UN Sanctioned Congo “Intervention Brigades” Complement US Africa Strategy
Articles,  Blog

UN Sanctioned Congo “Intervention Brigades” Complement US Africa Strategy


PAUL JAY: Welcome to The Real News Network.
I’m Paul Jay in Baltimore. And welcome to our regular report on the Congo. Now joining us again from Washington, D.C.,
is Maurice Carney. He’s the executive director and cofounder of Friends of the Congo. Thanks for joining us, Maurice. MAURICE CARNEY: It is a pleasure being with
you again, Paul. JAY: So what are you following this week? CARNEY: We’re focused on the intervention,
the UN intervention brigade for the Congo. And to explain to you, to the viewers, the
United Nations passed a resolution at the end of March, 2098, calling for approximately
3,000-strong force in the east of the Congo, ostensibly to go after rebel militia that
have been destabilizing the region, and also be under the command of the existing MONUSCO
troops that are there, numbering close to 19,000. So what’s important for people to understand:
the origin of this intervention brigade, which is going to draw troops from South Africa,
Tanzania, and a number of other African countries, it’s the product of an existing arrangement
that came out of the regional conference in 2012. They call it the International Conference
on the Great Lakes Region, that one of the propositions was to have a neutral force.
And that neutral force idea was taken up by the United Nations as part of its peace framework
that it established this year. But it’s critical to understand that this
is–it’s not the optimum way for the UN to actually deal with this issue. We know that
Rwanda and Uganda have been destabilizing the region. However, instead of sanctioning
those governments or holding officials accountable, what the UN has opted for is an intervention
brigade, a military solution, which raises a number of questions, especially considering
that ultimately what’s going to lead to stability in the region are political solutions. JAY: So where is Rwanda and Uganda on this
intervention force? I mean, did they oppose it? I mean, in theory, this force is going
to be fighting some of their proxies in the Congo. CARNEY: True, they’re going to be fighting
some of their proxies. But this was part of an agreement that was signed by 11 African
nations and regional bodies. So they signed on to it. So they have no choice but to be
in agreement with it, whether or not they like it or not. The M23 rebels have come out vociferously
against it. Jeune Afrique had published some reports within the last couple of weeks or
so saying that Paul Kagame himself had tried to prevent the United Nations from actually
going forward with the intervention brigade. As you–your viewers know by now that Rwanda
is a member of the UN Security Council, will be so for the next two years. So they have–in
spite of that, they’ve already signed on to the peace framework accord that was established
in February. And this brigade is a part of that effort. So they can hardly, you know,
fight against it or do anything to block it or prevent it. JAY: So where is U.S. policy on this? I mean,
we know Rwanda and Uganda are essentially American allies, and they’ve been the one
backing many of the rebel forces in the Congo. And then you have the whole AFRICOM strategy
of the United States in Africa, which is, you know, the militarization of various parts
of Africa and beefing up American presence there. So how does that all fit together? CARNEY: Well, that’s a really key question,
because when it comes to the Congo and the Great Lakes region that include Rwanda and
Uganda–I’ve shared with you in the past that the U.S. has had a policy dating from the
1990s, from the Clinton administration, that protects its allies in the region, you know,
and present Kagame, present Musaveni as the new African leaders, the renaissance leaders,
in spite of the heinous crimes that they’ve committed in the region. So what happens is that whatever policies
that come out of the U.S. or come out of the UN, they usually come in a way that give Rwanda
and Uganda a pass. As I said, the policy that should have been taken or pushed aggressively
or assertively would be to sanction Rwanda, ’cause Rwanda had violated UN sanctions embargo
by providing arms to rebel groups inside of the Congo. JAY: What kind of sanctions would be effective?
I mean, what I know is most sanctions don’t actually become very meaningful. CARNEY: Well, in the case of Rwanda, it is
quite meaningful, because Rwanda trades a lot on its image of a good neighbor, a country
that handles development dollars well and is the darling of the West. So anything that
would affect the image of Rwanda can be significant. The sanctions of individuals, for example,
placing high-level Rwandan individuals that have been named in the UN reports on the sanctions
list, you know, freezing their assets, preventing them from traveling to the U.S., those kinds
of steps will send a strong signal to Rwanda that the United States is finally willing
to hold its ally accountable. But at the UN, as I’ve shared in past interviews,
the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, Susan Rice, has run interference and blocked
any kind of sanctions and basically watered down any kind of accountability that would
actually bite the Rwandan regime. JAY: And we’ve talked about this before. I
guess we should remind people, ’cause not everybody sees every story we do on the Congo,
that President Obama, when he was Senator Obama, actually sponsored legislation that
was supposed to censor outside, external countries interfering in the Congo, and everybody thought
that meant Uganda and Rwanda. But since he’s been president we haven’t heard much about
that bill. CARNEY: No, no. Public Law 109-456, Section
5 of that law states that secretary of state is authorized to withhold aid from neighboring
countries that destabilize the Congo. And the United States has been reluctant to withhold
aid. It wasn’t until last summer, 2012, that they withheld a measly $200,000 in military
training that may–was symbolic and made a difference in a sense that other European
nations followed suit. But more action like that is needed. And, in fact, at this moment that is what’s
most critical is for the United States, to continue to put pressure on its ally. It’s
funny saying that, actually, ’cause the U.S. can do that. You know, Rwanda, up to 40 percent
of its budget comes from donors in the West. So the U.S. and other European nations can
easily put pressure on Rwanda. But they refuse to do so because Rwanda is an ally. What the U.S. is proposing now is to set up
a bureaucratic situation where they appoint a special envoy to the region to work in concert
with the special envoy that’s been appointed by the United Nations. However, what is vital
if this special envoy actually goes through is for them to–for the special envoy to actually
hold Rwanda accountable, hold Uganda accountable, put these leaders in the Rwandan regime, like
James Kabarebe and a number of others on the sanctions list. JAY: And can you remind us again the scale
of the destruction that’s taken place in the Congo over the last few years? CARNEY: Well, since last year, nearly 1 million
people have been displaced. Since 1996, Rwanda and Uganda has invaded the Congo twice, support
proxy militia inside of the Congo. They fought each other on Congolese soil, where millions
of people have lost their lives. Hundreds of thousands of women have been systematically
raped. And I have to state this, Paul. The international
community, meaning the International Court of Justice, have stepped up to hold Uganda
accountable. Uganda was brought to the International Court of Justice in 2005, and the Court of
Justice ruled that Uganda owes Congo billions in reparations for invading Congo, looting
Congo’s resources, committing crimes against humanity, war crimes. So we see international
bodies who have stepped up. The Spanish courts under the principle of universal jurisdiction
in 2008 indicted 40 of Rwanda’s top officials for the crimes that they’ve committed in the
region. So what has happened is that the U.S. and
the U.K. have not followed suit and have also blocked further action at the UN. So we’ve
seen international bodies, the International Court of Justice, the Spanish courts all trying
to hold Rwanda and Uganda accountable for the heinous crimes they’ve committed in the
Congo. But because they have friends, powerful friends, like the United States and the United
Kingdom, Rwanda and Uganda have been able to get away literally with murder in the region. JAY: Alright. Thanks for joining us, Maurice. CARNEY: Thank you. Thank you, Paul. JAY: And thank you for joining us on The Real
News Network. If you would like to see more coverage of
the Congo and Africa and other types of international news we do here, we need your support. We
have a spring fundraising campaign on. If you haven’t seen, you just take a look up
here. Probably you’ll see the thermometer. We have a matching grant of $50,000. Every
dollar you give will get matched until we hit the $100,000 mark. We’re just in the last
few days of the campaign. So if you’ve been thinking about donating, now’s the time to
push Donate, because if we don’t match this in the next few days, before May 2, we ain’t
going to get the rest of the match. Thanks for joining us on The Real News Network.

6 Comments

  • Bander1

    This is not new, the UN ONUC in the mid 1960s intervened and stabilized the Congo during the crisis. Of course for the benefit of the west of course.

  • Tintsi Kongo

    The U.S president from Rwanda in Congo aka Joseph Kabila we're going to kill him first…then we will stand up as African's Congolese to learn U.S enough is nought
    Fuck U.S soon nothing will be free in Congo anymore..We are going to protect our Country ourselves as SOMALIA did..I see how US is moaning over North Korea why He don't war NK…Scare the Nuke,fuck Cowards, fuck Americans you will pay one day for killing a lot of Congolese and genocide you cause in Africa(DR Congo) and for my mom.

  • m michels

    UN ICC ICJ NATO HRW IMF EU BBC CNN CIA AU are Criminal Alphabet Gangs. Mafia

    Established to subjugate and justify the killing, theft and rape of black and Brown peoples all over the world. It’s the continuation of the Imperialists Administrations. Paid by western tax payers as AID(s)

    Hopefully with the alignment of the BRICs, Africa can grow and kick out those Western thieves and murderers and their African poodles

  • Redshift

    the guys they bring on to talk about Africa are just fucking brilliant, its some of the best commentary TRNN has got, thanks a lot Maurice Carney and Paul!!!.

  • jacob sharry b

    President Obama needs to stop playing chicken, step up and hold Rwanda and Uganda accountable. I know all of this diplomacy is in the name of international friendship, but these two African countries have committed genocide. They need to be pulled up and put back in place. What's Obama got to be scared of? mean, out of the 53 countries in Africa, only a handful have strong armies, navies and air forces, and Rwanda and Uganda are not among those. The only thing they have are small armies.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *