked at the ICTR since 1999, he says that it was usual, since each party does its investigation on its own side, that the prosecutor does not communicate information to the defence. It was up to defence to collect it.
However, and it is what the judges reminded in their decisions, this manner of proceeding is not in accordance with the law. In international criminal law, the prosecutor investigates for the prosecution and the defence.
Thus, article 68 A) of the ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE) states that the prosecutor is continuously obligated as soon as possible to communicate “to the defence all the elements of which it knows certainly that they are likely to clear in all or partly the defendant or to attack the credibility of his prosecution evidence” and this, until the end of the appeal proceedings.
It is only under strict conditions, enumerated by article 68 D) of the RPE, that the prosecutor can ask to be exonerated of this obligation and, thus, to obtain that this information remain confidential.
The First Instance Chamber, then, enumerated various possible remedies which are to its discretion to try to restore fairness in the trial. All do not have the same consequences.
To determine the adequate measure, the Chamber explains why it “must take into account the nature and significance of the prosecution’s violations in light of the current stage of the proceedings, the rights of the accused, the need to preserve the integrity of the proceedings, and its obligation to discover the truth about the events that happened in Rwanda in 1994”.
The judges believe that the abandonment of the prosecution requested by certain defence teams is a severe remedy which should only be retained in exceptional circumstances. When the damage undergone by the defendant is “unfixable”, explained Lurquin.
The International Criminal Court decided in June that the prejudice suffered by Lubanga was unfixable. In this case, the prosecutor had obtained exculpatory information, within the framework of particular agreements, permitted by article 54 3) of the ICC statute, which ensures the confidentiality of their contents and their sources. However, the prosecution still refuses to communicate these elements by basing themselves on these agreements and refuses to show them to the judges so that they can appreciate in which measure they would affect the rights of the defendant.
In “Military II”, the First Instance Chamber considered that authorizing the defence to recall certain prosecution witnesses or additional defence witnesses who have a connection to the statements that the prosecutor should have communicated to him could constitute a remedy for the wrong that was suffered. Twenty-eight witnesses will be recalled or heard for the first time. Lurquin is not certain that it is enough. For him, the wrong has been done.
The prosecutor reprimanded for his “lack of diligence” was called to order, he “must always exercise the highest standards of integrity and care in discharging”.
The non-disclosure of held information also affects the work of the judges. Lurquin points out that “it is difficult to consider the immediate history because we do not have all the elements but that it becomes increased if they are hidden”.
“We wonder about factual evidence which is now beaten back”. “All documents bring us closer to the truth”, he concluded.
27 October 2008
The sanction handed down to the prosecutor of the International Criminal Tribunal for having violated the rights of Augustin Ndindiliyimana, former chief of staff of the Rwandan gendarmerie during the genocide, is an important moment in the history of international courts.
This sanction was handed down on 22 September in the “Military II” case. The prosecutor was sanctioned for his “negligence” in the execution of his obligation to communicate evidence of the case. The judges, moreover, authorized the defence to recall witnesses.
Already on 13 June, the International Criminal Court (ICC), for the same reasons, cancelled the proceedings against Thomas Lubanga and the Appeal Chamber has certified the decision.
The judges were clear by reminding the prosecutors that the statutes of international criminal law obligate them to communicate to the defence information which they hold including those which could affect the guilt of the defendant.
The international judges considered that the defendant had suffered a prejudice in the preparation of his defence, explained to the Hirondelle Agency Mr. Lurquin, a lawyer for Ndindiliyimana who is one of the accused in the “Military II” case.
Indeed, the presentation of evidence is off-limits for his client. However, the prosecutor has held secret since 2002 certain defence elements which could have an exculpatory value. “The accused in this case was deprived of the opportunity of using the exculpatory material to test the credibility of the prosecution witnesses”, deplored the judges.
The standpoint of the international judges is “courageous”, considers to Lurquin. It is “about a new conception of the role of the prosecutor”. The lawyer has worked at the ICTR since 1999, he says that it was usual, since each party does its investigation on its own side, that the prosecutor does not communicate information to the defence. It was up to defence to collect it.
However, and it is what the judges reminded in their decisions, this manner of proceeding is not in accordance with the law. In international criminal law, the prosecutor investigates for the prosecution and the defence.
Thus, article 68 A) of the ICTR Rules of Procedure and Evidence (RPE) states that the prosecutor is continuously obligated as soon as possible to communicate “to the defence all the elements of which it knows certainly that they are likely to clear in all or partly the defendant or to attack the credibility of his prosecution evidence” and this, until the end of the appeal proceedings.
It is only under strict conditions, enumerated by article 68 D) of the RPE, that the prosecutor can ask to be exonerated of this obligation and, thus, to obtain that this information remain confidential.
The First Instance Chamber, then, enumerated various possible remedies which are to its discretion to try to restore fairness in the trial. All do not have the same consequences.
To determine the adequate measure, the Chamber explains why it “must take into account the nature and significance of the prosecution’s violations in light of the current stage of the proceedings, the rights of the accused, the need to preserve the integrity of the proceedings, and its obligation to discover the truth about the events that happened in Rwanda in 1994”.
The judges believe that the abandonment of the prosecution requested by certain defence teams is a severe remedy which should only be retained in exceptional circumstances. When the damage undergone by the defendant is “unfixable”, explained Lurquin.
The International Criminal Court decided in June that the prejudice suffered by Lubanga was unfixable. In this case, the prosecutor had obtained exculpatory information, within the framework of particular agreements, permitted by article 54 3) of the ICC statute, which ensures the confidentiality of their contents and their sources. However, the prosecution still refuses to communicate these elements by basing themselves on these agreements and refuses to show them to the judges so that they can appreciate in which measure they would affect the rights of the defendant.
In “Military II”, the First Instance Chamber considered that authorizing the defence to recall certain prosecution witnesses or additional defence witnesses who have a connection to the statements that the prosecutor should have communicated to him could constitute a remedy for the wrong that was suffered. Twenty-eight witnesses will be recalled or heard for the first time. Lurquin is not certain that it is enough. For him, the wrong has been done.
The prosecutor reprimanded for his “lack of diligence” was called to order, he “must always exercise the highest standards of integrity and care in discharging”.
The non-disclosure of held information also affects the work of the judges. Lurquin points out that “it is difficult to consider the immediate history because we do not have all the elements but that it becomes increased if they are hidden”.
“We wonder about factual evidence which is now beaten back”. “All documents bring us closer to the truth”, he concluded.
29 October, 2008
In Memoriam
On October 29, 1996, Monsignor Christophe Munzihirwa, the Archbishop of Bukavu, was assassinated by Rwandan forces in Bukavu. Prior to his murder, he had dennounced the conditions in Rwanda imposed by the RPF to the returning refugees from Zaire. Like Archbishop Emmanuel Kataliko, Monsignor Munzihirwa was a tireless servant of God and the Congolese people. Please take a moment today to remember his sacrifice, and the sacrifices of the many clergy in the region killed over the years fighting for peace, justice, and freedom. Please keep in mind the clergy who remain in Congo today advocating tirelessly for peace, justice, and freedom from foreign aggression in the Congo even today. No matter what religion you belong to, the ultimate values and ideals that these men continue to advocate for are honorable shared values, values derived from Natural Law and one of its products, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.
EU Involvement in Mining Project Draws Protest.
Inter-Press Service
28 October 2008
Michael Deibert
London
The involvement of the European Union in a mining project in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has drawn a chorus of protest from local and international human rights advocates. They say the project is rife with problems relating to transparency and accountability.
Located some 175 km north-west of the DRC city of Lubumbashi in Katanga province, the Tenke Fungurume vein is thought to be one of the largest unexploited seams of copper and cobalt in the world.
It has proven alluring to mining companies in recent years as the DRC attempts to extract itself from a civil war during which some six million people have died.
Mining of this resource has fallen to Tenke Fungurume Mining SARL (TFM), a joint concern combining Gécamines, Congo's state mining concern, with Lundin, a Swedish mining company, and the U.S.-based mining concern Phelps Dodge.
The latter merged with gold-and-copper giant Freeport-McMoran in 2007 and has since become Freeport-McMoran Copper & Gold Inc.
After construction on the Tenke mining facility commenced in 2007, the European Investment Bank (EIB), the investment arm of the European Union, agreed that same year to help finance the project with a loan of 100 million euros.
It regarded the project as "highly significant from an economic and developmental point of view" and that "environmental and social issues (connected with the project) have been subjected to careful in-depth analysis "
However, the EIB's move has been criticised both by international bodies, such as the Paris-based Les Amis de la Terre (Friends of the Earth), as well as local organisations in the DRC, such as Action Contre l'Impunité pour les Droits Humains (Action against impunity towards human rights).
"The EIB seems totally unaware of what was going on during the signing of the (Tenke) contract and their assessment seems purely financial," says Anne-Sophie Simpere, a campaigner for the reform of international financial institutions working with Les Amis de la Terre.
"We feel that they shouldn't finance that kind of extractive industry project in Africa until they have experienced staff to assess it." Objections to the project have ranged from what groups say was an inadequate consultative process (the use of French language documents to explain the Tenke endeavour to a largely-illiterate, Swahili-speaking population) to the displacement of local residents from towns such as Mulumbu to make way for mining activities before replacement housing had been built for them, rendering them essentially homeless.
Perhaps even more controversial, in June 2005 the Lutundula Commission concluded that Lundin Holdings made its first payment towards the Tenke concession - totalling nearly 50 million dollars - in 1997. This was a year after it had gained the concession in what was viewed as a largely non-competitive bidding process.
The Lutundula commission consists of Congolese parliamentarians charged with investigating business contracts signed during DRC's civil war.
The deposit, the commission discovered, was paid into the account of Rwanda-based Comiex Limited, a company partly owned by Laurent-Désiré Kabila, the Congolese rebel leader who had just seized power in the DRC after ousting long-time dictator Mobutu Sese Seko.
Kabila was assassinated by one of his own bodyguards in 2001 and his son, Joseph Kabila, the DRC's current president, assumed the office that he holds today.
Recently, the Congolese government completed a further year-long review of 61 mining contracts in the country, the results of which have not yet been officially announced. Lubin and Freeport-McMoran are among those whose contracts are being reassessed.
Requests for comment by Lundin Holdings went unanswered. The EIB, for its part, takes a more circumspect view of the situation, and points to the fact that the disbursement of the loan has been put on hold pending the outcome of the mining review.
"The EIB is aware that a review of the mining projects in the DRC has been published, and an independent commission established to renegotiate the mining contracts," says Una Clifford, a press officer with the EIB.
"The EIB's discussions with the project sponsor have been suspended pending clarity on the final outcome of the work undertaken by the independent commission.
"The EIB has conditionally approved a loan of 100 million euros for Tenke (but) this loan will not be signed until the bank receives the final go-ahead from the DRC government."
The Tenke controversy is illustrative of the discomforting ways that commerce and political patronage frequently intersect in foreign companies' involvement in the DRC.
South Africa's AngloGold Ashanti mining company has come under fire for links with and payments made to the Front Nationaliste et Intégrationniste (FNI), one of several ethnically-based militias that helped turn the eastern Congolese region of Ituri into a killing field earlier this decade in a conflict that claimed at least 60,000 lives.
One former leader of the FNI, Mathieu Ngudjolo, is currently awaiting trial at the International Criminal Court in The Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Another, Floribert Njabu, is currently in detention in the DRC's capital of Kinshasa.
For its part, the Australian company Anvil Mining, the leading copper producer in the DRC, has been accused by human rights organisations and investigators for the United Nations peacekeeping mission of having provided logistical support to the Congolese army during their siege of the town of Kilwa. At least 73 people were killed in that town, which is in Katanga province.
28 October 2008
Michael Deibert
London
The involvement of the European Union in a mining project in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) has drawn a chorus of protest from local and international human rights advocates. They say the project is rife with problems relating to transparency and accountability.
Located some 175 km north-west of the DRC city of Lubumbashi in Katanga province, the Tenke Fungurume vein is thought to be one of the largest unexploited seams of copper and cobalt in the world.
It has proven alluring to mining companies in recent years as the DRC attempts to extract itself from a civil war during which some six million people have died.
Mining of this resource has fallen to Tenke Fungurume Mining SARL (TFM), a joint concern combining Gécamines, Congo's state mining concern, with Lundin, a Swedish mining company, and the U.S.-based mining concern Phelps Dodge.
The latter merged with gold-and-copper giant Freeport-McMoran in 2007 and has since become Freeport-McMoran Copper & Gold Inc.
After construction on the Tenke mining facility commenced in 2007, the European Investment Bank (EIB), the investment arm of the European Union, agreed that same year to help finance the project with a loan of 100 million euros.
It regarded the project as "highly significant from an economic and developmental point of view" and that "environmental and social issues (connected with the project) have been subjected to careful in-depth analysis "
However, the EIB's move has been criticised both by international bodies, such as the Paris-based Les Amis de la Terre (Friends of the Earth), as well as local organisations in the DRC, such as Action Contre l'Impunité pour les Droits Humains (Action against impunity towards human rights).
"The EIB seems totally unaware of what was going on during the signing of the (Tenke) contract and their assessment seems purely financial," says Anne-Sophie Simpere, a campaigner for the reform of international financial institutions working with Les Amis de la Terre.
"We feel that they shouldn't finance that kind of extractive industry project in Africa until they have experienced staff to assess it." Objections to the project have ranged from what groups say was an inadequate consultative process (the use of French language documents to explain the Tenke endeavour to a largely-illiterate, Swahili-speaking population) to the displacement of local residents from towns such as Mulumbu to make way for mining activities before replacement housing had been built for them, rendering them essentially homeless.
Perhaps even more controversial, in June 2005 the Lutundula Commission concluded that Lundin Holdings made its first payment towards the Tenke concession - totalling nearly 50 million dollars - in 1997. This was a year after it had gained the concession in what was viewed as a largely non-competitive bidding process.
The Lutundula commission consists of Congolese parliamentarians charged with investigating business contracts signed during DRC's civil war.
The deposit, the commission discovered, was paid into the account of Rwanda-based Comiex Limited, a company partly owned by Laurent-Désiré Kabila, the Congolese rebel leader who had just seized power in the DRC after ousting long-time dictator Mobutu Sese Seko.
Kabila was assassinated by one of his own bodyguards in 2001 and his son, Joseph Kabila, the DRC's current president, assumed the office that he holds today.
Recently, the Congolese government completed a further year-long review of 61 mining contracts in the country, the results of which have not yet been officially announced. Lubin and Freeport-McMoran are among those whose contracts are being reassessed.
Requests for comment by Lundin Holdings went unanswered. The EIB, for its part, takes a more circumspect view of the situation, and points to the fact that the disbursement of the loan has been put on hold pending the outcome of the mining review.
"The EIB is aware that a review of the mining projects in the DRC has been published, and an independent commission established to renegotiate the mining contracts," says Una Clifford, a press officer with the EIB.
"The EIB's discussions with the project sponsor have been suspended pending clarity on the final outcome of the work undertaken by the independent commission.
"The EIB has conditionally approved a loan of 100 million euros for Tenke (but) this loan will not be signed until the bank receives the final go-ahead from the DRC government."
The Tenke controversy is illustrative of the discomforting ways that commerce and political patronage frequently intersect in foreign companies' involvement in the DRC.
South Africa's AngloGold Ashanti mining company has come under fire for links with and payments made to the Front Nationaliste et Intégrationniste (FNI), one of several ethnically-based militias that helped turn the eastern Congolese region of Ituri into a killing field earlier this decade in a conflict that claimed at least 60,000 lives.
One former leader of the FNI, Mathieu Ngudjolo, is currently awaiting trial at the International Criminal Court in The Hague for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Another, Floribert Njabu, is currently in detention in the DRC's capital of Kinshasa.
For its part, the Australian company Anvil Mining, the leading copper producer in the DRC, has been accused by human rights organisations and investigators for the United Nations peacekeeping mission of having provided logistical support to the Congolese army during their siege of the town of Kilwa. At least 73 people were killed in that town, which is in Katanga province.
26 October, 2008
Text of Somali Ceasefire Agreement Signed in Djibouti on October 26, 2008.
.jpg)
Special thanks to UNPOS and Garowe Online for the document scans.
Del Ponte Book Gets Mixed Reception.
Institute for War & Peace Reporting
By Enis Zebic in Zagreb (TU No 574, 24-Oct-08)
The Croatian language edition of the autobiography of ex-war crimes prosecutor Carla Del Ponte was given a mixed reception at its launch in Zagreb this week
In the book, Madame Prosector, Del Ponte talks of her time leading the prosecution team at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ICTY, from 1999 to January this year, where she earned both praise and censure for her outspoken and uncompromising style.
The book has already causes a stir in the Balkans since it was published in Italian in April, and opinions were similarly varied at its Zagreb launch on October 20.
In her memoirs, Del Ponte looks back over her eight years at the tribunal.
Del Ponte said “the worst period” of her mandate was the time when appeal judges significantly reduced the sentence given to Bosnian Croat Tihomir Blaskic. Although Blaskic was sentenced initially to 45 years in prison for crimes against Bosniak civilians, this was slashed to just nine years in the appeals chamber and 16 of the original 19 counts were thrown out.
However, she won no sympathy from Ante Nobilo, Blaskic’s former defence counsel, who spoke at the launch.
“I can say that Carla Del Ponte wrote this book to change the image of herself and her work, to justify herself [for failing to secure convictions in some cases, and more severe sentences in others],” he told IWPR.
In her book, the former prosecutor said the failure to make charges against Blaskic was the fault of the Croatian authorities who she said hid documents that were relevant to the case. She also blamed judges at the Hague tribunal for deciding to accept written testimonies from some witnesses into evidence, instead of hearing them in court.
However, this week, Nobilo dismissed Del Ponte’s claims.
He told the audience gathered at the Zagreb event that the tribunal’s investigators had full access to Croatian archives. He added that the judges did not do anything unusual by accepting written testimonies from some witnesses, as this happened in other cases at this court, too.
All of those who spoke at the event said they were sorry that the book did not touch on allegations that world powers obstructed the search for two indicted suspects, former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and his army chief Ratko Mladic.
Karadzic was arrested in July this year, after 13 years on the run, while Mladic is still at large.
“The things that should have been told she could not say. She did not dare to because of the balance of power in the world today,” said Zvonimir Cicak, moderator at the talk and president of the Croatian Helsinki Committee, suggesting that Del Ponte could somehow be in danger if she spoke.
“Most of those politicians and powerful people, especially in intelligence services, are still holding the same posts, not in ex-Yugoslavia, but around the world,” he added.
However, he predicted that she would reveal more one day, “We can only wait for her to, maybe, really say something. I believe she will…”
Among the criticism, there was one positive response to the book.
Florence Hartmann, Del Ponte’s ex-spokeswoman, who also spoke at the launch, said further information on the court should always be welcomed.
“More important than all the gossip and absurdities [contained in the book], if I can call them that, is freedom of movement and speech [in relation to the work of the court]. Perspectives should be multiplied, because we cannot have only one opinion on the work of the tribunal,” said Hartmann, who published a book on the work of the court last year.
“I think it is important that people [discuss the court so] that they have different perspectives and provide numerous details, so a more complete, a more complex and objective opinion could be formed,” she said.
Enis Zebic is an RFE reporter and IWPR’s contributor in Zagreb.
By Enis Zebic in Zagreb (TU No 574, 24-Oct-08)
The Croatian language edition of the autobiography of ex-war crimes prosecutor Carla Del Ponte was given a mixed reception at its launch in Zagreb this week
In the book, Madame Prosector, Del Ponte talks of her time leading the prosecution team at the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, ICTY, from 1999 to January this year, where she earned both praise and censure for her outspoken and uncompromising style.
The book has already causes a stir in the Balkans since it was published in Italian in April, and opinions were similarly varied at its Zagreb launch on October 20.
In her memoirs, Del Ponte looks back over her eight years at the tribunal.
Del Ponte said “the worst period” of her mandate was the time when appeal judges significantly reduced the sentence given to Bosnian Croat Tihomir Blaskic. Although Blaskic was sentenced initially to 45 years in prison for crimes against Bosniak civilians, this was slashed to just nine years in the appeals chamber and 16 of the original 19 counts were thrown out.
However, she won no sympathy from Ante Nobilo, Blaskic’s former defence counsel, who spoke at the launch.
“I can say that Carla Del Ponte wrote this book to change the image of herself and her work, to justify herself [for failing to secure convictions in some cases, and more severe sentences in others],” he told IWPR.
In her book, the former prosecutor said the failure to make charges against Blaskic was the fault of the Croatian authorities who she said hid documents that were relevant to the case. She also blamed judges at the Hague tribunal for deciding to accept written testimonies from some witnesses into evidence, instead of hearing them in court.
However, this week, Nobilo dismissed Del Ponte’s claims.
He told the audience gathered at the Zagreb event that the tribunal’s investigators had full access to Croatian archives. He added that the judges did not do anything unusual by accepting written testimonies from some witnesses, as this happened in other cases at this court, too.
All of those who spoke at the event said they were sorry that the book did not touch on allegations that world powers obstructed the search for two indicted suspects, former Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic and his army chief Ratko Mladic.
Karadzic was arrested in July this year, after 13 years on the run, while Mladic is still at large.
“The things that should have been told she could not say. She did not dare to because of the balance of power in the world today,” said Zvonimir Cicak, moderator at the talk and president of the Croatian Helsinki Committee, suggesting that Del Ponte could somehow be in danger if she spoke.
“Most of those politicians and powerful people, especially in intelligence services, are still holding the same posts, not in ex-Yugoslavia, but around the world,” he added.
However, he predicted that she would reveal more one day, “We can only wait for her to, maybe, really say something. I believe she will…”
Among the criticism, there was one positive response to the book.
Florence Hartmann, Del Ponte’s ex-spokeswoman, who also spoke at the launch, said further information on the court should always be welcomed.
“More important than all the gossip and absurdities [contained in the book], if I can call them that, is freedom of movement and speech [in relation to the work of the court]. Perspectives should be multiplied, because we cannot have only one opinion on the work of the tribunal,” said Hartmann, who published a book on the work of the court last year.
“I think it is important that people [discuss the court so] that they have different perspectives and provide numerous details, so a more complete, a more complex and objective opinion could be formed,” she said.
Enis Zebic is an RFE reporter and IWPR’s contributor in Zagreb.
Simon Mann could have sentence cut.
Mail & Guardian
26 October 2008
Briton Simon Mann, jailed for plotting a coup in Equatorial Guinea, could be transferred home if Britain arrests others like Sir Mark Thatcher, the African state's president said in an interview Sunday.
President Teodoro Obiang Nguema told the Mail on Sunday that if Britain arrested Thatcher -- son of former prime minister Baroness Margaret Thatcher -- and Ely Calil, Mann could be sent back to a British jail.
He also claimed that Mann's sentence could be reduced if he continues to "collaborate" with his government.
Mann, a former special forces officer who attended Britain's prestigious Eton school and the Sandhurst military academy, was jailed for 34 years in July for leading an abortive coup to oust the president in 2004.
Mann also implicated Thatcher, who was given a fine and a suspended sentence in South Africa in 2005 after pleading guilty to unwittingly helping to finance the plot.
"I'll tell you what it will take for him to be allowed to leave my country," the president said of Mann.
"If the British police arrest the people we say were also involved -- Ely Calil, Mark Thatcher and others -- and bring them to court then maybe we will transfer Simon to an English jail so he can be close to his family".
He added that British police had visited Equatorial Guinea three times within a few months gathering evidence and Mann had "collaborated brilliantly" with them.
"Simon Mann has collaborated with our government and the British police and if he continues to behave so well, then yes, we will reduce his sentence," the president said.
26 October 2008
Briton Simon Mann, jailed for plotting a coup in Equatorial Guinea, could be transferred home if Britain arrests others like Sir Mark Thatcher, the African state's president said in an interview Sunday.
President Teodoro Obiang Nguema told the Mail on Sunday that if Britain arrested Thatcher -- son of former prime minister Baroness Margaret Thatcher -- and Ely Calil, Mann could be sent back to a British jail.
He also claimed that Mann's sentence could be reduced if he continues to "collaborate" with his government.
Mann, a former special forces officer who attended Britain's prestigious Eton school and the Sandhurst military academy, was jailed for 34 years in July for leading an abortive coup to oust the president in 2004.
Mann also implicated Thatcher, who was given a fine and a suspended sentence in South Africa in 2005 after pleading guilty to unwittingly helping to finance the plot.
"I'll tell you what it will take for him to be allowed to leave my country," the president said of Mann.
"If the British police arrest the people we say were also involved -- Ely Calil, Mark Thatcher and others -- and bring them to court then maybe we will transfer Simon to an English jail so he can be close to his family".
He added that British police had visited Equatorial Guinea three times within a few months gathering evidence and Mann had "collaborated brilliantly" with them.
"Simon Mann has collaborated with our government and the British police and if he continues to behave so well, then yes, we will reduce his sentence," the president said.
Rwanda’s invasion of DRC must be condemned.
The Southern Times
24 october 2008
http://www.southerntimesafrica.com/inside.aspx?sectid=83&cat=10
The SADC region, and indeed Africa as a whole, needs to spare a thought for the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo.
They have not known peace and meaningful development since the days of the late dictator Mobutu Sese Seko. In fact, the country has seen conflict after conflict ever since the days of the assassination of Patrick Lumumba.
And just when things seemed to be improving in the vast country after recent parliamentary and presidential polls, the first such democratic elections in years, a new conflict erupts in the eastern parts of the country.
And just like previous conflicts that have torn the country apart, the latest one is said to have the backing of neighbouring Rwanda which is said to be backing rebels led by Laurent Nkunda. In fact, what is more worrying is the allegations that Rwandan troops have crossed onto DRC territory.
Last week we published pictures of a Rwandan soldier and Rwandan Defence Forces weapons said to have been captured inside the DRC. The UN, together the African Union and SADC need to verify these claims and take appropriate action. At this time, Africa cannot afford another war.
This is the time for all countries on the continent to fight poverty, hunger and diseases. These are the three biggest enemies facing the continent today.
The DRC, Africa's third largest country, is the richest country on the continent in terms of resources but has never enjoyed its wealth because of either internal strife or foreign-sponsored wars.
The last time the Congo was invaded, a full-scale war erupted sucking in Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe, on the side of the DRC government, and Rwanda, Uganda, and, to some extent, Burundi, on the side of the invaders.
If Rwandan troops are on DRC territory, then we call upon SADC, the AU and international community to condemn in the strongest of terms, the violation of territorial integrity of the DRC. If that fails, then the Congo, being a member of SADC, has the right to ask for whatever assistance it needs from the regional body.
No-one wants war in SADC, but this does not mean that member states can watch and fold their arms while a fellow member state is being violated. Neither does the AU, despite its commitments elsewhere like in Somalia and Darfur, need to fold its hands and watch as the crisis unfolds in the eastern DRC.
Problems in the eastern part of the DRC need to be addressed once and for all in a lasting solution that addresses the concerns of all. For as long as there is war in the DRC, there will not be any economic prosperity on the continent.
There will not be any meaningful economic development in SADC either. For Africa and the region are as strong as their weakest link.
Editor's Note: A full 2 weeks ago, observers operating in Rutshuru Territory noted the presence of Rwanda's 99th Brigade operating illegally inside Congolese territory. The Congolese Government alleges that Colonel Mupenzi, Commander of the RDF's 9th Battalion, is in charge of the joint RDF-CNDP operations inside Congolese territory. The UN Security Council, by refusing to seriously address these unilateral acts of aggression by Rwanda, fails to uphold certain UN Charter principles it was founded on. Rwanda is clearly acting as a threat to international peace and security by these acts of war. Therefore, it is the duty and purpose of the UN Security Council to address this issue, however, the politics of the member states in the Security Council have prevented meaningful action thus far.
The African Union has a crucial primary duty to address this issue with the means it has available. As a pan-African organization, who better to provide the needed Afro-centric perspective on conflict mediation? Unfortunately, His Excellency, Mr. President Jean Ping, has thus far shown an unwillingness to seriously address this issue as well, in part, because after visiting Congo and Rwanda, he was given grossly conflicting information from both sides. AU officials must ultimately ask, does the AU value the Rwandan presence in UNAMID over peace and security in the Congo? Without Rwanda, the AU contingent in Darfur would collapse, which also goes against the aims of certain western states supporting the mission, some of whom provide logistical and military support to the mission. This political reality shackles the AU's decisionmaking options when it comes to addressing Rwanda's aggression inside the Congo.
This editor strongly supports an increased level of AU and SADC involvement in the crisis. I also support MONUC's renewed efforts to institute the Nairobi Agreement and a Belgian Parliment initiative calling for the deployment of a quick reaction force under a Chapter 7 UN mandate. I also support Special Representative Doss and Ambassador Ripert's call for improved intelligence and monitoring capabilities, with an increase in troops to help escort and protect IDPs and humanitarian workers so they may gain access to desperately needy people in the field. Meanwhile, the international community must continue to support efforts to train and professionalize the Congolese National Army if there is to be lasting peace. If financially and logistically possible, these efforts should be supplements by additional resources.
However, as has been said many times already, a military solution will not solve this crisis. The actors who were not present at the Goma Conference must hold meaningful dialogues and commit to resolve their issues. FDLR-FOCA leadership, Congolese government and military officials, and the Rwandan Government must engage politically, or else none of the long-term issues will be solved, and the entire region will suffer the consequences. Realizing this, Kenya has tried to mediate between the Congo and Rwanda.
24 october 2008
http://www.southerntimesafrica.com/inside.aspx?sectid=83&cat=10
The SADC region, and indeed Africa as a whole, needs to spare a thought for the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo.
They have not known peace and meaningful development since the days of the late dictator Mobutu Sese Seko. In fact, the country has seen conflict after conflict ever since the days of the assassination of Patrick Lumumba.
And just when things seemed to be improving in the vast country after recent parliamentary and presidential polls, the first such democratic elections in years, a new conflict erupts in the eastern parts of the country.
And just like previous conflicts that have torn the country apart, the latest one is said to have the backing of neighbouring Rwanda which is said to be backing rebels led by Laurent Nkunda. In fact, what is more worrying is the allegations that Rwandan troops have crossed onto DRC territory.
Last week we published pictures of a Rwandan soldier and Rwandan Defence Forces weapons said to have been captured inside the DRC. The UN, together the African Union and SADC need to verify these claims and take appropriate action. At this time, Africa cannot afford another war.
This is the time for all countries on the continent to fight poverty, hunger and diseases. These are the three biggest enemies facing the continent today.
The DRC, Africa's third largest country, is the richest country on the continent in terms of resources but has never enjoyed its wealth because of either internal strife or foreign-sponsored wars.
The last time the Congo was invaded, a full-scale war erupted sucking in Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe, on the side of the DRC government, and Rwanda, Uganda, and, to some extent, Burundi, on the side of the invaders.
If Rwandan troops are on DRC territory, then we call upon SADC, the AU and international community to condemn in the strongest of terms, the violation of territorial integrity of the DRC. If that fails, then the Congo, being a member of SADC, has the right to ask for whatever assistance it needs from the regional body.
No-one wants war in SADC, but this does not mean that member states can watch and fold their arms while a fellow member state is being violated. Neither does the AU, despite its commitments elsewhere like in Somalia and Darfur, need to fold its hands and watch as the crisis unfolds in the eastern DRC.
Problems in the eastern part of the DRC need to be addressed once and for all in a lasting solution that addresses the concerns of all. For as long as there is war in the DRC, there will not be any economic prosperity on the continent.
There will not be any meaningful economic development in SADC either. For Africa and the region are as strong as their weakest link.
Editor's Note: A full 2 weeks ago, observers operating in Rutshuru Territory noted the presence of Rwanda's 99th Brigade operating illegally inside Congolese territory. The Congolese Government alleges that Colonel Mupenzi, Commander of the RDF's 9th Battalion, is in charge of the joint RDF-CNDP operations inside Congolese territory. The UN Security Council, by refusing to seriously address these unilateral acts of aggression by Rwanda, fails to uphold certain UN Charter principles it was founded on. Rwanda is clearly acting as a threat to international peace and security by these acts of war. Therefore, it is the duty and purpose of the UN Security Council to address this issue, however, the politics of the member states in the Security Council have prevented meaningful action thus far.
The African Union has a crucial primary duty to address this issue with the means it has available. As a pan-African organization, who better to provide the needed Afro-centric perspective on conflict mediation? Unfortunately, His Excellency, Mr. President Jean Ping, has thus far shown an unwillingness to seriously address this issue as well, in part, because after visiting Congo and Rwanda, he was given grossly conflicting information from both sides. AU officials must ultimately ask, does the AU value the Rwandan presence in UNAMID over peace and security in the Congo? Without Rwanda, the AU contingent in Darfur would collapse, which also goes against the aims of certain western states supporting the mission, some of whom provide logistical and military support to the mission. This political reality shackles the AU's decisionmaking options when it comes to addressing Rwanda's aggression inside the Congo.
This editor strongly supports an increased level of AU and SADC involvement in the crisis. I also support MONUC's renewed efforts to institute the Nairobi Agreement and a Belgian Parliment initiative calling for the deployment of a quick reaction force under a Chapter 7 UN mandate. I also support Special Representative Doss and Ambassador Ripert's call for improved intelligence and monitoring capabilities, with an increase in troops to help escort and protect IDPs and humanitarian workers so they may gain access to desperately needy people in the field. Meanwhile, the international community must continue to support efforts to train and professionalize the Congolese National Army if there is to be lasting peace. If financially and logistically possible, these efforts should be supplements by additional resources.
However, as has been said many times already, a military solution will not solve this crisis. The actors who were not present at the Goma Conference must hold meaningful dialogues and commit to resolve their issues. FDLR-FOCA leadership, Congolese government and military officials, and the Rwandan Government must engage politically, or else none of the long-term issues will be solved, and the entire region will suffer the consequences. Realizing this, Kenya has tried to mediate between the Congo and Rwanda.
1994 Cable Shows US State Department was Aware of Systematic RPA Massacres of Hutu.
This September 1994 cable, from Undersecretary for African Affairs George Moose to Secretary of State Warren Christopher shows the U.S. State Department was fully aware of a UNHCR investigative team that discovered that the Rwandan Patriotic Army and "civilian surrogates" were killing at least 10,000 civilians a month in July and August of 1994. The UNHCR team also discovered that the Government of Rwanda was aware of the massacres. The UNHCR planned to make the report public and Secretary General Ghali planned to brief the Security Council on the matter.
http://webpages.charter.net/jabdmb/rwandamoose94_001.pdf
Special thanks to Professor Peter Erlinder for providing this document.
http://webpages.charter.net/jabdmb/rwandamoose94_001.pdf
Special thanks to Professor Peter Erlinder for providing this document.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
