DRC: A resolution against a deadly war

MANOJ MITTA

DURING the CHR’s 59th session, the world witnessed mass killings due to the civil war in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC). On just one day, 3 April 2003, more than a thousand innocent civilians were massacred in the region of Bunia, in the north-east of the DRC. In a cruel irony, the massacre took place barely a fortnight after a cease-fire agreement was signed between the DRC government and the rebel groups on 18 March 2003 in a bid to resolve the civil war which has been dragging on for years.

Little wonder then that last week the CHR adopted a resolution on the DRC without a vote, as it had done in previous years. The like-minded group (LMG) of developing nations, which usually has reservations about country resolutions, made an exception in the one concerning the DRC. This is because the resolution sponsored by the EU does not, in the opinion of the LMG, engage in the game of selective naming and shaming. On the contrary, since the resolution was drafted in consultation with the DRC, the LMG sees it as a co-operative and constructive exercise intended to help the affected country and not to condemn it.            

This assessment of the LMG was confirmed by the DRC on 17 April 2003 when its Permanent Representative spoke in the CHR shortly before the adoption of the resolution.  The DRC expressed appreciation for the EU's gesture of taking the affected country into confidence while drafting the resolution. But at the same time the DRC stressed that the concern shown by the developed countries should translate from altruism to financial help. "My government can't ensure that prisoners get enough food because of the growing debt burden. The lack of funds prevents us from providing proper facilities to our prisons and courts,  paying our civil servants or dealing with AIDS," said the DRC's Permanent Representative, adding with more than a touch of sarcasm, "We request the champions of human rights to give us the necessary funds."            

Whether the rich countries will pay heed to the DRC's appeal for aid or not, it was refreshing to see the target of a resolution not coming up with a blanket denial of all the charges that are made against it. To be sure, the resolution adopted in the 59th session contains condemnation of not just the rebel groups but also the duly recognised government of the DRC. In the negotiations between the EU and DRC, the sponsors of the resolution ensured that some of their major concerns remained in the text even if those were critical of the government. Some of the clauses in the resolution that condemn the DRC government as well are:            

"The cases of summary or arbitrary execution, disappearance, torture, harassment, arrest, widespread persecution and arbitrary detention for long periods throughout the country. "            

"The widespread recourse to sexual violence against women and children, including as a means of warfare."            

"The upsurge in the recruitment and use of child soldiers by armed forces and groups in the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo."            

"The impunity of those responsible for violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, and points out in this connection that the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a party to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court."            

To compensate for the clauses that are embarrassing to it, the DRC government negotiated the inclusion of a reference to the illegal mining that is allegedly going on in rebel controlled areas with the connivance of multinational companies. This issue is important to the DRC because of its long-standing allegation that the illegal mining of gold and diamonds in rebel-controlled zones by companies based in developed countries is serving as a source of revenue for the rebels to carry on with the civil war. The resolution accordingly condemns "the illegal exploitation of the natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in view of the link between that exploitation and the continuation of the conflict."           

The DRC has also had the satisfaction of seeing that the CHR's resolution has "named and shamed" rebel groups such as the Movement for the Liberation of the Congo (MLC), Congolese Rally for Democracy - National (RCD-N), Rally for Democracy - Goma (RCD-Goma), the Congolese Rally for Democracy - Liberation Movement (RCD-ML) and Union of Congolese Patriots (UPC). All these groups as well as the neighbouring country, Uganda, have been warned to ensure respect for human rights and stop using ethnic conflicts to advance their own agendas.            

Apart from apportioning blame, the CHR has through its resolution provided the DRC with a roadmap for returning the country to peace and order. It rightly called upon the government together with all the Congolese parties to implement the power-sharing agreement concluded at Pretoria on 17 December 2002 and to apply the transitional constitution so as to initiate the transitional period and pave the way for a genuine democratisation process. The violence that is still going on is a reminder of the magnitude of the challenge to human rights in the DRC. Amnesty International says the DRC, particularly its Ituri region in the north-east, is suffering "one of the world's gravest humanitarian and human rights crises." The problem began with the inter-communal violence that erupted in June 1999 between members of the Hema and Lendu ethnic groups.            

The CHR's latest resolution on the DRC comes in the wake of the General Assembly's resolution of 18 December 2002 and the Security Council's resolution of 20 March 2003. It is also a sequel to a detailed report on the DRC submitted in the current session of the CHR by the Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, Asma Jahangir. She carried out a fact-finding mission to the DRC in June 2002 to inquire into the massacres that took place the previous month in the region of Kisangani, which is a zone controlled by the rebel group, RCD-Goma.            

The mission was specially undertaken in response to a statement by the President of the Security Council on 24 May 2002 in which the Council drew the attention of the High Commissioner for Human Rights to the seriousness of the Kisangani events. Apart from recording extra-judicial killings and summary executions, Ms. Jahangir gave the finding that the de facto authority of Kisangani, RCD-Goma, was responsible for the massacres that took place there. She also emphasised that  "the entrenched impunity" for grave human rights violations must be urgently addressed.            

Ms. Jahangir's apprehensions about the entrenched impunity have been borne out by the recurring massacres and other human rights violations. Unlike in the case of other African countries such as Zimbabwe and Sudan, the problem with the DRC is not so much of a repressive regime but of a government that is unable to exert its will, especially in the rebel-controlled zones which are most susceptible to human rights violations. Despite all the efforts being made by the UN system, the mission to end the civil war and anarchy in the DRC is bound to be a long haul. 

Deadliest in African history 

ACCORDING to the International Rescue Committee (IRC), the four and a half year war in the DRC has taken more lives than any other since World War II and is the deadliest documented conflict in African history. In a report released on 8 April 2003, the IRC estimated that since August 1998, when the war began, until November 2002, at least 3.3 million people had died due to war-related factors. IRC President George Rupp described it as "a humanitarian catastrophe of horrid and shocking proportions," adding that "the worst mortality projections in the event of a lengthy war in Iraq, and the death toll from all the recent wars in the Balkans don't even come close. Yet, the crisis has received scant attention from international donors and the media."