Volume V - Annexes

INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CASE CONCERNING ARMED
ACTIVITIES
ON THE TERRITORY
OF THE CONGO
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO
V.
UGANDA
REJOINDER
SUBMITTED BY
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
VOLUME V
ANNEXES
6 DECEMBER 2002
VOLUME V
ANNEXES
-
14 Dec. 2001
Annex 73:
2002
Annex 74:
1 Feb. 2002
Annex 75:
14Feb. 2002
Annex 76:
4Mar. 2002
Annex 77:
22Mar. 2002
Annex 78:
27Mar. 2002
Annex 79:
25 April 2002
Annex 80:
INDEX OF ANNEXES
IN CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER
VOLUME V
United Nations Security Council, Record of Meeting
Regarding the Situation Concerning the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, S/PV.4437 and S/PV.4437
(Resumption 1), 14 December 2001
USAID: Congo FY 2002 Congressional Budget
Justification, 2002
Continued Deteriorating Security Situation in Eastern
Democratic Republic of the Congo (Annex to the
Letter dated 1 February 2002 from the Permanent
Representative ofUganda to the United Nations),
S/2002/141, 1 February 2002
Letter dated 5 February 2002 Regardîng Increased
Deteriorating Security Situation in Northeastem
Democratic Republic of the Congo (Annex to the
Letter dated 13 February 2002 from the Permanent
Representative of Uganda to the United Nations),
S/2002/170, 14 February 2002
U.S. Department of State, 2001 Country Report on
Human Rîghts Practices: Democratic Republic of the
Congo, 4 March 2002 ( excerpts)
Testimony of Ms. Adele (Lotsove) Mugisa before the
Porter Commission, 22 March 2002 ( excerpts)
Letter dated 26 March 2002 from Permanent
Representative of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo to the United Nations addressed to the
President of the Security Council, S/2002/314,
27 March2002
"DRC: Focus on· the Results of the Inter-Congolese
Dialogue," U.N. Integrated Regional Information
Networks, 25 April 2002
30 July2002
Annex 81:
31 July2002
Annex 82:
30Aug. 2002
Annex 83:
6 Sept. 2002
Annex 84:
17 Sept. 2002
Annex 85:
17 Sept. 2002
Annex 86:
20 Sept. 2002
Annex87:
28 Sept. 2002
Annex 88:
28 Sept. 2002
Annex 89:
2 Oct. 2002
Annex 90:
7 Oct. 2002
Annex 91:
"DRC-Rwanda: Kabila, Kagame Sign Peace Pact,"
UN. Integrated Regional Information Networks,
30July2002
"Zimbabwe Pledges Troop Withdrawal from Congo,"
The Associated Press, 31 July 2002
Raj Rajendran, ''Heritage Delays Maiden U ganda Oil
Drilling to Sept," Reuters, 30 August 2002
Agreement between the Governments of the
Democratic Republic of Congo and the Republic of
Uganda on Withdrawal of Ugandan Troops from the
Democratic Republic of Congo, Cooperation and
Normalisation of Relations between the Two
Countries ("Luanda Agreement"), 6 September 2002
Statement ofHajji Abubakar Lumu Kinobe alias Hajji
Sadat, 17 September 2002
Statement of Mohamed Kiggundu, 17 September 2002
Affidavit of Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya Cos,
Ambassador of the Republic of Uganda to the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, 20 September
2002
Status Report Concerning the Official Residence of
the Ambassador and Chancery of the Republic of
Uganda in the Democratic Republic of Congo, 28
September 2002
''Uganda Completes Troop Withdrawal from DRC
Town," SABC News, 28 September 2002
"15,312 Foreign Forces Withdrawn So Far, Say UN,"
UN Integrated Regional Information Networks, 2
October 2002
"Rwanda Completes Troop Withdrawal," UN
Integrated Regional Information Networks, 7 October
2002
2
18 Oct. 2002
Annex92:
24 Oct. 2002
Annex93:
25 Oct. 2002
Annex94:
28 Oct. 2002
Annex 95:
28 Oct. 2002
Annex96:
29 Oct. 2002
Annex97:
29 Oct. 2002
Annex 98:
30 Oct. 2002
Annex 99:
31 Oct. 2002
Annex 100:
31 Oct. 2002
Annex 101:
Letter dated 17 October 2002 from the Permanent
Representative of Zimbabwe to the United Nations
addressed to the President of the Security Council,
S/2002/1169, 18 October 2002
"Rwanda: Kigali Slams UN Panel Report," UN
Integrated Regional Information Networks,
24 October 2002
"Kinshasa to Open lnquiry into UN Report on
Resource Pillage," UN Integrated Regional
Information Networks, 25 October 2002
Statement by the Government of U ganda on the Final
Report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal
Exploitation ofNatural Resources and Other Forms of
Wealth of the Democratic Republic of Congo (Anne:x
to the Letter dated 25 October 2002 from the
Permanent Representative of Uganda to the United
Nations), S/2002/1202, 28 October 2002
Letter dated 25 October 2002 from the Permanent
Representative of South Africa to the United Nations
addressed to the President of the Security Council,
S/2002/1199, 28 October 2002
"DRC: Government, Rebel Groups Continue Talks,
UN Integrated Regional Information Networks, 29
October 2002
''UN Envoy Discusses Power-Sharing Agreement on
DR of Congo," UN News Service, 29 October 2002
"DRC: Breakthrough in Power-Sharing Talks, UN
Integrated Regional Information Networks, 30
October 2002
"Belgian Minister Criticises Exploitation Report," UN
Integrated Regional Information Networks, 31
October 2002
Statement of Edward Katumba-Wamala, 31 October
2002
3
31 Oct. 2002
Annex 102:
1 Nov. 2002
Annex 103:
1 Nov. 2002
Annex 104:
4Nov. 2002
Annex 105:
5 Nov. 2002
Annex 106:
13 Nov. 2002
Annex 107:
Undated
Annex 108:
Undated
Annex 109:
Undated
Annex 110:
"Saleh to Give Wife's Accounts to UN Probe," The
Monitor, 31 October 2002
The Response by the Government of the Republic of
Uganda to the Final Report of the Panel of Experts on
the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and
Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of
Congo, 1 November 2002
"Saleh Given New DRC Assignment," New Vision, 1
November 2002
"Kabila Sacks Leaders of State Mining Company,"
UN Integrated Regional Information Networks, 4
November 2002
United Nations Security Council, Meeting Regarding
the Situation Concerning the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, S/PV.4642 and S/PV.4642 (Resumption
1 ), 5 November 2002
Affidavit of Brigadier Nakibus Lakara, 13 November
2002
Report of the NALU/ADF Rebel Activities in
Zaire/DRC, Supported by the Late Mobutu and Kabila
in Collaboration with Sudan ( obtained from the
Externat Security Organisation)
Report on the Work Progress by Heritage Oil Gas
Limited in the Semliki Basin and the Security Risk
( obtained from the Petroleum Exploration and
Production Dept.)
Uganda Investment Authority, The Mining Industry in
Uganda,
(available at http://www.ugandainvest.com/ 6.htm)
4
URAnnex73

•
President:
Members:
Agenda
United Nations
URANNEX73
SIPV.4437
Security Council
Fifty-sixth year
4437th meeting
Friday, 14 Decernber 2001, 10.25 a.m.
New York
Mr. Ouane .....................................•.
Bangladesh .................................... , .
China ......................................... .
Colornbia ...................................... .
France .•............................. , ...•.......
Ireland ......... · ..............•....•............
Jamaica ........................................ .
Mauritius ...................................... .
Norway •....................... : ............... .
Russian Federation ........•.......................
Singapore ...................................... .
Tunisia ................•........................
Ukraine ........................................ .
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ire land ... .
United States of America .......................... .
(Mali)
MT.Ahmad
Mr. ChenXu
Mr. Valdivieso
Mr. Levitte
·Mr. Corr
Miss Durrant
Mr. Koonjul
Mr. Kolby
Mr. Granovsky
Mr. Mahbubani
. Mr. Tekaya
Mr. Kuchinsky
Sir Jeremy Greenstock
Mr. Cunningham
The situation concerning the Dernocratic Republic of the Congo
Letter dated 10 November 2001 from the Secretary-General addressed to the
President of the Security Council (S/2001/1072).
This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the interpretation of
speeches delivered in the other languages. The final text will be printed in the Official Records
of the Security Council. Corrections shotild be submitted to the original languages only. They
should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent underthe signature ofa memher of the
delegation concemed to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room C-178.
Provisional
01-69694 (E)
"0169694 ...
S/PV.4437
The meeting was called to order at 10.25 a.m.
Adoption of the agenda
The agenda was adopted.
The situation concerning the Democratic Republic of
the Congo
Letter dated 10 November 2001 from the
Secretary-General addressed to the President of
the Security Council (S/2001/1072)
The President (spoke in French): I shoulà iike to
inform the membèrs of the Council that I have received
letters from the representatives of Angola, Belgium,
Burundi, Canada, the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Japan, Namibia, Nigeria, Rwanda, South
Africa, Uganda, the United Republic of Tanzania,
Zambia and Zimbabwe, in which they request to be
invited to participate in the discussion of the item on
the Council's agenda. In conformity with the usual
practice, I propose, with the consent of the Council, to
invite those representatives to participate in the
discussion, without the right to vote, in accordance
with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37
of the Council' s provisional ru les of procedure.
There being no objection, it is so decided.
On behalf ûf the Council, I extend a warm
welcome to His Excellency Mr. Léonard She Okitundu,
Minister for Foreign Affairs and International
Cooperation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
At the invitation of the President, Mr. She
Okitundu (Democratic Republic of the Congo)
look the seat reserved for him at the side of the
Council Chamber.
The President (spoke in French): On behalf of
the Council, I extend a warm welcome to His
Excellency Mr. James Wapakhabulo, Third Deputy
Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign Affairs of
Uganda.
At the invitation of the President, Mr.
Wapakhabulo (Uganda) took the seat reservedfor
him at the side of the Counci/ Cham ber.
The President (spoke in French): On behalf of
the Council, I extend a warm welcome to His
Excellency Mr. Stanislaus I.G. Mudenge, Minister for
Foreign Affairs of Zimbabwe.
2
URAnnex:73
At the invitation of the President, Mr. Mudenge
(Zimbabwe) took the seat reserved for him at the
side of the Counci/ Chamber.
The President (spoke in French): On behalf of
the Council, I extend a warm welcome to His
Excellency Mr. Abdulkadeer Shareef, Deputy Minister
for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of
the United Republic ofTanzania.
At the invitation of the President, Mr. Shareef
(United Republic of Tanzania) look the seat
reserved for him at the side of the Council
Chamber.
The President (spoke in French): On behalf of
the Council, I extend a warm welcome to His
Excellency Mr. Patrick Mazimhaka, Adviser to the
President of Rwanda.
At the invitation of the President, Mr. Mazimhaka
(Rwanda) took the seat reserved for him at the
side of the Council Chamber.
At the invitation of the President, Mr. Mangue ira
(Angola), Mr. De Ruyt (Belgium), Mr. Nteturuye
(Burundi), Mr. Heinbecker (Canada),
Mr. Kitagawa (Japan), Mr. Theron (Namibia),
Mr. Hart (Nigeria), Mr. Kuma/o (South Africa)
and Mr. Musambachime (Zambia) look the seats
reserved for them al the side of the Counci/
Chamber.
The President (spoke in French): ln accordance
with the understanding reached in the Council's prior
consultations, and in the absence of objection, I shall
take it that the Security Council agrees to extend an
invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of
procedure to Mr. Mahmoud Kassem, Chairman of the
Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural
Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Ifthere is no objection, it is so decided.
I invite Mr. Kassem to take a seat at the Council
table.
The Security Council wi11 now begin its
consideration of the item on its agenda. The Security
Council is meeting in accordance with the
understanding reached in its prior consultations.
Members of the Council have before them
document S/2001/1072, containing a letter dated 10
November 2001 from the Secretary-General
transmitting the addendum to the final report of the
Panel.
I should like to draw the attention of the members
of the Council to the following documents:
S/2001/1080, S/2001/1102, S/2001/I007, S/2001/1113,
S/2001/1143, S/2001/1156, S/2001/1175, S/2001/1161,
S/2001/1163, S/2001/1168 and S/2001/1193.
At this meeting, the Chairman of the Panel of
Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural
Resourcès and Other Forms of Wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mr. Mahmoud
Kassem, will introduce the report.
I wish to inform members of the Council that,
after having heard the speakers on my list on this item,
the Experts will be meeting at 3 p.m. to finalize the text
of the presidential statement that we will· be adopting
following our meeting.
1 give the floor to Mr. Kassem.
Mr. Kassem: It is a great, great pleasure for me
once again to address the Council and its members.
Permit me to begin by thanking Miss Mignonette
Patricia Durrant, the previous President of the Council,
for ber assistance in arranging the informai
consultations last month. I should like also to express
my gratitude to the new President, Ambassador Moctar
Ouane, for bis assistance in preparing for today's
consultations. Let me also thank ail of the members of
the Council for the invaluable support and assistance
they have provided.
1 should like once again to express our deep
appreciation to Presidents Pierre Buyoya, Frederick
Chiluba, Joseph Kabila, Paul Kagame, Robert Mugabe,
Yoweri Museveni and Sam Nujoma for meeting with
the Panel during its stay in the region. Permit me also
to extend our special thanks to the United Nations
Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo (MONUC) and the Special Rep_resentative
of the Secretary-General in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, and to the offices of the representatives of
the Secretary-General in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, as well as the offices of the United Nations
Development Programme in the region, for their help.
In addition, the Panel wishes to thank the Department
of Peacekeeping Operations at the Secretariat for its
continued support.
S/PV.4437
As I told the Council earlier, the exploitation of
the natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, for the enrichment of a wide range of actors,
continues unabated. Not surprisingly, the Congolese
people do not figure among the beneficiaries of this
unfettered and increasingly systematized exploitation.
The August 1998 war introduced a new group of
beneficiaries, both foreign and Congolese. They corne
from the ranks of the military, governing and ruling
party elites, the leadership of the rebel groups and their
sponsors. The new beneficiaries also include a host of
intermediaries and investors, some Iegitimate and some
Iinked to criminal elements. At an institutional Jevel,
profits have flowed to military budgets and political
parties. This web of interests bas ensured that the war
became and remained, even now, a self-financing and
self-sustaining affair.
Although the security concems of neighbouring
States helped spur the outbreak of the war, three years
later these concerns appi:ar to have been overtaken by
the desiri: to maximize control over expanses of
territory, their vast resources and the substantial profits
derived from them.
While its mandate and composition emphasize the
technical nature of its work, the Panel bas never lost
sight of the need to integrate its work into the broader
framework of the peace process and to contribute to
advancing that process. The Lusaka Ceasefire
Agreement sets out many necessary preconditions for
reducing the exploitation of resources. However,
additional measures will be needed. The
implementation of the Panel's recommendations and
the implementation of the Ceasefire Agreement should
thus be understood as complementary and mutually
reinforcing courses of action, each strengthening and
completing the other.
For example, the results of the Panel's factfinding
in the field highlight the fact that the Ceasefire
Agreement, signed in July 1999, did not address the
issue of the economic profits derived from the
occupation of the territory of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo. Yet both the Panel's report and its
addendum illustrate the links between the exploitation
of natural resources and the continuation of the
conflict. Laying the foundation for lasting peace in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo will necessarily
require progress in drastically curbing the increasing
exploitation of resources and redirecting the use of
3
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437
these resources to the purposes of peaceful
development for the benefit of the Congolese people.
Through the establishment of a monitoring body,
the United Nations can continue the international
community's scrutiny of the exploitation activities,
including the mechanisms for channelling profits that
have been put in place. A lack of follow-up in this area
would send a message to the traffickers and profiteers
that they can continue illicitly exploiting Congolese
natural resources with impunity. It would also signal to
the concerned parties that they can continue stalling on
taking thè actions needed to move the, peace process
forward, thereby further entrenching the status quo.
Member States should establish a moratorium on
the purchase, transit and import of high-value
commodities from regions of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo where foreign troops are present. By
stemming the profits from the exploitation of
resources, the moratorium would reduce what has
become a powerful incentive to continue to fuel the
conflict and thus legitimize the presence of thousands
of foreign troops and the strengthening of rebel armies.
lt should be viewed as a means to curb existing and
future exploitation that is linked to the continuation of
the contlict and, in this sense, contributes to furthering
the peace process.
The Panel believes that a moratorium imposed on
selected and easily detectabie products, such as coitan
and timber, would not have a significant impact on the
Congolese population, who themselves have been
ruthlessly exploited by opportunistic operators. The
same monitoring body mentioned earlier would report
to the Council on a periodic basis regarding which
areas are no longer under the control of foreign troops
in order to clear products originating from them for
purchase and import. Practices aimed at weakening or
circurnventing the moratorium would also be the
subject of monitoring and reporting. The effectiveness
of such a moratorium would be heightened by a strong
media campaign and continued international press
coverage.
It would be the responsibility of the Security
Council to decide whether this moratorium should be
implemented on a voluntary or a mandatory basis. By
incorporating it into their national legislation,
individual countries could make a voluntary
moratorium binding. This would permit them to
prosecute violations occurring within their jurisdiction.
4
URAnnex73
Alternatively, a mandatory moratorium could be
enacted by the Council through a resolution under
Chapter VII of the Charter.
However, both voluntary and mandatory
moratoriums are similar in their intent to target
comrnodities. The main difference between a
mandatory moratorium and a sanctions regime is that
sanctions target States, forbidding exports from them.
A mandatory moratorium targets commodities. It
would establish a ban on the import by United Nations
Member States of commodities produced in a specific
area in which exploitation is known to fuel the conflict.
lnstitutional reforms are critical to ensuring a
strong State administration with the capacity and
authority to safeguard and regulate the territory of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and its riches. To
this end, the Panel has recommended that the
international community assist the Democratic
Republic of the Congo intensively in this area. This is a
process that will require a systematic and sustained
effort on the part of the international community,
including the United Nations. This recommendation
meshes with the provisions of the Ceasefire Agreement
concerning the inter-Congolese dialogue and the reestablîshment
of the State administration throughout
the territory once the dialogue has been concluded.
However, to help break the lînk between the
conflict and the exploitation of resources, the Panel
believes that it is urgent to begin making modest,
though tangible, progress in institution-building,
strengthening the rule of law and re-establishing State
authority. ln the short term, this will be crucial to
confidence-building and to increased stability. Certain
actions in this direction have already been undertaken
with the help of the international community. These
include the drafting of a new rnining code and the
development of a national budget implementation plan.
The renegotiation of ail commercial agreements,
concessions and joint ventures enacted since 1997
should be considered an intrinsic part of any
institution-building process. While it may be perceived
as diverging from the framework of the Ceasefire
Agreement, ~bis action is crucial to freeing the
Congolese State from the undue influence that certain
parties have been able to exert over it. With the goal of
eliminating unfair profits and contractual terms
obtained under the extreme pressures of wartime, this
measure should be viewed as complementary to the
Panel's proposed moratorium. While the Commission
of National Experts of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo suggested that this could be included in the
agenda of the inter-Congolese dialogue, the timing and
modalities must be determined in consultation with the
Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
and other sectors.
The risks to the peace process posed by the
continuation of a Jow-intensity conflict in the eastern
Democratic Republic of the Congo - in areas where
many valuable resources are extracted, traded and
routed for export - are considerable. Consequently,
the .Panel has underscored in its recommendations the
importance of the disarmament, demobilization,
reintegraiion and repatriation or resettlement process, a
key element of the Ceasefire Agreement, now being
undertaken by MONUC. In addition, the Panel bas
expressed its support for the diplomatie initiatives
within the framework of the Ceasefire Agreement
aimed at encouraging the parties to intensify their own
confidence-building efforts.
Consistent with these initiatives and the
modalities for the implementation of the Ceasefire
Agreement, the Panel bas called for the parties to the
conflict to assume the primary responsibility for
solving their respective security concerns by reaching a
consensus on comprehensive measures and
implementing them in a coordinated manner.
In closing, I would like to emphasize that the
Panel's recommendations are intended first and
foremost to protect the Congolese nation's greatest
wealth - its people, its human resources. Their longterm
interests and hopes for peace are being sacrificed
to easy profiteering. The toll in human lives and
suffering exacted by this war and the related trafficking
in natural resources bas been enormous and continues
to mount. Such human losses are quite simply
irreparable, and their impact will inevitably be felt for
decades to corne. However, today, in this Chamber,
nothing cou Id serve as a more eloquent reminder of the
need for the Council to take decisive action - action
to hait the exploitation of natural resources in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, which,
increasingly, is both the means and motive for
sustaining the contlict.
The President (spoke in French): I thank Mr.
Kassem for bis detailed briefing and for his kind words
addressed to me.
S/PV.4437
The next speaker inscribed on my Iist is the
Minister for Foreign Affairs and International
Cooperation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
His Excellency Mr. Léonard She Okitundu. 1 invite him
to take a seat at the Council table and to make bis
statement.
Mr. Okitundu (Democratic Republic of the
Congo) (spoke in French): At the outset, I should like
to say how pleased my delegation and I are to see you,
Sir, presiding over this public meeting of the Security
Council on the situation in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo. 1 should also like to take this opportunity to
pay tribute to the excellent work done by the
Permanent Representative of Jamaica during her
presidency last month.
Through you, Sir, 1 would also like to pay a welldeserved
tribute to the outgoing members of the
Security Council, particularly our African brothers,
Tunisia and your country, Mali. I should like to express
the appreciation of my country for your tireless efforts
in the quest for peace in our region in particular - in
Angola, Burundi and my country, the Democratic
Republic of the Congo.
At a time when the world is welcoming the
notable progress in the Burundi peace process, much
remains to be done for Angola and the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. I would therefore like to ask
our friends who are leaving the Council to continue to
champion the cause of Angola and the Democratic
Republic of the Congo in ail forums, in the United
Nations and elsewhere, so as to promote peace, not
only for the countries and peoples who have suffered
so greatly, but also for ail the countries and peoples of
the Great Lakes region, which have been in turmoil for
more than 10 years.
Before giving my delegation's assessment of the
matter before us today, I shou]d Iike to tell the Council
about the outcome of the informai inter-Congolese
political negotiations that were held from 6 to 9
December in Abuja, the capital of the Federal Republic
of Nigeria. The negotiations were mediated by
Assistant Secretary-General Mr. lbrahima Fall;
Ambassador Mogwe and Professor Lebatt, who are
members of the national dialogue facilitation team,
were also invited as observers.
Generally speaking, the. issues discussed related
to the major questions still outstanding after the Addis
Ababa meeting.
5
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437
The first issue, which related to the question of
inclusive participation, was initially considered in the
presence of the United Nations mediator and members
of the facilitation team, after which the matter was
discussed privately among the Congolese exclusively.
During that second, private, meeting, a compromise
emerged on the numbers, the quotas and the nature of
the participants in the inter-Congolese dialogue. lt was
agreed that there would be broader representativeness
with fewer participants, and this would mean the
following: first, the number of participants in the inter-
. Congolese dialogue would be reduced from 330 to 300;
secondly, ·each of the components - the Govemment
of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the
Rassemblement congolais pour la démocratie (RCD)Goma,
the Mouvement de libération congolais (MLC)
and the political opposition - was reduced from 62 to
SS representatives; thirdly, the civil society component
was strengthened and raised to 66 representatives in
order to allow the participation of religious groups and
thè Mayi-Mayi resistance; fourthly, traditional chiefs
are represented by at least two rèpresentatives in each
of the three groups present in Abuja; fifthly, as for the
externat political opposition, the S5 delegates are
distributed as follows: five for the outside opposition,
30 for the Gaborone political groups and 20 for other
political movements not yet involved in the interCongolese
dialogue. Finally, each component can bring
members of the diaspora into its delegation as it sees
fit.
The second point considered was the orderly
withdrawal of foreign forces. The Government
demonstrated that new Rwandan troops had been
deployed in Congolese territory and that there was real
difficulty in achieving a resolution through the interCongolese
dialogue if the occupying forces - mainly
Rwandan and Ugandan - did not withdraw from the
territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
before the conclusion of the dialogue. The occupation
tends to perpetuate itself, and the United Nations
Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo (MONUC) bas confirmed that Rwandan
troops have been deployed. This is a serious hindrance
to the important partnership that the Council had so
patiently worked on with the actors in the Congolese
drama.
The Rwandan authorities, favouring force as a
way of resolving the conflict, have now become the
main obstacle to the peace process and to
6
URAnnex73
democratization in the Great Lakes region. It is up to
the Council to note this and to condemn it strongly,
because strengthening the Rwandan military presence
poses the obvious risk of a widespread resumption of
warfare.
With regard to the elections, the new political
order, national sovereignty and territorial integrity, it
was decided by common consent to hold a meeting
later, when those matters would be taken up.
Significant progress was made, which will help in
future inter-Congolese negotiations, including the
inter-Congolese dialogue scheduled to take place in
South Africa.
We are very grateful to the Government of South
Africa for offering to host the forum so that we can
work towards reconciliation and national harmony, and
in general for the tireless efforts of that fraternal
country to restore peace in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo and to promote the dignity of the Congolese
people, My Government welcomes the fact that the
participants at the informai negotiations concluded that
there was a need to abide by the commitments entered
into at Gaborone, including that relating to the
inclusive nature of the inter-Congolese dialogue, as
called for in Security Council resolutions and as a
fundamental principle of the Lusaka Agreement. This
should give ail Congolese socio-political groups an
opportunity to be involved in the national dialogue.
The main obstacles to political negotiations, apart from
the financial obstacles, have now been lifted.
The Abuja meeting also showed once again that
when the Congolese political actors meet among
themselves without outside interference, they are
always able to understand each other and find
compromise solutions. A new meeting of experts is
scheduled for early January to prepare for a summit
between the President of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo and the leaders of the two rebel movements.
At the regional level, after several informai
meetings between the Ministers for Foreign Affairs of
Burundi and of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
the Governments of the two countries decided to
improve bilateral relations. The Minister for Foreign
Affairs of Burundi was invited to Kinshasa to consider
the modalities for the withdrawal of Burundi troops
from Congolese territory and to discuss normalizing
diplomatie relations between the two countries.
As for the matter under consideration, the
Council bas before it the addendum to the report of the
Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural
Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, activities that
violate its national sovereignty. lt is important to note
that in order to define the aim of its work the Panel of
Experts saw fit to define and interpret the concept of
illegal exploitation in its report. This includes ait kinds
of mining, production, marketing and exporting from
the Democratic Republic of the Congo without the
consent of the legitimate Government - in other
words, in violation of national sovereignty, mining
codes, environmental provisions, international treaty
law and customary law.
ln calling into question the countries members of
the Southern African Development Community
(SADC) that came to help one of their own cope with
armed aggression, it seems to me that the addendum
inaccurately reflects the relevant facts and also seems
to depart from the definition of illegal exploitation as
set forth in paragraph 15. No army from a SADC
member country would have been brought into my
country without the consent of the legitimate
Government had the Democratic Republic of the
Congo not been attacked, suffered aggression and been
invaded.
The Government considers that condemning an
initiative that enabled it to defend its national
sovereignty amounts to depriving a State of its basic
right under Article S 1 of the United Nations Charter to
resort to individual or collective self-defence to
preserve its sovereignty and territorial integrity.
In this connection, we would do well to recall
France under General Charles de Gaulle, who spoke
before, during and after the Second World War in
support of respect for the sovereignty of ail States, the
preservation of their independence and the maintenance
of international peace and security. At the time, France
had enjoyed the support and assistance of the Allies.
More recently, under President George W. Bush,
the American people is showing exemplary courage in
trying to cope, as a nation, with an attack against the
"American way of life", which the whole world
admires and envies. The United States naturally enjoys
support from many other countries in combating
terrorism. Our Gov'ernment and people reiterate their
sympathy to the American Government and people and
S/PV.4437
reaffirm the commitment made by Major-General
Joseph Kabila, President of the Republic, to join the
struggle against terrorism in all of its manifestations.
I am pleased to note that the addendum confirms
the conclusions and validates ail the elements of the
report that appeared earlier in document S/2001/357.
The large-scale pillaging and illegal exploitation of the
minerai resources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo are proceeding systematically, and this is one of
the major issues in the contlict. It can be seen from the
addendum that along with the war, and in its shadow,
massive economic pillaging - as great as anything
Africa bas ever suffered from - is under way. It is
now established that problems related to insecurity
along the borders and instability in the Great Lakes
region, invoked by those committing aggression
against the Democratic Republic of the Congo, cannot
justify the occupation of almost half of Congolese
territory by a coalition of armies from other countries,
whose front lines are more than 2,000 kilometres from
those countries' borders.
The danger that bangs over the effort to establish
peace in the Great Lakes region, and in establishing a
new political order in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, lies in the fact that the methods of the illegal
exploitation of the natural resources and other forms of
wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo have
become so sophisticated that, as the addendum notes,
the illegaJ economic activities of the aggressors are
now self-sustaining anc.i involve almost no financial
burden on the countries concemed.
The Commission of National Experts set up by
the Democratic Republic of the Congo estimated
exports by Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi from 1998 to
200 I at more than $427 million in fine diamonds for
jewellery, about $800 million in coltan and more than
$24 million in cassiterite.
1 note, moreover, that a number of independent
inquiries - foremost among which was that of the
British Parliament, which I welcome and for which I
am grateful - have arrived at the same conclusion
reached by the Panel of Experts in Iast April' s report.
The British parliamentary report notes that exports,
particularly gold and coffee from Uganda, are
comparable to those froin North and South Kivu,
although everyone knows that Uganda produces barely
any gold or coffee. The report also singles out Rwanda,
which officially acknowledges having produced 63
7
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437
tons of coltan, whereas it actually exported 603 tons in
2000.
One must therefore ask: Who profits from this
crime? My Government would point first to the
military-political groups in power in Rwanda and
Uganda; businessmen in the two countries; and
criminal networks involved in money-laundering
through the traffic in drugs, diamonds, cohan and
weapons. Ali of these mafia-like networks promote
criminal activity in the Congolese economy and in that
of the Great Lakes region as a whole, which bas
become one of the prime meeting places in Africa for
counterfeiters, arms dealers and Jaunderers of drug
money.
I am also glad to see that, in paragraph 16, the
Panel of Experts rightly stresses another aspect of that
exploitation: human resources. The people's resistance
to the demands, pillaging and exploitation to which
they are subject leads to periodic massacres of local
populations by the invaders. lt is no coïncidence that
such massacres always take place in mining areas, such
as Kasika in South Kivu and Djugu, Mongbalu and
Watsa in Oriental Province. Indeed, all the information
provided by national' and international human rights
organizations - the MISNA Catholic agency, Amnesty
International, Human Rights Watch, the International
Crisis Group, South Kivu youth organizations and
associations, and the Congo!ese Foundation for Human
Rights and Peace - confirms that the war in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo is a humanitarian
disaster.
Thus, the pillaging and illegal exploitation of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo goes band in band
with massacres, massive population displacements and
the abuse of children and of Rwandese prisoners in
mining and timber operations. Those organizations
have established that over 3 million people have died
directly or indirectly because of the war. The
International Crisis Group bas estimated the number of
displaced persons within the country at 2 million and
of those outside at 300,000. ln a report to the Security
Council of 28 November 2000, Ms. McAskie, Deputy
Emergency Relief Coordinator, said that 16 million
people were threatened by famine because of the war,
representing over one third of the Congolese
population. A recent report of the World Health
Organization indicates that the incidence of HIV/AIDS
has increased significantly in recent years in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. The reasons for
8
URAnnex 73
that increase include the fact that the aggressor forces
corne from countries where the HIV/AIDS rate is
among the highest in sub-Saharan Africa.
Along with exploiting the natural resources and
other wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Uganda military officers have stirred up ~thnic
conflicts, particularly in lturi in Orientale Province,
where the Lendus and Hemas killed each other in great
numbers between June J 999 and October 2000, causing
thousands of deaths and displacements.
Similarly, the Congolese will never forget the
frenzied, mercenary rush for profits that brought
Rwanda and Uganda to bloody confrontation in
Kisangani, in Orientale Province. These clashes were
denounced by the Government of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, the Congolese people as a
whole and the international community. That was a
case without precedent in the history of international
relations. Never before had the world witnessed two
foreign armies cross their respective borders to clash
on the territory of a neighbouring country and to claim
spheres of influence in which they could exploit
resources that did not belong to them.
With respect above ail to the environment and
ecology, almost ail of the inquiries undertaken by the
most respected agencies have shown that ail our
national parks, designated by the United Nations
Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization as
the collective heritage of mankind, have been
systematically devastated. They are subject to poaching
as a custom of war and to organized Hlegal trafficking.
The species that live there, which are unique in the
world, are often slaughtered with automatic weapons.
A report of a Congolese institute for nature
conservation notes, for instance that, of the 11,000
hippopotamuses that Iived in the waters of Virunga
National Park, only 1,000 remain.
I wish to take this opportunity today to make a
solemn and urgent appeal to the international
community to support my Government's efforts to
preserve and protect our many animal species, such as
elephants, bonobos, gorillas in the eastern plains,
mountain gorillas, chimpanzees, baboons, white
rhinoceroses, okapis and Congo peacocks, ail of which
are being exterminated.
I thank the Panel of Experts for having
recognized the tireless efforts made by Major General
Joseph Kabila, President of our Republic, as well as bis
resolve to undertake reforms, to irnplement sound
macroeconomic policies, to manage public affairs in a
wise and open manner and, above ail, to respect the
law so that everything can be done to ensure the
country's economic recovery and reconstruction.
The efforts of the President of the Republic are
based on the following exigencies. The national
sovereignty and territorial integrity of our territory
must be defended. Lasting peace must be restored
through a negotiated solution to the war of aggression,
which has cost the Congo millions of lives over the
past threè years. This is needed to end once and for ail
the horrible suffering and irnmeasurable misery and
death that our people have been subjected to under the
aggression. Ways and means must be sought to allow
the Congolese people effectively to enjoy fundamental
freedoms and basic human rights. More efficient
management of public services must be established
through reform policies so as to ensure good
governance, full respect for human rights and popular
participation in the functioning of democratic
institutions once peace has been restored. National
human and material resources must be developed in
order to enable the country once again to become a
major political and economic player in Africa. Lastly,
dignity and pride, which are cherished by peoples
throughout the world, must be restored to the
Congolese people.
Today, with the assistance of the Bretton Woods
institutions, the Government of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo is preparing a new policy to
develop the private sector, promote national and
foreign investment, reform socio-economic sectors,
ensure transparency in management, fight corruption,
restructure our armed forces, demobilize child soldiers
and reform our judicial system. Along those lines, the
Government recently drafted a new mining code.
Consultations and negotiations will continue with our
national and foreign social and economic partners.
With respect to transparency in public
administration, the Government has begun auditing ail
public enterprises. The audits have been made public
and those in positions of responsibility who have fallen
short have been punished. Furthermore, I am pleased to
inform the Council that the President of the Republic
recently ordered the establishment of an anti-corruption
commission in order to strengthen the rule of law. The
commission of national experts, which is assisting us at
this meeting, is mandated not only with investigating
S/PV.4437
the illegal exploitation of the natural resources and
other wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
but also with monitoring the review of ail agreements
concluded by the Government.
My Government bas already indicated its
agreement with the recommendations made by the
Panel of Experts in its report and notes with great
interest the cornments offered in the addendum. My
Government therefore believes that it is up to the
Security Council to draw conclusions from the relevant
recommendations of the Panel's reports so as to break
the linkage that regrettably exists between the pillaging
of resources and the continuation of the war in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
My Government also believes that if the Council
wishes to renew the mandate of the Panel of Experts, it
will be absolutely essential to strengthen significantly
its expertise to enable it to better define, mainly at a
purely technical level, the responsibilities related to the
illegal exploitation of natural resources and other forms
ofwealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Looking at the overall picture of restoring peac.e,
we must also establish a link between the cessation of
hostilities and the economic recovery of our country,
while providing a structural framework that will help
the Democratic Republic of the Congo emerge from the
current crisis.
My Government believes that at the appropriate
time the Council should follow up on the request made
toit on 3 May 2001 to take prudent preliminary steps
to place an embargo on looted products that transit
through Kigali, Bujumbura and Kampala.
Primarily, my Govemment would also be very
grateful to the Council if it would agree to the
implementation of ail the recommendations contained
in the report of the Panel of Experts, particularly the
following: speed up the deployment of the United
Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo (MONUC), because only the
total and definitive withdrawal of the aggressors can
ensure a hait to the plunder of the wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo; demilitarize
Kisangani, rnake reparations for material damage in
that city and indemnify its people, pursuant to
resolution 1304 (2000); impose ail possible measures,
in keeping with the duties and obligations entrusted to
the Security Council by the Charter, against any party
that rejects the demilitarization of Kisangani and the
9
URAnnex 73
S/PV.4437
countries that support it; freeze assets of the rebel
movements and their leaders, and of companies and
individuals involved in the illegal plundering and
exploitation of Congolese resources; request Members
of the United Nations to ·stop providing financial
assistance to countries that are behind the plundering
and illegal exploitation of resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo; request the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank to suspend their
cooperation with aggressor countries if pillaging and
warfare continue; request the neighbouring countries of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo and transit
countries to stop encouraging any kind of economic
and financial activities carried out in their territories
that are linked with the war in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo; support the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, because of its financial and moral tosses and its
economic decline, in its legitimate right to demand
financial compensation from the countries and
individuals guilty of plundering, whether directly or
indirectly; and order legal action to be taken against the
authors and co-authors of this plundering and their
accomplices.
I cannot conclude without paying a heartfelt
tribute to Mr. Amos Namanga Ngongi, Special
Representative of the Secretary-General, and ail United
Nations and associated personnel for their ongoing
·contribution to restoring peace to my country through
their full dedication and total self-sacrifice. 1 also
welcome the atmosphere of trust, mutual respect and
real cooperation between the United Nations and the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, which certainly
facilitates United Nations and humanitarian operations
throughout our territory.
The President (spoke in French): l thank the
Minister for Foreign Affairs and International
Cooperation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
for the very useful information be bas given about the
tripartite meeting held at Abuja from 6 to 8 December
2001, as well as for bis kind words addressed tome.
The next speaker inscribed on my list is
Mr. James Wapakhabulo, Third Deputy Prime Minister
and Minister for Foreign Affairs of Uganda. 1 invite
him to take a seat at the Council table and to make bis
statement.
Mr. Wapakhabulo (Uganda): It is both a
pleasure and an honour for me to address the Security
Council on the addendum to the report of the United
10
URAnnex73
Nations Panel on the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. 1 am particularly happy to see you, Mr.
President, from the sister African Republic of Mali,
presiding over the Security Council in its search for
peace and stability in the Great Lakes region. I can
assure you of Uganda's continued commitment to full
cooperation so as to enable you and the Council to
attain these very noble goals.
Allow me also to congratulate your predecessor,
Ambassador Patricia Durrant, Permanent
Representative of Jamaica, and to thank her for the
excellent manner in which she guided the work of the
Council in November. Uganda was touched by the fact
that The Right Honourable P. J. Patterson, Prime
Minister of Jamaica, personally presided over the
Security Council meeting with the Political Committee
of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement on the Democratic
Republic of the Congo on 9 November 2001. That was
a clear testimony that Jamaica truly has a special
affinity for the plight of Africa and the search for
durable peace in the Great Lakes region.
l particularly welcome the presence also of the
Assistant Secretary-General at this very important
meeting on the Great Lakes region. His presence
confirms the importance the Secretary-General and the
Security Council attach to addressing the political
crisis and the illegal exploitation of the natural
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as
well as to bringing stability to the Great Lakes region.
My Government welcomes the release of the
addendum to the report of the United Nations Panel of
Experts on the Illegal Exploitation ofNatural Resource
and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo. My delegation is particularly gratified
that the Security Council has afforded us the
opportunity to respond to the addendum report of the
Panel, which was chaired by Ambassador Kassem of
Egypt.
It is my wish to formally present to the Council
the Government of Uganda's response to the addendum
to the report of the United Nations Panel on the Illegal
Exploitation of the Natural Resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. That response has
already been circulated. The response covers Uganda's
observations on the addendum to th<; report, responds
to the allegations regarding the involvement of
Ugandan individuals and private companies and
outlines Uganda's views on the way forward and the
need to focus on the implementation of the Lusaka
Ceasefire Agreement. I wish, therefore, to utilize the
short time available to highlight the key elements of
this response.
The Council will recall that in early 2000,
Uganda, and President Yoweri Museveni personally,
supported the proposai to establish a panel of experts to
investigate allegations of illegal exploitation of the
natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. Since then, Uganda bas extended maximum
cooperation to the two investigative United Nations
Panels of Experts that visited Kampala in November
2000 and August 2001.
In compliance with the request made by the
Security Council, Uganda established, under legal
notice 5/2001, dated 25 May 2001, an independent
judicial Commission of Inquiry into the allegations
against Uganda of illegal exploitation of the natural
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
under the chairmanship of Justice Porter, a
distinguished Judge from the United Kingdom. I should
point out that under the Commission of Inquiry Act of
1914 - which was put in place in 1914, not by us but
by our bosses then - the Porter Commission has the
powers of the High Court of Uganda, including the
power to summon witnesses, compel production of
·documents and cause police, as servants of the
Commission, to search premises. The Commission also
has powers to mete out punishment for contempt and
perjury. lndeed, the witnesses that have appeared
before the Porter Commission include President
Museveni, top Ugandan People's Defence Force
(UPDF) officers, senior Government officers and
various executives of private companies. A number of
rebel leaders in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
and other Congolese have also given sworn evidence to
the Porter Commission on a voluntary basis. The Porter
Commission published its interim report in document
S/2001/!080. lts mandate bas been extended to
February 2002 to allow for any new corroborative
evidence that Ambassador Kassem's team may be able
to share with Justice Porter.
Consistent with our position on the principle of
investigation of the illegal exploitation of the natural
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the
Government of Uganda is committed to the
implementation of the recommendations of the Porter
Commission. We are convinced that, in the interest of
resolving the crisis in the Democratic Republic of the
S/PV.4437
Congo and promoting peace in the region, ail the
activities of the parties involved in that country should
be above board.
1 would like to make a few comments on the
addendum report. 1 will start with the positive
improvements in that report, as Uganda sees it.
Uganda bas carefully studied the addendum to the
report. We believe that the Kassem report reflects a
more balanced approach to, and an improved analysis
of, the political crisis and the illegal exploitation of the
natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. The addendum covers ail parties involved in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as well as the
transit and destination countries for the natural
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
We think that this is very positive.
We note that the addendum acknowledges the
fundamental reasons for Uganda's involvement in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. It recognizes
Uganda's legitimate security interests relating to the
threat from terrorist grC>ups in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, which include the Allied Democratic
Forces (ADF), West Nile Bank Front, the Uganda
National Rescue Front Il and the more recently created
People's Redemption Army. The addendum also
recognizes the fact that the intervention by Uganda in
pursuit of the perpetrators of terrorist activities
followed the signing of a bi)ateral protocol on security
between Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the
Congo in Kinshasa in April 1998.
The Government of Uganda notes with
satisfaction and appreciation that since 5 December
2001 the ADF and the Lord's Resistance Army (LRA)
have been placed on the list of terrorist organizations
by a number of countries, including the United States
of America and the United Kingdom. lndeed, this is a
confirmation ofwhat the Uganda Government bas been
saying ail along. We sincerely hope that countries
which have been praising the ADF and LRA as
freedom fighters will now reconsider their support for
these terrorist organizations and join the efforts to
build peace and stability in the Great Lakes Region. ·
The addendum confirms that neither the Uganda
Government nor any of its companies are involved in
the illegal exploitation of the natural resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. The addendum
clearly shows, for example, that the Dara Forest case
study, which was central to the old United Nations
li
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437
Panel's allegation of Uganda's systematic and systemic
illegal exploitation of the natural resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo was based on false
evidence. The reconstituted Panel was able to establish
that Dara Forest is not a Ugandan-Thai company but a
Kinshasa registered Congolese-Thai logging company;
that President Museveni and his family members are
not shareholders in the company; and that the
Department of Forestry in Kampala was never involved
in the falsification of timber certificates to export
timber said to be of Ugandan origin when, in fact, it is
from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Another positive part of the addendum is that it
recognizes Uganda's compliance with, and
commitment to, the implementation of the Lusaka
Ceasefire Agreement and the relevant Security Council
resolutions and decisions. It specifically reflects the
fact that Uganda has withdrawn 12 of the 14 UPDF
battalions it had sent to the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. lt also appreciates that Uganda is the only
country which has complied with the request of the
Security Council by establishing an independent
judicial Commission of Inquiry on the allegations of
illegal .exploitation of the natural resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
I wish to reiterate my call to the Security Council
of 9 November 2001 for the United Nations
Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo (MONUC) to deploy adequate forces in
Buta and Bunia to enable the immediate withdrawal of
the two remaining UPDF battalions from the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. The UPDF would
remain only on the western slopes on the Rwenzori
Mountains on the border. ln this context, I wish to
inform the Council that MONUC ()fficials recently
visited Uganda - they met with me personally - and
that the MONUC office in Kampala is currently
workingiwith Uganda's Ministry of Defence to finalize
compilation of the required technical information for
îrnplernentation ofparagraph 12 (i) of Security Council
resolution 1376 (2001).
The reconstituted Panel makes two very
significant and pertinent points. First, the fondamental
reason for the continuing exploitation by varions
States, business mafias and individuals is the vacuum
created by the effective collapse of ail State institutions
and structures of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. Secondly, the implementation of the Lusaka
Ceasefire Agreement and the start of rebuilding State
12
URAnnex73
institutions under a new political dispensation is the
only viable way to guard against the illegal exploitation
of the natural resources of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo.
lt is also significant to note that this collapse of
State structures explains why the Democratic Republic
of the Congo territory has served as a base for the
various terrorist groups against Uganda and other
regional neighbours. In our view, this is the main cause
of the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo.
We have some areas of concern with regard to the
addendum. We are concemed about a number of very
serious allegations, errors, omissions and weaknesses
in the analysis contained in the addendum to the
Panels' report.
There are, for example, persistent allegations
without corroborative evidence. The Panel alleges that,
in spite of the significant withdrawal of Uganda troops
from the Democratic Republic of the Congo, some
senior officers continue to have networks for illegal
exploitation of natural resources in that country. The
Governrnent of Uganda views this as a serious
allegation. We hope that the Panel will be able to share
corroborated evidence and key rnaterials with Justice
Porter so as to prove the existence of such networks by
senior UPDF officers. I have spoken to Arnbassador
Kassem and expressed this concern in person. I wish to
reiterate the comrnitment of the Government of Uganda
to implementing the recommendations of the Porter
Commission.
It is important to point out that evidence was
given to the United Nations Panel to demonstrate that
UPDF is a disciplined force, both in its track record
and the administrative codes. The UPDF is governed
by a code of conduct and is subject to the law and other
relevant conventions. The statute under which it
operates and the attached regulations and standing
orders constitute the rnilitary code of the UPDF under
which it is disciplined.
Our army is subject to parliamentary oversight of
its functions. Indeed, President Museveni sent out a
strict radio message in Decernber 1998 instructing the
UPDF in the Democratic Republic of the Congo not to
engage in business. The President also instructed the
UPDF, however, to facilitate ordinary, private
businesspeople to do business there in order to
alleviate the supply of acute needs, such as medicine
and essential commodities. But, importantly, our
officers are subject to commissions of inquiry and are
tried under the law if they commit offences. For
example, a number of UPDF officers who deviated
while in the Democratic Republic of the Congo have
since been tried and punished.
Uganda is thus concerned that the Panel makes an
oblique allegation that UPDF military culture condones
illegal activities. This is a very serious allegation
without corroborative evidence. Uganda, therefore,
hopes that corroborative evidence will be given to
substantiate or remove this allegation so that Justice
Porter can also get to the root of the matter.
There are some errors in the addend11m. In
paragraph 48, the Panel alleges that, contrary to
evidence, the Uganda Government bas denied transit of
timber from the Democratic Republic of the Congo
through Uganda since 1998. This is not tme. I think
that this allegation was either made as a technicaJ error
or was based on false information. Uganda bas always
. stated that the transit of cargo to and from the
Democratic Republic of the Congo bas taken place
since time immemorial. Detailed data on transit goods
from the Democratic Republic of the Congo from 1993
to .200 l and copies of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo customs documentation were provided in
response to the United Nations Panel's questionnaire by
the Uganda Revenue Authority in August and
September.2001.
I also wish to point out that there is an agreement
establishing what is called the Transit Transport
Authority for the Northern Corridor, which was signed
in 1985 by Uganda, Rwanda, Burundi, the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and Kenya. The mandate for
this Transit Transport Authority is to ensure efficient
flow of traffic between Bujumbura, Kigali, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Kampala, Nairobi
and the port of Mombasa -in other words, a hinterland
Mombasa port. A number of infrastructure projects
under this Authority are supported by the World Bank,
the European Union and other donor agencies. At the
fourteenth ministerial meeting of this Northern
Corridor, in Kampala on 23 November 2001, Uganda
reiterated its commitment to ensuring smooth traffic
flows through Uganda to strengthen regional initiatives
for infrastructure development and to harmonize
customs documentation and procedures along that
Corridor.
S/PV.4437
In paragraphs 28 and 44, the addendum refers to
the continued mining operations by UPDF of gold in
the Kilo-moto area and diamonds in the North
Kisangani area. The withdrawals of UPDF from North
Kisangani and Kilomoto which took place in May/June
200 l have been verified by MONUC. It is, therefore,
gross prejudice to allege that UPDF is still involved in
gold and diamond mining in areas it vacated six
months ago.
Mr. President, there is also what we consider a
serious omission. You will recall that in May 2001,
Uganda strongly objected to the old Panel's
unwarranted attack on the person of President
Museveni. As corroborated evidence contradicting the
DARA case study demonstrates, allegations by the old
Panel against President Museveni's family and the
Department of Forestry's involvement in illegal
exploitation were based on false information. That is
why we feel that it was a serious omission for the
addendum to ignore the need to acknowledge the fact
that a serious mistake had been made and that it was
unjustifiably damaging to the. integrity of President
Museveni and the Forestry Department.
Uganda, therefore, supports the extension of the
mandate of the United Nations Panel to address
outstanding issues relating to corroboration of
evidence, gross omissions and obvious technical errors.
In this connection, Uganda would like to request the
Security Council to seriously consider setting up a
mechanism that would encourage and enable the
United Nations Panel to share information with the
Porter Commission of Inquiry.
I will conclude with discussing the way forward.
There is the question of an international conference on
the Great Lakes. Uganda bas welcomed the Panel's
proposai to convene an international conference on
peace and development in the Gr.eat Lakes region. We
believe, however, that such an international conference
should be held after the implementation of both the
Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement on the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and the Arusha Peace and
Reconciliation Agreement on Burundi. Convening an
international conference on the Great Lakes region
before the conclusion of the inter-Congolese dialogue
would definitely divert attention from the Lusaka
Ceasefire Agreement. We are convinced that it should
be the responsibility of the transitional government of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo to undertake the
formulation of a plan of action to rebuild State
13
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437
institutions and to participate in international
conferences focused on the reconstruction and
development of the Great Lakes region.
Mention was made of a moratorium on a number
of key commodities. The panel recommends in
paragraph 156 that a moratorium should be declared
banning the purchase and importing of certain
products, including gold, coltan, diamonds, coffee and
timber originating in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. While the desire to undertake such definitive
action to address the issue of illegal exploitation of the
natural rèsources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo could be understandable, the Security Council
needs to move very cautiously on the issue of a
moratorium. A moratorium would definitely have the
effect of sanctions against the small farmers and artisan
miners in the Democratic Republic of the Congo who
eam their living and access to medicines and other
essential commodities through traditional cross-border
trade. It would also cripple the capacity of missionary
groups and other non-govemmental organizations,
which are the only organized institutions to deliver
humanitarian services in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo.
Let me make a small correction here on the
statement made by Minister Okitundu that Uganda
produces hardly any coffee. The biggest crime we have
in Uganda is that we prod!.!ce too much coffee. Uganda
is the leading coffee producer on the African continent.
We complete only with Côte d'Ivoire. Sometimes we
beat them, sometimes they beat us. But I can assure
you that we are within the range of four or five million
bags a year, and we do so every year from our own
very fertile soil.
Secondly, I know that Uganda bas been bit by
HIV/AIDS, but we are definitely one country that has,
through concerted action, reduced our rate of
replication from 30 per cent to 6 per cent, and, as we
speak it is still falling. Hence, we should not be
condemned for something over which we had no
coritrol, but at least we have tried to assert contrai.
On the question of renegotiation of concessions
that is recommended by the Panel, in our view, these
should be negotiated un der the auspices of the Security
Council. However, in our view this would be putting
the cart before the horse. We feel that the transitional
governrnent that will be established as a result of the
inter-Congolese dialogue should have the sovereign
14
URAnnex73
responsibility to handle all matters relating to the
review of contractual obligations, regulation of
revenues from the country's resources and the
formulation of a plan of action for rebuilding the
country's institutions and structures.
We think that there should be a focus on the
implementation of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement.
We strongly agree with the Kassem Panel that it is the
urgent implementation of the Lusaka Ceasefire
Agreement and the creation of institutions of a viable
State under the new political dispensation that can
guarantee against the illegal exploitation of the natural
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The successful implementation of the Lusaka Ceasefire
Agreement will, first, put in place a transitional
government to ensure the rebuilding of the collapsed
State and its institutions and fill the vacuum created by
the absence of authority to regulate the exploitation of
the country's wealth. Secondly, it will address the
security concerns generated by the presence of armed
terrorist groups in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo to destabilize ber neighbours.
In our view the Security Council should stay
focused on playing a leadership role in ensuring
accelerated disarmament, demobilization, repatriation,
resettlement or reintegration of the negative forces
based in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the
successfu!. outcome of the inteï-Cûngolese dialogue
scheduled to start in South Africa in January next year.
In this context, Uganda feels that a summit meeting
between the Security Council and the Political
Committee should be convened early next year to
ensure sustained momentum for the inter-Congolese
dialogue and to agree on an enforceable timetable for
the establishment of a transitional government in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. lndeed, any
specific measures by the Security Council should, in
our view, be focused on creating incentives for ail
parties to implement the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement.
The President (spoke in French): l thank the
Third Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign
Affairs ofUganda for bis kind words addressed tome.
The next speaker on my list is the Deputy
Minister for Foreign Affairs and International
Cooperation of the United Republic of Tanzania, His
Excellency Mr. Abdulkadeer Shareef. I invite him to
take a seat at the Council table and make bis statement.
Mr. Sbareef (United Republic of Tanzania):
Allow me to begin by congratulating you, Sir, on your
assumption of the presidency of the Security Council
for this month. We wish you every success in these
troubled times.
I welcome the efforts that the Security Council
has been exerting to bring peace and stability to the
Great Lakes region in general, and, in particular, to the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
In that regard, the United Republic of Tanzania
wishes to reiterate its support for the work of the Panel
of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural
Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is for this reason
that the Government of the United Republic of
Tanzania and its institutions extended its full support to
the Panel when it paid a visit to my country in pursuit
of its mandate.
The Panel visited the United Republic of
Tanzania on 17 and 18 September 200 l.
Notwithstanding the short notice, during the visit it met
with senior Government officiais from the ministries of
Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation,
Defence, Energy and Minerais, lndustry and Trade,
Finance, Transport and Communications, and Home
Affairs, as well as the Tanzania Railways Authority.
The Panel also met with the Governor of the Bank of
Tanzania and the Acting Director General of the
Tanzania Harbour Authority. The discussions were
conducted in a cordial and frank atmosphere.
Regrettably, the addendum to the report of the
Panel bas made unsubstantiated allegations against my
country. To start with, in paragraph 7, the Panel alleges
that information was not forthcoming from, among
others, the United Republic of Tanzania and this factor
"as well as the constraints of its short mandate, limited
the Panel's ability to present a more complete
addendum". ln the second paragraph of annex I of the
addendum, the Panel also "expresses its
disappointment at the lack of adequate cooperation
from the Governments of ... the United Republic of
Tanzania.,.
It is further regrettable that my Government is
accused of demonstrating hostility towards the Panel
during its visit to Dar es Salaam. On the contrary, the
Panel was accorded every possible assistance to
facilitate its work while in Dar es Salaam.
S/PV.4437
Further reading the report shows that the United
Republic of Tanzania is accused of facilitating the
transportation of diamonds, timber and coltan through
the port of Dar es Salaam. Allow me to take this
opportunity to comment on each item referred to in the
report.
During its visit to the Bank ofTanzania, the Panel
was assured that the Central Bank, which is modelled
on the British system, the Bank of England, deals with
fiscal and macroeconomic management. It is thus
neither a marketing board nor a clearing bouse for
exports and transit goods. Our Central Bank, therefore,
does not deal in diamonds. Moreover, diamonds in the
United Republic of Tanzania are exported Jegally by
Iicensed dealers, as acknowledged by the
supplementary report of the Monitoring Mechanism on
Sanctions against UNITA, document S/2001/966, in
paragraphs 188 to 200. We are therefore dismayed that
the Panel is repeating the same accusation contained in
the report in document S/2001/357 of 12 April 2001 to
the Council without making available any evidence
which would have helped the Government of the
United Republic of Tanzania to conduct further
investigations.
As regards timber exports, availab)e records show
that the Tanzania Harbour Authority did not handle
timber for export during the period under review.
However, as the Panel was informed by the
Government, the United Republic ofTanzania bas been
handling cinchona bark from the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, and not timber. The Panel claims that it
bas obtained documents indicating that at least two
shipments of timber originating in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo were transported through the
United Republic of Tanzania. We are surprised,
however, that the Panel did not share this so-called
evidence with the Government of the United Republic
ofTanzania.
Another example is that of coltan, or columbotantalite.
It is not true that the Government and the
Tanzania Harbours Authority "vehemently denied"
(S/2001//072, para. 24) that coltan originating in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo had ever been
exported from the port of Dar es Salaam. However, the
reference in the report to the vessel Karina S as having
shipped coltan and as having left the port of Dar es
Salaam on 13 July 2001 is totally inaccurate
information. No ship by that name docked and left with
the reported cargo at that date or in that period of time.
1S
URAnnex73
SJPV.4437 ·
My Govemment would appreciate being furnished with
evidence that the said ship visited the port of Dar es
Salaam as reported.
The United Republic of Tanzania, as a transit
country, has international obligations to serve its
landlocked neighbours in the import and export trade.
Those countries use our ports, railways, roads and
airports. As such, unless there are United Nations
sanctions imposed by the Security Council against il
country or reasons to suspect a particular shipment, the
shipping authorities of Tanzania respect the documents
of the prè-shipment inspection companies and of the
exporting countries. The Government of the United
Republic of Tanzania expeèted the Panel to provide it
with its evidence that could prove the authenticity of
those claims.
During its visit, the Panel was told that the United
Republic of Tanzania does not support or administer on
its territory rebel camps of the groups mentioned in the
report. We strongly deny the allegation that some
Mayi-Mayi groups are based or have established a
vaguely structured presence in the United Republic of
Tanzania. We regret that those allegations are contained
in one sweeping statement without a tinge of evidence,
explanation or detail. Such allegations not only damage
the credibility of the Panel but also could adversely
affect my country's relations with its neighbours, for
my countrf is on record as having played a neutrai roie
with respect to the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
right from the beginning of the conflict, and it
continues to play such a rote.
In the same vein, the United Republic ofTanzania
does not serve as a transit point for arms belonging to
rebel groups involved in the conflict in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. It is therefore surprising and
highly regrettable that the Panel saw fit to accuse the
United Republic of Tanzania of acting as a conduit for
weapons to the armed groups. I believe the Council is
awarè that the United Republic of Tanzania has been
playing a leading role in the search for peace and
security in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and
in the Great Lakes region as a whole .. In that regard, the
United Republic of Tanzania is one of the architects of
the Lusaka Accord, whose full implementation would
lead to lasting peace in the Democn1tic Republic of the
Congo. We are gratified that the Council bas been
actively seized of the peace process in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo.
16
URAnnex73
The United Republic of Tanzania will continue to
cooperate with the Council on this question, and it is
our hope that the final report of the Panel will address
the shortcomings I have outlined. It is also our
expectation and our sincere hope that the Panel will
make available to my Government the so-called
credible evidence it claims to have obtained on the
matters raised in its report. The cooperation of the
Panel in that regard would be in the interest of
furthering the peace process in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo in particular and of ensuring
peace and stability in the Great Lakes region as a
whole. We look forward to the day in the not too
distant future when the situation in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo will be so stable as to allow the
refugees - of whom the new caseload currently in my
country numbers more than 170,000 - to return home.
Another important observation: the report would
have been more comprehensive had it included also the
end users of the natural resources plundered from the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
I am here not only because the credibility of my
country bas been called into question by the
accusations in the report, but also because those
accusations undermine the United Republic of
Tanzania's efforts in the pursuit of lasting peace in the
Great Lakes region. We respect the sovereignty and
territoriai integrity of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo and its rights over its natural resources for the
benefit of ail its people. We expect the other
neighbours of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
and indeed the international community at large, to do
the same. 1 hope that the Council will understand our
concerns. Nevertheless, I would like once again to
reiterate that the Council can count on our continued
support .and cooperation. We have nothing to bide.
The President (spoke in French): I thank the
Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs and International
Cooperation of the United Republic of Tanzania for the
kind words he addressed to me.
The next speaker is His Excellency Mr. Patrick
Mazimhaka, Adviser to the President of the Rwandese
Republic. I invite him to take a seat at the Council
table and to make his statement.
Mr. Mazimhaka (Rwanda): Allow me first of
ail, on behalf of my Government and of my delegation,
to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the
presidency of the Security Council for the month of
December, and on a job well done thus far, half way
through the month. We also recognize the distinguished
work of the previous President, Ambassador Durrant of
Jamaica.
The Govemment of Rwanda is grateful to the
Security Council for having found time on its busy
schedule to debate the issue of the exploitation of
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, an
issue which, in our view, bas given rise to a great deal
of grief and recrimination on ail sides. We thank the
Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural
Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo for the timely
completion of its eagerly awaited reports.
The reaction of my Government is set out in
Security Council document S/2001/1161. I shall
therefore be brief as concerns the details of our
reaction.
On the allegations conceming the exploitation of
the wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
the Government of Rwanda bas noted that, in the
present addendum (S/2001/1072) to its report, as
before, the Panel, in the case of Rwanda and its
Government, did not indicate the names of
organizations involved in the exploitation of resources.
But we do not have ail the details of its investigation;
we shall await the Panel's further work on this issue.
Commercial activities allegedly carried out by the
Rwandan Government or its army should be carried
out, as elsewhere, through recognizable organizations
or companies, which bas not been the case either time
we have had this report.
However, we have noted that, in the case of the
allies of the Govemment of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, a direct link between exploitation and the
continuation of the war was established. Our reaction
to the previous report was that we had wanted this to
be looked at, so it is gratifying, therefore, that work bas
been done in that direction.
A system of payment through concessions,
contracts and joint ventures, which previously had been
publicly acknowledged by the parties themselves, is
now on record in the work of the Panel.
Sorne of the resources go to finance the arming
and training of ALIR forces - which, again, is
something we have been bringing to the attention of the
Council over the past year as we try to implement
. S/PV.4437
Lusaka and as we continue to encounter difficulties in
carrying out the process of disarmament.
Secondly, the Panel did not fully .establish links
between the exploitation of resources and the
operations of the Rwandan Patriotic Army. Once again,
if there is any evidence, we did not see it in the report
of the Panel and therefore cannot make any further
comments on it.
However, in the response that it gave, the
Government of Rwanda recognizes that the Panel made
recommendations · in the right direction. These
recommendations point to a positive and constructive
approach to the central issues that are at play in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The key elements of the Panel's recommendation
are, first, that everything must be done to give the
Democratic Republic of the Congo effective control
over its territory and to protect its resources from illicit
exploitation; and secondly, that the United Nations
Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo (MONUC) should accelerate the process of
the disarmament, demobilization, repatriation and
reintegration of the armed groups.
The Rwandan Government endorsed the Panel's
view that, in the absence of a resolution to the conflict,
it would be unrealistic to expect that an end could be
put to this exploitation. This should refocus our
attention onto the full and speedy implementation of
the Lusaka Agreement, as we mentioned in our
response.
The Government of Rwanda added in its report
that the disarmament of the Interahamwe and the
former Rwanda Armed Forces (ex-FAR), rebaptized
ALIR, will certainly lead to the withdrawal of ail
foreign forces, including the Rwandan forces. Rwanda
in particular bas already seen a direct link between the
active and hostile presence of these forces and the
deployment of its forces in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo.
The Rwanda Government also noted that the
Panel's acknowledgement that continuing or
intensifying fighting appears to be aimed at preventing
effective demobilization in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo and that credible sources informed the Panel
that several ALIR combatants had been incorporated
into the Congolese Armed Forces.
17
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437
Rwanda believes that this shows the Security
Council definitively that Rwanda's problem is the
support that the Government of Kinshasa bas been
giving, and continues to give, to these genocidal
terrorist forces in their quest to wage war against our
country.
We note also that the reports made mention of the
leadership of these forces, most of whom are indictable
criminals, enjoying unlimited freedom of circulation in
the capital, Kinshasa. This goes against the norms and
obligations of international law.
Given these realizations and the facts that have
been brought to light by the Panel - and which, as 1
said earlier, we have been bringing to the Council's
attention for a long time - one would like, however, to
focus on the positive elements of the report and to try
to make some specific recommendations for a way
forward in the continued search for peace and security
in our region:
One of the issues raised by the Panel of Experts is
that of the continued low-key war that is being waged
in north Katanga and in the Kivus by the armed groups
supported by the Kinshasa Government and its aJlies.
We must address this issue and others before we can
think about making progress in this direction.
We must look for ways of enhancing the process
of enàing the conflict as a whoie, not eiements of the
contlict alone. 1 note here that, when we continue to
say that there is a ceasefire along the main front line,
we are really being blind to the fact that the front line
has shifted eas~ward towards the borders of Rwanda,
Uganda and Burundi.
The second issue is the restoration of full
sovereignty to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
This includes State authority and the withdrawal of
foreign forces from that country.
My Government could not agree more with the
Panel on these two issues. The Lusaka Agreement for a
ceasefire in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
brings together ail of the elements necessary to put an
end to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. At this stage, two important elements are not
receiving adequate attention from the Council, and yet
they are indicative of the difficulties we are facing in
the process of implementation.
The first is what is euphemistically referred to as
the transfer of the war to the east; the second is the
18
URAnnex73
inter-Congolese dialogue, which is an essential element
in restoring the sovereignty of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo.
l will make what I hope are helpful observations
as we look for a way forward.
Let me say that, with respect to question of the
transfer of the war to the east, it is not really a transfer.
The current conflict began in the east, where the exF
AR and the Interahamwe had been waging a war of
extermination against the people of Rwanda. That
objective bas not changed. However, the same
forces - rebaptized ALIR, as I said earlier - took
advantage of the deep disengagernent carried out by the
Rwandan forces to penetrate through a weakened
defence to push back into the east, where they had been
chased frorn.
With the help of the authorities in Kinshasa,
ALIR is able to obtain the endless flow of supplies
needed to sustain the war. The report adequately
describes how this is done and how the resources are
secured. Whereas forward units continue to wage war
in north Katanga and Kivu, a large part of ALIR is
effectively integrated into the Congolese armed forces
(FAC). Again, the Government in Kinshasa must have
the resources to maintain this annex to its owQ national
arrny. The leadership of ALIR- all ofthem officers of
the ex-FAR, indicted or indictab!e for genocide - are
leading a life of luxury financed by the authorities in
Kinshasa.
It is with these facts in rnind that the Government
of Rwanda proposes the following: the deployment of
phase III of MONUC should be done expeditiously.
MONUC and the Joint Military Commission (JMC)
should systematically carry out surveillance of
resupply mutes, both by air and by land, and, in this
specific case, along Lake Tanganyika. That is within
that mandate of MONUC and the JMC.
MONUC and the JMC should monitor and report
rnovements of armed groups, since these are the ones
responsible for the continuation of the conflict. The
Security Council, and in particular those of its
members that enjoy good relations with the
Government of Kinshasa, should make strong
representations to that Government to stop giving
assistance to those forces, in conformity with all recent
Security Council resolutions.
The Security Council should call on the
International Tribunal for Rwanda to locate and arrest
the leaders of ALIR who are already indicted for
genocide, with - we hope - the following results:
first, the activities of these armed groups, which
threaten the peace process, will be severely hampered
by these actions; secondly, voluntary disarmament and
demobilization can then become a realistic goal; and
thirdly, the deployment of phase III of MONUC will
then be justifted.
On the restoration of the sovereignty of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, we would like to
say that that principle has been reaffirmed in the
Lusaka Agreement and ail relevant Security Council
resolutions. lt bas also been a subject of contention in
the context of the current debate about who is
responsible for the resources of the Congo - there is a
contest between the Congolese actors as to which of
them is the legitimate custodian ofthat sovereignty.
The Lusaka Agreement provides for a
straightforward and speedy resolution of this issue,
through the inter-Congolese dialogue. Fortunately, the
dialogue bas begun, and I was glad to hear the Minister
for Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo say that the recent contacts were not in vain,
although, because of the many actors interested in the
process, the advance of this process is being observed
through subsets of the dialogue, rather than the
dialogue îtself. However, it is not the form that matters;
if progress can be made, so much the better.
As the Panel bas pointed out in its reports,
everything must be done to give the Democratic
Republic of the Congo control over its territory so that
it can protect its resources from exploitation. lt is with
that in mind that we encourage the Congolese parties to
the dialogue, now fully constituted, to go about the
process selflessly, courageously and with a clear sense
of the historie importance of the moment.
We urge the Security Council, therefore, to
continue to take an active role, directly and through its
members, in pushing the dialogue forward. To this end,
it is important to do the following: urge the negotiators
to return to the table as soon as possible; give ail
support, financial and political, to the process; urge the
Government to take the lead white accepting the roles
of other Congolese parties assigned to them through
the Lusaka Agreement, to which it is a signatory; and
S/PV.4437
encourage the facilitator and others who are offering
help to coordinate their efforts.
In conclusion, the Rwandan Govemment once
again welcomes the reports and fully shares the
forward-looking assessment of the problems in the
region. The Rwandan Government Will continue to
support the work of the Panel, as mandated by the
Security Council. Rwanda considers the sovereignty of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo to be nonnegotiable.
lt can be exercised only on behalf of and
for the benefit of the people of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. This includes sovereignty over
the natural resources and other forms of wealth they
collectively possess.
The Government of Rwanda, however, insists that
the military activities carried out by ALIR from the
territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
with the support of the current Government in
Kinshasa, constitute a major obstacle to the full
enjoyment of sovereignty by our two sister States. lt is
therefore imperative that the two Govemments work
together, within the context of the provisions of the
Lusaka Agreement, to fully implement the process of
disarmament and demobilization.
The Rwandan Government urges the Government
of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to dissociate
itself from the activities of ALIR, which is a terr.orist
organization - an organization led by people who
carried out genocide in Rwanda - and to immediately
cease the support that it gives to it. ln particular, ALIR
should be removed from the FAC; its inclusion is a
clear indication that the Kinshasa Govemment is
preparing to bide these criminal forces with a view to
their future use against Rwanda or against the people
of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Given our experience over the past seven years,
Rwanda can only be reassured by a stable Democratic
Republic of the Congo, fully in control of its territory
and willing to promote the principles of goodneighbourliness
and cooperation. The Government of
Rwanda will continue to cooperate fully with the
Lusaka Agreement partners and the Security Council in
promoting peace and security in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and the region.
Finally, I want to put on record our objection to
the repeated accusation by the Government of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo that Rwanda is
19
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437
deliberately infecting the Congolese people with the
HIV virus and AIDS.
The President (spoke in French): l thank the
Adviser to the President of the Rwandese Republic for
his kind words addressed to me.
Mr. Levitte (France) (spoke in French): l should
like, on behalf of France, to extend a very warm
welcome to the ministers who have gratified and
honoured us by their presence today in the Chamber to
take part in a discussion the importance of which we ail
appreciate.
1 wish to associate myself with the statement that
the Permanent Representative of Belgium wm be
making later on behalf of all of the countries members
of the European Union. I would just .like to make a few
comments in my capacity as the representative of
France.
It is fortunate that today we have an opportunity,
in the presence of high-Jevel representatives of the
countries that are our partners in the implementation of
the Lusaka Agreement, as well as of Ambassador
Kassem and bis entire team - to discuss the reports of
the Panel of Experts on the illegal exploitation of
natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. Rather than speaking of "reports", I should,
perhaps, say "report", because the outstanding study
produced by .A .. mbassador Kassem is an addendum tû
the report presented in April; the two make up one
whole. This exhaustive study, which encompasses ail
the facets of the problem, prompts us today to draw
certain conclusions.
First, it is regrettably clear today that plundering
has become one driving force - perhaps the main
driving force - of the conflict. We had thought that
the illegal exploitation was a consequence of the
conflict. Now we have a reason to ask ourselves
whether the pillaging of resources bas not become one
of the causes of the continuation of the conflict. Sorne
of the parties involved seem to have an interest in
perpetuating the conflict by plundering the resources of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
There are, of course, some positive elements that
we can welcome. lncreasingly, the issue is being taken
seriously by the parties themselves, as attested to by
the work being done in Uganda by the Porter
Commission, set up at the request of President
Museveni. Nonetheless, much remains to be done. The
20
URAnnex73
peace process is still fragile. It is making headway on
the question of the inter-Congolese dialogue, as
demonstrated by the recent and very encouraging
meeting at Abuja, the outcome of which Minister She
Okitundu told us about this morning.
For its part, the Security Council bas decided on
the deployment of phase III of the United Nations
Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo (MONUC), .and it will soon be able to
launch the process of disarming and demobilizing
armed groups, which is a Iegitimate concern of the
States of the region. Uganda, as well as Angola and
Zimbabwe, have begun to withdraw their troops from
the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
while Namibia bas withdrawn ail its contingents.
Nonetheless, it seems to us that the peace process
has not yet reached the point of no return. The military
situation is still uncertain, particularly in the east of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is in the eastem
region that most of the resources now being pillaged
are located.
We ail know today that the continued illegal
exploitation of the resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo is incompatible with progress in
the peace process. Regrettably, as long as some have a
choice between pursuing their lucrative activities and
the implementation of the Lusaka Agreement, there is
Jittle hope that peace will return and that the
sovereignty of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
will be restored.
We listened with great attention and much interest
to the statements that have been made by Minister
Wapakhabulo and Mr. Mazimhaka. They rightly
insisted on the importance of MONUC's action and on
the need to strengthen its presence and speed up its
deployment, and we in the Council very much agree
with that. We are determined to continue the
engagement of the United Nations. They rightly
underscored the importance of the dialogue, and the
dialogue must make progress. They noted the key
importance of the demobilization and disarmament of
the so-called negative forces, and they are right.
However, if we move towards the withdrawal of forces
and the restoration of sovereignty of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, we must not overlook an
essential aspect that Ambassador Kassem rightly noted
this morning: the link between the pillaging and the
maintenance of foreign forces. This is the link that
must be broken. So what must we do, and how should
we doit'?
Ambassador Kassem's report tells us that the
illegal exploitation of the resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo continues unabated. This
situation must end. It is incumbent on those who in one
way or another are playing an improper role in these
activities, either directly or through the intermediary of
movements that they control, to cease and desist. The
two reports of the Panel of Experts identify in this
regard several States of the region whose troops are
present in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. They
must give serious consideration to the information
contained in these reports and then take the measures
required.
Beyond the action of the States concerned
themselves, however, the international community in
its entirety also has a role to play in inducing the
parties concerned to do what is necessary. The
international organizations, the specialized
mechanisms, the United Nations agencies, the financial
institutions and, of course, the Security Council can
make a useful contribution to the settlement of this
issue and, as a consequence, to the pursuit and
achievement of the peace process.
It is in this spirit that we are inclined towards the
renewal of the mandate of the Panel of Experts for a
new period of six months. That extension will permit
us better to monitor the evolution of the situation on
the ground. It will also help us identify and prepare the
measures that we need to take. Since April this year,
the Experts have been presenting us with many sensible
recommendations, some of which could profit from
clarification. Sorne of them are innovative - such as,
for example, the proposed imposition of a mandatory
moratorium on certain resources. These proposais need
to be studied in depth. On which materials would the
mandatory moratorium be imposed'? What impact
would such a moratorium have on the financing of the
conflict'? What impact .migbt it have on the already
catastrophic humanitarian situation or the economy of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo? Ail of these are
questions that deserve to be studied closely.
One essential principle should guide us in our
action: we must not forget who the chief victims of
these activities are. They are - let us be clear - the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Congolese
population. It is a cruel and intolerable irony that the
S/PV.4437
extraordinary wealth of this country should be used to
inflict greater misery on its inhabitants. We must help
the Democratic Republic of the Congo confront this
situation, which it has not sought. Moreover, any action
by the international community can be undertaken only
in close liaison with the Government of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and with its consent.
Our meeting today allows us to continue to be
attentive to the views of our partners in the peace
process. We shall take into account their observations
and the commitments they have undertaken in our
presence to put an end to the plundering of the Congo.
lt is by working together that we shall make progress
on this issue.
Mr. Kolby (Norway): 1 would also like to pay
tribute to the ministers for their participation in this
important meeting of the Council.
Norway welcomes the addendum .report of the
Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural
Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. I thank
Ambassador Kassem for his most commendable efforts
in this regard and for his presentation this morning.
lt is with deep regret that we note that the
systematic exploitation of natural resources in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo continues unabated.
Unfortunately, a large number of States and non-State
actors continue to be involved in such activity.
Moreover, the parties' apparent toleration of controlled
military confrontation is worrisome.
To the extent that a main motive for the
continuation of the conflict is the exploitation of
resources, as indicated by the Panel, there is indeed
reason to question whether the parties to the conflict
are negotiating in good faith. Against this background,
the prospects for reaching peace in the foreseeable
future may equally be questioned. Norway urges the
parties to the conflict to prove that this is not the case
and to demonstrate that tangible results in the peace
process can be reached without delay.
We share the view that a political resolution to
the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
including through real progress in the inter-Congolese
dialogue and the establishment of effective governing
structures, would help stop the exploitation of natural
resources. Thus, the Government of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and other parties must, as a
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437
matter of priority, participate actively and
constructively in the inter-Congolese dialogue.
At the institutional level, we see thç need for a
plan of action for building proper State institutions in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, More than
anything else, the addendum report clearly highlights
the fact that various regimes in the Congo, since even
before the country's independence, have neglected vital
State institutions and fonctions. Furthermore,
politicians have abused these institutions because of
persona) ambition and other reasons. Therefore, we
would like to stress that the building of State
institutions can be done only from a comprehensive
and long-term perspective.
Taking duly into account any progress made
under the inter-Congolese dialogue, this issue could be
discussed at a proposed conference on peace and
development in the Great Lakes region, which could be
very helpful under the appropriate circumstances.
Norway is most supportive of the regional
approach that the United Nations and other
organizations have taken to the conflict. We are
looking forward to receiving the multi-country
programme for the demobilization and reintegration of
ex-combatants in the Great Lakes region that the World
Bank is currently developing. We are also looking
forward to the establishment of a complementary
regional multi-donor trust fund for fü~ancing
disarmament, demobilization and reintegration efforts
in the region. Norway clearly sees the need for such a
programme. We believe that the problems must have
regional solutions, and thus we find this regional
approach very appropriate.
We note that the Panel of Experts suggests that
international financial institutions and donors evaluate
their assistance to examine whether it contributes to the
continuation of the conflict. This might be a very
important exercise to ensure that international financial
institutions and donors contribute effectively to the
intended purposes, including to helping limit and put
an end to the conflict in the Great lakes region. We
further agree that ail countries should review their
national legislation and, if necessary, adopt new
legislation to investigate and prosecute illicit
trafficking in high-value products that fuel conflict.
Once again, the Panel bas reported that various
countries have not been forthcoming in providing
information to the Panel. We deplore this and urge ail
URAnnex73
countries to cooperate constructively with the Panel
and with other United Nations bodies or agencies when
invited to do so. We support an extension of the
mandate of the Panel in order to keep a close eye on
the issue, including those parties that have not been
very forthcoming, with a view to helping bring an end
to the plundering of resources in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and advance the peace process.
ln conclusion, the Security Council should take
into account the views expressed at this open meeting
before adopting the presidential statement. My
delegation will be ready to participate in further work
on the draft this afternoon, as proposed by you, Sir.
Mr. Corr (lreland): On behalf of my delegation, 1
would like to thank Ambassador Kassem for
introducing the addendum to the report of the Panel of
Experts. I also thank the Ambassador and the Panel for
their dedication and commitment in pursuing their
mandate. The Panel has done an excellent job in setting
out the pattern of exploitation of the resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo by the parties to the
conflict.
My delegation very much welcomes the highlevel
presence today from the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, Uganda, Rwanda and Tanzania and thanks
the ministers and representatives for their statements.
The representative of Belgium will speak shortly
on behalf of the European Union. My delegation
subscribes to bis statement and I make the following
points in my national capacity.
The Panel bas pointed out that, without a
resolution of the broader conflict in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and the region, it will be ail the
more difficult to expect an end to such exploitation.
Ireland shares this view. In taking this matter forward,
our primary goal must be to support the Lusaka peace
process. My delegation believes that its implementation
offers the only viable solution to the conflict in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Panel recognizes that the issue of
exploitation is inextricably linked to other serious
issues in the region. Nonetheless, regardless of the
initial motives which led to the conflict, it is clearly
now unacceptable that a primary motive for ail parties
to the conflict has become the extraction of maximum
material and commercial benefits. This is unacceptable
in terms of restoring State institutions and unacceptable
in human terms; it is unacceptable that peacekeeping or
peacemaking can rest on foundations corrosively
undermined by economic injustice. As Ambassador
Kassem said this moming, exploitation is both the
means and the motive for sustaining the conflict.
In paragraph 16 of its report, the Panel refers to
the exploitation of human resources. For my
delegation, this is the most profoundly disturbing
aspect of the complex situation in the region. That the
human rights of the people of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo are being systematically violated in such
a flagrant and self-serving manner is a matter of the
gravest concern and we hope that the Panel will revert
to this issue.
As regards further action by the Council and the
recommendations of the Panel, my delegation strongly
supports an extension of the mandate of the Panel of
Experts and we look forward to the adoption of a
presidential Statement to this end. A continuing
oversight function will serve as an important deterrent
factor. Beyond this, however, we need to send a clear
signal to ail those involved in such activities that the
Council is not prepared to .see individuals, groups and
States benefit from the resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo at the expense, very often in
shocking human terms, of the population of the
country.
For this reason, as my delegation bas previously
stated, we see value in the proposai of the Panel for a
voluntary moratorium on the import of specific goods.
There is every chance that such action just might, as
the Panel intends, have an impact on consumers and
persuade them to pressurize the companies that
purchase the commodities in question to seek
alternative sources.
Bearing in mind the primary objective of
supporting the Lusaka peace process, we feel that it
would be valuable for the Panel to now look at steps
which the Council might take to curb and control
exploitation linked to the continuation of the conflict.
This should include precise recommendations, where
possible, and an assessment of the humanitarian and
social impact of such .steps. The Panel, in our view,
should report back to the Council within six months.
Of course, we have full confidence .that, in so doing,
the Panel will give due regard to balance and progress
in the wider peace process. Flowing from paragraph
158 of the addendum, we also look forward to detailed
S/PV.4437
recommendations from the Panel as to how existing
international organizations and mechanisms could be
used to control the exploitation.
It is clear from the recommendations of the Panel
that ending foreign exploitation of the resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo will . not be
sufficient to hait exploitation and ensure that the
people .and the Government ofthat country will benefit
from their resources. Other action will also be required.
The international community will have to engage over
many years, assisting in rebuilding the State
institutions and structures of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo. To this end, we look forward to a
positive conclusion to the inter-Congolese dialogue and
the agreement of the parties on their future political
structures, so that the international community can help
them in these tasks.
We agree with the Panel that ail concessions,
commercial agreements and contracts signed since
1997 should be reviewed and revised, with independent
international assistance, to ensure that the revenue from
the resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
is put to the use of the country and its people, rather
than to lining the pockets of some. Furthermore. we
support the recommendation of the Panel that those
countries involved, directly or indirectly, in the conflict
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, including
countries of transit, should take appropriate steps to
address the issues raised in the addendum.
In conclusion, we support an extension of the
mandate of the Panel and, if this were to be agreed, we
would hope to hear from the Panel again in a few
months. More importantly, we look forward before tben
to tangible progress in the Lusaka peace process. It is
our hope that ail the parties will bave take.n real steps
towards peace so that, when we revert to this issue
again, it will be a case of reviewing the progress made
in addressing this issue as part of progress in the
overall peace process in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, rather than looking at it as an obstacle to
peace in that country.
Miss Durrant (Jamaica): First of a:11, let me
thank you, Mr. President, for convening this meeting
on the report of the Panel of Experts on the illegal
exploitation of the natural resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. We welcome the addendum to
the final report of the Panel and wish to thank the
Chairman, Ambassador Mahmoud Kassem, for his
23
URAnnex73
S/PV,4437
presentation today of the Panel's.,. recommendations,
and him and bis team for the work they have done. We
also welcome to the Security Council the Ministers of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda,
Zimbabwe and the United Republic ofT,mzania and the
Advisèr to the President of Rwanda. We appreciate
their participation in today's debate and thank them for
their statements. Their views will certainly be taken
into account in the further deliberations of the Security
Council on this matter.
Over the past two years Jamaica bas constantJy
emphasizèd the importance of the economic
underpinnings of various conflicts in Africa, and in the
Great Lakes region in particular, where the motivation
for profiteering and plunder of resources has been a
constant factor in the continuation of conflict. The
continued. illegal exploitation of the resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo only serves to
perpetuate the conflict in that country, impede
economic and social development and exacerbate the
suffering of the people of the country. It is for that very
reason that we supported the establishment of the Panel
of Experts, with a mandate to follow up on reports and
collect information on activities of illegal exploitation
of natural resources and other forms of wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, including violation
of the sovereignty of that country, as well as to
research and analyse the links between the exploitation
of the natural resources and other forms of wealth in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the
continuation of the conflict.
The report before us today clearly demonstrates
that there is a link between the exploitation of natural
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and
the continuation of the conflict. While we appreciate
the fact that some progress bas been made in the peace
prt>cess in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and
we recall the debate we had last month with the
representatives of the Lusaka Political Committee, we
are reminded in the report that the exploitation of the
natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo has continued unabated for the enrichment of a
wide range of actors, both foreign and Congolesè. This
is an untenable situation that cannot be condoned.
We have also taken note of the Panel's further
emphasis on the exploitation of human resources by ail
parties to the conflict, which, as the report stresses, is a
far graver phenomenon than the exploitation of
material resources. This aspect cannot be ignored in
24
URAnnex73
our deliberations, as a violation of the human rights of
the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
should not be tolerated. We must also insist that the
Security Council's resolutions and the relevant
international human rights and humanitarian
regulations are respected.
My delegation fully concurs with the Panel's
conclusion that in order to end the exploitation of
natural resources and to establish a lasting peace in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, the two underlying
causes of the conflict must be addressed: the decline of
the Congolese State and its institutions and the
continued security concerns generated by the presence
of armed groups. As we have seen, the persistence of
these factors bas served to undermine the very gains of
the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement, and if left unchecked,
they will inevitably support the continuation of the
conflict.
It is in this context that my delegation believes
that careful consideration must be given to the Panel's
far-reaching recommendations. In the first place, we
concur that in the short term emphasis must be placed
on the areas of institution-building, restoring the rule
of law and re-establishing State authority. This wiIJ be
critical to confidence-building and to increased
stability. We note that some steps have been taken in
this regard, including the drafting of a mining code and
the development of a natiünal budget implementation
plan. These measures, if carefully implemented, could
augur well for the re-establishment of State authority.
Secondly, as the Panel report underscores in
paragraph 154, the disarmament, demobilization and
reintegration process is critical to bringing a lasting
solution to the peace process. We therefore agree that
the United Nations Organization Mission in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) should
accelerate the disarmarnent, demobilization and
reintegration process in order to reduce the security
concerns as expressed by a number of States in the
region, including the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, to a level that makes it possible for the
countries concerned to negotiate among themselves the
rnodafüies of securing their borders without infringing
upon the sovereignty of any State.
lt is therefore clear that the need for MONUC to
be deployed throughout the country, especially in the
eastern part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
is critical.
Thirdly, my delegation agrees that at some future
date, ail the concessions, commercial agreements and
con tracts signed during the period 1997 to 2001 and
subsequently in the rebel-held areas should be
reviewed and revised to address and correct ail
irregularities. We have taken note of the
recommendations in regard to the financial and
technical aspects of the continuation of the conflict,
and we commend the recommendations to the World
Bank and the International Monetary Fund and other
international donors for their consideration. My
delegatioil supports in principle the imposition of a
moratorium as a part of a comprehensive mechanism
that would stem the incentive for profiteering and
plunder in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and
the region as a whole. We believe that the imposition of
a moratorium should be targeted not only at the
countries and groups in the region, but also at the end
users, because what we want to ensure ultimately is
that the people of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo benefit from the exploitation oftheir resources.
Finally, my delegation supports in principle the
extension of the mandate of the Panel of Experts. We
recognize that the time constraints of its short mandate
limited the Panel's ability to present a more complete
addendum. We would also wish the period of extension
of the mandate to be used to refine further the
recommendations made in the Panel's report and to
assist the Council in operationalizing them.
ln conclusion, my delegation wishes to reaffirm
our belief that the situation in the Democratic Repubilc
of the Congo can be solved only through a regional
approaach. We therefore believe that the Lusaka
Agreement provides the only current framework in
which this can be addressed. We look forward to the
full implementation of the Lusaka Agreement and to
the ending of the conflict in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo.
Mr. Ahmad (Bangladesh): Let me begin by
extending a very warm welcome to the Ministers of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda,
Zimbabwe, the United Republic of Tanzania and
Rwanda. Their participation in the discussion of the
issue before has helped us appreciate their positions
better. We are encouraged by their renewed
commitment to reaching an early resolution of the
problem and the conflict.
S/PV.4437
I should also like to pay special tribute to
Mr. Mahmoud Kassem, Chairman of the Panel of
Experts, and members of bis team for a task
accomplished with a high degree of professionalism,
courage and determination.
As we focus our discussion on the Panel report, 1
would also Iike to recall with gratitude the work done
by the Panel under the chairmanship of Mme Safiatou
Ba-N'Daw. With the submission of the addendum, the
Panel bas completed the basic task of enquiry into the
problem and preliminary recommendations to break the
nexus between the illegal or abusive exploitation of the
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and
the continuation of the conflict. The Panel's findings
and recommendations assume critical importance as we
make determined efforts to advance the peace process
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
We shall address two issues in particular: first.
Council action with regard to the recommendations of
the Panel, and secondly, the question of the extension
of the mandate of the Panel.
The Kassem Panel bas confirmed that the finding
regarding the illegal exploitation of the resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo continues to be
true. lt bas also confirmed the conclusion that there is a
clear linkage between the illegal exploitation of those
resources and the continuation of the conflict. This
linkage bas to be broken. The question is how.
The Panel recommends to us a set of three
-measures: the review and revision of ail concessions,
commercial agreements and contracts signed between
1997 and 2001; a moratorium on the import of highvalue
commodities such as coltan, diamonds, gold,
cobalt, copper, timber and coffee from territories under
foreign occupation or rebel contrai; and sanctions,
depending on the evolution of the situation.
We would have supported the immediate
implementation of some of the recommendations, in
particular, a mandatory moratorium on the import of
high-value commodities from the territories under the
contrai of rebel movements or foreign forces. However,
maintaining the imperative. of preserving momentum in
the peace process, we agree that the Council should
take a decision after a thorough study of relevant
factors, including the humanitarian consequences of the
measures.
25
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437
The review and revision of ail concessions,
commercial agreements and contracts would be an
effective measure to eut the linkage between
exploitation of the resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and the war. We are aware of
the argument that such a measure can be best
undertaken by the new political dispensation, following
the successful conclusion of the inter-Congolese
dialogue. However, should such a step be ultimately
necessary and if the Government of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo is in agreement, we shall
support setting up a body under the auspices of the
Council to assist the process.
As for sanctions, we would hope that the parties
would cooperate with the Council to avert recourse to
such a coercive measure.
Let me go back for a moment to the original
report submitted by Mme Ba-N'Daw in April. We
believe the Council should revisit some of the
recommendations in that report, in particular with
regard to the minerai trade, financial transactions, an
arms embargo, military cooperation and compensation.
The moratorium on high-value commodities, if and
when decided, should ideally also extend to these
areas. Ail concerned, including transit countries and
the countries of destination of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo's illegally exploited resources, have a
mora] obligation to join the moratorium.
The moratorium should include the import, export
and transport of certain minerais and financial
transactions that have been questioned. Countries
involved may also consider declaring an immediate
moratorium on the supply of weapons and ail military
supplies to the rebel groups operating in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Council's demand for such interim measures
should extend to ail actors involved in the illegal
activities: Governments, armed forces, individuals and
pubHc or private enterprises engaged directly or
indirectly in the extraction, transport, imp.ort and
export of the resources of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo.
The second point we would like to address is the
need for extending the mandate of the Panel.
Bangladesh supports a six-month extension of the
mandate for three reasons. The first is to complete the
unfinished task. As the Panel reports in paragraph 7 of
the addendum, information was not forthcoming from
26
URAnnex73
several regional countries. Besides, the short mandate
of three months severely limited the Panel's ability to
present a more complete addendum. The second reason
is that the Panel was also unable to investigate fully the
reactions and complaints of those named in the report.
The third is the need to examine the feasibility and
possible impact of proposed measures. The Panel itself
would be the best placed, given its experience, for the
monitoring and follow-up of the measures.
In conclusion, we would like to underline that the
Democratic Republic of the Congo should have full
sovereignty over its national resources. The Cmmeil's
purpose in pursuing the matter is to facilitate the peace
process; it should take ail appropriate measures to that
end. To end the conflict, we must effectively withhold
the means that sustain the war and take away the
motive, as these are important steps in that direction.
Mr. Koonjul (Mauritius): I thank you very much,
Sir, for convening this meeting to discuss this very
important issue in the presence of the general
membership. I would like to extend a very warm
welcome to the ministers of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo and Uganda and the Special Adviser to
the President of Rwanda, as well as the Deputy
Minister for Foreign Affairs and International
Cooperation of Tanzania, present in the Security
Council Chamber. this morning. We thank them for
th.,;, v,:;1y impOnain sum:mems.
My delegation would like to express its gratitude
to Mr. Kassem and bis team for the very
comprehensive addendum to the report of the Panel of
Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural
Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. The report is
indeed very comprehensive.
One of the main objectives of the Panel of
Experts was to research and analyse the links between
the exploitation of natural resources and other forms of
wealth in the Democratic Republic of .the Congo and
the continuation of the conflict. My delegation notes
that the conclusion of the Panel demonstrates beyond
any doubt the existence of such an unhealthy link.
On a number of occasions, Mauritius has clearly
stated that the natural resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo beJong to the Congolese people
and to no one else. lt is also our firm view that the
natural resources of the country should not be exploited
to fuel or finance the conflict there. We deplore this
situation, and we would like to reiterate our position on
this issue once again.
In April this year, the Panel of Experts submitted
its first report, which was very comprehensive in
nature. The Panel bas now presented an addendum. For
my delegation, the findings of the first report and the
addendum complement each other, and they should
therefore be studied together. Any action by the
Security Council must be based on the conclusions and
recommendations of both reports.
The reports have pointed clearly to the
involvement of neighbouring countries, at either a
national or an individual level, in the plundering and
the iUegal exploitation of the resources in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. Mauritius
considers that those countries involved should
immediately take necessary measures to cease such
activities or, in the case that their nationals are
involved, carry out necessary investigations with a
view to apprehending those responsible. In this regard,
Mauritius welcomes the setting up of investigating
commissions in some countries to look closely into the
matter.
One of the very important conclusions of the
Panel makes it clear that without a resolution of the
broader conflict in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo and the region, it would be highly unrealistic to
expect an end to the exploitation of natural resources
and other fornis of wealth in the country. The Panel
also recognizes that the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement
provides the basis for the settlement of the conflict in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo. These
conclusions reinforce the fact that we should do
everything to fully support the implementation of the
Lusaka Agreement and not to deviate from the main
track.
My delegation fully agrees with the Panel that,
once the peace process is completed, the Government
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo would be in a
position to exercise full authority over its territory and
have full command of its institutions and structures and
would hence be able to fully protect its resources.
The Panel of Experts bas made three specific
recommendations in its addendum - namely, a review
of ail concessions, commercial agreements and
contracts signed between 1997 and 2001, a moratorium
banning the purchase and import of precious products
originating in the areas where foreign troops are
S/PV.4437
present in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as
well as in territories under the control of rebel groups,
and the imposition of sanctions.
With regard to the recommendation calling for the
review of ail concessions, commercial agreements and
contracts signed between 1997 and 2001, we believe
that we need to take into account the fact that some of
these contracts .have been contracted by the legitimate
and sovereign Government of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo. Therefore, we think that any decision to
review these concessions can be made only after the
full implementation of the Lusaka Agreement and with
the full agreement of the Govemment of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
On the proposai of the voluntary moratorium, my
delegation recognizes that this is a new idea which
needs to be studied very careful)y.
The peace process in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo bas reached quite an advanced stage -
indeed, a very critical one - where we are embarking
on the disarmament, demobilization, repatriation,
resettlement or reintegration (DDRRR) process and we
are on the eve of the reconvening of the interCongolese
dialogue. We should therefore avoid taking
any measure which would lead to a hardening of
position of the parties to the conflict and which could
seriously jeopard ize the chances of success of the interCongolese
dialogue. Any action contemplated by the
Security Council should therefore not disrupt the
ongoing peace process. Rather, it should assist it in
moving the process forward. The implications of any
measures for the already disastrous humanitarian and
economic situation in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo must also be very carefully studied before any
action is taloen. For th1:: same reasons, we believe that
the recommendation of the Panel to consider sanctions
also requires thorough study.
Mauritius therefore supports the extension of the
mandate of the Panel for a period of six months to
allow it to carry out a thorough study and to submit
precise recommendatîons on the possible actions that
could be taken by the Council to put an end to the
plundering of the natural resources in the country.
Mauritius believes in a holistic approach in the
resolution of the conflict and ail associated problems in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We feel that the
full implementation of the Lusaka Agreement will
cover the illegal exploitation of the natural resources. It
27
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437
will also take into account the security concerns of the
neighbouring States, which have been clearly
recognized by the Lusaka Agreement and by the Panel
of Experts in its addendum.
We believe that the Council should therefore
focus more on speeding up the peace process by
considering a robust deployment of the United Nations
Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo (MONUC), especially along the eastern
borders of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and
on expediting the DDRRR process. We note that
several parties to the conflict have committed
themselves to withdraw immediately from Congolese
territory once there is a large scale deployment of
MONUC, which could allay their security concerns.
While we insist that ail foreign forces should withdraw
immediately from the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, we feel that perhaps the Council should assist
in creating the necessary conditions for such
withdrawals.
The efforts spent by the countries of the region
through the Political Committee in the seulement of the
conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
cannot be overemphasized. My delegation understands
that consultations are currently being undertaken at the
level of heads of States of the region to find ways and
means by which these countries could assist in
advancing the peace process, including the interCongolese
dialogue. ln our opinion, such initiatives
must be encouraged fully.
The idea of convening an international
conference on peace and development in the Great
Lakes region is very interesting indeed, and it should
be encouraged. However, we are of the view that such
a conference can be beneficial only after peace has
been re-established and once there is a strong
Government in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
in full contrai of ail its territory. Such a conference
wouid then be able io focus on the reconstruction,
rebuilding and economic development of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and the region as a
whole.
Finally, we support the presidential statement that
will be issued after this meeting and which will take
into account the views expressed by the general
membership.
Mr. Kuchinsky (Ukraine): Due to the lateness of
the hour, I will try to be very brief. Mr. President, we
28
URAnnex73
thank you for convening this important meeting. I
would also like to join my colleagues in thanking
Ambassador Kassem for the presentation of the report
of the Panel of Experts.
We would like to welcome the Ministers for
Foreign Affairs of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Uganda and Zimbabwe, the Deputy Foreign
Minister of the United Republic of Tanzania and the
Adviser to the President of Rwanda. We regard today's
meeting as an important opportunity for the Council to
have a substantive interaction with regional States and
United Nations meiμbership on this crucial subject.
My delegation appreciates the work done by the
Kassem Panel· in its investigation in fulfilment of the
Security Council mandate. The recent addendum
provides the latest appraisal of the situation on the
plundering of the resources of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, carried out in violation of the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of the country, in
disrespect for the ongoing peace efforts in that country
and, more importantly, at the expense of its people. We
note with interest the Panel's analysis, which explains
to what degree the exploitation of natural resources
constitutes the motivation behind the activities of
specific actors in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo and to what extent the exploitation provides the
means for sustaining the conflict.
lt is of great concern to my country that,
according to the report, the illegal exploitation of
natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo is continuing for the benefit of the powerful few
at the expense of the miserable many. We attach great
importance to ending illegal exploitation of the natural
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
which prolongs ilie conflict in the country. We
therefore call upon all parties concerned to take
immediate steps to put an end to such activities and to
ensure full compliance by the individuals and
corporations with legally acceptable standards of
business.
We take note of the conclusions and
recommendations of the addendum to the report and
believe that they merit careful consideration within and
outside the Council.
At this stage, I would like to express my
delegation's support for the recommendation on the
establishment of a monitoring mechanism to make
progress reports on the subject. This recommendation,
in our view, might be considered in the context of the
proposai submitted in the Council on the extension of
the mandate of the Panel of Experts, and, at a later
stage, in a broader context, of the ~imilar
recommendations made by other panels, spec1fically
with regard to the establishment of a permanent
monitoring mechanism within the United Nations
Secretariat.
In our view, increased international assistance to
the Government of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo · to rebuild State institutions, restore
infrastructure and establish effective control over its
territory is critically important. In this context, we
welcome the initiative of convening an international
conference on peace and development in the Great
Lakes region.
We have continually noted that the issue of the
illegal exploitation of natutal resources should ~e
considered in the larger context of the peace process m
the Democratic Republic of the Congo and its key
aspects: full implementation by the parties of t~e
Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement and relevant Secunty
Council resolutions; disarmament, demobilization,
repatriation, resettlement and reintegration; the
withdrawal of foreign forces; and, of course, the lnterCongolese
dialogue.
We see the report and the addendum as one of the
elements of the international efforts to achieve peace in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the region.
It should serve as an essential impetus to the full
implementation of the Lusaka Agreement and relevant
Security Council resolutions, and should encourage the
efforts for national reconciliation and dialogue in order
to achieve lasting peace in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo. This is what ail of us participating in this
meeting are striving for.
. Sir Jeremy Greenstock (United Kingdom): We,
Jike others are very warmly appreciative of the work ' . . which Ambassador Kassem and h1s team have done m
producing this addendum. We believe that they have
performed a sound professional job that sheds
important light on an issue of serions concem, and the
United Kingdom bas confidence in their objectivity.
The presence of rninisters from the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and its neighbouring States
honours the Council, and we appreciate this clear
signal that the Governments of the region are very
S/PV.4437
wisely taking the work of the Panel and of the Security
Council seriously.
Belgium will, on behalf of the European Union,
make a statement later today, with which the United
Kingdom fully aligns itself, but I would like to make
one or two quick points in the meantime. We have been
clear ail along that our goal must be to advance the
Lusaka peace process. Of course, there are obstacles
and difficulties on the way. But our approach over the
past year bas been to tackle those obstacles, one by
one, head-on, and in an even-banded way.
It is in that light that we view the issue of the
exploitation of the resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. The Council .has to ensure that
this exploitation does not continue to be a factor
encouraging the continuation of the conflict. What
belongs to the Congolese people must be developed to
the benefit of the Congolese people.
That applies, .of course, to the illegal exploitation
of their natural resources, but also to their need for
peace, decent Government throughout the territory and
normal economic opportunity. As the Panel report
makes clear, the only lasting solution is to end the
conflict and establish effective governance across the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and functioning
relations in the who_le region.
Transparent and effective management of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo's vast resource
wealth and fair and transparent trade arrangements in
the region would bring enormous benefits. Ali the
parties must seriously commit themselves to this goal.
Opportunistic and destructive pillage of resources,
without regard for the future of the country or the wellbeing
of its people, bas to be brought to an end.
lt is not just enough to sign on to a peace process.
The parties need to change the environment in which
this conflict flourishes - an environment of distrust,
opportunism, exploitation and violence. The Congolese
parties themselves must focus on shaping a viable and
peaceful future for the Democratic Republic of the
Congo through the dialogue. Dialogue must also
continue and deepen between the Govemment of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and its neighbours,
especially Rwanda, to break down distrust, to address
legitimate security concerns and to move forward the
disarmament, demobilization, repatriation, resettlement
and reintegration process.
29
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437
To sustain this, we need an interconnecting
package of necessary measures. The United Kingdom
would therefore support the continuation of the Panel's
work. It is clear from today's discussion that this step
is entirely necessary.
Mr. Cunningham (United States): Our
discussion today focuses on a tragic dimension of the .
conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo: the
continuing plunder of the country's natural wealth by
foreign invaders, by Congolese rebel groups, by selfproclaimed
allies of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo and by the continuing corruption within the
Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
itself. It is an important discussion, and I am
particularly glad to see the high-level attendance that
we have today.
Takèn together, the report of the Panel of Experts
on the illegal exploitation of natural resources, issued
in April, and the addendum to that report, issued in
November, give an accurate and compellîng picture of
the theft of the natural patrimony of the Congolese
people. They also make it clear that it is the parties to
the conflict themselves, foreign and Congolese, who
can end this tragic situation if they have the political
will and courage to do so.
I want to address the addendum to the report,
which is our focus today. We commend Ambassador
Kassem and his Panel of Experts for the preparation of
a professional report, which, using sound methodology,
followed up on the leads identified in the initial Panel
of Experts report.
It is an act of courage to speak the truth to power,
and the Ambassador and his team of experts have
shown such courage in identifying for the international
community the foreign parties .and their Congolese
proxies who are illegally exploiting the wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, prolonging the
conflict and hindering implementation of the Lusaka
peace process.
The very fact of this Panel's existence and its
work in documenting and informing the Council of the
situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo bas
had a beneficial effect on the peace process. The first
report of the Panel of Experts produced concrete
results - Uganda's establishment, for example, of a
national Commission of Inquiry to investigate
allegations in the report.
30
URAnnex73
We welcome the pledges that several countries
have made since the addendum was issued to
investigate allegations concerning their nationals.
Severa! Governments, however, refused to fully
cooperate with the Panel. We urge them, as well as ail
other Governments whose nationals are mentioned in
the report, to investigate the allegations made and
report back to the Council. Each of us bas an obligation
to cooperate with this type of investigation.
One Government which the Panel identified as
not cooperating with its work is Zimbabwe's. We are
greatly concerned about the Pane!'s conclusion that the
Govemment of Zimbabwe is the most active of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo's allies involved in
the exploitation of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo's natural resources, and that this relationship
has been used by Zimbabwean officiais for persona!
enrichment.
lt is important that the Council continue to let
those who are responsible for the theft of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo's wealth know that
the Security Council is aware of this, will continue to
bring them to the world's attention and will seek to
assist in ending this plunder.
For this reason, the United States supports an
extension of the Panel's mandate for an additional six
months. During that time, the Panel should provide
recommendations for specific actions that the
international community, regional States and the
Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
can take, working through existing international
organizations and United Nations agencies, to address
the issues in the addendum.
For instance, in the area of timber resources, the
United States is working with the African Timber
Organization to co-sponsor a conference on forest law,
enforcement and governance, which will be held in
2002 in the Republic of Congo and which will focus on
the Congo basin's forests. It would be useful for the
Panel to make specific recommendations that
conference participants could address within the
framework of the African Timber Organization to fight
illegal logging in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo and in the Congo basin.
As the United States assessed the
recommendations in the addendum, we were guided by
the principle that the Council should take action which
will support the Lusaka peace process. Let me say a
word about those recommendations. First, let me say
that we have doubts about a moratorium banning the
import of gold, timber, coffee and -0ther natural
resources from foreign-held and rebel-held areas of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. Such a targeted
moratorium on resources from specific areas would
likely be unenforceable because of the difficulty of
tracking these kinds of commodities. It also seems
likely to us that such a moratorium would run the risk
of having a negative impact on the Congolese people
themselves. It might be more effective to address
export controls on natural tesources through existing
international mechanisms. To address illegal logging in
the Democratic Republic of the Cong-0, for example, as
I mentioned, the United States is working with the
International Tropical Timber Organization and with
the United Nations Forum on Forests. We urge other
States to join us in those efforts.
We support the Panel's call for a review by ail
States in the region of their existing legislation to
determine whether new laws are needed to investigate
and prosecute illegal trafficking in the resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. But such a review
can take place without a moratorium having been
declared.
The report calls for a United Nations review of
the concession agreements entered into between the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and other
Governments and private entities. The Panel's call for a
review of concession contracts is sound and should be
pursued. We think that the review would be better
undertaken by organizations that already have the
expertise that is needed. It is not necessary to create a
new mechanism. The World Bank and the International
Monetary Fund (IMF) are best positioned to undertake
the review of existing contracts between the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and other entities as
part of their renewed assistance to the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. The review should, of course,
be in full cooperation with the Govemment.
We strongly agree with the Panel's call for the
World Bank, the IMF and international donors to
evaluate their assistance to the Democratic Republic of
the Congo in order to determine whether any of their
assistance is being diverted to finance the conflict in
the Great Lakes region. lt is key for those entities to
bolster the transparency and efficiency of their
assistance programmes.
S/PV.4437
In conclusion, let me emphasize a key point in
my Government's approach to the issue of illegal
economic exploitation. The pursuit of the natural
wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo was
not the initial cause of the conflict in the country and in
the region. But, as the addendum to the report makes
particularly clear, the pursuit of that wealth is the
reason why many parties want the conflict to continue
and why they act to block the Lusaka peace process.
Those parties know that if Lusaka is implemented the
days of plundering the wealth of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo will end. Our goal, therefore,
must continue to be the full implementation of the
Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement. A peace based on the
Lusaka Agreement is the surest, and ultimately the
only, way to stop the crimes outlined in these reports as
well as to spark an economic renewal for the region.
It is now up to the leaders of the States and
groups identified in these reports to demonstrate the
courage and will to end this exploitation and to allow
the Lusaka peace process to bring peace to the region.
Mr. Granovsky (Russian Federation) (spoke in
Russian): The Russian Federation is grateful to the
Panel of Experts chaired by Ambassador Mahmoud
Kassem for the substantive addendum ($/2001/1072) to
its report on the illegal exploitation ofnatural resources
and other forms of wealth of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo. The information in the addendum gives
us a better understanding of what is taking place in that
country and sheds greater light on the interests of the
parties involved in the conflict. We are disturbed by the
information that large-scale plundering of natural
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
continues, in violation of the sovereignty and territorial
integrity ofthat country.
Accordingly, and in the light of the request of the
authorities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
that the Panel should continue its work to formulate
effective measures to put an end to the illegal
exploitation of natural resources of the country, the
Russian Federation is willing to support renewing the
mandate of the Panel of Experts for a period of six
months. We call on ail States named in the report to
cooperate with the Panel in its work, and scrupulously
to clarify the situation regarding the natural resources
and other forms of wealth of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo. Such illegal exploitation must corne to
an end, no matter who is engaging in it, and the sooner
the better.
31
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437
We agree with the main conclusion of the report,
that the situation regarding the natural resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo came about solely
because of the collapse of the country's State
structures. We endorse the view of the Panel that the
best way to soJve the problem is to help the Congolese
authorities gain effective State control throughout the
territory, so that they can protect their natural
resources. We also view as reasonable and sensible the
recommendation that this process should be linked to
the convening of an international conference on peace
and development in the Great Lakes region.
We believe that the settlement of the conflict in
the Dernoèratic Republic of the Congo is a prerequisite
for success in that regard. Here, we agree that the
efforts of the United Nations Organization Mission in
the Dernocratic Republic of the Congo must be focused
on ensuring the withdrawal of foreign forces from the
territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and
on the voluntary disarmament, demobilization,
reintegration and repatriation or resettlement of
members of armed groups. We think it is logical that,
following the outcome of the inter-Congolese dialogue,
the rebuilding of State structures in the Democratic
Republic of thé Congo will at some point require
analysis and review of concessions issued by previous
Govemments for the exploitation of the country's
natural resources. We feel that, if necessary, there
cou Id be discussion of involving expert assistance from
the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank in
trying to address that task. At the saine time, we
consider that this process lies fully within the
competence of the national authorities of the
·Democratic Republic of the Congo.
In approaching the problem of the illegal
exploitation of natural resources and other forms of
wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Russia is guided by the fact that in the final analysis, it
is the armed conflict that underlies that problem as well
as the problems of refugees and intemally displaced
persons, child soldiers, violations of human rights, the
humanitarian crisis and many, many other problems.
Only recently has there been some movement towards
a settlement of the conflict. We consider that progress
towards a political seulement in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo must be a priority for the
Security Council. In our view, by focusing on that, the
Council would be shouldering its Charter responsibility
for the maintenance of international peace and security.
32
URAnnex73
Mr. Mahbubani (Singapore): The houris late. I
will try to be quick. In some ways, that is easier for us,
because many of the key points that we had wanted to
make have already been made by several speakers
today. They include the fact that the plundering of the
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is
unacceptable. We must put a stop to it, and the Security
Council must find effective ways and means to do so.
There seems to be a clear consensus on this matter.
What can we say to add value to this process?
First, we want to welcome the high-level presence we
see here today. I was pleased that I was able persona!!y
to listen to most of the speeches by the ministers who
have èome here. 1 think we should take on board what
they have told us.
Secondly, there seems to be also a general
recognition that Ambassador Kassem and bis team
have done good work, and - if I may quote what I call
the "buzz" in the United Nations corridors - that buzz
is that the Kassem report is better than the Ba-N'Daw
report. l think that it is important for the Panel to know
that.
The challenge now is for the Council to respond
effectively to the work of the Panel. Let me make a few
small procedural points here.
First, having served on the Council for a year, we
have noticed that severai paneis have been set up and
that each panel works in separate compartments, with
no transfer of best practices from one to another. We
hope that at some point this will be done, because 1
think that some of the good work done by the Kassem
Panel can be shared with the other panels.
Concerning the second point in terms of
procedure, we share Norway's view that the views
expressed today, both by the members and the nonmembers
of the Council, should be taken on board in
the preparation of the presidential statement to be
adopted following this debate. We understand the
desire of some to adopt the presidential statement as
quickly as possible. However, we have some concerns
about that, because we feel that we should reflect on
some of the views expressed here.
I will give an example. The Deputy Foreign
Minister of Tanzania said earlier today, in another
important observation, that the report would have been
more comprehensive had it included also the end-users
of the natural resources plundered from the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. Points such as this one should
be taken on board when we decide how to respond to
the Panel.
Similarly, just listening to the members, we heard
a very interesting discussion of the pros and the cons of
the moratorium, which, as we ail know, was an
innovative idea put forward by the Kassem Panel. We
note the division of views. Our own view, frankly, is
that this is a positive idea that should be taken on
board. However, we would suggest that, in order to do
ail of that, we need more time for reflection. We hope
that there will not be a rush to adopt a presidential
statement, because, in our case, we have to refer it to
our authorities before we can make a decision.
It is also important to bear in mind the fact that
the issue of the plundering of resources, as everyone
bas said, is linked to the continuation of the confüct. I
should like to quote a few words from a very important
study entitled "Greed and Grievance", which, in a
sense, is a landmark study which points out how
ccmflict and resources are linked. The study, carried out
by Mats Berdal and David Malone, notes that:
S/PV.4437
Secondly, the natural resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo should not be used to finance,
or serve as an incentive to prolong, the conflict in the
country.
Thirdly, the resources should be used only to
benefit the country and the people. In this regard, we
welcome the recent steps taken by the Government of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo to attract
genuine foreign investment to restructure, modernize
and liberalize the mining sector.
Fourthly, any proposed measures against illegal
exploitation should take into consideration the
humanitarian and economic costs to the innocent
peoples affected.
I think that I will end here, with the observation
that many important points have been made in the
course of the debate this morning and that we hope we
will have sufficient time to reflect on them.
Mr. Tekaya (Tunisia) (spolce in French): Let me
at the outset express my delegation's deep appreciation
to the Panel of Experts on the lllegal Exploitation of
"The continuation of seemingly senseless civil Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the
wars is sometimes linked to the rational pursuit of Democratic Republic of the Congo for the considerable
economic goals by the warring factions." work it bas done under the mandate given it by the
Security Council.
Indeed, this paradox is highlighted in the Kassem
report, which notes in p.aragraph 60 that:
"Peace could bring added pressure from many
sides for greater transparency, oversight and
accountability, and could ultimately prove far less
profitable for some."
The paradox here, therefore, is that the incentives
are for conflict rather than for peace. If we want to end
the conflict, we have to think about how to remove the
incentives.
Finally, the Council may recall that, in the
discussions that we had in the informai consultations,
we suggested some principles that we hoped would be
taken on board by the Council in considering this issue.
I will go through them quickly, in the hope that they
will, in fact, bè taken on board.
Fjrst, no outside parties or groups sponsored by
such parties should benefit from the exploitation of the
natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo at the expense ofthat country.
The Panel bas just presented to us an important
addendum to the report that was submitted in April
2001. The two documents, taken together, represent a
very useful reference tool.
1 should like also to welcome the participation in
this meeting of the Foreign Ministers of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda, Rwanda
and the United Republic of Tanzania. Their
participation attests to the importance they attach to the
matters we are considering. We listened very
attentively to the explanations they have given us,
which the Council will duly take into account in its
deliberations on this matter.
We welcome the initiative of engaging in a frank
and constructive dialogue with the countries of the
region about the prospects of moving ahead with the
peace process in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, in particular given the fact that our meeting is
being held at a time when the momentum of the peace
process - which is holding steady - needs to be
strengthened further, so that it can reach the point of no
return.
33
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437
Last month the Council held a meeting with the
Political Committee that led to important decisions on
the deployment of phase Ill of the United Nations
Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo (MONUC). The Minister for Foreign Affairs
of the Democratic Republic of the Congo - whom my
delegation would like to thank warmly for the kind
words he addressed to Tunisia, an outgoing member of
the Security Council - bas just provided us with
important information about the Abuja meeting on the
inter-Congolese dialogue. In this context, we
encourage· the Congolese parties to continue their
efforts in order to ensure a successfui outcome to the
dialogue.
We welcome also the contacts undertaken
between the Democratic Republic of the Congo and
Burundi with a view to normalizing their relations.
This could certainly help in restoring peace to the
region.
We encourage also ail bilateral and multilateral
initiatives for dialogue among the States of the region,
because this would speed up implementation of the
Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement and lay the foundation for
peace, security and stability in the Great Lakes region.
The addendum submitted to us by the Panel of
Experts confirms that the systematic exploitation of the
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
continues, and it confirms a very clear link between the
continuation of the conflict and the illegal exploitation
of the resources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo.
The Panel believes, however, that it would be
unrealistic to hope that this exploitation could end
before the conflict is settled. We agree with that view,
and we believe that the Council bas a very basic
responsibility in that connection.
, The Panel of Experts offered conclusions and
recommendations that are very important for the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and for the region.
We must carefully study those recommendations and
conclusions, as should the parties involved.
We believe that the Council should take a dual
approach. It should consider the recommendations of
the Panel of Experts with a view to taking the right
decisions thereon, so as to have the desired impact on
bringing to an end the plundering of the resources of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo and also
34
URAnnex 73
bringing about an end to the contlict. Such measures
should be well thought out. We believe that this should
be done in parallel with ongoing efforts to help the
Democratic Republic of the Congo re-establish full
sovereignty throughout its territory and over its
resources and to help it in its efforts towards
reconstruction and economic recovery.
It bears repeating that the main aim of the
Council is to put an end to the war and to promote
peace and security throughout the region. Indeed, we
believe that any action taken by the Security Council
must encourage the parties to effectively implement
Council resolutions and to take concrete steps to move
the peace process forward.
We believe that it would be useful to extend the
mandate of the Panel of Experts; that would enable us
to continue to follow the situation on the ground,
thereby enabling the Council to fully assess the
situation.
We attach the greatest importance to ending the
illegal exploitation of the resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo; ending the war once and for
ail; and ensuring that the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo are
restored. We also want to see the final, speedy and
complete withdrawal of foreign forces from the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. Likewise, we
attach great importance to respect for the sovereignty
and territorial integrity of ail States in the region.
Mr. Valdivieso (Colombia) (spoke in Spanish):
We would like to associate ourselves with the
comments of other members of the Council in
welcoming the presence at this meeting of the Foreign
Ministers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and
the Deputy Foreign Ministers of the United Republic of
Tanzania and Uganda, the Adviser to the President of
Rwanda, and to thank them for their contributions to
the debate. I would also like to welcome the other
delegations that will be making statements later on. I
should like to stress that each and every statement will
be taken into account when considering the text of the
draft presidential statement to be adopted at a later
stage.
The Panel of Experts chaired by Ambassador
Kassem bas provided us with a report prepared with
meticulous care and dedication. The information that it
contains continues to be a cause for concem for my
delegation. As a result, Colombia would like to support
the report's conclusion that ail forms of illegal
exploitation of the natural resources of the country
must end and that steps must be taken to overcome the
institutional weakness of the Government of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is currently
preventing it from monitoring and administering those
resources. Furthermore, the international community
should assist in rebuilding the institutions of the
Congolese State and continue to promote the
implementation of the provisions of the Lusaka
Agreement, which is the only means of restoring peace
to the Great Lakes region.
Colombia believes that it is right to publicly name
and shame those individuals, groups and countries that
take part in illicit activities associated with the illegal
exploitation of coltan, go]d, copper, cobalt, diamonds
and timber from the Democratic Republic of the
Congo.
What this Council cannot do is remain indîfferent
in the face of actions that imperil international peace
and security in the Central African region. Such actions
represent the improper appropriation of resources in
order to fuel war. We refuse to accept a situation in
which the natural resources of the eastern provinces of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, instead of
providing a basis for the emancipation of millions from
poverty, are used to purchase wèapons, finance acts of
savagery and perhaps enrich a few individuals that we
could describe as warlords.
We therefore advocate the taking of additional
measurès against the exploitation of the human and
natural resources of the Congo; some ofthose measures
will have to be reflected in the document that will
adopted as a result of this debate.
In this regard, first, we support the idea of an
extension of the mandate of the Expert Panel for six
months, with specific monitoring tasks being set.
Secondly, we strongly urge the transit coi.mtries for
resources originating in the conflict zone of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, and the contries
that receive such resources for industrial processing, to
conclude - or, in some cases, to begin -
investigations into the individuals and companies that
have been named. We look forward in particular to the
conclusions of the Porter Commission of Uganda.
Thirdly, we recommend that the Panel of Experts,
in consultation with the Kinshasa authorities, study the
economic and humanitarian effects of a possible
S/PV.4437
suspension of the import of such resources with the aim
of reducing the income of the actors involved in the
conflict.
Fourthly, we would like international arms and
munitions merchants also to be named and shamed, as
thèy are sustaining the fighting capacity of the armed
groups that are committing atrocities against the
civilian population of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo.
Above ail, however, we will continue to monitor
compliance with the commitments that the parties to
the Lusaka Agreement have undertaken in order to
accomplish the invaluable task of restoring peace to the
Great Lakes region. The withdrawal of foreign troops
and plans for the disarmament, demobilization and
reintegration of ex-combatants, with verification by the
United Nations Organization Mission in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, are the signs we.
are waiting for to show that there is a will for peace.
We would also Jike to see progress in the interCongolese
dialogue, and we wish to highlight the
service to Africa being provided by the Government of
South Africa in offering to host the next meeting.
My delegation will continue to work with
determination on this issue in the Council for the
promotion of peace in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo.
Mr. Wang Donghua (China) (spoke in Chinese):
The Chinese delegation welcomes the Foreign Minister
of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Third
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign
Affairs of Uganda, the Deputy Minister for Foreign
Affairs of the United Republic of Tanzania and the
Adviser to the President of Rwanda, and thanks them
for their presence at this open meeting of the Security
Council.
The Chinese delegation would like to thank
Ambassador Kassem and the other members of the
Panel for the addendum to the report of the Panel of
Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural
Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. This addendum bas
attracted the attention not only of the Security Council,
but also of the parties concemed. We note that some
countries have already responded to the addendum and
expressed the wish to cooperate earnestly. lt could be
said that, in a way, the addendum bas already made a
difference.
35
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437
At the same time, we must not underestimate the
grave nature of the illegal exploitation of the natural
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Seven months have passed since the Security Council
began its consideration of this issue last May, but it
seems that little bas changed. The illegal exploitation
and plundering of the natural resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo continue unabated.
It is imperative for the Security Council to pay
attention to this situation and take appropriate
measures to stop the illegal exploitation and plundering
of the natural resources of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo.
The addendum of the Panel of Experts makes a
number of recommendations that will help the Security
Council in the next phase of its consideration of the
conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and
in trying to promote peace in the Great Lakes region.
At the same time, we also believe that the illegal
exploitation of the natural resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo is only one among many issues
concerning the conflict in the Gr.eat Lakes region. We
hope that the Security Council's consideration of the
addendum will go a long way towards sustaining and
increasing the momentum for a political solution to the
conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and
continue to move forward the inter-Congolese political
dialogue tû a successful conclusion on thê basis of
ensuring the territorial integrity and sovereign
independence of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo.
In conclusion, we also favour an appropriate
extension of the Panel's mandate so that it will
continue to monitor the illegal exploitation of the
natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo.
The President (spoke in French): Considering
the lateness of the hour and the constraints of the
calendar of the Minister for Foreign Affairs of
Zimbabwe, we will invite him to make bis statement
once members of the Council have finished their
interventions.
I will now make a statement in my capacity as
representative of Mali.
Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We
would like to join in paying tribute to Ambassador
Kassem and bis team for preparing the addendum to
the final report.
This addendum, which is before the Council
today, establishes clearly the linkage between the
illegal exploitation of the natural resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and the
continuation of the conflict in the country. I would Iike
to recall Mali's position of principle in this regard,
which condemns strongly ail illegal exploitation of
natural resources and other forms of wealth of an
independent and sovereign State.
Now that it is established that exploitation of the
natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo feeds the continuation of the conflict, the
question arises: what is to be done? My delegation is of
the view that an extension of the mandate of the Panel
of ~xperts for six months is necessary so that the
Security Council can be better and more widely
informed about this issue and reflect more on what
measures to take to put an end to this situation.
My delegation also endorses the recommendation
that a moratorium be imposed on the importation of
certain resources, particularly coltan. We believe this
measure is an innovation that would widen the array of
instruments at the disposai of the Security Council.
However, my delegation shares the view expressed by
many delegations on this issue, that the Panel of
Experts should study the malter in greater depth to
discern the possible impact of such a measure on the
population and economy of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo. Finally, we think it is essential to preserve
the momentum of the Lusaka peace process, with full
respect for the territorial integrity and sovereignty of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo and of other
States in the region, thus contributing to the definitive
return of peace and stability to the Great Lakes region
that we ail hope for.
I now resume my fonctions as President of the
Council.
I now invite the Minister for Foreign Affairs of
Zimbabwe to take a seat at the Council table and make
bis statement.
My delegation welcomes the remarkable work Mr. Mudenge (Zimbabwe): At the outset, Sir, let
accomplished by the Panel of Experts· on the Illegal me congratulate you on your assumption of the
Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of presidency of the Security Council for this month.
36
URAnnex73
My delegation welcomes the convening of this
open debate on the addendum to the report of the Panel
of Experts on the lllegal Exploitation of Natural
Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. Having
participated in the debate on the ground-breaking
earlier report on the illegal exploitation of the
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, on
3 May 2001, my delegation bas requested the floor to
éxpress its views on the follow-up report before us.
Mr. President, 1 know you are familiar with the
African saying "Cash talk breaks no friendship", which
is really a call for candid and frank discourse. My
submission will adhere to that wise, time-honoured
saying and call a spade by no other name - it is a
spade, not a _"digging instrument".
It is both a misnomer and a travesty of justice to
try to pass off the document be fore us as an addendum
to the April report by the United Nations Panel of
Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural
Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the
Dernocratic Republic of the Congo.
ln this addendum, the difference between a Jegal
and an illegal business transaction bas been abandoned.
"Same difference", it seems to say. But, sadly for those
who put the addendum together, the difference is not
the same. The committee abandoned its terms of
reference in pursuit of a new agenda of its own - or is
it someone's private agenda?
Reacting to this report, the Information Minister
of the Congo, the Honourable Kikaya Bin Karubi,
rejected any suggestion that Angola, Namibia or
Zimbabwe was Iooting the resources of the Congo.
According to the Minister:
"These were countries that came to our
rescue in this war of aggression. Zimbabwe,
Angola and Namibia are here at the request of the
Government and the people of the Democratic
Republic of the . Congo, and in the process we
have signed legitimate agreements to go into
business ventures, and these agreements exist
with countries throughout the world. On the other
band, Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi invaded our
country and are looting the resources of the
Congo and at the same time killing our people.
More than 3 million have died as a result of this
war. So you cannot put Zimbabwe, Angola and
S/PV.4437
Namibia on par with Rwanda, Burundi and
Uganda."
But then the new report casts a slur and doubt on
the legality and authority of the Governments of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo since 1997. This
offensive misadventure leads the Panel into dangerous
waters. To blur the difference between legality and
illegality, the document abandons the Security Council
terms "invited" and "uninvited" countries and settles
for the term "allies" of what it refers to as "the
Kinshasa Government" or "Government in
Kinshasa" - see paragraphs 70 and 71 of the
addendurn. I shall deal with the connotations of the
latter phrase elsewhere in order to expose its
subversive nature.
Minister . Karubi's observation is an echo of
President Joseph Kabila's and, indeed, the Congolese
people's position vis-à-vis the illegal exploitation of
their natural resources.
With the Council's permission, I will go down
memory lane with the express object of reminding the
Council of what transpired here on the occasion of the
debate on the report of the United Nations Panel of
Experts on the lllegal Exploitation of Natural
Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo on 3 May 2001.
On that occasion, my delegation submitted that
President Joseph Kabila of' the Democratic Republic of
the Congo had addressed the Parliament of Zimbabwe
on 27 March 200 l. After expressing appreciation for
the African solidarity shown by Zimbabwe, Angola and
Namibia in responding to the request of the legitimate
Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
to defend its territorial integrity and sovereignty, and
after inviting and encouraging mutual beneficial
economic cooperation between Zimbabwe and the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and referring to
"our mutual projects, like the Senga Mines", among
others, be had this to say:
"The joint ventures between our two
Governments are not to be confused with the
looting of the minerai resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, as is the case
in the occupied zones ofmy country."
He went on to say:
"Other projects have already started on a
strong footing, including the joint venture
37
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437
between the Civil Aviation Authority of
Zimbabwe and the Régie des Voies Aériennes, its
Congolese counterpart, the Air Zimbabwe and the
Lignes Aériennes Congolaises project, the
National Railways of Zimbabwe and the Société
Nationale des Chemins de Fer Du Congo, the.
Zimbabwe Electricity Supply Authority and the
Société Nationale d'Electricité, to name just a
few."
He went on to invite experts from both sides to corne
up with "new creative projects that will benefit our two
countries", adding that
"we must accelerate the implementation of the
Memorandum of Understanding, which included
free circulation of goods and people between our
two countries."
President Joseph Kabila concluded by saying:
"The relationship between the Democratic
Republic of Congo, Angola, Namibia and
Zimbabwe in particular and the Southern African
Development Community region in general must
be a good example of integratioil and southern
African cooperation."
Who is better qualified to pronounce on the
legality of the economic cooperation between
Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of the Congo
than the President of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo himself? But, of course, to the Panel that wrote
the addendum, it seems he is only the President of the
"Government in Kinshasa" and not that of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Panel of Experts on the lllegal Exploitation
ofNatural Resources and Other Forms ofWealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo was established at
the request of the Government of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, then led by the late President
Laurent Desiré Kabila. It must be recalled that the
Government of the late President Laurent Kabila was
accepted and recognized as the full, sovereign and
legitimate Government of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo by the Southern African Development
Community (SADC), the Organization of African
Unity (OAU), the Non-Aligned Movement, the United
Nations and all other international organizations. Even
the Security Council in its resolutions recognized and
accepted this fact. My delegation therefore finds it
unacceptable for this report to refer to the legitimate
38
URAnnex73
Government of the Congo as "the Kinshasa
Government" or "the Government in Kinshasa".
This language is reminiscent of the language used
by the rebels prior to the signing of the Lusaka
Ceasefire Agreement in July 1999. This language is an
apologia for the invasion of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo. We find it unacceptable that a United
Nations document should serve as a propaganda
mouthpiece for positions which are intolerable and
have since been largely abandoned by their progenitors.
As a former Chairman of the Political Committee
charged with the implementation of the Lusaka
Ceasefire Agreement, I appeal to the United Nations to
expunge from ail its documents such Janguage, which
has been rejected by the Political Committee as
undermining the peace process. Whenever any of the
parties to the Lusaka Process uses such phrases, he or
she is immediately asked to withdraw and required to
refer to the Government of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, as provided for in the Lusaka Agreement. A
representative of the United Nations Organization
Mission in the Demopratic Republic of the Congo
(MONUC) is always present at our meetings and it is
therefore unacceptable that a United Nations Panel
should be so insensitive on such an important issue -
unless, of course, there is another agenda at play here.
There is only one Government in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, which, in exercise of its right
to self-defence as enshrined in Article 51 of the United
Nations Charter, invited the SADC countries to corne
to its assistance in fending off aggression against its
territory. The intervention followed the decision of a
properly constituted extraordinary meeting of the InterState
Defence and Security Committee (ISDSC) of the
SADC Organ on Politics, Defence and Security. The
ISDSC meeting was held in Harare from 17 to 18
August 1998 under the chairmanship of the Minister of
Defence of Zambia, Mr. Chitalu M. Sampa.
At that meeting, there was recognition that the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, a SADC member
State, had been invaded and that the sister countries of
Uganda and Rwanda had deployed their forces as far
west as Matadi and Kitona on the Atlantic seaboard in
support of what they claimed was an internai rebellion.
The ISDSC meeting unanimously recommended that
SADC countries in a position to do so should
immediately go to the assistance of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. Subsequently, the SADC
summit chaired by former President Nelson Mandela of
South Africa, held in Mauritius on 13 and 14
September 1998, stated in paragraph 21 of its
communiqué the following:
"The Summit welcomed initiatives by
SADC and its member States intended to assist
the restoration of peace, security and stability in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in
particular the Victoria Falls and Pretoria
initiatives. In this regard, the Summit reaffirmed
its ·call for an bnmediate cessation of hostilities
and commended the Governments of Angola,
Namibia and Zimbabwe for timeously providing
troops to assist the Government and people of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo to defeat the
illegal attempt by rebels and their allies to capture
the capital city, Kinshasa, and other strategic
areas."
The legitimacy of Zimbabwe's military
intervention in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
bas been further recognized and accepted by the OAU
and by the Security Council in its resolutions 1234
(1999) and 1304 (2000), among others.
My Government takes great exception to
paragraph 76 of the report, which imports Iock, stock
and barrel the caricatures and grotesque and false
misrepresentations of the situation in my country
peddled daily on the Internet and in the media by those
dedicated to demonizing, vilifying and ostracizing my
country, as was triumphantly and gloatingly announced
in thé British House of Commons recently. We reject
this lampooning of our country with contempt. It is
unworthy of a United Nations document to use such
patronizing and and-Zimbabwe language. If I might
ask: What has the internai situation in my country, as
falsely painted by our enemies and repeated by the
Panel, got to do with the illegal exploitation of
resources in the DRC? Nothing, absolutely nothing! It
is gratuitous and panders to the wishes and interests of
those who vociferously asked that there be a second
report to vilify Zimbabwe.
For example, the report alleges the existence of
one-party mie in Zimbabwe. This is a damned lie, an
unashamed falsehood. Zimbabwe may have a dominant
political party, but this does not translate into one-party
rule. There are over 30 registered political parties in
Zimbabwe today. It may interest the Council to know
that Zimbabwe is the second-longest stable multi-party
S/PV.4437
democracy in Africa, after Botswana. Zimbabwe,
which became independent in an epoch-making general
election in 1980, is still a multi-party democracy. Since
1980, Zimbabweans have exercised their democratic
right to elect their leaders and representatives every
five years, as demanded by the Constitution, in the
1985, 1990, 1995 and 2000 general elections.
Presidential elections were held in 1996 and new ones
are scheduled for March this coming year.
The refetence to Zimbabwe as a one-party State
is therefore untrue and malicious propaganda from the
textbook of our detractors. Today, the two opposition
parties have 57 of the 120 elected seats and before
losing one in a by-election they had 58 seats. We are
now preparing for our next presidential elections in
March next year, to which we intend to invite
international observers from SADC, the Economie
Community of West African States, OAU/African
Union, Asia, the Caribbean and Latin America, From
Europe, we wi-11 invite some friendly countries.
especially those that have avoided interfering in our
internai affairs by, inter alia, desisting from funding the
opposition, as some European countries have done.
Last year, we had over 2000 joumalists and tens of
thousands of observers watching our general elections.
But read the media and hear! Zimbabwe does not
have a land "appropriation" policy, as the addendum
puts it, but a land reform programme that bas been
declared legal and constitutional by the Supreme Court
of Zimbabwe. lt is evil and wrong that a mere 4,100
white commercial farmers, mainly of British
extraction, should own over 70 per cent of the best
arable land in a country of 14 million black people.
This is a relie of British colonialism. I find it intriguing
that the Panel should have decided to hear evidence
from the representatives of the 4,100 Commercial
Farmers' Union, an organization that bas absolutely no
relevance to, and no expert knowledge about the illegal
exploitation of the resources of, the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. But, of c.ourse, if the aim was
to tap into anti-Zimbabwe Govemment sentiments,
then the strategy is quite understandable and yielded
the întended results.
lt is not surprising, therefore, that the land reform
programme in my country, which bas absolutely
nothing to do with the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, bas been dragged into this report. But Oie facts
are that the fast-track land reform programme referred
to in this addendum started only in February 2000; yet
39
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437
the invasion of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
and our subsequent intervention took place in August
1998. The Security Council is aware of the fact that the
Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement was signed in July I 999.
What has an event that started in February 2000 got to
do with issues covering the period 1998 and July 1999?
Of course, let us not miss the agenda behind this
addendum. Jt is to besmirch Zimbabwe. Hence,
reference to land appropriation in this report is
intended to induce negative sentiments towards
Zimbabwe in international opinion, which is daily fed
on manure as far as the land question in Zimbabwe is
concerned. To avoid any lingering doubt the Supreme
Court in Zimbabwe bas recently pronounced the land
reform programme to be not only legal and
constitutional, but to have been carried out in
accordance with the rule of law. ln view of the
fandango of lies and falsehoods peddled by purveyors
of malice against my country,, J doubt if the judgement
is widely known around the world.
The report further alleges that the failing
Zimbabwe mining industry acted as a motivational
factor in my country's decision to intervene in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. Currently,
Zimbabwe exploits over 30 different types of minerais
that include platinum, gold, chrome, cobalt, copper, tin
and zinc. My country, God be praised, is blessed by
having a geoiogicai formation known to experts as the
Great Dyke. Jt is a trove of minerai wealth, which we
are only beginning to survey and exploit systematically
and scientifically. Zimbabwe is now the third largest
platinum producer in the world and is likely to move to
spot number two in three years' time. As a result of
recent geological surveys, it has been established that
Zimbabwe has a number of diamond-bearing
Kimberlite pipes. There is, if I may add, a near Wild
West frenzy among prospectors from around the world
regarding these pipes. Already Rio Tinto has tested the
viability of one of its claims and full exploitation
begins early in the new year. Others are at various
stages in this exciting development.
We remain and we shall continue for some time to
be a major mining country in our own right. However,
we do not control the prices of our minerais and
metals, which have remained depressed for some time.
And, of course, we have been under informai sanctions
by the international financial institutions and some
countries for the last two year!! because .of our land
reform programme and our decision to assist our
40
URAnnex73
brothers and sisters of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. But the puny, pathetic picture of Zimbabwe
painted by the addendum is the wishful thinking of our
detractors, which should have no place in such a report.
ln spite of these endeavours to caricature
Zimbabwe's internai situation, 1 can assure the Council
that the si~ation as the Panel depicts it is largely a
figment of a fertile imagination. Those, like my
colleagues from the Southern African Development
Community (SADC), who are willing to be objective
see it differently. I wish, with the Council's permission,
to submit a copy of the communiqué of the SADC
Ministerial Task Force on developments in Zimbabwe
issued this week, on 11 December 2001, and request
that it be circulated as a document of the Security
Council.
1 wish in partic11lar to draw the Council's
attention to paragraph 11 of the communiqué, in which
the SADC Ministers "expressed their concern at
distorted and negative perceptions of Zimbabwe
projected by the international and regional media". If
they had read this addendum's reference to the internai
situation in Zimbabwe, I have no doubt that they would
have added it to the list of those purveying "distorted
and negative perceptions of Zimbabwe".
The report alleges that the allies of the
nemocratir. Republic of the Congo rl .. m.,nrlPrl
compensation from the Government for their
assistance. The simple answer is we did no such thing.
This is yet another attempt at tarnishing my country's
image and demeaning and debasing our noble
intervention. Within SADC there is a tradition of
coming to each other's assistance, and Zimbabwe itself
has been one of the beneficiaries of this spirit of
solidarity and pan-Africanism. Many countries in the
region made sacrifices for Zimbabwe's independence.
We did not promise or pay them anything; neither did
they demand compensation.
It is therefore mischievous to suggest that we
would demand compensation from the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, because we regard it a bounden
duty and moral obligation to return the favour done for
us by other African countries. In the past, we have
rendered assistance within this framework to our
brothers in Mozambique. We spent seven years in
Mozambique. We were paid nothing and we demanded
nothing. We are continuing to do so today in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and we will do soin
the future, should we be called upon and are able to do
so.
If I may refer to the issue of our joint ventures
with the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the
Council may wish to know that this was a Congolese
idea and that it was they who decided on the
shareholding structure of the ventures. Zimbabwe
merely responded positively to the offer. The
Democratic Republic of the Congo invited its allies in
joint ventures in the hope of raising resources to
support the whole effort and of strengthening economic
cooperation within the SADC family.
The phenomenon of joint ventures with other
countries is prevalent in SADC. Zimbabwe has joint
ventures with countries like Malawi, Namibia,
Botswana, South Africa, Tanzania and Mozambique.
Areas covered include the hospitality sector, banking
and finance, and transport. Even the Democratic
Republic of the Congo bas joint ventures with other
SADC countriès other than the three allies, indeed, as
Minister Karubi said, with countries throughout the
world.
The same cannot be said of the behind-the-scene
deals that certain Western Govemments and companies
are concluding with the rebels, as disclosed in the
earlier report. The current report is therefore a
smokescreen meant to conceal the shadowy activities
of Western companies, while turning the spotlight on
Zimbabwe's perfectly legal joint ventures in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Panel has negatively portrayed the •
relationships with Zimbabwe of certain individuals
doing business in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, but has left out certain facts and other
significant connections of these individuals with other
countries. The case in point is that of John Bredenkamp
and Billy Rautenbach. The Council will be interested to
know that John Bredenkamp bas been publicly listed
among the 100 wealthiest men in the United King dom.
However, his association with the United Kingdom is
conveniently not mentioned. In the case of Billy
Rautenbach, bis family bas had business interests in the
region, including in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, for over 30 years. These business interests,
which predate this current conflict, are omitted,
creating the impression that bis business interests in the
Congo began only with Zimbabwe's intervention in
that country. These are private businessmen pursuing
S/PV.4437
their own interests like other private businessmen from
around the world. They happen to be residents in my
country. They are citizens of other countries.
My delegation finds it obscene for this report to
allege that Zimbabwe is assisting and supplying arms
to the FDD rebels from Burundi. Yet the institutions
established by the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement and the
United Nations - the Joint Military Commission and
MONUC, respectively - have not verified this alleged
support for the FDD. This is one of several despicable
attempts by our detractors to sour relations between
Zimbabwe and South Africa. Zimbabwe would never
undermine the facilitation efforts by South Africa in
the Burundi peace process. Zimbabwe and South
Africa are solid partners and brothers in SADC. I wish
therefore to lay to rest the ghost of those who think
they can succeed in tearing us asunder.
Let me n9w turn to the conclusions and
recommendations of the Panel. The Panel calls on the
Security Council to create a special commission that
would revise and review ail concessions, commercial
agreements and contracts signed during President
Laurent Kabila's rule. I find this conclusion intriguing
indeed.
The concept of unequal treaties, which the panel
introduces, is very fascinating. My Govemment is
willing to cooperate with and assist the Council in fu11y
developing and exploring this concept so that it is not
used se)ectively but can be universally applicable. It
may very well be found that most agreements signed
with African chiefs by colonial representatives under
false pretences, if reviewed by such a committee
established by this Council, are invalid. The crisis of
land rights, minerai rights and other such forms of
alienation of indigenous people from their natural
resources in southern Africa and other developing
nations might benefit frorn the application of such a
progressive concept.
We may also wish to extend this new-found
morality in treaty-making to those agreements signed
by the victors of World War One and World War Two.
The possibilities opened by such a line of enquiry, if
pursued objectively, may prove to be most salubrious
indeed. What is wicked and dishonest would be to
apply it selectively.
The Panel must make up its mind about how it
intends to characterize Zimbabwe's presence in the
Congo. In one instance, Zimbabweans are perceived as
41
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437
pirates plundering every minerai resource that catches
their eye. In the next instance, Zimbabwe is said to be
paying millions from its own resources to sustain its
intervention. It is therefore alleged that Zimbabwe has
been miserably impoverished by its intervention to a
point where it can no longer meet its balance of
payments. Either Zimbabwe is presently benefiting, or
it is not. The report should not be schizophrenic about
this.
Whether we are benefiting or not is discussed
elsewhere, in paragraph 58 of the report, where it says
"As Zimbabwe's joint ventures in mining
and timber begin to mature and become
profitable, it may be tempted to retain a sizeable
military presence in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo".
"Tempted" - in future. Two important points are made
here. The first, which is correct, is that the joint
ventures - except those in civil aviation - have not
yet matured or become profitable. We have reaped no
profits. We have sunk capital that may or may not
prove profitable. Mining is a risky business. There are
no guarantees of success in spite of the promising
prospects. This is not illegal exploitation of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo; it is investment in
that country.
In aii our joint ventures, the Democratic Repubiic
of the Congo has at least 51 percent of the shares and a
majority on the board of directors. These agreements
can be renegotiated at any time if any of the parties
requests such a renegotiation. If ail companies and
countries adopted a similar policy in their business
practices in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, it
would indeed be revolutionary and would set new
standards in development cooperation. We are proud of
our joint ventures with the Democratic Republic of the
Congo and challenge ail other investors to follow our
example for the good of the Congolese nation.
It is this inherent fairness of the structure ofthese
joint venture agreements that will protect Zimbabwe's
investment in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
and not the presence of the Zimbabwe army. The
speculation that Zimbabwe will be tempted to maintain
a sizeable military presence in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo to protect its investments is
maliciously thrown into the report in spite of my
country's numerous, authoritative and binding
commitments made on several occasions under the
42
URAnnex73
Lusaka ~greement, during meetings of the Political
Committee, to the Security Council and in countless
bilateral discussions within Africa, SADC and with
some members of this Council.
Since the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement was
signed, Zimbabwe bas been pleading with the Security
Council to urgently deploy a meaningful peacekeeping
contingent in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in
order to guarantee that country's security after the
withdrawal of foreign forces. We have repeatedly
brought our concems to the attention of the Council
directly, through the Po!itical Committee, through our
contacts with the Special Representative of the
Secretary-General and numerous other interlocutors.
Notwithstanding our many appeals and our oft stated
deep disappointment at the hesitation of the United
Nations in deploying sufficient peacekeepers, it is only
now that we are beginning to see the initial stages of
phase III deployment being initiated.
There is therefore no truth whatsoever in the
Panel's speculative assertion that our continued
presence in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is
intended to prolong the war for the economic benefit of
Zimbabwe. If the Council accepts this notion, then it
should also be prepared to accept the inherent
implication that the Council itself, through what
appears to outsiders to be an overcautious approach, is
aiso àeiiberateiy proionging the war.
To avoid any doubt, 1 now wish to restate my
country's readiness to pull out of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo - in accordance with the
provisions of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement and
whenever requested by the Democratic Republic of the
Congo Govemment to do so. Either of the
aforementioned conditions is sufficient to cause an
immediate and total withdrawal of my country's troops
from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
In conclusion, 1 wish to advise that my
Government intends in due course to submit through
your good offices a detailed rebuttal of the innuendos
and inaccuracies with which this hurriedly drawn
Zimbabwe-bashing pamphlet is replete.
The President (spoke in French): l thank the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Zimbabwe for bis kind
words addressed to me.
Since there are a number of speakers still on the
list who have not yet spoken and due to the Jateness of
the hour. I intend. with the concurrence of the members
of the Council, to suspend this meeting until 6 p.m. 1
would draw the members' attention to our
S/PV.4437
consultations this afternoon. Since this meeting is
suspending late, we shall hold our consultati!>ns at
3.15 p.m. sharp.
The meeting was suspended at 2.30 p.m.
43
URAnnex73
United Nations S/PV.4437 (Resumption 1)
•
President:
Members:
Agenda
Security Council
Fifty-sixth year
4437th meeting
Friday, 14 December 2001, 6 p.m.
New York
Mr. Ouane ....•..................................
Bangladesh .••...................................
China ..........•.... '. .... _. .................... .
Colombia ...................................... .
France ...........•..............................
Ireland ..............................•..........
Jamaica ....................•................•...
Mauritius ............ , ......................... .
Norway ........................................ .
Russian Federation ............................... .
Singapore ...................................... .
Tunisia ........................................ .
Ukraine ........................................ .
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland ... .
United States of America .......................... .
(Mali)
Mr. Ahmad
Mr. Chen Xu
Mr. Valdivieso
Mr. Levitte
Mr. Corr
Miss Durrant
Mr. Koonjul
Mr. Kolby
Mr. Granovsky
Mr. Mahbubani
Mr. Tekaya
Mr. Kuchinsky
Sir Jeremy Greenstock
Mr. Cunningham
The situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo
Letter dated 10 November 2001 from the Secretary-General addressed to the
President of the Security Council (S/2001/I072).
This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the interpretation of
speeches delivered in the other languages. The final text will be printed in the Official Records
of the Security Council. Corrections should be submitted to the original Ianguages only. They
should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature ofa member of the
delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room C-178.
01-69907 (E)
*0169907*
URAnnex73
Provisiona/
S/PV.4437 (Resumption 1)
The meeting was resumed al 7 p.m.
The President (spoke in French): Before giving
the floor to the next speaker, I would like to apologize
to Member States for the delay in the meeting's
resumption. The Security Council was engaged in such
intense consultations that our discussion was
prolonged. I reiterate our apologies to Member States.
The next speaker on my list is the representative
of South Africa. I invite him to take a seat at the
Council table and to make his statement.
Mr. Kumalo (South Africa): My delegation is
pleased to see you, Sir, presiding over the Security
Council during this month. Under your able leadership
we are confident that the Council will handle its
matters with great honour and a sense of purpose.
Before I proceed with my speech, let me really
thank the Security Council for making us proud today.
As you know, Mr. President, it bas always been à
source of concem for us that when our ministers corne
to the Security Council they are always speaking very
late in the debate, and their words no longer add to the
debate on the issues under consideration. But today my
delegation was very pleased that you were able to
accommodate the Ministers early so that their words
could really contribute to our work. We truly appreciate
it.
The situation in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo is of great concem to my Government. For
many years, South Africa bas been engaged in peaceful
efforts to resolve the conflict in that country. My
Government provided a neutral venue when the late
President Mobutu Sese Seko negotiated the transition
of govemment with the late President Laurent Kabila.
We have continued to encourage the people of the
Congo to resolve their differences through peaceful
means. Next year, South Africa will host the interCongolese
dialogue, and, as the Council knows, Mr.
President, South African troops continue to serve with
the United Nations Organization Mission in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC).
South Africa is appearing before the Security
Council with the aim of clarifying statements contained
in the addendum to the report of the Panel of Experts
on the lllegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and
Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, which was released on 13 November 2001.
Our intention is to put the record straight so that we
2
can build confidence and trust, not so much among ·
ourselves but arnong the Congolese people, always
with the aim of contributing to peace.
My delegation truly recognizes the scale of the
task that confronted the Panel of Experts and the
impact that it will have on the peace process. However,
we feel compelled to express the South African
Govemment's concern at the Panel's assertion that it
received less than the fullest cooperation from South
Africa. Such a claim is simply inconsistent with the
facts.
As the Security Council knows, never bas it been
alleged, at any time, that the South African
Government was in anyway implicated in wrongdoing
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. However, a
number of allegations have been made against South
African citizens or entities operating from our territory,
and our own law enforcement agencies have
investigated many such cases.
It was in this spirit that the Panel was on every
occasion afforded both access to and complete
cooperation from Government representatives,
including law enforcement officiais, most recently on
10 and 12 September 2001. ln addition, the South
African Government transmitted detailed reports in
April and September 2001 in response to questions
raised by the Panel. Additionally, my Government bas
continued to investigate and collect information on
subjects raised by the Panel in its second questionnaire
dated 20 September 2001. To further its own
investigation, South Africa also requested additional
information from the Panel in October 2001.
lt is for this reason that my delegation is
surprised at the claims by the Panel that there is
"credible" information implicating individuals or
entities of using South African terri tory and facilities to
conduct illicit commercial activities involving the
Congo's natural resources. This information was not
mentioned, nor did the Panel offer to share this
evîdence, during its meetings with the South African
authorities.
Already, South Africa bas in place a
comprehensive legislative framework that covers illicit
activities of this nature. My country is not lacking in
legislation, but in credible information and evidence. lt
stands to reason that my Government's ability to
investigate and initiale legal proceedings against
alleged offenders is dependent on obtaining
URAnnex73
information. In this regard, we would appreciate
receiving from the Panel of Experts the names of
individuals and/or businesses, as well as supporting
evidence of their alleged activities - dates, places,
routes, time frames and associates in South Africa and
the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
My delegation would therefore humbly advise the
Panel to be more willing to exchange detailed
information with Member States. Any perceived
unwillingness by the Panel of Experts in this regard
constitutes a serious impediment to its own mandate.
Untii such time that the Panei provides South African
law enforcement agencies with adequate information in
substantiation of the allegations against individuals or
entities, our own national capacity to thoroughly
investigate, prosecute and monitor such activities will
remain undermined, thus comprom1smg the
effectiveness of the work of the Panel of Experts.
Meanwhile, we would hope that this perceived
unwillingness by the Panel - and I pause here to say I
am struck by the fact that all the ministers who spoke
here referred to being "perceived to be unwilling" - to
share relevant information is not and Will not be
construed as Jack of cooperation.
My delegation is also concemed at the
inconsistency in the references by the Panel of Experts
to legal trade and illegal or illicit exploitation. In
paragraph 15 (a) of its first report (A/2001/357), the
Panel defined illegal activities as "ail activities -
extraction, production, commercialization and
exports - taking place in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo without the consent of the legitimate
government". The current report, however, is
inconsistent in this regard. It is the understanding of
the South African Government that it was never the
intention of the relevant Security Council resolutions to
prohibit all trade with the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. And many, many countries trade with the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, including some
that are represented around this table.
South Africa chairs the Kimberley process, which
bas developed detailed proposais for an international
certification scheme for rough diamonds with a view to
breaking the link between armed conflict and the trade
in rough diamonds. It is indeed our hope that early in
the new year the Kimberley process will report to the
United Natjons on how Member States are making sure
that diamonds from conflict areas are not used to
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437 (Resumption 1)
perpetuate wars such as the one we have witnessed in
the Congo.
In conclusion, my delegation wishes to assure
you that the Government of South Africa will continue
to provide its fullest cooperation to the Security
Council and the Panel of Experts. No nation is more
aware of how important the work of the Expert Panel is
to the quest for durable peace and security in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The President (spoke in French): I thank the
representative of South Africa for his kind words
addressed to me.
The next speaker is the representative of Canada.
I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to
make bis statement.
Mr. Heinbecker (Canada) (spoke in French):
Canada took note with great interest of the addendum
to the report submitted to the Council by the Panel of
Experts. It was very important that the Panel be able to
complete its difficult work, and we thank them for it.
The addendum to the report takes nothing away
from the severe comments and recommendations
already expressed with respect to the actors operating
with the cooperation or backing of forces exercising
control of the so-called rebel zones. To the contrary, it
presents a more complete and alarming picture oî the
extent of the illegal exploitation of natural resources
throughout the territory of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo.
This additional information put forward by the
Panel of Experts bas just increased the growing alarm
of Canada concerning the illegal exploitation of natural
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
This feeds even today a devastating conflict that has
lasted for more than three years now.
Canada would like to reiterate its remarks of
3 May and, in particular, its condemnation of any
persons, Governments and armed groups that have
illegally exploited the resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and that have, through their
activities, contributed to perpetuating the war in that
country._ Canada believes that the Security Council
must ensure that measures are adopted to put an end to
the plundering of the resources in the Congo.
3
S/PV.4437 (Resumption J)
If the Member States in question and other armed
groups refuse to cooperate, the Council should apply
stronger and more effective measures. Moreover, we
believe that vigilance is required now more than ever,
and that the Panel of Experts must be asked to pursue
its work. lts mandate might be usefully adjusted and
extended to make it possible to verify whether the
plundering continues, to see if it develops in new
directions and to better determine how the international
community could contribute to putting an end to it
without further burdening the population in their
economic and security needs.
We are deeply convinced that any progress aimed
at ending the illegal exploitation of natural resources in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo will be one
more step towards a return to peace in this country and
in the region.
The President (spoke in French): The next
speaker is the representative of Belgium. 1 invite him to
take a seat at the Council table and to make bis
statement.
Mr. De Ruyt (Belgium) (spoke in French): 1 have
the honour to speak on behalf of the European Union.
The countries of Central and Eastern Europe associated
with the European Union - Bulgaria, the Czech
Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland,
Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia - the associated
countries of Cyprus, Malta and Turkey, as well as
Liechtenstein, the European Free Trade Association
country belonging to the European Economie Area,
align themselves with this statement.
The document before us, the addendum to the
report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal
Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of
Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
provides us with a detailed account of a grave and
rather cheerless situation. It must nevertheless be read
and, more to the point, studied, and we feel that it is
essential to consider it with minute attention. We would
like to warmly thank Ambassador Kassem and bis team
for the remarkable efforts they have made and the
meticulousness with which, in a difficult context, they
carried out this investigation.
The report shows that a conflict that was initially
political and security-related in nature is becoming a
struggle for riches. The parties involved have an
interest in perpetuating the conflict, whose economic
dimension, at the cost of war, is becoming a guiding
4
force. Based as it is on a particularly cynical approach,
this situation is above ail tragic for the Congolese
people, who, in the rationale being followed, see no
peace and security on the horizon. The fate of the
Congolese people is in part determined by this rush for
lucre. They are the victims of their country's natural
resources, whereas they should instead be the
beneficiaries.
What is more, this situation is seriously
complicating the efforts to restore peace. Specifically,
the parties, with the help of the international
community, are using political tools in a conflict which
bas to some extent become an economic struggle in
which shifting alliances and the fragmentation of rebel
movements seem to be dictated in part by the profit
motive. Therein lies one of the key elements of a
resolution of the conflict.
The European Union condemns this plundering of
natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. lt 'must stop, and here the primary
responsibility lies with the parties themselves. The
international community, for its part, must take action,
setting up control mechanisms and appropriate
measures to hait smuggling. There have been
praiseworthy initiatives, such as the Kimberley process
on the role of diamonds in conflict, and we consider
that this course should continue to be followed. We
welcome the encouraging outcome of the meeting held
in Gaborone, and eagerly await its follow-up by the
General Assembly. But individual countries also have a
contribution to make. Those cited in the report in
particular must seriously study the information it
contains and take the necessary measures. lt is in that
spirit that the States members of the European Union
have taken due note ofthat information.
lt is clear that finding appropriate ways to combat
this exploitation is no simple matter. Today's meeting
is one step in the process of consideration and analysis
that must be pursued; the recomtnendations of the
Panel of Experts can enhance that process. The
mandate of the Panel should be renewed in order to
maintain the very useful monitoring that its activities
have thus far made possible. In that context, we feel
that, in determining what follow-up it intends to give to
the report, the Security Council should be guided by
certain fundamental objectives. First, the follow-up
must contribute to the dynamic of the Lusaka process,
and must thus form part of the overall framework for
seeking a political solution to the conflict in the
URAnnex73
Democratic Republic of the Congo. Secondly, the fate
of the Congolese people must be at the centre of ail
concerns.
We note that the Panel proposes a moratorium on
certain resources. We believe that we must ensure that
the few resources still genuinely in the bands of the
Congolese people are not taken away from them, and
that any restrictive measures should be carefully
targeted against those responsible for the plundering.
Here I would point out that the aim of the measures
should tie precisely to enable the Congolese people to
benefit from the natural resources oftheir country.
The report also makes reference to a plan for
rebuilding the Democratic Republic of the Congo. That
is the objective of the European Union, which remains
fully prepared to mobilize considerable resources,
depending on the concrete progress made on various
aspects of the peace process. The inter-Congolese
dialogue is an important element of the peace process.
We welcome the progress already made in that regard,
and we encourage the parties to make every possible
effort to make the planned meeting in South Africa a
success.
ln that connection, the European Union fully
shares the concern of the Panel of Experts about the
role that international aid could be playing in financing
the continuation of the conflîct. That issue .requires a
responsible approach by both bilateral and multilateral
donors.
Finally, the European Union considers that the
recommendation that ail concession agreements and ail
cpmmercial agreements and contracts be reviewed and
revised to address and correct ail irregularities is a
measure that ought to be pursued.
The exploitation of natural and human resources
is a key factor in the conflict in the Democratic
· Republic of the Congo. It must be the object of very
close and urgent attention by the international
community, on the basis of a comprehensive strategy.
The President (spoke in French): The next
speaker is the representative of Angola. I invite him to
take a seat at the Council table and to make his
statement.
Mr. Mangueira (Angola): At the outset, Sir, on
behalf of my Govemment, I would like to congratulate
you on your assumption of the presidency of the
Security Council for the month of December. I would
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437 (Resumption 1)
like also to congratulate the outgoing President for the
dynamic way in which she steered the proceedings of
the Council during ber mandate. Further, 1 recognize
the presence here of Their Excellencies the Foreign
Ministers of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
Uganda and Zimbabwe, the Adviser to the President of
Rwanda, and the Deputy Minister for Foreign Affairs
of the United Republic ofTanzania.
I take this opportunity to express our appreciation
for the holding of this second open meeting on the
activities of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal
Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of
Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the
annex to whose report is contained in document
S/2001/1072. In our view, that document makes
reference to some matters that are of particular concern
to the Angolan delegation, in spite of the fact that the
Panel of Experts recognizes that the presence of
Angola in the Democratic Republic of the Congo is
based on strategic reasons and that Angola is the only
country that did not receive significant compensation
for its military action in that country, as was previously
recognized by the same Panel in its report contained in
document S/2001/357.
The reaffirmation of that fact, as we had tht>
opportunity to state at the first public meeting of the
f:nnnr.il nn thic tnpjr:, rpflprtc ~ rPcngnitinn nf' tlu:s
policy of the Government of Angola, which is based,
inter alia, on the principle of the defence of its
sovereignty and of its national borders, on respect for
the sovereignty of other States and on a policy of goodneighbourliness.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a
sovereign and independent country recognized by the
whole international community, and it bas the capacity
to sign agreements with other States in accordance with
its national law and with international law. Therefore,
the Govemment of Angola, as a matter of princip!e,
cannot support some of the recommendations set out in
the addendum to the report, particularly with regard to
the question of the revision of concessions, trade
agreements and other agreements signed between the
Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
and other States, allied or not, because we consider that
recommendation to constitute interference in the
internai affairs of that country. That sovereign capacity
is undisputed. Only the States concerned have the
power to review those agreements, which they signed
in accordance · with public international law,
s
S/PV.4437 (Resumption 1)
particularly the Vienna Convention on the Law of to those whîch illegally exploit in any way the natural
Treaties of23 May 1969, and the power to make use of resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
mechanisms for appropriate revision .or amendment. without the authorization ofthat Government.
The Sonangol Company, as part of its regional
business strategy, bas established partnerships with its
counterparts in other countries aimed at contributing to
the economic development of the countries concemed.
Such partnerships include Sonangol-Cape Verde,
Sonangol-Sao Tome and Principe, and SonangolCongo.
These are mixed-capital companies established
under agreements signed by the two Governments
concerned in each case. I stress the importance of the
partnership for the economy of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, in keeping with the comments
made by the Government of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo in the document entitled "Note of the
Government on the report of the Panel of Experts on
the Illegal Exploitation ofNatural Resources and Other
Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo":
(spoke in French)
"Under the economic convention signed by
the Democratic Republic .of the Congo and
Angola, Sonangol imports and distributes
petroleum products, thus ensuring a regular
supply of its strategic products for the Congolese
economy. Moreover, it builds service stations and
creates jobs." (S/2001/1156, annex (French on/y),
para. 16)
(spoke in English)
It is our conviction that the solution to the
problems of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
undoubtedly lies in the implementation of the Lusaka
Agreement and the additional protocols, as well as in
the pertinent Security Council resolutions, which, once
thoroughly observed, will provide the necessary
conditions for a definitive settlement of the issues
related to the illegal exploitation of the natural
resources and other forms of wealth of the Congo in
which the international community has a relevant role
to play.
To conclude, the recommendations of the Panel of
Experts should formulate concrete measures designed
to put an end to the illegal exploitation of said
resources and should not liken those countries that
have agreements voluntarily signed with the
Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(i
The President (spoke in French): I thank the
representative of Angola for the kind words be
addressed to me.
The next speaker inscribed on my list is the
representative of Burundi. I invite him to take a seat at
the Council table and to make his statement.
Mr. Nteturuye (Burundi) (spoke in French): 1
should like first of all to congratulate you, Sir, on your
assumption of the presidency of the Security Council
·and to say how proud Burundi is of the dynamic spirit
and the contribution of Mali to this prestigious body,
which is entrusted with international peace and
security.
Our admiration likewise goes to your
predecessor, Miss Mignonette Patricia Durrant of
Jamaica, for the outstanding manner in which she
guided the work of the Council last month.
The Government of Burundi bas read the
additional report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal
Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of
Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
which supplements the first report of that same Panel.
We wish to pay tribute to Ambassador Kassem and bis
team for their excellent work. The Government of
Burundi will continue to give them the support and
cooperation necessary to their mission.
Burundi wishes to make the following comments
on the report under consideration.
First, the Government of Burundi welcomes the
conclusions of the addendum to the report, which
completely clears Burundi of any suspicion of
involvement in the illegal exploitation of the resources
of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Indeed, in
paragraph 101 of the addendum, it is clearly stated that:
"The Panel found no evidence directly
linking the presence ofBurundi in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo to the exploitation of
resources."
That same paragraph states that the presence of
Burundi's army on the lake frontier with the
Democratic Republic of the Congo
URAnnex73
"has been and continues to be directed at
blocking attacks from the Burundi rebel groups,
particularly FDD, which are based in South Kivu
and Katanga."
The addendum thus confirms what the
Govemment of Burundi has consistently asserted and
what good-faith observers already knew.
During the meeting of the Security Council on the
first report of the Group of Experts, the delegation of
Burundi had questioned the existence of an
International Monetary Fund (!MF) memorandum
reporting that Burundi had been exporting minerais that
it did not produce. The addendum, fortunately, has just
confirmed our misgivings about this matter. ln
paragraph l02, the Panel of Experts states that it had
"contacted the Africa Department of IMF, requesting a
copy" of its memorandum, but that "the Panel has not
been able to obtain a copy of it."
While the Govermnent of Burundi is satisfied by
the conclusions of the Panel of Experts concerning
charges pertaining to the alleged involvement of
Burundi in the illegal exploitation of the natural
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the
delegation of Burundi is, however, concerned by
information contained in certain paragraphs of the
addendum regarding assistance granted to the armed
groups Forces pour ia déîense de ia démocratie (FDD)
and Forces nationales pour la libération (FNL) in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
ln paragraph 58 of the report, the Panel of
Experts stated that it
"received credible information, corroborating
reports from independent sources, that Zimbabwe
is supporting the Burundian FDD rebel forces by
supplying them with weapons and expertise.
Many reliable sources have informed the Panel
this regard that the Zimbabwe Defence Forces are
training FDD in Lubumbashi, where the FDD
leadership is based and where Zimbabwean
copper and cobalt investments are located.
Another sign of their loosely structured
coordination with the Burundian rebels is that the
ALIR II forces are based near FDD in South Kivu
and also have a command and liaison presence in
Lubumbashi."
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437 (Resumplion 1)
Paragraph 136 of the addendum states that
"Zimbabwe and the Government of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo supply arms
to the FDD rebels . .. The officers and noncommissioned
officers are also trained by the
Zimbabwean army in Lubumbashi. In
exchange, FDD forces, acting essentially as
rnercenaries, fight alongside the Mayi-Mayi and
ALIR forces".
Further, in paragraph 138, the report states that
"The head of FDD, Jean-Bosco
Ndayikengurukiye, is based in Lubumbashi. He is
rumoured to control or own mining interests in
the Katanga region, the profits from which he
uses to cover some of bis senior officers'
expenses."
The Government of Burundi notes that this is not
the first time that a report requested by the Security
Council bas reported destabilization of the security of
Burundi, from the territory of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, by a regional coalition of negative
forces. In the August 1998 report of the International
Commission of lnquiry (Rwanda) established by
resolution 1013 (1995), contained in document
S/1998/777, the members of that Commission devoted
a.11 entire chapter to describing the links that exist
between the former Rwandese forces and the Rwanda
Interahamwe with the FDD and FNL of Burundi.
These inquiries were supported by important
documents, contained in the report, indicating
cooperation agreements signed between Rwandan and
Burundian genocidal terrorists. The police of Burundi
are also in possession of information conceming
cooperation between the Allied Democratic Forces
(ADF) rebels of Uganda of Jarnilu Mukulu and the
FDD-FNL Burundian terrorist movements.
The Oovernment of Burundi calls on the Security
Council to follow up on the conclusions of its own
fact-finding missions, especially at this time, when the
United Nations is being called upon to play an
increasingly important role in the peace process in
Burundi. The reports of these fact-finding missions
should lead to consistent action.
7
S/PV.4437 (Resumption 1)
lt is becoming increasingly clear that the
intransigence of the FDD and FNL armed terrorist
groups is linked to the support that it bas now been
confirmed they are receiving from neighbouring
countries. The time bas therefore corne for the Security
Council and the international community to condemn
these armed groups directly and hold them responsible
for the terrorist acts they are committing against
children, schoolchildren, students, women, the elderly,
travellers, foreigners - and their property - and
humanitarian personnel. The people of Burundi believe
that the savagery of these killers is no different from
that of, say, the Revolutionary United Front in Sierra
Leone or UNITA in Angola - groups against which
the Security Council bas imposed sanctions that even
extend to the countries and organizations that support
them. The terrorist groups of Burundi are also acting as
part of a coalition of negative regional forces that use
the same metbods of killing, are fuelled by the satne
ideology and pursue the same goals.
It would therefore be logical for the .FDD and
FNL to be placed on the same list of terrorist
organizations that includes the ALIR of Rwanda and
the ADF and the Lord's Resistance Anny of Uganda -
a list that bas already been made public by the
Governments of two permanent members of the
Security Council - the Uni.ted States of America and
the United Kingdom.
The Government of Burundi requests the Security
Council, the region, the facilitators and the entire
international community to focus ail their efforts on
what is now the highest priority in Burundi: bringing
about a complete and permanent ceasefire. That can
become a reality only if coercive and firm measures are
taken against the FDD and FNL armed groups, which
have stepped up their violent actions àgainst the
innocent population since the establishment of the
transitional Government, and which no longer have any
political justification for turning a deaf ear to appeals
for negotiation and ceasefire. Similar pressures should
also be exerted on countries that provide recruitment
and training, or serve as transit or assembly areas, for
the FDD or FNL. The Govemment bas made specific
proposais for cooperation and consultation to those
countries, and will continue to do so.
Finally, the Government of Burundi reiterates its
willingness to negotiate a ceasefire with the FDD and
FNL forces and to pursue dialogue with ail
neighbouring countries, especially the Democratic
8
Republic of the Congo and Tanzania, with a view to
seeking together the fastest way to bring peace back to
Burundi, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and
the whole of the Great Lakes region.
The President (spoke in French): I thank the
representative of Burundi for bis kind words addressed
tome.
The next speaker inscribed on my Jist is the
representative of Nigeria. I invite him to take a seat at
the Council table and to make bis statement.
Mr. Hart (Nigeria): The Nigerian delegation is
particularly delighted to see our sister country, Mali,
and you, Sir, our friend, Ambassador Moctar Ouane, in
the chair as President of the Security Council for the
month of December. We have implicit confidence in
your competence and ability to successfully guide the
work of the Council.
In the same vein, we would like to commend
Ambassador Patricia Durrant of Jamaica for the
effective manner in which she conducted the affairs of
the Council last month.
Today's debate on the report (S/2001/1072) of the
Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Naturat
Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo is greatly welcomed
by our delegation. This debate provides us w.ith an
opportunity to share our views on the illicit
exploitation of the minerai resources that legitimately
belong to the people of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, and the consequent prolongation of the ethnie
conflicts in the Great Lakes region.
We note with interest the remark contained in
paragraph l O of the report that the history of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, regardless of the
political system or governing authority in place, bas
been one of systematic abuse of its natural and human
resources, such that a country noted for its vast natural
resources was reduced to being one of the poorest and
debt-ridden by the early l 990s. This is indeed
unfortunate. lt is also true that most countries in Africa
endowed with such natural resources as gold, diamonds
and oil have also suffered a similar fate of the illegal
exploitation of their minerai wealth, to the
disadvantage ofthose countries and their peoples.
In some countries, like Sierra Leone, Angola and
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, available
natural resources w.hich would have served as catalysts
URAnnex73
for economic growth and development, are used as
rewards for warlords who wage wars to gain control of
those resources. These warlords have made enormous
profits through the indiscriminate granting of
concessions to their cronies to satisfy pressing political
needs and exigencies. Consequently, these countries
have become increasingly impoverished as a result of
persistent corruption, patronage and lack of
accountability.
In paragraph 56, the report of the Panel
establishes a link between the exploitation of resources
and the continuation of thè contlicts in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. The emergence of various
splinter rebel groups, such as the Uganda People's
Defence Forces, the Mouvement de libération
congolais and the Mayi-Mayi, has been linked to the
struggle for the contrai of such resources as coltan,
gold and diamonds in the Beni and Bafwasende areas,
as well as in other areas of the Congo.
However, what is more worrying is the fact that,
according to the report, some neighbouring countries
have been supporting these rebel groups, mainly
because of the attraction of winning concessions to
exploit those minerai resources.
My delegation is concerned about the revelations
in section V of the report, which discusses recent
developments and their implications, particularly those
relating to the stated raies of Zimbabwe and Rwanda in
the Congo and their possible effects on the security
concerns of Rwanda and Burundi, as well as on the
prolongation of the war. We want to state that such
developments - if confirmed - would not be in the
interests of our collective desire for peace in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The problems in the Dernocratic Republic of the
Congo are multifaceted and cannot be dealt with in
isolation. The solution should take into account the
larger problems of general peace and security in the
entire Great Lakes region. We therefore believe that
concerted efforts should also be made to reassure
neighbouring countries like Uganda, Rwanda and
Burundi of their own security. It is only through such
collective action that the srnuggling of minerai
resources along the porous borders could be checked.
In this regard, Nigeria supports the recommendation
contained in the report, which stresses the need for the
countries in the Great Lakes region to put in place
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437 (Resumption l)
effective controls and legal mechanisms to address the
smuggling of resources.
My delegation also believes that the Bretton
Woods institutions and international donors should play
effective roles in helping to rebuild the economy of the
region by injecting investable funds for infrastructure
and general development. Accordingly, Nigeria
supports the Panel's call for international donors to
consider submitting to the Security Council, within the
shortest possible ttme, a comprehensive programme for
financing development in the region.
Nigeria favours the recommendation that a
moratorium be declared for a specific period oftime on
the purchase and importation of precious products,
such as coltan, diamonds, gold, copper, cobalt, timber
and coffee, originating from areas where foreign troops
are presently located in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. This would be in addition to the standardization
of the certificates of origin for minerai resources from
these areas, to be monitored by the World Diamond
Council, the United Nations Forum on Forests and the
Convention on International Trade in Endangered
Species of Wild Fauna and Flora.
Finally, my delegation urges the Security Council
to consider the imposition of sanctions on any country
that violates the resolution on the exploitation of
minerai resources in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. As the brotherly people of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo anxiously look to the Security
Council for assistance, we urge the Council to give
urgent consideration to this matter with a view to
finding lasting solutions to the vexed issue of illicit
exploitation of the God-given wealth of these
countries.
The President (spoke in French): l thank the
representative of Nigeria for bis kind words addressed
tome.
The next speaker inscribed on my list is the
representative of Zambia. I invite him to take a seat at
the Council table and to make bis statement.
Mr. Musambachime (Zambia): My delegation
would Iike to congratulate you, my brother from the
great Republic of Mali, on your assomption of the
presidency of the Security Council for the month of
December.
9
S/PV.4437 (Resumption 1)
Allow me also to thank your predecessor,
Ambassador Durrant of Jamaica, who guided the
deliberations of the Council in the month ofNovember.
In addition, allow me to welcome the presence
and the statements of the Ministers from the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Uganda and the
United Republic of Tanzania, and the Adviser to the
President of the Republic of Rwanda. Their
participation in the deliberations this aftemoon have
helped to clarify a number of issues.
I would like to thank you, Mr. President, for
convening this very important meeting on the illegal
exploitation of the natural resources and other forms of
wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, our
neighbour. The convening of this meeting is yet
another demonstration of the Security Council's
continued resolve to ensure the full implementation of
the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement in order to achieve
durable peace and stability in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo and in our region as a whole. It is for this
reason that the Republic of Zambia provided its full
assistance to the Panel to facilitate its work during its
. visit to our country.
I also want to assure you, Mr. President, that the
Govemment of the Republic of Zambia will continue to
cooperate fully with you and the other members of the
Security Council in your noble efforts.
It is no secret that the Zambian Government
attaches great importance to ail efforts to ensure that
there is peace and stability in our region. My
Government bas always played a leading role in these
efforts in Angola and the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. Our contributions have been acknowledged by
the Council and the international community at large.
The efforts and persona! sacrifices of the President of
the Republic of Zambia, Mr. Frederick J. T. Chiluba, in
the pursuit of peace and stability in the Congo are well
known and well documented, and cannot be ignored.
He has done everything possible to advance the cause
ofpeace.
My delegation is tberefore extremely
disappointed with the comments about my country
contained in the addendum to the report of the Panel of
· Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural
Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, contained in
document S/2001/1072. Without even acknowledging
the enormous sacrifices that Zambia bas made and
10
continues to make in the search for peace in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Panel makes
serious and unsubstantiated allegations against my
country. ln the report, the Panel is in fact insinuating
that Zambia is undermining its own efforts and those of
the international community to bring peace to the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Please allow me to address some of the issues
raised by the Panel. ln paragraph 111, the Panel alleges
that
"Zambia does not have the capacity to exert much
control over the refugee camps in its territory,
where training activities have been conducted for
incursions carried out from Zambian territory."
This is a serious allegation. lt casts serious doubts on
the sovereignty of our country as well as on the ability
of our security institutions to .èonduct or undertake
their statutory functions. We do not know how the
Panel arrived at this conclusion, because - let me tell
the Council - during ail the times it was in Zambia, it
did not visit a single refugee camp. Therefore, we
wonder why the Panel, without knowing the facts,
chose to cast Zambia's ability in a negative light. This
is unacceptable.
According to the I 951 United Nations
Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, to which
Zambia adheres religiously, the superv1s1on,
administration and management of refugee camps are
the responsibility of the Office of the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). The host
country provides security for refugees and citizens
alike.
UNHCR bas been in Zambia for more than 30
years. ln that period, it bas never complained of
Zambia's Jack of capacity to provide military or police
protection. Similarly, UNHCR bas never complained
that refugees' enjoyment of rights was worse than that
of the citizens, residents, migrant workers, tourists and
visitors. This statement, therefore, is far from the truth.
Zambîa currently hosts more than 270,000
refugees, who are in two settlements and four camps
under the supervision of UNHCR. If it is true that
military training is being conducted in these camps, as
the Panel alleges, then the conclusion would be that
this is being done with the full knowledge of UNHCR.
Of course, we know that this is not true.
URAnnex73
The protracted conflicts in Angola and the
Democratic Republic of the Congo have continued to
generate large numbers of refugees who are sheltered
in Zambia. As pointed out in the UNHCR report in
document A/56/12, Zambia is the country most
adversely affected by the influx of refugees from those
two countries. Because of our adherence to the United
Nations Convention relating to the Status of Refugees,
my country continues to shoulder the heavy burden of
looking after refugees. Unfortunately, we must admit
that the · arrivai of civilian refugees is often
accompanied by the entry into the country of armed
elements and ex-combatants. This situation poses a
very serious threat to the security of the local
population and of the civilian refugees themselves.
To counter this, the Zambian Government, in
collaboration with UNHCR, disarms and separates
those identified as ex-combatants and sends them to a
refugee camp called Ukwimi, which is located in the
eastern part of the country, close to the Malawian
border and far from the borders of Angola and the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and from the camps
for civilian refugees. Currently, I wish to report that
Ukwimi refugee camp is holding 2,278 ex-combatants,
who are being screened by the National Eligibility
Committee in collaboration with UNHCR.
i want to inform the Councii that this information
was and is readily available not only with the Zambian
Government, but with UNHCR as well. The Panel
could easily have got this information had it asked for
it. One wonders why, when there are facts, the Panel
decided to insinuate otherwise and to paint a
completely erroneous picture.
Annex I of the addendum to the Panel's report is
a list of the countries it visited and the officers it met.
On page 35, it is clearly indicated that the Panel met
with the President of the Republic of Zambia, Mr.
Chiiuba; four Government Ministers, including the
Ministers of Defence and Presidential Affairs; and the
Permanent Secretaries of the Ministries of Foreign
Affairs and of Mines and Minerais Development. As a
nation, we are therefore shocked to note that, in
paragraph 114, the Panel reports that there was a lack
of cooperation from the Government of the Republic of
Zambia.
I want to pose the following questions. Where
was the lack of cooperation when the Panel met the
topmost person in the country - the President - and
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437 (Resumptioo 1)
the Ministers relevant to its visit? Where was the Jack
of cooperation when the Government of the Republic
of Zambia ensured that the Panel met with whomever it
requested to meet? Where was the lack of cooperation
when the Government of the Republic of Zambia
ensured that it visited places that it wanted to visit?
Indeed, where was the lack of cooperation when the
Governrnent provided transport and other facilities for
the Panel?
Sharing the longest border with the Dernocratic
Republic of the Congo, my country has been the worst
affected by the spillover from the conflict. Zambia does
not stand to gain in any way from this conflict. In fact,
the conflict is impacting negatively on the well-being
of Zambians. The continuous flow of refugees and
increased insecurity along the borders have greatly
disrupted the lives of our people. We do not cherish
this situation and that is what the Panel should have
known and should know.
Zarnbia has always supported and cooperated
with the panels sent by the Security Council and other
United Nations bodies. We have facilitated their
smooth operation in the country and ensured that ail
impediments to their work were removed. They have
been free to go wherever they want and to see
whomever and whatever they want to see.
My delegation is convinced that the mandate
given to this Panel was a noble one and made in good
faith. We believe that, if properly focused, the Panel
could make a positive contribution towards bringing
peace and stability to the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. However, the tone and content of the report as
it relates to Zambia creates an element of distrust and
suspicion which could easily fuel an already volatile
situation. We have already invested a lot in the search
for peace. We should not allow the efforts that we have
made and the progress so painstakingly achieved to be
undermined by people with different intentions and
agendas.
We are therefore disturbed by these unjustifiable
accusations. If the Panel, as clairned in paragraph 111,
bas information that various Congolese resources
transit through Zambia illegally, the noble and decent
thing to do would be to inform rny Government so that
the necessary control measures can be effected.
My country therefore challenges the Panel to
substantiate these allegations as they appear in the
report. If it should fail to do so, we would demand a
11
S/PV.4437 (Resumption 1)
retraction and an apology. We make these demands
because we believe in transparency; we believe in
objectivity, justice and fair play. 1 wish to assure the
Council that we will always extend help to other
panels.
The President (spoke in French): I thank the
representative of Zambia for bis kind words addressed
tome.
The next speaker inscribed on my Iist is the
representative of Namibia. I invite him to take a seat at
the Council table and to make his statement.
Mr. Theron (Namibia): lt gives my delegation
great pleasure to see you, Sir, presiding over the work
of the Council. I wish to thank you for scheduling this
very important meeting. I also wish to congratulate
Ambassador Durrant of Jamaica for the excellent
manner in which she conducted the work of the
Council in November, and in particular for the focus on
African situations.
I would also like to acknowledge the presence of
all the ministers at this meeting.
My delegation wishes to reiterate its thanks and
appreciation to Ms. Ba-N'Daw for presenting us with
the report in April on the disturbing facts about the
illegal exploitation of natural resources and other forms
of wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and
with the recommendations. We also welcome the
addendum containing additional information prepared
by Ambassador Kassem and bis team. Namibia bas
submitted a formai response to the addendum. to the
Security Council.
Namibia's support for the establishment and
mandate of the Panel was and remains intended to help
put an end to the plundering of the natural resources · of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, which are
being used to fuel the conflict. Our support stems from
a deep desire to preserve the sovereignty and territorial
integrity of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is
for these reasons that on both occasions when the Panel
visited Namibia, the Government of the Republic of
Namibia rendered ail necessary assistance and
extended full cooperation in facilitating its meetings
with ail relevant Govemment authorities, as requested.
In this context, we welcome the expression of gratitude
from the Panel for the excellent cooperation, as stated
in annex I of the addendum. Namibia welcomes the
12
proposed extension of the Panel's mandate and pledges
its continued cooperation.
The naked aggression against the Democratic
Republic of the Congo by Uganda and Rwanda and the
accompanying suffering and hardship caused to the
people of that country were exacerbated by a process of
systematic Iooting and pillaging of the natural
resources and other forms of wealth of their country by
the very same forces responsible for the invasion. The
tragic effects of these crimes have been well illustrated
in the Panel report, as well as in other reports on the
situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Unfortunately, the situation continues with
irnpunity today and is clearly directly linked to the
continued occupation of the country. Those countries
that have violated the sovereignty of the Dernocratic
Republic of the Congo have persisted in their defiance
of Security Council resolutions, in particular
resolutions 1304 (2000) and 1376 (2001 ).
It is worthwhile recalling the well-illustrated
statistics in the main report, showing the discrepancies
between the production of minerais and other resources
by these countries and their exports. Even more
specifically, the Panel, in paragraph 125 of the sarne
report, concluded that the econornies of Rwanda and
Uganda have benefited financially from the conflict in
the Dernocratic Republic of the Congo.
ln contrast to the illegal exploitation by countries
that have violated the sovereignty of the Dernocratic
Republic of the Congo, the Panel has correctly
indicated that the Government of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo bas, as any sovereign State bas
the right to do, in some instances relied on incarne
from the resources of the country to assist in its
defence against its aggressors. In the addendum, the
Panel acknowledged that most transactions by those
countries that came to the defence of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo were dorte in line with normal
economic cooperation between sovereign States. They
were carried out through the establishment of joint
ventures and other well-established trade practices.
My delegation welcomes the recommendations in
the report aimed at putting an end to the illegal
exploitation of the natural resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. However, it cannot support
recommendations in the addendum that attempt to
question or discredit sovereign decisions taken by the
legitimate Govemment of the Democratic Republic of
URAnnex73
the Congo. Therefore, for my delegation, the
recommendation that the Security Council create a
body to review concessions, commercial agreements
and contracts concluded by the Govemment of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo is unacceptable.
I now wish to make a few specific comments
about the utility of the Panel reports and to register
some misgivings ofmy delegation.
While we welcome the findings of the Panel, in
our view, in some instances it appeared reluctant to
state that a specific country was not iilegaliy exploiting
the resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
even where overwhelrning evidence to that effect was
submitted. Just as the Panel proved conclusively
through the publishing of statistics provided by
countries themselves, as well as by international
financial institutions, that Rwanda and Uganda are
engaged in the illegal exploitation of the resources of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the same kind
of information and procedures could have been used to
prove that other countries are not benefiting from the
illegal exploitation of the natural resources and other
forms of wealth of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo.
Furthermore, whereas in the addendum the Panel
has extensively reported on transactions concerning the
exploitation of the resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, in contrast to its mandate of
investigating the illegal exploitation of the natural
resources and other forms of the country's wealth, the
addendurn appears to have focused only on countries in
Africa. It would have been enlightening to have a
wider perception of the commercial transactions for the
exploitation of the resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo involving actors outside Africa.
Finally, the reference in the addendum to the
persona! decision by His Excellency President Nujoma
is wrong. While this bas no relevance to the Panel's
mandate, I wish to point out that decisions of the
Government of the Republic of Namibia are taken in
accordance with the procedures outlined in the
Constitution of the Republic of Namibia and that those
were fully respected when this decision was made.
Let me repeat once again what we have said in
this Chamber - that Namibia's involvement in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo was at the
expressed invitation of the legitimate Government of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and not for the
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437 (Resumption 1)
exploitation of Congolese coltan, gold, copper, cobalt,
diamonds, tirnber or any other resources.
Namibia bas repeatedly stressed the need for
respect for the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo and for its
èontrol over its natural resources. The illegal
exploitation of the natural resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, if not put to an end, will defeat
the efforts of the Security Council in that country. The
report of the Panel of Experts clearly identified the link
between the invasion of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, the plundering of its resources and the
continuation of the conflict. This is at the core of the
Panel' s mandate, and the Security Council should not
loose sight ofthis important link.
In conclusion, my delegation wishes to irnpress
on the Security Council the need to ensure that the
countries that have invaded the Dernocratic Republic of
the Congo withdraw without delay, even if that means
adopting further measures in terms of its mandate
under the Charter. Any further measures decided on by
the Council should include the payment of reparations
and compensation to the Democratic Republic of the
Congo by the invading countries. The Council cannot
afford its decisions being ignored continuously, since,
in allowing this, it risks serious damage to its
credibility.
The Panel of Experts had an important mandate.
The besieged Congolese people are counting on the
Security Council to help put an end to the plundering
of their resources and to assist in rnaking peace in their
country a reality.
The President (spoke in French): I thank the
representative of Namibia for the kind words addressed
tome.
The next speaker inscribed on my list is the
representative of Japan. I invite him to take a seat at
the Council table and to make his statement.
Mr. Yamamoto (Japan): I would like to thank
you, Mr. Pre.sident, for giving rny delegation the
opportunity to participate in today's discussion on this
important issue. 1 would '1lso like to thank the Panel of
Experts for producing a well-balanced addendum to the
report on the illegal exploitation of natural resources
and other forms of wealth of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo.
13
S/PV.4437 (Resumption 1)
The illicit exploitation of natural resources, not
only in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, but also
in other parts of the world, is a cause of recurring open
hostilities and a major obstacle to the settlement of
conflicts. As Japan stressed in its statement before this
body last May, it must be stopped.
Towards this end, Japan bas been participating in
the discussions of the Kimberley process, which
addresses the problem of conflict diamonds. Through
this process, the international community bas leamed
valuable lessons regarding the curtailment of illicit
exploitation of natural resources for conflict
prèvention, while at the same time protecting the
legitimate exploitation of natural resources for the
promotion of development.
With respect specifically to the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, Japan hopes that the following
two points will be taken well into account when the
Security Council considers the recommendations
contained in the addendum report,
First, producing countries and importing
countries must acknowledge their responsibility and
commit themselves to breaking the circle of conflict
and the illicit exploitation of natural resources. This
consciousness of responsibility will provide an
environment in which the international community will
be encouraged to take voluntary initiatives to stop the
illicit trade.
Secondly, with the end of the conflict in sight, the
process of demobilization, disarmament and
reintegration and efforts for the reconstruction and
rehabilitation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
have begun. In support of those efforts, it is crucial that
legitimate trade in primary commodities be protected.
As the addendum to the report points out, those items
which are illicitly exploited and traded in the eastern
part of the Democratic Republic of the Congo are not
confined to coltan and diamonds, but also include gold,
copper, cobalt and timber. But because these primary
commodities are important sources of income for the
nation-building efforts of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, if the inte111ational community agrees that
illicit trade in these items needs to be regulated, it
s11.ould be done in such a way as not to be detrimental
to revitalizing economic activities in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. In this connection, the
international community should pay due attention to
14
protecting the legitimate exploitation and trade in
primary commodities in the country.
As we emphasized in our statement last May, the
relationship between the illicit exploitation of natural
resources and the protraction of the conflict in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo must be considered
in the wider context of consolidating peace throughout
the region. This will require a comprehensive and
integrated approach. I would thus like to underline the
importance of convening an international conference
on peace and development in the Great Lakes region,
as recommended in the addendum to the report, as well
as the acceleration of the disarmament, demobilization
and reintegration process by the United Nations
Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo. This wm- help create a conducive
envjronment in which the countries concemed can
discuss ways of securing their borders.
Finally, the ministerial meeting in preparation for
the Third Tokyo International Conference on African
Development (TICAD III) was held in Tokyo on 3 and
4 December. The chair's statement issued at that
meeting welcomed the adoption of the New Partnership
for Africa's Development (NEPAD) as a manifestation
of the commitment of African leaders to effective
leadership and accountability. NEPAD reflècts the
principles of global partnership and ownership. I would
like to emphasize the importance of these principles in
th.e context of addressing the illicit exploitation of
natural resources and the ongoing conflict in the
Democratic RepubJic of the Congo.
The President (spoke in French): l now give the
floor to the Chairman of the Panel of Èxperts on the
lllegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other
Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, Mr. Mahmoud Kassem, to respond to the
comments made and the que.stions raised.
Mr. Kassem: Because of the lateness of the hour,
I will confine myself to replying to two of this
moming's interventions and one from this late meeting.
The Minister for Foreign Affairs of Zimbabwe
said that Zimbabwe's presence in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo is an enactment of the mutual
defence agreement of the Southern African
Development Community (SADC) and came about
following a direct plea from the sovereign Government
of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
URAnnex73
Zimbabwe's initial military involvement in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo was under the
pretext of the SADC mutual defence arrangements.
However, it is the nature of this presence today which
is of interest to the Panel. Is the Zimbabwean military
presence today an enactment of this mutual defence
arrangement, or bas it evolved into something else as
the conflict level subsides? If Zimbabwe's presence in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo is a burden on
its limited resources, why does it continue? Why have
there have been no troop reductions to reflect the level
of the confiict?
The Minister went on to state that Zimbabwe's
activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are
legitimate, bilateral, commercial relations between two
sovereign countries. Zimbabwe makes no secret of the
fact that it finances its presence in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo through its joint ventures with
the Congolese Government. Zimbabwe's commercial
activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo are
based on arrangements made with the Congolese
Government in Kinshasa. That is an undeniable fact. 1s
it legal? That is another matter.
In order to better understand this, we have to ask
ourselves the following questions. Were the conditions
under which this commercial activity was established
normal? Are these activities considered iegai by the
often sidelined Congolese law? Does the nature of
these commercial activities reflect commonly accepted
bilateral commercial ties? ln fair market terms, does
the value of Zimbabwean gains from commercial
activities in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
reflect the size of its modest investments? The answer
to these questions is no.
Regarding the conditions of the agreements made,
the Panel would just like to recall the signing of the
contracts transferring the Kababencola Mining
Company (KMC) to the Zimbabwean businessman
John Bredenkamp. This took place at the Grand Hotel
in Kinshasa, where ail the senior management officiais
of Gécamines were present, as well as senior
Zimbabwean military officers. The Zimbabwean side,
which had prepared the contract, allowed no one to
Ieave before the contract was signed, unchanged. As to
whether Congolese law was respected with regard to
the Zimbabwean concession, the Panel only wishes to
refer to the Sengamines deal. The legality of the
Congolese Government directly negotiating and
granting concessions on behalf of the Société minière
URAnnex73
S/PV.4437 (Resumption I}
de Bakwanga (MIBA) should be seriously
considered - assuming that the Congolese
Government bas that right, as a partner in MIBA.
However, the Congolese Government did not consult
Sibeka, the other partner in MIBA, when it decided to
grant Sengamines the best concession lands.
Irrespective of its legality, how can this be considered
as commonly accepted commercial behaviour?
Regarding the value of the investments, the
addendum clearly outlines that the Zirnbabwean role
offered neither capital nor land nor entrepreneurship.
This, then, leads us to the two most important and
relevant questions: first, would Zimbabwe's
commercial activities in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo be negatively affected if it had no military
presence in the country? Secondly, are Zimbabwe's
policies and actions in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo aimed at prolonging the conflict so as to ensure
that this military presence continues in order to
safeguard its commercial activities? The answer to both
questions is yes.
One needs only to look at the areas where
Zimbabwean troops are deployed to realize how
strategically Jocated they are with regard to their
concessions. Zimbabwe's aid to the Forces pour la
défense de la démocratie (FDD), which is documented
in the addendum, also gives a clear example of how
this country is actively taking steps to prolong the
conflict.
Finally, if the Government of Zimbabwe still
holds the same position regarding the legality of these
contracts and concessions, then it should be the first to
welcome a review of its commercial activities in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. A revis ion of these
contracts, under the auspices of a third party and in an
atmosphere of transparency, would reconfirm their
nature. This would enable both Zimbabwe and the
Dernocratic Republic of the Congo to then engage in
sound, unquestionable and sustainable commercial
relations under fair market terms. This is a
development that would unarguably be to the benefit of
both the Congolese and Zimbabwean people.
Turning to an intervention made by the
representative of the United Republic of Tanzania, who
alleged that his Government has been cooperative with
the Panel, I would state that the Panel in fact did not
understand why the Tanzanian Government showed so
much hostility - I repeat, so much hostility - to the
15
S/PV.4437(Resumption 1)
Panel, irrespective of the fact that the Tanzanian
Government appointed Iow- to medium-level officiais
to meet with the Panel. These officiais were actively -
I repeat, actively - discouraged from disclosing
information to the Panel. As for bis allegation that the
Panel has twice accused the Bank of Tanzania of being
involved in illicit smuggling of diamonds orîginating in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Panel had
taken note of the Tanzanian Government's position,
especially the point of view conveyed by the Governor
of the Bank of Tanzania, with whom it met.
Accordingly, further investigations were carried out
which have once again revealed that the initial
information presented remains valid. In the case of the
Bank of Tanzania, evidence acquired by the Panel bas
shown that certain individuals working at the Bank
have actively been marketing diamonds originating in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo - from the
premises of the Bank. lt bas knowledge of at least three
deals . concluded there which were destined for
Antwerp, Amsterdam and Johannesburg. As regards the
United Republic ofTanzania, at this point I will stop.
I did not really intend to respond to the
representative of Zambia. But I was really surprised
when be put to me these questions with regard to
cooperation or Jack thereof. ln the end he posed a very
surprising question: where was the Jack of cooperation
when my Government provided transport to the Panel?
As far as I know, it is the United Nations that supplies
ail the needs of the Panel - and nobody else, including
Zambia.
16
As for the lack of cooperation, I would just like to
say a few words. At its meeting in Lusaka, the Panel
was surprised that even what could be considered
public information, in the papers, was not given freely
to the Panel. Officiais who attended the meetings were
either evasive or simply untooperative. In some
instances, junior officiais clearly indicated that they
were not .authorized to disclose any information to the
Panel. It should also be noted that, although a meeting
with President Chiluba had been schedu)ed, the Panel
learned upon arrivai in Lusaka that the meeting had
been unilaterally cancelled. lt was only after the
Panel's complaint to Minister of State Eric Silwamba
about Zambia's lack of cooperation - and he was
surprised - that a meeting with President Chiluba was
hastily ar-ranged at the Iast minute before we left.
Further-more, additionaJ information tequested in
writing from the Zambian Government was received
after the completion of the addendum.
The President (spoke in French): I thank Mr.
Kassem for the further information and responses he
bas provided.
There are no further speakers inscribed on my
list. The Security Council bas thus concluded the
present stage of its consideration of the item on its
agenda,
The Council will remain seized of the matter.
The meeting rose at 8.40 p.m.
URAnnex73

URAnnex 74

USAID: Congo FY 2002 Congressional Budget Justification
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF
THE CONGO
URANNEX74
» AFR Regional Overview » Congo Overview
Introduction
The Oemocratic Republic of Congo (DRC) is the
thlrd largest country on the continent and home
to roughly 50 million people. Nine countries
border the DRC, and shifting alliances both
within and across its border position the DRC as a key partner, or a key
threat, to U.S. humanitarian lnterests in central Africa. lts immense base
of natural and minerai resources {Cobalt, diamonds, gold, copper,
colombo-tantalite, and timber) holds enormous potential and will
Influence the stability of much of the rest of Africa. Seventy-seven
percent of the ORC is forested and its exoeptional blodiversity,
rainforests and massive river systems constltute one of the globe's rare
rain forests.
However, the Congo is in crisis. Prolonged conflict and deepening
humanitari~n crisls, brought about by war and years of political and
economic mismanagement, has spawned instability across central
Africa and threl;)tens U.S. interests in the region. U.S. Govemment
assistance focuses on fostering political, social and economic stability
and stanching the widening humanitarian disaster. Assistance to the
DRC advances U.S. interests by bringing stability to a country and a sub-region tom by wars, by reducing
poverty, by conserving its unique biodiversity and by stemming the spread of infectious and re-emerging
diseases, including HIV/AIDS and polio. The program in the DRC supports USAID's new priority areas of
economic growth, global health, relief, and conflict prevention.
The Development Challenge
The DRC is classified as a heavily indebted poor country (HIPC), With a public extemal debt of $13.5
billion as of December 31, 2000, pr ten tîmes the country's yearly export of goods and services. Oomestic
debt arrears exoeed $9 billion. The DRC's political situation is highly unstable and complex. The country's
economic performance remains dismal, reflected by continued decline in output and increases in the
inflation rate from 325% ln 1999 to 531% in 2000. The accumulated debt and the nation's decline are
largely due to the on-going war, and decades of corruption and mismanagement of its resources by former
Presidents Mobutu and Kabila. Per capita incarne has dropped from $361 in 1960 to below $100 in 2000.
Over 80% of the DRC's population live in absolute poverty.
A new leadership emerged in the DRC in January 2001, after the assassination of President Laurent
Kabila. President Joseph Kabila has succeeded his father and has indicated a commitment to political
openness and dialogue. His strategy focuses on bringing peace and recovery to the DRC. President
Joseph Kabila's pronouncernents and actions thus far provide new prospects for peace, democracy and
socio~economic improvements in the DRC. Positive steps towards a new political orientation have recently
been undertaken in the areas of human rights and rule of law as political prisoners are freed, secret
oetention centers are closed and political dialogue has begun. Despite these positive prospects, lasting
peace remains elusive. The demands of the war have disrupted all key are1:1s of economic, politic$1 and
social life. The judicial and civil service sectors are non-functional. As successive governments have been
unable or unwilling to provide resources to the social sectors, the delivery of social services has collapsed.
Non-governmental organizations (NGOs) carry the burden of providing basic social services. The Cathôlic
and Protestant Churches alone support over 60% of the education and health care delivery services.
The health infrastructure in the DRC has virtually collapsed in many areas and women and children are al
particular risk. Infant mortality is 148 per 1,000 and a 3.2% population growth has the potential to erode
any improvements in the standard of living. Maternai mortality is extremely high with some 1,837 women
dying out of every 100,000 live births. Routine immunization systems have ceased to function in many
parts of the country, resulting in frequent epidemic outbreaks of communicable childhood diseases. ln
addition to wild poliovirus, the DRC has perhaps the most extensive collection of known and emerging
infectious diseases in the world. As a result of lack of health services, compounded by the desperate
poverty, outbreaks of rare diseases, once virtually eradicated (e.g. sleeping sickness, TB and river
blindnèss), have reappeared. HIV/AIDS infection rates in the general population before the war, ranged
between approximately 6 to 10 percent. However, HIV/AIDS infection rates in foreign African armies
engaged in the conflict in the DRC are reported to be much higher. Limited data suggests that as a result
prevalence rates for HIV/AIDS infections among certain groups in eastern and southern provinces are
rising.
Most of the DRC's vast territory is inaccessible due to decades of collapsed infrastructure. Without roads,
the Congo River basin became the major artery for transport until rebel forces eut even this vehicle for the
delivery of goods and services from the interior to the capital. Food shortages, particularly for urban
populations, have increased. The DRC suffers from intense environmental degradation, deforestation, soif
erosion and flooding. Poverty and war have encouraged large-scale deforestation, pillage and depletion of
the DRC's vast equatorial forest and natural and minerai resources.
ln late 2000, USAID/DRC launched an integrated humanitarian and health program which delivers critical
health, nutrition, food security and other emergency interventions in an effort to reduce high levels of
excess mortality and suffering. The program combines and focuses development and humanitarian
resources to increase both physical and economic access to basic services. Health development funds will
be used to strengthen health service deiivery in over 60 ruraî health zones throughout the country while
emergency funds provide life-saving interventions along front-fine areas and among displaced populations.
Food for Peace resources delivered through the World Food Program for both emergency food distribution
and food security activities. Where feasible, health, food aid, emergency and development resources
(funds from the USAID Bureau of Humanitarian Response (BHR) and the DRC mission) will complement
and build on each fund's strength to respond to immediate needs and longer-term health and food security
development in an effort to move the DRC beyond the immediate crisis.
Other Donors
Most donor assistance is provided through international organizations and NGOs. Most of it is
humanitarian assistance. The European Union is the major provider of assistance with a contribution of
approximately $50 million annually. Based on reoent political developments, the EU has committed new
funding to the DRC. This includes a $25 million contribution to the justice sector reform program, $35
million in emergency assistance and a $108 million development support fund. A World Bank trust fund
made available $5 million to support initiatives in privatization of parastatals. Through the 2001
Consolidated Appeal, the UN system is seeking $139.0 million in funding to support humanitarian and
development programs in the DRC.
FY 2002 Program
USAID is positioned to respond swift!y to opportunities in support of the implementation of the July 1999
cease-fire in the DRC. Such support is critical in order to encourage further advances in implementation of
the Agreement and lay the foundation for democracy. lmplementation will continue through partnershîp
with civil society and NGOs but will allow limited, well-targeted support to the Govemment of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (GDRC) in child survival and infectious disease sectors. USAID
focuses on assisting Congolese people to resolve national, provincial, and community problems through
URAnnex74
participatory processes involving the public, private, and civil sectors.
ln the health sector, USAID's successful child survival, infectious disease, HIV/AIDS contrai, and primary
health care activities will be .expanded to all eleven provinces. The capacity of national and nongovernmental
health delivery institutions will be strengthened. USAID will help support the eradication of
polio, the prevention of vaccine preventable diseases and diarrhea, and improved child nutrition. USAIDfunded
activities will help seek to better control malaria, tuberculosis, and other infectious diseases and
will assist the country to position itself to better respond to epidemics and outbreaks of rare and infectious
diseases. lt will continue to help support an expanded HIV/AIDS prevention alld contrai program, targeting
high-risk groups and people living with HIV/AIDS, while providing assistance to develop reliable baseline
data as the basis for better surveillance. The primary health care system will be revitalized and supported
comprehensively throughout the DRC in 60 rural health zones.
ln democracy and governance, USAID will continue to support civil society and strengthen its role as a
partner to the GDRC in building a politically stable country. USAID will support the lnter-Congolese
Dialogue and subsequent democratic initiatives, which would be generated by the dialogue. Under
provisions of new legislation, USAID will also assist the GDRC in anti-corruption activities and will support
increasing the capacity of human rights NGOs for coalition building, advocacy, information development
and dissemination, litigation and representation. Through the International Foundation for Election
Systems (IFES) and the Law Group, USAID will continue to work on refining the draft constitution. USAID
will also strengthen the capacity of key NGOs to provide access to legal services to individuals and
groups, will actively support a transition to a democratically elected government, will expand the
assistance to NGOs for the provision of information and Internet connectivity beyond Kinshasa to 22
secondary cities in eleven provinces. Assistance and training will be provided to private and independent
news organizations and reporters for more balanced news reporting. USAID will continue to support
· education of the girls. Finally, the program will support demobilization of child soldiers, training and
reintegration of child soldiers into their communities and support protection of vulnerable and street
children, orphans and victims of torture.
Through programs designed to enhance household food security and reduce poverty in selected
communities, USAID will focus on meeting the critical food needs of targeted groups through emergency
food aid, sustaining agricultural production, promoting sustainable natural resources management, and
expanding private sector markets. Productivity and quality of life will be increased through human capacity
development and training of girls, demobilized child soldiers and vulnerable youth. USAID will enhance
institutional capacity building in the environmental sector, continue to support policy changes, and promote
private initiatives to protect the environment. Interventions will include environmental advocacy, reinforcing
community awareness, and continued support to World Heritage Sites. Micro-credit prograrns, microenterprise
initiatives and support to natural resource-based industries, which create jobs, stimulate
increased production and income while enhancing livelihoods, will also continue to be an important part of
the program.
URAnnex74

URAnnex 75

United Nations
URANNEX7S
S,20021141
Security Council Distr.: General
1 February 2002
Original: English
Letter dated 1 February 2002 f rom the Permanent Representative
of Uganda to the United Nations addressed to the President of the
Sec,urity Council
On instructions of my Govemment, I have the honour to transmit to you a copy
of a letter dated 31 January 2002 from the Minister of Defence of Uganda,
Hon. Amama Mbabazi, addressed to H.E. Amos Ngongi Namanga, Special
llepresentative of the Secretary-General to the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
expressing concem at the continued deteriorating security situation in eastem
Democratic Republic of the Congo (see annex).
I should be grateful ifyou could have the present letter and its annex circulated
as a document of the Security Council.
02-24063 (E) 010202
111111 IIH 1111 11111111111111 ID 1111
(Signed) Prof. Semakula Kiwanuka, Ph.D.
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
Permanent Representative ofUganda to the United Nations
S/2002/141
2
Annex to the letter dated 1 February 2002 from the Permanent
Representative of Uganda to the United Nations addressed to the
President of the Security Council
Continued deteriorating security situation in eastern Democratic Republic of
the Congo
Reference is made to my earlier communication to you dated 14 January 2002
on the deteriorating security situation in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Firstly, I would like to inform you that there is continued fighting in areas of
Bafwasende, Njania, Poko and Butembo. We understand that, in fact, some towns
have changed hands. Mr. Bemba denies his force is involved in these unfortunate
occurrences. We are further informed that Roger Lumbala is involved in some of the
fighting but we do not have good contact with him to substantiate these allegations.
Secondly, in the Bunia area, as you know, we have withdrawn our forces from
the countryside and concentrated them at the airport. There are reports of killings of
civilians and of combatants in the hinterland since that withdrawal of our forces. In
the two weeks since I last wrote to you, there have been many incidents of attacks
by one group against others and ambushes against road users to the extent that travel
by public roads has ceased. For example on 14 January 2002 in Mokambo (Djugu),
along the Lake Albert shores, 35 civilians of the Alur trîbe were killed and 70
houses bumt down. On 15 January 2002 three localities of Molabo (Djugu), 28
kilometres to the north of Bunîa, were set ablaze and an unspecified number of
people killed. On 16 January 2002 in Kilo (Djugu), about 45 kilometres north-west
of Bunia, two localitîes were set ablaze and an unspecified number of people killed.
In Bambu, about 30 kilometres north-west of Bunia, the road to Mongbwalo has
been eut off by armed tribesmen who still patrol the road armed with automatic
rifles. On 26 January 2002, three rnotor vehicles travelling to Mongbwaio were
stopped, propertY was looted and the occupants feared killed. In Loga, Lendu
combatants are reorganizing to attack Katoto, Inga barrier and Niizi. As a result of
these and many other similar incidents reportedly mainly perpetuated by Lendu
tribesmen, the civilian population of other groups are running to Bunia Town or
towards the Uganda border. It appears to us that some elements are arming these
groups to commit genocide on others.
This state of affairs is obviously not acceptable to Uganda, the local Congolese
or the international community. The security situation in these areas is threatening
our border security and this has far reaching implications on the stability and future
of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
I wish, on behalf of the Uganda Government, to invite the United Nations
(United Nations Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(MONUC)) to corne in and work with us to find a solution to this problem. In the
meantime Uganda may have to redeploy the Uganda military, the UPDF, in the areas
affected to stop the carnage. What do you advise? We need your clear opinion on
this proposa! before we decide what to do.
CC: Force Commander - MONUC
URAnnex75
(Signed) Amama Mbabazi
Minister of Defence
URAnnex76

URANNEX76
United Nations
• Security Council " Distr.: General
14 February 2002
Original: English
Letter dated 13 February 2002 from the Permanent
Representative of Uganda to the United Nations addressed
to the President of the Security Council ·
On instructions from my Government, I have the honour to forward to you a
copy of a letter dated 5 February 2002 from Uganda's Minister of Defence, Hon
Amama Mbabazi, addressed to Amos Ngongi Namanga, Special Representative of
the Secretary-General to the Democratic Republic of the Congo, concerning the
increase in violence in northeastem Democratic Republic of the Congo (see annex).
I should be grateful if you could have this letter and its annex circulated as a
document of the Security Council.
02-25395 (E) 150202
11111 IIU 1111111111 IIU 1111 IIM
(Signed) Semakula Kiwanuka
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary
Permanent Representative ofUganda to the United Nations
S12002n10
S/2002/170
2
Annex to the letter dated 13 February 2002 from the Permanent
Representative of Uganda to the United Nations addressed to the
President of the Security Council
lncreased deteriorating security situation in northeastern Democratic Republic
of the Congo
I acknowledge receipt of your letter dated 2 February 2002 concerning the
increase in violence in northeastern Democratic Republic of the Congo.
We had withdrawn out troops because of the persistent misrepresentation of
the Uganda People's Defence Forces (UPDF) role in the probiems of the area and
the consequent malignment that the Government of Uganda suffered. No one,
including the United Nations, came to our defence, although it was clear that the
UPDF role was positive.
The Uganda Govemment, therefore, welcomes your recognition of this and
will immediately redeploy in the areas of tribal conflict to restore security.
URAnnex76
(Signed) Amama Mbabazi
Minister ofDefence
URAnnex77

Congo, Democratic Republic of the
Country Reports on Human Rights Practices - 2001
Released by the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Laber
March 4, 2002
URANNEX77 Page 1 of28
The Democratic Republic of the Congo remained divided into territories controlled by the Govemment and
several rebel factions. On January 16, President Laurent Desire Kabila, whose Alliance of Democratic
Forces for the Liberation of Congo-Zaire (AFDL) overthrew the authoritarian regime of Mobutu Sese Seko by
armed force in 1997, was assassinated by one of his guards. On January 26, the Govemment installed his
son Joseph Kabila as president. Joseph Kabila ruled by decree, and the Government continued to operate
without a constitution. The State continued ta be highly centralized formally, although in practice the
country's dilapidated transportation and communications infrastructure impaired central government contrai.
On May 17, the Government adopted a law liberalizing political activity; however, the Government continued
to restrict political activity in practice. The judiciary continued to be subject to executive influence and
corruption.
The ongoing war broke out in 1998 between the Government and rebel forces. The Lusaka Accords, which
were signed on July 10, 1999, provided for a political dialog among the Government, rebel factions, the
unarmed opposition, and elements of civil society. ln 2000 the peace process stalled; however, after
becoming president, Joseph Kabila reengaged the Government in the peace process, from which Laurent
Kabila essentially had withdrawn. lmmediately following Joseph Kabila's inauguration in January, the
Government renewed a cease-fire agreement with the rebels and allowed the U.N. Peace Observation
Mission in Congo (MONUC) to deploy fully and monitor troop disengagements called for in the Lusaka
Accords. The disengagement plan required government and rebel troops to withdraw 9 miles from the front
line. Ali parties generally complied with the plan, and MONUC verified troop redeployments to the new
defensive positions established for each side. Troop redeployments began in Marchand were completed
with minor exceptions by July. Joseph Kabila also allowed the U.N. International Facilitator, former
Botswana Prime Minister Sir Ketumile Masire, who was selected by the signatories of the Lusaka Accords,
to return to Kinshasa to prepare the lnter-Congolese Dialogue (ICD). ln October ICD participants, including
representatives of the Government, rebel groups, members of the political opposition, and civil society
groups met in Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, ta create a transitional political framework. No agreement was
reached; however, the participants agreed to continue the dialog in South Africa in 2002.
Government forces continued to control less than hait of the country during the year. Severa! rebat groups,
the Congolese Rally for Democracy based in Gama (RCD/Goma), the Movement for the Liberation of the
Congo (MLC), and the Congolese Rally for Democracy based in Bunia (RCD/ML) controlled the remaining
territory, with the active military support of the Rwandan and Ugandan Governments. The RCD/Goma
remaîned dominated by members of the Tutsi ethnie minority and continued to be supported by the
GovernmentofRwanda; in 2000 Adolphe Onosumba, a Kasaian, was named RCD President. The RCD/ML,
nominally led by Ernest Wamba dia Wamba until late in the year, commanded fewer troops and, like the
largely non-Tutsi MLC, was supported by the Govemment of Uganda. Although the MLC and the RCD/ML
united for much of the year as the Forces for the Liberation of the Congo (FLC) under the leadership of MLC
President Jean-Pierre Bemba, in June the FLC split back into the separate MLC and RCD/ML groups;
Mbusa Nyamwisi assumed leadership of the RCD/ML and remained in charge at year's end.
The war began in August 1998, when Laurent Kabila tried to expel Rwandan military forces that had helped
him overthrow Mobutu. Congolese Tutsis as well as the Governments of Burundi, Rwanda, and Uganda, all
relied on the Rwandan military presence for protection against hostile armed groups operating from the
eastern part of the country. These groups included: The lnterahamwe militia of Hutus, mostly from Rwanda,
Hutu members of the former Rwandan armed forces, and other Rwandan Hutu militiaman, some of whom
took part in the 1994 genocide of Tutsis in Rwanda and who fought the Tutsi-dominated Government of
Rwanda; the Mai Mai, a loose association of traditional Congolese local defense forces, which primarily
fought Rwandan government forces and their Congolese allies; the Alliance of Democratic Forces (ADF),
Page 2 of28
made up of Ugandan opposition forces supported by the Government of Sudan, which fought the
Government of Uganda but largely viras inactive during the year; and several groups of Hutus from Burundi
fighting the Tutsi-dominated Govemment of Burundi. ln the ensuing war, elements of the armed forces of
Rwanda and Uganda operated inside the country in support of the RCD or the MLC; elements of the armed
forces of Angola, Namibia, and Zimbabwe operated inside the country in support of the Government; and
elements of the armed forces of Burundi operated inside the country against armed groups of Hutu rebels
from Burundi who used the country as a base. North Korean advisers provided training to government
troops. During peace process negotiations during the year, Rwanda pledged to withdraw its troops 62 miles
from the front lines, but continued to maintain a large military presence in the eastern provinces. Uganda
also withdrew some of its troops but continued to maintain a sùbstantial military presence, mostly in
Orientale Province. Despite a relatively stable cease-fire and disengagement of troops along the formai
cease-fire lines during the year, fighting intensified in the eastem provinces between the Hutu militias and
Rwandan and RCD rebel troops. The withdrawal of troops toward and through the eastern provinces also
created instability and insecurity in Orientale, Katanga, and the Kivu Provinces.
The Govemment's security forces consist of a national police force under the Ministry of !nterior, the
National Security Council (CNS), the National Intelligence Agency (ANR), the Rapid Intervention Forces
(PIR), and the Congolese Armed Forces (FAC), which includes an Office for the Military Detection of AntiPatriotic
Activities (DEMIAP). The immigration service, Direction Generale de Migration (DGM), also
functioned as a security force. The People's Self Defense Forces (FAP) and the People's Power
Committees (CPP) also served as security forces, but were less active than in previous years. ln 1999
Laurent Kabila gave Mai Mai leaders commissions in the FAC and coordinated operations with the Mai Mai
and Hutu militias. The Government continued to supply and coordinate operations with the Mai Mai and
Hutu militias during the year. The People's Defense Committees (CPD's), which in previous years operated
outside the formai structure of the State and were intended to be an armed wing of the CPP's, remained
unarmed and ceased to function during the year. The police force handles basic criminal cases. The CNS
shares responsibility for internai and externat security with the ANR, including border security matters. The
FAC retains some residual police functions. Military police have jurisdiction over armed forces personnel,
but also have domestic security responsibilities, including the patrolling of urban areas. Security forces were
poorly trained, poorly paid, and often undisciplined. While civilian authorities generally maintained effective
control of the security forces, there were frequent instances in which the security forces acted independently
of government authority. The security forces committed numerous, serious human rights abuses.
The country's economy is dominated by subsistance agriculture, a large informai sector, and widespread
barter; most sectors of the economy continued to decline. Production and incomes continued to fall. Annual
per capita national income for the population of approximately 52 million remained at less than $100 (32,000
Congolese francs). Physical infrastructure was in serious disrepair, financial institutions remained in astate
of collapse, and public education and health deteriorated. The ongoing restriction on commercial travel on
the Congo River during the year negatively impacted the economy. The insolvent public sector could not
provide even basic public services. External economic assistance remained limited, and the State's
revenues from diamond exports, its leading source of foreign exchange, declined. Public sector employees,
including most soldiers, received very low salaries and sometirnes were not paid for months, which caused
widespread hardship and contributed to tensions within the armed forces. Rebel-held areas continued to be
integrated financially and administratively with the economies of Rwanda and Uganda. The Governments of
Rwanda and Uganda established commercial agreements, maintained cadres in key income-collecting
agencies, levied and collected taxes and customs dulies, and systematically extracted hard currency from
the ragions they controlled.
The Government's human rights record remained poor, and it continued to commit numerous, serious
abuses; however, there were improvements in several areas. Citizens do not have the right to change their
government peacefully. Following the assassination of President Laurent Kabila, the Government
immediately arrested and summarily executed 11 persons suspected of involvement. Security forces were
responsible for extrajudicial killings, disappearances, torture, beatings, rape, and other abuses; however,
there were fewer reported cases than in previous years. ln general security forces committed these abuses
with impunity. Prison conditions remained harsh and life threatening. Security forces continued to arbitrarily
arrest and detain citizens; however, the number of such cases decreased. Prolonged pretrial detention
remained a problem, and dozens of suspects remained in detention without formai charges filed, without any
evidence presented against them, and without an opportunity to defend themselves in court. Citizens often
were denied fair public trials. The special military tribunal tried some civilians for political offenses, although
most cases were related to the Kabila assassination or to alleged coup piotting against the joseph Kabiia
Government. The military courts did not execute any civilians during the year; however, due process
frequenUy was disregarded. The judiciary remained subject to executive influence and continued to be
underfunded, inefficient, and corrupt. lt largely was ineffective as either a deterrent to human rights abuses
or as a corrective force. Security forces violated citizens' rights to privacy. Forcible conscription of adulls and
children continued in both government-controlled and rebel-controlled territories, despite promises by both
sidas to end the practice. Government and rebel security forces continued to use excessive force and
committed violations of international law in the war; however, there were no reports that government aircraft
URAnnex 77
Page 3 of28
bombed civilian populated areas in rebel-held territory.
Harassment of joumalists, human rights activists, and opposition politicians decreased. Severa! joumalists
were tortured during the year; however, there were fewer reported cases than in previous years. Although a
large number of private newspapers published criticism of the Govemment, the Govemment continued to
restrict freedom of speech and of the press by harassing, arresting, and detaining newspaper editors and
joumalists, and by seizing individual issues of publications; however, the Govemment reduced its
restrictions on private radio broadcasting. The Govemment restricted freedom of assembly and association,
used excessive force to disperse demonstrations, and on several occasions prevented political party press
conferences. The Government continued to ban some political party activities; however, in May revised the
law to allow legally registered parties to operate freely. The Government committed some abuses against
religious entities. The Govemment continued to restrict freedom of movement and continued to require exit
visas; however, the Govemment decreased some travel restrictions. The war continued to cause large
numbers of internally displaced persons (IDP's). The Government also harassed and imprisoned members
of opposition parties and human rights nongovernmental organizations (NGO's). The Government allowed
humanitarian organizations better access to areas under its control.
Violence against women was a problem and rarely was punished, and rape persisted as a wldespread act of
war, especially in the eastem provinces. Discrimination against women was widespread and common.
Female genital mutilation (FGM) persisted among isolated populations in the north. Child prostitution was a
problem. Discrimination against indigenous Pygmies was pervasive. Violence and discrimination against
members of the Tutsi ethnie minority continued; however, the Government protected many Tutsis who were
at risk. On occasion tension between the Hema and Lendu ethnie groups in the area of Bunia, Orientale
Province, flared into violence that resulted in hundreds of deaths. The Government restricted worker rights.
The Government arrested labor leaders during public sector strikes and allowed private employers to refuse
to recognize unions. The Government forcibly conscripted adults and children during the year, although the
Govemment made efforts to demobilize some child soldiers. Child labor, including use of child soldiers,
remained a problem. Mob violence resulted in killings and injuries. The country is a source for trafficked
women and children.
There were numerous reports that Mai Mai groups fighting on the side of the Govemment committed serious
abuses, including many killings, rapes, torture, kidnapings, and the arbitrary arrest and detention of civilians.
The human rights situation in rebel-held areas of the country was extremely poor. The majority of abuses
were committed in rebel-held areas, and rebel forces committed numerous, serious abuses with impunity
against civilians living in territories under their control, including deliberate, large-scale killings,
disappearances, torture, rape, dismemberment, extortion, robbery, arbitrary arrests and detention,
harassment of human rights workers and journalists, and forcible recruitrnent of child soldiers. ln particular
RCD/Goma and Rwandan units committed mass killings allegedly in reprisai for Mai Mai attacks against
RCD or Rwandan forces. There were no reports that armed bands of Rwandan Hutus posing as
lnterahamwe fighters èommitted abuses. ln previous years, the Rwandan army allegedly recruited these
groups to demonstrate the need for a continued Rwandan military presence in the areas they controlled.
Rebel organizations restricted freedom of speech, assembly, and association in areas under their control,
and respect for freedom of religion continued to be poor. There were attacks against local and international
NGO's in rebel-held areas, and some NGO personnel were killed. There also were many deaths due to
interethnic mob violence in areas held by rebel forces.
RESPECT FOR HUMAN RIGHTS
Section 1 Respect for the lntegrity of the Person, lncluding Freedom From:
a. Arbitrary or Unlawful Deprivation of Lite
Members of the security forces committed extrajudicial killings, and the Government misused the judicial
system to try, sentence, and execute numerous persons without due process. The Government also
materially supported Mai Mai and Hutu armed groups, which, according to credible reports, repeatedly killed
unarmed as well as armed persons in areas held by rebel forces. An international humanitarian NGO
estimated that as many as 2.5 million persons have died during the war because of killings, malnutrition, or
starvation (see Section 1.g.).
On January 16, Rashidi Mizele, a presidential bodyguard, assassinated President Laurent k~bila. According
to the Govemment, Colonel Eddy Kapend, Kabila's aide-de-camp, then shot and killed Rashidi, who already
had been apprehended by another guard. Rashidi's death eliminated the possibility of interrogation and
raised government suspicion that Kapend may have been involved in the assassination. Kapend was
URAnnex77
Page 1~ of28
been charged or sentenced. The Government released more than 200 soldiers during the year, reportedly to
make room for additional prisoners (see Section 1.c.).
The Government also held POW's. ln September the Government released four Ugandan POW's in
accordance with the Lusaka Accords. The Government claimed it no longer held any POW's at year's end.
There were many reported arbitrary arrests by antigovernment forces in the occupied territories, and these
forces reportedly detained persons repeatedly. Many of those arrested reportedly were Hutus. On October
31, RCD forcés detained and severely beat Jules Nteba Mbakumba, the president of Association Eli mu, an
NGO that conducts adult education in the country; he was released later that day. No reason was given for
the detention and torture; however, RCD .authorities previously had accused Association Elimu of using its
computers to produce leaflets for the Mai Mai combatants.
Government soldiers captured by antigovernment forces reportedly were held by the RCD/Goma or MLC.
Unlike in previous years, both groups allowed the ICRC to visit captured government soldiers.
There were no reported developments in any of the following 2000 cases involving arrest and detention by
RCD forces: The October arrest and solitary confinement of Jean-Paul Ramazani Kulimushi, the director of
the Congolese National Radîo-Television (RTNC); the October arrest, beating, and detention of 13 human
rights activîsts; and the July detention of 2 senior RCD/ML officiais by RCD/ML forces.
The law prohibits forced exile, and the Government did not use it in practice.
e. Denial of Fair Public Trial
The law pro vides for an independent judiciary; however, in practice the judiciary was not inde pendent of the
executive branch, which manipulated it during the year. The Government failed to establish mechanisms to
ensure the independence of the judiciary; a judicial reform decree, reportedly awaiting presidential approval
since 1997, still had not been promulgated by year's end. The judiciary was ineffective and corrupt. The civil
judiciary, including lower courts, appellate courts, the Supreme Court, and the Court of State Security,
largely was dysfunctional. Military courts continued to try both military and civilian defendants.
Civil and criminal codes are based on Belgian and customary law. The legal code provides for the right to a
speedy public trial, the presumption of innocence, and legal counsel at all stages of proceedings; however,
the Government did not respect these rights in practice. Defendants have the right to appeal in all cases
except those involving national security, arrned robbery, and smuggling, all of w!lich are adjudicated in
theory by the Court of State Security, and except those cases adjudicated by the special military tribunals,
whose jurisdiction is ill defined. The law provides for court-appointed counsel at state expense in capital
cases, in all proceedings before the Supreme Court, and in other cases when requested by the court. ln
practice the Government did not respect fully these provisions. Corruption remained pervasive, particularly
among magistrates, who were paid very poorly and only interrnittently, and who also were trained poorly.
The system remained hobbled by major shortages of personnel, supplies, and infrastructure.
Mllitary courts, which are headed by a military judge and apply military law inherited from Belgium, try
military and civilian defendants as directed by the Govemment, and tried nearly al! cases during the year.
There is no appeals process in the military courts, and the accused do not have a right to legal counsel,
although counsel may be provided at the discretion of the military judge. The Government tried to ensure
that most defendants were provided with legal counsel during the year. Sentencing guidelines also were
inherited from Belgian military law; however, in practice military courts have broad discretion to go outside of
these sentencing guidelines. Military courts, which are located in all military installations and in most urban
areas, may be open to the public at the discretion of the military judge. The Government claimed that its use
of military courts rather than civilian courts was a result of the ongoing war in the country.
During the year, the military courts sentenced civilians as well as military personnel to death after summary
trials; however, death sentences from military trials were less frequent than in previous years, and the use of
military courts to sentence civilians decreased. Military courts sentenced civilians to death for crimes against
national security; however, unlike in previous years, civilians were not sentenced to death for non-violent
offenses. No civilians who received death sentences were executed during the year. Military courts also
sentenced to death military defendants charged with armed robbery, murder, inciting mutiny, espionage, and
looting while in a state of mutiny. Human rights NGO's reported that six military defendants who received
death sentences for violent crimes were executed early in the year.
ln January the military court sentenced to death six child soldiers; however, their sentences were commuted
URAnnex77
URAnnex78

Excerpted testimony of
Ms. Adele {Lotsove) Mugisa
before the Porter Commission
22 March 2002
URANNEX78

22/3/02 (1)
Miss Adele Mugisa:
I Miss Adele Mugisa solemnly swear that the evidence I shall give about the matters before
this Commission shall be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. So help me
God.
Justice D. Porter:
Thank you. Is this brief 7?
Asst. Lead Counsel:
Not that one My Lord, maybe brief 1.
Justice D. Porter:
Brief 1. Oka y. · And what is the number?
Asst. Lead Counsel:
CW/01/18.
Asst. Lead Counsel:
Can you please tell the Commission your full names
Miss Adele Mugisa:
My names are Adele Lotsove Mugisa.
Asst. Lead Counsel:
How old are you now?
Miss Adele Mngisa:
1 am 50 years old.
Asst. Lead Connsel:
Where do you stay?
Miss Adele Mugisa:
I have been here since November 1999
Asst. Lead Counsel:
What do you do?
Miss Adele Mugisa:
1 consider myself to be in e,i:ile.
Justice Berko:
What is your Nationality?
Miss Adele Mugisa:
I am a Congolese.
1 URAnnex78
Asst. Lead Counsel:
What position were you holding?
Miss Adele Mugisa:
22/3/02 (1)
I was an employee / an agent. I was working in that organization but I was also very active
in the NGOs. I was more active with the feminine / the women's branch because with the
knowledge which I have it is really used for women.
Asst. Lead Counsel:
So later, how did you end up in Bunia?
Miss Adele Mugisa:
First of all, I corne from Bunia. On the second war which started in 1998, when the war
reached Kisangani, the two Govemors i.e. the people who were the Govemor and bis Vice
all of them run away because an order had been given that all the Tutsi were to be killed.
So they had to run away to save their lives. Because they themselves had killed the Tutsis.
And they knew that the people who were going to take over the city were Tutsis.
Asst. Lead Counsel:
So which Govemors were these, ofwhere?
Miss Adele Mugisa:
There are two gentlemen here, one of them was called Yagisitoro and the second one was
Obotelanowel. So they run away and when soldiers of RCD entered the city there was no
authority goveming the city.
Asst. Lead Counsel:
That is in Bunia.
Miss Adele Mugisa:
No, no, we are in Kisangani.
Asst. Lead Counsel:
Okay, okay.
Miss Adele Mugisa:
So we had to find people to talk to, we had to find political authorities to take charge. And
the group which took over said that; this time we would like to have a woman leader. So
they went around the people in Kisangani and made the necessary consultations, so the
people gave in a number of names and finally they said that the woman who can do that
here in Kisangani is myself. And then I was contacted by Rwandan officers. Several titnes
they refused to send cars to fetch me where I was, and then finally they got me to work for
URAnnex78
4
22/3/02 (1)
them. So I went to see an officer and I discussed with that officer and then I responded to
all the questions he asked me. And he told me that he wanted me to be in the
administrative team which he wanted to set up. After examining this question / after
looking at it I said; why shouldn't I take this position. And I told them that I want to be
one of the Vice Governors, they then told me that you will be the first Vice Governor.
That is to say that there were two geqtlemen there was the governor then me as the first
Vice Governor and another vice governor. And we were presented to the people of
Kisangani in September 1998 and we begun to work.
Asst. Lead Counsel:
But the people who approached you earlier to which organization did they belong?
Miss Adele Mugisa:
They were Rwandan army officers. We began to work and in February ...
Asst. Lead Counsel:
Ofwhich year?
Miss Adele Mugisa:
Of the next year i.e. 1999 we were sworn in, in Goma.
Justice D. Porter:
At that time September 1998 where was the UPDF?
Miss Adele Mugisa:
When the war reached Kisangani the first army men we saw in Kisangani were Rwandans.
The Ugandans were also there but they were a bit far in the forest at about 17 km away
along the international airport of Bangoka. But it is not Ugandans who contacted me, I
was contacted by Rwandan officers. Can I go on please?
Asst. Lead Counsel:
For how long did you remain in that position which you were appointed?
Miss Adele Mugisa:
Be patient, I am going stèp by step.
Asst. Lead Counsel:
Okay. Continue from the point of swearing in.
5
URAnnex78
22/3/02 (1)
Miss Adele Mugisa:
We begun to work but I had a problem because I don't want to claim that I am doing
something when I am not doing it in reality. I had been appointed as a vice govemor of
that province was called the Upper Zaïre. Here you use the term district but this district
has got the surface area ofthis district called Upper Zaïre it was 53239 sq km. And I don't
know that surface area how many U gandans would get in it, but this area there are no
roads. That applies to the whole of Congo there are no roads in this country. In this area
there are no radio calls.
Justice D. Porter:
Nowbat?
Miss Adele Mugisa:
You cannot use radio calls, there are no phones, there are no communications.
Justice D. Porter:
Alright.
Miss Adele Mugisa:
There is no single means of communication. In reality we were concemed with goveming
Kisangani and I was not happy with this. I was not in charge of this area that I have
indicated. There was also another problem for me. This place where I was that is Ituri it
was already a province by 1962 it had been there. And when Mobutu came into power he
crossed out this province for reasons which be never said. And ever since the people of
Ituri were reclaiming their province. And during the National Conference in Congo which
took place in 1991 it was agreed that the whole of Congo be divided into 28 provinces and
in this Ituri was supposed to be one of the provinces. But this project never took off, it was
never realized and once again for the reason that was never said. So I found out that this
was the opportunity for me to reintroduce this project since really the people of the area
wanted this province to be in place. I also had other problems which I had on me which I
was seeing around me. And whenever I used to interact with Gen. Kazini I found him
receptive. And since he was the one in charge of security in this area all the time I was
asking him to take care of my security when I was in the process of fighting for this
province.
Justice D. Porter:
First of ail, the Rwandese went to Kisangani and now you are saying that Kazini was in
charge of the security and he is a Ugandan, can you explain how that happened please?
URAnnex78
6
URAnnex79

•
United Nations
Security Council Distr.: General
27 March 2002
English
Original: French
URANNEX79
S120021314
Letter dated 26 March 2002 from the Permanent Representative
of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to the United Nations
addressed to the President of the Security Council
On instructions from my Government, 1 have the honour to inform you that in
accordance with Security Council resolution 1399 (2002) of 19 March 2002 and the
decisions taken by the Political Committee of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo at its extraordinary meeting, held at Lusaka
on 20 March 2002, the Forces armées congolaises (FAC) have withdrawn from the
towns of Kayaya and Yayama.
My Government would like the United Nations Organization Mission in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) to visit the area to confirm that the
withdrawal bas indeed taken place. My Government would also be grateful if the
Security Council would instruct MONUC to deploy to Pweto and Moliro and to
report as soon as possible to enable the Council to take the appropriate measures.
My Govemment would like to remind the Council of the importance of ail
parties abiding scrupulously by ail the relevant provisions of Council resolution
1399 (2002) and all prior resolutions concerning the situation in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo.
My Government also wishes to draw the attention of the Security Co.uncil to
two other matters that are of particular concern:
1. Fighting in the high plateaux
Fighting involving battalions of the Rwandan Patriotic Army (APR) has been
reported in South Kivu, in the region of the high plateaux, and especially in the
Minembwe area. lt would be appreciated if the Council would request MONUC to
dispatch a team to the area to determine the exact nature of the conflict and to cairn
the situation.
2. Disturbing incidents at Goma
Tension bas been on the rise in the town of Goma since Friday, 22 March 2002.
On that day, a demonstration by primary and secondary school pupils and their
parents was harshly suppressed by elements of APR from Gisenyi, a Rwandan town
on the border with Goma.
02-30673 (E) 270302 270302
*0230673*
S/2002/314
2
On Sunday, 24 March 2002, a terrorist act was committed at Goma, in which
two young children and a visiting priest from the Tshumbe diocese, who were taking
part in the Easter procession, were killed. My Government requests the Council to
instruct the personnel of MONUC in plàce at Goma to conduct an investigation
aimed at bringing those responsible to justice.
Ail independent sources have implicated elements of APR in the throwing of
the grenade. While the motives are admittedly not clear, then: is every reason to
believe that a close connection exists between the demonstration by the pupils and
the terrorist attack regarded by the residents of Goma as a tactic to intimidate the
population and discourage further demonstrations.
My Govemment calls on the Security Council to condemn this barbarous and
unspeakable act, which increases the suffering and distress of an entire population
that bas yet to recover from the natural disaster caused only two months ago by the
eruption of the Nyiragongo volcano.
I should be grateful if you would have this letter circulated as a document of
the Security Council.
URAnnex79
(Signet!) Atoki Ileka
Ambassador
Permanent Representative
URAnnex80

URANNEXSO
IRINNEWS.ORG
DRC: Focus on the results of the inter-Congolese dialogue
[ This report does not necessarily reflect the views of the United Nations]
KINSHASA, 25 Apr 2002 (IRIN) - The agreement reached late last week between the
government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) and the rebel Mouvement pour la
liberation du Congo (MLC) was signed by more than 70 percent of the delegates taking part in
the inter-Congolese dialogue (ICD) in Sun City, South Africa. This is according to the research
firm Bureau d'etudes, de recherche et de consulting international (BERCI), which has a
reputatlon for being independent.
Of about 366 delegates at the ICD, at least 258 had signed the agreement, BERC! reported,
and other signatures could follow shortly. Besides the government and MLC delegations, all
but about five civil society delegates, at least 30 of 69 unarmed opposition delegates, the
Rassemblement congolais pour la democratie-Mouvement pour la liberation (RCD-ML), and
RCD-Nationale (RCD-N) had supported it.
The rebel Rassemblement congolais pour la democratie (RCD-Goma), which condemned the
agreement, on Monday gave the DRC government and MLC a week to return to the talks in
Sun City, or face unspecified consequences. So far, no RCD delegate had defected to the proKinshasa
coalition, a pro-government source told IRIN, but some RCD members were expected
to do so if they were assured of appointments to government posts.
Notably, the political parties best known for combating the DRC's past dictatorships have so
far not signed up to the deal.
These include the Union pour la democratie et le progres social (UDPS) led by Etienne
Tshisekedi, Parti des Lumumbistes unifies (PALU) led by Antoine Gizenga, Forces Novatrices
pour l'Union et la Solidarite (FONUS) led by Joseph Olenghankoy, Mouvement des
Nationalistes congolais (MNC-L) led by Francois Lumumba, and the G4 group of four parties
led by Mbwebwe Kabamba. A spokesman for the MNC-L told IRIN, however, that the party
would consider whether to sign at a general meeting.
There were reports last week that the UDPS would try to form an alternative government with
Tshisekedi as president. However, a member of FONUS, John Masudi, said the proposai had so
far failed to win sufficient support from other opposition parties,
SUMMARY OF THE AGREEMENT:
The agreement, which was first announced on 18 April, is entitled the "Political agreement on
consensual management of the transition in the Democratic Republic of the Congo".
Sorne of its clauses specifically refer to the inclusion of the RCD in a new government, and of
RCD troops in a new army, but these will presumably remain a dead letter until the RCD
agrees to sign up toit, or a new agreement is reached.
The agreement allows the current president, Joseph Kabila, to retain his post during the .
transition and until elections are held, and creates several new institutions, notably the post of
prime minister - to be filled by the MLC leader, Jean-Pierre Bemba - an assembly, a senate
and a senior army council.
The president will be supreme commander of the army, which he will control through a senior
army council, the agreement states. A law, yet to be passed, will determine the precise powers
and functioning of this council.
The president will nominate and revoke ministers and senior officiais with the countersignature
of the prime minister, who will be the head of government, and preside at the
council of ministers.
The delegations that attended the ICD dialogue are expected to submit lists of candidates for
posts in the new government. The prime minister will have the power to turn down a
candidate after consultation with the group concerned, the agreement states. The president
will have the power to turn down candidates for posts concerned with the ministries of foreign
affairs, defence and the interior.
"Given the consensual character of the transition, the assembly cannot vote a motion of no
confidence in the prime minister and his government," says the text of the agreement. "Except
in cases of treason, extortion or corruption, the president of the republic, the prime minister
and the presidents of the assembly and senate will remain in office throughout the transition."
The assembly will consist of 425 members designated by the groups represented at the ICD,
and the senate of 65 members.
A mechanism will be established for the formation of a new national army, which will comprise
government, MLC and RCD forces, says the agreement. RCD-ML, RCD-N and the Mayi-Mayi will
also be part of this mechanism.
A working group will be established to develop a transitional constitution for the country.
CONGOLESE REACTIONS TO THE AGREEMENT
Results of a recent opinion poil by the research firm BERCI suggest that the agreement is
likely to meet with approval from many, if not most, Congolese people.
The poll - which surveyed 1,011 people and was conducted from 3 to 7 April, i.e. before the
agreement was announced - found that 71 percent of respondents in Kinshasa thought a
power-sharing deal between Kabila and Bemba would be "a good thing". A total of 54 percent
of respondents in the four other towns surveyed - Kananga, Matadi, Mbandaka and Bandundu
- approved of the same.
Asked about a power-sharing deal between Kabila, Bemba and the RCD president, Adolphe
Onusumba, 68 percent approved in Kinshasa, and 53 percent in the other cities.
Approval ratings for a deal between Kabila and Onusumba on their own were lower, averaging
around 30 percent, and deals involving another RCD personality, Bizima Karaha, recorded a 20
percent approval rate or less.
The researchers also asked respondents whom they would choose as prime minister. In
Kinshasa, Tshisekedi (UDPS) topped the poil with 21 percent, followed by Antoine Gizenga
(PALU) with 10 percent, and Bemba (MLC) and Joseph Olenghankoy (FONUS) with 6 percent
each.
In the other cities, Tshisekedi scored an average of about 40 percent, Gizenga 2 percent,
Bemba about 3 percent and Olenghankoy about 4 percent. Cardinal Monsengwo scored 49
percent in one town, but only 3 percent elsewhere. Joseph Kabila was not considered for the
prime ministerial post.
URAnnex80
rather than a rotating presidency (25 percent) as initially proposed by the MLC, or a system
with two vice-presidents {23 percent) as implied by the scenario proposed by South African
President Thabo Mbeki.
(Notably, the poll was only conducted in government-controlled territory, so the results may
reflect a reluctance at the time of the poll to admit support for rebels such as Bemba or
Onusumba.)
INTERNATIONAL REACTIONS TO THE AGREEMENT:
The facilitator of the dialogue, Ketumile Masire, has stressed that the agreement was reached
outside the framework of the ICO and has called for a continuation of the ICD in reduced form.
This suggestion has been rejected by the DRC government. Meanwhile, diplomatie sources in
Sun City have said the government and MLC will no longer accept Masire as facilitator.
A spokesman for Mbeki has stressed that a partial agreement will not end the conflict in ORC
or solve the country's problems. However, some South African officiais have privately
congratulated members of the RCD-ML for signing up to it.
The UN Security Council has welcomed the "significant progress" made in the talks, stating
that the agreement "could facilitate the political transition and help to consolidate the regional
peace process in the country". In a statement issued on 23 April, the Council said the fact that
some participants in the ICD, in particular the RCD, had declined to be parties to the accord
"threatens the hopes of peace that emerged in Sun City". France, Britain and Belgium also
issued a joint statement supporting the agreement.
The US embassy in Kinshasa said: "The Sun City sessions of the inter-Congolese dialogue
concluded Friday April 19 at Sun City without agreement among the Congolese participants.
We continue to strongly urge all parties to the conflict in Congo to resolve their differences in
negotiations. The inter-Congolese dialogue is a process, and it represents a crucial opportunity
to achieve a lasting peace. While the conference as a whole did not reach a final agreement at
Sun City, we are encouraged by the fact that some progress towards designing transitional
government arrangements was made."
Unofficially, however, during the closing stages of the dialogue, an official from the US
embassy expressed the view "that no party should be allowed to hold the dialogue hostage".
Zimbabwean officiais are saying they back the government-MLC agreement, as are Ugandan
officiais.
Meanwhile, in a statement issued by the Rwandan government - which backs the RCD - the
agreement was described as "a non-starter". The statement said the deal was "an act of
defiance against the Congolese people, the facilitator, the host country, and all the signatories
of the Lusaka agreement", and that "Bemba sold his movement and his erstwhile allies down
the drain".
It said the deal sought to consolidate Kabila's hold on power while ignoring the other parties,
and had contemptuously left the political opposition and the civil society delegation out. In line
with the RCD position, Kabila's government supports a return to Sun City to continue
discussions in a "follow-up committee".
[ENDS]
URAnnex80

URAnnex81

URANNEX81
IRINNEWS.ORG
DRC-RWANDA: Kabila, Kagame sign peace pact
© ANC
President Thabo Mbeki: South
Africa brokered the peace
accord
NAIROBI, 30 Jul 2002 (IRIN) - Presidents Paul Kagame of
Rwanda and Joseph Kabila of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo (DRC) signed an agreement on Tuesday to end the
conflict between their two countries.
A memorandum of understanding and a timescale for the
implementation of the accord were signed in Pretoria, South
Africa, in the presence of South African President Thabo Mbeki,
chairman of the African Union (AU); Malawi President Bakili
Muluzi; South African Deputy President Jacob Zuma; South
African Foreign Minister Nkosazana Dlamini; Deputy Special
Representative of the UN Secretary-General to the DRC Lena
Sundh; and members of the diplomatie corps accredited to
South Africa.
Speaking on the South African Broadcasting Corporation from
the ceremony at the presidential guesthouse in Pretoria, Kabila
said, "Today must be considered as a great day for the whole of
Africa, one step more towards the sustainable development of
the continent.
"The Congolese people, their government, and I are determined
to live in harmony with the nine countries with which we share borders."
Kabila gave assurances that his government would apply "in all good faith" today's
commitments, adding, "If there is any failure of this agreement, it won't be because of a
failure on the part of the DRC government."
He called on the "entire international community", including the UN and its Security Council in
particular, to support peace in the region, and thanked "ail those who never ceased giving
their energy so that this day would arrive".
For his part, Kagame called the accord "a big step in the direction of resolving the conflict in
the DRC, Burundi, Rwanda, among other countries".
He said: "This agreement is important in many aspects, as it addresses two of the core issues
that underlie conflict in the region - one, how to deal with the ex-FAR [former Rwandan armed
forces] and Interahamwe [Hutu extremist militia] and two, it paves the way for the withdrawal
of forces who are involved in this conflict from the DRC."
However, he warned that the agreement would not succeed without the support of the entire
continent of Africa and the entire international community.
"As the international community has historically been part of the problem, they must be part
of the solution," he said.
He accused the international community of having provided "more lip service than application
of its capacities" to bring peace to the region.
Kagame closed his speech saying, "On behalf of my country, I wish to express that Rwanda is
ready to fulfil its part of the obligation as agreed in this Memorandum of Understanding."
Following the signing of the documents, Mbeki promised that the AU, the UN and South Africa
would all help to implement the accord.
The peace agreement commits the DRC to locating and disarming Rwandan Interahamwe Hutu
militias and ex-FAR - the forces responsible for the 1994 genocide in Rwanda who remain
active in the DRC; collaborating with the UN Mission in the DRC {known by its French
acronym, MONUC) to dismantle the Interahamwe and ex-FAR; and repatriating all Rwandan
ex-combatants to Rwanda, including some 2,000 presently at a UN base in Kamina, Katanga
Province, southeastern DRC.
As for Rwanda, its government agreed to withdraw its troops from the DRC "as soon as
effective measures have been taken to address security concerns in the DRC, in particular the
dismantling of the Interahamwe and ex-FAR", an official statement from the Rwandan capital,
Kigali, said.
A 90-day programme for the implementation of the agreement has been outlined and agreed
upon by both countries.
Meanwhile, the Ugandan government-owned daily newspaper, The New Vision, reported on
Monday that a new peace plan for the DRC involving the Rwandan-backed· rebel
Rassemblement congolais pour la democratie (RCD-Goma) was being developed.
"The new arrangement, which is geared towards the formation of an acceptable interim
administration, is in advanced stages," James Wapakhabulo, the Ugandan third deputy prime
minister, was quoted by the paper as saying. He said Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni was
in touch with his counterparts in Kigali and the DRC capital, Kinshasa, on the new
arrangement.
Under the arrangement, Kabila would remain the interim president and have two vicepres!
dents - one from-RCD-Goma and the other from the Mouvement de libeïâtiûn du Cûngo of
Jean-Pierre Bemba. The new plan would supersede the 19 April accord reached at the
conclusion of the inter-Congolese dialogue in Sun City, South Africa, by which Kabila would
serve as president and Bemba as his prime minister.
Last week, Museveni briefed Bemba on the new initiative; however, sources told The New
Vision that Bemba had not yet accepted it.
[ENDS]
URAnnex81
URAnnex82

URANNEX82
Associated Press Newswires
Copyright 2002. The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.
Wednesday, July 31, 2002
Zimbabwe pledges troop withdrawal from Congo
By MICHAEL HARTNACK
Associated Press Writer
HARARE, Zimbabwe (AP) - Zimbabwe pledged Wednesday to withdraw its
troops from Congo if a new peace deal between the Congolese and Rwandans
aimed at ending the four year long war was implemented.
The agreement, signed Tuesday, was hailed as a key step in efforts to
end a war that has embroiled six African nations, including Zimbabwe,
and .has and left 2.5 million people dead.
"As soon as the Lusaka Agreement is fulfilled we will certainly
withdraw our troops immediately," Foreign Minister Stan Mudenge told
journalists.
The new agreement is considered an extension of another peace accord
signed by all warring parties in the Zambian capital Lusaka .in 1999.
Beth accords call for Rwanda to pull out its estimated 30,000
soldiers if the Congolese government agreed to round up, disarm and
repatriate thousands of Rwandan rebels who have used the country as a
base for attacks on Rwanda.
Mudenge would not comment on how many Zimbabwean soldiers were
currently in Congo but about 8,000 troops are estimated to be there.
Their presence has been a drain on the already crippled Zimbabwean
economy.
War broké out in Congo in August 1998 when Rwanda and Uganda backed
Co11golese rebels seeking to oust then-President Laurent Kabila, accusing
him of supporting rebels who threatened their security. Angola, Zimbabwe
and Namibia sent troops to support the government.
An estimated 2.5 million people have died - mainly from war-induced
hunger and disease - in the conflict in Congo, a resource-rich central
African nation about the size of Western Europe.
In another development in Zimbabwe Wednesday, a small group of
independent journalists said they were challenging a harsh new media law
in the Supreme Court.
The Independent Journalists Association said the regulations of the
media law breached constitutional rights of free expression and
association, said the group's spokesman, Abel Mutsakani.

URAnnex83

URANNEX83
Friday August 30 11 :37 AM EST
Heritage Delays Maiden Uganda Oil Drilling to Sept
By Raj Rajendran
LONDON (Reuters) - Canadian independent Heritage Oil Corp (Toronto:HOCa.TO - news) bas
delayed its maiden exploratory drilling in frontier western Uganda to September, its chief
executive officer said on Friday.
The drilling, whlch the company hopes will live up to seismic findings and tum into a world
class wildcat strike, was orginally scheduled to start earlier this month.
"We haven't started drilling .. .it's been delayed by a couple of bits of equipment. Intemally we are
talking about the first week or second week ofSeptember," Heritage CEO Michael Wood told
Reuters in a telephone interview.
"Everything we now need is in the country."
Woods said the company's work schedule was also hit by wet weather after early rains slowed
down trucks carrying equipment to the drilling site.
The onshore drilling site is about 265 kms (165 miles) west of the capital Kampala on Block 2
which straddles part of Lake Albert. The rig will hit a secondary target first at 1,200 meters and
than the main target at 2,500 meters.
Heritage is the operator of the block which it co-owns 50:50 with South Africa's Energy Africa
(ENRJ.J). Uganda has plotted out five blocks along its western border and only one other block
has been farmed out.
Woods said the company was still in talks with neighboring Demoractic Republic of Congo
(DRC) to finalise a production sharing contract in the country's former rebel-held eastem region,
one of Africa's most lawless areas.
The East African Rift basin covers a large area on either side of the Uganda/Congo border.
Further north, a world-class discovery was made in Sudan several years ago by a Talisman
(Toronto:TLM.TO - news) led consortium and currently 230,000 barrels of oil is pumped out
daily.
One well was drilled in Lake Albert by Shell (RD.AS)(SHEL.L) back in 1938 when it found
traces of oil but this was not pursued further.
Woods said the drilling site was not very far from the violent areas in the DRC but emphasized
that the company has a good security set-up. The latest skirmish involving local tribes took place
about 50 kilometers away.
"We have extremelv eood close coooeration and liaison with the U!!andan Peoole's Defense
army," be said.
Woods said the Ugandan army bas a big deployment in the area and the local brigade has daily
briefings and weekly meetings witb the drilling team.
"Nothing bas happened to give any concem but it's a bit like having an insurance policy," he
said.
The long-running war in the Congo, wbich involved troops from several neighboring African
states inclilding Uganda and Rwanda, is slowly coming to end but localised fighting continues to
plague the region.
Copyright © 2002 Reuters Limited. AU rights reserved. Republication or redissemination of the contents of this
screen are expressly prohibited without the written consent ofReuters Limited
URAnnex83
-2-
URAnnex84

ll[FCca::mnr::r;;::Fz:a ➔ =Ma+ a&&, t~t~··arE:h1Eië·t ◄ n;;;;;,i .. it&•âi·a~s-w1 : nec~~ URANNEX84
1
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE GOVERNMENTS OF THE
DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO AND THE
REPUBLIC OF UGANDA ON \VITHDRA \VAL OF UGANDAN
TROOPS FROM THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE
CONGO, COOPERATION AND NORMALISATION OF
RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES
PREAMBLE
The Govemment of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (hereinafter
referred to as "the DRC") and the Govemment of the Republic of Uganda
(hereinafter referred to as "the GOU"), both hereinafter referred to as "the
Parties", under the facilitation and auspices of the Govemment of thê
Republic of Angola;
Reiterating the principle of respect for national sovereignty, territorial
integrity, non-use of force against each other, peaceful resolution of
conflicts, and non-interference in the internai affairs of States, guided by
the United Nations and the African Union (AU) Charters;
Considering that Article 52 of the United Nations (UN) Cha11er provides
for the pursuit of regional initiatives, with a view to uphold these principles
in enhancing relations among States and the establishment of a peaceful
atmosphere of security and stability along common borders;
Reaffirming ail pertinent resolutions of the United Nations Security
Council on the DRC.
Conscious of the need to give- impetus to the stalled ·implementation of the
Lusaka Cease•fire Agreement;
Further considering the need to nonnalize relations, build confidence and
bring about good neighbourliness in order to contribute to the speedy
pacification of Central Africa and the Great Lakes Region and put an end to
insecurity and instability;
Conscious of the potential their joint action can contribute towards
removing obstacles to the full normalization of relations between the two
countries;
:--. wu q.;..,:•:• ~"•.---t-r~~~-••• •~• ~~:::. :':~:,.~.. :~ •• ,:.":!.::..-:-;~~,-,~~,..~ . ..::.:.: ~-• .... :::::::zs:m,e:••! . ..!'...--..,•=..:~::-..~•••~•~
Convinced that peace, security and stability of the Parties constitute
essential factors for their development;
Hercby agrcc as follows:
ARTICLE 1
WITHDRA WAL OF UGANDAN TROOPS
I. The GOU commits itself to the continued withdrawal of its forces
from the DRC in accordance with the Implementation Pian marked
Annex 'A' and attached hereto.
2: The GOU has unilaterally and unconditionally issued orders to her
troops in Gbadolite, Beni and their vicinities to immediately
withdraw from DRC.
3. The Parties agree to put in place, with the assistance of the United
Nations Organisation Mission in the Democratic Republic of. the_
Congo( MONUC), a Joint Pacification Committee on Ituri consisting
of the Parties, political, military, economic and social forces active in
the Bunia area, and the inhabitant grassroots communities. ln
addition thereto, Uganda re-afürms her readiness to withdraw her
troops from Bunia as stipulated in Annex ·A•.
4. The Parties agree that the Ugandan troops shall remain on the slopes
of Mt. Ruwenzori until the Panies put in place security mechanisms
guaranteeing Uganda' s security, includ ing training and coordinated
P?trol of the common border.
5. The DRC and the GOU undertake to keep the Govemment of the
Republic oî Angoia infonned on the progress of the withdrawal of
Ugandan troops.
· ARTICLE 2
SECURITY CONCERNS
ln order îo respect national sovereignty, te1Titorial integrity, political
independence as well as international borders, the parties agree as
follows:
URAnnex84
;~
..... • if , ... ~ ·-: -··'·!:."'! 3&h5WWW -··- • .!... •••• •.,: ... fi~·-~·. · .... -.... -=. ..... .:J!iWe-·.- --; -·:.-.. "!-~~ ... --_ --·· .... !E;i
1. To \vork towards th(! rcstoration of the dignity and so\'ereignty of th~
DRC as well as address Uganda's security concems.
2. To refrain from all types of military and logistical support including
the provision of bases and sanctuary to the anned groups, inter•
ethnie -militia, subversive organisations and ail rebel movements
againslthe interests of the Parties.
3. To work closely together in order to expedite the pacification of the
DRC territories currently under the Uganda control and the
nonnalization of the situation along the cmnmon border.
4. To exchange intelligence on ail matters of security interest among
them.
ARTICLE 3
DIPLOMATIC COOPERATION
The Parties agree to cooperate in etTorts to restore full diplomatie
relations.
ARTICLE 4
LEGAL RELATIONS
The Parties agree to find a mutually acceptable fotmula of resolving any
existing or arising legal issues between them.
ARTICLE 5
DEFENCE AND SECURITY COOPERATION
The Parties agree to cooperate in the areas of defence and security
including trammg, coordinated border patrols, exchange of
intelligence and liaison work. ·
3 URAnnex84
..
ARTICLE 6
SOCIAL/ ECONOMIC COOPERATION
The Parties agree to re-establish the Joint Ministerial Commission
for cooperation in the various areas, including trade and investment,
infrastructure, transport, communications and cultural exchange.
ARTICLE 7
-coNFLICT RESOLUTION
The Parties agree to resolve any future difîerences between them
through dialogue and any other peacefül means.
ARTICLES
11\'lPLEMENTATïûN/REVIE\V l\lECHAN!SM
1. The Parties will, among others, implement this Agreement as
stipulated in Annex 'A'.
2. The Parties in collaboration with the Republic of Angola, agree to
have regular review for the effective implementation of this
Agreement.
ARTICLE9
AMENDMENTS
This Agreement may be amended by the mutual writt~n consent of
the Parties.
URAnnex84
-·~.-.-··~·
ARTICLE 10
COMMENCEMENT
This Agreement shall corne into force upon signature.
In witness whereof, the Parties have signed this Agreement in the
Portuguese, English and French languages, ail texts · being equally
authentic.
DONE AT LUANDA, ANGOLA, THIS SIXTH DA Y OF
SEPTEMBER 2002.
FOR THE GOVERNMENT
OF THE DEMOCRATIC
REPUBLIC OF . HE CONGO:
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
' \
,.
HE ABILA H OWERI K. MUSEVENI
PRESIDENT PRESIDENT
WITNESS
FOR THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF ANGOLA
SE EDUARDO DOS SANTOS
PRESIDENT
URAnnex84
Annex A
PLAN FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
GOVERNMENTS OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO AND TIIF.
REPUBLIC OF UGANDA ON THE WITHDRAWAL OF UGANDAN TROOPS
FROM THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF CONGO. COOPERATION AN__p
NORMALISATION OF RELATIONS BETWEEN THE TWO COUNTRIES.
Date EVENTS RESPONSiBiLITIES
1) Day - Signing of the agreement DRC. t_:ganda . .-\ngola
D-r 3 days- Detailed Withdraw Plan of Uganclan lJganda
troops from DRC.
0-,-5 days- Completion or LJgandan troops \\'Îthdr.nrnl l'.gamla
from Beni and Gbadolitc.
D - 7 <lays Experts mcct lû work out DRC. l ·ganda.
mcchanisms for sccuring the wcs11:rn
slopcs of X.Il. Rwcnzori.
D-I0days- \fretingof1echnical1cams for1hc DRC. l ganda. \tn,l·c
rnns1in11ion or the lluri Pacification
Committec (IPC).
D ·-14 days ;\•lceting of Joint Teehnical Commincc
on resolution oflegal issues
D + 14 days Meeting of technical teams in
Kinshasa on the openiilg of the
Uganda Embassy in DRC.
Q-, 20 days- Inauguration oflPC in Bunia.
D ~ 30 days- The IPC starts work.
> - 30 days \lccting of 1cchnical teams on dd'cncc
and sccuri1y coopcration.
URAnnex84
DRC. l·ganda
DRC. l 'ganda
DRC. 1 ·ganda. \IO;'\l T
DT 32 tlays ~linisterial meeting on defence and securuy
cooperation. DRC. l 'g,111d;1.
0+40 days- Decision on a mechanism to maintain IPC
law and order in Ituri Provinëe.
0+45 days- Establishment of Administrative authority IPC
in Iluri Province.
D-r10 days- Installation oflaw enforcemenl mcchanism IPC
to replace UPDF.
D + 70 days- Beginning of withdrawal of Ugandan
troops from Bunia. Ug,mda.
ù ""74 days Hando\'er and official opening DRC. 1.·ganda.
of the Uganda Embassy premiscs
in Kinshasa.
D+ 1 OO<lays- Completion of the establishment of IPC'
alternative Iaw enforcemem mechanism.
lJ-.-1 OOdays- Complction of the withtlrawal of rPDF l :ganda
Troops from Bunia.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------.--------
URAnnex84
FI:\! AL CO\'!\ Il.'-: 1 (>l ï':
At the invitarion of His Excellency Jose Eduardo dos Sa111os . Prcsidcm n,
the Republic -of Angola, their Excellencies Yowcri K. M uscven[ Presidem
of the Republic of Uganda, and Joseph Kabila. PresidcnL or the Dcmocratic
Republic of the Congo, met in Luanda. Republic of Angola on 6111
S~ptember 2002 in the presence of the Special Represcntativc or the l initcd
Nations Secr~tary General to the DRC. Mr. Amos Namanga Ngongi. in
order to · proceed with the signing. of an agreement bet\\:•ecn· the
Governments of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda on the
withdrawal ofUgandan troops from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
cooperation and nom1alization of relations between the two countries.
The Heads of Statc re\'Îewed the situation prc,·ailing in Cemrnl A fnca and
in the Great Lakes Region. in particular the cnnllict in the Dcmn1:ra1ic
Republic of the Congo.
The two guesl Heads of State had a fruit fui discussion in 1hc prc~cnce 1l,
th(:Îr host. on the mcans of pu11ing tu ,111 i:nd 1t, thi: i.:nnllicl. th~ hll.il
wi1i1clrawal of l ·gandan troops from 1hc DR<·. cot,111.:ration an,I th~·
normalisation of relations bct\\'een th\! 1,, 11 cm1111ri.::,.
At the end of their discussion. President Yo,, en \lusc,·c11i and Prcs1tknt
Joseph Kabila signcd the agreement in the prcsence or President .los.:
Eduard,1 dos Samos.
The two Heads of State expressed thcir gratitude to 1hcir hns1. th.:
Government and the people of the Republic of Angola. for thi: warm
welcomc and hospitality accordecJ to them and 1heir rcspcctin: ddcgations
duFÏng their stay in Luanda, Angola.
Donc. in Luanda 6th Scptember 2002.
URAnnex84
URAnnex85

URANNEX8S
· i ~ù ·. n-A-JJ 1 /'r(ls-ù K f't1'-.lt«.. Lu t--LU K, ~ o «2 o.\i.~ r. ~ 1
1-J ~-~lr,'-
~t : '.sb ~ ,tç· •
'Ï R d?.t ~ ~ Av:P A- ·
N ~ 1 ~ ,'f ~ Ü Q "'""" D ~ •
~~ l)~CE ~ k~~Pe-
~~ ttPÎ: ~- ~ G.ëi--.tL~ltL 5 "l:)\Qa.ÎlS>'l.n'".:
l>-A-, • ~~. .
E · f 7 Se.pi- Q.oo~ .
s:;~~~
r""""- '\ lû........ ~ 1o.,__,._ f .........:!>~• ---.::,w-. a, JI-.._,
~u-..~ pti._G ë:1:--:> "b~,\.è..St :-
lue. ~a.A. o.,m ... ~ tC(qc :~~t.- J
j"b-~ 8-- ~ iW- ,·~ ~-~
j' Cg_~ baa...uL i:)~"""-"-~ 1 ~ ,~,-12.~
1"'t ~I Nl-t>I v'ë:>Lu -..;.~'1 0:.-..t.o -~·-..Jl , ~-:) 1--"b
~-Pù ....ç. CLt ~u~ ,: &~.. n-lù2-. - ...
J_"- llf94-, l~PiY~ o..it"n..tu.bL Q_·-\Ya~ Ca....f
'1A. ~(.Q, ~-®·'·•-V~ .. Cll.- \r ~ ~
ç~~ ~ da-Ç.f'ùCiz ,~~ ~~ ~ (ah.CL
A\~ I""-. \kt,_Çqjf-c_..,_ ~ ~
-a.u..<9- ~-0...... ~~~ '"'- ,~ ~-.tfe.,-
fev...t.-&- Co~b• .
~ ~ ç~~~~-to f~·ë:c-~\
~ l-. g~ ~~ ·l.o--4_h,..J ~
t~ p~ ......... -r-~ ~ f"b \~ V\--~
~av~- -
r-\ V... (S~ t\c.c r-. --r ~~- 9-- ~ ~&
~tL t~ Cc· <f-b LtL-4..Q ~ -..D~- ~
\~ ~~ i"b ~ ~ lil"""'~~\;
-.::0~ \i-., ~h •, ~.D •...0 ~ ..C' : ;r-·-·--.:i_ ... t> t?!! -h..,-"'-,
URAnnex85
--~ ~ ~ r-zQl~ ~- ► SLA,,.t I'J
\~ ~ CQ._Q..."l:\ ~.è).. -~
~ -e~k! '--GJ ~ ~ ,~ ~l'\"'\ob1
~ ~""ë1t ~ d°"' ~ ~ ~
~ p~~ ~ t~ ~~
~l~.
~~~ l~ of.-,.:c~ l~p~
~~~&)~
'€~ l'--- ~~~ ~*•· ,boru\qcft
~ .J½"~ ~ aù..l<;:,"-'-Q~. 4"" ~
~""'- :t>Q..c.. a...=ù ~-p ~ ~ '1b ~ ~-
M ,.., ~ ~ ~r~ ~
~ -~ Ç'~~.., \~;::~1-, Tu-a._ l:r"< .. c.. u.-r
~.~ &Oç b-~.
~b 0.~. ~ le_, "'--~ p....y,, I"'-p~ \ :._,
M-.,~ '-\- ·-:~ (' f''-~~ Tir-
~ ~,,a..~vvo ~ \~
~G(.v--, 3'D~.
i ~ \~ "-cu__~\....Q_ 9'1:> .. ,. 0 .... ~-~ "'°--0 o_la1:>
~ ~ ¼-. H-~i:I \'Y""' ~--y= (f--,""--
;"b~ ~~ ~.......,_~ p~ ~~
~ç\,_0..✓-)~ ~o \~~ ~ p~.o
~ +u_ ,~~ b~ ..
~
~ y',./)-
~ ')" Ç~g_ ,,.o
f\ ~~ 4\W...l \,(A l'J'"D-Q.€,
~. rt-f¼i 1 <;;;.-+,.n~ •
URAnnex85

URAnnex86

~Ç \ μ_O ~ ..h f(,.( ~4 l,,Jln) ~ tt-f'i'Ï; ct"rfht'\.'M.m.ù "'J,)FrY\ l1r •
ftt:.tE ,, 6 ~ ·-o~-~ •
Î R 1 €.é: ~ ftv..,-'b-A
~.~.,.., ·,. ~~r-p~
URANNEX86
~-ê:-S, I>'B,Sè:.c- ~ k.1\ï-<..1wD'-f E ;K--Lt/11'"12-trK. ""tznu-s.
~ é ~ 1+~1= ae-o.Q ·
s~~~ :
j_a.v... ~ ~ Ob~ (f a.,.:;f\~ -~ ô ~
~ ..... ~ RA; ~ ~ t)--él~ •..
n-~ ~ t~94 ~.._ JJ-,>--~
~ u IJ F-M / A t "- ~cLL-
1. "Ch~ ~ ~"'-- )&~te"'- °i)~ -+allu ...,.1l
t"Q:-~~ ... - a • Q ~ ,-"-' i ~ ·--.~ ~ ~eoo .
ï~ ,~-~r--e-~ (<t.qR LM-.Q... (üμfwt/A-) ,~
~ t.>- ct.LL....~ \A CQ \,J"\ tt:... ~ --JrO-Y::: \ ;:_
)tWbt-z,,· . -cx.v.c) ~~'--• ....._
~ ~-- a1r- o:.:.tL1-.~c:.o ~,r:;7·t~
r t,._, t ~ q>~, { C CIL'-.12 7"'>·~ S'i-6--- cJ fv._Q
i~,lc~ ~ ~t.-~~c '--- ~ ~
11,..- ~ ...... ~ "'-'--itt=::.. lk~.
lkR.. ctQ .. ~ ~~~..-c, ~0-'o~?.
U..'-\~)-,c..~ ~,.~~ f~-~I.~
~1> ·"T'=> t~~ b~ .
~~ ~---n, ... j\~r ~ ~~ ~
Ç{:) CLR.R_ \"j-u--- ~--~ ~ ~ "ë)-.
€~~ "CL--c9. \v-.._Q_v-,... f-----~ t-ltc~
to~-l~~. Lvs.,,~tr-,-:j
~~ 5~ ...... r, .. c- ~ 1~ i
~~c:9- .f,v· f~v CLA O-C.0-~4 -ci:)
~~-
-~"'Ç ~.e.ruL o,..1/.ob ~~ '1._ U>,.
(f--c.,_f ~Jl. ~.-Ji.o ~ • ~UI.AR.
~,._.,o •.• J- tr ~ -t-\~ •
~ ~\loo,,:-p ~ Î\>.Q_, ~-~-w~ j
~ 'ê) ~ \~~ "b ~ ~~ \
URAnnex86
t ~~\ ~ ~€Q~ cb~-'2-- ta~c:.~ ~
' Ci. ~.. k:>~ ~ J) ~ tJ..,.......~\ F·~--'h~
~"'----u,.., ~ ~ k:ie ~ ~ ~ \-e. & -;,. ~<.L
~~· ~~ ~ ~.
~~~~-09-
~ .. U:rti--fl\M.~ p(,\.~(.w tJ E:rV •
URAnnex86

URAnnex87

URANNEX87
THE OF REPUBLIC UGANDA
IN THE MA TTER OF THE STATUTOR Y DECLARA TI ONS ACT, 2000
AND
IN THE MA TTER OF
THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CASE CONCERNING ARMED ACTIVJTIES ON THE TERRITORY OF THE CONGO
(DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO VS UGANDA)
AFFIDAVIT
l, Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya Cos, do hereby solemnly make oath and state as follows:
1. That I am an adult male Ugandan of sound mind.
2. That I have a doctorale in medicine; I received my medical training at Khakav Medical
School.
3. Thal J hold a Doctorate in Human Medicine from Khakav Medical School.
4. That I am also currently Uganda's Minister of State for Energy and Minerai
Development, and am also a Member of Parliament of the Republic of Uganda.
5. That in addition to the above portfolios, 1 officially retain the status of Uganda's
Ambassador to the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC).
6. That I have, however, not been in residence in Kinshasa since August 1998.
7. That I initially assumed the post of Ambassador to the DRC (then Zaïre) in November
1996 during the reign of President Mobutu Ssese Seko.
8. That during August 1998, I and other Ugandan personnel were forced to flee Kinshasa
due both to the generally prevailing climate of insecurity, and to various attacks on our
embassy and Ugandan Nationals by soldiers of the Congolese Armed Forces (FAC).
9. That as a result of the haste of .our departure from Kinshasa, and because the FAC
specifically refused to allow us to take documents with us, we were forced to leave
behind many documents and other items in the Ugandan Embassy in Kinshasa.
l O. That as of this date, neither I nor any other member of the Ugandan Government has
returned to our embassy in Kinshasa, which was ransacked by members of the FAC in
September and October 1998.
11. That among the documents left behind in locked file cabinets in our embassy in Kinshasa
were certain classitied intelligence documents about which I alone among our embassy
personnel was aware.
12. That to the best ofmy knowledge and belief, at least some ofthese documents are located
nowhere else.
! 3. That among these documents are documents that clearly demonstrate that during the reign
of President Mobutu ofthen-Zaire, the Zairian government -- in conjunction with Sudan -
- was actively supporting and collaborating with anti-Ugandan insurgents operating from
Eastern Zaïre.
14. That for example, 1 specifically recall a document, signed by President Mobutu, calling
for the assassination of President Museveni of Uganda.
15. That afier the fall of the Mobutu government in 1997, President Laurent Kabila's regime
in the now-renamed DRC initially offered Uganda cooperation in dealing with the longstanding
problem of anti-Ugandan insurgents operating from the territory of the DRC.
16. That indeed, there were efforts towards joint military operations between the Uganda
Peoples Defiance Forces and the FAC targeting the insurgents.
17. That in mid-1998, however, the degree of President Kabila's cooperation that I observed
began to decline. Although the DRC's nominal policy remained one of cooperation right
up untîl August 1998, the actual cooperation dwindled to zero.
18. That prior to August 1998, President Kabila and other elements of the DRC regime began
actively supporting and collaborating with anti-Ugandan forces including insurgents
known as the Allied Democratic Forces (ADF) as well as Sudan.
19. That also among the intelligence documents located in the Ugandan embassy in Kinshasa
are documents evidencing these facts as well.
20. That for example, I recall a document conceming the fact that the Sudanese government
· was supplying ADF rebels operating out of Eastern Congo with arms and ammunitions
the knowledge and consent of the DRC government.
21. That if given a chance to return to Kinshasa, I would know precisely where to find these
documents as my memory is sufficiently specific that I can even remember in which
drawer ofwhich file cabinet they are located.
22. Thal given the facts that the embassy was ransacked, and that it has been outside the
control of the Ugandan govemment for over four years, however, I can, of course, no
longer guarantee the documents remain where I lefi them.
URAnnex87
23. That it has corne to my attention that the DRC claims to have captured Ugandan soldiers
who allegedly participated in the attack launched by Rwanda in Western Congo in early
August 1998. As Uganda's Ambassador to the DRC at that time, it was my duty to know
about all such matters.
24. Thal there were no Ugandan military prisoners taken at the time of Rwanda's early
August push towards Kinshasa. The only Ugandans ofwhich I am aware who were made
prisoner at the time were two Ugandan businessmen. But these were categorically not
Ugandan military personnel.
25. That in addition to the above facts, I am also familiar with many of the circumstances
surrounding the treatment of Ugandan nationals, including diplomatie personnel, and
attacks on our embassy in Kinshasa during August, September and October of 1998.
26. That in that connection, 1 have reviewed paragraphs 397-401 of Uganda's CounterMemorial
submitted to the Court in April 2001. 1 state without hesitation that to the best
of my current recollection, knowledge and beliefthat the facts stated therein are true.
27. That what is stated hereinabove is true to the best of my knowledge and belief
SWORN at Kampala by the said Dr. Kamanda Bataringaya Cos.
This ..•... day of .... ?-J.>. ( c>."1/ 2002 l h
·oEPONENT
~ A NOTARY PUBLIC
~----.j
URAnnex87

URAnnex88

'.
URANNEX88
i Status report.
Concerning the official r~idence or the ambassador and Chancery of the
Republic of Uganda in the Democratic Republic o_f Congo
Y car two thousand and rwo, the twenty eig}Jth day of the month ofSeptember, a joint
delegation Uganda-Congolese, -visited the Chancery and th. c official res.i4ence of the
ambassador of the Republic ofUganda in the Democratic Republic of Co;go.
The delegation was composed as follows:
• f'or Ug~da: .
· M'- ENOS B. KA WESA, Ambassador / Ministiy of Foreign Affiurs;
M. Emmanuel MALE, Ir /Ministry of the Wodcs;
M. J.B. OCANA. Counselor/Ministiy of Foreign Affairs;
• · Major Chris BBOSA. Joint Military Commission. ·
• ForDRC: 1
M. Chai-les KALANGILA, Ir /Counselor MinistryTPAT-UH;
M. Patrick rnJNEME, Ir/ Counselor Minisny TPAT-UH;
M. DIAMPAVA TANDU, Head Division/ Ministry TPATUH;
M. Omer TNGW ALA, Head Division/ Ministry TPAT-UH
M. KISALAY NIKISA, ChiefofOffice/ MinistryTPAT-U~.
Following this ~isit the delegarion noted the following:
1. CHANCERY
Situatedl at number 17, Tombalbaye Avenue in the township of the Gambe, the
complex. is enclosed and comprises of a main building and an amex.
1. 1. The main building
This building has .th ree (3) levels comprising of:
- offices on the Ground floor
- Two apartments on the I s, floor
An apartmcnt and 1;1:, accessible open tenace on the 2nd floor
1.2. The Aru\cx
This building has rwo (2) lt:vels consisting of:
2
• garages. toilcts and store on the ground floor.
• and an apartment.with an.op~n terrace on the. first floor.
The following defect!s were_ obse?Ved:
- cracks oftltejoints of the til~ on the roof
• damage to the parapet wall of the main building
- fa1dty plumbing and the sanit~ fittings
- missing êlectrical fittings, switches. distribution boards. lamp holders
and air conditioning 1
_ lack oflocks, window f asteners., one way Iocks, glasscs an'd mosquito
gauze
- missmg wooden anci metallic doors
• wom paint both inside and outside
- j broken down pipes _and some arc chocked
- , chaMel of waste and rain water not working
- · court yard in poo1: statc
2. OFFICIAL RESIDENCE
Situated at N~ 12, ·avenue de l'Ouganda in the Gambe, the residence is
enclosed in wirl1 a fence and comprises_ of a main building and an annex.
2.1 The main building bas two levels comprising:
• an open garage on the ground floor
• Th~ main residencc on the l !il tloor
2.2 The aimex has one lcvcl cor!sisting of staff qua11er and toilet.
The general condition of the building is good. however, lthe following repairs
are neeyssazy.
• ~ainting bath outside and inside
• painting of the perimeter wall
• improvernen{ of the diiveway and main cntiy covcr, storm water
channel and the compound in general .
• rcpair of joinery for windows and doors, electricity, plumbing and
sanita,y finings
• improvbment of carpets, doors cmtains, wmdows and repa.ii- of cracks,
ceramic 1iles of the rcar cntiancc, ail' conditioning, etc.
3. GENERAL OBSJi.RVATIONS
URAnnex;88
1 /4~/.
l
3 '
1 ' .
i) .
ii)
Al the tirne of the inspection. both premises were occupicd;
The joint delegation did not find any movablc propcrty belonging to the
Uganda embassy or its fonner offioials;
. 4. RECOMMANDATION
1
! . . .
The present report constitutes a preliminary inspcotiori only. A detailcd survey of
the work including quantities, sketches, costs and duration of rehâbilitation will be
undertaken latcr by th~ Congolcse side and a report made to the next meeting in
·Kampala. '
• For Uganda : . ..
ENOS B. KA WESA, Ambassador, ~
-'fi MALE. Engin~&J~.
!
'
J.B. OCÀN~ to Counselo~ •.
Major Chris_ B~OS~, Joint Military Commission.
• For DRC : · · · , V ·A Â
Charles KALANGILA, civil Enginecr, · ftt ~-l
Patrick ITUNEME, civil Enginecr, • -· Al
DTAMPAVA TANDU, Engineer,
1 . . .
OmerlN6WALA, Engincer BTP,
'z..
KISALA Y NIK
0
!SA, ~ngineer. Ji• .
URAnnex88

URAnnex89

S~;BC
l!lab~.cam
ÎÎttp:1/WWW,sabcn-uom
Uganda completes troop withdrawal from DRC town
September 28, 2002, 03:23 PM
URANNEX89
The Ugandan military said it had completed withdrawing its troops from the town of Gbadolite
in the north of the neighbouring Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), where they had been
backing rebels over the past four years.
"A final contingent of about 120 soldiers was flown from Gbadolite to Uganda's northern Gulu
region on Friday evening," said Colonel Potel Kivuna, the overall commander of Ugandan
forces in the DRC. "We riow have no soldiers in Gbadolite."
He said the only Ugandan forces now in the DRC were in the troubled northeastern town of
Bunia, where they had remained at the request of the UN observer mission to the DRC
(Monuc).
"Those will also be withdrawn when the UN finds a force to enforce law and order in that
area," said Kivuna.
About 1 000 Ugandan troops were stationed in Gbadolite, the home town of Mobutu Sese
Seko, the late Zairean dictator and now the headquarters of the rebel Congolese Liberation
Movement (MLC), which is backed by Kampala.
Another 1 000-strong Ugandan force remains in Bunia, which has seen weeks of fighting
among various ethnie groups.
Uganda deployed some 10 000 soldiers in eastern DRC in August 1998, ostensiblyto defend
itself against Ugandan rebels who were operating from rear bases in the DRC. However, the
troops ended up fighting alongside the MLC, one of two rebel groups fighting the Kinshasa
government led first by assassinated president Laurent Kabila and then his son Joseph.
Uganda and Rwanda accused Laurent Kabila of supporting rebel groups threatening their own
security. Uganda backed the MLC and Rwanda supported the rebel Congolese Rally for
Democracy (RCD).
Kabila responded by calling in troops from Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe to help his
government stem a rebellion that was poised to o~errun Kinshasa.
Rwanda and Zimbabwe began pulling their troops out of Congo a week ago, while Namibia
has already withdrawn its small contingent and Angola has only a small number of troops still
operating in the vast central African nation. - Sapa-AFP
Article printout courtesy of the South African Broadcasting Corporation.
Copyright ) 2000 SABC. See 'Disclaimer' ·

URAnnex90

MONUC URANNEX90
Mili~~-
15,312 Foreign Forces Withdrawn So Far, Says UN
IRIN/AII Africa Global Media
Kinshasa, Oct 02, 2002 (UN Integrated Regional Information Networks/AII Africa Global Media via
COMTEX) -- So far, 15,312 foreign troops have withdrawn from the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(DRC), Maj-Gen Mountaga Diallo, force commander of the UN Mission in the DRC, said on Wednesday.
He told reporters at a news conference in the Congolese capital, Kinshasa, that the departed troops
numbered 10,233 Rwandans, 2,287 Ugandans, 2,092 Zimbabweans and 700 Burundians.
The UN mission, known as MONUC, reported that there had been about 23,400 Rwandan troops in
ORC. Zimbabwe had the second-largest contingent of forces in the DRC, with some 12,000, followed
by Angola with about 8,000.
Meanwhile, as MONUC was announcing that the withdrawal of foreign troops from the DRC was
nearing its conclusion, the Association Africaine de Defense des Droits de l'Homme (ASADHO), a
national human rights NGO, reported the redeployment of Rwandan troops in South Kivu Province of
eastern DRC.
In a communique issued on Wednesday, ASADHO cited witnesses who reported that between 16 and
20 September, some 250 well-armed Rwandan soldiers re-entered the DRC via the city of Bukavu,
and headed inland toward Walungu and Kalehe in South Kivu.
"We saw new units cross the border at Rizizi 2 [a river] to enter South Kivu via Bukavu," ASADHO
quoted one witness as saying.
MONUC did not confirm this information, but instead noted its satisfaction with the ongoing withdrawal
of ail foreign forces. "Our observers are everywhere and have verified the withdrawal. In any event,
we will revisit ail locations occupied by various forces to verify the status of pull-outs," Diallo said in
.response to the ASADHO account.
For his part, the MONUC head and Special Representative of UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan, Amos
Namanga Ngongi, said he had confidence in ail parties to the withdrawal process. "Now is not the time
to make accusations against any party, as the process is progressing and the parties are respecting
and honouring their commitments," Ngongi said.
He added that the Rwandan withdrawal could be completed before the end of next week, ahead of the
agreed deadline. Rwanda has announced that the final stage of its withdrawal from the DRC was under
way, from South Kivu Province. Zimbabwe made a similar declaration, announcing that the final
withdrawal of its troops would begin on Friday, from the southeastern DRC city of Lubumbashî.
War in the DRC erupted more than four years ago when Rwanda and Uganda sent forces into the DRC
to back Congolese rebels seeking to topple the government of President Laurent-Desire Kabila - who
received the backing of forces from Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe to hait the offensive.
After Kabila's assassination in January 2001, his son Joseph became president and entered into
negotiations with Rwanda and Uganda. The withdrawal of their forces has corne in the wake of recent
bilateral agreements Kabila reached with the two countries.
Copyright UN Integrated Regional Information Networks. Distributed by Ali Africa Global
Media{AIIAfrica.com)

URAnnex91

Rwanda Completes Troop Withdrawal
UN Integrated Regional Information Networks
NEWS
October 7, 2002
Posted to the web October 7, 2002
Nairobi
URANNEX91
Rwanda completed its troop withdrawal from the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) on
Saturday, with the final group of 1,152 soldiers departing from Goma in theeast of the country,
Madnodje Mounoubai, a spokesman for the United Nations Mission in the DRC, known as MGNUC,
toldIRIN.
A final verification process would begin shortly to check each location where the soldiers had been
stationed, and which would allow MONUC to certify that Rwanda had completed its pull out, he
added on Monday.
The Rwandan army chief, Maj-Gen James Kabarebe, said that in return for the withdrawal, bis
country now expected the UN and the DRC government to disarm the Rwandan Hutu extremists still
hiding in the DRC, BBC reported.
Francois Grignon of the International Crisis Group think-tanktold IRIN that by completing the
withdrawal so speedily; the Rwandan government had successfully reclaimed the political initiative
in the Rwandan-Congolese conflict. "Since the withdrawal, no-one can say anything against them,"
he said.
The Rwandan govemment bas faced intense international criticism over its exploitation ofnatural
resources in the DRC, coupled with political pressure to withdraw its forces from DRC territory.
Under the Pretoria agreement, signed on 30 July, presidents Joseph Kabila of the DRC and Paul
Kagame of Rwanda agreed on the withdrawal of the Rwandan troops in exchange for the DRC's
disarmament, demobilisation and repatriation of former Rwandan soldiers and oftheir Interahamwe
Hutu extremist militia, together generally held responsible for the 1994 genocide in Rwanda.
The DRC government is now under pressure to honour its side of the agreement. To date, it has
banned the Forces democratiques de liberation du Rwanda (FDLR) and other Rwandan anned rebel
groups, arrested an FDLR leader and transported him to the International Criminal Tribunal for
Rwanda, and sent an "exploratory mission" of 66 Rwandan ex-combatants to Rwanda, Mounoubai
said.
Meanwhile, Zimbabwe repatriated over 2,000 soldiers with their equipment from Lubumbashi in
southwestem DRC on Friday, Maj Alphonse Makotore, the spokesman for the forces of the Southern
African Development Community (SADC), told IRIN. A ceremony is due to be held on Friday in the
DRC capital, Kinshasa, to mark the complete withdrawal ofZimbabwean forces from the DRC, he
added. Zimbabwe together with other SADC countries Angola and Namibia sent troops to bolster the
Kinshasa govemment's unsuccessful effort to defeat Ugandan and Rwandan backed anti-govemment
forces.
The chainnan of a joint Military Commission monitoring implementation of an accord on troop
withdrawals, Brig-Gen Mwanike Nuke, bas said that Zimbabwe bas already withdrawn at least 80
percent ofits 12,000; Uganda and Angola 90 percent oftheir 8,000 each.
In a separate development, two European consortiums of NGOs - Concertation chretienne pour
l'afrique centrale and Reseau Europeen Congo - have called for the immediate reinforcement of
MONUC in order to protect the DRC population, to verify the complete withdrawal of foreign troops,
and also to complete the process of disarming the militia groups. MONUC currently bas a maximum
capacity of 5,537 soldiers in a country about the size of Western Europe.
URAnnex91
URAnnex92

URANNEX92
•
United Nations
Security Council Distr.: General
18 October .2002
Original: English
Letter dated 17 Octobei- 2002 from the Permanent Representative
of Zimbabwe to the United Nations addressed to the President of
the Security Co.uncil
I refer to the presidential statement dated May 2001 (S/PRST/2001/13) in
which the Security Council of the United Nations extended the mandate of the Panel
of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of
Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. I have reason to believe that the
report of the Panel of Experts in question should be out soon. In the meantime, it has
corne to the attention of the Govemment of Zimbabwe that the international
conspiracy and alignment of forces against Zimbabwe continues unabated, as
exemplified by the grotesque fabrication of false evidence being presented to the
Panel by our detractors through the Western media.
In my intervention to the Security Council on the preliminary report on the
addendum to the report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation ofNatural
Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, I
had reason to refer to what I called the absurdity of the report's contents and the preset
wishes "on which the Panel based its methodological framework". I castigated its
sources of information and said it was full of hearsay, and constant reference to
unverifiable sources, "the so-called credible sources Gournalistic parlance), which
are not identified". The Minister of Foreign Affairs of Zimbabwe, Dr. 1. S. G.
Mudenge, in bis address to the Security Council on the addendum to the April report
on 14 December 2001, equally castigated the report. He referred especially to
paragraph 76 of the report which, in his words, "lmports, Iock stock and barrel, the
caricatures and grotesque and false misrepresentations of the situation in my country
as peddled daily on the Internet and the media by those dedicated to demonize,
vilify and ostracize my country". Dr. Mudenge appropriately pointed out that this
abuse of trust as exemplified in the report of the Panel was "unworthy of a United
Nations document".
Mr. President, the grotesque and malicious interference by enemies of my
country in what should be a professional investigation by the Panel continues to this
day.
In Harare, and indeed given today's information highway, the media is awash
with the contents of a fraudulent document purported to be a letter from Zimbabwe's
Minister of Defence to President R. G. Mugabe seeking the latter's intervention on
behalf of Zimbabwean companies to remove obstacles to further progress in the
implementation of economic cooperation between the Democratic Republic of the
02-65011 (E) 211002
*0265011*
S12002,1169
S/2002/1169
2
Congo and Zimbabwe. The document is supposed to be a leak from sources to
Mr. Walker, diplomatie corespondent of The Sunday Times, 1 Pennington Street,
London E98 1ST. The document was, in typical British propaganda style, leaked to a
member of the Panel, Mr. Taylor.
You may of course want to think that in the interest of investigative journalism
the leak is normal. But who is this Hannah Taylor? Surely in the interest of
transparency and objectivity any important information would have been referred to
the Chairman of the Panel. More importantly for the integrity of the United Nations,
the Chairman of the Panel should have made attempts to verify the report with the
Zimbabwe Government or this Mission.
Mr. President, let me state categorically that the four-page document in the
possession of Mr. Walker is fraudulent. Mr. Walker strangely seeks Mr. Taylor's
opinion on the fraudulent document, implying therefore that Mr. Taylor might be
part of this shenanigan. If this assumption is correct, then God bless the Security
Council. We know that so-called diplomatie correspondents of British major papers
are agents of Ml6. If United Nations panellists have become uovert agents of major
powers, then the Security Council is completely compromised. The reference by
Mr. Walker to "my sources in Zim" and the fact that a fraudulent document is being
looked at "by American diplomats" is a clear affirmation of the collaborative efforts
of some permanent members of the Council with what should be an independent
panel of experts. My Government hopes that none of the fabricated material will
find its way into the Panel's report. If the British media's so-called "secret"
document is in any way used or referred to by the Panel, the Security Council will
have become party to the conspiracy against my country by the West.
Mr. President, you no doubt realize the quintessential nature of the United
Nations and the Security Council as organs for the sa!vation of humanity. My
Government demands that the present note be acknowledged by the Council and that
it become an official document of the United Nations. By the same token, this
Mission will distribute it to all permanent missions for the record.
URAnnex92
(Signed) T. J. B. Jokonya
Ambassador
Permanent Representative
URAnnex93

URANNEX93
RWANDA: Kigali slams UN panel report
NAIROBI, 24 Oct 2002 (IRIN) - The
Rwandan government described on
Wednesday the latest UN report on the
illegal exploitation of natural resources
of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo (DRC) as "poorly researched"
and "grossly unprofessional".
An official government response to the
report released in the Rwandan capital,
Kigali, questioned the document's
credibility while denying "the deplorable
© IRIN allegations" that any of its institutions
or public officers, civilian or military,
Rwandan President Paul Kagame had in any way exploited the natural
resources of the Congo "or benefited
from Rwanda's presence in that country".
The Rwandan government challenged the authors of the report to give
specific information about the identity of the criminal groups that allegedly
had links with the Rwandan army; the Rwandan businessmen who had been
appointed to replace Congolese as heads of public enterprises; and the
Rwandan troops who had stayed in Congo or been integrated into the RCDGoma
forces fighting the Congolese government.
The government also asked how the use of Rwandan currency constituted
"economic exploitation" whereas the widespread use of the US dollar did not.
The report, the government added, gave· "a distorted picture" of trade links
in the Great Lakes region, failed to differentiate between legal and illegal
business activities in the Congo, and ignored various bilateral and
multilateral treaties between Rwanda and the Congo.
Furthermore, some of the allegations concerning the mistreatment of
Rwandan Hutus, such as the abandonment of Hutu members of the Rwandan
army in Congo, "can only be intended to incite Hutus to violence against
Tutsis", the Rwandan government said.
"The government of Rwanda condemns the use of a UN panel or of the UN
itself to be a conveyor of incitement to ethnie, racial or religious violence
whatever the excuse," it added.
It called on the UN Security Council to reject the report in its entirety, and
suggested that the acceptance of such a "prejudiced and unprofessional"
document could only serve to tarnish the Council's own image.

URAnnex94

Kinshasa to Open Inquiry loto UN Report On Resource Pillage
UN Integrated Regional Information Networks
NEWS
October 25, 2002
Posted to the web October 25, 2002
Kinshasa
URANNEX94
The public prosecutor of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is to open an inquiry into allegations
made earlier this week in a UN report on the illegal exploitation of the natural resources of the DRC.
"We are going to begin an investigation that could lead to legal action being taken, if possible,°
Luhonge Kibinda Ngoyi, the DRC public prosecutor, told IRIN on Friday.
Kibinda said that he would not automatically accept the UN report as correct, and wanted to make his
own inquiries to ensure thatjustice was served. "This inquiry is aimed at enabling us to verify ifwhat
the report said is true," he added.
The DRC govemment spokesman, Kikaya Bin Karubi, said it was necessary to give people cited in
the report the opportunity to defend themselves.
The UN report accused several DRC govemment figures of involvement in illegal exploitation,
including Minister of National Security Mwenze Kongolo; Director of the National Intelligence
Agency Didier Kazadi Nyembwe; Minister of Presidency and Portfolio Augustin Katumba Mwanke;
the president of the state diamond company, Societe miniere de Bakwanga (MIBA), Jean-Charles
Okoto; Planning Minister and former Deputy Defence Minister Gen Denis Kalume Numbi; the
director general of Sengamines, Yumba Monga; and former Minister of the Presidency Pierre Victor
Mpoyo.
Overall, however, Kikaya said he thought the UN report was quite favourable for the DRC.
"This report has enabled the world to understand that Rwanda did not corne to the Congo simply for
reasons of security, as it has claimed," he said at a news conference on Thursday. "lt is in our country
primarily to pillage, in collaboration with those responsible for the genocide" of 800,000 ethnie
Tutsis and politically moderate ethnie Hutus in Rwanda in 1994.
The UN report assigned guilt both to members of the DRC government and its allies - Zimbabwe
military figures, in particular - as well as to Uganda and Rwanda, who have backed rebel movements
during the past four years ofwar in the DRC.
Rwanda has issued an official denial of any involvement in the illegal exploitation of DRC resources.
Uganda and Zimbabwe have yet to issue official replies.
The humanitarian consequences of the financially driven conflict had been horrifie: in the five eastem
provinces of the DRC alone, the number of excess deaths directly attributable to the Rwandan and
Ugandan occupation since the outbreak ofwar up to September 2002 was estimated to be between
three million and 3.5 million people, the panel said.
URAnnex94
URAnnex95

United Nations
URANNEX95
S,200211202
• Security Council Distr.: General
28 October 2002
Original: English
Letter dated 25 October 2002 from the Permanent Representative
of Uganda to the United Nations addressed to the President of the
Security Council
On instructions of my Government, I have the honour to transmit herewith a
statement dated 23 October 2002 by the Government of Uganda (see annex) on the
final report of the Panel of Experts on the 11legal Exploitation of Natural Resources
and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (S/2002/1146,
annex).
I would be grateful if the present letter and its annex could be circulated as a
document of the Security Council.
02-66217 (E) 291002
·0266217 ..
(Signed) Semakula Kiwanuka
Ambassador Extraordinary and Plenipotentiary/
Permanent Representative ofUganda to the United Nations
S/2002/1202
2
Annex to the letter dated 25 October 2002 from the Permanent
Representative of Uganda to the United Nations addressed to the
President of the Security Council
Statement by the Government of Uganda on the final report of
the Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural
Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo
1. The Government of the Republic of Uganda has welcomed the release on
21 October 2002 of the final report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal
Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Fonns of Wealtb of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and has noted a number of positive aspects.
(a) The report recognizes that Uganda established the Porter Judicial
Commission of Inquiry in accordance with the Security Council's recommendation
as an internai mechanism to address the aUegation of iHegal exploitation of the
natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
(b) The report maintains that neither the Uganda Government nor any of its
companies are involved in the illegal exploitation of natural resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
(c) It acknowledges Uganda's position that a moratorium on exports from the
Democratic Republic of the Congo would be counterproductive to the people of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
(d) The final report bas improved the scope of investigation to coveë ali
parties involved in the alleged illegal exploitation of natural resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, including the transit countries and end-users of
such resources.
(e) It recognizes the importance of the implementation of the Lusaka
Ceasefire Agreement, including the establishment of an ail-inclusive transitional
Government capable of administering the territory and protecting the sovereignty of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Areas of concern
2. The Government of Uganda, however, wishes to note with concern the
following flaws and areas of concern in the final report of the United Nations Panel.
(a) Unlike the addendum report of November 2001 (S/2001/1072), the final
report completely ignores Uganda's legitimate security concerns as recognized in
the Lusaka Ceasetïre Agreement (1999) and the Uganda/Democratic Republic of the
Congo bilateral agreement signed on 6 September 20002 in Luanda, Angola.
(b) The allegations that the l.JPDF presence in the eastern Democratic
Republic of the Congo is the cause of instability designed to create conditions for
the continued illegal exploitation of resources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo is not consistent with the following facts:
URAnnex95
(i) The invitation by the United Nations Secretary-General of May 2001 for
UPDF to remain in the Bunia area as a stabilizing force in support of the
Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement;
(ii) The spirit and intent of the 6 September 2002 Uganda Democratic
Republic of the Congo bilateral agreement on the total withdrawal of UPDF
and the establishment of the Ituri Pacification Commission;
(iii) The long history of the Hema-Lendu conflict in Ituri;
(iv) Facts on the ground that clearly demonstrate that the security situations
in ail the other areas where UPDF has withdrawn, such as Gbadorite, Gemena,
Buta and Beni, there is relative peace. Many of these areas have more natural
resources and population than Bunia, where there has been persistent HemaLendt_
1 ethnie conflict over land.
(c) Contrary to the Panel's assertion that it relied purely on documentary and
corroborated evidence/information, the United Nations Panel continues to rely on
hearsay/uncorroborated information. Indeed, the final report of the Panel contains a
number of serious factual errors. For example:
(i) The Protocole d' Accord allegedly signed on 22 February 2002 between
RCD/ML leadership and Col. Mayombo on behalf of the Uganda Government,
whereby UPDF was promised $25,000 and an exemption for Ugandan
companies from import tax, does not exist (para. 122).
(ii) Ail available evidence to date has proved that Victoria Group and Trinity
Investments are not Uganda-registered companies. Evidence to this effect was
given to the United Nations Panel (paras. 111 and 112).
(iii) The Panel misrepresents the mandate of the Porter Commission of
Inquiry with regard to the scope of investigation of army officers, and its
relationship with the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the President. The truth
of the matter is that the Porter Commission has the judicial powers of the High
Court and is independent of the Executive. lndeed, tte Commission has the
power to summon documents and audits from everybody, including the
President, the Minister ofDefence and UPDF (para. 137).
(iv) The report refers in paragraph 116 to "parliamentarian" Sam Ngola.
Mr. Ngola, who is a Ugandan businessman, bas never been a member of any
Uganda parliament.
Concerning allegations against UPDF military officers and other individuals
3. The Government of Uganda bas noted with concern the allegations of
continued involvement of Ugandan military officers and businessmen in the illegal
exploitation of natural resources, diversion of taxes and other revenue generation
activities in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo.
4. The Government of Uganda established the Judicia} Commission of Inquiry
into the illegal exploitation of natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo in May 2001, under the chairmanship of Justice Porter (United Kingdom).
Other members of the Commission are Justice Berko (Ghana) and Mr. John
Rwambuya, a retired Ugandan senior United Nations civil servant (official). The
URAnnex95
S/2002/1202
3
S/2002/1202
4
Porter Commission has cooperated with the United Nations Panel on a number of
source materials and elements of evidence.
5. lt should be noted that the final Porter Commission report will be released
soon. The Government of Uganda reiterates its commitment to the implementation
of the recommendations of the report. The Government of Uganda will therefore
await the release of the Porter Commission report before making any comments on
the allegations against specific Ugandan senior military officers and business
people.
Conclusion
6. The Government of Uganda is convinced that the only guarantee against illegal
exploitation of the natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo is the
establishment of a new, stable and democratic dispensation which is able to establish
effective State institutions and to ensure orderly and sustainable exploitation of the
natural resources for the benefit of ail the people of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. Uganda will therefore support the .recommendations of the United Nations
Panel that will strengthen the implementation of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement,
the Sun City resolutions and the related Pretoria and Luanda Agreements.
7. The Government of Uganda is preparing a detailed response to the final report
of the United Nations Panel, which will be presented to the Security Council next
week.
23 October 2002
URAnnex95
J.F. Wapakabulo
Third Deputy Prime Minister/
Minister for Foreign Affairs
Kampala
URAnnex96

United Nations
• Security Council Distr.: General
29 October 2002
Original: English
URANNEX96
S /2002/ 1199
Letter dated 25 October 2002 from the Permanent Representative
of South Africa to the United Nations addressed to the President of
the Security Council
I should like to refer to the final report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal
Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo (S/2002/1146).
The Security Council is aware of the commitment the South African
Government has made towards achieving a peaceful resolution of the conflict in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, as welI as in the Great Lakes Region as a whole.
My Government believes that the achievement of peace in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo is essential for contributing to the renewal of the African continent and
the achievement of the goals of the New Partnership for Africa's Deyelopment, a
programme of the African Union.
Furthermore, South Africa has taken ail possible measures to implement
Security Council decisions on the Democratic Republic oi the Congo. We have
taken every step to assist panels that have been created by the Security Council with
regard to conflicts in Africa.
However, we would like to inform the Security Council that South Africa is
disappointed with the content of the final report presented to the Council by
Ambassador Mahmoud Kassem; the methodology the Panel used in gathering its
information and the èonclusions and recommendations the Panel makes in its report.
South Africa would urge that the Security Council instruct the Panel to investigate
further and substantiate its allegations and recommendations made in the report. The
Panel's report contradicts the aims and intentions of the Security Council.
We are particularly disappointed because the South African Government
welcomed the Panel when it visited our country and arranged for the Panel to meet
with various senior o(ficials from departments and agencies that were ready to assist
the Panel in its work. The Council will notice that the examples cited later in my
letter are contrary to the Panel's claim of having "made every effort to fairly and
objectively evaluate the information it has gathered". A di(ficulty that we
experienced was the quality and extent of the information that the Panel made
available to the South African authorities. The information upon which South
African authorities were expected to conduct the necessary follow-up investigations
was either incomplete or never given.
02-66 l 78 (E) 281002
*0266178"'
S/2002/1199
2
We would like to address some of the specific issues that have been raised by
the Panel with regard to South Africa, South African-based companies and
individuals.
In paragraph 31, the report states that "Also working with ZDF is a convicted
criminal based i1;1 South Africa, Nico Shefer, who has arranged for Zimbabwean
officers to be trained in diamond valuation in Johannesburg. Mr. Shefer's company,
Tandan Holdings, has a 50 per cent stake in Thorntree Industries, a joint venture
diamond-trading company with ZDF". On 14 June 2002, the South African
Government was requested by the Panel to provide information concerning the
trading, whether openly or clandestinely, of Congolese diamonds in South Africa or
the transport of Congolese diamonds through South Africa, by the Minerais
Business Company (MBC). lt was stated by the Panel that the South African-owned
or -based company Thorntry (or Thorntree) reportedly bas an agreement with MBC
to trade its shipments of Congolese diamonds. On 31 July 2002, the South African
Government informed the Panel that it had no information to verify the allegation
concerning the transportation of diamonds, bought by Thorntree, through South
African territory. It should also be noted that the issue of Mr. Shefer arranging for
Zimbabwean officers to be trained in diamond valuation in Johannesburg has never
been raised by the Panel with the South African Government. The question of
Mr. Shefer and Thomtree Industries is similarly raised in paragraph 58 of the report.
In paragraph 52, the report states that "Mr. Al-Shanfari instructed his security
chief to smuggle diamonds from the Sengamines concession to Johannesburg, South
Africa, and deliver them to Ken Roberts, the chief executive of Serengeti
Diamonds". This information has never been shared with the South African
Government nor was this ever the subject of an enquiry addressed to the South
African Government by the Panel.
In paragraph 139, the report identifies South Africa as one of Il African States
through whose territory goods originating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
are likely to pass. The Panel further states that it submitted questions to all of these
countries and held substantive discussions with government representatives from
five countries. The Panel enquired about relevant legislation, investigations into the
flow of the commodities, measures taken to curb those flows, other possible action
to be taken and those Governments' needs for assistance. According to the report,
virtually none of the countries that responded to the Panel's questions had conducted
any investigations or adopted any specific procedures for the identification or
inspection of the transiting of commodities from the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. The report goes on to state that South African officiais confirmed the seizure
of a sizeable clandestine ship ment of diamonds from the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, but provided no details. Also stated is that none of the authorities in these
countries gave any indication that Congolese resources traded through their
territories should or could be regarded as conflict goods and that almost none of the
countries proposed any meaningful measures to help curb trade in Congolese
commodities that are tainted by criminality and militarization.
In September 2001, the Panel approached South Africa regarding procedures
followed by South African law enforcement agencies in combating smuggling
activities and organized crime, as we!J as a chart clarifying the division of
authorities and responsibilities of the different authorities. On 14 June 2002, the
South African Government provided a detailed description of the role and fonctions
URAnnex96
of law enforcement agencies in South Africa. In addition, thi:: Government provided
the Panel with details of the relevant legislation utilized in curbing smuggling and
organized crime. The Govemment, however, stated that the South African law
enforcement agencies were not aware of any significant ot organized groups that
were engaged in smuggling or other illegal activities involving diamonds, gold,
coltan and other natural resources originating from the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. The Panel had requested the South African Govemment for examples of
actual cases of srnuggling made by the South African Iaw enforcement agencies
originating from the Democratic Republic of the Congo and countries involved in
the conflict. The information that was provided by the South African authorities
confirmed that a national of the Democratic Republic of the Congo was arrested at
Johannesburg International Airport in December 2001 with 13 diamonds in his
possession. The Panel was informed that the individual had appeared in court, but
that the case had been postponed until June 2002. It was further explained to the
Panel that since the court .case was still pending (sub judice), no additional
information could be provided. This was the only information that was provided to
the Panel regarding the seizure of diamonds that had a connection to the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. In the information provided to the Panel it was not possible
to indicate the origin of the diamonds.
ln annex .III to the report, the Panel Iists those business enterprises that it
considers to be in violation of OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.
Twelve South African companies are listed under annex III. Although no
substantiating evidence for these listings is provided, the report states that
"Countries whièh are signatories to those Guidelines and other countries are morally
obliged to ensure that .their business enterprises adhere to and act on the
Guidelines". With regard to the specific companies mentioned:
• South Africa has never been approached by the Panel regarding a company by
the name of African Trading Corporation.
• Anglovaal, Banro Corporation, Carson Products, Mercantille CC, Saracen,
Swanepoel, Track Star Trading 151 (Pty) Ltd. Zincor, lscor and Orion Mining
Inc. have never been mentioned in any of the Panel's previous reports, nor bas
any information related to their business activities or conduct ever been shared
with the South African Government, nor was any of these companies ever the
subject of an enquiry addressed to the South African Government by the Panel.
On 14 June 2002, the South African Govemment was requested by the Panel to
provide a list of ail South African, and South African registered companies
operating in or with the Democratic Republic of the Congo. During the meeting with
the Panel, the South African authorities specifically raised their serious concerns
with the Panel about its queries regarding South African companies operating in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, without any indication as to their participation
in the illegal exploitation of the natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. South Africa underlined the fact that unsubstantiated queries by the Panel
about the activities of companies operating legally and above board in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo could be interpreted 11s casting unwarranted
aspersions on their activities.
In this context also, 1 should also like to note the fact that South Africa is not a
signatory to the OECD Guidelines. Although we support its objectives, we don't
understand how the Panel can use this mechanism as a means of accountability.
URAnnex96
S/2002/1199
3
S/2002/1199
4
The report's statements about South Africa, South African companies and
South African individuals consequently do not appear to be substantiated by bard
evidence or information. Nor does the Panel draw any distinction between legal and
illegal activities of companies in its report. In their interaction with the Panel, the
South African authorities underlined the difficulties that are experienced when
dealing with the vagueness of certain queries received. lt was pointed out that the
provision of more detailed and accurate information would assist the South African
authorities to address the issues raised.
I understand that the views conveyed in this letter are critical of the final
report and that they bring into question the approach and methodology that bas been
adopted in the report's compilation. It is our hope that the Council will take these
concerns into accc:mnt in its consideration ofthis report and of any new mandate that
may be given to the Panel. We suggest that the Council should provide clear and
specific guidelines on the functioning, approach and operating standards of any
future mechanism it may decide to establish with regard to the Democratic Republic
of the Congo.
The Council will understand that South Africa regards this in a serious light,
not only because of its imputations, but also because of the role that South Africa
continues to play, both in its national capacity and as the Chair of the African Union,
in achieving lasting peace, security, stability and prosperity for the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and its people.
It would be appreciated if the letter could be circulated as a document of the
Security Council.
URAnnex96
(Signed) Dumisani S. Kumaio
Ambassador and Permanent Representative
URAnnex97

IRINNEWS.ORG URANNEX97
DRC: Government, rebel groups continue talks
NAIROBI, 29 Oct 2002 (IRIN) - The government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(DRC) and country's two main rebel groups, currently holding talks on power-sharing in the
South African administrative capital, Pretoria, could reach an agreement "by today or
tomorrow", diplomatie sources told IRIN on Tuesday.
The mediation team, led by UN Special Envoy Moustapha Niasse, was meeting the government
delegation and the country's two main rebel groups, the Rassemblement congolais pour la
democratie (RCD-Goma) and the Mouvement pour la liberation du Congo {MLC), for separate
consultations on Tuesday, which "may bring the three together", one source said.
A key issue is whether MLC will accept a proposed agreement which will allow President Joseph
Kabila to continue to rule the country during an interim period of two years, with four vicepresidents.
MLC says it wants only two vice-presidents.
The MLC's secretary-general, Olivier Kamltatu, told AFP that his movement was rejecting the
proposai because one of the vice-presidents would be drawn from government ranks, thus
giving President Joseph Kabila too much power. The other three would corne from RCD-Goma,
the unarmed opposition and MLC.
Other sticking-points are reportedly the question of amnesties, the allocation of parliamentary
seats, power-sharing in the provinces, and security for rebels returning to the DRC capital,
Kinshasa.
Delegations representing RCD-Nationale, RCD-Mouvement de liberation, civil society, the
Mayi-Mayi and the unarmed opposition were in the process of arriving in Pretoria on Tuesday
to take part in the talks the following day, diplomatie sources confirmed. It is hoped that by
Thursday evening, all consultations will have finished.
On 25 October, Presidents Paul Kagame of Rwanda and Kabila of the DRC were due to travel
to Pretoria to review progress made since the signing of the Pretoria peace agreement on 30
July, the media liaison officer for the South African presidency, David Hladane, told IRIN.
[ENDS]
URAnnex98
URANNEX98
.UN News
service
UN envoy discusses power-sharing agreement on DR of Congo
29 Oct<;,ber - The Movement for the Liberation of the Congo (MLC) would accept, with certain
conditions, a new power-sharing agreement for the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC), the
Secretary General' s Special Envoy to the country said today in Pretoria, South Africa, where he is
holding informai consultations with various DRC parties on an acceptable transitional arrangement.
The formula announced by Mustapha Niasse involves having one president and four vice presidents
fortheDRC.
The envoy told journalists that he would be holding follow-up meetings with the MLC, as well as the
Congolese Rally for Democracy-Goma and the DRC Governrnent later this week.
In the meantime, starting tomorrow, Mr. Niasse plans to meet in separate sessions with other
Congolese groups, including the Maï- Maï, the RCD National, the RCD-Kisangani/Liberation
Movement and representatives of civil society and the unanned political opposition.
URAnnex99
URANNEX99
IRINNEWS.ORG
DRC: Breakthrough in power-sharing talks
NAIROBI, 30 Oct 2002 (IRIN) - The Mouvement pour la liberation du Congo (MLC) rebel group
said on Tuesday it would accept, with certain conditions, a power-sharing agreement with the
government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) and · the Rwanda-backed rebel
Rassemblement congolais pour la democratie (RCD-Goma).
The agreement would allow President Joseph Kabila to remain president of the DRC with four
vice-presidents. These would be chosen from RCD-Goma, MLC, the unarmed opposition and
the current government.
"In the interests of the Congo, we have decided to accept the principle of four vice-presidents,
but we have attached some conditions to this. The government must now respond," Olivier
Kamitatu, the MLC secretary-general, told AFP.
The MLC is reportedly demanding that the government negotiate on precisely how power will
be shared at each level of government.
UN Special Envoy to the DRC Moustapha Niasse told reporters in the South African
administrative capital, Pretoria (where the informai talks are taking place), that he would hold
follow-up meetings with the MLC and RCD-Goma on Friday. Meanwhile, he began separate
consultations on Wednesday with other Congolese groups, including the Mayl-Mayi, RCDNationale,
RCD-Kisangani/Mouvement de liberation and the unarmed political opposition.
Speaking on the BBC's Focus on Africa radio programme, the DRC ambassador to South Africa,
Ben Mpoko, said a lot of progress had been made with the deal.
"The delegations were very happy, everybody was elated," he said. "My feeling is that the
political will is there, the Congolese people are tired of fighting, tired of suffering."
Once transitional arrangements for the country had emerged from the talks, the interCongolese
dialogue would formally endorse them, the UN said last week.
Niasse and South African President Thabo Mbeki, with the support of the African Union and the
South African government, are brokering the talks.
[ENDS]
-
URAnnex 100

Belgian Minister Criticises Exploitation Report
UN Integrated Regional Information Networks
NEWS
October 31, 2002
Posted to the web October 31, 2002
Brussels
URANNEXl00
While the report of the UN Panel on the exploitation ofnatural resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo "undeniably underlines the link" between the foreign troops that were
there and economic exploitation of the country, it failed to propose ways of distinguishing the
legal from the illegal, Belgian Deputy Foreign Minister Annemie Neyts said on Wednesday.
"Immoral doesn't mean illegal, and this point is still unclear," she added.
She was speaking at a Brussels news conference concluding a seminar she initiated on "doing
business in conflict areas: ethical and legal challenges". Almost 160 participants attended,
representing official bodies such as Belgian ministries, the EC, the Organisation for Economie
Cooperation and Development (OECD), the UN, embassies, European companies, international
NGOs and universities.
"We haven't reached a common approach, but the exchange was open and constructive", she told
reporters.
The main point of difference, she said, was of participants who favoured sanctions against "nonethical"
companies, and those in favour of self-regulation and the application of codes of
conduct.
In further criticism of the UN panel report, she said "man y companies" included in its annex
were not mentioned in the body of the text. An analyst said that 21 of 85 Belgian companies
were cited in the list of "business enterprises considered by the Panel to be in violation of the
OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises".
However, Neyts said, Belgium would comply with the UN Panel's recommendations, after the
Security Cormeil reviewed them on 6 November. "We shall obviously apply its
recommendations," she said.
Belgian NGOs at the seminar warned of a potential "burying" of the recommendations of the UN
Panel.
"Belgium should now be prepared to implement the sanctions proposed by the experts," Indra
Van Gisbergen, amember ofan umbrella body ofFlemish NGOs, said. "The need for further
investigation cannot be a pretext for a wait-and-see attitude. To promote only a code of conduct
is insufficient".

URAnnex 101

NAME:
AR.i'\1Y NO:
RANK:
EDWARD KA TUMDA-WAMALA
R0/1392
MAJOR GENERAL
APPOINTMENT: INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
URANNEXIOI
FORMER APPOINTMENT: OPERATIONS COMMANDEROPERATION
SAFE HA VEN (PRC)
AGE: 46 YEARS
DATE: 31 OCTOBER, 2002
STATEMENT
I am of the above particulars and hereunder state as follows:
I was appointed Operations Commander, Operation Safe Haven in
the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in August, 2000 and was
based in GbadoJite. My responsibility was Command and Control of
the Uganda People's Defense Forces (UPDF) bases in the Eastern·
side of Congo. The area of responsibility stretched from Beni and
Bunia close to the Ugandan border with Congo to Gbadolite. Ali the
units in Congo at this time were mainly stationed at either the
airports or at strategic landing sites on River Congo.
At the time of my posting to Congo and during my stay there, there
were no clashes between UPDF forces and the Congolese troops or
any other force which was involved in the war in Congo. The main
':
2
efforts were directcd towards denying use of vital grounds like
Gbadolite Buta Bunia and Beni airports access to any forces control
which could jeorpadise the security of our borders. The facilities at
Gbadolite in particular plus the size of the airport and its proximity to
the then belligerent countries included among others Sudan and
Chad, demanded that it be physically occupied by our own troops.
This particular area had earlier on during clashes with the Chadian
troops acted as the withdraw route and the possibility of it being put
to use again was very apparent.
The Gbadolite airport could easily be used as a striking base for an
airéraft with an endurance of up to 3 hours. Such an aircraft could
easily strike Uganda's western towns and since our forces could not
ôisable the airport the most logic move was to occupy it and control
its use.
This is all I can state on the relevance of Gbadolite airport to UPDFs
operations in Congo.
Maj. en. Katumba Wamala
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
URAnnex 101
URAnnex 102

Saleh to Give Wife's Accounts to UN Probe
The Monitor (Kampala)
~ws
October 31, 2002
Posted to the web October 31, 2002
By Elizabeth Kameo
Kampala
URANNEX102
"Excellent, lnexpenslve AfRIC
refarence work. ... "' 2003
Reserve Force Commander Lt. Gen. Salim Saleh (Caleb Akandwanaho) has promised that his wife
would release her foreign accounts for investigation to the UN panel.
He again dismissed the UN report on illegal exploitation of Congo's natural resources "as imaginative
on the part of the UN panel".
Saleh was yesterday appearing before the Porter Commission to clarify on matters raised in the
recently released UN panel report at Nile Hotel. He was accotnpanied by his wife Jovia
Akandwanaho.
Justice David Porter heads a govemment commission looking into the alleged looting of Congo
resources by Ugandan military officers.
"If you find any money I have taken from Congo, you should take it," Saleh said after submitting two
foreign accounts. "I have not yet paid school fees for my daughters in America and I am being
accused of looting in Congo."
In response to Justice Porter's query on whether he (Saleh), through Saracen Uganda, was training a
force to replace the UPDF in Congo, Saleh dismissed it as untrue.
"It is not true that I am training a paramilitary force. I am a peace builder trying to bring about peace
between Uganda and Congo and 1am doing this as a special assignment from the president."
He saidwhat he is doing is re-organising rebel deserters at Namboole so that they can be taken back
to Kinshasa. "That is the only force I am in touch with currently and I don't think it îs paramilitary or
against the Congolese govemment. I categorically deny this," Saleh said.
In response to the part of the report which says he is involved in the manipulation of the money
supply and the banking sector in Congo, Saleh once again submitted his foreign accounts to the UN
through the Commission for investigations.

URAnnex 103

1
THE REPONSE
BY THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
REPUBLIC OF UGANOA
TO
URANNEX103
THE FINAL REPORT OF THE PANEL OF EXPERTS ON THE
ILLEGAL EXPLOITATION OF NATIONAL RESOURCES AND OTHER FORMS OF WEALTH
OF THE DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO (ORC)
MINISTRY OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS
KAMPALA, UGANDA
1st November 2002
URAnnex 103
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS:
PAGE
1: Introduction
Il: Positive Aspects of the Final Report
Ill: Major Flaws in the Final Report
IV: Allegations Againlt Govemment of UgandalUPDF
V: Allegations Against Ugandan Milita,y Offic:•rs
am! o!her Jndividuals
VI: Obseivations of the UN Panel of Exp■rts
VII: Recommendations of th• UN Panel of Experts
VIII: Way Forward
2
3
t INTRODUCTION
1. On request of the UN Security Council on 2 June 2000, lhe Secretary General of the UN
established the 111 UN Panel on the lllegal Exploitalion of the Natural Resourees and other
forms of WeaHh in the DRC, chaired by Mme Ba N'Daw of Ivory Coast. The UN Securily
Council discussed Ille report of the UN Panel, which accused Uganda of involvement in the
Hlegal exploitation of the natural resources of the DRC on 3 May 2001. The Security
Council agreed wilh the presentalion by Uganda (S/2001/458) that the Mme Ba N'Daw
report was based on hearsay and lacked corroborative evidence to back ifs conclusions
and recommendations. lt welcomed the decision by Uganda to set up an independent
Judicial Commission of lnquiry into the allegations of iUegal exploitation of the natural
resources of the DRC.
2. The UN Security Council mandated the 2"d UN Panel chaired by Ambassador Kassem
(Egypl) to prepare an addendum to the report containing, inter aria, a more in-deplh
analysis based, as far as possible on corroborated evidence on allegalions and
condusions raised and to the comments and reactions of states and actors cited in the
report of the panel. The Addendum report of December 2001 acknowledged Uganda's
legilimate security concerns in the DRC and concluded thal neither lhe Uganda
Govemment nor its companies were involved in the illegal exploitation of natural resources
in the -ORC. The Addendum report and Uganda's response (document S/2001/1163) were
discussed in the UN Securily Council on 14 December 2001.
3. The UN Security Council requesled the UN Secrelary General 10 renew the mandate of the
Kassem Panel to prepare a report lhat would include, inter-alia:
(a) An update of relevant dala and analysis of further information from relevant counlries,
including in particular from those countries Illat had not provided lhe UN Panel with
requeste~ information.
(b) An evalualion of lhe possible actions that could be taken by lhe Counc,1 in order to help
bring to an end the plundering of nalural resources of lhe DRC, laking into account the
impact of such actions on the financing of the conffict and potenlial impact on the
humanilarian and economic situation of the ORC.
(c) Recommendations on specilic actions lhat the international community, in support of the
Govemmenl of the DRC, might lake, working lhrough existing inlernational organizalions,
mechanism and the UN bodies. to address the issues in lhe report and its addendum;
(dl Recommendations on possible st.eps lhat might be taken by transit countries as well as end
users to contribute to ending illegal exploitation of the natural resources of the DRC.
4. The UN Seçurily Council also urged Govemmenls named in the previous reports to
conduct lheir own inquiries and to cooperate fully wilh the UN Pane~
l
URAnnex103
1
4
5. The UN Panel chalred by Ambassador Kassem1 visited Uganda from 3rd • 611 March 2002,
and was given maximum cooperation by govemmenl The Panel met Hon. E Kategaya, 151
Deputy Prime Minister/Minlster of Internai Affairs; Hon. Amama Mbabazl Minister of
Defense: Hon Tom Butime, Minister of Slate for Foreign Affairs; Hon. Muluri Mukasa.
Minister of State for Security. the Direclors General of the External and Internai Security
Organizations: and a group of technical officiais. The Panel also held meetings wilh
members of the Porter Commission. Subsequenlly the Porter Commission and the Kassem
Panel exchanged information and visits.
Key Elements of the Response 10 the Final Report of the UN Panel
1. The response or the Govemment of the Republic of Uganda to the Final Report as conlained
in the document covers the following chapters:
lntroduçtion: background to the Final Report of the UN Panel.
The positive aspects and flaws of the Final Report
Response to allegations against the Govemment of Uganda/UPDF
Response lo allegaffons against Ugandan individuals and companies
Comments by the Uganda Govemmenl on the observation, conclusion and
recommendations of the UN Panel
Recommendations by Uganda on the way forward
Other members of the Panel induded: Mr Jim Freedman {Canada);
Mr Mel Holt (USA); Mr Bruno Schiemsky (Belgium); Mr
Moustapha Tati (Senegal); Mr Gilbert Barthe (Technical Advisor
-Switzerland); Ms Elodie Cantier-Aristide (France - Political
Assistant); and Ms Hannah Taylor {USA - Political Assistant)
4
URAnnex103
5
1. POSITIVE ASPECTS OF THE FINAi. REPORT
7. Às poinled out in the press slatement of 23 October 2002, in Kampala, the Govemment of
Uganda noted that the Final report of the UN Panel contains a number of positive elements,
which are:
• A more balanced scope of investigation covering the end-user countries outside
Africa and strong support for the building of state institutions, capable of
administering the natural resources and territorial sovereignty of the ORC.
• Recognition of the fact that the Republic of Uganda established lhe Porter Judicial
Commission of lnquiry2 as an internai mechanism lo address the aftegations of
illegal exploitation of the natural reso11rces of lhe DRC, in accordance with the UN
Security Council recommendations of 4 May and 19 December 2001. The UN Panel
also made a positive effort to cooperate and share information with the Porter
Commission, in spile of lhe marlced dilference between lhe Panel and Commission
on methods of investigation.
• Confirmation of lhe tact lhat neilher the Uganda Govemment nor any of its
companles are involved in the illegal exploitation of lhe natural resources of the
DRC. lndeed, the Addendum Report or the UN Panel (November 2001), conduded
that Uganda's involvement in the DRC was based on (a) a bilateral protacol
between Kampala and Kinshasa of 26 April 1998 and (b) the legitimate security
concems emanating from the threat posed by the negative forces operating in
Eastern DRC i.e. lhe AOF, WNBF, UNRF Il and the more recently formed PRA.
• Shamg the view by Uganda thal an embargo or moratorium on exports of natural
resources from the DRC 'would not be a viable means of helping the situation of the
Country's Govemmenl. ci6zens or the natural environmenr. As Uganda stated in
the Response to the Addendum Report (S/200111163), such a moratorium would
not only be difficult to enforce, but would hugely hurt the Congolese sman scale
farmers and artisan miners whose Hvefrhood entirely depends on earnings from the
tradilional cross-border trade.
• By covering the end-user countries, the Final Report brought in the missing link
and improved the scope of investigation to cover an parties involved in the DRC.
lndeed. a deeper historical analysis of the companies and criminal organizalions
based outside Africa would definifely help us fo understand the failure to buUd viable
stale institutions and structures in the ORC since lhe era of King Leopold Il of
Belgium.
2Te:rms of reference for the Porter Commission, contained in Legal Notice
No> 5/2001 of 5 May 2002, are reflected in UNSC document S/2001/1163.
s
URAnnex103
URAnnex 103
6
• Recognizing the importance and centrality of the urgent implementation of the
Lusaka Ceasetire Agreement including the OORR, withdrawal of foreign forces, and
the establishment of and all-inclusive transitional Government in Kinshasa. lt
underscores the tact thal the establishment of a new and stable political
dispensation which has the necessary state institutions and structures for
administering the territory is the only guarantee to {a) guarding against the any
illegal exploitation by local or international criminal organizations, (b) ensuring that
the territory of DRC does not harbor terrorist groups against regional neighbors.
• Focus of the recommendations in the Final Report is on crealing conditions and
incentives for (a) encouraging au parties to implement their obligations in the
Lusaka Ceasetire Agreement the related Pretoria and Luanda Agreements as well
as the Sun City resolutions, (b) deepening regional inlegration, (c) strong
international tinancial support tor building state institutions in the ORC (d) postconflict
reconstruction in the DRC and ragional neighbors, (e) deterring international
organized crime syndicales from conlinued illegal aclivities in the DRC.
Ill: MAJOR FLAWS IN THE FINAL REPORT
Downplaying Ug-,ida's Security Concems in Eastern DRC
8. Unlike the Addendum Report of November 2001, the Final Report complétaly ignores
Uganda's legitimate securily concems as recognized in the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement
(1999}, the relevant UN Security Council resolutions and the Uganda/DRC Bilaleral
Agreement of 6 Seplember 2002 in Luanda, Angola.
9. Uganda got involved in the ORC as a resull of the genuine securily concems. These
included ts'ie operatioos of ihe têrrorist groups inciuding AûF. WNBF, UNRF ii, NAlü, ihe
recenHy established PRA and other negative forces such as the genocidal Ex-FAR and lhe
lnlerahamwe. These groups have used the lenitory of the ORC to taunch persistent and
indiscriminate lerrorist attacks on the people of Uganda. Examples include the grisly
Mpwondwe (1996), Kichwamba {1998} and Bwindi terrorist massacres in Uganda (1999}.
Persistent lnterahamwe attacks in Kisoro District continue. A bilateral protocol between
Uganda and lhe DRC of April 1998 aUowed the Uganda Peoples Detense Force (UPOF) to
pursue the terrorist groups.
APPLICATION OF AN INVALID HYPOTHESIS ON UGANDA
10. The central concept or hypolhesis of the alleged 'elite networks', which are clairned lo have
curved out separate self-financing areas and are responsible for the continuation of mic:roconflicts
over natural resources and revenues in the ORC is fundamentally flawed and
invalid in the case of Uganda. A simple SWOT/test analysis reveals that white the basic
assumptions are wrong the evidence of the existence of Ugandan 'elite networks' is
untenable and the motive of lhe hypothesis is ill intenlioned. For example:
The hypothesis makes the wrong assumption that RCD-KIML and MLC are •mere tacades
and "mililias· (Para 100 ~ in the so called 'Ugandan controlled area·. Uganda has since May
2001 wilhdrawn from the ORC. except for one battalion in Bunia al the request of lhe UN
6
7
Secretaiy General. Uganda is commilled to complete withdrawal under the Lusaka
Ceasefire and the Luanda Agreements. MLC and RCD-Ml are effectively responsible for
administration. economic management and justice in their respective areas of control as
recognized under the Lusaka Ceaselire Agreement and by the UN Security Council.
The UN Panel does nol appear to be cognizant of the history of the ORC since the King
Leopold Il era including the tact lhat Uganda has been a victim of repeated terrorist atlacks
ftom ORC territory
The evidence adduced by the UN Panel does not establish the existence of a fink belween
the Ugandan actors cited and any 'efile network' in the so-called 'Ugandan controlled area'.
The UN Panel seems fo have been at pains to lind any evidence/data lhat would serve he
purpose of down playing Uganda's security concems and demonizing or tarnishing the
image of Uganda.
llethodology
11. The composition of the UN Panel and 1heir melhod of investigation do not demonslrale
capacily to sift through deliberate falsehoods. war propaganda and polilical intrigue
involved in the conflict in the ORC. ln a conflict situation like in the ORC. information from
walk-ins, motivated volunteers and tradilional enemies (e.g. Lendu/Hema) requires a higher
level of proof and corroboration than was apparenlly applied by the UN Panel People can
only achie11e this with expert knowledge aboul the history and the cultural complexîty of the
inter-linked conflicts in the Great Lakes Region. lt is also unprofessional and dishonest to
extrapolate data from surveys from one region in lhe vast DRC lo meaningfully inlerpret a
serious humanitarian situation in anolher area (Para 131)
• Clarifying the alleged UPDF negati11e molive in Bunia, the UN panel bases on (Para 123)
the claim by RCO KJM1. department chiefs - who are Lendu allied chiefs - lhat lhe Hema
businessmen înlerests in controlling gold deposils in Geti was the underlying cause of
ethnie r.onflict in Bunia. yel history shows that neither the Hema, nor the Lendu have kind
words for each other.
Poor Corroboration of Evidence
12 The UN Panel asser1$ in paragraphs 7 & 8 lhat it relied (!n wen substantiated and
independenUy corroborated evidence by documents and eye-witnesses and that the Panel
operated under a reasonable standard of proof with faimess and objeclively. Unfortunately
the Final Report shll conlains statements with serious factual errors, un-ce>"oborated
information, contradictions and clear distortions. For example: -
The UN Panel alleges that a Protocol d'Accord was signed on 22 February 2002 between
RCD-K/ML leadership and Col. Mayombo on behalf ofUganda Government whereby UPOF
was promised a monlhly stipend of $25,000 and exemption of Ugandan companies from
dulies and import tax. The alleged Protocol d'Accord does not exist (Para 122).
7
URAnnex 103
8
The Panel misrepresenls the mandate of the Porter Commission of lnquiry with regard to
the scope of investigation on army officers, and its relalionship wilh the Minister of Foreign
Affairs and the President The trulh of the malter is that the Porter Commission has the
judicial powers of the High Court and is independent of the Executive. As a consequence
the Commission has the powers to subpoena witnesses, documents and cause audits.
Para 137
The report in Para 116 refers to 'Parliamentarian' Sam Engola. Mr. Engola, who is a
Ugandan businessman, has never been a member of any Uganda Parliament
The Panel makes rather contradictory observations in lheir analysis and e"aluation of the
evidence they relied upon and lheir collaboration with the Porter Commission as regards
the general principles in handling criminal allegalions. The Panel does not seem to
consider caution of authentlcity of sources of information, which are not subject to scrutiny.
They do not appear .lo consider the gravity of indicting people, govemmenls and companies
on evidence that may be forged or taise.
IV: ALLEGATIONS AGAINST GOVERNMENT OF UGANDA/UPDF
13. The U.N panel makes a number of uncorrcborated allegations against the Uganda
Govemmenl /UPDF.
1,. False AJlegation 1.
Thal UPOF presence in the Eastern DRC is the cause of the inslability designed lo create
conditions for the continued illegal exploltation of resoun:;es of lhe DRC. For example: •
Para 12 ... Criminal groups linked to the annies of.... Uganda .... [Among ottiërëounlries].'.:---i
Para 14 The Uganda Peoples' Defense Forces continue to provoke ethnie conflicts, as in the
past, clea11y cogniZant that the unrest in lluri will require the continue presence of a
minimum presence of UPDF pe,sonnelJ
Para 101 UPOF and lheir associaled rebel mifitias have been used as lhe de facto enforcement
arm of the nemorka
Para 102 in anticipation of lhis wilhdrawal a paramilitary force is being trained under Lt. Gen.
Saleh. which according ID the panel's sources is expected to continue to hlcifitate the
commercial activilies of UPDF officers after UPOF has left
•
URAnnex 103
9
1f. Response
The UPCF is a national army with no official or un-official finks wilh criminal groups. lt is
unfair 1o make such an allegation against the institution of the UPOF wilhout naming the
criminal groups.
The UPDF remains in the ORC al the requesl of the UN Secretary General in May 2001 as
a stabilizing force ln Bunia in support of the Lusaka Cease lire Agreement
Uganda has signed bilateral agreements wilh the ORC such as the Luanda Agreement of 6
September 2002 on the total wilhdrawat of UPDF and the lturi Pacification Commission.
The Hema/Lendu conflict is historical and was triggered off by a fight for land. The lale
Mobutu compounded it When he look sides wilh the Hema against the lendu by giving 1hem
land. The UPDF therefore did not create lhls conflict Facts on the ground clearty
demonstrate that the security situation in an the other areas where the UPDF withdrew such
as GbadoUte. Gamena. Buta Beni, etc. There is relative peace. Many of these areas have
more nalllral resources and population !han Bunia. where lhete has been persistent
Hema/lendu ethnie conflict over land.
The U.N Securily Council will recau lhat Uganda has on various occasions appealed for lhe
deployment of a sufficient MONUC force to take care of law and order in lturi so Illat UPDF
withdraws but MONUC has not been able to do so. Uganda is committed lo the total
wilhdrawal of UPDF from Sonia in 100 days from the 0-day of 6 September 2002 as
stipulated in the Luanda Agreement.
17. False Allegation 2
False Jllegation that UPDF is maintaining local mHitias in East,rn DRC to protect the
elite network.
Para 101 .... The Uganda Peoples' Defense Forces and their associated rebel militias have .
been used as the de facto enforcement arm of the networ1l, ensuring the network's preeminent
commercial position through intimidation and threat and use of force ....
Para 108, ... Collan has been exploited extensively in Orientale Province by various armed
groups under the protedion of UPDF .... Armed groups frequently identi1ied wilh militias
under the command of UPDF olficers manage site in remote locations where diggers
pay a daily fee to exploit an area.
URAnnex103
10
11. Response
The Uganda Government through UPDF ha.s never trained any persona! militias. The
Govemmenl of Uganda armies on behall of their allies, namely MLC and RCD-K/ML. The
troops trained and put in the hands of MLC continues to provide effective security and
adminis1ration in the area under MLC contrai. Unfortunately RCD-MlJK has suffered
numerous divisions in its leadership. As a result some of the troops are under Mbusa
Nyamwisi in the Beni-Butembo area of North Kivu. The other group is under the former
Minister of RCO-ML, Toma Lubanga in parts of lturi, who has since formed a pofilical group
called Union of Patriotic Congolese ( UPC). The confusion in the final report arises from the
UN Paners failure to understand 1his historical background.
This specific inference to UPOF as running mffitia groups and thal il operates lhrough
intimidation is totally unlrue. UPOF operates on a strict code of conduct, and where
individual officers have misbehaved and lhere is implicating evidence they have always
faced 1he law. ·
The Army stal.Jte 1989, the UPDF code of conduct, etc. and more recenlly the Potier
Commission are a good lestimony how UPDF cannot condone such acts as stated above.
The gO\lemmenl of the Republic of Uganda reiterates its position lha~ it is committed lo the
implementation of the Poiler Commission recommendations.
What logic is in an argument that armed groups are prolected by UPDF? If the groups
were armed would lhey need any protection, and protected from who and what! Why did the
panel not name lhese groups?
19. False Allegation 3.
Toat UPDF oilicers have been involved elC!orting :axes from Con;oleu.
Para 115 llBut increased profit margins from tax-free imports provide only a fraction of the
taxi he benefits. Equally lucrative is access to the taxes themselves monopofized by
the networ1l lhat uses lhe rebels' adminislration lacade ...
'--·-------.-----
20. Response
The details of this infonnation e.g. which units and officers involved should have been
availed for scrutiny otherwise the claim remains a rumour
This claim is taise as it pretends !hat there are no rebel groups in the areas mentioned in
lhe Eastern DRC. Both Lusaka and other agreements have recognized the different rebel
actors, whose origin can be traced !rom failure by the Kinshasa adminislration to exercise
effective leadership in the area.
Uganda betieves lhat the war situalion. which was provoked by failure of Kinshasa to
extend leadership inlo lhese places. leading to the presence of marauding AOF rebels and
10
URAnnex 103
11
more recenUy PRA elemenls and other negative forces in the ORC are the real problem
behind the criminalily in the Easlem DRC.
21. Allegation 4
That UPOF has been involved in stealing cattle and forcing the locals to give them hides
117 ... The representatives of Food and Agriculture Organizations of lhe United Nations in Bunia
has reported the more recent UPOF praetice of offering protection to ranches against
attacks that they lhemselves have otthestrated.
Para 122 ... UPOF have created the conditions that requlre tne presence of lroops and their
continued involvernent in the commercial operations. This has entailed giving arrns to both
sides in the ethnie conllict, the Lendu and the Hema. The consequent lncrease in ethnie
fighling has resulled in the UPOF being urged to ;issist in furthering the peace process in
Bunia
.... This function was formalized in an official protocol d'Accord signed on 22 Feb. 2002 by
Mbusa and John rtbasiima as the President and lhe Vice President of the RCO.IQML and
Col. Mayombo as lhe official representative of lhe Govemment of Uganda •..
Para 124 •.. Para 124... UPOF military operations have contributed to the anning of large
numbets. UPOF have trained the militia oflheir lturi commercial ames ...
22. Response
• The allegation that UPOF is involved in steafing of cattle in Bunia is false. However, if
individual have been involved, lhe panel should be able to give the number of cattle
stolen. and the officers involved and fi'om which units these officers came for necessary
disciplinary action by Govemment.
• The alleged statement of proof about Col. Mayombo signing a documenl as an offlCial
representative of Uganda Govemment is not only untrue but also seems to be
consistent wilh the falsehood the panel either decided to swallow or is defiberately
peddfing itseff. The panel had a chance to meet Mayombo but could not raise a
question about the claim to him. This melhod of doing work casts doubt on the
transparency of the panel in gathering information. "'
• Apart from il being a rie, il creates an impression that UPDF unils in the ORC could
depend on $25,000 a monlh. Il is ridiculous to state that UPDF depends on $25,000 to
stay in the DRC.
23. Allegation 5
Paras 102, 103,121,122 contain a muddled analysis of the power play in Easlern ORC
resufting into some important conclusion:
11
URAnnex103
12
Thal Lt. Gen. Saleh is training private militia ... made up of RCD, Conga
That UPDF officers are intent on bteaking up MLC in order to boost members rrom Red-Congo
That lhere is an aUempt to replace Mbusa Nyamisi with Roger Lumbala of RCD Nationale
Thomas Luban a îs acin Mbusa N amisi in lturi etc.
24. Response
• RCD Congo is a splinter group from RCD Goma and is allied lo Kinshasa following
the Sun City Agreement and is lherefore not anybody's personal nv1itia.
• Roger Lumbala of RCD Nationale is aOied to MLC of Jean Pierre Bemba. ACO
Naionale has been in conffict wilh RCD K/ML. So ils leader is nol being groomed
by any party to replace Mbusa Nyamwisi.
• There is no evidence adduced to suggest lhat UPDF officers are in the process of
undennining Bemba, to bring about his downfall.
• RCD KIML is allied to the Kinshasa government and has been receiving mililary and
other support rrom the Kinshasa govemment
• RCD K/ML has been arming and training the Lendu against lhe Hema in lturi
regicn. Sc Hema elements wilhin RCO K/ML have consequenUy deselt2d te form
the UPC under tonner RCD KML Defence Minister Thomas Lubanga.
• The UP.C has sought alternative sources or arms ciling rerusal of UPOF to arm
!hem.
• The Hema Lendu conftict is historical and is about land is there not a result of amval
of UPOF in lturi.
• lturi is no! the most resource rich area where UPOF has been in Congo. The olher
areas vacated by UPDF are devoid of ethnie strife. That UPOF is fanning ethnie
conllict to maintain criminal e!ife networlts is therefore preposlerous.
25. Allegation &.
That 165 children between 14-16 years of age were recruiled and trained at a UPOF
military camp al Kyanitwanzi in Uganda. (Para 129)
26. Response
Kyankwanzi is a National Leadership lnstilute and not a military training camp. The
chHdren were rescued fi'om a muliny by Mbusa Nyamwisi and John Tibasiima against lhe
12
URAnnex 103
13
leadership of RCD-K under Prof. Wamba dia Wamba in Bunia and taken to the Kyankwanzi
leadership lnstitute for care and counseling in 2001. The children were subsequently
handed over to UNICEF Uganda and lhe Red Cross, which in tum put lhe children under
the care ofWorld V1Sion at Kiryandongo in Uganda. UNICEF, Kinshasa arranged to receive
and re-unite lhe children with families after the conflict had eased. The unspecified
numbers of recruits being trained in unstated location for the extrernist Hema militia, 60% of
who are supposed to be under 18 have nolhing to do wilh Uganda.
V: ALLEGATIONS AGAINST UGANDAN MIUTAR'f OFFICERS AND OTHER INDIVIDUALS
27. The Governmenl of Uganda has noled with concem the aHegations of continued
involvement of Uga?'lda military officers and businessmen in ihe iHegal exploitation of natural
resources, diversion of taxes and other revenue generation activilies in Eastern DRC.
28. The Government of Uganda established the Judicial Commission of lnquiry into the lllegal
Exploilalion of Natural Resources of the ORC, May 2001, under the chairmanship of Justice
Porter (UK). Other members of the Commission are Justice Berko {Ghana) and Mr. John
Rwambuya, a retired Ugandan Senior UN Civil servant (official). The Porter Commission
has cooperated with the UN Panel on a number of source materials/evidence.
29. lt should be noted that the final Porter Commission Report wiU be released soon. The
Govemrnenl of Uganda reiterates ils commitmenl to the implernen~tion of the
recornmendalions of Ille Report. The Govemment of Uganda win, therefore, await lhe
release of the Porter Commission Report, before making any comments on lhe allegalions
against specific Ugandan senior military officers and business people.
lndividual Liabi6fy Vs Official Liability:
30. However, we feel lhat lhere is need la comment on the issues where official liability and
individual liability have been mixed up. Il is not clear from lhe UN Panel Report to discem
allegations of illegality/illicit aclivilies of the individual UPOF offices .done in persona!
capacity fronr those aclivities considered illegal/ilficit commilted while acting in official
capacily. For example:
a). ln Para 102 the Report alleges that in anticipation of the wilhdrawal from ORC by UPDF
a paramount force is being lraitted by Lt Gen. Saleh which is being prepared to continue to
facilitate the commercial activilies of UPDF officers alter UPOF has departed.
Comment:
• As a malter of policy and law, Uganda Government does not allow. encourage, or
condone the establishment of pe,sonal armies in this context. il is important fD note that
the alleged persona! para military force does not exist as explained in paragraph above.
(b) ln Para 122 - the Panel claims that in order UPDF to formalize the condition for its
conlinued presence, Col. Mayombo (CMI) signed a protocol of Accord with RCO/Ml as
an official representative of lhe Govemment, for a monlhly stipend of$ 25,000 and all.
Uganda enterprises approved by UPDF would be exonerated all dulies and taxes.
13
URAnnex 103
14
Comment:
• The alleged Accord does not exisl in government oecords.
• Col. Mayombo as Chief of Intelligence had opportunily to meet the Panel, and if lhis
Accord existed, the issue should have been raised with him or govemrnenl of Uganda in
order to provide a fair hearing, as required by the Paners mandate (S/PRST/2001/13).
VI: OBSERVATIONS OF THE UN PANEL OF EXPERTS
30. The Uganda Govemment agrees wilh lhe following observations of the UN Panel of
experts:
(a) Thal lhe situation in the DRC is a consequence of the lacl< of a central government with
the aulhority and capacity to protect ils citizens and resources (Para 149). However il
should be noted lhal lhis situation is nota new phenomenon, but has been a feature of the
recurring history of the DRC from lhe lime of King Leopold of Belgium to the establishment
of the predatory state of the laie President Mobutu. The four years of war have only
exacerbated the already existing situation.
(b) Thal the early establishment of an ail inclusive transltional Govemmenl in the DRC
would be a positive step towards halting the exploitation of Natural Resources (Para 151).
This has been lhe consistent view of signatories of Lusaka Cease Fire Agreement
However the key to the issue of continued monitoring should be with the new political
dispensation in the ORC.
32. Uganda, however disagrees wilh the following observations:
a). Thal the withdrawal of foreign forces will not end the illegal exploitation of nalural resources
because of the existence of networks to continue with the exploitation lhere after.(Para
150). ln the case of Uganda, there is no proof of the existence of such networks.
• b). That it is the polilical will of lhose involved with the networks lhat
would hait the illegal exploitation of resources in the DRC and that the Lusaka,
Pretoria and Luanda Agreements do not address the economic component or the
conflict {Para 152) The whole observation is incorrect given the following tacts:
• The Lusaka Cease tire agreement and lhe Luanda agreement are strong and clear
statements of political will and commilmenl
• The Lusaka agreement estabtishes a framework for the building a strong state able to
inter-aria creale conditions for economic developments.
• The Sun Cily resolulions include a chapter addressing financiaf and economic issues.
• Arlicle 6 of the Luanda agreement addresses the social economic issues of !rade and
14
URAnnex 103
15
investment, which are to be implemented lhrough a Joint Permanent Commission for
Cooperation between Uganda and the ORC.
CONCLUSIONS OF THE UN PANEL OF EXPERTS
33. Uganda welcomes the condusion lhat an Embargo or a moratorium banning exports of raw
materials originating in the Democralic Republic of the Congo is nol viable because it would
hurt the citizens, govemmenl and the natural environment.
34. We also welcome the principle of punitive measures to be taken against lhOse who are
involved in the IDegal exploilation of the nalural resources (Para 155). However, any
sanctions against individuals or comparues should be applied as a result of a judicial
process
35. Uganda also agrees with the conclusion #lai disincenlives be enacted to put pressure in
case of non-compliance with the Lusaka Cease lire, Pretoria and Luanda Agreements
signed (Para 159). This has long been the lacking component to expedle the
implementatioo ofthese agreements.
36. On the proposai to hold a Regional International èonference on peace. security democracy
and sustainable development in the Great lakes region (Para 160). Uganda reiterates ifs
view that lhis conference should be held alter implemenling the Lusaka Cease fire
Agreement. This would avoid undermining the regional consensus encapsulated in this
agreement and lhe current momenlum of troops wilhdrawal provided for under the Pretoria
and Luanda Agreements. Economie Regional lntegration is welcome idea and can be
achieved wi!hin the framework of African Union/NEPAO.
VII: RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UN PANEL OF EXPERTS
37. Uganda would like fo make commenls on the following recommendations:
Panel's Recommendalion in (Para 162)
Regional economic integration and !rade could be the focus of an agreement or set of agreements
lhat could emerge trom discussions regionany, including at the International conference on
peace. securily and suslainable development.
Comments:
The International Conference on the Great Lakes Region should be held aftèr the
implemenlalion of the Lusaka. Pretoria and Luanda Agreements. Howe~er. to avoid
duplication and waste of resources the international conference should be held wilhin the
framework of the African Union/NEPAD
IS
URAnnex103
URAnnex103
16
38. Paners Recommendation (Para 163)
Reconstrucling and reforming the state institutions of the Democratic Republi!: of
Con o, rticularl the state's ca ac· to secure its telTito and border&.
Comments:
• Uganda welcomes the idea of a strong Government in the ORC able fo control the
counfty's natural resources and borders so that its territory is not used to
destabmze her ,egional neighbors.
39. Paners Recommendation (Para 170)
The Governments of the countries where the individuals. companies and financial institutions
that are systematically and actively involved in lhese activities are based should assume
their share of fhe resoonsibililv.
40.Comment
Uganda welcomes the idea of govemments laking responsibility to use ttte evidence
adduced by the panel to subject to trial and conviction of individuals and enlilies operating
wilhin their respective boarders. Uganda has established a Judicial Commission of lnquiry
headed by Justice Porter and would encourage olhers, especially the end-user countries to
dolikewise
41. Panel's Recommendations (paras 174-176)
Restrictions on business enterprises and individuals: Travel bans, Freezing Persona!
assels of persans involved in iUegal exploilaUon and barring selected companies and
individuals from acoessing banking facilities and other financial institutions from receiving
funding. Comments
• Uganda supports the above measures ta be taken provided lhat the individuals
and companies impficated by the UN Panel of experts are first subjected to a
judicial process.
42. Panel's Recommendation (Para 179:)
Promotion of post-conflict peace-building programs including regîonal integration, capacilybuilding
...
16
17
Comments:
• Uganda strongly supports and endorses the recommendation for the strengthening
of regional integration and capacity building as part of the post- conflict peace
building program. These should be the priority areas for lhe UN and lhe
international convnunity to assistAfrica in the implementation of NEPAO.
43.. Panel's Recommendations (Para18& &187:)
There is need for a monitoring process to scrutinize lhe situation in lhe Great Lakes region lo
ensure that lhose exploitation activili~ are significanlly curbed.
Comments:
• Uganda is of fhe view lhat after the estabUshment of a strong and capable central
Govemrnent in the DRC under the Lusaka Cease lite Agreement and beyond the
idea of con1inued monitoring will not be necessary. ln any case fhe decision on lhis
should be the responsibility of the new political dispensation in the ORC.
VIIL WAY FORWARD
44. Uganda remains convinced that lhe UN Security Council should put priority emphasis on
the speedy· implementation of the Lusaka Cease-fire Agreement and the supporting
agreemenlls made in Pretoria and Luanda. This will lead to the establishment of a new
transitional government and state capacity to guarantee against the Hlegal exploitation of
the natural resources and olher forms of weallh of the DRC.
45. The speedy implementation of disarmamenl demobillzation reintegration, repatrialion and
resettlement (DDRRR) stiU remains key to peace and Security in the Great Lake$ region.
Uganda therefore calls upon the UN Securily Council to strengthen MONUC and support
capacity building programs for peace-keepinglbuilding by African countries in émier to
implement OORRR.
46. The way forward for lturi is through the implementalion of luanda Agreement that provides
for the Pacification Commission. The International Community should provide adequate
material support for the lturi Pacification Commission. The UN Security CouncU at this
stage should assume ils responsibility and provide adequale deployment of MONUC for
the purpose of maintaining law and order in the area, given 1he fact that UPDF is
committed under the Luanda Agreement to complete withdraw from Bunia by 15 December
2002.
17
URAnnex 103
18
47. The proposed international conferenoe on peace. securily and sustainable development
should take place under the auspices of the UN and AU soon after the establishment or the
transitional govemmenl$ in Burundi and the DRC. Issues lo be discussed at lhe
internationaVregional conference for the Great Lakes should include:
• Post-contrict rehabilitalion, reconStlllction and development in the Great Lakes
Region
• Measures to support the deepening of regional/economic integralion especially in
infrastructure and human resources development,
• Capacity-building ·tor peace-keeping/building and conOicl resolutions.
• Strengthening AU capacity fo monitor the post-confticl reconstruction in the contexl
ofNEPAD
48. Uganda calfs upon lhe countries cited in the Final Report including the end-user countries,
to establlsh independent Judicial Mechanisms to investigate and recommend appropriate
actions on allegations or Mlegal exploilalon of lhe natural resources of the ORC. The UN
Secretary General should cooperate and share information wilh the member states who
wish to establish such judicial mechanisms. Uganda would be happy fo share e.xperience
from the work or Porter Commission of lnqui,y in the illegal exploitation of the natural
resources and olher f()rms of wealth of the DRC. Il is in the context lhat individual and
companies/enlllies menlioned can be fairly tried and punished.
Kampala, Uganda.
November 2. 2002
URAnnex 103
Ill
URAnnex 104

Saleb Given New DRC Assignment
New Vision (Kampala)
NEWS
November 1, 2002
Posted to the web November 1, 2002
By Alfred W asike
Kampala
URANNEX104
·-"ldth Annual AFCOM Conference Nov 11.13, 2
· ·ijJ û l f j 1! L:: ': : '. ,~iHon Washington Dulles Hoter, U
PRESIDENT Yoweri Museveni and his Congo]ese counterpart, Joseph Kabila, have assigned Lt.
Gen. Salim Saleh the duty to organise the repatriation of Congolese rebels and govemment soldiers
living in U ganda.
Saleh, a UPDF MP and commander of the National Reserve Force, told the Porter probe into the
DRC plunder that be had just retumed from Kinshasa for talks with Kabila about bis new task.
Saleh, who described bis 14-month-longjob as "a Great Lakes Region peace-building missiort", said
the deserters were camped at the Pan African Centre at Namboole, awaiting repatriation.
Saleh trashed the UN panel's report that he leads an intricate network to pillage the former Zaire. He
handed over his bank accounts in London and Geneva to prove he was broke and urged Porter to
investigate and send his findings to the UN.
"I have not even paid school fees for my two daughters in the USA yet I am being accused of looting
the Congo. By the way, what people don't know is that Uganda has more wealth," Saleh,
accompanied by bis wife, Jovia, said.
He opened his brown ]eather document folder, yanked out a white piece of paper and gave it to
Justice Porter and said, "My lord, these are my foreign accounts. I request that you check. You can
see ail the transfers since the war in Congo started. If you find any money, let them take it. I want you
to help them not to waste time. Let them freeze whatever they find there."
Porter said Saleh must allow the probe to check his wife's accounts, to which Saleh consented.
Copyright © 2002 New Vision. Ali rights reserved. Distributec
AIIAfrica Global Media (allAfrica.com).

URAnnex 105

URANNEX105
"Excellent, lnexpenslve AfRIC
Kabila Sacks Leaders of State Mining Company
UN Integrated Regional Information Networks
NEWS
November 4, 2002
Posted to the web November 4, 2002
Nairobi
reference work ... " 2003
President Joseph Kabila has dismissed the leaders of the state diamond mining company, two weeks
after its head, Jean-Charles Okoto, was named in a UN expert panel report on the illegal exploitation
of the natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC), news agencies reported
over the weekend.
The govemment, however, denied that the dismissal ofOkota and colleagues at the Miniere de
Bakwanga (Miba) was linked to UN report. "This measure by the president has nothing to do with the
report of the UN panel," the DRC govemment spokesman, Kikaya Bin Karubi, was quoted as telling
AP on Saturday.
"These managers were appointed by [late President] Laurent [-Desire] Kabila in 1997, during a time
of war, but now that the war is over, we want to appoint a new board of directors and change the
management structure," Kikaya was quoted as telling Reuters on Sunday.
The report, released on 21 October, said that despite the withdrawal of foreign forces from the DRC,
"elite criminal networks" had become so deeply entrenched that continued illegal exploitation of the
country's natural resources was assured, independent of the physical presence of foreign armies. It
nàmed Okoto as one of the chief figures in the "elite network" of the DRC govemment and allied
Zimbabwe forces.
(For the complete report, go to http://daccessods.
un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N02/621/79/pdf/N0262l 79 .pdf?OpenElement]
In a related development, several parties named in the UN report have denied involvement in the
illegal pillage ofDRC resources.
The government of Uganda has largely rebuffed the latest report from the United Nations Panel of
Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms ofWealth of the DRC, but
said it would await the results of its own independent judicial inquiry before making any comments
on allegations against specific Ugandan senior military officers and business people.
"Contrary to the Panel's assertion that it relied on documentary and corroborated
evidence/information, the United Nations Panel continues to rely on hearsay/uncorroborated
information," Ugandan Foreign Minister James Wapakhabulo said on 23 October. He added that the
report contained numerous flaws and factual errors, observing that it had ignored "Uganda's
legitimate security concems" for being present in the DRC.
He added that the govemment ofUganda was preparing a detailed response to the report, and that
Uganda's own judicial commission of inquiry would soon be releasing its own report.
Meanwhile, two other parties named in the UN report, DRC Minister of National Security Mwenze
Kongolo and a Belgian businessman, George Forrest, offered their own rebuttals.
In a letter to UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan at the end of October, Kongolo said the panel had
never spoken with him and requested copies of all documentation allegedly linking him to illegal
activity. Along with Okoto, Kongolo was named as one of the chief figures in the "elite network" of ·
the DRC govemment and allied Zimbabwe forces. "1 reserve the right to use ail means made available
under the law so that my dignity, reputation and my honour, which have been seriously tamished by
this report, be restored," he said.
In a five-page news release issued at the end of October, Forrest and his associated companies offer a
detailed denial of charges levied against them, accusing the panel having failed to produce any
evidence. The statement also demanded to know why the panel never met with them, nor offered the
Forrest Group an opportunity to respond to the many allegations the panel made against them.
"The Group of experts has undoubtedly wished to bit hard, but by refusing to meet with the Forrest
Group and to listen to them, the experts have intentionally committed very serious negligences,
causing at an intematiûnal level the devastatiûn of the commercial reputation of the Forrest Grnup
and endangering its economical survival, for which, without any possible discussion, the
responsibility lies on the group of experts," the statement said.
It called upon Annan "to intervene urgently within his Organisation in order to put an end to the
defamation and the assau1t on the honour and commercial reputation suffered by the Forrest Group
without any known reason".
[The complete communique, available in French and English, can be found at
http;//www.forrestgroup.com/]
URAnnexlOS
Copyright© 2002 UN Integrated Regional Information Networlc
rights reserved. Distributed by AIIAfrica Global Media
(allAfrica.com).
URAnnex 106

URANNEX106
•
President:
Members:
Agenda
United Nations
Security Council
Fifty-seventh year
4642nd meeting
Tuesday, 5 November 2002, 10 a.m.
New York
Mr. Zhang Yishan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (China)
Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Tafrov
Cameroon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Tidjanî
Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Valdivieso
France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Levitte
Guinea . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Traoré
Ireland • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Corr
Mauritius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Jingree
Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mrs. Arce de Jeannet
Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Str0mmen
Russian Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Konuzin
Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Mahbubani
Syrian Arab Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Atieh
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northem Ireland . . . . . Sir Jeremy Greenstock
United States of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Williamson
The situation conceming the Democràtic Republic of the Congo.
Letter dated 15 October 2002 from the Secretary-General addressed to the
President of the Security Council (S/2002/1146).
This record contains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the interpretation of
speeches delivered in the other languages. The final text will be printed in the Official Records
of the Security Council. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They
should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature of a member of the
delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, room C-178.
02-67562 (E)
*0267562*
S/PV.4642
Provisiona/
S/PV.4642
The meeting was called to order at JO. 15 a.m.
Expression of thanks to the retiring President
The President (spoke in Chinese): As this is the
first meeting of the Security Council for the month of
November, I should like to take this opportunity to pay
tribute, on behalf of the Council, to His Excellency Mr.
Martin Belinga-Eboutou, Permanent Representative of
Cameroon to the United Nations, for his service as
President ·of the Security Council for the month of
October 2002. I am sure I speak for ail members of the
Council in expressing deep appreciation to Ambassador
Belinga-Eboutou for the great diplomatie skill with
which be conducted at the Council's business last
month.
Adoption of the agenda
The agenda was adopted.
The situation concerning the Democratic Republic of
the Congo
Letter dated 15 October 2002 from the
Secretary-General addressed to the President of
the Security Council (S/2002/1146)
The Pr.esident (spoke in Chinese): I should like
to inform the Council that I have received letters from
the representatives of Belgium, Denmark, the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Oman, Rwanda,
South Africa, Uganda and Zimbabwe, in which they
request to be invited to participate in the discussion of
the item on the Council's agenda. In conformity with
the usual practice, I propose, with the consent of the
Council, to invite those representative to participate in
the discussion, without the right to vote, in accordance
with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 3 7
of the Council 's provisional rules of procedure.
There being no objection, it is so decided.
On behalf of the Council, I welcome the Third
Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign
Affairs of the Republic ofUganda, His Excellency The
Honourable James W. Wapakhabulo.
2
At the invitation of the President, Mr. Wapakhabulo
(Uganda) took a seat at the Council table.
URAnnex 106
At the invitation of the President, Mr. lleka
(Democratic Republic of the Congo) look a seat at
the Counci/ table; Mr. De Ruyt (Belgium), Ms. Laj
(Denmark), Mr. Al-Hinai (Oman), Mr. Gasana
(Rwanda), Mr. Kumalo (South Africa) and
Mr. Muchetwa (Zimbabwe) took the seats reserved
for them at the side of the Council Chamber.
The President (spoke in Chinese): In accordance
with the understanding reached in the Council 's prior
consultations, and in the absence of objection, I shall
take it that the Security Council agrees to extend an
invitation under rule 39 of its provisional rules of
procedure to His Excellency Mr. Mahmoud Kassem,
Chairman of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal
Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of
Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
It is so decided.
I invite Mr. Kassem to take a seat at the Council
table.
The Security Council will now continue its
consideration of the item on its agenda. The Security
Council is meeting in accordance with the
understanding reached in its prior consultations.
I should !ike to cal! the attention of members to
the following documents: S/2002/ll87, letter dated 23
October 2002 from Rwanda, transmitting a statement
and the reply by its Govemment on the final report of
the Panel of Experts; S/2002/1199, letter dated 25
October 2002 from South Africa; S/2002/1202, letter
dated 25 October from Uganda, transmitting a
statement by its Government on the final report of the
Panel of Experts; S/2002/1207, letter dated 28 October
2002 from Rwanda; and photocopies of a letter dated 4
November 2002 from Rwanda, which will be issued as
a document of the Security Council under the symbol
S/2002/122 l.
I give the floor to the Honourable James
Wapakhabulo, Third Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Uganda.
Mr. Wapakhabulo (Uganda): It is a great
pleasure for me to address members of the Council on
the final report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal
Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of
Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(S/2002/1146). I am particularly happy to see you, Sir,
presiding over the proceedings of the Council. Africa
will always remember the commitment and support
extended by the People's Republic of China to our
people in the struggle for independence, justice, peace
and sustainable development. I can assure you of my
delegation's continued cooperation in the search for
peace and stability in the Great Lakes region. Allow
me also to congratulate your predecessor, Ambassador
Belinga-Eboutou of Cameroon, for the excellent
manner in which he guided the work of the Council in
October.
I would also like to thank the Secretary-General
for bis commitment to conflict resolution and peacebuilding
in Africa and for his dedication to a broad,
sustained and global fight against terrorism. His
Special Representative for the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, Ambassador Namanga Ngongi, and his
Special Envoy, His Excellency Mr. Moustapha Niasse,
have traversed the Great Lakes region and beyond to
ensure progress in the implementation of the Lusaka
Ceasefire Agreement and of the related Pretoria and
Luanda Agreements, and the finalization of the interCongolese
dialogue on the establishment of an ailinclusive
transitional government in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo.
Thanks to the support of the Security Council and
the Govemments of South Africa, Kenya. Gabon and
Tanzania, prospects for peace in the Great Lakes region
seem greater than ever before. We are most obliged to
all members of the Council for the interest and
commitment they have collectively shown on issues
relating to the maintenance of peace and stability in
Africa. lndeed, the annual visits by Council members
to the Great Lakes region since 2001 are a clear
demonstration of the Council 's commitment.
The Government of U ganda has welcomed the
release of the final report of the Panel of Experts on the
fIIegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other
Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. I wish to thank the Security Council for giving
us the opportunity to respond to the contents of the
final report.
We have prepared a detailed response to the final
report, which bas already been circulated in document
S/2002/1202. It covers the strengths and critical
weaknesses of the report. It responds to the major
categories of allegations against the Uganda People's
Defence Forces and outlines Uganda's views on the
overall picture and on the challenges before the
S/PV.4642
Security Council in the search for peace in the Great
Lakes region.
With respect to Uganda's position on the
principle of investigation, the Council will recall that
in 2000 His Excellency President Yoweri Museveni
gave his persona! and strong support to the proposai to
establish a United Nations panel to investigate
allegations of illegal exploitation of natural resources
of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Since 2001,
Uganda has extended its maximum cooperation to
Panel members, during their visits to Kampala in
November 2000, August 2001 and March and
September 2002.
With the endorsement of the Security Council,
Uganda established in May 200 I the Porter Judicial
Commission of Inquiry to investigate allegations against
Ugandan military officers, individuals and companies in
connection with the illegal exploitation of the natural
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. As
stipulated by our Commission of Inquiry Act, the Porter
Commission has the judicial powers of the High Court
of Uganda, including the power to subpoena witnesses
and documents and to perfonn audits. I should say here
that the Porter Commission has cooperated with the
United Nations Panel, including through the exchange of
information and materials.
The final report of the Porter Commission is
expected by the middle of this month. Its mandate
expires on 15 November, so it should be reporting any
time now. The Government of U ganda will therefore
await the release of the Porter Commission report
before making any comments on allegations against
specific Ugandan senior military officers and business
people that are contained in the final report of the
United Nations Panel. The Govemment of Uganda
reiterates its commitment to the implementation of the
recommendations of the report. Uganda - and this is
important - will without doubt keep the United
Nations security Council advised of whatever measures
it takes in implementation of the recommendations of
the Porter Commission.
Uganda is a country that became involved in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo out of genuine
security concerns. We believe that, in the interest of
promoting peace in the Great Lakes region, there
should be transparency in the activities of parties
involved directly or indirectly in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo.
3
URAnnex106
S/PV.4642
I will now comment on the positive aspects of the
Panel's final report. As pointed out in my press
statement of 23 October 2002, the Government of
U ganda bas noted that the final report contains a
number of positive elements.
The report recognizes the fact that the Republic
of Uganda established the Porter Judicial Commission
of Inquiry as an internai mechanism to address the
allegations of illegal exploitation of the natural
resources ·of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in
accordance with the Security Council recommendations
contained in the presidential statements of 3 May
(S/PRST/2001/13) and 19 December 2001
(S/PRST/2001/39). The United Nations Panel also
made a positive effort to cooperate and share
information with the Porter Commission, in spite of the
marked differences between the Panel and the
Commission on methods of investigation.
The report also confirms the fact that neither the
Ugandan Government nor any of its companies are
involved in the illegal exploitation of the natural
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Indeed, the addendum to the previous report of the
United Nations Panel (S/200 l/ 1072) concluded that
Uganda's involvement in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo was based on, fin,t, a bilateral protocol
between Kampala and Kinshasa of 26 April 1998 and,
secondly, the legitimate security concerns emanating
from: the threat posed by the negative forces operating
in eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo: the
Allied Democratic Forces, the West Nile Bank Front,
the Ugandan National Rescue Front II and the more
recently formed People's Redemption Army.
The report also shares Uganda's view that an
embargo or moratorium on exports of natural resources
from the Democratic Republic of the Congo would not
be a "viable means of helping to improve the situation
of the country's Govemment, citizens or natural
environment" (S/2002/1146, para. 155). As Uganda
stated in its response (S/2001/1163) to the addendum to
the first report, such a moratorium not only would be
difficult to enforce but, in a very large measure, would
hurt the Congolese small-scale farmers and artisan
miners whose livelihood depends entirely on earnings
from the traditional cross-border trade.
The report also positively covers more, and a
wider range of, participants by covering the end-user
countries. By doing so, the final report provided the
4
URAnnex 106
missing link and, in our view, improved the scope of
the investigation to cover ail parties involved in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. Indeed, in our
view, a deeper historical analysis of companies and
criminal organizations based outside Africa would have
definitely helped create a proper understanding of the
failure to build viable State institutions and structures
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo since the era
of King Leopold II of the Belgians.
Also positively, the report also focuses on
recommendations that will create conditions and
incentives for encouraging all parties to implement
their obligations under the Lusaka Ceasefire
Agreement, the related Pretoria and Luanda
Agreements and the Sun City resolutions. They relate
also to deepening regional integration; calling for
strong international financial support for building State
institutions in the Democratic Republic of the Congo;
post-conflict reconstruction in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo and regional neighbours; deterring
international organized crime syndicates from
continued illegal activities in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo.
We in Uganda found these to be positive aspects
of the Panel of Expert's report. But we also had
difficulties, and we have areas we consider to be of
concern to us. I will outline these. The first is the
downplaying of Uganda's security concerns in the
eastern Democratic Republic of the Congo. Unlike the
addendum report ofNovember 2001 (S/2001/1072), the
final report completely ignores Uganda's legitimate
security concems as recognized in the Lusaka
Ceasefire Agreement, the relevant Security Council
resolutions, and the bilateral agreement between
Uganda and the Democratic Republic of the Congo
signed on 6 September 2002 in Angola.
Let me reiterate that Uganda got involved in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo as a result of
genuine security concerns. These included the
operations of the terrorist groups I mentioned earlier
and other forces such as the genocidai members of the
former Rwandan Armed Forces (ex-FAR) and
Interahamwe. Those groups have used the territory of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo to launch
persistent and indiscriminate terrorist attacks on the
people ofUganda.
I will cite a few examples. This included the
grisly incidents at Mpondwe in 1996, when more than
1,000 troops invaded Uganda from the Democratic
Republic of the Congo at a border point called
Mpondwe and at Kichwamba in 1998, where more than
100 co_llege students were locked up in their dormitory
and ktlled. I would also cite the Bwindi terrorist
massacres of 1999, in which foreign tourists - from
Britain, the United States, Australia and New
Zealand- were killed, together with Ugandans.
Bwindi forest is one of the last gorillas sanctuaries in
the world. There continue to be persistent Interahamwe
attacks in the Kisoro district of U ganda on the border
with Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Another area of concern to us is the application of
an invalid hypothesis to find Uganda guilty. There is
the hypothesis of the elite networks, which are claimed
to have curved out separate self-financing areas and to
be responsible for the continuation of microconflicts
over natural resources and revenues in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. This hypothesis, to us, is
fu_ndamentally flawed and invalid. A simple analysis
w1ll show that the basic assumptions of the hypothesis
are wrong: the evidence of the existence of Ugandan
elite networks is untenable and the motive of the
hypothesis, to us, is ill-intentioned. I will elaborate on
this.
The hypothesis makes the incorrect assumption
that the Rassemblement Congolais pour la DémocratieMouvement
de Libération (RCD-K/ML) and the
Mouvement de libération Congolais (MLC) are mere
façades and militias in the so-called Ugandancontrolled
area. Since May 2001, Uganda bas
withdrawn from the Democratic Republic of the
Congo; recently we withdrew from Beni and Gbadolite.
We are left with one battalion, which remains in Bunia
at the request of the Secretary-General, conveyed in his
letter of May 200 l, and also in accordance with the
provisions of the Luanda Agreement between the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and Uganda. My
country is still committed to complete withdrawal,
even from Bunia itself, and I will comment on this
later. But I would like to say that the MLC and the
RCD are right now effectively responsible for the
administration of the areas under their respective
control, and are not just façades; they actually control
territory and are recognized under the Lusaka Ceasefire
Agreement and by the Security Council.
. The Panel ~f Experts does not appear to be
cogmzant of the h1story of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo since the time of King Leopold II -
S/PV.4642
including the fact that U ganda bas been a victim of
repeated terrorist attacks from that country's
territory - when it says that Uganda really went there
to loot. Furthermore, we find no evidence of the
creation of an elite network in the so-called U gandacontrolled
area.
We find the composition of the Panel of Experts
and their method of investigation not to demonstrate a
capacity to sift through deliberate falsehoods, war
propaganda and political intrigue involved in the
conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This
may be due to the fact that membership of the Panel
constantly changed, which also created some weakness.
But in a conflict such as that in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, one bas to be careful when
listening to or believing any evidence. For instance, the
Panel believed the testimony of some Lendu chiefs that
the Hema are responsible for protecting mineral-rich
areas for purposes of exploitation. What we know is
that it is not wise to believe what a Lendu says about a
Hema, and vice versa. We also found it professionally
dishonest to extrapolate data from one area of the vast
~emocratic Republic of the Congo to try to prove tbat,
m the area where Uganda is, similar situations, such as
deaths, are of the same magnitude. Even in my own
country, one part of Uganda cannot be used to
extrapolate for another.
More_ so, it is contrary to th~ mandate issued Qy
the Counctl that the Panel elected in most cases to
overlook the requirement for the inclusion of
comments and reactions from States and other actors
cited in the report. That was a major weakness in the
work of the Panel. We can illustrate this by citing a
number of examples. In paragraphs 102, 103 and 122,
the Panel makes a muddled analysis of the recent
power play in the eastern Democratic Republic of the
Congo, and wrongly èoncludes that General Saleh a
retired Uganda People's Defenèe Forces (UPDF)
?fficer, is training a private militia, that Uganda is
mtent on breaking up MLC to boost the
Rass.emblement Congolais pour la Démocratie (RCDCongo
), and that there is an attempt to replace Mbusa
Nyamwisi with Roger Lumbala of the Rassemblement
Congolais pour la Démocratie-Nationale (RCD-N).
Those who know the Congo can explain that the
pol_itics of the area is as follows: RCD-Congo is a
sphnter group of RCD-Gorna; they disagreed with each
other following the Sun City agreement, signed in
5
URAnnex 106
S/PV.4642
South Africa. Roger Lumbala is actually allied to JeanPièrre
Bemba and the MLC. There is no evidence to
suggest that UPDF officers are in the process of
undermining Bemba to bring him down. To the
contrary, Bemba remains a close ally ofUganda. RCDML
is allied to the Kinshasa Govemment and bas been
receiving military and other support from it in an
attempt to open a rear front against Bemba; hence the
fight between Mbusa Nyamwisi and Lumbala in the
Jsiro area. RCD-ML bas been arming and training the
Lendu against the Hema in the Ituri region. So, Hema
elements have consequently deserted to form their own
army under former RCD-ML Defence Minister Thomas
Lubanga. The Union des Patriotes Congolais (UPC)
has been seeking alternative sources of arms because
we have refused to give them arms. Importantly, the
Hema-Lendu conflict is historical, and not a result of
the fact that UPDF went to Ituri.
The allègations that the UPDF is involved in
commercial operations (para. 122) and that the Chief of
Military Intelligence, Colonel Mayombo, signed a
Protocol d'Accord on 22 February 2002 in exchange
for a monthly stipend of $25,000 and exemption from
taxes are, in our view, based on forged documents. The
Panel had a chance to meet Colonel Mayombo in
Kampala, but it never took advantage of this to clear
this sort of material. It should have met authorities of
the Uganda Government if they were in doubt. But
there is no such Protocol d 'Accord, as alleged in the
report. And when you look for the evidence, there is no
corroborating evidence. The Panel claimed that its
findings would be based on the testimony of
eyewitnesses and that it would operate under
reasonable standards of proof, with faimess and
objectivity. Unfortunately, the final report still contains
serious factual errors, uncorroborated information,
contradictions and clear distortions. The uncorroborated
aUegations against UPDF and those against the
Government of Uganda could have beep checked up on
if the Panel had cared to do so. Let me comment on
some of them to illustrate the point that I am making
about serious errors.
In paragraphs 12, 14, 101 and 102, the Panel
alleges that the UPDF presence is the cause of the
instability in the Ituri area and that it is designed to
create conditions for the continued illegal exploitation
of the resources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. I wish to point out that the UPDF remains in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo at the request of
6
URAnnex 106
the Secretary-General. We could have moved out
completely, because we gave notice in July Iast year
that we would do so. It remains there as a stabilizing
force. Otherwise the process of the Lusaka Cease-fire
Agreement in that area would have collapsed.
We were requested by the Secretary-General to
withdraw UPDF from the area in the context of the
Kampala disengagement plan. Through a special
envoy, Uganda had notified the Secretary-General of
its withdrawal from the Lusaka process and, therefore,
of the unilateral withdrawal of its forces from the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. Uganda bas signed
bilateral agreements with the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, such as one signed in Angola; that will
provide for the total withdrawal of UPDF and the
creation of the Joint Pacification Committee on Ituri. I
will return to that after I have addressed a nurnber of
other issues.
The Hema-Lendu conflict is historical and was
triggered by a fight over land. The late Mobutu Sese
Seko sided with the Hema and gave land to them, to the
annoyance of the Lendu. We found this conflict there
when we went into Bunia. We did not create the
conflict, as seems to be alleged by the Panel. In fact,
the situation is that, where U ganda has withdrawn - as
in Gbadûlite, Gémena, Buta and Beni, - there is
relative peace. Many of those areas have more natural
resources and larger populations than Bunia, where
there has been persistent Hema-Lendu ethnie conflict
over land. In other words, why should we leave Buta
and Gémena and corne to set up business operations
and networks in a conflict-prone area? Right now,
Uganda is prospecting for hydrocarbons and other
minerais in areas adjacent to Ituri. What we need when
we do this is peace in the neighbourhood, not
confusion.
I will clarify that we are drilling for oil in the area
on the floor of the Rift Valley, with very good
prospects. We do not want war or conflict in the
neighbourhood so that we spend our time managing
refugees instead of drilling in our area as we are doing
right now. As proof of the creation of conditions for the
continued presence of UPDF for commercial
operations, the Panel alleges that a Protocol d 'Accord
was signed on behalf of U ganda; as I said, that
Protocol does not exist.
The Panel then alleges that UPDF is maintaining
local rnilitias in the eastern Democratic Republic of the
Congo to protect elite networks. I should point out that
Uganda, through UPDF, bas never trained any persona)
militias. But what we can say is that the Uganda
Govemment has trained armies on behalf of its allies
namely the MLC and the RCD. The trained troops i~
the bands of the MLC continue to provide effective
security and administration in the area under MLC
control. Unfortunately the RCD has suffered numerous
divisions in its leadership. As a result, some of the
troops are under Mbusa Nyamwisi, in North Kivu, in
the Beni-Butembo area. Others are under the former
Defence Minister, Thomas Lubanga, who has since
formed his own political group. The confusion in the
report arises from the fact that the Panel did not
understand those political situations in the area.
The fact that reference is made to UPDF as
running militia groups that operate through intimidation
is totally untrue. We operate on a very strict code of
conduct, and many of our development partners here
have complained to us that we are sometimes too strict
in our application of our statute on the code of conduct.
In fact they call it harsh, to say the Ieast.
The United Nations Panel tries to hit a soft target
by making a false allegation that 165 children between
the ages of 14 and 16 were recruited and trained at a
UPDF military camp at Tchakwanzi, in Uganda. The
Council may wish to know the facts regarding this
allegation, because it is serious and it involves
children. Tchakwanzi is not a UPDF camp. It is a
political school where we take our children for
education in political matters. The children in question
were rescued from a mutiny by Mbusa Nyamwisi and
John Tibasima against Professor Wamba dia Wamba in
Bunia, and we took them to Kampala or to Entebbe,
complete with their weapons, and disarmed them as a
way of assuring that there would be no deaths. I was in
charge of that school because I was then national
political commissar and we took those children to that
place for counselling and for care. The children were
subsequently handed over to the United Nations, which
processed them and sent them back to their parents. No
other training of children is known to us.
What is the way forward? Uganda remains
convinced that the Security Council should put priority
emphasis on the speedy implementation of the Lusaka
Cease-fire Agreement and the supporting agreements
made in Pretoria and Luanda. That wôuld lead to the
establishment of a new transitional govemment and a
State capacity to guarantee against the illegal
S/PV.4642
exploitation of natural resources and other forms of
wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Uganda believes in the speedy implementation of
programmes for disarmament, demobilization,
reintegration and repatriation or resettlement (DDRRR)
which remain key to peace and security in the Great
Lakes region. We have sorted out our programmes but,
as I said earlier, Interahamwe continues to harass our
territory in Kisoro. Therefore, Uganda calls upon the
Security Council to strengthen MONUC and to support
capacity-building programmes for peacekeeping and
peace-building by African countries in order to
implement DDRRR programmes.
The way forward for Ituri is through the
implementation of Luanda Agreement, which provides
for the creation of the Joint Pacification Committee on
Ituri. The international community should provide
adequate material support to the Committee. At this
stage, the Council should assume its responsibility and
provide adequate deployment of MONUC for the
purpose of maintaining law and order in the area, given
that UPDF is committed under the Luanda Agreement
to complete withdrawal from Bunia by 15 December
2002.
This is a very serious matter. Under the Agreement
we signed in Luanda, we said that on Dsday - 6
September - plus 50 days U ganda was to submit a
detailed plan of how we propose to withdraw from
Bunia, and I will check whether we have done so. On
D-day plus 70, which is next week, Uganda begins to
withdraw troops from Bunia. And on D-day plus 100,
which is 15 December, U ganda completely withdraws
UPDF troops from Bunia. So, under the Agreement, the
Council bas to tell us what to do, because very soon, by
virtue of the agreement, we shall be going out; this is
to be completed by 15 December.
In our view, the proposed international conference
on peace, security and sustainable development should
take place under the auspices of the United Nations and
the African Union (AU) soon after the establishment of
a transitional government in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo and a ceasefire in Burundi. Issues to be
discussed at the conference, in our view, should be: postconflict
rehabilitation, reconstruction and development
in the Great Lakes regiôn; measures to support the
deepening of regional economic integration, especially
in the areas of infrastructure and human resources
development; capacity-building for peacekeeping and
7
URAnnex106
S/PV.4642
conflict resolution; and strengthening African Union
capacity to monitor post-conflict reconstruction in the
context of the New Partnership for Africa's
Development (NEPAD).
Uganda calls upon the countries cited in the final
report, including the end-user countries, to establish
independent judicial commissions of inquiry to
investigate and recommend appropriate measures on
allegations of illegal exploitation of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. The Secretary-General should
cooperate and should share information with Member
States who wish to establish such judicial mechanisms.
Uganda would be happy to share with other countries
the experience of our Porter Commission of Inquiry in
this respect. It is in such a context that individual
companies and entities mentioned can, in our view, be
fairly tried and punished.
In conclusion, let me say that we should focus on
the big picture. Today, as I said earlier, we stand at the
crossroads of a major breakthrough for peace in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Burundi and in the
Sudan through the Machakos process. The prospects
for peace in the Great Lakes region have never been
greater. The ongoing inter-Congolese dialogue in
Pretoria bas finalized agreement on a power-sharing
arrangement for a transitional government in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. The intransigent
Burundi rebels are expected to join the transitional
govemment sometime in the near future, as far as we
can see from what is going on in Dar es Salaam. And
for the first time in history, President Al-Bashir of the
Sudan and General Garang of the Sudan People's
Liberation Army (SPLA) met in Kampala in mid-2002.
In our view, the challenge before the Council,
therefore, is to seize the moment and focus on the big
picture, establishing the necessary conditions for peace,
stability, regional integration and development in the
Great Lakes region.
In our view, the Security Council should,
therefore, while protecting the wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, foc.us on five key
elements of the big picture. The first is to strengthen
United Nations Security Council support for the
implementation of the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement,
the related Pretoria and Luanda Agreements and the
inter-Congolese dialogue resolutions which were
arrived at with a view to establishing an all-inclusive
transitional govemment in Kinshasa. In my capacity as
incoming Chairman of the Political Committee of the
8
URAnnex106
Lusaka Agreement, I promise to work closely with the
Council on this issue.
Secondly, we would Iike to see support for
regional and subregional integration in the framework
of the African Union and NEPAD. In our case, the East
African Community will soon agree on a customs
union to pave the way for the admission of Rwanda and
Burundi. As Chairman-in-Office of the East African
Council of Ministers, I must applaud Ambassador
Kassem's Panel in respect to this question of regional
integration, which is supposed to help resolve some of
the issues in our area.
Thirdly, we advocate strengthened cooperation
arnong the United Nations as a whole, the Security
Council, the African Union and the subregional
security mechanisms in the resolution and prevention
of conflict at the regional and continental levels in
Africa as a solid basis for the implementation of
NEPAD. Uganda will soon assume the leadership of
the Intergovernmental Authority on Development
(IGAD), a very important regional body. I can assure
the Council that the efforts of my President as head of
IGAD and mine as Chairman of the Council of
Ministers of that body will be applied . towards the
realization of peace in Sudan and Somalia.
Fourthly, we would like the United Nations to
encourage ail countries cited in the Panel's report to
establish independent judicial commissions of inquiry
and to report back to the United Nations on measures
to implement the relevant recommendations.
Finally, we call again on the Council to find
immediate ways to ensure adequate MONUC
deployment in Ituri for the maintenance of law and
order as the Uganda People's Defence Forces withdraw
from Bunia by 15 December 2002.
I apologize for having taken so long, but this is a
very important matter, and I thank the Council for
having given me the opportunity to make a contribution
to this very important body of the United Nations, the
Security Council.
The President (spoke in Chinese): I thank the
Third Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign
Affairs of Uganda for the kind words he addressed to
me and, especially, to my country.
I should like to inform the Council that I have
received a letter from the representative of Canada, in
which he requests to be invited to participate in the
discussion of the item on the Council's agenda. In
conformity with the usual practice, I propose, with the
consent of the Council, to invite that representative to
participate in the discussion without the right to vote,
in accordance with the relevant provisions of the
Charter and rule 37 of the Council's provisional rules
of procedure.
There being no objection, it is so decided.
At the invitation of the President, Mr. Heinbecker
(Canada) took the seat reserved for him at the
side of the Council Chamber.
The President (spoke in Chinese): The next
speaker on rny list is the representative of South Africa.
I invite him to take a seat at the Council table and to
make bis staternent.
Mr. Kumalo (South Africa): I thank you, Mr.
President, for allowing us to participate in this
important debate. I would Iike at the outset to thank the
Permanent Representative of Cameroon, the Council
President for October. We were proud of the way he
steered the work of the Council. We welcome you, Sir,
as President for this month and wish you the best as
you proceed with your work.
My delegation affirms its support for the work of
the Security Council, together with its subsidiary
bodies, such as the sanctions Committees, monitoring
mechanisms and expert panels. We consider these
bodies to be mechanisms for contributing to peace by
following up on the mandatory implementation of
Security Council resolutions.
We believe that the work of the Panel of Experts
on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and
Other forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo complements peace efforts in the Great Lakes
region. The report of the Panel of Experts (S/2002/1146)
is useful in highlighting the impact of the illegal
exploitation of the natural resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo in fuelling the conflict in the
Great Lakes region. All the agreements reached in
resolving the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo will not be implemented as long as there is a
belief that war is more profitable than peace.
The Security Council is well aware of the
commitment the South African Govemment bas made
towards achieving a peaceful resolution of the conflict
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as well as
that in the wider Great Lakes region. My Govemment
S/PV.4642
believes that the achievement of peace in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo is essential for
contributing to the renewal of the African continent
and the achievement of the goals of the New
Partnership for Africa's Developrnent (NEPAD).
However, we would like to inform the Security
Council that South Africa is disappointed with the
content of the final report presented to the Council by
Ambassador Mahmoud Kassem. We are disappointed
in the methodology the Panel used in gathering its
information and in the conclusions and recommendations
the Panel sets out in its report. South Africa would urge
that the Security Council require the Panel to further
investigate and substantiate the allegations and
recommendations made in the report. We believe that
the Panel 's report contradicts the aims and the
intentions of the Security Council.
As a matter of principle, my delegation is of the
view that, when the Security Council establishes bodies
to assist in the follow-up work of the Council, those
bodies must follow clearly established guidelines in
conducting their work. These should include close
cooperation and consultations with Govemments. It is
therefore not acceptable that an expert panel, given an
opportunity to meet with Govemment authorities,
withholds information on matters that are of concern to
the Governments involved. Yet Governments are
supposed to further investigate allegations of interest to
panels without being given basic information. In other
words, we would hope that panels are there to assist
Governments in carrying out the requirements of
relevant Security Council decisions.
The South African Govemment met several times
with the Panel. The Panel expected the South African
authorities to conduct further investigations and to
undertake any steps that might be necessary. However,
South African Government authorities were expected
to conduct an investigation with either little or no
information. The Panel 's report shows that the Panel
had in its possession much information that could have
been of assistance to further investigations. However,
the Panel chose not to divulge that information, other
than to use it as supposed evidence in its report.
I should like to use this opportunity to address
some of the issues that have been raised by the Panel
with regard to South Africa, to South African-based
companies and to individuals. In paragraph 31, the
report states:
9
URAnnex106
S/PV.4642
"Also working with ZDF is a convicted criminal
based in South Africa, Nico Shefer, who has
arranged for Zimbabwean officers to be trained in
diamond valuation in Johannesburg. Mr. Shefer's
company, Tandan Holdings, has a 50 per cent
stake in Thomtree Industries, a joint venture
diamond-trading company with ZDF."
On 14 June 2002, the South African Govemment was
requested by the Panel to provide information
çoncerning the trading whether openly or
clandestinely - of Congolese diamonds in South Africa
or the transport of Congolese diamonds through South
Africa by the Minerais Business Company (MBC). It
was siated by the Panel that the South-African-owned or
-based company Thorntree Industries reportedly has an
agreement with MBC to trade its shipments of
Congolese diamonds. On 31 July 2002, the South
African Govemment informed the Panel that it had no
information to verify the allegation concerning the
transport through South African territory of diamonds
bought by Thorntree Industries. It should also be noted
that the issue ofMr. Shefer's arranging for Zimbabwean
officers to be trained in diamond valuation in
Johannesburg bas never been raised with the South
African Government by the Panel. The question of Mr.
Shefer and Thomtree Industries is similarly raised in
paragraph 58 of the report.
In paragraph 52, the report states:
"Mr. Al-Shanfari instructed his security chief to
smuggle diamonds from the Sengamines
concession to Johannesburg, South Africa, and
deliver them to Ken Roberts, the chief executive
of Serengeti Diamonds."
That information has never been shared with the South
African Govemment, nor has it ever been the subject of
an inquiry addressed to the South African Govemment
by the Panel.
In paragraph 139, the report identifies South
Africa as one of 11 African States throÙgh whose
territory goods originating in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo are likely to pass. The Panel further states
that it submitted questions to all of those countries and
held substantive discussions with government
representatives from five of them. The Panel inquired
about relevant legislation, investigations into the flow of
the commodities, measures taken to curb those flows,
other possible action to be taken and those
Governments' needs for assistance. According to the
10
URAnnex 106
report, virtually none of the countries that responded to
the Panel's questions had conducted any investigations
or adopted any specific procedures for the identification
or inspection of the transiting of commodities from the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The report goes on to state that South African
officiais confirmed the seizure of a sizeable clandestine
shipment of diamonds from the Democratic Republic
of the Congo, but it provides no details. Also stated is
that none of the authorities in those countries gave any
indication that Congolese resources traded through
their territories should or could be regarded as conflict
goods, and that almost none of the countries proposed
any meaningful measures to help curb trade in
Congolese commodities that are tainted by criminality
and militarization.
In September 2001, the Expert Panel approached
South Africa regarding procedures followed by South
African law enforcement agencies in combating
smuggling activities and organized crime, as well as a
chart clarifying the division of authority and the
responsibilities of various authorities. On 14 June
2002, the South African Government provided a
detailed description of the role and the functions of law
enforcement agencies in South Africa. In addition, the
Govemment provided the Panel with details of relevant
legislation utilized in curbing smuggling and organized
crime. The Government stated, however, that the South
African Iaw enforcement agencies are not aware of any
significant or organized groups that are engaged in
smuggling or other illegal activities involving
diamonds, gold, coltan or other natural resources
originating from the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. The Panel had asked the South Africàn
Govemment for examples of actual cases of smuggling
made by the South African law enforcement agencies
originating from the DRC and countries involved in the
conflict. The information provided by the South
African authorities confinned that a national of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo had been arrested at
Johannesburg International Airport in December 2001
with 13 diamonds in bis possession. The Panel was
informed that the individual had appeared in court, but
that the case had been postponed until June 2002. It
was further explained to the Panel that, since the court
case was still pending, no additional information could
be provided. That was the only information provided to
the Panel regarding a seizure of diamonds with a
connection to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
In the information provided to the Panel, it was not
possible to indicate the origin of the diamonds.
In annex III to the report, the Panel lists those
business enterprises that it considers to be in violation
of the Organisation for Economie Cooperation and
Development (OECD) Guidelines for Multinational
Enterprises. Twelve South African companies are listed
under annex III. Although no substantiating evidence
for those listings is provided, the report states that
"Countries which are signatories to those
Guidelines and other countries are morally
obliged to ensure that their business enterprises
adhere to and act on the Guidelines."
(S/2002/ll46, para. 177)
With regard to the specific companies mentioned,
South Africa has never been approached by the Panel
regarding a company by the name of Afric.an Trading
Corporation. Anglovaal, Banro Corporation, Carson
Products, Mercantille CC, Saracen, Swanepoel, Track
Star Trading 151, Zincor, Iscor and Orion Mining Inc.
have never been mentioned in any of the Panel 's
previous reports, and no information related to their
business activities or conduct bas ever been shared with
the South African Government, nor has any of those
companies ever been the subject of an inquiry addressed
to the South African Govemment by the Panel.
On 14 June 2002, the South African Govemment
was requested by the Panel to provide a list of ail South
African and South-African-registered companies
operating in or with the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. During the meeting with the Panel, the South
African authorities specifically raised with the Panel
their serious concerns about its queries regarding South
African companies operating in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, without any indication as to
their participation in the illegal exploitation of the
natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. South Africa undertined the fact that
unsubstantiated queries by the Panel about the
activities of companies operating legally and above
board in the Democratic Republic of the Congo could
be interpreted as casting unwarranted aspersions on
their activities. In this context, I should also like to
note the fact that South Africa is not a signatory to the
OECD Guidelines. Although we support the objectives
of the OECD, we do not understand how the Panel can
use this mechanism as a means of accountability when
we are not signatories to the Guidelines.
S/PV.4642
The report's statements about South Africa, South
African companies and South African individuals
consequently do not appear to be substantiated by bard
evidence or information, nor does the Panel draw any
distinction between legal and illegal activities of
companies in its report. In our interaction with the
Panel, the South African authorities underlined the
difficulties that are experienced when dealîng with the
vagueness of certain queries received. It was pointed
out that the provision of more detailed and accurate
information would assist the South African authorities
in addressing issues raised.
I understand that my statement is critical of the
final report and that it brings into question the
approach and methodology that have been adopted in
its compilation. It is our hope, however, that the
Council will take these concems into account in its
consideration of this report and of any new mandate
that may be given to the Panel. We suggest humbly that
the Council provide clear and specific guidelines on the
functioning, approach and operating standards of any
future mechanism it rnay decide to establish with
regard to the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Council will understand that South Africa
regards this in a serious light, not only because of its
imputations, but also because of the role that South
Africa continues to play, both in its national capacity
and as the Chair of the African Union, in achieving
lasting peace, security, stability and prosperity for the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and its people.
Perhaps one of the most sweeping statements in
the Panel's report is contained in paragraph 65. ln the
last sentence of that paragraph, the Panel dismisses the
fundamental premise on which the Lusaka Agreement
is based - the security concerns of parties to the
Agreement - and which the Security Council itself
bas welcomed as a basis for peace in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. This misconception of the
peace process in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, which is based on the Lusaka Agreement and
which continues to preoccupy this Council, raises
questions about some of the equally ambitious
conclusions this Council is being asked to endorse.
Finally, it gives us no pleasure to corne and
contradict a Panel that the Security Council bas
appointed. However, we believe that it is important for
the Council to act on facts, rather than on incomplete
or even false information. When the Security Council
11
URAnnex 106
S!PV.4642
speaks, the whole world listens. For this reason, it is
important that the Council rely on accurate and factual
information when it makes its decisions.
The President (spoke in Chinese): I thank the
representative of South Africa for his kind words
addressed to me.
The next speaker inscribed on my list is the
representative of Denmark. I invite her to take a seat at
the Council table and to make her statement.
Ms. Lej (Denmark): I have the honour to speak
on behalf of the European Union (EU). The countries
of Central and Eastern Europe associated with the
European Union - Bulgaria, the Czech Republic,
Estoni·a, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania,
Slovakia and Slovenia - and the associated countries
Cyprus, Malta, Turkey, as well as the country of the
European Economie Area that is a member of the
European Free Trade Association - Iceland - align
themselves with this statement.
First permit me to congratulate you, Sir, on
China's assumption of the presidency of the Security
Council. Allow me also to commend the presidency of
the Security Council on convening this open meeting
on the important final report of the Panel of Experts on
the Illegal Exploitation of N atural Resources and Other
Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo.
The EU would like to underline the importance of
discussing the economic aspects of conflicts in general
and especially the connections between political and
economic dynamics in conflict situations. We therefore
welcome an open and transparent debate regarding the
problems of resource exploitation. The European Union
welcomes the final report and commends the Panel of
Experts for its investigations and recommendations. The
EU is looking forward to the outcome of the debate in
the Security Council on the report.
The situation described in the report is most
disturbing. The economic aspects of the conflict, and
especially the illegal exploitation of natural resources,
have fuelled the conflict and increased the human
suffering. The conflict has dramatic consequences for
the civilian population of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, especially in the eastern parts. The
continuation of these illegal economic activities
constitutes a serious obstacle to a peaceful resolution
12
URAnnex 106
of the conflict. This is unacceptable by all moral,
ethical and political standards.
Parties to the conflict at all levels have, according
to the report, taken part in the illegal exploitation.
Governments, Government officiais, including army
officers, local administrations, individuals, armed
groups and companies have been involved. The report
claims that elite networks continue the illegal
exploitation of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
despite the positive political and military dynamic
created by the agreements of Pretoria and Luanda and
· despite the two previous reports from the United
Nations Panel of Experts. We therefore welcome the
fact that the Governrnents accused of this can take the
floor here to defend themselves. If the claims are true,
however, this activity must be strongly condemned
from ail sides and stopped.
Evidently, combating such well-organized
exploitation will not be simple. lt will require
consolidated action by the international community and
national Governments, both in the Great Lakes region
and elsewhere, based on a process of thorough
consideration and analysis. The conclusions and
recommendations of the Panel's report will be an
important input into this process.
The report suggests the creation of forceful
incentives and disincentives to change the present
patterns of illegal exploitation. Investments and
exploitation of resources in a le gal and sustainable way
should be encouraged, thereby contributing to the
economic stability of the whole region and benefiting
the population at large. The European Union agrees
that the international community must undertake efforts
to fight those illegal practices and put pressure on those
involved in these activities.
We must focus on how to control the utilization
of natural resources. Securing the national borders of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo is an important
step in this regard. Furthermore, the European Union
will closely examine the recommendations listed in the
report regarding putting financial and technical
measures in place, the need for institutional reform and
ensuring a peace dividend. Full implementation of the
Lusaka Agreement will create an environment
conducive to international investments and further
development assistance.
The EU echoes the report's cal! on national
Govemments of ail countries where individuals,
companies and financial institutions involved in illegal
activities are based to assume their part of the
responsibility. They should ensure that those
individuals and entities are made accountable, white
ensuring them the right and the opportunity to defend
themselves against the accusations.
The European Union considers it important that
Governments urge private enterprises to adhere to the
Organisation for Economie Cooperation and
Development Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.
The EU stresses the importance of the Kimberley
Process, which aims at organizing the certificates of
origin system in the diamond sector.
Restrictions on certain business enterprises and
individuals may be necessary to curb the illegal
exploitation of the natural resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. The European Union is ready
to assist the Security Council in that regard.
The European Union shares the analysis that the
establishment of an inclusive, transitional Government
in Kinshasa is very important. The EU bas
continuously called upon ail Congolese parties to reach
an ail-inclusive agreement on power-sharing and
transitional institutions.
The EU also supports the conclusion that all rebel
groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
should be disarmed and all foreign forces withdrawn,
in accordance with existing peace agreements. The EU
bas constantly reminded ail parties to the conflict of
their obligations in that regard.
The EU is considering the Panel's call to hold an
international conference on peace, security, democracy
and sustainable development in the Great Lakes region.
Such a conference could provide a platform for
addressing a number of the cross-border challenges of
importance to the conflict. Furthermore, it could
address issues conceming the future stability and
development of the region, including strengthened
regional integration and cooperation. The European
Union stands ready to discuss cooperation with the
countries of the region, the United Nations and the
African Union on such a conference.
The EU supports the recommendation to establish
a monitoring mechanism.
Allow me to conclude by reaffirming the
commitment of the European Union to contribute to
bringing an end to the illegal exploitation of the
S/PV.4642
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The EU will continuously engage in cooperation with
the countries of the region and the international
community to secure peace, stability, democracy and
sustainable development in the Great Lakes region.
The President (spoke in Chinese): I thank the
representative of Denmark for ber congratulations to
China on its assumption of the presidency of the
Council.
The next speaker inscribed on my list is the
representative of Belgium. I invite him to take a seat at
the Council table and to make bis statement.
Mr. De Ruyt (Belgium) (spoke in French): Allow
me at the outset to congratulate the representative of
Cameroon for the effective way in which be presided
over the work of the Council during the month of
October, and to congratulate you, Sir, on your
assumption of the presidency of the Council. I am
convinced that, under your competent leadership, the
Council will be in a position to suècessfully assume its
important responsibilities for the month ofNovember.
I also wish to thank you for taking the initiative
of holding an open discussion on this important report
(S/2002/1146), to which Belgium attaches special
importance. I hope this debate will enable us to better
understand this complex material and to give a more
detailed response to the questions it raises. My
statement supplements the one made by the presidency
of the European Union, which we fully endorse.
I wish to commend the efforts made by
Ambassador Kassi::m and other members of the Panel in
drawing the attention of the international community to
the illegal exploitation of natural resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and to their
disastrous effects on the peace process, as well as on
the opportunities to rebuild the country.
This report is also an important contribution to
the consideration of the causes and stakes involved in
the illegal exploitation of resources in general.
Belgium welcomes the special attention paid by
the report to the economic dimension of the search for
peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Therefore, we strongly support the Panel of Experts'
first recommendation, that:
"a set of agreements or initiatives on
reconstruction and sustainable development are
13
URAnnex 106
S/PV.4642
needed to address the economic dimension of the
Lusaka peace process and provide incentives for
continuing progress." (S/2002/1146, para.161)
We also support the Panel's suggestion whereby
economic integration and regional trade should be the
subject of regional consultations aimed particularly at
organizing the conference on peace, seçurity and
sustainable development in the Great Lakes region.
As members know, the Belgian Government,
particularly the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for
Foreign Affairs, Mr. Louis Michel, have spared no
effort to encourage internai political dialogue in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and respect for the
commitments made by ail the parties in the Lusaka,
Pretoria and Luanda Peace Agreements. But in order
for current progress to be consolidated and to lead to
lasting peace and for democratic institutions in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo to be gradually
established, it is absolutely necessary that the economic
pillaging of the country, as described in the Kassem
report, be denounced and all efforts be made to put an
end toit.
Belgium is convinced that the re-establishment
and reform of institutions of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo are crucial in order to enable the
transitional government to control the country's natural
resources. Belgium supports the recommendation of
the Panel of Experts in that regard, and, in fact, it bas
made that objective a priority of its bilateral
cooperation, advocating greater substantial official
development assistance in that respect.
Addressing problems of illegal exploitation of
resources requires first and foremost a structural
approach. The Security Council should thus, and above
ail, seek normative solutions that make possible the
continuation of legitimate economic activity in the
region by establishing well-defined criteria. Those
criteria should allow, for example, for a better
definition of the term illegality and should avoid a
situation whereby companies would find themselves,
ex post facto, faced with ill-defined concepts of
morality and legitimacy.
Such a normative framework would also enable us
to clarify the scope of criticism levelled by the Panel
against individuals, companies or Governments. Respect
for those norms and possible controversial differences in
that regard could therefore be evaluated on a more
thorough and objective basis. In that regard, it is
14
URAnnex106
regrettable that the right to be heard and to defend
oneself bas not been respected in the cases of cited
individuals and companies, and for which sanctions are
proposed. Therefore, the criteria and the evidence on the
basis of which individuals and companies are included
on the annexed list are not clear. Moreover, in some
cases they are not contained in the body of the report.
The Kimberley Process of certification could
serve as an example of a structural approach such as
the one I have just mentioned. From the outset,
Belgium firmly committed itself to that process in
order to find exhaustive arrangements regarding the
diamond sector. In fact, we hope that the Security
Council will assume its responsibilities in that regard
by supporting that process in due course.
Above and beyond the normative approach, there
are other ways of reacting to the situations described in
the report. The establishment of a sanctions regime is a
possibility. There are also broader options with regard
to their coverage, but they must ail be applied
judiciously. That is true in the case of reducing official
development assistance, which runs the risk of having
negative consequences, particularly for people who are
often innocent victims.
For a possible sanctions regime, as well as for
other options, it is essential that the actions decided
upon be part of a framework of a peace pro.cess and
that they not affect it negatively. Indeed, the Panel was
established primarily to contribute to restoring peace
and stability in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
At the national level, the Belgian Government bas
firmly committed itself to the resolution of the
problems stemming from the illegal exploitation, and
the economic situation, of countries in conflict. My
Government adopted in July a plan of action in this
regard. Our Minister for Extemal Trade, Ms. Annemie
Neyts-Uyttebroeck, came to New York in October to
consult with the Chairmen of the sanctions Committees
established by the Security Council, as well as with the
Chairmen of the Monitoring Mechanisms.
Belgium overall advocates greater uniformity in
the expert panel system as well as the establishment of
clear-cut rules for professional conduct and
confidentiality. In this context, it held, on 30 October
in Brussels, a seminar aimed at an in-depth
consideration of the issue at the national level and at
consolidating the initiatives taken by our country in the
context of the Organization for Economie Cooperation
and Development.
Regarding the specific case of the Great Lakes
region, Belgium has set up a Senate Committee on the
situation in the Great Lakes and the illegal exploitation
of the natural resources of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, which is investigating the problems related
to the illegal exploitation of natural resources in that
region. The work of that Commission is under way, and
its members will soon be going to the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and to Rwanda. The
Commission 's conclusions are expected by the end of
the year. Along with the Security Council 's conclusions
on the report of Ambassador Kassem, they will enable
Belgium to fine-tune its own plan of action.
In conclusion, we fervently hope that the Security
Council will give in-depth consideration to this report
and remain seized of these problems, as there is so
much at stake for the Democratic Republic of the
Congo and for the region as a whole.
We are therefore in favour of the recommendation
of the expert panel that a monitoring body be created
that could report to the Security Council on a regular
basis about developments on the ground and make
whatever recommendations it deems appropriate. Such
a body should, inter alia, continue the group's
investigative efforts and update the relevant Iists of
individuals and companies, once it has heard ail those
who wish to be heard. It seems to me that this should
be done before more concrete measures are taken in
this respect. The monitoring body should also take into
account the new context created by the withdrawal of
foreign troops from the Democratic Republic of the
Congo and focus on those situations that continue to
present obstacles to the return of peace and to the
success of the inter-Congolese dialogue.
The President (spoke in Chinese): I thank the
representative of Belgium for the kind words he
addressed to me.
The next speaker inscribed on my list is the
representative .of Rwanda. I invite him to take a seat at
the Council table and to make his statement.
Mr. Gasana (Rwanda) (spoke in French): My
Govemment warmly congratulates you, Sir, on your
assumption of the presidency of the Security Council
during the month of November 2002, and also for the
acumen that you have always shown in guiding the
S/PV.4642
work of the Council whenever you have presided over
it. We wish also to congratulate your predecessor,
Ambassador Martin Belinga-Eboutou, Permanent
Representative of the sister Republic of Cameroon, for
bis outstanding leadership of the Council last mon th.
My delegation would like also to welcome the
Third Deputy Prime Minister and Minister for Foreign
Affairs of the sister Republic ofUganda.
You were wise, Sir, to convene this open debate
of the Security Council on the report of the Panel of
Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural
Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
My Govemment would like to take this
opportunity to reject entirely what is stated in the report
with respect to the false accusations against Rwanda and
the Rwandese people, as we stated in the written
response of the Rwandese Govemment, transmitted
officially in a letter addressed to the President of the
Security Council dated 23 October 2002.
It was a tremendous shock for us to see it stated
in the Panel's report that the Rwandese defence forces
went to the Democratic Republic of the Congo merely
for economic reasons. This is truly shocking and
unacceptable. I myself was in the Govemment as
Minister for Foreign Affairs in 1996, when we decided
to commit troops to the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. Therefore I know exactly why and in what
circumstances we went there in 1996, and not before.
The ministries in Kigali, United Nations agencies
and non-govemmental organizations were passing
around handmade maps of Rwanda, with bright red
shading along the Rwandese provinces bordering on
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, telling
everyone in the international community never again to
enter into any of the four provinces bordering the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. This was because
the former Rwandan Army (ex-FAR) forces and the
Interahamwe militia were carrying out savage attacks,
and innocent people were being murdered, including
women, the elderly and children.
I remember that the last straw was the
assassination by the ex-FAR and the Interahamwe
militia of a woman who was the Mayor of one of the
districts of Cyangugu province, which borders on the
South Kivu province of the Democratic Republic of the
1S
URAnnex106
S/PV.4642
Congo. lt was at that point that we decided to pursue
them in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The second stage of our departure for the
Democratic Republic of the Congo - which was
motivated by security imperatives with respect to our
country, our people, and foreign residents on Rwandese
territory - was triggered by the massacre of young
girls in a secondary school in Nyange, in Kibuye
provinc.e, which borders on North Kivu province in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. The ex-FAR and
Interahamwe attacked the school during the night. They
ordered the girls to split up into two groups - Hutu
and Tutsi - in order to spare the Hutu and massacre
the Tutsi. But the Hutu girls refused to leave their Tutsi
compatriots alone, so they were alJ shot on the spot by
the ex-FAR and Interahamwe. Today those young girls
have been declared national hero.es in our country.
Another event that triggered the departure of our
troops for the Democratic Republic of the Congo in
pursuit of the genocidal rebels was, unfortunately, the
assassination by the ex-FAR and Interahamwe of a
Chinese expert who was working on the KigaliGitarama-
Kibuye road - again in a province bordering
the Democratic Republic of the Congo - in the
context of a road-building programme financed by the
WmldBank.
The foreign community living in Kigali was an
eyewitness to these events, if not their victim. How can
the Panel of Experts now deny in its report the security
concerns of Rwanda and of its people? How .can we
explain this revisionist attitude? It can only be
manipulation and political motivations, the underlying
reasons for which we do not know.
My Government would like to remind the
members of the Council that in 1994 the ex-FAR and
Interahamwe - the planners and perpetrators of the
Rwandese genocide - after having massacred more
than a million Rwandese, fled, taking all of their
weapons, to the Democratic Republic of the Congo
under the cover of a military operation ~ "Operation
Turquoise" - which had set up its headquarters in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, in the cities of
Goma and Bukavu.
The international community, which neither
prevented nor put an end to the genocide in Rwanda,
was not able to disarm the genocidal ex-FAR and
Interahamwe, who took shelter in refugee camps in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. On the contrary,
Ili
URAnnex 106
some members of what is called the international
community continued, with the complicity of the then
Kinshasa Government, to arm and provide political and
financial support to the ex-FAR and Interahamwe -
the authors of the genocide in Rwanda. That was proved
clearly and unambiguously in the Kassem report - the
report of the International Commission of Inquiry on the
sale and flow of arms to the ex-FAR and Interahamwe in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo - contained in
document S/1998/1096. We do not understand how the
second Kassem report can deny both the findings and
the conclusions of the first. We cannot make sense of
that contradiction, but it is very revealing: it shows that
anything is possible when reports are the result of
partisan political motives rather than of a firm will to
resolve existing problems such as those that we have
just described.
The ex-FAR and Interahamwe are present in great
numbers in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
having taken with them a huge arsenal of weapons
from Rwanda and having purchased new weapons with
public funds stolen from Rwanda's commercial banks,
including the Central Bank. Have they, perchance, been
confused with the natural resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo?
General Augustin Bizimungu, Chief of Staff of
the ex-FAR forces; Colonel Renzaho Tharcisse, former
mayor of Kigali; Major-General Ntiwiragaba, who
recently participated in a joint meeting between the
Congolese Armed Forces and the ex-FAR and
Interahamwe at Lubumbashi, under the direction of
President Kabila himself; Colonel Rwarakabije,
Commander of the ex-FAR; Colonel Bigaruka; Colonel
Gasake, who was a member of President Kabila's
protection battalion; Major Mpiranyi Protais, former
Commander of the presidential guard; and many
others: do they constitute the coltan of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo? Is it truly believed that
pursuing those planners and authors of the genocide is
the same as searching for coltan?
The Rwandan Government refutes categoricalJy
any allegation that it sent its army to exploit the minerai
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Our
army had a clear and precise mission: to combat the exFAR
and Interahamwe so as to enable the people living
in the four Rwandan provinces bordering the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and elsewhere to enjoy peace and
public order once again and to enable the members of
the foreign community working in Rwanda to carry out
their development assistance act1v1t1es in those
provinces. We were successful, because our army never
deviated from its primary mission. The exploitation of
minerai wealth has never been a motivating factor for
our armed forces.
The final report adds almost nothing new to
earlier reports; it merely repeats unsubstantiated
allegations that we refuted on 3 May 200 l, after the
first report was issued. The report is politically
motivated. Those who promote the idea that there
should be a Panel of Experts decided in advance, as is
well known, that Rwanda should be a target.
The Panel of Experts finished its work on the
ground four months before we withdrew from the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, and it has not
returned since our complete withdrawal on 5 October
2002. How, then, can it be in a position to write page
after page of the final report claiming that our
withdrawal from the Democratic Republic of the
Congo was not complete? That fact atone discredits its
claim to expertise - a true expert would avoid making
statements about an issue about which he did not have
all the facts and the truth of which he had not
corroborated. Our complete withdrawal was supervised
by the United Nations Organization Mission in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Joint Military
Commission and members of the diplomatie corps
accredited to Kigali, and was properly verified by the
third-party verification mechanism.
We fear that reports such as the one before the
Council today, which any informed analyst or reader
would judge to be politically motivated, have a hidden
agenda: to perpetuate the war between my country and
the Democratic Republic of the Congo. You may recall,
Mr. President, that the sceptics were not happy when
the Pretoria Peace Agreements were signed between
my Govemment and the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, calling them unrealistic, too ambitious and a
fool's game. President Kagame of Rwanda addressed
the Security Council on 13 September 2002. Four days
later, on 17 September 2002, our armed forces began to
withdraw from the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
as we promised the Council. But the Security Council
remained silent during the entire period of our
withdrawal, which was completed on 5 October 2002.
Unfortunately, that silence encouraged President
Kabila to organize a meeting in Lubumbashi bringing
together once again the armed forces of the Congo, the
ex-FAR and Interahamwe, the Mai-Mai and the Front
S/PV.4642
for the Defence of Democracy of Burundi, so as to plan
the attack on Uvira and other violations of the Lusaka
and Pretoria Peace Agreements.
We are concemed, therefore, about the future of
the Pretoria Agreements, especially given that
President Kabila's main advisers are urging him to
place obstacles in the way of their implementation,
instead of encouraging respect for them and for their
scrupulous and systematic implementation, as Rwanda
has done by withdrawing all of its forces from the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
My Govemment believes that the report before
the Council is biased, subjective and unprofessional,
because it is not based on genuine and credible facts.
Its authors make only unsubstantiated allegations. In
order to foot the reader, they keep repeating that they
have real and credible facts available to them, but they
do not put them at the disposai of the reader to make
the determination for himself. Why is that? The
Minister for Foreign Affairs of our sister Republic of
Uganda and the Permanent Representative of South
Africa raised that point earlier, and asked why the
Panel had refused to make available the documents in
its possession so that Govemments could verify their
authenticity. They may have such documents, but that
does not mean that they are authentic; forgeries exist,
as is well known. My Govemment is therefore
seriously concemed about the motivation that underlies
the report and about the credibility of its authors.
Although it is clear to us that the intent is to
undermine the Pretoria Agreements, my Govemment
remains committed to the Pretoria and Lusaka Peace
Agreements, and will do everything in its power to
restore peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
and in the Great Lakes region as a whole. My
Government calls upon the international community, in
particular the sceptical elements, to accept this, to set
aside their national agendas and to help us to fully to
restore peace in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Finally, my Govemment firmly opposes the
Panel 's idea that a so-called monitoring body should be
established. Reading about how the Panel would define
such a body and its functions, it becomes clear to us
that the so-called monitoring body bas no purpose.
Such a body would, like the Panel, merely foment,
rather than reduce, tension and conflict in the region, in
particular because it would be vulnerable to competing
influences and other forms of foreign manipulation.
17
URAnnex: 106
S/PV.4642
Such a body would only paralyse the economies
of countries in the region, make transborder trade
difficult, if not impossible, and frustrate both business
people and the population in the countries of the
region. This agrees with the remarks made by the
representative of Belgium with regard to the need for a
normative approach.
Furthermore, such a body would merely
criminalize trade in the region, whereas all regional
countries want trade within a legal framework allowing
free circulation of goods and people. In this region we
have a precious tool available to ensure legal trade in the
region, namely the Economie Community of the Great
Lakes Countries, which the Panel did not even mention.
lt is comprised of Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. Instead of creating one more
body, which is manifestly unnecessary, we should work
on, rather, financing the revitalization of the Economie
Community of the Great Lakes Countries. lt dates back
to 1970 and provides a common passport for the peoples
of the three countries. In other words, a passport issued
by the Congolese authorities is valid in the three
countries of Rwanda, Burundi and the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, and likewise for passports issued
in Burundi and Rwanda.
There are aiso other reliable and independent
competent bodies, such as the World Trade
Organization and the World Bank Group, which have
the capacity to carry out the tasks that the Panel wishes
to entrust to what it refers to as a monitoring body.
There are also regional organizations such as the
Common Market for Eastern and Southern Africa, the
Southern African Development Community, the
Economie Community of the Great Lakes Countries, to
which I have just referred, the Organization for
Planning and Development of the Kagera River Basin,
the East African Community, which the Minister for
Foreign Affairs of Uganda mentioned, and the
Economie Community of Central African States. Ali
those existing and operational structures would
contribute to stabilizing the situation and would fit in
better with the regional integration system, which is
one of the key objectives of our African Union.
The President (spoke in Chinese): The next
speaker inscribed on my list is the representative of
Oman. I invite him to take a seat at the Council table
and to make his statement.
18
URAnnex 106
Mr. Al-Hinai (Oman): Allow me, first, to extend
my congratulations to you, Mr. President, on your
assumption of the Presidency of the Council and to
wish you well as you continue to lead the Council in
the coming weeks. I would also like to thank
Ambassador Belinga-Eboutou of Cameroon for the
excellent manner in which he guided the Council's
work last month.
We are meeting today to continue consideration
of the final report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal
Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of
Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(S/2002/1146). My delegation has carefully read the
report and listened attentively to Ambassador
Mahmoud Kassem when he presented it to the Council
on 24 October. My delegation does not wish to enter
into the causes that led to the violent conflict and
suffering of the past years in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo. Suffice it to say that my delegation is
encouraged that, since the signing of the Pretoria and
Luanda Agreements, much progress has been made
towards achieving peace in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo. lt is through peace that the Government of
that country will once again be able to exert its
authority over ail of its territory, its natural resources
and its economic activities.
As I turn to the report of the Panel, I will restrict
my comments to those paragraphs pertaining to one
company and its chairman. I cannot but express my
delegation 's strong concerns at the wrongful
allegations, factual errors, hearsay and uncorroborated
information propagated against Oryx Natural
Resources, the most negative of which is that it is a
front for the Zimbabwe Defence Forces.
Oryx Natural Resources (ONR) is a private
limited company and derives its capital from Arab Gulf
countries. Its chairman is an Omani national. ONR
established a joint-venture company called Sengamines
with the Govemment of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo to explore and exploit a 792 square
kilometre concession of land located within the
Govemment-controlled area of the country. ONR is a
49 per cent shareholder in Sengamines, while the
Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
holds the remaining 51 per cent. To date, ONR has
invested over $ 100 million in that joint venture. lt
employs I ,200 nationals and affects the lives of
100,000 people living in the concession area. In an area
where there was no piped water, the nationals can now
get fresh water right at their doorstep. Where there
were no schools, their children can now attend wellconstructed
schools, with bo.oks and uniforms supplied
by the company. Where there were no medical
facilities, the company bas built clinics and is
undertaking the refurbishing of a local hospital. Where
there were no roads, more than 300 kilometres of roads
have been constructed.
In short, Sengamines bas created an infrastructure
that bas delivered significant benefits for the local
community and bas even won an award for being the
pillar of the economy of Kasai Oriental. The benefits to
the population were echoed in the statement to the
Council on 24 October by Mr. She Okitundu, Foreign
Minister of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
who said, "My delegation believes that the natural
resources and other forms of wealth of the country
must first and foremost benefit its people" (S/PV.4634,
pg. 6). By the end of 2003, ONR plans to be producing
a significant share of the world's supply of rough
diamonds from the Sengamines concession in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Unfortunately, its success bas brought upon it
unfavourable, envious and malicious allegations from
its competitors, who have been willing to go to any
length to discredit and slander it. After l l September,
the mere imputation of an association with Osama Bin
Laden and the Al Qaeda network bas the effect of
pronouncing a death sentence on the accused. A very
reputable broadcasting company did just that. And aftet
it was threatened with a lawsuit, it made an apology on
its newscast. Other questionable sources have been the
suppliers of wrongful allegations, which, unfortunately,
made their way into the report now before the Council.
My delegation wishes to make the following
observations. First, having studied the report of the
Panel of Experts and its related documents, we could
not find any proof to substantiate the allegations made
against Oryx Natural Resources (ONR) and its
chairman. Secondly, ONR, funded by private Gulf
investors, and in joint venture with the Government of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, aims at
contributing towards the economic and social
development ofthat country.
Thirdly, we have not heard of any complaints
against ONR and its chairman from the ùovernment of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, neither in the
statement delivered by its Minister of Foreign Affairs
S/PV.4642
and International Cooperation, nor in documents
submitted to this Council. Surely the Government of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo is · more
competent than any body in determining whether a
company operating in its area of jurisdiction is
legitimate or not. In addition, ONR bas received a
letter of support and appreciation from the Govemment
of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Fourthly, from what we were able to determine
from representatives of countries neighbouring the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, there were no
serious complaints against ONR that would warrant its
inclusion in this report. Fifthly, we fail to find any
credible reason why this matter is before the Council in
the first place. My delegation calls on the Council to
protect and uphold the reputations of the companies
and individuals mentioned in Annexes I and II of the
report and to close forthwith this file so as not to
undermine their legitimate achievements through these
false accusations.
It is my delegation's hope that the Council will
seriously take into consideration the grave concems
expressed by the delegations that have spoken before
me and that the Council will take appropriate action to
rectify the damaging and incorrect information
contained in the report.
The President (spoke in Chinese): I thank the
representative of Oman for bis kind words addressed to
me, and my country. The next speaker on my list is the
representative of Zimbabwe whom I invite to take a
seat at the Council table and to make bis statement.
Mr. Muchetwa (Zimbabwe): We congratulate
you for assuming presidency of the Security Council
for this month and wish you well in your endeavours.
We would also like to extend through you, our
gratitude to your predecessor, Ambassador BelingaEboutou
for the sterling work that be did in the Council
during the past month.
My Government's comments on the final report
of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of
Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (S/2002/1146) are
as follows:
The final report of the Panel Experts maintains
the same approach as that of the Addendum to
document S/2001/1372, issued on 13 November 2001.
In its contribution to füe United Nations Security
19
URAnnex 106
S/PV.4642
Council debate on that Addendum on 14 December
2001, the Govemment of Zimbabwe, through the
Minister of Foreign Affairs, Mr. Mudenge,
characterized the Addendum as a "hurriedly drawn
Zimbabwe-bashing pamphlet". The final report is no
different, in its intent, from the Addendum.
Consequently, the observations and comments made on
that occasion remain pertinent, even though the final
report has shifted the focus of its attention from States
to individuals operating the so-called elite networks.
The final report deliberately, for it cannot be
otherwise, misdefined the nature and character of the
conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. By
characterizing the conflict as regional in paragraph 12,
the Panel detracts attention from the real causes of the
conflict as well as its principal progenitors.
Consequently, it now portrays the conflict as being no
more than motivated by the greedy desire of African
military and securîty leaders to loot, plunder and
profiteer from the riches of Democratic Republic of the
Congo.
Zimbabwe has, on innumerable occasions,
including at the Security Council and in the presence of
the members of the Panel of Experts, gone to great
lengths to explain the basis of its involvement in the
war of aggression perpetrated by Rwanda, Uganda and
Burundi against the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
For reasons best known by the Panel, these
explanations including, as well, their recognition and
acceptance by the Security Council as to the distinction
in the character and purpose of the presence of allied
troops and those of Rwanda and Uganda in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo have not only been
ignored but also questioned.
Speaking on this issue, the Minister of Foreign
Affairs and International Cooperation of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Mr. She Okitundu,
as recently as October 24 this year, responding to this
report, again stated clearly that the allied forces from
Angola, Namibia and Zimbabwe, at the invitation of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo helped them
defend their sovereignty from being over run by the
invading forces of Burundi, Rwanda and Uganda. He
further stated that since the issuance of the Addendum
and final report, there seems to be a desire to attack
Zimbabwe for reasons that are well known. It is
important to note that the victim of these illegal
exploitative activities, the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, is at pains to understand why the Panel is
20
URAnnex 106
choosing to drag Zimbabwe into the cabal of the
uninvited forces.
The final report repeats allegations that have been
challenged and discounted in the past without offering
any new evidence. For instance, in paragraph 23, there
is the repetition of alleged Zimbabwe Defence Forces
support for Burundi and Rwandan rebels; in paragraphs
17 and 54, the Panel alleges that the Democratic
Republic of the Congo Government repaid Zimbabwe
for military services and contributed to the salary
payments for Zimbabwe Defence Forces personnel.
Either the Panel mistakenly believes that repeating
these falsehoods will somehow transform them into
accepted truths or it is pursuing a certain agenda whose
realization demands that the falsehoods should
continue to be peddled in the public domain~
In paragraph 5, the Panel states that it "determined
that a central focus of its work should be gathering
information about politically and economically powerful
groups involved in the exploitation activities ... ".
It adds that "the Panel developed the central
concept of the elite network ... as an operational thesis".
The report does not privilege us with information
on why and on what basis it made such a determination,
and how this thesis related to any or ali of the
components of its mandate. It appears that the Panel,
contrary to the Security Council's mandate as
reproduced in the final report in paragraph l (a-d),
decided on a mandate of its own. This propensity
towards revising the mandate set by the Security Council
can be traced to the addendum ofNovember 2001.
While the original Panel had painstakingly and
meticulously defined the key concept of illegality in
the mandate, the current Panel fudged the distinction
between legal and illegal exploitation. For them, those
activities amount to the same thing. Hence, the
interchangeable use of the words "exploitation" and
"illegal exploitation" throughout the final report.
The new paradigm or operational thesis shifts the
focus of attention from the State to the individual. This,
of course, fits in comfortably with the characterization
of the conflict as a regional conflict perpetrated by
individuals whose sole motive is greed and looting. But
this paradigm bas sinister motives as well. Apart from
letting those States who are in violation of international
law off the book, it demeans the legitimate relations
between Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. Not only does it suggest the privatization of
State interests but it also reduces relations between the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zimbabwe to
the level of the so-called elite networks and the
individuals allegedly involved therein. It thus
criminalizes legitimate State-to-State relations between
the Democratic Republic of the Congo and Zimbabwe
and, by extension, legitimate activities carried out by
duly appointed State representatives in the normal
conduct and promotion of mutually beneficial relations
between our two countries.
We have no apologies to rnake for the very close
and co-operative relations that exist between
Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
These relations are being conducted in the framework
of cooperation agreements signed between our two
sovereign and independent States. If activities pursued
under legal frameworks signed by sovereign
Governments are considered illegal, then the Panel will
have to corne up with a new definition of legality.
There is something fundamentally wrong with an
approach that, on one hand, accepts that the
Democratic Republic of the Congo is a sovereign and
independent State whose affairs are being conducted
and managed by a legitimate Government, and, on the
other band, questions the legality of the decisions and
agreements taken and signed by that very same
Government. The Panel betrays its schizophrenia about
the legitimacy of the Govemment of the DRC; in many
instances it refers to that Government in the accepted
form but on occasion refers to it as the "Government in
Kinshasa" (paragraph 23), an appellation we strongly
objected to in December 2001. The Security Council,
and indeed ail of us, deserve an explanation from the
Panel as to who it feels should sign agreements on
behalf of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, if it
criminalizes the legitimate actions undertaken by the
duly appointed Government ministers of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo in the conduct of
their ministerial responsibilities.
In paragraph 27, the Panel makes a very
outrageous and serious allegation that Harare has been
turned into "a significant illicit diamond-trading
centre" without providing the slightest evidence to
support it. Members of the Security Council may wish
to note that the regional headquarters of Interpol for
Southern Africa is in Harare. This headquarters has
been very active in combating criminal activities
throughout our region and would certainly have been
S/PV.4642
aware of the allegation being made by the Panel, as
would the Zimbabwe Govemment. As will be indicated
later, only one representative of the Panel, a part-lime
technical adviser, visited Harare in the course of the
compilation of this report and there is no evidence that
he visited Interpol or any organization that could have
provided him with information to reach such a
conclusion.
The character and nature of the joint ventures
between Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of the
Congo are misrepresented, as they are now reduced to
mere vehîcles for the activities of the so-called elite
networks. This is in spite of the explanation given to
the Security Council on 14 December 2001 by Minister
Mudenge on the genesis and other attributes of the
joint ventures. The final report's misrepresentations
amount to questioning the veracity and credibility of
the Minister's statement, purely on the basis of an
operational thesis, for there is no evidence to conclude
otherwise.
Trade and commercial relations between
Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of the Congo
are multifaceted and predate the 1998 war there. As
with our relations with other countries, Zimbabwe is
always endeavouring to reinforce and deepen its
relations with the Democratic Republic of the Congo
for the benefit of not only our two co1.mtries but also of
the Southern African Development Community region
and of the wider African continent. lt is in this context
that, following a meeting of the Joint Inter-Ministerial
Commission involving Zimbabwe and the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, held in Nyanga, Zimbabwe,
from 18-22 August 2002, some eight agreements were
signed between our two countries. These agreements
encompass a wide range of areas of cooperation,
including trade, investment, finance and the movement
ofpersons.
We are dismayed at the continued use of the
Panel's report to do a hatchet job on Zimbabwe. For
instance, paragraph 28 makes a totally irrelevant and
uncalled for reference to Zimbabwe's electoral laws.
What do the electoral laws of Zimbabwe have to do
with the illegal exploitation of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo resources? Nothing at all. They
are brought in here purely to sully the name of
Zimbabwe and its Government. The British project to
destabilize Zimbabwe bas, in this report, sought to
draw attention to our military and security
establishments and institutions. The allegations of
21
URAnnex 106
S/PV.4642
criminal behaviour levelled against our military and
security institutions, as well as some specific
individuals connected thereto, are intended to bring
these institutions and individuals into disrepute,
ridicule and disrespect. We may wish to note that
Patrick Smith, a British national and a part-time
technical adviser to the Panel, is a signatory to this
report, but Gilbert Barthe, a Swiss national with the
same designation, is not. Gilbert Barthe, according to
the records, bas been with the Panel since at least
February 2002. He contributed to and signed the May
2002 interim report. Patrick Smith was not mentioned
in that report. Why did Barthe not sign the final report?
What exactly was Patrick Smith's role in the
compilation of the final report?
It is intriguing that none of the Panel members
decided, for whatever reasons, to visit Zimbabwe in the
course of compiling this report. What they did, however,
was to send Patrick Smith, a British national, to
Zimbabwe at a time of heightened suspicions and a
much publicized conflict between Zimbabwe and
Britain. This can only reflect lack of sensitivity on the
Panel 's part or insincerity in seeking our cooperation in
providing the information sought. Is it by coïncidence or
by design that Mr. Smith met only with the British High
Commission staff, out of ail the many foreign State
representatives in Harare? What expertise or privileged
information, if any, did the British High Commission
have in connection with this matter that other foreign
State representatives in Harare did not have?
The Panel concludes that certain companies and
individuals should be subject to some form of
sanctioning as they are engaged in activities deserving
of such sanctions. The Panel, however, proposes to
treat these companies or individuals unequally on the
basis of whether they are located in an Organisation for
Economie Cooperation and Development (OECD) or
non-OECD member country. Thus, the former group,
the home countries, who happen to be European, are
deemed competent to censure the erring companies,
white the latter group is to be the subject of United
Nations Security Council action. Why does the Panel
provide for such unequal treatment for similar
breaches? This stance smacks of a patemalistic,
condescending and discriminatory attitude which bas
no place in the United Nations, where its Charter
principle of the equality of States must not only be
professed but must also be promoted and protected.
22
URAnnex106
No information is given on how OECD remedies
or measures compare to those of the United Nations
Security Council. What assurances do we have that the
concemed OECD countries will be able to ensure
compliance with the guidelines this time around when
it is evident that they have failed to do so in the past?
The final report grudgingly reveals the identity of
those that are really behind the exploitation and illegal
exploitation of the resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. These are the financiers and
end-users of the exploitative activities, and they are
based in Western countries. Attention, however, is not
focused where it should rightly be; rather, it is diverted
to insignificant players. Indeed, one may ask who
ultimately really benefits from the exploitation of these
resources? Who are the arms manufacturers and
merchants?
Paragraph 43 of the report is illustrative of the
exploitative and unfair business practices perpetrated
by some western companies and multinationals in
Africa since the colonial era. Those practices persist to
this day. It illustrates who the real beneficiaries have
been and are in the exploitation of African countries'
resources. If the Panel is serious and sincere in wishing
to promote "Ethical and transparent business
practices", as stateà in paragraph 156, so that the
people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
genuinely benefit from the exploitation of their
country's resources, then it would have paid greater
attention to this nefarious practice, rather than dangling
a red herring before the Security Council.
In paragraph 154, the Panel states that it "is
hoping that this report will contribute to a shift in
policies ... that will bring the exploitation of resources
back to a legally acceptable Ievel''. One may ask, when
last was exploitation at that level? Who defines that
level? Who decides that that level is now legally
acceptable?
On 14 December 2001, our Minister of Foreign
Affairs, I. S. G. Mudenge, made a very important
statement to the United Nations Security Council in a
meeting which was also attended by the Panel
members. It is disappointing to note that, though the
clarifications he gave have not been reflected in the
final report, we participated in that meeting with the
expectation that we would be engaged in a meaningful
dialogue with the Security Council and the Panel. It
appears as if we were talking to ourselves, because we
see in the final report the repetition of innuendoes and
allegations that we commented on Iast time without the
submission of new evidence to justify their continued
inclusion in this report.
The President (spoke in Chinese): I thank the
representative of Zimbabwe for his kind words
addressed to me.
The next speaker on my list is the representative ·
of Canada, whom I invite to take a seat at the Council
table and to make his statement.
Mr. Heinbecker (Canada}(spoke in French}: In
recent years, Canada has placed a high priority on
supporting the efforts of African countries to address
the problems that confront Africa, including those
relating to peace and security. This year, Canada, as
Chair of the G-8, promoted dialogue between the G-8
and African partners who lead the implementation of
the New Partnership for Africa's Development
(NEPAD). Last June in Kananaskis, Canada, the G-8
leaders adopted an Africa Action Plan specifically
designed to respond to the visionary programme of
action contained in the NEPAD.
During Canada 's recent term on the Security
Council, from 1999 to the year 2000, we pioneered the
effort to make sanctions more effective in helping to
end armed conflicts, notably in Africa. In this context,
we also actively supported establishing the original
mandate of this Panel of Experts on the Illegal
Exploitation of Natural Resources of the Democratic
Republic of Congo, the report of which found that this
activity was contributing significantly to the
continuation of armed conflict in that country. Today
we welcome the Panel's final report.
(spoke in English}
The Panel of Experts paints an unhappy picture of
the destructive effects of unrestrained and illegal traffic
in the natural resources of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, on its people and on its economy. The Panel
is clearly of the view that there are many actors
involved in this pillage, not least officiais in the
Government and military of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo itself, but also foreign Governments and
their armed forces, and private individuals and
companies from many countries.
We have been encouraged by the progress made
in the withdrawal of foreign military forces from the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, in accordance with
S/PV.4642
the Pretoria and Luanda agreements. This is a
necessary first step in bringing an end to one of
Africa's longest-running and most debilitating
conflicts, which has devastated the lives of millions of
people in that country and aroùnd ît. No doubt the
Panel's work contributed to this welcome development.
The Panel has made some very important and farranging
recommendations designed to assist the peace
process in the Democratic Republic of the Cong().
Those recommendations deserve this Council's serious
consideration. In one instance, however, we are
disappointed that the Panel has donc itself and the
process, in our vîew, a disservice by naming in Annex
III as violators of Organisation for Economie Cooperation
and Development (OECD) Guidelines
companies whose alleged violations, with a few
exceptions, are neither specified nor substantiated in
the body of the report. In Canada, this unsupported
assertion has created controversy for the companies
concemed and attracted attention away from the other
valuable information and conclusions in the report.
One recommendation is of particular
significance - the establishment of a monitoring
process to follow up on the report and on its annexes.
This body could provide a continuing point of contact,
which could engage Governments and other .actors,
including private companies, in the implementation of
its mandate. This recommendation also serves to
remind us of the ongoing need for the establishment of
a permanent body within the Secretariat to support the
work of the teams of experts, act as a contact point for
delegations and private companies and be the
institu~ional memory of this Organization.
We urge the Council to take early action on the
establishment of the follow-on monitoring mechanism
and on other relevant recommendations of the Panel.
Doing so will facilitate efforts to bring peace to the
Democratic Republic of the Congo so that we ail can
move forward with full and unbiased information on
the economic factors involved.
The President (spoke in Chinese): I shall now
give the floor to Council members. I know that some of
my colleagues have very important appointments today.
If it is agreeable to members, it is my intention to
suspend this meeting at 1 p.m. and to resume it at 3 p.m.
Mr. Levitte (France) (spake in French): As this is
our first formai meeting in November, I should like to
express to you, Sir, France's wishes for every success
23
URAnnex106
S/PV.4642
~s you preside over the Council during this extremely
important month for the future of the United Nations. I
should like to add to those customary compliments a
very particular tribute to the Permanent Representative
of Cameroon, who presided over our work last month
with effectiveness and distinction. In addition, it is a
pleasure to see the Foreign Minister of Uganda,
Mr. Wapakhabulo, here at this table once again.
The French delegation bas listened attentively to
the previous speakers. France initiated the creation of
the Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of
Natural Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and on its link with
the continuing conflict in that country. The objective
was to put an end to such illegal exploitation, not only
because the plundering is morally unacceptable, but
also because today it constitutes one of the factors
driving conflict in the Great Lakes region.
Two years after its creation, the Panel of Experts
bas kept its promises. It bas carried out considerable
work, having presented three substantive reports: that of
Mrs. Ba-N'Daw, presented in April 2001 (S/2001/357);
the addendum to that report, prepared by Ambassador
Kassem Iast November (S/2001/1072); and the report
that Mr. Kassem submitted last month (S/2002/1146).
Those three studies fonn one whole. They enable us to
approach the peace process from the perspective of
economic interests. That aspect is not taken into account
in the peace agreements signed by the parties but it is
obviously essential to bear it in mind if we are' to put an
end to the conflict. The plundering of the Congo has
become one of the conflict's principal engines. And it is
ail the more important to take that into account because
as. Ambassador Kassem explained, the plunderirtg i~
bemg adapted to developments in the peace process. If
we are not careful, it could ruin ail the efforts of the
various parties finally to restore peace to the Great
Lakes region.
The picture that the Group of Experts bas painted
is worrisome. It implicates ail the participants: the
foreign, uninvited forces, in particular Rwanda and
Uganda; certain invited forces, such as Zimbabwe; the
Congolese rebels - the grave accusations against the
Mouvement de liberation congolais (MLC) and the
Rassemblement congolais pour la démocratie (RCD) in
the earlier reports remain valid, if I am to believe what
Ambassador Kassem explained to us - and finally,
members of the Government of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo.
24
URAnnex 106
The international community's message to those
parties is extremely clear. The natural resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo cannot and must not
be used except to benefit the Congolese; no one bas a
right to illegally exploit them. In that regard a
distinction must be made among the various ac;ors
concerned. What is meant by "illegal exploitation"?
Obviously, any exploitation is illegal that benefits
entities other than the legal Government of the
D~m_ocratic Republic of the Congo that are not acting
w1thm the framework of Congolese legal provisions.
The pillaging carried out by members of foreign forces
stationed in the Democratic Republic of the Congo or
on their behalf by Congolese agents therefore falls into
that category. Along with occupation of the territory of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo - which the
Council bas consistently denounced - it constitutes a
violation of Congolese sovereignty and thus of
international law. It must cease immediately.
However, measures that the Congolese
Govemment might take with regard to exploiting the
country's resources are not inherently illegal. I recall
that, for at least four years, the Congolese Government
had to deal with conflict situations on its own territory.
Illegal actions may have been taken that were motivated
for example, by a desire for personal enrichment. Bu;
those constitute a violation of domestic law and should
therefore be punished and redressed by the Congolese
authorities in respect for the domestic law of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. That distinction, I
believe, is necessary and must be taken into account in
any study of the linkage between the exploitation of the
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and
the continuance of the conflict. The entire world
'.ecognizes the Democratic Republic of the Congo and
1ts Go~emment. No one. intends to equate the legal,
recogmzed Government w1th other actors in the conflict.
But that distinction should not prevent the
Congolese Government from punishing rnisconduct
that might occur when such practices are verified. In
that regard, I believe that I reflect the opinions of ail
my colleagues on the Security Council in emphasizing
that strengthening the rule of law and extending it
throughout the territory of a reunified Congo are
decisive steps in the fight against the plundering of the
country's resources. That is one of the reasons why the
Council supports the ongoing negotiations among
Congolese parties. We hope that they will lead as
quickly as possible to an all-inclusive agreement on the
transition.
We are not here today to judge anyone, but we
want results. We want an end to the plundering of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and to the conflict
that has tom the region apart. To begin with, there must
be a dialogue among those who have been implicated
by the Ba-N'Daw and Kassem reports and by the
Panel's experts. Each of the parties has the right to
respond and to have his or her views heard. It would be
desirable for the Secretariat to publish, within a month,
a technical addendum to Mr. Kassem's most recent
report, taking up the elements that all the parties
mentioned in the report wish to emphasize. For the
most part, those parties have spoken this moming.
In this connection, there are reasons to welcome
the positive approach of the Ugandan authorities, who
have .created the independent Porter Commission - to
which the Minister referred at length this moming - to
investigate incidents in which Ugandan officiais are
implicated. We await with interest the report which the
Commission is to issue in a few days.
We also welcome the response of the Prosecutor
of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, who last
week initiated proceedings involving ail the members
of the Government named in the Kassem report. We
invite the other parties concerned to adopt a similar
approach. It is through dialogue and by examining
evidence - with respect, of course, for the safety of
the Panel's sources - that the truth will emerge. Each
State implicated in the report is responsible for putting
an end to the activities of its citizens or undertaken on
its territory that are linked to the illegal exploitation of
the resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Council has before it a long list of
recommendations, all of which are relevant and some
of which are quite nove!. The Council will meet nêxt
week to decide on follow-up action, particularly in the
light of the statements we have heard today.
I believe, however, that two comments can be
made right away. First, the Council must continue to
hear periodic reports on this issue. The Council might
create a monitoring body, .as Mr. Kassem has
recommended, or simply renew the Panel's mandate,
but we must maintain our independent capacity of
observation. I would add that the Experts' next report
will provide us with a new assessment of the activities
of those who were named in the previous report, in the
S/PV.4642
light of indications they will have provided and of any
developments noted by the Experts in the field.
Secondly, a reading of the Ba-N'Daw and Kassem
reports should encourage us to reread reports written by
other experts conceming other crises. It is disturbing to
note a certain number of similarities. We note, for
instance, that the same names of arrns dealers and
commodities traders recur again and again in .ail these
reports. Three individuals identified by Mr. Kassem are
also active elsewhere. Mr. Leonid Minim and
Mr. Sanjivan Ruprah are also mentioned by the Liberia
and Sierra Leone Panels. The name of Mr. Victor Bout
also appears not only in the reports of the Liberia and
Sierra Leone Panels, but also in the report of the Angola
Panel and even in report of the follow-up group on
Afghanistan, which mentions transactions between Mr.
Bout, the Taliban and Al Qaeda. I emphasize that very
important point. Mr. Minim, Mr. Ruprah and Mr. Bout
are already the targets of Security Council sanctions.
Their names appear on the list of persons subject to
travel bans under resolution 1343 (2001) on Liberia. The
very least that can be said, however, is that the
restrictions do not seem to have hampered their
activities in the Congo to any significant degree.
This being the case, we believe that the time has
corne once again to consider an approach that would
enable us to compare these different types of
information and the Council to adopt a coherent and
effective line of action. We must put an end to the
destabilizing activities of these international dealers
throughout Africa and beyond. We must fully shoulder
our responsibilities in this respect.
The Ba-N'Daw and Kassem reports are timely
reminders that the undoubtedly positive developments
in the peace process in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo should not lead us to forget realities in the field.
In addition to the progress made in the withdrawal of
foreign forces, which we welcome, there are local
conflicts, such as in Ituri, that are more or less
manipulated and provoke genuine humanitarian
catastrophes. Such conflicts have many causes, but
they are ail fuelled, as the Ba-N'Daw and Kassem
reports show, by the ambition to control local natural
resources. This issue is therefore more timely than ever
and the success of the peace process depends on it.
This is not the time to give up.
The President (spoke in Chinese): I thank the
representative of France for bis kind words addressed
to China.
25
URAnnex106
S/PV.4642
Mr. Strsmmen (Norway): I congratulate you,
Sir, on assuming the presidency of the Council. We
wish you every success for the month ofNovember.
Our thanks go to Ambassador Belinga-Eboutou of
Carneroon for the way he steered us through the month
ofOctober.
Let me also wish a warm welcome to New York
and the Security Council to the Foreign Minister of
Uganda.
Norway welcomes the final report of the Panel of
Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural
Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. I thank
Arnbassador Kassem and the other members of the
Panel for their most commendable efforts in this
regard.
Despite the positive developments in the Great
Lakes region over the past months, such as the Pretoria
and Luanda peace accords and the rapid withdrawal of
troops from the territory of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, the systernatic exploitation of the natural
resources of that country seems to continue unabated.
According to the report, a large number of actors,
Govemments, individuals, armed groups and
companies are in some way involved in the exploitation
of natural resources. To the extent that an important
motive for the continuation of the conflict is the
exploitation of resources, as indicated by the Panel,
there might be reason to question whether ail parties to
the conflict are negotiating in good faith. Norway urges
ail the parties to the conflict to prove that this is not the
case by demonstrating that further results can be
reached in the peace process without delay.
It is imperative that the recent progress made on
the political level be translated into improved
conditions on the ground, with increased security for
the local populations, in particular in the eastem parts
of the Dernocratic Republic of the Congo, including the
Ituri region. Beyond the immediate short term,
permanent Government structures must be established
on the basis of an ail-inclusive political dispensation in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, allowing for
the natural resources to be utilized to the benefit of the
local population in an equitable manner.
We share the view that the political resolution to
the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
including progress in the inter-Congolese dialogue and
26
URAnnex 106
the establishment of effective goveming structures, is
the main key to preventing the exploitation of natural
resources. We agree with the Panel that
"The main purpose should be to enable the
legitimate transitional govemment to control the
country's natural resources and borders without
foreign intervention". (S/2002/I146, para. 163)
In this regard, we are encouraged by the latest news on
the progress in the power-sharing talks between the
parties to the inter-Congolese dialogue.
Norway would like to underline its support for
the methodological approach that the Panel of Experts
takes. We encourage the continuation of the use of
panels of experts to assist the Security Council in its
work. As is highlighted by the current discussion on
the exploitation of natural resources in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, the Panel not only presents its
findings and recommendations, but triggers, useful
discussions involving ail relevant actors. It is our belief
that this is a contribution towards finding good and
sustainable solutions to the problems we are facing in
the region.
The Secretary-General recently submitted the
twelfth report on the United Nations Organization
Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(MONUC) (S/2002/1180). In September, a special
report on MONUC was submitted that included
recommendations for strengthening MONUC's
capacity, especially in the eastern part of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. Norway would
have Iiked to see more cross-references between the
current rèport of the Panel of Experts and the reports
on MONUC. An analysis of the link between economic
interests and security aspects would be useful.
The report recommends the creation of forceful
incentives and disincentives in order to minimize
illegal exploitation. Legal utilization benefiting the
population at large should be encouraged. However, we
agree that it is necessary to find measures to deal with
the parties involved in illegal exploitation and their
fears of losing revenue. Norway has noted with keen
interest the various recommendations provided by the
Panel of Experts. Those recommendations are put
forward with the view to bringing to an end the illegal
exploitation of natural resources and to breaking the
link between the exploitation and the continuation of
the conflict. The fact that the exploitation continues
despite recent troop withdrawals is alarming, and the
Security Council must explore ail possible avenues to
bring the exploitation to an end. Norway will
contribute to that objective in the Council's further
deliberations by supporting concrete measures. As an
absolute minimum, various institutional reforms call
for Governments to ensure that companies and
individuals under their jurisdiction observe agreed
standards of the Organization for Economie
Cooperation and Development, and a further
monitoring process related to the exploitation activities
must be agreed upon and put in place.
As we are ail aware, some of the actors accused in
the report - most notably, Rwanda, Uganda and
Zimbabwe - have presented their comments and replies
to the report. Most of the Panel 's findings have been
challenged, and we will probably see further discussion
between the Panel and those parties. We have noted with
interest that steps have been taken by the Govemment of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo against one of the
companies mentioned in the report.
Finally, Norway urges the parties to the conflict
and to the peace process in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo to maintain the momentum created over the
past weeks and months. We believe that full
commitment to the Peace Agreements and the interCongolese
dialogue is vital in the search for a lasting
solution to the conflict in the region and for ways to stop
the illegal exploitation that is so obviously taking place.
Mr. Konuzin (Russian Federation) (spoke in
Russian): My delegation is pleased to see the People's
Republic of China discharging the presidential duties
of the Security CounciL We are grateful to the
delegation of Cameroon, and to the Ambassador of
Cameroon for the excellent manner in which he carried
out his duties as President in the previous month. My
delegation also welcomes the Minister for Foreign
Affairs ofUganda to this Chamber.
Th.e Russian Federation expresses its gratitude to
the Panel ofExperts, headed by Ambassador Mahmoud
Kassem, for the final report on the illegal exploitation
of natural resources and other forms of wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. Today's discussion
has shown that the report of the Panel of Exports has
achieved important objectives. The response by States
in the region and other interested countries has been
lively and interested. Not ail agree with the conclusions
and recommendations of the report, including the
Russian Federation. However, we must acknowledge
S/PV.4642
that the problem exists and we must take adequate
steps to resolve it. That has been borne out by
statements made by the representatives of Uganda,
South Africa, Denmark, France, Norway and other
representatives. In that connection, we are not inclined
to consider the report as an excuse to precipitously
. adopt measures or decisions, but rather to consider it as
food for thought that requires further study.
The issue we are discussing today is directly
linked to the protracted bloodshed that has been taking
place in the Democratic Republic of the Congo for
many years. Recently there have been encouraging
indications of resolution of that conflict. However, we
are concerned about the report's information on the
scope of the plundering of natural resources in
violation of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
We wish to draw particular attention to the
conclusion of the Panel of Experts that armed groups in
the country increasingly rely on control of budgetary
resources, licensing fees, taxes on export products,
custom duties on imports and State and local taxation
generally. The result of such activities is the further
plundering of the State, an increase in the number of
refugees and intemally displaced persons, human rights
abuses and, ultimately, an extensive humanitarian crisis.
We are concemed about the criminalization of
trade in Congolese resources, the lack of effective State
control, the high level of violence and the
militarization of certain regions of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. Uncontrolled access to
especially valuable resources has been attracting
increased interest on the part of criminal organizations.
The consolidation of the illegal activities of criminal
groups in pillaging the wealth of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo are also threats to the economic
and political stability of several neighbouring States.
At the same time, we have some questions about
the recommendation of the Panel of Experts to introduce
restrictions against the activities of individuals and
organizations accused of the illegal export of natural
resources from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The delegation of Belgium even spoke of introducing
sanctions against such individuals.
My delegation believes that combating economic
crime falls, first and foremost, within the purview of
States, not the Security Council. Moreover, only a
court can determine which individuals or organizations
27
URAnnex106
S/PV.4642
are truly guilty of illegal operations and should be
prosecuted. The establishment of black lists by the
Council would not guarantee an end to the illegal
operations involving Congolese resources. However, it
could give rise to serious legal problems, since, in the
case of the plundering of the natural resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, it would be
extremely difficult to prove that the activities of any
type of commercial enterprise or individual pose a
threat to international peace and security and, pursuant
to Chapter VII of the Charter, the imposition of
sanctions requires such a determination.
The Agreements achieved at Pretoria and Luanda,
with the assistance of South Africa and Angola,
establish the necessary preconditions for resolving the
problem of the illegal exploitation of Congolese
wealth. The ongoing and already completed withdrawal
of foreign troops from the country is pulling the ground
out from under the armed bands and criminal groups
that for several years have been plundering their own
State. The success of the inter-Congolese dialogue, the
achievement of a comprehensive agreement on the
establishment of a Transitional Government and the
extension of its authority to the entire territory of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo could be the turning
point whereby the plundering of the natural resources
of the Democratic Republic of the Congo would cease.
During this critical period, a more active role is
being played by the international community,
represented by the United Nations, its specialized
agencies, international financial institutions, regional
organizations and States that are interested in lending
the Democratic Republic of the Congo support of ail
kinds, including at the financial and expert levels. The
goals are: the implementation of programmes for the
disarmament, demobilization and reintegration of
former combatants; the restoration of the war-ravaged
economy; the establishment of .contrais with respect to
the use of natural resources; the strengthening of State
bodies; the implementation of appropriate
administrative procedures; an overview of economic
activities related to the exploitation of natural
resources; and a review of the legislation and the
relevant agreements establishing control over the use
of national resources.
Russia firmly believes that advocating a political
settlement in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
should remain a priority for the Security Council. We
see this first and foremost as compliance by the
28
URAnnex 106
Council with its Charter obligation to maintain
international peace and security.
Let me briefly react to some of the comments that
were made in this Chamber. In particular, I will touch
on the remarks made by the delegation of Uganda,
which said that the United Nations Mission in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo should send
military contingents to the area. That proposai bas
some validity, but the capacities of the Mission are
extremely limited, because of the lack of security in the
region as well as the limited number of military
contingents there.
Nevertheless, the appeal by the Ugandan
delegation reaffirms the timeliness of finalizing work
on a Security Council resolution on the expansion of
the United Nations Organization Mission in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Furthermore, views were expressed here to the
effect that the monitoring regime in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo should be expanded, either by
extending the mandate of the Panel of Experts or
through the establishment of a new monitoring
mechanism. We believe that this is a new issue that
requires additional consideration by the Security
Council. We cannot dissociate it from the situation that
prevails in the region, that is, the situation with respect
to the implementation of the Lusaka, Pretoria and
Luanda agreements and to the withdrawal of foreign
troops.
The current report bas given rise to many
questions and protestations on the part of a number of
countries in the region. Here we would like to ask if the
maintenance of the monitoring machinery at this time
might not have an impact on the peace process. We
need to discuss this, just as we need to discuss the
proposai made here with regard to a more active
involvement on the part of regional institutions and
international financial institutions in the process of
resolving the problems related to the illegal
exploitation of the natural resources in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and of putting an end to such
exploitation.
The President (spoke in Chinese): I thank the
representative of the Russian Federation for the kind
words he addressed to me.
The meeting was suspended at 1.10 p.m.
•
President:
Members:
Agenda
United Nations S/PV.4642 (Resumption 1)
Security Council
Fifty-seventh year
464 2nd meeting
Tuesday, 5 November 2002, 3 p.m.
New York
Mr. Zhang Yishan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (China)
Bulgaria . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Tafrov
Cameroon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • Mr. Belinga-Eboutou
Colombia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Valdivieso
France . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Levitte
Guinea . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Traoré
lreland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Corr
Mauritius . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Gokool
Mexico . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Aguilar Zinser
Norway . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Stn,mmen
Russian Federation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Konuzin
Singapore . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Mahbubani
Syrian Arab Republic . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Mekdad
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern lreland . . . . . Sir Jeremy Greenstock
United States of America . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mr. Williamson
The situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Letter dated 15 October 2002 from the Secretary-General addressed to the
President of the Security Council (S/2002/1146).
This record con tains the text of speeches delivered in English and of the interpretation of
speeches deli vered in the other Janguages. The final text will be printed in the Official Records
of the Security Council. Corrections should be submitted to the original languages only. They
should be incorporated in a copy of the record and sent under the signature of a member of the
delegation concerned to the Chief of the Verbatim Reporting Service, ro.om C-154A.
Provisional
02-67656 (E)
*0267656*
URAnnex106
S/PV.4642 (Resumption 1)
The meeting resumed at 3.15 p.m.
The President (spoke in Chinese): l should like
to inform the Council that I have received a letter from
the representative of Angola in which she requests to
be invited to participate in the discussion of the item on
the Council's agenda. In conformity with the usual
practice, 1 propose, with the consent of the Council, to
invite that representative to participate in the
discussion; without the right to vote, in accordance
with the relevant provisions of the Charter and rule 37
of the Council's provisional rules ofprocedure.
There being no objection, it is so decided.
At the invitation of the President, Mrs. Izata
(Angola) look the seat reservedfor her al the side
of the Co!lncil Chamber.
Mr. Gokool (Mauritius): I would like ftrst of ail
to congratulate you, Sir, on your assumption of the
presidency of the Council for this month and to assure
you of our support and cooperation. At the same time, I
would like to congratulate Ambassador BelingaEboutou
and his team on the manner in which they
conducted the work of the Council last month.
I extend a warm welcome to the Minister for
Foreign Affairs of Uganda, The Honourable James
Wapakhabulo.
Today's public meeting provides an opportunity
for ail interested parties to comment freely on the
contents of the report of the Panel of Experts on the
Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other
Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo (S/2002/1146). As with al! panels established by
the United Nations, we expect a high degree of
professionalism in terms of research and
documentation, as well as assessments and conclusions
based on concrete and verifiable evidence. We must ail
remember that when such panel reports are issued, they
are immediately referred to as United Nations reports
and become a reference tool for determining the creditworthiness
of countries. We have no doubt that that
spirit inspired the members of the Panel.
We favour the "name and shame" approach,
which in itself should represent a strong deterrent to
illegal exploiters. At the same time, we must make sure
that such an approach is based on irrefutable and
concrete evidence. Since the publication of the report,
many Governments, companies and individuals have
2
URAnnex106
disputed several important allegations made therein,
calling them baseless, unfounded, politically motivated
and unverified. lt is certainly not helpful for Member
States when the Panel makes assumptions and bases
itself on perceptions when finalizing its report. As we
al! know, such assumptions and perceptions are not
legally valid.
It is important that all information be fully
verified and that countries named in the report have the
opportunity to provide explanations. We note, for
example, that paragraph 18 of the report makes
reference to a joint Zimbabwe-Democratic Republic of
the Congo company to be set up in Mauritius to
disguise the continuing economic interests of the
Zimbabwe Defence Forces in the Democratic Republic
of the Congo. Unfortunately, no counter-checking or
verification of that information was ever requested
from Mauritius. Such shortcomings lead to the
undesired conclusion that the report aims at
sensationalism.
The Panel's report constitutes an important basis
that will help in framing a comprehensive strategy to
combat the illegal exploitation of the natural resources
of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is now an
internationally recognized fact that the natural
resources of the Democratic Repubîic of the Congo are
being plundered in the most brutal way and that the
wealth of the country, instead of helping to enhance the
well-being of the Congolese population, has got into
the hands of unscrupulous exploiters. On a number of
occasions, Mauritius has clearly stated that the natural
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
belong to the Congolese people and not to anybody
else. The vicious circle whereby · the conflict is
continued so as to better exploit the natural resources
of the Democratic Republic of the Congo should,
therefore, be broken. We deplore the current situation
as described in the report and express our belief that
the natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo should be exploited legally so as to benefit that
country and its people.
The report clearly points to the involvement of
neighbouring countries, both at the national and the
individual levels, in the illegal and illicit exploitation
of the resources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. Mauritius notes with concern that the
plundering continues unabated, and it strongly
condemns ail of those illegal activities. We believe that
the countries involved should take necessary measures
to cease such activities or, in cases where their
nationals are involved, to carry out investigations with
a view to apprehending those responsible. We take note
of the work being done by the Porter Commission and
look forward to its conclusions. We are ready to
consider the setting up of a monitoring body to
scrutinize the situation and to ensure that exploitation
activities are significantly curbed.
The report recommends that the Security Council
consider imposing certain restrictive measures on a
selective number of business enterprises and
individuals involved in the illicit exploitation of the
natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. That recommendation can be implemented only
after the respective Governments have been given
enough time to respond to the allegations in the report
or to take action against practices by companies in their
respective countries.
We all acknowledge the fact that the peace
process has reached quite an advanced stage. But it
remains fragile, as was demonstrated by the recent
fighting in the region of Uvira between the
Rassemblement congolais pour la démocratie rebel
group and local Mai-Mai militias. Any measure by the
Council which would lead to a hardening of the
positions of the parties to the conflict could seriously
jeopardize progress in the peace process.
Mauritius believes, therefore, in a holistic
approach to the resolution of the conflict and ail related
problems in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We
feel that full implementation of the Lusaka, Luanda and
Pretoria Agreements will in itself result in curbing the
illegal exploitation of natural resources. We also
believe that a transitional government would be a
major step in halting the illicit exploitation .of the
natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo.
The countries of the region have an important
. role to play in achieving a comprehensive peace
settlement. In this regard, we commend the
Government of South Africa for its efforts in the search
for peace and stability in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, as well as in the Great Lakes region. We
also encourage the efforts made by other countries in
the region towards that end. As we suggested in the
September meeting, the Security Council should now
seriously start thinking about how to deal with those
who do not want a voluntary process of disarmament,
S/PV.4642 (Resumption 1)
demobilization, repatriation, resettlement and
reintegration and those who are not signatories of the
Lusaka Agreement.
The idea of convening an international
conference on peace, security, democracy and
sustainable development should be looked into when a
post-conflict situation is reached. Such a conference
can only be beneficial once p.eace has been established
and when there is a strong Government in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo that is able to
exercise contrai throughout the Congolese terrîtory. It
is equally important to have thorough preparation
before actually convening such a conference.
Finally, with respect to the trade in rough
diamonds, Mauritius agrees that universal participation
will make the Kimberly process a more effective
instrument to prevent the illicit trade in this natural
resource.
The President (spoke in Chinese): I thank the
representatîve of Mauritius for his kind words.
Ms. Lee (Singapore): We, too, congratulate you,
Mr. President, on assuming the presidency for this
month and join colleagues in expressing our
appreciation to Ambassador Belinga-Eboutou and bis
team for bis presiding over the Council Iast month. We
would also like to extend a warm welcome to the
Foreign Minister of Uganda for his participation here
today.
We join our colleagues in thanking Ambassador
Kassem and the other members of the Panel for their
very comprehensive and insîghtful report, contained in
document S/2002/1146. Given the complexity of the
problems stipulated in the Panel's new mandate and the
very difficult conditions under which they had to work,
we appreciate the determined manner in which they
went about their work, as well as the candour of their
report.
We are also impressed by the standards of proof
adopted by the Panel and the fact that they "made
every effort to fairly and objectively evaluate the
information it has gathered", as stated in paragraph 8 of
the report. The Panel 's credibility has been given the
acknowledgement it deserves by the Porter
Commission, as cited in paragraph 136 of the report.
My delegation is particularly impressed by the detailed
findings by the Panel with regard to the elite networks
that continue to exploit the resources of the Democratic
3
URAnnex 106
S/PV.4642 (Resumption 1)
Republic of the Congo, even as foreign forces flnally
withdraw from the country. The information provided
by the Panel is vital for a clearer understanding of the
actual situation and will certainly play a key role in our
decision on the next steps that need to be taken to stem
"the plundering of the natural resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo" (para. 1 ).
However, as the Security Council deliberates on
this substantial report, we will also need to take into
account the responses of the Govemments, individuals
and companies implicated in the report. It is no
understatement to say that the report has stirred up a
homet's nest. As we have heard today, many of the
parties implicated in the report have accused the Panel
of failing to observe due process and of relying on
flimsy evidence in arriving at its flndings. The
chairman of one such company, Oryx Natural
Resources, visited Security Council members in New
York last week, including our delegation, to make the
case that bis company was innocent. He also told us
that the Panel had made no attempt to contact him or
bis company to check its facts prior to implicating bis
company in the report.
In our view, such responses to the report must be
fully addressed so that no innocent party is
inadvertentiy inciuded among the guiiiy but the guiity
parties are conclusively shown to be what they are. To
achieve this, we must ensure that due process is
observed. The Panel bas quite wisely proposed a grace
period of four to five months before a final decision is
taken on the imposition of the financial and travel
restrictions that it bas recommended against the
individuals and companies Iisted in Annexes I and II of
the report. That grace period is needed to clear up any
disputes that those named may have and, at the same
time, provide the opportunity for the guilty parties to
cease their illegal activities.
However, the Security Council does not have any
mechanism to assist it, so as to ensure that the
observance of due process and the necessary high
evidentiary standards will be the final arbiters before
we make our decision on the Panel 's recommendations.
We will take up this question again when the Council
meets next week in informai consultations to discuss
the outcome of today's debate. Here, I would like to
add that we agree with the representative of France that
our purpose should not be to point fingers at anyone
but to stop the plundering and to find a way for the
Democratic Republic of the Congo to move forward.
4
URAnnex 106
On the substance of the report, in general, we see
the Panel 's report as an important contribution to our
efforts to stem the illegal outflow of the natural
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Even as we wrestle with the problem of the illegal
exploitation of the natural resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, we must recognize that such
exploitation is possible only when the parties involved
know that they can get away with it. The Panel's
description of this state of affairs was that of "a selffinancing
war economy centred on minerai
exploitation", as aptly stated in paragraph 12 of the
report.
A sustainable solution would require the
development of a reasonably transparent economy and
good governance in the areas exploited. A precondition
for both would be peace and a Govemment that is
clearly representative of, and committed to, the people
of the country. Emphasis must, therefore, continue to
be placed on the political dialogue process among the
Congolese parties, so that such a Govemment can be
established. To underpin stability in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and, indeed, throughout the
Great Lakes region, countries in the region should
develop a transparent regional trading system that
would not only discourage the illicit movement of
goods but also enable the countries to complement each
other's economic strengths. It is to their credit that
during the Security Council meeting two weeks ago on
the subject of cooperation between the United Nations
system and Central Africa, many African delegations
emphasized the importance of regional economic
cooperation as a cornerstone of the African continent's
efforts.
In my delegations view, the international
community should support the efforts of both the
region and the Democratic Republic of the Congo to
stop the pillaging of the natural resources of the
country. Monitoring of the illegal exploitation should
be maintained until the Government of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo is able to exercise effective
contrai over the areas concemed. We are, therefore,
supportive of the Panel's recommendation in paragraph
186 of its report that the Security Council should look
into the establishment of a monitoring body for that
purpose.
And like our colleagues, we have also taken note
that many of the criminal activities of the elite
networks described by the Panel are related to the usual
suspects that we have encountered in other Panel
reports. For example, at paragraph 72, 107 and 140 of
the report, there is reference to the Victor Bout
connection. We are also concemed that the Panel bas
uncovered smuggling of Angolan and Sierra Leone
diamonds despite Security Council embargoes on those
diamonds. Those references came from paragraph 52 of
the report. We have previously pointed out that a
mechanism must be established for the consistent
monitoring of Security Council embargoes. Perhaps the
time bas corne for the Security Council to also look
into the establishment of a body for that purpose.
Finally, when one reads the Panel's findings
regarding the fortunes that have been made and are still
being made by the elite networks, and juxtaposes this
with the statistics of the Office for the Coordination of
Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) on malnutrition and
mortality rates of children below the age of five years,
it is clear that non-action by the Security Council is not
an option. We cannot fail the people of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo.
The President (spoke in Chinese): I thank the
representative of Singapore for ber kind words
addressed to me.
Mr. Mekdad (Syrian Arab Republic) (spoke in
Arabie): We wish at the outset to congratulate you, Sir,
on your assumption of the presidency of the Council
for this month and to wish you ail success in your
work. We would also like to extend our thanks to your
predecessor, Mr. Belinga-Bboutou, the Permanent
Representative of Cameroon, for the excellent way in
which be guided the work of the Council during his
presidency last month. We would also like to greet the
Minister for Foreign Affairs of Uganda, as well as
Ambassador Mahmoud Kassem and other members of
the Panel of Experts.
Our delegation has considered the report of the
Panel of Experts on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural
Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (S/2002/ 1146). The
Government of the Syrian Arab Republic believes that
it is vital to establish peace in the Great Lakes region,
and in the Democratic Republic of the Congo in
particular, through the implementation of all existing
agreements, starting with the Lusaka Agreement and
the Sun City, Pretoria and Luanda agreements.
In that regard, we call upon all the parties
involved in the inter-Congolese dialogue and upon the
S/PV.4642 (Resumption 1)
neighbouring countries to speedily implement ail those
agreements. That would lead to prosperity for the
region, put an end to the illegal exploitation of its
resources and ensure the enjoyment by ail citizens of
the benefits of peace. After the complete withdrawal of
ail foreign forces and the halting of ail military actions,
a phase of reconstruction and the demobilization,
disarmament and reintegration or repatriation of excombatants
would begin.
We believe that the international community, the
international financial institutions and donor countries
should fulfil their commitments to help the region
attain sustainable development and the objectives of
the New Partnership for Africa's Development
(NEPAD), by promoting the institutions of the Africa
Union and supporting its programmes. In that regard,
we commend South Africa and the United Republic of
Tanzania for having facilitated the holding of various
meetings and the achievement of several agreements.
We also commend the representatives of the SecretaryGeneral
in the region and bail the important rote played
by the United Nations Organization Mission in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC).
Having considered the report of the Panel of
Experts, we are a bit surprised by some of its contents
and by its failure to secure irrefutable evidence before
Ievelling blame and accusations against individuals and
companies; indeed, this has been done even without
prior contact with those individuals or with
representatives of those companies. In addition, we
reject conclusions volunteered by members of the
Panel when such conclusions were not required or
when they were based on reasoning that is difficult to
understand. Here, we would like to note the report's
political reference to a number of companies in Africa
and in the Arab region. As far as we know, the report
was not supposed to deal with the internai affairs of
other African countries or with political aspects related
to Arab countries. Therefore, we would like to express
our dissatisfaction at the levelling of accusations and
the description of some business people as members of
international criminal organizations. Is that not
somewhat exaggerated?
We also note that the report was based on
information provided by informers, be they companies
or competing traders. That affects the accuracy of the
report and the credibility of the Panel of Experts. My
delegation welcomed the efforts made by the Chairman
and members of the Panel during the Security Council
5
URAnnex 106
S/PV.4642 {Resumption 1)
mission to the Great Lakes region and subsequent in
Council meetings. We understand the importance of the
Panel's work and the importance of providing it with
ail the assistance it needs to collect documents that
would support its conclusions.
We have also endorsed the idea that the Panel
should meet with those mentioned in the report. But we
feel that the Panel failed to make such contacts or to
ask questions about the contents of a number of
paragraphs relating to some major countries in the
region and the relationship between those countries and
some of the companies mentioned in the report.
Levelling accusations against Arab cities and
countries such as Dubaï and the United Arab Emirates
in some paragraphs of the report was out of place and
unacceptable. Our delegation believes that every
accusation against Arab individuals named in the report
can be answered and refuted, as the Permanent
Representative of Oman said this morning. We confirm
that these individuals and company representatives
possess the documents needed to refute ail the
accusations Ievelled against them. They are entirely
right to be dissatisfied, since the Panel neither
contacted them nor gave them a chance to produce
documents proving their innocence.
In annex I of its report the Panel lists the
companies it recommends should be subject to
financial restrictions; annex II lists individuals for
whom the Panel recommends a travel ban and financial
restrictions. This includes Arab, African and European
business people. We believe that there is an urgent need
to re-evaluate the entire contents of the report.
My delegation reaffirms its keen interest in
revealing the whole truth behind the illegal exploitation
of natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. However, we also reaffirm the importance of
not undermining the reputation of individuals or
companies or exaggerating certain incidents in the
absence of the necessary irrefutable. The livelihoods of
thousands of families depend on the activities of the
accused business people and companies.
We reaffirm that ail parties must be committed to
the implementation of agreements recently reached,
and to the implementation of the Lusaka Agreement.
We reiterate that the only guarantee against the illegal
exploitation of natural resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo is continued efforts to establish
a strong Government in that country that would ensure
li
URAnnex106
regulated, legitimate and sustainable exploitation of
natural resources to the benefit of its people and of the
region in general.
Yesterday, my delegation reaffirmed that informai
consultations must be conducted to consider the
report's recommendations and conclusions. At the
same time, we reaffirm that we stand against any
illegal exploitation of natural resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, and we reiterate
the importance of taking the necessary measures to
ensure that the natural resources of that country and
throughout the African continent are used to benefit the
continent's peoples, and that the illegal exploitation of
wealth is brought to an end.
We reaffirm our keen interest in having the
Council consider the report in an objective manner, and
we support the idea that the Council should lay down
very clear and specific guidelines with regard to the
fonctions and work of any mechanism to be established
by the Council in the future.
The President (spoke in Chinese): I thank the
representative of the Syrian Arab Republic for the kind
words he addressed to me.
Mr. Traoré (Guinea) (spoke in French): Let me
first of ail bid a warm welcome to the Minister for
Foreign Affairs of Uganda and thank him for his
important statement. I would also like to say how
pleased I am to see you, Sir, presiding over the Council
during November. We reaffirm that my delegation will
continue its traditional cooperation. I would also like to
commend the outstanding work done in the month of
October by the delegation of Cameroon under the
leadership of my brother, Ambassador Martin BelingaEboutou.
My delegation is grateful to Ambassador Kassem
and the Panel of Experts for the quality of its report
(S/2002/1146) on the illegal exploitation of natural
resources and other wealth of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo. The report establishes quite clearly the
close link between the Great Lakes conflict and the
exploitation of the resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, in violation of that country's
territorial integrity and of international Iaw.
The reports submitted by the Panel of Experts
between April 2001 and October 2002 eloquently
demonstrate our determination to put an end to the
plundering of those resources and to find a lasting
solution to conflict throughout the region. The facts
given in these reports have enabled us to cast light on
the role of some and the intentions of others, which
have unfortunately meant 3.5 million deaths and an
ever disturbing humanitarian situation in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. With regard to the
many consequences of the years of war, in ail their
various and complex dimensions, the Council must
take the necessary steps with regard to those
responsible for the plundering once their responsibility
bas been established.
With regard to our consideration of our reports of
the Panel of Experts, my delegation would like to
highlight some relevant aspects of its conclusions and
recommendations. White we must welcome the official
withdrawal of foreign troops from the territory of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, my delegation
remains concerned over the continued presence of the
ground of elite networks, with the goal of perpetuating
the illegal exploitation of these resources in ail its
forms. That is why we support not merely verification
that the withdrawal is genuine, but also an in-depth
investigation of the elite networks.
My delegation agrees to establish a monitoring
body for putting an end to the illegal exploitation of the
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In
that regard, priority should be given to Congolese
expertise. To ease the humanitarian impact of planned
measures and restrictions against companies and
individuals involved in the plunder of resources, we
agree that appropriate technical and financial assistance
should be provided to Congo. Moreover, in its
paragraph l SS, the report indicates that an embargo or
a moratorium banning the export of raw materials
originating in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
does not seem to be a viable means of helping to
improve the situation in that country.
This approach, as we see it, is different from that
suggested by the initial recommendations of the Panel
of Experts. Are we to conclude that this is a new
approach? My delegation would like some information
in this regard. We endorse the interpretation of the
Govemment of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
with regard to the concept of invited and not-invited
countries. That analysis is based on the sovereign right
of every State. The Council should take it into account.
Moreover, we agree with the recommendation in
paragraph 157 that the establishment of a transitional
government in Kinshasa should be accompanied by the
S/PV.4642 (Resumption l)
disarmament of the rebel groups, the genuine
withdrawal of foreign troops, the adoption of measures
to curb illegal exploitation, and the application of
serious multilateral pressures and incentives. The
institutional reforms envisaged by the Panel of Experts
are part of that approach and are aimed at restoring
State authority throughout the country.
We welcome the significant progress in the
multiparty negotiations on the formation of a
transitional government in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo, which would guarantee a promising future.
Such progress will bolster the Pretoria and Luanda
Agreements. Can the Group give us further information
on the real nature of its collaboration with the Porter
Commisi;ion in Uganda? We find this collaboration
contradictory since it is called an "amiable working
relationship" (S/2002/1146. para. 132) based on
exchanges of information and evidence, whereas it is
also stated that the Porter Commission doubts the
credibility of the Panel's evidence.
In conclusion, my delegation would like to
reiterate its support for the holding of an international
conference on peace, security, democracy and
sustainable development in the Great Lakes region.
That initiative, which des.erves the attention of ail,
should be a priority based on an integrated approach to
the settlement of the ongoing conflict in the region.
The President (spoke in Chinesè): I thank the
representative of Guinea for the kind words he
addressed to me.
Mr. Corr (Ireland): May I first extend the good
wisl:v:s and full support of my delegation to you, Sir, as
China assumes the presidency of the Security Council
for this month. I would also like to thank very warmly
the Permanent Representative of Cameroon and bis
colleagues for a presidency last month of skill and real
achievement, which we appreciated very much. I would
also like, on behalf of my delegation, to warmly
welcome the Foreign Minister of Uganda to our
meeting today. I thank him for his very compr1;:hensive
statement this morning. We look forward to the report
of Judge Porter later this month.
I would like to thank you, Mr. President, for
convening this public meeting of the Council to
consider the final report of the Panel of Experts on the
Illegal Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other
Forms of Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo (S/2002/1146). I wish to express the warm
7
URAnnex 106
S/PV.4642 (Resumption 1)
appreciation of Ireland to Ambassador Kassem and his
colleagues for their report. This has been a difficult
task very well done, and we are in their debt. The
representative of Denmark has already made a
statement on behalf of the European Union, and
Ireland, of course, fully associates itself with that
statement.
The Panel, in ail its successive reports, has
consistently and rightly taken the view that without a
resolution · of the broader conflict in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and the Great Lakes region
generally, it will be extremely difficult to achieve an
end to illegal exploitation of the natural resources of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The situation is more complex than simple cause
and effect. Violence and conflict fuelled the illegal
exploitation of resources of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo by foreign Govemments and armies;
exploitation, in turn, became in itself a prime factor in
further exacerbating conflict and violence. Today, this
exploitation and greed remains a powerful force against
the achievement of peace and stability in a tortured
land whose people want peace and deserve justice as
part of peace.
The Pretoria and Luanda Agreements, building on
the Lusaka process, offer the best - indeed, the onlyway
forward to peace and stability in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. And yet, the progress achieved
to date, white real, remains distinctly tenuous as recent
violent clashes in the eastern and north-eastern parts of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo graphically
illustrate. The situation in lturi remains especially
grave. Ali parties to the Agreements have an absoh!te
duty to use their full influence to end military activity
by ail armed groups and militias under, or susceptible
to, their influence. Ali sides must work, especially in
the context of the current Pretoria talks, for an
inclusive political agreement in the framework of the
inter-Congolese dialogue. Ali must cooperate fully and
in every respect with the United Nations Organization
Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(MONUC). The process of disarmament,
demobilization, rehabilitation and reintegration
(DDRR) must proceed with no impediments. And we
in the Security Council, as we prepare to review the
mandate of MONUC in support of the Pretoria
Agreement, must play our part.
8
URAnnex 106
The detailed findings in the Panel 's report are
shocking. Let me clearly say that Ireland finds the
report compelling in its analysis and in its general
conclusions. It names countries; it names individuals
and companies; it points a clear finger against those
who systematically plunder and rob the resources of
the people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It
is a frightening assessment of what happens when
greed and rapaciousness spiral out of control and feast
on the suffering and misfortune of others.
It is the judgement of the Panel that, welcome as
recent troop withdrawals from the Democratic
Republic of the Congo by Rwanda, Zimbabwe and
Uganda may be,
"these withdrawals are unlikely to alter the
determination of Rwanda and Zimbabwe, and
Ugandan individuals, to exercise economic
control over portions of the Democratîc Republic
of the Congo". (S/2002/1146, para.13)
Moreover, the Panel alleges that the Uganda
People's Defence Forces (UPDF) "continue to provoke
ethnie conflict" (para. 14); that Rwanda has prepared
for withdrawal by putting in place economic control
mechanisms; that senior officers of the Zimbabwe
Defence Forces (ZDF) have enriched themselves from
minerai assets of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo and that this pattern continues; that an elite
network of Congolese and Zimbabwean political,
military and commercial interests seeks to maintain its
grip on main minerai resources of the Govemmentcontrolled
areas.
There is no need here to elaborate on the detailed
findings of the Panel. My delegation will, of course,
carefully Iisten to the arguments put forward by
Govemments, companies or individuals against whom
a clear finger is pointed.
What is important for all sides is to safeguard and
strengthen the peace process. My delegation finds
extremely persuasive the recommendations of the Panel
to consolidate this progress by a set of agreements or
initiatives on reconstruction and sustainable
development to address the economic dimensions of
the Lusaka peace process and to provide incentives for
continuing progress.
We fully support the proposai for a first set of
initiatives involving quick-disbursing aid for the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and other Great
Lakes countries involved in the conflict. We strongly
support, as others have today, the convening of an
international conference on peace, security and
sustainable development in the region. We agree on the
urgent need for reconstructing and reforming the State
institutions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
We agree also that a comprehensive economic and
social development programme in the eastern
Democratic Republic of the Congo be set up to assist a
transition to a legitimate civilian administration.
My delegation supports the proposai for a review
by a special commission of all rnining and forestry
concessions and contracts signed since 1997. Ire land
also agrees with the Panel that the Governments of the
countries where the individuals, companies and
financial institutions that are systematically and
actively involved in exploitation activities are based
should assume their share of responsibility.
The recommendations of the Panel are measured
and carefully calibrated in support of peace but in
adamant opposition to further theft of resources that
belong to the people of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. It is stated in the report that there is
"ample justification for donors to respond to a
Security Council resolution - which might be
necessary - which would propose certain
reductions in official aid to promote peace and
good governance". (para. 171)
The Panel recommends that measures should also
be aimed at making aid disbursements to Burundi,
Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe conditional on their
compliance with the relevant agreements in the Lusaka
peace process and on verifiable measures taken to hait
illegal exploitation of the resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. Non-compliance would
automatically trigger a review and reduction of
assistance programmes for those countries but, in the
recommendation of the Panel, this should not cover
sector-specific allocations. I should add that this latter
caveat seems to my delegation a wise and appropriate
one. It is the exploiters, not the innocent, who should
feel the strength of international concern.
The Panel recommends that implementation of
this proposai would proceed in three stages, beginning
with a grace period to permit verification of the
compliance of all the parties to the conflict. Overall,
this is an especially sensitive proposai, and the Panel
rightly presents it in that light. We will consider it
S/PV.4642 (Resumption 1)
carefully with other Council members, not least
bearing in mind, on the one hand, the clear need for
disincentives against non-compliance and, on the other,
the need to also fully safeguard the interests of poor
people dependent on development funding support.
The Panel also recommends that the Council
consider imposing certain restrictions on a number of
business enterprises and individuals named in the
report, but with a short grace period of several months
before the restrictions are applied. That is a proposai
my delegation will also carefully assess in the period
ahead. lt will, of course, be important for any actions in
respect of any company or individual to be based on
due assessment of evidence.
We agree with the Panel recommendations on
adherence of business enterprises to the Orgarùzation
for Economie Cooperation and Development (OECD)
guidelines.
As regards the need for a monitoring body to
report to the Council, I can state that Ir.eland fully
supports this proposai.
That Panel's report is detailed and well
documented. The recommendations are· measured and
fair. As we move forward in our support for the
achievement of peace in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo and in the Great Lakes region generally, and
in guarding against those forces that are undermining
the peace, I would conclude by fully endorsing the
underlying theme that runs through this report: Justice
and peace cannot rest on foùndations of injustice and
wrong.
The President (spoke in Chinese): I thank the
representative of lreland for the kind words be
addressed to me.
Mr. Belinga-Eboutou (Cameroon) (spoke in
French): First of ail, may I welcome His Excellency
Mr. Wapakhabulo, Third Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Republic of
Uganda.
Since I am taking the floor for the first time in a
public meeting of the Council under your presidency,
Sir, I would like to join previous sp.eakers in reiterating
to you my delegation 's sincere congratulations and
expressing Cameroon 's great satisfaction at seeing
China succeed us at the head of the Security Council.
China is a great country and a reliable friend with
which we have excellent and varied ties of friendship
9
URAnnex106
S/PV.4642 {Resumplion 1)
and cooperation. I can pledge our full cooperation
during your term of office, which I hope will be
particularly fruitful. May I also express our gratitude to
ail those delegations that have spoken such kind words
about Cameroon; I thank them for their encouragement
and appreciation of our presidency of the Security
Council for the month of October.
Two weeks ago, we were saying here, during a
public meeHng on Central Africa, that our region has
enormous potential and immense soil and subsoil
wealth. We went on to point out that, because of that
wealth, it has unfortunately been the object of every
kind of greed, becoming thereby the African region
with the most conflicts.
One of the merits of the final report
(S/2002/1146) of Ambassador Mahmoud Kassem and
his team is that it points to one of the causes - if not
the principal cause - of the conflict that the
Democratic Republic of the Congo has endured for
several years. In truth, one of the causes for the
Congo's instability since its independence is that the
Democratic Republic of the Congo is sick - sick from
its minerai riches. It is their victim.
Beyond the responsibilities of certain parties, the
Panel's report unquestionably establishes that the
Democratic Republic of the Congo has been plundered
and exploited like no other country, to the benefit of
the many-sided conflict whose theatre it remains. The
report - which was submitted for our consideration
and attests to the effectiveness of the illegal
exploitation of the natural resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo by various parties to conflicts
under way in the .Great Lakes subregion - gives rise to
the most serious concern on the part of my delegation.
We express that concern both because of the context in
which the report is issued and because of its
conclusions, whose seriousness will affect peacebuilding
in the subregion.
With regard to the context, the international
community cannot fail to welcome the beginning of the
withdrawal of foreign troops from the territory of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, which is being
carried out in the interests of peace and to re-establish
the sovereignty of the Congolese Government over ail
its territory. In that regard, Cameroon would Iike once
again to welcome the progress achieved in such an
important area. We remain confident in the attainment
10
URAnnex 106
of that objective, each of the parties having affirmed
their good faith and their commitment to bring it about.
On the domestic level, we are witnessing an
acceleration of the inter-Congolese dialogue, whose
conclusion would complete the Sun City process with
the international community's resolute support.
Those positive and promising developments, if
they take into useful account the conclusions of the
report of the Panel of Experts, should be swiftly
consolidated and should guarantee the durable
restoration of peace and security to the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and to the subregion.
In its positive and prescriptive dimension, the
report encourages negotiation by the subregional actors
of new economic trade and integration agreements,
based on a new consensus that respects the sovereignty
of ail States. To that end, an international conference of
the Great Lakes countries - which has been called for
earnestly by the subregion's heads of State and which
Cameroon has advocated since 1996 - could usefully
serve as a political pillar for such an initiative and
could enable us to break the vicious circ le of the illegal
exploitation of the natural resources of the _Dem?cratic
Republic of .the Congo and of the contmuat1on of
hostilities on the ground.
My delegation 's view is that, beyond ail the
sensibilities that might be aroused by the report
submitted to the Council by Ambassador Kassem, only
the reconstruction of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo, with its political, economic and social
infrastructures, is at stake. The international
community must therefore encourage and assist that
country in order to enable it to re-establish i~s author~ty
over ail its territory and to fully enjoy the riches of tts
soit and subsoil, in the interests of its own people. In
that context, the reorganization of the extraction and
commercialization sectors of the mining sector in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo will be essential for
the realization ofthose objectives.
Moreover, the strengthening of the mandate of the
United Nations Organization Mission in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC) and ~f
its military and logistical components should enable 1t
to act to take better control over Congolese territory, in
particular the north-east of the country, the_ theatre of
recurrent hostilities. My country reaffirms 1ts support
for and hopes that MONUC's strengthening will take
place quickly, in the spirit of the conclusions of the
Security Council's public meeting of 22 October 2002,
devoted to relations between the United Nations and
the States of the Economie Community of Central
African States.
My delegation appeals to the countries of transit
and destination of the natural wealth exploited illegally
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo to finally take
adequate measures to control and even, if necessary, to
interdict such activities. In that context, the Kimberly
Process related to the trade in conflict diamonds could,
despite its drawbacks, be an excellent basis for work
and reference. My country supports that Process and
the Panel's recommendation to all States to cooperate
fully.
Finally, in respect for Congolese sovereignty,
Cameroon supports the recommendation of the Panel of
Experts that the Security Council create a monitoring
body charged with following up on activities related to
the exploitation of natural resources in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo.
The President (spoke in Chinese): I thank the
representative of Cameroon for the kind words he
addressed to me and to my country. I should also like
to thank hiin for pledging to the Chinese delegation bis
full support and cooperation. My ability to succeed as
President of the Council during November rests on the
excellent groundwork laid in October.
Mr. Thomson (United Kingdom): Since this is
our first opportunity to speak this month, I should Iike
to join· previous speakers in welcoming China's
assumption of the presidency of the Security Council
and to offer you, Sir, and your colleagues the full
support of my delegation during this challenging
month.
Like previous speakers, I should also like to
thank the Permanent Representative of Cameroon and
bis delegation for their efforts during their presidency
of the Council last month.
We are very pleased to see here today and to have
heard the Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister
of Uganda. We thank him for making the effort to be
present.
The Danish Ambassador delivered this moming a
statement on behalf of the European Union and
associated countries. The United Kingdom fully
endorses that statement.
S/PV.4642 (Resumption 1)
We welcome the Panel of Experts' report and
appreciate all the bard work that has clearly gone into
it. We look forward to continuing w<>rk on the detail of
the report. On this occasion, I should like to be quite
briefand to dwell onjust a few of the main points.
Our priority - and, I think, our collective
priority - is the need to ensure that the people of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo benefit from the
exploitation of the country's natural resources to aid
developrnent, peace and stability. We therefore urge ail
the parties named in the report to investîgate seriously
the allegations made and to respond fully to its
recommendations.
My Govemment hopes that the Panel's Chair will
nominate a spokesperson to respond to questions from
organizations and individuals named in the report and
its annexes. We would .encourage the Panel to share
information with Govemments and companies narned,
to the extent possible without compromising source
protection, so as to allow them to carry out full
investigations and take any necessary action.
We have noted with concem that key parties
identified in resource exploitation have also been
named as being involved in supplying arms to foreign
armed groups, in breach of their obligations as
signatories to the Lusaka Ceasefire Agreement. We call
again on ail parties to stop supplying foreign armed
groups in the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
We note the explicit connection that the report
makes between resolving the issue of resource
exploitation and the establishment of an agreed, fully
inclusive transitional Govemment in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. We call on ail parties to the
inter-Congolese dialogue to renew their efforts to that
end.
My Govemment welcomes the statement made by
the Democratic Republic of the Congo's Public
Prosecutor that he will investigate the report's findings.
This response contradicts some other statetnents made
by the Govemment of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo rejecting the report's allegations against senior
Govemment figures, so we hope that the Government
of the Democratic Republic of the Congo will clarify
its position and respond constructively to the report's
recommendations.
The Govemment of Rwanda bas issued a detailed
response to the Panel's report and we heard the
11
URAnnex106
S/PV.4642 (Resumption 1)
Rwandan representative speak eloquently on the
subject this morning. We call on the Government of
Rwanda, in common with other parties named in the
report, to respond constructively to the report's
recommendations.
The Panel notes unconfirmed reports that some
personnel of the Rwandese Patriotic Army remain in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We understand
that the Third Party Verification Mechanism (TPVM)
and the United Nations Organization Mission in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo have Iooked into
such allegations and are satisfied that Rwandan
withdrawal from the Democratic Republic of the
Congo is complete. We call on both parties to
implement their Pretoria commitments in full and with
full transparency and we express our full support for
the TPVM in carrying out its monitoring rote.
The Ugandan Government responded publicly
and in detail to the report this morning. We call on the
Government of Uganda to respond constructively to the
report's findings and we, like others, look forward to
the findings of the Porter Commission. We welcome
the Government of Uganda's statement that the Porter
Commission has the judicial powers of the High Court
and is independent of the executive.
Finally, we also call on the Zimbabwean
Government to respond to the report's findings. We
listened carefully to the representative of Zimbabwe's
presentation this morning. The Council will need to
consider very carefully ail aspects of the Panel's report,
including those relating to Zimbabwe.
The President (spoke in Chinese): I thank the
representative of the United Kingdom for his kind
words addressed to me.
Mr. Aguilar Zinser (Mexico) (spoke in Spanish):
My delegation congratulates you, Sir, on your
assumption of the presidency of the Security Council
and offers you our highest commitment of cooperation
with the Council as it carries out its tasks this month.
We also wish publicly to thank the Ambassador
of Cameroon for his magnificent work at the helm of
the Security Council in October.
We welcome the Minister for Foreign Affairs of
Uganda to our meeting.
I wish to begin by stressing the great importance
of the introduction of the report before the Council,
12
which was undertaken, as proposed by the Chinese
presidency of the Council, so that we may consider its
contents together with the countries that are referred to
in the recommendations and findings contained in the
report and that have been involved with the Democratic
Republic of the Congo in recent years. We believe that
the report's tapie is one of the key elements in the
restoration of peace and security to the region and in
the establishment of political stability in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, along with respect
for the fundamental rights of the citizens of that
country.
The peace process must be lasting. It is advancing
thanks to progress made in recent months, most
certainly including the political agreements that have
Jed to the onset of the definitive withdrawal of foreign
troops from the territory of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo. We believe that, in the next phase, full
sovereignty must be restored to the Congo over its
natural resources. My country considers that to be an
essential ingredient of economic development, peace
and security in the region.
The natural resources with which the Democratic
Republic of the Congo is generously endowed
constitute fundamental attributes of that country's
sovereignty and must serve, first and foremost, the
economic and social development of Congolese
citizens. They can also be an engine for the economic
and social development of the region if they are
rationally exploited by means of equitable and fair
machinery that will benefit the Congolese and their
African neighbours. In order to be able to achieve that
objective, important far-reaching measures will have to
be taken in the Democratic Republic of the Congo as
well as in the neighbouring countries, which the
international community must support.
The report prepared under Ambassador Mahmoud
Kassem, which is before us today, is a very rich
document that provides very important revelations and,
therefore, is very controversial. My country believes
that the Security Council is committed to giving timely
follow-up to the recommendations of the Panel of
Experts, evaluating them and assessing their
applicability. In keeping with its responsibility, the
Council must also ensure that the follow-up to the
findings of this report will lead to full clarification of
the criminal acts referred to in this report, and that can
also lead to holding those involved in these possible
criminal acts responsible for their actions. The
establishment of the rule of law is a main instrument
for the exercise of the sovereignty by the Democratic
Republic of the Congo over its natural resources.
The report describes the significance of the illegal
exploitation of natural resources as an element that
explains the nature of the conflict the Democratic
Republic of the Congo is still experiencing and the size
and magnitude of the challenges involved in
confronting the basic causes and motives of that
conflict in the search for lasting peace.
I believe that the report contains elements that
should provide a standard for initiating investigations
within the Democratic Republic of the Congo, as well
as within the jurisdiction of the countries referred to in
the report, particularly in Rwanda, Uganda and
Zimbabwe. The Security Council must respond
completely and impartially to the comments made by
the authorities of those countries on the content of the
report. Yet, it must also encourage those authorities so
that the necessary investigations are carried out to
provide clarification on the nature of the events
described in the report and, when necessary, to clarify
its veracity.
The conditions under which this report was
prepared were not easy, and the Security Council
should not disregard that fact. The difficulties of
identifying sources to obtain the information to carry
out the investigations within the limitations stemming
from the nature of the work of this Working Group
must be considered by the Council and must be a point
of departure for fairly evaluating the work and effort
achieved by the Panel of Experts.
My delegation believes that the recommendations
made by the Experts must be discussed and analysed at
length by the members of the Security Council in order
to determine what measures are necessary so that we
may agree on ones that may be appropriately applied.
They, are recommendations that respond to the
protection of natural resources and the establishment of
mechanisms that ensure their legitimate exploitation, as
well as recommendations that relate to building the
foundations of a just and lasting peace in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
The Working Group must continue its work, and
it must be founded to a certain degree on a mechanism
to maintain monitoring in the new phases of regulation
and control of natural resources, which, we hope, will
be forthcoming. Sustained social and economic
S/PV.4642 (Resumption 1)
development, a mechanism of govemance and
entrenchment of the rule of law in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, under fully transparent
conditions, and the effective fight against corruption -
only these will guarantee that the Congolese will
ultimately be the beneficiaries of the immense natural
wealth bestowed on that nation.
My delegation must insist that the Council
continue to be committed to the work proposed by the
recommendations and findings of this report. We
believe that dialogue, which the authorities of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and its
neighbouring countries, cited many times in the report,
must continue within the Working Group. This will
provide the procedure that will enable us to achieve our
objectives.
In conclusion, the report contains a description of
the problem of the illegal exploitation of the natural
resources of the Democratic Republic of the Congo that
involves private, national and foreign companies and
authorities of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
and of other countries, as wetl as criminal
organizations openly engaging in illegal activities. That
complicated combination, described in the report, also
speaks to us, the international community at large, of
the need to make both neighbouring countries and
countries distant from the Democratic Republic of the
Congo responsible for establishing mechanisms to
prosecute crimes, investigate them and to make justice
and ~aw prevail. We believe that the Democratic
Republic of the Congo will not be able by itself to
carry out the enormous task of re-establishing control
over its natural resources if it does not have the strong
support of the authorities of other countries and the
international community as a whole. The Security
Council must remain vigilant and ensure that this
machinery for cooperation and these commitments are
fulfilled.
Mr. V;tldivieso (Colombia) (spoke in Spanish): I
wish at the outset to express our satisfaction at seeing
you, Sir, presiding over this post and to wish the
members of your delegation success throughout the
month ofNovember.
We would also like to thank Ambassador Martin
Belinga-Eboutou and his team from the delegation of
Cameroon for the important work they did last month.
The delegation of Colombia would like also to
thank the Panel of Experts, chaired by Ambassador
13
S/PV.4642 (Resumption 1)
Kassem, which bas fulfilled its task of investigating the
illegal exploitation of natural resources and other forms
of wealth of the Democr:atic Republic of the Congo.
We have received from them a report on a complex and
demanding topic, which has led to the submission of
recommendations that should not be overlooked by the
Council.
The accusations made against certain individuals
and companies with respect to the illicit appropriation
of the natural resources of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo are causes of deep concern to our delegation
because of the effects of this phenomenon on the
Congolese people, the continuation of the armed
conflict, and peace in Africa.
For that reason, we would like to thank the
various countries mentioned in the report that have
spoken at this meeting. They have given us an
opportunity to hear their views conceming these
accusations. Most particularly we would like to
welcome the presence of and the statement made by the
Minister for Foreign Affairs ofUganda.
The Council is accustomed to considering
situations of conflict from the perspective of
international security, including its political and
humanitarian aspects. That may be why we were
shocked to hear the experts' statement that the
economic ambitions of certain elite networks
established in various parts of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo and connected to international criminal
organizations offer the best explanation for the
continuation of armed conflict in that country.
We know, of course, that in ail wars there are
always those, such as arms traffickers or unscrupulous
bankers, who profit from the suffering of a large
number of people. But if our understanding of the
report is correct, in the case of the Congo, plundering
has become the main reason for the continuation of the
war.
We are even more concerned by the assertion that
this criminal undertaking is being encouraged by
economic agents Jocated within the country, even
following the withdrawal of the foreign troops that had
been there.
For us, this assessment is a call to speedy and
effective action on the part of the Security Council and,
in keeping with the recommendations made in the
14
URAnnex 106
report, my country would like to note three possible
courses of action.
First, we must strengthen the institutional
capacity of the Congolese State, because its weakness
and, indeed, its absence in many parts of the country,
particularly in the eastern provinces, have led the
aforementioned elite networks which have
economic, political and military power - to fil) the
resulting vacuum by engaging in the acquisition of
State enterprises and the collection of taxes and
customs duties, inter alia. This is where the plundering
begins, and it must be stopped.
Secondly, the other countries whose nationals and
companies have been denounced by the Panel of
Experts must be called on to take energetic action to
investigate these accusations within a reasonable time
frame. We believe that in this respect, legal action and
the punishment of those responsible for the illicit
exploitation of the resources of the Congo are factors
that contribute to the peace process.
In the grey area between what is legal and what is
illegal in situations of conflict, frequently we find
companies that appear to be engaging in transactions
that are legal, when, in fact, they are not legal at ail,
and often they are involved in a money-laundering
system. In addition, the accusations contained in the
report may contribute to efforts to do away with
impunity, which will be a decisive factor if
reconciliation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo
is to take place.
The nationality of an individual or business
cannot be used to evade responsibility for acts that the
international community wishes to sanction.
Thirdly and lastly, my delegation believes that we
should consider the recommendation of the experts that
we .draw up a Jist of individuals whose travel and
access to financial markets should be restricted, as well
as of companies or commercial enterprises whose
financial access should also be restricted because of
their participation in the illicit exploitation of the
natural resources of the Democratic Republic of the
Congo.
The function of the Council in the maintenance of
international peace and security requires that once we
have committed the efforts of the United Nations to the
restoration of peace in areas of conflict, as we have
done through the United Nations Organization Mission
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUC),
then we must do our utmost to ensure that there will be
a sustainable and lasting peace. In the case of the
Congo, this means returning to its population and to its
Government access to the resources that have been
wrested from them by the war.
The President (spoke in Chinese): I thank the
representative of Colombia for the kind words he
addressed.to me.
Mr. Tafrov (Bulgaria): I should like to extend to
you, Sir, Bulgaria's heartfelt congratulations on
China's assumption of the presidency of the Security
Council for this month of November, which looks to be
replete with challenges. I would like to assure you of
the full cooperation of my delegation during the
Chinese presidency.
I should like also to thank Ambassador BelingaEboutou
and the delegation of Cameroon for their
outstanding presidency in October. Ambassador
Belinga-Eboutou was able successfully to carry out a
very difficult task, and we are grateful to him.
I thank you also, Sir, for having convened this
public meeting of the Security Council on the final
report of the Panel of Experts on the Illegal
Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of
Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
which has led to a very important debate, enhanced by
the presence of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister
for Foreign Affairs of Uganda, who made an important
statement this morning. I would like to thank him for
being so kind as to take part in our work.
Bulgaria welcomes the final report of the Panel of
Experts, which offers a detailed and systematic
analysis of a great deal of information and data on the
illegal exploitation of the natural resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. The Panel's
experts, guided by Ambassador Kassem, must be
commended for their courage and determination and
for the rigorous methodology with which they carried
out their work.
As a country associated with the European Union,
Bulgaria fully associates itself with the statement made
by the representative of Denmark on behalf of the
European Union. I should like to add a few comments
in my national capacity.
My country is deeply concerned at the relentless
exploitation of the natural resources and other forms of
SJPV.4642 (Resumption 1)
wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo and at
the fact that this exploitation remains one of the key
reasons for the conflict and for the insecurity that
continues to prevail in the eastern part of the country.
lt is true that the combat against illegal
exploitation is not an easy task. In order to be effective,
efforts to reduce and put an end to illegal trafficking
should be undertaken in a concerted manner by the
international community and by the countries of the
Great Lakes region and other areas. We should note
that the recommendations and conclusions contained in
the final report are well fonnded, as we see it, and
should be taken into account in future efforts of the
Security Council to put an end to this practice.
My delegation supports the report's appeal to
Governments that harbour individuals, companies and
financial institutions that are activély involved in the
exploitation to shoulder their responsibility by making
detailed internai inquiries into the cases referred to in
the final report and taking the necessary steps to ensure
that such illegal practices are brought to an end.
My country agrees with the analysis of the
European Union to the effect that it is important for
Governments of countries members of the Organization
for Economie Cooperation and Development (OECD)
to encourage private enterprises to abide by OECD
Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises.
Regional and subregional institutions, in
particular the African Union, the Economie
Community of Central African States and the Southern
African Development Community should use their
influence to persuade the parties concemed to put an
end to the illegal exploitation of the Congolese
resources.
Bulgaria shares the view that the complete
withdrawal of all foreign forces, pursuant to the
agreements signed, is an essential step in the process of
ending the illegal exploitation of the natural resources
of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. Bulgaria
remains fully committed to the principle of the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. Other key steps include the
disarmament, demobilization, repatriation,
reintegration and resettlement of all rebel groups, as
well as the conclusion of a more comprehensive and
ail-inclusive agreement among the Congolese with
regard to political transition. In that respect, we
welcome the progress achieved in the framework of the
15
URAnnex106
S/PV.4642 (Resumption 1)
discussions in Pretoria. My country hopes that the
Congolese parties will continue to pursue that
promising approach with a vîew to reaching an
inclusive final agreement on political transition in the
near future.
My delegation believes that in order to
consolidate peace and security in the Great Lakes
region in the long term, an international conference
must be convened on peace, security, democracy and
sustainable development in the region. In that
connection, Bulgaria supports the recommendation of
the Panel of Experts to convene such a conference. Indepth
preparations should be undertaken in this respect,
with the participation of the countries of the region and
international actors, in particular the United Nations,
the European Union, the African Union and the Bretton
Woods institutions. The goal of such a conference
should be to set out the steps that need to be taken to
promote the economic recovery of that part of Africa
and ensure a return to peace.
Bulgaria believes that it is essential to continue to
follow closely the situation with regard to the illegal
exploitation of the natural resources of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo and the link that exists between
such exploitation and the continuation of the conflict,
so as to put an end to such illegal exploitation. It must
be said that the work of the Panel of Experts has
proved useful, not only in shedding light on illegal
practices, but also in helping to advance the peace
process in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. We
believe that the Security Council must preserve the
monitoring capacity of the Panel so as to ensure that
the illegal exploitation of Congolese resources is
considerably reduced. In that regard, my delegation
supports the recommendation of the Panel of Experts
that a monitoring body be set up for the Great Lakes
region. Other similar avenues could be explored, such
as extending the mandate of the Panel of Experts.
The report of the Panel of Experts contains
findings on individuals and companies referred to in
earlier reports that have been implicated in other
African conflicts. That is a further illustration of the
fact that sometimes the same individuals and
companies are involved in several trafficking activities
on the African continent. This morning, Ambassador
Levitte and others made some very interesting
comments in this regard, and my delegation fully
agrees with those analyses. Bulgaria believes that we
should continue to consider this issue in the Council
16
URAnnex106
with a view to finding the best way to tackle these
deplorable phenomena. The idea of creating an
autonomous mechanism has been suggested, and
J3ulgaria agrees with that proposai.
In conclusion, I would Iike to emphasize my
country's commitment to working tirelessly as a nonpermanent
member of the Security Council to put an
end to the illegal exploitation of the resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo so that the people
of that country, who have suffered so greatly in recent
years, might finally be able fully to benefit from the
wealth oftheir country.
The President (spoke in Chinese): I thank the
representative of Bulgaria for his kind words addressed
tome.
Mr. Williamson (United States of America): The
Security Council quite properly has devoted a great
deal of time and attention to the war in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. The United Nations
Organization Mission in the Democratic Republic of
the Congo is among the most costly anywhere in the
world. The terrible conflict continues to destabilize the
Great Lakes region of Africa and the horrendous toll in
human suffering is staggering. Millions of people have
!ost their lives as a result of that war, both those killed
in violent clashes and those who have died due to the
consequences of war - disease and famine. That
bloody conflict has created millions of internally
displaced people and refugees. As described in the
Security Council last week by Office for the
Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs Deputy Carolyn
McAskie, the humanitarian suffering is staggering. It is
agonizing. This conflict must end.
In that regard, we must continue to support the
various political efforts to end the warfare, including
the inter-Congolese dialogue, the Pretoria Agreement,
the Luanda Agreement and any other efforts that might
constructively contrîbute to the path to peace.
We must also be mindful of the various things
that ignited this conflict and prolonged it. Refugee
flows, ethnie hatred, regional insecurities and the Just
for power and land are among the factors that have
inflamed this terrible struggle that has imposed such a
horrendous cost in terms of human lives lost and
humanitarian suffering endured. Another significant
reason why the conflict has gone on for so long and
imposed such a terrible cost is greed - the quest for
money from the illegal exploitation of resources from
the Congo.
In the light of this, the United States is especially
pleased by this open meeting of the Security Council to
discuss the report of Panel of Experts on the Illegal
Exploitation of Natural Resources and Other Forms of
Wealth of the Democratic Republic of the Congo
(S/2002/1146). The independent Panel of Experts has
produced . a valuable and detailed report, outlining
issues ofkey concern to the United States.
My delegation is still studying the report. We are
listening closely to the comments being made on the
report in the Council today by interested Governments.
We intend to factor them into our conclusions on how
to move forward. In that regard, I would like to share a
few of my Government's initial thoughts on the report.
We congratulate Ambassador Kassem and the
other members of the Panel for identifying those
suspected of involvement in exploiting the Congo's
natural resources - diamonds, copper and cobalt. lt
takes great courage to speak .the truth to those in power.
The Panel bas done that. We commend it for that.
The report is convincing in the connection it
makes between the money flows from the illegal
exploitation and the continuation of the violence in the
Great Lakes region. That illegal exploitation t.hreatens
to derail the progress achieved in the peace process.
That cannot be allowed to happen.
Corruption thrives in darkness. lt takes root
behind doors closed to public inspection and media
scrutiny. The naming of those involved and the
description of how they work is, in and of itself, a
valuable tool. It puts a spotlight on this corruption for
the public to see. Where the public is free to express its
outrage and concern, the Panel's report gives the public
the tools to pressure Governments in the region to act
to stop this looting. As an example of this, we note the
extensive discussion of the report and its findings in
the newspapers and other media in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. The Panel's conclusions and its
naming of Government officiais possibly involved in
corruption achieved a primary goal: public scrutiny and
debate.
This, in turn, has led the Attorney General of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo to open
investigations into each of the Government and
military officiais named in the report. It was certainly
S/PV.4642 (Resumption 1)
not an easy step for the Government to take. We
commend the Govemment of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo. We contrast its actions to the categorical
denials of man y other Govemments whose officiais are
named in the report.
lt is the responsibility of ail those States whose
officiais, military leaders or business people are named
to take action to fully address the allegations made.
This responsibility is especially the burden of the
Governments that the Panel has identified as having the
most ties to those carrying out this exploitation:
Rwanda, Uganda and Zimbabwe.
Where States have named special investigators or
created special commissions, there must be a
commitment to see those investigations to the end, no
matter where the trait of corruption may lead. Uganda,
for example, cannot assume that the creation of a
Commission to investigate these allegations is enough.
The Panel bas pointed out the need for that
Commission to have real authority to investigate,
obtain evidence and follow up where the trails lead.
The responsibility of Governments to respond to
the Panel's report does not fall just on the States in the
region, however. The United States Government notes
with concern that nine American companies have been
identified in the Panel's report. The United States
Govemment will look into the allegations against these
companies and take appropriate action. We will not
turn a blind eye to these activities. Also, the United
States will continue to support work and to provide
leadership to efforts to strengthen and to extend the
Kimberly Process, intended to prevent African
warlords from fuelling their conflicts through blood
diamonds, including in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo.
Yesterday and today, there are meetings in
Interlaken, Switzerland, to approve new rules intended
to ensure that diamonds will be certified às untainted.
The goal is to prevent illicit diamonds from being used
to pay for the weapons used in war throughout Africa,
including the Democratic Republic of the Congo. The
United States Government wants to see that legally
binding rules for a diamond certification process are in
place by 1 January. ·
We encourage ail United Nations Members,
whether named in the report or not, to respond to the
report's findings by seeking ways to encourage
transparent business practices that will benefit, first
17
URAnnex106
S/PV.4642 (Resumption 1)
and foremost, the people of the Democratic Republic of
the Congo. We also encourage States to investigate and
prosecute the illegal activities highlighted in the
Panel 's report .and to cooperate with other States in
such investigations.
My delegation believes regional organizations,
such as the African Union, the East African
Community and the Southern African Development
Community, should use their influence to pressure the
parties involved to end the patterns of exploitation.
The report of the Panel of Experts clearly
demonstrates that further investigations are warranted,
especially since the problems posed by illegal resource
exploitation and unregulated weapon flows are found
not only in the Democratic Republic of the Congo but
also in a number of other States in Africa.
The President (spoke in Chinese): The next
speaker inscribed on my Iist is the representative of
Angola. I invite her to take a seat at the Council table
and to make her statement.
Mrs. lzata (Angola): First, allow me to
congratulate you, Mr. President, on your assumption of
the Presidency of the Security Council for the month of
November and to express the support of rny delegation
in the arduous work ahead of us during this month,
including the situation in Angola. Allow me also to
congratulate the outgoing President, Ambassador
Belinga-Eboutou of Cameroon, for the brilliant manner
and dedication with which he conducted the
proceedings of the Council during his mandate.
I am taking the floor to thank the Panel of Experts
for its report on the Illegal Exploitation of Natural
Resources and Other Forms of Wealth of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo (S/2002/1146). This
is the fourth report on this matter, and the practical
results have not met our expectations. As a
consequence, a greater coordination of efforts is
necessary to find clear solutions which may help to end
the war in our sister Republic. The illegal exploitation
of resources and the politico-military situation in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo are a matter of
concern for Angola, which has a border of
approximately 2,000 kilometres with that country.
Therefore, ît is important for Angola to support
measures to end that exploitation, which hinders the
political, economic and social development of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo.
18
URAnnex 106
Let me stress that the report does not include
Angola among the countries illegally extracting natural
resources from the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
That confirms the statements frequently repeated by
my Government.
The report brings to our attention increasing
activities of traffic networks, allegedly supported by
the members of some Governments. Those activities
endanger the peace and national reconciliation process
now under way in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo.
Angola is of the view that ail activities must be
directed to help the peace process and the efforts of the
international community, particularly those of my
country, in order that the natural resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo are used to improve
the situation of the whole country and not to enrich a
few individuals.
lt is well known that Angolan and allied forces
went to the Democratic Republic of the Congo at the
invitation of its Government, without any benefit or
material compensation, to help that country face a
difficult situation. That was reiterated once again in the
speech by Mr. Léonard She Okitundu, Minister for
Foreign Affairs and Cooperation of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo, when the report was presented.
We are encouraged by that statement, and we also take
good note of the decision of the Public Prosecutor of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo to open a
judiciary investigation on that country's nationals who
are named in the report, showing that country's
willingness to take the recommendations of the report
seriously.
The October 2002 communiqué by the allied
Heads of State exalted the role played by the alliance
against non-invited forces. Therefore, as stated by the
Democratic Republic of the Congo, the legal status of
forces invited by the Government of the Democratic
Republic of the Congo to its territory should not be
confused with the activities of forces of countries that
have not been invited, and which are undertaking
illegal activities there.
The Democratic Republic of the Congo is a
sovereign and independent country. Its Govemment is
recognized by the international community. It bas the
right to sign agreements with other States in
conformity with national and international laws. No
one else, in our opinion, bas the right to rule over the
Congolese Government and people or to dictate how
they should act. It is up to the Government and the
people of the Democratic Republic of the Congo to
determine their own destiny and to decide who their
allies and friends will be, as well as the forms of their
cooperation with those allies.
As is well known, the Republic of Angola has
already withdrawn its forces from the territory of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo. This decision was
taken jointly, in a responsible manner and in the
interest of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, in
ord.er to facilitate the pacification ofthat country.
As a sovereign State, Angola will always honour
its commitments because it acknowledges the
importance of peace, stability and development, not
only for the Democratic Republic of the Congo but also
for the Great Lakes region and all of Southern Africa.
We call for the withdrawal of uninvited forces
from the territory of that country, respect for the
Security Council resolutions and of the Lusaka
Agreement, as Weil as the fulfilment of the
commitments reached in Pretoria and Luanda,
including the inter-Congolese dialogue. This is the
course that will enable us to resolve the present crisis
of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
Angola will continue to work and coordinate its
actions with the legitimate Government of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo and with the
peaceful forces. Our goal is to bring the peace process
of that country to completion as soon as possible. We
will support ail measures along that path.
The President (spoke in Chinese): l thank the
representative of Angola for the kind words addressed
tome.
I will now make a statement in my capacity as the
representative of China. I thank Mr. Kassem and the
Panel of Experts for their efforts in completing their
final report. I also wish to welcome the presence of Mr.
James Wapakhabulo, Deputy Prime Minister and
Minister for Foreign Affairs ofUganda.
My country has always held the view that the
illegal exploitation of the natural resources of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo violates the
sovereignty and territorial integrity of that country,
while exacerbating the conflict throughout the entire
Great Lakes region. Such activities are unacceptable
and must immediately cease.
S/PV.4642 (Resumption 1)
Mr. Kassem and members of the Panel of Experts
carried out extensive investigations, providing a lot of
specific material to the Council. We are sincerely
grateful for their efforts. However we should, at the
same time, see that the illegal exploitation of the
natural resources of that country is a complex issue
linked to such questions as the withdrawal of foreign
troops and the disarmament demobilization,
reintegriition and rehabilitation programmes (DDRR).
As such, the Panel calls for a comprehensive and
integrated solution. We are gratified to learn that the
withdrawal of foreign forces and the DDRR
programmes are now under way, and that the interCongolese
political dialogue îs yielding results.
Progress in the peace process in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo will help solve the question of
illegal exploitation. We hope that, with the assistance
of the international community, the Government of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo will soon exercise
control over the natural resources throughout its
terri tory.
As demonstrated in the statements made today,
there are divergent views over the contents of the
report, including the recommendations contained
therein. I wish to take this opportunity to point out that
the report alleges that there are Chinese companies
engaged in the illegal exploitation. We have .carried out
careful investigation but found nothing that would
justify those allegations. We believe that, in discussing
such questions, the Security Council should distinguish
between illegal exploitation and day-to-day economic
and trade exchanges, so as to avoid negative impact on
the economic development of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo and the livelihood of its people. Also, the
views of that country and others concerned should be
carefully Jistened to.
I now resume my function as the president of the
Council. I now give the floor to Mr. Kassem to respond
to questions and comments made.
Mr. Kassem: Let me first say that it is with great
pleasure and honour that I have been învited to address
members of this Council and the Ministers and
Ambassadors of Member States, whose presence today
signais the commitment of the Council to ending the
violent conflict that bas ravaged the Democratic
Republic of the Congo for four years.
If you permit me, I would like to begin by
thanking last month's president of the Council,
19
URAnnex106
S/PV.4642 (Resumption 1)
Ambassador Belinga-Eboutou, for his assistance in
organizing the previous presentation in October of the
Panel of Expert's fifth report. I would also like to
express my gratitude to the current President of the
Council, Ambassador Wang Yingfan, for his assistance
in arranging today's meeting on the report and the
consultations that will follow. On behalf of the Panel, I
would also like to express our sincere thanks to ail
Council members for the valuable support and
assistance they have provided us with during our
current mandate and the attention they have continued
to devote to the issue of the illegal exploitation and its
links to armed conflict.
I have closely listened to both the negative and
positive remarks made during this afternoon's meeting.
After careful consideration, I am convinced that the
answers to most of these remarks can be found in
sufficient detail in the Panel's report. I shall therefore
confine myself to commenting on only some of the
remarks, namely those by Rwanda, South Africa,
Zimbabwe, Syria, in particular with respect to the role
of companies. As for Uganda, the Panel is awaiting the
report of the Uganda Judicial Commission of Inquiry,
which is expected to be published after 15 November
this year. A detailed response to the Commission's
report will be prepared and presented to the Security
Council by the Panel.
Let me first begin with Rwanda. In its reaction to
the Panel of Expert's most recent report, the fifth since
2000, the Rwandan Government appears, in its
statement of 24 October and its letter dated 28 October
(S/2002/1207), to have either overlooked some
elements of the Panel's work or misconstrued some of
its findings. The Panel would like to emphasize the
continuity of its work over the course of the two years
of its mandate. lts reports should not be read or
interpreted in a piecemeal fashion. They should be
understood as an integrated body of investigative work,
which reflects the evolution of the situation on the
ground in the Democratic Republic of the Congo,
particularly the eastern part, where most armed
confrontations have taken place over the past two
years.
The Rwandan Government alleged that the Panel
has ignored the historical background of the conflict
and the economic relations in the region. In its
Addendum (S/2001/1072), dated 13 November 2001,
the Panel of Experts validated Rwanda's claims. The
security threats involving forces implicated in the 1994
20
URAnnex 106
genocide had contributed to the outbreak of the current
conflict. In the Addendum, the Panel also made
reference to traditional trading patterns that have linked
the economy of the eastern Democratic Republic of the
Congo to those of Rwanda and other neighbouring
States in the Great Lakes region. These patterns,
however, have never included cross-border trade in
large volumes of coltan as has been the case since early
in this conflict.
The Panel's findings are indicative of the
changing nature of this conflict, including the role
played by the remnants of the original ex-Rwandan
Armed Forces (ex-FAR) and Interahamwe. The
economic, social and political forces that shaped and
are shaped by this conflict are dynamic, not static. The
day-to-day situation on the ground is volatile and has
been manipulated or misunderstood by many parties,
clouding the peace process.
The Panel's most recent investigations indicate
that the Rwandan Hutu armed groups in the
Democratic Republic of the Congo no longer represent
the security threat that they did four to five years ago.
This investigation also revealed, unsurprisingly, that
shared economic interests and survival needs can
encourage one-time enemies to collaborate. This would
not be the first war, nor is it likely to be the last, in
which this occurs.
The Panel has repeatedly underscored in its
reports the need for an effective solution to the
proliferation of armed groups, Congolese as well as
foreign, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. It
has also called for the implementation of the
disarmament, demobilization, repatriation, resettlement
and reintegration (DDRRR) programme that can
respond to the complexities of the situation of the
armed groups and take into account the many
overlapping conflicts of which they are a part.
As for South Africa, the expert Panel is surprised,
really surprised, by the reaction of the South African
Government, which could be construed as that of a
Government that has directly implicated by the Panel
in the economic exploitation. The Panel did not imply
that the South African Government or any South
African official has been directly involved in this
conflict, linked to commercial activities. The Panel is
simply perplexed by the South African Government's
di~appointment in the Panel's conclusions and
recommendations, which the Panel believes are
balanced, oriented towards promoting lasting peace and
consistent with the new goals of the New Partnership
for African Development.
Coming to Zimbabwe, there are several points
that need to be re-emphasized in terms of the Panel 's
investigations and findings on the involvement of
Zimbabwean parties in the exploitation activities, in
collusion with others. As has been the case for other
foreign armies, one only needs to look at the areas
where the Zimbabwean traops have been deployed to
realize how their deployment bas strategically
corresponded with the location of the concessions that
they benefit from. Areas of military influence have
closely overlapped areas of economic contrai.
Zimbabwe's support to the Burundian Forces for the
Defense of Democracy (FDD), which is described in
the Panel's Addendum November 2001, provides a
clear example of how this country actively continued to
take steps to prolong the conflict. Virtually ail the
members of the network that bas operated in the area
controlled by the Kinshasa Government, including the
Zimbabwean officiais, have either had direct military
raies in the conflict or have strong links to military and
security services. Most of the foreign private
businessmen that have been braught into the joint
venture, primarily by the Zimbabwean parties, are
investors in or are associated with companies praviding
military supplies and services.
According to testimony and documentation
guarded by the Panel, various Zimbabwean network
members and many of their corporate business partners
in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, are
implicated in the following: First, actively seeking
military procurement contracts and brakering sales of
military equipment and arms through high-level
contacts. Secondly, violating European Union sanctions
by facilitating the sale of military equipment from
Eurapean companies to the Zimbabwean Government.
Thirdly, negotiating clandestine arms purchases with
foreign arms manufacturers. Fourthly, smuggling of
commodities such as diamonds from other conflict
zones. Fifthly, forcibly displacing populations and or
seizing lands from areas where precious minerai
deposits are located.
Since the Government of Zimbabwe still
steadfastly maintains its position regarding the legality
of its contracts and concessions with the Democratic
Republic of the Congo Government, then it should be
the first to welcome a review of its economic and
S/PV.4642 (Resumptlon 1)
financial activities in the Democratic Republic of the
Congo. The re-examination of these agreements, with
the collaboration of third parties, in a transparent
manner, and in accordance with the resolution adopted
in the Inter-Congolese Dialogue Conference in South
Africa, would reconfirm their status. This would enable
both Zimbabwe and the Democratic Republic of the
Congo to engage, without any suspicion or obstacle, in
sound and sustainable commercial relations under fair
market terms, something that would unarguably be
beneficial to bath the Congolese and the Zimbabwean
people.
As regards the letter of the Zimbabwean
Permanent Representative to the United Nations, dated
17 October 2002, and addressed to the Security
Council, which refers to a document mentioned in the
Panel's report, I can only offer the following
comments: the Panel deplores the language used by His
Excellency in his letter. Above ail, with regard to the
Security Council, references such as "party to the
conspiracy against my country", are not worthy of
distinguished delegates or dignified Member States.
These excesses are regrettable and only distract from a
debate on the substantive issues. The subject of the
Permanent Representative's letter is a specific
document mentioned in the Panel's report.
Unfortunately for His Excellency, information
contained within this particular document bas been
corraborated by independent sources and several other
documents obtained from additional sources; otherwîse
the Panel would not have made reference to it in its
report.
Alluding to the integrity of the United Nations,
His Excellency questions why the Panel did not attempt
to verify the document with the Government or the
Permanent Mission of Zimbabwe. The Panel would
have sincerely welcomed an opportunity to exchange
views with the Zimbabwean Govemment. The Panel's
efforts since 3 April 2002 to engage the Zimbabwean
Government in a dialogue on how to contrai illicit
trade flows of commodities of the Democratic Republic
of the Congo and related issues have to date yielded no
results. On three occasions between April and July, the
Panel contacted the Zimbabwean Government,
including through its Permanent Mission to the United
Nations, requesting a response to its questions. The
Panel even offered the Zimbabwean Government the
option of meeting with members in Harare. It never,
ever, received a response.
21
URAnnex 106
S/PV.4642 (Resumption 1)
The document referred to in the Ambassador's
letter was actually initially addressed to the Office of
the Spokesman for the Secretary-General, an unlikely
point for any Member State - or so-called covert
agent - to launch a campaign of "grotesque and
malicious interference" (S/2002/1169) against another
Member State. He mentioned a certain person. He asks
who this "Mr. Taylor" is. Ms. Taylor is one of the
Political Officers who assist the Panel in its work. As a
Political Officer, she often serves as a contact point,
and is supposed to receive documents and
correspondence on a daily basis, which are to be
transmitted to the Panel and its Chairman. The Panel
has full confidence in her integrity.
The Panel is confident that it has produced a
detailed, rigorous and Weil documented report which
sheds light on many actors implicated in economic
exploitation, as well as in the viohmce and conflict that
the competition for economic control continues to
incite. The Panel based its findings on insider
information and documentary evidence. If the Council
so desires, samples of the evidence can be shown to its
members.
I will now turn to the role of companies. The
Panel's report indicates that certain companies have
dealings with the elite network that represents the
economic interests of those who have been the
occupying Powers, Rwanda and Uganda, the allies of
the Democratic Republic of the Congo, such as
Zimbabwe, members of the Government of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo itself and members
of the foreign and Congolese armed groups. Those
parties to the conflict are involved in the business of
making war, and they are increasingly also in the
business of making vast amounts of money from war,
while sustaining armed conflict as long as possible.
The ability to move commodities and funds between
illicit sources and legitimate markets is crucial to the
v1c1ous cycle of war and plunder. Legitimate
companies are important to the parties involved in this
contlict. That is the reason for the Panel 's concern
about companies operating within the conflict areas in
the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
War economies in different areas of the world
have spawned hundreds of companies that would not
exist were it not for the business of war and corruption.
Sorne of them are facades for elite networks operating
in this and in other contlict zones. Others are simply
willing to assume the higher risks of operating in
22
URAnnex 106
conflict areas, where opportunities are plentiful due to
the Jack of regulation that accompanies war and armed
conflict. Sorne ofthese companies operate illegally; but
many others, however, are technically not in violation
of the law, quite simply because laws are not enforced.
Yet the actions of these companies are often in
contravention of United Nations sanctions or other
efforts to promote security and peace.
So, companies need rules to tell them what they
cannot do. In other words, there is a need for such
rules. That is why the Panel, in its recommendations,
has stressed the role of Governments (para. 170).
Members may refer to that paragraph for the Panel's
view of that role.
(spoke in Arabie)
In response to the representative of the Syrian
Arab Republic, I wish he had met with the Panel of
Experts to check the false information he has gathered
with regard to the Panel, perhaps from certain biased
persons who were singled out. Let me stress that the
Panel of Experts did indeed meet a large number of
business people and representatives of companies
referred to in the report. We sent them more than 13
letters. Letters went, for instance, to Mr. Al-Shanfari,
Chief Executive of Oryx Natural Resources, whom we
met five times in Nairobi and New York, most recently
yesterday afternoon. We asked him, particularly in our
Nairobi meeting, to give us certain documents, and I
can say that the Panel of Experts has assembled enough
evidence, including compromising documentation, to
reaffirm what the report says.
(spoke in English)
I have an answer to a question that has been
asked many times: Ilow can exploitation be halted after
the withdrawal of foreign troops from the Democratic
Republic of the Congo? l have been asked that many
times, and I have the answer. The answer is simple.
There are five elements that need to be tackled
simultaneously, without which exploitation will
continue unabated. Those five elements are the
following.
The first element is the disarmament,
demobilization, reintegration and repatriation or
resettlement (DDRRR) of foreign and Congolese armed
groups in an effective DDRRR programme. The second
element is the rebuilding and reform of the State
institutions of the Democratic Republic of the Congo.
That should begin with the establishment of an ailinclusive
transitional Government in the Democratic
Republic of the Congo. The third element is the
reviewing and revising of concessions and contracts
signed since 1997. The fourth element is the adherence
of business enterprises to the Organization for
Economie Cooperation and Development (OECD)
Guidelines or to similar guidelines that outline
procedures for bringing violations of the guidelines to
the attentîon of home Governments. The countries of
origin of corporations have a special responsibility to
see that they are functioning legally and in
transparency, and thus recognize the Government of the
Democratic Republic of the Congo as the legitimate
authority. The final and fifth element is that a
monitoring body is therefore necessary to produce
regular reports to the Security Council on the
exploitation of resources: see paragraphs 186, 187 and
188 of the report.
I should like to end today's discussion on another
note. It is one of reconciliation, not of defiance; of
concord, not of disagreement. I humbly appeal to ail
the parties to the conflict, and to ail who are willing, to
consider the question that the people of the Great
Lakes region - the farmers, the herders, the teachers,
the students, the merchant women and shopkeepers, the
mothers and fathers - have repeatedly asked: what has
S/PV,4642 (Resumption 1)
been gained in ail these years of war? I appeal to ail
who seek to build a foundation for a broad and lasting
seulement of this conflict to finally turn this
bloodstained page in the history of the Great Lakes
region. I appeal to them ail to join hands and to enter
together what could be a genuinely new era, in which
peace-building will be the order of the day. The parties
to the conflict will face many challenges in building
that new era. But, with regional cooperation and
international support, the citizens of the entire region
could enjoy peace, security and economic
development, and an atmosphere of transparency,
legality and legitimacy can benefit ail in the region.
Finally, I should like to conclude by expressing
my full confidence that the Council will take the
necessary decisions, in the light of the Panel's
recommendations, to convey the right message to ail
the parties concerned - both those from the African
continent and those from outside it.
The President (spoke in Chinese): I thank
Mr. Kassem for the clarifications he has provided.
There are no further speakers inscribed on my
list. The Security Council has thus concluded the
present stage of its consideration of the item on its
agenda.
The meeting rose al 5.40 p.m.
23
URAnnex 106
URAnnex 107

URANNEX107
THE REPUBLIC OF UGANDA
IN THE MATIER OF THE STATUTORY DECLARATIONS ACT, 2000
AND
IN THE MATTER OF
THE INTERNATIONAL COURT OF JUSTICE
CASE CONCERNING ARMED ACTIVITIES ON THE TERRITORY OF THE
CONGO (DEMOCRATIC REPUBLIC OF THE CONGO VS UGANDA)
AFFIDAVIT
I, Brigadier Nakibus Lakara hereby solemnly make my oath and state as follows:
l. That l am an adult male Ugandan of sound mind.
2. That the facts stated herein are based on my personal knowledge.
3. That I am currently the Ag Chief of Staff of the Uganda People's Defence
Forces (UPDF), and hold the rank of Brigadier.
4. That I have persona! knowledge of the persans currentlyand formerly in the
ranks of the UPDF.
5. That there is not and has never been an officer of the UPDF with the name
MVUYEKURE.
6. That there is not and has never been an officer of the UPDF with the name
KAMALE.
7. That there is not and has never been an officer of the UPDF with the name
RUDIA.
8. That there is not and has never been an officer of the UPDF with the name
KATAVO.
9. That there is not and has nevcr been an officer of the UPDF with the name
NGIZO.
1 o. That therc is not and has never been an officer of the UPD F wi th the name
HAYU
11. That, in fact, the names MVUYEKURE, KAMALE, RUDIA, KATAVO, NGJZO
and HAYU are not Ugandan names.
12. That there is not a.'l"ld never has been a member of the UPDF namcd SALIM
BYARUHANGA.
13. That there are not and never have becn any UPOF prisoners of war in the
DRC.
14. That l am familiar with Brigadier (General) JVAN KORETA
15. That Brigadier KORETA is not of Rwandese origin.
16. That, in face, Brigadier KORETA has never becn deployed within the
tenitory of the DRC.
17. That at the beginning of August 1998, Brigadier KORETA was the Director
General of the Interna! Security Organisation (ISO) and was bascd in
Kampala, Uganda.
18. That there is not now, nor has there ever been, a UPDF battalion
designated "'.'JGURUMA".
19. That the uniforms worn by Ugandan troops deployed in the DRC were
indistinguishable from, indeed werc in many cases identical to (and came
from the same factories as), the uniforms worn by othcr forces with a
presencc in the DRC, including those of Rwanda , the RCD and the MLC.
20. That what is stated hercin above is true to the best of my knowledge and
belief.
SWORN at Kampala by the said Brigadier Nakibus Lakara , Cgsoc
~
This ....... ./.~ ............... day or.N..ff}(.~~çg2002.
°'~
URAnnext07
. ~·, -· l· ·~:-wt-\. -'5-':;. ;;
........ . - ..• ---···•' ::..-~~ . . -".,..::.,.--~ - --- •.
. i ENT ................ . ·············
Before me
·······~-;-:-.~
A NOTARY PUBLIC
URAnnex107

URAnnex 108

URANNEXI08
NALU/ADF REBEL ACTIVITIES IN ZAIRE/DRC, SUPPORTED DY
THE LATE MOBUTU AND KABILA IN COLLABORATION WITH
SUDAN
1 ATTACKS FR0M DRC TERRIT0RY
1.1 MOBUTU'S ERA
1.1.1 Introduction
In 1989, President Mobutu supported NALU then led by Amon Bazira. He
allowed the rebel Movement to operate from Beni district against the NRM
govemment. The death of Amon Bazira in 1993 coupled witb pressure from
National Resistance Army (NRA), rendered NALU inactive and could
hardly able make any incursions into Uganda.
In 1994, the SalaafFoundation fonned a rebel movement called the Uganda
Freedom Fighters Movement (UFFM). In early 1995, Yusuf Byadda
Kabanda, a Moslem convert from Bwera Kasese and fonner secretary to
Jamil Mukulu's Salaaf Foundation who was in Buseruka contacted Fenehas
Kisokeranio, the NALU coordinator in Beni and asked him to form a joint
Military Movement to fight the NRM govemment. Kisokeranio made
contact witb exiled Hosea Bisogho Muhindo, a NALU activist in Beni to
take the request to the NALU field command and made contacts with
Ngaimoko, then the military head of NALU. Following the defeat of UFFM
rebels at Buseruka on 22/2/96 in Uganda, 43 survivors led by Capt.
Kasangaki crossed into Zaire through L. Albert where authorities in Bunia
reccivcd. them and housed and trealcd the injurcd.
On ï .luly 1995, a team of six (6) lJFFM leaders )cd hy Yusuf Byadda
Kabanda and his second in command Obcid Abdalla l3irungi met the NALU
group led by Ngaimoko in Beni, DRC. The two groups agreed to cooperate
to fight together the NRM govemment from Rwenzori Mountains. They
agreed in principle to fonn an alliance to be known as Allied Democratic
Forces (ADF) as they fought against the NRM govemment. In their
cooperation agreement, they undertook to share positions of leadership and
military command in the new alliance. NALU also alJowed UFFM to open
up camps in Buhira and Bukira and Mbakire bills. the traditional areas given
by Mobutu government to NALU. Mobutu then ordered Zaïre Armed Forces
(F AZ) commanders and civic leaders in Beni including local chiefs to assist
the newly fonned ADF. They thus opened up a coordination office in Beni
town in Imatonge Quarters.
1.1.2 NALU ATTACKS
On 9.5.92, Amon Bazira received 600 SMGs from the Zairean govemment
and on 10.5.92, about 400 NALU rebels crossed from Zaïre into Uganda and
attacked Buswaga in Kitholhu sub-county in Kasese district.
The Zaire Govemment allowed Amon Bazira to recruit at wilJ inside Zaïre
territory. On 5.12.92, Amon Bazira held a NALU meeting in Beni with Ali
Toweli, an ex-Ugandan army officer. Bazira wanted to persuade Toweli to
join NALU and Toweli agreed.
1.1.3 ADF ATTACKS
On 11.1 J.96, ADF rebels accompanied by Ex-FAZ started moving from
their training camps in DRC. They attacked Uganda on 13.11 .96
on three prongs:
• Mpondwe border post in Western Uganda
• Karambi where UPDF had a detach
• Nyabirongo where UPDF had a detach
After three days of fighting, the ADF rebels and their F AZ supporters were
repulsed by the UPDF and crossed back to Zaire for re-organisation.
However, after re-organisation the ADF have sînce launched the following
attacks on U ganda:
On 12. 12.96, the ADF rebels were chased by the UPDF before lhey crossed
to DRC through Lyokirem, Nyakabale in Nyakiyumbu, near Bwera.
On 28.12.96, ADF rebels attacked Ndongo, Busenene and Buniswa villages
near Bwera from DRC and abducted 40 people.
On 29.12.96, ADF rebels struck and abducted 20 people from Kiraro m
Kitholu sub-county. They also burnt bouses.
2
URAnnex 108
On 1.1.97, about 30 ADF rebels descended the mountains and disappeared
into Semliki National Park in DRC.
On 31.1.97, about 40 ADF rebels from the Rwenzori Mountains crossed to
Zaïre through Kamukumbi border village near Mpondwe, Uganda.
On 4.2.97 about 50 ADF rebels attacked Hakitenge in Bundibugyo district,
Uganda, from their camp at Kitchanga in DRC, and looted property.
On 20.3.97, a group of ADF rebels crossed from Beni, DRC, to Kasese
district of Uganda.
On 1.4.97 the UPDF persued ADF rebels and destroyed Kasale rebel camp
inDRC.
On 1.5.97, ADF rebels from DRC attacked UPDF positions at Kambasa,
Kitholu sub-county in Uganda but were repulsed
1.2 KABILA'S ERA
On 13.6.97, ADF rebels from DRC opened the Bundibugyo front by
engaging the UPDF near Nyahuka trading centre in Uganda.
On 15.6.97 ADF rebels attacked Bundibugyo but were repulsed and
retreated to their Kichanga camp in DRC.
On 16.6.97, ADF rebels again attacked Bundibugyo from Kichanga rebel
camp inDRC.
On 20.9.97, about 12 ADF rebels attacked Kasindi Port from DRC and
looted property.
In May 1998, 37 Ex-FAZ who had been with NALU reported with their
anns and surrendered to FAC in Beni.
On 23.11.99, ADF attacked a UPDF detach at Blongo and Butembo, DRC.
On 11.12.99, ADF rebels attacked Bundibugyo town from DRC, killing 3
UPDF soldiers and 2 civilians but also losing 5 rebel fighters.
3
URAnnex 108
On 18.12.99 ADF rebeJs attacked Masambu at Rwandumbi and looted
property before withdrawing to Buhira camp in DRC.
On 27. 12.99, ADF rebels descended from Rwandumbi and attacked
Kyavinyonge fishing village in DRC. where they looted property.
2 CONGO LESE GOVERNMENT sur PORT FOR UGANDAN
REBELS
2.1 MOBUTU'S ERA
2.1.1 WNBF Activities in DRC
In December 1996, WNBF was training young boys from West Nile at
lmgbokolo in Zaire near Kaya. Training was also being done at Motawa
FAZ Military camp near Aru.
2.1.2 Mob11tu Functionaries Thot Coordinated NALUIADF Activities
- General Mayele. He was in charge of NALU affairs in Zaire. His office
organised the training of NALU at Mbau, which is 7 kms from Beni and
provided Zairean instructors to the training. He sent about 750 FAZ
soldiers to help in the Mpondwe attack of 13.11.96. They were under the
command of one Lutakama Kuluwa.
Gen. Mayele was also in charge of NALU supplies. He contracted a
businessman called Kiputsi Musoli from Butembo to supply rcbels with
beef and blankets while he gave Sindani Zilibwa the tender for supplying
medicine.
- Gen. Baramoto Kpama - then FAZ Chief of Staff and head of the Civil
Guard.
- Geo. Nzimbe Moogo - Mobutu's nephew and head of the Presidential
Guards
Lt. Col. Libatu La Mbonga - Zaire's Consular General in Kasese,
Uganda.
4
URAnnexlOS
- Mate Adam - a former Immigration officer based in Goma was a
recruitmeot agent for NALU/ ADF
- Capt. Kongolo Mobutu (Son of Mobutu) provided NALU with
ammunition
- Lt. Monsuni, FAZ mobile commander who was in charge of NALU
armowy at Rumangabo barracks.
On16th January 1993, Amon Bazira left Rwanda for Kinshasa via Goma.
From Goma, he flew to Kinshasa using a Pride African International
Airlines plane belonging to Ngbanda, Security advisor to Mobutu and
General Mayele whom he met in Kinshasa. Ngbanda gave Bazira clearance
to travel in Eastern Zaïre and also provided him with 2 escorts.
On 21.1.93, Bazira went ta Goma and on 22.1.93, be weot to Butembo using
a Toyota Land Cruiser No. HZ00168 belonging to Makala, Commissar de
Zone of Beni. In Butembo, Bazira met Lt.Col. Kyakubanza, a Rwenzururu
rebel commander who had his headquarters in Rwandumbi (between
Mtwanga and Masambo).
On 19.7.1993, NALU rebels received an assortment of arms from the
Zairean govemmcnt. They were delivered by Col. Ebemba.
2.1.3 llaji Kabeba's Hebei Group
On 19-0ct-1995, President Mobutu sent his officers to meet Interahamwe,
Ugandan rcbels and his Zairoise supporters I Kivu Province. They met at
Karambo, Bunagana, near the Uganda-Zaire border, and agreed, among
other things to cooperate and fight againsl the govemment of Uganda.
By 1996, the rebel group had camps at Katwiguru in Mugogo in DRC, near
Nyabwishenya and Butogota in Uganda.
On 22-Apr-1996, Kabeba's rebel fighters, under the command of one Simba,
attacked Kisoro, Uganda, from DRC before they were repulsed and retreated
to DRC.
5
URAnnex108
2.1.3 Mobutu and Sudan Conspire Against Uganda
2.1.3.1 NALU/WNBF backed by Zaire andSudan Plan an Attack on
Uganda
On 10.7.92, Brig. Henry, Head of Military Intelligence in Juba, met Zaïre
based UNRFII rebels and Ugandan rebels based in Sudan and promised
them Zairean Govemment support.
On j 0.8.1992, about 200 rebels made up of ex-Amin soldiers shifted from
Sudan through Eastern Zaïre an~as of Ariwara- Bunia-Lhume and finally to
the following NALU camps in Zaire:
- Kiribatha
- Ebisaru
Kamunyu
(The above three are in Lhume area).
- Mutiakena (in Mumbiri forest)
- Kalemyo
(The above two are between Lhume and Beni).
On 16.8.1992, NALU received 45 boxes of ammunitions, two 60mm
mortars, two 120mm mortars and an unspecified number of RPGs from
Sudan. The guns were kept at a place called IGHA VIRO at a home of
Jacques Angeles• farm. He is a Zairean of Belgian origin.
Following the above developments, on 20.8.1992 at around 2300 hours
GMT, about 250 NALU rebels from Ebisaru rebel camp in Zaire attacked
Kitholhu, Kitoma and Kirabo villages in Kasese district, Uganda. During
this attack, 30 Zairean Armed forces (Forces Armee Zaire-F AZ)
commanders cornmanded them. After the attack, they retreated to their
camps in DRC. On 2.9.1992, NALU leader, Amon Bazira addressed them
at Lhume and thanked them for the 20.8.92 raid that they made on Uganda.
<,
URAnnex 108
2.1.3.2 Ugandan Rebels Shuttle Between Zaïre And Sudan
On 8.1.93. about 400 WNBF rebe]s arrived in Juba from Zaïre under Taban
Amin •s command.
On 27.10.94, Lt Col Abdallatif addressed about 400 Ugandan refugees in
Isiro, Zaïre.
The following held two meetings in Beni on 20.12. 94 and 28.12.94 that
mapped out strategies on how NALU could ]aunch their attacks on Uganda.
The attack was scheduled to take place around X-mas and New Year's
holidays.
Uganda rebels' delegation
- Ngaimoko for NALU.
- Wanyama Dominic of LRA
- Oryema Andrew
- Bahati Odongo
- Mubalc Yofesi ofNALU
- Musondibwa Godfrey
- Cibaco Fanahasi
- Muhindo Hosea
- Hajji Kabeba
- Major Genera] Gowon who was based in Bunia
Zairean delegation
- Sikuli Basaka Makala, the commissar de zone of Beni.
- Major Gassu, who was in 'garde civile' in Beni. AFDL of Kabila arrested
him when they reached Kinshasa.
- Major Mukendi then inspector of military police. Beni
- Mahamba Kambale. Saliboko and Kokolo, aII immigration officers at
Kasindi. These facilitated ADF rebel movements and recruitment.
- Jacques Angeles now believed to be in Kenya for refuge.
7
URAnnex108
- Major Ziake based in Beni then.
- Major Boukungu, commander of the Marines section deployed at Kasindi
port on the shores of Lake Edward.
- Major Bwira, commander of the battalion at Kasindi customs post.
- Major Francois of Lhume
- Lt.Col. Mayala Kiwawa of intelligence (ANR)
Sudanese delegation
- Colonel Bashir from Sudan Armed Forces
- Lt.Col. Sharif from Sudan Anned Forces
Major El Bashir Mohamoud from Sudan
On 22.4.95, Isaac Lumago and Dusman Sabuni and Juma Oris al1 of WNBF,
Wanyama Dominic of LRA and Ngaimoko of NALU met in Lhume to
discuss how best they could coordinate their rebel activities. They also
addressed rebels in Kamunyu camp in Lhume area. On 18.5.95, the Zairean
government and NALU through FAZ's Gen. Tembere of Kivu and
Ngaimoko (NALU) condemned Kony's attack in Northern Uganda as
having been premature since attacks were to be simultaneously carried out
from western and northern Uganda.As a result of this condemnation, on
25.5.95, FAZ Commander, Rufumabo Benjamin of Dungu barracks in north
eastern Zaïre, Kony of LRA and the Sudan commanders for Southern Su dan
met in Juba, Sudan to negotiate on how to link NALU and LRA rebel
activities.
On 8.9.95, there was a joint meeting between SDF, WNBF and FAZ at
Kumiro. It was decided that
• WNBF be divided into 2 groups:
- One group be based in Sudan
- Another group establishes its base at Irumu, Zaire, with operational
areas at Gaki, Manzaki and Lombe.
8
URAnnex 108
• A deployment of 3,000 men of SDF/FAZ/WNBF 1s made to attack
Uganda.
On 26.11.96, Sudanese Defence Minister signed an agreement with former
Zairean Ambassador in Paris in which Sudan Airforce was to help Zaïre
carry out air-raids on Bwera, Bundibugyo, Bushenyi and Mbarara in Uganda
white ADF and WNBF made ground offensive on UPDF. Following this
agreement, in December 1996, Sudan provided the following anns to ADF:
• Three (3) 12.7 mm gun
• 25 mortar pieces for 82 min gun
• 60 pieces for 60 mm gun
• 60 stinger missiles
• 100 G2 rifles
• 50 metric tones of anti-tank grenades
• 40 metric tones of RPG Shells
• 30 Landmines
• Mobile Communication Equipment
These arms were carried by FAZ trucks from the Zaire-Sudan border and
arrived in Beni in September 1996. In Beni they were kept at ENRA
(Enzyme Processing Association) depot and put under the custody of FAZ
soldiers. Thesc am1s were part of those, which were used in Bwera attack in
1996.
In Decembcr 1996, about 500 armed WNBF remnants under the command
of Capt. Ambe wcrc active along the Faradje, Esebi and Imgbokolo axis on
Uganda- DRC- Sudan border. They were collecting intelligence using one
agent Uinmar Muhammed Ahmed who was operating between Aru-Ariwara
and Watsa all in DRC.
2. 1.4 Mobutu Co11spires witl, Rwallda Agait,st Uga11da
Rwanda and Zaire Support Amon Baûra's Activities
On 23.8.92, Bazira was in Goma and he held me~tings with Col. Mbala the
commander of paramilitary Gendarmes. Following this meeting on 27 .8.92,
NALU anns donated by Rwanda through Bizima Andrew. the Gisenyi
commander, were transported from Goma to Beni on a lorry belonging to
one Abdu Nzaramba. Hajji Kabeba who was a businessman in Rwanda
URAnnex108
Jinked Bazira to the Habyarimana govemment of Rwanda. Hajji Kabeba was
also to join Bazira rebellion Jater.
On 1.2.93, Bazira transported arms and about 200 troops that had completed
training in Gisenyi, Rwanda. Bosamba Malanga, a Regional director of
Immigration for Kiw and Nyamwisi Mavingi, former Mobutu Minister of
Tourism and Sports a Congolese assisted him. These troops were to be
infiltrated into Bwera and Kasese. Mavingi also coordinated the transfer of
funds from Amin to NALU. This money came from proceeds from the
Mungwalu gold mine, which Mobutu bad given to Amin to raise money for
the rebel activities against the Uganda government.
On16.1.1993, Amon Bazira left Rwanda for Kinshasa via Goma. From
Goma, he flew to Kinshasa using Pride African International Airlines plane
belonging to Ngbanda, Security advisor to Mobutu and General Mayele
whom he met in Kinshasa. Ngbanda gave Bazira clearance to travel 10
Eastern Zaire and also provided him with 2 escorts.
2.2 KABJLA'S ERA
2.1.J Kabi/a's Officiais w/10 Col/aborale with ADF Rebels
2.2.2
In January 1998, Col Kasereka of FAC conspired with the ADF who kilJed
17 UPDF soldiers in Lume. Following this incident he was transferred and
replaced by Col. Ebemba Matthias who had armed and facilitated the ADF
and NALU rcbels during Mobutu·s era.
On 25.1.98, Zitondla Bogota, the thcn Commissioner for Ircmu rcg10n
alertcd ADF rcbcls in Gcti of UPDF planncd operations against them.
Dr. Adoradu of Bunia Hospital was the main coordinator of ADF/NALU
activities in Bunia. He was transferred to Mbandaka in January J 998 but he
refused to move.
Pata Jdi Taban communicated to and received Radio messages of ADF on
radio LSB 7470 at Bunia mosque, which was being used by the ADF as the
collection centre for new recruits.
In February 1998, six ADF rebels from the Rwenzori Mountains in DRC
entered Uganda through Kasindi to Kihomo village in Uganda after
10
URAnnex108
registering with ANR officers and informing them that they wanted to retum
home .. due to hard life in the mountains". Among the six ADF/NALU rebels
were:
• Masereke Julius
• Mate Abdullah
• Jackson
• Kihyana
On 24.9.98, ADF Deputy Chief Director, Kisokeranio held a meeting with
Kabila's forces eut off from Kinshasa by the civil war. The local chief of
Beni. Prosper Kasulholho, OC Kasindi and Ex-Mobutu parish chief of
Kasindi, Tembo Mambura attended the meeting held at Jacques Engels
fann.
On 27.9.98, ADF held a meeting on one of Mr. Elengesa's farms in Buliba,
Mutwanga and was attended by:
• ADF commanders including the Jate Kisokeranio
• Kabila's soldiers among whom wcre those who had disarmed and moved
away from the border by the UPDF around 23.9.98.
• DRC Civil servants, among whom were Kasoholho Prosper, Cl1ef de
Poste Lume and Mr. Tembo Mambura, described as a notorious selfstyled
local leader.
• Civic mobilisers, such as Mr. Malidog, a self styled cadre politique
militaire or Political Commissar.
During the meeting they agreed that:
• The ADF in the forested lowlands of Semliki valley should join others in
the R wenzori Mountains.
• Ex-Mobutu and Kabila's loyal forces should also move and join ADF in
the R wenzori Mountains.
• Local leader in the area should ensure safe passage of the above groups
to the Mountains.
• The combined force of ADF and Kabila's loyalist forces should attack
the UPDF in Mutwanga, Kasese and Bundibugyo.
Other DRC Officiais and businessmen who supported the ADF rebels are:
Il
URAnnex108
• Abdu Mufupi, formerJy financial coordinator in Ex-F AZ. He was the one
who mast::rminded the Mpondwe/Bwera attack
• Lt. Col E\Jamba Mathias
• Abdu Karim Kamau
• Abdu Bakumba
• Lendi, who housed UMFF Headquarters before Kasese attack on Bwera
on 6.11.96
• Malope
• Makala Uvasaka, former DC of Beni under Mobutu and Kabila's regimes
Jacques Engels, a Belgian fanner in Lhume who provides the ADF rebels
with food supplies.
• Steven Baluku who was a Secondary school teacher in Beni and was
taken to Kinshasa by Kabila.
• Capt Emmanuel Kakolele, a NRA deserter, Ex-FAZ and EX-AFDL
soldier. He used to send supplies to ADF through Oicha to his agent
called Kakoko, immigration Officer, who would also send it to Abdul
Karim Kamau for delivery to the rebels.
• Mbare, a Congolese businessman
• Hosea Kibaku
• Lyangobi of Buseru who is ADF coordinator
• Paul Migeri of Kiribatha who buys food for the rebels
• Yosefu Mwenda who stays at Budiko
• A one Felix from Kiribatha
• Kapido of EX-F Al and Ex-AFDL
• Kambale, formerly an immigration officer during and after Kabila
captured power.
• Salibako, formerly an immigration officer after Kabila took over power.
• Hajji Hamad Abdallah who in November 1998 was the Imam of Beni
Masque had ail along aclcd as ADF's recruitment and supplies' agent.
Kabila govemment paid him for his work. This was revealed by the 40
DRC government soldiers who had joined ADF but surrendered to RCD
rebels on 14.5.99 at Lhume.
On 9.8.98, Taban Amin, son of Idi Amin was appointed as ADF's Chief of
Staff. He came to DRC in 1997 after the defeat of WNBF. Prior to its defeat,
WNBF freely operated from Bunia, Garamba National Park and Ariwara.
Taban became close to Kabila. He even escorted Kabila to Morocco in May
1998.
URAnnex 108 12
1.2.2 ADF/NALU REBEL CAMPS IN DRC BETWEEN THE 13.11.1996
A1TACK AND 30.6.98
Kasale
Buhira
Ngingi
Kabe1e
Buranda
Kitchanga
Nyamika
Bukuka
UpperLhume
Masambo
Buseru
Kanombye
Kyavinyonge
Bundikano
Kamunyu
Buhanga
Kighuthu
Busigha
Kinyanzongera
Ruhehe
Bolibo near/above Mutwanga
Muje Mukaone Island on R.Semliki
Kanyatsi forcst
Kikingi
Batalinge forest
Kayimbi
Mamundioma forest
Mwaleko~Isale Hills
Buvata nearOitcha.
Mehunga
Kisanga
Rugetsi
Kisuli south of Oitcha
Buswagha
Kaleyaleya
13
URAnnex108
Mumbiri forest
Tinge (Singe) above Buhanga
Su)esu)e
2.2.3 Their Movements lndicate that They Operate From DRC without
any DRC officiais Challenging them
On 31.1.97, about 40 ADF rebe)s from the Rwenzori Mountains crossed to
Zaïre through Kamukumbi border village after abducting 3 people at
Kyabilokya near Bwera town.
Between 23.9.97-26.9.97, ADF rebels moved from Rutshuru m
Kyavinyonge to Kiyenda and Kighutu.
By July 1998, some known ADF routes to and from DRC was Buruhya rebel
camp in the Rwenzori mountains --- Kalonge ---- Mumbiri (DRC) --Burangwa
in Kasese, Uganda.
Kinabwori forest --- R. Semliki -- Bwandumbi stream -- R wenzori
Mountains.
In February 1999, over 100 anned ADF rebels left Kiribatha in DRC and
headed for Uganda via Mirambi bills and Virunga National Park in DRC.
On 4.2.99, ADF crossed from DRC to Kitholu sub-county, Uganda and
killed 2 civilians before withdrawing to DRC
On 19. 12. 99, about 200 ADF rebels from Batalinge (DRC) joined ADf
camp of Kiribatha in Rwcnzori Collectivity.
On 19.12.99, about ISO ADF rebels moved from Malindi to Butama from
where they went back to Kahuka.
On 25.12.99, about 200 ADF rebe)s entered Uganda from Butalinge and
climbed Rwenzori Mountains.
On 15.12.99, about 25 ADF rebels reached Lhume from Buhira Camp, then
crossed R. Lhume, continued to Muhororo to Buranda.
14
URAnnex108
In December 1999, ADF rebels were using Tourist routes of lbanda -
Kalonge - Murene - Kyondo (DRC) - Buliha - R. Butau - Kiribatha route
On 12.12.99, ADF rebels ambushed at Mantoroba, killing 1 UPDF soldier
and 5 civilians.
On 14.12.99, about 60 Mai Mai and ADF moved from ORC through
Malindi to Butama in Rwindi National Park where they camped.
On 23-April-2000, about twenty (20) ADF rebels from DRC attacked
Kawembe village near Ihandiro sub-county. They crossed back to DRC on
26-April-2000 through Kambasa forest in the Rwenzori Mountains.
2.1.4 An ADF Abductee Escape
On l-November-1997, Assasio Katsuba, one of the )9 Seminarians
kidnapped by ADF from St. John Seminary, Kiburara, in August
1997,escaped from the ADF camp at Kaleyaleya, DRC.
2.2.5 An ADF rebel Captured in DRC
On 10.7.97, an ADF rebel, Kambale Wehulwa, was arrested by the UPDF at
Lugetsi, ORC, as he was coming from Kayimbi camp. He had I landmine, 2
tortoise grenades and 1 submachine gun (SMG). The rebel revealed that the
ADF rebels had constructed an aidield at Kafalisi.
Ugandan rebels who were captured by RCD rebels on 22.10.98, revealed
that 700 rebels drawn from LRA, WNBF and ADF were fighting alongside
President Kabila's forces and were deploycd in Kindu and lsiro.
On l 7-April-2000, the ADF Chief of Staff, Mansur Arinaitwe alias Benz and
Director of Recruitment and Training, Kirunda alias Rwigyema Jr .•
surrendered to UPDF in Lhume,DRC, with their families and 7 escorts.
2.1.5 Other Ugandan Dissidents With Connections With President Kabila
1.2.5.1 Peter Otai
On J7.12.98, Peter Otai held talks with President Kabila in Kinshasa which
covered aspects of how the formcr's war plans on Uganda was to be
15
URAnnex108
supported by the Allied forces assisting Kabila. The two also agreed on a
plan to assassinate the Ugandan President Yoweri Kaguta Museveni and
how to implement a strategy to occupy territory inside Uganda. Otai claimed
that he had finalised the plan and was left with enlisting the support of
former President Milton Obote.
After the meeting, president Kabila appointed a technical committee headed
by the then Congolese Commander (FAC) and Mînister in the President's
Office in charge of Security to work closely with Peter Otai and plan an
offensive against Uganda.
2.2.S.2 Akena P'Ojok
On 3.1.99, former Minister of Power and Communication in Obote II
regime, Ak.ena P'Ojok, travelled to Kinshasa and together with Peter Otai
met President Kabila.
2.2.S.3 Amin
In early 1999, former President of Uganda, Idi Amin got in touch with
President Kabila and prornised him military help. Amin said that bis boys
who had been trained in Pakistan and Yemen were in Sudan and would be
dispatched to fight along Kabila's forces.
2.2.6 Kabila's support/or /ntera/1a11twe
On 24.6.98, instead of handing over about 300 lnterahamwe to Rwanda,
President Kabila direcled that they be taken to Kamina for retraining.
Interahamwe captured in Kisangani on 3.9.98, rcvcalcd that:
Gen. Mfude, a Katangesc and cousin of President Kabila, had trained them
in a group of 5000 Interahamwe at Kami na Military training camp.
Another group of 700 retrained interahamwe had been passed out in midAugust
1998 at Kamina and Kapalata in Kisangani.
On 14.9.98, a combined force of the Mai Mai, Ex-FAR and Interahamwe
attacked Goma, overrun Katindo barracks and held R TV radio station at
Mugoma Hill for one hour before the RCD rebels intervened and repu)sed
the enemy forces.
1(,
URAnnexl08
On 23.9.98, a combined force of Mai Mai Ex-FAR and Interahamwe
attacked a military camp at Ndosha, 4Km North ofGoma. During the attack,
56 people were killed, an unspecified number injured and others displaced.
By January 1999, it was clear that Ex-FAR and Interahamwe were officially
deployed along with the Allied Forces as follows:
Maj Gen Augustine Bizirnungu, former Commander and Chief of Staff of
Ex-FAR was on President Kabila's war Council.
Col Kayumba Cyprio, an Ex-FAR, was deployed and had been fighting
alongside 212 Battalion at Kilembwe, S.E Manono.
Maj. Bizimana was in charge of espionage in the Great Lakes Region.
Col. Kanyandekwe Emmanuel was incharge of Makote Mobile Training
Camp, in Masisi.
Maj. Haguma Pierre Celestin who led an attack on Goma on 14.9.98 was in
charge of Allied Forces' Communications in Eastern DRC.
Maj. Andre Ndeler'lmana was in charge of a terrorist Mobile training Camp
in North Kivu.
Maj. Gakara was in charge of Rugari Mobile Camp in Masisi.
Capt Mbogo was in charge of Tango Camp with about 1500 fighters.
On 24.12.99, a combined force of Mai Mai, Interahamwe and ADF
commanded by an Interahamwe woman only known as Espe moved from
Masisi and attacked UPDF positions in Rwenzori Collectivity before
continuing to Batalinge.
On 20. 12. 99, a combinat ion of about 400 ADF rebels, Interahamwe and Mai
Mai left Mwenda and crossed into Uganda heading to Kyarumba/Kyondo
areas in the Rwenzori Mountains.
On 18-Feb 1999, lnterahamwe from DRC attacked a home in Rugabano
village, Nyarubuye sub-county, Kisoro district in Uganda and killed 4
Ugandans and l Congolese visitor.
On 27-Feb-1999, a group of about 14 Interahamwe looted Kamugyemanyi
market in Nyarutembe, Nyabwishenya sub-county, 3Km inside Uganda from
the DRC- Uganda border.
17
URAnnex 108
On 1-Mar-1999, a group of Interahamwe attacked Bwindi National Park,
killed 8 tourists, abduc!~ d t 4 tourists and 1 U gandan be fore withdrawing
intoDRC.
2.2. 7 President Kabila Conspires with Sudan against Uganda
On t 8.10, 99, Sudan airdropped supplies to ADF near Lhume in DRC.
The contents ofthese airdrops included the following 10 boxes of:
• LMGS
• RPG sheiis
• Uniforms
• Ammunition
• Radio communication equipment
On 13.8.98, Ugandan rebel leaders held a meeting with Sudanese security
chiefs at the headquarters of General Security of Sudan and discussed the
crisis in DRC. Also in attendance was Mr. Tsikulu Luambo, a representative
of DRC. Each rebel group was asked to go into DRC and start fighting
alongside President Kabila' forces. In late August 1998, Sudan discussed
with Gen. Nyambuya of the Zimbabwean forces in DRC, a joint operation in
collaboration with the Zimbabwean and FAC in connivance with Ugandan
rebels in the Western border with DRC and her Northem border with the
Sudan.
3 SUDAN SUPPORTS UGANDAN REBELS
3./ Suda11 Decides to Provide Base to Uga11dan Rebets
On 3.5.86, during a meeting between Uganda rebels and Sudan Government
(represented by Maj. Kuba, O.C. Kaya Military Post) at Republic Hotel, Yei,
tlJe latter promised to assist the rebels and acccpted to accommodate rebel
soldiers at Yei (J 22 BTN) barracks. This later became a reception centre for
ail rebel soldiers.
URAnnex 108 18
3.2 Rebels Supported By Sudan
3.1 UPDMIA
UPDM/A Attacks Uganda From Sudan And Withdraws to Sudan When
Persued by UPDF
On 28. 7 .86, a joint force of Sudan Army and UPDM/ A rebels crossed into
Uganda and attacked B1bia.
On 20.8.86, a UPDM rebel group staged an attack from Sudan into Uganda
via Nimule with a force of about 3000 troops.
On 14.12.86, Sudan armed forces shelled NRA Units at Awindiri
On 5.1.89, UPDA rebels crossed into Uganda and attacked Oraba NRA unit,
before withdrawing to Sudan.
On 24.6.89, UPDM/A rebels attacked NRA positions at Oraba from Sudan
before withdrawing to Kaya.
On 26.6.89, UPDA rebels attacked Oraba NRA unit from Sudan before they
withdrew to Sudan.
On 6.7.89, a group ofUgandan rebels attacked and disarmed 2 NRA soldiers
at Nyawa Bridge and proceeded to Obonji.
On 21.8.89, Sudan Government provided 200 guns and 20 boxes of
ammunition to UPDA rebels at Keyo.
On 10.10.89, UPDA attacked and looted Oraba trading centre before
withdrawing to Sudan.
3.2.2 NOM
In June 88, NOM rebel Movement, under David Anyoti (former Minister of
Information in Obote II Govemment) passed out several hundred rebels.
19
URAnnex 108
3.2.3 WNBF
3.2.3.1 WNBF attack /rom Sudan and retreat to Sudan when persued
byUPDF
On 14.I 1.87, a rebel ambush on Kaya-Koboko road resulted in the death of
2 NRA officers.
On 17.2.88, a convoy of 6 UNHCR trucks destined for Kaya (frorn Uganda)
were ambushed by WNBF rebels, about 64Km North of Arua.
In April 89, WNBF rebels crossed from Sudan and abducted a NRA officer
and his escort frorn Lima in Aringa county.
On 19.6.89, WNBF rebels ambushed NRA patrol at Keri before withdrawing
to Milia military camp in Sudan.
On 23.12.89, Ugandan rebe]s attacked Koboko from Sudan.
On 29.12.89, a joint force of Sudan Government troops attacked Oraba
border post and entered 6 Miles inside Uganda before retreating to Sudan.
3.3.3.4 Sudan Provides Training to WNBF
ln December 1996, at Kaya near Sudan-Uganda border, WNBF rebels were
training in preparation for an attack on U ganda.
ln August 95, Sudan Govemment opened another group of WNBF rebel
camp at Napotipo, 50 Miles from Kenya-Uganda border. Between 150-200
Ugandan rebels, mainJy from WNBF and UPA rebels from Kakuma camp
were in the camp for retraining.
3.3.4 LRA
3.3.4.1 LRA Attacks From Sudan And Withdraws to Sudan when
Persued by Uganda 's Armed forces
On 3.07.91, LRA rebels coming from Sudan killed 36 people at Atiak on the
Uganda side of the border with Sudan ..
20
URAnnex108
On 11.08.91, LRA rebe)s from Sudan again killed 6 people in Atiak on the
Uganda side of the border with Sudan.
On 24.10.91, about 15 LRA rebels crossed from Sudan to Adjumani subdistrict
in Pakele sub-county and looted drugs from Koswa hospital besides
kilJing 5 people and abducting a nun.
On 21.7.94, about 100 LRA rebels crossed into Uganda with anns and
amrnunition frorn Sudan.
On 10.10.94, LRA leader, Joseph Kony crossed into Uganda from Sudan.
On 9.11.96, about 250 LRA rebels crossed into Uganda frorn Sudan and split
into small units in Palabek and Lokung in Kitgum district. On 18.11.96,
another group of LRA rebels crossed into Uganda from Sudan through Tirn
Padwat and attacked a local defence Unit at Palabek.
On 9.1. 97, about 120 LRA rebels crossed into Uganda from Sudan and
killed about 200 people and destroyed over 400 bouses in Palabek, Lokung
and Padibe in Kitgum district.
3.3.4.2 LRA Plans and Trains From Sudan Against Uganda
ln ear]y January 1999, LRA drew a plan to carry out a surprise attack on a
UPDF defence either within or near Anaka in Gulu district invoJving about
1000 rebels and subsequently proceed to Gulu town.
3.3.5 Uganda National Rescuefront /lebels (UNRFll)
3.3.5.1 UNRF Il Attacks From Sudan and Witl1draws Lo Sudan
When Persued by UPDF
On 14.2.97, Uganda National Rescue Front (UNRFII) rebels attacked
Lodonga in Uganda from Sudan.
On 5.5.97, UNRF Il rebels frorn Sudan abducted Hassan Akule, a Local
Council official in Yumbe and killed him.
•
21 URAnnex 108
On 22.6.97, UNRF II Commanders Lt. Col. Ejoga and Maj. Akassa
Galumgbe entered Aringa county, Uganda from Sudan via Delo Corner,
about 2 Km North of Yumbe town.
On 25.5.98, about 400 UNRF II rebels entered Uganda from Sudan through
Lomwa and Bori along Sudan-Uganda border.
On 18.1.99, UNRF II rebels crossed from Sudan and attacked Yumbe
Military barracks.
3.3.5.2 Sudan Government Facilitates UNRF Il With Military
Equipment andits Propaganda
On 16.6.98, a UNRF II spokesman told Radio Omdurman that over 100
youtlls abducted in Aringa County, Arua district, joined their camps in
Sudan voluntarily.
On 25.6.98, the Director General of Security Lt. Gen. Mohammed Sanussi
who was also the· Deputy Chief of Staff of Sudanese Armed forces received
Ali Bamuze in bis office in Khartoum. Lt Gen. Sanusi gave Ali Bamuze
military equipment to fight the NRM Govemment in U ganda.
3.3.5.1 Sudan Government provides UNRF Il with Base
By August 1999, UNRF II had camped at 13-Miles N.E Kansuk, which is
South of Roja Hills in Sudan.
3.3.6 A/lied Democratic Fro11t (ADF)
3.3.6.J ADF Supplied by S11da11
In 1995, Obeid Abdalla Birungi alias Henry Matovu from ADF camps in
Beni visited Sudan where he received financial assistance from the
government of Sudan.
In April 1996, the following ADF rebels led by Obeid Abdallah Birungi
visited Sudan through Bazi:
• AbdaJJah Mulumba
• Mohamed Bossa
22
URAnnex 108
• Hussein Mohamed
• Abdu Magidu Tiger staff in Chief of Combat Operations office
The group met Col Asuman of Sudanese Armed Forces who sent them to
Juba. Obeid and Magid Tiger proceeded to Khartoum and retumed to Juba in
June I 996 with the folJowing arms:
• FiveDosca
• 4MGLS
• 4MMGs
• 6LMGs
• 4G2s
• 13 RPG Pipes with several bombs
• 1200 SMGs
• An unspecified number of Anti-Personnel-Mines (APM)
• An unspecified number of Anti-Tank-Mines {ATM)
On 26.11.1996, ADF rebels camped at Mwenda received boxes of boxes
from Sudan through Kamango airfield.
On 23rd October 97, the Sudanese military advisor in Kenya, Osman
Ramathan met with a group of ADF Ied by Mukasa Lawrence, who is an
ADF spokesman and they mapped out plans on how Sudan could airdrop
arms to ADF in eastem Congo (Rwenzori Mountains).
In 1997, the following six ADF rebels led by Abdalla Mulumba of ADF
were sent to Sudan through Bazi to get guns for countering UPDF's
Mambos and Tanks:
Mohammed Hussein Senkisa
Abbas Benjamin
Kaboyo Abubaker
Kassim Barya
Rashid.
The team was received by Col. Asuman of the Sudan Armed Forces who
sent them to Khartoum where they received military training on SPG-9 for 2
months.
• On 15.10.99, Sudan dropped supplies to ADF at Kitantara, located
between K yarumba and Kilembe sub-counties of Kasese district.
23
URAnnex108
• Several boxes of ammunition
3.3.6.2 Khartoum Government Provides ADF with an Office
ADF has an office in Khartoum and Colonel Abubak:ar Shukri, a serving
Sudanese mîlitary officer in Sudan Armed Forces (SAF) who coordinates
military affairs of ADF and Interahamwe. The following ADF rebels occupy
this office:
• Ahmed Kak:embo
• Jamil Edema
• Mohamed Mohamed
11 Odeke
- Head Mission and ADF Spokesman
- Deputy Head Mission
- Official
- Security
3.4 Sudan Government Attempts to Unite Ugandan Rebels
In early August 1998, Uganda rebel commanders from ADF, UNRFII, and
WNBF and LRA met the Sudanese Armed Forces Chiefs in Juba to discuss
their operational tactics against Uganda. During the meeting it was resolved
that:
• LRNM was to take positions a!ong Nimule-Juba road and Nimule-Torit
to be assisted by UNRFII fighters
• The WNBF was asked to concentrate on Yei-Juba road.
3.4 Sudan Government Supplies Arms to Ugandan Rebels
On 14.8.98, Ugandan rebel groups base in Sudan were given more weapons
to boost their military strength in order to fight the Uganda Govemment the
rebel groups include:
• Uganda National Rescue Front
• ADF
• LRM/A
• WNBF
The fourrebel groups were each given:
• 2 B 12 Katyusha Rocket Launchers
• 12 RPGs
• 500 AK Assault rifles
URAnnex108
24
• 20 boxes ofhand grenades
• 3 tons of medicine to be shared by the four groups
• Several tons of rounds of ammunition
3.5 Sudan 's Direct Aggression to Uganda
On 30.12.89, a joint rebel force and Sudan Govemment soldiers entered into
Uganda in a convoy of 25 vehicles and l APC and camped at Keri in
U ganda be fore withdrawing to Kerwe in Sudan.
On 13.8.95, Sudan Anned Forces and a Company of WNBF crossed into
Uganda at Oraba. However, they were repulsed by UPDF before they
retumed to Kaya on 14.8.95.
On 4.5.95, LRA rebels crossed into Uganda accompanied by 5 Sudanese
Military experts.
On 28.7.95, LRA supported by SDF. entered Uganda from Owiny KibuJ in
Sudan through Lokung in Kitgum, Matidi, Padibe Muchini Mabi opel and
Paimol Muto. However, they were repulsed by UPDF on 27.8.95 and
crossed back to Sudan.
On 2.3.97, Koboko town was shelled with mortar bombs from Kaya by
Sudanese Armed Forces.
On 27. 9. 98, the Sudanese Government announced general mobilisation to
deal with what she termed a Uganda-Eritrea aggression in Sudan caUing on
ail able bodied people to report to the anned forces for participation in the
job of defending Sudan.
Since 1988, Sudan bas been bombing Ugandan teITitory. Among the
bombings are the foBowing:
Date
20.5.91
22.09.95
08.04.96
13.02.97
27.09.98
District/Region
West Nile
WestNile
Koboko
WestNile
Bundibugyo
25
Place/Locatio11
Ojapi P. school, Tara
MoyoTown
Keri
Arua
Bukaka
URAnnexIOs
03.10.98
08.10.98
Adjumani
Adjumani
Pakele
Unyama and Mugali ·
Besides bombings, the following Airspace violations were recorded between
April and Joly 1999 atone:
4.4.1999
18.6.1999
19.7.1999
22.7.1999
23.7.1999
25.7.1999
Kobokotown
Adjumani town
Bibia
Keri
Oraba
Bibia
3 This requires testimonies of Ugandan officiais who were involved.
S This also requires testimonies of Ugandan Officiais who were
involved.
6 PRESENCE OF UGANDA DEFENCE FORCES IN DRC
BEFORE 2.8.98
6.1 UPDF Deployments in DRC
Uganda and DRC had the foHowing battalions in the Joint Operation in
Eastern Congo:
• There was the 105th battalion in Beni Zone. Commander Bizima
commanded it. This oversaw Kasindi, Erengeti, Oicha, Mbau and Maviri.
• There was the 89th battalion cornmanded by Kasereka. This covered
Rwenzori Mountains.
• There was the 99th battalion covering Mutwanga, Mwenda and
Watalinga.
7 PRESENCE OF UPDF TROOPS AFTER 2.8.98
On 16.8.98, UPDF unearthed 460,000 buUets for a 12.7-mm gun hidden by
the ADF at Lubathe near Kambasa overlooking Kiraro.
26
URAnnexl08
Between May and July 1999, UPDF had dislodged ADF rebels from their
bases in Kambas~ Kiraro, Buhira, Hulhulhu, Mbaki~ Kakayabu, Bolibo,
Kasale, Lume, Mahunge and Kabale in DRC.
On 26.10.99, UPDF engaged ADF rebels at K.itchanga in DRC adjacent to
Bundibugyo, Uganda.
On 24.12.99, ADF attacked Hakitara, killing 2 UPDF soldiers and injuring 2
UPDF and 5 civilians.
On 6-March-2000, UPDF killed 2 ADF rebels in Lhume
On 16-March -2000, UPDF killed 2 ADF rebels in Lhume.
On 28-March-2000, ADF rebels abducted 8 people in Masambo, DRC.
27
URAnnexl08

URAnnex 109

URANNEX109
WORK PROGRESS BY HERITAGE OIL GAS LIMITED IN THE
SEMLIKI BASIN AND THE SECURITY RISK.
,, f. 1. BACKGROUND
r
Heritage Oil Gas Limited (HOG) is the company that was granted
an exploration license in January 1997 to carry out petroleum
exploration, development and production in Exploration Area 3
(Semliki basin).
2. WORK PROGRESS
2.1 After the signing of the Production Sharing Agreement (PSA) in
January 1997, HOG compiled information into base maps used in
designing a land seismic survey.
2.2 In July 1997, HOG carried out an Environment Impact Assessment
for the seismic survey that was being planned. HOG embarked on
the seismic survey in June - August 1998, in which 170-line km of
high quality seismic data were acquired in the Semliki basin.
2.3 HOG then carried out preliminary interpretation of the above data,
which revealed a presence of two large structures that would require
test drilling to confirm the presence and quantity of petroleum
reserves.
2.4 However, the insecurity in the Semliki basin resulting from ADF
incursions delayed the commencement of this drilling phase. In the
meantime, HOG had identified possible joint venture partners to
carry out the test drilling.
· 2.5 The seismic survey above was carried out under heavy military
escort, and as HOG was planning the proposed drilling, the ADF
continued with attacks in the Semliki basin.
2.6 These continued attacks by the ADF and the war in Eastern Congo
delayed HOG in starting the drilling operations and discouraged
other investors coming for petroleum exploration. Because of the
delays and the security risk, the partner HOG had identified
withdrew from the Joint Venture and HOG could not find another
partner at that time.
i
2. 7 In July 2001, HOG identified another partner for a joint venture in
Exploration Area 3, and in November/December 2001, HOG
acquired additional seismic data in Exploration Area 3.
2.8 After interpretation of the seisrnic data, HOG started preparation of
the drilling operations, which is to start in September 2002.
2.9 In the meantime, Government has been carrying out geological and
geophysical surveys in the Pakwach and Rhino camp basins, to
improve on the understanding of the petroleurn potential of these
areas and facilitate the promotion effort. But because of increased
insecurity in northern Uganda by the LRA rebels, the Government
has suspended these activities. Furthermore the oil companies that
had planned to carry out preiiminary field surveys in these areas
withdrew.
2.10 Therefore the insecurity in the Sernliki basin by the ADF and
fighting in eastern Congo caused a lot of delay in the progress of
petroleum exploration activities. Although HOG is going to drill
now, the continued fighting in eastern Congo bas required more
deployment of security personnel in the Semliki basin.
2.11 The licensing of the remaining areas is becoming increasingly
difficult as the LRA rebels continue to cause insecurity in northern
Uganda as well as continuing instability in eastern Congo.
URAnnex 109
4 N
3 N
EXPLOEATION Aff.AS 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 oed 5
'·
,------~-E- -----------,----~~E~ ~~~~---..-...~-z.- ----~4N LEGOO
□
□
lftSmns
keabadlo
1teri1oJ <Il 1111 Gas r.o.
keabadlo
lbmllmroesRy
keaoemdby
lhdl 200'l oe-.
N
N
N
/\/
N
m
0
1k
Rom
EXPL.alATOI Ar:IEAOE •MODElilD .SE!lM!NT
MO. (Sqlcm) Tltaff.'SS (l,bc.)
4.285 50,,I (Gravily)
2
3
4
5
4.675 5,5!0,I (GrcMty)
4.630
5.90
6,040
DEMOCRAT
REPUBL1C
CONGO
- • l+wb+Hf
lht•r•
't f
.,.
[I.KATONCA
31 E
- t2,2llO.OllO
'f ,. .. 1lll
amoo Petrcu üitrotioo ax1 Procb:tion ll6,xrtnmt. U]<nlo 2002
3 N
0
32 E
1 S
- T ,.,.
ICUHdlt.•
URAnnex109

URAnnex 110

URANNEXllO
THE MINING INDUSTRY IN UGANDA
1 CONTENTPAGE
1 CONTENTPAGE
2 OVERVIEW OF THE MINING INDUSTRY
3 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INDUSTRY
:1:,1 MINERAL INDUSTRY POUCY
:L1 INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE
:l:_,J_ .AN_ OVERVlEW OF IMPORTAI'JT MINERALS OCCURREJ':,K'&
4 INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES
5 UGANDA'S COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
§J_ STRATEGIC LOCATION AND FAVOURABLE INVESTMENT CLIMATE
§'"'i IMPROVED FISCAL INCJ;NTIVES
§_,~ MET ALLIC MINERALS
6 PROCEDURES FOR INVESTMENT
1 REFERENCES AND SOURCES FOR FUTURE FURTHER INFORMATION
2 OVERVIEW OF THE MINING INDUSTRY
The mining industry in Uganda reached peak levels in the 1950s and '60s when the sector accounted
for up to 30% of Uganda's export earnings. However, political and economic instability experienced
in the country in the '70s led the sector to decline to its present level of contributing only about 1 % of
the Growth Domestic Product (GDP). It is noted therefore that the decline is not a result of resource
depletion but is rather due to the bad government policies of the past.
The decade after 1986 has been marked by a favourable business climate in U ganda and a number of
mining companies have taken up licenses in the mining sector, the mining and quarrying industry is
now growing at the rate of about 11 %.For example, in 1990 there were under 50 licenses issued in the
exploration and mining license categories combined: by the end of 2000 there was a total of 221
licenses including, 13 6 Exclusive Prospecting Licenses, 9 5 Location Licenses, and 15 Mining Leases.
These licenses cover the entire country but are generally concentrated in the more prospective areas in
southwest and southeast Uganda. This is due to the fact that because of thick soils and deep
weathering, parts of north central U ganda have limited geological data. The Government is currently
negotiating with the World Bank to fund a systematic exploration program to cover the entire
country. This should open up more ground for exploration.
Nonetheless, current minera! production is still too low to meet local industrial demand. Limestone
mined for the production of cernent and lime is consumed largely in the local market. Aggregate,
gravel and small quantities of gold, tin and tungsten concentrates are currently produced largely for
export. There are many high minerai potential areas in Uganda, which remain inadequately explored
despite the country's long history of production.
3 DEVELOPMENTS IN THE INDUSTRY
3.1 MINERAL INDUSTRY POLICY
Modem mining began in Uganda in the mid-1920s with production of tin concentrates in south-west
Uganda and expanded to include asbestos, lithium, bismuth, copper, gold, gypsum, lead, iron ore,
limestone, sand, gravel, aggregate, building clays and silica sand. Both government and the private
sector have for a long time, carried out the development of minerai resources. In order to revive and
expand the sector, government has adopted policies to:
• Promote the development and use of minera! resources in the modemization of the country, to
raise revenue and to eam foreign exchange;
• Encourage exploitation ofminerals for local industrial development;
• train and develop technical and managerial skills for the sector;
• Maintain adequate government services and institutions for the sector; and
• protect the environment
3.2 INDUSTRY PERFORMANCE
The implementatîon of the above policîes has resulted into an increase in mineral production and
mineral exports. This has provided a significant contribution to foreign exchange reserves as well as
revenue accruing from royalty. For instance the royalties paid were USh. 21.3 million in 1995; USh
36.1 million in 1996; USh 64.3 million in 1997,Ush.10, 421,137 in 1999,Ush.609, 229,220 in
2000.The value of mineral exports shows an increase from US $ 50 million in 1995 to US $ 53.4
million in 1996, US $ 81.3 million in 1997 and U$120milion.in 2000. Table 1 below shows the
trends in minerai production.
Table 1: Min(!ral production statistics 1990 - 2000
Minerai 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1996
Gold (l!Iams) 7523 1327 679 291.4 1627 1506.6 3000 6400
Tin Ore (tons) 31.2 l.70 1.76 2.67 2.56 4.29 0.38 1.81
Wolfram (tons) 48 30.36 15.83 5.00 11.64 17.31 Nil 1.76
Tantalite/
Columbite (t) Nil 0.055 0.035 0.452 0.435 1.824 Nil Nil
Limestone
(tons) 385.0 2623 99.6 10025 163 209512 159479 919353
Gypsum (tons) 43 807 396.1 308.4 201.7 5467 2281 Nil
Phosphate
(tons) 25.0 Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil Nil
Iron Ore (tons) Nil 86.71 32.85 Nil Nil 7.0 200 2432
URAnnex110
Source: Department of Geological Survey and Mines
"Nil" - means no returns have been received by the Department of Geological Survey and Mines
MINERAL OCCURRENCES OF UGANDA
Although Uganda's minerai potential is largely untested due to the very limited exploration to date, it
is endowed with a wide variety of minerais (Figure 1 Map of Location ofMinerals in Uganda).
3.3 An overview of important minerais occurrence
3.3.1 Copper
The history of copper mining dates back to 1956 when Faconbridge of Canada operated at Kilembe
Mine until 1974 when the Govemment ofUganda took over its ownership. The production of blister
copper, which had been as high as 16,000 tons per year by the late 1960s, declined in the 1970s
(14,000 tpy in 1972) and reached a low level of 2,000 tons in 1979, until production subsequently
ceased. The reserves were originally estimated to be 12.7 million tonnes (Mt) of which 7.2 Mt
averaged 2% copper and 0.2% cobalt. At the time of the mines closure, 16.3 Mt had been mines.
Significant resources of insitu chalcopyrite cobaltiferous pyrite and pyrrhotite mineralization remain,
(4.12 Mt at 1.77% Cu in measured and indicated categories; 1.85 Mt at 1.46% Cu in inferred category
plus 0.65 Mt of supergene mineralization. In addition, there is potential for discovering further
deposits, along the 90 kilometres belt of Kilembe series rocks. The Kilembe area remains attractive
not only as a copper producer but also as a cobalt supplier. At present, Mine will soon be open to
other investors through the Privatisation Unit. Anglovaal Minerais (Avmin) of South Africain a joint
venture with Pacifie Vangold of Canada are undertaking a major exploration programme for copper
and cobalt mineralization north-east ofKilembe.
3.3.2 Cobalt
When Kilembe Mine was in operation, cobalt was not recovered because of its low price at that time.
However, approximately 1 Mt of cobaltiferous concentrate was stockpiled at Kasese near the Mine.
The stockpile at Kasese averages 1.37% cobalt and 0.4% nickel. In addition, there exist 10 Mt of
tailings at an average grade of 0.1% Co. Kasese Cobalt Company Ltd. (a joint venture between
Lasource and Kilembe Mines Ltd.) has constructed a 1,000 tons per year bioleach extraction plant at
Kasese to process the stockpile. Production started in April 1999. The project invested US $ 135
million and is the largest project so far undertaken in the mineral industry in Uganda.A 10 MW
hydro-electricity power plant was also constructed on River Mobuku, near Kasese. The cobalt plant
will be producing about 1,000 tons of cobalt concentrate per year for a period of 12 -15 years period.
3.3.3 Gold
Gold is widely distributed in Uganda but has been exploited on a small scale (largely by artisanal
miners) in a few areas near Busia in the east, Buhweju and Kigezi in the south-west, Mubende in the
central and more recently Karamoja in the north-east. The bulk of all gold in Uganda has been mined
from small but rich alluvial deposits around the Buhweju plateau which is a large Proterozoic basin
of approximately 2000 km2 in area and with a potential to host gold-bearing sedimentary horizons
and epithermal mineralization along the rift margin. Government recorded over 200,000 ounces of
URAnnexll0
gold production between 1933 and 1995.
The Kigezi gold-field in the extreme south-west is recognized as a Proterozoic magnetic arc terrain
and forms part of the larger Kivu gold-tin-tantalum minerai province of which the Twangiza gold
deposit in the Democratic Republic of Congo is the main deposit. Gold production came from small
widely scattered alluvials, which in addition commonly carry cassiterite, Wolframite, bismutite,
Zircon, monazite, chalcopyrite and rutile.
The Busia gold-field continues in Kenya and Tanzania to become the Kavirondo gold-field and the
Lake Victoria gold-field respectively. Gold was discovered near Busia in 1932 and since then, both
vein and alluvial prospects have been mined sporadically. the majority of the total production of 1.5
tons of gold came from Tiira and Amonikakine mines between 193 7 and 1952.
Quartz stringers occur in schists of the Buganda series and carry gold in the Kamalenge area near
Mubende. Gold is also found in the saprolite zone of weathering above bedrock. Primary
Mineralization is contained within the shear zone related quartz veinlet stockworks, which are
heavily oxidized.
Although gold was first reported in gravels of River Kalere near Kaabong in Karamoja in 1960,
significant artisanal mining works were only reported in 1983 covering a wide area near Alelek
south-west of Kotido, Rupa north of Moroto and Lopedo east of Kaabong. The various prospects are
generally "gold-in-shear" type, which is prevalent in Precambrian terrain. Other known gold
occurrences have been noted in the River Kafu basin south of Hoima, and River Nyagak near Nebbi
where traces of alluvial gold were found.
The future of gold mining in Uganda depends on systematic exploration in the known and other
potential areas. Currently a number of companies are involved in the exploration of gold. Notable
among these are Branch Energy (U) Limited, which was until recently operating in northern
Karamoja; Roraima Mining Company operating in Busia and Bugiri areas as well as in Buhweju in
the south-west; Glencar Explorations Pic in the south; and Cluff Mining Ltd. in the Kigezi goldfield,
Busitema Mining Company in the Tiira area. The liberalization of the gold trade in 1991 has
borne fruit; with exports rising from zero in 1990 to 5.067 in 1996 to, 6.8 tons in 1997 and 20 tons in
1999, 30 tons in 2000.
3.3.4 Tin (Cassiterite)
Tin was mined on a small scale in south-western Uganda since 1926. The Jndustry has remained
small with a maximum-recorded production of 584 tons of concentrate in 1936. Mwirasandu, the
largest tin mine produced 3,300 tonnes of cassiterite between 1926 and 195. Currently, tin mining in
the country is limited to small-scale operators who have limited expertise and Jack capital investment.
The demand for tin in Uganda and the east African region is low as there are no major consuming
industries in the region. Ugandan tin concentrates are high grade (68-72% SnO2) and contain low
levels of impurity requiring simple technology.
3.3.5 Tungsten (Wolfram)
Tungsten is used in the manufacture of alloys, armour plates, electric filaments and high-speed tools.
There are at least seven small scale-scale wolfram mines in Kabale and Kisoro districts and one small
URAnnex 110
one in Buyaga in Rakai District but those with the best potential to produce large tonnage are Bjordal
and Kirwa mines. Bjordal mine was opened in 1947 and produced 2,000 tonnes of concentrates by
1983 when it closed. The mine has an estimated reserve of 10 million tonnes with an average grade of
0.5% W03. Kirwa mines started operations in the 1940s and closed in 1979 due to breakdown of
machinery. At the time of its closure, Kirwa mines had proven reserves of 750,000 tonnes of ore
grading at 0.15% W03 and 500,000 tonnes of probable reserves grading at 0.25% W03. Artisanal
miners are currently in production. The revival of commercial wolfram mining in this region is worth
exploring.
3.3.6 Beryllium (Beryl)
Uganda was producing about 10% of the world's total production of beryllium during the 1960s.
Production stopped in 1976 due to the decline in world market prices. Beryllium is associated with
pegmatites, found mainly in Ntungamo, Bushenyi and Rukungiri districts in western Uganda, but also
at Mbale Estate in Mubende, Nampewo and Lunya in Mukono district. The pegmatites consist of
microline, albite, quartz and muscovite, with minor quantities of apatite, columbite, tantalite,
cassiterite, manganite, lithium minerais and tourmaline. The pegmatites in the south-west are
invariably kaolinised, thus facilitating low cost mining. No evaluation has been carried out to date,
although limited production (1944-1976 = 6,224.7 tons) came mainly from Mutaka, Kazumu, Bulema
and lshasha. The deposits at Ishasha have the largest potential. The tailings at Mwirasandu tin deposit
contain beryl.
3.3.7 Niobium/Tantalum (Columbite/Tantalite)
Columbite-tantalite(+microlite) occurs in pegmatites, mainly in south-west Uganda and which are
associated with beryl mineralisation were extracted in small quantities in the past. Total production of
columbite-tantalum concentrates from 1936 - 1992 totalled 304.5 tons and frorn the late l 950s these
metals were recovered only as by-products from beryl mining.
Pyrochlore is potentially the most important niobium minerai in Uganda. lt occurs in carbonatites at
Sukulu and Bukusu in the east, and at Napak and Toror in Karamoja. Sukulu is potentially the most
important pyrochlore deposit, associated with apatite, magnetite, zircon and barite in residual soils
over the carbonate. Total resources in three valleys are reported over 230 Mt, of which 130 Mt
average 0.2% Nb20 5.
3.3.8 Iron Ore
The most important known deposits are the hematite deposits of Muko in Kabale and Kisoro districts
and the magnetite deposits at Sukulu and Bukusu in Tororo and Mbale districts respectively. Other
known areas are Murambo, Hamurwa and Kabale areas.The Hematite (itabirite)ore at Mukohas a
high iron ore content(90-98%Fe2o3);it contains negligable phosphorous and sulphur and <0.05%
Tio2.Based on surface showings it has been estimated that these deposits contain about 4 Mtons of
resources.The Sukulu deposits are estimated to contain 45 Mt of ore averaging 62% iron and 2.6%
phosphorous. Reserves at Bukusu, are estimated at 23 Mt of iron ore with high titunium content of 10
- 15%. The Govemment is keen to exploit these iron ore resources and is seeking for investors in the
URAnnexllO
project. Additional information is available in the "Iron and Steel Industry Profile".
Current production of iron ore at Muko is limited to small quantities handpicked from float material,
and supplied to Hima (1994) Ltd. cernent factory for the manufacture of special cernent. In the early
1970s, iron ore was used by the East African Steel Corporation at Jinja in Eastern Uganda, as a
sweetener to the metal scrap in the melting process.Some iron ore is also supplied to the Steel Rolling
Mills at Jinja where it is used to sweeten the scrap.
3.3.9 Limestone
Limestone is a major raw material in the manufacture of Portland cernent and lime in Uganda.
Limestone is also used in refractories, paper mills, concrete, sugar works, animal feeds, etc. Deposits
are found at Muhokya, Bwera, Hima(Kasese District ,25Mt of limestone), Dura (Kabarole
District ,5Mt of limestone) Kaku (Kisoro District ,5Mt of limestone), Sukulu Hills-Tororo, 75Mt)
Bududa (Mbale District) and Moroto. The major limestone deposits are those at Hima in the west,
which are sedimentary in origin and the Tororo and Sukulu deposits in south-east Uganda which are
igneous ( carbonatite in origin. Two cernent plants are currently in production at each of these
deposits. The Hima plant has an installed capacity of 900 tons per day with two significant
production lines. Since its divestiture in 1994, the plant has undergone significant rehabilitation. The
plant currently produces 600 tons per day, and has a targeted daily production of 1,500 tons on
completion. The Tororo plant built in 1953 to produce 150 tons per day, was divested in 1996. The
plant is undergoing major rehabilitation aimed at producing 1000 tons per day by the year 2002.
Current production of cernent by this plant is supplemented by importation of clinker while the
rehabilitation programme takes place.
The limestone (marbles) resources at Moroto are significant but preliminary results indicate high
magnesium content. Systematic exploration may identify sufficient suitable raw material for cernent
production. The other limestone deposits such as at Bududa in Mbale, Dura in Kabarole and
Muhokya in Kasese districts are small and can only support small cernent plants or be quarried and
transported to the nearby operational plants at Tororo for Bududa and at Hima for Dura and Muhokya
deposits.
3.3.10 Phosphates
Phosphates are a major raw material for the manufacture of phosphate fertilizers used in agriculture.
Deposits in Uganda are associated with the carbonatite ring complexes found in eastern Uganda
mainly at Sukulu and Bukusu. Reserves of apatite-pyrochlore in form of residual soils are proven to
be in excess of 230 Mt, with an average grade of 13% P20 5 in three valleys at Sukulu which is a
world-class deposit. The apatite component is rich and can yield 40 - 42% P 20 5, Tororo Industrial
Chemicals and Fertilizers (TICAF) which was established in 1963 produced 25,000 tonnes per
annum of single super phosphate (SSP) until operations ceased in 1978.The phosphates at Busumbu
were mined from 1945 to 1963, and exported in semi-processed form to Kenya, where they were
mixed with soda ash to produce a soluble fertilizer. Production stopped when TICAF started
operations in Tororo. A Canadian company Canmin Resources bas been licensed to operate in the
area.
Uganda government has been keen to revive fertilizer productioh and in 1983 commissioned a
feasibility study for a triple super phosphate (TSP) fertilizer plant. The Department of Geological
URAnnexllO
Survey and Mines is currently zoning the area into designated areas for limestone, phosphates and
other chemicals. A joint venture between Madhvani International South Africa and Foskor South
Africa are presently evaluating the prospect. The project is open to interested strategic investors and
is earmarked for export to all the COMESA countries.
3.3.11 Salt
Lake Katwe is the largest of several shallow saline crater lakes situated in the western rift valley,
north of Lake Edward. The sait reserves comprise salts in solution in interstitial brines within pore of
the solid crust. A programme of drilling and pitting into the salt crusts below the lake outlined
reserves of 22 Mt of mixed salts made up of the following: sodium chloride NaCl, 2 Mt; sodium
sulphate Na2SO4, 2 Mt; sodium carbonate NaCO3, 17.7 Mt; potassium sulphate KzSO4, 0.6 Mt; and
potassium bromide Kbr, 0.01 Mt.
A plant set up by the Lake Katwe Salt Company and commissioned in 1980 to produce sodium
chloride for human consumption failed to operate due to technical errors in the plant design. Plans
exist to modify the plant to produce 50,000 tons of salt per year for domestic consumption and the
company is to undergoing divestiture. A feasibility study to appraise the project funded by the
African Development Bank was completed in June 1997, and recommended the setting up of a new
plant at a cost of US $ 34 million.
3.3.12 Clays
Clay deposits sui table for the manufacture of bricks, roofing tiles, pottery, etc. are widely distributed
in Uganda. They are of variable quality especially in terms of iron and quartz content and therefore
show variable reaction to firing. Detailed investigation could show potential for better quality clays,
including refractory material within these deposits. The only limited investigation of such deposits
however, has been undertaken in areas near urban centres of Kampala, Masaka, Jinja and Mbarara.
The main deposits for brick and tile making are found at Kajjansi, Kisubi, Namanve, Nansana and
Katalemwa near Kampala; Kasukengo near Lukaya, Masaka and Buteraniro near Mbarara.
Most production of bricks in Uganda is by artisanal workers at a very small scale. However, there are
a number of small to medium size mechanised plants, the largest being Uganda Clays Ltd. located at
Kajjansi (with daily production of 100 tons of various products). Others are Pan African Clays at
Kajjansi; Kampala Archdiocese at Kisubi; Masaka Diocese at Butende near Masaka and Hoima
Diocese at Butema near Hoima and Clay and Allied Products along Gayaza Road .. African Ceramics
near Namugongo, Kampala is to undergo rehabilitation to enable it produce plates and cups. There
are also plans to start floor and wall tile today using clays as part of the compounds.
3.3.13 Kaolin
Kaolin is used in the manufacture of paper, rubber, paints, sanitaryware, pottery, leather tanning,
pharmaceuticals, etc. In Uganda, it is derived from weathered pegmatites and weathered shales of
Karagwe-Ankolean System. The main locations are at Mutaka in Bushenyi district, Namasera,
URAnnexllO
Buwambo and Migade near Kampala, Koki in Rakai district and Bukangama near Kilembe.
According to an IBRD/GOU study in 1994, the Mutaka deposit contains 23 Mt of minable resource
with 65% kaolinite with small amounts of feldspar,quartz and mica. Muhindo Enterprises Ltd. has
been issued an investment licence for mining and processing kaolin at Mutaka. At Buwambo, a local
company mines and processes the kaolin for use in paints in U ganda. There are also prospects for
export to Kenya, Tanzania and Rwanda. Plans are also underway to set up a factory tomanufacture
floor and wall tiles using Kaolin as one of the ingredients.
3.3.14 Feldspar
Feldspar is utilised mainly in ceramics and in the glass industry. Good potential exists for small
microcline deposits in pegmatites within the Precambrian terrain, but this has not been quantified.
Feldspar also occurs in several beryl-bearing pegmatites such as Mutaka and Rwemiriro in Bushenyi
and at Lunya in Mukono, Bulema and Bugangari in Kigezi, Nyabakweri in Ankole, Wabiyinja and
Nakabale in Buganda and Lunya in Kyaggwe. According to chemical analyses by the Geological
Survey of Finland in 1994, Mutaka feldspar was found to be of very high purity and suitable as a
ceramic and glass making raw material.Feldspar will also be one of the ingredients to manufacture
floor and wall tiles.
Silica Sand
Silica Sand is the main raw material for making glass. Good potential exists, especially along the
shores of Lake Victoria including its islands such as Kome and Buvuma. Most prominent locations
include the Diimu and Bukakata sands near Masaka, Nalumuli and Nyirnu bay and more than 2 Mt of
good quality sand averaging 99.65% Si02 and 0.05% Fe20 3 at Diimu. Various studies have been
carried out by the Govemment and by private investors to see the possibility of setting up glass
plants. The Madhvani Group is interested in reviving the East African Glass Works Ltd. The
Mukwano Group of Companies is also in the process of carrying out studies for setting up a glass
factory.
3.3.15 Diatomite
Diatomite is used mainly as a filtration medium for beer and other beverages. Good potential exists
for small to medium size, high-grade stratabound diatomite(± kaolinite) deposits at Panyango, Atar
and Parombo near Pakwach within the Rift Valley sediments in north-west Uganda. The Pakwach
diatomite is very white and contains a large proportion of diatoms in a kaolinite matrix. This is a
promising material for both high-grade diatomite and kaolinite production. -Studies undertaken show
a diatomite resource of about 100,000 tons, with amorphous silica and kaolinite(39%) with minor
quartz and a trace of smectite. The Pakwach -diatomite is very white and contains a large proportion
of diatoms in a kaolin matrix. It has good potential for the commercial production of both high-grade
diatomite and kaolin.
3.3.16 Gypsum
Small deposits are found at Kibuku in Bundibugyo, Muhokya in Kasese and Lake Mburo in Mbarara.
There is an estimated 1.2 Mt at Kibuku within the rift sediments, 29,000 tons of gysiferous clay at
Muhokya and 80,000 tons at Lake Mburo. A number of location licences have been issued for mining
gypsum at Kibuku and these small operators currently supply the Hima cernent plant.
3.3.17 Dimension Stones
URAnnexllO
These include marble, granite, gneiss and dolerite rocks that are used in buildings either in natural
form or as eut and polished slabs. Marble of white, grey, and pink occurs near Moroto town and are
of very high quality. marble quarrying would provide blocks for the manufacture of slabs and tiles.
Small chips and marble used to manufacture terrazzo cernent tiles, marble chips and rnarble powder.
Study to by the Industrial Development Department of the Commonwealth Secretariat in 1997
confirmed the presence of marble and granite deposits in Uganda, which can be exploited as
dimension stones. The study further noted that the market for imported dimension stone is projected
to increase at a steady rate, but the introduction of domestic products is likely to stimulate much
greater demand. During the study, a number of granite deposits were selected for immediate
development. These include: Lutembe granite near Kajjansi, Singo granite (which hosts the Bulamu
Quarry near Kawungera village off the Mubende tarmac road), Iganga granite 4 km north of Iganga
town, and Butebo granite along Tororo to Busia road.
Saudi Marble Co. of Saudi Arabian has proposed to invest over US $ 16 million to develop the
Moroto marble resources to produce dimension stone and terrazzo as a by-product. There are
additional eight potential entrepreneurs in Uganda interested in granite/marble quarrying and
processing.
3.3.18 Glass Sand
Glass is made by fusing silica with soda and lime to produce a transparent, colourless soda-lime
silicate. Glass sands which form the main primary source of the silica need to be free of impurities
such as iron oxides, alumina and heavy minerais.
In Uganda narrow beach sand deposits, formed from erosion of quartizites, occur at several locations
along the shore of Lake Victoria, including Entebbe, Kabogoga, Diimu (Mukinda, 1972, 1973),
Nalumuli Bay, Nyimu Bay, Lwera and Bukakata. The highest quality (99.95% SiO2) glass sands have
been mined from the Kome Islands and exported to Kenya (Barnes, 1961). At Diimu, (Mboijana,
1992) over 100,000 t of good quality glass sand (99.65% SiO2 and 0.05% Fe2O3) have been
delineated. Many of the less pure sands could be considerably improved by screening and magnetic
separation.
Production figures for past glass sand mining in Uganda are not available.
3.3.19 Sand/Gravel
Clean coarse beach sand, suitable for building and concrete making, is readily available around the
shores of the major lakes in Uganda. Away from these lakes, however, good clean sand is not so
readily available in the swampier drainage courses which cover much of the country (Barnes, 1961).
In these latter areas the river courses and terraces usually contain sands with some admixture of clay
and silt such that washing is required to produce a clean product.
Production figures for sand and gravel mining in Uganda are not available.
3.3.20 Vermlculite
Vermiculite is known to occur in two of the Tertiary carbonatite complexes, at Bukusu and Sukulu
{Taylor, 1956; Bames, 1961). The main occurrence is on a 10 km long semi-circular ridge
(Namakera, Nakhupa and Surumbusa) at Bukusu, where vermiculite flakes occur in residual
concentrations (from the leaching of phlogopite in carbonatite) below a surface cover of 4 - 5 m
URAnnexllO
magnetic rubble. At Namakera a resource of 5 million tons of high-grade vermiculite ore has been
estimated (Tailor, 1956). Recent work carried out by CANMIN, a Canadian Company, has upgraded
the reserves to 5 million tons of high grade vermiculite.
3.3.21 Construction Materials
The geology of Uganda covers a very wide time span and therefore favours the occurrence of bard
rocks such as gneisses, granites, quartzites for producing aggregate; and soft residual materials such
as clays, sand, laterite and gravel for the construction industry. Programmes for the systematic
investigation of the identified the resources that are presently being exploited largely by artisanal
methods are underway. It is now widely recognised globally that the level of consumption of these
materials (like that of energy) has a direct bearing on the level of economic development. Therefore,
as the country' s economy continues to grow; the construction industry will in turn expand and
demand for these materials will increase . This will necessitate the need for increase in systematic
geological evaluation of the mineral-based building and construction resources.
4 INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES
There are many high minerai potential areas in Uganda, which remain inadequately explored despite
the country's long history of minerai exploration and production. Tradition targets have been veinhosted
gold deposits and base metals. in recent decades, the focus bas also been placed on the search
for industrial minerais with over 100 documented occurrences of gold, base metals and Industrial
minerais.
Uganda is endowed with a wide variety of minerai resources. However, it is also noted that the
country's minerai potential is largely unexploited due to almost two decades ofvirtual standstill in its
exploration and mining. During this period there were technological changes and innovations in the
international exploration, evaluation, mining and metallurgical industries which resulted in the
discovery of minerai deposits in geologically similar terrain elsewhere. Therefore, application of
these new techniques is likely to discover sizeable minerai deposits in Uganda. Early discoveries have
not been systematically evaluated.
The investment opportunities in Uganda can be considered in minerais largely for the domestic
market and those for export. At the present low level of industrialization, the domestic industrial
demand is, except for small quantities of iron ore, entirely for non-metallic minerais. This demand is
greater than the country's mining industry can currently supply, such that significant quantities of
cernent, sait, refractory bricks, roofing and cerarnic tiles, paint, glass, etc. are imported.
The main areas of growth in potential demand are for aggregate and stone for the construction and
building industry,, clays (for building and refractory bricks, tiles, ceramics floor and wall tiles, electro
porcelain, sanitary ware), cernent and lime in the building and construction industries. Other minerais
include phosphate for agriculture, sait for domestic and chemical uses, iron ore for the manufacture of
iron/steel and pigments, kaolin for a variety of uses such as paint, leather tanning and
pharmaceuticals, silica sand and trona (sodium bicarbonate) for glass manufacture. The annual rate of
growth is expected to be in the range of 10 - 15%. Major projects in the non-rnetallic minerai subsector,
which are on-going or planned for are the following:
Madhvani International, South Africa in conjunction with Foskor of South Africa is carrying out
detailed work on the production of phosphate fertilisers from the Sukulu Hills phosphate deposits.
The Phosphates will be used here in Uganda and some will be exported to the Comesa Countries.
URAnnex 110
Another offshoot ofthis project will be the production ofby-product ofiron ore, which could be used
in the iron and Steel fudustry.
There are also other rare earth minerais like landlam and yttrium, which could also be used.
The Phosphate fudustry will also produce by-product limestone, which could be used in the
manufacture of cernent, provided the P2O5 content is less than 1%.
The abundant glass reserves of Diimu, Kome Island, Nyumu Bay are to be used in a glass factory that
The Madhvani Group of Companies is preparing to set up in Kampala. Detailed feasibility
study is underway with the support of futemational Finance Corporation (IFC) and the glass products
will be used to supply glasses to the brewing and beverages industries that currently import glasses.
Another potential exists far like manufacture of sheet glass to supply motor vehicle and housing
construction industries.
The glass reserves can also be used for the production of:
• Light bulbs
• Sanitary ware
• Floor and wall tiles
• Electro porcelain
Large quantities of dimension stones (marble from Moroto, granites nationwide etc) - are available
for investment. Presently Saudi Marble Company is already producing whiting from Moroto Marbles
but also has plans to invest in a marble dimension stone processing plant.
A lot of sait reserves were quantified and qualified at Lake Katwe in Western Uganda and a
feasibility study carried out that showed that table sait could be produced. An investment opportunity
now exists to set up a plant to produce iodized table sait.
There is also potential for the production of Potassium Chloride (Potash), Sodium bicarbonate (Soda)
for the fertiliser and beverages industries respectively.
À deposit of 5 million tons ofvermiculite has been qualified and quantified at Namakera, Mbale and
plans to set up a mining and processing plant for venniculite is now underway. The vermiculite is a
very good material for various industries and there is great market demand in the world for it.
Medium and small-scale reserves of kaolin are found at Mutaka, Buwambo, Kisai, Migade. At
present, small-scale mining and processing is being carried out but there is increasing demand for
kaolin for use in industries, machine, ceramics etc. and there is also for export. fuvestment in this
sector will provide local kaolin end save foreign exchange presently spent on importing, whiting, and
kaolin for the paint industries.
Feldspars for the abrasives, ceramic, glass industries occur in some parts of Uganda these could be
exploited to supply the Uganda and export markets. East African fudustries, Produces of Vim, have to
import opportunities of exploitation.
At least 5 million tons of proven copper at a grade of 1 - 2% copper has been proven at Kilembe
URAnnexllO
Mines. The exploitation of these reserves will produce copper concentrates and cobalt.
There is an exercise currently going on to realise and confirrn deposits of tin, wolfram, beryl,
columbite-tantalite especially in South - Western Uganda and these prospects will provide an
opportunity for investment.
Uganda's Iron and Steel Industry is providing at low capacity utilisation due to the shortage of raw
materials. the scrap currently being use<l is low quantities and is running out fast. There is need to
invest in the mining and processing of Uganda's Iron Ores in order to produce Sponge Iron to feed
Uganda's Steel Rolling Mills. The consumption of Steel is also giving up, with imports coming to
supplement local steel production. The proven Iron Ore reserves at Muko, Kabale and Nangalwe,
Mbale provide an opportunity for investment for the production of Sponge Iron.
A local company - MIDECO - Muko Iron Ore Development Company has been established and is
currently carrying out a feasibility study for the manufacture of Sponge Iron. The Company is looking
for joint venture partners.
• Sembule Steel Mills is also interested in the development of the Nanangalwe Magnetite Iron
Ore and is also interested in joint ventures.
In the metallic minerai sector, investment opportunities are in the exploration and development of a
number of minerai deposit types:
• gold deposits, especially in known gold-fields (e.g. Buhweju, Busia, Kigezi and
Mubende ,Busiteema);
• epithermal type of gold deposits associated with Tertiary volcanics and rift faulting;
• magnetic-phosphate-niobium-calcium carbonate deposits in Tertiary carbonatites;
• stratabound copper-cobalt sulphide deposits in the Kilembe series metasediments;
• stratabound nickel-copper sulphide and chromium-platinum-palladium deposits in ultramafic
and layered intrusive host rocks in Archean greenstone belts;
• Nickel-cobalt-copper deposits in ultramafic intrusives in Proterozoic metasediments in southwest
Uganda along the Tanzania frontier;
• Small- to medium-scale tin, tungsten, beryl and columbite-tantalite operations in the southwest;
and hematite iron ore in Muko area for the domestic and regional iron and steel
requirements.
5 UGANDA'S COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE
5.1 STRATEGIC LOCATION AND FAVOURABLE INVESTMENT CLIMATE
Uganda occupies a strategic position in East Africa, which gives it an advantage for the eventual
development of exports of minerai products of Sudan, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Rwanda,
Burundi, Kenya and Tanzania and the COMESA region as a whole. The Government of Uganda is
URAnnexll0
committed to economic growth through liberal economic policies, low inflation, political and
financial stability.
5.2 IMPROVED FISCAL INCENTIVES
Other measures being taloen include the revision of the Mining Act; a special fiscal regime for the
sector has already been put in place under the Income tax Act of 1997; encouragement of small scale
mining and sector associations. Sorne of these include:
• up to 100% foreign equity allowed in business;
• low inflation
• a VRIT fiscal regime under the lncome Tax Act of 1997;
• full expensing of all exploration expenses;
• investment protection guarantees; and
• no import duties on mining equipment.
SKILLS AVAILABILITY
The Department of Geological Survey and mines is being funded to undertake surveys aimed at
providing the needed database to encourage investment in the sector, as well as the training of
relevant personnel. The Department of Geological Survey and Mines has a cross section of
professional staff who may be seconded on request, to companies wishing to commence new
exploration programmes. Makerere University in Kampala offers degree courses in geology and
various disciplines of engineering while a number of technicians are trained locally at Uganda
Polytechnic Kyambogo and other Technical Institutes.
SUPPORTIVE INFRASTRUCTURE
Uganda is served by 30,000 km of maintained road network, of which approximately 2,600 km is
tarmac. The general condition of the road system is good and covers the country in a uniform manner.
More than 3000 kilometers ofnew tarmac are to be constructed in the next 10 years .. Uganda's trunk
roads also form an essential link to the neighbouring countries of Rwanda, Burundi, Sudan and the
Democratic Republic of Congo (Figure 2).
Uganda depends on road and rail links through Kenya and Tanzania for much of its exports and
imports. A railway line connects Uganda to the lndian Ocean port of Mombasa A rail ferry route on
Lake Victoria was established in 1993 to connect the Uganda rail system at Port Bell with the
Tanzania system at Mwanza 310 km and onwards to the Indian ocean port of Dar es salaam.
Uganda possesses a vast hydro-electricity potential and the current production is 260 MW from the
URAnnexll0
Owen Falls Dam near Jinja in eastem Uganda. The energy sector is being expanded and by the year
2005 there may be a generating capacity providing an additional volume of over 1,000 MW. Two
new hydropower stations are planned at Bujagali Falls and Karuma Falls (200MW and 240MW
respectively)
5.3 PROCEDURES FOR INVESTMENT
Apart from the procedures and licensing requirements outlined in the lnvestment Code, investors in
the mining sector are required to have additional licenses regulated by the Mining Act (chapter 248).
Accordingly, all minerai rights are vested in the Government and the exploration and exploitation and
dealing in minerais can only be carried out by grant of a license. The following licenses are
applicable:
Prospecting License (PL) - this is a prerequisite for minerai exploration to be carried out and is
issued by the Commissioner, Department of Geological Survey and Mines on payment of a
prescribed fee. The Iicense is offered to an individual or as an agent of a company or body of persons.
Validity is one year and the license is neither area specific nor minerai specific.
• Exclusive Prospecting License (EPL) - with the authority of a PL an area may be pegged and
an EPL granted by the Commissioner for an area up to 20.8 km2 (8 sq. miles). However, the Minister
responsible for minerais may grant a Special Exclusive Prospecting License (SEPL) for an area not
less than 76.8km2 (30 sq. miles). The EPUSEPL is both area and minerai specific, valid for one year
and renewable on application and subject performance appraisal.
• Mining License - a developer may peg an area and apply for a mining licence either as a
Location or Mining Lease. The location is a licence granted by the Commissioner mainly for smallscale
operators and is limited to a maximum area of 16 Ha (40 acres). Validity is one year subject to
renewal. The Minister for Energy and Minerai Development grants the Mining leases for area not
exceeding 256 Ha (640 acres). Its validity may go up to 21 years and is renewable for such other
period as the programme warrants.
In all these cases, adequate compensation to surface rights holders is a requirement should there be
any developments on the land.
• Minerai Dealers License - it is granted by the Commissioner and expires on the 31st
December of the year in which it is issued. It allows one to buy, process and/ or trade in a specific
mineral(s).
Under the current mining law, a permit is required for the use of natural water for mining purposes
and the shape/nature of the landscape should be restored to its former nature after the mining. With
the exception of gold, royalty shall be paid for all minerais. Either the holder of a prospecting mining
right or a licensed minerai dealer pays a royalty. Royalty paid on tin, wolfram, copper and all
associated minerais and metals shall be 15% of the profits or 5% on gross value. For industrial
minerais such as limestone, the royalty is prescribed, based on quantity produced.
URAnnex 110
Currently, the Act is undergoing revision and is in form of a Draft Bill. Sorne of the major proposals
include increasing the duration of licenses, size of exploration areas and lower royalty rates. A special
fiscal regime for the mining sector was put in place under lncome Tax Act of 1997; accordingly a
variable rate lncome tax (VRIT) is applicable as in the formula below:
R = 70-1500/x, where "x" equals to the ration of taxable income to gross mine revenues in the year.
PROJECTS IN THE INDUSTRY
Companies with significant exploration/mining activities in Uganda
J>roject Commodity Location by Contact Mail Box Phone Fax No.
district Person
Branch Energy (U) Ltd. Gold, Base Kotido Brian 23051 267662 267920
rnetals Moroto Westwood Kamnala
Anglo-Uganda Gold Mubende Moses 10130 200743 345580
Comoration Masagazi Kamnala
Madhvani/Forsfor Phosphate Tororo Madhvani 241588
Kasese Cobalt Co. Ltd. Cobalt Kasese Adrian Gale 2086Kla 251175 251136
K.ilembe Mines Ltd. Copper, Kasese A.G.M. 1 K.ilembe 234909 245687
Cobalt Basaza
Roraima Mining Co. Ltd. Gold Busia, Woldage 23201 Kla 269667/8 266497
Bugiri, Abebe
Bushenyi,
Mbarara
Hima Cernent ( 1994) Ltd. Limestone, Kasese 37 Kasese 241552 245901
Cernent 7230Kla 245898
Tororo Cernent Industries Limestone, Tororo - 74 Tororo 045-44851 045-
Cernent 4485213 44854
Rwenzori Exploration Base metals Kabarole JohnMurphy 873 Ebb. 042- 042-
Ltd. (A vmin) Kasese 321236 21236
Ntungamo
· Muhindo Enterprises Ltd. Kaolin Bushenyi Jamal 92Kla 231154 231327
Muhindo
Gold Empire Gold Bushenyi, John M. 8898 Kla 233829 233829
Mbarara Muyambi
Kitara Mining Company Gold Hoima H.H.Solomon 1 Hoima 0465- -
fouru 40159
Glencar Exploration Pic. Gold Busia, Bugiri J. Kagule- 9091 Kla 211216 321359
Magambo
Busitema Mining Co. Ltd. Gold Busia Mumtaz 182 Kla 236490 236486
Kassam
Chûf Mining Ltd. Gold Kabale, Agaba-Maguru 24353 Kla 343083
Rukuoeiri
Canmin Vermiculite Mbale
USEFUL CONTACTS
URAnnexllO
Name Address Tel Fax E-mail
i [email protected]
Comrnissioner P.O. Box9 320118/320656 320364
Department of Geolgical & Entebbe
Mines
Godfrey Zaribwende
Rockman International
Limited P.O. Box 2100 255011/348714
Kampala
P.O.Box
Brian Westwood 23051,Kampala
Uganda Chamber of Mines
Uganda Metal Industries P.O. Box 8752 531048/ 5302777
Industries Association(Umida) Kampala 075694567
Comesamia-Comesa P.O. 8752, 531048 5302777
Metallurgical Industries Kampala 075-694567
Association
Uganda Non-Metallic and P.O. Box 92, 075-629802
Products Industries Kampala
Association(UNMP A)
International Minerai exporters P.O. Box 5812
Kampala, Plot 2A
Nkrumah Rd. Tel: 243526 Fax:
243526
Kome (U) LTD. Minerai Plot 87, Kampala
Exports Rd. P.O. box 9816
Kampala Tel; 236638 Fax:
259201
Parliament
Continental Exporters Avenue
Gold Exports P.O. box 6995 Tel: 259202
Kamoala
6 REFERENCES AND SOURCES FOR FUTURE FURTHER
INFORMATION
BARNES J.W. 1961, The Minerai Resources of Uganda, Bulletin No.4, Geological Survey of
Uganda
COMMONWEALTH SECRETARIAT 1997, Uganda - Development of Marble and Dimension
Stone Industry
URAnnexllO
COX R. 1993, An Assessment of the Current Status and Potential of the Minerai Industrial in
Uganda, project UGN8, 9/001, Department of Geological Survey and Mines
HESTER B. AND BOBERG W. 1996, Uganda - Opportunities for Mining Investment, United
Nations/Department of Geological Survey and Mines
MBOUANA S. A. 1992, Scope for Investment in Minerai Development in Uganda, Bulletin No. 5,
Department of Geological Survey and Mines
TUHUMWIRE T.J. 1995, Terminal Report, Project UGN89/001, Department of Geological Survey
and Mines
Proceedings of the Symposium on Investment Opportunities in the Mining Sector in Uganda,
Kampala, 30 - 31 January 1997, Department of Geological Survey and Mines
The Income Tax Act (1997), Uganda Printing and Publishing Corporation, Entebbe.
MINERALS IN UGANDA- SUMMARY
MINERAL USES RESERVES
OUANTITY/OUALITY
1. Iron Ore Iron and Steel Industries; Kashenyi 30 m surface, Ç
Alloys FeO3 Mematite Estimatec
over 50 m tons
2. Tin Cassiterite Sno2 Tin Solder, Tin canning, Reserves not yet qua
Tin Plate for roofs, plates grade varies from 0.5 kg ,
and utensils 30 kg/ton
URAnnexllO
3. Wlframite (Fe, Mn)- Wo4 Alloys, high speed tools Kirwa Wolfram 2.5 x 106
resistant non-ferrous alloys average grade of 3.5 kb
other reserves not yet qm
and qualified
4. Tantalite/Columbite (Fe,Mn, Alloy addetive to semi Not yet qualified or quanti:
Nb, Ta) of scheelit (ca Wo4) skilled temperature alloys,
magnets, dental and surgical
instruments, peupoints,
reactifiers of altemating
currents
5. Galena (Lead) Pbs Batteries Not yet qualified or quanti:
6. Bismuth (Bi) Alloys, conmelting with tin, Not yet qualified or quanti:
lead Pharmaceuticals,
Industrial chemicals
porcelain, glass making
pim:nents
7. Berly Be3A12Si698 Alloy ceramics, electrical Not yet qualified or qua
porcerlain alloys for high U ganda in 60' s used to i:
and heat resistance, springs, 10% ofworld berly
motor brush holders and
collector rings
8. Amblygonite LiAPo4 (F, OH) Fireworks; Paints Not yet qualifi.ed or quanti:
9. Gold Monetary, decorature arts,
dental and medical
suppliers, electronics
Industrial aoolications
10. Cooner
11. Cobalt
MAY 1992 -ENG. W. BALU-TABAARO
URAnnex110
NON-METALLIC MINERAL$ IN UGANDA
ITEM MINERAL INDUSTRIAL USES INDUSTRY IN UGANDA
1. Asbestos Ca2 (Mg, Fe)5 Shingles, pipes, sheets, asbestos, Tororo Asbestos Cern(
Si8022(OH)2 cernent, brakelinings, fireproof, Kitasimbwa Motors -
curtain and cloth, isulation, brake linings
gaskets, braided and limited
paints.
2. Kaolin Al4si4010 (OH) Paper, rubber, paints, Papco Industries Corp. Jir
8 sanitaryware, refractories, Uganda Leather Indus1
electric porcelain, pottery, white African Ceramics Tablew~
portland cernent, filter, Koki Kaolin (insectcides)
medicinal kaolin, insecticides
3. Diatomite Sio2. nH2O Filler aid in sugar, insulation, Koki Kaolin insectci,
Filter absorbents, carriet for mixing with kaolin; West 1'
insecticides, scouring and Cooperatives for cotton
polishing compounds. Mixtures filter swimming pools; 1'
in concrete pozzolana cernent, Breweries Filter aid
metal polisher water glass
manufacture
4. Feldspar Ka1SiO8 Glass rnaking, Pottery ceramics, African Cerarn
Enamels, scouring soaps and (Tableware); East Afri,
compunds, Abrasives, porcelain Industries Scouring pow
and cerarnic uses,· poultry grit, (Virn)
roofing granuled, cast stone.
5. Gypsum CaSo4, 2H2O Building lath and wall Board Uganda Cernent Indus1
Sheathing and plaster, Farm use, African Ceramics (rnoulds)
portland cernent retarder, Land sanitaryware
Plaster, Oil sweetener and
fertiliser, filler.
6. Limestone CaCo3 Building stone, portland cernent, Uganda Cernent Indm
filter refractories paper rnills Sugar Works, Uganda Leat
concrete and roa rnetal alkalis Industries, Roads
works, asphalt filler whiting
substitute, glass
7. Mica Kal2 (Al5i390) Electrical insulation, Electronic Robbiliac/Berge Pait
(ÔH)2 tubes and capastors, Asphalt Leyland Paints
roofing, paper coating, furnace
peep holes, wall paper, paint
lubricant, rubber goods
8. Talc Mg3Si4010 (OH)2 Cerarnics paints, paper Uganda Electricity Board
insecticides, electrical porcelain potential electric porcelain
acid proof tables, rubber, talcurn
powder, laundry table, filler
refractorv blocks FRAFT oulo.
URAnnexllO
9. Vermiculite Mg3Sio4 Building plaster, Insulation of Mining companies product
010 (OH} 2, XH20 bouses, Insecticides, soil for export
condition ers, wall board and
sound insulating paints,
lubricants, motor dope.
10. Silica Sand Sio2 Foundry sands, glass sands, Construction compar
glass grinding ceramics, African Ceramics Foundr:
abrasives, construction wiresaw, etc.
silica brick, furnaces,
refractories, core sands, tiller
sands, lime bricks.
11. Marbles CaCo3 Terrazo, concrete block, facing, Construction compan:
ceramics, poultry grit. Dimension Stones for build
12. Volcanic Ash Lime pozzolana cem:ents Filter Construction Indus1
medium, construction, Fertiliser. Agrculture
13. Kyanite Al2Sio5 Porcelain spark plugs, cores Furnaces, Oven Kiln lining~
silliminate, laboratory ware,
! silliminate brick, glass plant
refractories and refractories
cernent.
14. Phosphates Phosphate fertilisers, phosphoric Agriculture
acid (baking powder and
cleansing preparations)
metallurgical industries.
15. Pumice amd Pumicite Scouring preparation, road Building especially in Kisc
grading, chicken litter, tiller aid, fencing rock gardens (Kiso
building tile, floor sweeping, pozzolana cernent
heat insulation, asphalt tiller,
rock gardens, Pozzolan cements,
leather rubbing as toilet article,
lithographing and electroplating
URAnnexllO
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned Agent of the Republic of Uganda hereby
certifies that the texts of the documents reproduced in thîs
Volume, as attachments to the Rejoinder submitted by Uganda
in the proceedings relating to Democratic Republic of the
Congo v. Uganda, are accurate copies of the texts of the
documents they pu.rport to reproduce.
6 December 2002
Honourable Francis J. Ayume
Attorney General
Republic ofUganda
(signed)
Agent of the Republic of Uganda