18 November 1999
Transcript: Asst. Secretary Rice on Democratic Republic of Congo
(She voices strong support for Lusaka Accords) (5250) The United States "strongly" supports the implementation of the Lusaka Accords because it believes that agreement is "the only viable way to end the conflict" in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DROC) and bring "stability and development to the other countries in the region," says U.S. Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Susan Rice. Rice made that point November 18 in a Worldnet "Dialogue" interactive television program broadcast from Washington to Kampala, Kigali, Harare, and Kinshasa. She cited three key factors for supporting the Lusaka agreement, which was signed on August 31: -- It "affirms the principle of Congo's sovereignty and territorial integrity." -- It "puts in place -- in principle -- a process ... that can lead to democratization and a transition to a society in Congo where all of Congo's people have a voice and an opportunity to participate freely in the political process." -- It "deals with the issues of border security and non-state actors, which have bedeviled the subregion for far too long." Rice stressed that the agreement is "very important" and "needs to be respected." "The United States will insist that all parties to the agreement uphold their obligation," she added. Asked about the issue of genocide, Rice responded that genocide remains a subject of "grave concern" to the United States. She also noted that the Lusaka pact commits signatories "to work jointly to address the security problems posted by the continuing activities of forces identified with the 1994 Rwanda genocide." Following is the transcript of the program: (begin transcript) WORLDNET "DIALOGUE" UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF STATE OFFICE OF BROADCAST SERVICES GUEST: Susan Rice, Assistant Secretary for African Affairs, U.S. State Department TOPIC: Congo Issues POSTS: Kampala, Kigali, Harare, Kinshasa HOST: Doris McMillon DATE: November 18, 1999 TIME: 08:00 - 08:45 EST MS. MCMILLON: Hello, everyone, and welcome to "Dialogue." I am your moderator, Doris McMillon. Today our discussion will be on the Congo peace agreement. The United States strongly supports the Lusaka Accords and is hopeful Central Africa will continue on the road toward peace. Joining us from the State Department to discuss this issue is Dr. Susan Rice, assistant secretary of State for African Affairs. Thank you, Dr. Rice, for participating with us on "Dialogue" today. And I do believe you have some opening remarks before we begin to take questions. DR. RICE: Well, good afternoon, everybody. It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to talk about the situation in the Congo. The Congo is a subject of grave concern to the United States, as is the entire Central African region. We have actively supported implementation of the Lusaka Accords, because we believe it can be the only viable way to end the conflict in the Congo on the basis of accepted international principles and norms, and in a fashion that can be lasting and bring peace and democracy to the people of the Congo, as well as stability and development to the other countries in the region. We so strongly support the Lusaka Accords because of three things. First and foremost, it affirms the principle of Congo's sovereignty and territorial integrity, which we think is paramount and cannot and must not be violated. And we have been deeply concerned by violations of its sovereignty and territorial integrity. And of course the Lusaka agreement calls for the withdrawal of foreign forces. Second, the Lusaka agreement puts in place in principle a process through the national dialogue that can lead to democratization and a transition to a society in Congo where all of Congo's people have a voice and an opportunity to participate freely in the political process. And that too is vital. And thirdly, of course, the Lusaka agreement deals with the issues of border security and non-state actors which have bedeviled the sub-region for far too long. These are very real problems that must be dealt with, and the Lusaka agreement provides the mechanism for doing that. So in total this agreement is very important. It needs to be respected. The United States will insist that all parties to the agreement uphold their obligation, and we will do our utmost to ensure that that happens. We will not tolerate abrogation of this agreement by any party. Thank you. MS. MCMILLON: Thank you, Dr. Rice. We now welcome our participants standing by in Kampala, Kigali and Harare. We would also like to welcome our audiences in Paris. We will begin in Kigali. Please go ahead with your first question or comment. Q: Hello, can I start? My name Deo Mushadid (ph). I am speaking to you from Kigali. And I would like to know what are the chances of success of the Lusaka Accords. What are the real chances of the accords being successful? I would like to know what specific measures would the United States take to solve the problem of the genocidal forces who have taken part in the Congolese conflict. And I would also like to ask whether in Congo we are not seeing a game of influence-peddling and competition on the part of people who are being helped or pushed by friends -- the United States for Angola, and respectively. What do you think? DR. RICE: Well, first of all, the answer I believe to your initial question, what are the chances for successful implementation of that, depends on one thing, and that's whether the parties to the conflict have the will in fact to uphold their obligations under the accord. We believe that the countries in the region that have gotten themselves entangled in the conflict in the Congo in general have a will to see this conflict end on the basis of a peaceful resolution. We have welcomed the commitment of the signatories from Angola to Zimbabwe, to Rwanda and Uganda and others, to end this conflict on the basis of peace. We trust that those commitments are genuine. They need to be upheld. Likewise, the Congolese parties to the conflict, both the government and the various rebel organizations, need to be serious and uphold their obligation. I have no crystal ball -- I can't judge with any certitude the commitment of all of those concerned. All I can tell you is that we are watching very closely. We are very concerned about violations of the agreement to date, and we are concerned about hostile rhetoric on all sides. And we will not find acceptable efforts by any part to undermine this agreement. With respect to the question of the genocide there in Congo, this is a subject of grave concern to the United States, and has been for several years. One of the reasons why we think the Lusaka agreement is so important is it provides for a cooperative mechanism through the JMC, the joint military commission, to enable the parties to the conflict to work together to deal not only with the genocide there but the other non-state actors who have been so disruptive in the sub-region, through a process of disarmament and reintegration. We think that is vital. And frankly we don't see any other viable way of dealing effectively with this problem over the long term that can preserve and repair the relationships in the sub-region that must be preserved and repaired. I'm not sure your third question is clear to me. I don't know to what you are referring. The United States, for our part we have one interest; that is, a sustainable peace in the Congo that can lead to democratization in Congo and the other countries in the sub-region, and to lasting peace and security. MS. MCMILLON: Thank you, Kigali, for your question. We will now go to Harare. Please go ahead. Q: Hello, my name is -- (inaudible) -- Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation. Dr. Rice, it's all very well for you to sit there and tell us you support this Congo agreement, the Lusaka Accord, because it guarantees the territorial integrity of Congo. Can I find out where were you when Rwanda and Uganda sent in troops to support rebels to overthrow a government? DR. RICE: I was in Washington with the U.S. government, expressing our grave concern about that, noting that we think it was an unjustified violation of Congo's sovereignty and territorial integrity. We have been very plain about that from the outset. But we have also understood that the issues of the Congo and the sub-region are extraordinarily complex, that there are root causes of the problem that are both internal and external and that need to be dealt with in a meaningful way, but that none of those issues in any way lead us to condone or support the violation of Congo's sovereignty and territorial integrity. We've condemned it. We complain about it. The question though now is how do we deal effectively with the root causes of the problem in Congo and the larger sub-region. And we believe the answer to that is through effective implementation of the Lusaka agreement, and we look forward to that happening. MS. MCMILLON: All right, let's move on now to Kampala. Please go ahead. Q: Edward Siki (ph) from the New Vision newspaper in Kampala. What do you think about Uganda's commitment to the cease-fire in the DRC? DR. RICE: Well, as I said earlier, all of the countries that neighbor Congo that have signed the agreement have expressed on numerous occasions commitments to successful implementation of the accord. We expect all of those governments to uphold their obligation. We will be watching. We will be following developments very closely. And we will be very critical of any government or any non-state actor or any rebel organization that violates its obligations under the Lusaka agreement. But I think thus far there is reason to be encouraged by the cooperation of the parties in the region through the mechanism of the JMC. That is a vital element of the Lusaka agreement. It needs to continue to get up and running. We have supported it diplomatically, and we intend to support it materially through a financial contribution of $1 million, pending Congressional approval. Uganda and Zimbabwe and a number of other countries have played a constructive role in getting the JMC up and going, and that we think is an encouraging sign. MS. MCMILLON: Thank you, Kampala. Let's return now to Kigali. Please go ahead with your questions. Q: My name is -- (inaudible) -- I am a member of Parliament in Rwanda. Are you really optimistic as to the effectiveness of the Lusaka Accords with regard to the current situation? Because there have already been flagrant violations of the accords. When the accords are signed what frequently happens is that sometime after they are signed they are simply not applied, even though at the time of signature everybody feels optimistic and there are great ceremonies that take place during the signing of the accords. So I would like to know your position as a representative of the United States. Thank you. DR. RICE: I don't think I said I was either optimistic or pessimistic. I don't think that's really the point. The point is that we are committed to this accord. We think it's the only viable way to achieve a lasting peace in Congo and the sub-region. We are gravely concerned by violations of the accords on both sides. We think the rhetoric in recent weeks has been unhelpful; that the regroupment and movement and rearming of all concerns is unhelpful; that the bombings by the government side have been unhelpful; that allegations that we are gravely concerned about of massacres in rebel-held territory is unacceptable. All of those are sources of grave concern to the United States. Nevertheless, we believe firmly that this agreement can and must be successfully implemented. There is no excuse for any party to walk away from this agreement. There is no other viable vehicle for peace. There is no military solution to this conflict, and there is only a political track through successful implementation of the Lusaka Accords, and we think all parties must do that. Q: I am calling from Kigali. I would like to understand how the United States combines its role with its work at the United Nations in solving this conflict. Thank you. DR. RICE: Well, in the first instance the United States has from the very outset of the conflict tried to play an active and constructive role in helping achieve a peaceful resolution of the conflict. U.S. officials, from Secretary Albright to all of our ambassadors in the region, the president's special envoy, Howard Wolpe, myself, and many others, have worked tirelessly, often behind the scenes, trying to bring the parties a bit closer together and work in support of the efforts of SADC and the OAU to resolve this conflict peacefully. It took a long time, but we were gratified that finally the accord was achieved in Lusaka, and an accord, which as I said earlier, has all the elements that are necessary for a lasting and successful peace. Now the challenge is making that peace stable and viable and effective. That's the responsibility of the signatories to the Lusaka agreement. In addition, there is an obligation for the international community to help put in place those mechanisms of support -- for the national dialogue, for the cease-fire, for the transition in Congo -- that can buttress the will, provided that it exists among the parties to the conflict, to see it resolved. In the United Nations the United States has already supported the authorization and deployment of up to 90 military observers. We look forward to further elaborated and specific recommendations from the U.N. secretary-general about further deployments potentially by the U.N. in Congo. We have indicated that we want to be supportive of any reasonably crafted proposal provided there is sufficient will among the parties to implement this agreement and that the cease-fire and the peace process holds and continues to be effective. MS. MCMILLON: Please go ahead, Kigali. We'll take another question. Q: There is a lot of skepticism here. There are a lot of people who believe that things are not going to work out. There was a lot of cynicism when the accord was signed, and people think that the protagonists are not really serious. Thank you. DR. RICE: Well, I think that rather than be cynical and skeptical, we'll want to, and all the parties to the conflict ought to, ensure that they are doing their utmost to meet their obligations under the accord. And if there are other parties that prove not to be committed, then that will show in time. But I think every party to this conflict, every state and non-state actor, has an obligation to fulfill its own specific obligations under this accord. And Rwanda, as all other governments and parties to the conflict, would be well served by demonstrating amply their commitment to a peaceful resolution of this conflict. MS. MCMILLON: Thank you, Kigali. We'll return now to Harare. Please go ahead with your question. Q: I am -- (inaudible) -- from the Zimbabwe Independent. My question to you, Dr. Rice, is when President Robert Mugabe, or when Zimbabwe sent troops to the DRC after the war broke out last year, what they did was to defend the sovereignty and territorial integrity of the DRC, the principle which you seem to have assumed in your preamble. Would you support Zimbabwe's intervention in the DRC given that commitment? DR. RICE: We have been very concerned about the intervention and the complexity of the conflict in the Congo. As I said at the outset, our initial grave concern was with the original violation of Congo's sovereignty and territorial integrity. But we have also been concerned that Congo has become an environment in which numerous foreign players have become involved, some within the immediate sub-region, and more worrisome in fact, some from much further afield. That only serves to complicate the situation and to make peaceful resolution of the conflict that much more complex. I think the imperative now is to focus on the successful implementation of the Lusaka agreement, and I think it is in that vein that Zimbabwe and Rwanda and Uganda and Angola and the government of Congo itself can demonstrate who is actually committed to peaceful resolution of the conflict and preserving Congo's sovereignty and territorial integrity. And the proof will be in implementation, and that's why we place such great emphasis on the necessity that all the parties respect their obligations under the Lusaka Accords. Q: Ms. Rice, Neilly Tucker (ph) from Knight Ridder Newspapers. I wonder if you could spell out for us in concrete terms exactly what the U.S. is doing to ensure that peace is carried out in the Congo. The United States has considerable resources that it deploys elsewhere in the world that it is not deploying in Congo, or anywhere in the sub-Sahara for that matter. And I am curious why you think that the men and women of the Congo should believe, especially given the United States' long history of involvement in the Congo in support of Mobutu -- why should the men and women of the Congo believe that the U.S. really has Congo's best interests at heart? DR. RICE: Because our interests coincide with peace and stability in the Congo. The United States has nothing to gain from conflict, from instability, from economic deterioration and stagnation or a lack of democracy in the Congo. We have everything to gain from a Congo that can be democratic, whole, peaceful, stable, and an engine for economic growth for all of the sub-region, for southern Africa, for Central Africa and for East Africa. It's that simple. We also obviously have a grave humanitarian concern for the people of the Congo who have suffered so long, first under years of Mobutu and subsequently over the last year and a half, two years, particularly in the context of this conflict. So we have every interest in seeing this conflict resolved peacefully. We will invest -- continue to invest all of the diplomatic resources at our disposal to support the successful implementation of the accords. We will not deal lightly with violators of the accord. And we will use our influence in the United Nations to keep the weight and the focus of the international community focused on the Congo situation, and providing support for the successful implementation of the Lusaka Accords. But the international community and the United States can only do as much as the parties to the conflict enable us to do by upholding their obligations under the accords. That is why we want to see the violations end, all parties reaffirm their commitment to the successful implementation of the accords, so that we and others can move forward, as we are committed to doing, to provide ample international support for implementation of the accords. We are already, for instance, the largest pledged bilateral donor to the joint military committee. We made that pledge some weeks ago, and we are working with our Congress to disburse the funds as soon as we have a budget for fiscal year 2000. We are committed to showing strong American support. One manifestation of that will be Ambassador Holbrooke's upcoming visit to the region. Ambassador Holbrooke is a member of President Clinton's Cabinet, our representative at the United Nations. And early next month he will take a trip to the sub-region, which will include all of the capitals that are listening today in our teleconference, as well as many others, including Kinshasa. MS. MCMILLON: Thank you, Harare. We will now return to Kampala for more questions. Q: This is Paul Mushari (ph), the Reuters correspondent in Kampala. I am interested to know from your standpoint in the U.S. what are the remaining obstacles to the implementation of the peace accord apart from obviously the will of the respective governments. Thank you. DR. RICE: Well, I don't think you can discount the will, but I will try to move beyond that. Obviously, the army by many of the parties of the conflict, the movement of troops, the encirclement of various towns, the aerial bombardment, the hostile rhetoric -- all of that must be halted. They are all violations of the Lusaka agreement. That's the first thing. Secondly, obviously, there are elements of the peace accord that are lagging behind in terms of implementation. The national dialogue hasn't begun. A facilitator hasn't been agreed and appointed. That's a vital step that needs to be taken as quickly as possible. The JMC is up and running. That's a positive step, but it too needs the resources and the support to be effective. And then, obviously as well, there will need to be further work done in the political committee and among the parties to the conflict to flesh out the specific modalities for implementing the many elements that are contained in the Lusaka agreement, which is in fact a framework agreement, but the specifics of how to achieve the disengagement of forces, the withdrawal of foreign forces, the implementation of many of the technical aspects of this agreement -- how the non-state actors are actually disarmed. All of those things remain to be worked out in their fine details, and remain important priorities. Q: My name is -- (inaudible) -- I am a free-lance journalist in Kampala. Doctor, the United States will have a new administration next year, and you may not be on the Cabinet of the next government. But Africa's major problems, especially conflicts, do continue. Is there any major positive development, or indeed a development with which you would be associated? What -- (inaudible) -- Africans will miss if you are not -- (inaudible) -- ? Thank you. DR. RICE: Well, you are nice to say that, thank you. Yes, it's true that in January 2001 we will have a new president and a new administration. We obviously don't know who will be that president and from what party he -- or I should say she -- might come. But we do know certain important things. The United States over the last many years, particularly under President Clinton's administration, has changed fundamentally the way we relate to Africa, the way we deal with Africa, and the way we wish to work with Africa. We are out of the age of the Cold War. We have moved to a practice of partnership and collaboration. We want to see Africa succeed. We see Africa's success as very closely linked to our own success, our own economic prosperity over the long term as well as our own security. We have important interests in Africa which coincide with Africa's own aspirations to achieve economic growth, development and democracy. That's the good news. And it's important because it is not a democratic perspective or Republican perspective in the American context; it's an American perspective. It's bipartisan. And I believe that it can and will endure into the new millennium for many, many generations to come. MS. MCMILLON: Thank you, Kampala for your questions. We are now joined by Kinshasa. Please go ahead with your questions. Kinshasa, we will take your question now. Please go ahead. (Technical difficulties.) We will now move on to Kigali. Please go ahead, Kigali. Q: I am calling from Kigali. I am Jean-Baptiste One (ph). I am a journalist, and this is my question. It would seem that there has been no progress with the Lusaka Accords because the Congolese conflict seems to continue, and there are problems also with the nature of citizens who are defined as citizens of Congo. And what's the U.S. position on the definition of citizens in the Congo? DR. RICE: Well, we have always believed that all of Congo's people and citizens need to be respected and their rights preserved. One of the important elements of the national dialogue will be the establishment of a new political dispensation which respects the rights of all Congolese. The Lusaka agreement itself also speaks to the issue of citizenship. It is not for the United States to make a judgment on that independently. But we have been very concerned about efforts to disenfranchise parts of Congo's citizenry based on false tools such as defining a cut-off for when they might have come to Congo or how many generations they have lived in Congo. That is a strange definition of citizenship. We think whatever definition is applied by the people of the Congo ought to be respectful of Congo's history, its diversity. And the aim ought to be to create a peaceful, democratic Congo where all of its people have a voice and an opportunity to participate and live freely. MS. MCMILLON: Thank you, Kigali. Let's return now to Harare. Please go ahead. Q: (Inaudible) -- again from the Zimbabwe Broadcasting Corporation. Dr. Rice, your response as to why you failed as the United States to endorse Zimbabwe's intervention in the Democratic Republic of Congo illustrates American hypocrisy where you can only intervene in other countries where there are similar troubles and no one else. To an extent that the United States has gone as far as influencing organizations like the International Monetary Fund, that aid to Zimbabwe or budgetary support be tied to a pull-out from the Democratic Republic of Congo. What I want to understand is why have you been doing that. That is the first part of the question. The second part of the question is you said you would support United Nations effort to resolve this crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo, but you as the United States have been failing to pay your contributions to the United Nations. How can the United Nations be effective in dealing with this situation when you can't pay your contribution? DR. RICE: Let me answer your first question first. The United States has great respect and admiration for the people of Zimbabwe. We view Zimbabwe and its government as an important friend of the United States. We want to see Zimbabwe succeed and prosper and flourish. That's the premise from which we begin. We have been supportive of efforts within the IMF to move forward on Zimbabwe's ESAF [Enhanced Structural Adjustment Facility], and we were very hopeful this summer that that progress would be possible. We were disappointed that the IMF found that there were issues related to military expenditures that needed further clarification and resolution prior to the ESAF moving forward. That was an issue that the IMF discovered. It's a technical issue, and we hope it can be worked out. But we would like to see that ESAF move forward. We want to see Zimbabwe's economy flourish. It's in our interests as well as in the interests of the people of Zimbabwe. And we hope that that will certainly be the case. With respect to the United States' contributions to the United Nations, this is a very difficult domestic issue for the United States. President Clinton, from the first day he came into office, has been a strong proponent of the United Nations, a strong supporter of the United Nations, and has worked very hard for the last seven years with our Congress to obtain the resources from Congress to enable the United States to pay its dues as well as its arrears to the United Nations. We have had some success, but not enough success, until very recently. Today we hope that a deal will be concluded with our Congress on our fiscal 2000 budget. One of the most important and difficult issues in that budget negotiation has been the question of whether Congress will provide the administration with the resources it needs to make a close to a billion dollar payment to the United Nations to pay back our back arrears. That negotiation has been contentious and delicate. It's been wrapped up in an unrelated issue to do with family planning and abortion. But we believe that the negotiations will conclude on the basis of an acceptable agreement, both one that is acceptable to President Clinton and to the broad cross section of members of Congress, and that that agreement will enable us to make that payment of almost a billion dollars to the United Nations, and enable us to move beyond the debtor status that has been so difficult for us to sustain. MS. MCMILLON: Thank you, Harare. Kampala, we have just a short amount of time for a question and answer. Please be brief, and please go ahead. Q: I am -- (inaudible) -- from Radio Simba (ph). I do support your -- (inaudible) -- aid to the people that are constructing this -- in Zaire, in the Congo. But have you checked the foreign facilitators of these militaries? There could be foreign facilitators. Thank you. DR. RICE: I'm sorry, I'm not sure I caught your question. Q: Have you checked -- have you made any checks on any foreign facilitators on the militaries in the Congo? DR. RICE: I think I said earlier that we have been very, very concerned about the multiplicity of actors involved in the Congo conflict, in particular, as I said, those that have come from far outside of the sub-region. Their involvement is unhelpful. It further complicates the difficult situation. And that is among the reasons why we think it is absolutely essential that these accords be implemented quickly and successfully. If they are implemented quickly and successfully, there will be fewer opportunities for those who may wish to take advantage of the Congo from outside to do so. We believe that this agreement is in the interest of the people of the Congo. It can bring democracy, it can bring peace, it can bring stability. And it can bring, finally, economic opportunity and growth. We also believe it is firmly in the interests of Zimbabwe and Angola and Rwanda and Uganda, Congo's neighbors that have gotten involved in the Congo, including those from SADC who got involved to bolster the government, the legitimate government of President Kabila -- all of them, for whatever motivation for getting in the Congo, have found that this is a conflict that has been a drain on their resources, a drain on their international standing, and worse still, has complicated efforts in the sub-region to achieve important larger objectives like economic growth, economic integration and greater regional coherence. So this accord is vital to the Congo and for Congo's neighbors. It has the opportunity to enhance democratization in all of the countries concerned, to bring greater economic stability and growth, and to repair, very importantly, relationships that have been frayed between former friends. And it has the potential effectively with non-state actors that have taken advantage of the situation in the Congo for their own aims, whether it's UNITA or those who committed the genocide in Rwanda. MS. MCMILLON: And on that note we will conclude our broadcast today. We would like to thank Dr. Susan Rice for joining us. Thank you. And we would also like to thank our participants in Kampala, Kigali and Harare, as well as our audiences in Paris and Kinshasa. I'm Doris McMillon for Worldnet, saying goodbye from Washington. (end transcript) (Distributed by the Office of International Information Programs, U.S. Department of State)
|
NEWSLETTER
|
| Join the GlobalSecurity.org mailing list |
|
|
|
