Interview with Security Minister Mwenze Kongolo

IRIN interview with Mwenze Kongolo, National Security Minister in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) On Thursday, the DRC government delegation walked out of inter-Congolese dialogue (ICD) being held in Sun City, South Africa, claiming that Rwanda and the Rwandan-backed rebel movement, Rassemblement congolais pour la democratie (RCD-Goma), had violated the cease-fire in that country. IRIN spoke to Mwenze Kongolo on 14 March after he announced the suspension of the government's participation. QUESTION: Why did the DRC government decide to suspend its participation in the dialogue? ANSWER: The problem is there has been a breach of the cease-fire. We learned that troops of the Rassemblement congolais pour la democratie (RCD) and Rwandans attacked Moliro [on Lake Tanganyika, in Katanga Province, southeastern DRC], which is a government position... We think that, since the cease-fire has been disrupted, we have to suspend until order is restored... We are hoping that the Rwandans will come to their senses and respect the ceasefire. Q: Has there been fighting going on since the government's announcement of a cease-fire in Moliro two weeks ago? A: No, this is the first since then. Two weeks ago they [Rwanda-backed RCD rebels] attacked [Moliro], we pushed them back, we returned to our positions and now they have attacked again. We believe they are doing this to disrupt the dialogue because it is not in their interests. Q: You were saying that negotiations over a national Congolese army have reached an impasse? A: It is at an impasse, but we are still discussing that. We think we will come to a solution. The only difference we have is that the government is sticking to the Lusaka accord, which says that the army should be integrated, and we believe that is what should be applied. We should restructure the government army so that the others can join and be comfortable in a national army. That is what we understand by a new army. Some other parties don't agree with that, they want to erase everything and start from scratch. We don't see how that could be done. It's not practical. We think it's a matter of fear, but we will overcome that if we continue with these talks. Q: Rebel movements have been talking about recruiting a new national army. Are they proposing to keep their own soldiers and recruit an entirely new army? A: There are no examples of that in world history. In every conflict, there is always an integration of factions who come together and make a brand new army. Q: A government declaration last week said that any resolution to come out of the dialogue would be a dead letter unless Rwandan and Ugandan troops had removed themselves from Congolese soil by the end of the sessions. Is the government saying that it rejects any resolutions to come out of the dialogue unless Rwanda and Uganda have moved out all their troops within 30 days? A: We believe that there should be some resolutions. We have to talk and come up with some resolutions, but we also believe that it will be a dead letter so long as the country is occupied. So we are aware that it could be useless to continue with this if there is no possibility of them leaving the country. Q: You have expressed concern about a visit by some members of opposition parties to the Rwandan capital, Kigali, in the past few days. They've denied they went but say that, even if they had, it is not a crime they have the right to discuss the future of DRC with the other countries that are involved in the peace process. What do you say to that? A: It's certainly not a crime. I believe they are free and they have the right to talk to anybody they want. It's just a concern that, once we come together and we start talking, that they could leave the meeting and go and talk to people who are occupying the country. That is compromising and that is what were concerned about. Q: You are also concerned that Rwanda and Uganda have observers here, who you say are telling the RCD what to do each day. Might it not be better for the Ugandans and Rwandans simply to have their observers attending the sessions? A: We don't think it is appropriate now that any country that has taken part in the war be present here, because the conflict has started as a result of manipulation from those countries. So whatever country has been involved in this physical fight should be out, and the Congolese should talk as Congolese and have a Congolese approach to these problems. With all these outside forces influencing this, we will never come to the end of it, because they are here for their interests, not Congolese interests. Q: So you want to get a clear Congolese consensus. But, after that, would you say you need more negotiations with the other countries involved? A: Yes, it's important because they are there and we know that their puppets will not tell them to go. The negotiations with those countries are crucial. Q: Do you think there is still a role for the Zimbabwean army, perhaps in supporting the formation of a new army and providing some security for the DRC government and the territory it controls? A: Yes, as long as there is no progress in the talks I think it is important for the security of the people of DRC. We believe that, as long as they are able to help us, they should help us. Q: In the commission discussing economic issues at this dialogue, there is an impasse over whether to discuss some of the contracts made by the government, and perhaps by other parties, with foreign countries. Shouldn't these contracts be put on the table because, unless they are, people don't really know what's going on? A: I don't think that's a problem to be discussed here. It's not even appropriate to discuss it here because what it will bring is discussions and resistance, and fights, and that won't help. The issues that should be dealt with as a priority now are the issues that are directly linked to the peace process, and those contracts are not related to the peace process. Those are deals that the government, as any other government, has with other partners and those could be discussed in other frameworks like parliament. There are many instruments that could deal with those and if people feel the government has done something wrong, we've got the courts, we've got the parliament, we've got all the mechanisms to deal with those issues. I think it would be a distraction. Q: There is some concern among opposition parties and the civil society group that they don't really have much of a role here - that the belligerents could keep arguing for 45 days, and then the dialogue is over and the belligerents still have the power. What would you say to them? A: No, I think they should be encouraged, because we came here - the same number as them, every group has the same number of people - and, as far as I've seen, they have been given the right to say what they think and the discussions are influenced by the people who talk. So they should talk, and they should address the issues that they think are important. I don't think they should feel at this point that they have been left out. There is no fight here, there's no army here, it's just people talking, and those who talk better will get it. Q: So for you the important thing is talking, sharing ideas, not so much forming a new government and sharing positions in a government. A: No, if there is anything like sharing power, sharing positions in the government, civil society is welcome also, so they should talk. Q: According to a UN report, some of the negotiators at this dialogue are shareholders in joint ventures with foreign countries - including yourself, in a joint venture with Zimbabwe. Do you feel this has any influence on the way that you negotiate here? A: No, no, absolutely not. Those forces that are on our side are ready to go, and they can go any time. In fact, some have gone. So that's not even a question. I think it's just speculation.